"You like me. You really like me!!"

Since 2005 has been over for a couple weeks now, I figure enough time has passed for me to review a very important topic in the life of the average American citizen...movies.

This ain't the Academeny Awards. I get to make up the rules. For now, the focus is on "Movies Mark saw in theaters". Now, it's been a long year. So I might miss a few.

Serenity - OK, I admit that I am biased. My friends had watched the canceled television series 'Firefly' on dvd and recommended it to me, so I watched it in anticipation of the big screen adaptation and continuation of the story, and then went ahead and watched the film in theaters with all of them. Just about the best circumstances you could have for something like this. Enough of the disclaimer. People that know me know my language is fairly peachy. But, let me take the liberty to say "'Serenity' kicks ass!". Here's why: Characters. Dialogue. Universe. ahem, Characters. Plot. Big screen visuals. A Compelling Villain. And really good sci-fi. I mean, really good. The truth is, as big of a Star Wars nut as I am, Serenity was a better experience to watch than Revenge of the Sith (reviewed below). Imagine Han Solo fleeing the government, only the planets are slightly closer together, the Empire is called the Alliance, the crew is made up of more than a Wookie and occasional passengers of, as Obi-Wan states, "myself, the boy (Luke), two droids.., and no questions asked", and there's a taste of the Old West thrown into the mix. You get to ask questions of the characters, and they usually are asking themselves and each other the same questions as you are still formulating those questions. Eventually, you get some answers too. At this point, the film is out of theaters. I recommend you go borrow 'Firefly' from a friend or buy a copy on Amazon. Watch it in order. Then watch Serenity with some friends who will grow to enjoy the characters along with you. If you absolutely do not have time for the series, just watch the film anyways.

Walk the Line - Not much different from Ray. Except, whereas at the end of Ray, I said to myself, "I never knew those things about his life", at the end of Walk the Line, I said to myself, "I really feel like I got to know the man Johnny Cash better". Music-wise, I think I knew equal amounts about both prior to watching the films. Regarding their lives, I knew limited amounts, such as "Ray Charles was blind and was kind of a player" and "Johnny Cash had kind of a hard life". But, the reason why Walk the Line helped me get to know the man in black is that it's focused so much on Cash's relationship with June Carter. It's simple. But it feels real. I liked Ray, and I liked Walk the Line even more. Now I want to go write a bunch of acoustic songs and sing like Cash.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - After Chamber of Secrets, I thought I was going to stop paying attention to the series. See, I've only read the first book. Sorcerer's Stone (or Philosopher's Stone) as a movie was okay, but nothing special. The book was better. I thought about reading the series, but decided to spend my precious reading time on other materials. At the time, it was trying to finish Two Towers and Return of the King. Next to The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Harry Potter felt way too episodic. Harry Potter has a birthday. Mystical creature from Wizardland comes to whisk him away to school where juvenile hijinks ensue and Harry Potter has to solve a bunch of tricks with his friends before closing the book happy and mostly resolved. Not a bad formula, but not much to keep me coming back. But then I went ahead and watched The Prisoner of Azkaban on dvd and noticed that the director added some excellent touches in telling the story. He uses camera movement to set the mood. Motion dictates the flow of the story hand in hand with the plot. It's by far the most poetic film of the series thus far and the life of Harry Potter suddenly becomes a process of growing up and dealing with some serious personal conflict. I began to like it. My friend Jimmy told me bits and pieces of the plot of the books. When he offered to pay for my ticket to come to the midnight showing of Goblet of Fire, I easily agreed to go. Having not read the book, the pacing didn't bug me. I liked the fact that the book was translated to film with a pacing that was worthy of over two and a half hours. The episodic formula was gone. Roughly ten minutes into it, Jimmy leaned over and said, "That was about about 200 pages worth of material". It's not as smooth as Prisoner of Azkaban, but it's tons of fun. Goblet of Fire is by far the most comical and dramatic film thus far. And You know Who makes an appearance. Ralph Fiennes is creepy as Voldemort. I think I'll stop there. It's highly entertaining.

STAR WARS Episode III: Revenge of the Sith - Woah. Is it over now? Really? In retrospect, The Empire Strikes Back and A New Hope will probably always duel it out for my favorite. Empire is really what makes Star Wars, well, Star Wars. It's all revealed in there. The characters go through some crazy plot archs. They all cry at some point. Even Chewbacca, R2D2 and C-3PO. Episode IV has a great representation of Tatooine, the Death Star, and the Millenium Falcon. Visually, it's not as amazing as Empire, but it's impressive in creating environments for the characters to hang out in while telling a classic story. But, I digress. Revenge of the Sith offered me two things lacking in the other two prequels: action and emotion. I felt the conflict this time around. Menace was a menace, Clones was weak. As a friend once put it, "You know you have a problem when the best scene in your movie involves a CGI representation of a muppet fighting with a lightsaber." Lost much of his charm, Yoda has. Maybe the reason why he was so quirky and wise on Dagobah was because he was so fed up with putting with the Sith, the council, and whiny Skywalkers who think they can walk around the universe screwing things up. Sith's action scenes were delightful, especially the first twenty minutes. The build-up to Anakin's fateful fall from grace was surprisingly understandable. Sure, he was blinded by some serious character flaws, but, then again, the Jedi council misread the freaking prophecy. And they were blinded by a super senator named Julius Caes- I mean - Palpatine. The creation of the Empire was creepy. Too many lies abounding. I think Revenge of the Jedi is an overall better story than Return of the Jedi (Jabba was cool, but he and the Ewoks were a delay tactic to the climax and resolution). Sith is a fall, Jedi is a redemption. It's sad to see Anakin at the end of Sith, but it's great to see him choose against the lies of the Emperor at the end of Jedi. I think Lucas still uses digital images too much. Part of what makes the original trilogy so great is the "used Universe" look and feel of everything. Sith's main issue, in my mind's eye memory, is that it still felt conjured digitally. The world is fascinating, but you can tell someone sat there with a computer to create those smooth surfaces. Which is why Serenity ranks slightly higher for me. It's action was so character driven that 95% of the visuals seem natural. With Revenge of the Sith, you could argue that 83 - 90% of the visuals seem natural (or less. Look at Chewbacca for an example). Overall, I loved it in theaters. Lots of good treats. And, surprise, it made me think about Good and Evil. I just don't know how long it will hold up in the "re-watch-able" category. Lord knows I've watched the others...many...many...many...many...many...times...

A History of Violence - What a mixed experience. It's been awhile since a film disturbed me the way this one did. Is that the point? Unfortunately, when the credits rolled and I went home, I had a really hard time sorting out my thoughts on it, and in a way I had to confront some serious gut reactions to this heavy-handed film. Two sex scenes. One obnoxious and the other disturbing yet intriguing. Every gun shot in this film is felt for it's full weight, the way shooting a gun should feel. Violence in film has been traditionally trivialized to meaningless. The best thing A History of Violence does is to remind us of consequences. And strangely enough, the end of the film makes a statement that challenges your perspective on owning up to one's past. What makes the film compelling is the same material that makes it questionable. David Cronenberg takes risks and shows you exactly what he wants you to see. I just have to wonder why. As far as cast...it's going to be strange the next time I see Aragorn on screen and think of Viggo Mortensen's character from this. Very strange. The casting of the daughter was...odd. The closest character I could relate to was the son. The wife character was hard for me to understand. Her relationship with Tom/Jimmy was hard for me to watch. Ahh, too much...Was it worth it? I dunno. Probably not, in my case. It's a hard one for me to recommend. Watching it on a small screen might have a different effect. I'd have to guard my heart quite a bit if I were to watch it again. For you, the reader, you can decide for yourself. You will probably have a different reaction. Like I said, it was a mixed experience. Here's one thing I can say for sure: If nothing else, A History of Violence has presence.

Good Night, and Good Luck - Ahh, what a breath of fresh air. Once a year, I treat myself to a solitary theater experience. School of Rock came out when I was in a crazy transition and needed some alone entertainment and probably would have been hard-pressed to find a local to see it with me. Edward Scissorhands at a midnight showing on a Saturday is difficult to invite your Sunday-church-attending friends. And a film about television and McCarthyism that I found out about and decided to go see within a 45-minute timeframe? Well, I went alone. George Clooney directed it. Supposedly his dad or himself once worked in television news, and it shows. From my brief stint interning at a television news station, the film is pretty accurate as to the dealings of news crews behind the scenes. They are normal people trying to do their jobs the best they can. Pressure is always being implemented from various angles. However, they do the best they can. Truth, and fair discussion, should always guide the pursuit of sharing information through broadcast signals. If there was one film this year I recommend wholeheartedly for its societal contribution, Good Night, and Good Luck would have to be it. It's black and white, which you get used to quickly. It's simple, yet subtle. Profound, yet graceful. Check it out.

Sin City - Another black and white story, only this one had little dips of color here and there. It's adapted from a graphic novel that I never read. Visually, it's like nothing else this year. Storywise, think heavy film noir. The characters are...out there. The sound production is also unique. Everything about it is creative. However, I can't give it my full recommendation. Mainly because of everything that has to do with the title. It's a stimulating look at the underworld. Brace yourself if you care to check it out.

Batman Begins - Another, black and white film. Err, more like shades of black, brown, and gray. A worthy reinterpretation of the Great Gatsby turned secret vigilante. If you ever wanted to understand more of why Batman would want to do the crazy things he does, I suggest it. Parts of this film annoyed me, but a great majority of it was to my liking. One thing that might increase your appreciation of the film is to know that when Liam Neeson's character says "We sacked Rome", he's not lying. He was there. This backstory was unbeknownst to me while watching it the first time and it made the League of Shadows really annoying to me. Plus, I didn't really understand Gotham's relationship to the rest of the world. Anyways, it's entertaining and offers a solid Batman history.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - This may go down as the year I stopped admiring Tim Burton. Classics of his like The Nightmare Before Christmas, Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, and the more recent Big Fish are still pretty cool. Heck, that's a great list right there. Yet, this was not a good year for him, in my book. With Batman Begins, it seems his status as the king of the Batman series has been usurped. And Corpse Bride looked to be a yawner, a rehash of previously tried formulas (Nightmare animation, half the cast, more Elfman) in a less-inspired story. Then there's the stuff I heard about his involvement with Superman Returns, but that's another story. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had some good moments. Specifically, Charlie, his family, and their house. Those depictions were the main ingredients I truly enjoyed. Visually, there were some pleasing sights. However, at the end I sorta felt like I had eaten some decent, but not great candy. I got the toothaches, calories, and lack of nutritional benefit, but only a little bit of the true pleasure from consumption. Depp was okay. Definitely a unique approach. But, I'll take his performances in just about any other Tim Burton film, except maybe Sleepy Hollow, and most other films over this one. What gets to me more than any other thing, however, is that "Tim Burton's unique creative vision" gets plastered as a marketing slogan these days and it's expected to be something great. He's got great talent. There's no doubt about that. But, I must say that Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory rates higher in my enjoyment as an overall experience. The new musical versions of the Oompa Loompas were something new, but I wouldn't trade in 'Pure Imagination' for them. Did anyone else wonder where that music was coming from when they were singing? It took me out of the film everytime, whereas "Oompa Loompa, doo-pity-doo" brought me in every time. One thing I can say for this new version is that some of the camera movement was delightful. Also, Wonka's backstory was kinda fun. I guess I just wish I hadn't seen it in theaters. It's kinda fun, but not delightful. That may be a little harsh. However, that's honestly how I felt. My hope is that Burton's next project is more worth it. I still like many of his previous works. And one of these days I would like to see Beetlejuice in its entirety.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - Already reviewed this one.

March of the Penguins - Yes. Those penguins are amazing. Who knew that we human beings could learn something about life and love from penguins? National Geographic with a soft narrative. The only drawback for me is that Morgan Freeman needs to stop doing The Shawshank Redemption voice-overs. I do not want to think about Tim Robbins in prison while watching pensions trying to raise children. I didn't like it much in Million Dollar Baby either. He's got a great voice, but the cadence gets old. I get too distracted. He did a good job on this, don't get me wrong, but if he does it again it's going to be overboard, sunk to the bottom of the ocean. Enough with the rant. I enjoyed March of the Penguins. If you haven't seen it yet, you probably will like it when you do.

That's 11, making 1 for for each month I was in the country. Truth be told, I watched way more dvds this year than ever before. More television, too. I re-watched a lot, as I tend to do.

I hope some of my opinions are agreeable enough. Movies are fun. I would prefer not to spoil anyone's enjoyment just because I have an opinion. Take it with a grain of salt on your popcorn, along with your beverage of choice.

Peace out.

Earth, Wind, and Fire

While doing this review I'm gonna listen to Delirious' Glo album because I think it applies to the themes involved. I could listen to Mezzamorphosis as well, but I figure I've listened to that way more times, and the themes aren't as direct as they are in Glo.

Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire - This is a book. I first heard about it sometime in high school. My older sister had a copy and a few other people had mentioned it. The title made the book seem pretty radical to me, and also a little pretentious. Plus, I wasn't sure whether I wanted "wind" and "fire". You see, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire is a Christian book. It's about spiritual things. The "fire" in this case had nothing to do with Hell. Rather, it was in regards to the presence of the Holy Spirit in a person's life. Up to this point in my life my main experience with fire in a Christian setting was when people were approaching the last few days of Summer camp or Winter camp, or the occasional Fall camp. They would say "I am so 'on fire' for GOD right now!!". I usually thought this was a pretty neat thing, but after awhile I realized that being on fire didn't always last that long. Lasting impressions and changes were usually made, but the flame would get extinguished and we would become like a used incense stick. I like incense. When you light it, the stick gives off a smell and your room or house starts to smell. When a person comes within a close distance to the stick they can smell it. They ask you "Did you light some incense?" With a match, it only smells for minutes. With incense, it smells for hours. What am I getting at? The aroma of the stick lasts for quite awhile, but it eventually ends. If you really want to have the smell keep going, sooner or later you have to light another stick. Some may prefer candles. Whatever. The point is the fire dies. Unless it's lit again.

Which brings me to the book. I don't remember when I started it, but I think I picked up the book around my junior or senior year in high school. I read the first few chapters and realized a couple things. One, I didn't feel ready to read the rest of the book because of number two. Two, I needed to start applying the things I read in the book to my life. What I read in the book was that prayer is essential.

The book encouraged prayer meetings. For me, this seemed to be a good fit. People had been starting to gather on Wednesday nights for to pray. I joined for a couple times, and I remember those times being good. I was pretty busy with school. But, God met us there when I set the time aside to go. Overall in my life I wasn't talking to God all that much on a regular basis. However, those meetings (and the book) planted a few seeds.

During the end of high school and the first year of college, I looked internally for answers. Based on some coming age experiences I felt that looking internally was something I was compelled to do in order to understand what I really felt about things. If nothing else, I started to be honest with myself.

Sophomore year of college saw a breakthrough in my life. Miraculous circumstances and coinciding prayer led to a paradigm shift in my understanding of prayer. I'd prefer not get into the specifics right here in this review (which, as you'll note is only slightly a review), but what you should know is that what happened is that I started to believe in prayer and the Holy Spirit. Like, really believe. So, after that I started writing down prayer requests, multiple prayer requests, on the prayer cards that were offered in church. God started talking to me and letting me know things. He usually didn't speak audibly - unless it was through a lyric from a song or something - but He did show me how I could take part in things He wanted to do in my life and with people I knew at church, at school, at coffee shops, on the bus, etc.

As you can see, "fresh wind, fresh fire" became something experiential I felt by the grace of God.

A lot of things happened over the next couple years. InterVarsity(campus fellowship) and Coast Vineyard(local church) helped me learn more about relating to God. Oh, and back in my hometown I occasionally joined this one guy for prayer way early in the morning. I stumbled upon the book Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire again about a year ago and slowly began to read it an soak in it's wisdom, knowledge, teaching, and general insight. Over the past Christmas break, I finally reached the end of the book, which led me to review it.

Now, I'm going to offer my two cents on how I approach Christian books, and then go ahead to finish the rest as a review.

My two cents: Christian books are written by people. They are not the Word. God said not to add to the Bible, and Ecclesiasties says "there is nothing new under the sun". However, as human beings we have learned to express ourselves in various forms. If you really break it down, even writing is an abstraction from the mind's thought process and the oral voice. In this light, I see books as being extended sermons. And it's nice because you can see how the sermon develops and go over it again when you are confused or if you really like a part of what it says. That's why I started liking Christian books in the first place. More recently, I have begun enjoying biographical Christian stories. It adds context and lived experience to useful applications of the word of God.

Here's the review. Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire seemed honest, it's well written, and it tells the story of people who turned to God directly to figure out how to follow Him. They followed Him by following Him. First, by talking to Him. Then, by obeying Him. I highly recommend checking out the book to see the process the Brooklyn Tabernacle went through in becoming a church that centered their lifeblood on prayer. There are bumps in the road all over, the way life is. You live, and you learn. God spoke to me through the book. My older sister and I agree that the Brooklyn Tabernacle would be a neat place to visit. Until then, I desire to emulate the church in it's approach to God. I've learned a lot over the years by having the book speak into my life at specific times. The main focus, prayer, is an area I have grown in directly because of the book. Additionally, I was surprised by how much wisdom the book had to offer. Being biographical, it's open-ended and doesn't limit it's focus to one aspect of life with Jesus. Prayer is a focus because it's the connection to the Head, but multiple expressions of following Christ are touched upon in the book. So, it's completely worthy of your time, from my point of view.

"But you don't have to take my word for it" (ba-dum-bump!) *Reading Rainbow*