Review: Legion
I saw Legion on Friday.
Wow.
This movie sucked out loud, on ice.
For real, this was one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. And, yes, that was a huge disappointment to me because I was really looking forward to a movie about the end times and angels and the powerful, smiting retribution of God. Well, there were angels in it, anyway.
So, right, here’s the the basic plot; it’s the end times, but not really like we’re used to seeing or hearing about, and only one baby can save us, but his mother isn’t all that into having him and God has sent an army of angels to kill the baby and pretty much anyone along the way who tries to stop them. Sounds like a winner, right? Yeah, you’d think. But, somehow they managed to take that premise, a fairly decent cast and screw it up at every turn.
First of all, Michael, chief of God’s angels, essentially rebels to come to Earth, make himself human, and try to save the mother of the implied second coming of Christ. Not a bad start, really, except that no one ever cops to the fact that the baby is the reborn Prince of Peace. Oh, and also? That whole rebel angel thing. That’s been done and, uh, Lucifer, the angel of the morning star, already did that and was cast out of heaven. So, really, that was kind of a hard-sell to me, Michael rebelling. And, uh, pretty well that’s the entire plot. Angels coming to kill unborn kid, rebel angel out to stop them and the rag-tag group of human misfits who sort of tag along for the ride and cliched object lessons. And, since I cannot in all good conscience recommend that anyone waste one, thin dime on this movie, I am totally going to ruin it for you now. The rebel angel succeeds and the kid is born, humankind is saved, his parents are redeemed and become what seem to be red-neck, Christian Identity, gun-toting survivalists who apparently discover Utah. And, now, thankfully, you don’t need to see this film.
So, if you’re still with me, here’s a theological issue I had with the movie.
Michael, the newest rebel angel, repeats several times that he’s giving God what He needs, not what He’s asking for.
Uh, hello? What? Are you implying that God doesn’t know what He wants? That some angel with an English lisp and Enochian tattoos actually know better than God what God’s mind is and His needs are? Seriously? Because, then, God pretty well couldn’t be God, since that’s sort of defined by being all-powerful and all-seeing and all-knowing and if one of His creations knows better than He does then He can’t be those things. Right? And, really, that was just the most obvious and egregious theological failing, but it wasn’t the only one. It’s just that one distracted me so, so much from the rest of the film that the rest of them aren’t worth mentioning.
And, really, the potential good parts of the film were bad, too. Like the action and the manifestation of angels and all the ways that subtle morality lessons that never actually manifested. Oh, and the crappy dialog. And, the the bad acting by pretty much everyone except the baby, who I’m fairly certain was special effects.
And, did I mention that the movie was filled with badly failed cliches? Because it was. I mean it was clogged with them like an overflowing cinematic toilet. It was bad, bad, bad.
Honestly, this movie was so bad I cannot believe it actually got made.
If you were thinking about going to see this film, slap yourself, have a stiff drink and go see The Book of Eli instead. You’ll be happy you avoided this one. And, I would say, don’t even bother to rent this stinker. Truly. It was bad in more ways than even I can list.
Do NOT waste two hours of your life going to see this movie.
Wow! We really take our entertainment seriously here, don’t we?
I don’t know, I may be entirely crazy, but looking for deep meaning or quality in a product(Hollywood movies) whose sole function seems to be spending obscene amounts of money aiding bored Americans in their never ending quest to kill time till they die seems…oh, I don’t know…a bit daft.
On the upside, the movie seems to be as fictional as the religious assertions it’s based on.
Also, your theological quibble seems a tad minor. When you couple the contradictory and, at times, homicidal nature of some of the more exuberant Christians and their teachings throughout history with God’s reluctance to reign them in, you find a God who, at best, seems a bit conflicted, and, at worst, an all powerful sociopath who revels in our confusion.
Comment by Dick — 1/25/2010 @ 12:37 pm
Wow, in spite of how well I think you’ve chosen your own pseudonym, I’m not going to resort to an ad hominem attack, as I believe you were attempting to do.
Though you chose to fixate on the theological issue I had with the film, you apparently ignored the fact that the dialog was bad, the plot was weak and the acting perhaps the worst “feature” of the entire film. Whatever your theological bent, the movie was terrible even as an entertainment vehicle. Say what you will about the theology behind any of it, I expect to be at least entertained when I pay my money for an entertainment product. In this movie, I wasn’t.
As a recovered fiction writer, I tend to require things in fictional events to make sense and follow better internal logic than this movie did. Of course, it’s also one of my problems with the Church in general. I’m often confused as to why so many follow the Bible so closely when it suits them, but still enjoy their bacon.
My problems with Christ’s followers, and their detractors, aside, this film isn’t worth wasting your money to see. On the other hand, Dick, it seems like the perfect way for you to spend your time, rather than trying to pick battles of wits while unarmed.
Incidentally, the URL of Dick’s comment actually shows you the IP address used to leave the comment and from whence it came. In case anyone was interested. I’m not overly fond of cowards who hide behind pseudonyms to make frothing, anti-religious attacks over the Internet. At least be brave enough to identify yourself.
Comment by the Network Geek — 1/25/2010 @ 1:30 pm
I hadn’t heard of this movie so I looked it up. I can see why you didn’t like it from the description on imdb.com. “An out-of-the-way diner becomes the unlikely battleground for the survival of the human race. When God loses faith in humankind.”
I love angel lore but I think this version would be lost on me with all the violence and thus they aren’t messengers any longer they are anarchists. As for the religious part of it I’ll leave that to those of Faith. Regardless of a persons beliefs, you do make a point that if God is all knowing and all, well all everything…how is it that the angels know more that one who knows all. It can’t be.
Thanks for the heads up…I’ll be skipping this at the movies, lol.
Comment by Jenn — 1/27/2010 @ 10:09 am
Yeah, well, all questions of theology aside, it was a real stinker!
I went in to this movie expecting a pretty high camp factor. I mean, the end of the world as seen from a roadside diner? You have got to expect some cheese with that! But, sadly, the movie took itself way, way too seriously and failed miserably as any kind of serious, dramatic film.
Something else bothered me about part of it, too. The angels all had these great tattoos that were Enochian, John Dee’s “Language of the Angels”, but they never explained what they were! Even after Michael somehow transferred his to the male, “heroic” lead and made some obtuse reference to “reading the instruction book”, but there was no explanation of what it was or how to read it!! Are we really supposed to believe that a redneck mechanic/bum is going to even know what Enochian is, much less how to read it? Seriously? I mean, I know Biblical scholars who aren’t familiar with what Enochian is!
Anyway, it’s not worth going to see. Maybe a rental, if they come out with a director’s cut that adds footage back in that somehow saves this movie from sucking so hard, but, even then, it’s iffy to me.
Comment by the Network Geek — 1/28/2010 @ 8:24 am