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.

Betrayal in “Braveheart”

We all want to be like William Wallace. The dashing hero, Wallace fights against injustice. He is the ultimate good guy, strong and sensitive. Robert the Bruce, however, is a different guy. A promising leader, he is a possible heir to the Scottish throne if Scotland gains independence from England. His political maneuvering gets him in trouble, as he chooses to betray Wallace in hopes to gain the throne by politically appeasing King Edward I, who is king of England and fighting to keep control of Scotland. Not the good guy or bad guy, Bruce is somewhere in between.

The dichotomy of these two characters is interesting. Wallace makes perfect ethical decisions; he’s someone we can root for easily. Bruce is someone we wish would have stuck his commitment to Wallace and not betrayed him. It’s easy to moralize Bruce’s actions, to look down on him. Truly, what he did was reprehensible. However, there’s a part of Bruce in all of us. The part that says to compromise in the face of adversity, that it’s better to high tail it out of a sticky situation to fight another day instead of standing firm for our convictions. These decisions can result in negatively affecting those around us, as it does in the film in the case of Wallace’s capture and subsequent grisly execution. We wish we were Wallace all the time, but there are times that we are Bruce.

Bruce does redeem himself. In the film, he ends up leading battles that overthrew English rule. He takes his mistake and learns his lesson- that he will never again betray those who fight for the independence of Scotland. It was a costly lesson, a lesson that almost cost Scotland its freedom, but it’s a good thing that Bruce comes around in the end. The film is highly historically inaccurate as Bruce never betrayed Wallace in real life, but the themes of betrayal and redemption in the film are worth examination.

“Jumper”- The movie it Could Have Been

“Jumper” seemed like a special effects driven story with little plot other than good guy vs. bad guy with a good looking couple having sex at some point in the movie. The film seemed to limit itself in the scope of the message it portrayed. The main character, David, has the ability to jump anywhere in the world he wants to, as long as he knows the exact spot. Others have this innate ability, and some "secret" corporation or bad guy organization or whatever hunts down and kills those with the ability to "jump." It’s pretty general sci fi plot stuff here. David uses his power for selfishness, stealing money from banks (but leaving "I Owe You" notes) to pay for his extravagant lifestyle. He has a flat in London, goes to the pyramids of Egypt, etc. He meets another jumper and is pursued by Samuel L. Jackson, with a love interest caught in the middle. There’s nothing groundbreaking here.

Our protagonist learns the error of his ways, for sure, and the movie seems to be a character introduction and setup for the sequel. Let’s hope so. The sequel could be so much better, because one element that seems to be missing that was actually toyed with during the film. At one point, David watches a news report of a major natural disaster wreaking havoc in some third world country. The movie could have made a turn at this point, with David "jumping" in to save lives. Instead, he goes off and continues his adventure by having a huge CG battle with Jackson with the help of his jumper friend. Why can’t David use his powers to help those in dire straits? That would have made a much more interesting movie.

However, it’s revealed that David’s mother is also a jumper hunter. This complicates things a bit, and makes the emotional center of the film stronger. What will happen in Jumper 2? Will it be Mother vs. Son in an epic battle? Will the League of Jumper Hunters be thwarted by a mother’s love? Will David become a hero, saving those in dire straits instead of living a self-indulgent lifestyle?

Let’s hope!