Guardians of a Galaxy of One Liners!

"Guardians of the Galaxy", Marvel's irreverent intergalactic hero flick, was one I was initially hesitant to see. However, the previews showed a raccoon character that looked similar to one in a film script I'm writing, so I thought a little research was in order. So, on opening night, I bought a ticket and joined a theater full of high school kids in Ballard to watch Chris Pratt duke it out on the big screen with the help of his rascally team of alien do-gooders.

What a surprise!

The film starts out super serious, a hospital deathbed scene between Peter Quill (Pratt) and his mother, who herself looked like an alien with deathly pale skin and bald head. Traumatized by the ordeal of seeing his mother die, Quill runs out of the hospital only to be abducted by aliens. Enter the super dramatic title sequence, and our story kicks off.

As with any Marvel film, the stakes are high. In this case, a despotic alien who wants to wipe out another alien race is searching for an artifact that Quill obtains at the beginning of the film. Space chases ensue, battles erupt, bad guys are bad guys and good guys are deviously good. Nothing new here.

However, the banter is what makes the movie. Peter, along with Gamora, Drax, Groot, and Rocket trade one liners with each other and others who step into the line of fire of their mouths. John C. Reilly's character even plays along, adding to the banter as only that seasoned comedian can. These one liner's keep coming, and coming, and coming, until it's not your typical hero movie anymore.

And that's a good, refreshing thing!

Maybe it was the opening night excitement and a theater full of kids, but I laughed at almost every joke during the film, and there were a lot! I'd rather not spoil any of them here- they wouldn't be funny anyway taken out of context. Watch the film and see for yourself- the quips never run out!

Finally! We need more films like "Noah"

Panned by the conservative crowd, but fairly lauded by critics, "Noah" is a complex film about faith, theological interpretation, and the human condition. I'm not quite sure where to begin- I was entranced on my initial viewing and saw it a second time in the theater.

In the film, God never speaks audibly to Noah, played by Russell Crowe. Instead, He gives him prophetic dreams about an oncoming flood. As Noah seeks to find meaning to these dreams, he visits his grandfather Methuselah, played wonderfully by Anthony Hopkins. Methuselah helps Noah find the answer he's looking for, and the puzzle is solved. Noah commits himself to saving his family as well as all of God's animals, who are innocent compared with the evilness of humankind. Aided by angels turned into rock behemoths that followed Adam and Eve to Earth after The Fall, Noah and his family build an arc.

Lots of theological complaints have been asserted by many. These are some of them. First, fallen angels are demons, and outside the scope of God's forgiveness. Second, God did speak audibly to Noah in the biblical account. Third, Noah knew that humanity would continue after the flood. Fourth, each of Noah's sons had wives on the arc. Fifth, God flooded Earth because of man's evilness, not their lack of environmental stewardship.

OK, yes, the film is not 100% faithful to the biblical text. Darren Aronofsky took some creative licenses with the story. This allowed him to explore themes that are not a part of the source material. Also, the source material is scant on details. Aronofsky's vision expands on what's missing, even though it undoubtedly does not reflect what had actually happened.

This is not an apologetic treatise defending the film. Instead, I want to bring attention to Aronofsky's vision and what I think he was trying to communicate, without trying to explain what he WASN'T trying to say.

In the film, the leader of Cain's line was a man by the name of Tubal-cain. He and Noah share one thing in common- God had spoken to neither of them. Noah's response was to do his best to respond to what revelation he had received. Tubal-cain's response was to fight against that revelation. In an especially powerful part of the the film, Tubal-cain talks to God, crying out for Him to speak to him, asking Him why he won't. There is no answer, except for the beginning deluge that will ultimately drown the majority of humanity.

It's this cry from Tubal-cain, that I relate to. How many times have I cried out to God, hoping for some sort of answer, but only hearing silence? I'm sure that's a common struggle for many people, and my heart broke for Tubal-cain in that moment- not only for the silence he received, but in how he responded so violently and selfishly. He was a humanist, after all, believing it his divine right to take what he could while he could because "that is what makes a man a man." His conviction was chilling, and hits close to home to many I'm sure.

As far as the watchers, they were angels that knew and loved Adam and Eve. Leaving Heaven to watch over them, they were technically "fallen angels." However, as any theologian will tell you, demons are bent on destroying humans in any way they can. These watchers, although they brutally defended the arc against those who wanted to board, wanted to help the humans succeed, at least in the grand scheme of things. Helping Noah and his family seemed the best way to do that, at least to the watchers. Their scenes were some of my favorite parts of the film, and added an amazing supernatural element that was needed in this kind of film.

At the urging of his wife Naameh (played by the talented Jennifer Connelly), Noah goes to the nearby human settlement to find wives for his sons. Seeing their violence to each other as well as to animals, Noah becomes convinced that humanity is too evil to be saved. Vowing that his family will be the last, he returns to the arc disgusted with the bloodshed and injustice that he's seen. This contrasts with his son Ham, who goes to the settlement and finds a girl his age who he wants to save. It's Noah's choices that lead to her death, and a divide begins to grow between father and son.

Once on the arc, problems multiplied. Tubal-cain has become a stowaway (also not in the biblical account. Tsk, tsk, Aronofsky! ;)), and Shem's wife Ila becomes pregnant after receiving a blessing from Methuselah. Tubal-cain convinces Noah's son Ham that Noah must be killed, and plans his death after he recovers from his wounds. This growing familial powder keg builds as the days pass, while Noah becomes more and more convinced that humanity must end.

A major theme in the film is the idea that the characters do their best in absence of clear direction from God. Would you have reacted differently than Noah if you weren't explicitly told what to do? Would you doubt the goodness of humanity when you saw humans brutalizing each other to fulfill their selfishness? Russell Crowe does a fantastic job of struggling with himself as Noah, the patriarch of his family. His inner battle rages as he must make decisions that affect his family, creation, and the will of God.

It's true, the film is messy at times. It's not the flannel graph story of Noah and the arc from Sunday School. But it's an honest film that deserves discussion of the themes it presents- faith, the human condition, and how we respond to revelation.

His name is "Mud"

I often think of Matthew McConaughey as a doofy, fun loving pretty boy. Historically, he hasn't been known for serious roles. Of course, after "Dallas Buyers Club", that all changed. Before that film, however, his serious side came out in the indie film "Mud".

Playing a seemingly not-quite-safe drifter, he befriends two local mischievous kids in a small Arkansas town. The boys Ellis and "Neckbone", after taking a joyride on one of their father's boat to a nearby island, find a boat lodged high up in a tree. After exploring the boat, they find that someone has been living in it. Enter Mud, the hopelessly lovesick drifter who is in search of Juniper, the love of his life. Of course, with any love story, there's a soap opera drama backstory.

Mud has a relentless love for Juniper, despite her ambivalent feelings toward him. He believes that if he works hard enough, he can win her heart, even though she has rejected him in the past. His passionate love blocks out the past and current reality, and creates for himself an ideal future with him and Juniper together. As the person of his love, Juniper isn't exactly ideal. Sure, she's attractive, but her poor decisions have put her in harms way before, and her flight from Mud, who vows to take care of her, has caused her much pain and anguish.

There's no grand scheme or huge message in the film. It's a fairly simple love story between two small town people, which the film does a good job of portraying. Reese Witherspoon, who plays Juniper, does an amazing job playing a woman who is broken but wants some element of excitement and danger in her man. This adds some great tension between herself and Mud. The coming of age sub-plot that Ellis goes through adds very well to the story arc of the film, as his pursuit of an older girl slightly mirrors the rejection that Mud goes through with Juniper.

Sometimes in love, our name also is Mud.

"Maleficent" is Magnificant!

Disney's new take on "Sleeping Beauty", "Maleficent", is a fresh look at a formulaic tale. Taking many of the themes from the cartoon of yesteryear, it seemed to jump out in live action straight from the source material. Angelina Jolie did well as the title character, as well as the three actors that played the three god-fairies (if a little annoying, at least true to their bumbling nature in the cartoon).

However, instead of taking a good vs. evil approach. the story was turned on it's head. The evil sorceress was not, in fact, inherently bad. She had a back story, and the real villain was King Stephan. Or so at first. Enraged by his betrayal, Maleficent curses his child, a scene straight from the original. Although a Disney film, the script does a good job of balancing her motivation for revenge with the injustice done to her. Although we the audience know she has gone too far, we understand where she's coming from and root for her to make the right choice. I won't tell you how it ends, but it's definitely a classic Disney ending. A small criticism, though, is that I could have done without the narration throughout the film, giving unhelpful commentary.

This new direction from a company that has become known for formulaic film making is a welcome change to the industry. Hopefully other films will follow suit, and we'll have good family films that delve into the human experience, rather than dichotomizing characters into their typical stereotypes. Perhaps a bit of Pixar magic has rubbed off on Disney, as their films tend to be more subtle in their depiction of good and evil (or at least providing better backstories to why the villains are so bad). Also, I was really impressed with the special effects- they were extremely well done, and added to the story rather than driving the story. Use of CG should always do this, and I'm glad that emphasis was on emotions, motivations, and unfolding of the plot rather than some "Avatar" like world where the scenery was more exciting than what the main characters were doing on screen.

It’s a Hard Knock Life for these “Freedom Writers”

Any film about the struggles of inner-city high school students belongs in a redemption-themed blog. The problems these kids face are mind blowing. Death, abuse, abandonment- it’s the world they live in. As someone who doesn’t relate to that world, “Freedom Writers” helped to close the gap for me. Based on a true story about newbie teacher Erin Gruwell, the film opens with her idealistic expectations of “helping kids succeed.” Her first few weeks on the job, however, show her that her job won’t be easy. Just as she’s about to give up, a racist drawing by one of her students gives her an idea. Teaching them about the Holocaust, the students start to understand the implications of their lifestyles. Her next step is to have them journal as an ungraded assignment. Erin starts to learn what life is like for these kids.

There are many examples of redemption in this film. Erin’s devotion to helping her students succeed is perhaps the biggest example. She gets two part time jobs to help pay for field trips. Her marriage suffers. She’s opposed at work. However, nothing stops her quest to fight for her students.

This is all very heartwarming when coming from a Hollywood film. If the film is really based on a true story, then Erin’s commitment to her job of helping her students succeed is nothing short of unbelievable. She sacrifices her personal life, loses her marriage, and risks her career for inner-city kids who hate her. The costs are high, but so are the stakes. It’s not like Erin wanted to lose her free time, husband, and acceptance by her teacher peers- she had a mission and she was true to what she knew she wanted to do. Her biggest loss, her husband, was heartbreaking to watch. Losing one’s spouse because of ambitions is a bitter pill to swallow, and the film did a good job of portraying it as the unfortunate loss that it was. Still, Erin continues on.

Not many would go so far.

There’s Only Two Kinds: “The Quick and the Dead”

The highly stylized “The Quick and the Dead”, directed by Sam Raimi, is not your typical Western. All the ingredients are there, but there’s a feeling that the film is just a little left off center. It’s this slightly quirky feeling that Raimi loves to play with in the film. The quick draws are fast, the bullets leave holes that sunlight squints through (yes, even through a poor slow gunman’s body), and the main character is mysterious. There are two main plots: one involving the mysterious appearance of the vengeful “Lady”, and the other involving the antagonistic relationship between the town’s evil leader Herod (played by the entertaining Gene Hackman) and his former gun Cort (played by a talented young Russell Crowe), who is now a reformed preacher.

The avenger “Lady” story arc is fairly predictable and understandable. It’s the Herod vs. Cort story that is the most interesting. As gunmen duel it out and the field is weeded of the slow shooters, Cort’s story is slowly revealed. Despite the challenges that Herod forces on him, Cort survives- and not by luck. It seems that Cort really has an exceptionally quick draw, a worthy match for Herod’s ability with the gun as well. Cort is a master of his former trade. He doesn’t have a gun, as he’s given up the life of an outlaw. No matter, Herod provides him one. The rusty, cockeyed piece of junk he’s given is a sure sign that Cort is done for. He refuses to use it. However, when the time comes and the clock strikes “high noon,” instinct takes over and he uses the inferior gun to win each duel.

The entire time, Herod throws all kinds of verbal abuse at Cort, attacking his character and gunmanship. Cort looks beat down, but after all is said and done he lives to fight another day. It’s really remarkable how he knows how to handle guns so well it doesn’t matter what he’s got in his hands- they are used to perfection. I won’t give away the end of the movie, but Cort is surprised when he finds redemption, a redemption he didn’t think he deserved or would get.

Riddick Sees the Light in “Pitch Black”- Spoiler!

It’s ironic that the beginning of “Pitch Black” starts with a spaceship marooned on a planet with 3 suns. Stuck in a place with a seemingly endless day, the survivors must figure out how to escape, and deal with hardened murderer Riddick. This might have made an interesting film all in itself, but when the suns do set, creatures emerge who are more bloodthirsty than our anti-hero who can see in the dark, and the dynamic changes. Suddenly, a man who has survived the harshest of conditions is pitted against the harshest of predators.

Riddick, motivated by the promise of freedom, does what he can to help the survivors escape the planet. Of course, he’s not without his agenda of getting rid of the bounty hunter Johns that had captured him and who was transporting him to “the slam.” After Johns is taken care of, Riddick heroically brings the few remaining survivors and fuel cells to the ship that was left by previous settlers. The ending scene of the film transforms Riddick’s life forever.

The pilot Fry has just gone back out into the dark to rescue Riddick after he has been fighting for his life. Bloodied, Riddick can hardly stand. Fry supports him and starts taking him back to the ship. She tells him that, “I said I’d die for them, not you.” Moments later she’s taken by one of the creatures. She dies to save Riddick, a man seemingly unworthy of such a sacrifice to everyone who’s ever met him as well as himself. His cries of, “Not for me!” are met by the pitch black of the cold, wet night. He understands the cost that was paid for his life, and it’s a cost he never asked for or expected. She didn’t have to go back for him. She could have left him there to die.

When they are safe in space, the child Jackie asks what they plan to say about him when they are found. Riddick replies with the most truthful answer that he can.

“Tell them Riddick’s dead. He died somewhere on that planet.”

Life’s a Mess in “Broken Flowers”- Spoiler!

If you’ve seen “Broken Flowers,” you may be surprised that it’s in a blog like this. “But nothing happens in the film!” you may complain.

That’s exactly the point.

Don Johnston, played to perfection by Bill Murray, is a life-long bachelor in search of the mother of a son he may have fathered. Reluctantly scouring America, he ends up home without answers (By the way, I’ve just given the movie away in two sentences.). The ex-girlfriends he meets are each quirky in their own way; each is a piece of his past one hopes would be in a mix of women loved and left by Don “Juan” Johnston. It’s a film that says much more than I can hope to understand and dissect. It ends as it begins- with nothing resolved.

We've come to expect in our films neat, tidy plots that start at the beginning and end with some sort of cathartic resolution. We want to see the main character save someone, fix wrongs, etc. Don tries. He really does, in his own plodding way. He even runs into a boy around “his” son’s age and tries to find out if he is in fact the son looking for him. The young man is understandably creeped out and high tails it before Don can get any sort of explanation. The spinning camera shot around Don is representative of the confused turmoil going on inside his head. Life is not always explained. Life isn’t a neat little movie with a beginning, middle, and end that has a rising plot and is resolved in the last five minutes. Life is messy, and this is a film about life.

However messy the film leaves us feeling, it’s a beautiful mess worth at least a little introspection. After all, what would you do if you couldn’t resolve a major life circumstance? Don wrestles with just that. The film isn't preachy about the answer, it doesn’t moralize anything for us. It simply asks.

Sometimes that’s the only thing we can do, to ask as the world spins on, with or without answers to those questions.

Heading “Into the Wild”

Sean Penn’s “Into the Wild”, based on the life of Christopher McCandless, is a film not to be missed. It tells the story of a successful young man (by American standards); an accomplished athlete and college graduate with money in the bank. Instead of living the life that so many in his position have lived, he leaves it all in search of something better. His search is a personal journey that takes him across America, and ultimately up to the Alaskan wilderness. His goal to simplify life, to get back to the basics is something those he meets in his wanderings don’t quite understand. Undeterred by their disbelief, he forges on.

I won’t give away the ending, even though you’ve probably heard it already. As he sits in an abandoned bus, he journals his thoughts on the meaning of his life; what is important to him. In his solitude from everyone he’s ever known, he comes to a profound conclusion. His journey was inward, an attempt to separate himself from others. Alone and hurting, he realizes that what he really needed all along was to be a part of community.

I wonder how many drifters have come to this conclusion. Alone on the road, I wonder how many of them realize that the times they were happiest was when they were with family or friends. Perhaps they’re drifting because they haven’t experienced healthy community, and are searching for something they know they want but not what. I wonder how many of us are on that search, trying to find that missing piece that we’re looking for.

He Has a Voice in “The King’s Speech”

One of the most powerful moments in “The King’s Speech” is when Geoffrey Rush’s Lionel Logue is sitting on the King’s Throne. Enraged, Colin Firth’s King George VI tells him he can’t sit there.

Lionel Logue: Why not? It's a chair.

King George VI: No, that. It is not a chair. T-that... that is Saint Edward's chair.

Lionel Logue: People have carved their names on it.

King George VI: [Simultaneously] That... chair... is the seat on which every king and queen has... That is the Stone of Scone you ah-are trivializing everything. You trivialize...

Lionel Logue: [Simultaneously] It's held in place by a large rock. I don't care about how many royal arseholes have sat in this chair.

King George VI: Listen to me. Listen to me!

Lionel Logue: Listen to you? By what right?

King George VI: By divine right if you must, I am your king.

Lionel Logue: No you're not, you told me so yourself. You didn't want it. Why should I waste my time listening?

King George VI: Because I have a right to be heard. I have a voice!

Until that point, King George does not want to be King George. He wants no part in leading England through World War II when he can’t say two words without stuttering. OK, one word. He has to address the nation on radio, to encourage the men fighting and dying to project the country. That’s a tall order for a man who struggles with a severe speech impediment. After asserting that he has a voice (and speaking clearly and authoritatively when saying so), King George is crowned and history is made as he flawlessly delivers an address to England. Although he struggles with speaking, he faces this challenge with a courage not often seen. When others would have given up, he persists. He doesn’t rise to the occasion alone, though, as his speaking coach and wife give him the support he needs.

This voice that he has is much more than just words that are spoken. There is a message behind the words, a voice that wants to communicate something important. For King George, this important something is to rally his country in a time of war. He desperately wants everyone to hear his voice, to hear the message that he is committed to the protection of England and to stop Hitler’s advancement. His severe speech impediment hinders him from using his voice, but his voice is there all along. King George’s problem is not that he doesn’t have a voice; his problem is that he struggles to physically speak his voice.

King George steps up to the plate in the film, and proves what Lionel Logue says about him:

Lionel Logue: You have such perseverance Bertie, you're the bravest man I know.

Were we all as brave and had as much perseverance as King George when it comes time to speak our voice.

Give 1 Up to “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”!

The cleverly inventive and visually stimulating “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” never lets up for a single minute. It’s the happy “(500) Days of Summer”, with throwback video game music as the film zips and zings its way to the epic battle at the end. It’s hard to know reality from fantasy, as the film blends the two together so well you don’t know what hit you OR Scott Pilgrim!

The film is way more than flashy, video game-centric action. Within the bleeps, pows, and bloops resides a story of love, loss, and the epic struggle to get to first base. Michael Cera stars in the film as, well, Michael Cera. You’ve seen him in Super Bad, Arrested Development, and Nick and Nora’s Horrible Movie. The film opens with Scott Pilgrim dating a high schooler he’s afraid to share any kind of physical intimacy with. (They held hands. Once.) He then meets Ramona, “the woman of his dreams.” That’s when the action kicks into high gear.

Scott must “battle” all of Ramona’s evil exes. It was brilliant! In order for him to win her heart, he has to prove that he’s not a jerk like her past exes (“Boyfriends?” asks Scott. Romana replies, “Exes”.) The interplay between the battleground of the heart and the hand to hand combat found in games like Mortal Kombat and Tekken was amazingly well done. It was well choreographed, inventive, and fun to watch!

Isn’t that the way it is a lot of the times? Guys have to fight into a woman’s heart, often taking a beating in the process. The “pows” and “bams” that flashed onscreen and the glowing weapons that were used exposed the battle that happens in our hearts as we fight in the realm of relationships, beautifully bridging the gap between what happens in our minds and the real world. Sometimes we’re down for the count, and sometimes we need a little “2 player” help. But remember, always use your “1 Up”!

Living in “Adventureland”

“Adventureland” was directed by the Superbad filmmaker, so it’s not a far cry to expect a super crass movie. Sure, the explicit pot use and sexual references were there, but the movie didn't focus on those aspects. Also, Bill Hader's character was hilarious, but completely underutilized. There should have been more of him being a goofball, and his appearance was rare if well acted and a treat.

The movie really wasn't about the wacky adventures of James Brennan as a carnie, although there were plenty of those moments. It was really a look at life post-college for those who cannot afford an Ivy League education and are "stuck" working a bad summer job in order to save up for school. The plot unfolded with lots of drama as Brennan made friends and enemies at Adventureland, the local “theme” park. In the film, he was a nice, clean cut guy who fell for Emily, played by Twilight star Kristen Stewert. You may keep thinking that you’ll see a vampire or werewolf materialize on screen at any point, but that happens when someone ties themselves with a major franchise like Twilight. Teeny bopper criticism aside, Kristen's character had issues and drove the main conflict of the film.

Lots of themes were dealt with, including grace, forgiveness, gossip, and the consequences of infidelity. It was a rather deeper movie than expected, so be relieved it’s not just another crass-fest (Although the movie did end up in the gutter from time to time.).

Without spoiling the unfolding of the story, Emily did something that really hurt Brennan. So, to deal with that he dated Lisa P., a cutie that all the male carnies drooled over. He also gossiped about Emily’s illicit behavior. This resulted in the whole "staff" knowing about Emily's dirty deed. Emily hurts Brennan, Brennan hurt Emily in return; relationship falls apart. Brennan, in his angst over losing the "girl of his dreams," drives under the influence of pot and some hard liquor he keeps in the front seat. Crashing into his neighbor's tree and taking out her nicely pedicured lawn makes him realize he's got some problems to work through. One strong critique of the movie is that the drug use was never penalized, and that the practice of drinking and driving were condoned. It would have been good to see some police involvement.

There were so many great moments that utilized some amazing truth telling. There was an awkward scene when Emily interrupts her parents entertaining some guests. She's grieving and becomes brutally honest with her parents. Initially, to deal with the uncomfortableness, the "adults" change the subject to how well the step-mom has decorated the place. It was classic! Another moment was when Brennan tells Emily in the pouring rain that he doesn't want to ignore issues between them. The character development that happened here showed an incredibly mature attitude, and well placed in the context of the plot.

The film can be crass at times, sure, but the main theme is about coming of age and learning life-long lessons. Characters aren’t idealized- they’re as human as you and I. This portrayal is critical in how film looks at the human experience, and this movie does a great job of showing growth and journey of a 20-something male in his own adventurland.

THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE: “AVATAR”!!!!

OK, Avatar is NOT the greatest movie ever made. However, it was amazing how the film kept selling out for weeks after it opened. EVERYONE went to see it. It was a historic time in cinema history for sure.

Avatar is much more than just a 2.5 hour special effects bonanza. Unlike any superhero movie that Hugh Jackman is involved with, there was real character development and a moving plot that involved more than one emotion. One criticism of the film is that the movie had no plot. Really? You probably know the plot (as this is the highest grossing movie of all time), but I’ll recap in case you forgot what the movie was all about because you were so focused on all the cool flying dragon-like creatures and scantily clad large blue people.

Paraplegic marine Jake comes to Pandora, a moon on a planet so far away it takes 4 or 5 odd years to get there. His twin brother, a PhD, is murdered, and Jake is the only one who can pilot his "Avatar," or body that is genetically made from humans and the "aliens" called Navis (although the humans in this case are the aliens). Long story short, Jake in his Avatar body befriends the Navis. This is a diplomatic mission with the goal that these indigenous people will leave their massive "Hometree" so that the humans can mine "Unobtanium" (Come on! What a lame name! Couldn't they have come up with something better?). This poorly named resource sells for a lot (“One million dollars!” pinky to mouth Dr. Evil style) of credits or whatever form of money they use in the future. Anyway, if a diplomatic solution cannot be reached within 3 months, the military moves in. At first, Jake is cool with this, but as he gets to be a part of the Navi culture, he has different thoughts. The movie progresses from there.

This movie covers current events like today's news. The Navi live in a land that has a "valuable" resource. In order to access this resource, a few paltry diplomatic efforts are made, but since those don't work the military calls the shots. The lack of understanding of the local culture leads to harmful policies. This causes the displacement of a people group because of the greed of a few fat cats who want to make a buck. The use of an army for a corporation's interests is clear in the film. The words "Shock and awe" show up at some point. However, unlike real life, the native people remove the army by the end and all was well. We're still waiting on Earth for that part of the story. There was real loss, however, as Navi leaders, friends, and the "Hometree" were lost forever.
 

Isn't it great how the good guys always win in Hollywood?

Why “Spiderman 3” is a Great Film

Critically, “Spiderman 3” was fairly well received. However, the masses have shunned the movie as the worst of the three. However, this is an extremely strong movie, and that if one were to take a closer look at the film, they would find it applies most to the human condition than the other two Spidey films.

This third installment is the darkest of the three. When the alien goo infects Peter Parker, his dark tendencies come out. This was explored well as the dark Spiderman fought crime in a way that the real Spiderman would not. The dark Spiderman is cruel, takes pleasure in causing pain to others, and revels in revenge. The real Spiderman is concerned for the welfare of even those he brings to justice. The filmmakers had to find a way to lighten the mood of the film, because Parker becomes evil for part of the story. Hence Peter’s ridiculous behavior as he finds "self confidence" in his new identity. Isn't this corniness the way we act when we are full of ourselves? Don’t we act the same way at times when we think we are better than others? The humor and awkwardness of Parker as he struts his stuff is a mirror of how we can act at times. This may have hit a bit close to home for some, and criticism of the film arises because of this. The inner battle between the good Spiderman and the evil dark Spiderman was well done in the film and well portrayed by Toby Maguire.

Later in the film, Venom is obviously portrayed as the antithesis of Spiderman. This is who Spiderman could have become if he had continued down the path of selfishness and power that the alien goo had imposed on Parker. He is the darkest bad guy in the Spiderman story, and for good reason. He has the same powers that Spiderman does, but uses them for evil. Not only does Spiderman have to fight himself early in the film, now he has to fight his evil doppelganger at the end. Not only that, but he has to fight his best friend Harry as the new Goblin (as well as the Sand Man. Where did this guy come from, and why is he in the film?). The complexities that he has to deal with had to have some sort of comical relief at times, or we wouldn't have had a sense of hope and identify with the struggles that our hero must face. We can all identify with Parker's struggle that was in the film.

Two Fist Bumps for “Megamind”!

Smart, satirical, and slapstick, “Megamind” has a deeper message than one would think in an animated film starring Will Ferrell. The interplay between Megamind and Metroman in Metrocity (rhymes with “atrocity” according to our titular character) is explored with more heart and soul than in any film since “The Incredibles”. Each character’s history is explored, and we see that it’s the setting in which they are nurtured that determines their lives. Megamind’s landing in a prison as a child ensures that he grows up to be the villain, while Metroman’s landing in prosperity results in him being the good guy.

A predictable plot twist might have been for the roles to be switched, for Metroman to somehow become the villain and Megamind the hero. Metroman, however, does not make a polar opposite transition, but rather is finally defeated by Megamind. This genius move by the scriptwriters allows Megamind to get what he’s always wanted- dominion over Metrocity. The cliché “be careful what you wish for, you just might get it” becomes Megamind’s reality and he longs for purpose once again. Enter the real antagonist of the story, Titan. Longing to get the girl of his dreams, his entrance into the superhero realm by way of Megamind’s invention, causes him to ultimately use his powers for his own selfish ends. If he can’t get what he wants, he’s going to make Metrocity pay! It’s up to Megamind to make things right, for the first time fighting as the good guy.

Much can be extrapolated about us and what goes into our identity. Our reaction to how we are treated by others, the choices we make, and the environment that influences us all contribute to whether we are the good guy, the bad guy, or someone in between. Not all of us start out life as a Superman-esque person, morally upright in all that we do. There are those of us who grow from being some sort of bad guy to some sort of good guy. Of course Hollywood films will dichotomize these roles for mass audience consumption, but if we look closely enough at ourselves there’s a Megamind in all of us; someone who has hurts and rejection from the past but who also struggles to make right choices in a world that needs more heroes than villains.

I’m sure that Megamind would agree.

Uh oh! Here comes “Hancock”!

Hancock (played by Will Smith) isn’t your average superhero. He doesn’t care. Really, he doesn’t. He’s Superman without the perfect conscience, and it’s about time a movie was made about an imperfect superhero. No one is as squeaky clean as Superman is with his flashing smile and impeccable morals. Sure, we’d all like to be as nice as Superman is, but sometimes we wake up on the wrong side of the bed and we’re not the superstars we wish we were all the time. Hancock never wakes up on the right side of the bed, and he’s not going to take crap from anyone.

His superpowers have given him god-like powers. He is unbreakable, and he uses this with abandon. A path of destruction follows him wherever he goes, and people are not happy with him. Whenever he takes off, whatever is beneath him crumbles from the force of his liftoff. When he lands, it’s like a golf playing giant put a divot in the asphalt. He throws whales in the ocean, sinking yachts. Lawsuits against him are piling up. These are the real consequences of unchecked physical power, and something had to be done.

If you were indestructible with super strength and could fly, you too wouldn’t travel like a super ballerina within a major city, deftly missing huge obstacles like buildings and cars. One distraction and CRASH!, you’d fly right through a window. One thing this film does really well is to show that being a superhero would be tougher than you think, and that personal feelings and agendas would make for a selfish super-being who wouldn't just save people out of the goodness of their heart. Sure, the damsel in distress may be easy to spot, or the guy stuck on the train tracks about to get t-boned by a freight train a no brainer, but as an example, police often must make judgment calls based on assumptions that may or may not be correct. Can you imagine that on a much larger scale, a superhero flying into a sticky situation without knowing exactly what was going on or the difference between the good and bad guys? This is why there’s a collegiate study called “Criminal Justice,” and it’s taken by those in law enforcement. There are right ways to deal with criminal activities, and it’s not always easy to tell right from wrong in an unfolding situation. It’s also not easy to keep infrastructure intact when someone is indestructible and super strong.

“Hancock” tells the story of what it might look like for a superhero in the real world. It ain’t pretty, but it is entertaining!

A Helluva Good Time With “Hellboy”

Based on (at the time) a little known comic book, “Hellboy” was thrust to the public consciousness in 2004 by Guillermo del Toro’s film adaption. Starring Ron Perlman (a perfect fit) as Hellboy, the story is original, provocative, and visually stunning. Del Toro has an amazing ability to bring amazingly wacky and visually creative worlds to life. This film is no exception. You’d think that this sort of film would be full of cheesy lines as well as special effects-driven, but no. There are certainly a lot of digital effects used, but the script is well written- witty, tongue in cheek, and tells a very entertaining story with unique characters.

The film starts with the infant Hellboy as he’s summoned from Hell near the end of World War II by the Nazis in their attempt to win the war. The Allies break up the demon conjuring party, and little Hellboy is rescued. Raised by Professor Trevor "Broom" Bruttenholm, little Hellboy is taught to protect humanity. That’s right; a demon from Hell is the main good guy. Brilliant. He’s joined in adulthood by Liz Sherman (who can burst into blue flames at will) and Blue, a fish-like man creature (or is that a man-like fish creature?).

Throughout the film, Hellboy struggles with his identity. He’s a demon, and generally they’re bad guys. However, he doesn’t feel like he’s a bad guy. He feels like a good guy. In rebellion to that which he’s “supposed to be,” he shaves his horns with a power tool reminiscent of men shaving their beards with a razor. However, when civilians see him, they (pun intended) demonize him. The very people he’s protecting hate him. A little resentful of this, he’s nonetheless committed to the cause of helping rid the world of supernatural bad guys. It helps that he’s is fairly invincible, and can take a beating as well as dish one out.

The real character defining moment comes near the end of the film. Hellboy is faced with a choice- embrace his demon side to release some very bad dudes who will start Armageddon in order to save Liz, the woman he loves. If he doesn’t do this, she dies. Reluctantly, he uses his powers as a demon to begin to free an evil he can’t fight. His horns grow back immediately, as if taunting him about his identity. It was inescapable all along- Hellboy was meant for evil.

Or was he?

Hellboy realizes that he has a choice, and that he’s been given an identity from his adoptive father Professor Broom, not from his heritage as a demon. Ripping off his horns, he rejects the false identity cast for him and kills the one who enticed him to be what he knew he wasn’t. From this death comes a greater adversary, which Hellboy dispatches in an epic final battle. Hellboy has proven to himself who he is, that his identity is in being a good guy. Now, no one can take that away from him. He’s free to be himself. He knows who he is because he’s been tested, and that testing changed him to the core.

This battle is not only in the movies, but we are faced with these choices every day. Who are we? Are we defined by our past? Are we defined by what others think of us? Are we defined by what we think of ourselves? Or are we defined by an adoptive father who longs for us to fight the good fight?

We all have a choice.

“Watchmen” Kill with High Tech Special Effects

“Watchmen” looked like a visual treat of a movie. And it was. Everything from the blue glowing Dr. Manhattan, the details of the flying hero ship, to Rorschach's "Rorschach" changing face were amazingly done. It must have taken an army of animators many many many hours to design and render the movie. Graphically, it is a beautiful film.

It was also quite graphic in other ways. Like most graphic comics made into movies, it pulled no punches. The violence was bloody, the characters unforgiving in spilling that blood. The good guys were bad, and the bad guys were badder. It was an interesting look at human nature, and the desire for justice without mercy. It's this justice without mercy that has become the norm in Hollywood produced movies. The evil characters get punished for their evil deeds. As Americans, we all like to see that happen. However, that's not always the way real life is, and that is not what we want for ourselves. I would rather receive forgiveness and mercy for things that I have done wrong, not true justice as is often portrayed in films like Watchmen. Where is the line between justice and mercy? And does mercy lead to a changed heart, or does justice in whatever form it takes the way to real soul changing transformation?

This theme is especially true with Rorschach's character. He is relentless in his pursuit of justice. His cause is just; he wants to save the slaughter of innocents, protect children, etc. By the time he gets older, he's very jaded, but still with the same ideals. His retribution philosophy is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life. So, does justice dictate that he lose his life? Or should he be shown forgiveness for the wrongs that he has committed, even if those wrongs were motivated by the desire to protect others?

What this movie says about American culture, the role of the superhero, and redemption could be a thesis for an English PhD candidate to defend. The movie takes place in an alternate reality, where J. Edgar Hoover reigns and Vietnam is won with the help of the "Watchmen." It's an alternate reality where things have gone differently, with dire consequences because the stakes are so much higher. Nuclear war with the Soviet Union is imminent, and there's a rush to develop a device that will protect America from attack. All of the superheroes are in hiding, as the government has put a stop their vigilantism. Each “hero” has varying degrees of good and bad, with some leaning toward virtue and some leaning the other way. The Night Owl represents the good, virtuous superhero, one who has ethics and wants to help people. The Comedian is the polar opposite, and uses his hero status for his own glorification. He goes as far as to kill innocent people, if they inconvenience him too much. He thinks he’s above morals and laws. His character was harshly selfish, although none of the heroes were perfect. This is no Superman story.

Is this what happens when power goes unchecked? Did they, like our financial system, fail due to a lack of regulation? Does human nature bend toward depravity if there is no one “watching the Watchmen?” Thoughts to ponder.

. . . yet, here you are, “Rango”

I’ll be honest. When I saw the trailer for “Rango”, I thought it was some dumb kids movie. When I did watch it (not at my prompting) I was blown away. It really is a significant film, and I’m not sure kids would really get the message that is so cleverly communicated. Sure, there’s some well placed slapstick comedy, but the film is really about a search for identity.

The film starts out with pet chameleon Rango living in his glass aquarium. His uneventful life has inspired him to be an actor, director, and set designer who produces plays for himself. His first self revelation is that his “character” in his play is “undefined.” And how does Rango come to define himself? It’s through his next self revelation- unexpected conflict. Just as he speaks these prophetic words, his whole world is turned upside down, literally. Now stuck in the middle of the road in the desert far away from the comforts he once knew, he’s faced with a choice. Lie down and die, or go in search of who he is in his own story. He soon meets an old, wise armadillo, and his only thought is to get back home.

“I don’t belong here,” Rango complains.

“And yet, here you are,” is the reply he gets.

It’s this answer that moves Rango forward in his story. Through a series of adventures, he ends up in the town of Dirt. There’s a problem- drought has caused much hardship for everyone. Bad guys show up. Up until that point, he’s been acting, telling everyone that he’s the hero they’re looking for. When faced with the reality of the problems he’s told everyone he will solve, he starts to have some serious self doubt. However, instead of disengaging and running away, he faces everything that’s thrown at him the best he can. And he’s not exactly Bruce Willis in Die Hard. He makes mistakes, makes a fool of himself multiple times, and gets the town in deeper trouble. Shamed, he runs back to where he started, on the road. Finding the “Spirit of the West”, he confesses that he’s a phony hero, and actor who isn’t the kind of chameleon that saves others. The answer that he’s given is to be the hero he wants to be, and that it’s impossible for him to step out of his own story.

Emboldened, Rango goes back to save the town of Dirt in a final showdown of epic proportions. If Rango had given up, if he had disengaged from the problems he was confronted with and wanted to solve he might have been OK. But his friends would have been done for. It’s his desire to help others that was his story. As the “Spirit of the West” said, it’s not all about Rango. There’s a bigger story he’s a part of. His story is just a piece of the whole.

What is your story? How can you step beyond yourself and help those who are in need of a hero? Because whether you think you are a hero or not, you have the capacity to be, just like Rango.

I Am "The Great Gatsby"!

I havent' read "The Great Gatsby" since I was in high school, which was half of my life ago. I hated the book at the time, and quickly forgot what it was about. After seeing Baz Luhrmann's film adaption, I'm sure I'd love the book now as an adult.

The film perfectly portrays a love triangle between the protagonist Jay Gatsby, Daisy, and Tom Buchanan. Gatsby, who had been raised in poverty, meets Daisy, a rich young woman, while in the military. They fall in love, and Gatsby promises he'll come back to her after his military service is done and when he builds wealth. Five years later, Daisy is married to the abusive Tom Buchanan, who has a mistress in New York City. Gatsby has become very rich, and throws extravagant parties hoping that Daisy will show up at one. Enter Nick Carraway, Gatsby's neighbor and cousin of Daisy. Long story short, Gatsby and Daisy reunite behind her husband's back.

Gatsby is in love with Daisy, and she professes love for him as well. However, she's unwilling to leave Tom. In a brilliant scene near the end of the film, Tom lambasts Gatsby as a new money loser who Daisy will never be happy with. Tom leaves, confident that Daisy is still his.

At the end of the film, Gatsby is wrongly accused of killing Tom's mistress. He knows the truth, yet keeps it to himself because it would condemn Daisy. Gatsby waits at his mansion for Daisy to call, hopefull that she will leave Tom for him.

In a narrative section of the film, Nick describes Gatsby as the most eternally hopeful person he has ever met. Even in the face of all the facts to the contrary, Gatsby has hope that he and Daisy will be together. Some might say he is delusional. Some might say he is obssessive. Shouldn't he just move on? She's married now, and has shown by her actions, if not her words, that she won't go back to Gatsby. Gatsby should just sweep up the broken pieces of his heart and forget about this past love.

Not Gatsby.

And not me.

We both hold on, beyond reason, to eternal hope. We'd rather live with hope than hopelessness. We put it all on the line, doing what we can to win back what we have lost.

And we do so knowing that we most likely won't get what we are seeking.