Discussing "The Dark Knight Rises" (part 2)

Previously, I began talking about the elements that I loved in the film “The Dark Knight Rises”.  But, as I mentioned last time, this movie also has facets that I don’t care for at all.  So for today, I’m going to highlight the elements that I didn’t like.

As I said before, major spoilers abound ahead (except for #1).  If you haven’t seen the movie, and you want to be surprised, you have been warned.

#1: Bane’s muffled voice

I want to emphasize this clearly: I liked the Bane character in this film.  Some didn’t, but I did.  But what I didn’t like was the fact that he was difficult to understand.  Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s an interesting cinematic idea to have him appear in this mask, but don’t have that mask muffle his voice.  If the viewer doesn’t have the subtitles on, you can’t catch everything he is saying.  Some have stated that you can get the gist of what he is saying, even if you can’t understand every word.  Fair point, but it shouldn’t have to be that way.  You should be able to understand everything.

#2: Miranda’s death scene

First of all, throughout most of the movie the audience doesn’t know that Miranda Tate is actually Talia, the daughter of Ra’s, the main villain from “Batman Begins”.  Once that revelation is given, we don’t really get to see her as Talia for very long until she dies, which is a real shame.  

Furthermore, her cause of death is unclear.  Talia is in a truck, and it topples from the street into a parking garage.  The fall isn’t very far at all (check this out on you tube, if you wish, there are good videos of this scene), yet oddly, she is near death.  She dies after gloating that she has completed her father’s work.  But again, why exactly does she die?  After all, Commissioner Gordon was in the same vehicle, and he is completely unharmed by the fall, despite the fact that he isn’t wearing a seat belt and (if I’m not mistaken) Talia is.  It’s not clearly explained.

#3: The final five minutes

Please don’t misunderstand me on this point: I don’t dislike the ending in the slightest; I very much liked it.  But I’m not crazy about how the filmmakers chose to conclude the film by bouncing from character to character.  There’s John Blake quitting the force and finding the Batcave, then Commissioner Gordon discovering the repaired Bat-signal, and Alfred discovering that Bruce faked his death, and ran away with Selina.  I was beginning to tear up at seeing Bruce very much alive, but the scene quickly cuts to someone else again.

 

Yes, I would concur with someone who argues that these shots are important conclusions for each of these characters, but I would contend that it’s too choppy.  I would have preferred that they linger on these developments a little while longer.

For example, I would have liked to have seen a final conversation with Bruce and Alfred.  Have Alfred walk up to Bruce and Selina at the cafe and say something like, “It appears reports of your demise were exaggerated.”  “Yes, Alfred.  It was better that way.”  “Your secret is quite safe with me,” Alfred might have replied.  “What’s next for you?”  “The next chapter of my life,” Bruce might have answered, “It’s Blake’s fight now.  I’ve retired.”  

Not only does this provide the audience closure for the Alfred/Bruce tension (something that was sorely lacking in the movie), it also shows that Bruce knew that Blake would discover the Batcave and subsequently choose to protect Gotham, something that is only hinted at in the film.

Kevin

Discussing "The Dark Knight Rises"

The movie “The Dark Knight Rises” was released back in 2012 and so perhaps my thoughts on it should have been submitted a while ago.  But, as of late, I’ve been contemplating the facets of this movie again.  This film is an interesting one.   It has aspects about it that I liked and aspects that I didn’t like.  So today, I’m going to talk about 3 things that I enjoyed, and then next time, I’ll mention 3 things that I thought could have been done better.

 

Please note that there will be major spoilers in my thoughts from start to finish (except for #1); keep this fact in mind if you haven’t seen this flick and you want to be surprised.

#1: Anne Hathaway’s performance/the Catwoman scenes

I can’t overstate how much I enjoyed Anne Hathaway’s performance as Selina/Catwoman.  She nailed the intricacies of the character perfectly.  Every scene that she in is captivating.  While Michelle Pfeiffer is still my favorite Catwoman, Anne does an absolutely incredible job.

#2: The Batman/Bane fight

Specifically, I’m referring to how Bane actually defeats in the middle of the film.  Bane lifts Batman over his head and drops him on his knee, breaking Batman’s back.  This sequence is straight out of the comic book entitled “Batman Knightfall” (only in the comic book Bane did this in the Batcave).  In the comic storyline, as Bruce recovered, another character became Batman and this new guy was the one who actually defeated Bane.  I never particularly liked that development. That’s why I love how in “The Dark Knight Rises” Bruce recovers, both physically and psychologically, and he is the one who stops Bane once and for all!

#3: Batman saving the city from the atom bomb

I loved the notion of having Batman save the city by flying the bomb away from the city limits and dropping it safely into the ocean.  This was the perfect conclusion; this was Batman being the savior of Gotham that he was born to be.  It was even more fitting to see that Batman faked his death, and was mentally ready to move on with his life as Bruce Wayne.  Some have wondered how Batman survived the whole ordeal.  After all, it was the middle of the ocean.  My response is Batman always has a contingency plan.  There was a completely feasible option that he employed, we may not fully understand what it was, but he definitely had a survival plan in mind.

To be continued!

Kevin

The fundamental character of Superman

The other day, I got into a conversation with someone about Superman.  This person stated that she didn’t particularly like Superman; he is her least favorite superhero.  I told her that I understood and I think I do.  Superman is the ultimate, clean cut, pristine good guy.  He is, as I’ve said in this blog before, the gold standard of superheroes.  Superman is ethical, moral, and altruistic.  Christopher Reeve’s Superman once told Lois Lane that he didn’t tell lies.  How much more virtuous can you get than that?

It is for this reason that some cannot relate to Superman (and perhaps why some classify him as their least favorite superhero).  But it doesn’t matter; if you try and make Superman less just, decent, and righteous, you deviate from the fundamental essence of the Superman character.  Superman really is a boy scout, as he has often been labeled, and that’s not a bad thing.  In such a dark, cynical, self-seeking world, we need a character like Superman.

Furthermore, some have submitted that Superman is a type, and picture of Jesus Christ; a fictional character who resembles Christ.  For instance, Stephen Skelton devoted an entire book to this subject in his work “the gospel according to the world’s greatest superhero”.  With that in mind, check out this apt summation of Superman that Alfred Gough and Miles Millar gave in a commentary from an episode of the TV show “Smallville”:

“He makes the right choice.  He makes the choice we wish we would make.  He’s a selfless hero.  We’d like to believe, in the right time, in the right situation, we would do the right thing.  Which is why, I think, Superman has been so endearing over the years.”  I wholeheartedly agree.  And this has obvious Christ-like overtones.  In Isaiah 7:15, it states that the Messiah will “reject the wrong and choose the right.”  Does this sound like Jesus to you?  Does it sound like Superman?  It sure does to me.

Kevin

What does the phrase "I shall not want" mean?

“The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want” (KJV).  Those are the familiar words of Psalm 23:1.  For years, I would read that phrase “I shall not want” and wonder what exactly it meant.  The Lord is my shepherd; therefore I have no dreams, plans, desires, or ambitions whatsoever?  How could that be what the verse was saying?  I didn’t understand it.

 

I’ve come to understand that this phrase has more to do with the fact that God will supply the basic provisions of life.  Got questions.org wrote an article on this that was helpful to me.  Here’s a quote from it, and I would encourage you to check out the link.  “Psalm 23:1-3 tells us that the shepherd meets the sheep’s every need: food, water, rest, safety, and direction.  When we as believers follow our Shepherd, we, too, know that we will have all that we need.  We will not lack the necessities of life, for He knows exactly what we need.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/Lord-is-my-Shepherd.html

Let me re-write that last sentence again: “We will not lack the necessities of life, for He knows exactly what we need.”  This jibes with the way other translations render Psalm 23:1.  For instance, the NCV translates it this way, “The Lord is my shepherd; I have everything I need.”  The World English Bible offers, “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall lack nothing.”  The CEV says, “The Lord is my shepherd; I will never be in need.”

In Matthew 6, Jesus says, “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your Heavenly Father feeds them.  Are you not much more valuable than they?  Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?  And why do you worry about clothes?  See how the lilies of the field grow.  They do not labor or spin.  Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.  If that is how God clothes the grass of the field…will he not much more clothe you?”  I can trust my Heavenly Father, My Heavenly Shepherd.  He will provide for me.

Kevin

Contemplating the rapture

After writing what I did yesterday about “Left Behind” I felt compelled to talk in more detail about this concept known as the rapture.

 

First of all, some have criticized the "Left Behind" book series because it operates from what is called the “pre-tribulation” view.  That is, that Jesus will rapture His church prior to the seven year period known as the Tribulation.  But there are other views.  There’s the “mid-tribulation” view (the rapture is in the middle of the Tribulation), and there’s the “post-tribulation” view (the rapture is at the end of the Tribulation).

My reading of the Bible has landed me on the pre-tribulation view.  Let me attempt to explain why.  First of all, one of the main passages that teaches the rapture is 1 Thessalonians 4.  We read, “For the Lord Himself will come down from Heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.  After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up [that is, snatched up quickly, or raptured] with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.  And so we will be with the Lord forever” (verses 16-17).

With this context of 1 Thessalonians 4 in mind, it’s interesting to then read these words in chapter 5 of 1 Thessalonians: “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (verse 9).  Furthermore, in Revelation 3:10, Jesus says: “I will keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.”  These verses seem to indicate that God will take His church to Heaven so that she will not experience the years of the Tribulation.

Secondly, in Matthew 24 Jesus says, “But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and not have let his house be broken into.  So you must also be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”  There’s imminence in Jesus’ words.  As if He is saying that He could return at any day.  To me, this imagery doesn’t make as much sense if Christians were on Earth for the Tribulation, or for the rise of Antichrist.  These events would certainly get our attention; so if that were the case, why then would the Lord say that His coming would be as surprising a thief in the night?

Third, in Revelation 1-3, the church is referenced several times, but then we read these words in Revelation 4:1, “After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in Heaven.  And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”  The time of the Tribulation is then described in detail, but interestingly, the church is not mentioned being on the Earth.

Let me conclude with a verse from 1 Thessalonians 4.  I already quoted verses 16-17 that mention the rapture of Christ, but notice verse 18; it reads, “Therefore encourage each other with these words.”  Encourage each other with the truth of the rapture of Christ.  Notice that that verse doesn’t say, “Therefore debate each other with these words to the point where divisions occur.”

Whatever the exact time frame may be, the rapture of Jesus Christ is supposed to be a comforting, reassuring thought, not a point of division.  Personally, this whole concept is very comforting for me to contemplate.  This plight on Earth will not last forever; Jesus will one day come and take the Christians to be with Him forever!  This fact is to be celebrated, not fought over to the point of losing friendship and fellowship with a brother or sister in Christ!

Kevin

My thoughts on the "Left Behind" movie

Recently, I saw the new “Left Behind” movie starring Nicolas Cage.  In short, while the cast did a good job, and it is undeniably entertaining, I still can’t recommend this film.

My biggest problem with this movie isn’t primarily what was said in the film, it’s what wasn’t said.  Let me explain.  The three main characters are Rayford Steele, Chloe Steele (his daughter) and Cameron or “Buck” Williams.  In the book that the movie is based on written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, these three eventually learn that Jesus Christ had taken (or raptured as it is commonly referred to) all the Christians to Heaven, and they had been left behind.  Ultimately, they each chose to become a Christian, even though their decision was a costly one because it meant facing a dark seven year period known as the Tribulation, where being martyred for their new faith was likely.

Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t present Rayford, Chloe, or Buck putting their faith in Christ.  Rayford does begin to piece together that it was just the Christian passengers who were gone, and he deduces that he knows what the event was because his Christian wife had previously told him.  But he still doesn’t become a Christian.  To be fair, he is preoccupied with trying to make an emergency landing because the plane is leaking gasoline, something that didn’t actually occur in the original book.  Buck’s conversion to Christianity isn’t shown, either.  He is on the same plane as Rayford, and he is too busy trying to calm the other passengers down, and help Rayford in whatever way he can.

The absence of Chloe’s conversion story is the most glaring.  She finds that her mother and brother were among those who disappeared.  She subsequently goes to a church where she finds that just one pastor was left behind (the fascinating story of why he was left behind is strangely never told in the film, but it is in the book).  This pastor tells her what had happened, but Chloe doesn’t want to listen; she actually goes and almost commits suicide until her father’s phone call finally gets through.  This one is the most disappointing because, by the end of the film, Chloe is actually the hero, but not because of her newfound relationship with Christ, as it should have been.

If you are interested in seeing a movie that does follow the original book quite well I would recommend the first “Left Behind” movie starring Kirk Cameron.  It not only showcases the conversion of the main characters, but also covers other important events such as the rise of the Antichrist (who somehow doesn’t even appear in this new movie).  Stick with the original movie, and avoid this new film.  Don’t misunderstand: I’m not saying this new rebooted Left Behind movie is a bad movie, by any means.  It’s entertaining.  I’m simply saying that the transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ (a major presence in the original book) isn’t conveyed in this new film.  It is altogether ignored.

Kevin

"I delight to do Your will"

I recently finished viewing the first season of the TV show “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”  From its start to its season finale, I really enjoyed it.  Granted, the show isn’t without its flaws.

To give just one example, the writing does get rather incoherent at a particular juncture in the season.  At one point, my head was spinning because there was so much misdirection, paranoia, and suspicion of particular characters.  I actually got the feeling that the writers couldn’t decide who was supposed to the bad apples that had the evil ulterior motives, and who wasn’t.  However, these flaws notwithstanding, I submit that the positives far outweigh the negatives when it comes to “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”

One of my favorite episodes of the first season is entitled “Yes men”.  It is called this because the main villain of the episode, a woman named Lorelei, threatens Earth.  Lorelei hails from Asgard (Thor’s home world; this show is set in the Marvel universe, so there are references to Thor, Captain America, Iron-Man, and the Avengers).  Lorelei possesses the power to bend any man to forsake their prior alliances and serve her, simply by touching them.  Another Asgardian named Lady Sif goes after Lorelei, in an attempt to stop her and return her to Asgard.

The Lorelei/Lady Sif scenes are particularly gripping.  In one scene, Lorelei taunts Sif by stating that Sif’s propensity to obey whatever her Asgardian master instructs hasn’t resulted in any personal benefit for her.  As an example, Lorelei points out that while she can have any man she wants, any man that Sif has desired hasn’t been reciprocated.  Sif wouldn’t dare give Lorelei the satisfaction of agreeing with her, but I got the sense that there was an element of truth to Lorelei’s accusation.  Ultimately, Lady Sif does defeat Lorelei and return her to Asgard to pay for her crimes.  Before leaving, the head of the S.H.I.E.L.D. team asks Sif if this whole ordeal was difficult for her.  She simply responds, “Odin ordered her back alive.  As one of his warriors, I bow to his will.”

Lady Sif is one of my new heroes.  Her decision to submit her will, desires, and life to her master, Odin, is inspiring to me.  On a daily basis, Sif faces the decision to choose her way or the way of her master.  In the end, even if it isn’t always easy, she chooses to surrender her personal desires to the wisdom of her master.  As a Christian, I too know what it’s like to face the daily decision of choosing my way or God’s way.  I’m certainly not going to declare that I always decide to go God’s way, but like Lady Sif, I know that the best course of action is to choose to daily yield all my personal hopes, dreams, and plans to God.  With the confident assurance that God’s way is the best way.

Kevin

“I delight to do Your will, O my God” – Psalm 40:8 (NKJV)