Okay, first and foremost, I want it to be clear that I did NOT go to see this film because it was some sort of Christian movie.  In fact, I had no idea that it was until after it started, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Around 10 o’clock this morning, I got a call from my grandmother asking me if I’d like to go to the movies with her.  She said she never goes anymore, and that there was some new film out she wanted to see called Fireproof .  I agreed, of course (who among us could say “no” to their grandmother?) and looked up the times for the nearest theater on Fandango and we decided to catch an afternoon showing.

As for the film, Fandango didn’t have much to say about it, and I knew nothing.  Being a Dave Ramsey budgeter, I hardly ever go out to the movies anymore and then being a Tivo owner, I no longer watch commercials so had not seen any trailers.  So in essence, I was a totally blank slate going into this with no preconceived ideas or expectations of any kind.

The story centers around a firefighter named Caleb Holt (Kirk Cameron) and his wife, Catherine (Erin Bethea), whose marriage is on full-speed towards a divorce until Caleb’s father challenges him to hold-off on proceedings while he completes a 40-day “love dare.”  Caleb reluctantly agrees, but finds it increasingly difficult as his wife appears to slip further away as a doctor at the hospital where she works begins to vie for her affections.  Caleb presses on, however, encouraged by his father and a fellow firefighter and eventually the story meets its inevitable happy ending.  The film is supported by some good comic relief in parts, and a decent score as well.

My first thought was that the people on screen (with the exception of Kirk Cameron) really couldn’t act very well.  Then I started to see the major Christian references and quickly picked up on what kind of movie this was.  Suddenly my grandmother’s interest in this film made a lot more sense.

Great, I thought, I’ve just unknowingly signed up to watch some sort of weird, cheesy, God-flick.  Flashbacks of elementary school visits to “The Christian Cinema” in Ambler flooded over me coupled with the time I rented Left Behind (admittedly not one of my better movie choices).  I sighed inwardly and decided to just relax and see if I can’t at least enjoy some aspect of it.  At the very least, it would be kinda fun to see one of my favorite junior high crushes on the big screen for the first time since LIke Father, Like Son in 1987.

To my near-complete surprise, I found myself enjoying the film.  The acting which at first seemed contrived, actually got better as the movie progressed…or I just stopped noticing that it was poor (which is probably more likely).  I liked the characters with the exception of the doctor (whose only real contribution seemed to be that of the worst acting overall) but really found myself hoping for the happy ending.

Acting aside, my main criticism of the movie would be that it went on long after what I would have thought to be the natural end.  I understand what they were trying to communicate in that excess time, but really feel it was unnecessary.  The writers could’ve given the audience a little more credit to infer the rest themselves.

My other criticism isn’t so much specific to this movie in particular, but to these so-called “religious message” films as a whole.  I appreciate whole-heartedly what they are trying to accomplish – and indeed I would love to incorporate “The Love Dare” as part of my marriage (should I ever have one someday) but I just don’t understand why Christians feel the need to be so insanely blatant in their storytelling that they end up painting themselves into a niche corner and risk potentially turning off those they most are attempting to reach.

I’m not saying that as Christians we shouldn’t be upfront about Jesus and our faith in Him.  Not at all.  But I think that if people feel like they’re being preached to when they haven’t gone voluntarily into a church, we may not really have the impact we’re trying to.  However, if we were to just put down the Bible-shaped bat some use to beat the world over the head with and instead just show others Jesus by loving them right where they are, the results just might be surprising.

I don’t want to be too hard on Fireproof – I basically really liked it…it’s a sweet love story and I would recommended it for anyone who is in a relationship, ever has been in a relationship, or ever thinks that they may one day be in a relationship.  All I’m saying is that I think it may have drawn in a wider audience if they had spent a little more energy on character development and let the story of love, humility, sacrifice, service, forgiveness, and redemption speak for itself.  All of these things are amazingly attractive even without being framed within a full-out alter call because they are all attributes and side-effects of knowing and loving our God.  If we show the world these in our everyday lives – from the way we treat each other to the way we approach difficult situations – then we’re showing the world Jesus whether they recognize it or not, and then watch them come looking for more.

But maybe that’s just me, so take it with a grain of salt (or pepper, if you prefer), but Christian or not, I still would say go see this movie.  The story really does stand on its own; and the underlying message of love being a choice backed-up (and at times made possible) through action rather than simply feelings-based is a strong, solid one worth the time and money.

Just for fun, I’ll leave you with a link to what the New York TImes reviewer had to say about it – always good to get that objective third-partier’s 2 cents…

FIreproof: Putting Out Housefires, Reigniting Passions by Neil Genzlinger

But somehow Mamma Mia caught my attention, and so when my friend Shanna invited me out to see it, I jumped at the chance (of course, I may have just been jumping at the chance to go out and spend some time with friends and likely couldn’t have cared less what we were going to see exactly, but whatever).  We actually saw it a couple of weeks ago, but something made me think of it today so I thought I’d set just a few comments down in case anyone was interested or considering seeing it themselves.

First, I’ll say I really liked the movie…it made me long for Greece…but having seen the Broadway production, I have to say that the Broadway version was way way way better.

Some might say that this is always true – that, like a movie made from a book, the original is always better, but not so…  Chicago springs to mind – saw the movie, saw the Broadway show.  Movie wins.  Footloose would be another where I think I would choose movie over Broadway.

Sadly I did not feel the same way about Mamma Mia.  I love Meryl Streep (and honestly was shocked at how limber she apparently is!) but I’m sure it didn’t help that, as much as I enjoy looking at Pierce Brosnan, I discovered that I do not like hearing him sing.  Additionally, I could have done without seeing the fabulously sexy Colin Firth kissing a boy. Sigh.  Also, can’t say I recall that being part of the original storyline, but maybe it was and I just blocked it out.

Of course the music is fabulous.  Everybody loves ABBA…well, except for maybe my parents who, when I was talking to them about Mamma Mia, my dad said, “Yeah, so what’s that movie all about anyway?  Just looks like a bunch of people jumping around and singing in the previews.”  (He doesn’t get out to many musicals these days).

“It’s a movie they made from the Broadway play,” I told him, “based on ABBA’s music.”

“Who’s ABBA?” they both said almost simultaneously.

I stared.  “You’re kidding, right?” I said.  “ABBA – you know – super popular band from the 70’s…won tons of awards…”  They both shook their heads.  “Really?”  I opened up iTunes and played a few of ABBA’s hits for them thinking that perhaps they’d know the tunes even if they didn’t know the name of the band.  No luck.  It was then I remembered that my parents were never terribly into music while I was growing up, and apparently not before either.  As a kid, I had always thought that when one became an adult, one stopped listening to rock music altogether because I knew my parents never did.  I was happy to have that myth debunked, but it’s funny what kids think.

Anyway, with movie prices at $10+ (around here at least, although this one was free for me – I had one last pass in my “Entertainment” envelope), I’m not sure I’d say to spend the money to see it in the theater, but it will certainly make a good rental.  Especially for those who have never been to Greece – I felt it did a great job of providing a taste of what the Dodeconese Islands are all about…not to mention how stunningly beautiful they are.  Man, I need to get back there.

Director David Fincher (Se7en, The Game) does another psychological number with this one. From a technical standpoint, the cinematography was great…the angles alone made for an entertaining film to watch. And the story only made it better.

Edward Norton (Rounders, Primal Fear) gives a captivating performance as a basic white-collar worker who is tired of his 9 to 5, Ikea-furnished existence. His life takes a turn for the better (or is it for the worst?) when he meets Brad Pitt who plays Tyler Durden, an energetic soap-maker. Tyler seems to have the answers to everything and shows him a whole world that he never knew existed…a world where other men take out their anger over their own lives in a secret boxing ring. The boxing ring (known as “Fight Club” to its members) is only the jumping off point for a whole string of other events, which Norton gets dragged into. The story is mostly narrated by Norton which is useful in giving us a little more background than we might have had otherwise, and it works well. The only time the narration becomes somewhat distracting was when Norton speaks directly at the camera rather than just being a voice-over. There was only one time that this occurred and seemed rather inconsistent with the rest of the film.
Pitt also performed well, and was enjoyable in this role when he was being something of a visionary as well as when he was just downright devious.

Helena Bonham Carter (A Room With A View, Howard’s End) plays Marla Singer, a girl with some serious issues (drug related and otherwise) who becomes involved with Durden and ends up hanging around more than she is wanted. Carter does an excellent job in this role and definitely seems to have shed any traces of her previous period work.

Another surprise in this film was Meat Loaf in the part of Bob, a guy with testicular cancer that you end up really feeling for due to Meat Loaf’s performance. You can’t help but want to hug him.

As for the violence, there is a lot. But the film has so much more to it that you can’t help but be fascinated anyway. Those who care to look past the violence will find much to mull over. You may find yourself cringing at times, but ultimately unable to turn away. And you may even catch yourself wanting to see it again once you know the ending to try and use your foreknowledge to see what clues you may have missed along the way.

Fight Club turned out to be a great way to kill a couple of hours…but it is not a veg-out movie by far. If you go, be prepared to think.

Tim Robbins just did a wonderful job, and I was thrilled to see him in such a good film since the last one he acted in was Nothing to Lose in 1997. And Joan Cusak also gave an applause-worthy performance…and even though you didn’t see a whole lot of their kids, they managed to carry off a definite spookiness that really added to the atmosphere and mood of that whole house. Something else that impressed me was that such a relatively small nucleus of a cast managed to pull off such an involved plot and storyline. I was on the edge of my seat throughout the film and couldn’t avoid jumping several times.

The ending which I won’t give away, but have to let it be said that I thought it was incredibly thought provoking and perfect for the film. Couldn’t have been a better ending and that’s important. In many cases an ending can make or break the film. The last movie I saw was great, but the ending could have been a lot better which really hurt the overall film.

Good start, good story, perfect ending…4 stars. This is a film you need to go see in the theatre where you can watch without distractions.

For Love of the Game is, of course, a baseball movie…and I have to admit that I am somewhat of a baseball-movie fan so I entered the theater figuring on liking the movie for that aspect if nothing else. Fortunately, I liked the rest of it too.

Nearing the end of his 19th year with the Detroit Tigers, Billy Chapel (Kevin Costner) is faced with his past, present, and future, and is forced to think through them all during the final game of the season against the NY Yankees. The movie flips between the past and present throughout the game giving us a good background story on Billy and the love-of-his-life, Jane, played Kelly Preston. The movie does a good job of character development…which is important since a story is only as good as its characters. If you don’t care about them, then why bother? This is particularly true with a love story.

Kevin Costner did a job like I haven’t seen since his Field of Dreams days…or perhaps he always acts this well and this was a better storyline than Waterworld or The Postman so I could really tell. Kelly Preston (Addicted to Love, Jerry Maguire) was also excellent. Preston is one of those actresses that every time I see her in something, I can barely tell that it’s the same girl. I think she has a real talent for totally becoming her role, which draws you in, and you either love her or hate her, depending upon who she is. Love her in this part.

Just so you know, the film wasn’t perfect. Most of its minor flaws are overlook-able, but I did find the first 15 minutes or so didn’t seem to fit well into the rest of the movie. It all seems fine until they give you all that background detail and you gain a better understanding of who Billy and Jane are and what their relationship has been. In fact, if they cut those first few minutes, I’d probably be able to figure out what was going on without them. It wasn’t a particularly strong opener for what turned out to be a strong film.

Definitely a good date movie.

Based on the comic strip Milton by Mike Judge (also the creator of Beavis and Butthead) Office Space goes the extra length to take pretty much every stereotype in the book and magnify it to the umpteenth degree. Imagine every weird coworker you’ve ever encountered…every cubical you’ve ever worked in…every boss you’ve wanted to strangle, put them in a company called Initech, and then move them all to The Far Side and you might just have an idea of what this movie is all about. The main character in the film isn’t Milton, however, as the comic strip title would suggest. Instead it’s a guy named Peter (played by Ron Livingston). Milton is in the film and adds a really humorous (but also sad) dimension to the movie (there is a certain level of morbid humor throughout). Stephen Root (who is best known for his character Jimmy James on News Radio) plays Milton and really gives the best performance overall.

There is an underlying plot line, in case you were wondering. The company (Initech) calls for a couple of consultants, known as “Efficiency Experts” to come in and do a little—shall we say—‘housecleaning’. As one insane plot builds on another, the Efficiency Experts promote Peter, but fire two of his fellow cubical-mates so they all begin scheming together to find a way to rip off their evil and incredibly patronizing boss, Lumburgh (played by Gary Cole).

Another facet of working that’s touched on is done by Jennifer Aniston’s character, Joanna, who’s a waitress at a restaurant which is clearly a joke version of TGI Friday’s. As a former waitress myself, I fully empathized with Aniston’s character and the trivial pressures that are put on someone in the food service industry. It’s still amazing to me how these people can get so hung up on the dumbest things like how many buttons you have on your uniform! Aniston did a good job and was roughly on par with every other performance in this film. This is not a movie that will be recognized by the Oscars, but I don’t think that’s what any of them were going for.

Offices are not always fun environments to work in, but thanks to them, movies like this one can be made!
Worth the money…go see it.

To start with, A Perfect Murder has a totally different run of things in the plot twists and ways of figuring out things. The part of the adulterous wife (played by Gwyneth Paltrow and Grace Kelly, respectively) turns tables almost completely. Emily (Gwyneth Paltrow) is no fool. And she also plays the part of a woman who actually killed someone in the process of protecting herself masterfully. She’s very shaken after the encounter and distraught and hysterical. Afterward, she pretty much reaches her own conclusions…looking into things, beginning to suspect that her husband is up to something…and then she confronts him with what she’s found. Steven (Michael Douglas) pretty much has everything figured out. He knows what to do in every case…he seems to have every base covered. And he’s much more devious and evil than the husband in Dial M.

Dial M for Murder is also very Hitchcockian in its filming and format. Hitchcock tended to like somewhat odd camera shots. Shots from the floor or for the ceiling as if you were spying on the scene. Also, a great many of his movies were first plays so they were written with one major scene and Hitchcock would leave it that way, filming some of the movie in other places, but the majority of it would be in that one main room or apartment or what-have-you. Other good Hitchcock examples of this would include Rope and Lifeboat.

Something that I thought made a good twist in A Perfect Murder was the role of the lover. Instead of hiring through blackmail an old college acquaintance, Emily’s killer-for-hire is driven by money and a criminal background and is, in fact, the man she’s cheating on her husband with (named David). Michael Douglas does his homework and decides that this guy is by far the best candidate for this job as he is greedy and he can blackmail him since he knows of David’s criminal background and could turn him in for a variety of crimes. David pulls a trick on him though and sends someone else to do the dirty work so that he is free to walk away when it doesn’t go right and then use his knowledge to blackmail in turn and still get the money he lusted. Another good twist.

A Perfect Murder is definitely more gruesome than Dial M for Murder, but I think it’s effective more than gory. It’s no battle from Braveheart so don’t concern yourself too much. There’s no dismemberment or anything like that…there’s a lot of blood, but not much else.

I’d definitely recommend A Perfect Murder. Both Paltrow and Douglas give superb life to their roles and I enjoyed the film enough to see it again.

Oh, and as a footnote, you might just want to consider renting Dial M for Murder which is a wonderfully suspenseful, distinctly Hitchcock film and everyone needs to get in one of those every so often.

There are some clear similarities that carry over from one story to the other, but overall I would say that it’s a night and day difference. However each are well-done in their own right and both are more than worth seeing.