Merry Christmas: "Lord, with the Angels We Too Would Rejoice"

There's no movie review here, just a Christmas message:

“Lord, with the angels we too would rejoice.”  So begins the third verse of John Menzies Macfarlane’s Christmas hymn “Far, Far Away on Judea’s Plains.”  Have you ever wondered why he chose “would rejoice”?  He could have penned “can rejoice” or “shall rejoice” or even “will rejoice.”  Instead he chose “would.”  Could it be because even in 1869, Macfarlane recognized that it isn’t always easy to rejoice?

Christmas is a busy time of year.  We would rejoice, but first we need to finish trimming the tree and hanging the lights.  We’ll rejoice once the shopping is done and the presents are wrapped.  Or maybe once the driveway is shoveled and the cookies are baked and the cards are sent and the parties are planned and the dinner is cooked and the chestnuts are roasted and the stockings are hung and the fruitcake’s re-gifted and Tiny Tim is all better and there’s Christmas in Whoville and the partridge is in the pear tree ... and ... and ... [insert a much needed cup of hot cocoa].

Or maybe we are hindered by a different kind of “would.”  We would rejoice, but we can’t sing like Celine Dion or Michael Bublé.  We can’t perform music like The Piano Guys or compose like Handel.  We can’t write stories like Dickens or Dr. Seuss.  We can’t decorate like Martha Stewart.  And all our best efforts look nothing like the perfect crafts and goodies on Pinterest.

As Christmas nears, do we find ourselves lost in the “woulds” of busyness or inadequacy?  It is easy to do.  Perhaps that is why the very next line in the hymn is the plea, “Help us to sing with the heart and voice.”  Christ, Who gave us the reason for the season, also stands waiting to empower us with the hope and joy of the season.  Then, with rejoicing in our hearts, the To Do list becomes a Get To Do list and none of our best efforts—however feeble—will ever fall flat.

May we all rejoice with the angels in the “message of mercy,” even “Glory to God in the highest!”

ISFS

Mockingjay - Part 1

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Francis Lawrence

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Donald Sutherland, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Julianne Moore
Tagline: Fire burns brighter in the darkness.
Synopsis: Having destroyed the Hunger Games, Katniss finds herself in District 13 where a rebellion is fomenting and she is sought for as the symbol of their cause: the Mockingjay.

Review

Nope, I still haven't read the books.  Nor do I intend to.  But I do know the gist of how everything will end up, so I didn't go into Mockingjay - Part 1 completely unprepared.

I still have a hard time liking Katniss as a character.  She's just so myopic and prickly.  And in this go round she spends more time being a pawn or Mockingjay puppet than active agent within the story.  There's nothing wrong with that, and Jennifer Lawrence does an excellent job (again) portraying a conflicted young woman caught up in a firestorm.  But she isn't as appealing a character to me, so I have a hard time getting very excited about these films.

Unlike its predecessors, Mockingjay - Part 1 is low on action.  Katniss fires one arrow during the entire film.  This is the (relative) calm before the storm and is more along the lines of a political thriller than anything else.  "Moves and counter-moves" as President Snow dryly observes.  At this point it is a war of propaganda.  What action there is is well paced and you never get bored.  At the same time, it can feel a bit slow, as it painstakingly lays the foundation for Part 2 next year.

Where the film shines is in the emotions.  The song, "The Hanging Tree" is beautiful and perfect for the story.  And even though she apparently hated having to sing it, Jennifer Lawrence does a spot-on job.  Her voice has just the right unpolished depth that the song and the moment need.

Although Katniss is the Mockingjay and the center of the propaganda, also impressive were the times when she was not the center of attention.  Gale's regret-filled narrative of the destruction of District 12 is powerful.  And it was terrific to see Finnick rise above his shell-shocked depression to recount the life he was forced to live and the secrets he subsequently learned.  All of this lays the foundation that Part 2 will build upon.

Apparently, Effie Trinket doesn't play any role in Mockingjay the book.  I'm quite glad they decided to bring her into the film.  It works to have her in District 13.  And it especially works to have her help prep Katniss for her role as Mockingjay.  I can't imagine anyone other than Effie filling that role.

Pretty much if you saw the first two Hunger Games movies, you're going to see this one.  It is what it is: a sort of transition from Hunger Games to open rebellion and war.  And if the film does nothing else, it gets you all ready for next year's (hopefully) epic conclusion.

*** Spoiler Section ***

When President Snow warns Katniss that it is the things we love that destroy us, I didn't know he intended it quite so literally.  That was both clever and devious.  And harsh.  It did make for a pretty powerful cliffhanger ending.

Quotable Quotes

• "Any other conditions?"  "My sister gets to keep her cat." -- President Coin and Katniss
• "They'll either want to kill you, kiss you, or be you." -- Effie to Katniss
• "And what if you're killed?"  "Make sure to get it on camera." -- President Coin and Katniss
• "Miss Everdeen, it is the things we love most that destroy us." -- President Snow

ISFS

Interstellar

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Christopher Nolan

Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Ann Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, and Topher Grace
Tagline: Mankind was born on Earth.  It was never meant to die here.
Synopsis: When Earth becomes increasingly uninhabitable, a group of scientists journey beyond the solar system to find a new home for humanity.

Review

This is one of those very rare movies that I'm totally glad I saw, but really don't feel the need to see again.  So while I recommend seeing it because it is beautiful and thought-provoking, I have no idea if you'll actually like it.  Interstellar does a number of things right, but it does have its flaws.

If I could sum up the movie in one word, it would be "ambitious."  Wow, it is an ambitious film.  I love Christopher Nolan's stuff (primarily the Batman trilogy and Inception).  He has such an incredible vision.  His films are original and imaginative.  And even though they are filled with special effects, Nolan does as many as possible as practical effects (i.e., without the use of CGI).  Because of all that, the worlds he creates are so immersive, and Interstellar is no different.

Another strength of Interstellar is that it is so original.  For the entire movie, I had absolutely no idea where it was going or how it was going to get wherever it was going.  I had no clue how it would end until it actually ended.  You don't find that in many movies these days.  Most films have some element of predictability.  And while some degree of predictability isn't bad, it is refreshing to watch a film where you just aren't sure what's going to happen.

Another signature element of Nolan's movies is his subtle humor.  His films don't try to be funny.  But there is humor because it comes naturally from the character or the situation.  Given that the fate of humanity rests on these scientists and the people back on Earth are struggling to survive, the human characters don't provide a whole lot of humor in the film.  Thankfully, there is TARS, a robot with an adjustable humor setting who serves to lighten the mood from time to time.  And just to make sure his human coworkers know when he is joking, he has a cue light.  Nice.

Interstellar is certainly a film that demands your attention.  A lot of science is thrown about, and the filmmakers did their homework to be as accurate as possible.  Still, unless you are a physics major, most of the science can be a bit much.  I found it was simplest to just suspend my disbelief and accept whatever science they spouted as accurate for this cinematic universe.

All the actors do a terrific job in their various roles.  Matthew McConaughey shows a lot of depth in his role as absentee father.  Ann Hathaway is also great, as always.  And it never gets old hearing Michael Caine recite lines from Dylan Thomas' famous poem, "Do not go gentle into that good night."

My criticisms all involve spoilers.  Suffice it to say here, Interstellar is a fascinating and beautiful movie that is certainly worth at least one viewing.

*** Spoiler Section ***

I really loved the idea of some cosmic "Them" who was helping to save humanity.  I wish the film had left it as that: mysterious benefactors.  The film lost me when Cooper "realizes" that all this time it has just been future humans reaching back through time.  Time travel, even when you have time become a dimension, is tricky.  It just seemed like the film created a time travel paradox.  Humans can't reach back and save themselves from extinction.  They have to survive into the "future" in the first place.

My biggest peeve with the movie comes at the very end.  The entire movie has been about the importance of love and family.  So much importance is placed on Cooper's love for his son and daughter and how much he wants to get back to his family.  And then he does.  But by that point, Murphy is old and has a family of her own ... but nobody seems to care.  Cooper enters a room filled with his grandchildren, great grandchildren, and possibly great great grandchildren.  But he doesn't acknowledge them and they don't acknowledge him.  What kind of family reunion is that?  And what happened to Tom and his family?  It's sad that the film seems to say "family" and "love" only apply to the people you know, not the generations you don't.

This is just a nitpick, but how is it Cooper and TARS are able to simply commandeer a spaceship and take off with it?  Worst security ever.

After the film, I found myself wanting one more scene, maybe a post-credits scene.  I wanted to see Cooper reach Brand and then she gives him a slap to the face A) for lying to her about his plan to get sucked into the black hole, and B) as an "I told you so" when she said they should go to Edmunds' planet instead of Mann's.  Her woman's intuition and desire to follow her heart were right.

Oh, and how the heck did Edmunds die?  If that is truly a viable planet for life, it would be good to know why the first person didn't survive.

Quotable Quotes

• "We used to look up at the sky and wonder at our place in the stars.  Now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt." -- Cooper
• "Love is the one thing that transcends time and space." -- Brand
• "What's your trust setting, TARS?" "Lower than yours, apparently." -- Cooper and TARS
• "Do not go gentle into that good night." -- Dr. Brand

ISFS

Big Hero 6

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Don Hall and Chris Williams

Starring: Ryan Potter, Scott Adsit, Daniel Henney, and Maya Rudolph
Synopsis: When a mysterious supervillain threatens San Fransokyo, five science nerds and an inflatable healthcare robot transform themselves into high-tech heroes.

Review

Before I get to the feature film, let me just mention the short that preceded it.  It's called Feast and is about a dog, his owner, and the food they share.  In true Disney form, it is a beautiful little short that is also quite charming.  I grinned the whole time.

In case you don't know, Big Hero 6 is loosely based on a relatively obscure Marvel comic book series.  As such, it is a fun crossover of the Marvel and Disney brands, bringing the best of both into a family-friendly action romp.

First off, Big Hero 6 is gorgeously animated.  The fictional city of San Fransokyo is beautifully and richly imagined.  It is a slightly futuristic metropolis that still feels grounded and relatable, just full of possibilities.  The city is so fun to admire, you almost want Baymax to do another flyby just to take more in.

The story basically comes down to a superhero origin story.  That is not always the easiest thing to tackle.  Fortunately, these characters are unknown, so their story manages to be both fresh and familiar.  Rather than shy away from what it is, the film is self-aware enough that it acknowledges and pokes fun at its being an origin story.

While the story starts out strong and engaging, it loses a little of that power toward the end.  To borrow a fitting thought from a review I saw, it kind of turns into an episode of Scooby Doo by the end.  It's just Scooby Doo with superheros and an inflatable robot instead of a Great Dane.  The problem is the villain.  I can't say much without getting into spoilers.  But the villain went from menacing to bland.  It's terrific that the villain in the kabuki mask is completely no nonsense.  He is both mysterious and menacing as he immediately goes after our heroes once they are on his trail.  He says nothing.  They are in his way, so he tries to get rid of them.  That's awesome.  But then he's unmasked and it really does feel a bit like Scooby Doo with a bunch of meddling kids foiling an elaborate plot.

Aside from the villain, all the other characters are fun, quirky, and endearing.  You can't not love Baymax.  His gentle naivete is refreshing.  And he gives the best fist bumps ever.  Hiro (the main character) and his older brother have a great, believable relationship and both are characters you just want to root for.  But it's the other members of the team that are so fun.  Go Go is the no nonsense adrenaline junkie.  Honey Lemon is the unflappable optimist.  Wasabi is the down-to-earth neat-freak.  And Fred is the uber-excited fanboy.  Each is just so fun.  And rather than super powers, they are all super nerds, in the science sense (well, except Fred).  They each use their specialized science skills to become high-tech heroes.  Science has never seemed so cool.

How all those characters come together and work together is one of the charms of the movie.  And it's really funny to watch them interact.  And because each character is so different, there's someone relatable for almost everyone.  I personally liked Wasabi best, especially when Go Go disrupted his meticulously organized tool set.

True to the Disney brand, Big Hero 6 is not only funny, it also has a lot of heart.  For a movie geared toward kids, it does a good job dealing with some of the weightier emotions that drive the plot.  You care about the characters.  It's a pleasure to spend time with them.

While it is not without its flaws, I highly recommend Big Hero 6.  It's beautiful, funny, heart-warming, and action-packed.  You could see it for Baymax alone and get your money's worth.

*** Spoiler Section ***

A good villain is crucial.  What would The Avengers be without Loki?  Or Batman without the Joker?  Or the Incredibles without Syndrome?  This kind of movie needs a strong villain who is not only menacing but engrossing and/or unexpected.  When Hans revealed himself as the villain in Frozen I was blown away.  I did not see that coming.  But the moment Professor Callaghan was introduced I thought, "Well, there's the villain."  And as soon as Alistair Krei was introduced I knew he was the decoy we were supposed to think was the villain.  That right there is a fairly classic Scooby Doo misdirect.

Now I'm not saying revenge isn't a good motivation for a villain.  It works.  It has worked hundreds, even thousands of times.  But this time it just wasn't believable.  Callaghan is introduced as a kind, attentive professor who shows interest in his students.  For him to turn around and be completely callous at Tadashi's death just doesn't fit.  Nor does it fit that in his grief he would now seek to kill his former students.  Yes, grief can do terrible things to a person.  But I found it hard to believe.  If he was so grief-stricken and consumed with thoughts of revenge, how has nobody noticed?  And all it takes is one cool science project to push him over the edge into a homicidal supervillain?  I'm sure there were easier ways Callaghan could have gotten revenge on Krei.

To me it felt like Callaghan would want to kidnap Krei and force him to resume work on the teleportation technology in the fragile hope that his daughter might somehow be alive, trapped in the realm between the portals.  That would have fit the character better.

I loved the film, but Callaghan as a supervillain was a major disappointment.  If he hadn't been so worried about his daughter, I really would have expected him to utter the familiar, "And I would've gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids."

Quotable Quotes

• "This is like our origin story!" -- Fred
• "Why are you stopping?" "The light's red."  "There are no red lights in car chases!" Go Go and Wasabi
• "Flying makes me a better healthcare companion." -- Baymax

ISFS

Toy Story of Terror!

Credible Credits

Year: 2013

Director: Angus MacLane

Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Carl Weathers, Timothy Dalton, Wallace Shaw, and Don Rickles

Synopsis: During a road trip with their owner, Bonnie, the Toy Story gang get stuck at a roadside motel where strange things begin to happen. 

Review

Like my last post, this is a bit of a departure from the norm.  Instead of a feature film, Toy Story of Terror! is a TV special that came out last year.  But that doesn't make it any less terrific.  I actually really enjoy where Pixar has gone with its beloved Toy Story franchise.  The shorts and this special provide opportunities to spend time with the lovable characters without having to come up with a contrived, drawn out plot.  That said, it was just announced that Toy Story 4 is happening.  Here's hoping they have a good plot ... but that's beside the point right now.

While it may not be feature length, Toy Story of Terror! is still made with all the skill and artistry we've come to expect from Pixar.  It looks fantastic, just as good as any of their movies.  And all the original voice actors are back to do their part.  While the story is relatively simple, that's what you want in a 21 minute show.  Simple is not boring, and the show keeps you engaged (and laughing) the entire time.  Plus the story has a nice message and a good little character arc for our favorite yodeling cowgirl, Jessie.

Like most things Pixar, the film is filled with subtle gags you can only pick up on repeat viewings.  One of my favorites is when Mr. Pricklepants (a hedgehog) is erroneously referred to as a "German beaver."  Also fun is the rubber bat (with a visible wire no less) in the horror movie the toys are watching from the start.

The Blu-ray (and I assume DVD) is also filled with terrific extras that add to the fun.  You can watch a special version of the show that has "commercials" where the TV breaks are.  The commercials are specially made for the video release and are for a few of the new characters in the story.  Also included are the three Toy Story Toons that have been released: Hawaiian Vacation, Small Fry, and Partysaurus Rex.  Each is a fun little jaunt back through the Toy Story world.  Plus there are deleted scenes and a little behind-the-scenes documentary.

I highly recommend Toy Story of Terror!  It's fun, clever, and populated with familiar friends.  If you can, check it out on TV.  Or go ahead and buy the Blu-ray (or DVD).  If you love the Toy Story gang, you won't regret it.

Quotable Quotes

• "Only a kitty cat.  Classic misdirection." -- Mr. Pricklepants.
• "We're gonna stay here all night?" "Dun dun duuuun." -- Rex and Mr. Pricklepants
• "Combat Carl never gives up.  Combat Carl finds a way." "Are you 'Combat Carl'?" -- Combat Carl and Jessie

ISFS

Meet the Mormons

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Blair Treu

Tagline: Six ordinary individuals.  Six extraordinary stories.

Synopsis: Get a glimpse at the lives of six individuals from around the country and around the world, all united by faith.

Review

This isn't a review like my other reviews.  Partly because this film isn't like the films I usually review.  I have no criticism to offer.  The closest thing I've got is wishing the film had been a little longer so it could have gone a bit more in depth.

First off, let me point out the documentary is called Meet the Mormons, not LDS Theology 101.  The film is not meant to be an introduction to Church doctrine.  Of course you can't discuss the lives of members without discussing some of what we believe.  After all, what we believe is inextricably intertwined into who we are.  The focus of the film shines on living our beliefs as well as finding common ground with all religious traditions, whether it be Baptist, Catholic, or Hindu.

Primarily, this is an introduction to us as a people.  The clear intent being to dispel the prejudices and misconceptions others have about us.  The film even begins by acknowledging the most common stereotypes and misunderstandings.  With each subsequent segment, the film basically says: "You think you know who Mormons are, think again."  The growing diversity within the Church is emphasized and celebrated throughout.

For those who haven't seen it yet, I'm not going to spoil any of the stories.  Suffice it to say, the first few stories are nice, lighter fare.  For me at least, the stories got more gripping as the film went on, with the last story being the most compelling of all.  That was the story of the single mother whose entire life was changed by the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

Beautiful stories would have been enough, but the film itself is also absolutely beautiful.  At times the cinematography is just breathtaking.  One segment is in Nepal.  We see pictures of the Himalayas quite often.  We don't often see the Himalayas as someone's backyard view.  Stunning.  And I clearly need to go ziplining in Costa Rica.

Just as a fun last tidbit, I'd like to point out that the film's editor was Wynn Hougaard, one of my professors when I was a film student at BYU.  Neat.

My final assessment is simply to go see Meet the Mormons.  It's 100% worth your time and 100% worth your money (which is being donated to the American Red Cross).

Quotable Quotes

• "God is the author of diversity." -- The Bishop
• "I'm not close to perfection, but I'm perfect in one thing: I'm perfect in trying." -- The Humanitarian
• "One choice can change everything." -- The Single Mother

ISFS

The Giver

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Phillip Noyce

Starring: Brenton Thwaites, Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Katie Holmes, and Alexander Skarsgard

Tagline: You Can Make Things Better
Synopsis: In a seemingly perfect world, one young man learns what it truly means to live.

Review

Yes, I have read the book for this one.  But it has been a few years and I don't remember all the details that were different.  I never read this as a young adult.  Somehow I just missed it I guess.  So I don't have the eye-opening attachment to the story that perhaps others do.

In terms of the movie, I was on the fence about seeing it.  But having gone in with fairly low expectations, I was rather pleasantly surprised.

For starters, the movie is quite beautifully composed.  The world of the "Community" feels very real, and very sterile.  Which is exactly how it is supposed to feel to the audience.  The film makes excellent use of color.  It's not simply black and white versus color.  Depending on which characters we are with, the hues have differing saturation.  It helps set the tone and feel of the movie.  And it is just fun to watch the colors gradually unfold.

Another thing the film did quite well was not shying away from the darker themes the book addressed.  It tackled those ideas head on but also with the proper delicacy.  While I don't remember many of the details of the book, the themes are what have stuck with me.  So it was nice to see the film try to embrace them.  The film is both earnest and genuine about its themes of learning what it means to live and being willing to accept pain and heartache in order to know joy and love.

Jeff Bridges does an excellent job as the Giver.  He's enjoyable throughout.  After seeing him, I can't imagine anyone else in the role.  Meryl Streep also completely fits her role as the Chief Elder.

While the film was enjoyable and certainly had the best of intentions, it still had some problems that left me disappointed.  First of all, the pacing was problematic.  It wasn't a very long movie.  But it felt rushed in some areas and sluggish in others.  We needed more time easing into the memories with Jonas.  When he gets the memory of war all I could think was, "What, already?"  Receiving those memories is supposed to be a long, somewhat jarring process.  Brenton Thwaites did a good job of embracing the joy of color and music, laughter and dancing.  But it felt like he should have been much more conflicted by the contrast of the world he lives in and the memories he's gaining.

The Giver (as a novel) predates nearly all the young adult fare that is so popular these days.  And yet it seemed to try to fit in with that crowd.  In the book, Jonas and his friends are 12.  In the movie they are 18.  Much of the tension between Jonas and his friends, Fiona and Asher, is invented for the film.  The same goes for most of the climax.  The Community is all about "sameness," so it is a pity the film falls prey to the same trap.  It felt far too anxious to "fit in" with all the other dystopian, young adult movies.  It needed to dare to be unique.

The bigger problem was heavy-handedness.  The film didn't trust the audience as much as it should have (and as much as I remember the book did).  By the film's climax (the part completely invented for the film), the Giver and the Chief Elder are practically just spouting ideological quotes at each other.  Certainly it is straightforward, rather than manipulative, which is good.  But it is also simply telling rather than showing.  I was told what to think, rather than allowed the time to discover it for myself.

I wanted the film to trust that if it presented me with the "facts" and the "truth" that I would choose for myself which world was better.  More than just watching Jonas' journey of discovering joy, music, color, and love, I wanted to go on the same journey.  And the film only kind of allowed that.  Given that the movie is about the power to choose, that was a major blunder.

The choice presented in both the novel and film is of fundamental importance.  It is whether we will taste the bitter to know the sweet; will we endure pain to know joy; will we allow hate in order to embrace love.  It is the same choice made by Eve and Adam in the Garden of Eden, the first choice made on earth.  While we may not be confronted with the choice to the degree Eve or Jonas was, it is a choice every human must come to terms with.  Otherwise they'll hop from pleasure to pleasure, never finding joy.

The film had an opportunity to really show how lost humanity would be without the power to choose or the power to truly live.  It tried to.  It had good intentions about an excellent theme and message.  And it partially succeeded.  It was an enjoyable film that I'm glad I saw.  But I'm more glad I read the book.  I want to read it again now.

Quotable Quotes

• "A dwelling is not a home.  A home is more." -- The Giver
• "Is that the pain everyone talks about?"  "Not even close." -- Jonas (after getting the memory of being stung by a bee) and the Giver
• "I apologize."  "I accept your apology." -- Pretty much everyone except the Giver
• "We are living a life of shadows, of echoes." -- The Giver
• "I loved her."  "Precision of language!"  "Couldn't have been more precise." -- The Giver and the Chief Elder

ISFS

When the Game Stands Tall

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Thomas Carter

Starring: Jim Caviezel, Alexander Ludwig, Michael Chiklis, and Laura Dern

Tagline: It's not how hard you fall; it's how you get back up.
Synopsis: Teamwork and high moral values (apparently) win football games.

Review

Let me start off by saying my fantastic company treated me and everyone else to a movie (this movie) and lunch, all during work hours even.  I'm immensely grateful to work for an employer who is so thoughtful and gracious.  And I recognize this film was probably chosen because it would be inoffensive and uplifting.

I've debated for two weeks about whether or not to critique this movie.  It seemed harsh to criticize a movie with good intentions.  If the movie had been merely mediocre and poorly constructed, I might have given it a pass.  But the more I've thought about it, the more it has irked me.  Good intentions notwithstanding, the film was a failure.  And worse, the message it ultimately sends is more dangerous than uplifting.

As for the movie itself, well, it was extremely flawed.  Basically it was a rather cheap dot-to-dot of all the possible sports cliches, rigidly following the game plan of better movies that preceded it.  And the thing with dot-to-dots, while they may ultimately reveal a picture, they do so in a very stiff, blocky manner.  The movie had a lot of elements all thrown together, but none of the components really worked together to create a unified whole.  A plot point would be dutifully brought up, momentarily dealt with, and then end up relegated to the back burner to deal with a new plot point.  For all the issues brought up, very few ever received any sort of resolution.

It didn't help that the main character, Coach Bob Ladouceur, wasn't particularly likable or relatable.  I've liked Jim Caviezel in other things, but here his performance was just wooden and almost aloof.  They set him up to learn and grow and have a character arc.  But then they never do anything with it.  All the issues he had at the beginning of the film are still there at the end.  As I've mentioned in previous posts, I'm a firm believer in a good character arc.

And then there's "trophy dad."  The more scenes he was in the more completely over the top he seemed.  All he wants is for his son, quarterback Chris Ryan, to break the state record for touchdowns.  He's obsessed and practically insane in his lust for that glory.  I'd like to believe no father is truly that crazy.  And if there are fathers like that, I'm guessing there are some sort of psychological scars they are trying to compensate for.  Yes, he's supposed to be an antagonist within the film, but his motivation is so completely superficial he comes across more as a caricature than a person.

If those had been the film's only flaws, I'd have simply skipped it and not written this post.

What finally spurred me to write was seeing a user review on IMDb claiming the film encapsulated the struggle between good and evil forces in the world.  It's high school football.  There's no evil.  Trophy dad is arrogant, clueless, and a jerk.  The players on the opposing teams have stories of their own.  How many of them were just looking for a way to go to college and to get out of the neighborhoods they grew up in?  The closest thing to "evil" is the shadowy teen who kills one of the students.  An evil act?  Yes.  But although we are given no motive (or any amount of information or closure), it seems likely the killer was either drunk or high and looking for money.

That same user review also claimed the film epitomizes the strength and values of this nation.  Whether that is accurate or not I do not say.  But ultimately this is a film that says even though winning isn't everything, let's focus on winning and the belief that there's no problem that can't be resolved by sports.  But after the celebrations are all over, what have they won?  T.K. is still dead in a senseless act of violence.  Mrs. Ladouceur is still a lonely wife.  Couch Ladouceur still has no relationship with his sons.  Trophy dad is going to be furious with his son.  And all the students have to eventually face real life off the gridiron.

The movie is called When the Game Stands Tall, but what is it standing for?  The entire movie focuses on winning.  It says if you have high moral values and work as a team you'll win.  Really?  If underdog teams always won in real life they wouldn't be called underdogs.  I'm 100% in favor of perseverance and teamwork.  But they don't guarantee success.  At least not the success this movie glorifies.  In every game, one team wins and one team loses.  Do we really believe all opposing teams aren't working together?  Do we really think that because "our" team is morally upright the "other" team must of necessity be morally bankrupt?

And really, where were those "high moral values"?  They were talked about a lot.  A day of service at a Veterans Hospital is a very good deed.  But it's a deed, not character.  The film quotes Matthew 23:12: "And whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."  The words are there.  But the actions of the movie merely drive home the idea that such exalting of the humble ought to come in this life in the same worldly sphere one hopes for.

For a film that claims to be faith-based, I was surprised by one of the early scenes.  One player asks another player, Beaser, about his relationship with his girlfriend.  Beaser responds that they are waiting and have made a purity pledge.  The other player actually taunts his teammate and asks what cult he belongs to.  Beaser responds with the name of a local church, naively oblivious to the fact his teammate just insulted him and his beliefs.  Granted, the other player is shown to be a bit of a jerk for the first half of the film.  But at no point does the film ever reconcile this interaction.  There is never an apology or even any other interaction between the two characters.  It's never brought up again.  Thus there is no indication the film itself is defending Beaser's beliefs.

The film also makes a huge deal about the idea that if you are a good person, good things will come to you.  That is one of the most dangerous half truths the world at large and Christianity in particular have a tendency to fall for.  Note that it is a half truth.  Obedience and righteousness certainly bring blessings.  The danger comes when we build our foundation on the equation good deeds/character = good life/success.  It can.  It does.  But it doesn't always.  Just read the book of Job or the history of Joseph Smith.  Good deeds and character are not a shield against suffering or setbacks.  Nor do they guarantee any sort of worldly success.

The movie certainly shows that some of the characters, though good, have difficult lives struck by tragedy.  And the brotherhood of the team helps them cope and get through.  That message is there, but it is not central to the story.  It ends up being overshadowed by the main plot.  For 151 games, the Spartans went undefeated.  We are shown what an upstanding, unified group the varsity squad is.  Of course they won, they were like brothers.  We then see the rising class, the new seniors.  They are arrogant, self-assured, and lacking in any semblance of unity or comradery.  So it is no surprise when they lose.  But as soon as they start doing good deeds together and acting like a team they start winning again.  The film then hammers it home: if you have high moral values and work as a team you'll win every game.

Maybe that was true for the real life Spartans.  But it is not true of life.  I recently saw a post on Facebook that said: "If you fight on your knees, you'll win every battle."  I understand the sentiment and fervently advocate prayer.  But I disagree.  For one thing, it is human nature to do our own defining of "battle."  Our definition may not align with God's.  How many valiant men, women, and children have "lost the battle" with cancer?  How many faithful men and women still constantly battle with addictions?  I don't know that God promises we'll win every battle.  He knows we won't.  That's why we have a Savior.  God's promise is that if we keep fighting the good fight, no matter how many times we fall, we'll ultimately win the war.

Coming down from my soap box now.

The film did have a few redeeming merits.  While I'm no football fan, the cinematography and choreography for the different games were interesting and (reasonably) gripping.  And Michael Chiklis as the assistant coach was terrific.  He had all the best lines in the movie and was the most likable character.

Final analysis: I'm glad I didn't spend my own time or money on this film.  If you want an uplifting football film, go find Remember the Titans or Rudy.  And if you want a more realistic portrayal of teamwork and perseverance, maybe start with Monsters University.

***Spoiler Section***

By the time we got to the climax, I was quite ready to be done.  But as Ryan purposefully gave up his chance to beat the state touchdown record, I got a little emotional.  And it made me kinda mad.  Why?  Because I knew full well it hadn't earned those emotions.  One of the things I learned as a film student is to tell when I'm being manipulated by the media.  Most movies to some degree or another manipulate because they want your time, your money, your emotional investment, and your suspension of disbelief.

It can be a fine line to walk.  Filmmakers want people to connect with their stories.  Ideally you connect with the characters and the story.  That must be the foundation, and everything else is just supplemental.  But if the foundation isn't there, if the story is haphazard and the characters are flat, the connection fails.  At that point, cue the music, the cliches, and/or the adrenaline rush.

Honestly, what's the ending even about?  Is it saying "it doesn't matter if you win or lose?"  Because they won the game and the championship.  So what was Ryan's sacrifice for?  Yes, to a degree it shows the state record doesn't matter to him.  But we already knew that.  There were other ways to show that.  For one thing, it meant breaking his promise to his father.  Yes, it was a pretty rotten promise that was forced out of him.  But he gave his word.  Also, the big push of Coach Ladouceur was to always give a "perfect effort."  I'm not sure refusing to play out those last few seconds of the game really constituted a perfect effort.

As symbolic gestures go, I simply didn't get this one.  And Mrs. Ladouceur spouting off things like "he's making your son into a man" to trophy dad were without real foundation.  It was just another sports cliche platitude.

Now I don't know if Chris Ryan was a real person or made up for the movie.  I don't recall there being anything about him in the credits.  Maybe that's what really did happen.  Or maybe it was artistic license.  I just really hope no actual father was as completely insane as trophy dad.

Quotable Quotes

• "It's a contact sport.  You're allowed to hit people.  It's encouraged even!" -- Asst. Coach Terry Eidson
• "Good waffles." -- Asst. Coach Terry Eidson
• "I'll give everything until I die out there."  "Collapse.  Not die.  It's just high school football." -- Player and Coach Bob Ladouceur

ISFS

Guardians of the Galaxy

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: James Gunn

Starring: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, and Lee Pace

Tagline: All Heroes Start Somewhere
Synopsis: After a stolen artifact puts entire worlds in danger, an unlikely group of misfits comes together, puts aside their differences, and saves the galaxy.

Review

From the start, I had my reservations about Guardians of the Galaxy.  It looked like a far cry from the Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America I was used to.  And then the trailers came out ... and I was even more leery about what the movie was going to be like.  But, I decided to trust in Marvel (and the 92% on Rotten Tomatoes).  I'm so glad I did.

Guardians of the Galaxy is terrific.  It's definitely one of the most entertaining movies I've seen all year.  And it is just plain fun from start to wacky finish.

Before I rave about all it did so awesomely right, let me just mention that it did have some things I could have done without.  I was surprised at how much swearing there was.  It wasn't horrendous, but it was certainly more than I was expecting based on previous Marvel films.  And of course there was Peter Quill's crude gesture, which was not "censored" like it was in the trailer.  Seriously?  Did we need that?  No.

I was afraid most of the humor would be along the lines of the above.  Not so.  The movie was seriously hilarious.  I laughed so many times.  Practically every scene had some quotable line or funny interaction between characters.  It was tough picking just a few for the section below.  And it was never forced jokes or laughs either.  It came from the characters being themselves and from the absurdity of some of the situations (e.g., a humanoid tree whose entire vocabulary consists of "I," "am," and "Groot," in that order).  Where Iron Man is snarky and Loki is clever, the Guardians are just sorta nuts and crazy.  And it works.  Where else could the range of jokes include references to Kevin Bacon, John Stamos, and Jackson Pollock.

As with all Marvel movies, the special effects in Guardians of the Galaxy were terrific.  The film is beautiful to watch and the various worlds and ships are exquisitely imagined.  They feel like real places.  Seriously, the attention to every detail is almost mind-boggling.  They also do a great job making Groot and Rocket totally believable.  And considering one is a humanoid tree and the other is a talking, trigger-happy raccoon, that's no small task.

I was pretty dubious when "Hooked on a Feeling" was the music for the first trailer.  All I could think was, "Seriously?"  But what was a little strange in the trailer worked perfectly in the final execution.  Those 70s and 80s songs are an integral part of Peter Quill's character, as the audience almost immediately learns.  They suit him and they suit the story.  They also serve as a constant reminder that, even though the film takes place in a far off galaxy, Quill is human and relatable.

In a couple of ways, Guardians of the Galaxy is a bit like The Lego Movie.  For starters, Chris Pratt is the main character in both and plays an unlikely hero.  But both films also had somewhat misleading trailers.  The trailers certainly showed that their respective movies would be zany and funny.  But none of the trailers intimated at how much heart was in the films.  I expected the various "Guardians" to be funny.  I didn't expect to care about them as much as I did.

From the very opening scene, the film pulls you in emotionally.  And while you then spend a lot of time having fun, you also get to know and gradually understand each of the characters.  You can see why these characters have come to that point, and why they are ready to come together in a crazy alliance.  None of them is just comic relief.  They are each genuine, with anger and hurt.  Well, except Groot.  Groot only gets angry when his friends are in peril.  Most of the time he has a childlike innocence, which is quite refreshing next to the other characters.  Groot is simply good.  And in many ways, it is he who brings the other Guardians together and keeps them together ... all with his limited vocabulary.  [Vin Diesel apparently recorded 1,000 variations of "I am Groot."]

Basically Guardians of the Galaxy is what you'd expect if Looney Tunes were crossed with the Avengers and then got thrown into the Star Wars universe.  And if you are a fan of any one of those things, you should check it out, preferably on the big screen.

***Spoiler Section***

Hands down, one of the greatest moments in the film is when Ronan the Accuser has crash landed on the planet Xandar and he gives his very typical, very evil, I'm-going-to-destroy-you-all monologue.  And then Quill just starts singing and grooving.  The juxtaposition is perfect.  Ronan is so utterly dumbfounded by this man he views as an imbecile, all he can do is stammer, "What are you doing?"  It's so unexpected for Ronan and for the audience.  Who breaks out into a dance-off when an entire world is at stake?  Peter Quill.  That's who.  And the method to his madness is that he's serving as a distraction.  Brilliant.

My favorite moment, though, has to be earlier on when the ragtag group is trying to escape from prison.  Rocket is explaining to Quill and Gamora what items he needs to execute their escape.  While they're arguing, Groot, in the background of the shot, is calmly in the process of acquiring one of the "impossible to retrieve" things they need.  It's a fantastic use of staging and timing.

Quotable Quotes

• "I am Groot." -- Groot
• "We've already established that you destroying the ship I'm on is not saving me!" -- Quill to Drax
• "Metaphors go over his head."  "Nothing goes over my head!  My reflexes are too fast ... I would catch it."  -- Rocket and Drax
• "I have lived most of my life surrounded by my enemies.  I would be grateful to die surrounded by my friends." -- Gamora
• "What!  What are you doing?" -- Ronan the Accuser

ISFS

WALL-E

Credible Credits

Year: 2008

Director: Andrew Stanton

Starring: Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin

Tagline: In Space, No One Can Hear You Clean
Synopsis: After 700 years of cleaning up Earth's trash, a little robot finds love and greater purpose.

Review

My very first movie review on this blog was Raiders of the Lost Ark.  At the time, I mentioned that it was my tied-for-favorite movie.  Well, it is high time I got around to writing about the other tied-for-favorite movie.  (That and there has been a severe dearth of interesting movies in theaters the last few weeks.)  So, without further ado, I give you WALL-E.

WALL-E is one of those movies I simply never get tired of.  It is a refreshing ray of light whenever I watch it.  Just thinking about WALL-E and EVE puts a smile on my face.  They may be robots, but they are two of my favorite characters and definitely one of my favorite cinematic couples.

Let's start with WALL-E himself.  When we first meet the trash compacting robot, we learn a lot about him without him ever saying a word.  He's insatiably curious, as seen by his ever-growing collection of human artifacts.  He's ticklish: an excellent quality.  He's sensitive; he likes musicals and is horrified at the thought he might have hurt his little cockroach pal.  Once EVE comes to Earth, we learn even more about him.  Watching him loyally and tirelessly try to reawaken or recharge EVE is both hilarious and heartbreaking.  WALL-E is just so full of joie de vivre (the joy of living).  It's endearing and contagious.

In literary terms, WALL-E is what's known as a catalyst hero: he doesn't change much himself during the story, but everyone he comes in contact with is changed.  Seriously, everyone he bumps into -- whether it be Mary who then discovers the Axiom has a pool, or the data entry robot who learns to wave, or the malfunctioning robots who learn they can still have purpose, or M-O who decides following his passion for cleaning is better than mindlessly following orders -- they are all changed by their encounters with WALL-E.  Even AUTO is changed, because once WALL-E and the plant are discovered, AUTO must choose between human orders and his directive.

Of course the changes WALL-E initiates are mostly unintentional.  He doesn't set out to change the fate of humanity.  His is the power of a good example, a light unafraid to shine.  He lives his life, pursues his dreams, and follows his heart.  And in the process, he opens the eyes of EVE, the Captain, John, and Mary to what life and living are all about.

The ship is called the Axiom, which is very fitting.  The word "axiom" means something that is taken for granted or something seen as unquestionable.  Over centuries of aimless, effortless existence, the humans take their very lives for granted.  But finally, after years of never questioning, suddenly the Captain can't ask enough questions ("Computer, define 'dancing'").  More than just WALL-E's dirt rubbed off on the Captain.

I love a good character arc.  There is something about watching a character grow and become something greater, something more than they originally thought possible.  All the humans go through a very dramatic character arc, going from a nearly infantile state to literally standing on their own two feet.  But the transformation that drives the heart and soul of the movie is EVE's.  Because when all is said and done, WALL-E is a love story ... with robots.

When we first meet EVE, she is intently focused on her directive.  But we also learn, once the shuttle leaves, that she has a yearning for freedom ... or at least enjoys flying very, very fast.  Where WALL-E is fully "humanized," at this point EVE is only partially so.  She remains focused on the task at hand, no matter how hard WALL-E tries to divert her attention.  She behaves very robotically.  But as each scan comes back negative, her more human-like qualities begin to surface as she gets increasingly frustrated (resulting in a terrific plasma-blast induced bonfire).  At last, she allows herself to meet WALL-E, from which point there is no going back.

Unlike some of the other changes or transformations in the story, EVE's is much more slow.  It takes time for her to see with new LED eyes.  She catches the spark of WALL-E's joie de vivre, but her directive still remains primary.  So much so, that EVE sees WALL-E as just a nuisance when the plant goes missing and she is viewed as defective.  She blames him and tries to send him away.  It isn't until, for a moment, she believes WALL-E has been killed in the exploding escape pod, that she starts to realize her priorities are messed up.  But while she is relieved to discover WALL-E is alive, she is also relieved to discover he has the plant and she can still fulfill her directive and prove she isn't defective.

You could say EVE is a workaholic.  At that point in the story she finally allows herself to care about something other than her directive, and takes time to share a moment -- a real moment -- with WALL-E.  Yet even then, her directive is of great importance to her.  Certainly her directive, her job, isn't bad.  It's very good.  But her focus and priorities still aren't quite in place.  It isn't until she truly sees how much WALL-E cares, until he almost is killed, that EVE realizes what really matters.  WALL-E matters.  Love matters.

And then WALL-E rather unintentionally teaches EVE one more lesson.  EVE tosses the plant (and thus her directive) aside so she can hold WALL-E's hand.  He pushes her aside and retrieves the plant.  Her directive does matter.  It matters a lot.  But now she needs to fulfill her directive for the right reasons.  It's not about her being successful or proving she's not defective.  It's about saving the robot she loves, going home, and tangentially saving humanity as a bonus.

Perhaps that understanding is what kept WALL-E alive for so long, when all the other robots shut down.  WALL-E wasn't cleaning Earth just because it was his directive.  He cleaned Earth because he loves Earth, or at least all the fascinating trinkets and memorabilia he finds.  It is fitting then that EVE's love and new-found understanding should ultimately save WALL-E from not only the scrap heap, but from reverting to his own mindless directive.

As if the characters and story weren't enough, WALL-E is simply a beautiful film.  From the brilliant sound work, to the perfectly suited score, to the amazing visuals, it is a cinematic masterpiece.  The filmmakers at Pixar did so much to make the film look spectacular, especially in terms of the lighting.  The film absolutely earned its Academy Award for Best Animated Feature as well as its nominations in five other categories.  And it has absolutely earned its place in my heart.

I could easily write more about WALL-E, going scene by scene through all the little details and moments that I love.  But I'll resist.  I feel I've done justice to my tied-for-favorite movie.  Now I'm tempted to go watch it again ...

Quotable Quotes

• "Ta-da!" -- WALL-E
• "Foreign contaminant." -- M-O
• "Computer, define 'dancing.'" -- The Captain
• "I don't want to survive.  I want to live!" -- The Captain

ISFS

How to Train Your Dragon 2

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Dean DeBlois

Starring: Jay Baruchel, America Ferrera, Gerard Butler, Cate Blanchett, and Craig Ferguson

Tagline: N/A
Synopsis:  Five years after bringing dragons and the vikings of Berk together, Hiccup and Toothless are still inseparable friends pushing the boundaries of their world.  But as they discover new lands and new dragons, they also discover new dangers and new threats.

Review

I loved the first How to Train Your Dragon.  It may very well be my favorite DreamWorks Animation film.  So I've been quite excited for the sequel.  And while I don't feel like the sequel exceeded the original, it did not disappoint.

There were three things that made the first movie stand out so well: 1) visuals, namely the incredible flying sequences; 2) humor, thanks to Hiccup and Toothless; and 3) heart, especially the bond between Hiccup and Toothless.  All of those elements are still present in the sequel, though perhaps not in quite the same degree.

First the visuals.  The animation is once again astounding.  And watching Hiccup and Toothless soar through the clouds, over the ocean, and across new lands is just as breathtaking as it was the first time around.  We aren't treated to a huge array of new lands, but the few we do see are a beautiful contrast to the world of the first film.

There is still a good deal of humor this time out.  Toothless is still the most endearing character and he gets some nice moments to be goofy and playful.  There's also a lot of background humor in this one.  For instance, Hiccup and Astrid will be talking in the foreground, but Toothless and Astrid's dragon are wrestling and tug of warring in the background.  It's subtle.  I don't recall missing out on conversation because of what was going on behind.  But it was a fun way to add a layer of richness to this world: the dragons aren't going to sit around and be boring just because humans are talking to each other.  Oh, and the other vikings bring the same humor they brought last time around.

The film, overall, is a bit darker than its predecessor.  It's a little more mature in the elements it deals with.  This time around we have loss and regret and forgiveness to deal with.  It works really well.  The story has grown up a bit just as the characters have grown up.  It did feel like Hiccup lost a bit of his charm though.  He was still unsure of himself, but seemed to have lost the dry wit that helped make him so likable in the first film.

Lastly, this film had heart.  Once again we have Hiccup dealing with his various relationships: with Toothless, with Astrid, with his father, and now with his mother. (It was in the trailer; they spoiled it, not me.)  Hiccup and Toothless still make a terrific duo, even when their friendship is put to the test.  Aside from them, I think my favorite interactions were between Stoick and Valka, as they come together again and reconnect.  In some sense, I suppose it was a slow section in terms of the main plot, but it was such an important sequence for the characters and the heart of the story.  I hope the third film (this is planned as a trilogy) somehow manages to play off the importance of that sequence.

If the movie had a weakness, it might be the villain.  He had the beginnings of an epic, menacing villain.  But somehow he just never attained the level of awesomeness he should have.  For a ruthless man amassing an army of men and dragons, his motivations and overall plan weren't entirely clear.  In the end, he was kinda meh.  What can I say, Disney still has the best villains.

One other nitpick.  For a movie that is interested in expanding the world of the vikings and dragons, they really didn't expand a whole lot in terms of civilization.  The characters find a huge new colony of dragons.  And we are introduced to the villain and his armies.  Other than that, we don't really know of any other peoples.  Besides tiny Berk, what all is Drago planning on conquering?  We sure haven't seen anything else to conquer.

Overall, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a worthy sequel.  It retains enough of the charm of the original while expanding the world and characters in fresh, new ways.  The animation is top notch.  The music is lively and fun.  Toothless is as endearing as ever.  I look forward to adding this one to my movie collection and eagerly await the end of the trilogy.

***Spoiler Section***
Okay.  There were a few times when I kind of wanted to knock a bit of cynical sense into Hiccup.  I get that he's young and idealistic.  But after a while, his dogged insistence that he could reason with Drago started seeming ridiculously naive.  After Stoick related what kind of man Drago was, "a man who kills without reason," it seemed pretty clear that peaceful reasoning was not going to work.  And trusting such a villain to listen ... well, that worked out about as well as you'd expect.

At some point I read that this was going to be kind of like The Empire Strikes Back of the trilogy.  By which I mean it would be more expansive and with more at stake.  That was certainly the case with this one.  At one point though, I thought they were going to really go that route and leave us hanging in the story.  After Stoick is killed and Drago rides off on Toothless, everything seems bleak for our heroes and Berk.  But Hiccup refuses to be defeated and vows to protect his home: humans and dragons alike.  For a moment, I really thought the film might just end there.  It would have been a gutsy move for an animated film.  It also might have allowed the film to be that much more epic.

Don't get me wrong.  The ending was good and wrapped up nicely.  But the retaking of Berk and the freeing of Toothless could have been a story on its own.  It would have allowed us to better understand Drago (and thus up him on the epic villain scale).  Oh well.  Like I said, the ending works.  And I'm not entirely sure just what became of Drago.  So maybe he will be back for the third film.

Quotable Quotes

• "This is Berk.  Life here is amazing.  Dragons used to be a bit of a problem.  But now they've all moved in." -- Hiccup
• "A man who kills without reason cannot be reasoned with." -- Stoick
• "You have the heart of a chief, and the soul of a dragon." -- Valka

ISFS

Edge of Tomorrow

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Doug Liman

Starring: Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, and Brendan Gleeson

Tagline: Live. Die. Repeat.
Synopsis: During a war with an invading alien race, an officer finds himself trapped in a time loop, reliving the same two days over and over and over.

Review

I don't remember when I first saw the trailer for Edge of Tomorrow.  I do remember being moderately intrigued by what appeared to be Groundhog Day meets an alien invasion war movie.  So I let it stay on my radar, waiting to see what sort of reviews it would get.  I started getting a little excited when I saw it was getting good reviews.  And the more the good reviews piled up, the more excited I became to see it.  It currently is at 90% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Go see this movie.

Why?  Because it's terrific.  Is it the best movie ever?  No.  But it is smart, clever, well-made, well-acted, humorous, and a whole lot of fun.  And in a world of sequels, remakes, and reboots, Edge of Tomorrow is refreshingly original (though I should point out it is based on a Japanese novella).

My only qualm with the movie is the language.  I don't remember Cage or Rita (Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt, i.e., the main characters) swearing much.  But the other soldiers around them swear quite a bit when they are on screen.  Oh, and the bum shot.  Could've done without that too.

With my qualms out there, let's get into why this film is so much fun.

For starters, the movie is simply funny.  There were lots of humorous moments in the film, mostly revolving around the fact that Cage is killed over and over and over again and he (unsurprisingly) gets a bit tired of it from time to time.  There was one point when the entire audience -- myself included -- laughed out loud at a particularly unexpected death (and the subsequent look of complete befuddlement on another character's face).

It seems pointless to avoid comparison with Groundhog Day.  The 1993 movie may very well have inspired the novella's time loop idea.  It doesn't seem coincidental that the female protagonist is named Rita in both.  Both movies use and play off the time loop concept well.  Even though we are in some sense watching the same scenes being played out repeatedly, they stay fresh.  Why?  Because we get to watch Cage change and adapt.  We seem him confused, then hopeless, then accepting, then frustrated and impatient, then completely in control.  And Cruise does a great job selling it, especially when you realize he has started to truly care about Rita and is finding it increasingly difficult to watch her die day after day.

For a movie based on the premise that the main character gets killed again and again, Edge of Tomorrow was surprisingly (and refreshingly) restrained in terms of violence.  Aside from the killing of the aliens, the violence is kept primarily off screen and implied.  I was truly surprised how conscientiously restrained it was.  That's not what I would ever expect from an alien invasion war movie.  For instance, there's a scene where Rita is wounded and Cage must inspect and then treat her wound.  All we see is Cage's concerned reaction.  No gratuitous blood or gore.  Thank you.

In a way, the experience for Cage is probably what it would be like to live out a video game.  He gets as far as he can, then dies, resets, and tries again to "complete the level" as it were.  Each time he makes it a little farther.  It's the ultimate practice of trial and error.  And it's enjoyable to watch the payoff as Cage starts to move along with choreographed precision, with Rita in tow just trying to keep up.  The setup also allows for a nice character arc for Cage.  It isn't quite as dramatic as Phil's in Groundhog Day.  But it is a good arc nonetheless, because Cage starts out as anything but heroic or selfless.  By the end, he's willing to do what needs to be done, and not just for himself.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed Edge of Tomorrow.  It's clever and fun and just what a summer blockbuster ought to be.  So beat the heat for a while in a nice air conditioned theater and go see it.  Show Hollywood that quality trumps mindless plots, endless rehashes, hollow characters, senseless violence, and gratuitous anything.

***Spoiler Section***

If you look at the message boards of IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes (something I almost never do I might add), you'll find a fair amount of discussion regarding how the movie ends.  Basically there are those who don't like it and think it is a Hollywood happy ending cop-out.  There are those who dismiss the reality of it and ascribe it to being a dream or an afterlife.  And there are those who have worked immensely hard to work out all the internal logic for it to make sense (which is quite impressive actually).

As for me, I loved the ending just as it was.  Yes, I'm a sucker for a good happy ending.  But I've learned that whenever you have a film (or book) that deals with any sort of time travel, at some point you just have to suspend your disbelief and accept whatever narrative unfolds (within reason).  Trying to hash out the logic will primarily make your head hurt and possibly dampen your enjoyment of the film.  Still, I hope the film doesn't completely abandon its own internal logic (I'm looking at you Frequency).  When I left the theater, I felt satisfied with the ending, whether it made complete sense or not.  I guess it was the ending I wanted.  And having just read (okay, skimmed [it was really, really detailed]) a few people's logical breakdowns, I'm still satisfied the ending does work.

And can I just add that I love how the film actually closes.  It's understated and brilliant.  A similar ending that comes to mind is from Monsters Inc.  Even though Rita at this point in a new timeline has no idea who Cage is, he knows her.  He knows everything they've been through together.  He cares for her.  But instead of some confused, overly sentimental scene, all we see is Cage's face as he sees her.  He's so relieved and happy to see her alive that he doesn't even know what to say.  He just smiles.  Cut to black.  Perfect.

Quotable Quotes

• "Come find me when you wake up!" -- Rita
• "Who gave you permission to talk to me?"  "You did ... tomorrow." -- Rita and Cage
• "What do we do now?"  "I don't know; we've never made it this far before." -- Rita and Cage
• "What do you want?" -- Rita

ISFS

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Marc Webb

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, and Dane DeHaan

Tagline: His Greatest Battle Begins
Synopsis:  Peter Parker, aka Spider-Man, faces old friends and new enemies, all while reconciling his past with what he wants for his future.

Review

Of all the adjectives I could use to describe The Amazing Spider-Man 2, "amazing" isn't one of them.  Words like "contrived," "convoluted," "overblown," "overlong," or "mess" come to mind instead.  Oh sure, it does have its good points.  I'm not quite sorry I saw it.  But I'm certainly not feeling excited for the inevitable third installment.

Let's start with what went wrong, then we can end with what was right.

The whole thing is just way too long.  At 142 minutes, it is the longest of all the Spider-Man films to date.  And you can feel it.  There were moments when I just wanted things to move along and be done.  Part of the problem was how incredibly predictable the whole thing was.  I knew how it was going to end long before we got there: long, long before.  So the film just seemed to drag.

But at the same time, too much was crammed into the story.  It could be argued that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 suffers from the same problem as Spider-Man 3: too many villains.  For most of the film, the way they used the three villains (Electro, Green Goblin, and Rhino) worked reasonably well.  The problem was they tried to resolve two of the three villains' story lines, which meant two climaxes.  Like I said, that's when it starts to feel really long.

Maybe the filmmakers realized the story was getting overlong and they needed to keep people's attention.  Why else would they so haphazardly throw in the oldest action movie trope of them all: the ticking time bomb.  No, it isn't an actual time bomb.  But there is an actual ticking clock and a worried group of people counting down.  It has absolutely nothing to do with Spider-Man or Electro.  Electro only inadvertently set up the situation (kinda weak), and Spider-Man (and Gwen) unknowingly prevent the calamity (again, kinda weak).  I'm not saying the "ticking time bomb" is a bad thing.  It's used in countless action movies because it works.  But this was not how to do it.

There was also the entire subplot with Peter's parents.  They did a whole lot of buildup in the first film about the mysterious disappearance of Richard and Mary Parker and how Richard was somehow highly involved with equally mysterious goings on at Oscorp.  Well, we get more mystery in this film too.  And we get lots of Peter trying to figure out what happened and why they left him with Aunt May and Uncle Ben.  And yes, we also finally find out just what happened.  But none of it really serves much purpose in the story.  It doesn't particularly forward the plot.  Nor does it really have any impact on Peter's character arc (actually, I'm not entirely sure Peter had a character arc in this film, which is a major problem in and of itself).  It's all just sort of tangential filler to explain why the mutant spiders affected Peter one way but would affect anyone else differently.  There had to be a more efficient way to do that.  After all that setup from the first film, there just wasn't much payoff.

Okay, back to the villains.  Does Spider-Man just not have good villains (I'm a Batman fan personally, and he has a terrific rogues gallery)?  So far the major villains in the new Spider-Man movies have basically been science experiments gone wrong.  Granted, that is how Peter Parker became Spider-Man, so maybe it is poetic justice?  Don't get me wrong, Electro was pretty cool.  Max Dillon comes across as a pretty unstable, albeit intelligent, fellow so his setup to become a super villain works (were those his thoughts we heard being rapped in the background when he first battled Spider-Man?).  But Green Goblin's setup kinda felt like the same story.  Both are the products of science experiments gone wrong.  Both feel irrationally slighted by Spider-Man.  It works once.  I'm not sure it works twice.

And that brings me to a villainous side character: Dr. Ashley Kafka.  If ever a character was a cliche, it was him.  Mad scientist with a thick German accent: check.  Listens to classical music: check.  Crazy hair and thick glasses: check.  White lab coat: check.  Gleefully torments characters (in this case Electro) in the name of science all while wearing a simpering smirk: check.  Seriously?  I groaned every second he was onscreen.

I hated the character so much I had to come home and search Wikipedia to see if he was an actual comic book character.  There is a Dr. Ashley Kafka in the comics.  For starters, that Dr. Kafka is female.  She's not German (she's from New York).  She's not a mad scientist (she's a psychologist).  And she's a good character who tried to help the criminally insane and was a sometimes ally of Spider-Man.  So basically the film just stole her name and gave it to the most garish cliche I've seen in recent cinema.

My last gripe (until the spoiler section) is perhaps the most unexpected.  At least it surprised me.  I did not like the musical score.  Normally I either love the score (and rush out to buy the main themes on iTunes) or I don't really notice it at all because it simply works.  This score I noticed.  And I was not impressed.  Which is even more mind-blowing to me because it was by Hans Zimmer, the genius behind the fantastic music to more movies than I have space to list.  I'm not even sure what the problem was.  It just seemed like the music was a bit ... corny.  It didn't seem to suit the film or its tone at all.

So, what actually went right?  Well, the casting was quite good.  I really like Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker / Spider-Man.  He brings just the right balance of intelligent and goofy.  Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is also fantastic.  And the two of them have terrific chemistry.  At no point do you think, now why is she with him?  Their relationship just works, even when it isn't really working so well in the story.  It's all believable.  Jamie Foxx and Dane DeHaan both do a terrific job at selling their characters' falls from decent to villainous.  Paul Giamatti is pretty over the top.  But then that's what's required for a character called "The Rhino" who goes around in a big mechanized rhino suit.

The other good point of the film was its humor.  Spider-Man is a fun character who likes to crack jokes.  He is a teenager after all.  There were a lot of fun moments and great lines from him and from Gwen.

Oh, and the special effects were really good.  Electro is quite impressive.

As you can see, I found a lot more to criticize than to love about The Amazing Spider-Man 2.  If you are a die hard Spidey fan ... sure, go see it.  If you're bored and want to see a good superhero movie ... go see Captain America: The Winter Soldier and wait for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 to be available through Netflix.

One more thing.  How does Andrew Garfield fit all that hair under Spider-Man's mask?

***Spoiler Section***

Okay.  I get why Harry Osborne is initially angry with Spider-Man.  He's dying and he has reason to believe that Spider-Man's blood could heal him.  He's emotionally vulnerable and desperate, so I can see why his judgment is clouded after Spider-Man refuses to help.  But then he actually gets the spider venom ... and pretty much what Spider-Man feared happened: the venom transformed Harry, and not in a cool Spider-Man way.  At that point, Spider-Man is pretty much validated in his refusal.  From that point, Harry basically just seems to be using Spider-Man as a scapegoat for all his woes.  Yes, he's kinda gone off the deep end.  But considering what he goes on to do, that's pretty weak motivation.  The Harry Osborne in the Sam Raimi trilogy had much better motivation for hating Spider-Man.

And what does Harry go on to do?  Well, anyone who knows anything about Spider-Man knows that his main love interest ends up being Mary Jane Watson.  And they also know that Gwen Stacy dies.  So Gwen was basically doomed from the start of the previous film.  And from the moment she starts giving her graduation speech at the beginning of the movie, you know she isn't going to live to see the credits.

Symbolism is terrific.  I love a good, well-thought-out motif.  But having Gwen die in a clock seems a bit heavy handed (pardon the pun).  We get it; her time's up.  It wasn't simply that it was in a clock, it was how they staged the whole scene.  It all felt too contrived, almost manipulative.

The Peter Parker / Gwen Stacy relationship has been hands down the highlight of these movies.  This doesn't exactly bode well for the third installment.

Quotable Quotes

• "We're hiding in a maintenance closet.  That's the most cliche hiding place ever." -- Peter to Gwen
• "He [Max Dillon/Electro] loves Spider-Man."  "That's not the vibe I was getting.  I was getting the wants-to-kill-me vibe."  "That's kinda what it's like to love you."  Gwen and Peter
• "I'll be like a god to them."  "A god named 'Sparkles'?" -- Electro and Spider-Man
• "On behalf of the fine people of New York and real rhinos everywhere, I ask you to put your mechanized paws in the air." -- Spider-Man to Rhino

ISFS

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Anthony Russo and Joe Russo

Starring: Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Mackie, Sebastian Stan, and Robert Redford

Tagline: In Heroes We Trust
Synopsis: While still trying to adjust to his new life in modern times, Captain America is thrust into a new adventure where nothing and no one is quite as they seem.

Review

Ah, Marvel.  You've done it again.  Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a terrific movie.  It has loads of action, terrific characters, fair doses of both heart and humor, and an intriguing plot.  And it has good old Captain America.

I love Tony Stark / Iron Man.  He's brilliant and clever.  Plus everything that comes out of his mouth is snarky and quotable.  Thor has an epic grandeur about him.  He's literally otherworldly and brings a pseudo-Shakespearean gravitas wherever he and his mighty hammer go.  Hulk smashes.  And then there's Captain America, aka Steve Rogers.  He's a decent, average guy who just so happens to end up superhuman.  He's the most down to earth and relatable of the Avengers.  Which is part of what makes him the most heroic.  Saving the world isn't his hobby.  It's the right thing to do.  And Steve Rogers does what's right, no matter what.

That what I love about Captain America.  He is genuinely good.  Right is right.  Wrong is wrong.  You trust your friends and stick by them until the end of the line.  There's something very refreshing about that, especially as distrust, dishonesty, cynicism, betrayal, and hidden agendas swirl around the Captain.  And in true heroic fashion, rather than letting the world bring him down to its level, Captain America rallies those around him to rise to his level.

Captain America is surrounded by a great bunch in this film.  He and Black Widow make an odd duo.  He's an idealist.  She's a realist.  He has a high moral code.  She does what needs to be done.  He's all about trust and truth.  She ... well, isn't.  Seriously, she's been in three movies now and I'm not sure we really know anything about her.  Nick Fury is also quite the foil for Captain America, and the story plays off those differences well.  And then there's Sam Wilson, aka the Falcon.  He's a newcomer.  And a welcome one at that.  While Sam is a slightly jaded veteran, he has not become cynical.  It's apparent from the start that he admires Captain America and is ready to follow his lead.  He has quite a lot to do in terms of the action and plot, but what struck me is that he is proof that Captain America's "old-fashioned values" are alive and well and applicable today.

Two other characters I was quite excited to see the return of were Peggy Carter and Maria Hill.

Agent Peggy Carter is, of course, the love interest of Steve Rogers in Captain America: The First Avenger.  And she was one of my favorite parts of that movie.  She also stars in the Marvel One Shot: "Agent Carter."  By the time of The Winter Soldier she's in her mid-nineties.  I don't remember that her one scene does much to forward the actual plot.  But it is a wonderful, much-needed quiet moment that shows just who Steve is as he goes to visit her in the hospital.

As I was thinking about it, Maria Hill is sort of the modern version of Peggy Carter.  In their own times they are both high ranking women.  They are both very intelligent, skilled, and perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.  But neither is as rough, tough, or flashy as say Black Widow.  Maria Hill doesn't have a whole lot to do in The Winter Soldier, and yet what she does is essential to furthering the plot and aiding Captain America and the others.

There's also the Winter Soldier himself.  But I can't say much about him without spoiling things.  Suffice it to say he is an intriguing antagonist and it is fascinating to watch him fight toe to toe with Captain America.  He also has a fitting post-credits scene.

As I said above, the movie has a well-done plot.  It really is as much an espionage thriller as it is a superhero movie.  While it isn't as witty as other movies in the Marvel universe, it has its humorous moments.  And it's just satisfying to cheer for Captain America.

I do have one nit-pick about the movie.  It is a fairly standard Hollywood trope that bad guys with guns can't hit the broad side of a barn let alone the hero.  Still, the movie is full of highly trained soldiers, many of whom have all sorts of automatic weapons.  They seem generally intelligent.  And yet not one single bad guy can figure out that shooting at Captain America's vibranium shield simply doesn't work.  Not at all people.  And the shield is only so big.  But do any of the baddies think to shoot at the Captain's unprotected lower legs?  Nope.  Futilely shooting the shield over and over and over again is so much cooler.

Aside from that minor gripe, I have nothing but praise for Captain America: The Winter Soldier.  If you enjoy Marvel movies, you'll have a great time.  If you don't, give it a try.  You might like this one.

*** Spoiler Section ***

I hope we get to see more of the Winter Soldier in Captain America 3.  I look forward to seeing how Bucky comes back from years of brainwashing.  I'm glad they didn't do too much with that in this film, it would have felt rushed and thus less meaningful.

Lastly, did anyone really think they'd actually kill Nick Fury?  They couldn't even bring themselves to really kill off Agent Coulson.

Quotable Quotes

• "Secure the engine room, then get me a date."  "I'm multi-tasking." -- Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanoff
• "Then what's not broken?!" "Air conditioning is fully operational." -- Nick Fury and his car
• "On your left." -- Steve Rogers
• "I do what he does -- just slower." -- Sam Wilson

ISFS

Rio 2

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Carlos Saldanha

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, Jemaine Clement, and Kristin Chenoweth

Tagline: It's on in the Amazon!
Synopsis: When more blue macaws are discovered deep within the jungle, Blu, Jewel, their kids, and their friends embark on an adventure to the Amazon.

Review

Remember how before reviewing Mr. Peabody and Sherman I talked about the insipid short that preceded it?  Well, believe it or not, the exact same short preceded Rio 2.  Seriously?  That's just lazy.  C'mon Blue Sky Studios.  Why is your film being preceded by a Dreamworks short anyway?  Also preceding the movie was the first five minutes from How to Train Your Dragon 2.  While that was far more entertaining and interesting, it's also kind of a shameless marketing plug.  (I am very excited for that movie, though, and still have high expectations for it.)

Speaking of expectations, I went into Rio 2 with fairly low expectations.  The first movie was fun and worth at least one viewing.  It had some catchy samba-inspired songs and flamboyantly feathery choreography.  The plot was decent and the characters were likable enough.  It had some clever moments but was ultimately rather forgettable.

And I basically just reviewed both movies right there.

All the main characters from the first movie return.  Blu spends most of the movie trying to learn how to fit in and what he's good for (which is pretty much how he spent the first movie).  Jewel doesn't have a whole lot to do this time around aside from urging Blu (and thus the plot) along.  All the other characters are along for the ride and add their own various antics.  New characters include the villainous Nigel's henchmen: a lovesick poisonous tree frog and a silent, ever-hungry anteater.  Blu's GPS was also a fun "character," if you can call it that.  And of course there are new blue macaws, primarily Jewel's father and her childhood friend.  Both fill their roles ... well, exactly as you'd imagine from having watched the trailer.

The plot was simply nothing new.  It was safe, cozy, and predictable (all things Blu would probably approve of).  It had a musical revue and a bird version of a soccer game.  There was the requisite "save the rainforest" plot.  One of the problems was it had both a human plot -- with Linda and Tulio, Blu and Jewel's caretakers -- and a bird plot -- with, you know, the birds.  When the two plots did finally come together, it was a little too quick and too tidily patched up.  Like I said, it was all a little too safe.  None of the characters really risked much.  The stakes were never high enough to be emotionally satisfying.

That said, I really was pleasantly surprised.  Rio 2 was more fun than I was expecting.  While the music won't be sung by children and adults everywhere for the next half year, it was still toe-tapping.  The version of "I Will Survive" was a highlight of the film even.  And it was hard not to smile at Kristin Chenoweth (the original Galinda from Wicked) as she crooned about her poisonous love for the Shakespeare-inspired cockatoo, Nigel.  The flying choreography during the musical numbers was also just as fun, feathery, and flamboyant as in the first film.  It may not break any new ground in animation, but it's still nice eye candy.

My favorite part of the movie was the journey itself from Rio de Janeiro to the Amazon.  I'm not sure how long movies have been traveling by map.  I believe it was popularized by the (awesome!) Indiana Jones films.  And it has been put to humorous effect in various Muppet movies.  But Rio 2 is the first film (to my knowledge) to do travel by pop-up book.  And the result is charming, colorful, and smile-inducing.  If I watch the movie again, it will be for that segment ... and the crazed cockatoo's "I Will Survive."

Is Rio 2 a brilliant film that will go down in animation history?  No.  Is it worth an hour and a half of your time via Redbox or Netflix?  Sure.  Where else are you going to watch birds play soccer or a cockatoo recite Hamlet?

Quotable Quotes

• "We attack at midnight ... because it's more evil." -- Nigel
• "Put the spork down." -- Rafael
• "He called me a pet!" -- Blu
• "Are you sure you trust this woman?" -- Jewel to Blu regarding the female GPS voice

ISFS

Noah

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Starring: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins, Logan Lerman, and Ray Winstone

Tagline: The end of the world ... is just the beginning.
Synopsis: Noah and his family are tasked with building an ark before the world is destroyed by flood. 

Review

I went in to Noah with high expectations and an open mind.  At no point was I expecting a doctrinally accurate portrayal of Noah.  I wasn't even expecting a particularly Biblical portrayal of Noah (director Darren Aronofsky is, after all, a self-proclaimed atheist).  And I was fully prepared to defend the film as an artistic piece of historical fiction (with a whole lot of liberties taken) and leave religious accuracy out of my review.  That intention lasted for about the first half of the movie.  Then the film lost me up until the last five minutes.

Now this is going to be as much an analysis as a review.  FYI, there may be some spoilers.  But I trust you know the Biblical account and how this ultimately has to end.

Perhaps I should begin at the end.  By the time I left the cinema, the overwhelming feeling in my heart was of gratitude for the plan of salvation.  Halfway through the film, I could no longer refrain from wanting to infuse my own beliefs and understandings into the action.  The fact the film was so devoid of the simple yet beautiful truths of the gospel made me appreciate those truths all the more.  (Sort of like how you appreciate food so much more when fasting.)  The film's lack reaffirmed my own abundance.

If gratitude was my primary feeling, sympathy was the second.  I felt sympathy for those without the understanding and perspective the restored gospel brings.

The film started out well enough.  Yes, there were some "wait what?" moments and components as the filmmakers took quite the artistic license (okay, that's probably an understatement).  But as the story progressed and began to fall apart, I realized it was in part because the film's very foundation is unstable.  The whole story is constructed upon three false premises:

1. The Creator had no purpose in creation
2. Mankind is just another creation
3. Mankind, through the Fall and subsequent wickedness, ruined the rest of creation

Throughout the film, Noah and all the other characters only ever refer to "the Creator."  I don't recall the movie ever referring to Him as "God" and certainly never as "Father."  He is merely the Creator of all things, but apparently with no plan, purpose, or design.  For the purposes of this film, the verse would have to read: "For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass a beautiful garden where all the animals and people are well-behaved and tidy."  That is certainly not the Creator I know and serve.

[It was strangely fitting that a few hours later I was singing "I Am a Child of God" with millions of women the world over during Women's Conference.]

In the film, the Fall of Adam and Eve is a great calamity for the world.  And from Cain's murder of Abel onward, mankind is full of violence and wickedness and bent on destroying the world for gain.  Mankind's major crime is the destruction of creation (which does include mankind itself).  Only the line of Seth (of which Noah's family is the last) have lived in harmony with nature.

All of this leads to the main -- and invented -- drama for the film: whether or not mankind is fit to continue or if they were simply a mistake and the new world would be better off without them (harking back to the false premise that there was no ultimate purpose to creation).  This idea doesn't fully manifest itself until halfway through the film (the point it lost me).  At that point you realize Noah has his own false premise: that he is primarily tasked with saving the innocent animals and not with being the new father of the human race.

This leads to a major deviation from the Bible account.  When the ark door shuts, neither Ham nor Japheth have a wife, and Shem's wife, Ila, is thought to be barren.  Noah becomes so convinced that all of mankind must be punished and wiped out, he is ready to do the unthinkable.  It turns out Ila has been cured of her barrenness (by Methuselah).  And when Ila gives birth to twin girls, Noah believes it is his duty to kill them, lest they perpetuate mankind and its evils.  When it comes down to it, though, he is unable to harm the babes.

Which actually leads to one of the main themes of the film: justice versus mercy.  Justice is hammered pretty hard throughout the film.  It is just that the Creator destroy mankind for having destroyed the rest of creation.  It is just that the innocent animals be preserved.  It is just that even Noah's line die out because he sees their imperfections and faults.  All of that is described as "just."  And the fact that Noah's family is ready to turn on him and hates him for saying his own granddaughters must be killed is -- as his wife, Naameh, tearfully and vehemently points out -- also just.  Noah's complete subscription to justice became almost unbearable to watch.  It was a long, long wait for mercy to finally show up.

Ultimately, Noah does show mercy over justice in sparing his granddaughters' lives.  He then feels like a failure, like he has failed the Creator and his family, because he still believes the false premise that humanity doesn't deserve to live.  Once they reach land, Noah gives into his depression and survivor's guilt, becomes estranged from his family, and indulges quite heavily in wine.  (That last part does at least have basis in the Bible).

Then, at long last, the film finds a redemptive note.  Ila goes to talk to Noah (merciful in and of itself considering he almost killed her daughters).  When Noah says he feels as though he failed, Ila points out that the Creator chose him for a reason.  The Creator chose Noah because He knew Noah would choose mercy  and love over justice.  Comforted, Noah then finds reconciliation with Naameh (in a beautifully simple scene) and blesses his sons and granddaughters with the admonition to "multiply and replenish the earth."  Cue the rainbow.

For me, the ending works.  It does offer the much needed note of redemption, mercy, and reconciliation the film was desperate for.  But I'm still not entirely sure it was enough.  If I'm tempted to accept that the mercy there was enough to balance out the justice of the film, I think it is because I'm imposing all my own beliefs about God's mercy in that event.  And there really isn't enough movie left to fully start liking Noah again.

Putting theology temporarily aside, the film also struggled even from a story perspective.  It's Noah's ark!  One of the major components of that story is the animals.  Not only were the animals entirely CGI (that's one way to make sure no animals were harmed in the making of this movie), but they spend most of the film asleep.  Yep, once the animals get settled on the boat, Noah and the others walk around with some type of incense that puts all the animals (but not the humans) into a sort of hibernation.  And when you finally get to the flood, well, it's not that impressive.  Just a lot of water.

And let's not even discuss the "Watchers": fallen angels turned into rock creatures with a hint of the Prometheus myth in their backstory.  Yes, really.

The film also struggles as it tries to be religious to the believers and fantastical to the non-believers.  In trying to straddle both, it never quite succeeds at either.

Noah can be considered a prophet in only the most literal sense of the word.  He prophesies that a flood will come.  That's it.  Still, he starts out quite well.  He is shown to be a kind father (including a caring, adoptive father to Ila), a loving husband, and generally a good man.  He shows himself to be obedient and dedicated.  But he as the burden of impending justice weighs upon him and indeed begins to consume him, he becomes ... well, pretty difficult -- if not impossible at times -- to like.  After he finally shows mercy, he at least becomes sympathetic again.

I was prepared for a complicated Noah, one torn between justice and mercy, one devastated at having to watch the destruction of the world (even knowing the rebirth and renewal that lay ahead), one who perhaps even struggled some to find inner peace.  I was expecting that sort of interpretation from a Hollywood film.  Instead the film seemed to emphasize neither his prophetic role nor his humanity, instead falling somewhere awkwardly in between.  That said, I felt that Russell Crowe did an excellent job with the Noah he was asked to portray.

The film's villain is Tubal-Cain (portrayed by Ray Winstone), and for the most part he worked quite well.  He was certainly menacing and focused in his efforts.  And, quite appropriately, much of his personal justification was founded in half truths.  It is he who points out time and again that man is in the Creator's image.  He also points out that man was given dominion over the earth.  But he, like the rest of mankind, has twisted those truths to suit his own selfish desires.  He proudly affirms that what he wants, he takes.

Like I said, a villain spouting half-truths works quite well, especially in a Biblical context.  What becomes so frustrating is that there is no one affirming the full truths.  At no point does Noah seem to acknowledge man having been created in the Creator's image or of having been entrusted with dominion.  It seems like there should have been some powerful moment when Noah boldly affirms that with dominion (like great power) comes great responsibility.

As for Noah's sons, Shem and Japheth are pretty bland and aren't given much to do.  Ham gets far, far more screen time.  The Bible essentially says that Ham became estranged from the family but is fuzzy on the details.  So the film spends a great deal of time coming up with reasons for that estrangement.  It does at least make Ham an interesting character to watch.  And he becomes a convenient person for Tubal-Cain to beguile with his half-truths.

Well, that's an awful lot of what the film did wrong and sometimes utterly wrong.  It also did some things right.

For starters, I enjoyed Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah.  No, he wasn't the faithful patriarch I would have liked, but he was nonetheless charmingly eccentric.  He added a little much-needed lightheartedness in his interactions with his grandson and great-grandchildren.

Hands down, the two highlights of the entire film were Naameh (Noah's wife) and Ila (Noah's adoptive daughter who becomes Shem's wife).

Naameh is terrific and Jennifer Connelly is perfect in the role.  She is truly a "help meet" for Noah: strong-spirited, loyal, and diligent.  She is utterly believable as a woman who would walk miles through barren desert, help build an ark, put up with a menagerie, and only falter slightly as the snakes make their way aboard.  Her love for Noah is clear, which makes her struggle against his sense of justice all the more difficult as she must come between her husband and her children.  Connelly's emotions in some of her arguments with Noah are so real and raw, you forget she is acting.  She does such a complete job of selling this couple's relationship, that when a penitent Noah comes wordlessly seeking forgiveness, it works.

As terrific as Naameh is, it is still Ila who steals the show.  Emma Watson is absolutely fantastic (she's come a long way from her bushy-haired, Sorcerer's Stone Hermione Granger days) and the character she plays works so perfectly.  Noah and his family rescue and adopt Ila as a child.  Her family and kin have been killed and she is left wounded among the dead.  Noah's interactions with Ila, both as a little girl and as a grown woman, do much to emphasize his humanity and goodness.

What makes Ila stand out so beautifully is that she is the only character in the entire film who is willing to make a sacrifice.  She wholly believes that the Creator intends for mankind to continue.  And there is an absolutely beautiful, poignant scene between Ila and Noah.  Ila is barren and not yet wedded to Shem.  And though she loves Shem, she tearfully begs Noah to find him a "real woman" who can give him posterity.  Watson's emotions are so real in that moment.  Maybe it's because we're studying the Old Testament in Sunday School this year, but in Ila's words and tears I glimpsed an echo of what Sarah or Rebekah might have felt.

If Noah becomes the (nearly) unyielding embodiment of justice, Ila is the embodiment in the film of mercy. It is more merciful than just that she should be willing to sacrifice her own desires for love and happiness.  It is more merciful than just that she should be cured of her barrenness by Methuselah's blessing.  It is more merciful than just that she should go to Noah in his isolated anguish to offer him comfort and clarity.  And so in that sense it works to have Ila be the one to explain mercy to Noah.

Ultimately, the film (not the story) feels like a tragedy.  It had the potential.  It did some things so right.  Yet it fell short of that potential because it didn't quite know what it wanted to be and because it was founded upon false premises.  Certainly the film never made me question my beliefs.  On the contrary, it made me feel and embrace them all the more fully and want to shake Noah and tell him the plan of salvation as well as how justice and mercy are supposed to work.

In summation, I find that I can neither fully condemn nor condone this film.  Nor can I bring myself to actively encourage or discourage anyone from seeing it.  What I can do is express how grateful I am for a merciful Father in Heaven's plan, a plan founded not upon false premises, but upon the pillars of salvation: the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement.  And how grateful I am for that "grand design, where justice, love, and mercy meet in harmony divine!"*

Quotable Quotes

• "The snakes are coming too?" -- Naameh
• "I am not alone." -- Noah
• "Is this the end of everything?"  "The beginning.  The beginning of everything." -- Ila and Noah

*Snow, Eliza R., "How Great the Wisdom and the Love," Hymns, no. 195.

ISFS