2 of 5

Movie Parables' Michael Elliott found Megiddo better than its predecessor, The Omega Code, but faults an "unrealistic and unlearned view of how governments function. The actions of this particular president and his cabinet are beyond ridiculous … even for a film of the action/adventure genre to which Megiddo aspires." While Elliott finds the good-overcomes-evil resolution to be heartening in the middle of current events, he doubts the film will have much to say beyond the bounds of the faithful. "Megiddo appears to be made for those who already believe. It's a matter of preaching to the choir. And when all is said and done, what's wrong with that?"

Plenty, according to Doug Cummings, who hosts Chiaroscuro's film review and discussion board. In a recent chat about Megiddo, he remarks on the increasing number of church-funded movies. "I'd rather see Christians make meaningful films for everyone rather than forge movies within a subculture surrounding questionable interpretations of Scripture promoted within a network of churches. Think about it: Christians spent $17 million dollars on Left Behind. What else could have been done with that kind of money? How else might organized Christians have touched the needs of the world? I think we need to move away from marginalizing labels like 'Christian movies' and toward meaningful integration of spiritual values in art that reflects the world we all live and breathe in. It's not about budgets, it's not about labels—it's about making creative, meaningful art that can inspire and challenge everyone."

Steve Lansingh of The Film Forum joined the conversation, "It seems to me that what Christians really want are a set of movies that they can feel 'safe' watching, just as you can get a set of CDs or listen to a station that has 'safe' Christian music. This is a horrible tendency. The Christian life is not about turning off your brain so you don't have to analyze anything or understand the world around you. This is the kind of approach to religion that allows it to be classified as the opiate of the masses."

Will Die Hard escapism ever be the same after television's live broadcast of September 11? As a media-saturated nation, we have grown used to spectacular scenes of devastation. We have become too comfortable with imaginary disaster. Hollywood has trained us to watch mass devastation and walk away feeling fine as long as the hero blew up the bad guy before it was over. From The Towering Inferno to Star Wars, from Die Hard to Armageddon, audiences have lined up to see hundreds of fictional lives at risk and often lost in storytelling formulas that rarely acknowledge the importance of mourning. You could easily come away thinking that the only positive response to death by violence is the vowing of revenge.

Renny Harlin's Die Hard II should have been a clear warning sign that action movies were going too far. In the first film, directed by John McTiernan, we watched Bruce Willis single-handedly save a building full of civilians from terrorists bent on mass destruction. There was reason to be relieved at its conclusions. But Harlin's meaner sequel, which seemed merely preposterous popcorn escapism at the time, may be unwatchably traumatic for audiences now—the film audaciously dashed audiences' hopes as terrorists crashed a packed passenger plane into the ground. When Bruce Willis finally sent the bad guy to an equally fiery demise, the film's high-spirited happy ending, set to a jubilant rendition of "Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow," suggested there was now no need to acknowledge the catastrophic loss of life portrayed earlier in the film. Do American heroes know the meaning of grief?

next page... |  2 of 5

share this page

September (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45