Batman, Volume 5: Zero Year—Dark City

Dr. Death terrorizes Gotham, but he is not Batman's biggest problem . . . for The Riddler is winning. He has the city under dark and under his control, and Batman, Jim Gordon, and Lucius Fox keep coming up empty in their attempts to stop him. Time is running short, with military jets inbound, so riddle me this, Batman—can you save Gotham this time?

This continues the 'zero year' story arc, looking at the origin and early years of Batman. It does a good job, and explores more of Bruce Wayne than prior tales.

Rating: A-

Daredevil: Born Again

Wilson Fisk, AKA Kingpin, has a new title: Mayor of New York City. Matt Murdock, AKA Daredevil, mourns a dead friend and ponders what comes next. As both embark on new chapters of their lives, they will each wrestle with their past (and present) darkness. Can anyone truly change their stripes?

This 9-episode arc picks up the story (now on Disney+) where Netflix's Daredevil show left off six years ago (after season 3). I was impressed. The original cast is all back, and they did a good job mirroring (even improving) the tone of the former seasons. It is suspenseful, dark, and sometimes gruesomely violent. It is also stirring in places, reminding us of the darkness within each of us even as some citizens wrestle with how to fight for the light.

Rating: A-

Batman, Volume 4: Zero Year—Secret City

The Red Hood gang owns Gotham, committing random crimes with no purpose or pattern. People who once flocked to the city for the hope it offered now live in fear.

Bruce Wayne is back. Declared legally dead years ago, he tries to live secretly in the city as he thinks on his goals and purpose. But he cannot hide forever, and Batman will soon be born. Will he be enough to save the city?

This is yet another origin tale of sorts, with familiar themes, characters, and scenes (to include Axis Chemicals and flashbacks to training, echoing scenes from prior comics and movies). It highlights different aspects, though, which was refreshing and avoided it feeling stale.

Rating: A-

Moneyball

It is 2002. The Oakland Athletics have no money, forcing GM Billy Beane to think creatively on how to field a winning team. And he thinks there is a way, by spurning conventional wisdom and looking at different metrics to evaluate players. With the help of Yale economics graduate Peter Brand, he will implement this approach and, against all odds, produce winning clubs (though they would never get far in the playoffs). Moneyball is his story.

This film is highly regarded, and I see why. It presents several themes worthy of contemplation, including what ultimately matters/drives us and challenging convention. And about not necessarily becoming the best (even if it inspires others, using your methods, to be—the Red Sox would win the world series two years later using Beane's methods, even if Beane would not). Recommended.

Rating: A

Cultural Sanctification (Stephen O. Presley)

"The Christian call to cultural sanctification is a call to pursue holiness and conformity to the likeness of Christ within any and every cultural context. Neither retreating nor assimilating, firm in their identity and theological and moral convictions, Christians are to live with faithfulness to the truth of God revealed in the Scriptures." - Stephen Presley

In Cultural Sanctification, Stephen Presley presents how the early church in the ancient world lived in and engaged the world around them. This is before Constantine, when the Roman Empire was openly hostile to, and actively persecuted, Christians. He looks at the following topics; a summary follows.

------

- Identity

The ancient church recognized that cultural sanctification started with Christian identity, which was crafted "through catechesis (or discipleship) and liturgy (or worship). If Christians do not know the basic contours of Christian doctrine and morality, how can we expect them to live Christianly in a pagan world?" After all, Christianity is not just "mental assent to a set of propositions but about a commitment of the whole person to a larger community." And so the early church focused on discipling and liturgy ("the ongoing performative expression of the church's doctrine and morality.").

- Citizenship

"Political theology in the early church rested on three core assumptions: a firm conviction in divine transcendence and providence, a belief that God granted political authority to certain earthly rulers, and an active citizenship that proceeded from a political dualism." (Dualism means living in the tension of being both citizens of heaven and any earthly kingdom in which Christians lived.) Early Christians respected "the proper functions of the state, [and] they honored civil authorities, prayed for peace and stability, paid their taxes, defended religious liberty, and generally promoted virtue."

- Intellectual Life

Every era has prevailing attitudes, and the Christian should be ready to give a defense of the faith (see 1 Peter 3:15). The "early church valued intellectual engagement with culture around them." In one important example, a Christian debated a pagan "on his terms and with his sources, and he used his authorities to persuade him." "Thus, the early church's cultural engagement required theological education and discipleship to marshal a chorus of voices ready to provide the populace with a compelling Christian vision." "The strategy of assimilating and conquering the ideologies of the competition comprised the aim of early Christian apologiests in response to the prevailing intellectual world." 

- Public Life

"Pagans viewed Christians with negative assumptions and misconceptions. In response, the early Christian vision of cultural sanctification exacted a process of resocialization, among considerations of contingency, sanctification, and improvisation. That is, after joining the church, Christians had to struggle through the evolving circumstances of the social world, always trying to manage their cultural absorption or acculturation. All the while, they sought perfection and conformity to the likeness of Christ. This entailed cultivating "a culturally discerning" spiritual life—one that was actively indigenizing within the culture but always sorting out the virtues and vices lodged within it."

- Hope

Finally, Christians were driven by a vision of hope markedly different from the surrounding culture, and it enabled them to weather the persecution, estrangement, and even death some would face for their faith. "Christ, in reigning now, allows Christians to live through all circumstances in faith, hope, and love." Christian hope is "defined by two key tenets: the future kingdom of God, and eternal life or beatitude."

------

This book presents several important concepts and insights, and I think the author does well to look at the ancient world (before Christianity became dominant in the West) for guidance on how to interact with our current, post-Christian age. That said, there were three aspects of this that could have been better:

- The author presents the ancient church as an excellent model for how to interact with culture. He does mention it wasn't perfect, but I think he glosses over significant failures (and their impacts). A better approach may have been focusing on some examplary believers in that age vs. painting an overly-rosy picture.

- The author presents the current Western age as one that used to be Christian but is falling away. True in some respects, but again, I would challenge the notion: even when Christian values were more actively mentioned (and supposedly supported) in society at large, there has always been plenty of hypocrisy, compromise, and syncretism. Many true Christians have been persecuted by seemingly-Christian societies.

- The text is repetitive and over-long; the author's points could have been conveyed in an essay.

This book overlaps with concepts in You Are What You Love and Faith Speaking Understanding; I think these other titles cover the material better.

Rating: B-

Superman IV

At home, the employees of The Daily Planet grapple with new, sensationalist ownership more committed to making money than printing truth. Abroad, the nuclear arms race is heating up between America and the USSR. Amidst such fear, Superman takes things into his own hands and vows to rid the world of all nuclear weapons. As he does so, he might be playing right into Lex Luthor's hands . . . for the self-proclaimed genius is intent on destroying the Man of Steel by using his own genetics against him, and Lex's creation, Nuclear Man, may just be the being that finally fells Superman. Who will prevail?

I remember this 1987 film better than the others (see reviews of Superman I, II, and III in prior posts). This film marked a return to the flavor of the first two, yet fell short of them in two ways:

- the effects were somehow worse (budget cuts, probably)

- the story was rushed, with huge plot holes (apparently 45 minutes was left on the cutting room floor, leaving a 90-minute film where the previous offerings were north of 120)

It was better than Superman III, but only just.

Rating: C-

Superman III

Gus Gorman, a recovering criminal, gets a fresh start in a new career as a computer programmer . . . only to figure out how to swindle the company. The CEO, Ross Webster, is miffed but sees an opportunity . . . and enlists Gus in greater evil schemes. Superman intervenes in one of them, turning Ross's attention to the 'big blue boy scout' and how to destroy him. A synthetic kryptonite might do the trick . . . or make things weird. Does Superman have a chance?

Lana Lang (from Smallville) features here, and that is a bright spot. Otherwise, this movie strikes a markedly different tone from the first and second, and not in a good way. It is more goofy, with Gus (Richard Pryor) being more a clown then a villain, and it features a little too much slapstick comedy. It also got weird at the end when a giant computer becomes self-aware and goes nuts. The music is lacking, the Superman's inner struggle (basically going dark for a bit, like Spidey does in his third movie) is the most interesting part (and yet gets resolved in an uninteresting fashion). Overall, not a fan—though my kids liked it better than the first two.

Rating: D+