Entertainment

The Encounter

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

Okay, I am going to take a slight detour from my normal review and talk about a Christian movie.

I stay away from reviewing those because I think a lot less people have seen them and frankly, they aren’t usually very good unless they are based on a true story. (Like Soul Surfer.)

That said, there’s a few of them out there worth seeing.

One of my favorites, back in the days when I searched for Christian cinema online, was “The Encounter” and its sequel “The Encounter 2: Paradise Lost.”

I’ll say upfront I think the second one was the better made and scripted, but the first one is what introduces us to the movie’s premise.

Which is, what if Jesus appeared to us today, in person. Like he did while he was on earth.

It’s also an old idea, if you’ve grown up in church you’ve heard it a thousand times “What if Jesus appeared now?” and it’s usually followed with “would you be ready?”

Well, I think Left Behind style books have their place. But this movie is actually not about that, it’s about Jesus simply meeting people, like you’d meet anyone else. And engaging their attention.

There’s a score of examples form the gospel of this happening, and the movie copies some of them. It most strongly resembles the story of the woman at the well. Because Jesus knows all about each of the five people who come into the Diner.

I should explain, the setting is a dark and stormy night, and five people have turn back because the remote road they’re on is blocked. So they go into the only building for miles Last Chance Diner. Which they think is a joke. (I think I actually saw the same name in another movie, or possibly in real life.)

The people are Sarah, a woman driving 500 miles to see her boyfriend hoping he’s going to propose; Kayla, a runaway who’s been sexually abused by her stepdad; Hank and Catherine, a couple headed for divorce, against Hank’s will; and Nick, a wealthy owner of a chain of restaurants.

Sarah and Hank are Christians, the other three are not though Catherine claims to be.

In one way, I’m glad there are some Christians already, because turning it into a five people get saved story would be kind of predictable.

So they all sit down, have some of the best water they’e ever tasted, and Jesus tells them all what they want for dinner. He somehow know their favorites foods. Then he makes it for them for free.

(I hate to pick apart the metaphor, but I’m sure when Jesus did honest work as a carpenter, he charged people for it.)

But if you think I’m too interested in semantics, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Because this movie is about 60% semantics. Jesus explaining free will, and creation, and salvation, and forgiveness.

There is nothing wrong with that, exactly, but I think the writers stressed it too much. When I read about Jesus, I don’t feel that semantics were a problem for him. When he is literally the truth, the living word, then whatever he says is correct. He doesn’t ‘ have to explain why.

That’s the thing, God doesn’t explain himself a whole lot. Especially to people of little faith. Like Nick, who is very scornful of his claim.

With some basis of course. It’s a little weird, and there’s a lot of phonies claiming to be Jesus out there.

Personally, I would have quoted that verse aobut “Many who will come in my name.” Or the one about false Christs. But that never comes up. Which you’d think it should.

Notwithstanding, I don’t have a problem with the idea of Jesus appearing to people. I just think the way it was written was under-baked.

I even think him telling them about themselves is within biblical limits.

But what leaves a bad taste in my mouth is how he shares all these people’s deep personal issues with total strangers. And basically goads them into telling even more aobut. Kayla’s rape story wasn’t really something all of them needed to hear. Neither was Catherine’s lack of faith. Or Nick’s past of feeling embarrassed because of his father’s Italian ways.

Yeah, I just don’t see Jesus exposing people like that.

Theologically, I agree with most of the film. But on a few points I think they are too glib. They treat tough topics like they can be easily explained. I notice a lot of christian movies do that.

Also, it makes it seem like we should expect Jesus to answer all our questions before we trust in him. But that’s not how faith works.

Faith means having enough reason to believe in something, without having so much reason that it ceases to be a choice. Unless you’re the C. S. Lewis type and reason can actually convince you of something. (Many people are not convinced by reasons or facts.)

Things like rape can’t be reasoned into being accepted. Only faith can cover it.

In the end, four people decide to believe in Him. Nick goes to the devil. Literally. Teh devil character is in this too.

Now, as cheesy as this may sound. I believe this movie does work in some ways. It’s more like an allegory than a real life representation. And the writers were trying to answer peoples questions aobut the faith. And some of their answers were good.

The acting is also very good for one of these movies.

But it lacks character depth. Even in Jesus, which is the worst crime of all. Though he is likable and almost believable, he doesn’t seem quite real.

That’s the problem, because for this to work, he needs to.

And the other characters need to be relatable.

But on record, the sequel does correct some of the problems of the first one.

What I think gives these movies merit is that they do help you imagine Jesus more as a person. And picture what it must have been like for people to meet him.

I would say another film that does it even better is “Another Perfect Stranger.”

And that’s all for now–Natasha.

Wonder Woman–2

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

I am looking forward to this part more than the first.

Now I get to talk about the meaning of the movie.

(Let me preface it by saying I am not claiming this movie is christian. But I think they used Christian elements to tell the story. Maybe just because that was what they thought would work. I won’t assume more than that. And I think it’s good whether they did it on purpose or not.)

This is where I feel this movie did do something new.

And I also feel that the fans are entirely missing the point when they nitpick the plot for being like other films. The plot was never supposed to be what made this movie different.

It’s Diana herself.

I think I related to her more not because she’s a woman, but because I felt like her story was kind of like my story.

At least par to fit was.

She was homeschooled after all. And very, very sheltered.

So what happens when you stick that combination into the real world?

Diana’s reaction to the horrors of war really hit home with me. Her honest admission that it was horrible. And her demand that promises be kept. Her insistence that they help those who could not help themselves. And her shock when she learned that Steve, one of the good guys, was a liar, smuggler, thief, and that his people had mistreated other peoples of the world. Just as the Germans had.

Diana starts off believing that even Germans are good, truly, and that Ares is to blame for the evil they are doing, and all the evils of war. When she confronts him, she is ready to unleash justice on all their behalf. But to her astonishment, Ares, while under the rope of truth, tells her that he doesn’t make men do the evil they do. All he does is inspire certain parts of it, and manipulate them into doing more things to prolong their troubles.

I believe Ares was still mincing the truth somewhat, though not completely. He’s bound to have more resistance to the rope than a human could, and he only told part of the story.

But Are’s here is a pretty obvious representation of Satan. The tempter, the deceiver, the one who encourages man to sin. But who will say, “I didn’t make him do it.”

Well, no. Satan can’t make a person sin. As in, he can’t put a gun it their hand and make them pull the trigger. But God is pretty clear about tempters still having a major share of the guilt when someone listens to them.

But Diana and we ourselves can’t avoid the truth that man does sin, and he does it voluntarily.

I still remember when I felt the way Diana did when she saw the men still fighting, and she realized Professor Poison really was a psychopath, only getting helped by Ares, but not set on that path by him.

I remember that sick horror when I realized the evils of things like Abortion, or the holocaust, or abuse.

The look on her face was just the look I remember having. And I remember feeling the same doubt about people. In fact, I still struggle with wondering if people can change. If there is truly anything in most of us worth saving.

And by the way, Ares does not highlight anything except the evils of man and his blindness to his own folly. That’s because that’s all Ares cares about. That’s all the devil cares about. The goodness in humanity makes him look less successful.

And like Diana, I have wished I could help everyone who needs it. I don’t want you all to think I’m saintly or anything for feeling that way. If you ask me, it’s no more than decent to want to alleviate the suffering of fellow creatures.

But the truth is, even a superhero can never help them all.

And the smart thing the movie does is come to grips with that fact. It’s basically what Civil War tried and failed to do. And what every Spiderman movie has dealt with.

Diana realizes that she can’t do it all.

I loved the moment at the end when she says she can’t save the world. Though Steve told her she could, she realized the truth: A hero can’t save the world. “Only love can save the world,” she says.

Diana doesn’t mean that just being nice to everyone can save the world. She means that, though evil still rises and men still commit it willingly, the other men who give up everything to stop them and save their people are the ones who save the world.

Essentially, only the ultimate good is more powerful than the ultimate evil. And Diana means to promote that good, and if necessary, lay down her own life, until that good wins out.

And since I believe love is a Person, I know that love has saved the world, and continues to save it. And will triumph in the end. So Diana is completely right.

And Steve’s sacrifice is our example of that love in action. It’s not just a cliche that his last words were “I love you.”

One more thing:

Earlier on, Steve tells Diana that maybe saving people isn’t about what they deserve, but about what you believe. I didn’t get it and thought it was some cheesy one line moral, until Diana was in the final battle with Ares, and she chose to spare Professor Poison’s life, even though she could have justified killing her as an act of war.

But she didn’t, because int hat moment for Diana, it became aobut more than just ending the war. And she repeated what Steve said to Ares as she turned from taking revenge.

You see, what Steve meant was not that you believe in the good of humanity. That would be flimsy and the movie proves it false.

What he meant was, you save people because you believe that is the right thing to do. You believe that somehow, someway, it’s important. It means something. You believe that there’s a different solution than just eliminating them.

If that’s what you believe, and that’s who you are, then you won’t change that just because they don’t deserve it.

And wow, was that a powerful message for me.

Maybe defeating Ares isn’t about stopping war. Maybe it’s aobut winning the war inside yourself. Maybe it means throwing off your own lust for revenge, for power, for the ultimate solution.

Because you don’t have it. But you can be part of it.

Isn’t throwing off all that what truly ends a war anyway?

In that sense, I think Diana killing Ares was symbolic. That was her personal battle. But she recognized that is was not so for all of humanity. The battle is different for everyone.

Diana starts off the movie proud but unaware of her own power; she ends it knowing what she is capable of, but humbled.

And darn it, if that’s not an amazing character arc, then there is just no pleasing some people.

So, I recommend the movie.

–Natasha.

img_1549-4

Wonder Woman–1

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

At last! I finally saw it.

Good luck convincing my family to go see a superhero flick in theaters. The only reason I saw Ragnarok was because they were going to see a different film at the same time. (Save for one sibling who went with me.)

So I had to buy this movie before I could see it.

Now, what did I think?

Well, some of you probably know that this movie has been widely approved by fans and I think also critics, but I’ve seen some negative stuff about it too. So I’ll start with that.

The worst thing aobut this film…it’s too short.

I’m serious, the whole opening part moves really fast, and unfortunately without a whole lot of detail besides setting up the story. I wouldn’t care, (I didn’t with Captain America) if it wasn’t for the fact that the mythological side of it is interesting, and you can’t help but wish you got to know the Amazons better and see more of Diana’s childhood there.

Still, if you want more, that’s a good sign right?

I was sure I’d like them if I had more time in which to do so. But I will say the attire and the scenery were awesome and gave me the correct idea of the island being a paradise. Heck, I’d want to train there.

People’s main problem with the film is that it’s just like Captain America, and its’ just like every other DC (or even Marvel) film to date. It did nothing new.

Well, considering Marvel is using the same plotline in every single one of its films and getting away with it more often than not, does that seem like a fair complaint?

But I’m not here to take sides in this stupid fan base war.

Was it like Captain America? Yes. More so than some people have been willing to admit. There’s a wired evil genius making dangerous weapons and getting help from a god (instead of just a thing belonging to the gods). There’s a ragtag team of unlikely heroes gathered by the main characters to do a mission the authorities think is insane. Wonder Woman goes off alone to do something she was strongly advised against doing in order to save people. She loses someone close to her. And there’s other similarities too.

But. Wonder Woman was already like Captain America in a lot of ways. And perhaps we shouldn’t blame DC for taking a page from the book of more successful writers.

It worked out well for them.

Anyway, originality is not what makes or breaks a superhero film. All superheros are somewhat unoriginal now, if only because there was so many of them back in the early days of their conception. You will never get complete originality for all of them if you have dozens to wade through.

I personally don’t care.

That said, should this movie have tried something new?

Well, I think it did, but I’ll probably put that into part two.

For now I’ll address the plot.

Was it new? No.

Sorry, making it about a woman isn’t enough to make it new. That’s a dead horse to keep beating if you ask me.

But my question is, why does it need to be new?

How exactly do you make an origin story new? They changed enough as it was.

Making the War WWI instead of WWII was an interesting step. But I liked it after thinking it over. One major point of the film is whether mankind is naturally evil or not. Wonder Woman seeing multiple wars gives her a lot more time and a lot more stakes to reckon with when she makes her choices. And that she keeps choosing to be a protector every time gives her the mark of consistency and faithfulness that, honestly, I have yet to see with another of these rebooted heroes.

Think about it, Wonder Woman has seen more terrors, more of man’s own evil, in her life time, than even Captain America, or the Avengers. And yet she has more resolve to do the right thing than the Avengers even have about their own role in the world.

I’ll get more into that later, suffice it to say, I like it.

And making Professor Poison a woman ought to be a progressive enough leap for the feminists out there, since it’s highly unlikely. And not historically accurate.

But I thought it was a good choice because in the past Wonder Woman has fallen into the cliche “blame the men and their pig pigheadedness for everything” attitude. When she came face to face with Professor Poison, there was no way to say that evil and malice and stubbornness are only male problems. They are human problems.

Also, Ares is not a respecter of sexes. he uses either to accomplish his purpose. So apparently, does Zeus.

One of the best things about his movie is how little it even brought feminism up. Or sexism. It was there. But the main focus is on humanity and its failings as a whole. Not what gender you are.

Again, one wishes there was more time to develop everyone’s character. By the end Diana and Steve are the ones we know best. But I felt like there was so much more to know aobut Steve before he was gone.

And yes, Diana and Steve’s relationship was way too fast, but they didn’t have much choice about that. And they did build up to it fairly well. With Steve’s fascination with her being apparent without being creepy. And hers in turn, though hers was more innocent.

I will say I could have done without the whole sexual implications, or discussions. I felt the latter was poor taste when they’d only just met that day. IT seemed forced in for laughs. And later on when another man mentioned being “aroused” by her, I didn’t like it. The fact is, nice guys in the early 1900s didn’t say things like that. To a woman’s face anyway.

But I suppose nice wasn’t exactly what Steve was looking for in his friends at that particular time. SO maybe we can let it slide.

(but it wasn’t necessary, movie, it really wasn’t.)

Other than that I have no complaints. I’ll dive deeper into the meaning in part 2

Until next time–Natasha.

Thor Ragnarok

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

Woohoo, I finally saw a Marvel movie in theaters!

Literally, for the first time.

I can see now why people like seeing them on the big screen, it’s just better for that kind of flick. I felt I could see more of what was happening.

Do I recommend it? You bet.

I thought it was a lot better than I was led to believe by the reviews.

The constant joking around didn’t take away from the story, though it did seem a break from Thor’s character, but considering how much solitude and stress he was under, I think anyone would have to adapt, so I could let it go.

And, unlike what I was told via the internet, the movie did take some moments to pause and pull back. Even though funny things still happened in those scenes, the character’s themselves were quite serious and I bought it.

Now, spoiler alert for the rest of what I liked:

The first two Thor films were some of the best MCU films in the franchise, to my mind. And this one delivers a satisfying ending to Thor’s private story. The character arc he’s being going through ended way better than I expected.

You see, in the same fashion as The Lion king, the first movie was about being the true king, and what that means. It means not power, but character; peace loving, but not stupid.

The second film tackles the theme of being willing to give up power and prestige for someone you love. And also being humble and willing to not have the spotlight. It also covers loss, and delves deeper into Thor and Loki’s bother-brother relationship.

After Thor declined the throne in the second movie and we saw Loki sitting upon it, I was fully prepared for a plot revolving around getting him taken care of, and more tricks and more of the same old same old.

I like Loki, but only because I always thought he was struggling with doing the terrible things he did, and I hoped he would turn around. Thor felt the same.

Oddly enough, the very thing fans were mad at Thor for doing in the Avengers (constantly believing Loki would change) we actually miss as he seems ready in this film to finally give up on him. But it was nice to see Thor finally not duped. He arrives on Asgard and immediately figures out Loki is masquerading as Odin. He exposes him in a refreshingly straightforward and speedy way, and then they go to Earth to find Odin and bring him back.

I can’t detail all the things that happen in a very short amount of movie time, so I’ll just say we get some more insights into Loki’s beef with Thor, and the whole world, apparently.

Then we meet Odin, and it doesn’t take the audience long to realize he is dying. (I mean, they’ve been leading up to it since the first film.) When he dies, Thor realizes this means he is king. But there’s no time for that to even sink in, since immediately afterward, Hella, the goddess of death and Odin’s firstborn, shows up. Odin’s life was all that was keeping her back.

Not only that, she destroys Thor’s Hammer. Making Loki freak and Thor speechless. Loki at once summons Heimdall’s portal, but in so doing unwittingly allows Hella to get to Asgard, and she throws both of t hem out of the tunnel and they land on some random planet just between the known and the unknown reality.

That planet was my least favorite part. It was frustrating to see Hella taking over Asgard, and then Thor stuck being tortured and having his hair cut and fighting the Hulk.

But, boy was that part satisfying. Thor finally gets to kick some rear without his magic hammer, and it was awesome. And that’s coming from someone who usually is bored by those fight scenes.

Also, Loki had some of the funniest moments in that part. And more character building ones too. Like how he was actually sad that Odin died, even if he had been angry at him for years.

Thor also comes to understand in part why Loki is angry. After he finds he’s been lied to by his father too, never being told about Hella’s existence till it was too late to stop her. And having so much history hidden from him.

But Thor never hesitates to do the right thing, and even to defend his father, though he admits he wasn’t perfect.

Thor is pretty beat upon in this movie, but his determination to go back to Asgard and save it or die trying never wavers. Even when Loki says it is no use.

And finally, finally, we get to see some of Thor’s well aimed speeches at Loki pay off.

In the epic show down, which was way better than I had expected from the trailer, (And by the way, the Led Zepplin song worked far better than you’d think) Thor finally learns to harness his power without the hammer. Which makes sense, because not even Loki needed a scepter to use all of his powers, so why would Thor? And he starts beating Hella back.

Hella is not a sympathetic villain, but we at least see why she would be bitter at Odin after what he did to her. Albeit she didn’t really give him a choice. I didn’t like her at first, but by the end I decided she did well at being inhuman, but not so much we couldn’t feel a moment of pity for her.

And Loki finally comes back and does the right thing. Without turning it into a trick at the end. (Yay!)

Also there’s Valkyrie, but I don’t have a lot to say about her. If you see it, you’ll have to decide.

Also,  Bruce Banner’s choice at the end struck me as very noble, since he is not even from Asgard, and it was one of the his best moments.

The theme of this movie is change.

Does a change in circumstances change your identity? Or are you a king with or without your hammer, and your title, and your respect?

Do circumstances dictate who you become? Is being the god of mischief all you can ever be, or can you be more?

Can you change?

Can you change you mind after years and years of trying to forget the past?

Can you change from a monster to a hero by your own free will?

Can you?

This movie says you can. And I love that message.

I loved it and I hope those of you who see it will too and forgive the few flaws with it.

–Natasha.

AntMan

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

It’s review time again. Yay!

I have watched quite a few new movies of late, but not all of them are worth reviewing, or have a message I think I could dig into. I just watched this film “The Art of Getting By,” Mainly because it had the star of The Good Doctor in it, but it wasn’t very clear or well made.

Anyway, I make no secret of my dislike for the Avengers (I being it up every time I review a superhero film,) so in case you are new to this blog, I am not a Marvel fanatic.

But that’s the reason I actually liked Antman.

Maybe I have thing for superheroes based off bugs. Spiderman, the older version of Black Widow (not the modern one, sorry;) and even the ones based off mammals were some of my favorites.

Antman was acknowledged by the general public to be different form the other Marvel material to come out in the past few years. It’s most like Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy. But it’s like Thor in that it works as a stand alone movie.

I’ll sum up the story if you chose not to go see it.

Antman is about Scott Lang, an ex-convict who’s a master thief. Somehow he catches the attention of an old scientist named Hank Pym. (Comic fans know who that is.) Hank has a problem. And old friend and mentee of his has finally cracked part of his code for the Pym particle. Which gives someone the ability to change their size and density. this particle can actually be used in pretty genius ways to wreak havoc, so there is cause for alarm.

Scott is just the unlikely hero Hank is looking for to send in instead of his daughter, whom he doesn’t want to put in danger.

So Scott trains with ants; and Hope, Hank’s daughter; and with the special suit Hank made for the particle.

The particle can also mess with someone’s mind if the don’t have proper protection, which is why the bad guy in this film is so bonkers. (Though he seems pretty sane compared to the other Avenger’s foes.)

So if you like superhero flicks; and micro battles; and weird and vague science; this is the film for you.

All joking aside, even with its obvious flaws in believability, this is a charming movie. It’s funny, and Scott’s development into a hero isn’t hard to buy.

He’s never really a bad guy to begin with, though he is a thief, he wants to go straight. He falls off the wagon, so to speak with a little help from his loser friends. But in the end he decides to take toe more noble course, and her even redeems his buddies into being good guys.

I won’t say his friends were the best comic relief ever, but they got a chuckle or two out of me. And the flashbacks were certainly unique.

Scott’s motivation through the whole thing is to be able to spend time with his daughter. Sort of similar to Drax’es motivation in Guardians of the Galaxy. He does some dumb stuff in order to make that happen faster, but in the end he sacrifices even the possibility in order to save her life and her stepdad’s.

I also had to give the movie points for showing her stepdad to be a good man, who could change his mind, and be noble. Instead of the typical jerk-face stepdads tend to be to our protagonist real dads.

I don’t know if this movie is reaching for a deeper meaning. It doesn’t really have to. No one expected it to be the the big thought provoking film of the franchise. But it has plenty of good old family messages. Like reconciliation, forgiveness, being able to say you are sorry, and giving up things for your family or friends.

It also even works in how the most likely person isn’t always the best one to do something. And sometimes the difference is really in what’s motivating them.

The mentee, whose name escapes me, might have been more likely to become Hank’s successor, but he got too caught up in the power of it and not the principle. Whereas Scott is more freaked by the power, but willing to do it for the principle of making the world safer for his daughter as well as Hank’s.

Another really cool thing was how Scott just naturally became the means for helping Hank and Hope to make peace. He didn’t really try to be that person, he just helped both of them to realize the truth about themselves and each other. Then he made tea. And a guy who can do that doesn’t come along all that often.

Ha ha ha.

Yeah, I know my humor really isn’t helped by me typing out a laugh, but oh well.

It was nice that all the relational healing in this film didn’t feel super rushed, and the people sharing their past didn’t leave the bad taste in my mouth that Bruce Banner, and Natasha’s true confessions did in Age of Ultron.

For the record, I do realize that Natasha’s remarks didn’t mean exactly what they sounded like, but still, ugh.

I also just realized that calling her Natasha is super confusing since that’s my name.

Yikes.

Anyway, so to sum it all up. Antman is a good family movie. IT’s not the most intense, but it is interesting, moving, and one you would be able to rewatch over and over without feeling exhausted. OR super confused because of some god or villain’s antics.

Seriously, what is happening with Loki? Doesn’t anyone in Marvel get that a character endlessly pulling the same crud isn’t development!

I think what makes this movie work is that it does not take itself too seriously, so we can all take it just seriously enough to get the message. But not be rabid fans or anti-fans over it.

And that’s so much better for everyone.

So, until next time–Natasha.

 

 

 

 

 

Wins vs Sins–1

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

This may be an old subject with some of you, but I think it’s one of those that has to be revisited again and again.

And that is the subject of positivism vs negativity.

Since studies have shown that the former is clearly better for health and happiness than the latter, most of us have no excuse to be negative. But you’ve probably noticed that that hasn’t stopped the vast majority of people from being negative.

The problem is that it is and always has been a habit to be negative. I know people who will admit that they shouldn’t be that way, but will not put in the effort to actually change their attitude.

I started thinking about this last night, when I was watching a YouTube video (way later than I should have been, but sometimes it happens.) This video was criticizing this other YouTube channel that those of you who are big movie watchers have probably heard of. Cinema Sins.

I happen to have watched a few of their videos myself (what person hasn’t who looks up internet reviews?) I didn’t like them. Not for any of the reasons this guy was listing, but because the channel was hugely inappropriate in its humor. (And I mean gross levels of it. Not just that tongue in cheek kind of stuff.)

Anyway, so I wasn’t super defensive about hearing it criticized. And I thought the video made some legitimate points, but I won’t list them all here.

What I really was thinking about was the point that questioned if these wholly negative reviews were actually good reviews or good comedy.

I want to unpack that idea more than the actual video did, because I think it’s a whole missed discussion opportunity.

Judging both from the comment sections of YouTube, and actual people I’ve heard talk about this, many just don’t see the point of even caring about movie reviews or reviewers, and whether they are serious or not, because, in these people’s minds, movies should not be taken that seriously.

To those people I would say that when kids are kissing frogs and maniacs are planning crimes because of something they saw in a movie, we had better take it seriously.

Even if what we take out of that is that people are morons.

Well, to be fair, many of them are.

But stupidity, in my experience, is almost always taught. It’s not an innate trait of the average person to be an idiot. There’s always a few who just seem to be born without a clue, but usually it’s choices made between childhood and adulthood that shape someone’s intelligence.

Even so, intelligence is not a permanent thing. People can become stupider, they can also become smarter. We used to understand that before IQ tests cam along to tell us those things are set in stone.

So, the charge that movies are playing to the stupidest parts of human nature, and society, should be taken seriously. Because it reflects on us, what we find funny, and what we support.

People like Cinema Sins are right to be disgusted with cinema that is only there to be stupid and “funny.”

I think the dumbest thing anyone can say about movies is that they don’t matter and should not be taken seriously.

That eliminates about a third of the voices on this subject.

So, turning to the other two main opinions on reviews, I want to explain where I am on this.

At first when I started watching negative reviews, I liked it. I was frustrated with plenty of the entertainment out there, and I thought a lot of it was dumb. It was nice to be agreed with by a public source. Plus, it was funny; and I also learned some terms that people use and how movies and shows are typically rated. All helpful and interesting stuff to know for the movie goer who really wants to be careful about their time.

But the problem was, these reviews picked apart movies I did like as well as movies I didn’t. Sometimes I acknowledged they had a point. But other times, like with my favorite movie of all, it was really painful to hear it mocked to dust.

More recently I started seeking out more positive reviews. Cinema Wins, a spin off of the other, makes good review that are all focused on finding the bright side. Another good channel was How It Should Have Ended; which does poke a lot of fun at films, but ultimately they are positive, and just freaking genius some of the time. (If you like that type of humor. I won’t say everyone would like it.)

Now, Cinema Wins is sometimes naively positive about movies. But the guy knows he is, and admits it. Which is why I prefer it to these negative Nancy reviews I’m so sick of. A reviewer of movies should actually want to like movies. Otherwise how can they admit anything is of merit in any franchise?

See, at first it didn’t occur to me that watching movies expressly to find fault was a problem. But once I noticed that I couldn’t enjoy even movies I liked as much anymore now that I had all this negativity going through my mind, I got upset.

I’m not even a big fan of the entertainment industry as a whole. But when I find a gem, I don’t like it being picked apart.

Now everyone will have different standards for what constitutes a good movie. Often I think people go by the wrong things, but that’s because reviews have shifted to focusing on stuff that is minor.

How well a scene is shot, how colorful it is, or how melodic the soundtrack is are not really major things. And nitpicking every line of dialogue, or every element that doesn’t make perfect sense can completely miss the point both of the movie, and of storytelling itself.

When people used to gather around storytellers (like we do around TVs now) it didn’t matter how realistic the story was. The point was in what it meant. Was it a warning? Did it explain something about life? Did it give hope?

What’s ironic is that now, many movies and books actually use this older reason for storytelling telling as a plot point within their story.

Take that briefly popular The Giver book. The whole story turns on the past, the stories as it were, that the Giver shares with the Receiver.

The same thing with Ayn Rand’s little Anthem story. The books and tales of the past end up opening Prometheus’ eyes to the present.

It’s sad that even though this element of storytelling is used, it has to be done undercover, because people will pick the actual book to pieces over little things.

No one would fault the Receiver for accepting what the Giver tells him. (Or gives him. I haven’t actually read the book.) But in the real world, stories aren’t often received so well.

I think I’ll have to make a part two to finish this properly, so until next post–Natasha.