IJ & Crystal Skull: "I Want My Money Back!"

WARNING: spoilers ahead.



I took my family to see "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" on Sunday night while we were on a short trip upstate. We stayed in "The Jameson Inn" on Clemson Road, then spent Memorial Day hiking to waterfalls near Walhalla. In any case, I spent $39 for this piece of entertainment. To be brief, I want my money back.



Clearly, the Indiana Jones franchise has "jumped the shark." Of course, IJ is known for his thrill-packed action sequences, but seeing a group of 4-5 people go over three consecutive South American Niagra-type waterfalls of over 50 feet each in a military style amphibious vehicle - all the while staying in or very near the vehicle - well, I checked out.

Picture

Also, the whole "alien" motif was, in my opinion, lame. Nice try.



IJ is known for action sequences with a supernatural element thrown in. "Raiders" was with Judaism; "Temple of Doom" was with some kind of tribal Hinduism (I think); "Last Crusade" was with Christianity; "Crystal Skull" was with extra-terrestrial life? I suppose the supernatural element had nowhere to go to gain my sympathies. But aliens? It didn't work. I would have been happier even with a "Scooby-Do" type "it looks supernatural but its really not" kinda thing.



Harrison Ford is old...like really OLD. Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood, again, she is OLD. The magic was not there, though I liked the "family" element, that Indy and Marion had conceived a son together. I thought that was kinda cute.



The Russians were nice enemies, though again, the Nazis are simply too much fun to hate. I can't quite hate the Russians in the same way.



The Cate Blanchett character, Irian Spalko, was...just weird.

So, all in all, the romance was weak, the supernatural element was too fanciful, and the stunts unbelievable. IMHO, "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" are great; "Temple of Doom" and "Crystal Skull" are too dark or too weird/overdone.

Irmo High Principal Resigns Over Gay Club

The principal of Irmo High School, here in Columbia (about 2 miles from my house!) resigned recently over the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance Club in his school. Read the story here. He resigned because the club conflicts with his professional and religious beliefs. I respect his decision (he was apparently a popular principal), but I'm not sure that this is the right course of action. If every Christian did that, this would be an easy way to rid the government school system of Christians, just start up Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs and off go the Christians. Must we agree with everything the courts demand of us? In any case, my heart goes out to this man of conviction who has made a very difficult choice. (Photo from FOXNews website)

UPDATE: "Prince Caspian" Shocker!

Could it be? Some are suggesting that the movie, "Prince Caspian," is actually BETTER than the book! GASP!


Fredrica Mathews Green writes an interesting piece in NRO. Her discussion ranges wide, touching other movies that were better than the books that inspired them. [BTW, she includes in that list _Lord of The Rings_, which will infuriate some philo-Tolkien-ists, but...I actually agree.]


Having reread the book so close to seeing the movie, I can see why she says Prince Caspian the movie is better than Prince Caspian the book. After finishing PC, I told my wife, "This is not the best of the Chronicles of Narnia." Green makes some of the same points I was thinking about. There actually isn't a whole lot of action in the book (one battle scene), whereas the movie has three major battles. It seems most of the book is taken up with the Pevensie children traveling to get to Prince Caspian, whereas the movie covers that journey pretty quickly.


John Mark Reynolds writes a positive review as well. He doesn't discuss how the movie trumps the film as much as Green does; rather, his is a reflection on how good the film was. I agree. My kids loved it, and I want to go see it again.

"Prince Caspian" Movie Review

OK, so we all, the whole fam, went to see "Prince Caspian" on Saturday. We had actually just watched LWW again that morning, so the first volume was fresh in my mind.

(CAUTION: there will be some spoilers ahead!)

First, I was impressed by the action. For the first 20 minutes, I felt like the movie grabbed me by the throat and wouldn't let go! Very good.

Second, the fight scenes were much better than LWW. They kept the lighting dark, which was one of my complaints against LWW in which the big battle scene was so "sunny" that I thought they should be having a picnic rather than fighting a war with the White Witch. This time, Adamson kept things dark which added to the realism and other worldliness of Narnia.

Third, they took certain liberties with the story-line, but all in all, I was not disappointed in what they did. For example, the book starts out with the four children at the train station, but the movie begins with Caspian's flight from the castle. They also added later a fight scene at the castle which does not appear in the book at all. Nevertheless, it was well done. There is a very moving scene in that section of a minotaur holding up the gate of the castle so many his comrades can escape. My kids all spoke of that scene later when we shared our opinions of the movie.

Fourth, there was some romantic tension between Queen Susan and Prince Caspian during the whole movie, but at the end, it all comes out and Queen Susan goes up to the prince (now King!) and lays one on the lips! It was a bit shocking at first, but as I thought about it, it was appropriate. Peter and Susan aren't children any more, and that scene underscored the maturity of the older two Pevensie children.

Which leads me to this: Fifth, I was surprised how attached I've become to these actors/actresses who portray the Pevensies. When Peter and Susan announce they won't be coming back, I got all teared up. It was kind of a "Puff the Magic Dragon" moment; they are too old for Narnia now. All my affection for these literary characters has been transferred to these young actors; I suppose that means they have done their jobs well!

Sixth, the guy who played the dwarf Trumpkin was amazing. You'll know what I mean when you see it.

Some differences between the book and the movie

I reread the book yesterday so I could contrast it with the movie while the movie was still fresh in my mind. Here's a summary of prominent contrasts:

The book starts with the four whereas the movie begins with Caspian's ride.

The book sets the train station as a small country station with no one else present; the movie sets the train station in busy London and the scene is one of chaos (and therefore Peter's fight with other students is totally created; I don't know why. Peter comes out looking rather bad in the movie.)

The book devotes considerable space to the relationship between Caspian and his tutor, Dr. Cornelius. The movie barely develops Dr. Cornelius at all.

When Caspian is found, the book puts three (Trumpkin, Nikakbrik and Trufflehunter) in a cave; the movie puts only Nik and Truff, and it is in a tree, not a cave.

Chapter VI there is a prominent scene of fawns dancing; there's no dancing, that I remember, in the movie.

In the book, Caspian blows the horn after some initial battles with King Miraz's forces; in the movie, he blows the horn almost immediately, when he is still riding away from the castle.

The book devotes considerable space to Trumpkin and the children rowing in a boat to get off the island. I don't remember much rowing at all in the movie. The whole travel sequence is abbreviated.

In the book, the bridge at Beruna simply disappears, whereas in the movie, the bridge is the scene of another battle.

Well, there are many more differences, but these are illustrative. I think the spirit of the book was preserved, even if a few liberties were taken here and there. All in all, WELL DONE! This is better than "LWW," and I hope "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" (my personal favorite) (2010) will be better still.

A Fetus's Worst Nightmare

Check out this post at "Between Two Worlds" on Barak Obama's abortion commitments. Frightening. Horrific.

12 Spiritual Lessons from Prince Caspian

I thought this was a great article, written by Kris Rasmussen. Read it here. The movie opens today, I believe.

I'm summarizing the 12 main points here, but the whole thing is worth the read.

1. Time Really Is Relative.

2. Let Go of Great Expectations.

3. Faith Shouldn't Be Decided by a Majority Vote.

4. Hang on to Faith in a Culture of Doubt.

5. Fear Not, for God is With You.

6. Be Thankful for Blessings in Disguise.

7. Make Time to Enjoy God's Presence.

8. Actions Can Have Lasting Consequences.

9. Vanity Corrupts Character.

10. Loyalty and Sacrifice will be Rewarded.

11. Stick Close to Your Spiritual Family.

12. Leaders Are Made, Not Born.

So Much for Separation of Church and State

This flyer says it all. Unbelievable. Find it here.

"Over A Barrel" - Ariel Cohen article

Today on the Rush Limbaugh show, Rush read a column by Ariel Cohen, who is Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Davis International Studies Institute at the Heritage Foundation. He is a specialist in Russian, Turkish, and Israeli issues. Here's the first paragraph:

As you go deep into debt filling up your tank with $4 gas this weekend, look on the bright side - you're helping to fund countries that hate you.

Read the whole article here. His analysis is, imho, excellent, as was Rush's commentary.

Here's his conclusion:

To stave it off and to combat its oil-rich adversaries, the US needs, in the short term, to expand its domestic energy sector. Increasing oil and gas production in the West, along the Pacific and Atlantic continental shelf, and in Alaska will help, and so will a coal and nuclear power build-up.

The US Congress should also abolish corn ethanol subsidy and lift tariffs on the really competitive ethanol made from sugar cane. Brazil and Africa can produce more ethanol than Iowa and Nebraska. However, in the long term, more advanced technological solutions are vital to stem the global wealth redistribution to OPEC potentates and other America-haters.

Narnia Character Quiz

I'm Prince Caspian; so is my son, Andrew. Who are you?

Find out here.

Israel at Sixty

May 15th, 1948 is "Independence Day" for Israel, so this year will mark the 60th anniversary. Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic.com has written a thoughtful reflection on Israel's present state. Read it here. Here's one quote, from a prominent Israeli writer:

“[Prime Minister of Israel] Olmert is paralyzed because the people are paralyzed,” A. B. Yehoshua said. “The whole country is paralyzed.”

The article discusses many issues, especially the war in Lebanon in 2006, the settlements in the West Bank, Hamas/Hezbollah/Fatah, the Two State solution, the recent killings at a Jerusalem yeshiva, and the current angst among Israelis. The article focuses especially on a rift between PM Ehud Olmert and a prominent Israeli novelist, David Grossman, who lost his son Uri in the war in Lebanon. The article is a bit long, but very informative.

As I read it, I was struck by the wide spectrum of opinion among Israelis, which, in one sense, is nothing unusual. However, I was struck by how similar the situation is today to the First century. In Israel today, we see ultra-leftists, concerned with human rights, etc., calling for reconciliation with the Palestinians. On the other hand, we see the intransigent and recalcitrant Jewish settlers who will never leave the West Bank and for whom compromise is equivalent to religious apostacy and national treason. Caught in the middle are many, many families - on both sides, Jew/Arab - trying to live their lives in relative peace and prosperity.

In a sense, not much has changed. Think of the situation in the First century. We had the ultra-leftists, who advocated compromise with Rome and the hard-line zealots, who advocated open rebellion.

The Attraction of Liturgy

An article in CT discusses briefly the attraction liturgy has for evangelicals. Here's a quote:

The worship leaders wear medieval robes and guide the congregation through a ritual that is anything but spontaneous; they lead music that is hundreds of years old; they say prayers that are scripted and formal; the homily is based on a 2,000-year-old book; and the high point of the service is taken up with eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a Rabbi executed in Israel when it was under Roman occupation. It doesn't sound relevant.

Read the whole thing here. The article did not discuss why I am attracted to liturgy though.

Evangelical Political Involvement?

Joe Carter, whose blog is one of the leading Christian voices in the blogosphere, writes that evangelicals in the political process are like unicorns: powerful in the imagination, but factually non-existent. Here's a powerful pull quote:

More Christians voted for the 5th place contestant on last week's American Idol than have petitioned to defund abortion mills.

Ouch! Read the whole thing here.