ReasonForOurHope

Sunday, August 31, 2025

Sunday Best: Summer Box Office Review 2025

 I'm fond of beginning this post-summer report by citing Michael Crichton who once said that no one can actually predict a movie's box office, even though studios pay millions of dollars for people to do exactly that.  In the end, there is always an X-Factor that cannot be seen in advance.

And this is especially true for me predicting this past summer's box office.  


In terms of box office success, the numbers were a mixed bag.  Last year, two of the Top Ten made over $300 million dollars.  This year, three movies did that.  Also, the lowest grossing Top Ten movie made over $30 million more than last year's number 10 (and that gap could still widen).  However, this year's Top Ten made overall $300 million less than last year's.  I think that is due to the fact that two of last year's films made over $600 million and none of this year's films could match that.

Below are my predictions along with the actual box office numbers:


MY PREDICTIONSACTUAL BOX OFFICE
How to Train Your DragonLilo & Stitch
Jurassic World RebirthSuperman
Lilo & StitchJurassic World Rebirth
SupermanHow to Train Your Dragon
Mission: Impossible - The Final ReckoningFantastic Four: First Steps
ThunderboltsMission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning
Fantastic Four: First StepsThunderbolts
From the World of John Wick: BallerinaF1
Karate Kid: LegendsFinal Destinations: Bloodlines
The Naked GunWeapons


So as you can see, I was way off this year.  

-I did not correctly guess the position of any of the Top Ten movies this year
-I predicted 7 out of the Top Ten, as I did last year.  That seems to be my average.


So here are my conclusions.

WINNERS
1. Franchise Movies
8 of the Top 10 movies, including the number 1, were movies that were sequels or part of an existing franchise.  This is different than last year, when 7 of the Top 10 were non-franchise properties.

2. Horror Movies
Two of the Top Ten movies were horror films.  Even though they were at the bottom of the list, this is a great success for them, since these movies tend to have much lower budgets, so their profit margins are very high.  

3.  Live Action Remakes

Lilo and Stitch won the summer and How To Train Your Dragon did well here and even better internationally.  I think the advantage of a remake is that families can go see them and parents will be fairly sure that the content will be acceptable.  That isn't always the case nowadays.  These remakes are like comfort food... grandma's home recipe that feels a little different but reminds you of your experiences years earlier.


LOSERS

1.  Franchise Movies
I know I said that they were the winners earlier.  And in terms of box office placement, they are.  But the reason that they are also losers is because they are getting a diminishing return.  None of the Marvel movies made over $300 million.  The last Jurassic World movie made less than the last three.  Unadjusted for inflation, Superman is the highest grossing Superman movie, but when adjusting for inflation changes its standing.  The final Mission: Impossible landed in about the middle of franchise grosses, but also had one of the largest budgets.  Other franchises could get into the Top Ten like From the World of John Wick: Ballerina, Smurfs, I Know What You Did Last Summer,  and Karate Kid Legends.  

2.  Comedies
No straight up comedies made the Top Ten.  This is especially disappointing with the underperformance of The Naked Gun, which was one of the funnier movies this year that was trying to revive the genre.

3. Animation

Last year we had two animated movies in the Top Ten.  This year: none.  PIXAR's Elio was edged out of the bottom spot by Weapons.  Other animated films like Bad Guys 2  didn't make a big dent.  I'm not sure why this is, except that more parents are wary of the content in animated films.


Lilo & Stitch$421,818,538
Superman$348,463,613
Jurassic World Rebirth$336,415,615
How to Train Your Dragon$262,747,245
Fantastic Four: First Steps$259,826,180
Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning$197,413,515
Thunderbolts$190,274,328
F1$186,676,545
Final Destinations: Bloodlines$138,130,814
Weapons$122,187,687

----

Last year, I noted the big gap in numbers between the top 5 and the bottom 5.  This year, the films were closer in box office, but the overall ticket sales were less.  I think last year's box office shows us that people will come to the movies if you give them something they want to see.  The audience is there, but Hollywood needs to deliver.

Thoughts?

Friday, August 29, 2025

Film Review: Nobody 2

 




Sexuality/Nudity Mature

Violence Mature

Vulgarity Mature

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Mature


Sometimes you just want to sit in a dark movie theater with your bucket of popcorn and large soda and just watch some fun, mindless violence.  Perhaps it is something hard-wired in the male brain that taps into something primal and irrational, but there it is.

And Nobody 2 delivers exactly this.

The story picks up a few years after the first movie.  Hutch (Bob Odenkirk) is in the process of paying the debts he incurred by taking hit man jobs.  Unfortunately, this is causing strain on his family and his wife Becca (Connie Neilsen) is feeling less and less connected to him.  Feeling this pressure, Hutch decides to take his family on a vacation to an old waterpark that his father (Christopher Lloyd) took him to as a child.  However, when they get there, they run afoul of the corrupt local authorities who are connected to large criminal organization led by Lendina (Sharon Stone).  Before he knows it, Hutch is once again caught in a bloody conflict that he would much rather avoid.

Again, there is nothing particularly deep or what you would call high art in this movie.  That isn't to say that it is in any way bad.  In fact, it is very good at what it does.  And that isn't to say that it lacks thematic strength.  The previous movie was a metaphor for how beaten down by life middle-aged men feel.  This movie is about work-life balance.  Sure, Hutch's work involves him murdering bad guys in creative ways, but you can oddly relate to the feeling of how your job keeps you from your family.  I also like how Hutch's son Brady (Gage Munroe) is picking up his violent tendencies and how that wears on Hutch.  This rings true about how parents hope to pass on their virtues and fear that they are passing on their vices.

There is something too about this movie that just taps into the masculine urge to protect.  There is a scene in the movie where the security guards at an arcade harass Hutch's family.  Not wanting any trouble, Hutch escorts his family out.  But on the way out, the security guard smacks Hutch's young daughter (Paisley Cadorath) on the back of the head.  Hutch cannot let that pass.  As he returns, his wife tells him not to, but he goes anyway to go banalana on them.  One of the things I liked about this scene is that even though his wife told him not to, he was compelled.  She was incredibly upset at what he did, but I got the strong sense that if he did nothing, part of her would have resented him for doing nothing.  

The best part of the movie is the action.  I am still amazed at how powerful and believable Odenkirk is in this role.  There was never a time where I thought he seemed to old or out of shape to take down the bad guys.  The movie wisely makes the bad guys evil enough to let you feel justified in cheering for Hutch.  But every once and a while they take some of the "villains" into some surprising character arcs.  

This movie made me think of both Zombieland and Home Alone as the final act involved setting deadly and creative boobytraps at the water park.  It wisely takes the familiar and fun and environment and figures out how to make it a place of deadly action.

Odenkirk's performance is as good as the first.  He is a weary warrior who is trying to avoid a fight he can't.  There is a point in the movie where he is almost out of the conflict, but something happens that compels him to keep fighting.  Odenkirk shows us how Hutch's code forces down the path of violence.  Nielsen is also excellent.  She and Odenkirk have great chemistry.  She is always feminine, but she is never a damsel in distress.  Lloyd is always great, even when he doesn't have a lot to do.  Colin Hanks plays a corrupt deputy and John Ortiz plays a beleaguered businessman; both actors do a decent job, but nothing outstanding.  Stone's villainess is way over-the-top.  She swings for the fences, but her character is a swing and a miss.  

If you are someone who has a moral issue with this type of stylized and bloody violence, then this movie is not for you.  Hutch understands that this darkness in him has the ability to corrupt his family.  The movie touches on that subject, but doesn't follow it all the way down to examine the consequences of this life of sin.  But the movie takes a more comedic tone here so that the violence is less realistic and more metaphorical.  At least that is how I look at it so that it more morally palatable.

I am very curious as to where they will take the story if they do a third movie.  I'm not sure where the story will take us, but I am up for the trip.




Monday, August 25, 2025

New Evangelizers Post: The Deacon as Christ the Servant

                          


I have a new article up at NewEvangelizers.com.  

By God’s grace, I have been accepted into the Candidacy program for Diaconate Formation. This means that, God-willing, I will be ordained a deacon in three years. At our Candidacy Mass, our bishop called us into formation and told us to pray that God gives us a serving heart.

Service is at the heart of the diaconate. It comes from the root word diakonia, which is often translated as “servant.” The deacons were called to meet the needs of the poor while the Apostles dedicated themselves to preaching. However, some like Deacon Dominic Cerrato in his book Discovering Christ the Servant, have argued that the translation may be something closer to “envoy, emissary, or messenger… an envoy of the Father.” (Dominic Cerrato, Discovering Christ the Servant: A Spirituality of Service, 42) I have always thought of the diaconate primarily in terms of the service that would be given to Christ’s body. And while this is important, it is meant to be an expression of Christ in the deacon. By recognizing the presence of the Lord in the deacon through the service, people will be drawn to the love of God in him. In this view, being a deacon is not so much defined by the activity, but by the person. Deacon Cerrato wrote that the “diaconal ministry… is not so much something we do, but rather someone we give, our very selves.” ( Dominic Cerrato, Discovering Christ the Servant: A Spirituality of Service, 48)

I have been focusing so much in these past few years about learning the activity of the deacon. At my last scrutiny, I even made mention of my trepidation that I lacked the training and experience to help those who suffered horrible tragedy. But the deacon in charge of formation said something that was reinforced by this book: don’t worry about the right thing to say. Simply being there is the most important thing you can do. The most important gift I can give is the gift of my self to God’s people. And this offering must be the sacrifice united in Christ. As Deacon Cerrato writes, “without some level of sacrifice, there is no authentic service, there is no authentic gift-of-self, there is no authentic love.” (Dominic Cerrato, Discovering Christ the Servant: A Spirituality of Service, 60) This will require me to be present to the people of the Church and present to Christ Himself so that I may be that envoy to and for all.

The diaconal ministry requires a very real and vibrant spiritual life. Reducing the diaconate to only activities of service would be “lacking in both justice and charity to the one being serviced, rendering the act void of its natural end.” (Dominic Cerrato, Discovering Christ the Servant: A Spirituality of Service, 50) This requires the “cyclical relationship of relationship, identity, and mission…” (Dominic Cerrato, Discovering Christ the Servant: A Spirituality of Service, 64). We cannot give people what we do not have. In order for me to give Christ to others, then I must have Christ in me. The only way I can do this is by being drawn deeper and deeper into prayer so that I can be in relationship with the Lord. This leads to a new identity that is given to us in Christ. And this transformation is part of the Church’s mission. Recently, my spiritual director told me that part of my ministry will be to witness how I am the one who has been transformed by God.

As mentioned above, I have been focusing a great deal of my formation on the activity of the deacon. I am beginning to understand more deeply that the fundamental element of this vocation is to be transformed by Christ. I am someone who has a conscientious personality, with a heavy focus on “doing the right things.” But I am reminded of something I once read by CS Lewis: “We might think that God wanted simply obedience to a set of rules: whereas He really wants people of a particular sort.” (CS Lewis, Mere Christianity, 80) I need to make sure I do not fall into the trap of going through the motions. Deacon Cerrato makes clear that the gift of self must be one of intentionality; otherwise, it loses its meaning. “An approach that consists only of ‘going through the motions’ empties the act of its authentic meaning because… lack of intentionality results in only part of what is required.” ( Dominic Cerrato, Discovering Christ the Servant: A Spirituality of Service, 49-50) I need to, by God’s grace, focus on my ministry primarily as a donation of self, giving myself, and giving God-in-me to others. Instead of looking at my time at the parish assignment as doing “work,” I need to focus on being present to the people of the parish and be conscious of giving myself away. This will involve being more proactive in forming relationships with people, asking about their lives, and offering a listening ear and a helping hand when needed.

You can read the whole article here.




Sunday, August 24, 2025

Sunday Best: Fall/Winter Movie Preview 2025

   Now that the Summer movie season has ended, it is time to look ahead to Fall and Winter.

The big blockbusters have mostly finished for the year.  Now we start getting into the time when either we have lower-budget fare or a place to dump movies that studios have low confidence in.  This is also the time when we start to see the movies that studios will push hard for awards.


Here is a list, with a few brief thoughts of my own, including on a scale of 1-5 stars my likelihood of seeing it in theaters (1 being “Not at all” 5 being “Cannot wait!”).

SEPTEMBER

September 5th


The Conjuring: Last Rites

I'm not a fan of horror films and I haven't seen any of the films in this series (*)

Twinless

I think there is a nugget of a good story here about two people who meet for a support group for people who have lost their twin.  But I have the feeling it is going to be creepy and not in a good way. (*)


Light of the World


There have been a lot of Jesus movies lately, which is a great thing.  This is an animated movie that tells the story of Jesus from the perspective of the Apostle John.  I need to see more, but I am curious (***)

September 12th

The Long Walk

I've never read this story by Stephen King and it seems harrowing from an emotional point of view. It cold be good, but I'm not sure if I want to subject myself to its dark themes. (**)


Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale


I stopped watching the show part way through, so I don't think I would be caught up enough to follow everything going on in this film.  (**)


Spinal Tap II: The End Continues

I have to admit this trailer makes me laugh.  I don't think it will be nearly as good as the original, but I think it will be better than most comedies today. (****)

September 19th

Him

A man covered in blood splatters does a t-pose while holding two footballs over a cheerleader crowd.

Nothing about the trailers interests me.  I am getting a little tired of stories where people essentially sell their souls to excel in their field.  I'm not saying its a bad trope, but it holds little interest for me. (*)


A Big Bold Beautiful Journey

I saw the small-budget film debut of the director Kogonanda, Columbus.  It was visually beautiful, but there wasn't a compelling story.  I have the feeling it will be the same here, but I could be wrong.  (**)


American Sweatshop

This movie looks like it could be a fascinating look into the lives of the people who have to do content moderation for video platforms.  But it feels like it is only using this setting to give us a traditional slasher film.  (**)

London Calling

I don't quite know what to make of this movie.  It looks very vulgar in violent, but just in the right tone and mixture that could make it work.  If the further trailers show more, I might be interested.  (**)

September 26th

One Battle After Another


Everything about this movie looks terrible.  Each trailer tries to hit a radically different tone so that it makes the film feel like a complete mess.  The premise feels like something that is out of the national zeitgeist, but was too far along in development to stop.    (*)


The Strangers: Chapter 2


Didn't see the first one.   (*)





OCTOBER

October 3rd

Roofman

There could be a good story here about a fugitive who makes up an identity and falls for a girl while he is secretly living in a Toys R Us.  I wish I trusted Channing Tatum more, but I don't I've really liked any of his movies, so I am skeptical.  (***)

The Smashing Machine

I don't know why but this movie has me very interested.  The makeup job they do on Dwayne Johnson works in a way that it really seems to change him.  I would be more skeptical, but seeing Emily Blunt's work in the trailer reminds of some other films like The Wrestler.  Watching him destroy his body throughout the trailer hits on a visceral level.  I think this could be good. (****)




October 10th

TRON: Ares

Ares rides a red Light Cycle up a road.

I like the fact that they are taking a different approach to the Tron universe by bringing the world of the Grid to the real world.  This has several interesting story possibilities, but I worry that the script will make it just another generic action adventure.  (***)


Kiss of the Spider Woman

Nothing about this interests me. (*)




October 17th

Black Phone 2

Didn't see the first.  (*)


Good Fortune

While I like Keanu Reeves, I don't trust Anziz Ansari and Seth Rogan with a comedy about angels.    (**)


After the Hunt

This looks like super-pretentious Oscar bait.  (*)


Blue Moon

Another Oscar-bait film that doesn't look like anything the average person wants to see.  (*)


October 24th

Mortal Kombat II

Ok, the Mortal Kombat reboot from a few years ago was an incredibly flawed movie that made little sense and killed off its most interesting character.  Normally I wouldn't be interested in the sequel.  But there is something very intriguing about the surly, washed-up take on Johnny Cage played by Karl Urban that has me curious. (***)


Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere

Not a big Springsteen fan and the movie makes it look like a kind of hagiography.  But I enjoyed last year's Bob Dylan movie, so I might give this one a shot.  (***)


NOVEMBER


November 7th

Nuremberg


While this could be an interesting historical drama, it feels like it lacks something in the trailers.  But I always like Russell Crowe. (**)


The Running Man

This remake is more in keeping with the original story, but I have the feeling that they are going to reject the darker tone, which is actually a good thing.  Put this together with the energetic direction of Edgar Wright and the charisma of Glen Powell and I am hopeful that this will be a fun time at the theater. (****)


Predator: Badlands

I've heard good things about Prey, the Predator movie that was made by the same director.  But I am skeptical of taking the mysterious and scary Predator and making him the main hero.  It's a bold choice but I feel like something is going to be lost in the transition.  (**)



November 21st

Wicked: For Good

I will admit that the last movie won me over with this powerful music and strong performances.  Now I am all in to see the story end (though I so wish they would have recast Ariana Grande).  (****)


November 26th

Zootopia 2

I was not like most people and only lukewarm on the original, so unless my nieces or nephew want to see it, I think I may pass.  (**)


DECEMBER

December 5th

Five Nights at Freddy's 2

Didn't see the first. (*)

Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery

Glass Onion was a truly awful movie.  So I am perplexed by the fact that I have a little bit of interest in this film.  Perhaps its because for all its flaws the movies have some sense of style that would work well if the writing was better.  (**)

December 19th

Avatar: Fire and Ash

Varang, a Na'vi ash clan is depicted in the poster.

While watching the trailer I said to my wife, "It's cute that James Cameron thinks that we remember any of these characters."  That's the problem with these films: they have no impact in the culture or the memory.  I will probably still see it because visually they are a real treat, but nothing more.   (***)

Zero AD


As I said before, there are a lot more Jesus films.  Something about this reminds me of Risen which is one of the best movies I've seen about the Resurrection.  I'm hopeful that this one will be as good or hopefully better than The Nativity Story. (****)


December 25th

Anaconda


I need to see a trailer first before I decide  (**)



Thoughts?


Tuesday, August 19, 2025

Film Flash: Nobody 2

 


15 words or less film review (full review to follow soon)




Fun, violent film. Clark Griswold meets John Wick, with a little Zombieland and Home Alone.



Sunday, August 17, 2025

Sunday Best: All the Marvel Cinematic Universe Movies Ranked

 

This summer I finally got around to seeing all of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies that I missed.  With a complete list of all the films, I thought I would rank them from best to worst.


They will be divided into three tiers: Top, Middle, and Bottom.


TOP

undefined

1. Avengers

2. Guardians of the Galaxy

3. Iron Man

4. Avengers: Infinity War

5. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

6. Avengers: Endgame

7. Spider-Man: No Way Home

8. Deadpool and Wolverine

9. Captain America: Civil War

10. Fantastic Four: First Steps

11. Captain America: The First Avenger

12. Thor

13. The Incredible Hulk


PHASE 1 MOVIES: 5

PHASE 2 MOVIES: 2

PHASE 3 MOVIES: 3

PHASE 4 MOVIES: 1

PHASE 5 MOVIES: 1

PHASE 6 MOVIES: 1

----

MIDDLE

undefined

14. Spider-Man: Homecoming

15. Spider-Man: Far From Home

16. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3

17. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2

18. Doctor Strange

19. Avengers: Age of Ultron

20. The Eternals

21. Black Panther

22. Thunderbolts*

23. Ant-Man

24. Captain America: Brave New World


PHASE 1 MOVIES: 0

PHASE 2 MOVIES: 2

PHASE 3 MOVIES: 5

PHASE 4 MOVIES: 1

PHASE 5 MOVIES: 3

PHASE 6 MOVIES: 0


BOTTOM

undefined


25. Iron Man 2

26. Iron Man 3

27. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

28. Captain Marvel

29. Thor: The Dark World

30. Black Widow

31. The Marvels

32. Ant-Man and the Wasp

33. Black Panther: Wakanda Forever

34. Thor: Ragnarok

35. Thor: Love and Thunder

36. Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings

37. Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania


PHASE 1 MOVIES: 1

PHASE 2 MOVIES: 2

PHASE 3 MOVIES: 3

PHASE 4 MOVIES: 5

PHASE 5 MOVIES: 2

PHASE 6 MOVIES: 0


So based on my ranking, a few observations:


It seems like most of the great MCU movies were in Phase 1.  This makes sense, since these films had to lay the foundation for what was to come afterwards.  Any big misstep in the process, and everything could get derailed.

Most of the middling movies were in Phase 3.  This also makes sense since this is where Marvel was reaching its apex.  They could coast a bit on its own popularity, but it needed to work enough to keep people coming back.

Most of the lower-tier movies were in Phase 4.  This also makes sense for a few reasons.  After Endgame, Marvel had to do a sort of reset of the main story arc.  This meant that the stories carried less urgency.  Also, this is where Marvel really started experimenting, sometimes inserting culturally divisive content into a a strong brand.  This was also the time when the Disney+ TV shows came out.  While it started strong, it also diluted the power of the brand and made it difficult for people to follow the movies.  If you didn't watch the shows, could you get the full effect of The Marvels and Thunderbolts*?

The good news is that Phase 6 has started off strong with Fantastic Four: First Steps.  The bad news is that the movie did not do amazing at the box office.  Perhaps that will change with the next Spider-Man and Avengers movies.

Thoughts?

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

TV Review: Andor (Disney+)

undefined
 

 


It was a Star Wars show that was set in a time before the Original Trilogy.  The characters were morally ambiguous.  The lead character even committed murder.  Much of the lore of the Jedi and the Force was ignored.  It was helmed by someone who cared very little for the Star Wars universe.  It introduced mature themes that had been conspicuously absent from the George Lucas productions.

And I hated it.

I am, of course, talking about The Acolyte, a show so awful that it poisoned every other Star Wars project that came afterwards.

But strangely, the above description could also be used to describe Andor.

And I loved Andor.

I had been putting off watching the show for a long time.  I was not a big fan of Rogue One, and the idea of basing an entire series around Cassian Andor seemed odd to me.  Also, I had heard that the tone of the show was much darker and more mature than what we had seen before, almost like Game of Thrones set in the Star Wars universe.  And as the series went on, more and more controversial things occured on the show.

But a number of people whose opinion I trust urged me to see it.  So for the last week, my wife and I binged both seasons on Disney+.  And it went from interesting, to engaging, to gripping.

The show centers around Cassian Andor (Diego Luna).  When the show starts, he is living with his aging adopted mother Maarva (Fiona Shaw) on the planet of Ferrix.  He runs afowl of some corrupt security and it does not go well.  This sets off a chain of events that leads him to Luthen Rael (Stellan Skarsgard) who is part of the clandestine Rebellion against the Empire.  

The show is more of an ensemble than it is about just Andor himself.  Luthen's secret network is one of the most fascinating parts of the show.  Also, we follow Mon Mothma (Genevieve O'Reilly), who tries to lead the political front for the Rebels.  We also see the Imperial Security Bureau as they work to contain the rebels.  Particularly we focus on Dedra Meero (Denise Gough), who is ruthless, intelligent, and ambitious as she tries to put the pieces of the Rebel Alliance together.  We also follow a lowly security officer Syril Karn (Kyle Soller), who believes in the order of the Empire and sees the Rebels as terrorists.  

There are a lot more characters and plotlines, but I do not want to spoil them here.  One of the joys of this show is that it takes so many unexpected twists and turns.

This is show is rougher and more violent than traditional Star Wars fare.  I believe this is the only show that uses actual vulgarity and not in-universe words like "sleemo."  This makes it feel more raw.  Showrunner and main writer Tony Gilroy has stated that he was not a huge Star Wars fan.  So with all of this mature content, why does this show work and The Acolyte did not?

The main answer is simple: the writing.

This is one of the best written shows.  The characters are very real.  Even the Imperial characters have layers and all of the Rebels have potentially fatal flaws.  Luthen is clearly fighting a greater evil, but he does things that morally compromise him. To the show's credit, Luthen recognizes this contradiction and uses all of his willpower to hold the throttle until the end.  In one of the show's best lines, he says:

".....Calm. Kindness. Kinship. Love. I've given up all chance at inner peace. I've made my mind a sunless space. I share my dreams with ghosts. I wake up every day to an equation I wrote 15 years ago from which there's only one conclusion, I'm damned for what I do. My anger, my ego, my unwillingness to yield, my eagerness to fight, they've set me on a path from which there is no escape. I yearned to be a savior against injustice without contemplating the cost and by the time I looked down there was no longer any ground beneath my feet. What is my sacrifice? I'm condemned to use the tools of my enemy to defeat them. I burn my decency for someone else's future. I burn my life to make a sunrise that I know I'll never see. "

Even a character like Dedra finds odd moments of humanity.  She is a wall of ice, but there are moments where there is a small thaw in her heart and you almost pity her despite her evil.  It is also a credit to the show that it can make you care just as much about Mon Mothma's family drama as Cassian's mission to rob the Imperials on Ahldani.  The show makes all of these elements feel connected so that if any one part fails, the entire Rebellion will collapse like a house of cards.  And even though we know the successes that are found in the Original Trilogy, the tension is almost unbearable.  The Imperials are smart and ruthless, which the writing shows, making them feel like an overwhelming threat.

Another difference between this show and The Acolyte is that it was clear that the latter's showrunner Leslie Hedlund was using the show as a vehicle to deal with her own personal issues and trauma.  And while stories should have a voice and purpose, Gilroy is trying to say something more universal about war and oppression.  It doesn't feel like he is using the show for a personal catharsis.  Instead, he is trying to give the audience a catharsis.

And while the show is darker and in some ways more morally ambiguous than The Acolyte, Andor was smart enough not to let it tarnish the mythology.  The Acolyte tried to impose its warped understanding of the Force, Good/Evil, and Jedi/Sith onto the overall Star Wars myth that George Lucas gave us.  Andor almost never touches the mythology of the Jedi and the Force.  This is a "street level" story told from the point of view of the common people who live in tyranny.  If you made a Civil War movie that portrayed Abraham Lincoln assassinating political enemies and disavowing his abolitionist beliefs, I could imagine that this would not sit well with moviegoers.  But if you told a story of abolitionists undercover in the Deep South having to lie, steal, and kill to clandestinely turn the tied of the war, that is much more palatable.  The same is true of Andor.  

The characters in Andor, including the heroes, do horrible things.  But the show wisely never tells you how to feel about it.  Again, unlike The Acolyte, where the main character slowly murders someone and we are told in the dialogue "It's okay," Andor presents the actions of the characters to you for your own judgment.  You can condone or condemn and the show is perfectly okay with that.  

The only part of the show that felt artificial is where Cassian randomly gets arrested and sent to prison for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  It is the only time that it felt like something extraordinary happened simply because the plot demanded it.  The story that results is heartbreakingly good, but the set up feels false.  Everything else works.

Another thing that I loved about the show is that it felt very real and lived-in.  As much as is possible, it feels like they filmed at real locations and on real sets.  It does not look overly CGI, which takes away a lot of the artificiality.  

The performances are also excellent.  A lot of people give Luna flack for his restrained performance as Cassian, but I don't think they give him enough credit.  He is cool under pressure and has learned to hold his seething anger in check so that he can let his mind work.  When he wants to transform into someone else in order to go under cover, you can feel the change come over him.  Skarsgard is fantastic in his role, playing him with such ambiguity that you can never tell if he should be trusted.  Soller plays Syril with an incredibly tight-wound intensity.  Gough does a good performance, but her face mugs a little too much so that it feels like the corners of her mouth are constantly being dragged down.  O'Reilly does a fantastic job of putting up her mask and taking it down without ever feeling false.  Some other excellent performances include Adria Arjona as Bix Caleen, Cassian's beleaguered love interest.  I also loved Anton Lesser as Major Partagaz, the leader of the ISB who directs the brutality of his council with the cold dispassion of a professor.

My biggest complaint about the show is the content.  Not only is the show more violent, but it introduces a sexual component to the show that doesn't feel at place in Star Wars, even at this level.  This includes, fornication, child-marriages, same-sex relationships, and sexual assault.  While there is no nudity in the show and it makes up a very small part of the content, this content always just took me out of the show rather than drawing me in.  If you object to the sexualization of this franchise, you may want to avoid this.

I also can't stand the character Saw Garrera (Forrest Whitaker).  I understand why he has to be included so that it can link up to Rogue One, but I feel like every time he is on the screen, all I want to do is scream.

After finishing Andor, my wife and I re-watched Rogue One, which I have not done since it was first released.  Seeing the journey that Cassian takes, his introduction in the movie feels more justified and the desperation of the Rebels feels more real.  The stakes and the costs of the Battle of Scarif have more weight and it makes Rogue One a better movie.  It also makes the opening crawl to the original Star Wars hit differently.

I think that might be the biggest compliment that I can give the show: it makes for a richer experience of the main story.  The Prequel Trilogy made the character arcs and emotional layers of the Original Trilogy deeper.

Andor does the same thing.  When I go back now and look a the Rebel Alliance from the Original Trilogy, I can feel the hard-won history that leads to those stories and it adds even more weight to one of the greatest cinematic stories of all time.



Monday, August 11, 2025

New Evangelizers Post: God Will Be Mocked (And So Will You)

                         


I have a new article up at NewEvangelizers.com.  

Recently there was a production of Jesus Christ Superstar that caused a great deal of controversy. Those who saw it as an attack on the faith were incensed. I saw many posts writing about this saying, “God will not be mocked.”

This is a paraphrase of Galatians 6:7-8: “Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows, because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit.” St. Paul makes clear that in the end, God will mete out His justice. Those who play fast and loose with their faith run the great risk of losing their salvation.

But St. Paul is referring here to the ultimate consequences. What we see in the Gospels is that in some sense the opposite is true:

God will be mocked.

In Matthew 20: 19, Jesus says that He will be handed over “to mock and scourge and crucify Him.”

Mark 15: 16-20 states, “The soldiers led him away inside the palace, that is, the praetorian, and assembled the whole cohort. They clothed him in purple and, weaving a crown of thorns, placed it on him. They began to salute him with, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and kept striking his head with a reed and spitting upon him. They knelt before him in homage. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, dressed him in his own clothes, and led him out to crucify him.”

Later, in verses 29-32, Mark writes, ” Those passing by reviled him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself by coming down from the cross.’ Likewise the chief priests, with the scribes, mocked him among themselves and said, ‘He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe.’ Those who were crucified with him also kept abusing him.”

The entire purpose of the crown of thorns was to mock Jesus’ claim to be king. Jesus endured all of it, every humiliation that the world could throw at Him. He endured the mockery of the world.

Mockery is a powerful weapon to change people’s behavior. Think back to the simplier days of school and how afraid we were to be labeled different and to be mocked for our clothes, our appearance, our hobbies, our taste in music, and everything else. Direct confrontation can often cause someone to harden in their position. But if there is enough social pressure to mock an aspect of someone, then people are much more likely to change. I remember someone told me once that as a child they loved dinasaurs and they were obsessed with them. They had dinosaur toys, posters, books, bedsheets… the whole works. And then one day in middle school someone said to him with derision, “Dinosaurs are stupid.” And with that he gave up on the dinosaurs he loved.

You may be tempted to dismiss this as a childish submission to peer pressure. But this does not go away as we get older. How much pressure to adults feel at work or on social media to present themeselves in a way so as not to be mocked. They don’t want to be seen as out of step or as living a lesser lifestyle than their social circles. The power of mocking can reshape a person.

That is why it was used against our Lord. His adversaries could never overcome Him in open debate, so they had to be reduced to mockery. And in mocking Him, they hoped to shame those that followed Him. This is the same reason why people mock Christ today. People go out of their way to try and humiliate Jesus because they cannot stand the light of His truth. And in mocking Him they hope that those who are His followers or potential followers will be turned away so as not be lumped in with Him.

So how should we respond?

Before anything else, we should examine our own consciences. Have we mocked the Lord by our words and actions? Do we take God’s name in vain? Do we support entertainment that mocks the Lord? Or what about our irreverence? I heard someone once say that Roman soldiers mocked the Lord by genuflecting in front of Him without real reverence in their hearts. He asked, “How many times have I genuflected before that tabernacle without real reverence in my heart?” Examining our own behavior will help keep us from falling into the sin of judgment.

The first thing always to do is to pray. And our prayer should start as one of mercy. We should pray that the light of God’s love will dawn in their hearts. The story of St. Genesius tells us that this is possible. He was an actor who was mocking Christian baptisms, when he came upon an epiphany about God’s truth and became a martyr. We pray for the salvation of all. We pray that they will come to fall in love with the person they are mocking.

Should we respond to blasphemous mockery with outrage?

That is actually a more complicated question that must utilize prudence in each situation. Every blasphemy is an outrage. But sometimes the person who is mocking the Lord is doing so in order to get the attention and the outrage. Sometimes it is best to not give these scandalous actions the oxygen they need to grow. I remember a number of decades ago, ABC put on a show called “Nothing Sacred,” which mocked the Church and the priesthood. In my youthful zeal I called for boycotts and letters. I even tried to start a groundswell movement of outrage that did not go very far. But I remember Fr. Benedict Groeschel on EWTN who saw the show and said (I’m paraphrasing), “I saw the show and it’s a bomb. If you’re going to attack the Church, give me a Nietzsche, a Voltaire… someone with a little bit of class. But this show is so bad we don’t need to fight it.” It turns out he was correct and the show was quickly cancelled and forgotten. Notice too how Fr. Groschel used humor and mockery in an act of cultural jujitsu.

Keep in mind too that the enemies of the Lord seek to prompt the outrage so that they can point to Christians as thin-skinned people who are prone to outbursts of anger.

But that doesn’t mean that we should always be calm and silent. Sometimes the outrages against Christ and His Church are so outrageous that it is time to take a strong and vocal stand. It takes wisdom to discern which path to take.

And keep in mind that if they mocked the Lord, they are going to mock you. It is unavoidable if you are going to follow Him. No servant is treated better than the Master. I remember I was at a gathering with my then-fiance. Somehow the conversation turned to contraception. I said that as a faithful Catholic, my wife and I would not be partaking. The sneers and incredulity were shocking to me. It took me by surprise how cavalier people were with throwing away other people’s religious convictions. As a theology teacher, I have been subject to some truly horrible jeers and taunts. I’ve even had my car vandalized by students. It comes with the territory.

You can read the whole article here.




Thursday, August 7, 2025

Film Review: The Naked Gun (2025)

 



Sexuality/Nudity (Im)Mature

Violence (Im)Mature

Vulgarity (Im)Mature

Anti-Catholic Philosophy (Im)Mature


I was and remain a huge fan of the Zucker/Abrams/Zucker style of comedy.  Few movies have made me laugh as much as Airplane! and The Naked Gun films.  It is an often imitated style that very rarely is able to capture the precise comedic recipe of those classics.

So how does the new Naked Gun hold up?

I would say that the first half had more laughs than most movies in the last decade.  But by the second half it was about half as funny.

The movie is a soft reboot of the original franchise.  Liam Neeson plays Frank Drebin Jr.  He and Ed Hocken Jr. (Paul Walter Hauser) are detectives at Police Squad.  While investigating a car crash, he come across the deceased's sister Beth (Pamela Anderson) and he runs afoul of a tech billionaire named Richard Cane (Danny Huston).  Frank then stumbles and bumbles his way into a high stakes confrontation.

Anyone who knows these types of movies understands that the plot is just the frame on which the jokes are molded.  And to be fair to all of the Naked Gun movies, they actually had fairly straightforward (though silly) plots.  The point of the story is to give you situations where you can make the audience laugh.

Writers Dan Gregor, Doug Mand, and writer/director Akiva Schaffer push incredibly hard in that first half.  The opening scene involves Frank infiltrating a bank robbery.  What follows is wonderful absurdity.  You can tell that they are making fun of the types of action films that Neeson has been making for the past fifteen years.  Humor is incredibly subjective, so I would understand if it is not to everyone's taste.  I like the goofy, non-sensical, meta humor that these types of films are known form.  The first joke of the movie is when one of the main villains (Kevin Durand) steel something from a safety deposit box that is literally called the "P.L.O.T. Device."  The movie spends time on Frank's body cam footage where he has diarrhea.  The movie also relies heavily on puns.  In one scene Beth says that she moved to Los Angeles for college.  Frank asks, "UCLA?"  She responds, "I see it every day.  I live here."

If these are not your type of jokes, then this movie may not be for you.

The movie also does one of the things I like in comedy which is the shotgun approach to joke telling.  There are so many jokes peppered throughout the movie, but upfront and in the background that the joke-to-runtime ratio is very high.  Most comedies now may have a big laugh every 10 minutes or so.  But I was laughing pretty consistently throughout most of the first act.  

The jokes also lack maturity and dignity.  When Frank is running his interior monologue about Beth's body, it is shockingly vulgar.  There is also a play on the Austin Powers shadow gag that is totally juvenille.  To say that the humor is scatological would be an understatement.  This is the type of humor that would make 10-year-old me laugh and it has the same effect today.  Again, this is not the type of movie that anyone would call refined, but that is the point.  But this isn't a movie for little kids.  There are too many jokes that are naughty in the same way as an episode of Benny Hill (for those to young to get that reference, ask your parents).

Neeson does a great job for the most part.  Leslie Nielson was at his funniest in these movies when he played Drebin with serious intesity.  When Neeson follows Nielson's example the jokes soar.  When Neeson tries to be funny, it takes a lot of the wind out of the sails.  Thankfully, he pushes hard on this character.  He has great chemistry with Anderson who also has better comedic instincts than I would have thought.  There is a scene where she has to do some jazz scatting that is wonderfully absurd and she totally commits to it.  I love Paul Walter Hauser in everything, but he understands that he is the straight man to Neeson and he does that role wonderfully.  Huston also understands his assignment to be the over-the-top bad guy and does so with the commitment we've seen him have in dramatic films.

Schaffer directs a lot of the scenes like an action movie, down to the camera angles and set lighting.  It doesn't look as much like a sitcom set as the original films did.  But there is an artificiality to the scenes that matches the lighter tone.

My biggest complaint about the movie is that it isn't able to sustain its high level of humor all the way through to the end.  I can actually pinpoint where things take a turn.  Just like in the original film, there is a romantic montage part way through the movie.  Unlike the first movie, this montage goes on way too long.  There is a reason that brevity is the soul of wit.  Some comedies think that they are funnier than they are and delay dismounting from a gag.  The same is true with this one.  The sequence goes on past its laughs.  And when that happens, when the audience has time to catch its breath and sit with a joke that isn't as funny, it sucks a lot of the energy out of the room.

That isn't to say that the second half of the movie isn't funny.  It is still funnier than most comedic films.  But there is a nagging sense of disappointment that it doesn't end the way it begins.  It isn't a fumble.  It's a strong first half, but a slow second half that still manages to stay ahead by the points.  (Although you should stay through the credits.  One of the joys of these movies are the silly things that they hide as the credits roll)

Sometimes you just want to go to the movies and feel the sweet release of uncontrollable laughter.  If this type of humor is up your alley, I would check it out.


Star rating 3.5 of 5.png