The Avengers

The Avengers was definitely the biggest movie in the summer of 2012.  It Hulk-smashed all kinds of records with the money that it made.  Its success is due in part to the fact that it appeals to all ages and easily lends itself to repeat viewings, because it’s just plain fun.

It’s difficult to do an analysis on the “message” of this movie, in part because as a whole, it’s kinda disorganized.  Plot lines are a little scattered, and not many characters are allowed enough screentime to develop or have significant arcs.  Director Joss Whedon himself said:

“The Avengers” is notably IMperfect, which makes its success mean so much more to me — because it’s striking a chord that matters MORE than its obvious flaws. Like the team, it appears to be more than the sun [sic] of its parts. –source

I guess the overall message must be about teamwork, because the Avengers have to work together in order to defeat the invading alien army.  It takes them the better part of the film to get on the same page and iron out their individual issues, but in the final battle they form a single, super-powered unit.  Though not a particularly new or surprising message, it is a Biblical one.

Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up.  But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up…Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves.  A cord of three strands is not quickly broken. –Ecclesiastes 4:9-10,12

The world of this movie presupposes the existence of super-beings and portals to alien worlds, but that’s standard fare in comic-based stories, and it’s not like the Bible doesn’t have its share of super-humans.  (Samson, Goliath).  Thor and Loki are referred to as “gods” but it’s been established that they are really just from another planet, so they appear to be more than human, but in this film Hulk demonstrates that Loki is a “puny god” and Captain America responds to Black Widow’s assessment of Thor and Loki as deities with “There’s only one God, ma’am, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t dress like that.”  In other words, I don’t have a theological problem with the premise of this story.

It’s just so much FUN to watch these guys punch each other through trees and stuff!

Even the title, “The Avengers,” isn’t really a problem for me, although we’re told in scripture that the revenge isn’t something we should pursue:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil.  Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.  If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.  Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. –Romans 12:17-19

For one thing, an epic fight to save the entire human race from enslavement is a little different than avenging a personal wrong, and Loki and his army are not making it possible for the heroes to “live at peace” with them.  The Avengers might use the death of someone close to them as a unifying motivator to join forces against the invaders, but you have to admit that’s what they would have ended up doing anyway.  That motivation was partially included so they could allude to the title.  And finally, “avenging” the earth is not really what this team of superheroes does, it’s saving the earth and everybody in it just like every other superhero movie.  But when they wrote these comics, they didn’t want to call it “Team of Superheroes,” and “Justice League” was taken.  In other words, I don’t have a problem with the title of this movie despite its connotations.

The superheroes are not the only heroes in this film. Many “ordinary” humans, such as S.H.I.E.L.D agents Maria Hill and Phil Coulson, are equally brave and self-sacrificing.

There is a moment when Loki overpowers a crowd of terrified civilians and commands them to show him deference:

“Kneel before me. I said… KNEEL! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.”

Well, Loki is the villain, so of course we’re not meant to agree with what he says, but I just wanted to take it apart and compare it to what scripture actually says rather than writing the whole thing off as bad-guy-blather.  First, I do not think that God agrees that it’s better for humans to be in subjugation, but there might be some truth to the claim that humans crave it.  Sometimes.  If you look at 1 Samuel 8, God’s prophet warns the people what having a king will mean, in detail.  He outlines, at God’s command, all the ways that they will be oppressed if they choose to follow a human leader instead of their Godly one, but the people insist.  It’s a very interesting passage, but I’m referring to it because it’s clear that God’s ideal society does not involve the kind of subjugation that Loki is talking about.

“I am Loki of Asgard, and I am burdened with glorious purpose.”

God does, however, perhaps agree with the statement that in the end, humans will kneel.  Because he has said:

Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. –Isaiah 45:23

It’s different from saying that humans are destined to be “ruled” in the sense that Loki is invoking, but it is true that our Creator made us to worship him and be ruled by him.  (Why do you think Jesus refers to the Kingdom of Heaven so much?  Who’s the King of that Kingdom?)  Anyway, the final point I wanted to make on Loki’s speech is that God’s intentions for humanity do not involve the squashing out of individual identity.  Just look at the passage in 1 Corinthians 12 on the diversity of spiritual gifts, and how one is not greater than the other, and all are essential.

I guess there are a lot of little micro-messages you might be able to take away from little moments in this movie; not really messages, but things you could use in a sermon or lesson illustration.  For example, if I were teaching teenagers on Jacob and Esau, I might say that they were a bit like Thor and Loki in The Avengers, in the sense that they are estranged brothers, because that motif seems to have really moved people.  I might reference Loki’s manipulation of Hawkeye to explain demon-possession.  I might reference Black Widow’s insistence that she’s only helping the team because she’s “got red in [her] ledger,” when talking about the futility of trying to save oneself by works alone.  I wouldn’t really use Iron Man’s allusion to the story of Jonah, since Biblical Jonah did not set off explosives inside the belly of the big fish, and movie-Iron Man did not spend any time in repentant prayer, so they really have nothing in common.  (But props to the movie for the Biblical shout-out.  And to computer-Jarvis for accurately assessing “I wouldn’t consider him a role model.”  I mean, Jonah’s story begins and ends with him kind of being bitter and wimpy.)

In conclusion, I would totally recommend this movie, to everyone, because it is, as I can’t emphasize enough, just plain fun.  And it’s the most fun if you’ve seen all the other Marvel movies, too.  (Iron Man I, Iron Man II, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger).  I am greatly anticipating the next several films that Marvel is developing, and I hope that I will be able to endorse them as well.

Prometheus

My initial reaction when the credits rolled on this movie, (which I saw in a packed theater opening night), was, “meh, it was interesting, not great, maybe a good discussion starter.”  Considering it is now four 10 days later and I am still busily dissecting the symbolism, having in-depth discussions and arguments over it with my friends, and breaking my never-read-other-people’s-reviews-until-you-have-written-yours rule, I think I have to amend my initial rating.  Yes, it is a great movie, and totally worth seeing (for those of-age and not too squeamish).  Not because the script is flawless, (it’s not), not because the visuals are cool, (they are), but because it does spark conversations, and hopefully some of them revolve around the same question the characters in the film seem to be asking: what is the meaning of life?  What is the significance of discovering humanity’s origin?  What is the relationship between a Creator/s and his/their creation?

I felt that most of these questions were unanswered, or were unsatisfactorily dealt with, (which may be in part because this film is the first of a planned trilogy), but at least they are being asked.  Prometheus certainly has the potential to provide a basis for a deep discussion, even if it isn’t very deep itself.

As I said, I am still digesting this particular movie.  (Hey, that’s the name of the blog!)  I fully intend to see it at least one more time in the theater, maybe more.  So perhaps I will come back and edit this post with more insights later.  Here are some of my thoughts and reactions for now.  Be warned, **SPOILERS AHEAD**.

A major theme in this movie is finding the meaning and purpose by discovering the “truth” of one’s origins. Scientist Elizabeth Shaw becomes convinced through a series of ancient cave-paintings that “I think they want us to come and find them.”  Who are “they”, you ask?  “We call them Engineers…they engineered us,” she says.  When a skeptical crew member aboard the spaceship asks how she knows this, she responds, “I don’t.  But it’s what I choose to believe.”  (I’m not sure whether that shows a strong example of faith or a poor excuse for a lack of sound theology.  I think that, yes, in the end, you have to have faith, because you’re never going to be able to find scientific answers to all of theology’s questions.  But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have good reasons for choosing to believe. **see update below**)

In any case, finding the answers to the origin, and therefore the meaning, of life, is what motivates Shaw and her partner on this mission.  (The rest of the crew have their own motives, mostly monetary).  It is assumed that the two quests go hand in hand, and that one informs the other.  It is assumed that the answers are critically important, enough to travel light-years into space to find.  I certainly won’t argue with that.  It’s the same assumptions that people make every time the debate about what to teach in schools regarding Evolution flares up.

Humans aren’t he only ones seeking to uncover the meaning of their existence.  David, (an android played by Michael Fassbender and arguably the most compelling character in the film), knows that he was manufactured by his master Weyland.  But he still wants to know “why.”  And though dialogue repeatedly states that as a robot he has no emotions and cannot understand the human condition, this desire for purpose and a personal connection with his creator makes him appear exactly as human as everyone else, despite his precise and calculating movements.  (This artificial-intelligence-appears-fully-human-and-seeks-to-meet-creator theme echoes that of Blade Runner, also a film by Ridley Scott; I think this shows the self-proclaimed agnostic director is himself seeking answers.)

Seeking answers is what many characters in Prometheus proclaim they are doing, but as the movie demonstrates, just answering where we came from is unsatisfying.  When the team finds proof of alien life, but the aliens are all dead, Charlie (Shaw’s partner) reels into a drunken depression.  Finding supposed proof validating his theory on the origin of life on earth is almost meaningless, because “I wanted to talk to them,” he says.  He didn’t just want answers about his creation, he wanted a relationship with his creator. 

This reminds me of Ecclesiastes 3:9-11, which states,

What does the worker gain from his toil?  I have seen the burden God has laid on men.  He has made everything beautiful in its time.  He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

Part of the ‘burden’ of being human is continually desiring to know more.  We spend our whole lives trying to figure out the meaning of life.  We’re unsatisfied with the day-to-day and the evil realities of our world.  We want to know that our lives have purpose and understand where we fit into the grand scheme of eternity.  We want to know the reason we are here.  We want to know there is a reason.  The good news for seekers is that God has said,

You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. –Jeremiah 29:13

The sentiment is echoed in numerous places throughout scripture.  In Prometheus, Shaw certainly seems to be seeking the truth with all of her heart.  It remains to be seen whether the planned trilogy will show her finding it, but our Creator has promised us we can find Him, even without stepping foot on a spaceship.  If we seek Him with all our heart.

Scientist seeking answers, Elizabeth Shaw, played by Noomi Rapace.

Questions that I am still puzzling over: What was David’s motivation for poisoning Charlie?  Did he realize it would kill him, and was seeking revenge for Charlie’s dismissing and jerk-like behavior towards him, or was he just emotionless-ly curious as to what exactly would happen?  DID David in fact have feelings?  (Seems like the answer is an obvious yes, but, is that too easy?) If wanting to find out what your creator’s purpose was for you is what makes us human, isn’t David one of the most human characters in this film?  Why was the captain so disinterested in doing his actual job?  (Not a serious question, more of an annoyance with the script).  What did David actually say to the Engineer at the end?  (A discussion among linguists about this is over at the Language Log).  Does Shaw really “deserve to know why” the Engineers changed their minds about supporting the existence of humanity?  I mean, do created beings have a right to demand answers from their Creator like that?  Did all the people God wiped out in the Flood “deserve to know why”?

Other people’s thoughts: this livejournal entry by cavalorn* has been getting a lot of attention and there is a lively discussion in the comments.  He points out a self-sacrificing-to-create-life versus sacrificing-others-to-self-preserve motif, identifies re-contextualization of religious imagery (particularly the virgin birth) and theorizes that the Engineers decided to wipe out humanity because Jesus was one of them, (a space alien,) and humans killed him.  This is a mostly negative review that points out flaws in the script, and pretty much sums up how I felt right after I saw the movie.  And elsewhere someone has compiled a list of unanswered questions at the close of the film.

*When I have more time I would like to come back and add my thoughts on cavalorn’s theory.  Particularly the bit about Jesus being a space alien, and what the theological implications of that would be.

**update**

Suppose that we did travel to a distant planet and discover humanoid remains that shared our DNA.  What would that really mean for traditional Christian theology?  In the movie Prometheus, several characters assume that finding intelligent alien life automatically verifies the theory that life on earth was seeded by aliens, and discredits the Biblical creation account.  But I see no reason why that would have to be the case.  Like Shaw, who does not lose her faith in the existence of God when she discovers the aliens that Charlie asserts “made us,” but instead asks “and who made them?”, I would not cease to believe the Bible just because we came across an unexpected situation that scripture did not specifically speak to.

If there were life on another planet, I would assume that it had also been created by God.  It goes back to the very first verse in the Bible,

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. -Genesis 1:1

I take that phrase “heavens and earth” to include everything in the universe.  On day four in the Genesis 1 creation account, God creates “lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,” (Genesis 1:14), which again I would take to include not only sun, moon, and stars but other planets as well.  The creator’s domain doesn’t end with our atmosphere; if he made everything in the universe, then any life out there was also made by him.  If there were intelligent life on another planet, the tricky question would be whether or not those “people” were governed by the same laws of sin and redemption that bind the descendants of Adam and Eve.

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.  For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. -1 Corinthians 15:21-22

If humanoid aliens that shared DNA with earth humans were discovered, it would be possible that they were originally from earth and developed space travel and planet colonization in an ancient civilization.  In that case, they would be descendants of Adam just like we are, born into a sinful state and in need of redemption through Jesus’ sacrifice.  If they weren’t human, if they originated from some other planet entirely, well then I’m not sure what their relationship to sin and redemption would be.  Perhaps God would have a different method of salvation set up for them–as there was a different method on this earth, before Jesus, through animal sacrifice.  Perhaps it’s possible that in a parallel universe, God created an alien race that is living in an unfallen state, but scripture indicates that all life in this universe feels the destructive effects of humanity’s sin:

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.  For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.  We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.  -Romans 8:19-22

Finding intelligent alien life would be fascinating and unexpected, but it in itself would not be enough to destroy the theological premise of Christianity.  Now, if, as the narrative in the film Prometheus reveals, an alien life really did seed life on this planet, and Jesus was nothing more than an alien envoy, then yes, that would pretty much destroy the validity of everything that I believe in.  The literal death and resurrection by the Son of God is crucial, and without it, Christianity is meaningless.  Paul says so exactly in 1 Corinthians 15, (although I doubt he ever imagined his words would be used to answer a hypothetical question about aliens!)  This is a long passage to quote, but I think it’s all relevant and important.  Without Christ’s resurrection, there is no hope for us.  If Jesus was just a space alien killed by an angry mob, then I might react like Charlie does and just start drinking and wallowing in self-pity, too, (emphasis added):

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. ² By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

³ For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. ⁶ After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, ⁸ and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

⁹ For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ¹⁰ But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. ¹¹ Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

¹² But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³ If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴ And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. ¹⁵ More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. ¹⁶ For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. ¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. ¹⁹ If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. –1 Corinthians 15:1-19

Having thought about this film for several months now, I think that I do like Elizabeth Shaw’s line, when asked how she knows her belief is correct, “I don’t.  But it’s what I choose to believe.”  Choosing to believe something won’t make it true, and there are a lot of good reasons beyond blind faith to believe that what the scriptures reveal is the truth–philosophical, theological, historical, archaeological, biological, scholarly reasons.  But in the end, belief in the truth of scripture is a matter of faith.  We will never be able to “prove” its claims using the scientific method.  I have a lot of reasonable arguments behind why I believe the Bible is a true and reliable source, but in the end, it is a choice that I make to believe, in the absence of hard evidence.

I have to reiterate, Prometheus, while definitely not a perfect film, is one of the most thought-provoking movies I’ve seen in quite a while.  It grapples with big questions and is almost certain to spark debates over cosmic questions amongst viewers.  It is well worth watching and discussing afterwards, and I hope that this rather disjointed post is a helpful part of that discussion for Christians and seekers alike.

Battleship

Considering that this movie is inspired by the board game of the same name, it’s not half bad!  It’s a summer action flick, entertaining but predictable and not very deep, exactly as advertised.  It’s fun to watch and there were actually a couple of great lesson moments in between the gunfire and explosions.

The story centers around Alex Hopper, (Taylor Kitsch), an impulsive and immature individual who doesn’t seem interested in putting his considerable skills to good use.  We are introduced to a drunken Alex getting in trouble with the law over shenanigans involving a chicken burrito, after which his brother (Commander Stone Hopper, played by Alexander Skarsgård) insists that Alex join the navy and straighten out his life.

The relationship between the Hopper brothers is truly loving, in that Stone recognizes that the best thing for Alex is not always what the younger brother wants.  When Alex gets into trouble and comes to his brother hoping to escape the consequences, saying, “You’ve gotta make some calls,” Stone replies, “Who do I call to teach you humility?  I’m sorry, man, I just don’t have that number.”

Alex’s commanding officer, Admiral Shane, (played by Liam Neeson), is equally blunt in his assessment of the brash young lieutenant, telling him, “You’re a very smart individual, with a very weak character and poor decision-making skills.”  I love the inclusion of these lines of dialogue, because while we often see movies with “heroes” that are similarly immature, their reckless and selfish actions are sometimes celebrated or downplayed.  It’s nice to see Alex’s character accurately distilled within the film itself.

**SPOILER ALERT** At the end of the film Alex, having helped averted potential global catastrophe, feels entitled to a blessing from the Admiral to marry his daughter.  To my delight, the response is, “No…Saving the world is one thing, Hopper.  My daughter is quite another.”  This is terrific, because Alex didn’t really demonstrate much change in his major character flaws throughout the drama.  He learned to be less selfish and rely more on teamwork, and he used creative tactical strategies, but he didn’t act less brashly or control his temper.  At one point he had to be reminded three times by inferior officers that there were sailors in the water and the ship’s duty was to prioritize rescuing them rather than pursuing a vengeful and reckless enemy attack.

The Admiral’s response to Alex’s assumption of deserved respect because he “saved the world” reminded me of Galatians 6:3, which says

If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.

As well as 1 Samuel 16:7, when God sends Samuel to anoint a new king and the prophet assumes it should be one of David’s older, brawnier brothers, but God says,

The LORD does not look at the things man looks at.  Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.

I don’t think that the character of Alex is completely without good inner qualities, but I think God would agree with the Admiral’s viewpoint that acts of bravery and heroism are not a substitute for character and integrity.  And, the Admiral does invite Alex to join him for lunch, and it’s implied that he will agree to let him marry his daughter.  But not because he “saved the world,” and not without some scrutiny.  **END SPOILER**

Rihanna made her acting debut in this movie as a soldier who fired a lot of guns. I thought her performance was, meh, okay, one of my least favorite things about the movie. Just because it was distracting to keep seeing Rihanna swagger around trying to act tough.

This film also features several characters who are veterans, one of who has lost limbs and is struggling to regain a sense of purpose, and others who were actual navy veterans, as this quote from an interview with Skarsgård highlights:

Several Navy veterans are also featured as extras in the film. At the “Battleship” premiere, Skarsgard said, “Those veterans that are on the ship that my character referred to they’re real vets and they served on the [USS] Missouri.”

“Some of them going back to the second World War and it’s just a very humbling experience to be there with them on that ship,” he added. “The stories those guys told us were just amazing and I’ll never forget it.” (source)

All of these veterans, as well as the diverse personalities on the ships, end up having to work together, and their success demonstrates the truth of 1 Corinthians 12:21-22 on how there are no non-essential parts to the body of Christ.

Another time, (perhaps on my pagelady blog), I would like to discuss the treatment of the aliens in this film, because I found it strange that not a single character seemed to question whether or not the right course of action was to automatically try to destroy them all rather than attempt diplomacy or reconciliation, but on the whole I would say that this film, though little more than mindless action, had pleasantly surprising, mostly positive messages.

Attack the Block

I heard other movie reviewers and bloggers raving about this film all summer.  When it finally came to my theater, it was only here for a week.  It didn’t get marketed the same way many other films are, so a lot of people who probably would have loved it didn’t know about it.  Well, I’m glad I got the chance to see it, because I loved it!  It is not for everyone, because it’s rated R for some violent death scenes and for language, (but it’s cussing with an accent!  See my dialogue analysis here), but it was different from your typical hero-vs-alien story, and it had one of the best character arcs of the summer.

Fair warning, this review is pretty spoiler-y.  Stop reading now if you don’t want to know what happens.

In the beginning, we see Sam, a young nurse, walking home amidst sidewalk chaos and fireworks (because it’s Guy Fawkes Day).  She is accosted and mugged by a gang of juvenile delinquents, led by the toughest of the little tough guys, Moses.  (I don’t really think he’s comparable to the Biblical Moses figure, except that he leads the group.)  The mugging is interrupted by something falling from the sky and crash-landing into a nearby parked car.  It’s a creature, that claws Moses’ face when he investigates, and then runs off.  Filled with furious anger, Moses leads his gang after alien to exact a violent revenge.

And boy, is it violent.  The boys’ group kill was very reminiscent of Lord of the Flies, the way they all join in and chant around the dead body afterwards.  I was a little shocked by how violent they were, how they were so easily persuaded to join in a murderous act.  But it’s not that much of a stretch for them, growing up on the streets in this neighborhood where strength and violence rule, (as demonstrated by the drug-dealing Hi-Hatz, who perpetually pulls out a gun and spits “this is my block!”).  The boys are pretty proud of themselves, thinking they’ve somehow proven their manhood.  And Moses accepts an invitation by Hi-Hatz to become on of “his” boys and climb that social ladder.  Because that’s legitimately the path he sees as being the most successful.

But then, the boys see more capsules meteoring to earth.  And they rile themselves up to go “killin’ ’em straight up!”, only to find that these new creatures are bigger, fiercer, and more dangerous and deadly than their first extraterrestrial victim.  But before they can make it safely back indoors, Sam identifies the hoodlums and the police arrest Moses, locking him inside their van just before they are conveniently eaten by aliens.  The rest of the gang distract the aliens (with firecrakcers) and free Sam and Moses from the police van.

“Ain’t you gonna thank us for saving your life?” snaps Moses.  “My [effing] hero,” responds a still-angry-about-being-mugged Sam, yet she stays with the gang for the rest of the film (out of necessity).  At one point, a boy spouts logic that he probably learned from watching movies and concedes, well, yeah, we attacked her, but then we saved her, so everything was cool.  “We’re heroes,” he proclaims. Sam’s assessment of the situation is less romantic; “Five of you with knives against one woman?  [Eff] off.”  I liked that this story didn’t gloss over the boys’ faults, and didn’t add to the plethora of films that proclaim past errors can be negated by a noble deed or a grand gesture.

is it safer to stay in the elevator, or make a run for it down the hall?

It’s the same message that one of the characters has for Moses, when it becomes clear that the aliens are targeting him:

“You know that little one you killed before?  That was a mistake.  Actions have consequences, y’know?  Everywhere you go bad things happen.  Stay away from us, Moses.”

Eventually, accepting that he is responsible for all the destruction and casualties that the results of his actions led to, Moses prepares to embark on a last-ditch, suicidal solo mission to save what’s left of his friends, as well as the innocents in the neighborhood at large.  He has experienced and learned enough in the last hour to look back at that savage beating of the crash-landed alien in the beginning as a serious mistake;

“Wish I’d never chased after that thing….I killed that thing.  I brought dem in da block.  I’ve gotta finish what we started.”

In the aftermath of the planet-saving, alien-ending explosions, the police catch up with Moses again and re-arrest him.  The friends and neighbors that witnessed the earlier extraterrestrial terrors and Moses’ brave, self-sacrificing final stand and booing the police and chanting for their new hero, but the movie ends with Moses in handcuffs in a police van.  I love this ending, because it’s in keeping with everything else the story had said up to that point–actions have consequences, one good deed doesn’t outweigh a bad one.  And Moses did pull a knife on Sam and rob her, he was trafficking illegal substances, he fled the scene of a crime, etc.  And he still has to account for those actions.  He’s smiling, though, at the recognition from at least a segment of society, that he’s worth something, and it leaves me with a hopeful feeling that he won’t continue to look up to someone like Hi-Hatz as an example of manhood to aspire to.

Moses, the unlikely hero

It’s pretty obvious that another message in this movie is a social commentary on the way poor urban communities are overlooked or negatively stereotyped. It’s implied that Moses and his gang are at least in part products of their environment, neglected, underprivileged, and trapped.  The boys are on the front lines fighting the invading aliens, and their efforts are never overshadowed or overtaken by experienced military or SWAT teams (like you would expect from most alien invasion movies) in part because no-one believes them.  And I guess the chaos that they cause in the neighborhood just isn’t noticed as unusual or unexpected by the outside authorities.  So the old “don’t judge a book by it’s cover” adage applies here, I suppose; you might label someone as a no-good hooligan, but they might be saving your life..from aliens.  Maybe people just need to be given a chance, to show they are capable of rising to greatness, like  Moses.

Overall, this was just a tremendously fun movie to watch.  The storytelling was excellent, the pacing was great, it was alternately suspenseful, emotional, shocking, scary, heart-warming, fist-pumping, and hilarious.  Moses’ maturation in one bizarre night is thrilling and inspiring, and while it doesn’t directly correspond to any Biblical parallels that I can think of, I’d call this a must-watch.  If you’re old enough.

Cowboys and Aliens

Well, really, what should I have expected?  The movie is called Cowboys and Aliens, not Amazingness and Awesomeness.  Here’s a description from imdb.com:

A spaceship arrives in Arizona, 1873, to take over the Earth, starting with the Wild West region. A posse of cowboys are all that stand in their way.

Yup.  That’s what this movie is about.  Why didn’t I prepare myself for the cheese?  (Because I thought Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford were fantastic enough by themselves to make it epic, probably).  I think this movie can be enjoyable.  There’s no question it’s better than Green Lantern.  But just…prepare yourself, don’t expect it to be amazing, embrace the cheesiness, campy theatrics and silly plot twists.  I didn’t and I was cringing three quarters through thinking I was going to have to say it wasn’t good, but the more that I thought about it afterwards the more I convinced myself it wasn’t as bad as I thought.  (Still, I shouldn’t have to work this hard to like a movie that has James Bond and Indiana Jones/Han Solo!)

The two stars were actually great.  They have earned their “movie star” titles, they look great, and they deliver excellent performances.  Daniel Craig especially looks very, very nice in his riding chaps, ducking his head down so you can’t see his smoldering eyes under his hat brim.  Reminds me of my old favorite, Jim Craig.  (Hey, same name, even!)

Cool guys don't look up from under their hat brim.

There were a lot of general “cowboy/western” elements, like dialects that allow double-modals (“might could”), shots of whiskey, the sizzling barrel of a recently fired gun being used as a weapon itself, and people making sure to go back and grab their hats even as they run away from a huge explosion.  Gotta have your hat.  One character is seen shooting a shotgun while being whisked through the air mid-abduction–that’s cowboy grit!  Oh, and even though it’s called Cowboys and Aliens, don’t worry, there are Indians, too.  (And apparently the filmmakers really tried to give them an authentic representation, which is great and not at all how that population has often been portrayed on screen in the past.  Their part is still pretty cheesy but at that point pretty much everything else is, too.)

There are also some scalps hanging from saddlebags, towards the beginning.  Is that so we don’t feel bad when those characters die moments later?  Similar to the way they made the lobby desk guy and the coke-head co-worker in Die Hard so annoying, so you weren’t bothered when the bad guys shot them?  Let’s not forget, no matter how annoying or vile or barbaric someone is, they are still a soul that God wants to redeem and we shouldn’t take anyone’s death lightly.  (I know, I know, it’s just a movie–but this is the part where I think critically about it.)

Mysterious rogue cowboy Jake Lonergan (Daniel Craig) is greedy, and it costs him terribly. I don’t know if he really learns his lesson, either.  He recognizes at one point that it’s his fault someone died, but he’s comforted when another character says “no it’s not.”  (Um, yes, it is!)  And later, he’s  lovingly fingering the gold in the midst of a shoot-out in the alien’s hideout.  (Because the aliens, too, are greedy for gold.  **SPOILER ALERT**  One of them even dies by molten gold!  Well if THAT isn’t some great imagery for the love of money being destructive to your life!   Anyway, Lonergan’s storyline isn’t really very satisfying.  He spends much of the movie not remembering what kind of man he was, and when he finds out he doesn’t seem to care or try to change.  The Preacher tells him, “God doesn’t care who you were, son, only who you are,” and that’s true to some extent, but only if you’ve repented from your past.  You don’t get to skip from bad guy to good guy in God’s book just because you help rescue some people from Aliens, but you can get a fresh start and become a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17)  **END SPOILER**

Meanwhile, Col. Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford) is a crotchety, mean, old man.  We’re told through dialogue that he “despise[s] battle, but…would never run from it.”  Some of his actions paint a much more ruthlessly violent picture.  One of his faithful hired hands defends his gruff boss by saying “He means well,” but is that really an excuse?  Dolarhyde’s storyline is less than compelling as well, because although Paul Dano, (the guy from Little Miss Sunshine and There Will Be Blood), does a terrific job portraying his immature, spoiled son, not enough of their father-son relationship is developed to make their semi-redemption at the end very moving.

**SPOILER ALERT** What I mean is, if it had been established that the reason Percy Dolarhyde was such an annoying little bully was because he was frustrated from being treated like a child and babysat by hired hands all day and never allowed to participate in his dad’s cattle-driving business, then it would have made more sense for Mr. Dolarhyde senior to start giving him more responsibility at the end.  But instead, Percy doesn’t ever prove himself in any way, (he’s unconscious most of the movie), and the Col.’s decision at the end to include Percy in his business is unmotivated.  Maybe he’s just deciding to start treating his son differently and hoping that Percy can earn the responsibilities he’s extending, but I don’t anticipate that will go very well as it appears he’s never had any responsibility before in his life.  He hasn’t shown he can be entrusted with little.  **END SPOILER**

The obligatory Preacher figure seems like he genuinely cares about helping people, but he espouses some questionable theology.  I’ve captured the majority of his dialogue here, (but be warned it’s very spoiler-y).  My biggest argument would probably be with what he tells poor sympathetic Doc, who is desperately trying to save his abducted wife but doesn’t posses the necessary skills.  (He can’t hit a target for beans).  A frustrated Doc says that either God “ain’t up there, or he don’t like me.”  The Preacher tells him he has to “earn [God’s] presence, and then you gotta learn to recognize it, and then you gotta act on it. ”  I like the bit about having to learn to recognize how God is working in your life, (maybe in Doc’s case by having Lonergan’s skills and Dolarhyde’s resources dedicated to the same goal as his), but I’m not so sure about the accuracy of having to “earn” God’s presence.  I’m not sure what he means by that.  It could be he’s trying to not give a cliche answer to Doc’s question, which is essentially “If God is good why are these bad things happening”, never an easy one to grapple with.  The Preacher didn’t seem all that orthodox, but in any case the Doc later said that he “made me feel better,” although Doc remained a skeptic.

Oh good, I've still got my hat!

Final verdict: not terrible, gloriously cheesy in the last quarter.  Maybe go to a matinee or wait for it on DVD.  Unless you are the kind of person that will be excited to see an alien getting lassoed or speared.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Well, it was pretty much what i expected.  The highest compliment I can give this movie is to say that it isn’t terrible.  It’s mindless summer entertainment, built around explosions and cool mid-air CGI transformations, (some of them inserted into recycled footage), rather than any sort of plot or character development.  You could totally go to the bathroom at any point during this movie and not miss anything important. My husband remarked that a lot of the dialogue sounded like video game blurbs; somewhat random, generic “let’s go fight!” or “here’s what we need to do next” instructions.  (To see my raw notes, including a lot of bad lines, click here.)

Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is a whiny college grad looking for a job.  Maybe some of us can relate to the job-hunting part.  And maybe some of us were incredibly irritated at having to watch him complain for the first twenty minutes about how he doesn’t have an awesome job or car, being jealous and angry with his girlfriend (I’m just going to go ahead and refer to her as Sex Symbol, which is an accurate description of her role), and not appreciating that she is supportive.  He feels like he deserves so much more than he has. He keeps trying to remind people that he’s a hero, and he has a presidential medal to prove it.

He’s ungrateful and unwilling to humble himself.  And even though he ends up taking a less-than-desirable job for about a day, he doesn’t ever exemplify the Biblical work ethic, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men,” (Colossians 3:23).  He could also stand to take a lesson from a true hero that will be exemplified on the big screen in a week, when Deathly Hallows comes out.  If you’ve read the books, you know who I’m talking about.  A hero that is never thanked or praised, and who remains silently steadfast anyway.  (I can’t wait!)

Anyway, this movie has really, really, bad writing.  That makes it harder to analyze, because it doesn’t really have much of a purposeful message or any consistency.  It doesn’t even stick with the themes it brings up at the beginning; many of them aren’t resolved.  Does Sam end up getting the recognition and job he feels like he deserves, or does he learn to accept his position and stop being so annoying?  I couldn’t tell you.  But that isn’t the only thing that’s unclear at the end.  **SPOILER ALERT**  So when their planet goes away, do the Decepticons just give up, or die?  It appears to be resolved, but is it? How? I thought they still outnumbered the Autobots, because they beamed a whole bunch of them in, and if the destruction of the home planet destroyed them why don’t the Autobots also die?  Whatever. Explosions! Something vague about America and freedom! **END SPOILER**

I would say the worst thing about this movie message-wise is the sexism. The camera consistently ogles Sex Symbol, (it doesn’t even pan up to her face until she’s been onscreen almost a full minute, lingering instead on her pantless legs and backside.)  She’s perpetually dressed in tiny tight clothing and heels, while Power Woman (head of National Security, I think) is an ice queen who hates to be addressed respectfully as ma’am, (because, like, how can a woman be in such a powerful position if she’s actually, you know, womanly?)  Also, Sam’s mom is a complete idiot.  So there are your choices for female representation in this film.  Thank you, director Michael Bay.  To be fair, a lot of the male characters are also flat and stereotypical. I mean, I didn’t even like Sam!  He’s just whiny and arrogant.  This is a terrible movie character-wise in general!  My husband said, “Well, it’s about the Transformers, primarily. The people are just to set the story up,” but I didn’t feel like Optimus, Sentinel or Megatron were fleshed out (haha) any better than their human counterparts.  Their relationships are told through dialogue rather than shown.

I guess Optimus is kind of a good role model, because he is committed to defending the humans and their planet when he doesn’t have to be, just because his mentor “taught me that all creatures deserve to be free,” but I didn’t find him compelling.  His motivation isn’t really clear, he doesn’t get any character development, he’s just the good guy so he does expected good guy things. **SPOILER ALERT** Except for the part where he just flat-out kills Sentinel, his supposed mentor and beloved long-lost leader, who admittedly turned bad but is now literally begging “Optimus, no!”  I think, again, it’s just poor writing.  It’s easier to kill him and end the scene than introduce complexity, compassion, a discussion about how he could be rehabilitated or what a just punishment should be.  I guess he did betray the Autobots, but still…it seemed like a cruel moment for Optimus.  **END SPOILER**

So, to sum up, this movie is about entertainment, and not story.  Oh, I almost forgot; it’s also about revisionist history lessons, and Transformer-related conspiracy theories regarding the Apollo 11 moon mission and the Chernobyl disaster.  Real-life astronaut Buzz Aldrin makes an appearance as himself, so apparently he is not as offended by this fictionalized version of history as the ones who say he never went to the moon.  (He once punched a guy for saying that).

I can’t even think of a clever line to end this with.  That’s how little content is actually in this movie.

Does anybody see a decent script lying around? Anyone?

Super 8

This films is very entertaining, it has a good flow of story and a masterful mix of action/adventure/heartache/humor.  It’s centered around a group of kids, junior high age or so, that are making a movie together over the summer with a super 8 film camera, (hence the name).  The film that the kids make plays in full during the credits, and it’s adorable;  awkward, unintentionally funny, it reminds me so much of the amateur movies that I myself have made.  Director J.J. Abrams and Producer Steven Spielberg have said it reminds them of their childhoods, too, and it was intentionally modeled after a couple of Spielberg’s earlier projects, E.T. and The Goonies.  So if you’re familiar with either of those then you have a good idea about the overall tone of Super 8.

Unfortunately, even though it is styled around, starring and advertised towards a younger crowd, the language included will mean some kids who might otherwise enjoy the story won’t get to see it.  “sh-t” and “holy sh-t” pepper all the action, explosion, running, and monster-smashing scenes, mostly shouted by the kids.  There is also one eff bomb, (which I think is all that’s allowed for a PG-13 rating).  It’s true that a lot of kids do talk that way.  It’s true that using taboo language when speaking with friends is a way to increase the intimacy of the group, because it signals that you’re being less formal, or that parents aren’t around, or that you’re so close you can say anything and they’ll still like you.  But it’s too bad they couldn’t have used a substitute, (like Tommy Boy’s “holy schnikes!”).

I would say the main theme of Super 8 is probably empathy, and forgiveness.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  Even if you ‘neighbor’ is a monster.  Or if your neighbor’s mistake caused a death in your family.  Or if your neighbor likes the girl you like, or wants to blow up your carefully crafted model trains.  (The child director of the movie-within-a-movie really demonstrates how not to be a good friend.)  There are some really well-crafted and realistic relationship dynamics on display in this film.  The monster is a little silly, the ending is a little cliche, but it’s a very good story well worth seeing.  If the sh-ts don’t keep you away.

The kids work on their zombie film