Spider-Man 3 (2007)

They say the 3rd time is the charm.  Never has that saying been more true than with the very great and amazing Spider-Man 3 (not to be confused with The Amazing Spider-Man 2.  That's a film coming out this summer, but it is in a very different series.  Also, it has a different number at the end.).

It's so easy to forget that, prior to the release of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man in 2002, nobody expected a superhero film to be very good.  Before that release you literally could count the number of superhero films on one hand that were actually decent.  The good ones were Tim Burton's Batman, Richard Donner's Superman, and the halfway-passable original X-Men film.  Honestly, nothing else was even remotely good (though the argument could be made for Superman II).

Then Spider-Man came on the scene, and the superhero film came into its own.  It captured the character from the book faithfully and with great entertainment.  Following that success was Spider-Man 2 (2004), which kicked all the action and greatness of the first film up a notch.

But simply being faithful to the books and entertaining wasn't enough.  In 2007 Sam Raimi decided to knock the training wheels off and invest everything into giving us the biggest, most spectacular superhero movie since Batman & Robin.

Everything about Spider-Man 3 is an exercise in excellence!  Just by way of contrast with lesser films we see how this one shines head and shoulders above the crowd, like a shimmering, gossamer star in the cinema firmament!

• Lesser movies invest deeply into the origin of one villain, telling his/her story and ratcheting up the tension for the hero.  Spider-Man 3 is so boss that it can crowd THREE bad guy origin stories into the plot!
• Lesser sequels care about continuity and being faithful to the story already established.  Spider-Man 3 knows that the drama is so much more compelling if you contradict the story the previous films told.  After all, why would Spider-Man want to stop Sandman if he had no personal reason to hate him?  And why would the audience think Sandman was really a bad guy if he wasn't the guy who actually killed uncle Ben?
• Lesser movies think that when you have a character beloved by the fan base, such as Venom, great care should be taken to make him just as powerful and terrifying as he is in the comics.  Spider-Man 3 rewrites the rules, showing us how great a villain can be!  It completely overhauls Venom, removing the creepiness, scariness, and ultra-violence.  Without those things, the audience can better relate to Venom as a wounded soul.  
• Lesser films think that evil is best demonstrated by depicting violence, theft, or calloused depravity.  Spider-Man 3 shows us that an evil influence is shown even better by gothic-emo dance routines.
• Most superhero films have the hero overcome great odds to beat the villain.  Spider-Man 3 does one even better, having the hero need help from the bad guys to beat the bad guys.
• The average action film simply has exciting explosions, thrilling chase scenes, and high-wire tension to entertain the audience.  Spider-Man 3 is so far above the ordinary action film!  It does not need the ordinary conventions of movie-making!  It does't take long before a stupor of greatness descends on the viewer as we try to take in all its magnificence!

What more can I say?  Spider-Man 3 is the Gone With The Wind of superhero films -I for one really felt like Rhett Butler by the end!  The acting is an exercise in perfection, the screenplay is as well-written as it could be, and the direction is perfectly passable!  It is everything one could want from a superhero movie sequel -more bewildering action, more characters that can be made into toys, more bad guys, and an unwavering faith in the forgiveness of the fan base.

Entertainment: Spider 10/10
Artistic Value: Spider 10/10
Technical Merit: Spider 10/10

Overall: Spider 10/10*








*To calculate the value of Spider numbers, simply multiply the Spider value by 10, subtract 99, multiply again by 5, add 3, and then remove 87.5% of that last figure.  

Best of the Letter R: Rear Window (1954)

I already once did a review on Rear Window.  That original review can be found by clicking here.

I'll summarize this way: Rear Window is my favorite Alfred Hitchcock film, and I am the world's biggest Hitchcock fan.  It has great character development, great attention to detail, and simply fun dialogue.  And underneath everything is a great running discussion on human relationships.

This is a must-see for any movie fan, a film that starts lighthearted and slowly builds up the suspense.  The result is magnificent!

(the following rating is a bit different than my original review.)
Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic value: 9/10
Technical merit: 9/10

Overall: 9.5/10

Runners Up for the Letter "R:"

• Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
• Ran (1985)
• Rebecca (1940)
• Rocky (1976)
• Robocop (1987) -yes, I'm serious.  Robocop rules.
• Raging Bull (1980)

Noah (2014)

Going into this film the big question for me was this: were the makers of Noah respectful of the source material and true to its message?  Everything else really hinges on this question.

Christians are often a hard lot to please when it comes to movies.  We whine and moan when Hollywood ignores some of the great, epic stories from the Bible.  Then, when Hollywood actually makes a Biblical story into a movie we whine and moan that they did not do every single detail exactly "right."  We're harder to please than Tolkien fans.

For me, I don't mind much if a Biblical film adds stuff in, or takes a rather different interpretive twist than I might otherwise expect.  After all, most of the stories in the actual Bible only cover a few chapters, perhaps a few dozen verses at most of exposition.  For any film to be made from these stories requires speculation and added dramatic themes.  Noah certainly adds themes and plot elements to the Scriptural story.

There is a ton to love in this movie.  It gets so many of the details right, such as the size and look of the ark.  Without showing anything terribly violent or lewd the depravity of man is nonetheless masterfully depicted.  God, though only called the Creator, is clearly present throughout the film, causing miracles and giving guidance and direction where needed.  A prominent theme of the film is in fact that God will provide what his people need; we only need to trust him.

The theological theme I most appreciated was the unmistakable clear message that sin has terrible root in all of us, and that sin pervades and destroys all things.  Literally, all is destroyed by sin in this film, even the whole earth seems ravaged and ruined by the destruction of man.  And make no mistake, the movie points out very clearly that everything is ruined by sin, not just bad environmental policies.  Noah despairs of a true answer to evil, wrestling with the depravity of man.  Now, this theme also leads to the worst dramatic element and even the most non-biblical theme (that of Noah trying to ensure that people die out entirely).  However, the clear root message is true: we are all sinful, and a "restart" after the flood will no doubt lead to problems again.  See, the Biblical message takes us to Christ -not even starting again with the world's best person will make everything right.  We need a better plan, a greater redemption.  We need a Savior.

Noah the movie takes this true theme and makes it the central dramatic foil, causing Noah himself to become fixated on the notion that creation is good and people are bad, thus people (all people, even himself and his family) need to die.  The answer -according to the movie -is love.  Noah's love for his grandchildren and family, the "innocence" of infants, and the natural love that children have -this seems to be enough to redeem according to the film.  This is of course insufficient and inadequate, a disservice to the Biblical story.

Other story problems abound.  Noah is quite the warrior here, something that seems rather unnecessary for a prophet of God and incompatible with his description in Scripture as someone who "walked with God."  I just don't see why it was so necessary to defend the ark with weapons, other than to provide that big cataclysmic battle scene.

Another problem was the stowaway, the bad guy who sneaks onto the ark.  This was (in my opinion) utterly unnecessary and superfluous.  Anything achieved by this could have been done in other ways.

I didn't much care for the rock giant/fallen angel things.  Their inclusion is done in such a way as not to be anti-biblical, but they don't add much either.  Ultimately, they seem mostly done simply to have a Lord of the Rings kind of feel to the whole film.

I didn't care much for the way the story unfolded with the building of the ark.  Scripture seems to imply that the construction of the vessel took about 100 years (contrast Genesis 5:32 with Genesis 7:6).  In the movie it took 10 years.  Plus, we didn't get to see much of the construction, not even a time-lapse.  It was just "Let's build an ark!" and then BOOM, next scene it was 10 years later and there's an ark.

Finally, I take some exception to how many people were on the ark.  Once the flood started I was beside myself in the theater, wondering how they could possibly justify having only 6 people saved from the flood on the ark.  The Bible is about as clear as it could be: Noah and his wife, and his sons and their wives were all saved.  That's 8 people, not 6.  Now, to be fair, the issue is actually resolved, and does so in a way that does add up to 8 people and even furthers the theme of "everything God's people needs he supplies."  However, it seemed too clever and contrived, and certainly is not what would be understood from a simple reading of the Bible.

I guess that sums up my feeling as a whole.  There is not much at all that I can point to and say "That contradicts Scripture!"  As a whole, the story is all there and the themes are largely fine.  But in no way could I say that this is the film that I would have made in respect to the original story.  Noah feels more like a story that is tweaked to fit, carefully constructed so as not to be loudly condemned, rather than a faithful telling of the Scripture.  They seemed to aim for controversy, but in such a way as to have a way to justify themselves when called on it.

Artistically and Technically I don't have much to say.  Honestly, without my prior knowledge of the story and understandable built in enthusiasm I'm not sure I'd have gotten all that excited about Noah.  Simply from a technical standpoint I'm just not all that convinced the movie is all that good.  Sure, the production value is very high.  Yes, the special effects are good, and everything feels expensive enough.

But not much really wowed me.  The acting was simply passable.  Russel Crow did a fine job, but he was really unable to make me connect with his character.  Otherwise, there was not much that was worthy of much note.  In fact, most of the characters lacked the development that they needed to be interesting.  Shem, in particular, was entirely one-note and lacking depth.  Of all the actors, only Anthony Hopkins really had an on-screen spark, and he mostly phoned in his role.

As for art, this movie was drab and colorless.  Seriously, there was so much brown in this film I was begging for a bit of purple by the end.  There was almost no color pallet at all; brown brown brown brown, and then a bit more brown with some dark brown.  Visually, this movie was about as pleasing to the eye (at least as regards color) as brown stuff doing brown things in a dark brown room.  In fact, I believe I just described one or two of the interior ark scenes.  Everything looked good in terms of special effects -but the problem was I didn't want to look at anything and what I did want to see was hard to see because of all the brown.  I guess all the brown made the rainbow at the end really pop out, but it was a bit much.

Two things do stand out that are worthy of a second look.

First, while on the ark Noah tells the Creation story.  The story he tells is nearly word for word the Creation account in Genesis, from Creation ex nihilo through Eden, Adam and Eve, the Fall, and the murder of Able by Cain.  This story is accompanied by a rapid-succession montage video that visually shows what he is describing, and it is brilliant.  Here's the brilliance: that video could be seen as showing a 6 day creation.  But it could also be described as showing an old-earth, theistic evolution kind of story.  It does not seem to fall squarely on one side of the fence or the other, allowing the viewer to conclude what we will.  That sequence deserves another look; I want to see it again.

Secondly the finale was very good.  In fact, the last 2 minutes of the film might be the only truly "great" moments that it contains.  I won't spoil anything, but the way the themes come together and God shows his blessing is truly memorable.

Ultimately, I was hoping for a better movie.  I feel there was a lot of greatness hiding behind a lot of rubbish.  There was a true story being shown behind battle scenes, threatened infanticide, and rock people.  But overall, Noah just isn't the film I was hoping for.  I wanted the prophet of Scripture who heard God's voice, walked with God, and knew of God's blessing; I got instead a guy who never directly heard the voice of God, wasn't sure he knew what God wanted, and was unsure of God's blessing.  But at least he killed people as efficiently as Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, right?

Entertainment: 6/10
Artistic Value: 6/10
Technical Merit: 5/10

Overall: 4/10  (yes, the sum of the parts actually does seem to be less than the individual parts themselves!)


P.S. On the plus side again, I do want to emphasize the great opportunity this movie presents in discussing the themes and questions it develops!  There is so much that can be discussed over coffee with others who have seen it!

Should I watch Noah?

Today I read this article, in which radio talk show personality Glenn Beck is quoted as hoping Noah, releasing next week, is a massive failure.  Understand, Beck has not seen the film.  Nevertheless, he believes -upon the basis of a single review in The Hollywood Reporter -that the film not only takes creative liberties, but actually perverts and upends the Biblical story.  He proceeds -again, not having seen the film himself -to call the movie "dangerous" and advises people not to see it.

I've also read the Hollywood Reporter review of Noah.  I also have some reservations about the film, based upon some of the information that the review contains.

But I have some serious problems with Glenn Beck's position; three of them in fact.

First, the review itself was largely in praise of the film.  It found much -though not everything -to be good.  And it pointed out some of the areas that did tend to stray from what the Bible actually says.  But it was not very long, or very detailed.  To use that review as a way to condemn the entire film would be like saying no one should ever go anyplace in New Jersey because you once saw an unflattering photograph of one street in Newark.

Second, there are a number of rather prominent Christian authors and leaders who actually have seen the film and who do recommend it.  The Hollywood Reporter notes that both Rev. Samuel Rodreguez (a pastor/author I have heard and enjoyed) and Jim Daly (president of Focus on the Family) support Noah.  Others have also come out in favor.  Of course, simply because these guys like the movie does not make it biblical.  But at least they are Christian leaders who fight for the cause of Jesus, they've seen it, and give it a thumbs up.

And this leads to my third problem I have with Glenn Beck's position.  Glenn Beck is an outspoken, practicing, devout Mormon.  Mormonism is -by its very nature and definition -a perversion of true Christianity.  It is unbiblical, heretical, contrary to history and reason.  Mormonism teaches falsehoods about God, Jesus Christ, and humanity.  Basically what I'm saying is this: a Mormon with only second-hand knowledge is not an authority on what is actually Biblical.  And I simply do not trust his judgement especially since -and I repeat myself for emphasis -HE HAS NOT SEEN THE MOVIE!

Could Noah be a dangerous, subversive film that twists the Bible's message and leads people to believe things about God and Scripture that are not true?  Absolutely, I acknowledge the possibility.  Could it remain faithful to the message and theme of the Scripture, while adding extra stuff for the sake of drama?  Sure.  But I'll need to see it to decide for myself.

So I think I will go see it.  I'm still hopeful for a good, solid film.  Sure, I don't expect it to be exactly what I would make, should I have been a movie director.  Sure, I fully expect there to be stuff added in that puzzles me, or even to which I take great exception.  But I hope that it inspires further discussion in our society on faith and Scripture.  I hope it leads a great many people to read the Biblical story in Genesis for the first time.

And I hope that Hollywood hears a loud message from all of us that if they will make Biblical films that respect the Source Material we will support it.

Happily Ever After...?

I was thinking about love this past week.  See, love -as defined and demonstrated by Hollywood -is often an emaciated and sickly thing, a mere shadow of its real self.  Love in the movies is reduced to lust, to an animal desire that excuses rebellion against parents and shirking of responsibilities.  To believe what we watch, love means "never having to say you're sorry."  Love is what you feel when someone makes you feel good.

Love, in the movies, is usually selfish.  Love is about using the other person to feel good and pleasant, and if someone else comes along to make you feel even better, then Hollywood teaches us the virtue of "following your heart" (or as they call it in other places, "being unfaithful.").

We are told that love is to be sought above all else, and that finding "true love" will conquer all odds and result in "happily ever after."

My friends, we're being sold a bill of goods by the Walt Disney Company et al.  This love that is peddled to us might sell well, but it is not real.  It is not lasting.  It does not persevere through trial, because it is at heart self-seeking.

I believe that true love is best exemplified in Jesus Christ, and the way of the Cross.  Love is sacrificial.  Love is for the benefit of the beloved.  Love climbs the heights and endures all things because real love is not about me and what I want, but the other and what he/she needs most.  Real, true, love is a beautiful thing, something that triumphs over all adversity even in the midst of despair.  There may be no "happily ever after" with true love, but all the same "love never fails."

This past week I saw another glimpse of incarnate real love, a love like that love with which God loved us.  Last Wednesday a young woman of my acquaintance passed away after a long fight with cancer.  She was only 23.

She was an amazing young lady.  She became quite the speaker, telling the story of her fight against cancer and testifying to the hope she had in Jesus Christ.  She went on missions trips, she wrote, she sang, she generally was a great influence on all the people around her.  I'd say somewhere around 2,000 people showed up at either the viewing yesterday or funeral today to pay their respects to her -some standing in line for hours to do so.  Her story is remarkable.

But really I want us to know about her husband.

You see, this young woman had been dating a young man rather seriously prior to her cancer diagnosis.  Can you imagine that situation?  What do you do when your girlfriend drops the news on you that she has cancer?  How do you respond when the treatment plan is laid out, and the prognosis is given, and nothing is good news?

There must have been rocky times.  There must have been doubts. There must have been tears and desperation and, above all, temptation to turn away and run.  After all, can you make that choice to love when there is little possibility of "happily ever after?"  How do you, as a young man, make that decision that could potentially make you a caregiver for a long time rather early in life?

How does anyone -in our culture of self-love -so willingly offer his heart with the very real knowledge that it could be broken, and broken very soon?

But that is the decision this young man made.  He proposed in spite of her sickness.  He married her.  He gave her the wedding of her dreams, then he cared for her and gave everything he had for her.

And last week, less than a year since the wedding, she passed away.

The world calls it a tragedy.  They see the devastation of the family and the anguish of her husband and pities them.  I also hurt for them.  I long to bring some word of comfort to this young man's heart, who is far too young to be a widower.

However, I cannot say I pity him.  No, you see, he inspires me.  I hurt for him, but I admire him!  Most of us experience pain because we live in a broken, sinful world.  Life happens, and sooner or later the pain of life is visited upon our own doorstep.  But few of us willingly choose to enter a situation that will likely break our hearts.  We usually shun pain, and insulate ourselves away from it as long as possible.  Yet for the sake of his beloved, this young husband chose the pain.  He embraced the potential of a broken heart for the sake of love.  As I have considered his example over this last week, I realized just how profoundly he exemplifies the way of the Cross.

Is there a "happily ever after?"  Is there a happy ending, as Hollywood would celebrate?  Well, no.

Instead, I see a quieter kind of victory.  I see the triumph of real love over all the hurts and pains of this world.  I see a heroic stand against the narcissistic hedonism our world promotes as the answer.

I see loss and pain willingly taken on, borne for the sake of another.  I see hope in the middle of hurt.  I see a reflection of a love that Hollywood will seemingly never understand.

And there is simply something beautiful, something triumphal, about that.

A Few Random Thoughts on Movies

1. Fantastic Mr. Fox is a simply wonderful, visually beautiful film.
2. All things being equal, the Oscar usually goes to the most melodramatic, politically correct film.
3. Superhero movies are getting better, but a few things still hold them back from being truly great.  One of those things holding them back is called in other places "writing."
4. I still think that Moriarty is too sniveling in the series Sherlock.
5. Movie trailers before about 1989 are truly awful.
6. Every time I read a news article about the decline of Detroit I always hope for the following line: "And that is why we are introducing the future of crimefighting: Robocop!"
7. The new trailer for the fourth Transformers movie looks terribly wretched.
8. If I sat down to watch my entire collection of movies it would take me about a full month of continuous, non-stop viewing.  That's crazy.
9. If I could chose a winner, I'd want The Grand Budapest Hotel to be at the top of the box office this weekend.  Unfortunately, people generally want to see rubbish like 300:Rise of an Empire more than something that looks genuinely original, quirky, and funny.
10. Noah is probably not biblically accurate.  It is worth checking out with an open mind anyway.