BALLS OF FURY

Dan Fogler, Christopher Walken, George Lopez, Maggie Q, Thomas Lennon, Robert Patrick.  Rogue Pictures.  Action/comedy.  Written by Thomas Lennon & Robert Ben Garant. Directed by Robert Ben Garant.  

FILM SYNOPSIS:  An outrageous new comedy. In this secret society, the competition is brutal and the stakes are high. It is the unsanctioned, underground, and utterly unhinged world of clandestine ping-pong tournaments. Down-and-out former professional Ping-Pong phenom Randy Daytona (Dan Fogler) is sucked into this maelstrom when FBI Agent Rodriguez (George Lopez) recruits him for a secret mission. Randy is determined to bounce back and win, and to smoke out his father’s killer – arch-fiend Feng (Christopher Walken).

REVIEW:  I want to take it easy on these filmmakers.  This type of comic spoofing is so difficult to pull off.  Woody Allen did it brilliantly in What’s Up Tiger Lilly, as did Christopher Guest with his Best In Show and Waiting For Guffman, while others have often disappointed.   It’s magic when it happens, but such magic is illusive.  You can have a great concept, great visuals such as Christopher Walken dressed as Fu Manchu, and you can have a bouncy fat guy in the lead, just like John Belushi, John Candy, Chris Farley and assorted other zaftig practitioners of outrageous physicality, and still the film won’t work.  Here, many jokes fall flat, while others just never seem to arouse more than titters.  The fat guy sweats a lot but never really makes us feel or laugh.  And Christopher Walken never generates that other-worldly humor that he so often makes look effortless.

Now, nobody sets out to make a bad movie.  But since this film is so inconsequential, with little on its mind, you’d think the gags would be funnier.  But the plot does a cameo, the lighthearted absurdity is toothless, and there’s nothing new in the way of puns or wisecracks.  There’s the old guy making with prickly observations and the little girl who kicks the lead in the groin and the occasional passing-wind bit.  But just how many times are audiences expected to laugh at a man grabbing his crotch in pain? 

It’s not really satire or parody or madcap.  It’s just lame.  Oh, rats, I was going to take it easy on these guys.

PG-13 (a few crudities, including anal jokes, but fairly tame by today’s standards; four obscenities; one “Jesus,” evidently included to help gain the PG-13 rating; lots of slapstick buffoonery such as falling down an elevator shaft, martial arts kicks and flips and kicks to the groin; a sinister henchwoman blows poisonous darts at her prey; gun battles, martial arts battles; the lead’s father is killed off camera; some sensuality as the camera roams over the scantily clad form of the female co-lead; male courtesans are ushered into the presence of the lead to satisfy his every whim – but he’s straight).

Running Time: 90 min.
Intended Audience: Teens and older

BAMBI II (DVD)

This new animated release comes to DVD February 7.

After his mother’s death, Bambi is reunited with his father, The Great Prince, who must now raise the young fawn and teach him the ways of the forest. The proud parent discovers that there is much that he can learn from his spirited young son. Thumper, Flower and Owl return to meet new friends as Bambi’s legacy continues.

I was completely surprised by this screening. Generally, any children’s cartoon movie with a “II” behind the title is a stinker. What’s more, Disney has chosen to take it directly to DVD release. That’s usually not a good sign, either. But I found this to be charming, a real delight. The main ingredients found in the classic Disney toons are the deceptively simple animation, and the kid voices. While computer generation is making it possible for cartoonists to do more visually, the older films have a look and style that warms the heart. And the right casting of voices is essential in aiding the storytelling. Classic animation like the original Charlie Brown’s Christmas or the first Bambi make perfect use of cute voices that involve you in what they’re saying. These two components are perfectly balanced in this new offering.

Full of life lessons that address the death of a parent, the need for father and son bonding, and a respect for God’s creatures, the filmmakers have given audiences an entertaining film that is both insightful for children and engaging for Mom and Pop. Full of humor, action and pretty pictures, Bambi II, like its predecessor, is a treasure.

G (there are a couple of scary moments when the lead and others are chased by ferocious dogs; we hear a gun shot one time; young love blossoms as Bambi rubs noses with his doe-friend; at the beginning, the little ones will learn of the death of Bambi’s mom. Parents should view with their children in order to reassure. The film also shows a bully and the aloofness of a father until he learns life lessons from his son).

Back to top

BARNYARD

Voices: Kevin James, Courteney Cox, Sam Elliott, Danny Glover, Andie MacDowell, Wanda Sykes. Paramount Pictures/Nickelodeon Movies. Written and Directed by Steve Oedekerk (writer of The Nutty Professor and Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls, the latter of which he also directed). Opens 8/4/06

Containing one strong message about facing responsibility, with an implied one concerning appreciating loved ones, the animated action comedy is nonetheless a mix, though mostly positive. Some sequences are colorful, full of lively music and stuffed with humor aimed at its intended audience – little kids. What’s more, despite the fact that it takes place on the farm, which would have been the perfect setting for some crude anatomical and scatological humor, the filmmakers generally avoid such easy laughs. Problem is, the script neglects the older viewers. If we haven’t learned the message by now, we’re not going to, and the talking animals who walk upright is a gimmick that becomes old before the opening credits end.

Question: I know I’m a city boy, but there aren’t male cows are there? I mean, the male of that species don’t have udders, do they? Here all the boy “cows” have udders. I realize it’s supposed to be a joke, kinda like the poultry having teeth in Chicken Run. And I suppose the anatomical incorrectness fits in with the fact that all the animals walk upright and talk. Heck, they even break into a human’s home, then escape, driving the family’s car. Still, I couldn’t help thinking about the millions of poor little girls who had a disturbing reaction the first time they undressed a Barbie. It’s just a little too bizarre.

The film is clean, and, at times, amusing for kids. However, it also has several melancholy lulls. Ben, whom we have all gotten to care about, is killed by a pack of coyotes while protecting other farm animals. There are several scenes dealing with this tragedy, and though death is a part of life and has been included in most kids’ animated films beginning with Bambi, it’s a story element that must be dealt with carefully or the tone of the film suffers. These frequent sad moments (we also hear the story about the female lead’s loss of her “husband”) caused many of the audience tykes to fidget and search for more lively amusement, such as running up and down the aisle.

The film also has several violent moments. It’s not Miami Vice, mind you, but its violence is not merely derived from slapstick shenanigans. Several times the menacing coyotes are battled, causing some unsettling moments. True, us older kids have become desensitized to this kind of movie roughness, but it may be a spooky introduction for the littlest attendees. At my screening, I overheard a little girl ask what was happening when Ben is killed. Prepare to do some explaining.

There is one positive fact that may please you to know. Barnyard’s writer/director, Steve Oedekerk, is a dedicated Christian and has made a film here with positive life messages, one that avoids crudity (very rare today). You might want to keep that in mind when deciding whether or not to support it.

PG (we see a mean kid’s back, his jeans hanging just a little too low – a visual that brought lots of laughs from kids; coyotes threaten chickens and attack Ben, which leads to his death; later they attack Otis, wounding him; a farmer is drinking from a can. Though it does not show a label, the implication is that it is beer).

Back to top

BE KIND, REWIND

Jack Black, Danny Glover, Dante ‘Mos Def’ Smith, Mia Farrow.  New Line Cinema.  Comedy.  Written & directed by Michel Gondry. 

FILM SYNOPSIS: A ne’er-do-well attempts to sabotage a local power plant, thinking it is melting his brain.  All he accomplishes is the erasing of all the tapes in his buddy’s video store.  How does he mean to replace them?  Film a reenactment of each and every movie, of course.

REVIEW: Evidently Jack Black never met a ludicrous premise he didn’t think he could make money from.  And let’s face it, we don’t attend movies starring Mr. Black for their plausibility, let alone profound insight.  We just like to see him be a buffoon.  And no one since Jerry Lewis has milked that characteristic better.

But the nebbish antics that worked for Jack in School of Rock now seem tired and redundant.  What’s more, his coolness factor is beginning to thaw.  Steve Martin, Bill Murray, and Jim Carrey have proven to have several arrows in their artistic quiver, while Jack Black has limited ammunition in his arsenal.  His recent attempts (Margot at the Wedding, The Holiday) at showing more depth and versatility have disappointed.  But I have hope for him.  All he needs are some acting lessons and a good script. 

Writer/director Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Science of Sleep) is no doubt making a point about the significance of studio-ignored, low-budgeted films.  Indeed, he’s a filmmaker who tries to bring a point to his comedies.  It’s just that here the comedy gets in the road of his message.  Mainly, because the comedy ain’t all that comic.  Yeah, the send-ups of the movies they’re remaking are amusing, though never uproarious, but the rest of the laughs are generated from Black’s goofy shtick, which, as I said, is looking old.   It’s not smart satire, like, say, Thank You For Smoking.  Rather, the intended laughs are mined from sexual crudities and bodily functions.

PG-13 (several crudities sprinkled throughout; two obscenities and several minor expletives; one misuse of Jesus’ name and several variants of the phrase “oh my God;” slapstick buffoonery, including falls from ladders and bumps on the head; several sexual comments, usually play-offs of the films they are recreating; a couple of comments and situations with gay themes; nothing really provocative or excessive; some social drinking).

Running Time: 101 min.
Intended Audience: Teens and above.

Back to top

BELLA

Sophia Nyweide, Eduardo Verastequi, Ramon Rodriquez, Tammy Blanchard. Roadside Attractions. Drama. Written by Patrick Million, Alejandro Gomez Monteverde. Directed by Alejandro Gomez Monteverde. 11/2/07

FILM SYNOPSIS: After losing her job due to morning sickness, a young waitress/mother-to-be is befriended by the restaurant's chef, who quickly becomes a confidante. His mysterious past and the reason for his tenderness toward the unwed woman are slowly but movingly revealed.

REVIEW: Bella (Spanish for beautiful) is one of the most touching stories of recent memory. This big hearted movie has been recognized by the White House, the Smithsonian Latino Center and the Mexican Embassy. Winner of several festival awards, including the coveted People's Choice Award at the 2006 Toronto Film Festival, Bella (pronounced Baya) is a compelling and inspirational tale with positive role models (the male lead is a Christian in real life). It is a film that celebrates the Latino culture, family and the value of a life.

RATED PG-13 Bella receives this rating for the subjects of the accidental death of a child and a young woman debating whether to abort her unborn child, but the subjects are handled with discretion, the pro-life statement is clear and there is no objectionable language and no sexual situations. Bella deals with life-changing moments, and begins with the illumination, "If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans."

Running Time: 91 min.
Intended Audience: Teens and older

Back to top

BEYOND THE GATES OF SPLENDOR

Based on a best selling novel, “Beyond the Gates of Splendor” premieres on DVD October 4, 2005 from Fox Home Entertainment. A true story, this inspiring documentary concerns faith, forgiveness and crossing cultural boundaries. It recounts the chronicle of five missionaries who gave their lives to reach a tribe of Ecuadorian Indians in the 1950s. The wives then took their children into this lost world to find the very same tribesmen who had killed their husbands and witnessed God’s love to them. Narrated by the son of one of the couples, it uses historical footage and personal insight to reveal how the two groups came to understand then embrace each other.

Ever so often Hollywood makes a film about a minister or a traveling evangelist or a missionary and, with very few exceptions, these dramas tend to be rather earthy, delighting in spotlighting wrong doing by those who claim to be followers of Christ. It’s interesting, because in fact, this cynical representation neglects the devout men and women who have turned their backs on material gain and self aggrandizement in order to serve their fellow man. Occasionally, however, a picture comes along, generally with a small budget and little hype, that catches the spirit of people who trust so much in God that they are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to follow His will. This is such a film.

“Beyond the Gates of Splendor” is a moving testament to those who have taken Christ’s teachings to heart and given all in order to save the soul of man. It is an emotional journey that will give you new insight concerning foreign missions and a deepening respect for missionaries. You’ll be entertained and challenged.

PG-13 (occasional topless native nudity, but nothing is done with an exploitive intent; the subject matter of people facing death is unsuitable for little ones).

Back to top

BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2

Martin Lawrence, Nia Long, Zachary Levy.

This sequel to the 2000 comedy has Martin Lawrence as special unit FBI, once again donning his old lady garb in order to go undercover. Here he’s after the killer of his ex-partner. While staying in the house of the suspect, our hero/heroine comes to care for the outlaw’s children.

Thin on plot, most of the humor generates from a skinny man made up like a big woman. An incredibly big woman. Mr. Lawrence does a great job in this Nutty Professor-like role, but the dialogue is peppered with objectionable words and one misuse of Jesus’ name. There is also much sexual innuendo.

PG-13 Language, sexual innuendo, humorous drug references.

Back to top

BOBBY

Anthony Hopkins, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Lindsay Lohan, Elijah Wood, William H. Macy, Helen Hunt, Christian Slater, Heather Graham, Laurence Fishburne, Freddy Rodriguez, Nick Cannon, Emilio Estevez, Martin Sheen, Shia LaBeouf, and ever other Democrat in Tinseltown (we’re talking big cast). MGM. Biography. Written & directed by Emilio Estevez. Opens 11/23/06

Bobby revisits the night Robert F. Kennedy was gunned down at the Ambassador Hotel in 1968. With an incredible ensemble cast portraying fictionalized characters from a cross-section of America, the film follows 22 individuals who are all at the hotel for different purposes but share the common thread of anticipating Kennedy’s arrival at the primary election night party, which would change their lives forever. This historic night is set against the backdrop of the cultural issues gripping the country at the time, including racism, sexual inequality and class differences.

One of the best films of the year, Bobby is downright profound. Though some conservatives may have feared that this was just a tribute to a member of the Democratic party, such is not the case. Kind of a Grand Hotel built around the ideals of R.F.K.’s bid for his party’s presidential candidacy, the story(ies) concern(s) the lives of famous and non, each character caught up in a revolutionary era of change. As for the salute to the Democratic party, keep in mind it was a very different party, with a much different agenda back in the ‘60s.

John F. Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” That’s not exactly the motto of either party nowadays. In the film, Robert is heard gently rebuking people in our nation for not helping their fellow Americans. He saw great need here, with many people struggling with poverty and ignorance. Today, both parties seem more determined to help other countries before caring for their own citizenry.

There is a scene with Laurence Fishburne as a chef in the hotel restaurant that is one of the best written and revealing I can remember ever viewing on film. I won’t give it away, but it has to do with how prejudice can be defeated in our country. Very moving. While Mr. Fishburne is only a member of an ensemble, it being a small part at that, his performance is filled with dignity, strength and wisdom. The part is both well written and acted with a subtlety only a great actor can generate.

A word must also be said about the film’s writer/director, Emilio Estevez. I hope his past association with a group of actors known as the Brat Pack won’t stick in the minds of those who vote for awards. Here are some descriptions that come to mind when assessing his work here: exuberant, erudite, with a passionate visual and narrative drive. He has done a job filled with heart, a heart obviously pounding with a desire that justice and goodness be restored to the political scene.

A few years back I was able to visit the Lincoln Memorial in D.C. On a Saturday night, 11:45 p.m., I stood alone, looking up at Mr. Lincoln. I remember thinking as I descended those steps, “How could a politician stand before this memorial and not be moved to do his best?” Evidently, many of them don’t go there. The film in its subtle way reminds us that while we once had the likes of Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan in the main office, now we seem to vote for the lesser of two evils.

R (a couple of crudities are heard concerning nationalities and sexuality, but mostly the writer steers clear of crudeness; around 20 obscenities, mostly the f-word and two uses of the N-word; I caught one profane use of God’s name; the documented footage of the assassination is intermingled with shots of several of the film’s characters also lying wounded; we see blood oozing from wounded victims; it is implied that there is an adulterous affair; a few conversations dealing with sexual matters; two college-aged campaign supporters seek out a drug dealer and get stoned rather than go door to door trying to help the candidate; later they regret not doing their job, but drug use is never really put down or built up; it is portrayed as an example of the times and the fact that many youth believe the use of coke and other drugs will not do harm; there is also some drinking and smoking, again giving a portrait of the times).

Back to top

BOZ: THE GREEN BEAR NEXT DOOR - THANK YOU GOD FOR FRIENDS AND HELPERS

Three-to five-year-olds are often ignored by the entertainment industry, but the folks at Exclaim are dedicated to bringing clever, insightful and entertaining parables to the pre-kindergarten crowd. I recently sat down with my five-year-old nephew and was delighted to see that he was entranced with an animated feature that showed a respect and concern for its intended audience. The Green Bear and his friends shared three different adventures on each of the two 45-minute DVD screeners we were sent.

Created by Jon Green and Dennis DeShazer, co-creator of Barney the Dinosaur, the series examines questions preschoolers have concerning sharing, helping others, and God’s love for them. The action is always handled with regard for the sensibilities of little ones.

Boz: The Green Bear Next Door – Thank You God For Friends and Helpers and Boz: The Green Bear Next Door – Thank You God For Colors and Shapes are available at many Christian bookstores. The DVDs also contain music videos and special features. Lively and colorful, Boz is sure to please. For more information, go to www.BozTheBear.com.

Back to top

THE BRAVE ONE

Jodie Foster, Terrence Howard, Naveen Andrews, Mary Steenburgen.  Warner Bros.  Psychological thriller.  Written by Cynthia Mort and Neil Jordan.  Directed by Neil Jordan.  Opens 9/14/07.

FILM SYNOPSIS.  New York radio host Erica Bain (Jodie Foster) has a life that she loves and a fiancé she adores.  All of it is taken from her when a brutal attack leaves Erica badly wounded and her fiancé dead.  Unable to move past the tragedy, Erica begins prowling the city streets at night to track down the men she holds responsible. Her dark pursuit of justice catches the public’s attention, and the city is riveted by her anonymous exploits.  But with the NYPD desperate to find the culprit and a dogged police detective (Terrence Howard) hot on her trail, she must decide whether her quest for revenge is truly the right path, or if she is becoming the very thing she is trying to stop.

REVIEW:  A more conflicted Death Wish, with Jodie Foster filling in for Charlie Bronson, The Brave One is superb filmmaking.  With intense performances from Ms. Foster and Terrence Howard, plus a well-structured script that points out the frustrations of victims of crime and the judicial system, The Brave One holds our attention throughout.  Alas, as with most films that will be vying for the Motion Picture Academy’s attention this year, it punctuates its story with R-rated content.  Everybody gets to use the f-bomb – many times – in order to express their frustration and fear.  And why imply when you can depict?  So we see many graphic close-up shootings, one dastardly dude getting it in the eye, another in the mouth, one chick three times in the chest by her peeved boyfriend.

It’s a well-made film, but a rough one; not just because of the violence or the language, but because of its reminder that brutality lurks around the corner and touches lives otherwise involved in everyday living.  The movie haunts us as it suggests tragedy may suddenly disrupt our lives.  By film’s end, the main victim has found no solace, no peace of mind.  Ironically, she wears a cross throughout the film, but never do we see her praying for God to intercede.  For me that was the most disturbing aspect, this physically and mentally wounded woman trying to find resolve from within, yet never seeking a spiritual assist.

The ending is just as morally repugnant as the one in the original Death Wish where Charles Bronson is seen in a new town aiming a finger like a gun at delinquents, implying his reign as vigilante has not ended.  While I won’t give away this picture’s climax, suffice it to say, though it appears our heroine has been reprieved, in reality, she has not truly been helped. 

R (around 30 obscenities, mostly the f-word and mostly from attacking thugs; the leads also curse from time to time; I only caught one misuse of Christ’s name, but it was done in such an offensive way that it borders on blasphemy; there are several killings, opening with the lead and her fiancé being beaten brutally by a gang of thieves; the man dies from this and she is scared both physically and mentally; the attack is graphically depicted; seeking justice, the lead buys a gun and manages to find all the offending attackers in the city of New York and shoots them; one man attacks the lead with a crowbar; he is then hit with one and thrown to his death; we see the bloodied bodies of the lead and her fiancé as they are removed from the crime scene; all the shootings are done close up and are graphically depicted; in dreams, the lead sees her fiancé as they make love; these scenes are mixed with those of the attack; some drinking and the lead smokes).

Running Time: 90-some min.
Intended Audience: Adults

Back to top

BRIDESHEAD REVISITED

Matthew Goode, Whishaw, Hayley Atwell, Emma Thompson, Michael Gambon.  Miramax Films.  Drama.  Written by Andrew Davies, Jeremy Brock.  Directed by Julian Jarrold.  Opens in limited release 7/25/08.

FILM SYNOPSIS:  This adaptation of Evelyn Waugh's novel focuses on the friendship of two college students, Charles Ryder and Sebastian Flyte, one rich and gay, one poor and not certain.  They bond, to the consternation of fellow classmates, but during a holiday to the elaborate family home of Brideshead, Charles falls for Sebastian’s sister.  The love affair between Charles and Julia is doomed, however, due to Julia’s domineering mother, a devout Catholic who won’t hear of her daughter marrying Charles as he is an atheist.  The underlying theme has to do with the author’s negative view of Catholicism and how religion can destroy relationships.

REVIEW:  Though this is involving storytelling, overall it grieved my spirit.  Sebastian isn’t just gay; he’s a tormented soul, self-centered and spiteful.  His lifestyle, his alcoholism and his deep-seated family hatred has made his life a tragedy.  And what a family.  Caught between a mother who exemplifies little of God’s compassion, and an  adulterous father who despises the influence of the Christian faith, the children have grown up to find relief through alcohol and illicit affairs.  They are not a happy bunch. And the filmmakers use this perspective to paint a faith in Christ as little more than a way for community leaders to control the masses.  

It’s difficult as a Christian movie reviewer to address the portrayal of a gay lifestyle in films.  Today one has to be careful of how things are stated; otherwise, one gets the label of homophobe, which to some is the equivalent of being a book-burner.  But the theme is prominent in Brideshead Revisited.  So let me simply state that this is one example of how the reading of God’s Word is important to our daily lives.  If we study the scriptures, we can get a biblical understanding of God’s position on this and every other subject without being misled by those in the media who either pay little heed to biblical principles or have rejected them.  What’s more, we can point to book and chapter as the defense of our understanding.

As to the film, it is well directed, and though deliberately paced, manages to mesmerize through involving storytelling.  The performances are satisfactory, with Emma Thompson outstanding as the matriarch, concerned with social appearance and oppressed by her church rulings. But overall it left me depressed, as the characters are sacrificed in order to make what seemed to me to be an anti-religion statement.

PG-13 (a few crude expressions and sexual remarks; a couple of mild expletives, but I caught no harsh or profane language; one sexual situation between a man and a woman – beginning an adulterous affair; we see two men kiss a couple of times; male backside nudity as two men are seen skinny dipping; veiled sexual innuendo between two men; everyone drinks – a lot; a drunk vomits; we see a man cleaning it up; anti-religious sentiments).

Running Time: Nearly two hours
Intended Audience: Adults

DVD Alternatives:  Pride & Prejudice.  Keira Knightley stars in this version of the classic tale of love and misunderstanding unfolding in class-conscious England near the close of the 18th century. The five Bennet sisters with the aid of their worrisome mother are seeking husbands and securing the family’s future.  Fueled by detailed direction, pumped by satisfying performances, energized by fluid and sultry cinematography, and textured by Jane Austin’s ability to infuse humor into what would merely be melodrama in the hands of other authors, this newest adaptation is elegant, gentile and lovely. 
Sense and Sensibility (1995). Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Kate Winslet, Hugh Grant.  Tweaking the social mores of the day, this engrossing screenplay (by the film's star, Emma Thompson), concerns two sisters who discover the joys and tribulations of young love.  Set in prim and proper 18th-century Regency-era England, Jane Austen’s romance novel is beautifully photographed and splendidly acted.  The melodrama is full of wit, humor, and passion.  PG (no profanity, no sexual situations, no violence - just great tongue-in-cheek storytelling). 

Back to top

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Williams, Anne Hathaway. Focus Features. W-Larry McMurtry, Diana Ossana. D-Ang Lee.

Two modern day cowpokes are tending their boss’s sheep up on Brokeback Mountain, when on a blustery night; cuddling for warmth, they can no longer resist their sexual attraction for one another. The epic drama then proceeds to tell their two decade-long story, one that includes both men marrying unsuspecting woman and raising unsuspecting children. The families are unaware that the fishing trips these lifelong friends take several times a year are in fact romantic getaways. (Poor Duke Wayne, he must be looking down from that great Ponderosa in the sky, shaking his head in complete bewilderment.)

This is a rather late review. It was not a film I wanted to see. I had already seen several films this past year with homosexual themes and I have time and again attempted to lovingly, non-judgmentally express my sentiments concerning the gay lifestyle as represented in the movies. But wouldn’t you know it, Brokeback Mountain is being touted by nearly every major critic in the land and looks to be a frontrunner for this year’s Best Picture Oscar. If you review films for a living, you pretty much have to see the contenders for Oscar’s attention. So, finally, I did.

While I pride myself for attempting a balanced look at the films I critique, I simply cannot separate the artistic achievement from this film’s theme/message. The film’s subject matter – one considered restrained by many reviewers, but far too illustrative for me – is never overshadowed by panoramic vistas or character development. It’s not just a film representing gay love. It is an oppressive story, nearly devoid of humor, a tragedy concerning people who lie, live in secret and use others to hide their sin. Oh, right away a red flag went up. Unchurched just heard the word “sin,” and assumed I was a religious fanatic. Well, tell me, what would you call what these two men do to their families? My reaction did not spring from religious piety, but from a sense of common decency. Their sexual activity aside, what they do to their wives is despicable. If building a life on a lie to your mate is not a sin, then what is?

In my youth, I watched John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda depict men of the west. They were defining the American male, and helping this miniature six-shooter-toten hombre learn about the character and sacrifice it takes to do the right thing. But since the passing of John Ford and other legendary theatrical inventers of the western genre, studios have searched for a new slant on the horse opera. One direction came in 1969 when Paul Newman and Robert Redford spun the western by including witty pals-in-the-saddle banter and also making the leads the film’s outlaws.

Since then, we’ve gone in every direction imaginable, from Sam Peckinpah’s bloody Wild Bunch, to Clint Eastwood’s anti-western-themed Unforgiven, to Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles, renown for its famous campy bean scene. The western genre is now a far cry from the vision John Ford or Howard Hawks painted.

It is the first western I’ve seen where the two lead wranglers wrangle with more than the herd. That’s hard for me to adjust to. At 2 hours and 14 minutes, it is one long, depressing, profane yarn, one designed to further homosexuality as mainstream in the collective American psyche.
I don’t like the two lead characters. They marry women because it’s expected of them and to hide their sexual orientation. The women get the shaft (so to speak), they are mistreated by the men, who are using them basically as beards. There doesn’t seem to be any real love or respect for the womenfolk. That’s not an uplifting portrait of a film’s heroes.

My next problem was the film’s graphic sexuality. When we refer to men being gay, most of us don’t dwell on their love-making process. But here we see it. Pants pulled down, a body flipped over. Etc.

It can be argued that what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors is their business. Theirs and God’s. I’m fine with that. My objection comes when I’m expected to approve of the lifestyle. The filmmakers, the gay community, the liberal media, all want us to see this film as a love story. I guess that’s my main problem with the picture.

I can understand why the gay community wants to support this production. By making the subject matter less taboo, more mainstream, their chances of getting public support will continue to mount. And I see why liberal artists want to back such a story. They want to support friends and co-creators they’ve seen denied their fundamental rights. And for those unaware of biblical teachings, that philosophy also seems justified. About the only response not given credible attention in the secular community is from those who can’t ignore the scriptural references in both the Old and New Testaments concerning this practice.

Scriptures say homosexuality is an abomination (Romans 1:26, 1 Corinthians 6:9). But we must guard against false superiority. Upon reexamination of those verses, it becomes apparent homosexuality is not all that's abhorrent to the Heavenly Father. In fact, we are all blameworthy of some infraction. However, those developing a spiritual awareness soon find themselves ashamed of the natural man's disobedience to God. We don't parade our peccadilloes. We are not proud of our transgressions, nor do we try to convince society to accept them. With God's help we will conquer these faults. With His mercy, we will be forgiven them.

We must be careful how we allow the cinema to influence us. And if someone reading this argument struggles with a sexual problem, please don't consider this writer antagonistic. No Christian has the right to place himself above others. This commentary is simply trying to point out that no matter what seems right to Hollywood, if it counters biblical principles, Christians are commanded to speak up: “God will forgive us, but not until we give up justifying our failings” (1 John 1:8-10). If this sexual behavior brings guilt to anyone you know, assure them that self-reproach has its place only when it reminds them that God has a plan for their lives. All too often guilt is used by the world, Satan or ourselves to separate us from Christ. Remember, He doesn't seek our shame, just our gratitude.

R (around 30 misuses of God’s name and Christ’s, an endless amount of obscenity, There’s not a great deal of vocalizing of the sexual attraction

Sexual situations: at least five instances, some with the men, some with the leads and their girlfriends; these situations include groping, kissing and at least two graphic encounters, nudity, adultery: both leads cheat on their wives).

Back to top

THE BUCKET LIST

Jack Nicholson, Morgan Freeman.  Warner Bros.  Comedy/drama.  Written by Justin Zackham.  Directed by Rob Reiner.  Limited release 12/25/07 Opens wide on January 11.

FILM SYNOPSIS:  Two men with cancer and the prospect of death meet and become friends while sharing a room at a hospital.  Mr. Nicholson plays a cynical, lonely billionaire eventually led to a better way by Mr. Freeman’s good soul.  Together they circumnavigate the world, crossing off items they wanted to accomplish before their life came to a close. 

REVIEW:  Because I work with words for a living, I’m supersensitive to the misuse of language.  I also suspect that Hollywood’s disregard for the third Commandment found in Exodus 20 has made me frustrated with the profane use of God’s name in nearly every film release.  I promise my objection is not out of piousness.  I’m as faulty as they come and am in no position to point a sanctimonious digit at anyone.  It’s just that when I hear Jesus’ name used in frustration from screen characters who otherwise never call upon God or Christ, I’m always reminded of the Bible’s instruction to reverence the Almighty.  Sadly, the entertainment mediums reflect the reality that such respect for God is not foremost in today’s culture. 

That’s the problem I’m having with this otherwise entertaining and thoughtful production.  It is such a pleasure to view two consummate old pros working seemingly effortlessly, scene after scene.  Added to the fun performances, the screenplay incorporates travels to the world’s most exotic locales, including the Taj Mahal, the Pyramids, and Mt. Everest.  (Some beautiful cinematography.)  And unlike most films dealing with a lead character facing death, this one actually addresses the afterlife.  While the Morgan Freeman character explains what other religions say about the Hereafter, a scene of him and his family praying over a meal indicates that Christianity has been his spiritual path.  He’s a man with foibles of his own, but his patient, forgiving and compassionate heart reflects a sincere response to his faith, and this obviously has an affect on the Nicholson character.        

Perhaps it’s a bit talky for younger filmgoers, but I think “vintage” movie lovers will appreciate the story being moved along by character development rather than by things that go boom.

So, that’s my dilemma: two great actors discussing spiritual matters vs. the film’s objectionable language.  I was uplifted by everything but the careless use of God’s name, and that of His Son’s (mostly by the embittered Nicholson character).  I don’t know how to advise concerned moviegoers troubled by Hollywood’s infatuation with profanity.  Does the profundity outweigh the profanity?  It’s your call.

PG-13 (a couple of crude remarks concerning sex and bodily functions by the Nicholson character; around 15 obscenities and an equal amount of minor expletives; 6 misuses of Christ’s name and 6 of God’s name; Mr. Nicholson’s character has an explosive personality, but his wrath is limited to vocal outbursts; a man coughs up blood; one implied sexual encounter, but nothing is seen; a few sexual conversations, but the Freeman character, married for 66 years, makes a point of declaring his loyalty throughout the years; some drinking).

Back to top

© 2008 Good News Tucson™