Reviews

Jennifer Lopez as Zoe is a beautiful and talented woman who slummed in this movie. The film had a disconcerting incongruity to it from the beginning to the end. The opening title sequence is an animation reminiscent of a 1960's movie. The cartoon of Lopez sees all kinds of things in New York that reminds her of having a baby. The animation segues to the live action of her being artificially inseminated. We discover later in the movie that she made that choice because she had no family since her mother died when she was a child and her father abandoned her, leaving her grandmother (played by Linda Lavin of the Alice TV series) to raise her. And she did not have much longer to live.

Both my wife and I enjoyed the movie in the very beginning, but it quickly became troubling to both of us. Exaggeration is a standard comedic technique for getting a laugh, and this film relies totally on exaggeration. So I don't think they were trying to put down families, but the use of exaggeration makes it come off that way. Every child is shown to be little monsters, which is not at all true. But they are trying to set up reasons for not wanting children. The disturbing message given by this is that families are a bad thing, or, at least incredibly difficult with very little reward. This theme is vocalized by the playground dad (Anthony Anderson) who tells Stan (Alex O'Laughlin) that raising kids is "Awful, awful, awful, awful, then momentarily incredible, followed by awful, awful, awful." Zoe (Lopez) goes to a single mother's support group where later she and Stan witness a live birth in a plastic pool of water. Exaggeration is used for the comedic effect, yet the resulting message is that child birth is a horrible experience that no woman should ever have to go through. This scene was the most repulsive scene in the movie, and the lowest point of the film.

Zoe has a pet dog who through inbreeding has a weakness in its hind legs that render them unusable. Consequently the animal is on wheels and the film-makers make fun of the animal as it tips over in one scene and rolls backward trying to climb up a hill in another. I only felt sadness for the creature and considered the humor cruel and pointless.

The main plot of the story is that Zoe doesn't think that she will meet Mr. Right so has her children by artificial insemination only to meet him the moment she leaves the fertility clinic. The story is the struggle of her trusting him to accept her and the babies. But from the audience point of view I found the whole scenario to be utterly stupid and unrealistic. When they agree to move in together, they both agree that it was without promise or conditions. She places expectation on him when they are only shacking up together and are not married! Why would any woman go through such angst when no commitment of marriage is given at all! All I could think was that she was a total moron who did not deserve any sympathy. Of course the movie ends with him finally asking her hand in marriage for the "happy ending" but I found the underlying message to be a total lie that one can enter a meaningful marriage relationship by the back door. It encourages gullible youth (especially naive girls) in thinking that they can live together before marriage as a path that will lead to marriage which statistically shows that is false.

What grieved me most, though, was not just the movie, but the audience. I was appalled that so many laughed at the jokes without offense. The dumbing down of Americans is so bad that trash like this movie would be entertaining. It was a total waste of my admission price. If you really need to see it, wait until it is on DVD and you only have to pay $1 at Redbox. My recommendation, though, is don't waste your time at all.

My wife and I saw "The Time Traveler's Wife" today and came away emotionally moved. Because the film had such a strong impact on me, I am adding the spoiler alert because I can only write this as though to someone who has already seen the movie. If you have not seen it, then skip my review so you can enjoy it with a fresh experience like I did.

First, I came with low expectations. My wife bought the book and is reading it still. She left the movie in tears and I left rejoicing. She could not understand how I rejoiced in the movie while she saw the tragedy. So I told her...

Henry's jumping around in time reminded me of Billy Pilgrim in Kurt Vonnegut's, "Slaughter House 5." In Vonnegut's story, the happiest time in Pilgrim's life is when the aliens from the planet Tralfamador capture him and place him in a zoo so the Tralfamadorians could watch him mate with a captured movie star played by Valerie Perrine in the movie version of the book. The Tralfamadorians explain to him that time is frozen and that the end of the universe is already known and that Pilgrim should focus on enjoying this time with them instead of the misery of the fire bombing experiences in Dresden that he also time tripped to.

This is what I came away from the story. I am glad that the sex, violence and alcoholism in the book of the Time Traveler was not included the movie. By keeping the movie clean it took on a spirituality of love that transcended the story. Whether the author intended, or the film-makers, I do not know, but this is what I got from it.

Henry loved the whole woman that Claire was. He knew her as a little girl by time travel and as a teen and the woman he married. His death did not end his love for her in my understanding of the story. I come to this conclusion because we see Henry time tripping into the future as a younger Henry before his death and visiting his wife and daughter. Since he had gaps of time when he was gone during the continuous time line of Claire, there is no reason not to believe that he couldn't see Claire as an old woman, too. So, in spite of the irregular manner of their relationship, Henry had the privilege of knowing and loving his wife all her life from child hood to old age. And since their daughter, Alba, inherited the "gene" that caused her to time trip, too, but she had control of her time tripping, there is no reason in the logic of the story that she could not visit her father before his death, not only as the young girl, but when she is a grown woman. Therefore Henry through the time tripping of himself and his daughter would know both his wife and daughter in the fullness of their lives.

As I watched the movie, I could not help but see Henry's love like God's love towards us. For God knows us in the fullness of our lives. He knows us as little children, He knows us as adults and as old people already since He is not in time at all and sees the beginning from the end. And the love of God covers the multitude of sins, so, while He knows our faults, He chooses to look upon our virtues and believes the best in us.

For Henry to realize and see his approaching death made him a type of Christ for me. While God became the man Jesus, as Jesus he did not walk in omniscience. Rather he knew only what the Holy Spirit revealed to him. So Jesus knew his death and had a glimpse of the horror of it, but trusted God and went through it nonetheless. Henry, unlike Jesus, of course, had no choice. But His facing death touches the heart strings of all of us as we wonder about our own approaching deaths.

I told my wife that I have come to love her in the same way. When I look at pictures of her as a little girl, I love the little girl she is in the picture. Furthermore, the Lord has worked in my life to love her for who she is in her essence, that I am prepared to love her when her teeth fall out and is incapacitated with old age. This love I have for her is God's love for her flowing through me to her. So in this way I found the movie to be very spiritual.

Besides, even for us trapped in the time continuum that moves forward, all our relationships are fragmented like Henry's already. We do not see anyone 100% of the time. Everyone comes and goes in our lives the same way. So, like Billy Pilgrim who was advised to focus on the good experiences of his time tripping, Claire could choose to focus on her good experiences with Henry, and we with one another.

My wife and I watched Duplicity this morning. She likes spy movies. But after the movie we were left with a flat feeling. The movie tried too hard to be a Rubik's cube puzzle which, in our opinion, removed any emotional charge that it was trying to build. We left with a cerebral experience, not the emotional charge we expected from a romantic thriller.

The lack of trust that both characters had for each other was believable for two spies, but undermined belief in the love they professed for one another at the end.

I am usually concerned about how edifying the film will make me feel at the end of the viewing, and while not emotionally uplifted it contained a redemptive ending, so I left without feeling offended after the viewing.

For us, there was little chemistry created between the two characters, and while Julia Roberts is still a beautiful woman, her age is definitely showing. For her stature in the industry I hope in future films she makes more artistic movies that express the heart.

This movie may be enjoyable for those who are trying to figure out the puzzle, but, as I said, the Rubik theme as presented by the Rubik cube key chains, and the multiple screen wipes, and the jumping back and forth in time complicated the movie too much for us.