Noah

“Noah”

The advertisement on the television the day before we saw the movie said that “Noah” was the number one movie “in all the world.”  Amazing!  I’ve never heard those words said before in an advertisement.  “In all the world.”  And I guess it was.

So, what did I think of the Darren Aronofsky movie?  Well, first of all, I’m glad I saw it.  Secondly, if I hadn’t known the Biblical story I would have said that it had almost nothing at all to do with the Bible.  That’s not to say it was a bad movie.  It had its moments and if you came away from this movie not realizing that the world is very evil and that human beings can be and are very evil, you missed the point.  I think that Martin Luther and the Apostle Paul would have liked the movie’s focus on the utter depravity of man and mankind.

But, hey, I digress.  First of all, things I liked about the movie.  Noah was very human and didn’t spend his time talking to the clouds.  Who else but Russell Crowe could pull this off?  His wife was long-suffering.  She (Jennifer Connelly) even gets a name, Naameh.  His children were depicted as very human too.  I enjoyed it when Noah shared the history of creation with his family.  This was done well.  I even appreciated God being referred to as the “Creator.”  I think this conscious scripting was carefully done to make this movie appeal to people in “all the world” but I thought that this was OK.  I also liked the characterization of Methuselah.  I think Anthony Hopkins deserves a best-supporting actor nomination for his role.

Secondly, things I didn’t care for.  I question if Noah and his family were vegetarian as this movie seems to suggest.  I think the bias of the film writers was coming out here.  As the film was being made I’m wondering if they allowed the caterers to serve meat at the cast meals.  And Noah’s decision to end the human race with his little family?  Come on.  Whoever wrote that must have read and taken to heart or to the next level that unique 2007 book, “The World Without Us” by Alan Weisman.  And Noah’s insanity?  Well, I think that the ark-building probably did make Noah a little (or a lot) crazy but his insistence on ending the human race seemed very out of character and especially out of Biblical character.  And how about a stowaway on the Ark?  At least the stowaway was the negative Biblical character, Tubal-Cain (Ray Winstone).  I’m wondering if one of the lines of species that he ended as he ate in secret was the unicorn.  Finally, the Rock people who used to be angels.  I guess that there is a little hint of this in the Nephilim mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 6:4).  But these creatures in the movie seemed to be leftover rejects from an old Transformer movie.  Come on!

 Thirdly, things that made me think.  I’ve always thought and believed that the Ark was God’s way of saving the world as the earth was cleansed by water.  This was good.  The world is very evil and longs for such cleansing and I rejoice in Christian Baptism.  I’ve also thought that the animals on the Ark might have been in some state of suspended animation as the flood waters continued and this movie suggests that the concoction that Noah and his wife made did indeed put the animals into hibernating sleep.  I also like the environmental focus.  The movie seemed to suggest that man’s pollution and waste was destroying the world.  How true this is!  I thought that the depiction of Noah’s drunkenness was well done, though Ham’s role in sinning against his father is never really explored.  The movie also never belittles the idea that the world could be repopulated with just a handful of animals and humans.  I think that even archeological suggestions about the first “true” human beings and their progeny also support this truth.

Should you see the movie?  There is no bad language but because of the intensity and violence it is definitely not a movie for young children.  I would recommend it but I also recommend that you simply read the Biblical account of Noah and flood in Genesis 6-9 and also remember that the Creator always has the last laugh. 

The Rev. Willis R. Schwichtenberg, pastorswitz@ourgodwithus.com, is Associate Pastor of Immanuel Lutheran Church in Freeport, Illinois.

The Lone Ranger

Lighten up, you critics.  What were you looking for in this Lone Ranger movie?  Did you want the producers to recreate the franchise?  There was no franchise to recreate.  In the 1950’s there was just a fantastic series that we loved watching on TV.  In those days Tonto was great.  The Lone Ranger was great.  Good guys wore white hats and rode white horses.  The Lone Ranger never killed anyone.  He was a friend to the underdog and those in need.  I never felt that Tonto was depicted with racial stereotypes but it was obvious that there was prejudice that he and Tonto were trying to overcome.  We loved the series and loved the music.

This movie, on the other hand, was very funny and very campy with strong attempts to battle racism.  Without being offensive it poked fun at the growing bond between Tonto and the Lone Ranger.  It also showed the evils of racism, corporate greed and violence.  By the way, the Lone Ranger in the movie also wore a white hat, rode a white horse and never killed anyone.  He was a friend to the underdog and those in need.  And Tonto was funny, funny, funny.  The closing dialogue between the Lone Ranger and Tonto was priceless.

Oh, the movie was outrageous at times.  But so what?  It was a great movie with a deep meaning.  If you miss seeing it at the theater you will miss a lot.  Don’t wait for the video.  See it now and forget the critics!

I would give it six shields (out of seven) with my Schwichtenbergian Awards for Cinematic Excellence.

"Despicable Me 2"

“Despicable Me” was an excellent movie.  “Despicable Me Two” is a good movie.  What else can I say?  I liked the movie but it’s very difficult to picture the irascible Gru from the first movie as a family man and he just isn’t despicable any more.  That’s OK.  That premise in the original movie made the progression and ending of that movie very, very sweet.  We loved to see him take the three sweet little girls into his “family.”  But, let’s face it, Gru (voiced by Steve Carell) just isn’t despicable anymore.

Lucy Wilde (voiced by Kristen Wiig) “kidnaps” Gru at the beginning of the movie after a giant magnet steals a laboratory and enlists Gru into the AVL (Anti-Villain League) to stop some kind of world domination.  Gru agrees to work “undercover” at a mall and suspects Eduardo (voiced by Benjamin Bratt) as being behind the brains behind the magnet.  In the mean time Dr. Nefario (voiced by Russell Brand) leaves Gru because he misses evil.  Also, Gru’s oldest “daughter” likes Eduardo’s son.  The AVL believes that wig merchant Floyd Eagle-san (voiced by Ken Jeong) is the culprit and “they” believe they solved the case.  As this is happening Gru and Lucy discover they have feelings for each other with Gru’s girls hoping they will get together but she is leaving for Australia until she realizes Gru was right and she hang glides out of the airplane to “find” him.  Dr. Nefario changes his mind about evil and helps Gru with jam containing antidote to restore the minions who have become evil under Eduardo’s ray gun.  Ultimately, Gru saves the world and then dates Lucy 147 times before finally popping the question.  You have to love Agnes, the youngest of the three girls who, along with Margo and Edith are happy to gain a mother.  Technically, the “plot” is even more complicated than this.  I know.  I know.  I didn’t really understand some of what was going on here and really didn’t care.  But I’m not saying I didn’t like it.

The Minions (Gru’s yellow servants) are wonderful and they even invade the closing credits with lots of 3D fun and are scheduled to be in their own movie in December of 2014.  I’m not a big fan of 3D but this was one of the better 3D movies that I have seen.

I have decided to start rating my movies with “awards.”  I’m calling these awards “The Schwichtenbergian Awards For Cinematic Excellence.”  I could award from one to seven “Schwichtenbergian Shields,” depending on how well I liked the movie.  Movies such as “Fargo,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”, “True Stories” or “Up” would rate seven shields.  Loser movies such as “Sherlock Holmes” and “Madagascar 3” would probably (but barely) get two shields.  Ultimately, it depends on my mood I guess.  I would give the original “Despicable Me” six shields and would give this one five shields.  Anything over three is worth seeing.  If you compared this to a grading system, seven shields would be like an “A” while six shields would be like a “B+” and five like a “B”.  Four shields would be a “C” and three would be a “C-”.  Two shields would be a “D” and one shield would be an “F.”

"Monsters University"

“Monsters University” is an interesting prequel to a very nice cartoon movie from 2001.  It’s difficult to believe that the first movie was released that long ago.

Though the premise of learning how to scare people is a strange premise in and of itself, the lessons learned in the movie are interesting and just a bit profound.  Things such careful tolerance about “beings” different at school from others, healthy competition without some kind of evil gang or agenda, working together as a team even when some on the team do not excel in every area, “zero tolerance for wrong actions” and an uncontrived ending make the movie a bit different from many.

The movie does drag a bit at first with Mike Wazowski (voiced by Billy Crystal) learning about campus life but perhaps this is also a sign about real life in a real world.  His great dream is to become a “Scarer” even though by his own admittance, he is not real scary.  His roommate Sully (voiced by John Goodman) is the son of a “Scarer” and the expectation on campus is that he will do well simply because of who he was.  (Sully is so easy-going and relaxed in his voice and style and mannerisms that he reminds me of Vicar Brad who served in our church a decade ago.)

I really didn’t expect the lesson on zero tolerance because I thought that Mike and Sully would somehow be rescued by someone or something.  Ultimately, I was glad they were not “rescued.”  That may be the reality of life at times.  Instead, at the end of the movie they have to achieve their “Scarer” monster status by working themselves up from the bottom.  That’s not a bad lesson to learn.

Though the movie has absolutely no negative language or images, the idea of scariness and being scared may not make this a very good movie for the very young. 

I’m not a big fan of 3D though this movie wasn’t too bad in 3D.

The Croods

Alice is always worried that I’m going to give a movie she likes a bad review.  “The Croods” is another of those movies that was fun and mildly deep.  I confess, however, that it didn’t really move me one way or the other.  I liked the characters and I like the interaction of the Dad (Grug Crood voiced by Nicolas Cage) and the future son-in-law, Guy (voiced by Ryan Reynolds).  I also appreciated how Eep (Emma Stone), the cave girl, was a liberated woman. 

Eep is a girl in a family of Neanderthals who live in pre-historic times and they all end up surviving while others perish.  They survive because of Grug.  He tells stories to his entire family—his wife Ugga (Catherine Keener), little daughter Sandy (Randy Thom), doltish son Thunk (Clark Duke) and his mother-in-law Gran (Cloris Leachman).  A running joke for Grug is his constant hope that perhaps Gran did not survive the latest disaster. A sloth named Belt (Chris Sanders) also accompanies them.  Grug also draws cave man pictures on the caves where they dwell.

Eep likes the light but Grug believes they can only survive by hiding in caves.  He is the classic conservative father figure who refuses to try new things.  The plot gets a little irritating when Guy comes on the scene and has many new ideas and even wants to woo Eep.  I was afraid that Grug would simply be the old fashioned doltish Dad and Guy would be the bright and inventive and modern man.  Grug does dwell in the past but, ultimately, accepts learning from Guy (things like fire and shoes and the dangers of caves) while Guy does come to understand Grug’s ultimate love for his family and his protective spirit.

Guy manages to convince the family that the world as they know it is coming to an end.  First they move to a new region and then must go toward twin mountains.  Ultimately, as the world as they know it begins to fall apart Grug literally throws the family members to a new world beyond a ravine and he is miraculously “saved” by devising a natural flying machine.

There is so much more to the plot and there are obvious fast food toy tie-ins all along the way.  It’s not a bad movie.  We didn’t see it in 3-D and we could tell that there were times when the 3-D would have wowed the eye.

The ultimate thought of accepting and dealing with change in our world and in our lives is a good lesson.  The movie helped me reflect on these a bit.  Moving toward the light and beyond the darkness of this present world is also a spiritual statement.  I’m sure you can find some deep meaning as you reflect on these parts of the plot. 

It’s just that there are so many outrageous animals and characters and inventions and more, that at times it was simply a little too much for me.  But, hey, it was a good clean movie with good language and respectful characterizations, though at times the movie is probably a little too intense for very young children.

Oz The Great and Powerful

MOVIE REVIEW

The Rev. Willis R. Schwichtenberg, Pastor

Immanuel Lutheran Church, Freeport, Illinois

“Oz The Great and Powerful” March 2013

This is a tough review to write because some of you will misunderstand where I am going with this review.

First of all, I like the movie.  I really did.  I’m not sure what we were expecting but we both liked the movie and Alice thought it was one of the best she has ever seen.

Yes, the movie was excellent and the special effects were astounding.  We saw it in 3D but I don’t think that made that big a difference.  It’s interesting that “Les Miserables” was criticized for its close-up shots.  I think some will go in the other direction and criticize this movie for its wide angle shots.  Some of this you will never be able to appreciate on video unless you have the biggest video screen in the world.  Like a lot of good movies, I don’t think that the special effects made the movie.

The movie was sort of an off version of the “Wizard of Oz” a favorite scary movie from my childhood.  Both start in black and white.  Both have “real” world characters who end up in Oz.  Both have a great hero (Oz and Dorothy).  Both have the small companion (Toto and the China Doll).  Both are too violent for younger children.  Both have munchkins (though the “new munchkins” are definitely more politically correct.)  And both have a “friend” (The Scarecrow and a rescue flying monkey).  And both have witches galore.  I could go on and on.

Oz (Oscar…played by James Franco) is a charlatan but you cannot help but like and appreciate his trickiness and, ultimately, his good heart.  I love the way the two bad witches and the one good witch (I’ll dispense with names) serve as sort of a prequel to “The Wizard of Oz” but I am having some trouble seeing how this movie and the original really fit together.  Our great advances in movie technology make almost anything possible and make older movies seem a bit quaint.

On the negative:  Wait a minute…I said I liked the movie.   Isn’t that enough?  However, when I looked on the Internet I found several negative reviews.  Some of them mused on how great the movie could have been had it been directed or edited better.  What are they looking for?  Did they want Disney to spend another $200 million on making the movie even better?  Where does this technology end?  When will they ever be happy? 

We were happy.  We left the movie thinking we had seen a really good movie.  No heavy plot.  No excessive hidden messages.  No real “Aha” moments.  A nice message.  Nothing off color.  Sweet innocence (especially with the China Doll).  Nifty special effects.  Just a really good movie.  Isn’t that enough?

Book Review of "Killing Kennedy" by Bill O'Reilly

BOOK REVIEW

The Rev. Willis R. Schwichtenberg, Pastor

Immanuel Lutheran Church, Freeport, Illinois

“Killing Kennedy” by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, published by MacMillan Audio, 2012; ISBN 978-1-4272-2684-6

Most people who are over 50 years of age probably remember what they were doing when they heard the news about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  I was sitting in study hall as a senior in high school at Waterville-Elysian High School in Minnesota.  The news was piped through the PA system and we listened with great surprise and sadness as the events unfolded that Friday afternoon in November of 1963.

I have always been interested in the Kennedy assassination and probably have a dozen books and dozens more articles on the subject.  While I realized that Bill O’Reilly might not be plowing any new ground on the subject, I was nonetheless interested in this book.

Surprisingly, O’Reilly spends about two thirds of the book on giving extensive background about the so-called “Camelot” years.  As he relates the story of Kennedy, beginning with his presidency, he also relates what Lee Harvey Oswald, the pro-Communist assassin, was doing as the story unfolds. 

He also spends much time on the background intrigue of Kennedy’s womanizing and the tension in the White House between Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and many of the other “players.”  Some might feel that O’Reilly has a political “agenda” about Kennedy but O’Reilly shares the fact that he was actually related to Kennedy.

The book is an interesting “read” but I was a bit surprised at how little information is shared about the assassination itself.  After all, the book was titled, “Killing Kennedy.”  The book does relate some very fine history about the botched Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis.  Also, when the author spends time sharing the genuine love and respect that JFK and Jackie had for each other, it is a very helpful read.

I felt that O’Reilly’s previous book on “Killing Lincoln” was much more to the point.  I was not disappointed in this book, however, and I recommend it, especially for younger readers who may not know some of this history and who may be turned off by the “National Enquirer” mentality of many conspiracy theory buffs. 

The assassination of JFK did change the world and even today we continue to “harvest” the seeds that were sown when Camelot “died.”