Last weekend, that is nine days ago, Lynda and I went to see our first movie of 2015. Two movies that came out over Christmas that I wanted to see were Unbroken, and the one about breaking the German code in WW2, which may have been named Enigma. By January 23rd I figured both of those would be gone, and we’d have to wait for them to hit television. However, Unbroken was still there at a nearby cinema. We went, to celebrate our anniversary a day early.

I was surprised to find the theater quite crowded. This is a movie that has been out for at least a month, for which the ads quit running around Christmas. Most movies will be gone by then, or will be on their last weeks, showing to a handful of people. But this theater was crowded enough that we couldn’t get as good seats as we like. Clearly this movie has legs.

It did not disappoint us. It’s the story of the son of Italian immigrants in California, Louis Zamperini. To keep him from going the way of a delinquent, he is steered in the direction of running track. He worked hard at it and became good—good enough to make the 1936 US Olympic team, and to be the highest American finisher in the 5000 meters. He said that Olympics was only a warm up for the next one, scheduled to be held in Tokyo in 1940.

But World War 2 got in the way. Zamperini wound up in the air corps (Army air, I think). The movie showed him continuing to train between missions. Only two missions were shown: a bombing run and a rescue mission. This latter one went awry when the plane crashed due to mechanical failure. Only three of the crew survived the crash, and one of those died during their time in life rafts.

The movie does an excellent job chronicling their time at sea, from catching fish to worrying about circling sharks to being shot at by a Japanese plane. After 47 days in rubber life rafts the two fliers are rescued—by Japanese forces, not American. The rest of the film chronicles Zamperini’s time in Japanese captivity, which lasts till the end of the war. The man who headed up two of the camps he was in was a particularly cruel captor, who was particularly hard on Zamperini. They are released from the camp when the war ends. A poignant denouement indicated that Zamperini was able to forgive his captors, seeing most of them after the war.

Everything about the movie was excellent. The acting was superb, the photography great. The parts of Zamperini’s life chosen for the story were excellent. One could sense the trials he went through, and how he was able to triumph over his circumstances and come through the ordeals unbroken in spirit, with his mind and body strong enough to be fully healed and lead a normal American life after the war. It’s hard to find fault with any aspect of Unbroken.

I don’t know how long this will be in the theater, but it was still there this weekend. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to. It will be hard to not be moved by Louie Zamperini’s story.

Today after church, Lynda suggested we drive past the Carmike 6 Cinema that we pass and see what time The Voyage of the Dawn Treader would be playing. Unfortunately, we were already past the drive to the shopping center when she suggested it. So I turned around in the Dairy Queen parking lot up the road, went back, and we learned it was to start at 12:15 PM. It was 12:20, which meant all we had missed was dancing hot dogs or previews of movies we will never watch. I paid for two senior tickets at matinee prices, and we arrived in the theatre before all the previews were done, but not too much before.

The Dawn Treader was good, much better than Prince Caspian (which we saw on TV only). We missed The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe both at the cinema and on TV. Of all the Narnia books, which I never read until adulthood, I liked The Dawn Treader best. It had the best imagery of them all, and seemed to have the least fill in stuff. The wall of water at the end of the book has often crossed my mind, as has the city of people underwater. I had forgotten all about poor Eustace Scrubbs—not the name, but his becoming a dragon. After seeing the movie, the cleansing of his dragon nature by Aslan came immediately to mind.

But back to the movie. Obviously it was not totally faithful to the book, but it did a good job of putting into pictures what C.S. Lewis must have been trying to paint with words. The details of the ship, and of ship life, and of sailing on open seas were quite good. The different islands they went to and the quest to find the seven missing lords. The island with the gold dump was quite well depicted. Oh, and the mansion that Lucy goes into and finding the book of spells to read from, that was great.

But I do have a little fault to find. It’s been about ten years since I read VotDT, and obviously I don’t remember it all that well (except the great imagery). But one difference in the message of the book doesn’t seem to come through. Or rather, one message I get from the movie I don’t remember in the book. And I may be reading too much into it. Narnia is overcome by evil, or at least the island realm of Narnia is. To break evil’s hold, they must find the seven swords of the seven lost lords and lay them on Aslan’s table. Only then will the spell of evil be broken.

To find the swords, they must go where the lords went, to this island and that one, and overcome evil along the way. Part of the journey of the three children of Adam and Eve is overcoming their own obsessions: beauty for Lucy, power for Edmund, and I guess greed (or maybe self-indulgence) for Eustace. This they do, and they fight evil, but none of that overcomes the evil. The evil is overcome by the magic of the swords, once they touch each other on the table. It seems to me that is the wrong message to send. Evil is not overcome by magic, but by the constant application of good.

As I say, maybe I’m trying too hard to figure out a message from the movie, rather than be entertained. The three children are faithful to the task laid before them, and only through their faithfulness can the magic be applied. Eustace goes through the biggest character arc, from a sniveling twit worthy of his name to a boy one might want to know and be with. The removal of his dragon nature in the movie was much less dramatic than in the book, and seems much less of a metaphor for Christian conversion. I seem to remember that the book included Aslan ripping at the dragon flesh with his claws, and the cleansing thereby was much more significant in the book than in the movie.

This review is late relative to the movie’s appearance in theatres. At many places it’s already been removed and replaced by various banal comedies that appear designed to entertain our sexual nature rather than our intellect. But, if you haven’t seen it, and can find it, by all means go see it. Then read the book soon after. I may do so this week.

One of the CDs our son brought with him from Chicago for possible viewing during our Thanksgiving family time was The Namesake. This is some years old, not quite sure how much, but I’d never hear of it, nor the book on which it was based. It’s the story of Bengali Indian immigrants to the USA.

Having spent those years overseas, interacted socially and in business with many Indian people, this type of movie was right up my alley. A Bengali man immigrates to the USA, Boston area, I suppose for study and work, goes back to India and takes a Bengali Indian wife, and they live in the USA. They have two children who are thoroughly American.

The story is the trials of both the immigrant couple and their children. The couple has their difficulties with American life, and never fully give up their Indian ways. Trips to India are rare. The children have no real connection to India, except through their parents. The few trips to India don’t seem to have a positive effect on them (except seeing the Taj Mahal). They struggle having parents who are so different from those of their friends.

The title comes from the naming of the eldest child, a son. The couple has written to India to ask the boy’s grandmother to send them a name (obviously a few decades ago, when international communications were mainly by letter). When the hospital says they have to name the boy, they say they won’t have a name for six weeks. But they ask what’s the big deal, for in India the child may not be given a “good name” for a few years, relying on an in-family nickname. But they must name the boy in the American system, and temporarily name him Gogol after the father’s favorite author, the Russian Nickolai Gogol. I’d never heard of this author until seeing this movie. Much of the story revolves around Gogol and his name, which becomes permanent.

I liked the movie. It includes a few subtitles for the Bengali dialog, which obviously makes the movie harder to watch, but most of it is in English. The immigrant couple have strong Bengali accents, which also ads to the difficulty. But overall it’s not that hard. The interpersonal relationships are good. Of course, I’m partial to stories involving the world as a whole, not just America, so as I said this was my kind of movie.

You can’t see it in a theatre. Wikipedia tells me the movie was released in 2006. I didn’t see it them (we seldom go to movies), but I’m glad I saw it now. If you haven’t seen it, and have a chance to rent it, do so. I believe you will be entertained.

Lynda and I went to see “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” on Sunday afternoon, at matinee prices of $4.00 each. Popcorn and pop cost more than the movie. I hesitated to write a review yesterday, wanting a day to see if my feelings had changed. They hadn’t. I know no other way to say this than to say it straight, and with words that Ron Weasly might use: It was a bloody waste of time and money.

I haven’t read the books, and so don’t know what this particular one said. As a lead-in to seeing this one we watched the first four Potter films over the last two weekends, finishing up Saturday evening. We had re-watched the fifth one in late April in Chicago.

Now I know everyone is supposed to be all ga-ga about Harry Potter. Maybe the books are good, I don’t know. But this one did not, for me, do enough to warrant the 2hr 20min we spent in the theater. Nor the $8.00 we paid for two tickets (the popcorn was excellent though).

I’d say some specifics of why I didn’t like it, but I have already invested enough time on this thing, and won’t waste any more.