Have you seen "Bella"yet?

There's still time. "Bella" has been in theatres since October 25, and is still being shown in theatres in the US, and will go international from there. Click here for showtimes.

Here's my review at Mercatornet.

Deacon Greg Reviews Sweeney Todd

After months of waiting and wondering, last night I finally got to see the movie version of "Sweeney Todd." I'd seen the stage production years ago, with Angela Lansbury and George Hearn, and knew to expect something different with Johnny Depp wielding the razor. It is different. Very different. It's a brooding, disturbing, urgent, ominous, grisly, sweeping "Sweeney."

And it's also something I never expected: heartbreaking.

It's a story of revenge, and like all of these kinds of tales, the moral is the same: revenge begets revenge. (Or, as "Othello" puts it, "Sin will pluck on sin.") The grudges we nurse can destroy us -- even more so, when we believe that settling those grudges will, in fact, redeem us. When Sweeney throws back his head and sings, "I will have salvation," he's not talking about going to heaven, but to hell. And hell consumes, almost literally, the second half of the story, with bodies being burned and chimneys belching black smoke and corpses piling up like the last scene of "Hamlet."

Definitely Deacon Greg should have been a movie reviewer. Read the rest for his thoughtful and compelling commentary. He sees below the surface just as we would want in any well told story. For those who are fans of Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, Steven Sondheim ... and well, horror-musicals (granted it is a small genre!) ... go read his review. (Cross-posted at Happy Catholic)

Movie and Book Review: I Am Legend

It is difficult to know how to review these without spoiling them

In brief, I can say that there are some definite parallels between them and yet they have a completely different feel. Both are cautionary tales about man's meddling with things that he should not. Both leave Robert Neville as the sole survivor of an insidious disease that either kills the infected or completely changes any survivors into monsters which prey upon normal people. In the book the people look normal but actually are regular cross-hating, garlic-shunning, sunlight-hating vampires. In the movie, the people become animalistic monsters that the girls and I dubbed "zom-pires" as they seemed a strange mixture between fast moving zombies and vampires.

The book, written in 1954, is fairly typical of a genre of science fiction of the time. The details of Neville's life are told completely from his thoughts. Between the daily details of making stakes to kill vampires, teaching himself science to try to identify what has caused the disease, and his struggles with loneliness, there are flashbacks from his dreams which fill in what happened to his wife and daughter. Neville was a worker in a plant before the disaster, not a high level intellectual at all, and thus is more of an "every man" than one would expect. I actually found this quite interesting and was riveted right up until the last chapter, which surprised me by entirely changing the entire tenor of the book for me. I will not say more because the I don't want to give away plot points. As I say, they are often parallel to the movie, but made for different reasons with different results which provides quite an interesting contrast when considering both presentations of the story.

The movie is also of its time and turns the scenario into an action-thriller which nonetheless remains strongly life-affirming and redemptive. The movie functions well as a tale of the end-of-the-world (images of abandoned New York are still flashing into my head two days after seeing the movie), an action/horror movie (those zomb-pires are freaky strong and scary with lots of sharp teeth and ear piercing howls), and a story that illustrates what is good about man as exemplified in Robert Neville. Neville in this scenario is a high level scientist who did not cause the disease but is dedicated to finding a cure and carries on his experimentation daily in a thorough fashion. Flashbacks are provided in dreams which fill us in on his family and what left New York City in the disastrous state in which it is presented.

The elements that bring the movie most strongly to life are the detailed touches such as herds of deer in New York, "renting" DVDs each day, a scene with Shrek (of all the unlikely things), and Robert Neville's stubborn dedication to finding a cure for the disease. This seems nonsensical at one point as the disease clearly has won and one wonders why he bothers. However, this is brought into focus by his telling of his hero Bob Marley's reason for putting on a concert two days after being shot by a gunman.

The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off, why should I? Light up the darkness.

All things considered I much preferred the movie to the book. That is not to say that there are not plot holes or flaws in the movie that some such as Roger Ebert have complained about. There is still running water for example. However, these also are things that the original book didn't bother explaining. The author, for all his dedication to various details of survival, left completely unexplained such things as running water, electricity, getting gas for the car. Movie viewers are unlikely to mind either.

The point of the movie is to tell the story and it does so in a compelling fashion. Well done indeed and it is going on my list of the year's best movies.

Note: Although this movie is PG-13 it is definitely horrifying in many of the situations and not suitable for younger children. Hannah and Rose saw a family with a boy of about 8 or 9 sitting near them. Thankfully, after about half an hour they left. I think that is just about the time that Neville is setting off with his flashlight ... a sequence so very suspenseful that I spent much of the time breathing deeply and deliberately looking around the audience just to break the tension. With that said, the violence is quick and not prolonged so that there are not scenes of a disturbingly graphic nature. It was quite well done in implying those scenes or showing them quickly enough that one is carried on in the action.



SPOILERS






Keep an eye peeled for the many times that churches and crosses appear in the background or tangentially in various scenes. Keep in mind Will Smith's statement about "be the light in the darkness" and think about the animalistic nature of the mutated zomb-pires who must exist in darkness and are doing all they can to destroy the person who is trying to find a cure and who lives in the light as best he can. Of course, at the end of the movie, there is a Christian theme of such clarity that some have complained it is heavy-handed. However, what about this film isn't? And I think that today we need some heavy-handedness to get people to get the point. I was stunned to see all this in a major Hollywood movie that has been raking it in for three straight weeks. Just think of the many people who have seen this movie ... every little bit helps I think.

Cross-posted at Happy Catholic.

Movie Review: Juno

By Jean M. Heimann, Catholic Fire

Juno opened here this weekend and I went to see it. This film really surprised me! I had heard it was good, but I had no idea that it would be so funny, and, at the same time, so touching. It was obvious from the reactions of the audience (the laughter and the tears), I was not alone in my feelings for this film.

Ellen Paige plays Juno McGruff, a brainy but zany 16 – year – old, who decides to have sex for the first time with her best friend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera), who is also a virgin. Naturally, she gets pregnant and after a frightening trip to the abortion clinic, Juno decides to give the baby up for adoption. At the suggestion of her girl friend Leah (Olivia Thirby), she checks out the want ads in The Penny Saver and discovers a picture – perfect couple to be the parents of her child -- Mark and Vanessa (Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman).

When Juno breaks the news of her pregnancy to her dad and stepmom, Bren (Allison Janney) and Mac (J.K. Simmons) they react in a calm and loving manner. They are older and wiser than some teen parents and seem to be understanding and genuinely concerned about their daughter, although it is obvious that they do not condone premarital sex. They do make some very candid comments, which are hilarious.

Mac goes with Juno to visit the would – be adoptive parents who, in addition to looking like celebrities, live in the perfect house in the perfect neighborhood, and are obviously more than capable of financially providing for the child. However, as Juno gets to know them better – she discovers their ideal relationship is not what it appears to be.

As we travel through the nine month journey with Juno, we learn that her wisecracks and jokes are a cover-up for her true feelings – deeper feelings she has about the pregnancy and the baby, the pain she is going through, and her feelings for Paulie. She is a sensitive, loving, unselfish young woman who faces the truth, thinks it through, and deals with it accordingly. We see the growth and maturity that takes place within her as a result of this experience.

This is a film I would like to watch again to laugh again, to cry again, to listen to the music again, and to analyze just a bit more. I enjoyed it that much and I think you will, too.

I give it 4 out of 4 stars and an A rating.

Juno" has been nominated for three Golden Globes, including best comedy, best actress in a comedy and best screenwriter.

This movie is rated PG – 13.

Who Are We?

Here's a little bit about the folks that make this site possible:

Christine

Website: A Catholic View

Bio: Christine is a cradle Catholic. She grew up in New York,and now lives in North Carolina with her family. She is very orthodox in her faith. She is loyal to the Pope and the Magesterium of the Church. She considers her blog A Catholic View to be her little contribution to spreading the Catholic faith. She is delighted to be involved with Catholic Media Review. In an increasingly secular world, it is increasingly important to avoid attachment to wordly things and to focus on Christ. There were a few years that strayed and she did not live her faith. Here is the story of how she made her way back: http://theworldimho.blogspot.com/2006/06/miraculous-medal.html

Contact Christine

Jean

Website: Catholic Fire; email

Bio: As a Baby-Boomer, growing up in the 50’s, Jean had been watching TV since it was first invented and movies for over 50 years; her favorites are the classics from the 40’s. As an avid reader, her tastes are eclectic, but she particularly enjoys the following genres: Catholicism / Christianity, history, the arts, biographies, autobiographies, romance, comedy, drama, science fiction/fantasy, health, and psychology/self-help. As a freelance writer, she enjoys writing about: the saints, spirituality, culture of life, and Catholicism. Her work has been published in: Canticle, St. Anthony Messenger, America, Family Resources Center News, and Catholic Exchange. She is a member of Catholic Writers Guild and Catholic Writers Online. Currently, she writes for three web blogs: Catholic Media Review, Catholic Fire, and One Came Back. She is a Catholic wife and mother, and a retired educator and psychologist.

Contact Jean

Jeff Miller

Website: The Curt Jester

Contact Jeff

Jeff Vehige

Website: Thursday Night Gumbo

Contact Jeff

Jessica (Catholic Mom)

Website: A Catholic Mom's Guide to Books

Bio: While raising four children, (boy, girl, girl, boy) ages 12 to 5, I have come to accept that I have not sufficiently "grown up" enough to enjoy mainstream adult fiction. This realization, coupled with the fact that I preview everything my children see or read, led to the creation of Catholic Book Review. I grew up in St. Louis, met my husband at the University of Dallas, and moved to the western suburbs of Chicago, where we currently reside, in a state of constant motion with much driving.

Contact Jessica

Julie

Website: Happy Catholic

Bio: Julie Davis works with her husband in their graphic design business. They have two teenage daughters and live in Dallas, Texas.

Contact Julie

Leticia

Website: Causa Nostrae Laetitiae

Bio: Mother to three daughters and a Literature instructor at a Catholic school, Leticia has always loved writing, good literature, and classic films. She became a blogger in 2006, and began to include film reviews on her blogs, Causa Nostrae Laetitiae, and Cause of Our Joy Suddenly Leticia was thrust into the world of film criticism when Eric Sheske of the National Catholic Register mentioned her blog as a source for Catholic film reviews. The next day, an invitation arrived to attend a film premiere in Hollywood, which she accepted, and a film critic was born.

Leticia began Catholic Media Review to guide parents in their decisions on whether to let their children see a particular film. She also promotes independent family films like “Bella”, and “Fireproof” so that they can reach a larger audience.

Her goal is nothing less than a transformation of the culture to what Pope John Paul II called a “Culture of Life”. She realizes that the pivotal role the media has to play in this transformation, and is determined that those who would defame Christ’s message do not have the last word.

She writes film and book reviews for the following publications: MercatorNet, Catholic Exchange, Catholic Online, and “National Catholic Register”. Her reviews have been posted at the websites of Reuters, IMDb, USA Today, Chicago Sun-Times, and various TV news stations.

Contact Leticia

March Hare

Website: Mad Tea Party

Contact March Hare

Patrice Fagnant-McArthur

Website: Spiritual Woman Thoughts

Patrice Fagnant-MacArthur has a Master of Arts in Applied Theology from Elms College. A columnist for Catholic Mom and Catholic Exchange, she has been reviewing books for over five years and is one of the select "Vine" reviewers on Amazon.com. She is a homeschooling mom of two sons and writes from Western Massachusetts where she is also actively involved in volunteering for her parish. She blogs at Spiritual Woman Thoughts and Catholic Blog Fiction.

Scott Nehring

Website:Good News Film Reviews

Bio: Scott has been an independent movie reviewer since 2004 and has reviewed thousands of films. His reviews have been published on a number of websites from the United States, Australia and India. His reviews have also been published on Reuters.com, USA Today.com and a variety of local news stations across America. A former screenwriter, Scott has is balancing his love of story structure and cinema along with his Christian faith. He teaches film classes to Christians, teaching them how to "read" films and how to deal with the sometimes thorny subject of engaging modern culture. Scott lives in the Twin Cities with his wife and three children.

Contact Scott

National Treasure: Book of Secrets - PG

USA Network just showed the original National Treasure' from 2004, which worked out well for me, since I had not seen the original. I really enjoyed this movie. I was afraid it might be just an imitation of 'Indiana Jones', but it was very entertaining. In this adventure, one of Ben Gates' (Cage's character) ancestors is named as one of the Lincoln conspirators, and he sets out to clear his name. There was plenty of action, and a few comedic moments. It also proves they can make movies without using the F word every 5 minutes. Excellent movie...I highly recommend...you won't be disappointed.

http://worldsbiggesttreasurehunt.movies.go.com/

Radio and Podcast Reviews

E

• EWTN radio shows

I

• Into the Deep

Book Reviews

B

• Beowulf

I

• I Am Legend

M

• Movies That Matter: Reading Film Through the Lens of Faith
  

Complete Blog Commenting Guidelines

These guidelines, commissioned by Dawn Eden from twin bloggers Alex and Brett, are much needed and a good reminder for us all. I am going to take them up on their offer and reproduce them in whole here as I think they are so good. Thanks for such a great blogging resource guys!

You Read It Right: Complete Blog Commenting Guidelines

Commissioned by the lovely Dawn Eden of 'The Dawn Patrol' to write comment guidelines for the purpose of facilitating logical and respectful discussion and argumentation for commenting bloggers, we (Alex and I) are pleased to present:

Commenting for "Newbies"
(A "Reminder" for the Rest of Us)

About the Authors: Alex & Brett Harris have competed for four years in high school speech & debate, including policy and value debate, persuasive platform speaking, limited preparation categories, and even interpretative events. Over the past two years they have combined for 5 national titles, making it into final rounds over 18 times. They have been contributing authors to several debate sourcebooks and have coached high school speech and debate clubs in Oregon, Washington, and Maryland. They currently author the blogs ‘Conscientious Contemplation’ (Alex) and 'The Rebelution’ (Brett).

You Have Entered “The Comment Zone”
It is crucial to a vibrant and healthy comment section for participants to understand the purpose of discussion, and to possess a proper respect for their fellow contributors. Whether you maintain your own blog, comment on other blogger’s posts, or both, you have most likely been frustrated by the lack of proper argumentation and the seeming epidemic of disrespect, primarily among your opponents (Insight #1: They feel the same way towards you).

The truth is that we all can use a helpful reminder every so often as to how we should conduct ourselves in the high-intensity role of “the commentator’s commenter.”

For that reason we present, “Commenting For ‘Newbies’ (A ‘Reminder’ For The Rest of Us),” as an invaluable resource for bloggers and their readers; an aide-mémoire, if you will. Yes, logic, evidence, and respect still exist and can be realized—even in your comment section.

The Purpose of Argumentation
Critical to proper argumentation is an understanding of why we argue; we argue in hopes of persuading dissenting opinions to conform to our own. If we disagree, it is because we think we are right and others are wrong. We take the time to discuss our disagreements in hopes of proving the validity of our views. It is frustrating, therefore, when we find ourselves perpetually clashing with our opponents, while making seemingly no headway towards our goal of changing their minds.

In fact, at times it can feel as if, were we to publicly claim that rabbits exist, our opponents would deny it; even if one hopped up, said, “What’s up, Doc?” and starting burrowing into their heads. How do we get past these confounding doldrums and arrive at a place from which the discussion can progress in an intelligent manner?

Here are three steps to improve your skills of argumentation:

Step One: Remember that your opponents have come to their conclusions using more or less the same rational process you have. The difference is not necessarily their intellect, but rather the information they had at their disposal and the values they hold.

Step Two: Understand that this means your opponent feels just as confident about the accuracy of his or her position as you do about yours, and will only be persuaded otherwise if you prove that their information or values are out of line.

Step Three: Realize that successful argumentation will only take place when you make it your goal to inform and persuade, by supplying additional bits (or chunks) of information and by addressing the values behind your opponent’s conclusions.

8 Principles For Logical & Respectful Discussion

The key to respectful, profitable argumentation is to respect others and to be respected. You respect others by acting civilly and arguing reasonably. You cause others to respect you by not acting like a fool in your manner or in your argumentation. Here are eight principles that allow you to do both:

NUMBER ONE: Understand the ‘classical’ view of tolerance.
The classical view of tolerance lends itself much more readily to intelligent argumentation than does the modern view. It teaches that, while we may strongly disagree with dissenting opinions, we still treat the person behind those opinions with respect.

DO feel free to disagree, even strongly, with other people, and say so!
DO feel free to permanently demolish opposing viewpoints. (Good luck!)
DO NOT attempt to demolish opposing “people.”

NUMBER TWO: “No ‘ad hominen’ attacks, you moron!”
Nothing more quickly degenerates a discussion than when people start attacking those making the arguments rather than refuting the arguments themselves. Remember that the character, circumstances, or political ideology of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.

DO NOT stoop to name-calling (moron, idiot, etc.)
DO NOT imply negative monikers onto people simply because they disagree. (i.e. “Anyone who’s even slightly intelligent will believe that cows are people too.”)

NUMBER THREE: Eschew Obscenity & Prohibit Profanity
The use of inappropriate language and shocking statements is a sure sign that the author lacks the ability to communicate their position in a calm and reasonable manner. It shows tremendous disdain for others and will not be allowed on respectable blogs.

DO NOT be upset when your comment is deleted for inappropriate language.
DO NOT be upset when you IP address is banned for multiple offenses.

NUMBER FOUR: He who asserts must prove.
This is one of the most critical aspects of proper argumentation and requires that you carefully guard yourself from making groundless statements. Every proposition should be supported by either logic or evidence.

Logic includes everything from complex syllogisms to plain ol’ cause-and-effect. Evidence can take the form of examples, statistics, and/or quotations from authorities in the field. Supported arguments stand until refuted. Unsupported arguments do not deserve a response and might as well not exist.

DO feel free to confirm other people’s points without provided additional support.
DO NOT make additional arguments or publicize your disagreement with someone else’s position without providing adequate support.

NUMBER FIVE: Respond to the argument, not to the spelling.
There is no surer sign of inadequacy on the part of a debater than when they take issue with some small “error” on the part of their opponent, while ignoring the main point/s their adversary is trying to make.

If you are unable to refute your opponent’s position, don’t insult his or her spelling, grammar, or insignificant deviations from fact. Your opponent is most likely correct, and their small errors have nothing to do with the overall truth or falsity of the proposition they defend. Don’t make a fool of yourself by being a sore loser.

DO feel free to point out significant errors that impact the validity of a claim.
DO NOT point out errors solely for the purpose of embarrassing your opponent.

NUMBER SIX: Debating When Less Is More.
A common tactic adopted by inexperienced debaters is to ask a long series of questions that place an enormous burden on their opposition, without actually making any particular point. Such an approach is not only unfair to your opponent, but it really isn’t argumentation at all. These kinds of “question avalanches” can hardly be responded to in the confines of a comment section, but will often foster animosity.

The same is true of those with too much time on their hands (or a gift for speed writing) who present far too many arguments at one time in hopes of “burying” their opponent under the supposed “empirical” weight. Both of these abuses inhibit true argumentation and inevitably degrade the quality of a discussion. Respect yourself and your opponents at all times by using moderation in your argumentation and questioning.

DO feel free to ask pertinent and probing questions about your opponent’s position.
DO NOT expect answers for loaded questions.
DO NOT ask loaded questions.
DO feel free to make powerful and relevant arguments against your opponent’s position.
DO NOT expect answers to your 5 page tome.
DO NOT write 5 page tomes.

NUMBER SEVEN: Do your own research.
Remember that your opponents are busy people who are taking time out of their day to discuss relevant issues with you. Do not place an excessive burden on them by requiring them to go “off-site” to read lengthy articles or study ancient philosophers, scientists, etc. If Aristotle makes “your” point then “you” should be able to make the argument. Your opponent certainly will not (and shouldn’t have to) make it for you.

DO feel free to provide links to outside sources for your opponent’s consideration.
DO NOT expect your opponent to read them unless you make them want to. (i.e. “If you go read Maxwell’s five-foot bookshelf, then you’d agree with me!” never works)
DO feel free to support your arguments with outside resources. Just make sure you summarize what the resource says. Otherwise your opponents will consider your argument unsupported until they go read/see the support. Which they most likely never will.

NUMBER EIGHT: The fallacy of the majority.
When the majority of participants in a discussion hold your position, it is common to start acting as if the last seven principles no longer apply to you. You feel you can destroy the dissenter, along with their position, since you have so many like-minded chums. However, the majority has no more right to silence the opinion of a minority through disrespectful, improper argumentation, than the minority would have, if it were able, to silence the opinion of the majority using the same methods. Victory by means of respectful, logical argumentation is true victory. Victory by any other means is no victory at all.

DO feel free to destroy dissenting opinions using respectful, logical argumentation.
DO NOT silence dissenting opinions by majority “piranha attacks.”

Movie Reviews

B

• Bella
• Beowulf

C

• Cideade de Deus (City of God)
  

E

• Eastern Promises
  
• Enchanted

I

• I Am Legend

J

• Juno: Jean's review, Leticia's review

N

• National Treasure : Book of Secrets

S

• Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street: March Hare's review, link to Deacon Greg's review

W

• Water Horse (The): Legend of the Deep