Grog and Blog

Under discussion:

Casino Royale  (2006)

The Bourne Ultimatum  (2007)

Quantum of Solace  (2008)

The rising action plateaus, a mini-climax occurs, and many are left complaining about a lack of "plot". Personally, I think some people should take some time reviewing the elements of plot. This story doesn't lack a plot, it is merely not the entire plot of a story on its own. Perhaps the end should have been a giant "TO BE CONTINUED..." to help all of the less than observant viewers grasp the reality that this film's plot is part of a larger storyline.

Overall I greatly enjoyed the pace and action of the film. Perhaps I'm just an adrenaline addict, but the breakneck speed of events in this film was a welcome change of pace from other action movies I've watched.

I also appreciated the more gritty and raw version of Bond. Casino Royale reshaped the image of Bond as a more human character with real emotions, even capable of love, and hate. Quantum of Solace built on this persona by showing Bond as being loyal to M, passionate about avenging his lost love, and capable of caring about someone who has suffered loss and is also driven by revenge.

The use of revenge as motivation for characters is highly overused, but something that everyone can relate to at the same time making it acceptable. Yet this isn't Bond's only motivation making him slightly more complex than we first suspect. He wants to catch the bad guys, protect M, uphold justice, and help a friend. Perhaps there is even more to him than this, but that is what I am recalling at this point.

I would say that Quantum of Solace had more to do with developing the new James Bond, and introducing a story arch that, hopefully, will be quite compelling. I am really hopeful for the next film, and very pleased with Quantum of Solace as I feel it delivered on what it was trying to deliver.

If you liked Quantum of Solace, then I would recommend watching The Bourne Ultimatum. (As well as the first and second films in the Bourne series, assuming you haven't seen them yet.)

Under discussion:

Magnolia  (1999)

I was recently posting in the group Weekly Theme. The current theme of the week is nudity, and I mentioned Magnolia, as being a film with some nudity in it, which served for than just to titillate the audience, or wasn't there for that at all.

One of the users in the thread told me I was wrong. There there was no nudity in that movie, so I decided to vindicate myself by finding sources to back up my claim. I was successful and replied about it in a post, and then I found this other site I'd never come across before that had a positive review of Magnolia. As I scrolled down to see the user comments I came across this one:

"vile"... "Magnolia" was without a doubt, the most vile, horrific and offensive movie I have ever seen! I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly have one good thing to say about this movie. This is just the type of vulgarity our heavenly Father wants us to have no part of. I don't care how much Hollywood or others try to talk around it by talking about the acting, or the film making. Trash is trash. Jesus does not need or want to use filth to show us how to forgive. He is love and speaks with love and kindness not vileness and vulgarity. "Magnolia" is the worst movie I have ever had the misfortune to see. My Ratings: [1/3]
—Kristy, age 36

Now, I don't know who this person is, or what scripture they do, or do not, read, but I can say with near certainty that the life of Jesus often used "filth" to show us how to forgive. 

Here are some examples:

Matthew 8:

1When he came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him. 2A man with leprosy^[a] came and knelt before him and said, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."

 3Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately he was cured^[b]of his leprosy. 4Then Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."

John 8

 1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

   But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

 9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

 11"No one, sir," she said. 
      "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Of course there are many other examples. Obviously, according to the Bible, Jesus didn't mind associating with "filthy" people, people who others would have considered unclean, what's more is that he had compassion for them. He forgave them, and so should we. 

So this person, Kristy, who calls herself a christian, a little christ, is also a hypocrit. She misrepresents who Jesus was, and what he came to do. He came to heal the sick, raise the dead, forgive all sins, and restore everything. 

Magnolia's main theme of redemption and forgiveness is a clear reminder of this mission. 

And now I'm done ranting.

Under discussion:

A No-hit No-run Summer (Un été sans point ni coup sûr)  (2007)

The synopsis of this film reminds me "The Little Giants" with a "Sandlot"-esque setting. Sounds amusing.

Under discussion:

Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal: Act 1: The Man of the Slashing Sword  (1999)

This is the first of the four OVAs concerning the overthrow of Tokugawa Ieyasu's dynasty. It is a fictional tale concerning a manslayer, hitokiri. I am unsure as to the historical truth of such a person, but the story itself is quite intriguing.

 The animation in these films is astounding. The story is top-notch, and definitely not for children. If you don't mind a bit of blood and violence it is both a beautiful and sorrowful series. A favorite of mine for sure.

I have to admit I find Julia Roberts somewhat tiring to watch on any screen these days. Perhaps she just hasn't aged well. I don't think that's the issue though. Regardless of my physical attractions to her she is still quite an excellent actress. The most recent movie I watched with her in it was titled "Mona Lisa Smile". Amusingly enough there is a song with that title, and no small amount of discussion concerning Mona Lisa's smile. Needless to say I was less than shocked by such obvious attempts to "create a central theme". Something that is apparently important in all forms of media. At this point I have to ask whether what I'm writing has a central theme, and my first notion is that the theme centers around this movie I watched mostly because I was bored. Boredom can be a great motivator to watch something that I normally would not endure, and I find that I learn from such experiences. Usually I learn that such films are actually much more than a "sappy romance", which sadly is what some individuals would call this particular film. Perhaps by dumbing it down they think it will be more bearable, but really what I want is a movie that makes me think, and that challenges my own views on any subject. Belief being what it is, it is good to come across media that challenges my beliefs rather than simply affirming them.

The movie is about a woman who moves to some cold town, Chicago area I think. The real location is Wellesley College. It's a woman's college that was basically where Harvard and Yale boys went to find wives. At least that was how the movie portrayed it. At what point Julia's character is ranting about how the place isn't really a college, but "a finishing school". Now I'll be honest that I really don't know much about finishing schools, but the context of the statement led me to believe that they were places where young ladies learned how to be "good wives". I chuckled at most of this, but somewhere deep down inside I feel that such practices aren't necessarily helpful. Don't get me wrong. I think that if a person wants to learn elocution, ironing, cooking, cleaning, and all of the other pertininent homemaking arts that he/she should be able learn from the best. However, disguising such as a liberal arts education is, in my humble opinion, marginally immoral. Regardless the film plodded along, as all films do.

There were a variety of characters who actually had some amount of depth. It didn't hurt that many of them were fairly attractive individuals. I wouldn't say that I loved any one of them in particular. I also wouldn't say that I felt this film even remotely rivaled that of "Dead Poet's Society". Perhaps being a man had something to do with that. It did have its own charm, and appeal. Mostly I enjoyed how Robert's character challenged the young ladies of Wellesley to "think outside the box". Really she was challenging the very fabric of their worldviews, eww that word. In doing so her character reminded me of the importance of challenging my own perspectives on reality. What is art? Who decides? These parts of the movie were, for me, the most poignant. 

Since I don't like to use quantitative point systems to measure unquantifiable qualities in art I will simply suggest that this film has good merits, and perhaps some poor ones as well. I'll leave it to you to decide which is which, and if, or perhaps when, we disagree, we'll both agree that there were in fact such within the film despite our inability to agree on which are which. I hope you didn't understand that.