FAMILY FRIENDLY
Looking for a family-friendly movie to see during these cold winter nights? You won’t go wrong with National Treasure. On the face of it, the film seems like a straightforward and enjoyable action feature, certainly appropriate for a Christian audience. It’s not without controversy, however.
Have you ever really looked at the back side of a dollar bill and wondered what the pyramid and the all-seeing eye on top of it mean? This and other mysteries from American history form the backdrop of National Treasure. Here’s a thumbnail sketch of the plot, which must remain skimpy lest too much of the story be given away. Nicolas Cage stars as an archaeologist who is searching for clues to find a vast “national treasure” hidden somewhere in America. The first clue is reported to be on the back of the Declaration of Independence, so of course Cage and his sidekicks have to “borrow” that document to locate the clue. Sound preposterous? It is, but somehow the movie works. The trouble is, each discovered clue just leads to the next clue, so Cage and friends don’t have an easy time of it. I won’t reveal what the treasure is.
Here’s the controversy: The film’s storyline leans heavily on actions of the Freemasons, whose historical members include George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and 11 other signers of the Declaration of Independence. There’s an ongoing controversy as to whether Freemasons are fundamentally Christian or anti-Christian. The film takes a pro view, portraying them as essentially benign figures who act morally and engage in positive causes. Others weigh in on the sinister side. Christian author Michael Phillips, for example, takes Freemasons to task in his novels A Rift in Time and Hidden in Time. A visit to Google or Ask Jeeves will show you just how much has been written on both sides of the question.
Positives:
Acting: Quite accomplished throughout. Nicolas Cage gives one of his uniquely quirky performances. John Voight and Christopher Plummer are effective.
Tension: Lots of it. The bad guys are constantly on the tail of Cage and his friends. It can get pretty excruciating.
Speed: One of the best things about National Treasure is that it never slows down, never drags.
Values and Language: Cage and the other good guys act unselfishly and do the right thing. There’s no bad language or sexual innuendo.
History: The movie is a great history lesson. It’s chock full of interestingly contextualized facts and events about American history.
Negatives: Only one, really. A strength of movies of this type is they allow the director to play an engaging game with the audience by throwing in red herrings and testing the attention and perspicacity of the viewer. That’s absent here, since each unearthed clue simply leads to the next clue. There’s no real chance for the viewer to figure out what’s really happening.
Nonetheless: National Treasure is worth seeing. Besides being entertaining, it can teach you something and pique your curiosity about the Freemason issue.
Film Rating: PG
My Rating: 3 stars.
WAR AND HORSES
Mattie: Hi, Patty. I'm in the mood for a good movie, and you're always the first person I turn to for suggestions.
Patty: Well, there are lots of good things out there right now. What kind of movie are you in the mood to see?
Mattie: I'm up for something sentimental -- not overly cerebral – I wouldn't even mind a good cry.
Patty: In that case, I've got the perfect recommendation for you – War Horse, the new movie by Steven Spielberg. Have you heard of it?
Mattie: Yeah, I've seen some previews on TV – wasn't sure how much I'd like it. You know how movie ads are. But what's the plot of War Horse?
Patty: Well, it starts off in a small village in Devon, England, right before World War I. Ted Narracot is at an auction for horses, and against all logic and reason, he goes into debt to buy a big horse that he wants to use to plow his farm. Everyone thinks he's out of his mind because he drinks a lot and his family is in desperate financial straits, but he insists on doing it. He takes the horse home and endures his wife Rose's criticism for spending money they don't have. His son Albert is ecstatic, though; he loves the horse, which he names Joey, and the family begins the long process of teaching the horse to plow their farmland, which is full of rocks. Not long after that, Britain enters World War I, and some soldiers come through their small village trying to buy war horses. They finally persuade the family to sell Joey, and the soldier who buys him promises to return Joey to the family if he possibly can. The son is heartbroken because of the bond he's developed with Joey, but he accepts the necessity. Then Joey goes off to war.
Mattie: Does Joey survive the war? And does Albert get reunited with Joey?
Patty: I'm going to leave that to you to find out; it would spoil the action if I told you. The British sent a tremendous number of horses in World War I, and not very many of them came back. But here's something I can tell you: About two years later, Albert is old enough, so he goes off to join the war.
Mattie: Is the movie gruesome and violent?
Patty: Well, it isn't like Saving Private Ryan, which Spielberg also directed. But it does show the horrors of war. It's rated PG-13 for a certain amount of violence, and there's a horrendous scene where Joey gets hopelessly tangled in barbed wire. His chances of getting out of the situation don't seem very likely. I read, though, that the "barbed wire" they used in filming was made of rubber, so no animals got hurt.
Mattie: Anything else you can tell me?
Patty: Well, the acting is great, by Peter Mullan and Emily Watson, who play the parents, and by Jeremy Irvine, who plays Albert. But the biggest stars are the 12 or so horses who play Joey. I even read that these horses had to have makeup so that they would look like the same horse.
Mattie: Does it seem like a Christian movie?
Patty: Yes, it does; or at least it has a lot of Christian values in it. The soldiers call Joey a "miracle horse." You see a soldier in the war saying the 23rd psalm. The whole story is about bravery and sacrifice and how people need to persevere in difficult circumstances.
Mattie: OK, you've convinced me. I'm going. How would you rate it?
Patty: I'd give it about 3 ¼ stars. Let me just tell you, though, that my son saw this movie before I did, and he said I'd better take along a handkerchief. I'd advise you to do the same.
INTERESTING FOR ITS HISTORY
Let’s face it, folks: there aren’t many new movies out there right now that seem suitable or likely to appeal to a Christian audience. One that does have something to recommend it, however, is Kingdom of Heaven.
Kingdom of Heaven is set at the time of the Crusades. In the year 1184, a Crusader knight named Godfrey returns to his home in France and announces to the young man Balian that he is his father. Balian has just buried his wife, who committed suicide because of the death of their child. Balian goes with Godfrey to the Holy Land to seek forgiveness, both for himself and for his wife, who according to the beliefs of the time was doomed to Hell. Arriving in Jerusalem, Balian becomes involved in a Crusade to defend the Kingdom of Jerusalem from the Muslims. In so doing, he awakens his own untapped potential and becomes a knight like his father.
On the Plus Side:
Based on actual historical characters, Kingdom of Heaven has a lot to teach us. Many of us don’t know a whole lot about the Crusades, which, as one reviewer has said, “are definitely a blot on Christianity.” Orlando Bloom, in a terrific performance as Balian, embodies the person seeking in his own way to know the Lord. Many of his actions are admirable, and he comes to be strong but humble. Director Ridley Scott is said to be an agnostic and a believer in works. Perhaps inadvertently, though, Scott makes his main character a true seeker of God. Balian’s motto is this: “What man is a man who does not make the world better?” Early on, Balian shows kindness to a Muslim, an action which is later repaid. Though the story is told from essentially a Christian viewpoint, the Muslims are complex and not presented as black-and-white cartoonish bad guy characters.
On the Minus Side:
Kingdom of Heaven is quite violent and is definitely not a movie for children. There is no objectionable language and only one sexually suggestive scene, but there’s lots of blood, guts, and gore. There are many tedious battle scenes. The film also lacks a well-articulated theme.
Bottom line: Kingdom of Heaven is worth seeing for the history it presents, particularly regarding how the Crusades are to be seen as part of the history of Christianity.
Film Rating: R (for violence)
My Rating 2 ½ stars.
ARE WE BEING GOOD STEWARDS?
What does Scripture tell us about environmental stewardship? Genesis 2:13 says: The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. We can infer from this that the Lord expects us to take good care of the world, but what, exactly, does that mean? An Inconvenient Truth and Who Killed the Electric Car? are two new documentary films that evaluate our treatment of the environment. They’re both interesting and provocative, especially if we can set politics aside.
An Inconvenient Truth is Al Gore’s plea for us to take global warming seriously. You probably wouldn’t think that watching excerpts of Gore’s worldwide slide show would make for an interesting movie, but it does. The claims Gore makes are perhaps familiar: the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere keeps going up; 2005 was one of the hottest years ever; global warming causes both drought and increasingly severe storms (e.g., Hurricane Katrina); the polar icecaps may melt and flood coastal areas. What does Gore think we should do? Among other things, we can commit to personal recycling, consider buying a hybrid car, and pray. A good bit of An Inconvenient Truth seems on target. Unfortunately, Gore gets political at times; his film would have been stronger without the political barbs.
Who Killed the Electric Car? is a fascinating series of interviews with the former owners of the electric cars produced by General Motors starting in 1996. The California Legislature had passed an electric car mandate, and for a while there were quite a few of these autos on California highways and in other places. They were popular with their owners. Actually, the word owners is a misnomer, for consumers could only lease the cars; they couldn’t buy them. According to the film, this was all part of GM’s plan to throw a bone to environmentalists without being serious about improving the environment, as witnessed by the fact that GM later withdrew all the cars from the market and destroyed them.
Good environmental stewardship should not be a political issue. These two films ask penetrating questions and challenge us to look beneath the surface in judging how to care for the world. They’re both well worth seeing, if only to get ourselves to think carefully about the questions they pose.
My Ratings:
An Inconvenient Truth: 3 stars (PG)
Who Killed the Electric Car? 3 stars (PG)
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 play 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.
Highly recommended.
Film Rating: PG-13
My Rating: 3 ½ stars
I can’t resist a comment 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.
THE AMAZING MR. WILBERFORCE
There’s a picture out now that we should all see. It’s titled Amazing Grace, but it might be equally well titled Amazing Wilberforce. Many were involved in the abolition of slavery in Britain in the early 1800s, but William Wilberforce, more than anyone, led the charge. As the movie shows, he was truly an amazing individual, and it seems clear that the abolition of slavery in the British Empire laid some of the moral groundwork for its abolition in America.
Many of us know the story of John Newton, who as a child memorized Bible verses and hymns at his mother’s knee. As a young man falling deeper and deeper into sin, however, he joined the British navy, deserted, was captured and flogged, and became a captain of ships, some of which carried slaves from Africa. On the night of March 9, 1748, a fierce storm threatened to doom his ship. On the next day, Newton turned to the Lord, later saying, “The Lord came from on high and delivered me out of deep waters.” Newton eventually became a great evangelist, preacher, and foe of slavery. He wrote hundreds of hymns, including the one so familiar to us today.
Among other things, Newton was the friend and mentor of Wilberforce. The film opens at the close of the 18th century, when Wilberforce is agonizing as to whether he should lead a private life of spiritual contemplation or a public one as a member of Parliament. He meets a number of anti-slavery activists who tell Wilberforce he can do both. Finally recognizing that God honors public efforts on His behalf, Wilberforce throws himself totally into the cause of abolition. He is aided by his friend William Pitt, who becomes prime minister at age 24; by Lord Charles Fox, an elderly MP who switches sides and supports Wilberforce; and by other reformers. The picture then shows in agonizing detail the excruciatingly difficult, seemingly hopeless task of persuading Parliament to end slavery. Wilberforce and his supporters fail again and again, and Wilberforce himself suffers illness and great discouragement. In the end, though, he prevails.
The film is acted mostly by relatively unknown actors who give excellent performances: Ioan Gruffudd plays Wilberforce and Romola Garai the role of Barbara Spooner, the woman Wilberforce eventually marries. The only well-known actors are Michael Gambon, who masterfully plays the role of Lord Charles Fox; and Albert Finney, who is a standout as Newton. In one of the movie’s most touching scenes, the now-blind Newton tells Wilberforce he not only can succeed in his quest, but he must. Newton’s statements ironically recall the lines of the song: “I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see.”
I have only one quibble: one would expect somewhat more focus on Newton. A short dramatization of the storm scene would have sufficed, or even a retelling of it. Nonetheless, Amazing Grace is powerful and very much worth seeing. Above all, it shows that we must persevere in our work for the Lord, no matter how daunting or hopeless the quest may seem.
Film rating: PG-13
My Rating: 3 ¼ stars
CRAZINESS IN THE SAHARA
OK, how’s this for a crazy movie plot? It’s the middle of the Civil War, and there’s a sea battle raging between the Union and the Confederacy. A Confederate ship manages to escape from the Union forces and, miraculously, crosses the Atlantic. Reaching Africa, it encounters an incredibly powerful, once-in-a-century storm and is blown off course and into the Niger River in West Africa. Somehow the ship makes it all the way up the Niger into what is now the country of Mali, where it runs aground and eventually becomes part of the native folklore of the region.
Flash forward about 140 years. Dirk and Al are two swashbuckling men who work for NUMA (the National Underwater and Marine Agency), which tries to uncover sunken artifacts. They take it upon themselves to find this “ship of the desert,” in this case not a camel. In the process, they hook up with Eva, a doctor working for the World Health Organization who is attempting to find the source of a plague which is killing people in the region. Eva, of course, is beautiful and resourceful.
Sound preposterous? It is. Sahara is sort of a cross between the James Bond and Indiana Jones movies, minus the sex found in Bond. But if you can willingly suspend your disbelief, you’ll probably have a good time watching this movie. It has some negatives, but the positives outweigh them. Here’s why:
On the positive side:
Acting: Matthew McConaughey, Steve Zahn, and Penelope Cruz do excellent jobs of portraying the characters. They’re energetic and believable in their unbelievable adventures. Eva is not a Bond girl. She uses her brain.
Setting: A good deal of the movie was filmed in Morocco and has gorgeous scenes of the Sahara Desert and realistic-looking vistas of river, plain, and village.
Excitement: The movie never slows down and has lots of nail-biting episodes, some of which are at least as good as those in the Indiana Jones films.
Dialogue: Sahara has some of the sharpest, funniest movie dialogue in a long time. The characters actually talk as real people talk, and there’s not much objectionable language. At a particularly dangerous moment, for example, the wisecracking Al says: “I just wonder when we’re going to have to sit down and evaluate our decision-making paradigm.” Great timing.
Values: Sahara doesn’t deal much with issues. However, Dirk, Al, and Eva are the good guys, and they and the other good folks are kind and helpful. The movie looks straight at Africa without condescension and allows us a glimpse of other cultures.
On the negative side:
Implausibility: As noted above, the premise is hard to accept (though meticulously worked out once you do).
Language: I know I said there isn’t much objectionable language here, but there is a bit. Jesus’ name is used in vain once, and there are four or five instances of the “Oh my _____” misuse of the Lord’s name. There are a few mild epithets.
Violence: The film is rated PG-13 and has a number of violent (though not gratuitously so) scenes. This isn’t a movie for children.
Clive Cussler, author of the Dirk Pitt best-selling adventure novels on which Sahara is based, has said he doesn’t have sex or four-letter words in his books. The producers have strayed a little from his guidelines, but not far. It’s getting harder and harder these days to find anything to see that doesn’t dishonor the Lord or offend us. Sahara is one of the few pictures out there that at least passes the minimal test.
Film Rating: PG-13
My Rating: 2 ¾ stars.
SOME SPIDER!
A local reviewer gave Charlotte’s Web three stars and said that the movie, while good, “isn’t as good as E.B. White’s book, but then again, how could it be?” I read the book to my kids when they were young; we were all entranced by it, and the reviewer’s statement may be true as far as it goes. Can a movie ever be as good as the book it’s made from? Or is this an apples-to-oranges comparison? At any rate, Charlotte’s Web is well done, touching, and certainly consistent with Christian values.
In case you’re not familiar with the story, here’s a thumbnail sketch: A young girl named Fern lives on a farm and is present when their mother pig gives birth to a slew of piglets. Fern’s father wants to “do away with” the runt of the litter, saying he simply won’t be able to survive. Fern is horrified and insists that the piglet, whom she names Wilbur, be given a chance to live. After much coaxing, Fern convinces her father; she nurses Wilbur to health by feeding him herself. Before long Wilbur is thriving, but then a new eventuality rears its ugly head: Wilbur is destined for the Christmas dinner table. What to do? Fern is at a loss.
Enter Charlotte … full name Charlotte A. Cavatica, a gray spider who lives in the barn and befriends Wilbur. Charlotte has ideas – good ones. After carefully thinking through the situation, she performs her first masterstroke: the spinning of a web that says SOME PIG. People soon come from far and wide to see this minor miracle. The trouble is, Fern’s father takes a lot of convincing, and Charlotte has to perform several more “everyday miracles” to keep Wilbur alive past Christmas.
Charlotte’s Web, which by the way is rated G (a rarity these days), is one of the sweetest movies in a long time. It’s a tale of loving your neighbor, being there for your friends, and making sacrifices, and the chances are good that it will jerk some tears out of you. The computer-generated special effects are fine, and it’s really fun to try to match the voices of several prominent actors — Oprah Winfrey, Robert Redford, Kathy Bates, John Cleese, Reba McEntire, Steve Buscemi — to the animal characters they portray. I won’t tell you who plays Charlotte; that’ll be up to you to figure out. I have only one quibble, and that’s the character of Fern, played by Dakota Fanning. For my money, she comes off as too much in control, not respectful enough of her parents. That’s a minor flaw, though. Go and see this movie, and take your whole family.
My Rating: 3 ¼ stars
