<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/">
<title>Christiana Talks About Stuff</title>
<link>http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/</link>
<description>Basically, just a forum for me to report on any of the wide variety of shiny things that get caught in the cobweb that is my brain</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:date>2006-04-01T23:04+00:00</dc:date>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1143935092.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1142873516.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1128902836.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1128898560.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1128186627.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1127585406.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1126984952.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1126566922.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1126564900.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1126564557.shtml" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1143935092.shtml">
<title>Movie Review: Slither</title>
<link>http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1143935092.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Christiana</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-04-01T23:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439815/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHNvdXJjZWlkPW1vemlsbGEtc2VhcmNofHE9c2xpdGhlcnxmdD0xfG14PTIwfGxtPTUwMHxjbz0xfGh0bWw9MXxubT0x;fc=1;ft=20;fm=1"><br />
Slither</a> is EXACTLY what the commercials make it look like, so here's the thing: If you're not sure whether or not you want to see it, you probably don't.<br />
<br />
I was sure, and I was rewarded with a pretty good, funny, gross-out horror movie.<br />
<br />
BUT, this is not an entry-level gross-out movie. I think John Carpenter's The Thing is a good benchmark. If that was too much for you, this will be too.<br />
<br />
I almost feel like I don't have anything else to say about the movie. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0277213/">Nathan Fillion</a> is in it, and he's awesome as always, if not quite as funny as in Firefly. (Though of course, it would be unfair to expect him to be when he doesn't have Joss Whedon writing his dialogue.)<br />
<br />
The effects are very good, and very gross. There is humor, there are scares. And there is LOTS of blood, slime and a variety of other viscous substances.<br />
<br />
Either you want to go see that, or you don't. I won't judge you either way.<br />
<br />
.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1142873516.shtml">
<title>Movie Review: V for Vendetta</title>
<link>http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1142873516.shtml</link>
<description>Housekeeping Note: I've started double-posting all of the blog entries for the last few days over at my livejournal site as well, and will probably continue to do that for...</description>
<dc:creator>Christiana</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-03-20T16:03+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Housekeeping Note: I've started double-posting all of the blog entries for the last few days over at <a href="http://christianaellis.livejournal.com">my livejournal</a> site as well, and will probably continue to do that for now, but as things evolve, I will probably begin to use that site for my personal-blogging sorts of things, and this site more for podcast notes and announcements, etc.<br />
<br />
Anyway...<br />
<br />
V for Vendetta<br />
<br />
Okay, I had been planning to see this movie anyway, but over the weekend it seemed like everyone was talking about it already and so I figured I just had to get out to the theater.<br />
<br />
I haven't read the graphic novel, (though I've read The Watchmen, also by Alan Moore,) and so I had a general idea of what KIND of story I was in for, if not the specifics.<br />
<br />
The movie is good, but not great. I like it on two levels really, but on only one of those is the movie as effective as it wants to be.<br />
<br />
That first level, of course, is the more superficial level of "Does it look cool?" <br />
<br />
Yes. It does. Very cool. All kinds of shadows and glinty knives and black and red and bathrooms with giant TV's in them. (Well only one of those, but it was cool, in a ridiculously over-the-top-narcissistic way.)<br />
<br />
The fighting is cool, lots of evocative imagery, etc. It's a good looking film, which to some extent, isn't surprising, since it's brought to us by the Wachowski Brothers, most famous for the Matrix trilogy.<br />
<br />
They've always been solid on the technical/directorial level, less so on the story level, so it's good that they're working with some top-notch (so I've been told) source material.<br />
<br />
That brings me to the second level I referred to above. The film is "pretty good" on the story level, but I felt as though what I liked was the original material shining through a dirty lens. You can still see the broad strokes of what was there, but the texture is blurred a little bit, the motives become a little less nuanced, the ambiguity a little more black-and-white.<br />
<br />
I could go into some specifics on that, but I won't. Instead, I'll refer you to <a href="http://cija.livejournal.com/72465.html">this excellent discussion</a> of the film/book. Warning: Complete spoilers (Thanks to <a href="http://matociquala.livejournal.com">Elizabeth Bear</a> for pointing the way.) Basically, it seems to me that the film is all about ends versus means. The character of V could be a fearless revolutionary, or a warped, psychotic terrorist, depending on your point of view, and the story really made me think about a lot of things related to that. At what point do you draw the line between "La Resistance" and "Terrorists"? At what point does "security" become "oppression"? At what point does "tough love" become "sadism"? (By the way, for an amusing take on the Star Wars Universe, check out <a href="http://www.podiobooks.com/podiobooks/book.php?ID=51">"A Different Point of View"</a> over at <a href="http://www.podiobooks.com">Podiobooks.com</a>. After subscribing to <a href="http://www.podiobooks.com/podiobooks/book.php?ID=59">Nina Kimberly the Merciless</a>, of course.)<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed being provoked to think about all those things, but again, I felt like it was the source material doing the provoking, whereas the film seems a little more inclined to go ahead and choose an answer. Still, I have to give the film credit that the message was not totally obscured, because all those questions did still come through. A dirty lens is a hell of a lot better than nothing, but I think I'm going to go ahead and check out the original graphic novel too.<br />
]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1128902836.shtml">
<title>One tiny step at a time: Stop-Motion Animation Double Feature</title>
<link>http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1128902836.shtml</link>
<description>Movie Reviews: Corpse Bride, and Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit...</description>
<dc:creator>Christiana</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2005-10-10T00:10+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<B>Movie Reviews: <I>Corpse Bride</I>, and <I>Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit</I></B><br />
<br />
I don't know if you are an animation lover like I am, but there's something charming about stop-motion animation. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but the sometimes jerky, hand-posed movements of stop-motion characters just has a different <I>feel</I> to it, just as different as hand-drawn versus computer-animated. That is not to say that any one of these three styles is superior to any of the others, but all of them, when created by expert animators can provide their own special nuances.<br />
<br />
Stop-motion, simply by the virtue of its extreme difficulty, is a little less common these days, so having two of them in theaters at the same time is such a treat that I decided to take them in as a double-feature. (Another fun bit of trivia; <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000307/">Helena Bonham-Carter</a> is featured in both films, as the titular Corpse Bride, and as Lady Tottington, in Wallace and Gromit.)<br />
<br />
First up: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121164/">Corpse Bride</a><br />
<br />
<img src="/files/christianastuff-corpsebride.jpg" width="90" height="140"  alt=""><br />
<br />
<div class="trigger" id="sheelzjup7.d3">(<a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('heelzjup7.d3').style.display = 'block'; document.getElementById('sheelzjup7.d3').style.display = 'none'; return false;">Click here for the review...</a>)</div><br />
<div class="hidden" style="display: none;" id="heelzjup7.d3"><br />
The first thing many people will want to know is how it compares to <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000318/">Tim Burton</a>'s last stop-motion effort, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107688/">The Nightmare Before Christmas</a>. (Though it should be noted that Tim Burton <I>wrote</I> that one and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0783139/">Henry Selick</a> directed it.)<br />
<br />
Well, before I get into the comparisons, I should go on the record as saying that, while I remember Nightmare fondly, I think I like the <I>idea</I> of it better than the film itself. It's beautiful visually, and it has some wonderful characters and such, but I find that I enjoy thinking about it more than actually <I>watching</I> it.<br />
<br />
So given that, I'll say that I like Corpse Bride better. The animation strikes me as a touch smoother, which is probably due to advances in subtle CGI enhancements, but possibly also just due to additional experience. But the real reason for my preference is due to the story.<br />
<br />
Nightmare has perhaps a more <I>inventive</I> story, but Corpse Bride is subtler, deeper. In fact, it's actually pretty mature and sophisticated. A lot of quality children's films offer just as much to the adult as to the child, but I would venture to say that Corpse Bride is not really a children's film at all. Sure, it has stuff for kids to enjoy, but the real story will be completely over their heads.<br />
<br />
One of the themes explored by the film is how sometimes good people can end up with conflicting responsibilities. In Corpse Bride, through no real fault of his own, Victor (a subdued, but not overly so, Johnny Depp) finds himself torn between two women, both sympathetic, both in love with him. He never wanted to hurt anybody, but no matter what he does,  one of them will be heartbroken. The last animated film I can remember exploring this idea is <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120363/">Toy Story 2</a>, with Woody's dilemma in choosing between Andy and his old friends or the Roundup Gang.<br />
<br />
All of us, or perhaps I should say "each" of us, are just one person, and we can't do everything. So often we think of life's choices as the "right" choice and the "wrong" choice. But what about being forced to choose between two good choices or two bad choices? Both of the women in Victor's life are good souls and both are worthy of love, but he can only please one of them. When was the last time you saw a story like that in a children's movie?<br />
<br />
Though the writer in me wanted to tweak the ending just a little bit, I really enjoyed the story and the characters and found the entire film to be a charming, satisfying experience.<br />
<div class="trigger">(<a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('sheelzjup7.d3').style.display = 'block';document.getElementById('heelzjup7.d3').style.display = 'none'; return false;">hide</a>)</div></div><br />
<br />
Next up: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312004/">Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit</a><br />
<img src="/files/christianastuff-wererabbit.jpg" width="97" height="140"  alt=""><br />
<br />
<div class="trigger" id="sheelzj248.86">(<a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('heelzj248.86').style.display = 'block'; document.getElementById('sheelzj248.86').style.display = 'none'; return false;">Click here for the review...</a>)</div><br />
<div class="hidden" style="display: none;" id="heelzj248.86"><br />
If, like me, you consider yourself an animation lover and you aren't already a fan of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/Name?Park,+Nick">Nick Park</a>'s Wallace and Gromit, then you really owe it to yourself to give them a look. I'll bet you will love them.<br />
<br />
Wallace is an inventor, a little bit oblivious perhaps, but very good natured and extremely fond of cheese. Gromit is his dog, who can't talk, but speaks volumes with his face and body-language. They've already starred in three short films, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104361/">A Grand Day Out</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108598/">The Wrong Trousers</a>, and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112691/">A Close Shave</a>, and you know what? Two of them won the Oscar for Best Animated Short. You know what else? The only one of the three that didn't win the Oscar lost it to <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099317/">Creature Comforts</a>, another short by Nick Park.<br />
<br />
Nick Park is also the man responsible for <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120630/">Chicken Run</a>, another wonderful film.<br />
<br />
Okay, okay, so Nick Park is a talented guy. Is his newest film any good?<br />
<br />
Yes. Yes it is. Very much so.<br />
<br />
Much of the humor is very British, so your feelings about that will have some impact on how funny you find it, but even if you aren't laughing out loud, the extremely lovable characters will bring a smile to your face and the surprisingly elaborate action sequences will get your heart pounding. The relationship between these two friends is such a joy to watch that I frankly can't imagine anyone who wouldn't like this movie. Of course, some will enjoy it more than others, but not liking Wallace and Gromit is like not liking ice cream.<br />
<br />
Go see it.<br />
<div class="trigger">(<a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('sheelzj248.86').style.display = 'block';document.getElementById('heelzj248.86').style.display = 'none'; return false;">hide</a>)</div></div><br />
<br />
.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1128898560.shtml">
<title>Movie Review: A History of Violence</title>
<link>http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1128898560.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Christiana</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2005-10-09T22:10+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
<img src="/files/christianastuff-historyofviolence.jpg" width="95" height="140"  alt=""><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399146/">A History of Violence</a> is the latest from <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000343/">David Cronenberg</a>, who is probably best known for his gross-out sci-fi horror flicks like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091064/">The Fly</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085407/">The Dead Zone</a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081455/">Scanners</a>. (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120907/">eXistenZ</a> is also very good.)<br />
<br />
A History of Violence is a bit of a departure for him, in that it doesn't include any kind of fantastic or science-fiction elements. (His last film, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278731/">Spider</a>, didn't really either, but that involved a man with very little mental stability, thus allowing for plenty-o-weirdness.)<br />
<br />
This time around, he's laid out a pretty mainstream story, which is not to say boring. For starters, it's got <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001557/">Viggo Mortensen</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000438/">Ed Harris</a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000458/">William Hurt</a> in it.<br />
<br />
If that weren't enough already (it was for me), it's got a complex, sophisticated story about how violence, even when justified, has a way of propogating itself, turning a completely defensible act into a ever-worsening chain, where   the lines between good and evil start to blur.<br />
<br />
Viggo plays Tom Stall, family man and the owner of a small-town diner. When a pair of murderous robbers invade his diner one night, Tom has very little choice. Unless he does something, the robbers <I>will</I> kill everyone. So he does something. <br />
<br />
Only thing is, he does it a little too well.<br />
<br />
Next thing he knows, he is labeled a hero and his face is all over the television, attracting the attention of Carl Fogarty (Harris), a gangster from Philadelphia who is convinced that Tom isn't who he claims to be.<br />
<br />
Things get progressively worse for Tom and his family, and I won't reveal any more about the plot, except to say that it really treats the situation in a fascinating way, revealing how sometimes even doing the "right thing" can lead you down the wrong path, and how violence, no matter how justified has consequences that are not easily forgotten.<br />
<br />
In addition to the interesting script and story, there are some truly fantastic performances from the entire cast, but especially from Mortensen, Harris, and Hurt. Hurt doesn't show up until late in the film, but I hereby nominate him for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar anyway. He takes what could have been a stock character and adds enough quirkiness and complexity to make him instantly memorable.<br />
<br />
A warning: this film doesn't contain the same level of gore and such that some of Cronenberg's films do, but if you've never seen one of his films before, you might not be expecting some of the effects here. When people are brutally killed, they don't die with neat little holes in their chests that trickle a pretty little stream of blood. The violence in this film reflects that.<br />
<br />
Still, if you've got the stomach for it, I definitely recommend this film as a dark, psychological thriller with serious meditations on the nature of violence and its consequences.<br />
<br />
.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1128186627.shtml">
<title>Movie Review: Serenity</title>
<link>http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1128186627.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Christiana</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2005-10-01T17:10+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<img src="/files/christianastuff-serenity.jpg" width="95" height="140"  alt=""><br />
<br />
I can't review <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/">Serenity</a> like a normal movie.<br />
<br />
You see, I'm a <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303461/">Firefly</a> fan. Whether you are a fan already or not will affect how you approach this movie.<br />
<br />
If you're not a fan already, you'll likely be looking at this film with a little curiosity. You've heard how some people talk about Firefly, though, so you wonder if maybe the film might be worth seeing.<br />
<br />
Well, I'm sufficiently emotionally involved that I don't know if I can really make an objective judgement of whether you will like it or not. I think you will, but I'm biased.<br />
<br />
If you are a fan and you haven't already seen it, it's probably only because something actually stopped you from going last night when it opened. So I probably don't have to <I>convince</I> you to see it.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, nothing stopped me, I saw it, and wow.<br />
<br />
It wasn't really what I expected.<br />
<br />
Of course, in retrospect, I'm not sure why I wasn't expecting it. Firefly has always had a funny side and a serious side. The threads left hanging from the cruel mid-season cancelling of the show were all on the serious side. <br />
<br />
Then, they make a big feature film of it, so why should I have been surprised that the plot would focus primarily on the serious side? *shrug* I dunno, but I was.<br />
<br />
Don't worry, there's still a lot of humor. I laughed out loud a lot. But the <I>plot</I> is not some funny heist-episode. Big stuff happens. I won't say any more than that, but if you spoil yourself with this film you are doing yourself a real disservice.<br />
<br />
Speaking as a fan, the film is really good. <I>Really</I> good. In truth, I can't remember the last time I was as viscerally excited and moved by a film. Not to say it's the best film EVER, just one that grabbed and shook me harder than any other film in recent memory. It's also a lot of fun, and leaves you with a smile on your face.<br />
<br />
This is probably an odd-sounding review to a non-fan. But what can I say? I'm a fan. Maybe if you go to see it, or check out the series on DVD, (preferably both), then you'll become a fan too. Then you'll understand.<br />
<br />
.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1127585406.shtml">
<title>Scary Things at 30,000 Feet: Airplane Thriller Double-Feature</title>
<link>http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1127585406.shtml</link>
<description>Movie Reviews: Red Eye and Flightplan...</description>
<dc:creator>Christiana</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2005-09-24T18:09+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Movie Reviews: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421239/">Red Eye</a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408790/">Flightplan</a><br />
<br />
What makes a good thriller?<br />
<br />
A good thriller, as opposed to a <I>horror</I> movie, is designed like, as cliche as it is to say so, a roller-coaster ride. They are, well, "thrilling" for the time that you are watching and then they are done. If they are done well, they don't leave you feeling insulted and manipulated.<br />
<br />
Thrillers generally don't try to say anything important about humanity or to change the world. They are just here to entertain you with vicarious excitement where likeable characters triumph over nastiness. <br />
<br />
A good thriller is the equivalent of a fast food cheeseburger. Sure, they aren't very nutritious, but sometimes, when you get that craving, nothing else will do and they can be extrordinarily satisfying.<br />
<br />
First up, (because that's the order I saw them in,) <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421239/">Red Eye</a><br />
<br />
<img src="/files/christianastuff-redeye.jpg" width="94" height="140"  alt=""><br />
<br />
<div class="trigger" id="shee0631n4.78">(<a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('hee0631n4.78').style.display = 'block'; document.getElementById('shee0631n4.78').style.display = 'none'; return false;">Click here to read the review...</a>)</div><br />
<div class="hidden" style="display: none;" id="hee0631n4.78"><br />
In a word, fantastic!<br />
<br />
Top-notch, four-star thriller.<br />
<br />
It does exactly what I described above. Sure, there are a few things that don't make perfect sense, but they don't reach that point of being insulting and the movie carries you along so effectively that you don't notice any problems at all and you are just thoroughly entertained for the entire running time.<br />
<br />
If you aren't already familiar with the premise, you should just stop reading now and go see the movie. I'm not going to give any spoilers that aren't available in the trailer, but frankly, if you haven't seen the trailer, don't watch it, don't read the rest of this review, just go see it.<br />
<br />
One of the downsides of trailers and screenings and such is that in can undercut the effectiveness of some story-telling techniques. Ultimately, the trailer doesn't "give everything  away" because the story doesn't depend on secrecy, but the build in the early scenes of the movie is so effective and I can only imagine how cool it would have been to go in without knowing the broad strokes of what was going to happen.<br />
<br />
So I'm going to now proceed with the review as though everyone has at least seen the trailer. As I mentioned before, the initial build is extremely effective. We begin with Lisa, who works as a hotel manager at a luxury resort. She's played by <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1046097/">Rachel McAdams</a>, who I'm told is very good in Wedding Crashers, but I have not seen before. Simply put, she's very good. Anyway, Lisa is young for such an important position, but she's got a cool head, and we see her handling problems with a cool head and obvious competance. (This section also introduces a secondary character who pops up from time to time to offer the critical, but often overlooked, comic relief.)<br />
<br />
I just deleted a very long description of what happens in the opening scenes. I had wanted to describe what made the build so effective, but I don't want to just tell you what happens when you could just go see the movie and find out for yourself. The one-sentence version is that the way <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0614165/">Cillian Murphy</a>'s character goes from charming, attractive and self-deprecating to cold, sinister and threatening is very very good. You might remember him as the Scarecrow from <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/">Batman Begins</a>, and he demonstrates a very wide range in this film. He's got a future ahead of him too.<br />
<br />
So, I'll avoid really spending any more time just telling you what happens. Suffice it to say that the movie functions exactly as a thriller should, delivering suspense, scares and some very satisfying excitement.<br />
<br />
One of the things that I really liked about it is that, even if you could potentially find some fault with the plot itself, the way the main character responds is fantastic. She's not a superhero, she's just a normal person, and yet, she's a <I>smart</I> normal person. She does all the right things and she tries everything. So often in these movies you want to yell at the protagonist for being so stupid. In this one, just before you're about to yell at her to do something, she actually <I>does</I> it!<br />
<br />
So I won't say any more about it except that it's very good and I recommend it highly.<br />
<div class="trigger">(<a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('shee0631n4.78').style.display = 'block';document.getElementById('hee0631n4.78').style.display = 'none'; return false;">hide</a>)</div></div><br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
Next, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408790/">Flightplan</a>.<br />
<br />
<img src="/files/christianastuff-flightplan.jpg" width="94" height="140"  alt=""><br />
<br />
<div class="trigger" id="shee0783xl.f5">(<a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('hee0783xl.f5').style.display = 'block'; document.getElementById('shee0783xl.f5').style.display = 'none'; return false;">Click here to read the review...</a>)</div><br />
<div class="hidden" style="display: none;" id="hee0783xl.f5"><br />
Flightplan, I'm sorry to say, is just average. Or rather, it averages out to be average.<br />
<br />
Jodie Foster is a mother who is on a long international flight with her daughter. She takes a nap on the plane, but when she wakes up her daugher is missing. But how could she disappear on a plane? And why doesn't anyone else remember her even getting on board in the first place?<br />
<br />
The reviews I'd read seemed to suggest that the movie is polarizing. Some reviews calling it "ingenious and airtight" another calling it "diabolically retarded". So I was actually rather surprised to find myself almost exactly in the middle. It's an extremely well-made and well-acted movie with a pretty crappy script.<br />
<br />
Now, I was predisposed to like this movie. I really like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000149/">Jodie Foster</a>, and even though I knew that the movie would have a big "TWIST"TM, that would likely be less than entirely plausible, I figured that I was prepared to suspend a great deal of disbelief if the rest of the movie made it worth my time.<br />
<br />
I was almost completely right, except that the rest of the movie wasn't quite good enough to support the ridiculously implausible script. I really wanted it to be, but it just wasn't. The problem essentially, without going into spoilerish detail, is that when the mystery is "answered" the answer basically spits in the figurative face of Occam's Razor. What happens is so overly complicated that you really wonder why anyone would bother when they could surely accomplish the same objectives in a much simpler way and without relying so much on coincidence.<br />
<br />
Another part of the problem I think is that they don't have sufficient grounding in reality. We can buy extraordinary weird and implausible things much easier if the rest of the story is convincing enough. But the problem here is that Jodie Foster isn't just a normal woman. She <I>designs</I> planes, including the one it takes place on. It isn't just a normal plane, it's some super-duper double-decker plane with spiral staircases and a lounge. There just isn't enough connection to normality for us to buy the extraordinary.<br />
<br />
But the acting is good, very good even, and the movie actually moves along pretty nicely up until the twist. But that's not enough, because a build-up like this can't support itself without the pay-off. It's like building a lean-to. You can make it water-tight and wind resistant and insultated and perfect, but without something to lean it on, it'll just lie there on the ground.<br />
<br />
The premise and content of this movie certainly bring to mind two other films: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356618/">The Forgotten</a>, and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258000/">Panic Room</a>. In many ways, this allows a helpful comparison.<br />
<br />
It's better than The Forgotten, but not as good as Panic Room.<br />
<div class="trigger">(<a href="#" onClick="document.getElementById('shee0783xl.f5').style.display = 'block';document.getElementById('hee0783xl.f5').style.display = 'none'; return false;">hide</a>)</div></div><br />
<br />
.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1126984952.shtml">
<title>Movie Review: Transporter 2</title>
<link>http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1126984952.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Christiana</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2005-09-17T19:09+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
<img src="/files/christianastuff-transporter2.jpg" width="93" height="140"  alt=""><br />
<br />
The truth is, I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time describing <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388482/">Transporter 2</a>.<br />
<br />
That's not a bad thing. It's just that this is a very specific type of movie with very specific objectives, and the only real question to be answered is: How successfully does it achieve those objectives?<br />
<br />
<B>Action Movie (aka "Car-chase movies", "heh heh... explosions") Objectives.</B><br />
<br />
<I>1. Have an appealing and convincingly awesome hero.</I><br />
<br />
Check. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005458/">Jason Statham</a> reprises his role from the first movie, and he's still all-business. He doesn't say much, but whatever he says, you can tell he means it. Plus he beats people up a lot and his stuntman is really skilled.<br />
<br />
<I>2. Have an interesting locale and set-pieces.</I><br />
<br />
Check. The movie makes excellent use of its Miami setting and features sequences involving such diverse elements as intercoastal highways, shipping yards, brightly colored apartment buildings, and even a commuter jet.<br />
<br />
And most importantly...<br />
<br />
<I>3. Have exciting action sequences.</I><br />
<br />
Check. The action in this film is a lot more James Bondian than the first film, with some glorious stunts and action that you don't believe for a second, and yet are paced and directed so effectively that you only have time to have fun gaping at the supreme audaciousness. (I will refrain from actually mentioning any of them to avoid spoiling your pleasant surprise, but trust me that they are supremely silly in a very enjoyable way.)<br />
<br />
All right, so Transporter 2 succeeds on all three levels, so that translates as a thumb's up for me.<br />
<br />
The film isn't perfect. In particular, neither villain really gets a satisfactory dispatching. Also, a lot of the plot is brushed by with nary an attempt to make any of it logical. To say that the details involve a lot of hand-waving is a dramatic understatement. I think you'd need spotlight-waving to distract from the gaps in both the logic and physics of what we see.<br />
<br />
Still, despite not being the best action flick ever, it remains nonetheless a pretty good one. Plausible? Not remotely. But a lot of fun just the same.<br />
<br />
. ]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1126566922.shtml">
<title>Movie Review: The Bad News Bears (2005 version)</title>
<link>http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1126566922.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Christiana</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2005-09-12T23:09+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
<img src="/files/christianastuff-badnewsbears.jpg" width="94" height="140"  alt=""><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408524/">The Bad News Bears</a><br />
<br />
I remember the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074174/">original version</a> of this film fondly, but I haven’t seen it in probably fifteen years. So I’m not really going to make much of an attempt to compare the two. My general impression is that it’s a pretty faithful remake of the same film, not really covering much new ground, but simply updating the story to modern-day, and turning up the “inappropriate conduct by children” knob a few notches, to keep pace with today’s culture. After all, a ten-year-old saying “hell” just isn’t as shocking these days. <br />
<br />
Anyway, how is the film? Pretty good, but what struck me more than anything was a surprising amount of moral complexity. Sure <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000671/">Billy Bob Thornton</a> is funny and watching him pour out a non-alcoholic beer so that he can refill the can with whisky is pretty entertaining. Sure the kids are cute and funny, even when they’re fighting. And sure, the classic formula of the sports movie is just as effective today as when the original was around. (Though of course, both versions subvert the formula in a fairly dramatic way that ventures into spoiler territory that I won’t go into here in case you had a deprived childhood.)<br />
<br />
So the movie works just fine on that level, and why shouldn't it? It was directed by <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000500/">Richard Linklater</a>, a fantastic filmmaker who has made many great films, most recently, the wonderful <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332379/">School of Rock</a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/">Before Sunset</a>. Though this film isn't quite as good as either of those, you can still tell that he didn't phone it in. Just take a look at the way he takes what could have been a black-and-white, paint-by-numbers sports comedy, and made it into something that actually makes you think.<br />
<br />
For example, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001427/">Greg Kinnear</a>'s fantastic turn as Ray, the snobby, arrogant jerk of an opposing coach. He's the sort of guy that makes you want to just punch him in the face, even when, technically, he hasn't actually done anything to you.<br />
<br />
He's the one that teaches his team that winning is the only thing while at the same time coating his words with a saccharine layer of political correctness. He's the one that suggests the Bears resign from the league after their first game "so that they don't keep embarrassing themselves like this." He's the one that keeps flattering Buttermaker (Thornton) and saying how much he respects the time Buttermaker spent in the major leagues. He does this up until Buttermaker sees through his BS and tells him where he can go. At which point Buttermaker becomes a "drunk, washed-up never-was."<br />
<br />
So, an unredeemable jerk, right? He even proves it by yelling so aggressively at his own son on the pitcher's mound that his son actually falls over backwards in fear. <br />
<br />
A total monster, right?<br />
<br />
But wait, why was he so angry? Because his son, after being told to walk a batter, beaned him instead. Ray is furious. "You <I>never</I> throw at the batter! You could have hurt him!"<br />
<br />
So yes, he's a jerk, and yes he's an overcompetitive asshole, but he doesn't play dirty, and though it's certainly not high on his list of priorities, he actually <I>does</I> care about the kids on <I>both</I> teams.<br />
<br />
Even more striking is the moral grey areas that Buttermaker goes through. At first, the Bears are so bad that the only reasonable goal is simple improvement. At that stage, it's pretty easy to say "Win or lose, just do your best." But when they improve so much that the championship, and Ray's big trophy starts looking like a real possibility, suddenly, it's important that you beat him. He's such a jerk, you want to rub it in his face. You want to prove that his way of coaching isn't the only way to win. But soon, beating him becomes so important that you're screaming at a ten-year-old for dropping a pop-fly, or telling an eleven-year-old to "take one for the team." <br />
<br />
In Buttermaker's zeal to triumph over Ray's arrogance and ruthless attitude, he starts acting just like him. Suddenly, the whole idea of what lessons these kids are supposed to be learning is called into question. What should these kids be taking away from their time in little league? Should it be that the the less-talented players should just keep their heads down, staying out of the way for the good of the team? Should it be that everyone should get to play even if it means the whole team loses?<br />
<br />
Teaching ambition, teamwork and healthy competitive spirit is important, but how far can you take it without forgetting that these are <I>kids</I> playing a <I>game?</I><br />
<br />
(I want to take a moment here to quote a great line that doesn't directly relate to the above, but addresses a similar parantal quandary. Buttermaker suggests to one mother that, what with all the classes and activities her son is in, she doesn't ever actually spend any time with him, and doesn't really know him. "Are you telling me how to raise my kid?" she asks. "No," he replies. "But somebody should.")<br />
<br />
I don't mean to be falling down solidly on either side of the issues I mentioned above. I only wanted to demonstrate the sorts of issues that this movie addresses. For a paint-by-numbers sports comedy, that's surprisingly sophisticated. <br />
<br />
.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1126564900.shtml">
<title>Movie Review: The 40 Year Old Virgin</title>
<link>http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1126564900.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Christiana</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2005-09-12T22:09+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
<img src="/files/christianastuff-40yovirgin.jpg" width="95" height="140"  alt=""><br />
<br />
As far as raunchy sex comedies go, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405422/">The 40 Year Old Virgin</a> was truly a breath of fresh air. So many of the films in this genre come across as mean-spirited, frequently misogynistic and homophobic, basically nothing more than puerile attempts at making horny teenagers snicker.<br />
<br />
Which is not to say that they can’t be a lot of fun anyway. I think there’s a little horny teenager in all of us, so sometimes those movies can be an entertaining way to spend a couple of hours.<br />
<br />
Still, when I see a movie like this one, it just makes me realize how much better the others could be. The 40-Year-Old Virgin may not be the <I>funniest</I> raunchy sex comedy I’ve ever seen, though it might just be the <I>best.</I> How hard you laugh is not the only criteria with which we can judge the quality of a film, and this one delivers compelling sympathetic characters, an interesting, identifiable story, and a satisfying climax. <br />
<br />
Oh, and it’s funny too, of course. I had a lot of fun with this one, but what I liked about it more than anything was that they weren’t laughs that made me feel guilty afterward. Steve Carrell’s character in this movie isn’t made out to be a complete freak who should be ridiculed. He’s a nice guy, a little awkward, a little shy, who, after a few bad experiences, simply stopped trying. Now, it’s still funny, but in a lesser film, he would have been, well, Napoleon Dynamite + 25 years. A hopeless nerd who pretty much brings it all on himself through his own actions.<br />
<br />
In this film, he’s not a freak. He’s a guy with a problem. Furthermore, his more “experienced” friends who make it their mission in life to end his virgin-status, are demonstrated to be just as, if not <I>more</I>, screwed up as he is. <br />
<br />
Gosh, I’m making this sound like a heartwarming touchy-feely thing, which it is, I guess, but that’s not to say it’s short of laughs. I guess I’m just emphasizing the heartwarming part because it’s so unusual. That’s what makes this movie stand out. <br />
<br />
Raunchy sex comedies are a dime-a-dozen, mostly all just tired variations on the same theme. They can be entertaining just the same, but aside from laughing at the jokes, I bet you won’t still be thinking about the characters when the movie’s over.  I bet you won’t feel like you actually learned something about the human condition. <br />
<br />
Society sometimes makes it seem shameful to be inexperienced, but the other side of the “experience” coin is “baggage.”  What a delight to find a film that can take an honest look at that and still manage to be funny at the same time.<br />
<br />
.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1126564557.shtml">
<title>Movie Review: March of the Penguins</title>
<link>http://christianastuff.powerblogs.com/posts/1126564557.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Christiana</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2005-09-12T22:09+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
<img src="/files/christianastuff-penguin.jpg" width="95" height="140"  alt=""><br />
So why should you see <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0428803/">March of the Penguins</a>? Well, for starters, to see all the cute penguins. Also you can… um, well, because of the…<br />
<br />
Okay, pretty much the only reason to see it is to see all the cute penguins. <br />
<br />
Want to see some cute penguins? Then go see March of the Penguins. It delivers.<br />
<br />
That’s not to say it’s 100% cute. Penguins live in just about the most inhospitable environment on earth, and that they survive there is like the anecdote about the talking dog. It’s not that it speaks <I>well,</I> it’s just amazing that it speaks at all.<br />
<br />
I mean, holy $#!T! These penguins are freaking crazy! Sure, they manage to survive well enough to maintain their population down there in Antarctica, but surely there’s an easier place to raise a chick. Basically the parents take turns starving for weeks at a time in order to shuttle food back and forth from the ocean to the only place where the ice is thick enough for the eggs to not fall through. <br />
<br />
So it’s important to be aware before taking really little kids that some of the penguins die. Including some of the uber-cute babies. I don’t think that’s a reason not to take kids to see it, but it would be better to know its coming and not be taken off-guard. <br />
<br />
So that aside noted, boy are there ever some cute penguins in this movie! The penguin is one of nature’s inherently silly-looking creatures. Think of it, thousands of them waddling across the ice in long single-file lines, occasionally flopping over onto their bellies and scooting along by pushing with their toes. Tiny bright-eyed baby penguins sitting on top of their daddy’s feet to stay off the ice and protected from the wind by the soft folds of their dad’s feathery belly. Occasionally sticking their head out to peep for food. How could you <I>not</I> want to see this movie?<br />
<br />
I should also mention that the film has some great, if extremely anthropomorphizing, voice-over narration from Morgan Freeman, explaining some of the more bizarre things we see the penguins doing on screen. It also features some truly breathtaking landscapes, (icescapes?) and scenery.<br />
<br />
On the whole, it doesn’t really advance the human condition, but it’s a fun, sweet documentary and a must for anyone who likes animals.<br />
<br />
Did I mention the cute penguins?<br />
<br />
.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>