Archive

Archive for the ‘movie reviews’ Category

The Polar Express

December 17th, 2006 No comments
Number of Views: 4

Then we topped off the night with the absolutely awful movie “The Polar Express.” Awful? Yep, awful! And I’m not just saying this because the whole idea behind the movie is to get people to believe something that is patently not true – Santa Claus (yes, I have issues with people believing things that are not true). A bigger issue is that the movie is just poorly written and not compelling. In the course of what could very well be 2 hours in movie time (not viewing time), 3 or 4 kids become best friends and all have character arcs that are completely unbelievable (the girl becomes a leader, the poor boy comes to trust in others, and the main character learns to believe… in Santa and ghosts – Wizard of Oz style). But there is no attempt to develop these characters to make the character arcs believable – no background development, very little talking, etc. The story is basically just a series of pointless conflicts designed to keep the audience’s attention because people could die, even though you know no one will die – this is a Christmas movie after all! All of the action sequences should have been thrown out and the story should have focused on the characters. But, no, instead we have unbelievable character arcs (because there is no character development) with lots of pointless action. Some of the sequences seemed to be included just to highlight the animation capabilities of the animators.

To top it off, there is a song in the film that is just offensive. The poor boy, Billy (his name is the only one I remember), starts singing about how Christmas sucks because he’s poor and never gets anything. The girl joins in, turning it into a duet. But, rather than sympathize with him, she says, “So what! Christmas is great for me because I have decorations and presents and food and family.” Really! Listen to the exchange. It’s a “I’m not poor so I don’t give a crap about your sucky Christmases and you should value Christmas anyway, regardless of your socioeconomic status” song. Touching, huh? I came away from the movie thinking, “Was this an attempt by retailers to create a new myth surrounding Christmas that encourages consumption?” The moral of The Polar Express: Christmas IS the new religion. What a dumb movie… It’s bad enough, though, that you can laugh at how bad it is and come away from the movie having enjoyed making fun of it. Even so, I don’t recommend it.

Categories: movie reviews Tags:

Mobsters and Mormons

November 29th, 2006 No comments
Number of Views: 11

Title:
Mobsters and Mormons

Introduction:
This is another Mollywood movie I ordered through Netflix just so I could see how bad it was. But this time I was actually surprised – it wasn’t truly awful! Really, it had a redeeming quality – Mark DeCarlo, the actor who played the main character! If it hadn’t been for him this movie would have been almost as bad as Baptists at Our Barbecue.

Summary:
Unlike Baptists at Our Barbecue, this movie had a relatively coherent plot. And while it was poorly realized at times by the supporting cast, at some level the plot was believable… Carmine “The Beans” Pasquale (Mark DeCarlo) is a member of the mafia in New Jersey. When he is caught by the FBI roughing up a kid who stole some jewels from “the family,” rather than serve time he spills his “beans” on most of the rest of the “family,” landing his boss and some of his associates in jail.

Having turned state’s witness, the FBI agrees to put Mark in the witness protection program, along with his wife, Gina, and son, Vincent. As part of the program, they all receive new names (snicker!). Mark becomes George; Gina becomes Linda; and Vincent becomes Patrick. And together they are known as the Cheesemans (and, yes, that is cheesy, but so it goes).

The real tension comes not from the name change but from where they are supposed to live while in the program – Utah. The Cheesemans are moved into a suburban rambler in Utah that happens to be surrounded by a solid contingent of wacky Mormons… With one exception – their next door neighbors, the Jameses. Michael is the first counselor in the local ward and his wife, Kate, who is pregnant, is just really, really nice. Michael’s little sister, Julie, is living with them while her parents are on a mission, which is a convenient setup for her to meet Patrick. The Jameses are super, ultra nice people, and not in the syrupy sweet Mormon “we’re really nice because we want you to join our church” way but in a genuine, sincere, selfless way. The rest of the ward, on the other hand, not so nice.

Upon their arrival, the Cheesemans are harangued by members of the local ward who all want to meet them and get to know them – until they find out they aren’t Mormon. That deters them initially, but the Jameses seem genuinely interested in the Cheesemans (though why this is the case isn’t very clear). So, the Jameses keep inviting them over for Family Nights and invite them to church services and church activities. Gina and Patrick quickly get into things; George takes a while to come around.

Michael also finds George a job at a Home Depot-esque store; a job George does not take to quickly. The impression is that he has never worked a regular, 8-hour a day job. So, on the side, George returns to his old ways and starts a scam in which he steals money from scrapbooking companies (more on this below). But this is, at best, just a side plot used for filler. The main plot is the relationship developing between the Cheesemans and the Jameses, along with the rest of the Mormon ward.

Gina and Patrick really seem to dig the “family-oriented” Mormon lifestyle, but George will have none of it until the FBI agent, Agent Tuttle (I believe), who is the Cheeseman’s main contact and protector in Utah, visits George to tell him that the FBI recently found his father’s remains. George believed his father had left him and his mother when he was young and had just never contacted them again. Turns out his father was killed in a mafia dispute and buried in a well. His father also had on him three plane tickets to Los Angeles – a point set up earlier in the story. George always wanted to go to Disneyland (why? because all Mormons love Disneyland, right?). George’s father had never taken him and, apparently, this meant he should be a jerk to his wife and son. Upon hearing that his father was going to take him just before he died, George has a change of heart and decides to embrace the “family togetherness” gospel of Mormonism (I put that in quotes because I don’t actually believe Mormonism preaches “family togetherness,” but more on that below).

As a result, George starts spending more time with his son, Patrick, and becomes a loving, caring husband to his wife, Linda. This also gets the Cheesemans going back to church. But, thankfully, they don’t go to the Mormon church but rather to the Catholic church, where they are the only people who attend (a ridiculous idea that is supposed to be funny). In short, George has a change of heart that gets him to embrace most of the Mormon “family love” values that the Jameses have exhibited throughout the movie.

But just as George makes this change, his mafia connections catch up to him. As a coffee aficionado (the source of his nickname, “The Beans”), George orders his coffee from a specialty online shop. Magically, the successor to the mob boss he put in jail, hires a hacker who is able to hack the online store’s order history. They then use this to locate George in Utah (completely unbelievable, but whatever). The successor and another hit man show up at George’s house one day, but flub the first assassination attempt, resulting in a long, drawn out chase scene that ends up with Agent Tuttle (who drives a mini-van), catching them and saving George.

With their cover blown, the Cheesemans are going to have to move. But, having finally made friends and begun to fit in, they don’t really want to. The FBI insists. However, to prevent the mafia from tracking them down again, the FBI stages an explosion that makes everyone think that the Cheesemans are dead, including their neighbors (and the audience, for a moment or two). The Cheesemans are then ready to skip town but… Not so fast.

As they are getting ready to board their flights, Agent Tuttle shows up and tells them that there has been an incident in the Mormon ward where they were living. Michael James, who was the first counselor in the bishopric, was just chosen to replace the former bishop who is moving. However, when the stake president asked for a vote of confirmation for Michael, about half the ward voted against him. The issue – he befriended a member of the mafia. So, his confirmation as bishop is put on hold. A meeting of those who dissented is scheduled for that night. George, Linda, and Patrick decide to throw away the effort put into the staged explosion and show up at the meeting to speak for Michael. George gives a touching speech about how good a person Michael is and then they leave. They then stop by Michael’s house to let him know that they aren’t dead (explosion completely wasted – but good special effects). While they are there, the stake president shows up and informs Michael that the dissenters have mostly had a change of heart. He will be confirmed as bishop. With that, the Cheesemans say goodbye and the movie ends.

Review:
Yes, I did say that the movie had a coherent plot. And, I’m sticking to that statement. I thought the plot was, at least at times, believable. It wasn’t great and it certainly could have been improved, but it was ten thousand times better than Baptists at Our Barbecue. So, that’s one positive about this movie – a believable, though poorly executed, plot.

The other major redeeming quality about this movie is just Mark DeCarlo, the actor who plays George. Mark was funny. I mean, really, he was very, very funny. I think he, alone, got it – he understood what would make this movie funny to people who are not Mormons. As a result, he does some really brilliant stuff. For instance, he tells a version of the Three Little Pigs to some little kids that had me rolling over in laughter. It’s the best version of the story I’ve ever heard (Guinea pigs…). Certainly it was mocking of Italian mobsters, but it was still funny. He also hit on some women during a very solemn Mormon sacrament meeting that just cracked me up. These things are funny to people who understand Mormon culture but don’t think like Mormons. Hitting on other men’s wives in a solemn sacrament meeting is brilliant humor! Also, DeCarlo/George happens to mention the particularly apparent obesity epidemic in Utah, going on a lengthy rant about the super-fat people he’s seen in Utah since moving there. Whether he knew it or not, DeCarlo was actually just reporting the findings of a recent study that found Mormons are heavier than non-Mormons (so much for the religion encouraging healthy behaviors; reference available upon request). What’s more, DeCarlo is a good actor who played his character convincingly. He didn’t have the best material to work with, but he worked wonders with it. And even though he may be the only non-Mormon actor in the movie (at least, I’m fairly certain he’s not Mormon), I’m not singing his praises because of that. He really was just a good actor.

The rest of the cast was okay, but DeCarlo really stole the show. I do have to mention one other actress who I really kind of hope would give up on acting – Jan Broberg Felt. She played the Relief Society gossip and all around nasty woman in this movie. She was the ringleader of the dissenters siding against Michael James and was constantly backbiting and rumormongering. And, while I recognize we weren’t supposed to like her character, I think I just don’t like her as an actress. (She was also Tartan’s mom in Baptists at Our Barbecue.) She overacts, which makes her characters unbelievable and annoying. Ms. Felt, you may be a really nice lady, I don’t know, but tone it down a bit, please – it’s just annoying!

Having mentioned the two good things about the movie (the acceptable plot and DeCarlo), let me turn to the problems. My biggest problem with the movie is that it plays out as an advertisement for Mormonism. It’s as though the writers, producers, and director wanted to branch out of the strictly Mormon audience and attract a wider following with this movie. To do so they explained everything you ever wanted to know about Mormonism – from when they arrived in Utah to their theology to the role of bishops and stake presidents and mission presidents to how “family friendly” Mormons are. Most of these explanations are offered by either Agent Tuttle, who is trying to help the Cheesemans fit in, or by Michael James, who is just trying to be nice. The explanations just didn’t fit. It was like the writer was trying too hard to make the movie make sense. If this movie is primarily for a Mormon audience, which it really is, then there is no reason to spend so much time on these things. Awareness of such stuff should be assumed among the audience. What’s more, the way all of this stuff is presented it paints Mormons as though they are perfect – they all love their families, never have any problems, are morally superior in every aspect of modern life, and are all around perfect people. I probably should have double-checked the credits to make sure the movie wasn’t sponsored by the LDS religion as an evangelism tool.

In a weird contrast with the blatant propaganda, the movie actually does a number of things that I think illustrate just how weird some Mormons can be (not all Mormons do these things, but many do). For instance, when George decides to set up his scrapbooking store scam, he walks in to his first one and poses as a labor union representative. This illustrates far more things than I think the writers intended. First, the fact that George is pretending to be a labor union representative in order to scam people gives you a good sense of what Mormons think of labor unions – they don’t like them (primarily because the leadership of the religion doesn’t – unions encourage people lower down the hierarchical ladder to stand up to those in authority, which is a huge no-no in Mormonism). Little do they realize the benefits that labor unions have wrought for the working man. Statistically speaking, Mormons are far more anti-union than the general population of the U.S. (references provided upon request). Additionally, the woman running the scrapbooking store says she treats her employees really well – she pays them minimum wage. I thought that was also a great illustration of how some Mormons think – they are cheap and pinchy and don’t treat their employees very well (minimum wage is “fair”?). In other words, it was the inadvertent stuff that was really informative about Mormons (even though these things are not true of all Mormons).

The reason I say this movie is ultimately just for Mormons is because, despite all of the explanations about Mormonism provided for the non-Mormon viewer, the final scenes of the movie are all of Mormon meetings. Without an insider’s understanding of such meetings they just wouldn’t make much sense. The whole voting fiasco, which would never happen, just wouldn’t make sense to anyone who is not familiar with Mormonism. First of all, no one ever dissents in these so-called “votes.” The “vote of support” in Mormonism is a remnant of days gone by when votes actually used to matter. For the most part they don’t anymore. And even if there is a dissenting vote in a Mormon meeting it doesn’t usually mean anything – except that the leaders will talk to that person to see why they aren’t on board with the rest of the congregation. Unless the complaint is very serious, the dissenter’s views are disregarded. I’ve only heard of two instances when these votes actually meant something – once in the ward I grew up attending a member was called to a position without his knowledge and he was the one who dissented (hilarious in its own right!). And I’ve heard that a ward in California once voted against someone and they won. In summary, this whole sequence is basically meaningless to non-Mormons and unrealistic to anyone who knows anything about Mormonism.

Lest readers think this movie had the insight to forego including all of the typical Mormon clichés and stereotypes, I’ll point out just a few of the many, many stereotypes included in the movie. Obviously there is Ms. Felt’s character, the super nosy and rumor-licious relief society queen – a classic Mormon stereotype. Patrick Cheeseman is invited up to Julie’s room at one point and then is reprimanded by James when he is found in her room. This is another Mormon cliché – no members of the opposite sex allowed in your bedroom.

Of course, there aren’t just Mormon stereotypes in the movie. The movie also reflects stereotypes Mormons hold of others. When Linda Cheeseman first goes to church services in Utah at a Catholic church she is the only person there. There may not be as many Catholics in Utah as there are Mormons, but there are plenty of them – they number in the thousands (probably tens of thousands). So, the movie takes a swipe at Catholics in passing, hinting that they aren’t devoted to their beliefs (take that you 1 billion Catholics in the world!). Perhaps in a nod to the Simpsons, in one scene that takes place at a convenience store, the person running the store is Arabic and is even wearing a turbin. I lived in Utah for 25 years and never saw an Arab wearing a turbin, let alone an Arabic convenience store clerk. The people who work in convenience stores in Utah are white, just like everyone else in Utah (though there is a growing Latino population). Oh, and the guy who played the Arab, he wasn’t Arabic. He was just a slightly dark-skinned white person.

The worst stereotypes held by Mormons, though, are those applied to the Cheeseman family. From when they are first introduced they are a completely dysfunctional family. George is into gambling (playing the lottery), he drinks like a horse, drinks coffee, yells at his wife, cheats on his wife, and doesn’t spend time with his kid. Linda is an abused wife who finds solace in alcohol. And Patrick is withdrawn and lonely – he can’t relate to his parents and spends all of his time with headphones on. Oh, and he steals stuff without any remorse. The typical non-Mormon family! (Urrghh!!!) Now, it would probably be unfair of me to say that the writers of this movie think this is true of all non-Mormon families, but you kind of have to wonder… Certainly it isn’t true, but I’m guessing a lot of Mormons believe it is (not all Mormons, but many probably do). Mormons have just as dysfunctional of families as do non-Mormons (divorce rates are the same; again, references available on request). Being Mormon doesn’t make your family wonderful. In fact, despite what Mormons claim, I firmly believe that Mormons are only pro-family when all of your family is Mormon.

Mormonism is, first and foremost, pro-Mormon. Family is second to the religion. Don’t believe me? Just ask a faithful Mormon if they would remain married to someone who leaves the religion and then criticizes it… While there are some who might, most would say that their faith is more important to them. Yep, religion is more important to them than their marriage. I know a number of people who have divorced over this very issue and the numbers seem to be going up. Mormonism isn’t anymore pro-family than is any other religion or those who have no religion. It just pretends to be to attract adherents – many of whom have to cut off ties to their families to join.

Overall, this movie is a major improvement over some of the other Mollywood movies I’ve seen (especially Baptists at Our Barbecue). Thankfully, the Cheesemans didn’t convert to Mormonism in the end. If they had, I would have had nothing nice to say about this movie. As it stands, the plot is mostly believable and Mark DeCarlo delivers a performance that makes the movie watchable/tolerable. The movie has many other failings, preeminently its non-stop advertisements for Mormons. I wouldn’t go so far as to recommend this movie, especially for non-Mormons. But as Mollywood movies go, this is one of the better films to come out of that movement. Watch with caution, but do enjoy DeCarlo’s performance!

Categories: movie reviews Tags:

Lorenzo’s Oil

September 21st, 2006 Comments off
Number of Views: 9

I don’t review most of the movies I watch these days, but I do review some and I rate all of them on IMDB. Anyway, this isn’t my review, it’s Debi’s. If you’re familiar with the premise of Lorenzo’s Oil, you can skip to Debi’s review. If not, here’s the quick of it:

A boy named Lorenzo is diagnosed with adrenoleukodystrophy, a nuero-degenerative disorder that ultimately leads to death. His parents, who are not scientists, are frustrated by the lack of research and information on the condition, so they hit the books and come up with a special mix of oils that seem to help. The movie is based on a true story.

So, why the review? Well, Debi, as you may well know, is a genetic counselor. We picked up the movie because she wanted to know a bit more about this condition and had heard of the movie from some of her patients (the condition is genetic). Besides Nick Nolte’s awful portrayal of an English speaking Italian and Susan Sarandon successfully portray a real bitch of a woman, the acting isn’t too bad (especially the boy who played Lorenzo). But the movie has some serious, serious problems. With that introduction, here’s Debi’s review:

I had heard that Lorenzo’s oil was no silver bullet, but wanted to know for myself because it was referenced on a listserv of one of the patient support groups for a different genetic condition. Someone was using it to spur parents on to help find their own cures. The parent was frustrated and felt the doctors working on that condition didn’t care enough about the patients and were not doing anything to find a cure for the condition. The parent started giving her kids vitamin supplements and swore that they did amazing things. I understand parents’ frustration when there are no answers, but I don’t think it is fair to state that physicians do not care. What really bothered my about the statement from the listserv is that the parent was making an unfounded claim: I can’t say one way or the other whether the vitamins help because there have been no randomized controlled trials, which brings me to my first point about Lorenzo’s Oil:

  • I agree that Lorenzo’s oil is a “story of high hopes that a cure for an awful disease was at hand in Lorenzo’s oil… A side-effect was to make randomised trials impossible, so that a decade and more on we’re still guessing whether this treatment has any benefit for anyone with this condition. It is not possible to say that it does. It is possible to say that it does not, at least for patients with established neurological symptoms.€ http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/neurol/lorenz.html

Let me explain. Because of the publicity and approach of Lorenzo’s parents, the Odones, most kids diagnosed with adrenoleukodystrophy end up on the oil. Because it is not possible to compare their outcomes with outcomes of people not on the oil supplement, it cannot be stated for certain that the oil helps. It seems to, but without a double-blind, controlled, scientific study, that is not something you can say with 100% certainty.
This answers the question I had as to why Lorenzo’s oil has not been approved by the FDA. (Until it is approved, availability is limited and insurance often does not cover the cost because it is considered experimental). There is not enough clear evidence for how well it works. The limited research that has been done supports the following (for details see the link above):

  • Lorenzo’s oil rapidly reduces very long chain (C26:0) fatty acids in plasma to normal or near normal levels.
  • Very long chain fatty acids in the brain appear unaffected in postmortem studies (probably because of the blood brain barrier).
  • In patients with neurological symptoms, use of Lorenzo’s oil is not associated with any reduction of symptoms or delay in disease progression.
  • There is limited evidence that use of Lorenzo’s oil in asymptomatic disease carriers may (repeat MAY) reduce the onset of symptoms.

Now as long as something is not harmful (though there are many ways something can be harmful including physical harm, emotional harm due to false hopes, and even financial harm), I am not necessarily against it, even if it has not been rigorously proven. What I do have a problem with is that the movie Lorenzo’s oil vilified those people who raised concerns about the possible harm. This brings me to my second and final concern with the movie:

  • Lorenzo’s oil, the movie, is harmful to science and medicine because it vilifies people who are trying to protect others.

There are several scenes in the movie in which the Odone’s are portrayed as the heroes while the doctors and the people who are listening to the doctors are villified. The doctors are portrayed as being solely interested in studying the children with the disease and not curing them. Additionally, the doctors and scientists are portrayed as not working very hard on a cure and are hesitant to accept the findings of the Odones. This is particularly irksome because science is, by its nature, skeptical. That is what makes it such a powerful tool. It basically says, “I won’t believe what you say until you can prove it. And, you have to play by my rules – because these rules actually result in proof.” The movie presents a one-sided critique of that model without pointing out all of the amazing benefits to human society that have resulted from the scientific approach to studying our world and ourselves. Additionally, the doctors wanted to help and protect people and did not want to provide them with false hope, which is kind of what the Odones did with their approach.
In short, while the movie is both provocative and touching, it does a disservice to science by negatively portraying the standards employed by science in conducting research. Sure, it’s an interesting story, but it’s also misleading and disingenuous.

Categories: movie reviews Tags: