RSS

Monthly Archives: May 2011

Movie Review: “Thor”

I’ve always been a fan of Norse mythology. As many great writers have recognized for generations (Tolkien and Lewis among them) there’s something fundamentally compelling about the Norse mythological ethos: gods and monsters locked in an epic, virtually unending struggle which will result in total destruction. The Norse deities fight not for their own gain, but rather for the dream of a new world to come. As Christianity spread throughout Scandinavia, a unique cultural melding occurred: pagans familiar with themes of sacrifice and resurrection found the Christian faith particularly resonant, and later myths reflect these influences.

Going into “Thor,” the latest big-budget, CGI-laden blockbuster from Marvel Studios, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I wasn’t familiar with Thor as a comic-book character, and hoped that some of the rich mythology underlying Thor’s origins would make its way onto the big screen. I was very pleasantly surprised: not only does “Thor” work as an exciting summer movie, it contains a surprisingly deep and complex story.

The film begins in Asgard, land of the gods (much like Mount Olympus). Impetuous Thor (Chris Hemsworth) prepares to take up the crown of his aging father Odin (a fantastic Anthony Hopkins). It is a time of peace and prosperity for the residents of Asgard: the evil jotuns (demonic-looking frost giants) have been quiet for many years, ensuring relative tranquility for the Asgardians. However, Thor’s jealous brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) envies Thor’s imminent accession to the throne. He subtly channels Thor’s militant brashness into antagonism against the frost giants, leading to a brutal battle on the ice world of Jotunheim. Infuriated that his son has reignited the ancient war, Odin banishes Thor to Earth and strips him of his magical hammer (the source of his power).

Enter Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her crew of scientific researchers. They discover Thor after his expulsion from Asgard, and (through a series of very funny scenes) teach him how to behave in 21st-century Earth culture. The group soon learns that Thor’s hammer has fallen into the keeping of S.H.I.E.L.D., a mysterious paramilitary organization with a particular interest in superheroes. As if that weren’t enough, still-vengeful Loki unleashes the Destroyer (a colossal, fire-spewing automaton) to dispatch the powerless Thor on Earth. From then on, the film builds to a thunderous climax that does justice to its mythological source material.

In the hands of anyone less skilled than director Kenneth Branagh, “Thor” might very well have been a disaster. This is the kind of story that depends on outstanding execution, and Branagh fully delivers. Deftly interweaving modernity with mythology (and incorporating Christian themes into the mix), “Thor” soars high above its less sophisticated Marvel siblings. The computer effects – while pervasive – are not garish or out of place. Asgard looks like a real (albeit mythological) city…unlike the bling-filled version of Mount Olympus offered up in last year’s “Clash of the Titans.” Battles with the frost giants feel appropriately intense and concussive. And the climactic duel between Thor and Loki – fought on a rainbow bridge under a star-filled sky – is simply astounding.

The actors also shine in their roles – especially Hiddleston, who portrays Loki. Loki succeeds as a nuanced character, not a myopically evil monster. Although misguided, his actions are understandable, and his motivations are complex. He inspires both anger and genuine pity – a difficult feat indeed for a summer movie supervillain. Leads Hemsworth and Portman are also effective in their roles, and, as expected, Hopkins brings immense gravitas to his role as Odin.

Perhaps the most fascinating element of “Thor,” however – and the one that surprised me the most – is the complexity of its worldview. Throughout the film, I found myself noticing a variety of Christian parallels. Though the film doesn’t work perfectly as an allegory (Thor is cast out of heaven through his own misguided ambition, and endures humiliation on his own account) themes of humble submission, divine justice, sacrifice, and resurrection pervade the movie. I was glad to see that these elements of Norse mythology had also been incorporated into the film – and even though the movie isn’t intended as an apologetic device, it’s rare that a secular, big-budget movie depicts Christian themes in a positive light.

(It is also worth noting here that the film’s seeming “paganism” is really nothing of the sort. Although it does employ Norse gods and goddesses, they are treated more as super-powered alien beings than as “deities” to be worshiped by humans. Sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke’s famous quote that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” is even mentioned, removing any problematic spiritual veneer from the film.)

Objectionable content comes down, in a nutshell, to violence. I’m honestly surprised the film earned a PG-13 rating – there’s no innuendo and virtually no profanity, and the combat scenes are heavily stylized. While some of the monsters could be frightening to younger viewers, “Thor” contains nothing seriously objectionable for teenage viewers.

Overall, “Thor” is a fun, thrilling summer blockbuster that should be required viewing for any fans of superhero films. Those not partial to effects-heavy, combat-filled movies won’t enjoy “Thor”…but those who enjoy their action flicks loud and explosive will find much to like here. What’s more, it contains some interesting elements for discussion that elevate it above its less-intelligent brethren. Definitely recommended.

VERDICT: 9/10
It’s not “Citizen Kane,” but “Thor” shines as one of the best superhero movies since “The Dark Knight.”

Normalized Score: 7.9

 
2 Comments

Posted by on May 26, 2011 in Fantasy

 

Book Review: “Love Wins”

Something has always concerned me about Rob Bell’s theology. Although many churches and youth groups swear by his popular series of NOOMA videos, Bell frequently seemed to offer his own theological opinions as dogmatic truth. Thus, when I first heard about “Love Wins” – Bell’s latest book, focusing on issues heaven and hell – I was skeptical. The excerpts offered did indeed seem to hint at universalism (the belief that all men will ultimately be reconciled to God), but I wanted to reserve judgment until I read the book for myself.

My initial impressions were correct. Bell’s book is a slickly packaged, postmodern synthesis of Christian truth and New Age sentimentalism, one that stays far beyond the pale of Christian orthodoxy. Through passionate emotional appeals (and blatant disregard for Scriptural context or historical scholarship) Bell offers up a dangerously seductive feel-good gospel.

The essential question the book attempts to answer is “why would a loving God create hell?” This is a question theologians throughout the centuries have wrestled with, but Bell outright ignores the centuries of past scholarship and discussion. It is clear from the start that Bell would prefer not to believe in hell; thus he relies on extraordinarily strained interpretations of Scripture to support his thesis.

Particularly striking is a passage in which Bell assesses the parable of the sheep and the goats (in which Jesus leads the sheep to everlasting life, and sends the goats away to everlasting punishment). Bell contends that the passage referring to “punishment” is simply mistranslated in most Bibles, and really should read “a time of pruning or correction.” I’m no Greek scholar, but I find it extraordinarily difficult to accept the notion that thousands of scholars have “mistranslated” the passage over the course of two millennia. (It’s worth noting that Bell never cites external authorities to justify his position).

Bell also presumes that all passages in which Jesus describes “coming judgment” are references to the destruction of Jerusalem. This conveniently sidesteps difficult verses like Matthew 10:28: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Now, I don’t believe God damns people to hell arbitrarily. I believe (as have many of the great minds of Christendom) that hell is the ultimate consequence of man’s rejection of God, rather than God’s rejection of man. Those who live and die in unrepentant sin face judgment. Bell’s gospel could, in theory, stand independently of Jesus: no mention is made of God’s righteous anger against sin and evil, which renders the atonement and resurrection ultimately superfluous. Bell believes in a God who is merciful, but not a God who is just. The mystery of how God could be both just and merciful has, through Christ, ultimately been revealed…but this view has no place in Bell’s heterodoxy.

Although he never explicitly says this, Bell implies that souls will have a “second chance” to repent after death. This openly disregards Hebrews 9:27: “…Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” Now, it’s fair to say that no one likes the idea of hell. It’s nasty and unpleasant to think about…and I’m willing to admit some uncertainty when it comes to this issue. I don’t know if people are confined in conscious or unconscious torment, if they’re being actively punished or simply forced to dwell in a condition of total separation from God …but I do know that as sinful human beings, we are only saved from hell through the blood of Jesus Christ.

The Bible offers us sufficient, but not exhaustive truth – we are told that Christ is the only way to salvation, and the Great Commission is our exhortation to spread the Word to others. I don’t know exactly what happens to souls who have never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel, which makes it all the more imperative that we as Christians take the Commission seriously. By presuming that all people – regardless of their beliefs – will eventually be reconciled to God, Bell renders the Commission toothless.

This review would be less harsh if Bell merely promoted universalism. But Bell takes his deviant theology one step further, offering up a dangerously subversive view of God that renders the book truly heretical.

Bell frequently casts “heaven” and “hell” in terms of our lives here on earth. This smacks strongly of New Age utopianism – the idea that once enough people get in touch with a sense of “cosmic love,” great things can happen. In keeping with this sentiment, Bell describes God as the “creative energy” that pervades all things, and goes on to state that “Obi-Wan called [this energy that is God] the Force.” This utterly depersonalizes God, reducing Him to a mystical cosmic presence that pervades all things, is infinitely benevolent, and will ultimately usher in a perfect utopian era. By rejecting the concept of a just and personal God who will ultimately hold the world accountable, Bell throws absolute truth and ethics to the wind. Ultimately, he embraces a pantheistic view of the Creator that deviates from Christian theology altogether.

This review isn’t meant to imply that there is nothing redemptive in “Love Wins.” Bell’s writing is powerful and poetic, and some of the points he makes are well taken. He calls for real action to help the downtrodden – a task that the church should indeed undertake. However, the theology that pervades the book is not merely universalist, but pantheist as well.

So why, then, is it so appealing to so many people?

Bell punctuates the book with heart-wrenching stories and anecdotes. Clearly, he has witnessed the pain and heartache of the world…but rather than eagerly anticipating a spiritual renewal and everlasting life, Bell offers up a decidedly unbiblical gospel. It may be “easier” and “happier” – but it undermines the ultimate reality of evil, and God’s holy nature. The world does hurt – and the Bible promises that God will ultimately judge evildoers through His righteousness.

Initial concerns about “Love Wins” were not unfounded. The gospel advanced by Bell is a serious departure from Christian theology. While it is a fascinating and compelling read, and useful for gaining a better understanding of cultural attitudes in the church today, it should not be treated as a source of truth. The message of the book drastically departs from a Scriptural understandings of eternity, and offers a disturbingly flawed concept of God Himself.

I pray that Rob Bell recognizes the dangers of what he has written, and adopts a more Biblically sound position in future works. A book as powerful and appealing as “Love Wins” will reach a broad audience, and I sincerely hope it doesn’t lead both Christians and unbelievers astray.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on May 2, 2011 in Contemporary