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.

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.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

Rated G

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.