The X-Men Franchise - A Story about Tolerance

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.

The #GiveSoAndSoAGirlfriend/Boyfriend Movement

Even if you don't follow entertainment news like I do, I'm sure you've come across news articles in you social media feed about fans clamoring for Disney to give Elsa a girlfriend. #GiveElsaAGirlfriend is quite popular, and it's already having a ripple effect, with news breaking today that Captain America fans are promoting #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend. As a fan of Captain America and also as a person who really liked Frozen and also as a Christian, I very much do not approve of these movements. And since I am a Christian, I must stand for what is right. But what is the right way do do this? How should one stand for what's right on social media?

As this #GiveSoAndSoAGirlfriend/Boyfriend craze has developed, I have seen various types of reactions to it from those who do not support it. I have seen some threaten to boycott Disney if Disney decides to give the #GiveElsaAGirlfriend people what they want. I have seen others post rants in comment sections (which I will admit I was tempted to do when I saw the post that told me about #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend). I have seen people share articles about these movements with a caption along these lines: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!" And thanks to Facebook's new "Angry" reaction button, I have seen people simply click "Angry" instead of "Like" on posts about either of these hashtags. But which of these are the right response?

To quote Vision from Avengers: Age of Ultron, "I don't think it's that simple." Social media has given us a means through which we can let our feelings about things loose without any consequences in the real world. And I hate to break it to you, but your little outburst of righteous indignation on Facebook or Twitter isn't going to change anybody's mind. Those who are pushing these hashtags will just dismiss you as a homophobic bigot, and let's be honest, Hollywood doesn't care about that "Angry" button you just clicked. But not only will these reactions cause little or no change, but they are also not godly. Maybe that anger you feel is righteous, but chances are it's not. Just because you're right while you're being angry doesn't mean your anger is righteous. It is human instinct to have a strong emotional response when we see a viewpoint we disagree with for a topic that we care strongly about. This is what happened with me when I saw #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend. But the whole world does not need to know that you are angry about this. It won't change anyone's mind, and it won't show forth the love of God.

So what is the appropriate reaction? Well, we know it's not as simple as simply reacting on social media. These hashtags represent a movement. If we are going to do something to stop this movement, social media isn't the means through which to do it. What these movements demonstrate is the total depravity of the unregenerate heart, and the only way to stop the movement is to go for the heart of the problem. We must address these movements by reaching out to its supporters with the Gospel. Social media comments won't change their minds, but the Holy Spirit can. But since faith comes from the preaching of the Gospel, the Holy Spirit won't change these people if we don't reach out with the Gospel.

As for the hashtags themselves, I think we need to remember that they are just symptoms of a larger problem. However, these symptoms do need to be addressed, and if you want to tell Hollywood on social media that you don't approve of the #GiveSoAndSoAGirlfriend/Boyfriend movement, I would recommend a politely worded post. Here's an example: "Dear Disney, Please #DoNotGiveElsaAGirlfriend." Basically, start a new hashtag that opposes the one that is currently trending and see if it'll start trending too. However, the most effective solution would be to just not see a film featuring an LGBT character. Box Office tickets are the equivalent to voting for a movie. If you buy a ticket for a movie, you are voting for that movie. If the movie is successful, Hollywood thinks there is demand for the type of content and will make more like it. So if Box Office sales for Frozen 2 aren't as good as the sales for the first one because it's been confirmed that Elsa will have a girlfriend in it (it hasn't actually; this is a hypothetical scenario), then Disney might reconsider before doing the same thing again. But remember, these problems are only symptoms of a larger problem, and if we don't offer the actual cure to people, we are only treating the symptoms.

"Frequency" - A Review

Suppose that your father died when you were a child. Then one night you found out that you can communicate with your father in the past. What would you say to him? This question is the basis of the 2000 film Frequency. A homicide detective named John Sullivan (Jim Caviezel) finds a radio that belonged to his father, Frank (Dennis Quaid), and discovers that due to an atmospheric phenomenon that he is able to speak to his dead father in the past. Of course, since Frank died saving a girl in a fire, John's first instinct when he realizes that he's speaking to his dad is to tell him how to, well, not die in that fire. John's warning works, and Frank survives the fire. However, the change made to the timeline has a ripple effect that results in John's mother, Julia (Elizabeth Mitchell), being murdered soon after the fire. Once John discovers that in this new timeline Julia was murdered by a serial killer, he teams up with his father to stop the killer.

One of Frequency's strengths is that it takes a concept as simple as a man being able to speak to his dead father and then turns that concept into a compelling sci-fi thriller. The film takes place mostly from John's perspective, who is the only person who is aware that the timeline is changing. Since the film is mostly from John's perspective, the audience gets to figure out how this time-bending communication works with John. We only know as much as John does, and that really works to the film's advantage because it makes the film really engaging. But even when the film focuses on Frank, it does not cease to thrill as we hold our breaths hoping that Frank's actions doesn't mess up the timeline further.

Another strong point for this film is the performances of Jim Caviezel and Dennis Quaid. We learn early on that their characters (especially Caviezel's character) are flawed, but the emotional performances these two actors present us with make us like them anyway. Their performances alone draw us to the characters. Furthermore, it is amazing that these two manage to have such great chemistry since they aren't even interacting with each other in real life. Yet, their dynamic seems so real that they are able to have us laughing and crying with them throughout their interactions on screen. It takes strong actors to pull off a story like this well, and Caviezel and Quaid definitely deliver.

The only issue I had with this film was the frequency of the foul language (pun intended). I don't know what words were used since I was watching the film on VidAngel in order to filter out the foul language, but I did notice that the audio cut out due to foul language quite frequently.

All that said, I highly recommend this film - especially for a father-son movie night. There aren't many good father-son movies out there, but this is one of them. I would, however, also recommend watching this film on VidAngel and using that to filter out the foul language.* Anyway, this is a movie that a lot of people don't know about, but should. This film is, in my opinion, a classic.

*DISCLAIMER: I am not being paid to recommend VidAngel. I am recommending it because I genuinely enjoy using their service and think that it is a great resource for Christian families.

"Captain America: Civil War" - A Review

After making what is arguably one of the best Marvel movies so far, Captain America: The Winter Soldier directors Joe and Anthony Russo have returned with yet another Captain America flick entitled Captain America: Civil War. Expectations have been high, as the flick promised to cause division among the ranks of the Avengers, introduce Ant-Man to the Avengers, and introduce fan-favorites Black Panther and Spider-Man to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And Civil War rises to the occasion, doing all of these things in a compelling manner.

As I predicted in my post about the previous Marvel movies that are important for understanding this film, Civil War is a direct sequel to both Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Avengers: Age of Ultron. After an opening flashback scene that offers up some insight into the brainwashing process that turned Captain America's best friend into the Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan), the present-day events of the film kick off with Captain America (Chris Evans) leading the new Avengers in a mission to take down one of the villains from Winter Soldier: Brock Rumlow (Frank Grillo). This battle ends in the deaths of civilians, some of whom were scientists from the normally seclusive country of Wakanda. King T'Chaka (John Kani) of Wakanda demands that the Avengers be held accountable for their actions. In response, the United Nations create the Sokovian Accords, which will see the Avengers become an organization under government supervision. Tony Stark aka Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), who feels very guilty about the events that transpired in Age of Ultron, readily agrees to the legislation. Captain America, on the other hand, sees the legislation as a removal of the Avengers' right to chose. After hearing both Stark and Cap, the Avengers begin to decide whether they will sign the legislation or not.

At first, the conflict is purely ideological, as the Avengers who did sign the legislation try to convince the ones who didn't to sign it. But when Cap gets a lead on the whereabouts of the Winter Soldier, he goes into action, thereby violating the law. Things just escalate from there, culminating in a massive Avengers vs. Avengers battles.

The storyline is much more complex than this, with a storyline of a man named Helmut Zemo (Daniel Bruhl) working behind the scenes to "bring down an empire." However, discussing this and other storylines in the film would involve venturing into spoiler territory, so it's best to just move on.

I loved this film. This film doesn't fit the stereotypical superhero film mold. I am aware that I said this of Batman v Superman, but this film is better than Batman v Superman. Civil War takes time to delve into some heavy issues, including liberty, the proper use of security, and revenge. The themes of liberty and security come out in the debate between Cap and Stark, and while the film doesn't tell us which of them is right (something the filmmakers have said they did on purpose in order to spark conversations on the issue among fans), it does a great job of presenting the arguments for both sides. Regardless of whether you agree with Cap or Stark, you will find yourself understanding where the other person is coming from. The theme of revenge comes up in the storylines of Zemo and Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), and sadly this is not something I can talk about much without spoiling the end of the movie. Suffice it to say that the film handles this theme well and demonstrates the danger of letting oneself being driven by vengeance. The film handles these themes well, all while offering up the genuine laughs and amazing action scenes we've come to expect from Marvel Cinematic Universe films.

Before moving on to what I didn't like about this film, I want make mention of the two new heroes that were introduced in this film: Black Panther and Spider-Man (Tom Holland). One of the amazing things about this movie is that despite the fact that it is already a complex film, Civil War provides us with an origin story for Black Panther that is well-executed and in a manner that flows naturally with the main story. Due to Black Panther's motivations, you're never quite sure how exactly he is going to act as the main storyline unfolds, and this adds a level of intrigue to the movie. Meanwhile, the introduction of Spider-Man foregoes the origin story (thank God), and assumes that you have some understanding of who Peter Parker is already. Spider-Man felt a little shoehorned into the movie to me, but Tom Holland is a lot of fun to watch in the role, providing a lot of hilarious moments during the Avengers vs. Avenger battle. Therefore, this character is a welcome addition to the cast, even if he does feel shoehorned in.

My only real problem with this film is the depiction of Brock Rumlow and Helmut Zemo. In the comics, both characters are major Captain America villains, and I felt the film didn't do them justice. Marvel has a chance to redeem itself with Zemo because they left the door open for him to return, but Rumlow's storyline ends on a rather disappointing note in this film, with no chance of him returning in future films. This is especially disappointing since his return was setup in Winter Soldier. Marvel, here's a free tip: never give a character more to do in the movie you set him up in than in the film where he appears as a full superhero/villain. This is a problem I also had with Age of Ultron and the depiction of Baron Strucker. Ever since the appearance of Red Skull in the first Captain America film, Marvel just can't seem to get Captain America's villains right. For me, this was especially disappointing in the cases of Strucker and Zemo because I've had previous exposure to this character in one of Marvel's cartoon series, and I know the kind of evil presence they can bring to the screen. Unfortunately, neither of these characters really met the expectations I had for them when they appeared in the movies. Strucker was a whimpy character, and Zemo was basically just a not as interesting version of Loki (the villain of the first Thor and Avengers movies).

Despite my complaints about the depictions of these villains, these film is a lot of fun and I highly recommend checking this one out this weekend. Parents should be aware, though, that there is some language in this film that isn't the most appropriate for young children to hear and some of the action sequences may be a little intense for young children as well. If you would like further details on the content of the film before taking the family to go see this, check out Plugged In Online's review of the film here.

Bryan Singer on Biblical Analogy in "X-Men: Apocalypse"

I just saw an article published by IGN in which X-Men director Bryan Singer talks about the presence of biblical analogy in the newest installment in the franchise, X-Men: Apocalypse. If you've seen any of the trailers for this film, you knew that there was going to be some kind of biblical influence in the film because in the trailers the main villain's four henchmen are compared to the four horsemen from the book of Revelation. But apparently the biblical influence goes much farther than that. Here is Bryan Singer's comments concerning the film's villain, Apocalypse:

"[Apocalypse is] kind of the opposite of Christ, actually. Christ would have come years after him, by the way. Our premise is [Apocalypse] stomped around ancient Egypt, and that's when he is buried and awakens in 1983. He's kind of more the God of the Old Testament, the vengeful God who wants the world in a certain order and wants to be worshipped -- but he's also forgiving,” 

Let's play a game. It's called "Find the Problem in Singer's Statement." Trick question. There are two problems. The first is that Singer has no understanding of the biblical God. God is not different in the Old and New Testaments. He is unchanging, and so His wrath and His forgiveness never changed in their degrees. The second problem is that the new X-Men villain is inspired by God. Apocalypse sees wrong in the world and seeks to correct it by destroying it and build a new world. Sound familiar? It should, because in the book of Revelation we see God destroying the old creation and bringing in the new creation. I'm already not liking where this analogy is going, but it gets even worse. Singer continues:

“He's also a false god, which makes him kind of like a cult leader. So [Apocalypse actor Oscar Isaac] and [writer/producer Simon Kinberg] not only studied religion but also studied the nature of cults and how they function. And that helped inform us how he chooses his Four Horsemen. Because in his mythology he always has four protectors and followers -- because he does have moments of vulnerability, which you'll see in the movie."

 I feel like with this statement Singer was trying to win back the Christian demographic by basically saying, "Yes, this villain is inspired by your God, but this character isn't your God." That may be so, but the problem is that that's not how it will come across in the movie. What we're going to be seeing in the movie is a character who is basically an evil version of God. To really get where this is going, we need Singer's explanation of how the leader of the X-Men, Charles Xavier, fits into this analogy:

"I've gotten to explore Professor X when he was an older, bald, wise man, when he's insecure, when he's defenseless, when he's powerful. He's more of a Christ figure. He chooses to be a teacher. He could go inside Cerebro and rule the world, but he chooses not to. He chooses to teach and preach and hope that people follow his message: peace and unity. And I've gotten to see him as a drug addict and a loser, and in this movie you're going to get to see him prosperous and almost blindly optimistic, and how he changes."

I have no idea where Singer is trying to go with this statement (and we probably won't know until the film arrives in theaters), but I do know that Singer does not understand who Christ is at all. That being said, if X-Men: Apocalypse goes so far as to make it clear that Xavier is a Christ figure, what does that mean for the message that comes across in the film? We'll basically have (allegorically speaking) Christ fighting to save the world from being destroyed by God's wrath. That sounds somewhat biblical, since by dying on the cross for us, the real Christ saved His people from the wrath of the real God. But this is a spiritual salvation, and it does not save the world from the wrath that is to come. This movie is going to turn this salvation into a physical salvation for the entire world. Furthermore, the film will be depicting events similar to the judgement in Revelation (a comparison we already know the film will make), but depicting that judgement in a negative light. I frankly don't care that Apocalypse is only inspired by God and not actually God. What this film will be conveying is that God is wrong to destroy the earth.

All of this being said, I will be seeing this movie in order to review it (whether I do it when the film is in theaters or if I will wait until the home media release I have not yet decided). However, unless the film can cause me to see a story that isn't a flawed analogy for the book of Revelation, my recommendation to Christian audiences will be to not support this film.

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Road to "Civil War"

Well, this is it folks. In just a few short days we will be getting the latest installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Captain America: Civil War. Anticipation is high for this blockbuster. And, as I mentioned last week, lots of people are trying to get caught up on what has happened thus far in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Also in that post, I listed all of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies and ranked them from worst to best in order to help you decide if they were worth your time. However, as you'll recall, only three movies on the list (Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, and Guardians of the Galaxy) were listed as being not worthwhile viewing. That leaves nine movies that are good entertainment. However, not all of them contribute to the story of Captain America: Civil War. So which ones can you skip and have Civil War still make sense, and which ones should you watch in order to get the whole story? Obviously, I have not seen Civil War yet, and so my answer will be complete guesswork based on the events of all the movies that come before Civil War and what we know about the characters and storyline of Civil War. So here we go, a list of all the movies that you can skip and all the movies you might want to watch, listed in their release order (which is the ideal order to watch them in, by the way).

1. Iron Man (Watch)
The conflict of Captain America: Civil War is generated by a piece of legislation intended to hold superhumans accountable for their actions. This legislation causes a split between the heroes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with one side being led by Iron Man, the hero of the first Marvel Cinematic Universe film. Iron Man is a must-watch in preparation for Civil War because it provides necessary information about Iron Man that will explain why he takes the lead in fighting for the side he does in Civil War.

2. Thor (Skip)
The simple reason for skipping this one is that none of the characters from this film will even appear in Captain America: Civil War, and the fairly stand-alone nature of Thor ensures that those who have not see it will still understand Civil War.

3. Captain America: The First Avenger (Watch)
As I said, Captain America: Civil War will see the heroes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe divided. One side is led by Iron Man, and the other side is led by Captain America. Therefore, this origin story film is necessary viewing for the same reason Iron Man is necessary viewing: The First Avenger provides insight into why Captain America would take the side he does in Civil War.

4. The Avengers (Optional)
This is a hard one to rank because there is little in this movie that will affect your understanding of Civil War. Basically, all that happens in this film is that the heroes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe are assembled for the first time to form the Avengers, and in the process it becomes clear that there are a few ideological differences between Captain America and Iron Man. Basically, this film will just give you the beginnings of some of the relationships we will see in Civil War. My recommendation would be to watch it if you have the time, but don't worry about it if you don't have time.

5. Iron Man 3 (Skip)
Though I personally think this one is a little better than the original Iron Man movie, no new information is given to us in this one that will impact Civil War in any way. For the purposes of preparing for Civil War, this one is a skip.

6. Thor: The Dark World (Skip)
This film (just like the first Thor film) shares no characters in common with Civil War and the story of this installment is even more standalone in nature than the original Thor film. So, this, like the first Thor film, can safely be skipped before watching Civil War.

7. Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Watch)
It's hard to talk about why this one is important without talking about spoilers, so suffice it to say that in some respects Civil War is a direct sequel to two different films. The first is The Winter Soldier. Several storylines that began in this film will be continued in Civil War, and so Civil War will probably be difficult to follow if you haven't seen The Winter Soldier beforehand.

8. Avengers: Age of Ultron (Watch)
Remember when I said that Civil War is a direct sequel to two films? Well, Age of Ultron is the second one. Civil War has been advertised as something of an aftermath movie to Age of Ultron, and given the storyline of Age of Ultron and what we know of the plot of Civil War, this 99.9% certain to be true. So make sure to watch Age of Ultron before you go see Civil War.

9. Ant-Man (Optional)
The hero of Ant-Man will be in Civil War, and one of the few parts of the movie I have seen is the way he is introduced to the story. Believe me, his appearance will seem a little out of the blue if you haven't seen Ant-Man, but it won't be anything you'll leave the theater scratching your head about if you haven't seen Ant-Man. So, like I said with The Avengers, watch it if you can before you go see Civil War. However, if you don't get a chance to watch Ant-Man, don't worry about it. Civil War will still make sense without it.

*      *      *

Well there you have it. If you haven't seen any of the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe movies and would like to see Civil War (or if you've seen them and want to refresh your memory on all the important stuff before seeing Civil War), you should watch Iron Man, Captain America: The First Avenger, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and Avengers: Age of Ultron before you head to the theaters this weekend. And, if you have the time, throw The Avengers and Ant-Man in there as well. Watching these movies before Civil War will help you better understand what is going on in Civil War when you see it. If you are a parent, and aren't sure if these movies are safe for your kids, check out the Plugged In Online reviews listed below. Also, keep an eye out for my review of Captain America: Civil War later this week!

Iron Man

Captain America: The First Avenger

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Optional films:

The Avengers 

Ant-Man