Fahrenheit 9/11
Where do I start?

Michael Moore has an agenda. Is the agenda to reveal the truth of the war in Iraq? No. The agenda is to get a portray President Bush in the the least favorable light possible. He succeeds remarkably.

Of course, if you are reasonable well read, nothing you see in this film will come as a shocker. We already know how Bush has altered the facts to "dupe America" (Moore's words). The story of the Bush's strong ties to Saudi oil, I have not heard in such depth, but they really don't surprise me. Again, Cheney's ties to Halliburton are nothing new.

The film is at its best when is showing Bush as incompetant. I'll never forget the dazed look on Bush's face as the WTC burns and he reads 'My Pet Goat' for seven minutes.

Of the 9/11 attacks themselves, the planes are not shown, instead all we see is a black screen with audio, followed by reaction shots from people in NYC, then ash and papers. Moore's choice here is disturbingly effective. We don't need to see the plane footage again, it will be burned into our minds until the day we die...

The sad thing about this film is that the truth really would be enough. But that wasn't good enough for Moore. At one point he shows us how "happy" the people in "Sovereign Nation of Iraq" were in March 2003. Saddam might as well be an angel for all Moore is concerned.

He also can't seem to make up his mind on whether or not we should feel sorry for our troops. Late in the film we are heartbroken by the story of a fallen soldier who had written in his final letter to his family that he had lost all faith in Bush, but he seemingly expects us to forget the footage of soldiers rolling through Iraq cranking "Let the bodies hit the floor" or "the roof is on fire." It really comes as no surprise that conservatives viewed this point as an "attack on our servicemen"...

Finally, Moore's bravado is a little too much. After watching the Mother of the aforementioned soldier weep uncontrollably in front of the White House, Moore puts the spotlight back on himself and confronts members of congress with recruiting documents for the Armed Forces.

A side note - Sorry Michael. But the 'R' Rating is deserved. A public beheading, footage of mangled Iraqis, and the burned corpses of American contractors in the Falljah massacre are more than enough to justify it.

Overall, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a good film to see if all you have seen is what CNN has been telling you and want an alternate view, but don't expect to find the truth in this film. For that, read more and find it for yourself.

RATING: OK+
- posted by Stephen @ 8:38 PM

 
What The #$&! Do We Know!?
What do you get you mix cutting edge quantum physics with spirituality? Bio-chemistry with philosophy? Do we really 'see' what we see? Are we addicts to our own emotions? What is happening in your brain? What can science tell us about God? What the #$&! do we know!?

This Portland-based indie film/documentary tackles so many topics it is nearly overwhelming, but it grabs your interest so completely that you barely realize that you are drowning in new ideas until there is no turning back. It features a loose backstory and mixes in special FX and interviews with some 'experts' in physics, medicine, biology, and spirituality to attempt to complete a more complete modern view of the universe and ourselves.

I am truly delighted to see a film like this made, because I feel too often modern people look at science and philosphy or spirituality as two very seperate and conflicting entities when in fact, they can be considered in a complimentary status.

Ultimately, the film's biggest failing is that it is overly 'New Agey' and tends to be seriously preachy. I'm not sure I'm quite ready to believe that happy thoughts form pretty water crytals, thank you very much, but the ideas that we become addicted to our emotions and we subconciously create situations to fulfill them holds significantly more merit.

You may not agree with everything (I didn't), you may not believe everything (I cetainly didn't), but you will certainly be left with enough food for thought to have a feast, plus leftovers for days...

RATING: R

Edited - 06/14/2004 - 9:20PM
- posted by Stephen @ 9:21 AM

 
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Finally a summer film that doesn't disappoint! Harry Potter's latest adventure lives up to the high standards that the previous two films have set and faithfully (for the most part) recreates the book from which it was based.

Fitting with the spirit of the substantially darker novel, the series' new director Alfonso Cuarón brings us to a Hogwarts that is much more tangible (and frightening) than the fairytale place we have seen in prior films. Perhaps one of the ways he accomplishes this is by not focusing on all the oddities that make Hogwarts so fantastical, but instead taking them for granted and leaving them to the background.

The script itself move along a breakneck pace, perhaps even a little too fast in some instances (even though the film's 136 minute runtime is nothing to scoff at). The story is simple enough, so it's not as though people unfamiliar with the novels are in danger of being left behind, but some scenes of emotional significance seem rushed instead of savored. On the flipside, little time is wasted with the "cutesy" sequences that dotted the first two films and tended to make them drag a bit...

My single biggest complaint about the film, is the same one I have had about all the previous Potter films: the FX are inconsistant at best... With the exception of the Dementors (which are generally fantastic), a creature (like Buckbeak) might look convincing in one shot and jarringly CG in the next.

Overall Potter is well worth a trip to the theatre and is a welcome escape from the (so far) dreadful summer 2004 movie season...

Interesting comparisons to the book:
The last ~1/2 of the movie is basically *everything* from the last 1/4 of the book.
One *very* strange omission is that we never learn who the authors of the Marauder's Map really are...

RATING: HR
- posted by Stephen @ 3:01 AM