Hellboy

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

I know what you're going to say.  "What?  A serious, committed, deeply-religious reviewer like you, watching a movie called 'Hellboy?!'  What the heck is wrong with you?!"

Well, to be honest, I was talked into it by an article that I saw in a paper a while back.  A fellow reviewed the available Hellboy movies, commenting on their "strong, Catholic elements," and this thread has been floating through my mind ever since then, wondering just what it was about the films that was so Catholic or religious.

Well, as it turns out, there's not much.

A Catholic exorcist accompanies a commando unit at the start of this film to try to put an end to an evil ritual, designed to summon alien demons to Earth and bring about the end of the world, and as it turns out, the ritual is a success...  Sorta.

A little baby demon is hiding out in the wreckage of the ritual grounds, is adopted by the exorcist, named "Hellboy," and from then on, takes to fighting evildoing monsters and other demons who've gone astray.

The movie is reminiscent of "Van Helsing" in some respects, except that the main villain is less of a ham (a major improvement.)  The main character is essentially a demon exorcist with a kind of "lone wolf" mentality in his battles with other demons.  He's a gruff, easily-upset sort of fellow, but when you get down to it, he doesn't really want people getting hurt.

However, Van Helsing at least left the door open that its main character might be a virtuous warrior as well.  Hellboy definitely is not.

Don't get me wrong.  He's clearly the lesser of two evils.  The bad guys he's fighting are big, nasty eldridge abominations from planet X for the most part, but even Hellboy himself is shown stealing, destroying public property, using a necromantic spell, and killing at least one person.  The fact that he does all of this, while also saving the world from being devoured by ferocious, bloodthirsty tentacled creatures from beyond is a separate issue.

Like Van Helsing, the reliability of things like crucifixes in performing exorcisms is ratified in this film, and it's heavily implied that the Vatican carries on one of the few serious studies of these dangerous, supernatural beings.

Don't think I'm not grateful for the tip of the hat; making the good guys look like good guys for once.

Still, I'd be more grateful if some element of clear morality had shone through in the process, and it just doesn't here.  As far as I can tell, the deepest moral lesson in this film is basically "don't use your demonic powers to destroy the world," and you can only get so much mileage out of that.  When all is said and done, this is basically just a pretty decent action movie with a crucifix hung on it, and while it's better with it than without it, I was sort of hoping for more.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

Rated G

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

To begin with, this is the 1951 version of the movie that I'm reviewing.  Not the remake.  The remake "starred" Keanu Reaves, and will probably not be remembered in 10 years.

This movie, however, will be remembered in another 50, because its settings, characters, story and message are so timeless.  I've heard people say they were simple, but there's often something very sobering and essential hidden within that kind of simplicity.

A saucer lands in Washington DC in the 1950s, and an alien being; Klaatu, emerges from it, claiming to come in peace, and saying that he has a message, which must be heard by every person on Earth.  After failing to convince the world leaders to gather and hear his message, he disguises himself as an earthman named Carpenter and goes looking for answers; trying to understand Earthpeople a bit better before he makes his next choice.

The relationships that Klaatu develops with the people he meets are interesting and fun to watch, and this is where much of the story takes place.  The ultimate necessity of his message being received, and his eventual departure from Earth, however, are always looming in the background; calling him back to his mission, because according to Klaatu, the very safety of the world could be at stake.

A lot of other interesting things, and a few exciting things happen in this film over the course of Klaatu's visit, but three elements in particular make me like this film a great deal more than other sci-fi films from this time period.

First, Klaatu's relationship with other human beings, and his love of goodness, intelligence and maturity helped me to like the character, and to sympathise with his predicament.  At no point does he fall into any of the cliches that often plague other sci-fi protagonists.  He's not emotionless, or cold, or frantic, or ruthless.  He doesn't, in fact, come across as anything but a very decent man, who's terrified that he may be forced to cross a moral line in order to accomplish his mission.  This is the first reason I liked this film.  I liked and understood its main character.  He's not eager to cause trouble, but neither is he a delusional hippie-type, who thinks that peace can be made by just singing or emoting together.  He wants peace, but he knows you need to sacrifice to get it.  I often feel like him in my ordinary life.

Secondly, Klaatu is himself religious, after a fashion; a rare thing in sci-fi aliens.  He doesn't refer to any specific religion.  His acknowledgment of "the almighty spirit" could even imply deism, but it's so brief, that it doesn't really imply anything, except, of course, that he's not an atheist.  This alone would earn another star from me.  In this culture, we often assume that if aliens exist, they'll all be super-advanced atheists with no God concepts of any sort, and to be honest, I've never found this image convincing.

Thirdly, Klaatu's message, and his speech to mankind.  Some might consider his ultimatum a bit harsh, though remember; it's not his to give.  Still, many people would say things like "Wait a minute!  That means we don't get to do whatever we want anymore!  That's dictatorial!  Boo!"  However, these people, I think, are missing the point.

The problem with dictatorships (and with democrasies, really,) has always been that no human being or group of human beings can be trusted to run them properly.  This, I think you'll agree, is not a factor with the form of government that Klaatu's people chose.

Furthermore, anyone who disagrees with Klaatu from the perspective of wanting unrestricted freedom must be a very wicked person indeed; especially if they've lived through any part of the last three decades.  Klaatu's message is, in many ways, more pertinent now than it was in the days of the 1950s, because we've seen the horrors that total freedom from all constraint and natural law bring; the endless abandonment of one another, the tyranny of our own whims, the debauchery and depravity of the frantic search for the next "fix" of illicit pleasure; it's all become an everyday occurrance as the 21st century dawns.  People don't deserve the chance to act irresponsibly, because when they do, they only hurt one another.  They need some authority figure to honor and listen to; someone they can trust to give them right guidance.  This truth is distinctly human.

This, I think, is the main reason I liked this film so much.  It doesn't just speak to the decent man, or the religious man.  It speaks to the human experience.

We've become so sensitive and touchy now; we humans.  We bark like dogs at anything that seems to present a "heavy-handed" or "unsubtle" message... as though we consisted of nothing more than feelings; to be utterly destroyed by the slightest pang of genuine sadness or guilt.  This is the real tragedy of the modern age; the raging, militant refusal to face our problems, so that the vast majority of people can't even appreciate simple pleasures like this film, which should be a stunning affirmation of human virtue and what's needed to preserve it.

But if you're on the other side of that moral line, you may find this movie burdensome and appalling, and that truly makes me sad.  If so, it's not that there's something wrong with the movie; but with the heart receiving the message.

The scope of the problem in the modern world is much bigger than it was in Klaatu's time, and we still don't have any concrete plan for solving it; less now than ever, in some ways.  The remnant needs a close encounter like this every so often to cheer them up and remind them that there's still a larger world; spared the ravages of evil and war, and if people who don't want to listen to that message don't want to hear it, then that's entirely their problem.

Treasure in Clay

By Fulton J. Sheen

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

I give this book a perfect score for faithfulness, but with reservations.  Bishop Sheen is one of the finest and holiest teachers of the faith in recent history, but I've begun to notice a strain in some of his writings recently; a strain of calling things "bad" without there being anything really evil about them.

I'm not talking about his tendency to disparage himself.  Every saintly person has had that.  I'm also not talking about his teachings on what's a sin and what isn't.  These, in virtually all cases, have been quite correct.  However, when he criticizes himself for "not fasting enough," or "driving a cadillac," one is tempted to put the book down and go read something lighter.  God never said that we should seclude ourselves from all Earthly pleasures, and he certainly never said that the pleasures themselves were evil.  If read in the wrong state of mind, words like these could easily endanger the soul of a budding Catholic; even tempting them to give up the faith with the words "I could never be Catholic.  It was all about suffering and pain."  It is possible to make too much of the victimhood to which all people are called in this life; especially when speaking to a mixed audience.

I say this right off the bat, because I want to get it out of the way.  For the most part, I really enjoyed this book.  As I said, it was a little heavy at times, but enjoyable nonetheless.  It's an autobiography of Bishop Sheen, I suppose, although even in this, I'm afraid that whether you like it or not will depend entirely on how you approach the book.

You could approach it as a fan of Bishop Sheen's work, like I did.  If you do, you'll find it to be a satisfying compendium of his best and most often-recited stories and experiences from his life, arranged in an understandable order.  Bishop Sheen wrote as he talked; with a good sense of humor, a strong element of charity, and a nice flair for the dramatic to keep everything interesting and fun to read, and this was, by and large, how I found the book.  Dramatic at points, uplifting at other points, and just a lot of fun throughout.  This is why I rate it so highly.

However, there's another group of people who might rate it a bit differently, and that's historians and biographers.  It didn't bother me, but I feel I should point out that this biography is not written in a linear fashion, nor with any sort of strong, narrative sense behind it.  It's written, not like a single story, but like several, told from different perspectives.  I was reminded of the gospel accounts of the life of Our Lord, in a way.  This may turn off certain historians, who are more concerned with dates and figures than with perspectives.

Bishop Sheen also reveals nothing terribly new in this biography.  He offers no explanation of what happened to his career in later years, or what the real story was behind his alleged falling-out with certain others inside the church.  He says that this is because of the obligation of charity, which I actually agree with, but thrill-seekers and rumor-spreaders will need to look elsewhere.

However, in the course of the book, he also makes one statement which I absolutely disagree with; and this is not a common thing.  I agree with the vast majority of what he said and wrote over the course of his life.

Bishop Sheen writes, in this book, that one should always avoid exposing sins that go on within the church.  Now, if what he meant by that is "when someone does something to wrong you personally, don't make a fuss over it, or insist on justice in this life," he's quite correct, and should be applauded for his mercy and self-control.  However, it's far too easy to take these words, and mutate them into the situation that we have today; priests in open rebellion against church teaching, abuses being covered up by higher-ups, chancery officials making backroom deals with lobbying groups who oppose church teaching to keep from "hurting their feelings," etc...  These kinds of things absolutely give more scandal to the faithful when they're allowed to fester, and furthermore, a great many saints of the church fought ecclesial corruption whenever they could (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux springs immediately to mind.)

These factors contribute to the imperfect grade I give to this book.  They may just be me, wanting everything about the faith to be clean cut, and getting a little antsy whenever some word or phrase seems likely to encourage doubt or loss of faith, but these things did sort of bug me, even while I was enjoying this book.  It was a good book; no doubt, and I enjoyed it a lot.  I just feel like I could have enjoyed it more.

Porco Rosso

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I probably wouldn't even have thought of watching this film, but somebody suggested it to me, so I figured it might be worth checking out.  It is Ghibli, after all, and they're usually pretty exceptional.  Still, I was a little surprised by just how much there was to enjoy.

Firstly, this film is not at all like Kiki's Delivery Service, Spirited Away, or other Ghibli films (in fact, really, no Ghibli film is quite like any other.)  It's more adult.  Not as adult as Princess Mononoke, but pretty adult nonetheless.  I'd say late childhood-early teens at the earliest.  There's a lot of adult references and remarks.  There's name-calling, the main character smokes, there's plenty of alcohol in this movie, and illegal arms trading...  All that stuff you see in adventure anime.

I loved it.  This film kind of reminded me of a cross between the story of Beauty and the Beast and Casablanca.  It takes place between the first and second world wars, and the main character is a fighter pilot, who retreated from Italy to get away from the fascists (and yes; they use the word "fascist" in context in this film.)  He was also somehow cursed, and now he has the head of a pig and is rather overweight.  However, there's no more information given about the curse than this.

There's action, adventure, high-flying air battles, drama, romance, suspense and great escapes in this film, as Porco is shot down by a rival and has to get his plane repaired, so that he can settle the score.  Porco himself is something of an anti-hero, but the film treats him with respect, and in the end, he...  Well, the ending is a bit ambiguous, but if you're a regular viewer of Ghibli films, you may have come to expect that.

If you're wondering whether this film is right for you, or for your children, just ask yourself this; would you sit your children down in front of Casablanca?  If the answer is yes, then this film should be fine for them as well.  I really don't think there is any film that makes a better comparison with this one than Casablanca.  They're both film noir, they're both drenched in 1930s terminology, speech patterns, character dynamics and scenarios, and they both contain most of the same things that modern adults don't like kids seeing.  Guns, cigarettes, liquer, etc...  No foul language in either case, but that was expected in the 30s.  This movie isn't any tamer than Casablanca, despite being animated, but it's also no less tame, despite being made in the 90s.

Still, Casablanca was one of the greatest classic films of all time, so the very fact that I'm comparing Porco Rosso with it repeatedly is probably a sign of something good.  I just know I loved this movie, and I hope you will too.

Tangled

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

Looking back on my review of the Princess and the Frog, I feel I may have dropped the ball (no joke intended) in one respect.  I didn't give it sufficient credit for the fact that both main characters cared enough about each other to sacrifice themselves; in other words, true love.  I apologize for overlooking this.

I only mention this because the very same thing is present to an even greater degree in Tangled; probably one of the better animated Disney movies I've ever seen in my life.  Not top three, certainly, but top ten at least.

It's a story about Rapunzel and how she escapes from her tower to find out the secret of the lanterns that rise into the sky each year on her birthday.  In escaping, she enlists the assistance of a thieving, manipulative, philandering bandit named Flynn Ryder (he gets better,) and has to struggle to keep from being dragged back to the tower by the hag Gothel, who's been using her magic hair to stay young.

Tangled has everything.  There are scenes with fun, fast-paced action and adventure, scenes with pure comedy, heartwarming scenes, goofy scenes, romantic scenes, tragic scenes, etc, and sometimes, a little overlap.  There are running gags that travel through the whole movie, characters who always bring a little levity to the scenes they're in, and Rapunzel's mile-long hair is easily as eye-catching and fun to watch in action as the balloon house from "Up."

The horse Maximus is one of the coolest and funniest characters I've ever seen.  Utterly wordless, unquestionably upright and unshakably determined to see justice done, and yet, he pulls it off with a sort of goofy seriousness rivaling the vorpal bunny from Monty Python.  No matter what scenes Maximus is in, it always benefits from having him in it.  In fact, I'd say he's probably the best enforcer that the royal guards have at their disposal.

Gothel is a surprisingly well-done villain.  She might be a witch, but there's no indication of it.  She never uses any magic.  She's just crafty and manipulative, and really, when you think about it, that's all that most real villains are too.  On top of that, having very little power makes it much more of a challenge to write for a villain, and yet, in a sense, much more rewarding.  Coming up with schemes for an intelligent villain requires intelligent writers, and I absolutely appreciate the effort that was put into this.

Rapunzel's real parents never say a word, and neither does her best friend; the chameleon Pascal, but in a way, the fact that they can be so expressive and convey such a breadth and depth of emotions regardless, is itself quite an accomplishment.  I was amazed by just how much was accomplished with these characters, without ever saying a word.

Flynn and Rapunzel both have basically the same problem, as characters, unfortunately, and that is that while their relationship is utterly serious in later scenes, they both start out more or less goofy and hyper.  Rapunzel uses a lot of modern, casual, teenagery terminology, and Flynn is even worse in this respect, since he starts out with so many character flaws.  Still, as I said, all of this gets better later on, so it's very well-done.  Flynn is played a little like Bill Murray's character from Groundhog Day.  You don't really like him at first, but as time goes on, he becomes a better person.

Rapunzel is a little different in that respect.  She's likable from the very start; quirky and weird in a happy sense.  Energetic, intelligent and imaginative.  However, even she starts out the movie with nothing to really sacrifice, and no one to sacrifice for, and it really helps as the movie progresses, and this gradually changes, until she and Flynn both become truly heroic characters.

Flynn is clearly shown stealing, betraying, philandering and so forth, so there's obviously a reason for this to be rated PG, but like I said, these aspects of his character don't last.  I was actually amazed by the quality of the music in this movie.  It's truly awesome; even the instrumental tracks.  In fact, it reminded me a lot of Beauty and the Beast; probably because they got the same guy to do it.

The humor in the movie is wacky and weird at times, and very strongly character-driven at other times.  There was no toilet humor, no off-color jokes, etc...  I think that pleased me more than anything.  They had to get away from the Dreamworks/Fox trends of non-funny humor if they wanted to make a real masterpiece, and they did this magnificently.  In fact, I have only two gripes against this film, really.  One small, the other big.

The small one is this; I didn't feel that the narration over the beginning and end of the film was helpful.  It's like the king and queen.  The visuals alone would have told me what I needed to know.  Hearing Flynn talking in modern casual slang over them doesn't improve their ability to tell me the story of what happened.  They could still have had narration, though.  Maybe if it was just a more dignified-sounding kind of narrator, like they got for Beauty and the Beast.

The big gripe is this; something happens to Rapunzel near the end of the film, which drastically alters her appearance, and this truly troubled me.  Granted, this does show Flynn's development as a character more strongly, because it proves his willingness to give his life for her, but I much preferred Rapunzel's quirky looks at the beginning, to her more modern looks at the end.  Still, even this is just a surface-level complaint.  I tend to stop the movie before the ending these days, but if it doesn't bother you as much as it bothered me, have a field day.

To sum it up, Tangled is far superior to the Princess and the Frog, and as I said, one of the better Disney films in general.  Watch it for yourself, and then decide what you like and don't like.  Like I said, a few things bothered me, but I still think it was a great flick, and I hope you'll like it as well.

The Princess and the Frog

Rated G

Catholic-ometer: 2.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 2.5 of 5

Disney movies have a long and well-understood history.  They began with serious, epic stories of fairy tales to enchant young children, degenerated to less-than-epic fare after a while, then came roaring back with awesome animation, mixed up with a little believable character-comedy in the Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast.  After that, the intended secular message of certain films ruined them, and in others, the comedy kind of took center stage, and the quality of Disney films in general declined.  I was more than a bit skeptical of those who said I should give this film a chance, but I wasn't going to reject the possibility of another Disney revival, if they could pull it off.

I've heard people say this film was great, but complicated in its plotline.  I've heard people say it took its characters seriously once again, but had plenty of side-comedy as well.  I've heard people say the only thing they really disliked about it was all the magic thrown around by the bad guy.  Well, I -loved- Sleeping Beauty, and the bad guy in that movie threw a lot of magic around as well, so I was at least interested in what this film had to offer.

Now for the bad news.  For all that this movie sometimes attempts to be yet another masterpiece, and does make an effort to treat the central relationship seriously, it's also very much a product of its times.  By this time, 20th Century Fox and Dreamworks had saturated the movie market with unfunny, immature, toilet-minded films, laughably marketed as "kids movies."  You know the kind of rambling, aimless, hyperactive trash I'm talking about.

The Princess and the Frog had a lot of potential, and much of it was used.  Its main characters are actually interesting and believable people for the most part, and each changes for the better over the course of the film.  It could actually be a charming relationship, if you can ignore the fact that they're both frogs.  In addition, the main villain, while not as physically-threatening as someone like Maleficent, is still a serious and tangible threat to the main characters, and has big plans to do horrible things to them.  He's not a goof; he's a serious, believable villain, and to be honest, of everything in this movie, all the evil voodoo and demons he throws around are probably the things I take the least issue with.  Disney has rarely sugar-coated the reality of evil in their movies, and it's one thing I like most about the majority of their productions.

I also disagree with those who say the plot was too complex.  It did have a lot of weird twists, and you didn't know exactly what the plot was going to be from the start of the film, but that's good.  Kids will benefit if you ask them to think a little bit about what's being fed into their brains, and adults certainly won't be confused by it.  It made perfect sense to me.

However, I do have two problems with it, and they're big ones.  The side-characters, and the treatment of man-woman relations.

First, the second one.  The prince begins his journey as an impenitent philanderer, and never really seriously repents of this later on.  He learns to care about someone, and to work harder, but not to treat women in general with greater respect because they're people too.  That's a moral message that's missing from this movie, and it would really have benefitted from it.

However, I'm more concerned with the "marriage," because last time I checked, blind voodoo ladies weren't priests.  They don't have the authority to wed two people in holy matrimony, and therefore, the ending really is something of a head-scratcher when you think about it.  The treatment of mere human institutions as though they can substitute for legitimate marraige is a pervasive sin in our current society, but endorsing that sin is by no means cool, especially when it's subtle and unobtrusive like this.

With regard to the side-characters, as I said, this film is very much a product of its times, and although many of them get serious moments, for the most part, they exist to be goofy and ridiculous, and to have no real relationships or motives beyond a single desire each, which, this being Disney, they'll need to have granted by the time the film ends.  Louis, Ray, the baiyou hunters, and especially Mama Odie are all goofiness-personified, and this just makes adults feel uncomfortable, because the characters seem to be having a good time, but are impossible to sympathise with.  It doesn't help that some of them (Ray, for example,) get a bit of toilet-humor added to the mix, which no mature adult can appreciate.

Now, when I say "the side-characters," I don't mean -all- the side characters.  Charlotte is goofy too, but she actually demonstrates legitimate love and caring for the main character, and her father isn't the goofiness-engine that some of the others are.  He's a weak human being, but not in an over-the-top way.  In fact, I found him somewhat likable.  I don't remember any of the other characters really standing out in particular.

I guess I could say that what strength the film has comes from its relationship between the two main characters, but actually... there isn't much of anything there.  Oh, don't get me wrong, it's nice to see Disney taking a central relationship seriously again, and they do treat it with all the seriousness it deserves, but I never got the impression that the leads had much of anything in common; not even any real common interests.  They really don't have much reason to even like one another, and the scenes that they have together feel just a little forced as a result.

Lastly, I can't be the only one who felt that the near-complete excision of the human element hurt this film's central relationship a little.  All the really meaningful scenes happen while both are frogs, and really... that's a tough bar to get past.  Likewise, the swamp that most of their development occurs in feels more like a mood-vacuum to stick goofiness into, rather than any actual location with its own flavor or features of consequence.  Then, too, I don't really see why "last two-hundred years New Orleans" was judged to be a better location for this story than medieval Europe, where it traditionally took place.

I was expecting less from this movie, but hoping for more.  It hurt a little in certain points, but there's no real harm done, and despite the complaints that some others have had, I wouldn't worry about the evil magic and demons.  My main concern is with the treatment this film gives to romance, and the overall lack of strong character it contains.  For these reasons and others, I'll probably never bother watching it again.

Life is Worth Living

By Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

I wish I had more to say about this book, but it covers a completely different set of themes in each chapter, so there's just not much I can do to summarize it.  Still, here goes.

This is a book by Bishop Sheen, written by imperfectly transcribing a few dozen episodes of his classic show; Life is Worth Living.  I say "imperfectly," only because the transcriptions aren't strictly word-for-word.  It's really very well-done.

Now, that having been said, if you know anything about Bishop Sheen, you know what a clever wit and a powerful speaker he was, to say nothing of being one of the most honest and faithful Catholics in America.  Even his worst work is exceptionally-good, and this is some of his best; the strong, solid messages that kept millions and millions of Americans watching him week after week, even in a prime-time slot that competed with Frank Sinatra and Milton Berle.

The chapters of this book are well-divided into such topics as mothers, war, character-building, education, suffering, teenagers, prayer and tolerance (the last being one of my favorites, for debunking several myths about tolerance that we as a culture have been terminally suffering from since his death.)

I don't say this kind of thing often, but I really think that anyone who has any desire to see a truly balanced world view described (Catholic or otherwise) would benefit from reading this book.  It's Bishop Sheen at his finest and most faithful, and when you get down to it, you can't give a book a much bigger compliment than that.