|
|
||
Dave's Top Eight
1. Jerry Reed...Revisited by Darrell Toney (reviewed 6/07) (5 Stars) Click title to purchase at CBD.com...click artist name to read Dave's Review. A CD will automatically fall out of the Top Eight after twelve months if no CD surpasses it before then.
|
Most Recent Articles
Why blog? (Three years and counting)
| ||
-----------February 26, 2007More On The OscarsResponding to my Oscar comments from early this morning, reader JM wrote to ask: "Do you believe that Rated R movies are winning in such large percentages of the categories due to a bias toward filthy movies or due to a lack of quality among movies with PG or PG-13 ratings? It's likely some combination of both, but I personally believe the latter has more to do with it than the former. I have to admit as an avid movie watcher that I can think of very few movies I thought of as Oscar-worthy this year that didn't carry an R rating." JM had some other comments about Christian produced music and movies vs. music and movies produced by the secular marketplace. Here's how I replied to JM's email: What you've asked is a fair question regarding the quality of R films vs. PG and PG-13 films. I do think there are PG and PG-13 films that are every bit as well made as The Departed, which won Best Picture and three other awards. Sometimes they get nominated...Will Smith for The Pursuit Of Happyness, for example, but they rarely win...only if the award is for some non-content specific award like Visual Effects, which the PG-13 rated Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest won. Fortunately, the animation category, so far, has been kept safe. I guess the Academy thinks of it as the one required nod to family oriented movies. By the way, I think decent quality Christian films are so few and far between, I wasn't even considering them as part of the equation. I was just noting that R rated films (often films carrying one of the stronger brands of R ratings) are the films that get the most Oscars. This is nothing new, by the way. Silence Of The Lambs, Midnight Cowboy, etc. all paved the way for this to become the norm rather than the exception. I like turning the movie industry's own words against them. If you'll notice in my post, I wrote the headline, then used the MPAA's own words to describe the content of each movie that won. The industry is saying these are the best films they're capable of producing. Labels: Movies 79th Oscars Celebrate Filth And ViolenceThe 79th annual Academy Awards were presented last night. Once again, the majority of the Oscars presented went to films that were rated R. Of course, not all R ratings are created equal. It's worth noting that more than one winner carried particularly strong R ratings, including the biggest winner of all. 1. The Departed won Best Picture. Martin Scorsese won a Directing Oscar for this film as well. Writing (Adapted Screenplay) and Film Editing Oscars were also presented to individuals for their work on this film. The Departed is rated R for "strong brutal violence, pervasive language, some strong sexual content and drug material." 2. Little Miss Sunshine took the honor for Writing (Original Screenplay). Alan Arkin won Best Supporting Actor for his role in the film as well. This movie is rated R for "language, some sex and drug content." 3. The Last King Of Scotland is rated R for "some strong violence and gruesome images, sexual content and language." Forrest Whitaker won Best Actor for his work in this film. 4. Pan's Labyrinth (aka El Laberinto del Fauno) is rated R for "graphic violence and some language." It took Oscars for Cinematogrphay, Makeup, and Art Direction. 5. Babel is rated R for "violence, some graphic nudity, sexual content, language and some drug use." It took the Oscar for Music (Original Score). 6. Letters From Iwo Jima is rated R for "graphic war violence." It took the Oscar for Sound Editing. 7. Das Leben der Anderan is rated R for "some sexuality/nudity." It won Best Foreign Language Film. That's 13 Oscars for R rated films. Fortunately, some tamer fare also won out. 1-2. On the ladies side of the acting equation, Helen Mirren won Best Actress for her work in The Queen, while Jennifer Hudson took Best Supporting Actress for Dreamgirls. Both films are rated PG-13. 3. Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is rated PG-13. It won the Oscar for Visual Effects. 4. Marie Antoinette is rated PG-13. It took the Oscar for Costume Design. 5. The PG rated Happy Feet took the Oscar for Animated Feature Film. 6. Also PG rated, the Al Gore hosted documentary, An Inconvenient Truth received Oscars for Best Documentary (Features) and Music (Original Song). That's seven Oscars for PG and PG-13 rated films. Three Oscars were also presented to short films. I don't think these were rated. Labels: Movies February 20, 2006Movie Review: The Second Chance RATING: 3 1/2 Stars The Second Chance stars Michael W. Smith in his first feature film role. Steve Taylor is also taking his first turn (after many years of anticipation) as the director and co-writer of a major motion picture. Jeff Obafemi Carr is Smith's co-star in this movie. He's a newcomer as well. Smith's character is Ethan Jenkins, a former rock star and drug addict who is now a prodigal returned home. As the movie opens, Jenkins is being groomed to replace his father as head of a mega-church called "The Rock." Carr plays Jake Sanders, a black preacher leading an inner city church whose property and leaders are financed as an outreach project of The Rock. Jenkins and Sanders are thrown together after the church's board members grow restless with both men for failing to toe the line. I'm always worried about "Christian Movies." Much like some Christian music CDs, Christian movies tend to be overly hyped regardless of quality and mostly made by amateurs. There have been a few exceptions like The Apostle, The Passion Of Christ, and Luther, but the Christian marketplace has had more than it's share of dogs...partly because the money hasn't been there to make good quality films in the past, but moreso because these films lack compelling plots. The Second Chance is a step in the right direction. There's background on the key characters and we see how they change in relation to each other over the course of the film. I liked the fact that the even the villain seemed to believe his own motivations were in the best interest of the kingdom of God. That was refreshing. I also thought it was great that we were left hanging on some issues of the story. Was the acting that great? No, not particularly. Smith did better than I expected, but it's clear he isn't a seasoned actor. He does pretty good conveying emotions, but his biggest fault is that he tends to rush his lines. Carr is the better actor of the two, but you can also sense he's new at this. Taylor's directing is good overall, but the camera work is shaky at times (perhaps intentionally), sometimes zooming in way too close for no particular stylistic reason. In general, the look of the film wasn't all that compelling or consistent. Taylor got some moving performances out of the supporting cast, though. I think he has really excelled in this area. Smith's score is fairly effective, but other musical cues felt uneven. For example, there's a church choir that can't sing on key or with any decent rhythm until Smith sits down at the piano, and suddenly they sound like Nashville's finest studio singers (probably because they are). I believe The Second Chance succeeds where other Christian movies have failed due to the quality of Taylor's story. If a character initially seems to be there merely for comic relief or as a victim who needs saving, you may be surprised at how that character is used later in the movie. It's also a tribute to the writers that each character in the film has an interesting back story and evident flaws. Jenkins has his presumptions, for example, while Sanders is arrogant and sometimes given to swearing. In other words, the characters have been fleshed out with believeable and realistic motivations. That being said, one aspect of the film that seems to fly in the face of the movie's message is one of the ways it is being promoted. If you take fifty people to see the film, you can win an appearance by Michael W. Smith at your own church...but you must prove you took fifty people and you aren't allowed to publicize that he's coming if you win. There's a big drawing at the movie's official website. Now in contrast, the "bad guy" in the film is the big church acting at the expense of the hurting people who need the individual, personal touch. In the real world of marketing by Provident Films, we ain't gonna send Michael W. Smith out to your church for free unless you pay to bring at least fifty people to see our film. My cynicism aside, one fan described the film as a wake up call to the church rather than an evangelistic film. That's an accurate description, and I think that's another reason this movie succeeds. When you have a movie that focuses on extended expostions about becoming a Christian, you generally have a poor movie. Why? Because the film claims to be telling a story about this or that, but is in reality just an extended presentation of the plan of salvation with a bit of a story tacked on. Most Christian movies come across as having all the answers, but The Second Chance isn't presumptous. For all of the areas where it could have been improved, The Second Chance has successfully avoided that stigma, and for that I'm grateful. Labels: Movies December 5, 2005Irony In Christian Perspectives On Movies LINK Click on the link above to visit the movie section of www.christiananswers.net. Most sites of this type strike me as being overly hypocritical. These Christian movie critics see all types of movies so they can inform you precisely why Christians shouldn't be watching movies. This site is no exception, but the irony doesn't slap you in the face quite as often. I'm actually favorably impressed by the original content on the site. To find extreme examples of irony here, I had to look at the comments made by some of the people who have visited the site. A couple of those really stood out to me. One 26-year-old woman says she took her six children (count 'em...that's SIX kids) ranging in age from six MONTHS to six YEARS to see March Of The Penguins. She was disgusted to find it was a documentary rather than a cute movie about penguins. First of all, what idiot parent takes their highly impressionable small children to a movie without researching it first? (HINT: All G rated movies aren't aimed at kids.) Secondly, what idiot thinks it's appropriate to take a baby (or in this case, babies plural) to ANY movie? She further confuses us by saying it wasn't her choice to take her herd along. Who is making this woman's choices on her behalf? In a similar vein, another man said he took his son to see Harry Potter. As a result, the boy became demon possessed by acting out the fantasy of trying to ride a broom and ultimately breaking both his legs after jumping off a roof. Now the child doesn't want to go to church. Of course, the father himself is in no way responsible for his son's behavior. This movie and demons are to blame for his lack of authority. Visit the site and see what you think. It's pretty informative about movies from a Christian viewpoint even if you aren't like me...looking for irony wherever I can find it. :o) Labels: Movies November 21, 2005Man In Black On The Silver Screen Movie Review - Walk The Line This biopic about the courtship between Johnny Cash and June Carter is great on many levels. I didn't mind that Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon sang the songs in this film. (Some have complained that only Johnny Cash could sing like Johnny Cash, so Phoenix should have lip-synched. To those, I say, "It's a movie." Suspending your disbelief about stuff like that just goes with the territory. Granted, I was a bit worried near the beginning of the movie when Phoenix first sang, but as the character's confidence improved, I thought he did a fine job approximating Cash's sound and mannerisms.) My only complaint about this film is similar to a complaint I had about Ray, the story of Ray Charles. The period of Cash's history that this movie covers isn't broad enough. There's so much more that Cash did with his career in later years. I think Walk The Line comes off better, though, because the real point of the movie is in how Johnny finally convinced June to marry him. Once she accepts, it makes logical sense to end the movie there, whereas with Ray, the point where they ended the film felt arbitrary. Also, this movie has a lot of the highlights from Cash's musical career...with his most famous performance in Folsom Prison being used thematically both at the beginning and near the end of the movie. This is a must-see movie for Cash fans. There's some scenes with Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, and other famous characters as well. Some of the Cash family aside from June come across as two-dimensional, unfortunately, but maybe it was necessary to make the movie hang together...filmgoers like for there to be a villian, for some reason. Me...I'd prefer it be treated more like a road trip...a journey that starts with some background about his childhood and ends when he dies, showing as many highlights as possible along the way. But I guess that's too simple minded for Hollywood. Southern Gospel fans will be interested to hear that at least one quartet song is included in the film. I can't remember the title, but it was during a scene that took place in 1955 and sounded like the Blackwood Brothers to me. (It was in the background, coming from a radio.) Labels: Movies June 30, 2005Sing A Song For Heaven's Sake It's trivia time...Yes Virginia, there is a Southern Gospel movie. Sadly, it didn't do for Southern Gospel what Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? did for bluegrass and folk music, but nonetheless... In 1966, Marathon Pictures released a feature length film starring Merle Kilgore titled Sing A Song For Heaven’s Sake. It has a relatively undeveloped plot about a young boy who thinks attending a gospel music concert will hamper his reputation. He changes his mind after attending a concert in a small rural church. The movie is essentially a showcase for the top gospel acts of the mid-1960s with more than 30 songs included. The Stamps, Chuck Wagon Gang, Red Foley, Rangers Trio, Swanee River Boys, Blue Ridge Quartet, Lewis Family and others are featured during the course of the film. (See the entire lineup in the photo.) Sing A Song For Heaven’s Sake premiered at the 1966 National Quartet Convention, but failed to attract attention at the secular box office. Pierce LeFevre hated it so much that he wrote a scathing editorial in the LeFevre Family’s newsletter. He said all the copies should be bought up and destroyed. The LeFevre Family did not appear in the film. In recent years, the concert portions of the film have been repackaged and offered for sale at reunion events, but the full length film is difficult to find in a modern video format. Labels: Movies November 5, 2004RayDave's Movie Review I saw Ray a few days ago. This 2 hr. and 30 minute biographical epic on the life of Ray Charles is already sparking rumors about an Oscar nomination for Jamie Foxx. Being a longtime fan, I thought the movie was entertaining, but it could have been improved considerably in some areas.
Obvious problems first . . . I noticed several scenes where the hands did not even come close to matching the music. When you're making a recording about a famous piano player, this is just unacceptable. One particular scene was out of character from the rest of the film. Charles and his mistress are having an argument over whether she should have an abortion. When she refuses, he sings "Hit The Road, Jack." She sings a line or two back at him before she storms out the door. Otherwise, Ray is a movie ABOUT a musician, not a musical. Besides, the scene itself is tasteless . . . but it got the anticipated laugh from the audience. The other drawback to this film is that it obsesses with Charles' struggles with heroin and adultery in his early career to the point that his musical accomplishments come off as secondary. Ultimately, the movie comes to a halt in the mid-1960s, with only a brief nod towards the last 40 years of Charles' illustrious career. That's a real shame. I had hoped to see some scenes about Charles' collaborative works with other artists like Billy Joel ("Baby Grand") and country groups like the Oak Ridge Boys. He was an amazingly versatile performer. Unfortunately, this film dwells so much on Charles' flaws it could turn away more potential fans than it attracts. Thematic problems aside, Foxx does an excellent job conveying the spirit of Ray Charles on screen. The classic swagger is perfect, and the music sounds terrific. (The filmmakers used Charles himself for the recordings . . . a wise move.) If you're already a Ray Charles fan you should see this film . . . if for no other reason than seeing how they managed to flub it in spite of Foxx's performance. If you aren't a fan of Ray Charles, though, skip the movie. Buy a couple of Ray Charles CDs instead. Labels: Movies October 9, 2004Another Anti-Moore FilmThere's another anti-Michael Moore film out there, which is a good thing, I guess. Unfortunately, the money raising tactics of this new film are grossly offensive to me.
I had never heard of Celsius 41.11 until yesterday when the phone rang. A lady said she was conducting an "opinion poll in support of the Bush agenda." Now, I've already decided to vote for President Bush, but this type of opening sentence annoyed me. What's the point of conducting a poll when you say right up front it's biased? Margin of error on a question like that . . . 100%.
Before asking the opinion question though, they played me a clip of a guy talking about the Michael Moore film and how they needed MY help to fight it. This didn't sound like an opinion poll. I'm thinking they'll probably ask me for a donation before the call is over. So then, another lady comes on the phone and asks the opinion question, "With the revelations about Dan Rather using documents that weren't real, do I feel there's a liberal bias in the media?" I refused to say yes or no, because Michael Moore and Dan Rather are on two totally different levels, in my opinion. Sure, Dan leans liberal, but we've only caught him distorting the facts once as opposed to Moore who does it routinely. Besides, why frame a question about Dan Rather with commentary about Michael Moore? Then she went into a pitch for this new film Celsius 41.11 and asked me to donate $100 to $150 so that it could be put into theaters before the election. She went so far as to say it would "guarantee a Bush victory" if they got it into enough theaters. She even said she'd send me a free DVD. Yippee! (For $150, I could buy all three seasons of Alias! Later, I looked at their website and found I could get the free DVD for a $25 dollar donation, plus additional copies for $12.50 each, so she was gypping me on the DVD offer.)
Anyway, back to the phone call . . . at that point, I said she was a hypocrite for soliciting funds on the pretense of conducting an opinion poll. Also, it's just a blatant lie to say putting this film in theaters would guarantee Bush a victory. The phone call was just wrong on so many levels. She said she "understood" where I was coming from and I said, "You say that, but you're about to hang up the phone with me and you'll do the same thing to someone else." I told her she wasn't helping the conservative cause and she should be ashamed of herself for being involved in something so deceptive. Now in fairness, I know liberals conduct scare tactic phone calls that are just as reprehensible around election time. Unfortunately, these people on BOTH sides think they are helping their respective causes by being misleading, but they aren't. Labels: Movies October 7, 2004Saved! Question: What do Mandy Moore, Reunion Records ("Beautiful Day" performed by Ian Ashley Eskelin) and Spring Hill Music Group ("Holy, Holy, Holy" performed by The Martins) have in common?
Answer: A new movie recently released on DVD called Saved! Visions of A Walk To Remember dance in your head, right? Well, not quite . . . in fact, quite the opposite. Moore was the outcast in AWTR, but in Saved! she's the leader of the pack . . . the "bad guy" disguised as a "good girl" attending an all Christian high school. Think Mean Girls . . . same plot, but with religion gone bad as the driving force behind Moore's motivations. When the central character Mary (Jena Malone) becomes pregnant by her gay boyfriend while trying to fulfill a vision from God (not too far fetched, right?), Moore's character goes into full assault mode . . . literally hurling scripture at Mary after she refuses to submit to an exorcism. It's all mindless formula teen issues from there. Director Brian Dannelly claims the film portrays redemption and forgiveness for viewers who stick with it to the end, but I had a difficult time buying that promise when there's not one Christian in the flick who has it together. Don't get me wrong. Overbearing Christians need to see themselves caricatured from time to time. Maybe this film can show how Christians appear to non-Christians when they get all self righteous. Also, Saved! IS pretty funny. We've all seen the self righteous bible thumpers get in the face of an easy target without having the slightest idea of how much grace their presentation lacks. It's enjoyable to watch them get justice. I just haven't quite figured out how Reunion Records and Spring Hill Music Group were persuaded to grant permission for musical cues to be used. Did the movie studio mislead them about the nature of the film and/or use Moore's previous film reputation and involvement with Saved! as bait? Or were they star struck enough to trust Hollywood without doing their homework first? It seems to me that when it comes to granting film sync licenses, standard operating procedure for any Christian music label would include seeing a copy of the script. Labels: Movies 
| |||
Who's Blogging?
Contributors
Blog Search
Talk Back
Useful Links
Discuss SG
Quicklinks
Advice, Audio, Audio, Audiobooks, biography, CCM, CD Reviews, Concert Reviews, Discographies, Dove Awards, DVD Reviews, Fan Awards, History, Housekeeping, Humor, In The News, Interviews, Limericks, Group Members, Movies, NQC, Obituary, Observations, Odds And Ends, Old Clips, Other Blogs, Other Forums, Podcasts, Praise And Worship, Sad But True, Shopping Tales, Singing News, Song Clips, TV Shows, XM News, YouTube,
Archives
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
Copyright
- All textual content posted at Musicscribe.com and subfolders is owned and copyrighted by David Bruce Murray unless otherwise indicated. No reprints may be made without the permission of the author, except as provided by US Copyright law. Permission is granted to reprint articles on other non-commercial websites only as long as the following conditions are met:
1) All articles must be reprinted in full with no editing or additions
2) The words "by David Bruce Murray" must be displayed prominently with each reprinted article.
3) A link to the original article at Musicscribe.com must accompany all reprints. If your site meets these requirements, you may reprint articles without requesting additional permission from the author.The copyright of all content posted by Musicscribe.com contributors other than David Bruce Murray is retained by the original authors.