 September
2004
Summer Movies, 2004:
- Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
- Spiderman II
- The Manchurian Candidate
- The Village
Summer Movies, 2004
Moe: Hey, Joe, I’ve been out of circulation all summer and
I’m ready to see something on the big screen. You always see a lot
of movies, so what can you steer me to?
Joe: Well, I’ve seen a whole lot of movies this summer.
What do you feel like? Something serious? Something lighthearted?
Moe: Just something that holds my interest and has good
values. What about the new Harry Potter movie? I’ve heard it’s
really good. Have you seen that?
Joe: You mean Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
Azkaban? Yes, I saw it. I liked the first two Harry Potter
movies, but I thought this one left a lot to be desired.
Moe: How so?
Joe: It keeps the action coming, but that’s all there is,
really—no real character development and not much tension. Great
actresses like Maggie Smith and Emma Thompson are wasted. And, say
what you will about the harmlessness of “benign witchcraft,” I’m
still bothered by statements like Hermione being called “the best
witch of her time,” as if that were something young girls should
aspire to.
Moe: OK. What else have you seen?
Joe: Well, believe it or not, Spiderman II
is one of the best.
Moe: Seriously? Isn’t it pretty juvenile?
Joe: There’s a certain comic book quality to it, sure. But
Spiderman is an admirable character. The movie is about his moral
struggles and his desire to do the right thing. The subplot
involving the evil scientist goes a little over the top, but it’s a
good picture overall.
Moe: All right. Now what about The Manchurian
Candidate? Have you seen that?
Joe: Yep, sure have. I have mixed feelings about it. On
the one hand, it’s really exciting and keeps your attention the
whole time. On the other, it doesn’t hold a candle to the original.
Moe: I never saw the original. You say it was better?
Joe: It sure was. You know there’s a local reviewer who
said there are a lot of good things about the remake but it just
wasn’t necessary. I agree with her. Why remake a movie that was a
classic to begin with? In the first version, which came out in 1962,
the threat of evil communism was the issue. In the remake, it’s the
threat of evil corporations. Denzel Washington does a good job as
the main character, and Meryl Streep is good as a senator, but she
can’t approach Angela Lansbury’s performance in the original. Go and
see it if you want, but you should get the video of the 1962 movie
and compare the two. And be warned that in the remake there’s a lot
of swearing and taking the Lord’s name in vain.
Moe: Anything else you can recommend?
Joe: Yes. The Village. When I first saw it I
wasn’t sure how well I liked it, but the more I think about it the
better it seems. It was directed by the same fellow who made The
Sixth Sense.
Moe: Hmm. What’s it about?
Joe: Well, I have to be careful here because if I say too
much about the plot, I’ll give away the surprise—and that’s what
makes the movie really enjoyable. I guess I can say it’s about some
people who live in an isolated village they can’t leave. There’s
something terrifying in the forest surrounding their village.
Moe: Sounds like a monster movie. What’s so good about it?
Joe: It deals with being in the world versus of the world,
and, indirectly, original sin. There’s absolutely no offensive
language, sexual innuendo, or anything of the kind. There is some
implied violence. The acting is great.
Moe: OK. That’s food for thought. Now, if you had to rate
these movies, what would you give them?
Joe: Let me think … OK,
Harry Potter, 2 stars
Spiderman II, 2 ¾ stars
The Manchurian Candidate, 3 stars
The Village, 3 stars.
Moe: I’m going to see them just to find out if I agree
with you or not.
|
|
Index of movie
reviews...
(2003 reviews through present)
Jay Maurer, a member of West Side Presbyterian Church, is
a long-term movie buff and former college teacher of The Film as
Literature. He has written movie reviews for The Good News
(West Side newsletter) since 2002.
If you have comments or questions
about the movie (or play) reviews, please contact Jay at
dramachap@msn.com.
Ratings are expressed in
increments of ¼ star.
A rating of 2 ½ stars or higher is meant to be a recommendation.
1 star: poor
2 stars: minimally satisfactory
3 stars: quite good
4 stars: superb
Criteria for determining the ratings:
- Reflection, either explicit or implicit, of Christian values,
including suitability of language and lack of gratuitous violence
- Quality of the acting
- Originality
- Unity of the entire picture
- Substance, or in the words of C.S. Lewis, weight
Other Christian movie review Web sites:
Plugged In Online
ChristianityTodayMovies.com
|
