Whew! I've been busy the last couple of weeks. So much so that I have had little time or energy to sit down and write this review. In fact, I saw The Bourne Legacy before the start of the madness that is the first two weeks of the school semester. However, the intervening time between viewing and this piece of writing has not diminished how I feel about the movie. In short, the film has some good parts, but the whole left me rather unfulfilled, wondering why the film needed to be made in the first place.
Legacy's story actually starts near the beginning of The Bourne Ultimatum's timeline, when poor Simon Ross is assassinated for looking too deep into the Treadstone/Blackbriar projects. Integrating Legacy's plot with the previous installment is one of the best attributes because there's a sense of unity between the two projects.
In the middle of all that drama and intrigue is Aaron Cross (played by Jeremy Renner), who is navigating his way through a snowy, mountainous terrain. That is, until he meets up with another CIA operative like himself. Apparently, everyone within the program has been taking medications that have increased their mental and physical capabilities. Jason Bourne is a curious anomaly because he has somehow weaned himself off of the "chems" and still managed to outsmart the entire CIA.
Cross is different; he needs the "chems" much more than Bourne does, and most of the film follows his progress as he searches for the people that make the pills. His endeavor is made even more difficult. As it happens, because of Bourne's antics, the "higher ups" at the CIA (namely Retired Col. Eric Bayer, USAF, played by Edward Norton) have decided to scrap the entire program, which means killing everyone connected with it, including field operatives and the doctors who developed and administered the medications.
This unfortunate development also affects the life of Dr. Marta Shearing (played by Rachel Weisz). Due to the complications mentioned above, she has to flee her home and enlist the protection of Mr. Cross. The rest of the film is basically one long chase. There's lots of running, lots of vehicles speeding and crashing, a moderate amount of gunfire, and lots of hand-to-hand combat.
As a whole, the film just didn't work for me. I left feeling, well, "blah." See, the previous night, I had watched Ultimatum to immerse myself in the world of Jason Bourne. The direction of the Bourne films is famous for its fast editing style and tight direction. Legacy seems to move away from this style in the beginning, opting for longer shots and wide vistas. Normally, as someone who gets nauseous with the "queasy cam" style, this would seem to be an improvement; however, Tony Gilroy (director) doesn't create much tension with the composition of his shots.
Indeed, there wasn't much tension at all throughout the entire movie, which means I spent much of the film bored. The only highlights came from the performances of Renner, Weisz, and Norton, but even their acting skills could not save the story. Characters are not introduced in such a way for us to care about them. Even the final chase sequence lacked tension because we had no idea who was chasing Cross and Shearing. Why should I care about them surviving if I haven't seen the assassin in action? Cross shows himself to be more than capable of handling himself and dispatching various law enforcement officers and assassins, so why couldn't he turn around, face the bastard, and get rid of that guy just as quickly? (I'll tell you why, because the film just had to end with a spectacular chase. That's why.)
These questions keep popping up when I think about Legacy, and I hope any future installments will have more story and character development. Renner, Weisz, and Norton are all gifted actors. I just wish they had been given something more to work with. The Bourne Supremacy still remains my favorite of the series.
*On a side note. Why did Cross have to kill people who were simply doing their jobs? Bourne tried not to kill people, simply knocking them out. Some may not have found Cross' actions disturbing, but I found them a serious flaw in a character who was supposed to be the hero. Not very heroic in my eyes.
For some reason, over the past few months, I was under the impression that I had started this blog in 2010. Apparently, I hadn't really looked at my archive because if I had I'd have noticed that my first blog post was posted in February of 2011. Oh well, you know, I've never said my memory was the greatest.
Well, it's a year and a half later, and I am pleased to note that I have yet to give up on this little project (though it may seem that I have forgotten about some of the writing projects I'd started here). This blog has been a fascinating experience so far, and the most fascinating part is seeing which of my posts generate the most pageviews. From the beginning, I had always planned on writing about a variety of things: work, writing, movies, books, whatever strikes my interest. This has led to a random series of blog posts that don't seem to have a connection to one another, nothing but a series of essays.
For those of you that have taken the time to read even one of my blog posts, thank you. I know that I tend to write a lot, especially for reading on a computer, but hey, that's what you get for knowing someone who fancies himself a writer.
This post will be considerably shorter than most. Really, I just wanted to use this post to mention a few of numbers, and to hit another: 60. Sixty is the number of posts I have written in the last year and a half. Some of them aren't very long, but I'm proud of writing so much. It's proof that I can write a lot in a year, and if I ever get published, it's proof that I can write the equivalent of a first novel relatively quickly. As of right now, I've written around 60,000 words on here (small fist pump!). That's about 40,000 words fewer than Guardians and Dreamers.
In honor of my sixtieth post, after a total of nearly 1,070 pageviews, I wanted to list my top five most viewed posts, complete with links. Granted, these aren't huge numbers (definitely not Perez Hilton numbers), but I'm happy to have generated over a thousand.
I loved writing my "Hanging with Karlee" series. It was probably the most fun I've had writing this year, and I'm very happy it has generated such interest in others as well.
You have no idea how happy I am that this post makes this list, or maybe you do, I wouldn't want to presume. Needless to say, this shortened version of my thesis is one of my favorite posts. It provided an opportunity for people to read my theory without having to slog through my entire thesis, with all it's academic jargon and heavy reliance on theory.
This particular post was posted in order to reach out to family who could not make my grandmother's memorial services, to express my own grief, and to leave a more permanent reminder of my grandmother's life. I deeply wish I hadn't had the occasion to write it, but I'm glad others will know she lived and loved.
Somehow, I wish some of my other posts had made this spot. I wrote this one out of frustration and irritation. I can't say writing this was a happy experience, but at least I had an avenue to vent how I feel. And it seems to have struck a chord with many of you as well.
There were moments during Total Recall when I actually felt something, but it was mostly directed at the wrong character. In fact, much in this movie goes right (mostly under the umbrella of special effects), but there's even more that goes wrong. As a remake, this version begs an answer to the following question: Why? With two very good "reboots" out there in theaters today, I'd suggest to save Total Recall for Red Box, Netflix, Amazon Prime, or whatever rental/streaming service you use. And even then, you'd be better off with the 1990 version.
Total Recall (2012) follows the same basic storyline of the original, so there are very few actual surprises. The biggest "surprise" is that our heroes no longer have to worry about traveling to Mars. Instead, most of the Earth has been decimated by chemical warfare, leaving all but two regions inhabitable. A massive, for lack of a better word, tube connects the United Federation of Britain and The Colony (formerly Australia). Workers from The Colony are transported to the UFB every day to do factory work, mostly to build the robots that act as a police force.
Most of this is delivered in a prologue of sorts. We're also informed that space is incredibly limited and comes at a high price. Apparently, the UFB are the "haves" and The Colony are the "have nots". Poverty and crime run rampant in The Colony; at least, from what I can tell, because I didn't see much crime with the exception of a prostitute who can probably charge extra for her "extra goods".
Douglas Quaid (played by Colin Farrell) lives in The Colony with his wife, Lori (played by Kate Beckinsale). He has nightly dreams of running from police forces and being captured, but that's not all. Quaid sacrifices himself for a lovely woman, who we later learn is Melina (played by Jessica Biel).
Quaid is dissatisfied with his life, wondering if there could be more. One day, he decides to try Total Rekall, a company that specializes in providing a "vacation" of the mind. They implant memories into your brain, probably at a much cheaper rate than a real vacation. Plus, with only two possible destinations, where else would anyone go for a little R & R?
Of course, Quaid doesn't get to enjoy the experience because his "trip" is cut short by the operator who discovers that Quaid is actually a spy, much to the surprise of the man sitting in the chair. And of course, at that moment, police forces storm into Total Rekall and attempt to kill Quaid. Since he is the main protagonist of the film, I think it's safe to say that he survives.
Len Wiseman has an interesting style, but the biggest flaw in the film is its basic story. I was not moved by the plight of Quaid or Melina, which is depressing because I know Farrell is a good actor, quite capable of moving an audience. Unfortunately, the only character I was rooting for was Lori, which is an odd feeling since I found myself rooting for the woman set on killing Quaid. Beckinsale is so determined and ferocious that any scene without her is lessened. I kept waiting for her to return.
The special effects are very well done, but I didn't feel the same awe I felt watching the 1990 version, and I didn't feel any of the tension either. How am I supposed to truly believe that the UFB government would wipe out the entire population of The Colony all for more space? If Wiseman had taken the time to show some shots that established the need for more space, then maybe I would have believed it. As it is, what little I saw of the UFB looked to be pretty spacious to me.
"Living space" as a motivating plot device just simply didn't work as well as atmosphere. Many of us can live in some pretty cramped conditions, but none of us can live without breathable air.
The only action set piece I found fascinating to watch involved Lori chasing the protagonists through a massive elevator system. Again, I wished she had succeeded.
All in all, Total Recall is a reminder that very few reboots or remakes are necessary. I wish I had spent my money on something else. Oh well, not every film can be part of the Dark Knight trilogy. A movie like Total Recall made me wish I'd seen The Dark Knight Rises again instead, or at least spent the time watching the original that contained a more relatable Arnold Schwarzenegger.... which, now that I think about it, is a weird thing to write.
Weighing in on this whole Chick-fil-A business is rather foolish, but I have now reached a point when staying silent on the matter is no longer a possibility for me. Yes, this blog post will most likely not make it into the wider world; however, I'm content with it circulating at least among my friends.
Protesting is a loud act. I am not a loud person. I protest quietly among my friends and family. Funny, that's also how I feel about religion. For me, as I've mentioned in a previous blog, the practice of religion is a private act, something that should be between God (in whatever form he/she takes for you) and the individual. Public displays of religion do have their place in society. After all, celebrating one's faith in the privacy of his/her home is hardly celebrating, merely a party of one. And who wants to party alone? That being said, religion has a place in society: church. That's what they're there for, to act as meeting places for believers.
I don't have a problem with how people practice their faith, nor with what they believe, but I do have a problem when someone else's faith starts dictating how I should and should not live my life, especially when the beliefs of others begins to encroach on the freedoms that are supposedly guaranteed to all Americans.
One of those freedoms is free speech, which according to the precedents set by the Supreme Court means that Chick-fil-A's CEO has every right to say what he said. He has a right to follow his beliefs. He also has the right to use the profits from a successful business however he sees fit.
Of course, the logic goes that I have a right to not eat at his establishment. I also have the right to protest how he spends his money should I feel it's in violation of my rights as an American.
Now, this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I blame Mike Huckabee, mostly, and the other governors who have spoke with or against Chik-fil-a's CEO. It may not be the place of a city mayor to decide what businesses set up shop in their city.....
But wait! If we follow that logic, then adult stores and strip clubs can set up anywhere they want, right? The obvious answer is no, they cannot. And there's a pretty logical reason for that, too. In city planning, the city government can decide whom to grant permits to based on how the city managers want their city to be represented, a fact that's illustrated in that strip joints and adult stores are usually relegated to "out-of-the-way" places. Though, apparently, that doesn't stop them from erecting signs that are clearly visible for miles.
Anyway, I digress.
The point is, if a particular business doesn't fit the city government's ideal, or doesn't represent their city in a positive light, then they have every right to dictate where a business can and cannot set up shop, cities like San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago.
I've heard from a couple of friends that it's foolish and idiotic to protest a company like Chick-fil-A (After all, they have the right, right?). I've heard that with so many in the world suffering from starvation and extreme poverty, it seems rather cruel and petty to be discussing the spending habits of one of the Chicken Kings. That's a first-world problem, right?
You know what else is a first-world problem? Civil rights. If we didn't have the freedom to protest such things, then we wouldn't be the nation we are today, a nation where people can speak out against injustice, against inhumanity. If we are to remain a leader in the free world, then we must first demonstrate the very principals that that started this government: Equality for all and the freedom to create a government that meets the public's needs.
Equality unequally distributed: that's a third-world problem.
I am very thankful I have the freedom to drive to the nearest Chick-fil-A and show just how much I dislike the fact that its CEO spends millions of dollars to support "definition of marriage" laws, or anit-gay legislation. And I am very thankful that I can choose to spend my money elsewhere.
Some have mentioned that it's silly to argue over chicken. Now that's idiotic. This is not about chicken, never has been, and any indication all of this aggravation is strictly about chicken is completely missing the point. Trivializing this situation by claiming that's it's "only chicken" does nothing but avoid the conversation, holding it at arms length, hoping it goes away.
It won't go away. The argument is over the kind of power corporations have over individuals, that they can spend millions of dollars to support causes that continuously deny rights to Americans. Proposition 8 passed in California, remember?
Religion seems.... no... IS the driving force behind all of this, and I am growing tired of the politicization of God. "God" no longer signifies the divine, or the awesome; "God" no longer means love and mercy. No, "God" is a tool for politicians to manipulate the masses. It's an SEO key term politicians use to get more votes. Because, obviously, anyone who merely uses the word, "God," is an O-K guy, right?
There seems to be a strange, and growing, ideology in this country that equates morality with religion, that somehow those without religion, or those who don't speak about it behind megaphones, must somehow lack any kind of morals. Naturally, those without religion must spend their nights plotting how to convert all those good Christian (the loudest in this country, or at least the ones I hear from the most, are usually Christian) souls over to the devil. Naturally, all those immoral people want nothing more than to collect souls for hell. Naturally, all those people would allow rapists, murders, and pedophiles roam free, attacking at will.
Anyone who spends any amount of time with people of other, or differing, faiths (or even those with no faith at all) knows that a different religion or no religion does not mean "immoral." Those who are speaking up the loudest seem to be exercising the same kind of power and control that Chick-fil-A's CEO is attempting to obtain.
Normally, I wouldn't care what any of them do. However, it's starting to affect my personal life.
How?
Last summer, on our third anniversary, my boyfriend took me to the restaurant atop The Contemporary Resort at Disney World. There, we had excellent food, wonderful company (in the form of my best friend, Christi, and her husband, Neil), and an excellent view of Magic Kingdom. We were also in a great position to view the firework show that closes the park.
After the fireworks, which are always inspiring and magical, Tim turned to me and started to speak. Tim's not one for speeches in the middle of dinner, at least not ones where he's extremely nervous and formal. I started to get nervous, too, wondering what he was planning to do.
As I was starting to suspect his purpose, Tim pulled out a ring and asked me to marry him.
I said yes and kissed him right there in the middle of the restaurant. In fact, those who were watching looked genuinely happy for us. They didn't care that we were two men; they were simply happy to see two people so in love that they would want to solidify that love by getting married.
It was a beautiful moment, but the beauty of it soon faded because two men getting married is a fantasy in today's political climate. There are only a few states where we can get married, and even if we did get married in those states, we'd have to stay there, or our marriage wouldn't exist. Thank you Defense of Marriage Act.
Sure, Tim and I can get married in a ceremony here in Texas. No one could stop us. After all, a marriage ceremony is another excuse to party. No problem with that.
Except there is a problem: It's not legal. There's no certificate; there's no binding legal contract that comes with saying "I do"; there are no protections should the worst happen.
Yes, Tim and I could hire a lawyer and have him/her draw up tons of paperwork that would do nearly everything an official marriage would accomplish. But why should we have to go through all of that? A heterosexual couple can pay a small fee and get a marriage certificate that grants them a marriage, and we have to hire a lawyer and carrying around copies of those documents with us in case something bad should happen.
Granted, religion, and apparently God himself from what many say, doesn't look too kindly on our relationship. Many of them say it's a choice. Well, I guess in a way they are right. I could follow the advice of Michelle Bachman and marry a woman. That would solve my marriage problems. Thank you, Mrs. Bachman!
The problem is that many people still feel being gay is a choice. For me, it's not. I can marry a woman, but what would that accomplish? I'd be a productive member of society; my wife might even pop out a couple of kids, but what kind of a life would that be for my family?
I don't ask for religious acceptance. Sadly, I gave up on that a long time ago. It takes time for religions to change, which is a good thing, for them.
I do, however, ask that those religious extremists stop their assault on my life.... Actually, no, I can't ask that of them. I mean, they are extremists. Many of them will go to their graves, screaming and fighting.
I want the moderates to start speaking up in this country. So often I hear from individuals that say, "They don't speak for me. That's not the church I go to. God loves everyone."
Those extremists are speaking for those of you who refuse to speak up; they are putting those words into your mouths; they are electing officials that pander to their voices. And all those corporations who send money to organizations that are working to deny my rights as an individual are listening to those extremists.
I don't like extremism of any kind. As I said above, being loud isn't my thing. However, I will exercise my first-world right and speak up. I'm tired of living in a bubble, afraid of what extremists think. I love this country; I love the freedoms we have in this nation. I love that I can stand outside, or inside, a business establishment and kiss my fiance in an act of protest. Again, it's not the chicken we want (although it is good chicken, and I miss it), we want the ability to be treated as equals in society.
Many of my friends and many of family members agree with me already, a good reason why I love them all. There are many who vehemently disagree with me, and that's okay. I'm not writing to either groups of people. I could include quotes from the Bible and the Constitution, but those documents are susceptible to interpretation. Some prefer a static, unchanging view of both. I prefer an adaptable interpretation of both documents. As society changes, so to should how we use and interpret the documents on which our country was built.
Unfortunately, the religious extremists of this country feel that the Bible and the Constitution are rigid documents, meant to last throughout time just the way they were originally written. This idea wouldn't be all that bad to begin with, but the fact that both documents have changed over the years completely undermines their arguments. It doesn't bother me that people have a literal interpretation of these documents, but these same people pick and choose which parts pertain to them and ignore the parts that are inconvenient for modern society. Such distinctions are beyond my comprehension apparently, mainly because they don't make much sense.
So, instead of quoting either the Bible or the Constitution, I'll quote someone else:
A just law is a man-made code that squares
with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is
out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas
Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law
and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law
that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are
unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.
It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated
a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the
Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for
an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status
of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and
sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said
that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of
man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness?
Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme
Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation
ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
--(Martin Luther King Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail")
King may have been discussing the segregation of the races. Some will rightly argue that this is not the same situation. It isn't. However, there is still a clear distinction between the rights of one group over the rights of another. While the situation is different, the inequality is similar in its effects. As a tax-paying and voting member of this society, I don't feel as though I have an equal standing in America, and that feels wrong. I am not an "it," and I refuse to be treated as such.
Thank you to those who have spoken up. Now I have to wait for the one's who are sitting on the sidelines, silently agreeing with me, but not speaking up, holding the argument at arms length, waiting for others to make the hard choices, waiting for change. Until that change comes, Tim and I will continue to wait, in limbo, hoping to one day to sign a marriage certificate in America, in Texas, the country and state we love so much.
For now, I'll enjoy this hysterical video, minus those waffle fries. :)
