William Petruzzo

A friend of mine and I were just getting ready to call it a night when we decided that we were in the mood for a movie. We decided a thriller of sorts was in line for the evening, so we made our way to the Redbox and rented P2. You may never have heard of it. It certainly didn’t win any awards or anything.

The gist is basically a young woman is working late on Christmas eve and while trying to leave is captured by a parking lot security guard who has a sick obsession with her. You can imagine where the movie goes.

Through the course of the movie the security guard attempts to win the woman’s affection in some less than conventional manners. For example, killing one of her coworkers who she had an altercation with. He’s obviously deranged and a murderer, among other things.

By the end of the movie, the woman has managed to turn the tables through a series of pretty clever decisions. She’s been through quite a lot. Been drugged, handcuffed, locked in the trunk of a car, crashed a car, tazered, and bitten by a dog. Finally, she has her assailant handcuffed to a car which is leaking gasoline. He’s now unarmed, blind and nearly unable to walk. But he’s still crazy, and can’t understand why the woman won’t have anything to do with him.

As she walks to safety, he gets upset and calls her an unsavory name. In her anger, she turns and lights the car on fire which burns her attacker alive, and she walks out into the street.

For the record, if I had the choice again, I would likely choose not to watch the movie. It was simply too much gore and not enough suspense.

But, my emotional response to the movie’s ending reminded me of some scripture.

Romans 12:19 says:

“Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, " VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.”

The movie painted the picture of one individual as being pure, good and righteous. 100% victim. Obviously, in real life that doesn’t exist. But in a movie the ideal can. Then, opposite her, we have one who embodies, selfishness and evil. He was a murderer and the entire movie the viewer wishes he would come to justice.

But, in the end of the movie when she burns the man alive, I got a glimpse into the meaning of that verse. Her opponent was incapacitated and completely subdued and defenseless. When she killed him, she liquidated her righteous standing as established in the beginning of the movie. She no longer fulfilled the ideal that was painted for her. She too was a murderer and was equally deserving of a fiery death as he was.

When we intentionally execute revenge when we have been wronged, we join our injurer in his camp of unrighteousness. We become guilty of the same sins as him. Although it feels good to press revenge, the truth is, we are descending into unrighteousness and it will always produce adverse and often painful results.

That also reminds me of a tidbit of scripture which I read this afternoon and although the context isn’t a perfect match, I still think it applies:

1 Peter 2:20:

“For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.”

Everything you’ve heard about the new Batman movie is true. It met, if not exceeded every hope and expectation I had for it. I’ll try to keep this clean and clear and hopefully offer some tips to help you better receive the movie.

[rating:5/5]

First of all, against the backdrop of bubble-gum, popcorn superhero flicks, The Dark Knight is seriously fresh. Not to say I didn’t enjoy those other movies. I did, they were fun, but that’s generally where they stopped.

The Dark Knight however offered more.

So, for that reason, I will not call it a superhero movie. In fact, if I were to judge it by the same rubric I used to judge The Hulk or Spiderman, I would probably find that I didn’t much care for it.

Go into The Dark Knight looking at it as any other suspense, thriller, action movie. One that just so happens to feature two of our childhood’s most beloved characters.

Christian Bale delivers, I think, the weakest performance. Although that’s not to call the performance weak. He did a great job.

Aaron Eckhart, playing Harvey Dent, sells it. I bought it all.

But where the movie oozes with magnificent delivery and on-screen presence… you guessed it: Heath Ledger. He tears it up. From the first moment he appears on screen to the last exposure, he’s phenomenal. I expected never to be out-impressed after Jack Nicholson. But Ledger delivers everything the Joker should be and way more.

I’d rather not go into details about the story. Partly cause I think the ambiguity is good. But, partly because I just don’t want to.

I loved this movie. As a Christian I loved this movie. The Batman franchise is notoriously dark. The Dark Knight promised to be all that and more. And it lived up to its promises. But the movie wasn’t about death and destruction and mayhem.

The movie was about self-sacrifice. Being for others what they need you to be. Giving yourself for the benefit of others, even if they don’t understand or recognize it.

In this film, Batman’s trademark sense of revenge was almost altogether absent. What it was replaced with was the inner struggle of man to provide for people what they needed. Even if it meant losing what was precious to him.

I absolutely recommend heading out to see this movie. But, I’m not sure younger kids ought to be there. Everything is more realistic and in all probability the Joker will give them nightmares.

I just finished watching the movie Trade for the second time after the 2007 Passion conference in Georgia.

Trade is the story of a young Mexican boy chasing after his sister who’s been kidnapped and placed into the human sex trade. He follows a trail from his home in Mexico into the United States and across the country trying to stay on his sister’s tail.

Trade is an ultra-realistic depiction of the reality that is the human sex trade. It’s not easy to watch. It’s not easy to stomach. Trade is not for entertainment.

Do you ever have trouble reaching far out of your own little space in the universe to consider the things that are really taking place? I usually do. Trade plays dramatic chords, but where the entertainment in most movies usually ends and life returns to normal, Trade’s leaving an upset feeling in my stomach. That’s a good thing.

The reality is that somewhere, even right now, children, women, probably men too, living as products. I mean, not even that far away either. Did you know Baltimore is one of the biggest sex-traffic hubs in the United States? Less than an hour from here.

I’m left feeling inadequate, under-equipped, lost, confused, broken, angry, scared, anxious, guilty. I’m left feeling like there are no other options besides prayer and it’s not enough.

I recommend you sitting down to watch Trade. It’s not a popcorn flick. Just sit and watch, and let yourself be stirred to prayer.

I know I only sporadically do reviews on movies, which makes this seem a bit silly. But the truth is, I’d really like my limited audience to know this: every one of you ought to go and see this movie.

[rating:5/5]

In my personal opinion, Pixar is on this whole other level of visual story-telling. They take movie animation to this brand new level where people can feel a real kindred with fish, or find real compassion for their old toys they’ve neglected, or even, yes even, find real empathy for a couple of unlikely robots in love.

Of course, Pixar hasn’t always hit the mark. Cars and A Bugs Life weren’t the best. But they also certainly weren’t the worst. But none of them are the point here in this post. The point is that Pixar did hit the mark on Wall-E. Seriously hit the mark.

Wall-E tells the story of the world somewhere around the year 2700. Mankind has abandoned the earth they’ve wrecked to a team of clean-up robots. Unfortunately, all of the robots broke down, except for the one quirky little guy who’s glitch gave him a personality. The one little robot, Wall-E, continues to do his job attempting to clean up the earth to little avail. One day a probe robot looking for life shows up on the scene and steals Wall-E’s heart. The rest of the film we follow Wall-E’s adventure of self sacrificial love and persistence to be with “Eva” his robot opposite.

First of all, I’d like to preface by saying, I’m not going to say much else about Wall-E. The movie really will speak for itself (figuratively speaking).

I love Wall-E. This release from Pixar is, hands down, their strongest most compelling movie. The story-telling is masterful. The relationships are genuine and moving. The plot powerful and poignant. On all fronts Wall-E is a winner.

The first 30 minutes have no dialogue at all. The rest of the film, and none of the plot, rest on dialogue. It’s all communicated in “body” language and “facial” expression and the occasional computer tone emitted from Wall-E and Eva. Yet somehow, the two express more than most films express with a full gamut of dialogue.

There are obvious environmental themes to the film. But unlike other movie’s with the same message, Wall-E doesn’t come across as preachy. In fact, in a weird way it did a great deal more to cause reflection on environmental issues than any other movie has.

As a kid’s movie, Wall-E might be lost on the much younger crowd. But you know what? It was a worth while sacrifice.

On a brief final note. Wall-E made me choke up. Twice. It was worth every penny I spent, and it’s going to be worth every penny I spend to see it again.

I highly recommend you see it.

I know there are many who have already discovered Hulu and I also know that this isn’t in line with my usual posting. But I’ll break the mold a bit tonight.

I’m a guy who enjoys television. However, I don’t so much enjoy sitting doing nothing for hours and hours. Before the advent of DVR boxes, if you sat down to watch television you really were going to be brain dead within a few hours. So any commercials. Most of it was sub-par in its entertainment value anyways.

Then, with the DVR, tv watching got a bit more efficient (that sounds pretty comical, now that I read it). All of a sudden you could record just what you want to watch and don’t bother with the rest.

But the best of all comes along with the advent of high-speed internet. Hulu is an online gallery, constantly updating, of media that you actually want to watch. Pretty much every primetime and cable series you could want to enjoy is available for free streaming from the internet. No downloads. No extra software. Just log on and watch. With decent internet (at least DSL) your video will be smooth and close to DVD quality.

Not only will you find older and new episodes of your favorite televisions shows on Hulu, you’ll also find a good collection of movies. Both classic, and some relatively recent. Such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Lost in Translation.

I’m sure the major disadvantage for many is that they just cant see themselves unwinding in front of their computer. But then again, hey, everything’s got it’s drawbacks right?

So far, I’ve found Hulu to be an excellent source of “efficient” entertainment. I get to watch what I want to watch the first time, without all the filler crap. Spend less time watching TV, but enjoy it just as much. Highly recommended.

My family is one of running jokes. We usually have inside jokes/jabs for pretty much every family affair. Most of these jokes were probably born on some level in my great grandfather, but they live on today in my father and undoubtedly, I’m doomed to carry them on myself. One of these jokes arises almost every time my father’s children want to watch a movie on his television. (In our family, he’s the one with the big tv).

Ordinarily, we’ll approach him and say something like, “Hey pop, do you mind if we watch a movie on your television?” His usual response is, “What’dya wanna watch?”, then we’ll almost always respond with something like, “[insert recent Hollywood blockbuster here]” and like clockwork, he’ll retort, “you mean you’re watching a talkie!?” or “agh, you know they haven’t made a good movie since 1951.” Then he’ll wear this subtle grin that us siblings have learned to detect, but would go undetected by the rest of the world. Then of course we’ll know his unspoken answer and we’ll go ahead with the entertainment.

So, being that me and my father rarely agree on what constitutes a “good” movie, I thought perhaps today would be a good day to hear  his top five favorite movies.

So here they are, my father’s top five favorite movies, in no particular order:

It’s a Wonderful Life (1947)

“Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings.” Learning what the world would be like if you’d never been born. Christmas movies at their best. For starters, the movie is in black and white, so it’s clearly got that going for it. In addition to that, it was released in 1947; it’s got all the makings of a great movie. Of course, in addition to that, it actually is a great movie.

How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003)

My mother and father love situation comedies; especially romantic comedies. I imagine 30-some years of marriage leaves you with lots of memories with which to connect to character’s humorous circumstances. My dad is also one of the few guys who’s able to enjoy a movie regardless of its genre. How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days for example, some might call a chick-flick. But my dad gets kudos for not caring but judging based on whether what he watched was entertaining. This one made the cut.

Chicago (2002)

I’m a sucker for musicals. I think on some level I wish that life really happened in musical format. Dilemma some how increases people’s song-writing copacity. In any case, it seems unlikely that my father shares the same enthusiasm for musicals, but he was a fan of the recent remake of Chicago. A decision I cannot argue too much with. While I wouldn’t put it in a top five list, it’s definitely in a top 50.

Select Dance Sequences from Fred Astaire (1933-1968)

Don’t know who Fred Astaire is? My father would probably cringe to know that. Well, to tell you the truth, I only barely know myself. So some research goes to show that he was a theater performer, dancer, actor, dancing actor, etc. back sometime around the stone ages. Just kidding. He was in musicals from 1933 to 1968 and is well known for his spectacular dancing. "He is generally acknowledged to have been the most influential dancer in the history of film and television musicals," according to Wikipedia and his long list of involvements adds credibility to the claim. If he is responsible for what I love today in film musicals, then thank you Mr. Astaire.

Top Gun (1986)

In my family, there’s been a long standing pursuit of more gratifying ways to watch the opening ten-minutes of Top Gun. My dad likes the jets and sequences of take-offs and landings to the song Danger Zone. Usually when the opportunity to watch it on a large screen, with a loud stereo arises, there’s little or no hesitation. Unfortunately, with a 50-some inch screen, it gets harder to impress the guy. I suppose that it’s time to move up to a 65-inch.

So there you have it. My father’s top-5 favorite movies. So I know my dad’s favorites. Do you know yours?

I watched The Basketball Diaries tonight; a drug culture drama from early on in Leonardo DiCaprio’s career. Also, a film adaptation of a series of journal entries from the true story of well known and respected Jim Carroll. Since the movie came in 1995, you might not even remember it. It wasn’t exactly a blockbuster smash hit then either, but to date, it’s still one of my favorites.

For those who haven’t seen the movie, the story follows Jim (Leo) as he transforms from reckless, but fun loving middle-lower class kid, quickly gaining the attention of basketball recruiters, to a full fledged homeless junkie willing to do absolutely anything for a fix. There’s very little about this movie that doesn’t scream “mid-90’s!”. The acting. The lighting. The setting. The lingo. But what is unusual is a really stunning performance from Leo. By today’s standards, a lot falls as far as dramas go. But Leo’s acting, even today, is still rarely matched.

While the movie is good as it is, it’s not especially entertaining. But that’s alright. Entertainment here doesn’t seem to be chiefly the point. It’s one of those few films that you watch and don’t enjoy and on some level never want to watch again, but at the same time you can’t turn it off and you won’t bad mouth it when it’s over. At some points, the gruesome sobriety on screen will make even a person sitting alone feel awkward or queasy inside.

I’ve never been a rock bottom drug addict in New York City before, so it’s hard for me to say just how realistic the culture portrayed is. But it seems to me that regardless of that, the point is clear and the culture has little to do with it. Jim gave himself, foolishly, to a dangerous bride. Like so many of us here and now, he was bewitched and intoxicated by what he’d surrendered himself to and he couldn’t walk away. Of course, we might hide it better than a junkie.

If you haven’t seen The Basketball Diaries, go grab it. And if you haven’t seen it in a while, maybe you’d like a refresher. Just remember, it’s not exactly a popcorn flick.

Over the past three days, my mother and I have watched the whole Lord of the Rings trilogy, extended versions, on DVD. I’d seen the first one several times and the second one two or three times, but the third one I hadn’t seen since the theaters, and hence never seen the extra footage from the extended DVD. My mother had never seen any of them, and after recently watching the new Indiana Jones movie and Prince Caspian, felt like she wanted to catch up some.

Most everyone is familiar with the movies, and the creature Gollum. The skinny, big eyed, schizophrenic, ring-of-power withdraw patient. Now, I’m sure that many have made this comparison before me, perhaps that was even the original intention in designing such a character—but of all the characters in the entire set of movies, I think that I identified with Gollum the most closely. Of course there are plenty of other characters anyone would rather see themselves as, but in the soberest of realities, Gollum is the closest comparison.

There are some times when my own conversations with myself, about sin, mirror the creature’s debates over how to get back his beloved ring. It’s a striking parallel sometimes.

I can see, again, Paul’s inner struggle in Romans 7:14-24:

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

However, unlike Gollum, who’s divided person met his end in flames, clutching his ring in hand, I can say with Paul, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:25) I will not share in Gollum’s fate.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

This movie gets four diamonds. Whatever that means.

I guess today’s post is going to be a very early one. I just got home from seeing the first possible showing of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Well of course, what else could one expect? I’m a Christian and I guess I do things like that. That’s exactly what Disney and Walden Media are banking on. Literally.

I will say up front that Narnia is an obvious, shameless attempt to capitalize on the growing population of Americans who proactively call themselves Christians. I’m certain that many fans of the original C.S. Lewis works will have grievances with the film adaptation of this installment in the series, but there’s something important to note here. Between C.S. Lewis and Disney/Walden Media, there is a very important difference. C.S. Lewis was a writer to the glory of God, with the end hope that those who didn’t know Jesus would, and those who did know Jesus would fall more deeply in love with him. His articulate and inspiring allegories and non-fiction works have done this for a vast number of people. Walden Media and Disney, on the other hand, have one thing in mind. Money. They are businesses and it’s what they do, it’s what they exist for and it would be silly for us to expect otherwise.

However more shallow the purpose in producing this series may be, it does not change that an excellent job was done.

For those who are unfamiliar with this installment of the Narnia series, Peter, Edmund, Lucy and Susan have been back in the real world for a year since they’re first trip to Narnia when suddenly they are whisked back. In Narnia times, somewhere around 1000 years have passed and the whimsical creatures of the ancient land have been forced into hiding by a line of corrupt kings of the “son’s of Adam”. When the gang arrives on the scene, they discover things to be quite different than they remember and a lot rougher (also a quality of the film, clearly contrasting the last installment). Alongside Prince Caspian, the rightful heir to the throne, the crew must lead the Narnians in a fight against the army’s of men.

When compared to the story’s close relative The Lord of the Rings, Narnia is child’s play. In the whole film there is next to no graphic violence at all. In fact, the only blood shown is when one character cuts his hand. But let’s remember, this is a family film. And even being such, the lack of graphic violence didn’t take away from the intensity of the action or the story. Unlike the first film, which ultimately felt a bit anticlimactic, this installment pushed the audience’s limits at pretty much every turn. The fight sequences were intense enough to be believed and the characters deep enough to be cared about. The combination made for an extremely enjoyable viewing experience.

The movie’s pacing should also be noted. While nearly everything in the first installment of Narnia felt rushed and crowded, the second installment clearly resolved this problem for the most part. Although the opening sequence involving the children did feel a bit hasty, the rest of the story unfolded with grace and clarity. A friend appropriately described it saying that they fully committed to nearly every sequence. No fight was rushed, no argument skimmed over, no dialogue irrationally assumed. They took their time on every opportunity and it paid off well.

The visual effects in this installment were stellar. One particular sequence involving a water creature stands out as possibly being the best visual effects I have ever seen to date. The music score was also excellent. It never distracted from the movie; in fact, I rarely explicitly noticed it at all.

While it seems that much of the movie stayed true to the book, there are a number of events in the movie which I know for sure were added; likely for commercial appeal. Those who have read the book will probably grumble at them because the additions added little and often threatened what was already there; one quite notably so. I agree that the additions were frivolous and ultimately useless, but let’s remember, Disney and Walden aren’t trying to make disciples here, they’re trying to make money. Once again, this installment also closed with an extremely poor choice in soundtrack. However, the error is easily forgiven, and who can blame them for wanting to sell a few extra copies of the soundtrack album?

One thing that should be noted and praised in this movie adaptation is that glory in this movie is not relinquished to our heroes. They are consistently shown to be failures and incapable of fighting the fight before them. The glory is consistently shifted to Aslan; no doubt Lewis’ original intention.

From an entertainment standpoint, I highly enjoyed this installment; much more than the first one—for sure. But on a personal level, there were many nuggets of C.S. Lewis insight for us to consider. But I don’t want to say too much. For me personally, even some prospects that challenge my own heart and mind when evaluating myself and my desires. One such occasion, Peter has run valiantly into a noble and stubborn fight which he cannot win; in the midst of his stubbornness, Susan rebukes him saying:

“Who are you fighting this for?” Good question, Susan.

It’s a bit late, I know, but this afternoon I was invited by my mother to go and see Horton Hears a Who in the theaters. I imagine it’ll be showing up on DVD in the next couple of months, so if you’re not pressed, I wouldn’t rush out to see it. However, I would like to recommend that you do eventually.

If you don’t know already, Horton Hears a Who is the adaptation of Dr. Seuss’ classic children’s story about an elephant (Horton) who accidentally comes in contact with a tiny speck of dust, home to an entire race of microscopic people (Who’s). In Horton’s world, being an elephant with giant ears, he’s the only one equipped to hear these tiny people, and in the Who world, only the mayor, with his accidental pipe horn, is able to hear Horton. So in both of our main characters are surrounded by folks who do not believe in these unseen worlds. But naturally, our main characters stay true to their invisible companions.

Horton sets out to make the Who colony safe. He heads for a high up mountain safely protected from the dangers of jungle. A nosey kangaroo makes it her business to see Horton’s nonsense put to and end. In the Who world, the mayor is not taken seriously and constantly underminded by the city counsel, especially when he presents them with the preposterous idea of an “invisible elephant in the sky”.

It’s pretty difficult to miss the glaring political and spiritual undertones in this film. For a child, it will only be the simple and good lesson of “a person is a person, no matter how small.” But for adults, a far more profound commentary might be observed. There is no clear “God” figure, nor does it seem that any is intended to be one. But rather, the discussion seems more about faith and whether or not it legitimizes serious action in life. Horton’s actions to protect the Who people on the speck are set in stark contrast to the kangaroo’s attacks saying, “If you can’t see it, hear it, or feel it, it’s not there.” A sentiment that isn’t too far from some scholar’s claim that if you can’t test it or measure it, it’s not real.

Meanwhile, in the Who world, the mayor fights a similar battle. He knows the dangers that the Who people are in, yet when bringing these claims to the people, his ideas are met with great skepticism and unbelief. Not unlike many of the prophets.

There are also political implications, especially concerning the abortion debate. My mother (very active in the earlier Maryland pro-life movement) pointed out that the kangaroo’s sentiments were not unlike early feminist attempts to persuade the public that a growing fetus is not a person; a point to which Horton says, “a person is a person, no matter how small.”

I remarked to my mother after the movie that they don’t really write stories like this one any more. The morals were simple and clear. The humor was genuine and clean. Things were wrapped up very well and without any need for vengeance. I really enjoyed this movie, and I think you will too. Even if you don’t have kids, I recommend you pick this one up from the video store when it’s available. The kids will enjoy it and I think you’ll enjoy it too.