Vegan Noah Takes On the World

Noah is the most polarizing film of the year thus far, especially among the Christian community. People really like it, find it interesting or hate it. As a Christian, I don’t mind this movie’s existence. I was hoping for more Biblical accuracy, but that’s ok. I’ve decided against a straight comparison of the movie and the chapters in Genesis. While Aronofsky received inspiration from the Bible story, the film portrays his own understanding of events. He never stated that his film was Biblically accurate; therefore as a critic, comparing it to Scripture is unfair and underhanded. However, the source text might be referenced a few times. That said, let’s wade into controversial waters. 
 IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes
genres: action, drama, disaster, fantasy

Gladiator part 2

Concept:

If you are a Christian, you might not like Noah. If you are a Creationist, you definitely won’t like and might hate Noah. If you’re not religious, you’ll probably like Noah. I often wonder whether Aronofsky just wanted to make a movie based on a Bible story or was his decision more calculated. Part of this film’s popularity comes from controversy it creates. Polarizing movies often function this way. Whether his decision was influenced by this fact doesn’t matter, but the question crossed my mind. He had to have known it would piss off Fundamentalists. As a medium, film offers exciting retelling of tales existing in other, sometimes less accessible, mediums. Noah is a perfect example of film reinventing an old story. The Bible is often dry, vague and hard to understand. The Noah story fulfills all three categories.

Important to note: Noah is not based off an interpretation of the Biblical text. There are few similarities between the film and source text. I classify this movie as a fabrication rather than an interpretation. The source text doesn’t give many details just the bare bones story. Aronofsky’s imagination shines in his fabricated details. This film is a fascinating adaption. I always support the reinventing of a story. My only condition: the skeleton must be the same. The main events one reads in Genesis, exist in Noah as well. There’s a guy named Noah. He has a family. An ark is built, animals live in it and a giant flood happens. The bare story events are checked and everything else is fair game. Noah also deserves some extra points. Few Hollywood blockbusters have ideas like a wrathful/judgmental god, sinful nature, and humans falling from perfection. While it’s not true to source text, Aronofsky is brave for keeping them. I understand the controversy that surrounds this movie, but it’s unnecessary. Let Noah be what it is, an ancient tale with a modern touch.
Characters:

Noah (Russel Crowe) is the man The Creator chooses to build the ark because he traces his ancestry back to Seth. His family are the only humans left on earth who still follow the old ways. He’s a bipolar character. For the most the film he’s a loving father who tries to teach his children to live The Creator’s way. They eat nothing but vegetables and live with no technology. Apparently he learns how to fight and is really good at it. Latter in the film, he sort of losses his mind; It thew me off. I won’t go into details, but he seems inconsistent and that’s makes a weak character.

Naameh (Jennifer Connely) is Noah’s wife. At first she is doubtful of Noah and his mission to build the Ark. As more miracles occur, she gets on board. Between the two of them, Naameh is more resolved to protect her family than follow her husband. That does become a point of confrontation.

Once Noah goes psycho-killer, Naameh tries to be the voice of reason and resistance. She is torn between the love of her future grand children and her devotion to Noah. Her conflict makes her powerless to stop him. Honestly her performance partly redeemed the ark portion of the film.

Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins) is Noah’s grandfather and some kind of mystic. He’s the most interesting character in the film and a mcguffin (further explanation later). He was warrior that wielded a flaming sword, saving the Watchers from destruction. Noah and family journey to his mountain for further learn about Noah’s premonition of the flood. He’s a convenient character, always at the right place and time. This frustrated me because his back story seems really cool, yet he gets very little screen time. When he is on screen, it’s usually to solve some problem the family is facing. I almost wanted to watch a movie about this guy instead of Noah.

Shem (Douglas Booth) is Noah’s eldest son, not much else to say here. He marries Ila and spends most of the movie helping out his dad or trying to bone his girlfriend. The biggest conflict he has is getting past Ila’s barren womb. During the ark arc, he emerges from being a flat character.

Shem is willing to fight his father after Noah convinces himself that the family needs to die once the flood is over. Like his mother. He is willing to defend his child, even if it means disobeying Noah and leaving the arc.

Ila (Emma Watson) is a small child that Noah picks up when his children are still young. A wound in her abdomen keeps her from having children. As the children grow older, she and Shem hook up. She resides in a special place as a character. The conflict that rules her heart is the damaged child bearing faculties. This distances her from Shem and the rest of the clan. She feels inadequate and unworthy to be Shem’s wife, especially considering that whole “humanity is getting wiped out in a giant flood” deal. Ila brought more drama and struggle to the flood story. I understand why Aronofsky made the decision to not have wives for each of Noah’s sons.

Ham (Logan Lerman) is the middle son. Ila brought drama and Ham brings struggle. Once Noah figures out how to build the ark, Ham is desperate for wife. The end of all humans means a lonely and very celibate life for him unless his father can find a girl. This conflict causes Ham to doubt his father on several occasions. He meets Tubal-cain who reinforces the divide between father and son.

Ham does find a girl to bring back to the ark. Unfortunately, she is caught in a bear trap and trampled by hundreds of people running towards the ark when the rains start. Due to Noah’s decision to let her die, Ham contemplates killing his father during ark arc.

Japheth (Leo McHugh Carroll) is Noah’s youngest son. He’s non-existent has a character.

Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) is the king of the descants of Cain. He kills Noah’s father near the beginning of the film. He foils Noah by acting exactly opposite. He eats animals, believes in the dominance of Man and threatens to lead an army of people to take the arc when the flood comes. This interested me because Tubal didn’t deny the flood would happen. He is outside of The Creator’s grace, yet seeking him all the same. Saul (Israel’s first king) came to mind during the first confrontation. Unfortunately, he’s not a compelling villain. I can’t relate to him at all. The writers were like, “shoot, we need a bad guy” and wrote someone very generic.

The Watchers are stone giants (i.e. the poor man’s Ents) who were angels that disobeyed the Creator by descending to earth to help the humans. How did they help? By giving them technology, of course. With the Watcher’s help corrupt humans spread all over the world. These stone giants show Aronofsky’s talent for embellishing an old story. They help Noah build the ark and protect the family when Tubal-cain returns with his army.   
 
Story:

As I stated earlier, the five basic points are addressed: dream, ark building, flood, running aground on a mountain and forming of a new covenant. With the basic outline down, I’ll jump to the places worth talking about. Life is in the details and Noah is no exception. We see a man who struggles to survive in a hostile world. Literally every other human on earth would kill him without a second thought. Human depravity is a huge theme in the movie. Credit where credit is due. Noah and his family seem to be only humans with an ounce of good in them.

Near the beginning of the flood, Noah goes into Tubal-cain’s settlement to find Ham a wife. People are killing each other over a single goat. They are no better than rabid animals. Bodies fill the trenches around the outside of the camp. Women are raped with no remorse. As Noah is witnessing all of this, his vision follows one man in particular who successfully acquired a piece of raw goat. Their eyes meet and the man’s features contort to those of demon for just a moment. The man wasn’t evil because of his circumstance, rather due to the sin inside of him.

These humans are wicked and the film is 100% committed to showing that. That’s compelling because The Creator needs have a good reason to destroy all of humanity. Slowly the other humans’ wickedness escalates as the flood looms overhead. Noah even explains why humanity is evil.

Some folks know that Aronofsky is a vegan and he doesn’t try to hide it. The primary reason for the Creator’s wrath against humanity is the destruction of the earth and its animals. Seth’s descants do not eat any animals or their products, nor do they use any technology that would be harmful to the planet. Cain’s descants (everyone else) do the opposite. By the time the flood occurs, the earth is dying or dead. It wasn’t clear whether human activity caused the demise or if the Creator did it as further punishment. Unfortunately, the anti-industrialization and pro-environment message is thinly veiled by the story (more on that later).

The Watchers are a really cool addition. The writer inside me appreciated the film’s willingness to cloth itself as an epic fantasy. I wouldn’t classify it that way, but the stone giants definitely provide a good argument. Their sub-plot is rather interesting as well. In movie about global destruction fueled by broken humans, redemption doesn’t really fit in. However, the Watchers subplot is one of redemption.

As Noah and family journey towards Methuselah’s mountain, they have to cross Watcher territory. They get captured by the giants and placed in a pit to die. However, one of the Watchers believes they are sent from the Creator and helps them. After seeing the forest grow (from Methuselah’s seed) out of nothing, the Watchers agree to help Noah. When the rains begins, Tubal-cain sends his army to take the ark. The Watchers defend the ark, but each one is killed. The leader of the Watchers asks the Creator to forgive him. Once he dies, his spirit is accepted back into heaven. All of the Watchers are given a second chance. It is a nice redemption story before the human-ending flood.

The ark arc threw a wrench in my enjoyment of Noah. I understand that something needed to happen while they were on the boat, but the film took it too far. The most powerful scene for me was the people screaming as the flood waters killed them. Noah and family are sitting on the ship, hearing their screams. Naameh and Ila beg Noah to offer the dying sanctuary, but he remains stoic in a typical Russel Crowe fashion. This scene was epic and depressing, setting the mood for the remainder of the film.
Problems:

Noah’s time on the ark just kills the good parts of this film. He does complete 180 in character, turning the movie into a snuff film.

Due to his trip to Tubal-cain’s camp, Noah convinces himself that the Creator intended for all humans to die. He hatches a plan for members of the family to kill each other leaving Japheth to die alone. Like reasonable people, the rest of the family is against this. Once he discovers that Ila is pregnant, he adds her child to the list. If the child is a girl, he will kill the baby. If it’s a boy, that child will take Japheth’s place as the final human being. Earlier, Tubal-cain sneaks onto the ship and tries to convince Ham to kill his father. At the end Noah can’t kill his grand children, leading to the drinking scene.

Does this add tension? Yes. Is Noah revealed to be a man that will stand by the Creator’s will? Yes. However, how does he know? Noah makes a radical leap based on the actions of wicked people. The Creator chose Noah to save the animals, so why would he demand Noah kill his family afterwards? Granted the Creator is rather vague in his instructions, but gives no indication that all humans must be wiped out. The Creator even gives a sign for Noah to spare his daughters and our brilliant hero ignores it. The whole situation doesn’t make any sense in the established logic of the film. It’s like the writers were trying to create an exciting boat ride and decided a slasher film was a great place to draw inspiration.

While I like Methuselah, his character is a mcguffin (something that exists only to move the plot forward i.e. the One Ring). Noah learns about the Ark from a vision caused by drugged tea that his grandfather makes. Methuselah also gives Noah the magic seed that grows a convenient forest for lumber. However, the scene with Ila and Methuselah put me over the edge.

He gives Ila a blessing that heals her damaged womb. Too convenient. Why didn’t Methuselah just summon the ark out of thin air? Apparently he can do everything else.

It’s sad because he is one of the better characters in the movie, yet is only used to solve problems. He leads to my next complaint.

The Creator doesn’t exist. Yes, he makes the flood happen, but that’s it. I wish Aronofsky had stuck more to the source text in regards to God. A) Noah keeps calling him the “Creator. ” Ancient people had cool names for their gods. Why can’t Noah do the same? B) The Creator doesn’t do anything. He shows Noah two vague visions. In a movie about God wiping out humanity, one would think he’d have more of a hands-on role. Methuselah does everything, except the flood, for the Creator.

A continuation about Noah’s message. In my previous review, I stated that messages can overwhelm potential quality of a film. Noah lightly suffers this problem. The Biblical story can stand on it’s own, separate from the message. Aronofsky’s story is built on a pro-vegan and environmentalist message. The Creator destroys mankind based on their treatment of the earth, not the inherent evil inside them. Another problem: if all the earth was dying then there are no plants. How does Noah and his family survive if most of the earth is desolate? Their vegan eat habits would kill them. Story and message are intertwined so deeply the two the can’t be separated. I view that as bad writing. Instead of seeing a movie about Noah, the film is bashing my face in with a political message. I don’t mind movies that make a statement, but the narrative can’t use said message as a crutch.

Special Effects/Acting:

Despite my moaning about the story, Noah uses computer generated images and effects to augment audience enjoyment. The sequences showing Adam’s and Eve’s fall from the garden looked great. The film doesn’t rely special effects to carry the audience through (i.e. Transformers). The animation for the Watches didn’t seem cheap. The flood water and the ark were looked state-of-the-art. I thought cinematography was chosen well. The landscapes reflected what the narrative told the audience. What a radical concept: good visuals and a compelling plot. I appreciated the wide cast of stellar actors. I never felt like any of the actors/actresses portrayed their characters improperly. There were some awkward pauses, but infrequency allowed me to gloss over those instances.

Score: 6/10

Noah is a mediocre film at best. Aronofsky was passionate and ambitious about reinventing the Noah story, but didn’t quite deliver. I’d recommend seeing this if you don’t have anything else to watch.

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

God's Not Dead, But I Was After Watching It

 

Me after God's Not Dead

This next review takes a personal turn for me. For those readers who don’t know, I am Christian and damn proud of it. The movie under my microscope of criticism is the Newsboys’ film God’s Not Dead. Since I and the filmmakers share the same faith; my words will be from a Christian perspective. However, don’t assume that my criticism will be softened. With those facts in mind, lets dive into this pseudo-train wreck. Disclaimer: there will be spoilers.

IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes
genres: drama, religious/spiritual

Concept:

A disturbing amount of Christian movies  are based on worship songs. God’s Not Dead attempts to tell an inspirational story of a young Christian man standing up for his faith in a hostile academic environment. Inter-meshed with the main plot are a series of side stories; all of them further inspirational faith stories. Like all other “Christian” labeled films, this one has a specific message. Fireproof is about martial solidarity in the Christian home. Courageous is about Godly fatherhood. God’s Not Dead is about defending/keeping faith in the face of adversity. These movies also check other boxes as well: belief and faith in God, all characters persevering and a happy ending. Is there a fundamental problem with these movies? No, however, often the message eclipses quality. Sadly, God’s Not Dead does suffer from this problem. I don’t begrudge intent of the film: to inspire Christians to defend their faith. Unfortunately, the core premise is constructed with the message as the foundation. The premise becomes unrealistic, almost parodying itself with how silly it is. All because the message can’t be subtle and must beat its audience into submission. Despite the poor execution, there is a list of class action lawsuits involving universities rejecting the first amendment rights of Christian organizations on their respective campuses. I liked this, but it felt like the film makers were trying to defend their contrived premise by showing the audience real world cases. The movie’s ethos did not increase. The premise: Christian freshman Josh Wheaton takes a philosophy class to fulfill his liberal arts requirement, but is warned that the professor is a stanch atheist. Professor Radisson makes an ultimatum: write down “God is Dead” on a blank paper or take a failing grade for a third of the class. Josh takes a stand and Radisson offers him a deal. Josh will have three twenty minute periods to convince the class of God’s existence or face academic suicide. *cue the dramatic music. Characters:

Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper) is the resident defender of all Christendom and college freshman. He represents the average Christian youth with big dreams and his life on the right track. Open, moral, friendly and a loving boyfriend, Josh seems a little bland. That changes with his first confrontation with Professor Radisson. Then the fire of conviction ignites and he takes a stand against the academic tyrant. While his sacrifices are not great, his loses do weight heavy on him. He struggles and regrets, but charges head on into Radisson’s challenge. Unfortunately, his conviction causes him to be a one-dimensional character.

Professor Radisson (Kevin Sorbo) is a philosophy professor whose atheism runs deep, to the point of irrationality. I had quite a few problems with this character. He has no redeeming qualities at all. The guy is an asshole inside the class and outside it as well. I am fine with characters that have abrasive personalities or isn’t liked by anyone else as long as they have a redeeming quality. No logical reason is provided for his worthlessness as a person and character. It is revealed that he was raised in a Christian home, but due to cancer stealing his mother away too early he rejected God. That scenario doesn’t explain his obscene amounts of arrogance. It felt like his character’s purpose was to be the evil straw man atheist for Josh to win against.

Pastor Dave (David A.R. White) is a local Pastor that struggles with being stuck at his church instead being “in the trenches” of the mission field. Josh receives advice from him about Radisson’s challenge. Dave is one of the characters I wish the plot focused on more. His spiritual issue is more mature and relatable to a Christian audience. Unfortunately because he doesn’t appear on screen; he is also one dimensional.

Amy Ryan (Trisha LeFache) is liberal ambush reporter who seems to target Christian people or organizations. At the beginning of the film she is dating Mark (Mina’s corporate jerk brother). As the film progresses, her doctor tells her she has cancer. Like Dave, I wish the film had spent more time on her. Her circumstances are by far the most dire. Cancer turns her life upside down and there is nothing she can do about it.

Ayisha (Hadeel Sittu) is an Arabic girl turned Christian sometime before the film starts and works at the university cafeteria. However, she lives with her conservative Muslim father and hides her faith from him. Amy and her take first place for “the most realistic problems” award. As a religion, Islam doesn’t take kindly to family members seeking out other faiths. Her father kicking her out of the house is probably the most heart breaking scene in the movie.

Martin Yip (Paul Kwo) is Josh’s Chinese classmate in philosophy. Through Josh’s twenty minute lecture, he starts to believe in God’s existence. By the end of the film he becomes a believer. Many critics have accursed Martin’s and Ayisha’s characters to be stereotypes. However, I think the film handled both characters rather well. It is likely that Martin would be an atheist since the Chinese government officially endorses atheism over any religious belief.

Mina (Cory Oliver) is Radisson’s former student and current girlfriend whose mother suffers from severe dementia. She foils Josh as a character. Unlike the freshmen defender of Christendom, she put her relationship with God on the sidelines to date Radisson. Though her motivation for that decision confused me because he still raging asshole to her. Eventually she wises up and dumps him in front of his colleagues. That in combination with Josh’s defense of God causes Radisson to reconsider his stance on God.

Rev Jude (Benjamin Ochieng) is Dave’s friend and fellow church elder from the mission field. The two had plans to take a vacation to Disney Land, circumstances keep them in the city. He provides encouragement for Dave and constantly reminds him that God is good. X-ray medical diagnosis also seems to be one of his skills.

The Newsboys (The band) helped produce the movie and play themselves, need I say anymore?
Story:

This movie is complicated for me. While the plot revolves around Josh’s conflict with Radisson, the background teems with other stories. All the plot lines are resolved before or at the Newsboys concert. Not all the characters are aware of each other’s existence or how each person fits in the big picture which is great. Probably my favorite aspect of God’s Not Dead is variety of characters and circumstances, yet they all have one thing in common: God. Martin’s, Ayisha’s and Amy’s stories are by far the best plots line. These people represent real struggles versus the rest of the characters whose stories are a bit more contrived. Suffering is a theme that Christian movies tend to lack. If characters suffer at all, it’s generally resolved by the end. Thankfully, this film does a decent job of creating problems without easy answers. As I stated earlier, Ayisha discovered betrayal is tough to watch. She loves Jesus, but wishes to remain with her father and brother. Both father and daughter are weeping at the end of that encounter. The night after Amy gets the bad news from her doctor, she breaks down. Her fame and renown were her hope, but those don’t matter to the dying and the dead. Near the end, she ambushes the Newsboys like shes always did, but her circumstances flip the situation. The drummer asks, “What’s your hope?” She answers, “I’m dying of cancer.” She affirms Christ with the band. The cancer isn’t going to go away, but she has an everlasting hope. It’s probably my third favorite scene in the film. Unfortunately, God’s Not Dead falls on its face too much for the good parts to shine. Problems:

The number of problems in this film are a little overwhelming. I wanted to like this movie, really I did. Its wonderful intention get swallowed in a sea of poor execution. Let’s start with the core: Josh’s deal with devil. I stated in the concept section that the message causes quality to suffer. The writers for this film seem incapable of conjuring a realistic scenario where Josh’s faith would be challenged, thus the half-baked Radisson deal is what the audience got instead.
Premise Issues:
1) Radisson is the crappiest philosophy professor of all time. There is no way in any possible universe this guy would be respected by any of his colleagues. A large portion of philosophical theory and debate have been built from the affirmation or denial of God’s existence. It’s one of the fundamental subjects that almost all philosophers wrote about at some point in their lives. A philosophy professor who teaches an intro to philosophy class and ignores the God issue entirely is a professor without a job in the real world.

2) One philosophy class will determine Josh’s academic future for his pre-law degree. They seriously except me to believe that? I went to college, thus I know that is a load of bull-hockey. Why would a law school care about what grade this kid got in a freshman philosophy class? The answer: they wouldn’t. Law school is competitive, but only if you do bad in a lot of classes or ones that matter for your degree. This why Kara (Josh’s girl friend) pissed me off as a character. It seemed like her only role was to encourage Josh’s abandonment of defending his faith. She’s entirely unnecessary.

3) Radisson’s deal is academically fraudulent. It is true that universities, especially super liberal ones, are hostile to Christianity. However, Radisson asks his students to potentially compromise their religious belief or they will receive a failing grade for part of the class. No university worth its salt would ever endorse behavior like that in an academic setting, especially from a professor. Instead of accepting Radisson’s deal, Josh should have refused and complained to “higher authorities” about Radisson acting with prejudice against his religion. I’d bet all my buttons the university would fire that guy.

4) Josh doesn’t present his case in philosophical terms. During his three twenty minute presentations, Josh talks about the big bang, evolution and mostly science centric stuff. Philosophy and science parted ways like fifteen hundred years ago. To put the nail in the coffin, Radisson refutes Josh’s big bang theory (no pun intended) with a quote from Steven Hawkins about a self creating universe. What the hell? Hawkins is scientist, not philosopher. That’s a great segue into my next point.

5) Radisson isn’t really a philosophy professor. Now the film continues to tell me that he is, but I know better. None of his refutations are philosophical. In Josh’s final session he brings up free will being the cause of evil in the world and Radisson seems defeated. Sadly, that theodicy (a defense of why a good God allows evil) has been refuted by a plethora of philosophers. The reason: human free will doesn’t explain natural disasters, disease, etc. If Radisson was a real philosophy professor, he would know that. Free will causing sin is sound Christian theology, but philosophy is not theology.

6) Josh doesn’t actually win the argument using a legitimate method and contradicts himself. In his last presentation, Josh states that science proves God’s existence, yet in his first presentation, he agrees with Radisson that proving God’s existence through science is impossible. A big ethos problem right there. Josh finishes his science statement by asking why Radisson hates God. The Professor spills the beans on his mother dying of cancer. Josh triumphantly states, “How can you hate something that doesn’t exist?” He doesn’t convince anyone of God’s existence, only that Radisson is a crappy professor. Yet, the whole class proclaims that God is not dead.

7) Every non-Christian person in the movie is a jerk. Mark (Mina’s brother and former boy friend of Amy) is a gapping asshole. It’s so bad; I don’t believe such a person exists. About mid-way through Amy confesses to Mark that she has cancer. To her face he says, “couldn’t that have waited until tomorrow?” There’s no way someone who had been in any kind of relationship with Amy could just blow that news off. It’s like the movie is saying, “because this man doesn’t have Christ, he’s giant dick.” That doesn’t add anything the cast of characters, just seems heavy handed. Radisson’s treatment of Mina and the way his department colleagues act are another good example. They all treat Mina like she is a peasant because she believes in God. The movie is saying, “Intellectualism and faith should never mix because being ‘intellectual’ makes you a jerk.” Amy is also a jerk, until she gets cancer.

I don’t know whether the writers were lazy or if they wanted to make sure the message wasn’t comprised in any way shape or form. Even as Christian, they can’t expect me to take this seriously. The whole situation is a joke. I believe that most of the content in the movie happens outside of fiction. There are last minute death bed confession. Young Islamic people are thrown of their home or killed because of a faith in Jesus. Terminal illness does rock some people out of their rejection of God. Some people come to Christ through hearing a defense of God and the Bible. However, having all of those plots happen in the same fictional film makes it heavy handed. The film makers are trying so hard to convince the audience of the saving power of God that the story looks like a fairy tale. If I can’t watch this seriously, how can they expect a non-believer to do it.

If you thought my deconstruction of the plot ends here, it doesn’t. The main plot line is full of holes which helps the subplots shine even brighter. Martin, Ayisha, Amy, and Dave all have stories that are far more interesting because they are more based in reality. I would love to see a movie about an Arab teen coming to Christ and struggling to keep it hidden from the family or having the courage to tell their family. That is a movie plot firmly planted in reality and has a strong evangelical message. Both Ayisha and Martin share this very real problem. Unlike Josh who really doesn’t lose anything, the other two have real and brutal consequences because of their faith or confession of faith.

The scene that broke the camel’s back was Radisson’s death. After his final talk with Josh, Mina dumping him and reading his mother’s letter, Radisson finally starts to show some remorse for being a giant tool. By looking a newspaper, he realizes she’s at the Newsboys concert. He rushes out to meet her. At a crosswalk he strides out into the street only to get hit by Mark’s car (at least I think so, not 100% sure on that). Thankfully, Dave and Jude are there to receive his last minute conversion to Christianity before he dies. What? That is some contrived bull-hockey. Radisson has to die before he accepts Christ? Why? There was no reason for his death. Honestly, I think the film makers did it to save time. Either way, it’s awful.
Production:

Despite the horrendous hemorrhaging goodness out of the story, the production value of God’s Not Dead is great. It’s easily the best looking Christian film to date. A great cast offers up some top notch acting. There were very few times that any person’s acting got in the way of my viewing pleasure. The camera shots were fantastic. Folks did a good job making this movie look good, just wish they had done the same for the writing. 
Score: 5/10

I’d like to think this movie has potential to be better. The jury is still out on that one. It was better that I thought it would be. Some scenes were emotionally commanding. Ultimately, I don’t know why this movie exists. Was it supposed to inspire evangelism among Christians or change the hearts of the non-believers who saw it? Either way neither goal was accomplished. Want some motivation to do the Lord’s work? Read 2 Corinthians 5:14-16.

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

Whoa Dude! The Matrix

Let us travel back in time to a place where cell phones slide open and full body leather suits are cool. If you don’t understand the previous statement then you, dear reader, are too young (the author is glad he is old enough to make such an audacious claim). Despite Keanu’s acting, the Matrix remains one of my favorite films. It holds a unique place in popular consciousness. A plethora of movies involve characters questioning elements of their reality. The Wachowski siblings expanded this concept to a whole new level, unfortunately they didn’t think it all the way through. Given the age of this film, I will not hide spoilers. Watch the movie first then read this review.

IMDB

Rotten tomatoes
genre: science fiction, post-apocalyptic, action/adventure

Characters:Neo (Keanu Reeves) is the center of the story; he who becomes the One. A computer hacker who gets dragged into the resistance against the machines (i.e. the Matrix). Morpheus believes him to be the person that defeat the Matrix and free all humanity. Neo always seemed like a little bit of blank slate because he is always reacting until the very end of the movie. However, Neo’s lack of characterization allows the supporting characters to flourish. Was that an intentional decision, who knows? Morpheus (Lawrence Fishburne) is the captain of the Nebuchadnezzar which is part of Zion’s fleet of ships. He seems to be the spiritual leader of his crew members and of Zion as a whole. His unshakable faith holds the Nebuchadnezzar’s crew together, almost like a family. He provides the motivation for Neo to attempt the impossible. The amount of spirituality in a movie about humans trapped in virtual reality impresses me, very similar to Star Wars.Trinity (Carrie-Anna Moss) is a crew member of the Nebuchadnezzar and Neo’s romantic interest. Before Morpheus brought her out of the matrix, she was a hacker of great renown. Trinity is her screen name (actual name is never given). She plays a fundamental role in Neo’s accession to being “The One.” Not to be rude, but she’s not the most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen. Is that important? No, however, there were other actresses I would have chosen (cosmetically) for the role. Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) is one of many security programs called agents that protect the Matrix. As the main antagonist, he attempts to thwart Neo and friends at every turn. Smith mirrors Neo throughout the movie. Both characters seek freedom from the Matrix. Neo seeks the destruction of the Matrix and Smith seeks to be released from his duties as an agent. Like two sides of the same coin, Smith and Neo parallel each other in purpose. Agent Smith and his fellow agents represent an absolute order. He is inevitability embodied in code. The Oracle (Gloria Foster) is a fundamental program to the matrix designed to explore the human psyche, allowing the matrix to better emulate reality for humanity. For reasons that are never clear, she decides to help the freed humans against the Matrix. Her ability of foresight sets her role as a prophet. Most of the spiritualism Morpheus exhibits comes from his conversations with the Oracle. The prophecies manifest themselves as choices Neo and the others make, rather than existing in a rigid absolute.
Story:

I re-watched this movie as refresher for this review, props to the Wachowski siblings. Despite some shaky world building, events in The Matrix come together beautifully. This wasn’t the first time a protagonist found out the world was a lie. However, no movie before the Matrix created such a stark dichotomy between reality and fiction. Context: due to a war between humanity and sentient robots, the earth was laid to waste (nukes) and humanity almost went extinct. To rebuild a power source, the machines built the matrix. Humans experience their lives digitally and the electro-magnetic energy created by their bodies is harvested to run the machines. Inside the Matrix people “live” in a city that embodies the pinnacle of twentieth century living. The reality outside is cruel. Freed humans live with little comfort and almost constant terror. Born never seeing the sun, eating protein gruel and venturing back into the Matrix to free other humans. It’s soldier’s life without any comfort. In retrospect, some conceptual problems might exist because the Wachowski siblings wanted the “real world” to be devoid of joy. However, those problems (to be discussed later) are still not justified.

True to the “hero’s journey” story arc, Morpheus and friends find Neo. They offer to show him the truth using a red pill to disrupt his neuro-connection to the Matrix. He decides to “go down the rabbit hole” by taking the red pill. When he actually wakes up, he’s in a pod, covered in slime, with massive wires planted into his body. In the context of 1999, this scene is simultaneously awe inspiring and horrifying. It’s probably one of the more powerful scenes, the audience, along with Neo gaze upon the meagerness of humanity’s existence. After getting flushed by a floating janitor bot, Neo gets abducted by the Nebuchadnezzar. Seven thousand acupuncture needles “rebuild” Neo’s muscles and all is well.

The famous kung fu fight between Morpheus and Neo sparks the first major theme of The Matrix: belief. Neo wins the second round of the fight by believing in his own victory. Morpheus’ lesson: in the Matrix the mind is the ultimate weapon. Another dichotomy is created: the agents and other programs in the Matrix follow established rules, versus the humans who can transcend those the rules. The myth of “the One” is the apex of that transcendence. As the plot progresses, Neo’s belief in the impossible drives the movie to it’s closure.

Morpheus and friends bring Neo to the Oracle, hoping that she can provide him with guidance. She tells him what he already knows. Prophecy plays a fascinating role in the film. The Oracle has told Morpheus, Trinity and Neo all relevant information to each person. As the story continues, her prophecies culminate together like puzzle pieces. Morpheus is told he will find the One. Trinity is told she will fall in love with the One. Neo told is he will have to choose between his life and Morpheus’. All of the Oracle’s prophecies are based on the choices of the people who hear them. Morpheus chooses to search and believe, Trinity chooses to confess, Neo chooses one of two lives in order for The One to come into existence. The way it all fits together is some astonishingly good writing.

Cypher steps into the spot light right before the team undertakes the Oracle trip. As a character, He foils Morpheus in motivation through his desire to return to the Matrix. The other crew members value reality and freedom from the Matrix. After seeing the horrid truth, Cypher seeks the false world. He betrays his comrades by leaving the matrix early, disabling the operator (a person on the outside that provides support for the freedom fighters) and attempting to kill each member of the crew. This is done by unplugging the head cable of one who is still connected to the matrix. His devotion to return creates a pinnacle point. Morpheus is captured by the Agents and tortured for his codes to Zion (the underground city where the freed humanity lives). Cypher is stopped by the operator (Tank). Trinity and Neo leave the Matrix. The Oracles’ prophecy for Neo comes to fruition by his choice to save Morpheus.

Both of them go back in. The shoot out in the lobby and helicopter scenes are probably the most prolific parts of The Matrix. Those scenes reside in my memory the most. After a series of awesome slow-motion actions sequences, Morpheus is saved. They all escape, except for Neo. An epic fight between him and Agent Smith breaks out. Eventually he dies. Morpheus’ faith is destroyed. Trinity completes her part of the prophecy by confessing her love to Neo postmortem. My interpretation: Her confession is the final piece. She needed to say that before Neo could become the One. He resurrects and kicks butt. Despite how wondrous the story, the conceptual base isn’t stable in a critical lens.Concept:

The basic question The Matrix asks: what is reality? The amount of philosophy and philosophical referencing is astounding. It’s why I like this movie. At the core, the Matrix is a Cartesian idea. A philosopher called Descartes calmed that if all of our senses could be doubted, then nothing could be considered real. He famously presented this as the “Evil Deceiver” theory in his book: First Meditation (source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/#SH6a). The Matrix represents the evil deceiver/demon and the humans are the deceived. When Neo is sitting in his apartment, some junkies come for illegal software which he stores in a book called Simulacra and Simulation. This was philosophical discourse written by Jean Baudrillard interrogating the relationship between symbols and reality. ( source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation). As Neo starts to question whether his established reality is real, Alice in Wonderland refers are thrown all over the place.

The nomenclature in The Matrix tickles me as well. Neo means new. The One is something new, never seen before. Morpheus is the name of the Roman god of dreams. In the film, Morpheus “enters” the dream reality of the people he frees. Cypher (normally spelled cipher) is a coded form of writing. He deceived his comrades (i.e. a secret code for the Agents). Trinity is the only name that confuses me. My interpretation: Morpheus, Neo and her are all necessary for The One to exist. Maybe her name signifies she is the last piece? Her name in relation to the title of “The One” has some odd Christian theological context as well. The names aren’t subtle, but fun to ponder upon.Problems:

Unfortunately, the world building of The Matrix blows nuts. It reeks of bad writing and a lack of creativity. Machines versus humans was just as cliche in 1999 as it is now and it only gets worse from there. At some point in the twenty first century, humanity existed in utopia (don’t believe for a second). Then they created artificial intelligence. Someone or some robot decided that war was a good idea. The humans lost the war. The earth got nuked or as Morpheus says, “scorched the sky” (why didn’t he just say nuked?) because the machines were solar powered. Apparently this left the machines kinda screwed. So what is the most efficient source of electricity? People of Course! Thus the Matrix was created so the machines could farm the humans.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/images/2779687.jpg

1) How did humanity lose a war with robots that were solar powered?
Seriously, rain clouds would take them out. People in the Northwest or England need not fear the machines at all. I guess the fools from Olympus has Fallen were running the world government. That must be why we lost.

2) Who was the moron that thought creating a nuclear winter was a good way to defeat the machines and continue the existence of mankind? Was that person retarded? Mentally ill? Younger than the age of ten? Michael Bay? Meanwhile in the war room:

The world general speaks in a strong southern accent, “Gentleman, it’s looking grim. Some how those solar powered bastards are winning. For reasons unknown to me, none of our conventional weapons are effective. What the alternatives?”

A sharp, handsome scientist stands up. “If we cut off their power supply, we have nothing to fear.”

The General nods. “You’re good looking so you must know what is going on. But how do we stop the sun?” Silence settles over stoic faces. Johnson, a plain looking military aid, raises his hand. All eyes track to him.

“We could shoot enough nukes to cause a nuclear winter. That’ll keep the sun away.” The general and the rest of staff leap from their seats. The he skips over to Johnson and slaps him on the shoulder in jubilation, “Thank God you’re here son. You saved the human race.” Someone else in back ground yells, “It’s crazy enough to work!” Among the celebrators, Gary the intern stands up.

“Wait? Wouldn’t nuclear winter kill humanity and every living creature as well?” The handsome Scientist’s curly cue wiggles as he turns his head in disgust. “Gary you’re fired. Why did I even hire you?” Gary tries to respond but security hauls his ass out the room.
Fiction aside, this is a prime example of bad writing (and I don’t mean the war room =P). Furthermore, this piece of information doesn’t add anything to the movie. Who cares how the earth looks? It’s controlled by robots and the people live underground.

3) Using humans as an energy source is fundamentally stupid, even for pseudo-science.
Nuclear power. That’s the solution to the machines’ energy problem. Easy to build, requires small amounts of fuel and refueling is easy. Pollution isn’t a problem since machines don’t care about the environment. The humans body does create electromagnetic energy, but not nearly enough to be useful. One wouldn’t have to waste time building the Matrix to enslave humanity. This “logic” was cooked up for the sole purpose of justifying the existence of people in the dystopia. It makes no sense. There are better reasons for humans to be in the Matrix than energy.

4) If EMP is the only weapons the humans have against the machines, they deserve to lose.
I stated early that some creative decisions might have been made to illustrate how awful life was for the freed humans. The EMP falls under that category for me. Unfortunately, the stupidity is too much of a burden. If humans could hack into the Matrix, build an underground city, build ships that travel using electromagnetism, produce a fair number of these ships and program code then EMP is not the only option. Ever heard of a computer virus? If the machines hadn’t found Zion yet, there’s a fair chance a human could write a virus the machines would have trouble defeating. What about conventional weapons? Cannons or some sort of anti sentinel guns (excluding the hand held ones). Besides the obvious problem of EMPs, it broadcasts your location like a light in a dark room. The Machine overlords notice that some sentinels suddenly stop working. What could kill a Sentinel? An EMP. Just send more Sentinels to the same location because the humans won’t be to escape. Boom and done.
It’s a shame that such a great story is undermined by some crappy world building. If the Wachowski Siblings has taken a little more time to construct their world, the Matrix would be close to perfect. Special Effects:

Watching this movie in 2014 is a little painful. Computer generation and other specials effects have vastly improved since 1999. However, like James Cameron's Avatar, The Matrix was game changer. The slow motion fights and bullet waves were cool. Why else does Neo’s epic bullet dodge reside in our minds so easily. The explosion in the lobby of the military building was awesome despite explosions not looking that in real life. I don’t much else to say about this. It was good effects for 1999. Score: 8/10

This is great film. Thankfully the conceptual problems don’t show themselves until the sequels. Reloaded was fairly good and Revolutions sucked butt. My advice: watch this movies and forget the rest of the franchise.

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter