Hooray! I'm Catholic!

By Hana Cole & Joanna Steege

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

I recently gave the movie "the greatest miracle" one face down from a perfect score in enjoyability because of its tendency to feminize the heavenly hosts and treat Jesus and Mary like people without distinct personalities.  The same, in a sense, is done by this book, yet I feel no reservations about giving it a perfect score.  However, I have two reasons why.

First, this is not a book written for adults.  It's a children's book; meant to help kids see Jesus as a parental figure who cares about them.  While I'll be the first to say that the mere message of "Jesus loves you" is insufficient to replace the -actual- gospels, I'm not offended by it in something that was intended for children, since you have to start somewhere.

Secondly, the book is not stilted, and is, in fact, very entertaining.  The clever rhymes and beautiful pictures will keep the attention of young kids, and make the rather simple reading level more tolerable for adults as well.  Perhaps even enjoyable.

I, for example, enjoyed the fact that the book differentiates between "little" good things (like candles, palm branches, vestments, etc...,) and "big" good things (our Lord's real presence in the Eucharist.)  Learning to prioritize between different kinds of goods is an important skill for anyone, and learning to recognize and appreciate the greatest gifts given to us by God is also important.  In short, it squeezes in some key training in the faith, which is more than I expect from a book on this age level.

It's faithful, it's enjoyable, and it's a stepping stone to bigger things.  I have nothing to complain about here.

The Greatest Miracle

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

This movie is a short, animated feature; just a little over an hour long, with 3D computer graphics to represent characters and such, and it's entirely faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Just wanted to say that right up front, since this alone accounts for the perfect score on the Catholic-ometer.

The premise is that a few people; a struggling single mother, a busdriver worried about his sick son, and an elderly, faithful Catholic woman are all drawn to a church by the same young man.  Once there, they begin to have visions; seeing what really goes on in that church.  They see demons, angels, saints, suffering souls and what part Jesus and the Blessed Mother play in it all.

Some scenes (particularly the ones with the Blessed Mother and Jesus) are genuinely touching, and I almost wept at a few of them, which should give you some idea of just how well this film does its job.

Nevertheless, I don't give this film a perfect score in enjoyability, and there are a few reasons why.

The first is the animation.  While the character models are beautiful and extremely well-designed, the actual animation is rather lackluster when compared to the sort of thing produced by real movie studies.  I mention this first, because I found it just a bit distracting throughout the entire movie.

Secondly, the movie is -immensely- stilted, and its aesthetic leaves much to be desired.  I know that may be an odd thing to say, right after remarking on how it made me almost weep, but it's always a problem whenever angels are made to look overtly-feminine, Jesus and Mary -act- like plaster statues, and the relationship with Jesus is painted as largely a matter of reflection, contemplation and emoting.  The film does attempt to establish that more is involved than mere feelings, but it also seems to imply that those who have "the wrong motives" for doing good are second-class citizens in God's eyes; an old notion, which I've attempted to refute in previous reviews.  It doesn't say this overtly, however, or I'd put more effort into refuting it here.

The reason the church has lost members in recent years is that it has lost men, and like it or not; whether it makes us happy or not, most of the men who might be drawn to religion are not like the father in this film; they're not at the brink of despair over some personal tragedy and willing to listen to anybody who might give them hope.

The way you draw men into a proper understanding of the faith is by -avoiding- the feminine elements.  Explain that angels are mighty warriors (they're called the heavenly hosts for a reason, you know,) that the Catholic life is a spiritual war, that the sacraments are a form of power, and that our relationship with Jesus need not be some touchy-feely-hippie garbage; that it can be like the relationship between a soldier and the general who commands him.  You draw men in by not trying to calm them down.  They just get bored by that.

I still enjoyed this film a lot, of course.  It's got a few other hiccups, apart from these two, but nothing significant.  As far as whether it's something to show to kids, there's no real cursing, bloodshed, sex or anything.  Characters shout at each other early on, and death is dealt with.  Also, the demons might be a little scary for young viewers, but my main worry with younger viewers would be the same as my worry with grown men; they might just get bored with all the angelic monologues and the slow pace of the movie, and decide not to watch anymore.

I would recommend this movie, mainly, to those who are already serious about their faith and want to see it illustrated in a film.  It's short enough that you can watch it some afternoon after work, and you might get something out of it.  I know I did.  I just wouldn't use it as a convert wedge.  Strengthen your faith with this gem, and make the converts yourself instead.

What's Wrong With the World

By G. K. Chesterton

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

I've enjoyed every book by Chesterton that I've ever read.  He's a very clever, insightful and humorous writer, but this one was especially good.  In it, Chesterton addresses many big problems in the world of his time (and even more so, the world of today,) and comes to some very jarring conclusions about them.

As with every writer worth reading, Chesterton utterly challenges the false assumptions that the world bases its whole system of belief on; even assumptions about things like public education, voting and soap, and also like with every writer worth reading, he backs up his claims with logical analogies and evidence, which help to support his views.  I wouldn't dream of robbing you of the delight of reading these things for yourself, of course, so here's your chance to stop reading this review.  I'll spend the rest of it talking about some of the points he made.

Chesterton's first several points in this book are to point out that man has gone wrong in quite a number of ways, and made quite a number of false assumptions to prevent himself from going right again.  People make the mistake of thinking that the societies of the past failed because they were flawed in some way that we aren't.  People make choices on the basis of what they -dislike,- rather than on the basis of what's better.  People make the mistake of regarding the past with fear and distrust in general, and of assuming that only the future can offer them anything worth having; that there was nothing about the past that's worth restoring.  All of these assumptions are purely destructive, since they block a person off to an avenue of good ideas and good solutions, which would otherwise be available to them.

People make the mistake of prizing optimism over success; a happy outlook over a happy life.  They make the mistake of allowing whole groups of people, making opposite mistakes, to guide them in one false direction or another, never once suspecting that both might be wrong in certain ways, or if they suspect, unable to really do anything about it.  The early parts of the book are a real eye-opener.

Chesterton then challenges imperialism and the way wicked public changes are spread; through claiming that it's necessary.  Never once, he says, are these evil changes enacted because people really want them enacted.  They're enacted because people are convinced that they're needed, whether they're wanted or not.  However, Chesterton's point is pretty clear; they are, in truth, not needed at all; certainly not among everyday people who are just trying to live their lives and put food on the table.  Every major radical political agenda of a left-leaning slant in the modern world can be put neatly in this category.

Next, Chesterton turns his guns on feminism.  This is probably the most controversial part of the book, which may explain why I loved it so much.  Basically, he points out that men are not women, nor are women men, and that they have different natural inclinations and ways of thinking, which makes men better at some things, and women at others.  Like all the best people who address this issue, he doesn't get distracted by the feminist lines about "equality."  Indeed, women are equal to men, in their innate worth, their human rights, etc, but this does not make them the same as men, nor should it need to.  Men and women can compliment one another within society, each having a different role, and neither needing to infringe on the other.  It's not necessary, or helpful, to just mix everyone into the same pot, like we do in modern society.

Perhaps the most controversial part of this section is in Chesterton's dismissal of women's suffrage, which he defends, not by repudiating women, as feminists might have one believe, but by repudiating votes.  In a sense, I agree with him.  Voting is a grave responsibility with many dark aspects to it, and there are distinct drawbacks to it, as a system of government.  For one thing, in a monarchy, or some other such society, even if an evil tyrant takes over, you don't need to look suspiciously at most of your fellow citizens.  It probably wasn't their fault.  Not so in a democracy.  In a democracy, when an evil tyrant takes over (and it always happens eventually, as it now has to America,) you have to wake up the next morning and go to work, knowing full well that over half of your fellow citizens are either voting in ignorance, are negligent of their duties, or are evil themselves.

Then too, if an evil tyrant wants to seize power over a democracy, he can't just march his army in and take command.  He has to go through the long, slow process of gradually corrupting the hearts and/or dulling the minds of over half its citizens, so that they become evil or ignorant enough to accept him.  When all is said and done, I think that more souls are lost under an evil democracy than under and evil dictatorship.  By no means am I saying that democracies are inferior to monarchies, or anything like that.  What I am saying is that voting is not the clean and guiltless process we often make it out to be.  These aren't the points that Chesterton brings up against voting, but it's what I got to thinking about as a result of this book.

The next group of big issues dealt with in this book are education; specifically, public education of children, and how it rises from another false assumption; that because rich people allow their children to be taught by someone else, so should everyone else.  In short, that not only -can- parents escape from the task of teaching their children, but they -should.-  He explains why this is utter nonsense; what great benefits the child gains in learning from their own parents, and others who share their way of life, instead of suffering under the "merciful gifts" of the richer classes.

I should point out that with the state of public schools in America today (basically a form of child abuse,) these objections are even -more- poignant and -more- important.  In fact, really, all the objections in this book stand out much clearer and more correct than ever, but none more so than his last big observation on the world.

The problem is that man is viewing his society/social constructs as immutable, and his neighbor as flexible, when it should be the other way around.  People are trying to shape man to fit into a vision of society, rather than forming their vision of society around man.  This is what's really wrong with the world, according to G. K. Chesterton.

I couldn't agree with him more.

The Screwtape Letters

By C. S. Lewis

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

Apart from the chronicles of Narnia, if I could have only one of the books of C. S. Lewis, the Screwtape Letters would be it.  It's vibrant, exciting, colorful and very precise and clever in the points it makes.

The book centers around two demons; the young, inexperienced Wormwood, and the elder demon named Screwtape, who writes him letters of advice and encouragement.  These letters are much needed, as poor Wormwood keeps screwing up, and letting his human do things like become a Christian, make some new friends when his old ones become a bad influence, take a relaxing walk to clear his head so that he can think straight, etc...  Why, there's a very real danger that Wormwood might even let this particular human make it to Heaven, if he's not careful.

Every perspective in this book is cleverly inverted.  Screwtape praises the ability to sew confusion in the mind of a human being, the use of tiny slogans instead of rational explanations, to convince people of a point, the use of the word "democracy" to discourage people from excelling and so forth.  His advice to his young demon friend reveals, very cleverly, the things that we must avoid, and the kinds of traps we can easily fall into if we're not careful, as well as precisely how to stay on the right track for our lives, and all in a sort of backwards, underworld style of writing which, to be honest, I found very humorous; even largely tongue-in-cheek.

Of course, we know that demons don't really come in "older" and "younger," nor do they learn anything, and they don't really -devour- humans or one another.  Their motives are pure spite.  Still, those slight deviations from actual theology make the story more fun and easier to tell, and perhaps even better.

The mini-sequel, also included in most editions, entitled "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" is just as good as the original book, though it does, of course, have a slightly different premise.  The particularly excellent quotes and points made would simply take too long to outline.  If you haven't read this book yet, check it out.  Even if you've made the mistake of not being a Christian, you'll probably still get a kick out of Screwtape and his bungling "nephew."

The Great Divorce

By C. S. Lewis

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

Let me begin this review by making a couple of things about this book absolutely clear.  First, it's not a book about marraige or divorce.  Secondly, it depicts a vision of the relationship between Heaven, Hell and Purgatory which is utterly incorrect.  However, Lewis admits to this second point at both the beginning and end of the book.  It's a work of fiction; nothing else, so with that said, we can move on to the book itself.

In this novel, a soul travels from Hell to Heaven, with a few of his fellow souls, and bit by bit, each discovers just why they don't belong there.  The slavedriving, condescending boss doesn't even want to be around so many miscreants, the apostate is repulsed by the idea of knowing one idea to be true and all the others false, the thief finds he can't steal anything from Heaven, because he has nowhere to put it, etc...  It's a clever little device for a story, although as the book goes on, one is forced to wonder; just what did the narrator do to end up in Hell, and will he be able to overcome it and remain in Heaven?

This, by the way, is the element of fiction that the book makes ample use of; that technically, souls in Hell are given a chance to visit Heaven, change their ways, and remain there.  This is ludicrous, of course; the very idea of Hell implies that people have already chosen not to change their ways, and made their final decision already.  There are no further choices of this sort to be made after Death.  Still, as a basis for a story, it's an amusing little plot device.  It's just a shame that we never really learn anything of substance about the narrator.  I feel Lewis could have fleshed him out and made him an interesting character, rather than a mere cypher for viewing the other occurrances.  Still, it was fun to read, for what it was.

Now, on to specific goods and bads about the story.  I have no major complaints to speak of for the entire first half of the book.  As I said, the premise is absurd, but apart from that, it holds up very well.

However, in Chapter 9, Paragraph 88, one of the saints says that people who drink the waters of Heaven see their works as though they belonged to someone else.  Thank you, but no.  I already know what it's like to watch other people do great things, and I know it's not sufficient.  If I wanted that, I wouldn't need to go to Heaven for it.

This is one of those things that I don't think Lewis ever really understood; the notion that being with God implies the -exhaltation- of man, not his suppression.  In retrospect, many of my problems with his books stem from this basic issue.

Ch9Par100-103, for example, in which the ghost of a painter "realizes" that people receive no recognition in Heaven at all, except from God.  Needless to say, I don't agree.  God grants to the saints all things which are good, and no things which are evil.  Recognition from peers is a good thing.  Therefore...

In Ch11Par14, it's implied that people must never treat God as a means to other good things.  While I admit readily enough that God is the greatest possible goodness, and should not be undervalued, we sorry humans sometimes need to motivate ourselves, which is made even harder for those of us who have difficulty being motivated by something as abstract as true and complete goodness, or as humanoid as the son of God.  In this kind of situation, it would be prudent to seek some other good, so that one might be motivated to make the right decisions and arrive in Heaven to receive it.  Now, this is not relevant to the situation of the woman the saint was talking to in this paragraph, but I feel it should be pointed out.

As the book continues beyond these segments, however, it begins to make a number of very good and interesting points.  First is Ch11Par113, where it essentially says that every aspect of man can be raised to glory, so long as it's killed first.  I personally believe this to be true, since otherwise, the glorified man wouldn't really be a complete "man" at all.

Next is Ch13Par43, which makes the point that those who make others miserable until they choose to be happy on their own terms will be very unhappy in the end.  Still, I think this point needs to be studied just a little more closely.  On the one hand, this point really only applies to those who make other people miserable by their own choices, but on the other hand, it could be misread to imply that there's something wrong with being hard to please, which I don't think is true by itself.

Then, in Ch13Par47, we learn that the action of pity must be elevated, and the passion of pity must be executed.  Mostly correct, I think, and an important distinction to make.  When we become weak and immoral, and let ourselves become victims as a result of feeling pity towards others, we're not helping anyone, and there does need to be some way to correct this.

Finally, I feel I should mention that this book includes George Macdonald as one of its characters.  He shows up as a saint in Heaven, which by this point, I'm inclined to think he is.  Macdonald's biggest problem, aside from not being Catholic, was his universalism, and unless he intended to apostatize, which seems unlikely, I don't think his mistakes were enough to merit eternal punishment.  I disagree with him about some things, but I don't see any reason for supposing that he failed to make it to Heaven.  It did bother me a bit to see him treated like the old mentor there, though.

Ultimately, the book is about the people we observe; the study of the kinds of people who failed to make it to Heaven and why.  Of course, during this study, we examine many types of choices and psychological conditions, and find out what's wrong with them and what kinds of problems they cause for the soul of whoever has them.  This is the real meat of the story, and I really enjoyed it, in spite of all the things I was hoping to see.

On the whole, I found this book to be very enjoyable and very fun, although again, it needs to be treated as the fiction it is.  Take it in that context, and you should be just fine.

The Problem of Pain

By C. S. Lewis

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5

In the past, I've said that in some of his works, C.S. Lewis almost seems like a professional philosopher, while in others, he clearly comes across as more of a popularizer.  This book, I'm afraid, is of the latter type.  I say this, not because it's a bad book (it deals quite well with all the major problems people have concerning pain,) but because it's non-technical and contains some errors.

There's nothing wrong with using a book to popularize very basic responses to very basic arguments (rest assured, this kind of content is as much as [perhaps more than] most internet atheists will be able to grasp on these issues,) but if you're a really educated seeker, really looking for answers to life's tough questions, or a theology student who wants to know the truth, or even just a philosophically-minded person who's not entirely on board with Christianity yet, put this book down.  In fact, even if you -are- entirely on board with Christianity, there's a chance this book might damage your faith.

Now, as I said, this book is a good book.  Rest assured, I got just as many really good quotes from it as I did bad ones.  That said, there -were- bad ones, and they came in two varieties.  The first variety was weak and illogical arguments in favor of true positions.  The second was defending very questionable, or even clearly-false positions.

At this point, I feel the need to remind you that I am not an atheist.  I'm an orthodox Roman Catholic, so when I say a position is questionable, I mean either that it has been denounced by the church, or else not affirmed by them in any way (not respected in doctrine, discipline, practice, creed or prayers.)  However, my objections to some of Lewis' conclusions will not exist in a vacuum.  I will back up my position with evidence, and a noteworthy, talented apologist like C.S. Lewis deserves, I feel, no less.

First, however, let me cover the weak defenses of true positions.  Fortunately, I only spotted two of these.

Firstly, in chapter 6, paragraph 12, he responds to the well-known Euthyphro dilemma.  The dilemma is "does God command things because they're right, or are they right because he commands them?  If he commands them because they're right, then that 'rightness' must have a source other than God.  If they're right because he commands them, then 'right' and 'wrong' are arbitrarily dependant on the will of God."

Lewis' response to this dilemma is correct.  He says that God commands things -because- they're right.  What he does not do is explain how this can happen without "rightness" originating outside of God; namely, that it is God's nature, not his will, where right and wrong originate, and his will obeys his nature in commanding right things.

Chapter 6, paragraph 18; Lewis wants to prove that pain can be good for people, and cites the claim that old people generally, in his experience, grow better with age, not worse.  However, age is not pain, and it brings many things with it other than pain.  Sometimes, for example, it brings wisdom, which is much more likely than pain alone to improve a person's character.  I think his claim that pain can be good for people is spot-on, but this argument is horribly wanting.

More importantly, however, he makes a number of claims which I think are simply wrong, and which certainly aren't required for Catholics (or indeed, Christians of any sort) to believe.  He keeps going back to these too, so I'll describe these faulty teachings first, then point out where I saw them surfacing.

1.  Competition is a form of evil.

This may not be intentional, but in Ch2Par14, he says that "hostility and competition" are a "grave evil."  Gee.  Should I have confessed my last game of chess to a priest?

I'm sorry.  I don't mean to be snide about this, but only one kind of competition is evil; the hostile kind.  If C.S. Lewis believes this (and I have no reason to think he does not,) the word "hostility" need not have been followed by anything.

2. The self-depreciation of the saints is "scientifically" accurate.

Ch4Par15.  No, it's not.  Science is about measurements, and how rotten you are is not measurable by any method of which we are aware.

3. God -causes- evil and suffering efficiently.

He doesn't use these precise words, but he does seem to imply that God is the cause of evil in Ch6Par8.  He also, in the same place, implies that the human will is evil, but that's a separate problem.

4. The human will is evil, just by being a will.

I really don't know why he would say this, since he elsewhere rejects Total Depravity (which I also reject.)  However, he seems to repeatedly confuse -evil- will with any kind of human will considered as a whole.  In Ch6Par3, he rails at the very idea of desiring anything for the self, and advocates ruthlessly shattering such desires by force.  However, the problem is that a person who -really- desired nothing for the self would also have no reason to associate with other human beings, since they wouldn't desire to be noble or virtuous, which is absurd.  Of course these desires are valid.  So are many other desires, provided they're kept in the proper order.

In Ch7Par3, he again demonstrates a fundamental confusion between the will, considered absolutely, and the will to do diabolical things.

This Error seems to feed into another one; his incorrect understanding of Heaven, which I will deal with in a moment.

5. Free will and its associated dangers are needed in order for people to live.

Ch2Par15.  I agree that free will is needed in order for people to live, but its dangers are not required, or else, it would be impossible for Heaven to exist, since people clearly live there, yet, without danger.

6. Even if there were pains in Heaven, those in the know would desire them.

Ch8Par9.  I don't think he quite understands the purpose of Heaven in saying this.  The purpose of Heaven is to be in the closest possible proximity to God.  To be in the closest possible proximity to God is to have all good things, and no evil things.  However, pain is an evil thing, in and of itself (which I think may be another point of confusion for him.)  Therefore, merely having pain proves that one is not in the closest possible proximity to God, and therefore, not in Heaven.

Believe me, after all we humans have suffered (self-inflicted or no,) a partial victory on an -eternal- scale would never be sufficient, and God knows this.  That's why Purgatory doesn't last forever.

7. In Heaven, there is no beer.

More or less.  He claims that no one can possess anything in Heaven.  Then what, may I ask, is the point of giving up the things that we clearly -do- possess?  This is a poor substitute, if true, and I'm fully convinced that it's false on that basis alone.

Still, I want to fully examine the points he makes on the subject.

Ch10Par5; he seems to recognize that this claim imperils the parable of the pearl of great price (the first objection I would have brought up,) but doesn't really deal with the issue, except to assert that what he's speaking of is "not an experience."

This requires an analysis of what the word "experience" means.  An experience, in a broad sense, is anything which is perceptible, but is still a particular instance, and is therefore not obtainable, since it ceases to occur once the experience is past.  However, a "particular instance" could, in theory, be stretched out into eternity, and therefore remain an experience, while still being imperishable.  However, it would not be obtainable.  This seems to be the common thread.  Experiences are not obtainable things, and obtainable things are more than mere experiences.

Now, rewards come in two types; either obtainable rewards, such as money or candy, or else experiences, such as a vacation, or a trip to the fair.  By merely saying that something is "not an experience," we imply that it is more than a mere perceptible, or even participative occurrance, whether or not it is experienced.  We therefore imply that it is something which can be possessed.  In other words, this paragraph contains a self-contradiction which disproves his claim.

Ch10Pars7, 9 and 10.  Lewis quotes the theologia germanica, which is not doctrine, and heavily inspired Martin Luther, to try to support his claim that not only is there no ownership in Heaven, but no human will either.  This, I think, ties into error #4.  The theologia germanica contained several questionable claims, and this; the denial of the will of the saints, was one of the big ones.  It said outright that the saints in Heaven have no will except for the will of God, but I reject this claim for one simple reason.

If this were true, asking the saints to intercede for us at the throne of God would be a wasted effort, since they would have no will to respond with.  Now, you could say that the will of the saints does not -conflict- with the will of God, but that's not the claim that C.S. Lewis makes.  He seems to have something of a mad-on for human wills and human selves, since he apparently wants both to be annihilated (the will being the highest function of the soul.)  He even claims that human beings can only fulfill themselves completely by repeatedly giving up everything they are.  I assume I don't need to point out that this is a self-contradiction, and therefore, necessarily false.

But the real question is why?  Why hold onto this notion of the self and the will being evil in and of themselves?  Why claim that anything which God made is evil?  Why not claim, with the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas, myself, and others, that everything which God made is essentially good, but tainted by sin?  Well, it seems to me that Lewis' reason is somewhat evident...

Ch10Par1: "Heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire."

C.S. Lewis, it seems, either does not believe, or does not want people in Heaven who are only -imperfectly- penitent for their sins.

Let me explain what this means.  In Catholic doctrine, we define two types of penitence.  -Perfect- penitence, in which you're sorry for your sins because you know you've offended God, and don't wish to, and -imperfect- penitence, in which you're sorry for your sins because you're afraid of being punished (like, with the loss of goods or rewards.)

It seems that Mr. Lewis wants to make the point that the Christian God is not morally-inferior to anyone, because he rejects those who do his will out of ulterior motives, but this is problematic for four main reasons.
1. It's contrary to Church teaching, and therefore false.
2. It's contrary to the words of the apostle Paul, who said, in his letter to the Romans, that God will give to each person according to what he has -done.-  Not according to his motives for doing it.
3. It does not, in fact, make God seem morally-superior, but rather, morally-inferior for not showing mercy on those who tried to please him, without really understanding the best reasons why they should.
4. I can only imagine how many modern men may have read these words and said to themselves "forget this.  If this is the best deal I can get out of Christianity, I'm better off being an atheist."  A mere two years ago, I'd have said the same.

The fact is that no matter how much certain Christians may want to thumb their noses at regular Joe Christian for following God, not out of selflessness, but because he wants a happy ending, you're much, much, -much,- better off not doing so.  Jesus didn't say that people needed perfect contrition in order to enter Heaven.  He said people needed faith and humility, and that they needed to be baptised, eat his body, drink his blood, take up their cross... You know...  Catholic stuff.

Just living this way involves a massive degree of sacrifice, to the point where there are days that only the promise of that happy ending gets us through.  This is the kind of understanding of the relationship between this life and the next that Jesus preached.  He didn't claim that God would force people out for not having a perfect motive, or that dangers and life were one and the same, or that God would lobotomize the saints of their human will.  Our Lord wasn't nearly so grim as all that.

He said that any man who has given up lands/cattle/wife/mother/father/etc... for his sake would receive (implying ownership) much more in the age to come.

When you think about it, that's a darn good deal, and I wonder why so many otherwise-holy people want to spoil that.

Again, this review may have come across as just a load of griping.  I'm sorry if it seemed that way.  It's only because these are complex issues, and they take a while to explain.  As I said at the beginning, this book is more than half right.  Its missteps are few and far between, but they do exist.  Just keep your eyes open and proceed with caution, and you'll do just fine.  You might even learn a thing or two about the problem of evil and how to approach it.  Just don't take all of it at face value.

The Green Lantern

Rated PG-13


Catholic-ometer: 3 of 5

Enjoyability: 3 of 5

I've read some other Catholic reviews of this film, but after having seen it myself, I have to say, I only half agree with what they had to say.

I've heard the claim that the lantern ring creates matter from nothing; a power that only God possesses.  No, it doesn't.  They make it quite clear in the film that the ring creates constructs out of energy, not nothing.

The movie claims that "will" is "the greatest force in the universe."  Not only do I believe this to be false, but the comics, to my knowledge, didn't make this claim.  They insisted that the Lantern Ring was "the most powerful weapon in the universe," but all that stuff about the green power being greater than anything else is clearly incorrect.  I can think of several characters in DC Comics who could make it tap-dance with a snap of their fingers.

Issue has been taken with the philandering behavior of the main character at the start of the film, and I'm very glad to hear that I'm not the only one who saw the problem with this.  The movie tries to imply that fearlessness is the only important thing about being a Green Lantern.  That's false.  You also need to be utterly honest, and of course, guess which of those qualifications the main character lacks in this film?

Hal Jordan himself (the title character) is easily the most irritating thing about the movie.  For some reason, they decided to make him not only energetic, wisecracking and extroverted (traits the character had in the comics as well,) but also dishonest, self-centered, childish and rock stupid (traits he did -not- have in the comics.)  Because of this, Hal, and every relationship scene containing him, got on my nerves severely.

The villain, sure enough, is a growing, planet-consuming lovecraftian abomination named Parallax, which mutates one Earthman into a psychic elephant-man-looking character who apparently runs on fear, and consumes several others like the blob before he's eventually defeated.  I didn't find anything terribly interesting or fun about this villain, and the "innocent people body count" he gets doesn't help matters any.

I do have to admit that the scenes on Oa were pretty good, and the film's rendition of the Green Lantern Corps and the Guardians was very good.  I also liked the visual effects used for the power ring, and wished we could have seen more of that, and less of Hal trying to get back together with his former girlfriend Carol.

On the whole, I wasn't pleased with this movie, although it did have some moments I found visually-impressive, which gave me a nice thrill in exchange for my time.  If I were to rate it, with movies like Superman, Spider-man 2 and The Avengers at the top of the scale, and movies like Daredevil, The Fantastic Four and Catwoman at the bottom, Green Lantern would be right in the center.  It's the closest thing to a "meh" superhero movie I've ever seen.

Final Notes: There's one last thing I forgot to mention; Amanda Waller.  This annoyed me severely.  The actress who they got to play Amanda Waller is a good 200 pounds too light to play her.  What really makes this bad, though, is that there's another woman in the film who would have been perfect for her, if only she hadn't been busy playing "woman in distress" during the Parallax attack on the city.

The Dark Knight Rises

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 2.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5

I've seen good and bad reviews of this film, but now that I've seen the film itself, I feel I should give my two cents.

In this film, Bruce is badly injured from his days as Batman.  His bones, brain and body are basically turning to mush, and he hasn't put the mask on in seven years.  Suddenly, a bad guy named Bane shows up; a terrorist who threatens Gotham city with a nuclear bomb, and breaks Batman over his knee, trapping him in a deep, dark prison.  Batman must find a way to escape and stop Bane's plan before it's too late.  However, even if he succeeds, he'll need to face the fact that he just can't be Batman anymore.

There's also a subplot about Catwoman, and about the child of Ra's Al Ghoul, who returns to fulfill his original mission of annihilating Gotham City.  Catwoman is an infamous thief, who seems to be trying to get herself a clean legal record and go straight, although whether she's on Batman's side or not is a key question in this film.

The character of Bane is clever and determined, and he does basically all the things that real anarchist terrorist psychopaths do; like claiming to be a "liberator of the people," and marching on the stock exchange to try to steal money from rich employers, thus preventing them from employing anyone anymore.  I found this imagery to be a very true-to-life, and surprisingly-sensible one for a Hollywood film.

However, just because the film has some sense doesn't make it a great film for Christians.  The 2.5 on the Catholic-ometer is there partly because Bruce ultimately needs to find the strength to escape his prison by learning to fear death.  No.  Just no.  Death is our route home.  There's nothing to be afraid of there.

Catwoman is a bit of an odd character.  She's definitely a self-serving backstabber, and yet, Batman seems more concerned with what kind of person she could be; a hero of sorts.  Even when she joins his side, so to speak, I still don't think she ever becomes much of a hero herself, and I didn't find her as endearing as some people seem to have, but I didn't find her grating either.

Miranda Tate is one character I was absolutely disgusted with; primarily because there's an implied sex scene between her and Bruce about midway through the film, even though there's been no relationship to speak of between them up to that point, and she has no intention of there being one.  So why does she want to have sex with (and presumably, a child by, since that's what happens when you have sex,) this person who she barely knows and doesn't care about.  Worse yet, why does -Batman- agree to this most intimate of all relationships, given that he himself comes from a broken family, which, in fact, made him who he is?  Batman has never shown disdain for marraige or the family like this, nor for that matter, a desire for -friendship,- much less intimacy with any other human being.  It was a brief scene, but in my mind, it should have been cut.

From here, let me segue into the character of Batman, or rather, of Bruce Wayne, because I just don't think this character is Batman.

You see, the distinctive thing about the character of Batman is that while most other superheroes are ordinary people who put on disguises in order to fight crime, Batman puts on his disguise when the mask comes -off.-  In fact, they even say something like this in the early parts of the movie.  Yet, I'm supposed to believe that Batman not only -can- have a normal life, but actually -wants- it.  In other words, that he wants to spend the rest of his life wearing a mask; that he could enjoy it.

Frankly, I just can't picture that.  Wayne is not happy unless he's doing something to stop evil.  He could never be happy living a life in which he sees evil every day, and does nothing to prevent it, and every man, woman and child sees evil every day in this world of ours.

I was never terribly happy with this version of Batman.  I enjoyed the first film as much as anyone, but the second didn't do much with the character, in my eyes, and his dependance on the various female characters he meets seemed, to me, like an unnecessary weakness to introduce to the character.  He was too needy in human relationships, too vulnerable to base temptations, too angry when fighting evil, too worried when contemplating his life...  In short, he was just too emotional.  He was a human being, but he was not a batman.

Some will say "but that's the point of these movies; to do the character in a more realistic way."  I don't think, however, that the modern obsession with realism (which I have many reasons to detest in itself,) covers any of the complaints I've just made, for one simple reason.

You don't need to be weak and emotional in order to be a realistic person.

I will give these films the credit that is due to them.  They have good writing, and strongly-developed characters, but to alter characters as timeless as these in this kind of way is still like plopping Robin Hood down in the middle of modern New York City and having him say "please" and "thank you" all the time.  Just because it's more like what we're used to doesn't make it "realistic."  It makes it normal, and this is precisely the opposite of why I watch movies about superheroes.

Gladiator

Rated R

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

Someone I trust recommended this film to me, and someone I distrust said it was bad, so I decided to check it out, and was pleasantly surprised.

Admittedly, the thought of ancient Rome brings back images of ferocious lions and burning corpses to a Christian like myself, but I enjoy a good historical fiction as much as the next guy, and this film is certainly that.

A trustworthy, courageous roman general named Maximus is rewarded by Caesar for his latest successful campaign, with the promise that when he dies, Maximus must take his place, returning Rome back from the brink of corruption and totalitarian rule.  However, neither Maximus nor Commodus; the son of Caesar, are pleased to hear this.  Commodus assassinates Caesar before he can make his plans known, rising to become the emperor and betraying Maximus, killing his family and trying to have him executed.

Maximus is soon captured by slave traders, who sell him as a gladiator.  His military experience and great strength and skill make him a natural in his new profession, but his heart still longs for one thing; the death of Commodus, and the fulfillment of Caesar's last wishes.  The rest of the movie is about the chances that Maximus gets to confront Commodus again, and his quest for revenge and the restoration of the glory of Rome.

Though the story itself never really happened, it rang with something rarely seen in movies these days; the message that virtue matters much more than cunning or authority.  At every turn, Maximus is shown to be brave, determined, protective of his friends and faithful to the Caesar who once commanded him in battle, while his enemy Commodus is shown to have every form of vice; greed, selfishness, laziness, cowardice and sloth.

The one black spot on this movie's record in this regard is that ultimately, it is still a story about revenge.  Oh, sure, they include a lot of stuff about "fighting for the glory of Rome," and struggling for the good of the people, but in the end, you know the real reason why Maximus is fighting so hard is that he wants to avenge the deaths of his family.

I say this is the only black spot because any traditional kind of story, like this one, is going to have conflict and bloodshed.  It's inevitable.  There's a reason why this film is rated R.  However, even this is not taken to the extreme it could have been.  Most of the time, Maximus is essentially forced to fight and kill, and in one noteworthy instance, he actually shows mercy in a fight against a strong opponent; a rare thing in the roman games.

Ultimately, though, what I liked most about this film was the noble sacrifices made by the hero and his friends in the later parts of the film, and the movie's very clear message that there is an afterlife, and what you do in this life matters for that very reason.  It's a truth too often ignored; too infrequently discussed.  By no means would I consider this film perfect, but I definitely enjoyed it.  Just don't try showing it to the kids.

Toy Story 3

Rated G

Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

The final film in a trilogy of movies about a group of beloved toys, who come to life when no people are around, and find their fulfillment in being played with.  The main characters are the cowboy Woody, the cowgirl Jesse and the space ranger action figure Buzz Lightyear, and when their owner, Andy, has grown old enough to go to college, he's forced to make a choice; throw his old toys away, put them in the attic, give them away, or take them with him.

Through a series of misunderstandings and tragic occurrances, the toys all end up being donated to a day care center, where toys can just keep being played with by new kids every year.  However, the toy bear who runs the place; Lots-o, tricks the main characters and tries to force them into the toddler room; where the children have no understanding of how to treat toys, and no respect for their playthings.

When Woody realizes that his friends are in trouble, he finds himself having to perform a daring secret mission to rescue them from the mafia-boss-like teddy bear, and fix his friend Buzz; who's been severely brainwashed by them.

Part of the reason for the grade I give this movie is that it has little or no philosophy to teach; no real lessons to learn, or morals to the story, exactly; at least none that are clear.  Another reason is that really, this is a kids' movie.  Not all pixar movies are that, but this has been consistent, anyway, throughout the Toy Story series.

The movie uses a lot of cliches about mobs, gangsters and prison breaks, and applies them to toys, which is certainly odd, but workable.  The characters, for the most part, are predictable, and there are no real curve balls in the story.  Everything plays out pretty much exactly as you expect it to.

There's a Ken doll in this film, who falls for a Barbie doll, and is torn between his love for her and his loyalty to the gang.  There's a running joke about this character being somewhat effeminate, which almost threatens to become tasteless, but never quite gets there.  On the whole, I'm somewhat up in the air about him.  I didn't find him particularly funny, but neither did I find him offensive, nor problematic for young children.

I did feel that the whole mafia motif only worked marginally well.  Frankly, I think including it in a kid's film at all was a bit much, but it doesn't ruin the movie or anything.  It's still fun.  I just felt a little uncomfortable with it.

On the whole, however, this is another movie about the toy story characters having fun and going on adventures, and it does that reasonably well.  It builds tension where tension is needed, has good humor where good humor is needed, and is just entertaining and exciting overall.

I don't think this movie has any major shortcomings to speak of, but one thing I did notice was that where the first two films focused on developing the characters of Woody, Buzz and Jesse, this one has almost no development on the part of any of them.  They go through tough times and harrowing adventures, but as people, they don't really change.

The one character who seems to get the most focus in the villain; Lots-o, and he's where the film makes its story happen; comparing the villain's own development to that of healthier-minded toys.  What follows from this is...  Well, I won't give it away, but to sum it up, the last two films wrapped character development in adventure.  This one is more of a character -study- wrapped in adventure.  There's no real development to speak of.

And it's not as though they couldn't have included some.  Woody, in this film, faces the hard reality of his owner having grown up, and no longer needing him; the very same reality that Jesse faced in the last film; yet not a word is shared between them about it.  As I said, it was still a good film, but if this kind of opportunity had been taken advantage of, it would have been the icing on the cake.

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.