Instead of dashing, swashbuckling heroes who can beat up and outshoot any bad guys who come their way, the new breed of action star is more likely to be skinny, awkward and studious-looking.

The problem with this new breed is that you can’t build a film around them. Rather, what plants butts in seats is the logline, gimmick, car, effects, etc… Once upon a time, you went to see a Schwarzenegger film. You went to see an Eastwood film. You went to see a Mel Gibson movie. No more. Producers probably love this sea-change because it keeps them from having to deal with stars throwing their weight around. Emile Hirsch giving you a hard time?

No problem. We got 10 more who look just like him.

a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay "rights." Abortion "rights." On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism's power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia, and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension. Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles. An entire documentary to state the obvious? Everyone should take the opportunity to see "Expelled" -- if nothing else, as a bracing antidote to the atheism-friendly culture of PC liberalism. But it's far more than that. It's a spotlight on the arrogance of this movement and its leaders, a spotlight on the choking intolerance of academia, and a spotlight on the ignorance of so many who say so much, yet know so very lit

What is "decent" entertainment or "humane" culture? Must a decent film deal only with uplifting or wholesome subjects, or may dark or disturbing themes also be dealt with? Can a film include nudity or profanity and still be "decent"? Can "humane culture" include popular films or genres like action films and romantic comedies, or do only highbrow "art films" count as true culture?

It is true that among the arts film poses special issues -- that it is especially liable to abuse by the unscrupulous, and can be exceptionally insidious when so abused. "Moral restraint" in its production and consumption is certainly necessary to avoid either presenting or being confronted with likely occasions of sin. But reasonable Catholic opinion will not insist on equating "restraint" with an absolute ban on nudity, violence, profanity, and so forth.

The 1995 Vatican film list, published by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications in commemoration of the centenary of cinema, enumerates 45 "important films," each noted for exceptional value in one of the three areas of "Religion," "Values," and "Art" (15 films in each area). For those who insist on a rigorist approach to film, though, it’s hard to see how some of these films could be deemed "deserving" of special note at all, except as films to avoid. Nudity, sexual content, obscene or profane language, and explicit violence can all be found in films on this list. Yet all demonstrate a level of restraint that distinguishes them from morally unworthy productions that pose a likely occasion of sin for viewers.