“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.