Andrew Tallman Show DVD Reviews

Inside Job (2010)

2011-08-10T15:27:00.001-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for some drug and sex-related material
Length: 120 minutes
Grade: A,A,A,A=A
Rotten Tomatoes: 97% favorable, 8.2/10 average|
Budget: $2 million
Box Office: $8 million (4 U.S., 4 Intl.)

Written by: Chad Beck (First Script) and Adam Bolt (First Script)
Directed by: Charles Ferguson (No End in Sight)
Narrated by: Matt Damon
Featuring: William Ackman, Daniel Alpert, Jonathan Alpert, Ben Bernanke, Eliot Spitzer, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and Paul Volker.

Summary:
This is a documentary intended to both explain the reasons behind the economic events of the last five years and to disturb you by showing how much of the problem’s real sources not only haven’t changed but were somewhere between incompetent and sinister.

Comments:
This movie will probably infuriate you, at least if you understand what it’s saying. And you’ll want to disagree with it if you’re a conservative because it’s going to feel like an assault on the free-market practices and deregulation of Reagan and Bush that you’ve come to admire. But rest assured that the point of the movie is that it doesn’t really matter who’s in office since the real problem is the revolving door between the moneygrubbers of high finance and the oversight and administrative positions in the US government. At least, that’s one real problem. The other problem is that there are not only far too few checking mechanisms to inhibit the kind of risky and deceptive practices which caused the collapse, but the culture of aggressive risk-taking is itself so thoroughly endemic to the banking/finance industry that there isn’t much hope of real change. Oh yeah, and it’s way more profitable to buy influence through lobbyists than to conduct the sort of practices that would be required if serving the citizens and the economy at large were the primary purpose of federal investment regulations.

Discussion Questions:
~What happens in the banking/finance industry when the biggest incentives are based on short-term results rather than long-term economic stability?
~Do you think it’s defensible to pay investment house CEOs $100 million or more in a single year for any reason whatsoever? Should this be possible even in years when their decisions were catastrophically bad?
~A basic rule of insurance is that you can only buy insurance on things in which you have a personal investment stake. Why does this rule exist? Why was the abandonment of this rule so important in creating the environment of the collapse?
~Why were derivatives and other such innovative products (like CDO and CDS markets) unregulated?
~What do you think of the analysis that the academic economists being sought for advice on economic policy have not properly disclosed their own financial incentives?
~What do you think of the practice of producing financial products which were rated AAA but were internally known to be far less reliable and were actively bet against with contrary derivatives?
~How are cocaine, call girls, and risk-taking in finance related? What do you think of the analysis that Elliot Spitzer was brought down but the same information which could have been used to pursue others was not used?
~Given that Dominique Strauss-Kahn was so vocal against the finance industry in this country and our government in this movie from just a year ago, does there seem to be a sinister coincidence in regards to his arrest recently? Who would stand to gain from him being removed from the World Bank? Does the fact that the movie didn’t have this information make the issue with his case (and by inference that of Spitzer) seem more sinister?
~What is your opinion of Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama after watching this movie?
~What is your opinion of Henry Paulson, Alan Greenspan, and Ben Bernanke now?
~If you could do anything at all to fix any or all of these problems so they don’t happen again, what would you do? What do you think the makers of this movie want to see happen?

Overall Grade: A
The sort of movie every American ought to watch but that leaves more despair than hope in its wake, if only because the problem isn’t that the problems aren’t known. The problem is that the sources of the problem have so much vested in perpetuating this system that they have literally invested everything in keeping the system just the way that it is.

Rango (2011)

2011-08-10T15:24:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG for rude humor, language, action and smoking
Length: 107 minutes
Grade: C,B,C,D=C
Rotten Tomatoes: 88% favorable, 7.6/10 average
Budget: $135 million
Box Office: $262 million (123 U.S., 119 Intl., 20 DVD)

Written and Directed by: Gore Verbinksi (Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3, The Ring, The Weather Man, The Mexican, and Mousehunt)
Also Written by: John Logan (Sweeney Todd, The Aviator, The Last Samurai, Star Trek Nemesis, The Time Machine, Gladiator, and Any Given Sunday) and James Ward Byrkit (First script)
Starring the voice of: Johnny Depp
With the voices of: Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin, Ned Beatty, Alfred Molina, Stephen Root, Harry Dean Stanton, Timothy Olyphant, Ray Winstone, and Bill Nighy.

Summary:
A domestic lizard finds himself embroiled in a film noir western as he tries to survive, prove his mettle, and save the day for a desert town of unusual and oppressed animals.

Comments:
We had heard this was quite good, and I will at least say that it was quite different. It certainly had its moments, and there was something admirable merely in the fact that it was so continually willing to be unlike any other animated movie. That being said, sometimes it’s worth asking why something has never been done before. If Pixar is asking, it’s because no one has thought of it or had the skill to do it right. If anyone else is asking, it’s because it was a bad idea that someone else knew as such before investing tens of millions of dollars to prove the fact. As a piece of creativity, this is quite good, and although not nearly as dark as Tim Burton’s universe, something of that feel is what you get for originally here. But as entertainment or something coherent, it just doesn’t really add up. It’s queer. Really queer. And not just because Johnny Depp voiced the main character. And when we got all done, my wife and I just looked at each other with a mutually quizzical expression that asked, “Did you get that?” And no, we didn’t. Also, it’s got more than its fair share of strong language for a kids movie, particularly damn and hell, and some pretty creepy images for younger kids including hangings and an arrow stuck in one character’s eye. PG-10 I’d say.

Overall Grade: C
Despite it’s ridiculously high Rotten Tomatoes rating, this is a movie that is likely to appeal mostly only to film critics who are most satisfied with something unusual. But almost by definition, unusual is precisely what the majority of people don’t love.

Just Go WIth It (2011)

2011-08-10T15:22:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for frequent crude and sexual content, partial nudity, brief drug references and language
Length: 117 minutes
Grade: A,B-,C,D=B+
Rotten Tomatoes: 18% favorable, 3.7/10 average
Budget: $80 million
Box Office: $228 million (103 U.S., 112 Intl., 13 DVD)

Written by: Allan Loeb (The Dilemma, The Switch, 21, and Things We Lost in the Fire) and Timothy Downing (Role Models)
Directed by: Dennis Dugan (Grown Ups, You Don’t Mess with the Zohan, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, Benchwarmers, National Security, Saving Silverman, Big Daddy, and Beverly Hills Ninja.)
Starring: Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston
With: Nicole Kidman, Nick Swarsdon, Brooklyn Decker, Bailee Madison, Griffin Gluck, Dave Matthews, and Kevin Nealon.

Summary:
A plastic surgeon has perfect the art of pretending to be badly married as a way of picking up women winds up falling for a girl without the ruse who then thinks he is actually married. He decides to lie to her, pretending to be on the verge of divorce, but this lie leads to countless others and a spiral of comedic deception

Comments:
Adam Sandler isn’t always a hit for comedy, and Aniston has an even more splotchy record recently, but this is spot-on as a comedy romance. We laughed pretty continuously throughout this film, despite the ultimate plot trajectory being relatively predictable. A good comedy romance isn’t necessarily one that’s terribly innovative. Rather it’s one whose adherence to convention you don’t mind so much because it’s funny enough for you to not begrudge its lack of great surprises. And in this case, not only are there plenty of good jokes, but the semi-cameos by Nicole Kidman, for instance, are outstanding.

Discussion Questions:
~At what point in this movie would you have preferred to see Sandler tell the truth? Would that have been as entertaining?
~Do you think a marriage is better off beginning as something passionate and physical or beginning as a deep other-knowing friendship?
~What characteristics of Aniston would make her a good wife for Sandler? Is the role of office assistant a Biblical paradigm for a good wife?

Overall Grade: B+
It’s funny, which is better than most “comedies” these days, and it’s only just barely PG-13 for a very few profanities and ongoing innuendo. We really enjoyed this.

Gnomeo and Juliet (2011)

2011-08-10T15:19:00.000-07:00

Rated: G
Length: 84 minutes
Grade: D+,A-,B-,D=C-
Rotten Tomatoes: 55% favorable, 5.6/10 average
Budget: $36 million
Box Office: $209 million (100 U.S., 90 Intl., 19 DVD)

Written by: 9 different people.
Directed by: Kelly Asbury (Shrek 2 and Spirit)
Starring the voices of: James McAvoy and Emily Blunt
With the voices of: Ashley Jansen, Michael Caine, Matt Lucas, Jim Cummings, Maggie Smith, Jason Statham, Patrick Stewart, Stephen Merchant, Hulk Hogan, and Ozzy Osbourne.

Summary:
Romeo and Juliet in the context of two warring gnome yards in England set to the music of Elton John without all the tragedy.

Entertainment Value: D+
The first four minutes are hilarious and I felt like I was about to see a movie that really fulfilled everything its basic concept promised to be. Unfortunately, the rest was about as flat as flat gets, almost like they hired one set of writers to do the opening but couldn’t afford to keep them, so they replaced them with some mediocre team that did their best, but their best really wasn’t all that good. The ongoing Shakespeare references are a bit fun, but mostly this is just a plot that makes little sense built around the absurdity of a $20,000 lawn mower (9,998 pounds) and concrete sculptures come to life with repeatedly silly consequences. Some movies are so chock full of content you have to watch them intently. Some you can watch casually. Some you can watch while reading a magazine. And some you can watch while cooking dinner in the other room. I made pork and beans for my boys.

Superficial Content: A-
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity A, Violence A-, Language A-
This certainly deserves the G rating. No one gets really hurt (by the end), and the only issue of concern would be some minor nod-to-the-parents type not-quite-vulgar jokes such as “Let’s go kick some grass.”

Significant Content: B
Revenge and feuds only wind up destroying everything. Sometimes catastrophic loss is the only thing to motivate us to avoid a self-destructive pattern. Love is colorblind.

Artistic/Thought Value: D
There were two weird parts of this movie’s overall composition. The first was the overuse of music (especially Elton John songs, who is one executive producer), which was noticeable only for it’s noticeability. The other was the very strange and uncomfortable sequence showing the disintegration of a family (the household of the pink flamingo) without words. It was almost like someone tried to imitate the brilliant opening sequence from Up, only it wound up being sad without being touching.

Discussion Questions:
~Romeo and Juliet (like most Shakespearean plays) is a tragedy whose power derives specifically from the awful poignancy of the final scene. Do you think it’s appropriate for someone to retell this story without honoring the power of that ending? What does it say about modern movies that we cannot endure a tragic ending? Do tragic endings teach us better by contrast than happy ones? What does it say about our artistic tastes that we want our stories to end well rather than being satisfied with bad literary endings motivating us to have our lives end well by learning from the lesson?
~Is revenge ever a legitimate motive for anything? What about retribution for a crime committed? Have you ever done anything in revenge and regretted it?

Overall Grade: C-
I kept wanting it to be much better than it was, a hope which the opening scenes only raised to be dashed by the mediocrity of most everything thereafter.

I Am Number Four (2011)

2011-07-08T19:42:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and for language
Length: 109 minutes
Grade: C-CCD=C-
Rotten Tomatoes: 30% favorable, 4.7/10 average
Budget: $60 million
Box Office: $155 million (55 U.S., 89 Intl., 11 DVD)

Written by: Alfred Gough & Miles Millar (The Mummy, Herbie Fully Loaded, and Spider-Man 2) and Marti Noxon (TV such as Mad Men, Private Practice, Grey’s Anatomy, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer), based on the novel by Jobie Hughes & James Frey
Directed by: DJ Caruso (Eagle Eye, Disturbia, Two for the Money, and The Salton Sea)
Starring: Alex Pettyfer and Teresa Palmer
With: Timothy Olyphant, Dianna Agron, and Callan McAuliffe.

Summary:
The only surviving super-powered teens of an alien culture are hiding on Earth from the deranged predators who killed their civilization and are now bent on killing them.

Entertainment Value: C-
And I think that’s pretty generous. This is a thoroughly silly movie that feels like a third-best version of everything you might compare it to. It feels like a slightly updated Power Rangers, with the creepy/silly enemies. It’s got Michael Bay’s fingerprints all over it, and it just winds up being a hackneyed plot with poor writing and uncompelling characters who fit every stereotype. Still, it’s sort of fun, but when I’m laughing at (not with) an action/sci-fi movie, that’s not a good sign. I’m sure it makes more sense if you know the book, at least I hope that’s true.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity A, Violence C, Language C
This movie can’t decide whether it wants to be standard light teen fare or a serious and fairly gruesome action film. It’s mostly harmless in the beginning, with some bullying, but then the latter half has some fairly unsettling moments of implied torture and gore. I’d say PG-15. The language is no worse than the violence, no F-variants, and it’s almost squeaky on sex and nudity.

Significant Content: C
Home is where you make it, and it depends more on the people than on the location. Aliens who look like humans are good. Aliens who eat frozen turkeys are bad.

Artistic/Thought Value: D
Not so much.

Discussion Questions:
~If I could think of any, I’d ask them.

Overall Grade: C-
A hackneyed action sci-fi Michael Bay exercise in silliness that must only be cool if you know the book it’s based on. Cheap frivolous fun. I mean who doesn’t at least somewhat appreciate a super-powered shootout with lasers and alien beasts of prey on the campus of a high school?

Unknown (2011)

2011-07-08T16:16:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for some intense sequences of violence and action, and brief sexual content
Length: 113 minutes
Grade: B-,C+,C,C=C+
Rotten Tomatoes: 56% favorable, 5.8/10 average
Budget: $30 million
Box Office: $135 million (64 U.S., 67 Intl., 4 DVD)

Written by: Oliver Butcher (First major script) and Stephen Cornwell (First major script), based on the novel by Didiear Van Cauwelaert
Directed by: Jaume Collet-Serra (Orphan, House of Wax, Goal 2)

Starring: Liam Neeson
With: Diane Kruger, January Jones, Aidan Quinn, Bruno Ganz, and Frank Langella

Summary:
After he is injured in a terrible car accident, a biochemist at an international conference in Munich suddenly finds his wife and his life stolen by a total stranger pretending to be him.

Entertainment Value: B-
Most of the ingredients in this movie are good, and certainly Langella brings a wonderful hint of the sinister to it. It’s a decent enough action thriller, with the usual plausibility issues. See, there’s a point when all action movies become preposterous, and you must either stop enjoying the film or else suspend disbelief to continue watching with any pleasure at all. In this movie, it’s the car chase scene at 62 minutes. And the problem is that they way too long to give us the twist explanation whch then would have made the scene at least plausible. Plus, the twist explanation doesn’t seem to quite cover all of the territory once you know it, and it certainly doesn’t explain the slew of murders or attempted murders. Seems like a lot of wasted resources to me. Also, given the twist, you’re sort of left in a no man’s land as far as what you want to see happen even so. Still, B- means above average, and it is that.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol A-, Sex/Nudity B-, Violence C, Language B
The big issue in this movie is going to be violence, which involves several semi-bloody killings, bombings, and car crashes. Sexuality is a few flashback scenes of lovemaking with no nudity. But the nice thing I can report is that unlike a lot of PG-13 movies, this one has only a minor amount of swearing in it. 2 S-words, I believe, and a few other mild profanities. It’s PG-13, but it’s not one of those almost R PG-13s by any stretch.

Significant Content: C
The truth is out there if you look for the details carefully enough. Some people are trying to do real good in the world and some are out for themselves or profit. Personal identity is a very complicated matter, but you are ultimately who you choose to be.

Artistic/Thought Value: C
Some interesting questions are raised, but sadly they are relegated to the background of the movie rather than really dealt with. For instance, there is absolutely no treatment of Harris’s identity or background before all of this, which would really have raised some nice complexities for his character and his future.

Discussion Questions:
~“If you ask enough questions, the man who is telling a lie will eventually change his story, but the man who is telling the truth cannot change his story.” Do you think this is true? Does this sort of an approach solve to distinguish between a man who is telling the truth and a man who has believed a lie?
~What is the difference between sanity and insanity? If someone challenged you on your own account of your identity or your life, what would it take to make you doubt yourself?
~Discuss Harris’s motivations at various points in the movie. Why does he do what he does?
~In the end, do you think the explanation of everything adds up with the facts as you experience them? What areas seem like they don’t fit? Consider perhaps the photo and the effort to deactivate the bomb.
~What is the point of having the investigator be former Stazi? In his soliloquoy about Germany first forgetting Nazism and Communism, what is the movie trying to say? What comparison is the movie trying to draw between Harris and Germany? What would you do with either of them if you were a prosecutor?
~How much does it matter whether your memories are real or false in terms of how much they shape your notions of who you are?
~What is the meaning of the title?

Overall Grade: C+
A fairly interesting thriller which only hints at some interesting questions instead of being diligent enough to really explore them.

Black Swan (2010)

2011-07-01T17:31:00.000-07:00

Rated: R for strong sexual content, disturbing violent images, language and some drug use.
Length: 108 minutes
Grade: D,F,D,C=D
Rotten Tomatoes: 88% favorable, 8.2/10 average
Budget: $13 million
Box Office: $345 million (107 U.S., 220 Intl., 18 DVD)

Written by: Mark Heyman (First script), Andres Heinz (First script), and John J. McLaughlin (Man of the House)
Directed by: Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler, The Fountain, Requiem for a Dream, and Pi)
Starring: Natlie Portman
With: Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Winona Ryder, and Barbara Hershey.

Summary:
A very devoted ballerina is challenged by the demand that she play both swans in Swan Lake, the pressure of which sends her over the edge of sanity and sexuality as she tries to become perfection in uniting two incompatible characters.

Comments:
Despite wanting to quit this disturbing, unpleasant horror story of a ballet film no less than four times, I finished watching it for two reasons. First, knowing that it had received so much critical acclaim, I kept secretly hoping that something in the ending would atone for and validate everything I had to endure in getting there. Second, if this did not turn out to be the case, I wanted to with full confidence be able to assure any of you who might be tempted to watch it but have not yet done so that you do not need to for any reason. I’m beginning to think that most film critics are masochists. The more uncomfortable and ugly and horrific a movie is, the more they like it. I am not afflicted with this particular perversion. So for me, this movie was simply torture. Even if it hadn’t had several very disturbing sexual scenes, the main plot and the development of the themes are so frustrating that I neither care about the characters nor enjoy watching them behave in such deranged ways. I really don’t need to watch a bulimic infantilized ballerina pluck a feather out of her back to believe that some people in this world are troubled. Yes, I recognize that Aronofsky has turned the plot of the movie into the plot of the ballet. Der. Yes, I realize that he loves to deal with tortured characters who devote themselves tragically to whatever they consider greatness. Of course. But it just doesn’t always work, even if you score by Oscars (5 nominations, with 1 win). The Wrestler made a point despite its vulgar roadmap. Black Swan just puts the audience out of our misery by finally ending. I was absolutely stunned that Christianity Today’s Brent McCracken summarized it as “A beautiful and engrossing ballet thriller, though slightly over-the-top.” Slightly? What would truly over-the-top be?

Discussion Questions:
~Would you accept insanity if that were the price of greatness?
~Do you think that sexual repression is a key ingredient for madness or greatness?
~Do you think Nina wound up happy or satisfied with herself? What about her mother?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~I’d rather not, actually.

Overall Grade: D
A disturbing, gross, uncomfortable, and NC-17 movie highly overrated because, apparently, modern art critics think film-watching should hurt. That’s how you know it’s good. No, that’s just how you know it hurts.

Adjustment Bureau, The (2011)

2011-07-01T16:34:00.001-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for brief strong language, some sexuality and a violent image.
Length: 106 minutes
Grade: A,C+,B,A+=A
Rotten Tomatoes: 72 favorable, 6.6/10 average
Budget: $50 million
Box Office: $120 million (62 U.S., 58 Intl.)

Written and Directed by: George Nolfi (His first film, although he wrote Bourne Ultimatum, Sentinel, Ocean’s Twelve, and Timeline.), based on a short story by the amazing science fiction author Phillip K. Dick, whose stories or novels inspired the movies Blade Runner, Minority Report, Next, Total Recall, Paycheck, A Scanner Darkly, Screamers, and Impostor.
Starring: Matt Damon and Emily Blunt
With: Anthony Mackie, Michael Kelly, John Slattery, and Terrence Stamp, with cameos by Jon Stewart, Chuck Scarborough, James Carville, Mary Matalin, and Michael Bloomberg.

Summary:
An aspiring politician discovers that both his career and his love life are of interest to a mysterious agency of super-powered men who intervene in the affairs of humanity, striving to keep events on track according to their plan.

Entertainment Value: A
If you tell me a movie is being made off of a Phillip K. Dick story, I’m in. They aren’t all perfect, but they’re all interesting, and some wind up as the best science fiction movies made. In this film, we have a brilliant idea, well-executed and even emotionally compelling from the very beginning. As good science fiction should, it asks a lot of fascinating questions and it gives us an alternate universe to contemplate our intuitions which jibes neither too well nor too poorly with the real one we live in.

Superficial Content: C+
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity B, Violence B, Language C+
The only real issue in this movie is profanity, which is consistent throughout the movie with all the minor and middle swears. There is one very brief, almost flippant F-variant, however, which probably pushed it up to PG-13 singlehandedly. There is one sexual scene with no nudity and a couple of minor violent scenes. This is a movie that isn’t right for younger children, but is fine for teens. PG-13 is probably right, which is too bad, because this could easily have been PG without the profanity.

Significant Content: B
The world is guided by an organization of benevolent totalitarians who work hard to remain hidden from view and prefer persuasion to coercion. The comparisons to God and Angels here are so obvious that the movie even acknowledges them, preferring to let us form our own opinions about the implications, however. The only reasons for not giving it an A are the ways in which God and the bureau so clearly diverge and also the movie’s truly troublesome contention that in romantic love we can be fully satisfied whereas Christians know that romantic love is a genuine good with equally genuine potential to be the most horrible of idols.

Artistic/Thought Value: A+
Like all good science-fiction, the real value to a movie like this isn’t the plot or the “lessons” so much as the provocation to thought and discussion. And as you’ll see below, there’s no lack of things to mull over here. In style, this is really quite a light-hearted movie, certainly not the sinister and brooding feel of Dark City or even Blade runner, for instance. But it’s still a film-noir lite, at least judging by the 1930’s vintage suits and hats worn by bureau members, even though nobody smokes.

Discussion Questions:
~Do you believe the bureau would actually erase his brain if he revealed their existence?
~What would be the point of keeping their existence a secret? Why is the illusion of free will so important to preserve? If you were “The Chairman,” would you want to keep your activities secret or make them more open?
~The hint is obviously dropped that these are the “real” explanation behind what people think of as angels or God. If that’s so, then what does it mean about the super-secrecy that they seem so bent on maintaining? Why do you think God and angels aren’t more open about their existence?
~Why aren’t there any evil bureau members or demons in this movie?
~In what ways are the bureau members like the angels of the Bible? In what ways is The Chairman like God? What do you make of the idea that the bureau only has limited manpower to control things? Does it seem weird that they have perfect predictive power but only limited influence? Does omniscience entail omnipotence?
~What devices does this movie employ to make us believe that the adjusters are sinister and that whatever they are doing is wrong? How does the movie get us to so powerfully sympathize with Norris?
~What is it about a secret or a cover-up or a conspiracy that infuriates us so much? Is this need to know a healthy or a dangerous compulsion?
~If you knew that your life was in fact being guided back “on plan” continuously by such beings, would it make you feel better or worse about reality?
~Soft determinism is the term people sometimes use for the idea that the “big events” in your life are fixed or fated but the “small events” are more open to shifting. A contrasting view is “hard determinism” where everything is fixed. Which view do you find more appealing, if at all? One ordinary component of hard determinism is the “butterfly effect” which postulates that everything has to be fixed because even the tiniest deviation can have potentially monumental significance. Which view do you think is correct? Do small events matter? Do they matter to God? What does the Bible tell us?
~One of the key doctrines of Christianity is the idea that God is Sovereign (King) over everything. Which view of human free will and determinism do you think is most Biblical?
~In what ways is “The Chairman” of a corporation a useful metaphor for God? A bad one? Consider in particular the disinterest in being worshipped or known which shows in the effort to remain a secret.
~Which sort of meaning or significance in life really matters: our devotion to other people in romantic love or our pursuit of achievement and fame such as through politics or dance excellence? Is romantic love just another form of self-gratification? What about devotion to the other person and their possibilities?
~What do you think about David’s decisions throughout the movie regarding Elise? Which of them do you think are virtuous? Which selfish? What is the “greater good?” How does the movie answer this question?
~Harry tells David that the reason they want to keep him and Elise apart is because she will so satisfy and fulfill him that he won’t need to pursue significance through acclaim and power. Is this movie right that romantic love can fully satisfy us in this way? What does the Bible teach us about this notion? Is the movie making romantic love into an idol? Is it a better idol than power or professional accomplishment?
~What would it mean about your identity and significance if you could not take or be held responsible for your choices because you did not actually make them?
~There is a dual theme in this movie that David and Elise are both driven together by fate and also by choice. Which is more significant? Do you believe people are fated to be together? Are they miserable when they don’t obey? What role does choice play in relationships? How important is the belief that spouses are fated to be together as opposed to “merely” chosen in making marriages work?
~Have you ever felt either thwarted by the universe or enabled by it beyond the bounds of what seems normal? How do you explain such things?
~What is the purpose of the grand plan of the Chairman and his bureau in this movie? Would you describe them as good or evil? Are they exploiting humanity or bringing out the best potential of mankind? How does the fact that they seem so reluctant to kill people or even to ruin their minds affect your judgment of them?
~In this movie, there are apparently different versions of “the plan” over time. Does that seem compatible with determinism to you? Does that seem to be compatible with the Bible to you?
~Why do you think Harry decides to help David? In what ways are their characters and dilemmas similar to each other?
~Because all movies are made within a cultural context, it is unavoidable that they might be seen as hinting at contemporary issues, even if they otherwise wouldn’t be understood this way. Do you think that the scene where David talks about not understanding why “they don’t want us to be together” except that it’s not part of “the plan” or doesn’t fit with “their book” are references to Christians opposing gay marriage?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The first encounter with Elise.
~At the dance recital.
~At the statue of liberty.
~Atop the bureau building.

Overall Grade: A-
A wonderful film-noir-lite sci-fi action drama with all the religion, authority, and free will themes that dominate movies drawn from Phillip K. Dick fiction. Well worth watching and discussing.

127 Hours (2010)

2011-06-17T15:23:00.000-07:00

Rated: R for language and some disturbing violent content/bloody images
Length: 94 min
Grade: C-DCC=C
Rotten Tomatoes: 93% favorable, 8.2/10 average
Budget: $18 million
Box Office: $65 million (18 U.S., 39 Intl., 8 DVD)

Written by: Danny Boyle (First Script) and Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, Yasmin, and The Full Monty), based on the book by Aron Ralston.
Directed by: Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, Sunshine, Millions, 28 Days Later, A Life Less Ordinary, and Trainspotting)
Starring: James Franco
With: Amber Tamblyn and Kate Mara

Summary:
A loner and adventurer finds himself trapped in a hiking mishap and must eventually cut off his own arm to escape in this true story.

Entertainment Value: C-
I think this is a case of something being over-hyped to me, and so what might otherwise have been compelling was only average at best. I had seen Aron on Minute To Win It, where he told most of the major elements of the story during the course of the show. So, in spite of it being made about as well as I can imagine, I was much less engrossing than I expected. I was wanting it to be over for the middle of the film, not because it was unpleasant, but because I was bored. Also, although I am sure James Franco did a fabulous job of portraying “before-Aaron,” “after-Aron” is so much more compelling as a person that I was irritated by the character in the movie. Finally, the theater ending gave me almost no resolution for the big issues. This is one of those rare times when watching this on DVD was totally worth it because the alternate ending was tremendous to the point of almost rescuing me from an even worse grade. The stuff about his child and his mom and even his other relationship were so much better and brought meaning to the otherwise mostly just fact-telling account. I am completely baffled why they went with the bare-bones ending.

Superficial Content: D
Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity B, Violence D, Language D
The opening song has an F-word within ten seconds of starting. Then, there are a handful of F and milder profanities throughout the movie. At one point, there is a scene which seems to be leading toward masturbation, but it doesn’t happen. There is some beer drinking in flashback/imagined scenes. But the big issue here will be the overall aspect of watching him become ever-more dehydrated and the gory violence in the scenes of him severing his arm and thereafter. It’s pretty unpleasant to watch, but I think well done, given the difficulty of making the pain real without just becoming pornographic gore.

Significant Content: C
People who think they don’t need anyone else are mistaken. We all have regrets about how we’ve mistreated or neglected people, and sometimes it takes facing our own death to help us realize it. Hope is the one thing that can keep you going through impossible circumstances. It’s okay to be adventurous, just tell people where you’re going.

Artistic/Thought Value: C
One thing I found fascinating about the movie was how, even though I knew the impossibility of the situation, it took perhaps half an hour for me to overcome my mental impulse to try to “solve” the problem of how to move the rock. It just seemed so inconceivable that it could really be undoable. And so I must give the movie credit for conveying that sense of powerlessness. The other thing I hadn’t realized previously was that at a fairly early point in the events, his hand was already a complete loss. So the decision to sever it wasn’t about choosing keeping or losing the hand, but only about how to unshackle the body from the already-destroyed thing keeping him shackled to the rock.

Discussion Questions:
~Aron never prays to God in this movie, at least not that I recall. Does this seem strange to you? What would you expect from someone in this situation with respect to prayer?
~From God’s point of view, what do you think He might have intended this particular set of events to accomplish? In what ways was Aaron humbled or changed as a result of this event?
~Did you find it frustrating that there was no way for Aron to solve the problem of being stuck? Did you notice yourself continually trying to figure it out as I did? Why is that?
~One of the deleted scenes talked about “soloing,” which is doing adventures like this on your own. Why do you think soloing is so appealing? Why do you think Aaron continues to do this even now?
~In the Bible, Jesus says that it is better to cut off your hand or pluck out your eye if they cause you to sin rather than to keep them and go into hell. Do you think this story is a useful illustration of this concept?
~If you think of his arm as something that was lost, it’s easy to find this a tragedy, but if you think of his life as something that was gained, it’s easy to find this a triumph. Which is right? Is there any factual difference between those two perspectives? How are these two opposites representative of more common events in our own lives?
~Do you think “after-Aron” would have done anything different in his encounter with the girls than “before-Aron” did?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The opening scene where he avoids answering the phone and fumbles around unable to find his Swiss Army Knife.
~Locking up the bicycle on the tree. What do you make of this?
~The ongoing clash between Aaron going out into the beauty of nature but listening to this harsh, aggressive, and loud music while doing so. Does this seem strange to you? Is Aron missing or ruining something by soloing this way?
~The imaginary morning show interview. What insights about his own arrogance is Aaron dealing with at this moment?
~The final scene finding the people. Why is it so tremendously symbolic that Aaron’s first words were, “I need help?”

Overall Grade: C
A competently told version of an amazing real-life story, but both less engaging than I had hoped for and far less meaningful than it would have been with the alternate ending available on the DVD.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

2011-06-17T14:41:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG for thematic elements, some violent content, sexual humor and mild language (re-rating) (2004)
Length: 95 minutes
Grade: A,B,A,A=A
Rotten Tomatoes: 100% favorable, 9.0/10 average
Budget: $1.8 million
Box Office: $14 million (9 U.S., 5 DVD)

Written by: Terry Southern (Easy Rider, Barbarella, Casino Royale, and The Cincinnati Kid), based on the novel Red Alert by Peter George, who also helped write the movie Fail-Safe.
Written and Directed by: Stanley Kubrick (Eyes Wide Shut, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, Barry Lyndon, A Clockwork Orange, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Lolita, and Spartacus—the only movie he did not at least help write.)
Starring: Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, and Keenan Wynn.
With: Slim Pickens, Peter Bull, James Earl Jones, Tracy Reed

Summary:
A deranged Air Force base commander unilaterally sends his bombers to attack the Soviet Union at the height of the cold war, and the President must figure out a way to stave off Armageddon while keeping a warmongering general at bay.

Entertainment Value: A
This is simply one of the most brilliantly crafted scripts Kubrick ever worked with. Not only is the basic idea brilliant, but the writing is sheer genius, and the acting brings it to perfection. Sterling Hayden, Peter Sellers (in all three of his roles!), and especially George C. Scott are so good that it’s impossible to overstate. Kubrick is a filmmaking treasure, and this is one of his finest.

Superficial Content: B
Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity B, Violence B, Language B
Everything in this movie is very tame by today’s standards, even including a shot of a man looking at a centerfold which actually shows no more skin than any average prime-time television drama routinely does these days. There is some war violence and an off-screen suicide. It’s PG for sure.

Significant Content: A
As a colossal satire, there is one simple point to this movie: the world is being run by military-political madmen. They are either morons or genuinely insane or so ingrained with insane paradigms that the distinction makes no difference. The whole point is as if to say with 100% sarcasm, “See, there’s nothing to worry about here. Look at how competent and reliable everything and your leaders really are. You’re totally safe from nuclear war.” That’s the point of the sarcasm in the title. “I think about all these things, and I feel totally secure without a care in the world.” Obviously, this is meant to show how absurd the doctrines of nuclear mutually assured destruction really are by revealing how frighteningly vulnerable they are to human error or derangement.

Artistic/Thought Value: A
What can you say? The Doomsday Gap. General Turgidson worried that the Soviets will have a mineshaft gap even as the world is about to end. Wrestling in the War Room. If you’ve never seen this brilliant film, I almost hate to ruin any of it for you by telling you the bits and pieces. But what makes the whole thing work so well is that each piece of the puzzle is taken from real life and then just played out until it becomes absurd. That’s why the best way to understand this movie is as a fascinating political warfare chassis painted to perfection by characters who are the filmmaking equivalent of political cartoon caricatures of real people.

Discussion Questions:
~What do you think the Kubrick intended to happen as a result of this film? What possible action could be taken if you were to take the messages of this film seriously?
~Given that there has not been a global nuclear war (or even a minor incident) since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, would it be fair to say that history has disproved this movie’s worries?
~To what degree do you think this movie fails to inspire action precisely because the characters are so over-the-top in their roles?
~Ripper says that Clemenceau was wrong about war being too important to be left to the generals, that now it is too important to be left to the politicians. What do you think of this idea?
~The slogan of the air base is “Peace is our profession.” What double-meaning is involved here? In what ways is this meant to be ironic?
~Do you think we were more at risk of nuclear war in the 60s or that we are more at risk of it today?
~Going through the characters, who do you think they were meant to represent? What is deranged or ridiculous about each one?
~Ripper is sexually abstinent, but Turgidson is very active with his secretary. What is this movie trying to say about the connection between male sexuality and warfare, if anything? Do you think that warfare is connected to male sexual aggression?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Ripper explaining to Mandrake about the communist plot.
~President Muffley breaking the news to the drunk Soviet Premiere.
~Slim Pickens riding cowboy and the final scene. Would it be fair to say Kubrick is saying that this would be the ultimate symphony of humankinds pursuit of warfare?

Overall Grade: A
If you haven’t, you must. Not all Stanley Kubrick films are as tame in content and as easily approachable as this masterpiece. A real treasure.

Hit List, The (2011)

2011-06-17T13:42:00.000-07:00

Rated: R for violence and language
Length:Perhaps 100 minutes
Grade: D,D,C,C= D
Rotten Tomatoes: Not enough scores to report
Budget: $6 million
Box Office: $0 million (Unable to get any information on it)

Written by: Chad & Evan Law (First major movie)
Directed by: William Kaufman (First major movie)
Starring: Cuba Gooding Jr and Cole Hauser
With: Jonathan LaPaglia

Summary:
A man gets beat up by a gangster, loses a major promotion to a weasel, and discovers his wife in bed with his best friend. Then he happens into a bar where he meets a professional killer who begins methodically killing the people he agreed to list on a bar napkin in what he thought was a joke.

Comments:
I knew this one was a gamble going in because it didn’t screen in theaters and it came to my attention in the previews of some other movie with a bunch of clearly sub-par films. But the idea caught my interest and I took a risk on Cuba Gooding Jr. It was not a rewarding gamble. This is my most despised category of movie. It had a brilliant concept with plenty of moral significance that was written terribly and acted/directed even worse. USA Network would be embarrassed to produce something this weak, even down to the horrible rip-off of The Terminator end sequence in the police station that culminates in a ridiculous drawn-out cheap horror movie style ending. Everything here was done wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong. And the sad thing is that it had so much to say and couldn’t figure out how to say it well enough to matter. I still have no idea how Cuba Gooding Jr. wound up involved in this, but then again he hasn’t had a good movie since Radio, soooo….

Discussion Questions:
~Jonas at one point tells Allan in reference to the hit list, “Everybody has names.” What does he mean by this? Does everyone have people they sort of wish were dead?
~In what way does this movie embody the Biblical idea that hating a person in your heart is really the beginning of murdering them?
~In what way might you say that Jonas is really just the Mr. Hyde alter-ego inside of all of us embodying our sinful and hateful tendencies brought vividly to life? Do you think that seeing or imagining your inner evil worked out fully in life is enough to shock us into nipping it in the bud?
~Jonas claims to be Allan’s only real friend because he will tell him the unvarnished truth, even if it’s offensive. Do you think this is a key element of a real friend?
~If someone were methodically killing your enemies, how hard would you fight to stop him and defend them? Would you die to try to protect people you secretly sort of would like to see dead?

Overall Grade: D
This is a movie that could have been, should have been, and surely would have been so much better and fascinating if only the right hands had been entrusted with it. As it is, it’s a train wreck that nevertheless manages to still say some interesting things.

Way Back, The (2010)

2011-06-14T15:51:00.001-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for violent content, depiction of physical hardships, a nude image and brief strong language
Length: 133 minutes
Grade: B+,C+,B+,B=B+
Rotten Tomatoes: 75% favorable, 6.8/10 average
Budget: $30 million
Box Office: $20 million (3 U.S., 17 Intl.)

Written by: Peter Weir (Master and Commander, Green Card, Year of Living Dangerously, and Gallipoli) and Keith R. Clarke (First screenplay), based on the novel by Slavomir Rawicz.
Directed by: Peter Weir (Master and Commander, Truman Show, Fearless, Green Card, Dead Poets Society, Mosquito Coast, Witness, Year of Living Dangerously, and Gallipoli)
Starring: Colin Farrell, Ed Harris, and Jim Sturgess.
With: Dragos Bucur, Alexandru Potocean, and Saorise Ronan.

Summary:
This is the true story of the daring and brutal escape of several men from a Russian Gulag in World War II.

Entertainment Value: B+
There is something about this movie which makes you want to sit and watch it all the way through, even though I would not call it “entertaining.” Compelling is the better word, and to see what these people endured and how they adapted to their hardships is captivating. Colin Farrell once again shows that he is a highly underutilized acting talent. This is really two movies, the part inside the camp and the part after they escape. Both are very good.

Superficial Content: C+
Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity B, Violence C, Language C
I hadn’t actually noticed the profanity, but it was perhaps in subtitles and fairly brief but F-based. We very briefly see some drawings of naked women. There is a small amount of alcohol consumption. But the real issue will be violence, which is fairly mild, including a stabbing, the general conditions in a gulag, people dying from exposure to elements, and extended scenes with people struggling against extreme physical hardships such as hunger, dehydration, and exhaustion.

Significant Content: B+
There are three main ideas here, one more obvious than the other two. The main idea is that man’s yearning for freedom knows know bounds, and he will rather risk death than to give up the chance for it. The second idea is that civilization is a matter of how you treat others under adversities that would seek to reduce you to barbarism. It is the utter privation of the escapees which only serves to prove their civility and humanity when they are in positions to be more ruthless. Kindness, rather than a weakness, is really the ultimate form of humanity. Finally, an easy-to-miss undertone of the movie is the question of who is really valuable in society. Each of the characters has a particular skill or contribution to make, and all have value: artist, comedian, priest, hunter, and cook.

Artistic/Thought Value: B
Part of the art challenge in this movie is the simple fact that it’s very difficult to convey hunger through film, and yet hunger was easily the most formidable adversity the men faced. Dehydration, cold, heat, and exhaustion are all relatively easy compared to hunger. In showing what almost cannot be shown, the movie did pretty well, not great.

Discussion Questions:
~How much is freedom worth? Would the men who died in the escape over time have said that it was better to die trying to be free than to live in the gulag?
~Why do the men decide to let Irena travel with them? What does this say about them?
~Why do the men always choose to take time to bury their dead? What does this say about them? Compare it with the treatment of the dead in the gulag or mass graves?
~Kindness is clearly portrayed as a great human virtue and even source of strength. Do you think kindness is ever a weakness? Is God ever unkind?
~Mr. Smith declares early in the movie that this sort of a feat cannot be accomplished by yourself. Why does he say this? What is it about community that makes such things possible as would not be on your own?
~Why do you think so many movies have been made about World War II, and especially about Nazi Germany and the concentration camps, but so few about Communist Russia and particularly the gulags?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Passing around the village and other habitations. What do you think about the fact that they are escaping for their lives and yet other people are living their lives in relative normalcy at the same time?
~Valka’s decision at the border of Russia. Why does he do what he does? What does it show about him? Consider his chest tattoo in your answer. Does it seem incomprehensible to you that a criminal might also be patriotic?
~The very ending. Does this satisfy you? Does it seem to bring closure to everything else?

Overall Grade: B+
I don’t know of many movies about Russian gulags, in contrast with the abundance of movies about Nazi Germany, and I’m very grateful that someone finally made such a vivid one. Compared with Lawrence of Arabia or The Great Escape, of course this comes up short. But on it’s own, a fine effort from the very reliable Peter Weir.

True Grit (2010)

2011-06-14T15:25:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for some intense sequences of western violence including disturbing images
Length: 111 minutes
Grade: A,C,A,A=A
Rotten Tomatoes: 96% favorable, 8.4/10 average
Budget: $38 million
Box Office: $249 million (171 U.S., 78 Intl.)

Written and Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen (A Serious Man, Burn After Reading, No Country for Old Men, Ladykillers, Intolerable Cruelty, The Man Who Wasn’t There, O Brother Where Art Thou?, Big Lebowski, Hudsucker Proxy, Barton Fink, Miller’s Crosing, Raising Arizona, and Blood Simple) based on the book by Charles Portis.
Starring: Jeff Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld
With: Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, and Barry Pepper.

Summary:
A very confident and capable fourteen-year-old girl hires a gritty U.S. Marshall to find and bring to justice the man who murdered her father.

Entertainment Value: A
The Coen brothers have had some tremendous successes, and they have also had some terrible failures. This is some of the best work they have ever done, showing that the incomparable quality displayed in No Country for Old Men was no fluke at all. Simply put, this is a true western. A simple plot with just the right balance of drama and action wrapped around a solid core of fantastically impossible and over-written dialogue, the sort that drips like honey from your ears. My only complaint, and I say it as a man who wishes he didn’t have to say anything negative at all, was that both major gunfights left me baffled as to the outcome of the fourth man, who is gone from the scene but never shown killed or fleeing. It seemed to be an editing oversight, but to see the same exact error twice almost invites speculation rather than criticism. This deserved all ten of its Oscar nominations, and in fairness, the other films deserved their victories over it, with the exception of The Social Network for best adapted screenplay. My only real gripe with the Oscars was why Hailee Steinfeld was nominated only as supporting female actress and not as leading female actress, which she clearly was.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol C, Sex/Nudity A, Violence C, Language B
There is some occasional mild profanity, and alcohol is continuously consumed in the movie. But the clear and only substantial issue is violence, which involves lots of shootings with blood, one hanging of three men and another man found hanged later, and a scene with a man having his fingers cut off and being stabbed in the chest. PG-13 is correct. Also, given that the plot revolves around a teenage girl in what can only be described as uncertain circumstances, the absolute chastity of the movie is really a point worthy of praise.

Significant Content: A
As a movie which tells you its point before it begins, and with a Bible quote no less, it’s hard to do anything but give this an A. “The wicked flee when none pursueth.” Proverbs 28:1 The Coens are Jewish, but the oft-repeated melody in this movie is one of the most famous Christian hymns, “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms.” The ongoing purpose of the movie is to show that determination and perseverance are two of the key characteristics of real virtue. Justice must be served, no matter the cost. That is the only thing that differentiates good and civilized men from evil. If a person can have total confidence that God and right is on her side, Mattie will bend the universe to her sternest demands for justice. This is the mountain-moving faith that drives the young woman.

Artistic/Thought Value: A
I’m not sure this is necessarily a big thinker after-the-fact. But the level of erudition in the writing and the complexity of the dialogue alone make up for that. You get your education during this film, not afterward. Moreover, the crafting of such a masterpiece as a work of western art alone justifies the A grade here.

Discussion Questions:
~What is the relationship between the quote from Proverbs and the rest of the movie?
~What is the meaning of the title? Who in this movie has True Grit?
~What makes a good man (or woman)? Who in this movie is a good man (or woman)? Why? Who is not? Why not?
~What do you think is the point of having the hymn “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms” playing throughout the movie as the main theme/variations?
~The courtroom scene seems to portray Cogburn as almost a vigilante, but this is sharply contrasted with his demonstrated behavior in the rest of the movie. Is the movie trying to make a point about courts and the law as opposed to real truth and justice?
~How do you interpret the final scene, especially about Mattie’s long-term life choices? Who is she trusting to keep the final record/reckoning about men’s (or women’s) virtue?
~Mattie is clearly willing to speak her mind to anyone at any time, regardless of the consequences. Is her forthrightness always a virtue? Which virtue would you rate more highly: her composure and ability to battle with her wits in any situation or Cogburn’s composure and ability to battle with weapons?
~Does the impossibly articulate speechmaking in this movie serve to undermine its realism or raise it as a work of art in your mind? Should movies strive to duplicate reality or improve upon it?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Mattie negotiating with the merchant in town.
~Crossing the river on horseback.
~When the marshal is leaving.
~Saving her from the snakebite.

Overall Grade: A
This may not be the Coen brothers’ best film (No Country for Old Men must win this acclaim), but it certainly shows once again why it’s easy to forgive their catastrophes when they come home offering something like this as another glimpse of their filmmaking brilliance.

Green Hornet, The (2011)

2011-06-08T22:25:00.001-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for sequences of violent action, language, sensuality and drug content.
Length: 119 minutes
Grade: DCCF=D
Rotten Tomatoes: 44% favorable, 5.2 /10 average
Budget: $120 million
Box Office: $242 million (99 U.S., 129 Intl., 14 DVD)

Written by: Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg (Pineapple Express, Superbad), based on the classic radio series by George W. Trendle.
Directed by: Michel Gondry (Be Kind Rewind, The Science of Sleep,and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
Starring: Seth Rogen and Jay Chou
With: Cameron Diaz, Tom Wilkinson, Christoph Waltz, David Harbour, James Franco, and Edward James Olmos.

Summary:
When his newspaper mogul father dies, Britt Reid must decide what to do with his life. Discovering that his coffee came from a secretly brilliant mechanic and kung-fu master, they decide to fight crime together as heroes masquerading as villains.

Comments:
I was loving this movie in the beginning, when it was fun and uncertain. Then the vulgarity set in, and I realized that I had no desire to watch Seth Rogen try to play a bumbling, vulgar non-hero who never really grew much as a character. It became boring, then dumb, then boringly dumb and impossible to believe. For a movie with such big billing and which I anticipated enjoying, it was a complete disappointment. Even Christoph Waltz, the incomparably brilliant super-villain Nazi from Inglourious Basterds, was a disappointment, neither allowed to be truly villainous or truly hilarious in his flat role as Mr. Bad Guy. Honestly, if I had to fix it, I’d replace Rogen with almost anyone, clean up the vulgar (unnecessarily vulgar) language, and try to build something of a plot and maybe develop some character resolution since there’s clearly lots of room for it. But then, why bother when I’m sure another remake of this one will just come out in 4-5 years, since remaking the remake of something that was once worth making in the first place seems to be the quickly approaching graveyard destination for all things Hollywood.

Overall Grade: D
Disappointing, despite a somewhat promising beginning. Once you get past the double-barrelled Glock gag, there really isn’t anything else to see here. Far more vulgar than you will expect. This is R-15, with lots of violence and continuous non-F profanity.

Mechanic, The (2011)

2011-06-08T22:01:00.000-07:00

Rated: R for strong brutal violence throughout, language, some sexual content and nudity.
Length: 93 minutes
Grade: DFDD=D
Rotten Tomatoes: 53% favorable, 5.6/10 average
Budget: $40 million
Box Office: $60 million (29 U.S., 22 Intl., 9 DVD)

Written by: Richard Wenk (16 Blocks, Just the Ticket, and Vamp) and Lewis John Carlino (Obscure movies from the 70s including the original 1972 version of this movie)
Directed by: Simon West (TV’s The Cape and Human Target, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, The General’s Daughter, and Con Air)
Starring: Jason Statham and Ben Foster
With: Tony Goldwyn and Donald Sutherland

Summary:
An assassin who specializes in killing people in such a way that it looks like an accident is tasked with killing his longtime friend and mentor, afterwards befriending and training his wayward son in his craft.

Comments:
I don’t think I’ve seen the original Bronson movie, but it’s daring for anyone to remake a Bronson film…daring and usually dumb. In this case, the problem is that all the opportunities to develop character and plot just get dropped by the wayside amidst bland acting and a mishmash of action sequences. It was almost the anti-movie to The American, which was also horrible for exactly the opposite reason, all character development and no action whatsoever. There’s more than enough sex and violence to justify the R rating, but just not enough of anything to make this worthy of more detailed comments.

Overall Grade: D
If you’ve seen any hitman movie, you’ve pretty much seen this one. And even the sometimes brilliant Statham or the legendary Sutherland can’t save this from itself.

Drive Angry (2011)

2011-06-08T21:39:00.000-07:00

Rated: R for strong brutal violence throughout, grisly images, some graphic sexual content, nudity and pervasive language.
Length: 104 minutes
Grade: FHFF=F-
Rotten Tomatoes: 46% favorable, 5.3/10 average
Budget: $45-50 million
Box Office: $29 million (11 U.S., 18 Intl.)

Written by: Todd Farmer (My Bloody Valentine, The Messengers, Jason X) and Patrick Lussier (Dracula 2000)
Directed by: Patrick Lussier (My Bloody Valentine, White noise 2, and Dracula 2000)
Starring: Nicolas Cage and Amber Heard
With: William Fichtner, Billy Burke, and David Morse.

Summary:
A father escapes from hell and starts killing everyone connected with the murder of his daughter and the abduction of her baby.

Comments:
First, you should know that there is a style of movie out there called “Grindhouse” which is basically gory, vulgar, and intentionally ugly, sometimes called “gritty.” They were originally extremely low production value films about lurid and perverse subject matter shown in single theaters to limited audiences that developed cult-like followings. This is meant to be in that tradition, which is another way of saying it’s a horrible, terrible, awful film. Unentertaining. Terrible acting. Just unpleasant to watch. And did I mention full of obscene material? This is literally one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a LOT of bad movies in my life. I quit watching at about 40 minutes, and my only embarrassment is that I didn’t quit around 5 minutes when I was first inclined to do so. I used to adore Nic Cage movies, and so I’d like to say he’s sunk to a new low here. But then again, he did make 8MM, which I would unsee if only it were possible. The problem is this was marketed to general audiences like any other drive fast and shoot-‘em-up movie. I can only imagine that the poor unsuspecting people (like me) who paid to see it were horrified by the content. Where Deathproof has a plot and a point and Machete is at least periodically hilarious, this is just plain terrible. And not even bad enough to be funny or entertaining for being so bad. Just bad. I’d say Expendables bad, but I’d rather watch Expendable ten times rather ever seeing even just the first 10 minutes of this again. Well, maybe five times.

Overall Grade: F-
Failure and then some. Absolutely no way anyone should ever see this movie for any reason whatsoever. It’s quite an indicator that Rotten Tomatoes reviewers felt they had to endorse it as a “genre” pic or perhaps lose their “artsy street cred.” I have no such hang-up. I tell you to warn you.

Joneses, The (2009)

2011-06-03T19:13:00.000-07:00

Rated: R for language, some sexual content, teen drinking and drug use.
Length: 96 minutes
Grade: B,C,A,A=B+
Rotten Tomatoes: 61% favorable, 6.2/10 average
Budget: $10 million
Box Office: $7 million (1.5 U.S., 5.5 Intl.)

Written by: Derrick Borte (First script) and Randy Dinzler (First script)
Directed by: Derrick Borte (First film)
Starring: David Duchovny and Demi Moore
With: Amber Heard, Ben Hollingsworth, Gary Cole, and Lauren Hutton

Summary:
The Joneses are new to town, but they are immediately recognized as the super-elites that everyone wants to be like, especially because of all their amazing clothes, cars, and gadgets. What everyone doesn’t know is that the Joneses are actually a paid set of actors posing as a family to use relationships and status as a way of marketing a wide variety of high-end products to other trendsetters and wealthy people.

Entertainment Value: B
The movie is clearly not a masterpiece of directing or acting. But it’s got such an engaging plot and the script plays out so many of the intriguing angles of the concept that I enjoyed it in spite of the weak acting and production value.

Superficial Content: D
Drugs/Alcohol C, Sex/Nudity C, Violence B, Language D
There is alcohol use, several sexual situations, one gay character, a suicide, and mild language. In all honesty, this would easily have been PG-13 if it weren’t for the language, which isn’t all that heavy, but has enough to certainly make it R. I’d say R-15, which is a bit of a shame since the movie raises questions teens really need to be thinking about.

Significant Content: A
Advertising is a morally dubious business, perhaps downright evil. Materialism is dangerous and a false solution to your problems. People are highly susceptible to psychological manipulation based on pride and social coercion to keep up with other people and to prove their worth by their possessions.

Artistic/Thought Value: A
The questions here are so well invited and fitting that thought value alone carries the day here. It’s great grist for discussion.

Discussion Questions:
~What do you think of the ethics of this form of marketing? In what ways is it similar to and in what ways different from other kinds of advertising and “guerilla” marketing?
~Even though this is clearly a movie intending to raise deep questions about the ethics of advertising, and especially of luxury product advertising, several name brands are used in the film such as Audi, Ethan Allen, UnderArmour, and Yves-St. Laurent. Do you think they wanted to be part of this film? Do you think they paid?
~Does this film end up actually reducing the desire for luxury goods or wind up making the lifestyle they represent seem so appealing that you still want them?
~One of the key tactics used here is manufacturing dissatisfaction. Why is this immoral?
~Another tactic is the manipulation of personal relationships for material profit, without the target’s awareness. How much difference does it make if the person knows this is being done? Why does commerce change relationships?
~In what ways could you say that the Joneses are really just television brought to life? In what ways do we treat our TVs like friends of the family and allow them into our lives? Given the outrage and reaction when they are exposed, why do you think we keep TVs in our circle of friends?
~Which do you think is more weird, people being paid to market clothing to others or people not being paid to wear brand name logos on their shirts which they do voluntarily?
~Larry tries to use gifts he can’t afford to fix his struggling marriage, which leads to disastrous consequences. Discuss the ways in which he was just being a good consumer of modern advertising.
~Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) is precisely this sort of a marketing project, where personal relationships are parleyed into business partnerships or sales opportunities, albeit with more honesty than this. But many such contacts start without the disclosure, and one common tactic in such endeavors is to make friends and meet people so as to sell them things. What do you think of the ethics of this?

Overall Grade: B+
A surprisingly fascinating exploration of the ethics of advertising, almost like a science fiction experiment.

Experiment, The (2010)

2011-06-03T19:03:00.001-07:00

Rated: R for strong disturbing violence including a rape, language, some sexual content and nudity.
Length: 96 minutes
Grade: A,F,F/A,A+=A
Rotten Tomatoes: N/A
Budget: N/A
Box Office: N/A Intended for theaters, released straight to DVD

Written by: Paul Scheuring (Prison Break TV), based on the novel by Mario Giordano and the German film “Das Experiment” by Mario Giordano, Christoph Darnstadt, Don Bohlinger, and Oliver Hirschbiegel.
Directed by: Paul Scheuring (First film)
Starring: Adrien Brody and Forest Whitaker
With: Cam Gigandet

Summary:
In a movie imaginatively adapted from the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment and a remake of the German film “Das Experiment,” subjects are selected for psychological characteristics and then placed into a fake prison with some as guards and others as inmates. As they take on their roles, trouble develops and things start to get out of hand, but the experiment goes on.

Entertainment Value: A
This is one of those films where I just scratch my head. The characters are fascinating. The plot is gripping, especially since it has at least some basis in reality. And the philosophical implications of the thing are beyond rich. But for whatever reason, this didn’t release at theaters and went straight to DVD. For my own part, knowing its release history, I was skeptical about how enthusiastic the promotional posters were, but I trusted Brody and Whitaker to do something at least not awful. Suffice it to say I was blown away. This is not pretty, and there are parts that are horrific in shocking ways, but it captivated me the entire time.

Superficial Content: F
Drugs/Alcohol C, Sex/Nudity D, Violence D, Language F
There is some alcohol consumption. There’s lots and lots of R rated language. There is a sexual assault, some viewing of pornographic magazines, and some nudity in the previews. The violence is all hand-to-hand, not guns, with a death and very little bloodshed, but there are a variety of taboo-breaking violations and scenes that are uncomfortable to watch even though not violent, strictly speaking. This is definitely a movie only for adults.

Significant Content: F/A
Warning. To discuss this movie, I’m going to spoil all the major plot elements. Read on only if you hope to see it and want to do so without knowing the events in advance.

Alright, this is a movie that really depends for its meaning on the interpretation one gives to it. First of all, one key to the movie is the set-up device that there are a list of specific rules that must be followed, and if they are not, the experiment will be stopped. This will cost all the participants their $10,000 fee. Although there are cameras (almost) everywhere, the only feedback from the experiment conductors is a red light which will come on only in the event that the experiment is being ended. Throughout the movie, there is constant concern that the red light will come on because it seems a line has been crossed, but it doesn’t, and this is always interpreted as permission to continue. Since as the experiment progresses, things become more and more barbaric, we soon figure out that the experiment is meant to represent this world and the light staying off represents the choice by God to let the world continue and not destroy it, intervene in it, or judge it. So it has hefty religious implications. (Although this connection is never made overtly, it would be terribly naïve to think it wasn’t intended by the writer/director.) So what’s the point? Well, the main message seems to be that God is a tyrannical evil being who, like the experimenters, continues to permit terrible evil (far worse than that which occurs in this movie) without stopping it when He could. And if this is the point, then the movie is a fairly powerful formulation of the problem of evil against the existence of a good, powerful God. Hence, an F for significant content. But wait, there’s more. What someone who isn’t paying much attention might miss is the fact that the participants were not even remotely selected at random. This is not meant to be a test of how ordinary people do under bizarre circumstances. The experimenters absolutely know they have put a very particular mix of people in their roles that will lead to brutality and oppression by the guards, the leader of which is a mama’s boy raised in a repressively religious (!) home just bursting for a chance to be in control for once. Now, not only does the experimenter’s inaction look bad for them, but we are horrified to realize they intended things to go wrong like this. Yet another “God is evil, see?” sort of commentary. But wait, there’s more.

The entire point of the experiment and creating it so that evil will occur is to deliberately create a scenario in which a man who claims to love peace and avoid fighting but who cares very deeply about justice and protecting the weak will be pushed to the limits of his pacifism to see whether or not he will resort to violence to stop extreme bullying. That’s the entire point of the experiment. Can a “good man” who will hold to his principles under the worst sort of pressure be found? And of course, Brody fails and ends up assaulting Whitaker in the most justifiable use of violence imaginable. Only then does the experiment stop. So, if anything, it winds up proving that human beings are really all the same underneath. No one is truly capable of living up to their moral proclamations. We’re all beasts underneath, and only a naïve fool would think otherwise.

But this is where the movie and my analysis of it start to really swing around. Adrian Brody is the best humanity has to offer, but under the worst of treatment, he responds with violence. In other words, even the best humanism fails. The experimenters were looking for a savior and they did not find one. But what does this immediately point to? A man who suffered far worse brutality in Himself and to those He loved, but when pushed to the edge of it all, He accepted His fate and even prayed for those who were torturing Him. So, as a proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, by contrast (!), one could scarcely invent a better script than this. Make what you will of the problem of evil question, but in the actual experiment being permitted by an actually Sovereign God, His response was not to simply and idly permit the experiment to go on. He came right into the middle of it, suffered the very worst of it, and is seeking every single moment to restore and reclaim as much of it as possible. That is very different from the indifferent God of Deism who simply watches atrocity from afar.

Artistic/Thought Value: A+
But I would be indulging in overkill if I said any more after having already said so much.

Discussion Questions:
~What do you think keeps man from committing atrocities against his fellow man? Greed? Fear? Decency?
~How might this experiment have gone differently if it had been randomly selected people? Do you think we would all tend to behave like prisoners and guards if put in the right clothes/circumstances?
~Do you think that men are more prone to embrace roles like these than women would be? How might the presence of women have changed things in the experiment?
~If the experimenters are morally wicked men for conducting and permitting this experiment to go on, does that influence how you think about God’s morality?
~Why do the guards (at least some of them) use pornography? What is being said here?
~Is man naturally a predator or naturally something better than that? What does the Bible say about man’s original and current nature?
~Murder is either normal and natural or else highly abnormal and unnatural. Which is it?
~Every civilized person abhors violence, but this movie shows that there are some things worse than mere violence, such as humiliation. Why is humiliation so devastating to people? How does a sense of powerlessness destroy people who are normally capable? What solution to this problem does Christianity offer?
~What parallels would you draw between the payday offered in this experiment and the idea of earning heaven or rewards in heaven by being obedient to God?
~At what point in the movie do you think people involved would say the money simply wasn’t worth it? Are there any people for whom money really wasn’t the motivation anyhow? Especially consider Whitaker’s character.
~Is this movie anti-Christian, neutral, or pro-Christian? What do you think the intent of it was? If this movie is terribly pessimistic about human nature, does that make it a good precursor to evangelism? Why is disgust with humanity a necessary ingredient in embracing and comprehending the Gospel?
~Is God’s non-intervention evidence of His permission or endorsement of whatever we’re doing? Why do we tend sometimes to think as if it is?
~What makes Brody seem like a morally virtuous person? Is he really?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The end of the experiment. How is the white light of the doors opening symbolic? What happens immediately and what does it make you think of? Why is the contrast between what had been going on moments before and what happens next so poignant?
~The ending of the movie. How would you have ended the movie? What do you make of the news report that the experimenters have been arrested? Are you surprised that the movie permits Brody to reunite with his lady after having failed the big test? What parallels exist here with Christ and the Church, His Bride?

Overall Grade: A
An extremely disturbing movie with vast and fascinating social, moral, and religious implications.

Faster (2010)

2011-05-20T19:29:00.000-07:00

Rated: R for strong violence, some drug use and language.
Length: 98 minutes
Grade: B+,D-,B,B+=B+
Rotten Tomatoes: 41% favorable, 4.9/10 average
Budget: $24 million
Box Office: $47 million (23 U.S.,12 Intl., 12 DVD)

Written by: Tony & Joe Gayton (Salton Sea, Murder by Numbers)
Directed by: George Tillman, Jr. (Notorious, Men of Honor, Soul Food)
Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Billy Bob Thornton
With: Tom Berenger, Carla Gugino, Mike Epps, and Xander Berkeley.

Summary:
Recently released from jail for being the wheel man in a bank heist with his brother, Driver is now bent on revenge for the gang of thugs who stole their money, killed his brother, and only barely failed to kill him. Working against him is a psychologically clouded super-assassin and a pair of detectives.

Entertainment Value: B+
Generally speaking, I just assume that any movie with a poster like this is going to be fairly straightforward, and adequately entertaining. Rock tough, people die, brooding look, brooding look, brooding music…you get the point. What made this better than average was the interesting characters they introduced, such as the thug-turned-evangelist, the druggie cop trying to get his life together, and the insecure hitman. The action is over-the-top comic book stuff, but the movie curves enough in interesting ways to keep it from being boring.

Superficial Content: D-
Drugs/Alcohol D, Sex/Nudity C, Violence F, Language D
The biggest concern here is going to be violence, and there’s plenty enough of it to justify a solid R rating. Interestingly, language is really only just slightly over the PG-13 threshhold, and there’s no sexuality to speak of other than one brief scene in a strip club and another of a woman in bed, neither with any nudity. Drug use is heroin, and it’s more implied than shown.

Significant Content: B
Although you think this is going to be a straight-out revenge movie, the nuances that interfere with that are fascinating. For instance, Driver is certainly going after everyone without restraint, but in the process he always avoids harming cops and innocents, even helping them. But one sequence in particular has him pursuing one of the killers who is now a (truly) born-again Christian preacher with a family. And how he deals with this indicates some recognition of the possibility some people may be worth saving even if they deserve to die. The overall question of the movie whether revenge satisfies isn’t really answered, although probably the movie leans on the side of “yes.”

Artistic/Thought Value: B+
One of the thematic contrasts being drawn here is between Driver and Killer (yes, those are their script names). Everything here is in pairs: muscle car vs Ferrari, UFC vs Yoga, Muscle T/Leather jacket vs suit, and revolver vs automatic. These symbols help highlight the comparison between them, their motives, and their psychological health. Also, there are a variety of very interesting shot angles that show George Tillman, Jr. has an interesting future in filmmaking ahead of him. It reminded me a lot of the Jason Stathan film Revolver, although not quite as deep.

Discussion Questions:
~What do you make of the fact that none of the characters have names, only role-description labels?
~Given the opportunity and no consequences, whom would you kill? Whom would you spare, if he otherwise deserved to die? What does a person’s answer to these questions say about him?
~Why does Driver spare the preacher? Does this seem consistent for him?
~What motivates Driver to kill compared with Killer? Would you describe Driver as a secure person? Is Killer secure in who he is? What is this movie trying to say about the insecurity of high-achieving people?
~What sort of a husband do you think Killer will make? In particular, what do you learn about Killer from his final encounter with Cop?
~What does it say about the audience of a revenge movie? Does it matter whether we prefer the vengeance to be just, unjust, principled, reluctant, or eager? Why do we like to see vengeance meted out against bad men?
~Does Driver qualify as a good man? Remember that he was a bank robber to begin with.
~Does this movie seem to endorse vengeance in the end? Keep in mind the role and/or message brought by Preacher.
~Is this movie Christian because of the presence of Preacher?

Overall Grade: B+
High-action, interestingly shot, and filled with unexpectedly interesting character contrasts.

Edge of Darkness (2010)

2011-05-13T22:33:00.000-07:00

Rated: R for strong bloody violence and language.
Length: 117 minutes
Grade: B,D,B,C=B-
Rotten Tomatoes: 55% favorable, 5.8/10 average
Budget: $80 millionBox Office: $95 million (43 U.S., 38 Intl., 14 DVD)

Written by: William Monahan (Body of Lies, The Departed, and Kingdom of heaven) and Andrew Bovell (first film), based on the BBC television series by Troy Kennedy-Martin
Directed by: Martin Campbell (Casino Royale, The Legend of Zorro, Vertical Limit, The Mask of Zorro, and GoldenEye, )
Starring: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, and Danny Huston.
With: Bojana Novakovic

Summary:
Thomas Craven is a Boston detective whose brilliant daughter shows up at his house with odd health problems one night and is then shot in their doorway in what everyone presumes was a hit against him. As he investigates, he discovers a conspiracy involving a weapons company and the government that keeps getting more and more tangled.

Comments:
This is basically a film noir detective story about persistence and unrelenting pursuit of the truth. Lots of the plot elements seem unlikely, but the thing is pretty entertaining overall. There isn’t really much of discussion substance here, but so what? It’s a pretty interesting cool tough guy cop story/intrigue. And why does a movie have to be more than that? In the end, the solution to all problems of injustice by tough bad guys is a good dose of violence administered by the even tougher good guys.

Overall Grade: B-
Once you wade through the strange Boston accents and the poor sound editing, this is a relatively entertaining watch-it-once political cop thriller.

Due Date (2010)

2011-05-13T21:39:00.001-07:00

Rated: R for language, drug use and sexual content.
Length: 95 minutes
Grade: C+,F,B+,B=B-
Rotten Tomatoes: 40% favorable, 5.2/10
Budget: $65 million
Box Office: $238 million (101 U.S., 111 Intl., 26 DVD)

Written by: Alan R. Cohen & Alan Freedland (First movie) and Adam Sztykiel (Made of Honor)
Written and Directed by: Todd Phillips (The Hangover, School for Scoundrels, Starsky & Hutch, Old School, and Road Trip)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifanakis
With: Michelle Monaghan, Jamie Foxx, Juliette Lewis, Danny McBride, Jon Cryer, and Charlie Sheen.

Summary:
A yuppie whose wife is about to deliver a baby finds himself thrust into a very unpleasant cross-country adventure with a man whom he despises and is responsible for the messes they wind up in.

Comments:
Aside from the facts that this movie is completely vulgar and not nearly as funny as it should be and that it made me want to quit watching several times long before the very end, there is something rather fascinating going on here. See, the entire point of the movie is that adventure (even adventure that involves great personal pain and frustration) is really good for us. Good because it gives us vivid memories and builds relationships with others. And even though Galifianakis is a horrid little creature, in occasional moments, Downey sees in him something either just pathetic or just valuable enough to keep going on the adventure. This of course says as much about Downey as about Galifianakis. He wants to hate him and abandon him, but he can’t. And in the end, he winds up discovering a relationship that he would never ordinarily have had because he finally came to see him as a fellow human, even with all his foibles and problems. The parallels here with parenting and with befriending the outcast from the Bible are tremendous, and I think it’s no mistake at all that Downey has this experience while he is on his way to becoming a father for the first time (!). And, in what I can only admit was a truly unexpected twist, the movie itself I think may have been intended to reinforce its own message: being unbearably bad for much of the time but turning out to have a rich thematic reward if you stick it out. It’s a lot like Planes, Trains, & Automobiles but not nearly so cute. The key artistic moment in the movie is when Galifianakis is telling Downey about his father, who was a tollbooth operator who was so popular because he would chat with the commuters and didn’t care that the lines would get long. So the point is there’s this tension between human relationships (which always take time and entail suffering) and efficiency/safety/security/ease which we all seek.

Discussion Questions
~Who in your life do you suffer for? Do you avoid people who seem likely to cost you too much? How can you decide when this is a prudent approach and when this is an unchristian approach? If Christ had thought this way about us or His disciples, what would He have done differently?
~How many of the most vivid memories you have to share with other people involved events which were catastrophic or at least very unpleasant at the time? Why does shared suffering create such a deep bond with others?

Overall Grade: B-
It’s a tremendously vulgar (Hard R) comedy-bromance that makes us ask what’s a friend, what’s a great story, and what richness of relationship we miss out on when we try only to surround ourselves with people who are easy to love.

Yogi Bear (2010)

2011-05-13T17:28:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG for some mild rude humor.
Length: 80 minutes
Grade: B+,A-,B,C=B+
Rotten Tomatoes: 13% favorable, 3.5/10 average
Budget: $80 million
Box Office: $218 million (100 U.S., 101 Intl., 17 DVD)

Written by: Jeffrey Ventimilia & Joshua Sternin (Rio, Tooth Fairy), and Brad Copeland (Wild Hogs and TV like Arrested Development and My Name Is Earl)
Directed by: Eric Brevig (Journey to the Center of the Earth, before which he was mostly a visual effects guy)
Starring the voices of: Dan Aykroyd and Justin Timberlake
Starring: Tom Cavanagh and Anna Faris
With: TJ Miller, Nathan Corddry, and Andrew Daly

Summary:
Jellystone Park is in dire straits. Yogi’s basket-stealing antics have driven people away, and the local Mayor is planning to sell the land for logging rights to solve his budget incompetence. Somehow the park must be saved and everything made right again.

Entertainment Value: B+
I think this one reviewer at Rotten Tomatoes captured my thoughts precisely: “This is the sort of film that most hard-bitten critics will refuse to like.” I really enjoyed it. It was slapstick fun, it seemed like a decent homage to the original series, and it was fun for my boys. Plus, the evil mayor was played to witty perfection by Andrew Daly.

Superficial Content: A-
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/-Nudity A, Violence A-, Language A
This is really quite clean, the only issue might be a few body-humor kind of scenes. But for the most part, this is extremely family friendly, adamantly refusing to let language and sexuality invade the production.

Significant Content: B
Be yourself, and never try to be a second best somebody else. The way we succeed in life is by building on what we do well, not by trying to do everything well. But the really big theme here is the one buried in the political aspects of the plot. The message is simple. Tough financial times encourage politicians to close parks or squander public resources for a temporary solution. But some things that have financial value (or don’t make money) have real community or cultural value. Parks don’t make a lot of money, but they do make our lives better. Also, the mayor who is evil is lampooned for being politically ambitious by trying to deceive people, even planning to buy their votes.

Artistic/Thought Value: C
There isn’t very much thought value here, but I am inclined to give them some credit for really capturing in an almost live-action movie the genuine feel of a cartoon.

Discussion Questions:
~At one point the mayor ridicules the park for being the sort of low-income place where families come to roast s’mores. Do you think parks and forests make our lives better? What are some things in life that don’t generate a lot of money but still have a lot of value? What are the limits of measuring value in terms of money? How do these questions impact your view of Arizona’s current forest/budget situation?
~Do you think that a person’s attitude toward the environment and nature is an indication of his overall character? Can a Christian advocate destroying natural beauty?
~Why does Ranger Jones succumb to the Mayor’s scheme? Why must we be so careful not to covet what others have?

Overall Grade: B+
Zany. Cute. Clever. More entertaining than the average children’s movie.

Burlesque (2010)

2011-05-13T16:58:00.000-07:00

Rated: Rated PG-13 for sexual content including several suggestive dance routines, partial nudity, language and some thematic material.
Length: 119 minutes
Grade: B,C-,B,B+=B
Rotten Tomatoes: 36% favorable 4.8/10 average
Budget: $55 million
Box Office: $108 million (39 U.S., 50 Intl., 19 DVD)

Written and Directed by: Steve Antin (only previous script was for Chasing Papi)
Starring: Christina Aguilera and Cher
With: Eric Dane, Cam Gigandet, Peter Gallagher, Kristen Bell, and Stanley Tucci.

Summary:
A small town girl with big dreams flees to LA and becomes a waitress in a burlesque club, hoping for her chance to be on stage. Meanwhile, the club owner is under financial pressure to sell her beloved dream to a developer. There’s a romance, too.

Entertainment Value: B
I was quite pleasantly surprised by this one, which I frankly anticipated being either raunchy or terrible or both. Yes, it’s uber-campy and fairly predictable. But I found myself enjoying it pretty much the entire time, other than the completely out-of-place slow solos by Cher and Aguilera. It’s not nearly as deliberately funny as Moulin Rouge, it’s far less brooding than Nine, and it’s more playful than Chicago. The music is cool. The dancing is entertaining without being lewd (mostly). And the acting is relatively un-awful, except for Stanley Tucci, who is fantastic and one of my favorite actors.

Superficial Content: C-
Drugs/Alcohol C, Sex/Nudity C, Violence A, Language C-
The entire movie takes place at a night club, so alcohol is constantly present and being drunk. The language is enough to make it PG-13. There’s no violence. But the real question is sexuality. For the most part, this compares well with most dance programs on television for sexuality. However, there is one sequence involving partial nudity of a man and another with partial nudity of a woman. There’s only one sex scene, and it’s pretty tame by PG-13 standards. There is one gay character and his love life is an issue in one scene. Overall, PG-13 is the right rating, possibly R-15.

Significant Content: B
Loyalty and the distinction between the real and the fake are themes here. This shows up in people, romances, relationships, and even the choice to make art rather than profits. There is a clear distinction made between people who are selfish and people who are other-oriented and the good/bad line is clear. The club functions like a family, and Cher is the loving mother. Also, just as an aside, a girl who gets pregnant never even considers an abortion and winds up marrying the father. Not bad for a “sleazy Hollywood” film as many would probably prefer to see it.

Artistic/Thought Value: B+
Okay, I know lots of people will disagree with me about this, but here goes. Although this is clearly a movie with lots of nice-looking women dancing suggestively, I did not think the movie was particularly sexual. The key here is to understand the difference between burlesque and its often-confused-with cousin, stripping. This is not a movie about stripping. Burlesque normally involves either no or only a little loss of clothing. Rather, it’s women dancing and singing and doing so humorously rather than erotically. In fact, burlesque in my opinion is far more like ballroom dancing or gymnastics or ice skating than it is like stripping. And although I was concerned going in that this would be an arousing movie, it really wasn’t. So as a simple contrast with all the lurid sexuality present in so many movies and also as a contrast with the now socially acceptable notion of stripping, the class and performance ability of burlesque presented here is actually an improvement in morality and decency, not a degradation. To put it another way, I would never go into a strip club, but I would probably go to the burlesque show as presented in this movie. Now, all of that aside, what other values are present here?

Discussion Questions:
--What, if anything, makes burlesque as shown here different from stripping? Would you think it a good idea for a man to patronize a night club like this? If you had a daughter, would you encourage her to pursue a career in burlesque if she wanted to? What is the difference between acceptable forms of feminine entertaining and unacceptable ones? Does burlesque objectify women?
--Identify which people in this movie care about others, and which care only about themselves?
--Which sort of performance do you think is better: dancing and lip syncing to the classics, singing them live, or performing original music?
--Why does Jack struggle to complete any of his music? In what sense might you say that an incomplete person can only make incomplete art? What makes him complete?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
--Ali’s first solo.
--The end scene burlesque.

Overall Grade: B
Maybe it’s the lover of stage and dance in me, but despite having my guard up because it stars Cher and Christina Aguilera, I was entertained mostly the whole time here, and the final number is fantastic.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 1 (2010)

2011-05-06T17:39:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for some sequences of intense action violence, frightening images and brief sensuality.
Length: 146 minutes
Grade: C,C,C,D=C-
Rotten Tomatoes: 79% favorable, 7.1/10 average
Budget: $250 million
Box Office: $1.017 Billion (295 U.S., 660 Intl., 62 DVD)

Written by: Steve Kloves (All 7 HP movies, plus Wonder Boys, Fabulous Baker Boys, and Racing with the Moon), based on the novel by J.K. Rowling
Directed by: David Yates (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix)
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint
With: Bill Nighy, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, and Helena Bonham Carter

Summary:
In this prelude to the final Harry Potter movie, there is all-out war among the wizards, with the Ministry of Magic being dominated by the forces under Voldemort’s control and a bounty on Harry Potter’s head. To turn the tide and destroy their enemy, Harry, Hermioine, and Ron try to stay alive and find the horcruxes in which Voldemort has stored the pieces of his soul.

Coments:
It may not be fair for a non-reader of the book series to comment on this movie since it is so clearly a prequel to the next and final film. But I have a bone to pick with this one in particular. Even though I have never been blown away by any of the other films, always giving them B-range grades if I remember correctly, each of them has also been fairly satisfying in its own way. Not this time. First of all, the sequence of events just keeps going on and on and on without much real explanation and certainly without any sense of fulfillment. Second, precisely because this feels very much like an effort to cram eight hundred pages of rich action into just two films, it doesn’t even pretend to help the non-reader like me. And third, even with all the cramming, somehow they managed to precisely overcompensate and keep it tremendously slow nevertheless. Plus, all the business about who carries the device and its corrupting influence on them just felt so completely derivative of the Lord of the Rings.

Discussion Questions:
~The key difference between the evil wizards and the good ones seems to be their view of the justified use of their powers. The good ones view muggles (ordinary humans) as people with value and rights who should be protected and served with magic, but the evil ones view them as an impediment or a sub-species to be used or eradicated without consideration. How does this distinction fit with the proper relationship between people who have power, wealth, and privilege and those who do not in our own society? What happens when the caretakers don’t care about the ordinary people? How do these views match with the Bible’s ideas about how Christians should treat non-Christians?

Overall Grade: C-
I will watch the final movie, but it better pay off because at this point I already feel like I’m only continuing on habit rather than enthusiasm.

Skyline (2010)

2011-05-06T17:10:00.001-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence, some language, and brief sexual content.
Length: 94 minutes
Grade: B+,C,X,X =B
Rotten Tomatoes: 17% favorable, 3.6/10 average
Budget: $10 million
Box Office: $75 million (21 U.S., 46 Intl., 8 DVD)

Written by: Joshua Cordes and Liam O’Donnell (First script for either)
Directed by: Colin & Greg Strause (Aliens vs Predator-Requiem)
Starring: Eric Balfour and Donald Faison
With: Scottie Thompson, Brittany Daniel, Crystal Reed, and David Zayas.

Summary:
Two college friends now reunited for a weekend find themselves in the middle of an alien invasion of Los Angeles, in which bionic gatherers are harvesting human bodies for their brain matter.

Comments:
As science fiction films go, this is not a great one. It surely could have been done better, and the plot defects came to their climax in the very end scene. Nevertheless, I found it a lot of fun. Maybe I just felt like this was the movie District 9 promised to be and never was. Maybe it’s because I have a soft spot for Donald Faison from his Scrubs days. Or maybe I was just in a weird mood. But whatever the reason, I found this to be a fairly entertaining, visually impressive film made by four guys who really have no business making movies on their own, since their only real background is in visual effects. Yes, great sci-fi is driven by plot, but once in awhile it’s alright to have nothing deeper than a funky action/sci-fi/horror movie. Also, if there is one thing I liked about this movie, it’s that it’s anything but the “we shall overcome” plot that so many other alien invasion movies inevitably follow. If space-conquering species came to earth, do you really think Wil Smith would be enough to lead us to victory? By the way, it is most definitely PG-13, probably better as R-15 for violence, language and sexuality, just so you know.

Overall Grade: B
Even though I’m sure I’m well in the minority on this one.

Gulliver's Travels (2010)

2011-05-06T16:38:00.001-07:00

Rated: PG for brief rude humor, mild language and action.
Length: 85 minutes
Grade: C,B,C,D=C
Rotten Tomatoes: 20% favorable, 3.9/10 average
Budget: $112 million
Box Office: $234 million (43 U.S., 187 Intl., 4 DVD)

Written by: Joe Stillman (Planet 51, Shrek 1+2, and Joseph King of Dreams) and Nicholas Stoller (Get Him to the Greek, Yes Man, and Fun with Dick and Jane), based on the novel by Jonathan Swift
Directed by: Rob Letterman (Monsters vs Aliens and Shark Tale)
Starring: Jack Black
With: Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, Amanda Peet, Billy Connolly, and Chris O’Dowd

Summary:
A mail room clerk with no ambition and no prospects plagiarizes his way into a travel story assignment in the Bermuda Triangle, which sends him to Lilliput, the famous Swiftian land of little people. Initially imprisoned as a threat, he performs some feats of heroism and becomes the defender of the realm. Then, after befriending a man who loves the King’s daughter but is in jail because she is promised to another, he tries to help him realize true love against an arrogant general.

Entertainment Value: C
I didn’t expect very much from this movie, and that probably helped me tremendously. But in the end, I was pleasantly surprised with the fish-out-of water humor. It’s certainly not anything great or memorable, but it was fairly fun, which fits the tradition of Swift’s novel. It’s a silly story, and the Dr. Seuss fan inside of me never minds a silly story.

Superficial Content: B
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity B+, Violence B+, Language BThis is a frustrating movie from a ratings perspective. It’s nowhere near as crude as you would ordinarily expect from Jack Black, but there are moments that definitely justify the PG rating, and even made me cringe letting my boys (7, 4, 2) watch it. In particular, one scene uses the expression “lame-ass” four times. Another has Gulliver urinating on a palace to put out a fire (funny, but vulgar). And a romance with quoting the Prince song “Kiss” and some mild innuendo. Otherwise, it’s only some fairly tame violence. So, it seems like a movie that could easily have been a clean PG, but instead I would say PG-9.

Significant Content: C
The basic problem is that plagiarism and lying turn out to be the key to doing something magical in life, with some consequences, but everything works out eventually. The positive message seems to be about pursuing true love, being willing to take an adventure, and going for it, generally. Also, don’t think too little of yourself because you have more to offer than you realize.

Artistic/Thought Value: D
It’s not a pretty movie, nor is it all that great an adaptation of the original. Plus, there isn’t much thought value during or after.

Discussion Questions:
~Gulliver feels the need to make up stories about his exploits in a distant land to gain popularity with the Lilliputs. Was this really necessary? Why did he do it? What happens when we feel our own lives aren’t interesting enough? Have you ever felt tempted to exaggerate something you’ve done to gain approval? How does the Bible help solve this problem for us?
~Do you think a life of risk or adventure is inherently better than a life of ordinary activity? Is travel or excitement satisfying enough to meet our deepest needs?
~Gulliver achieves his opportunity by plagiarizing other people’s work. Does this seem like a good way to get something?
~Is Gulliver afraid to ask Darcy out for legitimate reasons or foolish ones? Does their friendship/romance seem plausible to you?
~Why might it take the experience of actually being special for his size for Gulliver to realize that he might be special even back in New York? What does the Bible say about our specialness?
~Although we don’t have different sized people, our society certainly makes some people large and others small (influence, money, fame, etc.) based on their abilities or other factors. Do you think the idea of big and little people is something the Bible would support?

Overall Grade: C
Silly fun without a lot of substance, but with just enough sporadic and inexplicable vulgarity to keep young kids away.

King's Speech, The (2010)

2011-04-29T17:26:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for language. (edited version); Originally Rated R for some language.
Length: 118 minutes
Grade: B+,A/D,A,A+=A
Rotten Tomatoes: 95%
Budget: $15 million
Box Office: $401 million (138 U.S., 263 Intl.)

Written by: David Seidler (The King and I, Quest for Camelot, Tucker, and a lot of TV)
Directed by: Tom Hooper (John Adams TV miniseries)
Starring: Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush
With: Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce, Michael Gambon, and Timothy Spall

Summary:
Second in line to succeed his tyrannical father, Prince Albert suffers from a debilitating stutter until he encounters a rare and effective speech therapist who helps him in every area of his deliberately isolated life.

Entertainment Value: B+
When a film is nominated for 12 Academy Awards and wins 4, only giving it a B+ for entertainment value needs an explanation. In this case, though I loved the movie, I have to admit I was a bit bored by it at times. Just bored enough that I couldn’t give it an A. Also, since music blaring in his ears made him speak so flawlessly, I was annoyed the movie never made anything more of the possible value of this particular therapy. Nevertheless, these are only the most minor of failings, and the movie certainly deserved at least the Best Picture nomination (I haven’t yet seen enough of the other contenders to affirm the victory) and Colin Firth’s performance as the chronically stuttering Prince Albert is stunningly good.

Superficial Content: A/D
Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity A-, Violence A, Language D
I must be honest. I find this particular category frustrating. First, the movie is almost squeaky clean for 117 minutes. There is smoking and implied sexuality way, way, way off screen. There is no violence at all. So why is it R (or PG-13 on some versions)? Because part of the story involves the Prince swearing since it’s one of the few times he doesn’t stutter. This swearing is heavy and obvious but supremely brief the few times it shows up. If you can’t endure kids hearing pretty much all swears, then they shouldn’t watch this. But that’s all there is. Also, since I suspect (and hope) this was essential to the real story , it’s probably not right to ask them to remove it from this movie version, I think.

Significant Content: A
This is a completely different sort of heroic teacher movie because it’s not set in a school. But in a very obvious way, it shows how a teacher who knows what he’s doing can have impact on not just a person, but even the course of history perhaps. The pressure to be normal and to appear normal can drive people (and parents) to do horribly cruel things to themselves (or their children). People in power far more deeply than others realize need people who will not defer to them and will dignify them by treating them as peers instead. And a loving wife certainly does not hurt your chances of becoming the man you should be.

Artistic/Thought Value: A+
This is an artistic masterpiece, in large part because it chooses ever-so-carefully to reveal its themes and implications to us for us to grasp rather than feeding them to us in any obvious way. The main lessons and insights this movie contains are screaming through the narrative without ever being even whispered out loud. That’s great art alone. Rush and Firth are fantastic, and Michael Gambon’s King George V is a terrifying portrait of disturbed parenting, and it compares poignantly with the egalitarianism of Rush’s own.

Discussion Questions:
~What motivated Albert’s father to do all the things he did to him? What effect did this have on Albert? What is Albert most terrified of? What is neglect? When is “try harder” actually counterproductive advice?
~This movie is sometimes slow and even silent. Why is this so important to what it is trying to accomplish?
~How does this movie influence your view of royalty or the English royals?
~What is the source of Albert’s stutter? Why is revealing some of his history so vital to improving his speech? What distinction is being drawn here between superficial tactics to fix a problem and substantial psychological or character healing to fix the source of that problem?
~How do you react to people who stammer badly? Does it irritate you, arouse pity in you, or something else? What do you think it would be like to feel thwarted by your own body in trying to communicate with others? What other diseases have a similar sort of frustrating effect on people?
~Why is Albert’s ability to utter only profanity clearly so symbolic?
~Does Logue pity Albert? Do you? What’s the difference between pity and love?
~Why is it so important to be loved for who you are including your flaws?
~Why is equality and refusing to defer to his royalty such an important element of the therapy? Which is more dignifying: being treated as a superior or being treated as an equal?
~Compare the parenting of George V and Logue. What aspects of either influence how you think about your own parenting?
~Why does Albert choose to become King George VI? What does this say about him in regard to his father?
~Are you the sort of person who evaluates other people by the way they speak, whether pronunciation, grammar, or anything else? Does this movie affect the way you think of this habit of judgment?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The opening speech.
~Albert describing his father’s treatment of his various disorders.
~Albert watching film of Hitler speaking so forcefully. This scene alone is easily my favorite of the film for the contrast and implications it draws without ever stating.
~Logue defending himself. Why is there such an issue over credentials in spite of such obvious success? What deeper issues about royalty and commoners is this aspect of the story driving at?
~The final speech. What consequences hung on the success of this particular speech? What sort of impact did Logue wind up having on history?

Overall Grade: A
This is about as good as films can be. It’s a fantastic character study and biography, with rich psychological undertones. Despite some historical adjustments, it’s very, very good.

Chronicles of Narnia 3: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)

2011-04-29T16:29:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG for some frightening images and sequences of fantasy action.
Length: 113 minutes
Grade: B,B+,B,B=B
Rotten Tomatoes: 50%
Budget: $155 million
Box Office: $422 million (104 U.S., 310 Intl., 18 DVD)

Written by: Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (Narnia 1-2, You Kill Me, and The Life and Death of Peter Sellers) and Michael Petroni (Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys and Queen of the Damned), based on the novel by C.S. Lewis
Directed by: Michael Apted (Amazing Grace, Enough, Enigma, The World is Not Enough, Extreme Measures, Nell, Blink, Thunderheart, Class Action, Gorillas in the Mist, Gorky Park, Continental Divide, and Coal Miner’s Daughter)
Starring: Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, Ben Barnes, and Will Poulter
With the voices of: Liam Neeson and Simon Pegg

Summary:
Separated from Peter and Susan during the War, Edmund and Lucy share quarters with their insufferable cousin, Eustace. When they find themselves yet again suddenly drawn into Narnia, they join Prince Caspian in searching for the magical lost swords that will defeat the mysterious green mist and put everything right again in the magical land.

Entertainment Value: B
Like all the other Narnia films, this is fine and good enough. It’s solid, clean family entertainment that kids of all ages will enjoy. The plot feels a bit mashed together (probably to fit into a single movie), and book loyalists have complained that the ending is butchered. The sequence of events or quest-style narrative is fine and moves along not to badly with the aid of Reepicheep’s fun and Eustace’s conversion.

Superficial Content: B+
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity A, Violence B+, Language A
The only real issue here is going to be violence, which is mostly the low end of fantasy action. This is PG-any-age, and I would probably have rated it G if it were up to me.

Significant Content: B
The two big themes introduced here are quite good, but they feel like add-ons to the plot rather than essentials due to scant treatment. The first is that evil tempts us by preying on our secret desire to be other than we are. Lucy secretly envies her older and more comely sister, Susan, while Edmund seeks the respect and admiration which naturally comes to his older brother, Peter. The other is that irritating and brash people are sometimes just cowards underneath who have been neglected by others. Thus all they really need is the chance to behave courageously and for someone with courage to help them and believe in them. This is they dynamic seen between Eustace and Reepicheep.

Artistic/Thought Value: B
The FX are quite captivating, especially the map sequence. If watched a handful of times, there’s certainly enough here to have some good conversations with the kids.

Discussion Questions:
~Why does the beauty spell appeal to Lucy? Why does the pond of gold and the sword appeal to Edmund? What secret insecurity of yours might Satan use to tempt you? How does Jesus propose to meet that need Himself?
~What ultimately unites Eustace with Edmund and Lucy? How does a common quest or project tend to draw people together? Is this why God allows problems in this world?
~Do you think that Eustace needed to experience being a powerful dragon before he could ever believe he might be brave as a mere human? How did Reepicheep’s befriending him help transform him? Why are Christians called to so actively seek out and cherish the people who others don’t want to be around?
~In this movie, evil has the power to tempt people with what they seem to really want. Why is it so important to know the difference between our sincere but evil wishes and our real, God-given desires? How can you know which of your desires come from God and which come from somewhere else? What does Aslan mean when he says that Lucy betrayed herself by trying to wish herself away?
~When Caspian is presented with the opportunity to leave Narnia and reunite with his beloved father, why does he refrain? Why would the Christian want to leave Earth? Why must the Christian seek to stay and do the work of Christ here? If Jesus came from heaven to save this world, why would it be a rejection of the Gospel to try to leave this world and go to heaven prematurely?
~What does Aslan do in returning Eustace to his human form? What Christian themes are being explained here?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The beauty spell.
~The pond of gold.
~Dragon undone.
~Reepicheep’s request.

Overall Grade: B
A decent effort and a fairly good movie, but it feels a bit hackneyed and Lewis purists haven’t been loving the tinkering these movies do with what they came to love in print.

Rio (2011)

2011-04-29T15:38:00.001-07:00

Rated: PG for mild off color humor.
Length: 96 minutes
Grade: C,B+,D,D=C
Rotten Tomatoes: 73%
Budget: $90 million
Box Office: $296 million so far (84 U.S., 212 Intl.)

Written and Directed by: Carlos Saldanha (Ice Age 1-3 and Robots)
Also Written by: Earl Richey Jones & Todd Jones (Johnson Family Vacation, and In Living Colour), Don Rhymer (Big Momma’s House 1-3, Surf’s Up, Honeymooners, Santa Clause 2, and Cody Banks 2), Joshua Sternin & Jeffrey entimilia (Yogi Bear, Tooth Fairy, and 70’s Show), and Sam Harper (Cheaper by the Dozen 1-2, Just Married, and Rookie of the Year)
Starring the voices of: Anne Hathaway and Jesse Eisenberg
With the voices of: Leslie Mann, Rodrigo Santoro, Wanda Sykes, Jamie Foxx, George Lopez, Tracy Morgan, and Will I Am

Summary:
Blu is a flightless blue macaw who is living a domesticated life in Minnesota when a Brazilian ornithologist comes to his owner and proposes bringing them to Rio so he can mate with the last known female blue macaw. The development of their unlikely romance leads through the party of Carnivale and involves smugglers, monkeys, and a disillusioned bully cockatoo.

Entertainment Value: C
It’s pretty and relatively entertaining to watch. Our boys enjoyed it, but not enough to rave about. I didn’t quite know what to say about this movie until I read the writing credits, and then it became obvious. This is a problem of too many cooks with all the strangest backgrounds. All I can say is that somehow or other, when you add up all their writing credits listed above, it seems to fit perfectly with what this movie wound up being.

Superficial Content: B+
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity B+, Violence A-, Language A-
This is just barely PG, and is probably safe for almost any kid. The issues are odd, skimpy, and sometimes cross-gender attire for carnivale, threats of danger and some fighting, and extremely mild insults. Our four boys (7, 4, 2) watched it and I never felt the need to cover their eyes or ears.

Significant Content: D
Differences attract. The key to love is sacrifice for someone else. Freedom is important, but giving up freedom for love is even better. Species should be preserved. Carnivale is cool.

Artistic/Thought Value: D
I think this movie wants to be more substantial than it is, and the one neatest little thing in it is the repeated (I counted at least 6 times) showing of the massive statue of Christ in Rio. But mostly it’s just a zany adventure that doesn’t ask or answer many serious questions.

Discussion Questions:
~Why does Fernando help the smugglers? How is poverty related to crime?
~What explanation is given for the meanness of Nigel? When someone bases their identity on fame, popularity, and other vanities, what happens when they are shoved aside for someone else? Have you ever wanted to make someone else suffer because you had been hurt or criticized?
~Why is it considered important to protect rare species of animals? Should Christians be protecting species as a way of honoring God’s making of them? How valuable are rare species compared to other concerns like human welfare?
~Why do you think the film’s makers so repeatedly showed the Christ statue? Was this just showing the location or was it intended to emphasize Christianity somehow?
~What do you think of Carnivale? Does it seem to fit with the idea of a city in the shadow of Christ?
~What attracts Blu to Jewel initially and then eventually? What alienates Jewel from Blu? What changes her mind?
~What image of marriage and family is conveyed by Rafael the Toucan?

Overall Grade: C
This is a film, like many in recent years, that really shows how Hollywood is intent on making most of its profit in foreign markets (Brazil, anyone?) with little regard for how a movie fares in the States. If I said it was fluffy like a pet bird, would you hold it against me? Well, it’s fluffy, like Froot Loops. Lots of color and fun to eat one time maybe, but not much food there, really. If anything, this comparison is an injustice to Froot Loops. Sorry, Sam.

Next Three Days, The (2010)

2011-04-15T18:54:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for violence, drug material, language, some sexuality and thematic elements.
Length: 122 minutes
Grade: B,C,D,C=C
Rotten Tomatoes: 51%
Budget: $30 million
Box Office: $65 million (21 U.S., 39 Intl., 5 DVD)

Written and Directed by: Paul Hagis (Wrote/Directed In the Valley of Elah and Crash, wrote Quantum of Solace, letters from Iwo Jima, Casino Royale, Flags of our Fathers, and Million Dollar Baby), based on the French screenplay “Pour elle” by Fred Cavaye and Guillaume Lemans
Starring: Russel Crowe
With: Elizabeth Banks and Liam Neeson

Summary:
A devoted husband is convinced his wife is innocent of the murder of her boss and when her final appeal fails, he concocts a plan to break her out of prison so they and their young son Luke can flee to a foreign country and live out their lives.

Entertainment Value: B
As you would expect from the guy who wrote Crash and the new Bond films, this is both intricate and action-packed. As a suspence/action/thriller, it’s quite good, and the final implementation of the plan doesn’t disappoint. But I really hated what it made me think about in terms of unjust incarceration and the idea of losing access to my wife (or my own family if it happened to me). Also, as my wife noted, the entire premise of “let’s risk everything to be together in spite of the even greater risk that our child will be raised by foster parents because we get killed or both wind up in jail” is hard to take seriously.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity A-, Violence C, Language C
Several drug dealers are in the film, but no drugs are used. No real sexuality to mention. Language and violence are the big issues, including people being beaten up and some being shot and killed. Language is isn’t that heavy, but does certainly qualify for the PG-13 rating.

Significant Content: D
The basic idea of this film is that true devotion means doing whatever it takes to rescue the damsel in the distress of jail. Also, from the literature professor who teaches Don Quixote (a hopeless but inspirational idealism), we learn that the notion of being rational is a prison and that any life not of our own making is by definition not free. It’s also got a hefty anti-capital punishment message since she’s innocent but convicted. But where this films goes so tragically wrong, as I mentioned before is the vigilante nature of the solution and the immense (and likely) risk that the child will wind up losing both parents rather than just one.

Artistic/Thought Value: C
Some of the questions raised about loyalty and rationality are interesting, in addition to the issue of what to do about a societal injustice and the finality of the death penalty. But mostly, this is a thriller, not a thinker. However, I did like several of the plausibility failures built into the plot to show that this isn’t just a superhero type vigilante movie, but a real person taking these risks.

Discussion Questions:
~Liam Neeson asks Crowe to carefully consider whether he’s really willing to do whatever it will take to succeed in this endeavor. Why is it important to count the cost before we undertake a project like this?
~Do you think Crowe makes the right choice regarding his wife and his son? What would you want your spouse to do?
~What things does this movie do to make you want him to succeed? Does it do anything to make you not want to? Is it virtuous to hope he succeeds? What do you think is the Biblical advice to someone in his situation?
~What insight, if any, does this movie give you about the validity of the death penalty?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The lawyer being grilled about his faith in the wife’s innocence.
~Getting beat up by the scam artists.
~The decision moment to leave without the kid or not.

Overall Grade: C
A decent suspense thriller based on a pretty flimsy premise. If you love this concept of devotion to the woman, a far better version is the wonderful “Priceless” or the somewhat older “Timecop.”

Runaways, The (2010)

2011-04-15T17:21:00.000-07:00

Rated: R for language, drug use and sexual content - all involving teens.
Length: 106 minutes
Grade: D,F,F,D=D
Rotten Tomatoes: 68%
Budget: $10 million
Box Office: $9 million (4 U.S., 1 Intl., 4 DVD)

Written and Directed by: Floria Sigismondi (Only film), based on the book by Cherie Currie
Starring: Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning
With: Michael Shannon

Summary:
This is the story of the pioneering all-girl teenage rock band, The Runaways, which included Joan Jett and Lita Ford.

Comments:
When I wasn’t irritated or nauseated by this movie, I was bored with it. It’s a terribly vulgar (though I suspect roughly accurate) portrayal of the filthy underside of rock and roll then and (probably) now. It shows the exploitation of it, the sex and drug culture, and the rebellion at the heart of rock’s history. All this, in a way, makes me almost want to give it a better grade, perhaps even a high one, for just the sake of being honest. The rock industry chews people up and spits them out, especially those with fragile backgrounds, and with their own (dubiously capable) consent. Fun and interesting this isn’t. Disturbing and dark without any hint of an apology this is. I specifically wrote this review so you wouldn't make the mistake of thinking this is just another lighthearted teen band movie.

Overall Grade: D
If someone hated rock and roll for all the right reasons, they couldn’t have made a better, more scathing critique of it than this movie.

Tron Legacy (2010)

2011-04-08T19:39:00.001-07:00

Rated: PG for sequences of sci-fi action violence and brief mild language.
Length: 125 minutes
Grade: B+BCD=B
Budget: $170 million
Box Office: $398 million (172 U.S., 226 Intl.)

Written by: Edward Kitsis & Adam Horowitz (TV series Lost) , Brian Klugman & Lee Sternthal (First script), based on characters created by Steven Lisberger and Bonnie MacBird
Directed by: Joseph Kosinski (First film, but known for CGI effects work)
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Garret Hedlund, and Olivia Wilde
With: Bruce Boxleitner, James Frain, Beau Garrett, Anis Cheurfa, and Michael Sheen

Summary:
In this (finally!) sequel to the original 1982 cult movie Tron, Flynn has disappeared and in trying to find him, his now adult son Sam but winds up being taken into the completely unknown virtual world his father created years ago, fighting for his life against a program created in his father’s image.

Entertainment Value: A-
Alright. I obviously have no idea how enjoyable this film might be for people who didn’t grow up LOVING the original Tron. But for me, this was thoroughly satisfying. The plot is weak. The writing is weak. But the effects, the homages, and the overall fun of it all made the whole thing highly enjoyable. For those of us who have been waiting almost three decades for an even cooler version of an originally super-cool and campy film, this was it. Aside from the impressive effects, the use of music is (no pun intended) pitch perfect.

Superficial Content: B
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity A-, Violence B, Language B+
There is one very minor suggestive scene and a handful of extremely mild profanities (as in the original). The main concern will be violence, which involves dangerous driving, fighting, and programs which seem like people being killed.

Significant Content: C
Corporations are evil. Artist/hippie/visionaries are good. The goods humanity creates (like the Internet) should be as free as possible.

Artistic/Thought Value: D
Some movies are meant to be fun. This is fun. There is very little thought value necessary or invited here. Sadly, I think this movie could have been much more interesting a la The Matrix if it had tried to be, but that’s okay. Also, there’s lots of goofy conceptual flaws such as how Flynn could have created this sophisticated of a computing landscape back in 1989 and why Clu couldn’t have flown to find Flynn with his light-planes. Nevertheless, the point is fun, and it was fun.

Discussion Questions:
~What parallels do you see between the Tron world of this movie (Flynn as creator, Clu as his vice-regent of sorts, rebellion, etc.) and the story of humanity as contained in the Bible? Is Flynn like God? What is the connection with Sam as his son and the end scene?
~Do you think that programs or computer constructs (like game characters) have existential value or deserve moral consideration? Apart from what it does to our character in this “real” world, is there any case to be made that “killing” a virtual person is wrong because that’s a person in some morally meaningful sense?
~What do you make of the discussion of ISOs? If you can make any sense of it, what sort of ideas about life and creation are being offered here? Is this movie implying that humans, like ISOs were a blessed error of some sort?
~How many homages or references to the original Tron can you spot?
~One of the driving ideas of the hippie ideal is that everything ought to be free of control or ownership. Do you think this is a practically viable idea? Does Christianity seem to be in favor of this sort of free gift society or more in favor of one with controls and limits?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Light cycles, updated.
~Light planes.
~Sam “stealing” the new operating system and putting it on the web.

Overall Grade: B
This is really just the original movie with some very minor plot adjustments retold with modern effects and music. I do not object. It was very, very, very fun. My only real regret here is that there was no counterpart to the highly entertaining “byte” character in the original.

Love and Other Drugs (2010)

2011-04-08T19:33:00.001-07:00

Rated: R for strong sexual content, nudity, pervasive language, and some drug material.
Length: 112 minutes
Grade: BHA+A=B+
Budget: $30 million
Box Office: $107 million (32 U.S., 64 Intl., 11 DVD)

Written by: Charles Randolph (Interpreter, Life of David Gale), Edward Zwick & Marshall Herskovitz (TV and Last Samurai), based on the book “Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman” by Jamie Reidy.
Directed by: Edward Zwick (Defiance, Blood Diamond, Last Samurai, Siege, Courage Under Fire, Legends of the Fall, Glory, and About Last Night)
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway
With: Oliver Platt, Hank Azaria, and Josh Gad.

Summary:
A self-serving philanderer become pharmaceutical sales rep discovers more than he bargains for when he falls in love with an equally commitmentphobic young woman who suffers from early Parkinson’s.

Entertainment Value: B
I really disliked this movie from the very beginning. It felt overwritten, there was wayyyyy too much skin for anyone but a pornographer’s sensibilities, and it just seemed contrived. Nevertheless, it sort of grew on me over time, and when I saw where the plot was going, I was tremendously intrigued.

Superficial Content: H
Drugs/Alcohol C, Sex/Nudity H, Violence C, Language H
People use drugs, including marijuana and various pharmaceuticals. There is a fistfight and a variety of moderate violence elements. None of that will compare, however with the overwhelming smut and language issues. This is NC-17 for sure. Not for kids of any age, and probably not really for adults who have any issues with lust either.

Significant Content: A+
The tragedy, if that’s the right word, is that such a horribly unwatchable movie would have such fantastic messages to share. The lunacy of pharmaceutical sales is exposed (freebies to doctors, absurd competition among reps, etc.) But the real story here is selfishness and using one another for sex which then becomes real love based on mutual acceptance of flaws and a willingness to sacrifice for each other. In a very real sense, this movie is selling Christian marital devotion as the thing people are looking for in all their empty or less-committed relationships.

Artistic/Thought Value: A
Part of the beauty of this movie (despite its superficial ugliness) is the way it reveals it’s purpose. First, we of course see the transformation that takes place as the selfish lust of Jamie is gradually transformed into a selfish love and eventually a real love for Maggie, which is just as discomforting to her as it is for him. But the subtle genius is that the real messages of this movie are carried in the gem lines delivered by Josh Gad (Jamie’s brother, Josh). His voice here is way too insightful to be anything other than the moral narrator, leading and adding insight to the plot proceedings. Yes, stylistically this feels a bit like Up in the Air, but that’s pretty good company to be in.

Discussion Questions:
~Could this movie have been made with so little content that it would have been PG? PG-13? Would it have missed its mark by doing so? How much of the vulgarity in this movie is useful and how much of it is simply there to be there?
~How realistic a portrait of drug sales reps and doctors behavior do you think this movie portrays? In what ways does the career behavior of Jamie fit with his relationship behavior? When one changes, why do you think the other might change, too?
~One of the big plot elements is Maggie’s Parkinson’s. When Jamie finally falls for her, why does he become so obsessive about finding a cure for her? What does this ultimately say about his love for her? Can someone be selfish in trying to do good for others? Why does she find his behavior in this regard to be a problem/flaw?
~What is it about Maggie that appeals to Jamie? Her physical appeal? Sex? Her rejection of him? Her ability to not be manipulated by any of his normal devices? His ability to fix her?
~Our culture (and the characters in this movie) seem to think that sex without intimacy or commitment is not only an acceptable thing, it’s actually a good thing because it rescues you from the dangers of being vulnerable and rejected for your flaws. Why is such mutually agreed upon exploitation so wrong? Why is it so contrary to real love? What do you think real love means? How does the love of Jesus compare with these notions? What do we all really want?
~Is it fair to say that real love is what happens with you want to be with and serve a person more than you want sex and whatever else they can give to you? How is the awareness of flaws and the acceptance of the person despite them crucial to real love?
~What are some of the defense mechanisms Maggie has constructed to protect her from being betrayed or rejected?
~Why does Jake have such low self-esteem, even though he seems to be the life of the party?
~Between Jake and Maggie, who hates themselves more?
~Would it be fair to describe their relationship as the anti-marriage? If marriage is the supremely Christian institute and symbol, would it be fair to say that a culture endorsing such relationships is thoroughly anti-Christian?
~Josh says that the most obvious thing about Jamie’s treatment of women is that he must hate them or he wouldn’t have sex with so many of them. What do you think of this?
~Josh also says that it’s one of the greatest insights of his life to discover how totally meaningless and empty sex with a stranger is compared to a marriage. What do you think about this comment?
~If you’ve seen it, compare this movie with Up in the Air?
~What is the point of comparing love to a drug? Is love the drug or is sex the drug?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Chasing down the bus.
~The break-up scene.
~Driving to the hospital from the party.
~I think I love you.
~The panic attack.
~The long-time married man at the Parkinson’s conference. Do you think he really believes the advice he gives? What does his advice say about the wisdom of marriage? What sorts of things does marriage draw out of us for our good even if we don’t want it to? Is he preaching by contrast, given the ultimate way the movie develops?

Overall Grade: B+
A totally smutty comedy romance smuggling an anti-pharmaceutical company message with some fantastic insights about real love and relationships.

Hereafter (2010)

2011-04-01T19:02:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for mature thematic elements including disturbing disaster and accident images, and for brief strong language.
Length: 129 minutes
Grade: D+CCD=C-
Budget: $50 million
Box Office: $108 million (33 U.S., 71 Intl., 4 DVD)

Written by: Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon, The Other Boleyn Girl, The Queen, and The Last King of Scotland)
Directed by: Clint Eastwood (Invictus, Gran Torino, Changeling, Flags of Our Fathers, Million Dollar Baby, Blood Work, Space Cowboys, True Crime, Absolute Power, Bridges of Madison County, Unforgiven, Rookie, Heartbreak Ridge, Pale Rider, Firefox, Sudden Impact, The Gauntlet, Outlaw Josey Wales, and The Eiger Sanction)
Starring: Matt Damon
With: Cecile de France, Jay Mohr, and Frankie and George McLaren

Summary:
Three stories of loss and pain coincide in this metaphysical drama based on a man who can actually communicate messages from dead people to their loved ones after touching them.

Entertainment Value: D+
Despite having Matt Damon (whose acting I generally like), this was tedious. And when it wasn’t, it was unpleasant. For instance, one of the major plot threads involves a young boy being killed when a car hits him. This scene was long enough for the anticipation to become really uncomfortable for anyone with kids, like me. I don’t need to see that. Perhaps I was overly optimistic about a Clint Eastwood movie, but Clint is really hit and miss lately. Gran Torino was fantastic, but Invictus was just okay. One thing I noticed was that the music was far too noticeable, jarring almost in a way that became a running observation joke with my wife.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol C, Sex/Nudity B, Violence C+, Language C
A mother is shown drunk and her heroin and pill use is implied. There’s one absolutely inexplicable scene of a woman in her underwear and an implied sexual assault against a young girl years ago. Violence includes the aforementioned death of a boy, the impact from a tsunami and the deaths resulting from it, and some scenes of hospice care. Language alone puts it at PG-13 for (again) inexplicable use of F and S profanity just occasionally.

Significant Content: C
Clint Eastwood is so ripe for evangelism it makes me want to scream. He clearly has loads of pre-Christian ideas and I think the problem is that his misunderstanding of the Gospel keeps him from considering Jesus seriously. The basic idea here is that people want the closure of one last connection with their dead loved ones, for which they will do almost anything. The afterlife is real (that’s good to see represented), but it’s a kind of semi-happy universalism where everyone is gathered on the shore waiting for us. God is not present at all, and is even briefly mocked as another con along with fake psychics. Some abilities seem like blessings but can feel like curses. Everything happens for a reason. We resist being defined by our gifts, perhaps wrongly.

Artistic/Thought Value: D
It may just be my Christian biases here, but there was very little in this movie that made me really want to discuss it with anything. If it’s not unfair to say so, I thought Eastwood was beating me over the head with his peculiar vision of eternity, spirituality, and life. Everyone is a fraud except this one guy (and the movie we’ve made to show him to you)?

Discussion Questions:
~Do you think the ability to communicate like George can would be a blessing or a curse? Would you be inclined to sell your services? Given the eagerness of all the fakes to do so and George’s reluctance, does “monetizing” spiritual services seem like a good indicator of falsehood? Why does George’s brother have such a hard time understanding his reluctance to profit on it? What does the Bible say about selling God or His blessings?
~George resists the tendency to be defined by his gift. Do you think he’s right for this? How do our gifts relate to our identities?
~Why does George not want to bless others through his ability? Are his reasons decent? If someone had this ability, would it be wrong to keep it from helping people ? If his ability made it impossible to have a romantic relationship, would you say his life was ruined or fulfilled by giving himself to others?
~One of the great appealing aspects of George is his reluctance. What can we learn about this with regards to our own evangelistic approaches?
~The former atheist researcher implies that challenging the secular humanism of our modern world will be costly. Do you think this is true?
~What does the Bible say about communicating with the dead? Why do you think God made it to work that way?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
The tsunami.
The boy being killed.
The date at George’s house. Why does he resist doing a reading for her? Are his concerns legitimate? Do you think knowing people too well too quickly is a barrier to intimacy or relationship? Is it the quickness or the asymmetry of it (she doesn’t also know him so well) that ruins things here?

Overall Grade: C-
A heavy-handed and mostly uninspired presentation of universalism and the ability to connect with dead people.

Unstoppable (2010)

2011-03-25T19:12:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for sequences of action and peril, and some language.
Length: 98 minutes
Grade: BBBD=B-
Budget: $100 million
Box Office: $190 million (82 U.S., 86 Intl., 22 DVD)

Written by: Mark Bomback (Race to Witch Mountain, Deception, Live Free or Die Hard, Godsend, The Night Caller)
Directed by: Tony Scott (Taking of Pelham 123, Déjà vu, Domino, Man on Fire, Spy Game, Enemy of the State, The Fan, Crimson Tide, True Romance, The Last Boy Scout, Days of Thunder, Beverly Hills Cop 2, and Top Gun.)
Starring: Denzel Washington and Chris Pine
With: Rosario Dawson and Kevin Dunn

Summary:

While training a rookie, a veteran train engineer is in a unique position to try to stop an unmanned runaway train at great personal risk to avert a much greater tragedy in an urban area.

Comments:

This looks and feels like a Tony Scott film. It’s far more engaging than I anticipated, and the story is pretty good. Denzel and Chris Pine both do fine. There isn’t a lot to say about the film other than that the end lesson is that ordinary people area capable of great heroism precisely because they know that it’s the right thing to do. The film follows the basic outline of a real event from 2001, although it was predictably exaggerated to make it bigger than life as a Tony Scott film always will. If this was some sort of apology film for Pelham 123 which both Scott and Washington made, well, apology accepted. Now don’t ever do that again.

Morning Glory (2010)

2011-03-25T16:34:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG-13 for some sexual content including dialogue, language and brief drug references.
Length: 107 min
Grade: B-C+AC=B
Budget: $40 million
Box Office: $59 million (31 U.S., 21 Intl., 7 DVD)

Written by: Aline Brosh McKenna (27 Dresses, The Devil Wears Prada, Laws of Attraction, and Three to Tango)
Directed by: Roger Michell (Changing Lanes, Notting Hill)
Starring: Rachel McAdams
With: Harrison Ford, Diane Keaton, Jeff Goldblum, and Patrick Wilson.

Summary:

A passionate television producer is tasked with fixing the worst-rated network morning show, which leads her to coerce a cranky veteran newsman into anchoring the show against his will.

Entertainment Value: B-

This is mostly any ordinary comedy romance in terms of script quality and humor, perhaps a slight nudge better than most. They overuse music scenes, and they have too much profanity (which was unnecessary). But it’s cute enough and the messages are very good. Also, Rachel McAdams is an excellent casting choice, and Harrison Ford doesn’t disappoint as the crotchety and pompous career newsman.

Superficial Content: C+
Drugs/Alcohol B+, Sex/Nudity C+, Violence A-, Language C+
There are some mild references to drugs as comedy. A few scenes play on physical comedy by treating an on-location reporter badly (making him ride a roller-coaster or jump out of a plane, for instance). There are a couple of semi-sexual scenes, but no nudity and some off-color remarks, such as about “hookers.” Profanity is not heavy, but just surprising since it didn’t seem at all necessary and sort of garishly out of step with the overall tone of the movie, which could easily have been PG without it.

Significant Content: A

Here is where this movie really shines. It is essentially a movie about redemption. The main character dreams all of her life about being able to work with the very best show in the world: Good Morning America. But, taking what’s available, she naively tries to save (!) a collapsing show with ratings so bad that the network intends to scrap it entirely. In the process, she manages to make it start clicking so well that GMA actually offers her a position. But in the supreme demonstration of loyalty and the joy of a reclamation project gone right, she decides to stick with the family she’s created through optimism, brilliant decisions, and extremely hard work. So the lesson here is that it’s much, much, much more satisfying to pick a loser and fix it rather than to just attach yourself to an already successful thing. Where’s the glory in joining what someone else has already made good? Regardless of the total lack of religious references, that’s a tremendous Gospel metaphor! There are also some themes about pride and devotion (in a bad way) to just one thing.

Artistic/Thought Value: C

Despite the great themes, I think the mediocre packaging and too-fluffy-ness of it all probably will keep most people from noticing the great message coming across.

Discussion Questions:
~Is it better to fix something that’s already broken or to just join something that already works well? Why do we root for underdogs (like Arizona or Butler) so heavily against favorites (like Duke and Pitt)? How would you preach the Gospel from this movie?
~What is this movie saying about media and the news? What is it saying about American culture? Does it hold normal news anchors up as real role models or is it trying to say they’re all really self-important jerks? Why did so many actual news people want to participate in this movie?
~Do you think Patrick Wilson is really just Matthew McConaughey in slacks instead of cargo shorts?
~Pomeroy resists becoming part of the show at every step. Why? Is he right for feeling contempt for this job? What does the Bible say our attitude should be toward doing anything we are given? Is there any failure by Becky to find a real way to use his actual talents?
~Compare the ways in which Adam’s interest in Becky parallels her own interest in the IBS show. Is she only dating this show until she can upgrade to a better model? What does he know about the “beautiful” women that makes him want someone like her? How does this subplot work to reinforce the major theme of the movie? Consider that she must rescue and reform the show whereas it’s not obvious that he needs to rescue and reform her. Why does she run away from him at first?

~To what degree would you describe Becky as worshipping an idol of career success or the news? Is her fanaticism unhealthy? Does this movie seem to be saying that if you’re really devoted enough, you can make it at last? Is that a healthy message? What would have become of her if things hadn’t worked out?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The IBS interview.

~Meeting Pomeroy in the elevator.
~Confronting Pomeroy while hunting.
~Pomeroy showing up on set.
~At the GMA interview.
~Getting the mayor.

Overall Grade: B

It’s definitely neither the funniest nor the most engaging PG-13 movie in the world. Nevertheless, there is a very useful message here worth knowing for illustration purposes.

Waiting for Superman (2010)

2011-03-18T17:41:00.000-07:00

Rated: PG for some thematic material, mild language and incidental smoking.
Length: 111 minutes
Grade: CABB=B
Budget: Unknown, but small, perhaps %500,000
Box Office: $6 million

Written and Directed by: Davis Guggenheim (Gracie, An Inconvenient Truth, Gossip, and a smattering of TV)
Also written by: Billy Kimball (Some TV)
Starring: The students and families of several failing schools.

Summary:

This documentary from the man who made An Inconvenient Truth is an expose of the brutal realities facing inner city minority children because of their broken schools and what might be done to make things better.

Entertainment Value: C

This was nowhere near as compelling or entertaining as I had anticipated it being. I’m a fanatic about education and educational issues, and I found it a bit soft on meaningful content. I think the problem is that it tried to tell these stories and grab you that way, but it doesn’t really tell enough of them to really captivate. And at the same time, especially the second half, I found myself bored by it all. That being said, it’s still worth seeing, but I just don’t want you to be expecting this amazing thing, such as The Corporation, when it’s really just sort of okay. I will say this, despite a fairly mediocre first 100 minutes, the final sequence with the lottery is moving to the point of tears. Seriously. I cried continuously for 4-5 minutes during that portion just watching the horror of it all.

Superficial Content: A
Drugs/Alcohol A-, Sex/Nudity A, Violence A-, Language B+
There is one character whose father is said to have used drugs and died. Some extremely mild profanity. Although this is PG, I simply can’t imagine any child old enough to want to watch this who shouldn’t be allowed to.

Significant Content: B

This is a difficult one to assign. On the one hand, you see some extremely devoted people trying to do the very best they can for their students or their own children. And clearly the system of teacher’s unions, incompetent teachers, and overall educational bureaucracy is the villain. But on the other hand, it’s not so obvious what the solution would be, other than some radical dismantling of the current behemoth that is education in America. The whole point of the movie is that parents desperately want better for their kids but there just aren’t enough slots available in alternatives to the public school failure factories they live near. That’s why they wind up enduring these unimaginably barbaric admission lotteries to find out whether their kids will have promising futures or not.

Artistic/Thought Value: B

The movie doesn’t really seem to have a particular agenda other than reframing the discussion in terms of what’s best for the kids rather than what’s best for the system or the adults in that system. I can imagine highly invested union teachers finding this statement by me ridiculous. But most criticism of unions is pretty fair and understated, if anything.

Discussion Questions:
~One complaint regularly heard about the inability of poor and minority schools to function properly is that they have the worst sort of kids from the worst sort of families to deal with. But the movie claims that the community is at least as much a result of the schools failing as a cause of it. What do you think of the idea that the schools have failed their communities rather than that the communities are failing their schools?
~Clearly, unions are a primary target of this movie. Do you think it makes a serious case against them? How might things be changed, especially given their tremendous political influence?
~Where did the concept of tenure come from originally? Does the concept make sense at the K-12 level? Consider some of the differences between the difficulty of obtaining it in a university and the ease of obtaining it in K-12 education.
~One idea about low income parents is that they don’t really care about education. How does this movie reveal the truth of the matter?
~What do you think this movie is advocating should be done to fix education in America? What would you do if you were able? Are there any major issues or sources of the problem you think this movie has neglected to consider?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The lemon dance and the NYC holding pattern.
~The end lottery scene. What is so upsetting about this? Why do some people rejoice? What does even their celebration mean for the non-winners? Considering the lengths parents go to in trying to have just a chance to be in these lotteries, what does that say about the parents and the schools?

Overall Grade: B

It may be because I already know too much about this issue to find any of this surprising or revealing. Nevertheless, the information does need to be more widely disseminated, and there is really no substitute for watching the lottery scene and pondering the implications.

Town, The (2010)

2011-03-11T16:52:00.000-08:00

Rated: R for strong violence, pervasive language, some sexuality and drug use.; Extended cut Rated R for strong violence, pervasive language, sexuality, nudity and drug use.
Length: 125 min, extended cut 150 min
Grade: B+FFC=B
Budget: $37 million
Box Office: $173 million (92 U.S., 53 Intl., 28 DVD)

Written by: Peter Craig (First script), Ben Affleck (Gone Baby Gone and Good Will Hunting), and Aaron Stockard (Gone Baby Gone), based on the novel by Chuck Hogan
Directed by: Ben Affleck (Gone Baby Gone)
Starring: Ben Affleck
With: Rebecca Hall, Jeremy Renner, Blake Lively, Jon Hamm, Chris Cooper, and Pete Postlethwaite

Summary:

Charlestown is the roughest neighborhood in Boston and a breeding ground for criminals, especially bank robbers. A failed hockey player turned crew leader tries to escape that life and discovers it’s much harder than it sounds.

Entertainment Value: B+

Once you get used to the nearly incomprehensible gibberish people call a Boston accent, this is really good. Jeremy Renner (Hurt Locker) is again fantastic, and everyone else is at least very good. The plot is full of chilling scenes and fascinating plot development. The crux of it all is the tension you feel between wanting the protagonist to win (because he’s the protagonist) and yet wanting him to fail because he’s a criminal.

Superficial Content: F
Drugs/Alcohol D+, Sex/Nudity D+, Violence F, Language F
Look, it’s R for every reason you can name, except there isn’t a ton of sexuality/nudity. But people are killed, beaten, every form of profanity is used a ton, and characters talk about using drugs and drink heavily. As if that weren’t enough, bank robbers are the heroes.

Significant Content: F

Here’s what’s so terrible about this movie in the end. You never wind up really wanting justice because the “good guys” are the bank robbers and the cops are presented (at best) as neutral opponents trying to thwart them. The criminals are clever, they have honor and a code, and especially Doug is someone you somehow want to see succeed. Cops and decent people are killed or injured a lot, but the only people we are told to care about are the criminals. There’s just no portrayal of redemption or decency as virtues in here.

Artistic/Thought Value: C

Certainly as a portrayal of life in the bad part of Boston, this is quite good. Also, precisely because of the turmoil it generates in you as a viewer, there’s enough to discuss here. However, I’m suddenly quite troubled by the fact that Hollywood thinks “gritty” is inherently good. Near as I can tell, “gritty” means “ugly, uncomfortable, and disturbing.” It seems like “uplifting” and “edifying” would be inherently bad to them, but I know sometimes they surprise me.

Discussion Questions:
~When James says that it’s ridiculous how some guys in prison pretend they want to get out, what is he getting at? Why would someone prefer prison?
~Would you describe Doug’s crew as having a code of ethics? What about the criminals in Charlestown? Is it a code that makes sense?
~Given all the precautions the crew takes to not get caught, why do you think they have tattoos at all? Imagining that they chose to have them anyway, what does that say about them and their values?
~Who in this movie do you want to “win?” Why? What would winning entail? Do you think it’s evil for movies to be made that encourage the audience to admire criminals and hope they succeed? Can a movie be “good” without advocating goodness in any discernible way? If God were watching real people like this, what would He want for them as a loving Father?

~Why are movies like this always built around main characters who are relatively smart, dapper, and entertaining even though the real life versions of them are rarely anything but brutal monsters?
~What makes it hard for Doug to escape his life? To what degree do you blame him for this difficulty?
~A central feature of this movie is Doug’s relationship with Claire. What do you make of this? What do you make of the ending?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Claire telling Doug about the robbery prior to their first date.
~Their lunch in the café.
~Doug and his dad at the jail.
~The two of them having a discussion about whether she should tell the FBI.
~Confronting James about wanting to leave.
~Calling Claire’s apartment after Fenway.

Overall Grade: B

Judged on its face as a bank robbery story about hard life in Boston, this is very good. Just be careful what it does to your sense of law and justice.

Life As We Know It (2010)

2011-03-11T14:40:00.000-08:00

Rated: PG-13 for sexual material, language and some drug content.
Length: 114 minutes
Grade: BCBB=B
Budget: $38 million
Box Office: $110 million (53 U.S., 45 Intl., 12 DVD)

Written by: Ian Deitchman & Kristin Rusk Robinson (First major script for both)
Directed by: Greg Berlanti (Broken Hearts Club, mostly a TV writer/producer for No Ordinary Family, Eli Stone, Brothers & Sisters, and Everwood)
Starring: Josh Duhamel, Katherine Heigl, and Josh Lucas

Summary:

Two opposite personalities are thrust together when their best friends die in a car crash, leaving their daughter to be raised by her incompatible godparents.

Entertainment Value: B

It’s a slightly better-than-average comedy romance with a good soundtrack and funny enough to justify its existence and refraining (generally) from being anywhere near as vulgar as something Judd Apatow might write. However, the question of whether you ever actually get to the movie may be an issue since there’s like 15 minutes of ads on the DVD.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol C, Sex/Nudity C, Violence A-, Language C
Marijuana is used in brownies, and there’s some drinking with one scene of a woman being drunk. The man is known for being promiscuous, and there is one scene of prelude to sex and people in bed together afterward, but there’s no nudity at all. The violence of the car killing two parents is only hinted at. Language is semi-constant but mostly mild with occasionally heavier words. There’s no one thing that will stand out as offensive here, but PG-13 is definitely the right rating.

Significant Content: B

The normalcy of sexual promiscuity and pre-marital sex is completely taken for granted here, which is certainly a problem. But the bigger themes are actually pretty healthy, namely that two people who have a common object of love can eventually be brought together by that alone. Parenting requires massive and inconvenient sacrifices. Opposites both repel and attract. Teams are more powerful than just a set of individuals. Raising a child together is the essence of marriage. And getting help doesn’t mean you’ve failed, it just means you’re not in it alone.

Artistic/Thought Value: B

There are plenty of things to gain from this movie, and it falls into one of my favorite categories of movie: an entertaining comedy funny enough to get people to hear and consider its message.

Discussion Questions:
~After overhearing a fierce fight between Messer and Holly, Dr. Sam says, “If my wife and I had fought like that, we’d still be married.” How is fighting the key to a good marriage? What does the will to fight indicate? Who is more prone to bad fights, those who love or those who hate each other? If people in a marriage rarely fight, what does that mean?
~Messer tells Holly, “Having someone help you doesn’t mean you’ve failed. It means you’re not in it alone.” What do you think of this idea? Why are we prone to view receiving help as failure? Is this a healthy attitude? Is it Biblical? How does helping and being helped build community?
~“If you want to understand marriage, just imagine a prison…then don’t change anything.” Comment on this idea. Why is this funny, even if it isn’t all that true?
~“You’re not married? You’re raising a kid together, which is about as married as you can get.” What do you think of this? Is parenting the core of marriage? Why does our culture not think so? Which couple is more married in your opinion, the one having sex but not children or the one raising a child but not having sex?
~Social workers are often portrayed as stupid, incompetent, or harmful. What do you think of the portrayal of one in this movie?
~Why do Holly and Messer ultimately make a good team? Do you think the key to a strong team is similarity or complementarity?
~Why does parenting tend to bring people together and give them a reason to stay together? Why does it also tend to cause them conflict and make them want to split up?
~Is the point of marriage happiness or something else? What about parenting? How essential is personal sacrifice to both? What sacrifices do both Holly and Messer make in this movie? Does this movie remind you in any way of “The Gift of the Magi?”
~What message does our culture send about personal fulfillment and happiness? Could you say that both of them are living the current American dream before their friends die and eventually wind up living the real human dream afterward?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Having all sorts of parenting details dumped on them at the dinner party.
~Messer’s big chance and the cab driver.
~The big fight.
~The airport. What is this scene spoofing or poking fun at in other movies?

Overall Grade: B

Some pretty solid messages about all the right things wrapped in a fairly funny comedy with just enough vulgarity to irritate most religious people.

Megamind (2010)

2011-03-04T16:41:00.000-08:00

Rated: PG for action and some language.
Length: 95 minutes
Grade: B+B+AA=A-
Budget: $130 million
Box Office: $318 million (148 U.S., 170 Intl.)

Written by: Alan J. Schoolcraft & Brent Simons (First script)
Directed by: Tom McGrath (Madagascar 1+2)
Starring the voice of: Will Ferrell
With the voices of: Tina Fey, Jonah Hill, David Cross, Brad Pitt, Ben Stiller, and JK Simmons.

Summary:

When an evil genius actually succeeds in destroying the hero of Metro City, he must decide who he will be without a nemesis to define him.

Entertainment Value: B+

It’s solid. Not quite as funny as Despicable Me, and not quite as bad as a variety of other Dreamworks offerings have been. It’s entertaining enough, although I have to be honest, Will Ferrell sounded to me more like Robin Williams and Brad Pitt’s MetroMan should have been voiced by Patrick Warburton. Nevertheless, it’s a clever plot concept which violates the basic paradigm of comic book Manicheanism slightly, wherein the good guys normally win but both sides remain in play eternally. Also, the use of several excellent rock riffs (Welcome to the Jungle, Crazy Train, Back in Black, Bad to the Bone, A Little Less Conversation, and even Bad by Michael Jackson) certainly appealed to my classic rock sensibilities.

Superficial Content: B+
Drugs/Alcohol A-, Sex/Nudity A, Violence B, Language A-
Everything here is virtually squeaky and the only mild concern would be comic book violence including the death of a superhero and some menacing battles in the end. PG-5 I think. Our kids (6,4,2) had no problem with it. They even make a gag out of interrupting AC/DC’s famous song, “Highway to ---“ as a technical glitch, just so you know how much they were careful to keep it clean. One minor thing for those of you who care, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are listed (along with the Queen of England!) as fairy tales at one point.

Significant Content: A

The only way to discuss this is to spoil some of the plot, for which I apologize. But the broad strokes aren’t too hard to sniff out by the 30 minute mark. Basically, the love of a woman turn an evil genius into the better man/hero he always could have been if only that role hadn’t always been occupied by his popular and handsome boyhood enemy. The idea that evil could be redeemed into goodness is wonderful, and that being a hero can be such a burden that one might actually prefer to quit the profession. There’s also some very deep stuff about the inability of evil to exist or have an identity in the absence of goodness. Plus, evil can lay dormant in the form of a seemingly sweet person who has merely lacked the means to do to the world as he would have always preferred.

Artistic/Thought Value: A

As alluded to, the interesting premise/plot development here makes for plenty of things to talk about in contrast with the ordinary superhero and supervillain movie. In fact, on second watching I picked up a lot more on the variety of elements that were either violating or mocking that paradigm like the bad witty banter as definitive of the game, the slow pace of technology in the real world versus in movies booting up, and the Jimmy Olsen character being a villain-in-waiting. I’m actually pretty impressed with how thoroughly they tinkered with (while still homageing) the Superman comic paradigm.

Discussion Questions:
~Describe the process of how Megamind became a bad guy. Is there any aspect of it that he had control over? How might Megamind have turned out differently if he had landed in the wealthy home, had better parents, had good looks, or even been treated better at school? Why is it so important to consider formative environment whenever we evaluate other people. Why are people who enjoy advantageous circumstances so quick to discount the adverse effect of being raised in bad ones?
~If Metro Man had been a Christian, what might he have done to prevent Megamind from becoming a criminal? Is there any sense in your mind that the entire plot of this movie might have been a deliberate plan of his to redeem Megamind?
~Why is it so important to find productive ways to use people’s talents and give them both a place in society and something to lose by behaving antisocially?
~There has been a marked and disheartening shift in movies, TV, and comic books since my childhood from whimsical, sardonic heroes to somber, almost sinister ones. Do you see this progression represented in this movie by the subsequent rivalries? To what degree could you say that fighting evil used to seem fun but no longer is? Is this our culture’s way of dealing with the shift from national warfare to terrorism?
~If Megamind hadn’t employed a deceit, do you think he would have ever had a chance with Roxanne? Does that justify what he did? To what degree would you describe him as misunderstood, even by himself?
~Manicheanism is the philosophy that God and the Devil are eternal and equal combatants, but Christianity teaches that only God has essential reality and evil is defined only in relation to good without its own essence. How does this difference show up in this film? Why is Megamind so deeply dissatisfied with his victory?
~Tighten seems like a pretty good guy at first, but when he has power things change dramatically. How much of the apparent goodness of weak and socially marginalized people is just a ploy because they can’t take what they want? How does this relate to the idea that some people only do good things to coerce God to bless them even though their heart is really quite selfish? Consider that he goes from becoming a “loser” to being powerful and handsome and yet also a villain.
~What do you think of Metro Man’s choice? Was it negligent? In the end of the movie, who looks like the real hero? The Bible says, “To whom much is given, much is expected.” How does this relate?
~In a lot of movies, the bad guy looks funny, dresses funny, and talks funny. Why is it so important that Megamind has all these flaws but still turns out to become an extremely good person? What is this movie trying to say about our social norms and the way we treat people for their superficial defects?
~“Heroes aren’t born, they’re made.” What do you think of this idea? Why does Megamind think it takes the right sort of DNA for a hero? How does this believe interfere with him realizing who he can and should be?
~To what degree is this movie saying that society constructs villains and heroes as much as they make themselves. Are “hero” and “villain” socially constructed identities? Consider the influence of The Warden, the teacher, the kids, the crowds at Metro City, Roxanne Ritchie, and Metro Man himself.
~Why do you think it’s so common for similar movies to be released near each other? Is it corporate espionage, God providing a message through multiple vehicles, outrageously repetetive coincidence, or something else?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The ark of the covenant in the treasure trove.
~Megamind having his existential discussion with the dunking bird toy. What does it say about his own belief in himself and his plans that he seemed to have absolutely no idea what to do with Metro ~City once he actually controlled it?
~Tighten threatening to actually kill Megamind rather than just arrest him. Why is evil suddenly far less fun when your opponent doesn’t play by the good guy rules?

Overall Grade: A-

A very interesting and unusual paradigm-inverting superhero movie that’s entertaining enough for the kids and innovative and humorous enough for the adults. It’s not quite as entertaining as Despicable Me, but it makes up for this by presenting the progression and the themes a bit more richly.

RED (2010)

2011-03-04T16:36:00.000-08:00

Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of action violence and brief strong language.
Length: 111 minutes
Grade: ACCB=A
Budget: $58 million
Box Office: $208 million (90 U.S., 95 Intl., 23 DVD)

Written by: Jon Hoeber & Erich Hoeber (Whoiteout, Montana), based on the graphic novel by Warren Ellis & Cully Hamner
Directed by: Robert Schwentke (Time Traveler’s Wife and Flightplan)
Starring: Bruce Willis, Mary-Louise Parker, John Malkovich, John Malkovich, and Helen Mirren.
With: Rebecca Pidgeon, Karl Urban, Richard Dreyfus, Brian Cox, and Ernest Borgnine.

Summary:

A retired group of ultra-dangerous CIA assassins is forced to return to the action when someone seems bent on trying to kill everyone involved in a classified past operation.

Entertainment Value: A+

I don’t know for sure whether it was the recent experience of the awful Expendables and disappointments with Salt, Jonah Hex, Machete, and Wild Target, but I was ready for a really good action movie. This was that PLUS a tremendous variety of devices (fascinating characters, witty dialogue, postcards to show places, unusually cool camera angles, and the superb acting by especially Mary-Louise Parker) make this a really good time. And the plot, oh the plot, is phenomenal! Knight and Day is the closest recent offering, and where that was very good, this was outstanding.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity A, Violence C, Language C
The drugs are used to abduct someone and LSD is referenced. There’s no sex stuff at all other than one very oblique conversation. Language is PG-13 and violence is surely the other major concern, including lots and lots of gunplay, killings, and blood hand-to-hand combat.

Significant Content: C

There are good guys and there are bad guys, and the difference isn’t whether you kill people. It’s whether you fight for justice and truth and whether you’re capable of love and loyalty. And, of course, the bad guys and the good guys often aren’t what they originally seem. People who like excitement in fiction may not love the real thing, and those who know the real thing may crave the simple life (even if they find it unfulfilling by contrast).

Artistic/Thought Value: B

Not really a thinker, but certainly high marks for art value, especially shotmaking and bringing out the best the genre has to offer.

Discussion Questions:
~Why does Sarah enjoy reading pulp fiction spy novels? Why does she at first react so negatively to being caught up in one? What brings her around, and what does this say about such people? What does it say about us? Is it likely that people who like action movies and their vicarious thrills would actually enjoy being in such a situation?
~Several characters in this movie seem to miss the action, either secretly continuing to take jobs or just missing the old game. What do you think of this? Does it bother you to imagine that some people might really enjoy fighting epic international battles against each other?
~How has the change of international relations since the end of the cold war affected both movie villains and real life enemies?
~“They just don’t make spies like they used to.” Is it fair to also say they don’t make spy movies like they used to?
~In this movie, what things differentiate heroes from villains?
~Why is the theme of apparent villains being wrongly accused and trying to clear their names/reestablish justice so appealing? What does this theme’s appeal tell us about human nature and the universe?
~How might our love of the amazingly capable hero who rights all wrongs be a variation on our desire to see an omnipotent God come back and fix the universe? What’s the difference between destroying the enemy in action movies and redeeming them in the Bible?
~It bothers me tremendously when objectively great movies (like Red) do significantly worse at the box office than objectively awful movies (like Expendables). Does this bother you, and it is a healthy reaction?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Being John Malkovich
~The conversation in the Russian embassy.
~Frank with Cooper’s family.
~Taking on the Vice-President.

Overall Grade: A

Original. Unpredictable. Funny. Well-written and acted. A genuinely outstanding action, spy, assassin, conspiracy movie.

Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps (2010)

2011-03-04T15:59:00.000-08:00

Rated: PG-13 for brief strong language and thematic elements.
Length: 133 minutes
Grade: DC-DD=D
Budget: $70 million
Box Office: $145 million (52 U.S., 80 Intl., 13 DVD)

Written by: Allan Loeb (21) and Stephen Schiff (True Crime and Deep End of the Ocean), based on characters created by Stanley Weiser and Oliver Stone.
Directed by: Oliver Stone (W., World Trade Center, Any Given Sunday, Nixon, Natural Born Killers, JFK, The Doors, Born on the Fourth of July, Talk Radio, Wall Street, and Platoon.)
Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Michael Douglas, and Carey Mulligan
With: Josh Brolin, Frank Langella, and Eli Wallach.

Summary:

23 years after the events of the original (and classic) Wall Street, Gordon Gecko is out of prison and his daughter is engaged to an idealistic broker caught up in the middle of the 2008 banking industry collapse, trying to do right, make money, and maybe get some revenge on his own enemy with Gecko’s help.

Entertainment Value: D

This was profoundly disappointing, and it’s actually sort of pathetic in my mind. Oliver Stone made a masterpiece with his original, but he really hasn’t done anything worthwhile other than World Trade Center since the early 90s. And now, in the wake of the economic meltdown, he just couldn’t resist the urge to wade into the old plotline and update it by saying SOMETHING about the current situation. But that something is highly contrived, poorly written, badly acted, and difficult to follow. All this despite the presence of acting powerhouses Josh Brolin, Frank Langella, and of course Michael Douglas. Perhaps the very worst part of it was the weird and inexplicable cameo by Charlie Sheen in which he seems much more like Charlie Sheen than Bud Fox. And maybe I’m the only one, but I found the “twisty” plot to be pretty predictable, at least the parts I wasn’t having trouble following.

Superficial Content: C-
Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity B, Violence B, Language D+
This is right on the edge of PG-13 from language alone, but beyond that there isn’t too much else to worry you here. There is a subway suicide, some implied sexuality, and semi-regular drinking and cigar smoking. I’d say R-15, but the good news is younger kids won’t likely have any interest in it anyhow.

Significant Content: D

Despite the hefty themes of money and how it can change you and the importance of family over money, the most successful people in this movie generally represent immorality and selfishness. Also, it seems to endorse revenge and blames the financial system meltdown on greedy jerks who forgot that they were supposed to be the stewards of the system rather than parasites upon it.

Artistic/Thought Value: D

Seriously, what in this movie wouldn’t you already perfectly expect Oliver Stone to say, and then have to listen to him say it throughout the movie? Even the very interesting speech by Gecko at the college lecture hall was just a rip-off from the famous scene from the original and not believable in any case. I think the most hilarious one was the head of the Federal Reserve Bank explaining about how the bailout is socialism, which he’s fought all of his life.

Discussion Questions:
~Does Gecko really change in the end? If you think he has, would you say that this shift is a form of redemption which validates everything that had been suffered to that point? What do you think it would take for the “captains of industry” in the real world to have a shift in social conscience?
~Gecko says it’s not about the money but about the game, implying that money is just a measuring device. What do you think of this idea? How does it explain Brolin’s character and his answer that the number he needs to walk away is, “More.” To what degree is either money or the significance of winning at the money game an idol in various people’s lives here?
~What is the right attitude to have toward money? What does the Bible say?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The conversation with Shia’s boss in the park.
~Gecko’s speech to the college.
~Entering Gecko’s apartment with the Tulip Bubble picture remaining.
~The final scene with Gecko and the kids.

Overall Grade: D

Hackneyed and poorly executed. A terrible sequel that was made mostly because Oliver Stone just couldn’t resist trying to dive back into the waters that produced the masterful original. Unfortunately, this movie hits its head on the shallow bottom of what was once a pretty deep well. Still, I couldn’t help enjoying the David Byrne reprise.

Easy A (2010)

2011-02-25T16:31:00.000-08:00

Rated: PG-13 for mature thematic elements involving teen sexuality, language and some drug material.
Length: 92 minutes
Grade: AC-BA=A
Budget: $8 million
Box Office: $90 million (58 U.S., 16 Intl., 16 DVD)

Written by: Bert V. Royal (Only movie)
Directed by: Will Gluck (Friends with Benefits, Fired Up!)
Starring: Emma Stone
With: Penn Badgley, Thomas Hayden Church, Amanda Bynes, Dan Byrd, Patricia Clarkson, Lisa Kudrow, Malcolm McDowell, and Stanley Tucci.

Summary:

A responsible high school girl discovers there is power and peril in lying about her own sexual exploits.

Entertainment Value: A

This is entertaining on every level. It’s hilarious (Emma Stone is one of my favorite young actresses) in the most sardonic of ways. It’s filled with fascinating plot twists and literary/cultural references. And it preaches by contrast both what genuine Christianity should look like and what imposter Christianity so often is.

Superficial Content: C-
Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity C-, Violence B+, Language C
Ironically, for a movie all about sex, there isn’t any actually in it, although there’s LOTS of sex talk, and one prominently gay character. Language is the other concern, which is certainly enough to justify the PG-13. You should know that the original version of the film had extensive profanity(many scenes were shot with both levels of dialogue), but the PG-13 version was the one ultimately released, thankfully. Yet another example of the usefulness of R-15, if only it existed.

Significant Content: B

First, the bad news. There are Christians in the movie, but they are the worst, most wicked kind of self-righteous judgmental Christians you can imagine. I really kept hoping that a decent Christian would show up because it could easily have been an intentional device to set the stage for the contrast, but one never did. So I have to knock it for that. On the other hand, the portrayal of Christians is so grotesque that there’s hardly a chance anyone thinks that’s what real Christianity looks like, and it’s highly useful to see the ugliness of this tragically common deviant form of religion which self-describes as Christianity. Rumors travel at the speed of texting among teens. People will believe salacious things over boring things any day. Community standards can be a powerful force for oppression and alienation, and the way to fight back against them is to embrace the outsider status they confer.

Artistic/Thought Value: A

As a work of art, this is brilliant. In fact, the writing here is incredibly strong (always the backbone of a great movie, a lesson I wish other filmmakers would really take to heart). It’s only Will Gluck’s second script, but based on the total hilarity of Fired Up! and this one, I’m eager to see what else he produces. What’s going to be painful for a lot of very misguided Christians is the skewering they receive throughout the movie, whether in the behavior of Amanda Bynes’s group or protesting the devil mascot or the treatment of people perceived to fail to live up to the groups moral standards. But the big key artistically to this movie is the way Olive decides to celebrate her false sexually liberated status through clothing and even the red A a la Hawthorne. She helps outcasts by taking shame upon herself for their reputation’s benefit in a plot that winds up screaming Christianity without even realizing it. That’s the real tragedy here. If someone could show this film’s creators the real Gospel, they’d be Christians, but all they know is the stupid, false versions of it they see all around them.

Discussion Questions:
~What is the meaning of the scarlet A in Hawthorne’s book? What is the meaning of it in this movie? Why does Olive wear it? Why might someone who is actually morally pure choose to allow her reputation to be so sullied? In what ways is this behavior reminiscent of Jesus’s?
~Describe some of the sacrifices Olive tries to make for other people. Are any of them misguided? Do the people who use her in this way really care about her or only about what they can get from using her? How is this reminiscent of the way people treat God and God’s favors? Does Olive genuinely care about her customers?
~How much would Olive’s character have been different if she had actually been a Christian? Considering her as a good example of genuine Christianity, describe some of the contrasts between her and Marianne’s clique.
~In the Bible, Jesus almost always seeks out and cherishes the outcasts while having the most scathing critiques for religious leaders who have no love of God or man at all. In what ways do you see this dynamic played out here? What similarities exist between the Pharisees and Marianne’s clique?
~Describe the parenting style of Olive’s parents. What are the virtues of it? Are there any real defects in it? What are the key aspects of a healthy parent-child relationship for a near-adult like Olive? If their parenting style bothers you, would it change your opinion at all that someone like me thinks they were a truly beautiful example of an extremely healthy family?
~If social status is a worldly commodity, what should a Christian’s attitude toward it be? What happens in an enclosed community (like high school) when everyone is scrambling greedily to acquire as much as it as possible?
~Would you ever be willing to let “virtuous” people believe that you had done something awful (that you hadn’t) if it offered you access to or common ground with socially marginalized people? What did Jesus do in this regard? How is the appearance of virtue (especially if deserved) such a dangerous form of idolatry?
~Why does the personal slur against the other girl work so well? Do you think this word choice was inappropriate or inaccurate? Are insults ever right? Did Jesus ever insult anyone?
~How should a Christian high school be different from a secular one? How should Christians in a secular high school be different from their secular peers? If personal holiness means not indulging in anything offensive to God, can it be said that relational holiness means precisely befriending people who are personally unholy?
~“Only the truly competent feel secure enough to allow others to think they are incompetent.” What do you think of this idea, not explicitly in the movie, but implied by several characters?
~How many ‘80s movie references can you note in this film?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The first staged sexual encounter.
~Olive’s parents jesting with her and her brother.
~Marianne’s clique portrayals.

Overall Grade: A

This is exactly the sort of movie I dislike writing a review about, only because it makes me really want to go back and watch it two or three more times. Fantastic, illustrative, and entertaining. I could preach from this movie for weeks.

Dinner for Schmucks (2010)

2011-02-11T18:48:00.000-08:00

Rated: PG-13 for sequences of crude and sexual content, some partial nudity and language.
Length: 114 minutes
Grade: FCBF=F+
Budget: $69 million
Box Office: $97 million (73 U.S., 13 Intl., 11 DVD)

Written by: David Guion & Michael Handelman (The Ex), based on the French film by Francis Veber.
Directed by: Jay Roach (Meet the Parents series and the Austin Powers series. )
Starring: Steve Carell and Paul Rudd
With: Zach Galifianakis, Stephanie Szostak, Ron Livnigston, and Bruce Greenwood.

Summary:

An aspiring financial manager needs to find an odd person to bring to his boss’s annual dinner for losers.

Entertainment Value: F

The problems here were three-fold. First, it’s not funny. That’s the main problem. Second, they don’t actually get to the dinner until ¾ of the way through the movie, and that part was somewhat funny, although my wife theorized that by that point in the movie we were so starved for humor that anything even close to funny would have gotten us to laugh. Third, Paul Rudd, one of the funniest actors around, was written into a script with no jokes for him at all.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity C-, Violence C, Language C-
Mostly everything here to object about is sexual discussion, some sexual scenes for humor, and language. Definitely PG-13.

Significant Content: B

The irritating thing about this movie is that in spite of its unfunniness, it is at least trying to sell a decent message, even if that message is obvious from the beginning. People (even obnoxious, stupid, ridiculous people) are still people and deserve to be treated with dignity. The most beautiful person outside (money, power, intelligence, social savvy) is a monster if he doesn’t treat the people with the ugliest outsides decently. Loyalty, kindness, honor, and honesty are the premiere virtues. You’ve heard of a good movie ruined by a terrible ending? This is a good ending ruined by a terrible movie.

Artistic/Thought Value: F

Pass

.
Overall Grade: F+

If ever there was a movie with dinner in its title and yet less about a dinner than this, I’ve never heard of it. Oh, and in case I wasn’t lucidly clear: not funny.

Grown-Ups (2010)

2011-02-11T18:40:00.000-08:00

Rated: PG-13 for crude material including suggestive references, language and some male rear nudity.
Length: 102 minutes
Grade: B-CBD=B-
Budget: $80 million
Box Office: $312 million (162 U.S., 109 Intl., 41 DVD)

Written by: Adam Sandler (You Don’t Mess with the Zohan, Little Nicky, Big Daddy, Waterboy, Happy Gilmore, and Billy Madison) and Fred Wolf (Strange Wilderness, Without a Paddle, Joe Dirt, Dirty Work, and Black Sheep)
Directed by: Dennis Dugan (You Don’t Mess with the Zohan, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, Benchwarmers, National Security, Saving Silverman, Big Daddy, and Happy Gilmore)
Starring: Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade, and Rob Schneider
With: Salma Hayek, Maria Bello, and Maya Rudolph.

Summary:

Five former best friend basketball teammates reconnect and rediscover their roots when their championship coach dies.

Entertainment Value: B-

Despite the vulgarity (something which I mention only because it bothers a lot of you), this was pretty funny. Adam Sandler has taken to making comedies with a point, and this certainly has that. But, and this is always the key, it has to be funny before it can earn my interest in its message. And in this case (unlike Dinner for Schmucks, for example), it certainly is. Yes, most of the dialogue is a bit fake, like five comedians writing a script in which five comedians try to have clever dialogue. But despite the stilted feel of it all, it’s still funny enough. The gags (mostly) work, and the lines are (mostly) funny.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol C, Sex/Nudity C, Violence B, Language C
This is definitely PG-13, with plenty of deviant sexual references, PG-13 language, and comic violence (like people getting shot in the feet with arrows). If there were a PG-15 rating, this would probably be PG-15 just for overall crudeness.

Significant Content: B

I don’t know whether Adam Sandler was going for something self-revelatory here or just useful, but the dominant message here is that driven people turning their children into techno-brats can save their family by returning to nature and/or the pace of life of the past. Video games and texting nannies may be today, but Chutes & Ladders and rope swings are what make life great. I did, however, love the kind little twist on the ending of giving the resentful losers from long ago something to feel proud of as an act of kindness.

Artistic/Thought Value: D

Somehow, having five talented comedians do a movie like this should have come out feeling less awkward. Also, there just isn’t much here to think about after it’s all over unless you’re a mega-rich success and your kids are becoming brats.

Overall Grade: B-

Entertaining enough, but not fantastic by any measure.

Expendables, The (2010)

2011-02-11T18:31:00.000-08:00

Rated: R for strong action and bloody violence throughout, and for some language.
Length: 103 minutes
Grade: DD-DD=D-
Budget: $80 million
Box Office: $315 million (103 U.S., 171 Intl., 41 DVD)

Written by: David Callaham (First major script) and Sylvester Stallone (Rambo series, Rocky series, Driven, Cliffhanger, Cobra, Over the Top, and Staying Alive)
Directed by: Sylvester Stallone (Rambo, and the Rocky movies)
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, and Eric Roberts
With: Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Steve Austin, Terry Crewes, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Giselle Itie.

Summary: A group of very old mercenaries decide to go back to an island dictatorship to help liberate it from the grips of a rogue CIA agent and a brutal dictator. Plus they might save the pretty girl.

Comments:

There’s really good cheese, there’s good cheese, there’s cheesy cheese, and there’s bad cheese. This is really bad cheesy cheese. The problem was, well, that’s not quite the right way to approach this. Saying there was a problem would be to imply there was some basic good starting background goodness to all this. There wasn’t. A movie chock-full of washed-up, greasy, sinewy old action stars has the chance to really be entertaining, especially if they would lean in the direction of their best terrible puns and joke lines. They don’t. If somehow they could poke fun at their own genre, that could work. They don’t. If instead they write an impossible action mash-up strung on the weakest possible plots, it’s just plain really bad cheesy cheese. Everything was there to do a dark satire, the corrupt general, the schemey CIA operative and his number-one thug, the vulnerable but tough crusader princess, and the reluctant warrior who draws his friends into his mess by their loyalty. But deadpan dry humor is just plain bad content if the author performer never winks sardonically at the camera. No winks here, just one mindless scene after another. Too bad. I was hopeful for this one.

Overall Grade: D-

Really bad cheesy cheese. If I ever have to see another oily, veiny, leather-skinned former action star, it’ll be too soon. My biggest frustration? The Expendables II (2012).

Lottery Ticket, The (2010)

2011-02-11T16:26:00.000-08:00

Rated: PG-13 for sexual content, language including a drug reference, some violence and brief underage drinking.
Length: 99 minutes
Grade: CC-BC-=C
Budget: $17 million
Box Office: $34 million (25 U.S., 9 DVD)

Written by: Abdul Williams and Erik White (First Script for both).
Directed by: Erik White (A couple of music videos)
Starring: Bow Wow, Brandon T. Jackson, and Naturi Naughton
With: Loretta Devine, Ice Cube, Keith David, Terry Crews, Mike Epps, Charles Q. Murphy, and Bill Bellamy.

Summary:

When a hard-working resident of the projects wins the mega-lottery but can’t collect his winnings until after the holiday weekend, all sorts of dangerous and conniving people come after him and his money.

Entertainment Value: C

I was really looking forward to seeing this movie because I thought the premise was so good and at least some of the actors would help it stay on the rails. In the end, it wound up being so-so mostly because that’s where movies always start for me. They have to earn a different grade, and this didn’t.

Superficial Content: C-
Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity C, Violence C, Language D+
There’s several semi-sexual scenes, occasional alcohol consumption, and several fights, bullying, and even gun threats. Aside from all this, language is really heavy. I’d go PG-15, which seems to be the new norm for PG-13, unless it’s just me developing quaint sensibilities, which I doubt.

Significant Content: B

When you’re broke, you know who your real friends are. When you’re rich (or sexy or powerful), you don’t. Most people who escape the projects do nothing to help their community, but they should. The right girl is your best friend, not the one with the best booty. Playing the lottery is just a trick to keep people bad at math from getting ahead. (Seriously, that’s a paraphrased line from the movie.) Unfortunately, the guy who says it wins the lottery. So, something of a mixed message, you might say.

Artistic/Thought Value: C

This one’s a bit hard for me to grade as a middle-class white guy. I found the portrayal of the projects to be so chock full of clichés that it bothered me, but I don’t know whether that’s self-imposed racial political correctness or just genuinely weak writing. Seriously, the whole cast is a never-ending stream of stereotypes. It left me either feeling really bad about all the silliness these folks have to endure (especially the “preacher) or else feeling bad that the makers of this movie thought so little of their audience that they could pass off these stereotypes as entertainment so easily. But maybe that’s just a good pretext for the message. Like I said, since all I know of the ghetto is what I see on television, who am I to tell?

Overall Grade: C

Semi-funny, semi-intriguing, and mostly yet another in a long line of mediocre films primarily targeted to the black community. I wonder sometimes whether blacks in America get as tired of bad “black” movies as Christians do about bad Christian films.

Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole (2010)

2011-02-04T16:41:00.000-08:00

Rated: PG for some sequences of scary action.
Length: 97 minutes
Grade: B-BB+B=B
Budget: $80 million
Box Office: $152 million (56 U.S., 84 Intl., 12 DVD)

Written by: John Orloff (A Mighty Heart, Band of Brothers) and Emil Stern (Tenderness, The Life Before Her Eyes), based on the novels of Kathryn Lasky.
Directed by: Zack Snyder (Watchmen, 30, Dawn of the Dead)
Starring the voices of: Jim Sturgess, Ryan Kwanten, and Emilie Barclay
With the voices of: Helen Mirren, Sam Neill, Geoffrey Rush, Hugo Weaving, Anthony LaPaglia, and David Wenham.

Summary:

When they are kidnapped by the totalitarian owl nation led by the evil Metalbeak, one young brother owl falls under the spell of the “pure ones” and stays to be a good wingsoldier while the other brother owl escapes to seek the rescuing help of the legendary owls of Ga’Hoole.

Entertainment Value: B-

My boys loved this and have been watching it as much as they can since we first saw it about a week ago. I thought the animation (of the feathers, in particular) was excellent, but I had a hard time following the plot since distinguishing the various birds wasn’t easy for me. The basic idea of the movie is in some ways largely derivative of Watership Down, the classic novel/movie by Richard Adams or perhaps Animal Farm by Orwell. But the one thing I was very surprised about was my initial and ongoing sense that this was by no means a fluffy little kids movie about cute owls. It deals with dark and sinister subject matter in a very unchildlike way (much like Watership Down). It’s still good, I just want you to know it isn’t what you may be expecting, and that might explain its unspectacular box office performance.

Superficial Content: B
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity A, Violence B, Language A
Some PG kids movies make me angry at the MPAA because they should really be G. This is not one of those movies. This is rightly PG, precisely because of the very serious subject matter of political oppression, betrayal, and violence. There were several creepy and/or concerning scenes, but nothing bad enough that we stopped the movie. But our boys watch a lot of movies that other parents would wait until their kids are older to expose them to. I’d say PG-8 for most people. Birds are abducted from their families, used in slave-like roles, subjugated with fear, brainwashed (moon-binked), and there is fighting and killing of humanized owls.

Significant Content: B+

As a presentation of totalitarianism (a la WW II Germany and the Hitler Youth) versus democracy, this is pretty good. However, I wasn’t quite sure whether younger kids would really pick up on the contrast being portrayed. They’ll know the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad, but that’s because of sinister behavior rather than political philosophy. We know Mufasa is good and Scar is evil, but is that because Scar is deformed and has a lisp while Mufasa is strong and handsome or is it because of the character of their notions of leadership? The good guys here do clearly care for the weak and love freedom, while the bad guys use the weak and live by strictly enforced obedience. Also, my favorite element was that a famous war hero gives a brief statement about the ingloriousness of warfare, even though it’s necessary, a refreshing (but all too brief) antidote to the legend-repeating frivolity of kids’ version of military victories. There’s also some early themes about the importance of stories and pursuing your dreams, but these are dropped by the second major scene and never heard again. And a recurring theme is the importance of following your gizzard (heart) even against what your head tells you.

Artistic/Thought Value: B

There’s plenty to think about and discuss here, plus the animation, as I mentioned, is very good. The use of slow-motion in the fights really helped both dramatize them and make them easier to follow. If there’s a flaw, it’s the derivative nature of the thing (there’s even a Rafiki-like bumbling prophet in this movie). Nevertheless, you can do much worse than create a newer Lion King and Watership Down (or even Transformers/Decepticons) for the next generation of kids to know.

Discussion Questions:
~When movie villains are shown as deformed or obviously mean, does this set up children to look for precisely the wrong markers when trying to decide whom they should trust or follow?
~When characters are leveraged into serving the evil owls, things always turn out worse for them than they were told. How is this a useful illustration of sin and serving Satan?
~In what ways, precisely, do the tree owls and the pure ones differ? Consider how they identify skills in new recruits, how much central planning they employ, and the ability to elect leaders. Are the tree owls better described as a democracy or as an aristocracy?
~What do you think of the Guardian Oath to mend the broken, make strong the weak, and vanquish evil?
~What cues are kids given in this movie that they should dislike the pure ones? Consider the Nazi imagery used in the speech by Metalbeak.
~What sort of tactics do the pure ones employ to keep their troops in line, other than fear? Why does this work so well on Kludd?
~Why is it that the pragmatic character in movies these days almost never turns out to be the good guy, while the dreamer almost always is?
~Is it always a good idea to “go with your gizzard?” How can we know when to trust our hearts and when to trust our minds? What does the Bible say about this?
~How does the story of Kludd and Soren compare with the story of Cain and Abel?
~Compare the way Jesus won over Satan with the way the good owls vanquish the pure ones in this movie?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Soren meeting his hero. What do you learn about military conflict and war legends from this encounter?
~Moon-binking the smaller owls, especially Eglantine.
~The final battle.

Overall Grade: B

This is a useful movie about political philosophies and justice for slightly older kids that deals honestly with some fairly sinister material. I wouldn’t have thought an owl movie could be so fierce and frightening. Then again, Watership Down was about furry little rabbits, wasn’t it? And don’t worry, you’ll get used to the Aussie accents about halfway through the movie.

Predators (2010)

2011-02-04T15:04:00.000-08:00

Rated: R for strong creature violence and gore, and pervasive language.
Length: 107 minutes.
Grade: AFAB=A
Budget: $40 million
Box Office: $147 million (52 U.S., 75 Intl., 20 DVD)

Written by: Alex Litvak and Michael Finch (First script), based on characters/concepts created by Jim and John Thomas.
Directed by: Nimrod Antal (Armored, Vacancy, and Hungarian titles), but the real name to know here is that Robert Rodriguez was the major producer.
Starring: Adrien Brody, Topher Grace, and Alice Braga
With: Walton Goggins, Oleg Taktarov, Laurence Fishburne, Danny Trejo, Louis Ozawa Changchien, and Mahershalalhashbaz Ali.

Summary:
Eight unusually talented strangers find themselves inexplicably stranded on a distant planet, which turns out to be a game preserve for alien predators.

Entertainment Value: A
Alright, here’s what you need to know about this movie. Predator was one of the great, cult-popular cheesy action movies of the 1980’s. People my age grew up watching Stallone and Schwarzenegger define the action movie genre, and Predators is a classic. Fun, innovative, clever, funny, and just plain fantastic. Then the horrible thing happened: sequels. Horrible, awful, disappointing sequels. Until a guy named Robert Rodriguez came along and helped produce Predators. And the best way I can describe this is as the only and proper Predators 2, following faithfully and entertainingly right in the bootprints of the original as if the rest of the junk just didn’t even exist. Great action, sardonic humor, and homage after homage to the original made this far, far more entertaining than I had expected or hoped for. And the clue that this would be the case comes right in the title: Predators, almost obviously paralleling the title of another brilliant (and the only brilliant) sequel to an original classic, Aliens. It’s exhausting and discouraging to have good movies turned into bad sequels, but when the once-in-awhile masterpiece fulfills the secret hopes of my inner 16-year-old, it makes me smile. I was a bit concerned about Adrien Brody sequeling Ahnold, but this turned out to be no issue at all.

Superficial Content: F
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity A, Violence F, Language F
This is definitely a hard R movie. There is abundant violence, carnage, and gore and way more than enough F-language to keep all young adults out of the theater. But at least it’s squeaky clean on sex and drugs. HOWEVER, the ads on the DVD are themselves quite R rated, with sexual elements in particular. So, if that’s an issue (like with a teen boy, just skip to the movie).

Significant Content: A
Here’s where this movie really surprised me. The themes about human nature here are fascinating, most notably the idea that the one fate worse than death is what you become in the process of doing whatever it takes to stay alive. People who engage in warlike endeavors do so because it’s highly thrilling and rewarding (see The Hurt Locker, e.g.). Real predators (alien or human) depend on the human qualities of honor, love, and loyalty to create weak spots for predation, but these things are exactly what make us not monsters like them. Even the people who kill are not all morally equal. Some have honor and principle, but others do not.

Artistic/Thought Value: B
For homage and style, mostly. I about fell of the couch when they started playing “Long Tall Sally!” And despite the carnage and likely primary appeal to teens and the inner teens of people like me, it’s nice to see some real substance here.

Discussion Questions:
~“There’s no hunting like hunting a man.” Why do you think this is so? How does this explain why people might re-enlist in the military or join other neo-military organizations and/or the police? Why are we reluctant to think of such endeavors as intrinsically interesting and even stimulating rather than as noble devotions to principle? Does the fact that a detective, say, enjoys his game of catching criminals make him any less a hero?
~“There’s a fate worse than death, what you become to stay alive.” Do you agree that self-preservation isn’t the most important thing? What’s the Christian perspective on this? What things would you be willing to die rather than do? ~What things would you be willing to die to protect? Which takes more courage: to die for something or to kill for something?
~Do values like love and loyalty make us weak and vulnerable to predators? Are they worth the risk? Why might someone say that the person who exploits others because of such traits is really betraying his own humanity (or the idea of being human) in addition to harming people? How does your answer hear relate to Lawrence Fishburne’s character?
~Who in this movie would you classify as a sociopath? Why or why not for anyone else? What tactics and biases do these characters use to their advantage?
~If sociopaths are only loyal to themselves, ordinary people are loyal to those they like or value, and decent people are loyal to strangers, to whom are Christians loyal?
~How many homages to the first Predator can you identify here? My own list is below the Overall Grade, if you’re interested.

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Discussing why they were all selected.
~The dilemma of whom to help/save.

Overall Grade: A
Surprisingly thoughtful, thoroughly satisfying sequel to the original Predator, as if (wish, wish) all the other junk had never been made at all.

Homages to Predator:
~Predators learning language and using it to spoof people.
~“I’m here. Do it,” goading of the Predator into a trap/away from someone else.
~Protected by mud.
~The gatling gun for Nikolia/Jesse the Body.
~They refer to the 1987 movie directly as a team that encountered something in the jungle.
~Billy/Henzo’s last stand.
~Long Tall Sally music from the inbound helicopter ride.
~The end credits style.
~Alan Silvestri’s score, slightly modernized.

A-Team, The (2010)

2011-01-21T16:17:00.000-08:00

Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence throughout, language and smoking.
Length: 117 minutes
Grade: ACCB=B+
Budget: $110 million
Box Office: $199 million (77 U.S., 100 Intl., 22 DVD)

Written by: Joe Carnahan (Smokin’ Aces 1+2, Pride and Glory), Brian Bloom (The actor who played Pike, no other writing credits) and Skip Woods (X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Hitman, and Swordfish), based on the series created by Frank Lupo and Stephen J. Cannell
Directed by: Joe Carnahan (Smokin’ Aces)
Starring: Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Quinton Jackson, and Sharlto Copley
With: Jessica Biel, Patrick Wilson, and Brian Bloom.

Summary:

The most elite team of commandos is sent on a covert mission in Bagdad at the end of the Iraq war, but then framed for the murder of their commander and the theft when it goes wrong. Desperately wanting to clear their names, they must escape from prison, find those responsible, and bring the truth to light, mostly by being clever and shooting people.

Entertainment Value: A

Oh, man, oh man! For a kid who grew up watching the A-Team, this was a real treat. Some recent remakes have been atrocious, and some have been acceptable. But a few of them (like Star Trek or Predators) have kept so well to the tradition and honored it that real fans can’t be anything but satisfied. This keeps the personalities of the original team so well-preserved that they even kept the same haircuts. The van, the same guns (in the initial scenes), the kitschy lines. Even the completely absurd action plot and crazy plans working. It’s all there, man. I enjoyed this from beginning to end. The only thing more I could hope for is a re-launch of the series with this mix or, failing that, a solid sequel.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity B, Violence C-, Language C
Hannibal smokes cigars, and there’s some alcohol. Several scenes imply sexuality, but it’s much tamer than anything even on TV these days. Language, however, wouldn’t pass on TV, and easily earns the PG-13. Violence is likely the big concern, with lots and lots of battle scenes and people being killed on or off-screen, but all usually in a bloodless PG-13 sort of way.

Significant Content: C

The craftier you are, the more powerful you are. Violence and force are good when used by the good guys and bad in the hands of bad guys. Having a name and keeping it clear is very important.

Artistic/Thought Value: B

The credit here isn’t primarily because of great philosophical insights or lengthy post-viewing discussions. It’s just for the fidelity of this remake to all the bits of the original, as I mentioned before. Liam Neeson had been my biggest concern going in, but he passed with flying colors for George Peppard’s Hannibal. Maybe just a tad on the serious side, but that’s true for all of them compared to the original.

Discussion Questions:
~BA struggles with the role and legitimacy of violence in his life. Would it be fair to say that he was addicted to violence before and that his Gandhi-inspired pacifism was an overreaction to that excess? What do you make of his conversation with Hannibal about this? Is he guilty of cowardice by rejecting violence? It’s far more difficult to do a thing properly than it is to simply abstain from the thing altogether. Is BA being a coward in not trying to use force responsibly?
~The original show was mostly about the team helping victims right wrongs in their life while (sort of, long term) working to clear their own name. This movie seems to be more about revenge or, at least, just personal vindication. Which seems more noble to you?
~In the original series, much effort was taken to avoid killing, but in this movie the characters seem willing, even eager, to kill the bad guys. What do you make of that shift?
~What is the Christian perspective on the use of violence? Would the Bible condone the semi-vigilante violence of the A-Team? If you allow someone else to be harmed by your refusal to use force in order to maintain your vision of personal purity, is that virtuous? Is it Christian?
~The main evolution from the 80s until now with action heroes has been a loss of cavalier wit and more of a seriousness. Which country is healthier in your opinion, the one that likes joviality about violence or the one that likes dark brooding about it?

~Do you think movies that remake things people grew up watching should be made to satisfy the now-adult tastes of those fans, or should they be made so that those adults can now enjoy sharing them with their own children?

Overall Grade: B+

Fans of the original series will love this. Roger Ebert, who hated the original, hated this. Go figure! The only real dings would be for language and actual killing, both of which the original series avoided because it was on TV.

Despicable Me (2010)

2011-01-20T14:14:00.000-08:00

Rated: PG for rude humor and mild action.
Length: 95 minutes
Grade: AA-AB=A
Budget: $69 million
Box Office: $648 million (252 U.S., 290 Intl., 106 DVD)

Written by: Ken Daurio & Cinco Paul (College Road Trip, Horton Hears a Who!, and The Santa Clause 2) and Sergio Pablos (First script, an animator for Tarzan, Treasure Planet, Hurcules, and Hunchback of Notre Dame)
Directed by: Pierre Coffin (First major film) and Chris Renaud (First major film, worked on Ice Ages, Horton Hears a Who!, and Robots)
Starring the voice of: Steve Carell
With the voices of: Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Julie Andrews, Will Arnett, Kristen Wiig, Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaier, and Elsie Fisher.

Summary:

Someone has stolen the pyramids, and the former world’s nastiest super-villain, Gru, is pretty peeved that it wasn’t him. So, in an effort to reclaim his name as worst bad-guy, he plans to steal the moon. But first he needs a super-top-secret shrink ray, funding from the bank of villainy (formerly Lehman Brothers), and the help of three little orphan girls whom he adopts as part of his plan.

Entertainment Value: A

First of all, I’m impressed this was made for only $69 million. that’s about half what such movies are budgeting these days. Second, I’m impressed that it was the result of two first-time directors. Third, I’m amazed that having Jason Segel, Russell Brand, and Kristen Wiig in a kids movie wasn’t an utter disaster, given the vulgarity of their live-action movies. This was everything I had hoped it might be and more. Not only is it funny, really funny, no seriously, really, really funny, but it’s a fun plot with interesting characters and some pretty decent substance under it all at the end. The critics all seem irritated that this emulates Pixar and Disney, but to me that’s just being smart. Really. It’s an 81% at Rotten Tomatoes, and if it had actually been a Pixar or Disney, I’m sure it would have been in the 90’s.

Superficial Content: A-
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity A, Violence B, Language A
All the violence here is so over-the-top silly and/or slapstick that I can’t see any issue with it. And this is coming from parents who still haven’t let our kids watch Tom and Jerry or Looney Toons. There is one moment where it seems like a little girl was killed after having climbed into an Iron Maiden (the torture device, not the metal band) and a red liquid comes out, but it quickly turns out to have been her juice box.

Significant Content: A

There’s only one theme here, and it’s wonderful. Love, affection, and approval can transform a monster into a good person, and this is precisely the domesticating on effect on unattached males of becoming a parent. Raised without approval, Gru becomes an arch-criminal vainly trying to fill the abyss of his missing mommy-approval, but when three little girls tenderly trust him, he reforms.

Artistic/Thought Value: B

It’s not a particularly complicated movie, but what it does, it does extremely well. Presenting a touching and needed message through a hilarious comedy with a wide variety of incisive social satire thrown in. Well done.

Discussion Questions:
~How many targets of ridicule can you spot in this movie? Start with the name of the bank for evil plots and the suburban setting of Gru’s home.
~On the one hand, Gru is a thieving villain of the worst sort. But on the other hand, when a little girl is cheated at a carnival game, his justice side takes over. Why is this dichotomy so believable? What does it show about the difference between caring for those you love an caring for strangers?
~Comparing Gru before the girls to Gru after, why such a transformation? How many men do you know who are changed by having children? Why are men, notoriously pride and status oriented before kids, so often willing to endure so much humiliation (strollers, baby-carriers, diapers, etc.) once they have their own children?
~Gru’s mother is emotionally restricted and un-nurturing. How does this shape him? Why do kids naturally crave the approval of their parents? Which is more dangerous to a child: withholding approval or giving it too easily? How does God give approval to us?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Gru remembering what it was like growing up with his mother.
~Reading the three little kittens book to the girls.
~At the carnival.

~The recital.

Overall Grade: A

Very satisfying and funny. A movie which lived up to everything it promised in the advertisements. I have at least one friend who names this as her new favorite movie.