Change Your Image
Roger Hane
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Shack (2017)
Expected and unexpected.
As a "live and let live" atheist, here's my opinion of the movie.
My interest in the movie is with its theological arguments. I didn't care about the boring family drama parts. But let me briefly address the movie itself. This movie isn't based on a script by a typical religious Christian screenwriter. It's based on a book with some New Age elements. But despite this, its production values are straight out of the Christian Direct-To-DVD genre. That certainly weakened its potential impact. Routine efforts all around. I can only single out Octavia Spencer for a standout performance.
So what about its theological arguments? I notice three main themes that I as an atheist disagree with and possibly religious Christians disagree with.
1. It's okay that God doesn't step in to intercede to stop injustices, and that innocent people suffer the effects of evil people's actions. 2. Evil people's actions are justified by their experiences earlier in life, because they're not capable of transcending those actions. 3. If you can forgive some people, then you must forgive all people.
As an atheist, I reject these ideas. And using their own reasoning, I think many religious Christians reject them, too. It's weird that by very different reasoning routes, atheists can agree with religious Christians about the film's message. And I don't see the Universalism in this movie that conservative Christians seem to see.
Religious Christians seem to object to the portrayal of the Trinity. I can understand that among the very conservative. But I don't care about the casting in this symbolic story. Mainstreamers and New Agers will enjoy it, but conservative Christians and we atheists will be dissatisfied. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing it again and skipping ahead to contemplate its theological scenes in depth.
God's Not Dead (2014)
Even Cloud 10 Pictures movies are better than this.
Okay, I sat through the whole thing. Do I get an award? Do I get refunded for my time (though I paid nothing to see it)? I could go on and on about the faults of the movie, but other reviewers here have done an ample job of that. I just want to briefly vent about my disgust with it. I felt so bad for Sorbo for wasting his talent with it. I've never seen Duck Dynasty, but Robertson was fun to watch. He did a great job just by being himself. His few minutes on screen were the most tolerable of the movie. Occasional good performances can't begin to compensate for its over all awfulness. I had a strong feeling that the script was written by a 15 year old. Movie industry Christian evangelists will have to do infinitely better if they want to draw in the general public.
America: Imagine the World Without Her (2014)
Bias vs. bias. Better than expected.
I came to this movie remembering what a horrible job D'Souza did with "2016: Obama's America." Being so biased from the start, I was very pleasantly surprised that this was a much higher quality production, regardless of its message. The editing, directing, videography, and acting in the reenactments were refreshingly good compared to "2016." I don't know who or what in the production team allowed them to retool D'Souza's technique, but they succeeded. What ever message he had to make, he made it more convincingly this time. Despite having to look at his condescending mug all the time.
We (meaning I) have to remember that he has not set out to give a balanced, unbiased view of the criticisms of American society. He's only out to give the right wing's perspective of the criticisms. After all, the right wing deserves to have its say in theaters, too. So he counters the left's criticisms by utilizing limited and selective facts to make his case. Maybe the left used its own limited and selective facts to begin with. So putting D'Souza's right wing perspective together with the left wing perspective of someone like Michael Moore, maybe we have something approaching the total picture. But it's unfortunate that we can't get a completely balanced presentation in one movie. Could it be that D'Souza and Moore are both correct simultaneously? The rhetorical battle makes my head spin.
Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)
Ayn Rand would be pleased
That's the highest and most succinct praise I can give it. Though, of course, it's just my guess as to what her opinion would be. My praise of the movie doesn't concern my opinion of her ideas or it's own cinematic worth, but entirely in how faithfully it portrays the content and spirit of the book. In this day and age, I can't imagine a better, more faithful portrayal. This movie lays it all out. From there, it will be up to each viewer to judge the worth of Rand's ideas.
In the realm of faithfulness, it's a wonderful production. The casting is excellent all around. The use of no big name Hollywood movie stars is a very effective move. I was iffy about Taylor Schilling as Dagny, but she's doing an adequate job. Many will rightly complain that the dialogue and acting are stilted and one-dimensional. These faults and others can be laid not at the feet of the movie's production crew but at the novel itself. They projected the novel's stiffness onto the screen exactly, and frankly, I wanted it that way. No suspense or fleshed out characters? There are really none of those in the book. Don't try to juice it up! Stick to the novel! It's all about the clash of ideas. When the movie's out on DVD, keep your finger on the "pause" button so you can stop to contemplate them. Or read the novel! I've heard some complaints that the movie is low-budget. What ever its budget was, it must have been entirely adequate to bring us a perfectly good rendition of the novel. I saw no cheapness in the production.
Don't judge this movie by normal Hollywood standards. It's not meant to be that kind of movie. It's a must-see for Tea Partiers. Though liberals will probably laugh at it. They're already doing ad hominem attacks on Rand. This movie brings forth the political and economic ideas that are at the center of the debates going on in society. As such, I recommend it to everyone for the way it crystallizes the terms of the debate. In case you're wondering, I'm a liberal. And I can't wait for parts 2 and 3. If they aren't made yet, they must be! The world needs this movie, now more than ever.
Believe (2007)
An awkward caricature misses an easy target
Yes, it was high time someone did a movie skewering MLMs. This movie does it, though not as artfully or poignantly as we would have hoped. Mulholland touches upon all the aspects of MLM life and techniques. But in general, it feels like an amateurish production in all of its aspects. Acting, directing, cinematography, editing, they all feel amateur. Though Hoppe was certainly the right man for his role, he tried a little too hard to come across as a heel. Indeed, all the characters feel like exaggerations of the people you'll find in MLMs. But only slight exaggerations. These characters aren't rare loony flukes who stumbled into an MLM. They really are typical of the people you'll find in the field, though as I said, slightly exaggerated. And the exaggeration makes it not work as a mocumentary.
There's another huge problem with the movie's form. Real life MLMers would never allow an outside camera crew to film their exploits. There are far too many secrets given away here. That and the exaggerations make this an ineffective mocumentary. Too many intimate moments are filmed as if the camera crew wasn't there. That destroys its documentary feel. A skillful mocumentary would have fantastic comedic timing to make a point of the topic's absurdity (a la "Spinal Tap"). This movie's timing is way off, due to its amateur production. Though I must compliment the women who played the MLMers' wives, as they displayed their subconscious resistance to what their husbands were doing. Well done there.
As sheer comedic entertainment, this movie won't elicit any interest. I can understand why no major distribution company picked it up. But it might be acceptable to show a friend or relative who has approached you with an MLM opportunity, or if you'd like to know about MLMs yourself. Believe me, these things really do happen in MLMs, and people like this really are in the field, though they're not quite so ridiculous. This ultimately humorless movie serves as little more than a cautionary tale. It's very hard to make a hilarious comedy about a subject that has cost so many millions of people so much money and heartache.
Cavemen (2007)
Too much wry humor for you?
When I first saw the Geico commercials, I was floored by the quality of their writing and acting. When I heard they were being made into a sitcom I was very happy and filled with anticipation, unlike most everyone else. The public seemed bound and determined to hate this series before even seeing the first episode. Their reviews seem to be based on their preconceptions and not on what they actually saw.
What I saw left me ambivalent at first, but ultimately satisfied. The great news is, it's just like the commercial. In this case, that's a very good thing. The hipness and sardonic humor are all still there. I'll go out on a limb and say that this is better writing than the normal sitcom audience can appreciate. The actors pulled off their lines as beautifully as the commercial's actors.
The show comes with problems that will initially hamper it. The first episode we saw was obviously not the pilot, so we got no introductory development. It's going to be hard to tell these guys apart, but we'll get used to them over time. The stress these characters radiate in their struggle to cope with homo sapiens culture make them hard to warm up to. Especially Nick, who has a real chip on his shoulder (though this allows him to have the shows most bitingly cynical lines). And dare I say that the dry humor is too subtle and sophisticated to allow the series to succeed? Will enough people appreciate it? I doubt it.
Then there's the question of whether this series is really a parable about racial tensions and stereotyping. Its creators went to lengths to deny it, but its scenario makes it almost inevitable. Frankly, I think I saw some of it in the first episode. I sensed that the writers were ambivalent about whether to go in this direction and take on the issue. Their uncertainty came through in the script. We'll have to wait and see what they decided to do.
This series looks like it will fulfill my hopes, though everyone else seems to wish it would just go away. I'm already anticipating buying it on DVD when it's cancelled. If you people don't want it, then I'll gladly take it. Future generations will know that I knew a good thing when I saw it.
Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006)
Americans aren't so bad. *Gasp!*
I hadn't planned to write a review of this movie. But when I noticed all the very negative reviews from all the people who didn't seem to get the point, I had to chime in.
Cohen is parodying what the rest of the world believes to be America's bigotries and views of the rest of the world. He's letting the world know that America isn't the ugly, bigoted, bullying place they think it is. Cohen takes the stereotypes Americans are believed to have, throws them in American's faces and shows that Americans aren't really that way. He shows the great majority of Americans in the movie to be perfectly nice, decent people who don't buy in to the stereotypes he tries to stick on them.
Do Americans think third world eastern European countries are so outrageously backwards and Soviet? The outlandishness of his portrayal shows we don't. If for no other reason, we've seen too many travelogues to believe any of it. Do Americans fear and hate the Jews? He tosses it out as a given and never gives an iota of evidence. Look at Borat's fear of the old Jewish couple running the bed and breakfast. A wonderful juxtaposition of fear and reality. Who wouldn't love to stay with that couple? Are women inferior? Look at Borat's encounter with the feminists. Are Americans jingoistic world dominators? Look at the crowd at the rodeo, how they slowly cooled to his jingoism and turned against him.
Most of the movie's humor is gained from the fact the the people he dealt with were too dim to realize Borat was a faker. Can we laugh at ourselves for being that way? There's your test. I'll bet there were plenty of scenes where people did catch on, but those scenes didn't make it into the movie. That would have ruined everything.
If you were offended that he poked fun at nice, innocent people, then OK. If you were disgusted by the movie's toilet and sexual humor, well, I'll grant you that criticism. But get beyond that and realize the message he's sending to the rest of the world about America. You might appreciate Cohen a lot more after that.
Ed, Edd n Eddy (1999)
Bittersweet memories of youth
Though young people might enjoy this show, it can only be fully appreciated by older adults. EEnE takes us back to the carefree days of our pre-teen years. No matter which decade in which you were 12, this timeless show will resonate with you. The Eds and their friends are on perpetual summer vacation, back in the days before the internet and cable TV. They while away the aimless days creating misadventures and pre-teen power struggles. Jawbreakers really were the ultimate delicacy to strive for. Each episode recalls some aspect of those old summer vacations we had forgotten about until now. This surreal view of pre-pubescence hits home in a timeless, powerful way.