Thursday, June 25, 2009
On Blogging . . .
Part of my frustration with blogging is the fact that life is not very interesting, at least to the point where other people would be interested in hearing about my life. Why is that?
Friday, December 19, 2008
Movie Review: Milk
Bottom Line: Really good!
The premise: chronicling the political career of murdered San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, the movie discusses the gay rights activism of the 1970s and the election of the first openly gay person to major public office. Some may discount it as a politically motivated liberal movie, but it's more.
I should make a few disclaimers: as an evangelical Christian about to graduate Fuller Theological Seminary, I am well aware of the divide between the majority religious community and majority secular community regarding homosexuality (see the wake of Prop 8 to illustrate this divide). I should also note that this divide seems to be growing each day, and (for the most part) there has been a lack of initiative from the Evangelical/Christian community to talk about these issues openly, both within the religious community and with the secular community. As evangelicals, we must be willing to enter into other peoples' lives, rather than expect them to change their views to suit ours. In order to do that, we must be more open in talking about these issues and how our views affect other people's views of us.
With that said, I think that every evangelical should go see Milk, if only to better understand the chasm that has historically existed between the religious and secular communities. The movie goes to great lengths to show how religious views can lead to legal oppression of people outside of the religious community and what that can do to a community's views of religion, particularly Christianity, in general. These views do not help spread the Gospel of God's grace, but paint a dark picture of God-fearers as bigot supremicists. In turn, this creates a false image of all Evangelicals as bigots or supremists simply because the loudest voices that promote their own agendas drown out the rest of us.
Case in point: Rick Warren at Barack Obama's inauguration. People outside the religious community see Warren as a bigot supremist by forcing his views on others by openly supporting Prop 8 while people on the inside see him as a champion of letting the Bible shape his views. I don't think Rick Warren is trying to dictate policy (perhaps he is), but stand up for a definition of marriage that does not compromise the Bible. If we were more open about talking about these views with the secular community and in our own communities, there would be a lot less labeling on both sides.
Please note that I do not advocate changing the religious position itself, but simply opening the door for discussion to help people outside of our community understand our views, just as we should try to understand their views. In fact, I voted "No" on Prop 8 (*gasp*) for two reasons: it is descriminatory, and I do not feel that the government should be able to dictate the definition what makes a marriage in the first place. A marriage is a covenant between two people and God, and if God is not legally recognized by the state, then the state should not have any legal jurisdiction on marriage. Of course, and inevitably, I hear straw-man issues on gay marriage crop up, such as polygamy, pedophelia, or beastiality, and I personally feel they have no place in the argument because gay marriage involves consenting people, whereas the aforementioned issues often involve coercion of one party by the other, but that is a different discussion. The bottom line: go see Milk. Even if it doesn't change your views, you will probably have a greater appreciation of how the religous community should treat those outside of our community.
The premise: chronicling the political career of murdered San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, the movie discusses the gay rights activism of the 1970s and the election of the first openly gay person to major public office. Some may discount it as a politically motivated liberal movie, but it's more.
I should make a few disclaimers: as an evangelical Christian about to graduate Fuller Theological Seminary, I am well aware of the divide between the majority religious community and majority secular community regarding homosexuality (see the wake of Prop 8 to illustrate this divide). I should also note that this divide seems to be growing each day, and (for the most part) there has been a lack of initiative from the Evangelical/Christian community to talk about these issues openly, both within the religious community and with the secular community. As evangelicals, we must be willing to enter into other peoples' lives, rather than expect them to change their views to suit ours. In order to do that, we must be more open in talking about these issues and how our views affect other people's views of us.
With that said, I think that every evangelical should go see Milk, if only to better understand the chasm that has historically existed between the religious and secular communities. The movie goes to great lengths to show how religious views can lead to legal oppression of people outside of the religious community and what that can do to a community's views of religion, particularly Christianity, in general. These views do not help spread the Gospel of God's grace, but paint a dark picture of God-fearers as bigot supremicists. In turn, this creates a false image of all Evangelicals as bigots or supremists simply because the loudest voices that promote their own agendas drown out the rest of us.
Case in point: Rick Warren at Barack Obama's inauguration. People outside the religious community see Warren as a bigot supremist by forcing his views on others by openly supporting Prop 8 while people on the inside see him as a champion of letting the Bible shape his views. I don't think Rick Warren is trying to dictate policy (perhaps he is), but stand up for a definition of marriage that does not compromise the Bible. If we were more open about talking about these views with the secular community and in our own communities, there would be a lot less labeling on both sides.
Please note that I do not advocate changing the religious position itself, but simply opening the door for discussion to help people outside of our community understand our views, just as we should try to understand their views. In fact, I voted "No" on Prop 8 (*gasp*) for two reasons: it is descriminatory, and I do not feel that the government should be able to dictate the definition what makes a marriage in the first place. A marriage is a covenant between two people and God, and if God is not legally recognized by the state, then the state should not have any legal jurisdiction on marriage. Of course, and inevitably, I hear straw-man issues on gay marriage crop up, such as polygamy, pedophelia, or beastiality, and I personally feel they have no place in the argument because gay marriage involves consenting people, whereas the aforementioned issues often involve coercion of one party by the other, but that is a different discussion. The bottom line: go see Milk. Even if it doesn't change your views, you will probably have a greater appreciation of how the religous community should treat those outside of our community.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Go Cubs!
The World Series is almost over, and no matter who wins (the Rays or Phillies), the REAL winner is the Chicago Cubs, not because the Cubs got to the Playoffs and almost won the World Series, but because they failed, yet again, to clinch that elusive world title. And that, my friend, is something for which every baseball fan should be thankful. The Cubs have established a tradition of failure, and rooting against that tradition should be the mainstay of Cubbie fans.
The Cubs have not won the World Series in 100 years, a record that grows each October. Every year, fans are reminded of their mediocrity and yet they keep coming back to Wrigley, secretly hoping "This year may be the year," to which I secretly hope, "May it never be!" As the record grows, Cubs fans should be thankful that their beloved Cubbies failed to win, not disappointed. They have established their own niche, their own claim to fame. Their record has become legendary, and thus they have a bragging right that no one else can claim. Sure it's a record that no one wants to have, but it is a record, is it not? So why ruin it by winning the World Series?
I think each year when the Cubs get knocked out of, or the day they get eliminated from, the Playoffs, Cubs fans should pop open celebratory champaign and rejoice that their record continues to grow. Every year they lose, they actually win. Every October when the World Series champion is crowned with their "World Champions" hats, Cubs fans should have their own hats that say "One hundred _______ years and counting. Beat that!"
The Cubs losing each year should always be a part of baseball, the same way the pitcher should always be expected to hit and the Yankees should always be the most loved & despised team. Cubs fans, I emplore you to find pride in something that no other team has been able to do: fail. For in failing, you actually win.
The Cubs have not won the World Series in 100 years, a record that grows each October. Every year, fans are reminded of their mediocrity and yet they keep coming back to Wrigley, secretly hoping "This year may be the year," to which I secretly hope, "May it never be!" As the record grows, Cubs fans should be thankful that their beloved Cubbies failed to win, not disappointed. They have established their own niche, their own claim to fame. Their record has become legendary, and thus they have a bragging right that no one else can claim. Sure it's a record that no one wants to have, but it is a record, is it not? So why ruin it by winning the World Series?
I think each year when the Cubs get knocked out of, or the day they get eliminated from, the Playoffs, Cubs fans should pop open celebratory champaign and rejoice that their record continues to grow. Every year they lose, they actually win. Every October when the World Series champion is crowned with their "World Champions" hats, Cubs fans should have their own hats that say "One hundred _______ years and counting. Beat that!"
The Cubs losing each year should always be a part of baseball, the same way the pitcher should always be expected to hit and the Yankees should always be the most loved & despised team. Cubs fans, I emplore you to find pride in something that no other team has been able to do: fail. For in failing, you actually win.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Movie Review: The Dark Knight
Awesome beyond words.
Heath Ledger's last performance is probably his best ever. The story was even better. It's more than just an adventure; it's Batman's journey into becoming the person that he needs to be in order to help the greater good. Some say that it was too long, but I disagree; I enjoyed every minute of it. All I can say is: if you enjoyed the first Batman Begins movie, you'll enjoy this one.
My one criticism: it's beginning to go down the path that the first Batman series. The innovations incorporated into the sequel are taking Batman away from being somewhat believable (which is why Batman Begins was so cool) to unbelievable and eventually to comedic (see my Indiana Jones movie review for more on this). This one still left me with a sense of awe, but I fear that sequels will get more and more unbelievable. I know that it's a comic book, but part of what makes comics fun is the "realism" that can be used to make the unbelievable believable. When it crosses that fine line, I begin to lose interest.
I am also sad that Heath Ledger is no longer with us, hence we will never see a repeat performance. With that said, I think the Nolan brothers should begin to think about how they intend to end this series. My hope is that they create a third which builds upon the themes of this movies via the Riddler, a man that transforms Batman's mind from the Dark Knight to something else and Batman must rediscover who he is.
Heath Ledger's last performance is probably his best ever. The story was even better. It's more than just an adventure; it's Batman's journey into becoming the person that he needs to be in order to help the greater good. Some say that it was too long, but I disagree; I enjoyed every minute of it. All I can say is: if you enjoyed the first Batman Begins movie, you'll enjoy this one.
My one criticism: it's beginning to go down the path that the first Batman series. The innovations incorporated into the sequel are taking Batman away from being somewhat believable (which is why Batman Begins was so cool) to unbelievable and eventually to comedic (see my Indiana Jones movie review for more on this). This one still left me with a sense of awe, but I fear that sequels will get more and more unbelievable. I know that it's a comic book, but part of what makes comics fun is the "realism" that can be used to make the unbelievable believable. When it crosses that fine line, I begin to lose interest.
I am also sad that Heath Ledger is no longer with us, hence we will never see a repeat performance. With that said, I think the Nolan brothers should begin to think about how they intend to end this series. My hope is that they create a third which builds upon the themes of this movies via the Riddler, a man that transforms Batman's mind from the Dark Knight to something else and Batman must rediscover who he is.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Up Next: Pastor Melissa Scott
If you've stayed up late on any given week-night, you've probably seen "Pastor" Melissa Scott. She's young (looking), wears a clerical collar (similar to Roman Catholic collars), and exegetes (exegesis: literally "drawing out of") biblical Greek texts. As a seminary student, I was curious to see how well she could teach from the original Greek, if her methods were sound, etc. She gave a fairly biblically sound message, so I dug deeper to find out who she is and what she's about.
As you may know, many televangelists are frauds. They live millionaire's lifestyles (feeling that they are actually entitled, mind you!), flaunting control over the Holy Spirit rather than being led by it. Prosperity gospel is the selling point, and people often send money in the hopes of receiving monetary blessings back from God. As a result, televangelists often peddle religious pornography, giving the people what they want to hear instead of sound biblical teaching, and leaving a wake of religious disdain by non-believers. Heretical teachers I've heard on TV include Joel Osteen (subtly heretical), Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff, Jim Bakker, . . ., the list goes on and on. Often I think they are simply misled by the idea that God's favor = monetary gain, thus they feel their message is justified simply because of the millions of dollars they receieve. The void of properly trained pastors leaves the door open for doctrinal heresies, and the information age allows these heretics to broadcast their messages unchecked. (My plug for seminary education) After seeing Melissa Scott exegeting Scripture, I was intrigued, for she did not represent the typical televangelist.
I have since learned that Melissa Scott is the widow of heretical televangelist Dr. Eugene Scott. Gene Scott, a genius who only respected his own authority, created his own brand of Christianity. He seemed to have a genuine faith in God, only he believed in a hedonistic lifestyle and believed that God accepts you as you are. If you are an adulterer, that's who you are, so don't stop being that! It's no surprise, therefore, that Gene's messages were totally unique. He would often curse during his messages, smoke stogies, and present a "bevy of beauties" that would be displayed around him while he sermonized. All of these were his way of practicing what he preached. Romans 6 seems to have escaped his watchful eye: "Are we to continue sinning that grace may abound? By no means!" He lived the life of typical televangelists, peddling the "do whatever you want" gospel rather than the "get whatever you want" gospel. He built a religious empire that many televangelists would envy, including owning mansions, expensive cars and paintings (including a Monet and Rembrant!), and other expensive heirlooms. His favorite line: "Get on the phone!" He had a laundry-list of problems, all of them stemming from his hatred of any authority, including God's authority in his life, causing him to be the subject of a 1980s documentary: God's Angry Man. Gene was an ironic man: a man with genuine faith and somewhat sound messages, but a faith which was lived out by his own standards of what he thought life should be like.
Gene Scott died in 2005; Melissa Scott is his widow. Melissa was one of the girls that would prance around Gene during his broadcasts from home, which flaunted his possessions rather than hide them. A trophy to be put on display, Melissa left her previous profession as a porn star (no kidding, her stage name was Barbie Bridges), divorced her porn-industry hubby in 1994, and married Gene in 2000 (I think). At the time, Gene was 39 years older than Melissa and had been married twice before. She took up the reins of Gene's ministry, preaching in a similar style to Gene via the exposition of Greek scripture. She even sings hymns and professes herself a sinner.
Is she for real? I doubt it. If anything, her theology is almost entirely what she gleaned from Gene, who was considered a heretic by the orthodox church community. Through Gene, she saw first-hand the benefits of televangelism and prostituting the gospel. Granted in the telecast that I saw, she did not ask for money and also mentioned that was no "800" number to call as proof to her sincerity to be on the doctrinal straight-and-narrow and not another televangelist, I feel that as she gains in popularity, the opportunities will arise for her to reap fortunes in the future just like her late husband. Why would she marry Gene in the first place is beyond me, other than the benefits that could come her way via marriage, which included inheriting Gene's huge estate and televangelistic empire. I'm forced to conclude that if she were true to the gospel, she would turn off the cameras and let God do the work of spreading her message, or get a seminary degree to lend credence to herself as a pastor. As of now, though, she seems content on picking up where Gene left off, and my advice would be to avoid her like other television preachers; they may sound legit, but they often are not.
As you may know, many televangelists are frauds. They live millionaire's lifestyles (feeling that they are actually entitled, mind you!), flaunting control over the Holy Spirit rather than being led by it. Prosperity gospel is the selling point, and people often send money in the hopes of receiving monetary blessings back from God. As a result, televangelists often peddle religious pornography, giving the people what they want to hear instead of sound biblical teaching, and leaving a wake of religious disdain by non-believers. Heretical teachers I've heard on TV include Joel Osteen (subtly heretical), Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff, Jim Bakker, . . ., the list goes on and on. Often I think they are simply misled by the idea that God's favor = monetary gain, thus they feel their message is justified simply because of the millions of dollars they receieve. The void of properly trained pastors leaves the door open for doctrinal heresies, and the information age allows these heretics to broadcast their messages unchecked. (My plug for seminary education) After seeing Melissa Scott exegeting Scripture, I was intrigued, for she did not represent the typical televangelist.
I have since learned that Melissa Scott is the widow of heretical televangelist Dr. Eugene Scott. Gene Scott, a genius who only respected his own authority, created his own brand of Christianity. He seemed to have a genuine faith in God, only he believed in a hedonistic lifestyle and believed that God accepts you as you are. If you are an adulterer, that's who you are, so don't stop being that! It's no surprise, therefore, that Gene's messages were totally unique. He would often curse during his messages, smoke stogies, and present a "bevy of beauties" that would be displayed around him while he sermonized. All of these were his way of practicing what he preached. Romans 6 seems to have escaped his watchful eye: "Are we to continue sinning that grace may abound? By no means!" He lived the life of typical televangelists, peddling the "do whatever you want" gospel rather than the "get whatever you want" gospel. He built a religious empire that many televangelists would envy, including owning mansions, expensive cars and paintings (including a Monet and Rembrant!), and other expensive heirlooms. His favorite line: "Get on the phone!" He had a laundry-list of problems, all of them stemming from his hatred of any authority, including God's authority in his life, causing him to be the subject of a 1980s documentary: God's Angry Man. Gene was an ironic man: a man with genuine faith and somewhat sound messages, but a faith which was lived out by his own standards of what he thought life should be like.
Gene Scott died in 2005; Melissa Scott is his widow. Melissa was one of the girls that would prance around Gene during his broadcasts from home, which flaunted his possessions rather than hide them. A trophy to be put on display, Melissa left her previous profession as a porn star (no kidding, her stage name was Barbie Bridges), divorced her porn-industry hubby in 1994, and married Gene in 2000 (I think). At the time, Gene was 39 years older than Melissa and had been married twice before. She took up the reins of Gene's ministry, preaching in a similar style to Gene via the exposition of Greek scripture. She even sings hymns and professes herself a sinner.
Is she for real? I doubt it. If anything, her theology is almost entirely what she gleaned from Gene, who was considered a heretic by the orthodox church community. Through Gene, she saw first-hand the benefits of televangelism and prostituting the gospel. Granted in the telecast that I saw, she did not ask for money and also mentioned that was no "800" number to call as proof to her sincerity to be on the doctrinal straight-and-narrow and not another televangelist, I feel that as she gains in popularity, the opportunities will arise for her to reap fortunes in the future just like her late husband. Why would she marry Gene in the first place is beyond me, other than the benefits that could come her way via marriage, which included inheriting Gene's huge estate and televangelistic empire. I'm forced to conclude that if she were true to the gospel, she would turn off the cameras and let God do the work of spreading her message, or get a seminary degree to lend credence to herself as a pastor. As of now, though, she seems content on picking up where Gene left off, and my advice would be to avoid her like other television preachers; they may sound legit, but they often are not.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Movie Review: Indiana Jones
Spoiler Alerts ahead (but you'll probably find more entertainment here than at the actual movie)
Bottom Line: don't believe the hype, it sucks.
Can someone please tell George Lucas to NEVER FREAKING DO ANOTHER MOVIE AGAIN! ! ! The man who single-handedly ruined Star Wars by creating an inconsistent story-line and catering to marketing gimmicks in order to reap money he does not need has now severely crippled the Indiana Jones franchise. The fun thing about "Indy" movies is that the unbelievable become somewhat believable (example, Indy parachuting from a plane about to crash into a mountain via an inflatable raft). This last movie goes beyond the "somewhat believable" to the "there's no way in hell I can even entertain this as even plausible" realm. This movie features Indy surviving a nuclear blast, a guy going more than 60 mph by swinging on vines (well, he manages to catch up to cars going 60 while he seems to be going at a brisk 10 mph), people surviving three drops from 100+ foot waterfalls while in a "floating" car, and more completely asinine situations sprinkled throughout the film.
"What can be worse?" you ask? How about the story! Indy gets away from traditional religious themes and enters the space-race of prehistoric aliens that came to earth to teach the early Mayan culture about building things. Apparently there's a lost city of gold (you'd think they'd think of something more creative) that's missing a crystal alien skull (how it goes missing is never addressed). Indy finds it, returns it, and manages to thwart a Romulan, err Soviet, colonel and her band of Nazi-esque minions (see Raiders of the Lost Ark). And that's the tip of the iceberg! I don't know why Lucas decided to take a page out of Star Trek, but whatever sells, right? The colonel doesn't even suffer an agonizing death at the end, but has her mind zapped and she eventually turns to dust. Strong-arm the return of Myriam from the first movie, Indy's long-lost son, and dialog that spends half of the time explaining what's going on to the audience, and VOILA! You have baked yourself a movie that produces more methane than the entire American Mid-West.
It was terrible. It was awful. It was more forced tripe from George Lucas which depends more on nostalgia than storyline. I now officially hate Lucas and everything for which he now stands: money and sticking it to movie-goers.
Bottom Line: don't believe the hype, it sucks.
Can someone please tell George Lucas to NEVER FREAKING DO ANOTHER MOVIE AGAIN! ! ! The man who single-handedly ruined Star Wars by creating an inconsistent story-line and catering to marketing gimmicks in order to reap money he does not need has now severely crippled the Indiana Jones franchise. The fun thing about "Indy" movies is that the unbelievable become somewhat believable (example, Indy parachuting from a plane about to crash into a mountain via an inflatable raft). This last movie goes beyond the "somewhat believable" to the "there's no way in hell I can even entertain this as even plausible" realm. This movie features Indy surviving a nuclear blast, a guy going more than 60 mph by swinging on vines (well, he manages to catch up to cars going 60 while he seems to be going at a brisk 10 mph), people surviving three drops from 100+ foot waterfalls while in a "floating" car, and more completely asinine situations sprinkled throughout the film.
"What can be worse?" you ask? How about the story! Indy gets away from traditional religious themes and enters the space-race of prehistoric aliens that came to earth to teach the early Mayan culture about building things. Apparently there's a lost city of gold (you'd think they'd think of something more creative) that's missing a crystal alien skull (how it goes missing is never addressed). Indy finds it, returns it, and manages to thwart a Romulan, err Soviet, colonel and her band of Nazi-esque minions (see Raiders of the Lost Ark). And that's the tip of the iceberg! I don't know why Lucas decided to take a page out of Star Trek, but whatever sells, right? The colonel doesn't even suffer an agonizing death at the end, but has her mind zapped and she eventually turns to dust. Strong-arm the return of Myriam from the first movie, Indy's long-lost son, and dialog that spends half of the time explaining what's going on to the audience, and VOILA! You have baked yourself a movie that produces more methane than the entire American Mid-West.
It was terrible. It was awful. It was more forced tripe from George Lucas which depends more on nostalgia than storyline. I now officially hate Lucas and everything for which he now stands: money and sticking it to movie-goers.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Movie Review: Dan in Real Life
I got sucked into this one via a request from my wife and FAULTY statistical data from rottentomatoes.com (a 68% on the tomatometer, implying that it might actually be good, or at least have some moments). This move is horrid from the get-go.
Critics of comedic actors have a tough job. What's funny to most may not be funny to the critic, so they toe a fine line. Case in point: Steve Carell. I think the critics see Steve Carell as relatively new and accepted by most audiences. I also think people are anxious to pass the torch to Carell to be the lead in the next generation of comedic movies. As a result, critics go easy on their critiques of him due to their desire to give him positive reviews and not upset audiences. But just because he's relatively new and not hated does not mean he's the man to lead the comedy genre into the Promised Land, and Dan In Real Life is my Exhibit A.
First of all, I know the distinction between Romantic Comedy and Comedy, and most would be quick to point out this distinction, but let's examine Romantic Comedy for a moment. A Comedy is meant to make the audience laugh. A Romantic Comedy is meant to be Romantic and Comedic, but in my experience, Romantic Comedy seems like an oxymoron. Comedy is not meant to be romantic, nor is romance meant to be comedic. When Hollywood tries to combine the two, they rarely succeed in producing a quality flick. It's usually a comedy with some romantic themes, or a romance with comedic elements, but never both. Despite the futility of Romantic Comedies, the genre Romantic Comedy endures with the understanding that a Romantic Comedy is a classic "Date Movie" or a movie that both a guy and a girl will enjoy. Bare this in mind.
Dan in Real Life (a play upon the internet lingo, for those who are internet savvy) is meant to be a Date Movie. Give the guys Carell & comedy and the girls some romance and everyone leaves happy. The problem with this movie arises when the writer/director Peter Hedges fails to use Carell for comedy (opting for other actors to unsuccessfully deliver the punchlines) and instead uses Carell for the Romantic role (a widower with kids seeking to find someone to fill the void). The movie fails to uphold to its "Comedy" criteria and becomes a lackluster romance film, hence again why I feel that the Romantic Comedy genre is self-defeating. I never laughed at anything Carell did throughout the movie, and instead I was left feeling sorry for the dude. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the guy that's supposed to make me laugh? The other actors all seemed lost in the shuffle, believing that since Carell was supposed to be the funny guy, they should just support him in trying to be funny. Dane Cook is a great example of this dilemma wherein he plays the role, but never gets a laugh.
In the end, I was sorely disappointed in this movie, and in the critics for letting this movie off the hook in terms of how bad it truly was. Maybe I'm just not cut-out to watch Date Movies, but I've seen my share of quality flicks that are sappy while being funny, and this is DEFINITELY not one of them.
Apologies to Steve Carell as well. He may be the next guy to lead the next generation of comedies, but being handcuffed the way he was in this movie did not help this campaign.
Critics of comedic actors have a tough job. What's funny to most may not be funny to the critic, so they toe a fine line. Case in point: Steve Carell. I think the critics see Steve Carell as relatively new and accepted by most audiences. I also think people are anxious to pass the torch to Carell to be the lead in the next generation of comedic movies. As a result, critics go easy on their critiques of him due to their desire to give him positive reviews and not upset audiences. But just because he's relatively new and not hated does not mean he's the man to lead the comedy genre into the Promised Land, and Dan In Real Life is my Exhibit A.
First of all, I know the distinction between Romantic Comedy and Comedy, and most would be quick to point out this distinction, but let's examine Romantic Comedy for a moment. A Comedy is meant to make the audience laugh. A Romantic Comedy is meant to be Romantic and Comedic, but in my experience, Romantic Comedy seems like an oxymoron. Comedy is not meant to be romantic, nor is romance meant to be comedic. When Hollywood tries to combine the two, they rarely succeed in producing a quality flick. It's usually a comedy with some romantic themes, or a romance with comedic elements, but never both. Despite the futility of Romantic Comedies, the genre Romantic Comedy endures with the understanding that a Romantic Comedy is a classic "Date Movie" or a movie that both a guy and a girl will enjoy. Bare this in mind.
Dan in Real Life (a play upon the internet lingo, for those who are internet savvy) is meant to be a Date Movie. Give the guys Carell & comedy and the girls some romance and everyone leaves happy. The problem with this movie arises when the writer/director Peter Hedges fails to use Carell for comedy (opting for other actors to unsuccessfully deliver the punchlines) and instead uses Carell for the Romantic role (a widower with kids seeking to find someone to fill the void). The movie fails to uphold to its "Comedy" criteria and becomes a lackluster romance film, hence again why I feel that the Romantic Comedy genre is self-defeating. I never laughed at anything Carell did throughout the movie, and instead I was left feeling sorry for the dude. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the guy that's supposed to make me laugh? The other actors all seemed lost in the shuffle, believing that since Carell was supposed to be the funny guy, they should just support him in trying to be funny. Dane Cook is a great example of this dilemma wherein he plays the role, but never gets a laugh.
In the end, I was sorely disappointed in this movie, and in the critics for letting this movie off the hook in terms of how bad it truly was. Maybe I'm just not cut-out to watch Date Movies, but I've seen my share of quality flicks that are sappy while being funny, and this is DEFINITELY not one of them.
Apologies to Steve Carell as well. He may be the next guy to lead the next generation of comedies, but being handcuffed the way he was in this movie did not help this campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
