Sicario (2015) - M5.8/E8

This was a very thought provoking movie.  One that can bring up some tense conversations from people on different sides of the political spectrum.   In essence, the government crosses some moral lines in order to maximize the saving of lives.  Is it ever OK to make such compromises?

While drawn from the train of science fiction and fantasy, two examples come to mind. In the book Ender's Game, the need to brutally and finally punish your enemies so that they can't seek out revenge on you is repeatedly brought up.  The following are some of the deepest lines of the novel and is an exchange that occurs between Ender and Valentine in chapter 13 of the book:

Ender: "In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves. And then, in that very moment when I love them -"
Valentine: "You beat them." For a moment she was not afraid of his understanding.
Ender: "No, you don't understand. I destroy them. I make it impossible for them to ever hurt me again. I grind them and grind them until they don't exist."

Ender kills multiple boys and almost causes the genocide of an alien race.  The guilt he has to bear is insufferable. Is it OK to go so far too ensure the safety of oneself or one's family? One's country? Are the psychological, spiritual consequences worth it?

In Batman, we constantly see Batman's dilemma with confronting the Joker. If he's really such a violent criminal, shouldn't it be OK if Batman kills him?  Isn't he being irresponsible and contributing the deaths of so many by simply turning him over to the authorities?  The constant response is that if he did kill the Joker, how would he be any different from any criminals he has vowed to bring justice on?  Any different from the man who took his parents away from him?  The difference between willing to take someone's life for pleasure or to end it to ensure the lives of countless innocents that would otherwise die? There is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and it may be different for different individuals (a seemingly scapegoat statement). Otherwise, the world would be out of balance.

Was it for the benefit of the world that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed? Did it end up saving more lives in the end to end it so dramatically and brutally? Would doing so again send a similar message to similar, present-day antagonistic groups?  I don't know. I wish it were as easy as saying it's never worth it.  In the Bible, God commanded the demolishing of cities for the good of his people. Yet, on a smaller, family scale, beyond stern and occasional corporal punishment (hopefully infrequent and under control) for an out of control child, sometimes a parent has to wait out the craziness in love and patience. Granted not everyone should be treated as one's child, but it's worth thinking about, if anything, to keep us humane.

[Spoilers may follow...]

It's too easy to cross a line in the heat of emotion and give up your humanity.  In the end, the revenge killing of the man's family was wrong, but the overall operation would supposedly save so many lives.  Undoubtedly someone else would step in and re-initiate or continue the crimes committed by the drug lord.  But as also mentioned, this will continue (in part) as long as Americans use and crave illegal drugs.

Watched on VidAngel filtering out only f-words and blasphemy and it was still followable.  There are some graphic scenes of violence that could be filtered out without disturbing the storyline too much.

Hugo (2011) - M6.9/E6

One reason I was looking forward to seeing this film was the fact that there was quite a bipolar response to it.  Uncle Orson nay-said it, while other notable critics found it entertaining.  These types of responses are usually fairer to read beforehand, as they don't tend to bias one's opinion, therefore providing a more genuine response.  Though Card does have a negative review of the film, his points are well-made and I even agree with most of them, but still found a way to enjoy the movie overall.

In short, Card summarizes, "So the movie we were promised -- Hugo the orphan repairs a mechanical man to receive a message from his father -- turns into a movie we would never have paid to see: sad old forgotten movie director gets a round of applause."

The one character I actually hated and cringed at every time he came on screen was Sacha Baron Cohen playing a crippled policeman.  I probably won't choose to watch the movie again solely for him, though the fact that the movie was very slow might  also be cause enough.

The style of the movie reminded me a lot of Finding Neverland, and you might enjoy this film if you enjoyed Finding Neverland.  The music and scenery are amazing, and the story not terribly deep, but endearing.

We're shown the importance of family and the fruits of hard work as we see Hugo lose his father and then take us with him on his quest to remain connected to his father.  We also see him work tirelessly (without pay) to keep the clocks running in the train station, which keeps him out of more trouble than he already gets into, and allows him to stay a little closer to his deceased father.   Through Hugo's courage and intellect, he brings hope to a man who's dreams had been crushed and in turn gains the friendship and love for which he'd been longing.

Watch it if you're in the mood for something easy going, but I wouldn't recommend buying it; go for RedBox or you check it out from your local library.

The Hunger Games (2012) - M6.0/E7

I had been wanting to read the book, and had even checked out the audio book from the library, but it ended up being badly scratched about 20 minutes into the book, and I never got a chance to give it another go; and now, having seen it, I probably won't be reading it. I dislike it when good movies are made about good books. Reading one or watching the other will always make it less desirable to watch or read it after having done the other.

I really enjoyed the movie. It was suspenseful, had decent character development, and the choices the characters made and the situations the characters were placed in were realistic (serious injuries actually hurt and debilitated the victims instead of being played off as "merely flesh wounds").

One particularly interesting and thought provoking part of the movie was a short dialog on how hope was the reason that the orchestrators of the Hunger Games needed to produce a winner. Basically, a very small amount of hope was necessary to keep the people in the various districts in submission; no hope or abounding hope would give cause for rebellion. The irony in this thought is that hope can only be diminished or controlled if the people submit to fear. So, weak people would be affected by imposed fear, but the strong ones (the ones that need watching) will let their hope drown out their fears.

We also see Katniss and a few other competitors as compassionate human beings, while other competitors were more selfish and animal-like in their quest for survival. Even though the selfish group banded together and hunted the others, in the end it was the more compassionate competitors that won. While not always the case in real life, where compassion doesn't always win, it does show that compassion brings happiness, while selfishness brings sadness and destruction.

There is quite a bit of violence, some language, and little to no sex/nudity. Being how violence is one of the main themes of the movie, they do an excellent job of filming violent scenes without overwhelming the audience with blood and gore (which would have resulted in a more severe MPAA rating). There are some instances where the filming could cause some strain on eyes (particularly when there should be no extraneous camera motion).

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) - M6.2/E8

I haven’t read any Michael Connelly books, but I’m guessing they fit right in there with Grisham’s best legal thrillers (of which I’ve only seen the movies). This was a well done movie and even more enjoyable as I’m just being introduced to the TV series the Firm (even sharing Josh Lucas with this movie).

I’ve always wondered about defence attorneys. How can someone defend a person who has committed awful crimes? This show made me remember (along with the Firm) that we believe in innocence before proven guilty. That proof is offered in court and often decided by a jury. Even the alleged criminal deserves justice, and shouldn’t be labelled a criminal until decided in a court of law. (It could be argued that not all criminals are caught, and thus not “alleged,” but that’s not the point of this short insight.)

We tend to sympathize with the victims of crimes, which can easily cause us to demonize those who defend their aggressors. But I like the thought that everyone deserves a fair trial. Our justice system was created with the thought of “innocent before proven guilty.” Which is why, for example, it’s unlawful to target American citizens for assassination without a fair trial. Our laws and justice system aren’t meant to prevent bad things from happening, it is a reactive system. If we want dangerous people off the street, we need to figure out lawful ways to bring them to justice and prevent them from pursuing more evil.

Back to the movie, Mick Haller isn’t the noble lawyer that Mitch McDeere is in The Firm, but his nobility does shine through his sleaziness as he gets entwined in his new client’s case. When what he values most is in danger (his and his family’s lives) he straightens up and is able to put evil in its place. His gratitude shines through as he offers to work pro bono for one of his shadier frequented clients who’s team of motorcycle buddies do Mick a huge favor. The resolution may not come as much of a surprise, but it’s the journey, not the end results that make the movie a fun, worthwhile experience.

Mick and his wife appear to be separated, though not totally distant.  However, all that they end up going through and Mick realizing how much he loves his family, makes it possible to believe that they'll try harder to make things work.  This isn't really a main point of the movie, but another good thought that adds to its value.

Do be aware that there is some strong language and a few scenes of violence, but the overall content is extremely mild considering the rating this show received.

Chronicle (2012) - M6.8/E7

This is a story about three high school teens who gain telekinetic powers. As they attempt to strengthen and control them, they soon realize that having special powers doesn’t really change who you are, it doesn’t make you popular or likeable; and in some instances can amplify your true feelings.

This was a cool movie. Even though it was purely filmed by a hand camera, it was not headache nor nausea inducing. While it did get a little annoying that they had to keep reminding us why everything was being videotaped, it made the story more real (even though it’s based on some fantastical events). The filming wasn’t the only thing that made it feel real, the acting and interactions of the main characters was really believable. That being said, I didn’t feel as fulfilled or entertained as I did after watching something like Mission Impossible 4, where you have a well polished, produced movie with outstanding special effects, that was meant to take you away from reality into a fictional realm.

I think I enjoyed the first hour or so of the movie the best. We see the boys just recognizing and experimenting with their powers. Each new surprise is a surprise to us, and makes it feel like we’re there sharing their experience with them. The pranks they pull are pretty funny, too.

Andrew’s character was the most intricate one in the film. We understand his pains, not necessarily because his pains are common, but because we’ve come in contact or can remember someone just like him from high school. One scene that really made sense, but at the same time was really frustrating was when Andrew gets after Steve for being his friend only because they now have something in common. Why else would you be a friend with anyone? Andrew is very self-deprecating and wants people to like him for who he his, not because they have something in common with him or because of some freak accident.

His dad (step-dad?) is constantly berating him and telling him what a loser he is, and it’s almost as if Andrew accepts that as his reality and any attempt at others to genuinely care for him is seen as merely fake.

We all have a desire to be loved, and not loved out of pity, but because others value who we are intrinsically in spite of/because of our many faults and weaknesses.

Due to the filming style, this show may not be for everyone, but we really enjoyed it. There is quite a bit of language, some violence, and talk about sex, but no nudity or explicit sexual scenes (contrary to what the trailer shows).

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) - M6.6/E7

My wife very rarely cares what movies we end up watching, I’m generally the one that picks them out. She surprised me by bringing this one home from the library. I was semi-intrigued about it when I saw it released, but never had any strong urge to see it. While not an amazing movie, the almost 3 hour feature was enjoyable. It really is nothing more than a story about the life of a man. He doesn’t affect the history of the world in any remarkable way, but the fact that he lives his life backwards from an old man until he dies as a baby is a pretty cool experience to be a part of.

Not living a normal life, it’s hard to pin any moral message on anything literal presented in the movie. There is adultery and prostitution, co-habitation, and family desertion - and while not condoned in real life, they add an interesting element to the story.  The reason these elements don't necessarily create a negative moral message is that the story isn't saying this is how happy people live their lives.  Benjamin was never really happy; he was so confused with his situation in life (as were those around him) that he never really fit in anywhere.  His happiest moment was when he met up in the middle with Daisy and was able to experience a  portion of a normal life.

While initially despised by his father as a monster, his father doesn’t completely give up on him and eventually we see their relationship grow stronger (appropriately backwards) and father and son are brought close together. As an old man, though really a child, he works with a bunch of sailors and acquires their habits and vices. As a companion (not married, but living together) he was faithful and loves Daisy. Though when he found out he was to be a father, he couldn’t bear the thought of becoming a child physically as his daughter grew older and needed a real father. Benjamin moved on and was able to do things in his old age that were impossible to do in his arthritic youth. What was really moving was to see him as a boy in his old age, senile and in need of assistance, only to be found by his childhood friend and lover who cared for him until he passed on.

While not a must-see, if you come across this movie and aren't looking for something fast-paced, this is worth watching at least once.