What do you get when you combine fantasy film cliches, witty dialogue, CGI, and Ewan McGregor? You get Bryan Singer's Jack the Giant Slayer. Bryan Singer is best known as the director of several of the installments in the X-Men film franchise, but here he steps away from the superhero/sci-fi genre to present us with this Princess Bride-esque fantasy film. The premise is simple: a princess (Eleanor Tomlinson) runs away and gets stranded in the land of the giants because of a freak accident involving a beanstalk. Now it is up to a witness of the accident named Jack (Nicholas Hoult), a soldier named Elmont (Ewan McGregor), and the princess's fiance (Stanley Tucci) to rescue from being eaten by the giants.
Like I said, this film in many ways is reminiscent of The Princess Bride. It pokes fun of various fantasy film tropes, contains over the top characters, and clever humor. Basically, this is a cheesy movie, but just like The Princess Bride it is cheesy in a good way. The film is well-executed across the board, and it is hilarious.
Arguably the best part of the movie is the performance of Ewan McGregor. He completely nails his character and the dialogue he is given. McGregor pulls off his lines in an overly serious manner that perfectly accentuates the hilarity of his dialogue. In fact, the only crime this movie is really guilty of is not giving Ewan McGregor more screen time (I'm kidding. The movie uses him as much as it possibly can).
The only real bad thing about this movie is the quality of the CGI. However, since the film is not meant to be taken seriously, it could be argued that the CGI is intentionally imperfect. Either way, it does get mildly distracting in a couple of scenes.
In conclusion, this film is hilarious and well done. The cast is great, with Ewan McGregor stealing every scene he is in. Also, Bryan Singer gives us some pretty unique action scenes that are pretty cool. Jack the Giant Slayer is definitely well worth a watch, especially if you are a Princess Bride fan.
What is reality? It is difficult to answer this question when you have been trained to create alternate realities inside your dreams. For Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), dreams are his livelihood. He and his partner, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are skilled thieves who enter into people's dreams to steal valuable information from them. It's very complicated, and Inception does a better job of explaining it then I can. However, it is also possible to lose touch with reality in these dream worlds, as is illustrated by Cobb's wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard). As a result, Cobb and Arthur have created items which they call totems that they use to tell them if they are awake or asleep. Despite this, Cobb feels himself losing touch with reality - as is evidenced by his constantly checking his totem to make sure he is awake. All he wants is to be able to go home to his family, but he can't because he has been implicated in the murder of his wife. That is until the head of a large corporation named Saito (Ken Watanabe) promises to help Cobb return to his family if he will help him in a very specific mission. This mission is to destroy Saito's competition by placing the idea into the head of Robert Fisher (Cillian Murphy) that he should break up his deceased father's company. Cobb accepts, and the ultimate heist begins.
This film is indeed a heist film, though it is unlike any other heist film ever made. This is something that Christian viewers must consider with regards to this film. At the end of the day, this is a movie about a group of thieves trying to take down a corporation. Granted, Cobb is doing this because it will allow him to see his family again, but the others are just there for the money. This goes back to something that was discussed in my post about Suicide Squad in which it was observed that because Christians are supposed to think upon whatever is true, it is unwise to watch a film that will cause them to route for characters who are doing something wrong.
In addition to this, the film's overall theme is problematic. Director Christopher Nolan has stated that the point of the film is that what is real doesn't matter. What matters is that you are happy. This philosophy goes against Scripture because it denies that there is an absolute truth. It implies that truth is what you make it out to be. Truth is whatever makes you happy. However, Scripture declares that there is an absolute truth and that we must live in accordance with the absolutes that are set forth in Scripture regardless of whether or not it makes us happy.
This is not say that the film doesn't have its good points. The film does uphold the sanctity of life and it also values the family. Technically, the film is well made. The pacing leaves the viewer in suspense, and the visuals are stunning - especially since most of it was done in-camera. The acting is phenomenal, and the cast has a very organic chemistry. However, none of this excuses the film's ideological problems.
Don't get me wrong, I really liked this movie. It was very entertaining and I enjoyed every minute of it. However, I am torn over whether or not to recommend this film. On the one hand, the film is a great piece of cinema and it would be a shame to recommend skipping this one. However, on principle, I am not sure I can recommend a film with so many ideological problems. My advice on this one would be to do your research and be discerning with this film. It is a good film that can serve as a good conversation starter. However, those who chose to watch this should be careful to not allow this film to not influence their thinking about ethics.
For more information about the content of Inception, check out Plugged In Online's review here.
WARNING: This post contains spoilers for the movie Ender's Game.
Last week, I posted a review for the 2013 film adaptation of Ender's Game. After that post went live, I was asked to do a post discussing the ending of the film and what it says about ethics. Since this is a subject that I have spent some time thinking about, I thought I would write a short post that briefly shared my thoughts on the subject.
In the climax of Ender's Game, Ender and his fellow cadets take part in a simulated battle with the Formics, the alien race that attacked Earth years ago. At the end of the battle, they use a super weapon to wipe out the Formics' homeworld, thereby killing all of the alien queens controlling the alien soldiers. This is something Ender wouldn't do in real life, but in since this is a test in a simulated battle, he is willing to take this kind of action to pass the test.
Except it's not a test. Ender and his comrades were giving unknowingly giving orders to real human spaceships attacking the Formics' homeworld. Ender really did give the order to wipe out the Formics. Ender is furious that he was lied to and that he had been tricked into committing genocide. Colonel Graff tells him it doesn't matter because Earth is safe. The humans won. "No," Ender replies. "How we win matters."
This scene illustrates two different approaches to ethics. Graff represents the approach that says that ends justify the means. This is why he indicates over and over throughout the film that how the humans win doesn't matter so long as they win. This philosophy says that you can take whatever action necessary to complete your goal so long as that goal is something good. On the other hand, Ender represents an approach to ethics that says there is an objective right and wrong. This approach says that we must do what is objectively right when pursuing our goals, even when it isn't necessarily the easiest solution. This is the view of ethics taught in Scripture. We are to do what God tells us is right regardless of our circumstances.
That being said, there is still the problem of how the scenario at the end of Ender's Game should have been handled. How far should those in authority be willing to go in order to ensure the safety of their people? If a group poses a potential threat, what should be done about that threat? Is it ethical to enact a preemptive strike to eliminate the threat, or is it better to wait for an attack and then retaliate? I would like to posit that such ultimatums are irrelevant. This is because these ultimatums assume that all potential threats are in fact threats. As Ender points out, the Formics had made no action against Earth in years, even though they clearly could have tried. Labeling the Formics as a threat because they could potentially try to invade again is like saying that a dog with a history of biting people is going to bite you because it has the ability to.
However, this does not mean that we should ignore all potential threats either. Potential threats can still become threats. So what is the answer? Let's go back to the dog analogy. Obviously, the dog has a history of biting people, so it could theoretically decide to bite you too. However, it may also choose to continue to lie in the corner of the room. Are you going to get a gun and shoot it before it has a chance to bite you? Of course not. The dog is not at that moment a threatening presence. But are you going to wait for it to bite you and then kill it? You could, but why would you want to let it bite you? Ideally, it would be great to not get bitten by the dog at all. So what do you do? You keep an eye on the dog and be at the ready to defend yourself should the dog suddenly decide to attack you. This sounds a lot like the second option, but it is different. The second option waits for an attack to occur before a counterattack is made. This third option sees the attack coming so that the attack can be stopped before it does any harm.
Coming back to Ender's Game, it is clear that genocide was the wrong solution. Since the Formics had not attacked in years, it is theoretically possible that Graff tricked Ender into killing an entire race for no reason. Perhaps they never were in danger of a second Formic attack. This of course does not mean that it is impossible for a second attack to occur. But the Earth's leaders don't have to sit on their hands and wait for a second attack before taking action. They can monitor the Formics and prepare defenses to keep Earth safe should a second invasion come. In Ender's Game, the Earth's leaders do not take this course of action, and instead they cause a boy to do something that will haunt him for the rest of his life all in the name of security. It is those kinds of decisions that the film frowns upon, and Christian viewers should frown with it.
Don't miss this week's installment in my weekly movie review series. The review will be for Inception, and it will go live tomorrow (Tuesday).
If you were in a position of power and an alien race was posing a threat to humanity's existence, how far would you be willing to go in order to ensure the survival of the human race? This incredibly hypothetical scenario forms the thematic basis for the 2013 adaptation of Orson Scott Card's novel Ender's Game. Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) has been given the responsibility to build a team that will keep humanity safe from aliens known as the Formics who attacked Earth years ago. While overseeing the training of cadets who are barely even teenagers, one of the boys stands out amongst the others: Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield). Seeing in Ender a potential savior for humanity, Graff will stop at nothing to ensure that Ender receives the respect (or fear, if necessary) of his peers so that Ender can lead Earth in the battle against the Formics.
Graff's methods are quite unorthodox and at times morally ambiguous. Major Gwen Anderson (Viola Davis) does her best to rein him in, but he will not let anyone deter him. "When it's over what will be left of the boy?" Anderson asks Graff of Ender. "What does it matter if there isn't anything left?" Graff responds.
In contrast, there is Ender, who does his best to do the right thing. Ender dreads that he will become like his violent brother, and so he endeavors to balance the fighter in him with compassion. Ultimately, Ender is the film's moral compass, and this creates tension between him and Graff. Their relationship (and the competing ethical approaches the film presents) are summed up in an exchange between these two characters where Graff tells Ender that all that matters is winning. "No," Ender replies. "It matters how we win."
Here is the crux of the film. It explores two very different ethical approaches. Graff represents the belief that our actions do not matter if the end result is for the greater good. Ender, on the other hand, gives us a representation of the belief that there are absolutes and that we should do what is right even when it is not the easiest course of action. The film depicts Ender as the one who is in the right, and in this respect he ends up becoming something of a role model.
However, some of Ender's actions on his journey to becoming a role model are not so worthy of praise. He stops a boy from insulting someone else by insulting the boy back. He brutally beats up a bully who attacks him, and accidentally kills another bully. Ender may be a hero, but he is a flawed hero.
With all of that said, this is an excellent film. The cast give emotional performances, especially young Butterfield. The visual effects are stunning, and the storytelling is well done. I have not read the novel that this film is based on, but I have read that a lot of people who have read the book hate this movie because it is unfaithful to the source material. This is unfortunate, since it adds this movie to the ever-growing list of good films that are considered to be terrible because it wasn't faithful to the source material. It is still a great film, however, and I think it is unfortunate that time will probably forget it due to the backlash from the book's fans. At any rate, if you have read the book and haven't seen this, you probably shouldn't see this unless you're willing to treat it as a film that is completely separate from the book. A film inspired by the book, if you will. For everyone else, go watch this. It's a great film despite being a bad adaptation, and so it is very entertaining for someone who has never read the book.
NOTE TO PARENTS: Despite the good qualities of this film, it is not necessarily a family-friendly film. If you would like to know about the content of this film in order to decide on the appropriateness of the film for your children, please check out Plugged In Online's excellent review of the film here.
This is a transcript of a conversation I had with my friend, Cody DeFount, in a Youtube video. You can find the video at the end of this article.
Me: "Hey, everyone! I'm here with my friend and fellow Youtuber Cody DeFount, and we're here to talk about the new movie - or relatively new at this point - Suicide Squad, which as we all know is about supervillains. And the question that we're specifically here to answer today is whether or not Christians should watch movies with those kinds of characters as the protagonists. Should Christians watch movies where they are being asked to root for villainous characters? So, Cody, what's your first impression of Suicide Squad based off of things you've read and trailers and such?"
Cody: "Yeah, so I haven't seen the movie, but I do think that first off that a Christian should be Suicide Squad - like I said I haven't seen it - but..."
discerning. That's kind of obvious. But I think when you watch it, you shouldn't just be enjoying it, obviously, you should be discerning; really evaluating the characters. And with
Me: "We were just reading on Plugged In Online from Focus on the Family about some of the characters."
Cody: "Yeah. You could see inner struggles within certain characters and regret."
Me: "Which is a good thing."
Cody: "But at the end the characters just continued on their troubled way."
Me: "Yeah."
Cody: "But you see a struggle for... inner contemplation or dialogue of the characters to kind of show human nature either through ambition or false motives, you know? They may struggle with that. That's my initial impression."
Me: "Yeah. I mean, it's interesting when you look at Suicide Squad because, like you said, you do have those conflicted characters, and you do get kind of a study into what makes these characters these characters and why they're bad. But on the other hand this movie is also asking us to root for these characters, and throughout the movie - I'm assuming based off of the trailers - that they are doing things that aren't necessarily moral. I mean, just between the trailers and the fact that they're villains, I'm assuming there would be actions on their part that probably aren't the most moral. You know, one of the catchphrases in the trailer was Harley Quinn saying 'We're bad guys, this is what we do.' So I think that's a big part, and one of the biggest concerns I have with that - despite the look into man's total depravity, which is an important aspect of our theology - I'm just not sure as far as being expected to root for those kinds of characters..."
Cody: "Yeah. And obviously I don't think we should, and I think you don't."
Me: "Yeah. One thing I think is helpful when discussing this kind of thing - as I was telling you before we started filming this - is to look at the standard set in Scripture. And one of the standards that we find in Scripture is in Paul's epistle to the Philippians in chapter four, verse eight, where it says, 'Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.' And it's a question that we need to ask about movies. Not necessarily, 'What's the movie rated?' Instead we need we need to think about that once we let it enter our minds, it doesn't go away. We may forget about it, but it's still there and it could rise back up to the surface at any time. And movies are powerful things. They have the ability to change the way we think about things. So, what do you think?"
Cody: "So, that verse - I really like that verse. It's just a good verse for anything as far as books or movies or..."
Me: "TV shows or music."
Cody: "Yeah. And so for a movie like The Dark Knight - it's another superhero movie - and Batman is a vigilante, and obviously that's against the law and none of us should go out and do that. But when I see, for instance, in the third one where he sacrifices his life..."
Me: "Spoiler alert!" (both of us laugh) "You all have probably already seen it, so never mind."
Cody: "I just won't say, but he... you know there's that verse that says, 'Greater love has no one than this, then he that lays down his life for his brother.' And when I see that I just... I want to do something like that - not to be noticed, but just to do that for someone. You know, we all strive to do good things, to love one another, to make a difference in people's lives. And so, that's what I think of when I think about such things. There's a lot of violence in superhero movies, and..."
Me: "One of the key things in making a hero relatable that I've learned just from learning about storytelling is that you have to make your characters flawed, but still relatable. So there is a point to which your character needs to have some kind of character flaw. But the question is do they overcome that flaw, or do they embrace it and say, 'This is who I am, this is what I'm going to do, and I don't care what anyone else thinks.'? I think how they handle that flaw is very telling for whether or not it's an edifying piece of entertainment. Yeah, so, any further thoughts on that?"
Cody: "Yeah, I guess in Suicide Squad it'll be more of they don't learn from... they probably continue on their way."
Me: "Yeah, like the Plugged In Online review said, you know, that it's commendable that they go to save the world, however - they didn't say this in the article, I just know this part from the plot synopsis - they're being coerced into doing it first of all. But they're also doing it - as Plugged In Online pointed out - so that they have a place to store their loot."
Cody: "Yeah, we see people doing good things, but really just for an ulterior motive."
Me: "Yeah, for the wrong reasons, for personal gain."
Cody: "Which... like when we read the Bible, we see characters who do vile things and have ulterior motives like the Pharisees, and we think, 'Oh, those bad people.' What we should actually be doing is realizing, 'Do I do that?' And we don't know."
Me: "And I think it's good when we see characters like that to self-evaluate, and think, 'Could this be me? Could I do that?' And if we see some of that sin in ourselves, we should repent of that and ask God for forgiveness. But I think there's also a difference between what the Bible does where it doesn't glorify sin - it shows it in a way that is very negative, and that's the point to convict you of that sin - whereas if you have something like Suicide Squad, or for another example, National Treasure where they're just doing these bad things and there's no call to repent of such behavior - it's in many ways glorifying that action. I was telling one of my roommates before you came here today that in National Treasure you have two characters, both of whom are seeking after this treasure and both of them, in order to do so, need the Declaration of Independence. So they're racing to get a hold of the Declaration of Independence and steal it, and my question is, watching that, 'What's the difference between the two characters? Why aren't we rooting for the character who's depicted as the villain and not the one who's depicted as the hero? What's the difference?' That's a movie that glorifies the sin, it doesn't depict it in a way that says, 'This is wrong.' You don't have one character trying to steal the Declaration of Independence and the other character saying, 'No, that's wrong, I can't let you do that.' Is that edifying? And to some extent, I think that that's a question that different Christians need to answer because for some Christians, I think it is a way for them to self-evaluate, to wonder, 'Do I see that sin in myself? Is this something that I need to repent of?' But on the other hand, if you're being asked to root for a character, you don't necessarily have to do it. But if you do what most people do when they watch a movie and just shut your brain off and stop evaluating what you see in front of you, you're prone to start rooting for those characters without thinking about it, and then before you know it, it's impacted your thinking. You know, I wrote a blog article recently - actually it wasn't recently, it was a couple months ago - about the X-Men movies, and how influential those movies were to people's thinking about tolerance and inclusion. And they didn't do it by telling, they did it by showing. And sometimes you start agreeing with them. I can't watch those movies without going, 'Yeah, you're right! Go!" and all of a sudden I'm like, "Wait a minute, that's not right. That's not what the Bible says,' or, 'That's not practical.' So that's my main concern with a movie like Suicide Squad, that people are prone to turn their brains off while watching movies and just kind of passively view them. And then on some level you start rooting for the characters, and then maybe in the real world you don't see that sin as sin, per se, because you become used to characters doing things like this."
Cody: "Hm. Yeah. I can see how that is."
Me: "So, what do you think? Should Christians go see Suicide Squad? Obviously, neither of us have seen it, so..."
Cody:"Yeah. I don't plan on seeing it any time soon."
Me: "Same here."
Cody: "That's hard. I think we should be discerning."
Me: "Yes, being discerning is very important. You should use the principles laid out in Philippians. If you don't think watching a movie like Suicide Squad is going to allow you to think about what is true, lovely, commendable, and worthy of praise, then you shouldn't go see it. But if it's going to cause you to think about, 'Wow, I'm such a sinner and I need to repent,' and it causes you to glorify God in that way, then maybe you should. Just be careful that you're not shutting brain off and subconsciously rooting for immoral behavior. Yeah, so I think that's the bottom line."
Cody: "I do too. That's good."
At this point, we concluded the video with typical Youtuber talk. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Special thanks to Cody for his contribution to this. Please take some time to check out our Youtube channels, and stay tuned on this blog because I am currently working on a review that I hope to have posted soon. Thanks again for your time.
Today I finally had the opportunity to go see the latest installment in the Bourne film franchise, Jason Bourne. I had seen several reviews over the weekend that called the film unoriginal and a disappointment, so I wasn't sure what I was expecting. What I was treated to, however, was what was - in my opinion - the best installment of the franchise so far.
First of all, the movie isn't as much a "rerun" of previous Bourne films as some critics would have you believe. There were only two scenes in the film that seemed to be recreations of scenes from previous films (I won't give details so as not to reveal spoilers). However, on the whole, I thought the film did a great job of setting itself apart from the other installments in the franchise. Though the story still centers around Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) learning more information about his past, the actual storyline plays out quite differently from previous films. Director Paul Greengrass even found ways to make the film's chase sequences unique (and yes, they will have you on the edge of your seat).
Furthermore, Jason Bourne has a depth to it that the previous four films lacked. Instead of tackling the question, "Who is Jason Bourne?" like the previous films, this film asks, "Why is Jason Bourne who he is?" The film explores why David Webb was willing to become Jason Bourne. In this way, the film is something of a character study. I won't go into further detail about it because this look into Bourne's character is more powerful when viewed without any prior knowledge of what specifically is explored about the character.
An additional theme in this film is the theme of government surveillance. The film deals with whether or not it is ethical for the government to be able to spy on ordinary citizens. One review for this film I saw said in its headline that Bourne has never been more relevant. Given the excellent way this theme was handled, I would have to agree with that assessment.
Further highlights of the film include Tommy Lee Jones's performance as one of the best Bourne villains we've seen so far, a new character named Heather Lee (played by Alicia Vikander) who is arguably one of the more complex supporting characters in the Bourne series, and the film's pule-pounding action scenes (my favorite was the London chase scene in the middle of the film, which might even be one of my favorite action scenes in the series as a whole). As an added bonus, the film has less foul language than previous installments.
All that being said, this film is not for everyone. The violence is very intense, and the language may still be an issue for some viewers. Therefore, families and sensitive viewers should refrain from watching this movie. However, fans of the previous films will enjoy this film, and should not be dissuaded by the critics from going to see it.
With the recent announcement that the new Star Trek film will introduce the concept of Sulu being gay, Christian fans of the franchise are faced with a dilemma. Must they refuse to see the film on principle, or can they sit back and watch the film? There are several factors that must be considered when determining whether or not viewing a film with a homosexual character is appropriate. The purpose of the homosexuality within the film and the extent of what is depicted are important factors in deciding this issue, but they must also be examined with the teachings of Scripture in mind.
So what does Scripture say on this topic? Obviously, the Scriptures never say "Thou shalt not watch movies with homosexual characters in them." This does not mean that the Scriptures are not informative, however. Firstly, Leviticus 18:22 explicitly states that sexual relations between two men is an abomination to God. Since this statement in Leviticus is expanding on the commandment to not commit adultery, it is a part of the moral law. Therefore, the command not to have homosexual relations is still applicable. This is confirmed in Romans 1:26-27 when Paul describes homosexuality - whether between women or men - in a way that clearly denotes it as sinful. Why does that matter when it comes to watching a movie? Well because in Philippians 4:8 Paul tells us to think about "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable." True, this is not a command to not allow yourself to be exposed to sin in entertainment. This is where the purpose and the extent of the homosexual content comes into play.
There are two reasons a homosexual character might appear in a movie. The first is to depict homosexuality in a negative light; to show it as the sin that it is. The second is to depict it positively; to affirm such behavior as acceptable. If the former is the case, viewing the film in question is acceptable so long as the film does not present the viewer with explicit homosexual imagery (I'm counting kissing as such imagery, by the way). This is because the film in question caused the viewer to think of homosexuality as wrong (which is true) and did not present the viewer with images that when thought upon later would cause the viewer to be thinking thoughts that are not honorable, pure, lovely, or commendable. However, this scenario is rarely the case. Normally, films present homosexuality positively. Such content is meant to cause the viewer to see homosexuality as an acceptable way of life. Films with this kind of content are typically seeking to normalize homosexuality so that people become desensitized to such behavior. This may sound ridiculous, but history has taught us that films have the power to affect people's thinking (see my post about the X-Men movies to see an example of this). The way these films seek to affect people's thinking leads viewers to think thoughts that are not true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, or commendable. Sure, Christian viewers may still know consciously that homosexuality is wrong. However, they will gradually be brought to a point where they do not find it as repulsive as they once did because they have become used to it. This is bad because homosexuality is something that God has told us that He finds repulsive. If God finds it repulsive, should not His people also find it repulsive?
Therefore, given the Scripture's teachings about homosexuality and the things upon which we ought to meditate, it can be inferred that Christians should allow themselves to be exposed to films and television programs that are seeking to present homosexuality as normal and acceptable. Granted, there will be times when Christian viewers will accidentally come across this kind of content (though such an accident is most likely to occur when viewing television programs). However, with all of the websites from which viewers can access reviews of films and television programs, Christians should be able to easily determine if homosexual content is present before they view a film or television program. Sorry, fellow Christian Trekkies; Star Trek Beyond is not clear for launch.
