15 words or less film review (full review to follow soon)
15 words or less film review (full review to follow soon)
Dear Reader,
As is common at this time of the year, there may be a bit of a pause on the content of this blog. Several projects have been converging and my time demands continue to limit me.
So for the next few weeks, you may see only a one or two posts. But once this current workload passes, we shall return to our regularly scheduled program. With Summer Movie Season on the way, we will have a lot of films to review. We also will celebrate this month the 12th year of this blog.
Thank you again for your patience and we will be back soon.
God Bless,
Catholic Skywalker
We are now in a presidential election year after the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The question of abortion will be on the ballot in a way that we have not seen in a long time.
As I’ve written about before, the pro-abortion side was preparing for the overturning of Roe in a way that the pro-life side was not. For many on the pro-life side, the end of Roe v. Wade was seen as the final victory in the struggle for life. But this could not be further from the truth.
The struggle is just starting.
The pro-abortion side was busy at work pushing their views through social media and mass media. Abortion, in many mediums, is celebrated and lauded. Any voice in defense of the unborn is seen as a horrible restriction on women’s rights. The Culture of Death wasted no time. This is nothing new, but the pro-abortion side hit the ground running while the pro-life side is playing catch up.
For example, in my home state of Ohio, last fall we passed a constitutional ammendment basically legalizing all forms of abortion. The winning side successfully convinced enough of the voters that Ohio’s laws restricting abortion were too broad. The average voter favors some abortion rights, but not an unlimited one. For example, the overwhelming majority of people believe abortion should be legal in cases of sexual assault.
Because of things that have happened in Ohio, some pro-life politicians have been moderating their political stances. Fearing that standing up for the life of the unborn will cost them votes, they have done the political calculus of saying that they believe abortion should be legal in some cases.
So how is a Catholic to respond to this?
To be fair, this can be an incredibly complex situation and I do not want to make the mistake of oversimplifying it.
However, we must begin with this as our bedrock foundation: killing unborn children is wrong.
Our ultimate goal needs to the the abolition of abortion and the recognition of the dignity of every life.
But how do we accomplish this goal? Can we compromise on our beliefs?
For example, let’s say that in the next election in Ohio, there is a proposed constitutional ammendment that would keep abortion legal except for in the third trimester. Could a Catholic vote for this in good conscience?
The answer is: it depends.
What it depends on is the interior intention of the voter.
If I vote for this hypothetical ammendment because I think that some human life has value and other human life does not, then my motivation is bad.
But if I vote for this ammendment because I see it is a way to mitigate the mass murder of the unborn and save some children, then yes I can vote for it. Oscar Schindler worked with Nazis and gave money to Nazis in order to bring Jewish people to safety away from the death camps. Schindler could not stop the entire Holocaust, but he saved as many people as he could. In the same way, voting for a law that limits abortion partially is a way to save some life.
The ultimate goal must still be to end abortion. Throughout the years before the Civil War, efforts were made to mitigate the spread of slavery. But the abolitionists always held that the ultimate goal was the end slavery forever. It is morally licit for a Catholic to vote for an imperfect law.
But the voting for that law must be done with the understanding that it is an imperfect compromise that is a temporary measure in pursuit of the perfect. Pro-lifers cannot accept a permanent moderation
After going over the movies that are coming out this summer, I always enjoy trying to predict the summer box office for the following year.
Michael Crichton once said that studios spend millions of dollars every year trying to predict box office. But in the end, it is all guess work. There is no magical formula and no one gets it right all the time.
It is now April, so it's time to look forward to one of my favorite seasons of the year: Summer movie season.
Sexuality/Nudity Acceptable
Violence Acceptable
Vulgarity Acceptable
Anti-Catholic Philosophy Acceptable
As I mentioned in my recent review for Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, I tend to be very easy to please. This is a movie that has lots giant monsters hitting each other.
That's enough to make the 7-year-old in me incredibly happy.
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire is the fifth film in Warner Bros. "Monsterverse." And it feels like they finally cracked the formula: More monsters, less humans.
The story takes place a few years after Godzilla vs. Kong. Godzilla is still keeping the surface world in balance by taking out other giant monsters. Meanwhile in the hollow earth, Kong has been living free, but lonely in the wilds. He still must survive against hostile forces, which he does by his strength and superior intelligence. Kong then accidentally discovers a subteranian world deeper than the hollow earth, where he encounters other giant apes, but they are immeadiately hostile. On the surface, Jia (Kaylee Hottle), the girl who speaks to Kong starts having visions. Her adopted mother Ilene (Rebecca Hall), doesn't know what to do, but thinks that it is related to disturbing signals from the hollow earth. Together with monster veternarian Trapper (Dan Stevens) and conspiracy podcaster Bernie (Brian Tyree Henry) they explore the source. This eventually leads them and Kong on a collision course with the dangers ape ruler the "Scar King," who could end up leading to the destruction of the surface world. It will take the combined forces of Kong and Godzilla to take them down.
It is amazing to me how different this movie is than Godzilla Minus One. Whereas that one was character-driven, terrifying, and thematically rich, Godzilla x Kong is bassically a live-action Saturday morning cartoon. There is a clear artificiality to the special effects in this movie that fits with the movie's cartoonish nature. For that reason, I wasn't bothered by how animated it looked. Director Adam Wingard seems to embrace this aesthetic and just completely rolls with it. Like all monster movies, we spend time with the humans, but it feels like less, which is a good thing. It isn't that they performances are bad, but they are not why we purchased our tickets.
To emphasize the cartoonish nature of the movie, I would contrast the emotional feel the city scenes here and in Godzilla Minus One. In Minus One, when Godzilla comes to the city, it is a time of fear and tragedy over all the lives lost. When the monsters fight in a populated city, they hurl pieces of skyscraper at each other and it is just fun. There are no thoughts of the innocent civilians on the ground and in the buildings dying. That's because this is a cartoon. It's just a big, bright brawl.
There are some nice themes here too about love and family that are nice and wholesome, but they get completely swallowed up by the monster mayhem.
I've heard some people complain that Godzilla is only in a few minutes of the movie whereas Kong is in a lot more. However, this is completely appropriate. Kong is a much more human character. He is the one that we are going to relate to emotionally. We actually go on his journey through lonlieness and pain. Godzilla is a force of nature. He is power-personified. You want to keep him on the edges and more mysterious. He should always be someone of complete danger, even when he is on your side. When Kong goes to make contact with Godzilla, the giant ape is taking his life into his hands because Godzilla is as likely to kill him upon sight.
Does a lot of the plot make sense? Not really. But it doens't need to for this movie to be enjoyable all the way through. Why do they happen to have a cybernetic hand for Kong in the hollow earth? Who knows, it just looks cool!
If you can accept this type of film making, then you will enjoy this movie.
Christ is Risen! Alleluia!
We are an Easter people who live in the light of Christ’s Resurrection. While it is essential that we enter into His Passion, we must never forget that the story continues past the cross and through the empty tomb.
In my Lenten journey, my spiritual director instructed me to do a 40-Day-At-Home Ignatian retreat. I spent many hours with Fr. Mark E. Thibodeaux SJ and his book Ascending with Ignatius: A 30-Day At-Home Retreat. Towards the end of the retreat, he had a wonderful reflection on the Resurrection and the community.
In many of the Resurrection accounts, the Risen Christ directs the disciples to community.
At the end of Luke’s Gospel, two disciples are leaving Jerusalem and are on the road to Emmaus. Along the way, they encounter Jesus even though they do not recognize Him. As they walk, He explains how the Scriptures pointed to His saving work. He stays with them when they ask HIm to stay, where He makes Himself known in the “breaking of the bread.” When they realize it was Jesus, they rush back to Jerusalem immediately.
Jerusalem is about seven-and-a-half miles away from Emmaus. They would have set out on this road at night. It should be remembered that night travel is not common as it is today with streetlights and the like. They would have been rushing through the deep darkness with only starlight and moonlight to guide their way. But they were so moved that they had to return. After the crucifixion, they left the community in Jerusalem and headed to Emmaus. Once they encounter Christ, they are inspired to immediately return to that community.
In John’s Gospel, Jesus appears to the Apostles gathered in the upper room. But Thomas was not there and so missed out on the encounter. Again, because Thomas was not with the community He missed out on the Risen Christ. We often call him “Doubting Thomas” because of his reluctance to believe the Apostles who reported their encounter with the Risen Lord. But Thomas had at least enough faith to remain with the others for another week. And then Christ returns to the community with Thomas present. He encounters Christ because He stays with the community.
Later in the Gospel, Peter tries to leave the community when he says “I am going fishing.” It is clearly a solitary activity that he is pursuing. But the other disciples do not let him go off alone. 6 others go off with him so that He is not alone. When Jesus calls from the shore and enacts the miracle of the fish, John recognizes it is Christ on the shore and Peter dives into the water and swims to Him. Notice how John and Peter have complimentary gifts. John has insight that it is Jesus appearing, but it is Peter who has the courage to dive into the water.
While not all the Resurrection appearances are communal, these stories have a strong emphasis on the community.
This is a reminder that, as Fr. Larry Richards is fond of saying, there are no Lone Rangers in Christianity. While each of us must have an intensely personal relationship with Christ, this should continue to return us to the community.
The story of the Road to Emmaus reminds us that a genuine encounter with the Lord will always move us back to the community. While we do have a tradition of those who are called to be hermits and anchoresses, even these people are making themselves a part of the community. Their isolation is part of their process to pray for and educate the community. It would appear that if you say you encounter the Risen Christ but do not return the community, then the encounter may not be real.
Why?
In the story of Thomas, we are reminded that Christ appears to His Church. Jesus is present at our liturgies, particularly in a substantial way at mass. But He is also present in the people. Once a priest gave a homily to Mother Teresa’s nuns. He said that when they give Communion to others that they should remember that they are being Christ to them. After the mass, Mother Teresa approached the priest and told him, “You should have told them that they are serving Christ in the people.” The Risen Christ is here with our community.
Sexuality/Nudity Mature
Violence Acceptable
Vulgarity Acceptable
Anti-Catholic Philosophy Acceptable
Some people think that my standards for movies are too low. If that's how you feel, that's fine with me.
But often, it is simply that I am easy to please when it comes to much of my entertainment. As long as you don't bore me or insult me, I tend to be satisfied.
The critics have been mostly negative about Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, but I enjoyed this movie a great deal. To borrow an insight about the previous film by a good friend of mine, this movie felt like a live-action version of The Real Ghostbusters cartoon show.
The movie takes place a few years after Ghostbusters: Afterlife. The Spengler family of Callie (Carrie Coon), her genius daughter Phoebe (McKenna Grace), here non-genius son Trevor (Finn Wolfhard), and Callie's boyfriend Gary (Paul Rudd) have moved to New York City and have re-opened the Ghostbusters business, bankrolled by the wealthy Winston Zedmore (Ernie Hudson). Trouble occurs after the new Ghostbusters cause damage and mayor Walter Peck (William Atherton) tells them that since Phoebe is a minor, she cannot be a Ghostbuster. Despondant, Phoebe wanders the city and befriends a chess-playing ghost named Melody (Emly Alyn Lind). She also visits Ray Stanz (Dan Aykroyd) who is running a YouTube channel with Podcast (Logan Kim). However, Nadeem Razmaadi (Kumail Nanjiani) comes to sell his late grandmother's mystical items, including a magical orb that holds a dark secret. This leads to a chain of events that brings these different story threads on a collision course to the finale.
Director Gil Kenan does a competant job with making the movie go along at a fun and intersting pace. He uses the visual effects well and gives the movie a creepy-fun vibe similar to the original films from the 1980's.
For the most part the performances are good. Rudd is fantastic in every scene he is in. As with the first one, Grace is the main actress. She is not very emotive, but that is part of her character. This worked a lot better when she was younger and precocious, but as she gets older it has a diminshing return.
My favorite part was seeing Aykroyd. Unlike the last film where he essentially had a glorified cameo, Aykroyd is in a significant part of the movie and is integral to the plot. You can see him fall back into his old Ray Stanz character without missing a beat. Hudson also has a larger role, but he plays Winston different than in the originals. Before he was a working-class stand-in for the audience. Here, he is the cool and collected business man. It is a nice evolution of the character that Hudson does well. His chemistry with Akyroyd and the rest of the cast is great. Bill Murray and Annie Potts return, but they are essential cameos like in the previous film. Coon and Wolfhard do a decent job, but they are not given much to do.
I would say that is my biggest criticism of the film. This is particularly true of Trevor: he has almost nothing to do. He has a b-story involving Slimer, but it doens't really figure in to the overall plot. Callie has a sub-plot about being a mom and a Ghostbuster, but this is superceded by Gary's arc where he tries to figure out how to parent children that are not his. Nadeem's story is fine, but it just feels like something that could have been incorporated better. Even Lucky (Celeste O'Connor) from the last movie is here, but she doesn't have anything unique to do.
Another issue is that the main villain is generic and forgettable. Gozer was built up by attribution throughout the original and even Viggo loomed large in Ghostbusters 2. But this villain feels like Steppenwolf from the theatrical Justice League: artificial and forgettable. Besides this, there are strong romatic overtones between Phoebe and Melody. It is subtle and could simply be an expression of feminine friendship. But the framing of some of their scenes seem clearly intimate. Lucky also makes reference to a mystical room as a "sex dungeon," which was very uncomfortable to hear while in a theater that had many children. The joke doesn't get too explicit, but it didn't need to be there.
Despite this, I found that I had a good time in the theater. The humor was some nice, goofy fun. Podcast has a joke with Patton Oswalt and a telephone that makes little sense but had me laughing longer than it should have. The people involved don't seem interested in re-inventing the wheel. The plot feels like something from the cartoon show, in a good way. There are some new and creative technologies introduced, like a new type of ghost extractor. There were even some creative ghost that possesses different objects. Again, nothing here is earth-shattering, but it was enough for me to enjoy.
I like the world of Ghostbusters and this movie let me spend a few enjoyable hours there. Not a bad deal.
Hours after a battle for the Disney board led by those unhappy with the direction of the company, Marvel Studios announced the casting of the Silver Surfer for the upcoming Fantastic Four movie:
Julia Garner.
Photo by Vera Mulyani |
That's right, one of the most iconic Jack Kirby creations will no longer be Norrin Radd, but Norinn's girlfirend Shalla-Bal.
First, let me say that Garner is a very talented actress. I was not a big fan of Ozark, but the performances of all the actors on the show was top-notch. I think that she will do an excellent job of acting with the material they will give her.
Second, I have never been opposed to female itterations in famous franchises. When they announced Star Wars: Episode VII, I suggested that it would be very intersting to explore the Skywalker story from a female perspective. When Jodi Whittaker was cast as The Doctor, I expressed on this blog an open-minded welcome to some potentially new and exciting stories from a female perspective.
But this is just... dumb.
If you are going to introduce the Herald of Galactus, it should be Norrin Radd with the Power Cosmic. It is true that in some continutities Shalla-Bal is a Silver Surfer. But she is not THE Silver Surfer. Firelord is also a Herald of Galactus, but it would be stupid to introduce him as a major character before Norrin Radd.
Making Shalla-Bal the first and main Silver Surfer would be like...
Doing a movie with Jean-Paul Valley as the first and main Batman...
Doing a movie with Ben Reilly as the first and main Spider-Man...
Doing a movie with Amadeus Choi as the first and main Hulk...
You could make the argument the first and main Ant-Man was Scott Lang and not the original Hank Pym. But this was a lateral move for a character that was not as iconic.
You could argue that they gender-swapped and race-swapped the Ancient One in Doctor Strange. While that is true, the Ancient One was not nearly as important a character in Marvel Comics as the Silver Surfer.
I'll be honest, I stopped writing this article about halfway through and only now have returned to it some time later. The reason is that I'm not even angry or upset about this.
I'm bored.
This casting just seems so boring from the studio that brought us She-Hulk and Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.
Look, I have seen nearly every MCU movie that has come out. And I've given generally positive reviews to all of them, even The Marvels and The Eternals. And I have been wrong in the past. I thought building a Guardians of the Galaxy movie around the Peter Quill version of the team and not the original Vance Astro version was stupid. I very happily ate crow on that. So I will continue to be open to the posibility that this new Fantastic Four will also be good.
But Marvel is not doing a good job of selling me on it.
Thoughts?