The Book of Eli

For now I will just say, go see it. We can talk about it later, okay?

Hellboy II - The Golden Army

This is truly a comic book on the screen. Hellboy 2 is imaginative and fanciful and it makes no apologies for being so bizarre and fantastic. I appreciate that.

I have always despised the comic-book adaptations that strive to make characters more realistic because the viewing audience will have a hard time accepting the ludicrous nature of the material. Too often directors and producers back away from introducing too many magical details under the assumption that it is too much for the viewing public to process. These are comic books! They are myths and fairy tales! Of course they are magical and ludicrous! They appeal to the imagination and the setting as well as the characters sometimes features as part of the whole story.

This movie relies on the existence of a magical unseen realm. It is the entire point of the story. The spiritual themes are fairly overt. Do I have to spell it out? HELL-boy? Where did he come from? And if there's a hell then there's also a heaven, right? Well, as far as the movie goes, there is certainly an unseen magic to our world. And it's beautiful.

Hellboy could have been a movie that ended up as nothing more than stunts, muscle-flexing, car smashing, and destruction (i.e. Cloverfield). However, even ol' Red has sympathy for the villain. That's important because we all want our hero to be redeemed. We want him to do better than follow his nature (as in the "Son of the Fallen One"). We want him to be the good guy.

It's not easy for a guy like Hellboy to be the good guy when people judge him on his looks. He has to overcome the prejudice and prove himself. On top of that, he was spawned on the wrong side of the cosmic tracks and he could give in to his nature. (Shades of Romans 7?) Maybe with the love of his best gal by his side and his comrades, he'll turn out better than his natural disposition. There's hope there. And the good news, revealed at the end, is that he is encouraged to be like his "Father" - his adopted father that is, the man who loved him, taught him, and told him stories that shaped his character.

Wanted

Why is Angelina Jolie so big on this poster? The movie isn't really about her. Her character isn't even that interesting. Ah, but she's the big star and there is a scene of her tattooed backside in the movie.

James McAvoy's character, Wesley Gibson, is the main character. His character is interesting and I was impressed with his performance.

Wesley is the meek who finds out that he is inheritor of the earth - or at least he's the heir of a huge fortune and the legacy of his father who was a master assassin. Wesley never knew his father, but according to Fox (Jolie) and Sloan (Morgan Freeman), Wesley's father was killed by the rogue assassin Cross. They offer Wesley the opportunity to develop his superpowers and take revenge on Cross.

The back story and premise of the league of assassins, the Fraternity, is a definite improvement on the comic-book back story which involves super-villains ruling the world. The villains are ridiculous, including one made out of poop. Okay, set the comic book aside, it's the movie we're interested in. The Fraternity is interesting because they take their orders from a higher power, Fate. Embedded in the random patterns of fabric from a loom is a code that gives the Fraternity the names of individuals who must be terminated for the greater good of society. Should one of the members of the Fraternity fail to carry out their mission, then individuals who would cause great harm are free to carry out evil. This happened to Fox and her family. An assassin got cold feet and did not follow Fate's orders. His intended target killed Fox's father and tortured her and her family.

This feature of the film introduces philosophical and moral questions. Is killing categorically wrong? If someone could eliminate Hitler before he had a chance to initiate the holocaust, would it be right? Can such atrocities be placed at the feet of one person? Fox, Wesley, and Sloan debate their allegiance to Fate. Are they supposed to follow Fate's orders blindly and literally or does Fate need some interpretation?

Sloan obviously believes that Fate should be interpreted. This is where the plot thickens and where I will spoil this plot if you read any further. SPOILER WARNING!

Okay, Cross is a rogue assassin because he discovered that Sloan was changing Fate's orders to set him and his associates up as manipulators of history. Cross was their best assassin and no one would be able to defeat him, except for Wesley. In a very "Darth Vader" moment, we learn that Wesley is of course Cross' son and Cross would never harm his son. Sloan and the others used Wesley to kill his own father.

It is a very disappointing and sorrowful turn for the movie. In one sense, the bad guys win. Sloan and the others lose a lot. Fox and the others are killed by their own hand or by Wesley's. Sloan escapes, but Wesley loses the father he never knew and Cross loses the chance to share time with the son he could only watch from afar. The final battle in which Wesley gets his revenge on the Fraternity is gratuitous. The pent-up anger of a 24-year-old male who has been kicked around by everyone in his life is unleashed in a hail of bullets and carnage.

More disturbing, although less gratuitous, is the final act of the movie. Wesley takes out Sloan with a decoy and a long-range bullet just as his father Cross had done with an assassin a the beginning of the movie. Wesley narrates the path of the bullet as it tracks backward past his friend, ex-girlfriend, his former boss, and others. Wesley says, "This is me taking control." He says that he is taking back control of his life from the Fraternity, his cheating ex-girlfriend, his lying friend, his oppressive boss and his dead end job. Once the bullet is back in the barrel, Wesley looks up and breaks the fourth wall and asks the audience directly, "What the #### have you done lately?" There's a dangerous message here that needs to be recognized: "This is me taking control" is equated with a angry young man and a gun firing on those who he believes have done him wrong. Even though it's dressed up with special effects, the scene evokes the spirit of the Columbine, Jonesboro, and Virginia Tech shootings.

At one point in the movie Sloan tells Wesley, "It's a choice, Wesley, that each of us must face. To remain ordinary, pathetic, beat-down, coasting through a miserable existence, like sheep herded by fate, or you can take control of your own destiny and join us, releasing the caged wolf you have inside." In the end, Wesley follows Sloan's advice - but don't forget, Sloan is the villain.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

One of my fondest movie-going memories was the time I went to see Star Trek II in the theatre (not the drive-in as my family often did) with my father and my grandfather. I recall my grandfather joking afterward that the next movie will have to be called "The Quest for Geritol." He was of course commenting on the advancing age of the actors from the 1960's TV series.

I kept replaying my grandfather's classic joke in my mind as I anticipated the fourth Indiana Jones film. I have been waiting for this film for 19 years! I went to see Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade as a much slimmer man engaged to be married in less than a month. I returned to the theatres for the next installment in the adventures of Indiana Jones weighing 50 lbs. more with a wife and two kids.

There's Indy on the screen. He's aged a little better than I have, still he's moving kind of slow; and the fight scenes and stunts seem to hurt a little more. Every time Indy got into a jam I kept thinking, "He's past 60! I hope I can move like that when I'm 60. Heck, I can't move like that now." Instead of cheering for Indy, I kept wanting to say, "Hey, don't do that. You'll get hurt and you know we don't heal up like we used to." Well, Indy did drink from the Holy Grail after all. Maybe that's the magic Geritol that grandpa was talking about.

The movie was fun and I am glad the whole family could enjoy it. It was nice to visit the Jones family again and catch up on old times. Glad to see Indy and Marian together again. And here's the boy ready to take up the family business; that's nice. Oh, and there's the Ark of the Covenant. Always wondered where that ended up.

Iron Man

The Tin Man needed a heart. So does the Iron Man. He finds it not from a wizard, but in moral responsibility and repentance.

Anyone remember the theme song from the 1966 Marvel Super-Heroes animated series?:

“Tony Stark makes you feel,
he’s a cool exec with a heart of steel.”

Bonus points to Favreau and company for inserting the tune into the movie (even as a ring tone for one character’s phone). The lyrics fit to some degree, but in this film Tony Stark actually does begin as a cool exec with a heart of steel.

Stark’s journey to become Iron Man is ironic. As his heart is damaged by his own weapons, he recovers his spiritual and moral heart. He is no longer content to be the “merchant of death” and instead vows to use his power and influence to improve the world. The second irony, which the film does not explain away, is that he builds the world’s greatest weapon (the Iron Man armor) in an attempt to redeem his part in mass producing weapons of mass destruction.

Stark knows that he is complicit is a system of imbalanced power and destruction. Other characters such as Obadiah Stane and James Rhodes are also a part of that system. No one is above critique. However, we can sympathize with Stark because he accepts his culpability and takes the bold actions to change it. He learns to administer justice rather than cater to the highest bidder, even though he may do so imperfectly. This is an accurate picture of redemption.
Iron Man was one of my favorite comics. I grew up with these characters, so this film was huge for me. I know that Shell-Head has always been Marvel’s most political character (perhaps even more so than Capitan America). In the 1960’s Iron Man’s enemies were communists. We were scared of the Red Menace and so Iron Man kept the world safe for capitalism.

Now his origin is updated for our times. Our threat is terror, so Stark's conversion takes place in the Middle East and his captors are some sort of terrorists. Even though the terrorist group in the film is identified as a multi-national group called “The Ten Rings” (which is a reference to The Mandarin, an old Iron Man foe from the comics), it is difficult not to feel that this group isn’t Al-Qaeda. In the opening scene I felt the rage, anger, and powerlessness generated by video executions conducted by extremist groups. Who wouldn’t want the protection and power of high-tech armor? Who wouldn’t want to protect the innocent and rescue the oppressed with the power of repulsor rays? Yet, how do we walk the line between revenge and redemption? It’s a question left open and I applaud this movie for opening the dialogue. I hope the media and the public will engage this dimension of the film as much as it engages the special effects and celebrity glitz.

P.S. We will definitely be hearing from Iron Man again. Be sure and stick around for the surprise scene that follows the credits. Every comic-book nerd around the globe must have cheered wildly over that scene. I did. Go see the movie and then come back and talk to me here if that last scene leaves you wondering.

I Am Legend

There is no shortage of Christmas films. From "It's a Wonderful Life" to "Elf" there is a Christmas film that ought to suit everyone. But what if one is looking for an Advent film? I think I have found one in I Am Legend.

On the traditional church calendar, Advent is the season that leads up to Christmas. As the name suggests, Advent anticipates the arrival of Christ. It looks back to the birth of Christ and looks forward to the return of Christ. A reading of the texts for the Advent season makes it clear that Advent is less sentimental and more realistic than the traditional, commercialized American observance of Christmas. Advent is not about happy endings, but it is about hope. Advent is not shiny and bright. Rather, Advent admits that are shadows and darkness, but the light of God is breaking into the darkness.

For all of these reasons, I Am Legend is the perfect Advent film. In the following review I am going to spoil the plot. So stop reading now and go see the movie. . . .

Alright, now I am assuming that you've seen the movie. Let's continue. This movie is thick with themes. I am amazed at how all these various elements can be developed without stepping over each other. Perhaps that is possible in a story that focuses on a single, lonely individual. The best way for me to organize my comments is to draw out each theme.

Loneliness. Will Smith's portrayal of Lt. Col. Robert Neville is outstanding. As far as he knows, he is the last man on earth. Smith is able to balance Neville's discipline and focus on finding a cure for the Krippen Virus with his fragile state of mind. When Neville enters into conversation with Sam, his dog, and the mannequins at the video store it is humorous, but not ridiculous. In a later scene, Neville is begging a mannequin to talk back to him. It is reminiscent of Tom Hank's interaction with Wilson, the soccer ball in Castaway.

Neville is sending out a lonely invitation to any who can receive his radio broadcast. For three years he faithfully appears at a pier at high noon waiting for anyone who will accept his invitation of food, shelter, and protection.

Rescuer and Savior. Neville is not a post-apocalyptic survivalist along the lines of Mad Max or even Omega Man [The opening sequence of Neville and Sam hunting deer in Times Square from the red and white Mustang is an homage to Omega Man, an earlier version of the story. You probably knew that already, right?]. He has a duty and a mission. Neville is heroic because he is a guardian. He has resolved not to give up on finding a cure for the Krippen Virus. His station is Ground Zero and he will not leave it until is duty is accomplished. Even in his encounters with the mutated Dark Seekers, Neville is compassionate. His goal is not their destruction, but he ultimately seeks a way of saving them. However, Neville's efforts to save others are often frustrated. Neville struggles to save his family from the quarantine of Manhattan, he is successful but they are immediately killed in an accident resulting from the extreme, anxious measures of the military. Throughout the movie I wondered if and when Neville would break and lose hope.

The God Question. Smith has compared his role in the film to Job. That's a great comparison even though Job and Neville come out a different place on their argument with God. For Neville, God is simply not there. When another survivor, Ana, tries to convince Neville that God has a plan, he refuses to accept it. His rejection of God is not simply scientific, it is also the anger of a man who has seen the destruction that humanity can wreak. What seems to keep Neville going is his faith in humanity, at this point himself, to make right its wrong.

Anna is still convinced that God is working in everything for good. Neville can only accept it during the film's climax when all the right elements come together and the sign of the butterfly pulls it all together. [By the way, butterflies are all over the film]. Finally, Neville is willing to accept that a higher power is at work to save humanity. As he tells Anna, "I am trying to listen."

Light and Darkness. Even though Neville is reluctant to bring God into the story, he does see his struggle as a conflict between Light and Darkness. This is the overarching theme for the entire film. Neville attempts to live his life as normally as possible in the daylight. Nighttime, however, is fearful. During the night, the Dark Seekers roam about seeking human blood.

Neville shares his driving philosophy with Ana. He is inspired by a legend about Bob Marley. Marley vowed never to take a day off from injecting light into the world since those who would bring darkness never rest. Much of the subtext of the film is revealed in this conversation.

Left on its own, that sentiment could be basically humanitarian rather than particularly spiritual. Combined with Neville's epiphany and Anna's faith, the theme takes on another dimension. God is at work to bring light into darkness. Perhaps Neville is God's agent and his blessing and commission came from the prayer his wife blesses him with in the helicopter shortly before her departure. [This was one of the most realistic prayers depicted in a movie].

The film closes with Anna saying "Light up the darkness." That's a great message for Advent.

Stardust

More than one reviewer has portrayed Stardust as this generation's Princess Bride. It's an unfair comparison that is more likely the result of lazy reviewers paying more attention to promotional materials than the film. From what I know, the only connection between Stardust and the Princess Bride is that they could both fit into the genre of fairy tale. Beyond that, Stardust has no more similarity to Princess Bride than it does to Snow White.

A better comparison is Eragon. [But Stardust is a much better film]. Like Eragon, Stardust is a coming of age story. It's the ancient formula of "Jack" the young hero who sets out on a quest as a bumbling boy and returns as a man. But Stardust adds a twist of romance to the coming-of-age formula. In fact, Stardust is a combination of fairy tale types. The romance in Stardust is the formula of the the young man who falls in love with an enchanted creature who chooses humanity for the sake of love. In this case, its Yvaine, who is a fallen star. She can survive in the mystical land of Stronghold, but if she should cross the wall into our world she will disintegrate into stardust.

The story adds yet another fairy tale theme in the form of Yvaine's desire to live among the humans she has watched over the centuries. But wait, there's still another fairy tale theme woven into this story. Tristan, our "Jack" in this complex fairy tale, is the hidden king who is the rightful heir to the throne of Stronghold.

The story is a crazy quilt of fairy tale ideas woven together nicely and without confusion. The visual magic of the film is delightful as well. The philosophy is also rich. The opening line is worth pondering:

A philosopher once asked, "Are we human because we gaze at the stars, or do we gaze at them because we are human?" Pointless, really. Do the stars gaze back? -- Now that's a question.

The philosopher may have overlooked the possibility that the heavenly creatures are in awe of the lives of mere mortals. But the apostle seemed to understand it . . .

The prophets who told us this was coming asked a lot of questions about this gift of life God was preparing. The Messiah's Spirit let them in on some of it—that the Messiah would experience suffering, followed by glory. They clamored to know who and when. All they were told was that they were serving you, you who by orders from heaven have now heard for yourselves—through the Holy Spirit—the Message of those prophecies fulfilled. Do you realize how fortunate you are? Angels would have given anything to be in on this! - 1 Peter 1:10-12

The Bourne Ultimatum

Government must have a conscience. When government loses its soul people become materials to be used. They can be "liquidated." People can be trained to kill without guilt thus becoming "assets." It is a tidy, antiseptic, orderly world. But if anyone develops a conscience, then it all falls apart. These themes play out very well in the final installment of the Bourne trilogy. Jason Bourne's quest to discover who he is rips the lid off of the darkest corners of the nation's psyche.

I admire the fact that the villains and heroes in the world of Bourne are complex. The villains are not megalomaniacs in leisure suits. No, they are people just like any of us. Most of them are civil servants who are simply doing their jobs. They believe in what they do without fanaticism, but many of them do not take the time to reflect on the implications of their work. Of course, some of the "villains" are the assassins, or more accurately assets. They are not complex. They are barely human. They are machine-men trained to perform task without question or reflection of any sort. They wait in secluded hotel rooms for their next assignment is transmitted to them via email from a "handler." The film portrays these assets as blank robots until one compelling scene toward the end of the film when Bourne, who was also an asset, chooses to make the other killer think rather than fight. It is a powerful exchange.

Likewise, the heroes of Bourne Ultimatum are people who are atoning for the sins of their own past. They are not angels. No, they are people just like any of us. They have simply reflected on the system in which they find themselves and dare to do what is right and moral even though it may be costly.

Since we all have the choice to act as hero or villain, we ought to reflect on our choices and then do all that we can to imbue government of the people, by the people, and for the people with a conscience and soul.

Transformers

Transformers! Robots in disguise! Transformers! More than meets the eye! I am not surprised that the filmmakers chose not to use the goofy little theme song from the cartoon. They did use one of its lines more than once; that is, “more than meets the eye.” Indeed, Transformers is a movie that truly is more than meets the eye.

I was looking forward to the movie for the simplest of reasons: giant robots fighting. It is the same internal call that draws one to a Godzilla movie. Of course the Transformers are even more spectacular than people in rubber suits destroying model cities. In terms of special effects, the film delivers quite well.

I also looked forward to the film because there is something attractive about the simple dualism of the characters. The Decepticons are here to destroy; they are evil through and through. The Autobots on the other hand are here to protect us; they are the good guys. The Transformers are more than robots in disguise, they are high-tech angels and demons who battle each other with earth in the middle. I applaud the filmmakers for not blurring that dualism.

However, there is more to the movie than meets the eye and I encountered more than I expected – for better and for worse. Firstly, for the better, I was intrigued by the story element of the All-Spark. The All-Spark is a life-giving cube that represents the creative power of a deity. It is a power that can be used for good or evil and it has landed in Earth’s back yard. The back story to the film involving the discover of Megatron in the Hoover administration, Sam Witwicky’s grandfather, and the formation of Sector Seven was clever. The motto of Sam’s family, “No sacrifice! No victory!” is an inspiring statement. It might have made more of a theme for the film, but it gets buried in the overload of the film. (Which is typical of Michael Bay’s direction).

Any of the themes could have been explored a little further to develop the human and spiritual element of the film. Of course that would mean finding more time in the film, yes? I would offer that there were a few scenes that the film could have done without, which brings me to my second “more than meets the eye” observation. Transformers includes material that is inappropriate for a movie marketed to pre-teen children. This material is not crucial to the story. I am not interested in reviewing all the inappropriate material. (Parents and conscientious movie-goers should check out movie review sites). I was caught off-guard by a PG-13 rating which only seemed to be for sci-fi violence and brief sexual humor. The so-called sexual humor was neither brief or humorous – especially when your children are with you. These moments were unfortunate blemishes on an otherwise good film. It makes one think twice about buying the DVD for the kids.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

I dig the Silver Surfer. Always have. Always will. He is an outsider. He is a stranger in a strange land. He is a philosopher and prophet. And how many super-heroes ride a surf board through space? That’s just ultra-cool.

I was concerned then when my all-time favorite comic-book hero was slated to appear in the next Fantastic Four movie. The first movie was lacking and Doctor Doom, one of the greatest comic book villains, was ruined. I feared for the cinematic treatment of Norrin Radd, the Silver Surfer. After seeing FF: Rise of the Silver Surfer I am not disappointed. The filmmakers understand the Surfer.

The Silver Surfer begins as an apocalyptic character. His arrival heralds judgment and doom. Ultimately, the Surfer is a messianic figure. He is a visitor from another world who would save us from ourselves with his unlimited power, but we of course treat him with contempt and fear.

The Silver Surfer saves earth from Galactus, the world devouring entity, by placing himself between earth and his master. This is comparable to certain atonement theories that involve appeasement of God. In these theories, Christ is the messiah who saves humanity by placing himself in front of the consuming wrath of God.

I do not think an appeasement or substitutionary theory of atonement is the only way of describing biblical atonement. It certainly is not a comprehensive theory. The comparison of Christ and God to the Silver Surfer and Galactus in this film only demonstrates the limitations of common appeasement theories of atonement. Is God a devouring force that seeks our destruction? Does Christ have to rebel against his heavenly father in order to save the world? Of course not. The biblical teaching about atonement is more about the reconciliation of a broken relationship between God and humanity than appeasement of an angry deity.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer may just be a gee-whiz comic-book flick, but here I am reflecting on atonement and the Messiah. This is why I dig the Silver Surfer. He makes us think. Preach it, Surfer.

Spider-Man 3

Spider-Man 3 is a tangled web of revenge: Harry Osburn blames Peter Parker for the death of his father. Eddie Brock hates Peter Parker for causing him to lose his job. Flint Marko is to blame for the death of Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben . . . and when Peter finds out surely he too will want revenge.

The complicated and broken relationships of the characters attract the attention of the black, oozing symbiote from outer space. The symbiote thrives on hatred, revenge, and lust. It turns Spider-Man into “Dark Spider-Man.” Later it leeches onto Eddie Brock and becomes Venom. Interestingly the symbiote does not change the host, but only magnifies the worst characteristics of the host. It is a darkness that is nurtured by sinister and selfish desires.

Spider-Man 3 gives us a brilliant depiction of sin that is not unlike the anthropomorphic description of sin in Genesis 4. In that ancient account, God warns Cain that his hatred toward his brother Abel is attracting sin to his doorstep. Sin is crouching outside waiting for Cain to open the door and let it in. God urges Cain to get the upper hand on sin lest it consume him and have its way with him. The Genesis 4 story is mirrored in the movie in a scene in which Peter is drawn to the box in the closet in which he hides the symbiote. Peter is tempted to open the box and let the symbiote consume him. As with Cain, the consequences are terrible.

Spider-Man 3 trades on the clichéd movie theme that we all have a dark side. However, this movie departs from the cliché in the way that the dark side is overcome by the heroes – and even a few of the villains. Rather than admonish us to accept the dark side or exercise enough will power to resist it, our heroes choose to forgive. Harry forgives Peter. Mary Jane forgives Peter. Peter even forgives Flint Marko, the Sandman, who is partly responsible for the death of Uncle Ben. In doing so, Peter lets go of his own guilt for Uncle Ben’s death. The rich symbolism of the Sandman fading away on the winds and the dawn of a new day is not to be missed.

Spider-Man 3 is visually exciting and magical. The storytelling remains as fun and funny as the previous movies. Unlike the first and second movies, Spider-Man 3 is more than a good versus evil morality tale. Perhaps Stan Lee would agree with me that it is a mighty Marvel pulp-fiction parable of full-color forgiveness and super-heroic spirituality! Excelsior!

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End

I admit that I did not watch the first Pirates movie very closely. I cannot recall any of the second film. So, one-quarter of the way through the latest Pirates film, particularly in the scenes with Johnny Depp and the ship in the desert, I turned to my wife and friends and asked, “What am I missing? I don’t get this.” Sadly, they couldn’t help me and it wasn’t their fault.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End is a visually stunning film. I give it high marks for its artistic magnificence. Unfortunately, it lacks the storytelling to match its spectacle. It is a disjointed adventure tale that seems to jump from one bizarre predicament to the next without any consistent plot. I felt as though we were supposed to be entertained by the egoistic posing and preening of the characters and stars. Captain Jack Sparrow and his clones proved it for me. The filmmaker’s formula seems to be “Give ‘em all the Captain Jack they stand!”

Yet, what did any of us expect from a movie series that was based on an unimpressive ride at Disney’s famous amusement park? I recall our family trip to Disneyworld in 1998. Before the Pirate’s movie one could walk right up and board the Pirates of the Caribbean ride without a wait. (The only ride that had a shorter line was this circa-1979 “Vision of Tomorrow” diorama-conveyor belt show at EPCOT. It was boring, but it was air conditioned. We rode it five times in a row.)

I am trying to redeem my viewing of Pirates and derive some sort of philosophical, moral, or spiritual message from it. I could try and wax eloquent on its vision of the afterlife or its theme of self-sacrifice, but that would be disingenuous. The truth is I spent most of the movie wondering when Keith Richards would make his cameo.

If you loved the movie I can understand why. It's a lot of fun -even if it has no plot. If you are a Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom groupie, then you certainly must love this film. Personally, I liked the monkey better than any other character and watching him get shot out of the canon is worth the price of admission. Alas, I wish I had had a TiVo to rewind it and watch it again.

I am convinced that At World's End is the end of the Pirates series. Yet there's more "booty" to plunder from the fans and the set up for a fourth movie is all there. I do not plan to see it - unless of course they shoot that monkey from a canon again!

Ghost Rider

This is just a movie about a dude with a burning skull dressed in black leather and riding a wicked chopper with the wheels on fire, right? Not quite. Underlying the comic-book veneer is a message about second chances, redemption, and grace.

The spiritual elements of this film are overt. Young Johnny Blaze is tricked into a pact with the devil to save his father's life. Deals with the devil always go bad and Blaze is cursed to run errands for Ol' Scratch as his personal bounty hunter. Of course Blaze is aware of the curse long before his first transformation into the Ghost Rider. He risks his life in death-defying stunts and strangely survives as if by a miracle. Is he lucky; did his talent save him; or did he sell his soul to the devil? These are the questions that haunt and condemn Blaze. His pact with devil gains him nothing and costs him dearly. So, the question is raised (Blaze actually verbalizes it at one point), "Does a person get a second chance or does he have to pay for a single mistake for the rest of his life?"

Johnny Blaze gets his second chance by owning his mistake and turning his curse into a weapon against evil. As his mentor, the caretaker, puts it, "You made your pact with devil for the sake of loved ones, not for greed. Maybe that puts God on your side." Here is the film's only significant acknowledgement of the other side of the metaphysical coin. Otherwise the film focuses on our human struggles against the powers that oppress us. As a believer in God I have to affirm that it is the Lord's work in Christ that ultimately undoes and redeems the corrupt powers of this age, nevertheless I appreciate the film's emphasis on the human experience - even if that experience is portrayed through the imaginary tale of the Ghost Rider.

It takes grace to overcome the evil one. His oily voice is always burning in the back of our skulls convicting us of our mistakes and condemning us to an endless cycle of failed attempts at proving ourselves. He wants us to pay for our mistakes over and over until the end of our days. Once we own our mistakes and acknowledge that we have been cursed does our redemption begin. The fact that we struggle doesn't mean we have been abandoned. There's no question about it: God is for us.

"And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love." - Romans 8:38

Cars

"I am speed!" So goes Lightning McQueen's pre-race mantra. Lightning is on the fast lane to success and he doesn't have time to slow down for anybody.

However, Lightning doesn't have much of a choice when he lands in the sleepy burg of Radiator Springs. He is forced to repair the road he demolished and during his labor he learns to slow down long enough to make friends with the other cars.

I noted in my entry on Over The Hedge that inspiration comes from the strangest of places. Here is yet another "kids movie" delivering a high-octane message for our overindulgent culture. With Over the Hedge, the theme was excess and consumerism. With Cars, the lesson of the day is time and the breakneck speed of our society that causes us to become less caring and considerate. Both movies are a much needed commentary on how the powers of greed and speed are eroding community.

There's much to commend in this film. I am always impressed by the wizards of PIXAR. Every movie they've turned out has been a winner. Unlike Dreamworks, they always work from original concepts and they immerse themselves and their movies in the concepts. Be on the lookout for Click and Clack from NPR's Car Talk. There's a variety of famous race car drivers voicing characters. Cars is filled with lore about Route 66. (I am reading Grapes of Wrath and I find it interesting that both a Steinbeck novel of the Great Depression and a computer animated film about talking cars are both drawing from the significance of the Mother Road). Pay particular attention to the scene in which Sally tells Lightning how I-40 bypassed Radiator Springs to save 10 minutes of driving time. One cannot help but wonder what we have sacrificed for speed.

By the way, don't rush out of the theatre when the story ends. You always want to stay until the very end of a PIXAR film and enjoy the outtakes and final scenes, but this time you should really just slow down and not be in too much of a hurry.

Over The Hedge

Sometimes inspiration comes from the strangest of places. Just a few weeks ago I made the decision to join meet my family at the movies. It was a decision, not a whim, because I was in the thick of a seriously overactive schedule and I had to decide that spending 90 minutes of my time at a "kids movie" like Over The Hedge was not unimportant. The 90 minutes would have been important simply because I shared it with my wife and children, but I was additionally blessed by a good movie with an inspiring message.

Over the Hedge is a parable of community. R. J. the racoon is a greedy loner who makes his way in the world by scavenging the snack foods that humans enjoy to excess. Vincent the bear also likes the goodies in a "pick-a-nick" basket, but he's no Yogi Bear. Vincent is more like Don Vito Corleone, and when R. J.'s heist of Vincent's stash goes wrong Vincent demands repayment or else R. J. becomes tasty treat himself.

R. J.'s pressure to repay the impossible debt sets the story. What follows is a multi-layered homily on community. On one layer, R. J. finds the source of easy comestibles in the El Rancho Camelot suburbs, which are just over the hedge from the forest. El Rancho Camelot and Gladys Sharp, the homeowner's association president, serve as a thought-provoking commentary on American consumerism. Do we really build our houses that big? Do we really consume that much junk? The movie doesn't preach, but one cannot fail to get the point as our over-indulgent lifestyles are not only seen from the perspective of the wee creatures, but also reflected in their anthropomorphic antics.

And that's yet another layer of this film. R. J. meets up with a group of friendly forest dwellers made up of a turtle, a skunk, a squirrel, two opossums, and a porcupine family. The odd assortment of beasts live together in utopian harmony as a commune community. They gather just what is needed until R. J. changes that by introducing the forest family to the possibilities of treasures over the hedge. Of course we know that R. J. is exploiting the others to gather what he needs to pay off Vincent. As would be expected, R. J. falls in love with the funny animals and finds community.

Which peels off yet another layer of this film: R. J. is revealed as a fraud but he repents by rescuing the others from the evil Verminator. In turn, the forest community rescues R. J. from the clutches of Vincent. How does a community reconcile with a betrayer? How do they restore R. J. to their community when they know he has lied to them? I realize that the movie simplifies such issues (hey, they only have 90 minutes) but I respect that the movie didn't make the reconciliation too simple. In a style that would make old Aesop proud, the animals demonstrate how community depends on forgiveness, reconciliation, and redemption. The challenge of both the offended community to forgive and the offender to repent are told beautifully.

I consider this movie to be Dreamworks' best effort to date. I applaud them for sharing their parable. Those 90 minutes were well spent and I stepped out of the theatre with an even greater appreciation and love for my family and my community of faith.

The DaVinci Code

It makes me somewhat unpopular to admit that I thought that Dan Brown's novel was weak and poorly written. My problem with the novel is not with the religious controversy, but with the fact that the characters are flat, unsympathetic, and the dialogue is stiff. If you enjoyed the book I am happy for you, but I just felt differently.

When I heard that Ron Howard and Tom Hanks were involved in the movie version I immediately predicted that the movie would be better simply because Howard is a good storyteller and Hanks is a good actor. Yet, early reviews of the movie made me think my prediction was in error. After seeing the movie I can say that it is better than the book even if it is not as good as I thought it might be.

This is not Hank's best performance, however he does breathe some life into Robert Langdon's character. The movie does a magical job of showing Landgon's almost Rain-Man ability to decipher codes. Howard used a similar effect in Beautiful Mind to show the main character's ability to recognize patterns. More importantly, Langdon provides a critical element to the movie that the book does not deliver. The Dan Brown version of Langdon affirms nearly all of Leigh Teabing's conspiratorial views. But in the movie, the scene at Teabing's house is played out with more zest because Langdon doesn't accept Teabing's conclusions without debate. He dismisses the Priory of Sion and the marriage of Jesus as myth and old wives' tales. Furthermore, he accuses Teabing of interpreting facts to support his conclusions. I loved that! Even if Langdon does accept many of Teabing's conclusions, this is the sort of critical thinking I would expect from a scholar of Langdon's stature.

Likewise Teabing and Sophie are more developed characters than their presentation in the book. McKellan's performance of Teabing is witty and devious at the same time. Sophie demonstrates more distress than she did in the book. I was disappointed by Sophie in the book. She was very dull and seemed more interested in Teabing's lecture than grief over her grandfather's murder. This is not the case in the movie and Sophie shows more emotion and is not so willing to drink the Kool-Aid Teabing serves up.

Strangely enough, the most sympathetic character in the movie is Silas, the murderous albino monk. The tragic end of Silas and his devotion to Bishop Aringarosa are explained thanks to flashbacks. Is Silas an angel or a ghost? Silas is much less the cartoon villain in the book. Nevertheless, the scenes of Silas torturing himself were overdone. Silas mutilates himself - we get it!

There's one more element that not only brings more depth to the Langdon's character but it opens the door of faith. Langdon is claustrophobic because he fell down a well as a child. He admits to Sophie that he was raised Catholic and when he was in the well he prayed all night. He believes that God's presence was with him during that experience. In addition, Sophie is able to relieve Langdon's claustrophobia with a touch. We can only assume that this because she is the descendant of Jesus Christ and she has inherited a particular family trait.

Langdon leaves it to Sophie to decide what all of this means. He tells her that what matters is what she believes. Of course this falls far short of conviction and is more akin to religious relativism, but then Langdon provides a critical question for Sophie: Would the descendant of Jesus Christ destroy faith or renew it? This is a much more positive option than Teabing's plan to tear down the oppressive reign of the Roman Catholic-Vatican hierarchy.

Of course that is the only conclusion that is allowed in the novel. The goal of the Priory of Sion is to bring down the religious oppression of the Catholic church. And as we all know, every Christian on earth accepts whatever the Roman Catholic church and the Pope says without question, right? (Sarcasm Alert!). This is the un-nuanced premise that ruined the novel for me, so I was pleasantly surprised to see some nuance brought back in to the movie.

There are some that embrace the premise of The DaVinci Code for various reasons. I can certainly understand the appeal of an alternate Christianity that undermines the authority and credibility of institutional religion. (Of course there are some who simply seek to discredit Christianity and Christ altogether). However, it isn't necessary to dismantle Christology to critique ecclesiology. In fact, the best critique of errant ecclesiology is a a sound Christology that affirms the humanity and divinity of Christ along with his earthly ministry and resurrected sovereignty. A risen Christ is present with the church and is actively involved in revealing God to the church so that humanity might become more like Christ. The resurrection of Jesus is the open door of hope.

The Christology of the novel leaves us with nothing more than the reverence of dead bones. The Christology of the New Testament affirms that that which is dead can live again. The movie leaves us stuck somewhere in-between.

Who Makes the Most Christian Films?

No, I still haven't seen DaVinci Code and it is already so five minutes ago. In the meantime, just so you'll know that the Lantern's Light has not gone out, I invite you to read this very interesting article from Thom Parham in Godspy. This article recognizes what the Magic Lantern Show is searching for in contemporary films.

This also gives me a chance to say that the same sort of religious depth recognized in films is also prevalent in many TV shows. Have you noticed how Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Prison Break and even My Name is Earl discuss faith? If we can talk about our belief with the same depth and candor as these shows we might just make a difference in our world.

You can expect a review of some of these shows and many more in the future on Magic Lantern Show.

The DaVinci Code

The movie is released! The most-anticipated blockbuster of the summer is here. Will it be all it is hyped to be or must we wait until June and hope that Superman can save the summer? (The X-Men will be busy with their own problems next weekend).

I probably won't see the film until next week. But if you saw it, leave a comment and let me know what you thought. Don't worry - you can't spoil the plot of this one for me!

Relighting the Lantern

So what movie are you eager to see this summer?

Today I am meeting with Scott Smith of the Southwest Times Record. He is doing an article on The DaVinci Code and spirituality in pop culture. I am excited by the fact that after decades of trying to form a secular state and secular culture we are finding that it is impossible to avoid spirituality.

So what movie are you eager to see this summer? Can you sense the spirituality in it? Let's go to the movies and see for ourselves.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Willy Wonka: But, Charlie, don't forget what happened to the man who suddenly got everything he always wanted.
Charlie Bucket: What happened?
Willy Wonka: He lived happily ever after.

So goes the closing dialogue of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971). This was one of my favorite movies as a child. My cousins and I constructed our very own Wonka-esque "chocolate factory" out of junk and cast-off machinery on our family farm. We penned our own lyrics to the haunting and mind-numbing "Oompa Loompa" tune. This movie is embedded in my memories of youth. As special as it is, I was never satisfied by the end of the movie.

I have a hard time dealing with Wonka's statement in the closing lines. Are we really happier if we get everything we always wanted? This statement sort of undoes the whole movie. The Oompa Loompa's have been preaching to us through their eerie little songs about the dangers of being a glutton, a spoiled brat, and a disobedient child. Why then does Wonka suddenly undermine the cinematic exhortation with his sugary dose of sentiment? I guess he is just the candyman after all.

Enough of the past, let's jump into the Way-Back Machine and return to our present day. Tim Burton has produced his own vision of Roald Dahl's story. I must say I was quite intrigued by this pairing of Burton and Dahl. The only one of Dahl's children's stories I have read is The Witches. I have read a few of his short stories for adults. (Trivia Alert: Dahl wrote the screenplay for the 007 movie You Only Live Twice). Dahl has a dark thread in his writing. Many of his short stories have a wicked, Hitchcock/Twilight Zone-style twist. (Trivia Alert 2: Dahl wrote the scripts for at least six episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents.) If I were looking for a director to handle Dahl's stories I would have two choices: M. Night Shyamalan or Tim Burton. If it were one of the children's stories Burton would be the clear choice.

Burton's films also have a dark thread in them, but balances the dark tones with nostalgia, camp, and cartoonish fun. The combination of Burton and Dahl is perfect in this film. Yet, before I saw it I was hesitant only because of my sentimental appreciation for the 1971 film. I admire Burton's work, but could he improve on the 1971 film? I am surprised to admit that he did - and mainly because he got the ending right!

I confess that I have not read Dahl's original story. I don't know how it ends. When I say that Burton got the ending right I mean he ended the story the way it should end. Burton's version of the story is a perfect parable for children and adults in our culture. Each of the children who win a golden ticket to Wonka's factory, with the exception of Charlie, is a token for the problems of our age. The vices of gluttony and overconsumption are embodied in Augustus Gloop. Arrogance and unbridled competitiveness are represented by Violet Beauregarde. Greed and brattiness are the sole traits of Veruca Salt. Violence and anger are on display in Mike Teavee. Perhaps these characters are simplistic, but do we really want an honest depiction of the situation. We live in a land in which we are concerned about childhood obesity while many more children starve. We live in a land in which some parents berate their children about being the best and the only attention they give their children is the coaching to succeed. Meanwhile in other parts of our land children are abandoned by parents who do not care. We live in a land in which we buy storage for stuff we do not need. We are building bigger barns to store our goods but we are never satisfied. We live in a land in which the line between reality and virtual reality is being blurred. Are violent video games just games or are they crime simulators. We live in an often greedy, selfish, competitive, angry land. In Burton's version of the story, Wonka himself is a victim of greed, selfishness, competition, and anger. Wonka has closed his factory to the public because he no longer trusts society. Instead of appreciating the artistry and goodness of his creations, the world only wants to profit off his talents. This movie also speaks quite convictingly to our consumer age.

Charlie Bucket and his family shine like stars against the darkness of the greedy, selfish, competitive, angry world conjured by Burton and Dahl's combined imaginations. The Bucket family is exceedingly poor, but they are happy. The virtues of love, kindness, and optimism rule their household. The strength and quality of Charlie's family becomes the basis for Burton's wonderful ending to the movie. I won't spoil the ending. You should see it for yourself. I will simply say that it is delightful to see a happy family win out at the end of the movie. As much as I enjoyed seeing the glass elevator fly over London to the symphonic strains of Pure Imagination, I am all the more pleased with the closing scene of Wonka and the Bucket family enjoying a good meal as family. Are we really happier if we suddenly get everything we always wanted? I applaud Tim Burton for suggesting that happiness can more easily be found with family at the dinner table.