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. 

Oscar Predictions 2014

The time has come again! The biggest award show in the movie business airs Sunday night and its going to be a good one! With Ellen DeGeneres hosting, musical performances by Idina Menzel and U2, and a Best Picture race that has not been so tight in years, The 86th Annual Academy Awards is promising to be an exciting night full of surprises. And as I do each year, it is time for me to make my predictions for the major categories. This year, as I've already said, it was extremely hard for me to predict the winner in a couple categories since some of the competition is just so close but here are my best guesses:

Best Animated Film

This is one of the easier categories. For almost everyone, Frozen, is the clear winner this year, and it should be. The film has had a run at the box office that is nothing short of incredible, the soundtrack has been at the top of the charts for weeks, and the consensus from critics was that this is Disney's best film since The Lion King. Like it or not, Frozen is a worldwide hit, Disney's biggest success in years, and so it should not have a problem walking away with the Oscar Sunday night. Its only competition is The Wind Rises which is the final film from acclaimed director Hayao Miyazaki, who won an Oscar in 2003 for his film Spirited Away. If Miyazaki had not one an Oscar yet, then the chances of him receiving an award for his achievements would be much greater, but that is not the case, so it probably won't end up besting Disney's latest musical.

Who will win: Frozen
Who should win: Frozen
Possible Upset: The Wind Rises

Best Original Song

Much like the last category, at first glance this seems like a given. "Let It Go" is huge, even yesterday all of Times Square sang it together on Good Morning America. This song deserves the win, but there is also U2's new single "Ordinary Love" that surprisingly took away the Golden Globe last month. Sometimes the Academy favors big name artists like this, but I think "Let It Go" should be pretty safe.

Who will win: Let It Go
Who should win: Let It Go
Possible Upset: Ordinary Love 

Best Visual Effects

This one is pretty much a gimme. I expect Gravity to sweep all the technical categories this year (which is why I'm not going to go through all the categories like sound mixing, sound editing, etc.). Unfortunately for me, I have not yet seen the film (don't hate me) but I will be seeing it Saturday night and expect it to be visually and technically amazing...even if that's all that is good about it. Anyways...while The Hobbit boasts some amazing visuals, Gravity stood out this year as a unique piece of filmmaking, and many of the visual effects were created for the film.

Who will win: Gravity 
Who should win: Gravity  
Possible Upset: No

Best Costume Design

How in the world did Catching Fire NOT get nominated for this? Every time I see the film I am furious that the Academy totally snubbed that movie for Best Costume Design...but whatever. I'm picking American Hustle for this one. The costumes were diverse, colorful, and authentic. A possible contender for this one would be The Great Gatsby for all of those same reasons, but Hustle should pull out the win since it's a favorite for some of the major categories as well.

Who will win: American Hustle 
Who should win: American Hustle 
Possible Upset:The Great Gatsby 

Best Adapted Screenplay

Ok, this is when it starts to get a little harder to predict the winners, but this year, Best Adapted Screenplay is a little easier to pick than Best Original Screenplay. I'm giving it to 12 Years a Slave. Out of the five films nominated in this category, Slave is by far the frontrunner to win Best Picture, which gives it a major advantage. Its major threat is The Wolf of Wall Street, a film that can't seem to escape the bad press surrounding the overabundance of drugs, sex, and vulgarity that is packed into it, which is why Slave should come away with the win.

Who will win: 12 Years a Slave 
Who should win: 12 Years a Slave 
Possible Upset: The Wolf of Wall Street 

Best Original Screenplay

Will it be Her or American Hustle? That is the big question. One could look at the fact that Her has already won best screenplay at the Golden Globes and the WGA award (Writers Guild) and think that a win from the Academy would be obvious. But I wouldn't say this one is a gimme. The Academy is notorious for bringing it upon themselves to "correct mistakes" made by other award ceremonies (primarily the Golden Globes) and if they deem American Hustle superior, then they will be the ones to surprise people and ignore the awards given to Her already. And there is also Dallas Buyers Club to consider. The film has been getting more and more press since Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto have been sweeping the acting awards for the film. It could be a potential dark horse. I want to give this one to American Hustle, but I think that Her is still the frontrunner for this one.

Who will win: Her
Who should win: American Hustle 
Possible Upset: Dallas Buyers Club

Best Supporting Actress

Jennifer Lawrence or Lupita Nyong'o? This is another pretty close race. Both have won the award in various award ceremonies, but for the Oscars, I'm giving this one to Lawrence, who is already loved by the Academy. In the three years the Lawrence has been a star, she has been nominated for three Academy Awards, and has won once. Winning again would make her the youngest actress to receive back-to-back awards. Lupita Nyong'o gave a great/moving performance in 12 Years a Slave, but it wasn't close to Lawrence's scene-stealer of a character in American Hustle.

Who will win: Jennifer Lawrence 
Who should win: Jennifer Lawrence 
Possible Upset: Lupita Nyong'o 

Best Supporting Actor

Jared Leto! Jared Leto! Jared Leto! NO. Here's the thing with this one: Jared Leto is winning awards because of the character he is playing, not because of his performance. That is just how the Academy works sometimes and sure, it's pretty annoying, but what are you going to do. I think the true deserver of this award is Michael Fassbender, who managed to be one of the most chilling and evil villains in a long time with the twisted Edwin Epps in 12 Years a Slave. Now that was a terrific performance. But as great as it is, it will unlikely stop the awards train that is Jared Leto this year.

Who will win: Jared Leto 
Who should win: Michael Fassbender 
Possible Upset: Bradley Cooper

Best Actress

Two words...Cate Blanchett

Who will win: Cate Blanchett
Who should win: Cate Blanchett 
Possible Upset: No way

Best Actor

Can anyone stop Matthew McConaughey? I think so. In fact, I think there are a few others in this category that pose a threat to this actor's seemingly unstoppable sweep. First there is Chiwetel Ejiofor who was incredible in 12 Years a Slave, and frankly I'm pretty surprised that his name is not mentioned as much when talking about this category. With the film highly likely to take away Best Picture, it is very possible that the Academy will reward him with an award for carrying the great film on his shoulders. Then there is Christian Bale, who has started to become a favorite of the Academy during the last few years (he won best supporting actor for another David O. Russell film, The Fighter). While he has a lot of star power, and a terrific performance in American Hustle, I'm not sure he will be able to come out on top this year. I think the real contender is Leonardo DiCaprio. I think this category could be the one that is able to leap over the hurdle of Wall Street's bad press and score DiCaprio his first ever Academy Award (shocking to think he has never won). I'm not completely sure who will win, but I would be happy with any of the choices, all of these actors gave terrific performances.

Who will win: Matthew McConaughey 
Who should win: Chiwetel Ejiofor 
Possible Upset: Leonardo DiCaprio 

Best Director

As I will repeat in the Best Picture paragraph, I don't think Gravity has any real chance of taking away the big prize for Best Picture, however, I do think it's almost a given that Alfonso Cuaron will win for Best Directing. Some people may argue that the story and the logic of Gravity was nothing special, but the film was still a visual achievement, which is much of what got Ang Lee is Oscar for Life of Pi last year. However, it is also possible that the Academy may say it is time for David O. Russell to win after being nominated for three films in three years, and many would argue that American Hustle is indeed his best film yet. Steve McQueen could also deliver an upset for his real and gritty directing of 12 Years a Slave.

Who will win: Alfonso Cuaron
Who should win: David O. Russell 
Possible Upset: Steve McQueen 

Best Picture

Here we go. The big prize. The hardest decision. Like I said, the Best Picture race is incredibly close this year, and I have spent a lot of time debating which film I think has the upper hand. For me, the competition is between American Hustle and 12 Years a Slave, but I can't completely throw out Gravity either because of the awards it has already received.
First I'm going to look at this from the standpoint of past awards each film has already won. American Hustle took home the award for Best Film-Musical or Comedy at the Golden Globes, as well as the best acting ensemble award at the SAG Awards, Best Original Screenplay at the British Academy Awards,  and Best Picture at the AFI Awards. 12 Years a Slave took home Best Film-Drama at the Golden Globes, and Best Film at the British Academy Awards, those are two big wins. Gravity has only won awards in areas of directing in ceremonies such as The Golden Globes and the Director's Guild, which is why I think it's a lock for Best Directing, but not Best Picture.
Now here is what I think. American Hustle was as GOOD movie, with GREAT acting. 12 Years A Slave was a GREAT movie, with GREAT acting, that I found much better than the later film, which is why I want to think that it will surely win. But I can't help but think that the Academy will choose Hustle because of the big names like David O. Russell and Jennifer Lawrence (and it's screenplay). Plus, it's quite common for the Academy to award Best Picture to a film that is obviously NOT Best Picture. Great example: how in the world did Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan??? Yeah, exactly. I will probably never be confident in my choice with this category until I actually watch on Sunday Night and see which film is winning the big awards...but here is my best shot.

Who will win: American Hustle 
Who should win: 12 Years a Slave
Possible Upset: Gravity 

"Fantastic Four" Reboot Finds Its Heroes

Next summer, director Josh Trank (who directed the found-footage super-hero hit, "Chronicle") will bring the rebooted Fantastic Four back to the screen. Why? Because if 20th Century Fox didn't make another Fantastic Four movie soon, then Marvel would have gotten the rights to the characters back in their possession. So yeah, this is kinda more like bad news because frankly, the first two "Fantastic Four" movies were not all that great, and Marvel could do much better job with them if they had full control (perhaps the most depressing thing of all is that Dr. Doom can never be the villain in an Avengers movie).

Anyways, the four actors who will be taking over the roles of the first super-hero family have been announced and frankly, all the choices are a little surprising. First off we have Miles Teller (whom I said was on the short-list to play Mr. Fantastic last August) as the leader of the group. Why is this surprising? Because in all the roles I have seen him in he has always played the dumb/ignorant best friend of the main character who makes jokes and is comic relief (except for in "The Spectacular Now"). He certainly does not seem to fit the bill to play the smartest man in the world/hero/really nice guy such as Mr. Fantastic.

Next is Kate Mara, who is still relatively unknown unless you watch "House of Cards" in which she plays Zoe Barnes (ok so maybe she is well known). After watching the entire first season of House of Cards this weekend, I'm not as surprised about this casting choice because Mara is a great actress with lots of power that I think could translate well to Susan Storm/The Invisible Women.

Jamie Bell (Jumper) has been cast as Ben Grimm/The Thing. Now...this is what I don't get...The Thing (not the scary monster) is essentially a giant rock-man, that is the same size as The Hulk. Jamie Bell is a short, scrawny guy. So why the heck is he playing this character? I haven't the slightest idea. This is probably the casting decision I have the hardest time with accepting.

Finally, Michael B. Jordan, who received many award nominations for his breakout role in last year's "Fruitvale Station," has been cast as Johnny Storm/The Human Torch/the fan-favorite character of the series that was brilliantly played by now Captain America Chris Evans. What surprised me about this choice was (no not that The Human Torch is white in the comics, after all several characters in Marvel Comics were of a different race across different interpretations) that Susan and Johnny are siblings in the comics, so I wonder what will be changed (will there be married in this version? was one of them adopted? Or are the not related at all but still have the same last name by coincidence?) But Jordan has proven himself a good actor so maybe...ok he's not going to do a better job than Chris Evans did, but good luck to him.

Overall, these casting decisions make me very pessimistic about how this film is going to turn out, but hey, this isn't the first time the quality of an actor for the role of a super hero/villain has been questioned (Heath Ledger, Christian Bale, Jack Nicholson, ok why are these all examples from Batman). Maybe (and hopefully) the rebooted "Fantastic Four" will be a huge hit.

But seriously, if they don't cast an amazing A-lister as Dr. Doom I will be pissed.