Wreck-it Ralph

Rate PG

Catholic-ometer: 2 of 5

Enjoyability: 2.5 of 5

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

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

Big mistake.

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

1. Ralph's impressiveness as a main character.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two.

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

The Greatest Miracle

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Howl's Moving Castle

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 2 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labrynth

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 3 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

Once upon a time, there was a decade called the 1980s.  In that decade, a number of fantasy movies were released.  They were stylish and thrilling, with good humor and likable characters, and they delivered moods well.  The downside was that no matter how hard they tried, they could never seem to tell a story all the way through.  Time after time, they either launched too quickly into the main plot without giving the characters any chance to shine on their own, or resolved the main problem too quickly, or in a confusing or unsatisfying way.  Sometimes, the main villain would end the film with a speech that made no sense, and half the time, the entire premise of the film seemed to make very little sense until one spent about an hour pondering over it, and then, one had to wonder just why the director couldn't have been a little clearer about just what was really going on.

Seriously, though.  Labrynth is clearly one such movie.  It's as much a metaphor as it is a story, and the characters and situations can get very confusing if you don't view them in that way.

I kid 80s movies, though.  Some actually did take the time to explain why they ended the way they did, but not many (the Princess Bride and the Neverending Story being perhaps the best examples.)  Labrynth, in some ways, is midway between those films and the likes of "Legend," one of the most head-scratching films I've ever seen in my life (though I do remember enjoying it somewhat.)

Sarah is something that was very rare in the 80s; a girl who's utterly obsessed with other-world fantasy stories.  She even cosplays as an adventurer in a secluded section of her neighborhood.  However, every week, her parents force her to baby-sit her baby brother, who repeatedly gets on her nerves.  Eventually, she wishes that the goblins would come and take him away.  They do.

The goblins, led by a tall, dashing goblin king named Jareth, seize the child and carry him back to the castle in the center of the Labrynth, and it's up to Sarah to solve the puzzles of the Labrynth, get into the castle, and face off against the goblin king for the fate of her baby brother.  Along the way, she makes friends, meets strange creatures, learns life lessons, etc...  Her journey, in fact, is so bizarre and episodic that it could be compared with Alice in Wonderland.

The morals in the film come in two types; "minor," and "major."  The difference is that some moral lessons (minor) only last one or two scenes, while others (major) can be inferred from the movie as a whole.

The minor lessons, on average, are a mixed bag, ranging from things that are -truly- moral, like forgiveness and faithfulness, to issues of mere good manners, like asking permission.  However, none of them, at least, -encourage- immorality, so on the whole, I'd say I was impressed.

With regard to the major lessons of the film, I think some mistakes have been made on the part of certain past reviewers.  Some reviewers seem to assume that the point of the film was supposed to be; Sarah needs to recognize that her fantasies aren't as important as the real people she knows.  I don't believe that at all.  If they'd wanted that to be the moral of the story, it easily could have been.  My view of the major moral of the movie is this.

"We all have things we don't need, which we could easily give up for the sake of others, and which we should, because mere possessions aren't as important as people.  However, don't worry.  Just because you sacrifice to help people doesn't mean you need to give up your dreams.  In fact, you may find them being fulfilled more often if you focus on helping others."

I think you'll find that if this -is- the moral of the movie, it fulfills it quite well, and for me, as a Christian, I consider this a better moral than "grow up and don't want odd or supernatural things anymore."  We're -supposed- to want things to be different than they are in this life.  That's half of the point.  There's also something hauntingly-relevant about a movie where the main character is a female protagonist who initially doesn't want a baby, but eventually realizes what a mistake it is to get rid of him.

Jareth is a charming villain, Sarah is a likable protagonist, and the other characters never really get annoying.  The sets, paintings, special effects and so on all look pretty nice, and the musical numbers are delightful; especially "magic dance."

I think the one exception to this generally-good graphics and sound quality is the "fire dance" segment, where the green screen effects are pretty terrible, and the song is somewhat ruined by the fact that you can barely hear what they're singing.  Still, even that's somewhat enjoyable to watch.

The film itself is -very- high-fantasy, and in genre, is a bit of a cross between horror and comedy.  There's a little rough language, but not often.  There are points where the imagery is truly grotesque and terrifying, and yet, there's just enough levity to keep things from being too intense.  Younger viewers will probably still be scared, though, because there's plenty to scare them.  Even I got a few chills at some points in the film, because it tickles so many of those little, irrational horrors we all still have from when we were kids, like suddenly falling into a hole, normal things coming to life and talking, creepy faces uttering menacing warnings from inside walls, and doors not leading where they're supposed to.  All of these things creep us out a little, even though we know they don't really happen.

Overall, I really enjoyed this film.  It's not specifically-Christian, but neither is it evil or determined to tear away at our moral fiber, like so many modern movies.  It was an overall fun movie about a journey through a dark fantasy world where things don't make sense, with some good laughs, good visuals, good scares and good times, and I can't really ask for more than that.

Porco Rosso

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tangled

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Adventures of Tintin

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chronicles of Narnia; the Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I think I've seen every single movie adaptation of C. S. Lewis's Narnia books, with the exception of the one before this; Prince Caspian, since I didn't have much money at the time, and someone had told me it was awful.  I've read the books a number of times, however, so I knew, more or less, what the story was.

Here, I'm afraid that I must make a confession, because I've gotten into some arguments over this with friends and relatives.  As Narnia books go, I didn't really like the Voyage of the Dawn Treader all that much.  Oh, I did LIKE it, but to me, it felt like the most underwhelming of all the books, if only because of its lack of any strong, central villain.  The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, and the Magician's Nephew both had the White Witch; possibly the series most menacing villain, the creature called Tash cast a shadow over both The Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle, Miraz was a fair opponent in Prince Caspian, and even the Lady of the Green Kirtle (the series' weakest main villain,) has at least a menacing presence in The Silver Chair.  However, Dawn Treader didn't seem to have a real threat of any sort behind it, and that always sort of bugged me.  Even a meager, or poorly-considered threat might have made it exciting.

Well, the movie, at the very least, props up this weak element from the book, by introducing a major threat; a form of enchanted mist cloud that consumes righteousness, or some such thing.  It is certainly meager and poorly-considered, but it also somewhat evokes "the nothing" from the Neverending Story, though perhaps not on quite the same level.

Most of the other major plot elements from the book are also kept in the movie; the contents of the various islands, the finding of the lords, the rivalry between Reepicheep and Eustace, etc, and they are interesting elements, becoming all the more interesting with a genuine threat hanging over them.  At least, I think they are.

On this one point, I'm in disagreement with someone I care about very much.  As pathetic and ill-considered a particle-effect bad guy as they got for this movie, it's at least a bad guy, and I feel it improved the movie quite a bit, over the somewhat-boring versions of the story that we've seen so far.

In terms of whether this film will help the faith of Catholics, it's difficult to say yes, but it doesn't hurt, attack, or belittle the Catholic faith either.  Narnia has always been a bit more protestant than Catholic, but for me, it's most enjoyable when the distinctions between the two don't even crop up, and I couldn't spot a single one in this movie.

My conclusion is that this is a faith-friendly (though not specifically Catholic) movie, which was astonishing, exciting, and thrilling, and that's what I call a fun little diversion.