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.
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 movie might be even funnier if you've ever watched an episode of American Idol, but it was funny enough. A little weird in parts, but entertaining if you can watch it edited.
Moral Rating: 2
A semi-good message comes out when you see that fame and fortune don't really bring happiness. William Williams was a good example of getting what you want. He wanted Sally so badly that he refused to see her for what she was and when it finally hit him, the results were explosive.
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.
Amazingly well-done movie. The cinematography was beautiful, the music was awesome, and the story was cool (even if some people complain of it being a bit gimmicky). I wasn't sure how "Who wants to be a millionaire?" and a love story would be all that compelling of a movie, but being set in India makes all the difference. If you can get a hold of someone with an edited version, this is a great film, otherwise it's probably on the milder end of R-Rated movies.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate?
Rating: 4
There was a strong message of destiny throughout the film (there is a difference between destiny and fate). The brothers, Salim and Jamal, both grew up in the same environment and suffered the same hardships, but each chose to take a different route. They both were little con-men up to a certain point, but Jamal chose to change and became 100% honest in all that he did. His honesty didn't make his life any easier, but in the long run we see that his honesty enabled him to be one of the happiest characters in the story (the 20 million rupees probably didn't have anything to do with it).
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?
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).
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.
Frank Goode (Robert De Niro) has just lost his wife and it seems that the relationships he had with his kids have passed away too. After all his kids cancel their visit home at the last minute, he decides to go out and visit each of them in a series of successive stops on a long road trip. They are very much surprised at his visits, though not terribly happy to see him as they end up trying to cover up anything he would not be proud of and hurry him off to see the next sibling (sometimes not even letting him stay the night). Frank catches on and realizes something needs to change.
Entertainment Value - A
This was a nice easy-going movie, though a real tearjerker at the same time. Being a star-studded film, I didn't expect a whole lot out of this, but ClearPlay convinced me it might be worth checking out, and it was. It came out at Christmas time, but the end scene is the only thing that happens at Christmas (though the beginning might be too, it wasn't very explicit). The way the story was told was pretty cool; it wove in and out of Frank's childrens' past and present depicting them as he sees them (primarily still as kids who need direction and counsel, not necessarily as adults needing a listening ear).
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? - 4
Great message on family relationships, particularly those between parent and child. Frank is portrayed from the start as being very interested in his family; you can see that he loves them as he prepares for their visit. As the story moves along you find out that Frank made his own reality out of what he wanted his kids to become, and that the kids didn't really see him as someone willing to listen to them. In short, everything isn't fine.
Communication is the central theme of the movie. Frank's profession of installing insulation around power lines, as well as the constant display of telephone wires and the conversations that take place over them are constantly brought up. The effects of poor communication are foreshadowed in the first part of the show when Frank doesn't listen to the Dr.'s advice to stay home but leaves on a cross-country trip anyways, which doesn't turn out to be a walk in the park.
Frank knew he didn't have the most exciting professional life and hoped and "knew" that each of his kids could be whatever they (he) wanted them to be. Because of this attitude, his kids (and wife) only told him what he was willing to listen to (never any bad news, everybody was always fine). The visit he makes to each child is very eye-opening and you learn right along side him how his link to his family is starting to fall apart. The trip turned out to be more for him than for his children, though ultimately it did bring them all together again.
We did watch this on our ClearPlay player, so there may be some strong language, but the PG-13 is also for some stronger thematic elements meant more for adults.
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)?
Maximus, general of the Roman army, declines to serve the new Emperor and ends up a slave/gladiator fighting for his life and for the entertainment of others. When he is brought to Rome and fights before the new Caesar he eventually realizes his power, even as a slave, to turn the people against the evil emperor.
Entertainment Value
The movie was pretty violent, but the story is a lot deeper than the cool fight scenes. A very tense plot unravels as we see the good emperor overthrown by his evil son along with the possible passing of the crown to the worthy general of the Roman armies. I highly recommend this if it comes out on TV, or you happen to have a way to edit the grisly R version.
Moral Value - Failure to communicate?
[Spoiler Alert]
In the beginning, when offered the empire, Maximus declined the honors of becoming Caesar because his first priority was returning to his simple life with his family. There's a good chance he would have accepted the offer if things hadn't gone the way they did. Maximus realized the reason that the dying emperor chose him was because of his adherence to dignity and virtue - the only one who could combat the corruption that existed in the Senate.
Maximus is a man of very high morals and trades them in for nothing; he loves his country and will do anything to help keep his fellow countrymen free. Similar to Karate Kid, though Maximus's foe was much more evil, Maximus was able to challenge his enemy in an "official" or accepted arena, showing that there are appropriate ways to conquer the enemy, even to the death.
The loneliness Commodus brought on himself because of his ambition and treachery is very well portrayed.
Synopsis A young man, Sing (played by director Stephen Chow), aspires to join a 1940's Chinese axe-mafia group. The mafia runs into some resistance in an apartment complex that still fosters the spirit of Kung fu. Desperate to punish them, the mafia releases The Beast, who also is a master of Kung fu. At the last minute a new Kung fu master surfaces as a result of being pounded to a pulp and is destined to face The Beast.
Entertainment Value This was a bizarre movie (probably even more so since I watched it in Spanish). Hilarious most of the time, yet a little disturbing. The fighting sequences were very well done; it was really like watching a real life Looney Tunes Kung Fu movie.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? I've been struggling with the phrase "glamorized violence" and what exactly it means. From what I gather, it means that it makes violence look pleasurable or rewarding. Maybe something like The Matrix where the fighting is really cool. Is that bad? The fighting in this movie was so completely unrealistic and exaggerated that it was genuinely funny. I'm not sure you could call that bad or good, at least it doesn't make me want to go around and try to punch people through walls or chop off their legs.
[Spoiler Alert] Sing's story is admirable. He's unsure of what he wants to do with his life. He's attracted to the power and fame of the axe-mafia, but he also has a desire to do good and protect the weak. He's literally pounded to his senses and is able to become the ultimate good and defeat the Beast, bringing peace to the tenants and repairing an old friendship. So even though the movie was an action/comedy (a genre that generally doesn't have any sort of moral or immoral message), I thought the aforementioned messages were well created. I could really understand the confusion that Sing felt and his desire to fit in somewhere; I was able to internalize the conflicts that were portrayed.
Just because it had some good messages, I don't think I could recommend this to anyone; unless you're interested in seeing the stylized Kung fu action sequences and can stomach a bit of blood, even in the TV-version (at least on Spanish broadcast TV).
This film covered the preparation and the airing of the historical 4-day interview David Frost conducted with former president Richard Nixon. Some wanted the interview to be the trial Nixon never received (due to Ford's pardon); others simply wanted the experience of interviewing one of the most controversial men in history.
Entertainment Value
I'm not sure how accurate the interviews in the film were with the actual ones, but no matter what, Ron Howard did an excellent job putting this story. For consisting of mostly just dialog between the titular characters, it was as tense as any other action/suspense film I've seen, reminiscent of the style of film 12 Angry Men was.
Moral Value
It's intriguing to see Frost's motives for interviewing Nixon dramatically shift just before the last leg of the series. Frost accepted some of his researchers because of their intent on proving Nixon guilty in order to give Americans the resolution they needed for the preceding years of scandal. Frost didn't quite share that passion and was fighting a losing battle until he too decided to take things seriously and conduct the last interview in a way that would start the healing process for disillusioned Americans. This is a great example of how anything done halfheartedly cannot bring you real happiness, no matter how optimistic you are. Once a person has done everything to ensure the success of a goal, no matter the outcome, that person is successful.
Being how this is a depiction of a very important event in our history, I think it is of great value to everyone to see this film. The film could very easily have been brought to a PG-13 rating, but I fear that Hollywood pushed for the R-Rating solely to target it's audience to a more mature crowd. I can see that this film probably would not be enjoyed by too many under age 17, so why market the film towards them by giving it a PG-13 rating?
We did watch this edited, and as far as I know only a handful of swearing was cut out (turn up your nudity filter if you don't care to see the back of a naked man running into the ocean at the end).
The fight-club aspect of the movie is what made me interested in seeing it. I have some fond memories of the bare-knuckle fist-fights that happened at boys camps to resolve any angst or bad feelings between other kids (though never involved in any directly). But this movie was much more than just a couple of guys duking it out because they disagreed with each other or (as you're lead to believe in the beginning) because their lives were dull. The first half/two-thirds of the movie was rather disturbing until I started realizing what was going on (right along with the main character), and then my head started spinning.
Everyone, as far as I know, desires to do something other than what their current profession requires of them or to be somebody else or somewhere else. Case in point: I would love to be a professional movie critic and do nothing else but watch and review movies; but that's pretty unrealistic. How many people ever get to live out their dreams or are courageous enough to start their lives on a path towards what they want to be? It is quite evident from the story that unhappiness and mayhem result from a life where there is no direction, no end goal. Edward Norton never realized what he wanted to do/be and that made him unhappy. What could be considered his goal in life is possibly that he wanted to help others not end up like himself. He wanted to make sure that everyone else tried to achieve their goals, even if he had to force them to do it at gun point.
All in all, this was a very cool show, but not very moral (evident by the R-rating, so remember I'm reviewing an edited version of this). Not because there was more bad than good in the film, but that the bad wasn't shown receiving its natural consequences. [Spoiler Alert] For example, when Norton realized the chain of events he had set in place and tried to stop them from occurring, he found that everyone he could possibly think of turning himself in to was already in on his plan; they thought it a ruse that he was telling them to call it all off and even tried to impose on him some of his own consequences for trying to ruin the plan. And then to top it off, not only are all the possible good guys turned bad, but his plan to reset humanity is successful (though we don't see the actual impact of the destruction he caused). The ending scene had me in total disbelief and even caused me to laugh at the absurdness of it all.
I don't know if I could recommend this to anyone (even edited), but I can't deny the fact that there was a small amount of enjoyment found in watching it. For any of you who have seen Fight Club what's your take on it? I bet you'll think twice before buying any nice perfumed soap that costs $20 a bar.
