If you’re interested, The Road is based on the bleak Cormac McCarthy novel and is, well, bleak. Like most post-apoc, it has a thread of hope, though hope in The Road is the thinnest bit of thread. On a scientific level I also have issues with the nature of the apocalypse (what killed all the animals, insects and plant life but not the people?). But that also makes it that much more bleak. The Book of Eli is more your typical post-apoc based on a mysterious wanderer with a mission. In this case Denzel Washington is trying to safe-guard the last known copy of the Bible. It an interesting premise to pair with a sword-wielding assassin guy who’s hand-chopping skill earns the movie an R-rating. You’d think those audiences wouldn’t have much crossover.

The Book of Eli does a nice job summarizing one of the aspects of post-apoc that I always find fascinating:

“We had more than we needed,” Eli says, remembering what life was like pre-apoc. “We had no idea what was precious and what wasn’t. We threw things away that people kill each other for now.”

That’s why I find post-apoc so fascinating. It strips away all the junk of life and forces us to realize what’s important. In the wake of the earthquake in Haiti we get a glimpse of life in a post-apocalypse state. We got an update from the organization my church supports in Haiti that several hundred people spent each night in a soccer field near the church praying, singing and sharing meals.

When the end of all things comes, only what truly matters is left.

I’m not off the wall outraged at this. Just because Jason wears a hockey mask in Friday the 13th doesn’t mean hockey players should be up in arms. But still. When you take an innocent child, even worse an orphan, with no parents to love and protect them, and make that unprotected group the center of your evil plot line… well, that may not be evil itself, but it’s not doing orphans any good.

Tom Davis is encouraging people to respond to this film with their own stories of how orphans have changed their lives. Stories to counter the creepy trailer where parents adopt a child only to discover how scary that kid can be and how their family becomes threatened from an adopted child (the movie’s tagline: “There’s something wrong with Esther”). I’m trying not to take that personally and realize it’s just a movie, but yikes. Sheesh, let’s promote some misconcpetions about adoption, shall we?

Tom launched the Orphans Deserve Better campaign where you can share your stories of how orphans have changed your life (like  this one from a mother of three). They have a much better tagline: “There’s something wrong with millions of children having no family.” I love that this is all about a positive response. Let’s not rag on Warner Bros. (I’ve yet to see the word boycott thrown around), instead let’s focus on the positive.

I love it. You can’t read anything I do online without realizing how Milo has changed my life. My favorite story might be the way Milo and Lexi go to sleep. They share a room and at first we thought they’d wake each other up and it’d be a horrible mess. But Milo actually goes to sleep better when Lexi stands at his crib and talks to him, the two laughing and giggling, sometimes shrieking, long after bedtime. It lasts half an hour, sometimes 45 minutes, and then the two drift off to sleep. The strict parent in me wants to step in and yell and tell them to go to sleep, but they do eventually, so I let it go. Milo seems to sleep better this way. The same thing is starting to happen in the morning when they wake up. I haven’t heard Milo crying in the morning for a few days now. Instead it’s all giggles. That’s awesome. (Right now Lexi is repeating “Eth-io-pia!” and Milo is laughing.)

And if you want further proof of how a child can change your life, look no further than the Palmer family, who uprooted their four children to move from Oklahoma to Uganda to finalize the adoption of the newest member of their family. They have an incredible story. Just recently they shared the tragic story of a child recently adopted by a Uganda family who soon died in a terrible accident. It’s a heart-breaking story. But beneath the pain and horror (there’s a real horror story for you) there is a measure of hope. That child, Jonathan, was loved. Even though his life was cut horribly short, he died with a family.

We went to see the new Harry Potter flick last night, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. As the sixth and penultimate book, this one had a tricky position: Needing to tell its own story but also set things up for the finale. I thought the book did that pretty well, though it was packed with flashbacks and lacking in action. At least until the last quarter of the book when things pick up like gangbusters. Like all the Potter books, turning that into a movie is no easy task.

And I actually enjoyed the first three-quarters of the movie. They played to their base and really worked the characters (helped I saw it with a theater full of teenagers who literally grew up on Potter). The various love interests were good and the reveal of Dumbledore with the billboard referencing magic and “our man” was awesome. I didn’t even mind the many changes: The complete downplay of the Half-Blood Prince (shocking change since that’s the title of the movie, but whatever, though it does make the reveal at the end kind of lame), the complete fabrication of the attack on the Wesley’s house, the way Ginny helped Harry hide the borrowed potions book, the missing horucrux stories, etc.. While I’m not a fan of the changes, I could go along with them. The attack on the Wesley’s seemed especially weird, but I understood the need to inject some action earlier in the plot (the book could have used something like that).

How the Book Ended
But then we come to the end (I shouldn’t have to tell you, but this is where the spoilers really start coming). Harry and Dumbledore leave the castle on a quest to find one of Voldemort’s horucruxes. In the book when they return to Hogwarts all hell is breaking loose. Malfoy finally succeeded and allowed a team of Death Eaters into the castle and they’re engaged in a bloody battle with the members of the Order of the Phoenix, the professors and students true to Harry and Dumbledore. The book doesn’t show us much of the battle, but it’s a proud moment for some of the lesser characters.

Anyway, Harry and Dumbledore return to the castle and we get what is perhaps the most pivotal scene in the entire Harry Potter series. As they land their brooms on the castle, Harry is under his invisibility cloak and Malfoy confronts Dumbledore. Rather than defend himself, Dumbledore makes the curious move of petrifying Harry. The result is that Harry can observe everything, but Malfoy doesn’t realize he’s there. Malfoy disarms Dumbledore we get some banter as Malfoy tries to summon the courage to complete his task and kill Dumbledore. But he can’t do it. The battle rages on below and Death Eaters come up to do the job. But then Severus Snape, the spineless, back-stabbing, Harry-hating menace enters the scene. All series we’ve thought Snape was evil. Now we find out.

In the book Snape surveys the scene, notes the two broomsticks, and takes over for Malfoy, carrying out his unbreakable vow to help Malfoy. Dumbledore whispers please and Snape kills him. Snape, Malfoy and the Death Eaters make their escape. The death of Dumbledore releases Harry and after a stunned pause he joins the fight, rage and anger and vengeance driving him to do one thing: Kill Snape. Of course he fails, and Snape taunts him, stops the other Death Eaters from hurting Harry, claiming that Voldemort wants Harry himself.

The book closes with a haunting death, an incredible betrayal, and a devastating battle in Hogwarts like we’ve never seen before (but will see much worse in the future). The ultimate question before book 7 came out was who’s orders Snape was obeying: Dumbledore’s or Voldemort’s. Ultimately we learn Snape was true to Dumbledore, that killing Dumbledore was part of the grand scheme to bring down Voldemort. It becomes obvious that Snape knew Harry was in the tower but didn’t do anything about it because he was serving Dumbledore. And the key to that entire scene was that Dumbledore petrified Harry Potter. Why? After six Harry Potter books we all know that the last thing Harry Potter is going to do is obey. There’s no way Harry Potter could stand in the shadows while Malfoy or worse, Snape, killed Dumbledore.

How the Movie Ended
I went through that elaborate recounting of how the book ended because it’s so crucial to the story. And the movie completely flubbed it. As Harry and Dumbledore return to the castle, there’s no fight going on. Malfoy brought Death Eaters into the castle all right, but they somehow make their way to the astronomy tower unhindered (in the book Harry warned his friends to stand guard while he and Dumbledore were gone). Dumbledore tells Harry to hide and do nothing as Malfoy comes. Inexplicably, Harry listens and watches as his nemesis points a wand at his mentor. The the Death Eaters come, who seem to have no role in all of this other than to break stuff and taunt people (in the book the were having a battle in the castle below). Then Snape comes. He sees Potter hiding in the shadows and warns him to do nothing. Again, inexplicably, Harry listens. Snape then confronts Dumbledore and kills him. Yet still, Harry Potter, the one who acts first and thinks later, the one who has hated Snape since he first saw him, the one who always suspected Snape, does nothing. He watches the Death Eaters, Malfoy and Snape walk away. Finally he gives chase and Snape taunts him and easily gets away.

That’s it. That’s the climax.

It’s bad enough that they cut out the entire battle. It was one of the few shining moments of action in the book. It was a chance to show off that brilliant CGI and blow stuff up. It was a chance to let the lesser characters shine. Not only Ron and Hermione, but Ginny, Nevelle, Luna, Lupin, Bill and the rest. It was cathartic.

But what’s worse is the way the butchered the pivotal scene. It’s a betrayal of Harry Potter’s character to expect him to hide in the shadows while Snape and Malfoy bring down Dumbledore. It’s not true to who Harry is. That’s why Dumbledore had to use magic to petrify him in the book. Dumbledore knew Harry wouldn’t just hide quietly. It will also make the reveal of Snape’s true motivation’s unbelievable.

Why It Sucked
I’m used to movies based on books not living up to the original. That’s par for the course. I expect changes and major plot deviations. But not only was this damaging to the core story of the book, it made for a bad movie. The whole movie built up to a climax that didn’t climax. I’m all for changes if they make the movie work better. And I wasn’t the only one. Our entire theater full of teenagers raised on Potter seemed to agree. They cheered and they laughed, but they were ultimately unfullfilled as they walked out incredulous at the ending.

Now what would be really interesting is to hear why they made those changes. Something tells me ‘the battle wasn’t in the budget’ isn’t going to cut it.

OK, rant over.

But as the credits rolled I cried.

This is the third time I remember crying in the movie theater (care to guess what other movies prompted waterworks?). I readily admit that I cry more easily since becoming a parent and I don’t see many movies in the theater, but it’s still a rare reaction.

It wasn’t so much the movie that moved me, but a simple realization. The movie is about an ex-CIA agent who tracks down the men who abducted his daughter in order to sell her in the slave trade. I realized that most victims of human trafficking don’t have Liam Neeson to go all CIA operative on their captors. They have nobody. There is no rescue filled with tears of joy. There is no happy reunion.

That is the reality of human trafficking. And it’s in your backyard: less than two years ago there was a human trafficking bust about a mile from my house.

If you want to do something about it, the International Justice Mission and One Voice to End Slavery are a good places to start.

Where are the Good Fictional Marriages?
First, is it possible to see positive marriage relationships portrayed in TV or movies? Maybe it was the trailers before the movie that featured multiple flicks about failing marriages, but this seems like a recurring theme. I realize life isn’t Leave it to Beaver and difficult, failing and failed relationships need to be portrayed; and I realize this isn’t a new theme; and I feel like a fundamentalist fuddy-duddy for complaining about it—but I just wish we could see more movies/TV shows about marital relationships that worked. I know they exist, I just feel like they’re endangered according to the entertainment world.

Abusive Bastard
Secondly, the abusive husband was hard to take. The portrayal seemed to slide back and forth from believable to just plain nuts. I had a hard time believing anyone could act like that, though I know it happens. What bothered me the most was that no one stepped in to confront the dirt bag husband.

In one scene he storms into the diner enraged, throws a chair and tells his wife she has 30 seconds to get her ass in the car. No one stops him. No one calls the cops. No one urges the wife not to go with him. Personally, I had a sudden urge to punch the guy (those who know me understand how ineffective that would probably be). The husband’s constant emotional and psychological abuse (never mind his occasional physical abuse) made me feel dirty.

I suppose that’s how abuse should make us feel. It’s soul-crushing that this kind of thing happens and that people think they’re stuck in these situations. My head is probably full of abuse as portrayed in movies and TV, and in reality I know very little about it. But yikes, get some help. Very few things prompt a desire for physical violence in me, but abuse is one of them. (And yes, I do realize how ironic that is.)

I wasn’t expecting much from the movie, but the trailer looked OK and it had Azura Skye who had a small but powerful role in season 7 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But the movie was a mess—I got what I paid for.

But that’s not the interesting part. Redbox showed different DVD cover art than what’s showing up everywhere else. Here’s the side-by-side comparison:

The real version is on the left, Redbox on the right. Redbox kind of makes it look like a porno. For the record, the girl featured on the cover is pregnant for most of the movie and I don’t think she ever touches a gun (no wolves either). I’d love to know where Redbox got that image. It’s hilariously wrong. The idea of somebody expecting a sexy, gun-toting vixen fighting her way through a post-apocalyptic wasteland and instead getting a pregnant girl who plods along with her hand on her back like pregnant women do is awesome. Talk about bait and switch.

Plus: Jokes about pig poop.

While interesting for some of the post-apocalyptic ideas I’m looking at, this movie is otherwise bizarre. It works for me up until the Thunderdome fight ends and Max is banished. Then it goes into bizarr-o movie land. It’s kind of a mishmash of a third Mad Max movie, with some Lord of the Flies and some recycled Road Warrior thrown in (Hey, why not?: All the other Mad Max movies had great chase scenes and they must have had funky cars left over from Road Warrior). What’s especially weird is that the pilot in Beyond Thunderdome is played by the same guy as the pilot in Road Warrior, Bruce Spence, yet they seem to be different characters.

I love that Roger Ebert called it “not only the best of the three Mad Max movies, but one of the best films of 1985.” A year that included Back to the Future (also, Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure).

While it does star Tina Turner as a diabolical despot, I just can’t rate it that high. Mel Gibson spends more time wandering through the desert than the hobbits spent walking around Middle Earth. On the plus side, nobody survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator, so bonus points (Yeah, I finally saw Indy 4 this week. Ouch).

• Movies: 42/100
• TV Shows: 28/100
• Music: 10/100
• Books: 9/100

Keeping reading for disclaimers and inane insights.

[Movies and books are pretty straight forward. I've either seen the whole movie or read the entire book. TV shows and music are a little harder to count. I went with TV shows I watched on a semi-regular basis at some point in my life. If you count shows I've seen an episode of but never regularly watched, it goes up to 46/100. TV shows I've seen while flipping channels doesn't count. For music I went with albums I own or willingly listen to parts of on a regular basis. So Postal Service's Give Up is in because I bought a few tracks on iTunes and listen to them frequently, but Guns 'N Roses' Appetite for Destruction that I heard frequently when my brother was in charge of the music is out. Likewise Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill is out even though we own, because it's my wife's and I usually skip it. Nirvana is also out because while I've certainly heard it, I don't listen to it.]

A few insights from this little experiment:

• It’s a lot easier to consume visual media. Books and music take a beating (though I’m guessing music only takes a beating with me).
• People like me give hope for the long tail. Just because you’re not in the top 100 doesn’t mean you can’t still have a sizable audience.
• A little education helps. Several of the movies and a few of the books I watched/read for college classes (OK, most of the books I read outside of college, but I heard about them in my classes).
• Wow. Isn’t “album” quickly becoming an out-dated concept?
• Who cares what’s popular?
]]> http://www.kevindhendricks.com/2008/06/24/the-top-100-moviestv-showsmusicbooks-i-dont-enjoy/feed/ 5 http://www.kevindhendricks.com/2008/05/21/prince-caspian-the-book-vs-the-movie/ http://www.kevindhendricks.com/2008/05/21/prince-caspian-the-book-vs-the-movie/#comments Wed, 21 May 2008 12:37:14 +0000 Kevin D. Hendricks http://www.kevindhendricks.com/?p=2440 On Saturday night I saw the movie Prince Caspian and yesterday I finished rereading the book. Much like the movie version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I felt like Prince Caspian the movie was so-so. After Peter Jackson’s incredible version of The Lord of the Rings, it’s just hard for The Chronicles of Narnia to measure up.

Prince Caspian is a great example of not measuring up, and I didn’t realize how badly until I finished rereading the book. The movie felt like lots of battle and not enough exposition in between. You never quite knew what was happening or why. The book is about the exact opposite: very little battle and loads of exposition in between. Turns out both battles in the movie (the raid on Miraz’s castle and the epic battle between the Telmarines and Narnians) aren’t even in the book (well, the epic battle is sort of in the book, though Caspian, Peter and Edmund fight for mere moments before Aslan shows up).

Seems like a bizarre choice to pump Prince Caspian full of battles when LOTR already covered that ground better than anyone will for a long while. I realize they needed to make the movie more epic and more climactic, but it seems like they were telling a different story.

]]> http://www.kevindhendricks.com/2008/05/21/prince-caspian-the-book-vs-the-movie/feed/ 2 http://www.kevindhendricks.com/2007/12/28/back-to-the-futures-future-is-too-futuristic/ http://www.kevindhendricks.com/2007/12/28/back-to-the-futures-future-is-too-futuristic/#comments Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:10:25 +0000 Kevin D. Hendricks http://kevindhendricks.com/2007/12/28/back-to-the-futures-future-is-too-futuristic/ Time for a little more geekery about Back to the Future. While watching part two I couldn’t help but notice that the filmmaker’s vision of 2015–a mere seven years away–was incredibly advanced. Granted the movie was made in the late 1980s when 2015 was still 25 years away, but it’s kind of incredible how far off they were in their predictions. Of course it’s only a movie and it’s all for good fun, but it has interesting implications for science fiction writers trying to depict the future. Namely: The future is never as advanced as you think it should be.

In Back to the Future 2 we see all sorts of incredible futuristic advancements. The most eye-popping is the flying car, and it seems the entire interstate system has already been transferred from concrete roads to airborne flyways. Clothing comes in self-fitting styles, skateboards can hover, the weather can either be controlled or predicted with perfect accuracy, fingerprint scanners have replaced door knobs, video screens have replaced windows, home appliances are voice activated, food is regularly de- and re-hydrated, a home energy appliance creates as much energy as a nuclear reaction and fax machines are everywhere.


The last one is especially funny, given our current Internet-based office and the way the fax machine is quickly becoming a dinosaur of a bygone era. Of all the imagined technology in Back to the Future’s future, very few of them have actually come to be. We’re not even close to having many of the potential advancements.

I realize this is all rather geeky, but I find it interesting–especially when I wonder what the world will be like in 25 or 30 years. While my imagination wants to picture incredible change, I think change comes more slowly in the real world. The bigger differences seem to be in culture and style. Those change radically every 25 years, even every 10 years.

]]> http://www.kevindhendricks.com/2007/12/28/back-to-the-futures-future-is-too-futuristic/feed/ 0