Repo Men (2010)

Rated: R for for strong bloody violence, grisly images, language and some sexuality/nudity.
Length: 111 minutes
Grade: C-HBD=D+
Budget: $32 million
Box Office: $35 million (14 U.S., 4 Intl., 7 DVD)

Written by: Eric Garcia (Matchstick Men) and Garrett Lerner (TV like Boston Public, John Doe and Roswell)
Directed by: Miguel Sapochnik (First movie)
Starring: Jude Law and Alice Braga
With: Forest Whitaker, Live Schreiber, and John Leguizamo.

Summary:

In a world where people who can’t afford the payments on their artificial organs have them repossessed by above-the-law mercenaries, one of the best suddenly has a change of heart (sorry) when he becomes a client of the company.

Entertainment Value: C-

This is a great concept mostly ruined by bad writing and a decision to make it as gory and vulgar as possible. I wanted to enjoy this more than I did, and I watched it despite the universally bad reviews. In the end, it’s such a great concept that just simply could have been done much better. The twist ending only winds up being annoying, even though it ties together with the beginning fairly well.

Superficial Content: H

Drugs/Alcohol D, Sex/Nudity D, Violence H, Language F

There is occasional use of some unknown drug that seems like cocaine. There are several scenes of nudity and sexuality. Language would be an F all on its own and is quite heavy. The really awful part of this movie, however, is all the gore involved in killing people by removing their artificial organs. When I say this is an H on an A-F scale, I’m not kidding. R just doesn’t cover it. Absolutely no kids, and probably not many adults either.

Significant Content: B

Corporations that charge hefty fees for doing humanitarian deeds are evil. We must never let our society get to the place where people can be slaughtered just because they are delinquent on their body part payments. The world seems to run on rules and need people to enforce them, but the people who use that as an excuse to do wicked things are the most awful people of all. A job is a form of self-definition and identity. If you want to change who you are, change what you do.

Artistic/Thought Value: D

The science-fiction tradition is well-populated by films that depict unsettling future realities which then force us to consider the path we’re currently on. The reason this works is because they provoke our thinking. The problem in this case is that the idea is overwhelmed by the vulgarity of the presentation and the failure to make a choice between this being an action movie, a slasher movie, or a science-fiction movie. Thought value isn’t too bad, but it’s terrible art. This is a case where having slightly better writers or a more experienced director might have made all the difference.

Discussion Questions:
~How much of our identity and place within society is a function of our job? Is it a modern luxury to think this way about our labor?
~Is this movie trying to say that all forms of repossession are inherently immoral? What is it about repossessing mechanical organs that is so different from taking cars and houses?
~The company is running a kind of scam that actually depends on taking back people’s organs and reselling them to other people to make money. Are there any similar practices in our current world?
~It is occasionally debated whether people should be allowed to sell their organs and/or pay others for them. Based on this movie, what do you think?
~If you could exist in a world where you were happy all the time but it wasn’t “real,” would that be an option you would choose?
~Schroedinger’s Cat is a thought experiment in which the cat is inside a box with a random machine that may or may not yet have killed it. According to quantum theory, the cat is both alive and dead until it is observed as either. Why does the movie open with this idea? What question does it want us to ask about our current reality? Is this movie primarily about body parts and science fiction futures or is it primarily about the nature of modern entertainment?

Overall Grade: D+

If you haven’t seen it, don’t. Sadly, this is a brilliant idea with some interesting things to say botched terribly in the actual execution.

Letters to Juliet (2010)

Rated: PG for brief rude behavior, some language and incidental smoking.
Length: 105 minutes.
Grade: C+BCC=C+
Budget: $30 million
Box Office: $83 million (53 U.S., 19 Intl., 11 DVD)

Written by: Jose Rivera (Trade, Motorcycle Diaries, ) and Tim Sullivan (Flushed Away)
Directed by: Gary Winick (Bride Wars, Charlotte’s Web, 13 Going On 30, Tadpole)
Starring: Amanda Seyfried, Vanessa Redgrave, and Christopher Egan

Summary:

Sophie is an aspiring writer who travels with her workaholic fiancée to Verona on a pre-honeymoon, where she discovers a group of women who give romantic advice to those who come to Juliet’s balcony asking for it. This leads to a grandmother and her grandson traveling to Italy in search of her long lost true love and a quest which gives Sophie both a story opportunity and romantic complications.

Entertainment Value: C+

The problem here is that the movie offers the hopes of greatness but winds up suffering from improbable character choices and periodically painful bad acting. It’s sad, really, because the story itself is fun and the lightness of the movie makes you want to like it more than it deserves. The most pivotal moment of the movie is completely unbelievable, even though the plot completely requires it.

Superficial Content: B

Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity B, Violence A, Language B+

There is a lot of social wine-drinking, but no drunkenness. There are a couple of references to sexuality and some kissing. An unmarried couple shares a hotel room, but nothing is ever shown or even implied particularly. The language was perhaps most annoying only because in a movie which was otherwise virtually squeaky, a character quickly uses medium profanity (S) in the beginning and there is a middle-finger moment later, both unnecessary. This is PG-8 or so, and only girls older than that would care to watch it anyhow. It could easily have been a much lighter PG.

Significant Content: C

True love never dies, and you should always act on what your heart tells you. Destiny has a way of working its magic. Sometimes the most promising relationships start out poorly.

Artistic/Thought Value: C

The most interesting thing here is the idea that a passionate man can actually be something of a curse in disguise if he turns out to be more passionate about something else (like cooking and his restaurant) than he is about you. But the other hidden gem is the presentation of the secretaries of Juliet meeting a need that certainly can’t be monetized and yet is very helpful and even culturally shalom-building for the women they write to. It nicely pictures the unseen world lost when wives and mothers enter the workplace.

Discussion Questions:
~If you were rating movies, what rating would you give Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet,” especially given that it ends in such tragedy?
~Which do you think is worse: being married to someone who is just plain passionless or someone who is more passionate about something other than you?
~What impact on society comes from women working in ordinary jobs rather than doing all the sorts of pro bono things they might otherwise feel free to do, such as answer Juliet’s letters?
~Do you believe in true love? What about love at first encounter? How much of a successful marriage is from passion, from reason, and from commitment? Does God arrange marriages? How do you explain bad ones?
~Sophie observes that the most dangerous sign for her relationship is that both of them seem perfectly happy spending time on their pre-honeymoon doing different things. Is she right about this?
~Charlie is initially angry at Sophie for her meddling and for leading his grandmother into a wild goose chase. Is he right to be angry? What sort of responsibility do aspiring advice-givers have for what people do with their suggestions?
~What, exactly, is adultery? Are any of the characters in this movie guilty of it? What about just having divided loyalties or alienation of affection?

Overall Grade: C+

“A Good Year” was a more entertaining and more meaningful version of what I think this film is trying to accomplish. That said, it’s a fairly clean romantic comedy about what else: true love.

Furry Vengeance (2010)

Rated: PG for some rude humor, mild language and brief smoking.
Length: 92 minutes
Grade: B+B+CF=B
Budget: $35 million
Box Office: $38 million (18 U.S., 15 Intl., 5 DVD)

Written by: Michael Carnes & Josh Gilbert (Mr. Woodcock)
Directed by: Roger Kumble (Cruel Intentions 1+2, Just Friends, College Road Trip)
Starring: Brendan Fraser and Brooke Shields
With: Matt Prokop, Ken Jeong, Angela Kinsey, Skyler Samuels, and Wallace Shawn

Summary:

When the supervisor of a forest construction development realizes his company is eco-unfriendly, he must decide whether to side with his job or with the animals who have so ferociously attacked him.

Entertainment Value: B+

First and most importantly, this is a kids movie! Calling it slapstick is almost too mild a description. In reality, this is a live action cartoon a la Merrie Melodies and Looney Toons. As such, it’s very funny. My kids loved it and laughed pretty continuously. The plot is mostly a pretext for physical gags. Judged by any other standard and this would be terrible. Judged as a clean source of comedy and it works just fine.

Superficial Content: B+

Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity A-, Violence B, Language A

A couple of the gags involve gender-crossing (a man mistakenly wearing a bra or, later, a woman’s sweatsuit). Language and drugs are squeaky clean. The main issue, such as it is, will be all the slapstick violence such as being overturned in a porta-potty, skunk attacks, dive-bombings by birds, and a wide variety of physical humor gags. One exception is that the very opening scene of the movie culminates in a man being forced off a cliff by animals to his death in a car. Because of that scene, it probably can’t be G, but I’d still almost give it one, quite frankly.

Significant Content: C

It’s important for dads to balance the interests of their careers and their families. Although it’s easy to go along with gradual bad decisions, you have to eventually stand up and do what’s right. Animals are people, too. Companies that make a big show of being green can sometimes be the biggest eco-hypocrites.

Artistic/Thought Value: F

Not so much.

Discussion Questions:
~This movie shows how a decent guy can get involved in doing basically bad things. What was the progression for Dan? How can we avoid letting this happen to us?
~What do you think of the idea that animals should be considered like people? Do animals care for their young as we do? What sort of moral obligations do we have to animals?
~How important is it to conserve green spaces like forests?
~Tyler is sarcastic and disrespectful to his dad. Does his father deserve this attitude based on his choices?
~Nobody wants to take Dan’s claims of animal terrorism seriously until they must. Have you ever felt like people didn’t take you seriously about something happening to you?
~Why is it so important to make decisions as a family? How does this fit with democracy? Are there ever times when a man must make an unpopular decision? What’s the right way to handle this? In this particular case, what should Dan have done differently?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The crow.
~The skunks.
~Dive-bombing the festival.

Overall Grade: B

It’s an entertaining and harmless eco-propaganda cartoon that most kids will enjoy.

Just Wright (2010)

Rated: PG for some suggestive material and brief language.
Length: 100 minutes
Grade: DB-BC+=C-
Budget: $12 million
Box Office: $27 million (22 U.S., 5 DVD)

Written by: Michael Elliot (Brown Sugar, Like Mike)
Directed by: Sanaa Hamri (Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2)
Starring: Queen Latifah, Common, and Paula Patton
With: Pam Grier, Phylicia Rashad, James Pickens Jr., Dwight Howard, Dwayne Wade, Rashad Lewis, Jalen Rose, and Marv Albert.

Summary:

An injured NBA superstar is torn between his gorgeous golddigger fiancée and her lifelong friend, an overweight but otherwise wonderful physical therapist.

Entertainment Value: D

It’s possible that this movie is just not my style, but this was pretty bad. I wanted it to be better, but it wasn’t. The writing was weak, the plot is utterly predictable, and the acting is thin to the point of non-existence. Every moment of this movie felt contrived, and not even contrived in a good way. That being said, be sure to read below what I have to say about art value.

Superficial Content: B-

Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity B-, Violence A, Language B-

This is marginal for a PG movie, but it really didn’t have to be. There is one rather glaring outburst of profanity (BS), and a couple of minor ones (D). Characters drink socially, but discuss “getting toasted.” Sex is probably the major concern, with several innuendos, discussions of “bagging a man,” and one longish scene of Latifah in bed presumably naked. I’d say PG-10, but the good news is that no kids are going to care enough about this movie to watch it anyhow.

Significant Content: B

Some women are predators every bit as much as men. Other women are just good women, and they are the ones who will make the best wives even if they aren’t superhot. Wisdom is knowing the difference between them. Also, there’s an oblique criticism of “The Secret” thrown in for fun.

Artistic/Thought Value: C+

Okay, here I need to talk about a very difficult subject as it relates to this movie. Objectively speaking, this is a pretty bad movie. As I mentioned above, the script, plot, and acting are all low quality compared to most movies. That being said, this is a relatively clean movie portraying basically good versus evil in relationships and marketed specifically to black audiences. As such, it deserves credit for being such a refreshing contrast to the vast majority of filth and foolishness marketed to black audiences. Having watched a number of “black” films in recent years, I can tell you that they usually aren’t very good, sort of like all too many “Christian” films. But to make matters worse, they’re showing and telling all the wrong things to a community which, as a whole, needs much better guidance. So here’s a movie with better role models and (mostly) without the filth, which I admire. I think the presence of big name black actors like Phylicia Rashad, Pam Grier, and James Pickens Jr. plus all the NBA stars reinforces what they think of the importance of movies like this. It isn’t great by any stretch, but it should get some credit for simply choosing to be so unlike most “black” films in this regard. Art for a particular audience needs to be art which that audience will actually consume. In that sense, this is at least decent art. The $22 million certainly wasn’t generated from white audiences.

Discussion Questions:
~Morgan wants to marry an NBA player, and she says that she intends to treat man-hunting as a job to get what she wants. Aside from the ethical problems with her in particular, do you think spouse-huntig should be treated like a job? Does your answer stay the same for men as for women?
~When Morgan reacts to being criticized for leaving Scott, she says “we can’t all be like Saint Leslie Wright.” Do you think wicked people actually believe they are morally deficient or do they really believe that virtue is a kind of defect to be scoffed at like this?
~Why is Leslie friends with Morgan? Do you consider it a moral defect that she stays friends with someone so vain and manipulative?
~Scott has built his entire life around being a basketball star. How does he handle it when that might end? How much of a man’s place in this world is based on what he does for a living? In what ways is this good and in what ways is it dangerous?
~Do you think it’s an advantage or a disadvantage for a woman to be beautiful if her goal is to find a good man? What about being overweight? What about for a man to be successful, handsome, or wealthy…or not?

.

Overall Grade: C-

A potentially significant “black” movie, but not much of a movie in comparison with most comedy-romances.

Ghost Writer, The (2010)

Rated: PG-13 for language, brief nudity/sexuality, some violence and a drug reference.
Length: 128
Grade: BCDC=C+
Budget: $45 million
Box Office: $60 million (16 U.S., 41 Intl., 3 DVD)

Written by: Robert Harris (Wrote the novel “The Ghost”)
Directed by: Roman Polanski (Frantic, Ninth Gate, Chinatown, rosemary’s Baby)
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Olivia Williams, and Pierce Brosnan
With: James Belushi, Timothy Hutton, Kim Cattrall, Tom Wilkinson, and Robert Pugh

Summary:

After the mysterious death of the previous ghost writer, a new writer is brought in to complete the memoirs of a widely loved and widely hated former British Prime Minister. As he begins, evidence of some sort of conspiracy cause him to solve the puzzle and bring the truth to light.

Entertainment Value: B

All the way through, this felt like a Polanski film: stylized rather than realistic, and stilted characters where everything is just a little bit off kilter. Having basically talked myself into watching this because everyone reviewed it so highly, despite my internal ethical concerns about even indirectly supporting Roman Polanski, I was very disappointed that this was the end result. The ending, in particular, totally failed to deliver what the buildup to it seemed to promise. If the previous ghost had really known what he did long enough in advance to do what he did, I don’t understand how this was the actual shape of it all. It’s the sort of ending that seems cool at first until you think a little about it. Also the final, final ending was also just disappointing for the sake of being disappointing, I think.

Superficial Content: C-
Drugs/Alcohol C, Sex/Nudity C, Violence B, Language D+
Lots of alcohol consumption. An occasional scene of partial nudity and some sexuality. There are a couple of deaths, and torture is a subject in news reports. Language, oddly, is probably the major reason for the PG-13, and this is almost R when you add it all together. I’d say R-15.

Significant Content: D

Politicians are corrupt. Governments are corrupt. Book publishers and agents are moneygrubbers. Only idealistic writers are not corrupt or money grubbing, although they are often alcoholics and adulterers.
Artistic/Thought Value: C The thought value is only in trying to figure out the mystery, and the art value is the skill of creating the atmosphere of this movie. Otherwise, not so much, and certainly not given the ending.

Discussion Questions:
~Why is the ghost writer not given a name in the movie?
~What do you personally believe about spies and the government?

~To what degree should we care about the off-screen lives of people who make films? If you believe Roman Polanski should be in jail right now, is it contradictory to watch his movies? Do you think any less of actors and others who participate in making films with him? What about other products and services? How much should our consumption of something be driven by the product itself as opposed to considerations about who made it?

~When movies make allegations of terrible evil and corruption about government leaders, do you think the fact that these movies are allowed to be made discounts their claims?

.

Overall Grade: C+

This wants to be hip and cool, but in the end it simply fails to live up to its own aspirations. If you’ve wondered whether to avoid Roman Polanski films on principle, well, don’t make your compromise for this film. I did, and I’m disappointed with myself for it.

Adventures of Robin Hood, The (1938)

Rated: Unrated (Exclusive unrated DVD version available)
Length: 102 minutes
Grade: AAAA=A
Budget: $1.9 million
Box Office: $1.5 million

Written by: Norman Reilly Raine (Captain Kidd, Tugboat Annie) and Seton I. Miller (Sea Hawk, Dawn Patrol, G Men, Charlie Chan’s Courage)
Directed by: Michael Curtiz (We’re No Angels, White Christmas, The Egyptian, The Jazz Singer, Casablanca, Yankee Doodle Dandy, The Sea Wolf, The Sea Hawk, Angels with Dirty Faces, Charge of the Light Brigade, Captain Blood) and William Keighley (Master of Ballantrae, Fighting 69th, Pince and the Pauper, G Men)
Starring: Errol Flynn, Olivia deHavilland

With: Basil Rathbone, Claude Rains, Alan Hale, and Ian Hunter

Summary:

In this classic adaptation of the legends, Robin of Locksley stands up for the weak and oppressed Saxons under the tyrannical rule of Prince John, the simpering brother of King Richard the Lionheart, who is away fighting the Crusades.

Entertainment Value: A

As one of the more well known early Technicolor films, this all-time classic actually failed to make a profit at the box office but has long since recouped its investment in syndication and cultural significance. The script, the costumes, the action, and the acting are all brilliant. Something you’ll see only with classic films like this, Rotten Tomatoes has it at 100% fresh. (Even Casablanca is only 97%.) It’s funny, engaging, action-packed, substantial, beautiful, and just plain fun. Generations of kids have grown up returning dropped fake swords to their enemies in the middle of a fight because of this movie.

Superficial Content: A
Drugs/Alcohol A-, Sex/Nudity A+, Violence B+, Language A+
There’s occasional mead consumption, no sexuality at all, and not even a rough term, let alone any actual profanity. The only possible concern might be violence, with hangings, swordplay, men being killed (without blood), and action peril. Common Sense Media says PG-9, but I can’t think of a young boy who shouldn’t watch this. I’d say G.
Significant Content: A Men are supposed to be heroic protectors of women. Loyalty to the principles of charity comes before loyalty to a despotic usurper to the throne. Christian leaders should be helping people, not profiteering from them in complicity with corrupt governments. A true noble puts his own livelihood at risk by siding with the oppressed and being willing to speak truth to the powerful. Cunning will get you out of trouble, and a sense of irony and wit make you charming to everyone.

Artistic/Thought Value: A

Seriously? Of course it’s an A. Aside from all the fantastic lessons and the costumes, the movie, like Robin Hood himself, knows how to make a dramatic entrance and a graceful exit from the screen. Although the lessons are mostly obvious, my personal favorite is the shown-but-not-told contrast drawn between the corrupt Bishop of Black Canons and the more modest Friar Tuck.

Discussion Questions:
~Abuse of power is clearly one of the main themes of this movie. How many examples of power used badly and of the attitudes of those who do so can you identify in this film?
~Since this movie was made in 1938, do you perceive any broader cultural or political messages being sent through it? Consider things like the Great Depression, the beginning of World War II, the rise of the labor movement, and class conflict in America.
~What message (and warning) is this movie sending to religious leaders who find themselves tied in too closely with political leaders or wealth?
~In what ways is Robin Hood a Christ figure? If you didn’t know that he was a Christian (from seeking Friar Tuck to give his men spiritual guidance), what markers of Biblical faith could you find?
~One of the more highly emphasized themes in modern Evangelicalism is submission to authority, but both the American Revolution and this film show a decisive refusal to submit to injustice. Do you think conservatives have overemphasized authority and underemphasized fighting it for the right reasons?
~Did Robin properly try to confront injustice by appealing directly to those responsible for it before resorting to violence against them? How does this bolster his claims to virtue?

~When Robin calls the men together, airs the grievances, and administers them their oath, does it remind you of the Declaration of Independence?

~Is Robin Hood a virtuous man or a thief? Does the fact that the poor so love him argue in his favor? He takes from the rich to give to the poor. Would he be called a liberal today? The system of politics which forces him into this response is unjustly high taxation. Would he be called a conservative today? He works for a country where men can fend for themselves and be free to live their lives. Would he be called a libertarian today? What do these tensions indicate about him?
~Is Robin’s willingness to jeopardize his own life a result of a reckless attitude, too little regard for safety, or the confidence of someone whose cause is just?
~What does Robin’s carefree attitude and jovial demeanor say about him? Is he capable of being serious? What gives him the ability to literally laugh in the face of death?
~What message is this film offering about the responsibility of real kings (or leaders) at home versus abroad? Is it advocating isolationism?
~When Much thanks Robin for saving his life, he asks only to follow Robin even if there’s no pay in it. How is this like a Christian’s devotion to Christ?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Rescuing the poacher.
~Confronting Prince John at the feast.
~Robin’s encounters with Little John and Friar Tuck.
~The archery tournament.
~Robin talking about King Richard being to blame.
~The final fight sequence with Guy of Gisbourne.

.

Overall Grade: A

Since I recently watched this again in preparation to watch the new Robin Hood, I thought I’d share my thoughts with you and remind you what a fantastic movie this is to share with your own children as I did. My boys loved it every bit as much as I did when I was their age.

Robin Hood (2010)

Rated: PG-13 for violence including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content.
Length: 140 minutes (156 director’s cut)
Grade: A-CAB=A-
Budget: $200 million
Box Office: $310 million (105 U.S., 205 Intl.)

Written by: Brian Helgeland (Green Zone, Cirque du Freak, Taking of Pelham 123, Man on Fire, The Order, Mystic River, Blood Work, A Knight’s Tale, Payback, The Postman, Conspiracy Theory, and LA Confidential), Ethan Reiff & Cyrus Voris (Kung Fu Panda, Bulletproof Monk).
Directed by: Ridley Scott (Body of Lies, American Gangster, A Good Year, Kingdom of Heaven, Matchstick Men, Blackhawk Down, Hannibal, Gladiator, GI Jane, 1492, Thelma & Louise, Black Rain, Legend, Blade Runner, and Alien)
Starring: Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett
With: Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, and Danny Huston.

Summary:

In this prequel to the more well-known Robin Hood story which has been made into at least 4 movies already, a relatively minor archer in King Richard’s returning army returns from the crusades masquerading as a noble but finds himself embroiled in trying to save his country from the despotic but incompetent Prince John and the conniving traitor, Sir Godfrey.

Entertainment Value: A-

I did a very unusual thing, I suppose. I deliberately watched the 1938 classic starring Errol Flynn first with my boys and then watched this film with my wife later that same night, so I had the cinematic tradition fresh in my head. And I must say that at first, I wasn’t thrilled because there are some substantial elements tinkered with here compared to what I knew. (Other versions of the story offer more of a basis for this version.) But then as it unfolded, I started to really like what I was seeing. They carried through the hefty criticisms of power being abused by both lords and bishops from the original. And they successfully did what few sequels do, put enough twist on what I already knew to be interesting while somehow still making me feel like they were very faithful to the old. This was especially true with some of the romantic plots and the overall laugh-in-the-face-of-danger lightness of Robin and his men. Ridley Scott is of course a filmmaking genius and there are few writers more adept than Brian Helgeland. Simply put, this is excellent, and an homage surpassed in recent films only by JJ Abrams’s Star Trek.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol C, Sex/Nudity B-, Violence C, Language B+
There’s a lot of drinking and carousing. There are a couple of romantic scenes, with some implied nudity and sex. The biggest issue will be violence, which isn’t nearly on the scale of a Braveheart, but still is more than younger children should likely see. I’d go PG-10.

Significant Content: A

Abuse of power toward the defenseless means you lose God’s protection. Churches can be both evil and also decent. Charity is a the core of what Christianity is supposed to be. A corrupt Church is as bad as a corrupt government. The key virtue of a man is a willingness to defy corruption both in word and deed while fighting for justice. It’s important to hold this world loosely enough to laugh at it when it might otherwise make you despair. A man most directly learns character from his father.

Artistic/Thought Value: B

It certainly looks and feels like a Ridley Scott film, plus he really seems to like working with Russell Crowe. What I think I liked the most here was the slightly to significantly adapted homage nature of the whole thing, even down to a twist ending very much in keeping with the original. One small complaint. There is a vivid scene where a noble dies and is burned in effigy, but this seems at odds with the standard Christian practice of burial and with earlier burials in the film.

Discussion Questions:
~Which is worse: a corrupt government or a corrupt church? Why? Which matters more, preserving the safety of a land or preserving the honor and credibility of God?
~Robin Hood is historically a benevolent vigilante. Under what circumstances is vigilantism justified, if ever? How do you decide between active use of arms to fight and other tactics such as civil disobedience? What should be done with a corrupt or negligent government? What do we do with the children of abusive or neglectful parents?
~What do you make of Robin’s impersonation of a noble? What about deserting the army? Do these actions make him seem less of a hero to you?
~John demands loyalty and says that he should not have to ask for it. Where does this authority come from? Is this a Christian way for a king to behave? Does our duty of submission to authority apply even to corrupt leaders? When, if ever, does it stop applying?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Robin confronting John about the charter of liberties. Why does John scoff? Why do people in the upper reaches of society usually scoff at such ideas?
~The sequence with the shell game and King Richard being chastised by Robin. Why is it so important for people to speak the truth to power when it is wrong? What makes it possible for Christians to do this even though it may be dangerous? Why do some people keep quiet when the powerful do wrong?

.

Overall Grade: A-

A very satisfying homage prequel made by one of the best directors. Thank goodness they didn’t turn Robin Hood into some dark monster the way they have with James Bond and Sherlock Holmes.

Crossing Over (2009)

Rated: R for pervasive language, some strong violence and sexuality/nudity.
Length: 113 minutes
Grade: CFAB+=B
Budget: Perhaps 20 million
Box Office: $7 million (5 U.S.,, 2 DVD)

Written and Directed by: Wayne Kramer (First major film)

Starring: Harrison Ford, Ray Liota, Ashley Judd, Jim Sturgess, Cliff Curtis, Alice Braga, Alice Eve, and Summer Bishil.

Summary:

This is a montage of vignettes dealing with various aspects of illegal immigration cases wrapped around the main character of a career ICE agent who really tries to do right in his difficult job.

Entertainment Value: C

I can’t say I enjoyed this, and many of the scenes were chopped together in a way that didn’t make them sit right all the time. The fact that this is a significantly edited version of a film originally 140 minutes long makes sense. It’s more painful and frustrating than entertaining, and it’s also pretty heavy-handed as a propaganda piece. Nevertheless, the stories are interesting and they aren’t all that predictable.

Superficial Content: F
Drugs/Alcohol D, Sex/Nudity F, Violence F, Language F
This is definitely an R movie. And one problem with it is that there are prolonged several scenes of nudity that weren’t necessary or could have been shot far less graphically. Language is very heavy, and violence involves several people being killed. There’s minor drug use and a fair amount of drinking. Definitely a heavy R movie, so no kids and maybe not even a lot of adults should see this. I wish they had done it differently in this regard.

Significant Content: A

It’s not so obvious what the overall point here is, but I’d say it’s meant to show that the immigration problem in this country leads to all sorts of really ugly situation. People are so desperate to be here that they are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Trying to be decent under these circumstances is very complicated. Several scenes show both what it looks like to have moments of grace fulfilled and also missed opportunities for grace.

Artistic/Thought Value: B

First, the thing I admire about this film is that it didn’t just write clichéd stories. It both picked very interesting plot ideas and then dealt with them unabashedly. This was especially interesting when assimilation issues like with Asian gangs, Muslim family honor, and an atheist trying to exploit his Jewish heritage became major plot elements. At the same time, as I hinted at before, this certainly isn’t Crash. And one of the major failings is to really generate a high level of sympathy for any of the characters. We watch what happens to them and are horrified to a degree, but not the way we would be if we had learned to really care about them. Compared to Trade or The Visitor, for example, this movie probably just tried to do too many stories to make any of them really compelling.

Discussion Questions:
~Think of some of the plot turns in this movie where characters had the opportunity to be merciful or extend grace. When did they do so and when did they choose not to do so? How important is the discretion to do less than you can an important aspect of grace?
~If you weren’t American, would you try to come here? Would you break the law to do so?
~Do you think a good person could do Brogan’s job? If a job is so difficult that a virtuous and compassionate person can’t do it, does that mean that the job should not be done or that the laws that require that job be done should be changed? How do decent people deal with the challenge of indecent situations? How did Jesus deal with them?
~Do you think all the vulgar content of this movie makes it more realistic? Would the movie have been as memorable without so much “content?”
~Which do you think it’s harder to live with: guilt or failure?
~One character says that we should understand our enemies, especially when they resort to terrorism to try to express themselves. Is she right?
~Do you think it’s inherently evil to split up families? How might a family ethic change our treatment of illegal immigrants? How is this different from sending criminal parents to jail?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Discussion at the diner.
~Raiding the sweatshop.
~FBI at the family’s house.
~The convenience store. What would you have done? What did you want to see happen?
~The airport at the end.
~Telling the family in Mexico.

.

Overall Grade: B

A heavy R rated movie that is certainly guilty of overdramatizing its vignettes, but still leaves you with poignant memories and questions to discuss.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action.
Length: 116 minutes
Grade: AB-AC=A
Budget: $200 million
Box Office: $337 million (91 U.S., 244 Intl.)

Written by: Boaz Yakin (Dirty Dancing 2, A Price Above Rubies, Fresh, The Rookie, and The Punisher), Doug Miro & Carlo Bernard (The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, The Uninvited, The Great Raid) based on the video game by Jordan Mechner.
Directed by: Mike Newell (Love in the Time of Cholera, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Mona Lisa Smile, Pushing Tin, Donnie Brasco, Four Weddings and a Funeral, )
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, and Ben Kingsley
With: Alfred Molina and Richard Coyle

Summary:
Adopted into the royal family as a boy because of his bravery, Dastan must fight for his life and reputation after being framed for the murder of his adoptive father then King. In the process, he comes into possession of a magical dagger which under the right circumstances can turn back short amounts of time.

Entertainment Value: A
If you told me that a movie based on a video game would be this entertaining, I’d never believe you. None of the others ones have been. But, if you put the money of Disney and the genius of Jerry Bruckheimer behind the project, maybe it makes sense. Sometimes when I watch a movie late at night, I fall asleep or have to quit and finish it another day. I was tired, but I deliberately stayed awake because I wanted to keep watching this. In the end, this reminds me of all the great action swashbuckler type movies Hollywood made in the past from Adventures of Robin Hood to Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Superficial Content: B-
Drugs/Alcohol B+, Sex/Nudity A-, Violence C+, Language A
Some drinking in a few scenes. Some belly dancers in the background in one scene and minor romantic moments. Language is almost church-like. Violence is the main concern, and there is one scene with a man being burned to death (but it’s not as bad as it sounds), some creepy scenes with snakes, and several battle sequences including people being killed, usually without blood, although often with arrows or axes penetrating them. As I mentioned above, it reminded me of all the old action movies. Certainly Raiders of the Lost Ark is more concerning than this movie. This is at the very light end of PG-13. I’d say PG-8. We almost let Spencer watch it at 6.

Significant Content: A
This is where the movie really shines. Unlike so many modern films, the good guys are really good guys. Kings are really virtuous men who advocate things like mercy, standing up for what’s right, and the rule of law. Honor and loyalty are big themes, as is self-sacrifice for a greater good. Greatness is a result of goodness. One repeated message is to listen to wise counselors but to also trust your heart in big decisions. In short, there are heroes here to emulate. Also, there’s one character who is always making side comments about taxes and secret government killers being a bad thing.

Artistic/Thought Value: C
It’s not great art in the “makes you think for days” sense. But if the point of a movie is to give you entertainment and decent role models, this movie certainly outperforms a lot of offerings these days. Also, I loved the idea of a device that grants very limited minor amounts of time travel as a premise.

Discussion Questions:
~Who in this movie reminds you of God? Who in this move reminds you of Satan? Who reminds you of Jesus?
Dastan is adopted into the royal family, and this is always a source of some identity issues for him and others. Given that the idea of Christianity is to be adopted into God’s family, how do you think you might explain Christianity with respect to this movie?
~Dastan gets adopted because he does something noble in standing up to unjust use of authority. Is it Christian to resist abuses of authority? Do people get adopted by God because they have a noble heart already?
~What are some of the principles various characters in this film either live by or advocate?
~How important do you think it is for a culture to give young men images of virtuous heroes to emulate?
~If you could go back in time, what choices or events would you change? Would a power like that be too tempting for people to have? How does the villain in this movie plan to use the power if he gets it? What does that say about good and evil people?
~Would you call this a “conservative” movie?
~Have you ever stood up to do the right thing when it was unpopular or costly to you personally? Have you ever failed to do so? How did each feel?
.
Overall Grade: A
There’s something both thoroughly modern and yet wonderfully classic about this unexpectedly good film based on a video game series. A genuinely quality film from Disney and Bruckheimer.

Date Night (2010)

Rated: PG-13 for sexual and crude content throughout, language, some violence and a drug reference.
Length: 88 minutes
Grade: C-DBB=C+
Budget: $55 million
Box Office: $171 million (99 U.S., 54 Intl., 18 DVD)

Written by: John Klausner (Shrek Forever After and Shrek the Third)
Directed by: Shawn Levy (Night at the Museum 1+2, Pink Panther, Cheaper by the Dozen, and Just Married)
Starring: Steve Carell and Tina Fey
With: Mark Wahlberg, Common, Kristen Wiig, Mark Ruffalo, James Franco, Mila Kunis, and Ray Liotta.

Summary: When a suburban couple decides to have a special date night in the city, they are mistaken for a couple of criminals and must find a way to stay alive long enough to solve their problem while being hounded by corrupt cops.

Entertainment Value: C-

I like Tina Fey a lot. A lot of other people like Steve Carell. Ironically, the funniest parts involved Mark Wahlberg. I had pretty high hopes for this movie, but the overall result made perfect sense after I saw who wrote the script. It is of course a ridiculous plot, but it’s funny enough often enough to not be completely unworthy of a watch.

Superficial Content: D

Drugs/Alcohol C, Sex/Nudity D, Violence C, Language D

There is moderate alcohol consumption in one scene and apparently a drug reference. There are several scenes of danger where people are threatened with guns and one very prolonged car chase scene. Language alone would make this PG-13, and I would have given it an R for language, quite frankly. This is as close to the line as they could go and not be pushed into an R. But the more surprising part was sexuality, which is mostly just discussions throughout the movie, but then at the end there is one long scene in a strip club and Tina Fey and Steve Carrell pole dance while the District Attorney looks on in lustful enthusiasm. It had already seemed to be a borderline R to me, but that scene (even without nudity) made it an R, or R-15 at least.

Significant Content: B

Ordinary life is a grinding challenge to even well-intended people who want to keep a healthy romance alive. It’s easy for people to become too well-adjusted to each other. Some marriages are dying even when they seem okay on the outside. When our spouses are disappointing us, there’s a good chance they feel it in themselves, too. Men and women have very different ideas of what tempts them.

Artistic/Thought Value: B

Although this is sold as a comedic action flick, the relationship stuff is certainly interesting. And as has quite nicely become the fashion lately, it’s brutally honest about things people sometimes just don’t realize happen to everyone. I can easily imagine married couples leaving this movie and wanting to talk about some of this stuff afterwards. Even if they don’t work with everyone, movies that give people an excuse to discuss uncomfortable things have quite a bit of value.

Discussion Questions:
~Phil and Claire’s favorite game is to have imaginary conversations while looking at other couples in the restaurant a la Mystery Science Theater 3000. What do you think of this habit? Is it loving? Is it contemptuous? Do you think these conversations bond them with each other or are unhealthy? Would they ever let those other people hear them?
~Having a “date night” each week is something a lot of couples have taken to doing as a way of preserving alone time and romance. Can such a night become it’s own sort of chore and actually undermine the point of having one? What do you think of having a “date night?”

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Shirtless Mark Wahlberg. Are Phil’s concerns about him fair?
~The discussion in the car about husbands fantasizing about other women and wives (mothers) fantasizing about being alone. Does this fit your experience? How many husbands realize that this is what mothers dream of? How many women realize that this is what men dream of? Would you characterize the desire to be left alone as a sin in the same way that the desire to have an affair is? Is isolation merely healthy or is it anti-social or anti-community?
~In the restaurant watching in disbelief as the married couple makes out. Do you think most people in marriages wish they had that sort of spark? Do you think that’s a healthy desire or sort of like wishing you were young again? How realistic is it to think that every couple will have ongoing passion of such a demonstrative sort?
~Finding out about their friends getting a divorce. What do you think about the idea that married people would be more like roommates than lovers? Does that seem like a problem? How important is friendship as opposed to passion in a marriage?
~The very opening scene with Blitzkrieg Bop being played while they get ready for work. What is this scene trying to say?

.

Overall Grade: C+

Not as funny nor as entertaining as I expected, but some interesting things to think about, nevertheless.