Netflix SN #1 - "The Encounter"

Over the past few years, my wife and I have been Netflix instant viewer subscribers and during that time have seen a fair amount of good movies and shows that many people may not know about. As a result, I thought I'd do a new blog called "Netflix Streaming Nuggets", or "Netflix SN" for short where I briefly introduce some of them from time to time.

Nugget #1 is a movie I'm sure very few of you, if any, have heard of.  Partly because it's a Christian movie, and partly because it never made it to theaters (unlike other recent Christian movies like "Fireproof", "Courageous", and others).  It is called "The Encounter".

"The Encounter" was filmed in 2010, but I hadn't heard of it until I stumbled across it on Netflix last year.  I was actually looking for something to watch one night on Netflix, and came across a movie with the following description:  "When five strangers come together at an eatery, they meet the owner, who seems to know everything about them and is reminiscent of Jesus Christ."  Sounded a bit hoaky at first, but I had to check it out.  I was glad I did.

The movie was primarily based in an eatery (a diner), and the owner of the diner was not only reminiscent of Jesus Christ, he WAS Jesus Christ. Not in the flesh, but spiritually to five specifically chosen people.  Each of the five are in different stages in their belief in God, Jesus, and Christianity in general. Some are lukewarm believers, some seekers, and one was a non-believer. After all are systematically brought together, "Jesus" begins working on them, one-by-one.  Most are obviously skeptical that they are facing the actual Jesus of Nazareth, but most begin to believe it after facts and life experiences only known to them are slowly revealed.

The movie does a nice job portraying, one would hope, what it would be like to actually have a conversation with Jesus, based on what the Bible says about Him....gentle, loving, caring, and reassuring that He is always listening to us. This is not only because of the writing, which was obviously done by people with a high level of biblical knowledge and understanding, but also by the acting of Bruce Marchiano. The movie also provides an interesting depiction on how Jesus (or any Christian, for that matter) might confront people of different belief levels. The approach depends on the level of their belief. As i just mentioned, the script is biblically sound, and shows what the results (both good and bad) of our ultimate decision on what to believe could be.

I want to be careful and not give much away, so that's all I'll say about the plot.  I would highly recommend "The Encounter" to you no matter where your belief level lies.  If you're a believer, you'll find it comforting and reassuring.  And if you're someone who's always had doubts or reservations, this movie could help clarify whatever questions or reservations you might have.

After watching it, I was curious about the company who made the film, "Pure Flix Entertainment".  After doing a little research, I discovered that they have actually been making movies for some time, having released 34 movies since the late 1990's. Most, but not all, are Christian comedies or dramas. Since watching "The Encounter" I checked out a few of their other Christian films that were on Netflix, and some are definitely better than others. "Peter and the Last Supper" was probably the best of the lot. "The Encounter: Paradise Lost", a sequel to "The Encounter" was actually released in 2012 and is on Netflix as well. It has a very similar message to it's prequel, but done amidst a DEA agent vs drug dealer storyline. Not sure why that particular plot, but it appears the creators wanted to do an action version of "The Encounter".  In this case, I'd definitely recommend sticking with the original! At least initially.

If you end up watching it, be sure to leave a comment and let me know what you think!

Tonto....and the Lone Ranger

According to Rotten Tomatoes, a popular online movie rating site, only 26% of the critics liked the new Johnny Depp "Lone Ranger" film, while 68% of the viewers liked it.  Why the discrepancy?  My guess (and something I think happens a lot) is that the viewers judged the movie on the last exciting, satisfying 20 minute ending, while the critics based their reviews on the entire movie.  And in this case, I kind of have to side with the critics.

Sure, as soon as the rousing William Tell Overture (i.e. Lone Ranger theme) began blaring on screen for the final time about 2 hours into the movie, seemly signalling us that the climax of the movie was about to begin,  the action thereafter was very entertaining.  Usually is when the bad guys throughout the movie finally get their just due.  However, I can't ignore the prior two hours.  And unfortunately, by the time the William Tell Overture started, my interested in the movie had pretty much already ended.

First off, the role reversal of Tonto being the outspoken brawn and brains of the duo while the Lone Ranger was basically an inept bozo was a bit odd and something I didn't really care for. It was almost like an Abbott (Tonto) and Costello (Lone Ranger) act. I guess I can understand the urge to try something like that as it potentially could provide a different angle on a popular story. But imagine watching the origin of Batman and Robin with Robin being the ring leader and calling the shots. It just isn't right! I suspect this decision to do this was done to please the $20 million a picture Depp, who, not coincidentally, played Tonto.  And although he was actually pretty entertaining as Tonto, he did at times remind me of his Jack Sparrow "Pirates of the Caribbean" character dressed up as a Comanche.  Also noteworthy was how his dialog as Tonto was inconsistent as he continuously went back and forth from using adjectives to being adjective free.

The part of the movie I had the most problem with, however, was what to label it.  Sometimes it was a comedy, other times a drama. There was no smooth melding of the two, which is actually difficult to do and very few can do well. When done right, they can be memorable (the Coen brothers "Fargo" is a good example), but when done wrong....a confusing mess resulting in an emotional roller coaster ride.  And that's how I felt watching "The Lone Ranger".  There were certainly some funny moments throughout, but many were frequently followed by a shockingly brutal scene. Scenes I wouldn't want my young kids to see (if I had any). Sure, some of them were off screen (it would have been an "R"-rated movie if they weren't), but they were still pretty intense and violent. A lady sitting in front of us at the movie summed it up best after watching this drama-to-comedy-to-drama see saw:  "I'm exhausted".  Although there wasn't a lot of blood in the movie, there was probably too much for a what (I think) was supposed to be a family movie.

There were also too many scenes in the movie that had nothing to do with the actual story. One example that immediately comes to mind has an unconscious Lone Ranger being dragged on the ground by a horse - horse stops to poop - horse continues walking and drags Lone Ranger over its droppings. Another has to do with a scorpion-eating horse. Maybe funny to a 12 year old, but they were prime candidates for the cutting room floor, as the 2 1/2 hour movie was at least a half hour too long to begin with. Going for an easy laugh, I guess.

The acting was fine but nothing special. As I said, Depp was entertaining as Tonto.  Armie Hammer of "The Social Network" fame (where he was terrific in a dual role as the Winklevoss twins) was ok as John Reid/the Lone Ranger.  He certainly looked the Lone Ranger part when wearing the mask. And he played the bumbling John Reid pretty well.  But his wimpy Lone Ranger act eventually grew old. It was only in the last few minutes of the movie did the Lone Ranger persona we all know finally surface. But when the fighting was over, he slipped back into his wimpy Lou Costello self again.  Ugh.  The always reliable Tom Wilkinson and William Fichtner were pretty good as the bad guys. Fichtner was the instigator or victim to many of the brutal scenes mentioned earlier. As such, his role probably could have been toned down a little.

In conclusion, as much as I wanted to like "The Lone Ranger", I came away pretty disappointed. I'm suspecting a lot of people may be starting to be as well, as after it's strong opening weekend on July 3rd, "The Lone Ranger" has plummeted down the box office money list the past two weekends.

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a “2”. If you really like horses and beautiful scenery, then maybe a "2.5".

Superman and.....Moses?

Thanks to a rainy morning in Washington D.C., my wife and I decided to skip the National Zoo and stay inside.  We decided instead to take a quick trip to nearby Georgetown and do what many people do on a rainy day…..go to a movie.   We’ve been wanting to see “Man of Steel” (MOS) anyhow, so this was a good opportunity to do so.

When I first started seeing the previews for MOS a few months ago, I was a little disappointed to see that the makers of the movie decided to do an “origin of” version, something that was done in the prior two Superman movie productions (1978 with Christopher Reeve and 2006 with Brandon Routh).  I guess every few years we need to be reminded how Superman came about.

This origin story was the best, however, and it was definitely worth watching again even though I already knew the story.  The plot actually closely mirrored that of Christopher Reeve’s “Superman I”, with a bit of his “Superman II” sequel thrown in for good measure.  Reeve’s “Superman I” told the story of the birth of Kal-El (i.e. Superman) on Krypton, and the measures his parent’s Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van take to ensure his safety from their dying planet, which involves sending their infant son to a safe planet earth where he is discovered and raised by earthling parents.  MOS basically tells the same story, but takes it a step further by including the story of General Zod, the villain who was in Reeve’s ““Superman II”.   

The first 25 minutes dedicated to the origin story was intense, action-packed, and riveting.   Russell Crowe in particular was at his best as Kal-El’s father.  The ole race-against-time-to-get-their son launched-into-space-before-their-world-blows-up-or-someone-stops-them scenario, though obvious, was well done, and possibly the best part of the entire movie. 

Once on earth, the story immediately fast forwards to the now-named Clark Kent in his 20’s working on a crab boat, ala the popular TV show “The Deadliest Catch”.  The writers definitely borrowed some of the fisherman “lingo” and even mimicked some of the personalities on the show, which made me snicker since I watch the show.  Clark Kent’s youth is retold in numerous flash backs that are triggered by several traumatic incidents.  The flash backs combined with these incidents help draw a picture of who the real Clark Kent is.  A particularly nice touch was how both of his fathers (a spiritual Russell Crowe and the earthly Kevin Costner) encourage Clark on how he can help and benefit the human race, but not until they are ready for it.  This requires much restraint from Clark, both as a youth when being bullied, and as a young adult (SPOILER ALERT!) when he chooses to refrain from using his “super” powers in public to save his father’s (Costner) life so not to be prematurely exposed and potentially cause even greater havoc and possible panic. A true sacrifice and a pretty moving scene.  I must intervene with a comment though.  Not to sound insensitive, but, considering the situation he was in, I don’t think I would have done what Costner did for someone elses dog. That’s all I’ll say. You’ll have to see the movie to understand what I mean! Regardless, this was an angle not really addressed in prior Superman movies, and one that was particularly effective.

The movie continues with the predictable re-emerging of and ultimately even more predictable final confrontation between Superman and General Zod (although in the latter, I wasn’t always sure if the goal was to defeat each other, or see how much of the city they could destroy).  And that brings me to the negative part of my blog:  too many CGI effects!   The second half of the movie consisted heavily on fighting and the battle between Superman and the US military vs. General Zod and his gang. Action is good, but, in my opinion, when the CGI graphics get extensive, the action begins to look even more fake than it is.  Then it starts to get old.  And that’s why I didn’t enjoy the second half of the movie as much as the first.   Not to say that there weren’t some good things happening during the latter half of the movie.  In particular, it was interesting seeing the struggle Clark Kent had to deal with when he became Superman.  After being taught all of his life to be peaceful and restrained, Kent is forced to be the complete opposite as Superman, which isn’t easy for him. And he had to learn that the hard way several times throughout the movie.  Again, this was another interesting spin on Superman that wasn’t really addressed in the prior Superman movies.

As far as the acting goes, Russell Crowe was vintage Crowe as Jor-El, as mentioned earlier. Costner and Diane Lane were very good as Clark’s earthly parents.  Amy Adams (does she remind anyone else of Nicole Kidman?) was good as Lois Lane. Speaking of which, I really liked the Kent/Lane relationship in this version.  It wasn't all lovey/dovey like in past Superman movies, but a relationship built more on respect.  I'm sure that'll change if there's a sequel, but it was the right approach in this film. Lawrence Fishburne, a terrific actor in many movies, was an interesting choice for Daily Bugle editor Perry White.  In the comics and past movies, White is shown as the hyper, nervous, screaming type.   Fishburne’s portrayal is completely opposite.  And sorry original Superman fans, but there is no Jimmy Olsen in this version. Maybe he'll pop up in a sequel. Playing General Zod was Michael Shannon, an actor I must admit I wasn’t previously familiar with.  Although I thought he was very effective in the role and played a formidable bad guy, his face reminded me of a younger version of David Letterman/Garrison Keillor combined.  I couldn’t always get past that!  But that’s just me.  One thing I did like about this portrayal of General Zod that wasn’t done in “Superman II”, was how they went a little deeper and explained what his motivations were….a deep loyalty to his people and near dead planet. He admits a couple of times in the movie that his friendship with Jor-El made some of his actions particularly difficult.  Not that we sympathized with him, but we at least understood him.  In “Superman II”, General Zod was basically a one-dimensional bad guy who liked to do bad things for the sole reason of world domination.  

Oh, I almost forgot Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Superman!  Again, he's an actor I wasn't familiar with but did a very good job in a very risky, visible role.  I thought he was particularly good as Clark Kent.  And I’m sure the ladies won’t be/weren’t disappointed.  A couple of shirtless, full-body camera pans early on were obviously included specifically to snag their attention. I have to say that when he first became Superman and was fine-tuning his flying abilities, the CGI shown of him flying erratically in the distance reminded me of a scene in 1939’s “Wizard of Oz” when the Wicked Witch was flying above the citizen’s of Oz spelling out her warning to Dorothy with her smoking broomstick as her black cape is flapping around. Again, that’s me.

As I wrap up this blog, I have to mention an aspect of the movie that was particularly interesting.  Before seeing the movie, I had heard from a few people that there were some religious overtones presented throughout the story. And while watching the movie, I definitely noted some subtle references. Some were on screen, but most in the dialog itself. I won’t go into great detail, as I don’t want to give much away, but some examples include an apparent reference to Moses (Superman is from one race who, in order for him to survive, had to give him up to be raised by members of another race; he has to come to grips with his own heritage just as Moses did); the disclosure from Superman that he was “33 years old”, which is widely believed to be the age of Jesus when His earthly ministry was at its peak (and the age he was crucified).  And Jor-El’s spiritual appearances, particularly one where he confronts and helps Lois Lane, were very “Holy Spirit" like (follow me, listen to me, trust me).  The musical score even at times sounded “spiritual”, at least to me. 

As a result, after seeing the movie, I decided to do a little research on the screenwriter, David S. Goyer.  Goyer, I discovered, was raised Jewish (as were the original creators of Superman back in the 1930’s). In a recent interview, Goyer stated that prior to writing the screenplay for MOS, “I read the Old Testament again, especially the book of Exodus and the story of Moses”.  In another interesting quote from the same interview, he also stated that “Superman has always struck me as a combination of Old Testament and New Testament; he’s a sort of fusion between these two figures, both Moses and Christ.” So there you have it….Superman himself was inspired by the Bible!

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a “3”, particularly for the first half of the movie, and the very final scene, which provided a nice lead-in to the sequel.