(This review can also be found at http://christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2014/transformers2014.html.)
Overall Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, language and brief innuendo
Appropriate for: Ages 13+
Genre: Sci-Fi Action Adventure
Length: 165 minutes
Year of Release: 2014
In retaliation for the destruction of Chicago shown in the third Transformers film, the United States government is searching for all Transformers—even their former allies, the Autobots—in an attempt to eliminate them and end “the age of Transformers.” Or so they say. The government’s true purpose is actually more complicated than that. Harold Attinger, a prominent government official, is working with a technology firm to experiment with the latest discoveries in science in hopes of creating a powerful robotic army. For some devious reason, they are especially keen on finding the leader of the Autobots—Optimus Prime. Somehow, finding him will be the key to future success with their new scientific advancements.
Meanwhile, down in Texas, scrap dealer, robotic engineer, and inventor Cade Yeagar (Mark Wahlberg) is broke. His daughter (Nicola Peltz) is getting ready to graduate from high school, and she is desperate for college funds. When Cade finds an old, broken-down truck, he brings it back to his workshop and tinkers with it overnight, hoping to sell it and make enough money to solve some of his financial problems. By the morning, however, he has determined that the trashed truck is actually a Transformer. Soon, the injured Transformer awakens, revealing himself to be the Autobot Optimus Prime. Cade promises to help the shape-shifter with his repairs, hoping to learn something about the creature’s incredible technology that will help him with future inventions. But when CIA operatives show up on Cade’s property and demand to know the location of the Autobot, things start to get messy for Cade and his daughter. They become fugitives, running with the hunted Optimus Prime from a government that appears to have a goal much more complicated than merely exterminating Transformers.
An exciting summer action flick, Transformers 4 returns viewers to a universe where giant, robot-like aliens walk the earth. The movie examines the struggles and blessings of father-daughter relationships, depicts the virtue of sacrificing one’s own life for a friend, and introduces some interesting perspectives on human nature and existence that could potentially spark profitable discussions.
One especially pertinent topic of discussion is found in one of Optimus Prime’s final lines. He states something to the effect that people can find within themselves the answer to the questions “Who am I?” and “Why am I here?” From a biblical perspective, Optimus Prime’s statement reflects the truth that God has set eternity in the hearts of men—as Solomon says in Ecclesiastes 3:11. Humans are ever searching for answers to questions of eternal significance. They are concerned about more than just everyday life and humdrum existence. They long for true meaning and purpose—for a life that that has a lasting effect on history. Optimus Prime’s statement, however, falls utterly short of the truth that humans can never give themselves meaning. Alone, they cannot discover their true purpose. As the rest of Ecclesiastes 3:11 says, “[N]o one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” Alone, humans cannot understand eternity. God alone holds eternity in his hands, and he and his infallible word alone can ever answer the questions of who we are and why we are here.
Although this movie has its moments, it is mostly just an overwhelming sequence of collisions, explosions, and destruction. The violence certainly earns this film its PG-13 rating. The battles between the Autobots and other Transformers can be intense at times, involving a great deal of collateral damage that frequently consists of the destruction of cities and the death of humans. While most of the violence happens between the Transformer characters, the human characters in this movie also see a good deal of action. They are involved in a few car and spaceship chases, a couple characters are violently attacked and threatened with guns, and there is a good deal of shooting. One character is killed in the fire-blast of a Transformer, and viewers see a shot of his dead body, petrified and burnt with his bones exposed. There are also a couple instances of intense hand-to-hand combat. In all of the action, however, the blood and gore is actually pretty minimal.
Besides the violence, the film also contains a good deal of foul language and name calling. The Lord’s name is also taken in vain several times. Although there are no sex scenes and no nudity, there is a smattering of sexual innuendo and a disgracefully large number of under-dressed young women. Several men look lustfully at a number of different young ladies, referring to them as “hot.” One character tells another that he finds a certain woman “very attractive” and later tries to kiss her. The daughter of the main character has a boyfriend against her father’s wishes and hides the fact from her father. The girl and her boyfriend are seen cuddling and later kissing. Although it is later mentioned that the boyfriend snuck into the girl’s house one night in the past, nothing further is mentioned or shown.
In general, the relationships between most of the human characters start out pretty messed-up. The father is initially depicted as rather irresponsible and disconnected from his daughter. The daughter is disobedient and rebellious, and her boyfriend is frequently disrespectful to her father. I did not appreciate this inclusion of yet another stereotypical 21st-century family with a rebellious teenage daughter and an irresponsible father. However, the characters’ relationships are reconciled by the end of the movie, and the three characters begin to show each other love and respect. I still wish, though, that viewers could be reminded that a family doesn’t need to go through a Transformer battle and an end-of-the-world experience in order to have that kind of reconciliation.
Fans of the previous Transformers films will likely enjoy this summer flick. With some impressive CGI and exciting battles, this movie may just satisfy your desire to see some epic action and sweet cars. Although the profanity and innuendo was offensive, Transformers 4 still is a better alternative to other, much more explicit movies. If you are not a Transformers fan, however, I would suggest skipping this movie. Again, it has its moments, but the two hours and forty minutes of collisions, explosions, and destruction can really drown out any sense of plot, character development, or valuable faith themes.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Romeo & Juliet
Overall Rating: 4 out of 5
stars
(Parent/Teen discussion questions for this movie can be found at http://christianperspectivereviews.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_3012.html)
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for some
violence and
thematic elements.
Appropriate for: Ages 13+
Genre: Romance Drama
Adaptation
Length: 118 minutes
Year of Release: 2013
(Parent/Teen discussion questions for this movie can be found at http://christianperspectivereviews.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_3012.html)
If you’re a part of the Montague family in Renaissance Verona, the one
thing you need to know above all other things is that you hate the house of
Capulet. If you’re a part of the Capulet family, the first thing you need to
know is that you hate the house of Montague. It’s that simple.
But not for Romeo Montague.
Romeo (Douglas Booth), the son of Lord Montague, happens to be in love with the niece
of Lord Capulet—a pretty young lady named Rosaline. Hoping to see Rosaline,
Romeo sneaks into a ball hosted by Lord Capulet himself, bringing a couple of
his buddies along with him to join in on the fun. When Romeo lays eyes on a
different young lady at the ball, however, all thoughts of Rosaline vanish from
his mind. With that one glance, Romeo knows that his feelings for Rosaline were
nothing. He never knew what it was to truly love until now. He steals a dance
with the beautiful girl and, later, steals a few kisses. By the end of the
ball, they are both desperately in love with each other. But there’s one
problem. Before Romeo leaves the ball, Romeo discovers that the girl who has
stolen his heart is Juliet (Hailee Steinfeld), the only child of Lord Capulet. Rather than let
their love die, however, Juliet and Romeo choose to ignore the history of
hatred between their families and continue their relationship in secret. Their
choice proves to be more complicated and more dangerous than either of them
expected.
It’s the classic love story told in a classic, breathtaking, and
professional way. This film really hit the mark with its beautiful soundtrack, its
stunning sets, the historic costumes, and some mostly solid acting by actors
who can pull off the Shakespearian lingo pretty well. Whether or not the film
stayed true to Shakespeare’s original script, I cannot say. I haven’t read Romeo and Juliet for several years and
do not remember details, but the plot of the movie seemed to follow the major
plot points that I remember from reading the play. According to some articles I
have read, however, the script lacks much of Shakespeare’s original dialogue.
At the same time, like the original play, this movie examines the consequences
of making rash decisions, of being ruled by passion, and of passing on a legacy
of hate. Although this movie is a poor adaptation, I would still consider it to
be a good movie.
Even though the passionate love between Romeo and Juliet is very frustrating
at times when you consider how young they are and how thoughtless they can be,
the film handles their romance tastefully. There is a lot of kissing (and by
that I mean A LOT), but the movie contains no nudity and no explicit sex
scenes. However, there is one scene with Romeo and Juliet in bed together that
involves mostly just more kissing. Juliet takes off Romeo’s shirt and Romeo
removes Juliet’s robe (she is wearing a nightgown underneath), but she remains
fully clothed for the entire scene, and Romeo is only shirtless. Because this
scene comes only after their wedding, I actually found it to be sweet,
innocent, and refreshing compared to similar scenes in other movies. However, I
think that this scene still earns the movie its PG-13 rating, and I cannot recommend
the film for young viewers.
The Lord’s name is taken in vain a couple times, but, besides that,
there is no foul language (unless it is disguised in that fancy Shakespearian
lingo). The violence consists of quite a few duels and several deaths. Most of
the deaths occur by stabbing, and most of the stabbings happen at the end of a
duel when one swordsman is defeated. The camera actually shows the sword or
knife going into the body, which is rather disturbing but not overly bloody.
(Think The Count of Monte Cristo.) A
couple characters talk about suicide, and one character poisons himself.
Again, this movie is not appropriate for small children and pre-teens.
However, for families with teens, I definitely recommend Romeo & Juliet. I encourage families to take the opportunity to
discuss the lessons this story has to offer. Talk about what “true love” really
is. Talk about the choices Romeo and Juliet make throughout the film. Although the
two lovers certainly suffer consequences for their rash decisions, their
choices to commit suicide come across as somewhat glamorous or romantic.
Parents should be aware of this and should not hesitate to offer guidance to less
mature viewers. Humans are human, which means our control over the future is
extremely limited. That is why it is so important that we surrender our lives
to God’s will, letting him carry out his plans for us instead of constantly
trying to control our own lives. We will only make a mess of it. This is a
lesson that Romeo and Juliet would have benefitted from before their desire for
control brought their own lives to a desperate end.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
The Book Thief
Appropriate for: Ages
13+
Genre: Historical
Fiction
Length: 550 pages
Year of Publication:
2005
In this historical fiction novel by Markus Zusak, our
narrator is Death, and he needs a vacation. He needs distraction. It’s not
because of the number of souls that he must carry away, however. It’s because
of all the humans those souls leave behind: the survivors. This book is about
one of those survivors, a person Death calls “an expert at being left behind.” To
start off the tale, Death recalls that he saw this survivor three times. He
calls her “the book thief.”
The book thief’s name is Liesel Meminger, and her story
begins when she is nine years old, on a train with her mother and brother. They
are in Nazi Germany, and it is January 1939. Her mother is bringing her two
children to a street named after heaven to live with foster parents, who will
hopefully be better able to feed and educate the boy and girl. However, Death
sees the book thief for the first time on that train as he takes the soul of Liesel’s
little brother. Liesel steals her first book in the graveyard where her brother
is buried. She alone is delivered to her foster parents, and her new life on
Himmel Street begins.
Death recounts the following five or six years of her life,
describing both the beauty and ugliness of the young girl’s life in the messed-up
world. Through the experiences that define this part of her life—reading with
her loving foster father, thieving with her loyal friend and neighbor Rudy, caring
for the spirited Jew hiding in their basement—Liesel begins to see the power
and value of words and to recognize their demanding presence in the world.
Books and words begin to mean everything to her—and so do the relationships
that she develops with her parents, her neighbors, and others whose lives
converge with hers.
This book creatively examines themes such as the power of
words and the mysterious nature of humans—creatures who often tend toward hatred and malice, yet can also be strong,
good, and loving. It also illustrates the implications of a worldview that lacks the biblical understanding of God. Zusak
presents God as distant, silent, and careless of human history. The very
modern view of existence that the book presents makes it perfect material for
discussion and analysis. Parents of teens who read this book should take the
time to discuss the implications of the book’s worldview and the Christian
understanding of God’s involvement in history. Parents may also wish to discuss
human nature and the real cause of sin and death.
Although I have seen this book classified as a “children’s book,” I cannot recommend The Book Thief
to children under thirteen. Even though the reading level is not difficult, the subject matter is best suited to mature individuals. My
main reason for not recommending this book to young readers is because of the disappointingly large amount of foul language
and misuses of the Lord’s name that it contains. Reading a book is generally a much more intimate
experience than watching a movie, making the issue of language even more
significant than it is in movies. When you’re reading, all of the
words are loud and clear in your head.
The other aspect of this book that earns it a PG-13 rating is its
nitty-grittiness. The descriptions of death and dying are not for the sensitive
reader, and the accounts of the Second World War’s horrors make this book an
unviable option for children. Among other things, the author describes a few
fistfights, the aftermath of a plane crash, the bombing of a neighborhood, a
young boy being forced to strip naked for a medical examination, and Jews being
brought to a concentration camp. Although less of an issue, there is also some
content involving alcohol and smoking. Due to these elements, I think that even young teens should ideally read this book with a parent—if at all.
To more mature readers, however, I recommend this book as an
interesting and thought-provoking read. The style is innovative and the topics are very pertinent. This book is certainly a work of modern literary art. If you
are looking for an enjoyable, sweet, exciting, or suspenseful read, however, I
would not recommend this book. Although it is enjoyable, sweet, exciting, and suspenseful at times, it did not grip my attention or my heart until the bitter-sweet ending.
I decided to read this book after seeing the 2013 film adaptation. While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie (see my review), I did not
enjoy the book very much at all. I was actually quite shocked by my own
reaction. After all, the flavor of the book is very similar to that of the
movie, and, although some events are altered and the story is significantly
truncated in the film, the basic plot is the same. However, the character of
Liesel in the book seemed totally different from the sweet, innocent, curious
character I met in the movie. The novel revealed that her motives for stealing
books were actually somewhat spiteful. In the movie, she seemed to steal the
books out of curiosity and a desire to read them—not out of a desire to vent
her anger. This made it harder for me to enjoy the read.
When I started reading the book, I was expecting it to be
sad and traumatizing—like the movie was. But it was even worse. In addition to
being sad and traumatizing, it was also filled with a sense of despair and
fatalism that I hadn’t noticed in the movie. This was partially due to the
author’s style of writing—something you don’t get to experience while watching
a film. Zusak wrote The Book Thief in
a way that is very non-traditional, repeatedly using short, one-sentence-long
paragraphs and a plethora of sentence fragments—elements that are popular in
contemporary writing. He matched these choppy paragraphs and sentences with a
choppy plot, allowing the narrator to reveal many major developments before the
narration reaches that point in the chronology of the story. While I can handle
some foreshadowing, I didn’t enjoy being constantly reminded who was going
to die at the end of the book. The perpetual foreshadowing made the tone too
despairing for my taste—even though I knew what would happen since I had
already seen the movie—and the author made Death address the book’s future
events in a rather heartless manner. Although the narrator does seem remorseful and sensitive
at times, he often discusses the death of characters so matter-of-factly that the
fatalism even manages to kill any sense of sadness. There is only despair. Five
and a half hundred pages take a while to read, and that’s a long time to be
depressed about something that doesn’t even happen until the end of the book. It’s especially
hard when the plot leading up to that event is not even overly engaging.
This book is certainly a work of art. But, for every work of
art, there’s always some people who just don’t appreciate the artist’s work.
For this book, I guess I’m one of those people.
Friday, June 13, 2014
How to Train Your Dragon 2
Overall Rating: 4.5 out of 5
stars
(Family discussion questions for this movie can be found at http://christianperspectivereviews.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html)
MPAA Rating: PG for
adventure action and some mild rude humor
Appropriate for: Ages 7+
Genre: Family Action
Adventure
Length: 102 minutes
Year of Release: 2014
(Family discussion questions for this movie can be found at http://christianperspectivereviews.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html)
Welcome back to Berk. It has been five years since the nerdy, awkward,
and likeable young Viking, Hiccup (the voice of Jay Baruchel), changed everything by showing the world that
dragons and Vikings can coexist—that they can even be best friends. Now, all is
well in the village. All of the Vikings in Berk have dragons of their own, and
one of their new favorite pastimes is dragon racing. Hiccup, though—he has even
more exciting things to do. He and his trusty Night Fury dragon, Toothless,
have been busy exploring the waters and islands surrounding Berk and piecing
together a map of the newly-discovered areas. They are also enjoying testing
out their new flight technology and satisfying their thrill-seeking
personalities at the same time. When his father, the chief of the Vikings,
approaches Hiccup with the prospect of soon succeeding him as chief, Hiccup is
adamant that the position is not for him. He’s convinced that he is not cut out
to be a leader. He wants to do what he loves, and he loves spending time with
his dragon.
One day, while on a flight together, Hiccup and his girlfriend, Astrid (the voice of America Ferrera),
discover a threat that just might end the happy harmony of Vikings and dragons
in Berk. If Hiccup is going to stop this evil enemy that he and his friends now
face, he must step up, become the leader he was meant to be, and do what he
knows is right.
This sequel to the 2010 How to
Train Your Dragon is a fun and exciting computer-animated family flick that
touches on some important themes such as the value of friendship, the
importance of standing up for what’s right, and the power of a family who works
together. In addition, this second Dragon
film has brought us yet another beautiful soundtrack and some more
absolutely stunning animation.
From a family-friendly perspective, some of the battle sequences could
be frightening for young children. Although completely clean of blood and gore,
there are still some scary monsters and bad guys as well as a few sad moments
involving the death of a well-loved character. Additionally, there are some
sequences throughout the film consisting of dragons and Vikings falling through
the air that can be intense at times.
A few hints at profanity, although minor, also present a bit of an
issue. However, most of these consist of phrases such as “soil my britches” and
“gods help us all.” The phrases in the film that would have been actually
offensive are tactfully cut short to exclude the expletive and are, therefore,
easy to dismiss as a non-issue.
The romantic elements in the flick were tasteful, involving mostly just
a couple kisses and hugs. Other than that, there is one young Viking lady who
repeatedly appears to be obsessed with one guy’s muscles, but this element
turns out to be more laughable than suggestive. Regarding the
controversy surrounding the character Gobber, I would say that the
objections are not unfounded but that the issue was blown a little out of
proportion. The character’s sexuality is only hinted at—the film does not shove
the fact into the viewers’ faces. It is not even explicitly stated and would
likely go unnoticed by younger viewers. However, I would warn families not to
become desensitized by these small attacks to the Biblical worldview. Parents,
don’t shy away from discussing this issue with your children. However, I would
not count this objection as a reason to not see the film. In fact, the film
actually presents the nuclear family in a very positive light, even celebrating
the love of a husband and wife as they choose to reconcile with one another
after spending many years apart.
My biggest objection to the movie is the way in which Hiccup disobeys
his father on a couple occasions. Instead of suffering the consequences of
disobedience, however, Hiccup’s rebelliousness actually ends up being rewarded.
At times, Hiccup’s father even seems to be rather unintelligent, adding to this
culture’s habit of depicting fathers as wimps. In the end, however, Hiccup’s
father is shown to be a loving, caring, and strong leader and a man who Hiccup
clearly hopes to emulate.
As a whole, I highly recommend this film. Although it depends on the
kid, I would probably not recommend the movie to families with kids under the
age of seven due to the intense sequences. No matter whom you watch this with,
however, I hope you take the time to consider the biblical truths that this
story presents and let them inspire and encourage you as you stand strong for
what is good, true, and beautiful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)