by Ethan Johnson
May 22, 2006

At long last! A movie review column! Can you believe it? Me neither! I know! That's what I'm saying. Uh-huh. Yep. Yep. OK, gotta go write the column. OK bye. (Click).

Nanny McPhee: Not having read the children's book that this movie was based on, I can only say that the mechanics of the movie were good, the acting was "eh" and I clearly was on the wrong side of its intended demographic. I dunno who did the set decoration, but I now know what would happen if Kimber Lee Clark designed a funeral home. Anyway, good for the kids, probably a bit too transparent for grown-ups.

By the way, we have discontinued our practice of buying DVDs left and right, so from now on I'll just pass along how I felt about the movie.

Hustle & Flow: Way better than I expected. I wondered why "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" was nominated for an Oscar™ (I still kinda do), and in the context of the movie it makes more sense. Terrence Howard is sort of the black Benicio Del Toro in this movie in that his voice fades out often enough that I have no idea what he was saying. I got the gist, though.

There is a scene (featuring the award-winning song) that takes me back to the first time I ever recorded something in a studio environment, albeit a friend's home studio. Prior to that time I "just" strummed the guitar and sang for my own benefit. Suddenly I had to break apart the performance into its individual elements, and sing in front of other people. If that wasn't weird enough, it was really freaky to hear my voice played back against the music tracks. As proficiency in something like studio recording is gained, it is easy to become jaded and lose the sense of wonder that attracted you to it in the first place. This movie did a good job of capturing that "first time" experience.

Another theme in the movie is the idea that music often defines a people. If you're not part of that culture, it is easy to ignore the importance of such things and dismiss them at will. The movie has an excellent scene where a prominent rapper is urged to "come home" and recapture his roots. Rap is a musical genre that strikes many people as disposable and pointless, and yes, as with any music that can be true. But in this case there is a stronger tie to the community at large, and as you rise in stature, so too does the community. And the community does not like to be forgotten after one of their own hits the big time.

Definitely worth the rental or catching on cable/satellite. Even if you hate rap.

Shall We Dance? (1937): I never sat through a Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers movie before, and wow, have I missed out. I'm not "into" dance, but I appreciate the talents of those that do it. Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers really are iconic in their ability.

A few things jumped out at me about this movie: I didn't know that Fred Astaire was so self-deprecating in his humor. I'm sure he was "just" doing what the script called for, but I suspect that this really was a blend of script and what he was like on some level as a man.

Another observation was that while he and Gene Kelly were excellent technicians of dance, Fred Astaire made it look fun. I have no idea how he felt about dance as a discipline. The impression I got was that he was really interested in all kinds of music and dance, whereas Gene Kelly struck me as being more about the "discipline" side of things that yes, made him a great dancer but not a particularly inventive one, if I may say so. And yes, ironically Fred Astaire came to Debbie Reynolds' aid during the production of Singin' in the Rain. (She was traumatized by Gene Kelly during the making of the film.)

Worth the rental, if you're into that sort of thing.

The DaVinci Code: It's tearing up the box office on opening weekend, however, I am interested to see next week's numbers.

Here's the deal: This movie doesn't need an MPAA rating (such as PG, R, etc), but should come with a prerequisite: You have to read the book first in order to gain admittance to see the movie. In short, the movie really assumes that the audience is just paying to see a 2-hour reenactment of the book. But the book was excessively "chatty", shall we say. It would be like making a movie about someone who fought the battle of Shiloh only to sit there and talk about what it was like to fight in Shiloh. We need to see it. We need to feel it. We need to be there. Yakking away about how significant and deep a conspiracy is as opposed to conveying (through actions) a real sense of danger, mystery, and excitement doesn't sell tickets for very long.

Mar took the view that all that matters is that the message is out there. People ostensibly will be inspired to ask questions about the Church's teachings, research the life and times of Jesus, and find out just how much fiction resides in the pages of The DaVinci Code. She showed me a full-page ad that some unnamed organization took out in a newspaper decrying the book and movie and encouraging people to read their web site that provides "the truth".

Unfortunately, to get into a protracted discussion about the book and movie means issuing forth a raft of "spoilers", which I am loathe to do. I am doing my best to review the movie while being necessarily short on specifics.

So should you see it? It depends. I neither endorse nor decry this movie. Strictly as a vehicle for entertainment, I have seen better movies and been moved by stronger messages. What concerns me is that what could be a vehicle for dialogue will miss the mark because people are turned off by the movie mechanically enough to just put it out of their minds and go do something else. On the up side, there were no protestors at the theatre we attended, and people seemed to view the movie as entertainment (pro or con) above all else. Contrast this to the approach taken to The Passion of the Christ.

I trust that Mar will pass along her own take on the book and movie in due time.

By the way, I don't usually include still photos of the movies I review, but if I did, I would use one of the Monk Silas with the caption "let me stand next to your friar." Yeah, I didn't think so. <EM>