The Muppets (2012)

What's it all about? Walter and Gary are brothers, though Gary is a human being and Walter is a Muppet. Walter & Gary discover The Muppet Show as children and grow up to be massive fans. On a trip to California with Gary's long term girlfriend Mary, they visit the Muppet Studios and are saddened to find them run down and all-but abandoned. Walter overhears a conversation between unscrupulous oil prospector Tex Richman and his henchman, when he reveals that if the Muppets cannot raise $10m within the next week to buy back the studio, he will be able to raze it to the ground and dig for oil. Walter and Gary must set about reuniting the Muppets for one big fundraising show, before time runs out for good on the Muppets.

What's it like? Goodness me. The last genuinely decent Muppet film was their take on A Christmas Carol and that was the best part of two decades ago. Since then the quality of the product has dropped off and so has the profile of the releases. Since Muppets in Space, TV movies and Christmas specials have been all there is, until star and co-writer Jason Segel (Gary) decided to try his hand at rescusitating the beloved felt puppets. And what a rescusitation it is. Segel, along with director James Bobin really get the Muppets, really understand what makes them special. What we get then is a suitably and delightfully knock-about round-up of the Muppets, some charming and funny song and dance numbers, an utterly chaotic show featuring talentless but guileless Muppets and all of our favourites chipping in.
The reason why it works so well is precisely because of its understanding of the charm of the original series - no-one knows what they are doing, Fozzie's jokes are terrible, Gonzo's death-defying feats never work, the songs make you laugh, cry and cheer, the show is a shambles but everyone staggers through to the end, the villain is silly and fundamentally harmless, Miss Piggy is prissy and feisty and Kermit holds everything together.
Crucially, the script, songs and performances never make fun of the Muppets or become too arch or knowing. There are occasional tongue in cheek, "we know this is a movie" moments (Gary hands Mary some broken flowers, "sorry, they must have been damaged during that song and dance number we just did") but they are affectionate and in keeping with the grandest traditions of Jim Henson. Some of the traditional voice artists are missing (Frank Oz is a noticeable absentee), but their replacements slot in seamlessly and there is perfect continuity in terms of character traits and tone in relation to the Muppets.
Ultimately this is a return to form of breath-taking quality. There was no reason to expect that The Muppets would be this good, but it really is. Wonderful for the young, nostalgic and heart-warming for the old(er), a perfect film for the family.

Should I see it? Yes, yes, yes. It will perhaps appeal even more to those who grew up with The Muppet Show than your children who are coming to it either later in the day, or off the back of lesser-quality TV specials. There is nothing even remotely rude or offensive here, no "adult" jokes to keep the grownups happy. Instead, the film-makers understand what Pixar understand, namely that funny is funny, however old or young you are. I spent at least half of the film in floods of tears and well up now, every time I think of Kermit's hearfelt rendition of Rainbow Connection. The rest of the film was spent wearing a beaming smile. See it as soon as possible and take as many people with you as you can. An utter joy from start to finish.

Breaking Dawn Part I (2011)

What's it all about? The Twilight Saga continues. Bella, a human teenage girl, has agreed to marry her one true love, the vampire Edward Cullen. Her friend Jacob (who is also a werewolf) is troubled and concerned for her well-being. The plan is that after their honeymoon Edward will "turn" Bella and she will be a vampire with him forever, however she unexpectedly falls pregnant on their honeymoon, creating massive concern within the vampire and werewolf worlds over what sort of creature is growing inside her, whether she can survive the pregnancy and whether everyone (except her and her child) would be better off if the pregnancy were terminated.

*****

What's it like? If you are not familiar with the Twilight films, this film will make little or no sense at all and if you are not interested in them, this will not make a convert of you. For fans, it represents the progression of the saga towards its conclusion and is likely therefore to be considered indispensable. Undoubtedly the films are an acquired taste, being for some utterly banal and for others affecting and compelling. I don't profess to being a fan, though the films do contain some themes that make for interesting discussion and consideration. Bella remains a virgin until her wedding night, a commendable decision and it is altogether welcome to see that element retained, especially in a film for and about teenagers. The protective instincts of her boyfriend Edward and friend Jacob are also interesting to consider, especially in terms of Edward's concerns about his own self-control.
The story takes us from the Pacific North-West USA to a honeymoon in Rio and then back to the US and takes a pretty long time to move along, though on Bella's return, already heavily pregnant after only a few weeks' gestation, everything begins to pick up a bit more of a head of steam. The werewolves want the baby dead, the Cullens (Edward has parents and siblings, in a manner of speaking) have sworn to protect her and Bella is deteriorating horrifically as the baby growing within her begins to drain her. The scenes of her emaciated body are upsetting to say the least, drawing involuntary gasps from most audiences, a convincing combination of make up and CG-work having the desired effect.
Aside from pacing issues and an entirely misjudged scene involving talking werewolves rendered very unconvincingly, this is not a bad entry in the Twilight saga, with the melancholy tone of the earlier films giving way to some rather more adult body-horror in the third act that pushes the boundaries of the film's 12A certificate. If it's your sort of film, you have probably seen it already, if not, you probably won't anyway.

*****

Should I see it? There isn't really enough space here to do this debate justice, but there are serious questions to be answered as to whether a film about vampires and werewolves is especially suitable for us as Christians, especially where the target audience is around the early teen years. Added to that is the issue with this instalment in particular, namely that there is an awful lot of blood and body-horror in the final scenes which the younger and more sensitive among us will not cope well with. Vampires and werewolves are of course long-standing staples of the horror genre and Twilight itself has contributed to a new sub-genre within fiction writing of gothic romance revolving around the supernatural. The representations of both types of creature have tended towards the relatively tame in earlier instalments, but if you will pardon the pun, the delivery/Cesarean scene at the end of Breaking Dawn is pretty full-blooded. I suspect that although the 12A certificate means younger viewers can go along with a parent, anyone younger than their teens would struggle to stomach the later scenes of the film and I cannot recommend that you (if you are a parent considering whether to see the film with your children) take along anyone below secondary school age.
Aside from the horror elements, the film does offer food for thought and debate for Christians. Bella saving her virginity for her wedding night, the relatively subtle consideration of the issue of abortion in the face of the havoc being wreaked on Bella's body, family ties, including honouring your parents, or standing up to your peers when it comes to the question of "doing the right thing", if you can see it with your children (who may have seen it already, or be determined to see it one way or another) it might be good to do so in a way that gives time and space to discuss it afterwards. It is certainly a film that can and should prompt lengthy conversations.

Arthur Christmas (2011)

What's it all about? It is Christmas Eve and Father Christmas (with the help of his ninja-like elves) is delivering presents to every girl and boy. Due to a hideous error, the bicycle meant for a little girl in Cornwall is not delivered and everyone heads back to the North Pole. Steve, the elder son of Father Christmas, is like a marine - all organisation, slick technology and impersonal. His younger brother, the eponymous Arthur, is a dreamer and a romantic, determined that the bicycle be delivered to Cornwall, even as time is running out. Steve thinks one lost present is an acceptable margin of error, so Arthur sets off with Grand-Santa, a knackered reindeer and an old-fashioned sleigh to try to make it all right.

*****

What's it like? If nothing else, this utterly charming and at times laugh-out-loud funny film from Aardman (Wallace and Gromit, Chicken Run - but with CGI instead of plasticine) can help answer the age-old question of how Father Christmas gets to everyone in one night. His army of elves showing breath-taking dexterity and speed in an opening sequence that would be well at home in a high-concept action-thriller. After that scintillating opening, the film settles down to show us Father Christmas, Steve and Arthur and then propels the latter off on his adventure to deliver the girl's bike in time for sunrise. At times the pace is relentless and thrillingly so, at others it breathes a little to give us the important character beats that enable the rest of the action to hang together in an engaging way. Arthur is a great character, sweet, clumsy, utterly committed and the frankly bonkers Grand-Santa makes for a splendid comic foil for him. We also have an elf, Bryony, who finds herself promoted from a "mere" present wrapper to a full on side-kick, showing herself resourceful and spunky in a heart-warming way.
Christmas needs these sorts of films so that we can watch them in the run up to Christmas Eve and warm our hearts with something that not only builds excitement and anticipation, but also reminds us that over-indulged appetites and rampant consumerism do not the season make.
As a film, it is well-paced, if perhaps a fraction over-long (the wrong turns made on the way to Cornwall do become a little repetitive), the voice-work is faultless (James McAvoy, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Laurie and Bill Nighy all chip in) and the mixture of thrills, laughs and genuine warmth instantly propel this into the Christmas Classic list. A wonderful, wonderful film.

*****

Should I see it? Yes, yes, yes. There is just nothing offensive or troubling here at all, unless Christmas isn't really your thing in the first place. We saw it as a family and although some of the plot developments went over the head of my 5-year old, it kept us all gripped and chuckling for a merry 90-odd minutes.

Super 8 (2011)

What's it all about? A group of friends on the cusp of adolescence are trying to get their home-made zombie film shot, using their Super 8 camera. One night, they head off to the local train station to film some scenes when an almighty train crash is caused by a man driving his truck onto the tracks, head-on into the apparently military transport. Joe, one of the friends is also trying to come to terms with the loss of his mother and as the train crash site is quarantined and picked over it becomes clear that something extremely secretive and utterly dangerous was on board the train and is now on the loose.

*****

What's it like? In a word, Super. Set in the late 1970's, it is a film rich in nostalgia, while simultaneously giving us edge of your seat thrills. Steven Spielberg was executive producer and his fingerprints are all over it, as director JJ Abrams channels everything from Stand By Me, through ET and Cloverfield into a rich and compelling tale about friendship, loss, growing up and grief.
The manner in which it is shown that Joe has lost his mother is subtly handled, avoiding soap opera melodramatics and throughout the young cast acquit themselves fantastically well, showing maturity and ability beyond their years. In a tale that is predominantly about them as friends (with some sci-fi/creature-feature trappings) the entire success of the film hangs on them and they do not disappoint. It is one of those films where you have to wait a really long time for even a hint at exactly what it is that has escaped, but it is not frustrating, rather it compels the narrative along and draws the audience in. For the uninitiated, director JJ Abrams produced Cloverfield and directed Mission Impossible 3 and Star Trek, so he knows what he is doing in this sphere of film-making and it shows. The script is funny, moving, still and exciting in all of the right places and the story paces itself all the way through to the thrilling, nerve-wracking finale. Heartily recommended.

*****

Should I see it? Well, yes, for it is indeed a fantastic film, one of the best of last year and out on DVD and Bluray now. In terms of what we might make of it as Christians, there is relatively little in the way of thematic elements that should disturb us, although the now-obligatory "just the once" use of the f-word in 12A films remains annoying and unnecessary. The creature once revealed is going to be a bit much for the younger ones, as is the general sense of peril and fear that precedes it, but I would have thought that all but the more delicate of secondary school aged children should be fine. It looks at important issues of grief, childhood and young love as well, all of which would be an excellent opportunity for conversations with your children, if you can get the time to sit down with them to watch it.

What Do We Do With Harry Potter?

This is in no way intended to be any sort of definitive position on Harry Potter, either from a Christian perspective or otherwise. It would be absurd and arrogant to presume otherwise. A multitude of considered books and articles have been written regarding the HP franchise and what we might make of it as Christians. I offer my thoughts into the mix for what they are worth in the hope that they will be helpful and taken in the spirit they are intended - sincerely, honestly and with some measure of balance.

I have not read any of the books and have only seen the first five films, so please don't take me to be some hyper-diligent fan or commentator, but I will share what I think. There are plenty of Christians who would say that the HP films and books are dangerous, that they inculcate a hazardous interest in the occult among the young and impressionable and that we should follow the wisdom and guidance of Philippians 4 and dwell on that which is good, wholesome, right, praiseworthy and so forth. Others would say that the films and books are harmless fun, a benign portrayal of spells and potions no more dangerous than portrayals of enchanted crockery dancing in Beauty and the Beast.

Perhaps somewhat inevitably, my own views lie somewhere in between. I whole-heartedly agree that our overall orientation must be in line with Philippians 4, that we must focus on all that is right, fair and commendable. But to go on from there and say that we should therefore wholly shun and distance ourselves from anything remotely outside those parameters is, I believe, unrealistic, naive and unhealthy. What I am of course not saying is that we should wallow in as much occult and unwholesome cultural content as possible, in the interests of being terribly relevant and in touch. That sort of activity will swiftly contaminate our spirits and dilute our intimacy with God, but we are called to the world and we must therefore be in some sort of position to engage with it in a meaningful and informed way.

Like it or not, HP is a cultural phenomenon, a juggernaut at the box office. Each successive film has racked up hundreds of millions at the box office, with the latest entry The Deathly Hallows Part II looking like making over a billion dollars once all is said and done. That is something that we must engage with. Not to be trendy and hip, not to say that because it is successful it is important, but because it is on the lips and minds of those around us and we should want to use it as an opportunity to speak with people and debate the grander themes of the franchise. If your friends and colleagues bring it up in conversation, I would rather we were able to say something about the interesting portrayal of good and evil, about sacrifice, about the corrupting, seductive nature of a thirst for power.

Now, if the films really are not your thing (and to be honest I tend to be pretty indifferent to them at the best of times), then by all means give them a miss. I'm not saying you have to immerse yourself in them, but I do think we should look for chances to understand and relate to key cultural reference points.

The next question is of course, what do we do about our children? In the interests of openness, my children are not remotely interested in HP and so this is more of a theoretical question for me than a practical one. Yours may feel differently. I am not trying to encroach here on the sacred ground of parenting, but I do think some points deserve to be made. Firstly, if your children are old enough to see the films unaccompanied and they are determined to see it, forbidding them may prove counterproductive. We all hope that our children will honour our commands and authority, but it doesn't always work out that way and we know that human nature is such that forbidden fruit is hugely appealing. We might fare better if we discuss the films with our children, find out if they are interested in seeing them and why and if we are determined that they not see them, seek to build consensus rather than dictate with, "because I said so".

Secondly, I think there are worse films for us and our children to see. Although there is a difference in tone and subject matter, the HP films are more akin to fantasy films such as Lord of the Rings and Narnia than more overtly occult-oriented films like The Omen, The Exorcist or even Ghost. I'm not trying to claim that the HP films are wholly harmless, but it should be borne in mind that the films are much more oriented around magic wands, flying broomsticks and magic spells than seances, meditation and Ouija boards, which I would consider to be much more obvious and concerning routes into the occult for the young. Frankly I would have more issues taking my 10-year old son to see Transformers 3 than I would taking him to see HP. Harry Potter is very clearly and starkly about good and evil and its spiritual dimensions are worn visibly. By contrast, Transformers 3 is ostensibly about two sets of robots beating each other up and accordingly you switch off your critical faculties as soon as the lights dim. That becomes a massive problem as the film then relentlessly peddles a lascivious, leering tone in relation to its female protagonist, constantly objectifying her and lingering on her curves. It sneaks up on you, but is an enduring impression you are left with.

Thirdly and finally, I think as with all films like this, they represent a golden opportunity to engage with your children and build a relationship of trust and openness with them. Rather than forbidding them to see it and opening up the regrettable but obvious risk of them sneaking off to see it with their mates (I know I would have at their age), why not make it a parent-child outing, with the promise of a snack or milkshake afterwards so that you can ask them what they thought, share your own insights and help them to think about and evaluate what they watch?

As they move through their teenage years, our children are always in danger of slipping away from us and regardless of how good our relationship with them might be, we should always look for the chance to spend more time with them, to creates contexts where we might have their ear and feed into them.

Don't take my word for any of this stuff to do with HP. After all, I'm just a guy with an opinion. Think about it yourself, maybe read a few of the books or watch some of the films and decide what you want to do. But please take every reasonable opportunity to engage with our culture and to connect with your children. Both are so very important.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

What's it all about? The moon landings were a cover for the retrieval of samples from a crashed alien spaceship, which turns out to contain advanced Autobot technology. The Autobots want to keep it safe, the Decepticons want to use it to take over Earth. Lots of explosions and fighting ensue.

*****

What's it like? I'm going to have to assume that you've either seen the first two Transformers films or are at least familiar with them. Otherwise we have an awful lot of back-story to fill in and we might be here all day. Really this is more of the same - lots of orange-tinged sunsets, lots of robots changing into cars and then back into robots, lots of destruction, lots of smashing stuff up, lots of explosions, lots of robots kicking and punching each other. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's really just a question of expectations and personal preference. If you like this sort of thing, you'll really like it. If not, it will not make a convert of you. Some of the problems with the second film (Revenge of the Fallen) have been remedied to a degree, such as some troubling racial stereotyping, some ridiculous sexualising of the robots and some wholly incoherent action sequences, but the difficulty of trying to show what is happening, to who, where and why, when all you have are lots of similar-looking robots carving each other up, persists to an extent.

In terms of its technical accomplishments, this is one of the films of the year. The 3D was well-used and crisply presented, the special effects were stunning and life-like and the action set-pieces were brilliantly rendered. A few top-drawer actors were drafted in for cameos (John Turturro, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand) but Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as Sam Whitwicky's new girlfriend was a ghastly error in casting. Wooden, expressionless and massively out of her depth, one can only assume that her good looks and career to date as an underwear model lay behind the decision.

As ground-breaking as the scenes of transforming robots were in the first film, that work here is even more accomplished. It is astonishing how well done those effects are and for someone like me who lived and breathed Transformers in the mid-eighties, the constant sight of transforming robots helps cover over a multitude of other transgressions. Of which more later.

This is a very long film, which given its genre and subject matter seems strange. 100 minutes would seem enough, but we get nearly 160 minutes, with the majority of the final hour given over to the carnage of an all-out battle in Chicago. As with the other action sequences it is brilliantly rendered, but that is still a really long time to try to sustain an action sequence for.

Critics really don't like this film, but it has made $400m in less than a week, so that appears to be irrelevant. I quite enjoyed it, although I will share some significant reservations below and certainly if you go in with your eyes wide open and your expectations in check, you shouldn't be disappointed.

*****

Should I see it? In all seriousness, there are some real issues with this film. Although I enjoyed it on a superficial enjoyment/entertainment level, there are many problematic elements. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is an underwear model and the director films her like he's making a commercial, not a film. The first shot of her involves a camera panning up her naked legs as she walks up the stairs and climbs onto Sam in bed and her treatment throughout the film continues in this vein. She is objectified to an almost absurd but nonetheless troubling degree and it is frankly unacceptable for a film to present a female character in this way. At one point Patrick Dempsey's character waxes eloquent about a car, "look at that body, look at those curves, look at those lines", at which point the camera rests on Rosie once again. Frankly, it's pornography without the nudity.

I think the main difficulty here is that the type of film this is causes you to let your guard down. Because it is essentially 2.5 hours of robots hitting each other you're not necessarily alert to how women are being portrayed and so it just washes over you without you engaging your critical faculties. It's all too easy to think, "oh yeah, she's pretty", rather than, "hang on, amidst all this carnage, this woman is being held up as a lust object rather than a person and the camera is leering at her in a way that's pretty tasteless". I know it probably seems like I'm being a killjoy, picking at disposable popcorn entertainment, but we have to engage with these issues, or run the risk of absorbing them, unfiltered.

A further example would be the now de rigeur "you can have the f-word once" rule for 12A films. I could take my 5 year old son to see this, during which he would hear a robot describe something as a "cluster-f***", which can mean either a military debacle or, to be blunt, an orgy. it might pass him by, or it might not, but what do we say to our kids about that sort of content?

I think the main point I would press here is that this film is an absolute juggernaut, commercially speaking, and so if your kids can get to the cinema under their own steam they are going to want to see this. I think that makes it all the more important that we try to see this film with our children, so that we can then take them to McDonalds for a drink afterwards and talk with them about what they thought of the film and how it portrayed women. I think our daughters need to hear from us that they have dignity and worth and are not objects and our sons need to hear from us that women are precious and beautiful and are never to be used or objectified. This sort of portrayal of women can have a really pernicious effect on how we view them.

By all means see this film, enjoy the mayhem , the noise, the excitement. But do not check your brains at the door. Keep them switched on and think seriously about everything you see. It is all important.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

What's it all about? It is towards the end of WWII and children are emerging with mutations, many of which manifest themselves as special abilities. Raven can change her physical appearance and is taken in by Charles Xavier, a telepath. Eric Lensherr meanwhile has found that he can manipulate metal, but is in the hands of a ruthless and vicious Nazi scientist, Sebastian Shaw, who is preoccupied with mutant abilities. As we fast-forward to the 1960's, the Cold War is escalating, Shaw is gathering a mutant army and Xavier and Lensherr begin to round up those who will go onto become Xavier's X-Men.

*****

What's it like? Having lost its way with X-Men: The Last Stand and the terrible spin-off Wolverine, The X-Men franchise needed a fresh start very badly. In came director Matthew Vaughn and screenwriter Jane Goldman, who had refreshed the genre as a whole with their profane and violent but nonetheless successful and popular Kick-Ass. What they have given us is a reboot of considerable quality and enjoyment, if perhaps not quite as accomplished as its next closest reboot comparison, 2009's Star Trek. The early scenes with Lensherr in a concentration camp are suitably violent and bleak, Vaughn wisely refusing to gloss over the terrifying realities of the Holocaust. It's not trying to be Schindlers List or The Pianist, but it is at least tonally appropriate. We quickly move on to the early 1960's and find Eric Lensherr travelling the globe like 007, fully utilising his considerable powers and tracking Nazi war criminals as he goes. In some ways this sequence is over too soon, so much do we enjoy it, but there are more mutants to meet, teams to be formed and battle-lines to be drawn.

Slotting the Cuban Missile Crisis into the story of the birth of the X-Men is audacious, but it just about works. Xavier starts gathering together his young pupils and we see them develop and control their powers, with a couple of fun but foul-mouthed cameos on the way. Eventually we see how Xavier and Lensherr come to be at odds with each other but it is all very intelligently developed and although a lot of ground is covered fast, the various character arcs are convincingly delivered. Chief credit for that goes to the principals. As Xavier and Lensherr respectively we have James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender who bring real strength and heft to their roles. Both of them are clearly having a lot of fun with their roles, especially McAvoy who gives us a much breezier Xavier than we've known from the previous films. Jennifer Lawrence builds on her Oscar-nominated work in Winter's Bone with an affecting performance as Raven/Mystique, though the rest of the youngsters have insufficient room to breath. Kevin Bacon is no surprise as an excellent villain, being far from one-dimensional, though his cohorts are virtually silent and therefore mostly anonymous, making their motives and intentions hard to divine.

Some have hailed this as the best comic book film since The Dark Knight, which I think is a little generous. Heck, it's not even the best comic book film of the year (take a bow, Thor), but it is excellent, exciting, very funny and a massive improvement on the last couple of films in the franchise. It left me hungry for Second Class, which must be a good sign.

*****

Should I see it? As a general answer, yes. It has a lot to say about identity, self-image, self-acceptance, conformity, forgiveness and self-control and these are themes that we should consider and chew over with each other. Having said that, there is a fair amount of overt sexuality on show and virtually every female character displays an unhelpful and unnecessary amount of cleavage. Scantily clad women abound and so therefore the film's 12A certificate should generally be treated as a recommendation that under 12's not see the film at all. There is some pretty wince-making violence and the now customary "it's a 12A so we can use the f-word once" thing. I'm not sure where this has come from, but it seems to now be the norm, so be warned. Some may find the portrayal of mind-reading and telekinesis unpalatable from a Christian perspective, though this is never presented as occult activity, rather the result of genetic mutation. As in all things, let your conscience guide you. If your 12+ children (i.e. your children over the age of twelve, I assume/hope you don't have more than 12 children) want o see this, try to see it with them. They may not be keen on the idea, so you may have to bribe them by offering to pay, but it will be worth it to be able to open up a conversation about the film's themes and to see what your children think about the film's presentation of its female characters. Worth checking out, though caution is advised.