“One Last Thing” . . . Or Is It?

“One Last Thing” is about a terminally ill teenager, Dylan, who goes on TV with the "United Wish Givers" foundation and tells everyone he wants to spend the weekend with his favorite supermodel Nikki Sinclair. This controversial goal is met with skepticism from everyone, but he is steadfast in his determination. Nikki, on the other hand, has a bad rep and needs to revamp her image. She decides to visit Dylan at home, gets a photo op, and bails as quickly as possible back to New York. Bummed, Dylan however renews his quest to pursue her.

As this plot progresses, a second plot that explores Dylan's relationship with his father, Earl, develops. Earl had been terminally ill as well and had already passed away. All Dylan wants is to go fishing with his father, something that will never happen again. The only connection to his father is a few video tapes that Earl left him, having these sort of father/son chats. In one video, Earl tells Dylan that he's in the afterlife, waiting for him (But take your time on Earth, son.).

Dylan vehemently denies the existence of an afterlife. This is introduced by an unfortunate scene with a bible thumper in the hallway of his high school. This is a frustrating scene, because it portrayed Christians as rude thugs that judge others harshly. The language used by this "Christian" was clichéd, and it may be that the writer of the film had a bad experience with some unfortunately pushy Christian at some point in the past. It’s an unfortunate bias that harshly criticizes rather than explores the issues of the Christian faith.

All that aside, Dylan's quest for Nikki leads him to New York. While there, he starts seeing his dad everywhere he goes. He then meets up with some Krishna guy who affirms the existence of an afterlife. Still skeptical, Dylan nonetheless starts to soften his heart toward this possibility. This questioning is crucial, as it sets up Dylan’s experience after death. He longs to be with his father so much. Will he be with his dad in the afterlife?

The ideal Hollywood ending was a bit mushy. Do we always get what we want, even after death? And what if what we want is really lame compared to what the afterlife is really like? The ending may please audiences, but it’s a sugar coated fairy tale that sidesteps the bigger questions of what’s waiting on the other side. Will we be transported to an Earth 2.0, complete with fishing trips with our dads forever? Or is something much grander and beyond our imagining waiting for us?

“One Last Thing” certainly has heart, but not much soul.

I never thought that this film would be made. I actually really loved that "Before Sunset" had an open ending. But this looks like a perfect follow up film. There are no words that explain my excitement for this film!

 

Rant

"Pitch Black"? Phenomenal film.

"Chronicles of Riddick"? Big letdown.

"Riddick"? Wait . . . what? "Riddick"? RIDDICK??? A lame version of "Pitch Black" with terrible computer animation? Hollywood must be stopped. Way to go, Tinseltown- you took an original idea and totally took a giant crap all over it.

And that's putting it nicely.

“Terminator Salvation”?

The fourth installment in the Terminator series wasn't marketed very heavily. Which is a shame, as this PG-13 version had excellent writing (the opposite of the Transformers sequel, which was pretty to look at but lacked a coherent script), and the Terminator exoskeletons running amok looked "real," as the CG animation looked much better than 1984's stop motion effects. Also, Christian Bale was a great casting choice. He plays a great tough guy, and is a welcome addition to the franchise. He did, however, use his Batman voice at one point. You do what works, I guess!

As just mentioned above, the film was rated PG-13. This is a departure from Terminators 1-3, which were all rated R for language, nudity, and violence. Apparently, when the human race is reduced to scattered survivors, there's less cursing and everyone keeps their clothes on. The film was surprisingly action packed while lacking the unnecessary F-bombs. The writing was strong, and the plot moved along at the right pace, the movie running under 2 hours. Some moments were pretty unbelievable, but they looked great!

This film is a great example of a movie using special effects to aid storytelling. The CG was good, but wasn't the main attraction. There were a few cheesy lines (“I'll be back”), but I think those were thrown in for fans, and were understated. John Conner, the prophesied leader of the resistance, must decide how to lead those under his command. Listening to tapes his mother left him, he must make the right decisions in order beat Skynet. The arrival of Wright throws a monkey wrench into the mix, and Conner must decide whether he's trustworthy.

The "Salvation" in the title was aptly placed. In the beginning, Marcus Wright, a murderer on death row, donates his body to science. Waking up in 2018, he now has a chance to redeem himself as he joins the fight for the survival of the human race. However, he’s hiding a secret that could jeopardize the resistance. Will Marcus help or destroy the human race? That is a big question that John Connor has to deal with. Marcus’ involvement throughout the unfolding of the plot has the potential to ensure the survival of the human race, and salvation is found in the sacrifice he makes at the end of the film. I won’t give away the ending. You’ll have to see it for yourself.

The film, thankfully, does not tie up the franchise, leaving room for a sequel. If more films like “Terminator Salvation” are made- tight writing, good acting, and smart special effects, they may do well in the box office. However, Terminator’s cult following may undermine box office potential, as fans may be disappointed with the vision that these newer films are made. We’ll have to see what happens with Terminator 5.

“The Kingdom” is Coming- Spoiler!

You may be surprised at the message in “The Kingdom”. It’s not your average war film. The film opens with a brief history of Saudia Arabia and why America is so heavily militarily involved in that part of the world (hint, it has to do with black gold). Then the real action starts. A compound owned by a contract oil company is attacked by terrorists, which kills some American brass. An FBI team is sent in, led by Jamie Foxx. Before leaving, Foxx whispers something into Jennifer Garner's ear, to be revealed at the end of the film.

Foxx, et al, go to Arabia, deal with too much bureaucracy, and eventually get their man in the end. It’s all very Hollywood, with fantastic battle scenes and much bloodshed. As the grandfather Al Qaeda member lies dying at the end of the film, he whispers something in his grandson's ears, to be revealed at the end of the film (See a pattern here?).

What both characters, the American military man and the Al Qaida operative, said were one and the same. Can you guess what they said?

"Don't worry. We'll kill them all."

The message in the film can be boiled down to this: somewhere down the line someone on one side did something to someone on the other side and now everyone has to get revenge because each side kills someone on the other side in retaliation. Also, the Middle East has something that's "important to the American people," so now the American military and some major corporations have a very heavy presence there. It's a sick cycle.

This was a very strongly anti-war film. It’s easy to miss as realistic combat action scenes dazzle the audience. However, the message is clear: both sides will stop at nothing to kill the other side. Everyone wants their revenge. The issue is complex for sure, but the main question is this: what’s worth killing for?

Maybe more importantly, what’s worth dying for?

Beauty Attacked in “Slumdog Millionaire”

Danny Boyle, teaming up with Indian director Loveleen Tandan, directed the hit Slumdog Millionaire. A great film, it’s about Jamal, a “slumdog” who grew up in the slums of Mumbai. Telling the story of his rise from poverty to winning 20 million rupees on the Indian version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?”, he mysteriously knows all the answers to all the increasingly difficult questions. He’s interrogated (tortured) after the first day of filming and reveals the events of his life that gave him the knowledge that he possesses. Most of his story involved surviving on the streets with his brother Salim, as well as Latika, the woman of his dreams.

This woman grows up to be beautiful Freida Pinto. She’s been stuck in forced prostitution since she was a child, and Jamal is determined to save her from this kind of life. The portrayal of those in poverty in India was heartbreaking, and the way women treated was horrendous. This leads to these questions: Why is beauty attacked (This theme was very strong in the film, as at one point Latika gets scarred by a knife to her face.)? Why is her innocence taken away at an early age? Why do men think they can use and abuse her? The film is unflinching in its portrayal of life on the streets in India, and Jamal is the man who must fight against it all.

Jamal represents those who want to free those in bondage, and his brother Salim represents those who are willing to compromise for survival- money, power, and becoming a part by the powerful gangs that take advantage of street youth. Latika is caught in the middle, and is attacked by those who see her as a way of monetary gain. It’s a powerful story of the love Jamal has for her- no matter what, he’s willing to fight to bring her to safety. He is a true hero in a world where self-preservation and personal gain are the norm.

We need more people like Jamal in this world- caring, compassionate, and willing to fight those who attack beauty.

Who’s the Bad Guy in “Law Abiding Citizen”?

“Law Abiding Citizen” opens with the premise pretty quickly: the violent break in and murder of Gerard Butler's family. Enter Jamie Foxx, the defense attorney who cuts a deal with the murderer, who lies in court. You see, the evidence was not enough to convict both burglars, but the "witness" of one of them against his partner in crime was. 10 years later, Butler sets in motion what seems at first to be revenge. However, once he's behind bars, he confesses that it's not revenge he's after but a desire to change the system. His motivation and cause are just: to try to fix a system that is imperfect and allows injustice to happen. It’s hard to think of Butler as the bad guy, because of the horrific way he had to watch his family die, and then watch the perpetrator go free.

However, did he have to kill people to make his point? Does an eye for an eye really solve problems? It was amazing how he revealed flaws of the justice system, how he successfully pleaded his case before a judge in his own murder trial for bail to be posted. His argument was sound, and had legal precedence even though it was known that he had systematically murdered his family's killer.

It was all a part of his plan. He wanted to show that the system was flawed and he wanted to fix it. Was there real change that happened as a result of Butler's mission of reformation? Did Jamie Foxx become an attorney that prosecuted criminals for what they had done, even though to lose would mean that the criminals would go free? For an attorney, it's risky to lose cases. However, the right thing to do is not always the profitable thing to do. Would Foxx be different next time he was in the court room? The movie does not address this.

Also, is Butler redeemed in the end? Does the movie end with him understanding forgiveness and peace? Does he reform a flawed system? Do his means justify the end? Was he the good guy, or the bad guy?

One thing he says in the beginning of the movie is that the justice system was supposed to right wrongs, it was supposed to allow the good guys to win and the bad guys to lose. However, a line of thought from the book "Disclosure" by Michael Crichton has a different point of view. In it an attorney says that the legal system was not about righting wrongs, or even mediating inequalities between two parties. Instead, the legal system is all about finding some kind of restitution, usually financial. "This person took this from me, so that person must make it up to me by paying me X amount of dollars, etc." Is that really what the legal system is now? Is the legal system about fixing injustice, or providing restitution?