We don't often get a movie where the biological mother is the psychopath and the adoptive one the saint, but it was about time! Frankly, that is the actual experience of many kids! You'll love this movie even more if you try to figure out at exactly what point the baroness figures out that A. Cruella is her child, and B. Estella might be Cruella. I absolutely loved this movie!
Reviews
26 Reviews
The Hunt
(II) (2020)
Loved it! Don't judge it before you've watched it!
24 October 2020
I loved this movie for how surprisingly fair it was to both political parties, which is a very refreshing change from Hollywood. Amazingly, this is the most positive portrayal of conservatives in a film released during the past 2 decades, simply because the protagonist is smarter than she seems, yet it still has a "Planet of The Apes" feel when the conservatives are up against the elitist liberals. I don't want this review to be hidden due to spoilers, so I'm keeping details slim, but the movie makers actually did drop enough hints to fully confirm who is a leftist spy and who is not. Further, it's hard to imagine Crystal would so competently navigate Manorgate if she truly had no prior knowledge about it, as she claims. In one scene, Crystal's suspicions are aroused merely because she is questioned about her behavior before she arrived. In wars this bloody, people on both sides likely would lie to eachother if that lie might, for instance, get their opponent to put their gun away, or get their opponent to call somebody who might help them.
good movie, bad experiment
3 February 2020
The movie reminds me a bit of "The Paper Chase", except that movie seemed to argue that law students SHOULD be degraded, while this movie argues that hard felons at San Quentin should NOT be (though they still seem to agree that college students should be). I had read that this experiment was halted early due to revolts, but my psych textbook never mentioned that prisoners were sleep deprived to do push-ups and jumping jacks. That will cause anyone to revolt and, naturally, doesn't happen in actual prisons. However, anyone who truly is concerned can watch several documentaries about San Quentin on youtube. Considering every prisoner needs a violent act on their resume merely to enter, it should come as no surprise that San Quentin's prisoners don't always cooperate, and it makes little sense to suspect the prison guards are suddenly the ones causing problems.
However, most reviewers managed to review the movie instead of the experiment. I was initially going to criticize the movie, fully suspecting this could not be how the experiment went, but Zimbardo openly admits this is exactly what he did. To Zimbardo's credit, even the Unabomber might have been driven insane by an abusive psychology experiment he participated in at Harvard, so mistreating college kids seemed to be the sport at the time he conducted this experiment. Because Zimbardo argues that people in authority should not be cruel, he is probably not personally a sadist, but he might benefit from spending some time as a prison guard. Sure, you'll yell a lot, but it's because you're scared... too scared to be getting an authority kick. His primary consultant on the study was an armed robber who thinks "monster" describes the guy who wouldn't free him early due to fears he wasn't remorseful enough not to repeat his crimes. Zimbardo should have balanced that feedback with somebody who was paroled early due to good behavior. Did the parolee consider guards to be the bigger threat, or their fellow prisoners? Sadists typically aren't looking to wield their authority in a place where they are likely to get shanked. They prefer elementary schools, judicial benches or, as Zimbardo demonstrates, top colleges, where nobody dares to question them.
However, most reviewers managed to review the movie instead of the experiment. I was initially going to criticize the movie, fully suspecting this could not be how the experiment went, but Zimbardo openly admits this is exactly what he did. To Zimbardo's credit, even the Unabomber might have been driven insane by an abusive psychology experiment he participated in at Harvard, so mistreating college kids seemed to be the sport at the time he conducted this experiment. Because Zimbardo argues that people in authority should not be cruel, he is probably not personally a sadist, but he might benefit from spending some time as a prison guard. Sure, you'll yell a lot, but it's because you're scared... too scared to be getting an authority kick. His primary consultant on the study was an armed robber who thinks "monster" describes the guy who wouldn't free him early due to fears he wasn't remorseful enough not to repeat his crimes. Zimbardo should have balanced that feedback with somebody who was paroled early due to good behavior. Did the parolee consider guards to be the bigger threat, or their fellow prisoners? Sadists typically aren't looking to wield their authority in a place where they are likely to get shanked. They prefer elementary schools, judicial benches or, as Zimbardo demonstrates, top colleges, where nobody dares to question them.
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
(2019)
Will see again!
15 November 2019
Talk about irony: In a scene where the queen lectures Aurora about the importance of tolerance and multiculturalism, I was unable to follow what she was saying because a group of black teens in the theater were talking to eachother over the movie. At first I doubted it was because they disapproved of the message, but even stranger: At some point this same queen is turned into a goat and the group cheered and laughed! So I'm a bit confused, but I still thought this movie had a valuable message about not judging people before you have all of the facts (even if the person's name actually means "evil"). Of course, in this instance, I have to apply the same lesson to the movie, itself, so I highly recommend it for all little girls. My daughter certainly enjoyed what she could and asked if I would take her again so she could figure out what she had missed (she had missed the latter half due to noise). I decided we would see it again, because it certainly seemed to be a decent enough movie to watch until you've figured it out.
Mary Poppins Returns
(2018)
Hilarious!
10 March 2019
To assure the film-makers; yes, I most definitely do believe I caught all of the Easter Eggs, and they are a large part of what made this movie so adorable! Travers finally got the Mary Poppins she wanted, and Blunt's portrayal is so humorously a spin on both the original movie and the controversy about how to portray Mary Poppins. Those who grew up with Disney might recognize the Cheshire Cat responding to Alice when Georgie asks "Are we lost, then?" and Jack (the lamplighter) responds "That depend on where you're going." Depending on your experience with Disney, you might be able to catch the rest as well. The indescribably clever lamplighter song was my favorite part of the movie, though the animated sequence on the Royal Doulton China bowl was a close second. It's difficult to select a favorite scene from such a cute and well written movie, which is also so filled with adorable, meaningful songs.
Unbroken: Path to Redemption
(2018)
A Review by an Atheist
6 January 2019
The avg. IMDB star rating for this movie is suffering due to the older audience this movie appeals to. I've seen perfectly grammatically correct reviews praising this movie, frankly raving about it, yet they only gave the movie 3 or so stars. I think some older folks are new to IMDB and don't understand how its star rating system works. 10 stars is good and 1 star is bad.
Anyway, the detail in the PTSD depiction was amazingly accurate and Samuel Hunt is an exceptional actor. I loved this movie for the accuracy in that. I understand the disappointment one Christian expressed over the minor coverage of what changed Zamperini's mind, convincing him to stop hating and blaming God, but to instead trust Him. As an atheist, I certainly didn't mind the short treatment of this, but I will point out that Pure Flix has gotten lots of heat for dedicating full movies to trying to persuade atheists. They've probably learned not to do that. Even another IMDB reviewer didn't like how preachy this movie still is, as though the aim should be for Christian studios to make movies that are indistinguishable from those of secular studios. I certainly don't expect that.
Another reviewer dedicated their entire review of this movie to insulting Pure Flix for its previous movies which were dedicated to persuading atheists. Some atheists think movies where an atheist is a villain should never exist, even if atheists are also good guys in the same movie. So I'll grant that you Christians were quite mature about Monty Python movies, Carrie, the Shawshank Redemption, and many of Universal's recent anti-Christian movies like the highly fictionalized Boy Erased, but I just don't think many atheists are quite ready to return that favor to you. Sorry. :-/
Anyway, the detail in the PTSD depiction was amazingly accurate and Samuel Hunt is an exceptional actor. I loved this movie for the accuracy in that. I understand the disappointment one Christian expressed over the minor coverage of what changed Zamperini's mind, convincing him to stop hating and blaming God, but to instead trust Him. As an atheist, I certainly didn't mind the short treatment of this, but I will point out that Pure Flix has gotten lots of heat for dedicating full movies to trying to persuade atheists. They've probably learned not to do that. Even another IMDB reviewer didn't like how preachy this movie still is, as though the aim should be for Christian studios to make movies that are indistinguishable from those of secular studios. I certainly don't expect that.
Another reviewer dedicated their entire review of this movie to insulting Pure Flix for its previous movies which were dedicated to persuading atheists. Some atheists think movies where an atheist is a villain should never exist, even if atheists are also good guys in the same movie. So I'll grant that you Christians were quite mature about Monty Python movies, Carrie, the Shawshank Redemption, and many of Universal's recent anti-Christian movies like the highly fictionalized Boy Erased, but I just don't think many atheists are quite ready to return that favor to you. Sorry. :-/
A Christian studio made a Christian movie! Grrrr!
14 April 2018
I appear to be the only atheist with enough sense to get embarrassed by all of the negative reviews that essentially read "But there is no God!" Seriously, folks, don't review a movie you haven't seen. When secular studios that do not identify themselves as atheist released movies like American Beauty, Shawshank Redemption, and Carrie, the Christians didn't bombard IMDB with poor reviews which gave away they hadn't even seen the movie. Throwing tantrums because you think a tiny Christian studio might be showing a flick with the first atheist villain we've seen in thirty years (and you only think this because you haven't even seen the movie) is just petty and childish. For all of those "give Christian movie poor review because it's Christian" atheists, this movie portrayed atheists so positively that there was no villain in the movie. It was difficult to distinguish Christians from atheists based on character in this movie, which I imagine cost the studio points with their Christian audience. Not surprising it also gained them no points from all of the atheists who review movies without watching them.
Thor: The Dark World
(2013)
beautiful movie
17 December 2017
Though the closed captioned Star Trek like elves detracted from the quality, the rest of this movie was wonderful. The rejection of Loki by his family causes the audience to truly sympathize. On top of this, he faces threats by Thor and his friends, as Thor just assumes Loki wants revenge for the death of their mother merely because Thor does. The part where we see the brotherly interaction as they argue over how to direct the spaceship was adorably accurate and hilarious. I think this movie is being rated so poorly due to the closed captioned elf scenes, which were boring, but I loved everything else, especially the end where Loki winds up on the throne because he is disguised as Odin. The scenes without language captions were very emotionally poignant and compelling.
Murder on the Orient Express
(2017)
Branagh means you must watch closely
13 December 2017
When I first saw this movie, I wasn't even aware it was directed by the same guy who directed Thor, and yet I already sensed some similarities! When I discovered it was the same director, I watched the movie again and enjoyed it all the more, this time realizing I needed to watch it a bit more closely. My opinion is the opening at the Wailing Wall truly introduced us to both the detective and some of the other main characters in a meaningful way, and one thing I love is this director knows how to bring meaning to his movies with every choice he makes, no matter how subtle. Naturally, the first time I had no clue who the culprit was, but the second time I was catching the clever clues and realizing that we are watching a performance about a performance. Things that seem disturbing the first time are actually humorous the second time, because you understand the motives behind that behavior much better. Shallow, stereotypical characters gain depth when you realize that they are trying to distract the detective, and even making up some of their stories as they go. I have no clue when Hercule truly had it all figured out. The way his mind works, it could have been earlier than portrayed. When I saw the preview, I was so used to the Hollywood formula that I didn't think I needed to watch the movie. The culprit was the missionary. Even if I was wrong about that, I was sure I knew who had not done it. Turns out I DID need to watch the movie, and I'm so glad I did!
Thor: Ragnarok
(2017)
Thor movie delivers again!
13 December 2017
Ha ha! Marvel is officially my favorite movie studio! Somebody over there just "gets it"! I've seen claims that there is no deeper meaning in Ragnarok. Fortunately, if you saw deeper meaning in Thor 1, you'll probably see it in this one as well. If you didn't, though, I assure you this movie is still worth seeing because it's definitely hilarious. It's always Easter in the Marvel universe, and I love movies with hidden eggs, which is why I so enjoy Marvel movies, including the Thor movies (each of which I found ingenious). Loki is typically my favorite character, but this time he got some competition from Jeff Goldblum's character, who brings a hilarious cult of personality to this movie. Some say Ragnarok is too humorous, as if any of us aren't guilty of laughing at our own inevitable fate. At least Thor also fights it (since that's what heroes do), but indeed Thor generally accepts his fate with the level of humor required to get the Grandmaster to acknowledge he's a good sport, and though that makes the movie amusing, it's not quite as absurd as some posters might wish to think. Rather, there's a refreshing and entertaining sense of honesty. The writers truly built on the foundations they had previously laid. Watch closely: though he's not in the credits, Matt Damon IS in this movie, and perfectly cast!
Flatliners
(2017)
Better than I expected
2 November 2017
Considering the poor reviews and how fast it went through the theaters, I had expected this movie to be much worse than it was. This movie suffers too much from viewer nostalgia, where viewers' preference for the original movie causes many to be unfairly critical. I saw it on Halloween, choosing this movie to avoid a crowd. It was scary as hell, much moreso than I had expected. Though I liked the original better, there are some things I liked better about this movie:
1. Small mistakes with tremendous consequences: Each of the characters is haunted by a small mistake they made which resulted in enormous consequences for other people. In each case, the character knew the risk they were taking, but they took it anyway. For instance, the star was a young teen driver who checked a text message and, in the process, wound up killing her passenger. This is the perfect movie to warn viewers (and the screenwriter clearly expected young viewers) never to take risks (even if the risk seems small) when the consequences are large. Also, the sex fiend is haunted by more than just a hundred women acting jilted. He's haunted by what would be the actual consequence: a former girlfriend now struggling to raise his child.
2. Forgiveness doesn't come easy. In the first movie, the characters are easily forgiven, but in this movie, minor mistakes result in the death of other people. Though the killing was unintentional, how forgiving would you truly be of somebody whose negligence caused your death? This movie forces us to truly consider that, and to see things from the perspective of the poor victims who lost everything due to careless negligence. The movie teaches the importance of being careful, especially when engaging in potentially fatal activities.
3. Special effects. They definitely did what they could to truly put you there, which was part of the reason it was so, so freaky. Don't watch this movie while alone. Though I'm not a big fan of scary, those who are will love this movie.
1. Small mistakes with tremendous consequences: Each of the characters is haunted by a small mistake they made which resulted in enormous consequences for other people. In each case, the character knew the risk they were taking, but they took it anyway. For instance, the star was a young teen driver who checked a text message and, in the process, wound up killing her passenger. This is the perfect movie to warn viewers (and the screenwriter clearly expected young viewers) never to take risks (even if the risk seems small) when the consequences are large. Also, the sex fiend is haunted by more than just a hundred women acting jilted. He's haunted by what would be the actual consequence: a former girlfriend now struggling to raise his child.
2. Forgiveness doesn't come easy. In the first movie, the characters are easily forgiven, but in this movie, minor mistakes result in the death of other people. Though the killing was unintentional, how forgiving would you truly be of somebody whose negligence caused your death? This movie forces us to truly consider that, and to see things from the perspective of the poor victims who lost everything due to careless negligence. The movie teaches the importance of being careful, especially when engaging in potentially fatal activities.
3. Special effects. They definitely did what they could to truly put you there, which was part of the reason it was so, so freaky. Don't watch this movie while alone. Though I'm not a big fan of scary, those who are will love this movie.
Wonder Woman
(2017)
Treaty of Versailles
3 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The FAQs for this movie quite incorrectly claims that WWII would still occur after the events of this movie. It actually would not, and the reason has nothing to do with Ares being killed. WWII could not occur because, in this movie, the TREATY OF VERSAILLES was killed. In real life, Ludendorff (as well as Hitler) blamed the signers of that treaty for "stabbing Germany in the back", and ultimately gassed Jews, partially in response to that. In this movie, the original signers are gassed by Ludendorff before they can even complete the process of signing. As a result, WWI ends, but not because of the Treaty of Versailles. This means Germany owes no reparations, so Germany is not impoverished, Jews are not blamed for betraying Germany, Hitler does not rise to power, and Poland does not become a separate country, so it can't be invaded by Germany because it remains part of German territory. Therefore, no WWII.
However, I had not wanted to make my movie review about that, though it is one of the most amazing insights of this movie, especially given the ethnic identities of the screenwriters, producers, and the star. Naturally, Ares is lying when he says "I am not the god of war, but the god of truth", meaning the lasso of truth does not work on him. You can't trust anything he says once that lasso is around him. He is, ironically, much more honest before that lasso winds up around him. However, this masterfully done movie is a major gem of truth. Ares is the father of Hippolyta and Antiope, making him the grandfather of Diana. Despite his claims, he had no intentions of crushing his granddaughter when he first met her, and he mostly hopes to scare her into joining him. He is not lying when he tells her he does not want to fight her. Diana's mother doesn't think humans are worth all of the family bickering, but she also lies to Diana when she claims Diana was fashioned from clay and therefore is not an Amazon. It is only because Diana IS an Amazon that she has the power to kill another god. Diana also knows her mother lied about that, because she repeatedly tells Steve that she IS an Amazon, but she is also trying to seduce Steve, so she also claims to Steve that she was fashioned from clay. She hopes that Steve will attempt to demonstrate for her where infants come from, and also prove to her that men are, indeed, necessary for sexual pleasure.
The symbolism of war originating in Britain, with "Sir Patrick Morgan" pretending to be too weak to personally fight, but hoping to profit from the war while he remains perfectly safe from afar, is also apt commentary about WWI. Symbolically, this movie is quite a history lesson that Americans have long remained unaware of.
However, I had not wanted to make my movie review about that, though it is one of the most amazing insights of this movie, especially given the ethnic identities of the screenwriters, producers, and the star. Naturally, Ares is lying when he says "I am not the god of war, but the god of truth", meaning the lasso of truth does not work on him. You can't trust anything he says once that lasso is around him. He is, ironically, much more honest before that lasso winds up around him. However, this masterfully done movie is a major gem of truth. Ares is the father of Hippolyta and Antiope, making him the grandfather of Diana. Despite his claims, he had no intentions of crushing his granddaughter when he first met her, and he mostly hopes to scare her into joining him. He is not lying when he tells her he does not want to fight her. Diana's mother doesn't think humans are worth all of the family bickering, but she also lies to Diana when she claims Diana was fashioned from clay and therefore is not an Amazon. It is only because Diana IS an Amazon that she has the power to kill another god. Diana also knows her mother lied about that, because she repeatedly tells Steve that she IS an Amazon, but she is also trying to seduce Steve, so she also claims to Steve that she was fashioned from clay. She hopes that Steve will attempt to demonstrate for her where infants come from, and also prove to her that men are, indeed, necessary for sexual pleasure.
The symbolism of war originating in Britain, with "Sir Patrick Morgan" pretending to be too weak to personally fight, but hoping to profit from the war while he remains perfectly safe from afar, is also apt commentary about WWI. Symbolically, this movie is quite a history lesson that Americans have long remained unaware of.
La La Land
(2016)
Every other movie ever made deserved the Oscar more
21 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I went to see this movie only because of all the Oscar nominations, but when it turned out to be so cheesy that I would send it back if it was a pizza I'd ordered, I read the fan reviews, hoping somebody would explain what I had missed. None do, but I've learned something I had not wanted to know about IMDb reviews. Musicals like Annie and Grease understood that there needs to be a plot line between the songs, and some songs should be decent enough to not need a movie to sell them. Unfortunately, La La Land was only created to prove Mel Gibson's paranoia about Hollywood correct. The racist screenwriters wanted to ensure we all knew that they thought the teacher in the movie Dangerous Minds was too nice (they hammer on this twice in the movie). They then try to hide their racism behind portrayal of the main character having black friends and liking jazz, but only long enough to end the movie with a drawn out scene about this same character deciding he was wrong about those choices and regretting that he ever made any black friends. Somehow, Hollywood's elite thought this message was more important than reminding Americans about a forgotten war hero who singlehandedly saved nearly a hundred American lives on the battlefield in WWII, or the true story of an Indian boy's struggles to find his family.
God's Not Dead 2
(2016)
Nice shoes, Pure Flix
4 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I'm now looking forward to the third one. In this movie, Grace is a popular Christian teacher who tries to help an atheist student who misreads her parents' ambitions for her as lack of concern over the death of her brother. However, the girl correctly reads their attempt to destroy the life and career of her favorite teacher as selfish greed to get the money needed to pay for college for her, but her youth leaves here naïve enough to trust they won't retaliate against her honesty from the witness stand by leaving her to attend a much lesser school. Those who saw the first movie might hope for some help cracking the code, so here is my take: compared to the free reign Radisson enjoyed in the first movie to bully Christian students and force deconversion, doesn't the wrath Grace faces merely for answering a question about Jesus seem a bit like overkill? The students in both movies are less than two years apart in age. Everyone's devastated that Grace converted a student to Christianity, just as somebody must have done with her atheist brother before he died, but for Christians the deconversion of their children in public schools is every bit as devastating. Just as the first movie mimicked the real life case of Professor Deandre Poole of Florida Atlantic University, who repeatedly instructed his students to write the name "Jesus" on a sheet of paper, toss it on the ground and stomp on it, this movie mimics the real life cases of teachers who read gay stories to third graders or ask middle schoolers to circle whether they are cisgendered as an option on a list of other garbage designed to make the kids think that their sexual fantasies are too typical and boring.
Those who claim Grace could have used Jesus in a historical context without the ACLU getting involved wait. Already, there's a case in Wisconsin where a panicked principal Steven Plank is forcing parents not to read the Bible to students during lunch in a public park, merely because that park is close to the school. I think this movie is arguing that the rules regarding sharing a teacher's ideologies with students should be applied equally, meaning atheism is a religion for the purposes of separation of church and state. The alternative is that religion is forbidden in public schools due to the wall of separation, but atheist beliefs are allowed to have the stage, convincing all kids to deconvert. What better way to win a debate than to silence the opposition? Our forefathers never intended government schools to be indoctrination centers for any particular belief system, not even atheism.
Those who claim Grace could have used Jesus in a historical context without the ACLU getting involved wait. Already, there's a case in Wisconsin where a panicked principal Steven Plank is forcing parents not to read the Bible to students during lunch in a public park, merely because that park is close to the school. I think this movie is arguing that the rules regarding sharing a teacher's ideologies with students should be applied equally, meaning atheism is a religion for the purposes of separation of church and state. The alternative is that religion is forbidden in public schools due to the wall of separation, but atheist beliefs are allowed to have the stage, convincing all kids to deconvert. What better way to win a debate than to silence the opposition? Our forefathers never intended government schools to be indoctrination centers for any particular belief system, not even atheism.
Risen
(2016)
Follow the dialogue
12 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
It is clear that "subtle" and "downplayed" were both the director's aims for this film, which is unusual for a Christian movie, and this might bore some audience members because the trailers seem to feature more action. To truly enjoy this film, you must follow all of the dialogue, which is difficult because so much of it is so quietly spoken. This is not a movie to see when you are tired or hoping for lots of action and special effects. However, the movie is definitely worth the ticket price, as the true drama lies in the tension between the characters and what their dialogue communicates. What I truly appreciate is the effort that went into creating an intelligent Christian film, even at the risk of boring audience members who can't follow it, though that would probably include many people who see this movie only once.
A Matter of Faith
(2014)
The entire movie is the argument
2 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I'm becoming the atheist who watches and reviews Christian movies. Considering the hoops one must jump through to even see this movie, you might be surprised at how many atheists are rating and reviewing it. In case it's not obvious, the vast majority of them just saw the trailer and then felt qualified to rate and review the movie, but they have yet to actually watch it. Like with God's Not Dead, the trailer is deliberately corny to keep the more childish and closed minded atheists away. This was an endearing movie, and though the story centers around this supposedly heated debate, there is not much of an actual debate scene in the movie. Instead, much of the movie, itself, IS the argument. I hate to give away the best part, but the movie begins with a boy who steals a coin from a girl. In the end, he gives the coin back, and he simply didn't turn out the way you would have expected. I'm sure the movie's creators hoped to reach a few atheists, but not exactly the youtube crowd. They were aiming more to reach the professor Kamans of the world. Although Kaman ultimately keeps his promise in this movie, his initial lack of concern that he might embarrass one of his students still manages to convince her that he must not have all the answers. His white lies demonstrate for her that he is more concerned about his ego than about actual ethics. Being a professor is apparently not enough to assure him that he is smart. He also needs to impress his students by outwitting one of their parents, as publicly as possibly (as he also needs everyone to witness it), but he doesn't want them to know that he was the one who insisted on this debate. However, Kaman grows up a bit in this film.
Tomorrowland
(2015)
Excellent and timely message
6 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Hollywood often tells us to deny our true emotions and find some way to pretend that bad news is good, encouraging us to sit on the Titanic and cheer the upcoming iceberg. According to Hollywood, THAT is the definition of optimism and a positive attitude. Of course, this is not what anyone who has ever made history has ever done, and most people have always known that such an approach to our fate is stupid, but we've kind-of been brainwashed into apathy. This film was far different. It reminds us that, if we don't like what we see ahead, we have the option to CHANGE COURSE, to DO something about it. This movie's definition of optimism is refreshing in that it reminds us that we can control our destiny, rather than the message we are used to from the media: that we are supposed to happily accept a prechosen destiny for us, and try to see that preselected destiny through rose colored glasses. This was one of those movies that I had to watch more than once before I could truly see what a clever and timely masterpiece it is. I'd had that experience before with the movies Thor and God's Not Dead. Movies that initially seem simplistic but are actually deep in meaning seem to be the new thing, but I appreciate the mental exercise. This is one of those movies that will instantly appeal to kids, but people over 35 may need to see it a few times. It will appeal to you too, if you give it a chance and honestly try to follow the message. Frankly, it may be a better message for older folks, since they currently have more power to change things than kids do. Right now, what we do impacts their future.
Left Behind
(I) (2014)
Decent Christian film
18 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I'm an atheist who has noticed that Christian movies can't seem to get positive reviews from mainstream publications like Variety and Hollywood Reporter. At least this time their reviews don't dwell on the fact that, yeah, the plot left some people behind, but the reviewers still seem afraid to admit there are some wonderful aspects to this movie. This is the first movie that has portrayed most atheists as likable and only one as intolerable, to the point that he annoys the others. I apologize to little people for this suggestion, but I think the size of the petty atheist in this movie was intended to symbolize the insignificance the movie makers (and most people) think of petty people who carry a chip on their shoulder because they are different, or petty atheists who only argue with scoffing. The college age girl, who we presume was raised atheist, is so sweet that I must admit I've never met an atheist college kid who was quite that sweet. This girl, presumably raised atheist, is trying to single-handedly hold together her family. I wanted to cry for her when Cage read her message in the ticket envelope: "this is the saddest day of my life". It's clever (and endearing) that the only reason she argues about religion with her mother is because it is chasing her father away, and that she still tries to hide any symptoms of family conflict (including any disrespect of her mother) from her little brother. Given the circumstances, I did figure suicide was unlikely for anyone to risk, so that part struck me as unrealistic. However, the special effects were excellent, bringing you into the anxiety. Nicholas Cage has a lot to think about, and quick thinking to do, when he discovers that his wife was correct all along, and he has been left behind with his daughter and his fling (who is also an "innocent" atheist, unaware he is married).
Another clever aspect is how the boy points out that their father thinks the pastor is "washing Mom's brain" and that, sure enough, we discover that their mother's pastor doesn't personally believe what he is preaching. It is likely that skepticism that the father picked up on. He thought her pastor was a con artist. But I also liked how, when the pastor explains the situation to the daughter, she responds with "the God my mother told me about would never do that!" Apparently, her mother was so desperate to get the girl to convert that she candy coated the religion. I appreciated the Bible verse at the end reminding Christians that nobody knows when the end times are. I think this verse can help protect Christians from fraudsters trying to steal their money by claiming they know. This movie had a great deal of emotion and sweet sentiment, and the atheists on the plane debating their theories regarding their predicament was funny. Admittedly, I'd probably do that, but I wouldn't be the kind that scoffs at everyone else. Even I've noticed that some atheists answer every theory with "Come on! Can you believe this guy?"
Another clever aspect is how the boy points out that their father thinks the pastor is "washing Mom's brain" and that, sure enough, we discover that their mother's pastor doesn't personally believe what he is preaching. It is likely that skepticism that the father picked up on. He thought her pastor was a con artist. But I also liked how, when the pastor explains the situation to the daughter, she responds with "the God my mother told me about would never do that!" Apparently, her mother was so desperate to get the girl to convert that she candy coated the religion. I appreciated the Bible verse at the end reminding Christians that nobody knows when the end times are. I think this verse can help protect Christians from fraudsters trying to steal their money by claiming they know. This movie had a great deal of emotion and sweet sentiment, and the atheists on the plane debating their theories regarding their predicament was funny. Admittedly, I'd probably do that, but I wouldn't be the kind that scoffs at everyone else. Even I've noticed that some atheists answer every theory with "Come on! Can you believe this guy?"
Great Start...
26 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
While this was a decent start, believe it or not, even the history D'Souza covers is just liberal washing of history. Here is what I wish he had included:
1. America bought territory from Mexico, primarily California, Arizona, Nevada, etc. in the Treaty of Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase. The Mexicans in America at that time were allowed to stay and became American citizens. This was after the Mexican American war so, yes, this land was purchased from Mexico.
2. When D'Souza says slavery was going on all over the world, he fails to mention that over a million Europeans were enslaved in Africa during this exact same time, forcibly made eunuchs off the Barbary Coast, both before and during the colonial enslavement of Africans. Thomas Jefferson pondered what to do about these African pirate raids. D'Souza fails to mention that the Moors enslaved the Spanish not long before a single Spaniard had enslaved a single African in the American colonies. He fails to mention that the very word "slave" has it's roots in the word "Slav", a group of whites so enslaved throughout the centuries that most languages have a word for slave that roots in "Slav" because the words were interchangeable for so long. Slavs are arguably the longest enslaved ethnicity on the planet, enslaved for several centuries.
3. When D'Souza points out that whites were also indentured servants, he fails to mention the extent to which the white indentured servants outnumbered the African slaves in the colonies, and that more than half of all indentured servants never lived to see their freedom.
This is from "They Were White and They Were Slaves" by Michael Hoffman. Most of the white indentured servants were forced into that status involuntarily, through kidnapping, or duped into a contract that supposedly lasted 7 years, but they died before it was over. They were given the deadliest work because their terms of service were supposedly temporary, which actually resulted in quick deaths. This is even confirmed by a black historian who hates white people: Nell Irvin Painter of Princeton, who admits on page 42 of her book "The History of White People" that white servants originally arrived in the colonies in much greater numbers than black slaves, and they quickly died from mistreatment.
If you count all of the white servants who died while they were indentured servants, white slaves outnumbered black slaves in the colonies 4 to 1. This is from "White Cargo" by Michael Walsh and Don Jordan.
4. While it's true that the Native Americans died of diseases carried by the Europeans (and many Europeans also died from these), 95% of the Native American population was wiped out by the diseases they caught from the SPANIARDS. The Spanish explorers arrived about 100 years before the British explorers. By the time the British arrived, 95% of the Native Americans had already been wiped out by the diseases they caught from the ancestors of today's Mexicans. If you speak English, you are probably a descendant of the British, not the Spanish. Your ancestors arrived in America beginning a century after the Native Americans had already died. If you speak Spanish, you are probably a Mexican descendant of the Spaniards. If you are also mestizo, then you are a descendant of the Spaniards and the Native Americans, because the Spaniards also mated with the Native Americans. This race mixing is included in the liberal accusations of "white genocide of Native Americans". The Native American descendants still exist, particularly in Mexico, but many of them also have Spanish blood.
5. Thomas Jefferson complained about King George arming the Native Americans to fight against the colonists in the Declaration of Independence. In the same sentence, he also complains about the savagery of the Native Americans: "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes and conditions."
In fact, when the British first arrived in Jamestown, it was only with hopes of staying temporarily and panning some gold for the Hudson Bay Company in Britain. However, the Powhatan tribe attacked them, forcing the colonists to quickly build Jamestown Fort and hide inside. Many of these British visitors then starved to death inside, resorting to cannibalism because they didn't dare to leave the fort. Pocahontas then convinced her father not to kill the British visitors, but to trade with them. Pocahontas later married John Rolfe, which became America's first interracial marriage.
The first Thanksgiving occurred because the Wampanoag tribe wanted the British colonists to trade guns with them so they could use British firepower against their enemies, the Narragansett tribe.
Anne Hutchinson told her town's leaders that she thought the colonists should try harder to befriend the Native Americans, so they kicked her out of their village, and then she and her family were slaughtered by the Native Americans.
1. America bought territory from Mexico, primarily California, Arizona, Nevada, etc. in the Treaty of Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase. The Mexicans in America at that time were allowed to stay and became American citizens. This was after the Mexican American war so, yes, this land was purchased from Mexico.
2. When D'Souza says slavery was going on all over the world, he fails to mention that over a million Europeans were enslaved in Africa during this exact same time, forcibly made eunuchs off the Barbary Coast, both before and during the colonial enslavement of Africans. Thomas Jefferson pondered what to do about these African pirate raids. D'Souza fails to mention that the Moors enslaved the Spanish not long before a single Spaniard had enslaved a single African in the American colonies. He fails to mention that the very word "slave" has it's roots in the word "Slav", a group of whites so enslaved throughout the centuries that most languages have a word for slave that roots in "Slav" because the words were interchangeable for so long. Slavs are arguably the longest enslaved ethnicity on the planet, enslaved for several centuries.
3. When D'Souza points out that whites were also indentured servants, he fails to mention the extent to which the white indentured servants outnumbered the African slaves in the colonies, and that more than half of all indentured servants never lived to see their freedom.
This is from "They Were White and They Were Slaves" by Michael Hoffman. Most of the white indentured servants were forced into that status involuntarily, through kidnapping, or duped into a contract that supposedly lasted 7 years, but they died before it was over. They were given the deadliest work because their terms of service were supposedly temporary, which actually resulted in quick deaths. This is even confirmed by a black historian who hates white people: Nell Irvin Painter of Princeton, who admits on page 42 of her book "The History of White People" that white servants originally arrived in the colonies in much greater numbers than black slaves, and they quickly died from mistreatment.
If you count all of the white servants who died while they were indentured servants, white slaves outnumbered black slaves in the colonies 4 to 1. This is from "White Cargo" by Michael Walsh and Don Jordan.
4. While it's true that the Native Americans died of diseases carried by the Europeans (and many Europeans also died from these), 95% of the Native American population was wiped out by the diseases they caught from the SPANIARDS. The Spanish explorers arrived about 100 years before the British explorers. By the time the British arrived, 95% of the Native Americans had already been wiped out by the diseases they caught from the ancestors of today's Mexicans. If you speak English, you are probably a descendant of the British, not the Spanish. Your ancestors arrived in America beginning a century after the Native Americans had already died. If you speak Spanish, you are probably a Mexican descendant of the Spaniards. If you are also mestizo, then you are a descendant of the Spaniards and the Native Americans, because the Spaniards also mated with the Native Americans. This race mixing is included in the liberal accusations of "white genocide of Native Americans". The Native American descendants still exist, particularly in Mexico, but many of them also have Spanish blood.
5. Thomas Jefferson complained about King George arming the Native Americans to fight against the colonists in the Declaration of Independence. In the same sentence, he also complains about the savagery of the Native Americans: "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes and conditions."
In fact, when the British first arrived in Jamestown, it was only with hopes of staying temporarily and panning some gold for the Hudson Bay Company in Britain. However, the Powhatan tribe attacked them, forcing the colonists to quickly build Jamestown Fort and hide inside. Many of these British visitors then starved to death inside, resorting to cannibalism because they didn't dare to leave the fort. Pocahontas then convinced her father not to kill the British visitors, but to trade with them. Pocahontas later married John Rolfe, which became America's first interracial marriage.
The first Thanksgiving occurred because the Wampanoag tribe wanted the British colonists to trade guns with them so they could use British firepower against their enemies, the Narragansett tribe.
Anne Hutchinson told her town's leaders that she thought the colonists should try harder to befriend the Native Americans, so they kicked her out of their village, and then she and her family were slaughtered by the Native Americans.
God's Not Dead
(2014)
This atheist liked it
16 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Ten stars might seem much, but I figured I ought to make up for other atheists who will give it a poor rating just because they didn't get it, and that includes reviewers who write for USA Today, Variety, etc. Yeah, we know, most atheists aren't angry at God. They don't believe He exists, and neither do I, so Christians will waste sympathy if they think atheists are all just angry like Radisson. But quit trying to fit this movie into your preconceived notions.
Representing the struggles of Christian students who've had to sue their universities for playing Thought Police, one insightful element in this movie is that the professor who bullies the student does so for emotional, rather than logical, reasons. His aim is not actually to convince his students of anything. In the beginning, professor Radisson explains that he prefers to skip the chapter on religion and directly tells the Christian student (Josh) "you're free to pray to whoever you want in your dorm room, but what you do in my class becomes my business". Radisson wants to skip the chapter on religion after his Christian mother died of cancer, because the letter she left him said she hoped he'd remain faithful, and he hasn't. Religion makes him uncomfortable because he is angry enough at God to publicly claim he is an atheist, but he still prefers the company of Christians.
Even his wife is a Christian, and she complains that he won't discuss religion with her. Although he likes to create doubt, he's not trying to convince anyone to become an atheist, because he personally still believes in God. This is why he has his students skip the chapter regarding atheist arguments if they will simply write "God Is Dead" on a piece of paper, sign their names and hand those in. If they will do this, they need not read Dawkins, Russell, etc. and they will get full credit for that chapter in class. He's basically bribing the Christians to insult a God he still believes in, but feels bitter towards. This also makes the reading material assigned seem like extra homework, if any student resists.
We discover Radisson was not always so hard on Christian students as he is in this movie. He married one of his former students, who is still a Christian. One reason that Raddison has recently taken up scoffing at the freshmen who make him slog through the religion chapter is he is tired of teaching freshmen. He wants a promotion. He hopes that the other faculty will grant him one after they hear he is bullying his Christian students, believing he is too impatient to handle freshmen. He shows off about this, also hoping they will admire his wit. Although he is typically affectionate towards his Christian wife, when he tells his colleagues about his debate with his Christian student, his wife points out the age gap between him and the student he is debating, explaining how the odds are in his favor since they are debating in his area of expertise. As if this isn't embarrassing enough, she also admits to the entire philosophy department that she, Radisson's wife, is still a Christian. His hopes of promotion dashed, he begins belittling her, insulting her intellect and treating her like hired help. This confuses her because she doesn't understand his desire to impress his colleagues. As his friends chuckle nervously at their displayed marital difficulties, she just sees them as snobs and worries much less about their judgments, so she decides to leave her husband. Even then, she again approaches Radisson in front of his colleagues and students to tell him she is leaving him, embarrassing Radisson further, and further enraging him at Josh.
Josh is also falling behind in his other classes, trying to find good arguments for Raddison's class, so his own girlfriend also leaves him. In the end, Radisson is hit by a car and, the only reason a pastor is able to help him say the "sinner's prayer" (which one would assume any kid who had been a Christian at age 12 would have already said), is because God prevented the pastor's car from starting the previous days. Naturally, the pastor did not understand why his car wouldn't start, since he was unable to predict God's plan, so the pastor had been angry with God about this.
So there it is: an actually fairly complex movie (at least on an emotional level) about how a bitter Christian decided to become right with God on his deathbed, after ruining the semesters of a few Christian students who were unfortunate enough to pass through his class while he was still angry with God. It's not exactly a happy ending, but then the movie is followed up by the real life lawsuits to remind us why.
Atheist reviewers, many with probably worse characters than those portrayed in the movie, complain that there isn't one decent atheist in this movie but, in fairness, there are actually only two atheists in the entire movie, and one isn't so bad. She does love animals, anyway, and confronts a Christian who likes to torment them. One thing many atheists tend to forget is that they are not at all this movie's target audience, and how many movies portray Christians in a poor light? Sorry if you took it personally, but especially reviewers who write for major publications should grow up, be objective and review the movie fairly. Frankly, this Christian movie beats out all the religious snoozers that came out when I was a child.
Representing the struggles of Christian students who've had to sue their universities for playing Thought Police, one insightful element in this movie is that the professor who bullies the student does so for emotional, rather than logical, reasons. His aim is not actually to convince his students of anything. In the beginning, professor Radisson explains that he prefers to skip the chapter on religion and directly tells the Christian student (Josh) "you're free to pray to whoever you want in your dorm room, but what you do in my class becomes my business". Radisson wants to skip the chapter on religion after his Christian mother died of cancer, because the letter she left him said she hoped he'd remain faithful, and he hasn't. Religion makes him uncomfortable because he is angry enough at God to publicly claim he is an atheist, but he still prefers the company of Christians.
Even his wife is a Christian, and she complains that he won't discuss religion with her. Although he likes to create doubt, he's not trying to convince anyone to become an atheist, because he personally still believes in God. This is why he has his students skip the chapter regarding atheist arguments if they will simply write "God Is Dead" on a piece of paper, sign their names and hand those in. If they will do this, they need not read Dawkins, Russell, etc. and they will get full credit for that chapter in class. He's basically bribing the Christians to insult a God he still believes in, but feels bitter towards. This also makes the reading material assigned seem like extra homework, if any student resists.
We discover Radisson was not always so hard on Christian students as he is in this movie. He married one of his former students, who is still a Christian. One reason that Raddison has recently taken up scoffing at the freshmen who make him slog through the religion chapter is he is tired of teaching freshmen. He wants a promotion. He hopes that the other faculty will grant him one after they hear he is bullying his Christian students, believing he is too impatient to handle freshmen. He shows off about this, also hoping they will admire his wit. Although he is typically affectionate towards his Christian wife, when he tells his colleagues about his debate with his Christian student, his wife points out the age gap between him and the student he is debating, explaining how the odds are in his favor since they are debating in his area of expertise. As if this isn't embarrassing enough, she also admits to the entire philosophy department that she, Radisson's wife, is still a Christian. His hopes of promotion dashed, he begins belittling her, insulting her intellect and treating her like hired help. This confuses her because she doesn't understand his desire to impress his colleagues. As his friends chuckle nervously at their displayed marital difficulties, she just sees them as snobs and worries much less about their judgments, so she decides to leave her husband. Even then, she again approaches Radisson in front of his colleagues and students to tell him she is leaving him, embarrassing Radisson further, and further enraging him at Josh.
Josh is also falling behind in his other classes, trying to find good arguments for Raddison's class, so his own girlfriend also leaves him. In the end, Radisson is hit by a car and, the only reason a pastor is able to help him say the "sinner's prayer" (which one would assume any kid who had been a Christian at age 12 would have already said), is because God prevented the pastor's car from starting the previous days. Naturally, the pastor did not understand why his car wouldn't start, since he was unable to predict God's plan, so the pastor had been angry with God about this.
So there it is: an actually fairly complex movie (at least on an emotional level) about how a bitter Christian decided to become right with God on his deathbed, after ruining the semesters of a few Christian students who were unfortunate enough to pass through his class while he was still angry with God. It's not exactly a happy ending, but then the movie is followed up by the real life lawsuits to remind us why.
Atheist reviewers, many with probably worse characters than those portrayed in the movie, complain that there isn't one decent atheist in this movie but, in fairness, there are actually only two atheists in the entire movie, and one isn't so bad. She does love animals, anyway, and confronts a Christian who likes to torment them. One thing many atheists tend to forget is that they are not at all this movie's target audience, and how many movies portray Christians in a poor light? Sorry if you took it personally, but especially reviewers who write for major publications should grow up, be objective and review the movie fairly. Frankly, this Christian movie beats out all the religious snoozers that came out when I was a child.
Footloose
(2011)
Removed the good stuff
22 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
What was the point? The director just went through and removed all the good stuff from the first movie. The original is based on events which took place in Elmore City, OK and yes, they banned dancing. It's hard for today's teens to fathom how religious the 80s were, which might be why they can't grasp a movie like this. You can't make a modern remake of this movie because today's kids aren't suffocating under this type of extreme religiosity. In the original, the ban is on dancing, including a teen prom. The kids are only being reasonable to protest this. In this remake, the ban is on "lewd and lascivious dancing" which the teens think they have a right to perform in the streets.
In the original, Ren is an old soul. After his father dies, Ren and his mother must shack with his uncle, moving Ren from Chicago to a tiny town where dancing is banned. Instead of making things more difficult for his mother, Ren tries to fit in and treats everyone politely and respectfully, which results in him being bullied by the small towners. He even tolerates this and tries to play by their rules, never once pointing out the obvious insults a typical obnoxious city teen would have for the rural folks.
In this remake, Ren is instead that typical bratty teen, thinking an accident of birth makes him better than everyone, and greeting practically the entire town with the insult that they are hicks. Despite this, the town isn't even that small and is actually multicultural, and the kids dance to hip hop! The only issue the kids face is that their parents don't want them bumping and grinding too suggestively to it! Yeah, that's Ren's issue. His parents are dead, but that's his issue. Even the judge in this town had long hair as a teen, and Ren's uncle reminds him of this, to justify Ren blasting the town with noise pollution.
In the original, Ren must struggle to please an unreasonable uncle who blames him for things he didn't do, while this uncle has Ren's back before even asking him if he's guilty. Ren basically has no real struggles to speak of, yet he does a lot of whining anyway. We are supposed to sympathize enough over the loss of his parents to support him humping his girlfriend openly in the streets. The uncle thinks his little girls (and all little girls) should be exposed to this. Ren even declares to the adults that "as kids, its our job to do stupid things", yet he doesn't expand on what the jobs of adults might be.
Ariel's father protests not so much because he's a pastor, but because he maintains some shred of hope that his daughter is still a virgin, but when she informs her father that she's not, and Ren informs her father that his daughter is a slut, the pastor gives up and accepts that he will be a grandfather soon. Ren's revelation that Ariel is already hot for his bod means she should be allowed to dance lewd and become a teen mother.
In the original, the pastor and Ren finally bond because the pastor lost his son and Ren lost his father. Ren cleverly uses Bible verses to make his point at the town meeting, because it is the only way to convince a highly religious town that bases all of their rules on the Bible. He does this because he is a wise, respectful young man who isn't paranoid of a little studying. In the remake "sir, your daughter is already a slut" is the extent of Ren's argument to the pastor, yet it is (apparently) oddly persuasive.
This movie is just laughably bad, so much so that even people who can't quite explain why it's laughably bad still know that it is.
In the original, Ren is an old soul. After his father dies, Ren and his mother must shack with his uncle, moving Ren from Chicago to a tiny town where dancing is banned. Instead of making things more difficult for his mother, Ren tries to fit in and treats everyone politely and respectfully, which results in him being bullied by the small towners. He even tolerates this and tries to play by their rules, never once pointing out the obvious insults a typical obnoxious city teen would have for the rural folks.
In this remake, Ren is instead that typical bratty teen, thinking an accident of birth makes him better than everyone, and greeting practically the entire town with the insult that they are hicks. Despite this, the town isn't even that small and is actually multicultural, and the kids dance to hip hop! The only issue the kids face is that their parents don't want them bumping and grinding too suggestively to it! Yeah, that's Ren's issue. His parents are dead, but that's his issue. Even the judge in this town had long hair as a teen, and Ren's uncle reminds him of this, to justify Ren blasting the town with noise pollution.
In the original, Ren must struggle to please an unreasonable uncle who blames him for things he didn't do, while this uncle has Ren's back before even asking him if he's guilty. Ren basically has no real struggles to speak of, yet he does a lot of whining anyway. We are supposed to sympathize enough over the loss of his parents to support him humping his girlfriend openly in the streets. The uncle thinks his little girls (and all little girls) should be exposed to this. Ren even declares to the adults that "as kids, its our job to do stupid things", yet he doesn't expand on what the jobs of adults might be.
Ariel's father protests not so much because he's a pastor, but because he maintains some shred of hope that his daughter is still a virgin, but when she informs her father that she's not, and Ren informs her father that his daughter is a slut, the pastor gives up and accepts that he will be a grandfather soon. Ren's revelation that Ariel is already hot for his bod means she should be allowed to dance lewd and become a teen mother.
In the original, the pastor and Ren finally bond because the pastor lost his son and Ren lost his father. Ren cleverly uses Bible verses to make his point at the town meeting, because it is the only way to convince a highly religious town that bases all of their rules on the Bible. He does this because he is a wise, respectful young man who isn't paranoid of a little studying. In the remake "sir, your daughter is already a slut" is the extent of Ren's argument to the pastor, yet it is (apparently) oddly persuasive.
This movie is just laughably bad, so much so that even people who can't quite explain why it's laughably bad still know that it is.
Matilda
(1996)
I Hope Every Child Sees This Movie
10 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
In Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl addressed the problems adults face when they must deal with bratty children. In Matilda, he addresses the troubles a sweet child faces when she must deal with problem adults. I was surprised this adorable movie was not receiving better ratings, so I read the reviews of the people who hated it. One wonders what the moral was. Of course, not every children's movie has a moral. What's the moral of Harry Potter or Goonies? But this one has an obvious moral. Are there not bullies in this movie? What happens to them in the end? Are there not kind people in this movie? What happens to them in the end? Beyond morals, there's an important message. The movie tells mistreated children, in more ways than one: "you are not alone". For those wondering why Dahl did not create a dark, depressing, hopeless story for children surviving in bad homes, rather than a funny comedy, I suspect it's because the children facing such struggles don't need more darkness and hopelessness in their lives. Sure, it's a dark comedy, but that's the only way to reach such children about their problems and still bring them an uplifting movie. What's so bad about a dark comedy?
Research shows that a child's quality of life is directly correlated to their mother's IQ. Most abusive and neglectful parents are simply idiots. Do mistreated children exist in this country? Ask CPS. Why should all children's movies ignore this fact? There was a time when everyone just ignored the problem completely, because it made adults that uncomfortable to deal with what was actually happening to children, but I'd rather move forward than backwards. To make matters worse, the brighter a child is, the greater his risk of abuse by jealous, stupid parents. Abraham Maslow had an IQ of 195. When he was a child, his abusive mother discovered some kittens he'd rescued and killed the kittens by beating their heads against a wall. He had many moments of despair during his childhood, and surely would have appreciated a movie like this. Being forced to care for one's self and cope so early no doubt forces kids to grow up quickly. True, many mistreated children might just be intellectually average kids who, unfortunately for them, happen to have stupid parents, so perhaps Dahl should have worried about inflating those kids' egos. There is a genius kid in the new Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, but none of the reviewers are pouring venom about it. Is it just because Matilda's a girl? Heaven forbid kids get the idea that educating themselves might help them solve some of their problems, or that a love of learning is something to be proud of. Harry Potter and Annie are both movies with evil adults, some of whom try to kill the kids, yet the reviewers don't seem confused about why the adults are evil. If every adult you met in your childhood made perfect sense, was smarter than you, and never subjected you to mistreatment due to their own insecurities, then good for you. This movie is not for you. It's for the rest of us.
I commend the creators of this movie for having the guts to reach out to such kids, before their despair drives them to suicide, even if some people say "but my parents were good, so why did you create a movie with bad parents?" Take a look at white trash America. I am also thrilled it was turned into a Broadway musical. Obviously, some people get it.
Research shows that a child's quality of life is directly correlated to their mother's IQ. Most abusive and neglectful parents are simply idiots. Do mistreated children exist in this country? Ask CPS. Why should all children's movies ignore this fact? There was a time when everyone just ignored the problem completely, because it made adults that uncomfortable to deal with what was actually happening to children, but I'd rather move forward than backwards. To make matters worse, the brighter a child is, the greater his risk of abuse by jealous, stupid parents. Abraham Maslow had an IQ of 195. When he was a child, his abusive mother discovered some kittens he'd rescued and killed the kittens by beating their heads against a wall. He had many moments of despair during his childhood, and surely would have appreciated a movie like this. Being forced to care for one's self and cope so early no doubt forces kids to grow up quickly. True, many mistreated children might just be intellectually average kids who, unfortunately for them, happen to have stupid parents, so perhaps Dahl should have worried about inflating those kids' egos. There is a genius kid in the new Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, but none of the reviewers are pouring venom about it. Is it just because Matilda's a girl? Heaven forbid kids get the idea that educating themselves might help them solve some of their problems, or that a love of learning is something to be proud of. Harry Potter and Annie are both movies with evil adults, some of whom try to kill the kids, yet the reviewers don't seem confused about why the adults are evil. If every adult you met in your childhood made perfect sense, was smarter than you, and never subjected you to mistreatment due to their own insecurities, then good for you. This movie is not for you. It's for the rest of us.
I commend the creators of this movie for having the guts to reach out to such kids, before their despair drives them to suicide, even if some people say "but my parents were good, so why did you create a movie with bad parents?" Take a look at white trash America. I am also thrilled it was turned into a Broadway musical. Obviously, some people get it.
Thor
(2011)
Excellent Job, Marvel!
30 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie flew over my head, the first time I saw it. I thought it was just a fun kid's movie. Once I learned a little more about the Eddas, this movie replaced Iron Man as my favorite Marvel movie. I think the point is summed up in the dialogue between Agent Coulson and Foster, when Coulson says "I'm sorry, Miss Foster, but we're the good guys," and Foster responds "So are we!" Yeah, they all are. Perhaps that's what made this movie difficult for me, initially, as I'm used to more black and white themes - absolute villains and protagonists.
Suddenly I'm faced with this movie where everyone has flaws and individual perspectives, and I must independently determine who is right or wrong, including who is deceitful or honest. Marvel, why so true to real life? Why all of the parallels? No, those didn't fly over my head, at least not the second time (too many to count). This movie is way past due.
Anyway, the villain has suffered a hard life, and the extent of his villainry depends entirely on the extent of my trust in him. I choose how I see him. The protagonist grew up a bit spoiled, having been favored with gifts by his father, and has only recently learned empathy after being rejected repeatedly by the people he trusted, those who he thought loved him. At this point, both brothers now have something in common. However, Odin is a kind-hearted man, who led an army to protect humans from Frost Giants, and then adopted a Frost Giant in hopes of soothing resulting tensions that arose between them.
Odin is a kind and wise king, unfortunately both traits his biological son lacks, making Thor unworthy of the throne. Instead, Odin must subject his son to a cruel punishment, in hopes of forcing him to grow up quickly, quick enough to inherit the crown from his father and rule the kingdom wisely, as Odin is growing old and weary. Naturally, none of this makes any sense to Loki, the more mature boy who isn't even aware he's adopted.
How can I fault Odin? Perhaps he should have given the hammer and crown to Loki. Then Loki could use both to betray the kingdom once he discovered his true roots. No, I can't fault Odin.
How can I fault Loki? Loki should sit back and accept unfair treatment without rebelling. Hmm, it seems I can't fault Loki.
How can I fault Thor? Thor should passively let the Frost Giants invade Asgard just as he becomes the new king. Gee, perhaps I can't even fault Thor.
Unfortunately, the choices that present themselves are tougher than the people making them and, like real life, the people in this movie aren't always rewarded for making the right choices. They can make all of the right choices and still get the wrong results, especially if those results are more logical. All I can do is accept that they are all the good guys, and this is a very complex script.
Suddenly I'm faced with this movie where everyone has flaws and individual perspectives, and I must independently determine who is right or wrong, including who is deceitful or honest. Marvel, why so true to real life? Why all of the parallels? No, those didn't fly over my head, at least not the second time (too many to count). This movie is way past due.
Anyway, the villain has suffered a hard life, and the extent of his villainry depends entirely on the extent of my trust in him. I choose how I see him. The protagonist grew up a bit spoiled, having been favored with gifts by his father, and has only recently learned empathy after being rejected repeatedly by the people he trusted, those who he thought loved him. At this point, both brothers now have something in common. However, Odin is a kind-hearted man, who led an army to protect humans from Frost Giants, and then adopted a Frost Giant in hopes of soothing resulting tensions that arose between them.
Odin is a kind and wise king, unfortunately both traits his biological son lacks, making Thor unworthy of the throne. Instead, Odin must subject his son to a cruel punishment, in hopes of forcing him to grow up quickly, quick enough to inherit the crown from his father and rule the kingdom wisely, as Odin is growing old and weary. Naturally, none of this makes any sense to Loki, the more mature boy who isn't even aware he's adopted.
How can I fault Odin? Perhaps he should have given the hammer and crown to Loki. Then Loki could use both to betray the kingdom once he discovered his true roots. No, I can't fault Odin.
How can I fault Loki? Loki should sit back and accept unfair treatment without rebelling. Hmm, it seems I can't fault Loki.
How can I fault Thor? Thor should passively let the Frost Giants invade Asgard just as he becomes the new king. Gee, perhaps I can't even fault Thor.
Unfortunately, the choices that present themselves are tougher than the people making them and, like real life, the people in this movie aren't always rewarded for making the right choices. They can make all of the right choices and still get the wrong results, especially if those results are more logical. All I can do is accept that they are all the good guys, and this is a very complex script.
Amish in the City
(2004)
Excellent reality show, though perhaps too real for some people
3 December 2011
I think the point was probably lost on many viewers, but they selected a cast of "city kids who knew nothing about the Amish" and forced them to live with "Amish kids who knew nothing about the city". Turns out that Amish kids who know nothing about the city are just much easier to like than city kids who know nothing about the Amish. Gee, I wonder why. If you've never moved from a small town to a large city like Los Angeles, the point is moot for you but, if you have, then you certainly understood and appreciated the point. I was absolutely amazed that somebody was actually willing to expose California bigotry, but kudos for them!
This show was better than you know
11 February 2011
It didn't escape me that much more research went into this episode than most viewers will have any clue. These characters, ideologies and events are based more on real people, ideologies and real events than most viewers realize. Somehow, the writer managed to piece it all together in a highly thought-provoking script that asks many questions - questions that people of all races have asked. Unfortunately, most of those questions will remain unanswered by an audience that watches their television much more casually than the scriptwriter wrote this episode. It is a classic, and I hope one day it will be recognized for the honor it deserves. Fortunately the emotion of it, the unexpected twists, combined with the controversy is enough to grab and keep you glued to your seat right until the end, where an important part of the story takes place.
Tell Your Friends