It's a Wonderful Life -- December 2008

ONE OF THE BEST EVER

Here’s the best recommendation for the Christmas season, now upon us: It’s a Wonderful Life, Frank Capra’s heartwarming picture about George Bailey, played by James Stewart. If you haven’t seen this one, you need to do so. This movie seems to get better with each viewing and is truly a classic.

The chances are that you’ve seen this picture, perhaps many times, but if you haven’t, here’s the plot in a nutshell: George Bailey is in major trouble. When his father died, George took over the operation of his family’s savings and loan in Bedford Falls, NY. All went well with the business for a while, but then George’s uncle inadvertently lost the money he was about to deposit in the local bank. The money fell into the clutches of Old Man Potter, the richest and probably meanest man in town. Potter will stop at nothing to gain control of the savings and loan, so he calls in the bank examiners. It’s Christmas eve, and George, at the end of his rope, is about to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. Enter Clarence Oddbody, a rather befuddled angel second class who has been trying for decades to win his wings. Will Clarence save George and win his wings in the process?

The cast, composed of Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore, Henry Travers, and many other stellar performers, is remarkable. It’s a Wonderful Life powerfully shows how much our individual actions affect the lives of others. Highly recommended.

Film Rating: G.
My Rating: 4 stars.

Who Killed the Electric Car? -- September 2006

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 Rating: 3 stars 
Film Rating: PG

2005 Retrospective: Movies Seen in 2005

2005 Retrospective: 
One Man's Opinion: Movies Seen in 2005

Dullest	Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith
Most overblown	King Kong
Emptiest	Ocean's 12
Best animal actors in an animal movie	The penguins in March of the Penguins
Best dialogue	Sahara
Best reflection of the gospel	The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Best characterizations	Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice
Best sports story	Cinderella Man
Best monster movie with an actual theme	War of the Worlds
Best acting performances	Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon in Walk the Line
Most thought-provoking	Tie between The Constant Gardener and Good Night, and Good Luck
Most entertaining	Walk the Line

King Kong -- February 2006

WHY REMAKE A CLASSIC?

Late on Christmas day, several of our family members ventured out to see King Kong, one of the “big” movies of the season. We were disappointed to be told that it was sold out. I had to wait three weeks to see it but needn’t have been annoyed; the new remade King Kong is just not that good. Its strengths are outweighed by its weaknesses, but before we examine both of those, let me give the briefest of plot summaries: A struggling movie director, a would-be actress, and a well-known playwright find themselves on a tramp steamer headed for (apparently) the Far East. The obsessed director is on a quest to find an exotic subject for a movie that will resurrect his career. The steamer encounters a great storm and is blown to an “undiscovered” island which at first appears uninhabited. Finding hundreds of skeletons, the movie folks and the crew think they’ve stumbled on a deserted anthropological gold mine, but they soon learn that there are in fact people living there, and the skeletons represent sacrifices to – you guessed it – the mighty (but herbivorous) King Kong. A good deal of the movie is taken up with their encounters with Kong and every other computer-generated creature imaginable. Needless to say, the director’s obsession with filming everything he can see results in Kong’s capture and his being taken to Manhattan and his major moment atop the Empire State Building.


STRENGTHS:
Theme: The beauty-and-the-beast theme works well; we come to sympathize with the giant gorilla. More significantly, the picture makes a decent criticism of greed and exploitation.
Acting: Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody do creditable jobs of portraying the “beauty” (the analogue of Fay Wray in the original film) and the playwright she loves. The other actors also do reasonably well.
Locales: The film looks beautiful — even if most of the locales are computer-generated.


WEAKNESSES:
Length: At three hours or so, the picture is much too long.
Special Effects: They’re way, way overdone. In one seemingly interminable segment, Kong, the movie people, and the ship’s crew fight every dinosaur and other slimy creature imaginable. It soon becomes ludicrous.
Language: There are several misuses of the Lord’s name.
Purpose: The original (1933) King Kong is considered a classic. There was a dressy but feeble remake in 1976 starring Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange. Director Peter Jackson did a wonderful job with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but he has fallen victim to the current mania for remaking movies that don’t need to be remade. In the future he might be well advised to tackle things that haven’t been done before.

Film Rating: PG-13
My Rating: 2 ¼ stars. 
Bottom Line: See it if you must, but with March Madness approaching, you’d be much better off ordering or buying the 1933 Golden Oldie.

Superman Returns -- August 2006

SUPERMAN AND JESUS

After an absence of several years, the Man of Steel is back on the big screen in Superman Returns. There are some reasons to see this movie and some reasons not to. Before we discuss the pros and cons, however, a bit of plot summary might be appropriate. Superman (aka Clark Kent) has been away from Metropolis for several years, during which time his arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor, was put on trial and set free because Superman did not appear to testify at his trial. Meanwhile, Lois Lane has had a son, who is now about eight or nine. Lois and her son are living with Richard, the nephew of Perry White, editor-in-chief of the Daily Planet. From all appearances, the boy is Richard’s son, but he and Lois have never bothered to marry.


Why You Might Want to See It
For me the big question about Superman, both comic book and movie, has long been whether the Man of Steel is supposed to symbolize Jesus. One of the key moments in the film is father Jor-El’s speech, via crystal, to son Kal-El: “Even though you’ve been raised as a human being you’re not one of them. They can be a great people, Kal-El. They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all — their capacity for good —I have sent them you, my only son.”

Sounds almost Biblical, doesn’t it? Since the word “el” is one of the Hebrew words for “God,” it seems pretty obvious that Superman is intended to represent Jesus in some way. This is all the more likely given the fact that Lois Lane has just written a prize-winning article entitled “Why the World Does Not Need a Savior.” The theological connection is certainly there, but how accurate is it? The focus here is on Superman’s teaching and improving us, rather than on the conforming of our image to that of Christ. I’ll leave this basic question for you to decide, but the film at least asks a provocative question.


Besides its compelling theme, Superman Returns has impressive production values and acting. Superman’s flying looks smooth and natural. Kate Bosworth is a believable Lois Lane, and while Brandon Routh might not be as excellent a Superman as Christopher Reeve was, he does well overall, and his physical resemblance to Reeve is uncanny. Kevin Spacey does a creditable job as Lex Luthor, despite the basic silliness of his character.


Why You Might Want to Skip It
Try as it might, Superman Returns cannot seem to rise past the comic book level. The middle section, about three-fifths of the entire picture, is essentially a cartoon with human actors. Lex Luthor (Spacey), Superman’s arch-nemesis, has concocted an evil plot to create a new continent in the Atlantic Ocean and in so doing to render Superman weak and helpless by exposing him to — what else — radioactive kryptonite. This plot device plays out in predictably tedious fashion. Another flaw, to my mind, involves Lois Lane’s basically immoral lifestyle. In today’s politically correct society, it is fine for a couple to live together out of wedlock; in fact, hardly anything is made of it at all. Add to that the questionable parentage of Lois’s son and you get moral turpitude, all the more offensive given the fact that Superman is perhaps intended to represent Jesus.


The Bottom Line
Superman Returns has already earned a great deal of money, as did the previous four Superman movies. I believe that their popularity stems from the fact that Superman is a Christ figure, and that’s what we yearn for. See it and draw your own conclusions.


Rated PG-13 for “intense action violence.”
My Rating: 2 ½ stars

2009 Retrospective: Movies Seen in 2009

2009 Retrospective: 
One Man's Opinion: Movies Seen in 2009

Most overdone	2012
Most overrated	The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Hardest to follow (but still worthwhile)	Surrogates
Most amusing	Julie and Julia; Old Dogs
Best dialogue	The Blind Side
Most inspirational	The Blind Side
Best reflection of the gospel	Faith like Potatoes
Best characterizations	Michael Oher and Leigh Anne Tuohy in The Blind Side; Julia Child in Julie and Julia
Most original	Slumdog Millionaire
Most heartwarming	Marley and Me
Best acting performances	Meryl Streep in Doubt and Julie and Julia; Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side; Dev Patel in Slumdog Millionaire
Best animal actors	The 17 Marleys in Marley and Me
Most thought-provoking	Doubt
Other worthwhile pictures	A Christmas Carol; Knowing; Star Trek; Valkyrie
Most riveting pictures	Slumdog Millionaire; Doubt

2010 Retrospective: Movies Seen in 2010

2010 Retrospective: 
One Man’s Opinion: Movies Seen in 2010

Most overrated / politically correct	Avatar
Most morally objectionable (warning: rated R)	Crazy Heart
Best gospel reflection	To Save a Life
Most touching emotionally	Letters to God
Most exciting	Salt
Best acting performances	Emma Thompson in Nanny McPhee Returns; Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela in Invictus
Best animal performances	The horses that played Big Red / Secretariat
Most interesting visually	Alice in Wonderland
Best revisited classic	Bad Day at Black Rock
Best script	Secretariat
Most significant pictures	To Save a Life; Invictus

Hoosiers; Rabbit-Proof Fence -- May 2006

TIME FOR AN OLDIE AND A SEMI-OLDIE


Except for a few movies already reviewed, there isn’t much out there in the theaters right now that’s appropriate for a Christian audience, so let’s look at a worthy oldie that you can get on DVD. Hoosiers is called by some “the best sports movie ever made.” We’ve recently gone through March Madness, so it might be a good time to consider why this picture is so popular and moving.

Here’s the gist of Hoosiers, if you haven’t seen it or don’t remember it too well. Norman Dale, age 50 or so, arrives in the small Indiana town of Hickory in the fall of 1951, having just accepted the job as the local high school’s new basketball coach. The previous coach has recently died, and the school’s principal is Norman’s old friend Cletis. Here’s the wrinkle, though: Norman hasn’t been in basketball for over ten years because he was dismissed from the college where he coached for hitting one of his players. This is Norman’s final chance to resurrect his career and redeem himself. Is he welcomed with open arms? Absolutely not. There’s considerable opposition to his authoritarian methods at first, especially from the fathers of some of the players, who want things done their way. It isn’t long before the townspeople are moved to take a vote on whether or not to dismiss him. The fact that Norman has enlisted the help of the town drunk as an assistant coach adds insult to injury. At a key moment, however, Jimmy Chitwood, the star player who has so far refused to participate, dramatically announces at the town meeting that he will play after all — if Norman continues as coach. Done deal. The team comes together and, through a great deal of hard work, transforms from terrible to great. I won’t reveal the ending, but suffice it to say that the Hickory boys do make it to the state championship.


Strengths of the picture:
Acting: Gene Hackman does a terrifically edgy job as Norman Dale, and Barbara Hershey shines in the role of the school’s vice-principal. Dennis Hopper is a standout as the town drunk whose son plays on the team and is ashamed of him. The local Hoosiers who play the townspeople and the team members come off as natural and believable.
Theme: The value of perseverance and hard work in the face of adversity comes through strongly. The picture reminds us that things don’t have to start off well to end well and suggests that we should be wary of success that comes too easily.
Values: Hoosiers is a strong endorsement of traditional values: hard work, honesty, respect for leadership, obedience, and faith. One of the nicest touches in the movie is the practice of one of the team members before each game: He won’t go on the court until he’s finished praying. At one point, Norman Dale becomes impatient and says, “God wants you on the court now!” This of course brings up the question as to whether praying before an athletic contest is appropriate or frivolous. The jury is out on that one.


Weakness:
There’s only one, really, and that’s the formulaic nature of the plot. As one reviewer has said, the film is very “calculated,” so it’s easy to predict what is going to happen. Hoosiers is said to be “loosely based on a true story.” The real model for the town of Hickory is Milan, whose team went to the Indiana state championship games in 1954. In the real situation, interestingly, there was no town drunk used as an assistant coach, and there was no town meeting to dismiss the coach.


Bottom line: Despite the formula, Hoosiers remains a galvanizing and moving film which, if anything, seems better now than when it was first released in 1986. Let’s just put it this way: it’s very hard not to sympathize with the underdog. It’s rated PG, probably for mild use of language. Family members over eight will probably enjoy and relate to it.

My Rating: 3 ¼ stars

If you’re looking for something a bit more recent, get hold of Rabbit-Proof Fence, a 2002 Australian movie that recounts a true story. It’s set in 1931 Australia, at a time when the government has implemented a policy of capturing “half-caste” children (those with one Anglo and one Aborigine parent) and sending them to re-education camps, run mostly by church people, where they will learn to behave like white people. Molly, Daisy, and Gracie, three young Aborigine girls, are captured and taken to an orphanage 1200 miles from their home in northwestern Australia. These girls are not like the others in the camp, however, for they escape at the first opportunity. The bulk of the film recounts their 1200-mile walk back to their home area, which they accomplish by staying near the rabbit-proof fence that separates the Australian farmland from the bush. Molly, Daisy, and Gracie show their cleverness and resourcefulness in consistently eluding their pursuers.


The underlying goal of this government plan is sinister: to “breed out” the half-caste Aborigines by making them like the Anglo majority so that they can assimilate. This, of course, is contrary to God’s plan, for the Lord loves all people of all races and ethnic groups. Christ, in fact, charges his disciples with the need to “go and teach all nations.” He does not say that they are to go and amalgamate all nations into one. The governmental and church people are not shown as evil, though; they simply believe that they are helping the Aborigines — in the words of the main government character, Mr. Neville, the government’s efforts are “helpful” and in the natives’ best interest.


Bottom line: As one reviewer has said, this is a political movie, not a personal one, a fact which puts its message into the questionable category. At the beginning of the picture, it is made clear with whom we are to sympathize. Nonetheless, Rabbit-Proof Fence is powerful and thought-provoking. As is the case with End of the Spear, the end of the film shows real-life footage of the grown-up ladies who made the 1200-mile walk. The movie is rated PG, probably for mild language, and is likely to appeal to anyone over ten or so.


My Rating: 3 1/4 stars