Somewhere I heard this was almost as much fun as watching the Matrix. As much as I loved the first Matrix, this was nothing like it. This is going to be very short.
The movie started off rather slow and I really wondered how the whole Keanu Reeves holding a gun was going to be relevant about 10 minutes into it. A terrible tragedy happens, revenge takes hold, and everyone dies. The end.
Don't waste your time. VidAngel didn't help much here. Sometimes bad movies are bad even without the swearing/violence/sex. There was no redemptive value to watching this at all; it was just pure depressing.
If you want a more thorough review, check out ericdsnider.com. He gave it a B+, and a lot of times I agree with his rating, but when there is no moral message, or even a negative morality to a film, it's very hard to find a reason to enjoy it.
This was a fun con movie. A little slow for the first 80% of the film, but the speed picks up at the end. A great role for Nicholas Cage.
Moral Rating: 3 of 5
The content was a little iffy with one strip club scene (no nudity, but plenty of skin) and some language. The club scene added nothing to the movie, other than showing you the type of sleazy men these con-men often dealt with.
The whole movie is based on people who think it’s OK to scam people out of their money. However, in the end we see Frank respond very well to being conned in his own game. Not only did he not get upset (or seek revenge), but he realized that his job as a con-man wasn’t making him happy. A family is what he needed to help him be at peace in his life and overcome some of his idiosyncrasies.
It’s hard not to compare any Batman movie to Christopher Nolan’s masterpieces, even if they are animated. This one had a good amount of action and a pretty cool storyline with it, providing just the right twists to it to keep you guessing.
Moral Rating: 4/5
[Spoiler Alert]
The last scene really sold the movie for me. Robin has the Joker at gun point, furious that Batman didn’t go after the Joker and kill him after he had killed Robin. Batman sagaciously responds that if he were to have killed the Joker, he would have become just like him. Robin then gives Batman the ultimatum that he (Robin) is going to kill the Joker, and that Batman will have to shoot him (Robin) if he doesn’t the Joker dead. Batman drops his weapon and walks away. What a cool scene. The resolve and conviction to do what is right, even in the face of seemingly impossible circumstances, is what we need in order to win the fight against evil. While Batman’s methods for enforcing justice are often questionable, his position against evil is not.
For some reason I had no idea what this movie was about. I thought it was a traditional Chicago-style gangster movie, but it was totally different. I had only heard about how widely acclaimed it supposedly was and put it down on my to-watch list. Maybe, according to others, I missed the overall effect of it by watching the TV-edited version, but I tend to think I would actually deplore it after watching the original. I also learned, that it was never highly acclaimed, at least by Hollywood or major critics, it’s mainly it’s fan base that gave it its popularity, very similar to Fight Club’s circumstance.
How a movie like this and Frost/Nixon or Oncecan fall in the same MPAA rating is beyond me.
Moral Rating: 1
The one quasi-existant message that this story depicts is that all the money and power in the world will not bring you happiness and that doing/selling drugs will bring you down. Tony Montana even comments on the seemingly pointlessness of his life to his friend and partner, Manny, while eating at a restaurant:
“Is this it? That's what it's all about, Manny? Eating, drinking...? Snorting? Then what? You're 50. You got a bag for a belly. ... You got a liver, they got spots on it, and you're eating this [junk], looking like these rich…mummies in here.”
This next quote (same scene) is very reminiscent of Fight Club where Tyler interrogates Raymond K. Hessel and we see that there is greater freedom in knowing who you are and where you are going (though Tony didn’t have much of a realistic plan for where he was going, and in this regard he lied to himself - another connection to Fight Club):
“Tony: What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of [snobs]. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your [fat] fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through! Better get outta his way!”
If you’re tempted to watch it to see what all the fuss is about, stick with an edited version, but don’t go out of your way for this one. After doing a little research on the film and when it came out, it seems to have sparked nothing but evil (though there’s no scientific evidence for causation) - gangsta rap and all the street violence it glorifies. Ken Tucker, author of Scarface Nation said the following of the film:
“On the most superficial level, Scarface went from being a warning against the evils of doing drugs to a primer for thug life because being preached to is less exciting than being shown how to have a good time. …
People like rules, dictums, aphorisms, credos; such things are used as inspiration, as codes of discipline and honor. In the absence of either a legal system that served or protected the vulnerable -- whether we’re talking about a fictional Cuban immigrant like Tony Montana or a real young black or Hispanic youth scraping by in Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Miami, or any big city -- the rules as set down in Scarface had an irresistible allure.
…[This is] one of those movies whose surface message was ‘Don’t do this!’ even as its action and subtext sniggered, ‘Isn’t this cool?’”
That last sentence really puts the film in perspective. The movie is nothing but glorified violence and drug using. For some reason Scarface is considered an ultimate guy flick, probably because of all the violence and mostly because of Tony Montana's ultra ego and machismo. If that's what the ultimate guy is supposed to be like, you better check where the invitation to want to be like that is coming from.
Nice thriller, though my wife said it was a bit lame because she guessed who Keyser Soze was half-way through the film, and so wasn't too impressed. We watched the T.V. version, and surprisingly it was pretty decent. They probably got rid of 80% of the language and left most of the violence in, but it was totally watchable - though still not for young kids.
Moral Rating: 3
The coolest line in the show is repeated twice, "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." At the end of the movie some people say they are even more scared than they were while watching it (maybe because you realize that "the Devil" has existed all along, but you let him reel you in to his story of pity). How often does Satan appeal to our emotions? Our emotions can be so strong that they often overshadow any good judgement we might receive from our conscience.
We are taught, with regards to the devil, "And behold, others [the devil] flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance." (2 Nephi 28:22) Though this is a great reference, the whole movie wasn’t that great of a moral lesson, other than to make sure you don’t get duped by Satan.
This is the story of a man who fought against the system. Lucas Jackson gets thrown into a work camp for "destroying municipal property," and even while there continues to fight against anything that gives him rules to follow. The men in the camp admire him; and even Dragline, the assumed leader of the prisoners, gives Luke his respect. Luke gets tired of being the only one who seems to care about breaking free, even God seems to have abandoned him. Read on to find out why this is one of my favorite movies.
Entertainment Value - A
For the longest time this was my absolute favorite movie and it still ranks among the top ten. Paul Newman's and George Kennedy's performances are awesome. The multiple attempts at escape from the prison never get boring. You never get tired of the constant change and rebellion Luke introduces to the prison. Some people can't seem to make it through the first part of the movie, and I can't understand why! Mostly people who have a hard time watching anything that isn't newer than the 1980's (though that's even pushing it for some!).
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? - 5
Why is this movie the theme for our blog? For one, it was one of my favorite movies and "Cool Hand Critics" had a nice ring to it. From there, we were able to introduce other elements of the movie into our reviews (World Shakers, Nights In The Box, etc.). Here are some of the reasons why it is among my favorite movies:
Unwritten Rules
At the beginning of the film, when Luke first comes to the camp and the other prisoners are playing cards, he makes pretty clear his disdain for rule makers. Dragline and the other prisoners are explaining all the "unwritten" rules of the prison and that Dragline is basically the king of the coop. Luke just laughs and when confronted, he responds that there just seem to be "a lot of guys laying down rules and regulations."
Unwritten societal rules (e.g., might makes right, herd mentality, etc.) sometimes keep us from progressing, whereas true rules (i.e., commandments, covenants, etc.) should help us in our progression as human beings and children of God. This isn't the case for all unwritten rules (e.g., etiquette, chivalrous manners, etc.), but we need to do more than just follow someone blindly like most of the prisoners ended up doing with Dragline and later with Luke. We need to live/know for ourselves and understand what impact our decisions and actions have on our spiritual and physical well being.
"Nothing Can Be a Real Cool Hand"
Luke and Dragline had a boxing match and even though Luke was very badly beat-up, he never gave up; in fact he told Dragline, "you're gonna have to kill me." Luke later ends up winning a poker game with a hand of nothing and states that, "Sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand." Dragline admits that he was beat in the fight with nothing just as Koko was in the poker game (meaning even though Luke didn't beat Dragline physically, Luke sure didn't lose).
Sometimes by just standing your ground, no matter what the odds are against you, you can come out on top. This constancy exhibited in one's faith and conviction of principles or standards can define a person's being.
"Get Out There Yourself!"
After one of the many times Luke escapes the prison and is brought back (bloody and beaten) all the men can do nothing but comment on what a grand ol' time he must have had while he was out (particularly because Luke had sent them a picture of himself between two attractive ladies, revealed at this time to be a phony). Exasperated he yells, "Stop feedin' off me! Get out there yourself! I can't breathe!"
How often do we live our lives through other people's experiences instead of getting up/out and doing things for ourselves?
Later on, after Luke has been "broken" by the bosses (forced to labor to the point of physical exhaustion and beaten brutally in the process) and enters the sleeping quarters where all the prisoners (who sat and watched the breaking process) are gathered, he collapses. Not a single person went to him to help him out. They were disillusioned by the breaking of the high and mighty man they once esteemed as their hero. Luke was never a real person in their eyes; they invented a person who was invulnerable, a superhero that could never break. When he broke they became the selfish, brutal, despicable creatures men tend to be when they see good men fall. They were too weak (too smart?) to try to break out of prison themselves, to push the rule makers to the limit, to discover who they really could be, making them all the more happy to see strong people fall. It makes them feel good about themselves, even if they aren't truly happy (still locked up, never having attempted to get out in the open).
Failure to Communicate
During Luke's last escape attempt, Dragline can't help but come along with him. Dragline's as giddy as a school boy to see that Luke was "never" broken. But Luke corrects him and tells him he was as broke as anybody could have been. After Dragline starts planning all the world shaking he, Luke, and Koko are gonna do when they're all out Luke says that he's "done enough world shaking for a while." At this news Dragline doesn't know how to react, he begins to regret ever leaving the camp realizing that he only had a few years left if he would have stayed put. (The disillusionment sets in again.)
Luke approaches a church and decides to enter it and that it's time he has a talk with God. He wants to blame God (not angrily but questioningly) for his situation. Luke feels that God has things "fixed" against him and at the same time made him like he was, so how was he supposed to fit in? When does it all end? What does God have in store for him? What should he do now? Luke then gets on his knees to ask and concedes that he's a hard case and ends up supposing that he'll have to find his own way (not having received any communication from God).
This failure to communicate comes up a couple of times in the film, and is up there with some of the best known lines in cinematic history. There seems to be a lot of failed communication, a lot of "unwritten rules" that seem to catch people off guard left and right. You could argue that it wasn't God that was messing up the communication, but Luke. He never wanted to submit to any kind of authority, and he was constantly running away from it or flat out pushing back. Even Luke says "there ain't a whole lot worth listening to" (specifically referring to all the rules and regulation being put out). How many times do we say we want an answer but do nothing to make sure we are prepared to hear what we need to be told?
With regards to this movie review site, I hope we can communicate some of the insights we receive on the quality and moral value of films that we see. We in no way assume our ideas and interpretations are the only way to view the content of the films, but invite others to comment and help us mold our philosophy in a non-threatening way.
Based on the true story of Mark Whitacre, a bio-engineer who stumbles across an international price-fixing scheme involving the company he works for, ADM. Mark secretly reports this information to the FBI and as time goes on, more crimes than just price-fixing surface.
Entertainment Value - B
Good show. Probably only rated-R to target the appropriate audience. This would be a bore for anyone under the age of 18 (and even a little slow for those older, including myself). The movie reminded of Catch Me If You Can, both told pretty crazy criminal stories about two different individuals and how they flew under the radar for so long. The music and acting were great, but didn't make up for a weak plot.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? - 3
The Informant! did a good job of showing the consequences of lying and trying to cover up the lies as they become discovered. If you try to cover things up, things don't get better or disappear. A right action doesn't always make-up for a wrong action, especially if that right action is by no means a restitution of the wrong doing.
A man with the occupation of Transporter (he transports pretty much anything of particularly high value which usually tends to be illegal) ends up getting too curious about one of his packages. He ends up breaking one of his own rules (not to look in the package) and gets mixed up in something that almost costs him his life several times.
Entertainment Value - C
Not worth your time, unless you're in the mood for some nifty action sequences. You can check out all the cool fight scenes on youtube (the one above is probably the best one, not quite as good as the Bourne sequences).
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? - 2
Not morally offensive, but no positive value, except maybe to not stick your nose where it doesn't belong. Or better yet, don't do anything illegal.
Two ladies on death row must compete for the hearts of the corrupt Chicago people in order to gain their freedom.
Entertainment Value - A
Great music that was more than just song and dance, it cleverly moved the story forward. All the performances were well done, the plot was great.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? - 4
At first glance I was rather leery of what this movie would portray. I had already walked out of Moulin Rouge, and this didn't seem like it would be terribly different. What changed my mind about seeing this was Orson Scott Card's shortreviews of the movie. The reasons for this not getting a higher moral rating from us is that it is not a show for young kids; the themes presented are for a more mature audience. Be aware that there is some language, sexuality, and a lot of revealing clothing presented in the movie (and no ClearPlay filter available at the date of this posting, and I'm not sure how they could create one without mutilating the musical numbers in the film). This content, however, adds to the overall message of the movie; and by the end it is quite clear that this film is a commentary on our social and legal system, not a promotion of murder, sex, and greed.
One of the biggest ironies in the film is seen in the character of Roxie's husband, Amos. He seems to be the only moral character in the film, portrayed as being both an innocent and a faithful husband, but gets trampled on as if honesty is going out of style. In addition to his goodness not being accepted/noticed, he's portrayed as a rather dim-witted person, clueless to how the "real-world" works. This juxtaposition strengthened the satire of the film through the mockery of moral values.
The scene I enjoyed most was the puppeteer number. It displayed how easily the media can be swayed one way or another if the facts are manipulated just right. All of a sudden a criminal becomes a hero because of the background he or she came from (always blaming the current conditions of the person on someone else other than him/herself.)
The movie makes you wonder if truth really matters to some people, or if the world is only always looking for fame and fortune. Nothing in this world comes easy. Those who rely on the world for their emotional support will never be happy. The press loved Velma one day, then Roxie the next, and then someone else, and then back to Roxie, and on and on. The world cannot ever provide the emotional stability needed to live a genuinely happy life, it gives you a false sense of worth and then drops you flat on your face (sounds similar to a scripture in the Book of Mormon.
Does the fact that these two murderesses got off Scott-free make this a less moral movie ("You can like the life you live and live the life you like.")? I don't think so, partially because the way the trial at the end was portrayed (like a circus, with a tap dance able to pull off the unthinkable) I found myself laughing at the absurdness of it all.
Two men who share similar backgrounds pursue very different courses in their lives. One (Leonardo DiCaprio) goes under cover and joins the Irish Mafia, unbeknownst to the rest of the police force. The other (Matt Damon), a member of the mafia, joins the police force and plays the good cop while helping the Mafia (whose leader is played by Jack Nicholson) get away with their illegal actions. Things start to get interesting when both cops realize there's a mole in the other's operations.
Entertainment Value - A
Very intense and violent. I did watch the TV version and liked it, though I don't know that I'd care if I saw it again. The performances were great, though you can't expect any less from the cast of actors.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? - 2
[Spoiler Alert]
The story presents you with an unconventional good versus evil scenario; the roles of each seem really twisted. You have a good cop (DiCaprio) undercover with the bad guys, and a bad cop (Damon) undercover with the good guys. Of course you root for the good cop all the way through the show, hoping he gets out of the crazy situation he's in; but when the end came I wound up feeling rather empty when the good guy gets killed by the bad cop and the bad cop gets exonerated. The only restitution that occurs is that the bad cop ends up getting what's coming to him because the good cop made sure to cover his bases and had other good cops informed of what was going on.
The main moral dilemma I saw was whether or not the bad cop was really bad enough to do whatever it took to keep his name clean, even if it meant killing someone else, or if he might actually do something right and help the good cop out (even though it might mean his own skin if the mafia found out).
Once the good guy was killed off I found myself thinking that if the movie ends like this (the good guy dies after spending the entire movie fighting to stay alive) the movie is morally bad. But why? Does whether the good side wins or loses really make a movie good or bad? What does it mean to accurately portray evil and to not advocate it? And if evil exists and triumphs, are there enough other messages that promote the Good, making it so that the whole movie isn't evil?
Take for instance the movie Chicago (to be reviewed soon), the only good guy in the movie gets trampled on and spit upon (figuratively) and we see two murderesses found not guilty and leading a life of fame and fortune at the end. Good did not "win" in this film, but it's quite clear that the the director/screenwriter was not advocating evil in any way, he was mocking society's shallowness and false sense of what's most important in life. We, in no way felt bad, after watching it. Some may think that the word "feel" is rather ambiguous, but I think we can all feel when something is good or bad. (If we can't, then it's probably time for some re-evaluating of who you are and if you stand for anything.)
Wahlberg's (the ex-cop that the good cop informed before he died) killing the bad cop at the end is understandable (he knew the crimes the bad cop had committed and was very much emotionally tied to the cop that died) but not morally acceptable. Was he any worse than Batman? His actions were purely out of revenge and not in accordance with the law. With all the evidence against the bad cop, he could have easily been taken care of through the judicial process. As mentioned in the review of the movie Gladiator, even when the righteous Maximus executes Commodus, he does so in a public arena; on a more minor level, even the Karate kid took his battle to an official arena. Is it ever OK to take justice into your own hands (excluding self-defense)?
Dick Tracy is a movie of vivid cinematic art that compares to the great visual talent by the creator's of Hero. Dick Tracy is a great example of moral character and is still human enough for us to relate to. Even in the face of diverse temptations he couldn't betray his character and what he stood for. His love for Tess was virtuous; he didn't have to live with her (or sleep with her) to show his love for her. Tracy showed love and respect towards the kid by trusting him and providing good fatherly judgment by making an effort to keep him out of danger, but at the same time he didn't hide his appreciation when the kid showed up with needed assistance.
Tracy seems a little flabbergasted at Ms. Mahoney's forwardness which causes some emotional interference between him and Tess. Eventually he's able to sort out his thoughts and feelings and realizes he loves Tess (though this happens after Tess leaves him). Tracy probably let Breathless get a little too close to him. Had he recognized the effects of this temptation on his and Tess's relationship earlier he wouldn't have put himself in the predicament that makes the rest of the movie happen (to our enjoyment).
As for the last scene, I think Tracy ultimately pitied Breathless - whether or not his move was appropriate is disputable. It (this is ambiguous on purpose) could have been more of a thank you, because she ultimately brought Tess back and helped get rid of Big Boy; or it could have displayed some true emotions he might have actually had for Ms. Mahoney.
Either way, this is a classic show with a good message. By today's standards probably should be thrown in the PG-13 category as some elements are not appropriate for a younger crowd.
This movie is a world-shaker. It is very inspiring and really makes me want to stand up to the Jonny Friendly's of the world. The internal struggle with Terry Malloy and how his conscience weighs on him to do what's right is very inspiring.
The movie realistically shows the difficulty of changing your philosophy on life and how crucial role models are, especially those of family. The film showed how much Terry loved his brother Charly (and vice-a-versa). This is particularly evident in the famous "I coulda been a contender, I coulda been somebody..." scene. When Charly got killed the contrast of this brotherly love and the supposed "family" bond of the union bosses clearly teaches the important influence (for good or bad) family members can have on each other.
Another important message is the pastor's humility and his realization of the need to stand up and practice what is preached.
Terry's choice to be a "canary" lets him see who his real friends are.
I felt disgusted as the longshoremen just looked on and didn't seem to care when Terry took on Johnny and his cronies. Maybe the longshoremen weren't supposed to get into it, but they sure did out number them, they cared more about their jobs under corrupt union bosses (their lives could have been at stake, but when they out number them what could they do?) than breaking free and standing up for what's right. If you've never seen this, make it a point to do so and tell us what you think.
