Age of Ultron Review

I've been a fan of the Marvel movies ever since Sam Raimi's Spider-man. They've never quite been my favorite movies, but I've definitely joined the hype of each new Marvel phase and the lead up to the Avengers. I thought the first movie was pretty good, but unlike most I felt it could have been better. The story was pretty cliche and the draw was merely that they were able to balance the movie between so many characters and still make it good. And I do give them credit for that. However, this time around the movie had a more interesting story, but didn't succeed as well as what the first Avengers was praised for: balancing so many characters. It was kind of like watching a juggler attempting to juggle even more balls than the first time and he never drops them, but he comes awfully close at times. It's cool, but not as impressive as someone who juggles them with ease.  I'm really more looking forward to Captain America: Civil War coming out next year, which will feature Iron Man and a few other heroes, but has the benefit of not being stretched out by so many characters as the Avengers.

Another flaw in trying to do so much is that many important aspects were rushed by without enough development. The main villain Ultron gets an extremely rushed introduction and his motives never quite feel like they were justified to the viewer.

But aside from the movie-making flaws, there were some wordlview issues that troubled me about this movie.

Age of Ultron seemed at one point to be pushing a secular humanist worldview. Josh Whedon is very liberal. The first Avengers was oddly conservative for him, with a very strong theme of liberty. One of my favorite lines from the first movie is when Captain America says, "There's only one God... and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that." This is one of the few times I've been in a theater and the audience cheered and clapped. And it's barely at the beginning of the movie.

But this movie takes a very different tone towards God. You may think I'm over-reacting. But the movie itself makes many explicit references to God and the Bible.

First, at the beginning of the movie Captain America calls out Tony Stark for his use of bad language. It becomes a running gag throughout the movie that Rogers is just old-fashioned and that's why he's not comfortable with foul language. Other characters make fun of him for it. It would be in character for the Capt. to stand up for what he believes. But instead he completely bends over and at the end of the movie curses himself and merely laughs it off. Rather than being a leader, Captain America conforms to peer pressure.

But the language thing is minor compared to Ultron. The movie seems to be subtly equating Utlron with the God of the Bible. Though they don't quite go all the way with this so I could be wrong. Essentially the question that was raised was: Is man basically good or evil? Ultron says we're evil, the Avengers seem to think we're good. However, they never quite answer this question in the movie. A Godless world will want the answer to be that we're basically good. But reality doesn't really match this answer. Even in the movie we see the Avengers' own sins causing huge problems and no real solution to the problem of sin is given. There are particularly strong and moving scenes with Black Widow and Bruce Banner grieving over their past sins and struggling to find their new identify apart from their past actions. The movie reflects the back-and-forth tension people feel when faced with this question in its own lack of conclusion.

MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW
The Vision and Blasphemy: The Vision appears to be a morally perfect being, more powerful than any of the Avengers, able to wield Thor's hammer and refers to himself as, "I am" (the name of God). He is a man-made creature (thought not entirely since the infinity stone gave him life) who seems to be the answer to the question of human evil: If we can just work hard enough through human ingenuity and technology we can transcend our own sinfulness and become like God. If you remember in Scripture this is how the serpent tempted Adam and Eve: "You will be like God..." There were other subtle things too, like the "Jarvis is my co-pilot" sign, a spoof of the "Jesus is my co-pilot" stickers.

Ultron makes numerous references to the Bible and Christianity. He even centers his operation in a church and quotes Jesus. Sitting in the church Ultron says, "They put the building in the middle of the city, so that everyone could be equally close to God. I like that, the symmetry, the geometry of belief." When he begins to gather vibranium for his army he states, "Upon this rock I will build my church". He justifies his destruction of humanity by saying it's what God did in Noah's day. The message seems to be clear: The God of the Bible is like Ultron. Once a noble idea, but ultimately flawed, incomplete, overly judgement, emotional and out-of-date. The Vision is humanity: taking the old idea, "perfecting" it and ultimately taking its place. Man essentially elevates either himself or his creation to usurp God's place, while God himself is painted as an evil tyrant who just doesn't understand us.

But remember earlier when I said they don't go all the way with this? Well, the movie is just vague enough to be interpreted differently. Jessica Gibson writes for Christianity Today,

He doesn’t want to acknowledge it, but Ultron is conspicuously human. He talks and jokes like a person, and at his inception, he has the naiveté and fear of a child. Like all human children, he has a sin nature; his first act as a “living” thing is essentially a murder (Cain and Abel parallel, anybody?). He was made by fallen people, and that fallenness becomes his identity and purpose.

If Ultron embodies collective human sin, the Avengers embody individual, personal sin and the struggle to do good despite being fallen. The heroes confront their own ambition, selfishness, arrogance, and fear; Tony owns up to Bruce, “We’re monsters, buddy.” They despair of their ability to fight the evil in themselves, much less the evil in Ultron. They recover their hope and purpose by affirming their faith in each other and relying on their strength as a team.

Sam Robinson writes from Reel-Gospel.com,

Really, a bad guy hell-bent on power is what we see in every single Marvel movie. In Avengers, it was Loki forcing people to bow before him. But this extra twist of Ultron being created by Stark, and living in rebellion to that, is all too similar to the gospel.
God made us, and we chose to be ‘free’ from him. We thought we had no strings, and that we could live our own way, be our own God. But this just results in hostility. Our default is hostility before our maker, and there’s no way out.
True freedom comes when Jesus steps in to take our rebellion on himself and forgive us. He saves us better than any Avenger could. And this mends the relationship between us and our creator. Romans 5:10 –

For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

Ultron thinks he is God. We think we are God. But God is God. And he is gracious to us, even though we try and achieve freedom from him time and time again.

  Those are certainly some positive points to consider. Again, it's unclear what the writers were going for, or if its even fair to give them enough credit that they were even going for anything. However, if the writers weren't going for anything they certainly were foolish in having The Vision pronounce blasphemy. Looking at reviews online I found many Christians who were very turned off by his "I am" line. This is a rather extreme departure from the "There's only one God" line from the first Avengers.

Peter Chattaway writes in Patheos,

So instead of merely bringing Ultron down from his self-appointed pedestal, the way the Hulk so hilariously brought Loki back down to earth, Avengers: Age of Ultron actually sets up a “good” godlike being in opposition to Ultron’s “bad” godlike being.
And lest we miss the point that The Vision is meant to be a kind of god, there is a bumper sticker in the cockpit of Stark’s plane that says “Jarvis Is My Co-Pilot”, and The Vision himself simply says “I am” at one point, in a way that clearly evokes the name God gave for himself at the burning bush.

...

Tony Stark, before uploading Jarvis into that same body, tells Bruce Banner that they are “mad scientists” and that they need to “own” this side of themselves by doing the very meddling with nature that all the science-fiction stories say they shouldn’t — and since The Vision turns out so well, maybe Stark is vindicated, or redeemed, or something like that. Maybe, as far as this movie is concerned, humans really can play God, by making new gods.

Essentially, the movie is saying that we can play God so long as we get it right the second time. Or does it? Is Ultron a commentary on the God of the Bible, or is Ultron just another villain with a god-complex? The film doesn't really give much in way of resolution to any of the questions it raised at the end, possibly in an attempt to leave it open to interpretation or even merely the writers biting off more than they can chew. In addition, the end credits feature the characters in marble-like statues harkening back to the Greek gods (although in real life those statues were usually made out of bronze, but that's what it reminds the audience of). So much for subtlety.

Is Heaven is for Real for Real?

Really?

Do some people really visit heaven and come back? The short answer is I don't know/it depends. In some cases, I would say probably not, with others I might say maybe or even more than likely.

But lately some Christians have been sharing John MacArthur and David Platt's comments on the phenomena. And while I have a great deal of respect for both of these Christian leaders, I have to say I disagree with their analysis. (I should start off by saying that I did read the book, but I have not seen the movie.)

Platt says that in Scripture they're often visions, not actual trips. But Colton's book actually describes a vision because his dad admits that Colton didn't actually die.

MacArthur says, "Readers not only get a twisted, unbiblical picture of heaven; they also imbibe a subjective, superstitious, shallow brand of spirituality."
This may be true of some accounts but not Heaven is for Real. I read the book and I found nothing that was unbiblical. Everything Colton claimed to see is consistent with Scripture.

"They say comparatively little about God or His glory. "
This kind of thing makes me think MacArthur and Platt didn't even read the book. It actually does say a lot about God and His glory. Platt says that Colton says he got a halo and wings but didn't like them because they were too small. I've read the book and I don't remember ever reading anything like that. If someone can quote this part from the book, I'll gladly stand corrected. Otherwise, it seems Plat is either making things up or going off pure hearsay.

The rest of what he says is an argument from ignorance fallacy. The Bible doesn't record lots of things, that doesn't mean they don't happen. Paul didn't write his letter to talk about what he saw in heaven, but that doesn't mean he never shared some of what he was allowed to speak of in conversation. I've personally known several people who've had these experiences (two of heaven, one of hell). They showed no desire to share them publicly and were very hesitant to share even in a small intimate group. That makes it hard to say that they were just making it up as they'd have no reason to do so.

It's true that we can never know for sure if someone's account of heaven is real. We don't depend on that to know, we depend on the revelation of Scripture and the person of Jesus. But we cannot automatically discount someone else's experience either. So then what is the purpose of these trips if not to prove heaven? I'll direct you to this excellent article on Christianity Today.

We can't just put a blanket statement on something like this and say it can't ever happen. Like all things we should examine each scenario to see if it lines up with Scripture. I've read Burpo's book and it was consistent with Scripture. I've noticed a trend in Christians who bash these books: they can never point out exactly where it contradicts Scripture. If anyone can point out a contradiction, then please do because obviously Scripture wins out over a four-year old in the end. But until then, there's no reason to bash this book out of a desire to appear pious in the eyes of men.

The Gospel According to The Desolation of Smaug

My Review of The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

I must start out by saying that though I am a pretty big Tolkien fan, the book The Hobbit was never one of my favorites. I'm not gonna lie, I never cared that much for it. The movie, to me, is far more interesting because it incorporates the themes from LotR that made me fall in love with it in the first place.

Though this movie had its flaws. It's kind of annoying that every time Jackson thinks he needs a drive in the story: RANDOM ORC ATTACK! (It felt like Indiana Jones at times, which are not some of my favorite movies, and are *not* what I look for in a Tolkien movie.) And Orcs traveling in the day? What's up with that? But overall, I actually find the movie an improvement over the book. I never like the book that much, especially compared to LotR. I'm reading it again now and it only confirms it even more: if I can say this without getting stoned, the movie is actually better than the book.

Yes, there's a little loss of the idealized loyalty and bravery, etc. But not much. In the book, the Dwarves had no personalities. Only Thorin. The rest were just names with a few physical descriptions. In the movie, each Dwarf has a distinct personality and Jackson even attempts to give some their own story by splitting the company up in Desolation.

Critics, and so-called Tolkien purists point out that The Hobbit isn't about a grand plot to use the dragon to fight for Sauron. But Tolkien *did* write that that was the reason Gandalf started the quest: exactly like it's described in the movie: he's concerned that Sauron will use Smaug. It would have been one thing if they had made the Hobbit first. But because we've seen LotR already, we need more. It would have been a far inferior movie to LotR if they had only stuck with what's in the book, just as the book The Hobbit is inferior compared to LotR. No one but a few Tolkien purists would have liked it.

I originally was just expecting a straight-forward adaption of the book, and it did not excite me. LotR is my favorite movie ever. The thought of seeing the Hobbit made into a movie was cool and all, but it just seemed like too little, too late after seeing LotR. But when I saw the movies I was pleasantly surprised by how much Tolkien they put in the movies. Seeing the first one actually made me excited to see the rest, something that I *really* was not expecting. (Haha, get it?)

It's true that the swashbuckling detracted form potential character development, but there was none in the book to begin with. There's far more character development in the movie.

The Gospel According To...
If someone asked me where the gospel is in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, I'd say it's in the kingsfoil (athelas). A plant that was thought useless, and even a nuisance, by most is the key to healing life. 

1 Corinthians 1:20-29

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

"When the the black breath blows
and death's shadow grows
and all lights pass,
come athelas! come athelas!
Life to the dying
in the king's hand lying!"

- Return of the King

It's true that, really, only Aragorn is supposed to be able to use the kingsfoil, but it may be fair to say that he learned it from the elves. 

The book didn't have as many strong parallels to Christianity as LotR, but the incorporation of a darker tone and more themes from LotR into the movie makes for some great parallels. This is one reason I grew to like Tauriel. She wasn't a feminist, like I thought she'd be. She retained a very feminine charm, despite her arrow-throwing. And she spoke in a very 'high Tolkien' way, with her love of the stars and all.  But, as a Tolkien nerd, the kingsfoil scene really won me over.