"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" - A Review

Three years ago, Man of Steel hit theaters, and with its release came controversy. People were unhappy with the collateral damage - both in the destruction of property and life - insisting that Superman would never let so many people die. This weekend, Man of Steel's sequel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, hits theaters, but it is hard to tell sometimes if it is a continuation of the story or a response to Man of Steel's critics. That's because it is both. Set two years after the events of Man of Steel, the world is still debating whether or not Superman (Henry Cavill) can be trusted. Some see him as a hero who saved the human race from destruction. Others, such as Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), see Superman as a potential threat. The suspicions of the latter party are seemingly confirmed when Superman steps in to rescue Lois Lane (Amy Adams) from a bunch of thugs and no one (except of course for Superman and Lois) makes it out alive. Dialogue also indicates that some civilians died as well. Superman is dangerous and must be put in check. Or is he? Lois knows that Superman didn't kill all those people, and she even has proof.

While Lois runs her investigation, Bruce Wayne is running his own. As Batman, he's been taking down human traffickers and smugglers, all of whom have a connection to someone called "the white Portuguese." Both Lois's and Bruce's investigations find connections with a company called Lexcorp, which is run by the brilliant but somewhat crazy Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg). Luthor has been very busy. His company is developing a weapon which, as he explains to a group of government officials, can be used to take down threats like Superman should the need arise.

If this is all starting to sound complicated, well, that's because this is a complicated movie. Seriously, for a superhero movie, this movie is amazingly complex. Batman v Superman is such a complex web of politics, manipulation, office politics, personal drama, and mystery (oh yeah, and a few action sequences), that it hardly qualifies as a superhero film - at least, as we know superhero films. Rather, Batman v Superman is more accurately described as a mystery thriller with some superheroics. And when I say "some" I really mean "some." This is the first superhero film I have seen that was more interested in the characters as people, the political atmosphere, and mystery then it was in superheroes doing superhero things. Don't get me wrong, this is not a bad thing at all. It's a refreshing change of pace to see a superhero movie break the mold of stereotypical superhero movies. It's also nice to see a superhero movie rely more on the story that it is telling than on action sequences to hold the audience's attention. I enjoyed that aspect of the film.

The film, for all its complexities, is at its core a story about security, fear, and anger. Most of the characters in this film are primarily concerned with the safety of the population, and the whole plot of the movie revolves around the question of how much power must one have to keep others safe without crossing the line of having too much power. This question is dealt with with respect to both Batman and Superman. Clark Kent is very vocal in his disapproval of Batman's methods, believing that Batman needs to be put in check. Meanwhile, pretty much everyone thinks Superman is too powerful and needs to be held accountable by somebody. This is caused by both people's paranoia over Superman's power and the anger of those who lost something because of Superman's actions. The film frowns on this kind of behavior. Unfortunately, even though the film is pretty clear in its view on letting fear and anger blind us, it is less clear on the security and power issue as the film's ending leaves this issue unresolved.

I also enjoyed the performances, especially those of the cast members who were not in Man of Steel. Ben Affleck, despite the early skepticism that he could pull it off, is an excellent Batman/Bruce Wayne. This is a good thing since he is pretty much the main character of the film. Yes, the story revolves around Superman and we get to look into Superman's personal life from time to time, but Batman is definitely the character that is put front and center. If Affleck had failed to deliver, the movie would have been a trainwreck. Fortunately, he does not fail to deliver and the movie is fun to watch for it. Affleck's performance isn't the only one that makes this film fun to watch, however. Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor steals the show in almost every scene he is in. Eisenberg is clearly having fun playing Luthor, pulling off the right blend of crazy and manipulative to make him entertaining to watch, but also very dangerous. This version of Luthor is definitely on my list of best movie villains.

Another good point in this film is the storyline that introduces us to Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot). Even though her storyline amounts to little more than a method to set up the upcoming Justice League movie, it is so well executed that I honestly did not care. Some viewers may feel her storyline was shoehorned into the movie, but I think her appearance in the climactic battle and her interactions with Bruce Wayne make it worth it.

Despite how entertaining the movie is, it does have its flaws. My biggest complaint is that toward the beginning of the film we watch Lois take a bath. Obviously, since the movie is rated PG-13 there is no explicit nudity, but it is still an issue nonetheless. The thing that really annoys me about this scene is that it would have worked just as well with Lois sitting fully clothed in a chair or on a sofa. Plus, the film's dark tone and brutal violence alone would have ensured a PG-13 rating, so it's not like this is how the scene "needed" to be in order to get the rating the studio wanted. It's ultimately a totally unnecessary inappropriate element. Inappropriate content is bad enough, but inappropriate content just for inappropriate content's sake is even worse.

My other problem with this film (though it is much more minor than my previous complaint) is the film's title. The title is deceptive. Batman and Superman aren't even in the same scene together for most of the two and a half hour run of the movie, and when they do finally duke it out, the battle lasts less than ten minutes (I think. I wasn't exactly timing the action sequences.). A more accurate title would have been Batman & Superman: Dawn of Justice. Now I'm just nit-picking, so I'll just wrap up this paragraph with this: don't go into the movie expecting it to be all about Batman and Superman fighting each other as the title implies.

All in all, I would say this is a worthwhile film. It's well done and very entertaining, and it raises some interesting questions about security, fear, and anger. However, the film's dark tone, brutal violence, and Lois's bath scene are bad enough to give parents pause about letting their kids see this film (and it may do the same for sensitive viewers). However, if you can deal with these issues, this film is definitely worth your time.

If you would like further information about this film's content before making a decision, I recommend that you read Plugged In Online's review of this film, which you can read here.

"Brother Bear" - A Review

How would you respond if your older brother sacrificed himself to save you from an angry bear? Disney's animated film Brother Bear deals with the consequences to a young man's answer to that question. See, Kenai (voiced by Joaquin Phoenix) and his brother Denahi (voiced by Jason Raize) were about to be attacked by an angry bear when their older brother Sitka (voiced by D.B. Sweeney) sacrificed himself in order to remove the bear from the immediate vicinity. Denahi does not blame the bear for Sitka's death, but Kenai is furious with the bear even though it was not actually the bear that killed Sitka. Kenai tracks the bear and kills it. His actions offend the Great Spirits, and they turn him into a bear. Denahi sees the newly transformed Kenai near Kenai's torn clothes and assumes that Kenai was killed by the bear. Kenai escapes, but now Denahi is after him.

This Disney pic is a very entertaining romp. It's hilarious and the storyline and character development is wonderfully executed. However, there are several themes running through this film that should concern Christian parents - especially parents of young children. One such theme is the whole concept of the Great Spirits. As you could probably guess from the plot description above, the Great Spirits are essentially the god figures in the story. However, they are not gods; they are the spirits of those who have died. These spirits show forth their wisdom and guide all living things. This applies to humans and animals alike. Not only do the spirits guide both humans and animals, but some of the spirits were animals before they died. We also see Sitka appear as an eagle after he becomes one of the spirit.

Underlying this religious premise is the main theme of the film: the equality of man and animal. Before Kenai turns into a bear, we see a fear of bears in the humans. But after he is turned into a bear, we learn that the bears are just as scared of the humans. Furthermore, the reason the Great Spirits are angry with Kenai for killing the bear is because the creature he killed was as much a person as he is. There is no distinction between man and animal. Deep down, they are all the same. This message is a concern for Christian viewers because as Genesis teaches us, God made man superior to the animals.

On the other hand, there are some themes in this movie that Christians would approve of. Brother Bear upholds the importance of family. It presents us with a contrast between love and hate, and tells us that it is better to love than to hate. The film is a story of redemption and forgiveness, even though the film's theology of redemption is not sound.

As I said, the film is very entertaining. The jokes are clean, and the violence tends to be more implied (as is typical for Disney's animated films). However, the non-Christian themes in this film are very prevalent, and Christian parents should not let young children view this film because of them. Even for older children, parents should consider discussing the film's themes with them instead of letting the kids just watch the film.

"The Young Messiah" Problem

This weekend, moviegoers will be getting yet another biblical epic centered around events related to the life of Jesus Christ. However, whereas Risen was about the events following the crucifixion of Christ, this new film, The Young Messiah, is about Jesus as a seven year old. According to IMDb, the film centers around the exodus of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus out of Egypt following the death of King Herod. Despite the fact that The Young Messiah looks to be a well-made film, I will not be going to see it - and you should not either. Here are the two problems with the premise of The Young Messiah that should be automatic deal breakers for Christian moviegoers:

1. The Young Messiah Violates the Second Commandment
    If you read my review of Risen, you know that I had this same problem with that film as well. The second commandment commands that we must not make a graven image and bow down to it or worship it (Exodus 20:4-5). Obviously, this passage is commanding us not to create an idol and worship it. However, this command encompasses more than just this sin. Notice that verse 5 also makes mention of the fact that God is a jealous God. God wants our worship to be solely focused on Him. Therefore, it is not just idols that we must not worship, but we must also not worship any image that is not God.

What does that have to do with movies like The Young Messiah? Movies like The Young Messiah that depict Christ are presenting us with an actor portraying Christ. These movies present us with an image of Christ. But it is not actually Christ in the film. It is an actor. "Yeah, so?" you might ask. Well, in order to answer that question, I have to tell you a little story about myself (don't worry, it's short). I don't remember how old I was exactly, but I'm pretty sure I was about ten years old when I won a copy of The Visual Bible: Matthew. Basically, this was (literally) a word-for-word adaptation of the NIV translation of the book of Matthew. Of course, since this was an adaptation of Matthew, there was an actor portraying Jesus in it. I watched this film over and over again until I had most of it practically memorized. The problem with this was that I was imprinting an image of Christ in my brain, and to this day my brain defaults to the image of that actor playing Jesus almost every time I hear Jesus' name. The unfortunate thing about this is that because this happens, I end up subconsciously worshiping that image of Christ rather than the actual Christ. This happens because when I am supposed to be thinking about Christ and focusing on Him, I am actually thinking about that actor and putting my focus on him.

My point is that if this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. Especially with film, it is incredibly easy to associate the image of an actor portraying someone with that person's name. Let me give you an example. I'll bet that if I say Aragorn, those of you who have seen Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy will immediately think of Viggo Mortensen with bad hair and whiskers. The same is true with Jesus. The problem with this is that Jesus is the Son of God, and we are to worship Him. At the very least, the image of the actor portraying Jesus that we associate with Jesus' name will be distracting when we try to focus our minds on Him so we can worship Him. But if that actor is what you think of when you worship Jesus, the person you are worship is no longer Jesus. Rather, you are worshiping someone pretending to be Jesus. This is a danger every time you go to see a movie that depicts the Savior. Granted, it is less of a concern in a movie like The Young Messiah or The Nativity Story which does not depict Christ as an adult, since most of the time when we talk about Jesus we are referring to Jesus as an adult. It is still, however, a danger that will rear its ugly head every time we contemplate Christ as a child.

2. The Young Messiah Delves into the Secret Things
    Deuteronomy 29:29 says, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." In His sovereignty, God chose not to reveal certain things to His people. We don't know why He did this because that is also a secret thing. But the reason why is not important. What is important is that the Scripture says that the secret things belong to the Lord. This means that if God does not tell us something, it is not our place to know it. We can speculate, but ultimately we cannot know for sure. Even speculation can be dangerous, as it is speculation about the secret things that sometimes leads to heresy. As a general rule, when the Scripture is silent on a subject, we should also be silent on that subject.

One such subject which the Scriptures are silent on is the childhood of Christ. Other than the events surrounding His birth and that time when Mary and Joseph could not find Jesus and ultimately found Him in the temple, the Scriptures don't say anything about Christ's childhood. Yet, the producers of The Young Messiah have created a theatrical film based on this largely unknown portion of Christ's earthly life.

Now, normally I do not have a problem with biopics that speculate over the childhood of a famous person. I wouldn't even mind if such a biopic was about someone like King David. However, I am concerned that out of all the biblical figures the producers could have chosen, they chose the Son of God. The reason for this concern (other than the objection I raised in point one) is that since Jesus is the Son of God, any speculation about His childhood falls under the branch of systematic theology called Christology, or the doctrine of Christ. The producers are teaching things about the Son of God that may or may not be true, and this has the power to impact the Christology of the audience, especially that of younger viewers. Not only that, but by choosing Christ as the film's subject matter, the producers have chosen to walk on some very thin ice. One misstep, and there film would end up presenting views of Christ that are heretical.

Indeed, I fear that the chances of this film being heretical are very good. Check out this paragraph from the plot description from the film's website: "When the mystery of Jesus’ divinity begins to unfold in His early years, He turns to His parents for answers. But Mary and Joseph, in an effort to protect their child, are afraid to reveal all they know. How do you explain the ways of the world to its Creator? How do you teach the Teacher? How do you help the Savior who came to save you?" From the sound of this, Jesus did not always know about His divinity according to this film. I'm not an expert on how the divine and the human natures of Christ relate, but I'm pretty sure that saying that the human nature was oblivious to the presence of the divine nature for years is heretical. This is exactly my point. The doctrine of Christ's human and divine natures is a very easy doctrine to get wrong, and the producers are taking it on themselves to explain it in this film. The chances of heresy being present in this film - especially given that plot description - are very high.

It is because The Young Messiah breaks the second commandment and deals with the secret things in a manner that appears to be headed down a heretical path that you will not find a review of The Young Messiah on this blog. Instead, all you will find is this plea to completely disregard the existence of this film and stay at home. If you are looking for a movie to watch with your family this weekend, there are lots of better options out there than The Young Messiah.

"The Phantom of the Opera" - A Review

An opera house under new management. A show tonight, but no leading lady and no understudy. The only person who can save the show is a young dancer who has learned the leading lady's part. This dancer, Christine (Emmy Rossum), has a mysterious tutor who has taught her how to sing. She has never seen his face, but she does not need to, for she knows that he is "an angel of music" which her father had sent to look after her following his death.

This tutor's skills as a teacher are immediately evident as Christine not only saves the show from disaster, but also steals the hearts of the audience - and a young man who was her childhood friend. This young man, Raoul (Patrick Wilson), seeks to kindle a romance with her, triggering jealousy in Christine's tutor and causing him to reveal himself to her. Thanks to being her tutor for so long, he is able to draw her into his lair and there he reveals his identity to her. Yep, he is none other than the Phantom (Gerard Butler) who has haunted the opera house for years.

For some time, Christine is drawn under the Phantom's spell. The spell is soon broken, however, when the Phantom kills a man and Christine realizes that he might not be the angel she thought he was. Terrified, she turns the Raoul, who swears to protect her from the clutches of the Phantom.

Based on a musical stage production which is in turn based on a novel, the 2004 film adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera is a tale of a battle between two men for the heart of young woman. The Phantom is a possessive man whose deformity deprived him of a normal life and has prevented from - as he puts it - from enjoying the pleasures of the flesh. Raoul, on the other hand, is a virtuous man who is head over heels in love with Christine. In one sense, therefore, The Phantom of the Opera is a contrast between lust and true love.

For the Christian, however, this story takes on more significance than merely a contrast between lust and love. The Phantom seeks to possess Christine. What terrifies Christine so much about this is that she has already surrendered herself to the Phantom and she fears that she will never be free of him. This is where Raoul comes into the picture. Raoul has made it his mission to rid Christine of the Phantom. Christian viewers will be tempted here to see the story as an analogy to the gospel in which Christine represents a person in slavery to sin (represented by the Phantom) and the only way of escape is through the work of a redeemer (in this case Raoul, who would be the Christ figure in this analogy). However, as I said in my first post on this blog (which you can read here), we cannot read gospel analogies into stories when it was never the intention of the writer to put such analogies in the story. In the case of The Phantom of the Opera, the story cannot be a gospel analogy because SPOILER ALERT it is an act of love on the part of Christine that ultimately rids her of the Phantom END SPOILER. This story, however, is still an excellent reminder to the Christian that we need a savior in order to be set free from the power of sin.

This film is incredibly well done. The production design is beautiful, the songs are beautifully performed, and the story flows beautifully. Particularly of notice, however, is the performance Gerard Butler as the Phantom. He is perfect in the role, portraying a character who is pure evil and quite creepy, but who is simultaneously sympathetic. Gerard Butler makes us feel for the Phantom just enough to make us sorry that he allowed his deformity to drive him to this dark place. However, Gerard Butler's performance is so creepily evil that we want Christine to be free from his grasp.

So is this film worth your time? Well, it depends on who you are. Some people may find the Phantom's actions and unmasked appearance disturbing enough to find it difficult to get through this movie. These people should probably refrain from watching this film. For everyone else, however, this is both an entertaining film and a great reminder of how much we need Jesus. As an aside, if you are unsure as to which of these two camps you might fall into, Plugged In Online has an excellent review of this film that might help you decide if you should watch this film. You can check their review out here.