Movie Review- “The Terminator”
The Terminator is a 1984 film directed by James Cameron and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Biehn, and Linda Hamilton. The film was a modest box office hit and drew mostly positive reviews for its action and pacing. The film has become an enduring favorite and has made a number of AFI “best of” lists and maintains high marks on review aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. The film spawned a number of sequels and a television series. So does The Terminator, as one of the most well known 80s sci-fi action films, deserve the label “classic?”
Should this film be considered a classic? When I think of late 70s and early 80s sci-fi there are three directors who come to my mind: George Lucas, Ridley Scott, and James Cameron. Lucas of course created the Star Wars films while Scott made his mark with Alien and Blade Runner. Cameron had Aliens and The Terminator. For me, those directors define that era when it comes to sci-fi with Scott and Cameron having quite a bit in common because of the dark tone of their films. The Terminator is a tense and lean film that works even as it approaches 30 years old. Yes, the effects are dated and there is a nagging synthesizer soundtrack. However, the film about the relentless terminator remains entertaining and intense. It is a testament to the story and the actors that a film so firmly rooted in the 80s has aged this well. As a representation of 80s action films this is definitely a classic and deserving of the label. That said, I think that Rambo: First Blood is probably my preference over The Terminator. I think the surprisingly thoughtful First Blood is a superior film and has aged much better. Still, The Terminator is a definite classic and for fans of 80s style action one of the definitive films from the era.
Would I own this film? Probably not. It is one that I like to revisit occasionally when I go on a terminator kick. Personally, I enjoy all the terminator films but they have never been among my all time favorites and thus probably won’t find a permanent place in my collection. That said, if you need to have an action movie night The Terminator should be on your short list.
Unfortunately I could not find a trailer or hardly any clips where YouTube hadn’t disabled embedding. Here’s a clip of one of the classic lines that I found with embedding still enabled.
Is Marriage Primarily to Make Us Happy or to Make Us Holy?
My wife and I are working our way through our sixth year of marriage. As our relationship has grown and matured I’ve become increasingly frustrated with what seems to be the popular view in culture that marriage is something we should do for our own happiness and self-fulfillment. I’ve had this reinforced over the last couple of days while watching episodes of the short-lived post-apocalyptic TV show Jericho on Netflix. One of the main plot points is the relationship between three people: a man, his pregnant wife, and his mistress. The one thing that comes up in episode after episode is that the marriage does not make the man happy so he looks elsewhere for happiness. Even after finding out he is going to be a father he puts his happiness above the needs of his wife and unborn child. To top it all off, many of the characters around him seem to support his decision and encourage him to pursue his selfish happiness rather than doing the hard work to reconcile with his wife. To say this irritates me would be an understatement.
That might be an extreme example, but I think it does reflect the way that many people view marriage and the attitude that many have when they get married. They get married because the person they are with makes them feel good. The focus is on their individual happiness. Well, what happens when the other shoe drops and life happens? When happens when the happy couple faces financial difficulties? What happens when the happy couple decides kids will make them even happier but they discover they can’t have kids? What happens when they face a period of time where their spouse is not making them happy? If the marriage is based on individual happiness it will be hard to make it through the unhappy times.
That’s why, especially for Christians, we need to have a shift in the way we view marriage. Culture has it wrong (I know, big surprise!). As with every gift God has given to us, marriage is not merely for our happiness and self-gratification. It serves to bring glory to God and as a tool of God’s continual sanctifying work in the Christian. Not only that, but Scripture clearly teaches that marriage is to be a living and breathing proclamation of the Gospel and Jesus’ sacrifice for the church. When you start thinking about marriage from the perspective of God’s intention for the institution, it becomes clear that our individual happiness should not be the foundation upon which a marriage is built.
Now don’t get me wrong because I’m not saying marriage is or should be drudgery. You should most definitely marry someone who you delight in and who brings you joy. However, we have to recognize that a marriage can’t be built upon the fleeting feeling of happiness because there will be seasons within the marriage that are incredibly difficult and if the marriage is built on the shaky foundation of personal happiness and fulfillment it will be much more likely to crumble then if your view of marriage is one that is built upon the picture in Scripture.
I encourage you to watch this video for a powerful picture of a marriage that has faced and will face tremendous hardship but which has a firm foundation because it is built on Scripture.
100 Movies to See Before You Die- “Wings of Desire”
Wings of Desire is a 1987 film that was a joint West German and French production. It was directed by Wim Winders and starred Bruno Ganz, Solveig Dommartin, Otto Sander, and Peter Falk. The film was not a big box office hit upon release but it did manage to bring in enough to cover its budget. The film was a critical darling and Wenders won “Best Director” at the 1987 Cannes Festival. So does this film deserve to be counted among the all time greats and wear the badge “classic?”
Should this film be considered a classic? When I sat down to watch this film it was for the very first time. I didn’t know what to expect beyond the short description on the paper Netflix sleeve. I confess that I had my doubts going into the film as to whether or not I would find it very interesting. First, let me tell you the things I enjoyed. I really appreciated the look at divided Berlin. That is a time in history which I lived through but I am too young to remember. It was fascinating to see the shots of the Berlin wall, ruins that likely dated to World War II, and the check points that were a part of every day life during the Cold War years. I also really enjoyed the latter portion of the film when the angel, Damiel (Ganz) finally becomes human. His experiences of seeing colors for the first time, trying a hot cup of coffee, and buying clothes are all wonderfully filmed and capture his joy perfectly. Unfortunately, I found the first two-thirds of the film to be quite a drag. It seems to get bogged down in its own self-importance and a story that is actually quite simple and wonderful becomes a slog. I appreciate the artistry of this film, especially the beautiful manner in which it is shot, but the pacing just kills the experience for me. So I would say this film is a good, maybe even great, film but it is not a classic.
Would I own this film? No. The film was just not compelling enough for me to want to own a copy of it or to revisit. This is definitely a memorable film and the themes it explores are universal and very worthy topics. I just wish it had done it with a little better pacing.
Protected: Adventures in Fatherhood- “Liam vs. The Inebriated Cowboy (Walking)”
100 Movies to See Before You Die- “Grand Illusion” (La Grande Illusion)
Grand Illusion is a 1937 French film directed by Jean Renoir. The film is regarded as one of the greatest of French cinema. It was also the first foreign language film to be nominated for an Academy Award in the category of Best Picture. The film continues to be highly regarded for its drama, commentary on war, and commentary on social classes. So does this highly regarded French film deserve to be counted among the greats? Does it deserve the label of classic?
Should this film be considered a classic? Without a doubt. This was a film I went into as a blank slate. I had never seen it nor heard of it to my knowledge. Films like this one are always the most fun to sit down and watch because I know it will be a completely new experience for me. Well, Grand Illusion proved wonderful surprise and ranks with On The Waterfront as one of my favorite, previously undiscovered, movies on this list. The film provides a glimpse at World War I through the eyes of French POWs. Not only does it give us a commentary on war but it also provides a fascinating social commentary on issues of class. The film is primarily driven by the relationships that develop between four men with classes ranging from middle class to wealthy to aristocrat. I have to say the film did not go the way I expected with the relationship between the French POWs and I was pleasantly surprised by the fair handedness with which the film dealt with each of the different classes represented. The film avoids the easy stereotypes and I think that is what makes it such a joy to watch.
Would I own this film? Yes! I’m hoping that Criterion will release a Blu-Ray version at some point. This is a film that has so many different layers that it really needs to be watched multiple times to make sure that nothing is missed while reading the subtitles. The film is available on Netflix streaming as of right now so if you have not seen it you should do yourself a favor and add this one to your weekend plans. You won’t be disappointed and I think you will find it gives a much fairer treatment to the issue of class than if you spent $20 to go watch James Cameron sink Titanic.
Protected: Adventures in Fatherhood- “Easter 2012″
100 Movies to See Before You Die- “Rebel Without a Cause”
Rebel Without a Cause is a 1955 film directed by Nicolas Ray and starring James Dean, Natalie Wood, and Sal Mineo and follows a group of delinquent teenagers who come from middle class families. The film was the second major role for James Dean after a number of bit parts and an Academy Award nominated performance for his turn in East of Eden. The film is especially significant because of when it was released. Dean was killed in a car accident on September 30, 1955 at the age of 24. The film was released on October 27. The film was well received and drew good reviews from critics impressed with the acting chops of Dean and many of the other young cast members. It went on to be nominated for three Academy Awards- Best Writing (Nicolas Ray), Best Supporting Actor (Mineo), and Best Supporting Actress (Wood). The film continues to be popular having made a number of “best of” lists down through the years. So does this film from the iconic James Dean deserve the label of classic?
Should this film be considered a classic? I’m going to break with consensus here and say that it should not. I’ll readily agree with those who point to the stellar performances of all the cast members. I understand the appeal of the film because of all the mystery surrounding the young death of James Dean. I also get the points the film was trying to make as a social commentary on teenagers, parents, and society. That said, I simply did not find the story compelling. I thought the story was very disjointed and lacked a good sense of narrative flow. In that way it actually reminded me of Apocalypse Now because it too has a story that often seemed a bit abrupt to me as it moved from one act to the next. I also just have a really hard time dealing with the completely inept father figure of Dean’s character in the movie. He is so painful to watch on screen that I found myself cringing as I watched his scenes. I realize that is likely the point the filmmakers were trying to convey with that character but he is so grating that he sucked all the life out of the film as I watched it. I also really disliked the nihilistic tone of the movie. The movie didn’t even try to mask the nihilism as it is on full display in the narration during the planetarium show. That theme of hopelessness which so characterizes nihilism is ever present in the film and makes it tiresome to watch. I don’t expect films to be all bunny rabbits and unicorns. A dark film done right can be great, really great. The potential was definitely there for this film but I just don’t think it was executed well.
Would I own this film? I admit that I really expected to like this film. I’d never seen it before and had never seen any of Dean’s other work. I was ready for a film about teenage rebellion. I was ready for some tough social commentary. I was ready for a dark movie. I was not ready for the disjointed story and nihilism. I don’t like nihilism. It’s a failure when it comes to philosophy. It’s a failure when applied to life. It’s a failure when it comes to art. No, I wouldn’t own this film because good acting is not enough to salvage a story that jerks along like a carnival ride or the nihilistic thinking that seems to run through the whole thing.
100 Movies to See Before You Die- “This Is Spinal Tap”
This Is Spinal Tap is a 1984 film directed by Rob Reiner and starring Michael McKean (St. Hubbins), Harry Shearer (Smalls), and Christopher Guest (Tufnel). It is shot in a documentary style with Rob Reiner not only being the acutal director of the film but also the fictional director of the mockumentary. Upon release, Spinal Tap did not see huge success with audiences however it earned high praise from critics. The film was so faithful in its portrayal of rock and roll, record labels, and the over sized personalities that make up rock and roll bands that many moviegoers were convinced they were seeing an actual documentary rather than a film meant to satire an industry and the people in it. Spinal Tap remains a highly regarded film and has made a number of AFI best of lists as well as numerous other best of lists from other publications. So does this realistic mockumentary deserve to be counted among the classics?
Should this film be considered a classic? Yes, it most definitely should. I saw this film for the first time when I watched it for this review. Even though I was watching it almost thirty years after it was initially released I still had to remind myself that what I was seeing was indeed fiction. Perhaps that is why I’m so quick to give this film the “classic” label. It is satire done right. Satire done right is often very close to real life and is often painfully funny. Spinal Tap is definitely painfully funny because it looks and feels so much like what you’ve seen and read about rock and roll culture. The Wikipedia article I link to above contains a number of quotes from influential rock stars about how the film made them cringe because of how realistic it was. Not only that, but the acting is absolutely pitch perfect. You will believe you are watching rock stars and not actors playing rock stars. The camera work is also excellent and sells the hand-held/insider documentary feel.
Would I own this film? Unfortunately not. While I really appreciate how good this film is and recognize that it is indeed a classic, I think that my one viewing will probably be enough. The rock and roll culture is a bit too vulgar for me to want to endure more viewings despite the great artistic achievement that the film is.
Here’s one of the greatest scenes from the film. “These go to eleven!”
