New Site

Hello faithful and unfaithful followers,
Our new and improved site is up and running (http://filmdissectors.com/ )
We will no longer be posting here, but there.
Thank you for reading this.

Read More

King Kong (2005)

King Kong (2005)

by

Santiago Pliego

After directing the last movie of The Lord of The Rings, Peter Jackson decided it was time to fulfill his childhood goal of making a movie about the most famous beast to have ever appeared on the big screen: King Kong. A true epic, King Kong is a three-part tale which retells the famous story of the giant gorilla in a more stylized, more exhilarating, and longer way than the original film.

King Kong’s story is not complex, but Peter Jackson really knows how to work with the material in front of him and make it explode with life.  In the beginning, we have Carl Denham (Jack Black), a filmmaker who is having a hard time finding a deal with a production company because they do not believe in his ability to make an adventure/romance film. When the studios decide to pull off his funding, he takes the money, supplies, and men that they already provided and, after hiring unemployed actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), runs away from the police and escapes on The Venture, a ship headed to Skull Island, an uninhabited island unmarred by man in which Denham wants to shoot his picture. Also on the ship are Denham’s crew, his screenwriter Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), his lead actor Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), and the ship’s sailors and captain that unwillingly but forcefully join the adventure. Jackson’s cast is outstanding as are the performances delivered by the actors. Jack Black’s serious role is still sprinkled with some smart and funny lines, but not overtly in a way that make his character a clown. Especially noticeable in this movie was the use of good actors—some famous, some not quite famous—for secondary characters. Andy Serkis’ portrayal of a rough and rugged sailor is brilliant, as well as Evan Parke’s rendition of Ben Hayes, the ship’s first mate. Other actors that shine are Jamie Bell, Thomas Kretschmann, and Colin Hanks.

The film’s visual appeal is grand and very ostentatious, but with the help of Weta Digital (Jackson’s VFX company), the film delivers some outstanding settings and visual effects coped with explosive audio that rightfully earned this film the Academy Awards for Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing, and Best Audio Editing. Skull Island vibrantly comes to life in carefully executed on-location shots and digital set extensions. Jackson masterfully delivers a world that is not only fascinating and new for the characters but also for the audience. His use of long, wide angle shots complements this movie with more components to be called epic. Yet, many times we still get to see the characters in closer shots, particularly in the first act, where most of the character development occurs. And of course, the CG models of the creatures inhabiting Skull Island are absolutely stunning. After six years, VFX capabilities and technology have soared and it seems that many single movies keep raising the bar each time they come out; nevertheless, the work done by Weta Digital in 2004-5 with the available tools is breathtaking. When analyzing CG models, it is also important to note the setting of such models. In James Cameron’s Avatar, the CG models were implemented in a very surreal, CG-world, giving us barely any separating lines between setting and characters/objects. The challenge that Weta Digital must have faced in King Kong was rendering CG models in a non-CG setting. And not only that, they also render vampires, giant insects, and dinosaurs that interact with a real set and real people. In the end, Weta Digital pulled off one of the best conjunctions of real settings and computer-generated imagery.

            The film’s story is not only told trough vivid images and intense action scenes void of characters ala Michael Bay. Jackson takes his time to provide a lot of backstory for the characters and the aspirations of each person in the trip even before the actual dangers begin. Unfortunately, the clarity of the character development does not translate into the theme of the movie and in the end, the audience might be left with a little bit of a confused mind when it comes time to analyze what the film is saying. For the most part, the movie deals with destructive ambition and the consequences that making sacrifices for the wrong things will bring. Carl Denham is obsessed with finishing his movie; so obsessed, in fact, that while other crew members are getting eaten, killed, or trampled, he is there, with his camera, filming their demise to fulfill a scene in his movie. When they first arrive to Skull Island, the adventurers realize that the natives in the island sacrifice people to King Kong in order to appease him. In a sense, Denham is just like these degenerate, demonic natives: he sacrifices people to quench his obsessive desire of finishing his movie (the first theme). Everyone in the adventure suffers because Denham just won’t give up on his project. Eventually, though, the reason why the remaining characters stay on the island is to rescue Ann because she was taken away by King Kong. Ann’s relationship with Kong is best described as a “Beauty and the Beast” relationship. Kong is a savage beast who will kill and destroy mindlessly even though he has a mind and is quite capable of understanding and communicating, as is evident when Ann is with him. Even though he is similar to Denham in the fact that he destroys and kills without thinking about it, Ann manages to “reform” him through teaching Kong what beauty is (the second theme). Eventually, the rescue party finds Ann and saves her, while at the same time—and roused by Denham’s stubborn persistence—they capture Kong to bring him to New York and exhibit him as “The Eighth Wonder of the World.” Just as in the original King Kong movie from the thirties, Kong escapes the theater and climbs the Empire State Building with Ann in his hands, where he is shot down by planes and killed, though not before he signals to Ann (using a sign that she used before) that the view from the top of the building is “beauty.” The third theme (from Denham’s perspective) is a criticism at the concept that humans will most of the time destroy what fascinates them, no matter how wonderful and better it might be. Similar to Avatar, this last theme appeals to our sense of emotions and we feel angry at Denham and pity for Kong when he is killed. This is when the film gets a little bit messy. It might just be the fact that Kong is an animal, or that Jackson does not convict Denham’s character, but in the end, the movie does not provide a clear moral line to follow. When Kong is killed, we feel sorry for him and angry at the humans who caused all his suffering. Yet, Kong killed people out of irrational, animal anger. He crushed the streets of New York City and ate sailors and would have caused a great deal of more damage if he hadn’t been stopped by those planes. The problem in the end is that Kong’s character is limited because he is a mute, savage brute following his instincts. While Denham is indeed in a moral mess, Kong isn’t really in a moral mess or in a morally-straight path: Kong is simply in no moral line at all because he is an animal. Denham’s obsession with finishing his movie was definitely bad, but his treatment of Kong wasn’t wrong. He simply was exercising his right to be lord over creation. Kong, on the other hand, was instinctively an animal and that instinct had to be stopped by those planes. It is through great cinematography and clever CG that we “feel” Kong’s sorrow and sadness, even though, as Denham, he is also a beast that must be stopped when he kills people. Denham, in the end, does not die or get stopped, and this simply adds to the thematic problems in the film. It is not to say that the rest of the movie is wrong in terms of its themes. As a matter of fact, the themes proposed by the first two acts are great. It is only in the end of the third act that the line between who is good and who is evil is not clearly delineated and an ending inconsistent with the characters’ nature is presented.

All in all, King Kong is a must see modern-epic that provides excellent characters and breathtaking aesthetic elements. The only complexity of the film is in the end, and unfortunately, it is not cleared. Still, Jackson provides a refreshing narrative that captivates and terrorizes us at the same time in a way that few filmmakers are able to do.

Read More

The Book of Eli (2010)

The Book of Eli (2010)

by Eric Maus

“I need that book, I want that book, I want you to stay, but if you make me have to choose, I'll kill you and take that book.”

      Living in the abundant times that we do, we often take simple things for granted. Good food, clean water, shelter, friends, safety, even the Word of God. Today, there are millions upon millions of Bibles in print, and people everywhere enjoy soaking in the scriptures, without ever contemplating a world without Bibles. What would be the condition of society without God’s Word to guide us? This film gives us that very scenario, in a very intense, moving, stylistic, and powerful way.

   Set in a post-apocalyptic future, in a world scarcely populated by the few survivors of a nuclear holocaust. In that war, a hole was torn in the atmosphere, causing heavy radiation to scour the surface of earth, blinding those who walk in it’s light without shades of some sort. Thieves hide under crumbling bridges, waiting for anyone unlucky enough to pass by, cannibals prey upon the weak, and thugs band together to serve men like the powerful Carnegie, ruler of a small village of survivors. When loner Eli comes into town, he is attacked in a bar, and expertly defends himself. Carnegie is impressed, and invites Eli to join his gang. Eli declines, and makes it clear that he is only passing through. When Carnegie discovers that Eli has in his possession the only surviving copy of the Bible, he is determined to claim the book as his own. Eli, on the other hand, is determined to keep the copy safe, and to accomplish the task assigned to him by God. He will do whatever it takes, even if that means killing those that oppose him.

   The Book of Eli (rated R for strong violence and language) is an impressive film, from a technical standpoint. The cinematography is very creative, especially during the many battle scenes. The style this film offers, a very gritty, serious one, is maintained throughout. The acting is also incredible. Award-winning Denzel Washington plays the part of our protagonist Eli, and does a fantastic job, delivering a stellar and solid performance. Mila Kunis stars in the leading female role Solara, and does equally well. Gary Oldman is Carnegie, and the power-hungry tyrant he portrays seems alive. The plot that drives this film, while not extremely complex, has its twists, and definitely keeps us engaged until the very last scene.

   This film does an excellent job of showing us a world without the Word of God to lead and guide us. Tyrants, thugs, thieves, rapists, and cannibals roam the land, doing as they please, taking what they want. It’s a dog eat dog world, kill or be killed, survival of the fittest. However, while we see the total depravity of man, we also see that good remains alive, in the hearts of many, such as Eli, Solara, and others. Eli, entrusted to deliver the last copy of the Bible to a location unknown to him, lives by what he reads in the sacred words. However, Carnegie knows the power of the Bible. He says, “I grew up with that book, I know its power.” He sees the Scriptures as merely something to keep him in control, and is willing to kill Eli to get it. Eli, on the other hand, kills to protect it. Some would say this an un-Christian representation of the way we should treat others. Should the key to our problems be splitting the other guy’s head open with a machete? Well, think about it. While turning the other cheek and to loving our enemies are things we should be doing as Christians, there are situations where these things are not options. God gives us many things that we are responsible for, that we need to protect; our families, for instance. If a psychopath is harming your family, you don’t read him Matthew 6 and tell him about the six steps to salvation, or whatever. No, you protect what God has given you to protect. The same applies with The Book of Eli. God commanded Eli to protect the Bible, and Eli does so to the best of his ability. He never attacks anyone without cause; quite the contrary. He takes action only when he has a duty to do so, when the Bible or a fellow human being is in danger. The character of Eli is both masculine and Christian.

   While this film does have one minor flaw (which I can’t describe without giving away the ending), the positive aspects of this film outweigh the negative. Remember, this movie isn’t your clean, shining family-friendly picture, but it offers something many clean, shining family-friendly pictures don’t; a strong Christian worldview.

Read More

Star Trek (2009)

Star Trek (2009)

by Eric Maus

“You know your father was Captain of a Starship for 12 minutes. He saved 800 lives. Including your mother's and yours. I dare you to do better. "


    Our theaters are choking with remakes. The majority of these are terrific examples of the lack of talent possessed by today's filmmakers, while the rest show absolutely no resemblance to the original, causing die-hard fans to leave the cinema furious. A remake of the Star Trek franchise seemed to me like a kamikaze mission, destined for failure. However, guided by the brilliance of director J.J. Abrams, this film is nothing of the sort. In fact, it is most definitely one of the best remakes of all time.

   The day James T. Kirk is born, his father is killed aboard his own vessel, dying to save those he loved. Growing up without patriarchal guidance, James becomes a thrill-seeking troublemaker. When dared by a Capt. Christopher Pike to join Starfleet, James does so, and quickly becomes an officer, much to the annoyance of other cadets like the half-human Spock and Lt. Uhura. When an emergency on the planet Vulcan demands the assistance of Starfleet, Kirk, Pike, Spock, and many others crew the newly commissioned USS Enterprise, and find themselves in a situation more dangerous than any of them could ever imagine.

   To say this film has an all-star class would be an insult to the vast and magnificent array of actors that star in this film. Every actor is pitch-perfect for his or her role. Chris Pine stars as James T. Kirk, and Zachary Quinto plays Spock, and they not only give us the characters of old that we love, but give them new energy and life. Eric Bana plays the Romulan villain Nero, and does exceptionally well. Karl Urban stars as Leonard "Bones" McCoy, and is even funnier than the space medic of the old Star Trek films. From Zoe Saldana to Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin to Leonard Nimoy, Bruce Greenwood to Chris Hemsworth, this film is basically overflowing with amazing actors, and they all play off of each other so well.

   Obviously, since this is a remake of Star Trek, we were expecting incredible visual effects, to make up for the clunky ones in the old TV series and movies. J.J. Abrams does not let us down. The galaxies and planets presented on our silver screens are crisp and incredible, the space battles and explosions are epic and awe-inspiring, and the monsters and aliens seem alive. The musical score by Michael Giacchino is exceptional; he takes the themes of old, gives them life again, and also creates many new and masterful themes of his own.

    This movie (rated PG-13 for action, violence, and sexual content), while it easily could have been, is definitely not void of moral themes. It is a true redemption story, showing us how James Kirk goes from being a loser kid to becoming the upstanding Starfleet captain we’re familiar with, and this is accomplished excellently, by means of a terrific plot. We are also presented with lessons concerning the proper equilibrium between logic and emotion, played out through the constant arguments between Spock (logic) and Kirk (emotion). In the end, both characters learn to balance these two values within their own minds, and become friends. This film also points out the importance of a father’s role in the life of a child, presenting us with the rebellious Kirk as an example. Many other themes, such as sacrifice, determination, and courage are present throughout, making this movie worth our while.

   So, although most remakes cause us to cringe and hurl bucketfuls of rotten tomatoes at the theater screen, there are a few, such as J.J. Abram’s Star Trek, that keep hope intact. The public is anxiously awaiting the sequel, set for summer of 2012. With a man like Abram’s in control, we will not be disappointed.

Read More

Spiderman Trilogy (2002, 2004, 2007)

   

 

Spiderman Trilogy (2002, 2004, 2007)

by Eric Maus

“This is my gift, my curse. Who am I? I'm Spiderman.”

Everyone loves Spiderman. Marvel’s web-shooting hero who swings from building to building, saving people in distress and battling villain after villain is definitely one of America’s favorite fictional characters. Director Sam Raimi and creator Stan Lee did an amazing job bringing the beloved comic book character to life on the screen.

  In Spiderman (2002), we are introduced to Peter Parker, a humble high-school nerd, orphaned at a young age and now living with his aunt and uncle. He has a crush on his neighbor, Mary-Jane Watson, but is unwilling to confront her. One day, after being bitten by an exotic radioactive spider, things begin to change. Peter gains the ability to cling to surfaces, see with extremely clear vision, and shoot webs from his wrist. After thugs murder his uncle, Peter creates a suit and mask for himself, and anonymously begins a war against crime. The people of New York call him the Spiderman. All criminals seem to fear him; that is, until the Green Goblin arrives.

    Spiderman (rated PG-13 for violence and action) is a terrific superhero origins movie. The visual effects are pretty stunning for the time, as is the cinematography. This film also hosts a terrific cast of actors; Kirsten Dunst does an excellent job portraying Mary Jane, while James Franco does an equally excellent job as Spiderman’s best friend, Harry Osborn. Willem Dafoe is eerily magnificent as the Green Goblin, and J.K. Simmons portrayal of J. Jonah Jameson is awesome and hilarious. However, Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spiderman outshines them all. This film is also filled with sound morals, such as the classic “With great power, comes great responsibility.” Peter uses his special abilities not for his own gain, but to benefit those around him. He stands up for what he believes in, against all odds. While the storyline is far from complex, it offers themes that are simple, yet good and solid.

   Spiderman 2 (2004) continues the saga. Life is miserable for Peter. Mary Jane is engaged to someone else, his grades are slipping, and he struggles to balance his job with his superhero work. With the Daily Bugle newspaper constantly claiming that Spiderman is a criminal, Peter decides to end his career as a superhero. When an energy experiment goes horribly wrong, friendly Dr. Otto Octavius becomes the evil Dr. Octopus, controlled by his four robotic appendages. When he begins to tear NYC apart, the people realize they need Spiderman more than ever.

   The team of writers responsible for this screenplay deserve a medal. This story is amazing, deep, and full. One of the keys to a good story is to have the protagonist suffer through a great deal, and not many suffer to the extent that Peter Parker does in Spiderman 2. Every miniscule detail reflects upon his hardships, and this makes his eventual victory so much more fulfilling. These guys understand the art of story, and they prove it to us here. The villain, Doc Oc, played by Alfred Molina, was very well constructed and developed, giving us something we aren’t used to; a terrific, seemingly unstoppable, bad guy. This film also pushes the sound morals of the first, although here they are presented more clearly and thoroughly. Spiderman 2 is definitely one of the best superhero movies ever made.

   In Spiderman 3, Harry has finally discovered Spiderman’s identity, and is out for revenge, taking on his father’s role as the Goblin. A criminal named Flint Marko, after being transformed into the indestructible Sandman, begins raiding banks for cash to provide his sick daughter with health care. Peter is having an extremely hard time dealing with the stress, until his suit mysteriously turns jet-black, and his abilities become twice as powerful. His problems seem easily fixed, and his begins to go back to normal. However, the black suit seems to be affecting its wearer, as Peter begins to take on much darker qualities. Soon, even Mary Jane doesn’t recognize him any more. Is Spiderman becoming no better than the villains he swore to protect NYC from?

   First of all, I am always surprised to find that this film is usually everyone’s favorite of the series. This is by far the worst. While the acting, action, special effects, cinematography, etc., are beyond amazing, the story is pretty messy. I’m sure you’ve heard it said that the black stuff from outer space that possesses Peter represents sin and it’s control over the life of a sinner. Ok, well, that’s a bit of a stretch. Actually, during a certain period of time (2006-2009), it was popular in superhero films for the hero to battle against his alter ego; someone exactly like him, just evil. Iron Man had Iron Monger, Wolverine had Sabertooth, and the Incredible Hulk had Abomination, so Spiderman had to have Venom, the black Spiderman. Not a bad idea in and of itself (Venom is a great character), it was just terribly executed in the movie. Spiderman’s ‘turn to the dark side’ is pretty lame, almost as bad as Anakin’s in Revenge of the Sith. I mean, we’re supposed to be convinced that Spiderman is becoming evil because he dances a lot, he styles his hair differently, and he wears black more often? I for one was not convinced. In addition, it’s hard to keep track of who’s good and who’s not. Harry begins by hating Peter, then loses his memory and loves him again, then gets it back and hates him again, then has a change of heart and loves him again. Sandman is criminal who isn’t really a criminal because he’s trying to save his daughter; plus, we discover that he murdered Peter’s uncle, but didn’t really murder him. Confused? You should be. Sam Raimi himself claims that this film wasn’t his fault, “They really gave me a tremendous amount of control on the first two films, actually. But then there were different opinions on the third film and I didn't really have creative control, so to speak.” That’s a direct quote. Yes, the action is amazing, but why couldn’t they have just kept the good guys good and the bad guys bad?

   So, can there be too much of a good thing? Sure, but that’s not the issue we’re dealing with here. We see the mistakes that are created when sequels are handed to different directors; we saw them with the Narnia films, and we see them here. However, despite the problems with Spiderman 3, this series is incredible and well beloved. Enjoy it, before the Spiderman reboot hits next summer, and turns this trilogy into a thing of the past.

Read More

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

 by

Santiago Pliego

“Did everyone see that? Because I will not be doing it again.”

This review contains spoilers

            In the world of the big screen, there have been many movies that have started as single stories. Many great single stories have been just that: single stories. No sequels, no prequels, nothing but one enticing and amazing experience that leaves the audience wanting more but understanding that the story ended where it should have. Other stories that should have been left alone, however, are extended into sequels and in the process, loose the original essence of the first experience. Nevertheless, there exist some stories that are written with continuity in mind; with room for more character development and setting expansion. The sequels of these stories, however, are hard to do, because they need to stick to the source point while at the same time elaborate on stuff previously unseen. The Pirates of the Caribbean series started out as a great story, yet it was misused in the next two installments. However, the fourth movie, On Stranger Tides, greatly corrects the mistakes made in parts 2 and 3 and delivers a fun, action-packed, story that is very close to the original.

On Stranger Tides, directed by Rob Marshall (Annie, Memoirs of a Geisha), is the story the British, the Spanish, and the pirates’ search for the Fountain of Youth. The Spanish are looking for the Fountain in order to destroy it, because they deem it a pagan temple. The British send now-privateer and one-legged Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) to find it, in order to find the Fountain before the Spanish get there. Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) teams up with Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and Blackbeard’s daughter Angelica (Penélope Cruz) to find the Fountain, because Blackbeard wants to escape the prophecy which says he will be killed by a one-legged man (Blackbeard stole the Black Pearl from Barbossa and Barbossa wants revenge).

The film does not disappoint when it comes to using the potential of the POTC universe. The cast is superb; Johnny Depp’s performance of Captain Jack Sparrow gives us one of the best, most famous characters in recent films. His mannerisms, language, lines, and actions are all consistent with the previous films, and provide the strongest linking point between the four movies of the series. Geoffrey Rush and Ian McShane, Barbossa and Blacbeard respectively, give intensely real performances of evil, wretched pirates who care about nothing but themselves. Penélope Cruz, another newcomer to the series, plays the Jack’s anti-hero and love interest surprisingly well, and makes for an excellent female character replacement for Keria Knightley’s Elizabeth Swann. With the innovative, fresh look at the franchise coped with a new director come several changes too, some good and some bad. Elizabeth Swann and Will Turner do not return, and neither does their cheesy and repetitive storyline. Pintel and Ragetti, the crazy duo from the previous film, do not return, and they are certainly missed. Unfortunately, one of the things this film lacked was sea battles. Unlike the previous films where ships would always engage in impressive sea battles, Rob Marshall sticks to swashbuckling action only. Also, his use of the soundtrack—one of the best soundtracks of all time, this time with new variations—is a little bit over the top. Instead of introducing certain themes when some characters or situations are on the screen, On Stranger Tides is accompanied most of the time by a soundtrack which may become repetitive in film. By itself it is an exquisite composition, but its overuse in the movie slightly dampens the expectancy of hearing specific themes at specific times, a device that had been used before and had become a mark of the POTC franchise. Cinematographically, the film looks very vibrant and changes colors all the time: bright blue and fresh green in the islands, toxic yellow in the pirate-laden bars, and posh green and white in the London royalty settings. And of course, any POTC film is incomplete without stunning and ridiculous fight scenes, which in this film are masterfully choreographed and executed as well as they are filmed, although the lack of sea engagements leaves the audience with a small hole that hopefully will be filled up if any other sequels are made by Rob Marshall.

When Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End came out, most people considered the franchise dead. The conclusion to the series was so loose and empty that audiences not only felt disappointed but also cheated. Therefore, it is fitting that On Stranger Tides deals with themes of redemption since the film itself aims to redeem the series. Unfortunately, the film is better are redeeming the series than at presenting a story of true redemption. Throughout the film, Blackbeard, Angelica, and Jack are accompanied by a missionary named Philip. In many instances, Philip says that “any man’s soul can be saved”, specifically referring to Blackbeard, who is willing to shoot his own daughter in order to escape the prophecy that he will be killed by a one-legged man. Philip, though, falls in love with one of the items required to use the Fountain: a mermaid. When Blackbeard forces Syrena to shed a tear that is required for the ritual, Philip becomes angry at Blackbeard’s evilness and says that any man’s soul can be saved, except his. Jack, in a conversation with Philip, says, “Clergyman, on the off chance that this does not go well for me, I would like you to note it-hearing now-that I am fully prepared to believe in whatever I must, and be welcomed into that place where all the "goody-goodies" want to go once they pop their clogs. Savvy?” Jack understands that he must start believing in something if he wants to go where “all the goody goodies” go, thus partially realizing that at that point, if he dies he won’t be going to Heaven. As the movie continues, we start to see that Jack is becoming less selfish and more concerned about other people, especially Angelica. He’s on the trip because he knows the way to the Fountain, not because he wants to drink it or use it. He also loves Angelica and wants to protect her, even at the expense of him getting hurt or jumping off cliffs. However, it is in the end when the redemption storyline of Blackbeard and Philip and the redemption storyline of Jack get together and ultimately fail. When the Spanish, the British, and the pirates all converge at the Fountain and fight for the control of it, Barbossa hurts Blackbeard with a poisoned sword and Angelica is also wounded. The Fountain, however, requires among several items, two people to work: one drinks water from a cup with a mermaid tear in it, and the other drinks only water. The person who drinks the water only will be killed, and his years will be added to the person who drinks the water with the tear in it. Even though Angelica is dying, she is ready to sacrifice herself for her evil father; however, Jack tricks them at the last minute, and Blackbeard ends up dying and giving his life to Angelica. Here’s the thing: Blackbeard gives his life unwillingly, tricked by another wicked man, and the person who receives the life of the other does not want it. True redemption, of course, does not work that way.  Philip, also mortally wounded, goes to Syrena with the hope that she will heal him. When he meets her, he has to apologize for the treatment she has received at the hands of the pirates, and then he goes on to her for his healing: the missionary hails a mermaid as his savior and hope, instead of praying to God for deliverance. In the very end, Jack and Angelica are together, yet Jack understands that because he tricked Angelica into drinking the tear-water, she will try to avenge her father’s death. Therefore, Jack maroons her in an island, thus abandoning his incomplete redemption prize, as it were, and showing that he saver her only because in his eyes, she was another possession to be had, because he did not understand her heart and struggle with her father. If he had, he would have let her go and sacrifice herself, but as a greedy pirate, he just can’t let his treasure be lost.

Overall, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a fun and exciting summer adventure/comedy that is a lot better than its two predecessors, yet that does not deliver a completely coherent message or a Christian message. The story had the potential to tell a story with a powerful and true message of redemption, but unfortunately it seems as if the curse of these films is that they have great potential yet they do not exploit it. On Stranger Tides will still make you laugh and get excited about the action, but the story does not sail beyond a dazzling, spectacular show.

Read More

Thor (2011)

Thor (2011)

by Justin Hawes

“Whoever wields this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.”

   There are a lot of super-hero movies, and most of them are exactly the same. Don’t get me wrong, I like those kinds of movies, but there are only three that I can think of that either totally blew me away, or made me beg for a sequel. They are: Spiderman, Batman and Thor.

    Most super-hero movies start with an ordinary guy that through some strange anomaly become extraordinary, and throughout the film he struggles with his new found awesomeness. Thor is the opposite. He starts with legendary powers, they get taken away from him, and throughout the movie he’s trying to get them back.

    Whoever casted this movie deserves a medal. All the actors are perfect for their parts. Natalie Portman (as Jane Porter) was a babe, and Chris Hemsworth (as Thor) was really freaking buff. Tom Hiddleston was present, (as Loki) delivering a stellar performance. Basically, in terms of casting, acting, dialog…no complaints.

   A huge problem with movies nowadays is they either have nothing to tell you, or whatever they have to tell you, they shove in your face so hard it kinda hurts. Not so with Thor. It’s hard to go into detail without giving it away, so I won’t, but rest assured that the worldview portrayed in this movie is solid and commendable.

   While Thor may not be as good as The Dark Knight or Spiderman 2, it has something to offer that hasn’t really been done in super-hero films. I for one am craving the sequel.

 

Read More