Dr. Parnassus has made several deals with Mr. Nick (the devil), one of which includes the forfeiture of his daughter on her 16 birthday. Fortunately Tony joins the traveling circus and appears to have what it takes to save Dr. Parnassus's daughter.
Entertainment Value
Rating: C
This show was very interesting and very confusing. If it weren't for Wikipedia's candid explanation of why Terry Gilliam put this together and what he was thinking, I would have thought a lot less of this film (not understanding it's purpose of existence). Because the story was so confusing, it was hard to enjoy; and as my wife stated, "if you want to see what it feels like to be high, you'll get it by watching this show" (not that she would know what to compare it to).
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate?
Rating: 4
The most intriguing part of the story happens within the Imaginarium, where peoples dreams become a reality.
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)?
If the movie is going to keep the name "the Half-blood Prince" they could have done a much better job at including more that dealt with the mystery behind the title. Snape's confession to owning the title at the end was rather corny. Dumbledore's character was unimpressive as well, too many forced lines. Otherwise I thought this was a great movie. The director, David Yates, did a great job at showing the inner conflict with Malfoy, teenage romantic dramas, and the start of the search for the Hoarcruxes.
Even though this movie only received a PG rating, I thought it was darker than any of the other Harry Potter films. With the sixth installment proving that it can portray the darkness in the books with a PG rating, the only reason for giving two of the previous movies a PG-13 rating (particularly #4) was for the crass humor and language, not existent in the books.
Draco Malfoy's inner turmoil with fulfilling his task to kill Dumbledore was a very good representation of human beings innate desire to fight against evil. Draco may be quite obnoxious and idiotic, but he is not evil. We see a glimmer of his goodness in his inability to kill Dumbledore. Malfoy is too innocent and aware of what's right and wrong to let such a destructive decision tear his soul apart. On the other hand, you see his fear of failure and dread for what Voldemort will do to him and his mother if he does not succeed. In contrast with Draco Malfoy, Tom Riddle was evil and had compromised his soul at a very young age. As a result of Draco's hesitancy, Snape comes off as some sort of hero by keeping Malfoy from ruining himself by stepping in to complete the task himself.
The movie did an excellent job depicting the romantic awkwardness exhibited by teenagers. This lightheartedness did a great job at complementing the darker side of the story and providing some comic relief.
I've read some reviews comparing this film to the Empire Strikes Back of the original Star Wars Trilogy, it being more thought provoking and darker than the others. Some complain about the lack of magic in the castle (talking portraits, moving staircases, etc.), the lack of a decent battle at the end. I, however, was rather impressed with the film and consider it my favorite so far.
This was a great scary movie, but I didn't feel uplifted after it (I don't know that there are any inspiring scary movies). There were some heroic people throughout it saving other people's lives from the monster ravaging Manhattan. It did not feel evil, a light humor was trickled throughout it to keep you interested in the movie without being overwhelmed with the constant destruction/bloodshed.
Part of the reason it wasn't evil, in my opinion, was that the monster(s) was(were) very unrealistic. A lot of times when one can realistically imagine the "bad" from the movie in their own real world (e.g., as possibly being pursued or having loved ones in danger), the "bad" can be more lasting in the watcher's mind causing nightmares or other fearful images. Evil can also be advocating or displaying sin in a way that glorifies the sin and does nothing to denounce it or display the consequences of such actions.
