With the impending release of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story and since I did something similar for the Marvel movies back when Captain America: Civil War came out, I thought it would be appropriate to put out my list ranking all of the Star Wars films. In order to qualify for this list, the film must be a theatrically released, canon film in the Star Wars franchise. Therefore, to paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, that little business of the Star Wars Holiday Special doesn't count (though if it did, it was most surely be on the bottom of the list). Also, please note that I do love all of the Star Wars movies (yes, including the prequels), so in a handful of cases, I have given the film its ranking simply because I enjoy watching just a little more than the film the preceded it on the list. Alright, now that we've established all of that, let's dive into the list.
#8: Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones
Despite a few hacks I discovered that make this film more watchable, this is still by far the weakest film in the franchise. The main problems are George Lucas's poor directing and the poor choices that were made with regards to how Anakin and Padme's love story was handled (for example, in post-production, some scenes that would have helped the storyline work better were cut for time, while scenes that didn't work as well were left in). I do still like some aspects of the film, such as the action scenes, the scene where Anakin is briefly reunited with his mother, and the storyline that sees Obi-Wan Kenobi trying to track down an assassin. Ultimately though, none of these elements are good enough to save this film from ranking at the bottom of this list.
#7: Star Wars: The Clone Wars
A lot of people forget about the existence of this film, and that's probably because it's basically a theatrically-release pilot for the animated Star Wars: The Clone Wars TV series that aired on Cartoon Network and Netflix. Despite its underwhelming storyline, the film is a fun ride and effectively introduces us to new characters like Ahsoka Tano and Asajj Ventress. Also, the animation is beautiful. Therefore, the film ranks at number seven.
#6: Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Or as many fans like to call it: "Help! Jar Jar Binks! Everybody run!" To which my reaction is: "Seriously? You're going to hate on a fun movie over the presence of one character?" Sure, he's basically just comic relief and does nothing useful for most of the movie, but the same could be said of C-3PO for a lot of his screen time in the original trilogy. The only real difference between the two is that Jar Jar is clumsier, has a weird voice that most people would call annoying, and is poorly animated. So, now we're deciding whether or not we like someone based on the sound of their voice and how they look? If you did that in real life to a real person, that would be called bullying. But since it's a fictional character it's OK, right? Wrong. People still get hurt. You can find a video of an interview with Ahmed Best (who played Jar Jar) in which he says that he feels bad because he feels like he single handedly ruined Star Wars for everybody. Wait, when did this article become a defense of Jar Jar? Anyway, despite its bad CGI (which can be forgiven given the time it was made and the sheer ambition of what Lucas was trying to do with CGI technology), the film is fun prologue to the rest of the saga films that does a good job of setting up the world, our hero (Anakin Skywalker) and our villain (Palpatine). It's a fun movie, so it ranks number six on this list. SIDE NOTE: Stop bashing Jar Jar. He doesn't deserve this much hate, and it hurts Ahmed Best's feelings.
#5: Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope
Yes, I did put the original Star Wars film right in the middle of the list. But hear me out. Despite all of the nostalgia we all feel for it, I think we can all admit that when you take all of the original trilogy films together, this is the weakest one of the bunch. The pacing is slower than the other films in the franchise, which isn't a bad thing all by itself. However, this film had to play it safe because there was no way to tell that Star Wars was going to become such a pop culture phenomenon when it first came out. Therefore, the film doesn't take a whole lot of risks and tries its darnedest to end in a way that satisfactorily finishes the story in case no sequels were picked up but that still sets up the possibility of sequels. The end result was a good film that just doesn't impress in the same way the other Star Wars films do. Therefore, I have put it at number five. Please don't kill me.
#4: Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens
My only problem with this film is that it tries so hard to disassociate itself from the prequel trilogy that it ends up being a remake of the original Star Wars film. However, it is still a fun movie and it does a good job of bringing Han Solo's storyline full circle for a satisfying conclusion. Plus, I think it does the original film's storyline better than the original film. Therefore, this film ranks just above the original for no other reason than that I like watching it a little more than the original.
#3: Star Wars: Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
Now we're getting into the movies that were really hard for me to rank. Honestly, this film and the film I put in second place are tied for second. But, since I can't do that on this list, I had to pick one of them and this one drew the shorter straw. It's a great film, though, and deserves its status as one of the best Star Wars films in the galaxy.
#2: Star Wars: Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
Basically, I love those Ewoks. In all seriousness, though, this is great movie that does a great job of bringing Anakin Skywalker's story to an emotional end.
#1: Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
Yes, this one is a prequel, and no, it is not total crap. This film left the biggest impact on me emotionally of all of the Star Wars films. Anakin's descent into evil is heartbreaking to watch, and on my first viewing, I was literally shaking by the end just because of the emotional intensity of the film. However, despite this intensity, the film ends with a glimmer of hope that one day everything will be made right in the galaxy. In many ways, the film's ending reminds me of Genesis 3, where Adam and Eve plunge humanity into sin, and yet God promises a way of redemption. Besides the impact of the film's ending, the CGI is excellent in this film (most of the time), and the lightsaber duels toward the end have a level of suspense to them that no other Star Wars film has been able to pull off. I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Star Wars has a lot of depth to it, and a lot of that depth comes from this installment, and so this films gets the top spot on this list. Again, please don't kill me.
When alien ships descend upon the Earth without taking any hostile action, Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams) and Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) are recruited by the United State military to ascertain the aliens' purpose on Earth - and do so in a peaceful manner. Unfortunately, the language barrier between the humans and the aliens is making it difficult to complete that task. So begins the quest of Dr. Banks as she tries to decode the alien language so that communication can be established.
Arrival is not your typical alien disaster movie where the aliens arrive on Earth and start destroying stuff. This is not a film about humanity trying to defend themselves from an alien horde. Instead, this film is about trying to establish peaceful first contact. This gives the film's story a rather original feel. It's not often that you see a movie about two scholars trying to understand a language.
This is all probably making the film sound really boring, but it is not. Though the pacing is a little slow, the film takes full advantage of it. Prolonged sequences of the main characters' first look at and inside the aliens' ship is used to masterful affect, actually instilling a sense of awe in the viewer (unlike a certain Star Trek film that just so happened to be the first one ever made...). Elsewhere, the slow pacing gives the film a grounded feel. As a matter of fact, everything about this film feels really grounded - an uncommon trait amongst sci-fi films. Everything from the dialogue to the visuals to the lighting to the camera work gave the film a very real feel. Throughout the film, I could not shake the feeling that the events that were unfolding in front of me could believably be happening, which is not a feeling that most movies give me. In fact, this may the first film I have ever seen that did so.
On the whole, I thought the writing in this was really good. The story is told in a non-linear fashion, which means you have to be paying attention while watching this film. However, I do not think this detracts from the film. Rather, it enhances the film by adding to its intensity. I thoroughly enjoyed trying to figure out what was going on, and by the end everything is very clearly explained, giving the feeling of a journey being completed. It made the film a very rewarding experience.
In addition to the story, the acting is wonderful. Amy Adams totally nails her character, injecting her character with a perfect combination of nervousness and wonder. Jeremy Renner is fun to watch (as usual) in the supporting role. The chemistry between the two is also excellent. These two actors carry the film, and they do so to perfection.
Before I conclude, I want to mention the score as well. I don't mention film scores in my reviews very often, but this is one of those times when the score deserves some recognition. This is not one of those scores that is in your face throughout the film. Rather, the score is quieter and more subtle. It appropriately sets the tone for each scene and keeps you on edge as you watch the film. Of the film scores I have listened to, it also has the most unique sound, so there's that too.
It is unfortunate that Arrival came out when it did because it came out right in between the new Marvel film (Doctor Strange) and the new Harry Potter film (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them). As such, this film will probably go unnoticed by a lot of viewers. I think that is very unfortunate. While I can't speak for Fantastic Beasts because I haven't seen it, I can say for a fact that Arrival is a much better film than Doctor Strange. (Although I can say with a bit of certainty that Arrival is probably better than Fantastic Beasts as well... sorry, Potter fans). I know it's easy to ignore standalone films when big franchise films are out, but please don't cheat yourself on this one. Arrival is a stunning, well-made film that deserves as much recognition (if not more) as the franchise films that are out right now. This film deserves to become a classic. Go see it.
Doctor Strange is the fourteenth installment in the film division of what has now become known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe (or as the fans call it, the MCU). Honestly, it's impressive that Marvel Studios has managed to build such a massive film franchise and have it last for so long. Not only that, but they've managed to crank out consistently good films - with a few exceptions in the beginning (looking at you Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2). However, since then Marvel has been on a roll with their films - until Doctor Strange. That's right, Doctor Strange is the first bad film Marvel has released in a while. And yes, it's worse than Thor: The Dark World.
Don't get me wrong, the film has some stunning visual effects. It's a beautifully made film. However, underneath all of those flashy visuals is a half-baked story and almost no character development. The story is very formulaic. They basically took the basic formula of your typical superhero origin film and did nothing to make it stand out story-wise. That's not to say that the film doesn't stand out. The fact that the film is about a group called the Masters of the Mystic Arts ensures that this film will be at least a little unique from other superhero origin films. But I'm not talking about those kinds of differences. I'm talking about the storyline itself. The storyline is quite simple: arrogant jerk has something bad happen to him, he seeks to repair the damage, and then he becomes a superhero. If that sounds vaguely familiar, that's because it's also the storyline of such superhero origin films as Iron Man, Batman Begins, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The problem is that unlike these three films, Doctor Strange has just the basic plot elements of a superhero origin. The film is like a chicken dish without any sauce or seasoning.
The character development is also atrocious. We don't get to know any of the characters very well, except for Doctor Strange himself and (to a lesser extent) his friend Mordo. But even the way Doctor Strange is set up as a character is pretty shallow. They pretty much just showed him being arrogant and expected us to fill in the blanks by inserting character points from Tony Stark and Sherlock Holmes (the version from the BBC's Sherlock series). Though, to be fair, they did a pretty good job of showing is journey from being a Stark/Sherlock mashup to being a hero who is willing to put his life on the line for the people of earth. And Benedict Cumberbatch was (as always) a pleasure to watch as Doctor Strange. Mordo, on the other hand, has an interesting development as a character throughout the film. Unfortunately, we feel nothing either good or bad for where he ends up in the film because we hardly know what he was like before the journey began.
As for all of the other characters, they are sorely underdeveloped. Tilda Swinton's Ancient One is just a boring mentor stereotype with no real development. Her character is an example of how NOT to write a character who is supposed to be mysterious. Swinton's talents were definitely wasted in this movie. Mads Mikkelsen's villainous Kaecilius has literally no character development whatsoever - which is really disappointing because the prelude comics for Doctor Strange set him up as a pretty sympathetic character, and then the movie totally ignored all of that development and did nothing with the character. It was almost like they were expecting you to read the comics in order to understand the character's motives. I shouldn't have to do homework before I go watch a movie. If I do, that's lazy storytelling.
I've been really harsh with this movie thus far. However, unlike what you probably think, I didn't hate it. I thought it was an entertaining movie. It was a lot of fun to watch. But the characters and the story weren't developed well enough, which means that the emotional moments just don't work. There was scene in particular that I mentioned to my friends that I saw the film with. I won't explain it here because it's a major plot point, but this scene was supposed to be really emotional. However, I literally felt nothing when it happened because I didn't care about the characters involved. The film was so focused on looking cool, that it forgot to tell a good story. It's like a painting that is beautiful to look at but does not stay in your memory because it doesn't convey anything.
What happens when you are Ridley Scott and you take Liam Neeson, Orlando Bloom, Jeremy Irons, Edward Norton, Eva Green, the history of the Second Crusade, and make a movie? You get awesomeness. OK, I'm exaggerating, but you do get Kingdom of Heaven, an historical epic based on true events.
Loosely based on the events surrounding the Muslim siege of Jerusalem during the Second Crusade, Kingdom of Heaven follows Balian de Ibelin (Orlando Bloom) as he joins his father (Liam Neeson) on a crusade in order to atone for his sins and the sins of his deceased wife. Along the way, he deals with political intrigue and a love triangle that all find their culmination at the siege of Jerusalem.
Unlike other modern epics, this film takes its time getting to the epic action scenes. Sure, there are some action scenes earlier on in the film, but they are more like small skirmishes. The reason for this is that the film is more focused on telling the stories of the characters involved than setting up epic fight scenes. In this way, the film flows in the same vein as Charlton Heston's historical epics like Ben-Hur and El Cid, not that that's a bad thing. It's a very good thing as a matter of fact. Considering that many historical war films these days are filled with action scenes, it's nice to see one that is more focused on the characters involved than the war they are fighting.
Another place where the film deserves praise is its excellent handling of the manipulation that was involved in the Crusades. The clergy is often depicted in this film as a manipulative lot; something I normally would not have cared for, but in this case that is how the clergy actually were at the time. Furthermore, we see the manipulation present in the hero's motivations. Balian is fighting in the Crusade to get his wife out of hell and to atone for his own sins. As all true Christians know, only Jesus' atoning work on the cross can do that. But during the time of the Crusades, the church was telling the people that if they went on a crusade, they got a free pass into heaven. It was a gimmick to convince people to help the church accomplish its political goals. And the film deals with this issue, but without dwelling on it or being preachy. It shows rather than tells.
Of course, the film is not without its problems. Since this is a Ridley Scott movie, the violence can be graphic - though the violence presented here is tamer than that which is shown in other Ridley Scott movies like Gladiator. There is also some problematic sexual content (though it can be seamlessly
removed via VidAngel's filtering features). It should also be pointed out that
this is a loose adaptation of historical events, so not everything depicted is
totally accurate. This will undoubtedly frustrate any historians in the audience.
Nevertheless, this is an excellent look at the era of
the Crusades. It is an enjoyable epic with great performances, beautiful
cinematography, and a sweeping score. It is a shame this film has fallen into
obscurity, because it is a great film that is well worth your time.
Note:
This blog is in no way associated with VidAngel. I am not being paid to mention
them.
When you are a monk, sometimes you compete in a wrestling match - just for fun.
All Nacho (Jack Black) wants is to be respected, and he thinks fighting in wrestling matches will earn him the respect he so desires - and possibly win the heart of a nun (Ana de la Reguera). However, he repeatedly loses in the ring. Worse, the crowds love it. Nacho Libre follows Nacho as he works toward becoming a champion so that he will finally get the respect he deserves.
If this all sounds cheesy, that's because it is. But Nacho Libre is one of those movies that is self aware of how cheesy its premise is and runs with it. And the results are hilarious. Jack Black especially deserves credit for injecting most of the humor into this film. His delivery is on-point, making him by far the funniest part of this movie. You might say that he makes the movie.
But just as beneath the man we find his nucleus, beneath all this comedy we find a story with real heart. As the film progresses, Nacho comes to realize how selfish he is being and selflessly chooses to use whatever success he gains to help orphans. Even Nacho's partner Esqueleto (Hector Jimenez) learns something about caring about others.
This is not to say that the film is without its problems. The film doesn't seem to have too much of a problem with deceit. Even when Nacho is caught lying, he is not even rebuked. As a matter of fact, the other characters seem more surprised than angry (except that one guy who gets excited because he "knew it!"). In addition, the film does contain a couple of jokes that parents may not want to expose little ones to.
These problems are not deal breakers, however. They play such a small part in the film that there is no reason that viewers who can discern good from bad can't watch it. It is a very entertaining, funny film with a good message. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend you check it out.
What do you get when you combine fantasy film cliches, witty dialogue, CGI, and Ewan McGregor? You get Bryan Singer's Jack the Giant Slayer. Bryan Singer is best known as the director of several of the installments in the X-Men film franchise, but here he steps away from the superhero/sci-fi genre to present us with this Princess Bride-esque fantasy film. The premise is simple: a princess (Eleanor Tomlinson) runs away and gets stranded in the land of the giants because of a freak accident involving a beanstalk. Now it is up to a witness of the accident named Jack (Nicholas Hoult), a soldier named Elmont (Ewan McGregor), and the princess's fiance (Stanley Tucci) to rescue from being eaten by the giants.
Like I said, this film in many ways is reminiscent of The Princess Bride. It pokes fun of various fantasy film tropes, contains over the top characters, and clever humor. Basically, this is a cheesy movie, but just like The Princess Bride it is cheesy in a good way. The film is well-executed across the board, and it is hilarious.
Arguably the best part of the movie is the performance of Ewan McGregor. He completely nails his character and the dialogue he is given. McGregor pulls off his lines in an overly serious manner that perfectly accentuates the hilarity of his dialogue. In fact, the only crime this movie is really guilty of is not giving Ewan McGregor more screen time (I'm kidding. The movie uses him as much as it possibly can).
The only real bad thing about this movie is the quality of the CGI. However, since the film is not meant to be taken seriously, it could be argued that the CGI is intentionally imperfect. Either way, it does get mildly distracting in a couple of scenes.
In conclusion, this film is hilarious and well done. The cast is great, with Ewan McGregor stealing every scene he is in. Also, Bryan Singer gives us some pretty unique action scenes that are pretty cool. Jack the Giant Slayer is definitely well worth a watch, especially if you are a Princess Bride fan.
What is reality? It is difficult to answer this question when you have been trained to create alternate realities inside your dreams. For Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), dreams are his livelihood. He and his partner, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are skilled thieves who enter into people's dreams to steal valuable information from them. It's very complicated, and Inception does a better job of explaining it then I can. However, it is also possible to lose touch with reality in these dream worlds, as is illustrated by Cobb's wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard). As a result, Cobb and Arthur have created items which they call totems that they use to tell them if they are awake or asleep. Despite this, Cobb feels himself losing touch with reality - as is evidenced by his constantly checking his totem to make sure he is awake. All he wants is to be able to go home to his family, but he can't because he has been implicated in the murder of his wife. That is until the head of a large corporation named Saito (Ken Watanabe) promises to help Cobb return to his family if he will help him in a very specific mission. This mission is to destroy Saito's competition by placing the idea into the head of Robert Fisher (Cillian Murphy) that he should break up his deceased father's company. Cobb accepts, and the ultimate heist begins.
This film is indeed a heist film, though it is unlike any other heist film ever made. This is something that Christian viewers must consider with regards to this film. At the end of the day, this is a movie about a group of thieves trying to take down a corporation. Granted, Cobb is doing this because it will allow him to see his family again, but the others are just there for the money. This goes back to something that was discussed in my post about Suicide Squad in which it was observed that because Christians are supposed to think upon whatever is true, it is unwise to watch a film that will cause them to route for characters who are doing something wrong.
In addition to this, the film's overall theme is problematic. Director Christopher Nolan has stated that the point of the film is that what is real doesn't matter. What matters is that you are happy. This philosophy goes against Scripture because it denies that there is an absolute truth. It implies that truth is what you make it out to be. Truth is whatever makes you happy. However, Scripture declares that there is an absolute truth and that we must live in accordance with the absolutes that are set forth in Scripture regardless of whether or not it makes us happy.
This is not say that the film doesn't have its good points. The film does uphold the sanctity of life and it also values the family. Technically, the film is well made. The pacing leaves the viewer in suspense, and the visuals are stunning - especially since most of it was done in-camera. The acting is phenomenal, and the cast has a very organic chemistry. However, none of this excuses the film's ideological problems.
Don't get me wrong, I really liked this movie. It was very entertaining and I enjoyed every minute of it. However, I am torn over whether or not to recommend this film. On the one hand, the film is a great piece of cinema and it would be a shame to recommend skipping this one. However, on principle, I am not sure I can recommend a film with so many ideological problems. My advice on this one would be to do your research and be discerning with this film. It is a good film that can serve as a good conversation starter. However, those who chose to watch this should be careful to not allow this film to not influence their thinking about ethics.
For more information about the content of Inception, check out Plugged In Online's review here.
WARNING: This post contains spoilers for the movie Ender's Game.
Last week, I posted a review for the 2013 film adaptation of Ender's Game. After that post went live, I was asked to do a post discussing the ending of the film and what it says about ethics. Since this is a subject that I have spent some time thinking about, I thought I would write a short post that briefly shared my thoughts on the subject.
In the climax of Ender's Game, Ender and his fellow cadets take part in a simulated battle with the Formics, the alien race that attacked Earth years ago. At the end of the battle, they use a super weapon to wipe out the Formics' homeworld, thereby killing all of the alien queens controlling the alien soldiers. This is something Ender wouldn't do in real life, but in since this is a test in a simulated battle, he is willing to take this kind of action to pass the test.
Except it's not a test. Ender and his comrades were giving unknowingly giving orders to real human spaceships attacking the Formics' homeworld. Ender really did give the order to wipe out the Formics. Ender is furious that he was lied to and that he had been tricked into committing genocide. Colonel Graff tells him it doesn't matter because Earth is safe. The humans won. "No," Ender replies. "How we win matters."
This scene illustrates two different approaches to ethics. Graff represents the approach that says that ends justify the means. This is why he indicates over and over throughout the film that how the humans win doesn't matter so long as they win. This philosophy says that you can take whatever action necessary to complete your goal so long as that goal is something good. On the other hand, Ender represents an approach to ethics that says there is an objective right and wrong. This approach says that we must do what is objectively right when pursuing our goals, even when it isn't necessarily the easiest solution. This is the view of ethics taught in Scripture. We are to do what God tells us is right regardless of our circumstances.
That being said, there is still the problem of how the scenario at the end of Ender's Game should have been handled. How far should those in authority be willing to go in order to ensure the safety of their people? If a group poses a potential threat, what should be done about that threat? Is it ethical to enact a preemptive strike to eliminate the threat, or is it better to wait for an attack and then retaliate? I would like to posit that such ultimatums are irrelevant. This is because these ultimatums assume that all potential threats are in fact threats. As Ender points out, the Formics had made no action against Earth in years, even though they clearly could have tried. Labeling the Formics as a threat because they could potentially try to invade again is like saying that a dog with a history of biting people is going to bite you because it has the ability to.
However, this does not mean that we should ignore all potential threats either. Potential threats can still become threats. So what is the answer? Let's go back to the dog analogy. Obviously, the dog has a history of biting people, so it could theoretically decide to bite you too. However, it may also choose to continue to lie in the corner of the room. Are you going to get a gun and shoot it before it has a chance to bite you? Of course not. The dog is not at that moment a threatening presence. But are you going to wait for it to bite you and then kill it? You could, but why would you want to let it bite you? Ideally, it would be great to not get bitten by the dog at all. So what do you do? You keep an eye on the dog and be at the ready to defend yourself should the dog suddenly decide to attack you. This sounds a lot like the second option, but it is different. The second option waits for an attack to occur before a counterattack is made. This third option sees the attack coming so that the attack can be stopped before it does any harm.
Coming back to Ender's Game, it is clear that genocide was the wrong solution. Since the Formics had not attacked in years, it is theoretically possible that Graff tricked Ender into killing an entire race for no reason. Perhaps they never were in danger of a second Formic attack. This of course does not mean that it is impossible for a second attack to occur. But the Earth's leaders don't have to sit on their hands and wait for a second attack before taking action. They can monitor the Formics and prepare defenses to keep Earth safe should a second invasion come. In Ender's Game, the Earth's leaders do not take this course of action, and instead they cause a boy to do something that will haunt him for the rest of his life all in the name of security. It is those kinds of decisions that the film frowns upon, and Christian viewers should frown with it.
Don't miss this week's installment in my weekly movie review series. The review will be for Inception, and it will go live tomorrow (Tuesday).
If you were in a position of power and an alien race was posing a threat to humanity's existence, how far would you be willing to go in order to ensure the survival of the human race? This incredibly hypothetical scenario forms the thematic basis for the 2013 adaptation of Orson Scott Card's novel Ender's Game. Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) has been given the responsibility to build a team that will keep humanity safe from aliens known as the Formics who attacked Earth years ago. While overseeing the training of cadets who are barely even teenagers, one of the boys stands out amongst the others: Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield). Seeing in Ender a potential savior for humanity, Graff will stop at nothing to ensure that Ender receives the respect (or fear, if necessary) of his peers so that Ender can lead Earth in the battle against the Formics.
Graff's methods are quite unorthodox and at times morally ambiguous. Major Gwen Anderson (Viola Davis) does her best to rein him in, but he will not let anyone deter him. "When it's over what will be left of the boy?" Anderson asks Graff of Ender. "What does it matter if there isn't anything left?" Graff responds.
In contrast, there is Ender, who does his best to do the right thing. Ender dreads that he will become like his violent brother, and so he endeavors to balance the fighter in him with compassion. Ultimately, Ender is the film's moral compass, and this creates tension between him and Graff. Their relationship (and the competing ethical approaches the film presents) are summed up in an exchange between these two characters where Graff tells Ender that all that matters is winning. "No," Ender replies. "It matters how we win."
Here is the crux of the film. It explores two very different ethical approaches. Graff represents the belief that our actions do not matter if the end result is for the greater good. Ender, on the other hand, gives us a representation of the belief that there are absolutes and that we should do what is right even when it is not the easiest course of action. The film depicts Ender as the one who is in the right, and in this respect he ends up becoming something of a role model.
However, some of Ender's actions on his journey to becoming a role model are not so worthy of praise. He stops a boy from insulting someone else by insulting the boy back. He brutally beats up a bully who attacks him, and accidentally kills another bully. Ender may be a hero, but he is a flawed hero.
With all of that said, this is an excellent film. The cast give emotional performances, especially young Butterfield. The visual effects are stunning, and the storytelling is well done. I have not read the novel that this film is based on, but I have read that a lot of people who have read the book hate this movie because it is unfaithful to the source material. This is unfortunate, since it adds this movie to the ever-growing list of good films that are considered to be terrible because it wasn't faithful to the source material. It is still a great film, however, and I think it is unfortunate that time will probably forget it due to the backlash from the book's fans. At any rate, if you have read the book and haven't seen this, you probably shouldn't see this unless you're willing to treat it as a film that is completely separate from the book. A film inspired by the book, if you will. For everyone else, go watch this. It's a great film despite being a bad adaptation, and so it is very entertaining for someone who has never read the book.
NOTE TO PARENTS: Despite the good qualities of this film, it is not necessarily a family-friendly film. If you would like to know about the content of this film in order to decide on the appropriateness of the film for your children, please check out Plugged In Online's excellent review of the film here.
This is a transcript of a conversation I had with my friend, Cody DeFount, in a Youtube video. You can find the video at the end of this article.
Me: "Hey, everyone! I'm here with my friend and fellow Youtuber Cody DeFount, and we're here to talk about the new movie - or relatively new at this point - Suicide Squad, which as we all know is about supervillains. And the question that we're specifically here to answer today is whether or not Christians should watch movies with those kinds of characters as the protagonists. Should Christians watch movies where they are being asked to root for villainous characters? So, Cody, what's your first impression of Suicide Squad based off of things you've read and trailers and such?"
Cody: "Yeah, so I haven't seen the movie, but I do think that first off that a Christian should be Suicide Squad - like I said I haven't seen it - but..."
discerning. That's kind of obvious. But I think when you watch it, you shouldn't just be enjoying it, obviously, you should be discerning; really evaluating the characters. And with
Me: "We were just reading on Plugged In Online from Focus on the Family about some of the characters."
Cody: "Yeah. You could see inner struggles within certain characters and regret."
Me: "Which is a good thing."
Cody: "But at the end the characters just continued on their troubled way."
Me: "Yeah."
Cody: "But you see a struggle for... inner contemplation or dialogue of the characters to kind of show human nature either through ambition or false motives, you know? They may struggle with that. That's my initial impression."
Me: "Yeah. I mean, it's interesting when you look at Suicide Squad because, like you said, you do have those conflicted characters, and you do get kind of a study into what makes these characters these characters and why they're bad. But on the other hand this movie is also asking us to root for these characters, and throughout the movie - I'm assuming based off of the trailers - that they are doing things that aren't necessarily moral. I mean, just between the trailers and the fact that they're villains, I'm assuming there would be actions on their part that probably aren't the most moral. You know, one of the catchphrases in the trailer was Harley Quinn saying 'We're bad guys, this is what we do.' So I think that's a big part, and one of the biggest concerns I have with that - despite the look into man's total depravity, which is an important aspect of our theology - I'm just not sure as far as being expected to root for those kinds of characters..."
Cody: "Yeah. And obviously I don't think we should, and I think you don't."
Me: "Yeah. One thing I think is helpful when discussing this kind of thing - as I was telling you before we started filming this - is to look at the standard set in Scripture. And one of the standards that we find in Scripture is in Paul's epistle to the Philippians in chapter four, verse eight, where it says, 'Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.' And it's a question that we need to ask about movies. Not necessarily, 'What's the movie rated?' Instead we need we need to think about that once we let it enter our minds, it doesn't go away. We may forget about it, but it's still there and it could rise back up to the surface at any time. And movies are powerful things. They have the ability to change the way we think about things. So, what do you think?"
Cody: "So, that verse - I really like that verse. It's just a good verse for anything as far as books or movies or..."
Me: "TV shows or music."
Cody: "Yeah. And so for a movie like The Dark Knight - it's another superhero movie - and Batman is a vigilante, and obviously that's against the law and none of us should go out and do that. But when I see, for instance, in the third one where he sacrifices his life..."
Me: "Spoiler alert!" (both of us laugh) "You all have probably already seen it, so never mind."
Cody: "I just won't say, but he... you know there's that verse that says, 'Greater love has no one than this, then he that lays down his life for his brother.' And when I see that I just... I want to do something like that - not to be noticed, but just to do that for someone. You know, we all strive to do good things, to love one another, to make a difference in people's lives. And so, that's what I think of when I think about such things. There's a lot of violence in superhero movies, and..."
Me: "One of the key things in making a hero relatable that I've learned just from learning about storytelling is that you have to make your characters flawed, but still relatable. So there is a point to which your character needs to have some kind of character flaw. But the question is do they overcome that flaw, or do they embrace it and say, 'This is who I am, this is what I'm going to do, and I don't care what anyone else thinks.'? I think how they handle that flaw is very telling for whether or not it's an edifying piece of entertainment. Yeah, so, any further thoughts on that?"
Cody: "Yeah, I guess in Suicide Squad it'll be more of they don't learn from... they probably continue on their way."
Me: "Yeah, like the Plugged In Online review said, you know, that it's commendable that they go to save the world, however - they didn't say this in the article, I just know this part from the plot synopsis - they're being coerced into doing it first of all. But they're also doing it - as Plugged In Online pointed out - so that they have a place to store their loot."
Cody: "Yeah, we see people doing good things, but really just for an ulterior motive."
Me: "Yeah, for the wrong reasons, for personal gain."
Cody: "Which... like when we read the Bible, we see characters who do vile things and have ulterior motives like the Pharisees, and we think, 'Oh, those bad people.' What we should actually be doing is realizing, 'Do I do that?' And we don't know."
Me: "And I think it's good when we see characters like that to self-evaluate, and think, 'Could this be me? Could I do that?' And if we see some of that sin in ourselves, we should repent of that and ask God for forgiveness. But I think there's also a difference between what the Bible does where it doesn't glorify sin - it shows it in a way that is very negative, and that's the point to convict you of that sin - whereas if you have something like Suicide Squad, or for another example, National Treasure where they're just doing these bad things and there's no call to repent of such behavior - it's in many ways glorifying that action. I was telling one of my roommates before you came here today that in National Treasure you have two characters, both of whom are seeking after this treasure and both of them, in order to do so, need the Declaration of Independence. So they're racing to get a hold of the Declaration of Independence and steal it, and my question is, watching that, 'What's the difference between the two characters? Why aren't we rooting for the character who's depicted as the villain and not the one who's depicted as the hero? What's the difference?' That's a movie that glorifies the sin, it doesn't depict it in a way that says, 'This is wrong.' You don't have one character trying to steal the Declaration of Independence and the other character saying, 'No, that's wrong, I can't let you do that.' Is that edifying? And to some extent, I think that that's a question that different Christians need to answer because for some Christians, I think it is a way for them to self-evaluate, to wonder, 'Do I see that sin in myself? Is this something that I need to repent of?' But on the other hand, if you're being asked to root for a character, you don't necessarily have to do it. But if you do what most people do when they watch a movie and just shut your brain off and stop evaluating what you see in front of you, you're prone to start rooting for those characters without thinking about it, and then before you know it, it's impacted your thinking. You know, I wrote a blog article recently - actually it wasn't recently, it was a couple months ago - about the X-Men movies, and how influential those movies were to people's thinking about tolerance and inclusion. And they didn't do it by telling, they did it by showing. And sometimes you start agreeing with them. I can't watch those movies without going, 'Yeah, you're right! Go!" and all of a sudden I'm like, "Wait a minute, that's not right. That's not what the Bible says,' or, 'That's not practical.' So that's my main concern with a movie like Suicide Squad, that people are prone to turn their brains off while watching movies and just kind of passively view them. And then on some level you start rooting for the characters, and then maybe in the real world you don't see that sin as sin, per se, because you become used to characters doing things like this."
Cody: "Hm. Yeah. I can see how that is."
Me: "So, what do you think? Should Christians go see Suicide Squad? Obviously, neither of us have seen it, so..."
Cody:"Yeah. I don't plan on seeing it any time soon."
Me: "Same here."
Cody: "That's hard. I think we should be discerning."
Me: "Yes, being discerning is very important. You should use the principles laid out in Philippians. If you don't think watching a movie like Suicide Squad is going to allow you to think about what is true, lovely, commendable, and worthy of praise, then you shouldn't go see it. But if it's going to cause you to think about, 'Wow, I'm such a sinner and I need to repent,' and it causes you to glorify God in that way, then maybe you should. Just be careful that you're not shutting brain off and subconsciously rooting for immoral behavior. Yeah, so I think that's the bottom line."
Cody: "I do too. That's good."
At this point, we concluded the video with typical Youtuber talk. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Special thanks to Cody for his contribution to this. Please take some time to check out our Youtube channels, and stay tuned on this blog because I am currently working on a review that I hope to have posted soon. Thanks again for your time.
Today I finally had the opportunity to go see the latest installment in the Bourne film franchise, Jason Bourne. I had seen several reviews over the weekend that called the film unoriginal and a disappointment, so I wasn't sure what I was expecting. What I was treated to, however, was what was - in my opinion - the best installment of the franchise so far.
First of all, the movie isn't as much a "rerun" of previous Bourne films as some critics would have you believe. There were only two scenes in the film that seemed to be recreations of scenes from previous films (I won't give details so as not to reveal spoilers). However, on the whole, I thought the film did a great job of setting itself apart from the other installments in the franchise. Though the story still centers around Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) learning more information about his past, the actual storyline plays out quite differently from previous films. Director Paul Greengrass even found ways to make the film's chase sequences unique (and yes, they will have you on the edge of your seat).
Furthermore, Jason Bourne has a depth to it that the previous four films lacked. Instead of tackling the question, "Who is Jason Bourne?" like the previous films, this film asks, "Why is Jason Bourne who he is?" The film explores why David Webb was willing to become Jason Bourne. In this way, the film is something of a character study. I won't go into further detail about it because this look into Bourne's character is more powerful when viewed without any prior knowledge of what specifically is explored about the character.
An additional theme in this film is the theme of government surveillance. The film deals with whether or not it is ethical for the government to be able to spy on ordinary citizens. One review for this film I saw said in its headline that Bourne has never been more relevant. Given the excellent way this theme was handled, I would have to agree with that assessment.
Further highlights of the film include Tommy Lee Jones's performance as one of the best Bourne villains we've seen so far, a new character named Heather Lee (played by Alicia Vikander) who is arguably one of the more complex supporting characters in the Bourne series, and the film's pule-pounding action scenes (my favorite was the London chase scene in the middle of the film, which might even be one of my favorite action scenes in the series as a whole). As an added bonus, the film has less foul language than previous installments.
All that being said, this film is not for everyone. The violence is very intense, and the language may still be an issue for some viewers. Therefore, families and sensitive viewers should refrain from watching this movie. However, fans of the previous films will enjoy this film, and should not be dissuaded by the critics from going to see it.
With the recent announcement that the new Star Trek film will introduce the concept of Sulu being gay, Christian fans of the franchise are faced with a dilemma. Must they refuse to see the film on principle, or can they sit back and watch the film? There are several factors that must be considered when determining whether or not viewing a film with a homosexual character is appropriate. The purpose of the homosexuality within the film and the extent of what is depicted are important factors in deciding this issue, but they must also be examined with the teachings of Scripture in mind.
So what does Scripture say on this topic? Obviously, the Scriptures never say "Thou shalt not watch movies with homosexual characters in them." This does not mean that the Scriptures are not informative, however. Firstly, Leviticus 18:22 explicitly states that sexual relations between two men is an abomination to God. Since this statement in Leviticus is expanding on the commandment to not commit adultery, it is a part of the moral law. Therefore, the command not to have homosexual relations is still applicable. This is confirmed in Romans 1:26-27 when Paul describes homosexuality - whether between women or men - in a way that clearly denotes it as sinful. Why does that matter when it comes to watching a movie? Well because in Philippians 4:8 Paul tells us to think about "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable." True, this is not a command to not allow yourself to be exposed to sin in entertainment. This is where the purpose and the extent of the homosexual content comes into play.
There are two reasons a homosexual character might appear in a movie. The first is to depict homosexuality in a negative light; to show it as the sin that it is. The second is to depict it positively; to affirm such behavior as acceptable. If the former is the case, viewing the film in question is acceptable so long as the film does not present the viewer with explicit homosexual imagery (I'm counting kissing as such imagery, by the way). This is because the film in question caused the viewer to think of homosexuality as wrong (which is true) and did not present the viewer with images that when thought upon later would cause the viewer to be thinking thoughts that are not honorable, pure, lovely, or commendable. However, this scenario is rarely the case. Normally, films present homosexuality positively. Such content is meant to cause the viewer to see homosexuality as an acceptable way of life. Films with this kind of content are typically seeking to normalize homosexuality so that people become desensitized to such behavior. This may sound ridiculous, but history has taught us that films have the power to affect people's thinking (see my post about the X-Men movies to see an example of this). The way these films seek to affect people's thinking leads viewers to think thoughts that are not true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, or commendable. Sure, Christian viewers may still know consciously that homosexuality is wrong. However, they will gradually be brought to a point where they do not find it as repulsive as they once did because they have become used to it. This is bad because homosexuality is something that God has told us that He finds repulsive. If God finds it repulsive, should not His people also find it repulsive?
Therefore, given the Scripture's teachings about homosexuality and the things upon which we ought to meditate, it can be inferred that Christians should allow themselves to be exposed to films and television programs that are seeking to present homosexuality as normal and acceptable. Granted, there will be times when Christian viewers will accidentally come across this kind of content (though such an accident is most likely to occur when viewing television programs). However, with all of the websites from which viewers can access reviews of films and television programs, Christians should be able to easily determine if homosexual content is present before they view a film or television program. Sorry, fellow Christian Trekkies; Star Trek Beyond is not clear for launch.
WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR MAN OF STEEL.
It's not easy having superpowers. They set you apart from everyone else. The question is, will you use that power to destroy or to become a symbol, an ideal for humanity to strive towards? This is a central theme in Zack Snyder's oft-criticized Superman movie, Man of Steel. The movie presents us with two would-be saviors. I'm not talking about Christ figures here. I'm talking about two characters that have the power to save their people. First we have General Zod (Michael Shannon), a military officer with a desire to save his fellow Kryptonians from extinction. Unfortunately, preserving his people means destroying humanity. Enter Kal-El, aka Superman (Henry Cavill), another Kryptonian who is the only person standing between Zod and humanity. Kal-El believes in the sanctity of life, and he is not willing to stand by while Kryptonians destroy humanity in order to preserve themselves.
Because of this comparison between these two characters, Man of Steel is more than just an origin story for Superman. It wrestles with the question of how far is too far when trying to save people. At what point do the ends justify the means? Even when the film reaches its controversial conclusion, it is still asking these questions. The dilemma that Superman is faced with forces him to deal with this very issue. Should he kill Zod, or should he allow Zod to kill more people?
Of course, Superman chooses to kill Zod in order to stop him from killing a group of people. This, along with the massive amount of collateral damage that Superman's fight with Zod causes has generated online controversy. Man of Steel's haters claim that Superman would not have such little regard for life. He would never allow so much collateral damage and he certainly would not kill. Therefore, the film's ending is not a good ending for a Superman film. I would disagree with this conclusion. As the Youtube channel CinemaWins pointed out in their video about Man of Steel, this is a movie about Superman's origin story. Superman had just learned to fly when Zod arrives on Earth. Of course Superman's going to make mistakes when fighting someone who at the very least matches him in terms of strength. In addition, he shows immediate regret over killing Zod even though he did it to save someone else. Part of Man of Steel's job as an origin film is to present us with events in Superman's life that contribute toward making him into the hero that we all know. I think this film had to have the ending it did because the damage he causes in this film is the reason why he is so mindful of how his actions affect others.
All in all, I think that Man of Steel is a great film. It deals with some interesting issues, it is beautifully shot, the score is amazing, and the cast does an excellent job of bringing the characters to life. I honestly think that people need to give this movie a second chance. The ending is not so controversial when taken within the broader context of this film being an origin story, and the film presents us with a hero who does represent an ideal for us to strive toward.
This past week I had the opportunity to rewatch Christopher Nolan's
Batman trilogy. Since I have been asked to review those movies, I
thought it would be a good opportunity to also offer up my thoughts on
these movies.
The trilogy kicks off with Batman Begins, which does exactly what
its title suggests: it presents us with Batman's origin story. This
installment is very entertaining and does a very good job of setting up
the characters. However, it's also pretty much your standard superhero
origin movie, so while it is entertaining, it is also somewhat
predictable. Despite this, the trilogy's second film, The Dark Knight,
completely breaks free of standard superhero movie tropes and instead
offers up a story that is both action-packed and philosophical. The
story takes so many turns it avoids all chance of being predictable,
giving it a certain freshness that neither of the other two films seem
to have. This, in conjunction with Heath Ledger's creepy take on the
Joker, elevates The Dark Knight above the other two film, making it arguably the best installment in the trilogy. Finally, The Dark Knight Rises
concludes the trilogy with a script that suffers from a couple plot
holes and the filmmakers trying too hard to top the previous film.
However, a plot twist that is pulled off extremely well, a race against
time style showdown, and genuine emotion elevates the film's third act,
allowing viewers to walk away from the trilogy satisfied with the
journey the trilogy took the characters on.
Despite one's opinions about the individual installments, they must all
be taken together as a trilogy that tells a single story. Sure, each
film has its own plot, but these plots work together in a way that puts
Bruce Wayne (played by Christian Bale) on a single journey. At its core,
the Dark Knight trilogy is about who Bruce Wayne is and the part that
being the Batman plays in his life. With each new threat that Batman
must face, Bruce faces a personal struggle within himself that
constantly evolves as he goes out to confront these various threats. It
is this look into Bruce's psyche that gives us an emotional investment
in Bruce finding peace not just for Gotham, but for himself. The trilogy
as a whole does an excellent job of telling this story and brings it to
a satisfying conclusion in The Dark Knight Rises.
In addition, the trilogy is memorable because it is more than just a
series of action movies. Instead, these films deal with deep
philosophical issues such as human morality and societal systems.
Specific examples include discussions about people's capacity to do good
and whether anarchy is better than capitalism. The films' answers to
these issues offer up hope that perhaps humanity is not beyond
redemption. Especially in the times we live in, it is important for
Christians to remember that people can be changed, and in an indirect
way these films offer up a reminder of that.
However, these films are not for everybody. The dark tone, the intense
violence, several frightening images, and the Joker's antics will be too
much for more sensitive viewers. These viewers would do well to avoid
these films. This means that I do not think that these films are
appropriate for children. However, for older teens and adults who aren't
too sensitive, these films are well worth watching.
Christian films are often associated with being cheesy and preachy. They aren't well received by secular audiences and even some Christians don't like them. I think that part of the problem is the expectations Christians have for Christian films. Because Christian filmmakers are trying to meet those expectations, the films suffer. To prove my point, here are some expectations that Christian filmmakers need to stop catering to if they don't want to alienate secular audiences.
The protagonist must be a believer and the antagonist must be an unbeliever
The only exception to this is if the film is about an unbeliever that
becomes a believer before the film ends. This idea has led to one of the
biggest criticisms that unbelievers have about Christian films, and for
good reason. Meeting this expectation often causes Christian filmmakers to depict
characters in an unrealistic or (in the case of the unbelieving
characters) unloving manner. Yes, that's right, this is the source
of the evil atheist stereotype in Christian films. Because unbelievers
are almost always set up as antagonists in Christian films, they always
come across as downright evil people out to silence Christians forever.
However, this is not how it is in real life. There are a lot of
unbelievers out there who are really nice people, they just don't
believe in God. And while it's sad that they don't believe in God, that
doesn't mean that they're out to get you because you believe in God. So
depicting all unbelievers as really evil people on film is just wrong.
Besides, there are other options for antagonists. Another believer could
be the antagonist. The story could be about two Christians who are rivals for
some reason. Maybe they both like the same girl or maybe they're running
for office against each other. There are ways to make Christians
antagonists without discrediting their Christianity. Furthermore, the
hero of a Christian film can be an unbeliever who never becomes a
believer in the film. Don't believe me? Look at the story of Samson in
the book of Judges. An argument can be made that he was not a true
believer, and yet the Bible takes the time to tell his story. Telling a
story from Christian worldview about an unbeliever is not only possible,
but could even make for a very interesting film. Bottom line is that
the protagonist of a Christian film does not have to be a Christian and
the antagonist does not have to be a non-Christian.
The film's message must be clearly stated
This is the reason Christian films often get called "preachy" or
"on the nose." Because Christian filmmakers feel like they have to make
their point really clear, they end up telling rather than showing their
point. At this point, you might be saying, "But if Christian filmmakers
don't clearly state their message, won't the movie fail to lead people
to Christ?" Well, first of all, it's not the filmmaker's job to preach
to the audience; that's a pastor's job. Second of all, some of the most
ideologically influential films in film history did not state their
point. Instead, they assumed their point when telling the story, causing
them to demonstrate their point in a very natural way. Recently, I
wrote an article about the X-Men film franchise and how those films have
influenced the way Americans view discrimination. The X-Men movies
didn't have this influence because a character explained why
discrimination is bad. Instead, those films showed how discrimination is
bad. Christian filmmakers need to start taking queues from movies like
the X-Men movies and start being more subtle in the way they present
their beliefs. If you assume your worldview when you tell a story, your
audience will be forced to assume that same worldview in order to care
about your characters (again, the X-Men films do this beautifully). When
this happens, you can provoke change in the thinking of your audience.
On the other hand, when you state your point, the people who disagree
with you will immediately be alienated because they recognize that point
as something they don't agree with. If Christians want their films to actually reach unbelievers, they need to stop clearly stating their point.
Christian films must be family-friendly
Now, I am not saying that it's alright for Christian filmmakers to put
foul language and sexual content in their films. Doing so causes the
actors to sin for the sake of other people's entertainment, which is
obviously wrong. However, there are topics that Christians need to
address, and many of those topics provide many story possibilities for
filmmakers. Christian filmmakers should be able to tackle these stories
and issues without having to water it down so that the film is
appropriate for children. There are some topics that are too mature for
young viewers, and when Christian filmmakers try to make films about
these topics that are family-friendly, the end result is usually pretty
corny. Christian filmmakers should be able to address certain topics in a
way that impacts the audience, and sometimes that means releasing a
movie that parents shouldn't let their kids see. And that's OK. God and/or Jesus must be mentioned at least once in the film
I see Christians cry foul every time a Christian film doesn't mention
God or Jesus once. The thing is, Christian films can glorify God without
mentioning God. Just because a film calls itself a Christ honoring film
doesn't mean that characters are going to talk about Jesus in the film.
The Bible tells us that we honor God when we do what is pleasing to
Him, and as long as a Christian film fits the standards of Philippians
4:8-9, they will honor God whether they mention Him or not. Still not
convinced? Look at Jesus Himself. He told stories all the time to make
his point. These stories honored God, and yet in many cases they did not
make any mention of God whatsoever (see for example the parable of the
Good Samaritan). If Jesus could tell stories without mentioning God,
then Christian filmmakers should be granted the freedom to tell a good
story that honors God without feeling pressured to mention God in their
story. Now, I wholeheartedly believe that if the story legitimately
calls for it, Christian filmmakers should not be afraid to talk about
God in their films. However, if talking about God in their film does not
contribute to the story, it's OK to not mention God at all.
These are just a few of the changes Christian filmmakers need to make in order to not alienate secular audiences, and if Christian audiences would be willing to give up these expectations, it will be a step in the right direction for the Christian film industry as a whole.
It seems like every time I think I've heard of every Christian football movie, I either discover a new one I hadn't heard of before or I find out that a Christian filmmaker is about to release another football movie. The latter scenario occurred back in 2014 when I was checking Plugged In Online for a review for some movie (I don't remember which one). While I was on that site, I noticed a review for a Christian football movie called 23 Blast that was about to begin a limited theatrical release. After reading the review, I decided that it looked like it might be good. Unfortunately, I was not able to go see it during its theatrical run, so I decided to wait for the DVD release and rent it from Netflix. Well, then the DVD came out and Netflix never got it. After a while, I decided I probably wasn't ever going to get to see 23 Blast. But then, Netflix made 23 Blast available to watch on its instant steaming service earlier this year, and so last night I finally sat down and watched 23 Blast. Was it worth the wait?
The film is about a high school football player who goes blind and, against all odds still continues to play on the football team. I know that sounds absolutely ridiculous, and trust me, I would have thought the film's story really cheesy if it hadn't been based on a true story. The movie tells the story of Travis Freeman who really did go blind, continue to play football, and then go on to become a pastor (though we only actually see those first two events in the movie). The fact that the film established that we were watching a true story from the beginning made this seemingly ridiculous story much easier to believe.
One of the things I liked about this film was that it wasn't overly preachy. The filmmakers seemed to realize that the story alone was sufficiently edifying without having to throw in corny "you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you" speeches. In fact, the only time God is even mentioned is in a dream sequence, which according to a statement during the closing credits is based on a dream that Travis Freeman actually had in high school. We still see the spiritual ups and downs that Travis went through during his blindness, but the film takes a good show-don't-tell approach. Instead of a sequence of Travis screaming at God when he gets frustrated with his blindness, he tears his cross necklace off his neck and throws it across the room. Instead of asking why this had to happen to him, we see Travis locking himself in his room for weeks. In short, this film is a great example of a Christian filmmaker understanding that you can tell a Christian story without invoking God throughout the film.
The film is also quite entertaining. The comic relief scenes don't feel forced like they often do in Christian films, the cast turn out great performances that really make us care about these characters, and the football game scenes are fun to watch. The film does a great job depicting the adjustment it takes to learn to live as a blind person, and it does so in a way that both entertains and gives us a respect for those who have lost their sight.
This is not to say that the film is without its problems. I felt that in the beginning the screenwriters were in a hurry to get to the part in the story when Travis goes blind. The beginning is rushed, and we barely have any idea who all the main characters are and how they relate to each other before Travis goes blind. Also, we learn that before he went blind, Travis had a girlfriend, but she disappears from the movie after he goes blind. The assumption is supposed to be that she dumped him after he went blind, but we don't see this happen. She just disappears from the film. This is a real shame because what little we saw of her before Travis goes blind set up what could have been an interesting subplot in the film. But it was like the screenwriters completely forgot about that storyline after Travis went blind, leaving us to wonder why she was even in the first ten minutes of the film in the first place.
Another problem I had with this film is that there are a few parts that are kind of confusing. For example, the film does a good job of capturing the lingo that football players would use when talking to each other. The problem with this is that those of us who have never been on a football team or who aren't die hard football fans have trouble following the conversations. There were a few conversations where I had no idea what was being said because of this.
So, do I recommend this film? Well, that depends. This is not the best sports movie I've ever seen, but it's still an entertaining film. I would say that if you like sports films, dramas, biopics, or some combination of these three, then you should give this film a watch. If you don't like any of those three genres, then skip this one.
NOTE: Some parts of this film may not be suitable for young children. If you would like more information about the content of this film before letting you kids watch it, then please check out Plugged In Online's review of 23 Blasthere.
With the release of the latest installment in the X-Men franchise, X-Men: Apocalypse, hitting theaters this past weekend, I thought this would be a good time to look back at the franchise as a whole. After all, the X-Men franchise started our modern obsession with superhero films. And while the compelling stories and interesting characters definitely played a part in that, I think one of the biggest factors in the X-Men franchise's success is their timely message about tolerance. The installments that are among the franchise's best (2000's X-Men, its sequel X2: X-Men United, and 2014's X-Men: Days of Future Past) deal with the simple question of how we should treat people who are different from us. Throughout these films, we see that the X-Men just want be treated like normal human beings, but the general population respond to them in fear because they are different.
At least, the films would like you to believe it's that simple. However, the films' villains raise valid points. The mutants have powers that turn them into potential threats for those who are not mutant. What they are proposing isn't discrimination, it's threat assessment. But the X-Men films would love to have you believe that it's discrimination for discrimination's sake. Characters argue about whether or not mutant children should be allowed to go to school with normal children. The films present this as the normal humans discriminating against mutants, when in reality we're seeing parents who are legitimately concerned about the safety of their non-mutant children.
Does this sound familiar? If it does, that's because the X-Men franchise have done more than pave the way for a successful superhero film industry. These films have also influenced our culture's thinking. They paved the way for homosexuality to become socially acceptable. And the transgender bathroom controversy playing out right now? We're having almost the exact same debate about that as the characters have in the X-Men films about whether or not mutants should get to go to the same schools as other mutants. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the X-Men films are pushing for these things to be made socially acceptable. What I am saying, is that because of the way these films present the debate over the mutants' place in the world, the culture has learned that it is wrong to discriminate between people because they are different. This has caused our culture to come to believe that homosexuals and transgender people should not be treated any differently from anyone else.
If this all seems like crazy talk to you, go back and watch the first X-Men movie again. This time, don't just sit back and passively observe what is going on. Instead, actively think about what is being said when the issue of mutant rights comes up. Think through the arguments. Are they that much different from what we're seeing in our society today? Sometimes, I have to make a distinction between what is going on in front of me and the homosexual debate because the film has the clear message that people shouldn't be treated differently because they are different from us.
Now, I am not saying that the X-Men films are bad films. I really enjoy watching them. What I am saying is that this franchise aptly demonstrates that ideas have consequences. The ideas regarding tolerance and discrimination that are presented in the X-Men films have had a powerful impact on the thinking of those who do not take the time to think through the ideas being presented on the screen in front of them. Therefore, the X-Men films ought to be watched with discernment, and parents watching the films with their children should take the time to talk with their children about when we, as Christians, can be tolerant of people who are different from us and when we must discriminate.
