It’s a Hard Knock Life for these “Freedom Writers”

Any film about the struggles of inner-city high school students belongs in a redemption-themed blog. The problems these kids face are mind blowing. Death, abuse, abandonment- it’s the world they live in. As someone who doesn’t relate to that world, “Freedom Writers” helped to close the gap for me. Based on a true story about newbie teacher Erin Gruwell, the film opens with her idealistic expectations of “helping kids succeed.” Her first few weeks on the job, however, show her that her job won’t be easy. Just as she’s about to give up, a racist drawing by one of her students gives her an idea. Teaching them about the Holocaust, the students start to understand the implications of their lifestyles. Her next step is to have them journal as an ungraded assignment. Erin starts to learn what life is like for these kids.

There are many examples of redemption in this film. Erin’s devotion to helping her students succeed is perhaps the biggest example. She gets two part time jobs to help pay for field trips. Her marriage suffers. She’s opposed at work. However, nothing stops her quest to fight for her students.

This is all very heartwarming when coming from a Hollywood film. If the film is really based on a true story, then Erin’s commitment to her job of helping her students succeed is nothing short of unbelievable. She sacrifices her personal life, loses her marriage, and risks her career for inner-city kids who hate her. The costs are high, but so are the stakes. It’s not like Erin wanted to lose her free time, husband, and acceptance by her teacher peers- she had a mission and she was true to what she knew she wanted to do. Her biggest loss, her husband, was heartbreaking to watch. Losing one’s spouse because of ambitions is a bitter pill to swallow, and the film did a good job of portraying it as the unfortunate loss that it was. Still, Erin continues on.

Not many would go so far.

There’s Only Two Kinds: “The Quick and the Dead”

The highly stylized “The Quick and the Dead”, directed by Sam Raimi, is not your typical Western. All the ingredients are there, but there’s a feeling that the film is just a little left off center. It’s this slightly quirky feeling that Raimi loves to play with in the film. The quick draws are fast, the bullets leave holes that sunlight squints through (yes, even through a poor slow gunman’s body), and the main character is mysterious. There are two main plots: one involving the mysterious appearance of the vengeful “Lady”, and the other involving the antagonistic relationship between the town’s evil leader Herod (played by the entertaining Gene Hackman) and his former gun Cort (played by a talented young Russell Crowe), who is now a reformed preacher.

The avenger “Lady” story arc is fairly predictable and understandable. It’s the Herod vs. Cort story that is the most interesting. As gunmen duel it out and the field is weeded of the slow shooters, Cort’s story is slowly revealed. Despite the challenges that Herod forces on him, Cort survives- and not by luck. It seems that Cort really has an exceptionally quick draw, a worthy match for Herod’s ability with the gun as well. Cort is a master of his former trade. He doesn’t have a gun, as he’s given up the life of an outlaw. No matter, Herod provides him one. The rusty, cockeyed piece of junk he’s given is a sure sign that Cort is done for. He refuses to use it. However, when the time comes and the clock strikes “high noon,” instinct takes over and he uses the inferior gun to win each duel.

The entire time, Herod throws all kinds of verbal abuse at Cort, attacking his character and gunmanship. Cort looks beat down, but after all is said and done he lives to fight another day. It’s really remarkable how he knows how to handle guns so well it doesn’t matter what he’s got in his hands- they are used to perfection. I won’t give away the end of the movie, but Cort is surprised when he finds redemption, a redemption he didn’t think he deserved or would get.

Riddick Sees the Light in “Pitch Black”- Spoiler!

It’s ironic that the beginning of “Pitch Black” starts with a spaceship marooned on a planet with 3 suns. Stuck in a place with a seemingly endless day, the survivors must figure out how to escape, and deal with hardened murderer Riddick. This might have made an interesting film all in itself, but when the suns do set, creatures emerge who are more bloodthirsty than our anti-hero who can see in the dark, and the dynamic changes. Suddenly, a man who has survived the harshest of conditions is pitted against the harshest of predators.

Riddick, motivated by the promise of freedom, does what he can to help the survivors escape the planet. Of course, he’s not without his agenda of getting rid of the bounty hunter Johns that had captured him and who was transporting him to “the slam.” After Johns is taken care of, Riddick heroically brings the few remaining survivors and fuel cells to the ship that was left by previous settlers. The ending scene of the film transforms Riddick’s life forever.

The pilot Fry has just gone back out into the dark to rescue Riddick after he has been fighting for his life. Bloodied, Riddick can hardly stand. Fry supports him and starts taking him back to the ship. She tells him that, “I said I’d die for them, not you.” Moments later she’s taken by one of the creatures. She dies to save Riddick, a man seemingly unworthy of such a sacrifice to everyone who’s ever met him as well as himself. His cries of, “Not for me!” are met by the pitch black of the cold, wet night. He understands the cost that was paid for his life, and it’s a cost he never asked for or expected. She didn’t have to go back for him. She could have left him there to die.

When they are safe in space, the child Jackie asks what they plan to say about him when they are found. Riddick replies with the most truthful answer that he can.

“Tell them Riddick’s dead. He died somewhere on that planet.”

Life’s a Mess in “Broken Flowers”- Spoiler!

If you’ve seen “Broken Flowers,” you may be surprised that it’s in a blog like this. “But nothing happens in the film!” you may complain.

That’s exactly the point.

Don Johnston, played to perfection by Bill Murray, is a life-long bachelor in search of the mother of a son he may have fathered. Reluctantly scouring America, he ends up home without answers (By the way, I’ve just given the movie away in two sentences.). The ex-girlfriends he meets are each quirky in their own way; each is a piece of his past one hopes would be in a mix of women loved and left by Don “Juan” Johnston. It’s a film that says much more than I can hope to understand and dissect. It ends as it begins- with nothing resolved.

We've come to expect in our films neat, tidy plots that start at the beginning and end with some sort of cathartic resolution. We want to see the main character save someone, fix wrongs, etc. Don tries. He really does, in his own plodding way. He even runs into a boy around “his” son’s age and tries to find out if he is in fact the son looking for him. The young man is understandably creeped out and high tails it before Don can get any sort of explanation. The spinning camera shot around Don is representative of the confused turmoil going on inside his head. Life is not always explained. Life isn’t a neat little movie with a beginning, middle, and end that has a rising plot and is resolved in the last five minutes. Life is messy, and this is a film about life.

However messy the film leaves us feeling, it’s a beautiful mess worth at least a little introspection. After all, what would you do if you couldn’t resolve a major life circumstance? Don wrestles with just that. The film isn't preachy about the answer, it doesn’t moralize anything for us. It simply asks.

Sometimes that’s the only thing we can do, to ask as the world spins on, with or without answers to those questions.

Heading “Into the Wild”

Sean Penn’s “Into the Wild”, based on the life of Christopher McCandless, is a film not to be missed. It tells the story of a successful young man (by American standards); an accomplished athlete and college graduate with money in the bank. Instead of living the life that so many in his position have lived, he leaves it all in search of something better. His search is a personal journey that takes him across America, and ultimately up to the Alaskan wilderness. His goal to simplify life, to get back to the basics is something those he meets in his wanderings don’t quite understand. Undeterred by their disbelief, he forges on.

I won’t give away the ending, even though you’ve probably heard it already. As he sits in an abandoned bus, he journals his thoughts on the meaning of his life; what is important to him. In his solitude from everyone he’s ever known, he comes to a profound conclusion. His journey was inward, an attempt to separate himself from others. Alone and hurting, he realizes that what he really needed all along was to be a part of community.

I wonder how many drifters have come to this conclusion. Alone on the road, I wonder how many of them realize that the times they were happiest was when they were with family or friends. Perhaps they’re drifting because they haven’t experienced healthy community, and are searching for something they know they want but not what. I wonder how many of us are on that search, trying to find that missing piece that we’re looking for.

He Has a Voice in “The King’s Speech”

One of the most powerful moments in “The King’s Speech” is when Geoffrey Rush’s Lionel Logue is sitting on the King’s Throne. Enraged, Colin Firth’s King George VI tells him he can’t sit there.

Lionel Logue: Why not? It's a chair.

King George VI: No, that. It is not a chair. T-that... that is Saint Edward's chair.

Lionel Logue: People have carved their names on it.

King George VI: [Simultaneously] That... chair... is the seat on which every king and queen has... That is the Stone of Scone you ah-are trivializing everything. You trivialize...

Lionel Logue: [Simultaneously] It's held in place by a large rock. I don't care about how many royal arseholes have sat in this chair.

King George VI: Listen to me. Listen to me!

Lionel Logue: Listen to you? By what right?

King George VI: By divine right if you must, I am your king.

Lionel Logue: No you're not, you told me so yourself. You didn't want it. Why should I waste my time listening?

King George VI: Because I have a right to be heard. I have a voice!

Until that point, King George does not want to be King George. He wants no part in leading England through World War II when he can’t say two words without stuttering. OK, one word. He has to address the nation on radio, to encourage the men fighting and dying to project the country. That’s a tall order for a man who struggles with a severe speech impediment. After asserting that he has a voice (and speaking clearly and authoritatively when saying so), King George is crowned and history is made as he flawlessly delivers an address to England. Although he struggles with speaking, he faces this challenge with a courage not often seen. When others would have given up, he persists. He doesn’t rise to the occasion alone, though, as his speaking coach and wife give him the support he needs.

This voice that he has is much more than just words that are spoken. There is a message behind the words, a voice that wants to communicate something important. For King George, this important something is to rally his country in a time of war. He desperately wants everyone to hear his voice, to hear the message that he is committed to the protection of England and to stop Hitler’s advancement. His severe speech impediment hinders him from using his voice, but his voice is there all along. King George’s problem is not that he doesn’t have a voice; his problem is that he struggles to physically speak his voice.

King George steps up to the plate in the film, and proves what Lionel Logue says about him:

Lionel Logue: You have such perseverance Bertie, you're the bravest man I know.

Were we all as brave and had as much perseverance as King George when it comes time to speak our voice.

Give 1 Up to “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”!

The cleverly inventive and visually stimulating “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” never lets up for a single minute. It’s the happy “(500) Days of Summer”, with throwback video game music as the film zips and zings its way to the epic battle at the end. It’s hard to know reality from fantasy, as the film blends the two together so well you don’t know what hit you OR Scott Pilgrim!

The film is way more than flashy, video game-centric action. Within the bleeps, pows, and bloops resides a story of love, loss, and the epic struggle to get to first base. Michael Cera stars in the film as, well, Michael Cera. You’ve seen him in Super Bad, Arrested Development, and Nick and Nora’s Horrible Movie. The film opens with Scott Pilgrim dating a high schooler he’s afraid to share any kind of physical intimacy with. (They held hands. Once.) He then meets Ramona, “the woman of his dreams.” That’s when the action kicks into high gear.

Scott must “battle” all of Ramona’s evil exes. It was brilliant! In order for him to win her heart, he has to prove that he’s not a jerk like her past exes (“Boyfriends?” asks Scott. Romana replies, “Exes”.) The interplay between the battleground of the heart and the hand to hand combat found in games like Mortal Kombat and Tekken was amazingly well done. It was well choreographed, inventive, and fun to watch!

Isn’t that the way it is a lot of the times? Guys have to fight into a woman’s heart, often taking a beating in the process. The “pows” and “bams” that flashed onscreen and the glowing weapons that were used exposed the battle that happens in our hearts as we fight in the realm of relationships, beautifully bridging the gap between what happens in our minds and the real world. Sometimes we’re down for the count, and sometimes we need a little “2 player” help. But remember, always use your “1 Up”!

Living in “Adventureland”

“Adventureland” was directed by the Superbad filmmaker, so it’s not a far cry to expect a super crass movie. Sure, the explicit pot use and sexual references were there, but the movie didn't focus on those aspects. Also, Bill Hader's character was hilarious, but completely underutilized. There should have been more of him being a goofball, and his appearance was rare if well acted and a treat.

The movie really wasn't about the wacky adventures of James Brennan as a carnie, although there were plenty of those moments. It was really a look at life post-college for those who cannot afford an Ivy League education and are "stuck" working a bad summer job in order to save up for school. The plot unfolded with lots of drama as Brennan made friends and enemies at Adventureland, the local “theme” park. In the film, he was a nice, clean cut guy who fell for Emily, played by Twilight star Kristen Stewert. You may keep thinking that you’ll see a vampire or werewolf materialize on screen at any point, but that happens when someone ties themselves with a major franchise like Twilight. Teeny bopper criticism aside, Kristen's character had issues and drove the main conflict of the film.

Lots of themes were dealt with, including grace, forgiveness, gossip, and the consequences of infidelity. It was a rather deeper movie than expected, so be relieved it’s not just another crass-fest (Although the movie did end up in the gutter from time to time.).

Without spoiling the unfolding of the story, Emily did something that really hurt Brennan. So, to deal with that he dated Lisa P., a cutie that all the male carnies drooled over. He also gossiped about Emily’s illicit behavior. This resulted in the whole "staff" knowing about Emily's dirty deed. Emily hurts Brennan, Brennan hurt Emily in return; relationship falls apart. Brennan, in his angst over losing the "girl of his dreams," drives under the influence of pot and some hard liquor he keeps in the front seat. Crashing into his neighbor's tree and taking out her nicely pedicured lawn makes him realize he's got some problems to work through. One strong critique of the movie is that the drug use was never penalized, and that the practice of drinking and driving were condoned. It would have been good to see some police involvement.

There were so many great moments that utilized some amazing truth telling. There was an awkward scene when Emily interrupts her parents entertaining some guests. She's grieving and becomes brutally honest with her parents. Initially, to deal with the uncomfortableness, the "adults" change the subject to how well the step-mom has decorated the place. It was classic! Another moment was when Brennan tells Emily in the pouring rain that he doesn't want to ignore issues between them. The character development that happened here showed an incredibly mature attitude, and well placed in the context of the plot.

The film can be crass at times, sure, but the main theme is about coming of age and learning life-long lessons. Characters aren’t idealized- they’re as human as you and I. This portrayal is critical in how film looks at the human experience, and this movie does a great job of showing growth and journey of a 20-something male in his own adventurland.

THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE: “AVATAR”!!!!

OK, Avatar is NOT the greatest movie ever made. However, it was amazing how the film kept selling out for weeks after it opened. EVERYONE went to see it. It was a historic time in cinema history for sure.

Avatar is much more than just a 2.5 hour special effects bonanza. Unlike any superhero movie that Hugh Jackman is involved with, there was real character development and a moving plot that involved more than one emotion. One criticism of the film is that the movie had no plot. Really? You probably know the plot (as this is the highest grossing movie of all time), but I’ll recap in case you forgot what the movie was all about because you were so focused on all the cool flying dragon-like creatures and scantily clad large blue people.

Paraplegic marine Jake comes to Pandora, a moon on a planet so far away it takes 4 or 5 odd years to get there. His twin brother, a PhD, is murdered, and Jake is the only one who can pilot his "Avatar," or body that is genetically made from humans and the "aliens" called Navis (although the humans in this case are the aliens). Long story short, Jake in his Avatar body befriends the Navis. This is a diplomatic mission with the goal that these indigenous people will leave their massive "Hometree" so that the humans can mine "Unobtanium" (Come on! What a lame name! Couldn't they have come up with something better?). This poorly named resource sells for a lot (“One million dollars!” pinky to mouth Dr. Evil style) of credits or whatever form of money they use in the future. Anyway, if a diplomatic solution cannot be reached within 3 months, the military moves in. At first, Jake is cool with this, but as he gets to be a part of the Navi culture, he has different thoughts. The movie progresses from there.

This movie covers current events like today's news. The Navi live in a land that has a "valuable" resource. In order to access this resource, a few paltry diplomatic efforts are made, but since those don't work the military calls the shots. The lack of understanding of the local culture leads to harmful policies. This causes the displacement of a people group because of the greed of a few fat cats who want to make a buck. The use of an army for a corporation's interests is clear in the film. The words "Shock and awe" show up at some point. However, unlike real life, the native people remove the army by the end and all was well. We're still waiting on Earth for that part of the story. There was real loss, however, as Navi leaders, friends, and the "Hometree" were lost forever.
 

Isn't it great how the good guys always win in Hollywood?

Why “Spiderman 3” is a Great Film

Critically, “Spiderman 3” was fairly well received. However, the masses have shunned the movie as the worst of the three. However, this is an extremely strong movie, and that if one were to take a closer look at the film, they would find it applies most to the human condition than the other two Spidey films.

This third installment is the darkest of the three. When the alien goo infects Peter Parker, his dark tendencies come out. This was explored well as the dark Spiderman fought crime in a way that the real Spiderman would not. The dark Spiderman is cruel, takes pleasure in causing pain to others, and revels in revenge. The real Spiderman is concerned for the welfare of even those he brings to justice. The filmmakers had to find a way to lighten the mood of the film, because Parker becomes evil for part of the story. Hence Peter’s ridiculous behavior as he finds "self confidence" in his new identity. Isn't this corniness the way we act when we are full of ourselves? Don’t we act the same way at times when we think we are better than others? The humor and awkwardness of Parker as he struts his stuff is a mirror of how we can act at times. This may have hit a bit close to home for some, and criticism of the film arises because of this. The inner battle between the good Spiderman and the evil dark Spiderman was well done in the film and well portrayed by Toby Maguire.

Later in the film, Venom is obviously portrayed as the antithesis of Spiderman. This is who Spiderman could have become if he had continued down the path of selfishness and power that the alien goo had imposed on Parker. He is the darkest bad guy in the Spiderman story, and for good reason. He has the same powers that Spiderman does, but uses them for evil. Not only does Spiderman have to fight himself early in the film, now he has to fight his evil doppelganger at the end. Not only that, but he has to fight his best friend Harry as the new Goblin (as well as the Sand Man. Where did this guy come from, and why is he in the film?). The complexities that he has to deal with had to have some sort of comical relief at times, or we wouldn't have had a sense of hope and identify with the struggles that our hero must face. We can all identify with Parker's struggle that was in the film.

Two Fist Bumps for “Megamind”!

Smart, satirical, and slapstick, “Megamind” has a deeper message than one would think in an animated film starring Will Ferrell. The interplay between Megamind and Metroman in Metrocity (rhymes with “atrocity” according to our titular character) is explored with more heart and soul than in any film since “The Incredibles”. Each character’s history is explored, and we see that it’s the setting in which they are nurtured that determines their lives. Megamind’s landing in a prison as a child ensures that he grows up to be the villain, while Metroman’s landing in prosperity results in him being the good guy.

A predictable plot twist might have been for the roles to be switched, for Metroman to somehow become the villain and Megamind the hero. Metroman, however, does not make a polar opposite transition, but rather is finally defeated by Megamind. This genius move by the scriptwriters allows Megamind to get what he’s always wanted- dominion over Metrocity. The cliché “be careful what you wish for, you just might get it” becomes Megamind’s reality and he longs for purpose once again. Enter the real antagonist of the story, Titan. Longing to get the girl of his dreams, his entrance into the superhero realm by way of Megamind’s invention, causes him to ultimately use his powers for his own selfish ends. If he can’t get what he wants, he’s going to make Metrocity pay! It’s up to Megamind to make things right, for the first time fighting as the good guy.

Much can be extrapolated about us and what goes into our identity. Our reaction to how we are treated by others, the choices we make, and the environment that influences us all contribute to whether we are the good guy, the bad guy, or someone in between. Not all of us start out life as a Superman-esque person, morally upright in all that we do. There are those of us who grow from being some sort of bad guy to some sort of good guy. Of course Hollywood films will dichotomize these roles for mass audience consumption, but if we look closely enough at ourselves there’s a Megamind in all of us; someone who has hurts and rejection from the past but who also struggles to make right choices in a world that needs more heroes than villains.

I’m sure that Megamind would agree.

Uh oh! Here comes “Hancock”!

Hancock (played by Will Smith) isn’t your average superhero. He doesn’t care. Really, he doesn’t. He’s Superman without the perfect conscience, and it’s about time a movie was made about an imperfect superhero. No one is as squeaky clean as Superman is with his flashing smile and impeccable morals. Sure, we’d all like to be as nice as Superman is, but sometimes we wake up on the wrong side of the bed and we’re not the superstars we wish we were all the time. Hancock never wakes up on the right side of the bed, and he’s not going to take crap from anyone.

His superpowers have given him god-like powers. He is unbreakable, and he uses this with abandon. A path of destruction follows him wherever he goes, and people are not happy with him. Whenever he takes off, whatever is beneath him crumbles from the force of his liftoff. When he lands, it’s like a golf playing giant put a divot in the asphalt. He throws whales in the ocean, sinking yachts. Lawsuits against him are piling up. These are the real consequences of unchecked physical power, and something had to be done.

If you were indestructible with super strength and could fly, you too wouldn’t travel like a super ballerina within a major city, deftly missing huge obstacles like buildings and cars. One distraction and CRASH!, you’d fly right through a window. One thing this film does really well is to show that being a superhero would be tougher than you think, and that personal feelings and agendas would make for a selfish super-being who wouldn't just save people out of the goodness of their heart. Sure, the damsel in distress may be easy to spot, or the guy stuck on the train tracks about to get t-boned by a freight train a no brainer, but as an example, police often must make judgment calls based on assumptions that may or may not be correct. Can you imagine that on a much larger scale, a superhero flying into a sticky situation without knowing exactly what was going on or the difference between the good and bad guys? This is why there’s a collegiate study called “Criminal Justice,” and it’s taken by those in law enforcement. There are right ways to deal with criminal activities, and it’s not always easy to tell right from wrong in an unfolding situation. It’s also not easy to keep infrastructure intact when someone is indestructible and super strong.

“Hancock” tells the story of what it might look like for a superhero in the real world. It ain’t pretty, but it is entertaining!

A Helluva Good Time With “Hellboy”

Based on (at the time) a little known comic book, “Hellboy” was thrust to the public consciousness in 2004 by Guillermo del Toro’s film adaption. Starring Ron Perlman (a perfect fit) as Hellboy, the story is original, provocative, and visually stunning. Del Toro has an amazing ability to bring amazingly wacky and visually creative worlds to life. This film is no exception. You’d think that this sort of film would be full of cheesy lines as well as special effects-driven, but no. There are certainly a lot of digital effects used, but the script is well written- witty, tongue in cheek, and tells a very entertaining story with unique characters.

The film starts with the infant Hellboy as he’s summoned from Hell near the end of World War II by the Nazis in their attempt to win the war. The Allies break up the demon conjuring party, and little Hellboy is rescued. Raised by Professor Trevor "Broom" Bruttenholm, little Hellboy is taught to protect humanity. That’s right; a demon from Hell is the main good guy. Brilliant. He’s joined in adulthood by Liz Sherman (who can burst into blue flames at will) and Blue, a fish-like man creature (or is that a man-like fish creature?).

Throughout the film, Hellboy struggles with his identity. He’s a demon, and generally they’re bad guys. However, he doesn’t feel like he’s a bad guy. He feels like a good guy. In rebellion to that which he’s “supposed to be,” he shaves his horns with a power tool reminiscent of men shaving their beards with a razor. However, when civilians see him, they (pun intended) demonize him. The very people he’s protecting hate him. A little resentful of this, he’s nonetheless committed to the cause of helping rid the world of supernatural bad guys. It helps that he’s is fairly invincible, and can take a beating as well as dish one out.

The real character defining moment comes near the end of the film. Hellboy is faced with a choice- embrace his demon side to release some very bad dudes who will start Armageddon in order to save Liz, the woman he loves. If he doesn’t do this, she dies. Reluctantly, he uses his powers as a demon to begin to free an evil he can’t fight. His horns grow back immediately, as if taunting him about his identity. It was inescapable all along- Hellboy was meant for evil.

Or was he?

Hellboy realizes that he has a choice, and that he’s been given an identity from his adoptive father Professor Broom, not from his heritage as a demon. Ripping off his horns, he rejects the false identity cast for him and kills the one who enticed him to be what he knew he wasn’t. From this death comes a greater adversary, which Hellboy dispatches in an epic final battle. Hellboy has proven to himself who he is, that his identity is in being a good guy. Now, no one can take that away from him. He’s free to be himself. He knows who he is because he’s been tested, and that testing changed him to the core.

This battle is not only in the movies, but we are faced with these choices every day. Who are we? Are we defined by our past? Are we defined by what others think of us? Are we defined by what we think of ourselves? Or are we defined by an adoptive father who longs for us to fight the good fight?

We all have a choice.

“Watchmen” Kill with High Tech Special Effects

“Watchmen” looked like a visual treat of a movie. And it was. Everything from the blue glowing Dr. Manhattan, the details of the flying hero ship, to Rorschach's "Rorschach" changing face were amazingly done. It must have taken an army of animators many many many hours to design and render the movie. Graphically, it is a beautiful film.

It was also quite graphic in other ways. Like most graphic comics made into movies, it pulled no punches. The violence was bloody, the characters unforgiving in spilling that blood. The good guys were bad, and the bad guys were badder. It was an interesting look at human nature, and the desire for justice without mercy. It's this justice without mercy that has become the norm in Hollywood produced movies. The evil characters get punished for their evil deeds. As Americans, we all like to see that happen. However, that's not always the way real life is, and that is not what we want for ourselves. I would rather receive forgiveness and mercy for things that I have done wrong, not true justice as is often portrayed in films like Watchmen. Where is the line between justice and mercy? And does mercy lead to a changed heart, or does justice in whatever form it takes the way to real soul changing transformation?

This theme is especially true with Rorschach's character. He is relentless in his pursuit of justice. His cause is just; he wants to save the slaughter of innocents, protect children, etc. By the time he gets older, he's very jaded, but still with the same ideals. His retribution philosophy is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life. So, does justice dictate that he lose his life? Or should he be shown forgiveness for the wrongs that he has committed, even if those wrongs were motivated by the desire to protect others?

What this movie says about American culture, the role of the superhero, and redemption could be a thesis for an English PhD candidate to defend. The movie takes place in an alternate reality, where J. Edgar Hoover reigns and Vietnam is won with the help of the "Watchmen." It's an alternate reality where things have gone differently, with dire consequences because the stakes are so much higher. Nuclear war with the Soviet Union is imminent, and there's a rush to develop a device that will protect America from attack. All of the superheroes are in hiding, as the government has put a stop their vigilantism. Each “hero” has varying degrees of good and bad, with some leaning toward virtue and some leaning the other way. The Night Owl represents the good, virtuous superhero, one who has ethics and wants to help people. The Comedian is the polar opposite, and uses his hero status for his own glorification. He goes as far as to kill innocent people, if they inconvenience him too much. He thinks he’s above morals and laws. His character was harshly selfish, although none of the heroes were perfect. This is no Superman story.

Is this what happens when power goes unchecked? Did they, like our financial system, fail due to a lack of regulation? Does human nature bend toward depravity if there is no one “watching the Watchmen?” Thoughts to ponder.

. . . yet, here you are, “Rango”

I’ll be honest. When I saw the trailer for “Rango”, I thought it was some dumb kids movie. When I did watch it (not at my prompting) I was blown away. It really is a significant film, and I’m not sure kids would really get the message that is so cleverly communicated. Sure, there’s some well placed slapstick comedy, but the film is really about a search for identity.

The film starts out with pet chameleon Rango living in his glass aquarium. His uneventful life has inspired him to be an actor, director, and set designer who produces plays for himself. His first self revelation is that his “character” in his play is “undefined.” And how does Rango come to define himself? It’s through his next self revelation- unexpected conflict. Just as he speaks these prophetic words, his whole world is turned upside down, literally. Now stuck in the middle of the road in the desert far away from the comforts he once knew, he’s faced with a choice. Lie down and die, or go in search of who he is in his own story. He soon meets an old, wise armadillo, and his only thought is to get back home.

“I don’t belong here,” Rango complains.

“And yet, here you are,” is the reply he gets.

It’s this answer that moves Rango forward in his story. Through a series of adventures, he ends up in the town of Dirt. There’s a problem- drought has caused much hardship for everyone. Bad guys show up. Up until that point, he’s been acting, telling everyone that he’s the hero they’re looking for. When faced with the reality of the problems he’s told everyone he will solve, he starts to have some serious self doubt. However, instead of disengaging and running away, he faces everything that’s thrown at him the best he can. And he’s not exactly Bruce Willis in Die Hard. He makes mistakes, makes a fool of himself multiple times, and gets the town in deeper trouble. Shamed, he runs back to where he started, on the road. Finding the “Spirit of the West”, he confesses that he’s a phony hero, and actor who isn’t the kind of chameleon that saves others. The answer that he’s given is to be the hero he wants to be, and that it’s impossible for him to step out of his own story.

Emboldened, Rango goes back to save the town of Dirt in a final showdown of epic proportions. If Rango had given up, if he had disengaged from the problems he was confronted with and wanted to solve he might have been OK. But his friends would have been done for. It’s his desire to help others that was his story. As the “Spirit of the West” said, it’s not all about Rango. There’s a bigger story he’s a part of. His story is just a piece of the whole.

What is your story? How can you step beyond yourself and help those who are in need of a hero? Because whether you think you are a hero or not, you have the capacity to be, just like Rango.

I Am "The Great Gatsby"!

I havent' read "The Great Gatsby" since I was in high school, which was half of my life ago. I hated the book at the time, and quickly forgot what it was about. After seeing Baz Luhrmann's film adaption, I'm sure I'd love the book now as an adult.

The film perfectly portrays a love triangle between the protagonist Jay Gatsby, Daisy, and Tom Buchanan. Gatsby, who had been raised in poverty, meets Daisy, a rich young woman, while in the military. They fall in love, and Gatsby promises he'll come back to her after his military service is done and when he builds wealth. Five years later, Daisy is married to the abusive Tom Buchanan, who has a mistress in New York City. Gatsby has become very rich, and throws extravagant parties hoping that Daisy will show up at one. Enter Nick Carraway, Gatsby's neighbor and cousin of Daisy. Long story short, Gatsby and Daisy reunite behind her husband's back.

Gatsby is in love with Daisy, and she professes love for him as well. However, she's unwilling to leave Tom. In a brilliant scene near the end of the film, Tom lambasts Gatsby as a new money loser who Daisy will never be happy with. Tom leaves, confident that Daisy is still his.

At the end of the film, Gatsby is wrongly accused of killing Tom's mistress. He knows the truth, yet keeps it to himself because it would condemn Daisy. Gatsby waits at his mansion for Daisy to call, hopefull that she will leave Tom for him.

In a narrative section of the film, Nick describes Gatsby as the most eternally hopeful person he has ever met. Even in the face of all the facts to the contrary, Gatsby has hope that he and Daisy will be together. Some might say he is delusional. Some might say he is obssessive. Shouldn't he just move on? She's married now, and has shown by her actions, if not her words, that she won't go back to Gatsby. Gatsby should just sweep up the broken pieces of his heart and forget about this past love.

Not Gatsby.

And not me.

We both hold on, beyond reason, to eternal hope. We'd rather live with hope than hopelessness. We put it all on the line, doing what we can to win back what we have lost.

And we do so knowing that we most likely won't get what we are seeking.

Betrayal in “Braveheart”

We all want to be like William Wallace. The dashing hero, Wallace fights against injustice. He is the ultimate good guy, strong and sensitive. Robert the Bruce, however, is a different guy. A promising leader, he is a possible heir to the Scottish throne if Scotland gains independence from England. His political maneuvering gets him in trouble, as he chooses to betray Wallace in hopes to gain the throne by politically appeasing King Edward I, who is king of England and fighting to keep control of Scotland. Not the good guy or bad guy, Bruce is somewhere in between.

The dichotomy of these two characters is interesting. Wallace makes perfect ethical decisions; he’s someone we can root for easily. Bruce is someone we wish would have stuck his commitment to Wallace and not betrayed him. It’s easy to moralize Bruce’s actions, to look down on him. Truly, what he did was reprehensible. However, there’s a part of Bruce in all of us. The part that says to compromise in the face of adversity, that it’s better to high tail it out of a sticky situation to fight another day instead of standing firm for our convictions. These decisions can result in negatively affecting those around us, as it does in the film in the case of Wallace’s capture and subsequent grisly execution. We wish we were Wallace all the time, but there are times that we are Bruce.

Bruce does redeem himself. In the film, he ends up leading battles that overthrew English rule. He takes his mistake and learns his lesson- that he will never again betray those who fight for the independence of Scotland. It was a costly lesson, a lesson that almost cost Scotland its freedom, but it’s a good thing that Bruce comes around in the end. The film is highly historically inaccurate as Bruce never betrayed Wallace in real life, but the themes of betrayal and redemption in the film are worth examination.

“Jumper”- The movie it Could Have Been

“Jumper” seemed like a special effects driven story with little plot other than good guy vs. bad guy with a good looking couple having sex at some point in the movie. The film seemed to limit itself in the scope of the message it portrayed. The main character, David, has the ability to jump anywhere in the world he wants to, as long as he knows the exact spot. Others have this innate ability, and some "secret" corporation or bad guy organization or whatever hunts down and kills those with the ability to "jump." It’s pretty general sci fi plot stuff here. David uses his power for selfishness, stealing money from banks (but leaving "I Owe You" notes) to pay for his extravagant lifestyle. He has a flat in London, goes to the pyramids of Egypt, etc. He meets another jumper and is pursued by Samuel L. Jackson, with a love interest caught in the middle. There’s nothing groundbreaking here.

Our protagonist learns the error of his ways, for sure, and the movie seems to be a character introduction and setup for the sequel. Let’s hope so. The sequel could be so much better, because one element that seems to be missing that was actually toyed with during the film. At one point, David watches a news report of a major natural disaster wreaking havoc in some third world country. The movie could have made a turn at this point, with David "jumping" in to save lives. Instead, he goes off and continues his adventure by having a huge CG battle with Jackson with the help of his jumper friend. Why can’t David use his powers to help those in dire straits? That would have made a much more interesting movie.

However, it’s revealed that David’s mother is also a jumper hunter. This complicates things a bit, and makes the emotional center of the film stronger. What will happen in Jumper 2? Will it be Mother vs. Son in an epic battle? Will the League of Jumper Hunters be thwarted by a mother’s love? Will David become a hero, saving those in dire straits instead of living a self-indulgent lifestyle?

Let’s hope!

“Kick-Ass” Kicks . . . Well, You Know

Say what you will about an 11 year old girl viciously killing mobsters with all sorts of knives, guns, and martial arts skills, “Kick-Ass” explores a question most of us ask when we’re kids:

“Can I be a superhero?” Or perhaps a better question we ask is, “How can I be a superhero?”

Some of us even went as far as to go out in some sort of masked costume to fight crime (I’m not the only one, right?). Some of us didn’t go past our own neighborhood, but the desire was there for greatness; to fight evil in order to protect the innocent. Dave Lizewski’s (played by Arron Johnson) efforts to fight crime got him into the kind of trouble that is both heart-wrenching and cautionary. If we had actually confronted carjackers like Dave did in the film, we too would have been stabbed. That’s a scary thought.

Of course, being a Hollywood film, that’s just the beginning. Most of us, after being discharged from the hospital, would never take to the streets again in our embarrassing superhero costume (Complete with a too small cape we grew out of from that Halloween costume our moms made us a few years before. Again, who’s with me? I’m not the only one, right?). Facing a real bad guy with a gun, knife, and/or real street fighting skills would be so intimidating we’d pee our pants. However, Dave mans up and tries yet again, and in the process meets some “real superheroes” he learns some chops from. The film goes on from there, and you can either love or hate the cartoonish, grisly violence dished out by “Hit-Girl” and “Big Daddy.” That’s not the point of this post.

For those of us who at least dreamed of fighting bad guys as a vigilante crime fighter, “Kick-Ass” delivers the truth of what would have happened: we would have gotten our asses kicked. Let’s be glad our friend’s dad saw us in our ridiculous costume and we were so mortified we hung up our cape and mask for good. Otherwise, we might have ended up hurt, maimed, or dead (I’m pretty sure this is a common experience for many of us, right?).

Thanks, ‘Kick-Ass.” And thanks, friend’s dad. You are superheroes because you saved us from a world of hurt.

Get the !@#$ Off His Lawn, and Don’t Steal His “Gran Torino”

Walt Kowalski would rather call you names than hug you. That’s the kind of grandpa he is. His rough language, filled with as many racial slurs as possible, is so abrasive that can make one cringe at first. But after awhile, after the slurs keep coming and coming, the realization hits that this man doesn’t mean what he says because he doesn’t know what he’s saying. He’s just an angry old man who becomes so bitter that all the ammunition he has are words. That is, until he pulls his gun out. Then you know that he’s willing to walk his talk. That’s when those “rotten punks” start running!

Supposedly, Walt loves his Gran Torino. He even protects it when the neighbor kid tries to steal it. However, by the end of the film, the Gran Torino is no longer even part of the story, other than a gift to that same neighbor kid. What Walt does love is fighting injustice. He did it in the war, and he does it on his front porch, one mean old man stare, grimace, and collection of insults at a time. Beneath his rough exterior is, well, a slightly less rough exterior that likes to eat good food and tell the kids how to behave (off his lawn, of course).

“Gran Torino” doesn’t fall into the Hollywood trap of a bitter old man becoming soft hearted. Walt at the end is still as old-man crotchety as he is in the first frame. He just directs his old-man-ness at the gangsters instead of the neighbors. He’s the last of a dying breed, and he’s not going down without a fight. If only we all were as confident, honest, and good as Walt (if not so colorful in our speech)!

It’s easy to tell where the story is heading by the last fourth of the film. Walt must make a tough decision for his newfound Hmong friends. How will he protect them? How can he heal the hurt that has been done to his neighbors? How can he bust those punk gangsters real good one last time?

It’s a good thing Walt figures it out.

Enroll in the “School of Rock”!

The touching “School of Rock”, directed by Richard Linklater (Of Before Sunrise and Before Sunsut fame) is all about the kids. Jack Black, who plays Dewey Finn, does a great job hamming it up, as well as helping 5th graders realize that life isn’t all about getting the right answers and being perfect. You can imagine what a prep school would do to a child- drilling into a young person’s head that they need to be a high achieving performer at all times and never to screw up. Black takes this philosophy and says, “Hold on, dude. You’re great the way you are!”

This message is much needed today. We all get a bit uptight when it comes to our responsibilities. Dewey reminds us to chill out, that it’s OK to have a little fun and rock out. Of course, he doesn’t play by the rules most of the time, but then the film wouldn’t be interesting if he did, would it? And who wants to listen to someone who doesn’t practice what he preaches? When it comes to creativity, Dewey has no problem preaching that it’s OK to dance to the beat of your own drum, or to the licks of your own guitar. Whatever you play, Dewey would say, play it loud and proud. Stick it to the man.

Although the kids don’t “stick it to the man,” they do get a lesson in being themselves in the face of the high demands placed on them. They get to have fun and be kids with Dewey in class. It’s sort of a “Freedom Writers” experience for them- they have a freedom to express themselves that they don’t have in other areas of their lives.

The film keeps the issues appropriate to what an elementary school kid would deal with. An especially touching moment is when a child confesses that she struggles with an image issue. Here’s Dewey’s counsel:

Dewey: You have an issue with weight? You know who else has a weight issue? Me! But I get up there on the stage and start to sing, and people worship me!

Brilliant! Dewey is preaching to the choir here, and the choir is listening. He’s speaking from the heart, because he’s speaking from personal experience, all to help a kid feel better about herself. In another example, other students in the film didn’t have the musical talents needed in the band. That’s OK, Dewey says. Everyone has a job! He then assigns creative jobs for each student. Each has their role, their contribution to the whole. If we all had teachers like Dewey, we’d all be rock stars in life!

Thanks Jack Black for being yourself while inspiring kids to be their best!

What’s in Your Backpack When Life’s “Up in the Air”?

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) has an empty backpack at the beginning of “Up in the Air”. His job as a professional “downsizer” allows him to live according to his philosophy of living this way- always travelling and never developing close relationships. He believes this philosophy so much that he gives “motivational talks” from time to time about the value of emptying the backpack of your life- your things and people. It’s people who weigh Bingham down and keep him from moving. Moving is life he says, and he’s the most alive person he knows. He says all this with a knowing smirk.

It wouldn’t be a movie (a good one anyway) if our hero didn’t change in some way. Enter Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga). She’s just like him, except with different plumbing. An air warrior like himself, they meet at an exclusive airport lounge and plan their get-togethers according to their flight itineraries. She’s not in his backpack, but he gets all the advantages as if she were. Perfect, right? As Ryan deals with changes at work and with his sister getting married, his heart starts to warm to the idea of putting Alex in his backpack. They’re so similar. They get along so well. They grow close, and he invites her to his sister’s wedding.

At a big motivational speech that he’s making near the end of the film, he pauses as he’s giving his initial address. He realizes that he doesn’t want an empty backpack anymore. He wants Alex in there, and he wants to be in hers. Leaving mid-speech, he rushes to fly to her house. I won’t give away the ending, but what he learns is a powerful lesson in the desire for relationship. He learns that people don’t weigh him down. He learns that what he wanted before isn’t what he wants now. Ryan is like us, trying to figure out life when it’s all up in the air. At the end of the film, he stares at an airport board with hundreds of flights listed. Where will he go? Who will be in his backpack?

Where will you go? Who’s in your backpack?

Don’t Give Up For a “The Shawshank Redemption”

A touching story, “The Shawshank Redemption” is known as the movie that redeemed prison films. A new take on incarcerated life, it doesn’t contain the violent prison riots so commonplace in films in its genre. There is violence and subjugation, but mostly it depicts inmates as those who are just trying to live out their monotonous life that exists behind bars. Andy (played by Tim Robbins) is innocent, as we find out in the beginning. His steadfast belief that someday he’ll be free keeps his hopes alive. His friend and narrator of the film Red (played by the brilliant Morgan Freeman) tells him that hope is dangerous. Andy doesn’t care. Red has been in the system so long, his world has shrunk to the drab grey concrete walls of the prison. Life for Red is about keeping his head down, buying friendships with knickknacks he can get from “the outside” and a resignation that he will die incarcerated. In fact, the prison to him has become home, and he can’t imagine life any other way.

Andy has a different view. Sure, he’s a newcomer, but he ends up spending almost 20 years behind bars. The entire time, though, his goal is to get out somehow. He comes up with a plan that eventually results in his freedom. I can’t imagine hanging on to a dream for 20 years. The waiting, the anticipation, and the trials experienced during that time would take a huge toll on me for sure. During the waiting, however, Andy doesn’t isolate himself as he waits for his “real” life to begin. He revitalizes the library. He helps the prison staff with their taxes. He builds friendships, the most important friendship being with Red. He helps out as best he can where he’s at.

Many of us struggle with this. If only we had a better job, were a little older (or maybe a little younger), if we could just save up enough money, if we could only improve ourselves somehow. Life will start then. The grass will be greener next year, we tell ourselves. We’ve gotten used to life the way it is, and have resigned ourselves in a self-incarceration of defeat. Andy proves us wrong. Life is now, and we’re missing life if we think better days are to come.

“One Last Thing” . . . Or Is It?

“One Last Thing” is about a terminally ill teenager, Dylan, who goes on TV with the "United Wish Givers" foundation and tells everyone he wants to spend the weekend with his favorite supermodel Nikki Sinclair. This controversial goal is met with skepticism from everyone, but he is steadfast in his determination. Nikki, on the other hand, has a bad rep and needs to revamp her image. She decides to visit Dylan at home, gets a photo op, and bails as quickly as possible back to New York. Bummed, Dylan however renews his quest to pursue her.

As this plot progresses, a second plot that explores Dylan's relationship with his father, Earl, develops. Earl had been terminally ill as well and had already passed away. All Dylan wants is to go fishing with his father, something that will never happen again. The only connection to his father is a few video tapes that Earl left him, having these sort of father/son chats. In one video, Earl tells Dylan that he's in the afterlife, waiting for him (But take your time on Earth, son.).

Dylan vehemently denies the existence of an afterlife. This is introduced by an unfortunate scene with a bible thumper in the hallway of his high school. This is a frustrating scene, because it portrayed Christians as rude thugs that judge others harshly. The language used by this "Christian" was clichéd, and it may be that the writer of the film had a bad experience with some unfortunately pushy Christian at some point in the past. It’s an unfortunate bias that harshly criticizes rather than explores the issues of the Christian faith.

All that aside, Dylan's quest for Nikki leads him to New York. While there, he starts seeing his dad everywhere he goes. He then meets up with some Krishna guy who affirms the existence of an afterlife. Still skeptical, Dylan nonetheless starts to soften his heart toward this possibility. This questioning is crucial, as it sets up Dylan’s experience after death. He longs to be with his father so much. Will he be with his dad in the afterlife?

The ideal Hollywood ending was a bit mushy. Do we always get what we want, even after death? And what if what we want is really lame compared to what the afterlife is really like? The ending may please audiences, but it’s a sugar coated fairy tale that sidesteps the bigger questions of what’s waiting on the other side. Will we be transported to an Earth 2.0, complete with fishing trips with our dads forever? Or is something much grander and beyond our imagining waiting for us?

“One Last Thing” certainly has heart, but not much soul.

I never thought that this film would be made. I actually really loved that "Before Sunset" had an open ending. But this looks like a perfect follow up film. There are no words that explain my excitement for this film!

 

Rant

"Pitch Black"? Phenomenal film.

"Chronicles of Riddick"? Big letdown.

"Riddick"? Wait . . . what? "Riddick"? RIDDICK??? A lame version of "Pitch Black" with terrible computer animation? Hollywood must be stopped. Way to go, Tinseltown- you took an original idea and totally took a giant crap all over it.

And that's putting it nicely.

“Terminator Salvation”?

The fourth installment in the Terminator series wasn't marketed very heavily. Which is a shame, as this PG-13 version had excellent writing (the opposite of the Transformers sequel, which was pretty to look at but lacked a coherent script), and the Terminator exoskeletons running amok looked "real," as the CG animation looked much better than 1984's stop motion effects. Also, Christian Bale was a great casting choice. He plays a great tough guy, and is a welcome addition to the franchise. He did, however, use his Batman voice at one point. You do what works, I guess!

As just mentioned above, the film was rated PG-13. This is a departure from Terminators 1-3, which were all rated R for language, nudity, and violence. Apparently, when the human race is reduced to scattered survivors, there's less cursing and everyone keeps their clothes on. The film was surprisingly action packed while lacking the unnecessary F-bombs. The writing was strong, and the plot moved along at the right pace, the movie running under 2 hours. Some moments were pretty unbelievable, but they looked great!

This film is a great example of a movie using special effects to aid storytelling. The CG was good, but wasn't the main attraction. There were a few cheesy lines (“I'll be back”), but I think those were thrown in for fans, and were understated. John Conner, the prophesied leader of the resistance, must decide how to lead those under his command. Listening to tapes his mother left him, he must make the right decisions in order beat Skynet. The arrival of Wright throws a monkey wrench into the mix, and Conner must decide whether he's trustworthy.

The "Salvation" in the title was aptly placed. In the beginning, Marcus Wright, a murderer on death row, donates his body to science. Waking up in 2018, he now has a chance to redeem himself as he joins the fight for the survival of the human race. However, he’s hiding a secret that could jeopardize the resistance. Will Marcus help or destroy the human race? That is a big question that John Connor has to deal with. Marcus’ involvement throughout the unfolding of the plot has the potential to ensure the survival of the human race, and salvation is found in the sacrifice he makes at the end of the film. I won’t give away the ending. You’ll have to see it for yourself.

The film, thankfully, does not tie up the franchise, leaving room for a sequel. If more films like “Terminator Salvation” are made- tight writing, good acting, and smart special effects, they may do well in the box office. However, Terminator’s cult following may undermine box office potential, as fans may be disappointed with the vision that these newer films are made. We’ll have to see what happens with Terminator 5.

“The Kingdom” is Coming- Spoiler!

You may be surprised at the message in “The Kingdom”. It’s not your average war film. The film opens with a brief history of Saudia Arabia and why America is so heavily militarily involved in that part of the world (hint, it has to do with black gold). Then the real action starts. A compound owned by a contract oil company is attacked by terrorists, which kills some American brass. An FBI team is sent in, led by Jamie Foxx. Before leaving, Foxx whispers something into Jennifer Garner's ear, to be revealed at the end of the film.

Foxx, et al, go to Arabia, deal with too much bureaucracy, and eventually get their man in the end. It’s all very Hollywood, with fantastic battle scenes and much bloodshed. As the grandfather Al Qaeda member lies dying at the end of the film, he whispers something in his grandson's ears, to be revealed at the end of the film (See a pattern here?).

What both characters, the American military man and the Al Qaida operative, said were one and the same. Can you guess what they said?

"Don't worry. We'll kill them all."

The message in the film can be boiled down to this: somewhere down the line someone on one side did something to someone on the other side and now everyone has to get revenge because each side kills someone on the other side in retaliation. Also, the Middle East has something that's "important to the American people," so now the American military and some major corporations have a very heavy presence there. It's a sick cycle.

This was a very strongly anti-war film. It’s easy to miss as realistic combat action scenes dazzle the audience. However, the message is clear: both sides will stop at nothing to kill the other side. Everyone wants their revenge. The issue is complex for sure, but the main question is this: what’s worth killing for?

Maybe more importantly, what’s worth dying for?

Beauty Attacked in “Slumdog Millionaire”

Danny Boyle, teaming up with Indian director Loveleen Tandan, directed the hit Slumdog Millionaire. A great film, it’s about Jamal, a “slumdog” who grew up in the slums of Mumbai. Telling the story of his rise from poverty to winning 20 million rupees on the Indian version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?”, he mysteriously knows all the answers to all the increasingly difficult questions. He’s interrogated (tortured) after the first day of filming and reveals the events of his life that gave him the knowledge that he possesses. Most of his story involved surviving on the streets with his brother Salim, as well as Latika, the woman of his dreams.

This woman grows up to be beautiful Freida Pinto. She’s been stuck in forced prostitution since she was a child, and Jamal is determined to save her from this kind of life. The portrayal of those in poverty in India was heartbreaking, and the way women treated was horrendous. This leads to these questions: Why is beauty attacked (This theme was very strong in the film, as at one point Latika gets scarred by a knife to her face.)? Why is her innocence taken away at an early age? Why do men think they can use and abuse her? The film is unflinching in its portrayal of life on the streets in India, and Jamal is the man who must fight against it all.

Jamal represents those who want to free those in bondage, and his brother Salim represents those who are willing to compromise for survival- money, power, and becoming a part by the powerful gangs that take advantage of street youth. Latika is caught in the middle, and is attacked by those who see her as a way of monetary gain. It’s a powerful story of the love Jamal has for her- no matter what, he’s willing to fight to bring her to safety. He is a true hero in a world where self-preservation and personal gain are the norm.

We need more people like Jamal in this world- caring, compassionate, and willing to fight those who attack beauty.

Who’s the Bad Guy in “Law Abiding Citizen”?

“Law Abiding Citizen” opens with the premise pretty quickly: the violent break in and murder of Gerard Butler's family. Enter Jamie Foxx, the defense attorney who cuts a deal with the murderer, who lies in court. You see, the evidence was not enough to convict both burglars, but the "witness" of one of them against his partner in crime was. 10 years later, Butler sets in motion what seems at first to be revenge. However, once he's behind bars, he confesses that it's not revenge he's after but a desire to change the system. His motivation and cause are just: to try to fix a system that is imperfect and allows injustice to happen. It’s hard to think of Butler as the bad guy, because of the horrific way he had to watch his family die, and then watch the perpetrator go free.

However, did he have to kill people to make his point? Does an eye for an eye really solve problems? It was amazing how he revealed flaws of the justice system, how he successfully pleaded his case before a judge in his own murder trial for bail to be posted. His argument was sound, and had legal precedence even though it was known that he had systematically murdered his family's killer.

It was all a part of his plan. He wanted to show that the system was flawed and he wanted to fix it. Was there real change that happened as a result of Butler's mission of reformation? Did Jamie Foxx become an attorney that prosecuted criminals for what they had done, even though to lose would mean that the criminals would go free? For an attorney, it's risky to lose cases. However, the right thing to do is not always the profitable thing to do. Would Foxx be different next time he was in the court room? The movie does not address this.

Also, is Butler redeemed in the end? Does the movie end with him understanding forgiveness and peace? Does he reform a flawed system? Do his means justify the end? Was he the good guy, or the bad guy?

One thing he says in the beginning of the movie is that the justice system was supposed to right wrongs, it was supposed to allow the good guys to win and the bad guys to lose. However, a line of thought from the book "Disclosure" by Michael Crichton has a different point of view. In it an attorney says that the legal system was not about righting wrongs, or even mediating inequalities between two parties. Instead, the legal system is all about finding some kind of restitution, usually financial. "This person took this from me, so that person must make it up to me by paying me X amount of dollars, etc." Is that really what the legal system is now? Is the legal system about fixing injustice, or providing restitution?

There’s the Rub in “Swingers”

The unfortunately named “Swingers” (no, it’s not about what you’re thinking) is a 90’s classic. Starring Jon Favreau as the dumped and depressed Mike, and a convincing Vince Vaughn as his encouraging best friend Trent, the film defined the dating scene when it was released. Written by Favreau and casting his friends, it’s a semi-autobiographical film about his time trying to “make it” in LA as a young actor. The opening scene is totally “money”, as Mike talks to his friend Rob (played by Ron Livingston) about his heartache concerning the girl he left behind in New York:

Rob: I mean at first you're going to pretend to forget about her, you'll not call her, I don't know, whatever... but then eventually, you really will forget about her.

Mike: Well what if she comes back first?

Rob: Mmmm... see, that's the thing, is somehow they know not to come back until you really forget.

Mike: There's the rub.

Rob: There's the rub.

Mike hangs his head, his despair is palpable. As the movie progresses, it focuses on Trent and Mike’s friendship, and Trent’s efforts to help Mike heal and move on. Trent is one of those loud, boisterous guys who was probably the life of the party in his college frat house. Trent is inspirational, and sucks the despondent Mike into his schemes (“Vegas, baby! Vegas!”) to pursue the “beautiful babies”.

There’s no stopping Trent in his efforts to cheer up his friend. Bar hopping, a midnight road trip to Las Vegas, Hollywood parties- you name it, Trent drags Mike there. At first, Mike fights against all this social activity. He just wants to sit in his apartment, drinking himself to sleep every night. But Trent sees something that Mike doesn’t. “You’re money, and you don’t even know it,” he says several times. Other people agree. Mike is the man, even if he’s down for the count and can’t even perform regular personal hygiene. By the end of the film, Mike does indeed learn that he is “money”. It took Trent’s nudging and coaching to get him to finally realize it.

If only everyone had a Trent in their life.

Is Happily Ever After an “Unbreakable” Promise? Spoiler!

Although one of Shyamalan’s least popular films, “Unbreakable” is perhaps his strongest. Bruce Willis plays David Dunn, a sad man with lost purpose in life. He has emotionally ended his marriage to Audrey, played by Princess Buttercup (Robin Wright Penn). Surviving a horrendous train wreck without a single injury, he is contacted by the extremely fragile Elijah Price, played by Samuel L. Jackson. Physically opposite from each other, they also see life from opposite points of view. Elijah sees the dichotomy of good and evil- the hero and the villain- portrayed in comic books but very much a part of real life. David is dying on the inside; estranged from his wife, the woman he left a life of possible football stardom for back in college. Life for David has not turned out happily ever after. It’s interesting that although David is physically unbreakable, he’s internally shattered. This unlike Elijah, who has an unbreakable spirit but whose body shatters quite easily.

At first, David doubts. He’s never examined his life. He works at the local college stadium as a security guard. He’s trying to move to New York. In the opening scene, he hits on an attractive woman on the train right before it crashes. He’s wounded, doesn’t know it, and lives a life of fear and pain. As Elijah tries to convince David who he is and that he’s a hero in a world that needs him, David turns from skeptic to reluctant believer. Part of his power includes the ability to see the bad things people do when he has contact with them. As he grows in his understanding of his role, he’s confronted with a choice; either look the other way when he sees evil happening around him, or do what he can to help those who are victimized.

The film centers on David’s journey as he grows into the hero that he’s supposed to be. As he fulfills his role, his relationships with himself, his son, and (most dramatically) with his wife are healed. He doesn’t wake up sad anymore. His nightmare is over.

The parallels to real life are amazing. How many of us are lost and broken because we aren’t fulfilling the role we’re supposed to? How are we incomplete because we’re not true to who we are? Who are we hurting by our resulting neglectfulness? How can we step into the role of bringing hope to a hopeless world? Unbreakable begs answers to these questions.

Win Her Heart with “A Knight’s Tale”

“A Knight’s Tale” gave Heath Ledger his pretty boy reputation (OK, there was “10 Things I Hate About You,” but he was more bad boy roguish in that one). The peasant who wants to be a knight, the wavy blonde hair, and the English accent all add to a charm only Heath Ledger could have pulled off. Not only that, but his acting was top notch! Ledger plays William Thatcher, a squire who has no way to “climb the corporate ladder” so to speak. You might think this post is about his rise to stardom from the lowly ranks of a peasant. It’s not.

Although that’s all impressive, there’s a line spoken by Jocelyn in the movie that many may have missed.

“I would have him win my heart.”

What Would You Do “Before Sunrise” and “Before Sunset”?

Richard Linklater, director of films Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, are both relationship centered movies. Sunrise was made in 1995, and Sunset was made in 2004. Both are vastly different movies, but do a great job of telling a story and then picking up that story 9 years later.

In Sunrise, Ethan Hawke plays Jesse, a traveling American in Europe. He meets Celine, played by Julie Delpy, on a train and has an engrossing conversation with her for much of the ride. Wanting to spend more time with her, he convinces her to get off the train with him in Vienna. He's flying out early the next day, and doesn't want to miss a chance to get to know her. She's hesitant at first, for obvious reasons, but is intrigued by this adventurous man she is attracted to. Agreeing, they get off the train and spend the remaining time exploring the city. The dialog was amazing. The writers did a great job of character development, and it’s enjoyable getting to know the characters as they reveal themselves to the other person. Both were imperfect; Jesse was bitter about life, and Celine was a bit naive. There is much to identify with much of what they had to say- both the good and the bad. It’s easy to agree with Jesse at times and with Celine at others.

In the sequel Sunset, Ethan is a successful author, writing a "fictional" book about a traveling American. 9 years have passed, and in the meantime Ethan has found success, while Celine has become bitter by the hardship of life. It's a bit of a role reversal, but one that is believable and identifiable. However, instead of spanning hours, this movie spanned a real- time conversation, lasting about 80 minutes. It was simply them walking and talking from his book signing around the city to her apartment. It was brilliant! It seemed so much shorter, because they just talked and talked, with no action or time span between events. It was all self- analysis, relationship analysis, analysis of each other, and analysis of life. There’s much to agree and disagree with that they had to say, but the conversation was real. It was about real life, about real fears, frustrations, and happiness.

These films do a good job of exploring relationships in a fresh way. The honesty, struggles, and humor of life portrayed in the film is refreshing to see. There are few movies with dialogue like these two, and that’s a shame. When Jesse shares about his frustration with women to Celine in Sunrise, it’s understandable to cringe. If you’re a guy, you understand what Jesse is feeling, but wouldn’t say what he said to another woman. If you’re a woman, you might roll your eyes, seeing the issue from the female side.

Moments like these are what make both films shine.

All is Not Lost in “9”

Upon waking, the “stitchpunk” 9 realizes that he’s in a Tim Burton film. The dark, Gothic landscape, the general feeling of despair, and Danny Elfman score all pointed to the inevitable conclusion that Burton was behind it all. Nonetheless, 9 leaves in search of his destiny, meeting others like him along the way. Later, it’s revealed that the scientist who made them gave them parts of his soul. This allowed them to be alive, and each had the scientist’s leadership, protective, heroic, etc. (up to 9), natures that represented his personality. It’s going to take all of them working together to wipe out the machines that destroyed humanity. Somehow, they are the key to bringing humanity back from extinction.

During their fight to end the domination of the machines, disagreements, egos, and altruism clash as the different parts of the scientist’s soul interact with each other. They run from, fight, and sometimes best the deadly machines that are hunting them down. 9 inadvertently reboots the big machine that was the brain behind the decimation of all humanity, and it has the power to suck the souls out from each of the stitchpunks. One by one, a soul is taken. One might think that the remaining heroes would find a way to retrieve these lost souls, but by the end of the film they do not. Each loss was deeply felt, as each person lost had immeasurable qualities that could have contributed to stopping the machines.

Similarly, each of us alone may not be able to accomplish what we can do in community. The loss of a family member or friend is a loss to the whole. We need each other, perhaps not to fight against bloodthirsty machines, but to find our purpose, love, and meaning in life. We are all different people with unique personalities that sometimes clash, but the collective whole can accomplish what one person cannot. This was exhibited so well in “9”, as well as the cost of loss. No one is replaceable, and when someone’s gone, they are gone, leaving a hole that will never be filled in quite the same way.

Rock Bottom to Redemption in “Black Snake Moan”

“Black Snake Moan” sounded like a bad movie from its marketing. It seemed as if it were some kind of cheesy independent movie that would offend with graphic sexual content. Pleasantly surprising though, it was about a character's path from depravity to healing. Rae is a deeply flawed woman who tries to self medicate through sex, which came from a past of sexual abuse. There are scenes of graphic sex, and they are unpleasant. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion and wishing you could stop the carnage. She is so self-destructive, and the men who take advantage of her frail psychological state speed that destruction. In some ways, her story is similar to ours as a human race, as many of us search for love and meaning by filling the void with wonton lust for (fill in the blank- It’s not just sex that we pursue). She certainly takes her search to more extremes than the average person, but the underlying cause was the same: desire for the perfect relationship.

Rae thinks that sex equal relationships, which should lead to meaning and acceptance. This philosophy leads her to have many graphic "relationships" in the course of the first part of the movie. She is also uncomfortable with her own promiscuity, but her abuse has skewed the way she approaches relationships. It's as if she enjoys the physical act, but knows that her soul is dying with each illicit affair. She uses drugs to numb the psychological pain and to lose her inhibitions. This literally leads her to the gutter outside of Lazarus' house, a Christian who curses like a sailor. Samuel L. Jackson does such a good job in this role, a man who has lived a hard life, whose wife has left him because she found a man to meet the needs he wasn't providing. Alone and bitter, he finds Rae in the dirt, bloody and unconscious. Taking her in, he nurses her back to physical health. Knowing her by reputation, he knows what to expect. Her advances on him are rejected. He's not fooled by this immature girl, and vows to rehabilitate her. The methods he uses are unorthodox, but Lazarus is an unorthodox man, and it’s an unorthodox film.

Rae fights at first, but Lazarus chips away patiently. One of the most touching scenes is when he goes to a women's clothing store to buy a dress for her. He asks the ladies working there to help him find a dress that isn't scandalous, but will make her feel pretty when she wears it. This is a critical distinction, and it's this dress that starts Rae's path to health as her identity is changed from that as a worthless person to one of true beauty.

This movie isn't for the faint-hearted. It pulls no punches; it's in your face. Conservatives would most likely be offended by the content, but real life should not be ignored. Real suffering exists in the world, and this film shows the distance real love and forgiveness is willing to go. It’s real, not some sugared “redemption story” with a weak plot. Suffering cannot be muted, because that would mute the need for hope in a broken world. A broken world it is in the beginning of the movie, but a redeemed world is depicted by the end. Certainly one that isn't perfect, that still requires courage and strength to navigate. Without that courage and strength, however, the world becomes bleak again. Where does this courage and strength come from? The answer is at the end of the movie, which you’ll have to watch to find out!