Some interesting theology is greatest strength in ‘The Shack’

BY ROGER THOMAS

     It has been several years since I was first introduced to the novel “The Shack.” I cannot remember whether someone just recommended the book or gave me a copy. I remember starting the novel. I liked the way the author, William P. Young, put certain ideas into his characters’ minds. Those ideas often echoed with my own thoughts. Not necessarily the theological parts, but just simple ideas that the characters would say or think. I found the book comfortable, at least the part I read. For some reason, another book, or busy-ness, helping my children with their homework, or whatever, I stopped reading “The Shack” and I never returned to it.

     This past week, as I watched the film based on the novel, I understood why so many people see the book as very religious. I can also see why some people would struggle with the theology presented. My guess is that the “Trinity” in this story is not how some want them to appear. I also think there are some who will find too little attention on sin, punishment and justice. 

    On the other hand, I could see how many Christian believers, and perhaps those of other faiths, would find the theology intriguing, compelling, and  even insightful. The way William Young and the filmmakers depict the Trinity is very positive and comfortable, most of the time.

     As for the film, parts are stronger than others. There is a scene in a cave two thirds into the film when the protagonist, Sam Worthington as Mack Phillips, meets Wisdom and he is challenged about forgiveness. That is the most powerful scene in the film. 

     There are many spectacles created by special effects throughout the film. I found most of those to be more distractive than enhancing. Maybe some needed the magic, but again, for me, the conversations, like the one with Wisdom, were much more impressive than anything used to create a magical, or should I say, miraculous environment.

     The reason that Mack ends up in the woods alone is a powerful tragedy that has consumed his life. Most of us, praise God, will never live such a tragedy. The way the film deals with those moments for the most part work well. I did have one reservation about Mack’s teenager daughter. This girl does not experience what Mack does. She has not been given sage advice from the ones that her father encounters in the woods and yet she is somewhat transformed. I know the film needed a happy ending, but I found the teenage girl and her brother to a lesser degree to be weak characters.

     On the other hand, I found the fact that the wife became the strength of the family after the tragedy was a very positive element in the story. I have said many times that growing up I thought my dad was strong and tough, but as I became a teenager and a young adult I realized that my mother was the strongest person in our family. I am pretty sure my dad knew it too. 

   So here is what I know. The set-up of the film, the tragedy works well enough. The performances of  most of the actors are fine. The film has some well-crafted moments, and some that should have been cut. Ultimately though, the best moments in the film are the conversations between Mack and the three people who meets in the woods and the woman in the cave. I assume that most of those ideas and the dialogue was lifted from the book that I never finished reading. Those moments touched me and left me with good memories. I also feel resolved to finish the novel.

     One final thought, toward the end, I was moved emotionally. Yes, I cried. Of course I cry at a lot of movies. But again, emotion aside, the most touching and profound moment is when Mack and the audience are learning about “Forgiveness.”

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

The big ape is back in ‘Kong: Skull Island’

BY ROGER THOMAS

     I grew up watching the different versions of “King Kong” on television. In the sixties I saw the Faye Wray classic from 1933. At some point I saw “Son of Kong” as well. As a child with horrible taste in movies, my favorite one was “King Kong vs Godzilla.” In that fight Kong won, in case you were wondering.

     In 1976 a big budget film of Kong came out with stars Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange. These actors would eventually win Oscars but not for “Kong.” The one thing that stands out from that film is that Kong climbed the World Trade Center instead of Empire State Building. The film’s poster shows Kong straddling the two towers but actually he jumps from one to the other. He never stands on both at once. I was twelve when I saw that version in a theatre at a mall in Gastonia, North Carolina.

     More recently, Peter Jackson, of “Middle Earth” films, gave us his version in 2005. It starred the beautiful Naomi Watts, Jack Black and Adrien Brody. The story was set in the thirties like the original and the effects were stunning. Jackson’s version will probably always stand as the best. There is a scene on the island that involves swinging vines that is simply astonishing.

     Now we have a new film: “Kong: Skull Island.” This film happens completely on the island, except for a few beginning scenes to set the plot in motion. Unlike other “Kong” films, there is no climax when the big ape is brought off the island to reek havoc on New York City or any other setting. Maybe that will happen in a sequel, but this plot is centered in the jungles of Skull Island.

     Simply put, this is a fun film. The effects, for the most part are outstanding. Kong looks more impressive than ever in every shot of him. There are plenty of other effects-created creatures  and most of them look outstanding. None though are quite as impressive as the title character. There is one set of giant animals that do not overall impress me. It was not the authenticity; in several shots the creatures look very real. I just could not get past their strange appearance.

     Another strength of the film is the consistent humor. There is abundance of jokes throughout the film. Considering the carnage that occurs on the island, humor is very necessary.

     Then there is the setting. Some of this may have been created with “special effects” but that does not diminish the presentation. There is a village, a boat, jungle settings, all that had to be created. There are these revealing paintings which were done by the indigenous residents of the island; in reality they were created by some production designers, and they are impressive. The look of the film is simply impressive.

     Then there is the cast: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, John Goodman, just to name a few. Most outstanding among these fine actors is John C. Reilly. He gets many laughs but he is also the only one who fully understands what is happening in the jungle. 

     Another thought about the film is that there is no romance for Kong this time around. There is no actress tied to a pole as a sacrifice to the big ape. Kong does not fall in love with Oscar-winning Brie Larson. Larson does not play the damsel in distress but rather is a strong and smart scientist trying to survive just like all the men. 

     “Kong: Skull Island” is not a film for the ages, or even one that will be remembered by the end of 2017. It is simply a fun time with outstanding effects; sometimes that is enough. 

     By the way, sit through all the credits; then you will know what is going to happen in films to come.

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

‘The Ottoman Lieutenant’ is a small epic which tries hard

BY ROGER THOMAS

     I have probably written this before: I love historical epics. By the time I was twelve I had probably seen “Gone with the Wind” ten times. More recently, after I became an adult I continued to love big films that told sometimes stories based on facts and other times fictional stories with a background of history: “The Deer Hunter,” “Gandhi,” “Out of Arica,” “The Last Emperor,” “Dances with Wolves,” “Schindler’s List,” just to name a few. All of these films won “Best Picture” from the Academy and these films are just among the years 1978 to 93.

     “The Ottoman Lieutenant” strives to be one of those type of films. For the background setting, there is World War I. One of the greatest strengths of the film are the moments when the main female character, Lillie played by Hera Hilmar, shares events of the war with the audience. Footage, real or perhaps recreated for the film, offers moments which are quite affective. Those history lessons were my favorite part of the film.

     The story focuses on four main characters. There is Lillie who trained as a nurse and chooses to travel to the Ottoman Empire to serve at an American hospital. Jude, played by Josh Hartnett, is a doctor who serves at that hospital. When he speaks at Lillie’s church, she is inspired to go halfway around the world to make a difference. Once Lillie gets off the ship in Turkey, she encounters a soldier named Ismail. Ismail, the title character, is played by Michiel Huisman. Finally, Ben Kingsley plays a crotchety old doctor at the hospital who thinks Lillie should go home. This quartet of actors give fine enough performances, though there is little that stands out among any of the characters.

     And so, therefore is the problem. There is plenty of epic shots of land. Beautiful scenery and great cinematography abound. There are some sweet moments. A few frightening ones especially in times of battle. There are an occasional moment of humor, especially when Lillie is arguing for her way, but overall the film lacked passion.

     As  you might have guessed, Lillie ends up trying to decide between the doctor who almost literally talked her into going to a foreign land and the man who is in his homeland attempting to serve the greater good of his people. In films like this, where there is a choice, the audience tends to lean one way. If you asked the people around you when the film ends, they usually agree on what should happened. I did not ask anyone when the film ended. I was alone and was not sure those around me would welcome my inquiry. However, I am confidant that I could have predicted what they would have said. There opinion would be the same as mine, except I never felt fully committed to any possible climax  or ending. 

     As the film prodded on, I kept thinking of the great epics, films like I listed above. While watching those films, one knows what one wants to happen. And in some cases when it did not happen, it was all the more powerful. This film left me sighing. Not because I did not get what I wanted, but rather because I never cared as much as I thought I should.

     I looked up the screenwriter of the film, Jeff Stockwell. He wrote the screenplays for a couple of other films I have seen. The first is “Bridge to Terabithia” which I watched many times with my children as they grew up. Stockwell also wrote “The Dangerous Lives of Alter Boys.” That’s a quirky little film that has some powerful moments and great insight. Either of those films, both of which are about young teens, have more passion and more feeling than anything I saw on “The Ottoman Lieutenant.” 

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.