Grog and Blog

Quantum of Solace - In Review

rjsprague — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:11:02 GMT

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.)

Empathusing

rjsprague — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:14:02 GMT

I found the dialogue to be quirky, over-the-top, and slightly canned, but still extremely enjoyable. I felt empathy for Juno as she struggled to do what she thought was best for the child she would bring into this world. I think that alone makes the film worth watching at least once.

Hypocrisy and misrepresentation

rjsprague — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:29:06 GMT

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.

My worthless review of Miller's Crossing.

rjsprague — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:39:12 GMT

This film was definitely worth watching. I won't bother to put qualifiers on that. There have been few mobster flicks that had as little killing as this one, but that offered such an interesting set of characters, and plot twists. I thoroughly enjoyed it from the beginning to the end.

Sounds like...

rjsprague — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:38:59 GMT

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

Blogs about Blogs about Films

rjsprague — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 02:04:00 GMT

I was thinking about the concept of film blogs the other day, perhaps yesterday. My thoughts are often incoherent to even myself, and yet sometimes I experience moments of clarity. I wonder if this is something human we all share, or if I am somewhat of a conundrum. That's a fun word. Back to the intro. Blogs seem to be the thing, and have been since their conception. While I can't properly cite their conception I do know that they instantly became like sliced bread after its inception. Sliced bread is, of course, a favorite of all sandwich loving folks, generally well-rounded intelligent beings etc. And really what is a blog, but my own personal thoughts and/or feelings on any one particular matter. It really could be seen as a journal of sorts, but instead we call it a log, and since it occurs in a virtual form that is placed upon a server and doled out in single-serving portions we call it a web log, or b log = blog.

Now onto the real point of this sword. S words for 200. I guess what I really after here is some sort of critique of critiquing... anything. I mean I can watch a film, and then come onto a site like Spout where I can rate it, add it to a list, start a discussion about it, and write a review of the film. All of that being said, which of these options is really going to sway my fellow community members? And can I truly encapsulate the experience of the film in wordsand phrases, and perhaps emoticons if we're lucky. Perhaps the more important question is the ethical implications of me creating said content for or against a piece of art (if we can call it that). I get the feeling that, while I have seen hundreds(if not thousands) or films/shows, I am somehow speechless when it comes time to actually quantify in words the experience of well experiencing. At this time I shall allow my mundane thoughts to stew further. Happy spouting.

Beginning at the end

rjsprague — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:59:57 GMT

It is where every good writer should begin, the rest is just story.

Fugitivity

rjsprague — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:31:00 GMT

Whenever I watch movies like this I always end up shaking my head when the fugitive does something I know will get them caught, or at least almost caught. I think I'd be a good fugitive. Although after watching myth busters I don't think the running through the water thing actually works. :(

Still this movie is a classic for me. The villain isn't obvious till near the end, and poor Harrison Ford is somehow able to keep one step ahead of good ole Tommy. Tommy plays a good gumshoe. :)

Ang Lee's The Hulk

rjsprague — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:19:54 GMT

Personally I thought it was an excellent film. I thought the Spider Man films were mediocre in comparison - even if you combined all three vs Ang Lee's The Hulk.

Harsh

rjsprague — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:02:13 GMT

I love anime so my bias is obvious, but this film had one heck of story. It was gritty, and it didn't seem to mind being so. The harshness of the plot was accentuated by the depth of the characters. While it might be easy to say they were flat or boring I feel as though each was hiding something more. In fact the ending was really quite suspenseful. The animation is exquisite, the attention spent on the emotional mannerisms of the characters (and sometimes complete lack of emotions) were used quite well. Still anime isn't for everyone, but if you enjoy it then you'll like this film.