My Time with “The Man Without Fear”

I remember this Daredevil quite vividly. In 2001, on impulse, my father took the family to see the first Spider-Man. I enjoyed it, though I thought the action scenes were a bit too silly at the time. I was, maybe,14 at the time. Not old enough to really appreciate that fine film (especially in light of the more recent not-so-amazing ones), I brushed it off and went on my merry way. Of course, I went back and read the first seven massive books of the Amazing Spider-Man by Stan Lee, and fell in love with Peter Parker. Then, this Daredevil movie popped up on my dad’s radar and he took me to see it.

I had never heard of this dude, not seen a trailer or anything. So I sat down and from the first thirty seconds, I was hooked. All cheesy pretenses went out the window and I was transfixed by this ‘man without fear.’ I devoured the Frank Miller saga and the Born Again novel like they were crack. As I recall those times, I am left to ponder what drew me to this Daredevil.

I think, first, that he was more than an outsider. He didn’t have geekish tendencies nor was he a terrible killer. He was a loner and burdened by his religious upbringing. I identified with that, and found his struggles to be both potent and personable.

Second, and probably more importantly, I saw him as some sort of Christ figure. I wouldn’t have said this at the time, but I saw him as someone who was a true under dog, who gave of himself for others, and saw very little in return. At the time, the darkness mingled with brutality and necessity; he did whatever it took to achieve an honorable end.

Third, and more tangentially, he taught me to not have fear. Of course, that feeling hasn’t always stuck, but the fearless way he interacted in the world was a great model.

Fourth, he had a badass costume. That sold me so hard.

—Nick

Thor: The Dark World, a Review

I know I'm a week late on this one, but in my defense, I had to marshal up a lot of desire to sit through a film I was moderately sure I wouldn't enjoy. I'm far more of a "Batman" or "Punisher" kind of comic book lover, but I do enjoy the odd cheese-ball that Marvel can occasionally put forth.

Thor: The Dark World, is a film about a nasty substance that looks like a liquid form of what we call, the macguffin. It's nasty, its mean and you are pretty sure you don't want it inside you. Other than that, some villains want it and its up to the bumbling nilly Thor to save the day. While bringing along the real reason we're all here: Loki.

TECHNICAL

The film certainly looks pretty, for the most part. Asgard is nicely rendered, if a bit futuristic LotR-y. But still. Looks nice and pretty in the morning sun. The other realms are unmemorable, with one just looking like a dirty schoolyard sandbox. Thor flies around and smashes stuff, throws his mighty hammer about and ultimately, saves…something.

Seriously. It does look rather nice. I enjoyed the makeup on that Doctor Who dude.

NARRATIVE

Ultimately for me, I though the film faltered most here. The first half has some amusing moments, and the film seems to work best when it isn't blowing stuff up and instead focuses on the supreme goofiness of a flying goldilocks swinging a massive hammer. Him using the Subway, while funny in a broad sense, is more of less unnecessary when you think that he can kinda fly.

Maybe what I disliked most about the film was that it really doesn't need to exist. The character drama is largely bulky and superficial, with Stellan Skarsgard being reduced to running around barely clothed, Darcy quipping about interns and Jane Foster being, well, just hanging around. The aether, which is a killer, does very little to effect her except make her sleepy. Sounds more like a depressant than a world killer. I did make my wife laugh when I intoned that the main villain was the 'anti-Logos.' Given that his motivation is as emotionally investing as a dead cat swinging from a ceiling fan, I suspect that inserting said dead cat would've enlivened the final battle.

Actually, watching Thor beat a dead animal kinda sums up my feelings on the film as a whole.

THEMATIC

Well, I suppose that Thor giving up his birthright could've been explored in a meaningful way. The first Thor, flawed as it was, did portray him as someone who needed to grow up. Here, he makes decisions mostly out of screenwriting necessity. He seems to be simply an agent to move us between set pieces. The little moments of Thor acting 'human' are genuinely fun. Hanging the hammer up is one of those said moments. When the 'gods' act human, they tend to be more interesting. Here, they are detached to the point of being laughably tedious.

Anthony Hopkins and Idris Elba are fun, if underused as usual. The use of darkness and light as reoccurring motifs is fun, when they mention it, mostly because I get to intone my previously mentioned 'anti-Logos' comment. Usually resulting in my wife laughing.

CONCLUSION

Seriously though, there is plenty of material here that could've been mined to create a worthwhile action flick. This is not to say that the film isn't fun enough, or that there aren't some LOL moments. But beside the few moments of genuinely funny/intriguing material are washed over by an ocean of "well, I didn't expect them to not do much of this anyway so I can't be disappointed." Loki is really the only reason to watch this.

Of course, watching my sister twitter in delight whenever he was on-screen almost made up for the rest of this film.

2 stars out of 5.

--Nick

Richard Beck & "The Theology of Calvin and Hobbes"

I've only now become aware of Dr. Beck's blog, but this has immediate piqued my interest. If you are a fan of this classic comic (as I am), please read and ponder away. Be warned, you will probably disagree with him. ;)

Beck:

Last school year I wrote a series of essays for an "online book" about The Theology of Peanuts. I had such fun with that project and so many of you enjoyed it that I thought I'd offer up this sequel, The Theology of Calvin and Hobbes.

I grew up with Peanuts so that was a natural place for me to begin, but during the writing of The Theology of Peanuts many of you (mostly former students of mine) expressed your fondness for Calvin and Hobbes. Demographically, this makes sense. Calvin and Hobbes appeared from November 18, 1985 to December 31, 1995. I was in college and graduate school during those years, a bit too busy to notice or keep up with the Calvin and Hobbes phenomenon. But for many of my former students Calvin and Hobbes was a large part of their childhood.

So I was late in coming to Calvin and Hobbes, but after The Theology of Peanuts I was looking for something new to explore. Consequently, I promptly went out and purchased The Complete Calvin and Hobbes and sat down to read. The three volumes of The Complete Calvin and Hobbes weighs over 22 pounds, but it is a beautiful bit of publishing. I sat, read, laughed, and pondered through the spring and summer. I now count myself to be a fan of Bill Watterson's genius. My affection for Calvin and Hobbes now rivals my love for Peanuts.

For the table of contents that will offer awesome goodness, click HERE.

--Nick