True Grit (2010)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.