Review: The Golden Compass

The Golden Compass: ***

Nonna Rating: $$$

I prepared myself to dislike this movie. I've read Pullman's Trilogy, His Dark Materials, and have rarely had so negatively visceral a reaction to literature. Just for the record, my reaction had nothing to do with the so-called "anti-Christian" subtext of the books. Granted, you don't find much anti-Christian children's literature, but there certainly exists a great volume of adult literature that is anti-Christian. And, let's face it, the history of Christendom isn't exactly squeaky clean. Good Christians would do well to face up to the darker moments in our bloody history in Europe, the U.S., and the rest of the world. But I digress. What I didn't like about Pullman's books was the hopelessness that rests in the core of the novels. There is, indeed, something dark in these books, something I'd rather have children face when they are a bit older (at least adolescents) and can handle it better. I do sound like a disapproving grandmother here. Sorry.

To my surprise, however, I found myself enjoying the movie. Some of the special effects are stunning, especially the daemon animal souls that accompany humans. Children's daemons, which change shape constantly and don't take their final shape until adolescence, were especially charming. The actors are exceptionally fine. Almost every venerable older male English actor has a role, including Derek Jacobi, Ian McKellan, Tom Courtenay, Ian McShane, and Christopher Lee. Dakota Blue Richards plays the demanding role of Lyra and exudes competence, bravery, and cleverness. Daniel Craig as Lord Asriel isn't on screen enough. We'll probably have to wait for the last two installments to see more of him. Nicole Kidman portrays Mrs. Coulter, Lyra's long-absent, chillingly beautiful mother. Her performance is good, but doesn't convey the evil that resides in the core of her being in the books.

I wondered if the densely plotted movie was only coherent to me because I had read the book, so I asked my ten-year-old grandson what he thought of it and whether it made sense to him. He genuinely enjoyed it and was able to follow the storyline easily. I am somewhat surprised at the alarm being raised in some Christian circles about the film. A friend tells me that her nine and eleven year old daughters were warned repeatedly at Sunday school that they should not see the movie. Actually, I doubt most children will even understand that the Magisterium, the reigning power in an alternate universe (definitely not our own universe) is meant to represent the established Church, presumably Roman and/or Anglican Catholic. There is nothing in the movie that identifies the Magisterium as a religious body.

For the special effects, which are stunning on the big screen, I recommend paying the matinee price for this one.

Nonna Rating System:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price

$$$ = Worth paying the Matinee price

$$ = Worth a rental

$ = Wait for cable

# = Skip it

Review: The Great Debaters

The Great Debaters: ***
Nonna Rating: $$$

We've seen this plot a hundred times before. Spunky little underdog college team works the kinks out of their performance and doggedly wins game after game until they have the chance to confront the BIG COLLEGE team in the ultimate showdown. And we all know what happens. After all, if they hadn't been successful, there would be no reason to make the movie. The plot is tired enough that it takes an awfully special movie to transcend it. Great Debaters does just that. We expect good acting with Denzel and Forrest, but that doesn't guarantee a good film. They are, however, assisted by four young actors who deliver superb performances: Nate Parker, Jurnee Smollett, Denzel Whitaker (no relation to Denzel or Forrest), and Jermaine Williams. And, yes, we're not watching a story focused on athletic events; we're watching the cerebral activity of debaters. But even that's not enough to make it an exceptional film.

It is the context of this David and Goliath story that makes it so special. The film concerns a little college no one has heard of up against Harvard -- a little black college in 1935 Texas. In the film, slavery is much closer to the characters then than it seems to us now, and the law looks the other way when black men and women are harassed or, as in one pivotal scene, lynched. The contrast between the college where the students study and live and the racist world outside the college is profound and disturbing. (This is a good movie for adolescents to see. Not only does it celebrate the power of education, hard work, and determination; it also serves as a platform for difficult discussion of systematic racism and America's sad history of racial oppression.)

I do have a quibble with one aspect of the film: the topics for debate and the assignation of debating positions. The Wiley College team always was given the liberal side of any issue; for example, pro-welfare. This made for some dramatic, impassioned speeches (especially from Ms. Smollett), but it didn't reflect what must have been the actual situation. In debate competitions, one often has to argue passionately on the side of an issue with which one does not agree. It's an integral part of the process. Arguing the other side of an issue provides an understanding and empathy for the other position which, in turn, allows one to argue the side one actually believes in more logically and with even more confidence. Perhaps the film makers thought that the viewing public would be confused by a debate in which the Wiley team took, for example, an anti-welfare position, but I contend this could have been handled in the story as it exists and it would have enhanced the drama.

I recently participated in a disputatio in my Christian Ethics class. A disputatio is a medieval form of debate very similar to modern debate competitions. I was assigned the argument that torture should be used to elicit information. This was an arduous task for me because I don't believe torture is an effective means of gleaning information, but, in arguing it, I had a greater appreciation for the other side of the argument and a better understanding of how to argue against torture in future. Given the nature of that debate and the fact that we often employed proof texts from the early Church Fathers as well as Scripture, I was especially delighted in the movie when Denzel Whitaker quoted St. Augustine in the last debate against Harvard.

Nonna Rating System:
$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$ = Worth paying the Matinee price
$$ = Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: The Kite Runner

The Kite Runner: ***1/2

Nonna Rating: $$$

I expected to be disappointed in this movie. Like many, many others, I've read the book -- actually, I've raced through the book, compelled by the author's haunting narrative. I found the "return to Afghanistan" section a bit contrived, but I forgave it for the realistic ending which refrained from "and everyone lived happily ever after." I'm certainly not one of those who demands that the screen translate a beloved novel without plot or character detours. I fully accept that the medium of film dictates the delivery of a story and sometimes necessitates changes. I often think of Being There, a novel by Jerzy Kosinski, in which the author set out to demonize media culture in a rather heavy-handed way. It's an OK book. Translated to film and starring Peter Sellars, the satire and media critique are just as evident but much more subtle. Minor plot changes assist in making the film the masterpiece that it is.Kite Runner is not Being

There, but it is a fine example of a book translated well to film. Readers of the book who demand adherence to plot and character in film interpretations will not be disappointed. The makers of the film made the courageous and appropriate choice to shoot much of it in foreign languages; specifically, Dari, Pashtu, Urdu, and Russian. Courageous because the decision will probably keep subtitle-phobic American film goers away from Kite Runner. The use of the other languages, however, beautifully underscores the sense of loss that Amir suffers on many levels after the abrupt end of his childhood and his displacement to the United States.

The movie focuses on sin, guilt, atonement, and redemption from the perspective of a Muslim child and, later, the Muslim adult. Even though Baba, Amir's father, knows nothing of Amir's great sin, he knows enough of his son to view him sadly with disappointment. Amir returns to Afghanistan to atone for his sins for his father's sake as much as for the sake of his beloved Hassan. Like the author of the book, the movie makers refrained from manufacturing a happy ending. Instead, they left room for hope and healing -- much more realistic given the circumstance's of the story. The story reminds us that we are all called to care for one another and that, sometimes, it may be necessary for us to risk our lives to protect those we must love. It also shows us that, even when we give all we can for another, we cannot guarantee or control the outcome for that person. So much is left up to God and to the person him or herself.

Nonna Rating System:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price

$$$ = Worth paying the Matinee price

$$ = Worth a rental

$ = Wait for cable

# = Skip it

Review: Atonement

Atonement: **1/2

Given all those Golden Globe nominations, I expected a bit more from this film. The acting was fine and very English in its attention to the details of the historical period -- prior to and during the beginning of the second World War. I don't ever remember a film in which so much attention was paid to the evacuation of Dunkirk -- not so much the evacuation itself as the plight of the men waiting in France. There's a lot to like about this film: good acting, beautiful cinematography, an interesting, if somewhat derivative story. The chemistry between Keira Knightly and James McEvoy is evident and Saoirse Ronan, Romola Garai, and Vanessa Redgrave, who play Briony young, older, and oldest, all handle their role well.

So what's wrong with it? Well, it's no French Lieutenant's Woman, and it's no Roshomon, two films Atonement echoes. It's one of those films that just doesn't seem to go far enough with its story. There's something missing. The final question is "Was this story weighty enough for all the money and time spent on its production?" Now that I've said all this, I must note that, according to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/, 85% of critics disagree with me. Of course, I'm not saying this is an awful movie. I'm saying it's worth seeing but probably at a cheap afternoon show. In fact, I think I'm going to develop a new rating system:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$ = Worth paying the Matinee price
$$ = Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

And Atonement gets $$$

Review: Margot at the Wedding

Margot at the Wedding ***

A great film? No, but certainly a fascinating one. Nicole Kidman's performance is especially engrossing. She's the sibling-from-hell, a mess of contradictions, a woman so unsure of who she is, she undermines her relationships with others without much thought but with plenty of low-level viciousness. So much is left unexplained in the movie. There are hints of an out-of-kilter relationship with her father. There is another sister, dependent on her mother, who may have been the victim of a rape -- or might not have been. There are a marital relationship and an adulterous relationship that both appear on the brink of disintegration. But explanation isn't important here.

Margot's boundaries are permeable to non-existent. Trust and fidelity are fluid. Her sister tells her a secret and elicits Margot's promise of silence. Almost immediately, Margot divulges the secret to one person after another. Later, she, in a matter-of-fact way, suggests to her son, Claude, a possible sexual relationship with her sister's babysitter, Maisy. Claude, mistaking this conversation for a permissive attitude of openness on the part of his mother, later tells her about a masturbatory experience and is confused when she reacts in horror and tells him his conversation is inappropriate. Self-obsessed by her own needs and opinions, Margot is unable to read people accurately. She's quick to label others as child abusers, autistic, or suffering from ADD with little or no evidence to support her opinion.

Several other performances are noteworthy. Jennifer Jason Leigh, Margot's sister Pauline, portrays a woman who hasn't had an easy life -- and Leigh has the courage to look burnt out used in the film. Jack Black shows us again that he's much more than just a funny guy. As Malcolm, the groom in "the wedding," he portrays a ne'er-do-well loser who confidently struts his stuff until his fictions can no longer sustain him. Zane Pais as Claude delivers one of those painful adolescent performances that make it all too easy to remember those awkward years. Finally, although he's only on film for a few minutes, John Turturro contributes another subtle performance, communicating the many problems in his relationship with Margot without ever having to talk about them.

As I said, it's not a great film. For many people, it won't be enjoyable to watch. None of the major characters are particularly likable people. But, if you like watching the portrayal of complex personalities and relationships on film, then this is a movie you'll enjoy.

Review: I'm Not There

I'm Not There ****

I'm Not There is a terrific film. I loved it -- all 15 minutes of it that I actually saw. I am embarrassed to say that I fell asleep during the movie and woke intermittently, somehow catching all the major plot points (if we can call them that). As so many critics have noted, the film is a deconstruction of the music biopic, those linear biographies which make it look as if a life actually makes sense. This film, using five actors to illustrate five aspects of that complex personality we call Bob Dylan, manages to point out a fact we all know, a fact that movies usually ignore -- that no human being is truly knowable. Unfortunately, for reasons that had nothing to do with the movie, I slept through most of it. I plan to see it "again." I'll alter this review if my opinion of the film changes, but I doubt it

Review: Enchanted

Enchanted ***1/2

Ever since Bambi Meets Godzilla ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXCUBVS4kfQ ), we have been living in a post-Disney world where saccharine sentimentality in children's cartoon's just doesn't do it for anybody. The three Shrek features put the final nails in that coffin. Enchanted proves that even Disney lives in a post-Disney world. No one has skewered the princess-fantasy genre the way this film does -- with broad satire and genuine affection for the decent (if sometimes sexist) values the genre represents. A princess, her prince, an evil stepmother queen, and her bumbling retainer are transported to Times Square, and all sorts of mischief breaks out. And, oh yes, one very frustrated chipmunk makes his appearance too.

There is a romantic love story at the center of the film, but that alone doesn't make it a "chick flick." I asked Max, my grandson and 10-year-old critic of kids' films, what he thought of the picture. He's at that "kissing-is-icky" stage and, so, I thought he might pan the film. But he didn't. He thought "it was really funny." Is this a new genre? Kid's films with chick flick components? Nanny McPhee was one.

My favorite part occured when Princess Giselle, finding herself in a cluttered, dirty Manhattan apartment, summoned all available New York critters to assist her a la Snow White in the dwarves' cottage. If you've seen Joe's Apartment, you know animated dancing cockroaches can be endearing.

Definitely take the kids to see this one, and, if you don't have kids, go anyway. It's that good.

Review: Beowulf

Beowulf ***1/2

I was prepared to be disappointed by Beowulf. I knew the new interpreters of this ancient story would tailor it for the 21st century. That was inevitable. There would be more emphasis on the blood and gore (not that there isn't a lot of that in the poem). I knew they'd probably mess around with the plot -- and they did. Grendel's Mother, played by Angelina Jolie, does not die when she's supposed to, and Beowulf doesn't go home to Geatland to be King. Instead, he hangs around with the Danes and rules them until his final battle with the dragon.

So, before I walked into the film, I decided to forgive its departures from the Old English poem. And I was blown away watching it in 3-D on a large screen. My advice: see it while it's in the theatres in 3-D. The experience is stunning. It might cost you $11.75, but it's worth it. Spears, arrows, and knives come right at you. Blood drips on you and snow falls so near and so gently, you reach out to feel it land in your hand. The animation is similar to that in Zemeckis's Polar Express, but it seems to be a few steps beyond that. And the technique allows for the perfection and alteration of bodies. Ray Winstone and Angelina Jolie both have beyond-belief-perfect bodies. Robin Wright Penn, who keeps her clothes on, is an errily stunning Danish beauty. Her jawline seems more square than in actuality and helps to make her every inch a queen.

The movie does do a fine job preserving the heroic culture of the late first millenium in England. The boasting and exaggeration are all there as well as the political structure of thanes and lords and the centrality of the mead hall. There are even a few nods to the introduction of Christianity to England -- "the Roman god, Christ Jesus." I especially enjoyed the few moments when a scop (a singer of tales) recited Beowulf in Old English. All in all, it's fine movie. If you liked 300, you'll enjoy this one too.