D.O.A. (2007)

Rated: PG-13 Grade: BCCD=B

Directed by: Corey Yuen, who has acted in or directed in about a thousand Asian movies, but his only other American work was directing The Transporter.

Starring: Jaime Pressly, Devon Aoki, Holly Valance, Sarah Carter, and Eric Roberts.

Okay, here’s what you need to know about this movie. It’s terrible. And very entertaining. PG-13 is just right, and for anyone who’s seen The Transporter a lot of this will seem familiar. It’s a martial-arts-Charlie’s-Angels-evil-plot-to-take-over-the-world extravaganza for 14 year old boys without any real nudity or violence. Think Mortal Kombat meets the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. I enjoyed it, but even I wouldn’t dare to call it good. But if I ever catch myself flipping through channels at 3AM, I wouldn’t be surprised to find myself watching it again on the USA network.

Guardian, The (2006)

Rated: PG-13 Grade: BC+BB=B

Directed by: Andrew Davis, who previously made Holes, Collateral Damage, A Perfect Murder, Chain Reaction, Steal Big Steal Little, The Fugitive, and a bunch of action flicks such as Under Siege, Above the Law, and Code of Silence.

Starring: Kevin Costner, Ashton Kutcher, Sela Ward, Melissa Sagemiller, John Heard, and Neal McDonough.

Summary: Ben Randall is an aging original tough guy, a rescue diver for the Coast Guard who has set every record there is, but had a horrible event place him out of commission for awhile. His superiors transfer him to become a trainer at the academy, where he runs into the overconfident Ashton Kutcher. There’s banter, romance, and some interesting dialogue.

Entertainment Value: B It’s good. But here’s the problem I had with it. I’ve seen An Officer and a Gentleman 3-4 times, and I’ve probably seen Top Gun in excess of 10 times. In other words, I’ve already seen this movie about a dozen times over a decade ago. It’s fine, but I kept feeling like it was so derivative of these two that I had trouble really enjoying it. The one thing this movie has going for it in the uniqueness category, however, is its emphasis on the teachers rather than only on the students as characters to study.

Superficial Content: C+ Drugs/Alcohol C, Sexuality B, Violence C, Language B, Illegality B. Bar celebrations which involve fights between the Coast Guard and the Navy including people getting knocked out violently. A couple of sexual scenes, although very little is actually shown. Some mild profanity. There are some scary scenes including dead bodies at the beginning and the end…just like the other two movies I mentioned. PG-13 is correct, although before there was PG-13, this would have just been PG.

Significant Content: B Don’t be selfish, be a servant. Real superstars aren’t the ones who have the abilities, but the ones who help others and subvert their individual desires to the needs of a group. Um…that’s it, I think. Oh yeah, and be careful that your exciting day job doesn’t ruin your marriage.

Artistic/Thought Value: B Davis knows how to direct action, and Costner knows how to act. The scenes in water are pretty clearly CGI, but it’s good CGI, so who cares?

Discussion Questions:

• What do you think of Randall’s methods for training his cadets? Should this program be trying to make anyone who is not a superstar drop or only those who are not very good?
  What is your perception of the service rendered by someone in the Coast Guard compared to the Marines, Army, Navy, or Air Force?
• How would you compare this movie to other military training movies such as Top Gun, An Officer and a Gentleman, Full Metal Jacket, GI Jane, or Heartbreak Ridge?
• “It ain’t boastin’ if you done did it.” What do you think of this statement? Should we brag about gifts God has given us? Should we deny that He gave them? How should we handle success and praise?
• Have you ever been motivated by guilt to do something to compensate for what you think you did wrong?

Overall Grade: B A movie about Coast Guard rescue divers? Cool. How many other movies have been made to glorify the Coast Guard compared with other branches of the Armed Forces?

Accepted (2007)

Rated: PG-13 Grade: BDDD=D+

Directed by: Steve Pink, who hasn’t directed much, but did write Grosse Point Blank and High Fidelity. If he had written this, it probably would have been much better.

Starring: Justin Long, Jonah Hill, Adam Hershman, Columbus Short, Maria Thayer, Lewis Black, Blake Lively, Mark Derwin, Anthony Heald, and Ann Cusack.

Summary: A disappointed high school senior discovers that he has failed to be accepted into any of the colleges he applied to. To avoid telling his parents, he and some friends create a fake college and then discover that they have inadvertently admitted hundreds of other outcast students.

Entertainment Value: B This is Revenge of the Nerds for the new Millenium, only without some of the vulgarity. It is PG-13, after all. It’s fairly clever, if contrived, and it certainly has some genuinely funny scenes. If you can swallow the preposterous premise and collateral plot issues, it’s a fun watch.

Superficial Content: D Drugs/Alcohol: C, Sexuality C, Violence C, Language C, Illegality C. This is a case where the whole is less than the sum of its parts. There are plenty of things to be bothered by here, but they’re all carefully crafted to be non-R material, even though there’s plenty of vulgarity. A couple of sexual scenes, plenty of women dressed suggestively, talk of masturbation, and a statue carved with outrageously large genitalia. There is profanity, and some violence, caused often by mind powers.

Significant Content: D There is just one theme here. Education is about learning what you want to learn, not about going through a ridiculously structured and boring classroom process. What starts as a semi-prank becomes almost embezzling and then becomes a cause for a kid who didn’t realize he was in search of one. Other minor elements include parental stupidity, anti-authoritarian rants by the “dean” of the fake school, and anti-fraternity plot. In two words: outcasts rule, and they’ll rule well if you’ll just let them be who they really are. Oh, yeah. And if you just lie to your parents really well, in the end they may wind up happy that you did.

Artistic/Thought Value: D Only in a movie. That’s the problem here. If you tried this in real life, it would certainly have a very different outcome. But, that being said, the idea that education should cultivate passion and enthusiasm is, of course, correct. And it’s the “of course” that irritates me here. I totally agree that people often have undiscovered talents that they could use to great advantage. Does that mean that a self-directed university would reveal and cultivate them? I doubt it. In the end, this is so bad as a message-movie that only the low-competence students of South Harmon would believe it anyhow.

Discussion Questions:

• The primary activity of college is reading, writing, and listening to lectures. To what degree is it fair to say that college today exists because people won’t use their library cards?
• This entire movie is based on deception, first of the parents and then of other students and their parents. What do you think would have happened if the main characters had told the truth from the start? If people won’t go along with your project when they know the truth, is it okay to deceive them because you really believe in what you’re doing?
• “Diversity” is a hot topic in educational circles. How does the process of selecting only the academically talented interfere with real diversity? Why is lower intelligence not considered a legitimate sort of diversity? Should it be?
• Have you ever seen a movie that portrayed high school or college realistically? Does this one? Why are movies about education so eager to exaggerate? What lesson can be drawn from this concerning movies about other subjects?
• Have you ever sought approval from people you later recognized weren’t worth seeking it from?

Overall Grade: D+ You can safely pass on it and never feel like you missed anything.

Alex Rider: Stormbreaker (2006)

Rated: PG Grade: CACD=C

This movie was directed by Geoffrey Sax, whose main prior work has been TV movies, which should really surprise no one who saw this. If you’ve seen Agent Cody Banks, you already know the plot. Bad guy, somewhere between Dr. Evil and a real villain, can only be stopped by a teenager who didn’t know his CIA agent uncle had been secretly training him for spy work. The movie is silly and ridiculous but fairly harmless. At least it’s clean, which is nice. But the real error here is they couldn’t decide whether to make a Bond movie for the youth or Austin Powers 8: The Teen Years. And their indecision shows, in spite of or perhaps because of some very unimpressive performances by really good actors like Mickey Rourke, Ewan MacGregor, and Bill Nighy. If you’d let them eat cotton candy, you might let them watch Alex Rider: Stormbreaker. But be sure to brush afterwards.

Disturbia (2007)

Rated: PG-13 Grade: A-CDB=B+

Directed by: D.J. Caruso, who has previously directed episodes of The Shield, Dark Angel, and Smallville as well as the movies Two for the Money and Salton Sea.

Starring: Shia LaBoeuf, Sarah Roemer, Carrie-Anne Moss, David Morse, and Aaron Yoo.

Summary: After suffering a shocking death of his father, Kale becomes a problem student who eventually is put on house arrest for punching a teacher. While there, he starts spying on his neighbors, developing a crush on the new neighbor girl and deep suspicions about another neighbor being a serial killer.

Entertainment Value: A- This was very entertaining. I wouldn’t call it great, but it definitely kept me guessing and made me want to keep watching. For whatever reason, I had thought the star was Elijah Wood rather than Shia Leboeuf. No matter. If you like mystery thrillers, this is a fairly good one.

Superficial Content: C Drugs/Alcohol: A, Sexuality C, Violence D, Language C, Illegality C. The premise of the movie is spying on neighbors, so that’s a bit creepy. There are a few sexual situations, and a teenage boy with binoculars will choose to look at what, do you think? His hot neighbor undressing and swimming. But it’s still PG-13, perhaps PG-15 only for scary stuff. And yes, there is some scary stuff, but not a ton of it, although there are some pretty creepy images. Also, some young neighbor kids leave a bag of flaming feces on the porch as a prank and later are shown in their rooms watching pirated porn films.

Significant Content: D This is a movie about someone misbehaving, getting caught for it, acting like a brat even afterwards, and then spying on his neighbors. In the end this gets him the girl he spies on and unintentionally resolves some questions he has about his other neighbor. So it’s hard to find praiseworthy behavior anywhere in this movie. The whole of suburbia is a cesspool of hypocrisy and subterfuge from bad marriages to adultery to potentially much worse. And cops are foolishly motivated by personal revenge.

Artistic/Thought Value: B Very clever. And David Morse, as always, is a genius as an actor. This movie does exactly what it’s supposed to do: it keeps you guessing and it keeps you tense pretty much the whole way through. One note, I had real trouble watching Carrie Anne-Moss of Trinity fame in the Matrix playing a suburban housemom.

Discussion Questions:

• Why does this movie have the title, Disturbia? What is the point of the movie concerning the suburbs?
• Are most neighborhoods really this dysfunctional, in your opinion? Why do we enjoy exaggerated portrayals of reality like this?
• Have you ever been suspicious of your neighbors? What did you do about it?
• Is it healthy for people to spy on their neighbors? Is it immoral? Are people entitled to their privacy, even if they don’t take special precautions like closing the blinds?
• When Kale punches his teacher, do you think he did anything wrong? Would it matter in your answer whether you think the teacher knew about his father’s death or not?
• Does this movie wind up endorsing or criticizing the concept of things like neighborhood watches?
• Generally speaking, should we be more or less trusting of our neighbors than we already are?
• How much leeway and forgiveness should be given to teens who suffer a tragic loss like Kale did with his father?

Overall Grade: B+ It’s not Hitchcock, but it’s not a bad effort, either.

Blades of Glory (2007)

Rated: PG-13 Grade: DDDF=D

Directed by: Josh Gordon and Will Speck, but does anybody really care?

Starring, well, including anyhow: Will Ferrell, Jon Heder, Will Arnett, Amy Poheler, Jenna Fischer, William Fichtner, Craig T. Nelson and a bunch of real life skaters like Mark Hamilton, Nancy Kerrigan, and Sasha Cohen.

Summary: Banned from singles competition for life, arch-rivals and sworn enemies Will Ferrell and John Heder decide to re-enter competition and seek the gold by becoming the first male-male pairs skaters.

Entertainment Value: D Will Ferrell has only ever been in one movie I liked, and it was his dramatic role that made him good: Stranger than Fiction. Although Elf was okay. Jon Heder is now guilty by association. Unfunny, vulgar, and stupid. So, in other words, it’s a Will Ferrell movie. The only reason it’s not an F was because they chose Flash Gordon by Queen for one sequence, and I just can’t totally pan any movie with “Flash…Ah-ahhh” in it.

Superficial Content: D Drugs/Alcohol D, Sexuality D, Violence C, Language D, Illegality C. It doesn’t have a lot of particular things to offend, but it has an overall “Ick” factor well beyond PG-13. The most egregious elements are Will Ferrell’s constant sexual references and situations. And there’s a continual undertone of incest between the pair who are the boys’ closest competitors. I easily give it a D for sheer crudeness. Crudity? Cruditivenessity? Whatever. You know what I mean. It’s a Will Ferrell movie.

Significant Content: D Lessons? What lessons? Break the rules. Do your own thing. If at first you don’t succeed, perhaps you just aren’t ruthless or ridiculous enough to be in ice skating?

Artistic/Thought Value: F Here’s the main thing I totally didn’t understand about this movie. Why did so many real-life skaters participate in making it? I was embarrassed for them much the same way I was embarrassed for John McCain that he chose to participate in Wedding Crashers. But even more so since it was a direct send-up of their beautiful sport, in which they participated. Like so many, wait, all, other Will Ferrell movies, I have the distinct impression that it was a decent premise which could have been made well…but wasn’t.

Discussion Questions:

• Why did so many skaters participate in this movie?
• Should Will Ferrell movies get an automatic R rating?

Overall Grade: D If you love Will Ferrell and Saturday Night Live and you don’t mind sitting through a 93 minute long SNL sketch that should have been about 4 minutes, you’ll like this. For the rest of us…no.

Wild Hogs (2007)

Rated: PG-13 Grade: FCDF=D-

Directed by: Walt Becker, whose previous work is Buying the Cow and Van Wilder, which should tell you all you need to know about Wild Hogs.

Starring (tragically): Tim Allen, John Travolta, Martin Lawrence, William H. Macy, Ray Liotta, Marisa Tomei, Stephen Tobolowsky, and my favorite actor on Scrubs, John C. McGinley.

Summary: Four middle-aged men who like to ride Harleys take a road trip to discover their wild side, which brings them into conflict with a real biker gang.

Entertainment Value: F How can a movie with John Travolta, William H. Macy and John C. McGinley be this bad? Easy. It also has Tim Allen and Martin Lawrence and was directed by, well you get the point. Incoherent. Illogical. Frustrating. And definitely unfunny. So why did we finish it? Because I held out the irrational hope that it might be something worthwhile. Truly irrational in retrospect. The first funny joke in this entire movie came in the end credits.

Superficial Content: C Drugs/Alcohol: C , Sexuality: C , Violence: C, Language D, Illegality D. Much mild profanity. Some alcohol and drug references. There is some fighting and threatening. Bikers threaten people, break stuff, and steal things. A bar gets blown up. John C. McGinley plays an aggressively homosexual highway patrolman. Bill Macy opens a website inadvertently with deviant sex on it. PG-13 is right, even though no one should have to watch the movie.

Significant Content: D It’s hard to find any significant content here, but probably the closest thing would be to stand up for what’s right, even if it means putting yourself at risk. Buried in the rubble of this plot is the message that honesty will prevent a lot of problems since most of the plot hangs on John Travolta’s deceptions and pride. What I hated about this movie was the overwhelming theme that men are absolute dolts. Find me man worthy of respect in this movie. One. You can’t. However, I will admit that the four friends do demonstrate loyalty to each other, which is nice to see.

Artistic/Thought Value: F I’ve said my peace.

Discussion Questions:

• John Travolta doesn’t want to tell his friends that his life is in a shambles, why is this? How does social approval cause pride and then keep us from sharing our troubles? How does this show up in the Christian community?
• Do you think the ending of this movie was plausible?
• In what ways does Martin Lawrence’s wife disrespect him? How important is admiration and respect for a man?
• How are bullies and gangs able to do bad things and avoid punishment? What happens when people ignore each other’s problems versus when they band together to help out?
• How important is adventure and danger and a challenge to men? What can the church do to affirm this about men and use it for the cause of Christ?
• Does any man in this movie represent a good standard of masculinity?
• A common complaint is that our culture is too dominated by men and masculine notions. Do you agree this is true? Does our culture tend to affirm men in healthy masculinity or not? What happens to men when they give up their masculinity?

Overall Grade: D- If you like tension-comedy like you’d get in Meet the Parents, you might like this. I do not. City Slickers is a much better, and time-tested, alternative.

Lookout, The (2007)

Rated: R Grade: ACBA=A-

Directed by: Scott Frank in his directorial debut, who had a hand in writing The Interpreter, Minority Report, Out of Sight, Get Shorty, and Little Man Tate.
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jeff Daniels, Matthew Goode, Isla Fisher, and Bruce McGill.

Summary: Chris Pratt was a high school jock who wrecked his car, killing two friends and giving himself brain damage which makes it hard for him to sequence anything in his life. Working as a bank janitor in a small town, he winds up in league with a sexy girl and her friend who convince him to help them rob the bank.

Entertainment Value: A The other recent movie I saw Gordon-Levitt in was Brick, and I must say that I really enjoy his acting. The characters here are fascinating and intriguing. The directing and writing are truly marvelous, and the thing hangs together like a true work of art with many elements of uncertainty and ambiguity. I had only one real problem with this movie, and it was with one plot development that did not seem believable in connection with the punishment given for a crime. I don’t want to say more for fear of spoiling the plot.

Superficial Content: C Drugs/Alcohol C, Sexuality C, Violence D, Language D, Illegality D. There’s plenty of alcohol use and some drug use. It’s a movie about bank robbery and it has some people getting killed. But the one thing I wanted to praise here was the sexuality. There are a couple of sexual scenes, but I truly admire the director here because he clearly decided to not indulge an R-rated movie in unnecessary eroticism at times when most others surely would have. Yes, there is such content, but it is so clearly restrained that I was shocked in a good way.

Significant Content: B If you think this movie is going to preach its own message, you’re mistaken. But if you understand that a little reflection about the movie will yield plenty of rich insights, then you’ll grasp why I give it a B. Pride, greed, entitlement, power, contentment, forgiveness, and atonement are all major themes in this movie. If you’re looking for a movie that shows humanity’s weaknesses in a fascinating way, this does that.

Artistic/Thought Value: A The movie is full of good themes and things worth talking about, but it was also a directorial masterpiece. You have to understand that most of the good stuff in this movie is not overtly on display. But one of the key demonstrations here was Luvlee’s demonstration of what a stripper does for men. It’s not about the lust so much as about the admiration, and she uses these things to manipulate Chris perfectly.

Discussion Questions:

• Do you think that Luvlee had genuine feelings toward Chris? What do you think of her ultimate decision?
• Why was it possible for Chris to be led into participating in the robbery? What forms of seduction were used on him by Luvlee and by Gary? How did pride, entitlement, and frustration make him willing?
• If Gary had never come along, do you think Chris would have been happy?
• How is Gary like Satan? How does the Christian virtue of contentment protect us from so many of the Devil’s strategite?
• A major theme in this movie is “whoever has the money has the power.” What do you think of this concept? How should Christians approach the use of money and the power that comes with it?
• Many times when we make bad choices, we find ourselves regretting them when we’re still in the process of following through on them. Is it ever too late to try to change direction and do the right thing? How do pride and fear keep us from doing the right thing?
• Have you ever done something that harmed others for which you had difficulty forgiving yourself?
• Why do you think the director chose to use so much violence and profanity but restrained himself on showing nudity and erotic sexuality?
• Filmmakers often defend their use of profanity by saying that to leave it out would make the film feel less real since such language is so common. Do you think this is true? If it is true, do you think that filmmakers are partially to blame for making it true? If so, is it strange of them to use that as an excuse? Do filmmakers have the ability to change cultural norms? If so, do they have an obligation to cultivate better ones, particularly less use of profanity? Consider smoking for comparison. What about sex?
• Do you think the scenes with Kelly represent reality or Chris’s imagination? Did she survive the accident?
• Who in this movie is a true friend? Who is not?
• What do you think of the parenting choices made by Chris’s parents?
• One of the problems Chris suffers from is the inability to not say his sexual urges out loud. How does this problem change his relationships with others? How do you think the world would be different if people were unable to not say their thoughts out loud, particularly their sexual ones?

Overall Grade: A If you liked this, you may also like Brick. Then again, you may not. It’s certainly a very unusual movie.

Fracture (2007)

Rated: R Grade: BBBB=B

Directed by: Gregory Hoblit, who previously made Hart’s War, Primal Fear, Fallen, and Frequency.

Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Ryan Gosling, David Straithairn, Rosamund Pike, Embeth Davidtz, and Billy Burke.

Summary: Ted Crawford, an aeronautical engineer investigator for the NTSB, discovers that his young wife is having an affair and murders her. Willy Beachum, a hotshot lawyer leaving the DA’s office for more lucrative private practice inherits the case and discovers that the case is much more challenging than it originally seems.

Entertainment Value: B Hopkins is great, of course. Gosling is also quite good in this movie that feels a bit like a John Grisham novel. If Hannibal Lecter were an NTSB investigator with an adulterous wife…. The plot is excellent and intricate. And I always enjoy a movie which gives you just enough information that you can figure things out if you’re really paying attention.

Superficial Content: B Drugs/Alcohol B, Sexuality B, Violence C, Language B, Illegality C. The sexuality is in the plot and not so much shown, although I will warn you that a fairly graphic scene was in the deleted scenes on the DVD, so don’t watch them. Obviously the central plot element is a murder, which is shown, and there are other elements of violence.

Significant Content: B Here’s my big problem with this movie. They take for granted that killing an adulterous spouse is totally wrong, and I had a hard time hating Hopkins the way they wanted me to. Pride is clearly shown to be a defect. Justice and the desire to see it done is a strong element. Police corruption is an implied part of this. One of the major themes in this movie is the temptation to do law for money or for meaning, and a strong endorsement of the value of doing it for meaning is given.

Artistic/Thought Value: B What do you want me to say? It’s a very well-designed murder mystery where the mystery is not whodunit but is-anyone-going-to-get-punished-for-it-and-if-so-how? Gosh, that’s a lot of hyphens.

Discussion Questions:

• Why is adultery wrong? Should it be illegal? If so, what should the punishment be? Consider that the Old Testament punished adultery with death. If you were on the jury trying this case, would you find Hopkins not guilty, guilty, or guilty of some lesser offense than Murder in the First Degree?
• Humans have a universal impulse toward vengeance for wrongs done, especially when done to those we love. In what ways is this a sinful response and in what ways a Divine one? Is vigilantism wrong always or just some of the time? Why? Is it more noble to pursue justice within the system rather than outside of it? Why? What about when the system does not concern itself with a particular injustice, such as adultery?
• How do you make sense of the love story in this movie? Why was it included?
• Hopkins is proud and competitive. Likewise Gosling. Even though one is cast as a good guy and the other the villain, discuss how different or similar they are.
• This is a film-noir, or at least largely so. Do you think the director intended this as an homage to older Hollywood detective mystery movies?
• Is Willie Beachum a guy you would want your friend to marry?
• Hopkins says that Beachum’s greatest weakness is that he’s a winner. What do you think of this assessment? How is being a winner dangerous?
• Does it matter if you do the right thing for the wrong reason? Discuss Beachum’s motivations at varying points in this movie.
• Why do we have the Constitutional rule protecting defendants against Double Jeopardy?

Overall Grade: B It’s solid.

Peaceful Warrior (2006)

Rated: PG-13 Grade: BCB+B+=B+

Starring: Scott Mechlowicz, Nick Nolte, Amy Smart, Tim DeKay, Ashton Holmes, and Paul Wesley

Directed by: Victor Salva, who previously made Powder and Jeepers Creepers.

Summary: This is based on the real life story of Dan Millman, an Olympic-caliber gymnast career-ending injury and must struggle to find meaning in a life whose only previous source was competition. He works his way back to competition with the help of a neo-Buddhist mentor who tries to get him to recalibrate his empty life.

Entertainment Value: B Two things kept this movie from being an A. One is the feeling that I had seen all this before in various preincarnations such as Karate Kid, Powder, and the Legend of Bagger Vance. The other is that I never managed to much care about the main character because he was a punk, and not the endearing outcast in love with the hot-chick Daniel Caruso punk. But a popular over-confident punk. Otherwise, however, the movie is quite good.

Superficial Content: C Drugs/Alcohol C, Sexuality C, Violence B, Language C, Illegality A. PG-13 is a consistent rating here. There’s plenty of mild profanity, sexual scenes, references to sex, and consumption of alcohol. There is a serious car crash and one scene showing a dream where a gymnast’s leg disintegrates. The one note about all of this is that the bad behaviors are generally shown as negative.

Significant Content: B+ I can’t give it an A, and the reason is simple. This is largely a movie promoting New Age Self-Help Buddhism rather than Christianity. Nonetheless, it’s about as good as such a thing can be. I was always a fan of Powder and Phenomenon (not the same director), and this movie falls right within that tradition. The premise is that a wise mentor who has learned to overcome attachment to this world will teach you how to do the same and thereby achieve happiness and meaning. Give more than you take. Don’t worry about the future. Results are beyond our control, so do not define your happiness by them. Enjoy the journey, not the arrival. Life is suffering, happiness is learning to care without caring by realizing that there are no ordinary moments. And if you learn to focus on “the now,” you can do anything, even jump to the top of buildings.

Artistic/Thought Value: B+ Not for art value, but for thought value. This movie can and should generate plenty of meaty discussion. The danger of it is that people might swallow it in its entirety without discerning the good from the bad. But that’s the danger with any self-help offering, whether it’s a movie or book or a guru. The main problem with it from an art perspective is that the movie preaches detachment from results, but it rewards the viewer with a victorious comeback based on a real life story that surely wouldn’t have gotten made into a movie if Millman hadn’t.

Discussion Questions:

• Are answers to be found within us our from outside? What is the Biblical perspective? Does your answer depend on whether the person is a Christian or not?
• Is emptying your mind of all concerns Biblical?
• This movie says that people are not their thoughts. The Bible says that a man is how he thinks in his heart. Are these compatible?
• Do you think Nick Nolte’s character was real or a creation of Dan’s imagination?
• What do you make of the supernatural feats done in this movie by Nolte?
• Can focused perception lead to understanding people almost as well as real telepathy would?
• Should we ignore the future? Is that healthy?
• The three lessons listed during the climb up the mountain are that life is a paradox, we should have a sense of humor, and that change is constant. What do you think of these as basic life principles?
• Herodotus said, “No man steps into the same river twice.” What does this mean, and how does it relate to this movie?
• “The journey is all that matters, not the destination.” Do you agree?
• Are things like smoking and drinking only bad when they are in control of us? Which is worse, addiction or total abstinence out of fear of addiction?
• Does Nick Nolte’s character seem happy? Would you want to be him?
• “Death is not sad, the sad thing is most people don’t live at all.” What would Jesus say?
• Does competition pervert love of an activity or enhance it by pushing people? Can you enjoy competition without also succumbing to wanting to see others lose?
• “It’s how you play the game that matters, not whether you win or lose.” How does this idea fit or not with this movie? Do you agree with it?
• The core message of the movie seems to be that the results are not important, yet taking that seriously often produces great results. How can this tension be resolved? How does it relate to the idea of doing what God says in order to get the rewards and blessings which God promises to the obedient?
• The movie ends with Dan succeeding. What do you think of a movie that preaches indifference to outcomes but ends on such an emotionally rewarding victory? Would anyone care about this story if Millman had not actually come back from his injury? Is that in conflict with the message?

Overall Grade: B+ Some Christians will dislike it for good reasons, and some others will really love it for good reasons. They’re both right.