Marines, Magic, Marie, and a Mustang

Bullets fly and bombs explode in Clint Eastwood's new film Flags of Our Fathers. The historical recreation of the historic siege of Iwo Jima is awe-inspiring in its intensity and grisly detail. But the movie isn't just about combat. It's about other kinds of conflict—wars of words, battles fought for the hearts and minds of a nation, and private conflicts with addiction, depression, and prejudice.

But one thing unites the three central characters of this story—they all took part in the famous flag raising on Mt. Surabachi on that small, rocky Japanese island, a moment captured by AP photographer Joe Rosenthal. And that photograph had a significant impact on American patriotism.

All told, the battle of Iwo Jima was a triumph for U.S. forces, but that victory came at a heavy price. More than 26,000 Marines were killed or wounded on that island, and 22,000 Japanese defenders died there as well. In Eastwood's complex adaptation of James Bradley's book, we see through the eyes of the Marines who fought there. And then we follow them home to learn about further challenges that awaited them.

My full review is at Christianity Today Movies.

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) raves that the performances are "superb," and he praises Eastwood's direction, saying he has delivered a powerful work about heroism. "Eastwood does not subvert the traditional ideal of valor, but honors it by reminding us that the heroes of Iwo Jima were not supermen, but ordinary boys who rose to the occasion, sacrificing their lives to do what was needed, not for glory, but for the greater good and the guy next to them in the foxhole."

Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) praises the film for its refusal to "offer easy notions of patriotism or jingoistic symbolism. … " But he's not entirely impressed. "[T]he movie is fragmented and often didactic. It never fully engages our interest, despite some effective moments. Its derivative qualities and somewhat cynical message leave these Flags flying at half-mast."

Marcus Yoars, Steven Isaac, and Bob Neven (Plugged In) combine forces to review the film. They conclude that, " … throughout the course of its objectively depressing, meticulously tiring depiction of war, it seems to be trying to say that nothing about the taking of that singular picture and the military's subsequent use of it was, for lack of a superlative, good. … It's sufficient to simply report that the overwhelming emotional effect of the film is to make you mistrust the government—and let the chips and facts fall as they may."

But they add that the film does teach us "what a true hero is."

Mainstream critics are impressed, although many consider it a flawed success.

Prestigious names empower The Prestige

Christian Bale. Michael Caine. Director Christopher Nolan. Sounds like the next Batman movie, right?

While that fabulous team is indeed preparing to bring back Batman in 2007's The Dark Knight, starring Heath Ledger as The Joker, you don't have to wait to see them together again on the big screen.

Nolan's The Prestige pits two magicians—played by Bale and Hugh Jackman—against one another in a battle for superiority and, of course, the heart of a girl. The supporting cast, which includes not only Caine but also David Bowie, Scarlett Johansson, and Andy Serkis, is winning high praise. But this late-Victorian thriller is challenging audiences and critics to keep up with the narrative's twists and turns even as it dazzles them with surprises and spectacular special effects.

Steven D. Greydanus (Christianity Today Movies) says the film "has a number of secrets, cleverly wrought and carefully structured in an escalating series of dramatic revelations that may need multiple viewings to fully unravel. Tightly plotted and thematically well-crafted, the film offers converging lessons regarding seemingly harmless illusions that belie grim realities, charades that must be maintained off the stage as well as on, and the hazards of an all-important secret confederate, all coming together in climactic plot twists both haunting and unsettling."

But he adds that the premise, while "ruthlessly bold and clever," is also "a lot to swallow."

Frederica Matthewes-Green (Frederica.com, originally in The National Review) says, "[A] good magic trick is seductive, but a half hour into this film I *still* felt like I was watching a jumpy, agitated trailer. As we were marched smartly through the plot points, it seemed that the story was not so much developing as echoing, like a child doggedly repeating piano scales. These patterns may have created a pleasing symmetry in the novel by Christopher Priest … but on the screen it was just tiring." She concludes, though, that the film does at last build to "something daring and astonishing."

Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) writes, "[A]s a puzzle, the film succeeds wildly. As a story, however, the sense that you can never quite trust the motivations of these often-unsympathetic characters kept me from fully engaging emotionally in what happens to them."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) notes that The Prestige is not the second film about magicians this year … it's the third. He reminds us not only of The Illusionist, but also of Woody Allen's Scoop, and says, "Odious comparison or not, the film … is far less engaging than either of the others, and proves a frustratingly convoluted tale. … In a word, what's missing from The Prestige is magic."

But Christa Banister (Crosswalk) disagrees, calling it "a deliciously deceptive tale of revenge that keeps you mesmerized for more than two hours. … In addition to the ending that's as surprising as The Sixth Sense was for most people the first time around, there's a valuable lesson here about the devastating effects of jealousy, revenge and the inability to forgive—which makes The Prestige all the more rewarding as Friday night entertainment."

Most mainstream critics are dazzled and thrilled.

Flicka: Celebrating rebelliousness?

For girls who love horses, Mary O'Hara's 1941 novel Flicka is a favorite and a classic. But in the new film, the central character is no longer a boy. Her name is Katy (Matchstick Men's Alison Lohman), and she's a troubled student who can't keep her mind on her work. She'd rather be out trying to tame a wild horse. Her father isn't pleased with her rebelliousness.

So, is it the reckless teen who needs to learn a lesson? Or is it the disciplinarian dad?

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) faults the screenplay for its cliché s, but concludes, "Lest I sound too down on the film, it does have its merits. Beautiful scenery, a mildly quirky performance or two … and a few scenes that hint at the continuing passion in the lives of Katy's parents all contribute to a reasonably enjoyable family flick. But the dullness of the script, and the way it extols restlessness, wildness, and the freedom to be what you want—even though the whole point of the story, as with horse riding itself, is about finding the right balance between freedom and control—is ultimately unsatisfying."

Lisa Rice (Crosswalk) says, "In the new film Flicka, unfortunately, the takeaway is a vague uneasiness about the lesson you've just been fed for two hours." She concludes that the film excuses rebelliousness, and that it dismisses the necessity of repentance and reprimand.

Belinda Elliott (CBN) says, "While we've seen these characters and storyline before, the film does still pack an emotional punch.

Adam R. Holz (Plugged In) says the movie "poses the significant question of whether it's worth sacrificing relationship for the sake of rules, however well-intended those rules might be. Ultimately, Flicka answers that question with a resounding no." But he adds, "Still, Katy's stubborn rebelliousness is a real—if navigable—issue that families who see this engaging story will want to talk about."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) calls it "[a] wonderful film for all," and says, "Some parents may find fault with Katy's blatant disobedience, but apart from some heated arguments it's good to see a positive portrayal of a stable and loving family headed by nurturing and devoted parents."

Mainstream critics are split in their opinions. Peter Hartlaub of The San Francisco Chronicle sums up the film's lesson like this: "Keep disobeying your parents and eventually you'll get your way."

Marie Antoinette: Daring, or disastrous?

Quite a few critics have condemned Sofia Coppola's new film, Marie Antoinette, saying it is frivolously stylish and that it drains the suspense from a dramatic story. One religious personality even called it "one of the most boring, tedious, poorly made historical movies of all time."

But others have observed that the filmmakers sought to achieve something different than action, suspense, and melodrama. They're finding that Coppola, as in her previous films (Lost in Translation and The Virgin Suicides), is after something different than a conventional period piece. She's an introspective artist who explores the interior lives and curious behaviors of women who find themselves strangely detached from the rest of the world. Here, Coppola provokes us to consider how the pop superficiality and decadence of Marie Antoinette's impulsive young life reflects the way in which our own culture is preoccupied with childish tendencies.

In short, this is not a thriller but a loose re-telling of an historic tale crafted as an exploration of values. Is there anything of lasting value in Antoinette's life of self-indulgence? Do we see her learning anything in the process? Is there anything about her experience that mirrors the materialism that surrounds us today?

Lisa Ann Cockrel (Christianity Today Movies) says the plot "drifts at points" because Antoinette "is acted upon more than she acts. … But the narrative is buoyed throughout by Coppola's use of a New Wave-spiked soundtrack that provides a creative point of access to the emotions of the characters. … Marie Antoinette is essentially a modern mood piece, despite its resplendent period drama garb."

While she notes a couple of "missteps," she concludes that "Coppola has created a fantastic aesthetic experience that offers a sense of what it might have been like to be in the shoes of foreign 14-year-old girl who carried the great expectation of two countries on her shoulders."

Brett McCracken (Relevant) says, "The pains director Sofia Coppola takes to modernize the tale … reveals that the goal is not the definitive portrayal of history's most notorious queen, but rather an examination through an iconic lens of much more accessible, universal themes of identity and impermanence. … Artistically, Antoinette is the most beautiful film of the year. … For all of its irreverence, Antoinette strikes me as one of the most resonant historical dramas I've seen."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) has several complaints. "If only the drama were as outstanding as the sumptuous 18th-century production design. … Unfortunately, the film only hints at the queen's transformation from epicurean young woman to politically savvy political prisoner, one of the most fascinating aspects of the story, though it does suggest her growing maturation as a loving wife and devoted mother. Coppola's dialogue, striving for naturalism, is pretty uninspired. … "

Steven Isaac (Plugged In) says, "[I]f Marie Antoinette the movie has any message to impart at all, it is that life without purpose (and love) is not really life at all. … Her fixation on things (gowns, shoes and, more famously, cake) is emboldened onscreen by an utter lack of the good things in life that most of us take for granted." He also has a "quibble" with just how much of Marie is, um, revealed.

Sofia Coppola has certainly created a stir among mainstream critics. Half of them admire the film, half think it's a disaster. "To say that this movie is historically irresponsible or politically suspect is both to state the obvious and to miss the point," writes A.O. Scott (New York Times). "[T]he movie is only masquerading as a costume drama. It would be overstating the case to call it a work of social criticism, but beneath its highly decorated surface is an examination … of what it means to live in a world governed by rituals of acquisition and display."

InfamousCapote gets another movie

It's got to be difficult for the filmmakers behind Infamous, the new film about Truman Capote and the writing of In Cold Blood. When they started on their film, they had no idea director Bennett Miller was already at work on a movie about the same famous writer, and the same period of his life. So, now that Miller's movie is a part of Oscar history, what chance do they have of creating a stir with their own film?

According to critics, there are plenty of reasons why viewers should go out of their way to see this Capote movie too.

First, there's Toby Miller, who plays Capote. He's earning some rave reviews, in spite of Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar-winning work last year.

Then there's the fact that this one, while not as dark and deep, is entertaining, colorful, funny, and well-cast. That shouldn't surprise viewers who have seen other films by director Douglas McGrath (Nicholas Nickelby, Emma).

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) writes, "Capote overall had a more serious tone, while Infamous is leavened with humor. Jones—supported by McGrath's script—gives a comic touch to Capote. … The narrative's sordid elements will not be to every taste, and some may feel once is enough, but for others Infamous is rewarding viewing."

Frederica Matthewes-Green (Frederica.com, originally published in The National Review) says, "Capote was tough on Capote's flaws: his self-absorption, his unending vanity, his flippancy, his capacity to wound. … People who prefer Infamous will say that it is funnier (that's true) as well as warmer, but to my mind it misses its goal, and the warmth comes across as gushing affection." She argues that the characters here have been turned into "big fat caricatures. … They're often engaging … but so cartoonishly mannered that they have little credibility."

Mainstream critics are having a grand time comparing the two films, and while they still admire Capote, they're thankful for Infamous as well.

More reviews of recent releases

The Nightmare Before Christmas: To note the re-release of Tim Burton's classic Halloween musical, Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) has posted a review, calling it "a wonder to behold." He pushes aside the complaints against the Halloween holiday as an anti-Christian tradition, and he concludes with this observation: "There's even a touch of Christian imagery. At the moment Jack realizes he's made a ghastly mistake (as opposed to a ghastly success), he finds himself falling out of the sky; and he lands, appropriately enough, in a graveyard. Yet he is caught by the outstretched arms of a stone angel; betokening of the possibility of redemption."

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.