Wonder Woman (2009)

Rate PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 1 of 5

Enjoyability: 1.5 of 5

I admit that I haven't read many Wonder Woman comics (and especially not recent ones,) but I'm familiar with the character and her core supporting cast, and what made the concept work during its initial run.  It's for these reasons that I have to point out just what a miserable failure this movie was, in virtually every respect.  "Wonder Woman" is a load of pushy, overly-violent, trash-talking, modern American feminism, and nothing else.  However, I feel it deserves a more thorough review than just that, so for the rest of the review, I'll be addressing the specific characters and other elements in the movie, to explain just why the film gets them wrong.

-----

Etta Candy

Etta Candy is a minor character in the film.  So minor, in fact, that she gets, I think, less than a minute of screen-time.  In fact, it makes me wonder why they even bothered to put her in, if they couldn't do a better job on her than this.

In this film, Etta is a tall, blond, skinny, seductive woman, who's briefly scolded by Wonder Woman for asking a man to move a desk for her.

In the comics, Etta Candy was a short, plump, brunette, who was the leader of a college sorority.  Wonder Woman discovered her when she was sickly and weak while visiting a local hospital.  In other words, Etta was unearthed on an errand of mercy; not a manhunt for an enemy, as in this film.

I'm just going to be up-front about this.  Making Etta skinny is something which, by itself, would put this film on my butt-kick list, but the fact that they only used her to demonstrate one of Wonder Woman's character flaws puts it way over the top.

-----

Hades

In a way, my problem with the film's depiction of Hades is almost the precise reverse of my problem with Etta Candy in one sense, and precisely the same in another sense.

In this film, Hades is a black-haired, lazy, obese man who reclines on a couch and orders people around in the underworld.  I have -never- seen him depicted this way before; not in the comics, and certainly not in any of the ancient Greek artwork that depicted him.  This is the problem which, as I said, is like the opposite of my problem with Etta.

The problem which is the same for both characters is that in neither case do the characters have motives which are even remotely similar to their original counterparts.  Hades was sentenced to rule the underworld by Zeus, to keep him busy, and it apparently worked, as Hades is generally depicted as fearsome, but always a very busy guy.  Yet, in this film, he's apparently not busy, not working, not really fearsome at all, and not the least bit worried about all the extra work he'll have to do when Ares starts killing people.  In fact, he seems to -want- more people to die.

This depiction just made no sense to me.  My conclusion here is that it was just done to avoid having to go too deep into the character, and to prey on the already-miserable fat-person stereotypes, just as a faithful rendering of Etta would have threatened them.

-----

Steve Trevor

Up to now, we've been dealing mainly with bit players, but I don't think any character does quite as much damage to this movie as Steve Trevor.  In the comics, he was a brave, WWII fighter pilot, who was rescued by Wonder Woman and returned home.  She stayed on as a goodwill ambassador to "man's world," and the two eventually fell in love.  Steve was a little awkward at times, in the comics, but he was a decent man nonetheless.

In the movie, Steve is -not- a decent man.  He's a filthy, womanizing, lecherous, drunken buffoon.  Yes, he can fight pretty well in his own way, but that's just about all he brings to the film, and given that he's playing alongside a superheroine, that means he's basically a worthless character, serving only to give Wonder Woman a reason to visit man's world, and get her into trouble.

But I think I know why they did him this way.  You see, midway through the film, Steve delivers a long and perfectly-accurate speech about how Wonder Woman needs to back off suspecting men of being patronizing every time they do something nice for a woman (she has a nasty habit, in this movie, of taking it as an insult whenever this happens.)  It's a good speech, and coming from, for example, a Sir Galahad or a Superman, it would have been one of the high points of the film, because it would have refuted, once and for all, the prejudices of the Wonder Woman character, and pointed out just what a jerk she was, and had always been, since the film began.

However, the speech loses all of its steam, because, of course, we know that it's coming from a filthy, womanizing, lecherous, drunken buffoon, and in the eyes of modern men, if you're "that kind of person," then any point you make must be a bad one.  This, I think, is why they went to such lengths to keep Steve Trevor from being a decent human being, or a good representative of the male gender, as he was in the comics.  It's because they want that message crushed.

-----

Ares

The villain of the piece is Ares; the Greek god of war, who's been imprisoned on Wonder Woman's home island of Themyscira for ages, and is seeking a way to restore his powers, so that he can challenge the powers that be.  Ares comes across as being very much like Imhotep from the 1999 version of "the Mummy;" an immensely-powerful and threatening villain, who's seeking forbidden means to make himself even stronger through murder and general evil.

Sadly, of all the characters in this film, he's probably the closest to his depiction in the comics and legends, with one exception.  Even once he "gets his powers back," he still seems to be mortal.  The one constant thing about the legends of the Greek gods was that whether or not they could fight, they were immune to all forms of conventional attack.  This is a -big- flaw in the film.  However, I'll cover this more in a couple sections, when I get to Wonder Woman herself.

-----

The Amazons

In the past, I've seen two basic depictions of the amazons; Wonder Woman's people.  First, there's the type that remains separate from "man's world" as a sort of religious devotion.  Second, there's the type that genuinely thinks of humans as inferior, and men especially so.  Needless to say, I favor the former over the latter, since an island full of intensely self-righteous and condescending jerks is hardly a proud heritage for a great superheroine.

However, the amazons in this movie take things even further than the worst comic writing I've seen about them.  Not only are they totally convinced of their own superiority, but they practice active prejudice against men, and teach hatred of all men as though it were a religious doctrine.  This is bad enough, but it's not the only problem the amazons have.

You see, it's revealed that this isolation from human beings is not by choice; that the amazons have adopted a life without families or children, with the exception of Diana, who was made from clay, and that they really have only two things in exchange; well-honed warrior disciplines, and the wisdom of ancient books.

I say that these are the only things they have because these amazons are war-hounds and little else.  One of them is shown enjoying books, but even she turns into a battle-thrall near the end of the film, and at no point in the film are the amazons shown to be honest, good-hearted, or moral.  In fact, as far as I can tell, these amazons have no form of moral teaching, though they're perfectly eager to criticize things that offend their emotional sensibilities.  Needless to say, I was singularly unimpressed with the amazons in this movie, and everything about them, and it seems that...

-----

Wonder Woman Herself

...has learned from them well.  Like them, she's a rabid man-hater and mindless battle-hound, and like them, she's constantly looking down her nose at things she finds emotionally-offensive, while demonstrating no clear, moral understanding at all.

In the original comics, Wonder Woman was a brave, strong woman who fought crime and evil with her special powers, but she was also a caring, gentle soul, more akin to Mother Theresa than Xena; Warrior Princess.  She loved helping people out when they were in danger, or needed assistance, whether it involved fighting someone or not.  It was by no means rare to see her carrying someone to a hospital, or transporting medicine to victims of a plague; all the time with a smile on her face, because she knew she was helping someone.  No other reason was needed.

On top of all that, Wonder Woman was genuinely virtuous; -in the Christian sense- of virtues.  She was humble, honest, charitable, joyful, loved peace, justice and righteousness, and she was as pure-hearted as a newborn.

Sadly, many writers simply don't or didn't understand this about her, and it's become something of a trend in comics to depict her as a sort of "perfect" character who's become imperfect because she -thinks of herself as- perfect, and superior to everyone else.

Still, as bad as this has gotten in the comics, it's even worse in this movie, which paints Wonder Woman as a genuine jerk with nothing even resembling gold in her heart.  Worst of all, this Wonder Woman is capable of murder.

Yes, I realize that she killed someone in the comics as well, under pressure and during what essentially amounted to a hostage situation.  I raise issue with that as well, but not nearly as much as with this film, because at least -that murder- was treated as a genuine, moral problem.  In this film, Wonder Woman has no qualms whatsoever with slicing apart bad guys like cucumbers, -with the intent of ending their lives.-  There is nothing in any way moral or purehearted about this character, and therefore, nothing heroic.

-----

The Whole World View of the Film

I've said my piece on feminism elsewhere (google "the problem of feminism" in quotes.  It's the first one that pops up,) and I feel no need to repeat it.  However, this movie has, I think, two specific problems with feminism.

1. First, Wonder Woman views the normal attitudes of a normal woman asking for help from a man as -entirely cultural.-  She insists that women can do anything which men can do, and here's the problem with that view.  It's -false.-  It's -false- that women can do whatever men can do.

Women are built differently than men.  Their upper bodies aren't designed for the same kind of strenuous, heavy lifting, their torsos aren't meant for dodging blows in combat, and they wear out faster under prolonged physical activity.  Now, granted, a certain amount of training and practice can limit these disadvantages to a certain degree, but regardless, against a male opponent of comparable skill and practice, a woman would simply find herself outclassed in many areas; usually involving physical activity.

The only reason why anyone would deny this is because Wonder Woman has superpowers, so she -is- built for heavy lifting, swift dodging, etc...  However, Wonder Woman is a fictional character, who is clearly the exception to the rule.  This is why the ancient Greeks found the amazons so humorous to tell stories about.  There was simply no way for women to overpower men in combat en masse in the real world.

This is one of the reasons why the film irks me so.  It attempts to derive its philosophy from the abilities of fictional characters, who only represent a tiny minority, even in their own home universe.

2. There have always been feminist or pseudo-feminist undertones to Woman Woman, but believe it or not, there was a time when feminism was a -good- thing; just the desire to see woman get a just wage for doing the same jobs as men.

By contrast, much of modern feminism (at least in major, feminist organizations) has become just what Wonder Woman herself demonstrates in this movie, a disorganized, disagreeable group of angry, violent individuals, united by radical sexism.

As sad as it's been to see feminism, as a cause, gradually turn into something horrible, it's been even worse seeing Wonder Woman trying to turn into something just as bad.  I guess that's all I really have to say.

Superman Vs the Elite

Rate PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

First, a word of warning.  This film is rated PG-13 for a reason.  Do -not- show it to young children.  Apart from the violence and sexual innuendos in the film, most children just wouldn't understand the message, and would probably find it too terrifying as well; especially near the end.

The history of the development of this story doesn't really take long to explain.  Back at the end of the 90s, and the start of the new millennium, a comic book was published (oddly by DC, under the Wildstorm imprint,) called "the Authority."  The series was essentially about a group of self-centered, gang-like, deeply amoral jerks with superpowers, who nonetheless fight crime and protect the Earth, but also take it upon themselves to act as judge, jury and executioner, even over whole governments.

The series became rather popular when it was first published, and in response, in March 2001, a comic book was published (Action Comics 775,) called "What's so Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way?"  In this comic, Superman does battle with a group called "The Elite;" who are very much like the Authority in most respects.  The comic's premise refuted (I think, quite successfully,) the ethical standpoint of the "Authority" books, and reaffirmed the reasons that Superman has always had for his devotion to truth and justice.  The book sold wonderfully, though it wasn't -universally- liked, largely because there are people out there who just don't like Superman, and never will, regardless of how well he's written.

I hate to say it, but I think a fair number of people will claim to dislike the movie for this reason alone.  Some people just don't like Superman, and they want him to lose, and suffer along the way.  Needless to say, I'm not convinced by this viewpoint, and I don't think I ever will be, though I admit, some of the Superman films have made it awfully hard to like him at times.

The premise of this movie is that the Elite; (a lizard-like woman named Menagerie who can produce powerful, destructive slugs/snakes/bugs from her body, an electric-powered tough guy named Coldcast, a drunken magician named Hat, and their leader; a powerful psychic called Manchester Black,) appear and assist Superman in stopping a rampaging monster.  However, Superman doesn't trust them, because they seem to enjoy hurting people, and soon, the elite set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner, claiming to act outside of, and above, any legal body.  This, of course, leads to a conflict between them and Superman, when they begin to murder people for their crimes.  However, he has a hard time fighting them, not just because of their power, but because the world at large seems to prefer the Elite, and enjoy watching them work.

Spoilers for the next paragraph.

Superman's solution is ultimately to pretend to adopt the philosophy of the Elite, and he defeats them, one by one, in a way that looks as if he were killing them ruthlessly.  When people react to this in horror, he reminds them that they're reacting that way because murder shouldn't be used as a weapon of justice; that a better way needs to be found, and that, after all, the old Superman's philosophy was the correct one.  He then reveals that it was all a trick, and that he didn't really kill anyone.

I certainly agree with Superman that murder is not a viable moral option in solving our problems.  Even if we're under attack, if we have the chance to disable our enemies without killing them, we should take it.  Killing is moral, only in instances where you are legitimately defending someone's life, and killing is the only way to do so.  Murder, however, is never justified; even in legitimate defense.

Superman gets some good lines in this movie, about how we can't just toss morality in the garbage because it's inconvenient, and how we need to all be working, not just for the crushing of evil, but for good.  These are all important moral lessons.

Sadly, such lessons often lose much of their force in the modern world, which has rejected all of the tried and true moral lists (such as the Ten Commandments,) and if you don't have a -list- of what's moral and what isn't, how can you tell when a person is being immoral?

It could also be said that there's something not quite kosher about Superman deceiving the people of the Earth about what he was really up to.  I wouldn't go so far as to say it was -immoral,- but it's a little awkward, for someone who claims to represent truth first.

On the whole, though, I enjoyed this movie, and I thought it was much needed, in this age of amoral selfishness and moral relativism.  It's just sad to see so many people treating it as just another chess piece in the hand of their opponent, rather than actually listening to what it says.

Wreck-it Ralph

Rate PG

Catholic-ometer: 2 of 5

Enjoyability: 2.5 of 5

Wreck-it Ralph was a film that dared to dream big.  The premise, according to all the commercials, was about video game characters coming to life when the arcade closes and meeting with one another in their off hours.  In the midst of all this, a video game bad guy named Ralph decides that he's sick of being a villain and wants to become a hero and earn a medal, but where would a big, tough, giant of a man with enormous hands be able to earn a medal?

Showcasing Ralph's quest, and the many encounters with characters from -real- video games, the ads for the film promised the story of a strong, powerful protagonist who faces insurmountable odds and achieves his goal of truly getting the recognition that he deserves.  There were also some brief clips of some little, candy brat doing a stupid and un-funny routine where she insults him for no reason, but at worst, we thought, she'll be like Timon and Puumba; a latecomer who's annoying at times, but doesn't disrupt the movie.

Big mistake.

As I saw it, there were four big factors in this movie; four things that it seemed to be trying to accomplish.

1. Ralph's impressiveness as a main character.

2. The fun of the journey and the search for the reward.

3. The reforming of Ralph into a hero, and the handling of heroism in general in the movie; its moral center.

4. The presence and relevance of the other video game characters from other video games.

I'm going to be judging the film on its handling of each of these areas, since, when you get down to it, these are the areas in which the movie had a chance to really shine.

1. There's no doubt that Ralph had a lot of potential as a hero, and it's been a while since we've seen a hero of his type.  He's 9 feet tall, weighs over 600 lbs, and his fists are larger than his head.  Not only that, but given the length of his arms, this is clearly the sort of bruiser who you don't want to tangle with in a straight-up fight.  Ralph has the potential to be a terrifying enemy, or an incredible hero; a man's man, who gets the job done, and almost threatens to bring the notion back into the public eye, that men can be heroes too.

The only question is; how much of this potential was used?  Sadly, the answer is "hardly any."

Ralph does get to use his great strength, speed and smashing powers on a semi-regular basis, but as for coming across as a bruiser, or a manly guy, who one might actually want to be like, there's almost none of that here.

Ralph is played up, from the very start, as a comedy fall guy.  In his early attempts to acquire a medal, he blunders around, panics, trips, falls, gets yelled at, sets off traps and activates dozens of deadly enemy bug-eggs.  Still, these things can happen, even to a very impressive hero.

Unfortunately, Ralph's personality is done little better.  He's portrayed largely as an unthreatening, sitcom oaf, who has his desires and all that, but never needs to be taken too seriously, and sure enough, the other characters don't take him seriously at all.  He complains about not getting cake, whines when he's stopped by the embodiment of a surge protector, and generally acts sad and mopey over his lot in life, and even when he decides to take action, it's done in more of a "ah-ha!  I have a plan!" way, rather than demonstrating real, strong determination to change his life.

However, perhaps the worst thing about Ralph's presentation as the main character is that he's really -not- the main character.  That honor is reserved for Vanilly... Vanelly...  Sarah Silverman, who plays a bratty little girl from a candyland-inspired slot car racing game called "Sugar Rush," (which, like "Fix-it Felix Jr," Ralph's game, is not a real game at all.)  About a third of the way into the movie, Ralph finds himself in Sugar Rush, and then that's pretty much it.  The part of the movie that you wanted to see, about Ralph struggling to attain his goal and being a cool main character is pretty much over.

The Sarah Silverman character steals Ralph's medal and runs off, trouncing and outdoing him in climbing, running and pretty much everything else with embarrassing ease.  Try to imagine your favorite baseball player getting up to bat, and being just -utterly humiliated- by a five-year-old girl with a squeaky voice, who thinks she's funny, and isn't.  As spacious as Ralph's faults may be, he's still supposed to be the main character, and we don't want to see this done to him.

However, you'd better get used to it.  Sarah Silverman continues humiliating Ralph.  She's annoying and bratty, never learns a single lesson of any value, and yet, the director wants us to believe she's always right.  Sarah Silverman is annoying, even when she's -not- saddled with this kind of role.  Frankly, the whole thing from this point on made me wince, particularly since we're apparently supposed to start caring about her, and want her to succeed, even though she's already proven that she's a liar and a thief, and doesn't care about Ralph -at all.-  No.  Just no.  This movie fails to make Ralph an impressive, manly main character, because he's not nearly as impressive as he should be, comes off as more oafish than manly, and isn't even the main character.

2. Is the journey any fun?  Are we excited to see whether or not Ralph will get his reward?  Well, no.  Not really.  Even at the start, Ralph's motives for wanting the medal are a little materialistic and unsatisfying.  He seems less concerned with being appreciated than with medals, and cakes and penthouses; things that you can touch.  His reasons for going on the quest just felt too physical to me.  It's not like Aladdin, who wants to be treated as more than just street scum, or Belle, who wants some excitement and something transcendent;  beyond her normal life.  These are purely material desires, and frankly, I can't sympathize.

As I said, Ralph tends to panic and flee when he's confronted with difficult and dangerous circumstances, which puts a massive damper on the excitement and fun of the quest.  You might as well just admit that Ralph; whatever his potential, isn't much of a hero at this point, and of course, a fun quest that does not make.

If it's not fun at -that- stage, it's certainly a great deal -less- fun when Sarah Silverman is introduced, and the movie takes a hard left turn away from the quest that it was supposed to be about.  Eventually, it's completely forgotten.

Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing.  In many movies, the initial motivation is for riches, or power, or recognition, and the character ultimately learns that these are not as important as family and happiness, and doing the right thing.  All well and good.

The problem is that in -this- movie, what replaces the medal is -not- good, wholesome values, but just Ralph's desire to be "liked" by Sarah Silverman, and doing things that will make her feel better.  This is a problem for two reasons.  1. Being liked is not a virtue.  2. Doing things that make people feel better is not a virtue.  This movie replaces shallow materialism with the slightly-less-shallow motive of wanting to be liked by at least one person.  A fun quest that does not make.

3. What is the moral center of the movie?  Is Ralph a hero?  Is he made into a hero, and does he reform?  Is this a story of a person reforming from their evil ways?

Well, no.  It's not.  The premise of the film is that all characters in video games are essentially actors playing roles.  Therefore, the heroes are often not terribly heroic, and the villains not terribly villainous, once you catch them off-duty.  Therefore, no real reforming needs to be done.  Ralph isn't a -real- villain.  He just plays one on TV.

Of course, this raises several questions.  Why do the hero and the NPCs treat Ralph like an outcast outside of work hours?  Isn't that -actually- evil?  I mean, he didn't do anything wrong.  He just did what he was supposed to do; wreck the building, so Felix could fix it.  Ralph was just doing what he was hired (essentially) to do.  The reaction of the NPCs is essentially elitism on the basis of the pre-determined caste system that was programmed into them, and ultimately, that makes them the real bad guys for most of the movie.

Strangely, many of the other video game villains seem similar to Ralph in that sense; not horrible people; just actors doing their jobs.

Here's the problem.  Throughout the entire movie, they continue using the word "bad" to mean "the role of villain in a game," and "good" to mean "the role of hero in a game," and that is -not- what those words mean.  I almost got the impression that the movie was trying to imply that -real- good and evil were as insubstantial as the roles that one plays in the acting profession, which is just a total rejection of the most basic foundations of all true knowledge.  It's a false as false can be.

This aspect of the film really comes to a head when Ralph performs a truly heroic act near the movie's end, while reciting the "bad guy affirmation," about how he'll never be "good," and the only thing he wants to be is himself.  If there is one line that can utterly kill the substance of an act of heroic self-sacrifice on the part of a main character, this is it.

In the end, of course, people start to appreciate Ralph a little more, and treat him a little better, but through it all, the substance of -real- good and evil is lost in the dust.  Heroism is demonstrated, but not addressed, and the movie's moral core seems to aim, rather, at a sort of Hollywood, rich-people, anti-moralism than any sort of actual moral message that a kid could understand or benefit from.

4. That brings us to the final area on which this movie should be judged; the video game characters who make appearances.  I got the impression that this movie wanted to emulate "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," which had a lot of guest-appearances by other characters from other cartoons, from Bugs Bunny to Mickey Mouse.  This is, in fact, the aspect of the film that's showcased most in the trailers; the video game guest stars, but I hope you enjoyed those trailers, because they covered -nearly all- of the guest appearances by real game characters in this movie.

The bad guy meeting has a bunch of guest characters, then there are the brief scenes in game central station, and a scene in the Tapper video game.  Q-bert and his pals show up in a few more scenes, but aside from those, that's pretty much all the guest appearances you'll see, most of which, as I said, are in the film's first third, before the Sugar Rush debacle.

Yes, it's charming to see these characters rendered in 3D.  Yes, it's fun to see them in a high-profile movie.  However, they don't act like the characters in the games, because they're not.  They're just actors playing roles.  As for the rest, it's a minor thrill with little or no substance behind it.  I got that thrill from the trailers, but the film had little to offer after that in this area.

The other aspect that I thought would be a mainstay of the plot was traversing one video game world after another in Ralph's quest.  Guess how many he travels to.  Go ahead.  Guess.

Two.

Ralph goes to the bad guy meeting in the Pac-Man game, though it just looks like a blank room during the scene itself.  He then spends two scenes in the video game "Tapper," where he drinks and talks to Tapper about his problems.  Apart from this, none of the worlds that Ralph visits are based off real video games, except for Fix-it Felix Jr itself, which I'm not going to count, because it's just an online game that was made to promote the film.  I'm not counting that.

The only other worlds that Ralph visits are Hero's Duty and Sugar Rush, and there are no games for those.  You will never play Hero's Duty.  You will never play Sugar Rush.  They don't exist, and they never will.

Roger Rabbit was a multi, mega cartoon crossover masterpiece, and a darn good story in its own right, and that's what Wreck-it Ralph could have been.  A multi, mega, video game crossover masterpiece, and a darn good story in its own right.  However, it sank its own story when it decided to be about Sarah Silverman, rather than an awesome, heroic title character, and it's certainly not the massive video game crossover that the ads suggest.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, this movie fails or does poorly on nearly every level.  It's not -that bad- compared to some recent animated films, allegedly for kids, but this says more about the state of modern children's entertainment than it does about Wreck-it Ralph.  I give it a nearly halfway grade for this reason, but I have to be honest here; I consider this film to be a major disappointment.  It seemed to have great promise, and whatever else you can say about it, you can't say it made good on that promise.

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.

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.

Howl's Moving Castle

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 2 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alice in Wonderland (1951)

Rated G

Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

This is the Disney version of the movie I'm reviewing; the one with Katherine Beaumont playing the voice of the curious, energetic, dinner-bell-shaped, delightfully-pedantic character of Alice.  I'm just going to say this up front; it has little to teach anyone morally or religiously, but in spite of this, I think this is one of the most fun movies I've ever watched.

In retrospect, in fact, there are a couple of really good ways to watch this film; both of which are very enjoyable.

Way number one is to look for the symbolism in the story, and believe me when I say that it is there.  The original Alice in Wonderland books were brilliantly-disguised pieces of social and political sattire, with the behaviors of the various characters poking fun at a number of trends which existed at the time, and much the same thing can be found here.

You can easily see corrupt, greedy elitists in the Walrus, hardworking, but still rather selfish ordinary people in the Carpenter, Dodo could be a parody of every foolish figure in public office who tries to solve problems by making them worse, and seems utterly oblivious to the cares of those he's hurting, etc...  Then, of course, the symbolism found in characters like the stuck-up, in-crowdy flower patch, the beatnik caterpillar and the Queen of Hearts are so easy to decypher as to be laughable.

On the other hand, you could just watch it the way that I nearly always watch it; laugh in delight as Alice uses her apparently-magic skirt to parachute down into Wonderland, grows and shrinks incessantly, and meets all manner of ridiculous things and people in the process.  In short, you could watch the movie just for fun; as a welcome escape from the world of men.

My favorite animated Disney movies of all time are Fantasia, Beauty and the Beast, and this movie.  Each plays a special role and each does something different.  Fantasia tells no single, concrete story.  Beauty and the Beast tells a very definite story.  Alice in Wonderland is middle-of-the-roadish, in that it tells a series of mini-stories which last only a short time, and are rather disconnected from one another.  Weird things happen, the main character moves on, and more weird things happen.  This is the element of the movie that every child loves.

However, as an adult, I find something more in Alice than I do in Wonderland.  To be perfectly honest, I think the personality of Alice is as much of a draw for me as the land she explores.  Alice is very curious and brave; daring and bold, but not obnoxious.  Perhaps most distinctively, Alice distinguishes herself from other cartoon heroines in that she seems to have a raging obsession with formality, dignity and politeness, which I still find one of the most charming traits any protagonist could possibly have.

Speaking personally, I never saw Alice as an everyman type, or an avatar for the viewer.  Of all the amazing things in Wonderland, she, a child who's truly concerned with being polite, may be one of the most amazing.  Children may relate to her confusion at seeing so many strange things in the world, and her sense of wonder when she encounters them, but I think it would be too much to suggest that there is any child quite like her.

Any problems that I might have with this film stem entirely from its lack of any clear message or moral, and that's merely a personal bias of mine.  I also would have liked it to be longer, but I think that about most of the movies I really enjoy.  If you like odd characters, strange behaviors, weird situations, bizarre creatures, and just plain unusualness all around, seen with the eyes of a protagonist who's as dignified and polite as the world is strange, then what you're looking for can probably be found in Wonderland.

In fact, in a way, all of this is reminiscent of our own desired destiny; a journey onwards into a world of great wonders and fewer limits in terms of what is and isn't possible.

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.

The Secret World of Arrietty

Rated G

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I don't review secular movies often, simply because I don't watch them often.  I do have a special place in my heart, however, for Pixar films, and for Studio Ghibli.  The only problem I've really had with most Ghibli films in the past has been their tendency to have plots driven mainly by the occult.

This movie, fortunately, lacks that element of the Miyazaki legacy, though I probably would have enjoyed it anyway.  In fact, in some ways, I think I enjoyed this movie more than any other production ever released by Studio Ghibli, which is high praise indeed.

It's a story about a boy named Shawn, who goes to a small house in the countryside, where he discovers a family of very small people, who survive by taking what they need from the humans they live with; little things that people won't miss.  The tiny people call themselves borrowers, and often refer to the humans as "beans."  The family consists of an old married couple and their teenage daughter Arrietty.

The plot picks up when Arrietty is seen by Shawn, and the two begin a sort of strange friendship, which, unfortunately, can never be, since all borrowers know that to be seen by one human invites the curiosity and greed of the others, a fact which is proven jarringly true for the poor borrower family.

The father of the family is somber, softspoken and savvy.  He's something of an action hero, because he needs to be to take care of his family, getting in and out of kitchens and bedrooms quickly and without anyone seeing him.  He also seems to be a master craftsman in many fields.  His wife is herself very creative and skilled, demonstrating skill in knitting and cooking, though the primary impression that she's likely to leave on viewers is her tendency to worry.

Both Arrietty and Shawn are curious souls seeking to understand and bear life as best they can; figuring out how to get by, one step at a time, like all of us.

Ghibli films have a long history of taking their time and showing the viewers absolutely stunning sights.  Every single Ghibli film is gorgeous to look at, and yet, they tend to be patient affairs as well.  They allow a world of wonder to unfold before the eyes of the viewer; a world with its own problems and trials, like ours, and they take their time in doing it, instead of rushing around in big, flashy musical numbers and telling joke after ridiculous joke.

This film is certainly no exception to that.  None of the characters sing, nor do they tell jokes.  Many of them are introspective and quiet, and yet, the subject matter is such that it's hard to grow impatient with the movie.  I would say that this film is probably slower-paced and less intense than any other Ghibli film, but I actually thought the movie benefitted from its quiet atmosphere, as very tiny people trying hard not to be seen would, naturally, make very little noise.

In the end, though, as I said, the thing I liked most about it was that its premise was something nobody could take issue with.  Witches, magic potions, evil wizards and superpowered crystals could all be troublesome subjects for young children to absorb, but little people in an old house is the kind of fantasy that anyone can get into.  There's even one scene of Arrietty's mother briefly praying for her daughter and husband.  They do technically live by stealing things from humans, but because of their size, nothing they take is really that big of a deal, even according to the catechism of the Catholic Church.  It's a distinction that may need to be made by parents after the film is over, but certainly not a problem with the movie itself.

There are also quite a few good moral messages to be derived from this kind of story.  "A person's a person, no matter how small," "sometimes, even the smallest person can make the biggest difference," and even a message about how the power of goodness (in this case, courage,) can be made most perfect in weakness.  However, the film isn't perfect, and most of that, I suspect, has to do with the dubbing.  A few of the lines feel overly-familiar and almost cookie-cuttered in, and Shawn's voice could have stood to gain a few octaves.  He sounded like he was in his late 20s.

Still, I recommend this movie heartily to anyone who has a child or is still a child at heart; still willing to dream of other worlds beyond our own, which is really the point of most Ghibli features when you get down to it.  They do just what I want a film to do, elevating our minds to other possibilities and other worlds.  This one manages to make even a normal world look alien and strange, and thus maintain its strong level of interest for the child in all of us.  Most especially, I recommend this movie to those who, like myself, are religious and seeking a quieter, calmer alternative to the American "entertainment" of today.

The Adventures of Tintin

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

Let me start this off by leveling with you.  I don't come at this movie from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the franchise.  You see, I've read virtually all of the Tintin comics, though I never saw the animated series.  I know these characters and what they're all about.

Fortunately, fans of the comics won't need to suffer the disappointment of character derailment in this movie.  Every last character is spot-on.  Tintin, Snowy, Captain Haddock, Thompson & Thompson...  It's all there.  If you read and enjoyed the comics, you'll find much of what you enjoyed in this film as well.

I say "much," because while a certain amount of excitement was also common in the comics, they were largely mystery-based, rather than action, and this film has very strong and almost-constant action and suspense elements to it, though its penchant for mystery, treasure-hunting and adventure remain as strong as in the comics it was based on.

However, now it's time for the fanboy in me to take a back seat and explain some of what this film is actually about for those not familiar with the character of Tintin (who, it must be admitted, is something of a niche character outside of Europe.)

Tintin, a young reporter and seeker of secrets and stories, buys a model ship in the marketplace one day, while he's out for a walk.  Immediately, two men try to buy it off him, but he doesn't sell, because he realizes something must be up with it.  A series of accidents, investigations and crimes lead him to uncover an old poem which seems to promise a great treasure to those who can unlock the secret of "the three unicorns sailing in company."

However, Tintin and his friends will need to fight for their lives, because another man; Saccharine is looking for the same treasure, and that's not all he's looking for.  He's willing to stop at nothing to get what he wants, even if it involves kidnapping, torture, thievery and murder.  Tintin is fast action, high adventure and a thrilling mystery all rolled into one.

Now, specifically to those who've tried to claim that Tintin rips off Indiana Jones.  It would be more likely that the reverse was true, since Tintin comics were published from 1929 to 1976, and Raiders of the Lost Ark wasn't released until 1981.  However, it's almost universally recognized that what Indy really rips off is Allan Quatermain, so I won't make that claim.  Needless to say, if you think this film is a ripoff of Indy, you're simply wrong, and that's all there is to it.

What this film is, is simply fun.  Good, clean fun with some nice action sequences and several very good chase scenes.  It's a well-done ride, and as icing on the cake, a bit of Catholic history comes up at one point during the movie.

Herge himself (the comic's author) was Catholic, and writing for a Catholic publication, which only elevates my respect for the series, as you might imagine.  It's a great series, and a very good movie as well, and I think the main reason is that Stephen Speilburg and Peter Jackson seem to have realized that they just shouldn't mess with what obviously works.  Kudos to them for understanding this, and for their faithfulness to the source material.

I recommend this movie to anyone looking for good, clean fun, or anyone who likes a nice, hair-raising adventure.  There's guns and alcohol in it, but it's all treated appropriately, I think.  I don't even think kids would have too many problems with this movie, to be honest.  I know I didn't, and I hope many other Tintin fans will get as much out of it as I did.