The "Star Wars" Movies, Ranked

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.

"Arrival" - A Review

This isn't like in the movies.

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" - A Review

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.

"Kingdom of Heaven" - A Review

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.

"Nacho Libre" - A Review

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.

"Jack the Giant Slayer" - A Review

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.

"Inception" - A Review

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.

"Ender's Game" - A Review

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.

"Jason Bourne" - A Review

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.

"Man of Steel" - A Tale of Two Saviors

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.

Check out CinemaWins's video about Man of Steel:

"The Dark Knight" Trilogy - A Review

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.

"23 Blast" - A Review

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 Blast here.

"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.

Marvel Cinematic Universe: From Worst to Best

With the impending release of Captain America: Civil War, Marvel fans are gearing up for an epic Avengers vs. Avengers showdown. For some, this means looking back at all the Marvel movies that came before this latest superhero flick. If you are one of these fans, or if you think Civil War looks interesting and would like to get caught up on the Marvel Cinematic Universe films before Civil War comes out, then check out this list before doing so. In this list, I will be ranking the Marvel Cinematic Universe films from worst to best, providing a one paragraph review (full reviews will be coming for some of these films sometime in the future) detailing whether or not these films are worth your time. Please note that I have not actually seen The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2, but there are reasons why I have chosen not to watch them. Therefore, they will still be on this list, with explanations of why I determined they were not worth my time before I bothered to watch them. I have seen all of the other films in this list. So here we go:

12. Iron Man 2

This is the third installment in this series of films. However, it ranks at the bottom of the list for two reason. The first is that it is a lot more inappropriate content-wise. After reading on Plugged In Online about the amount of sexual content in this film, I made my initial decision to not watch this film. However, I later found out another detail about the film that strengthened my determination to never watch this film. This detail is the fact that the screenwriters sacrificed good storytelling to further build the world of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Rather than create a compelling conflict between the hero and the villain, the film focused more on doing things like introducing the organization known as S.H.I.E.L.D. and developing the concept of the Avengers Initiative. The combination of these facts made me decide that I would never watch this movie, and puts this film at the bottom of the list.

11. The Incredible Hulk

According to Plugged In Online, this film is incredibly violent - no surprise considering that it is about a guy who can turn into a green rage monster. However, this was not the only reason I chose not to watch this film. The film just looks boring. There is nothing about this film as far as I can tell from reading the storyline on Wikipedia that is at all different from any other film or TV adaptation of the character. Add in the fact that Marvel Studios clearly wants us to forget that this movie ever happened (based on the fact that they recast the Hulk later on and have totally ignored the events of the film in later installments), and I think there is sufficient reason to ignore this film.

10. Guardians of the Galaxy

The unfortunate thing about this film is that it is very well made and has an engaging story. It's even one of the funnier installments in the series. Unfortunately, this film about space criminals trying to save a planet is filled with profanity. The total count of profanities in Guardians of the Galaxy is 40 swear words. For me, these profanities were so frequent that I had difficulty enjoying the movie. This is one I would have skipped if I had known beforehand just how heavy the language was going to be.

9. The Avengers

I think I just infuriated the die-hard fans. Most people will tell you that this is one of the best installments in the series. However, this film sometimes feels like a bunch of action sequences strung together by some dialogue (though that dialogue is really good). Furthermore, the main villain's plan doesn't make much sense when you think about it long enough (though Tom Hiddleston does a phenomenal job playing the villain). This, in conjunction with a few tedious scenes and a deus ex machina ending puts this film toward the bottom of the list. This is still a film worth watching though, as it is very entertaining (especially when Tom Hiddleston is in the scene or when writer/director Joss Whedon inserts his famous sense of humor into the film).

8. Thor: The Dark World

This film suffers one of the same problems that The Avengers does, namely that it feels like a bunch of action sequences strung together by some dialogue. However, it does share one of The Avengers's good points (and in spades): Tom Hiddleston reprising his role from The Avengers. This film - while not a great film - ranks above The Avengers because it is more entertaining to watch than The Avengers.

7. Iron Man

Here I go making the die-hard fans mad again, but let's face it, Iron Man did well what The Dark Knight Rises did better. Both movies feature the hero being captured and tortured by the villain and the hero subsequently having to find the strength to escape. However, The Dark Knight Rises kept you on the edge of your seat when this was happening while Iron Man is just tedious at this point in the story. Both films have surprise reveals at the end, but Iron Man's is pretty predictable, whereas the reveal in The Dark Knight Rises is such a surprise that I would consider it to be one of the best movie twists I have ever seen. Iron Man is still a fun movie and worth a watch, but it's not as good as some other superhero films out there.

6. Captain America: The First Avenger

This one was once my favorite, but the more times I watch it, the less I like it. I love the main character. He is probably my favorite superhero of both DC and Marvel characters. However, the film contains quite a bit of profanity (the reason I like it less every time I watch is because I catch more profanity every time I watch it). However, it saves itself on the merit of its being totally different from any other Marvel Cinematic Universe film. This film is basically a war movie disguised as a superhero movie - which makes sense since it takes place during World War II. Like Iron Man, it can be tedious (especially in the first act), but the exciting second half makes the wait worth it. If only the movie had spent a little more time on the events of the second half of the film, this one might rank a little higher on the list. However, I still really like this movie just because I love the main character so much, and so I would still recommend checking this one out.

5. Iron Man 3

This is another unique entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe because it separates the main character from that which makes him a superhero: his Iron Man suit. Without the suit, the hero is just an ordinary guy trying to save the world from a superhuman threat. This gives some of the action sequences a feel that is rather reminiscent of the MacGyver television series. In addition, the hero becomes a lot more relatable in this installment. Many die-hard comic fans will be upset by the film's big twist, but for the general population, this is an entertaining romp worth checking out.

4. Thor

I'm a little partial to this one because this was the first installment I saw (despite the fact that it's actually the fourth one). However, I like it for more reason then sentimental reasons. Thor isn't strictly a superhero movie. It's a tale of an arrogant prince whose arrogance puts his father's people in danger and so the king must banish the prince. From there, the film becomes a fish-out-of-water tale as the prince learns to live without his power in modern day New Mexico. In addition, we get an interesting beginning to a romantic storyline that continues to play out in the film's sequel. All-in-all, this film is worth viewing because of its well written drama.

3. Avengers: Age of Ultron

Despite popular opinion, I think this film is an improvement over the original Avengers film. There are lots of storylines going on in this film, but writer/director Joss Whedon does a great job of doing them all justice. There are some new heroes in this film that get their time to shine, and some of the more underdeveloped characters from earlier films get some more development. All this is done while continuing the storylines for the three main Avengers (Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man). Well-written and very entertaining, this is definitely a film worth watching.

2. Ant-Man

Short version: this film is hilarious. It's a comedy about a superhero. The only concern here is that people who are scared of insects are probably going to be bothered by the large appearance of bugs when the main character shrinks to the size of an ant. For everyone else though, this film is a must if you want a good laugh and some fun superheroics.

1. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

This is my favorite superhero film of all time. Part superhero movie, part political thriller, this film is a masterpiece. With a compelling mystery and multiple twists, this film will have you on the edge of your seat. Plus, the film briefly looks at the ethics of doing spy stuff, which can serve as a conversation starter with teens about ethics in general. Just watch this movie if you haven't already.

*      *      *

Next week, I will post another Marvel Cinematic Universe list counting down which of these movies are necessary viewing before Captain America: Civil War if you are not caught up on the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Plus, if you would like further information about the content of the films in this list, check out the links to Plugged In Online's reviews below (listed in the same order as the list above).

Iron Man 2  
The Incredible Hulk 
Guardians of the Galaxy 
The Avengers 
Thor: The Dark World 
Iron Man 
Captain America: The First Avenger 
Iron Man 3 
Thor 
Avengers: Age of Ultron 
Ant-Man 
Captain America: The Winter Soldier