Reviews

Stranger Things is another by-the-numbers action series that continues Hollywood's subversive attacks on America's cultural heritage of personal responsibility. It has always amazed me how a morally-bankrupt Hollywood (as if the current outcry against sexual harassment among its Leftist elite is anything new) has any credibility at all when it points its slimy finger at the other side of the political aisle. If this was a show for adults, I would let it slide (it's called toleration), but this show targets kids and that makes it wrong.

I will admit that the 1st season is not as bad as the 2nd season; the producers must've decided an edgy approach would help sustain the ratings.

Parents, here are some of the "cool things" you can expect to find in Stranger Things Season 2:

[1.] kids swearing all the time [2.] adults (and 1 kid) smoking all the time [3.] clueless parents [4.] sexual adventures without a hint of morality (in real life, this "fun" leads to STDs, teenage pregnancy, and abortion) [5.] an "enlightened" Communist encouraging high school teenagers to drink vodka and fornicate [6.] justifying stealing because the rich are "insured," and implying it is good to steal from the rich ... I could go on and on.

Every generation has to fight an uphill battle against the inherent depravity inside all of us. TV shows like this are dangerous because of the glitter that attracts children and then implants destructive ideas in their mind. Before you know it, a gullible citizenry will be electing leaders that can't balance a budget, who lie all the time ("if you like your plan, you can keep it"), and who look to government to underwrite all of society's social ills.

Another Perfect Stranger is very much a dialogue-driven film. While portraying a fairly straightforward and simple plot, the writer/director does a good job of hiding the planted seeds which will blossom into the film's eventual payoffs. This is important because many films, Christian films especially, fall into the category where the final act can be predicted in the first 5 minutes.

I should point out I have a bias in favor of APS because of my personal beliefs. I have watched thousands of movies - secular and Christian - over the years and this is an exciting time for Christian independent filmmakers. The availability of high-quality, low-cost technology is allowing more and more artists to create films of good production quality. Except for the opening flashback scene where the sound and video quality were not of the same quality as the rest of the film, the current title is a good example of this. (Since APS is a sequel, perhaps the flashback scene was taken directly from the earlier movie - I have not seen that film so I don't know.)

I was impressed with the lead actors, especially Ruby Marie Lewis as Sarah. Because this film is essentially the conversation that occurs between two characters who meet while flying to the same destination, its very survival as a work of art depends on the actors providing the extra magic that allows us to identify with them and be entertained by their evolving relationship. Ms. Lewis portrays a young woman who is independent enough to strike out on her own in pursuit of an uncertain career and to speak her mind clearly; and yet, she manages to convey the vulnerability of someone who is running away to find herself. She does a seamless job of taking us through the character's transformation: for good or for ill, I will leave you to the film to find out.

While I admit that some may be put off by the sheer amount of dialogue, I can't emphasize enough how impressed I was with the production value that is evident here: the acting, editing, and direction was exceptional. Several scenes were actually shot on location which is an extravagant rarity for a low-budget film. I think if you give it a chance, you will find yourself being drawn into the story.

This is a "message" film and there are no car chases or melodramatic elements to distract so its target audience appears to be those who might be seeking relevant answers to life questions from a Christian perspective. What is certain is that the thoughtful viewer will not be taken out of the story by inadequate craftsmanship.

***Spoilers***

Let me start my review by saying that this film accomplishes what most filmmakers hope for when they begin the mountainous task of creating one: it provokes and engages the viewer's mind. I will not review the film's plot because prior posts have amply covered the many questions that are presented and only partly answered. This was an unforgettable film for me even though I do not accept its ideological foundations.

One of the subtextual layers of the film involves what I see as a severe criticism of the film industry as a whole. I'm sure that most readers are aware of Lars von Trier's grievances. In many ways, the things he has said about modern cinema ring true. How many times have we viewers left the movie hall, after watching the latest blockbuster, shaking our heads? The special effects may have astounded us, but the characters seemed petty and one-dimensional, or even worse, a GLORIFICATION of all that is bad about our culture. I emphasized the word "glorification" in the previous sentence because I do not believe that a film should ignore the bad - just that it shouldn't make the antagonist the hero.

The moving picture was invented by Thomas Edison. Because of him, we have the gift of film. Dogville begins with a father/son duo named after this famous inventor and it is here that I detect a critique of contemporary films. The younger Tom struggles to come up with a story; he wants to create something of value but he can only manage a meager three words. He walks around Dogville wanting to help its citizens, but he cannot relate to their situations. He, unlike them, does not have any financial worries because he lives with his father, Thomas Edison Sr., who brings in a comfortable pension.

Tom the younger is living off of his father's success. (Edison Sr. represents old Hollywood and is presented in a kinder light than the other town residents - i.e., he does not molest Grace.) Ineffectual in influencing his culture, young Tom is the first to recognize that Grace, played by Kidman, is a gift. He introduces her to the townspeople.

Grace is accepted by the townspeople and for a while all are content to share in her sunshine. But then, the benefactors begin to long for a greater exploitation of Grace. Through Tom the younger's mediation, they seek more "balance" from their relationship with Grace. No longer interested in her goodness and humanity, they want physical gratification at her expense (and ultimately Tom's). Tom eventually goes along with them and is corrupted himself. (Tom, representing modern cinema, panders to them by wooing Grace even as he furthers her captivity. He gives them the equivalent of the gratuitous sex scene, car chase, or mass explosion with resulting body count.)

Grace leaves Dogville and, in the spirit of the Dogme manifesto, decides that the world would be better off if the current societal malaise were eradicated, along with all of the money and capital of the modern film industry. Hence, Grace provides the coup de grace to young Tom.

Maybe if the makers of this film didn't have all the special effects to rely on, it would have been better. Perhaps greater attention would have been paid to the story thereby shortening the movie by 15 or 20 minutes. There is a spoiler in the 3rd paragraph.

First, the good: I liked the way the film was lit resisting the urge of many current filmmakers to clothe everything in darkness ala Tim Burton. Also, I liked the editing (at least in part) that allowed us to see the movie without requiring a graphics accelerator inside our head to process speed cuts.

The bad: The focus of the movie deteriorated by the end making the final climax anti-climactic. Part of the blame goes to the editing which had us watching several very tedious scenes which had nothing to add to the plot (i.e, watching the good mutants decide who would break into the Alkali Lake project), and part to the screenwriting which had the characters doing nothing else but greeting each other (i.e., Around the 1 hour 40 minute mark, I think it was Storm and Jean Gray who greeted each other like they were getting ready to go to a picnic: Jean see Storm approaching and says "Storm" to which Storm looks at Jean and says "Jean".). This kind of useless dialogue happened way too much throughout the movie. (5/10)

In the spirit of the film, I leave you with this dialogue: WOLVERINE - "Hey." ME - "Hey." WOLVERINE - "Did you like the movie?" ME - "Yeah." WOLVERINE - "Yeah?" ME - "Yeah, where's Jean?"