DVD Review: Metallica – Some Kind of Monster

Metallica - Some Kind of Monster Jonna picked up Metallica – Some Kind of Monster last Wednesday and we watched it that night. Boy, did I like this movie.

More than anything else, the movie gave me a different perspective on the St. Anger album. I mentioned previously that this wasn’t one of my favorite albums but after seeing the movie I think its time to revisit it. Actually, more than anything else, it gave me a completely different view of the band than I had previously.

The band was pretty dysfunctional, with a lot of pent up anger towards each other and Hetfields major control issues certainly didn’t help. This dysfunction caused bassist Jason Newsted to eventually leave the band. The movie chronicles the time just after Jason left, when the band decided to hire a therapist to help them through the issues they were having in order to keep the band together.

The movie was rather surreal, as its very weird to see the band formerly called ‘Alchoholica’ by friends sober, serious, and dealing with real human issues. At times, it’s quite uncomfortable to watch, as its like eavesdropping on someones therapy session. Actually, it is eavesdropping on a therapy session.

The thing I liked most about the movie was being able to watch the creative process happening. Its kind of cool to watch what goes into creating an album like St. Anger. It was also kind of cool to watch the band go through the different phases of their relationship, and the human aspects of being in a band the size of Metallica.

I think the movie is worth the time spent watching it. Then again, being in management, I tend to read a lot about team building and things like that.

Seems to me that rather than paying $40,000 a month for Dr. Phil, the band could have just started with The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, as the issues outlined in this book were many of the things that the band was dealing with.

Bottom line is, if you work with teams, this might be a good movie for you to pick up at the rental store. I give it 5 stars.

“The Passion” and Hollywood – Something To Think About …

I have seen quite a few stories about how the Christian community is “outraged” or “feeling snubbed” by Hollywood that Mel Gibsons The Passion of the Christ did not get a film nomination for best picture this year. As a matter of fact, many people have started web sites such as Passion for Fairness to call for a boycott of — get this, Hollywood AND the Oscars.

I found this quote in an article on beliefnet.com:

I don’t know how exactly you prove discrimination based on religion or the Christian faith exactly except to say that it’s well known that the Hollywood community has been anti-Christian for many years. Mel Gibson, even with all this star power, could not find anyone to help him pay to produce the movie. Here you have the greatest story of all time, one of the most influential people in history — that is Jesus Christ — with Mel Gibson involved, and he has to do it out of his own pocketbook.

Or how about this one?

Hollywood is so repulsed by people of faith it can’t even bring itself to consider a powerful, provocative film about the most influential person in the history of mankind.

Even better, how about this one, from a recent CNN article:

Hollywood has spoken. ‘Don’t mess with us,’ is what they’re saying. ‘Don’t mess with us because we will not consider your talent if you do anything that is Christian,’ is the message that’s coming out.

Here’s the thing that is really interesting to me. Hollywood and others have done a lot with the story. Lets look at some of the renditions of the story that have come out over the years:

  • The Robe (1953) – The story of a tribune during the time of Christ that is in charge of the group that is to crucify him. After the crucifixion, he wins the robe Jesus was wearing in a dice game if I remember correctly. The movie chronicles his eventual conversion to Christianity. This is now a classic.
  • The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) – Based on the story of the life of Christ and also in “Classic” status.
  • Jesus of Nazareth (1977) – Also now a classic, this was a TV mini series about the life of Christ. Now since this was made for TV, it may not count in some peoples minds but it was still a big deal none the less.

As mentioned in each of the descriptions, these movies are considered by both Hollywood and everyone I know as “classics”. A very high designation for a film in any right.

And these are only a sampling of movies based on the life of Christ. We also have movies like The Ten Commandments – (1956) which are based on old testament doctrine.

So it seems to me that Hollywood is more than willing to “consider talent if you do anything that is Christian”.

I would also like to point out that all of these movies are built around the writers interpretation of the story. Anyone who has talked to more than one person about the meaning of a particular bible passage knows that the meaning can change drastically depending on who you are talking to. So the main thing to keep in mind in all of this is that each of the artistic pieces listed above were based on the writers interpretation and received very high marks from both Hollywood and the Christian community. Lets also keep in mind that The Passion of the Christ was also based on Mel Gibsons interpretation of the events and do not necessarily reflect reality, because I don’t think he was there at the time and as I’ve said earlier, the Christian community is rife with different interpretations of the events (even the four gospels IN the bible have different perspectives).

Now lets look at other movies that Hollywood and others have put together, also based on the artists interpretation of the subject matter that caused some interesting reactions in the Christian community.

Anyone remember a movie called The Last Temptation of Christ? While The Passion of the Christ highlighted the physical torture that Jesus went through during the last 12 hours of his life, The Last Temptation of Christ attempted to focus more on the possible mental and emotional aspects of Jesus, and the temptation that he could live as a normal man and not go through the crucifixion. In other words, it tried to address the possible human aspects of Jesus as he went through this ordeal.

I thought it was a very good movie, and a good interpretation or “what if” scenario on the story that, at least from an artistic perspective, was worth telling. However, most of the Christian community did not feel that it was a “proper” story to tell, and spent a lot of time protesting the movie rather than judging it for what it was: an artistic interpretation of another perspective on a really good story.

And by the way, many of these people protested, rediculously enough, without having seen the film.

How about The Exorcist, which at the very least could be interpreted as a story about the overall triumph of God over Satan. This movie was protested as being anti-christian, even though the actual hero in the movie was a Catholic Priest who saved a young girl from the clutches of Satan. This story was actually written by its author, if I remember correctly, in conjunction with a Catholic Priest in order to keep the level of authenticity up.

The funniest thing to me recently has been the backlash against the book The Da Vinci Code (which, by the way, I haven’t read due to the amount of hype around it). The amount of unrest this book has caused, and the volume of material that has been written to disprove it is just amazing to me, because its a novel.

Its a work of fiction based, from what I have read and seen in documentaries, on ideas presented in The Gnostic Gospels, texts that offer a different view on Christianity that were “denounced as heretical by the early church”. Even with this basis though, its only a work of fiction and should be nothing to get up in arms about.

So to me, it doesn’t seem that there is any “discrimination” towards the Christian faith at all in Hollywood. We have movies that have been highly acclaimed in the history of movies that have been based on biblical “truth”. It does seem to me however, that every time someone tries to take a different look at the story, people get up in arms about it.

So here is the bottom line for me. The Christian community would like the “secular” community to be more tolerant of their beliefs. I think that’s fair. However, it is a lot easier to be tolerated if you exhibit tolerance yourself first. It’s a basic leadership principle. One that even Jesus himself used.

What did Jesus do? He modelled the behavior he wanted to instill in others. Was he intolerant? Not that I can recollect from my reading. Did he become angry with people who did not share his beliefs? No (I won’t count the “throwing the money changers out of the temple” incident — since that was the only time I can recollect that he actually showed anger, and one could argue it was warranted). He convinced them his beliefs were true by living them, not by forcing himself on anyone. He made people believe by the way he behaved in every day life. He didn’t discriminate.

He taught through how he lived his life.

I think that’s the coolest part of the story. The sad part of this whole thing for me is that I’m not a Christian — and I think I actually get the point more than many Christians I’ve met.

What is highly unfortunate for those Christians claiming “discrimination” is that from the outside looking in, the Christian community is viewed as one of the most discriminatory of all communities, whether the issue be rock and roll, gay marriage, or a womans right to choose. These are three of many issues to which the christian community insists on forcing its views on the rest of society.

It seem to me that in order to be able to blame others for discrimination, you must be willing to not engage in it yourself. That’s the big challenge.

It reminds me of another quote from JC: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Pretty smart guy.

And just for the record, in all the versions of the story I do not remember reading that he actually picked up a rock. Do you?

Movie Rental: The LadyKillers

We rented The LadyKillers on Saturday night. This was not a movie in our “must see” list, however we rented it because Tom Hanks was in it and given his track record we figured that if he elected to do it that it would have some level of quality — or at least be tolerable.

This movie SUCKED. It moved very slowly and Tom Hanks just droned through the whole thing. The movie was extremely painful to watch, as it seemed to go nowhere.

The premise of the movie is that Tom Hanks is a criminal masquerading as a scholar leading a renaissance band. He rents a room from a woman who lives near a casino boat so that they can tunnel through her basement to the vault and steal the money from the vault. The whole band idea is an excuse to use the basement to “practice”. The woman gets suspicious and the rest of the movie is full of rediculous attempts to bump her off.

That is really it as far as plot goes. Forgetting that it’s a stupid idea to begin with, the movie just sucked, and we couldn’t wait for it to end. Unfortunately, no matter how bad a movie is, the chances that we will actually turn it off are close to none, so we sit through the whole thing since we went through the trouble to rent it.

It would be far less painful (and probably more constructive) to spend the 104 minutes repeatedly pounding your head against a concrete wall than sitting through this film. At least the pain you feel at the end would be something you signed up for.

Dawn of the Dead

Dawn of the Dead (Widescreen Unrated Director's Cut)Happy Halloween!

Yesterday we picked up the DVD release of the Dawn of the Dead remake. Jonna has always liked Dawn of the Dead and spent quite a few years looking for the original on video. I had never seen any of the trilogy aside from Night of the Living Dead and while I liked that movie a lot (both the original and the later remake) I didn’t even know that the movie was part of a trilogy until Jonna told me that there were other movies.

When the remake was released to theaters, we went to see it and I really liked it. Normally I don’t like remakes. Something is always missing from the later remake that causes it to never live up to the original. The remake of Psycho is a really good example of this. They shot the script practically word for word and scene for scene, but there was something missing from the remake that made the movie seem “empty” or plastic.

For some reason though, George Romero movies seem to be really good candidates for remakes. I really enjoyed the remakes of Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead. I highly recommend you go and rent (or even buy) these two if you liked the originals.

The original Dawn of the Dead, for me, was difficult to watch. The ideas were all really good (and lets be honest, just the idea of living in a mall is pretty cool) but the movie moved very slowly and you didn’t really care about the characters very much. The dialogue, for the most part, just sucked and was very cheesy. Throughout the movie you wound up wondering to yourself just how long they could possibly drag it out, while thinking to yourself how cool the ideas were and what a cool movie they could have made.

The remake does a lot with the ideas of the original movie and make them into a great story. The characters are developed very well and the addition of the “Andy” character and subplot was a really cool addition to the movie that gave you a character that you actually liked and cared about what happened to him, even though you rarely saw him — and when you did it was from a great distance.

I don’t want to give away too much of the movie, so I’ll stop there. However, I will advise you to not turn off the movie when the ending credits begin rolling. When we saw it in the theater we watched as people left as soon as the credits started. We hung around to get the final payoff of the movie, so stick through the credits.

The DVD release also includes a lot of pretty good extras, including “Splitting Headaches: Anatomy of Exploding Heads” and “Raising the Dead”, a look at the zombie effects used in the movie.

I give this release 4 stars. I really like the movie a lot and highly recommend it for your Halloween viewing.

Star Wars Trilogy DVD Release

Star Wars Trilogy (Widescreen Edition)We picked up the new Star Wars Trilogy (widescreen, of course) last night. I watched the bonus DVD and thought it was really cool. It contains the documentary “Empire of Dreams” which I skipped last night, but I am pretty sure it has been on TV and I’ve tried to watch it, but I go to bed early and it seems that every time it has been on I’ve wound up sleeping through it. I’m looking forward to seeing the whole thing, but didn’t want to take the time last night because I wanted to watch at least one of the movies.

It also includes a few featurettes that were pretty cool. The featurettes include one on the characters of Star Wars, the making of the light saber, and the Legacy of Star Wars, in which they talk about the effect the movie had on film makers such as James Cameron, Ridley Scott and Peter Jackson.

Finally, after finishing the bonus CD stuff, sans the Empire of Dreams, we watched the first movie. This was the first time that I had seen Star Wars in its rerelease version, with all of the extra footage that they had added. I didn’t like the new scenes. They seemed completely out of place. The scene with Jabba the Hut and Han Solo kind of ruins the mystique of Jabba the Hut to me, since seeing him in Jedi was one of the highlights of the movie (you were always wondering who the hell Jabba was). I wish that they had thought of releasing the DVD with the choice to include these new scenes or to watch the movies as they had been originally released. The new additions just didn’t “feel right”, but would have been interesting if they were optional.

That said though, I am curious as to what else was added to the other two movies. Just because I didn’t like what they added to Episode IV doesn’t mean that I’m not curious about the other footage. That’s why the “option” to view them would have been nice.

Rerelease footage complaints aside though, I’m glad the the movies were finally released on DVD. Its been a long time coming and, quite frankly, should have been done years ago. I like the fact that I can pick up these movies and watch them whenever I feel like it.