Los Abrozos Rotos (Broken Embraces)

Los Abrozos Rotos is the latest film by Spanish filmmaker Pedro Almodovar, considered to be one Spain's top directors.  The best thing I can say for him is that many of his films feature Penelope Cruz, who I think is a terrific actress.  On the other hand, many of his films feature gay or transsexual characters, and they (not gay or transsexual people, but his gay or transsexual characters) are usually very creepy.

Los Abrozos Rotos fits the mold of Almodovar's films: domestic drama with some comedy, to appeal to mainstream audiences, and plenty of symbolism and strangeness mixed in to appeal to his art house fans.  It's the story of a blind writer who was once a famous film director who went by another name.  The story tells of his affair with an actress in one of his films, who was the mistress of the film's producer, and the events leading to the tumultuous end of the affair, the cause of his blindness, and the resulting end of his film directing career. 

I have seen many of Almodovar's films, always with great anticipation because of the glowing critical reviews.  I inevitably come away with a sense of disappointment, as if the greatness of the movie is overshadowed by the supposed greatness of the director.  Although the performances were terrific, and the story is nicely told in a series of flashbacks, it left me pretty flat.

Bottom line, 2 stars.

The Answer Man

If someone publishes a book in which he or she claims to have heard directly from God, who gave terrific answers to many of life's big questions, he might sell a bunch of copies, but I think it would eventually be drowned out by the competing claims of other sages and religious perspectives.  That's in real life.  In movie life, Arlen Faber wrote such a book, Me and God, which became an international bestseller embraced across the religious spectrum, while he became a household name, a highly sought after answer man.  He resists publicity, lives a reclusive life, does not answer his fan mail, and is clearly not happy with the lot God has given him.

The Answer Man follows a pretty familiar storyline: the expert who has helped so many people can't help himself.  (A favorite line: After the mailman, a huge fan, meets the real Arlen Faber, who is mean and unsociable, he warns someone else, "Be careful with him.  Maybe he wrote Me and God, but he did not read it!")  Then he meets a pretty young lady who helps him come back to reality.  Of course, there's the obilgatory win the girl--lose the girl--win the girl back pattern.  But formulas aside, The Answer Man provides enough depth and mature comedy to be thoroughly enjoyable.  It's nice to see a comedy that is genuinely funny without a bunch of bathroom humor and visual comedy.

For a movie about a man who has talked to God, there is very little theology here.  What is there is pretty basic feel good pop psychology theology, not necessarily un-Christian, but not really biblical.  For example, someone asks him about the problem of evil: If God is good, why is there pain and suffering.  "Opposites.  Without things that suck, you would have no idea what good was, and therefore be directionless.  You smell sh--, you walk the other way." 

I don't think I will be giving anything away by telling you that Faber fesses up to not actually talking to God.  He cried out to God in a moment of despair, asked a lot of tough questions, and wrote down the answers that came to him.  The viewer is left to wonder if there was, in fact, a certain measure of divine inspiration.  Certainly his writing blessed and helped many, but seemingly in a therapeutic way, not necessarily in drawing them closer to their creator.  But anyone who has struggled with hearing from God can relate to both the dilemma of discerning wisdom and insight from divine leading, as well as the appeal of someone who speaks with authority and certainy, claiming to be God's mouthpiece.

I really like Jeff Daniels, and he was terrific in this role.  And Lauren Graham's performance has to be the most positive portrayal of a chiropractor I have ever seen (even if it is the only one. . . .).  The only problem with the movie is the quick, goofy resolution, and the whole idea that people are so gaga and unskeptical about Faber's claims.  That aside, this is a fun comedy with a tasty dash of theological reflection.

Bottom line, 3 stars.

The Blind Side

When I first heard about this movie, I was immediately interested.  I ran out to the library to check out the book and was eager to see the movie.  Any story with a positive look at interracial adoption is OK by me, and this book and movie did not dissapoint!

You have probably seen something about this movie.  Sandra Bullock won an Oscar for her role as the mom.  The director, John Lee Hancock, is a Baylor grad.  Michael Oher, the subject of the film, was picked by the Baltimore Ravens in the first round of the 2009 draft.  And millions of people have been moved by this story of compassion, hope, and the real meaning of family.

The nutshell version of the story is that a wealthy white family takes in a homeless black teenager who is a student at their children's exclusive private school.  Although he struggles in school due to his unstructured, nomadic existence, he turns out to be a brilliant natural athlete and is highly recruited by top college football programs.  If this story wasn't true and verifiable, it would be an unbelievable fairy tale.  Are there really families that loving and ready to accept a stranger into their home?  Can a kid who has lived in the worst possible environment be as resepectful, moral, hard-working, loving, and determined as Michael?  Would a lily-white, rich private school in a highly segregated city in the American south readily accept a black street kid?  As far as I can tell from the movie, book, and press surrounding both, the answers are yes, yes, and yes.

In one of my favorite scenes in the movie, the Touhy family gathered around the dining room table for a family meeting.  Michael had been living with them for a while, and the Touhys had discussed becoming Michael's legal guardians.  Mr. Touhy said to Michael, "We were wondering if you would like to become a part of this family."  After a pause, Michael looked around the table and replied, "I kinda thought I already was."  I love this.  From the Touhy's perspective, Michael is part of the family, and they want to make it legal.  They embrace him completely as a son, even (as the book says) making him an heir on an equal footing with the biological children.  From Michael's perspective, he is surrounded by people who love him, who care for him, and to whom he is fully committed.  Isn't that family?  Is a piece of paper going to change that?  I thought this was a beautiful picture of adoption and family.

There is little about this movie not to like.  Although football coaches are not very good actors, it was fun to see the college coaches reenact their role in the recruiting of Michael.  And although Tim McGraw was likably goofy as the easy-going Sean Touhy, he's not a very good actor.  But overall, the performances were terrific, the storytelling superb, and the inspiration was strong.  The movie ends with a reflection on the number of talented kids whose lives are cut short or turned bad because of the violence and pressures of inner-city life.  Michael and the Touhys have established a foundation to help kids like Michael who aren't lucky enough to find the love and support of a family like the Touhys.

One final thought: Michael is enrolled at the private school due to the insistence and advocacy of Big Tony, with whom Michael was living at the time.  Once Tony's wife insists that Michael find another place to stay, Tony is out of the picture.  But as much as the Touhy's, Tony deserves credit for getting Michael on the right track.  If it weren't for Tony's efforts, Michael would proabably still be aimlessly living in a slum. 

One more final thought: I heard someone say this was the most Christian movie they had seen in a long time.  I have no doubt that many involved in the movie are Christians.  The Touhys are very active members of an evangelical church in Memphis, and the director has to be a Christian since he went to Baylor, right? (grin)  Seriously, even though The Blind Side is not an evangelistic film, both the Touhys and Big Tony explicitly state that helping Michael is an expression of their Christian faith in action.  The private school is Christian, and several references were made to their living up the word "Christian" in the school's name by helping Michael.  True faith, the Bible teaches, is to care for widows and orphans.  Even though not every orphan is a future NFL multimillionaire, every Christian should keep his or her eyes open for Michael Touhys in their community who are in need of a place to call family.

Bottom line, 3 1/2 stars.

Taxi to the Dark Side

The War on Terror is a war without precedent.  There are no hostile borders, no enemy countries, no heads of state to target.  The enemy is difficult to identify, and the organizations and alliances are decentralized, varied, and dispersed.  The U.S. has managed to disrupt some of the organizations, take out some of the leaders, but they persist.  Possible abuses of prisoners in the War on Terror have been well-publicized.  Only the hardest hawk would view, for instance, images from Abu Ghraib without at least some level of revulsion.  On the other hand, only the most dedicated dove would not recognize the need to imprison and interrogate suspected terrorists.

Taxi to the Dark Side focusses on the mistreatment of prisoners by the U.S. military.  The title refers to the capture of 4 Afghani men who were implicated in a missle attack on a military base.  They were arrested at a checkpoint by Afghan militia members working on behalf of the U.S.  The problem is that it was later discovered that the militants were working with the actual attackers and turned in these four men to detract attention from the perpetrators and to curry favor with the Americans.  Turns out that a high percentage of detainees at Guantanamo have been arrested in similar circumstances.

The driver of the taxi died in prison due to injuries sustained while being tortured by Americans.  That is an ugly truth, and the film presents ample evidence both of the taxi driver's innocence and the culpability of his detainees.  It traces the policy of torture from the White House to Guantanamo to Afghanistan to Abu Ghraib.  It leaves little question that the policy of torture was taken to excess, and that the information gathered was, at least in some cases, unreliable, if not completely false.

But the film goes too far.  It does not give examples of prisoners who have been tortured and given good intelligence that has been used to thwart attacks.  It does not reference reports that some prisoners released from Guantanamo have returned to their former haunts and have taken part in deadly terrorist attacks.  As well done as Taxi to the Dark Side is, and as well as it makes its arguments, it only gives half the story, and without the other half, is demoted to muckraking propoganda. 

Bottom line, 1 1/2 stars.

Hackers

This movie had a couple of things going for it.  It's one of Angelina Jolie's early movie roles; I think she's a terrific actress.  And Penn Jillette has a small role; I think he's hilarious, but he's underused in Hackers.  Other than that, this is not a great movie.  The concept is a little bit cool, but it's amazing how dated and goofy it seems.  The story involves teenage hackers who get their kicks roaming around forbidden computer files and systems.  You have to smile at Dade's mom: What are you doing?  Dade: I'm taking over a TV network.  Mom: Finish up honey, and get to sleep.  The movie tries to make hacker culture look cool, but I left not believing that some of these guys could operate an ATM legitimately, much less control one through hacking a bank's computers.  The teen hackers get into a corporation's computer, unwittingly discovering a plot by the company's cyber security team to blackmail the company.  The security chief (another dorky, unbelievable character) tries to set the kids up to take the fall, but those zany kids foil his plot.  Not a complete waste of time, but a forgettable little film.

Bottom line, 1/2 star.

Knowing

What if you knew ahead of time that a disaster was about to happen?  What if there was nothing you could do about it?  The concept is as old as the Cassandra complex from Greek mythology.  In Knowing, a few people are given a sort of foreknowledge of major catastrophes.  One of them goes mad.

Professor John Koestler (Nicolas Cage) teaches astrophysics at MIT.  When his son's class opens up the school's time capsule, most of the kids get cute letters and pictures from their predecessors at the school.  John's son gets a page covered with an indecipherable series of numbers.  That is, indecipherable until the discerning professor notices "91101" followed by the number of victims of the 9/11 attacks.  He then stays up all night connecting the numbers to dates and victims, then figures out that longitude and latitude are included as well.

John becomes obsessed with saving some people from the disasters he sees coming up in the numbers.  His wife had actually died in one of the events in the numbers, so he wants to save who he can. As Cassandra could have told him, his efforts would be fruitless.  But there are some very exciting, well-done sequences--a plane crash, and a subway crash. 

John's son is haunted by some creepy-looking guys with black rocks.  The creepy guys' identity, and the ulitmate purpose for the numerical revelation and the resolution of the disasters, is an ultimate deus ex machina which seemed completely misplaced.  And we learn what Ezekiel was talking about when he describes "wheels within wheels" (Ezekiel 1:15-17).

Late in the movie we learn that John's father, from whom he is estranged, is a pastor.  John has left his father, and his faith, but in the end we see him return to his father and, in his father's arms, seemingly returns to his faith.  While John has been frantic about preventing disaster and saving people, his father trusts God to save and protect him and his family, even in the face of doom.  It took John a long time to learn that lesson, but ultimately he did.

Bottom line, 2 stars.

Muerte de un Ciclista (Death of a Cyclist)

If a movie is in the Criterion Collection, it could be really good or really bad.  Or maybe really dull.  They collect "the greatest films from around the world" and release them on DVD.  So I guess they decided this is a great film, and that Juan Antonion Bardem is a great director.

The movie begins with a couple driving along and accidentally hitting a man on a bicycle.  They decide that rather than help him, they continue on their way, leaving him to die.  We learn that the woman is married to another man.  The progression of the movie shows their struggle keep their crime concealed while keeping their affair concealed.  Their decisions and resolution diverge as their guilt eats away at them.

As I've said before, I'm not a great judge of the quality of film making.  I'll leave that to the folks at Criterion.  The redeeming quality of this otherwise snoozer of a film is the moral lesson.  I've heard it said that integrity is what you do when no one is looking.  (I've heard that attributed to so many different people I won't even bother trying to track down the source.)  If you commit a crime and there's no way anyone can find out, would you turn yourself in?  In Death of a Cyclist, we see one character choose the way of concealment, and descend into a spiral of evil, while the other chooses integrity, and we see the freedom he feels from doing what is right.

Bottom line for me, 2 stars.