Over the holidays I have had the time to take in a few movies either at the theater or on DVD. My review system goes from zero to four stars (*=poor, **=fair, ***=good, ****=excellent):
The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou (**1/2)--T.L.A.W.S.Z is Wes Anderson's latest movie and stars Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Cate Blanchett, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum and Angelica Huston, with Murray and Blanchett giving the most memorable performances. The film centers around Steve Zissou (Murray), a Jaques Cousteau type who is undergoing a midlife crisis caused by the death of his best friend and confidant Esteban, a diminishing career, marital problems with his wife (Huston) and trying to be a father to a man who might be his son (Wilson). The film is a bit more melancholy than most Anderson undertakings, and attempts to provide a character study of Murray's unhappy Zissou while integrating Anderson's quirky comedy. However, Anderson's script fails to completely pull of its goals. The comedy is sporadic, though it does pick up during the last hour of the movie. I especially enjoyed a scene where Murray follows Owen Wilson throughout his boat, barking irritated commands to everyone he comes in contact with. The character study of Zissou is more skillfully executed than the comedy, but both aspects of the film tend to undercut each other, perhaps because the moments we learn about Zissou's inner character tend not to be that funny, while the funnier moments in the movie are irrelevant to the character study (The Royal Tennenbaums did a better job of integrating these moments while developing the title character's failings). If you are a Wes Anderson fan, be aware that this is a weaker effort than Rushmore or The Royal Tennenbaums, but you should still see the film. If you haven't seen an Anderson movie, watch one of his other efforts I listed above and wait till video to see this one. My verdict is that this is an above average film that looks good on the big screen, but fails to fully entertain.
National Treasure (**1/2)--The latest offering from Jerry Bruckheimer is an Indiana Jones type adventure where the heroes try to discover an ancient treasure hidden by America's founding fathers using Masonic clues left on the Declaration of Independence, the dollar bill, various historic landmarks and more. Our chief adventurer is Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nic Cage), who is carrying on the Gates family tradition of searching after the treasure. Gates is joined by his nerdy sidekick Riley and Abagail Chase, (Diane Kruger who is 25 and good looking and preposterously in charge of the national archives; perhaps the most laughable casting since Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies). He is opposed by a master criminal (Sean Bean) who is trying to steal the treasure for himself. National Treasure takes a while to get going, but once it cranks up it rolls along as a fun little adventure that the whole family can enjoy. The clues are reasonably clever and it is interesting to discover where they will lead next. If you are looking for a decent popcorn movie, you could do worse. This film also rates as above average and probably merits a matinee or dollar movie viewing.
Ocean's Twelve (*1/2)--The slogan for Ocean's Twelve is "Twelve is the new eleven", and like the slogan, the movie ends up being a miscalculation. The same cast of characters from Ocean's Eleven is back, plus Catherine Zeta-Jones. The movie fails on a number of levels. Unlike O11, which focused on each of the character for a period of time, this movie centers only on the big stars: George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts and Zeta-Jones. The result is that the film lacks the camaraderie between characters that the first movie enjoyed. Additionally, the twists in the movie do not satisfy. Julia Roberts' expanded role was unwelcome, and the trick ending is a disappointing letdown. There isn't much to recommend Ocean's 12, as it isn't as funny or clever as the original. It is a below average movie that only merits a viewing if you have nothing better to see or do.
Lemony Snicket's: A Series of Unfortunate Events (**)--Lemony Snicket's ASUE is what no children's movie should be: drab and dull. The story centers around the three recently orphaned Bauedelaire children and their evil count Olaf who is trying to murder them and steal their inheritance. The children use their inventiveness, intelligence, and a toddler's ability to bite things to escape their nemesis. The movie's star is Jim Carrey (Olaf and other characters in disguise) who gives a humorous performance and does a solid job as the villain. The problem with the film is that it has elements of an adventure movie for 8-year olds and a dark comedy, two elements I have only seen successfully integrated in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (there may be other examples). Thus you have a movie that features both a cute toddler running about helping to solve problems and man-eating leaches that kill the kids' aunt. The movie is too disturbing for small children, and the children's solutions to their predicaments are not clever enough to entertain teens and adults. The movie is mildly entertaining thanks to Jim Carrey, but is average at best and best viewed by an 8-year old on summer break with nothing better to do, or perhaps fans of the books.
The Incredibles (****)--The Incredibles is the best movie that I have seen in 2004, and this comes from a person who enjoys Pixar films but does not consider them the be-all, end-all of animation. Director Brad Bird had better get some awards for this one. The film follows the lives of the Incredibles, a family of one-time superheroes who have been forced into retirement in suburbia due to a public backlash against their exploits and lawsuits. The patriarch, Mr. Incredible/Bob Parr (Craig T. Nelson) works for a greedy insurance company while his wife Elastigirl/Helen (Holly Hunter) is a stay at home mom for the three children Dash, Violet, and baby Jack Jack. Mr. Incredible is having trouble adjusting to his new life and misses the excitement and adulation he enjoyed as a superhero. This inclines him to take a mysterious offer to return to his superhero days and eventually leads the whole family to come together to fight the evil Syndrome (Jason Lee), who is trying to kill all superheroes. The plot and pacing are excellent and I found myself invested in the characters' welfare and engrossed with seeing if they would succed and what would happen next. When was the last time you saw an animated family film with dramatic tension? The film is funny and extols personal and family virtues, sacrifice for others, and personal achievement tempered with humility. The look and sound of the film is also great, as it is wonderfully animated with bright colors and has a wonderful sound track reminiscent of 60's superhero and spy movies. Best of all, The Incredibles is a movie that is both for adults and kids and accomplishes this with a well-crafted storyline and humor suited for all ages (unlike the Shrek series which uses adult sexual entendres and pop-humor sure to grow stale faster than a saltine left on your counter). The Incredibles achieves pure excellence. Go see it in the theater and be sure to buy the DVD when it comes out.
12/29/2004
9/28/2004
Thoughts on the Process of Knowing
The following is a meditation that I typed out to a question a friend asked my about how I know things. In other words, the question is about epistemology--the study of how we know things. Here is my response as I tried to look at my own experience and give a true accounting of it...
I am not a linguist and my comments will have very little to do with linguistics. Defining words properly is important in knowing, probably because it gets to the point of whether we can communicate properly. I am inclined to guess that concepts are defined within community, which indicates that they would be relatable as common experience. Additionally, I hold that many experiences are sufficiently similar to be universally understood, or at least widely understood across different times and places. Maybe this is one reason God established the knowledge of him through the communities of Israel and the church. And we all have logic, which can enable us to explain concepts. I am sure others could educate me on this far more than vice versa.
Reason, emotion, memory, logic, inspiration, imagination, revelation, repeated experience and conscience seem to be the tools I (and everyone else who is functioning properly) have been equipped with. I see in myself that these tools are used to establish core principles of thought and belief. These are often taken for granted. I assume my sense experience provides me with accurate data and my reasoning generally functions properly. Both are necessary to think, and must be accepted since you can't prove your reasoning is invalid because you would have to use your reason to do it, which then makes your proof self-defeating. You either take on faith or as a given that our faculties work or they don't, and one allows you to think and be human, while the other is unliveable. It appears that I have been designed to be a machine that can discover truth.
Having taken myself for granted, it appears that I have developed core principles through which I frame my experience. The core principles are developed using all the tools of my mental toolbox, as is the knowledge that I acquire over time. The fact that knowledge is filtered through our core principles does not mean that it is relative, with regard to truth. Almost nothing that we know can be segregated as being sui generis compared with our knowledge of other things. My core principles were developed by my family, my education, my spiritual upbringing, people I interacted with, and logic. Often they appear to be accepted as true on the basis that I trust the authority of my teacher(s). Then, as I mature and grow older I use my toolbox of faculties and experiences to test these lessons and refine them (if necessary). The use of my faculties appears to be a personally driven part of this process, while my experiences act on my from outside, often without my direction. My core principles are a result of a dynamic relationship between me and the outside world, with logic and my necessary assumptions providing the necessary boundaries for my knowing things and the ongoing process of discovery.
Inspiration and revelation appear to have a big part in my knowing something. I cannot tell you how many times I am hearing to someone talk and a thought pops into my mind that addresses the issue. I think most scientists and artists know better than I what I am describing. You are sitting there and working on something when a "bolt from the blue" strikes. Generally, this inspiration is related to other thoughts and knowledge I've had before, but happens quickly and is not the result of a conscious process of thinking. This may be even more pronounced for artists.
Knowing other people appears to be predicated both on our observation and their revelation of themselves. One person can observe another, but the level of knowledge in any endeavour will be much greater if the person being observed is actively revealing themselves. Additionally, being in relation with one another is another means of knowing since we are social creatures created to be in community.
Emotion is also an aid to knowing. Do I love someone? Do I love God? Well, my thoughts, actions, and emotions all have a role to play in answering that question. Being in love strikes me as similar to knowing whether I am walking. Am I walking? Well, the answer depends on what I am doing at the moment and whether it fits the definition. Do I love someone? Well, am I acting it out? If so, then the answer is yes.
Well, to summarize, I think that I know by taking foundational first principles as a necessity. Then, my core beliefs are taught to me and developed. Then, through the sum total of my mental toolbox, logic, experiences, relationships/communal experiences, and revelation/inspiration I am able to refine my beliefs and knowledge as well as learn new knowledge and continue the process of discovery. Let's hope that made at least a little sense!
I am not a linguist and my comments will have very little to do with linguistics. Defining words properly is important in knowing, probably because it gets to the point of whether we can communicate properly. I am inclined to guess that concepts are defined within community, which indicates that they would be relatable as common experience. Additionally, I hold that many experiences are sufficiently similar to be universally understood, or at least widely understood across different times and places. Maybe this is one reason God established the knowledge of him through the communities of Israel and the church. And we all have logic, which can enable us to explain concepts. I am sure others could educate me on this far more than vice versa.
Reason, emotion, memory, logic, inspiration, imagination, revelation, repeated experience and conscience seem to be the tools I (and everyone else who is functioning properly) have been equipped with. I see in myself that these tools are used to establish core principles of thought and belief. These are often taken for granted. I assume my sense experience provides me with accurate data and my reasoning generally functions properly. Both are necessary to think, and must be accepted since you can't prove your reasoning is invalid because you would have to use your reason to do it, which then makes your proof self-defeating. You either take on faith or as a given that our faculties work or they don't, and one allows you to think and be human, while the other is unliveable. It appears that I have been designed to be a machine that can discover truth.
Having taken myself for granted, it appears that I have developed core principles through which I frame my experience. The core principles are developed using all the tools of my mental toolbox, as is the knowledge that I acquire over time. The fact that knowledge is filtered through our core principles does not mean that it is relative, with regard to truth. Almost nothing that we know can be segregated as being sui generis compared with our knowledge of other things. My core principles were developed by my family, my education, my spiritual upbringing, people I interacted with, and logic. Often they appear to be accepted as true on the basis that I trust the authority of my teacher(s). Then, as I mature and grow older I use my toolbox of faculties and experiences to test these lessons and refine them (if necessary). The use of my faculties appears to be a personally driven part of this process, while my experiences act on my from outside, often without my direction. My core principles are a result of a dynamic relationship between me and the outside world, with logic and my necessary assumptions providing the necessary boundaries for my knowing things and the ongoing process of discovery.
Inspiration and revelation appear to have a big part in my knowing something. I cannot tell you how many times I am hearing to someone talk and a thought pops into my mind that addresses the issue. I think most scientists and artists know better than I what I am describing. You are sitting there and working on something when a "bolt from the blue" strikes. Generally, this inspiration is related to other thoughts and knowledge I've had before, but happens quickly and is not the result of a conscious process of thinking. This may be even more pronounced for artists.
Knowing other people appears to be predicated both on our observation and their revelation of themselves. One person can observe another, but the level of knowledge in any endeavour will be much greater if the person being observed is actively revealing themselves. Additionally, being in relation with one another is another means of knowing since we are social creatures created to be in community.
Emotion is also an aid to knowing. Do I love someone? Do I love God? Well, my thoughts, actions, and emotions all have a role to play in answering that question. Being in love strikes me as similar to knowing whether I am walking. Am I walking? Well, the answer depends on what I am doing at the moment and whether it fits the definition. Do I love someone? Well, am I acting it out? If so, then the answer is yes.
Well, to summarize, I think that I know by taking foundational first principles as a necessity. Then, my core beliefs are taught to me and developed. Then, through the sum total of my mental toolbox, logic, experiences, relationships/communal experiences, and revelation/inspiration I am able to refine my beliefs and knowledge as well as learn new knowledge and continue the process of discovery. Let's hope that made at least a little sense!
9/26/2004
New Blog
Thanks to my friend Marie Hall, I now have my own weblog. I will post on things going on in my life from time to time and hope you find it interesting. All this, and all I really wanted to do is write JMH a comment to a message to say hello!
9/20/2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)