Having got that intro info out of the way, I’ll get to the movie. One of the things I liked about [Iron Man][1] is the portrayal of a superhero that lacks any super human ability innately — it all comes from the suit that Tony Stark (Iron Man) builds (much like Batman doesn’t have any super powers either). The superhero isn’t some mutant or alien or anything like that, but a man who has seen injustice and decided to do what he can about it. This movie chronicles Tony Stark’s struggle to come to terms with an unjust world: before he makes Iron Man, he is a brilliant and wealthy weapons designer for our military. Arrogant and cold to the world around him, his life consists of work, gambling, womanizing and in general, whatever he wants. This all changes though after being kidnapped by a terrorist group and faced with the reality that its not just the good guys using his weapons: the bad guys use them too and many times the supposed good guys are either propping them up (in the case of his company) or just ignoring the fact (our military). Radically shifting his focus, he takes on eyes that see a world that needs protection and vows never to make another weapon that could end up in the hands of the bad guys and instead seeks to eradicate the weapons they do have.

Because of the background work that has to be done (this is the first Iron Man movie), the story starts slowly and creates at first glance a lead that you don’t think you are going to like. That quickly changes though as Tony escapes from the terrorists in Rev 1 of the suit. And really, after this point, doesn’t really stop until the end. I’ve got to give props to Robert Downey, Jr as well; he does an excellent job as the arrogant Tony Stark. I thought of him as a ridiculous choice for a super hero when this movie was announced but he pulls it off quite well. Now, I wouldn’t be able to see anyone else playing the part. Overall, I’d give [Iron Man][1] 4 of 5 stars (due to the slow start and the mildly lame end fight to cap things off).

[1]:http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/ironman/

[1]:http://mbjones.net/2008/04/21/expelled-or-why-i-wont-be-seeing-it/
[2]:http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/2008/04/29/1360329.html
[3]:http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/04/expelled_now_with_added_antise.php
[4]:http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=999

Now, to back up a bit, [Expelled][1] is an ID (*intelligent design*) documentary that looked to have promise when I first heard about it. Ben Stein and company were going to take a serious look at the plight of ID scientists in the field, or so I thought. In the end it seems to be nothing more than more propaganda, no different than one would expect out of a Michael Moore documentary (which I’m somewhat proud to say I’ve never seen).

The first hint that I was going to be more disgusted than excited at this film came from reading the [tale of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins][2] in getting into the opening screening. To make a long story short, Myers — one of the evolutionary scientists *interviewed for the film* was kicked out (they let Dawkins in though — he was also interviewed but wasn’t recognized).

That got me reading further into things. It turns out that the producers outright lied to the scientists in order to get them to talk on camera. They claimed the interviews were for a movie entitled *Crossroads* that explored honestly the intersection of faith and science. Funny thing is though that the domain name for [Expelled][1] was reserved and set up months before the interviews occurred and the domain for Crossroads *was never reserved*, making intentions pretty obvious.

So we’ve moved from expelling some of the participants from the screening (something I’d look down on but could forgive) to outright dishonesty. There is a lot more “dishonesty” involved in this flick though so don’t be easily fooled if you do go and see it. [Scientific American][1] lists 6 things in particular that immediately jump out as dishonest:

1. Misquoting sources (particularly the quotes linking Charles Darwin to the holocaust).
2. Ben Stein’s speech was a setup, staged at Pepperdine and filled with extras paid off by the production company.
3. I’ve already discussed their third item: the dishonest interviews.
4. The ID researcher who “lost his job” was never actually an employee of the Smithsonian Institute. This is a big one because one of the primary premises of the movie is that scientists are losing jobs left and right because of this issue which isn’t really true. If you want to look at OU, we have many ID sympathetic professors, but that’s another story.
5. A weaker weakness. Could take this one either way. Basically the approach of science towards evolution and ID isn’t accurately portrayed.
6. Specifically chose to interview *only* atheistic scientists and not any of the Christian scientists that might be sympathetic to evolutionary views. (*”Mathis explained that his presence would have “confused” viewers. But the reality is that showing Miller would have invalidated the film’s major premise that evolutionary biologists all reject God.”*)

And thus we are left with a documentary that pulls out all of the tricks to sucker people into believing everything they say. Again, there really aren’t any difference in the above tactics and the charges commonly leveled against folks like Michael Moore. And it’s a shame that this is all done under the guise of Christianity and a “Christian” film. Those that are going to be seeing it already have their minds made up about the ID issue and those that ***should*** be exposed to some ID thought aren’t going to want anything to do with it. In their words,

“Christians have a growing reputation for their appreciation of dishonesty.” (from [here][2])

and

“Lying for Jesus” (from [here][3])

So hopefully this all explains why I don’t have much interest in seeing [Expelled][1]. I’d love it though if someone actually did what the producers told Myers, Dawkins and others they were going to do (namely create a serious exploration of the intersection of faith and science). Here’s to hoping they do, and here’s to hoping for integrity in any film-making that’s going to be in some way associated with Christ.

[1]:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&page=3
[2]:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/a_late_night_quick_one.php
[3]:http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

The Story

Atonement is a story told in two acts (with a prologue bringing everything together). It starts by featuring the story of two well-to-do sisters, one 13 and the other several years older, living in England just before the outbreak of WWII. The younger of the two, Briony, witnesses events she’s not quite able to wrap her mind around and does the unthinkable: tells a lie that lands Robbie (the love of the older sister Cecilia) in jail.

The story then fast forwards four years. Robbie is out of jail, having been forced to fight in the war. Cecilia is a nurse in London, having disowned her family for their refusal to support Robbie. And Briony is beginning to feel the gravity of what she did. Having found each other again, Robbie is anxious to get back to his love (as is Cecilia!) and Briony struggles to make amends for her past actions.

As I said it ends with a prologue that ties everything together. Instead of a fast forward of just a few years, the story jumps about 40. And an elderly Briony is finally able to find some, however small, means of atoning for her actions.

The Themes

I couldn’t help but like this film, primarily because of the themes it deals with (and the way in which it deals with them). It is a vivd exploration of the darker side of humanity — the side we all try to hide — and the quest for some semblance of reconciliation. Broadly, the power of words (written words, specifically) and their ability to create and destroy is toyed with. It’s in her words that Briony sins most notably and then its in her words that she’s able to find some since of atonement as well. The personal struggle and weight of sins also carried much of the second act and the accent on our darker emotions (jealousy, anger, lust, fear, etc) were able to bring forth in sense of urgency in the characters struggle for atonement.

Conclusion

One of the things I really enjoyed about this movie was the audio/visual clues that seem to hone in and reinforce the themes present. The percussive beat of a typewriter drives many (probably most) of the tense moments. And the movie starts with a play and it ends with a novel (both written struggles to understand complex emotions) and contains many written pieces throughout that seem to just highlight the struggle with and power of our word. And another visual clue that you could guarantee to highlight an important scene: the color red. Red is an interesting color — it highlights our sin, it highlights love and passion, and (for the spiritual) it also highlights the atoning work of blood. It’s used in all of these ways throughout the entirety of the film: the red wall in the library, blood flowing into the fountain, hospital curtain that surrounds Briony and the frenchman, the cape she wears throughout much of the second act, and the tulips in the closing scene. Truth be told, much color is washed out in the majority of the movie, but the color red almost never is. And there are other colors giving visual clues as well (Cecilia’s deep green dress vs the love/life she’s about to embrace, etc) the continued presence of red just jumps out though.

As to dislikes, I don’t think the story was developed quite well enough. This could just be my general ambivalence towards love stories in general but I didn’t feel that I was connecting strongly enough with Cecilia and Robbie. While I think a certain degree of disconnect between them and the audience was necessary to drive in the final moments, I still thought that their story could have been better developed. And the same goes for other pieces as well. Even though this film was quite long, several of the scenes felt a bit too rushed (entrance of Briony in the second act and the wedding seen immediately come to mind) and could have been further developed. All things said and done, thankfully none of this detracted greatly from the film overall.

And that brings me to the conclusion in which I say again that I really enjoyed Atonement and find it well worth seeing. As previously mentioned though, know that it is quite heavy and not exactly happy (or in some ways hopeful). Incidentally, the author of the novel (Ian McEwan) I regularly see lumped in with the so-called “new atheists.” As such don’t expect any particular Christian message. Outside of loose circumstances and symbolism you certainly won’t find any. But go with an interest in atonement and reconciliation and the power of our words and be open to the weight at which our sins weigh us down. And as the characters struggle to find some means of atonement within themselves and in their own actions, be thankful for the work that was done for us.

The cinematic themes were certainly interesting. Will Smith did a fantastic job portraying a man deprived of human contact for years. It was certainly interesting to watch the psychological breakdown of one plagued by his own echoing voice by day (and the scream of vampiric zombies by night). His relationship with man’s best friend (Sammy, a german shepherd) and the mannequins he’s placed around common haunts is intriguing, particularly as they begin to breakdown.

Another interesting thread is rooted in the spiritual side of things. The good doctor passes numerous “God is for us!” signs. He himself shows no signs of faith though until the very end. Instead he approaches the tragedy at first as man undoing himself irregardless of God (“God didn’t do this; we did”). Within this worldview, nature isn’t in the hand of a sovereign God; humanity (or probably better put: science) is king. Salvation cannot be found though apart from a higher, guiding force, forcing Dr. Neville to confront a faith he never had. And just as with any story seriously examining salvation themes, a sacrifice is required.

All things considered I really enjoyed this movie. It wasn’t nearly as violent as other zombie movies I’ve seen, yet it was able to explore similar themes. The acting was superb as well. Smith does a fantastic job sharing the screen with just himself. There were downsides though. I was hoping for a highly level of intensity. Stylistically, intensity can draw you into a film much more easily than an even keel pace. And while the film makers did a good job of intermixing back story with the film’s present, I felt the story could have been better presented. Overall I’d give it 3.5-4 stars out of 5 (the final verdict is still out for me) and recommend anyone see it.