NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN

Captain America: The First Avenger

2011-11-01T09:07:00.000-07:00

I never read Captain America comic books. I think my threshold for silly costumes is wearing the underwear on the outside of your pants (I'm looking at you Superman).

I guess I just instinctively check out when you also wear giant red pirate boots and have mini-wings on your cowl.

So, Captain America never really had my attention, but that’s not to say his character isn’t interesting. In fact, Captain America: The First Avenger is one of the better marvel movies, maybe one of the better superhero movies, that was released this year.

The director, cinematographers, set and costumer designers have painted a world on screen that exudes every bit of nostalgia that is necessary for a WWII era comic book movie to work without being distracting.

There’s a heightened realism to this movie. In other words, it can’t escape the trappings of traditional superhero fare, but the universe is portrayed in enough realism that it’s possible to accept it and enjoy. Take the aforementioned costume as the prime example. Rather than translating the costume literally (as you’re able to do with someone like Iron Man) they convert it to something practical while still paying homage to the infamously silly original.

However, it’s not simply the appearance of this movie that makes it an enjoyable success. Captain America represents something foundational to the reality in which we live: the source of real strength.

Steve Rogers is a physically pathetic, 90-pound, asthmatic weakling with an irrepressible heart of bravery. He persistently forges enlistment documents in an attempt to join the military and serve his country in WWII. Though his stature and health exams betray him every time he eventually captures the attention of German immigrant scientist, Dr. Erskine, who offers him the chance to become something more. After enduring a stereotypical, Sci-Fi/comic book, procedure, Rogers is transformed into a buffed up, Nazi punching, super solider.

What makes Rogers someone worth following, however, is not his strength. It’s how his weakness has shaped him.

Dr. Erskine says it this way, “Why [choose] someone weak? Because a weak man knows the value of strength, the value of power.”

Steve’s life-long friend Bucky, when asked if he’s ready to follow Captain America into battle, says it more clearly, “That little guy in Brooklyn who was too dumb not to run away from a fight…I’m following him.”

“From where does strength come?” is the question that Captain America is attempting to answer. The film is as clear as can be: Steve Roger’s strength actually comes from weakness. Captain America is who he is because he was once weak. It shaped his character, his ambition, his motivations and so, his strength as a leader comes from his weakness.

Not surprisingly, this idea isn’t new. It comes from the very mind and will of our Creator. From the very beginning God’s power is on display in a “weakness” of sorts. Take for example, the creation narrative. Could God have created everything in the blink of an eye? Of course, but he doesn’t does He? He takes 6 days to create everything and by those 6 days of work and rest on the 7^th he gives us a pattern of life to follow every week: work for 6, rest on the 7^th. God shows us, in other words, to not think so highly of ourselves and our work that we don’t take a day off to notice how wondrous His works are and rest in them.

Take his work through Israel. Was Israel the obvious choice among the nations for spreading the fame of His name throughout the earth? Hardly. He chooses the least (the weakest) among the nations to serve His purposes for His glory.

Then, of course, there’s the cross of Jesus Christ. Is there a greater symbol for strength through weakness?

“For [Christ] was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God” (2 Corinthians 13:4)

Captain America isn’t just a fun movie. It’s a subtle way to be reminded, and perhaps explain to your children, that real strength is not found in the pursuit for power and significance – that only destroys others and, eventually, us. Real strength is found in weakness, in humility, in other-centeredness. Tell them we know this is true because through weakness, the mightiest of acts has been accomplished on behalf of sinners too weak to save themselves.

High Noon

2011-04-21T15:10:00.000-07:00

You gotta love Netflix Instant Viewing. Without it I might never have known that Titanic II and Zombie Women of Satan actually existed. However, I might have also missed western classic "HIGH NOON" starring Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly. Now, I'm sure Titanic II is a real heart stopper and Zombie Women of Satan is quite spiritually uplifting but you'll have to read another blog for the run-down on those cinematic treats. I would love to review them, I really would, but I promised myself I'd try to stop watching movies that, when I watch them, make me feel like I've power gulped a 40oz. slushie in 30 seconds (*cough*DinnerforSchmucks*cough*).

Now, since there is no appropriate segue between brain stopping movie power and what I actually want to say, let's just start reviewing, shall we? We shall.

HIGH NOON is the story of Newly Wed and very newly retired Marshall Will Kane, defending his town and his life from the threats, and eventual attack of his old "arch" enemy with no help or support from the people he is sworn to protect.
Upon hearing the news that nemesis Frank Miller has been inexplicably pardoned for his crimes and is now headed straight for town while his posse waits at the train station, Kane finds himself unable to leave his town unprotected.

HIGH NOON, directed by Fred Zinnemann, is brilliantly suspenseful, ratcheting up the tension as the Marshal's supporters dwindle one by one and the clock relentlessly progresses toward 12 'O Clock. The stakes and the anticipation are raised each time his friends, deputy or even his wife refuse to stick around, making you wonder all the more if Marshal Will Kane is going to make it.

What is it about a lone hero taking a stand against insurmountable odds? Die Hard's John McClane is probably the closest (well executed) modern equivalent, taking the bad guys down with 'ol fashioned guts and steely determination. But, even John McClane doesn't face what Will Kane must. Kane could have escaped with his wife before any danger was present. He was halfway gone before his conscience turned him back. Not to mention his wife is totally unsupportive and determined to leave on the same noon train that's shuttling his enemy into town. Even the town's people begin to wonder if things were really that bad when Frank Miller was around.
"Would it really be that bad if Frank was back? After all, the saloons were busier back then and there were fewer rules to follow." Even the religious folk in town tell him they wouldn't blame him if he just took off and, in fact, encourage him to do so.

HIGH NOON has been historically criticized for the portrayal of Will Kane as atypical of the western hero, who, though he stands alone, still spends most of the film attempting to rally support and even having a moment of doubt before renewing his resolve to stand firm against the inevitable attack. John Wayne called it the "most un-American" film he'd ever seen.

While I don't care about whether a film is "un-American" or not, I don't think Wayne's criticism was all that considerate. I think there's something deeply compelling about the story and portrayal. There's something realistic, honest, and heroic about the hero who moves forward as his support dwindles and disappears. There's something heroic about the guy who is honest enough to admit that he struggles to move forward but does so anyway.

Why is that? Could it be that these qualities reflect something in the ultimate hero? Could we say that High Noon works because its framework was established from eternity by One who could have kept his comfortable status and avoided suffering at the hands of a mortal enemy? Could we say it works because there's a bigger better story about a hero who persevered when the very people He came to save mocked Him, spit on Him, falsely accused Him, abandoned Him, betrayed Him and crucified Him? Could we say it's satisfying because, even though His bride rejected Him, doubted Him, and left Him, he still rescues her and rides with her into the sunset?

I think so.

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, [6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. [8] And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:5-8).

"Surely he has borne our griefs

and carried our sorrows;

yet we esteemed him stricken,

smitten by God, and afflicted.

[5] But he was wounded for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,

and with his stripes we are healed.

[6] All we like sheep have gone astray;

we have turned—every one—to his own way;

and the LORD has laid on him

the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:4-6)

This Is Exactly Why Superman Returns Worked For Me...

2011-04-20T14:35:00.000-07:00

Yes, I know movie reviews have been scant lately and this doesn't really qualify as an entry in my catalogue. While I haven't had a ton of time to concentrate on them, I do hope to have reviews out soon on High Noon and Get Low (no directional humor intended). High Noon, a classic western starring Gary Cooper, may even have some special significance for Holy Week, but you'll have to wait and see where I think that connection exists.

For now, I thought some recent comments from Superman Returns director Bryan Singer were interesting in light of the reviews I posted several years ago when it first came out.

In my original review I said,
"In 'Returns', Superman is something of a Guardian Messiah. He rests, hovering over the earth, listening to every cry for help, every tragedy, always at the ready to swoop in and save the day. It is this idea that Superman tries to explain to Lois as he holds her above the city of Metropolis. He explains, despite her prize winning article about why the world doesn’t need a 'savior', he hears the world crying for one every single day. There is even one scene, after spending nearly all the energy he has, he falls to earth as if nailed to an invisible cross. Not to mention the subtle visual reference to an empty tomb later in the film (but I’ll leave it to you all to find that one)."

And...

"I suppose Lois [Lane] really is the perfect metaphor that represents Superman’s love for all of humanity and his home on earth. Yet again, another image of a Messiah, spurred to action and love for the sake of an imperfect, dare I say, sinful creation."

Now, consider Singer's recent comments on why he thinks Superman Returns was not well received as a Summer Supes Movie.

"I've always felt that the origin of Superman is the story of Moses -- the child sent on a ship to fulfill a destiny," said Singer, a producer on the upcoming X-Men: First Class. "And this was a story about Christ -- it's all about sacrifice: The world, I hear their cries. So what happens? He gets the knife in the side and later he falls to the earth in the shape of a crucifix. It was kind of nailing you on the head, but I enjoyed that, because I've always found the myth of Christ compelling and moving. So I hoped to do my own take, which is heavy [stuff] for a summer movie."

Mr. Singer, though I would argue that the narrative of Jesus Christ is not a myth, nor was it written in the style of a myth or legend, this "messianic thread" is exactly why Superman Returns continues to work for me.

How to Train Your Dragon

2011-01-09T22:52:00.000-08:00

In my humble opinion, "How to Train Your Dragon" is the most surprising film of 2010. First, every character is sarcastic. This earns major points on my CG Cartoon scorecard. Second, the voice cast is pitch perfect, carried beautifully on the scrawny shoulders of Jay Baruchel as Hiccup.
Hiccup is less than the Viking his father wanted and is not quite up to fulfilling the family tradition of regular dragon slaying. Even though his inventiveness leads to a contraption that is able to capture the most elusive and dangerous of dragons (a Night Fury) he is unable to bring himself to slay it.

What may seem like a simple story about Vikings fighting dragons, or Vikings learning that dragons aren't that bad actually turns into something more profound than most, maybe even the filmmakers, might realize.

Plain and simple, How to Train Your Dragon, is about a group of people who unwittingly make a group of slaves their enemies when they should really be fighting to liberate them. Let me explain.

Vikings and dragons do not get along. Dragons are flying into Viking villages and stealing food. Vikings fight back. Damage ensues, limbs are lost, Viking feelings are hurt, etc. Hiccup's father even leads a voyage (unsuccessfully) to find the dragon nest and slay them all for good. Leaving his son at home to begin dragon slayer training, Hiccup's father actually creates an opportunity for Hiccup to spend all his time training and domesticating the new Night Fury he's just captured. Unbeknownst to his family, friends and fellow villagers, Hiccup is befriending, training and learning to fly his new scalely friend. On one of his flights Hiccup discovers the most horrifying truth of his life - one that could change his entire world.

The dragons that have been "attacking" Viking villages have actually been collecting food out of servile fear for a Master Dragon - a dragon more massive and terrible than all others put together. In one shocking moment, Hiccup discovers his people have been making enemies when they should have been liberating slaves.

Does this sound like anything you've experienced or seen in life - even the church? As believers in Christ and a people that confess faith in a Scripture that describes people as: sinners, lost, even enslaved to sinful passions and snares of the Devil, it would seem apparent that our job is to, through the faithful, gracious, loving proclamation of the truth, set captives free.

And yet, what do we often see happening in the church and what do we often see the church doing? Making enemies. We set ourselves at odds with a world of people we're called to reach with a message that liberates captives.

Perhaps we do this because it's easier to set our sights on what's in front of us; what we can see with our eyes. The reality, however, is that our battle as Christians is not against flesh and blood, nor each other but "against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12).

It's easier to make enemies than set captives free. It's easier to see a non-believer that is opposed to my views, my lifestyle, my opinions as an enemy. It's even easy to see fellow Christians as enemies if they disagree with me. But the beautiful truth of the gospel is that though they may be opposed to me, even to Christ, liberation and reconciliation was achieved by one who lived among his enemies, suffered among his enemies, in order to set them free from their captivity.

Ephesians 2:13-16,

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

TRON: Legacy

2011-01-08T09:53:00.000-08:00

At first I thought TRON: Legacy was logically impenetrable. I don't mean to say I didn't enjoy it, because I really did. It's just that, in a story about people becoming incarnated in a digital world, there were a few (read: a lot of) things that simply didn't make any sense to me.

Like:

Where in this digital world do you grow green beans to eat at your first dinner with your estranged son?

If Kevin Flynn, creator of the TRON universe is as powerful as everyone says he is why doesn't he ever do...well...anything?

Why does the "evil" program CLU see self generating ISO's that can apparently solve all of humanities problems as an imperfection and an obstacle to his goal of achieving a perfectly harmonious system?

And, finally, what does that last sentence even mean?

But, the more I thought about it, the more it made sense to me. Well, not the digital green beans, but pretty much everything else.

What makes TRON: Legacy a fun experience is mostly due to aesthetic value (note: vastly superior aesthetic value) and timeless themes of self-sacrifice, familial reunion, the hero's quest and especially the fallacy of man-wrought redemption.

Aesthetic Value: Eye Candy on the Grid

Tron not only looks amazing, it actually feels like an 80's movie and, as a child of the 80's, this excites me about as much as my functional Darth Vader helmet. The simplicity of the plot, the unapologetic Sci-fi nonsense, Journey's "Separate Ways" and Eurythmic's "Sweet Dreams" blasting in the background as Sam Flynn descends into his father's secret Arcade Hideout? Yes, yes, aaaand yes.

The only thing that didn't work for me was the digital version of a young Jeff Bridges. There are moments where I was convinced and able to forget that he was computer generated (or motion captured) but then his mouth would move and the magic was gone for me in those moments. One day, special effects will render a realistic digital mouth and movie geeks of future generations will sit around and talk about the movie that broke the digital "lip barrier". TRON: Legacy just isn't the one they'll talk about.

That said, there are reasons beyond the look of the film that make it a worthwhile experience.

Man Wrought Redemption: The Fallacy of a Man Made Utopia

In a big way, TRON: Legacy is about the fallacy of a man made Utopia. Utopia, Paradise, Evolutionary Apex or Human Technological Enlightenment leading to everlasting peace are themes that often recur in Sci-fi media (see Star Trek as the most popular example). TRON (and even the new Star Trak) poke holes through the tissue foundation of human self-salvation projects.

Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), visionary creator of a digital world wherein humans can become incarnated citizens, creates the program CLU in his own image to help him create a "perfect world." The problem is that CLU begins to see things a bit differently than his creator and decides to begin running things himself, eliminating anything that is not in order. Human "users" and miraculously generated ISO's are an obstacle to achieving CLU's perfect system. Humans pose a threat because of their unpredictability and frailty. ISO's, programs that are seemingly created (or evolved depending on your bias) out of nothing without help or influence from users or programs represent a similar threat. After CLU's coup d'état for control of the Grid, Kevin Flynn becomes a prisoner in the very world he created.

What Kevin Flynn must face, especially after his son Sam unexpectedly enters the scene for an accidental rescue mission is that his plan to create a perfect world was doomed from the beginning. At the climax he tries to explain his failure to CLU, stating that, "perfection is unknowable." I take that to mean perfection is unreachable, unattainable, or that man does not have the capacity to create it or find it.

He's right. However, this doesn't rule out the possibility that perfection might find us and, consequently, change us. The ISO's in this film prove that perfection and innocence is "knowable" and I think Flynn sees this in the end. He just realizes that it was arrogant to think he could find it. There's a reason stories like this work. They work because there is a Creator that is greater than mankind. There is a perfect Creator, a Master Storyteller, using the same outline of a fallen creation that is rescued via the incarnation of a Perfect Being.

When To Talk To Your Kids About...

2010-11-17T09:31:00.001-08:00

A Look Back at Stranger Than Fiction

2010-10-20T15:32:00.000-07:00

I think most people either love or loathe Will Ferrell movies. This makes Stranger Than Fiction a difficult sell. If you're in the "Will Ferrell movies are comedically lazy and obnoxiously un-funny club" then why would you bother with Stranger Than Fiction? If you're in the "Will Ferrell is the best thing since John Belushi only better because he's still alive club" then it's still a tough sell because Stranger Than Fiction is not a "Will Ferrell movie." It's actually a really good movie in which Will Ferrell happens to star.

The Subject: Self-Determination = Slavery
Upon first glance all that's going on here is a clever little idea about a man hearing a mysterious voice in the sky that is narrating him towards his untimely demise. The reality is that Stranger Than Fiction is a modern parable about how liberating predestination actually turns out to be.

Harold Crick is the self-determined man. From the moment he wakes to the moment he lies down at night, Harold has planned and ordered his day according to his own acute sense of time and organization.

Little does he know that his life is being written for him by Karen Eiffel, a sarcastic, chain smoking british novelist. One day, Harold awakes as he always does, begins meticulously brushing his teeth, as he always does when, suddenly, he can actually hear Ms. Eiffel narrating the events and activities of his life.

Dr. Mittag-Leffler: I'm afraid what you're describing is schizophrenia.

Harold Crick: No, no. It's not schizophrenia. It's just a voice in my head. I mean, the voice isn't telling me to do anything. It's telling me what I've already done... accurately, and with a better vocabulary.

Imagine Harold's shock when he hears that Ms. Eiffel is writing him towards his imminent death.

At the end of his wits Harold comes face to face with the fact that he has no control over his fate. His story is being written for him. In desperation, he goes to Literature Professor Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman) for advice. After a serious of amusing diagnostic tests Hilbert concludes that Harold does not, in fact, control his destiny and advices him to simply go and "live your life." Everyone is going to die someday and it doesn't stop them from living, so why not just go and live your life, right?

Dr. Jules Hilbert: Hell Harold, you could just eat nothing but pancakes if you wanted.

Harold Crick: What is wrong with you? Hey, I don't want to eat nothing but pancakes, I want to live! I mean, who in their right mind in a choice between pancakes and living chooses pancakes?

Dr. Jules Hilbert: Harold, if you pause to think, you'd realize that that answer is inextricably contingent upon the type of life being led... and, of course, the quality of the pancakes.

I'm not sure I grasped the depth of this observation the first, or the second time I saw the film, but I'm beginning to think there's a lot of wisdom in these lines. Professor Hilbert can see Harold's insistence on controlling every aspect of his own life has actually (and only) contributed to his own misery. Watch the film again and take note of how many times Dr. Hilbert catches on to Harold's proclivity for counting things he sees (e.g., stairs, steps to the bathroom, amount of soap left in the dispensers, etc.). Here he confronts the futility of Harold's life and forces him to consider that maybe, just maybe, the fact that he doesn't control his fate is the best news in all the world.

Sovereign Authorship = Freedom
How often do we hear or think that our subjection to a totally Sovereign "author" is nothing short of degrading bondage? Yet what effect does this revelation have upon Harold? Liberation. Nothing short of total liberation. He stops eating alone. He stops living alone. He stops counting his brush strokes. He gets the guts to ask out that funky, cute baker, Anna Pascal (Pascal...yeah you read that right. Coincidence? Probably not). He learns to play the guitar and he starts to smile and laugh.

Why? Because he's finally been freed from the futility of trying to write his own story. He begins to surrender to the fact that perhaps someone is writing a better story for him. In fact, when Harold is thrust into the path of his author he urges her to let him live. I'll spare you the details so you can savor them yourself. The short of it is that when Harold reads what Ms. Eiffel has planned for him, he loves it. Harold, at the end of the day, has to admit that he could not have written a better story for himself.

Most of the time I live as if I'm writing the story of my own life. The contrary reality is that if I reflect upon my life there's plenty that I would not have written for myself and yet the very things, people, events, experiences that I would not have written for myself have made me who I am.

Consider how Romans 8 actually unites the ideas of Freedom and Predestination...

15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”

28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

It's interesting isn't it? The Bible actually ties predestination to freedom. If I had written my own story, according to Romans 8, I would be more like "myself" and less like Christ thereby making me a slave to fear.

What other reasons do we really have for so tightly trying to control every area of our lives but fear? We're afraid of not being secure, not being comfortable, not being accepted, not being cool, not being fed, not being...whatever. We're afraid because we don't trust a storyteller, a Creator to provide the best story for us, wether that story be comedic at times and tragic at other times.

While Stranger Than Fiction certainly never intended to be a parable of total surrender to a Sovereign Creator it does demonstrate that External Sovereign Authorship does not nullify freedom and delight. In Harold Crick's case, it was the occasion for freedom and delight.

Inception: Guilt and Atonement (SPOILERS AHEAD)

2010-08-03T09:22:00.000-07:00

INCEPTION deserves more analysis than I am cable of giving it, but I thought I'd take one more crack at a couple of the themes that make this movie so compelling, interesting and form the foundation for its creation.
At the center of this film is DiCaprio's character, Dom Cobb. He's a man with a tremendous burden of guilt on his shoulders and it has poisoned his entire life, even his dreams. As we slip into the story we learn that inception, the act of subliminally implanting an idea in someone's mind, through their dreams had devastating consequences in the life of Cobb's wife, Mal. The idea that nothing in her incredibly lucid dream was real not only woke her from her dream but it also infected her entire perception of reality.

"What is real? My dream felt real, so who's to say that it's not more real than this "real" hum-drum existence I'm experiencing now? What if my dreams are the prime reality?"

This is what I meant in my last post when I said that subjectivity is captivity. It's a maze you can't escape. That's why I found the character of Ariadne so interesting. The name Ariadne has a rich history in Greek mythology - a history rich with alternate versions of her story. Apparently the Greeks were as fond of rebooting franchises as Hollywood is now. In one version Ariadne is portrayed as the "Mistress of the Maze" (interesting). In another she gives Theseus the red string he needs to get into the Labyrinth, kill the Minotaur and get back out again.

I point this out as significant because throughout the whole movie, Ariadne is the only one who has been newly inserted into this world that is pushing Dom out of it. She is, depending on how you look at her, infiltrating the world of the dream to pull Dom out of a world he's constructed to absolve him of his own guilt - a world where he can be with his wife like he promised. The problem is that he can't. His wife is dead and he can't possibly bring her back.

ARIADNE is there, I think, to tell us something crucial. She is there to be an advocate for reality. She is there to affirm that the distinction between dreams and reality is not a false dichotomy. She's there to give Dom his red string so he can kill the minotaur of his maze. Does she succeed? I'm afraid that we, the audience, are the judges. I'm persuaded that the entire film, from beginning to end was nothing but a dream and not for a moment do we see anyone actually awake. But, does this have to mean that Ariadne failed to "wake" Dom up or "lead him out of his maze"? Not exactly. While I don't think Ariadne wins a decisive victory when it comes to waking Dom into the actual reality he left, she does at least succeed at one thing.

Ariadne forces Dom to see that his attempts at relieving himself of his guilt, his attempts to justify himself, even punish himself fall far short. He finally acknowledges that if he's ever going to be free of his guilt, he's got to quit trying to justify himself. He's got to quit feeding his fantasy world as if restoring what was lost in his own dreams will count in reality.

Cobb to his "dream" wife: "You're a shade. Your the best I can do but you're just not good enough."

So, we leave Dom right where a lot of us are at. We realize that, ultimately, we need help to be justified, we need help to kill our Minotaurs, we need help to be saved. We need intervention. We need foreign righteousness. It's not enough to simply realize that we're helplessly lost in a maze of guilt and sin. We need a redeemer. We need a redeemer who will do more than give us a red string. We need a redeemer who will spill his blood and sacrifice his life in order to take the punishment we deserve for our sin.

"I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus...who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (I Corinthians 1:4, 8).

Inception: A Maze About Movies and Truth

2010-07-28T21:53:00.000-07:00

IN the last year I haven't seen a single film that I've just had to tell people about. Part of this is due to the fact that I see far fewer films than I once did. The other part is that a lot of movies these days are about as much fun as renewing your driver's license.

Then came INCEPTION. This is a movie that will make you a movie evangelist. It's jam packed with everything that makes a movie worthwhile. It is eye candy that is also thought provoking. Even if you didn't like, you can't help but trip over it, dwell on it, and tell people about it. Everyone is talking about this one and opinions are everywhere, dissecting, analyzing, and they are (aside from one review I've read) each implying their own supreme authority to rightly interpret it.

The most that can be said definitively is that Christopher Nolan intended the first layer of this film to be a labyrinthine, mental action film and at the second level a metaphor for the theatrical experience. Nolan has clearly explained that INCEPTION is a movie ABOUT movies. Just as Cobb and his crew of dream thieves hack into their target's mind in order to plant a life changing idea, so the filmmaker crafts an idea to be transmitted and implanted into the mind of an audience.

Ideas are powerful and infectious, just like they are in INCEPTION, and can very easily infiltrate a person's thinking (not exactly like in INCEPTION). Look, for example, how easy it was for Eve to believe that, by eating what she was commanded (for her own good) not to eat would actually make her like God. Look how easy it was for Adam to disobey God once the idea, namely, that disobedience did not in fact lead to death but resulted instead in divinity, took hold in his mind. It takes roughly two sentences. One idea and their entire world is ruined.

IT takes another Inception, it takes a Superior Architect, to reverse the damage that was done with a single idea. St. John describes this inception,

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth... And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known" (John 1:14, 16-18)

He also describes the mission of this inception,

"He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:10-13).

An idea ruined the world and then came the Word to redeem it.

THERE is more going on in this film than the mere concept of inception however. On another level this film is about perception, specifically our own personal, relative, subjective perception. I think it's safe to say that the audience's limited, imperfect perception, that is, their own frantic interpretation of what is going on defines the entire viewing experience of this movie. Everything you know is subjective, open to interpretation until it's not - and then it "ends" leaving it open to even more interpretation.

This is one of the central joys of the movie. I'm challenged to think about it, analyze and understand it, not because it can't be but because I believe in objectivity. I believe it can be understood and that there is a reality to point to, even if it's not portrayed in the film. The uncertainty of the ending has frustrated some and I sympathize with that. But perhaps, the point is that you're supposed to be frustrated. You're supposed to push against the idea that you can't know what is real and what is not. Perhaps, Nolan, himself struggles to separate his professional life (a profession dependent on escaping reality), from his real life and this is a frustration to him. Perhaps the central problem of this film's main characters, namely, the idea that reality is subjectively defined, uncertain, always out of arms reach is the central frustration of Nolan's life and he wants us to share it.

James Harleman of Cinemagogue has pointed out what is so frustrating and desperate about treating life and reality as something that is subjective. He says that subjectivity, or relativism is itself a maze you can't get out of - it is bondage. Subjectivity = Captivity. This is the plight of both Dom and Dom's ill-fated spouse. Subjectivity and relativism drives them mad with depression and guilt and there's no escaping the damage, no escaping the maze.

What is needed for both of them, for all of them is for someone, outside the maze to infiltrate and rescue them. But that's another post, for another day.

Welcome to the Church of Speed Racer

2010-06-08T19:22:00.000-07:00

I can't regularly be accused of posting about new and exciting material on this humble little blog. Take today's post as an example. Speed Racer came out in 2008, so it isn't exactly "hot off the press". However, this doesn't bother me for at least 2 reasons...
1. Irregularly posting on whatever I want actually helps prove I have a life...which is nice because having a blog in the first place kinda counts against you in the "I have a more exciting life than you contest".
2. My blog is called NOTHING NEW Under the Sun - so...yeah...I'm a little disappointed I would have to spell that out for you, but what can I say, I have a servant's heart. You're welcome.

Now, if you haven't seen 2008's Speed Racer I recommend renting (now available at the old release price - you're welcome again!) this kaleidoscopic, adrenaline injected, action packed, sci-fi/anime infused, thoroughly emotive, living cartoon family comedy. Yes. It is all of these things and all of these things done very well.

Speed Racer is based on an old Japanese Anime originally titled Mach GoGoGo and was made famous when dubbed into English and re-titled Speed Racer for broadcast in America.
The show followed the international adventures of an ambitious young man who falls in love with racing and becomes a professional driver. In every episode, the plot is backed up by perilous story lines and intense action, putting the show's main characters in a deep predicament, leaving viewers at the edge of their seats and making the show notable to many even today.
You might be tempted to summarize the substance of this movie that way, but you'd be about as close to right as I am to throwing any semblance of dignity and buying a Snuggie.

No. Speed Racer is not about racing. Speed Racer is actually about worship. Speed Racer goes straight to how we're built as people and, as people, Speed Racer firmly established that we're each driven by something. We're each designed to give ourselves to something whole-heartedly. For example, the first thing we learn about Speed Racer is that he “seems to be interested in only one thing. All he talks about, all he seems capable of thinking about, is automobile racing.”

Speed has a distinct, focused, determination to excel at one thing. He loves one thing more than he loves anything else, and that’s racing. He loves it so much that he’ll sacrifice a lucrative racing contract to keep the sport pure and free from the influence of the devilish Royalton Racing Company. He loves it so much in fact that he’ll risk his safety, even his life if it means he can race.

At Speed's lowest point in the film, the mysterious Racer X tells him, "you don’t climb into a T-180 to be a driver. You do it because you’re driven.” What I love about conversations like this, and movies like this, is that it portrays that there is in fact something out there that demands a supreme value and is consequently worthy of personal sacrifice for the joy of experiencing that supreme value.

Consider how much Speed's conviction and "drive" is a reflection of the Apostle Paul's in Philippians 3.

7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

So, this weekend, get yourself a copy of Speed Racer. Enjoy it for the solid source of entertainment it is and maybe, while along for the ride, you can treat it as an opportunity to think about what has supreme value in your life.

LOST

2010-05-24T15:04:00.000-07:00

LOST is over and I daresay there will never be a definitive summary nor examination of everything this show offered its audience. It did things better than any of it’s contemporaries and consequently its failures were all the more condemnable. With this post I won't even pretend to be beyond correction when it comes to my interpretation of a show I feel like I only occasionally understood. So, without trying to be absolute in my estimation and critique, I offer my first reflections into the fray of hotly debated LOST reviews.

Let me begin by talking about some of the things that I liked about this show as a whole.
I. LOST Made Me Think
It was hard to figure out. There is very little television like this today. It exists. It's just not common and with all it's flaws LOST still defied the average night of TV and puzzled me, often with great delight.

II. LOST Reflected The Occasional Mysteriousness of Life
The complicated, nebulous nature of LOST, intentional or not, is a great shadow for how sometimes there are things too big for us to totally understand. Take the book of Job. When Job finally questions God regarding all the suffering he’s endured and demands an explanation the only answer Job gets is, “Job, I’m God and you’re not. There’s going to be some stuff you just don’t understand” (my translation).
So, are there unanswered questions in LOST mythology? Yes. A pant load of unanswered questions will keep some of us in indefinite agony, but life itself is like this and while the show and it’s writers may have failed to give us answers they owe us, their failure serves to illustrate how often we must endure certain mysteries in our own lives with contentment and joy. Am I letting the writers off the hook a bit? You bet.
III. The Backpacks
Season 6 made it official. The backpack is now an essential superhero accessory. Thanks Jack!

Now to the finale as it relates to what I like about the show in general.

I. People are more important than mythology.
Show writers/producers Cuse and Lindelof have been telling us for months (maybe years) that the mythology of the show was going to take a back seat to the focus on character. The mythology was only a vehicle for transporting key characters from existential A to existential B, from being LOST to being FOUND and, consequently, there were going to be unanswered questions.

And if I may follow a bunny trail for a moment (a bunny with a number on it, of course), why do I keep hearing all this curiosity about the Dharma palette drop? Seriously? This is the enduring mystery that we’re all so concerned with? How about why Walt was so special? How about why Ben was forgiven and invited to Heaven but, apparently, Michael wasn’t. We know why Eko wasn’t forgiven (alleged money grubber) but it would have been nice to give Michael his redemption, especially knowing that he didn’t have any reservations about appearing this season.

Ok. Bunny # 1: dead. Moving on.
I don't know if this is a fair example but consider how the X-Files dropped the character ball in its final episode. How much more satisfying would the finale of the X-Files be if it had given the character’s their due instead of turning it into to a glorified recap of 9 seasons we wanted to believe was leading to some pay-off? Pay off or not, we would have been more satisfied to see some character closure or resolution beyond what the X-Files finale gave us and LOST did that for Jack Shephard. Since season 1 I've wanted to see Jack's redemption, to see him surrender and fulfill the implicit promises that the show made about our damaged "hero" doctor and that's what the finale did.

Where it was going all along: Jack Shephard's Redemption

In the end this was a show about Jack letting go. This was a show about Jack giving up control of his own life and sacrificing himself for something greater than himself. It was the story of the redemption of Jack Shephard and in the end, everything became peripheral to that. Complain all you want about the Pan-religious, purgatorial nebuLA, and the semi-universalism of their collective trip to the next life. The bottom line is that this show embraced the idea that people are important (Psalm 8), people need to be redeemed (Romans 3), and people need intervention from on high in order to see it, believe it, and experience it (Romans 3).
This is what Jack represents and so he represents all the characters on the show and their collective need for intervention, redemption and faith. In the end I also think LOST was a show that believed in grace. If Jack is the figure-head, the representation of the human race then in Jack we see a humanity desperately trying to earn peace, rescue and redemption and we see his white knuckled failure each time.

After the finale Jimmy Kimmel hosted a special with the cast wherein he assessed (wrongly I think) that the show was about Jack’s test. He summarized his understanding of the Christian religion and how Jack fits into that scheme as a man being tested. Should Jack fail the test he inherits judgment in hell. Should he pass the test, he inherits peace in heaven. Whether this was what the show was about or not, I wish I could tell Kimmel that's not what Christianity is about. Christianity has never been about, "be bad and go to hell or be good and go to heaven." Christianity is about how no man can earn heaven and so God, becomes a man and earns it for them and I think Jack winds up illustrating this truth. Jack doesn't earn his place. He gets there by faith, belief and intervention.
Jack reminds me of the prodigal son in Luke 15. Even when he comes to his senses and runs home to his father, he still tries to pay his father back for all the wrong he's done, still tries to earn his place at the table but the father won't hear it. He doesn't even let the son finish his apology. He stops him, puts the ring on his finger, the robe on his back and welcomes him home.

I've read, in the mere hours since the conclusion, that Jack was portrayed as a Christ figure. An island Messiah, a sacrificed savior. While that could have been the intention none of it sticks for me. Are there similarities to the sufferings of Christ and the sufferings of Jack? I suppose, but they're dim. Instead I prefer to think of Jack in the way that the apostle Paul talked about himself.

"We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies" (2 Corinthians 4:9-10).

Paul also talked about reflecting the sufferings of Christ in life in Romans 8,

"16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."

Paul saw himself as a reflection of a greater reality and a participant in that greater reality. That greater reality being the God-man Jesus Christ that earned Paul's place in heaven and gave it to him through sheer grace.

Jack was a guy that, for nearly 6 seasons was trying to earn his place at the table and all his efforts resulted in the most screwed up, dysfunctional family supper ever. It's not until he submits to the destiny that the island has chosen for him that he is freed from his junk.
It’s not until he submits, surrenders, and believes in a greater reality that his heroics mean anything. This is probably why, at this moment, the mysteries aren’t bugging me. Even the poorly defined, “light at the heart of the island that is supposed to make sense of everything but doesn’t” isn’t really bothering me right now. I don’t think it is bothering me right now because I’m really enjoying that Jack was redeemed and that’s what I’ve wanted to see the most since season 1. He finally let go. He surrendered and he gave his life for something bigger than himself. And yes, that something IS poorly and vaguely defined. Yes, Carlton and Cuse copped out with a “spiritualistic” answer rather than one my personal theology relates with but frankly, I don’t expect non-Christian television to give me a Christian show. I simply expect it to give me some glimmers and shadows of the image of God in the creativity of mankind.

For these reason and despite the flaws this is why the end of LOST left me satisfied. I look forward to revisiting it soon and, even, quite possibly, changing my entire perspective on it.

Namaste. Oh yeah, that's right, I went there. Na. Ma. Ste!

Lord Save Us From Your Followers

2010-05-19T19:00:00.000-07:00

"No one ever converted to Christianity because they lost the argument." - Philip Yancey

These are the first words on the screen that introduces the documentary film, Lord Save Us From Your Followers. It's a valid observation. The Apostle Paul clearly believed and preached the ultimate reason anyone converts to Christianity is because of the work of God's Spirit through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I Corinthians 2:9-10; 12-13,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual."

The idea that the Christian cannot convert or persuade people to believe by any means but the "gospel of love" highlights the over all theme of Dan Merchant's documentary journey. Dan Merchant travels the nation asking what he thinks is a very simple question.

"Why is the gospel of love dividing America?"

In order to find his answer he starts with a simpler question. "What are Christians known for?"
Some of the answers he hears:
Warfare
Jesus Christ
Fanaticism
Compassion
The Crusades
Snobby

Writer, Director Dan Merchant interviews liberal theologians and conservative radio personalities, homosexual protestors and Christian preachers all toward finding an answer to his questions and trying to understand why so many people in America find Christians to be hateful, ignorant and disinterested in other people's perspectives.

In one attempt to probe the question, Merchant organizes two Family Feud style games between liberals and conservatives. In a game where victory is determined by how much you know about your opponent, the liberals proved to be overwhelmingly victorious. Merchant's conclusion at this point is that this illustrates part of the problem with public expressions of American Christianity: we have turned the gospel of love into the gospel of "I'm right and you're wrong."

In other words, the gospel isn't dividing America. We are. America is divided over Christianity because Christians don't listen to, don't love and don't serve the world that they're called to hear, love and serve.

Merchant, after numerous interviews, confessing his sins at a gay pride festival, and witnessing Christian compassion toward the homeless in Portland, concludes that if Christians would just listen, serve, and love people like Christ loved them, America would (at least) be less divided than it is.

However, I had a significant problem watching Merchant's documentary. The problem is that Merchant's observations are basically true. Followers of Christ SHOULD be serving, listening to, and loving the world. Further, the church has failed to do this in various ways throughout history.

BUT!

I think Merchant's conclusions are JUST AS unbalanced as the divisive Christians he's confronting. One reason I say this is because in the roughly 100 minutes of footage there is not a single articulation of what this "gospel of love" actually is. Merchant never defines the gospel, shares the gospel, or attempts to explain to his audience what makes the "gospel of love" THE gospel of love.

He seems to be so anxious to distance himself from ignorant, fundamental, Bible-banging "Christians" that he never gets close to explaining what makes the good news, THE good news.

I would have loved this film if Merchant had concluded it the way Jesus inaugurated his ministry. Isn't it striking that, apparently, Jesus' first sermon started this way...
Mark 1:14-15,

"Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.'"

So, if I could ask Dan Merchant one question I would ask,
"Can you really love someone the way Christ loved them without calling them to repentance and faith in the gospel?"

In John 3:18 Jesus himself also said,

"Whoever believes in [me] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

And John later narrates in v. 36

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

It may be hard to say. It may be hard to hear. But the reality is that Jesus both cared for, listened to, served AND called people to repent of their sins. He called them to repent of their sins and follow God as God had revealed himself in Christ and the Scriptures.

It may be hard to say. It may be hard to hear. But the reality is that Jesus both cared for, listened to, served AND called people to repent of their sins (John 6). He called them to repent of their sins and follow God as God had revealed himself in Christ and the Scriptures.

We may not like to hear this or believe this but that makes the Gospel divisive. If the gospel is divisive BECAUSE of the way we present it (unloving, self-righteous, etc.) then we have a problem. However, we must admit and realize the gospel IS divisive all by itself.

That's why Paul says,

"15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? 17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ" (2 Corinthians 2:15-17).

And that's why Jesus said,

"32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 10:32-39).

If we really believe the gospel we'll love people enough to call them to repentance in a humble, loving, gracious and servant oriented way. If we really love people we'll get out of the gospel's way and let it speak for itself by proclaiming it as it's proclaimed in the Bible, with gentleness, respect, compassion and service.

"3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures..." (I Corinthians 15:3-4)

"15 ...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil" (I Peter 3:15-17).

Iron Friends

2010-05-17T08:00:00.000-07:00

If you liked Iron Man you'll like Iron Man 2. It's pretty much that simple. I'm not really sure there's anything new going on here. It feels like an extension, a 2 hour bonus scene tacked onto the original. This time around we get more Nick Fury, saying things I never imagined Nick Fury would say:

"Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to exit the donut?"

Really? That's what you're going with? Isn't Iron Man, eating donuts in a giant donut, pretty much enough of a joke? No? You're gonna take it one step further...just in case I didn't realize how hilarious this while scenario really is. Thank you for doing all the work for me.

In summary: Iron Man is back to fight bad guys, his own ego, and make us laugh a little along the way.
Mickey Rourke plays the villain Ivan Vanko or "Whiplash" or "The Only Russian with an underground lair AND a stellar tan."
Sam Rockwell is totally solid as the greasy 'car salesmanish' weapons manufacturer Justin Hammer.

And Scarlett Johansson, as S.H.I.E.L.D agent Natasha Romanoff (aka: Black Widow), was able to remind me of every other role Scarlett Johansson has ever played (aside from the karate). Now just to be clear. She's not bad here. Scarlett isn't bad in anything. She's simply Scarlett in everything. I would like to have seen what Emily Blunt would have done with this role (though there really isn't much to it). Blunt has the ability to disappear into each character the way Sam Rockwell does and though she was originally cast as Black Widow she had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts. Oh well. This series has replaced one character with another actor already. Maybe Scarlett will have scheduling conflicts next time around (if you're keeping track, yes, my second digression is now over).

Now, what's great about Iron Man 2? A lot actually. The first film is a really fun, eye popping metaphor for a man that needs a new heart. Stark begins the film as a selfish, profiteering, ego-maniac but when some nasty middle eastern shrapnel almost kills him, something changes and a hero is born - a slightly less selfish, ego-maniacal hero.

What's great about Iron Man 2 is that not all of Tony's issues are simply gone because of this change of heart. He may have changed quite a bit but he still struggles to keep his ego from damaging his friends and his company, let alone the entire world he's trying to protect. In fact his ego continues to threaten all his good intentions throughout the film. Sure, Iron Man has created a relative amount of peace in the world (i.e., America's enemies are too afraid to attack without an Iron Man technology of their own) but nothing lasts forever and Tony's too blind (or proud maybe) to see this.

It's a good shadow for my own indwelling struggle with sin, especially the one of pride. What Tony faces this time around is how much he needs a community in his life to temper his ego, hold him accountable, and generally save his iron posterior from time to time. Each character in the film has a moment or two to shine and it never feels too forced. It feels like a relatively functional community, each doing their part, forgiving one another, serving one another over all serves us a great reflection of how sinful pride keeps us from seeing how much we need one another and especially how much we need to confess our sins to one another.

One thing I didn't know about this film going into it was that a consequence of the new technology implanted in Tony's chest was that it was slowly poisoning him. I won't spoil how he solves this problem. The point is that it's a problem he hides from the people closest to him and I think it's a solid indictment for how silly and self-destructive our pride can be. How often do you see a film character keep something like this to himself? I think we see it a lot and I love it here because it leaves the audience nothing to do but think, "JUST TELL SOMEONE, ALREADY!" But how often do we treat our own problems (read: sin) this way? Yeah. That's right. All the time. Tony's self-sufficiency in the midst of life threatening illness is a great example of how ridiculous our self-sufficiency is at its core.

I wonder if it's a coincidence that Downey has now found himself playing two characters (Sherlock Holmes and Tony Stark) that are never at their best unless there's someone there to prop them up, hold them accountable and save them from recurring peril. Consider Downey's own past. Habitual drug and alcohol abuse plagued his life for years and all the while his wife Susan has, by all accounts, stayed faithful. I'm going to say, intentionally or not, Downey is now playing characters that reflect his own struggle with sinful self-sufficiency and point to humanity's greater need for accountability and refinement through God given community.

Fear is The Edge of Darkness

2010-05-14T21:54:00.000-07:00

Death, grief, suffering, justice and vengeance season the 2 hour meal of wrath that is The Edge of Darkness, Mel Gibson's first starring roll since Signs (2002). Personally, I'm ecstatic that Mel is in front of the camera again. Sure, he's a little crazy but that's always the fun part of a "Mel" movie: wondering how closely his crazy character is a reflection of himself.

The Edge of Darkness tells the story of Detective Thomas Craven and his violently concentrated efforts to uncover the seedy corporate/government conspiracy that murdered his only daughter. The death of Emma Craven is sudden, shocking and evocative (quite an accomplishment considering it occurs in the first 10 minutes). In fact, all the violence is sudden, shocking and evocative...much like real suffering. This is becoming a lost art on film. So much violence on film today fails to evoke any sort of emotional response and I don't think it's because we're totally desensitized. I think it's because very few filmmakers actually now how to highlight what is essentially brutal and heart wrenching about death and violence. Martin Campbell is not one of those directors. He understands that death is about fear as much as it is about loss. Fear that no one will understand how you feel when you lose someone you care about. Fear that no sense will ever be made of that loss and especially the fear that no justice will ever be rendered against those responsible.

Perhaps that's why this is a story about a man named Craven, a name that essentially means "cowardly" or "lacking courage". Whether it was intentional or not, what this story winds up saying is that all acts of vengeance are ultimately motivated by fear. Fear that justice is not coming. Fear that those who deserve wrath will never get it and that the scales will remain unbalanced. Fear that the most cunning of villains will never be exposed. Thomas Craven is a man deeply afraid of all these things.

While Craven's mission is understandable and serves as a gripping shadow of the holy judgment of God, it is that judgment of God that should be considered in an adventure such as this.

"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay', says the Lord" (Romans 12:19).

For the Lord of hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up—and it shall be brought low...And people shall enter the caves of the rocks and the holes of the ground, from before the terror of the Lord, and from the splendor of his majesty, when he rises to terrify the earth (Isaiah 2:12, 19).

I can understand and sympathize with Craven's quest for vengeance. He's a man equipped for it too. Not only is he a cop but he's experienced in combat, in war, and in suffering. One conversation with a Senator in the film is especially revealing. Craven, when asked if he had trouble adjusting to life after combat, essentially says, "No. You come out of combat pretty much the same way you go in. The only thing combat does is give you a little perspective."

I think this a beautiful observation. Suffering happens and tragedies strike but they don't change us. They just reveal what's already there. They refine and expose us. The question is then, "what will they expose?"

Will suffering, even suffering as shocking and tragic as murder reveal in us a total distrust in a sovereign, holy, just and true God? Will it reveal our deepest fears that justice will never come or that we are not really safe in Christ? Will it expose a craven rage that delivers sloppy justice and costs us our souls?

Or will it produce courage enough to make something sure, something lasting, and something wholly good our only refuge and strength? The Edge of Darkness is a beautiful, well crafted, portrayal of imperfect, sloppy justice at the hands of men and a great stepping stone into the thought that maybe, just maybe a more perfect justice has come (Romans 3:21-26) and is coming (John 3:36).

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it — the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:22-26).

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (John 3:36).

Rescued, Regenerated and Adopted Pt. 2

2010-04-14T18:25:00.000-07:00

The Blind Side is about Rescue, Regeneration and Adoption. If you haven't read the post on Rescue in The Blind Side you can do so HERE.

Regeneration
Michael was a young man that needed to be rescued and he was, powerfully. He was plucked out of the ghetto where he was certainly headed toward a grave dug with gang violence and placed in a home so distinct from the world of his child hood that it's nearly magical by comparison.
But that's all Michael needed. He needed Regeneration and redemption as well. It’s not enough to pick Michael up and put him in new circumstances. You can put him in a new home, but his heart is still in the ghetto. When things get rough, he’s still going to hide food in his pockets, and run away when the world hurls accusations at his rescuers.
The one rescued by God needs the same thing – we need not just rescue but redemption and regeneration. The Christian person is not simply someone rescued from sin, but redeemed, regenerated, born again so that they want to stay rescued from sin.
The Christian life is a new life. A life that opens up with choices that you have never had before. Michael had no choices. He was tossed around and enslaved to the world in which he was born. And black, white, Chinese or Indian someone needed to rescue him and when that happened he became free to make choices he never dreamed of making before.

I Peter 1 says,

23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; 24 for

“All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass.  The grass withers,  and the flower falls, 25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.”

And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

What Peter points to here is what Michael needs...what we all need. To be re-born and made new through the power of something that lasts forever – namely the power of God’s Spirit through the gospel or “the good news” as Peter calls it. The Good news that not only has Christ taken the punishment you deserve but he lives to give you a new life – a life that now has the power to overcome the sinful influences around us and the temptations to run from home, from our true Father.

The story of the orphan mentioned in the last post in Ezekiel 16 continues and it’s not pretty. The orphan of Ezekiel 16, rescued by God, grows into the most beautiful woman that has ever lived but instead of honoring God, her rescuer, with her beauty she runs and she becomes a prostitute. The text says she becomes worse than a prostitute – sharing her body with others for nothing in return – spurning payment. You see, she not only needed to be rescued...she needed to be redeemed. She needed to be changed from the inside out and no matter how beautiful, organized, put together, she looked on the outside she needed to be changed from the inside before she would stop running from home and finally submit to her Heavenly Father.

Without rescue and redemption Michael was never going to play football, in fact he was probably headed right for the grave. Without the rescue and redemption of God, we are slaves to our sins, not free to fight it, not free to kill it. Only in Christ are we free to put to death the sins that plague us. Is Christ your redeemer, is he your rescuer? Do you trust him to change your life from the inside out?
Stories of triumph, stories of people that overcome insane obstacles to achieve their dreams because they are people who’ve been rescued and redeemed, exist to evoke a feeling in us of what our deliverance from sin can be like, what it can taste like. It is a sweet picture.

Rescued, Regenerated and Adopted

2010-04-14T18:07:00.000-07:00

The basic subject matter of The Blind Side is like a slow-pitch softball of an invitation to discuss the story of the Bible as it relates to God's character and actions toward a humanity that's been orphaned by our own sin nature.

To be honest, it's not really an artistic achievement. Sandra Bullock is good...even Tim McGraw is good and the kids are sort of cute too. But there's not much that screams "artistic genius!" Some material is glossed over (e.g., the racial tension) and Michael Oher himself isn't much of a character in the film - that is to say this film is more about Leigh Anne Tuohy (Bullock) than anything.

So why bother watching it for Film and Theology? Well, it may not have been close to my favorite film of the year, but it touches directly on themes that are at the center of God's ultimate story of Adoption and Redemption. Films that can handle these themes with earnest intentions often earn my respect regardless of whether they're artistically superb or not.

The Blind Side is the story of homeless, fatherless Michael Oher and the wealthy Memphis family that took him and nourished him, eventually, to NFL greatness. However, under this surface lies a story about:

Rescue
Regeneration
and
Adoption

A film like this is easy to write about and talk about because it, in a manner of speaking is telling the same story that the Bible is telling. Sure, the characters are different, but the outline is similar.

RESCUE
Michael Oher is a boy that needs to be rescued. He's homeless, roaming the streets with no change of clothes, unable to feed himself and no one to plead his case let alone love or care for him.
The story of mankind from nearly the beginning of the Bible is the story of a people who need the same thing. They need a home. When Adam and Eve sin, in the Garden of Eden, when they try to take God’s authority for themselves, when they rebel against God’s goodness toward them, they lose their home. They’re cast out of God’s presence where they are safe and protected and in perfect fellowship, perfect relationships with their Creator, King and Father.

They are now a sinful people, constantly grasping at false homes and false fathers to try and get back something of what they lost in the garden and they need to be rescued from their false pursuits…they need to go home again.
There’s a story in Ezekiel 16. It’s a prophetic, symbolic allegory. In it, the prophet Ezekiel portrays the sinful people of God as an abandoned child; an orphan abandoned to die, wallowing in her own blood. The story says that no one, literally no one, looks on this child with compassion or care. No one. But God passes by the child and rescues her. He has compassion on her. He adopts her, makes her his own and nourishes her until she becomes the most beautiful thing that anyone has ever laid their eyes on. He loves her as his own and she flourishes because of his love and compassion for her.

I like what movies like The Blind Side can do to remind me about God's compassion for me. Because, if I'm being honest, I'm not like Michael. I am much worse. In my sin, I don't deserve adoption. In my sin I don't deserve compassion because in my sin I persist in my rebellion against God but God, being rich in mercy and rich in compassion rescued me anyway.
This movie, in seeing the selfless compassion that the Tuohy's have for Michael is capable of reminding me that my God has been infinitely more compassionate with me. He rescued me from my sin when I was happy with my sin.

What do stories of rescue do for your view of God? Do they call to mind the ultimate rescue mission of Jesus Christ, on his cross dying to rescue sinful sinners from their sin? I dare say they should. And I dare say the wonder of the best rescue stories will always pale in comparison to the heroics of that beaten, bloody, Jewish carpenter – crucified for you and for me.

NEXT: REGENERATION

One Man Bands

2010-03-28T20:11:00.000-07:00

To quote a friend of mine, a lot of contemporary Christian music is neither. That's why, despite no artistic intention to glorify God, I'm thankful for artists like the ones below. The fact that God has made man capable of producing music like the songs below does, certainly in some sense, glorify God. I just discovered David Ford (don't know where he's been hiding) and I've been a fan of anything of Howie Day's that hasn't made it to Top 40 Radio (his more commercial stuff doesn't compare to his one man shows). Then there's Phil Keaggy, who actually is a Christian and a superior guitar player. I've never really been hooked on his style but I've seen him live and he's one of the best live performers I've ever seen.

Sure, a post like this is thematically divergent from what I normally publish, but I didn't think it would hurt to share some music this time.

David's good enough to drop the mic half way through and not loose his place...

I guess we do have Phil Keaggy. I'm not sure I'm that hooked on the song, but the dude can play (check out minutes 4 through 8 for proof).

Behold...The Kingdom of the Wild Thing Is At Hand!

2010-03-02T11:39:00.000-08:00

Where the Wild Things Are is one of the most profound, imaginative, odd, memory inducing films I've seen in a long, long time. It took me instantly back to my own 9th year, characterized by dirt clods, tunnels and trenches dug for G.I. Joe warfare, snow forts, sibling rivalries and parental drama. It's not a film for kids as much as it is a film that forces adults to remember what being a kid was like and, perhaps, makes us think about how much we haven't changed.

It's not often that I write about films before I see them but after I saw the trailer, Where the Wild Things Are, became one of the few exceptions. That brief article can be read HERE.

This is a film about kings and the kingdoms we build. We meet the young Max and learn immediately that he is a kingdom builder, crafting a snow fort that Max and only Max can fit into. We see him command an imaginary army and scold imaginary soldiers. This is why it's no surprise that Max runs away from home and into his own imagination when the loneliness and conflict of his broken home become too much to tolerate.

His imagination crafts and builds for him a new kingdom, a new home, fashioned in his own image - the image of a wild thing; furry creatures that do whatever they want, play however they want and don't have to worry about any pesky parents or older sisters ruining their fun.

The Wild Things (giant, furry monsters) are eager to crown Max their king when he informs them that he is the sort of king who can eradicate their loneliness, boredom, brokenness and fear. While everything goes well at first and plenty of fun is had by all, Max's new kingdom begins to prove insufficient to bring about the promised peace and "keep the sadness out."

How much are we like Max and the Wild Things? A lot, I think. How often do we crown people in our lives (husbands, wives, children, presidents) expecting them to finally bring us the peace we so desire, the fulfillment we so desire and cure the anger we have because of our suffering? How often do we crown things in our lives (money, sex, alcohol, power/significance, etc.) and expect them to bear the weight of our needy souls?

How often are these things and people crushed under the weight of our expectations and are thereby rejected, resented and divorced by us? It's no coincidence that every one of Max's kingdoms fall. His snow forts are crushed, the vampires in his stories have no teeth, and the Wild Things learn that he has no power to bring them the fulfillment and satisfaction they need.

Wild Thing Alexander realizes this and has what is probably the most important conversation in the movie with Max. It goes something like this:

Alexander: You're not really a king are you? You're normal like us?
Max: Yeah.
Alexander: I knew it. I don't really think there is a king who can do all the things you said.

Do you see how quickly Alexander goes from the idea that if the person or thing that he’s made king of his life turns out to be a fraud, the whole idea of a king (of God) is a fraud?

C.S. Lewis knew better,

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing."

There is a King who can "keep out the sadness". There is a King whose Kingdom will never end and it is at hand.

Mark 1:14-15,

"Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.'"

There is hope for the wild things in us and the damage that they cause on this side of eternity and this hope is not simply the safety and love of home. Our hope is the King who lives there. Repent, wild thing. Come home to your King.

Revelation 21:1-7,

1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

Star Trek: Calling

2010-01-21T13:31:00.000-08:00

I watched the newest Star Trek with the youth group the other night and it prompted some more thoughts I decided were worth unpacking. Not to mention, I've been thinking about Star Trek since blogging on Avatar, or, as Arnold said at the Globes the other night, "Abadar". While the flaws of the Trek reboot still remain, I find myself enjoying it the more I watch it. It's got more going on than I originally gave it credit for and does at least one thing better than any other Trek incarnation.

In case you're unfamiliar with Trek, let me sum up. Kirk is the optimistic Captain. Spock is his logical first officer. McCoy is the grumpy realist. The new Star Trek tells the story of how some crazy Romulan (no time - google it) travels back in time, screws some stuff up and how the characters we've been watching since 1966 wind up in the places we all want them to be (e.g., Kirk in the Captain's chair, Scotty in Engineering, Sulu at the helm, etc.).

What I like about the new Trek more than the old one is that
this film is forced to imply that the utopian dream of Gene Roddenberry is kinda bogus. Of course, Roddenberry can't be slighted for being optimistic about the future, but the idea that over time, as mankind becomes smarter and technologically advanced, things like racism, prejudice, and evil will disappear is just kind of silly.

In the new Trek the problems are not so much about society as they are about the characters. Kirk is self-centered, egotistical and just plain lost, spending his nights hitting on Star Fleet cadets and getting in drunken bar brawls.

Meanwhile, Spock, regardless of time-line alterations, is dealing with his own daddy issues. Spock's father isn't dead, just emotionally unavailable and full of really "great" advice like, "[You are] fully capable of deciding your own destiny."

"Well thanks a pant-load dad, but my Vulcan dictionary says that destiny is a force that decides what happens to me not something I decide. But whatever...words are tricky like that (ahem*whenyoudefinethem*ahem)." Maybe this is why Spock looses his cool so much in this movie. It's ok, Spock. Hallmark advice pisses me off too.

So, these guys have issues and there's nothing about living in a futuristic, technologically affluent society that is able to heal them. Nothing in a scientifically "grown up" society is able do anything for the souls of these men. For Kirk, the definitive thing that sends him on a new course is the entrance of a father figure in his life. To be more specific, it's what this father figure says. Christopher Pike, Captain of the Enterprise, strolls into Kirk's life with a challenge - a call.

"Do you feel like you were meant for something better? Something special? Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives. I dare you to do better."

It's pretty much the best line in the movie and it's the first thing in the trailers that really captured my attention. The call of a father figure to a different life - a greater life - a life of purpose. It's the life we all know Kirk is supposed to be living. I love that there is a father figure that comes into Kirk's life and calls him to something that we, as the audience, know he's meant to be. I love it because the call of a Father is what we all desperately need in order to be rescued from our own sins. This is one of the main reasons that Jesus came into the world. He came to herald the call of his Father,

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel."

Christ preaches to mankind the way Pike "preaches" to Kirk. He preaches to a lost, self-centered people and calls them to a better life, a higher calling; a calling that people were designed to hear and answer.

Then there's Spock. What Spock has to learn and teach himself (literally) in this film is that logic must be put aside in order to do what feels right. Now, that could potentially be pretty bad advice, but what I think old Spock means, when he tells this to his young doppelganger, is that it's obvious where Spock belongs. The timeline of Star Trek history works very hard in this film to correct the changes that the villain has caused - almost as if time itself is conscious of a grand narrative, a design, a purpose, dare I say it...a master storyteller. It's at this point that young Spock finally seems comfortable in his own skin. It's the realization that something else is in ultimate control of the events in his life. Someone else is telling this story and he'll be much better off if he just submits to it.

Now, does this Star Trek intentionally open a door to talk about the sovereignty of God, the master storyteller? I don't think this was intended...but I think it's unavoidable. Once you invite destiny to the party, you've opened the door for personal, fatherly, loving predestination. Ephesians 1 is remarkable to me in light of discussions such as these. Look at how calling, adoption, love and a uniquely Christian definition of destiny are talked about.

"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth."

This is the main thing I like about the new Trek over the old. It's opened the door to Ephesians 1. It's weaknesses will remain as a film, but I'm very grateful for the door that it's opened and excited to see if future installments will have the guts to walk through it.

Avatar: Part Two

2010-01-05T11:02:00.000-08:00

Every movie preaches. It’s really inevitable. Artists have worldviews, beliefs and values that work their way into the art of a film. Whether it is explicit or implied, obvious or subtle, they’re always there.

Star Wars was equal parts dualism and pantheism, an immaterial life force that binds and penetrates all things but has both a light and a dark side to it. Man is morally neutral and must choose his side.
Lord of the Rings was ambiguously monotheistic and accidentally deistic. God was absent while evil reigned and it was man’s duty to rise up and defeat it.
The Matrix was…well…pretty much everything under the sun.

Then there’s Avatar. Avatar is not a complicated film to disseminate (not saying that’s a bad thing) because it’s almost wholly pantheistic. God is all, all is God, therefore every living thing is equally sacred (unless you’re the bad guys – then to hell with you).

To be sure, the script could have been more “preachy”, more explicit than it actually was and it’s not my intention to exasperate the apologists of Avatar or their enthusiasm for the environmental, sanctity of nature message.

As a matter of fact, I can appreciate that, at the very least, a form of religious desire exists in Avatar. I think it’s a distortion of reality, if you will, but I prefer messages of spiritual significance over against the diatribe of pure materialism. In fact, that’s probably why it’s so fun to hate the villains in Avatar. They’re nothing but blood thirsty, money grubbing, materialists. For them, there’s no significance in the make-up of the material universe that points them to anything beyond what they can measure in their wallet or their underwear.

Avatar’s message is that there is a wonder and beauty in the content of the physical universe, which testifies, by virtue of its wonder and beauty that there is something “higher” and more important than we are. This is true, significantly true and shouldn’t be overlooked. In fact it’s one of the virtues of the film and a hopeful sign that a young and enthusiastic fan base in our culture is willing to embrace a higher power.

In Avatar, that higher power is creation itself. We are already prone as people to worship the creation rather than the creator and Avatar only takes half a step toward the truth that we need something more than the creation, something spiritual, something holy and independent that is truly sovereign over us (and can't be destroyed by marines) to satisfy us, quiet our souls and quench our deepest thirst. I know Cameron believes he is giving us spiritual answers and a spiritual reality but he's not. He's just giving us more "stuff". No matter how wondrous this new creation (Planet Pandora) is, it's still a physical thing and no matter what we do, in reality, to improve the human and environmental condition on earth we will never accomplish our own utopia, our own peace.

And yes, I realize I'm being too hard on this thing. I’ll admit it. I know I can’t expect Cameron to give me a subtle, artistic apologia for my personal Christian worldview. It’s his film after all and he’s certainly not a Christian, so why all the criticism?

Well, despite my disappointment I didn't find myself hating this movie in the least bit. It just didn't excite me or tug at the core of my heart and ultimately, I think it failed to do this because it falls so short of the reality that I've come to embrace and love with all my heart.

The human heart was designed to be staggered and awed by its Creator. People need to be devoted to Avatar (and Star Wars, and Star Trek, and the Matrix and so on) because we’re designed to embrace and wonder at the spectacle of God. There’s a big ol’ crater in us where God belongs and when we, obsess over, sacrifice to ($$) and evangelize a film like Avatar, that’s generally what we’re trying to do.

Now, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that a commitment to the quality of Avatar is a statement about your own spiritual destiny. I’m not trying to be pointed or specific about that, but rather say something about mankind that is foundational. I'll admit that I’m just as committed and evangelistic about the movies I love (maybe more so than the average customer). What I am saying is that sometimes, our devotion for a spectacle film can be more about our need for God than it is about the spectacle itself and in the end Avatar pulls us further from what we need to hear than closer to it.

It is interesting however, in light of a discussion like this that the very definition of the word "avatar" is, "somebody who embodies, personifies or is the manifestation of an idea or concept."

In Romans, the apostle Paul says that we've all made avatars for God with the things that he's created, and worshiped them rather than Him. Maybe then, in the end, Cameron's film does point us closer to reality than I first assessed, but I have a feeling Cameron didn't intend to say that we've made the created order a counterfeit God.

Avatar: Part One

2010-01-04T21:21:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the mere fact that I feel multiple posts are justified for a single film is a compliment in and of itself. Avatar is obviously no minor labor of love for director James Cameron and is most certainly a technical achievement. The amount of life in the digital creations alone makes you wish that Mr. Cameron would have been in charge of Lucas' Star Wars prequels. Maybe he could have added some life to the performances too.
For those of you who were counting, it only took me four sentences to take a jab at 'ol Georgie boy.

Avatar is a curious creature, a phenomenon really. It's fan base is growing rapidly and rabidly, salivating over the blogosphere just waiting for nit-wits like myself to poke at it (as soon as I catch my breath from poking at George). To be fair, the fan base probably has every right to be defensive...there's an awful lot of criticism that's more inflammatory and inconsistent than anything* (Star Wars didn't have a complex plot either, people).

I remember seeing the first few trailers for Avatar completely unspoiled and really unprepared for what Cameron had been doing while in hibernation. As such, I'd like to think this enabled a fair bit of neutrality on my part, but that's only my opinion. What I remember feeling and thinking after exposure to Avatar's trailers was more of the same, "huh?" and "whatever" brand of apathy. Then something happened. People started talking about it...and I mean really (Oscar) talking about it. People in freakin' church talking about it.

Was I ready to believe the hype? No. But, I was now excited to see a movie in the theater, ready for an experience (something few movies offer these days). And yes, for you counters, that's four, count 'em, four parenthetical statements. I wanted to like this movie, I really did, but in the end I wound up feeling the exact same way I felt when I watched the trailers. In fact, if not for the enthusiasm surrounding the film, I'm not sure I'd bother writing anything at all. Why? Well, I'd like to try and answer that question, though I don't know how simple it will be.

For me, if watching the Star Wars prequels was like riding a bicycle with no seat, then watching Avatar was like riding a bicycle my friend payed ALOT of money for and really, really enjoys riding, but just isn't my brand or size. Sure, if I had a choice between my friend's bike and riding one with no seat I'll take the one with the seat every time...but then again, I might also decide not to ride at all.

I left the theater wondering if I'd missed something. What had I overlooked? Should I watch it again would I find myself...caring? My first thought was, perhaps, I'm just too conditioned to enjoy the franchise-centric, rehashed, rebooted spoon fed crap that Hollywood's been feeding me the last couple of summers. Isn't it enough to say, "at least Cameron is offering us something original"?

But, the older I get the more I realize what an illusion originality really is, hence the namesake of my blog. Even Avatar, a film not based on a pre-existing franchise, or a reboot of something Joel Schumacher ruined, is still borrowing heavily from older material. There's the lush fantasy oriented grandeur and environmentalness of Fern Gully, the pantheism of Star Wars, and the foreign messiah of Dune to name a few. Actually, I found myself wanting to watch Dune after this film because of how many elements reminded me of it (messianic hero, nifty helicopters, and the taming of the indigenous wild-life as a right of passage, etc.). I'll admit however, no one has come close to making Dune into a worthwhile cinematic experience even though they're still trying.

So here we go...

Next Up:

The Theology of Avatar &

The Message of Avatar

*Kudos to Nolan for pointing me to that hilarious story about the "smoking" criticism Avatar has received.

House and Holmes

2009-12-28T19:49:00.000-08:00

In the handful of reviews I've read for Guy Richie's Sherlock Holmes none have mentioned it's modern equivalent (probably superior) FOX TV's House. What's central to both House and the new Holmes is the relationship between the respective central characters. I believe the trendy term for this relationship is "bromance" (but you didn't hear it from me).

To be fair, the creators of the FOX medical drama have freely confessed House's Holmesian inspiration. House and Holmes even share the same street address but the precise deductions from seemingly irrelevant details are the primary thing the two men share. Fortunately, what the creators of House quickly realized, and what makes Sherlock Holmes a salvageable experience, is the value of a Wilson/Watson character. House and Holmes are the best versions of themselves when Wilson and Watson are around...which explains the juvenille desperation when Watson or Wilson threaten to distance themselves from their genius counter-parts.

While these relationships are undeniably dysfunctional (most credit for the dysfunction going to the obsessive selfishness of Holmes/House) there is something deeply true about the principal that we are the best version of ourselves when we are bound to another person in thought, value and affections.

The author of Ecclesiastes has the definitive thing to say about such tight knit relationships.

Ecclesiastes 4:7,

"Again, I saw vanity under the sun: 8 one person who has no other, either son or brother...,
He continues in vv. 9, 10 and 12,
"9 Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. 10 For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up!
12 And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him—a threefold cord is not quickly broken."

While they're not exactly Frodo and Sam, there's a warmth that emanates from Holmes and his dear Watson that saves the film. This warmth is quite a feat considering the film takes place in foggy Victorian London. Check that...foggy Victorian London with a scheming, murderous, resurrected, lord of the dark arts on the loose.

Ultimately, I think this warmth and entertainment owes itself to the truth that we are the best version of ourselves when knit to someone who will keep us accountable, sharp, and honest. Relationships like this (and especially the actors that perform them) are what give House and Holmes posterity. Without them they would be overcome and forgotten by their own formula. Fortunately, eternal truths have enduring appeal.

McTerminator

2009-12-12T17:11:00.000-08:00

The Terminator series tells the story of a sentient technological system that targets humanity for extinction. Their only threat is the leadership of John Connor. So "the machines" send Terminators (Schwarzenegger looking cyborgs) back in time to kill Connor. The fourth film in the series, Terminator: Salvation (Directed by McG) is the first film to actually focus on the future resistance of the machines under Connor's now "prophetic" leadership. Terminator: Salvation is depressing and disappointing mostly because of how "occasionally" exciting it is. It's a neat trick. It makes you think maybe it's not as bad as it is. After an awkward opening with a new "character" to the series we're introduced to what we're really there to see; John Connor killing Terminators. On this level the film doesn't disappoint and even exceeds expectations. The prime example being a single shot with no cuts which captures Connor as he climbs into a helicopter, pursues an enemy ship only to be hit and crash upside down. The camera stays on Connor from the ground, to the helicopter, in the cockpit, and rolls with him when he crashes. It's probably done digitally...actually it's definitely done digitally but it looks great and feels like the stylistic evolution this series needs to take (if you're going to bother, that is).
The original Terminator films, while their thrills endure because of how notoriously hard their "cybernetic organisms" are to kill, were really about how hard it is to kill the human will to survive and determine their own destiny. How else do you explain the fact that futuristic machines designed to infiltrate and terminate humanity failed time and time again to kill Linda Hamilton and her barely pubescent son, John Connor? No matter what the "future" throws at the Connors, they run, they fight and preach to themselves that there is "no fate but what we make for ourselves." The problem with the series began when this theme was turned on it's head in Terminator 3. In this film we discovered that no matter how hard the human will fought against it, Judgment Day was in fact, unavoidable...determined even. It's not that I don't philosophically sympathize with the 180 change in premise, but Salvation introduces a whole new problem. It wants to honor and maintain the "no fate" theme while taking place in a future that doesn't really differ from the one predicted in the first film.
I suppose it's funny when you think about it. While trying to undo the changes from Terminator 3, "Salvation" unwittingly proves the premise of Terminator 3; "there is no fate but what fate makes."
Between the film's identity crisis, all the blather about the "uniqueness of the human heart" and how "everyone deserves second chances" it turns out to be a mixed bag of not so subtle sentiments about humanity and some occasionally great action pieces. What's really depressing however, is the attempt to reclaim the theme of human self-determination in the midst of undeniably predetermined circumstances. It's not that pre-determined circumstances are depressing necessarily; it's that an impersonal "fate" is incapable of personal compassion and is therefore incapable of providing any lasting or meaningful hope for mankind. Mankind is left to hope in mankind alone and that's precisely why Terminator: Salvation can't be saved.

Top Ten(ish) Movies of the Decade

2009-12-11T22:11:00.000-08:00

It's the end of the decade and everyone is making lists. Just to be clear, by no means or in anyway do I think of myself or this blog as an authority on the best of what the cinematic world offered us this decade past. However, like all other bloggers out there, I do think I'm better than you and you should listen to whatever I say and believe it without reservation or question.

Here are my favorite films of the decade. Note the following disclaimers...

1. This list was not assembled in any scientific or organized fashion

2. This list will overlook films that deserve to be on it (I'm poor. Movies are expensive. Move on).

3. This started out as a top ten list but then I changed my mind (see disclaimer #1).

4. Movies are listed alphabetically rather than by order of preference.

5. I reserve the right to change my mind later.

Here you go...

Batman Begins

It's all I ever wanted a Batman movie to be.

Black Snake Moan

Awkward. Funny. Violent. Painful. Redemptive. Kind of like the bible.

The Bourne Supremacy

This is the one that created the phenomenon.

Brick
The best one on this list that you've never watched.

Collateral

I loved this movie even when it wasn't cool to love Tom Cruise.

The Dark Knight

Let me state for the record I was on this band wagon before Joel Schumacher could say, "let's put nipples on the batsuit."

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

The most accessible Kaufman piece of work I've seen to date and definitely my favorite "romantic(ish) comedy(ish)" of the decade.

The Fountain
You either love it or you hate it. I still remember the relief of seeing my dear friend Nolan walk out of the theater and respond to my curious gaze with a relaxed nod and a, "Yeah" of absolute philosophical and critical certitude.

Hot Fuzz

"Have you ever fired a gun whilst jumping through the air?"

"No."

"...have you ever fired two guns whilst jumping through the air?"

"No!"

"What was it like being stabbed?"

"It was the single most painful experience of my life."

"What was the second most painful?"

Inside Man

I don't know what yours is, but this is my favorite Post 9/11 commentary.

Kill Bill (Volume 1 & 2)

"You have every right to want to get even..."

"No, no, no, no, no. No, to get even, even-Steven...I would have to kill you...go up to NIkki's room, kill her...then wait for your husband, the good Dr. Bell, to come home and kill him. That would be even, Vernita. That'd be about square."

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

I knew Robert Downey Jr. was back before you did. I tried to tell you.

Lord of the Rings

Yeah, I'm one of those who counts all three as one film. Sorry, I have no excuse.

Mission Impossible III

It's pure fun without being wholly stupid (that reminds me, Happy New Year Mr. Michael Bay)

Once

Still singing "Say it to Me"...poorly...but still.

The Prestige

Give me more Kool-Aid Mr. Nolan, I don't care what they say!

Rocky Balboa

Seriously.

Serenity

This film at its very core mocks everything that the Star Wars prequels represent...and George didn't even notice.

Shaun of the Dead

"Don't forget to kill Philip."

Stranger Than Fiction

Mmmmm....the warm blanket of admitting that you're in control of sooooo little.

How It's Done: Wilson vs. Hitchens

2009-11-20T13:29:00.000-08:00

Last year Bill Maher, in collaboration with Larry Charles, released the film Religulous. The subject: document Maher's interactions with various religious peoples and organizations in order to "examine" and "evaluate" their claims. The result? Well, at best, Maher's observations and criticisms are fantastic grounds for discourse. Bill Maher is a divisive personality, so it's no surprise that most of the people he talked to were relatively irritated or repulsed by his questions. There were many instances where his questions were legitimate and important. However, at worst, Religulous reveals itself to be less about the search for true religion and more about the defamation of all religion. It becomes regularly apparent (unless I'm totally ignorant) that Maher's quest is not one of enlightenment or genuine searching but is actually designed to make religious people look stupid. Fortunately for Maher, many of them are. Unfortunately for Maher, he never really talked to any Christians who actually seemed to know what they were talking about, when I know for a fact there are plenty that do. I will go out on a limb and say that if Maher's search was birthed from an authentic search for the truth, he could not come to conclusions such as these,

"The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions, is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble and that is what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting s*** dead wrong."

What's funny about Maher's call to "humility"? What's funny is that it's not humble at all. If Maher was being consistent here then he must admit the humble thing to do, at the very least, would be to doubt his doubt. Why is his atheism (i.e., religion) exempt from his own standard of doubt? But I digress. The real reason for this post is to point you to a film that actually knows how to present an even handed, unbiased presentation of, essentially, the same debate.

Collision: Hitchens vs. Wilson, is a fantastically interesting Documentary that chronicles the book/debate tour between prominent Anti-Theist, Christopher Hitchens and Pastor Douglas Wilson over the question, "Is Christianity Good for the World?"

I cannot recommend viewing this film highly enough.

What is so great about Collision?

Several things:
1. Both Wilson and Hitchens are very intelligent men who argue their points quite clearly and accessibly. Rarely, does this film fly over the audience's capacity to follow the arguments.
2. Both Wilson and Hitchens like each other. They get along and it's fun to watch the two men demonstrate the possibility of civil disagreement.
3. Hitchens rarely, if ever, demonstrates apathy for hearing and trying to understand Wilson's Christian position, in fact he's downright inquisitive and even impressed with Wilson quite frequently.
4. Wilson is the sort of Christian you wish Bill Maher had tried to interview. He's loving (even jolly), intelligent, articulate, and uniquely Christian in his responses to Hitchens. Which is to say, he does not attempt to prove Christianity through reason but rather presupposes the revelation of God through Christ and the Bible thereby rightly subjecting reason itself to the revelation of God. Few apologists see that, when they try to prove Christianity by appealing to reason, they are in fact assuming reason is the objective standard by which we determine something is true. Wilson realizes that if he does this, he's implying that God's revelation is not a sufficient authority. Hitchens sees this problem too and obviously respects Wilson for not playing into it.

It's 80 minutes long and is just plain fun to watch. Watch it!

Batman & Halloween

2009-10-31T19:37:00.000-07:00

If there is a holiday that lends itself to a Batman movie marathon it would be Halloween. A movie about a man that dresses up as a bat-man to frighten criminals into submission certainly lends itself to the opportunistic senses of basic cable programming. This year’s winner: ABC Family. Yes folks, it’s Halloween, so why not round up the family, plop down in front of the TV and watch your favorite costumed avenger battle a homicidal clown, a perverted penguin monster thingy, and…wait for it…Jim Carrey! Muuuwaaahahahahahaaa!
This year’s marathon (of course) consists of Tim Burton’s Batman, Batman Returns and Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever rather than the vastly superior Batman Begins or The (too soon for TV) Dark Knight. If it were not Halloween it almost wouldn’t seem right to watch any of these movies. As a lifelong fan of the Batman mythos it’s not hard to criticize most of the artistic choices in each of these films. At the heart of each film are two severely irresponsible interpretations of the character.

1. Multiple Personality Disorder Batman?

To Tim Burton and screenwriter Warren Skaaren, Batman was a hero only in the sense that his emotional, psychological needs happened to line up with Gotham City’s greatest good. To them, Batman was a split personality who terrorized the criminals of Gotham City to exercise his own psychotic need for revenge. In both Burton’s and Schumacher’s films we see Bruce/Batman struggle to choose which personality will dominate. The best comic material in Batman’s history rarely toys with these notions. There’s been a consistent understanding that Bruce Wayne is a man who wears masks and neither the public mask of Bruce Wayne nor the iconic mask of the Batman cause the boy who tragically lost his parents to forget who he is. Burton and Schumacher obviously thought mild psychosis was far more interesting territory.

2. Batman’s quest for Revenge

As of 1989’s Batman, the cinematic Dark Knight was no longer a selfless hero. Batman’s battle was no longer characterized by a drive to nightly protect others from the sort of tragedy that he himself suffered as a child. Under the guidance of Burton’s macabre sensibilities the Batman was transformed into a psychologically damaged revenge freak, not the pursuer of justice that characterizes the bulk of Batman’s comic career. What the comics have long portrayed, and what Christopher Nolan’s new films understand, is that Bruce Wayne/Batman is not out for revenge. He does not serve himself nor his unsatisfied desire for revenge. Rather, he is a servant to the citizens of Gotham and a force for justice in the city he loves.

These things have nearly always been central to Batman’s character and it seems odd that multi-million dollar productions would overlook them. Thankfully, Christopher Nolan and David Goyer knew exactly what had long been ignored in Batman’s cinematic history and brought us something that resembled something true to the real spirit of the character.

All that said, it seems to me that Halloween is the one day of the year that watching these older Batman films is permissible. On Halloween films like these can be treated as products of an alternate, non-canonical Batman universe – a set of tales we all know fail at their core to tell a REAL Batman story, but are tolerated as juvenile experiments with the Batman mythology. In this way (and I would humbly submit it's the only way) can these films truly be enjoyed.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to return to viewing the guilty pleasure silliness of rubber nipple bat-suits, a 30-year-old Robin, and a 5’6” Batman.

*Sound off in the comments with your favorite quirk from the Pre-Nolan Batman catalogue but remember, Adam West and George Clooney are awfully easy targets.

Chocolate Paradise

2009-10-10T19:27:00.000-07:00

What's your idea of Heaven? There are a variety of opinions. I was watching Scrubs today and Zach Braff's character thinks there will be milk shake swimming pools...which sounds ok, I guess. I also heard Miley Cyrus on the radio one time say that she's sure there will be music in Heaven. Thanks, Miley.
C.S. Lewis once said something to the effect of trying to imagine Heaven would be like trying to explain to a small child that there was something better than chocolate. It's difficult to imagine what Heaven will be like because, well, we've never been there. However, we have experienced significant pleasures and there are, in this life, things that serve as shadows of the paradise to come.
I think Charlie and the Chocolate Factory circles this concept. I can remember being a child and watching the first cinematic adaptation of Dahl's classic, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" and being swept up in the utopian feeling of Wonka's fantastical factory. Certainly if you were to ask a child what their idea of Heaven would be, Wonka's factory would qualify. I don't know whether or not Charlie and the Chocolate Factory intentionally tries to symbolize some spiritual realities but if it doesn't, it certainly seems to stumble across them.

The Children
Take the children as one example. All of them (except Charlie) exhibit several of Catholicism's 7 deadly sins.

You've got...

Augustus Gloop the Glutton

Violet Beauregarde the Prideful

Veruca Salt the Greedy

and Mike Teavee full of Wrath

There seems to be some clear symbolism going on here with the children and what they receive for their character. For instance, Veruca is sent down the garbage chute, which leads to the incinerator. Does it get more obvious than that? It seems like they're saying, at the very least, that there should be justice in the world and that evil deserves to be punished.

The Factory
Then there is the factory itself. I think Wonka’s factory, in a way, symbolizes something of a Biblical Paradise. Think about it…at first, things are good in the factory and the world around it. People are prosperous and happy to be working in it until spies and villains are sent in and begin to corrupt it. At that point, everyone is cast out, resulting in the poverty and suffering of it’s former workers.

Then, suddenly, without warning the factory opens up again and people spend their lives wishing they could get back in to see what’s going on. I'm just saying, it's not totally unlike Adam and Eve being expelled for giving into the temptation of Satan and humanity's ongoing expectation for God to restore paradise.

It's relatively complementary to the Christian idea that we have a creator, we have a design, we are wired in a certain way and that, as humans, a part of us will always be looking for what Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden. We want that peace. We want a paradise to live in. We want the suffering to end, the labor to end, the broken relationships to end, the oppressive weight of sin and injustice to end. The problem with us is that we try to make these things happen in all the wrong ways. We’re sinful and corrupted. None of us are Charlie. At our core, we’re Augustus, or Veruca, or Violet or Mike Teavee (Ephesians 2:1-3).

To put it in the terms of the movie, if we were invited to Wonka’s factory we would either not have the sense to go, or we would be cast out as the wicked children we are. We haven’t grown out of what Adam and Eve did and in and of ourselves it doesn’t seem there’s much hope for us to be anywhere near as virtuous or honest as Charlie is.
However, the message of Christianity is that there is someone who IS innocent. There is someone who IS sinless and by putting our faith in him we might finally have what we we’ve been aimlessly looking for all or lives.

2 Corinthians 5 says it this way,
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

To me, the frightening thing about God is that when I look into my own heart and life, if I’m being honest, I’m not good enough to stand in his presence and I’ve got no tricks up my sleeve or means at my disposal to make myself worthy, much less make me into a person that God is actually going to want to spend eternity with.
That is why Christians love Jesus Christ so much. It’s because the message of Christianity is that when some one turns from their sin because they love Jesus, they surrender to Jesus and they want to serve and honor Jesus – God doesn’t look at their guilt – He looks at Christ, whose blood was spilled on the cross as a punishment for our evil and whose life guarantees our eternal peace with God.

In the end, what I like best about this movie is that, despite the fact that there’s some obvious Paradise symbolism when it comes to the factory, the film actually admits that Wonka’s factory can’t do anything for Charlie or fulfill his most precious dreams. In the end, the Factory is no paradise at all without his family. I think that’s a very big indictment of man’s efforts to create paradise. Whatever we do to make life better, safer, cleaner, happier is always going to fall short of what mankind needs the most. Of course, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory holds that thing up as family, i.e., "paradise wouldn’t be paradise without a family." In a sense, I’m ok with spiritualizing that message but I think if we’re going to point to ultimate reality and be as accurate and truthful as possible, it’s better to say paradise wouldn’t be paradise without Jesus.

So here's the question again, "What's your idea of heaven?" Answering that question is a good way to assess what you love more than God and probably what needs to be trashed in order to inherit eternal life.

The Golden Ticket
The greatest line in the movie, I think, is when Charlie tells his family that he’s going to sell the Golden Ticket in order to provide for them and his Grandfather tells him, “Charlie, this isn’t an opportunity you get just everyday. Only a dummy would throw it away for something as common as money.”
So, what is common in our lives that’s going to cost us an eternal paradise in the presence of Jesus Christ, who made us to experience the unending pleasure of knowing and worshipping him forever?
In Matthew 13:44 Jesus tells his followers, “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”

Funny. Doesn't Make Much Sense Though.

2009-10-10T14:17:00.000-07:00

Ricky Gervais is probably the funniest atheist working today. That’s why it comes as no surprise that The Invention of Lying, co-written and directed by Gervais, would have a uniquely humorous premise: “A world where everyone tells the absolute truth no matter what.” And, as a matter of fact, the first 45 minutes or so are pretty hysterical. The best moments in this universe are the ones that wouldn’t immediately come to mind, like, “what would commercials be like?”

“Hi. I’m Bob and I work for Coke. I’m here to ask you to not stop buying Coke. It’s a little sweet and can make you fat no matter how carefully you diet. Coke. It’s very famous.”

Then, there’s Pepsi, “For when they don’t have Coke.”

Gervais plays Mark Bellison a self described, “Chubby loser” whose bad luck turns for the better when he becomes the only man in the entire world who can lie. What begins with the tone of a modern, comedic fable becomes an explicit commentary on religion and atheism. It would be easy to say that this film is an atheistic playground. In fact I’ve already heard people refer to it as an “Atheist Manifesto.” However, I don’t think Gervais does any ultimate credit to the atheistic camp.

The shift in tone occurs when Bellison’s mother is lying on her deathbed, confiding her fears about death to her son, as if an eternal dark nothingness is a foregone conclusion. Bellison, being the only man capable of lying, tells her that when she dies there won’t be nothingness. In fact she’ll regain her youth, go to a mansion in the sky and enjoy it forever with all her best friends. The only thing sadder at this point in the movie than realizing that you’re watching a film more atheistic than Happy Feet is that Bellison’s description of Heaven is not remotely Christian and yet many Christians will probably feel personally assaulted.

From here, word gets out that Mark Bellison knows exactly what happens after you die and, in order to appease the curiosity of the woman he loves, he tells the world that there’s a "Man in the Sky" who controls everything, good and bad, and if you do bad things you won’t get to live with him in the sky when you die. And there it is...

Religion would not exist in a world where people could only tell the truth.

What I’m not sure Gervais realizes is that the world of “truth” he’s created sucks just as much as the real world. In fact, it’s a world that seems to be desperate for meaning outside of it’s own existence and no one should see this more clearly than Bellison, who can’t be with the woman he loves because he’s not a good genetic match. Even Gervais seems to see the absurdity in the logical implications that atheism has for personal, romantic relationships…otherwise people in that world wouldn’t recite wedding vows like these,
“Do you Brad, agree to stay married to Anna as long as you want to and protect your offspring as long as you can?”

When the atheistic writer of the film seems to see the foolishness in such bio-centric, emotionally detached relationships he winds up undermining his entire premise doesn't he? After all, if you’re going to go ahead and admit that love is more than biology, then you’ve pretty much filmed your way into a philosophical, theological corner and done nothing more than make this Theist laugh at the folly of Atheism.

What About Bob: The Ego Maniac and the Orphan

2009-09-16T17:38:00.000-07:00

"What About Bob?" tells the story of Bob Wiley, his psychiatrist, Leo Marvin and the series of events and relationships that help Bob overcome the phobias that plague his life.

If you've seen the movie you might be wondering, "what on earth is he going to get out of this movie that is remotely useful or profound?" I would have thought the same thing after seeing it the first time. The first time I watched "What About Bob?" I did not like it. Thoroughly disliked it actually. I don't know why I ever gave it a second chance but it was enough to convince me that this was actually a very funny, very insightful movie with a lot to say to those of us that are not quite as concerned as we should be for other people.

At it's basic core are two character types:
1. The Ego-maniac
2. The Spiritual Orphan

Leo Marvin is the Ego-maniac, a successful, published psychiatrist on the verge of becoming a media darling for his new book, "Baby Steps." Bob, is a multi-phobic, clingy, socially naive, basket case who thinks Leo is the answer to all his problems. Of course on the surface that makes sense, after all, Leo seemingly has everything Bob wants. He has a successful career, loving wife, children and family and nothing really seems to bother him. He's a picture of health and confidence - the complete opposite of Bob.

But, he's not as put together as Bob thinks. In fact, he's totally obsessed with himself and his own success. Even on vacation he has little time for his family, primarily due to his obsession with an imminent interview on Good Morning America. He's so obsessed with himself that after spending 3 minutes with Bob in their first session he's decided that the best treatment for Bob is to read "Baby Steps." He's not at all interested in caring for Bob in a way that meets his needs. He simply offers his packaged, programmed steps to psychiatric health. Leo is an evident ego maniac because, despite choosing a career that is designed to help people the only "help" he offers Bob either requires no effort on his part (gives him a book) or further distances Bob from what he needs (he tells him to take a vacation from his problems so that he can get back to his own vacation).

I think Leo's hypocrisy can warn us all. We can be brilliant diagnosticians. We can accurately and insightfully see what people's needs are but we can, like Leo, do nothing to help those people, build those people up, love those people and meet their needs. Many times, when the Bob Wileys come into our lives we're naturally prone to belittle them, mock them and do everything we can to distance ourselves and distinguish ourselves from them. Even Leo's most (seemingly) effective advice is designed to remove Bob from his life and his family's life (something Bob needs).

If Leo were in my church I'd want him to read James 1
"14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

I read a lot of reviews of "What About Bob?" and in many of them there was a confession that each of us has probably had their own Bob Wiley in their life. I think if we were to attempt to put Bob into a biblical typology we'd have to say he's something of an orphan. Of course, this is not literally so, but is rather a spiritual condition. He has no one pouring God's love into him, no one caring for him, no one caring for him in his distress.

Consider James again,
"27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

God's compassion for orphans is evident in Deuteronomy 10,
"17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. 18 He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing."

God is a God that cares for those who no one else cares about and God’s children, Christians, are called to have a heart for these people. Bob is an orphan in the sense that no one else cares about him and no is really trying to meet his most basic needs. As Christians we believe mankind's most basic need is to know and worship Jesus Christ and to be a part of his church – be in relationship to Him and the church that he died for, in order to be at peace with God and daily experience the happiness of knowing him and having deep, significant relationships with other people in the church.

I imagine that, at times, many of us were orphans – we didn’t have anybody who was concerned about whether or not we had a relationship with Jesus Christ. I imagine that, at times, many of us are ego maniacs when it comes to our lifestyles, Christian or not – and we don’t care about people enough to get right down to their most basic need.
I wonder if that’s where a lot of us who grew up in church are at. We have an uncanny sin radar and can detect doctrinal fallacy miles away...we just have no desire to do anything about it. So the question is, "Will we persist in our ego-mania, acting like our faith is just for us or are we going to reach out and care for people by sharing with them the best news that they will ever hear?" I can promise you, that should you step outside of your comfort zone to care for the spiritual orphan, introduce them to Jesus Christ, bring them into the fellowship of his Church, you will be blessing and serving someone much like Bob was served and blessed by being connected to a family that cared for and loved him.

As cheesy as it sounds, the love of a family changed Bob’s life. I would suggest to you that these stories exist because God wants to give us a shadow and picture of how transforming his love can be.

"By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and truth."

I John 3:16-18

District 9 Makes Star Trek Feel Like an Even Bigger Waste of Time

2009-08-15T14:01:00.000-07:00

Finally! Seriously. Finally, the summer has given us a movie actually worth thinking and talking about. Despite many, many reviews to the contrary, District 9 isn't doing anything new. At the core it is a message film about racism, intolerance, poverty, greed, and good ol' fashioned human evil. Star Trek and the Twilight Zone were preaching social messages in Sci-fi packaging long before District 9 was ever conceived. This time around, the message is packaged like Cloverfield (documentary style footage) but it becomes so much more than Cloverfield ever managed to be and is way, way smarter.
The premise, in case you're unfamiliar, is that 20 years ago a massive alien space ship broke down over Johannesburg, South Africa and now hovers near the city. The government, uncertain about what to do with a malnourished, leaderless, worker bee society of aliens places them in a strip of land outside Johannesburg labeled District 9. What was meant to be a rescue/relief effort turns into a South African alien slum and the inhabitants, once the simple victims of human aid, are now the victims of, among other things, sinister capitalism, bigotry, racism, and intolerance. As one South African states, "It would be different if they were just from another country, but they're from another planet...so...they need to just go away." Of course, we all know it wouldn't be different if they weren't aliens. We know this because there's enough human history behind us to realize that we're often far more inclined to act in a way that preserves our comfort, improves our status or permits our cowardice.
At first, you might be inclined to sympathize with the "main" character, Wikus Van De Merwe, a corporate lackey tasked with serving eviction notices to the aliens, derogatorily referred to as 'Prawns', in order to move them to a new location with that "new concentration camp smell." He's a sympathetic character at first, despite the apparent pleasure he takes in his wretched job, not because he's particularly heroic, but because he's kind of a loser. You feel for the guy and you want him to wake up and change from an ignorant, judgmental loser to a sympathetic one.
I suppose you could say this happens, but it happens in the least polished, least Hollywood way. What the audience is treated to, other than the sci-fi trappings of humans exploding from alien laser blasts, is a man who is judged with the same measurement and standard with which he has judged others. How this happens, well, I'll leave that for you to discover...let's just say he moves well beyond sympathy into full on empathy and it's a riveting thing to behold.

Escapism

2009-07-20T18:51:00.000-07:00

As a general rule I don't think entertainment should be pure escapism. When most people want to minimize the absurdity of a film, or especially the poor quality of a film (Hi, Star Trek! You still kinda suck) their defense for enjoying what is undeniably awful is that it is just simple 'entertainment'. In other words, "I don't go to think. I go to be entertained." Fine. But what's the definition of entertainment? Well, I'm so glad I asked.
Here it is according to Merriam-Webster...

en·ter·tain a: to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind

Because film is so often, if not always, intentionally communicating something, and because we are prone to hold in the mind the things which entertain us, I find it far more rewarding (even in poor films) to think about and analyze what I'm watching so that I'm not prone to indulge in careless banality. All that said, however, it has occurred to me that there can be a virtue in treating certain films as escapist entertainment.

I think doing so can be illustrative of a human need to escape and a human hope for a final escape from the pain, conflict, fears, and decay of our present world. Take the trailer for the upcoming film, Where The Wild Things Are. I saw this in front of the new Harry Potter film and it's a shame really, but this 2 minute trailer was more enthralling and heart tugging than the 2 hour slog fest that was Harry Potter.

Apparently, the film is based on a children's picture book (one I have yet to read) about a boy who is sent to his room before dinner for talking back to his mother. In his room he escapes into his own imagination in order to disassociate himself from the fear of punishment and the anger he feels for being scolded. In his imagination is a whole new world filled with mystical creatures and wild adventures too wonderful to be contained in the real world. The concept of escaping this world, filled with antagonism, fractured families, painful tears and seemingly impossible conflicts for a new world - a redeemed world is certainly something I can applaud and by which be entertained. Now, am I certain that my initial assessment of this project is going to be accurate? Well, no. But it's certainly more interesting than the banal escapism of Michael Bay's transforming robots.

"3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:3-4).

I highly recommend checking out the trailer!

From Where Do True Love Stories Come? Part 2

2009-07-01T11:16:00.000-07:00

* First, a disclaimer: The origin of this post was actually a youth group lesson designed to challenge the students concept of dating and whether or not they were glorifying God in their "romantic" choices. I decided not to edit it (because I'm lazy). Enjoy.

Ah..."wuv...twoo wuv". Certainly the Messianic undertones of Westley's character, shadowed though they may by, are never more clear than by viewing Buttercup's reactions to Westley. I often find myself forgetting that Westley and Buttercup weren't always in love. The theme of "true love" is so painted across the entire canvas of this film that it's easy to forget that Buttercup was kind of a self-righteous wench who cared to do nothing but torment Westley.
The story tells us that her greatest pleasure was selfishly ordering Westley around with menial, labor-intensive chores. Yet, Westley was always very gracious with her. What’s surprising is that one day, Buttercup doesn’t even really see Wesley. One day he’s there to simply make her life easier and the next when she realizes what Wesley is saying ("As you wish") and who he is and what he’s like it changes her.
Many of us might treat Christ in the way that Buttercup treats Westley in the beginning of the film. Christ is there to make my life easier. When things go wrong I blame him and when I want something for myself I pray to him, but I’m not terribly concerned about whether he might expect something from me. That’s the funny thing about how many people treat Jesus. They recognize that he was a wise, loving person – they never consider that maybe, just maybe he’s the God of the universe who has very clear statements on what he expects from us.
But there’s something almost supernatural that happens to Buttercup when she really sees Westley for the first time. It’s similar to how Paul describes the conversion of the Christian in II Corinthians 4, “For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."
One day, life was normal and Christ was not important. The next, something supernatural happens to us and we see him for who he really is and how much he deserves our worship and our obedience and our trust and we, for lack of a better term, fall in love with him spending the rest of lives thinking about how we can please him. We find ourselves tasting the first fruits of what Adam and Eve knew in the Garden of Eden – the beginnings of a relationship with God that is designed to bring us lasting happiness.
There is something frightfully significant in the idea that intimate, romantic relationships are designed to reflect Christ’s Love of his Bride, his rescuing of his bride, and his redeeming of his bride (Ephesians 5).
It means that romantic relationships are designed 1. To Lead to Marriage and 2. Draw the two people closer to Christ, which is to say that such a relationship is supposed to create worship. If it doesn’t it’s not a loving relationship. It’s not a loving relationship because it’s not meeting a person's greatest need – the need to know and worship God. So the question you have to ask yourself in a dating relationship or before you start a dating relationship is “Will this bring both of us closer to Christ and will it glorify Christ - will it create worship?”
If not…I would submit to you that you’re sinning and that you need to do something about that. I would submit to you that the most important need in your life is to worship God and that you cast off the things that hinder you in such a cause. If that’s your boyfriend or your girlfriend or if it’s simply the fantasy of a boyfriend or a girlfriend, whatever it is – throw it overboard and devote your energy to worshiping God – because that’s the best thing for both of you and will make you better husbands and wives someday.
I would submit to you also, and finally that Christ will not disappoint you. We see Westley, and an assortment of characters do and say incredibly powerful, significant things for love and justice in this movie. Westley is a heroic force to be reckoned with but the reality is that he’s nothing but a shadow of the security we have in Christ and the power of Christ to rescue us from sin, redeem us from our sin, and to keep us holy and righteous.
Westley fails several times in this movie to be the hero he should be. One, he leaves Buttercup in the beginning of the film, allowing her to think he’s dead and two, he looses her after the fire swamp. But we see Christ being a wholly different kind of hero. Not only does he rescue his bride he can’t lose her.
In John 6 Jesus says,
"37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Simply put, Christ keeps, what Christ saves. He is perfect. And he is ultimately deserving of your worship because he’s Holy, perfect, just, good and loving and every other place you run for pleasure will only put you in an eternal hole. Why settle for something less?

Transformers: Mixed Messages on Intercession and Manhood

2009-06-26T17:50:00.000-07:00

Two years ago Hollywood dangled the dream of a live action Transformers film (i.e., my childhood obsession) in my face only to subsequently grind that dream up in a highly non-sensical, over-charged, poorly shot piece of Hollywood trash that still makes my brain bleed. You can read my reviews/blind rage rants (please forgive me) here and here.

There are a lot of narrative images and references that invite comments and exposition. Phrases like, "No sacrifice, no victory" are certainly a spring board into the atonement. The idea of the "evil" in the film actually hiding in plain site, subtly infiltrating the height of human security, often without our knowledge. The bad guys are even called Decepticons for crying out loud! If that's not a spring board into the role of Satan I don't know what is. But for the sake of mustering as much brevity as I can manage we won't be going there.
Growing up I would not have articulated my obsession with Transformers in this way but to me it was always about unabashed heroism, almost always personified in Autobot leader Optimus Prime. There was something comforting and inspiring about watching a morally unflappable character model bravery, integrity, and a really freakin' huge lazer rifle.
So, it doesn't surprise me that the film version would have a "moral center" or message. The question is, "Is it a valuable one?" Additionally, and perhaps more pertinent "Is that moral message even consistently and compellingly portrayed?"

One of the elements of Transformers that stands apart from the cartoon is the literal human focus, characterized in this film by Shia LaBeouf's, Sam Witwicky. It's not that the original cartoon didn't have a human element - it just didn't need humans to achieve those moments. This is not the case in Michael Bay's "Robot" movie. So much so that there are actual shots in the movie where the camera will focus on Sam running and hiding in a ditch when two of the Transformers are fighting and dialoguing back and forth. It's one of the few action movies I've seen where the camera will actually, quite often, not show you the action. Novel, isn't it?

What's not novel about this film is that human core, I mentioned. Transformers tries to follow in the footsteps of many other blockbusters wherein a young (maybe idealistic, maybe cynical) boy is thrust into extraordinary circumstances that awaken him to some greater reality. I think many times, when this is done well, it resonates with the audience deeply. Most of my favorite blockbuster films follow this same formula. Star Wars has Luke awakened to the power of the Force. Frodo is awakened to the power of the Ring. Neo takes the red pill and enters a whole new reality, etc.

Sam Witwicky is closer to Neo than Luke Skywalker (though he pales in comparison to both) as a cynical, insecure teenager, thrust into his circumstances rather than seeking them. In fact, he's seeking anything but a greater reality as is apparent by all his efforts and energy being expended by the mission for the trifecta of teenage bliss: car, hot girlfriend, make-out with hot girlfriend on hood of aforementioned car.

There's an interchange of perspectives in this film about what real manhood is. Obviously, for Sam, the above formula is pretty much what life is all about. However, it's not long before he's shown another world that has infiltrated his. He's told that beyond his sight there wages a centuries old, cosmic war and that the main aggressor has fallen to earth seeking a final and decisive victory. Sound familiar? I thought so.
Sam is forced to realize that there is something out there far more important than himself and his desires that, for the duration of the film, become far less important. More than that, he realizes that the consequences of not picking a side, not setting aside his own ambition, could be dire, even fatal for everyone around him.
Not only has evil infiltrated and set it's sights on Sam but saviors have descended to earth as well, taking the form of things common to creation. They have come to protect earth, sam, and defeat the evil Decepticons. They are the mediators, the intercessors who will stand between humanity and the evil that wages against it. But that's about as far as the divine narrative is reflected. Just when you think the Autobots are about to take over the movie and display all their transforming glory the film persists in focusing on Sam and even making Sam the hero and savior of the story. The Transmediators absolutely suck at their job! When they're not contributing to the carnage and destruction they sit on the sidelines waiting for the humans to decide what to do. Since the humans decide to take the one thing the Decepticons are looking for and drive it right into the middle of THE CITY (thereby ensuring the maximum amount of death and chaos), I'm guessing the Autobots might want to get off the bench more often.
In the end Sam is the hero of the film, even dealing the victory blow to the last decepticon left standing. The first time I watched the film I knew something didn't feel right about that. It should be Optimus Prime who wins the day FOR Sam. It should be the mediator who comes in and saves the day. Sam can't be his own hero. There's just something backwards about that when you compare it to the way the world really works. That is what is most disappointing about Transformers. The heroes have been transformed into powerless servants of human self-fulfillment and while the film wants you to think Sam has learned something about manhood in this 2.5 hour course of mediocrity, the reality is that he'll probably waste that new-found manhood attempting to maintatin the lustful trappings of his old life: car, girl, make-out with girl on hood of car.

"Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 Make the heart of this people dull,
and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”
Isaiah 6:9-10

From Where Do True Love Stories Come? Part 1

2009-06-26T10:25:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, after my youth group and I watched The Princess Bride together, I said this to them, "I would submit to you that most of the Bible is really the greatest love story ever told and that the greatest love stories or romance adventures hint in someway at the epic tale that the Bible really is." It is a love story because, primarily, it is the story of Christ radically and definitively rescuing and redeeming his bride.

Let's unpack some of the imagery of the Princess Bride and see where it ultimately points.

WESLEY AS A CHRIST FIGURE
Wesley’s entire effort in this movie is focused on rescuing the woman he loves from danger whether it’s physical or whether it’s emotional. He rescues her from the physical dangers of the fire swamp and he rescues her from the emotional danger of being married to someone named Humperdinck.
The idea of a hero who rescues his bride from mortal danger comes directly from the God who determined to rescue his own bride before the foundation of the world(Ephesians 1:4; Revelation 13:8). We read in the Bible that man and woman are created in God’s image. One of the first stories in the Bible is God creating Eve and presenting her to Adam – it’s the first wedding really - and he says, "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and the two will become one flesh." God says this is a relationship that is significantly different than every other relationship because it’s designed to reflect the glory of God.
Paul says in Ephesians 5 that the entire point of the marriage relationship is to point to Christ’s love for the Church and this continues the theme throughout Scripture of God referring to his people as his bride.
The problem is that while we see this good, God glorifying relationship formed early in Genesis we see it almost immediately devolve into sin. Right away in Genesis our main characters are in a hole. There’s a problem to solve. The good, right standing mankind had with God is ruined and the consequences are irreversible. You see, the thing about being stuck in a hole is, most of the time, you need someone to pull you out.
That’s the sort of danger Buttercup spends most of this movie trying to escape. She tries to jump the ship on which she’s been taken, but even that puts her in worse trouble (Do you hear that sound Highness? Those are the Shrieking eels!). She escapes the fire swamp only to fall right back into the arms of a man plotting to kill her. She’s stuck. She needs to be rescued.
The danger, or the peril that mankind finds itself in is not that much different. In fact, it’s even more severe. Ephesians 2 says, “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”

So our peril, the mortal danger in which we live is that we are so incapable of rescuing our selves from sin and justified wrath and punishment of a holy God that we are called dead. We are so helpless in this hole we’re already dead. Not even mostly dead, either. Just dead.
We need to be rescued in a significant way. If not, we remain in the hole simply waiting for the day when we’ll be punished for all the wrong we’ve done. For Wesley, that happens at the point of a sword. It happens by a strategic incursion into the castle fortress. The rescuing of mankind however, happens in a radically different way.
Romans 3:23-26 says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

The hope we have rests not in our ability to get out of the hole or a strategic endeavor to negotiate our way out of it, or buy our way out of it. The hope rests in someone who’s not in the hole - someone who is perfect and therefore perfectly heroic and perfectly able to pull us out. We see Christ saving his bride in a radically different way. He dies for her. Wesley does die in this movie (mostly dies), but it’s not a decisive act and it’s not something that actually rescues his true love.
With Christ it’s different. With Christ his death is a willing, decisive, self-sacrificing act that rescues his bride from eternal punishment and pain. Christ therefore is a superior and ideal hero because he rescues those he loves perfectly.

2009-06-06T22:40:00.001-07:00

Upon reflection Star Trek is not as bad as I initially assessed. The cast is solid (although Quinto’s Spock doesn’t particularly thrill me) and several of them really shine (yes, the hype is real…Karl Urban’s Leonard “Bones” McCoy kinda rocks). As the credits rolled I thought to myself, “there’s really only one reason this movie doesn’t totally work for me.”
“Star Trek: From the Writers Who Brought You Transformers.”
I could go on for days about how much of this film doesn’t make sense, never mind the millions of people still drooling over how “perfect” it is, but this isn’t about formal criticism. This is about what Star Trek preaches and teaches. *Sigh* from the writers of Transformers.

The best Star Trek (in my humble nerd opinion) has always centered on Kirk, Spock and Dr. McCoy. The film understands this and unfolds a tale that functions as both an origin story for the original characters as well as a reboot for a franchise that will now take place in a time-line that is maliciously altered from the one we’re familiar with by one of the most vapid and stupid villains in Star Trek history (and yes, I’m aware that list includes a Vulcan who thought he was God).

I think what this film wants to be about is destiny and, perhaps, whether or not destiny informs individual identity. I don’t think it really understands what destiny actually is…but hey…words don’t need to mean anything anymore right?
Here’s how it’s handled. When the villain of the film travels back in time and alters Star Trek history there are some implicit questions and explicit consequences. The biggest question is, “what becomes of James T. Kirk?” His father, alive and well in the previous timeline, has died tragically in service to Star Fleet and has thusly soured the young James T. Kirk against the very Federation that will put him in the Captain’s chair where we all know he belongs. Do these circumstances fundamentally change who he is? Can anyone actually do anything to keep Kirk from his “destiny”? Is Kirk actually Kirk without The Enterprise?
Should Kirk never come across Spock’s path, would Spock be the man we know him to be without the influence of his life-long friend and Captain? In other words, (the words of Spock’s father) is Spock, despite time-altered circumstances, actually “fully capable of deciding [his] own destiny”?

It would seem to me that the writers of Star Trek don’t actually know the actual definition of “destiny.” I say this, because Sarek’s words are supposed to be profound and directly affirm Spock’s self-determined freedom, but they don’t ring true next to the concept of destiny. For instance, every definition of destiny I’ve found so far doesn’t actually leave much room for ultimately free self-determined choice. Consider the following 3 definitions and notice the emphasis:
des·ti·ny n
1. the apparently predetermined and inevitable series of events that happen to somebody or something
2. the inner purpose of a life that can be discovered and realized
3. a force or agency that predetermines what will happen

Of course, Spock is fully capable of choosing between one path over another, but the very concept of destiny precludes the idea that he is the agent of determination when it comes to his own destiny, does it not? You can’t have it both ways right? It seems to me that self-determination and fate are kind of exclusive, opposing concepts. The rest of the movie seems to make this point without even realizing it. How else do you explain that Kirk just happens to be jettisoned from The Enterprise onto the same planet that Original Time-line Spock just happens to be exiled upon, and just happens to be chased into the same ice cave that Spock just happens to be hiding in, which just happens to be 14 kilometers from the federation outpost where one Montgomery Scott just happens to be stationed so that he can get Kirk back onto The Enterprise to take command with Scotty as the new Chief Engineer. Apparently, Destiny gets really pissed when you alter her original plan and she likes to get things back on track in a matter of minutes.

If you ask me, this is one of those films where the inconsistency of the franchise is really glaring. For a series about human evolution by means of technological advancement void of any recognition or obedience to God the events and characters really do seem subject to forces outside of anyone’s ultimate control. For instance, no matter what some lame, blue-collar, Romulan nimrod does to the time-line there seem to be forces at work that put these characters back in the places they belong.

No set of circumstances can change who these characters are much less the proverbial “boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:26). So the question remains unanswered by Star Trek. What or who makes us what we are? Who or what is truly in control over the circumstances of our lives and our ultimate destiny? Who or what controls the times in which we live?

“The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’”
Acts 17:24-28

2009-05-27T09:49:00.000-07:00

Film and Theology is a regular event for my youth group and a semester-end Lock-in provided us the time we needed to spend some time discussing and dissecting Christopher Nolan’s 2 hour and twenty minute masterpiece, The Dark Knight.
The one thing I asked the students to do while watching the film was decide who were the three main characters in the film. They decided quickly and I agree with them. Batman, the Joker, and Harvey “Two-Face” Dent.
Why ask this question? I asked because I think if you want to boil this film down to its core, what you’ve got is, not an epic metaphor for the war on terror but rather an epic metaphor for the war over Harvey Dent’s soul and the spiritual forces competing for its loyalty. Those spiritual forces being personified by The Dark Knight himself and the Clown Prince of Crime.
I think Harvey Dent is a picture of a self-deceived, fallen humanity. Self-deceived because of his own self-righteousness and inability to face the wickedness in his own heart. Fallen because of that aforementioned wickedness displayed so clearly in several instances well before two-face rears his ugly self. Harvey is typically what most of us perceive as a “good-guy” right? He’s a crusader for justice, a loyal friend, and unstained by any (outside) corrupting influence. However, as tension and threats to his own case against the criminal underworld rise and begin to shake Harvey’s soul, what rises up from the surface and out of his heart is not the most moral or tempered disposition. The farthest he goes before his “official” transformation is kidnapping and torturing one of Joker’s goons. Certainly enough to ruin his reputation not to mention the case he’s constructed against the mob with all his self-righteous fervor. I think Harvey Dent is a picture of humanity, with all of its good intentions, that has deceived itself into thinking it’s not really that, dare I say it…sinful.
It might be easy to say that the Joker creates Two-Face, but that, I think, is giving him too much credit. I think what we’ve got with the Joker is a force for chaos in Harvey’s life that just reveals what’s under the surface. The Joker is the accuser of not only Harvey, but also of Gordon, of Gotham, and even Batman.
It seems appropriate that if this film is really a spiritual battle for Harvey’s soul that there would be an accuser - a devil - and that role is certainly filled by Ledger’s attention demanding portrayal of the Joker. The Joker is primarily an accuser and deceiver in The Dark Knight; two offices that Satan clearly holds in Scripture.
Revelation 12:10, referring to Satan, “And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, ‘The salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.”

The great thing about the Joker is that not only is he a voice of condemnation but that most of the time he’s absolutely right! That’s the compelling thing about him. He’s always spouting half-truths and so there’s a wiff of honesty to a lot of what he says. Burning all the money he earns from the mob comes to mind as one of the best examples because, after all, “it’s not about money…it’s about sending a message. Everything burns.” He’s right. Everything is temporary. That’s a very Christian idea or should I say, half of a Christian idea. The other half being “work therefore not for the food that spoils but for that which brings eternal life.” Joker doesn’t believe that half of the truth about the world he lives in and the consequence of that is a force for utter and total chaos because, after all, if it’s all kindling anyway, why not enjoy it while it lasts and spoil everyone’s illusions of safety and security and meaning along the way? In short, the Joker’s religion is anarchy.
One of the things that Joker is right about is the sinfulness of humanity (explaining his interest in Harvey Dent). Because he sees humanity as totally without value or merit he concludes that “the only sensible way to live in this world is without rules” because you’re just being a hypocrite if you make up a bunch of rules to follow when deep down you’re heart wants to break those rules. Joker really does win the battle for Harvey’s soul in this movie because all he has to do is reveal what’s already there. He succeeds in a big way and the really dark thing about The Dark Knight is that Gotham City is a world without a God, without a mediator to deal with its sinfulness. All they have are some people who, under peer pressure will usually do the right thing and a costumed vigilante who is fighting an uphill battle as long as its best and brightest are so corruptible.
The funny thing, however, is that while this film is, in many ways, a portrait of a Godless world attempting to create justice and peace it does stumble across a redemptive theme. In the end, after Harvey has been torn down and descended into madness and murder it’s Batman who takes the blame for what he’s done so that justice can actually be served. Batman becomes the scapegoat for Harvey’s sin. The funny thing is that the term scapegoat has biblical origins and functions as a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ taking on the sins of a fallen, sinful people and absolving them from God’s wrath against injustice and sin.
Even a film about a world without God can’t escape themes of sin and redemption and I daresay it’s quite profound in how it deals with them. I would argue that this film succeeds where every other Batman film has failed. That is, in the heart of the audience, it transforms Batman from a common superhero to the noblest of all heroes and it does this only when it draws from the most biblical of themes: propitiation.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
Romans 3:23-26

I Believe I Can See the Future Because I Repeat the Same Routine

2009-04-22T08:12:00.000-07:00

I must have watched Groundhog Day a dozen times before considering the spiritual significance of it. The story of sardonic weather man Phil Connors reliving the same day, Groundhog Day, over and over again makes for some classic comedic opportunities. I'm pretty sure if you look up funny in the dictionary, for instance, one of the definitions will be "kidnap Groundhog - let groundhog drive truck".
Look up almost anything on the movie, however, and you'll find it's got a relatively strong religious following as well. Buddhists are the biggest camp of adoring religious fans. What good Buddhist doesn't love the idea of a cycle repeating itself for the sake of an individual's eventual (merited) bliss? It makes sense right?
Well, let the Buddhist have the bliss of Groundhog Day while it lasts. I think there's something much more profound and realistic going on here.
What I think Groundhog day points to, in the agonizing repetition of the same day, is the idea that we live in a world not where we literally repeat the same day, but rather where we are stuck in the same routines, the same events, the same habits, the same sins day after day after day. It points to the idea that there is a repetition to life - a predictability to life. As the philosopher Reznor says, “I believe I can see the future, because I repeat the same routine.”
Romans 8 says it this way, "22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies."
There exists in this life, because of sin, a deep longing for things to be different…to be better, to be lifted from the doldrums of futility, and we grasp for that relief, that deliverance in all kinds of futile, stupid, sinful ways until we meet Christ and see him for all that he’s worth. I think what Phil Connors goes through is a shadow of that longing and that search for freedom from the futility of the world in which we live.
What you see Phil go through in this movie is a process of unbelief to belief. He is transformed by what happens to him. His first reaction to his circumstance is denial. He doesn't really believe what's happening and so he goes about his first duplicate day as if the last one was an incredibly lucid dream.
However, denial doesn't last long. Denial moves straight into rebellion. Sound familiar?
Romans 1 says, "21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things"
Much of the comedy and some of the most popular portions of the movie reflect this phase of selfish, narcissistic pursuit. This is where many of us live our lives. We're not as unashamed as Phil but by and large we live in a world where we chase after sexual pleasure without perceived consequence, we’ve entertained ourselves into stupidity, we can’t get enough stuff, enough cell phones, enough cars, enough vacation enough...whatever. We are supremely committed to our own pleasure but we’re stupid about it. We don’t even understand what real pleasure is. As C.S. Lewis says, “We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”
After a while Phil realizes he keeps hitting the pleasure ceiling. There's something about the way he goes about his pursuit that doesn't quite hit bliss. He decides he's missing true love. The problem is that he's not yet been transformed into someone who is actually going to pursue love rightly. He doesn't even see the object of his pursuit (Rita) for who she really is. He wants to earn her. He wants to manipulate her into loving him. The problem is that she knows all about him. She knows his heart. She knows he's a big fat phony.
It's not until Phil is at his lowest - it's not until he sees Rita for who she really is that his life turns around and his pursuit becomes genuine and truly rewarding.
How many of us pursue God on our own terms, based on our own definitions, conjured by our feeble, man-made, self serving wisdom? How many of us are Phil's, chasing after pleasures or gods of our own making that bring us no lasting joy? How many of us simply need to see God as he's revealed himself. How many of us need to shut up and beg God to show himself to us, as he really is so that we'll finally, truly taste the first fruits of lasting joy?

A Theology of Film

2009-04-15T12:51:00.000-07:00

Let it be known I had all but given up on this endeavor. Life has changed in this last year and the ability to consistently see new films, not to mention the time to review them, has escaped me.
However, I have determined that a shift of focus will suffice as an alternative to abandoning my loyal followers (hello loyal followers!). Will this shift in focus actually hold my attention long enough to produce anything worthwhile or...well...anything at all for that matter? Who knows? But we're going to try it out anyway.
This shift in focus will be from regularly reviewing/criticizing new films to a more explicit and dedicated examination of the theological aspects of film. The justification for this comes from a book in the Bible called Acts, chapter 17, verses 22-31. Go ahead and read it. I'll wait...

The passage shows the Apostle Paul preaching to a Greek audience that had never heard of Jesus Christ. In his sermon about the one true God he makes a point that God has determined "allotted periods" and the "boundaries of [our] dwelling" for the express purpose of reaching out to God and knowing him. In illustrating his point, Paul quotes a poem...
"In him we live and move and have our being."
What's interesting, and the pertinence to the subject at hand is that the poem was not written about God. It was written about Zeus. It was written about a god that Paul doesn't even believe actually exists. So why does Paul use the poem? I think Paul recognizes that because God is the creator of everything, and because mankind is made in his image, there are kernels of truth that point back to man's creator in much of what man creates.
Kurt Vonnegut basically said it this way...There is really only one plot to every story. "Man in a hole." Man falls into hole. Man struggles to get out of hole. The End.
Maybe he succeeds in getting out of the hole. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he has help. Maybe he doesn't. In the end he believed that all stories could be reduced to this simple formula. Where did he get this idea? From where would it come? How is it that all stories are so easily reduced by Vonnegut in this way? Well, quite simply, there's some truth to it. Mankind did fall in a hole. Mankind is often defined by the struggle of getting out of that hole. The 3rd chapter of the Bible pretty much paints the picture of the fall of man. The rest of the Old Testament demonstrates man's total inability to crawl out of it and the New Testament shows and expounds on the One who is able to save man out of the hole. Now, whether you agree that this is the best terminology or not (it probably isn't) there is some shared resonance between the Bible and Vonnegut's claim. I would argue in fact, that should we desire to get to the bottom of such ideas or get the most out of the stories in our movies, we should interpret them through the lense of Scripture, whose author is also the author of everything under the sun.
So, I guess I'm inviting you on a bit of a journey through my own examination of the themes that pop-culture often addresses or resonates with by looking through the lens of the Master Storyteller.
We'll see what happens.

Darth Vader vs. Obi-Wan Kenobi Part II

2008-09-09T09:49:00.000-07:00

Here's the conclusion folks...

EXT. TREBULAR
The two men continue to swing swords at each other, having moved their fight once again toward the demolished town and running magma. Paths of destruction are cut back and forth along the ground, and the fighters have grown slower and more weary, but their fury has not stalled. Their stalemate is broken when OBI-WAN glimpses the scattered remains of the two
Jedi’s lured into VADER’s trap-- their limbs strewn at the edge of the city crumbling into the creeping lava. Ashen frames, frozen in agony cry silently for justice-- OBI-WAN answers the cry with renewed vigor.

In an instant, OBI-WAN is able to force VADER back with a strong swing of his sword. VADER falls, growling as he does so. OBI-WAN leaps forwards to his fallen foe.

OBI-WAN
You have much to learn about the
rules of a civilized duel, Darth.

As he speaks over VADER, he grabs his cloak near the neck, forcing him to look at the civilization he’s ruined.

OBI-WAN (CONT’D)
Look at the devastation you’ve
wrought. Look at it!

VADER snarls.

VADER
Yes, Master.

OBI-WAN’s eyes widen. He reels back in despair and exasperation.

OBI-WAN
No. This cannot be. You cannot be
AnakinSkywalker.

VADER
You are correct-- I am no longer
that Jedi weakling.

OBI-WAN
But-- why? Your wife, your unborn
child!

VADER
I am unconcerned with them. The
Empire we are forging will call my
child, and every child of the
generations to come.

OBI-WAN
But she still loves you. It isn’t
too late. There must still be good in
you, friend.

VADER
It is Skywalker she loved. Do not
waste your time, thinking you can
appeal to me with salvation. I
have found my destiny.

OBI-WAN
Hunting and killing those you stood
alongside?

VADER
Because they stood for nothing.

OBI-WAN
They stood for justice. For
equality. Oh, Anakin--

VADER
That name holds nothing for me. Do
not pander to me with your ideals,
Obi-wan.

VADER points.

VADER (CONT’D)
You know nothing of justice. It is
something of which you only speak.
The Empire will bring a new
justice, a swift one.

OBI-WAN
That doesn't sound like justice, it
sounds like judgment. Has that
been Vader's quest against the
Jedi?

VADER
They were fools. Not only do you
fail to understand the power of the
Empire, but you fail to understand
the power of the Dark Side of the
Force.

OBI-WAN
It is but the illusion of power.

VADER
Oh?

VADER uses the Force to choke OBI-WAN.

VADER (CONT’D)
Tell me this isn’t power.

VADER begins to lift OBI-WAN. OBI-WAN lowers his head, stopping his brief choke, and glares. He drops to the ground, standing triumphantly, as VADER is knocked back by the thunder of the Force.

VADER smashes into a rock, crushing the back of his helmet and causing him to turn, landing face first in a stream of lava.

VADER (CONT’D)
RAAGH!

VADER pushes himself out of the lava with his hand, leaving a molten stub of machinery where his hand was. The lava has melted away part of his mask, revealing one of VADER's eyes, and destroying most of his mouthpiece. Bits of molten face-mask fall, burning holes in his armor, causing him to wail in pain.

OBI-WAN's face is stern, and sad.

OBI-WAN
Your dark powers may give you power
over the weak, Darth, but not those
who truly master the Force-- those
who allow it to surround and
penetrate them--

VADER staggers to stand, and his exposed eye locks with those of OBI-WAN.

OBI-WAN (CONT’D)
(sadly)
--Whereas you are but a learner,
attempting to twist it to your
will.

VADER gasps for air. This is no mechanical gasp, but instead the most organic of painful breaths. He holds his remaining hand up to his throat. There is a faint glow, and a sound of fusion. He pulls back his hand, now partially healed. He still gasps between words.

VADER
You-- cannot comprehend-- the
power.

OBI-WAN's head hangs. He shakes his head, and clutches his unlit laser sword.

OBI-WAN
You truly are no longer the man I
knew.

VADER
Correct. The man-- you knew-- was
not ready. I am. I have lured you-
- here. I have forseen--you will
fall-- by my hand.

VADER lights his sword. OBI-WAN does not.

VADER (CONT'D)
Come-- attempt to defy your
destiny.

OBI-WAN
I cannot lose you a third time.
Not so soon.

VADER looks down for a moment. He contemplates, the back and forth conflict in his mind playing out clearly. His head arises.

VADER
My Star Destroyer-- approaches.
Leave. Leave the Republic, and--
do not return.

OBI-WAN
I cannot sit by and allow your
Empire to triumph.

VADER
It-- already has. And I with it.
It-- is destiny.

OBI-WAN KENOBI turns, and walks to his spacecraft. He looks back at VADER. There are tears in his eyes.

EXT. SPACE (FX)
The Z-95Headhunter slips to lightspeed, as a Star Destroyer
appears.

Obi-Wan Kenobi vs. Darth Vader: Part I

2008-09-06T13:44:00.001-07:00

The following is the first part of a ten page treatment for the revision of the infamous duel between Darth Vader and Obi-Wan Kenobi. If you've been reading the blog lately you know what this is all about. If not, you'll have to use your deductive logic skills and catch up.

EXT. SPACE (FX)
A Z-95 Headhunter flies across a field of stars. PAN as the
ship moves towards the fiery planet of Trebular.
WIPE TO:
EXT. TREBULAR
Forty-two-year-old OBI-WAN KENOBI stands in front of his
fighter. Twenty yards ahead of him is a primitive dwelling,
on the outskirts of what would have been a town several days
ago. Parts of the town remain, but most of it has been
burned away by flowing lava, from a slow-erupting volcano in
the distance.
CUT TO:
INT. DWELLING
OBI-WAN ducks into the dwelling. There is great disarray.
OBI-WAN frowns, gingerly touching a laser sword scorching on
the wall. He looks down and sees a decapitated body in the
adjacent room. He turns away.
EXT. DWELLING
OBI-WAN walks out of the building, oblivious to the world
around him. He leans on a small rail outside the building,
with one hand. He shudders slightly. He looks up at his
ship.
There stands DARTH VADER-- a figure hooded and cloaked in
black, his features and expression protected behind his
angular helmet. Small tears in his dark armor show
electronic elements, the result of ongoing laser sword duels.
OBI-WAN’s eyes light with righteous anger.
For a moment, VADER, although he is thirty yards away, steps
back.
VADER regains his composure and speaks- his voice is deep and
rings out over the crackling of the lava in the distance.
VADER
Most impressive. The force is
strong with you-- far stronger than
it was with Knight Barjol.
OBI-WAN
It was strong enough that he had
kept that volcano from erupting
onto the people below for years,
while teaching generations of Jedi
peacekeepers.

VADER
Taught so well that they gave him
up under the mere threat of pain.
Not that their compliance saved
them, either.

OBI-WAN
So. You are Darth Vader.

He pauses.

OBI-WAN (CONT’D)
How long have you waited for me?

VADER
I killed the first Jedi a week ago.
I knew the town’s cries would be
enough to summon other Jedi. After
the initial two, I had grown tired
of waiting-- I had already summoned
my Star Destroyer to come when I
felt your presence approaching.
You are a fool, Obi-wan Kenobi.

OBI-WAN
A fool? I intended to confront you
here, I had just hoped not to do it
alone.

VADER ignites his laser sword, brandishing it in his right
hand.

VADER
You will join your ilk soon enough.

VADER starts towards OBI-WAN, lunging his first swing as OBI-WAN
steps to his left, and glides backwards. The action is
swift, as if OBI-WAN skates crisply backwards and to the
left, just centimeters off the ground. He stops himself and
draws his own laser sword in one swift motion.
VADER turns, swinging his underhanded blade as he marches
towards OBI-WAN. The two flash at each other, and their
blades meet for the first time, crackling. They fence with
broad, swift strokes, hitting again and again, moving their
fight towards the running flows of lava.
OBI-WAN and VADER's laser swords clash and lock. VADER
pushes OBI-WAN back and begins to slowly back away. Gripping
his laser sword with both hands he points it at OBI-WAN.
Suddenly footwide globules of lava are being hurled at OBI-WAN,
forcing him to dodge while he moves back down toward the
shack where he first emerged.
VADER is too far from the lava stream to quickly throw it,
and OBI-WAN regains his composure, holding up his hands and
throwing the globules back at his advancing adversary,
sprinkling him with thin drops of lava. VADER ceases his
advance to shield himself but quickly turns in fury.
Behind OBI-WAN the roof of the shack begins to tear itself
away from the frame of the house. In one solid piece the
roof flies toward OBI-WAN, poised to flatten the Jedi master.
OBI-WAN, staring straight at VADER lifts his hand casually in
the air. At OBI-WAN’s unspoken command the roof tears into
two pieces flying safely past him and beyond VADER into
gurgling pools of lava behind the Dark Lord, launching hot
magma high into the air in waves.
VADER advances to avoid the fatal tide only to meet OBI-WAN's
swinging laser sword. VADER and OBI-WAN fence toward the
roofless shack, and they eventually enter the former home of
the murdered Jedi, hacking it to pieces as they fence back
and forth.

To Be Continued...

The Pitch

2008-09-04T19:14:00.000-07:00

Here's our Pitch for what the penultimate duel between Darth Vader and Obi-Wan Kenobi should have looked like. In case you haven't been keeping up lately you can read the previous entry to catch up on what this is all about. It's a humble effort, but one that, I believe, is far more consistent with the Star Wars that we all grew up with and prefer to the inexplicable nonsense of the prequels. "Who would have thought the Clone Wars had so little to do with actual clones? Sigh."
The screenplay will follow quickly, but for now, here's the pitch.
INTRO
The events set forth occur in a universe that exists in accordance with the childhood fantasies of the writers' generation and is in strict adherence with the ideas and themes set forth in the original Star Wars Trilogy. Nothing from the prequels is retained in this work and all inspiration is derived from the collective context of Episodes IV, V, and VI, with only the most moderate touches from Expanded Universe sources that would have existed prior to the prequels. The screenplay is written as much in the style of Lucas as possible, containing not simple references towards his works, but utilizing several of his commonalities in his Star Wars screenwriting.
The events that follow take place either late in Episode II or early in Episode III. "Our" prequel trilogy (which, due to time constraints, we are not completely plotting) starts with an intergalactic war based, in many parts, on clone rights (similar to the American Civil War and slavery being one of many economic components of why the conflict occurred). Hot shot pilot Anakin Skywalker leaves his family to follow Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi on a "damn-fool idealistic crusade", and as the two fight alongside each other (and more notable figures, such as Bail Organa), Kenobi begins to casually instruct Skywalker in the ways of the Force. While the instructions are casual, Skywalker does refer in the training sense to Kenobi as his "Master", albeit sometimes in playful sarcasm. Obviously, such teachings are far more Eastern-religion oriented than the stupid Temple stuff in the prequels-- who honestly thought that Yoda sat around in meetings all day prior to Empire? Nobody.
As the films go on, Skywalker becomes more and more interested in the Force as a way to attain some greater destiny. While Obi-Wan and Anakin are strong friends, the galaxy after the wars is a different one, and they find themselves moving in different circles. Meanwhile, the idea of the Force and Jedi Knights have come to be viewed as more and more antiquated in the mainstream. Their ways are increasingly seen as nothing more than ancient "hocuspocus", an antiquated, useless superstition dwarfed by the achievements of technology and science. While the religion was tolerated during the Clone Wars, Jedi Knights have become viewed as self-righteous, spooky wizards on the losing side of a war for the personal rights of cloned beings.
Living with his wife, Skywalker continues to practice the religion, and becomes involved with the post-war restructuring of the Republic. As Skywalker gets caught up in the reconstruction and birth of the Empire, he no longer sees an opportunity for manifest destiny in association with or loyalty to the Jedi Order. Focused on his own power he sees a greater destiny for himself in service to, and eventually authority over the new ruling body. Eventually, Anakin’s obsessions cause his pregnant wife to leave him, as he takes the mantle of Darth Vader. Resolved that any effort of the Jedi to overthrow the tyranny of the Empire is futile and aware that his former affiliation may be seen as a weakness to his own path, Skywalker severs all ties to his past life so that he may seek this destiny. With dreadful calculation he fakes his own death, leaving his severed arm and lightsaber as evidence for Kenobi to find, and replaces it with what he considers an augmentation-- a mechanized replica, foreshadowing his true destiny: a destiny of which he is ultimately ignorant.

His first task, as a servant to the new Emperor, is to hunt down and destroy the last force in the universe for liberty: The Jedi Knights. With the freedom of anonymity, the dread of a mysterious façade, and a full embrace of the Dark Side of The Force, DarthVader, SithLord, has begun his journey down the "quick and easy path" to power, hunting and brutally killing Jedi Knights.
Meanwhile, Obi Wan Kenobi mourns the loss of his friend, intent on one day delivering Anakin's lightsaber to a young Skywalker. However, this honor must wait, for there is a new force for evil in the galaxy, hunting down and killing his friends and allies. A force that may even be responsible for the murder of his good friend, Anakin Skywalker. His name is Darth Vader and he must be stopped.
As we pick up the action, Kenobi is rushing to the home of another Jedi, on a young, volcano-ridden planet, hoping to
beat Vader in a race of the highest stakes…

A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far Far Suckier

2008-08-22T19:45:00.000-07:00

So I'm a nerd. Deal with it. If you want you can go read a blog about how much fun it is to shop at Pier One and drink double caramel macchiatos, or whatever it is that cool people do these days. Today in my personal nerd kingdom we're pondering Star Wars and how much the prequels suck suck suck. This isn't really written for the uninitiated. This is written for those of you who, from the first viewing of Star Wars, be it in the theater or on VHS tapes recorded off Showtime (thanks Dad for forever associating the Empire Strikes Back with that Red Dawn preview), became die hard fans. This is for those of us who, when Obi Wan Kenobi talked about things like, "The Clone Wars" and mentoring a young Jedi named Darth Vader, our minds were set ablaze with images too grand for immediate articulation, but rather percolated in our imaginations until finally - we were promised that the object of our collective anticipation would be brought again to the big screen. We were going to see THE CLONE WARS! We were going to see the young Jedi, Darth Vader in action. And we were going to see - FINALLLY - his dramatic stand off with Obi Wan Kenobi - a fight long reported to be the cause of Vader's ominous breathing predicament. How many of you (nerds) quoted most of Vader's lines into that old oscillating table fan? That's right. Every freakin' one of you! And now, somewhere within Episodes I, II, or III, we were going to get to see how it all went down.
Then a little "actor" named Jake Lloyd hopped in his stupid little pod-racer and jumped the shark with reckless abandon. These complaints aren't new. Ever since these movies came out fandom has been collectively enraged and I can't really add anything to the mess of criticism that's remotely constructive. Or can I? The other day my cinematic doppelgänger, Nolan T. Jones, alerted me to the contest here
Check it out if you want, but here's the gist. The prize is for a relatively unimpressive diorama featuring Obi Wan and Anakin in that final "epic" duel (both in ridiculously impractical fighting poses). Honestly, I couldn't care less about it and neither could Nolan. For us the prize is actually the contest itself. Each contestant is asked to submit a 10 to 20 page RE-WRITE of that duel in screenplay format. The goal: Write George Lucas under the table. With lines like, "Anakin. You're breaking my heart." and "From my point of view the Jedi are evil!" I have a feeling that half the work is done for us all ready. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure the menu board at McDonald's has more dramatic weight to it than Episodes I, II, and III put together.
So, we're extremely excited to tackle this if nothing more than for the exercise itself. I've suggested that the project be dedicated to Gmail chat since it has enabled Nolan, his friend Tom, and myself to construct an outline and character arcs miles away from one another.

We've talked over the last view days and I thought it would be fun to share some of our decisions with the rest of the nerd kingdom, eventually publishing the final product for viewing online.
First, we found that in order to write something that satisfied our childhood fantasies (which was the whole point anyway) we had to scrap everything - and I mean everything - the prequels showed us. I seriously don't think anything in the prequels will remain intact aside from the names of certain people and locations. For instance, we don't want to bother renaming Padme and we may keep the name of the volcano planet the same - if we wind up actually having it take place on a volcano planet.
Our canon for this project is the Original Trilogy, especially Episodes IV and V. The Jedi as a political force, sitting around in council meetings planning a military campaign is OUT. Anakin Skywalker as a fallen Messiah Jedi, the subject of a prophecy about bringing balance to the Force is OUT. Anakin as a whiny heart-broken philosophical dunce - WAY. OUT. You'd be amazed how much our little outline makes so much MORE sense than what wound up on screen.
For instance, did you notice how EVERYTHING we'd waited 30 years to see was really only in the last 20 minutes of Episode III? And it all happens virtually at once. Anakin turns to the Dark Side, most of the Jedi are hunted down and killed, Obi Wan and Anakin duel on the Volcano, and Darth Vader dons the black mask and cape we all know and recognize - all in the span of a few minutes! It's like George forgot what he was writing towards and, in a panic, crammed it into the last few minutes. Well, we've freed ourselves from prequel bondage and are afresh with ideas that, at least, fulfill our own expectations for what this was all supposed to be in the first place.
At this point Tom and I have contributed our observations and given input as to where we think this should go and now we're eagerly anticipating Nolan's first draft. Now I know some of you out there don't care about any of this - BUT - I know there are others that have been geeking out since I said, "oscillating fan". I know some of you are getting your lightsabers out of the box right now. I know there's guys out there like Jason, Aaron, Howie and my bro that definitely have opinions about this stuff and it's you guys that I'd like to hear from. What say you nerds? What would your Obi Wan/Anakin duel look like?

LOVE TRIANGLES AND BIG BIG BUCKS

2008-07-29T12:49:00.000-07:00

Just as the summer movie season was gearing up Entertainment Weekly proudly displayed their predictions for top grossing movies of the summer (which usually translates to top grossing movies of the year).
The Top 6 are listed as:
1. Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (355.9 million)
2. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (310.8 million)
3. Hancock (280.4 million)
4. Wall-E (280.3 million)
5. Iron Man (267.7 million)
6. The Dark Knight (255.0 million)
This is where I kick myself for not commenting when I had the chance. I didn't particularly think that Indy 4 would be a financial flop. In fact, it would make sense considering the iconic status of the character. What I found unlikely was that The Dark Knight would be number six. It's predecessor, Batman Begins overcame massive amounts of nipple-suited scepticism to be number 8 on the box office chart in 2005. Why would we then assume that a sequel to Batman Begins, a film that not only soothed rabid fans, but actually made new ones, wouldn't climb higher on such a list? Well...now that The Dark Knight has been released I can, without a shred of actual proof, claim personal foreknowledge that The Dark Knight would basically destroy everything else this year. Did you ever have one of those moments? One of those, "I freakin' knew it!" moments? That's what The Dark Knight's opening weekend and 10 day record breaker was for me. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Peter Pevensie! In its entire theatrical run your movie couldn't pull in the dough that Dark Knight earned in 10 days! And EW thought you'd be number 2? I am now in a full guffaw, sir. Guffaw!
Not that financial success is proof of quality (take this summer's Speed Racer for an example of where a film's financial success is inversely proportionate to it's quality). The difference with The Dark Knight is that everyone is on Batman's side. Critics think it's one of the best movies of the year. 95% of major reviews were very positive and the fans are going crazy for it, returning to the theater once, twice, even 6 times. Seriously. I don't think I'm that crazy. I'll admit, I'm a little crazy about it (3 times crazy), but not 6 times crazy. So, if you're among the four or five people who haven't seen The Dark Knight, treat yourself to a matinee this week won't you?

Additionally, I thought it would be fun to respond to some of the comments and criticisms I've been hearing.
The first involves the love triangle between Bruce, Harvey and Rachel. I heard a critic talking about how one of the most appealing aspects of the movie was watching this love triangle play itself out. I would be on board with this observation 100% if he wasn't talking about Bruce, Rachel, and Harvey. What could I possibly be talking about? I would be talking about the love triangle between Batman, The Joker and Harvey Dent. How can this be you ask? Did you miss a scene where Bats and Joker get it on? No. No you didn't. But this aspect of the movie responds to another criticism I heard, namely, that the love stories between Rachel and the men in her life were not convincing. The answer to why this is lies in the film's focus on the relationships between Harvey, The Joker, and Batman. You could also argue that there is a separate triangle going on between Gordon, Batman, and Harvey and you would be right to do so - but since I don't want to write about a love quadrilateral you're stuck with my theories on the relationship between Triangle number 1.

Life is complicated for these guys. Batman believes in (loves) Harvey Dent because he thinks that Harvey is the guy that can clean up Gotham within the system. He believes that once he's done with the mob, Harvey will be able to help bring order to Gotham and that it will no longer need Batman. So, Batman is highly invested and interested in Harvey. The funny thing about Harvey is that he's a little too in love with himself. This is ultimately his downfall. When things don't work out like they should, or as easily as they should, he slowly comes unglued and eventually unhinged at the height of the pressure. Then there's the Joker who is absolutely, ca-razy about the Caped Crusader. Allow me to quote the man himself, "Kill you? I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you! You complete me." Screenwriter, Jonathan Nolan went so far as to say in a recent interview that IF Joker had an ultimate plan it would basically be to kill everybody else on earth so that he and Batman could be alone together. Joker says as much towards the end of the film. "You won't kill me because of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness and I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think...we're destined to do this forever."
I don't know how you could be interested in or care about the romance between Rachel and Bruce or Harvey and Rachel when you get to watch Joker, The Batman, and Harvey "Two-Face" Dent go round and around. And I freakin' knew The Dark Knight was going to break box office records. I knew it!

This Must Be What Going Mad Feels Like

2008-07-27T16:21:00.000-07:00

The great thing about all 9 seasons of The X-Files is that they were always mystifying. It’s one of my favorite shows of all time, and yet, so much of it is still a mystery to me. For a while I'll think I have it all figured out and understand how everything works, then, five minutes later it's gone, forcing me to joyfully revisit it over and over. It had hits and misses along the way, sure (the finale being nothing less than a resigned death rattle), but the intrigue of the show never wavered for me. Things were rarely wrapped in a neat little bow or completely explained, and yet it almost always managed to satisfy. Actually, these are probably the very reasons it was so satisfying. The departure of Duchovny’s Agent Mulder was not the coffin nail that so many though it was – not in relation to quality of entertainment anyway. Robert Patrick as the initial replacement agent, John Doggett, was a healthy contribution to the series if for no other reason than having yet another well acted and well scripted, three-dimensional character on board. The X-Files stands as the forefather of today’s most appealing, well-crafted science fiction candy like Lost and, in many ways, it will never be outdone.
If you ever followed the show you’d know that the finale was a big fat sucker punch to the fans – scratch that – to anyone with a brain. It did nothing more than summarize all nine seasons as if somehow, they thought they could make brand new fans with their very last episode. This is a mistake Lost is on course to learn from and owe to The X-Files, by the way.
All this is preamble to say that nerds everywhere needed the new X-Files movie to be good. We wanted it to be great, spectacular, breathtaking, epic – but we needed it to, at least, be good. We truly need this thing to be wrapped up. We’d even settle for anything resembling a climax come to think of it.
Unfortunately, there’s no clever way to say this. The X-Files: I Want to Believe is not the movie we wanted or needed. Instead, it’s like watching a mediocre 100-minute episode. It’s not the slap in the face that the season 9 finale was…but it’s not the epic return of the two sci-fi giants known as Mulder and Skully.
None of this means that it’s totally worthless mind you. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that ALMOST everything could be forgiven had this been a direct-to-dvd supplement to the grand, epic, mind blowing X-Files movie we all wanted. David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson seem thrilled to be back in the characters that made them famous. The first few minutes of the film are actually spellbinding as you anticipate how Mulder and Skully are going to show up and just how they’re going to explain what they’ve been up to the last 10 years or so.
The two former agents are thrust back into action when an FBI agent goes missing and the only lead they have is a psychic, former priest. What begins as a paranormal missing persons hunt turns into a mission to stop a serial killer and a test of the relationship that Mulder and Skully have been building in their forced retirement from the FBI. It’s a film that follows the tradition of the stand-alone episodes void of alien conspiracies. All that’s fine and dandy, I suppose. The consequence, however, is that nowhere are we promised another film or even a reason to continue following these characters. We’re just left hanging with lighter wallets.
I really didn’t think this could happen. I didn’t think it was possible that a bad X-Files movie would make it to the screen. I’m truly and regretfully mystified.

The Dark Knight

2008-07-20T20:23:00.000-07:00

What can anyone contribute to the barrage of praise that fandom has heaped on my favorite movie of the year? How about this? It’s not as perfect as everyone thinks it is. Relax. I’m just getting this out of the way. For those of you avoiding spoilers…now is the time to run. If you’ve seen anything but the teaser for this film, you’ve been spoiled and I don’t want to ruin it for you further.
Here we…go. One of the few problems I had with TDK is that Bruce Wayne faces a loss in this film that should have affected him a bit more deeply. Additionally, Alfred is way too quick to encourage him along in the midst of it. I found myself thinking, why don’t we give Bale a chance to be a little bit more, I don’t know…emotive about this whole thing? I suppose it’s a small problem, and a brief distraction at that. What this film is really centered on is the consequences of someone like Batman meeting someone like the Joker. It’s like watching, “An unstoppable force meet an immovable object.”
Early in the film Bruce asserts, “Batman has no limits.” The problem is, he hasn’t met the Joker yet. Ledger’s Joker is an “agent of chaos.” He’s the paradox of a mad, calculating dog, let loose and leashed at his own discretion. He’s the one without limits. Watching Heath Ledger play the Joker will make you hate Jack Nicholson’s performance from Burton’s 1989 film. When you see Ledger let loose you realize that Nicholson’s Joker was everything you’d expect him to be. Ledger’s isn’t even of this world. It’s not what you’d expect. He’s disappeared in the role the way Tom Hanks disappeared into Forrest Gump; the way Daniel Day Lewis disappears in…well…everything. So, since we’ve been giving Lewis Oscars for a while now…why not bestow one on the late Mr. Ledger? If not, we could probably take somebody else’s. Meryl Streep didn’t really deserve her statue for The Devil Wears Prada. That one will work.
This movie just plain works. It works as an action film. It works as a commentary on the consequences of vigilantism. It works as a fulfillment of what the last scene in Batman Begins promised. It works as a graphic novel brought to roaring life. It’s dark. It’s different. But it works.
For the fan of all things Batman it is everything a good Batman story should be. It’s a genre flick. The best Batman stories always dedicate themselves to a specific genre (horror, thriller, mystery, etc.) and this one picked neo-noir, crime drama. It’s a film very much like its predecessor in that it is character driven. It is unlike its predecessor in that it is far more action packed: an absolute thrill to behold. It deserves multiple viewings to soak in the detail, not only of the action, but of the performances as well.
It’s unfortunate that in the wake of Ledger’s performance and subsequent death, that all the other actors will be overlooked or referenced in passing. Bale has no equal in this role. Not even close. He has to play three roles in this movie, a fact not lost on many who were paying attention the first time around. He has to play Bruce, the drunken man-whore playboy. He has to play the enraged, frightful, vigilante and he has to play the man behind both personas. Bale is convincing and compelling in each, selling, without question, the ridiculous notion that a man would dress up as a bat and fight crime.
Aaron Eckhart’s performance is multi-layered as Harvey “Two-Face” Dent, an eventual villain I’ve always found more interesting than Joker, due, quite simply, to the fact that Batman actually likes Harvey. Batman wants the Joker locked up and the key tossed for good, but Harvey…Harvey was a friend who still has a chance at redemption and that makes him far more dangerous to Batman than any other villain in his rogues gallery. To me it makes total sense to let Eckhart loose with Two-Face next time around. I think, after seeing Ledger’s last complete work be so compelling and successful, you just can’t recast this role. Don’t do it. Don't recast it. Don’t pretend he’s still around. Don’t make a cheap reference to it in a third film. Just let it stand all by itself, proclaiming what it so confidently is: icing on the best Batman cake you’ve ever eaten. As such, I have a feeling I may be compelled to write more on this film. I’d really like to hear some reactions from this one…chime in folks…let’s put a smile on that face.

Who's Watching The Watchmen?

2008-07-17T19:41:00.000-07:00

I don't know how many of you have ever read Alan Moore's Watchmen. Actually I don't know how many of you ever read comic books. In case you don't know it just so happens that Watchmen is considered, by critics and fans alike, the most prolific comic book, ahem, graphic novel ever. It'll never be my personal favorite...but the genius of it is undeniable. It does some very interesting things with its writing and its art. If you pay careful attention you'll see that the book is a stylistic mirror. That is to say, the last panel is nearly identical in style to the first and so on and so forth. It's a very complex book.
It's set primarily in the 1980s (an alternative 1980s) and tells a captivating "what if" story. What if, kids who idolized their comic book heroes actually decided to try and become those heroes? What if it worked? And what if, after it worked...it all went horribly, horribly wrong? The result is the deconstruction of superhero lore and fantasy driven to its logical consequences; consequences I won't spoil for you.
Why bring this up? Here's why...

This is the trailer for Zack Snyder's Watchmen. If you pay attention to this blog at all you'll remember I have a little problem with Mr. Snyder. He directed that mess of a movie about Spartans we no longer speak of here.

You notice something about both those trailers? They're both absolutely gorgeous. They look like everything the pre-teen comic book reader dreams about. They look like the answer to swill like Daredevil, Ghost Rider, The Fantastic Four and every direct-to-dvd superhero title out there. The problem is that "the movie that must not be named" was a joke. The effects were uneven and cheap. There's a subtle thread of Birth of a Nation style racism and there's at least one character that just doesn't need to be there at all. The list of things wrong with this film is just too long. The mystery of this film's success is equaled only by Transformers.
And now Snyder's meddling little hands are all over Watchmen, and he's produced a trailer that look's like he's made another perfect movie. But I'm on to you Snyder! You're not getting my hopes up this time, no you're not. If you screw this up, and you probably will, we're putting you on notice right next to George "toy-boy" Lucas.

Hellboy II: The Golden Opportunity Missed

2008-07-11T20:41:00.000-07:00

My friend Barrett is going to make so much fun of me. Hang with me neighbor, this is gonna take a minute. Not that long ago a little movie named Pan's Labyrinth was about to debut, backed with significant critical hype and persuasive word of mouth. To familiarize myself with the director's work I resolved to rent Hellboy, the comic tale of a red, devil looking, ape-thing battling ancient evil and his own love-sick heart. This movie was deemed "awful" by most in my inner circle and all recollections of what I'd seen did nothing to prompt my disagreement. When I looked for Hellboy in the rental section of my local video store I could not find it. It was on my way out, defeated, that I noticed it for sale on the clearance rack tagged with a price less than that of a rental fee. Perfect. I could watch it and unload it next time I had movies to sell. How wrong I was. In the subsequent years I've come to have great affection for the film.
To be fair,Hellboy is not a perfect film. It's semi-anticlimactic, and endeavors to include too many human elements and perspectives. But it did a lot of great things. Stylistically, it had the perfect balance of digitial and practical effects, never sinking to that George "I love digital effects so much I wanna marry 'em" Lucas level. You might have noticed that Peter Jackson is also good at this.
The characters of Hellboy are interesting and while several human characters within it are fairly useless, they are an aid to the aura of mytique that surrounds creatures like Abe Sapien and the Red Monkey himself. The film also has extremely good comedic timing. Ron Perlman was not born to play the Beast opposite Linda Hamilton in Soap Opera Hell. He was born to play Hellboy or "Red" as his friends call him. His voice is deep and other worldly but somehow, beneath miles of makeup and prosthetics he manages to emote and amuse, fleshing out a character that no one should actually be able to relate to. He's almost what you'd imagine John McClane would be like if he were a red monster kept in seclusion most of his life and raised by the Bereau for Paranormal Research and Defense. It's not a bad gig really. All the food you can eat, cable tv, and you get to shoot really big guns. Really. Big. Guns. That's the fun of Hellboy. The characters have just enough depth and heart along side inventive, eye-candy action scenes, that the DVD still sits on my shelf today.
Enter Hellboy II: The Golden Army, a film that is absolutely dazzling to look at. The creatures, inventions, and over all, visual scope of this beast is probably the most eye-catching, study worthy thing you'll see on screen all year. Guillermo Del Toro is a master of when to say when as far as special effects are concerned. If what you're seeing is digital, it's because it absolutely has to be - if not, it's an organic, living, breathing practical effect that adds serious depth to each and every frame.
It's a real shame that I wasn't remotely interested in the story, and consequently the movie, at all. From the start to the finish I was completely and regretfully disinterested in everything that was going on. There's still the trademark action. There's still stuff that's funny. There's the beauty of the visual effects and the creatures that have been invented. There are sequences that work. But none of it gels together to make a very good film. There's supposed to be drama between firestarter girlfriend Liz and Red, but you never get a sense of what they're fighting about or why it's supposed to be so dramatic. Red is supposed to be the star of the movie but he doesn't really have anything to do except punch a few monsters and shoot a few guns. He's literally put on the sidelines several times over and the moments they try to provide some Hellboy-centric emotional resonance it falls flat because they've been enthusiastically pointing you in a different direction the whole time. It was like talking to a salesman who really wants you to buy a car but keeps showing you scooters.
Thank God The Dark Knight is coming out next week. Here I come IMAX!

I'll Definitely See This One Again (when it hits TBS).

2008-06-14T08:53:00.001-07:00

The Incredible Hulk is almost everything it should be. It’s a chase movie that climaxes in a super-powered brawl (with special effects that contribute rather than distract, no less). Geeks have been salivating since this sucker screened a couple weeks ago. The result of Marvel’s recent creative endeavors (given significance by Iron Man's success) will mean a Thor movie, a Captain America Movie and eventually an Avengers movie. They’ve explicitly said as much in the last 2 minutes of both Iron Man and Hulk.
Since this development, inter-net chatter has gravitated around the possibilities of mainstream, credible Hollywood movies controlled by the companies that actually created the characters rather than witless studios. With a historical bias towards DC characters, Batman being my personal fav, I’ve watched the chatter with interest, but with slightly disconnected interest.
I can honestly say that this has, in no way, tainted my reception of either Iron Man or Hulk. A comic book movie is a comic book movie. I usually give them a chance no matter what. That said, I think the Incredible Hulk is a bit (just a bit, mind you) of a step back in the realm of mainstream credibility. Not that realism should be the siren song of all comic book fare – no, no. But is it too much to ask for some clever dialogue or moments of fuller emotional resonance?
Ed Norton as Bruce “you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry” Banner along with Liv Tyler as Betty Ross, marginally succeed in providing some authentic drama to their characters’ star-crossed relationship, but that’s about it. Tim Roth rocks as something of a special forces, wannabe super soldier, until he takes his shirt off and they have to give him digital muscles.
But, most of this nitpicking, in all honesty, is actually irrelevant, because it never truly detracts from the wonder and thrill of watching the Hulk scream and fight his way through pile after pile of debris, using the occasional police cruiser as makeshift boxing gloves (definitely the coolest scene in the movie).
This is how The Incredible Hulk succeeds where its predecessor fails. It doesn’t take itself too seriously. It just wants to blow stuff up, which is fine with me and makes for a relatively fun time at the movies, thank you very much.
The strength of the film is in the action and how it attempts to coalesce the on screen marvel universe. This isn’t about making a Hulk movie that has to make sense in reality (something I think the recent Batman films needed to do just to successfully resurrect the franchise). It’s about opening as many doors as possible to sequels, to crossovers and ensembles. It is exciting to see Marvel begin to control their film product. So far it has retained the joy and wonder of what it feels like to be a 10-year-old kid with his face buried in a comic book. It really is fun to watch the digitally rendered Hulk run, jump, fight and tear through the Army’s property.
However, it seems the same thing that has set Marvel free to faithfully entertain our inner 10-year-old has trapped some of the dialogue and character depth in a juvenile frame, rendering the Incredible Hulk a better film than its predecessor, but nothing more than a moderately fun B film. It’s not a dead stop on Marvel’s creative train, just a gentle warning that for every major, legitimate actor you get to play the hero (Ed Norton, Robert Downey Jr.) you also need some serious screenwriting and directing muscle to hit the homerun these films are going to need if this Superhero renaissance is going to continue.

Franchise Fever

2008-06-07T15:35:00.000-07:00

So here it is - the written review that several of you have asked for. I'll try not to tread on the same ground as the blogcast, linked below, for those of you who put up with the whole of it. Incidentally, be looking for our next one come July - we're going to try a new snappy format and style that'll rock your sandals off (because it's summer and only one person I know wears socks with his sandals and are thus harder to "rock off"). I digress.
Let's just get this out of the way, shall we? This movie is not good. Oh and I so wanted it to be! I wanted to go in, sit down, be blown away and not leave my seat without pinning one of those old, scratch and sniff, "grape-job!" stickers to the screen. Instead, this is sorta like seeing the coolest kid in school have to sit in the corner for two hours because he ate all the glue.
I still want this movie to be good. I want to go back and be totally seduced and brainwashed so that the memory of a bad Indiana Jones movie would be nothing more than a foggy nightmare that I've managed to repress.
I can't do it though. I can't repress the cgi ground hogs, the oppressive nostalgia (how many nods to Sean Connery do we need? Seriously!) and the aliens. That's right. I'm that guy. I just don't think aliens belong in Indy's universe. Maybe, just maybe I would feel differently if it was actually a credit to the story - but I'll never know will I? Will I George?!
These days you can't pick up an entertainment publication without a whiny critic sobbing about how there are no original ideas out there and how Hollywood is just plain lazy for recycling dead franchises. If I could just address all of these critics collectively right here..."congratulations, you've just become irrelevant. You may now get in line behind your critical ancestors and join the fight against talkies."
In case you haven't noticed, a new generation rules Hollywood and we like franchises. We are geeks who could not be more excited for Mission Impossible IV, The Dark Knight, The Man of Steel, Captain America, and yes, even The Incredible Hulk. Heck, we'll even give Terminator 4 a chance. We'll probably hate it, but we'll give it a chance.
My point is this, Hollywood. We're the ones buying the tickets now and you have to do whatever we want! So, next time you dust off one of our favorite childhood franchise heroes, try asking one of us what we loved about the originals. If you paid attention you'd know there've been things you should just not touch. I'm talking to you J.J. Abrams. Shatner's still alive and you want to recast Kirk?! Staple that sucker's stomach and squeeze him back in the captain's chair if you're so stinkin' desperate. I would buy a ticket to that!
In the mean time, can we just try and avoid disasters like an Indiana Jones movie that has nothing more going for it than Harrison Ford's performance and Spielberg's ability to shoot a good chase scene?

Indy IV Blogcast

2008-06-04T09:35:00.000-07:00

So this is a little outdated at this point but, hey, I don't get paid for this stuff so pipe down. Nolan and I hopped online not long ago to discuss what the experience was like, whether it's worth the price of admission, as well as our top five observations of the film. Listen Here

What Does "The Last Crusade" Have to do with The Odd Couple?

2008-05-21T10:21:00.000-07:00

You know…I didn’t expect this but I think I am most critical of The Last Crusade. We are introduced in the first few minutes to Indiana as a teenager (surely George wasn’t pimping the concept of his mediocre TV series here was he?). There wasn’t anything terribly annoying about watching this mini-Indy adventure but I really didn’t find young Indiana that interesting, necessary or enlightening. I suppose it was kind of fun to watch River Phoenix imitate Harrison Ford – but I’d rather watch Harrison Ford. Hopefully this means I won’t have a problem with an old Indiana Jones.

It’s also slightly unfortunate to find out that Indiana’s name is actually Henry Jones Jr. But I suppose it works, especially when Sean Connery plays Henry Jones Sr. Crusade also feels a bit like it’s trying to be more like Raiders – as if it functions as an apology to fans that were disappointed by The Temple of Doom. Let’s count the similarities shall we?
1. Lighter in Tone
2. Plot centered on Christian Mythology
3. Nazi Villains
4. Arch villain meets gruesome end comparable to face melting in Raiders

I could go on but you get the point.
Finally, there’s the odd fact that it doesn’t seem any of Indy’s adventures have made a true believer out of him. His two previous adventures have resulted in a demonstration of divine power or wrath and yet he tells his class at the beginning of Crusade that, “we cannot afford to take mythology at face value.”
Did Indy have a crisis of faith between 1936 and 1938? If so, it’s not directly stated or even implied really. I suppose the only explanation would be that because he so resents his father's grail quest and sees it as the reason for the distance between them he’s reluctant to believe in it. Actually that makes a lot of sense…let’s go with that.
I know all this sounds like maybe I didn’t love or even like this film very much at all. This might betray a bias on my part but that isn’t the case. I think this movie is an absolute blast. It’s funny, exiting, interesting, well shot and well acted all the way through.
One of things you’ll find most people mention when reflecting on Last Crusade is the interplay between Ford and Connery. As much as I hate to tow the party line, it really is the backbone of the film. In fact, one of the most ingenious things about the movie is that Indy’s father is a bit of a bumbler. While meeting the father of the inimitable Indiana Jones does demythologize the legend slightly, it doesn’t do so in a way that discredits his prowess as an action hero. Indy still manages to outwit, outrun and outfight his opponents. The fun is watching Connery remain relatively unimpressed. I can just imagine Indy, recounting the story of the time he shoved a plank through the spokes of a Nazi motorcycle, narrowly escaping certain death, turning to his father, beaming with satisfaction only to see him casually checking his pocket watch. The Last Crusade is probably the funniest of the three films and this is due primarily to the Jones Boys’ relationship. They’re like the archaeological odd couple – only Oscar carries a whip and fights Nazi’s while Felix stands aside in shock every time Oscar shoots one.
There is a subtlety and grace to this story. On the surface it is the search for the Holy Grail: eternal youth. Yet it is also the one movie, among the original three, that most humanizes the central, legendary character. Maybe this was obvious to everybody back in 1989 – but in reevaluating the franchise I noticed this for the first time and found it a credit to the series.
Now here’s the thought that’s been circling my proverbial drain. The events of the first three Indiana Jones films occur over the course of only three years. Temple of Doom takes place in 1935, Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1936, and Last Crusade in 1938. Tonight at Midnight Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will debut an Indiana Jones film set in the 1950’s. I wonder how Crystal Skull is going to even come close to approximating the feeling and thrill of the first three movies. I just don’t know if it can – even if it’s a good movie it won’t necessarily mean that it will be a good Indiana Jones movie. As I wrap this up I recall my words of warning to Spielberg and Lucas in a blog post last year.
“Don’t. Screw. It. Up.”

Anything Goes

2008-05-19T20:00:00.001-07:00

I can imagine the crowd walking out of Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom remarking, “Well…that was…different.” Upon reflection, Temple of Doom is probably one of those sequels that got in on the ground floor when it comes to subverting the expectations of franchise fans. The Empire Strikes Back would be a film in a similar, though superior, vein. The question regarding Temple is, “Does it work?”
My answer is most definitely yes. Let it be known, however, I don’t say this without reservation or caveat.
Temple subverts many expectations that one might have walking into an Indiana Jones film. It is much darker for instance, following in the tradition of The Empire Strikes Back.
There’s less concern for realism in Temple than there was in Raiders. It’s not that Raiders was especially realistic. It’s just that Temple’s rules of gravity are a bit more negotiable for the sake of the fantastic. Such examples come to mind as Dr. Jones slowing his rate of descent after jumping from a plane with nothing more than an emergency life raft or jumping his rail car over a gap in the tracks to avoid capture. Those are just a couple of examples.
But here’s the funny thing: the film makes it easy for you to let go of the rational for the sake of the experience. This film opens up in such a way as to subtly warn you that nothing remotely realistic is about to happen. Remember how? Once again, our Indiana Jones film opens with nothing to grease the wheels on the cinema train. Only this time the film begins with a musical number. And what is said number?
“Anything Goes” Yup. That’s for sure. I wasn’t expecting to see a villain who reaches into to your chest to pull out your heart – but I guess Ms. Willie Scott warned me: Anything Goes. I think this is the right attitude to have when watching this movie. Just throw your hands up in defeat and take the ride over the gaps in the track and down the cliff face.
Though I would argue the spirit of the franchise is securely intact within Temple, I admit it does feel more like an extremely well produced, extended episode in an Indiana Jones TV series. It even takes place one year before the events in Raiders of the Lost Ark (something I had never noticed), and thus gives it a far more episodic feel. Here, Jones’ mission is not as deliberate as a treasure hunt but is thrust upon him by a series of circumstances beyond his control – divine providence (if you believe Shiva is providential) brings him to rescue the people of a remote village in India. The similarity between Temple and Raiders that I never really noticed before was Indy fighting on God’s behalf. For instance, the evil priest of the Temple of Doom explicitly states his goal is the ascendance of Kali and the downfall of the Hebrew God. Unlike in Raiders, Indy really gets to contribute something to the fight this time around, first by dispatching the evil priest and then by rescuing the village children from slave labor. Despite the fact that God gives him a little bit of a “win” it seems that Indy thinks he’s fighting Shiva’s battle, but we’ll let it slide knowing what’s coming down the road.
The fun and humor, once again, is watching Ford react to the people and situations around him. Willie is annoying and noisy but Indy’s frustration with her is hilarious in all forms ("Willie! We - Are Going - To DIE!") There’s so much in Ford’s face that no line could match in comedic value. Just watch him react to Willie as he searches her bedroom for assassins. She thinks he’s there to get his "archaeological freak on" when he says, “there’s no one here.”
Naturally she replies all sexy-like, “I’m here.”
The look she gets is one of such annoyance and total disinterest you’d have to be half asleep to avoid hysterics. At least I would. This may not be the funniest of Indiana Jones films, but I think it’s the one wherein Ford exercises the best of his comedic timing and skill and thusly compensates for any disappointment in a change of tone.
Despite the shortcomings, it’s not a sequel where there is an evident lack of skill by the major players. Temple is an attempt to broaden the universe, have a little bit more of the fantastic involved and experiment with some special effects. The spirit of it remains intact, if a bit exaggerated, and makes for an extremely funny, exciting action flick.

Where Did All the Magic Go?

2008-05-18T10:55:00.000-07:00

Let's be honest. The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe had some good ol’ fashioned cornball problems to be sure, but I liked it. I thought it had a sweetness that more than made up for child acting, not to mention a fairly well staged conclusion aided by the multi-talented, thoroughly creepy Tilda Swinton as the White Witch of Narnia. The film seemed comfortable in its own fantasy driven shoes and it was hard for me to resent any of it after it had been so faithful to the book. In Prince Caspian, however, there’s enough corn to choke a camel. There were characters, lines, and subplots so cheesy that watching them was physically uncomfortable. Really? You're going to fight the dwarf? You're going to brag when you win? Seriously? Ok. But surely you're smart enough not to include a useless and altogether unwelcome romantic sub-plot - oh wait - you're not. Great.
This time around the Pevensie children arrive in Narnia 1300 years after the events in Wardrobe to rescue the land from the tyranny of the Telmarine rulers. All true Narnians live in secret, lest they be executed by the Telmarine - a people ignorant of magic and the true ruler of Narnia: Aslan. The children arrive in Narnia, ripped away from their juvenile mediocrity in London, to discover all the magic is gone from Narnia. The true misfortune is that this says more about the film than I ever could.
I think Prince Caspian is a great example of how certain things, committed to paper, MUST be changed and adapted for the screen. It is simply unconvincing and awkward when the Pevensie children fight battles, give orders, and inspire troops to battle.
I know it’s tricky to have children portraying the heroes of your story but the first half-hour of this movie really, really suffered from repeated and thoroughly awkward encounters wherein the children attempt to prove their royal mettle (by fighting a dwarf for instance). What it actually looks like is silly, arrogant, over compensation. High King Peter is the worst offender here. Peter is not remotely likable at any point during the film and actor William Moseley does nothing to make Peter look anything more than bored or prissy. There’s not much middle ground. I found myself very thankful at the end of the film knowing that Peter does not appear in the Narnia series again until the very end of book seven and could be justifiably recast or at least given the time to take some acting lessons.
There were a few moments that weren’t a total loss however. There are two action sequences that are well executed in the film and one that even made me sit back in admiration. I won’t give it away, but the final battle has aspects that were a credit to what has become an overused draw of fantasy epics. So many times in these movies, battle lines are drawn and I spend half an hour, arms crossed, waiting – nay – daring them to show me something I haven’t seen before. Caspian did that for me. It’s just too bad the rest of the film was so uninspired. Ben Barnes, as Caspian probably has a future if he does everything in his power to never use that accent again – ever again. Although, I did manage to keep myself entertained by imagining him wearing a hat and mask while rescuing Mexican peasants from the evil Capitan. As much fun as that was – I shouldn’t have to escape into my own imagination while watching something designed to be an escape in itself.
It’s time for someone to rescue this franchise (after only 2 films this is a bad sign). This series needs an Alfonso Cuaron (Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban) or a Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth) to rescue it from magical mediocrity. I'm a fan of Lewis' work and appreciate each book in the Narnia series to varying degrees. I just want the films to be a credit to his work and Caspian isn't worth a sixpence.

Raider Crusader

2008-05-16T12:01:00.000-07:00

The long familiar image of the Paramount Studio Mountain fills the frame and fades into an identical peak, deep in the spooky, dangerous jungles of…somewhere. There’s really no time to worry about pesky things like introductions when there is so much to do. That’s one of the great things about Raiders of the Lost Ark. It doesn’t mess around – it just starts.
We are introduced to our hero, Indiana Jones, in the same way the ominous mountain was – in silhouette. We know he’s the hero because he use his whip to disarm would be assailants that intend to keep him from his treasure. However, Jones is no typical treasure hunter, slovenly hunting fame and fortune, no sir. It’s all for the edification of mankind as he battles and outwits lesser archeologists who would use their knowledge and skill for profit.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is the story of a hero in the tradition of an old fashioned matinee, serial adventure, conceived by George Lucas and, thankfully, fleshed out and committed to paper by Lawrence Kasdan. This movie was made to be iconic. Through Spielberg’s direction, director of photography, Douglas Slocombe captures Ford in silhouette, in shadow, and in action with legendary verve. Ford plays Indiana Jones with a cool swagger that often turns to panic as he realizes he’s a man in just a bit over his head. Whether it be giant boulders with promises of making him 2 dimensional or a golden box that contains the actual wrath of God – Jones always seems to find himself a bit out-matched.
The more I watch Raiders the more I realize what a great actor Ford really is. He can do just about anything and with Indiana Jones he clearly demonstrates it. One of the strongest things about the film is Ford’s comedic expressiveness. There are moments through the movie that would consistently fall into typical slapstick territory, but Ford always redeems them, often without a word. Just watch him grasp at that loose vine as he attempts to escape the cave-in right at the beginning of the film and you’ll know what I’m talking about.
However, ancient traps aren’t the only villains that Indy must grapple with. The lines between good and evil are quite clearly drawn here. After all - who doesn’t hate Nazi’s? The funny thing to me about watching Raiders again was how serpent-like Major Arnold Toht appears to be. In case you’re uninitiated, Toht is the arch Nazi who missed that day in school where they talked about not touching hot metal. I don’t know if this was intentional or if it’s significant, but come on. What does Indy hate more than anything? Snakes. What are snakes associated with biblically? Satan. Who is Satan? He’s the ultimate rebel against God – ultimate evil. What are the Nazi’s often associated with? They are the ultimate expression of evil in recent history and the arch Nazi of the film looks and sounds like a snake! Beyond that, Indy is trying to rescue an artifact of biblical significance so that the Nazi’s can’t use its power to take over the world. So here’s my subjective, superimposed meaning of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Indy’s battle is really against Satan. But here’s the funny thing. Indy doesn’t actually do anything that prevents the Nazi’s from getting what they want. Sure, he tries to stop them from getting the Ark, but all he really does is slow them down. It’s God that melts their faces off in the end.
Of course, the funny thing is that if the Nazi’s had gone to Sunday school they would have realized that no one was ever able to hold on to the Ark and really have it work out very well for them. But, I suppose, if they had we wouldn’t have been able to see their faces turn to soup and explode.
I love this movie. I really do. Sure, Karen Allen can’t quite master the proper tone when her lines seem cut and pasted out of a serial matinee adventure, but if that’s the only thing that bothers me then it’s really not worth complaining about is it? Say what you will about any sequels – Raiders of the Lost Ark deserves to be called a classic.

Perspective: Indiana Jones

2008-05-13T20:07:00.000-07:00

False start after false start has finally resulted in the fourth Indiana Jones film being produced and scheduled for release on May 22nd, 2008. I have my fears and my skepticism planted firmly on my sleeve. In my mind this skepticism takes the form of a miniature John Rhys-Davies, alight on my shoulder whispering to me each time I watch the trailers, “Sequels…very dangerous. You go first.”

Indiana Jones is easily one of the most iconic film characters ever created and one I’ve grown up with. In preparing for the debut of the fourth film and, perhaps, as a means of deflecting my own apprehension toward a 65 year old action icon I thought I should go back and take each Indy film in turn. The mission: try to watch them like it’s the first time. I get this eerie feeling that Indy 4 will never be able to live up to the expectations and not necessarily because of the film’s integrity or merit but because of how many fans now think they own the man in the invincible fedora. Because Indiana is so intimately associated with the childhood and cinematic high of so many of today’s fans and critics there is something personally offensive if it doesn’t live up to millions of different expectations. I am, undeniably, one of those fans. It’s just one of the double-edged swords of franchise filmmaking: the consequences of creating “art” for mass consumption.
So, with all my might I am going to approach the sacred trilogy, in the remaining days before the release of the new film, with fresh eyes that I might be as fair as possible when I watch Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I invite all Indiana Jones fans to join me in this exercise and interact with the subsequent reviews right here on Nothing New Under the Sun.

Come On...At Least It's Not as Stupid as Nascar (Hi Chris!)

2008-05-10T10:59:00.000-07:00

I wasn’t expecting to be blown away by Speed Racer. I’ve never watched the cartoon and, contrary to popular belief (hi Paul!), I have too much of a life to go back and watch a few dozen pseudo Japanese cartoons to see if the new film is true to the source material. As the previews rolled a slow but definite sense of dread began to set itself deep inside me. Maybe I’m getting cranky from being single for so long, but it seems to me that I’m seeing some of the stupidest trailers I’ve ever seen in my life. Seriously. Somewhere between Eddie Murphy’s Meet Dave and Adam Sandler’s Don’t Mess With the Zohan I forgot the 3rd grade. Sorry Mrs. Kucharick, but all that time and effort you spent teaching me cursive and long division were a waste. They were wasted the minute Adam Sandler decided to keep hiring Rob Schneider so he could continue his systematic degradation of the species through racially themed comedy.
I thought to myself, as I sat through the cinematic equivalent of Chinese water torture, “this can’t be a good sign”. If these are the previews the studio decided Speed Racer’s audience would want to see I was going to break under the torture.
That’s what surprised me about Speed. It was actually a pretty stinkin’ smart film. This will be an odd comparison but an odd film such as this deserves it. Watching Speed Racer evoked nearly the same emotions from me as Elizabethtown. Odd? I know. Here’s where I draw the comparison. Elizabethtown is a Cameron Crowe film about a young man dealing with the death of his father and his eccentric, extended family. It is, arguably, not a great film. There are consistent moments of nostalgia common to man throughout, yet there is something about the film that is so obviously peculiar and personal to Crowe that it doesn’t quite translate. Yet, I honestly think it’s hard to hate the film because Crowe is so evidently earnest and consistently avoids condescension.
Speed Racer was the same way for me. I don’t quite understand why this movie was made. I don’t care about the source material and I certainly don’t expect such a “cartoony” flick to move me. Yet somehow, there were quite a few moments that did and most of them in between didn’t insult my intelligence. I would actually say that the opening race/flashback sequence was one of the most emotionally moving, heart tugging moments on film this year. It is an exceptional demonstration of how well the Wachowski brothers can build a sequence to a highly unexpected emotional climax where you may not think there is any material to mine. I’ve never seen something so similar to a video game in action and tone that was able to actually resonate with me. I don’t think the rest of the film consistently lives up to those opening 10 minutes – but it was an extremely rare experience.

Beside this there is the novelty of watching a film that looks like it was written immediately after a hearty breakfast of fruit loops sprinkled with acid. Even if you’ve seen the previews you have no concept of what I’m talking about. This movie is overflowing with color that is almost constantly in motion. The opening titles unveil the film in a kaleidoscope and the pallet of the film follows suit, never letting you forget that you really are watching a cartoon – albeit one that’s about 30 minutes heavy on running time. But you can’t resent the quirkiness and the few shortcomings in the end. It’s far too earnest in character and story, and way too internally faithful to everything that’s fun about a good cartoon that you just have to sit back and let it run.
And now, for your viewing pleasure...

The Geek is the New Rock Star

2008-05-03T12:59:00.000-07:00

The summer has begun folks and if Iron Man is any indication of things to come, the season could be sweet. Last summer was…well let’s not talk about last summer and all the promises of greatness it failed to keep. Let’s talk about the promise of things to come. Iron Man is not a perfect film. I’ll get that out of the way. There are things within it that I usually don’t forgive: a few moments of internal implausibility, some dialogue that sounds as if it was scripted by 6th graders and an unnecessary (though brief) romantic sub-plot. However, Iron Man quickly became a movie that I was willing to bestow a pass upon with no regret. Here’s why.
Robert Downey Jr. is what really makes this movie. The film absolutely relies on Downey for levity before it becomes too self-important and for legitimate heart when it inches toward the precipice of cliché. Many times the film would coast halfway into moments we’ve all been seeing for years and have come to not only expect but also loathe. Most of the time, it’s Downey’s Tony Stark that rescues them and even turns them on their head.
Tony Stark lives the life of a Rock Star: private planes, fast cars, one night stands, and assistants who kindly send the sluts packing the next morning. Of course, he’s really just the guy every pubescent boy thinks he wants to be and is therefore an amalgam of a brilliant techie geek and the front man of your favorite rock band.
The cast of this movie is probably one of the most apparent examples of how far comic book movies have climbed in status. The new Batman franchise comes to mind as another example. Comic book movies, when executed according to a vision that is loyal to the source material, have begun to pay off for Hollywood. This has made a lot of big names sit up, pay attention and exorcise their childhood fantasies by donning tights, capes, or armor to play superheroes. Iron man is an example where it most undeniably contributes to the enjoyment and quality of the film. With a cast like Jeff Bridges, Gwenyth Paltrow, Terence Stamp, and Paul Bettany all playing their parts with no trace of resentment for comic-book fare, you can forgive the moments where it just can’t avoid the trappings of the genre (although it avoids a lot of them quite well).
The movie takes a cue from Mission Impossible III and starts with a pivotal action sequence – only to back up and exposit Tony Stark as a lovable, all American hedonist. He is a brilliant corporate mogul, making billions from weapons manufacturing – only to be thrown into a serendipitous situation where he encounters the consequences of his own industry. It is the typical double dose of trauma and self-actualization that every comic-book hero goes through, but it is no less authentic here. Knowing where this man is headed makes every minute in between more interesting. It also manages to remain enjoyable and entertaining where most origin stories have left us with nothing more than the anticipation of the hero’s first mission. Here, Downey, along with a cast of legitimately talented actors, is able to create a character we’re interested in seeing - in or out of costume – hedonistic or self-sacrificing.
Director Jon Favreau deserves a lot of credit for making this a fun, well executed movie. He has good comedic timing, perhaps aided by Downey’s self-deprecating sarcasm and great instinct for making the action seem genuinely intense (also aided by Downey’s self-deprecating sarcasm).
If people were to sit down and compare the action of this film to, say…I don’t know…Transformers, they’d find a director who, with his introduction into the world of action movies had managed to out play Michael Bay at every turn. Watching Favreau’s final product makes you realize that Bay is really just a kid who doesn’t know how to use his multi-million dollar toys but is somehow still arrogant enough to invite you over so you can watch him play with them. It is evident that Favreau has not only been given some good toys, but he’s not playing to show off. He’s generous with what he’s been given and appreciative of where it came from. He really wants to tell a good story and he doesn’t have to overload the screen to the point of total cinematic inoculation to do it.
Iron Man was just plain fun. It was exactly the sort of movie that should start off every summer and can now officially be added to the canon of superhero movies that don’t completely suck.

RECIPE FOR RADNESS

2008-04-27T16:14:00.000-07:00

So it totally snowed, like, a billion inches here this weekend. Seriously. It’s April 25th and it’s not safe to travel because of snow. After I arrived home I had to call my boss and ask him if he could remind me why I moved to South Dakota because somewhere along the way I completely forgot.
Therefore, while you all were merrily roasting marshmallows, hot-dogs or some other food APPROPRIATE FOR THE SEASON!!!! – I was quarantined to my sofa watching movies. Oh, but this was no normal marathon mind you. This marathon was bodacious – radical – righteous even. In case you hadn’t figured it out, it was a marathon of 80’s goodness. You see, I’m not a typically lazy film fan; passively determining which newly released images wash over me, as I lay sprawled, decked out in nothing but sweats. I look for the oldies – or, at least, recent classics. My theme this weekend: “Movies I’ve almost rented 50 times but was afraid they’d suck so I never have.”
Up first: Weird Science. Why is this movie a “classic”? I suppose it has the awkward charm of Bill Paxton’s immovable hairline and some of the…actually ALL of the clothes. I haven’t seen so many shoulder pads since I was in an Assembly of God (also in the 80’s by the way). Other than the obvious junior-high appeal of Kelly Lebrock as the artificial Barbie-esque life form I don’t understand why anyone remembers this movie. The truly most interesting thing to me about this film was that it succumbs to the common, teenage Hollywood myth that femininity bestows masculinity. I’m not sure I’ve seen another film that so shamelessly cops to this belief. The main characters are unpopular, abused, insecure, and cowardly UNTIL the amazing British accented sexpot shows up to show them what real men are like. Now I know why there are so many wimpy guys out there these days. None of them had the tenacity to create a robot with boobs to show them what it takes to be a man.
Up next: Tequila Sunrise. Never heard of it? I can tell you why. All of the stars (Mel Gibson, Kurt Russell, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Raul Julia) have made way better movies. Mel Gibson is a retired drug dealer trying to operate a legitimate business and earn the respect of his dream girl. Kurt Russell is his best friend from high school who just got promoted to head of narcotics in L.A. County. It’s kind of a paint-by-numbers, dull thriller, but here’s the awesome thing about it. All the drama, the romance, and the action are set to saucy jazz saxophone and it is therefore hard to imagine anyone, of any decade, watching with a straight face. If ever I’m telling a joke that simply fails to land, I assure you I can play the soundtrack to Tequila Sunrise and you will roll on the floor. Roll, my friend. Roll.
The highlight of my marathon was probably the long forgotten Bill Murray comedy, Quick Change, about a bank robber who dresses as a clown and escapes by pretending to be a hastily released hostage. Hmm, and I thought Inside Man was being original when it used a similar plot device. This is definitely a Bill Murray movie all the way through. Unfortunately, most of the highlights are in the first couple of minutes as Murray deadpans all of the funniest lines behind bozo makeup. This is one of those movies that leaves no real lasting impression and is enjoyable, I think, only in retrospect as acclaimed character actors like Tony Shaloub, Stanley Tucci and Phil Hartman make cameos well before they are famous.
I guess you could say my instincts about each of these movies were correct and I would be no worse for having avoided each one. I will therefore remember them as one singular and glorious 80’s film experience. This will take a while to convince myself of, but one day in casual conversation I will remark to a friend, “have you seen that old 80’s movie where Bill Murray dresses up as a clown and builds a robot that looks like a supermodel with really big hair? You know, it’s the one where Mel Gibson helps them steal drugs from a Mexican Kingpin only to have their boat explode as Tears for Fears plays in the background. It was totally awesome! I can’t believe you haven’t seen that movie!”

The Word "Underwhelmed" Finds Its Fullest Meaning

2008-04-21T15:36:00.000-07:00

For a while I've been thinking about writing an essay - maybe even a book about how virtually no film franchise, if any, has lived up to the artistic and entertainment quality of the original Star Wars Trilogy. Pirates of the Caribbean devolved into nonsensical, self-important tripe. The Matrix, one of the greatest single screen plays in the last 10 years produced 2 sequels that were visually progressive and interesting but do not live up to the promise of their progenitor. Not even the subsequent Star Wars Trilogy could live up to the original. I have plenty of ideas about what would have made those films tolerable but I don't think there's much debate that Episodes I-III were like watching a crazy uncle pile every fond memory of your childhood in a bon-fire and dance naked around the flames.
One of the things I've always maintained about the infamous Star Wars prequels is that they back up too far to tell their story. Nobody cares that Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader was a winy little desert rat before he could pick up a light saber or choke people with The Force. We just want to see him choke people with The Force. Is that too much to ask? The one thing most fans were expecting to see in the prequels was the Clone War. At the very end of Episode II we see the beginning of it and at the very beginning of Episode III we see the end of it. In other words, we don't see it. There are numerous examples of opportunities that Lucas overlooked or ignored in telling a story that would satisfy fans much less make new ones (incidentally, can we really argue that the prequels even made new fans?), but I need not go further. This is why I was curious when I heard that Lucas would be producing a new animated series that chronicled the exploits of Anakin Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi in the Clone Wars. Not long ago it was announced that the introduction of the series would actually premiere in theaters this very summer. Naturally, I am now perpetually skeptical of any Star Wars material on screen and I think what we've seen of preview images justifies this.

Is this really the pinnacle of what Lucas has the energy to give us? I'm sorry, but why not go to Japan? Watch 2 minutes of Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children (example)
and try to tell me that 3 year old Japanese animation doesn't put this "cutting edge" Star Wars stuff to shame. Go ahead and try. Seriously. What's that? I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you over the sound of Star Wars still sucking!

Is It As Funny As The Title?

2008-03-30T17:49:00.000-07:00

Run Fat Boy, Run. How can you not want to see a movie called Run Fat Boy, Run? Let’s just think about this. Fat people? Funny. Fat people running? Really funny. Where’s the box-office?
The trailer for this movie was extremely promising as well. It’s Simon Pegg from Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz fame, running in hilariously tiny shorts, falling down stairs, and generally making a jerk of himself for our benefit. The trailer has that everyman vibe to it; that “sleep till noon, fear of commitment, vacantly gaze at people when they talk about working out” sort of vibe.
I have a feeling, Pegg, as the star and co-author of the screenplay was largely in control of this aspect of the movie, because it’s just about the only part that’s funny or falls into any sort of amusing rhythm.
It appears that director David Schwimmer preferred to craft something much more dramatic and conventional from stars that have risen to fame by appearing in wholly unconventional fare. It’s not that it’s awful. It just feels like a different film and is consequently rather disappointing.
The short of it is that Dennis, played terrifically by Pegg, is the everyman idiot who left the perfect woman at the altar, pregnant with his son. Five years later, he’s still a loser, his ex is still perfect, and seems to have found the perfect guy in Whit, played by Hank Azaria. Whit, aside from a stupid name, seems to have everything going for him. He’s charming, good-looking (not that I noticed), wealthy, and runs marathons for charity. Since Dennis can’t realistically compete on any other level, he decides to get into shape and run a marathon to prove that he can change and win back Libby (Thandie Newton).
I’ll give some credit to Schwimmer, who, very early on was able to convince me that loser Dennis could be with perfect Libby long enough to have a child together. He pieces quick montages together that serve the story well and move it forward quickly enough to really get into the main action of the film. But there are so many conventional foils, and irritating moments that we’ve seen so many times before, that you just can’t outrun your disappointment.
There’s the perfect boyfriend who threatens to steal away the girl of your dreams that, naturally, turns out to be not so perfect. If he was perfect, our hero would truly have no chance and that would have made for an even less funny film.
There’s the moment where our hero gives up on his goal only to change his mind at the last minute after having a moment of inspiration (double cliché points when it’s a child who facilitates this moment).
They also commit one of my own, personal, cinematic sins. They say the name of the movie – IN THE MOVIE – TWICE! I still do not understand why anyone does this. I have only two guesses: the movie is not titled until after it is written and is titled only after they’ve found their favorite line in the script OR, they assume that we are too stupid to remember what movie we’re in. Because the title of this particular movie, was waaaaay funnier than either moment that the title was used in the movie, I have to assume the latter.
(Insert Hick Accent Here) “Shucks Norma! You member what gul darn film we wulked into har? OOOOH, nver mind! I member now, seein as how he jus said it thar.” (Insert Munching Popcorn Sound Here)
At least we'll always have Shaun of the Dead and the nearly perfect teaser for Run Fat Boy, Run.

A Shotgun Review

2008-03-13T14:45:00.000-07:00

By my internet activity alone you can tell my life has changed quite a bit over this last year. It used to be that I was able to post on a movie every week. This is the benefit of working at a movie theater part time and having nothing to worry about other than someone claiming that Casino Royale Poster you really want.
This year is different. I've graduated from bedside blogging into a 40 + hour work week and, consequently, see far fewer films.
The other consequence is that because the percentage of films I watch has dropped significantly the percentage of really good films I've watched has followed suit. For instance, I saw Jumper the other day. Yeah. Um. Oh, never mind. I don't need to take another swing at the Hayden Christensen punching bag. It's tempting, but I won't.
Instead I'll hit you with a few brief thoughts and highlights from some recent viewing experiences.
First, the direct to DVD release of Justice League: New Frontier or, as I will now forever think of it, the movie that should have featured Batman way more. The PG-13 animated feature is based on the graphic novel by Darwyn Cooke about the origin of the Justice League of America. It's less reinvention and more homage to the silver age of DC comics and it works for the first 45 minutes or whenever Jeremy Sistos amazingly perfect voice booms from the behind the cape and cowl of the Dark Knight. Unfortunately, Sisto's Batman is barely around and the film devolves into political, bi-partisan propaganda that just seems out of place. It's not that it's a monumental disaster. It will keep you relatively entertained. It just really fails to dwell on the conflict between human government and characters that have become the modern equivalent of Greek gods. Maybe they're saving that story for an adaptation of Kingdom Come (keep your fingers crossed). Youtubing Jeremy Sisto's scenes would be worth your time though. By the way, I hate myself for using Youtube as a verb.

Then there's Gone Baby Gone. This one is note worthy on a performance level. A lot of people have been talking about Amy Ryan's Oscar Nominated turn and the film boasts quite a few major players (e.g., Ed Harris, Morgan Freeman). But for me, the thing I will always remember is Affleck the younger. If there was one thing I was not expecting from this film it was to believe that Casey Affleck could play a convincing tough guy lead. But he does, seemingly without effort and from now on I will watch his career with great interest.

Michael Clayton is noteworthy as well. I almost went to see this movie in the theater half a dozen times. It always came down to a choice, "Michael Clayton or a burrito? Michael Clayton or sweet and sour chicken?" Each time my stomach won over my interest for George Clooney's latest. Then the one person, basically in the whole world, that I believe when he tells me a movie is good, tells me it's one of his absolute favorites of the year. Darn you Qdoba and your pseudo mexican grill!
Michael Clayton is everything that every John Grisham movie has consistently failed to be. It's not about the ins and outs of the crooked legal process or the despairity of living a life dedicated to bending the rules and covering the truth. It so involves you in the lives and conflicts of the characters that you don't care where it takes you - you just know you're enjoying it. This one would have, most definitely been on my top ten list had I seen it prior to publishing. I would republish but once you start something like that you rethink everything and then what would be the point of the list in the first place?

Finally, it should be mentioned that my friend, Paul, who has taken a singular joy in continually finding people that LOOOOOOVED Transformers and going out of his way to tell me how I seem to be the only one who hated it, has finally seen the light. It has been a true delight for me to sit and listen to him rant and rave about what I knew to be true the whole time - Transformers blows and Michael Bay needs to be tied to a tree. Welcome, Paul. It's good to have you.

Hayden Christensen makes crappy movies.

CHICKEN SOUP FOR THE MERCENARY'S SOUL

2008-01-28T12:01:00.000-08:00

Yeah. I saw Rambo. What of it? I haven’t lost faith in Stallone at all. In fact, his bookend to the Rocky franchise was one of my favorite movies in ’06. However, my expectations weren’t as high for a Rambo film. I may be a child of the 80’s, but the Rambo films never held my attention.
Here’s the good news. Rambo’s not bad. With a running time of 88 minutes (well below average) it doesn’t have an over inflated sense of self. It tells a very simple story. Rambo in jungle. Rambo meet missionaries. Missionaries captured by Burmese militia. Rambo kill everyone. Credits.
The film is fairly well intentioned despite gore and violence that is almost comically over the top. When Stallone began investigating modern tragedy he came across the genocide of the Karen tribe. The most jarring violence in the film is the Burmese military’s savage attacks against the Karen people. Stallone goes to great length in demonstrating the intolerable aggression against the Karen, thereby creating an enemy no one minds seeing blown to red mist. Seriously. Red mist.
The down side is that there are some fairly awkward interactions and some clunky dialogue. Sarah, one of the kind-hearted missionaries, while convincing Rambo to take them into Burma, exchanges dialogue about purpose, change, and the sanctity of life that is so forcefully scripted that it sucks most of the drama out of each scene. Sometimes it sounds like Hallmark wrote a Rambo movie. To Stallone’s credit, however, this wears off and Rambo says less and less as the film moves on.
The rest of it is really all about the action and the isolation of Rambo as a character. Despite the fact that he gets some help here and there, Rambo really is a character that is isolated from genuine community and the film highlights this in some relatively subtle, genuinely artistic ways.
I suppose the monumental achievement of this film is that to look at Stallone, and to think about the action, never once calls to mind a single joke about a geriatric war hero. That in itself is quite an accomplishment.

My Personal Worst

2008-01-16T09:21:00.000-08:00

“Favorite” or “Top Ten” lists are rarely as controversial as a list of films that critics loathed. This is due to the fact that, for every critic who passionately lambasts a film, there are about 50 people who loooooved it. 2007 was the year that proved it. For instance, Wild Hogs was criticized and despised by entertainment commentators across the board – but the film would not die, eventually grossing nearly $170 million. I don’t mention this because Wild Hogs is on my list (though it probably would’ve been had I seen it). I mention this because – in certain points, at least – my own list demonstrates this phenomenon as well. Ready to be pissed? Let’s go!

10. 300

Dear 300,

I thought we were going to stay together forever. The first time I laid eyes on you, I knew you were going to fill that “comic-book-movie” void that 2007 created. You were going to push the medium of comic-book epics forward and deliver it with such visual authority that nary a soul could resist. What a slut you turned out to be!
Your key characters made inexplicably irrational choices. Many of your roles were fleshed out further than the source material ever allowed or needed. Your special effects and make-up were brutally self-conscious and cheap – not to mention that subtle little racist thread. Didn’t you notice? Every hero is white, and every villain is either black or a monster. Seriously, the Spartans may as well have donned white bedsheets. Zack Snyder should spend some time in a corner weeping over his sins before having the temerity to tackle next year’s major comic-book adaptation, Watchmen. It’s over, 300. I never want to see you again!

9. Fracture

Speaking of inexplicable… This film really, really wants you to think it is clever, based solely on the pedigree of its lead actors. Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling play rivals of a sort in this crime “thriller”, which was enough to put me in my seat with high expectations. There is, however, zero substance. The film is painfully predictable at nearly every point, which constantly undermines anything Gosling or Hopkins could ever do to save it.

8. August Rush

“The music is all around you. All you have to do…is listen.” What? Sorry August, I couldn’t hear you over Robin Williams being creepy and stupid. Mr. Rush escaped my attention late in 2007 due to my “hate fast”, but he will not be so lucky today. This film suffers deeply from the desire to be a believable fairy tale. The story occurs in a real, modern world where things are relatively normal and grounded. But it really wants to be a musical fantasy of lost love and family reunion without any of the visual trappings (or talented musicians, come to think of it). I know I’ve mentioned it once (no pun intended), but let me reiterate: If you want to see a film where not only the music is good, but the actors don’t have to pretend to play it, watch Once.

7. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End

If you were to browse the archives and find my original review of this film you might notice I was a bit underwhelmed with the final installment. In retrospect, I’ve come to really hate the Pirates Beast. When I remember the promises made in the first Pirates (a film that ended perfectly and needed no sequels), I cringe at the ways in which the sequels failed to deliver.
We are promised from the start that Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan are destined for each other, but do they end up together? Nope. We are given imagery of Jack Sparrow sailing into legend as the eternal captain of the Black Pearl. In the end, what is he the captain of? A dinghy. This is just the tip of the iceberg, folks. All told, this movie feels like a house some obsessed owner couldn’t stop remodeling to the point that it becomes a maze - … A vain, stupid maze.

6. Shoot ‘Em Up

Shoot ‘Em Up tries to pay tribute to John Woo’s directing style while spoofing the conventions of the American action genre. Did I mention that it fails to be even remotely enjoyable, clever, or exciting? Although Paul Giamatti never hits a false note as the villain, this movie irrevocably suffers from its own “sense of humor.” You see, this film thinks it can get away with being awful because it sucks on purpose. Sometimes this is forgivable – such as when your film precedes a Tarantino flick as part of a special double feature.
“But… it’s so bad, it’s funny! … Get it?”
“Yeah. Got it. Not funny. Not clever. Not enjoyable. May God have mercy on your soul.”

5. License to Wed

Hello again, Mr. Williams. I meant to ask you something earlier… Let’s see, what was it? It was on the tip of my tongue and then… Oh yes, I remember: “WHAT THE HELL?!”
Could you possibly make more disastrous choices over the last few years? Were The Night Listener, RV, and Man of the Year some epic, Andy Kauffman-sized joke? If so, we get it. You can stop participating in and ruining films like License to Wed, which really has nothing going for it in the first place. After this abomination (as well as last year’s Happy Feet), I’m convinced Williams is just doing all he can to make Christian religion look as bizarre and twisted as possible. Funny thing is, it’s his career that has become bizarre and twisted. And at this point I think his only saving grace is to sneak onto the set of Judd Apatow’s next movie and just, sort of, hang out at the snack table until he’s funny again.

4. Ghost Rider

Nicolas Cage is actually really good in this movie. In general, Cage (and his hair) often bother me. To see what I mean, check out his accent in Con Air and his hair in Next. However, he also has a tendency to rise above the material he is given (like in Face/Off). In Ghost Rider, he is the Devil’s reluctant bounty hunter and gets to mutter pithy dialogue like, “If you don’t make the choice, the choice makes you.” Awesome! Did Yakov Smirnoff write this screenplay? If he had, that might be something to brag about, but I don’t think he did.

3. Evan Almighty

If there is one thing that baffles and upsets me more than a truly, deeply, awful film, it’s a film with truly, deeply, awful theology. Aside from the fact that it’s probably outright blasphemy to portray the Almighty Father God on screen in such casual fashion, Evan Almighty is an insult to the drama and depth of Biblical narrative. It’s a story that turns the Ark, a shadow of Christ’s Atonement for sin on the cross, into an anagram for Acts of Random Kindness. Do you know what random acts of kindness have to do with the real Ark or the Gospel? Lean a little closer…NOTHING! It’s humanism, plain and simple. Don’t buy it.

2. I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

Let’s just think about this for a second: This film is about tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality as a norm. More specifically, it is about homosexuality as a choice that has nothing to do with who you are as a person. Whatever that means. I suppose that’s why it’s OK for Adam Sandler and Kevin James to star together in a film that is rank with racial and sexual stereotypes for comedic effect. It has nothing to do with who they are as comedians.

1. Transformers

Come on. You knew this was coming. I wrote two blog posts about it and about twenty subsequent comments. Since then, my friend Paul has relished every opportunity to tell me he met someone from the camp of people who loved this cinematic trauma, which includes, if I haven’t lost count, everyone but me and two other guys (Hi guys!).
What I originally said and continue to affirm about Transformers is on the bottom of this page http://filmcritic89.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html.
I leave you only with an interpretive collage of words, which express my feelings regarding Michael Bay’s violation of all that I hold dear regarding the Transformers.
Eyes. Ice pick. Blood. Tears. Pain. Thrown objects. More pain. Befuddlement. Flames. Apocalypse. Childhood. Gone.

My Favorite Ten of the Year (Because Top Ten implies I saw everything worth seeing and I haven't because I'm not a professional critic - boo.)

2008-01-11T17:08:00.000-08:00

10. Rescue Dawn or The Annual Reminder that Christian Bale Rocks!

Werner Herzogg has made a career of depicting man against nature, with the latter almost always being the victor. Here, he captures the compelling nature of Dieter Dengler, a Vietnam era fighter pilot who must escape from a Vietnamese jungle prison camp using will power, luck, and help from his compatriots.
The charisma and appeal of Dieter’s character is portrayed powerfully by Christian Bale, but the real surprise of this movie is Steve Zahn. Zahn, an actor we’re used to seeing for comedic effect, is every bit Bale’s dramatic equal and played a decisive role in helping Rescue Dawn crack my personal Top Ten.

9. Zodiac – or The Horror Film that Manages to Stay Creepy Well After the Violence is Over.

There are three things that make this film what it is: performance, performance, performance. Every actor in this movie so perfectly portrays everything the script and dialogue call for, that it’s difficult not to enjoy David Fincher’s Zodiac ride. This is Fincher at his best, working with the people HE wants to work with and getting what HE wants out of them. The film is shot beautifully enough to deserve an Oscar for cinematography. It is a well-told mystery with interesting, three-dimensional characters and is worthy of the “Special Edition DVD” treatment it just received.

8. No Country for Old Men – or The Movie that Deserves to be Studied in Higher Education.

I don’t need to say much beyond what I already posted regarding the Coen Brothers’ most recent return to form. It’s a shoo-in to be nominated for Best Picture come Academy Awards season, which will mark the first time in a long time where one of my own Top Ten picks is so honored. Screw you, Academy, for failing to nominate Mission Impossible III (that’s right, I said it!), Inside Man, The Prestige, or Brick in 2006. At least this year I know you’ll have one movie nominated for Best Picture that I actually loved.

7. Daywatch – or Subtitles and accents? WHAT!? Oh…it’s awesome too.

If you haven’t already seen Nightwatch, stop reading and watch it! It’s an odd, funny, quirky, action-packed antidote to glossy, brainless, Hollywood summer blockbuster garbage – A fantasy world of super-powered heroes, witches, vampires, and shape-shifters, policing one another’s activities to prevent the apocalypse. Daywatch picks up where Nightwatch stops and delivers just what a sequel should: Nothing you’d expect. If you’re not in the mood to watch armies of birds morph into dark ninjas, horses run through fortress walls or a sports car drive across the side of a skyscraper, then don’t bother with this one. But if you’re willing to let your inner nerd out of the closet, you’ll love it.

6. The Lookout – or Where Did You Come from and Why Didn’t Anyone Watch You?

First of all, this film gets points for taking place in Kansas and not once mentioning Dorothy. Moreover, it earned a spot on this year’s list by being the vehicle for an extremely disciplined character piece with great performances and simple, thrilling action sequences. In one of the best openings of a film all year, Chris Pratt finally has everything going for him. A car accident later and he’s cognitively disabled, working as a night janitor in a dumpy little bank. Will he cooperate with his new, shady friends and be the lookout as they rob the bank, or will he wake up long enough to realize he can fix this mistake before it happens? Of course, I won’t spoil it for you. But if there’s one film on this list that could easily jump up a few spots if I thought longer about it, it’s The Lookout.

5. 3:10 to Yuma – or The Manliest Film of the Year, Pardner.

Ben Foster as a vengeful, gun-slinging angel of death, Russell Crowe as a notorious outlaw, and Christian Bale as a down-on-his-luck, high-on-his-duty rancher, are more fun than you’d think for a film that pretty much came out of nowhere. I could memorize every detail of this movie and still see it as fresh, epic, and cool any time I watched it.

4. Hot Fuzz – or The Movie that was WAAAAY Funnier than Knocked Up.

This film is a celebration of everything essential to British comedy and American action. It is a spoof of action films like Point Break or Bad Boys II, yet it loves and delights in the staples of our ridiculous brand of “shoot-‘em-up” adventure (unlike this year’s Shoot ‘Em Up). To quote,
“Everybody and their mum is packin’ round here.”
“Like who?”
“Farmers.”
“Who else?”
“Farmer’s mums.”
OK… It may not be as funny without the accents, but trust me - this film is, in fact, “packin’.”

3. Once – or An Independent Film Without an Ounce of Pretension.

Once again, not a film I have to say much more about. It’s a simple story with a great soundtrack (which I’ve been playing in my car non-stop). Seldom are non-actors able to pull off, much less carry, an entire film on their shoulders – but it works beautifully here. Should I get tired of this music in a few months, this one could fall down the list a bit. But for now, I’m hooked.

2. Death Proof – or The Serial Killer Thriller that Transcends Genre and Stereotype.

It takes awhile to get there, but this film ends with the best car chase I’ve ever seen in real life; or even on Cops, come to think of it. It is seriously the most frightening and delightful thing I saw on the screen all year. Kurt Russell carries the film on scary, charismatic shoulders and perfectly collaborates with Tarantino, defiantly breaking down and reforming the serial killer mythos into something we’ve never seen before (which is sure to be imitated in the near future by lesser talent).

1. Black Snake Moan – or Hold On To Your Butts – Sam Jackson Deserves His Oscar.

Points if you catch that reference. As hard as it is to pick other spots on a Top Ten list, I’ve never had a hard time picking my number one. I have one steadfast rule when it comes to my number one spot: To simply admit which film evoked the most positive emotional response. Last year for instance, my favorite movie was MI: III. The year before, Batman Begins and in 2004 I’d have to say it was a battle between Kill Bill Vol. 2 and Collateral. This is why I don’t really take accusations of snobbery too seriously. How can you call the guy who thought MI:III was the best film of ’06 a snob? I just don’t know. What movie am I talking about again? Oh yes, Black Snake Moan - the most surprising, subversively wholesome film of the year. Craig Brewer creates in his film a record, with side A being sin, side B salvation. The sin is truly graphic and therefore undeniable. The salvation is also extremely heartfelt and beautifully depicted, not as a means of getting to heaven, but something that just happens to the characters and changes their lives. Here’s a film that came out early in the year and will undoubtedly be forgotten this awards season by the true snobs in the industry.

More than Once

2007-12-29T09:46:00.000-08:00

The end of the year is here. It’s literally a few days away as I write this and most, if not all, mainstream critical media has published their best of/worst of 2007 lists. But those buggers are spoiled rotten and get to see everything early – so my personal list will have to come a few days into 2008. I have a feeling all four of you will be able to wait though.

In the meantime I am bringing you my last review of 2007 and it is a happy one no less! In fact I’m watching the very movie I am reviewing as I am reviewing it. How’s that for the convenience of technology? So, if my rambling seems more severe than usual, it’s because I’m watching ONCE for about the fourth time.
For those of you who don’t know, ONCE is a very simple, musical film. A humble, lonely street musician meets a humble, lonely girl who really likes his music. In the course of a few days they kindle a deep friendship and play his songs together turning the film into an earnest, yet sweet, modern musical.
This films does so many things right that it’s hard to know where to begin. In fact I am almost at a loss to say anything about this film that hasn’t already been said. The only fresh perspective I can add is to interact with all the opinions I’ve already heard. I’ve seen this film top several critical lists and terms like, “the greatest musical of our generation” get thrown around quite a bit. While I don’t really have the credibility to disagree - oh screw it – I disagree. But that’s the really funny thing – I loved this movie! I’ve watched it four times, I’ve downloaded the soundtrack, and I just about made a friend of mine buy a copy the other day. The beautiful thing about this movie is that it doesn’t have lofty ambitions at all. It doesn’t want to be the “greatest musical of our generation” and maybe that’s why so many people think it is.
But my advice to you is to simply let this film be what it is. Don’t watch it with the hype in mind – don’t watch it expecting it to charm you the way it is still working its magic on me – don’t even expect it to resemble any other music saturated film you’ve seen this year (I’m pointing my snobby finger at you August Rush). There is no comparison I can think of for this film – there are only contrasts. The most obvious and appropriate one would be the aforementioned, emotionally manipulative, vacuous disaster. Not only did August Rush beg the question, “Could Robin Williams do anything more with his career to piss me off?” but it made the fatal error of creating music that the actors pretended to play. It’s not that the music wasn’t good – it’s just that enjoying it meant closing my eyes so as to disassociate it from the actors who were obviously not creating it. On the contrary, there is nothing in ONCE that is remotely disingenuous. It is one of the most heartfelt, abundantly emotional films I’ve seen all year.
This was a hard year for movies. Barely anything blew me away and I’m honestly not looking forward to picking my “best of” because barely any of it compares to last year. But there are two exceptions. One of them you will have read about next time and the other is a sweet little film called ONCE.

Golden Compass: Summary Thoughts

2007-12-16T12:01:00.001-08:00

Ok. So, I decided I’m kind of a jerk. Ask anyone who makes a habit of criticizing film whether it’s more fun to slander a horrible movie or praise a great one and they’ll tell you it’s so much more fun to mock a bad film. Sometimes it’s easier too. This fits with my sense of humor as well. Dry sarcasm. For instance, it’s served me well when reviewing abominations like Transformers or X-Men 3.
Keeping this attitude in the realm of film criticism is probably something I should have done with last week’s post. In the comment section below a friend pointed something out that I promised I would consider and so I have. I was too harsh. Not on the film mind you. The film is crap. But my intended audience deserved to hear my frustrations from a “spirit of gentleness” as Galatians 6 says. I’m taking that verse slightly out of context by the way – but I think the principle applies.
In reviewing last week’s blog I still believe the general premises I presented. I think boycotting certain films is counter-productive. I believe parents should be equipped and knowledgeable about what is often marketed toward their children so that they know what they are watching or avoiding.
I believe I can watch material such as The Golden Compass and not be shaken but rather informed as to worldviews contrary to my own that I may endeavor to present the gospel all the more clearly.
I believe Christians in a culture of images should be more concerned with magnifying Christ, preaching His glory from the pulpit, and living their lives in the freedom and power of His Spirit rather than lobbying for a cultural change.
I think, we are all pretty much on the same page at this point and I am glad for each and every comment made so far. I also sincerely apologize for how harsh I was. After all, harsh sarcasm is not very loving. I thank you all for reading as always. I truly do love raving and ranting about what I see and am always excited to see your reactions. Now that this has passed I officially repent in breaking my promise to review only good films until the New Year. Hopefully, I can see a few good films before the year is out. Thanks!

P.S.
The Dark Knight Trailer will be out by the time this is posted. If you’re as much of a geek as I am you’ll want to look for it.

I'll Repent Later - Right Now I Have to Rant!

2007-12-10T16:49:00.000-08:00

Honestly, I didn’t know this was going to happen. I promised to finish 2007 with nothing but positive reviews and was doing well. But something inside me snapped after I received e-mail number 40 telling me, essentially, that all good Christians should boycott New Line Cinema’s The Golden Compass.
In case any of you are interested – I looked like this after reading most of these e-mails...

The Golden Compass begins in a universe parallel to our own where there lives a girl named Lyra. Her world lives and operates under the authority of the Magisterium, a vacuously defined organization bent on the domination of all worlds parallel to their own. Their greatest danger lies in a mysterious and hidden substance known as dust and the little girl Lyra, who seems destined to unravel the mystery and power of the magical substance.

The Golden Compass is based on book one of Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials Trilogy. They are a series of books written by the author to be the anti-Narnia. Pullman is explicit and open in this ambition and, apparently, as the series of books progresses, it becomes less and less subtle. Many have been flippantly calling Pullman an atheist when e-mailing me like a bunch of maniacs. It is apparent to me after reading Pullman’s interviews and seeing this particular film, Pullman is an agnostic at best and a humanist at worst. Call him an atheist if you want - but I've yet to hear him claim this title. Though I would happily stand corrected if I've overlooked something there.

I read a blog post/film review recently that sees this movie as negatively influential because of how well it's made. The story, the cast and over all production value were cited as examples of this film's power - all touted as excellent. While I wound up agreeing with this particular blogger on how the Christian interacts and deals with a culture that differs with Christ - I can't say we got there the same way. Let's take each of the aforementioned criteria one by one.

STORY
The Golden Compass is NOT a well told story. I don't know about the book - but the film's story is a mess. The whole movie, from beginning to end feels rushed and compacted. It introduces so many characters in such a short span with no development that it’s impossible to care about any of them. My ambivalence increased with the introduction of each new character and their ridiculous jargon filled dialogue.

THE CAST/PERFORMANCES
This is in fact an incredible cast aside from Dakota Blue Richards who plays Lyra (the main character). Richards isn't what I'd call, Star Wars Episode I bad, but in the midst of such derivative and incomprehensibly rushed material, she's not impressive at all. Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig are great but they're barely on screen and have very little to do. Sam Elliot is Sam Elliot...so, he's awesome, but it amounts to a big ol' "loddy freakin' da!" in the midst of, once again, incomprehensibly dull execution.
The only Home Run performance is Ian McKellan as Iorek Byrnison, a giant polar bear. His performance is the diamond in the suckfest...er...I mean rough...diamond in the rough. I don't know if he was offered or would have even taken the part but McKellan's gravitas and skill in this role should have been reserved for the Aslan role in the Narnia series. In it is everything you wanted from Liam Neeson's Aslan that we never really got.
His character also has the best and most shocking moment of the film. I won't spoil it but let's just say that it involves two polar bears, a dramatic "fight to the death" and more than one jaw hitting the floor. Those who've seen the film know exactly what I mean by that last one. Let's just say by the time the scene was over - the giant polar bear striding through the snow no longer made me thirsty for an old fashioned bottle of Coke.

PRODUCTION VALUE/SPECIAL EFFECTS
Sure, there's a lot of money here, but it never achieves the scale of a Lord of the Rings or Star Wars epic and what that requires or entails regarding the use of special effects. I've heard other opinions on this matter but don't understand what movie they were watching. Much of the digital work draws too much attention to itself as if to distract us from vapid character performance and development. It's not that the effects in and of themselves are unimpressive - they're simply not used well and do nothing to advance the art form or support the characters or storyline.

A lot has been made of this movie's message and the worldview of the author. Basically, there's a general movement within Evangelicalism that is denouncing and boycotting this film based on what turns out to be an explicit anti-God, anti-religion message. This is going to be difficult to understand for some people but I have fewer objections to films of this nature. Here's why. They don't try to hide what they are. Philip Pullman is extremely well documented when it comes to his beliefs and there has been plenty of press to ensure that people know what this movie is based upon.

To put it another way, this movie is not Happy Feet. It is not hiding its theology (or lack thereof), its philosophy, and ideology of enlightenment humanism behind cute little dancing penguins. I have just as many objections to Pullman's worldview as I do to that of Happy Feet's writers - but I loathe the latter for tricking so many people into seeing it.

You know what angers me more than a worldview that defames Christ? It’s the mindset that it is a Christian imperative to boycott such material. How many people do you know that were saved because you boycotted Disney (or New Line in this case)?
Did you know that the Hollywood system only spends money on films that they believe you will give back to them in box office? This means there is a built in audience for most of what you see in theaters and when you see things in theaters that rage against a gospel that you claim to so deeply love – you’re reaction is not to evangelize that audience but to boycott the film? I simply don’t understand this. What’s the goal? Is it to make sure no more movies like this are made or is it to evangelize the world? Does a stupid little movie have the power of the Gospel in its corner? Movies are powerful – but sorry – not even close to that powerful. Movies like this, therefore, do not make the proclamation of the gospel harder. What are we honestly afraid of? That we’ll go and be persuaded that we’ve believed a lie? Is the Gospel not more powerful than that? Is your faith so easily assaulted?
"But what about the lost? This will solidify their position and lifestyle."
What doesn’t?! Do we expect the lost to stop behaving like sinners as if it’s going to save them? No. We simply preach Christ crucified for sinful mankind.

Some people are so satisfied with themselves for not profiting Hollywood when they release material contrary to their worldview or faith without facing the fact that they profit a system contrary to their worldview when they watch virtually ANY movie. Not to mention how much they pay them for other services. I don't think many people realize what we'd have to do to not profit these studios. For instance, let's say because New Line Cinema has permitted this feature to so blatantly contradict the gospel we are going to boycott New Line Products and avoid profiting their company. What would this involve?
This means you can't watch or buy anything having to do with the Lord of the Rings series (an evangelical favorite), including possible prequels. New Line is owned by global media group, Time/Warner, which covers every Warner Bros. film ever, CNN, AOL, TNT, TBS, Kids WB, and Mapquest to name only a few. That's right, only a few. All to demonstrate that this is the culture in which we live and we had better stop being afraid of it - because we've replaced a passion for the proclamation of the gospel with a laundry list of things Americans shouldn't do.

So to sum up. Don't take your kids - a polar bear gets his jaw punched right off his face (so, I spoiled it, sue me) - don't think you're a better Christian than me because I went and you didn't - and don't think you're lobbying damages their bottom line. Just trust that Christ is sovereign even in the realm of cinematic ideas.