Live Free or Die Hard

Starring Bruce Willis, Justin Long, Timothy Olyphant, Maggie Q, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead
Directed by Len Wiseman

Summary
This installment of Die Hard revolves around cyber-terrorism, as terrorists, led by Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) initiate a "fire-sale," stripping the U.S. of all its computer-run resources. The country is thrown into chaos.
John McClane ends up involved because he is sent to pick up a hacker named Matthew Farrell (Justin Long, the Mac guy from the Mac/PC commercials) after the computers begin to malfunction. Immediately John and Matthew are catapulted into action, and the action does not let up throughout the movie as McClane once again follows his instincts and tracks down the bad guys.

Review
I am a fan of the Die Hard movies. I think all three previous installments were great. This one did not disappoint. Strangely it was PG-13 and this was mostly due to a dramatic lessening of language. The action sequences, however, lived up to the previous three. An older McClane capably continued in his heroic acts, while being understandably not as durable. Justin Long was great as the buddy and provided good comic relief. Timothy Olyphant was passable as the bad guy. He did not live up to Alan Rickman (the original Die Hard villian) or Jeremy Irons (from Die Hard with a Vengeance), but he was still freaky and effective in his own way.
While this is an action movie, and while people's lives are at stake, it still comes off as a lot of fun, and it is. McClane never takes himself too seriously as he pursues saving the country (and his daughter).

Question for Thought
When we are thrust into a position in which we can choose to be a part of solving a problem, what do we do? Both McClane and Farrell find themselves capable of helping the country or saving themselves. Both make conscious choices to sacrifice for the common good. What opportunities do we pass up in order to protect ourselves and live comfortably?

Overall
John McClane or Jack Bauer? The fact that I even need to pause before answering (and my answer is John McClane <>) shows the high status of Bruce Willis' character among movie action heroes.
Again, this movie is not going to provide extremely profound topics for conversation, but it also is not mindless. It is a great, great action movie. It is part cop-buddy film, part computer-nerd-worst-case-scenario, and part swan song for John McClane. Really good. Die Hard fans should not be disappointed, nor should anyone who is looking for a good action flick.

Rating: 4 Stars out of 5 possible

Ocean's 13

Starring George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, Elliot Gould, Al Pacino, and Andy Garcia
Directed by Steven Soderbergh

Summary
When Willie Bank (a Vegas hot shot played by Al Pacino) leaves Ruben (Elliot Gould) hung out to dry in a business deal, and causes him to drop into a semi-comatose state, Danny Ocean and the gang decide to intervene. Amazingly, all eleven return for this film in which the gang decides to ruin Bank's opening of his hotel-casino through an elaborate scam. After giving Banks the chance to do the right thing, the gang plots a scam that involves rigging slots, blackjack, craps, and even a hotel review. The plot ends up involving a factory in Mexico, a fake nose for Linus (Matt Damon), and even a partnership with Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia as the villain from Ocean's 11).

Review
Some people disliked Ocean's 12, but I thought it was fine, just not as great as Ocean's 11. However, I thought Ocean's 13 was at least as good as the original if not better. The movie was just a lot of fun to watch. The Mexico strand was hysterical (Senior Zapato). The Vegas scam was pretty ingenius. And they threw in some other gags that were great also. The movie had a great plot, but these movies are driven by the pure enjoyment of watching the characters interact with each other. In these movies, however, there is always the wrestling match. We wonder why we feel such a desire to root for Ocean's gang, when they themselves are professional criminals. Is it because they are so slick and funny? Is it because we believe that only corrupt people end up being hurt by their actions? I am not totally sure, but that would be a worthwhile question for another time.

Question for Thought
Who carried out justice? Is it up to us to make things right when someone does something that is wrong? How does our understanding of God's ultimate judgment impact the way we interact with injustice in this life?

Overall
As I said, fun movie. Very fun characters. Good fun plot. Memorable gags. Lots of fun to watch, with very little objectionable material.

Rating: 4 Stars out of 5 possible

Spiderman 3

Starring Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace.
Directed by Sam Raimi

Summary
The third in the installment of the webslinger is the most complicated for Peter/Spidey personally, and it is the most complicated of the three films in terms of intersecting villains. Peter Parker's best friend Harry Osborne has completed his journey to becoming his father's successor as The Green Goblin. He is out for revenge against Peter because he is still under the impression that Peter killed his father. All the while Peter finds out that the man who shot and killed his uncle has escaped from prison (it turns out that the man Peter thought killed his uncle was only an accomplice). This man, Flint Marko, is a misunderstood villain who becomes Sandman. Peter's heart is filled with a desire for revenge, and this darkness ends up taking him over and turning him into a dark Spiderman. However, the darkness is inside of Peter as well as on his suit, as he alienates friends (Mary Jane in particular) and finds a new energy that allows him to take revenge against those who wrong him. By the time Peter finally realizes the mess he has made, he finds that he needs to wage a hopeless battle against the combined forces of Sandman and Venom (who was created when Peter sheds his darkness).

Review
My summary actually may make the movie seem more complicated than it is. It is hard to talk about, but if you are watching it, it comes together much more smoothly. I love the Spiderman movies, and I enjoyed this one. I thought the strand of Peter being taken over by his dark desire for revenge was powerful. There was some comic relief that took place in this strand and some people really disliked that. I was okay with it. I thought it just reminded us all that this is a comic book story. The movie had some powerful things to say about revenge and the choices we make. I thought it fell a little short of really answering the questions it raised, but it went far enough that I was not left hanging. I also thought the actions sequences (especially the opening fight between Peter and Harry) was amazing.

Question for Thought
Spiderman movies are infamous for being very un-subtle with their messages. This one was no different. Revenge was the subject, and the message had to do with the fact that we always have to make the choice to do the right thing. An interesting question for thought is, "When we allow revenge and bitterness to become a part of our lives, how do these things impact other areas of our lives?" If we are honest with ourselves, we may be able to see just how detrimental it is when we allow a root of bitterness to grow.

Overall
While this was my least favorite of the three Spiderman movies, that must be qualified by the fact that I really loved the first two. I thought this one was good, not great. It was fun and worth seeing.

Rating: 3 Stars out of 5 possible

The Departed

Starring Leonardo Dicraprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, and Mark Whalberg.
Directed by Martin Scocese.

Summary
This is a complicated and compelling crime drama. Frank Costello (Nicholson) is an irish mob boss, who took Colin Sullivan (Damon) under his wing when he was a child. Now he has put Colin into the police force as a mole for the mob. Queenan and Dignan (Martin Sheen and Whalberg) run a (very, very) undercover police unit and recruit William Costigan (Dicraprio) to infiltrate the irish mob. Only Queenan and Dignan even know that Costigan is a police officer.
Both Colin and William deal with the terror living double lives as they become increasingly paranoid that they will be discovered. Things began to come to a head as both Costello and Queenan discover that there is a mole within their organization. Choas reigns as both Colin and William look for a way out, and yet seek to continue to stay loyal to their duties.

Review
You probably know that this film was just crowned Best Picture at the Academy Awards. I thought this was a good choice (especially in competition with Babel). The movie was amazing. If you are thinking about seeing it, know that there is some pretty brutal violence and a truckload of language. I considered not reviewing it because I know many will have convictions that will keep them from seeing the movie. I totally respect that.
This movie was well-written and had a good story. But the story was made amazing by the story-telling job done by Scorcese. I was glad that he won Best Director because he took a good story and made it into an intense, amazing, compelling movie. It may have been the best crime movie I have ever seen (apart from The Godfather). The acting was amazing, especially by Dicaprio and Nicholson. They both gave powerhouse performances and their characters were incredibly memorable.
Best scene in the movie: The silent phone call. How did Scorcese make a silen phone call the most amazing scene of the movie (at least to me).

Question for Thought
This movie dealt with two men who were living double lives. While most of us do not experience to the extent of these two men, I think many of us do feel that we have some duplicity, whether it involves hiding certain sins or secret desire. What does living a double life do to us as humans? How can we get out of the spiral of living duplicitously?

Overall
As I already said, I thought this movie was amazing. It would probably be on my all-time top 5. . .but I thought the ending lacked a little bit. There was an explosive climax when the moba nd the police force clashed. Up to that point, I thought the movie was flawless and incredible. After this climax, I thought they were not quite sure how to end the movie. The ending was fine, but just fine. Not great. Whereas the rest of the movie was truly great.

Rating: 4.5 Stars out of 5 possible.

Flags of Our Fathers

Starring Ryan Phillippe, Adam Beach, and Jesse Bradford.

Directed by Clint Eastwood.

Summary

This movie deals with the WWII attack of Iwo Jima. It follows a troop of men, and specifically those six men who raised the flag that was the subject of the famous picture seen above. The three flag-raisers who survive the raid on Iwo Jima are pulled out of combat to tour as heroes and inspire people to buy war bonds. The three deal with this fame and responsibility differently. One seems to be opportunistic, one cannot deal with being a hero, and another seems to hold down the fort. The movie is partly combat at Iwo Jima, partly the lives of the three men as they are touring, and partly the son of one of the flagraisers later interviewing survivors ofIwo Jima to learn more about his father.

Review

This movie was excellent. The combat scenes were amazing and terrifying. Much like when I watched Saving Private Ryan, when I watched the combat scenes I was struck with how long they went on. What I mean is that this was not just going in quickly and either winning or losing, dying or killing. It went on and on, constantly avoiding death and trying to help each other. It made me greatful for the men who served our country (and continue to do so) in this way.

The movie wrestled through the issues well, and I found it totally compelling to watch. It was not only the battle scenes, though. I was completely engaged in the lives of the three men who survived and in watching them wrestle through being viewed as heroes when none of them really felt that this was an accurate assessment.

As war movies have more and more realistic and visually stunning battle scenes, I thought Eastwood did an amazing job telling the story. He did not try to do too much. He did not so much try to shock us with extra-gory death or extra-cool explosions. It was meticulously done, but also a bit understated. You see something amazing or heartbreaking and then Eastwood moves on. This has the feel of giving us a picture of battle, in that we cannot sit around and be stunned by the carnage of war.

Question for Thought

This movie dealt with questions surrounding heroes. What is a real hero? How should you respond when you are called a hero? Is it a matter of either capitalizing on it or rejecting it? Or is there a third option? Can it be embraced in some way that is right and good?

Overall

I don't think I will ever see a war movie that is as good as Saving Private Ryan. However, Flags of Our Fathers is now my second-favorite war movie of all time. It was poweful, interesting, and inspiring to me. And there was an amazing father-son scene near the end in which I think Eastwood powerfully dealt with how WWII impacted a generation gap. Even there I saw him bringing hope that, despite generational differences, we can learn to appreciate, admire, and respect each other.

Rating: 4 Stars out of 5 possible.

Pan's Labirynth

Starring Carmen Vidal, Ivana Baquero, Segi Lopez, Maribel Verdu.
Directed by Guillermo Del Toro.

Summary
This is a foreign film. Spanish is spoken and subtitles are used. It takes place in Fascist Spain in 1944. A pregnant mother and his young daughter to go live with the mother's new husband, Captain Vidal, who oversees a local fortress of the Fascists. The daughter, Ofelia, loves fairy tales, and ends up being invited into an amazing fairy tale world as the Facists deal with rebels who continue to fight for their cause. As the mother fights for her failing health, the rebels continue to try to stay alive and retain hope against the sadistic Captain Vidal. Meanwhile servants in the Fascist fortress aid the rebels, and Ofelia attempts to accomplish tasks given to her by a Faun who believes her to be a princess in need of restoration to her kingdom.

Review
This movie was truly unique. I had major aspects of fantasy, but I would not call it a fantasy movie. It was dramatic, intense, heartbreaking, terrifying, and overwhelmingly moving. As you watch, you wonder about the things Ofelia is experiencing. At times you are certain that she is imagining everything, and at other times you wonder. In fact, in the end there is still a little part of you that wonders.
The movies deals powefully with pain, loss, and, most of all, hope. Hope is really powerful when it has a lot to overcome, and, in this movie, hope had a lot to overcome. I have to say that every time Captain Vidal was on the screen, I was squirming in my seat. I was so scared that he was going to hurt someone (he did hurt many people). He was downright scary to me. I feel sick to my stomach even writing about it because it really did deal with the reality of human cruelty and of oppression. Ofelia was beautiful, sacrificial, and hopeful. The mother was tender and tragic. The rebels were inspiring. The performances were good. The imagery was amazing. The story was incredibly compelling. It was a unique and powerful movie.

Question for Thought
This movie dealt powerfully with the reality of hope and pain. It even posed the question of whether or not we find meaning through pain. This is not just in a Matrixesque, we-want-to-be-miserable, way. It was a way in which we make sense of the world. Perhaps pain and meaning are not opposed, but somehow connected.
Do we find meaning through pain? Not just in spite of pain, but because of pain. Specifically, does the reality of hope in the midst of pain, teach of real meaning? There is a lot in the Bible about suffering as believers (Romans 8:17 comes to mind). Think about it.

Overall
I have to commend this movie. It was unique and I was very glad that I saw it. It moved me throughout, although I wanted it to be over at times because it was so gut-wrenching. The portrayal of hope, though, was so powerful. Maybe only The Shawshank Redemption is a more powerful movie about hope. The final scene made me cry and made me smile at the same time. I really admired the director, Guillermo Del Toro on this one.

Rating: 4 Stars out of 5 possible.

Stranger Than Fiction

Starring Will Ferrell, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman, and Maggie Gyllenhaal.
Directed by Zach Helm

Summary
The concept of Stranger Than Fiction is that of a man finding out that his life is the part of a narrative. Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) begins to hear a woman's voice narrating his actions. She describes his actions, his feelings, his longings, and his intentions. The problem is that he is the only one who hears the voice. All of this is midly annoying until the voice divulges that events are in motion that will lead to his imminent death. In response to this Harold recruits of the help of a literature professor in order to help guide him through the narrative of his life, and, in the process, learns about what it means to truly live.

Review
This was a very original and interesting movie. It could certainly be marketed as a comedy, but it had a very serious undertone to it. Similarly, Will Ferrell is a very talented comedic actor, but had a very serious undertone to him in the film. He did a fine job. Dustin Hoffman as the literature professor and Emma Thompson as the author are both great. Maggie Gyllenhall adds a great energetic flair to the film in her character (with whom Harold falls in love).
The strongest quality to the film is its story. Now, you might be thinking, "Isn't that the way it always is." No, no, no. Many times a film is driven by strong acting performances, eye candy special effects, or entertaining characters. This film had good acting and engaging characters, but it was plot-driven. The story was original, and the story dealt with, wait for it, stories. A man is in a narrative, and this begins to make us think about the idea of stories, the stories in which we are characters, what kind of character we are in our stories, and what kind of character we would like to be.
The movie is always building toward its ending, and I felt tension the whole time over how it would end. Interestingly, the tension was twofold. First of all, I wanted it to end well for the characters. Secondly, I wanted it to end well for the story. For the second part, I mean that I wanted the story to have an ending that was not just "happy," but also satisfying in light of the rest of the story. The ending is good for discussion. Some will probably love it, and some might be let down by it. Strangely enough, this is one of the only movies you will ever see that will acknowledge that some won't like the ending. This makes it more tolerable for those who will be disappointed.

Question For Thought
For the question to think about, I will quote my favorite exchange in the movie. It takes place between the literature professor and Harold. The literature professor concluded that Harold may just have to resign himself to the fact that he will end up dying. Harold then asks what he should do if he is going to die.
Professor: Well, Harold, you could just eat nothing but panckakes if you wanted.
Harold: What is wrong with you? Hey, I don't want to eat nothing but pancakes, I want to live! I mean, who in their right mind in a choice between pancakes and living chooses pancakes?
Professor: Harold, if you pause to think, you'd realize that that answer is inextricably contingent upon the type of life being led. . .and, of course, the quality of the pancakes.
This exchange begs the question, "What is life? What makes life worth living? What am I willing to die for?" Are we willing to die to be "memorable" characters in God's story? Is this a bad question to be asking? Think about it.

Overall
You can probably tell that I really liked this movie. Very moving, very funny, and very, very thought-provoking. In a time when so many movies are formulaic, it was fun to watch a movie that had a very real flair of originality to it. See it with someone so that we can discuss it afterwards. There are a couple of comments made that are not appropriate, but overall it is a movie you can watch without feeling like you have to turn away or fastforward.

Rating: 3.5 Stars out of 5 possible.

Deja Vu

Starring Denzel Washington, Val Kilmer, Jim Caveizel, and Paula Patton.
Directed by Tony Scott

Summary
An ATF agent (Doug Carlin, played by Denzel Washington) is investigating an act of terrorism in New Orleans. As he is investigating, he find that one "victim" of the attack died before the explosion, but was made to look as if she had died in it. As he looks for clues, he is brought into a special project that is able, through satellite technology, to watch events unfold as if it is happening right then. They search to discover the identity of the terrorist, but find themselves also questioning whether or not they can somehow save the victims before the bomb goes off. Or, is that even possible?

Review
How could this not be great? There is no better actor than Denzel Washington. On top of that, the director is Tony Scott, who also directed Man on Fire, Crimson Tide, and, one of my personal favorites, Spy Game. I was high on this movie. It let me down. I really hate to say it, but it let me down.
Now, let me say this. The acting was fine. The action was fine. The technology was interesting. The characters were okay. This movie let me down because it did not work. That may seem like a strange and vague thing to say, but it didn't work. Now, I don't want to go too deep into the space-time continuum questions, lest I end up looking like a geek. At the same time, there is the simple matter of logical consistency with the plot. Now, I don't want to give away the movie, so perhaps I can depict a parallel situation:
Let's say that I am investigating a crime. As I investigate, I find all kinds of wierd and inexplicable evidence. In fact, some of the evidence points toward the fact that I was in the crime scene when the crime happened. However, I know that this is not true, since I never was there. Then I get the chance to go back in time to try to prevent the crime. As I do so, I find that those evidences of me being at the crime scene end up truly pointing toward me because I now am at the crime scene before it happens.
Thus far, the scenario is fine. But, here is the point: It is impossible for me to stop the crime. Why, you ask? Because I already tried and failed. Think about it. I was in the future looking back at a crime that had happened. And, apparently, in that future I had already been back to try to stop it. So, when I finish the cycle and go back again, it makes no sense that I could stop it this time. I will simply play out the same scenario and always fail. It makes sense.
So, if a movie plays out this way, it must, MUST, go one of two ways. Either the person goes back in time and changes things because in the original future there was no evidence that he had ever gone back. Or, he must be foiled from changing anything because he had already tried since the original future did take his time travel into account. Really, this makes sense, even if I am not explaining it well. I think there must be some math equation to prove it.

Question for Thought
See the above rantings about the space-time continuum. Try to make sense about it. Have a great old-fashioned debate.

Overall
I hate to rail on a movie that had so much potential and, in the end, was moderately entertaining. The movie had a chance to go somewhere great with the story, but ended up taking a risk. Honestly, however, I think that the risk made the move more conventional. Movie need to be careful not to jump too quickly into the SciFi realm. I felt like I was watching a thriller that suddenly entered into SciFi. I was not ready for it, and it made the movie seem a bit silly to me. Anyway, it wasn't terrible, but it was a letdown.

Rating: 2.5 Stars out of 5 possible.

The Prestige

Starring Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Scarlett Johanson, Michael Caine.
Directed by Christopher Nolan

Summary
Two magicians (Robert, played by Hugh Jackman; Alfred, played by Christian Bale) end up in conflict and rivlary after a tragedy (possibly accidental and possibly not) strikes. They continually work to become greater than one another, and, at the same time, to thwart one another's great performances. The rivalry soars to new heights when questions begin to emerge about whether or not some of the magic tricks are truly magic at all.

Review
A movie about the rivalry between two magicians does not exactly sound riveting. Let me say, however, IT IS. Christopher Nolan, who also directed Batman Begins and Memento told this story about as well as a story can be told. While watching I felt like I was discovering the secrets, but still desperately searching to put the parts together. It was a blast. There were points where I was sure I knew what was going on, but then I would find that there were factors which I had not considered. In the end, all the loose ends were tied up in a very satisfying, and chilling, way.
There was a depth to the movie, as it dealt consistently with the subject of obsession. There were times when it might have felt as if this theme was too flagrantly put forth, but overall it was told in a very effective way. Overall, however, the movie was a great thrill-ride and mystery. I was very interested in both main characters and the plot twists were top notch.

Question for Thought
The question of obsession ruled the film. When does commitment become obsession? Why is it that something is admirable (commitment), but then at some point becomes wrong (obsession)? And, going along with this, how do we deal with our hurts, losses, and longings? Those of us who can go to the cross are spared from lives ruled by broken and destructive behavior.

Overall
High quality movie. It is not very unlifting, but isntead very sobering. The story-telling is absolutely excellent, and it is definitely worth the time and effort to track with where the movie goes. Highly Recommended.

Rating: 4 Stars out of 5 possible.

The Lady in the Water

Starring Paul Giamatti, Bryce Dallas Howard, ans Steven Wright.
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

SUMMARY
A bedtime story. A maintenance man (Cleveland Heep) at an apartment complex comes across a young woman named Story, who is a Narf from another world. She has come to bring awakening to mankind, but she is in danger of being prevented from returning to her world, as a ferocious creature would prevent for fulfilling her destiny. Members of the apartment complex find that they are a part of this story as it continues to unfold.

REVIEW
I must start by comments by acknowledging that the critics are nearly unanimous in their opinion of this movie: They hate it. This made me very nervous. I am a big Shyamalan fan. I loved The Sixth Sense, and Unbreakable and Signs are two of my all-time favorites. That is important because I must emphasize that I but into Shyamalan. I love his themes, his story-telling, and the way he pictures amazing events coming upon mundane and broken people. Out of all of his movies (the three above mentioned, and The Village, which I did not like), The Lady in the Water is the one that most departs from reality. This is a big problem for some. In Unbreakable I found myself going back and forth on whether or not David Dunn really was a superhero. While I watched Signs I kept wondering if this was a hoax, or if aliens were really coming. The Lady in the Water solves this question immediately, as there is no doubt that supernatural things are happening. If the viewing can accept this, it makes it easier to accept the sometimes ridiculous events that follow. Just as Signs was not about aliens (they were just the backdrop), The Lady in the Water is not about Narfs or any of the other creatures or characters. It is about purpose, and healing, and (interestingly enough) stories. Many saw the previews and wondered at the fact that this was said to be adapted from a bedtime story that Shyamalan created for his children. After watching it, it is clear that he really did stick to his intent. It truly is a bedtime story. Accept that, and allow it to be a bit silly at times. The point is not to present a realistic picture of how people might respond to events like these. The point is that these events are Shyamalan's vehicle for expressing some powerful and pervasive ideas. One idea in particular, related to becoming significant through circumstances that are painful, is especially powerful and thought-provoking. You may understand by now, I really liked this movie. At the same time, Shyamalan is polarizing and I fully understand that many will hate it. The viewer must really put himself or herself in Shyamalan's hands and keep rememberring, "It is a bedtime story. It is not meant to be realistic, or in keeping with how people would really respond. It is the backdrop for a powerful message." Some will not be able to handle this. My wife and I were, and we loved it.

QUESTION FOR THOUGHT
Shyamalan deals with his normal subject matter, which is, as one critic put is, "broken people encountering the supernatural." One main question from the movie I will not pose here, because it would serve as a bit of a spoiler. However, the question of purpose was pervasive and put forth in a new and creative way. Do we believe that God has us here for a purpose? Is that purpose only a broad purpose for every human, or is there a more specific one for each individual? What are our criteria for determining whether or not our purpose is significant?

OVERALL
We all love the great stories. In the great stories there is someone who is ordinary. He or she then finds out that there is a battle going on he or she was totally unaware of. Then the character finds out that he or she has a key role to play in this battle. Read John Eldredge's Waking the Dead if you want more on that. Shyamalan's movie fits this bill on several levels. It has powerful themes, and once again makes us wonder if significant things are possible from seemingly ordinary (or even broken) people. Many will not get this movie at all. I did, and I appreciate Shyamalan for it. Some feel that he is pretentious for sticking to his unique methods and for acting in his movies (he has his largest part to date in this one). I instead view these things as evidence for the fact that he is deeply invested in his projects, and he believes in them. This means something to me. I got to the end of the film after reading so many negative reviews, and my first thought was, "That was Shyamalan. What did we expect?" If you don't like his movies, you probably won't like this one. If you are open, though, it can be a powerful experience.
Rating: 4 stars out of 5 possible.

Mission Impossible III

Starring Tom Cruise, Michelle Monaghan, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ving Rhames, Billy Crudup, and Lawrence Fishburne
Directed by J.J. Abrams

SUMMARY
This is the third MI film, and in it Ethan Hunt has left field ops in favor of training, and he is engaged to be married. However, as if we couldn't see it coming, he is pulled back into action when an agent he trained is captured by a terrorist. This event has a domino effect, leading to threats to national security, and to Ethan's personal life.

REVIEW
So, here is the deal. I didn't see this movie right away because I heard it was bad. I went to see Poseidon instead (which was maybe the worst movie of the year). When I finally got around to seeing this movie, my expectations were low, so that may have helped a little bit. In retrospect, however, I am more and more convinced that this was simply, surprisingly enough, a GREAT movie. It had the best bad guy of any of the three films. Hoffman was great and scary. It had the best female lead of the any of the three films. Michelle Monahgan was real, vulnerable, and very likeable. The MI team was great, the action was great, and the teaser to open the film comes together well when they finally return to it. This was a very satisfying movie (just never forget that it is a Mission Impossible movie; allow it to be a bit over the top).

QUESTION FOR THOUGHT
There was some powerful scenes in the movie related to trust, especially between a husband and wife. One character demonstrates amazing trust in another. It made me realize that it is easy for us to look at those who trust someone else as fools. To trust someone (to really trust them) is to put ourselves at their mercy. This is not something we value in our culture. How much more does real trust in God place us at his mercy, without the out of demanding explanations from him. Is this real trust? Do we have it? Should we have it?

OVERALL
You know by now that I really like this movie. It was excellent. Being an action movie it had its share of violence and suspense, but overall it was refreshingly clean. It was moving and fun to watch. Some people may have disliked this movie simply because of everything that is going on with Tom Cruise personally. If you are able to watch the film, however, without being distracted by that, it is hard for me to imagine it not being a pleasant experience.
Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5 possible.

16 Blocks

Starring Bruce Willis, Mos Def, and David Morse.
Directed by Richard Donner.

SUMMARY
16 Blocks follows a down-and-out cop carrying out the mudane assignment of transferring a prisoner (Eddie) 16 blocks to the court house so that he can testify. What Jack does not know is that there are people who will stop at nothing to keep the testimony from taking place. What follows is a nearly-real-time story of cat-and-mouse with escapes, twists, and questions of the possibility of redemption

REVIEW
I expected this film to be somewhat formulaic, with a heroic cop and a slick-talking prisoner. This movie contains neither, and this works in its favor. While the questions about redemption are not new to the movie-watching experience, they are posed in a manner consistent with the story, and this works well. The movie does not try to do too much, and does not try to be something that it is not. The ending itself stays very consistent with the story, and will be found to be very satisfying (and much better than the alternate ending on the bonus features).

QUESTION FOR THOUGHT
It is obvious: Can people change? For those of us who follow Jesus, this is a very significant question. We can get in a rut and not see lifechange in ourselves of those around us, and we can start to see our lives as lackluster, and buy that the true Christian is "not perfect, just forgiven.

OVERALL
Movies, like many things in life, involve expectations. I went into a movie that I knew would receive no awards, and was not a blockbuster. I found a well-crafted story with engaging characters, and, by the way, a great bad guy. It exceeded my expectations, and, as previously stated, it did not try to do too much. It stayed within itself. It is not the kind of movie that people will remember five years from now, but it is certainly worth seeing, and Bruce Willis shows good range as an actor.
Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5.