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.

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.

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.

The Avengers

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

Well, I think I should make it clear right off the bat; this film is basically a superhero action movie.  Its moral and religious remarks are only infrequent, although pretty much everything Captain America says in this film is spot-on.  It doesn't have what you could call a personal core, with the characters learning major lessons individually, nor does it really have a moral core, where any kind of big lesson is learned at the end.

However, this much I will say for the movie; what it does, it does -exceedingly- well.

This movie is about the superheroes from several previous films (Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America and Thor, primarily,) gathering together into one area and joining forces as a team in the face of an even bigger threat than ever before.  Better yet, all the actors return to reprise their roles from the previous films (except for the actor who played Bruce Banner, unfortunately.)

Even better than this, however, each character's unique personality is given its chance to shine.  They all have their own issues to deal with as the threat approaches, but in the end, they put those differences aside; working together against an enemy too big for any one of them.  It's a classic story of good against evil.  I was particularly impressed to hear someone uttering the words "there's only one God" onscreen.  A minor victory though it may be, it's nice to hear once in a while.

Still, if you like "the Avengers," it'll be for one of two reasons.  Either it's because you know and love these characters already, and want to see how they interact and deal with problems together, or it's because you're a big fan of intense superhero action.  These are the major strong points, at which this film utterly exceeds all expectations.

I admit that I actually found myself laughing in delight when certain characters began using their powers again, and showing what they could really do.  I honestly think that every human being wants an honest thrill once in a while, and this movie contains a great many such thrills, wrapped up in a minor war in the middle of New York City.  There's even a surprise at the end, for comic book fans.

Will this movie take the place of Spider-Man 2 as the best recent superhero movie?  No; it's too far removed from real, moral lessons for that.  However, it was loads of fun to watch, so I'm not going to complain any more than absolutely necessary.

Hellboy

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

I know what you're going to say.  "What?  A serious, committed, deeply-religious reviewer like you, watching a movie called 'Hellboy?!'  What the heck is wrong with you?!"

Well, to be honest, I was talked into it by an article that I saw in a paper a while back.  A fellow reviewed the available Hellboy movies, commenting on their "strong, Catholic elements," and this thread has been floating through my mind ever since then, wondering just what it was about the films that was so Catholic or religious.

Well, as it turns out, there's not much.

A Catholic exorcist accompanies a commando unit at the start of this film to try to put an end to an evil ritual, designed to summon alien demons to Earth and bring about the end of the world, and as it turns out, the ritual is a success...  Sorta.

A little baby demon is hiding out in the wreckage of the ritual grounds, is adopted by the exorcist, named "Hellboy," and from then on, takes to fighting evildoing monsters and other demons who've gone astray.

The movie is reminiscent of "Van Helsing" in some respects, except that the main villain is less of a ham (a major improvement.)  The main character is essentially a demon exorcist with a kind of "lone wolf" mentality in his battles with other demons.  He's a gruff, easily-upset sort of fellow, but when you get down to it, he doesn't really want people getting hurt.

However, Van Helsing at least left the door open that its main character might be a virtuous warrior as well.  Hellboy definitely is not.

Don't get me wrong.  He's clearly the lesser of two evils.  The bad guys he's fighting are big, nasty eldridge abominations from planet X for the most part, but even Hellboy himself is shown stealing, destroying public property, using a necromantic spell, and killing at least one person.  The fact that he does all of this, while also saving the world from being devoured by ferocious, bloodthirsty tentacled creatures from beyond is a separate issue.

Like Van Helsing, the reliability of things like crucifixes in performing exorcisms is ratified in this film, and it's heavily implied that the Vatican carries on one of the few serious studies of these dangerous, supernatural beings.

Don't think I'm not grateful for the tip of the hat; making the good guys look like good guys for once.

Still, I'd be more grateful if some element of clear morality had shone through in the process, and it just doesn't here.  As far as I can tell, the deepest moral lesson in this film is basically "don't use your demonic powers to destroy the world," and you can only get so much mileage out of that.  When all is said and done, this is basically just a pretty decent action movie with a crucifix hung on it, and while it's better with it than without it, I was sort of hoping for more.

The Way

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 2.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 3 of 5

I had no real expectations going into this film.  I'd heard it was about a father who'd lost his son and went on a journey after that, but those vague descriptions were about all I knew about this movie.  I guess I was afraid it would turn out like "the Father's Tale."  It didn't, but I didn't really enjoy it all that much either.

It's a story where a father loses his son in a freak accident while his son is on a pilgrimage, so the father takes his son's ashes on said pilgrimage, as a way to honor his wishes, I guess.  It's not an enormously-exciting concept, but I have to admit that it could have been done much worse.  However, it could also have been done much better.

On his journey, the father; Tom, runs into a few other pilgrims.  One wants to quit smoking, one wants to lose weight, one is looking for an end to his writer's block... they eventually form a group of merry men, if you will, who continue on the road together, each with their own goals and aims, none of them particularly religious, yet all of them with the gall to go on a religious pilgrimage.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying you need to be a saint to go on a pilgrimage.  What I am saying is that when none of the main characters of your pilgrimage movie have any desire to better their souls in any way, you're asking for trouble.  The group of them complete the pilgrimage, and then just kind of go back to their own lives.  There's a lot of religious imagery in this film, but to me, that counts for precisely jack squat when the meaning and purpose of said imagery is so well-concealed.

If you were very charitable towards this film, you might say that the characters seemed to have a sort of religious experience at the end, and their spiritual lives will probably improve from what they've seen and witnessed, but there's no real proof of that.  If you were really bitter with this movie, you could say that it's just trying to use tried-and-true religious imagery, symbols, names and locations to try to elevate secular humanism to a religious level that it doesn't deserve, but there's no proof of that either.

In the end, though, there's no denying that a lot of religious terms and images were used, and nothing of any real consequence came of it.  That by itself is something of an insult to those of us who actually know what these things mean and cherish them for the truths that they assist us in acquiring and benefitting from.  Am I personally insulted by this movie?  Not really.  Films with no message are too bland to insult me, but they also don't impress me in any way.

I guess you could say that there's one scene where a woman discusses her history with a child that she almost had, and her abortion, and how she dealt with the grief of the awful crime she committed, which could be a pretty awsome scene if it was handled well, but the discussion is over in a minute and a half, and it's never brought up again.  Even when it is brought up, there's no questioning the morality of what was done, just a couple people talking about how they feel.

If you like this film, good for you.  If you don't like it, good for you too.  Me personally, I can't say I particularly belong to either camp, and I think I could sum up my experience with this film with the simple word "meh."

Still, at least it manages itself better than certain books I've read recently.

Courageous

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

This review is a bit delayed, since I actually saw this movie when it was first out in theaters.  However, I'm writing the review on same night I saw the film, so I still remember it perfectly well.  I just didn't want to post it until I could provide a link to it.

It's a film about four deputies, working to bring the hammer down on a drug ring, while simultaneously struggling with their family issues, and their incomplete commitment to God and those they care about.

Of course, this comes from the same group who brought us "Fireproof," so we know two things about it from the get-go.  One good news, and one bad.  The good news is that the movie is beautiful and has a very strong story about its characters.  The bad news?  It's essentially a protestant movie.

I'm not going to hide this; there are three scenes with a "pastor," who doesn't wear a collar, and one in a "church" that just lets anybody get up and speak to the "congregation;" a church that looks, for the most part, like an auditorium.

This fact is solely responsible for the one cross down.  When a film is strongly and overtly protestant, as this one is, it gets four out of five crosses from me.  As much as we might want to be virtuous and good, and to face our responsibilities with courage and boldness, without the rock of God's inerrant will to ground ourselves to, we'll never succeed, and that rock can be found only in the Catholic Church.  Everything else is man-made.

Like the other films made by this group, this film is very real about its characters, and very grounded in reality.  It's very strong in its integrity, but it doesn't stroke the imagination, so I'm afraid that there's only so much enjoyment I could get out of it.  I'd much prefer to watch a substantive piece that also has some supernatural or imaginative dimension to it, because I feel it holds the attention much more strongly.  However, I understand and respect those who want to see a movie taking place in a world identical to their own; those who think it's easier to relate.  As a man, I don't think like that.  This is the reason for the 1 star down in enjoyability.

Now, with all that dealt with, I really liked this film, in spite of its somewhat mundane premise and under-the-top delivery.  It had a good heart and a strong message with a lot of characters (perhaps too many, but perhaps not,) who all get the chance to show who they are.  The main character seems to be Adam; one of the deputies, who suffers a horrible tragedy and must gradually cope with it.  His integrity shines through the strongest, and he and his team go through a lot of soul searching (as well as a brief adventure or two,) on their route to a lifelong commitment that they have to make; to live with integrity and courage.

Adam's partner Shane struggles with his own issues, and Nathan; another deputy, needs to face the fact that he's been focusing too much on being better than his father, and not enough on being the best father he can be.  The rookie, David, has an old shame to confront as well.

Over the course of the film, Adam also makes the acquaintence of an out-of-work, but hardworking family man named Javier.  I would say that he has some of the strongest faith in the film, as well as being one of the most welcome additions to the cast.  He adds some much-needed comedy to the proceedings, but not by being foolish, or a stereotype, the way less-complicated movies probably would.  Javier adds many laughs to the movie, while facing his own difficult situations with honor and integrity, and I honestly found him one of the movie's most likable characters.

This was a really good film.  It doesn't look like much, but it's got the right things in the right places.  Is it perfect?  No, but it's easily one of the best films released all year.  It's involving, substantive and severe.  Most of the movie is spent getting serious and doing what needs to be done; an attitude that we really need to bring back.  This is certainly not my favorite of the films made by this particular group (that honor still goes to Fireproof,) but it stands head and shoulders over its competitors.  Watch the film.  Take your teenagers.  Parental discretion is encouraged, but I'm sure you'll get something out of the experience.

Captain America; The First Avenger

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

This movie is not specifically-Catholic, and doesn't mention any Catholic theology or major Catholic themes.  Regardless, I feel I should review it here, out of respect to certain elements of it, which impressed me from a religious and moral perspective.

I rarely watch movies in theaters anymore, because I just don't enjoy most of the ones coming out nowadays.  Still, I heard from a reliable source that this movie was good, so I checked it out.  I figured it might tingle my Catholic sense the way Spider-man 2 did, or it might not, the way Iron Man did.  Still, I knew there was a chance that it might really be good.  I love the true-blue hero types like Captain America, and I love the older comic books on which this kind of adventure is based, so I checked it out.

First, let me start off by saying that the movie gets a lot right.  A period piece set in the times of the 1940s near the end of the second world war, a wimpy little guy called Steve Rodgers wants to be a soldier more than anything, but no matter what he tries, he just can't seem to pass the army's tough recruitment guidelines.  Enter a military scientist; originally from germany, who promises to give him a chance to be in the army, by means of an experimental formula, which amplifies all the natural powers of his body to the absolute peak of human potential and, perhaps, beyond.  Rodgers undergoes the procedure and becomes Captain America; fighting in the war to protect his friend Bucky, and the other brave soldiers on the front lines.  Much action and adventure ensue.  This ultimately leads him into conflict with the Red Skull; a supervillain in charge of Hydra; a nazi splinter-group that uses advanced technology derived from a strange, recently-discovered power source.

The list of differences between this movie and the comics it was based on would go on for days, and don't really matter anyway.  In the comics, Bucky wore a costume too, but his role was otherwise the same, and frankly, I agree with this change.  Bucky didn't undergo the procedure, so it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense for him to be CA's sidekick in a movie like this one.

The content of this movie pleased me greatly in some ways.  There was relatively little cursing, the violence and death didn't get gorey (though in a story about war, there will never be a lack of death,) and the closest thing to sexual content was a woman yanking CA's necktie and kissing him.  The action is a little goofy at times, and overall, is has about the same vibe as a cartoon with more military types in it, which will appeal to some, and not to others.  I know some who were hoping this would be a legitimate war movie, but I don't see how it could have been.

The dialogue is rather standard fare, and the characters aren't terribly deep.  There's not much soul-searching, and the villain is rather two-dimensional.  In short, it wasn't Spider-man 2.  That said, I loved it, because this kind of storytelling really was popular a couple generations ago, when characters didn't have to be deep or excessively-complicated to be interesting.  Archetypes are strong and rarely deviated from in this movie, and I consider that a good thing, since when you get down to it, that's really what Captain America is about.  He's an archetype for the virtuous soldier.  Seeing him in that light, a whole slew of other things about the movie become clear.

On one level, the main character demonstrates tremendous courage, strength of will, dedication, humility and care for his fellow man, yet he knows what kinds of tough choices have to be made in a time of war.  He's moral to a tremendous degree, which is enough by itself to impress me, but the film has other things hidden in it as well.

In one scene, the doctor explains his reasons for choosing Rodgers as his subject; because he believed that strong men become used to their strength, and always want more, but weak men know the value of strength, and how to be good and true.  I don't care whether this was intended or not; this line sets up the rest of the movie as an allegory for Heaven; where only the most virtuous, couragious, humble people will go to be glorified, and receive new bodies, which can be used to help others.  That put a smile on my face when I thought of it in that light.

Still, the movie isn't without its downsides.  The hydra group takes center stage as the villains very early on, and seems to be just about the only group of nazis that Cap fights.  Maybe I misread that, but I felt like this was an attempt to sort of pidgeonhole our hero into his own little world, so he doesn't bother the rest of the war going on.  I would have preferred to see real nazis with real villain motivations, or even a thorough characterization of Hitler, but that might have been too much to ask for, considering the direction that modern world events are taking.

There's one thing I'm sure of; this is a good movie, because it's a movie about good people doing good things.  It's no masterpiece, doesn't go too far into its characters, and the war action is, I feel, disrupted a bit by the odd technology being thrown around, but it's still a good film, and that's so uncommon nowadays, that I don't feel it would be right of me to give it less than four stars in any category.  It may not be very thought-provoking, but it's got its soul in the right place, and I couldn't be happier about it.

There Be Dragons

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

Indie movies are, of course, a mixed bag, much more so than Hollywood films, because in Hollywood, there's very little quality added to the mixture.  I honestly didn't know much about this film going into it; only that it was a historical fiction, based around the life of Josemaria Escriva; founder of Opus Dei, and another character named Manolo.  Nothing else.  I had no idea how events in the movie would unfold.

Maybe that's for the best, however.  I should say, right off the bat, that the half point down on the Catholic-ometer is solely for historical inaccuracies in depicting the life of Saint Escriva, and even then, those inaccuracies were few and far between.  The half point down in enjoyability comes from another factor, which I'll explain in a moment.

To start with, as indie movies go, this one is very well-written.  Much of the dialogue is truly captivating, and the pacing of the film is refreshingly-methodical.  It's a bit difficult to review it without spoiling anything beyond that.  I noticed several trends in this movie, however, which I feel it might be important to describe.

The first is a mentality of "black and white;" a very Catholic perspective, and one I'd love to see more of in movies.  Josemaria's life and Manolo's life are shown in intervals, with Josemaria starting his religious group, supporting them, protecting them, and keeping them from trying to take revenge for the evils going on around them.  Manolo, on the other hand, is working as a double agent in an army complement; the dirtiest and least honorable work one can have in wartime.

Josemaria's work in supporting his group, and helping them to survive is truly exceptional, and his devotion to holiness shines through magnificently in the performance he gives, while the selfishness and envy of Manolo make him seem like almost more of a devil than a man; even in a place of rampant killing, like the trenches of wartime.

All of this is set against the backdrop of the Spanish civil war that Josemaria survived when he was young, and make no mistake; it is a "war movie."  There are battles, explosions, planes bombing and shooting at people, and people killing innocents, out of nothing but empty hatred.  There's a good reason for the rating it got.  Furthermore, there's a good deal of cursing, though not to the degree seen in Juno, and some implied sex, between some of the people in Manolo's company.  This is not, by any means, a lighthearted movie for the kids.  No war movie is.  Then again, neither war the Passion of the Christ, and it was, I think, the most outstanding movie I've ever seen.

Another theme that runs back and forth through this film is forgiveness; an appropriate theme in a movie that contrasts an extremely holy saint with an extremely vile sinner.  Most of us, by the grace of God, will never sin as often or as deeply as Manolo does, but if we ever did, we'd need to make a choice; either give in to despair, or look for forgiveness.

I said before that this movie is not for kids, and this is the other reason; it's meant to be thought about more deeply than kids can do.  The characters are complicated, and their situations need to be considered carefully, if you want to keep up.  It's a movie that challenges you to think about our human nature, and the situations we find ourselves in, in a whole new light, and depending on the kind of person you are, you may end up thinking of the characters differently.  It's a captivating indie movie, and a thought-provolking ride.

Now for the reason why I gave it a half point down in enjoyability.  It's not because of the bloodshed, ugliness or cursing.  It's because I was really hoping to see more of Saint Escriva.

Manolo is a fictional character, made up for this movie, to contrast with Josemaria, and between his escapades in wartime, and the future version of himself, musing on the whole thing, he gobbles up a good percentage of the movie.  In fact, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the movie is more about him than about Saint Escriva, and that's really not what I was hoping for.

I could be the eternal pessimist, and assume that it was done this way on purpose, but honestly, I can't imagine that being the case for a moment.  If they'd only wanted star power, they wouldn't have made an indie film, much less one about a Catholic saint.  My conclusion, therefore, is simply that they wanted to tell a story about black and white morality, and about forgiveness, and that they just didn't spend enough time on the saintly side of it; probably by accident.

In the end, I feel I can reccomend this movie to any adult who's willing to see it and think about it with a little intellectual honesty.  Whether you're closer to the saintly Escriva, or to the Oedipus-like Manolo, watching this movie may help you to realize things about your life and your faith that could help you on your journey towards Heaven.  In fact, I'd watch it with some friends.  You may have a few things to talk about when you're walking out of the theater.

Juno

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 3 of 5

Enjoyability: 2.5 of 5

This movie was an unusual case.  It's a movie about how a young, immature, teenage girl discovers she's pregnant after spontaneous sex with a young, slightly-more-mature, teenage boy, and how she copes with it.  She contemplates abortion at first, but ultimately, chooses adoption instead.  It amazes me that the movie's plot can be, on the surface, so pro-life, and still not be something a good Catholic can really enjoy.

I say "on the surface" because actually watching the movie takes work.  Juno herself is an unpleasant and unresponsible girl, with a decidedly critical and pessimistic view of the world around her, and it shows, because the movie is narrated by her inner monologue.  Still, this alone wouldn't be enough to ruin the film.  If I tried to count all the movie protagonists who start out foolish and irresponsible, and learn some important lesson by the end of the film, which turns their life around, I'd be too busy to make another post for the rest of my life.

The problem is in the specifics.  You've probably heard that this movie contains profanity.  That's a whopping big understatement if I ever heard one.  This may be one of the most vulgar films I've ever seen, and as of right now, it's proof that they'll never give a movie an R rating for cursing alone.  I usually don't mind a little cursing in movies for the sake of realism, but this didn't feel realistic at all.  It felt over-the-top.  Maybe that was intentional.  Maybe they were trying to get a laugh that way.  I don't know.  I just know it didn't make me laugh.  The cover of the DVD claims that it's a comedy, but it didn't get a peep of laughter from me, so I sort of assumed that was a misprint.

This movie, to its credit, tries to tackle all the hard sexual subjects of today; teen pregnancy, abortion, divorce, and so forth, but through it all, there's no real talk of honor or ethics, much less religion, and it seems to arrive at only about half the answers to the questions it poses.

Nobody comes out and says "what you did was wrong."  There's no sense, from any of the characters, that their actions brought about consequences and they should take responsibility for them; just a mass of emotions over things like fingernails, body shape and lust.

This sense of things being unfortunate, but never bad or wrong pervades the whole movie.  When Juno has sex out of wedlock, she's never told it was wrong.  When she decides against abortion, she never expresses that she thought it was wrong.  When the couple who plans to adopt her child decide to get a divorce, once again, that horrible word "wrong" never dares to rear its ugly head.  Even when the husband in that couple... acts unfaithfully, Juno never tells him that he's wrong to do so.  No one does.  Pish-tosh.  It just isn't done.  We don't say nasty words like that at the country club.

Juno herself demonstrates many instances of poor judgment and simple bad morals early in the film, and never really seems to learn her lesson about them later.  In one instance, she expresses inner disgust over her boyfriend's mother being overweight, and in another, makes a comment that sounds almost like a plug for gay adoption.  Bringing these things in, and failing to talk about whether they're wrong or right is simply a cop-out, and honestly, we deserve better.

Ultimately, the strengths of this movie are found in the boyfriend, who, though shy and weak-willed, seems to genuinely care about Juno and want what's best for her, and in Juno herself, who gradually learns to appreciate that kind of love; the kind that involves making sacrifices.  It would be a mistake to say that these are not strengths.  They certainly are.

However, the particular phrasing of the lesson that Juno learns is something like "someone who loves you for who you really are," and this is a humanist moral lesson; not a Catholic one.  Love, by the Catholic definition, has nothing to do with who the person you love is, and everything to do with the person doing the loving.  It's a one-sided decision to do what's best for the other person, regardless of what kind of person they are, or how you may feel about them.

Ultimately, I think that "Juno" might serve well as a ecumenical vehicle to guide wayward souls towards a better means of thinking, and as movies go, it doesn't stink, but if you're already a strong Catholic, don't waste your time on it.