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