I am a man of simple tastes. I don't need every comic story to be Watchmen or Doomsday Clock.
Sometimes I just want to see some bloody mayhem.
And that is what I got with Predator vs. Wolverine.
While it comes with a hefty price tag for a floppy ($7.99), it was much more entertaining that most of the comics I have read lately. Also, at 48 pages it gives you your money's worth.
The story begins with a horribly beaten Wolverine being chased by a Predator. Logan is definitely on the ropes and it looks like he could be outmatched. We then spend most of the time in a flashback to 1900 Alaska. A young Logan is eking out an existence of the harsh wilderness. In the meantime, a Predator makes his way to the same territory for some hunting. There are some great shots of the Predator going after some of the while life, including an orca.
But sure enough, Logan finds himself on a collision course with this being and the two are more evenly matched than they realized, causing some brutal carnage along the way.
I enjoyed the simplicity of this story. Writer Benjamin Percy is not trying to do anything too pretentious. There are moments where Logan pontificates on the encroaching settlers and their "civilization." But this does not detract from the intensity of the story. The main artist for this issue is Greg Land and he does an excellent job of giving us a harrowing setting for this battle in the snow. Mixed up in the elements, the landscape only serves to emphasize the brutality the way the jungle did in the original movie. Watching Logan and the Predator claw at each other felt like some wonderful fan-fiction match up in the best possible sense. You can feel the visceral thrill of the wild slashing of their claws and blades.
Percy knows not to linger too much. He also understands one of the key ideas in a Predator story is that you not only have to be strong, but ultimately you have to outwit the Predator. If you don't there will be consequences.
Again, this isn't anything terribly ground-breaking, but I have still been thinking about the story for the last few days. I thought this was a one-shot, but the book ends on a cliff-hanger which teases an even better story in the next issue.
I happen to know the story behind this movie and I am so happy that they have finally turned it into a film.
One Life is the story of Sir Nicholas Winton. Right before the German occupation of Czecolavaki, Winton organized a gigantic effort to relocate hundreds of Jewish children as refugees to escape the holocoast. The story seems to be told in flashback, as Winton spent most of his years with his amazingly heroic efforts going unrecognized.
Not only does this movie look as though it will inspiring and harrowing, I love the dilogue I heard. There is a part where someone says to a younger Winton that he has a lot of faith in the common man. His response is, "I am a common man." This hit me very hard because of how the film seems to be promoting this noble idea: the common man is capable of uncommon heroism.
Readers of this blog will know that I am a great fan of Kenneth Branagh, both as an actor and director. Yes, he can do truly horrible work (e.g. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein), but most of his movies are delightful.
I have especially enjoyed his Poirot series of mysteries, bringing the Agatha Christi hero to life. Having not read her books, each movie is a delightful whodunit. The first, Murder on the Orient Express was a fantastic guessing game until the end. Death on the Nile had a lot more flaws and felt a lot more artificial, but it was still enjoyable.
This brings us to his third entry: A Haunting in Venice.
Poirot (Branagh) has become a kind of hermit living in Venice. He is weary of the world and its darkness, having looked into the minds of murderers for too long. Because of his celebrity, people keep pestering him for help, but they are kept at arms length by his bodyguard Vitale (Riccardo Scamarcio). But one day, an old friend named Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey) comes calling. She is an old friend of Poirot's and is a famous mystery writer. She appeals to their friendship for her help: she wants to debunk a psychic named Reynolds (Michelle Yeoh), but she hasn't been able to find her trick. She begs Poirot to come to a seance on Halloween night and spot the fake at a house that is said to be haunted.
Our hero agrees. At the home we have a mix of colorful characters:
-Rowena Drake (Kelly Reilly): the owner of the home who calls for the seance to contact her deceased daughter
-Dr. Leslie Ferrier (Jamie Dornan): a doctor with severe PTSD who was personal physician to Rowena's daughter.
-Olga Seminoff (Camille Cottin): the devoutly Catholic maid to Rowena.
-Leopold Ferrier (Jude Hill): Leslie's young son who is precocious and serious about the ghosts in the house.
-Max Gerard (Kyle Allen): Rowena's former chef and former fiancé to her deceased daughter.
The story begins as a curious bit of sleuthing as Poirot confronts Reynolds as a fake, but she calmly professes her powers. However, things take a turn when there is a murder. Poirot locks everyone into the house and uses every ounce of his deductive power to find the killer, even when he sees and hears things he knows cannot be real.
As a murder mystery, the story is a great deal of fun. I always think that a good detective story is one where the clues are laid out, but not obvious. If you really work at it, you can figure out the killer. It should be too easy or too impossible. A Haunting in Venice, skirts just the right line. I remember I picked up on a big clue early on, but I couldn't figure out what it meant. As the story began to unfold, the pieces fell into place.
What separates this movie from the previous two is the Branagh films this much more like a classic horror movie than an Agatha Christi mystery. Jumps scares abound through the film. The constant looming shadows and creepy corners give the movie a wonderfully claustrophobic feeling that injects something fresh into the series. Also, his last Poirot movie, Death on the Nile, was hindered by an abundance of CGI. In this movie, Venice feels very tangible, like you stepped out of a time machine and the city is displayed in all of its beauty and horror.
Branagh loves pulling together an eclectic cast for his movies and he tends to get excellent performances. As Poirot, Branagh is once again fantastic. He shows us how the detective is worn down by the world and how his powers of deduction can almost be a hindrance. His constant exposure to lies and untruth have robbed him of his faith in God and humanity.
I think Tina Fey was born a few decades too late. I recognize her talent, but I'm generally not a fan of hers. But she is pitch perfect for the post-WWII era "His Girl Friday" type roll. Dornan does a good job portraying the haunted look of a someone who witnessed the atrocities of war. Hill is wonderfully endearing and creepy, portraying both childlike devotion and inscrutability. Cottin's Olga could have been a one-note religious fanatic, but her fervor comes from a place of real humanity. Even the foppish Allen brings dimension to his character. Both Reilly and Yeoh play their parts well. And there is something percolating under Scarmarcio's calm demeanor. All of this leads to a cauldron of tension that boils over.
An added grace of the movie is that it explores the mystery of spirits and the afterlife. Every one of the characters comes at the question from a different angle and so you get some wonderfully contrary perspectives that push the personalities and conflicts forward. The movie isn't about "mystery," its about "Mystery." This has to be deftly handled and not too heavy-handed. Branagh does a good job with the balance, letting every character have their say and letting the audience decide for themselves who is in the right. But this also makes the movie not just a hunt for a killer, but a question of Poirot's soul: will he find faith again?
Bottom line, if you enjoyed the last two entries in this series, you will enjoy A Haunting in Venice. It is better than the last film and is a satisfying thriller.
I haven’t written in the past about Catholic morality and voting.
Because candidates and political parties are not perfect, you are morally permitted to vote for someone who may not uphold Catholic morals well. For example, if one candidate supports abortion but the other candidate supports the use of torture, bot candidates support intrinsic evil. You are permitted to vote for one over the other if you believe the greater evil will be avoided. However, there is a very important condition placed on this:
You cannot vote FOR the evil.
Let me put it another way. I’ve spoken with Catholics who vote for pro-abortion candidates for public office. Sometimes they say to me that the reason for the vote is that the overall greater good will be achieved. This person may believe that creating a more stable economy (for example) would lead to an overall decrease in abortions. While I find this thinking flawed, there is moral elbow-room in Catholic teaching for this way of thinking. A person may vote this way and still not incur sin upon themselves.
However, if the Catholic says, “I am voting for this candidate because he or she is pro-abortion,” then this is a different case.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of faith made this point very clear:
It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility toward the common good.(Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life,no.4)
In other words, while you can vote for flawed candidates in spite of their flaws, you cannot vote for them because of those flaws.
If you vote for a candidate because they promote a moral evil like abortion, then you incur sin upon yourself.
This goes beyond the candidates and goes towards direct voting. In my home state, we are preparing to vote on a constitutional amendment that would enshrine abortion as a fundamental right. This would make the killing of the unborn legal at all stages of development without restriction.
Every Catholic is obligated to not vote for this in our state. If a Catholic were to vote for this amendment, then they would be incurring sin.
If the law was a way to mitigate an already existing evil, it would be morally permissible. For example, if abortion was already fully legal for any reason and a proposed amendment would make it legal only in the first trimester, then this would be morally acceptable to choose. The reason is that while abortion in the first trimester is still evil, this amendment would be a first step away from the greater evil into the greater good.
I know that Warner Bros. has essentially given up on this movie. And since their last to big-budget movies did not do so well, I can almost understand why.
But I kind of dig this trailer. I liked the first Aquaman and I like that this movie is moving further with the complicated relationship that Arthur has with his brother. I also like that Black Manta is now front and center. I am very nervous if they are going to follow the comic story regarding Arthur's son. It would be a good story, but it would be devastating.
All I want from this movie is a fun adventure. And Jason Momoa can still deliver.
_poster.jpg)
.png)
