“UP” Up and Away: A Review of the Pixar Film

It seems cliché by now to say that Pixar cannot do any better with each distinctive film they create for their ever-growing library of films, but indeed they have done it again. UP is a compelling, heartwarming adventure movie that grabs you by the heartstrings from the opening montage, and never lets go as the adventures of main characters Carl and Russell takes various twists and turns. All in all, UP ranks up at the top of the list of the great PIXAR films as they continue to outdo themselves with each unique story and animation experience.

To say the movie is a “house-flying-by-balloons” movie, as we were led to believe by the promotion, is a gross misstatement. What we have is a story about an older gentleman Carl who is hoping to fulfill the lifetime dream of his late wife and himself as they seek to make it to Paradise Falls in South America, their fictional shangra la. Adventurers from their childhood days, they were made for each other, and promised themselves to fulfill all their hopes and dreams at some point in their lives. But life's journeys had another path for them as they discovered they would not have children, as their vacation savings dwindled with unforeseen expenses. Carl's wife would pass, and so would his dreams. Again fate steps in and as Carl is mandated to leave his beloved home with all its memories, the balloons come out and the house lifts into the air, and the adventure begins.

Here lies the primary charm of all PIXAR films. Flying homes, talking dogs (to provide the comic relief), rainbow colored birds, 80-year old heroes/villians and exotic locales may be in many people's minds foolish and suspending of reality. For PIXAR though the story is crafted so that in the time you watch the narrative unfold, you suspend your disbelief. You believe this house can fly...just as you once believed your toys talks, that super heroes lived among us, and that there was a secret monster world that got its power through screams. That is the power of PIXAR storytelling.

Along with the power of the story and the script is the amazing visuals that detail the adventure of Carl and young adventure scout Russell as they fly through cities, thunderstorms, and lush jungles. The artists create amazing landscapes without making it the focus of the movie. In past PIXAR films, the new achievements in animation (water in Nemo and the hair of Sully in Monsters, Inc. for example) were part of the appeal, but here the animation is certainly what you expect without being one of the primary draws. That said, the color of each balloon is brilliant and adds an amazing touch to what you are seeing on the screen—along with the breathtaking colors of the bird character Kevin.

Other good tidbits from the movie:

• The score is effective in helping to move the story along without being intrusive and annoying. Much of the first 15 minutes of the film is without dialogue and you are drawn in from the start. Michael Giacchino is one of the finest composers working in film today, and I hope he gets some love from the academy at Oscar time. To hear more of his work see the TV show LOST, or movies The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Star Trek, among others.
• The voice cast is top notch as in all PIXAR films, without being a sellout to the pop culture phenom/voice of the moment—think Shrek. Their voice talents are famous, but not to the point where the focus is on them and not the story or the animation. Bravo.

Anything wrong with the movie?:
It is really hard to think of anything...while the talking dogs gag may have lasted a little too long, it was necessary to make this a kids movie too. As an adult who obviously loves storytelling and animation, I can put up with the funny talking dogs—the recreation of the “poker-playing-dogs” painting was priceless—as comic relief.

In closing: some spiritual questions to think about within the film: How as we grow older do we allow life to become stagnant and we loose our zest for life? How do we keep our passions for life flourishing when we loose somebody we love very much? What in life is most important?

All in all, a great film, PIXAR is 10 for 10.

“What would the basics of faith look like?”
Acts 10: 34-48
***originally preached at Colonial Place Christian Church, May 17, 2009


We hear so often that people need to get back to the basics of life, and we often hear churches say it is time we get back to the basics of “church life”? A dozen years ago or so a famous Christian music group became famous for a song by that very name.


I ask you a question...what would the church look like if we all were back to the basics? What are the basics? Food and water—no. Reading, writing and arithmetic—no. But the basics, the basics of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not the things that divide us, but the things that unite us. JOHN 3:16. Probably the most basic verse we have in the New Testament. It draws us together as Christians, as followers of Christ.


We can argue about how we interpret this or that, we can argue or disagree about how to do communion, from the table or by coming up front to dip real bread in the cup; we can disagree about how we baptize whether by immersion in water, or sprinkling, or as infants/adults. These things tend to divide us.


One thing that does bring us together, and I wish did a little bit more is a verse like JOHN 3: 16, so foundational to our faith. It draws us together around the central premise of the gospel.
So what does this have to do with the book of ACTS and this passage...Jesus has departed from his disciples, things must have been great as the gospel began to spread, right? But not really, there were issues in the 1st century church. People today have the notion that they are the only ones with problems in the church, but the disciples were human too. And some problems happened right after Jesus left. That is what happens when you get human beings involved in something, they have to learn to overcome petty differences. Peter was one who had to learn himself, for the 1st century church was growing at a very rapid pace. This can only be attributed to the determination and faith of those apostles. Peter, the main apostle, the rock of the church was different than PAUL. There was Peter's way of doing church and conversion, and Paul's way. Peter worked through the still very influential traditional religious system, and many of his followers and converts were Jews who now believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Peter seems to have supported keeping many of the Jewish laws and festivals and practices, emphasizing the mindset he knew and the order that would help build the new religion. Paul, well that was another story. He threw the old stuff out with the bathwater, he said it was all about the gospel. So their approaches were different, not to say that one was better than the other, but just different. We may say they were the first denominations. And with their differences, there was tension.


So this passage in ACTS...both those ways of doing things were beginning to conflict around the idea of who is the gospel really for. Peter: Jesus is the Messiah of Yahweh God of the Hebrew people. Paul: the preacher to the Gentiles. Without Peter, there may have never been the firm ordered foundation of the early church, perhaps it would have not survived. Without Paul, there may have never been one to so fervently spread the good news.


So...


What would the church look like now if we were back to the basics of the gospel?

• We would preach. Not me preach the gospel as your pastor, but we in our everyday lives without apology or abandon. And not in the church setting, but outside these walls. The book of ACTS shows many instances of apostles preaching to others who would have never heard the gospel without somebody stepping up to preach. Peter says “I can see now that God shows no partiality.” From Peter's beginning as the foundation of the church, he preached from the start. And this does not mean just living a good life—although there is a lot to be said for living a life of integrity and living out the fruits of the spirit—but at some point we have to use our mouths and tell. We have to speak the name of Christ & at some point we are going to have to share the gospel.


• We would be stretched. What does this mean to you? Well Peter has a story of the ETHIOPIAN EUNOCH, that was a stretch for this Jewish teacher. The message of Jesus stretched Peter, he says that the gospel is meant for the gentiles too—“Can anyone object to their being baptized, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?” That is obvious, but there may have been some prejudice along the way. Peter had to be stretched. I heard an interesting story last week about how they make airplanes. If you have ever flown and sat beside the window next to the wing, it is not always the best image you want to have of flying. The wings shake and they wobble and look like they will fall off, especially in turbulence, and you spend your time praying you will not fall from the sky. But what I learned this week is that when planes are being made, the wings are put in place and tested. They are tested by bending and stretching the wings so they are almost vertical, as far as they can go. They are stretched far beyond the little wobble we see. And what happens...nothing. They don't break, and the chances of your wings falling off are almost zero.
  For Peter and the early Christians, perhaps what was going through their minds was 'what will happen if we preach the gospel to the gentiles, what if we get too many Christians that we really don't know what to do with them, what if they convert and change the way things work around here?' All concerns we hear even today in churches all over the world. We need to be stretched. We love our church, and we love our christian friends, but when we allow God to stretch us and use us to share his message of hope and love, we begin to realize that the chances of us breaking are pretty slim. Think of times you have been stretched by God...you were probably a little scared about the outcome or how you would get there, you were scared you would fall, but what happened. Nothing?
  Peter allowed God to stretch him and he realized, 'you know, this Gentile thing really isn't so bad'.


• We would have peace. “everyone will have sins forgiven”. Those of us who have experienced the saving love of Christ, what is it that distinguishes us from others, we have peace. We certainly go through dark times, what one medieval writer called the dark night of the soul—coming from illness, death, economic turmoil, etc—but we have a peace which pulls us through. There is much to say about a person who knows that their sins are forgiven, they have a new lease on.


• We would hear the word of God. “as Peter was saying these things, the spirit moved amongst the people”. The illustration there is that if we allow ourselves to get back to the basics, we will start to hear the Holy Spirit speaking to us just a little more clearly. Peter, had done a 180 degree turn from one who said let's take this gospel message and control it. Peter said can anyone object to their being baptized...no. Let's get this gospel moving. The Holy Spirit has a way of changing how we feel, what we fear, or what we have done in the past.

So what would the church look like if we were back to the basics. We would preach. We would allow ourselves to be stretched. We would share the peace in our own lives. We would hear God speak.

And when the word of God speaks, we will listen and speak it ourselves to all we meet. That is the basics of John 3:16.

Movie Review: Angels & Demons
directed by Ron Howard
based on the book by Dan Brown

“I am an academic so in theory I cannot understand God. My heart tells me I am not supposed to. Faith itself is a gift I have yet to receive.”
--Robert Langdon, when asked if he believed in God.

And so early on in this incredible movie, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon has to answer a challenging theological question about the tension between faith and reason. This will set the stage for the story as it unfolds. Angels and Demons is a powerful thriller which grips you from the beginning and makes you think about the impact of the church in today's world. While you at times in the movie be sickened at the church's history by some of the stories which provide a historical basis for this film, you will be given the side of faith for which billions on this planet hold true as their faith, based on Christ.

A few years back, all the craze in the world of literature and cinema was the controversy around The Da Vinci Code, a brilliant yet fictional novel by Dan Brown based around heretical claims about Christ. What resulted in the first Ron Howard's first Robert Langdon movie was a film that was heavy on myth and lacking in character development and relevance...not to mention lacking in the energetic plot which made the novel such an international sensation.

What we find in Angels and Demons is everything we did not find with The Da Vinci Code. And thank goodness. While the story is of course fictional & based on sketchy history, there is a good plot which helps draw us into the suspense and thrills to come, and most of all makes us care about what happens to the characters and to the world's most popular religion.

The movie begins with the death of the pope, and the Vatican rallying its leaders to choose the next leader of the Roman Catholic church. While preparing, four prime candidates, known as the preferati are kidnapped with the threat of certain death only hours away. As the cardinals gather themselves in the Sistene Chapel to pick the new head of the church, police and investigators and Robert Langdon are deciphering the meanings of clues to the captured cardinals and what would be a city/religion wide destruction. One remarkable aspect of the movie is the “tour” of Rome so few people ever get to see, and the hidden aspects of Vatican City and rituals within the catholic church so few understand and fewer still respect as foundational to the faith of so many people. For this the film is applauded.

Tom Hanks, who plays Robert Langdon with the strength and determination we have come to expect from the actor, balances the questions of faith and science in the film with clarity and depth and care—more on that in a moment. His character is both genius and questioning, hence his being asked to help solve the mysterious signs. Hanks' actually feels like he cares in this movie, compared with the first based on the Langdon character, and this time Hanks does not have the ridiculous looking long hair. The supporting cast is also strong, especially Ewan McGregor in role that gives him a lot to work with and you care about his character to the very end.

The film paces itself very fast, you have to keep up with the plot and the various twists/turns in order to grasp the impact of what is going on. The action is great, without being over the top. The film allows you to breathe at certain points as it fills in the blanks on much of the backstory surrounding the mythical aspects of the mystery, for instance with the two instances where we get a glimpse into the ultra secretive Vatican archives and the sheltered past of the imfamous historical group Illuminati. While glimpses into unique stories and historical references, you must remember that much of the details in Dan Brown's story and the movie are false, added to make the story move forward. While false, they are fascinating to consider, but a “google search” on the movie's fact and fiction would be advisable to learn the truth behind the film.

In conclusion, this is a really good film based on an even greater novel by one of today's great thrilling storytellers. Langdon is a great character, and many of us cannot wait for the third Langdon book to come out in September. But for now, just enjoy an excellent movie built around a fascinating topic.

Speaking of the topic, a note about the film's question of faith and reason...what the film does very well is bring to the conversation issues many of us consider on a daily basis, like how does our faith influence our ability to reason and vice versa. Through its depiction of a relatively dark and peculiar part of christian tradition, the questions come to life with lines such as the one quoted by Langdon above. He is a typical academic who knows too much about the past history of a faith that has influenced history, and therefore he remains skeptical. But with that knowledge, he comes into contact with religious leaders who seek to steer his thoughts toward the realm of religion. The final scene with Langdon and the pope's right-hand adviser is classic in this case. What we gain is a sense of balance in the age-old question of science and religion, and how they influence each other in the end, perhaps as part of God's plan for balance in the human beings God created.

Interesting and provocative, but helpful to advance the conversation. And that is really what we need more of.

Until the next post...

Introduction

Good Monday to everyone on the web.

I am beginning this BLOG as a way to further enjoy writing, and to share with the world my thoughts as a pastor on the amazing correlation between religion and popular culture. In my BLOG posts, I may talk about movie and television reviews, give a religious perspective on currents events, give links to interesting posts around the web which concern the topic, etc.

I will also use this BLOG as a place to publish my weekly sermons, as pastor of Colonial Place Christian Church in Richmond, Virginia. I hope you will find encouragement and spiritual support through my writing and reflections on the Old and New Testament scriptures.

I want this to be a place for Christians to find spiritual support and writing on a variety of topics, but also a place for those searching for relevent reflection on popular culture--hopefully without all the fluff of normal media--to find a fun and thought-provoking new place on the web to be challenged in how to view what is going on in the world around us.

Enjoy my blog. Posts will begin really soon.