Brave

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

In Pixar's latest offering, the scottish princess Merida is being offered by her parents to marry the son of the leader of one of the other clans, but she's dead set against marrying someone she's never met, and afraid she'll be forced to give up her hobbies of archery and horseback riding in the process.  When her mother tells her that she has no choice in the matter, Merida seeks the help of a witch, asking for a spell to change her mother, so that her fate can change.  However, the witch's spell transforms her mother into a bear, and Merida must find some way to change her back, all while keeping her out of the clutches of her family; a clan of bear-hunters.

The bear thing has been done in "Brother Bear."  In fairness, however, this is done much better.  The movie has key messages against pride, selfishness and witchcraft, and delivers them nicely, with plenty of action and comedy tossed into the mix, while also finding time to rehash the old proverb about the evils of arranged marraiges.

I think what really struck me about this movie was its use of an old legend; a classic story; a family tradition to teach Merida her lesson in the film, and the way the curse of pride and selfishness, which has consumed others, nearly destroyed her and her family, on the part of both her, and, it must be admitted, her mother as well.

The whole film has the feel of an original fairy tale; as though it were almost a real legend.  I say "almost," because it does have a modern touch or two that probably wouldn't have been in a real fairy tale.  Still, it's a fun movie overall, with nothing horribly objectionable about it, except for a few scarey bits, some shots of a CGI butt or two, an uncomfortably-close (but very brief) shot of a woman's cleavage, and the use of the word "naked" later in the film.

However, while I did enjoy it, I can see why some people would give it a less than perfect grade.  You could sum the film up with "girl's mother turns into a bear.  Begin antics."  More happens than just that, of course, and there are quite a number of good and touching moments, but the comedic bits are a little overplayed and go on too long, and there's not as much story to this film as there could have been.  The characters also aren't generally cute and charming, like Wall-E, nor does the film focus much on dazzling visuals.  It's supposed to be about the characters.  It's just that the curse; the main crisis of the movie, gets in the way a little too much, and keeps things moving at a pace so fast, that very little story can be told at a stretch.

Maybe I'm just complaining about nothing, but it seemed to me like more of the characters could have been done a bit more seriously, or at least had more serious moments to them, like the main characters from Up.  For a film which clearly wants the characters and their lessons to be the strong point, I could have asked for more.

Still, it's a minor beef in an otherwise-good family film with a number of good (but surprisingly-subtle) moral messages behind it.  This film has my thumb up, for whatever that's worth.

The Dark Crystal

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 1 of 5

Enjoyability: 3 of 5

Having been impressed by Labrynth, I decided to watch one of Henson's other less-watched films; the Dark Crystal, knowing almost nothing about it, except that it was a fantasy film about characters in a world full of strange creatures.  It sounded, from this alone, like something I would like.  You see, I'm a big lover of fantasy stories of all types.

The premise of this movie is that in another world, there is a crystal, which seems to influence the wellbeing of the planet and its people.  The crystal cracked, and this led, apparently, to an evil race, named the skeksis, seizing power over it.  They use it, along with their scouts, the crystal bats, and their shock troops; the insectoid Garthim, to enforce a rein of terror over all the less powerful races.  Meanwhile, a race of mystics have been raising a young gelfling (like an elf with only eight fingers and a very low nose,) for his destiny of fulfilling a prophecy; recovering the lost shard of the crystal and returning it to where it belongs, thus robbing the skeksis of their power.  The Gelfling's name is Jen.  In his quest to restore the crystal to its true form, Jen meets up with a female Gelfling named Kira, and her furball Fizzgig, all of them having lost loved ones to the skeksis, and eager to put an end to their reign.

Done right, this could be a charming story about grief, redemption and love.  However, this movie is not done right.  For one thing, neither of the two main characters seems to have much of any personality to them.  They exist to assist in the story, and their backgrounds consist of a series of loose associations and talents.  They're both about as bland as can be, and not much of anything is ever learned about them.  This is the first big problem I had with the film.  It gets caught up in its alien worldbuilding and odd visuals, and forgets that it's supposed to be telling a story here.

The second big problem with this movie, and for me, the most serious, is that the whole thing, from start to finish, is essentially one long piece of new age propaganda.  I've seen signs of this is Henson's work before, but never to this degree.  The prominence of the crystal, the sorcery of the mystics, the dream-sharing between the Gelflings, the poor understanding of the relationship between body and soul demonstrated by the movie's ending (in which people essentially merge into one another,) the clear failure to grasp what an "essence" is, and finally, the bunk new age ideology spouted by the shimmering aliens at the end about how "we are all one."  This type of thing alone is enough to turn me off to the film.

There's also a not-very-forgivable scene of the two gelflings sleeping together in the woods.  Granted, they are essentially puppets, but the whole movie takes itself so seriously, that I have no doubt what this was meant to convey.

If it seems like I'm complaining a lot about this film considering the grade I gave it, this is only because I really did appreciate some of the worldbuilding, scenery and creative creatures that Henson and Company came up with for this flick.  They're very beautiful, visually-impressive, and they capture the imagination, but it's not worth putting up with the problems this film has.

The Rite

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

I had this film recommended to me by an apologist I like, and honestly, I can see why he liked it so much.  It's a nice, strong, faithful Catholic horror movie about the rite of exorcism.

First let me say that this movie is not for the squeamish.  It is a genuine horror movie, and contains genuinely-horrific scenes and imagery, made all the more horrific by the fact that, unlike over-the-top horror movies like "Exorcist" or "The Shining," there's no excessive fixation on advanced graphics, dynamic visual sights or impossible contortions on the part of those possessed.

This film contains most things that people find objectionable.  Violent, demonic behavior, hate-filled exchanges between characters, the suffering of the innocent, blood, sexual innuendos and the most offensive curses (as near as I can tell) in our language.  Rest assured, this film is for those with strong stomachs only.  In fact, just to be on the safe side, I'd treat this film as though it were rated R, if I were you.

That having been said, I loved it.

A young seminarian named Michael, who only really joined the seminary to get away from his father, is sent to Rome for training on how to become an exorcist.  While there, he makes the acquaintence of an older priest named Father Lucas (played wonderfully by Anthony Hopkins,) who knows how the whole exorcism thing is done.  The two attend some exorcisms together, but Michael remains skeptical, until someone dies, and he begins to see visions himself; and realizes that someone new has been possessed.

The role of faith in the job of an exorcist is underscored throughout the whole second half of the movie, as is the reality of Satan and evil, and all of this plays into the final confrontation between the aspiring young exorcist and his enemy.

This film distinguishes itself by not only making the Catholic Church the good guys, but doing it in a realistic and sober way.  As I said, the toning down of the visuals usually popular in exorcism films is both more real and more terrifying than if they'd been included, and it hits much closer to home as a result of that.  The film ultimately ends on a high note; with the validation of sin, of the concept of the state of grace, and the importance of the sacrament of confession in maintaining it.

I can perfectly understand if horror movies aren't your cup of tea.  Most very religious people don't, as a rule, like them, and vice versa, but as a religious person myself, and a thoroughly non-squeamish person, I think this is one of the finest horror movies I've ever seen, from both a religious and moviegoing perspective.  It's not afraid to slap skepticism across the face, it doesn't take things easy on you, and it validates the beliefs of Catholicism in the process.  It was very intense, but also very good.

Miracles

By C. S. Lewis

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

In some works, C. S. Lewis comes across as a popularizer, while in others, one could swear he was a professional philosopher.  "Miracles" is Lewis at his most deeply-philosophical, and perhaps his most theologically-correct book as well, although that's a tough judgment to make.

The main point of this book is to explain how and why miracles are possible, and why, in fact, they're not just possible, but -must have- occurred in the past, and will occur again in the future.  There's nothing encyclopedic about this approach.  Miracles aren't classified or divided into categories.  Rather, the point is to explain why a resistence to faith in miracles is unjustified.

In this spirit, the first several chapters directly address one of the biggest obstacles to belief in miracles; naturalism; the belief that the universe is all there is.  Lewis does a good job addressing the subject, making several proofs which indicate clearly that naturalism cannot be correct.  He then moves on to misunderstandings of what the term "miracle" means, refutes the arguments of some anti-religious philosophers, then gets rather deeply into the subject of miracles as seen in history, in the context of the Christian faith, and finally ends by addressing the anticipated miracle of the universal resurrection of the dead, and the importance of continuing to believe in this miracle.

I liked it.  Lewis' arguments stand the test of time, and his refutations are as valid today as they were when he was writing them.  Naturalism still hasn't found any way to get around these key points.  In fact, if anything, the case against naturalism has grown even stronger since Lewis wrote this.

For example, one of the philosophers who Lewis addresses most centrally was David Hume, who said that because nature is absolutely uniform, nothing is more unlikely than a miracle, and that therefore, if a reasonable man is asked to guage whether a miracle is a probable explanation for something, he'll always need to answer "no."  Therefore, even if a miracle -did occur,- no reasonable man could justify admitting or recognizing it.

Lewis responded by pointing out that Hume has actually made two claims.
1. That nature is absolutely uniform.
2. That miracles don't occur.
He then used the first to try to justify the second.  The problem with doing this, Lewis said, is that both of these claims mean exactly the same thing, and this is therefore essentially question-begging in favor of miracles not occurring.

Furthermore, Hume doesn't prove that miracles don't occur, even using this trick.

Now, I use this as an example because since Hume's day, probability theory has progressed quite a bit, and there are even stronger arguments against his position now, based on that.  To illustrate this, Hume's judgment was based on the following understanding of probability...

-Each event has an intrinsic probability, which must be taken into account when guaging whether or not we should believe it occurred or might occur.-

While still true, this understanding of probability is not -sufficient- by itself.  There are many other rules to follow in modern probability theory, including...

-In addition to the intrinsic probability of events, one also needs to take into consideration how probable it is that the proposed event might -not- have occurred.-
-Furthermore, one needs to consider how probable it is that, if the proposed event -had not- occurred, we would have the same evidence that we do have.-

The question of what provides the best explanation in terms of its total scope, whether it's a sufficient explanation in degree, whether the explanation covers all the facts...  All of these things need to be considered when guaging the probability of an event, and yet Hume considers none of them; trying to reduce the measuring stick of miracles to only their -intrinsic- probability, and worse yet, and intrinsic probability based on nothing more than his own assertions.

Hume's work seems, therefore, to be utterly obsolete.

Fortunately, though, Lewis' work continues to stand the test of time, though as I said, the arguments in favor of Christianity have progressed since then, and even in the last twenty years.  It's precisely this kind of book, which shows where we came from and where we've headed, which I most enjoy; sound arguments phrased in an accessible language, while still being complex and logical enough to hold the attention of the most distractable of faithful Christians.

Thor

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

Originally, I put off seeing this film, and believe it or not, it wasn't because I was afraid it would have elements of paganism in it.  I just didn't like the visual look of the film, from what I'd seen of the trailers, nor did I like some of the casting choices (although Anthony Hopkins as Odin is -fantastic.-)

Well, if I had been worried about paganism, I needn't have.  They make it quite clear in this movie that Thor is merely a long-lived alien being with very advanced technology.  In fact, they make it much more clear than in the comics of the same name, and none of the characters ever refer to themselves as "gods."

Thor is a vain and arrogant warrior, who's spoiling for a fight, even as he's about to be crowned the new king of Asgard.  However, he soon betrays the trust of his father, risking his life and the lives of all his people, and nearly causing a war.  Enraged, his father Odin takes away not only the crown, but his powers and royal station, casting him to Earth in anger, and placing an enchantment on Thor's hammer, so that only those who are worthy may pick it up and weild its power.

A fair part of the movie takes place while Thor is de-powered and trying to get his hammer and powers back, or else adjusting to his new life as a human being.  However, in the end, (spoilers) he attempts to sacrifice himself for the people he cares about, and is deemed worthy to weild the hammer once again.

One drawback of Thor spending most of the movie without any powers is that it's a bit difficult to tell, if you've never read about the character, just what his powers are, exactly.  This is helped by a big fight early in the film, and another couple of fights near the end, but these are sometimes shot from imperfect angles, or happen a little fast, and it can be difficult to keep track of what, precisely, is going on.

However, I was stunned by just how Christian this movie is.  It's not just that it's not a pagan story.  This movie tells the story of mankind from the Christian point of view.  Mortal man begins as a beloved son; an heir, and just as he comes into his inheritance, he makes a foolish decision, chooses to sin against his father, is cast out, and in the end, through self-sacrifice, virtue and the mercy of his father, he is admitted back into his birthright again, although some aren't so fortunate.

That brings me to Loki; the villain.  I think he may be the best villain out of any of the movies that Marvel Studios has made.  He begins as not really evil, exactly, and even wanting to protect his kingdom, but as time goes on, and he discovers new things about himself and his people, he becomes desperate, and his good intentions begin taking him down a path of deep evil.  He's so much more complex than someone like the Iron Mongrel, who just wants cash, or Abomination, who's in it for a thrill and an ego trip.  Loki doesn't even go on a rampage, like so many of them do.  He has an evil plan, and he doesn't let on exactly what it is until almost the last second.

In a way, I found it hard to get excited about the bad guy because of that last point.  It would be one thing if we understood what Loki was planning from the beginning, and knew what a nasty threat he was, but he doesn't make his evil plot very well understood until rather late in the film, which decreases the tension somewhat.

There's a sort of interesting juxtaposition between Thor and Loki as the film progresses; Loki growing more evil and corrupt, and Thor learns the hard lessons that only real life can teach.  It's an interesting way to tell a story, and I was amazed by just how true it rang.

I've been told by some that the romance between Thor and Jane Foster felt forced.  To this I reply "There was a romance?"  I mean, sure, they talk a lot, and they share a kiss at the end, but I wouldn't exactly call it a romance, since it's never terribly romantic, there's really nothing going on between the characters, and nothing of any substance comes of it.  Thor just came off as a decent guy who wanted to help her out, and he did.  That's all I think needs to be said about it.

Finally, back to my initial point; by first worry; that the visual look and casting of the movie wasn't what I wanted it to be.  Was that as much of a problem as I thought it would be?

Well, honestly, yes.

I still don't think Chris Hemsworth is quite big enough to be Thor.  I still don't think Heimdall should have been black.  I still don't think Volstagg was -anywhere near- big enough.  Most importantly, I don't think the technology of Asgard should have looked quite as much like technology as it did.

The moment Thor says "your ancestors called it magic, you call it science," I groan.  As much as I may dislike paganism, it's not nearly as much of a threat as it once was.  Secularism is.  I'm fine with them -saying- that Thor is not a god.  They don't need to imply that nothing truly miraculous exists.  These things bother me through nearly every visually-impressive scene in the film.

In conclusion, I did like this film.  Rest assured, you won't be drawn into paganism by it, and it might even inspire you to think a little more about the values of love and sacrifice, which is always a good thing to think about.  I wish it had distanced itself a little more from modern, secular skepticism, but it was certainly a better film than I thought it would be.

Iron Man 2

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 1 of 5

Enjoyability: 1.5 of 5

This is easily one of the worst superhero films I've seen in my life.

I love superheros, because they're tough guys (and girls) who try to do the right thing, no matter what.  They do mess up sometimes (like Spider-man did in the second movie,) but soon they're back on their feet, sobered and ready to make their commitment again.

I have to admit, this is what I liked most about the first Iron Man movie.  I found flaws in it, but Tony's commitment to getting the job done and making amends for some of his past sins made the film a likable experience overall, even though the main character still has a lot of problems which he's yet to overcome.

This film contains none of the atonement plot of the first.  Instead, Tony Stark, whose identity as Iron Man is now public knowledge, dances, sings, brags, drives fast cars, womanizes, gets drunk, tells bad jokes, gets sick, gets in trouble, has a brief falling-out with one of his friends, and generally makes himself a nuisance.  The character (an irritant in the first film) comes across as merely a spoiled, hyperactive man-child in this movie, and no real consequences are brought against him for it.  He's given what he needs to solve his problems, he solves his problems, and can go back to being a jerk.  Hooray?

Probably the worst aspect of the film, however, are the villains.  There are two; a lousy, jealous weapons designer named Justin Hammer, who's even more hyper, spoiled and pop-culture-infused than the title character is, and a psychotic thug/mad scientist named Ivan Vanko, who never displays any dimensions to his character other than "be evil," while paradoxically and insultingly wearing a cross and carrying what looks like a rosary.  Right.  As if I didn't have enough reasons to hate this film.

Come to think of it, the two-villain MO; one a goofy, silly wisecracker, the other a power-mad psychopath, reminds me unpleasantly of Batman Forever.

The main plot of this movie is a lot skinnier than in the past.  Evil bad guy has technology.  Evil bad guy attacks.  Evil bad guy loses.  The end.

To compensate for this, they stick in about four subplots.  The first is about the government wanting to take control of Iron Man.  The second is about Tony getting close to death from the chemical in the battery he's been using for his Iron Man armor.  The third involves Shield keeping an eye on him.  Spoilers; none of these first three subplots goes anywhere.

That brings us to subplot 4; the war machine armor being stolen by Tony's friend when he realizes that Tony is too big of a jerk to leave in sole possession of it.  This subplot goes somewhere, but only in terms of helping to set up a team-up between Iron Man and War Machine near the end of the film; a hero/sidekick team-up, which is reminiscent, again, of Batman Forever.

I didn't mind the first film so much, in spite of its shallow villain, jerky main character and so forth, but this film really has nothing to offer.  Its weak points are just as weak as in the original, and the strengths of the first film are gone.  On top of that, it has a bunch of additional flaws and insulting lines and references that bring it down even more.  About the only good thing I can say about it is that it introduces the character of Black Widow, but even this is only of interest to people who know about the character already.  To everybody else, she'll probably come off as a knockoff of Trinity from the Matrix.

I had some hope for superhero movies when Marvel started making their own.  After all, Hollywood superhero movies have always been hit or miss.  However, this movie just goes to show that even non-Hollywood superhero movies can still be utter train wrecks.

Howl's Moving Castle

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 2 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

As an honest movie-watcher, and an appreciator of a good story, I love the works of Studio Ghibli.  They always produce beautiful movies with lovable characters and interesting plots.

However, I'm also a faithful Christian who notices when something seems likely to cause moral or religious confusion.  These two sides of myself have occasionally forced me to give Ghibli movies an imperfect grade, even when I really enjoyed them (and aside from one, which was too confusing, I've enjoyed all the ones I've seen.)

However, I feel I would be doing this movie a disservice if I tried to look at it through both of those lenses at once, so instead, I'll give my movielover's thoughts, followed by my thoughts as a Christian.

This movie is more than a little confusing at times, because like many Ghibli films, it often communicates nonverbally.  When large, black shapes start popping out of the walls, there's no explanation for it any deeper than "magic bad guys," and even many of the main characters are a little hard to comprehend the real motives of, most notably Howl himself.

On the whole, however, the movie comes off as a stunningly-beautiful fairy tale.  The side-characters are fun and likable, the main characters mysterious and interesting, and there's always the sense that there's a lot more to learn about them; right up to the moment the movie ends.  Magic is cast, spells are broken, there's a war to struggle through, a happy ending to reach, and the soul of an innocent boy to redeem.

The main character; Sophie, is cursed very early on in the film, and it takes a while for her to understand what kind of curse it is, and what needs to be done to break it.  I'm sure everyone will have their own theories on that, since it's not stated outright.

The relationship between Sophie and Howl comes off as a sort of odd retelling of Beauty and the Beast, except that beauty, in this case, is cursed to look like an old woman, and the beast is uncommonly pretty-looking most of the time.  Ultimately, both curses must be broken, and a happy ending attained, and as in most fairy tales, the characters labor through times of suffering and are ultimately rewarded with family and love; the perfect fairy tale formula.

I think I should also say a word about the costuming, which may be an odd term to use when talking about an animated feature, but so be it.  I loved how the characters dressed; all the characters.  It's an alternate-world, sort-of-period-piece, and has its own style of dress, utterly different from the way we dress today, and that, in this case, is a very good thing.  By itself, the modesty and otherness of this one aspect of the film roped me in and kept me watching steadily until the very end.

However, as a Christian, I think this movie is likely to confuse young children; not because of all the spells and magic; they're always depicted as causing problems, and never really solve them.  The real reason why I think this movie would religiously-confuse young children is because of one badly-used word; demon.

I could talk for an hour about the various words in Japanese used to represent monsters of various types; oni, youkai, akki, etc...  However, the one used in this film is "akuma" which is correctly translated as "demon."

However, the problem is that the "demons" in this film are not nearly as evil as the word "akuma" implies.  Calcifer, in particular, is one of the main characters, and is supposed to be a demon, but in practice, is mainly a cute lick of flame played quite nicely by Billy Crystal.  He's a bit of a pest, but acts more like a naughty child than a malicious evil spirit, and that might be confusing to young children, who are still learning the ins and outs of their real religion.

Just to be clear, however, this is not the fault of any mistranslation.  "Akuma" implies something horribly evil in the same way "demon" does.  It's just that neither word seems to apply well to Calcifer.

As a Christian, I believe firmly in the existence of demons, and that taking them lightly can be a dangerous thing to do.  Mature people will know that it's just fiction, and file it away as such, but for kids...  Parental guidance is suggested.

That said, when you get past the misuse of the word "demon," it's really a very heartwarming film with a happy ending and a number of good messages about family, devotion, sacrifice and love.  I enjoyed it a lot, but then again, it's Ghibli, and that's a pretty safe bet for quality entertainment, even in the rare cases when they're not particularly kid-friendly.