MOVIE REVIEW: RAGNAROK

Ragnarok 2013

If you have Netflix and your children don’t mind subtitles-this might be the movie for you!

Summary :
Norwegian archaeologist Sigurd Svendsen is single parent raising his daughter and son after his wife passes away from cancer (about five years ago in the storyline).  He and his wife were involved with the Norse mythology and now he carries on in an obsessive way to keep the connection with his wife. Unfortunately, this causes him to be rather absentminded with the rearing of the children.

 

 

The children’s summer holiday becomes an archeological adventure  to discover the real meaning behind the mysterious secret runes.

Most adults will be able to figure out the plot and ending quite quickly but I think this is a good movie for younger children who enjoy action, being a little scared, and experiencing the storytelling of another culture.

Adults will enjoy the beautiful scenery of Finnmark, the minimal violence, no foul language, and nothing sexual.

 

Movie Reviews

Hey All:
I want to test out a movie review post that was written by Hubby when the movie first came out in 2004. I wanted to post this during Lent but time got away from me. Anyway- here is a review on The Passion of the Christ.

Let me know if this kind of post would interest you and what movies might you like to see reviewed-thanks!



Much has been written of Mel Gibson's opus, The Passion of the Christ, in recent months. Most of it having to do with theology, historical accuracy, and alleged anti-Semitism. Those subjects, though, have no bearing on whether or not this is a good film.

   Mel Gibson is a Traditional Catholic; that is, he embraces Catholic Orthodoxy, adhering to the Church's traditions, and attends a Mass in which the sacrificial nature of Christ's actions is not muted or watered down. I, too, am a Traditional Catholic. But none of this has anything to do with the film. Bias aside, I was quite prepared that despite my respect for Gibson's prior directing efforts and for the Catholic Faith, this film could very well fall short in terms of aesthetic beauty.

   This movie is a masterpiece.

   Self-financed and rendered in Latin and Aramaic, Mel Gibson has woven an epic of the last 12 hours of Christ's life that transcends all attempts to place it within the religious genre of cinema. With unrelenting force of imagery, Gibson has the audience on the ropes of this drama and leaves little to our imaginations. We are witness to each lash, each scourge, each nail pounded into the flesh of Jesus.

   The components of what constitutes a good film are all here: superb directing, a good screenplay, absolute beautiful cinematography (by the Caravaggio painting hand of Caleb Deschanel), a film score that caresses our emotional responses to the imagery, and terrific acting.

   The Passion has at its heart the Mother of Christ, played by Maia Morgenstern, whose relationship with her Son is underscored by flashbacks and the maelstrom of tears that flow generously from her eyes (as well as by Monica Belluci who plays Mary Magdalene). We witness the inner conflict of Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov) who can find no just cause in condemning Jesus, but allows the crowd to sway his final opinion. We even find Satan (Rosalinda Celentano), as always, within our midst, eerily androgynous and creeping along to only find, at the end, that his plan has not worked.

   But acting kudos must inevitably go to Jim Caviezel for his portrayal of Christ. This is not an effeminate Christ. This is a hero up on celluloid, and Caviezel's performance gives new meaning to what constitutes method acting. Some critics will assail this film for what they term lack of characterization, that the flashbacks provided hardly provide enough detail to understand the 'why' behind this man's crucifixion. This is akin, though, to criticizing Coppola for not providing enough background detail about the US involvement in Vietnam in his film, Apocalypse Now. Regardless of the viewer's knowledge of Jesus, there is enough projected on screen for him to realize that a great travesty is being committed and out of that travesty comes a resounding triumph.

   As a film, The Passion of the Christ succeeds brilliantly. There will be various nuances within the visceral reactions of those who see it. For this film is more than a mere film---it centers on a man who has acted as a lightning rod for the last 2000 years. One may very well be able to walk away and only affirm that an innocent man bravely sacrificed himself out of the love that he preached. But that would hardly satisfy the charge of blasphemy leveled against him. And if he was and is not the Lord, then we are confronted with two other choices---that of liar or lunatic. This is not what we see up on the screen.

   As Scripture states, "he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Christ suffered for us so that by Him, we can be delivered.

   The Passion of the Christ definitely has.