Sense & Insensibility: Jane Austen

My wife recently expressed to me that she thinks Jane Austen may be a bad influence on women. I have limited exposure to Austen's writings, though I have enjoyed many of the films based off her novels, including Emma. I have less to say on the matter than my wife might, but I have to agree that it is discouraging that a woman who spent so much time writing about relationships and marriage never found a man she deemed worthy to marry.

Many times, I have made the point that we should look for a spouse first that God would approve of, and second that meets our own list of characteristics/priorities/desires. To the extent our list contradicts that of the Lord, we are surely doing something wrong. From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, there were many men in Jane Austen's life. Nevertheless, she never married.

Many Christians read Austen's books and so come under the influence of her philosophies regarding marriage, in the way people might read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and find her hyper-laissez-faire notions for government to be compelling (I know it has a certain appeal to me, at least). Of course, any glimmer of truth can make a unique brand of philosophy compelling when laced so subtly into entertaining fiction, but to the extent Austen makes the point not to marry without love or affection, I offer the following points:

Why is it so difficult to find someone worthy of our love and affection? There are no perfect people in this world that objectively qualify as "Mr. or Mrs. Right," only imperfect people who need desperately to be loved in spite of, and perhaps all the more for, their inherent flaws. I am awful at loading the dishwasher to my wife's satisfaction, for instance, but she seems to find that as a point of affection and humor - not a deal-breaking flaw that makes me less than an exciting fictional male lead (this is good, because I am no Cary Grant, who would certainly be capable of making even dish duty charming).

Similarly, I remind you all that if you are waiting/looking for the perfect mate, then you will wait a very long time. If you never abandon that way of thinking, then you will likely die unmarried (sorry -harsh reality). Is it really better to live without a spouse perpetually than to share your life with someone you're not 100% certain is "the one?"

You want a fictional example? Scarlett O'Hara chased her precious Ashley (I think) and completely missed Rhett Butler (sp?), who got tired of waiting. Was she better off alone? Eventually she didn't seem to think so, but by that time Butler was tired of playing second fiddle. No man or woman wants to be someone's second choice, after all. So Georgia burns, Butler leaves, and O'Hara is alone. Serves her right? I think so - Butler deserves a woman with sense enough to appreciate his efforts, but I digress...

Austen is considered a realist (according to Wikipedia at least), but it seems that she was more and idealist than a pragmatist when it came to marriage in her own life. Certainly affection and love are important in a marriage, but affection and love are gifts and commitments: not buried treasure to be found and searched for over an entire lifetime. Want to find your soul mate? Then learn to be more giving of your soul (metaphorically speaking). The key to true love lies in generosity, not life-long pursuits of endless waiting for some special destiny that awaits you. Effort is always required to obtain a loving and marriage, but that effort should be 90% self sacrifice and 10% searching (see 1 Cor 13 re the sacrificial nature of love). Believe it or not, if you want to really live, then you must die to yourself.

Just a thought. And now the inevitable waive of attacks on my ignorance of Jane Austen (which I admit)... Of course, attacking Austen really isn't my point, is it? Don't bother defending Austen's honor: it is not my intent to impeach it. Rather, I hope to impeach the idea that there is a cosmic destiny that you should put your life on hold waiting for when perfectly good opportunities for love surround you. Trust me, if you open your heart, there are people all around you that would cherish your love - so what if they are not perfectly what YOU want? Do you think perfect is waiting just off the horizon? Best of luck with that...

As for my wife and me, we will continue enjoying each others' imperfections, entirely committed to loving each other no matter what. I wish you all such a wonderful, imperfect marriage.

Movie Review: War of the Worlds

SCORE: 1/5.


CAST:

• Ray Ferrier: Tom Cruise;
• Rachel: Dakota Fanning;
• Mary Ann: Miranda Otto;
• Robbie: Justin Chatwin;
• Harlan Ogilvy: Tim Robbins;
• Directed by directed by Steven Spielberg.

BACKGROUND/STORY:

I won't write much here except to say that there is no story here. If you know anything of the prior film or the book, then this movie doesn't really follow them. This movie is about a Tom Cruise running from aliens, and about trying to look cool in the process. The film is clumsy, which is unforgivable from the director who gave us E.T., Indiana Jones, Minority Report (which I own on DVD), and other greats. What possessed Spielberg to run with the script is difficult to understand, but it is entirely lifeless and filled with holes. The movie claims that the aliens have planned the invasion for over a million years, and yet they failed to plan a defense for earth's simplest inhabitants? I won't "spoil" the surprise, but here's a clue: the aliens' nemesis is not human.

Given Cruise's taste for younger women (i.e. Katie Holmes), it also disturbs me to recall shots of him, both on and off screen, constantly holding Dakota Fanning. Couldn't she walk? There were many rumors about the unusually close relationship that they developed, but, in fairness, the rumor mill always turns against Tom Cruise. Still, Cruise has done much in recent years to unnecessarily draw bad press coverage and rumors his way. Given his apparently religious devotion to science fiction, this movie was continually eerie for me. Without any good plot reason, aliens attack mercilessly then utterly fail on grounds completely unrelated to any human effort. Perhaps, because that is somehow realistic, this movie is scarier than it is entertaining.

The acting seems bad, but then the characters have no depth of any kind, so what were the actors to do. Also, bad acting is usually the effect of bad directing. Why would a director put a scene in a movie that is badly acted? I suppose to save time and production cost, but it seems lazy to call a scene finished before a convincing performance has been given by all involved. In this film, however, all the directing in the world could not have caused the actors to deliver convincing performances, I suspect, because all the characters are in the movie for no other reason than that they have to be. None of them accomplish anything that I can tell. Rather than beating the actors to death, Spielberg should have tossed the script or demanded rewrites to give the cast and crew something to work with.

VISUALS:

The special fx and cinematography are the best part of this movie. However, they aren't necessarily realistic or practical from an engineering standpoint. I recall that Ebert's review mentioned flaws in stability for the alien "tripods." However, my gripe is that they just look stupid. Maybe that's the same grip, though, and I just don't realize it? They look convincing, but they also look convincingly stupid to me. If it weren't for what they can do, they would not be terrorizing at all to look at. Somehow, they seem more like confusing modern art wrought from I-beams than alien monstrosities. Oh well, they do turn people to ash. The movie is so graphically gory and gross, that I fear it alienates its sci-fi crowd. Rather, the people who enjoy this film are likely the same audience that rushed out to see "Saw" and its progeny.

PROS: I can think of none. Biblically, the movie offers no moral message or ethical struggles. Survival, as an instinct, is all that really drives this film. I suppose the film made some visual and fx achievements, but they are drowned out in a see of blood and human ash vapor.

CONS: Graphic violence, vulgar language, a bad family values, and horrific themes make this movie awful without using its horror to accomplish anything of value. Watching human being walk through the vaporized ash remains of other humans is, frankly, one of the most disturbing images I have ever seen, and I got no warning of it anywhere before watching this movie. So: you are warned.

FINAL THOUGHT: I didn't like this movie, but more objectively, this movie failed to set any clear goals for itself. It doesn't comment on anything or have a message, and it fails completely to entertain or evoke any emotion from its audience other than disgust and a lamenting for the cost of the ticket, rental, DVD, etc. The movie is beautifully shot, but it is not beautiful. The visuals are gross and terrible.

BOTTOM LINE: 1/5.

Movie Review: The Last of the Mohicans

SCORE: 5/5.

CAST:

• Hawkeye: Daniel Day-Lewis;
• Cora: Madeleine Stowe;
• Chingachgook: Russell Means;
• Uncas: Eric Schweig;
• Directed by Michael Mann.

BACKGROUND:

This film is a very loose adaptation of the somewhat boring novel of the same name by James Fenimore Cooper. To say that I have read the novel would be a lie, because every effort to do so is met with inevitable boredom and disbelief at how horribly written this "classic" is. However, it is a genuine classic, because it tells a story from a period in US history that gets very little attention. The 7 Years, or "French & Indian," War is a most fascinating part of our nation's background that just doesn't seem to have the appeal to writers and movie makers that WW2, the Civil War, or even Vietnam has. Perhaps it has something to do with the weaponry: there are guns, but they are not so advanced yet to replace swords, axes, and war clubs. War movies are defined by the underlying history, which is largely interesting because of its effect on subsequent history. What has had a greater impact on history, particularly military history, than the weapons?

This film did not receive a lot of critical acclaim. It is, perhaps, best remembered for its musical score, which if rated separately would achieve 5/5 (it's not derivative of anything). However, I am more than happy to say that this film is the best example of war movies. Some war movies attempt to be documentaries with stories (see the "Longest Day" as the best example of this niche within the genre), while others attempt to be mostly drama (see "Braveheart," similarly). "Pearl Harbor" betrayed the genre utterly by taking one of America's most solemn moments in history and using it as backdrop for jealous romance.

The Last of the Mohicans has some jealous romance too: Major Duncan Heyward is in love Alice Monroe, the daughter of the famous Colonel Monroe, who in real life was actually an officer in the British army, which for a Scot, was quite an achievement in those days. Cora, however, falls in love with her rescuer, the enigmatic Hawkeye: the adopted white son of Chingachgook, who alongside his blood son Uncas, is one of the last of the Mohican people.

This film, however, is neither about the jealous romance nor the extermination of the Mohican people (the historical accuracy of which is debatable). Unlike "Pearl Harbor," these themes are not center stage, and they serve only as the backdrop or consequences of a much greater story based on historical events involving the struggle of the British colonials and American natives who were swept up in the war between England and France. Some sided with the French, others the British, while our protagonists desperately struggle not to get involved. The prejudices of Colonel Monroe and Major Heyward, stoked by the forbidden romance between Cora and Hawkeye, blinds them to the plight of the colonials, whose families have been left to fend for themselves while there husbands fight for the British at Fort William Henry.

At times, the romance between Hawkeye and Cora Monroe serves primarily as a device to advance the plot: it causes Major Heyward to act in ways most unbecoming a British officer, and it affects the politics driving the war. This can be seen in the film. Other times, their moves to the forefront, but it never consumes the movie entirely as I felt was the case with Pearl Harbor, and creates an interesting context for the story.

To say that the cinematography perfectly captures every moment of this film, especially those where are heroes and heroines are trapped inside the fort, would be a gross understatement. This is one of the most beautifully shot films that I have ever seen. I could go on about the little complexities of the story, but suffice it to say that, while there is romance, revenge, redemption, action, and history aplenty, the real story belongs to the events that we see reflected in the characters' faces, expressions, and dialogue. The horror of every scalp taken, for instance, is captured perfectly in the eyes of Alice Monroe, Cora's younger sister who has never before seen the brutal face of war.

The events of the film, historical and imagined, are like an uncredited character that serves as the antagonist for all involved. There is no side of right or "good" side to the conflict in this movie: the French commander, Montcalm, does not want to butcher the British troops that oppose him. Neither does Colonel Monroe seem to take joy in the death of so many French. This war, historically speaking, may have been the death of the last "gentleman's war," as both sides adopted guerrilla tactics that previously would have been considered dishonorable but continued to be used thereafter.

Possibly the only example of evil in this film would be found in the heart of a Huron-turned-Mohawk Indian played by Wes Studi, but even he is just reacting to the death and pain this story visits upon all its characters. It compells them to act in incredible yet all-too-realistic ways. In the words of one of the characters, "It feels like the world is on fire," both to the characters and the audience, yet they do hope, and they do go on, as all people must, grappling with an ending to events that is bittersweet at best. I suspect that any viewer will feel athat hopelessness, but unlike most films with that effect, somehow the Last of the Mohicans descends to the level of being depressing. Of course, that might be becuase we viewers recongize this conflict as the beginning of a new world, setting the stage for American freedom.

PROS:

This film is based on historical events. Watching it is informative, even if a few parts are more fiction than fact, and it covers an area of history few Americans are familiar with. It entertains, regardless, and brings across many moral themes. Specifically, the film subtly deals with genocide, prejudice, and uplifts the concepts of sacrificial love and honor. Hawkeye, Chingachgook, and Uncas sacrifice the future of the entire Mohican people to love and protect those who cannot protect themselves. In the end, even the most selfish protagonist sacrifices everything that he has to protect those he loves. The film, from that perspective, is very uplifting and inspiring.

CONS:

There is a lot of violence in this movie. I would not say that the violence is unnecessary given the subject/material of the film. However, it is graphic and gruesome in places. This movie is not one for young children (though your high school students may end up seeing it in US history class, as I once did). The language is mild, but sometimes the characters speak calmly about topics such as revenge and murder. This movie is a good example of what an "R" movie should be. There is no nudity, and the language is mild, but the violence and themes, similarly to the Passion of the Christ, are something children could be spared for a few years at least. One of the most disappointing scenes, from a Christian perspective, shows 2 characters in the throws of extramarital passion and implies (without explicitly showing) that they slept together.

FINAL THOUGHT:

This is my favorite movie. It does not fail to provide any element of excellent story-telling and also draws upon actual historical events that rarely get screen time. In the end, this film does a number of things that no other film in the genre or at large does, and it does them very well: the score and cinematography are beyond reproach; the characters are compelling; and the film remembers the dead Mohican people not for their weakness and suffering, but for their courage and capacity to love selflessly. Is this an accurate representation of the Mohicans? Who can say - there are none left to ask or observe, or are there? The debate is irrelevant. Either way, I love to imagine a people whose unfailing courage and hasty flight to the defend the cause of the weak brought them to extinction. There were so many lives taken during the 7 Years War between Britain and France, and there are so many holes in our knowledge from that time period. Who is to say that the answers imagined by the Last of the Mohicans are not accurate?

I admit a certain bias for this film. To me, the Last of the Mohicans is the movie that reminds me why I bother watching movies at all. Michael Mann is also one of my favorite directors. More than any other, he can capture a specific mood onscreen and deliver it to the audience. In the Last of the Mohicans, he delivers a mood and an emotion that I have no words to describe.

BOTTOM LINE: 5/5 (it also receives my unoffical, honorary 6/5 for being my favorite movie).

NEWS (to me): Brokeback Dove?

Check this out. Did anyone else realize that "Lonesome Dove," arguably the best "western" ever written, was authored by the same man that co-authored the script for "Brokeback Mountain," definitely the gayest "western" ever made? I will never be able to see Woodrow and Gus in the same light.

"Best-known for his Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, Lonesome Dove, the 72-year-old
McMurtry remains extraordinarily prolific. He contributes frequently to the New
York Review of Books. His screenplay for Brokeback Mountain, co-written with
Diana Ossana, won an Academy Award in 2006."

From Pulitzer to Poofter? Please Larry McMurtry, say it ain't so...

Movie Review: Fool's Gold.

SCORE: 3/5.

CAST:

• Matthew McConaughey: Benjamin Finnegan.


• Kate Hudson: Tess Finnegan.


• Donald Sutherland: Nigel Honeycutt


• Alexis Dziena: Gemma Honeycutt


• Ewan Brenner: Alfonz


• Ray Winstone: Moe Fitch


• Malcom-Jamal Warner: Cordell

REVIEW:

Here is a fun movie with a few too many liberal political statements of the "in-your-face" variety. We have a film largely about treasure hunting, with two homosexual cooks just sort of thrown into the mix for no reason other than to be provide comedy. There are a few other political statements thrown in, but I digress. I wonder if even homosexuals like movies that introduce homosexual characters as a joke for the sole purpose of comic relief? I have my doubts. Anyway...

Aside from this, the movie is wildly entertaining, if somewhat implausible. Plausibility, hwoever, is not what this movie is about, though. It is about treasure hunters. What treasure really makes little difference. The story is really about Benjamin (McConaughey) and Tess Finnegan (Hudson), who spend the beginning of the movie getting divorced. How hard can it be to get divorced? Well, lets just say that it is difficult to get to court on time if your stranded in the middle of the ocean with only the henchmen of a rapper turned gangsta crime lord to save you. By the way, Cordell (Warner), is by far my favorite henchman. Seeing Theo Cosby returning to the big screen warms my heart, and he really delivers.

The point of the story, without giving too much away, is that the freshly-divorced Finnegans are forced to place aside their differences when Ben persuades Tess' employer (Sutherland) to finance their attempted recovery of a Spanish treasure lost at sea many years ago. Sutherland's motivation seems to be 2-fold: he likes the idea of a treasure hunt and wants to take his daughter (Dziena) on a good father-daughter vacation to repair their trying relationship.

Perhaps Dziena's character is a little to spacey for belief, but she does remind me of so many Hollywood Hilton-Lohan types that any lost credibility for the character is quickly regained by comparison. In fact, her materialism is almost too ridiculous to believe, as she protests her father's $50k limit for a shopping trip. Regardless, her character provides comic relief in a comedy without being too annoying (unlike the homosexual cooks), and that is a difficult feat.

Opposing the unlikely crew are both Moe (Winstone), Ben's former protege, and the crew of the rap star gangster, including Cordell. Our protagonists are beaten, shot at, and nearly drowned on multiple occasions, when they are not in-fighting, but the movie is never so serious that we really become concerned for them. This is the type of movie you rent betting on a happy ending, and, without giving any details, I think it delivers. You be the judge.

PROS: The movie is a lot of fun, and for the most part the violence is light-hearted. It is never graphic. The language is often profane, but it is less prevalent than other, similar films. This is a story where a divorced couple fall in love again, which is a rare positive note for Hollywood. In the end, family and friends support each other toward a common goal and positive result. The film is largely upbeat.

CONS: Foul language, implied (not shown) sex, numerous innuendos, and the homosexual cooks detract from the movie's attractiveness to the Christian community. Also, the yacht-sporting rich tycoon trying to buy his daughter's love is a played out storyline, and it should not have succeeded. In fact, the sublot about Honeycutt and his daughter is very difficult to believe.

Final Thought: This movie is a lot of fun, and that is all it really set out to do. the actors are A-list in my book, and they deliver. In retrospect, the movie would have failed to deliver with lesser talent. Its deep bench really is part of the appeal: the actors are all interesting in complimentary but not similar ways. This movie isn't really about plausibility, so its lack of realism isn't much of a detraction. The profanity and inappropriate innuendos, unfortunately, are.

Bottom Line: 3/5

Movie Review: Star Wars Episodes 1-3

SCORE

-2/5-

CREDITS

Directed by George Lucas.

REVIEW

Not to put to fine a point on it: I expected more. I went expecting a true prequel to the trilogy of that began in the 70's, but what I got was a movie directed at a different audience: young children. This review is not about my expectations, though, but about the expectations of the filmmakers and their intended audience. Somehow, the first trilogy seemed directed more at young adults. Was this change in target audience intended? Was Lucas selling out our favorite franchise to make a profit? I do not have the answers to these questions, but I do have suspicions. At any rate, if this movie intended to please an audience of young adults, then it sorely failed. If it intended to entertain young children, then it succeeded. The first trilogy succeeded, I feel, in doing both.

Why review three films at once? I do this because the three movies, to the extent that they had design, were designed to be one story in three parts. I wish to make this abundantly clear: I have a lot of respect for what George Lucas gave those of us who came of age in the 70's, 80's, and even the 90's. My disappointment in the new trilogy does not reduce my enjoyment of the original, nor in any of the fiction it inspired. Lucas set a new standard with his original Star Wars trilogy by which other movies are judged, in terms of visuals, special effects, storytelling, and more. However, his second Star Wars trilogy clearly failed to live up to that standard.

Did episodes 1-3 accomplish what they were intended to do? At times, I feel that they did, but unless they were attempting to cater exclusively to the youngest audience members, characters like Jar Jar Binks, with dialogue so unforgivably horrid and unconvincing, the filmmakers could hardly have gotten a final product they were completely satisfied with. Sure, they stand behind their films, but methinks George doth protest too much. The folks at Lucasfilm have spent far more time explaining their reasons for doing some of the things that they did than humbly accepting any praise from their fans. If nothing else, prequels and sequels should find a home with the fans that made the originals a hit, but in the case of episodes 1-3, the Star Wars fans are often the harshest critics.

I will not attempt to discuss or outline 3 films worth of story, nor do I need to. Everyone caring enough to read this review already knows what these movies are about. Instead, I will focus on the good, the bad, and the ugly:

The Good: groundbreaking CGI, a continuation of a cherished franchise, and amazing music composed by veteran John Williams. Overall, the movies are entertaining and light-hearted. Yoda's fight sequences made episode 2 worth watching and satisfactorily answered many questions I had about him being a jedi. Some complained of this, but Yoda being air mobile was just fine with this reviewer.

The Bad: overuse of those same groundbreaking CGI makes each scene so "busy" that it is painful to watch them. The use of a term like "younglings" by a character as cherished as Yoda makes me really angry. I mean, come on George. Worse yet, the transition of Anakin to Vader was really forced (if you think that was a spoiler, then you deserve to be slapped - go ahead and do it yourself: I will wait). Him slaughtering the aforementioned "younglings" before he has become Vader is just plain unforgivable.

The Ugly: the dialogue is truly the worst part of all these films, and it was so consistently awful that picking an appropriate example becomes difficult. However, I do think Vader's "NOOOOOOOOO!" at the end of episode 3 was about as ugly as it gets.

PROS: This is a great movie for the kids, with none of the cursing or suggestive inferences that are creeping into so many other children's movies. The films support a decent take on good versus evil, without over-glamorizing sinful activities.

CONS: These movies would be enjoyable if we had not had our expectations raised by the previous trilogies, but the original movies did set up a religion in the "Force" that grinds against the notion of an all-powerful God. This might be less of an issue except that, unlike the original trilogy, these films resonate more with kids who are young and impressionable. There is a lack of violence and nudity/adult content, but there is considerable violence. Fortunately, the violence is not overly gory, though dismemberment by lightsaber isn't the least graphic way to fight someone in a movie children are begging to see.

Final Thought: These movies fail to live up to their own hype, and they all but die in the shadow of their predecessors. Had the originals never been made, these movies would have been a lot of harmless and entertaining fun, but I can only assume the filmmakers had the goal of increasing the quality of the films. They failed in that goal. Rather than intrigue, we received a CGI show that, while innovative, was unconvincing. The actors struggle to deliver lines that no one should have to read at all, much less in front of a camera. They had the legendary James Earl Jones, and the most compelling line they could come up for him to say was "Noooooooooooo!" sigh

Bottom Line: 2/5

Movie Review: Gran Torino

SCORE

-4/5-

CREDITS

• Walt Kowalski: Clint Eastwood.
• Thao: Bee Vang.
• Sue Lor: Ahney Her.
• Father Janovich: Christopher Carley.
• Mitch Kowalski: Brian Haley.
• Trey: Scott Eastwood.
• Directed by Clint Eastwood.

REVIEW

"Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me." -Walt Kowalski.

This film is about men trying to be men. It might not seem that way at first glance, but the theme that was constantly rolling around in my head while watching Gran Torino was, "What does it take to be a man?" The answer to that question is obvious in the literal, anatomical sense. However, different societies and different cultures have different ideas about the metaphorcal passage from boy to man. What is manhood all about? Is it a function of physical growth alone, or do strength and athleticism play a role? What about intelligence?

This film will not answer the question entirely, but from the second Clint Eastwood shoves the barrel of his Korean War-era service rifle in the face of a teenage Asian gangster and shouts, "Get off my lawn," we have some idea of what it means to Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood). To him, being a man is about defending your honor, your country, and property lines. As an attorney, I find that last part to be especially wise.

The story is relatively simple. Walt's wife just passed away, and the film begins at her funeral. No one dares approach Walt, not even his sons, who whisper about past arguments from the pews. Walt is clearly offended by the words of the priest (Carley) that provide him little comfort, by the whispering from the pews that Walt is not supposed to hear but clearly can, and especially by his granddaughter, whose only purpose in the story is to annoy Walt in every scene she is in. She succeeds: watch carefully when she asks Walt if she can have his couch for her dorm room. Eastwood's expression is brilliant and apt.

Following the funeral, Walt realizes that he has no real relationship with his family, who encourage him to sell his house and to move into an assisted-living community that they market as a vacation resort, complete with brochures. Sure, they are well-intentioned, but the "support" they offer consists mostly of suggestions to change, and Walt never much cared for change. Of course, they are right to be concerned: Walt isn't in the best of health. While we're not told what precisely is wrong, those with a quick eye for detail will know enough.

At the same time, Walt's neighborhood is going downhill. Gangs have moved in, and soon all his neighbors are Asian. Of course, Walt is a racist, and he most especially hates Asians (he is a Korean war veteran, after all). But is he a racist, and does he really hate Asians?

If he is, and if he did, then why save his new neighbor, Thao (Vang), from gang members? Walt says it is because they were trespassing on his lawn, but we know better. Thao is an interesting character who first meets Walt as he tries to steal Walt's prize possession, a 1972 Gran Torino Walt assembled himself working the line in a Ford factory. Walt scares Thao out of the attempted theft, which we understand: getting caught in a dark room alone with Dirty Harry himself would turn anyone from a life of crime. Walt soon realizes that Thao isn't a bad kid, but a local gang is pressuring him. Walt is faced with a decision, and he does what is in his nature to do.

As a small part of that, Walt tries to show Thao how to "be a man": working construction, helping the elderly neighbor, and teaching him about tools, respect, and the usage of racial slurs as a term of endearment. When the gang persists in harassing Thao and Walt's other neighbors, however, Walt is forced to choose between looking to his own problems and showing the rest of the world what he believes it means to really be a man. When asked by his priest (Carley) what he intends to do, Walt responds: "Whatever it is, they don't have a chance."

PROS: Eastwood's portrayal of Walt shows a fallen, sinful man, who shows the ability to change. Here is a selfish man who squandered his life away drinking, blaspheming, and spreading misery to all, but when tested, he chooses to act in love by defending the fatherless, aiding widows, and seeking justice (Isaiah 1:17). He does all this without any thought for himself. I won't go so far as to say it is a story of redemption or that Walt's ideas about manliness are the right ones: certainly the macho bravado, racist slurs, excessive drinking, profanity, and general antagonism he flings at every person he meets are not part of what it Biblically means to be a man. However, Walt's work ethic, his dedication, and his generosity (for some), coupled with his decision to be a mentor for a boy he barely knows, resonate with me as being "manly" in a Biblical e sense. If nothing else, Walt's forgiveness of Thao, who tried to steal the legendary, titular Gran Torino, struck me as being Christlike.

CONS: Walt is no role model. Maybe no human is, though. None of us our perfect, and we all fall short of God's glory, but God knows that Walt is no different. He reminds me of my great grandfather, who had little use for people who weren't white, but who had an amazing work ethic and capacity for love, nobility, and honor. Like him, Walt is a man of strengths and weaknesses, with admirable traits and not-so-admirable traits. Unfortunately, the audience is forced to endure some of Walt's less admirable traits for the duration of the film, such as his non-stop profanity. Walt curses endlessly, uses the Lord's name in vain, and even refers to Christianity as a faerie-tale that priests tell superstitious old ladies on their deathbeds (referring to his wife - though he does seem to recant somewhat later in the film). To see Walt change for the better with the progression of the film, Eastwood apparently felt that the audience needed to first see him at his worst. While this may be logical, one wonders whether seeing Walt's progression is worth listening to him curse our Lord repeatedly.

Perhaps my largest trepidation: Eastwood makes you believe in Walt Kowalski, but does Walt deserve that sort of faith? His blue collar work ethic, veteran's sense of honor, and tough-guy demeanor are inspiring, but people are as much their flaws as they are their strengths. Walt has many flaws, and I hope that believers would be offended rather than inspired by those flaws, but somehow I doubt that will often be the case, given the applause I heard in the theater.

Final Thought: Eastwood's performance is amazing. The film is well-directed and produced. There are no special effects of note or amazing costumes/make-up, but this movie is about people. It is about the story, and even more to the point, it is about its characters, which it treats with a sort of reverance, losing no detail on even the most minor of their number. This movie may very well make you laugh, make you angry, and make you cry, all within 116 minutes of runtime. Eastwood does what he sets out to do in movies, both as a director and as an actor, and this movie is a likely contender for several academy awards, including "best picture." That said, there are many great character pieces out there, and this movie did not go beyond the boundaries of what has been done before. Nor can I say that it is the best example of any genre. What I will say is this: for good or for ill, it does not fail to deliver on any of its promises.

Bottom Line: 4/5

Movie Review: Hangmen (1987)

SCORE

-0/5-

CREDITS

• Rob Greene: Rick Washburn.
• Lisa Edwards: Sandra Bullock.
• Dog Thompson: Dog Thomas.

REVIEW

There is no question, in my mind, that I have never enjoyed a movie less than this one. It is, however, a decent example of a bad story derived from a good plot. The plot, while unoriginal, had potential: a teenager, being pursued by a splinter group within the CIA because of information he possesses that is damaging to them, must call upon his father, "an ex-Greene Beret equipped with a rag-tag bunch of urban guerrillas and an entire arsenal of weaponry" to save him and his girlfriend (Bullock). This could have been a really entertaining action flick at least, but the story is filled with unconvincing developments and also unconvincing dialogue that is delivered, well, unconvincingly.

The violence often has no point, and is one of the earliest examples of "shaky-cam" I have ever seen. I hate shaky-cam in most cases, save Christopher Nolan's use in the new Batman franchise (it makes sense that Batman moves faster than we can truly follow), as it robs me of the enjoyment of seeing the choreography, which makes the choreography pointless. This may have been unintentional here, however, as the budget for this movie was obviously blown on props and equipment. I honestly believe that they were just using a camcorder with no stand or tripod to film the whole movie. Worse still, the action is sometimes shown in the "first person," as though the audience is playing a video game like Wolfenstein 3D (I know, that is an old school reference - think "Halo" if you prefer).

PROS: Sandra Bullock is in the movie (briefly), and I am a fan. She is quirky and original in almost everything she does. This, however, is still the exception - she can do nothing to save this movie, and she is fortunate that it did not tank her career. Perhaps this movie is a testament to her staying power, that it could not kill her career before it began?

CONS: Foul language, constant and pointless violence, and shaky-cam galore from the first person perspective = really lame movie. Worse still, Sandra Bullock's presence in a film usually means that you have found a good date movie, as she specializes in romantic comedies and female-friendly action, neither of which is the case here. This movie was the first and last time the $5 bin at Walmart has betrayed me, but I don't blame Walmart. I blame the production company for plastering Sandra Bullock's face on the cover of the DVD in spite of the fact that she only gets like 5 minutes of screen time. There is no positive content to justify the blatant profanity, vulgarity, and gore.

Final Thought: This movie was so lazy that it makes the "Blair Witch Project" seem like 5-star material. I am so angry that I actually paid $5 for it. There ought to be a law about making movies this bad. I have a rule about reviews: they are to enable readers to make an informed decision about whether to see a movie, but I do not make recommendations that you watch or refrain from watching a movie. I am breaking that rule: leave this one in the $5 bin and pick something else. Anything else.

Bottom Line: 0/5.

Movie Review: "Punisher: War Zone"

SCORE

-3 out of 5-

CREDITS

• 
  
  Frank Castle: Ray Stevenson.
• 
  
  Jigsaw: Dominic West.
• 
  
  Loony Bin Jim: Doug Hutchison.
• 
  
  Micro: Wayne Knight.
• 
  
  Directed by Lexi Alexander.
• 
  
  Produced by Lionsgate films.

PREFACE

The Bible:
"[L]earn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause" (Isaiah 1:17).

"Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17).

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:38-39) (words of Christ).

"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:44-45) (words of Christ).

"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'" (Romans 12:19).

The world:

"He who does not punish evil, commands it to be done. "
-Leonardo da Vinci

"He who studies evil is studied by evil."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. "
-Edmund Burke

"The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil."
-Cicero

"They say, 'Evil prevails when good men fail to act.' What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
-Yuri Orlov, "Lord of War"

"Yield not to evils, but attack all the more boldly."
-Virgil

REVIEW

"Punisher: War Zone" is a film largely about stylized violence. The violence is so gruesome, the language so offensive, and the story so dark that I cannot endorse this movie. The target audience of this blog are saved Christians searching, as I am, for how to live a life pleasing to God and how apply His truth to the circumstances that confront us. Obviously, the protagonist in the Punisher leads a life that no Christian in this world has ever chosen to live. But then, how many Christians in this world have experienced the circumstances he has? For that reason, while I will not endorse or recommend this movie to any of you, neither will I tell you to refrain from seeing it. The point of this review, and any review on this blog, is to enable you to make that call for yourself.

Story: This film is not about violence for the sake of violence, even if it may seem that way at first. To understand the story, you need some background to the character. Frank Castle is an American veteran who, upon returning home from war, expected to find peace with his family. Instead, one day, while walking through Central Park, Frank and his family witness a mob execution, and his his wife, son, and daughter all become collateral damage in a war that the government and police were not, in Frank's estimation, truly fighting.

Those familiar with comic book on which this movie is based know the rest of the story well. For those who do not: the murderers were not brought to justice, so Frank tracked down the killers of his family and exacted revenge, but he did not stop there. A soldier by trade, Frank's reaction is to do what he does best: he declared open war on crime. Politicians talk about "justice," "due process," and "rights" when referring to crime, while they use terms like "collateral damage," "acceptable losses," and "strategy" when referring to war. Frank's family having become collateral damage in a mob war, decided that he had one last war to fight, so he pursues the enemy and victory with little caution for his own life. His goals are two: punishing the evil amd protecting the innocent so that no more families become "collateral damage." It ceases to be about revenge: Frank has killed everyone even remotely responsible for the deaths of his family before the movie even begins. Rather, Franks seeks to exterminate or "punish" evil. Thus, the Punisher is born.

The story of how Frank Castle became the Punisher is amazing, with a lot of emotion fueling it, but that is not what this movie is about. This movie is about the after effects. The origin of the Punisher is almost too much for a movie to convey (which is where the last adaptation arguably failed). Having once worked with crime victims as a prosecutor, I can tell you this: no movie can truly capture their pain. Rather than attempting to do this, the movie shows Frank's gruesome past in brief flashbacks, giving us but a glimpse of his painfult motivations.

We do not, however, need to fully understand Frank's pain to understand why he would want justice. This movie is not about justice either, though. It is about punishment, and you will be punished throughout the entire movie as you witness admittedly evil men tortured, maimed, and killed with a measure of brutality that only an obsessive sociopath could deliver. The questions the movie presents a Christian viewer is, can you understand why Frank Castle goes so far beyond justice, meaning can you understand what would drive him to compulsively kill criminals without remorse? Can his actions be justified in the Word?

Those of us who could relate to Frank's pain do not have the military training and mindset that Frank has. Had Frank been a philosopher, perhaps he'd have tried to make sense of the tragedy from a logical perspective. Frank was once in training to be a priest before the war; had he continued down that path, perhaps he would have turned to God to make sense of his loss. A person's reaction to pain is largely governed by his past experiences. People use what they know of the world to make sense of it. I think Christians are in the best position, perhaps, as we look, ideally, to the Bible to make sense of such pain.

Frank, nevertheless, was a marine. More to the point, he was part of a special forces unit, meaning he was used to making sense of the world and evil from behind a rifle. For good or for ill, this movie is about his application of the art of war as a solution to the threat of crime. When politicians use terms like "war on drugs" and "war on crime," they mean increased police measures and prosecutions, not vigilante killings. When the Punisher uses the term "war," he means it literally, and he uses military weapons to fight the enemy. In pursuing his war, Frank cuts himself off from the rest of the world, denies himself any human pleasures or fleshly pursuits, and dedicates himself to being the most disciplined soldier to ever walk the earth. Every night, he kills men that he judges to be evil, leaving us to question idf his judgments amount to justice, revenge, or something else.

PROS: And this is why the movie is about more than just violence for the sake of violence - you will have to ask yourself what you believe about crime and punishment. What does the Bible say about it? What does the world say about it? Does your government truly pursue justice, and does our system of enforcing the law and punishing criminals truly go far enough? I have placed some quotes in the preface of this review to aid you in contemplating these questions, possibly without need for watching this film.

The moment I realized this movie presented these questions and just how much it made me ponder them, was the moment I decided to write this review. That moment came when I read the quote from Isaiah 1:17 above: "Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow" (NIV, the one above is ESV). Without revealing too much of the plot, there is a moment in the movie where the Punisher kills a criminal who turns out to be an undercover agent of the FBI, leaving behind a widow and fatherless son. One could observe that Frank has done to this FBI agent's family precisely what was done to him by the mob: they are now collateral damage in a war, only this time it was Frank's war. The movie is largely about Frank's moral struggle with whether to continue the war as the Punisher, or to lay down the skull permanently (his symbol, worn on his chest).

The movie is incredibly well-acted, directed, and produced, and it is quite faithful to the Garth Ennis run of the comic, which will please most existing Punisher fans. It looks like it had a large budget, though I suspect it did not. "Punisher: War Zone" provides a different perspective of crime, punishment, and justice through amazing visuals, a well-choreographed use of stage violence, and the ongoing commentary of police officers, victims, criminals, and the accomplices of all. If you can get past the violence long enough to think about the plot, then it will really make you think about the meaning of justice versus vengeance, and whether punishment is synonymous with either of them.

CONS: I said that the commentaries of the characters will make you think. Unfortunately, the commentary most needed to analyze the ethical questions the movie presents is absent: Frank's. I suppose a by-product of being a disciplined solider is that you are a man of few words, who lets his actions speak loudest. However, as a fan of the comic, I recall Frank having an inner-monologue that gave at least some flesh to his thought processes, motivations, and reasoning. Like the comic, Frank doesn't negotiate or explain himself to the criminals he punishes, but the missing "thought bubbles" that served as Frank's narration in the comics prevent us from sharing Frank's pain and experience in the movie. The result is that a brilliant story is lost in a sea of violence that will distract most viewers, casual or otherwise, from the subtle themes and plot points woven into the film. For that reason, most will deem the violence pointless.

The violence is not the only thing in the movie that seems high-quality, though. The cinematography is amazing, and given that most of the movie occurs after dark, that is an accomplishment. Remember Tim Burton's "Batman" (1989)? The movie was so dark that it was hard to watch. Punisher does not suffer from this. Why is this a con? Because what you see so well is so gritty and ugly that you come out of the theater nauseous. The movie does not give its viewers a second to breathe.

The rare, brief pauses from the violence and cursing are shot in environments so gritty (i.e. sewers) or suspenseful (i.e. a widow's home, a graveyard) that they are also hard to stomach. Perhaps, as Roger Ebert said of the movie "Aliens," which suffers from a similar ailment, this was what the movie set out to do, in which case I have to applaud it. It does this well. The question becomes, though, can most audience members handle it? I think not. So the movie was destined to become a box office flop (though I predict high DVD sales). It is a victim of its own, built-in shortcomings. This story and its characters are not going to appeal to the general public.

The movie does not qualify as a "revenge flick" because it goes so far beyond revenge that you forget that Frank ever had a "score to settle." In fact, the movie takes place 5 years after he got revenge. That ship has sailed. Neither is this movie a harmless "action flick" like "Transporter." This movie is not the usual "comic book movie" either. Unlike "Iron Man," it is not based off of a comic written for the young. Legally, one is supposed to be 17 or older to buy the Punisher comics relevant to the movie.

It sought to do something different. While brave, that makes it a niche film. At most, it can hope to categorized as a "cult classic," or perhaps it will fall into a new genre with "Sin City," another comic-based movie that you would never want to take a kid to see.

This movie does what it set out to do, but do not take women or children to see it. I read online that a man took his wife to see this, and she cried for the rest of the night. The movie's use hardcore violence and profanity must be weighed against the only good thing it does: forcing those of us willing to watch it closely to reevaluate what we think/believe about vengeance, justice, crime, and punishment.

Final thought: This film is a movie for guys with some time to themselves, making it good for rental/purchase on DVD. Watch it alone, though. Anyone you invite to watch it with might hate you later for inviting them. Beware: unless you have read the Punisher comics by Garth Ennis (also graphically violent and gritty), you may be missing out on a lot of the context that makes the movie worth watching at any rate. My own interest in the comic and the movie are born out of my personal interest in criminal law - an interest many do not share. As an alternative, try the "Count of Monte Cristo": it's a decent revenge flick with little cursing, light violence, and a positive ending.

Bottom line: 3/5.

Alphabetical index of movie reviews.

-Fool's Gold (3/5).
-Hangmen (1987) (0/5).
-Gone Baby Gone (4/5).
-Gran Torino (4/5).
-Hangover, The (2009) (2/5).
-Lakeview Terrace (2/5).
-Last of the Mohicans (5/5) (unofficial, honorary 6/5).
-Man for All Seasons, A (4/5).
-On the Waterfront (4/5).
-Punisher: War Zone (3/5).
-Star Wars: Episodes 1-3 (2/5).
-Taken (4/5).
-Third Man, The (1949) (4/5).
-War of the Worlds (1/5).

Please remember, the foregoing reviews are made for the purpose of informing readers about the content to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to see and/or whether to take their children to see, the film reviewed. Though our writers may make comments about what they did or did not like about certain parts of a given film, those comments are not intended to be an endorsement or a recommendation to watch, rent, or buy.

Also, you may notice that each film reviewed contains a numerical "score" or "ranking." These are given purely as a judge of whether the film accomplished what it set out to do: entertain, inform, innovate, or deliver certain artistic quality. The numerical scores do not have any bearing on a film's quality from a Biblical perspective. Which elements of a movie are or are not Biblical is a topic discussed in the text of the review, especially in PRO/CON sections. In other words, a film scored 5/5 accomplished all that its makers set out to do, but it is not necessarily a movie we would recommend for anyone watch. For instance, "Punisher: War Zone" was an entertaining movie, but it was very violent and contained lots of profanity, which are listed as major drawbacks. A more detailed explanation of numerical scoring can be found below.


Scoring works as follows:

• 0/5 - the movie has no redeeming value, utterly failing in its purpose.
• 1/5 - the movie is very bad, suffering from one or more serious defects.
• 2/5 - the movie has some value, but it fails to accomplish 1 or more of its goals.
• 3/5 - the movie accomplished its basic goals but could have been better in some way.
• 4/5 - this movie is well above the curve, accomplishing all its goals and evoking a strong reaction in its viewers. However, it fails to do something that has never been done before or rise to the level of being the best example of the genre.
• 5/5 - this movie not only accomplishes its goals, but it went farther than its goals to either do something completely new or to become the standard by which other movies in the genre will be compared/judged.