Reviews: Some great lines about movies I haven't yet seen

Damn, now I'm definitely happy that I got free tickets for Flags of our Fathers. I don't rely on any one critic verbatim, but between Ed (it's Gonzalez, by the way - sorry if I sound picky but I do write for the gentleman :D) and Nick Schager's dislikening of the film, and my own negative feelings about Paul "let-me-spell-that-out-for-you" Haggis, now I'm worried it will be less of an experience than a test to endure. Granted, I did adore Million Dollar Baby despite its glaring flaws; what amazes me most about that film is how Eastwood fashioned a very good movie out of a fairly weak script. I'll comment no more on their supposed relationship, however, until I actually see Flags of our Fathers. (I'll check back in Thursday night).

As per Jesus Camp, I can't wait for this one. I expect it will only reinforce my view, which is that we either need a whole hell of a lot more religious diversity (so that people actually make up their own damn minds rather than blindly swallowing some pill) or none at all.

And TCM:TB can pass for me indefinitely. I've no need for bloodletting for the sake of bloodletting.

JE: Thanks for the correction on my spelling, rob. And please do check back. Meanwhile, I converted your tagging to plain ol' HTML!

Wait, was Jesus Camp put out by the camp people themselves? Cuz its description and trailer seemed more along the lines of an expose. It reminds me of WW2 propaganda toon put out by Disney called Education For Death, which follows the indoctrination of an innocent child into Nazi idealism.

I have a feeling I'd probably agree with all these reviews too.

Hi Matt: I figured I'd experiment and 'fess up to my biases going in (although I think I've already expressed how I feel about "Crash"). I've found, however, that low expectations often work in favor of the movie -- a principle upon which George W. Bush, as everyone knows, has based his entire life. Misunderestimation can be a powerful thing. (And for more information about the sham of Bush's Christian image and "faith-based initiatives" -- as phony as the administration's reasons for invading Iraq, and subsequent accounts of what it was doing there -- check out the new book by the former deputy director for the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, David Kuo. Just follow the money...

As for "Jesus Camp" (and I'm just noticing that there's a religious thread to this post that I hadn't consciously intended): All I know is that the woman who's featured in the movie (and I believe she's the very one singled out in Edelstein's review) is behind the movie all the way. Of course, she sees nothing wrong with what she's doing. What's that old saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions? I think the movie may take a neutral stance.

Magnolia Films president Eammon Bowles (who also sings in a band) tried to withdraw the film removed from Mr. Anything-But-Neutral Michael Moore's film festival this summer, saying: "The reality of the world we live in today is that if Michael Moore endorses it, tens of millions will automatically reject it."

According to The Hollywood Reporter:

Because the film presents the material in a manner that is considered by many who have seen it as fair and objective, Bowles considers it "a Rorshach test. It's very neutral, right down the middle, and different people take away different things from it."

I'm a little confused. Everyone's talking about Jesus Camp like it's just coming out, but I saw it -- I think 3 weeks ago now? I live in Dallas, and while we're high up in the food chain as far as film release dates go, we're no NYC/Chicago/LA.

The film is indeed neutral. There's no narration, only the occasional title card to give us context. There are intermissions from Air America broadcasts, but they are not "endorsed" by the filmmakers in any way. They are simply presented as a counterpoint.

Personally, I think the woman profiled in this film (I forget her name) makes the best possible case against herself, and rather glibly too. But I would think that, given my proclivities.

JE: You're right, Ken, that it's been released in several cities and will be opening in more. I just haven't seen it yet, though it's still playing at the Crest, a discount "art house" in Seattle.

I saw Jesus Camp last week in Houston. I had also heard that Becky Fischer endorses the film, and certainly on the surface the film takes an objective view. However, like Hell House it gives its subjects plenty of rope to hang themselves. Also, the use of the radio host as a counterpoint (instead of other membes of that community) and the use of music, to me, seemed to clearly indicate that the filmmakers were as horrified as I was by the proceedings. It's essential viewing for those that don't know how many American children are being manipulated. It highlights the great fallacy (held by religious and non-religioius alike) that the ends justify the means.

There's a big misunderstanding going around about "Jesus Camp"... everybody seems to think that this film is sort of "scathing expose" on what's really going on in the majority of Protestant churches across the country, which is total bull. I was raised by very religious parents, grew up in a Baptist church. When I was a kid, I attended Vacation Bible School every year. We made crafts ("hey, let's build an ark out of toothpicks"), played games, and were told basic Bible stories (David and Goliath and so on). I wasn't "indoctrinated" with anything, we spent the majority of the time getting glue on our fingers and playing freeze tag. Most children's church camps could be described the same way.

The makers of "Jesus Camp" were lucky enough to run into some wild extremists (originally, the documentary was to be a study of the effects of any kind of religion on children in general), and got an interesting, much talked-about film out of it. Now everyone's trying to say that "this is the hidden reality!". Which simply isn't true in most cases. As a Christian, I'm constantly having to explain myself and my faith to people who hold the preconceived notion that most Christians are judgmental hypocrites who are plotting some secret conspiracy to take over the government and bomb all the abortion clinics. Frankly, I'm getting weary of it. My faith is something I hold very dear to me, something I'll never let go of. I don't try to force it on anyone, I don't judge anyone because of their beliefs or lifestyle. But more and more, I feel like I'm being lumped in with a large group of people that everyone's jeering at. Everybody seems to leap on any excuse to criticize people of faith. A group of extremists like those portrayed in "Jesus Camp" come along, and the media grabs it up eagerly as ammo. Why is it that atheism or a belief in man's superiority to God is the only belief that seems to be accepted as "enlightened"? Why is it that those who believe in something more powerful than themselves are widely considered ignorant fools?

Everyone demands that Christians have an open mind, which is fine, but it seems that the real demand is for Christians to conform to the beliefs of those criticizing them. I'm rambling, I know. So I'll quit. But the way co-workers and others have spoken to me about "Jesus Camp" in their jeering, sneering, judgmental tones (as if I approve of everything done in that film by default) has gotten on my nerves.

Back at ya later

The "Flags of Our Fathers" quote is my favorite because I totally get the Haggis hate (with "Crash" and "Walker Texas Ranger: Trial by Fire"/"One Riot One Ranger").

Probably my favorite hardcore sadist work is this decade's first "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Remember the scene where the girl shot herself in the face? I mean Dang, homey! The original-original was such an f-ing tease. There was literally No blood in that thing... except for maybe on the stupid ignorable walls.

I once thought about purchasing DVDs based on their blurbs, until I remembered that Criterions are blurb-less (right?)... But I guess the name Criterion IS A BLURB.

PEACE OUT!

Dear Clark: When I was a kid, for a couple of years I attended a summer-session bible camp called The Firs, on Lake Whatcom (near Bellingham, north of Seattle) with my best friend, who was a Lutheran. I don't recall them ever teaching us to hate anyone, either. But my impression of "Jesus Camp" is that it isn't about that kind of "camp."

Well, I wouldn't say that the reductive thinking in Crash affects Flags of our Fathers in the same kind of detrimental way - it's just as prominent, but it never has as much of a chance to do so. The bulk of the film's insights - on the subjectivity of heroism, the mythmaking behind something as simple as a photo, and the stories/lies regularly told as a means to an end - are encapsulated in squeaky-clean monologues that act as bookends. They don't tell us much we don't know, and they don't inject it with any sense of personal wisdom or insight. Everything else is equally void of feeling or serious thought, much of it indebted to Saving Private Ryan, but with little gravity behind it and, frankly, a very problematic script that lacks any sense of rhyme to its reason. The film has Eastwood's fingerprints all over it, but it just feels like Haggis strangled the whole thing at the outset; as such, the stylistic retro vibes Eastwood uses feel more like a crutch than anything. Now I suspect that he worked an even bigger miracle with MDB than I previously thought.

Again, I'm glad the screening was free, but in this case I got what I paid for, and I'm not referring to the movie. A consistently fuzzy picture, dunderhead patrons who felt it necassary to say out loud what was happening on screen...ARGH! This is why I try to see movies on weekday afternoons when only three or four people are there in the first place.

P.S. I hope that these comments aren't automatically copyrighted to this site, 'cuz I plan on using some of them in my own review. :)

Write away, rob -- I quote or paraphrase myself all the time. I'm going to try to make a matinee Friday, but I admit I'm apprehensive about another Eastwood-Haggis collaboration, especially since the worst things about "MDB" were bone-headed decisions about how to adapt the far superior short stories. Oscars or no Oscars, why would anybody hire Haggis twice in a row?

Also, the trailers make it look like it's a Turner-era digital colorization, with lemon-chiffon cannonfire, and that just pisses me off.
But I'll wait and see...

Yes Jim. Yes, wait to see "Flags of Our Fathers". Stop being the cynic you are, and wait to see it and let us know just how awful it is. Because I saw it tonight at midnight. It's like watching an incredible swimmer and a competant swimmer trying to swim the English Channel. Half way across the competant one realizes he can't make it, so the great one slows down to help, and they both drown -- with arms a-flailing!

I read an article about how Haggis approached the adaptation of this book. I think it was in Creative Screenwriting. Basically he said he had no idea how to adapt this book, Eastwood trusted him, he worked on it for a very long time, couldn't get anywhere with it, then suddenly had a breakthrough. If this was his breakthrough I would have hated to have seen the first draft.

The first half of the film is not bad. My hopes were raising, and raising. Little by little I was expecting something great from it. Then just about the halfway mark it begins to swerve a bit, and by the beginning of the third act to the end (which constitues about forty minutes of the film... twenty minutes too long) they lose complete focus, tell you the theme of the story five more times about how these soldiers weren't heroes, just men, then sentimentalize the hell out of everything as if they were heroes (mixed messages anyone?) I was so exasperated at how the last half of the film drug the first half into the grave with it that I think I'm still in shock. Certainly there were some fine directorial choices in the second half, and a moment or two that was not lost on me, but it became a bunch of meely-mouthed voice over from characters we didn't care a shred for.

I will say that Eastwood's direction when the script isn't awful was as good as it's ever been. I love the quiet almost serene style he's taken on in his recent series of movies - it does wonders with the war scenes. And he shows the same handling of actors he always has, because many of the performances are quite incredible (though the movie dehumanizes them into walking stick figures for voice over narration in the final of the film.)

Sorry. I just had to complain to someone. I have more complaints, but I'll save it for your next post! ... after you've seen the movie.

Personally, I thought Flags of Our Fathers was very good. Re: Haggis, I don't hate Crash as much as some, but I definitely have some serious problems with it.

While I agree that the voice-over became intrusive at the end, I still think Flags of Our Fathers in many ways did a good job of simulatneously demystifying the notion of "heroes" and Greatest Generation rah-rah B.S. while still honoring the sacrifices those who faught in WWII made. In this way, it's the movie Saving Private Ryan was trying to be (and only succeeded at being some of the time).

I felt it thoughtfully examined a number of interesting themes (aside from the fact that we construct heroes ourselves): the arbitrary nature of fame, the manner in which our country props up heroes, only to forget about them when they've gone past their usefulness, experiencing something traumatic while having others try and tell you what the significance of those events were. I also appreciate that it examines the lives of people after they've experienced something horrific (usually movies focus on the experience of the horrific and end it at that).

All in all, I think Flags is a very worthwhile film and that the Crash backlash will unfairly color some people's thoughts of the movie before they actually see it.

I know I'm in the minority on this message board about this, but...that's my two cents.

Mr. Emerson, I noticed that you said that the creators of "Jesus Camp" pulled it out of "Michael Moore's Film Festival." This is slightly misleading: for one thing, the Traverse City Film Festival, though sponsored by Michael Moore, really isn't political. They primarily showed recent movies that weren't played much in mainstream theaters like "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada," "Cache," and "Wordplay" and there was also a retrospective of Kubrick's movies. The other thing is, Michael Moore explained on the last night of the festival that the creators of "Jesus Camp" had begged him to show it at the film festival so that they could pull it out as a publicity stunt. I suppose you don't have to believe him about that, but I do.

By the way, I don't particularly care for Michael Moore's anything-but-neutralness either, but I felt the need to defend the festival because I was a volunteer there.

JE: Thanks for that clarification, William. I read several different news stories about it, but each account was slightly different.

Agree with the Texas Chainsaw review...

First movie I've walked out on in years!