Directed by: Jean-Marc Vallee
Starring: Emily Blunt, Rupert Friend, Paul Bettany, Jim Broadbent
Rated:PG for some mild sensuality, a scene of violence, and brief incidental language and smoking
The saddest part of communism’s attempt in the west was to eradicate beauty and humanity from its people. Yet, in the midst of their schemes and attempts, man can not separate himself from the fact that he is made in God’s image. While the German film The Lives of Others may not be that explicit with such a spiritual connection, the story’s message is none the less true. The film won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film in 2006, so the quality is obviously splendid. But the suspenseful, dramatic, heart-wrenching story of how a secret policeman learns about humanity and freedom through monitoring a democratic playwright is more than astonishing and inspiring: it’s simply a great film. While the sexual content of the film may be too much for some (and too much for me to fully recommend to anyone), The Lives of Others is one of the few stories that shows what self-sacrificing love for humanity looks like.
*This is also one of Marvin Olasky’s favorite movies. Here’s his review of it in World Magazine.
Let's be frank, The Dead Poets Society is dangerous. It’s a lovely film, filled with some of the finest drama and direction a movie in the 1980s can find, but it’s still dangerous. I don’t say that because the teens and their “captain” rebel against oppressive authorities or because their passions lead them to questionable causes. I say it because the entire premise of the film is glorified propaganda for existentialism: the idea that we are mere “food for worms” as Mr. Keating puts it, so let’s find the things in each of us that “make life worth living.” While the philosophy ignites their passions, personalities, and enjoyment of life, the hardships and tragedy which result from this belief (which I won’t spoil here) communicate it’s own self-defeating message: that this life isn’t about you. And, while there is a lot in Dead Poets Society that is also good (such as their view of art) and even inspiring (to follow one's calling), those desires are portrayed, in a positive way, vastly out of perspective. Where are you leading them, oh captain, my captain?
An art-house narrative, recounting Jesse James’ final days, and the motivation and character of his killer, Robert Ford. While I consider it to be the best cinematography I’ve ever seen in a film, it also includes some of my favorite actors (Pitt, Affleck, Schneider and Rockwell.) It also has beautiful, breath-taking script, filled with character, depth, and tragedy. While some may feel the film is too kind to the outlaws of the west, I feel it is fair and balanced: Jesse James is as much to blame for his death as the coward Ford. Both are looking for a life of glory and fame, and are ultimately ruined by the consequences of that quest.
The 1984 Best Picture winner is not a historical biopic on Mozart. It’s not even a biopic on the film’s “protagonist”, Salieri. It is, above everything else, a lesson in philosophy and a rejection against God. With beautiful arrangements, an unknown cast, and intriguing story, director Milos Forman and writer Peter Shaffer present a story of a man who is consumed by jealousy that God chose a “fool” like Mozart instead of himself. While the film is a heavy rebellion against God, a Christian will only benefit from watching it. Salieri’s “Christianity” shows itself to be selfish and not interested at all in the work and glory of God. And, while Salieri’s hatred of God stems from God’s “love” of Mozart, Salieri missed that it was that same love that sent the God of the universe to die for sinful man.
If interested in the accuracy of Amadeus, read this link.
Chaplin
Directed by: Richard Attenborough
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Kevin Kline, Anthony Hopkins, Diane Lane
Rated: PG-13 for nudity and language (although should be rated R)
While not incredibly complex, Chaplin captures the history of the man beneath the mustache and bowler. While containing way too much nudity for my liking (and especially for it’s seemingly tame PG-13 rating), the film does depict his philandering behavior and political dealings as the tragic downfall to his influential and illustrious career. Terrific performances from Downey Jr. and Kevin Kline cap this tragic tale of the king of comedy.
Throughout history, Sherlock Holmes has proved many people to be wrong. The latest addition to that list is myself, who wrongly scoffed at the newest Sherlock Holmes film before watching it. You see, when I saw that British director Guy Ritchie was helming a Sherlock Holmes project, I thought he would turn Conan Doyle’s story into another shock-jock gangster film. While his style was still there, and he certainly jazzed up some of the action elements, the film not only stayed relatively faithful to Conan Doyle’s vision, but was also a lot of fun to watch. Holmes wasn’t the rock-star/sex god as portrayed in the trailer, nor was it a psycho-spiritual tale. Instead, Holmes (played by the iconic Downey Jr.) is a brilliant mind in the realm of observation but is just plain socially awkward in the real world. And, seeing the mad detective trying to figure out the case is an enjoyable experience. While it is fun, the film still has it’s flaws, as well. Rachel McAdams is not nearly a strong enough personality to play Doyle’s famous female villain Irene Adler, the film is also impossible to fully predict, not giving you an understanding of the clues until the big reveal at the end. And, while I appreciated the film not turning to the occult to explain the villain's powers, I also find it dangerous to not respect or even believe in the spiritual realm the way Holmes encourages us to. While horror films may give too much power to that realm, one can’t go around life believing that everything spiritual has a logical explanation, like a Scooby Doo episode. Again, these are insignificant details for a film that put together a wonderful cast, terrific musical score, a magical sense of style, and make for a fun (and fairly clean) time at the movies. It may not reach the classic level of Doyle’s story, but it’s certainly a compliment to his work.
Steve Carell is the funniest man in America. Tina Fey is the funniest woman. Together, they make America’s funniest couple. Unless, of course, you give them a shallow script and poor direction, which is exactly what happened when Carell and Fey made the movie Date Night. While I’m not much of a comedy fan, I have seen and enjoyed many that were harsher than Date Night, so don’t write that off as my issue with this movie. (Although it was an issue.) However, Date Night is so juvenile in terms of message, intellect, and humor, one begins to wonder if the director Shawn Levy (who mostly directs children’s movies, such as Night at the Museum) threw the “potty humor” in simply to make it a PG-13 rated script. Seriously, Shawn? You wasted the comedic duo and entertaining synopsis on that script? There is nothing funny about prostitution, corrupt officials, organized crime, sex jokes, or anything else in your script. As the outtakes gave away, the funniest parts of the movie were improved by Carell and Fey and weren’t in the lame script. And, while the film did give a positive message of family and marriage, and gave every man the new motivation to look like Mark Wahlberg, it certainly wasn't the comedic film we were all hoping for. Watching episodes of The Office or 30 Rock are much better options for a date night.
Director Wes Anderson is known for his unique sense of style, beautiful art direction, unorthodox stories, and overtly existential overtones to his films. His adaptation of Fantastic Mr. Fox by Roald Dahl is no different. While it’s certainly Anderson’s first attempt at a “kids” movie (and his first film that wasn’t rated R), Mr. Fox still comes with Anderson's baggage, both good and bad. It’s beautifully shot, and it may be the best-made animated film of the year, but it’s missing the heart and emotions that made Pixar’s Up a true success. With his past films, I’ve been disconnected from Anderson’s unorthodox story telling or odd ball cast of characters (with the exception of The Royal Tenenbaums). However, with the Fantastic Mr. Fox, its Anderson’s troubling message of encouraging the civilized characters of his story to embrace the wild-animals that they (or we) are. This is straight scientific realism, which justifies an “animals’” behavior (which Anderson would call “instinct”) purely for their own survival. Heavy stuff, especially for a children’s movie, but not surprising from Mr. Wes Anderson.