There are few movies that I am as excited to write a movie review about as Paul Apostle of Christ. It is a truly unique movie that portrays the early Church in a way that is rarely seen. Yes, we know that the Church in the first century was brutally persecuted. No other movie has captured the vile hatred exercised against the Church as Paul Apostle of Christ.
The opening scene of the movie is dark. It is perhaps the darkest opening to a movie I have ever seen. And this is in a rather ironic sense because it shows how Christians were used as human torches to light the streets of Rome. So as Luke, the physician, sneaks through the city's streets, his pathway is lit by the burning corpses of Christians who have been apprehended by the Roman authorities. Just as terrifying, the silence of the night is broken by the screams of fresh Christians being lit ablaze by Centurions.
The Church is in hiding as they plot their next move. Some people believe they need to stay in Rome and minister to those who are in need. Others believe they need to flee and save those who are in their assembly. And yet, a small faction wishes to rise up against Rome in an attempt to overthrow the existing power structure. All the while, Luke risks everything to comfort his friend, Paul, who resides in prison and awaits his historic execution.
A movie like Paul Apostle of Christ has not been made since The Passion of Christ. It's quality in terms of its cinematography, acting, and presentation of the Gospel is outstanding. It is well worthy of many rewards and should be seen by all Christians (over the age of thirteen).
Although the premise of the movie is grim in every way, the film's writers did an excellent job at gradually turning the tables throughout its progression. This is not accomplished in terms of the good guys overcoming a bad situation. Instead, it is revealed throughout the movie that the sufferings of the Church are those of Jesus Christ Himself. By enduring suffering and persevering in love, not only will believers be rewarded by God in paradise, but the eyes and hearts of many people will be opened so that they too may have an opportunity to share in the eternal reward.
In a world where corruption runs rampant, children are mercilessly slaughtered, and the wicked are allowed to evade justice, Paul Apostle of Christ is a timely movie. While those who are wrapped up in establishing power through earthly venues work towards their own destruction, those who persevere in the love of Christ are storing up treasures in heaven. Many of those treasures are in the form of others who will join us in heaven as a result of our faithful testimonies.
www.williamhseng.com
Monday, September 3, 2018
Thursday, February 8, 2018
Why Tom Brady is the G.O.A.T.
Recent Facebook debate following Super Bowl LII has put into question whether or not Tom Brady is "the GOAT" (Greatest Of All Time). Because of his recent Super Bowl loss, many are now saying Joe Montana has now reclaimed his position as the greatest quarterback of all time because he won 4 out of 4 of the Super Bowls he appeared in. A perfect Super Bowl record. Regardless of Brady's waning popularity after Super Bowl LII (waning popularity seems a little generous to his skeptics), I think there is a case to be made that Tom Brady is still the GOAT.
What is "Great?"
When I say great, I don't mean best. I mean it in terms of the accolades that are due to him. He deserves every bit of praise he receives as a football player. He was almost not drafted, having gone in the 6th round and being pick 199. He was not expected to do anything where, in the case of Joe Montana, great things were expected of the Notre Dame grad. Brady was a third string quarterback for the Michigan Wolverines. He barely saw any field time in college and was considered unimpressive by the Patriots when they drafted him. But, we know how this story goes, he has led his team to 8 Super Bowls and has been victorious in 5!
Sure, statistically he probably was not as good as Montana, Manning, Favre, Unitas, Marino, Aikman, or a slew of other Hall-of-Fame quarterbacks, but he has something they could never achieve: a fist full of Super Bowl rings. I believe in intangibles and Brady is one of the key components to the Patriots' success over the past 2 decades (yes it has nearly been 2 decades since he took the helm!).
A Great Team?
It can be argued that Montana did not have the team that Brady has had. Indeed, when Brady is injured, his team remains a winning team when many other teams would crumble without their starting quarterback. This does speak to teams like the Indianapolis Colts who become crippled when they loose their starting quarterback. It proves that they drafted a truly gifted athlete that holds the team together under all circumstances, until they are gone. But we're talking Montana, here, and the San Francisco 49ers of his era.
Without going into too much detail, let's look at what the 9ers had at their disposal. First, they had Hall-of-Fame legendary coach, Bill Walsh, who commanded the 9ers to their victories. This is most certainly comparable to future HOF coach Bill Belichick. On top of that, they had 5 HOF players on their team: Montana, Rice, Lott, Dean, and Steve Young. I will get back to Young here in a minute. Now, it is yet to be seen how many HOFs will graduate from New England, but it won't be light. Belichick, Brady, and Gronkowski will easily make the cut and they will certainly have a few more to add. But Jerry Rice was the Michael Jordan of his position, Ronnie Lott was considered one of the best Corners of all time (arguably the best) and Montana (as we are discussing now) is arguably the best QB of all time. Having 3 best evers on your team, not to mention their coach, is nothing to poo poo at.
Now, revisiting the absence of Tom Brady's affect on his team. Yes, his team was still a winning team, but look at the 49ers without Joe Montana. This guy named Steve Young stepped in after Monatan was traded to the chiefs and cleaned house. No, he didn't claim 4 Super Bowls the way Montana did, but he walked away with 1 Super Bowl victory (more than most QBs). One could argue that Montana was not essential for their 4 Super Bowl victories under his leadership and Steve Young might be the best evidence for that. The 49ers remained a winning team without Joe Montana.
With all of the great 49ers that played in this era, I barely scratched the surface with the great non-HOFs that played for this legendary team and contributed to their success. They were most certainly a team to be reckoned with and would give a Bradyless Patriots team a run for their money, even without their star QB, Steve - err - Joe Montana.
Is Brady a cheater?
One of the strongest accusations against Brady's greatness is that he and the Patriots are cheaters. Is Brady a cheater? My answer: I don't know. It depends on if there is any conclusive evidence that he ever cheated. Thus far, nothing conclusive has been uncovered. But, he did sit out for a good chunk of the 2016 season because of unverifiable accusations that were leveled against him. To me, that should be enough to shush his haters, but a hater wouldn't be a hater if that were the case.
What about the controversial incomplete pass against the Steelers this past season? Had the catch been ruled complete, Pittsburgh would have enjoyed home field advantage throughout the playoffs and possibly have altered their fate. What is more juicy is that the Eagles' Zach Ertz's game winning catch against the Patriots was, indeed, ruled a catch, but was arguably the same circumstance as Pittsburgh's no-catch in the regular season.
To put this controversy to rest, which is wishful thinking, both calls were correct. Jesse James, the receiver for the Steelers, never established control of the football before it hit the ground. Period. He was jostling the ball as he fell and contact with the ground was the only reason that the ball became secured in his hands. In fact, had it not been for instant replay, the pass would have been ruled a catch because no human could have determined what had truly happened without the help of technology.
Zach Ertz caught the ball. Plain and simple. He caught the ball, turned around, with clear control over the football, extended it over the goal line and scored a touchdown. After the ball crossed the line, it hit the ground and popped out of his hands. The catch was already a catch and would have been called a catch, with a fumble, had it been anywhere else on the field. Instant replay confirmed that Ertz had control of the ball and that there was no need to overturn the original ruling.
Over all, people's frustration with calls being ruled in favor of the Pats is because of New England's remarkable discipline on the field. A disciplined team leads to fewer penalties. Don't tell me that you think Belichick is lax on discipline on the practice field!
A Living Dynasty
This leads me to my final point. The final argument against Brady's greatness is that their are other teams that have as many Super Bowl victories; rather, more Super Bowl victories than he and the Patriots have. I don't know how many each team has, but I hear this the most from Steelers fans. The Steelers have won 6 Super Bowls. That's fantastic, but why do we never take into account that this is since their founding and since the Super Bowl has been instituted as the championship game of the NFL? Tom Brady has been to 8 Super Bowls and has won 5 and he has achieved this since 2001. The Patriots have, total, 9 Super Bowl appearances and have only been victorious under Brady.
Brady has lost 3 Super Bowls. So what? This is not to knock Montana, but he only went to 4 Super Bowls; half as many as Tom Brady. Was Montana a better quarterback? Probably. But was he the GOAT? If 8 and 5 are still greater than 4...
www.williamhseng.com
What is "Great?"
When I say great, I don't mean best. I mean it in terms of the accolades that are due to him. He deserves every bit of praise he receives as a football player. He was almost not drafted, having gone in the 6th round and being pick 199. He was not expected to do anything where, in the case of Joe Montana, great things were expected of the Notre Dame grad. Brady was a third string quarterback for the Michigan Wolverines. He barely saw any field time in college and was considered unimpressive by the Patriots when they drafted him. But, we know how this story goes, he has led his team to 8 Super Bowls and has been victorious in 5!
Sure, statistically he probably was not as good as Montana, Manning, Favre, Unitas, Marino, Aikman, or a slew of other Hall-of-Fame quarterbacks, but he has something they could never achieve: a fist full of Super Bowl rings. I believe in intangibles and Brady is one of the key components to the Patriots' success over the past 2 decades (yes it has nearly been 2 decades since he took the helm!).
A Great Team?
It can be argued that Montana did not have the team that Brady has had. Indeed, when Brady is injured, his team remains a winning team when many other teams would crumble without their starting quarterback. This does speak to teams like the Indianapolis Colts who become crippled when they loose their starting quarterback. It proves that they drafted a truly gifted athlete that holds the team together under all circumstances, until they are gone. But we're talking Montana, here, and the San Francisco 49ers of his era.
Without going into too much detail, let's look at what the 9ers had at their disposal. First, they had Hall-of-Fame legendary coach, Bill Walsh, who commanded the 9ers to their victories. This is most certainly comparable to future HOF coach Bill Belichick. On top of that, they had 5 HOF players on their team: Montana, Rice, Lott, Dean, and Steve Young. I will get back to Young here in a minute. Now, it is yet to be seen how many HOFs will graduate from New England, but it won't be light. Belichick, Brady, and Gronkowski will easily make the cut and they will certainly have a few more to add. But Jerry Rice was the Michael Jordan of his position, Ronnie Lott was considered one of the best Corners of all time (arguably the best) and Montana (as we are discussing now) is arguably the best QB of all time. Having 3 best evers on your team, not to mention their coach, is nothing to poo poo at.
Now, revisiting the absence of Tom Brady's affect on his team. Yes, his team was still a winning team, but look at the 49ers without Joe Montana. This guy named Steve Young stepped in after Monatan was traded to the chiefs and cleaned house. No, he didn't claim 4 Super Bowls the way Montana did, but he walked away with 1 Super Bowl victory (more than most QBs). One could argue that Montana was not essential for their 4 Super Bowl victories under his leadership and Steve Young might be the best evidence for that. The 49ers remained a winning team without Joe Montana.
With all of the great 49ers that played in this era, I barely scratched the surface with the great non-HOFs that played for this legendary team and contributed to their success. They were most certainly a team to be reckoned with and would give a Bradyless Patriots team a run for their money, even without their star QB, Steve - err - Joe Montana.
Is Brady a cheater?
One of the strongest accusations against Brady's greatness is that he and the Patriots are cheaters. Is Brady a cheater? My answer: I don't know. It depends on if there is any conclusive evidence that he ever cheated. Thus far, nothing conclusive has been uncovered. But, he did sit out for a good chunk of the 2016 season because of unverifiable accusations that were leveled against him. To me, that should be enough to shush his haters, but a hater wouldn't be a hater if that were the case.
What about the controversial incomplete pass against the Steelers this past season? Had the catch been ruled complete, Pittsburgh would have enjoyed home field advantage throughout the playoffs and possibly have altered their fate. What is more juicy is that the Eagles' Zach Ertz's game winning catch against the Patriots was, indeed, ruled a catch, but was arguably the same circumstance as Pittsburgh's no-catch in the regular season.
To put this controversy to rest, which is wishful thinking, both calls were correct. Jesse James, the receiver for the Steelers, never established control of the football before it hit the ground. Period. He was jostling the ball as he fell and contact with the ground was the only reason that the ball became secured in his hands. In fact, had it not been for instant replay, the pass would have been ruled a catch because no human could have determined what had truly happened without the help of technology.
Zach Ertz caught the ball. Plain and simple. He caught the ball, turned around, with clear control over the football, extended it over the goal line and scored a touchdown. After the ball crossed the line, it hit the ground and popped out of his hands. The catch was already a catch and would have been called a catch, with a fumble, had it been anywhere else on the field. Instant replay confirmed that Ertz had control of the ball and that there was no need to overturn the original ruling.
Over all, people's frustration with calls being ruled in favor of the Pats is because of New England's remarkable discipline on the field. A disciplined team leads to fewer penalties. Don't tell me that you think Belichick is lax on discipline on the practice field!
A Living Dynasty
This leads me to my final point. The final argument against Brady's greatness is that their are other teams that have as many Super Bowl victories; rather, more Super Bowl victories than he and the Patriots have. I don't know how many each team has, but I hear this the most from Steelers fans. The Steelers have won 6 Super Bowls. That's fantastic, but why do we never take into account that this is since their founding and since the Super Bowl has been instituted as the championship game of the NFL? Tom Brady has been to 8 Super Bowls and has won 5 and he has achieved this since 2001. The Patriots have, total, 9 Super Bowl appearances and have only been victorious under Brady.
Brady has lost 3 Super Bowls. So what? This is not to knock Montana, but he only went to 4 Super Bowls; half as many as Tom Brady. Was Montana a better quarterback? Probably. But was he the GOAT? If 8 and 5 are still greater than 4...
www.williamhseng.com
Saturday, February 3, 2018
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Justice League (Spoiler Alert!)
A long awaited movie that went greatly underappreciated. The Justice League marks a milestone in the DC cinematic universe and set the bar high for the rest of the DC universe movies. I present to you the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of DC's Justice League.
The Good
The overall message was remarkable, whether it was intentional or not: a world without God is a world without hope. And a world without hope is a world full of chaos and hatred. Everyone is fending for his or her self and it is a survival of the fittest kind of universe.
I get this from the theme that Superman is dead and people have plunged into a worldwide depression. As a result, the evil Steppenwolf (an extraterrestrial) has found an opportunity to conquer earth while it was vulnerable, reclaim the three mother boxes that have been hidden on earth, and redeem himself into the good graces of (I'm guessing) Darkseid. The DC heroes unite to combat this threat, but quickly discover that their power is not enough to fight off this formidable threat. This leads to another good point of Justice League.
We get a glimpse of Superman's true power in Justice League. If you have not seen Justice League, Superman returns in a very bizarre way. On that note, I think it is possible that they might have explained the Lazarus Pit (used by Ra's Al Ghul) through Superman's resurrection, but that is pure speculation. Superman is resurrected by the ship that Zod crashed onto earth and Luthor used to create Doomsday. Superman wakes up confused and is confronted by the Justice League, in hopes that they can tame him if he goes off the deep end. Superman freaks and takes on the whole league by himself. It is discovered that Superman is way stronger than Wonder Woman, has better firepower than Cyborg, is a better swimmer than Aquaman (well, probably), and is darn near as fast as the Flash. The only thing that saved the League from total destruction was Batman's forethought in having Lois Lane escorted to the scene of the battle. It's pretty awesome. At the climax of the movie, Superman unites with the League to offer up an epic beat down of Steppenwolf.
The hero's stories are summarized well in the brief amount of time the writers devoted to each one. Fortunately, we already knew Batman's and Wonder Woman's histories, but most are unfamiliar with Flash, Cyborg, and a little bit with Aquaman. You learn that everyone in this league of heroes is seeking redemption in one way or another and that saving the world was the perfect way to bring healing to their situations.
Affleck did great as Batman, Gadot did great as Wonder Woman, the others did a bang up job with their characters; particularly Ezra Miller with his awkward portrayal of the Flash. All of the actors worked together in a way that I believe will go down as memorable performances. The addition of comic relief was welcome, as well, after the dark and serious Batman v Superman.
Regardless of what the critics have said about this movie, and the many fans who have ripped it to shreds, Bravo! Zach Snyder and his team of writers delivered in a powerful way with this movie. It met my expectations and even surpassed them in some ways.
The Bad
The opening sequence with Batman baiting the parademon with another man's fear was cool, but made no sense. Who was this person that Batman was terrorizing? Why did he feel like he deserved to be used as live bait to fulfill this risky mission? Who was the guy? I assumed he was a criminal of some sort, but he seemed hardly worthy of Batman's time and it was never really explained (I think) who this guy was. I can't remember specifics, but the other flaws with this movie were along these lines. But to me, plot holes in a movie about comic book heroes is a non-issue up to a certain point. I was just glad that sexuality and swearing were not an issue in this movie like it was in Batman v Superman.
The Ugly
The people in Hollywood are clueless when it comes to the issues of Islamophobia and illegal immigration. I personally do not have a problem with this movie including scenes where a Muslim family's business is being robbed by a white racist. There were other scenes in this movie along these lines, but the people in Hollywood reveal their ignorance of these issues by making it seem like those who suggest that we need to have a certain awareness of radical Islamic terrorists and that we need to secure our borders against illegal immigration are always racists.
Not much else about this movie was controversial. I just wish that Hollywood would knock it off with their preachiness on issues like these.
Conclusion
You have to compare this movie to the Avengers movies that have been released. The Avengers have set a high bar and I don't know if Justice League quite hit the mark. I guess I will go as far as to say I enjoyed it as much as The Age of Ultron, but the first Avengers movie is kind of in a league of its own. That being said, I would need to watch Justice League again before I conclude that, for sure, but where Avengers had virtually no flaws, Justice League did have some minor hiccups. Overall, I think that DC excels in the solo films (i.e. The Dark Knight trilogy, Man of Steel, and Wonder Woman). I am excited to see what the future of the DC universe holds for Batman, Flash, and Cyborg...and (God willing) Green Lantern.
The Good
The overall message was remarkable, whether it was intentional or not: a world without God is a world without hope. And a world without hope is a world full of chaos and hatred. Everyone is fending for his or her self and it is a survival of the fittest kind of universe.
I get this from the theme that Superman is dead and people have plunged into a worldwide depression. As a result, the evil Steppenwolf (an extraterrestrial) has found an opportunity to conquer earth while it was vulnerable, reclaim the three mother boxes that have been hidden on earth, and redeem himself into the good graces of (I'm guessing) Darkseid. The DC heroes unite to combat this threat, but quickly discover that their power is not enough to fight off this formidable threat. This leads to another good point of Justice League.
We get a glimpse of Superman's true power in Justice League. If you have not seen Justice League, Superman returns in a very bizarre way. On that note, I think it is possible that they might have explained the Lazarus Pit (used by Ra's Al Ghul) through Superman's resurrection, but that is pure speculation. Superman is resurrected by the ship that Zod crashed onto earth and Luthor used to create Doomsday. Superman wakes up confused and is confronted by the Justice League, in hopes that they can tame him if he goes off the deep end. Superman freaks and takes on the whole league by himself. It is discovered that Superman is way stronger than Wonder Woman, has better firepower than Cyborg, is a better swimmer than Aquaman (well, probably), and is darn near as fast as the Flash. The only thing that saved the League from total destruction was Batman's forethought in having Lois Lane escorted to the scene of the battle. It's pretty awesome. At the climax of the movie, Superman unites with the League to offer up an epic beat down of Steppenwolf.
The hero's stories are summarized well in the brief amount of time the writers devoted to each one. Fortunately, we already knew Batman's and Wonder Woman's histories, but most are unfamiliar with Flash, Cyborg, and a little bit with Aquaman. You learn that everyone in this league of heroes is seeking redemption in one way or another and that saving the world was the perfect way to bring healing to their situations.
Affleck did great as Batman, Gadot did great as Wonder Woman, the others did a bang up job with their characters; particularly Ezra Miller with his awkward portrayal of the Flash. All of the actors worked together in a way that I believe will go down as memorable performances. The addition of comic relief was welcome, as well, after the dark and serious Batman v Superman.
Regardless of what the critics have said about this movie, and the many fans who have ripped it to shreds, Bravo! Zach Snyder and his team of writers delivered in a powerful way with this movie. It met my expectations and even surpassed them in some ways.
The Bad
The opening sequence with Batman baiting the parademon with another man's fear was cool, but made no sense. Who was this person that Batman was terrorizing? Why did he feel like he deserved to be used as live bait to fulfill this risky mission? Who was the guy? I assumed he was a criminal of some sort, but he seemed hardly worthy of Batman's time and it was never really explained (I think) who this guy was. I can't remember specifics, but the other flaws with this movie were along these lines. But to me, plot holes in a movie about comic book heroes is a non-issue up to a certain point. I was just glad that sexuality and swearing were not an issue in this movie like it was in Batman v Superman.
The Ugly
The people in Hollywood are clueless when it comes to the issues of Islamophobia and illegal immigration. I personally do not have a problem with this movie including scenes where a Muslim family's business is being robbed by a white racist. There were other scenes in this movie along these lines, but the people in Hollywood reveal their ignorance of these issues by making it seem like those who suggest that we need to have a certain awareness of radical Islamic terrorists and that we need to secure our borders against illegal immigration are always racists.
Not much else about this movie was controversial. I just wish that Hollywood would knock it off with their preachiness on issues like these.
Conclusion
You have to compare this movie to the Avengers movies that have been released. The Avengers have set a high bar and I don't know if Justice League quite hit the mark. I guess I will go as far as to say I enjoyed it as much as The Age of Ultron, but the first Avengers movie is kind of in a league of its own. That being said, I would need to watch Justice League again before I conclude that, for sure, but where Avengers had virtually no flaws, Justice League did have some minor hiccups. Overall, I think that DC excels in the solo films (i.e. The Dark Knight trilogy, Man of Steel, and Wonder Woman). I am excited to see what the future of the DC universe holds for Batman, Flash, and Cyborg...and (God willing) Green Lantern.
Saturday, January 27, 2018
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Batman v Superman
Despite the incredible amount of negative feedback the new DC flick, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, has received, I felt it was one of the greatest Superhero movies ever. Where the Marvel Universe focuses on razzle dazzle special effects and tons of action, the DC movies focus on building solid plots with deeper messages. It might be easier to mindlessly pop a Marvel Universe movie into your Blu Ray or DVD player, but when a person switches on a DC movie it requires that you pay attention to every detail of the movie. After watching a DC movie, you just feel like you have become a better man (or woman) for having done so.
I don't feel like giving away any major plot elements, so we are going to go right into The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Dawn of Justice.
The Good
Perhaps the most pure thing of Dawn of Justice is that one of the major themes is "Love Conquers All." Lois Lane, of course, is the object of Superman's affection and there is nothing he won't do to get her out of trouble. Toward the beginning of the movie, he tracks her down thousands of miles away to save her life, and this is the least of the heroic acts he displays in protecting Lois! Certain elements of the plot also involve Superman's love for his earth mother, Martha Kent. This is also shown in Man of Steel, when Superman pummels General Zod for threatening her life. The theme of his pure intentions and love play a role in the climax of the film and erase all doubts of what type of being the man from Krypton really is.
There is a clear distinction made between good and evil throughout the movie. Although it seems that the plot is supposed to revolve around the ultimate conflict between Batman and Superman, neither of them is portrayed as the villain. Batman seeks to protect mankind from forces that go way beyond man's capability to cope with them while Superman uses his powers to do good things even though he faces legal scrutiny for doing so. Lex Luthor is, without a doubt, the villain of the movie.
Luthor is obsessed with killing Superman. It is not because he views Superman as a threat to mankind, but a threat to his own power. You might liken it unto King Herod's desire to kill Jesus in Matthew's Gospel. He could tell that Jesus was only there to do good, but he was to be King. If you are a king, you might not like that. I will spoil the fact that Luthor is responsible for ultimately pitting Superman against Batman in their final epic showdown. Much like The Dark Knight's Joker, Luthor just wants to see the most pure of human spirits forced to get their hands dirty. He is not the clever well-spoken Luthor of earlier days, though. He's more like a mad scientist. He excels at spouting off disconnected phrases that might seem like gibberish at first, but then you realize that he is so smart, so disturbed, and so consumed with hatred that he cannot contain his own madness.
The Bad
Evolution...ah yes. Evolution. Is there going to be a movie made this year that does not have evolution as a main plot element? I say that it is a main plot element because Superman is from outer space. Somewhere in the course of the movie, Neil DeGrasse Tyson appears and talks about what Superman means to the world. One of the things was that, "We discovered that we were not so special with our existence on earth. And now we have realized that we are not so special with our existence in the universe." This statement drips with secular, far-left, evolutionary ideology. The only way mankind is not special in terms of the universe would be if we evolved like every other form of life and that greater species than ours have evolved elsewhere.
Sexuality. Although it was not over the top, I felt like the sexuality was too obvious. Shoot, even the trailer for this movie showed Clark Kent hopping in the tub with a naked Lois Lane. I felt that was too far and I was hoping that it was not how it looked. Nope, it was exactly how it looked. Not that sexuality is far removed from any of the superhero movies ever made, but this pushes back my son from seeing this movie until a significantly later date. But it's not just the tub scene (which, again, was not over the top, but obvious), Batman apparently has sleep-overs with random babes and even exclaims, as he notices an attractive woman walk by, "I'm sorry. It's a weakness of mine." In another scene (the only scene like this for the Bat) Bruce Wayne answers a phone call in his bedroom. As he gets up and starts moving around, you notice that a woman was lying beside him. This scene is very obscure, but I was scratching my head, asking, "Why was that necessary?" But, again, it's the world we live in. You wish that Hollywood would realize that the most successful movies they put out do not include random acts of filth. Oh well.
The Ugly
A reminder, the ugly is not referring to anything necessarily good or bad. It is referring to points of potential controversy. In fact, I consider most of the ugly, in this case, to be good.
For instance, constant references to God. More or less, this movie puts God on trial in a very entertaining sort of way...boy do I wish I could reveal more because it's deep. Superman is the Godlike figure and, once again, Luthor wants him dead. He wants him dethroned. And he is convincing droves of other people that Superman needs to fall (similar to the way the public turns against Batman in The Dark Knight). If you, as a believer, are skeptical of the message about God in this movie at first, be patient and don't let the malice toward God throughout the movie dissuade you as I found it to be a set up for the punch line of the movie (ironic seeing how evolution also plays a role within the plot of this movie).
Politics. This movie is politically muddled. I couldn't follow exactly what the political message was meant to be, which indicates to me that it supports an establishment progressive agenda. At times it seemed as though there were conservative themes, but then you see that the people who stand against Superman are picketing with signs that tell him that illegals are not wanted and a curious sign, of which I only saw half, "You cannot be Christian and..." I wish I could have read the rest of that, but I'm not so anxious to find out what it said. Maybe one day Christians won't be portrayed as hate-filled hillbillies? But, what do you expect from Hollywood?
Defining truth is somewhat of a theme throughout the movie; probably more so than most people realize. In fact, I would contend that the conflict between Batman and Superman revolved around this dilemma. As they were fighting, Batman said to Superman something like, "I bet your parents told you that there is purpose to your existence." He followed that statement by saying that his parents basically taught him that there is none. That the world is ugly and we just have to deal with it. It sounds negative when I put it like that, but you just have to wait for the movie to play out to see where it was leading.
Final Analysis
This movie is not for kids and I think that the PG-13 label is well-stated. Children under 13 should not see it unattended (can children under 13 go to any movie unattended?). Batman has no "rule" that guides his vigilantism which makes his presence, well, pretty overwhelming (in a good way).
Thus far I have not been disappointed with any of the DC movies and I am looking forward to the follow-up to this one...wait, Green Lantern was DC? Aw man...but it wasn't that bad, right? It just didn't live up to expectations was all. Think they will cast Ryan Reynolds to reprise his role as the Lantern one day?
Anyway, go see this movie and go with an open-mind. I can't stand reading lousy reviews from people who don't bother to digest the real message of the movies they review. This one's good and it's deep, which is why it's hard to find a good review of it until you've read mine.
www.williamhseng.com
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of The Good Dinosaur
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law relplied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise." ~Luke 10:36-37
Disney's The Good Dinosaur is the story of an Apatosaurus, Arlo, who is trying to overcome his fears and do something great for his family.The story is entertaining, unique, and full of moral lessons. The plot launches from the platform that Arlo was supposed to exterminate a pest that was infiltrating Arlo's family's food silo. After capturing the pest, it is revealed that the pest is a human. Arlo cannot bring himself to kill him which leads to a series of events that changes his and his family's life. Without spoiling the plot details, let's look at the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of The Good Dinosaur.
The Good:
It appears that the title, Good Dinosaur, is a play on the story of the Good Samaritan, which is a story that Jesus told. The story that Jesus told was multi-tiered in purpose. He was asked the question what the greatest commandments of God were, to which the answer was, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all of your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Luke 10:27) Jesus confirms this response, but the one asking the question then asks, "And who is my neighbor?" The parable of the Good Samaritan was told to explain to the crowd what a neighbor was. Pop-culture defines a Good Samaritan as a well intentioned passerby who does good for strangers. The story of the Good Samaritan does not teach this.
A Good Samaritan, according to the parable, is someone who is supposed to be an enemy behaves as a friend. The parable ends up with a Samaritan, a hated enemy of the Jews, saving the life of a Jew after the Jew's own countrymen refuse him aid. The Good Dinosaur captures the spirit of this timeless parable.
Instead of killing the human that he trapped, Arlo sets him free. He later regrets his decision and seeks to do away with him, but then they both realize the value in one another and work together so that they may both return to their families. The climax of the story takes place when Arlo is forced to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to save his friend's (Spot, the human's) life.
Aside from the clear parallels between this story and the Good Samaritan, this movie also teaches courage, duty, and the value of human life. The latter of which is desperately needed in a world that has forgotten what even the lowliest of human lives are worth.
The Bad:
Evolution everywhere. The very premise of the movie is rooted in evolution. Namely, the meteor that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs missed earth allowing the dinosaurs to survive and develop an advanced cultural society. It makes for a fun movie, but is very clever in mind wiping young children into believing in the theory of evolution. This is added to with various plot elements.
Probably the most significant element influenced by evolution is Spot, the human, and his family. Evolution teaches that mankind evolved from apelike creatures that walked about on all fours. Spot does not primarily walk upright and neither does his family (until the conclusion of the movie). Spot is very primitive and behaves in many ways like a dog. Once again, this makes for an entertaining movie, but is clearly an attempt at indoctrination by the movie's creators.
Another evolutionary reference was with the "rustler" velociraptors which were covered in bird feathers. Where on earth did this notion evolve that dinosaurs had feathers? Why are raptors often victims of this ridiculous notion? Ultimately every time it is suspected that a feathered dinosaur is discovered, it is later refuted. Problem is it is never reported. It makes for wonderful fiction in movies such as this, but it is not rooted in reality (which is why Jurassic World opted to not include feathers on their dinosaurs as it reflects the most up-to-date scientific data on the subject, which is a departure from their proto-feathers in Jurassic Park III).
The Ugly:
When I say ugly, I mean unusual or controversial.
The first unusual gesture that sticks out to me in the movie was how the band of Tyrannosaurs were good guys! This was a great addition to the movie which viewers are sure to enjoy as T.Rex is one of the most popular dinosaurs. What is more, it unintentionally dispels a myth that the big bad T.Rex is all that bad.
As a person that does not buy in to the evolutionary story of origins, I believe dinosaur behavior is significantly different than what it is perceived to have been. The story of evolution teaches that there were meat-eaters and there were plant-eaters. The plant-eaters were peaceful and harmless while the meat-eaters were always on the prowl seeking to terrorize, kill, and devour every chance they got. I don't believe this is the story with dinosaurs at all. Instead, dinosaurs probably had habits very similar to animals today. In fact, I bet that plant-eaters were probably very territorial and just as dangerous as what we perceive to be the meat-eaters. Have you seen how big brachiosaurus is? That thing is dangerous even if it's not aware of your presence! Good T.Rex? Love it!
Next, snake with legs. This is not necessarily an exclusive evolutionary belief. Many creationists believe that snakes used to have legs, as well. The Bible says that after the fall snakes would be punished by being forced to crawl through the dirt. It is thought by some to mean that snakes used to have legs that would prevent them from having to lick up dust. Not everyone agrees in creationist circles, but there is a little fossil evidence to suggest this is a possibility.
One of the primary threats in the movie, a Pterosaur of some sort, was religiously obsessed with storms. His saying was, "The Storm will provide." He is portrayed as being a religious zealot who preys on the misfortune of creatures that get tied up by the aftermath of storms. I do not take this as an attack on all religious people, but for once I would like to see religious folk in movies, that even mildly resemble Christians (as I felt this pterodactyl did) portrayed in a positive light. Most other religions are portrayed positively as being humble, wise, and honorable. Christians are almost always portrayed as the bad guys: crazy, judgmental, and legalistic. The way Christians are portrayed, I wouldn't want to be one if that's what they were really like. This pterodactyl was not portrayed as a Christian, but it is easy enough to see what real life religion was being alluded to.
Conclusion:
The Good Dinosaur is an excellent movie that conveys good morals, although carrying heavy evolutionary themes. It was entertaining but did have a somewhat strange tone (probably because the dinosaurs were more cartoony while existing in a very realistic environment). Now that I have shared the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of it, you can watch it with a mind that is ready to take on the challenges it brings forth.
Disney's The Good Dinosaur is the story of an Apatosaurus, Arlo, who is trying to overcome his fears and do something great for his family.The story is entertaining, unique, and full of moral lessons. The plot launches from the platform that Arlo was supposed to exterminate a pest that was infiltrating Arlo's family's food silo. After capturing the pest, it is revealed that the pest is a human. Arlo cannot bring himself to kill him which leads to a series of events that changes his and his family's life. Without spoiling the plot details, let's look at the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of The Good Dinosaur.
The Good:
It appears that the title, Good Dinosaur, is a play on the story of the Good Samaritan, which is a story that Jesus told. The story that Jesus told was multi-tiered in purpose. He was asked the question what the greatest commandments of God were, to which the answer was, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all of your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Luke 10:27) Jesus confirms this response, but the one asking the question then asks, "And who is my neighbor?" The parable of the Good Samaritan was told to explain to the crowd what a neighbor was. Pop-culture defines a Good Samaritan as a well intentioned passerby who does good for strangers. The story of the Good Samaritan does not teach this.
A Good Samaritan, according to the parable, is someone who is supposed to be an enemy behaves as a friend. The parable ends up with a Samaritan, a hated enemy of the Jews, saving the life of a Jew after the Jew's own countrymen refuse him aid. The Good Dinosaur captures the spirit of this timeless parable.
Instead of killing the human that he trapped, Arlo sets him free. He later regrets his decision and seeks to do away with him, but then they both realize the value in one another and work together so that they may both return to their families. The climax of the story takes place when Arlo is forced to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to save his friend's (Spot, the human's) life.
Aside from the clear parallels between this story and the Good Samaritan, this movie also teaches courage, duty, and the value of human life. The latter of which is desperately needed in a world that has forgotten what even the lowliest of human lives are worth.
The Bad:
Evolution everywhere. The very premise of the movie is rooted in evolution. Namely, the meteor that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs missed earth allowing the dinosaurs to survive and develop an advanced cultural society. It makes for a fun movie, but is very clever in mind wiping young children into believing in the theory of evolution. This is added to with various plot elements.
Probably the most significant element influenced by evolution is Spot, the human, and his family. Evolution teaches that mankind evolved from apelike creatures that walked about on all fours. Spot does not primarily walk upright and neither does his family (until the conclusion of the movie). Spot is very primitive and behaves in many ways like a dog. Once again, this makes for an entertaining movie, but is clearly an attempt at indoctrination by the movie's creators.
Another evolutionary reference was with the "rustler" velociraptors which were covered in bird feathers. Where on earth did this notion evolve that dinosaurs had feathers? Why are raptors often victims of this ridiculous notion? Ultimately every time it is suspected that a feathered dinosaur is discovered, it is later refuted. Problem is it is never reported. It makes for wonderful fiction in movies such as this, but it is not rooted in reality (which is why Jurassic World opted to not include feathers on their dinosaurs as it reflects the most up-to-date scientific data on the subject, which is a departure from their proto-feathers in Jurassic Park III).
The Ugly:
When I say ugly, I mean unusual or controversial.
The first unusual gesture that sticks out to me in the movie was how the band of Tyrannosaurs were good guys! This was a great addition to the movie which viewers are sure to enjoy as T.Rex is one of the most popular dinosaurs. What is more, it unintentionally dispels a myth that the big bad T.Rex is all that bad.
As a person that does not buy in to the evolutionary story of origins, I believe dinosaur behavior is significantly different than what it is perceived to have been. The story of evolution teaches that there were meat-eaters and there were plant-eaters. The plant-eaters were peaceful and harmless while the meat-eaters were always on the prowl seeking to terrorize, kill, and devour every chance they got. I don't believe this is the story with dinosaurs at all. Instead, dinosaurs probably had habits very similar to animals today. In fact, I bet that plant-eaters were probably very territorial and just as dangerous as what we perceive to be the meat-eaters. Have you seen how big brachiosaurus is? That thing is dangerous even if it's not aware of your presence! Good T.Rex? Love it!
Next, snake with legs. This is not necessarily an exclusive evolutionary belief. Many creationists believe that snakes used to have legs, as well. The Bible says that after the fall snakes would be punished by being forced to crawl through the dirt. It is thought by some to mean that snakes used to have legs that would prevent them from having to lick up dust. Not everyone agrees in creationist circles, but there is a little fossil evidence to suggest this is a possibility.
One of the primary threats in the movie, a Pterosaur of some sort, was religiously obsessed with storms. His saying was, "The Storm will provide." He is portrayed as being a religious zealot who preys on the misfortune of creatures that get tied up by the aftermath of storms. I do not take this as an attack on all religious people, but for once I would like to see religious folk in movies, that even mildly resemble Christians (as I felt this pterodactyl did) portrayed in a positive light. Most other religions are portrayed positively as being humble, wise, and honorable. Christians are almost always portrayed as the bad guys: crazy, judgmental, and legalistic. The way Christians are portrayed, I wouldn't want to be one if that's what they were really like. This pterodactyl was not portrayed as a Christian, but it is easy enough to see what real life religion was being alluded to.
Conclusion:
The Good Dinosaur is an excellent movie that conveys good morals, although carrying heavy evolutionary themes. It was entertaining but did have a somewhat strange tone (probably because the dinosaurs were more cartoony while existing in a very realistic environment). Now that I have shared the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of it, you can watch it with a mind that is ready to take on the challenges it brings forth.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Zootopia
I have to start off by saying that Disney's Zootopia was another display of Disney's brilliance. It was a fun and entertaining movie that exhibited the type of originality that it seems only Disney is capable of delivering these days. So let's have a run down of what makes Zootopia Good, Bad, and Ugly.
The Good
You leave this movie feeling good. It is the story of a bunny who is trying to prove herself worthy of the police force of Zootopia. She's characterized as a small town girl with big dreams that will stop at nothing to fulfill those dreams. Along the way, people try to discourage her. Aside from wanting to prove herself, she believes she can genuinely serve the world by being a courageous and hardworking police officer.
There is an element of redemption for her co-star, Nick the Fox. Fox's are sneaky creatures that have a bad reputation. Nick grew up enduring the school of hard knocks and has given in to the stereotypes that label him as a dishonest, rotten, predatory scoundrel. Through his relationship with officer Hops (the main character) it is discovered that he has a good heart underneath his rough exterior.
The Bad
EVOLUTION!!! Does every kids movie have to start off with an evolutionary premise anymore? Perhaps it is more subtle in this movie, but for minds like mine that have been trained to spot such propaganda, it is dead obvious that evolution is driving force in the movie. It is mostly rooted in the reality that the predators used to be savages, but have now become civil. I await the day that evolution fulfills its destiny of becoming nothing more than a fairy tale that is only used to make sci fi and fantasy stories more interesting. As it is currently used, its employed as a mild form of brainwashing.
The Ugly
Something about Police Officers stereotyping animals according to their species and certain species justifying their ill behaviors according to what they are might make some people uncomfortable. I will also warn you that there is full blown animal nudity in this movie...like totally naked animals on a secret nudist reserve. Cover your eyes for this scene (It's actually quite comical). Also...implied inter-species relationship...I'm not going to spoil this right now but, again, it's a children's cartoon. So don't worry.
The movie is brilliant. I highly recommend it for families, although I would suggest that parents point out the evolutionary implications to their kids. It kept my two year old's attention for the whole movie, so you know it has to be good.
The Good
You leave this movie feeling good. It is the story of a bunny who is trying to prove herself worthy of the police force of Zootopia. She's characterized as a small town girl with big dreams that will stop at nothing to fulfill those dreams. Along the way, people try to discourage her. Aside from wanting to prove herself, she believes she can genuinely serve the world by being a courageous and hardworking police officer.
There is an element of redemption for her co-star, Nick the Fox. Fox's are sneaky creatures that have a bad reputation. Nick grew up enduring the school of hard knocks and has given in to the stereotypes that label him as a dishonest, rotten, predatory scoundrel. Through his relationship with officer Hops (the main character) it is discovered that he has a good heart underneath his rough exterior.
The Bad
EVOLUTION!!! Does every kids movie have to start off with an evolutionary premise anymore? Perhaps it is more subtle in this movie, but for minds like mine that have been trained to spot such propaganda, it is dead obvious that evolution is driving force in the movie. It is mostly rooted in the reality that the predators used to be savages, but have now become civil. I await the day that evolution fulfills its destiny of becoming nothing more than a fairy tale that is only used to make sci fi and fantasy stories more interesting. As it is currently used, its employed as a mild form of brainwashing.
The Ugly
Something about Police Officers stereotyping animals according to their species and certain species justifying their ill behaviors according to what they are might make some people uncomfortable. I will also warn you that there is full blown animal nudity in this movie...like totally naked animals on a secret nudist reserve. Cover your eyes for this scene (It's actually quite comical). Also...implied inter-species relationship...I'm not going to spoil this right now but, again, it's a children's cartoon. So don't worry.
The movie is brilliant. I highly recommend it for families, although I would suggest that parents point out the evolutionary implications to their kids. It kept my two year old's attention for the whole movie, so you know it has to be good.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
The Lion King: A Closer Look
It would be hard to find a person in our world who has not seen a Disney movie. Disney films are fun, entertaining, and family-friendly. They are great to enjoy with your kids, and fun to watch even years after they have been released. The music within each film is brilliant, and the story lines are quite impressive. But, what I find the most intriguing is that the messages within the films give a clear depiction of the values in our culture for that era of time. They often make social and political statements, through the morals in the story. Disney is brilliant. Disney movies teach us through entertainment. They can shape our worldview, and impact public opinion. However, sometimes we have to look a little bit deeper to get the message.
Let's take a look at one of the greatest Disney films ever created: The Lion King. The Lion King is easily one of the most pro-capitalism movies of all time. At first glance, it appears to be nothing more than a bunch of cute animals, singing and dancing. However, the characters within the movie brilliantly portray how free market principles are superior to socialism or communism.
Recall the character Mufasa. He was the king of the lions and a benevolent ruler. He did not have his hands intimately involved in everything that was happening in the pride lands, but was aware of what was going on. His greatest concern was keeping tabs on the hyenas, who wanted to terrorize, kill, and devour the animals on his territory. The hyenas' fear of Mufasa kept them at bay. But a dark figure loomed in the shadows. This figure would liberate the hyenas from their bonds and bring in a new era where lions and hyenas could live in harmony. He was Mufasa's brother, and his name was Scar.
Scar was the intellectual of the family. He had all sorts of ideas concerning how he could improve their community through fairness and equality. He was hatefully jealous of his brother, Mufasa, who received the respect and love of everyone in the pride lands. He wallowed in his helpless misery until, one day, he discovered that he could use Mufasa's love for his son, Simba, against him. Scar saw that if he found a way to secretly assassinate Mufasa and Simba, he would be the king of the pride lands. This leads to a remarkable musical number that gets down to the very core of Scar's true nature.
In the song, Be Prepared, Scar commands the hyenas to follow his lead, carry out his plan, and get rid of Mufasa and Simba. Within the song, Scar praises his own brilliance and calls his plot the chance of a lifetime and the coup of the century. This is typical language of revolutionaries who want to enforce their will on their thoughtless followers (in this case, the hyenas). In return for helping him become king, Scar promised the hyena's that they would never go hungry again. Following this declaration is a scene where hordes of hyenas are goose stepping to the beat of the song and praising Scar as their king. Scar's plan to kill Mufasa was ultimately a success, but Simba escaped and was essentially exiled from the pride lands.
Now, the hyenas expected Scar's plan to result in a Utopian society where lions and hyenas lived in harmony, but what they got was even more miserable than how they lived under Mufasa. The hyenas wanted Mufasa back; for, under his leadership, they had food to eat. At first, under scars rulership, they were getting plenty of the food. The lions were having to provide for them, but eventually the food ran out. The lionesses were having to venture outside of the pride lands, as they were left with desolate wastelands in their midst. The hyenas represent those who want much, all in the name of "equality," but do little work to obtain it. Eventually, under all socialistic regimes, all people are left with a lifestyle that is less than desirable. Those who work hard have most of their resources taken away from them, and those who do not work have to rely on the ruling class to provide.
The beloved Timon and Pumbaa represent the typical Hakuna Matata mentality. It means no worries. It was a fun rendition to watch in the film, and it left a song that will forever play in our minds when we think of The Lion King. Timon and Pumbaa were living a great worry-free life, until the lions started hunting them. Then, they realized that it all matters. They needed to help their friend, Simba, to fight to gain back the pride lands.
At the climax of the movie, Simba returns to reclaim his kingdom and confronts his uncle, Scar. Scar cowers in fear because Simba was younger, stronger, and commanded more loyalty from the lionesses. In his moment of helplessness, Scar chose to blame the hyenas for the desolation. A battle ensues and Simba ousts Scar, takes back the pride land, and restores the order that once existed.
In The Lion King, Scar thought that his new kingdom was paradise on earth. He banned any mention of Mufasa's name. He did not want anyone to recall the way things used to be because he liked his new Utopian society. The misery around him didn't matter. He was king.
The only thing to make the pride lands great again was the freedom to work and to prosper under a strong, moral leader, who wanted the best for his land. The restoration of the pride lands was a great example of the hope of our country, a country that has morals and a strong foundation in free enterprise.
Let's take a look at one of the greatest Disney films ever created: The Lion King. The Lion King is easily one of the most pro-capitalism movies of all time. At first glance, it appears to be nothing more than a bunch of cute animals, singing and dancing. However, the characters within the movie brilliantly portray how free market principles are superior to socialism or communism.
Recall the character Mufasa. He was the king of the lions and a benevolent ruler. He did not have his hands intimately involved in everything that was happening in the pride lands, but was aware of what was going on. His greatest concern was keeping tabs on the hyenas, who wanted to terrorize, kill, and devour the animals on his territory. The hyenas' fear of Mufasa kept them at bay. But a dark figure loomed in the shadows. This figure would liberate the hyenas from their bonds and bring in a new era where lions and hyenas could live in harmony. He was Mufasa's brother, and his name was Scar.
Scar was the intellectual of the family. He had all sorts of ideas concerning how he could improve their community through fairness and equality. He was hatefully jealous of his brother, Mufasa, who received the respect and love of everyone in the pride lands. He wallowed in his helpless misery until, one day, he discovered that he could use Mufasa's love for his son, Simba, against him. Scar saw that if he found a way to secretly assassinate Mufasa and Simba, he would be the king of the pride lands. This leads to a remarkable musical number that gets down to the very core of Scar's true nature.
In the song, Be Prepared, Scar commands the hyenas to follow his lead, carry out his plan, and get rid of Mufasa and Simba. Within the song, Scar praises his own brilliance and calls his plot the chance of a lifetime and the coup of the century. This is typical language of revolutionaries who want to enforce their will on their thoughtless followers (in this case, the hyenas). In return for helping him become king, Scar promised the hyena's that they would never go hungry again. Following this declaration is a scene where hordes of hyenas are goose stepping to the beat of the song and praising Scar as their king. Scar's plan to kill Mufasa was ultimately a success, but Simba escaped and was essentially exiled from the pride lands.
Now, the hyenas expected Scar's plan to result in a Utopian society where lions and hyenas lived in harmony, but what they got was even more miserable than how they lived under Mufasa. The hyenas wanted Mufasa back; for, under his leadership, they had food to eat. At first, under scars rulership, they were getting plenty of the food. The lions were having to provide for them, but eventually the food ran out. The lionesses were having to venture outside of the pride lands, as they were left with desolate wastelands in their midst. The hyenas represent those who want much, all in the name of "equality," but do little work to obtain it. Eventually, under all socialistic regimes, all people are left with a lifestyle that is less than desirable. Those who work hard have most of their resources taken away from them, and those who do not work have to rely on the ruling class to provide.
The beloved Timon and Pumbaa represent the typical Hakuna Matata mentality. It means no worries. It was a fun rendition to watch in the film, and it left a song that will forever play in our minds when we think of The Lion King. Timon and Pumbaa were living a great worry-free life, until the lions started hunting them. Then, they realized that it all matters. They needed to help their friend, Simba, to fight to gain back the pride lands.
At the climax of the movie, Simba returns to reclaim his kingdom and confronts his uncle, Scar. Scar cowers in fear because Simba was younger, stronger, and commanded more loyalty from the lionesses. In his moment of helplessness, Scar chose to blame the hyenas for the desolation. A battle ensues and Simba ousts Scar, takes back the pride land, and restores the order that once existed.
In The Lion King, Scar thought that his new kingdom was paradise on earth. He banned any mention of Mufasa's name. He did not want anyone to recall the way things used to be because he liked his new Utopian society. The misery around him didn't matter. He was king.
The only thing to make the pride lands great again was the freedom to work and to prosper under a strong, moral leader, who wanted the best for his land. The restoration of the pride lands was a great example of the hope of our country, a country that has morals and a strong foundation in free enterprise.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)