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.

St Bernadette of Lourdes

Unrated

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

I generally consider it unwise to do a movie with a cast of -only- children.  Occasionally, there's a child actor who knows what they're doing, but most of the time, people just don't have any faith in all-child casts, and so, a film like this one would wind up with very poor sets or costume-design, or with several lousy shots, which could have been done over, to make them look better, and while I will admit that many of the children in this movie are clearly reading from cue-cards, I was surprised by just how many of the key players in the piece were convincing.

Bernadette, to start with, and the skeptic, the priest, and although he played a somewhat cliche part, I though the police commissioner did a fine job acting it out.  Some actors were truly bad, and others just average, but there were just enough good ones, and in the right places, that the movie is enjoyable nonetheless.

As for the rest, I was genuinely shocked by how good the costumes and sets were.  For the most part, they actually looked convincing, which is hard to do when you're dressing kids up as military guards or saracens.  I was particularly impressed with the scene, near the very beginning, of dozens of kids, all dressed up as saracen invaders and Charlemagne's troops, charging each other from either side of a field, and battling it out as best they could.  Clearly, some significant manpower, and expense for costuming was needed to put just that one scene together, and it wasn't lost on me.

There is a narrator, but only briefly at the beginning and end of the film, so I didn't mind him so much.  What surprised me, though, was that while there is humor in the movie from time to time, it doesn't generally play up the humor of having an all-child cast, preferring to play the story almost completely straight, regardless, and here's the weird part; it actually does a pretty good job of that.

The sight of kids in nun outfits, or wearing soldier's uniforms did throw me off just a bit, but not as much as I might have expected it to.  I'd like to give it a slightly-less-than-perfect grade, but to be honest, it's amazing they were able to do so much with the cast they had.  I was very impressed, overall.

Two Suitcases

Unrated

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 0.5 of 5

I thought about just launching right into a normal critique of everything I did and didn't like, but really, there was one main thing I liked, and a lot of things I didn't like.  For the sake of brevity, I'll mention the one thing I liked first, and then try to classify the problems in the next section.

Nothing in this film; and I mean -nothing at all,- contradicts actual history, scripture, or the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Now, on to the problems.  Again, I could be brief and just say "everything else," but I think it would be better to divide these problems into categories, to make them easier to understand.

I've heard this film called a docu-drama.  That's two categories right there.  How does it fare as a documentary, and how does it fare as a drama?

The last category I'll want to look at is how the film stacks up to the -other- Bakhita move; the one that, in spite of its inaccuracies (it was a historical fiction,) I actually liked.

Category 1: Documentary.

Documentaries exist in order to provide people with a method of gaining information about a particular subject by watching a video.  This is done without a lot of embellishment, in order to keep the focus on the information, which is what viewers of documentaries are after.  They're not looking to be entertained.  They want to know about the subject of the documentary.  Therefore, documentaries succeed on the basis of whether they deliver -true- information, and whether they deliver -sufficient- information.

As I said, there's no question that this film delivers -true- information about Saint Bakhita.  The problems arise when it comes to whether the information is -sufficient.-  It's not.  At all.  All you find out here is that Bakhita was black, that she was raised in Africa, that she was captured by men as a slave, sold to other men as a slave, was repeatedly beaten and suffered, and eventually became a nun.  Much more is known about her life than just this.  This is only the barest skeleton of what happened to her, and it doesn't even say why she was canonized.  As a documentary, this movie fails.

Category 2: Drama.

The greater part of the film is gobbled up by drama-like scenes of a Bakhita-obsessed nun and her brother, who didn't want her to join the convent.  They go on a tour to places that were important for Bakhita, and in the process, the brother learns some kind of lesson, or something.  What, precisely, he learns, and how is not sufficiently explained, however.  He gets upset from time to time, but I wouldn't call it "drama."

"Drama" involves some kind of emotional scene taking place on screen; some sympathetic character going through something that's difficult for them.  However, there are no sympathetic characters in this movie.  I cared less and less about the nun and her brother as the film wore on, because all they talked about was Bakhita or things related to her, and you can't consider Saint Bakhita to be a sympathetic character in this movie, for the simple reason that -she's not in this movie.-  As a drama, therefore, this movie fails.

Category 3: From Slave to Saint

The very-inaccurate movie "From Slave to Saint," is superior to this film in a lot of ways.  It does drama exceptionally well, where this film does not, and tells an amazing story which, even though it was fiction, was still entertaining.  There is really only one thing that this film could offer to surpass it, and that is information that the previous film left out; another chapter in Saint Bakhita's story.  It could talk about Augusto Michieli and his wife and daughter.  It could talk about the time she spent in the convent (something that the previous movie touched on very little,) or, perhaps most conspicuously, it could discuss that one elephant in the room; her forced conversion to Islam while she was a slave.

However, the movie doesn't do any of these things.  No mention is made of Michieli, of Alice, of what she did in the convent, or worst of all, of Islam.  What term do they use when describing those to whom she was sold?  "A man."  Care to be a little more specific, movie?  We're waiting.  Sorry, but... fail.

Conclusion

This is a very poorly-constructed and low-budget travelogue with stock footage and narration played over the rare instances where information is given about Bakhita.  Even then, it's information that is -all- in "Bakhita; From Slave to Saint."  My conclusion is this; just watch the other Bakhita movie instead.  It will give you all the information you get here, and perhaps encourage you to read up on the real person, as it did for me.  Besides, it's actually entertaining and well-written, and this simply is not.

My grade, however, will be lenient, because what little information it -does- put in is correct, for whatever that's worth.

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.

The Green Lantern

Rated PG-13


Catholic-ometer: 3 of 5

Enjoyability: 3 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dark Knight Rises

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 2.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gladiator

Rated R

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toy Story 3

Rated G

Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brave

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dark Crystal

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 1 of 5

Enjoyability: 3 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rite

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

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

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

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

That having been said, I loved it.

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

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

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

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

Thor

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, honestly, yes.

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

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

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

Iron Man 2

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 1 of 5

Enjoyability: 1.5 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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