Huenemann, at least you are saving the best for last. Considering that incident at a recent Walmart, and various other things, I think the final scene of Fight Club is perfectly apt.

Here has been my Holiday movie viewing so far, as in Thanksgiving Day.

Soylent Green, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978 version with Don Sutherland) Blackboard Jungle (partner in crime to Rock Around the Clock as the cause of the first Rock Riot ever) and most terrifying of all, a few minutes of a Seattle Seahawks game.

They get to watch Fight Club.

These are second tier Christmas movies but still good.

Newer:

Joyeux Noel

Classics:

Holiday Inn (Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire)
The Bishop’s Wife (Cary Grant and Loretta Young)
Christmas in Connecticut (Barbara Stanwyck)

How about a Thanksgiving movie?:

Babette’s Feast ( a must see foreign film)
Les Miserables (Liam Nielson)

Great films for the holiday family season.

I wonder how 12 Monkeys would fit into the Platonic Republic ideal, at least in its need for rejection.
Bruce Willis, as I recall, was a prisoner set loose to deal with the virus in the past, find out about it and stop it if possible. He’s a ‘hero’ doing a morally good thing, but he’s coming from an immoral environment, an evil one even, rather than simply not knowing or being capable of immorality at all. Virtue is not engrained in him, it is brought about by circumstance, long after his mission has started. So he is no moral idealistic vehicle for the Masses or the Guardian.
Second, concerning the narrative, the hero, regardless of his moral background, fails in his virtuous act, sometimes out of fear but in the end perhaps out of his inability to make the shot fast enough. So the hero doesn’t succeed at his mission, but even more so, it is the authorities, police, that prevent him from doing so. The ones who are to be trusted fully in the maintainence of the city’s moral code are the ones who make the greatest of errors regarding the future, taking down the hero and letting the villain escape.
The last bit of banning I think comes from the context of the final scene. You could argue that the Police aren’t really in the wrong, as they are acting properly but without sufficient information (they see a man with a gun and shoot, not knowing or perhaps needing to know why he had the gun). However, this problem is, for Plato I think, the greatest issue with the film. The hero and the villain are in their nature and their ends completely grayed together, without a proper Black and White, Good and Evil distinction that should be present in narrative and in life. Surely a person of great virtue will be distinguishable from someone of great evil, yet the film doesn’t allow for this, for a proper embedding into the minds of all a straight moral code, and so it must be banned for the sake of those in the city.

1) Meletus claims that all of the citizens of Athens benefit the young, and only Socrates [Huenemann] corrupts them (24d-25b)
2) In the case of horses, most people corrupt and only a few benefit (25b)
3) Education of the youth is analogous, so most people corrupt and only a few benefit, so
4) Meletus is misguided about education. (25b-c)

I think Socrates not only does not intentionally corrupt the young, he does not corrupt them at all. Regarding Huenemann, insofar as he corrupts the young, I do not think he does so intentionally. This is the next argument in the Apology (25c-26b):

1) Meletus claims that Socrates [Huenemann] intentionally corrupts the young (25d)
2) Wicked people harm their associates and good people benefit their associates (25c)
3) Anyone who corrupts his associates then runs the risk of being harmed by them
4) No one would rather be harmed by their associates rather than benefited by them (25d)
5) Socrates [Huenemann] knows that by corrupting his associates he risks being harmed by them (25e)
6) That is absurd, since no one intentionally does harm to oneself
so, Socrates [Huenemann] either does not corrupt the young, or if he does, he does so unwillingly

So if Huenemann corrupts the young, it is unintentional. But does he corrupt the young? I think a case could be made that he does. :) I feel quite sure that ‘12 Monkeys’ would be banned poetry (Republic). And Socrates insists (Phaedo among other places) that the worst thing that one could come to believe is that reason is impotent, and Huenemann is a skeptic. Socrates also thinks materialism is a vulgar philosophy.

Sorry Charlie!