Here is a gift idea for the enthusiastic gamer this Christmas. My friend is a game designer. His love of puzzles and maps have led to the creation of an incredibly fun and challenging game. He is having a Christmas sale for his game Legend: A Game of Maps. He is giving away a FREE downloadable bonus game with every purchase during this holiday season. Each game is hand-crafted and is available at http://www.legendagameofmaps.com/
So the first full trailer for Captain Marvel has arrived.
Some people have complained about Brie Larson's slightly stilted performance. I cannot argue with that appearance, but others have also pointed out that the movie implies that she has had some heavy brainwashing.
The "noble warriors" line sounds cheesy, but I think in context it will work. We know from Guardians of the Galaxy that the Kree produced fanatics like Ronan. I think the story is going to show that Carol has been abducted into an elite killer force and has been brainwashed into thinking that she is on the side of the good guys. Her journey will be her slow awakening.
For the most part, the trailer is fine. It doesn't really pick up for me until the end. Like the teaser, the montage of her standing up for herself was visually powerful and I love the reveal of the full costume.
Overall, it doesn't have me super excited, but there is nothing in this trailer to turn me off to seeing the movie. Even if it turns out to be lesser Marvel, it looks like it will be an enjoyable time in the theater.
The main problem with this movie is not in its content but with its place in this film series.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindlewald is the second part of a 5-part story that began with 2016's Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. In that film, what seemed to be a diverting adventure into the bygone days of the Harry Potter universe has instead morphed into a deep dive into the mythology of the Wizarding World before the adventures of the Boy Who Lived.
Crimes of Grindlewald picks up about six months after the first movie. Grindlewald (Johnny Depp), escapes from his prison transport and seeks out Credence (Ezra Miller), who appeared to have died in the last film. Credence is the carrier of an immense dark power known as an Obscurus that Grindlewald wants to use for his own ends. Meanwhile our main hero Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), is being actively recruited in the fight against Grindlewald. At first the Ministry of Magic try to lure him under the influence of Newt's war-hero brother Theseus (Callum Turner), who is engaged to Newt's childhood love Leta Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz). The Ministry wants Newt's help in tracking down Credence and killing him. Newt balks at this, but then is approached by none other than Dumbledore (Jude Law), Newt's old teacher. Dumbledore is working apart from the Ministry and wants Newt to find Credence and save him. Newt is then met with a surprise visit from his friends from the last film: muggle (or NoMag) Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) and the mind-reading witch Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol). After a fight, Queenie goes to meet up with her sister Tina (Katherine Waterston) in Paris, which is where Credence was last sighted. This sets Newt and Jacob on their quest.
Director David Yates clearly loves the Wizarding World he has helped to create in cinematic form. He makes sure that everything in this world feels as tangible and lived-in as possible. One of the great charms of the Harry Potter mythos is that the magical world and the ordinary world exist side-by-side. If we could only pull back the veil a little, we could see the wonders around us. Yates does an excellent job of tying these two worlds together while keeping their aesthetics distinct. He also hasn't missed a trick with the camera and his ability to draw you in with dynamic action and beautiful vistas.
As I stated at the beginning, the main issue with this movie is the structure of the franchise itself. If this series were a trilogy, we would be much further along in important story points. But even after two movies, it still feels like we are only at the beginning. Towards the end of the film, we see a motley and unlikely crew of people assembled throughout the movie that we now recognize to be our main heroes going forward. But the movie ends before we can spend any real time with them as a group. It would be like if the Avengers only formed their team in the last 10 minutes of the movie.
The movie also gambles its emotional payout on Leta Lestrange. She is the center point of two love triangles and she carries with her a secret that is essential to the plot. Her arc is the most important emotional movement in the film and for me it just did not pay off like it should have. In addition to our returning characters, Crimes of Grindlewald also not only introduces us to Dumbledore, Theseus, and Leta, but also the following important characters:
-Yusef Kama (William Nadylam): a mysterious stranger to Paris with scars on his wrist who is also searching for Credence
-Nagini (Claudia Kim): a woman who has been cursed with the ability to transform into a mindless snake who will one day be unable to change back into her human form forever.
-Nicolas Flamel (Brontis Jodorowsky): an ancient alchemist who adds some nice comic moments.
They have to juggle all of these new characters while giving compelling arcs to Newt, Tina, Jacob, Queenie, Grindlewald, and Credence. There is simply not enough emotional breathing room to properly invest in Leta the way the story wants you to do. This makes the extra attention focused on her feel more like a diversion than an essential emotional tether. And because of this, you feel other storylines cut short. It feels very much like they cut much of Nagini's story from this film. That is a shame because Kim does an excellent job with the little screen time that she has and her slow-moving tragedy is something that I would loved to have explored in this film.
I have to take a moment to talk about Johnny Depp and his Grindlewald. I was assuming that his performance would default to something completely outrageous like we have seen from him in a number of his recent movies. I was so pleasantly surprised to see how grounded he made Grindlewald. From the beginning of the movie, we are warned how dangerous Grindlewald is in using his words to seduce people to the dark side. Most movies never quite deliver on this hype, but they do here. JK Rowling does a fantastic job of writing Grindlewald's dialogue in a way that makes us not only understand his point of view but almost agreeing with him. He speaks to the wizards and witches and asks them a simple question: why hide in shadow? Do we not have the right to live free to be ourselves? His words are so subtle in their prejudice that they border on genius. He says "Muggles are not lower than us, just other. They are not of less value, just different value." You can feel how the subtleties of shifting the language can create a mental shield against the conscience's repulsion to prejudice.
And that is why it is so disappointing that Rowling did not have the guts to completely commit to the character. What I mean is that she places too big of a stumbling block in front of you to let Grindlewald become an actual complex character. Earlier in the movie and at other parts Grindlewald kills with glee and coldly sanctions the killing of child. Rowling stacks the deck against any of his arguments because we have seen behind the veil and know he is a monster. But if she had held back just a little and let dangle the possibility that Grindlewald isn't a fake hero but a misguided hero, then she could have created one of the great screen villains of all time. But instead, they take the safer road of making clear that Grindlewald's seeming heroism is all a manipulative act. What a missed opportunity.
Despite the above criticisms, Crimes of Grindlewald is still an an enjoyable adventure. The characters of the first grow on you more. Newt's awkwardness has become more endearing. Tina's failing attempts at stoicism make us care about her and her relationship with Newt even more. Fogler still knocks it out of the park as Jacob and actually takes his character to some surprising emotional depths. Even characters that seemed flat in the first film like Queenie, are taken through a transformation. Miller is a problematic actor for me here because he makes Credence so unpleasant to look at that I never want to spend time with his character and his arc.
I honestly do not understand the flack that Rowling has received for having "lack of representation" in this movie. The cast and characters are incredibly diverse in ethnicity, age, and gender. Knowing that Dumbledore is gay, you can clearly see his lingering romantic feelings for Grindlewald. But the movie wisely chooses not to make it explicit so that the story is more accessible to children and families. Dumbledore says that he and Grindlewald were once "closer than brothers." There is nothing about that statement or anything presented that is in and of itself objectionable regarding Catholic moral theology.
Thematically, the movie makes clear that there is good and evil in the world and that we are all called to choose a side. This is especially difficult when there are those on the other side whom you care about. Nevertheless, sitting on the fence is an indulgence for when things are peaceful. This film is about our characters choosing their sides of the coming conflict.
Nothing about this movie turns me off to the series. It makes me want to see what happens next. The problem is that what happens next is what I expected to happen in this movie here.
That is the question that I have been wrestling with since I left the theater after seeing the Freddie Mercury biopic Bohemian Rhapsody. And make no mistake, this is not a Queen biopic so much as it is Mercury's story. While they all play important parts in the story, they are never more than bit players in this haunting musical narrative.
The movie begins with Freddie Mercury (Rami Malek) preparing for his reunion performance with his band mates at "Live Aid," a star-studded international concert meant to raise money for famine relief in Africa. In this beginning sequence, we never get a full shot of Mercury, but we are given lavish detail of his life and surroundings. He is surrounded by absolute opulence, but the wild herds of cats running through his empty home immediately set the main theme of loneliness we find in the rest of the film.
The story then flashes back to a young Freddie, still going by his birth name Farrokh Bulsara, is working as an airport baggage handler with big dreams. He approaches a band he admires after their lead singer has quit. The remaining members Brian May (Gwilym Lee) and Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy), decide to take a chance on the young singer after he shows them his incredible vocal range. This, of course, turns out to be a great choice as the band begins to take off. Along the way, Farrokh starts a relationship with the coed Mary (Lucy Boynton) and the band adds bassist John Deacon (Joe Mazzello). Together, they rise through the ranks and get "discovered by agent John Reid (Aidan Gillen). Reid's assistant Paul (Allen Leech), becomes more and more interwoven with the band's life, especially the no renamed Freddie Mercury. What follows is an often told tale of the struggle for fame and success only to have that same fame and success tear our heroes apart.
There are a number of things that sets Bohemian Rhapsody apart from other stories of excessive celebrity. The first thing is the screenplay by Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan. One of the problems that most movies based on real-life has is that there is often a struggle to organize the events of that life into a coherent narrative. There is often the understandable fear of taking too much dramatic license with real people and events. But the adjustments to the events and timeline for Bohemian Rhapsody serve to illuminate the subject rather than obscure him. This is one of the most humanely crafted portrayals of loneliness I have seen in a movie. This is especially the case when Mercury's homosexuality becomes prominent in his life. The screenwriters show us how Mercury desperately wanted a typical heterosexual life and romance, but his orientation made this impossible. He clings to Mary like a wife but they can never really give each other what they need. And so Mercury, having this void in his life, tries to fill this emptiness with illicit pleasures which only drag him further into the pit.
Malek is amazing at showing us Mercury's journey. He was smart enough not to do a full on impression of Mercury. Instead, he creates a general affectation and then lives out the character's inner most struggles on the screen. Like Mercury himself, Malek shows us the absolute thrill and confidence of a rock star while also showing us the wounded, broken heart underneath. In the movie's best scene, Freddie has just finished throwing a lavish party. One member of the waitstaff, (Aaron McCusker) is cleaning up while Mercury is at his piano. Mercury playfully gropes the man, which is an act of an entitled and powerful celebrity. The server turns to him and in no uncertain terms lets Mercury know that if he ever lays a hand on him again, Mercury will regret it. What follows is Mercury completely shedding the rock star persona and shrinking into an apologetic little boy asking for forgiveness. What Malek does here is show us that Mercury's over-the-top persona is his armor to shield the painfully lonely and shy boy who feels unloved and unaccepted. The scene is such a wonderful marriage of script and acting that this scene alone should earn Oscar nominations for acting and screenplay.
Another huge advantage this film has is the entire library of Queen songs at its disposal. It amazed me how, when placed in the right point in the narrative, how autobiographical the songs are to Mercury's life. Everyone has their favorite songs, but the film knows when to use them. At one the turning point of the third act, Mercury must make a sharp, life-changing decision. And playing "Under Pressure" only helps elevate his choice. When coming to the slow realization about his health, "Who Wants to Live Forever" gives just the right level of solemn sadness. And the way the concert scenes are shot makes you feel like you are not only in the massive crowd but you are on the stage receiving their overwhelming admiration. Director Bryan Singer was replaced by Dexter Fletcher, so I do not know who is responsible for this effect, but whoever it was, they have created one of the best concert movies I have seen. The film builds to the final "Live Aid" concert. The sequence goes on much longer than the end sequence of a film should. But I kept hoping that it wouldn't be cut short and that the songs would keep going. That is a testament not only to Queen's music but also to how much the filmmakers get you to invest in the characters.
The film does have its flaws. As stated at the beginning, the other members of the band feel like glorified extras. Their performances are fine, but they fade way into the background. The movie also likes to make fun of anyone who does not right-away recognize Queen's musical genius. Music producer Ray Foster (Mike Meyers) points out all the practical reasons why their album "A Night at the Opera" shouldn't work. And he's not wrong about that, since there really hasn't been an album like it. While he does lack vision, he is derided almost like a villain.
My biggest struggle with the film has to do with Mercury's journey. As he loses his connection to Mary, he darkens his soul by illicit sex, drugs, alcohol, and materialism. Visually, it actually begins to take on a feeling of descending into hell. At his breaking point, Mercury learns that losing yourself to random sex and addictive chemicals is wrong. In that sense, the movie does a good job of showing how this lifestyle is ultimately unappealing and wicked.
But he never completely climbs out. In this way it was very similar to my problem with Joseph Gordon Leavitt's Don Jon, in which a character who is addicted to pornography learns to abandon that empty pleasure. However in the main character in Don Jon replaces that sin with an illicit (but monogamous) sexual relationship. The same thing can be seen in Bohemian Rhapsody's Mercury who abandons the excesses that once had him, but he still ends up in an illicit (but monogamous) sexual relationship.
So do we admire Mercury for making it out of his darkest sins into the light of partial truth? Or do we pity him for never quite finding the fullness of redemption that is offered to all mankind? I am certainly not his judge. That was taken care of when Mercury stood before the Lord decades ago. Whether this change of heart was enough for God, I will leave that up to Him.
In the end, I left feeling stirred in my heart for Mercury. It wasn't that he was some kind of hero to be admired. I saw him as a man of loneliness who hungered so much for love that he sought it in so many of the wrong places. My heart broke for him and this feeling lingered long after the movie ended. And in an age where most movies leave your memory before you finish the car ride home, that is the best compliment I can give Bohemian Rhapsody.
In my last article, I wrote about 7 reasons for an all-male priesthood. The teaching is very clear, but there are still many people, perhaps even with firm commitments to the spirit of fairness, that do not understand or accept the Church’s teaching. As always, we are called to be strong in the truth of Divine Revelation while patiently giving clear instruction.
This essay will not be a rehash of last week’s article. But I did want to add one more element to the discussion. I reserved this one for a separate article, because it is a bit more on the speculative side on my part. I have been playing around with this idea for a while. And while there is some thought here that is rooted in the Sacred Tradition, I did not want to add this line of thought to the much more solid reasoning of the last article.
One of the reasons, I believe, that Christ made sure to reserve priesthood only for men was to remind of a great natural and supernatural truth: men and women are different.
