Archive for the 'Movies' Category

Seven Pounds: an assault on the foundation of Judeo-Christian ethic

December 17, 2008

Last night I was fortunate enough to attend a sneak preview of the new Will Smith film Seven Pounds (trailers).  Going into it, I was intrigued by what I had seen thus far. The ad campaign has been pretty effective, engendering a palpable curiosity in the viewer: “What the heck is this movie about?”

Part of that curiosity is directly a result of Will Smith’s impressive turn as a mysterious figure engaged in some sort of enterprise involving several strangers; whether this enterprise is nefarious or benevolent in nature remains largely a mystery even until the end of the film’s first act.

It’s hard to address my reaction to the film without discussing specifics as I will do below; however for those of you who don’t like to know the details of a film, I’ll do a quick spoiler-free recounting.  This movie is, to put it bluntly, morally repugnant. It is a sneak attack on the very foundations that lead to the ascendency of western society, and sadly many people are going to fall for it. If you are a church attender, you will most likely hear Smith’s character’s actions compared to the sacrificial actions of Jesus Christ. Don’t buy into it. Go into this movie with the knowledge that it puts a very attractive face on an insidious worldview. This deceptive message, prevalent in our culture, elevates individually perceived reality as dictated by emotion coupled with (an admittedly admirable) concern for life above any transcendant principles of ethical behavior.

The central question of the film: is Will Smith’s character a hero, or a fool? To answer that, I will delve into spoilers. Don’t read further if you don’t like them.

The movie is basically as follows. Will Smith’s remorse following his negiligence in an auto accident (in which 7 people including his wife die) leads him to decide that he is going to kill himself and donate all his organs, money, house, etc to 7 people to ostensibly make up for his mistake. Also important to note is that he is in a lot of emotional pain because of what happened, and this is made clear by Smith’s look-at-me-I-am-in-pain face (of which I grew somewhat tired of within the first 30 minutes). However he doesn’t want to help just anyone, but wants to choose those “who deserve it- good people.” Although he does just want to end it all, his desire is depicted as a noble one because he wants his death to mean something. In the process of picking the person who he wants to receive his heart (he is a very rare  blood type), he ends up falling in love with a dying girl. Faced with the choice between living a short time with his new love (who is doomed to die) or allowing her to live on by sacrificing himself, he chooses the latter, and in the process also donates his corneas to a blind Woody Harrilson (who by the way probably delivered the best performance in the film), his beach house to a battered Hispanic woman and her children, bone marrow to a child, kidney(s?) to a token old white guy, pieces of his lung to his brother… the list probably goes on.

I hated it. And here is why. As I said above, the message is not merely morally questionable but a morally repugnant one: disdain for one’s own life is called virtue, and death is called life.  His ultimate selfish act of suicide, we are emotionally manipulated to believe, was a heroic act because of what he did with all his worldly possessions (his body etc). This is bullshit. To understand why suicide is so morally reprehensible in almost every situation (I withhold judgment for people in egregious physical pain that can’t be alleviated- I don’t know what I’d do in that eventuality), I defer to GK Chesterton in the chapter “The Flag of the World” of the book Orthodoxy:

Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross-roads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer’s suicidal automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man’s crime is different from other crimes — for it makes even crimes impossible.

Smith’s act is not heroic, it is cowardice. He is not unusually noble; he is atypically selfish. His pain-face makes something very clear: the real reason he is killing himself is because he doesn’t want to live.  All of the other things he does in addition to taking his own life? Semantics. Rationalization. What about all the pain his suicide inflicts upon the rest of his family, and on the woman who he supposedly loves? What about all the other good he could have accomplished over the course of a long life? What about the fact that life is itself a gift given by God that is not ours to throw away? No, ultimately Smith is elevating his perception of reality through his emotional pain above any claims the world (his family, God, society) has on him, and as Chesterton makes clear, this is in a very real sense, a purely evil act.

Now you will hear Smith’s character compared to Jesus- I guarantee it. But
this is a lie. He was not a martyr, he is a suicide. Jesus was not a suicide, and the idea that he was a suicide is an ancient, thoroughly refuted heresy. As Chesterton goes on to note in his book, the line between suicide and martyrdom is one of the most important distinctions to make in Judeo-Christian ethic, and in fact in many ways it is THE defining difference between the moral codes of Christendom and all other moral frameworks, i.e., fraudulent moral systems. This movie is trying to blur those lines. I’m not falling for it, and neither should you.

Putin and Chavez

September 26, 2008

Ok so apparently Putin and Chavez have seen Red Dawn:

Putin says ties with Latin America a top priority

NOVO-OGARYOVO, Russia (AP) – Prime Minister Vladimir Putin vowed Thursday to make relations with Latin America a top foreign policy priority, a pledge backed by the first Russian naval deployment to the Caribbean since the Cold War.

WOLVERINES!

Talk Like A Pirate Day!

September 23, 2008

…was September 19th.  And I missed it.

Oh well.  In honor of the day, I share some of best (but also oldest) pirate jokes:

Who is a pirate’s favorite movie character?

Captain Jack Sparrow? NO! It’s ARRRRR-too-dee-too.

Who does a pirate enjoy fighting the most?

The Navy? NO! The ARRRRRRRRmy.

Who is a pirate’s favorite Greek Deity?

Poseidon, god of the sea? NO! ARRRRRRtemis.

What is a pirate’s favorite fast food place?

Long John Silvers? NO! It’s ARRRRRRRRby’s.

What’s a pirates favorite holiday?

Talk Like A Pirate Day? NO! It’s ARRRRRbor Day.

And finally….

What is a pirate’s favorite letter of the alphabet?

What? Did you say ‘R’? NO! It’s P of course. P for Pirate. ARRRRRen’t you paying attention?

MooveAlong.org

September 16, 2008

Democrazy Inaction.

Abolish July 4th!

101% income tax rate!

heh. I’m looking forward to this movie.

Went to Narnia and all I got was this crummy “Got Aslan?” t-shirt

May 22, 2008

Saw Prince Caspian this past weekend. I’ll share some thoughts on it below, but first I thought I’d follow up on another post I made in reference to the Planet Narnia book by Dr. Michael Ward. Hugh Hewitt had the author on his show (click “listen now” and then go forward about 10 minutes) a couple weeks ago.

Fascinating stuff. Anyway, on to the film.

First thing I noticed about the film: the kids’ acting was much improved. They were pretty ho hum in the first movie. Not terrible by any means, but they did remind me of watching the old BBC Narnia films (except, you know, they weren’t ugly).

Second thing I notice: the changes from the book, and the fact that, surprisingly, they didn’t bug me at all! I was amazed. Except for Caspian and Susan making googley eyes at each other (LAME and unnecessary), I thought some of the ideas were in the spirit of the book and worked well- much better than, say, completely destroying the character of Faramir beyond all recognition in The Two Towers (the more time goes by, the more I just hate that Jackson et al made that decision- it was completely unnecessary and made NO sense in the movie).

I enjoyed this one WAY more than the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. I have several friends that will hate me for saying so, butI thought the first one was just stupid awful. I really can’t stand it. And this is very odd, because I have always thought that Caspian is by far the worst story of the series, and Lion is probably the second best (after The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, of course).

However, improved does not mean great. It had its problems. Some of these Narnia movies will need to be PG-13 to be able to show the things on screen that need to be shown (I’m thinking of The Silver Chair and The Last Battle primarily), and this one definitely suffered from the PG rating. A movie such as this one, based primarily on 2 large scale, sword and archery waged battles simply does not have the realistic feeling it desperately needs to make you interested in the fate of the characters. Not only that, but Aslan is supposed to be scary in this story. And he most definitely is NOT. I mean, I know that marketing wise it would probably be suicide to churn out seven PG-13 narnia flicks (or even 3 of them), but parents let their kids see rough stuff all time if the parents consider it to have merit. A good example is Saving Private Ryan or Schindler’s List; graphically disturbing R rated movies to be sure, but I know very conservative Christian parents who have no problem letting their older (14ish age) kids watch them because they are meaningful and beneficial films to watch. On a much lesser violent scale, the Narnia movies could have been equally valuable to younger kids. These movies are just too fluffy and cute, and as a result lose the real meaning behind them. The redemption story in Lion was weak. And this story, which is supposed to be about the power and might of Aslan and the nature of a relationship with him in the world of Narnia, has been rendered powerless. Which brings me to the other major problem I am having with these films: Aslan himself.

Now, Liam Neeson doesn’t work as Aslan for me at all, but that’s not the only or even the primary reason Aslan has so far been a failure. The Aslan of the films is not powerful. He is not majestic, fearsome, mighty, mysterious or holy. He is just sort of big and fluffy, and roars now and then. There is no inspiration of awe. When watching Aslan, you are supposed to be thinking, “If I inhabited that fantasy world, I would be drawn to Aslan- I would love him, fear him, and worship him.” Can anyone honestly say this about the portrayal of the Great Lion in the Narnia films? Now, I know this is a monumental task. But so is building a road, and if someone built a road that didn’t go anywhere (much like these films seem to be doing), I’d still complain to them. Loudly.

I really want for these films to be good- truly I do. I don’t get off on being negative and raining on everyone’s parade. I would much rather be able to get 10 times as excited about the next Narnia flick as I am about the next Spiderman, Harry Potter, or Batman. But based on what we have seen so far, I can’t.

I will say, though, that the improvements over the first one are substantial and I am holding out some hope that my favorite of the books- The Voyage of the Dawn Treader– will be the one where all the lessons have been learned, and we really get to immerse ourselves in the world Lewis (NOT Andrew Adamson!) created.

We’ll see. To sum up: overall not a bad effort, especially considering this is probably (in my opinion) the weakest book of the entire series.

The Dark Knight, The Joker, and no Katie Holmes

April 27, 2008

I loved Batman Begins- it was very well done, and gave the Batman franchise the rebirth it needed.

But I have to be honest- there was a major flaw in that flick.  That flaw’s name was Katie Holmes.  Now, I know that for many this is sacrilege- but let’s be honest here people.  She’s kind of odd looking for one thing.  And that wouldn’t be such a big deal if the girl was at all decent at acting, but she seems to have about as much depth on screen as her life decisions have had in reality.  And speaking Tom Cruise and Scientology, having her on screen is simply too incredibly distracting for me; I can’t stop thinking: “That poor, poor girl.”

Imagine the pleasant surprise I had today when I read the bottom of The Dark Knight movie poster and discovered- NO KATIE HOLMES! Could it be?  What about her character?  But yes, it is true- they have replaced Katie with Maggie Gyllenhaal.  You know, Will Ferrell’s love interest in Stranger Than Fiction.  Jake Gyllenhaal’s sister, apparently.

And so now I am much more excited about this movie, especially because of the rest of the talent listed on the bottom of that poster: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman…  I can think of at least 25 films with these names which I enjoy thoroughly.

But probably the most important name on that one-sheet is Chris Nolan.  It is worth getting revved up for the work of the man who made Memento.

Indiana Jones poster- coooooooooooool!

March 10, 2008

Yeah, Harrison Ford may be older than Lexington limestone, but this poster is so flippin’ cool it actually brings my hopes way up for this movie.  I really really hope it’s good.

More on Amy Adams

March 8, 2008

This blog seems to get more hits from search engines based on the query “Amy Adams” than pretty much any other subject. Yet there is only 1 post devoted to her! A real tragedy.

I thought I’d do my duty as an Adams devotee and let everyone know that she’ll be on Saturday Night Live tonight.

While we’re on the subject- I went and saw Enchanted with my little brother a few months back,  and I have to say, it was not terrible. Even entertaining, and borderline charming. The best thing about the movie, of course, was Ms Adams cavorting around in the beautiful wardrobe which her character made each morning before breakfast (out of curtains).

I also just realized that she guest starred on The Office in the final episode of the first season as the, appropriately, “Hot Girl”.

More updates as events warrant.

Beauty has a name

November 8, 2007

and it’s Amy Adams. You know, the chick from Catch Me If You Can. Didn’t really notice her until I started seeing those ads for Enchanted lately, and gee wiz:

Amy Adams 1

Amy Adams 2

Amy Adams 3

Yowza.

Wall-E

October 1, 2007

Wow.

If I had even a modicum of creative talent, I’d want very badly to work for Pixar.  Making perfect film after perfect film must be rather gratifying.