The Party Of Choice
Connect with us on social media:
  • Home
  • Get To Know Us
    • What is Conservatism?
    • What Do We Believe?
    • Tyranny of the Majority
    • "Tough" Issues >
      • Abortion
      • Gay Marriage
      • Marijuana
    • Conservatism, Free Thinking, and a Central Vision
    • Invitation
  • The Eyes of One
  • Videos
    • Choice Words That Win Videos
    • The Refinery
    • Radio Interviews
  • Articles
    • Movie Reviews
  • Sponsor an Ad
  • Unite The Right
  • Events
  • Store
  • Resources
    • Talking Points from Grassroots Radio Colorado Show
    • Petition
    • spOILed The Movie - Time to Fill Up on Truth
    • Flyers
  • Contact Us

CHOICE Movie Reviews:  Unbroken   by Andy Peth

12/25/2014

1 Comment

 
Picture
First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.  
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.  
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative.  3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.  
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity.  5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

Unbroken
Quality – 4 stars, Political – 4 stars, M/R – 4 stars
First, about the Rare Quality of Greatness

Life, for most of us, is that rather uneventful intermission between birth and death.  We eat things—gotta eat, you know.  We complain a lot.  We vote for people to either rob others on our behalf, or prevent others from robbing us.  


We diet—gotta diet, you know—while complaining a lot.  Convinced we forever change the world by marching for legalized weed, we sustain our self-importance through watching people whose lives matter even less.  Hence, reality TV.  


We exercise a lot—gotta exercise, you know—after which we complain bitterly.  Frustrated by dieting and exercise, we race across meadows to joyfully embrace more food.  This brings great sorrow, so we return to the streets, marching to rescue flourishing polar bear populations with exorbitant tax subsidies—all while checking our wrist-held calorie counters.  Sometimes, we look down too long, veering off into different marches altogether, but no matter…we’re burning carbs here…making a difference…  


Hours later, we’re discovered face down, having created snow angels in heaps of powdered donuts. The cycle begins anew.


My point?  Merely this:  While greatness lies within each human soul, few ever grasp it.  Too often, life becomes a series of surrenders—I need this, I’m lost without that, I fear him, they’re denying me that—and comfort is found in blaming others. 


And Now, the Movie


Lou Zamparini, on the other hand, was exceptional.  In “Unbroken,” director Angelina Jolie shows us a life so amazing, the film must first remind us it’s a true story.  Lou was an elite Olympic runner.  Lou was a bombardier in WWII, whose plane crashed in the Pacific.  Lou and a fellow crewmate survived 45 days on a raft in shark-infested waters.  Lou was taken prisoner, then tortured mercilessly by a sadistic Japanese guard.  Lou was human, but tough.  He never gave up.


Feel guilty yet?  Need a donut?  I’ll take two.


“Unbroken” sometimes seems dispassionate, as Jolie apparently wants us moved by a raw unfolding of events.  Jack O’Connell (playing Lou) portrays a young man who, though incredibly impressive, is not very deep.  Watching his life, we realize there is no mystical secret to becoming exceptional; just a decision to do so.  “If I can take it, I can make it,” says Lou.


This film’s torture is the real kind—not some sanitized version upsetting Dianne Feinstein (though it still falls well short of what we’d receive from jihadists).  Lou’s torturer is a head guard nicknamed “The Bird,” whose sick fascination with Lou drives him to senseless wrath.  Superbly played by Japanese actor, Miyavi, The Bird is deeply conflicted; one moment self-loathing, the next arrogant.  The beatings become somewhat monotonous, bogging down the film’s pace, but this conveys a bleak perpetuity that is essential to the plot.  By the end, Jolie—a proud Hollywood liberal—has nonetheless reminded us how savage other nations can be when compared to the good ole USA.


Lou’s experience speaks powerfully for us today.  Our lives, pampered by pleasures and thrills, can become so sheltered that we must create drama. “I can’t believe he said this.”  “I can’t believe they did that.”  Everything…matters to us.  


But when measured against lives like Lou’s, I wonder if I’ve really been living, or just aging. Perhaps I’ve been broken by the most withering force of all: Comfort.


For perspective alone, I’m honored to have spent a couple hours in Lou’s life.  I’m better for it.

Rating:  PG-13, for war-related brutality and brief backside nudity.

1 Comment

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb   by Andy Peth

12/19/2014

14 Comments

 
Picture
First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.  
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging. 0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-
Conservative.  3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.  
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity.  5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb
Quality – 1 star, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 1 star

Oh my, my, my, where do I start?  This was a dreadful movie.  Just tragic.

In its first couple scenes, “Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb” portends an interesting third act in the series.  The magical tablet will be explained.  The museum will offer new and exciting exhibits, complete with living galaxies performing overhead.  Cool stuff!  And familiar characters will go out in one last comedic hurrah, complete with Robin Williams offering his final words of wisdom and pose of inspiration (which, though brief, was the movie’s highlight).


This started pretty well, and could have stayed that way.  But then, unfortunately, come several mistakes Hollywood often commits in final installments:


• Forcing Agenda – Two of the most beloved characters from this series are the miniature Roman Centurion Octavius (played by Steve Coogan) and his equally diminutive Cowboy partner, Jedediah (Owen Wilson).  But now, surprise!  Octavius is gay!  And he’s attracted to Jedediah!  And to other guys, too!

Sure, call me a prude.  But gay characters work fine in movies where they matter to the plot—come to think of it, ALL characters work best this way.  For instance, Greg Kinnear’s gay character works well in the Jack Nicholson gem, “As Good as it Gets.”

But a gay Octavius is just cringe-worthy, and the audience responded accordingly.    As his comments became more revealing, the crowd fell into awkward silence.  Children, parents, grandparents, teenagers—whether liberal or conservative, none seemed to enjoy having an agenda gratuitously shoved at them during a holiday movie.

It didn’t work.  And the insulting part?  Hollywood doesn’t care.

• Tedious Gags – Timing is everything in comedy.  Too quick, and people don’t get it.  Too slow, and the crucial element of surprise is lost.  But if you really want to blow it, here’s how:  Take familiar slapstick or dialogue—the kind your audience knows from previous films—and unleash it slowly, dragging out scenes with well-worn schtick for a couple extra minutes each.  Now the audience is neither surprised nor amused.  They’re not even bored, as they passed that point several lines ago.  Now, they’re angry.

• Tired Performances – Ben Stiller, in the lead role as Larry Daley, looks far too serious during much of the show.  In other supposedly funny moments, he seems irritated with the routines.  The late Robin Williams (Teddy Roosevelt) also looks weary, though in his case it’s justified—this material was beneath his abilities.  Ricky Gervais (Dr. McPhee) holds up well, but he’s given little to do.  Rebel Wilson’s character (a British security guard named “Tilly”) is inserted for laughs, but the jokes fall flat or miss altogether.  The only saving grace, temporarily, is Dan Stevens as “Sir Lancelot.”  He’s funny for a while.

• Weak Problem Resolution – Okay, spoiler alert:  The whole plot revolves around fixing a magical tablet that gives life to all the museum exhibits.  Seems it’s decaying—quickly.  I won’t bore you with the path by which our heroes find an answer, but here’s the upshot:  All the tablet needed was moonlight.  No, seriously, that’s it.  Moonlight.  Wow.  That’s pretty hard to find in a series of movies where all the action occurs…AT NIGHT.  That’s like saying, “I’m sorry Mrs. Smith, but we can only save your goldfish by adding water.” 

There’s a cheapness to this solution.  “Raiders of the Lost Ark” would have rung hollow if Indiana Jones found Lost Arks on clearance at Walmart.  “Rudy” wouldn’t have inspired us if, after all his failures making Notre Dame’s football team, he discovered the magic of steroids.  Moonlight? Moonlight?!  My goodness, read from a sacred text or something!  Toss some virgins in a volcano! Have Obama issue an executive order!  Do something!


Then again, I have a better solution:  Do nothing.  Don’t make this movie.  Don’t roll out disinterested actors with unrelated agendas and agonizing comedy sketches.  Just don’t do it, Hollywood.

14 Comments

CHOICE Movie Reviews:  The Hobbit - The Battle of the Five Armies    By Andy Peth

12/17/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value.  
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular.

Political:  This score addresses political messaging.  
0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative.  3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.  
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity.  5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.


The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Quality – 2.5 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 4 stars
For those who enjoy 60 minutes of story neatly tucked into 150 minutes of movie, it’s that time again.  It’s time for Bilbo Baggins, our Shetland hero, who must once more survive deadly battles, evil monsters…and…and…am I the only one not drawn to the characters in this trilogy?

Honestly, this is no “Lord of the Rings.”  We all cared for Frodo, Sam, Legolas the Elven Archer, Gimli the Dwarf, King Aragorn and his Elf honey, Arwen.  Captivated by their lives, we sat through “Fellowship of the Ring,” “The Two Towers,” and “The Return of the King”—which, to my knowledge, hasn’t ended yet.  For nearly 10 hours, we stayed with those films longer than most Hollywood couples stay married.  Why?  We were invested in the players.


This feels different.


It’s not like “Battle of Five Armies” lacks strong acting.  On the contrary, it’s superb.  Martin Freeman is a terrific Bilbo; one moment brave, the next terrified, and often wise.  Ian McKellen completes a wondrous run as Gandalf the Wizard, Benedict Cumberbatch voices the wicked Smaug, and Richard Armitage impresses as the conflicted Dwarf King, Thorin Oakenshield.  


Then of course, some old stand-by’s (Orlando Bloom, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving) recapture their youths through an unholy alliance of CGI and Botox.  Their faces are Ken doll smooth, though a bit stiff.  When they speak, it’s like watching C3PO from Star Wars.


What’s missing?  Tough to say, but Frodo had one big advantage over Bilbo:  Frodo had Sam. Whereas “Lord of the Rings” centered on camaraderie and tension between two good friends, “Hobbit” depicts a solitary Bilbo amidst distant players.  Perhaps, with no compelling bond in the middle, “Hobbit” struggles to develop chemistry throughout.  


The result?  Plenty of fireworks, but little fire.  Still, the fireworks are pretty cool.


The previous film (Desolation of Smaug) concluded abruptly, apparently due to a film break. Picking up there, the evil—but stunning—dragon Smaug descends in a vicious—but stunning—attack on the human village of Lake-town.  Smaug apparently blames humans for the previous movie—as do I—so his assault seems at once cruel but reasonable.  

Meanwhile, having retaken the mountain Smaug left, Thorin comes down with “dragon sickness”—obsessive greed midst a veritable lake of gold.  Spawning division amongst dwarves, men, and elves, Thorin’s greed fractures the alliance which must confront an oncoming horde of orcs and other baddies.  War approaches.  Evil is focused, bent on destruction.  And Good?  It’s splintered and petty.  Pardon my political reference, but one would think Thorin is a paid advisor for today’s Conservative Movement.  Thanks to him, the coalition seems ill-prepared against a single-minded swarm.


But as so often happens in the face of certain doom, allies—even unsteady ones—rally to the fray. The final “Battle of the Five Armies” is awesome, tragic, and a useful precursor to the “Lord of the Rings” series.  While this prequel fails to strike the triumphant note of that better-known successor, it does the best it can—especially given less-beloved characters.  The prolonged ending, however, is downright brutal.


“The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” might be worth watching.  It might even be worth renting.  It will not, however, be worth remembering.

0 Comments

CHOICE Movie Reviews: Exodus - Gods and Kings

12/13/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
First, my score guide:

Quality:  This score indicates entertainment value
.  
0 stars is horrible, while 5 stars is spectacular 

Political:  This score addresses political messaging. 0 stars is aggressively anti-Conservative, while 5 stars is highly pro-Conservative.  3 stars is apolitical.

Moral/Religious (M/R):  This score addresses moral and religious messaging.  
0 stars is either intensely immoral or all-out, needless assault on Christianity.  5 stars is either great moral messaging or highly pro-Christian.  3 stars is inoffensive either way.

EXODUS  -  Gods and Kings
Quality – 2 stars, Political – 3 stars, M/R – 0 stars

To begin, I must question releasing this desert classic at Christmastime, for it evokes images of Santa whipping his elves as they build pyramids for him at the North Pole.  That film is probably in production, depicting one brave elf rising up against his rotund oppressor—all in stunning, sweeping Claymation.  It will be released in July.

But I digress.


Directed by Ridley Scott, “Exodus: Gods and Kings” starts strong, developing a charismatic version of Moses (capably played by Christian Bale), along with his troubled, Pharaoh-to-be brother, Ramses (Joel Edgerton).  There’s battle action, political intrigue, jealousy, spectacular sets, and basically all the elements of a great epic.   For the first third, this is good fun.


Unfortunately, Scott then launches a needless assault on the biblical narrative—which might be okay if it doesn’t hamper the movie’s pacing and interest.  But it does.  A lot.  Imagine reading a story to your child, but every time something magical occurs, you set out to debunk it:


“And when she ate the apple, she fell into a deeeep sleep, as poor health standards in that kingdom resulted in bacteria and toxins that could induce coma.  Later, before the prince kisses her, he injects her with medicine.  This would be far too painful with the large syringes available in that province, but thankfully, she’s fully sedated by her illness.  Look here!  Mommy has drawn a picture of the syringe in the margins!  Makes you want to clean your hands before and after dinner, doesn’t it?  Of course it does.  Now where was I…”


Memo to Ridley Scott:  Tortured rationalizations aren’t just insulting; they’re boring.  Like a mother crafting nightmares for her child, Scott endlessly bogs “Exodus” down with anti-biblical insertions.  These are too numerous to detail, so I’ll note just a few:

•   Moses only “sees” God—who is portrayed as a petulant child—due to being struck in the head by
    stones in a rockslide.  For the remainder of the movie, God is more Moses’s hallucination than
    the Hebrews’ inspiration, as Moses himself dons increasingly maddened expressions.  Edited
    from the film was my favorite scene, in which Israel’s new leader rallies his nation with a
    Braveheart-like speech:  “They may take our women and our children, but they’ll never take our
    freedom…to enjoy great savings!  Come buy a used chariot from Crrrrrazy Moses!  These deals
    are INSANE!  Did I mention I saw God?  He’s a brat, but I obey him because my head hurts! 
    Follow me!”

    To honor the movie, I’ve drawn a straightjacket in the margins of my Bible.


•   Most of the plagues are explained down as natural phenomena bringing each other about
    (beginning when alligators on a killing spree turn the Nile red with blood).  Did God cause
    them? Who knows?  Ask Crazy Moses!  Surprisingly, Scott goes biblical with the final plague
    (death of firstborns), only to lecture us on how mean God was for doing that.   But then, God
    was just a petty hallucination on a power trip, and…well…it’s in the margins.


•   Perhaps worst of all is “parting” the Red Sea, which combines a “low tide” for crossing on foot
    with an impressive storm bringing a tidal wave (from just one side, of course).  So, did God
    produce this cool-looking storm with miraculous power?  Then why wouldn’t He just
    miraculously do what is written in the Bible—which is way more fun?


    Nightmares, Mr. Scott.  You’re giving us nightmares.


•   Scott even has Moses chisel out the 10 Commandments, rather than God doing it.  Whatever. 
    By this point I was well beyond caring, like a child acting sleepy so Mommy would stop reading.


Again, if all this makes the movie more fun, so be it.  Entertain us.  But in “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” God and His miracles become annoying—which often occurs when Hollywood replaces entertainment with agenda.  Belabored retellings tend to plod along, where simply using the Bible narrative speeds things up.


Hilariously, the biggest complaint from most media observers is Scott’s usage of white actors to portray Jews and Egyptians.  No, seriously, that’s their issue.  I for one wasn’t offended, though I thought I heard a little boy in the audience asking his father why the Norwegians enslaved the Swedes.  “Well,” replied his patient father, searching for words, “someone had to do it.”


Alas, no one had to make this film.  The only purpose in doing so was to invalidate or diminish the source material—in this case, The Bible.  Why do that?  Who makes a movie out of a book they don’t like?


Ultimately, while attempting to portray God as petty and vindictive, “Exodus: Gods and Kings” reveals these features in someone else:  Its director.

0 Comments

    CHOICE Movie Reviews

    Our Conservative movie reviews provide Quality, Political, and Moral/Religious scores, complete with Andy's commentary.

    Archives

    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly