Best Picture

I'm obviously (and sadly) not a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Therefore I couldn't vote for best picture this year. After attending AMC Best Picture Show (what a cool name), I do have opinions on this year's Best Picture nominees. It's nice for ten films to be nominated instead of the usual five films because it's probably a career and self-esteem boost for many people involved. It must be a great thrill to be involved with a film that's nominated, so its nice more people have the opportunity to experience that thrill. However, I didn't think several of the films deserved to be nominated. Here's how I would rank the films:

1. An Education
2. Up in the Air
3. Inglorious Basterds
4. District Nine
5. Precious
6. Up
7. A Serious Man
8. The Blind Side
9. Avatar
10. The Hurt Locker

The films this year were, overall, too depressing. Almost all of them had depressing plots, and all of them had depressing elements. An Education, I thought, was a creative movie with an interesting plot, and put into the context of 1960 London, was a compelling movie, complete with great acting. Up in the Air was very good, with a good balance of humor and a meaningful plot, though the ending left a little bit to be desired. Alternative history films are always interesting, as Inglorious Basterds was. The violence was over the top, which isn't surprising since its a Tarintino film. Without the excessive, and somewhat meaningless violence, it would have been the best picture in my book, hands down. The plot of District Nine was very creative and compelling, and its documentary style made the film even better. Precious was good, and hopefully gave some viewers a good picture of the challenges some face growing up in the inner city. Up was good, though the plot was obviously somewhat hard to imagine, but heartwarming. A Serious Man was interesting, yet boring at the same time. After watching the beginning of the movie I thought it showed lots of promise. But I kept waiting for the drama and the climax to happen, and it never seemed to develop. It was a very well-made movie (I wouldn't expect anything less from the Coen brothers), with a pretty good soundtrack (though it seemed excessively dramatic for the plot). But the action wasn't there. Michael Stuhlbarg deserved Best Actor for his performance. The Blind Side was somewhat of a disappointment. It's a very uplifting movie, no doubt, one that I'm sure I won't mind watching again. However, it was so good to the point of being cheesy (as best displayed by the little brother). The story, and the family, was too perfect. And I know that it wasn't entirely true to the true story. I wasn't especially impressed with Sandra Bullock's acting, which puts me in the minority. Avatar would be a slightly above average film without the special effects and 3-D. The plot was really nothing special, and the subtle political statements cheapened the movie. James Cameron and his team certainly deserve a great deal of credit for the cinematography of the film.

The Hurt Locker, I didn't think, was an especially exceptional film. The filmmakers did a great job of making the viewers feel like they were in combat through the entire film, which is obviously the intent in such a movie. (To the detriment of moviegoers like me, who saw the movie in the theatre and find such violence and tension hard to deal with.) However, I didn't think the film really had too much of a plot that was developed. For a Best Picture winner, I would have expected a better plot. Quite a bit of the action seemed unlikely and unrealistic in real combat and, in fact, many veterans have ardently complained that parts of the movie are very inaccurate. I thought Brothers, which focuses on the psychological effects on soldiers after they returned home, and had roughly the same message as The Hurt Locker, had a much better, and much more developed plot.

More Love to Go Around (Not)

Thanks to Glenn Beck, independent conservatives now have someone to hate. Democrats have Republicans to hate. Republicans have Democrats to hate. Marxists have Capitalists to hate. It's only fair that independents who are conservative have somebody to hate. Now, Glenn Beck has given them "Progressives".

I've defended Glenn Beck several times on this blog before. I can no longer do so. His obsession with the social justice movement and its association with liberation theology, and his constant insistence that the Obama administration and "Progressives" (who, according to him are actually most of the politicians in office in the U.S. and around the world today) want to create a new world order is very unfortunate given the fact that we need more honest dialogue debate, not more stereotyping or playing the blame game.

Recently Glenn Beck has turned his attacks, and unfortunately his vitriol, toward religious leaders. It seems every day that Glenn Beck adds more and more people to the list of those who are part of a grand conspiracy. Most recently he has spent an inordinate amount of time attacking Jim Wallis, whom I've had the honor of hearing speak before. Glenn Beck, unfortunately, uses guilt by association often, and cherry picks comments and sound bites to impugn the character and beliefs of those who he disagrees with, often distorting what they really believe.

Glenn Beck is a Christian. I cannot and I will not question his faith. I don't hate him. I don't even dislike him. However, I do question his constant lampooning of those he disagrees with, his questioning of the faith of others, and his characterization of Progressivism as a "cancer". This is a strange way of demonstrating and expressing the love of Jesus. Sadly, instead of being a proponent of more a unbiased, responsible, and civil dialectic, he simply has bought into blaming a segment of the population who he disagrees with for our problems. How lame.