The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug -- December 2013

HOW ABOUT MORE TOLKIEN AND LESS JACKSON?

Installment # 2 in Peter Jackson's current Tolkien series, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, was released in December. It's certainly a popular movie; as of this writing, it has already earned over $800 million worldwide. Like many a middle item in a trilogy, though, it doesn't quite measure up to the first installment and what will presumably be a smashing final episode a year from now. In his presumed quest to make The Hobbit series more like The Lord of the Rings, director Jackson has added a number of elements that aren't in the novel. Overall, while The Desolation of Smaug is worth seeing, to my mind a good deal of the charm of Tolkien's original story has been lost.

The Desolation of Smaug picks up where An Unexpected Journey left off. Hobbit Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf the Wizard, and the 13 dwarves are in the Forest of Mirkwood headed for Erebor, the ancient dwarf kingdom under the mountain, to win back their kingdom by defeating the dragon Smaug. They are soon accosted by gigantic, terrible spiders, and once they extricate themselves from those arachnids they are captured by the wood elves of Mirkwood. As Tolkien fans will remember, there is not a great deal of love lost between elves and dwarves, so Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, and company must use their wits to escape, which they do by concealing themselves in wine barrels and then floating down a river. Once they get to Erebor, a significant portion of the picture is taken up by their battle with Smaug, an overpowering and most unpleasant dragon.

On the Plus Side

Acting: As in the first installment, the acting is strong, with Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen giving their usual impressive performances as Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf the Grey, respectively, along with the 13 actors who play the dwarves. Benedict Cumberbatch does a good job as the voice of Smaug the dragon.

Introduction of Key Characters: There's Smaug, of course, and the character of The Necromancer, who will become the evil Dark Lord Sauron in The Lord of the Rings. There's also the character of Beorn, a skin-changer who transforms from bear to man and back again.

Special Effects: They're impressive overall.

Themes: Along with the overriding theme of good versus evil, the dangers of falling victim to pride, greed, and lack of forgiveness are well illustrated. Thorin, the dwarf king, is a hero of sorts, but he can't forget (and forgive) that the wood elves wouldn't help the dwarves. He and the other dwarves are also tempted by the incredible riches possessed by Smaug in his lair.

A Nice Spiritual Touch: Gandalf the Wizard has a staff that emits light when he uses it – a reminder that Tolkien's books have an underlying Christian perspective.

On the Minus Side

Added Characters: Peter Jackson and his group have brought into the story new characters who are not in Tolkien's novel. One is Legolas the elf, who might actually be a justifiable addition because he does appear in The Lord of the Rings. One wonders, however, whether this character's inclusion is because of the box office appeal of actor Orlando Bloom. A much less justifiable addition is the character of Tauriel, a female elf no doubt added for romantic interest. This character does not appear in either The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings novels.

Violence: There's a lot of it – even if we don't see much blood.

The Interminable Dragon Sequence: Bilbo and the dwarves encounter Smaug the dragon in a sequence which goes on and on and on. A certain amount of this would have been acceptable, but there's far too much of Smaug here. There are times when less is more.

Bottom Line: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is worthwhile in that it more or less satisfactorily continues the story begun in An Unexpected Journey and carries through the theme of good versus evil. Tolkien and Jackson fans will probably enjoy seeing the characters so familiar to them. But in my view The Hobbit didn't need to be stretched out into three movies, and I'd like to have seen more of Tolkien's original story and less of Peter Jackson.

Film Rating: PG-13

My Rating: 2 ¾ stars

Not for children.

Saving Mr. Banks -- December 2013

MARY AND PAM

Patty: Hello?

Mattie: Hi Patty. Guess what. I wanted to get a recommendation from my favorite movie critic.

Patty: Sure, Mat. What are you up for? Heavy drama? Comedy? Something heartwarming?

Mattie: Heartwarming, for sure. My nieces are here visiting, and I thought it would be fun to take them out to the flicks.

Patty: How old are they?

Mattie: They're in their teens.

Patty: OK, then, I know just the thing: Saving Mr. Banks.

Mattie: Is that the Walt Disney picture – something about Mary Poppins?

Patty: That's it.

Mattie: Well, I was curious about that one. What's it really about?

Patty: It's about Disney persuading P. L. Travers – you know, the author of the Mary Poppins books – to give him the rights to make a musical about Mary. It took him 20 years to win her over.

Mattie: Sounds pretty derivative – a movie about making a movie?

Patty: I know what you mean, but it works. It's really about the character of P. L. Travers as compared to the character of Walt Disney – and it's also about relationships between parents and children, especially between fathers and daughters.

Mattie: Why did it take Disney 20 years to persuade her to give him the rights?

Patty: Well, it's the characters of the two of them. Walt Disney comes off as a basically outgoing, humorous, enjoy-life-kind-of-guy. P. L. Travers is just the opposite: At first glance she seems prim and proper, introverted, stubborn ... really formal. We can see that in the names they call each other. Disney insists on calling Travers Pam – Pamela is her real first name – and Travers doesn't like that. She won't call Disney Walt. She insists on calling him Mr. Disney. And then there are lots of other obstacles: Disney wants to turn her stories into a musical, but Travers is adamant that "Mary Poppins doesn't sing," and she says there can't be any animation. She thinks Disney just wants to expand his empire, but his own daughters love the Mary Poppins stories, and he's promised them he'll make them into a film. He finally convinces her that he loves the Mary Poppins character and isn't just trying to make himself richer.

Mattie: What about the relationships between fathers and daughters? That sounds interesting.

.

Patty: Well, the whole movie is done with flashbacks between the present with Walt Disney and the past with Travers and her family, especially her father, in Australia. Travers and her father had a close relationship when she was a girl, but he had a drinking problem, and he got very sick and eventually died. That devastated her, and she's carried that devastation with her for most of her life.

Mattie: What does the title mean? Who's Mr. Banks?

Patty: In the stories, Mary Poppins becomes the nanny to the Banks children in London. Mr. Banks is a stiff, flawed father who doesn't pay enough attention to his kids. He gets into some very serious difficulties with his job at a bank and almost loses his job. In reality, Travers's father couldn't save his family, but in the stories Mr. Banks ultimately is able to save his. You can see it as the way Travers dealt with her pain and difficulties and managed to save her father in her memory.

Mattie: How's the acting?

Patty: Top notch. Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson give their usual strong performances. So does the rest of the cast. Colin Farrell is terrific as Travers's father.

Mattie: Sounds quite good. What kind of rating would you give it?

Patty: I'd give it about 3 ¼ stars. It's rated PG-13 for some language issues, including misuses of the Lord's name, and probably also Travers's father's alcholism.

Mattie; OK, Pat, you've convinced me. Do you want to go along with us?

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire -- December 2013

THE HO-HUM GAMES

In 2012 we had the first movie installment of The Hunger Games. This year we have installment #2: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. There's no doubt that these two films are a sensation: The first entry in the series had earned $408 million domestically by January 2013, and Catching Fire has already earned $371.7 million in the few weeks since its release. So these movies are popular. But are they worthwhile? I saw the first item over a year ago and thought it had its good points. The second item in the series, however, is a rather different story. About 30 minutes into the film, after the action had been set up, I said to myself, "Oh no. Are we going to have to sit through these Games again?" By the end of the movie I was feeling really antsy.

A brief plot summary might be in order here. The time is perhaps 100 or so years in the future. Seventy-five years ago there was a rebellion which led to a civil war and then a military takeover. Since then the US, renamed Panem, has been divided into 12 districts and the government replaced by a dystopian dictatorship called The Capitol. Each year there occurs a major event called the Hunger Games, for which two young persons (a girl and a boy), called tributes, are selected from each district. The 24 tributes will fight things out in the Games until only one is left alive. From the government's point of view the purpose of the Games is to strongly discourage rebellion against the system while entertaining the populace. The Games are televised and extremely popular with the people of Panem – and reminiscent of bread and circuses in the Roman Empire. In the first picture, teenage protagonists Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark from District 12 both survived and "won" the contest – an outcome which had never happened before. Supposedly The Capitol will take care of Katniss and Peeta for the rest of their lives. No one ever really "wins" the games, though. The evil President Snow announces that for the 75th anniversary of The Capitol there will be a "Quarter Quell" which will require Katniss and Peeta to return to battle again with the other 22 tributes.

Thus the action of the second picture in the series is established, and the bulk of Catching Fire deals, tediously in my estimation, with Katniss and Peeta fighting for their survival with the 22 others. Does the film have any redeeming values? Perhaps. In an article in The Christian Research Journal (to be found on equip.org, the website of Hank Hanegraaff, the Bible Answer Man), Christian writer and apologist Holly Ordway discusses the import of The Hunger Games books, written by novelist Suzanne Collins. In a very interesting and erudite presentation, Ordway makes the point that Collins's novels (and perhaps by extension the films) can be used as a vehicle for literary and Christian apologetics. Ordway notes that there is no Christian worldview present in the stories -- God is unmentioned and apparently unknown – but Katniss and Peeta and some of the other characters make ethical decisions. Since there is seemingly no grounding for ethical beliefs, where do these actions come from? In-depth discussions of this question with aficionados of the novels and the movies might be very useful and rewarding. Interestingly, however, Ordway does make the comment that "The plot of The Hunger Games centers on what is essentially a live-action video game."

The picture is satisfactorily acted: Jennifer Lawrence is a credible Katniss, and Stanley Tucci has a nice turn as an amusing television Games emcee, as does Philip Seymour Hoffman as a government stoolie. Donald Sutherland, however, isn't nefarious enough in his role as the evil President Snow.

Bottom Line: Other reviewers have pointed out that both Hunger Games movies are about personal sacrifice, as exemplified in John 15:13: "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." There is certainly merit to this observation. In addition, the film's conclusion has a nice twist. For me, though, the video game quality of most of the action overpowers. But since there is no accounting for tastes, you should judge for yourself. See Ordway's article in the Christian Research Journal on equip.org if at all possible.

Film Rating: PG-13

My Ratings: Catching Fire: 2 ¼ stars

                    The Hunger Games (first installment) 2 ¾ stars

2013 Retrospective: Movies Seen in 2013

2013 Retrospective

One Man's Opinion: Movies Seen in 2013

Most Overdone	The Great Gatsby
Most Tedious	The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Movie with the Foulest Language	American Hustle
Best Sports Movie	42: The Jackie Robinson Story
Best Movie with Music	Quartet
Most Exciting	Captain Phillips
Most Beautiful Visually	Gravity
Best Reflection of the Gospel	The Book Thief
Best Characterizations	Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey in 42
Best Performances	Harrison Ford in 42; Johnny Depp in The Lone Ranger; Christian Bale in American Hustle; Maggie Smith in Quartet
Best Revisited Classics	Casablanca; Judgment at Nuremberg
Best Movie That Almost Nobody Saw (but worth a look)	Bless Me, Ultima
Also Worthwhile	The Lone Ranger Man of Steel The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug Emperor Prisoners Saving Mr. Banks
Runner-up Best Pictures	Gravity; The Book Thief; 42; Captain Phillips
Best Picture	12 Years a Slave

Bad Day at Black Rock

WHEN IN DOUBT, FIND A CLASSIC

“So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in Egypt.”
Deuteronomy 10:19


At the moment there’s nothing new out there that seems very appropriate for a Christian audience, so it’s time to look at a classic. Serendipitously, a few weeks ago I just happened to watch Bad Day at Black Rock, an old film I’d heard about but had never managed to see. I’m glad I finally did, though; it’s the kind of picture about which people say, “It’s too bad they don’t make movies like that anymore.”

The year is 1945. As the movie opens, we see a train streaking across the western desert, then gradually slowing, then finally stopping in the tiny village of Black Rock, located perhaps in southwestern Arizona, in the literal middle of nowhere. The few townspeople become alert and pay close attention, for it’s the first time the train has stopped in Black Rock in four years. Off the train steps a one-armed man named Macreedy (Spencer Tracy). Macreedy is dressed impeccably in a dark suit and carries only a briefcase. Saying he’ll only be in Black Rock for 24 hours, he proceeds to the town hotel and asks to rent a room. His reception is hostility on virtually all fronts, for Black Rock has a secret it is hiding.

Asked why he has come to Black Rock, Macreedy says he needs to find a Japanese man named Komoko who supposedly lives nearby in a place called Adobe Flat. The boss of the town (Robert Ryan) tells him that Komoko was taken to an internment camp at the beginning of the war. When Macreedy expresses disbelief, he incurs the boss’s wrath and before long finds his own life in danger. Not wanting to spoil your viewing pleasure, I won’t say anything more about the resolution of the conflict but will leave it to you to buy the DVD, get it from the library, or order it on Netflix. It’s more than worth it.

Black Rock is riveting, drawing you into the action almost without your knowing it. Not a scene is wasted. Released in 1955, it has a McCarthy era subtext. The film is about acquiring courage, about loving your neighbor, about making brave moral decisions. Tracy and Ryan superbly play the roles of hero and villain, respectively, and Ernest Borgnine and Lee Marvin are effective as slimy thugs. Walter Brennan as the town undertaker and Dean Jagger as the weak, alcoholic sheriff also perform well. Anne Francis does a creditable job at playing the town’s only visible woman. The scenery is amazing.

Anyone who likes movies should know Bad Day at Black Rock.

My rating: 3 ½ stars
    

Doubt; Slumdog Millionaire -- April 2009

ARE YOU CERTAIN, OR DO YOU HAVE DOUBTS?

It’s the year 1964. Sister Aloysius, principal of a Catholic school in the Bronx, runs a tight ship. Times are changing and standards slipping, she feels; the only antidote is strong discipline. Most of the students are terrified of Sister Aloysius, and that’s the way she wants things. Contrast her character with that of Sister James, a young nun who believes learning can be an exhilarating experience and tries to fill her classroom with joyfulness. Contrast both sisters with Father Flynn, a young, outgoing priest who loves his congregation and has sympathy for the students. Here we have all the ingredients for a collision course, and that’s exactly what we get in Doubt – in my view, one of the best pictures this year. Too bad it didn’t get a Best Picture nomination.

Here’s the key characteristic of Sister Aloysius: she’s absolutely certain about everything. One day Sister James observes Father Flynn in an action which might be inappropriate: he puts his hands on the head of Donald, the first black student in the school. Sister James reports this action to Sister Aloysius, and it isn’t long before the fireworks begin. Sister Aloysius is absolutely certain that a wrong has been committed and will stop at nothing, including lying and blackmail, to right this wrong. She arranges a confrontation in which she bullies Father Flynn with the question “What did you do to that boy?” Father Flynn reluctantly responds that Donald was caught drinking the altar wine and that he merely wished to protect him from incrimination and exacerbation of his already difficult situation: he is the only black child in a white school and is basically friendless. Sister Aloysius, of course, will not accept this; she’s too offended by Flynn’s lack of decorum in, for example, taking three sugars in his tea and keeping his nails long. Aloysius soon arranges a meeting with Donald’s mother, during which the mother tells the sister that her son does have some unfortunate “tendencies.” This closes the sale for Aloysius, who immediately begins agitating for Flynn’s removal.

Doubt was directed by John Patrick Shanley, who also adapted the screenplay from his own Doubt: A Parable, which won the 2005 Tony award for best drama. The acting is uniformly excellent: Meryl Streep plays Sister Aloysius, Philip Seymour Hoffman Father Flynn, Amy Adams Sister James, and Viola Davis Mrs. Miller, Donald’s mother. It is sometimes said that if we hate the character portrayed by an actor, that actor has done a creditable job. Well, I hated the character of Sister Aloysius. Streep is nothing short of brilliant.

Doubt gives no easy answers; in fact, it gives no clear answers at all as to what really happened or whether or not Father Flynn is guilty. The recent sexual abuse scandals involving Catholic priests are part of the backdrop of the picture but not its main focus. The film is really about the interaction of doubt, faith, and certainty and might seem at first glance to be suggesting that doubt and faith are at odds. Shanley appears to be saying the opposite: that doubt and faith go hand in hand, and there is a pernicious danger in slavish adherence to certainty. As Proverbs 3:7 says, we are not to be wise in our own eyes.

This movie will make you think, at the very least.

Film Rating: PG-13
My Rating: 3 ½ stars
Highly Recommended

    

I can’t resist some brief comments about Slumdog Millionaire, which recently won the Academy Award for Best Picture: In a nutshell, Slumdog is about Jamal, a young Muslim man (and an orphan) from Mumbai, India, who is on the verge of answering the final question in India’s version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. The show’s producers have him arrested, though, because they think a “slumdog“ like Jamal could not be this knowledgeable and therefore must have cheated. In a series of flashbacks during the police interrogation, Jamal recounts events in his life that illustrate how he knew the answers to the questions. This riveting and touching movie is one of the most original pictures in some time.

HOWEVER: Strong cautionary note: It is rated R, is quite violent, and is not appropriate for children or younger teenagers.

My Rating: 3 ½ stars.
Highly Recommended