Showing posts with label nonreview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nonreview. Show all posts

3.02.2016

Ominous Cinema

The following puzzle comes from The Playful Brain:

OWN WROTE COD (1962)

TEA ON CRAW DEATH (2008)

DOH KEECH KNEE VA DEATH (2006)

"I recorded the titles of three popular movies, played them backward, and transcribed the resulting sounds.  For instance, the word CINEMA (s-i-n-uh-m-ah) backward becomes OMINOUS (ah-m-uh-n-i-s).  Can you figure out the original movie titles?  All the movies belong to the same genre."

Adapted from The Playful Brain, by Richard Restak and Scott Kim (Riverhead Books).

2.15.2016

Ominous Cinema

The following puzzle comes from The Playful Brain:

E-CAR (1976)

LA HEENA (1977)

MUG SIR OAF (1994)

"I recorded the titles of three popular movies, played them backward, and transcribed the resulting sounds.  For instance, the word CINEMA (s-i-n-uh-m-ah) backward becomes OMINOUS (ah-m-uh-n-i-s).  Can you figure out the original movie titles?  All the movies belong to the same genre."

Adapted from The Playful Brain, by Richard Restak and Scott Kim (Riverhead Books).

1.27.2014

More on R-rated Movies and Mormons

I came across a recent article continuing the discussion of R-rated movies and LDS culture.  The comments are particularly insightful as to the reason for the discussion.  People believe that there was once a line drawn, but fail to understand the context of the comments.  In most cases it is better to love than to be right (modesty and entertainment choices particularly come to mind).  The author also makes some similar arguments that I presented in my earlier two-part post.

Some of the comments I made (visit the article if you want to better understand their context):
"You really have to take sites like kids-in-mind with a grain of salt. They just spout off anything that by itself would be considered offensive, they don't take into account the context of the "evil" being depicted in the movie. The Book of Mormon has plenty of violence that on it's own is deplorable and something I would want nothing to do with (rape, murder, cannibalism, adultery, etc.) but in context evil can teach us and drive us towards the light. That is why there must be an opposition in all things, we can't learn good without evil. Granted that doesn't mean we have to expose ourselves to evil to learn good, but media that accurately portrays evil and its consequences isn't evil in and of itself."
"I have a similar way of analyzing movies I've seen, and I think you just have to be smart with the ones you choose to watch. If it looks inspiring, it might be or might not be. If it isn't, the important part is that you recognize that it isn't (especially since you did some homework before and are OK with the content that will be presented). Even if you're partially inspired, but disgusted by something wrongly represented in the movie, it's important to recognize that and keep your discernment sharp. A healthy analysis (keeping a blog, reading reviews) will help sharpen one's ability to properly critique media in all its forms, and as a result be able to properly communicate its value to others."
"...movies aren't solely "entertainment." They are an art. The same guidelines for reading books, looking at art, listening to music goes for watching movies. Some people do just want entertainment and serious material isn't good for entertainment, so it's easy to draw a line. But for those looking for something deeper, your PG movies don't often have much to offer (there are some obvious exceptions). I think the Book of Mormon argument is somewhat valid, the "mature" content in the book is presented in context and shows proper consequences. We are supposed to learn from opposition (that includes opposition represented in media)."
"But also beware of the G and PG-rated movies that don't accurately portray evil. There's nothing to learn from movies that just share a gooey story of sunshine and rainbows. Movies and books can be great teaching sources for us as we learn to understand how to recognize evil, how certain actions produce certain consequences, etc. All media needs to be filtered or judged cautiously."
"[President Benson] was also directing this statement to the Aaronic Priesthood during a Priesthood session of conference. Don't forget the rest of the quote, "Don't see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic." Immoral, suggestive, or pornographic are what we are supposed to avoid, that is the filter we should apply to the media we entertain."

5.18.2012

Extra! Extra! Read All About It!!

It's not really anything all that exciting.  I just plan on taking a break from this project for a time while other priorities take its place.  I probably won't stop watching movies and may even continue rating them, but won't spend time writing any reviews in the short term. 

So for the 3 or 4 of you who actually read this....until next time.

5.01.2012

Ominous Cinema

The following puzzle comes from The Playful Brain:

EAR OATS VULL (1970)

ART TAP POE EEL LUCK (1963)

OAK OFF FISH WROTE COD (1965)

"I recorded the titles of three popular movies, played them backward, and transcribed the resulting sounds.  For instance, the word CINEMA (s-i-n-uh-m-ah) backward becomes OMINOUS (ah-m-uh-n-i-s).  Can you figure out the original movie titles?  All the movies belong to the same genre."

4.20.2012

Netflix Instant Picks - 4/20/12

A few gems on Netflix worth watching:

Ghostbusters (1984) - I still need to see the second one (also on Netflix Instant) to gear up for the third one coming out later this year.  Bill Murray at his best.

Rango (2011) - While not recommended for young children, this movie is a blast that will keep you going.  Think Chinatown for a wider audience.

The Road to Bali (1952) - Bob Hope and Bing Crosby were a great comedy duo.  While part musical, they manage to keep the comedy throughout the music to keep you engaged.

Arsenic and Old Lace (1944) - One of my all-time favorite Cary Grant movies.  You get to see him out of his suave, debonair shell and see him as kooky as in Bringing Up Baby!  This is a must see classic comedy.  Chaaaaaaaarge!

---

A few I haven't seen yet, but am anxious to check out:
  • The Hustler
  • Kramer vs. Kramer
  • The Kite Runner
  • Monkey Business
  • Henry V
  • My Man Godfrey

4.02.2012

Ominous Cinema

The following puzzle comes from The Playful Brain:

SEE RUG (1978)

TOE BOESH (1936)

ARAB BACK (1972)

"I recorded the titles of three popular movies, played them backward, and transcribed the resulting sounds.  For instance, the word CINEMA (s-i-n-uh-m-ah) backward becomes OMINOUS (ah-m-uh-n-i-s).  Can you figure out the original movie titles?  All the movies belong to the same genre."

3.13.2012

Netflix Instant Picks - 3/13/12

The African Queen (1951) - A classic, must-see, Bogart/Hepburn movie.

How to Succeed in Business (Without Really Trying) (1967) - This is one of my all-time favorite comedies and favorite musicals.  I fell in love with this back in high school (and wouldn't recommend it for anyone any younger).

The Secret of Kells (2009) - This is an amazingly well done (different) animated feature.  The story was intriguing, though a little scary for really young kids.

The Iron Giant (1999) - This is another great animated feature that can be enjoyed by all ages.

Peter and the Wolf (2006) - This is a short one, but a great, stop-motion adaptation of the story (and probably makes your kids smarter for listening to Prokofiev's beautiful score).

3.01.2012

Ominous Cinema (Brain Teaser)

The following puzzle comes from The Playful Brain:

ZAHJ (1975)

KNOCK NEEK (1933, 2005)

CROP KISS A ROUGE (1993)

"I recorded the titles of three popular movies, played them backward, and transcribed the resulting sounds.  For instance, the word CINEMA (s-i-n-uh-m-ah) backward becomes OMINOUS (ah-m-uh-n-i-s).  Can you figure out the original movie titles?  All the movies belong to the same genre."

2.10.2012

Valentine's Day Movie Picks

Here's a quick list of some of the Romance/Romantic-Comedy themed movies we've reviewed for any of you wanting to spend Valentine's Day on the couch with your lover.

Other options we haven't yet reviewed, but recommend, on Netflix:
  • McLintock!
  • Return to Me
  • Calamity Jane

2.02.2012

Netflix Instant Picks - 2/2/12

My main sources of movie watching are Netflix Instant, the library, and my own movie collection - in that order.  If you're looking for something worthwhile to watch on Netflix Instant, I'll start posting these short lists weekly with a variety of movies I'd recommend checking out.
  • True Grit (2010) - Remake of the classic western. Nice update and more faithful to the book.
  • Shaolin Soccer (2001) - A great Stephen Chow film. I loved the comedic action.
  • That Thing You Do! (1996) - Great song, though you are a bit tired of it by the end.  Fun story.
  • Forever Strong (2008) - Great inspirational sports story.  Breaks mold of other formulaic sports films.
  • Calamity Jane (1953) - Fun musical/comedy/romance.  Get a little culture by watching this.
  • Mao's Last Dancer (2009) - Great movie.  Mostly in English, but good anyways.  Amazing dance routines, moving story, and good history lesson (though not sure of accuracy).

10.06.2011

The Challenge of Art

I came across a great article that falls right in line with our purpose of seeking out good art.  The whole article is worth your attention, here's a small excerpt:

"The challenge of art is beauty. And the challenge of beauty is truth. Truth is challenging. But it is also inviting. It is also glorious and liberating. Truth is wondrous, not scandalous....

9.30.2011

New and Updated Moral Rating System

The rating system we've been using up until now has been very simple (a Moral Value score of 1-5), but it's been hard to be consistent on our ratings given that we just looked at a list of criteria and assigned a score that we felt fit best.  We've recently developed a formula for a Moral Value score to help us be more consistent and hopefully make our ratings a little more useful.  We appreciate all the inspiration and feedback we've received from family and friends on this.

The new formula is:

9.23.2011

A Discussion on Viewing R-rated Movies in LDS Culture, Part 2

(Part 1 can be found here).


The R-rated Movie “Commandment”

Let me start off with a large quote from an essay by Orson Scott Card called "Is There An R-rated Movie Commandment" (I recommend reading the entire article). The purpose of this article is not to defend the watching of R-rated movies, but to help people (mainly LDS) to not judge those who choose to watch R-rated films (both LDS and those who aren’t in the LDS church) on the faulty notion of there being an "R-rated Movie Commandment."
Only one President of the Church has made an official statement that mentioned R-rated movies. On three occasions, President Ezra Taft Benson, when speaking specifically to the youth of the Church, mentioned films so rated. 
Here is an actual quotation, in its context. I know it will be a lot of trouble for some people to read what the prophet actually said instead of merely repeating a rumor of it as a means of condemning other Saints -- but now and then it's worth it, don't you think?

9.16.2011

A Discussion on Viewing R-rated Movies in LDS Culture, Part 1

I grew up in a family and culture (LDS) where R-rated films were a definite no-no, a taboo. I’m grateful I have parents who cared enough to be ultra-conservative with the types of movies I was allowed to watch. Through most of elementary school I wasn't even allowed to watch PG movies, unless I got express permission from my parents. I didn't always understand their reasoning and on occasion remember always being excited about sleep-overs, because I was a little freer in what I chose to watch (thankfully those who I spent the evening with were good enough to not watch inappropriate movies anyway). We were even the proud owners of a TV Guardian that muted out the profane or sexually related dialog and inserted subtitles with a euphemism in place (e.g., “sex” became “hugs”), though we knew what was being missed anyways.

I don’t think I missed out on anything by being so restricted, on the contrary, I think it helped me become extra careful and to develop a knack for knowing (finding out) what any film was rated and why it was rated that way. Sites like screenit.com were quite helpful, though tended to make movies sound worse than they actually were.

4.04.2011

Good Entertainment vs. Evil Entertainment

While reading in our church's guidelines for youth on the subject of Entertainment and the Media, I was inspired to broaden my study. In Moroni 7:12 it says, "Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil." That seems pretty straightforward and obvious in how it applies to media, but what about movies that aren't evil, but also can't be considered to be from God?  Is there a spectrum of Good movies and Evil movies or just a simple dividing line?  Could it be displayed in the fashion of RottenTomatoes - FooBar movie is 78% Good (or 22% Evil)?  (That's what we try to do here, more or less, with our less-than-perfect rating system.)  I think that there is value to this system, but would it also be necessary to categorize all movies into two separate categories of either Good or Evil?  Let's look at how we could define Good and Evil first.

Elder M. Russel Ballard, Quorum of the Twelve in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, stated, with regards to Good media, that we can
"find movies and TV comedies and dramas that entertain and uplift and accurately depict the consequences of right and wrong."  
He then continues by defining one aspect of evil media,
"Often media's most devastating attacks on family are not direct or frontal or openly immoral. Intelligent evil is too cunning for that, knowing that most people still profess belief in family and in traditional values. Rather the attacks are subtle and amoral—issues of right and wrong don't even come up" (emphasis added).
According to Elder Ballard, then, if a movie doesn't "accurately depict the consequences of right and wrong" it is evil. In Orson Scott Card's A Storyteller in Zion, he says divides evil into three categories: Evil depicted, advocated, and enacted by fiction.  Regarding the depiction of evil,
"Freedom of speech ... includes the right to speak about evil.  Our own General Authorities [of the Church] devote a considerable amount of time to speaking about evil, from the evil of Communism to the evil of child abuse, from the evil of non-attendance at sacrament meeting to the evil of forgetting to pray."  
The advocation of evil is also a right we're guaranteed under the Constitution.
"Any speaker may advocate any evil act.  In America, a speaker may advocate revolution, crime, cowardice, dishonesty...  In any society, what seems evil to one person may seem right and just to another -- and i na free society, the government is forbidden to silence one and promote the other.  Instead, each individual is expected to listen to all and make up his own mind."  
Lastly, enacting evil,
"The traditional example is the person who shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  He can call it a joke; he can claim that his freedom of speech allows him to lie; but in fact his lie, his joke, may cost people life or limb in the panic that ensues...  There are times when some rights conflict, and a free society, to preserve itself, must place limits on its own freedom." 
Card then helps us better understand how these evils are different and why enacting.
"All fiction depicts evil, but the mere depiction of evil is not wrong.  And, because all fiction unavoidably expresses the moral convictions of the writer and because every writer will have different moral convicitions, some fiction is bound to advocate things that at least some readers think is evil.  But even that advocacy is protected.
"It is only when the fiction actually enacts evil in itself that it becomes dangerous, and the government of a free society can begin to consider limiting it.
"Pornography is the obvious case of fiction enacting evil.  It is designed to give direct or indirect sexual gratification...
"The problem arises when the untrained reader finds a passage [or scene] describing a sexual event or a violent one in a work of fiction [or on screen] that is not aimed at the pornography-consuming market.  Unaccustomed to reading at all, this would-be censor can only understand that he sees a sex act and cannot see what purpose that depiciton of evil might serve in the rest of the book [movie]."
Very few movies are moral or Good from beginning to end.  If any "subtle" or "amoral" issues exist in the film and seem to overshadow any Good, it probably isn't worth seeing again or recommending to others (no matter how funny or well-written it may be). Reading further in Moroni we find that,
12 ...the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.
13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
Verses 14 and 15 are a bit disconcerting.  Judging the good from the bad isn't always as plain as night and day, dusk and dawn can be easily mistaken if we don't know the direction the light is coming from.  This brings us to verse 16, which tells us exactly how to make this a "plain" process,
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
When we are clean and pure and able to house the Spirit of Christ, being able to judge good from evil will be "as plain ... as the daylight is from the dark night."

Now, to bring you back to the main point of this article, what is a good way to analyze the evil in film?  It may serve useful to use Card's categorization, though I'll definitely need to read through it some more and think about how I would apply it.  The one difficult category for me is "enacting evil."  I understand what pornography is and realize that there is some pornography that is obviously pornography, but there are other images/text that aren't quite as definite (as well as similar discrepancies in classification of violence, profanity, etc.).  I'll save this topic for a separate post.  In the mean time, what do you think about what's been written here?  Is it ok to rate the morality of a movie on a scale?  Should it be divided into good or evil?  Perhaps a mixture of the two would be good - maybe a show has somewhat of a moral message, but a stand should be taken to either recommend or not recommend it for others to watch.

3.25.2011

Last Night



Moviefone posted a review of the movie Last Night (still to be released) that is very telling of what the world is coming to (though I know it's not a surprise to many).  The article explains,
"It sounds like a derivative and typical tale of marital morality -- a couple doesn't talk to each other, and lazily lets things get to the point where they both want to cheat. But Tadjedin infuses such thoughtfulness and cleverness into the proceedings that Last Night begins to feel unique. She employs a myriad of techniques to tell the story and to have her characters interact – an action or seemingly irrelevant anecdote being just as important as a straightforward response or bit of exposition."
First of all, it's sad to hear this as being told as a "typical tale of marital morality."  The fact that it's a tale, doesn't imply that it's always true, but it makes it sound as if it's something that everyone encounters trouble with in their marriage.  I'm not going to deny that it's true that married couples battle with this conflict (as anyone can see by the number of tales in books, movies, TV, and even the scriptures).  But to display it in such a way makes it seem like it's not that bad and that it's OK to get "lazy" in your relationship because it happens to everyone.  Good, moral media should seek to inspire people to be better, not be content or complacent with a disintegrating relationship.

Further in the article,
"Best of all, Tadjedin shifts the activity from her characters to the viewer. While, yes, there are moments where each couple struggle with matters of fidelity, trust, and commitment, the film also becomes an exercise for how we see things as an audience. No path is clear cut, and just when you think you know how the film will play out, it goes in another direction. It's as carefree as life – not in a suspenseful way, but in a realistic one. Life is not a simple formula of A+B=C, and Tadjedin respects that principle."
Should life really be "carefree"?  Is this reality?  Agreed, "life is not a simple formula" but there are simple formulas for happiness and this representation is flat out lie.  Even if the film shows each partner in the marriage not go through with their "night of sin," the fact that they let it get so far and to tell the account in such a carefree way is simply despicable.

3.21.2011

The Day the Movies Died


Excerpts from a very interesting read at GQ:
Consider: Years ago, an ace filmmaker, the man who happened to direct the third-highest-grossing movie in U.S. history, The Dark Knight, came up with an idea for a big summer movie. It's a story he loved—in fact, he wrote it himself—and it belonged to a genre, the sci-fi action thriller, that zipped right down the center lane of American popular taste. He cast as his leading man a handsome actor, Leonardo DiCaprio, who happened to star in the second-highest-grossing movie in history. Finally, to cover his bet even more, he hired half a dozen Oscar nominees and winners for supporting roles. 
Sounds like a sure thing, right? Exactly the kind of movie that a studio would die to have and an audience would kill to see? Well, it was. That film, Christopher Nolan's Inception, received admiring reviews, became last summer's most discussed movie, and has grossed, as of this writing, more than three-quarters of a billion dollars worldwide. 
And now the twist: The studios are trying very hard not to notice its success, or to care. Before anybody saw the movie, the buzz within the industry was: It's just a favor Warner Bros. is doing for Nolan because the studio needs him to make Batman 3. After it started to screen, the party line changed: It's too smart for the room, too smart for the summer, too smart for the audience. Just before it opened, it shifted again: Nolan is only a brand-name director to Web geeks, and his drawing power is being wildly overestimated. After it grossed $62 million on its first weekend, the word was: Yeah, that's pretty good, but it just means all the Nolan groupies came out early—now watch it drop like a stone. 
And here was the buzz three months later, after Inception became the only release of 2010 to log eleven consecutive weeks in the top ten: Huh. Well, you never know. 
"Huh. Well, you never know" is an admission that, put simply, things have never been worse....
For the studios, a good new idea has become just too scary a road to travel. Inception, they will tell you, is an exceptional movie. And movies that need to be exceptional to succeed are bad business. "The scab you're picking at is called execution," says legendary producer Scott Rudin (The Social Network, True Grit). "Studios are hardwired not to bet on execution, and the terrible thing is, they're right. Because in terms of execution, most movies disappoint."...
The majority of studio movies are aimed [at men under 25], the thinking being that they'll eat just about anything that's put in front of them as long as it's spiked with the proper set of stimulants. That's why, when you look at the genres that currently dominate Hollywood—action, raunchy comedy, game/toy/ride/comic-book adaptations, horror, and, to add an extra jolt of Red Bull to all of the preceding categories, 3-D—they're all aimed at the same ADD-addled, short-term-memory-lacking, easily excitable testosterone junkie. In a world dominated by marketing, it was inevitable that the single quadrant that would come to matter most is the quadrant that's most willing to buy product even if it's mediocre...
The good news is that [this] theory of marketing may now be eroding. The bad news is that it's giving way to something worse—a new classification that encompasses all ages and both genders: the "I won't grow up" demographic....
That's bad. We can all acknowledge that the world of American movies is an infinitely richer place because of Pixar and that the very best comic-book movies, from Iron Man to The Dark Knight, are pretty terrific, but the degree to which children's genres have colonized the entire movie industry goes beyond overkill. More often than not, these collectively infantilizing movies are breeding an audience—not to mention a generation of future filmmakers and studio executives—who will grow up believing that movies aimed at adults should be considered a peculiar and antique art. Like books. Or plays.
Amen.  I'm glad to see some more originalish shows at least on TV.  And there are plenty of classic original movies that I have yet to see, so I'm not totally discouraged.  But it will be disappointing if our generation doesn't build up a better repertoire worth sharing with our posterity.