Movies Pt 3: The Book of Eli

This is, by far, the best of the movies I've seen recently. In a future where the earth is barren and only a few humans survive, a man names Eli (Denzel Washington) makes a pilgrinage across North America carrying a book. As it happens, a local warlord named Carnagie (Gary Oldman) has been looking for that same book and the power it can give him.

This feels a little like "The Road Warrior" and a little like "A Fist Full of Dollars" but it's not a copy of either. Eli is one of the smartest and best acted movies I've seen in a long time and explores the power of faith (both negative and positive) is some amazing ways. It's easily the best use of an explicitly religious theme I've seen at the movies in a long time. It's filled with clever twists and left me feeling deeply satisfied. I recommend it highly.

Movies Pt 1: Sherlock Holmes

I had a chance to get to the movies several times in January. I don;'t do that much these days and it was a treat. Here are my thoughts about them, FWIW.

SHERLOCK HOLMES - I was ready to dislike this. I've been a fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's detective since I read "A Scandal in Bohemia" in the sixth grade and had reservations about Holmes played as an action hero by an American actor.

As it turned out the screenplay was very clever and surprisingly true to the spirit of the original stories. There were some plot holes, but nothing glaring and the cast was excellent. Robert Downey Jr. is one of the best actors around. He picked up on both the brilliance and the troubled side of the character and made me believe. My only problem with him is that he doesn't look even remotely like Holmes is supposed to, but I can overlook that for a first rate performance. Jude Law was excellent as Dr. Watson, and the story worked, both as a self-contained story, and as the set up for a sequel.

I've heard that there is another Holmes film in the works with Sasha Baron Cohen as Holmes and Will Ferrell as Watson. I think I'd rather chew off my own foot than be trapped in a theater with that, but we'll see I suppose.

Max Payne

My wife wanted to go see "Appaloosa" this evening, unfortunately we got to the theater after it started, and she decided we should see "Max Payne" instead. In case you're not familiar with the movies, "Appaloosa" is a based on a novel by Robert B. Parker (a writer I admire), "Max Payne" is based on a popular third person shooter game.

I'm going to sound like a real snob (maybe I am), but no apologies for this one. Max Payne is awful.

It's not universally awful. Beau Bridges as B.B. is good (at least until the climax when he has to spit out a lot of ludicrous lines), and I was pleasantly surprised by Ludacris as the Internal Affairs officer investigating Max.

Other good points...

1. I learned that no matter how gigantic your gun of preference is, it's fairly easy to conceal it on your person if you just wear a jacket.

2. I was impressed that Mark Wahlberg's character could shoot more accurately firing over his shoulder while falling backwards than any other character could shoot while standing up and aiming (even with a laser aiming device). I suspect that the character's amazing willpower (demonstrated by the fact that his face never changed expression) accounts for this.

3. The movie was one of the loudest I've seen in a long time. This is a useful feature, it helps the viewer to fend off occasional drowsiness.

4. Mila Kunis is a pretty actress. Even excessive makeup, a lack of intelligent dialogue, and the excessive flourishing of a ridiculously big gun failed to completely obscure this fact.

5. The visual effects were spectacular, and sometimes even clever.

6. The occasional references to Norse mythology were interesting, and hinted at greater depth. Unfortunately they were also inaccurate, and were ultimately red herrings.

The final lesson I learned is that I probably shouldn't watch movies, let alone review them, while I'm in a terrible mood. It's a good thing that tomorrow is another day.

("Tomorrow is another day!" That's a good line! Maybe they can put that in a movie someday. It'd work great right before the climactic gunfire, explosions, and helicopter crash!)

Iron Man

I finally got to see this on DVD this week and enjoyed it tremendously! Robert Downeyt Jr. was perfect as Tony Stark, the hero who moved from self-involved arrogance to idealistic heroism without ever losing his engagingly irresponsible attitude.

The rest of the cast was also very good, especially Gwenneth Paltrow as Stark's long-suffering personal assistant. I've heard criticism that Jeff Bridges as the villainous Obadiah Stane wasn't as good a villain as he could have been. I actually liked him a lot in this. He may suffer by comparison to Heath Ledger's tour de force as the Joker in Dark Knight, but everyone this summer will suffer when compared to that.

There was a lot to like about the movie, but there was one scene that made me really think. Disillusioned by the fact that his weapons are being used to kill innocents, Stark develops the Iron Man armor and travels to Afghanistan to take on anyone misusing his weapons.

Iron Man is technologically superior to anything operating in the country. He only has a few rough moments in slipping past the U.S. forces and overpowering the insurgents. When they resort to using human shields, Iron Man activates a special weapon that targets all the hostage takers and knocks them out without a single innocent being harmed.

It's a fun scene, but it made me a little--uncomfortable might be too strong a word--but it made me think. It reminded me of the claims we heard in the Gulf War, which have been repeated in the war in Iraq. And the truth is that the U.S. has as huge a technological advantage over the rest of the world as Iron Man has over the real world. Despite that, war is still messy, collateral damage is still high, and innocents still suffer every day.

I recently listened to an NPR interview with an expert on the recent wars who said that the highest civilian body counts by far in Afghanistan these days are caused by U.S. air strikes. He blames poor communication between U.S. forces and international peacekeepers, and also the very different rules of engagement between air and ground forces. The lack of coordination leads to a chaotic situation that no level of technological superiority can sort out.

In the movie, Tony Stark decides that the armor he develops is too powerful to be trusted to anyone else. It needs to remain in the hands of a lone highly responsible individual. (Well, actually a reckless individual with a heart of gold, but you get the point).

That's perhaps the essence of the superhero myth. It's not superior power that ultimately makes the hero. It's courage, compassion, and wise decisions that define the hero. In the world of a movie or a comic book, those things are fairly easy to come by. In real life it's much messier. We can, and should, strive for the ideal, but we're a long way from being Iron Man.

Dr. Syn

I've been watching a VHS (yes, I'm still that primitive) of Disney's "Dr. Syn, Alias the Scarecrow" this week. I saw it at the drive-in when I was in grade school and loved it! It was a double feature with "Treasure Island" and (in my young eyes) blew Long John Silver away.

For one thing, Dr. Syn features a masked hero and I've always been a sucker for those. He's not just some good in a cape and mask either. The Scarecrow is weird, spooky, and impressive in a way very few masked characters are. The idea that this fearsome creature was a force for justice was inexpressably cool.

The other thing that really attracted me to the character was that he was a clergyman. Church was starting to be an important part of my life at that age and the combination of wise pastor and masked outlaw hero was a potent combination. I never questioned the idea that a minister could be motivated to put on a spooky costume and fight for justice. In some ways it made more sense than having a millionaire playboy of a bored caballero do the same thing.

It took me many years to track down the print stories that inspired the movie but I did. I was in graduate school before I found a novel by an American author named Buchanan titled CHRISTOPHER SYN. It was many more years before I ran across the series of novels by Russell Thorndike. These really filled out Syn's odd personality from his early years to his career as a pirate, to his dual career as vicar of Dymchurch and swashbuckling masked smuggler.

There are two other movies, both predating the Disney version. "Doctor Syn" (1937) tells the story of Syn's final days when his piratical past finally catches up to him. "Captain Clegg" (1962) is a remake of "Doctor Syn" with Peter Cushing replacing George Arliss in the title role. I've never seen the Arliss version but liked the Cushing version quite a bit. I've always enjoyed the actor's work. Still, for my money, Disney's movie is by far the best. It shows syn in the prime of life outwitting the King's men at every turn, and Partick McGoohan is perfect as the character. He projects the cool intellect and the core of decency perfectly. Dr. Syn is kind and mild, but you never doubt that he is a man of integrity. The Scarecrow is frightening, but we see a glimmer of mercy and compassion shine through his fierce guise.