Slumdog Millionaire

I had the opportunity to see this film at the Denver Film Festival this saturday. For those of you that live in the Denver area, I highly recommend the festival. This film was shown at the Ellie Caulkins Opera House downtown. It is a unique experience in and of itself.

The film takes place in Mumbai, a gigantic, sprawling metroplex in India. The main character, Jamal Malik, has grown up a "slumdog," a very poor orphan in a large city. The details of his life are rather horrific. When he is older he somehow falls into being on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" He ends up winning a whole lot of money, but the authorities think he must have cheated. How could a slumdog know all these questions? The prejudice is pretty blatant.

British director Danny Boyle (Sunshine, 28 Days Later, Millions) brings us this modern day fairy-tale about love, fate, knowledge, and sacrifice. The storytelling device Boyle uses is brilliant. Jamal's past unfolds to us through the questions of the game show. We learn about how and why Jamal knows the answers. And we are confronted with the question of why Jamal knows the answers. Is it luck? Brilliance? Cheating? Or Fate? This is the central question to the film. And this forces us to confront our own views on life and what we believe about our future. In addition, the love story parallel is quite beautiful and touching, in a non-cheesy way (I have my "cheese-radar" on pretty high most of the time).

The cultural aspect of the film, and India itself, is enlightening. It helped me understand India from more of a first-person perspective (at least that one slice of India, Mumbai's slums). I was a little worried we would get some Bollywood crap, but that didn't happen until the credits (which was pretty obnoxious, but wasn't really part of the movie). The music was fantastic and added quite a bit to the story, especially the multitue of paralleling chase scenes. It seemed like Jamal was always running away, or running toward, something.

Slumdog Millionaire is a beautiful story, told in a unique and powerful way. It does help us to understand what makes us human, what makes us love. It confronts us with ideas of fate and intelligence. It looks beautiful. This film has been getting a boatload of Oscar buzz, and it is all well-deserved. When it is released here in Denver I encourage everyone to go experience this journey into a modern day fairy-tale.

Changeling

Master Clint Eastwood has another year with two major releases back to back (this film, and Gran Torino in December). Changeling stars Angelina Jolie as a single mother (Christine Collins) who loses her son. He is abducted in 1928 Los Angeles. Five months later Collins is told her boy was found. Yet she does not recognize this boy. What is going on? Is she crazy or are the police trying to cover up their ineptitude? This is a story of one parent's long, hard struggle with the realities of a harsh world.

This film is a gut-wrencher for parents especially, manifesting all of our worst fears. How would I cope with the disappearance of my son? I don't even want to think about it.

One thing that stuck out to me about the film is the character of Reverend Gustav Briegleb. He is a Presbyterian pastor who is fighting for justice against the oppression and corruption of the LAPD. The mixing of politics and religion is a great topic, especially now in the wake of the election. We as Christians should always fight for justice and truth, and here you have a spiritual leader willing to do that. Yet, he is not always perfect and does not always have perfect intentions. Yet he is a good man, and tries to bring about the things of God through his actions (reminding me of Karl Malden's character in On the Waterfront).

As with my last reviewed film, Blindness, Changeling has a wonderfully complex lead role for a woman, played fantastically by Angelina. So often female leads are one dimentional and stereotypical. Here you have a single mother with the strength to keep fighting and the hope that her son is alright. She loves deeply, yet struggles mightily against others and herself. The film is beautifully shot, with a grayish tint that helps add to the time-period. As a period piece in and of itself the detail is unfailing. The chilling journey that we take with Collins is one that will stick with us for a long time to come. Is it even possible for Clint to make a bad movie anymore?

Blindness

Fernando Mereilles (maker of two excellent films: City of God and The Constant Gardener) directs Blindness, a distopian tale of a mega-virus that blinds everyone in the world, except one woman. Julianne Moore plays the Doctor's wife, the only person not stricken with this disease. The Doctor (Mark Ruffalo) is an optometrist who sees a patient who has been struck blind, but not like normal blindness. Instead of black, he sees white all the time. This virus is then passed on to others, and pretty soon they are quarantined. It keeps spreading and spreading, no matter what the government does to contain it.



First of all, the film is fantastically shot. As has been his style, Mereilles over saturates his cinematography, in this case with white. This style obviously adds to our experience of the characters' blindness. Other techniques are used effectively to add to our experience as well, such as blurriness, and lack of clarity/light.

What are people really like? Would we let down our walls and see the truth of ourselves and each other if none of us relied on our vision anymore. It seems as though we can truly see what humanity is when they are struck blind (that is called irony). Before the blindness epidemic we see people do some things, good and bad, but we understand from a Christian perspective that they are all sinners. Yet when the blindness hits people are almost driven to be animals, their instincts take over. Without society to keep them in check, humanity's evils are given free reign to take over. People now feel allowed to do heinous things to each other. One scene in particular is appallingly brutal. I won't spoil it but I do want to warn anyone considering seeing this film. Food has become scarce in the quarantined area. One ward has control over the food and exploits the others because of that. When other wards run out of money or valuables the oppressors come up with another plan: send us your women. The men act like cowards on one side, and pigs on the other. I cannot emphasize enough how disgusting we as humans can act towards each other when we think we have no accountability, no one to "keep an eye on us." The best definition I have heard for integrity is "Who you are in the dark." This film visually expounds upon that idea, especially during the scene in question.

Near the end of the film an old wise man with a black eye patch (Danny Glover) talks about how he knows everyone in their little group very well, even though he doesn't know their names (no names are used in the film). He believes that without superficials to rely on, like names or even appearance, it is easier to truly know someone. I guess that is how God sees us, for who we really are. Yet He knows our names, or maybe more accurately He knows what name truly says who we are. We see this over and over again in Scripture when name are changed by God (ex. Abram/Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Saul/Paul).

Speaking of Paul, that reminds me of another scene in the film that leaped out. At one point we see a character enter a church. All the paintings and statues, the icons, are blindfolded. There is a priest preaching, and you can hear him faintly in the background. His subject is Paul's conversion. In that story Paul was saved by Jesus, then struck blind. He needed to go into town to be healed of his blindness. This sermon further illustrates the point that maybe only through blindness can we truly "see" (ie. The Matrix, right Jim?). Because when our sight is taken from us we can truly focus on what is important, at least hypothetically.

The Doctor's Wife plays a very strong savior role in the film. She volunteers to go with her husband and all the other blind people into the quarantine even though she can see. She risks getting the disease, as well as being basically imprisoned. Her sight is a huge advantage in the quarantine though, and she uses that gift to help others. She becomes a leader, though a silent one, and a great servant. Her courage, strength and compassion are what get her and her husband, as well as many others, through many gut-wrenching times. This character is one of the best female lead roles I have seen in a long time. Not only is it a great performance, but also fantastically written. The character is immensely complicated, incredibly good, yet flawed. She plays a Christ-like role in so many lives, and is an inspiration to others. Too often in films either those roles go to men, or those roles played by women can only be really appreciated by a woman, and men feel like outsiders. I am a man, and was enthralled by this character's ability to lead and to serve. In a normally shallow pool of female lead roles, this one shines.

Blindness is a journey into a blinding hell where all the rules and comforts of everyday life are thrown out the window. It has disturbing moments, as well as experiences of profound beauty. It even has an international flavor, a la Babel or Lost. I cannot understand why more critics have not embraced this film. Blindness has been a moment of clarity and truth in an otherwise bland year of film thus far. I loved it.

Righteous Kill

We finally have DeNiro and Pacino in a film together again (Heat was the first and only in which they appeared on screen together). Righteous Kill follows the story of two detectives who are on the trail of a killer who is whacking "bad people." Usually the killer finds someone who just got acquitted for a horrible crime because of faulty evidence but should be behind bars. We all secretly, or openly, have a deisre for justice to be done to the people who are ruining others' lives. This is a well worn idea in Hollywood especially, where all our fantasies are played out (think Boondock Saints, or The Brave One).

We all know that some people just "deserve to die." And maybe at first glance they do, but we must be very careful about are presuppositions. When we decide who lives and dies, we play God. We have to realize that. The Bible says "Vengeance is mine, says the LORD." We must trust Him to be the one that will handle justice, and handle it perfectly. We have to find solace in that. Yet it is hard when people are doing really horrible things to each other. [As I am writing this I am almost sure I have written the exact same thing in a few other blogs. Definitely one of Hollywood's favorite fantasies to play on].

Righteous Kill is a pretty straight-forward crime drama. It's got guns, good guys, bad guys, mysetry, twists and turns, clues, etc. And it has two of the master-actors on the planet. It was enjoyable. Yet, it left a lot to be desired. I guess with a cast like that I was expecting a lot more. It was predicable in many places as well. If you are really itching to see Bobby and Al together, I do highly recommend Heat. And if you are in the mood to maybe feel what it's like to be the "hand of God's judgment" (which is pretty arrogant, really) and delve into what that actually means, you may want to check out Boondock Saints or even Se7en instead.

Traitor

Denver's own Don Cheadle stars in Traitor, a film about terrorism and Islam. Cheadle plays Samir Horn, a Sudanese man who has moved around a lot in life. He has lately found himself with some rather unsavory people in Yemen. He ends up being recruited by terrorists as a bomber (he's quite adept with his hands). Meanwhile, the U.S. is investigating a threat. After a few bombings by this cell in Europe, the FBI (including Guy Pierce) gets intel that points to America as the next target.

Traitor puts the debate about Islam front and center. I have to admit I wish I knew more about Islam. I have studied it, but have not as yet read the Qur'an for myself. Some people believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Obviously that is not true. We shouldn't generalize. Yet, there are some passages in their scripture that could definitely be interpreted as hostile and violent. But couldn't we interpret some of our own Scripture for bad purposes too (to justify slavery, for example?) So where do we draw the line in terms of what a holy book says? This film made me want to learn more because it has "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims" who come into conflict. In order to understand our world's political situations, we have to understand Islam. We have to look at Muslims as human beings, created by God, looking for truth, looking for a being to honor and respect. We cannot continue to look on them as psychos. And we as Christians must also get to the point where we can understand someone and still be alright with disagreeing with them.

Another thought that has been stewing in my head centers around humiliation. I believe that humiliation is the most dangerous human emotion. Many terrorists have been humiliated by the Western world. Humiliation takes away human dignity and respect, and leaves a man desperate, with nothing to lose. We have to be careful with this emotion, and try to never let this be the result of our own actions. Also, we must be careful not to fall into this trap when we ourselves have been slighted. The answer for this, as with many things in life, is to remember who God says we are (as opposed to who others say we are).

This film succeeded through a very well written plot with quite a few great twists. It is both exciting and intellectual interesting. It is entertaining, while still presenting us with great questions to ask. It helps us learn to not judge the proverbial book by the cover. The tagline sums up the film well: "The truth is complicated." Indeed. Not only in regards to this specific tale of terror and fear, but also in regards to the subjects (Islam and terrorism) as a whole. We cannot continue to see these issues so simply.

The Dark Knight

Holy Crap.

The Dark Knight is not a great "comic book movie," this is just a flat out great film. It felt more like a crime drama than a super-hero film. And it probably should have been rated R. Christian Bale is back as Batman, in Christopher Nolan's second helming of the franchise. And as everyone knows, the late Heath Ledger plays the Joker (uber-creepy performance, which should win him an Oscar, aside from the fact that he is gone). We also have Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman back. Maggie Gyllenhaal replaces Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes this time around, and we have Aaron Eckhart as the brash and idealistic new DA Harvey Dent. Bruce Wayne has been trying to hit Gotham's criminals where it hurts, financially. Thus, he has been taking out all the money launderers. He is getting pretty good at it. The new DA, Dent, has been putting his share of criminals away as well. It is not a good time to be on the wrong side of the law in Gotham. Then this Joker guy appears. He takes the mob's money, then tells them to pay him to kill Batman. And the game is afoot.

Ledger's Joker has to be one of the most fascinating villains of all-time. He is an animal, a dog who was let off the chain. His goal is anarchy. How do you understand a criminal who doesn't care about getting paid? We aren't given much background or any explanation as to why he is this way. Sometimes in this fallen world we are merely faced with unexplainable evil. So what can we do to stop those kind of people. At one point in the film Alfred relates a story of catching a thief who cared nothing about the jewels he stole. Bruce asks the question we all would, how do you catch a guy like that? Alfred's answer: "burn down the forest." To what lengths will we go to stop evil? What will we destroy along the way? Is it worth it? In stopping evil, what do we as "good guys" become? Evil ourselves? This question haunted Batman throughout the film. He was confronted with becoming something terrifying himself, and struggled with whether that was worth it. He also faced the fact that there were consequences that others would have to face through his choices. What would you do? What would Jesus do (the ever so popular question)? What should Batman do, to what depths should he stoop, to stop pure unabashed evil?

So let us examine this evil, this Joker. The Joker likes to turn people into something else, and in so doing prove that all men have evil inside, that all are fallen. Thus he gives people choices. One such choice was given to Batman. Joker was killing people, and stated that unless Batman turned himself in and revealed his identity, people would continue to die. Should Batman give in to a terrorist's demands? At one point in the film Batman is also faced with a decision, who should he save? Two people are strapped to explosives at different locations, and he only has time to save one. In effect, he is killing the other. How can he make that decision? Joker gives the every day person choices too. There is a mind-blowing scene in which two ferries are stuck in the middle of the river, each rigged to blow. Each vessel is given a trigger, and told that they must blow up the other boat before it blows them up, otherwise Joker will blow them both up. And oh yeah, one of them is filled with convicts. I won't give it away, but what a great scene! (In a great turn of events, we actually see people changed for the better instead of into the worse, as Joker would intend. Glimmers of redemption). Joker presents these choices to people to prove that even the best can be turned into the worst. This happens to one central character, creating another profound question: Should this public figure's perfect reputation be kept in tact to inspire people, even if it is a complete fabrication? Do we need a White Knight to inspire us all as common folk to do good in a bad world? And this White Knight contrasts sharply with the Dark Knight. What is the Dark Knight (besides being Batman)? He is the one who has a bad reputation, is seen as a vigilante. He is the one that goes outside the law to get things done. He is behind the scenes doing things (bad? at least shades of gray) in order to get good things done (for example, spying on 30 million people to find the Joker - hello Patriot Act). He is self-sacrificial in more ways than one. Is he what we need, the necessary hero for a fallen world?

The Joker had dogs with him throughout the film, further driving home the point that he represents our baser animal side. We are all torn between two people, between our flesh and our spirit. Joker is quite clear where he stands. Where do we stand? The Joker sees that we can all be controlled by our emotions, anger/rage/revenge/etc. Feelings are feelings, but when we choose to react in a negative way to those feelings, we are quickly sent down the path of bad decisions. We become animals. Yes Joker, we do have a dark side. We truly live in a fallen world, externally and internally.

Chance and Choice were juxtaposed in this film. Chance played a role in Harvey Dent's character. He made decisions by flipping a coin. He believed that chance was the only way to make fair decisions. What does that say about our world? Apparently in his mind, this place is so messed up that justice is a myth. There is no way to make things fair, it is all chaos, anarchy. Is that true? Is it really that bad?

The Dark Knight surpasses every other "super-hero" movie ever made, indeed it transcends the genre itself. I would not be surprised if this film gets a nomination for Best Picture, it is that good. The performances are stunning, especially Ledger. The themes are strong. Many times in film we have things shoved down our throat, the messages too obvious. There is no art to the delivery. Other times, the themes are shrouded with mystery, taking many viewings to unpack. I felt that this film laid it all out there, but in a perfect way. The themes were masterfully woven together. Also, near the end of blockbuster films, I get bored. Seriously, a whole bunch of movies needed to end half and hour before they did. The Dark Knight kept going, and I didn't want to get off the ride. It almost felt like two movies back to back. This film was beautifully directed, nearly flawless in every way. Truly a masterpiece. This is a watershed film going experience, turning "kid's stuff" into art.

In Bruges

In Bruges stars my look-a-like, Colin Farrell, along with Ray Feinnes and Brendan Gleeson. Farrell plays Ray, a killer who accidentally shot a boy during his first hit. So Ray's boss sends him and his colleague, Ken (Gleeson), to a small town in Belgium called Bruges, a very well preserved Medieval "wonderland." They are hiding out until things calm down and their boss Harry (Feinnes) figures out what to do.

The Medieval setting is quite apropos because the film centers around the idea of Purgatory. Purgatory, of course, is the Catholic idea of an in between after-life, one in which sinners can work off their sins and eventually enter into paradise (for further investigation, I highly recommend Dante's Purgatorio). Ray hates Bruges, he is stuck there and it's boring. Neither of these men can move on with their lives until Ray's sin of killing a child is worked off. But how should that happen?

*Spoiler warning* Harry decides that the best thing to do is have Ken kill Ray. So Ken is ready to go through with it but then sees Ray about to kill himself, and Ken has a conscience attack, stopping him. Ken now believes that Ray deserves a second chance. So Ken saves Ray and readies himself to face the wrath of Harry. Self-sacrifice becomes the means for Ray's possibility of redemption. But this sin must be worked off somehow before anyone can leave Bruges/Purgatory. Ray's salvation comes not at his own hands (working off his own sin) but at the sacrifice of another. Ken becomes Jesus figure and represents how we are truly saved. The idea of Purgatory is interesting and seems to make sense at first glance, but when compared to scripture it fails to impart the truth. Ephesians 2:8-9 states: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." In a way, Purgatory puts the responsibility on the sinner, not on the grace of God. We are completely and utterly unable to save ourselves in any way. Ray too was unable to save himself. He felt incredibly guilty for what he had done and decided that he deserved to die, and maybe he did. But he received a second chance, a new lease on life. He received redemption.

In Bruges does contain some strong religious undertones, yet at the same time it is a brutal dark comedy. It is quite funny at times, disturbing at others, and massively entertaining in that European kind of way. It is a journey of conscience, penance, and a life in between Heaven and Hell.

Wall-E

Yes, I have a three year-old son, who joined me for this fine feature, but I am such a big fan of Pixar that I would have gone to see this "kids'" movie all by my lonesome if I needed to.

Wall-E is a robot whose job it is to clean up the trash we humans have left on the Earth. In fact, the waste is so great (reaching piles higher than skyscrapers) that humans have had to leave the planet for a while, until things get livable again. So, day in and day out, Wall-E takes our trash and makes it into cubes. Along the way he picks up relics of our human history, like sporks. One day a foreign ship lands on Earth and out comes a much more advanced robot, Eve. Eve is looking for any signs of life. She/it eventually finds a plant that Wall-E has been keeping, and that plant is whisked away into the ship. But cute, funny, innocent Wall-E has fallen in love with Eve. He is worried about her safety, and tags along, grabbing hold of the giant space ship. What we find when we reach our destination is all of humanity, floating around in space with machines to do everything for them. They all live in floating recliners, growing too fat to move on their own (because there is never any need). In an ironic twist, Wall-E is like a divine messenger sent to remind the humans of their humanity. Indeed, Wall-E has more humanity in him than do the humans themselves.

Everyone has heard the message before: "We consume too much, we need to conserve. We are killing our planet." And that message is finally starting to take hold. The repetition and continued rejection of this idea by our culture (and myself, for that matter) reminds me of a joke about a new Preacher in town. He got up one day, preached an excellent sermon, and the congregants congratulated him on such a great job. The very next week he took the pulpit and preached the exact same sermon. The crown was thinking "that was odd." This went on for several more weeks, until one day when a woman came up to the Preacher and said "Preacher, we think you are great, your sermon was excellent as always, but it has been the same sermon for six straight weeks. Can't you do anything else?" To which the Preacher replied "I have plenty more sermons, and will preach them just as soon as we all put this on into practice." We have all heard about conservation over and over again. And we all know that our consumption mentality is unhealthy and out of control. So when are we going to actually change? When are we going to treat Earth as God's beautiful creation, as a gift entrusted to us. We are its stewards, not its masters. When are we going to be content with what we have, instead of constantly wanting more and more, gluttons of money/things/etc? I believe are headed down the right road, both we as a human race and we as Christians. But we have only taken a few small steps. Let us continue to be reminded of these truths, that we might actually live them out some day.

Wall-E impresses the viewer on so many levels. Not only does it tell an exciting and original science-fiction story, it impresses truths on our hearts, dazzles the eyes and the ears, and makes us laugh quite often along the way. What a feat for a film with hardly any dialogue at all. Its profundity can be seen in small ways, such as a scene (left) in which Wall-E picks up a jewelery box with a diamond ring in it, tosses the ring away, and is fascinated by the hinge on the box. Oh how we store up treasures on this earth! Pixar does it time and time again. This is truly an original film that creates awe and wonder in its viewers, both young and old. I have come to expect nothing less than absolutely incredible films from the group of people that continue to turn out the greatest animated films of all-time.

The Happening

I am about the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan one can possibly be. All his films are dear to me, and contain beauty and truth. Thus, I had astronomical expectations for The Happening.

Night's first R-rated film stars Marky Mark Wahlberg as Elliot Moore, a teacher (yeah) in Philadelphia (all of Night's films take place in or around there). He is married to Alma (Zooey Deschanel). One morning they are made aware of a strange happening, which may be a terrorist attack, in New York City. Everyone is dying of self-inflicted wounds (people jumping off buildings, stabbing themselves, shooting themselves, etc.). This is caused by a chemical reaction that affects the brain and causes it to reverse the human self-preservation urge. Philly is close to NYC so they flee the city, along with everyone else. But along the way more and more cities and smaller towns are being hit with this chemical. Thus, everyone is on the run.

Shyamalan has the uncanny ability to use strange/horrific/supernatural backdrops to say profound things about humanity. One such strand of thematic truth in The Happening has to do with relationships/marriage. At the beginning of the film Alma is having an emotional affair and Elliot is somewhat clueless. Later in the film she comes clean, thinking that her death is imminent (it is sad how much we keep hidden from each other until the last possible moment, when our only motivation for truth-telling is being spared the "fires of hell"). When the Moores are on the run, they eventually find their way to a crazy old lady's house. Yet, she gives them and us a little slice of profundity. She asks "Who's chasing who?" Yes, they are married, but someone is always chasing someone else in a relationship, at no time are two people at completely the same place. Interesting point, and I think it might be true. The interplay between these two, in regards to love and what it really means, is one of the highlights of this film.

Now on to the actually thing that happens. *spoiler warning* We first meet Elliot as he is explaining to his class the phenomenon of honey bees disappearing. They discuss why this might be happening, but eventually come to the conclusion that sometimes nature does things that we can't understand, it is outside of our knowledge. This mystery carries over to the "happening." There are a few clues though. One significant thing is that these "attacks" start occurring in parks. They slowly move to smaller places, towns, then villages, etc. Eventually the Moores meet up with the crazy hot dog guy, who has a theory that the plants are doing this. He says that plants cannot fight back when attacked, or run away. Therefore, the only defense mechanism they have is to secrete a chemical to kill its predators (like the red tide). The plants are apparently secreting this killer chemical in unison to kill off their predators, humans. This theory is later discussed, then possibly dismissed, at the end of the film. But the closing scene confirms it to be true. This theory brings up the question "Why are humans the predators?" We all know that we pollute. And now, depending on who you listen to, there is global warming. Humans no longer live in balance with nature, we take from it and destroy it. Preservation is merely an afterthought. And this aspect of humanity is getting worse (we are depleting the oil reserves, destroying animal habitat, etc.). The interesting thing about this phenomenon is that we don't usually think of plants as creations that have any personality or rights. It is pretty easy to get people to care about spotted owls, abandoned puppies, or humpback whales, but what about ferns or ficuses? And let's be honest, we don't want to save the rain forest for the rain forest's sake, but for our oxygen, etc. All of God's creation should be respected, and everything has the right to defend itself against destruction, right? It's a really creative idea, the planet fighting back against it's parasite. There are many clues hidden throughout the film to remind us of how we treat the planet and ourselves (nuclear smoke stacks, giant homes in the country with a sign that says "you deserve this," and a Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas under a TV, to name a few). Not only are we destroying everything else around us, we are also destroying ourselves as a species. This point is driven home by the fact that suicide, not murder, is the main symptom of the chemical weapon sent by the trees/grass/etc. I believe that this film is trying to make a comment about more that just Global Warming or the environment. It is saying "We are killing everything, including ourselves. We cannot live this way any longer."

M. Night Shyamalan is the epitome of creativity in Hollywood, he is one of the few that writes, produces and directs his own material. And The Happening is nothing if not unique. Yet, I found myself disappointed with the film for many reasons. First of all, it did not feel like a Night film. It lacked the thematic depth of his other films. Also, instead of being Hitchcockian and playing with our minds by not showing us something, here Shyamalan falls victim to the current Hollywood tendency to leave nothing to the imagination. His films are not horror films, they just use that as a background to say something much more important. Yet sometimes this felt like a B-Horror film (it could have been called Attack of the Killer Trees). The dialogue was campy, and I found myself thinking about how the next character was going to kill themselves, but maybe that's the point. Or maybe I'm stretching it. I don't know what to think about this movie. This did happen to be Night's funniest film to date though, especially the talking to the fake plant part and the pharmacist/cough syrup dialogue. Congrats to Night for doing whatever he wants in his movies, not bowing to the critics or the general public. Yet, I feel like now he has even alienated his hardcore fans, such as myself. My initial reaction to The Happening was extreme disappointment and anger. Maybe the film deserves a closer look. I find myself firmly up in the air.

Things We Lost in the Fire

Audrey Burke (Halle Berry) has just lost her husband Brian (David Duchovny) , he was killed while helping someone on the street. In the midst of her grief she must reach out to tell Brian's best friend Jerry Sunborne (Benicio Del Toro). Jerry is a heroine addict, but Brian was a faithful friend through it all. Brian reached out to Jerry in friendship no matter what, even when Jerry was making no effort to get clean (see 1Cor. 13 for a more complete description of this commitment to someone else). Yet, this friendship had caused strain on the Burke's marriage. Audrey was jealous of Brian's time, maybe rightfully so.
But when Brian dies, Audrey and Jerry reach out to each other and help one another. Audrey lets Jerry move in to the garage and live with the family (they have two children, 6 and 10). The kids get understandably confused, thinking Jerry is there to replace their father.

Sometimes tragedies strike, and life is incredibly hard. We are left vulnerable, hurt, pained, and in need of the Healer of our souls. Everyone in this film was rocked by the loss of Brian. Stuffing down the hurt and pain would not help anyone. The film does a great job in investigating grief. Audrey had to hold it together for a while, for the sake of her kids and for continuing to move forward. But in her own time, she broke down in a healthy way. Grief must come out. Jerry dealt with the loss in his own way. He started going back to his Narcotics Anonymous meetings, which is a great picture of communal accountability, love, and support. He wanted to help out Brian's family, out of love and maybe out of repaying a debt. You see, Brian never gave up on his friend, and never put ultimatums on his love. We do that a lot, I know I have. We must figure out a way to love those around us no matter what they do. We have to encourage our friends in the right way, not enable them to continue to hurt themselves or those around us. But true love never fails. So let us strive for that delicate balance, but attempt to push forth (God-willing) with God's completely unconditional love.

One thing that stuck out to me was the healing process for Audrey. The themes in this film are ones of great importance to me lately, necessitated by my own life experiences. Audrey began to heal when she reached out to help others. Isaiah 58:9-12 says:

⁹ Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
"If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,

¹⁰ and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.

¹¹ The LORD will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.

¹² Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins
and will raise up the age-old foundations;
you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls,
Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.

God will satisfy us, strengthen our frame, restore us and heal us. But so often this can happen
by us spending ourselves on behalf of others, the poor, oppressed, hurting, disillusioned, etc. We heal by being a healing agent in others' lives. But we must always remember that ultimately, Jesus Himself is the Healer, the one to restore our lives from brokenness.


Things We Lost in the Fire is a fantastically acted picture of grief and healing, one that requires courage to delve in to. It is a depressing film, and so often those are the best kind.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Indiana Jones films are the most entertaining movies in the history of mankind. How can you possibly have more fun watching something? That being said, it was a bold move by Spielberg and Lucas to bring back the franchise after 19 years (aside from the fact that they knew they would make more money than most small countries' GDP). Everyone already has an opinion on this latest one, and here's mine: sweet. If you haven't seen it yet, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has a controversial ending that has many people angry and frustrated. It didn't bother me at all. Maybe I just like the flavor of Indy Kool-Aid too much.

So this time around Indiana Jones is really old. He is still teaching, and still searching for lost artifacts. The bad guys this time around are the Russians (led by Cate Blanchett), and it is 1957, Cold War fever. We first join our hero after he has been captured by the Reds and led to a top-secret military facility in Roswell, New Mexico (which, incidentally is where they stored the Ark of the Covenant). Indy is coerced into finding a box with a special mummified artifact inside. What is it? Honestly, it seemed pretty obvious to me the whole film, but apparently some people were surprised. Anyway, the fun ensues from there, and Indy eventually meets Mutt (Shia LaBeouf, the luckiest guy in the world). Mutt's mother is in danger, and the only thing that can save her is to find El Dorado, the mythical city of gold in South America. They go in search of the Crystal Skull, and then proceed to return that skull to its origin.

In order to watch and Indiana Jones film, you must suspend your disbelief and know that there will be many outrageous events happening. You must be able to say "Yeah, I guess Indy could survive an atomic blast" or "I guess I'll forgive the shotty research, and say it's no big deal that they implied the Mayans lived in Peru, instead of Mexico/Guatemala." You just have to go with the flow, it's way more fun. It may be harder now that I am an adult, whereas I grew up with the first three films. It is very different to see a new Indy after seeing the others when you are 9 years old, and that did concern me at first. But I just decided that I could be a kid again for a few hours, and it worked. And a quick sidenote, the best line in the film :"Just say 'grab onto the rope.'"

Indiana Jones epitomizes the desire we all have for adventure and excitement. He is adventure. He does whatever needs to be done without really thinking ahead. He jumps in with both feet and somehow comes out alive. Jones films also take that mythology that we all know, at least a little, and makes it come alive. Some of them may be fables, some I believe to be true (the Ark's power for one). These films let us believe that anything is possible, and there are mysteries still yet to be solved. I believe that the vast majority of humanity wants to believe that there are countless mysteries that we don't know. Hardly anyone wants to believe that everything is explainable by science and research. That's just not exciting. It also reflects the fact that God's creation will always have an element of mystery. We will never know the whole story of this place, or of God until "that day."

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull delivers the fun, the adventure, and the excitement. It doesn't quite deliver in terms of an interesting mystery of folklore as much as, say, the first and third films. There are a few things that fall short, but overall I do think this Indy lives up to the name. It may not be as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade (the best), but it definitely equals Temple of Doom. Even though Dr. Jones is old, he still packs a wicked punch.

Iron Man

The summer movie season kicks off this year with Iron Man (and snow here in Denver, by the way). This superhero film, directed by Swingers "wingman" John Favreau, follows the usual formula but takes it to another level.

The fantastic Robert Downey Jr. plays Tony Stark, the world's foremost weapons developer. After being kidnapped and seeing his weapons in use by the enemy, Stark has a change of heart. He decides to use his immense wealth and power for good instead of for the bottom line. And yeah, he makes a flying armored suit. It's sweet.

Iron Man deals with the ethics of war, even if the special effects take center stage. Are those who make weapons responsible for their use? Where does business ethics come in? Do we need to make these massively destructive weapons to keep peace in the world? Is it a necessary evil? Do those who have more have a greater responsibility to do more with that (ie. Jesus' parable of the talents in Mt. 25)? If so, Stark was not using his talents wisely at all at the beginning of the movie. But by the end, he decided to stop being incredibly selfish and start doing good, even at great personal sacrifice. Iron Man is a different kind of super-hero. Like Batman, he does not have super-powers or genetic mutations. This is all based upon money and science. Therefore, this superhero is more believable and realistic (this can be a plus or minus, depending on your preference). But it is clear that, with the right tools and funding, a great deal of good can be done in this world. Though ultimately, the world will still be the world, and evil will still be evil, no matter how much we fight it. That doesn't mean we stop fighting though. We are called to fight, but we as Christians are also to remember that the only lasting change comes by the power of Jesus Christ, not by anything that we can do.

What makes this film epically enjoyable is the performance of Downey Jr. He is hilarious, yet carries the depth and realism of the character very well. Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jeff Bridges all do great, but it is truly Downey Jr.'s show. The script is great, with a fantastic balance of action, comedy, and thought. It is a popcorn flick, but a perfectly tuned one. It makes us think, but also makes us laugh and makes our jaws drop (especially that Audi R8, wow). For the second summer in a row, we have a film that is all that summer movies should be. It's time to get excited about all the other potentially great "summer movies" to come this year (Indiana Jones, The Happening, The Dark Knight).

Top Ten Films of 2007

This is my favorite post of the year, the time I get to spout my opinion about what I think has been the best this last year. And 2007 has been a fantastic year for film. Without a doubt this was the best year of the decade so far. It has been incredibly difficult to narrow a list down to a top ten, so I decided to go with a top fifteen. And even with that there are still so many thoroughly enjoyable films that did not make my list.

So without further ado, here are the fiften films that I enjoyed the most in 2007. These films taught me about life, about myself and others, about humanity, about God, and about our relationship to Him. I have written a review of each of these films, so feel free to visit those posts for further investigation into each of these works of art.

15. Zodiac

14. Breach

13. Into the Wild


12. Atonement

11. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

10. The Savages

9. Knocked Up

8. Sunshine

7. The Darjeeling Limited

6. Ratatouille

5. Lars and the Real Girl

4. Gone Baby Gone

3. No Country For Old Men

2. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

1. There Will Be Blood

And there it is. I would love to hear others' opinions on the list, and anyone else's list. Let me know what you think/what films impacted you the most this year.

Lars and the Real Girl

"Love is God in action." This is the message one Sunday at the church in a small Canadian town where Lars and the Real Girl is set. And this idea is truly investigated in this quirky comedy with great depth.

Lars (Ryan Gosling, otherwise known as "the man") is a lonely man. He doesn't like it when anyone touches him, in fact it causes him pain. He is 27 years-old and doesn't have a girlfriend. He lives with his brother, Gus, and sister-in-law, Karin. Their father has died and left them the house, but Lars chooses to live in the garage. He has isolated himself from connecting with others, especially women. Everyone in town is trying to hook him up with a girl, but he wants nothing to do with that. Eventually Lars hears about a website that sells plastic women, and orders one. In a way it is a subconscious jesture to get everyone off his back. There are many more layers to his psyche here, which I will get to later. Needless to say (so why am I saying it, ok, maybe it's not needless), his family is shocked and disturbed. Lars introduces them to Bianca, who is half Brazilian and half Danish. She doesn't speak much English. And she is religious, so Lars asks his family if Bianca can sleep in the house so no hanky panky happens. Lars truly believes she is real.

Gus and Karin take Lars and Bianca to the doctor, who is also a shrink, the next day. The doctor informs them that this is a delusion, and that it would be best if they played along with it. Gus is very reluctant and even tries to tell Lars that Bianca is plastic (which he just completely ignores). Eventually they act as if Bianca is real. They talk to her, ask her questions, drive her places, tuck her into bed, etc. Gus and Karin also meet with the church leaders and ask them to play along. After some discussion, they decide to go along with it. What follows is a great example of God's love in action. The church ladies come over often, doing Bianca's hair, taking her to volunteer, and welcoming her into the community as a whole. After a few months everyone in this small town knows that Lars is delusional and they are supposed to play along. Stares still happen (though Lars shrugs them off, thinking they are because Bianca is in a wheelchair), but the community truly comes together to be what Lars needs them to be. You may be wondering why they are supposed to play along. Wouldn't it be better if he just faced reality?

Well, Lars' mother died when he was born. This has caused him a great deal of guilt and pain. This is why he has trouble connecting with others, especially women. He still takes the blanket his mother knit for him everywhere. And now his sister-in-law is pregnant. He thinks she is going to die. This is his way of coping. There is nothing anyone can do to make him snap out of it. It will be over when he needs it to be over, but right now in his life he needs Bianca. So the community, starting with the church, sets aside their pride and embarassment to help a brother in need. Again, "Love is God in action."

At one point Lars brings up the topic of manhood with his brother. Lars thinks it would be wonderful if his culture had rites of passage into manhood, like Bianca's culture does. He asks Gus what it means to be a man (because we can tell that Lars has definitely not made that step). This is, I believe, one of the most important questions in our culture today. Gus says that it is doing the right thing, doing good, even when it hurts. Their father was a man because he could have given them up for adoption but chose to raise them instead, even with a broken heart. This question shows that Lars is beginning to deal with what he needs to deal with.

There is a beautiful scene later in the film where a girl who has had a crush on Lars for a long time breaks up with her boyfriend. Not only that, but a co-worker put a noose around her teddy bear. Lars goes to console her (a big step for him), and while she is talking he performs CPR on the bear. Lars values inanimate objects much more than most people. He sees what the bear means to her. His weakness has become a strength. God turns our weaknesses into strengths for His glory. This is a beautiful contradiction.

So ultimately, why does Lars need Bianca, and when will her purpose be fulfilled? *spoiler alert* It all leads up to the birth of Karin's child. While Karin is about eight months along, Bianca gets terminally ill (Lars' idea, not anyone else's). Eventually she passes away and the community comes together to comfort Lars and mourn the loss of Bianca. The people are hit by this death more than one would think they should be, especially Gus. He has had a transformation throughout the film. He has come to grips with his role in Lars' disfunction and learned a lot about his own manhood. The church ladies come to Lars' side with food and encouraging words. They sit with him, they are Christ's body. The timing of Bianca's death is significant. In Lars' mind, the birth of one means the death of another. So, since Bianca dies before Karin's baby is born, Lars sacrifices his woman for Karin. If one had to die, he took it upon himself (totally subconsciously) to lose his woman, instead of having his brother lose his wife. In all of our weirdness and brokenness, there is beauty.

Lars and the Real Girl is not only beautiful, but is is also hilarious. Just imagine the look on a four year-old's face when he sits on Bianca's lap, or when Karin calls 911 because Bianca is unconscious. This film investigates "mental illness," death, manhood, and loss with great tenderness and authenticity (yes, in a movie about a guy getting a blow-up doll off the internet). This film suprised me with its insight into humanity, and its amazing picture of God's love. It takes courage to make a film with this premise, and to be honest it takes courage for audiences to give it a chance as a good film. But that courage will not be wasted.

Horton Hears A Who

It is a great time to be a parent in our culture. So many of the "kids" films out there are fantastic, and Horton Hears A Who is the latest. This is by far the best Dr. Seuss adaptation I have seen since the old school Grinch. And what a cast: Jim Carrey, Steve Carrell, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill and Carol Burnett. The animation is top-notch beautiful in every way, truly capturing Seuss' unique style but also modernizing it for the CG age. This is a very pleasurable film not only for kids, but also for adults.

We all grew up with the story of an elephant noticing a small world of "whos" on a tiny speck which landed on a flower. We all know that this elephant, Horton, does whatever he can to protect this spec. And we all remember the theme of the story: "A person's a person, no mater how small." What an important statement. We all struggle, as I know I do, with feelings of superiority at times, especially living in such a privileged culture and time. We have to remember we are no better than any of God's creation. We are no better than those who have gone before us, no better than those who have less, and no better than the stray dog running across the street. God created this world and said that it was good. Then He commanded us people to rule over it. What a misunderstood section in Scripture, one that has been used over the years to dishonor the God who gave it all to us. He wants to to take care of His creation, to honor Him by being His stewards. We are in charge for only a time, and we are responsible for running the show in a way that honors Him. God didn't tell us to rule over the earth because He didn't care about it, because He wanted us to treat it like our trash can/dump/etc. If God created the world and said that it was "good," how can we think otherwise. I know, it sounds too much like a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap, but I believe that caring for God's creation is foundational to Scripture. Let us be a "pro-life" people in every sense, not just narrowing our view of "pro-life" to be solely a battle that takes place in a mother's womb. My parents raised me to love and respect the environment, and here is a film that will help me do the same for my son.

Horton reminds us to love all, as hard as that sounds (let's face it, it is impossible without God). Horton is a great example of selfless love and sacrifice, one that reminds us that life is a miracle, and that we have no more right to it than others, people or otherwise.

The Darjeeling Limited

What a thoroughly enjoyable film to watch. The Darjeeling Limited is about the haphazard spiritual journey of three brothers: Francis (Owen Wilson) Peter (Adrian Brody) and Jack (Jason Schwartzman). They are all at a crossroads in their lives, especially Francis. He has just been in a life-threatening accident and wants to make the most of the time he has here and now. So he gets his estranged brothers (they don't speak much) and they go on a journey through India on a train, the Darjeeling Limited.

These brothers have not seen each other since their father's funeral (which their mother did not show up to), and now are learning to reconnect. They all have their secrets and pains in life, and they are trying to guard themselves from each other. Francis planned the trip through India to see spiritual places, temples/shrines, gurus, etc. They are three Westerners trying their best to experience the spirituality of an Eastern worldview. This is pathetic, funny, interesting, and fascinating. It echoes Ecclesiastes 3:11, "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men." God created us all to be spiritual beings, and to desire something beyond ourselves. These brothers epitomize that. They are searching for something bigger, something beyond themselves. It is sad to think that they grew up in a "Christian" country, yet had to travel to the other side of the globe in search of "spirituality." We as Christ-followers had let them down. One particular ritual takes center stage in the film, this being the one involving the peacock feather. The first time they try, each brother does the ritual differently, and they all end up angry and flustered. Ah, man's futility in trying to reach God. We must realize that it is about God reaching down to us, not the other way around. He is the gracious initiator.

Yet the trip does provide the brothers with truth and wisdom. They learn about themselves, and each other, in a way that they had never done before. Each man is struggling to not let others in to his true heart, yet (through gossip, ironically) each is laid bare before his brothers and becomes vulnerable. This is always a good thing. One particular incident, involving saving children from a rushing river, brings their trip to a head. They come face to face with humanity at its rawest. Though they do not speak the Indians' language, and the Indians do not speak theirs, there is a profound connection between the two groups. Though these Americans are continents away from home and everything they know, all the cultural walls come down and a fundamental human love is reached. It is a truly beautiful thing. And this epiphany of shared humanity inspires the brothers to continue on their own pilgrimage, one involving their past.

The Darjeeling Limited does a fantastic job of walking the lines between awkward, funny, touching, and authentic. As with all Wes Anderson films (The Life Aquatic, Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore, etc.), life is at once real, strange, inspiring, gawky, and unrefined. His film feels more real and less staged than a normal film, it captures the oafishness of our lives and of all humanity. Darjeeling reminds us of our futile attempts to connect to the divine, our pathetic attempts at hiding our faults and scars, and yet, in the end, reminds us of our shared humanity, our shared pains, and our shared victories. Wes Anderson has made his best film to date.

Be Kind Rewind

Michael Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) should be lauded for his brilliant creativity. In Be Kind Rewind he has made a hilarious movie about the importance of creativity itself. Jerry (Jack Black) has accidentally erased all the VHS tapes in his friend Mike's (Mos Def) store. But the faithful customers want their movies. So when one woman really wants to see Ghostbusters, and the tape is erased, they make their own version starring themselves and some tin foil. Jerry and Mike go on to make many more films, like RoboCop, Driving Miss Daisy, and Rush Hour 2.

The story eventually becomes a David vs. Goliath tale. The guys want to save the video store, and they will do anything to do so. But the video store has videos, VHS, who watches videos anymore? Plus, they are just a mom and pop store in an old neighborhood. How can they compete with the giant Blockbuster-like stores that are popping up everywhere (the ironic thing is that Blockbuster is having the same problem, getting shoved out by the likes of Netflix). The store, also called Be Kind Rewind, has an identity tied to the neighborhood, whereas the giant corporation is bland and has no personality. This can be translated to their creative enteavors as well. Gondry could be saying that these low-budget, hack remakes have more heart and soul than the multi-million dollar studio pictures that they are remaking. Hollywood itself is one big, bland, repetitive corporation, and what we need to do is find people that are actually doing original, cutting-edge things in film. Yet at the same time, the guys are embracing their past (in the form of Fats Wallace, a famous jazz musician). But it is still creative, still original, still full of the neighborhood's personality. The message of this film resounds with what happened this year in regards to the Oscar-winner for best song, Once. Once was a "starving artist" film, in which the musicians/actors did everything out of creativity and originality. Three cheers for another film lauding the creative process and going against the epitome of everything wrong with the apprecation of art in our culture, ie American Idol and everything like it.

Be Kind Rewind not only shows us the importance of artistic originality, it is just flat-out funny. They way they remake the films made me nearly fall out of my seat. Great times.

Vantage Point

Vantage Point is a story of a terrorist attack in Spain, as told from eight points of view. It is a exercise in perspective. We all have a different perspective as to what is going on in the world. The film stars Dennis Quaid (sorry, but he totally sucks), William Hurt, Matthew Fox, Sigourney Weaver, and Forest Whitaker, among others. The President is shot (ok, the double of the President, the trailer gives away a little too much here). Explosions ensue, and chaos erupts at this summit meeting that was designed to help stop terrorism. The terrorists strike this meeting for a reason.

This film is quite entertaining, and clocks in at an hour and half, so it packs its punch in a concentrated amount of time. The story starts and we see the events from the perspective of the news network. Then we rewind and see it all again from the perspective of a Secret Service agent. We go back a third time and see it all through the eyes of an undercover Spanish cop. Then again through a tourist, then through a terrorist, etc. This repetition sounds a little boring, but it truly does provide completely different perspectives. In a way, this film takes the Crash filmmaking style and turns it into an exciting action movie. Don't look to Vantage Point to give you a lot in terms of depth and insight into the human condition. It offers nothing profound. Instead, it entertains us immensely and gives us that little rush in searching for the truth. We want to know what happened, and we get to take part in figuring it out. I was very weary of this film because I had been seeing the trailers for almost a year and the release date kept getting pushed back (that usually means the movie sucks, and they don't know what to do to make it better). The film is an exciting, fun to watch experience, a nice action escape following the amazing but heavy-hearted Oscar season.

The Brave One

"Vengeance is mine," sayeth Erica Bain. Bain (Jodie Foster) was mugged, along with her fiance, one night in New York City. Her fiance was beated to death, and Bain was close to death herself. These muggers were sick and twisted. They even videotaped the event. Now Bain needs healing, and she needs to find some way to continue to live with these brutal scars.

Bain's journey back to society begins with getting a gun. She feels unsafe, and no one would blame her for wanting to protect herself. But she feels she needs a gun immediately, and she is having none of this 30 day waiting period crap. So Bain goes to a black-market gun dealer and picks up a 9mm. Now she feels powerful, she feels safe. One night she gets caught in the middle of one man's murderous rage in a convenience store. She must protect herself in order to survive, and does so. But this first act of killing awakens something inside Bain. She flees the scene, destroys any evidence that she has been there, and decides that she will give in to this change, to this new person she is becoming.

Bain is also a radio talk-show host, telling stories of New York City. She uses this as a veiled confessional throughout the film. Also, she meets a detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) who is on the case of the convenience store shootings. They become friends, and Mercer respects Bain's opinion because of what she has been through in the past. Little does he know, he is looking for her.

As is pointed out by a caller on Bain's radio show, we are all happy to see bad guys shot in the head. We all want to see justice, and when the law is too slow, too beaurocratic, or too inept, we like to see people take justice into their own hands. Our desire for justice comes from God. God is a just God, and since we are made in His image, we have a desire for justice as well. It is not wrong to want things to be fair, for things to be right. But God does say "Vengeance is mine." He is ultimately the only one who can judge fairly and justly. When we take matters into our own hands, as Bain does, we are playing God and claiming we know how to handle a situation just as well as He would. Does that mean that God never wants us to get involved? No, but we must learn to entrust our actions and decisions to God. We also must defer to the government in place, as is stated in Romans chapter 13. Yet, there are times when that government fails to do its job. Thus, vigilante justice. This idea is one that gets plenty of screen time in Hollywood, and that is because it reflects a deeper desire, the desire to make things right. We want to play a part in that process. We want to be the heroes and kill the bad guys. Wouldn't it be great if we could just put two slugs in the murdering pedophile or serial rapist? Wouldn't it feel great? Those are the questions The Brave One asks. But let us remember to leave true justice in God's hands, not ours. There is a reason that God instituted "cities of refuge" in the book of Joshua. If someone accidentally killed another, they could flee to these cities for protection from vengeful family members of the victim. They were in place to protect people from vigilante justice. God knows the whole story, we don't, we have a limited view. And isn't that what the courts are there for, at least in theory? To really get the whole story?

Healing is another important theme in The Brave One. Bain is seeking healing from her past, specifically from losing her fiance to brutal violence. The film seeks to show her process as one that goes through violence. Somehow, the enacting of vigilante justice violence brings about her healing, helping her to be confident and to gain the ability to function again. There it is, "the myth of redemptive violence." True healing can only come from Jesus, and it is a process that would be hindered or stunted by vengeance. The focus should be on ourselves, not on those who wronged us. We cannot control the actions of others, and are only responsible for our own. Revenge brings some temporary satisfaction, but I challenge the idea that it brings healing. Detective Mercer is also seeking healing. He is going through a divorce, which is the death of a relationship. He feels rejected, unsafe, violated, and scarred, just like Bain. Their stories parallel each other. But how does Mercer find healing? How does he seek it? These two stories intersect at critical points in the narritive, and the conclusion ties it all together.

The Brave One is a pretty standard premise. This film may or may not perpetuate some of the standard Hollywood myths (vigilante justice and redemptive violence), I will leave that up to you, the viewer. But it does delve into our psyches and show us who we are, and why we have this thirst for justice. Yes she is brave, but is it the right kind of brave?

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

It is obvious from the title that this is not a film about what happened, but rather about why it happened.

Written and directed by newcomer Andrew Dominik, The Assassination of Jesse James stars the great Brad Pitt as even more famous bank robber and outlaw James. We start to follow James near the end of his crime career, as things are winding down and his brother Frank is wanting to get out of the game. We meet Robert Ford (Casey Affleck in an Oscar nominated performance) as he is joining the gang for a hit on a train. He has idolized James his whole life, and at 20 Ford still seems as giddy as a school boy around his idol. So how does he get from point A (hero worship) to point B (killing the man he idolized)?

James would fit in well in our culture today. He is a man who makes his own rules, who answers only to himself, and who seems above the law. He is a renegade, a man we all want to be in a way (some more blatantly than others). We all want to be able to do whatever we want all the time. And back then, just as in our time, some people are blown up to mythic proportions. Yet in the West of the 1880's and 1890's it was harder to find out the truth about someone. Their legend would just grow and grow. Robert Ford had a box under his bed of all things James: dime-store novels, newspaper clippings, and even trinkets from his first job with the famous criminal. After getting to know Ford, James began to understand this man's obsession. He asked "Do you want to be like me? Or do you want to be me?" There is a disturbing scene later in the film in which Ford goes through the James house when they are at church. He sips James' water, sniffs James' pillows, pretends to have a stub of a right middle finger like James, and even imagines what James might feel like if Ford were to kill him. In a way he reminds me of myself, or any young man, who idolizes an athelete or a musician (for me those were Ken Griffey Jr. and Eddie Vedder). Ford is still stuck in pre-adolesence, many people are.

As Ford gets to know his hero, he begins to see that this man is human. He begins to realize that the one man he wanted to be is not all he had dreamed of. Or is this just his way of rationalizing the fact that he has decided to protect himself and his family by killing this man? After the assassination we see Ford's reactions, and this explains his psyche in more detail. How does he deal with the fact that he killed the man he worshipped, and in so doing killed some part of himself (hopes/dreams/desires/identity/etc.)? He ends up reenacting the scene on stage day in and day out. He soaks up fame and glory, along with ridicule and threats. He has become nearly as famous as the man he killed (much like Lee Harvey Oswald). He struggles with what he has done. Was he a hero or a coward? Many heckle him, call him names, and are incredibly angry at him for killing such an "important" man, a symbol, a legend, a demi-god. How does he view himself now that this is all over? Did he do it for fame and glory, because it was the right thing to do, or simply because he was scared James would kill him?

The character of Jesse James is interesting, but is almost irrelevant in the film. He is more of an idea than a person. The story centers around Robert Ford, a man with whom we can relate much more easily. He is a man conflicted and confused. He wants to be a real man, a man of courage and strength. He was made to worship something (as are all of us), but doesn't really know what that should be. So he ends up worshipping the most visible symbol of the qualities he admires.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a wonderful western, but a different kind of western. There are no clear good guys, everyone is at least a little bad. The genre has seen a revitalization as of late (this film, 3:10 to Yuma, HBO's Deadwood, etc.) which makes me very happy. Jesse James both honors the genre and takes it in new directions. The cinematography is breathtaking, which is something that always sticks out to me. This film is a long journey well worth the reward, a better understanding of what God meant when he said "Thou shalt have no idols."

The Bucket List

How can you go wrong with Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman? In The Bucket List Jack plays Edward Cole, a very wealthy man who has recently discovered he will die soon. Freeman plays Carter Chambers, a not-so wealthy man who has also discovered he has only a few months to live. As fate would have it, these two men end up rooming together in the hospital (Cole's hospital). They decide to follow through on an exercise that Chambers had done in college. That exercise: make a list of everything you wanted to do before you kicked the bucket. Thus the title, and plot of the film.

So if you could know the exact moment of your death, would you? A good question which, according to the film, 96% of people answered no. But what would be the advantage of knowing? Well, you wouldn't worry about what you normally worry about. You would live with a wreckless abandon, making the most of the time you have left. So why don't we live like that always. Well, there's that whole responsibility thing. To some extent, we should live every day like it is our last. But on the flip side, it is irresponsible for us to live like that all the time. We have families, children, or other responsibilities that should be more important to us that our own personal happiness. Yet, as the film points out, when we "truly live" we actually make life better for those around us too, sometimes. It is a fine line to walk, but we should all ask God's wisdom in figuring out how to live our life completely and fully in the here and now, while still honoring and loving those around us.

The thing that stuck out to me as I watched the film was our culture's lack of same-sex friendships, guy friendships to be specific. We as American men, in many ways, don't know how to have good guy relationships. Usually it takes something tragic to bring us together (like cancer in the film). I realized this while I watched the film next to a man whom I have grown very close to over the last few years. Sadly, this friendship did not go to a deeper level until tragedy hit. Nonetheless, I am extremely grateful for this friendship. Guy friends are something all of us men need desperately, and we need to be courageous and take our some of our acquaintances to a deep level of friendship. We are not all God created us to be without them.

The Bucket List bordered on cheesy at times, but it ended up being better than I had expected. It helps us ask hard questions of our own lives, and to truly be thankful for every moment we have been given by our gracious God (whether those moments are fun, difficult, painful, or breathtaking).