The Lone Ranger

Lighten up, you critics.  What were you looking for in this Lone Ranger movie?  Did you want the producers to recreate the franchise?  There was no franchise to recreate.  In the 1950’s there was just a fantastic series that we loved watching on TV.  In those days Tonto was great.  The Lone Ranger was great.  Good guys wore white hats and rode white horses.  The Lone Ranger never killed anyone.  He was a friend to the underdog and those in need.  I never felt that Tonto was depicted with racial stereotypes but it was obvious that there was prejudice that he and Tonto were trying to overcome.  We loved the series and loved the music.

This movie, on the other hand, was very funny and very campy with strong attempts to battle racism.  Without being offensive it poked fun at the growing bond between Tonto and the Lone Ranger.  It also showed the evils of racism, corporate greed and violence.  By the way, the Lone Ranger in the movie also wore a white hat, rode a white horse and never killed anyone.  He was a friend to the underdog and those in need.  And Tonto was funny, funny, funny.  The closing dialogue between the Lone Ranger and Tonto was priceless.

Oh, the movie was outrageous at times.  But so what?  It was a great movie with a deep meaning.  If you miss seeing it at the theater you will miss a lot.  Don’t wait for the video.  See it now and forget the critics!

I would give it six shields (out of seven) with my Schwichtenbergian Awards for Cinematic Excellence.

"Despicable Me 2"

“Despicable Me” was an excellent movie.  “Despicable Me Two” is a good movie.  What else can I say?  I liked the movie but it’s very difficult to picture the irascible Gru from the first movie as a family man and he just isn’t despicable any more.  That’s OK.  That premise in the original movie made the progression and ending of that movie very, very sweet.  We loved to see him take the three sweet little girls into his “family.”  But, let’s face it, Gru (voiced by Steve Carell) just isn’t despicable anymore.

Lucy Wilde (voiced by Kristen Wiig) “kidnaps” Gru at the beginning of the movie after a giant magnet steals a laboratory and enlists Gru into the AVL (Anti-Villain League) to stop some kind of world domination.  Gru agrees to work “undercover” at a mall and suspects Eduardo (voiced by Benjamin Bratt) as being behind the brains behind the magnet.  In the mean time Dr. Nefario (voiced by Russell Brand) leaves Gru because he misses evil.  Also, Gru’s oldest “daughter” likes Eduardo’s son.  The AVL believes that wig merchant Floyd Eagle-san (voiced by Ken Jeong) is the culprit and “they” believe they solved the case.  As this is happening Gru and Lucy discover they have feelings for each other with Gru’s girls hoping they will get together but she is leaving for Australia until she realizes Gru was right and she hang glides out of the airplane to “find” him.  Dr. Nefario changes his mind about evil and helps Gru with jam containing antidote to restore the minions who have become evil under Eduardo’s ray gun.  Ultimately, Gru saves the world and then dates Lucy 147 times before finally popping the question.  You have to love Agnes, the youngest of the three girls who, along with Margo and Edith are happy to gain a mother.  Technically, the “plot” is even more complicated than this.  I know.  I know.  I didn’t really understand some of what was going on here and really didn’t care.  But I’m not saying I didn’t like it.

The Minions (Gru’s yellow servants) are wonderful and they even invade the closing credits with lots of 3D fun and are scheduled to be in their own movie in December of 2014.  I’m not a big fan of 3D but this was one of the better 3D movies that I have seen.

I have decided to start rating my movies with “awards.”  I’m calling these awards “The Schwichtenbergian Awards For Cinematic Excellence.”  I could award from one to seven “Schwichtenbergian Shields,” depending on how well I liked the movie.  Movies such as “Fargo,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”, “True Stories” or “Up” would rate seven shields.  Loser movies such as “Sherlock Holmes” and “Madagascar 3” would probably (but barely) get two shields.  Ultimately, it depends on my mood I guess.  I would give the original “Despicable Me” six shields and would give this one five shields.  Anything over three is worth seeing.  If you compared this to a grading system, seven shields would be like an “A” while six shields would be like a “B+” and five like a “B”.  Four shields would be a “C” and three would be a “C-”.  Two shields would be a “D” and one shield would be an “F.”

"Monsters University"

“Monsters University” is an interesting prequel to a very nice cartoon movie from 2001.  It’s difficult to believe that the first movie was released that long ago.

Though the premise of learning how to scare people is a strange premise in and of itself, the lessons learned in the movie are interesting and just a bit profound.  Things such careful tolerance about “beings” different at school from others, healthy competition without some kind of evil gang or agenda, working together as a team even when some on the team do not excel in every area, “zero tolerance for wrong actions” and an uncontrived ending make the movie a bit different from many.

The movie does drag a bit at first with Mike Wazowski (voiced by Billy Crystal) learning about campus life but perhaps this is also a sign about real life in a real world.  His great dream is to become a “Scarer” even though by his own admittance, he is not real scary.  His roommate Sully (voiced by John Goodman) is the son of a “Scarer” and the expectation on campus is that he will do well simply because of who he was.  (Sully is so easy-going and relaxed in his voice and style and mannerisms that he reminds me of Vicar Brad who served in our church a decade ago.)

I really didn’t expect the lesson on zero tolerance because I thought that Mike and Sully would somehow be rescued by someone or something.  Ultimately, I was glad they were not “rescued.”  That may be the reality of life at times.  Instead, at the end of the movie they have to achieve their “Scarer” monster status by working themselves up from the bottom.  That’s not a bad lesson to learn.

Though the movie has absolutely no negative language or images, the idea of scariness and being scared may not make this a very good movie for the very young. 

I’m not a big fan of 3D though this movie wasn’t too bad in 3D.

The Croods

Alice is always worried that I’m going to give a movie she likes a bad review.  “The Croods” is another of those movies that was fun and mildly deep.  I confess, however, that it didn’t really move me one way or the other.  I liked the characters and I like the interaction of the Dad (Grug Crood voiced by Nicolas Cage) and the future son-in-law, Guy (voiced by Ryan Reynolds).  I also appreciated how Eep (Emma Stone), the cave girl, was a liberated woman. 

Eep is a girl in a family of Neanderthals who live in pre-historic times and they all end up surviving while others perish.  They survive because of Grug.  He tells stories to his entire family—his wife Ugga (Catherine Keener), little daughter Sandy (Randy Thom), doltish son Thunk (Clark Duke) and his mother-in-law Gran (Cloris Leachman).  A running joke for Grug is his constant hope that perhaps Gran did not survive the latest disaster. A sloth named Belt (Chris Sanders) also accompanies them.  Grug also draws cave man pictures on the caves where they dwell.

Eep likes the light but Grug believes they can only survive by hiding in caves.  He is the classic conservative father figure who refuses to try new things.  The plot gets a little irritating when Guy comes on the scene and has many new ideas and even wants to woo Eep.  I was afraid that Grug would simply be the old fashioned doltish Dad and Guy would be the bright and inventive and modern man.  Grug does dwell in the past but, ultimately, accepts learning from Guy (things like fire and shoes and the dangers of caves) while Guy does come to understand Grug’s ultimate love for his family and his protective spirit.

Guy manages to convince the family that the world as they know it is coming to an end.  First they move to a new region and then must go toward twin mountains.  Ultimately, as the world as they know it begins to fall apart Grug literally throws the family members to a new world beyond a ravine and he is miraculously “saved” by devising a natural flying machine.

There is so much more to the plot and there are obvious fast food toy tie-ins all along the way.  It’s not a bad movie.  We didn’t see it in 3-D and we could tell that there were times when the 3-D would have wowed the eye.

The ultimate thought of accepting and dealing with change in our world and in our lives is a good lesson.  The movie helped me reflect on these a bit.  Moving toward the light and beyond the darkness of this present world is also a spiritual statement.  I’m sure you can find some deep meaning as you reflect on these parts of the plot. 

It’s just that there are so many outrageous animals and characters and inventions and more, that at times it was simply a little too much for me.  But, hey, it was a good clean movie with good language and respectful characterizations, though at times the movie is probably a little too intense for very young children.

Oz The Great and Powerful

MOVIE REVIEW

The Rev. Willis R. Schwichtenberg, Pastor

Immanuel Lutheran Church, Freeport, Illinois

“Oz The Great and Powerful” March 2013

This is a tough review to write because some of you will misunderstand where I am going with this review.

First of all, I like the movie.  I really did.  I’m not sure what we were expecting but we both liked the movie and Alice thought it was one of the best she has ever seen.

Yes, the movie was excellent and the special effects were astounding.  We saw it in 3D but I don’t think that made that big a difference.  It’s interesting that “Les Miserables” was criticized for its close-up shots.  I think some will go in the other direction and criticize this movie for its wide angle shots.  Some of this you will never be able to appreciate on video unless you have the biggest video screen in the world.  Like a lot of good movies, I don’t think that the special effects made the movie.

The movie was sort of an off version of the “Wizard of Oz” a favorite scary movie from my childhood.  Both start in black and white.  Both have “real” world characters who end up in Oz.  Both have a great hero (Oz and Dorothy).  Both have the small companion (Toto and the China Doll).  Both are too violent for younger children.  Both have munchkins (though the “new munchkins” are definitely more politically correct.)  And both have a “friend” (The Scarecrow and a rescue flying monkey).  And both have witches galore.  I could go on and on.

Oz (Oscar…played by James Franco) is a charlatan but you cannot help but like and appreciate his trickiness and, ultimately, his good heart.  I love the way the two bad witches and the one good witch (I’ll dispense with names) serve as sort of a prequel to “The Wizard of Oz” but I am having some trouble seeing how this movie and the original really fit together.  Our great advances in movie technology make almost anything possible and make older movies seem a bit quaint.

On the negative:  Wait a minute…I said I liked the movie.   Isn’t that enough?  However, when I looked on the Internet I found several negative reviews.  Some of them mused on how great the movie could have been had it been directed or edited better.  What are they looking for?  Did they want Disney to spend another $200 million on making the movie even better?  Where does this technology end?  When will they ever be happy? 

We were happy.  We left the movie thinking we had seen a really good movie.  No heavy plot.  No excessive hidden messages.  No real “Aha” moments.  A nice message.  Nothing off color.  Sweet innocence (especially with the China Doll).  Nifty special effects.  Just a really good movie.  Isn’t that enough?

Book Review of "Killing Kennedy" by Bill O'Reilly

BOOK REVIEW

The Rev. Willis R. Schwichtenberg, Pastor

Immanuel Lutheran Church, Freeport, Illinois

“Killing Kennedy” by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, published by MacMillan Audio, 2012; ISBN 978-1-4272-2684-6

Most people who are over 50 years of age probably remember what they were doing when they heard the news about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  I was sitting in study hall as a senior in high school at Waterville-Elysian High School in Minnesota.  The news was piped through the PA system and we listened with great surprise and sadness as the events unfolded that Friday afternoon in November of 1963.

I have always been interested in the Kennedy assassination and probably have a dozen books and dozens more articles on the subject.  While I realized that Bill O’Reilly might not be plowing any new ground on the subject, I was nonetheless interested in this book.

Surprisingly, O’Reilly spends about two thirds of the book on giving extensive background about the so-called “Camelot” years.  As he relates the story of Kennedy, beginning with his presidency, he also relates what Lee Harvey Oswald, the pro-Communist assassin, was doing as the story unfolds. 

He also spends much time on the background intrigue of Kennedy’s womanizing and the tension in the White House between Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and many of the other “players.”  Some might feel that O’Reilly has a political “agenda” about Kennedy but O’Reilly shares the fact that he was actually related to Kennedy.

The book is an interesting “read” but I was a bit surprised at how little information is shared about the assassination itself.  After all, the book was titled, “Killing Kennedy.”  The book does relate some very fine history about the botched Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis.  Also, when the author spends time sharing the genuine love and respect that JFK and Jackie had for each other, it is a very helpful read.

I felt that O’Reilly’s previous book on “Killing Lincoln” was much more to the point.  I was not disappointed in this book, however, and I recommend it, especially for younger readers who may not know some of this history and who may be turned off by the “National Enquirer” mentality of many conspiracy theory buffs. 

The assassination of JFK did change the world and even today we continue to “harvest” the seeds that were sown when Camelot “died.”

Book Review of "The Harbinger" by Jonathan Cahn

BOOK REVIEW

The Rev. Willis R. Schwichtenberg, Pastor

Immanuel Lutheran Church, Freeport, Illinois

“The Harbinger” by Jonathan Cahn, published by Front Line, 2012, ISBN 978-1-61638-610-8.

Years ago conspiracy theory ideas were sort of fun and interesting to consider.  I guess that most of them started with the JFK assassination but there were lots of conspiracy theory ideas long before this tragic event.

When I think of conspiracy theories I think of this book that I finished recently--“The Harbinger.”  The book is “sort of” a novel based on a verse from the book of Isaiah (9:10) with suggestions that the events of 9/1/1 and beyond and especially the building of the 9/1/1 memorial(s) in New York City are all forecast in Biblical prophecy.  Furthermore, this prophecy is finally being understood by a mysterious character in this book who reveals the nine “harbingers” to the heroine and, ultimately, to the author and all who care to listen.  The book admits that it is a novel but claims that everything covered in it is true.  I confess.  I’m skeptical.

The book suggests that even the stock market crash of 2008 and similar recent events such as national politics, elections, and personalities are all forecast in Biblical prophecy.  The somewhat innocuous verse in Isaiah 9:10, “The bricks have fallen, but we will build with dressed stones, the sycamores have been cut down but we will put cedars in their place,” suggest that God does not want a fancy memorial for 9/1/1 but wants people’s hearts to turn instead. 

While we would agree with this thought, I am reluctant to agree that, in the words on the cover of the book, that this is “the ancient mystery that holds the secret of America’s future.”  America’s future is certainly in the hands of our God and Lord and America’s future will only be determined by our willingness to repent and believe the Gospel.  Hey, maybe this is what this book is saying.  I hope so.  I just don’t like conspiracy theories.

If you want to read the book, check with me and I’ll loan it to you.  You might like it but you don’t have to spend the money.

Book Review of "Cross Roads" by Wm. Paul Young

BOOK REVIEW

The Rev. Willis R. Schwichtenberg, Pastor

Immanuel Lutheran Church, Freeport, Illinois

“Cross Roads,”by Wm. Paul Young published by Faith Words, 2012, ISBN 978-1-4555-1604-9.

Like its predecessor book, “The Shack,” this book might end up being savaged by critics for its unusual depiction of God but, in reflection,  I think it is strange, however, that few people overly criticize Dante, John Bunyan or C.S. Lewis for their “novel” approaches to things religious.  Perhaps Wm. Young might join this pantheon of classic religious novelists.

The hero (or antihero) of the book is Anthony Spencer who is a very wealthy and materialistic businessman who has little to do emotionally with his family and friends.  He has a couple of failed marriages to the same person and only married her a second time to exact some kind of monetary revenge.  He lost a son when he was very young and Spencer never treats his daughter properly.  He doesn’t believe in God and after a fall he is left in a coma in the hospital.  He wakes up and finds that God believes in him and he “meets” Jesus, the Holy Spirit (in the form of a Lakota woman) and recognizes the presence of “papa God.”

He travels through landscape regions which are, in essence, his very being and he “returns” to the world by literally being in certain people’s heads.  It reminds me a bit of the movie “Being John Malkovich” but it is done much better.  Spencer (“Tony”) is able to examine his life and, ultimately, is given the chance to make things right with his former wife, daughter, brother, and a number of people with whom he connects.

Given the chance to “choose” to physically heal one person, he is challenged to consider many possibilities to whom he might give this unique once in a lifetime gift.  The reader finds himself knowing, but still wondering, to whom he will give this gift.  He also manages to right many wrongs due to his unusual reflections on God’s mercy and grace.

I found the book a pleasant read and you cannot help but get closer to God as you turn the pages and think about how real God is and how involved He is in our world.  The book is not a book on theology, though there are many pleasant theological insights.  In my opinion, it defends some very basic and very orthodox concepts about our Triune God. 

For example, when Tony is talking with Jesus He finds that Jesus, according to His human nature, is dependent on the omniscience of God the Father.  Though Jesus “can know” all things He willingly sets aside His divine nature and “waits” for God to reveal all things.  The patience of the Jesus and Holy Spirit characters is outstanding. 

This book is a great inspirational read that gives glory to God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  If you take the time to read it, please don’t bog down and assume that it is some kind of Biblical treatise.

Les Miserables (2012)

“Les Miserables,” released Christmas Day 2012

For several weeks we were planning to see “Les Miserables” on Christmas Day 2012 and we were able to keep this commitment.  We were not disappointed.  What a great adaptation of Victor Hugo’s classic book.

I first read “Les Miserables” when I was in high school.  It seemed to take forever to wade through this 1400+ page book.  I read it again about a dozen years ago but this time it was an abridged version.  I read another abridgement about a year ago.  The abridged versions and the movie cannot begin to cover all of the plots and subplots of the original.  That’s OK because we might have to sit in the theater for about a week if there were a page by page adaptation of this wonderful book.  I always think that a TV series of this classic would have enough material for ten years but it will never happen.

Hugo’s book and the movie center around the theme of grace…God’s grace…and how this overcomes legalism.  We are puzzled how someone like Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) can spend nearly 20 years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.  Puzzled indeed!  And we are puzzled that a man like Javert (Russell Crowe) can so doggedly pursue him when Jean Valjean violates his parole.

It’s not really surprising that Jean Valjean is changed by his encounter with God and the kindly bishop (Colm Wilkinson) who doesn’t press charges for Jean Valjean’s theft.  In fact, he gives him more—the candlesticks which are seen again and again throughout the movie.  In this touching scene I found how the original book can tirelessly spend dozens of pages considering this act of mercy.  Even the bishop’s housekeepers (seen without dialogue in the movie) spend page after page in the unabridged book, warning the bishop that he is too trusting. 

The scenes of Fantine (Anne Hathaway) and Cosette (Isabelle Allen and Amanda Seyfried) are also so wonderful in Hugo’s book.  The movie does them justice but the person unfamiliar with the general facts of the story may be puzzled about the depth of Fantine’s dilemma and the loving care of Jean Valjean for both Fantine and Cosette.

Jean Valjean’s care for others is also expressed in his rescue of a man pinned by a cart (and thus revealing himself to Javert) and in his rescue of fellow criminal who is mistakenly charged with being Jean Valjean and destined to go to prison.  In today’s world there are some who might reason that Jean Valjean should have just thanked his lucky stars that a rather inconsequential person would go to prison instead of Jean Valjean.  After all, he was a mayor, a good businessman, a loving rescuer of Fantine and Cosette.  Wouldn’t God forgive his “mistakes”?  Instead, Jean Valjean has an incredible sense of Christian care, concern and duty.

The Thenardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter) provide some comic relief.  Even in the book they are somewhat humorous characters but you realize that you can’t trust them for a second.  I love how Mr. Thenardier cannot remember Cosette’s name as he pretends that he is grieving the fact that she will no longer be under his care.

The book and movie could have ended here and been OK but there are many plots and subplots to come.  Again and again, the mercy of Jean Valjean emerges as he even rescues Javert as well as his future son-in-law.  I’ve always been disappointed with Javert.  He is so much like Judas Iscariot that his eventual suicide is almost not surprising.  If this were an Andrew Lloyd Weber musical you could almost wish that Javert would sing, “Could We Start Again, Please?”

I’ve never been familiar with the music in this screen adaptation of the musical and I confess that most of the music is still a little foreign to me.  I liked the movie and like the music and even purchased the soundtrack CD but so far nothing has jumped out as a classic.

Lots of reviews have questioned the “live music” approach of the producer instead of studio music being lip synched in the movie.  I think that was a good choice.  I also liked the close up shots while the songs were being sung.  I suspect, however, that the “on stage” presentation of this musical would be even better.  There’s something about seeing a drama/musical such as this “live.”

On the negative, I think that Jean Valjean should have aged just a bit, especially at the end of the movie.  Perhaps all of his years as a prisoner gave him permanent dark hair pigment.  Who’s to say?  Also, a break half way through the movie would have been good.  In today’s world we’re just not used to sitting through a movie quite this long.  Hey, these are pretty minor concerns.  See the movie/musical.  It was great!