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.
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.
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)?
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).
