The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 Review

The final book in the wildly popular Hunger Games trilogy received very mixed reactions upon its release. The ending in particular divided fans down the middle. Some were indifferent to it, some enjoyed it (I did), but many hated how the story wrapped up. Basically after Catching Fire, which is considered by most to be the best book in the trilogy, Mockingjay just could not live up to the expectations. And it seems that it may be the same case for the film series as well, especially since they are dragging out the final installment into two films. The first Hunger Games film was a good adaptation and entertaining film, but last year's Catching Fire blew it out of the water on all fronts, and I would probably rank it among some of the best sequels ever made. Consequently, the expectations for the first part of Mockingjay were very high. Does the adaptation live up to the hype? Or does the film follow the same trend of the book series?

The film opens with Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) confined to life in District 13, which serves as the headquarters for the rebellion against the Capitol and the cruelty of President Snow (Donald Sutherland). Her home, District 12, has been destroyed by the Capitol, her friend/lover Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) has been taken prisoner, and the head of District 13, President Coin (Julianne Moore) wants Katniss to be the symbol of the rebellion that the other districts can unite under. All of this, in addition to her fragile mental state caused by taking part in two Hunger Games, has Katniss in a really difficult place at the start of the film, and she will have to rely on her friends and mentors to help her see the right path to choose.

And that's about it, there isn't really much going on plot wise in part 1 of Mockingjay. In fact, roughly 75% of the film takes place inside the underground war bunker of District 13, and that scenery gets old fast. Even in the two scenes where Katniss ventures outside to other districts, both set pieces look almost identical and it makes you wonder if they just used to same props and put them in different spaces. The lack of colorful environments is really noticeable when compared to the past two films in the franchise. In Catching Fire, we followed Katniss from the desolate District 12, to the various (and different) districts, to the colorful and vibrant Capitol, and then into the tropical arena. Again, having to spend most of this film underground makes it drag, and makes it difficult to stay interested.

And the flawed plot-structure doesn't help the pacing of the film either. What's odd about the start of the film is that is really feels like we are coming into the middle of the film. It's almost as if we are picking up after a commercial break, and it feels awkward. And of course, since this is a two-part film, the ending is really still the middle as well. So instead of the basic, three-act structure, there is just a two hour "middle." What's really upsetting is the film really starts to gain momentum in the last fifteen minutes. Exciting things happen, new threats are introduced, Josh Hutcherson starts to showcase a haunting performance....but then it ends. And all that excitement fueled by those elements it unfortunately cut short.

And this leads to the main problem plaguing Mockingjay Part 1...that it is called PART ONE. It is obvious from watching this film this was not meant to be a two-part film. It makes sense that the final Harry Potter was two parts since the book is huge and has a lot of stuff happening. It makes sense that Avengers 3 will be two parts because it will feature every Marvel super hero known to man. I can even give the final Twilight film a pass for having a two part film adaption because the book has a large multi-narrative structure. The same isn't the case for Mockingjay, as there just isn't enough happening to justify two, two hour films. Unlike the previous two installments, this film feature only one brief action scene. Unlike the previous two installments, this film doesn't move it's characters storylines forward in any meaningful way (there were hints of this at the very end, but...it was the very end). And unlike the previous two installments, there was just a lack of excitement.

I have no doubt that Part 2 of Mockingjay will be a great conclusion to the series. The second half of the book is full of intense action, shocking character revelations, death, romance, and all the stuff you want to see in the finale of a blockbuster franchise. The filmmakers didn't have a lot to work with in the first half the Mockingjay, and they do little to try to add in any excitement. Aside: It's a shame that the three best scenes in the movie don't even feature Katniss. End of Aside. My advice, skip Part 1 and just wait for Part 2, you won't be missing out on much of anything, and any Hunger Games fan could easily fill you in on the very few important details while the trailers are showing before the film.

Big Hero 6 Review

Who are two of the most bankable Hollywood studios right now? Walt Disney Animation and Marvel Studios (who, don't ya know it, is owned by Disney). Both studios release films each year that are always critically and financially successful. So what would happen if the two brands came together? What would it look like if a film had the gorgeous animation and lighthearted feel of Frozen or Wreck-It Ralph combined with the large scale action of The Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy? That is what the latest animated hit, Big Hero 6, aims to show us. But is it successful in its task?

Based on the lesser-known and obscure Marvel comic, Big Hero 6 takes place in the futuristic, fictional city of San Fransokyo where we meet Hiro Hamada, a young teen with a big brain. Hiro loves to invent things, but he doesn't want to be a responsible "nerd" like his older brother, Tadashi. But that changes when Tadashi drags his younger brother along to visit his college, where Hiro becomes amazed at all the opportunities he could have if he went there (given his superior knowledge, he has already graduated high school at age 13).

Then, in typically Disney fashion, tragedy strikes and Tadashi is killed in an explosion at the college, sending Hiro into a state of anger and depression...until he meets Baymax. This loveable medical robot is the only part of his older brother that Hiro has left, and when the two discover a masked villain using one of Hiro's inventions to wreak havoc on the city, they must work together to find out who this mysterious person is, and how he can be stopped. But first...they need a team.

As I briefly hinted at above, the big problem with Big Hero 6  is that it is bound by typically plot devices that are very common in both Disney and Marvel films. Going into much detail would mean spoilers, but it is the same three-act structure that exists in pretty much every Marvel film, combined with the same messages and character models that make up Disney films. This means that the film is highly predictable, and so nothing should surprise the viewer. I remember predicting the identity of the bad guy near the very beginning of the film, and when I saw that I was right, I couldn't help but be a little disappointed.

However, the argument can be made, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Both the Disney and Marvel formulas have proven to be very successful in storytelling, and that success does carry over to Big Hero 6. Yes, it is a plot line we have seen before, but it is still very entertaining and fun to watch. And as usual for Disney, the greatest strength that bails this film out of being truly mediocre is the amount of heart that is packed into it. While the film may be much more action heavy than most other animated films in the past, it still never sacrifices character development and the story for explosions and fighting.

The heart of the film is Baymax, who has to be one of the most loveable animated characters I've ever seen. From the way he is drawn, to his sweet, reassuring words, chances are you will probably want to give the balloonish robot a big hug by the time the movie is over. And through his words the film finds its conscience. Throughout the film he is a mentor to a troubled Hiro, explaining to him the consequences and drawbacks to wanting revenge, and telling him why violence isn't the right response. He also is constantly reminding him of the importance of  with family and friends, especially in times of struggle and sadness. These kind of messages aren't really front and center in a Marvel superhero film (the one notable exception being this year's Guardians of the Galaxy, which  bears several other similarities to this film), and it is nice to see an action film take time to tackle these themes.

After watching this movie, I couldn't help but think of Pixar's The Incredibles, the only other animated super hero film that I can recall. Big Hero 6 might not come close to matching the greatness of that film, but then again, that's a really high bar to match. While the film may fall prey to some predictable story elements, it is still filled to the brim with heart, humor, and light-hearted adventure, and it is likely the best animated film that will be released this holiday season.

 

Interstellar Review

What would the world be like if mankind lost it's desire for discovery? What if we no longer wanted to be pioneers? What if we gave up hope on the world? This is the not-to-distant future that ex-NASA engineer Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) lives in; a hopeless world ravaged by dust storms that has wiped out all major crops except corn. Earth is no longer fit to sustain life, but there is a greater problem...no one cares enough to find a solution. As Cooper says in the beginning of the film, "We used to look up at the sky and wonder at our place in the stars, now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt."

But there is still hope for mankind, and Cooper finds it when he and his daughter Murph (played by Mackenzie Fox and then Jessica Chastain as older Murph) stumble across an underground NASA facility led by Professor Brand (played by Christopher Nolan favorite Michael Caine). It is here that Cooper learns that NASA has secretly been searching for another planet that can support life by traveling through a wormhole to another galaxy. If Cooper and a small team of pilots, including Brand's daughter Amelia (Anne Hathaway), can travel to the few planets where they have received positive Intel and find a suitable replacement for Earth, then mankind will be able to survive. There is just one big catch: if Cooper embarks on this mission, then he may never see his son and daughter again, and even if he does, they could be older than he is. But in a gripping scene when Cooper is saying goodbye to his daughter, he assures her that they will see each other again. And it is this bond between father and daughter that holds Interstellar together. The idea that love is the only thing that "transcends time and space" is repeated several times throughout the movie.

People often complain nowadays that Hollywood is running out of new ideas, and it would be really difficult to disagree. Out of the thirty highest grossing films of 2014, only THREE of them are not considered a sequel, remake, or adapted screenplay. The filmmaking industry is running low on true visionary directors, but Christopher Nolan remains to be one of the best. And not just one of the best at crafting original stories, but at taking those stories and turning them into big budget epics that don't fall victim to blockbuster clichés. The sad truth is, Hollywood producers will never give a director a $165 budget for an original film with barely any action sequences and explosions. It just doesn't happen....unless your name is Christopher Nolan. And because studios will give him a budget to do anything, we can sit back and enjoy a kind of film that we don't see enough of anymore.

It's a film about space, but it doesn't have giant battles with hundreds of spaceships. It's a film about discovering other galaxies and planets, but it doesn't have CGI heavy aliens and environments. With a box office dominated by super heroes and giant robots, more and more studios are settling for CGI, action, and explosions over character development, original narratives, and most of all, heart! Interstellar is a film that is doing more than telling a story. It has a lesson it is teaching, and it has many greats points for discussion. Discussion about humanity, about love, about science, and about faith, and how they can all connect with one another.

And the film is led by a star studded cast that all give Oscar-worthy performances. Coming off an incredible 2013, Matthew McConaughey delivers yet another compelling performance that will likely score him his second Oscar nomination in a row. At his side is fellow award winner Anne Hathaway whose performance is made compelling by her gentle and calm persona that is trying to cover up a deep sense of emotion. Jessica Chastain and Michael Caine round out the lead cast and both are, as usual, wonderful in their roles. But what really gives life to these characters is that the actors and actresses portray them so naturally making them very relatable characters. Credit should also be given to Bill Irwin, who voices TARS, a unique robot programed to speak with 90% truth and 75% humor.

The film contains several other trademarks of a Christopher Nolan film. One is gorgeous cinematography. Whether we are watching characters race through vast cornfields or travel through a galactic wormhole, the camera work is expansive and beautiful, which can be attributed for Nolan's love for shooting his films with IMAX cameras. Another is unrelenting suspense. There is a great sequence near the end of the film that had my entire row reacting in some way. One person was grabbing their hair, another was rubbing their hands together, I had to lean forward on the edge of my seat; I'm not sure I have ever seen so much reaction to what's happening on screen before, which is a testament to Nolan's directing. Also back for another Nolan film, composer Hans Zimmer, who has become known for developing new and unique scores for Nolan's films in the past, Interstellar is no exception.

As I think about Interstellar, and all that can be taken away from it, I am reminded of Romans 8:38-39,

"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

 

Cooper is faced with numerous obstacles when he ventures out into space. He encounters worm holes, black holes, hostile environments, and many other dangers. Yet his love for his children is more powerful than any of these obstacles, and that love he has is what motivates him to conquer whatever challenge he faces. Though he his countless miles away and many years apart, Cooper and Murph are still connected, because, as Amelia says, "Love is the only thing that transcends time and space." Interstellar is a near three hour epic of though-provoking and emotionally rich film, complete with great performances, a powerful score, and deep questions about mankind. Yet as complex as the story is, at its heart is a simple message: love conquers all.

 

 

The Best Halloween Movies

October is quite an exciting time of the year complete with haunted houses, fall festivals, scary movies, candy everywhere, leaves changing color, etc. And all this excitment leads up to my favorite holiday of the year, HALLOWEEN! Now if you don't share my opinion on favorite holidays, that's ok, but hopefully you still enjoy the annual night of consuming unhealthy amounts of sweets and dressing up in costume. And if you do, chances are you also enjoy ending the night with a Halloween movie, of which there are many, many different kinds. Some make you scream, some make you laugh, some blow your mind, and some just confuse you. Not everyone likes "scary movies" and that's ok, because all Halloween movies aren't scary. So to help form some ideas for a good option to watch tonight, here is a list of ten the best Halloween movies of different genres.

The Black and White Film: Psycho 

If you are wanting to watch a true classic, then you best option is Alfred Hitchcock's thrilling masterpiece, "Psycho." Nearly 55 years after it was released, this old school slasher flick will still likely give you chills (and make you a little uneasy the next time you take a shower). The famous ending also inspired numerous other.

The Classic: Halloween

The 80s brought to life many iconic killers such as Freddy, Jason, and the Thing, but the best icon came first, and his name is Michael Myers. The unstoppable force of evil has been terrorizing victims in countless sub-par sequels and remakes for years, but the original 1979 "Halloween," which features a young Jamie Lee Curtis that still looks to old to be in high-school, is by far the best. If your group enjoys scary movies, this is one of your best options.

The One to Make You Laugh: Zombieland

If you want to go the comedic route, look no further than "Zombieland" With hilarious performances by Woody Harrelson, Jessie Eisenberg, and Emma Stone (and one of the best cameos ever), alongside some really fun action scenes and a surprisingly emotional story, this zombie-killing comedy will have you laughing during most of its 90 minute runtime.

The One for All Ages: The Nightmare Before Christmas

Disney's ghoulish musical may be about scary monsters, but it has a loveable main character and a heart-felt story that make it a great option for families or just for those who want to watch something a little different for Halloween. Of course if you don't get a chance to see this for Halloween, you can always pull it out again for Christmas.

The Thriller: The Silence of the Lambs

He might not wear a mask or posses any kind of dark powers, but Hannibal Lecter is one of the most frightening characters in the history of film. Don't count this film out because it's not strictly labeled a "horror movie," chances are that Lecter's escape scene will be more frightening then most other films you will ever see.

The One to Watch at 2:00 am: Killer Klownz From Outer Space

Giant clowns, cotton candy guns, a loud 80s soundtrack...have you not started watching it yet?

The Action/Adventure Film: Sleepy Hollow

Action, adventure, mystery, romance, and Johnny Depp: Tim Burton's version of Washington Irving's famous short story has a lot of things going for it. If you are looking for a movie with some scares but also is a little more on the fun side, "Sleepy Hollow" is a great option. Plus it's always fun to watch Christopher Walken act a little insane.

The Guilty Pleasure: Van Helsing

Say what you want, "Van Helsing" is one of the greatest Halloween movies ever made. It's over-the-top in every way but that's ok, because it never takes itself too seriously. Hugh Jackman leads this entertaining monster-mash-up that may be cheesy and a little ridiculous at times, but it's just so much damn fun that I don't care.

The Unique One: The Cabin in the Woods

Part horror film, part parody, this unique scary movie by Joss Whedon (The Avengers) and Drew Goddard turns the horror genre on its head and delivers a film where you may be screaming and laughing at the same time.

The Nightmare Waiting to Happen: The Conjuring

This is probably one of the scariest movies around today, but the greatness of "The Conjuring" doesn't stop at the jump scares. It also features a carefully crafted story, great performances, and clever dialogue. But let's be honest, it's Halloween and you want to be scared, and boy will this movie scare you. Don't watch it alone!

Marvel's "Avengers: Age of Ultron" - Teaser Trailer (OFFICIAL)

Finding God in Cinema: The Conjuring

^"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:38-39

The horror genre has gone through several intense phases of evolution since its beginnings in the 1920s. Back in the days of black and white cinema, people flocked to the theaters to see classic literary characters such as Dracula and Frankenstein terrorize on the silver screen. They were exciting, they were fun, and they were genuinely frightening (although if anyone was to view those films today, they would probably chuckle more than scream). Then the 80s rolled around and things started to get a little more intense. Films such as "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" brought along the birth of the slasher film, where it started to become a little more about the kill count of the masked killer than developing a story. These slasher films were financially successful, spawning many sequels and more ideas about how to make these films even more violent. Enter the early 2000s, where any concern about plot and character development was thrown out the door. Instead, all that mattered was killing as many people as possible, in the most vile, graphic ways as possible (after prolonged scenes of graphic sexual content). This "technique," made famous by films such as "Saw," "Hostel," and "Final Destination," came to be known as "torture porn," a term that makes me feel sick just typing it.

In Proverbs 4:23, we are told to "Guard our heart above all else," and this is an important verse to remember when considering whether or not we should expose ourselves to movies in this genre (or any genre for that matter). The vast majority of horror films made today are all about showcasing sin in the most dark, disturbing ways, and the point of these movies is to make viewers enjoy watching acts of torture and sexual immorality. And besides the reasons listed above, there is one fundamental flaw with 90% of horror films today--the idea the evil prevails, the darkness is strongest force in this world, which Christians know to be false! We know that sin and death has already been defeated by the love of Jesus Christ. Yet these films rarely suggest that idea, or just the idea of good conquering evil in general. Yet in the sea of filth that is the modern horror movie, there are those rare gems that decide to rise above the standard genre tropes, and do something different. And James Wan's "The Conjuring" (released in 2013) is one of those films.

Based on the case files of real-life demonologists, Ed and Lorraine Warren, "The Conjuring" tells the "true story" of a Rhode Island family who become terrorized by demons. With no way of immediately finding other housing for a family of seven, the Perron family seeks the help of the Warrens (played by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) to rid them of the evil sprits haunting them. The film was released to both critical and financial success going on to become one of the highest grossing and highest reviewed R-rated horror films ever, and with good reason. Forget the scare factor, "The Conjuring" boasted a great cast, detailed set design and cinematography, intriguing character development, and a mysterious story; it's just a great film. But what really sets this movie apart from others in its genre is the redemption themes that run throughout it.

At its core, "The Conjuring" is a film about good conquering evil, and more specifically about how love conquers all. Yes the film is quite frightening throughout, and it does seem like the demonic forces haunting this family are quite powerful, yet when the Warrens come to the aid of the family, there is a sense of ease not only with the family, but with the viewer, like we both know that things are going to be ok. The Warrens themselves are a great representation of loving and compassionate characters, who are willing to put their lives on the line so that others in need can see the power of God do away with evil. Several times throughout the film, Lorraine reminds Ed that, "God brought us together for a reason," that reason being to shine a light into the darkness. Throughout the film, the Warrens' faith never falters, even amidst an intimidating and seemingly powerful enemy. They never doubt that God will always be with them and help them minister to this family. Near the end of the film, during the Warren's final confrontation with the demon, Ed's determination and confidence remind me of Jesus' words in Luke 21, when He is telling his disciples how people will persecute them for their faith. He offers them words of encouragement saying:

"For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict." Luke 21:15

And in verse 19 He goes on to say that:

                                                      "Stand firm, and you will win life."

This is something that Ed takes to heart in his mission, and it is something that we need to remember when we are facing something in our lives that is intimidating to us.

This relationship between the Perron family and the Warren family is particularly engaging because the Perrons are not, as the husband says, "church-going types" (to which Ed humorously replies, "Well you may want to rethink that"). Yet even though they don't believe in God, the wife recognizes some sense of both power and comfort surrounding Ed and Lorraine Warren, which is what draws her to them to ask for their help. On the opposite site, Ed and Lorraine recognize that since this family does not believe in God, they have an even greater duty to not only drive away the demonic forces, but to drive away unbelief as well. The Warrens are really like missionaries, diving into dangerous situations where people are in need, and showing them the God's power and love, and as I said before, characters with that kind of mentality and character are rarely found in horror movies. 

But it is the climax of the film that is the most compelling part of the film (and yes, the most frightening as well). The filmmakers could have very easily chosen a cliche way in which to defeat the demon. Maybe they could have just had the exorcism work perfectly, or maybe they could have trapped it or sent it back to Hell with some mysterious object. Yet, what defeats the evil in "The Conjuring" is something far more powerful--love. Love literally does win out. After Ed Warren succeeds in drawing out the demon (who has now possessed the mother of the Perron family) he and Lorraine tell the part of the mother who is still in control that she has to fight it from the inside. Lorraine reminds her of a memory that she told her about earlier, about one of her happiest memories of her family. And so through remembering this memory, and holding onto the love that she has for her husband and for her children, she is able to fight off the demon that is trying to take her over. Now I can't imagine most horror movie producers being on board with the concept of beating the antagonist of the film with love (as opposed to a chainsaw or a portal back to Hell), but "The Conjuring" is trying to tell a greater message. And it's a message that one of the screenwriters spoke about back when the film came out.

When asked about writing the story of the film, screenwriter Chad Hayes said this, "We're never going to glorify evil. We want people to feel great after seeing it. To be scared and entertained, of course, but to walk out of the theater with a good feeling because good, God, is victorious." And this is why "The Conjuring" stands out, because it has the opposite mindset of most of the horror genre, a genre that takes delight in glorifying evil. And because of that, this is also probably one of the only horror films that has a genuinely happy ending. An ending where the viewer can feel totally comfortable because they can see that, for now at least (a sequel is being released in 2015), love has conquered all.

At the end of the film, there is a quote from Ed Warren put up on the screen that includes the statement, "Diabolical forces are formidable. These forces are eternal, and they exist today. The fairy tale is true. The devil exists. God exists. And for us, as people, our very destiny hinges upon which one we elect to follow.” Watching movies like "The Conjuring," I get far more scared than I get when I watch Michael Myers in a "Halloween" movie. And it's because I know that demons are very real, and that the devil is very real. Except this film does't just leave us with a sense of dread and fear, instead it reminds us that, as powerful and dangerous as these demons may seem, there is someone who is infinitely more powerful, and He will never abandon us. Just as it says in Romans 8, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons...will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Need a great scary movie to watch this Halloween? You'd be hard pressed to find one better than this. 

The Summer Movies Worth Buying (Updated)

The summer movie season of 2014 has unfortunately ended. While this summer's box office couldn't reach the heights of last year (there was nothing close to the $1 billion grossing Iron Man 3), that didn't mean there weren't any good films. Quite the opposite actually, this summer had plenty of memorable films that I can't wait to buy when they are released this fall/winter. But which films are the essential summer movies that you should be picking up? After some thinking I narrowed it down to six movies that I believe to be the best films of the summer (in no particular order).

X-Men: Days of Future Past 

You do need to have some familiarity with past films in the X-Men franchise to fully appreciate this movie, but even on its own, Bryan Singer has made a grand return to the series by crafting a complex, well-acted, and compelling action film. Days of Future Past boasts and incredible ensemble cast and combines both nods to the original trilogy and seeds that will grow in the future films. X-Men: Apocalypse is coming out in 2016 and will see the return of James Macavoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Evan Peters, and Hugh Jackman, and Channing Tatum is joining the team as the fan-favorite mutant, Gambit. I can't wait!

22 Jump Street

No one asked for a comedic remake of the 80's buddy cop show, but it happened anyway...and it was huge. 21 Jump Street was without a doubt the best comedy of the year (and of the last couple years) and made an impressive amount of money, meaning that a sequel was inevitable. Usually comedy sequels are a mess, but 22 Jump Street is a rare and delightful exception. Many have said it even tops the original (I'd have to see it again to decide) but one thing is for sure, the comedic chemistry between Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill is perfect. Add in a larger role for Ice Cube, more action, and hilarious ongoing commentary about the cliché Hollywood sequel, and you have one hilarious film (and perhaps the greatest end credits ever seen). 23 Jump Street has just been confirmed, so I'm eager to see it lightning can strike a third time with this great comedy series.

Godzilla

The reaction to this movie was mixed. Many were upset that there wasn't enough action in the film, and that we didn't see enough action. I loved how we actually had to wait to get to see what we wanted (a monster death-battle). The suspense that builds through the movie is great, and because of this, the first time we see Godzilla in all his glory is such an epic moment. Today we have so many action films that just want to shove as many action scenes and explosions in our face as possible, without giving any thought to the story (Transformers 4). Godzilla is the antithesis of those films, and it is what more action films should try to be like (watch Pacific Rim too).

The Purge Anarchy

This one was such a pleasant surprise for me. I didn't love The Purge last year, but I didn't hate it either. It had an interesting premise, but wasted it by only focusing on the events on just one house. That mistake was corrected with the sequel, where we get to see the effects of the annual Purge throughout the streets of a big city. We also get another great performance by Frank Grillo, who really needs to be in more movies. His character is someone we can sympathize with and root for (unlike Ethan Hawke's character in the first film). If you aren't a horror movie person, don't worry. While the film might be (falsely?) advertised as a scary movie, its nothing of the sort. You may be able to classify it as a thriller, but I would just call it one wild action film that has a very 80's feel to it. Give The Purge series a second chance with this movie, you will be glad that you did.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

This film was also a surprise to me. I was a fan of the prequel with James Franco that was released in 2011, but I wasn't quite sure just how good, or how bad, this second film would be. Turns out it is a
very superior sequel in every way. I was mesmerized by the stunning motion capture performance of Andy Serkis as Caesar, every time he spoke it was captivating and even intimidating. There are plenty of films out there with talking animals, but "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" makes sure that every time an ape speaks, you are just as shocked and intrigued as the humans in the film are. Pair that with perhaps the most realistic CGI seen in film yet, breathtaking action sequences, and some serious social commentary, "Dawn" is definitely my 2nd favorite film of the year so far, falling closely behind the last film on this list... 
Guardians of the Galaxy

To quote the poster..."You're Welcome"

 

Why the Spider-Man Franchise Has Lost Its Power

Yesterday I talked about how 2014 has been a great year for super hero movies and went through three different films that have brought something either new or refreshing (or both) to the superhero genre. Captain America: The Winter Soldier went in a completely different direction from the first film in the franchise and proved that a superhero movie can work as an espionage thriller. X-Men: Days of Future took the scope and scale of the series to a whole new level and restored the series to its former glory. And Guardians of the Galaxy introduced a whole new world with whole new characters in a hilariously fun way. Yet one superhero was not on the list, and unfortunately, that superhero happens to be our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Unlike these other films, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 brings nothing new to the table that we haven't seen before, and instead chooses to be just more of the same. And while this film could have corrected the mistakes of the first installment (released in 2012), it contains all the same mistakes...and they are much worse here. Be aware that the remainder of the article contains major spoilers for The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Perhaps the greatest problem with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is that it lacks focus. It is trying to do way to many things at once, and trying to tell way too many stories at once. Of course at the center of everything, you have the story about a teenager/adult who has to balance everyday life with the responsibility of having super powers, that is the key element of every Spider-Man story. Then you have the romantic side-plot  between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, still no problems here. But then we are forced to see this extensive side-plot about Peter's parents and what "really happened" to them which has next to nothing to do with the main plot of the movie. And then, since Sony wants to make as much money as possible, the Sinister Six (like the Avengers of Spidey villains) needs to be set up ASAP, so we have not one, not two, but three villains, two of which have their own side-plots. So here we have a movie trying to juggle five different side plots along with the main plot in only two hours. It's so overstuffed and cannot ever hope to work.

This is unfortunate because there is one thing that director Marc Webb does a good job with, and that is the romance. The chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is the greatest strength of this rebooted franchise, and I wish there could have been way more time devoted to the love story of Peter and Gwen (and now because of Gwen's death, that will never happen) because it likely would have resulted in a slightly better film. Yet, even the success of the romantic story arc is constantly taken away from by the other useless story arcs, whether its watching some oddly placed German doctor experiment of Electro, or another scene about Peter's dad that kills the pacing of the movie. Anytime that the film starts to make us think it can shine, those thoughts are diminished from the overstuffed narrative, which can mostly be attributed to all the villains.

Many would have hoped that Sony learned its lesson about having too many villains in one film after the poorly received Spider-Man 3, which concluded Sam Raimi's original Spidey trilogy on a low note. Nope. Again we have a film with too many villains, which honestly would not be that big of a problem...if they weren't all so awful (and not in the evil, super-villain kind of way). Electro rivals Batman and Robin's Mr. Freeze as the worst and cheesiest comic book villain I have ever seen on screen. Thanks to a Razzie-worthy performance by Jamie Foxx, Electro spews out cringe-worthy lines of dialogue almost every time he speaks. And Dane DeHaan's Green Goblin looks and sounds way more like a glider-riding Evil Ed (watch 1985's Fright Night if you don't get that reference) than Spider-Man's arch-nemesis. I wouldn't be surprised if DeHaan scores a Razzie nomination as well. And while Paul Giamatti is having a lot of fun with playing Rhino...it's still too weird.

The villains of the Raimi films (for the most part) had a lot of thought put into their backstories, development, and motivation, particularly the fantastic character of Dr. Octopus played by Alfred Molina. In every good superhero movie, we should get just as excited about seeing the villains as we do about the heroes (ex. Loki, The Joker, Magneto). There is no thought put into the villains in this movie and Electro in particular has nothing to do with Peter's story except that Spider-Man has to fight someone who can create awesome visual effects. The whole reason he becomes a full on villain is because Spider-Man forgets his name...really? And while Harry Osbourne's motivation might be more believable, we don't get nearly as much time with his character development to care about him at all.

To wrap things up, the first Amazing Spider-Man was about a high-schooler who is trying to find answers about his parents, while at the same time trying to balance being a superhero with dating Gwen. Along the way he fights a villain that used to work at Oscorp, finds out a few things about his parents, and has to witness the death of a Stacy family member. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is about a high-schooler who is trying to find answers about his parents, while at the same time trying to balance being a superhero with dating Gwen. Along the way he....fights a villain that used to work at Oscorp, finds out a few things about his parents, and....has to witness the death of a Stacy family...wait what? Its the same exact movie. It's something we have all seen before and now it's just plain boring. It's a shame because Andrew Garfield IS Spider-Man when he is in the suit, and the romance is fun to watch, but there are just too many problems that make these achievements seem pointless. If this movie was released ten years ago, there's a good chance that it would have been viewed as a lot better. But today, when there are as many as five superhero films being released in a year, the same-old formula that this film uses just can't compare with the new and more exciting superhero films that are being released around it. Which is why The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is such an unfortunate disappointment.

Oh, and would it be too much trouble to at least say the classic line, "With great power comes great responsibility," somewhere in the film?!

Why 2014 Has Been the Best Year for Superhero Movies Since 2008

Guardians of the Galaxy is an awesome movie. It's refreshingly original, it's laugh out loud funny, it's smart, it's heartfelt, and it's badass. I'm still thinking of all the reasons why I loved it so much and will probably think of even more after my eventual second viewing of it. And in my love for Guardians I have realized something---2014 has been a great year for superhero movies, and not just a great year, but probably the best year since 2008. In these last four months we have seen the release of three great superhero films (and one really disappointing one, more on that later).

In 2013, Marvel gave us Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World, and while those were both good movies, they both felt just mediocre when compared to the rest of Marvel's films (also, DC released an angst-filled Superman movie). Of course there was 20th Century Fox's The Wolverine, which was a breath of fresh air from all the explosive, big-budget blockbusters of that summer, (and was my favorite comic book film of the year) but even that film didn't match the greatness of X2 back in 2004. 

2014 has proven to be much different for the genre. Three films have each brought something refreshing and exciting to their franchise/genre. But before we get into the specifics with each film, let's look back at why 2008 was such a big year for comic book movies to begin with.

2008: The Game Changer in the Superhero Genre

Flashback to the end of 2007 and the state of the superhero genre is pretty weak. The original Spider-Man trilogy has just wrapped up with a disappointing conclusion. Earlier, the original X-Men trilogy also finished with a disappointing conclusion. The Fantastic Four movies didn't even make it to a third film because the second one was disappointing, and then you have films like Ghost Rider that just make everyone angry. At this point in time, a lot of people were beginning to say that the superhero film was "dying out," and with good reason too. 

Enter 2008 and two films are released that both reinvent the comic book genre and put all that talk of "dying out" to rest. 

   

        

In one summer we were introduced to two films that are among the greatest Superhero films of all time. Iron Man not only kicked off the Avengers story arc with a bang, but propelled Robert Downey Jr. back to the top of Hollywood fame with his unforgettable performance as the genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist, Tony Stark. And speaking of unforgettable performances, The Dark Knight is full of them. From Christian Bale's conflicted Bruce Wayne, to Aaron Eckart's tragically compelling Harvey Dent, the film is full of incredible acting. Yet none quite compare to the chilling performance of Heath Ledger as the menacing Joker (made even more eerie due to the tragic passing of Ledger earlier that year). Ledger's career defining role later earned him a posthumous Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, and many now consider his performance to be one of the greatest of all time.  Personally, I will never forget my first viewing of The Dark Knight. It is so captivating from beginning to end and has it's place among my favorite movies (it's also the the first film I ever wrote on for this blog). 

2008 was great, and since then there have been some good-to-great superhero films, but not since 2008 has there been a summer of multiple films that have really been something special. So lets dive into each one. 

Why Captain America: The Winter Soldier is so great: 

It's easy to say that The Winter Soldier is so good because it's better than the first Captain America, but that is not the only thing that makes this sequel so special. Winter Soldier doesn't just improve upon the original, it totally reinvents the franchise from a campy, light-hearted WWII period piece to a modern, gritty espionage thriller. The film gave audiences something new and fresh and promised  from the very first trailer that the sequel would have a very different feel from the first film. And the final product does good on the promise, giving us a fast paced, thrill ride that packs in some twists and turns along the way. Not only that, but the combat choreography is largely improved upon showcasing several intense hand-to-hand combat sequences that have a very "Jason Bourne" feel to them. Chris Evans continues to shine as Steven Rodgers and is backed up by a great supporting cast that brings old and new characters to life, particularly Anthony Mackie's performance as Falcon. Superhero movies have always been full of action and big budget explosions, but The Winter Soldier proved that they can be capable to telling stories full of mystery and suspense as well. 

Why X-Men: Days of Future Past is so great:

To use a cliche term, this film is truly epic for several reasons. First of all, the story: Bryan Singer found the perfect way to unite two all-star casts into one huge storyline, taking much inspiration from the famous comic book arc of the same name. Not only does he find a really good balance between showing us the different worlds of the past and the future, but he also established two radically different tones for these different times (with the world of the future being almost downright depressing). The film is also careful to make sure that all of the time-travel mechanics and details of the story never get too confusing for the viewers. Wolverine goes back in time to unite Professor X and Magneto so that they can save the future X-Men from Tyrion Lannister...its just as awesome as it sounds. 

And while the film has some great action scenes (especially one featuring a scene-stealing Quicksilver) the greatest strength of the X-Men franchise has always been the conflict between the views of Professor X and Magneto (and the social commentary that it provides). Which is why the climax of the film is so great and different. While most superhero movies now feature a huge physical brawl between the heroes and the villains, the climax of Days of Future Past is more a conversation, a battle of worldviews between Professor X and Magneto as they battle for the soul of one of their fellow mutants. The whole scene is gripping and exciting, even though there aren't punches being thrown around. 

Finally, the X-Men films have often benefited greatly from strong performances and this film is no different. Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Ellen Page, Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Fassbender, and of course Hugh Jackson, are all very talented actors/actresses, and they are all given there moments to shine throughout the film. But it's James McAvoy who really stands out here, as his performance as a broken Charles Xavier who must learn to overcome his struggles is full of emotion and heart. The expectations for this film were high, and they were undoubtedly met thanks to an ambitious story, committed performances, well-written dialogue, and even an exciting score from John Ottoman (who's "X-Men Theme" he brings back from X2 gives me chills every time). Not only does Days of Future Past restore the franchise to its former glory, but it proves that there are still stories left to be told in the X-Men universe (bring on Apocalypse). 

Why Guardians of the Galaxy is so great: 

I already listed off several reasons why I loved Guardians at the start of this article, but to go a little more in depth, director James Gunn has done some great things with this movie. With Guardians, we are introduced to a whole new set of characters (something that hasn't happened with Marvel films since 2011) and really interesting characters at that! This ragtag team of outlaws includes a vengeance seeking Drax the Destroyer who is unable to understand the most simple metaphor, a walking tree who can only say, "I am Groot", and a gun toting, foul-mouthed raccoon (but don't call him that). And just because Peter Quill is the only "normal" human in the film, it doesn't make him any less interesting as a character. Thanks to a very enthusiastic performance from Chris Pratt, the character of Quill/Star Lord carries the film with his mix of humor, wit, and swagger that is very reminiscent of Harrison Ford's Han Solo. Each character is a scene-stealer and each character has something about them that the audience can find to be compelling, which is why Guardians also has more heart than any other Marvel film. This is a story about family, about dealing with loss, and about overcoming it, and these themes and emotions can really be felt thanks to the well-written and well-acted characters. 

Not only that, but the film is beautifully shot and has some great set designs. The film does a great job of not only introducing us to new characters, but to this new and expanded universe as well, featuring odd and intriguing planets and locations scattered throughout the galaxy. It's even more exciting knowing that these characters share the same universe as all the other Avengers, and that some day they are bound to meet up. Like I said earlier, it's refreshingly original, it's laugh out loud funny, it's smart, it's heartfelt, and it's badass. Guardians of the Galaxy is one of the best films Marvel has done to date and really is an instant classic! 

Looking forward: 

When will there be another year as great as 2014? It very well could be next year, when we will see the release of the highly anticipated sequel, Avengers: Age of Ultron as well as Ant-Man. And if not next year, 2016 will have Captain America 3, Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, X-Men: Age of Apocalypse, The Sinister Six (Spider-Man villains), AND another "Untitled Marvel film" (probably Dr. Strange). Going forward, every year will now see the release of at least three super-hero films and we will begin to see a lot of new characters come to the screen (mostly from Marvel but a few from DC as well) as the superhero genre continues to grow larger and larger. But for now, I'm just happy that a comic book nerd like myself can enjoy the great year that 2014 has been for the genre. 

Tomorrow: I will take a look at why one superhero film this year was such an unfortunate disappointment. 

X-Men Days of Future Past Review

The very first "X-Men" film, which was released back in 2000, not only became a surprise box office hit, but was the movie that started the age of comic book movies that we are still in. Back then "X-Men" was a big risk. Super-hero films hadn't really been a big box office draw since nearly ten years beforehand with "Batman Returns," and not only that, but how could a team of superheros be successfully brought together in one 90 minute movie? Sound familiar? Really, Bryan Singer managed to do with "X-Men" what Joss Whedon managed to do in "The Avengers," just 12 years earlier and with less-developed CGI. The film was a hit, Hugh Jackman's career began (remember there was a time when the Internet hated the news that Jackman was casted as Wolverine?), and super-heroes were back in style (something that was really set in stone when "Spider-Man"was released in 2002).

Fourteen years and six films later, "X-Men: Days of Future Past" (DOFP for short) is the most ambitious comic book film to be brought to the cinema (that is until "Civil War" is announced in 2018). The old cast from the original trilogy that includes Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Halle Berry, and Ellen Page  shares the film with the new cast from the brilliant prequel film, "X-Men: First Class" that includes James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, and Nicholas Hoult. A new addition is the always excellent Peter Dinklage as the creator of the mutant-hunting Sentinel robots, and at the center of the all the time-traveling action is Hugh Jackman's Wolverine. But this film is not Wolverine's story, as much as it is Young Professor X's story. Many noted that "X-Men: First Class" served as a kind of origin story for Magento, as we really got an insight to his beginnings and his journey to becoming the villain we all know him to be. The same can be said for DOFP as being an origin story for Professor X. Even though we have already been introduced to McAvoy's character, it isn't really until this film that we see the compelling story of grief and struggle that the Professor has to get through to become the wise and compassionate man we know he will become. More on that later though, first let me give a brief, spoiler-free, plot outline:

The year is 2023, and the future is a dark time for mutants and humans alike. The Sentinel robots have been upgraded with the ability to adapt to any mutant power, basically making them unstoppable, and so they have managed to wipe out almost all of the mutants on Earth (ones that don't resist are put in prison camps). With these machines everywhere, and only the most vile humans left serving as the leaders of this apocalyptic world, the few remaining X-Men develop a plan to use Kitty Pride's evolved time-traveling powers to send someone back fifty years to 1973 in order to stop the assassination of Boliver Trask by the shape-shifting Mystique, an assassination that will convince the government of a need for the Sentinel Program. Of course, the only one whose mind would be able to survive the trip is the slow-aging Wolverine, and so he is sent back to unite a young Professor X and Magneto at a time when they couldn't be further apart to end the future war before it ever begins. Don't worry about being confused by all the rules of time-travel as they are pretty clearly explained in the beginning of the film and it isn't really as complicated as one might expect.

Right from the opening scene of the film, which begins as the old trilogy did, with a narration from Patrick Stewart's Professor X, it clear that Bryan Singer is back in the director's chair and he is ready to deliver another great X-Men film. DOFP has a very classic feel to it, with many visuals, lines of dialogue, and even camera shots echoing back to the first two X-Men films. And when the opening credits begin, and John Ottoman's "Main Theme" that hasn't been heard in ten years powerfully plays as the title flashes across the screen, it's just so exciting and serves as an indication that Singer is ready to restore the X-Men franchise to its former glory.

Of course, the strength of the X-Men films has never come in the form of its action scenes. Now that's not to say that there isn't any good action, quite the opposite, DOFP has some exciting set pieces, the greatest involving the super-fast, scene stealing Quicksilver (played by Evan Peters). But the true strength of the franchise has always been found in the performances and the drama (both of which are superior to most other comic-book films).

Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen were the power-house anchors of the original trilogy, so it is great to see them back in this film giving dedicated performances to such great characters. Even though we do not see them as much in this film, they make the most of the scenes that they do have. Speaking of dedicated, there is probably no actor more dedicated to a role in the comic book movie world than Hugh Jackman. This marks his 6th time playing Wolverine (7th if you count his cameo in "X-Men: First Class"), and it is clear that he still enjoys it. There are still plenty of great one-liners that he throws out, and it's excited that in this film Jackman gets to take his character in a direction that hasn't been taken before--the role of a mentor (even though patience isn't Wolverine's strongest suit).

James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender proved that they could be strong anchors, just as Stewart and McKellen were, in "First Class" and both continue to shine here, but it's McAvoy who gives the film's most compelling performance. After the events of "First Class," his character is left physically and emotionally broken, and McAvoy brilliant portrays a Professor X that we haven't seen yet, a Professor X that is struggling with his ideals, with his grief, and even with drug abuse (a drug that allows him to walk but blocks out his powers). His journey through DOFP is a heart-felt one, and one that matches Patrick Stewart's.

In addition to the acting, the other thing that makes this film so great is the drama, the rich story-telling. In DOFP, the main characters aren't fighting against a clear-cut villain, instead they are fighting for the soul of Mystique, who is struggling in trying to find out who she wants to be. Professor X wants her to have hope in humanity, and show them that mutants can be trusted allies, but Magneto wants her to be the ruthless killer that he is, to shows humans that mutants are the superior species. And of course, the path that she chooses will have a serious effect on the future. The social commentary, expressed through the conflicting worldviews of Professor X and Magneto (which was originally written to parallel that conflicting views of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X), is as strong as ever and fuels the film's heart and soul. The film speaks on something that we all can relate to. How do we confront those whose ideas, morals, and worldviews differ from our own? How to we respond when we are mocked for our beliefs, our political associations, our skin color? Do we respond with aggression, hatred, and violence, or with forgiveness and love? These questions can give us a lot to think about and discuss when watching the X-Men films, and especially DOFP.

The X-Men franchise is the longest running comic book series so far. Sure, there were a couple of stinkers in the middle, but it has still produced five good to great films. "X-Men: Days of Future" past has all the best parts of the franchise, a compelling story backed up by strong performances and exciting  (and at times brutal) action scenes. Ten years after leaving the X-Men films, Bryan Singer has come back and delivered the greatest entry in the X-Men canon yet, and has given the series quite a bright future. A+

Godzilla: A Classic Blockbuster That Makes Us Wait (And Why That is a Good Thing)

This post contains minor spoilers for Godzilla and MAJOR spoilers for The Amazing Spider-Man 2. 

Gone are the days when we barely knew anything about a movie before we sat down in the theater to see it. This isn't really too new of a thing, but ever since the rise of the super-hero blockbuster in the early 2000's, movie trailers have been showing more and more until we have practically seen most of the film before it comes out. Take for example the marketing for "The Amazing Spider-Man 2", in the first trailer for the film, we got a first look at more of Spider-Man swinging around, some interaction between Peter and Gwen, and a little look at Jamie Fox's Electro, and that was fine! Nothing in the first trailer was too much, instead it was fairly standard footage that you would expect to see in a Spider-Man trailer. It was everything that followed the first trailer that was too much. After about three more trailers and over ten clips, the marketing had shown us too many of the funniest one-liners, most of the best actions scenes, and extended peeks at the two other villains including Green Goblin, which practically took away any suspense there would have been about him turning to the dark side if it hadn't been spoiled in the trailers. By comparison, remember "Spider-Man 3", when we didn't even see what Venom looked like until we actually saw the movie (as bad as it was...)? And heck, we practically saw Gwen's death in the trailers! 

It has become quite rare to see an action scene in a movie that we haven't at least seen a part of in the trailers. We can't actually be surprised by something we haven't seen yet, and that applies to about 95% of modern blockbusters. A film that is part of that rarer 5%...Gareth Edwards' "Godzilla," a film that not only gave very little away in the marketing, but even makes you wait awhile in the actual film to see the action and destruction you have come to see. 

See this is another problem with the majority of action films today, they immediately throw action at us without any explanation, and without any time to develop a story or develop characters. The newest Godzilla film is the exact opposite of this. In fact, you have to wait till almost halfway through the film to even see the monster himself! And while a lot of people are complaining about this, I loved that we had to wait so long to see him. In the first hour of the film, the director is making a point. He is saying that, "Yes, this movie is about a giant monster that causes destruction, but its also about the people that witness this destruction as well!" Almost any other director would have just thrown in Godzilla wreaking havoc from the first five minutes, and continued the carnage for the whole two hours. Edwards instead chooses to develop his human characters and tell a larger and story. One of my favorite scenes didn't even have Godzilla, just a very compelling and emotional scene with terrific acting by Walter White. 

But he is also teasing the appearance of Godzilla. He throws in little sounds and movements in the water. And this creates such terrific suspense and anticipation, that when we finally see him, and he lets out his terrifying roar, it is such a satisfyingly epic moment! My theater even erupted in applause cause it is such a classic moment! 

(Spoilers) And the same goes for the action sequences. I has NO IDEA that there were even other monsters in this film, and that Godzilla is supposed to be the " hero" that fights them! And that is a testament to how well the marketing kept the best parts of the film under-wraps. How often do you never even get to see the villains of a movie in the trailers? Pretty much never...but you don't see them in the "Godzilla" trailers. Instead people like me went in thinking that Godzilla was the "bad guy," only to find out that I would be rooting for him to save the human race in a death-match that was not teased at all in the trailers, making it all the more exciting.

Many people are not going to be happy with "Godzilla" because for an action/destruction film, only forty minutes tops of the two hour film contain action and destruction. And many will also not like how we have to wait so long to see him in the first place. But I applaud this movie for doing what so many modern blockbusters are so afraid to do--make people wait for what they want, keep us in the dark to the climactic battles and action set pieces that make these films so exciting. I was so excited watching "Godzilla" because I really had no idea what was going to happen and when. In "The Amazing Spider-Man 2," I knew that Harry was going to turn into the Green Goblin, I knew when and where Spider-Man was going to fight all the villains, I knew Gwen was going to leave Peter for Oxford University, and I knew that she was going to die. There were no surprises about "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" which is probably why I was a little disappointed by it. I love movie trailers and abundant action scenes as much as the next Hollywood junkie. But we should want more films to be like patience-demanding "Godzilla," so that the concepts of suspense and anticipation can be thrown back into the modern summer blockbuster.  

Finding God in Cinema: Noah

After reading the title of this article you are probably saying to yourself, "Of course there is plenty about God and the Bible in the film about Noah and the flood, right?" Well that is a point of major debate that has Christians pretty much split down the middle when it comes to Darren Aronofsky's new epic that opened this past weekend (and gave Russell Crowe the highest grossing opening weekend of his career). The film has been flooded with heavy amounts of controversy for almost a year for multiple reasons. First there were creative differences between the director and Paramount Pictures, then there were setbacks due to budget issues, then there was negative reaction to the film when an early version was screened for select Christian audiences, and so on. Now the film has been released and there is still much debate on how Christians should look at this film.

I saw the film on opening night and before I dive into my main discussion, let me first give a very brief review of the film. I loved the film. It was epic, the acting was incredible (Emma Watson gave her best performance yet), the visuals were breathtaking, the music was beautiful, and the film's main message was intense (more on that later). And that is definitely the shortest review I have ever written. 

Anyway, now that you know how I felt about the actual film, I want to jump into some different points of debate that make up the film's controversy and let you know where I stand. If you haven't seen it yet, my hope is that this will allow you to gain a little more information on the film to help you decide if you think you should see it or not, if you have seen the film, hopefully this will give a little more insight into how we as Christians should approach a movie like this. 

Point of Debate #1: Does the film takes too many deviations from the Biblical account of Noah?

This is the big one. People have gotten upset over the abundance of "artistic license" this film employs. And that would be a sensible complaint...if the filmmakers had stated that this was a literal adaptation of the story of Noah...but they didn't say that. Paramount pictures has been very clear in their marketing that this film is NOT a literal adaptation, or even a loose adaptation. Instead, they say that this film was INSPIRED by the story of Noah. This means that yes, the movie has a main character named Noah, a giant arc, and a flood, but outside of those three things, it is a complete work of fiction. And when you go into the film knowing that it is not supposed to be the exact story of Noah from the book of Genesis, it is much easier to enjoy it for what it is, a fully fictional piece of art. 

Now let's just say that, for the sake of debate, the whole "inspired by Noah" isn't good enough. Ok, to that I would say that the story of Noah is one of the least descriptive stories in the entire Bible. It is very brief (only a few chapters) because of that, it does leave a lot up to the imagination (i.e. Aronofsky's artistic direction) about what happens in between the little details we do get. Examples of what we don't know from the Bible: how Noah built the ark specifically, if anyone tried to get on the ark when the flood began, how they treated the animals during the storm, etc. These are all details that the director had to address for the sake of the film, and they are areas in which he exercises most of his original ideas. 

To solve the problem of how Noah built a giant ark, we are presented with The Watchers, these giant rock creatures/fallen angels that were obviously INSPIRED by a few brief verses in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:4 says "There were giants in the Earth in those days"). The Watchers are definitely the weirdest part of the film (even though I found them kind of likable as well) but they do serve as an easy answer as to how Noah built the ark and how a giant army of men were kept from running onto the ship when the flood started. Which leads me to the next thing.

Another big departure is King Tubal-cain (played excellently by Ray Winstone) and his army of evil men. Of course, the inclusion is not nearly as outlandish as the Watchers. After all, the film has to have a primary antagonist, and it isn't too crazy to think that some people would have tried to rush onto the ark when they realized that they were about to die. The only thing that dances on the edge of believability is how Tubal-cain manages to sneak onto the ark at the last second and hides in the lower levels for such a long amount of time, but again, every film needs a primary antagonist. 

The biggest and probably most difficult departure that Christians will have a hard time getting past is the whole "killer Noah" thing that provides the conflict for the final third of the film. In the film, Noah decides that all men should die after the flood, not just the line of Cain, and so when he finds out that his daughter-in-law is pregnant, he tells her that if the child is a girl, he will kill her the moment she leaves the womb...dang! For me, it was here when the film started to lose me a little bit, but by this moment (with more than 2/3 of the film past) I had already accepted that this film was so far removed from the Biblical story of Noah, that I was willing to buy into this fictional character that Aronofsky created. 

Bottom Line: Go into Noah knowing that it was never intended to be anything like the Bible story we all know. This is 10% Noah and 90% Aronofsky's creation, it could almost be called an original screenplay. I would have had a problem with the film if they claimed that it was how it really happened, but that isn't the case. Furthermore, I would have had a problem if this was a film about Jesus and so many deviation from the Bible were taken, but like I said, the story of Noah has very little detail, and so it is no surprise that there is a lot in this film that we don't recognize.

Point of Debate #2: Is this film "anti-biblical"?

I came across a headline for an online article yesterday that read "NOAH IS UNBIBLICAL, EVIL, AND REPRESENTS PAGANISM!" I almost burst out laughing at the utterly ridiculous claim. Is the film anti-biblical? Absolutely not! That would mean that the film's messages and themes would be against the Bible and against what the Bible teaches and that is simply not true at all for this film. In fact I would say that, unsurprisingly, there are some good Biblical themes present throughout Noah. 

So where is God to be found in this film? I would narrow it down to three main themes that are present throughout, in order from least to most prominent. 

First is the idea of forgiveness, which I wished had been a little more prominent in this dark tale. But there is one scene that provides a visual image of forgiveness that for some reason I just really enjoyed...and yes, it involves the giant rock creatures. In the film, the Watchers, the fallen angels, do not believe that they will enter the Kingdom of God again because they have disobeyed Him. Then later in the film, when the Watchers are defending the ark from the army of Tubal-cain, one of them is killed and as he is dying he looks up into the sky and asks God's forgiveness. Then, to his surprise, his spirit breaks free from the solid rock it was trapped in and is carried up to Heaven. It is after looking at this when another Watcher exclaims to the others, "He has forgiven us! The Creator is bringing us home!" And then the remaining Watchers fight, no longer fearing death, because they know they are forgiven. And to me this was such a beautiful image, illustrating God's forgiveness and love for us. We too are dirty with the sins of this Earth, but because of Christ's sacrifice, we are redeemed, and when our time on this Earth is done, we will be free of our sin and be carried up to our Heavenly Father, because we are forgiven.

Second, is the message of God's immense love for us. We all know the story of how God created the Earth, how mankind fell into sin, and why God decided to flood the Earth to begin with. In fact, there is a visually beautiful scene depicting how God's creation came to be when Noah tells his family the story of "In the beginning..." And we also know that God did not leave us to be miserable forever and dead in our sins. Instead, He showed us love and mercy by entering into a Covenant of Grace with Adam (and with everyone after Adam) promising redemption through a savior, His son. And while the Covenant of Grace and Jesus are not specifically mentioned in the film, God's love is prominent, especially in the end, when Noah realizes that the gift of love, given to him and his family by God, is the only reason that they were spared from the destruction of the Earth. Truly it is only because of God's love that we are saved, because through that love he sent Christ (John 3:16) to save us from our spiritual destruction. 

But the overarching theme that Aronofsky has chosen is a dark one, one that is risky to present to both a Christian and non-Christian audience. The theme I am speaking of is the wickedness of man. In the film, Noah believes that he and his family are much better than the "sinful and wicked sons of Cain" and he looks down on them for much of the film. That is, until he has a vision (presumably from God) that makes him realize that he is just as wicked as all of these other men around him. He sees in himself the same capacity for sin that everyone else has, and this realization drives him to the edge of sanity. This struggle that Noah faces is the same struggle that we face on a daily basis. We are always so quick to point out the sin of others that we never admit to ourselves that we are capable of that same exact sin (Matthew 7:3). Furthermore, we so often forget that we do not deserve God's love and Christ's sacrifice. We so often forget that we deserve misery and death and Hell (Noah refers to the flood as God's justice). Romans 3:10-11 says this:

There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God

If we can take one thing away from watching this film, just look at the grand destruction of the Earth by the flood. This film showcases the destruction that we deserve, but because of God's love, and because of Jesus we are spared (just as Noah was spared). And it is really cool to me that a director (whom I presume to be an unbeliever) has captured this idea so well through film.

Point of Debate #3: Is This Film Harming the Way Non-Believers Look at Christianity?

I have said many times that movies are modern day parables. They are stories that have the potential to contain powerful messages and redeeming truth. I have also said, in regards to film, that God works in mysterious ways, and that film can be His tool to plant the seeds of the faith in the minds of people who watch them. And movies don't have to be "Christian films" to do this! If films such as The Matrix, Harry Potter, and even Bruce Almighty can spark discussion about God and Christianity, then surely Noah can! Now I'm not saying that every non-Christian is going to watch this film and immediately start asking questions about God. My point is that this film can act as a bridge between believers and nonbelievers, who are both wandering into the movie theater to enjoying some quality entertainment. Then, if people start asking questions about the Biblical story of Noah, THEN we can use our knowledge of Scripture to steer them in a more accurate direction. Hollywood has produced a blockbuster film that could very possibly make an impact on a nonbeliever's worldview (how often does that happen??), so why in the world are so many people set on hating it and dismissing it as "anti-biblical?" 

Conclusion

It happens with every Biblical adaptation that comes to the silver screen--there is always controversy. And I understand the people that are upset when they ask, "Is it so much to ask for an accurate adaptation from the Bible, when Harry Potter and Hunger Games fans get faithful adaptations of their fictional books?" The bottom line is, just because everything in the film, Noah, is not directly from the Bible does not mean that it is bad. Of course, if you just didn't like the movie that's of course a different story. Darren Aronofsky has crafted an epic fantasy, inspired by one of the most famous stories in the Old Testament. I would encourage viewers to see the film knowing before-hand what it is, borderline-original fiction. Then afterwords, find others who have seen it and discuss where you saw God in the film, where you wish you saw God more, and what is to be learned from seeing a movie like this. After all, one of the best things about movies is the rich discussion they can provide.