Movies I

I basically add the movies as I see them, so the most recent ones are at the end of this write-up. Videos are added along with the theater movies, so some older films may be interspersed. The following alphabetically list will help you find a particular movie in this list. The letter grade is my opinion based on a lot of things, including my own subjectivity and tastes. You'll note that I seldom give low grades. That is not because I don't think some movies would deserve such grades, but rather because I'm a pretty good judge of what I would like and tend not to even see the movies I would rate with a D or F. Click on that movie and it will jump you to its commentary.

This certainly is the best movie of the year, if not the last five years. The story is deeply spiritual and profoundly moving. It is the only movie I can remember ever seeing three times during its first release. Being one who generally reads nonfiction, I had managed to never actually read John Tolkien's books. But after seeing this movie I went out and bought a narration on CDs and listen to them in my car. This way I can find out what happens in the next two sequels without having to wait two more years. This is the movie that inspired me to add this section to my webpage, so it is the first one I'll discuss. The others will fall in order as I see them.

The story is one of good triumphing over evil. Not just "good" and "bad" like you get in crime dramas, but real evil -- the spiritual forces of darkness. Supposedly John Tolkien, a devoted Christian, did not want to simply restate the Gospel with a new cast of characters. This is what makes Lord of the Rings so interesting. It's not just the same old story (great though it be) retold. But in another way it is. Evil is present and there is nothing more important than overcoming it. Some of us are called in mission to work toward the triumph of Good. When we are so called, it is our destiny. And evil tempts everyone, even the very good. It betrays and ensnares and tricks.

Much has been said about the characters and how they parallel the Gospel. Here is my quick assessment of a few:

Frodo Baggins	Jesus	The Chosen One who will destroy evil forever.
Gandolph the Wizard	Gabriel the Archangel	A very powerful messenger steering the course of others toward the good.
Aragorn/Strider	Mary	The Nurturer of the Chosen One (with added parallels between King of Gondor and Queen of Heaven)
Boromir Denethorson	Joseph	Companion of Strider, dies before the fulfillment of the mission.
Sam Gamgee	John the Apostle	Beloved friend of Frodo
Bilbo Baggins	John the Baptist	"He was not the Ring-Bearer, but came to bear witness to the Ring"

Actually I saw Harry Potter a couple months before Lord of the Rings, but wanted to write about it in retrospect. Because of all the talk about spiritual stuff (like fundamentalists complaining about the "Wicca" in it, which there is not), I expected it to be spiritually moving. Essentially I was expecting from Harry Potter what I found in Lord of the Rings. In that sense it was disappointing. But, it is after all, primarily a kids' movie, and I suspect it is very entertaining for them. It also has some good moral lessons about right and wrong and staying true. While Harry may be too shallow for us seeking profundity, Lord is probably too deep for kids. (11/2001) Return to Index

Probably the best acting, but not the best picture of the year. It is good, but cannot compare to Lord of the Rings. Russell Crow plays a brilliant schizophrenic professor in a true story, certainly a tough role. He is torn by visions that even we are not sure what is real and what is not until the movie expands. To the extent that it is accurate we learn some of what the haunting life of a schizophrenic must be like. It was interesting, but I did not leave the theater with any deep questions or profound insights. Perhaps my slight disappointment comes from expecting that I would. (01/2002) Return to Index

A good movie. About what you expect -- intriguing, interesting, not overly profound but entertaining. The confusion of good and bad is obvious, though not terribly profound. You end up rooting for the criminals because the guys in "legitimate" business are so sleazy. Though none of the acting is especially profound (as in A Beautiful Mind, for example) it no doubt is the overabundance of "star" actors that makes the movie something more than just a silly movie about a big theft. (01/2002) Return to Index

A fun and light movie with great music. The story is simple but sweet. The music is uplifting. I found the anachronism of the music particularly intriguing. The setting is Paris in the 1800's. They sing Sound of Music. I sat thinking "Had they written Sound of Music back then?" and then I realized that the events on which Sound is based (World War II) hadn't even happened yet. That (along with other musical anachronisms) kept reminding you that the movie is a comedic musical. Not profound. Not great. But definitely enjoyable and worth seeing. (And Nicole's movie is definitely better than her ex's just below.) (01/2002) Return to Index

At least you learn why they called the movie Vanilla Sky. It was OK until the end, which really made it weird and ruined it. But it was a good movie for an actor who is always battling questions about his relationships with the opposite sex and who belongs to a truly odd-ball religious cult. What could have been either a good mystery or a good romance (or even both) turned out to be a silly and unrealistic portrayal of both death and life. The theme of cryogenics was as spiritually vacant as Lord of the Rings was spiritually profound. (01/2002) Return to Index

I expected it to be slapstick-funny, which it was not. However, it does have a rather deep sense of humor that stays with you even days after seeing it. For example, I still laugh at the idea of black-spotted Dalmatian mice running around the house. (Perhaps that is because I grew up with Dalmatian dogs.) Though not a tear-jerker, the movie is touching in its sentiments of a dysfunctional family trying at least partially to reconcile their past and be friends in the future. The kids are all brilliant achievers in their own ways (business, intellect, and sports) so between them they represent all of us either in fact or in fantasy. The best line is where the dad tells the daughter that her mother's new fiance is "not your father" and she turns to him and says, "Neither are you." Throughout her childhood her dad had introduced her as "my adopted daughter." (01/2002) Return to Index

This movie was the slapstick comedy I expected from Tenenbaums. I did laugh throughout out. Perhaps it was especially funny because I live in Orange County, and the houses and beaches (more so than the people) were very familiar. It is funny in that it takes stereotypes of dysfunction to the extreme and makes them humorous. Though perhaps unrealistic (as the whole movie was), the ending is good. The parents are reconciled and show sincere concern for their son by helping him get into Stanford as he desires. Their care for him, though, eliminates his primary purpose for going to away to school, which was to escape his home. If only he had gone to Stanford, they could have had a sequel and called in San Mateo County. (01/19/2002) Return to Index

Keith Linville recommended this to me, saying it was a pretty realistic portrayal of life in a state prison. Another friend who is a facility captain at a California state prison also said it was pretty realistic. Both said the gang aspect is a bit exaggerated, but the general concept of an in-house hierarchy based upon violence, fear, and retribution is apparently sadly realistic. (01/2002) Return to Index

A good movie that covers many different complex ideas, but leaves the main message to develop slowly. The story is about two 50-something parents, their college kid son, his 30-something girlfriend, and her 30-something soon-to-be-ex-husband. Although the kid's relationship with the woman sets up the entire plot, it is both the least developed and the least plausible relationship. I just don't buy that this age difference would enable the relationship to congeal sufficiently and last long enough to hang on through the trouble (her kids would be more like his brothers than his sons). Then it moves into the patterns of abusive relationships with the woman and her ex-husband. This is sadly realistic. The ex kills the kid boyfriend, whether by accident or on purpose is never entirely clear. The parents' ordeal in dealing with the sudden trauma of death seems very realistic.

Unfortunately their anger never dissipates. The mother is hateful to the girlfriend, among other reasons because she testified truthfully in court (she did not actually see the murder even though she heard the gun). The girlfriend is the one you feel most sorry for because she has a bad-apple husband, a dead boyfriend, and people that hate her for being honest. The movie ends when the dad kills the ex-husband. This leads to the primary message of the movie: Vengeance is the means by which evil reproduces itself, and only forgiveness can break the bonds of hatred. It is sad that the parents were unable to do this. It is even sadder to realize that this movie is such a realistic portrayal of life. The parents (Tom Wilkinson and Sissy Spacek) deserve best actor nominations. (01/27/02) Return to Index

The story of a Mexican-American widowed man and his three adult daughters. Each is trying to find life in different ways. Similar to Royal Tenenbaums in that each of the three children is very different and yet similar at the same time. The dad is a master chef, and the cooking throughout makes one long for gourmet Mexican food (fortunately I actually had eaten tortilla soup that day for lunch, not even knowing my mother was going to rent the movie). All of the characters are likable in their unique ways. Raquel Welch is probably my favorite, playing a flamboyant widow seeking the romantic attention of the dad (who surprises them all at the end in a somewhat disappointing twist). The dad's obsession against "Spanglish," as well as its use throughout the movie, adds a certain real life character and comedy. The movie raises some serious issues while remaining entirely light, enjoyable, entertaining, and refreshing. (01/31/2002) Return to Index

My brother, a professor at UC Irvine, hold a monthly movie night at his house. Most of the attendees are other professors or researchers. It is a wonderful opportunity to see often-eclectic sets of movies with twenty PhD's. This Saturday the theme was movies connected to old TV shows, though Paul claimed the "real" connection was that they both shared one actor.

In Galaxy Quest a group of real aliens have received earth's television broadcasts and confused them with "the historical record." They thus believe that the stars of a Star-Trek-like show really were space explorers. They built a real version of the starship, but in their final battle with their civilization's enemy, they need the true experts on this ship, the true adventurer-warriors from Earth who never lose. Thus they come to Earth, find the actors at a convention of "Trekkies," and bring them to the real spaceship, expecting them to run it with true professional expertise. The movie is short (102 minutes) and comical. Unlike Star Trek, it is not particularly profound and has no deeper meanings. But that is not its point. It is simply a parody, and it is funny at that. This is the second time I have seen this movie, as I saw it in the theater when it first came out. Although it is not a movie I would have deliberately tried to see again, it was good enough to go to Paul's movie night and watch, and I am glad I did. (Besides, you get to do other things besides watch the movies, like talk with my brother's friend Bret who has seen Lord of the Rings five times already and plans on a sixth.) (02/09/2002) Return to Index

Unlike Galaxy Quest (which uses a fictitious television show and only alludes to it being Star Trek), Charlie's Angels is directly based on the TV show. The movies have a lot in common (besides the fifth-named actor that I can't even name for you and besides being based on TV from our childhoods). Both are infeasible though not impossible. Just as it is unlikely that aliens smart enough to travel through black holes and build a working starship a la the Enterprise would not realize a TV show was fiction, so it is unlikely that Charlie's three "angels" would be able to get as attention and be able to manipulate situations as they do based solely upon their supposed sex appeal. But therein lies the comedy, that the premise is so far-fetched that it is funny. This movie also is short (99 minutes) and keeps you entertained throughout. It has no deep meaning, and it wasn't supposed to have any. So we get what we expect. All in all, it was a good night at the movies. And perhaps it was the perfect show after sharing food ranging from sausage pizza to vegetarian Indian soup and lying on a futon in a crowded room with 25 doctors, especially when I was the only one not afraid to go outside and wrestle Paul's 80-pound Labrador retriever to the ground. (02/09/2002) Return to Index

This is the last of the best picture nominees I've seen. While Lord of the Rings is clearly the best, I sense that the other four are about equally good -- all of them "good" or "very good," none "great," and none bad. (Winning best picture is no guarantee of greatness, as I cannot think of a worse movie than Pulp Fiction, which one a few years ago.) Writing the morning after, I realize Gosford Park grows on you. That might push it to my "second-best" of the nominees.

A bunch of British upper-class people get together at an estate, and they bring along their servants. The lord of the estate is murdered near the end of the weekend. It is hard to classify the movie as a mystery, though, as there is much too little time exploring the various motives, alibis, etc. There are too many characters -- both socialites and servants -- and their lives are too interconnected to get a really clear picture. Furthermore, they have too many similarities so it becomes difficult to vividly distinguish who is who. Many of the intricacies of the characters are also virtually irrelevant to the murder, and if they could have been homicidally motivational, that avenue is often unexplored. Thus it was not a typical murder mystery, nor do we learn the "who done it" in the usual way.

But the characters are deep and there are all kinds of things that you wish you could have learned more about. Who was related to whom. Who owed whom money. Who was having an affair with whom. A few of these things were clear, but others make you begging for even more depth (though the movie was definitely long enough). I find myself debating whether to see it again, which would surely bring out more detail, or whether to see another movie I haven't seen. Curiosity and intrigue would send me back. The lack of any real knowledge or inspiration -- it is fiction with no apparent underlying message -- would send me elsewhere. But I have moved it up to "number two" in front of In the Bedroom. (02/22/02). Return to Index

Danny, an ex soccer star is sent to prison for DUI and assault, having become an alcoholic after his career was ruined by fixing a big game. The corrupt prison governor (the British equivalent of a warden) wants him to coach the guards' soccer team. The captain of the guards, their current coach, is opposed. Danny convinces everyone the best way is for him to train the guards by coaching a team of inmates to play against the guards. In doing so, everyone is eventually made happy and cooperative, including such usual enemies as the in-house loan shark, two rival groups of inmates, the psychotic inmate in isolation, the guard captain, and (until things turn against him) the governor. The movie progresses quickly and is both intriguing and entertaining. It is perhaps not an entirely realistic portrayal of prison life, but it does show that good teamwork and cooperation can overcome many animosities. In the end, Danny manages to simultaneously avoid great pressure to once again "fix" a game and also to allow an underdog to come out a star. In the midst of a prison where neither the inmates nor the guards would fit a true definition of "good," good does triumph.

Almost as interesting as the movie was observing the audience of who would be seeing this movie on the second day of its limited release. I had expected very few at this noon Saturday matinee but found about 30 attending. A surprising number of 50-ish and 60-ish male-female couples were there, as well as others who looked like they had little or any connection with prison life. Three people looked like they could have been ex-cons, or at least like they might know one, including the man sitting directly in front of me who reminded me of my now-incarcerated ex Sean. I would have loved to sit at the door and asked people why they chose to go to this movie, but alas curiosity was overcome by timidity. (02/23/2002) Return to Index

Leonard, an insurance investigator, is wounded and suffers total loss of short-term memory while fighting with an intruder who raped and murdered his wife. Although Leonard can remember the pre-trauma past very well, he cannot remember more than a few minutes of the immediate past, thus he keeps repeating the present and forgets what he has just done. He becomes obsessed with killing his wife's murderer. The movie is bizarre and yet intriguing in its approach. It starts with the present and moves backward in short-duration events, allowing us to retrace the history of this man who has forgotten it.

The first few minutes are very odd. In fact, I almost stopped watching it thinking the movie was just too weird. But gradually it caught on, we adjusted to the backward time-flow, and it became fascinating trying to figure out what had happened. It was hard to ascertain who was "good" and who was "bad." (At an objective level everyone was bad -- Leonard was trying to commit murder in revenge; the cop, if he was one at all, was corrupt; the woman who might have been trying to help was also chasing her own revenge -- but we were made to like the star.) The movie ended suddenly and abruptly, when we were expecting to go back further in time to learn more and have more questions answered. The disappointment at the ending actually says how good the movie was because it had us longing for understanding in this irrelevant fictional world.

The portrayal of this memory problem seemed accurate and reminded me of some of the things I had read in Dan Schacter's books about memory. (See my "books" webpage.) That made the movie interesting. An underlying message -- which is unfortunately not driven home as strongly as it could have been -- is that revenge simply destroys life and makes it meaningless. Although Leonard felt he was seeking meaning, in fact he had led himself into abject meaninglessness. While his disease did not make it easy for him to achieve meaning and purpose, what really destroyed this potential was his obsession with revenge. (02/23/2002) Return to Index

In spite of growing up in the 60's, I had not only never seen Hair, but never really knew what it was about. I remember being a kid when it was shocking that there was actually nudity in a play, and I knew that "Age of Aquarius" came from the show. (Though after seeing the movie I find it difficult to get a song out of my head that consists mostly of technical words not usually found in lyrics.) Though surely a commentary on Vietnam and the issues of its day, the movie is also a powerful statement about love and friendship. Perhaps this is most poignant when you see the beginning a second time. When farmboy Claude comes to New York to enlist in the army, and hippie Berger asks him for some spare change, just say to yourself "Go ahead and give him the money; in the end he will die in your place." Therein lies the movie's power. The music is good. The message is not overly deep or exceptionally profound, but it is nonetheless powerful. The men, the women, and the horses are all beautiful dancers and actors. (03/05/2002) Return to Index

This is a light and silly movie making fun of the people who own champion dogs. The various owners are stereotypical exaggerations, and that is what makes them funny -- the redneck hunter, the much-younger siliconed wife of a wealthy old man, the queeny gay couple, the dysfunctional straight yuppies, and the sweet but nerdy guy and his wife. Some of their dogs are just as bizarre. Supposedly the ugly-as-can-be buzz-cut poodle and the hunting blood hound are the top contenders, but the cute raggedy little terrier of the nerd couple ends up winning, and in the end you feel they are the ones that deserved it the most. The people and the dogs are funny and fun. The dog show aspects, though, tended to drag on a bit, even though they were the source of the film's plot. (03/11/2002) Return to Index

Humans have learned how to make realistic humanoid robots, called "mechas" (from mechanical). Though they are effective slaves and are basically built to meet desires, as they begin to develop their culture, human-mecha prejudice develops. One scientist finally develops the ability for a mecha to love, or at least give the appearances of real love. This is in the form of a little boy whose parents almost lost their biological child. The dynamics are not terribly different from a situation that could arise by adopting a human child into a family, but the mechanical nature of the adopted child gives the humans an acceptable excuse for their distrust and less than honorable behavior. Probably more troubling than the family dynamics (which are not all that extreme) are the scenes where humans take great delight in the ritualistic destruction of old and worn out mechas. The movie does not present humanity in a particularly laudable light. I suppose this is more deeply disappointing because the story obviously takes place in the future, and one would hope human society would make more advancements toward loving behavior by the time it learned how to teach a machine to love. While the film was definitely thought-provoking, its underlying dark tones prevent it from being either uplifting, inspiring, or great. (03/11/2002) Return to Index

Prot, who claims to be from the planet K-PAX in the Constellation Lyra, winds up in New York City and is placed in a mental hospital. Aside from claiming to be an alien, they cannot find anything wrong with Prot. Mark, the psychiatrist, at least takes the possibility of his claim seriously, and Mark's friend, an astronomer, is amazed at Prot's knowledge of a barely understood binary solar system. Prot provides some profound insight to the humans, including our ability to solve all our problems within ourselves through love. As Mark tries to discover the source of Prot's "delusion" he discovers a human friend of Prot who killed his family's murderer and has since disappeared. Meanwhile, Prot has brought healing, or at least a new sense of life, to the other patients at the psychiatric hospital and promises to take one of them back to K-PAX on the specific date in July when he will be returning home. At that time, Prot appears to disappear, the missing man who killed his family's murderer appears catatonic in Prot's body, and one of the patients does disappear. The movies ends with the possibility that he may have in fact been a K-PAXian inhabiting the human body of his friend. I believe with almost certainty that there is other intelligent life in the universe, and I believe with almost equal certainty that it has never come to earth. Nonetheless, I found this movie profound, not so much as being an "alien" movie, but in its deep insight into humanity. (04/06/2002) Return to Index

Kate is a New York executive. She lives in the apartment above her ex-boyfriend, who is somewhat of a quirky scientific adventurer. He discovers a tunnel in time that can be activated by jumping off of a specific place on the Brooklyn Bridge. In doing so he winds up exactly 100 years in the past in Brooklyn, where he ends up bringing Leopold, a British nobleman, back to modern Manhattan. Kate ends up meeting Leopold, and although their lives are so very different, they end up falling in love. Kate's brother and ex eventually all work together in the plan, and Kate ends up returning to the past with Leopold after they eventually figure out that the history of the universe is not linear but twisted like a pretzel, with the present as we know it actually depending upon this circular return to the past. (Leopold himself ends up being an important inventor, so modern society is thereby dependent upon his proper return to life in the 1800s.) It is a trivial but moving love story, particularly because it is so easy to like all four of the key people, and that is the kind of nice movie that I really enjoy. As far as science it clearly does not present itself as supposedly credible in any way -- that is not the movie's point -- but it does at least posit one hypothetical answer to the unanswerable (as of now) question regarding what would happen if someone went back in time and tried to change the past. (04/06/2002) Return to Index

Once again, my brother showed a movie at his movie night that I would never have thought to watch, but which I thoroughly enjoyed. Tampopo is about the development of a Japanese noodle restaurant. A woman (Tampopo, which means "dandelion") is left the restaurant when her husband dies. She is not a very good cook. A couple of truckers wander in, and they take on the task of helping her improve her restaurant. They explore the way other restaurateurs make their noodle soup. Even reading subtitles it is hysterical to listen to them talk about noodles that don't have sufficient "profundity" or other abstract concepts not normally associated with ramen. Eventually the restaurant becomes a big success, and the truckers move on to let Tampopo run her restaurant by herself. (Thus the movie is decidedly not a traditional Western romantic comedy, though it certainly is funny.) The plot is not deep, so it matters little whether the subtitles exactly translate the Japanese or even if you miss a few lines. The constant attention to ramen is reminiscent of Tortilla Soup (or perhaps in proper cinematic chronology Tortilla is reminiscent of Tampopo), and one finishes the movie with a strong desire for Japanese, just as one leaves Tortilla with a strong taste for Mexican food. The only thing that could have made this movie better is eliminating the unnecessary scene where a live (endangered?) turtle is killed and eaten. I shut my eyes when I saw it coming. (04/13/2002) Return to Index

George lives in an old shack on the cliffs of Laguna Beach, surrounded by million-dollar homes. He is divorced but assists his ex-wife in the difficult challenge of his teenage son. George finds out he is dying of cancer and also looses his job. Concurrently with having his son live with him for the summer, he begins the project of tearing down the house and rebuilding it. The house was where he grew up with his own alcoholic father, and the reconstruction is symbolic of his burying the hatred of the past and preparing to leave the world in peace. Through the process, the son begins his own healing process, his step-children grow to love him, and he and his ex-wife falls in love again. In the end, George dies with the house rebuilt and his relationships healed. His final act of healing is to leave the house in his will to the woman that his father crippled in a drunk driving accident years ago. It is a very good movie. (04/20/2002) Return to Index

In the future, androids have taken over the earth and raise humans in "the matrix" where they grow in place, much like plants. The supercomputers program images into the brains of the humans, and they believe they are really living lives in the past (which is essentially our time). Some humans plot to take control back from the computers and androids. The situation is somewhat difficult to follow, and seeing the movie again would make it more understandable. I am not sure, though, that one would really learn anything by understanding it. It is interesting fiction, but doesn't really seem to have much deep profundity. (05/15/2002) Return to Index

I waited exactly 58 hours to see the new Star Wars. I hadn't even considered rushing to fight all the crowds, but had the idea that at 10:00 Saturday morning the crowds might be light. I was right. I paid $6.00 for matinee and had an empty seat next to me. So much better than waiting days in line and then turning down a $10,000 offer for your place!

The movie was good, but not as good as the first one (i.e., Episode IV, I guess). It does give you some new insight into what precedes the original episode, but it is almost like reading too much history in order to understand the present. The battles just got long and boring, probably because they are more planet-based and lack the drama of the space-based chases we associate with Star Wars. The basic story is simple, and we really didn't move that much farther in history. My guess is they could have cut some of the fight scenes and combined this episode with the next one yet to come, but then that would destroy the 3x3x3 plan for the megastory. Oh well, we'll be tired of it before it's done anyway. Yes, I'm glad I saw it, but I'm glad I didn't wait in line days to see it, and my fourth viewing of Lord of the Rings (which I saw with my boyfriend and my brother a few days ago) was still better. (05/18/2002) Return to Index

Set 20,000 years ago, the movie actually carries some important messages for children and adults in its story of a mammoth, sloth, and smilodon (saber-toothed cat) who rescue a human baby. The movie is full of comedic parodies of other entertainment. A squirrel with a minor role mimics the roadrunner of cartoon fame. The cavewoman putting her baby into the water was reminiscent of Moses. But most important are the main underlying messages that "love makes a family" and that good triumphs over evil. (At which point I will clearly state that it is a story, and the story, not the history, connects the messages. I do not believe that it is evil in real life for carnivores to kill other animals, so while the smilodons in the story were evil, that is only because it is a story.)

The sloth is a guy that can easily get on one's nerves. The mammoth is the macho but gentle giant. They become the only-apparently imbalanced couple that so often leads to profound dedication (sort of like Jack and Will in Will & Grace). When the sloth rescues the human baby from the river, they end up with the task of parenting. The primary smilodon in the story had charged by his leader with bringing the baby back to him. The baby is the child of a human hunter who had the audacity to walk around wearing a coat of smilodon hide. He had caused the mother to flee with her baby, which led to her death and the baby's rescue. Now he was going to get the baby from the mammoth and sloth. In the course of his attempt to set them up for ambush, he actually befriends the two adoptive parents (who he had first sarcastically greeted with "Can't have one of your own, so you decided to adopt"). He bonds with the baby and becomes his most playful adoptive daddy. At the time of the set-up ambush, he has the tough decision and ends up choosing love even though he had an original commitment to hate.

The movie ends on a high note (as all good movies do) with the baby returned to his human daddy and the sense that the trio of solitary machoman, nervous annoyance, and mortal enemy (mammoth, sloth, and smilodon) have truly learned love and become a family glued by affection and cemented by commitment. (05/27/2002) Return to Index

It has nothing to do with cats, so my desire after seeing Ice Age to call it "Smilodon's Roar" is irrelevant. It is, rather, an intriguing historical perspective on an incident that happened on William Randolph Hearst's yacht. Along with girlfriend Marion Davies, William has invited a small group of Hollywood people along for a ride from San Pedro to San Diego. Among them is Charlie Chaplin. William -- probably 50 years older than Marion -- was very jealous, even though (to the extent the movie was accurate) they were very dedicated to each other and happy with each other. Yet Charlie clearly was interested in Marion, as he apparently was in many women.

Among the guests was Tom Ince, a budding young producer who was trying to get William to support him in business. He fanned the flames of jealousy by implying that Marion was in fact involved with Charlie, rather than trying her best to brush him off. One evening Marion was talking to Tom about how she really never loved Charlie. From behind William thought Tom was Charlie and Marion was saying she never loved William. He shot Tom, still thinking he was Charlie. Louella Parsons, at that point just trying to break into Hollywood, happened to walk by and see it. The incident is quickly covered up, never reported or prosecuted, and the flaky-appearing Louella walks out with a contract for life with Hearst publishing.

Although history, it unfolds as a mystery because only a real die-hard Hollywood buff would know beforehand which now-unknown character winds up dead since it was so hushed up. A interesting and exciting combination of genres. And the "May-December" romance of Marion and William is portrayed as a truly loving relationship between the two of them (in spite of William's bizarre and obsessive jealousy, which he really rather well hides from Marion). 05/01/2002. Return to Index

My niece is such a Scooby-Doo fanatic that I just had to see this on its opening day. People wondered how the animated dog would turn out, and some complained that he wasn't realistic enough. Actually, he was the most realistic of all. After all, Scooby Doo is a cartoon. It is the live people who weren't as realistic because they couldn't quite live up to the visual stereotypes that the cartoon developed. I think Shaggy was the best represented of the human lot. The cartoon Fred was a hunk, not an egocentric bleached blond. The human Velma came across too much as a little girl that it made her brilliance seem unreal.

The theme was also pretty lame. The monsters should have been fake, like in the cartoon, and the blend into odd spirits was somewhat out-of-place and bothersome. The mystery failed to have build-up and the discovery of the "evil" puppy Scrappy-Doo as the enemy was so far out of the blue and almost accidental, making it not even seem like a mystery at all. But my seven-year-old niece really liked the movie and went to see it twice, so perhaps it did speak well to its target audience. [06/14/2002] Return to Index

With all the obsession about Roman Catholic priests and child molestation going on right when this movie was released, the timing seemed surely ironic, even though -- as the reviewers always pointed out -- the movie wasn't about that at all. Nonetheless, it was good comic relief from this subject that far too many people took far too seriously.

The movie really wasn't that great, though. It was funny at times, but it was just hard to relate to. It surely didn't represent my junior high years, and didn't seem to represent anyone I really knew. Unless the silly things are radically different in Catholic schools than public schools (which I doubt they are), these kids just didn't seem real. I think it would have been funnier if they had played more tricks that had less complexity than the overly drawn out idea of putting a puma in the nun's office. Granted, I enjoyed the trick, as I have always been particularly fond of Felis concolor, but it was just not realistic, and the tragedy of one of the kids getting killed by one of the cats seemed really unnecessary. Finally, while the budding romance between one of the boys and the troubled girl was sweet, it seemed out of place as well. It was more high school than junior high level in both its complexity and its ability to distract from the more prankish aspects of junior high students. And in distracting from the pranks, it distracted from what I thought could or should have been the primary focus of the movie. [06/21/2002] Return to Index

You're right, it's not a movie you're supposed to openly admit to having seen. Oh well. It is funny at times. A bit sick, but if you go into it expecting that, you can survive it. It exaggerates the dysfunctions of our families, as well as societies responses to them, to the point of comedy. Perhaps there is some value in that. In spite of what all the critics said, this is not the worst movie I have ever seen. That honor still has to go to Pulp Fiction, in spite of its academy award, because of its casual, incessant, and unnecessary violence. I would rather have disgusting, gross-out comedy that no one takes seriously than all-too-realistic violence any day. Needless to say I haven't seen and never plan to see Hannibal or some others that probably make Pulp Fiction seem tame. It's time we worry less about sex and give more X ratings to movies with too much violence. So I guess this movie's quality and social value is reflected by the fact that I've spent 2/3 of this paragraph discussing other movies. [07/05/2002] Return to Index

Jon had seen this old movie, I guess one of Tom Cruise's firsts, and wanted me to see it. It was OK. The scenery was pretty and the unicorns majestic. It was some sort of story about good and evil, although there didn't seem to be a lot of depth to it. It didn't stir up deep spiritual contemplations like Lord of the Rings did, even though at the basic level the story was the same. [07/08/2002] Return to Index

Another movie seen on opening day since I often work Saturday and take off Friday afternoons. It's a cute movie, and you don't even really notice that the murine and avian characters aren't real. Stuart, the adopted mouse "son" of a New York family, leads another adventure. He meets a "parakeet" (so they call her, but I think the bird looks more like a canary) in what appears to be an accidental encounter but turns out to be a set-up. They become friends, he takes her in, she steals from the family, and the evil falcon becomes the new enemy. Probably the best part of the story is that Snowbell the cat and Stuart are now on the same side. Unfortunately we don't see how that relationship turned around since the first Stuart Little movie. (Snowbell had been understandably jealous that the mouse was treated as a son and the cat only as a pet.) Margalo (the bird) gradually turns from her ways of thievery and the falcon is eventually defeated. Right triumphs over wrong and Margalo learns what it means to be cared about and loved.

The characters are somewhat unreal. This is not because they are talking cats, mice, and birds -- that obviously is the point of the movie and it is what gives it its charm. One gets unclear pictures of what age Stuart is supposed to be. I'll give the story the credit of the fact that mice mature much faster than human, but Stuart has always been somewhat of a chronological anomaly. He goes to school with the young kid and is in many ways like him. But he drives to school. And the friendship between Stuart and Margalo has some of the overtones of a teenage romance because it seems important that Margalo is female. This is clearly not developed further (one, after all, is a mammal and the other a bird), and Margalo herself seems much more like a teenager in her development as a criminal. Perhaps it would have been more parallel if Margalo had been more like an elementary school boy than a high school girl and not clouded the story with the unnecessary subtle touch of romance.

Nonetheless, the movie was consistently funny. The adventure was real. The story was redemptive, and love and affection won out over abandonment and criminality. It is a good movie. [07/19/2002] Return to Index

I saw this the day after Stuart. What a great combination. Two very good movies with essentially the same story. I highly recommend them both for "children of all ages" two to one-oh-two (or 112 for that matter).

I liked Lilo & Stitch even better. The story just seemed a little more real. (Again, the basic external of the story were entirely incredulous in both cases, but that isn't the point. We know that mice neither talk nor drive and that aliens do not come in spaceships and end up in dog pounds.) Lilo is a little girl who is taken care of by her older sister Nani, who is probably about 20. They live on Kaua'i. The songs, music, scenery, houses, accents, attitudes, actions, etc. all made me think I was visiting Jeffery's family. Maybe that was why I loved the movie so much.

Stitch is not only an alien, but a life form created by a mad scientist on the alien planet. He is clearly the parallel of Margalo in Stuart Little, although Stitch is not supposed to have any positive qualities. He is exiled to earth, where the aliens are careful to protect the "endangered" mosquito (though the aliens, like most aliens of our stories, look basically like humans, or certainly mammals, with a few odd variations). Stitch winds up in a dog pound and learns to imitate a dog by pulling two of his six legs into himself. (This explains the reason why the trailers and posters sometimes who him with four arms [i.e. 6 "legs"] and sometimes with two arms.)

Lilo is a little trouble-maker, and the state agency is always threatening to take her away from her sister and put her in a foster home. She buys stitch at the pound, and gradually learns that he isn't a regular dog. Nonetheless, they become fast friends. Meanwhile, the alien scientist, in order to avoid prison back home, must find Stitch and get rid of him. After a destructive adventure, and the further cementing of the relationship between Lilo and Stitch, they finally catch up with one another. The alien queen herself finally arrives on earth and agrees, through the help of the child services agent, agrees that Stitch now belongs to Lilo because she bought him for $2 at the pound. Stitch, now tamed and changed by his experience of love, is left on earth to become part of the family of Lilo, the now-employed Nani, her surfer boyfriend, and even the occasional guest ex-FBI child services man. It is a touching conclusion.

One leaves the theater uplifted, the wonderful Hawaiian music floating in your mind, and longing to be in Hawai'i with cousins running wildly all about you when Aunty feeds you kalua pig. Stuart Little was good, but I'd much rather live on Kaua'i than in New York City. [07/20/2002] Return to Index

Yes, the date is right. Yes, you correctly assume that my brother would be the one who would dig up a really old movie to show on its 100th anniversary. It is 12-minute-long story about a scientist who loads a group of people in a huge bullet and shoots it out of a cannon all the way to the moon. Obviously it is a silent film, predating even what we think of as old silent films by many years. What is perhaps fascinating is that although clearly not possible as shown, their method of getting to the moon wasn't all that different from how it's really done. And watching the return landing in the ocean was just like the old Mercury capsules. Starting the trip back to earth by falling off the edge of the moon and having gravity due to trick was a little less real. Nonetheless, the whole thing was reminiscent of being glued to the TV with my brother as little kids when we watched the astronauts. [08/10/2002] Return to Index

My brother's second movie of the night is funny in its portrayal of most of the stereotypes of high school students. Some have said it was realistic, but that realism escapes me. Not to say that some of the people at a high school aren't as dysfunctional as those in the movie, but the implication that this level of dysfunction was normal. Now there certainly was a wide variety of dysfunction, and we know they are stereotypes, and that's what makes the movie truly funny. Fast Times did not, however, in any way shape or form remind me of my high school days (unlike the Recess cartoons, which remind me of my school days every time I see them). I enjoyed the comedy but missed the personal connection. Obviously personal connection is not needed in every movie, but its lack in this situation we have all experienced (high school) is what kept a good movie from being great. [08/10/2002] Return to Index

It looked like a fun and funny movie (which it was). The name was itself funny because a couple months ago Aloha joined many other utility consulting firms in filing paperwork with the Public Utilities Commission for some conservation projects, and they all had to be served in legal format -- served on a PUC judge named Sarah. One of the funniest parts of the movie, having recently broken up with a Texan, is the continuous jokes they played at the expense of the Lone Star State. (I have grown to love the Lone Star State, and still do, so loving these jokes is much like loving a California produce commercial that makes fun of California.) A millionaire rancher decides to divorce Sara, his English-born, New-York-living wife. Joe, the process server hired to serve her with papers ends up in a plot with her to help her file in New York and serve her husband in stead, keeping the supposed home-court advantage and disabling her husband from letting the "good old boy Texas judges" from giving him everything and her nothing. The chase ensues, the comedy flows throughout, and in the end Joe and Sara end up loving each other. Any deep though? No. But a lot of fun, and even though it was silly and stupid, in a way it was more realistic than Fast Times because it didn't portray itself as normal. The movie got bad reviews. But then, Pulp Fiction won an academy award, so you can't trust the professionals. [08/23/2002] Return to Index

With all the technology they put on DVDs, I had hoped for English dubbing of this French film, but was out of luck. I soon got used to the English subtitles, though, and noticed that sometimes they made things clearer than listening -- like when we heard music in the background that we couldn't have understood the words even if they had been in English. Anyway, Amelie's mother dies when she is a little girl, and her dad is more interested in a garden statue than in life. As a young woman she begins spending her whole life fixing things for others, with remarkable success. Yet she is blatantly incapable of doing so for herself. She fumbles the opportunity to connect with her would-be lover so many times that one wonders how much patience this guy will have. (We're not talking about patience in the normal relationship sense, but patience in pursuing this mystery who hasn't even let herself be identified and without having given any sort of promise of success if he meets her.) In any case, by the end of the movie we have grown to love this dear-hearted Amelie and are rooting for her to open the door when he knocks at her apartment (literally). Finally some of those she has helped help her, and she allows herself the same sort of life-changing realization she has so freely given others. The film takes awhile to catch one's interest, probably more because of the foreign style than the foreign language, but when it does, it really does. It makes you feel good to know there are good people in the world. [08/24/2002] Return to Index

An eccentric casino owner gathers wealthy gamblers for exotic betting schemes. He selects a diverse group of Las Vegas visitors to participate in a race to Silver City, New Mexico, some 500 miles away. The first one to get there gets $2,000,000 in cash locked in the train depot baggage lockers. The movie seemed rather dumb initially (since some of the characters soon to race are boring and others are obnoxious). But after a half hour or so, it is just hysterical. I watched the video early one Saturday morning, and that afternoon encouraged my parents to watch it again with me. Even the obnoxious and boring characters are funny in the beginning when you know what they're going to go through. There is nothing serious in the movie, except perhaps the final ending when the participants team up and manage to force the eccentric billionaire to donate about $20M to charity. But the hilarity ranges from a pilot dive-bombing her ex-boyfriend in his backyard swimming pool to an average Jewish family stealing Adolf Hitler's old car from some neo-Nazis to Gloria Alred suddenly appearing at the scene of accidents. It is laugh after laugh -- enough to even watch twice in a day. [08/31/2002] Return to Index

Like everyone else, I finally got around to seeing this. It is good, and it is funny. Not the hilarity of Rat Race, but still very funny, and with for the most part a good message. A Greek woman is scripted by her family, mostly her father, to marry a Greek man and raise a Greek family, just like they had for centuries. They own a Greek restaurant and live in a house that would be considered normal except for its looking like the Parthenon on the outside. By 30 she still hasn't done so, which enhances family pressure. She decides to go to college and gets a job outside the restaurant. She meets a man -- presumably Irish, but the key factor is non-Greek -- and they fall in love. Her father is not amused and brings home a diverse array of men to interest his daughter -- diverse that is in looks, age, social status, probably even criminal record, except, of course, (you guessed it) all Greek! Her boyfriend can somewhat relate because his grandfather and father were both prominent lawyers, and he became a teacher.

The moral of the movie is that relationships require adjustment. The ideal person who meets everyone's selection criteria for a mate does not really exist. Marriage exists in compromise. Society may once have compromised love for the sake of other criteria, but in American culture today other criteria must be compromised for the sake of love. The husband-to-be begins adopting Greek customs and even learns some Greek (which leads to some funny scenes when the brother-in-law tells him off-color Greek sayings claiming they mean other things, my favorite being "Nice boobs" for "Thank you," but his mothner knows who to blame). The father warms up to his future son-in-law, and the whole family loves and welcomes him. Even his more aloof upper-class parents are welcomed into the fun-loving, food-centered Greek family.

My only complaint about the movie is that it trivializes Baptism. In order to be married in the Greek Orthodox Church (according to the movie, one would hope not in reality), Ian must be baptized. Now theoretically he was Christian already -- this is not specifically addressed, but the implication is that his family are nominally Christian, probably Roman Catholic or Protestant. It is, of course, bad theology to rebaptize any Christian. Baptism is the sacrament by which we become Christians. We are baptized into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, Episcopal Church, Methodist Church, or Greek Orthodox Church. Baptism is baptism, period. Furthermore, even if Ian had not been Christian (and thus his baptism would have been theologically appropriate), one's baptism is the single most important event that will ever occur in that person's life. To portray baptism as a stepping stone to marriage (a far less important event with no eternal consequences) is to get sacramental priorities exactly backwards. It is true that sacramental marriage can only take place between two baptized persons, but that does not mean that one should be baptized just to get married. Baptism is an eternal commitment to Jesus Christ. It does even and always supersede even the life-long commitment to one's spouse. Baptism -- even Greek Orthodox Baptism -- does not make someone Greek (as was somewhat implied in the movie), it makes someone Christian.

I still liked the movie, but now you get a sense of two things that really bug me: (1) the exclusiveness of some Christian denominations, implying they are better than others, and (2) when Hollywood portrays religious issues inaccurately. I frankly don't know which of these two caused the baptism problem in this movie. I would rather think it was Hollywood getting it wrong than to think the Greek Orthodox Church would really have such a poor understanding of the most basic Christian event. (09/01/2002) Return to Index

This is the best movie I've seen this year. Melanie, a girl from rural Alabama had married young and later moved away to New York City, leaving behind her parents, her husband Jake, her friends, and her life. The reasons for this move were never entirely explained, but the implication is that they are nontraumatic, perhaps the addictive "wanting a better life" since the movie plays on -- and challenges -- the concept that "successful" urban life is somehow better than "backward" rural life. So she becomes a successful fashion designer and ends up engaged to New York's most eligible bachelor, Andrew, the mayor's son. Trouble is Melanie and Jake were never really divorced.

After not having been to Alabama in seven years, Melanie has to confront Jake to sign divorce papers and tell her parents she's getting married. She tries to prevent Andrew from making any connection with Alabama, though he finally winds up at Melanie's gay friend's grandfather's plantation, which the tabloids had erroneously figured was her home. (Neither her parents nor her husband lived in a mansion.) Small events, along with Jake's refusal to easily let go of the romantic potential of what could still be, cause Melanie to become ever more deeply entrenched in her past, meeting up with old friends and within the course of a few days realizing that there were two lives that could make her happy. Her mother, in a typical "you can do better than we did" manner scripted her to move on. Melanie did so in the extreme, only to learn that happiness is in the heart, not in the world.

The thing that makes this movie unique and particularly beautiful is the sense that Melanie would be happy in either place, regardless of how the events would unfold. Through the developing plot it was never clear whether Melanie would end up with Alabama Jake or NYC Andrew, but we knew that she would be happy in either event. She had two quality, loving men, though socially polar opposites. She enjoyed her life and lived it fully. She was torn between two radically different futures and in a rare position to directly choose between the two. You could not help but feel her heart be wrenched by the pending decision.

All appearances lead to her marrying Andrew. Jake had finally signed the divorce papers. Andrew, his mayor-mother, and all the New York power class had flown to rural Alabama, and she was walking down the aisle. Her hick-town lawyer crashes into the high-security wedding and informs her that she herself had failed to sign the divorce papers. At that instant she must rethink her choice, filled with the full pressure of the moment, the potential of being first lady (since the mayor clearly wants her son to become US president), and a heart that is still, at least in part, in Alabama with her beer-drinking sweetheart. She follows her heart and clearly states her case, winning even the honor of Andrew (though his mother is more worried about the embarrassing publicity that could ensue). The movie ends, as it began, with Melanie and Jake on the beach watching the lightning, reflecting the movie's initial flashback scene of two young lovers beginning their life together.

We are happy for everyone and end up feeling that, all things considered, Melanie made the right choice. There are many good things in life, but the greatest of these is love. There was no indication that Melanie's love for Andrew would have been any less than that for Jake, but it was clear that Jake had spent the past seven years working to win back the heart of his wife. And with the choice she made, Melanie will presumably be able to keep both of the her worlds, strong in her rural South roots and yet successful in her New York elite world as well. One would hope we all make decisions as decisively and clearly as Melanie did. [09/28/2002] Return to Index

A high school student is bitten by a spider and becomes a superhero. Being the somewhat nerdy smart boy whose best friend is the "rich kid," he finds his new ability somewhat useful in warding off bullying jocks. But other than that, he finds no particular reason to apply his superpowers to the world. This changes when his uncle, who raised him from childhood, is killed in a random act of crime. After being stolen from by a corrupt fight promoter, he lets a thief steal from the corrupt promoter without intervening. In his escape this thief takes Spider-Man's uncle's car and kills his uncle in the process. The indirect and tangential cause-and-effect of his "I'm going to ignore it" attitude moves him into his crime-fighting career.

This expands rapidly as his best friend's scientist-father turns into the arch-enemy. Being the nation's top aerospace engineer, his inventions are basically an even match for Spider-Man's biological powers. It becomes a classic (and somewhat boring) confrontation between the two. It does force him to deal with ambiguities in life, since the mad scientist is the same father of his friend that he had known and admired. The emotional tension is quickly erased when the scientist attacks Spider-Man's ever-loving aunt as an effort to get at him. Essentially the movie trades deep thought for silly "action," but there is still enough deep thought to make it a really good movie. [11/01/2002] Return to Index

It's just silly, but it is fun. A black boxer is recruited by the CIA to recover a stolen stealth bomber. (Though unlike the real thing, this stealth bomber is so stealth it can disappear while sitting right in front of you.) He is teamed up with a slightly inept blond CIA agent. They approach their job with totally opposite attitudes and viewpoints about 120 degrees out of phase (though with the 60-degree point still pointing directly forward in patriotic assistance to their country). They are perhaps equally cumbersome. The woman they like and the superstar rival agent they don't like both appear as opposing double-agents, and my mind still is not sure which, if either, was a double agent (and it is not worth seeing the movie again to try to figure out this tidbit of trivia).

The best part of the movie is the end, when they come to each other's aid, actually make a pretty good team with their balanced talents, and fly off together in the steal bomber to return it home to America. Through all the trials and tribulations -- and perhaps because of them -- two very different people became good friends.

I wasn't particularly planning to see this movie. We went out during a Color Code retreat with Dr. Taylor Hartman (Yes, read his book, The Color Code), and Taylor wanted to see The Ring. Many of us said "forget that" to a movie billed as so scary, and chose I Spy because it was playing at the same time. I'm glad we saw it. It was quick, fun, not really deep, but definitely entertaining. [11/07/2002] Return to Index

Supposedly this is a movie about Marshall Mathers ("Eminem"). He is the star, and to the extent it is realistic, it gives the viewer insight into this kid that everyone loves to hate. I don't normally talk about actors in movies because I think movies are about characters, and what an actor is "in real life" is basically irrelevant. But this is clearly an exception.

I, for one, have never hated Eminem. His music surely means nothing to me, and I would gladly entertain the hypothesis that the world would be better off if rap music had never existed. But this homophobic, misogynistic kid is too real to actually hate. (And yes, I think homophobia and misogyny are deeply related and usually self-based emotions directed outwardly.) When Elton John got bad wrap for doing a duet with him, I both understood Elton's thoughts (granted, I'm assuming here) and approved. You cannot fight hatred with hatred. That is just a universal law of love.

When you see how "Rabbit" (Eminem's character) lived up and grew, you could only be surprised if he turned out to be balanced, loving, and caring. The fact that he became so famous is amazing (though not necessarily unique because fame does seem entirely sporadic). The fact that he can have enough focus in his life to write and perform is surprising. The fact that he hates his mother, and through her half the world, seems tragically logical. And the fact that she and her son don't get along is about all one could expect.

When I see Marshall I see a young man searching for love. He doesn't know what love is because he has probably never seen it in his life, and certainly hasn't seen it at home where it really counts. As we watch him grow, learn, and mature, we see his desire for love starting to flow, perhaps not as quickly as we would wish, but if you look in his eyes, you can see it is there. GLAAD and all the politically correct gurus may have a point about the effects of hateful words, but they also must look in their own mirror. Marshall is not someone that needs more hate in his life, he is someone who needs to be shown love. That, I believe, is what Elton did, and I suspect that if we were ever privy to the depths of Marshall's heart, we would feel what that meant to him. It is because of caring actions of opening up that Marshall will learn how to someday love someone special in his own life, and the world in return.

Before people go around saying they don't like Eminem because of his attitude, they should see this movie. [11/11/2002]. Return to Index

I caught a few minutes on TV and then had to leave. It was enough to want to rent it and see it again. What a classically stereotypical love story with such important messages. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." "Beauty is only skin deep." And all the rest of those cliches.

All the girls in town want Mr. Stud. He wants the one girl that couldn't care less about him. She goes around learning and caring for her father. He gets caught in the castle of a beast. She trades places with her father. The beasts friends come to take care of her. They try to get the beast to not be so mean to her. The girl ignores the beast's appearance, but finds it hard to ignore his attitude. She perseveres because of the friends. The friends keep prodding at the beast to be nice.

Finally perseverance pays off. They kiss and the beast turns into a beautiful prince. But the important part is that her dedication and love for him developed before this happened. She was willing to accept him as-is, and then the magic occurred.

Equally important, he had to accept the fact that he was lovable. It was not just the Beauty had that to work for this moment and get past hurdles. It was the Beast as well. Sometimes we forget that part of the story, but it was quite well portrayed in this movie. And perhaps it is the even more profound part of the story. Many times it is easier to love someone else -- even someone rather difficult to love -- than it is to love ourselves. And even harder -- and stranger -- it is to let someone else love us. The one thing that almost caused the magic not to work was that the Beast wouldn't let the Beauty love him. He would keep pushing her away -- through temper, running, hiding, whatever -- but her persistence finally wore through and he accepted her love. And that changed his life.

Interestingly, the Beauty's life really didn't change that much emotionally. She went on in love, loving herself, her father, and her Beast-turned-Prince. The love-fearing Beast is the one who's life turned around entirely, and that turnaround was all within his own control. A great movie. That's why it's one of the few videos I actually bought. [11/16/2002] Return to Index

This is the movie based on the wonderful book by Fr. Joseph Girzone. I had read the book and its sequels several years ago, and had no idea it was a movie until I saw it in the video store. Joshua -- Jesus -- moves into a small town. Of course he's not dressed in white robes and looks like a normal guy, so people don't realize who he is. But he starts working miracles -- some of them outright physical, like healing a blind girl and bringing his dead friend back to life -- but most of them by really working with people -- things that anyone technically could do. He rebuilds the Baptist church. He supports the free-thinking Catholic assistant priest to the distress of the legalistic pastor.

He speaks to people directly and to their hearts. He states things as they are and he is always and completely himself. Being a carpenter (of course), he carries a huge log through town because he needs it to make a statue of St. Peter. At the same time he befriends a stuttering black man defending the remnants of the Baptist church as well as the teenagers vandalizing it, and later has them working side by side. He has no pretenses and no facades. As in Palestine 2000 years ago, he simply is himself, and doesn't call attention to the other dimensions of his life. He basically ignores the questions as to why the poring down rain doesn't fall through the open slats of the roof of the barn he turned into his home and workshop.

He dresses in the same lumberjack style whether he is at a rock concert or in the Pope's private chamber. In spite of his nonchalant appearance, he knows that he is always in control, wherever he may be. He is as comfortable violating social norms in a small town as he is ignoring Vatican protocol. And consistently, constantly, and continuously he speaks of love.

The movie ends when he reminds the Pope -- who he simply calls "Peter" -- of his childhood dedication. He brings the Pope a gift -- the tools that he uses in woodcarving -- and then simply disappears. The Church, after all, is called to be the Body of Christ on earth. We pray, of course, that someday we as Church will wake up to the magnanimity and magnificence of that challenge. I think I'll watch it again before I return the video. [11/17/2002] Return to Index

Spirit is a wild horse living in Utah in the 1800s. He becomes lead stallion of a herd (though his mother is still in the picture and we think of him as the human equivalent of about 20). He has never seen a human. He is captured by soldiers, and they try to domesticate him. The soldiers also capture an Indian named Little Creek and treat him about the same as they treat Spirit. In their mutual adversity, the two help each other escape. Though not quite friends yet (on Spirit's part; I'd say Little Creek knew he had a friend), they at least knew they weren't enemies.

Spirit doesn't really distinguish between humans ("two-leggeds" he calls us), but soon learns that some are harsher than others. That some use bridles, bits, and saddles, and some only use a blanket when they want to ride a horse. Of course, Spirit, has no desire to be ridden at all, whether by mean soldier or kind Indian. Eventually, though, he learns to distinguish and finds that some humans can be kind and loving toward him. He learns that being with humans is not always bad, but he still doesn't want to be controlled.

Spirit reminds me of a lot of people I know. They have a strong sense of adventure. They have a determination and a dedication. They have ability and for the most part use it very well. But they so idolize their independence that they lose out on some of the finer things in life. Mean and domineering control is a bad thing. But loving control -- harnessing up together in a mutually caring, mutually beneficial, and mutually loving bond -- is what allows us to really excel.

Finally Spirit lets Little Creek ride him, basically because he has to in order to save him, but he doesn't really realize that they are both in control. Perhaps Spirit's adversity to control came from his bad experience with the soldiers, but actually he always had it. He was too concerned about his independence and freedom, and that inhibited him. This is probably why I didn't really like the ending. After another adventure, Spirit again meets up with Little Creek, the Indian camp, and Rain, Little Creek's mare. It could have been a touching moment when Spirit realized that sometimes love can only flourish when we relinquish some amount of self-control. Spirit could have decided to stay with Little Creek. But rather Little Creek gave Rain to Spirit and the two horses galloped off together.

All in all, the movie was very well done. It is narrated from Spirit's standpoint, although the horses effectively communicate with one another in horse sounds. Some have said it was the stereotypical politically correct modern reversal of the old western -- the good Indian and the bad white man. While that is technically true, those who think this really miss the point of the movie. It is basically irrelevant that Little Creek was an Indian. It was that he loved the horse and treated Spirit as a fellow creature, rather than merely an object. This may or may not be an accurate reflection of Plains Indian and US Army culture, but to Spirit it was simply that one man -- who happened to be an Indian -- loved him. [11/20/2002] Return to Index

Four young girls form a deep friendship in the 1930s. It has overtones of magic and liturgy, but that is not the point and is essentially irrelevant. The important point is that the sisterhood survives constantly up until the present. One of the girls, Vivi, -- now a woman about 70 -- has a famous daughter, Sidda. The daughter is interviewed in a national magazine, and the reporter's editing makes a bad childhood seem even worse. The self-centered alcoholic mother is devastated.

The sisters step in. They kidnap Sidda (with her boyfriend's assistance, we learn later) and bring her back to Louisiana from New York. They tell her the story of her mother and her own childhood. She learns how dysfunctional her grandparents were and of her mother's abuse when she was a little girl. But the "sisters" also teach Sidda a lot of good things about Vivi. Eventually during this venture of a few days, Sidda's boyfriend comes to Louisiana and befriends Vivi and Sidda's father Shep (who still lives with his wife in their large plantation house but basically has nothing to do with her).

Based on people I know from similar backgrounds, and reading of psychological materials, it seems like a very realistic portrayal of dysfunctional family life. The mix between good times and bad times is well blended. The concept that abused children become abusive parents is splendidly portrayed showing Vivi as a little girl, as a teenager, as a young mother, and now as an older woman. The fears modern children have of repeating the pattern is demonstrated in Sidda's reluctance to marry her live-in boyfriend of seven years (much to his distress).

It is not really a movie about child abuse. For one, the abuse is not really severe, or at least not extreme. But it is a movie about dysfunction and its ubiquitous effects throughout life. It is also a movie about the redemptive power of truth and love. Consistently repeated throughout the movie was the constant reminder that neither Vivi nor Sidda ever doubted their love for one another. They just had pushed themselves and each other into corners and didn't know how to escape.

The sisterhood forced the issue with communication, soul searching, history reviewing, and most importantly love and truth. In the end, Vivi and Sidda are reconciled. Vivi becomes loving to Shep. Sidda announces her wedding, and the sisters formally induct her into the sisterhood. She even goes through the blood-rite in spite of her modern "That's how diseases are spread" objection. It is definitely a happy ending.

One is left immediately thinking it was an unrealistically good ending. But after thinking, the magic of the movie is that it really is a realistic ending. If a parent and child with the background of Vivi and Sidda went through the same sort of soul-searching week, with the help of family and especially objective, loving friends, it really could happen. That is something many families ought to take the time to do, even if it does mean totally taking a week out of their very busy schedules! Well worth seeing, with a great and doable message. It's realism and ability to be a teaching tool is why I rank it one of the year's best movies. [11/22/2002] Return to Index

A married Connecticut couple in the 1950s deal with problems. He falls in love with another man. She befriends her black gardener. Her friendship with a black man is even more scandalous than his being gay. It is an interesting portrayal of life from the decade of my birth and the advent of television. It seems real and yet distant. Perhaps it seems distant because they actually dealt with the issues, rather than shoving them under the carpet like we always assumed people back then did. [11/2002] Return to Index

Well, my prediction was right. The second of the three would never be as good as the first. How could it be? The first sets up the drama of good and evil, the call to a higher good, and the sense of purpose in life. The third will see the great conclusion of the drama and the triumph of good. The middle is just a bunch of battles. Honestly, I don't see why John Tolkien didn't make it two books instead of three. And I don't see why the moviemakers didn't take his three books and turn them into two movies. Jon and I had gone together alone, and we were going to go again in a couple of days with my brother. I dozed off. Granted, I was extremely tired. But I never would have dozed in #1. And I never did get back to see it with Paul. Maybe I'll just wait for the video. [12/2002] Return to Index

This is the true story of Frank Abagnale, a teenage con-artist who pretends to be a PanAm pilot and forges checks all over the world. He gets away with fake credentials as a doctor and a lawyer as well. It is also the story of Carl Hanratty, an FBI agent who is on to him and chases him all over the world. The movie is intriguing and funny at the same time. You know you don't like a thief, but this one is so clever you can't help but liking him in some way. That is how it becomes with the FBI agent. Frank is caught and goes to prison. When he gets out on parole, he goes to work for Carl at the FBI. To this day he is an expert helping them crack forgery cases. [01/10/2003] Return to Index

This is an excellent movie from 35 years ago. Paul's movie night proved again to bring a good surprise. The movie is the story of King Henry II of England, his estranged but powerful queen Eleanor, and his three living sons Richard (the Lion-Hearted), Geoffrey, and John (of Magna Carta fame). It is great acting (Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn) with a real part of history, portrayed essentially accurately from what I gather. It would make any "scandal" in modern royalty seem tame. Young king-to-be Henry married the older Eleanor because she had land of her own. (Land ownership back then was more like being king of a state or county than having a deed to house or ranch today.) Eleanor left the French king to marry the English king (who was in France). Later they had children, three of which were alive at the time of this movie.

The plot only thickens. Henry keeps Eleanor imprisoned in a castle. She is both used and hated by her sons, and vice versa. The same goes for the French king Philip and his sister Alais. The French princess is the lover of King Henry, but he wants to marry her off to either Richard or John, depending on which would make the better political alliance. Meanwhile, Richard and Philip are having an affair with each other (even in a 1968 movie). The movie gives us a glimpse into the manipulative life of medieval royalty. It doesn't show the longer historic picture -- St. Thomas Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury, had recently been murdered. Henry would die, Richard would become king but march off on crusade with Philip, and John would then become king. But it certainly gives us a more colorful and vivid image of these people that we read about in history books and view as rather much cardboard characters. [02/01/2003] Return to Index

This is funny. An advice columnist for a women's magazine has to do a facetious article on how to make a man leave you in 10 days. She experiments in real life and does everything women stereotypically do to annoy men. A male ad executive is promised a huge diamond account if he can demonstrate he knows anything about women by actually making one fall in love with him and keeping her 10 days. Obviously the two meet. Although they don't know each other, their bosses do (though they are unaware of the match). She tries so hard to get him to dump her. He will do anything for 10 days to get that account. Their made for each other. You sit there thinking "Why would any man put up with that?" (Or better yet, "Ditch the bitch, make the switch!") Of course you know why. And you've got to feel for her, too. In reality she is so unlike the jerk she is pretending to be. They find out. They get mad at each other. But love wins out and we're all happy in the end. [02/21/2003] Return to Index

This is a truly GREAT movie. Very profound. David Gale, a brilliant professor, active in the pro-life movement (that is, anti-death-penalty, not anti-abortion) ends up on death row, blamed for the murder of another anti death penalty activist. Of course it takes place in Texas, where else? The sites of Austin are very familiar. A journalist is selected to try to help David during the last few days. Unconvinced of either his innocence or the horror of the death penalty, she chases through the plot. She grows more convinced and more entrenched. The movie causes us to run through a variety of theories as to why David is actually being executed for something he presumably did not do.

As you know, I am usually one to share the story, because I actually get more out of most movies when I know about them going in. It's like the benefit of a rerun. This is one exception. The ending is deeply profound, and I won't explain more. But it does have us leaving aware of the value of true dedication and sacrifice for the good of the world. [02/22/2003] Return to Index

The story of some LAPD cops and the various shades of gray between "good cop" and "bad cop." The ads all point out that this takes place at the time of the acquittal of the officers who beat the drug addict in the early 1990's. It does, but it's not about that. Its about a deputy chief who wants to make his department clean, a corrupt senior officer who takes robbery money from murderous thieves, a die-hard sergeant who thinks whatever a cop has to do to rid the world of criminals is OK, and a young detective being taught the ropes by the sergeant. It toys with your emotions about good and evil not being so easily discernable. Perhaps it is a good analog of the threatening war in Iraq. Is it not evil to use evil against evil? George Bush is much like the sergeant. He wants to do good by ridding the world of evil, but he is blinded by that evil and cannot see his own sin.

In the end the rookie is dead because the corrupt captain tries to get the sergeant killed on the day of his promotion to lieutenant. Instead he shows up and gives a long speech spilling his guts. Although an alcoholic, the corruption is so clear it comes through anyway. The meeting ends with LA burning in riot, though not directly related to this story at all. Having once dated a police chief, fortunately of a small town with much less turmoil than LA, I couldn't help feel for the families of the cops, all of which seemed torn by the strife and ambiguity of good and evil. It made me pray for all the men in blue to have greater insight and moral fortitude, and the courage to do what is truly right. [02/23/2003 -- OK, it was a movie weekend!] Return to Index

Left Behind II: Tribulation Force (2002) [video]
The Omega Code (2002) [video]

I'll review these two movies together because I rented them both together and watched Left Behind on Good Friday night and Omega Code on Holy Saturday night. I had decided to watch some religious movies during the Sacred Triduum. Both deal with the end of the world as some fundamentalists believe Revelation describes it. Both are pretty similar in many ways, though Left Behind II is but one part of a series. The plot is basically a world leader who is/becomes the Antichrist, and a small group of faithful who work against him. Both movies -- like Revelation itself -- make a fascinating story.

The frightening thing is that apparently some people really take this seriously and believe the world really will come to this. Even more frightening, those people think of themselves as Christians. It turned out to be perfect timing to see these movies, because it put it all in perspective. Having gone to bed Saturday night to Omega Code, and waking up early Easter morning for the Great Vigil, I was reminded so vividly of what I have said for years, "the people who keep looking for the second coming in some sort of historical, literal way really should be classified as types of Jews, not Christians, because they essentially deny the Miracle of Easter." Anyone who thinks that either of these movies -- or anything close to them -- represents the Christian message should sing the ancient Easter hymn several times, "The strife is o'er, the battle done. Now is the Victor's triumph won! Now be the song of praise begun! Alleluia!" They should sing it over and over until they get the point. Then they'll know what Christianity is all about -- being Easter People.

The movies are good stories, but dangerous theology. Definitely "adults only" stuff because they could do far more damage than any porn or violence in the hands of people who don't have a strong and true faith. [04/18/2003 and 04/19/2003] Return to Index

Sorry for the break here. I did see some movies, but didn't get them reviewed for the website.

Three kids are playing and one of them is kidnapped, molested, and then escapes. Years later, their lives have drifted apart, but they are still in Boston. One of the friends becomes a criminal, the other a cop. The daughter of the criminal is murdered, and the son of the man who had been kidnapped is involved. The cop is trying to solve the mystery. The criminal -- who obviously never does turn around -- ends up killing his boyhood friend. The whole plot is complex, which is what makes the movie interesting. It does not paint a pretty picture of life, and unfortunately it ends on a sad note, but it is intriguing. Even as I am writing this a couple months late, and trying to remember the details, I am somewhat wanting to see it again just for the intrigue.

I recently read a letter to the editor about clergy child abuse that cited Mystic River as an example of the long-term problematic effects of child molestation. The problem with such an argument is twofold. First, the movie is fiction. Second, even in the movie the problems are not directly related to the kidnap/molestation incident (which did involve a priest). Certainly the boy who grew up with the most problems and turned out to be the really bad character -- the mob-criminal -- was not the boy who had been kidnapped. Mystic River may well be a good and intriguing movie, but it is not a commentary on child molestation and not a documentary of its long-term effects. [10/2003] Return to Index

It's a cute movie. Well worth seeing, fun, light-hearted, and starts getting us ready for Christmas. Not particularly profound or a lot to comment on. A human is adopted by one of Santa's elves. When he grows to be twice their size, eventually he seeks out his human family in New York City. Dad starts out a jerk. The younger brother is won over by his brother's expertise at snowball throwing. It has a happy ending as people learn that good things come from faith. (Like the idea of Santa Claus for little kids, the faith in a myth is a good way of symbolically teaching faith in God.) [11/29/2003] Return to Index

I thought it was funny. It isn't a great movie, and some of the humor is not directed at children, in spite of it being from a Dr. Seuss book. But if you remember back to those days and go just to have fun, it can be good. I saw it right after Elf. Probably not as good, but I don't polarize the discrepancy nearly as much as many of the reviewers are doing. Cat, too, has a message that we all can improve a little on life -- whether we are too rigid like the little girl or too rambunctious like the little boy. Don't try to make too much of it, and then you'll just enjoy the laughs. [11/29/2003]. Return to Index

Bad concept, bad movie, bad decision. I was driving along I-80. Stopped for a break. It was what was playing. I walked out after 15 minutes. Figured it was better to waste $6.50 by walking out than to waste the money and suffer through the movie. The movie shouldn't have been made. It's a bad message for kids and not funny for adults. I could handle the alcoholic googly-eyed at the kids' parents, but the thief and con-man bit was too much. Not an "F" like Pulp Fiction, because there wasn't excessive violence. Just stupid and a bad idea, in other words, a " D." [12/15/2003]. Return to Index

My brother pre-bought tickets for the morning of opening day. We saw it in a theater that was 25% filled. Good choice -- 10:00 am and not in the theater with the huge screen.

Better than #2 (which was boring) but not as good as #1 (which was filled with the emotions of the myth). We saw the goal brought to completion, as we knew it would. Frodo threw the ring into the lava and it melted; the Evil Eye fell down and all the orcs died. But given that this was the climax of Middle Earth's history, it was far too wrapped up in stupid medieval military battles with a few prehistoric-like creatures added for who-knows-what. The movie would have been MUCH better if it had wrapped us into the essential importance of the final goal -- the destruction of the ring. Rather, this was almost a side-show to the larger battle scenes. And the battles weren't sufficiently connected to the final goal to give them any over-arching importance. They led up to Aragorn's crowning as king, but even that subject was concatenated at the end. He was crowned and then we cut to a marriage in the Shire and the elves leaving by sea and taking Frodo. The all-important meaning of these events were lost, and the movie would have done much better to show us why it was important that Aragorn become king. (Just being a cute hunk is insufficient cause for a movie with this much potential profundity.)

The first of the trio was perhaps the best movie made. The second was boring interlude, but we knew that would be the case before it came out -- the cause had been set in #1 and the final ending would be in #3, so #2 had to be just filler. But I had my hopes set for #3 to be more exciting and powerful even than #1 had been. Good Friday and Easter -- the pivotal events of history -- are really more exciting than all the prophecy leading up to them. Perhaps I am being too harsh on #3 because I expected so much more than I got. It was, after all, a great movie.

The parallels to the Christ Event still hold true. Frodo represents Jesus, the One that would overcome evil. Sam is John, the beloved companion. Aragon is Mary, the peasant (Strider) who was destined for king/queenship as a result of being the guide/parent of the One. Gandolph is Gabriel the wizard/archangel, whose powers are great, but yet not as impressive as the subtle all-power of the One. Aragon/Mary calls upon the dead/saints who rally with him. The elf/angels depart at the end, and the One leaves with them, instructing the hobbit/disciples to carry on His work.

Definitely required viewing, even though it could have been so much better had it wrapped our hearts in the myth and left some of the spectacle behind. [12/17/2003]. Return to Index

This is a complex film showing various love relationships, ranging from the British prime minister and his new servant to an elementary school boy and another kid. All of the characters are somehow connected in a chain of relationships. You go through the movie trying to keep track of how the different people are connected to one another, but at the same time you realize that it really doesn't matter. It is just a good movie to enjoy in and of itself. The relationships are all sweet in their own way. Not all of them are ideal or even set on a path of success, but none is toxic and all are realistic to some extent. That is one of the basic points of the movie -- that love is all around in a variety of forms and that, by and large, it falls in between the extremes of passionate romance and destructive obsession. I saw it with my parents, and we all felt good, normal, and able to relate -- them in their 54 years of marriage and me in my present hanging on to a relationship of questionable certainty or success. [12/21/2003]. Return to Index

What great fun. Seeing that family of a man, woman, and twelve kids is almost enough to interest me in a straight marriage. Well, not seriously, because you do learn the cost of having such a huge and chaotic family, and you understand throughout that the movie is not meant to be realistic. But it is fun, and it does remind me of childhood and thinking what fun it would be to have a huge family. (I can confess in kindergarten to discussing with my then-"girlfriend" that we wanted to have 10,000 kinds. Of course that was before we knew about either sex or economics, but we did know that kids were fun. It was a perfect thing to do Christmas afternoon. [12/25/2003]. Return to Index

The best part of this movie is simply the color. It is vivid. Like a tropical fish bowl (appropriately). Also appropriately, the human who keeps the fish is a dentist, just like my dentist has in his office. The story is sweet in the quest of daddy fish for his lost son. It is sad in the fact that Nemo's mother and his 399 would-be siblings are eaten by a barracuda in the beginning of the story, but that is perhaps a good way of teaching kids that the natural world is far from what we would call "perfect." Of course Nemo is found and everyone is happy at the end. The Sharks Anonymous meetings would be a good way to tell kids about addictions and the problems that they cause, even though the specific concept (of sharks giving up fish-eating) is not realistic. Kids probably go through this episode without knowing that the sharks are mimicking AA, and parents that fail to bring up the subject and let it go by unnoticed have missed a prime learning opportunity. [12/26/2003]. Return to Index

This is a very interesting movie based on fact taking place in Nazi Germany. A scientist who has become an SS lieutenant witnesses the beginning of the death camps. He is a devout Protestant and tries to get his pastor to speak out against the acts. The democratic basis of the Protestant Church prevents that. "Most of the congregation supports Hitler" is the pastor's response (though to the pastor's credit, it probably would not have changed anything had he spoken out). The lieutenant turns to the Papal envoy, who rejects him and doesn't trust him, but the cardinal's secretary, a young priest, gets his card and maintains the connection. This young priest is also the son of an Italian count who works inside the Vatican. The Pope knows the young priest personally, and he finally tells the Pope of the problems. The Pope says he will act, but does not. The Jews of Rome itself are finally carted off to death camps, and the young priest joins them. It is a very serious movie and presents the horrors of the time in an emotionally powerful way without feeling it has to show them graphically. Other movies could learn from that. The story is based on fact, and the Vatican did at best ignore the Nazi problem. (In fact, the Brazilian bishop through whom I trace my own apostolic succession was excommunicated by the Roman Church for teaching that the Pope was a Nazi.) It would be interesting to know if the details were factual -- particularly the issue of this lieutenant making friends with a priest who literally got to whisper the details of the problem into the Pope's ear. If that is true at the technical level, it makes the Vatican problem a little more problematic than just ignoring third- or fourth-hand rumors. But perhaps not. The outcome was still the same, regardless of whether the Pope heard them directly from a young friend or through more formalized channels. [12/26/2003]. Return to Index

Another movie about WW II but totally different in genre. I rented them because they were side-by-side in the rental store's alphabetical display, without even thinking about them being in the same subject. This movie is about four mismatched soldiers -- three Brits and a Yankee -- who are assigned an undercover infiltration of a Nazi manufacturing facility staffed entirely by women. Hence they all must go in drag. One is a real drag queen, one a young assistant, one a ready-to-retire assistant, and the fourth the American spy who rebels against the drag idea and then pulls it off very well. Like Amen, this too may have been based on fact, or it might be totally made up. It doesn't matter. The movie is comedy and is no more meant to lead us to deep pondering of Nazi German than was Hogan's Heroes. It made a good, be it unintentional, counterpoint to the first movie of the evening. [12/26/2003]. Return to Index

Two conjoined twins own a restaurant on Martha's Vineyard. One is an aspiring actor and drags his brother along to Hollywood. There they stay in a monthly motel and befriend the manager and another tenant who is a would-be actress. They also run into Meryl Streep and Cher, both of whom play themselves. Cher ends up getting the brother a part in her new series. Although her intention to the cause it to bomb because she wants out of her contract, in fact the brothers pull it off so well, even though it only stars one brother, that they become famous. This is especially true after they "come out" as conjoined twins, one of the aspects of the movie's main message that all of us do best when we are real and true. Meanwhile, the actor has called his brother's internet girlfriend and arranged a face-to-face meeting. They lie and eventually are caught in their lie. Everything eventually turns out OK after the lie is uncovered. The twins get separated, and both find that they really cannot live their lives apart from one another. They end up back in Martha's Vineyard running their restaurant, flipping burgers in their conjoined apron, with their two California girlfriends there, too. Meryl Streep stars with the actor brother in a local play, and Cher sits in the audience. A good movie, a good message, and a good ending. [12/27/2003]. Return to Index

Katherine moves from Berkeley to begin a career as a professor at an East Coast girls' college in the 1950's. The girls are, for the most part, more interested in becoming wives than developing careers on their own. This deeply offends Katherine, who teaches her students that their own education and interests are as important as their husbands'. This, in turn, does not win her the affections of the university powers. Nonetheless, she is persistent. Eventually Katherine's most prominent student opponent ends up in a loveless and unfulfilling marriage, which more or less proves her point. I don't know that the movie is based on any historic person, and don't know that that would matter. Surely there must have been women at universities during this time who did what Katherine did, and eventually helped our society give women more independent roles. [12/28/2003]. Return to Index

Rosie is a grocery clerk in West Virginia. Pete is her boss and childhood friend. He is deeply in love with Rosie, but has never gotten the nerve to tell her so. Tad Hamilton is the hottest Hollywood heartthrob. His publicity team devise a contest for people to enter a raffle to win a date with him. Rosie, unaware that she has anything close to a boyfriend at home, enters the contest and, of course, wins. She is flown to Hollywood and goes out with Tad. Pete so warns her about movie stars (and men in general) only wanting sex, that Rosie ends up being afraid to really enjoy her date. But Tad ends up falling in love, even though he had done this solely for the publicity. He goes back to West Virginia and shows up unannounced at the grocery store.

Pete never does get around to telling Rosie he loves her, either because he is nervous or because he is circumvented by Tad (who of course has no idea Pete is anything but a "friend" because Rosie herself doesn't know and only presented him that way to Tad). Tad senses the rivalry, though, and starts to fight "ugly" to win Rosie and have her move back to Hollywood with him. On the private plane back, Tad realizes it really isn't right for him, ends up telling Rosie about Pete, and Pete and Rosie end up together at the end, with Tad getting the new movie he had been trying to get. Perhaps unrealistic, it is nice that Tad redeems himself at the end and all end up happy, having learned from each other. [01/22/2004]. Return to Index

Chris is a Hollywood playboy whose life revolves around self gratification, including a promiscuous sex life but no real love. His neighbor moves out and a group of four Mormon missionaries move in. His friends set him up on the challenge to seduce one of the missionaries. Meanwhile, Aaron, one of the missionaries, is finding himself intrigued by his new neighbor. Gradually they both begin to fall in love with each other -- a new experience for both of them for opposite reasons. It is to some extent a classic "opposites" love story. But in this case the opposites are a bit more intriguing, and much more symbolic, than the usual rich/poor dichotomy.

Aaron represents all that is wrong with the conservative "right" -- they are so concerned with living within a legalistic system that they miss love. Aaron's family and church colleagues are so wrapped up in "family values" that they betray each other and demonstrate a lovelessness even more appalling than Chris's string of one-night stands. Just as Aaron is a far broader symbol than Mormon dysfunction, so Chris is a far broader symbol than gay party-boy dysfunction. He represents all that is wrong with the liberal "left" -- those who are so wrapped up in "rights" and "justice" and "freedom" that they miss the love.

Thus the love that develops between Aaron and Chris -- and the harmony and healing that we can assume continue in their lives beyond the movie's end -- represent that healing of our society that can take place if only our two all-too-prominent loveless polar opposites will teach each other. Aaron teach Chris that his life has been empty fulfillment. Chris teaches Aaron that his morality has no sound basis. Both teach each other love. Every conservative needs to see the movie to be enlightened as to how there is more than morality. Every liberal needs to see the movie to be enlgihtened as to how there is more than freedom. There is love, the thing that God commands of everyone.

Another profound theme of the movie is that life, when looked at its individual parts seems odd or painful, but when looked at from the whole picture it is a beautiful picture of interacting dots, much as a Sunday comic cartoon.

Just like Lord of the Rings #1, this movie is truly great because of the depth it of its higher meaning. It is the best movie I have seen since LOTR-1. If only it would draw as much attention, our world might be a little better healed. While LOTR-1 (and 2 and 3 to a lesser extent) wrap us in the plot of good versus evil, Latter Days points out the two places where loveless evil controls our society. Now we can just pray both sides will accept their own role in subverting our God of Love.

This movie so far is in limited release. NYC and three LA Area cities. It was to open in Salt Lake City, too, but the theater chickened out. Hopefully it will come to a theater near you soon. Be sure to call and ask them to show it. [01/30/2004] Return to Index

A young family -- father, mother, and two daughters -- comes to New York City from Ireland as the father is looking for an acting job. They rent an apartment in a drug-laden neighborhood and fix it up. They all struggle in their own way over the prior death of the young son Frankie. Eventually on Halloween the persistent trick-or-treating of the two girls stirs Mateo, the aloof, sullen, gruff-on-the-outside neighbor that even the drug addicts avoid. They end up befriending each other, and through the girls the parents and Mateo become friends as well. The mother is going to have another baby, but the baby is not well. Mateo, who is from Jamaica, dabbles in Voodoo, and is himself dying of AIDS or a similar unnamed disease, assures them that the baby will be a blessing, which seems to contradict medical advice. The baby is born sick, but a transfusion from the older daughter heals him just as Mateo himself dies in another hospital room.

Though it deals with tragedy, the movie is permeated with joy. All of the characters are likeable. Even the not-so-nice minor characters, like the drug-addict beggar, have their redeeming qualities. I think this is what makes the movie so wonderful. You leave liking everyone and feeling that life is worth living because of people like these people. In the midst of their despair, they always radiate hope.

It is tempting to compare In America with two other movies -- Latter Days because I have just seen it, and Mystic River because it is getting so many Academy awards. In America is almost, but not quite, as uplifting as Latter Days. Perhaps the one thing LD has extra is the great symbolism of our whole society wrapped up in two people, and I love movies with profound depth like that. But more importantly I think it is in seeing In America that I realized what it was about Mystic River that makes it impossible for me to call it a great movie -- the likeability of the characters. As I've mentioned, everyone in In America is likeable. Virtually no one in Mystic River is likeable. While both movies deal with unfortunate life stories in major East Coast cities, one would welcome the chance to meet most of the people from In America and one would go out of the way to avoid most of the people in Mystic River. I'd rather spend $7.00 watching people I'd like to meet. [02/03/2004] Return to Index

Frances is a San Franciscan who gets a divorce, travels to Italy on vacation, and ends up buying an old house. She meets several potential new lovers as well as others who you know could interest her but are clearly unavailable. She makes new friends and keeps connected with some old friends. Throughout all of this, she works on restoring the old house into her dream home, sometimes wondering if she had done something really stupid, and at other times picturing what she hopes will be.

I had assumed the movie was primarily a love story, and it played somewhat like a mystery wondering which one of the various men would end up with Frances in the long run. In reality, though, it is more a story about life than about love. Twice repeated, once near the beginning and once near the end, is a story about a train track in northern Italy that was built steeply up the Alps before there was a train capable of climbing it. In due time the train came along that could climb the track. As Frances completes her dream home, which is symbolic of her life in general, she finally is able to find love again. It is a very good message (though a tough one for me personally) and a very good movie. [02/08/2004] Return to Index

Bob is a middle-aged American actor being paid $2M to do a commercial in Tokyo. He is bored and caught up in the confusion of Japanese culture and language. He ends up meeting Charlotte, a much younger American woman over there because her husband is working. They become friends, bonded together by their boredom and confusion. The movie has its good points. Many of the scenes are funny, and the relationship between Bob and Charlotte is a sweet and genuine friendship, not the hop-into-bed fling that one might have expected in a movie. The music was generally atrocious background noise, though, and the confusion part gets a bit old. I think I got almost as much out of the previews as I did out of the whole two hours of movie. While it is not a bad movie by any means, I certainly don't understand why it is either best picture or best actor material. [02/10/2004] Return to Index

Walter is a young boy with a loser for a mother. She drops him off with Garth and Hub, her two uncles who live out in Nowhere, Texas, and supposedly have lots of money stashed away. Walter's mother hopes he will find it. She is not the only family member on the same question. In the course of time, Walter and the two crotchety old goats become fast friends, particularly when the uncles learn that the other family members don't like the boy around. Uncle Hub was a particularly dashing young soldier in North Africa many years ago. He falls in love with a girl betrothed to a wealthy sheik, and the two brothers end up tricking the sheik out of both one of his wives and lots of his money. Never having been challenged before, this actually wins the respect of the sheik.

Later in life the men enjoy life and use their money sparingly, but always for fun. They import animals, including an old sick lioness, who bonds with Walter and ends up attacking a would-be boyfriend Walter's mother brings out when she is ready to take him home. Finally the uncles die together while crashing their plane into the barn, and they leave everything to Walter. We never know for sure about the Africa stories until at the end a private jet lands and the grandson of the sheik greets Walter and tells his own young son about the stories his grandfather told about the two Americans. It is a sweet movie that makes you feel good, and recommend it very much more than Lost in Translation. The Oscar nomination went to the wrong place. [02/11/2004] Return to Index

Like the liturgy of Ash Wednesday, the movie started almost midstream, without even having previews to distract us. That set the stage very well. Beginning in the Garden of Gethsemane, we then follow Jesus toward the Cross and ultimately Eastern Morning. Clearly the most powerful and most important parts of the movie are when Jesus speaks. This is done with direction, clarity, and certainty that match with how one imagines it must have been in real life. This is particularly true when He addresses the chief priest and Pontius Pilate, and it was particularly moving that He spoke to Pilate in Latin, showing His ability to speak directly and certainly to each of us as we would best understand.

The controversy over this movie seems very silly after having seen it. It presents the same Passion story we hear on Passion Sunday and on Good Friday. Aside from a few sidelines of minor importance, there is nothing new in the movie, so one wonders why there should be controversy. The Jewish priests don't look any more like modern Jews (or even rabbis) than the Roman soldiers look like American soldiers. I cannot see that the movie would draw one into dislike of Jewish people and more than it would cause us to dislike soldiers. If people feel that way already, I don't think a movie will do much to add to it.

The violence, and the reported violence, was the more significant concern I entered with. I don't like violence in movies. Oddly I found the violence less offensive than I expected but more distracting than I expected. People that support it say that the violence pulls the viewer into the reality of the scene. I disagree and felt the opposite effect. I actually think the movie would have been much more emotionally powerful had the violence been not quite as long, detailed, or graphic. It tended to get boring and to cause me to emotionally shut down. (I actually question how "realistic" it was -- not to say that the events leading to the Crucifixion weren't full of excessive violence, but that maybe the movie got a little carried away, because I question whether Jesus would have gotten to the Cross at all after the movie's version of the scourging.) In any case, I did not find this violence leaving me in deep thought about the pain Christ suffered for us all, and think that this feeling would have been stronger had there been less emphasis on the exaggerated physical details of the events. I have, frankly, been more moved to tears by a very good and concise reading of the Passion Narrative at the Good Friday Liturgy.

Throughout the movie there are flashbacks to various Gospel events -- sermons, interactions with disciples, and most importantly the Last Supper. This was very well done. Far from being distracting, it was the part that tied the movie together with the larger picture.

The religious magazines I read tend to focus on whether the Resurrection was adequately portrayed. My answer would be "adequately, but it could have been better." Unlike some other movies, it doesn't beat around the bush, which is a good thing. Easter is clearly the result of Good Friday. But a little more focus, perhaps up until the time when Mary Magdalene, Peter, and John met their resurrected Lord, would have brought this home a little more powerfully.

This is a very good movie. Obviously it is the most important story line of any movie, but it is hardly unique in its portrayal of that story. It is good that it is stirring enough interest that many will see it, including perhaps those who really don't the story almost by heart. Perhaps they soon will. [Ash Wednesday, 02/25/2004] Return to Index

I went in Oklahoma with a friend because he thought the actor was so cute. It's not the type of movie I would have sought out. He was right, he is really hot (though I usually don't go to movies just to see hot actors). Actually, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. It leaves one wrestling with the moral dilemma of whether it is ever OK to do immoral things that rectify wrongs done to others. Objectively, of course, I believe the answer is "No," but nonetheless, one could not help but have some good feelings as the Punisher took care of some really evil people. [05/10/2004] Return to Index

I always enjoy learning about other religions, and I have several friends who are Mormons. I actually thought it was going to cover the whole book, and was disappointed that it only covered the first section. But I guess the precedent has been set by all the Bible movies that stop with Noah or Abraham. At times the movie dragged a bit, but it also had a good message about following God and letting Him lead you in life, a message that was repeated several times. The prophet Nephi -- the main character of the story -- was also really hot and managed to get his shirt off almost as often as the Punisher, so I called my friend in Oklahoma and told him to go see it. [05/15/2004] Return to Index

I rented it with a dollar coupon. I've always wanted to see just why all the critics called it such a horrible movie. Somehow I sensed I would like something they all thought so awful. I was right, but I did almost turn it off during the first five minutes. I despise anything to do with the "mob." I think that whole subject is so horrible that it cannot even be made funny. It is the same blemish on our culture that suicide bombers are to Islam. Both Larry Gigli (Ben Affleck) and Ricki (J-Lo) are mobsters. They end up befriending a retarded teenager and each other. Gigli's mother is hysterical. The relationship that develops between macho man Larry and lesbian Ricki is delightful, and as the day wears on (and I forget about the mob setting) the movie's memory improves because of it. I suspect it is autobiographical about Ben and Jen -- an unrealistic relationship that is pushed together because of them having to work together. Given the popularity of The Sopranos (a TV show I have obviously never watched) I cannot figure out why this movie was rated so poorly. The only thing bad about it was the mob. [05/22/2004] Return to Index