editor-530
Joined Mar 2009
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews13
editor-530's rating
My wife and I saw this film without having any idea of what it is a about. All we knew was some guy's father died and he went through a life decision change. For all we knew that meant he could have become gay (he didn't, and it had nothing to do with that).
This is an adult family film. It's PG-13 rating is not for nudity, swearing, or violence. It is rated that because it is a mature look at dysfunctional family problems. So while little of that is shown, they are referred to through the dialog, thus making it a mature film for teens and up.
From the opening credits of Dreamworks, the artistry of the film was evident. Instead of the usual music for the kid fishing from the moon, we hear conversations in a recording studio. In our opinion, every actor and actress gave outstanding performances. While the topic could have had a heavy handed approach, it did not. It was deftly edited and paced.
In summation, this movie was art because the content was all heart. I have deliberately avoided talking about specifics because I want all viewers to be as surprised as we were in the viewing. I give it a ten, and intend to watch it again.
This is an adult family film. It's PG-13 rating is not for nudity, swearing, or violence. It is rated that because it is a mature look at dysfunctional family problems. So while little of that is shown, they are referred to through the dialog, thus making it a mature film for teens and up.
From the opening credits of Dreamworks, the artistry of the film was evident. Instead of the usual music for the kid fishing from the moon, we hear conversations in a recording studio. In our opinion, every actor and actress gave outstanding performances. While the topic could have had a heavy handed approach, it did not. It was deftly edited and paced.
In summation, this movie was art because the content was all heart. I have deliberately avoided talking about specifics because I want all viewers to be as surprised as we were in the viewing. I give it a ten, and intend to watch it again.
Before I state my points about the Adjustment Bureau, I want to state that I enjoyed watching the movie for its entertainment sake. My purpose here is to compare the movie to Christian theology. This movie makes no pretense at being a Christian film, so I am not faulting the film-makers. Rather, I wish to alert Christians in the audience viewing the film how this movie strays from the reality of Jesus Christ.
Christian reviews of movies are usually trivial which focus almost solely on nudity, violence, foul language. They never really address the world view expressed in the film. The closest comment on the world view I found from Christian movie critic, Ted Baehr, said: "there is one slightly ambiguous, theologically false "Joan of Arcadia" comment toward the end about God appearing in different, personal ways to individuals that can lead people away from Jesus Christ," - a thought that crossed my mind, as well.
Jewish critic, Michael Medved, had nothing but praise for the film. His review is fine for me, but I know that many Christians listen to conservative talk shows without considering the host's world view, blithely assuming it is Christian, too.
Here then, are my concerns. We are led to believe that the Adjustment Bureau are angels working for God in assuring that the lives of people follow the plan of God. At one point, David Norris (played by Matt Damon) is told that he and Elise (played by Emily Blunt) have to be separated because he is supposed to become president someday, and she a great ballerina and choreographer. This won't happen if they are together. It is true that God has a plan for our lives. And for some, it is to be in positions of worldly authority. But the plan of God is for us to know Him through His Son, Jesus Christ, first. Such worldly goals are on the bottom of His list. Discipleship means dying to self, not pursue worldly acclaim.
Ted Baehr points out the main premise of the film is whether or not we actually have free will. The film leaves that answer ambiguously. There are Christians who believe that we do not. They are Calvinists. So for Calvinists this film will be agreeable to their world view. But, the ambiguous answer of the film, is a little close to the truth. We have free wills. God does not plan our sins. But the divine will works with our choices according to Romans 8:26 - "all things work for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose." The problem I have with the Adjustment Bureau is that their actions are more characteristic of demons than holy angels. The chairman is implied to be God, but, in my viewing was more easily identified with Satan. It is Satan who offers us power and prestige in this world, not God. God seeks to humble us so we may follow His way, not the world. These cold-hearted agents of the bureau cause accidents to redirect our paths - spilling coffee on us, causing auto-wrecks, interrupting us with phone calls, and so forth - these are actions of demons, not angels. Angels edify and encourage, not distract and bump.
So, while I enjoyed the movie for its entertainment value, I disagree with the world view presented. For me, the highlight was Emily Blunt. I found her portrayal of Elise to be charming and captivating.
Christian reviews of movies are usually trivial which focus almost solely on nudity, violence, foul language. They never really address the world view expressed in the film. The closest comment on the world view I found from Christian movie critic, Ted Baehr, said: "there is one slightly ambiguous, theologically false "Joan of Arcadia" comment toward the end about God appearing in different, personal ways to individuals that can lead people away from Jesus Christ," - a thought that crossed my mind, as well.
Jewish critic, Michael Medved, had nothing but praise for the film. His review is fine for me, but I know that many Christians listen to conservative talk shows without considering the host's world view, blithely assuming it is Christian, too.
Here then, are my concerns. We are led to believe that the Adjustment Bureau are angels working for God in assuring that the lives of people follow the plan of God. At one point, David Norris (played by Matt Damon) is told that he and Elise (played by Emily Blunt) have to be separated because he is supposed to become president someday, and she a great ballerina and choreographer. This won't happen if they are together. It is true that God has a plan for our lives. And for some, it is to be in positions of worldly authority. But the plan of God is for us to know Him through His Son, Jesus Christ, first. Such worldly goals are on the bottom of His list. Discipleship means dying to self, not pursue worldly acclaim.
Ted Baehr points out the main premise of the film is whether or not we actually have free will. The film leaves that answer ambiguously. There are Christians who believe that we do not. They are Calvinists. So for Calvinists this film will be agreeable to their world view. But, the ambiguous answer of the film, is a little close to the truth. We have free wills. God does not plan our sins. But the divine will works with our choices according to Romans 8:26 - "all things work for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose." The problem I have with the Adjustment Bureau is that their actions are more characteristic of demons than holy angels. The chairman is implied to be God, but, in my viewing was more easily identified with Satan. It is Satan who offers us power and prestige in this world, not God. God seeks to humble us so we may follow His way, not the world. These cold-hearted agents of the bureau cause accidents to redirect our paths - spilling coffee on us, causing auto-wrecks, interrupting us with phone calls, and so forth - these are actions of demons, not angels. Angels edify and encourage, not distract and bump.
So, while I enjoyed the movie for its entertainment value, I disagree with the world view presented. For me, the highlight was Emily Blunt. I found her portrayal of Elise to be charming and captivating.
I knew nothing about the movie before seeing it, except I heard a brief rave on Christian radio so I was inclined to go. Even though I am giving this film a 6 out of 10, I was touched and moved by several scenes. The low score is due to the heavy handed feel of the film, and the choppy editing that made the acting seem worse than it was. My wife thought the acting was amateurish, but I think bad directing, editing and camera work made their acting seem worse than it was.
Michael Joiner's character, Bill McDonald, was unrealistically morose. He blames himself for the death of his first child and resents the second child who lives 17 years later. I blame the director for the character' unrealistic grief. I think it would have been more realistic if he tried to put on a normal demeanor, kidding around and striving to be professional with bursts of behavior that would betray the underlying grief and anger that he carried around.
Another example of directing that should have changed regards the son Blake (played by Robert Erikson) after the counselor (who is a Christian) suggests the son try to reach out to the hurting father. For the amount of conflict that had already been established between father and son, I felt the portrayal of the boy's effort to be nice was too sunny and cheerful. The director should have had more struggle on the son's part to be nice for it to be believable.
As for Bill McDonald's recently assigned partner, Sam Wright (played by Michael Higgenbottom), who also was a black pastor promoted as a police Sargent, I thought the Christian family portrayed was too happy and loving. It was almost stereotypical of Christians. Particularly concerning Sam's regard for his missing father. It was like the missing father was only written into the story to be a touchstone of sympathy for Sam's character when he talked to Bill. Otherwise it was a meaningless element of the story that should have been built up to give more realistic depth to Sam's character and family.
Nevertheless, the film had an edifying message, so I don't regret seeing the movie.
Michael Joiner's character, Bill McDonald, was unrealistically morose. He blames himself for the death of his first child and resents the second child who lives 17 years later. I blame the director for the character' unrealistic grief. I think it would have been more realistic if he tried to put on a normal demeanor, kidding around and striving to be professional with bursts of behavior that would betray the underlying grief and anger that he carried around.
Another example of directing that should have changed regards the son Blake (played by Robert Erikson) after the counselor (who is a Christian) suggests the son try to reach out to the hurting father. For the amount of conflict that had already been established between father and son, I felt the portrayal of the boy's effort to be nice was too sunny and cheerful. The director should have had more struggle on the son's part to be nice for it to be believable.
As for Bill McDonald's recently assigned partner, Sam Wright (played by Michael Higgenbottom), who also was a black pastor promoted as a police Sargent, I thought the Christian family portrayed was too happy and loving. It was almost stereotypical of Christians. Particularly concerning Sam's regard for his missing father. It was like the missing father was only written into the story to be a touchstone of sympathy for Sam's character when he talked to Bill. Otherwise it was a meaningless element of the story that should have been built up to give more realistic depth to Sam's character and family.
Nevertheless, the film had an edifying message, so I don't regret seeing the movie.