A “Wild” Movie

The classic children’s book, "Where the Wild Things Are" by Maurice Sendak, seems to be a visual story that lends itself well to film. A purist would want the film to be true to the book, word for word. Yes, pages of the book seemed to have jumped out on the screen, but the content was expanded in a way that was accessible to adults. In fact, it’s doubtful that kids today would understand what the movie is all about. This is not a criticism of the movie at all. Wild Things is an incredibly well made film that says much about the wild mind of a child grappling with real world issues. It dealt with so many issues in a way that is easy to identify with.

The plot is basically the same. Max gets in trouble. In the book, he gets sent to his room. In the movie, he runs away. The transition from real life to the island of the Wild Things is extremely well executed as he floats in a boat across a stormy sea. When Max finds the monsters, he walks right in the middle of a fight they are all having. It makes no sense. The creatures look great, and seem to be pulled straight from the book. However, they act like childish adults. This has been criticized by others, but it works. It's as if Max is having a fight with himself in his head, with people from his life having some kind of input, albeit filtered by Max's own imagination. Max feels abandoned, lonely, hurt, and angry. These emotions are displayed with childish abandon by the Wild Things, and it's fun to watch their interactions. Things don't make sense and are childish in nature, just as it would be if we were looking inside the thoughts of an 8 year old boy. It was brilliantly well written. The movie ends with Max going back home and eating his dinner, which is still warm. The tie-in at the end with the book was a good touch, and it seemed as if Max had grown because of the adventures he's had. What was done especially well was that the closing scene was wordless, which was fitting because this film can leave one speechless.

Scratch That Film Off “The Bucket List!”

Rob Reiner is known for his relationship-based films, such as The Princess Bride, Sleepless in Seattle, and The Bucket List. He has this amazing talent for writing different points of views from both genders that make one think. One good example of this is Reiner’s film “When Harry Met Sally”. If you've seen it, then you know that Harry is opposed to intimacy, while Sally loves it. The dichotomy in their developing friendship throughout the movie and their talks about relationships is very insightful. Anyway, “The Bucket List” is a film about two terminally ill men who travel the world, completing their "bucket list" while talking about life.

Jack Nicholson plays Edward, the very wealthy owner of the hospital he becomes a terminally ill patient in. Morgan Freeman plays Carter, a terminally ill mechanic, who lands in Edward's hospital room. They don't like each other at first. Each has contrary personalities. Edward is a snobby brat, and Carter is a down to earth family man. What's great about the opening of the movie is that the first third of the film takes place in the hospital room where the two men get to know each other. The movie didn't just jump right into the "bucket list" portion of their journey. It slowly got there, while the audience got to know the characters individually and then as their friendship developed. What a great script!

As you may guess, they bust out of the hospital and travel the world on Edward's dime (or many many many dimes!) to skydive, race Mustangs; you name it! They talk about life, faith, and their past. Wounds are brought up, relationships are repaired, and there is much soul searching. The script is a bit contrived sometimes, but it's the heart to heart talks these two men have that are the real meat of the film.

There’s a key scene near the end of the film that explores Edward's journey with faith. Edward had no faith of his own. He believed in money, in the natural order of the world. Carter knew there was something more, that there were things going on that cannot be seen. Beyond that, what Carter believed wasn't clear. The writers probably were being careful not to be too preachy, but that was a major downside. It was never apparent exactly what Carter put his faith in- whether it was a higher power, God, or Buddha. The discussion was good, but lacked that specificity in what gave Carter the will to not become bitter, angry, depressed, etc. In any case, the discussion was good in pointing out the differing world views of the two friends as they faced death. Their worldviews were key in how they lived their lives- Edward as the high spender who trusted in his money, and Carter as the hard worker who “had faith.”

Coming this Nov. 9- "Lincoln"!

Here at Reeldemption, we're excited for "Lincoln"! This film will prove to be the quintessential type of film we review here on the blog. Check out the trailer and get pumped!

 

Get the word out!

We're really excited about the films that will be reviewed in the next 12 months! We hope you'll enjoy reading and discussing redemption themes in film on this blog. Keep up with our weekly posts by liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter, and subscribing to the RSS feed. We've made it easy to do so. At the top of the page are options for keeping connected to Reeldemption. So like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, +1 us on Google, and subscribe to our RSS feed!

Holy Trilogy, "Batman"!

Christopher Nolan’s eipic Batman trilogy resurrected the embarrassing franchise filmed in the 90’s (the ones not directed by Tim Burton). Nolan’s Batman is relatable, and the world he inhabits believable. This realistic approach is what made the films the masterpieces that they are. There is so much that could be discussed about the three films. The overarching theme, however, is the question of whether Gotham city is redeemable. Bruce Wayne/Batman is steadfast in his belief that redemption is possible. The League of Shadows is bent on Gotham’s destruction.

This dualism is explored in many ways. In “Batman Begins”, the League uses the mob and Dr. Jonathan Crane to release a psychotropic neurotoxin in the city. This sets up the Joker’s rise in the “Dark Knight”. Although not part of the League’s plan, the Joker’s goal was to show everyone how “crazy the city had become,” that he and Batman were just “ahead of the curve.” The mob that the League had empowered soon empowered the Joker to wreak havoc in Gotham. Near the end of the film, the mob is done and it’s the Joker’s town now. There’s no telling what the third film would have been like if the untimely death of Heath Ledger hadn’t happened. I like to think that it would have been a continuation of the “Dark Knight,” an epic showdown between the Joker and Batman. That character was amazing! Instead, in the “Dark Knight Rises,” Bruce is a disgraced wreck, both physically and emotionally 8 years later. The loss of Rachel, his unjust status as a criminal, and the physical tolls from fighting have almost crushed him. Bane enters the scene, and his goal is to finish the job- to crush Bruce completely.

Batman is attacked mercilessly, falling again and again in all three films. One comfort that he clings to is something his father said to him when he was a child.

“And why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up.”

And learn to pick himself up he does. His belief that Gotham is worth saving, that there’s hope, and that he stands in the way of total destruction motivates him to keep fighting.

He overcomes challenges differently in each film. In the first film, he has to face his fears. He has to become his fears so that he will be feared. In the second film, his identity is questioned. Is he really crazy, dressing up to fight crime? The Joker’s assertion that they both belong at Arkham is a provocative accusation. However, while the Joker’s goals are to create chaos to bring “order” to society, Batman’s goals are to bring order to society by fighting chaos. The Joker really is the antithesis of Batman in every way, and it’s interesting to see what this means as they duke it out through the film. The Joker is no physical match for Batman, and he knows it. He doesn’t even fight back when hit. He seems to welcome it, in fact. No, the Joker fights with his mind, with his intellect. And he almost wins. Contrast that to Bane in the “Dark Knight Rises.” He’s a physical match for Batman in every way- in fact he’s more than able to beat him in a fistfight. Now it’s Batman’s turn to fight with his intellect instead of his fists. In order to face Bane after being exiled in prison, Bruce must be afraid to succeed. His attempts to climb out and jump for the ledge are thwarted by the fact that he’s attached to a rope in case he falls. Fear of falling to his death without a rope is what he needs to succeed.

What motivates Bruce to fight in each film? It’s that he sees the potential Gotham has to be a society that works. The philanthropic ideals passed to him from his father help shape him into the hero Gotham needs, but doesn’t deserve. Sacrificing his life is worth it to him, as he knows he’s just a part of a bigger picture. What do you think? Is humanity redeemable? And what will bring about that redemption? Nolan’s Batman trilogy does a great job exploring this question, and does so with intelligence and style.

Reeldemption launch!

Check out Reeldemption, and anticipate our first film review this Monday! Spread the word!

Movies have the ability to say a lot about life, love, and why. This blog is devoted to the exploration of themes of redemption, personal development, and the way movies make us think.