X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Know what's always bugged me about the premise of X-Men?  Most superheroes get their powers either by virtue of some benevolent accident or by being some alien/science experiment/technological nightmare.  The X-Men are supposedly mutants -humans given powers by the random mutation of normal human DNA.

I guess I can accept that except for one thing -why are all the powers so easily weaponized?  Wolverine can't be killed, Magneto controls metal with his mind, Cyclops shoots lasers from his eyes, and so on.  But given the nature of mutation, shouldn't the grand majority of mutants have either completely useless or even harmful abilities?  For every Professor X who can read other people's thoughts shouldn't there be a Really Bad Gambler Guy who can't help broadcasting his thoughts to others?  I would think the ability to drink used motor oil and convert it to ammonia would be a more common ability than the power to levitate objects by thought.

While I'm on a roll, here are some other great "X-Men backup squad" abilities:

• The Toaster: can instantly convert Italian bread into toast points ready to dip in sunny side up eggs.
• The Termite: able to reduce and soften wooden objects by causing instant rot at a touch.
• Matter Eater Lad: Can eat anything (believe it or not, this is a real dude.  Check out Adventure Comics #303, December 1963)
• Color Kate: She is able to make anything a different color!  Pink Trees!  Yellow Strawberries!  Take THAT evil!
• The Leper: Can cause limbs and other pieces of his own body to fall off at will. Too bad he can't reattach them...

Why am I talking about all this?  Because this line of thought is actually much more interesting and better formulated than the movie X-Men: Days of Future Past.  

Let's be fair: the movie was mostly entertaining and non-boring.  It did have some fun action, and some will say it is the best X-Men movie yet made (though I still prefer First Class).

But on the whole I just could not get over the 101 little things that kept coming along to bug me.  Shall we list a few?

1. Let's start in the horribly ravaged future, an earth burnt to the ground by continual war.  Why so bleak?  Evidently it has to be the WORST EVER or we the audience won't care.
2. We're supposed to believe that Mystique's abilities were the key to making the Sentinels unstoppable.  I can understand that her power would "inspire," but telling me that her DNA would upgrade machines is simply asking me to get dumber.
3. Clearly, Mystique is a major character because Jennifer Lawrence is now a big actor.
4. I don't think time travel would work that way.
5. I'm also not buying a "mutant detector" that works at dozens or even hundreds of feet.  Especially not with 1960's or 70's technology.
6. Magneto and the death of JFK.  Really?  Great, now another generation is going to grow up thinking ridiculous conspiracy theories about magic bullets.
7. A jail cell for Magneto in the Pentagon?  Really?  And I suppose they keep Dr. Doom locked up in Mount Rushmore.
8. We had to see Wolverine from behind, sans vetements.  Can't say I appreciated that one.
9. Professor X didn't have his power in the past.  Why?  Because if he had it everything would have been much easier, and the writers were too lazy to figure out other ways of ramping up the drama.
10. They sent Quicksilver home after breaking out Magneto.  Why?  Because if he stuck around the good guys would have too easy a time saving the world, and the writers were too lazy to figure out other ways of building the drama.  I mean, why keep the team together if it would be harder to save the world apart, am I right?
11. Come to think of it, so much of the plot seems overly convenient or contrived, as though things happened simply because the plot dictated that they must.
12. Magneto is powerful and all, but am I really supposed to buy that he can easily separate steel train rails into tiny wire, and then feed all that wire into the Sentinels in ways that can't be detected?
13. The Secret Service took the president into the Oval Office (that's in the West Wing), and then straight down into a bunker.  When the bunker was ripped out of the ground it came up right through the Residence.  Looked cool, but it came out of the ground in the wrong place.
14. So Professor X can read Wolverine's mind and speak to himself in the future?  That makes not even the least bit of sense.

So there were a few things I really liked as well, so let's be fair:

1. It was great how this movie not only treated The Last Stand as a horrible event, it actually removed it from existence!  That's what I call a win!
2. Magneto is certainly shown to be as powerful as he should be.  The movie felt like the Magneto Show in parts (and yet this becomes a negative also, but whatever).
3. Wolverine got to say "bub" a lot, and even got to smoke huge cigars -in spite of the fact that smoking is a worse sin in Hollywood these days than violent murder.
4. Quicksilver.  Though he seems a tad overpowered, his scenes are far and away the best parts of the film.  Particularly his bit in the Pentagon.

So there it is.  There's stuff to like, and stuff not to like.  I for one had a good time, but this film just never rises anywhere near the level of greatness to which it aspires.

Entertainment: 7/10

Artistic Value: 3/10

Technical Merit: 4/10

Overall: 5/10

The Best of the Letter "S:" Seven Samurai (1954)

For my original, very long, review of Seven Samurai, click here.

High adventure.  Exceptional scripting, direction, and acting.  Flawless execution.  Fantastic cinematography.  Great action.  Charming humor.  Above all, highly meaningful.

Seven Samurai is fast becoming my movie by which all others are judged.  Honestly, it is very hard to think of a single way this film could possibly be improved.  It's about as perfect as can be imagined.  On top of perfection in production, it is great entertainment.

Consult my original review, linked above, for a MUCH more thorough explanation for why you must watch Seven Samurai.

Don't miss this one!

Entertainment: 10/10
Artistic Value: 10/10
Technical Merit: 10/10

Overall: 10/10

Runners up for the letter "S:"

• The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
• Singin' In the Rain (1952)
• The Sound of Music (1965)
• Stagecoach (1939)
• The Sandlot (1993)
• The Seventh Seal (1957)
• The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
• Star Wars (1977)
• Strangers on a Train (1951)

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

Have you seen Captain America: The Winter Soldier yet?  Yes?  Great!  No?  Then stop reading this right now and go see it.  I'm not kidding.  Go.

Since you are reading now, I'm assuming that you are back from the theater, giddy from all the superhero excellence.  Congratulations, you've just seen the best superhero film at LEAST since The Avengers.  It may just be the best film in all the Marvel universe so far.

I think I'll go through the things that bugged me first, get them out of the way, then tell you why the movie rocks.

• Some of the humor was out of place.  It fell flat because it just wasn't the right time for a joke.
• The overall plan of the bad guys was patently absurd.  It involved guns, twisted evil morality, and math.  The movie is better if you just pretend it makes sense.
• Can somebody PLEASE tell Hollywood to stop doing "shaky cam" when people are just sitting in a room and talking?  Thanks, because that really bugs me.
• Once or twice the action got a tad bit too frantic, where it was tough to see what was going on at all.
• You mean that after the beating that dude took, and the fact that he was TRAPPED ON A BOAT, he still got away from Captain America?
• The thought process that seems to go like this: "Hmm, I'm facing insurmountable odds, and thousands if not millions of people will die if I fail.  Should I call Iron Man, Hulk, and Hawkeye to help out?  I mean, they do have a vested interest in defeating the bad guys too.  Nah, I got this on my own."  Iron Man 3 had this same issue; the only practical reason why the other Avengers were not helping was that this was Captain America 2, not The Avengers 2.
• Why did they have the compulsive need to tell me the latitude and longitude of every location?  Does anyone else think that's just weird?

I know it's just concept art, but look at all the awesome!  Look at it!

Except for the absurd bad guy plan, these are rather small potato complaints.  That's because this movie is about as great as a fan of Captain America is ever going to get.  The action is intense and fun, showcasing the abilities of both Cap and the titular Winter Soldier -who just happens to be the best Marvel villain since Loki.  

The action sequences are stunning.  Especially after a certain point in the movie nothing feels "safe," and the action really feels dangerous.  The car chases and wrecks and explosions all have a marvelous "real" feeling to them, something often lacking in our current world of CGI.

The supporting cast have a lot to do.  Black Widow feels as deadly as always, Nick Fury gets a chance to show he also can cause serious damage, and Falcon gets to be thrilling and new.  The titular Winter Soldier gets some great opportunities to demonstrate just how dangerous and deadly he is, and he left me wanting to see far more.

That's all fun stuff, but it's Cap that truly shines.  I never did get that "wow, that's Captain America!" feeling from The First Avenger.  The Avengers helped Cap come into his own, so that was better for his character.  But in this movie the Cap finally gets that "wow, that's Captain America!" feeling right.  This is a guy who takes charge, who is not out of his league in any situation, who has an unfaltering moral compass, and who absolutely shows us why he deserves to stand shoulder to shoulder with the world's greatest superheros.

Ok, so the writing won't win any oscars, and the direction was good enough not to be noticed.  Certain aspects of the plot were as predictable as clockwork.  The acting was merely passable, though nobody expects more.  The plot and storytelling are great, though as I mentioned the bad guy's plan is kinda over the top.  And by the end everything didn't quite tie off as satisfyingly as I would have liked.  But you know, all in all the complaints are small and lost in all the awesome.

This was a highly entertaining film, setting a new bar for greatness in superhero films.  If Marvel keeps improving at this rate I can't wait to see what they have in store for The Avengers 2.

Entertainment: 10/10
Artistic Value: 4/10
Technical Merit: 6/10

Overall: 7/10

Best of the Alphabet Roundup: #-R

In case you missed them, here's a round-up of the best films from #-R.  The reviews themselves can by found by selecting the label "27 Titles" on the left.

Best Number:
12 Angry Men (1957)

Best "A:"
Alien (1979)

Best "B:"
Ben-Hur (1957)

Best "C:"
Casablanca (1942)

Best "D:"
Das Boot (1981)

Best "E:"
The Empire Strikes Back (1980)


Best "F:"
Fiddler on the Roof (1971)


Best "G:"
The Godfather (1972)


Best "H:"
High Noon (1952)


Best "I:"
Inception (2010)


Best "J:"
Jaws (1975)


Best "K:"
The King's Speech (2010)


Best "L:"
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)


Best "M:"
My Fair Lady (1964)


Best "N:"
North By Northwest (1959)


Best "O:"
On the Waterfront (1954)


Best "P:"
The Princess Bride (1987)


Best "Q:"
The Quiet Man (1952)


Best "R:"
Rear Window (1954)


So what's next?  What's the best of the letter "S"?

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

They say the 3rd time is the charm.  Never has that saying been more true than with the very great and amazing Spider-Man 3 (not to be confused with The Amazing Spider-Man 2.  That's a film coming out this summer, but it is in a very different series.  Also, it has a different number at the end.).

It's so easy to forget that, prior to the release of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man in 2002, nobody expected a superhero film to be very good.  Before that release you literally could count the number of superhero films on one hand that were actually decent.  The good ones were Tim Burton's Batman, Richard Donner's Superman, and the halfway-passable original X-Men film.  Honestly, nothing else was even remotely good (though the argument could be made for Superman II).

Then Spider-Man came on the scene, and the superhero film came into its own.  It captured the character from the book faithfully and with great entertainment.  Following that success was Spider-Man 2 (2004), which kicked all the action and greatness of the first film up a notch.

But simply being faithful to the books and entertaining wasn't enough.  In 2007 Sam Raimi decided to knock the training wheels off and invest everything into giving us the biggest, most spectacular superhero movie since Batman & Robin.

Everything about Spider-Man 3 is an exercise in excellence!  Just by way of contrast with lesser films we see how this one shines head and shoulders above the crowd, like a shimmering, gossamer star in the cinema firmament!

• Lesser movies invest deeply into the origin of one villain, telling his/her story and ratcheting up the tension for the hero.  Spider-Man 3 is so boss that it can crowd THREE bad guy origin stories into the plot!
• Lesser sequels care about continuity and being faithful to the story already established.  Spider-Man 3 knows that the drama is so much more compelling if you contradict the story the previous films told.  After all, why would Spider-Man want to stop Sandman if he had no personal reason to hate him?  And why would the audience think Sandman was really a bad guy if he wasn't the guy who actually killed uncle Ben?
• Lesser movies think that when you have a character beloved by the fan base, such as Venom, great care should be taken to make him just as powerful and terrifying as he is in the comics.  Spider-Man 3 rewrites the rules, showing us how great a villain can be!  It completely overhauls Venom, removing the creepiness, scariness, and ultra-violence.  Without those things, the audience can better relate to Venom as a wounded soul.  
• Lesser films think that evil is best demonstrated by depicting violence, theft, or calloused depravity.  Spider-Man 3 shows us that an evil influence is shown even better by gothic-emo dance routines.
• Most superhero films have the hero overcome great odds to beat the villain.  Spider-Man 3 does one even better, having the hero need help from the bad guys to beat the bad guys.
• The average action film simply has exciting explosions, thrilling chase scenes, and high-wire tension to entertain the audience.  Spider-Man 3 is so far above the ordinary action film!  It does not need the ordinary conventions of movie-making!  It does't take long before a stupor of greatness descends on the viewer as we try to take in all its magnificence!

What more can I say?  Spider-Man 3 is the Gone With The Wind of superhero films -I for one really felt like Rhett Butler by the end!  The acting is an exercise in perfection, the screenplay is as well-written as it could be, and the direction is perfectly passable!  It is everything one could want from a superhero movie sequel -more bewildering action, more characters that can be made into toys, more bad guys, and an unwavering faith in the forgiveness of the fan base.

Entertainment: Spider 10/10
Artistic Value: Spider 10/10
Technical Merit: Spider 10/10

Overall: Spider 10/10*








*To calculate the value of Spider numbers, simply multiply the Spider value by 10, subtract 99, multiply again by 5, add 3, and then remove 87.5% of that last figure.  

Best of the Letter R: Rear Window (1954)

I already once did a review on Rear Window.  That original review can be found by clicking here.

I'll summarize this way: Rear Window is my favorite Alfred Hitchcock film, and I am the world's biggest Hitchcock fan.  It has great character development, great attention to detail, and simply fun dialogue.  And underneath everything is a great running discussion on human relationships.

This is a must-see for any movie fan, a film that starts lighthearted and slowly builds up the suspense.  The result is magnificent!

(the following rating is a bit different than my original review.)
Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic value: 9/10
Technical merit: 9/10

Overall: 9.5/10

Runners Up for the Letter "R:"

• Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
• Ran (1985)
• Rebecca (1940)
• Rocky (1976)
• Robocop (1987) -yes, I'm serious.  Robocop rules.
• Raging Bull (1980)

Noah (2014)

Going into this film the big question for me was this: were the makers of Noah respectful of the source material and true to its message?  Everything else really hinges on this question.

Christians are often a hard lot to please when it comes to movies.  We whine and moan when Hollywood ignores some of the great, epic stories from the Bible.  Then, when Hollywood actually makes a Biblical story into a movie we whine and moan that they did not do every single detail exactly "right."  We're harder to please than Tolkien fans.

For me, I don't mind much if a Biblical film adds stuff in, or takes a rather different interpretive twist than I might otherwise expect.  After all, most of the stories in the actual Bible only cover a few chapters, perhaps a few dozen verses at most of exposition.  For any film to be made from these stories requires speculation and added dramatic themes.  Noah certainly adds themes and plot elements to the Scriptural story.

There is a ton to love in this movie.  It gets so many of the details right, such as the size and look of the ark.  Without showing anything terribly violent or lewd the depravity of man is nonetheless masterfully depicted.  God, though only called the Creator, is clearly present throughout the film, causing miracles and giving guidance and direction where needed.  A prominent theme of the film is in fact that God will provide what his people need; we only need to trust him.

The theological theme I most appreciated was the unmistakable clear message that sin has terrible root in all of us, and that sin pervades and destroys all things.  Literally, all is destroyed by sin in this film, even the whole earth seems ravaged and ruined by the destruction of man.  And make no mistake, the movie points out very clearly that everything is ruined by sin, not just bad environmental policies.  Noah despairs of a true answer to evil, wrestling with the depravity of man.  Now, this theme also leads to the worst dramatic element and even the most non-biblical theme (that of Noah trying to ensure that people die out entirely).  However, the clear root message is true: we are all sinful, and a "restart" after the flood will no doubt lead to problems again.  See, the Biblical message takes us to Christ -not even starting again with the world's best person will make everything right.  We need a better plan, a greater redemption.  We need a Savior.

Noah the movie takes this true theme and makes it the central dramatic foil, causing Noah himself to become fixated on the notion that creation is good and people are bad, thus people (all people, even himself and his family) need to die.  The answer -according to the movie -is love.  Noah's love for his grandchildren and family, the "innocence" of infants, and the natural love that children have -this seems to be enough to redeem according to the film.  This is of course insufficient and inadequate, a disservice to the Biblical story.

Other story problems abound.  Noah is quite the warrior here, something that seems rather unnecessary for a prophet of God and incompatible with his description in Scripture as someone who "walked with God."  I just don't see why it was so necessary to defend the ark with weapons, other than to provide that big cataclysmic battle scene.

Another problem was the stowaway, the bad guy who sneaks onto the ark.  This was (in my opinion) utterly unnecessary and superfluous.  Anything achieved by this could have been done in other ways.

I didn't much care for the rock giant/fallen angel things.  Their inclusion is done in such a way as not to be anti-biblical, but they don't add much either.  Ultimately, they seem mostly done simply to have a Lord of the Rings kind of feel to the whole film.

I didn't care much for the way the story unfolded with the building of the ark.  Scripture seems to imply that the construction of the vessel took about 100 years (contrast Genesis 5:32 with Genesis 7:6).  In the movie it took 10 years.  Plus, we didn't get to see much of the construction, not even a time-lapse.  It was just "Let's build an ark!" and then BOOM, next scene it was 10 years later and there's an ark.

Finally, I take some exception to how many people were on the ark.  Once the flood started I was beside myself in the theater, wondering how they could possibly justify having only 6 people saved from the flood on the ark.  The Bible is about as clear as it could be: Noah and his wife, and his sons and their wives were all saved.  That's 8 people, not 6.  Now, to be fair, the issue is actually resolved, and does so in a way that does add up to 8 people and even furthers the theme of "everything God's people needs he supplies."  However, it seemed too clever and contrived, and certainly is not what would be understood from a simple reading of the Bible.

I guess that sums up my feeling as a whole.  There is not much at all that I can point to and say "That contradicts Scripture!"  As a whole, the story is all there and the themes are largely fine.  But in no way could I say that this is the film that I would have made in respect to the original story.  Noah feels more like a story that is tweaked to fit, carefully constructed so as not to be loudly condemned, rather than a faithful telling of the Scripture.  They seemed to aim for controversy, but in such a way as to have a way to justify themselves when called on it.

Artistically and Technically I don't have much to say.  Honestly, without my prior knowledge of the story and understandable built in enthusiasm I'm not sure I'd have gotten all that excited about Noah.  Simply from a technical standpoint I'm just not all that convinced the movie is all that good.  Sure, the production value is very high.  Yes, the special effects are good, and everything feels expensive enough.

But not much really wowed me.  The acting was simply passable.  Russel Crow did a fine job, but he was really unable to make me connect with his character.  Otherwise, there was not much that was worthy of much note.  In fact, most of the characters lacked the development that they needed to be interesting.  Shem, in particular, was entirely one-note and lacking depth.  Of all the actors, only Anthony Hopkins really had an on-screen spark, and he mostly phoned in his role.

As for art, this movie was drab and colorless.  Seriously, there was so much brown in this film I was begging for a bit of purple by the end.  There was almost no color pallet at all; brown brown brown brown, and then a bit more brown with some dark brown.  Visually, this movie was about as pleasing to the eye (at least as regards color) as brown stuff doing brown things in a dark brown room.  In fact, I believe I just described one or two of the interior ark scenes.  Everything looked good in terms of special effects -but the problem was I didn't want to look at anything and what I did want to see was hard to see because of all the brown.  I guess all the brown made the rainbow at the end really pop out, but it was a bit much.

Two things do stand out that are worthy of a second look.

First, while on the ark Noah tells the Creation story.  The story he tells is nearly word for word the Creation account in Genesis, from Creation ex nihilo through Eden, Adam and Eve, the Fall, and the murder of Able by Cain.  This story is accompanied by a rapid-succession montage video that visually shows what he is describing, and it is brilliant.  Here's the brilliance: that video could be seen as showing a 6 day creation.  But it could also be described as showing an old-earth, theistic evolution kind of story.  It does not seem to fall squarely on one side of the fence or the other, allowing the viewer to conclude what we will.  That sequence deserves another look; I want to see it again.

Secondly the finale was very good.  In fact, the last 2 minutes of the film might be the only truly "great" moments that it contains.  I won't spoil anything, but the way the themes come together and God shows his blessing is truly memorable.

Ultimately, I was hoping for a better movie.  I feel there was a lot of greatness hiding behind a lot of rubbish.  There was a true story being shown behind battle scenes, threatened infanticide, and rock people.  But overall, Noah just isn't the film I was hoping for.  I wanted the prophet of Scripture who heard God's voice, walked with God, and knew of God's blessing; I got instead a guy who never directly heard the voice of God, wasn't sure he knew what God wanted, and was unsure of God's blessing.  But at least he killed people as efficiently as Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, right?

Entertainment: 6/10
Artistic Value: 6/10
Technical Merit: 5/10

Overall: 4/10  (yes, the sum of the parts actually does seem to be less than the individual parts themselves!)


P.S. On the plus side again, I do want to emphasize the great opportunity this movie presents in discussing the themes and questions it develops!  There is so much that can be discussed over coffee with others who have seen it!

Should I watch Noah?

Today I read this article, in which radio talk show personality Glenn Beck is quoted as hoping Noah, releasing next week, is a massive failure.  Understand, Beck has not seen the film.  Nevertheless, he believes -upon the basis of a single review in The Hollywood Reporter -that the film not only takes creative liberties, but actually perverts and upends the Biblical story.  He proceeds -again, not having seen the film himself -to call the movie "dangerous" and advises people not to see it.

I've also read the Hollywood Reporter review of Noah.  I also have some reservations about the film, based upon some of the information that the review contains.

But I have some serious problems with Glenn Beck's position; three of them in fact.

First, the review itself was largely in praise of the film.  It found much -though not everything -to be good.  And it pointed out some of the areas that did tend to stray from what the Bible actually says.  But it was not very long, or very detailed.  To use that review as a way to condemn the entire film would be like saying no one should ever go anyplace in New Jersey because you once saw an unflattering photograph of one street in Newark.

Second, there are a number of rather prominent Christian authors and leaders who actually have seen the film and who do recommend it.  The Hollywood Reporter notes that both Rev. Samuel Rodreguez (a pastor/author I have heard and enjoyed) and Jim Daly (president of Focus on the Family) support Noah.  Others have also come out in favor.  Of course, simply because these guys like the movie does not make it biblical.  But at least they are Christian leaders who fight for the cause of Jesus, they've seen it, and give it a thumbs up.

And this leads to my third problem I have with Glenn Beck's position.  Glenn Beck is an outspoken, practicing, devout Mormon.  Mormonism is -by its very nature and definition -a perversion of true Christianity.  It is unbiblical, heretical, contrary to history and reason.  Mormonism teaches falsehoods about God, Jesus Christ, and humanity.  Basically what I'm saying is this: a Mormon with only second-hand knowledge is not an authority on what is actually Biblical.  And I simply do not trust his judgement especially since -and I repeat myself for emphasis -HE HAS NOT SEEN THE MOVIE!

Could Noah be a dangerous, subversive film that twists the Bible's message and leads people to believe things about God and Scripture that are not true?  Absolutely, I acknowledge the possibility.  Could it remain faithful to the message and theme of the Scripture, while adding extra stuff for the sake of drama?  Sure.  But I'll need to see it to decide for myself.

So I think I will go see it.  I'm still hopeful for a good, solid film.  Sure, I don't expect it to be exactly what I would make, should I have been a movie director.  Sure, I fully expect there to be stuff added in that puzzles me, or even to which I take great exception.  But I hope that it inspires further discussion in our society on faith and Scripture.  I hope it leads a great many people to read the Biblical story in Genesis for the first time.

And I hope that Hollywood hears a loud message from all of us that if they will make Biblical films that respect the Source Material we will support it.

Happily Ever After...?

I was thinking about love this past week.  See, love -as defined and demonstrated by Hollywood -is often an emaciated and sickly thing, a mere shadow of its real self.  Love in the movies is reduced to lust, to an animal desire that excuses rebellion against parents and shirking of responsibilities.  To believe what we watch, love means "never having to say you're sorry."  Love is what you feel when someone makes you feel good.

Love, in the movies, is usually selfish.  Love is about using the other person to feel good and pleasant, and if someone else comes along to make you feel even better, then Hollywood teaches us the virtue of "following your heart" (or as they call it in other places, "being unfaithful.").

We are told that love is to be sought above all else, and that finding "true love" will conquer all odds and result in "happily ever after."

My friends, we're being sold a bill of goods by the Walt Disney Company et al.  This love that is peddled to us might sell well, but it is not real.  It is not lasting.  It does not persevere through trial, because it is at heart self-seeking.

I believe that true love is best exemplified in Jesus Christ, and the way of the Cross.  Love is sacrificial.  Love is for the benefit of the beloved.  Love climbs the heights and endures all things because real love is not about me and what I want, but the other and what he/she needs most.  Real, true, love is a beautiful thing, something that triumphs over all adversity even in the midst of despair.  There may be no "happily ever after" with true love, but all the same "love never fails."

This past week I saw another glimpse of incarnate real love, a love like that love with which God loved us.  Last Wednesday a young woman of my acquaintance passed away after a long fight with cancer.  She was only 23.

She was an amazing young lady.  She became quite the speaker, telling the story of her fight against cancer and testifying to the hope she had in Jesus Christ.  She went on missions trips, she wrote, she sang, she generally was a great influence on all the people around her.  I'd say somewhere around 2,000 people showed up at either the viewing yesterday or funeral today to pay their respects to her -some standing in line for hours to do so.  Her story is remarkable.

But really I want us to know about her husband.

You see, this young woman had been dating a young man rather seriously prior to her cancer diagnosis.  Can you imagine that situation?  What do you do when your girlfriend drops the news on you that she has cancer?  How do you respond when the treatment plan is laid out, and the prognosis is given, and nothing is good news?

There must have been rocky times.  There must have been doubts. There must have been tears and desperation and, above all, temptation to turn away and run.  After all, can you make that choice to love when there is little possibility of "happily ever after?"  How do you, as a young man, make that decision that could potentially make you a caregiver for a long time rather early in life?

How does anyone -in our culture of self-love -so willingly offer his heart with the very real knowledge that it could be broken, and broken very soon?

But that is the decision this young man made.  He proposed in spite of her sickness.  He married her.  He gave her the wedding of her dreams, then he cared for her and gave everything he had for her.

And last week, less than a year since the wedding, she passed away.

The world calls it a tragedy.  They see the devastation of the family and the anguish of her husband and pities them.  I also hurt for them.  I long to bring some word of comfort to this young man's heart, who is far too young to be a widower.

However, I cannot say I pity him.  No, you see, he inspires me.  I hurt for him, but I admire him!  Most of us experience pain because we live in a broken, sinful world.  Life happens, and sooner or later the pain of life is visited upon our own doorstep.  But few of us willingly choose to enter a situation that will likely break our hearts.  We usually shun pain, and insulate ourselves away from it as long as possible.  Yet for the sake of his beloved, this young husband chose the pain.  He embraced the potential of a broken heart for the sake of love.  As I have considered his example over this last week, I realized just how profoundly he exemplifies the way of the Cross.

Is there a "happily ever after?"  Is there a happy ending, as Hollywood would celebrate?  Well, no.

Instead, I see a quieter kind of victory.  I see the triumph of real love over all the hurts and pains of this world.  I see a heroic stand against the narcissistic hedonism our world promotes as the answer.

I see loss and pain willingly taken on, borne for the sake of another.  I see hope in the middle of hurt.  I see a reflection of a love that Hollywood will seemingly never understand.

And there is simply something beautiful, something triumphal, about that.

A Few Random Thoughts on Movies

1. Fantastic Mr. Fox is a simply wonderful, visually beautiful film.
2. All things being equal, the Oscar usually goes to the most melodramatic, politically correct film.
3. Superhero movies are getting better, but a few things still hold them back from being truly great.  One of those things holding them back is called in other places "writing."
4. I still think that Moriarty is too sniveling in the series Sherlock.
5. Movie trailers before about 1989 are truly awful.
6. Every time I read a news article about the decline of Detroit I always hope for the following line: "And that is why we are introducing the future of crimefighting: Robocop!"
7. The new trailer for the fourth Transformers movie looks terribly wretched.
8. If I sat down to watch my entire collection of movies it would take me about a full month of continuous, non-stop viewing.  That's crazy.
9. If I could chose a winner, I'd want The Grand Budapest Hotel to be at the top of the box office this weekend.  Unfortunately, people generally want to see rubbish like 300:Rise of an Empire more than something that looks genuinely original, quirky, and funny.
10. Noah is probably not biblically accurate.  It is worth checking out with an open mind anyway.

Best of the Letter "Q:" The Quiet Man (1952)

The Quiet Man is a pretty good movie.  At first blush it's about a retired American boxer (John Wayne) who returns to the Irish village where he was born and finds love in a fiery redhead (Maureen O'Hara) and an enemy in her brother (Victor McLaglen).  But really this is a movie about understanding (and misunderstandings).  It's about cultural differences that can make huge gaps between people, even those who look alike and speak the same language.

For an example, when a local finds out that Sean (Wayne's character) had relatives in the town in years past, he exclaims "Your grandfather died in Australia, in a penal colony!"  My first reaction was shock at hearing this, thinking that it was a rather tactless thing to point out.  However, upon further reflection I realized it was meant as a badge of honor -this is Ireland we're talking about after all, and it was the British who sent criminals to Australia.

So other misunderstandings abound -about propriety, honor, what a dowry means to the bride, and so on.  We have to learn along with Sean what is expected, and what is regarded as good.

Then there's the good old knock-down, drag-out, bare-knuckled brawl at the end, the one that finally deals with the bad blood and actually draws people together.

There are a few rough spots, mostly having to do with production values.  Director John Ford (one of the best Hollywood has ever seen) had to fight tooth and nail to make this film, one that meant a great deal to him personally.  However, I get the feeling he was constrained by budget and perhaps had his hands tied in a number of ways.  The result is inconsistent greatness.  The outdoor shots are especially great, but many of the sets were not as good, and some shots are so obviously done on a soundstage that they cause a distraction.

But on the whole the film is very good.  Decently written, fun to watch, with good acting and great on location scenery, this is a great one to see.  And in a very limited pool of contenders, it is certainly the best of the letter "Q."

Entertainment: 5/10
Artistic Value: 8/10
Technical Merit: 6/10

Overall: 7/10


Runner up for the letter "Q:"

• Quigley Down Under

Best of the Letter "P:" The Princess Bride (1987)

For my original review of this film, click here.

I struggled with the letter "P."  There are so many great films that start with this letter, it almost seems a shame to elevate one over the others.  But ultimately there can be only one, and that one must be The Princess Bride.

Ok, I'm about to give every reason The Princess Bride should NOT be the best of the letter "P."  There is good writing, but I've seen better.  There's passable acting, with the occasional brilliant bits, but I've seen better.  The special effects are terrible, the makeup and monster effects laughable, and the overall feeling of the film is total cornball.  There is not much that is artistic about it, and some of the production values are rather bargain bin, to put it mildly.

But in terms of everything coming together just right, it is perfect.  Sure it's corny, but the charm meter is off the chart.  And it has a great gift for rhyme.

The Princess Bride will forever be a reminder to me of one of the chief functions of film; it is peerless entertainment.  On that basis alone, and even though other films might get a higher score from me overall, I say that it is the best film you can watch that starts with the letter "P."

Entertainment: 10/10
Artistic Value: 3/10
Technical Merit: 5/10

Overall: 8/10
(P.S. This score represents some changes from my first review.  I have the hardest time thinking about the technical side -I really think most of the poor production value stuff is purposeful.  But even so, there is so much technically that could have been done so much better.)


Runners Up for the Letter "P:"

• The Philadelphia Story (1940)
• Psycho (1960)
• Planet of the Apes (1968)
• The Pride of the Yankees (1942)
• Pulp Fiction (1994)
• The Prestige (2006)
• The Poseidon Adventure (1972) -Not really a great film, but since it was my parent's first date, it gets an honorable mention.  It at least leads to great things!

Best of the Letter "O:" On the Waterfront (1954)

"You don't understand!  I coulda had class.  I coulda been a contender.  I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it.  It was you, Charlie."

Classic scene, perfectly acted.  But there's another scene that rises above as my favorite:

Father Barry stands up from performing last rites for Dugan, then looks up at the mob of workers and begins to preach: "Some people think the Crucifixion only took place on Calvary.  They'd better wise up!  Taking Joey Doyle's life to stop him from testifying is a crucifixion.  And dropping a sling on Kayo Dugan because he was ready to spill his guts tomorrow, that's a crucifixion.  And every time the Mob puts the pressure on a good man, tries to stop him from doing his duty as a citizen, it's a crucifixion. And anybody who sits around and lets it happen keeps silent about something he knows that happened, shares the guilt of it just as much as the Roman soldier who pierced the flesh of our Lord to see if he was dead."
A call then rings out from above "Why don't you go back to your church?"
The priest's voice roars up with righteous anger as he points to the body at his feet, "Boys, THIS is my church!  And if you don't think Christ is down here on the waterfront you've got another guess coming!"

I LOVE this movie.  Perfectly written, beautifully filmed, flawlessly directed, with iconic performances from some of the 50's greatest actors -Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Lee Cobb, and Eva Marie Saint in her first feature role.

This is a movie our country needs today, the reminder that corruption, short money, and violence to protect power always tears everything and everyone down.  This is also the movie Hollywood needs to remind them how to make a good film with real heroes and believable villains.

Inspiring.  Exceptional.  A work of genius and beauty.  Do not miss it; On the Waterfront is the best film you can see that starts with the letter "O."

Entertainment: 8/10
Artistic Value: 10/10
Technical Merit: 10/10

Overall: 10/10


Runners up for the letter "O:"

• O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
• One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
• The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

Best of the Letter "N:" North By Northwest (1959)

I am a huge Alfred Hitchcock fan.  I've loved his ability to do things no one else had done before, invent new techniques, and tease out action and drama into true suspense that continues to build.

North By Northwest is Hitchcock's most fun and entertaining film, full of twists and turns and great action.  It also captures perfectly the style of the great director toward the end of his career, when he was able to bring a world of experience into full effect and create some of his most timeless masterpieces.  It also happens to be my favorite Cary Grant movie, and I LOVE Cary Grant.

Not everything works out in terms of "making sense."  However, if you are willing to suspend a bit of disbelief everything will work out just fine in terms of being monstrously enjoyable.  Just sit back and watch one of the great credit sequences of all time, a great score, fantastically great writing, and some iconic moments -such as the murder at the U.N., the crop duster attack, and the frantic climb on the face of Mount Rushmore.  And don't forget to bid at the auction like a crazy man -it just might save your life!

North By Northwest.  A movie about a case of mistaken identity, murder, international spy rings, and romance on trains.  Definitely classic Hitchcock.  And also the best movie you can watch that starts with "N."

Entertainment: 10/10
Artistic Value: 5/10
Technical Merit: 8/10

Overall: 8/10


Runners up for the Letter "N:"

• No Country for Old Men (2007)
• Network (1976)
• Night of the Living Dead (1968)
• Night Train to Munich (1940)

Best of the Letter "M:" My Fair Lady (1964)

Start with some of the best writing ever done for a musical.  Add in some of the best songs ever written.  Spice it up with great themes and amazing costumes.  Then finish it all with Rex Harrison at his best.

The result?  My Fair Lady, the finest musical Hollywood has ever produced and also one of the best movies of all time.  Equal parts witty and grand, with a utterly spellbinding leading actor, My Fair Lady will remain a classic that never fails to entertain. And (in a very competitive group) it is the best film you can watch that begins with the letter "M."

Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic Value: 7/10
Technical Merit: 9/10

Overall: 9/10

Runners up for the Letter "M:"

• The Maltese Falcon (1941)
• The Music Man (1962)
• M (1931)
• The Matrix (1999)

Best of the Letter "L:" Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

For my full, original review of this magnificent film, click here.

Lawrence of Arabia is everything a movie should be.  Epic.  Spectacular in scope.  Phenomenal acting.  Marvelous writing and directing.  And above all, Lawrence sets a standard for cinematography that has never been equaled.  This is an outlandishly beautiful film and outstanding in every respect.  

Buy it.  Rent it.  Just watch it.  It's the best movie that begins with the letter "L."

Entertainment: 8/10

Artistic Value: 8/10

Technical Merit: 10/10

Overall: 9/10

Runners Up for the Letter "L:"

• The Lion King
• L.A. Confidential
• The Lady Vanishes
• Life is Beautiful
• The Lord of the Rings (trilogy)

Best of the Letter "K:" The King's Speech (2010)

Every once and a while a drama comes along that really is as good as they used to be.  The King's Speech is a tour de force of acting and phenomenal storytelling, one that comes together in all the right ways.

Colin Firth simply dazzles as King George VI, a monarch with a rather large problem -he stutters.  He is terrified of speaking in public, an undesirable quality for a guy who's very life involves speaking in public.  Geoffrey Rush is the speech therapist who finally is able to help him past the rather massive impediment and able lead his people with clarity and competence.  This movie belongs to Colin Firth.  His performance is hands down the best acting job of the past 5 years.  The opening scene, in which the prince (and future king) waits to deliver a speech, contains some of the best and most subtle acting of perhaps any single movie scene in my memory.  Firth simply looks sick with anxiety.  It immediately gets the audience on his side and makes him a sympathetic character.

It's all about the journey, and by the end we can sympathize with the rather remarkable progress that he has made to overcome his problem and deliver a brilliant and inspiring oration that became a lighthouse signal to guide Britain through the fog of world war 2.

This is an amazing film, and the best film that begins with the letter "K."  Highly recommended, though viewers should be aware of two scenes that contain strong language.

Entertainment: 6/10
Artistic Value: 9/10
Technical Merit: 8/10

Overall: 8/10

Runners up for the letter "K:"

• King Kong (1933)
• The Killing (1956)
• The Karate Kid (1984)
• Kagemusha (1980)