Jurassic Park (1993)

Jurassic Park (1993)

By Eric Maus

"Mr. Hammond, after careful consideration, I've decided *not*to endorse your park."

   Although I enjoyed the best-selling book by Michael Crichton much more, a film like Jurassic Park is just the kind of thing that brings Sci-Fi nerds like me to the theaters. I love this movie, even though it is kinda old, and it’s visual effects may pale in comparison to recent movies. But hey, old classics like Jurassic Park actually offer something that most modern films don’t: a straightforward moral message.

   After years of research and construction on his brainchild, John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) invites a select group of scientists and lawyers to his private island off the coast of South America in order for them to endorse his new theme park. But this theme park is like nothing anyone has ever seen before. Using DNA strands removed from preserved mosquitoes, John Hammond's company, InGen, is basically able to recreate dinosaurs. After building a prehistoric landscape and designing specially engineered, high-voltage pens meant to contain creatures of unknown abilities, Hammond plans on opening his park to the public, selling tickets for a million dollars apiece. However, while the team of scientists is on their first tour of the park, a massive storm rolls through the island, and all the electricity goes out. Do you expect an electric fence without power to keep a hungry Tyrannosaur contained? Don't count on it.

    Jurassic Park (rated PG13 for violence) was a huge hit. It grossed over 900 million dollars. Not only were the visual effects amazing for the time, but the storyline, although based on a novel, was fresh, original, and exciting. Director Steven Spielberg had everything under control. The cinematography is excellent, the musical score composed by John Williams is masterful, and the plot is very well paced. The range of actors, from Samuel L. Jackson to Jeff Goldblum, are all very talented and bring life to this film. But as much as Jurassic Park is a technical masterpiece, it is also offers strong and important values, as stated previously.

   One of the scientists invited to come and glimpse John Hammond’s park, Dr. Ian Malcolm (Goldblum), a proponent of the Chaos theory, doesn't approve of what Hammond has done, and, much to the annoyance of Hammond, is constantly berating him about it. At one point towards the beginning of their tour, Malcolm sarcastically says to himself, "God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs...". After man thinks he has disproved God, he thinks he can do just about whatever he wants to do, even if that is something as radical as creating dinosaurs. Malcolm knows that what Hammond has done is not right, and he knows what will eventually happen. He is right. The beasts break free of their confinements, and proceed to devour every human they come across. It takes the fact that his grandchildren are trapped in a place where creatures that shouldn’t be there are killing everyone, to finally get Hammond to come to his senses. The message of this movie is simple, yet powerful: There are things in this world that man has no business messing with, and when man tries to play God, things begin to collapse. Allowing John Hammond to build Jurassic Park almost seems like God's way of saying,” You think you can do what I can do? Go ahead and try." The sequel to Jurassic Park, The Lost World, topped with superior visual effects and twice the action, offers a similar and equally profound moral: Those who fail to learn history are bound to repeat it. And they do, and the same thing happens again. Man is foolish, and sometimes, it takes something as big as the destruction of a multi-billion dollar theme park and deaths of dozens to get us to wake up and realize this fact.

  Although your gut-reaction may be that Jurassic Park is just a movie for nerds, well, don't be fooled. One of the nice things about our world is that you can learn lessons just about any place, even if that happens to be an old Sci-Fi flick like Jurassic Park.

Read More

The Road (2009)

 

The Road (2009)
by Corey Poff

“We're carrying the fire.”

John Hillcoat's The Road  – based on the critically-acclaimed novel by Cormac McCarthy – is a movie that, once seen, can never be forgotten. Ugly, yet beautiful; touching, yet devastating; poignant, yet terrifying – it is one of those films that sticks fast in the mind, and in many cases, the heart.

The Road (rated R for violence, disturbing images, and language) follows an unnamed father (Viggo Mortensen) and son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) as they walk alone through the desolation that was once North America. Their destination is the coast, although they have no idea of what awaits them there. They have nothing; nothing save the clothes on their backs, a shopping cart full of scavenged food, a revolver, two bullets – and each other.

Nothing stirs in the ruined landscape except ash, blowing in a wind cold enough to crack stone. When the snow falls, it is gray. When the rain falls, it is sooty. The sky is dark and forbidding. This world-wide devastation was the result of a cataclysm, one which is wisely left unspecified. Most of mankind is dead, snuffed out by famine and disease. But there are survivors. Some, like our protagonists, are forced to pursue a life of perpetual wandering, scavenging for food and fighting for life as best they can among the rubble of civilization. Others commit suicide, convinced that there is nothing left to live for. Still others – indeed, the vast majority – become cannibals, eaters of human flesh, banding together to prey on their weaker brethren.

Heavy stuff, indeed.

Cinematically speaking, The Road is magnificent. In adapting McCarthy's novel for the big screen, director Hillcoat was presented with the formidable challenge of translating McCarthy's powerful writing into powerful visuals. He succeeds. Hillcoat's rendering of McCarthy's post-apocalyptic world will take your breath away. CGI is kept to a minimum, imbuing the film with a very real, very gritty look – in fact, the very look you would expect of a world bereft of sunlight.

The cinematography is outstanding. Says director of photography Javier Aguirresarobe, “I think the biggest victory will be if the audience can believe in the reality of the story while watching it in the artificial world of the theater - that they see there is a truth to this story.” Having seen the result, I can say without a doubt that the victory he was seeking is his.

Nick Cave and Warren Ellis (who also collaborated with Hillcoat on The Proposition) provide the movie's evocative, atmospheric score. Not all of it is pleasant to listen to on it's own, but the main theme stands out as one of the most beautiful pieces of music I have ever encountered in a motion picture.

“Actions speak louder than words” is a maxim taken seriously in this film, considering that the visuals carry it from beginning to end. What little script there is is lifted word-for-word from the book; which is a good thing, believe me. There's an elegant but simple power to it, power that is magnified by the force with which the actors deliver their lines. 

Which brings me to the most fascinating aesthetic element of this film: Viggo Mortensen's performance as The Man. He brings everything he has as an actor to this role, and the result is absolutely mesmerizing. Don't get me wrong – the supporting cast is uniformly excellent, filling their roles with phenomenal ease and grace. But next to Viggo, they almost pale in comparison. He stands head and shoulders above them all.

The Road also offers a keen and truth-filled glimpse into the nature of unregenerate man. The word “civilized” has no meaning in a world where civilization has ceased to exist. Man is innately self-centered, which means that, left to himself and confronted with tough circumstances, he will almost always place his own needs before those of his neighbor. What moral obligation would compel him to do otherwise?

The cannibal bands are a prime example of this. Faced with dwindling resources and a shortage of food, the stronger join together against the weak - hunting, raping, slaying, and eating. And really, if evolution is a fact, if man is merely a collection of molecules slapped together by chance, why should we object to such baseness? On what grounds can we even call it “baseness”? Is it not merely “survival of the fittest” lived out before our very eyes?

During one particularly unsettling sequence, we behold the inside of a cellar, in which men, women, and children are huddled, half-clothed and miserable, waiting their turn to go under the butcher's knife. Such brutal inhumanity may be hard for us to conceive, but it's not as far off as we would like to think. There, but for the grace of God...

The most powerful aspect of the story, however, is the way it depicts the bond between a father and son. Mortensen's character is ill - dying in fact – and yet, through wracking pain and exhaustion, he is purposed not to give up. His lion-like devotion to his son is what keeps him going. He knows he must prepare his son for the day when he is no longer around. And until that day, he is determined to protect him at all costs. “I will kill anyone who touches you,” he tells the Boy. “Because that's my job.”

For the Boy, the devastated world is the only world he knows. He was born into it. He remembers nothing before it. There is an innocence, a purity, a gentleness about him which, at times, acts like a restraining hand upon his father’s harsher inclinations. Yet he loves and trusts his father implicitly. He could not live without his father; his father would not live without him.


The Road is not for everyone, and it is certainly not for the faint of heart. Those who do watch it should be warned that it does not tout a distinctly Christian worldview; at times, it is even blatantly humanistic.  However, the good in this film far outweighs the bad, and if you stick with it, you'll be more than amply rewarded in the end.

Read More

Avatar (2009) Vs. District 9 (2009)

 

Avatar (2009) vs. District 9 (2009)

By Eric Maus

"You are not welcome here."

   Imagine that you stand in the presence of a Far East merchant. He holds in each of his hands a stone. The stone in his left hand is amazing; a crisp, dazzling blue orb that shines like glass. The other stone is dirty, rough, and ugly. With a twinkle in his eye, the merchant tells you to chose the stone which is the most beautiful. You quickly chose the blue, because it's the obvious choice. The question is, did you choose correctly?

  There are many alien movies out there, and they all have the same plot: massive UFOs cluster over major cities, and begin to decimate the world's population. All hope seems lost, until the extraterrestrials realize that something in our atmosphere doesn't sit well with their stomachs, and they quickly zip back to Mars or wherever. Yeah, we've all seen about five of those. However, in 2009, two alien films were released that were very different from the norm, and these films are Avatar and District 9. These movies are very similar, but also very, very different.

   In Avatar, wheel chair bound marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) decides to take the place of his recently killed scientists brother in a special mission on the distant planet of Pandora. This place is a lush jungle, filled with precious stones that sell for big bucks back on Earth, and the humans are doing what they can to mine as much as possible. However, the jackpot of these stones lies underneath the great Hometree of the Na'Vi people, the indigenous of Pandora. With the help of Dr. Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), the humans created Avatars, Na'Vi bodies that are linked to the minds of sleeping people. Jake takes over his brother's old position, and relishes each second in his Avatar body, because of his newfound ability to walk again. He is sent on a mission to attempt to reconcile with the Na'Vi, and persuade them to relocate. After getting to know the ways of the people and falling in love with the Princess Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), it becomes more and more difficult for Jake to assist the humans in the destruction of this beautiful world. Before long, he completely sides with the Na'Vi, and helps them prepare for the massive battle to come.

     In District 9, a messy situation has come to earth. A massive extraterrestrial ship, carrying over a million very ill aliens, breaks down over Johannesburg, South Africa. The humans initially welcomed the aliens with kindness, and helped to nurse them back to health. They came to live among us, since their ship was non-functional, and remained floating over the city. In the present day, about 28 years later, things have changed. The Prawns, as they have been nicknamed, have been forced to reside in the slums of District 9. Violence between the Prawns and local gangs is a constant hassle. Drug lords realize that the Prawn's are addicted to cat food, like we are to drugs, and bring them into submission because of their addiction. When Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley), a munitions corporation operative, is assigned the task of relocating the prawns to a cleaner, though more contained, area known as District 10, he barges into their current residence and roughly begins to get things moving. After a mishap with one of their biological tools, Wikus begins to become very sick. As his teeth, fingernails, and skin all begin to fall away, he realizes with horror that he is becoming a Prawn. After nearly being murdered by organ-harvesting scientists, Wikus runs to the only place where he can fit in: District 9.

  From a technical standpoint, both of these films are masterpieces. Avatar (rated PG13 for violence, language, and some sensuality) displays brilliant visual effects, making the world of Pandora seemingly real. From floating mountains and giant trees, to the massive fleet of futuristic human warships and helicopters, this film seems to come to life right before our eyes. In District 9 (rated R for strong language and violence), we are also given a very realistic and vivid depiction of the slightly less beautiful slums of Johannesburg. The acting in both films is superb. Zoe Saldana's role as Neytiri is excellent and moving, definitely making you feel for the Na'Vi. Giovanni Ribisi as the greedy Selfridge and Stephen Lang as Col. Quaritch both played the role of rotten bad guy extremely well, and Sigourney Weaver as Dr. Augustine was also stellar. In District 9, Sharlto Copley's performance is just riveting; one of the best acting jobs I've ever seen. While neither of the plots are extremely complex, both are gripping, moving, and emotional.

    Emotions. They're easy to stir up. James Cameron, the director of Avatar, knows this. In fact, it's his primary weapon, his way of twisting his worldview into you, his means of manipulation. The film Avatar is dripping with sentimentalism.  As he did in his earlier movie, Titanic, Cameron uses emotions to make us believe that the 'good guys' are the good guys, and that the "bad guys' are bad guys. We sit there rooting for despicable characters, hoping they defeat the respectable characters, and don't even ask ourselves why afterwards. The emotions do it all. Now, am I saying persuasion through emotion is bad? Of course not. District 9 does the same. In fact, the use of emotion in District 9 is a lot heavier. We feel twice the amount of sympathy for the Prawns as we do for the Na’Vi, and that sympathy is not tricked out of us. Let's look at the facts. In Avatar, the image given to the Na'Vi people was designed to make them as sympathetic as possible. They are beautiful and graceful, their faces are peaceful, their ears are similar to that of elves, their skin is blue, they have large, curious eyes, and above all, they are 'one with nature'. What's not to like? Now, take a look at the Prawns of District 9. They're repulsive; kind of like a cross between a cockroach and a lobster. They speak with a disturbing clicking language, while their creepy antennae sway back and forth. They have huge clawed fingers, they eat garbage, they live in houses built of trash, and they urinate in public. The Prawns are gross. It’s not hard to see this. Back to Avatar. When the humans begin unleashing missiles upon the homes of the Na'Vi, we are both saddened and angered. How could anyone do this? How could anyone destroy something so beautiful? It's the destruction of beauty that grabs us. Now, look back to District 9. When the humans discover an egg-hive in one of the Prawn's houses, they set it on fire. We're appalled. Why? That thing was gross. But it was wrong. District 9 appeals to our sense of morality, while Avatar remains at merely an emotional level.

   Now, wait a minute. Am I saying that the destruction wreaked by the humans on the Na'Vi wasn't wrong? Of course not. Those humans in Avatar are evil. If I were there, I would have sided with the Na'Vi just like Jake Sully. But see, that's just it. It's all based on situation. Because of the evils committed by Selfridge and Col. Quaritch, we feel hatred towards those choppers as they soar over Pandora. That's exactly what James Cameron wants you to feel. Col. Quaritch, whose character is meant to represent soldiers in general, is represented as a rash, bull-headed warmonger, someone who loves to kill, destroy, and bark orders. As the son of an Air Force pilot, seeing such a deceptive and disrespectful image stamped on military men upsets me greatly. But Cameron hates the men in uniform, and wants you to do the same, and this film is very persuasive in that area. When Jake is praying to Eywa, the goddess of the Na'Vi, pleading for help, he says about planet Earth, "There's no green there. They killed their mother, and they're going to do the same here." That's what Cameron thinks of humans, his own people.

   In District 9, we see how Wikus treats the Prawns, and as he begins his transformation, we kind of feel that he's deserves what's coming to him. We think the Prawns will rip him to shreds after what he's done. Instead, they take him in, and incidentally, he realizes that the only way he can be returned to his former human state is if he assists them in escaping. Wikus is brought down to the very level of those he abused, even resorting to eating cat food, and learns a valuable lesson. He changes. His is a true redemption story.

  Let's return to the stone analogy. The merchant raises the stones above his head, and drops them to the ground. They both break. The beautiful blue stone turns out to be cheap glass, and shatters in a million pieces. The ugly brown stone breaks in two to reveal shining crystals on the inside. Apply this concept to these two films. If all we see is surface material, Avatar wins. To the average person, it seems beautiful and clean, whereas District 9 looks like a bunch of F-bombs and blood. When we dig beneath the surface, we realize that Avatar is nothing more than a bunch of nice visual effects and emotional tricks slapped on top of a far-from-original plotline (Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas) and all we have is a very preachy propaganda film. I didn't even mention the whole earth-is-god, nature-is-divine current running it's course through this film, let alone that 'plug your hair into your alien horse's antennae/earlobe/tentacle thing to experience brainwaves', or whatever. When we dig deeper into District 9, however, we realize there is a lot more to this film than alien versus man. Wikus learns his lesson, and so do we. Am I recommending District 9 for all ages? Of course not. It’s a rough, gritty, and at some points, nauseating picture. But I think District 9 is definitely a lot more Christian, let alone a lot safer, than Avatar.

Read More

Finding Nemo (2003) Vs. Shark Tale (2004)

   

Shark Tale(2004) Vs. Finding Nemo(2003)

by Eric Maus

"Fish are friends, not food."

   Fish make very relatable protagonists. They are small, timid creatures, living in a world flooded with peril and danger, kind of like humans. Give them a voice, a problem or two, and you have the makings of a good story. The animation studios of both Pixar and Dreamworks realized this fact, and created two very similar, and at the same time very different, films: Shark Tale and Finding Nemo.

   Finding Nemo is the tale of a clownfish named Marlin, who has tragically lost his wife and all but one of his children in a barracuda attack. Because of this fact, Marlin is a very protective father, and at times smothers his son Nemo while trying to keep him safe. One day, Nemo is captured by a diver and taken to a fish tank in a Sydney dentist's office. Marlin, although very skittish and fearful, is determined to rescue his son. Along with the assistance of a blue angelfish named Dory, who happens to suffer from a severe case of short-term memory loss, he follows every clue he can wrap his fins around in order to help save his son.

   In Shark Tale, Oscar (Will Smith) is a small fish who happens to be in a lot of debt, to a much bigger puffer fish named Sykes. Oscar borrows the necessary amount of clams (reef currency) from his girlfriend Angie (Renée Zellweger), but loses them after betting on the losing fish in a seahorse race. Sykes is enraged when he doesn't get his clams (he is also in debt, to the shark lord, Don Lino), so he sends his jellyfish henchmen after Oscar. They find him next to the body of a recently killed shark, and Oscar falsely claims to have done the deed. The jellyfish quickly announce to the entire reef that Oscar is capable of killing sharks, and he takes on the title 'Sharkslayer'. Don Lino is enraged, since the deceased shark was his son, Frankie, and vows vengeance upon the Sharkslayer.

   Both of these movies exhibit excellent filmmaking. The underwater worlds created by CG are beautiful; colorful, exquisite, and breath taking. Finding Nemo stays closer to a normal fish's world, with clownfish making their homes in sea anemones, seagulls and pelicans constantly attacking from the skies, and the fish have to go underwater to catch their breath. In Shark Tale, we are presented with more of an underwater human world, with cities, employers, money, social circles, and an Italian mafia represented by sharks. Both films star many amazing actors, from Geoffrey Rush, Eric Bana, and Willem Dafoe in Finding Nemo, to Jack Black and Robert DeNiro in Shark Tale, among others. The plots of both take us on roller-coaster rides; Finding Nemo is packed with suspense and apparent defeats as Marlin searches for his son, while in Shark Tale, Oscar digs himself deeper and deeper into his troubles with his terrible habit of telling falsehoods. The characters these films give us will always be remembered, from Crush the hip turtle and Gill the escape artist in Finding Nemo, to Ernie and Bernie, the jellyfish henchmen in Shark Tale. These movies are well beloved by both children and adults across the world.

  These films also have a lot of good things to say. Finding Nemo teaches us many lessons, such as overcoming fear with faith, determination against all odds, and expertly shows us that the best type of parent is a happy medium between the parenting styles of the over-protective Marlin and the freedom-loving Crush. Shark Tale shows us the mess telling lies will eventually lead to. However, running alongside the primary storylines of both movies, are two similar, almost identical subplots. These subplots concern sharks. The sharks in both Finding Nemo and Shark Tale have the same problem; they want to give up their fish eating ways, and befriend their fellow sea-dwellers, instead of devouring them. But the issue is addressed in two very different ways. In Shark Tale, Lenny, (Jack Black) a weakling shark and the son of the mafia boss, Don Lino, loathes the thought of eating fish. Don Lino, presented as an overbearing tyrant, thinks his son is loony, and tries everything he can to get him to be like all the other sharks. Lenny, tired of being made fun of by the other members of the shark clan, decides to run away, and with the help of Oscar, pretends to be a vegetarian porpoise. Eventually, Don Lino finds him, but instead of punishing his son, he learns to love him "just the way he is". *cough cough* We've all heard that before. Now, in Finding Nemo, we are shown something totally different. Marlin and Dory meet Bruce, Anchor, and Chum, three sharks meeting in an abandoned submarine at rest next to an old mine field. They meet annually, to hold each other accountable to their motto, "Fish are friends, not food." Although they fail sometimes, and snack on the occasional tuna, they try really hard to control their seemingly insatiable bloodlust. But they aren't wimpy, whiny sharks, like Lenny. No, these sharks are massive, intimidating, covered in scars, and masculine. They are kind of like crusty old sailors, trying to get over their alcohol addiction. Eating fish isn't presented as wrong, like in Shark Tale, but uncontrollable when done in excess. Kind of like too much of a good thing. The sharks in Finding Nemo teach us to deal with problems in a manly way, unlike Shark Tale, which is just blatant homosexual propaganda.

   So, when you're looking for a movie for the whole family to enjoy, or whatever those advertisements say, both of these films offer beautiful pictures and good morals, but watch those underlying premises; they can be deadly. And as for those of you who think you are above watching animated films, you can sit in your boring little apartments and fill out paperwork for the rest of your mortal existence.

Read More

Tron: Legacy (2010)

Tron: Legacy (2010)

by Santiago Pliego

"Greetings, Programs!"

When Aristotle said that “spectacle” was the least artistic element of a visual story, he probably was right—within the Greek context of the time. However, as time progressed, one part of theater evolved into film, and at the same time, technology kept raising the bar every year, allowing filmmakers to create more real and immersive worlds, allowing the artistry of spectacle to increase. Tron: Legacy brings us such a world.

Tron: Legacy, directed by Joseph Kosinski, is the story about one man’s search for a “digital frontier” and his son, who must rescue him when he gets stuck in the digital world. The father, Kevin Flynn, is a famous video game designer who is raising his son, Sam Flynn, and awaits the day when he will be able to show his son The Grid (the digital world). When Sam was seven years old, Kevin went to his office one night and never came back. This threw Flynn’s video game company, ENCOM, into chaos and even though Sam was the largest stockholder, he never accepted the responsibility of running the company and passed the responsibility to the company’s board. Twenty years later, Alan Bradley, one of the board’s members and a close friend of Kevin Fynn, receives a page from the old Flynn Arcade, and Sam goes to investigate, since the arcade’s number has been disconnected for twenty years. He discovers his father’s secret laboratory and after tinkering with a computer console, gets sent to The Grid, where he finds out that the “programs” have rejected the dominion of the “users”, and are lead by a program named CLU, who was a program created by Kevin at the beginning of The Grid and was assigned the task of creating the perfect system.

The plot in and of itself is not very original but neither is it terribly stale. However, similar to James Cameron’s Avatar, the force of the film arises from the film’s aesthetic elements. This movie is spectacular, not in the modern sense of awesome, but in the Aristotelian sense of relating to what the audience perceives through their eyes. The film’s setting is perfectly crafted through the use of bright and crisp visual effects, delivering an immersive world that is breathtaking and sinister at the same time. Contrary to many films that are too focused on visual effects that do not fit in the story, Tron: Legacy’s use of VFX enhances the experience and the realism of the story by creating a world that is plausible within the film’s universe. The aerodynamic design of The Grid, the vehicles, and the clothing also reflect the recurring theme of perfection throughout the narrative. To further increase the technical strength of the film, an awesome soundtrack and sound editing accompany the tech-inspired visuals. The low-key orchestral score is paired with sharp electronic themes performed by the French DJ-duo Daft Punk, creating a unique epic-electronic soundtrack that is emotionally charged and aggressive at the same time. Complemented by the sound editing, the film produces a vibrant, palpable atmosphere is almost real. The acting is also good, although the dialogue tends to be slightly clichéd at certain points in the film. Ultimately, the aesthetic qualities of Tron: Legacy are more than satisfactory and still leave you wanting more.

Fortunately, the film is a technical masterpiece, because the story is extremely weak due to the worldviews presented in the film. The plot idea is good, but it’s transformation into a compelling narrative ultimately fails mostly because of the messy worldview combinations that it presents. During the film, several references are made to Christianity and Zen-Buddhism, with some undertones of Eastern Pantheistic Monism scattered throughout. Kevin Flynn and Sam Flynn are a weak representation of God and Jesus, respectively. Kevin Flynn is “the creator” and a “false deity”, while Sam Flynn is referred to as “the son of our maker.” When Kevin Flynn first entered The Grid, he made CLU “in his own image”, although this happens with more of a Buddhism undertone since CLU ends up being the complete opposite of Flynn—an allusion to the balance of good and evil in the Zen-Buddhist philosophy. Originally, Kevin Flynn wanted to create the perfect system and CLU, since he was made in Flynn’s own image, strove towards perfection as well. When CLU overthrows Flynn, Flynn retreats to a secret place off-Grid and “removes himself from the equation”, hoping that CLU will be brought down by his own angry followers. This is inconsistent with the Christian worldview, since passivity against evil is not encouraged in the Bible. The attempt to fusion Zen-Buddhism and Christianity falls short, and actually ends up deconstructing each worldview and twisting them around to try to find false points of synchronization. At one point in the film, Isomorphic Algorithms (ISOs, for short) manifest themselves out of nowhere and Flynn sees them as perfection embodied. He tells Sam that he wanted to use their perfect DNA to cure diseases in the real world, to answer questions about philosophy, to basically change the way humans understood the world. CLU, however, saw them as an imperfection, and destroyed them. If Flynn’s was so obsessed with a perfect creation, how could he have been so naïve to create a program in his own image that was nothing but the complete opposite of his own image? The answer to this inconsistency is attempted in the final confrontation, which actually ends up solidifying the inconsistency even more. CLU angrily states that he has done everything that Flynn “programmed” him to do. “You promised that we would change the world, together! You broke your promise.” At this point, the best way for Flynn to answer would have been “You deformed my promise!” but instead, Flynn says, “I know. I understand that now.” CLU states that he “created the perfect system”, to which Flynn replies: “The thing about perfection is that it's unknowable. It's impossible, but it's also right in front of us all the time. You wouldn't know that because I didn't when I created you. I'm sorry, Clu. I'm sorry.” The problem with this, in terms of philosophy and in the narrative, is that the adversary in the film has been doing what he is supposed to, and what he is supposed to do is what Flynn, the hero, told him to do. Considering this, the blame for The Grid’s current state is actually Flynn’s, because he was naïve enough to have created a program with his own imperfect understanding of the world.  Also, Flynn states that “perfection is…unknowable. It’s impossible, but it’s also right in front of us all the time.” In other words, what Flynn has been striving for this whole time, with his Zen rituals and even with the desire to perfect the world with the ISOs, is not possible, but at the same it’s also there, happening. Apart from being a complete contradiction of the character’s motives, it’s also a void statement that gives that idea that the writers of the film wanted one of their characters to say something “profound”, without having understood either of the worldviews themselves. Flynn says that CLU saw the ISOs as imperfections, and condemns him for destroying them. In the end, however, when Flynn says that “perfection is unknowable”, the case could be made that the ISOs might have been, in fact, imperfections, because no one can know what perfection really means. The contradiction of worldviews added to the contradiction of arguments made within a specific worldview makes all the actions of the characters, be they good or bad, fall apart. Thus, the story becomes nothing more than a bunch of deceived figures moving randomly around a grid that looks very, very cool.

Tron: Legacy is a film that promised much but delivered an incomplete package. The film’s audiovisual elements are superb, but the story breaks apart not because of too much focus on VFX, but because the filmmakers did not understand the worldviews they were dealing with. Sticking to one worldview—even a wrong one—can produce a good film. This film, though, attempted to fusion two worldviews that have nothing in common without even understanding or explaining each of them correctly. Instead of effectively juxtaposing aesthetic and philosophical elements, this movie only provides the audience with half of the requirements. Unfortunately, extraordinary visuals and auditory elements paired up with unsound logic do not make up a good story, but they do provide good action scenes and a stunning experience that few films can surpass.

Read More

Iron Man (2008)

IRON MAN (2008)
by Steve Maus

“I'm just not the hero type. Clearly. With this laundry list of character defects, all the mistakes I've made, largely public.”

The Air Force has had many misfires with Hollywood over the years. They passed on Top Gun, wouldn’t permit Pave Lows to participate in Clear and Present Danger and dare I even mention it….Iron Eagle! Iron Man is a step in the right direction as the Air Force is portrayed honorably and respectfully and they even make it look fun. Sure, it’s a superhero movie so the action’s very good, the special effects are excellent and the banter is top notch – “…no gang signs. No, throw it up. I'm kidding. Yeah, peace. I love peace. I'd be out of a job for peace. ” But, in my opinion, this movie’s intriguing quality is in the character study and not in the action.

Although the attendance may have suffered, the movie should have been called Tony Stark. Tony is Marvel Comics answer to Bruce Wayne and, thanks to the new and improved Robert Downey, Jr., is a much more interesting main character. He is brash, irreverent, immoral and incredibly foolish. He is the classic spoiled, brilliant rich kid that inherits the company and parties his life away instead of growing up. We see clearly the folly of his foolish ways and eventually, martini in hand in the middle of a desert Humvee (HMMWV) takedown, so does he. The ultimate reality check is being attacked with weapons made by your own company.

Tony is mentored by his fellow prisoner Yinsen who, just like Monseigneur Bienvenu, the Bishop of Digne in Les Miserables, turns Tony’s life around with his wisdom…

Tony Stark says, “You got a family?”
“Yes, and I will see them when I leave here. And you, Stark?”
“No.” says Stark.
“ So you're a man who has everything, but nothing.” says Yinsen.

And later…

“Don't waste it... don't waste your life, Stark.”

Tony escapes captivity, turns his life around and goes on to the honorable profession of crime fighting - flying around the world at supersonic speeds in an iron suit with a sweet heads-up display and a talking flight computer. But, he has not completely taken off the old man. Tony’s arrogance is still there as is evidenced by his attitude that he will become the savior of America and the world – all by himself. He IS Iron Man.

Its important to fast forward to the second Iron Man movie to see this theme manifest itself completely as Tony defies and mocks Congress and proclaims himself Lord Protectorate of mankind. Tony mistakenly believes that he knows better than anyone how to decide right from wrong. He alone will keep the ultimate power. He is proven wrong, but that’s another dissection to come later. We should never forget that absolute power corrupts absolutely and the only solution to compensate for man’s sinfulness in this area is for a group of Godly, honorable men to share that power equally with accountability to the people. This is why we have 3 branches in our federal government with balanced powers and why our churches are led by a board of elders instead of one all-powerful man.

I will succumb to my ADD momentarily and mention that another reason why this movie works is the music. Ramin Djawadi, a protégé of the great Hans Zimmer and part of Hans’ Remote Control Productions, put the soundtrack together. It’s a rock n roll score with influences from all over the place and the way he weaves in themes and melodies is creative, subtle and very effective. The gift of a great soundtrack is that it makes everything in the movie better – the scary parts are scarier, the action scenes have you pumped and the sad scenes make you cry. Don’t ever miss the impact of the music!

I don’t want to end this dissection without ensuring that you understand that Tony Stark/Iron Man is heroic, but he shouldn’t be our hero. He takes the fight to the enemy and wins. He foils his corruptible friend and takes back his company. But like all men, he is fallible. He is brilliant, but not perfect. He gets control of himself, but he’s still immoral. He does not know God. Its fun to watch this man made in the image of God express His attribute of justice on the evil men even if its just a taste of the ultimate reality. But, I am left lacking. I want more out of Hollywood. I want a better depiction of Godly heroism. I want faith, fidelity, purity, and selflessness. My hero has to be a whole lot more like Jesus than Tony Stark.

PS – somewhere in the skies over Afghanistan, cruising through the dry, camel-colored canyons between Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif in a Russian-made Mi-17 helicopter, I sat waiting my turn to fly. I needed something to do to pass the time and decided to watch something on my i-Phone. The irony occurred to me quickly that here I was in Afghanistan watching a movie about Iron Man saving Afghanistan. I grabbed my Afghan interpreter and gestured to him to watch the scene where Iron Man saves the village from the terrorists. He watched very intently and enjoyed it. Then he said to me “is this supposed to be Afghanistan?” “Yes,” I said. I think he was thinking the same thing I was – “I wish it were that easy!”

Read More

The Dark Knight (2008)

The Dark Knight (2008)
by Eric Maus

(this review contains spoilers)

"Introduce a little anarchy, upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos."

   A lot of Christians have a difficult time endorsing The Dark Knight. It's too dark, it's evil, they say. Well, these sentiments are wrong. It may be dark, but it's far from evil. No, the problem we're dealing with is a lack of understanding when it comes to this masterpiece. This movie is as deep and philosophical as it is suspenseful and action-packed; you just have to allow yourself to look beyond the body count. This review is directed not at those who have not yet seen this film, but those of who have, and came away with the sentiments above.

  Gotham is still flooded with crime, corruption, and supervillains. Police commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) struggles to control the growing power of the different mobs, but with the rise of the new district attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and under the constant protection of the masked vigilante Batman (Christian Bale), hope begins to seep through the darkness. Until the Joker (Heath Ledger) rolls into town, that is. This demented, knife wielding criminal, wearing clown makeup, a purple suit, and bearing scars on his mouth that make him appear to be permanently grinning, seems to be just a "two bit wackjob", a small timer, no big threat. But as his crafty plans begin to unfold, Gotham begins to realize that they severely underestimated him. The Joker is undaunted by the plans of Dent and Gordon to stop him, and he views Batman's rivalry as nothing more than a game. As more and more people die, fear once more begins to take control of Gotham.

   The same guy who gave us Inception, Batman Begins, and The Prestige, we all know that Christopher Nolan is the master. Nothing happens in any of his films without him deliberately planning for it, and we see the same with The Dark Knight (rated PG13 for violence and language). This movie is not only a superhero flick, but an action, drama, suspense, and crime film rolled into one giant morality play. The plot is intense, but brilliant and engaging, keeping us watching for two and a half hours. Nolan takes the basic two dimensional comic book characters of Batman, the Joker, Alfred Pennyworth, and the rest, and brings them to life, giving us the deep, relatable, and well-developed characters we see in this film. But this wouldn't be possible without a pitch-perfect cast, and Nolan doesn't disappoint. Returning from Batman Begins, Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman continue in their roles as Batman, Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, and Lucius Fox, while Aaron Eckhart plays the part of Harvey Dent, and Maggie Gyllenhaal takes over the role of Rachel. But the late Heath Ledger is the star of the show; his portrayal of the Joker is excellent and uncanny. Nolan brings the city of Gotham to life with the use of stunning visual effects and masterful cinematography, but one of the things I love the most about Christopher Nolan’s films is the sound. It's crisp, explosive, and powerful, making the experience all the more realistic. But the technical details aren't what make The Dark Knight the great film that it is, although they definitely contribute. No, the reason this movie is so excellent is because of what it’s saying.

   As Harvey Dent is being transported through Gotham city via a police transport, the entire group of squad cars and armored trucks are forced to take a diversion, due to a massive burning fire truck that is blocking the freeway. Now, stop, and think about that for a minute: a burning fire truck. The very thing that is supposed to keep us safe from fire, is itself ablaze. This is no coincidence. The Joker takes the things that people rely on for comfort and safety and turns them upside down. He desires to bring the best of men down to his level, to prove that all men are just as twisted and evil as he is; it just takes the right situation, the right amount of pressure to bring that dark side out. The Joker is a post-modernist. To him, it's all about adjusting to the times; changing with every curve ball that life throws at you. "Wanna know how I got these scars?" he always asks, and he tells a different tale every time, a tale that better fits the situation. He begins wanting to kill Batman, then wanting Batman to turn himself in, and eventually just desiring Batman's rivalry as a challenge, a game. He says to Batman, "What would I do without you? Go back to ripping off mob dealers? No, no, NO! No. You...You. Complete. Me". The Joker is brilliant, and he knows it. His theatrical side, the makeup, the hysterics, the scars, they're just part of an image he's developed to better suit his purposes. "I'm no monster," he says. "I'm just ahead of the curve." Many Christians today complain that the Joker is too likeable, and they use this as a reason to dissuade others from seeing this film. Is it true that the Joker is a likeable figure? Of course. But that's the thing; evil is likeable. If it weren’t, we wouldn't be so tempted by sin. By making the Joker a likeable figure, Christopher Nolan is giving us a very realistic and accurate depiction of true evil. And as likeable as the Joker may be, he's twice as intimidating, and one of the most truly intimidating figures portrayed on a movie screen. The reason for this is because the Joker has nothing to lose; he's seemingly unstoppable. Mob dealers are afraid to lose their money, authorities are fearful of losing their social position, and criminals are afraid of being caught and arrested. Nothing scares the Joker; there is nothing Batman and the rest can use against him. He giggles at pain, burns stacks of hundred dollar bills, and isn't afraid to show his face on the local News channel. Batman has one staple rule that he abides by, and that rule is that he will protect Gotham without killing anyone. He tells the Joker this, and the Joker responds, "Then that's the rule you'll have to break. To know the truth. The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules." He wants Batman to believe that he can't win unless he stoops to the Joker's level, thus proving that he is no better than Joker. He thinks Batman can't stop him without killing him, without breaking his one rule. As stated previously, the Joker wants everyone to know that they are not superior to him; in fact, they are exactly like him, "All it takes is a little push." As many members of the city attempt to flee on ferries, with "upright" citizens on one boat and criminals on another, the Joker lets them know over the intercom that he has rigged their boats to blow, and that he's going to destroy both boats at midnight. But here's the catch: He's given each boat the detonator to the other ship's bomb, and if one ship decides to murder the passengers on the other ferry, he will let them go unharmed, to prove what he believes, that they are no better than he. But he is disappointed, to say the least, when the passengers of both ships decide to spare each other, to remain decent people. As Batman puts it, "This city just showed you it's full of people ready to believe in good." The Joker was wrong. People may be depraved, but there is still good inside us.

Towards the end of the film, after Harvey Dent, with the assistance of the Joker, has made his transformation into the vengeful Two-Face, he kidnaps Jim Gordon's family, and calls Gordon to the scene. He blames Gordon for the murder of his fiancée, since two corrupt cops working for Gordon assisted the Joker in her demise. He wants Gordon to know how it feels to lose a loved one, so he drags Gordon's son James from his weeping mother, and puts a gun to the boy's head. Batman arrives, and tries to persuade Dent to stop and reconsider. Dent won't listen, saying, "The boy's got the same chance she had. Fifty-fifty." Batman responds with, "What happened to Rachel wasn't chance. We decided to act, we three. We knew the risks and we acted as one. You're fooling yourself if you think you're letting chance decide. You're the one pointing the gun, Harvey. So point it at the people who were responsible." Dent agrees, and flips his coin for Batman. It lands charred side up, so he puts one in Batman's side. He flips for himself, but is disappointed to see the pristine side up. Then he again places the gun at the head of Gordon's son. "No," says Gordon. "Don't punish the boy. Punish me.” I’m about to," responds Harvey. He flips the coin, but Batman tackles him, and they both fall off the building. Dent is killed, but Batman has survived. Both Gordon and Batman know that if Gotham discovers the fall of Harvey Dent, their white knight, all hope will be lost, and the Joker will have won. But Batman won't allow that. So he takes the blame for what Harvey has done, so that hope will remain intact. As he runs off with police dogs chasing him, little James Gordon asks his dad why Batman should be chased if he did nothing wrong. Gordon answers, "Because...he's not the hero Gotham needs right now...he's the one it deserves. So we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not out hero...he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector...a dark knight." The Joker loses, because of Batman's Christ like sacrifice, the taking on the sins of Harvey Dent, to keep hope alive.

   The Dark Knight definitely portrays a Christian worldview, while cutting down many other popular, but wrong, worldviews of our day. Am I recommending this film for all audiences? Of course not; The Dark Knight is a mature film for mature people. But I am still recommending as one of the best movies of our time. You gotta love Christopher Nolan. A guy who can take a concept as simple as Batman and the Joker and give us a movie as powerful and magnificent as The Dark Knight definitely deserves our respect.

Read More