I went with my brothers and children to see The Amazing Spider-Man, this 4th of July. If you remember that Marvel/Stan Lee has done a number of reinterpretations of Spider-Man over the years, you won’t be surprised with this movie. This movie is not Spider-Man 4. It is much like the alternate timeline in the new Star Trek movies or the new Batman series. (Although the new Star Trek does have continuity with the old as an alternate time line that Batman and Spider-Man do not have.) This Spider-Man is a bit cockier than his alternate and he has mechanical webs (as in cartoon and comics) and not biological webs (as in the last 3 movies and some comics). Most people tell me they prefer the mechanical web. I like either type of web; in fact, I liked the previous movies and this one as well.

The moral of the movie was a bit different than the previous movies; however, the theme is still responsibility. If you remember form the previous movies the moral was “With great power comes great responsibility.” In this movie it is “If you can do good, it is not a choice, it is your responsibility.” There are subtle and interesting differences between the two. The movie plays heavy on the ethics of Transhumanism as well. This movie is a treasure trove to draw upon for philosophical, moral, and ethical discussions.

Finally, the cinematography was outstanding. There were a number of times, more than in most movies, where a still of the screen would be an awesome and powerful picture. We saw the movie in IMAX 3-D and it was well done. I give this movie 5 out of 5.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0948470/

Chronicle (the Movie)

I think there is much more to this movie than meets the eye.

Spoiler Alert: Don’t read if you want to see the movie.

Storyline: Three high school friends gain telekinetic powers after making an incredible discovery of a strange object in a cave. Soon, though, they find their lives spinning out of control and their bond tested as one of them embraces his darker side.

What would happen if you gave a group of teenagers extremely strong telekinetic powers?

It depends on the teenagers. In this movie you have three very different teenagers brought together by accidently gaining telekinetic powers from an unknown source. They bond together as they learn what they can do with their powers. Steve is running for class president and is the most popular kid in school. Andrew is an unpopular misfit with a dying mother and alcoholic abusive father. Matt fits in somewhere between the two.

Andrew uses his powers and accidentally hurts someone. Matthew, his cousin, says they need to come up with rules on when and how to use the powers. I can see him quoting Uncle Ben from Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.” In this situation, Matt was pleading for an moral standard.

Together they continue to learn and grow their powers. However, giving people powers that are not prepared for it can be devastating. Andrew and Steve do a magic show during the schools talent show. Andrew’s reputation changes instantly; finally, he is popular. However, Teenagers’ feelings are fickle, so when Andrew pukes on a girl at the after party, the taunting becomes worse that it was before. In addition, his father becomes more abusive as he thinks his son is up to no good. Andrew starts to feel the walls closing in.

Out of anger, Andrew accidentally kills Steve, who was trying to tell him he was still his friend. He then confronts his father and beats him up for a change. This becomes the beginning of the end, as if Andrew had tasted blood for the first time.

In a key scene to the story Andrew sits in a junk yard and crushes a car with his mind. In his internal monologue Andrew uses naturalistic evolutionary bases to explain his justification for his coming actions. His first premise is the idea that an apex predator does not feel guilt in killing inferior animals. His next premise is that he is now a superior being. His conclusion is that he then should not feel guilty if he harms others.

The final straw comes when he cannot buy medicine to ease his mother’s pain. He then rationalizes robbing people. When a robbery at a gas station goes wrong and the station explodes, Andrew ends up unconscious in the hospital. His dad comes in and tells him his mother has died and blames him because he had to go look for him that night.

Andrew snaps and the mayhem begins. Matt goes to talk to him and reason with him, but he won’t listen. The talk deteriorates to an all-out brawl. They tear the city up with their fight. In the end his anger gets the best of him, and Matt has to kill him.

You can see the materialistic naturalism based morality play out with the Judeo-Christian based objective morality being contrasted as the story progresses.[1] The self-destructive materialistic naturalism played out to it’s natural conclusion. The moral of the story: with great power comes great responsibility, and if you don’t believe you have a responsibility, you will follow self-gratification to your own destruction, leaving behind untold carnage. This is a powerful story with a powerful message.

Movie Information: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706593/

Footnote:

[1] Both materialistic naturalism and Judeo-Christian moralities are objective. I just want to point out they are both based on something rather than the relativist position where morality depends on any number of factors. Materialistic naturalism is very much like social Darwinism (social evolution). Naturalism holds that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe and not supernatural ones, i.e. God. Materialism holds that the only things that exist in the Universe are matter and energy. Morality is thus derived as a result of material interactions i.e. genetics. It follows from this that if there is no higher power, why do we have constraints on behavior? Why not live out survival of the fittest? Morality is thus objective because you are hardwired for it. Does a lion feel guilty for killing a gazelle?

On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian view is that morality comes from the Creator. Especially in Christian doctrine, every person was created in the image of God (Imago Dei) and thus has value. It follows then that killing of people is wrong because there is a command not to from God and because people are of value to God.

One could argue that the movie does not specifically show Matt’s position as Judeo-Christian. I guess that is true, it could be based on Jainism where all life and non-violence is considered sacred. Some Native American tribes would have a similar quasi-pantheistic or animistic view. In any case Matt’s view of morality is transcendent (being entirely beyond the universe) while Andrews is materialistic (being entirely in the universe).

Kevin Bacon plays a marine again. He is a Lt. Col. who decides to take a fallen Marine home. The movie starts off showing the care the US military takes in moving those who have given the last full measure back to their family. Along the way the Coronel meets mostly sympathetic people and the occasional jerk.  

This movies starts off with a very happy beginning. Back dropped in the heydays of the 1940 as seen by children. "Set during World War II, a story seen through the innocent eyes of Bruno, the eight-year-old son of the commandant at a concentration camp, whose forbidden friendship with a Jewish boy on the other side of the camp fence has startling and unexpected consequences." Pasted from <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914798/> 

Knowing & The Day the Earth Stood Still

I recently watched Bill Maher’s movie ‘Religulous’. I was intrigued at the concept of the movie. Given it was a comedy I expected it to be completely irreverent. He has honest questions but he does not seek honest answers. He picks extreme examples and not mainstream examples. What does this movie promote:

• Not having faith is a luxury according to Bill Maher.
• According to Bill Maher, religion is detrimental to human society. 
• Religion is made up to answer tough questions. 
• He says he made fun of religious in his standup days. 
• He grew up Catholic and his mother was Jewish.  
• He thinks his father stopped going to Church because of catholic prohibition with birth control.
• Brings up issues that are religion not relationship.
• He shows extreme example of religious people whom even I have issues with. 
• He did not interview any serious mainstream Christians.
• He thinks it is about faith without facts. 
• Would you expect that multiple eyewitness accounts would be different?
• Compares Christians with extremist Muslim terrorist.
• He admits Sodom and Gomorrah exist but that is it.
• Exchange Ministries was an example and the pastor says no one is born s homosexual. I think everyone is born a sinner and thus has the potential to be gay.
• He interviews people who think religion is about themselves.
• Bill thinks anyone who thinks a miracle happen actually had something that was a coincidence.
• He picks 3 founding fathers who were not Christians and showcases them as a reason why this nation is not founded Christian.
• Picks on 10 commandments.
• He thinks humanism would come to the same conclusion. See my other posts, I don’t think so.
• He shows that Christians don’t agree on creation and evolution.
• He interviews an amusement park actor about Christianity. (Is this a qualified opinion?)
• Religion is a neurological disorder.
• Religion diverts man to a destructive course.
• Religion must die for humans to survive.
• Religion keeps man in bondage.
• Atheist should not be timid.

I would rate this movie 1 comedian out of 5.

Even Almighty (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413099/) starting Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman and Lauren Graham, is actually a great movie. Generally when you have someone create a movie about God there is often major theological issues with it. Not so much with this movie. Some of that main themes are pro environmentalism and family and it is against government waste and corruption. The story is about Even Baxter a modern day Noah and his journey to build an ark. His wife ends up upset over his building of the ark and decides to leave when she runs into God posing as a waiter at a restaurant. One of his statements to her was so profound I wanted to watch it again. This is what he said.

"Let me ask you something. If someone prays for patience, you think God gives them patience? Or does he give them the opportunity to be patient? If he prayed for courage, does God give him courage, or does he give him opportunities to be courageous? If someone prayed for the family to be closer, do you think God zaps them with warm fuzzy feelings, or does he give them opportunities to love each other?"