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 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.
Do you remember the days of walking up and down the seemingly endless aisles of DVD/VHS cases at your neighborhood Blockbuster or Hollywood Video? Was there ever a movie cover that intrigued you, but never enough for you to pick it up off the shelf to find out what it was about? Maybe this is just a weird occurrence, but I remember my eyes always lingering a little longer on the cover of Gosford Park. Granted, the movie is only 11 years old, but the red, black, and white colors, and storyline of a murder/mystery dinner party sounded fun (if only because of my fond memories of the movie Clue).
The real reason for not picking it up, probably had to do with the movie's rating; but I've realized that as much as I immerse myself in what type of content is in what type of movie, my intuition is pretty good when it comes to knowing how much questionable content is in a given movie and where the MPAA doesn't really help. I was right on this one; I was more offended with the content of the PG-13-rated Transformers 2 than I was with the content of this movie.
Netflix now has Gosford Park available to watch instantly, which made it a lot easier to just throw on. I'll admit that I was tired when I watched this, so take that into consideration when you read what follows.
I waited and waited for something to happen. When it finally did, three-quarters (maybe two-thirds) of the way through, it was underwhelming. The reveal at the end of the story was interesting only in the slightest (enough for me to not rate this a 1 for Entertainment). I wouldn't call this show a murder/mystery, but more like a murder/drama. There's nothing mysterious about it. A lot of the plot summaries I read also credited it with bein witty or funny, but that also was not the case.
What tipped my remote to push play was a statement in one of Uncle Orson's latest reviews regarding a reflection on previous Oscar nominees,
"That year the
astonishingly good Gosford Park was nominated -- Robert Altman at his best, with brilliant
performances from top to bottom of the cast."
I realize I haven't said a whole lot about the movie, but there really isn't much to be said. There were a lot of characters introduced, while only a handful mattered. The overall cinematography and flow of the story was well done, but the execution and carry through of the plot was horrible.* Maybe if I were to watch it again when I knew what I was watching and when I was in the mood to watch it, I might enjoy it and give it a better rating; but I don't see that happening any time soon. There are too many better movies to spend my (and your) time watching.
The only coarse language comes from an American (a bit ironic), and there's some non-graphic bed/table relations that give the movie it's rating.
*Please bear with my lack of good movie critiquing terminology. I've got materials to better educate me, but have not had time to delve into them yet (nor will I in the near future). However, also understand that I feel quite confident in my ability to critique a movie's moral value, which is the main point of this site.
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.
This was a good movie, though perhaps a little too complex for maximum enjoyment. The story was well told, and not terribly confusing (considering all the flashbacks), and probably is deserving of a second watch to iron out all the details. The trailer shows the movie moving a bit faster than it actually does (though I never wondered when it would be over).
We're taken along in an investigation of top British Intelligence agents to discover who is leaking information to the Russians at the height of the Cold War. While a good movie, I imagine that reading the book might prove to be a better experience. Nothing in the movie made me think more about how I could be a better person or inspired me to think more on God's goodness, as indicated by the low morality score it received.
There isn't a whole lot more to say. The filming was good, not crisp and digitized, but was reminiscent of a 70's style film, perfect for the era in which it took place.
Before checking this out, be warned that there is some coarse language, violence, and sexuality - nothing terribly explicit, but present nonetheless.
Hailed as one of the greatest movies of all time, I was a little disappointed. The story was inventive and well put together. I enjoyed the way everything slowly tied together from beginning to end, even though it all seemed like separate stories at first. While there was an over abundance of swearing, looking back at the movie (replaying scenes in my head) the language is not what I remember. Can’t say that I’d recommend this one.
Moral Rating: 2 of 5
The coolest part of the movie was Samuel L. Jackson. I’ve always been curious about this movie and my curiosity was increased after reading Thomas Hibbs Arts of Darkness. Hibbs states,
“Tarantino’s repudiation of linear narration suits a world out of joint where character development and unified story telling are impossible. The sequence of events in the film pivots around a remarkable chance event, the interpretation of which determines the destiny of the two central characters, Jules and Vincent.”
This really wasn’t what I was expecting. It definitely was intense at moments, particularly the last fight/chase scene. I’d really have to say that the end of the movie is what made it a bit more enjoyable. I’m not sure why it’s hailed as one of the best. It’s like a hybrid of Terminator, 2001: Space Odyssey, and Minority Report (the last of which being the only one I enjoyed). Supposedly it’s the cinematography that made it great, and I have to agree, I didn’t feel like I was watching an 80’s movie, with exception to the soundtrack.
Moral Rating: 3 of 5
80% of the way through the movie I was wondering what really was the purpose behind the show. I understood some of the science fiction elements that were presented, and particularly liked the fact that the genre can present situations with androids (sometimes aliens) that, though not human, are really quite central to human belief and experience.
Deckard’s realization at the end (something that he slowly comes to throughout the course of the movie) is rather poignant (especially since Deckard’s thinking it with regards to the android he was just trying to kill - and who was also trying to kill him):
“I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life - anybody's life; my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die.”
How much do we really love life? With all the aches and pains, joy and happiness, we need to continually strive to find the answers of what it is we should be learning with every experience we gain in life.
The last line of the movie also makes a strong point:
“Gaff had been there, and let her live. Four years, he figured. He was wrong. Tyrell had told me Rachael was special. No termination date. I didn't know how long we had together... Who does?” (emphasis added)
We never know how long we will be with anyone. Friends come and go, loved ones pass on, the time we spend with everyone around us should be valued as if it were the last. It’s much easier said and understood than acted upon. Pride steps in and keeps us from sharing our emotions, robbing us of emotional bonds that could have enriched our lives. We need to live our lives, not as a dress-rehearsal, but as a final production where every choice and action we take affects our final destiny.
Great music, ok story. Vince Vaughn really gets annoying here, plus the language is pretty coarse. If you can get past that, this really is a nice story dealing with friendship and romantic relationships.
Moral Rating: 3 of 5
Trent’s character is portrayed as the enviable one, with Mike being the lame, whiny friend who can’t get over his recent split-up with his girlfriend. Trent seems to be a valuable friend, in that he doesn’t abandon Mike, and frequently tells him how “money” he is, but Trent seems to miss what Mike really needs. Mike ends up finding out what he needs on his own through making his own mistakes and discoveries. Because he does this by himself, he ends up happier in spite of all the help his friends were trying to offer him. It’s a big plus that the climax romantic relationship in the film has nothing to do with sex (at least through the end of the movie), is not shallow, and brings genuine happiness to Mike.
Besides the language pulling the moral rating down quite a bit, the positive message of quality relationships shines through.
After watching the movie we felt like maybe we needed some sort of mental therapy: it was that good of a psychological thriller. The movie did a great job of putting us right in the shoes of Teddy Daniels, we could understand what he went through and why he made the decisions he did (with the exception of a few -possibly key - scenes that were edited out). Violence and language are the main reason for the R rating; so if you can watch it edited, it’s a cool show.
Moral Rating: 2/5
The ending line really makes you ponder Teddy’s situation: “Which would be worse, to live as a monster, or to die as a good man?” I think Teddy is beyond being able to forgive himself. Forgiveness for murder is not easy to come by (whether from God or the person that died), considering there is no restitution that can be made. Reflecting on this state of mind could also be dangerous, almost insinuating that death (whether physical or mental) is the best way out of feeling guilt.
It’s hard to construe a whole lot more of a message, I don’t think we got the full impact of the movie since most of his memories were edited out from the version we watched. But even with missing part of the movie, I feel no overwhelming urge to watch it unedited; it was good, but not that good.
On Violence
Some interesting quotes from the latter part of the film, from a conversation between the warden and Teddy:
Warden: You're as violent as they come. I know. because I'm as violent as they come. Don't embarrass yourself by denying your own blood lust, son. Don't embarrass me. If the constraints of society were removed, and I was all that stood between you and a meal, you'd crack my skull with a rock and eat my meaty parts.
Warden: We wage war, we burn sacrifices we pillage and plunder and treat at the flesh of our brothers and why? Because God gave us violence to wage in his honor.
Teddy Daniels: I thought God gave us moral orders.
Warden: There is no moral orders as pure as this storm. There's no moral order at all. There's just this: can my violence conquer yours?
Violence is not sanctioned by God. Perhaps you’d send me to the Old Testament in the Bible and ask, what of the Law of Moses? That law was meant to lead people to Christ. There was no tolerance for sin (which was the reason for the punishments). God has established a higher moral order, almost more of an individual one because our governments are not run by religion (at least in the US) like they were in Moses’s time.
God sanctions discipline. Our life on this earth is a blessing and we are given freedom to act according to the dictates of our conscience, and at the same time we accept eternal responsibility for those actions and will reap what we sow. If that reaping involves “God-sanctioned” violence (death penalty, war, etc.), he will be the ultimate judge. But what of those who kill in the name of Allah? How can we believe any man has the “right” to take the life of another man? The death penalty is sanctioned because the accused are given a trial, a chance to prove they are not guilty, if the evidence is incontrovertible, they receive their just judgement (just insofar as man can be just in his imperfect condition). Their death is meant as an example to other would-be criminals, as well as a safeguard against the accused being released and wreaking havoc on more innocent people.
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 was an intriguing, but hard to enjoy movie. We watched a recording off of broadcast television (our only film source other than the library or an occasional RedBox) and even edited I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. Yet at the same time it presented some very interesting thoughts and dialog between me and my wife.
Moral Rating: 2
The violence in this movie is surely what made it R, but was really the crux of the whole movie, so it would be hard to take it out completely or even mostly out and still have a coherent/impactful story. Some of the strong themes that were presented dealt with nihilism, destiny, and agency.
The entire film was nihilistic (as are most Coen brother films). The opening line was rather haunting and hopeless. The single reference to God portrays Him as distant and unkind:
"always figured when I got older, God would sorta come inta my life somehow. And he didn't. I don't blame him. If I was him I would have the same opinion of me that he does."
Atrocious events were talked about as if they were everyday occurrences. Chighur was a god-like figure in that when he said something, he'd do it (executing justice as written by his own law) and only occasionally give people a weak chance to change their "destiny".
[Spoiler Alert]
Lewellyn's choices basically led to his and his wife's death. He was completely aware of what he had to do to prevent that (some faith would have to be exercised), but the 2 million dollars was just too much to let go of. Greed was another element in the film. The ironic part is that Lewellyn actually had some compassion on the Mexicans and it ended up being the Mexicans who killed him, not Chighur.
This was a great semi-political thriller. Why is it that deep political thrillers are R? I don't think ratings mean a whole lot anymore, other than to try to market the movie to a particular audience. If you're an adult you want to see more violence and sex and hear more profanity than a 13 year old would want to see. Makes sense, right? WRONG! That is a rather odd perspective if you ask me.
I had read the graphic novel of the same name (which the movie was fairly closely based on) and was very much impressed and excited to see the movie. This movie was a better adaptation than Watchmen was. Not because it was a closer adaptation, but because the director made it a bit more his own, he made the movie more powerful and moving than Watchmen (which could have to do with the general themes of each of the original stories - V was less "graphic" and more inspirational, while Watchmen was more nihilistic).
Moral Value – Failure to Communicate?
Rating: 4
There was a strong message that an idea is more important than a hero. Once a person gets outside him or herself and realizes that living life is more than just making sure we get through everyday or are ahead of everyone else, that person is truly free.
I've really come to enjoy this story. I read the graphic novel and was quite impressed by it, even though it does present very mature themes. I don't know that I'd recommend the movie to anyone, if you're interested in the story go for the graphic novel first. The movie doesn't integrate the sub-story "Tale of the Black Freighter" which adds a lot to the meaning of the main story; for this reason it's not as good as it could be. If you were to watch the edited version of the film (like we did) you will miss out on a lot of information. The novel is less explicit than the movie (as far as I can tell by reading the reasons why this is R) - the swearing is not as heavy, there isn't any explicit sex, but it is still rather violent/disturbing.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate?
Rating: 4
Overall message: Don't leave the saving of society to the "heroes." We may not have super heroes in our society today, but we do have politicians who believe they are super heroes. If we leave the correcting of society to those in power and do nothing ourselves, our society will end up like that in the Watchmen, quite terrifying. The saying came up quite frequently in the movie, and even more so in the graphic novel, if the Watchmen are keeping society in check, then who watches the Watchmen?
Kind of a cool story, a lot creepier than I had imagined. I recorded this show because of it's notoriety, but was rather underwhelmed. If you've never seen it, it might be worth a view, but don't expect much.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate?
Rating: 2
"In the few hours we had together we loved a lifetime's worth." What kind of a line is that?
Good movie, but rather predictable (just like a lot of legal thrillers). It is a true story, so it's not like they could change it up or embellish it too much. There was no fancy lawyer battle in the courtroom. I'm not sure why it was Rated-R, it was plenty similar to John Grisham stories and could have been targeted to a broader audience without any excessive language or sexual content.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate?
Rating: 2
The film comes off with a somewhat good message - that hard work pays off. But are we really supposed to applaud Erin for leaving her family for so long in the care of someone else? Sure people leave their kids at day cares plenty of times, but this made it seem as if she were virtually never home. She treated her boyfriend like a nanny, and yet at the end he was grinning ear to ear because of seeing the work he actually helped assist with. Her family should have been made top priority (very similar situation to Freedom Writers, where the teacher ends up getting a divorce because she spends more time with students than at home with her husband).
R. P. McMurphy gets thrown into a mental institution for being purely lazy and rebelling against authority. He tries to lighten the spirits of the mental patients by playing cards, basketball, sneaking out of the asylum, etc. His attempt at creating a more enjoyable experience inside the place is constantly repressed by head nurse Ratched.
Entertainment Value - B
This was an alright show (if you like Cool Hand Luke, there's a chance you'll like this one). I don't know why this got all the acclaim it has received, I didn't think it was outstanding (I'm going to guess it has something to do with the cinematography like Citizen Kane). Jack Nicholson's character doesn't seem to change from one movie to another, maybe he just gets casted well. If you want to see this because it is highly acclaimed (like I did), you might be a little disappointed.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? - 2
[Spoiler Alert]
I thought some of the themes were very similar to Cool Hand Luke: A man gets imprisoned for not caring much, gains the affection of his inmates, gets broken, ends tragically.
Not sure why nurse Ratched is one of the most popular screen villains. She is extremely indifferent and cold, but you'd have to be in order to keep your sanity working in a mental institution. Her handling Billy at the end was awful; knowing his suicidal tendancies and then threatening to report him to his mother was a deathly mistake.
McMurphy and the other patient's pressure to get Billy to sleep with McMurphy's friend was completely childish and stupid. There are glimpses of McMurphy's "good" side throughout the film and you think that he might turn out to be a blessing to the place, but ends up just a curse.
Chief Bromden (not sure if Chief is his first name) should not have killed McMurphy at the end. I know it was supposedly a good act, maybe could be considered euthanasia of some sort (for those who think euthanasia can be good). Chief didn't want to leave seeing McMurphy in his broken condition. To Chief, McMurphy was a type of hero, and he imagined them escaping the place together. Since that was no longer possible in McMurphy's condition, this act of "liberation" was symbolic of the two of them leaving together - possibly meant to be poetic, but I thought it was kind of twisted.
The one good thing that came out of McMurphy ending up in the asylum was his attempt to get all the patients in the place to pretend like they weren't there. Anytime the nurses reminded them of their condition/location, McMurphy would rebel and end up lifting the spirits of those around him (a classic scene is the baseball game). McMurphy eventually ended up getting carried away and realized too late that he had gone too far. There are responsibilities that must be taken in our lives, especially when we interact with others and most importantly when they hold us in high regard. We are a light on a hill whether we want to be or not. Others look up to us, and most importantly God has high hopes that we will realize and fulfill our great potential as part of the human family.
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 recently divorced mother takes her family to live with her father in California. Her two sons discover a gang of vampires in the town. One son, Michael, inadvertently gets involved with the gang because of a pretty face and becomes a half-vampire (once he drinks his first human blood he will become a full vampire). The other son, Sam, fortunately gets acquainted with some vampire detectives. Sam must try to help Michael become human again by killing the leader of the vampire gang.
Entertainment Value - 3
I saw this movie a while back, but thought it would be appropriate to post a review after hearing the news of Corey Haim's unfortunate death yesterday. I don't know why, but I've come across this film (never seen it) quite a few times in my life and for some reason thought it was more highly acclaimed than it actually was. It was a special on whatever channel does "Movies for Guys who like Movies," so they obviously thought it was good. Even edited for TV the film was rather violent. I'm perplexed at whatever the rationale is of creating an R-rated film targeted to young teenagers, when they normally can't watch the film without an adult. Granted I'm an adult and I saw it of my own accord, but I didn't really enjoy it. At first I thought it was rather a waste of my time having sat and watched it, but reflecting on it more I came to some pretty neat realizations.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? - 3
[Spoiler Alert]
Even though the movie portrayed some pretty serious evil, it did so in a way to not glamorize it, but to show us the destroying effects of evil. Michael, the son who became half-vampire, at first wanted acceptance into this "cool" new group of friends and realized he had gotten in too deep, too late. With his constant desire to attack humans, he struggled to control himself, and this restraint is what ultimately allowed him to not become utterly consumed by this evil curse.
Restraints (obedience/adherence to laws, commandments, standards, etc.) do not exist to keep us from happiness, they are there to protect us from becoming enslaved by evil. The ideal situation would have been for Michael to not get mixed up with the gang in the first place, but that would have defeated the purpose of the movie.
Another specific incident in the show really made me think. The mother ends up falling for (inadvertently) the head vampire (whom Sam and his vampire hunters already suspect) and invites him over for dinner. When he arrives at the house, he waits to be invited in (normal behavior, right?). Once invited in, dinner is served and all attempts to expose him as a vampire (by Sam and et al.) are oddly ineffective (e.g., passing him garlic instead of Parmesan cheese, which should have burned him). During the battle at the end of the movie, we see that the mother's love interest actually is the head vampire, and the reason he couldn't be exposed earlier (at the dinner table) was that he was invited into the house.
Once we invite evil things into our lives, we become powerless to see it for what it is. We become enslaved to evil thinking and doing the longer we entertain it, and it can ultimately destroy us and our families. On a more positive note, however difficult evil is to discern in our daily lives, God has promised us He "will not leave [us] comfortless: [He] will come to [us]." We are all blessed with the Spirit of Christ when we are born and have the power to discern between good and evil.
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)?
