The Hunger Games (2012)

Primrose Everdeen (Willow Shields) has nothing to worry about. At least, that's what her older sister Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) says. Primrose's name is only in the Reaping once - which means she has a very, very small chance of being selected to participate in the Hunger Games. But when the fateful day comes, Primrose's name is the one pulled out of the glass bowl. Katniss immediately volunteers to take her little sister's place. And, just like that, she and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are whisked away from dirt-poor District 12 to the sparkling Capitol. In a few short days, they find themselves inside an arena with twenty-two other young men and women in a fight to the death - the Hunger Games. But Katniss is determined to come through alive. After all, she promised her sister that she would do everything she could to win.

A good movie adaptation should always try to stay close to its source material. Unfortunately, the definition of "close" can be disputed when the two media are as different as books and movies. But no matter what definition one uses, The Hunger Games movie is very close to the book.

After the text in the beginning of the movie explains the concept behind the Games, the intensity jumps in and completely takes over. Right from the outset, terror reigns supreme. Primrose is terrified of being chosen, and though Katniss gently comforts her, the overall impression of the scene is one of entrapment in a cruel, unfair situation with an undertone of fear. This continues throughout the movie, getting successively amped up as the story develops. Considering that the book has a similar level of intensity (though not as immediate), this was quite an achievement for the filmmakers.

The level of intensity is not the only similarity between the movie and the book. The story is virtually identical, which is to be expected when one considers that Suzanne Collins, the author, helped write the screenplay. However, the most startingly accurate part is the characters. The casting job was about as perfect as it could be. Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) is maybe a little better looking than I would have made him, but everybody else is pretty much spot-on. Jennifer Lawrence, one of the best actresses I have ever seen, is Katniss to a T. Josh Hutcherson is gentle Peeta - but with a masculine side that could easily have been left out. Liam Hemsworth plays a strong, rebellious Gale. Even Donald Sutherland is good in his part. (Of course, bad actors are particularly good at exuding insincerity, so don't go thinking that this is an Academy-Award-worthy performance.)

However, while the story and characters don't deviate one iota from the book, there are a few themes left by the wayside. For example, the Capitol still exerts complete (or nearly complete) control over its citizens. But the Capitol as a mysterious, almost omnipotent - and almost faceless - power just doesn't exist in the movie. Whereas in the book the leaders are seen by Katniss from afar and only occasionally, these same leaders have their own scenes in the movie. This lowers the creepy sense of "The Capitol" that makes it akin to "Them" or "The Others." In other words, the sense of a looming, unseen (and, therefore, unassessed) power is largely gone.

Generally, I like to watch movies before I read the books on which they're based. Because books are nearly always much better than their movies, I get to enjoy the same story twice without being disappointed by the second version. But this movie is very, very close to the book - and is therefore not a disappointment. Because of this, Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games should be read before watching this movie. The book has much more depth - and explains things barely touched upon by the movie. On the other hand, while the movie doesn't quite live up to the book, it's still an enjoyable experience. That is, if your hands don't lock up after gripping the arms of your seat for two hours and twenty minutes.

Note: Since such a big deal has been made of it, I think I should address the issue of the violence. Is it too violent for a tweenager? Definitely. But I wouldn't go so far as to slap an "R" rating on it. There's a little blood, spears, necks broken by hands, and other kinds of violence. Much of it is hand-to-hand. But most of it is also filmed with a jerky camera or not quite seen. Because it doesn't have the same psychological terror associated with it, I would say that this movie is not as violent as The Dark Knight. But then, that's not saying a whole lot.

My Rating: T/MT (violence, intensity)

The Madonna's Secret (1946)

James Corbin (Francis Lederer) has a deep, dark secret. Two, actually. The first is that the woman in his paintings is not his model, Helen North (Linda Stirling). The body might be, but the face is the face of a woman from his past. The second is that his name is not really Corbin. It's Corbet. The rather infamous Corbet who was tried for and acquitted of murdering his first model - the woman in his paintings. Then Helen turns up dead on the river and the questions begin again. Determined to discover his secrets, Helen's actress sister named Linda (Ann Rutherford) gets herself hired as Corbin's latest model. As time goes on, she finds herself stepping deeper and deeper into murky waters. What kind of man is this brooding, talented artist? Is he a murderer? Or is some unknown enemy trying to frame him?

This is a fairly impressive movie, considering when it was filmed. The production values are decent. It seems to be an odd sort of cross between the film noir genre and an Agatha Christie story. Definitely dark, dramatic, and a little bit of a psychological thriller in parts, it still manages to hold onto a bit of the good old-fashioned mystery story.

Taken as a forties B movie, the acting and especially the writing are pretty good. Lederer plays a marvelous Corbin (with the exception of a few rather strangely-directed scenes), and Rutherford pulls off sweet and spunky Linda better than a lot of actresses I've seen. The exposition is particularly well done. In general, conversations reveal only as much as the viewer needs to know. On top of that, I never felt like I was listening to a voice-over. (Well, except for the opening line. But that really is a voice-over.) The Madonna's Secret shows the story as it is without taking the time to make sure everybody knows exactly what's going on at all times. That's part of the charm of the film noir genre: One can never be too sure that one didn't miss something important.

The other film noir elements in this movie are pretty obvious. It's dark, with a conflicted main character (who may or may not be bad) and a girl who ultimately finds herself in over her head. There's also a sexy temptress and, of course, crime in the mix. But the crime part is also a bit like an Agatha Christie murder mystery as well. Clues are established as to who might be killing these girls, but these clues are subtle enough that they don't construct neon signs pointing to the murderer. (At least, I hope not. I totally missed them until the last scene of the movie. Of course, that could be because I didn't want to think that that person was the murderer. But I'd better shut up now; that's getting into spoiler territory.)

Judged by the standards of its peers (both in time and in genre), this movie is pretty decent. The production values are impressively high for such an old and evidently cheap movie, and the slight mixing of genres is interesting and well-done enough to earn The Madonna's Secret a spot on the list of old movies that are worth someone's time.

My Rating: T (frightening scenes, thematic elements)

The Hunger Games Trailer

Well, the reason why I read the Hunger Games trilogy in the first place was because I noticed this trailer for the movie starring Jennifer Lawrence that is slated to come out next year.

I loved the trailer when I first saw it, not least because I love Jennifer Lawrence. She's fantastic as Raven in X-Men: First Class and even better as Ree in Winter's Bone. Here she plays tough, thick-skinned Katniss - a perfect casting if I ever did see one.

Everything looks very close to the book, with the exception of Lenny Kravitz as Cinna. I confess I never imagined Cinna as dark-skinned. Somehow I think the Capitol would not have approved of minorities. The overall fidelity to the book is great, however - I loved the book, and I think it would make a great movie if one or two parts are dumbed down violence-wise.

All the movies will likely remain close to the books, since author Suzanne Collins is in on the writing (thanks to lostdog from The Wind-Up Dog Chronicles for that info). This is both good and bad, since I liked the series until the end of the third book. Unfortunately, while I might go see the first movie and possibly the second, I have no interest in seeing the third one unless the ultimate message of the story is changed. Since Collins will probably not consent to changing that message, I have low hopes for the third installment of the series.

Pertaining To Mockingjay

(Written by Suzanne Collins. Book Three in the Hunger Games Trilogy.) *Book II spoilers throughout* Katniss Everdeen has a decision to make. She survived the Hunger Games for a second time, with the help of Peeta and other victors. Now she has been rescued by the people of District 13, who have lived underground since the end of the war. President Coin of 13 wants her to become the Mockingjay: The symbolic leader of the revolution. But Katniss only cares about Peeta. Sweet, strong Peeta whose life she had been determined to save during the second Hunger Games, but who was captured by the Capitol. Then he appears in an interview on television and calls for a cease-fire - a sure sign of betrayal to many rebels. Katniss believes the only way she can save him is to agree to be the Mockingjay on condition that he be pardoned after the war. She has no idea what she's about to get into.

Where to start? This is a very, very disappointing Act III to what began as a very good story. The connections between the Capitol and Ancient Rome (something only vaguely hinted at in the first two books) are strengthened. It is well-written, and there's enough action to keep the book exciting. Those are about the only things I liked.

First, Katniss's character devolved into an even worse one than when she started in Book I. This, after growing into a better person in Book II. Throughout Mockingjay, she seems to have become more compassionate and more loving than she had been previously. But three decisions she makes toward the end of the book are, quite simply, cold-blooded and inexcusable.

Second, I did not like the portrayal of District 13. More specifically, I didn't like the portrayal of those fighting for District 13. Gale, President Coin, and Plutarch are the ones in charge, and none of them are ultimately shown to be very good people. President Coin, in particular, is depicted as monstrous (though this is never confirmed explicitly). This is outright slop, and I'll bet it was directed at the Bush administration. With the ending, the implication of the entire series is that no war is justly fought. The rebels had good reason to fight; it was definitely a just war. But the way in which they went about fighting was wrong, at least at the end. Translation: The message is that both sides in war are evil. This is especially offensive given that the story hints at the Revolutionary War - thirteen districts run by an out-of-touch, seemingly impregnable capitol that views the districts as suppliers. Then the new president commits an atrocity like the one Coin ppresumably orders? George Washington would have been horrified. What really ticks me off, however, is that there is absolutely no reason why it should be that way. Story-wise, there is no real reason why things had to end as they did. No reason except one of anti-war, anti-American sentiment.

Then there is Peeta's character. *Spoiler Warning* He has been "hijacked" by the Capitol (I'm sure there's another message in that term, but I can't figure out what it is). Throughout much of the book, he thinks Katniss is evil and tries to kill her periodically. I find this extremely offensive as well. Peeta was the one that no one could touch; the one whose unwavering strength and devotion were lights amidst the darkness. Then, all of a sudden, the Capitol plants these false, evil memories in his mind and he becomes crazy enough to try to murder Katniss in cold blood? Even if his memories could be altered so that he remembers her as an evil being, Peeta wouldn't try to kill her with his bare hands. It's totally out of character. Then he randomly recovers near the end, with very little explanation or description of his journey. Having said that, he loves Katniss as much at the end as he ever did. He remains a bright spot - that wavers somewhat - in the midst of a dark story. *End of Spoiler*

So, basically, this book ends with an anti-war, vaguely anti-American (aren't those terms synonymous by now?) message, and the main character is less likeable than she was at the beginning of the series. However, Peeta remains a strong character (with a blip - but that's so unbelievable I hardly count it), and it was well written from a pure dialogue and description standpoint.

My Rating: T (brutal violence, psychological warfare, sexual references)

Reviews of Similar Books:

• The Hunger Games (book I) and Catching Fire (book II)
• Airman
• Incarceron

On The Hunger Games

(Written by Suzanne Collins.) Katniss Everdeen is a survivor. She has cared for her mother and her little sister ever since her father died. Back when she was a little girl. Before near starvation and the need to hunt animals robbed her of her childhood. Now she has to survive the annual Reaping Day - the day where one boy and one girl between the ages of twelve and eighteen will be picked to fight in the Hunger Games. The "Games" where two people from each district of Panem, twenty-four "tributes" in all, will fight to the death. But Katniss's name is not pulled out of the glass bowl. Her younger sister Prim's is. So Katniss reacts like any protective, loving sister should - she jumps forward and volunteers to take Prim's place.

A reviewer quoted on the back of The Hunger Games declares that philosophy can be found within the pages of the book. Though all books contain some sort of philosophy merely because they have words put together in a (somewhat) meaningful manner, this book has a little more deliberately philosophical look at the modern world. Set in North America sometime in the future, it is a commentary on the way our culture seems to be heading - downhill. The good characters, while they don't stick to stereotypes, stick closely to an ideal that our culture, helped by feminists on the warpath, is speeding away from at an alarming rate. But this presentation of goodness is tempered with two searing attacks on evil.

The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is odd, but that is more a compliment than a criticism. With a strong heroine and a strange tendency to end male characters' names with an "a," The Hunger Games hinted that perhaps Katniss would end up saving Peeta, the main male character (I can't call him a hero yet because I haven't read the other two books in the series and he has a rival). Now, there is nothing wrong with the girl saving the guy, as long as it does not constitute an inversion of gender roles. That is, the heroine can save the hero through feminine means (wiles, love, etc.), but she should not save his life in battle through her physical prowess. But there is no inversion of gender roles in this book - just a switch in story roles. Katniss is definitely the heroine and the main character, with Peeta taking an unassuming spot in her shadow. But he is strong in his own right, and spends much of the book looking out for her. In fact, their relationship is refreshingly reciprocal, with each saving the other at different times and through different means.

Now to the depiction of evil. There are two noteworthy lessons in The Hunger Games; a lesson on an unhealthy obsession with beauty and youth, and a lesson on a large, overbearing government. First, the people in the Capitol - the ones who live high on the hog while the rest of Panem starves - are addicted to beauty and youth. People have countless surgeries to keep themselves looking young. They reject fatness as ugly, and have a strange, bright sense of fashion. (Picture Lady Gaga and you have a pretty good idea of what people in the Capitol think is beautiful.) There is almost nothing they can't do when it comes to personal appearance, and they choose to use the technology at their disposal to make themselves fit the ideal of beauty. But those who participate wholeheartedly in this idea are self-absorbed and, frankly, stupid. Caught in the cages of their self-absorption, the ones most obsessed with their appearances are those who are most clueless about what it means to be a good person. Thus, they are portrayed as shallow.

Second, the government, which is a threat to the people of Panem because of its power, is portrayed as evil. So many books and movies nowadays seek to pit the rich against the poor. Some of these stories even offer some form of government as a remedy to the inequalities of wealth. While the government can and should regulate society and the economy to some extent, it can become over powerful and oppressive. It is not the answer to all societal ills or even, I daresay, most of them. The Hunger Games embraces this idea and indicts both the rich, who live clueless, self-absorbed lives in the Capitol, and the government, which oppresses those in the twelve districts. Both the controlling government and the rich are portrayed as bad, but only the government is shown as a real threat. Now, I haven't read the other two books in the trilogy yet, so I can't guarantee that the end won't produce some rich businessman or other pulling the government's strings. But so far, at least, the government is portrayed more as a threat than a savior.

This isn't to say that the good characters are always good. Katniss makes a few questionable moral decisions, and some of the other good characters have definite flaws. But flaws allow for moral development in the characters - and sometimes the portrayals with the most contrast between good and evil rest in a character's realization that something he or she did was wrong.

In the end, the people are what matter to good characters in The Hunger Games. Katniss goes to what she believes is certain death in order to save her younger sister. Peeta nearly loses his life protecting Katniss. Even the odd Cinna, who designs Katniss's costumes for the opening ceremonies, is portrayed as good because of his obvious compassion for her. On the other hand, evil is sometimes portrayed as brutally violent, sometimes as subtly oppressive, but always as manipulative, cold, and self-absorbed. The Hunger Games asks and answers the question of what will happen if our culture continues to careen in the direction it is currently heading. The conclusion is not pretty, but it is sound.

My Rating: T (violence, sexual references, murky moral decisions)

Review of the second book, Catching Fire

Reviews of similar books:

• Incarceron
• The Homelander Series
• Airman

In Relation To The Phantom of the Opera

(Written by Gaston Leroux.) Once upon a time, there was an opera house in Paris. A beautiful young woman namd Christine Daae lived and worked there ever since her father, a famous and talented Swedish violinist, died. When the opera passed to new owners and a new patron, Christine's breathtakingly beautiful voice was discovered and Paris sang her praises. Among her newfound followers was an old friend Viscount Raoul de Changy. His old feelings for her came back in a rush, and he was determined to marry her. But someone she called the Angel of Music was very displeased with Raoul's attentions. The Angel - or Demon - wanted Christine all to himself, and he was willing to do anything to secure her.

Since I read a version translated from the original French (and abridged - though nothing important was cut out; just flowery descriptions and pointless lines), I cannot comment on whether this book is particularly well written or not. But I can say that it's a good tale, if a bit unbelievable, and at least some of the characters are likeable.

First, the tale. The whole story pivots on the Phantom and his genius. He's a fabulous musician and a very clever inventor. At the same time, his inventions are a bit unbelievable. (For example, the Torture Room, though a clever concept, would never work. The tree, reflected in the mirror walls, would make someone think he was in a jungle. But the man's reflection would also be seen on every mirror. That, I would think, would keep him from losing his mind.) But then, the whole book has a flavor of surrealism, brought on by a very romantic flair and the permeating madness of the Phantom. Because of this, the unrealistic inventions and elements in the story add to the story instead of detracting from it.

Strangely enough, the term "romantic" certainly fits for the tale as a whole and the love between Christine and Raoul, but not for the central love story of the book. *Spoiler Warning* The Phantom's aching search for even a small expression of love is the ultimate point of the story. When he receives just a small gift of love, he is satisfied. Christine, in giving him her kiss and her tears, shows him that someone in the world cares for him. He finds that is all he ever wanted, and he lets her and Raoul go. This is contrary to the typical romantic idea of love, in which passion must be continually satisfied. *End of Spoiler*

In addition to the decent story, some of the characters are likeable. Christine and the Persian are both good characters. Both are honorable, both seek to help others more than themselves. Raoul's brother and Meg are also good characters, though they are in the book very little.

But Raoul is sadly a very pathetic character. Nearly always on the verge of tears, headstrong, and weak-minded, he is a very disappointing hero. Christine is the one who saves the day, and Raoul does nothing to help. In fact, he makes matters worse. Without Christine and the Persian, he would have died an ignominious death.

So, all in all, it's a fairly decent book. But Raoul's schoolboy (dare I say schoolgirl?) character pales in comparison to the genius and virility of the Phantom, who is the center of the tale. In fact, the Phantom's cold-blooded madness is the only thing that makes him less likeable than Raoul. Because of this, the book could never be better than just good.

My Rating: OK (horror elements, very vague sexual references)

Reviews of similar books or movies:

• This Present Darkness
• The Mummy
• The Historian
• Dragonwyck

The Single, Solitary Reason

Spellbound or The House of Dr. Edwardes, written by Francis Beeding, is almost completely worthless. In fact, the single, solitary reason why I even keep my copy is: The pictures on the inside cover. They're from the movie, and I loved the movie. Otherwise, the book is rubbish.

Concerning Spellbound

(Suggested by The House of Dr. Edwardes by Frances Beeding.) Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) is strictly a woman of science. One of her coworkere at the mental hospital Green Manors refers to her as a "human glacier." Then she meets handsome Dr. Edwardes (Gregory Peck), the new head of Green Manors. He sweeps her off her feet, but she soon discovers that there's something odd about him. He seems to be on the edge of a nervous breakdown, and it isn't long before Constance discovers that he isn't Dr. Edwardes at all. In fact, he's suffering from amnesia - and a deep-seated belief that he killed Dr. Edwardes.

Alfred Hitchcock, Ingrid Bergman, and Gregory Peck. I'm in classic movie heaven. Seriously though, this is one of Hitchcock's better movies, but not quite his best. Ingrid Bergman is as wonderful as she always was, the romance is very sweet, and, of course, it's very suspenseful. On the other hand, the psychoanalysis part and the frankly laughable directing and special effects keep Spellbound from being anything more than just enjoyable.

The special effects are pretty typical for a forties movie. Dummies are used for the dangerous stunts, etc. The directing has its problems, too. Hitchcock could sure pick a story, but sometimes his use of the camera could be a little odd. In Spellbound, he attempted to make the viewer feel like one of the characters at various points in the film. For example, when a character drinks a glass of milk, the glass is held up to the camera and tipped as if the camera was drinking. Unfortunately, it's not very effective when the milk covers the screen. One's vision is never blocked out by the milk one is drinking. There's another scene that is meant to resemble a surrealist painting and ends up looking, well, rather ridiculous. You'll recognize the one if/when you watch the movie.

The psychoanalysis is a bit more disturbing than the lameness, though it's not as blatant. Put simply, psychoanalysis is a load of tripe. You can read a more in-depth article about the subject here, but the underlying principle of psychoanalysis is that our will is subordinated to our instincts. According to psychoanalysts, our true selves are found in our unconscious longings - particularly unfulfilled longings. When suppressed, these longings cause us to act insansely. (That smells suspiciously like secular ideas of today...) There are other problematic aspects as well. However, as a simple therapeutic method, psychoanalysis is morally acceptable (if mentally dangerous) because doctors simply probe the minds of their patients for reasons why the patients are unstable. Fortunately, Spellbound generally sticks to the basic, more vanilla therapeutic application of psychoanalysis. Because of this, the movie doesn't get swallowed up in bad philosophy.

Fundamentally, Spellbound is a Hitchcock movie. There's some doubt as to the morality of the main characters, there are surprises and numerous dangerous situations, and almost the whole movie is drenched in suspense that occasionally gets a little over the top. There's also a hint of something out of touch with reality - in this case, psychoanalysis. But the merits of the movie outweigh its deficiencies, and I have to admit it cast a spell on me.

(Yes, I'm thoroughly ashamed of myself for using that pun.)

My Rating: T (thematic elements, frightening images and ideas)

Reviews of similar books or movies:

• I Confess
• Shadow of a Doubt
• The Sixth Sense

On The Homelander Series

(Books: The Last Thing I Remember, The Long Way Home, The Truth of the Matter, and The Final Hour. Written by Andrew Klavan.) Charlie West is an ordinary high school kid. He has an older sister he tolerates, parents he loves but takes a little for granted, and he's in love with a beautiful girl named Beth. Oh, he also has a black belt in karate and a strong desire to enter the Air Force. Yep, Charlie is somewhere between skinny little Steve Rogers and hulking strongman Captain America. A good kid who loves his country and tries to do the right thing. But if all that's true, how did he get strapped to a chair and tortured by terrorists? Why are the police after him? And why can't he remember the last year of his life?

Finally, a series written for young adults that's actually appropriate for young adults! Better yet, it's a modern action/spy thriller. Best of all, the author is a conservative who has his head on straight about the goings-on in the world today. If someone else wrote this series, the terrorists would be funded by some greedy jerk in the CIA, oil industry, or _____ (fill in the blank with some other government organization or large corporation). Klavan takes a different, more realistic approach, and doesn't blame capitalism for all the ills that plague our country.

Is this the most realistic series I've ever read? Aside from the proper portrayal of terrorism, etc., probably not. I'm not sure if all the things in the books are possible, but they require only a slight suspension of belief. Charlie seems to be extraordinarily resiliant, but I've never been on the run before. Maybe some special grace or strength kicks in when one's life is on the line. Or maybe this is just a fictional series that shouldn't be taken too seriously. Either way, the unrealistic elements don't really take away from the series.

Finally, I love Klavan's sense of humor and his writing style. If you want a taste, just watch this video: Barack the Magic Suit, A Political Fairy Tale. No, his books are not quite this blatantly conservative. Although you should pay close attention to the last name of the President of the United States at the end of The Final Hour. It sure made me laugh.

This review is long enough already, so I'll try to keep my other gushing down to a bare minimum. Charlie and all the "good guy" (or girl) characters are all awesome, particularly Mike. And Klavan did a very good job of letting the reader figure out what was going on just before Charlie found out. The line between telling too soon and blatantly misleading readers is a delicate tight rope. Klavan walked it perfectly.

In short, I highly recommend this to anyone looking for a good, clean, conservative read.

My Rating: OK (violence, mention of torture (none actually in the books), terrorism)

Regarding This Present Darkness

(Written by Frank E. Peretti.) Satan is closing in on the little town of Ashton. His demons are lurking about, tempting people into doing horrible things. Now his lieutenant, Rafar, the Prince of Babylon, has been sent to carry out his evil plan. An angel named Captain Tal and his likewise angelic companions are preparing to do battle. But their strength can only be increased by human prayers - and there is precious little praying going on in Ashton. Only Hank Busche, a local pastor, and his wife Mary seem to be praying. Can Hank and the angels change the minds of the people in town? And what about that nosy newspaperman, Marshall Hogan? Will he be able to put his finger on what the town's most influential people are doing behind closed doors?

Hm. This book had great potential, but overly dramatic writing and shaky theology derailed it before it really got started. I mean, what could be cooler than angels and demons engaged in a spiritual battle, while human underdogs try to fight off an evil organization that is trying to take over the world? But the book just sort of fell on its face.

First, the writing in the beginning of the book nearly made me quit several times. Peretti attempted to throw the reader into the angels' urgent situation without any background. This might have worked, except he eliminated dialogue that would have been in there, in my opinion, had he not intended to keep the reader in the dark about the forces of light. (Forgive the pun.) Plus, I disliked the drama in the angels' dialogue. One of my favorite Chesterton quotes reads as follows: "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly." Instead, Peretti's angels seem to be fully aware of the drama of their situation.

Fortunately, the writing got better as the book went on. Unfortunately, the theology did not.

On the surface, this book is great. It's essentially a warning against New Age religions, which seem to be benign but are really very dangerous. In Peretti's book, people's lives are destroyed or lost because of New Age influences, and fortune telling and other dangerous practices are similarly condemned.

Below the surface, however, the theology is shaky. Hank repeatedly drives demons out of afflicted people in the town, while other lay persons "rebuke" demons. I'm not sure if a lay person could ever drive out a demon from a possessed person. What I do know is that Catholic canon law states that exorcists must be priests appointed specifically for that task by their bishops. That sounds to me as if it is impossible or nearly impossible for a lay person to drive out demons. Additionally, I have read that exorcisms are processes that can take years of repitition before they are successful. I estimate that the longest it takes Hank to drive out a demon is about ten minutes.

Also, it bothered me that the only Catholics in the book were considered "superstitious." The Catholic items around their house were considered evidence for their superstitious minds. Now, to be fair, the main character who was in that scene was not really religious and therefore wouldn't understand pictures of Mary, etc. However, there was no correction of this mistake later in the book; as far as the reader knows, it's superstitious to have crucifixes and images of Mary about the house. That is not true or fair. Catholics have such images because they lift our minds to God, both because they are reminders and because they are beautiful. Superstition does not fit into the equation.

Plagued by a melodramatic writing style and theological difficulties, This Present Darkness takes a little while just to get off the ground. In the middle, the pace speeds up enough to be bearable, but the theological problems grow at the same time. Ultimately, I would not waste my time by reading this again, and I would not recommend it to anyone else either.

My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, violence, frightening ideas and images)

Pertaining To Exam

Eight candidates. Eighty minutes. One question. The person who gives the right answer will receive a highly sought-after job. The others will go home disappointed. Unfortunately, the candidates are faced with a bit of a quandary from the get-go - they don't know what the question is.

I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie. It's 101 minutes long, and I had heard that very nearly all of it takes place in one room. That didn't sound like a winning formula. But the movie ended up as refreshing just because of its simplicity. Some movies rely on jumping around to different locations in an attempt to create a fast-paced tone. Most movies tend to skip over annoying elements like traveling, time spent eating or sleeping, and other boring, time-consuming things. Exam doesn't skip a minute from the time the candidates enter the room to the time the exam is over.

While going over eighty minutes spent in a single room might seem very boring, suspense and puzzlement grow gradually and then by leaps and bounds as the exam nears its end. Unexpected developments pop up occasionally, and the mystery of where the question is hidden kept me on the edge of my seat.

Another interesting thing is the time and effort the filmmakers obviously put into forming characters. Each of the candidates has his or her own motives and personality, with no real stereotypes. The closest to a stereotypical character is probably the psychologist, who is an exceedingly annoying woman. Surprisingly enough, the devout Christian character nicknamed Black (Chukwudi Iwuji) is pretty realistic. He has flaws, but there are lines that he is simply unwilling to cross. Such a positive portrayal of a Christian in a secular movie is very unusual.

That brings me to the symbolism near the end of the movie. *Spoiler Warning* After Black gets shot, he falls to the floor and remains there. But, contrary to what the final candidate believes, he is not dead. From what I understand, he was shot with a pill that will cure him of the disease that threatens to take his life. Black wakes up and, as he tries to understand what happened, a man speaks very nearly the last line in the movie (if not the last; I don't exactly remember): "He is risen." This is clearly a reference to Christ's resurrection. Interestingly enough, it is the Christian character who, so to speak, rises from the dead. I don't know whether the filmmakers intended viewers to draw the parallel between faithful Christians reaching heaven and Black's healing, but it seems like a logical connection to make.

My Rating: MT (almost constant language, sexual references)

In Relation To Paycheck

Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck) is a special kind of engineer. He is hired by companies to work on highly sensitive (read: illegal) projects. After each project is finished, he is handed a big paycheck and his memory of everything that happened while he was on the project is promptly erased. When a man called Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart) offers him a job that will consume three years of his life, but leave him rich beyond his wildest dreams, Jennings agrees. Three years later, he finds he not only forfeited his paycheck, he's also being chased by everyone from the feds to Rethrick - and he has no idea why.

This movie is a really, really good idea. In the right hands it would have ranked up with other thrillers like Inception. Unfortunately, it was not in the right hands, so it's only so-so. Sometime between the original idea and the actual making of the movie, something went wrong.

First, Ben Affleck is not a very good actor. Jennings' generic character doesn't call for much acting, so that didn't bother me too much. But his girlfriend Rachel is played by Uma Thurman, who is not very good in this movie, either. Her character is pretty boring (I think perhaps the movie makers relied a little too much on her exotic looks), but she has some lines that should be funny and aren't.

This trend of character-less characters is pretty widespread; almost none of the characters are developed in any sense of the word. By far the best character is Shorty (Paul Giamatti), the kooky sidekick with the funny taste in clothes. Perhaps that's because Giamatti is the only good actor out of the bunch, with perhaps the exception of Eckhart. Unfortunately, Shorty isn't in nearly enough scenes. The evil characters are stereotypes, and the feds are just boring.

The characters are not the only part that doesn't work. Everything is extremely dramatized, as if the movie makers were aiming to make Paycheck the movie of the decade. Evidently they didn't realize that drama only works if the audience has more than money invested in the movie. Excitement cannot be drummed up with slow-motion action scenes or exhilirating music; audiences have to be emotionally invested in the characters at least a little.

My Rating: MT (language, violence, palm-reading, sexual content between hero and a side character)

Picture from coverbrowser.com

Concerning Inception

Are you living in reality? Or are you in a dream? Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a master of extraction - entering into a shared dream with a corporate giant in order to extract information from the corporate giant's subconscious. When he tries (and fails) to extract information from a man named Saito (Ken Watanabe), Cobb is surprised when Saito turns around and offers him a job. If Cobb can plant an idea in the mind of Saito's rival, then Saito will fix it so Cobb can return home. Unwilling to pass up this chance to see his two children again, Cobb agrees. Even he is completely unprepared for what he and his team will encounter.

The story in this movie is absolutely incredible. It's complicated, but not so much that you feel completely lost during the movie. It's only after the movie when you start thinking about it later that it becomes confusing. Luckily, I had the chance to watch this three times in two days, so I think I have the story straightened out. (Except for the ending - I don't think Christopher Nolan wanted people to understand that.)

The story may be confusing, but it's also a really cool idea. It's completely impossible, of course, but the very ideas of layered dreams and being able to change your dream however you want in the middle of it are just plain cool. Another cool thing is the graphics. The only time they don't look one hundred percent realistic is when your mind is telling you that what's going on is impossible. Your eyes believe everything, but your brain isn't as credulous.

Inception is extremely well done in more ways than just the story and graphics. The acting and characters are superb. At first, I wasn't very impressed. Dom seemed like a boring character, and I wasn't too impressed with Leonardo DiCaprio's acting. But as the movie went on, Dom's character began to have all sorts of little twists and turns, and suddenly I realized that DiCaprio is a very good actor indeed. All the little things about Dom that I took as DiCaprio trying to make a character out of nothing were revealed as being intentional parts of Dom's character. To stay on the acting, everyone else was really good as well; Ellen Page as Ariadne and Cillian Murphy as Robert Fischer in particular.

My Rating: T (violence, language)

Picture from impawards.com

Regarding Lady in the Water

Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) is a very nice, quiet man with a stammer. He's the supervisor for an apartment house in Philadelphia, and all the residents really like him. About the only thing that annoys him is a mysterious person swimming in the pool at night, which has happened a lot lately. But then he discovers who the mysterious swimmer is - a beautiful, ethereal young woman named Story (Bryce Dallas Howard). Story is a water nymph - a Narf - from Blue World. All she wants is to complete her mission and leave. But an evil creature the size of a large wolf has pursued her and is bent on killing her no matter what it takes.

Pros: First of all, the whole point of this movie is that everybody has a purpose in life. They may not know what it is they're supposed to do until the moment they need to do it, but there is no such thing as a worthless life. I also love the way God is brought into this movie. Paul Giamatti and Bryce Dallas Howard both had simply awesome acting performances. And the characters in this movie are great. The various people in the apartment house have very distinct personalities, from the guy who only works out one side of his body to the older lady who tells everybody everything there is to know about her husband.

Cons: Unfortunately, this movie is not as subtle as the other M. Night Shyamalan movies I've seen. There's no need to look for a "deeper meaning" - things are stated clearly and concisely. Though, considering I would never have picked up on a couple things without having them specifically mentioned, I don't have too much of a problem with that. My other problem is that sometimes "the universe" is referred to as being responsible for some things - namely, for directly helping the protagonists. However, things are explained at a later part of the movie as being from God (though that isn't necessarily presented as being the definitive answer; it's just the opinion of a couple characters).

Note: Written, produced, and directed by M. Night Shyamalan.

My Rating: T (frightening images/situations, Story doesn't have much clothing on most of the time)

Picture from impawards.com

Regarding Sherlock: The Great Game

(Third movie in the BBC series with the twenty-first century Sherlock Holmes.) Someone is playing a dangerous game with Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch). The police consultant gets a phone call from a woman who's been strapped to a bomb. Someone will kill her unless Sherlock solves a case within a set time limit. His only clue? A pair of old shoes. Who would play such a cruel game? Why? Only Sherlock, with a little help from his associate, Dr. John Watson (Martin Freeman), can find out.

Pros: Pretty intense story! And talk about a surprising ending... and about the best cliff-hanger I've ever seen. (Can't wait for them to make more!) Funny, as usual. Oh, and DI Lestrade (Rupert Graves) is back, which is good. For my thoughts on this series in general, read my review of Sherlock: A Study in Pink.

Cons: It was a bit hard to keep up with at times, but I suppose that's because Sherlock speaks so quickly sometimes...

My Rating: T/MT ((depends on the person's exposure to homosexual people) sexual references, mild homosexual references)

Concerning The Sixth Sense

Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) is a great child psychologist. Heck, he even got an award from the mayor of Philadelphia for his efforts and successes in helping troubled children and their families. Then one of his former patients, a young man he couldn't help, shows up. This traumatic meeting scars Malcolm so deeply he feels he must atone for his failure in some way. So when he comes across a patient who reminds him of his failure, he throws himself into his work, neglecting his loving wife in the process. But he has no idea what is really troubling little Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osmont).

Pros: This movie is absolutely awesome. The writing is fabulous, and the acting amazing. (Yes, Bruce Willis was amazingly good in this movie - at least for him!) Haley Joel Osmont was particularly great. I love the religious angle, which is seen in the movie, but not really a big part of it. As I can't really say anything else without spoiling everything, I'll just say that it's one of the best movies I have ever seen.

Cons: I really had to think about and discuss some aspects of the movie in order to understand how all the pieces fit together. But the pieces pretty much fit like a jigsaw puzzle!

My Rating: MT (intensity, sexual content involving a married couple)

Picture from impawards.com

Regarding Shadow of a Doubt

The Newton family is falling apart. At least, according to the oldest child, Charlie (Teresa Wright). Named Charlotte after her uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotten), young Charlie is determined to stop her family from sliding into a rut. On an impulse, she decides to send her mother's kid brother a telegram begging him to come for a visit. Then she finds that he had the same idea and was already on his way. Elated, young Charlie eagerly welcomes him into the Newton household, completely unaware of his dark secret.

Pros: This is Hitchcock at his best! Suspense drips from this movie, particularly in the later scenes when young Charlie begins to catch on to her uncle. Oh, and I love Teresa Wright. She wasn't a particularly great actress, but her characters were usually sweet, good girls. And the dad's friend Herbie (Hume Cronyn) is hilarious!

Cons: As is usually the case with Hitchcock, this movie has a few slow parts, particularly in the beginning. Plus, the whole waltzing couples thing got a little annoying...

My Rating: OK (murder)

Picture from hollywoodoutbreak.com

Concerning Black As Night

Once upon a time... A young woman escapes from a pair of muggers and runs to an old church for refuge. When she wakes up in the vestibule, she is surprised to see a group of monks standing over her. Check that. She is surprised to see a group of friars standing over her. The seven friars, which range from gruff Father Francis to jolly novice Brother Leon, take the young woman under their wings. Afraid to return to her family, the young lady remains with the friars, desperately trying to puzzle out who would want her out of the way.

Pros: I absolutely love this book! The heroine and hero are my favorite couple ever! The friars are great, the story is good, the bad person is sufficiently creepy... and I love how Regina Doman works Through the Looking Glass into the story! The slapstick humor can be pretty funny, too, particularly the dogs.

Cons: There is nothing that I don't like about this book.

My Rating: T (fairly intense, drugs)

Picture from fairytalenovels.com

Pertaining To The Historian

In Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian, a young woman finds a mysterious packet of letters in her father's study. When she demands an explanation from him, he begins, bit by bit, to tell her a strange story concerning an old book, a professor of his... and Dracula. As the mystery gradually becomes clear, the young woman finds herself ever more deeply entangled in a desperate mission that could end with her or one of her loved ones as a dead body. Or an undead body.

Pros: The story was very interesting and kept me reading. There were some unexpected twists. I rather like the father, though I think the daughter is a total idiot.

Cons: Kostova used two strategies to build suspense. I think she failed at both. 1) The book is over six hundred pages long. If she had eliminated unnecessary details and descriptions, it could have been three hundred pages and a lot more fast-paced and exciting. 2) It jumps from letters to stories to present time, with four different people narrating at different times. Only masterful writers can use this technique to their advantage; it only works when the reader leaves an interesting/cliff-hanger part of the story to go to another interesting/cliff-hanger part of the story. Switching from an interesting part of the story to go to a dull part of the story does not work. 

My Rating: MT (evil vampires, moderate sexual content)

Picture from coverbrowser.com

Concerning Unbreakable

David Dunn (Bruce Willis) is the only survivor of a horrific train wreck that killed over a hundred people. The only other person to be pulled from the wreckage dies of a crushed skull and other injuries within minutes, but Dunn is completely unhurt. Upon leaving a memorial service for the victims of the train wreck, he finds a mysterious card from a comic book store called "Limited Edition" under the windshield wiper of his vehicle. Naturally curious, he seeks out the store and find that its owner, Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), thinks that Dunn may be a modern superhero - a man who is literally "unbreakable."

Pros: There are a lot of things I like about this movie, but I can't mention half of them because I would give something away. That being said, although Bruce Willis isn't a terrific actor, the rest of the cast in the movie is very good. I also like Dunn's wife, Audrey (Robin Wright Penn) very much.

Cons: It's a bit slow, and doesn't have the same emotional pull that some of director/writer/producer M. Night Shyamalan's other movies have.

My Rating: T (language, intensity, sexual reference)

Picture from impawards.com