New Evangelizers Post: Good Popes and True Popes

                                                 

 

I have a new article up at NewEvangelizers.com.  

In my last article, I tackled the subject of Papal Infallibility.

But today I wanted to look into the subject of Papal Fallibility.

Is a bad pope no longer a true pope?

By “true” I do not mean “having pure and good intention.” By “true,” I mean “having legitimate authority as the Successor to St. Peter.”

To be candid, I grew up under the papacy of Pope St. John Paul II. This was a great privilege. For decades our Church was shepherded by a man who was immanently wise, immanently good, and immanently holy. We could take it for granted that the flock of Jesus was in good hands.

That isn’t to say that he was without his detractors. I remember when he was named Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year,” and someone commented: “‘Man of the Year?’ Not if you’re a woman!” This comment was directed at the Holy Father’s defense of unborn life and his reassertion that the Church as no power to ordain women.

His successors also were sometimes met with harsh criticism. After Pope Benedict XVI was elected I mentioned to a fellow Catholic about my affection for him. Her response was, “It was like we were praying for bread and we got a stone!” Netflix even made a movie called The Two Popes which apparently paints Pope Benedict XVI as an angry and resentful authoritarian. Pope Francis himself has been labeled a communist by those who dislike him and his social policies.

I bring this up because I’ve noticed some people, particularly on social media, who are saying that our current Holy Father is not a true pope.

Now, criticizing the pope is not something to take lightly. That isn’t to say that popes throughout history were perfect and without the need for correction. St. Catherine of Sienna famously remonstrated Pope Benedict XI into leaving the luxurious courts of Avignon to return to Rome. St. Francis of Assisi also criticized the worldly excesses of the Holy Father and the Cardinals. And if you go all the way back to the Scriptures, St. Paul publicly criticized St. Peter at Antioch for giving scandal to the Gentiles.

So the pope is not immune to critique. But to say that the pope is not a “true pope” is wrong. As Professor Edward Feser recently wrote: “Too many are hypnotized by the false conditional ‘X is a true pope only if X is a good pope.’”

I brought up Pope St. John Paul II earlier because he was such a unique and transformative presence of Christ in the papacy. That has not always been the case throughout our history. In the past we have had many bad popes, some of which I mentioned in my previous article. Another example would be Pope John XII, who died while engaged in the middle of adultery with a married woman. You could also look at Pope Urban VI who had some of his cardinals tortured and executed. But just because they were bad popes, it does not mean that they were not true popes. I don’t want to say that Pope St. John Paul II was the exception. But Catholics throughout the centuries have had to live under popes that were not good and holy men. If that has happened before in the Catholic Church, there is no reason to think that it cannot happen again.

But the Holy Father is the head of the Church and his office is to be respected as such. In the same way, if any priest falls into sin, he is still a priest and his office must be respected as such. Or a simpler example would be this: if I cheat on my wife, I am a bad husband. There can be no question about that. But the act of cheating on my wife does automatically end my marriage. Even though I am a bad husband, I am still a true husband, not a false husband.

So what do we do if at some time we have a “bad pope?”

You can read the whole article here.

Film Review: Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

 

Sexuality/Nudity Acceptable

Violence Acceptable
Vulgarity Acceptable

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Acceptable

Indiana Jones has been a part of my cinematic life for as long as I can remember.  To this day, Last Crusade is the greatest adventure movie ever made.  Even though Temple of Doom has some issues, the movie is so iconic that it overcomes those flaws.  Kingdom of the Crystal Skull actually did incredible damage to the brand.  And seeing how Disney has abused all of the Lucasfilm properties, I went into this final movie expecting the worst.

But Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is a movie that feels like it could have been great with just a few adjustments.

The movie begins with an extended flashback to the end of World War II as a de-aged Harrison Ford plays Indiana Jones as he and his partner Basil Shaw (Tobe Jones) are trying to stop the Nazis from carrying away historical treasures.  One of these Nazis is Dr. Voller (Mads Mikkelson) who has found half of Archimedes' Dial.  Through the adventure Voller loses the Dial.  Years later in 1969, an aging, grumpy, and retiring Dr. Jones encounters Basil's daughter Helena (Phoebe Waller-Bridge), who is looking for the half of the dial.  However, Voller's henchmen begin to close in, which sets off a race to find the rest of the dial and save the world.

I will give director James Mangold a lot of credit for the look of the movie.  Whenever I think of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I always go back to the artificiality of the digital jungle scenes.  Sometime about those sequences feels so cartoonish and fake.  Mangold seems to use real locations when possible.  This especially makes the danger feel more tangible and real.

And to Mangold's credit, the first 15 minutes feel like something out of any classic Indy adventure.  This opening is filled with the excitment and absurdity that you would expect to find in anything directed by Steven Spielberg.  

The movie has two major issues.

The first is that Lucasfilm once again takes a classic hero and makes him a sad, broken, lonley man.  Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Willow have all gotten the exact same treatment.  This robs a good deal of the usual joy of an Indy adventure.  SPOILER FOR THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH, SKIP AHEAD IF YOU DO NOT WANT SPOILERS.  This would be fine if the story was about Indy returning to a life of adventure.  But his character arc is flat.  He is so passive in the end that I can understand by those who hated Indy's actions.

END SPOILERS

The second problem is Waller-Bridge.  Throughout most of the movie, I wanted to wipe her smug smirk off her face.  She constantly mugs with a grin of unearned superiority.  When she tries to play charming, she comes off as insufferable.  It is only in the last act when she begins the play the part with sincerity that she is likeable.  I can think of several other actresses who would have been a better fit.  If Waller-Bridge is unpallatable to you, then you will find the movie a bear to watch.

Much of the two problems could have been ameliorated by some writing adjustments.  All indications are that this script was re-written several times, so it lacks a strong cohesion.  But Helena's part could have been toned down and Indy's agency could have been toned up.  It isn't a complete inversion (there are several times when Indy gets the better of her), but it feels like this story needed a stronger hand.

For example, Antonio Banderas plays an old friend of Indy named Renaldo.  Perhaps I am wrong, but it feels like his part was much bigger originally, but his story was eventually cut.  But even if I am wrong, it feels like such a waste of a talent like Banderas to reduce him to a glorified cameo.

Ford plays Indy well in terms of the script he is given.  But Old Indy lacks that devilish twinkle.  It is a credit to Ford that even at his age, his charisma carries much of the screen action.  Mikkelsen plays his part with good intelligent menace.  I like how they set him up in the beginning like an antithesis to Indy both in look and smarts.  Boyd Holbrook plays Mikkelsen's main enforcer.  He does his job well, but the script doesn't give him much to do but be hate-able.  Helena has a sidekick named Teddy played by Ethann Isidore, who is essentially a retread of Short Round.  But Isidore lacks the range and charisma necessary for the part and so suffers by comparison.

I will give the story credit for taking the subject of death seriously.  Indy seems truly horrified by the innocents that are killed around him.  In one of the most wonderfully jarring scenes, Helena revels in a daring escape, but Indy has to remind her about the murdered people left behind.  I've noticed lately that a lot of action movies are blasé about the collateral damage around them.  It was actually strangely touching to see the deaths of side characters treated with sensitivity.  

As I said, the first act is excellent.  The final act is also very good.  It is the middle part where Helena is most prominent that the story drags.  Like a lot of recent movies, the action sequences go on just a little bit too long.  Having said that, the staging of these scenes is generally good.  The scene where Indy is riding a horse through the subway is actually incredibly fun.  The rise of the classic John Williams score helps elevate a number of scenes as well.  But it is clear that a half-an-hour could have been removed from this movie easily. 

By comparison, Dial of Destiny is better than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and it ends the series on a slightly sweet note.  

But if you cannot stand Waller-Bridge or Indy's choices, then you will find the experience to be sour.

Film Review: No Hard Feelings

 

Sexuality/Nudity Objectionable

Violence Acceptable
Vulgarity Objectionable

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Objectionable

I am not someone who is easily offended by raunchy humor.  I don't say this as a brag.  In fact, it may be a personal defect.  I love movies like Ted and The 40-Year-Old Virgin.  But vulgarity for its own sake is not funny.  There has to be real wit and humor underneath.  And even if this is the case, there can come a tipping point where the increase in vulgarity brings a diminishing return.  Judd Apatow made this point when he said that you have to be careful when parodying pornography because it too easily slips into becoming pornography.

I bring this up to explain my thoughts on No Hard Feelings.

Maddie (Jennifer Lawrence) is a working class resident of Montauk, who is trying to make ends meet by being an Uber driver for the rich people who summer there.  But she is in danger of losing her house and her car gets repossessed.  However, she answers an ad from a rich couple (Matthew Broderick and Laura Benanti) who have a 19-year-old son named Percy (Andrew Barth Feldman) who has just graduated high school and is set to go to Princeton.  However, because of his parents' constant coddling, he is completely unprepared for the social dimension of college.  This couple hires Maddie to "date" Percy to get him out of his shell and in return she will get a car.

The premise, while gross, is actually fertile ground for comedy.

The best thing about this movie are the performances by Lawrence and Feldman.  This is the first time I really saw Lawrence stretch her comedic chops and she was fantastic.  Her Maddie is aggressive, rude, vile, lustful, and greedy.  But Lawrence's charisma and good humor makes us follow Maddie's journey.  She is strong and quick-witted and Lawrence lets us see a little bit of the vulnerability underneath it all.  Feldman does a wonderful job playing the man-child, where everything in the adult world terrifies him.  The way he jumped at the unexpected sound of billiard balls breaking made me laugh out loud.  The chemistry that these two have is at the heart of the movie.  They play off of each other because they are both mature and immature in opposite ways.  She is too reckless and he is too cautious.  

The movie works best when the Gene Stupnitsky really uses the visuals to sell the gags.  When Maddie first appears at Percy's work to seduce him, she enters the frame like a horror movie villain.  She later gives Percy a ride and Stupintsky films the sequence from Percy's paranoid perspective where he thinks he is being kidnapped, with the sketchy van and everything.  There is also an hysterical sequence involving a train that is insane and an hilarious at the same time.  The movie also works well when it takes pot-shots at modern society and its weird phobias and sensitivities.

The script is only sporadically witty.  There are some genuinely funny lines.  When Maddie entices Percy to come skinny dipping in the ocean he asks "Isn't this how Jaws started?"  That line had me laughing for way longer than anyone in the theater because it was exactly what I was thinking.  Unfortunately, the humor is not consistent.  There are several other unfunny bits like Maddie trying to get up steps in rollerblades or banter with her unfunny married friends Sara (Natalie Morales) and Jim (Scott MacArthur).  

Often it feels like the script when through so many revisions that characters and threads were lost.  Zahn McClarnon has a small part as her friend and lawyer who appears in two short scenes in the first act and then never comes back again.  Amalia Yoo also shows up as a classmate of Percy but exits without another mention soon after two scenes.  There seems to be a lack of strong set up and payoff.

But the real problem with the movie is that it delves too deeply into the vulgarity.  There is an extended scene of graphic nudity that was completely unnecessary.  With a little creativity you could have had the comedic effect without the vulgarity.  In addition, the story pushes a few too many immoral buttons.  It is true that there is character growth on the part of both characters, but they don't develop far enough.

This is a shame, because with a little restraint and tweaking, this could have been the funniest movie of the year.  Unfortunately, they rely too much on shock than humor.

The Declaration of Independence - 247 Years Ago Today

   (most of the text below is a repost from last year)

Below is the entire text of the Declaration of Independence.  I believe it to be one of the most

audacious and revolutionary documents in history (pun in intended).

I have always loved my country.  But as a philosopher one of the things that I marvel 

at is that  the United States is a country built on an idea.

 Ideas matter.

Freedom is in our nature.  No tyrant, no government can take that away.

I encourage you to read the entire text below on this birthday of our nation.  Particularly, I am struck by the last line:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,  we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Those who wrote their names on that document held up as collateral for the investment in our freedom:

1.  Their Lives.  I am humbled when I remember that so many gave much more than I will
ever give so that people like me could live free.  The only way we can hold onto our freedom is if men and women are willing to pay the ultimate price.  Too often tyrants, both fearsome and soft-spoken, try to snatch away our freedom.  They depend on us to lay down our resistance and give in.  We must never do so.  The Founding Fathers gave us that pledge.

2.  Their Fortunes.  I will likely never see combat.  But how do I spend my money to
ensure freedom?  Do I take care of our wounded warriors?  Do I support laws and
representatives I believe in with my capital?  And do I take payments from those who
would make me dependent?  This pervasive bribery must lead inexorably to subtle slavery.

3.  Their Sacred Honor.  Do we even believe in honor anymore today?  Does our name mean anything?  In A Man for All Seasons, when asked why he would not take an oath of

loyalty to Henry VIII, Thomas More said, "When a man takes an oath, 
he’s holding his own self in his hands. Like water.  And if he 
opens his fingers then — he needn’t hope to find himself again." 
 We are free and we must stand by our commitments. 
 Otherwise who we are, our name, means nothing.  

These great men signed their names to this document. 
 For each of them it may have been a death sentence.
  But they signed it nevertheless.  They their day they
 took a stand against tyranny and stood for freedom.

In their day they stood as men.

Today they stand as giants.

And the challenge of today is this: could we stand with them?

Do we have what it takes to be the patriots at Valley Forge or the resistance at Boston Harbor?  Does that same noble spirit of freedom stir in us?

Or do we stand with those who try to tear down their memory to only have us remember their faults and failings and not the fact that they gave us the greatest nation that the world has ever known?

Perhaps reading this document again will renew and refresh the spirit of liberty.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
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 every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

---

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1

Georgia:

   Button Gwinnett

   Lyman Hall

   George Walton

Column 2

North Carolina:

   William Hooper

   Joseph Hewes

   John Penn

South Carolina:

   Edward Rutledge

   Thomas Heyward, Jr.

   Thomas Lynch, Jr.

   Arthur Middleton

Column 3

Massachusetts:

John Hancock

Maryland:

Samuel Chase

William Paca

Thomas Stone

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:

George Wythe

Richard Henry Lee

Thomas Jefferson

Benjamin Harrison

Thomas Nelson, Jr.

Francis Lightfoot Lee

Carter Braxton

Column 4

Pennsylvania:

   Robert Morris

   Benjamin Rush

   Benjamin Franklin

   John Morton

   George Clymer

   James Smith

   George Taylor

   James Wilson

   George Ross

Delaware:

   Caesar Rodney

   George Read

   Thomas McKean

Column 5

New York:

   William Floyd

   Philip Livingston

   Francis Lewis

   Lewis Morris

New Jersey:

   Richard Stockton

   John Witherspoon

   Francis Hopkinson

   John Hart

   Abraham Clark

Column 6

New Hampshire:

   Josiah Bartlett

   William Whipple

Massachusetts:

   Samuel Adams

   John Adams

   Robert Treat Paine

   Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:

   Stephen Hopkins

   William Ellery

Connecticut:

   Roger Sherman

   Samuel Huntington

   William Williams

   Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire:

   Matthew Thornton

Sunday Best: July 4th Movies 2023

  (repost)

On this weekend before Independence Day, I thought we'd take a moment to look at movies that instill in us a sense of patriotism.

Right now, there is a great deal of strife that divides us.  But we are Americans and united we stand, divided we fall.  No nation is without sin.  But Independence Day should be a time to focus on what brings us all together and the ideals to which we strive.

These films are not necessarily about valor on the battlefield.  They are movies that remind us of American exceptionalism and how we live in the greatest country in the history of the world.


Captain America: The First Avenger

Some say that this movie is cheesy.  I say it captures a less cynical time in our culture.  Steve Rogers is the perfect embodiment of America.  He doesn't see himself as above anyone (I'm just a kid from Brooklyn), he always seeks to do more, and he lays down his life for the freedom of others.  I still get excited when I hear that Captain America theme as he and the soldiers he rescues come over the hill.


1776

Yes, there are a lot of fictionalized characterizations in this musical.  But you will be struck by the vision and genius of our founding fathers and how they put into words the necessity of a new nation.

Hamilton

While this story goes beyond our fight for Independence, the first act shows us how integral the ideals of freedom were to our founding fathers.  These men shaped not only their times, but ours as well.  Seen through the life of Alexander Hamilton, we can see so many facets of this flawed but brilliant man's life and how each our stories help shape history.

Glory

There are some movies that seem more patriotic than they are (Rocky IV) and there are others that are more patriotic than they seem.  Glory is the latter.  It seems like its about how horribly treated the first black regiment in the Union army was treated.  There is even a long dialogue about one of the main characters is so disgusted with America that he doesn't want to carry the flag.  But all of that is overwhelmed by watching the flag raised and rally the soldiers to battle.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

There is a lot of genius in this film.  Some look at it as too simplistic.  But watch it again and you will see the corruption and cynicism surrounding Jefferson Smith, even by his "friends."  And yet this movie is about standing up for what is right and making a difference and show what real statesmanship looks like.

American Sniper

Not only is this a harrowing account of war and valor, but it is a movie that will remind you that in the modern age, America is still a country worth fighting for.  Though we have our problems and our soldiers are not saints, there is an unsleeping evil in the world from which we are only protected by our soldiers.  It is a reminder that we have a debt to those who fight to keep us safe.

Apollo 13

I can understand people being cynical about the moon race in retrospect.  And just when that cynicism was sinking in, NASA had to deal with their greatest space crisis.  It is a movie about American ingenuity, determination, and ambition.  It will make you feel pride in what we are able to do.

Stripes
(TV version edited for content)

I dare anyone to listen to that theme and not feel more American.  Yes, in the post-Vietnam era there is a lot of humor directed at the military, but ultimately the movie is a love letter to our soldiers.  And I love Bill Murray's amazing performance as he delivers his "America" speech.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

This movie makes you appreciate the safety and freedom we enjoy in America and appreciate them those who put themselves into harm's way for

Hacksaw Ridge



One of the great things about this movie is the unquestioning patriotism of its characters.  Desmond Doss does not deny the righteousness of his country's cause.  And he wants to serve as best as his conscience will allow him.  Mel Gibson does a fantastic job of showing the horror of war without any romance or glamour while at the same time showing the soldiers with all of their righteousness and valor.  It also has a great intersection of faith an patriotism that doesn't equate the two but shows how each can benefit from the other.

Lincoln

I dare anyone to watch this movie and not be in awe of this great man.  Here we see the battle over slavery fought not only on the battlefield and in the political arena, but in the hearts and minds of men and women.  This is one of Spielberg's best movie in years with a performance by Daniel Day-Lewis that is for the ages.  There is something so quintessentially American about how Lincoln is portrayed.  There is no attempt to deconstruct him, but the is show with all of his flaws.  And through this, he pushes against seemingly impossible odds to remind us that in this land of freedom and opportunity, we are called to guarantee the same to all of its people.  That is the promise of America.

Thoughts?

Film Flash: Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

   

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

Better than Crystal Skull, but many will feel that Indy got The Last Jedi treatment.

Film Flash: No Hard Feelings

  

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

Sporadically funny with some moments of comic excellence, but too explicit to recommend