review of HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY
by Diana Taibi
starring Ron Perlman and Selma Blair
directed by Guillermo del Toro
Rated PG-13

“The movie’s in theme is… in favor of saying, the most mundane things, the most mundane concerns, are destroying beauty, and they’re destroying spirituality, and they’re destroying ideas, and they’re destroying magic… It’s a film about how we can forget anything sublime when we are worried about the most boring, mundane, and frankly, forgettable things” - Guillermo del Toro, Hellboy II audio commentary

Although hopes are often low for sequels, the second installments of many comic-book franchises have really been delivering in recent years. These films have added complex social themes (X2: X-men United), been co-written by a Pulitzer-winning author ( Spiderman 2), and generated Oscar buzz (The Dark Knight). Add to this list of sophomore successes Hellboy II: the Golden Army, a visually gorgeous and emotionally engaging sequel to 2004’s Hellboy.

The Hellboy series is an adaptation of Mike Mignola’s comic series about a demon who is adopted by Americans and grows up to work for a secret government agency that fights paranormal threats. Hellboy’s on-screen character is quirky: emotionally adolescent and sarcastic, with a soft spot for kittens and a Right Hand of Doom. The film starts with a young Hellboy being told a childhood story about the Golden Army, an indestructible mechanical force created by goblins for the elves during a war with humans. The decimation of the humans was so terrible that the King of the Elves became remorseful and made a truce, retiring the Golden Army to dormancy and dividing the crown that controlled the army. The story then resumes in the present, with the elf king’s son, Prince Nuada, seeking to reunite the pieces of the crown to raise the Golden Army and destroy humanity for their irresponsible destruction of the earth and their selfishness. As the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD) pursues Nuada, various character plots are developed. Hellboy has relationship troubles with his pyrokinetic girlfriend (Liz Sherman) over his immaturity. Cerebral BPRD member Abe Sapien becomes a fool for love over Nuada’s sister, Princess Nuala. And tensions develop over the addition of an autocratic new team leader, ectoplasmic Johann Krauss. At the climax, the team and Hellboy confront Prince Nuada over control of the army and the fate of humankind.

Hellboy II is an exciting and enjoyable film. It starts off grabbing your attention, having an advantage over the first film of not needing to exposit Hellboy’s remarkably silly origin story (Hellboy was summoned to Earth by Rasputin for the Nazis). Hellboy II is not perfect; there’s a slightly out-of-place (though funny) bromantic scene with Hellboy and Abe singing Barry Manilow, and the film seems to border on preachiness about mankind’s impact on the environment (though del Toro claims that his intention was not to comment on environmentalism). But these are all just minor missteps. The film is dense with visuals, action, and character development. The scenes are stunning, as we have come to expect from director Guillermo del Toro. Scenes I especially enjoyed re-watching on the DVD included the animated opening sequence in which the story of the Golden Army is told as well as a later scene in which Hellboy meets the Angel of Death. The film also has elaborate action sequences that are stepped up a notch from the first movie. In particular, Prince Nuada’s elegant swordsmanship stands out among the movie’s action visuals.

The real strength of this film is the characters’ personal story arcs. Each of the main characters must make a major decision that will change his or her future. Some are fairly standard (e.g., uptight Kraus must learn to loosen up) while others are surprisingly moving for an action film. It is touching and amusing to see Abe Sapien lose all composure as he is smitten with Princess Nuala and has no idea how to deal with his feelings for her. Even the villain, Prince Nuada, is a sympathetic and tragic character. The audience feels the pain of his outrage over the destruction of the earth and irresponsibility of humankind, even as we hope for the thwarting of his attempt to destroy humanity. The central character story, however, is Hellboy’s decision as to whether or not he will, in essence, grow up. We learn early in the film that Liz is pregnant. She does not tell Hellboy, instead pressing him first for evidence that he will become a responsible man who would make a good father and long-term partner. Late in the film, the interaction of the couple is moving, particularly when Hellboy realizes that he is taking on the mantle of his own father.

Although the audience might be inclined to compare Hellboy II to del Toro’s previous commercial action films (Mimic, Blade II), the development of Hellboy’s character in this film is emotionally more a sequel to his gothic fantasy-drama films. In the audio commentary, del Toro says (several times) that this is among the favorites of his own movies, along with Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone. Thematically, I find Hellboy II similar to Pan’s Labyrinth, but also Cronos. In these earlier films, central themes address the bond between the child and adult, the mother in Pan’s Labyrinth and the grandfather in Cronos. Even when the adult cannot protect the child, the unconditional love between the two nurtures and inspires courage in the child amidst chaos and fear. In the audio commentary of Cronos, del Toro reports modeling the child-grandfather relationship on his own relationship with his grandmother. A personal tenderness is evident in both films. In Hellboy II, we see the next step: moving past one’s own childhood and immaturity to take on the mantle of nurturer and protector.

This movie, as much of popular culture, falls short of God’s (and thus the Christian’s) ideal, particularly establishing family within the bond of marriage (Genesis 2:24). However, the struggles presented are poignant from the perspective of living in a fallen world. Like Hellboy, will we remain in a protracted spiritual and relational adolescence or take on the struggles our own Heavenly Father has given to us (1 Corinthians 13:11)? How deeply do we love others, not just those closest to us, and what are we willing to give for this love (John 15:13)? In this sense, Hellboy II is more than just an action movie, it is a film about people and the deep emotions that create connectedness. On the other hand, the romantic relationships tend toward idolatry as more than one character is willing to sacrifice the entire world to save a loved one. Del Toro intends these decisions to represent flawed, “human” choices. Indeed, as we love deeply, we must be vigilant for the risk that we will worship the gift (the beloved) and not the giver (our Heavenly Father) (e.g., Matthew 10:37).

The film also touches upon a transcendent theme of lost contact with things that are spiritual and beautiful. Connecting with personal love is only part of this issue. Hellboy II shows a re-enchanted world; that is, a mundane modern world in which the spiritual and magical have reemerged. We see these trends in our own society, through people who state they are “spiritual” but not religious, increased interest in the occult, and even angel worship. Our world is hungry for the supernatural and for eternal, magical beauty. Del Toro states in the commentary that he intended for the audience to contemplate what humans are sacrificing- that is, the spiritual, beautiful, and natural things of the world- to support our mundane, banal daily routines. As Christians, we reject occult spirituality (Acts 19:19-20), but should definitely consider to what extent our daily routines supplant our connection with the beauty of our Heavenly Father and our role as good stewards of His creation. If a comic-book movie can summon beauty and meaning, how much more can the word of God and the love of Christ change our hearts, if we lift our eyes from the mundane and seek Him?



review of MAX PAYNE
by Elliot Strong
starring Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis
directed by John Moore
Rated PG-13 for violence, language, disturbing images


First off, let me get one item of business out of the way: I have never played the titular Max Payne video game. While the advertisements made it look cool (albeit highly derivative) in a Matrix- meets - Hard Boiled sort of way, my gaming time was
budgeted for blasting the Covenant forces of the Halo universe. Therefore, the newly released Max Payne movie has to stand on its own merits, of which any redeeming ones I have yet to think of.

The film’s trailer was well produced and displayed some tantalizing action sequences, but as is all too common these days, if you’ve seen the trailer you’ve seen all the best parts of the movie. Turn your computer speakers up quite high, watch the trailer while setting a $10 bill on fire and you get pretty much the full experience of watching Max Payne in a theater.

Second item of business: I consider myself a fairly well versed fan of the action genre. However, one of the problems with watching a lot of action movies over the years is that while watching a new release, I can’t help but think that I could have made a better movie myself (case in point, 2004’s The Punisher), or that the genre is becoming so incredibly clichéd and formulaic that it’s time for a complete re-imagining of the genre. On the other hand, my wife (who is far from an action movie aficionado) was gracious enough to see Max Payne with me and enjoyed it in spite of its derivative nature.

Max Payne is one of the worst offenders when it comes to lifeless and unimaginative action movies. It ticks every single action movie cliché and rips off stylistic elements from seemingly as many other films as it possibly can. Corny flashbacks in bright sunny colors: check. Payback/Sin City color scheme and snow: check. Loner antihero protagonist with a grim expression who never eats, sleeps, drinks, or smiles, fending off hordes of heavily-armed enemies with a measly pistol: check. This wouldn’t all be so atrocious except for the fact that the movie takes itself so seriously, and not in a Hot Fuzz sort of way either. It’s another tired revenge story that got wrapped up in layers of lame mythological references and corporate conspiracy plots. A loving father (who happens to be a cop/federal agent/soldier/etc.) loses wife and child, turns rogue and exacts revenge on the evildoers. How many times has this movie been made?

Mark Wahlberg has the ability to put out decent work, whether as an actor in films like The Departed or as the producer of Entourage. He reportedly took enough interest in this script, without previously playing the video game, to get on board.
But after seeing the end result, I have to wonder if he’s having second thoughts. Why successful actors allow their brand or image to be diluted by movies such as Max Payne is beyond the scope of this article.

Mila Kunis shows up as a stock Russian assassin with a penchant for black leather, spiky heels and German submachine guns (again, all clichés). She does as well as can be expected with the material she was handed, and if she can use this role to put That ‘70s Show behind her, so much the better for her career. On a side note, her addict sister Natasha is played by future Bond-girl Olga Kurylenko, who’s previous film was the equally by-the-numbers video game turned movie Hitman.

After a tepid opening action sequence, the film takes an hour to really get boiling. When it does it is so laden with CGI that any visual subtlety is lost and the story becomes bogged down by its own focus on the “Valkyr” drug conspiracy plot.
Logical loopholes permeate the plot, and it tries far too hard to incorporate pseudo-supernatural elements and references to Norse mythology. The more the script focuses on the fictional drug’s side effects and the resulting preposterous mass hallucinations of exactly the same type of CGI demon-Valkyrie, the more ridiculous the movie becomes.

Movies exist in part to distract the viewers from reality and keep their attention for long enough to become immersed in an alternate world, and hopefully make the audience ponder some larger narrative theme. The unfortunate thing about a film like Max Payne is that it is so vacuous, so devoid of any greater purpose or theme except for nihilistic revenge, that it is completely worthless for entertainment value. Stylized violence only engages a viewer for so long; there must be something more substantive to make a movie worth spending one’s time or money to see it.

About reviewer Elliot Strong: I am a man of eclectic tastes. Born and raised in Seattle, my interests range from opera and Walla Walla wine to vehicles with loud engines and movies with explosions in them. My taste in movies is just as questionable and far-ranging as you may suspect. Currently living and working in Ballard with my wife, Daytona, and a big weird cat named Max, I am sort of boring and have been at Mars Hill since 2001.

High School Musical 2
Reviewed by Caitlyn Stark
Directed by Kenny Ortega
Rated G

Here continues the phenomenon of High School Musical and review number two of my High School Musical trilogy.

If the first movie was popular, High School Musical 2 was, to use the words of HSM2 character Sharpay Evans, “Fabulous!” The day HSM2 came out, approximately 17.2 million people tuned in, making it the most-watched basic cable program ever, according to Nielsen Media Research, more than doubling the number of people who watched the first movie. People had spent the year in-between the HSM movies obsessing about Troy and Gabriella and East High, anxiously waiting to see what would happen over the summer for their favorite Wildcats.

The movie begins in the last class on the last day before summer. The students are anxiously watching the clock (which seems to get bigger and bigger) behind their teacher Ms. Darbus and as the final seconds tick down they whisper “summer, summer, summer, summer.” When the bell finally rings, the classroom explodes, and everyone in school joins in the song, dancing in the halls, celebrating the beginning of summer. They sing about how much fun they’re going to have over the summer, how it’s the time of their lives.

However, reality quickly comes crashing down for some of the Wildcats, as they realize they need summer jobs. They’re all juniors, and college is fast approaching, and some of their parents are encouraging them to earn some money. They talk about the different places they could work, and about what they’re going to do to hang out over the summer.

There are a couple Wildcats who won’t have to work over the summer: Ryan and Sharpay Evans. Their parents own the Lava Springs Country Club, and all Sharpay has to worry about is that her chaise is in a good place for a tan, winning the Star Dazzle Award at the Midsummer Night’s Talent Show, and breaking Troy and Gabriella up so that she and Troy can rule the school senior year. She puts her plan into action by having the manager of the Country Club offer Troy a job, no questions asked. As the summer begins, Sharpay wants the “whole world according to moi” and for everything to be “fabulous.” Troy arrives and she sings “I like what I see, I like it a lot. This is absolutely fabulous!” But then, the rest of the Wildcats arrive right behind Troy and suddenly it’s “not!” because this group also includes Gabriella and she has to re-think her plan. First, she tells Fulton, the manager, to fire them, but he informs her that her mother said that she wasn’t allowed to make that decision, so she tells him to make them want to quit.

Right away, he follows her orders and is much harder on the new employees then he would normally be, which inspires some of the Wildcats ask “how did we get from the top of the world to the bottom of the heap?” as they realize that a summer job is going to be much harder then they thought. Troy and Gabriella encourage them to “work this out” and slowly people join in agreeing that they can save the summer and have fun.

Faster then Sharpay can blink, two of her goals for the summer are dancing out of her reach. Troy and Gabriella are a stronger couple then ever, and Kelsey has written them a song to sing at the talent show: “You Are the Music in Me.” Even as their relationship is as strong as it’s ever been, Troy starts to get really worried about his college tuition. Sharpay notices and finds this would be a perfect way to get him away from Gabriella and the Wildcats.

After getting Troy promoted, and extending “club privileges” to him, which separates him from the Wildcats during work, Sharpay uses her father’s connections to a school Troy wants to attend to get them interested in him. This drives a wedge between him and his friends from the basketball team, including his best friend Chad, as he chooses to do things to try to get a scholarship instead of things he promised to do with them. While Troy plays basketball with the college team, the rest of the Wildcat boys play baseball with other staff members from Lava Springs. Gabriella invites Ryan, who has been excluded from his sister’s plan and performance in the talent show, and he joins in and even though Chad argues that “I Don’t Dance,” Ryan shows him that dancing and baseball both take game. By the time the game is over, Ryan is fitting in with the rest of the Wildcats, which is obvious the next morning when he’s seen wearing the school’s colors for the first time.

While Troy’s relationship with the Wildcats is on stormy seas, Sharpay continues to weasel her way in next to him, forcing him to practice with her for the talent show, using a faster version of the song Kelsey wrote for Troy and Gabriella. But shortly after that, she finds out that Ryan is helping the rest of the Wildcats with their performance for the show, and steps in to keep them from performing by telling Fulton to ban all junior staff members from the show.

This is the breaking point for Gabriella, who confronts Sharpay and tells her to stop messing with her friends. That night Gabriella quits to show Sharpay that she’s not going to take it anymore. Troy overhears the conversation and stops Gabriella to ask her if she was really leaving. She tells him “I Gotta Go My Own Way,” and that he hurt her and his friends by allowing himself to be a jerk in his effort to pursue his future. She leaves him alone with his thoughts.

The next morning, Troy finds out how Sharpay banned the junior staffers and storms out of the kitchen, telling himself that he needs to “listen to [his] own heart talking” and “count on [himself] instead.” He goes back to Chad to make things right and confronts Sharpay, telling her that he took back his old job as a junior staffer and that he wouldn’t be singing with her. She tries to go back to the number she was originally going to do with her brother, but he’d sold his costume and was done taking orders from her.

As the show approaches, Troy goes back to Sharpay and tells her that he will sing with her, as long as the Wildcats are allowed to perform too. However, just before Troy goes out, Ryan tells him that Sharpay wanted him to learn a new song, so he learns it quickly and as they’re about to go on, he asks Sharpay why she switched songs. Sharpay realizes that Ryan tricked her, and realizes that it was for the best.

Troy goes on and starts singing “Everyday” alone, and Gabriella appears to sing with him. They sing, wanting the moment to “last forever and never give it back. It’s our turn, and I’m lovin’ where we’re at, because this moment’s really all we have.” The entire staff comes on stage, including Ryan and Sharpay, to join in the song. After the show, they all go out to watch the fireworks, and Troy and Gabriella have their first kiss.

The next day, during a staff-only pool party, everyone celebrates that they finally got the summer they wanted, and that now everybody’s “All for One!”

Similar to the first movie, the idea that we are all different, and yet all need each other comes up, particularly in the final song. But HSM2 has another major theme: that “there’s more to life when we listen to our hearts.”

In his Footloose-worthy song that would leave Kevin Bacon quaking in his dancing shoes, Troy wrestles with the fact that he has been allowing other people to decide how he’s going to live his life, and he comes to the conclusion that he needs to listen to his heart, and count on himself instead: “The answers are all inside of me. All I gotta do is believe.” This belief is prominent in many people’s worldviews, that if they “listen to their heart” and “follow their heart” they’ll do what’s best. However, Jeremiah 17:9 says that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” In our sinful nature, listening to our heart means drawing out of a diseased and rotting core. Jesus said in Matthew 15 that “what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.”

On the other hand, when we have a relationship with Jesus a change occurs: “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you…and you shall be my people, and I will be your God” (Jeremiah 36:26-27). A Christian goes through heart changes, the kind that allows Paul to talk about “love that issues from a pure heart” in 1 Timothy 1:5. And because of that heart change, we know that we can’t trust in ourselves, we can’t “count on [ourselves],” but rather that we can trust in someone far greater then ourselves and count on Him who has “all authority in heaven and on earth” and who has everything figured out: Jesus Christ.

About Caitlyn Stark: “I am a musical-lovin’-Disney-watchin’-romance-dreamin’ girl, who loves reading, singing, acting, watching movies and plays. God has blessed me so immensely in my life, with his unstoppable faithfulness! I love my family, who gave me a passion for serving, words and music, and taught me about not being worried about being a little weird. I’m a student, looking to be an English teacher, and a dealer of legal addictive stimulants for the Siren who calls Seattle home.”

A review by Elliot Strong

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
Directed by Robert Wise
Starring Michael Rennie, Patricia Neal

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
Directed by Scott Derrickson
Starring Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly
In theaters December 12, 2008 (not yet rated)

Fifty-seven years ago a science fiction film called The Day the Earth Stood Still was released which would go on to become a classic in its own right, not just of the 1950s science fiction genre. It had all the (what can now considered campy) characteristics of a ‘50s sci-fi film: giant robot, Theremin soundtrack, a very large flying saucer, ambiguously threatening humanoid alien, and a damsel in distress. It is listed in IMDB’s top 250 best films of all time and it stands out in the genre for its quality of production, direction, story, themes, timeliness, and yes, even its special effects.

Go forward fifty-seven years and three months from the 1951 release and 20th Century Fox is planning to release a remake of this classic. Judging from the trailer and segments of the film being teased to the public, it is an update for our times, modifying the themes of the 1951 film to resonate with the anxieties of an audience in 2008.

But is it really a necessary one? In the last couple of years a common complaint lobbed against the American film industry is that it has resorted to remakes and sequels to churn out the hits and rake in the (hopefully) resulting profits. In this case, since the original The Day the Earth Stood Still is still recognized as a great film on its own merits, a remake seems superfluous.

When the film was released it addressed many issues that the world was facing at the time, the obvious ones being the potential for continued nuclear weapons development, the resultant possibility of nuclear war, and at the same time a realization of a Cold War with the Soviet Union. But in many ways the film was ahead of its time. Russia had tested its first nuclear bomb in 1949, but the Cuban Missile Crisis was still 11 years off in the future, and the development of long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles and space exploration were still further off. On a practical level, the visual impact of the film had the power to frighten audiences, especially with Gort, the giant robot who had seemingly limitless power.

At the same time the story contained a Christ allegory in the form of Klaatu, the human-looking alien who emerges from the UFO that lands in Washington, DC at the beginning of the movie with a message (or warning) of peace. Michael Rennie, the British actor who played Klaatu, was specifically chosen for the role because he was a virtual unknown in the United States at the time. Director Robert Wise, in an interview on the 2003 DVD release, stated that he did not pick up on the savior theme while filming; writer Edmund North said he had inserted it intentionally but meant it to be subliminal. It was quite an accomplish-ment for an aliens-and-robots sci-fi film of the 1950s to tread such serious and groundbreaking territory, or for any film made by the American movie industry at the time.

While the ‘Hollywood is running out of ideas’ claim is nothing new, the trailer for the 2008 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still doesn’t provide much ammunition against that position. The remake appears to be very self-aware with its seriousness. However, its themes are not subliminal in the least but rather spelled out in exquisite detail by a very grave Keanu Reeves, full of ominous proclamations about the future of humanity. And unlike Michael Rennie, anyone who has been at least tangentially involved with American pop culture for the last 20 years knows who Keanu is.

Here he seems to be reprising his Neo persona from The Matrix, dark suit and all. He even appears to have Neo-like powers over this world’s physics and technology, a weak modernization of the 1951 Klaatu who commanded tremendous technological power, but the only extraordinary characteristic he personally possessed was his genius-level intellect.

And rather than dealing with the bipolar reality of the Cold War and potential destruction by intentional warfare, this version seems to put forward a Shyamalan -like environmental allegory of impending doom, summed up in a pithy quote from Klaatu/Keanu: “If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives.” Don’t worry though; Gort still makes a brief appearance in the trailer, death ray angrily flashing. This may all be too harsh. After all, the remake hasn’t been released yet, and even though Keanu Reeves can make for an easy critical target, director Scott Derrickson who took on the controversial The Exorcism of Emily Rose in 2005 may yet offer some surprises.

Still, in many ways it is discouraging to realize how little progress has been made in over a half-century of human history. We still have the same self-destructive tendencies as we did in 1951, perhaps manifested in different social anxieties of the day, but we certainly don’t seem to be losing any problems, only finding or trying to make new ones to worry ourselves with from decade to decade.

A rat named Remy dreams of becoming a great French chef despite his family’s wishes and the obvious problem of being a rat in a decidedly rodent-phobic profession. When fate places Remy in the sewers of Paris, he finds himself ideally situated beneath a restaurant made famous by his culinary hero, Auguste Gusteau. As Remy enters, so does Linguini, a clumsy youth hired as a garbage boy. Despite the apparent dangers of being an unlikely – and certainly unwanted – visitor in the kitchen of a fine French restaurant, Remy’s passion for cooking soon sets into motion a hilarious and exciting rat race that turns the culinary world of Paris upside down.

I had the honor of doing an audio review for a room full of parents and young children at nearly 9pm, with children showing signs of fatigue with bedtimes and potential meltdowns imminent. What transpired is one of the quickest audio reviews I’ve done, so hopefully brevity is the source of wit.

Remy the rat was told he was BORN a certain way… into a certain time, place, and culture, and he must accept this as his reality and truth. At on point Remy says “No. Dad, I don’t believe it. You’re telling me that the future is – can only be – more of this?” His father says “This is the way things are; you can’t change nature.”

Can our nature be changed? If we are rats on this ship called life… trapped in a sociopolitical situation like Hindus in the untouchable caste, or genetically predisposed a certain direction – are we locked into that? Is our identity FIXED? Is our destiny dictated by our birth and/or environment?

The message of Ratatouille is NO – it CAN be changed… and there IS hope.

Listen right here by clicking the play button below.

You can alternatively choose to download the mp3 by clicking (or right clicking and selecting “save as”) HERE.

This is also reflected in the movies human protagonist, Linguini – a “nobody”, a son without a father, a garbage boy. Linguini believes he has no legacy, no heritage, just silly dreams. Truth is, he has a legacy – he has a father who is known to MANY, he is the child of an amazing CREATOR of cuisine, and he has an inheritance…

Do we resonate with this in vain hope for the fairy tale? Or does this strike a chord deep in our souls toward something true? The picture of Gusteau’s kitchen at the end of the film is a portrait of the church – an odd collection of VERY different peoples freed from the constraints of their identity, from their culture, brought together and unified in one kingdom, one kitchen, laboring together with joy to produce something sweet and savory for those around them that points not to us, but our participation as image-bearers of our Father and Savior, our inspiration and guiding light.

In the message of Ratatouille there IS truth, and hope, at least for the Christian. It is not just distraction or delusion for our kids… there is a warm spot of real connection with the same gospel Jesus preached.

A review of director George Romero’s Dead Quadrilogy:
NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (Unrated)
DAWN OF THE DEAD (Unrated)
DAY OF THE DEAD (Unrated)
LAND OF THE DEAD (R, Director’s Cut Unrated)
by Diana Taibi

October is approaching, that season when you can’t get away from ads for slasher films and Saw sequels. So, for those not interested merely in the titillation of terror and gore, is there anything interesting, thought provoking, or enjoyable in the horror films?

Well, I’d like recommend the zombie genre, and in particular, the films of George Romero. Various horror genres present comments on spiritually-related matters: vampire films address taboos (especially sexuality), body-snatchers films deal with autonomy, and slasher flicks often show punishment of moral error. But zombie films hit closest to the core of what it means to be human. We were created to live in the physical world, in our bodies, as image bearers of God image bearers of God. Zombie films comment on the human condition by showing the opposite of this.

The ultimate fulfillment of being made in God’s image is at the glorious appearing of Jesus. When Jesus returns, “we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). This blessed hope of the Christian is that we will be raised from the dead through the power of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:35-49) to live with God forever. So the zombie film is an inversion of the blessed hope. Zombies represent resurrection leading to loss of identity, a rotting body, and a desire to devour creation rather than redeem it from sin. This perspective on the genre offers much to contemplate from a spiritual perspective. It is my hope that this review of Romero’s films will help you delve into spiritual issues as you enjoy a good scary film.

Night of the Living Dead
Night of the Living Dead begins with a brother and sister visiting their parents’ graves. These two are attacked by the first zombie of the film. The brother is killed, and the sister flees to an empty farmhouse. Others take refuge in the house: a single man, a family, and a young couple. The group unsuccessfully attempts to escape. Eventually, all except the single man are all killed by one another, become zombies, or are killed by the zombies. In the end, a sheriff’s posse shoots and burns the zombies. They shoot the last survivor, mistaking him for a zombie.

When I first saw this film several years ago, I failed to appreciate just how shocking it was in terms of both gore and social issues. The film rebelled against racism by casting an African American lead (the single man), which was a bold decision in the 1960s. The film also accentuated the disintegration of the American family. The brother and sister at the beginning are antagonistic, and the sister is eventually killed by her brother who returns as a zombie. The family in the farmhouse is intolerable, particularly the father, who is a bully and a coward. The mother is killed and the father eaten by their young daughter who quietly dies and becomes a zombie. As pointed out by film critic Robin Wood, this conclusion seems to be a condemnation of the dysfunctional American family unit. Though Mr. Wood argues for a more liberal family definition, I would argue that the Bible give us a better way, showing relationships built on courage and mutual respect (Ephesians 5:22-6:4).

Finally, the film deals with social order. Eventually, the sheriff’s posse restores order, even at the expense of killing the sole survivor. The conclusion begs the question: at what cost to we seek a peaceful, comfortable existence? In a sense, the zombies and posse are alike. They will destroy anything in their way to create the world they desire. Do we devour our world or are we interested in what God wants it to be?

Every way of man is right in his own eyes,
but the Lord weighs the heart.
To do righteousness and justice
is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. (Proverbs 21:2-3)

Dawn of the Dead
As Dawn of the Dead begins, the zombie epidemic is at crisis levels, and cities are being overrun. A small group (a pilot, his reporter girlfriend, and two SWAT team members) escape to a shopping mall where they set up refuge. They avoid zombies to get basic supplies, but eventually risk going out more to enjoy the amenities of the mall. Eventually the group is overrun by zombies in the chaos resulting from trying to defend their mall “turf” against a motorcycle gang. One swat team member and the reporter escape by helicopter.

This is an excellent film, and is my favorite film of the zombie genre (28 Days Later is a close second, and yes, I know they’re not really zombies in that film). There are many themes to examine, beyond which the movie is an enjoyable action film, a “romp” as Romero describes it in the DVD audio commentary. Do be forewarned, the film is surprisingly gory for 1978 (it was unrated to avoid an X rating at the time). Much has been written about this film’s commentary on consumerism. The zombies in the film mill aimlessly about the mall, a parody of the purposeless shopper. The zombies do not eat for sustenance, they eat simply to consume, showing a grotesque extreme of consumerism.

But beyond that, the film presents an interesting picture of response to crisis. The protagonists first hole up in the mall for survival, but then they set up their own small kingdom to avoid the crisis of the outside world. They try to hold onto mundane, normal life though it is obviously foolish when the world is literally being devoured. The resulting spiritual question is, when we feel like sin and death are at the door, do we spend our time and energy futilely pursuing power, control, and security?

The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer,
my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge,
my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.
I call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised,
and I am saved from my enemies. (Psalms 18:2-3)

Day of the Dead
In Day of the Dead, the zombie plague has reached its peak. The cities are deserted and the zombies are withering because there are no people left to eat. The film follows a small group in an underground facility, where brutish military men keep a harsh order and a scientist the soldiers call “Dr. Frankenstein” performs gruesome experiments to find a way to control the zombies. The main protagonist, a woman scientist, seeks a cure for the zombies while trying to keep her exhausted soldier lover, Salazar, from harm. Salazar resents the help of his lover and the ridicule of his colleagues, and eventually sacrifices himself to the zombies to allow them to overrun the compound. The military men kill “Dr. Frankenstein” after discovering that he is training a zombie by feeding it their deceased colleagues. The woman scientist escapes by helicopter with two civilian pilots from the compound, while the military men are torn apart and eaten by the zombies.

This film was dark and very gory (like Dawn, it was unrated to avoid an X), but it is my second favorite film in the series because of its interesting dealings with themes of power and violence. The most interesting act of violence is perpetrated not by the zombies, but by the soldier Salazar. He is strained by fear and exhaustion but is also weak and resentful of others when they accentuate this character flaw. He unleashes an army of dead upon his lover, who wanted only to help him, and upon the military with whom he could not fit in. This violent revenge is an act of control in a world that seems beyond all hope. The film shows two other ways in which humans commonly try to control their circumstances: military power and science. Both institutions are taken to a hideous extreme, presenting the viewer with a cautionary lesson. In a world that we cannot control, we may wish to put our hopes in force, science, or even another person, but everything except God will fail us.

Though my father and mother forsake me,
the LORD will receive me…
I am still confident of this:
I will see the goodness of the LORD
in the land of the living. (Psalms 27: 10, 13)

Land of the Dead
In Land of the Dead, society has reformed to resume a semblance of normal life despite the surrounding zombie threat. The wealthy live inside a safe haven called Fiddler’s Green with the amenities they were used to before the zombies. The disadvantaged live in a ghetto outside the city and make do the best they can. A group of mercenaries scavenge abandoned areas for goods that support Fiddler’s Green. The group leader, Riley, is a reserved and just man and who uses his power to help those outside the city. When a corrupt mercenary who wants to live in Fiddler’s Green is turned down, he attacks the city, setting in motion a series of events that result in the zombies overrunning the city. The dead start to organize, first attacking the poor area, then attacking Fiddler’s Green. Riley and his crew save many in the city, but eventually decline to destroy the group of zombies, with Riley saying “They’re just looking for a place to go. Same as us.”

I was surprised by the mostly positive reviews this movie received, since it was my least favorite of the series. The film seems more oriented toward achieving commercial success than being edgy and subversive as the previous films in the series (and was the only film in the series that was rated and used recognizable stars). Still, the film raises interesting questions of social justice. Land draws more direct comparisons between zombies and people than the other films of the series. Riley’s last comment draws the parallel between the zombies and the lower class masses. Because the zombies are equated with the lower classes, the zombie siege upon the upper class is basically social revolution.

The most immediate question that arises from this film in comparison to the previous films is, at what price do we find our comfort? In Dawn the characters find a hiding place to and a little peace from the chaos outside. In Day, the civilian pilots create a full-blown illusion that they are on a Caribbean island though in an underground bunker. This escapism is taken to an extreme in Land where the elite prosper in a comfortable existence, clearly at the expense of others. It reminds me of Egypt in Exodus, built upon the labor of slaves. The genre gives us another Biblical reversal in which the exiled return to overthrow Egypt. The dead, realizing they will not drown, do not need to waters parted. These cursed persons walk under the river surrounding Fiddler’s Green to attack those whose comfort they seek to destroy. Are we among these? Are we the comfortable, ignoring the needs of the suffering masses? Are we the dead, murdering others in our hearts through envy? Or are we like Riley, doing our best to do good for others?

He has told you, O man, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

I hope these brief reviews were useful, and that you may be encouraged that some horror movies have interesting spiritual themes to examine. So, I encourage you to bite into a zombie flick and grapple with the interesting ideas about humans offered in these films.

About Diana Taibi- Cinemagogue Web Administrator & Reviewer
I love watching and thinking about movies! I am a researcher and can’t help bringing an analytical mind to movie watching. I love action, sci-fi, romantic comedy, offbeat indie, and some horror. I’m particularly interested in redemption stories (e.g., the Shawshank Redemption) and films that explore what it means to be a human living in a fallen world (e.g., zombie movies). Oh, and I have listed and rated the quality of every movie I have seen since 7th grade (that is, since Batman). Back off, man. I’m a scientist.

review of THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO
by Zach Malm
starring Mia Farrow and Jeff Daniels
directed by Woody Allen
Rated PG

Trailer:

Woody Allen’s magical ode to the transporting power of cinema, The Purple Rose of Cairo has been called one of 100 greatest films ever made (according to Time Magazine). I call it one of my favorite movies ever, and probably the film I’ve recommended to friends and strangers alike more than any other. So why is it that I’ve only met a few people who’ve heard of it, much less seen it? I don’t know if it’s just fallen through the cracks over the years, or if it’s always been a bit of a neglected gem, but I do know that every person who’s followed up on my recommendation has thanked me wholeheartedly later.

The Purple Rose of Cairo has a rather unique ability to appeal to fans of Woody Allen as well as his detractors. That’s most likely because he doesn’t appear in the film, but it’s also because the film is full of energy, wit, and warmth. It’s also quite deep, touching on issues of God, free will, and human imperfection.

Set during the Depression, the film follows Cecilia (Mia Farrow), a waitress struggling to get by with no help from her comfortably unemployed husband Monk (Danny Aiello), a brutish loser who, despite chasing girls and shooting dice all day, still manages to find the time to ignore his wife’s needs. Seeking an escape, she is a regular at the local movie theatre, often seeing the features multiple times. One day, after being fired for her clumsiness and coming home to find Monk drunk with another woman, Cecilia goes to see a movie, a globetrotting adventure called The Purple Rose of Cairo. After sitting through the movie several times, something strange happens. The main character, Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels), a young explorer in a pith helmet, starts forgetting his lines. Obviously distracted, he eventually stops altogether, and addressing Cecilia, steps out of the screen.

At this point, the film could go in all sorts of directions. What Allen decides to play with is the very literal contrast between fantasy and reality. The other theatre patrons stay glued to their seats, watching the other characters on screen argue about which character is more important, and whether or not they should try to escape as well. The theatre owner interprets the film to be irreparably damaged by the loss of the character, and calls the distributor to complain. Word reaches the producer, and eventually the actor who played Tom, Gil Shepherd (also played by Jeff Daniels). Gil is devastated, having been so proud of the believability of the character he’d created, but now seeing it turn on him, and by leaving the film, threaten to destroy his budding career.

On the flip side, Tom is a character, and only knows the world of his movie. “Dad was a card,” he tells Cecilia at one point. “I never met him, though. He died before the movie begins.” Tom wanders around in his pith helmet, doing what comes naturally to him: exploring. He learns that when you kiss in real life, the screen doesn’t fade to black, and that when you jump behind the wheel of a random car, it doesn’t just go, not without a key. He meets a prostitute (played by the wonderful Dianne Wiest, in an early role) and, entirely ignorant about her line of work, accompanies her to her brothel, where he leads the girls into a sincere conversation about the beauty of life, and specifically children, a subject they have different kinds of experience with, despite the fact that their career requires them to separate the act of sex from its natural associations of love and children.

At one point, Tom and Cecilia duck into a church. Tom is unfamiliar with the concept of God, since theology doesn’t play a part in his movie. Cecilia tells him that God created all of us. Tom thinks he understands, and says that God must be like the screenwriter behind The Purple Rose of Cairo. “No, it’s much bigger than that,” Cecilia corrects him. “Think for a minute. A reason for everything. Otherwise it’d be like a movie with no point, and no happy ending.”

Eventually, Gil Shepherd, the actor, comes to town to track down his character, fearful that he’s out committing atrocities whilst looking exactly like Gil and possessing Gil’s fingerprints. He first finds Cecilia, and is taken by her for probably the reasons that Tom was. This leads to an argument, where Cecilia appears to have to choose to be with Gil or Tom. “Tell him you don’t love him,” says an exasperated Gil. “You can’t love him. He’s fictional. Do you want to waste your time with a fictional character? I mean, you’re a sweet girl, but you deserve an actual human.” “But, Tom’s perfect,” replies Cecilia. “Yeah, but he’s not real. What good is perfect if the man’s not real?”

Chasing the perfect mirage takes up a large part of many people’s lives, and Christians are not exempt. In our pride, we keep holding out for perfection in others, but justify our own sin. Cecilia’s husband, Monk, isn’t perfect. He’s anything but perfect, and he does sin against her continually, but he is her husband. She took a vow. And now, not only is she running to the movies to escape her marriage, she starts running around town with two (identical) men. At one point, as she’s running out the door, Monk tells her, “This isn’t the movies. This is real life,” and though we the audience don’t like him, and don’t want him to be right, he is.

Jesus told us in Matthew 5:48, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The point here is that only God is perfect, and we are not, but we should seek perfection. The more we seek his perfection, the clearer we see our own imperfection, and the more he works on our heart, turning his desire into our desires. Cecilia is chasing a perfection that doesn’t exist. God is real, and he is worth chasing. As Gil tells Cecilia, “The most human of attributes is our ability to choose.” Choose well.

review of HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL
Directed by Kenny Ortega
Rated TV – G
Review by Caitlyn Stark

Over the next couple months, I will be reviewing the cultural phenomenon known as High School Musical. I have had a desire to write these reviews since the movies came out, mostly because it had such a big impact on the culture of pre-teens and teens in this country, and so many people simply avoided it like the plague. So, with these reviews, it is my sincere hope that you will keep your mind open, and that you will actually know what the 13 year old girl who comes up to you is talking about when she tells you about Troy Bolton and Gabriella Montez.

In January 2006, a cultural phenomenon began when Disney released High School Musical, on the Disney Channel. A USA today article posted about a month later reported the multiple records the movie had broken:

• The premiere averaged 7.7 million viewers, a network record and the month’s top-rated non-sports cable broadcast.
• During six telecasts from Jan. 20 to Feb. 13, the movie drew 26.3 million unduplicated viewers, including 8.4 million ages 6 to 11 and 8.7 million ages 9-14, according to Nielsen Media Research.
• The soundtrack, which broke into the top 10 in late January, is No. 6 this week after selling 97,000 copies for a total of 303,000, according to Nielsen SoundScan.
• The single Breaking Free jumped to No. 4 from No. 86 in one week on the Billboard singles sales/airplay chart, the steepest rise in 48 years. Breaking Free peaked at No. 1 on the digital tracks chart and has sold 192,000 downloads in five weeks.
• Get’cha Head in the Game rose to No. 23 from No. 100, and sold 119,000 downloads.

This is obviously one cultural phenomenon that should not be ignored.

At East High School, the Wildcat’s basketball team is on their way to the League Championship as a new year begins. The star of the team, play maker, coach’s son and team captain Troy Bolton spends his New Years with his family skiing (well, mostly playing basketball in the gym). Gabriella Montez is at the same lodge, celebrating her New Year with her mom, and spending most of her time reading. The lodge they’re staying at throws a party for the teens, complete with fireworks and karaoke, and it’s there that the “star cross’d lovers” of this Disney-fied teenage romance meet. When she is chosen, along with Troy to sing karaoke, they are both hesitant, nervous of stepping outside of their comfort zones. But as the song plays, they get more comfortable, and it is the “Start of Something New” for both of them. . They exchange numbers after midnight, but Gabriella disappears to find her mom before Troy can find out where she lives.

A week later, Troy is back at school and getting ready for the big game with the rest of the team, when, in homeroom, he thinks he sees Gabriella and calls her phone to see if it’s her. Her phone rings, and Troy is ecstatic, though his happiness is briefly muted by Ms. Darbus. Ms. Darbus is the homeroom and drama teacher, who views cell phones as evil, particularly in her “chapel of the arts,” the theatre. Because Gabriella’s phone rang, she goes on a detention rampage, and 6 people end up with detention, including Troy and Gabriella, Chad Danforth (Troy’s right hand man and best friend), Taylor McKessie (president of the science club) and Ryan and Sharpay Evans (the biggest thespians in school and co-presidents of the drama club).

After homeroom, Troy and Gabriella reunite and talk near the sign up sheet for Ms. Darbus’ Winter Musical. Troy admits to Gabriella that he doesn’t think that his friends would understand if he told them about “the singing thing,” because he’s the basketball guy, and they tease each other about signing up to audition. Sharpay barely overhears the end of their conversation and jumps in, and then signs up to audition in large letters, taking up most of the sign up sheet. As Troy and Gabriella go their separate ways for class, Sharpay watches them carefully, with suspicion in her eyes.

Later, Ryan and Sharpay discuss the new potential threat to their positions as leads in the Winter Musical and decided they need to find a way to keep Gabriella and Troy from auditioning. Sharpay looks Gabriella up online, after she noticed a mistake a teacher made in a math equation, and discovers that she is an “Einstein-ette” and prints some articles out to put in Taylor McKessie’s locker, in hopes that Gabriella will be “welcomed into school activities that will be, well, appropriate for her.”

One thing leads to another and Troy and Gabriella end up getting call backs for the Winter Musical, which sends the entire school into complete chaos, as clique lines are crossed and people begin “confessing”: Zeke, one of the basketball players, loves to bake; Martha, a brainiac, loves hip-hop dance; one of the skaters likes to dress up in a coat and tie and plays the cello. At first each of their respective groups seems accepting, telling the “confessors” to “open up, dig way down deep,” but then explodes, calling for them to “Stick to the Status Quo”.

The story moves on, with cliques trying to maintain the status quo, (more…)

Review of THE DARK KNIGHT
by Diana M. Taibi
starring Christian Bale and Heath Ledger
directed by Christopher Nolan
Rated PG-13

The Dark Knight is as an absolutely stunning movie, a true action-drama that transcends the comic book genre. The film is so densely packed with moral, emotional, and social dilemmas that the viewer is left ruminating for days or longer. Yet these heavy questions never detract from the momentum and enjoyment of the film. As I untangle the theme presented, I find interesting commentaries on the nature of faith and self-sacrifice.

The plot has been described in a previous review on this blog, so I will start by commending the excellent performances in the film that make contemplation of the difficult themes unavoidable for the audience. Heath Ledger’s Joker is menacing and mocking, unflinchingly violent. He refused to offer any laughable “monologuing”; indeed, any monologuing is intentionally manipulative. This is a stand-out performance of an irredeemably evil man and a worthy archenemy. However, as noted in the previous review by Pastor James Harleman, the emotional “heavy lifting” was truly done by Gary Oldman as Police Lieutenant (future Commissioner) Gordon and Aaron Eckhart as District Attorney Harvey Dent. Eckhart’s performance, in my opinion, rivaled Heath Ledger’s role as a stand-out performance. Eckhart’s performance as an ethical “white knight”, an unmasked hero (the flip side of the coin from Batman) makes both Bruce Wayne and the audience root for Dent. However, we know from Batman lore that Harvey Dent’s downfall is inevitable, which makes it all the more heartbreaking to watch.

The film presents two messages on faith, one hopeless, and one hopeful. First, the film presents faith as necessary for inspiring people to be moral and responsible. For faith to be transforming, it must be in the image of someone “good”, but the foundational truth behind the image (i.e., whether or not the person actually is good) is immaterial. A relevant statement was made in an episode of Firefly that dealt similarly with faith: “It’s my estimation that every man ever got a’statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another. Ain’t about you,… ‘Bout what they need.” The position is that people need to believe in something, but the veracity of that something is moot. In this sense, the film posits that people do not need a real God and redeemer, but rather an idol, simply an image to inspire. This type of faith truly is Marx’s opiate of the masses, a band-aid happiness to get the people through until they rise up from their own inner strength and create a better world.

There is much wrong with this perspective from the Christian point of view. First, and most important, our object of faith is true. The Lord Jesus came to earth, lived a sinless life, and was sacrificed for the sins of the world. He is not an idol or a Dark Knight; he is Lord of all. We are not people whose ultimate salvation will come from being inspired by an idol to pull up our own bootstraps. Our hope is not in an inspirational image, but in a Savior who will, himself, come to deliver us. (more…)

A Review by Elliot Strong
Starring: Hunter S. Thompson, Johnny Depp
Written/Directed by: Alex Gibney
Limited release in theaters, DVD release date TBD.
Rated R

Trailer:

Who was Hunter S. Thompson? His alter-persona of Raoul Duke, the crazed and drugged-up journalist of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas fame, is probably the first image that comes to mind for most people. But for Alex Gibney, the Academy Award winning documentary writer/producer/director (Best Documentary 2007, Taxi to the Dark Side), to take on a new project that explores the legacy of Thompson, there must have been a whole lot more to him.

Gibney’s Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson chooses to explore the less salacious parts of Thompson’s personal life and instead focuses on his political and social commentary as a member of the ‘New Journalism’ movement. Of course, the two sectors often crossed over and one cannot explore the life of Thompson without discussing the “drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity” that he described as integral elements of his career and ultimately tragic life. (Hence the film’s R rating; this is not a documentary about ants, buildings, or beavers.)

The film, narrated by his friend Johnny Depp, primarily expounds on the era of the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. It focuses on the drama of the clashes at the Chicago Democratic Convention in ’68 and as Thompson followed the McGovern campaign in ‘72, which developed into the book Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail. By compiling and connecting archival material and new interviews with figures as interesting and disparate as George McGovern, Pat Buchanan, Jimmy Carter, and Tom Wolfe, it makes for a fascinating and sometimes insightful documentary of the repercussions of that epoch.

It only stumbles when a lengthy and specious comparison is made between the re-election of Nixon in 1972 and the current condition of the United States at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever one’s particular political proclivities may be, it could be agreed upon that the election of 1972 and the War on Terror are independent events in history separated by a few presidents of a varying political spectrum.

But Gonzo’s strengths show when it goes to great lengths to demonstrate how, as a commentator and writer, Thompson was ruthless, cynical and often outrageously funny. (more…)