Home > Movies
Your Feedback
We'd love to hear from you. Click here to send us an e-mail.
Due to the volume of e-mail, we are unable to respond to every letter. Letters, or edited portions thereof, might be used in our feedback section below. If you do not want your letter printed, please specify.
Hail, Jeffrey
Editor's note: The following letters are in response to the news that Jeffrey Overstreet has decided to step away from CT Movies to pursue other writing projects.
posted 08/19/09
I have appreciated the more thoughtful approach Jeffrey has taken to movies, the culture, and the special opportunities to dialogue with folks around the arts. It is a more helpful approach than the knee-jerk condemnation of too many in public Christian settings. I want to convey my thanks toJeffrey for his ministry to me and those I serve by helping me to take a second look at what I had seen, or to take a look at movies I had bypassed. I presume that CT will continue this approach and this feature.
Pastor Douglas Johnstone
posted 08/19/09
I have only recently started reading CT Movies, and I have not connected with people's names yet, but I am very thankful for the approach. I want to add my "thank you" to the others that have been addressed to Jeff Overstreet, for his work, which sounds like it has been a pioneering work, in this field. I appreciate those who look with "eyes of love" rather then responding out of fear. God isn't handicapped by our choices and it always amazes me where I find him speaking! Thanks, Jeff! Keep up the good work, wherever you go.
Iris Driscoll
posted 08/19/09
I've read Jeffrey's book two times. It is a great book that incorporates the importance of our Christian faith and critically examining the art of film. Sometimes I think Christians have failed to understand the beauty of art and telling an effective story that reaches and remains in the mind. Most Christians seem to be looking for conversion proclamations: Are you ready to accept Jesus after seeing this movie? But my own love with film led me to watch the films that are considered classics, with one question in mind: Why do these films have such a powerful connection to people regardless of faith? Even films with sometimes offensive content can say a lot about fallen humanity and its need for redemption. Jeffery's book has given me a lot to think about when I go to the movies or buy/rent a DVD. Thank you for your insight. I hope CT Movies continues to review film that affirms and challenges the Christian faith. How can we ever make an impact for Christ's glory in art and film if we don't study the art form seriously?
Michael Mayfield
A few pats on the back
posted 06/25/09
CT Movies is such a valuable resource. Sometimes I watch At the Movies on TV and when (if) I follow their thumbs up, I end up seeing something awful. But when I check with you guys, I get information and opinions which provide the kind of input I can really put to use. I'm in my 70s; thanks for being there for me.
Carol Pff
posted 06/25/09
I consider the CT Movies coverage of films among the news coverage to which I look forward on a regular basis. The format and content of articles and revues is attractive, and the quality of the writing is excellent.
Lenore Chernenko
posted 06/25/09
CT Movies is my "go to" for movie reviews. Keep plugging, and thank you for continuing what you do.
Suzi Wackerbarth
posted 06/25/09
Your reviews tell it like it is, with perceptive Christian perspectives and clear language. Many newspaper reviewers whom I have read thru the years get so wrapped up in impressing other reviewers with their knowledge of film directors' past histories and descriptions of the finer points of filmmaking that I lose interest in their take on the plot and acting of the film itself. You do an exceptionally fine analysis of thefilm which helps me make up my mind whether or not I will see it. Thank you.
Clyde Chesnutt
Appreciating Artistry
posted 04/17/09
Thank you so much for continually striving to look beyond mere content to the quality and artistry and intention of a film. You are the only Christian critics I've read who constantly get it right—not hyperventilating because a movie contains a curse word, or a flash of cleavage, but instead looking beyond and seeing the film as a gesture and a piece of art that should be explored and thought through and carefully weighed. As a Christian teenager who endeavors to enrich myself culturally, you have know idea how heartening it is to see Christians looking beyond legalism and a laundry-list of will allow/won't allow and viewing movies intelligently.
Melodie Roschman
Redeeming … or Not?
Not surprisingly, readers had strong reactions—positive and negative—to our recent list of the Most Redeeming Films of 2008. Here's a sampling.
posted 02/11/09
Thanks for this amazing list. I had pretty much given up on movies, but this is motivating me to want to see some that will actually edify.
Karen Soto
posted 02/11/09
Why do Christians waste their time watching movies that take God's name in vain and support this trash? Why does Christianity Today even rate these movies "redeeming"? Many Christians are getting so lax in their morals. Christians should ask themselves, if Christ were with me in person, would he join me in this theater to watch this movie? Don't give me "you have to go where the sinners are" because I have never seen anyone coming out of a movie like these preaching the gospel.
Ted Blohm
posted 02/11/09
I have not found any other site about movies that so clearly gives a review of what is out there. There are many movies that I would not have seen or known about had it not been for your reviews. As much as I can remember, I don't feel that I have ever been steered wrong by your reviews and I usually agree with what you say about them.
Ashley Adams
posted 02/11/09
As a mother of five and grandmother of three, I am grieved that the following movies are on your list: Gran Torino, with characters uttering the f-word nearly 75 times and the s-word another 25, while Jesus' name is misused about 20 times (a few times by the priest; Rachel Getting Married, in which Sidney and Rachel announce that they're pregnant before the wedding, and the f-bomb is lobbed close to 20 times; The Dark Knight, about which the Chicago Tribune wrote "Sensational, grandly sinister and not for the kids" and the New York Daily News said, "The PG-13 rating seems tame; this sucker is rough"; Slumdog Millionaire, in which deeply accented English makes a precise profanity count difficult: There are at least three f-words, close to 10 s-words and a handful of uses of "b--ch," "d--n," "h---" and "bloody." God's name is misused four or five times.
Linda Wilson
posted 02/11/09
I was thrilled to see Slumdog Millionaire on your list of redeeming films for 2008.I always try to look for themes and concepts in films that I can share with someone, and Slumdog Millionaire embodied one: The only reason we, as Christians, should look back at our pasts is to remember God's blessings, the things we've learned, the good he's done, not to examine our failures and the hurt. I thought of that as I watched Slumdog Millionaire.There's a moment, right at the end of the film, when an earlier scene is played in reverse, like a video rewinding, from its tragic end to its hopeful beginning. Instead of looking back at the bad, they chose to see through it and dwell on the moments of joy.
Carrie Givens
posted 02/11/09
Gran Torino is a definitive picture for our time. The ending is unexpected to say the least. There is no question that the Cross of Christ was the foundational theme, whether or not Eastwood intended it. Like so many really good movies of the past, its themes transcend the present and the shadow of the Cross falls across its images. Eastwood has not escaped the facts that personal sacrifice resolves guilt, life is found in forgiveness, and love is found in being brought face-to-face with the struggles of our common humanity. Gran Torino, seen in biblical context, lifts broken humanity (its dividedness, its gutted language, lost individuality, marred innocence, guilt, hate) to its healing through the Cross and the one person who gave the Cross its meaning, purpose and solution, Jesus Christ.
Harald K. Haugan
posted 02/11/09
Frozen River belongs near the top of your list.
Matt Foreman
posted 02/11/09
You missed a great one for your list: The Boy In the Stripped Pajamas. It was a real surprise and wonderfully done. It was a powerful film about friendship, identification and sacrifice as one left his privileged station and entered into the harsh domain of condemned. He did it for the sake of his friend, though unwittingly. Though sad and shocking in the end, he, in a sense, shared in his friend's condemnation. It had close reverberations to the Savior's humiliation in the Christmas story.
E. C. Hock
posted 02/11/09
Australia deserves a place in the list.
Ester Aguirre
posted 02/11/09
I was hoping to see Henry Poole is Here in your list. In its somewhat off-the-beaten-track way,the movie does take faith—and people with faith—seriously.
John Maust
Great Work!
posted 02/11/09
Just wanted to shoot you an email of "kudos" for all the great work. I stumbled upon your movie reviews sometime last year and have since bookmarked the site. Even though I'm a Christian, I watch all sorts of films—some not so godly, but still incredibly good. (We believers can't live in a bubble, after all.) I really appreciate knowing what I'm in for after reading a review on your site.
Charlotte Cusack
D.W. Griffith and Racism
posted 02/11/09
I am appalled at your Filmmakers of Faith article about D.W. Griffith. I feel sick having read your article that praises Griffith and passes over his racism as if it is no big deal. I don't even know what to say, I want to weep. I agree that there is no doubt that Griffith was a cinematic genius, since many of his innovative techniques are still used today. But still, there was just a white washing of Griffith contribution to American racism. I also wonder why this article praising such a racist Christian appeared on the inauguration day of the first African-America president, and the day after our country's celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. What are the motivations behind that? I will say this, my brothers and sisters: Thank you for reminding me how far race relations in the church have to go. Your article proves that ignorance and unconscious racism are alive and well in the church.
Jonathan Hunnicutt
posted 02/11/09
For more years than I can recall, CT has downplayed, minimized and belittled the impact and substance of racism, black Christian contributions and the lack of real progress in evangelical circles for both changing minds and hearts. The most recent example is the glowing article about D.W. Griffith. While seeming to put his seminal work, Birth of a Nation, as a sort of blip on the screen, the article neglects to point out that the "colored" actors were all whites in black face, that the Klan was seen as protectors of white virtue and the destructive effect of the stereotypes that were propagated. Once again, CT has shown itself to be not the journal of evangelical Christianity, but of white, evangelical Christianity. And it is a shame.
Rev. Adrian Powell
Disgusted by Desperaux
posted 01/12/09
Regarding your review of The Tale of Despereaux, I am grateful to you for drawing attention to the utter disappointment this movie turned out to be. As a teacher of elementary students, I was appalled by the movie. We read the book by Kate DiCamillo in class; she captures true voice and creates a certain magical feeling within her story, and the movie leaves much to be desired. I took 120 fifth-graders to view the film yesterday morning, and 75 percent walked out with a resounding sound of disgust, complaining the whole way back to school that Despereaux wasn't quite the hero they thought he would be. Congratulations to this film company for draining the magic out of a truly excellent piece of children's literature. This is hands-down the worst adaptation of a book I've ever seen.
Katy Cox
Seven Pounds of Spoilers?
posted 01/12/09
After reading your review of Seven Pounds, I'm really disappointed by the clunkiness of your unwarned spoiler. Other reviewers were careful to note how the movie only gradually reveals the main character's motivation, which although foreshadowed, is not fully revealed until later in the film. Your dislike for the movie is apparent. Did you let that color writing a spoiler? Whatever caused it, please show more respect for readers (even if you can't muster respect for a movie) in the future by not including spoilers.
Susan Prosser
posted 01/12/09
Every major film critic I read managed to review Seven Pounds without giving away the premise. And then there was the Christianity Today review. Okay, you didn't like the movie. At least have enough respect for the filmmakers to keep secret the plot they've clearly worked so hard to protect. This is the last place I'd expect such a thoughtless review.
Jim Knutsen
posted 01/12/09
If your goal was to dissuade others from seeing the film, that's not an unworthy goal, but by giving away everything about the plot but the end, you've given your reader no choice. I read reviews in part to help me decide if I want to see a film, but in the end it's still supposed to be my decision.
Jelani Greenidge
Defending Billy
posted 10/15/08
I was very surprised by your negative review of Billy: The Early Years. I am a HUGE film buff and I saw the movie twice this weekend. Just as a frame of reference my favorite directors working today are PT Anderson, Cameron Crowe, and Wes Anderson. So Christian films are not usually what I will go see because of the story lines and quality of films. But I thought Billy was GREAT! Sure it's not going to be up for best screenplay, but I thought the director did a decent enough job of capturing Billy and more importantly how Jesus can change a man's trajectory. I can understand secular reviewers ripping the film, but I expected more of an open viewpoint from you. After all, you write for Christianity Today.
Sam Vara
posted 10/15/08
You really, really need to take a step back and examine your purposes. Your continued and repeated attacks on Christian films is unwarranted. I pray the Lord will convict you soon. Until you pick up a camera and make a movie yourself, you have no right to continually slander Christian films and filmmakers. I will never pick up another copy of CT.
Chris,
fan of Billy Graham: The Early Years
Editor's note: We have no problem with readers taking us to task for our reviews; everybody's got an opinion. What we don't understand is the implication that we, as professional film critics, should give a free critical pass to a movie just because it's "Christian." We like Christian movies, but we have absolutely no obligation to say they're great works of art if they aren't.
More on Religulous
posted 10/15/08
I've read the review and seen the movie, and I find the review really disappointing. No one would be surprised that Christianity Today's film reviewer doesn't share Maher's perspective. But what's surprising and disappointing about the review is how dishonest and hypocritical it is. One passage—"Maher shores up little credibility for his cause by refusing to talk with any opponent with an ounce of nuance of theological rigor"—is patently false. Refusing? In the film, it wasn't Maher refusing to talk to anyone. But he did manage to get some people of note to talk to him—the Vatican's Senior Priest and the Director of the Vatican's Observatory (a Ph.D. and a priest) are two that readily come to mind. But throughout the film he interviews a variety of ministers and other religious people of significant stature. That passage suggests he only talks to cranks with a mike on the street corner. Then there's this passage: "Maher is particularly hard on Islam, offering somewhat surprising pronouncements about the inherent violence and barbarism of that most touchy of all world religions. At moments like these, Maher might actually find allies in conservative Christian circles." Isn't this the height of hypocrisy? That is, we like Maher's analysis, just not when it's applied to us. Your audience is ill-served by an article with inaccurate and hypocritical (and, not to mention, ad hominem) attacks.
David Bryan
posted 10/15/08
Although my views tend more toward the liberal, I have never liked Bill Maher's condescension (as you call it) or sarcasm. I thought your description of him as "an ardently liberal, slightly greasy elitist" was pretty accurate, though I hate the liberal and conservative labels. I would happily watch a film that explored inconsistencies in religious doctrine, and would value a real discussion about why some people turn away from the religion on which they were raised. But, I had no hopes that this film of Maher's would be anything more than what you have described. I will not be watching it.
Ellie Miller-Dyk
Re: Maher and Religulous
posted 10/06/08
In Religulous, Bill Maher makes the same fatal mistake that many make who attacks faith traditions, trying to fit God into human understanding. If we can understand God, then he isn't God. But I respect Maher, because he raises some questions that should be answered. I do find some of his humor funny, and sometimes it makes me think about what I think and believe. I do agree with him that faith is odd and sometimes dangerous. But that's no reason to lump all faith into same hole. Some Christians will respond to Maher with contempt, but I can't help but to think of Jesus's encounter with Nicodemus in John 3. There was an open exchange of ideas. That is what we Christians should do in being true witnesses, not attack dogs.
Frank J. Zbink
posted 10/06/08
Your review says that Maher "goes to the Vatican and interviews some crazy Catholic priest." You're not making a very strong argument for your own intelligence when you dismiss Father Reginald Foster as a crazy. There's a lot to like about Father Foster. He dresses like a plumber. He's an expert in Latin literature. He's the Pope's principal Latinist. He's fluent in Latin, German and Italian. He spends the majority of his day teaching others. The guy's pushing 70 and he only sleeps 4 hours each night. Are you so perfect that you feel qualified to pass judgment on this guy? Hopefully you'll realize some day that when you wrote this review, you proved Mr. Maher's point.
Kyle Dobbs
posted 10/06/08
Your review states that Bill Maher interviews "some crazy Catholic priest." The priest interprets the Bible non-literally, so he's crazy. But Ken Ham, who believes that humans used to saddle dinosaurs and ride them around, is, in your opinion, sane?
Jeff Eyges
posted 10/06/08
I think your review of Religulous is incomplete for its failure to note what Maher does not critique: Eastern religions. It seems that the intellectual community is moving strongly into Eastern and Eastern-influenced thought. A lot of it is not theologically sound, even within the Eastern tradition, but basically it seems like anything from the monotheistic traditions is considered questionable.
Carlene Byron
Robert Bresson Fans
posted 09/26/08
I genuinely appreciated your feature on Robert Bresson, who was new to me. The interiority of it—the acknowledgement of the life of the mind and spirit—is pretty rare, too rare indeed in evangelicalism. I grew up Catholic, in the "intellectual" strain of Catholicism represented by such cultures as the Jesuits (who are so maligned by evangelical culture, and in some respects rightly so), and I find that that alienates me among evangelicals, though my belief system is evangelical Protestant, probably closest to Reformed. So I enjoyed the understanding of the contributions of Catholicism to cultural history displayed in that article. Let's see more of that.
Ingrid Hill
posted 09/26/08
Thank you for the article on Robert Bresson. After Carl Dreyer, Bresson is my favorite director of all-time. I don't think many directors in the history of cinema have put that passion and insight in showing true poetry and the power of Christ on the big screen.
Antoine Tremblay
Tyler Perry Fans
posted 09/26/08
Thanks for the article on Tyler Perry. This man and his movies (and plays) speaks to my soul in his characters—especially Madea. She's all about telling the truth, no matter how much it hurts, while she has her arms around you hugging and loving you. I hope Hollywood doesn't change Mr. Perry. We need men like him there. Keep up the good reporting.
Fran Howard
posted 09/26/08
I am a white American mother, grandmother, Christian, and I think Tyler Perry is wonderful. Hopefully, his audience will grow in all humanity, regardless of color, creed or religion. His plays and films have a great message for all of us. My husband and I do not agree on most TV shows. However, every Wednesday, we are glued to the same TV TOGETHER watching four hours of House of Payne. Tyler Perry is a breath of fresh air!
Gloria Shope
Great Actors, Bad Movies
posted 09/26/08
Many readers responded to a recent newsletter's call for your observations for great actors showing up in bad movies. There were multiple votes for Harrison Ford in The Mosquito Coast, and for Tom Hanks in Joe vs. the Volcano—and we concur. But the most head-scratching response was for Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven—which won four Academy Awards, including Best Director (for Eastwood) and Best Picture! Other nominees for great actors in bad movies:
I don't know if you could find a fall to any greater depth than Sir Lawrence Olivier in The Betsy.
Garry Nation
John Wayne in Jet Pilot.
Lydia C
Robin Williams in Final Cut and What Dreams May Come.
Kirk & Tonya Statler
Tom Hanks in Bonfire of the Vanities.
Linda Brecht Marr
Jeremy Irons and Thora Birch in Dungeons & Dragons.
Sonja Wetzel
Robin Williams in Popeye.
Dean Hix
Harrison Ford in Frantic.
Adam Hartley
Russell Crowe in The Silver Bumby.
Caleb O'Brien
Any movie with Samuel L. Jackson not directed by Quentin Tarantino.
Mike Miller
Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey in Edison
Matt Miles
John Travolta in Battefield Earth.
David DeMoss
Meryl Streep in Mama Mia.
James Wetterau
Tom Hanks in The Money Pit.
Greg Martin
Robin Williams in Toys.
Todd Cramer
Harrison Ford in Six Days, Seven Nights.
Ruth Worman
Responding to Save Me, Allen
Editor's note: We have received many responses to our review of Save Me, a new film about a gay man's involvement at a Christian ex-gay ministry, and our interview with the film's star Chad Allen. Here's just a sampling.
posted 09/08/08
Chad Allen's comments suggest that he is choosing to believe the parts of the Bible that he can accept without changing his life. I pray God will continue to show Chad his love and that by his love, Chad will accept the whole, life-changing truth of God's Word.
Julie Smith
posted 09/08/08
Your review of Save Me leaves me saddened that you endorse this movie and its presentation of homosexuality as okay even if such conciliatory attempts prove unsuccessful and the subject continues in his/her sin.Yes, we should show empathy and biblical love to the person, but must confront their behavior as sinful. I fear that your review focuses too much on loving the person and overlooking sin.
Ron F. Wagley
posted 09/08/08
While Chad Allen continues to be drawn to homosexuality, I continue to be drawn to other women even though married. And I know some men who are "drawn" to females who are younger than 18, and some who are drawn to their sisters. And while Chad is "still gay," that is not the point and is far from St. Paul's direction and counseling for us. We are all sinners and are drawn away from God's commandments, but please don't define gayness as some kind of "pass" or an extraordinary exception, it is just one more temptation to certain among us. I would argue that homosexual attraction is no more driven or powerful or "in our DNA" than any other immoral sexual temptation. Perhaps they can just excerpt preferred passages and use them to argue their case. Let's just do what we do: love them, serve them, tell the truth in love and seek our mighty God. My sins are plentiful and terrible and no better and no worse than overt sexual action with a person of my gender, so please tell me that mybeing a congenital liarand thief is OK because a lot of other people are too.
Jim Black
posted 09/08/08
Being a former "practicing" lesbian (I didn't get the remedy, just the Redemption) I am ecstatic that CT would recommend a film such as Save Me. So many in the Christian community cannot understand that not all of us are "cured" of our homosexuality, that many of us still struggle. But we have found the forgiveness and strength we need to "fight the good fight" in our Savior. It would have been so easy for CT to say they couldn't recommend it because Mr. Allen's character doesn't resolve his sexuality in the end; that because he doesn't end up becoming heterosexual it's still a "gay film." Hopefully this movie will help to bring understanding to the Christian community at large, as well showing the struggle than many of us still endure.
Joyce Sappington
posted 09/08/08
As a called woman of God, devout Bible reader, Sunday school teacher and heterosexual woman, I read this article with interest to find out what the final analysis or interpretation of what the Word of God does in fact state about homosexuality. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. Sin is sin. God hates sin, but not the sinner. We must be diligent in our efforts to stop clouding His Word with political correctness, empty hope for those who do not repent from sin to be included in the righteousness of God. Where do people get their interpretations? Let's start preaching and teaching what the Bible really says, and tell the Christians either to repent or face eternal damnation!
Minister A. Watson
posted 09/08/08
I'm a non-gay 68-year-old semi-retired pastor of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). I think this film must be wonderful, and am happy to see any situation in which gayness is affirmed either with or without reservations.
James Boswell
posted 09/08/08
I have personally helped convert reluctant homosexuals using a process I have developed, which is to release the original unconscious associations (sometimes through watching a movie) because our thoughts go into the spirit (unconscious mind) (1 Cor 2:10). Please check out www.mindrenewal.com.au. I am a hypnotherapist and a born again Christian. I offer help to people from all over the world (often without charge) and work over the Internet via Skype. My heart is to help these people.
Sophie Firmin
posted 09/08/08
The subject of deliverance from homosexuality is complicated. Scripturally, those who have homosexual feelings cannot simply act out their feelings any more than heterosexual people can act out their feelings in promiscuity. Does God love the promiscuous? Absolutely. But does he agree with their behavior? Not a chance. The Christian community seems stuck on "deliverance." I'm not sure that is a healthy approach to homosexuality. The better approach is self-control and not acting on sexual feelings, just like we do so in the heterosexual community. We are not slaves to sex. Are some homosexuals delivered? I do not see why not. But what needs to be taught is that God has ordained sexuality to be expressed between a man and woman within the context of marriage. I would tell Chad Allen, "God loves you. But he has ordained that sexuality be expressed between a man and woman in marriage. You may have sexual feelings that are against that, but the fruit of the Spirit is self-control. Life is a struggle. We are at war with the flesh. We must fight the good fight in faith. God understands the battle and gives grace to the humble."
Rev. Douglas Quenzer
posted 09/08/08
We are so quick to dismiss the Scripture if it doesn't agree with our personal views. Homosexual Christians are really bad about this, even though the plain truth of the Scripture is obvious (that practicing homosexuality is an abomination to God), they'll still justify themselves. Are they going to hell? No. Will I still love them? Of course. Would I allow them in my church if they didn't attempt to repent from this perversion? Not a chance. It's leprosy in the camp.
Will Kearney
posted 09/08/08
Chad Allen is not alone in his self-delusion. Most of gay America would think as he does in regards to God, that God loves us for who we are—and God does love us for who we are, but he also will not tolerate the sin in our lives. The problem with this article is not what Chad has said, but what has been left unsaid by CT—where is the guidance for what is right? You have an obligation to state the truth in all of this misguided talk of what Chad believes is correct. Balance is important. Correct teaching is important, and in this article there is no correcting of Chad's viewpoint. What a shame!
Dave Pracht
posted 09/08/08
I come from two conservative religions that want to rid the world of homosexuality. So, when my own son began to show signs of his sexual orientation, I was concerned how the church I was attending would react. So, rather than reach out to someone, I said nothing. And now I am so glad that I waited. Because over time God showed me that my son's "sin" was covered by his blood. Homosexuality is nothing new to God. And Jesus died for all of our sins. But, some people get confused by religious rules, and can't see or won't see, the full salvation that God has provided to all men." In my church, we have opened the door to everyone—including alcoholics, drug addicts, and some gay men and women. It was important to my pastor to welcome everybody because that is what Jesus did. His stance is to let God be God. If God accepts all of us through Jesus Christ than we can do the same. I am happy to report that my own son, who is still gay, is now experiencing the love of God that God himself gives. We are able to talk about his relationships openly, and as a good mom, I am able to help him see that God will help him through all things.
Elizabeth McAndrew
In defense of Babylon A.D
posted 08/21/08
I am so sorry to see that you gave Babylon A.D. zero stars. The film was extremely thought provoking as it repeatedly drew on Christian themesand worked hard topaint a picture of an innocent young woman working to understand her past and her future relative to the fact that she has two or one very bizarre parent(s).She quoted Scripture, enjoyed the Christian relic sellers in the market, became pregnant without any intercourse, championed the cause of every misunderstood DaVinci/prophet/genius, and then gave birth to two beautiful little girls whotaught the Diesel character how soften up and be an adoptive father, bringing him to a place of true purpose in his life as all children do for their parents.This doesn't even account for [spoilers ahead!] the fact that the Diesel character had to die so that he could truly live—wow! But what clinched it for me was thecompletely pro-life closing scene where the Diesel character is holding the two beautiful girls by their hands and says, "We've gotta go, there's a storm coming." That is where the viewer gets to finish the story with imagination!
Timothy John Schrag
Snotty Mummy?
posted 08/21/08
Brandon Fibbs' take on the newest Mummy movie is a pretty snotty sounding review. If I get his gist, he felt the moviemaker had insulted his intelligence by daring to produce the movie, thus forcing Mr. Fibbs to watch it. Frankly, I had a great time at this movie, as did my friends and family. We cheered and laughed; not a single moment of intellectual angst between us. Many of us spend our hard-earned money at the movies in a desire to be entertained; and this movie did that in spades. Nothing happened that required me to place my hands over any child's eyes, and nothing was said that required me to protect any ears—both big pluses in my book. And the filmmakers brought some much-needed humor to this little pocket of a sub-genre. Frankly, I am very happy to go to a movie that doesn't take itself so seriously. Though, I do get the impression that Mr. Fibbs only likes those "serious" films he deems worth his time. His is not really a review; it is a diatribe. Anyone can be snotty.
Steve Orr
Shocking Express
posted 08/21/08
Peter T. Chattaway's review of Pineapple Express shocks me. We are taking a film with outright violence, prolific drug use, a baudy and gaudy film and trying to say it is about "friendship"? Wow! How did that come out of seeing this? If drug abuse and violence and the ability to escape drug dealers makes for a friendship, then something is messed up. This film is about a whacked-out opinion on what is funny and what is wrong with our culture. This film laughs at violence and mocks civility. This film applauds selfish desire above the law. This film makes fun of and ridicules the solidarity of what makes for true friendship and that is truth, compassion, and integrity. I can't even believe you would compare this to a Jonathan and David type of relationship. Your review stinks and your opinion is ludicrous.
Adam Love
posted 08/21/08
I enjoy many aspects of CT Movies, but I must admit to wondering why you even feel it necessary to review a movie such as Pineapple Express, especially when one can walk away from the review feeling the reviewer is at best neutral on marijuana use. It's almost as if it's ignored as a determining factor as to viewing the movie at all. I am disappointed that some teens will be introduced to a pro-ganga film with the aid of your hazy review.
Claude Zimmerman
Hooray for the Swansons
posted 08/21/08
I just read about the Swansons in "All About Them."As a wife and mother of three, I am very interesting in presenting my family with Christ-centered entertainment, especially movies. Two years ago, my husband and I removed our satellite service; we were unhappy with what even the most popular children's programs were presenting to our kids.Instead, we have movies that the kids can watch (VeggieTales, AngelWars, the Love Comes Softly series) without us having to stand over them, because we know the content of the material presented.As the Family Ministries Coordinator at my church, and as a result of our project at home, I have started a program called Second Saturday Cinema where we are showing Christ-centered family films and invite church members as well as the public to attend.Let's have the church support more filmmakers like the Swansons.
Cheryl Harding
Disrespectful Guru
posted 07/01/08
I cannot believe that Paramount has come out with a movie like The Love Guru. This the utmost disrespect to the Hindu culture!People do not even know what the meaning of guru is; how can someone use it or even portray someone we respect? Whoever decided to create this movie must have been a total idiot. Such a disrespectful piece of entertainment.
Aekta Amin
Smart Is Funny!
posted 07/1/08
Despite your review's contention to the contrary, Get Smart is one of the funniest movies I have seen in a long time. The laughter in our theater was loud and robust throughout themovie. It has been a long time since I laughed so hard that I had tears running down my face. People left the theater laughing and talking about this movie on the way out, in the lobby, andby their cars.
Keith
posted 07/1/08
Get Smart is a wonderful piece of entertainment to all Maxwell Smart fans. Lots of good characterizations and witty remarks that distinguished the original series with old vaudeville humor abound. A great movie for the whole family—humorous and suggestive without being vulgar and debased.
Dr. James Turner
More Sex Talk …
The conversation continues regarding our review of Sex and the City, our follow-up commentary, and earlier reader response …
posted 06/13/08
Thank you for writing your honest opinion of the movie, for acknowledging how well-scripted and interesting the characters were, and for not automatically discounting a decent movie due to a few cinematic moments that you may not agree with. In ways I can't quite explain, your article encouraged me. It was real. Non-religious. Genuine. A breath of fresh air in a Christian culture that still (like I did) judges before truly observing.
Angie Teater
posted 06/13/08
Shame on you! Try as you may, you will find no redeeming value in this film. It is post-modern soft porn for women. By your three 3-star rating, you are leading the way for people to stumble their way in the theater to subject themselves to the temptations of the evil one for 90 minutes or so. Would you further suggest that I go to the local strip club to see what else our culture is doing? I think it is time for you, little froggy, to get out of the boiling pot before you are cooked with the rest of the post-modern rationalists who can't see right from wrong and truth from deception.
David A. Porter
posted 06/13/08
Thank you for giving your readers credit for having a brain, and the discernment to decide what movies are okay for us to go see. I for one appreciate all of your reviews, which is exactly what they are; not someone making a decision for me or my family.
Kathy Burnette
posted 06/13/08
What a disappointment! I am a single woman in my 20s who believes the Word of God is Truth. Your tagline reads, "Biblical perspectives on contemporary cinema." There were no Bible verses used to reference anything. Does this movie truly merita 3-star rating from a Christian perspective? It is not a new concept that we all are "sexual beings who wrestle with balancing loneliness and desire for romantic love." Should there not be a distinction between romance and love? Should I lust after men to fulfill my longings and desires? I will no longer in good faith recommend this website to friends seeking "biblical perspectives on contemporary cinema."
Cindy Ableson
posted 06/13/08
Of course we don't want you deciding what we watch. Yes we want to be aware of all that is going on in the world around us and yes sometimes we go to movies and are repulsed, but often surprised and touched by God's Light shining through. Keep up the good work.
Jack Walker
posted 06/13/08
I understand your desire to be "culturally relative" and appeal to an audience's interests, but I feel that you are doing a disservice to readers and fellow believers by failing to warn them of the effects of watching films like this. I agree with your reviewer that the church often does fail our single members by simply replying that "true loves waits" and not acknowledging their desire for a sexual relationship. However, I don't feel that watching SATC would help this, particularly our single friends who may already be struggling. How does filling your mind with the images of nudity, homosexuality, adultery, fornication or sex within marriage help us wait? Psalm 101:3 makes it very clean that we are to set our eyes before no vile thing.
Melissa Lackey
posted 06/13/08
I was raised by parents who believed in living IN the world, not OF it. While my parents appropriately sheltered me from inappropriate material, they gradually allowed us to experience things that really freaked out their Christian counterparts. Now I am an adult that can make good choices about what I take in and can objectively evaluate media choices. I probably won't go see Sex and the City. However, I don't think I need to be someone else's Holy Spirit and tell them not to go.
Christy Ragle
posted 06/13/08
I would like to recommend an author who discusses the importance of disputing the myths in SATC. Marian Jordan wrote Sex and The City Uncovered, writing about why even Christians find this drama widely popular and how each of the characters from the show are all truthfully searching for the same thing: someone or something to fill the God-shaped hole in their hearts. She points people to the gospel in a unique way. Check her out here.
Suzanne Badger
posted 06/13/08
I have worked as a guitarist/composer in Los Angeles for decades and co-lead an Arts and Entertainment small group at my church, and we talk a lot about the pressures that other Christians put on us to not be involved with anything that doesn't have the "Christian" stamp on it. But the truth is that if we don't know anything about the world around us, the people we are trying to reach aren't going to see what we have to say about it as having any grounding in the reality they live in.
Doug Perkins
posted 06/13/08
Those are led by the Spirit will refrain from Sex in the City. In this light as representatives of Christ your online venture should call a spade a spade and be accurately biblical in its view when "reviewing," which should never mean fence sitting. To have authority to espouse even a minor exegetical view alone on poetic nuance, misplaces your authority as neo-apostolic or prophetic, as a logical line drawn from some ability of interpreting and thus above the allegorical poet. The procedural logic and Spirit is null and void. God help us all run like and from hell.
Glen Jackman
posted 06/13/08
As for the appropriateness of reviewing Sex and the City, I think some religious people, and not just Christians, would rather hide from our culture than walk through it. But as Christians, we are called to be that light upon the hill, not the one hiding in the cave. Jesus met the people where they were—in the streets; Paul became all things to all men so that he might engage their conversions and bring them to know Christ. To do this, we must try to understand them. I am thankful for your reviews of such movies because it means I can learn about what my coworkers and the kids in my youth group are watching, and I don't have to spend money to support it, nor allow myself to be tempted by it. I feel this is a great service to your readers, not just because of the quality of your reviews, but also because it makes us better prepared to be the missionaries we are called to be. Thank you for helping me to fulfill God's plan for my life.
Cathryn Torgerson
posted 06/13/08
Do we follow C.S. Lewis—or Jesus? Surely Jesus? The Word of God says: "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." You have dismally failed the Christian community. You need to publicly apologize.
Triston Jacobsohn
posted 06/13/08
Thanks for posting the feedback from readers on your SATC review. As a film critic and a Christian, I always love reading the responses any time CT says anything remotely positive about a controversial movie, or anything slightly negative about a "Christian" movie. I can definitely relate to the wildly varying responses. They usually show how far we as a church have come and how far we still have to go. Many of those letters illustrate perfectly why we have such a problem reaching non-believers. They represent an us-versus-them mindset that says, "If you want to become a Christian, you have to go to this particular church, dress exactly like they do, give up anything you thought was fun and start acting superior to those different from you." God forbid we attempt to meet lost souls where they are and let them know that weunderstand. Or that we might gain some moral insight from a movie that Christians are supposed to think is bad.
Josh Sewell
posted 06/13/08
To all against the review of SATC, but most specifically to Mike Lumpkin who said: "Sex and the City is just trash and nothing redeeming can be made of a series so riddled with ungodly views of sex, marriage and friendship." Brother, I grieve that your God is so small. My God is bigger than any movie and is able bring "beauty from ashes."
Josh Perryman
posted 06/13/08
I teach a class called "Finding God In Film" at Eugene Bible College in which the goal is to look at contemporary film, observe our culture and the morals found or not found, and discuss whether or not God is an influence in these stories, among other things. I encourage my students to always be discerning in their choices of movies, but to also look beyond the mere entertainment and see what is really going on in that big world in which they live. We use Jeffrey Overstreet's Through a Screen Darkly as a textbook and discussion starter. My students have enjoyed the opportunity to learn to think outside of their boxes and gain even more perspective in their Christian Worldview.
Danell L. Bemis
posted 06/13/08
I am not a SATC fan, but I have always appreciated the way CT respects its readers' ability to make a choice based on their own convictions. I love that movies are not rated based on their use of profanity, violence, etc., in the same way I appreciate that movies with Christian themes are not automatically given 4 stars. I grew up in a legalistic home & church, so I find the freedom I have been given in Christ all the more precious. Thank you for respecting your readers enough to allow them to make their own decisions before the Lord.
Valerie Stewart
For and Against Sex
We weren't surprised that our review of Sex and the City prompted a number of replies, especially when we gave the film 3 stars. But we'd like to again reiterate that our star ratings do NOT imply an "endorsement" or "recommendation." The star ratings have nothing to do with the film's "moral value," because such an assessment can vary widely from person to person—as the sampling of letters below clearly indicates. (For more on our star ratings, mission statement, and philosophy, see our FAQs.)
posted 06/03/08
How can any Christian who takes the Bible seriously want to watch (or review) Sex and the City? Why would CT allow this to be reviewed? What is next? Debbie Does Dallas? Soft porn is still porn. God deliver us from this kind of anemic Christianity. Talk about unsalty salt!
Jeff Straub
posted 06/03/08
Thanks for having the guts and grounding in reality for posting your review and your "Let's Talk About Sex" editorial. If there is a subject that the church in general has "thrown out with the bathwater" it's sex, and as a Christian single I am very familiar with the catch phrases that you get told by (well-meaning and usually married) other Christians to shut you up when you talk about the difficulties in going without it. When Sex and the City (the TV series) first came out, I figured it was what most Christians probably think. But after watching it a bit (the "sanitized version"), I found that it really was showing a lot more moral stance than I expected. Yes, a lot of what they do is unbiblical and unfulfilling, but the characters seem to learn from it and do better next time. Overall it shows what the right path really is by how much the wrong path doesn't work for them. I'm not ashamed at all to say that I will probably see the movie.
Doug Perkins
posted 06/03/08
"I will set before my eyes no vile thing" (Psalm 101:3). I am pretty tolerant of "artistic" reviews of movies that are rough at times in order to make a point. But Sex and the City is just trash and nothing redeeming can be made of a series so riddled with ungodly views of sex, marriage and friendship. Anyone who could actually find something redeeming in these "friendships" on screen is too awfully familiar with the world. There are times you should just avoid reviews altogether. This does not show courage, but compromise.
Mike Lumpkin
posted 06/03/08
This movie is nothing more than pornography for women. Women used to be the moral compass of humanity. Forty years ago that began to change and has accelerated with the success of the feminist movement. The depth of that success can be gauged by the reviewer's remarks that SATC is "a phenomenon even for many Christians. For years, good church-going friends of mine secretly raved about Sex and the City." The fact that they did it secretly reveals that their consciences weren't totally devoid of the ability to tell right from wrong, but the fact they chose to submerse their minds in it anyway reveals a willingness to indulge in corrupt thinking regardless of what the Bible says.
Terry L. Brown
posted 06/03/08
Something is wrong when you give Sex and the City 3 stars and Prince Caspian 2½. You're giving a higher rating to the most godless, perverted, anti-Christian, pro-gay movie/TV series, and a lower rating to Prince Caspian? Is this really Christianity Today??? Are you guys really serious about Jesus, the Bible, holiness, and biblical truth? It seems like you're just a corporation trying to make money off of unsuspecting, immature Christians. I pray you will come back to biblical standards. God have mercy upon you.
Brian Michaels
posted 06/03/08
I wish people would please see the movie before passing judgment. I have seen it. Do you know that in the movie, two of the four main characters are married, and are faithful to their mates? The other two are in long-term (3- and 5-year) relationships, also faithful, (even though, granted, it is outside of marriage.) There is no bed-hopping—the only principle player who cheats is one of the husbands, setting up a major plot line about forgiveness and the restoration of a marriage. Although there are sex scenes, that is not the focus of the movie. It's a movie about commitment, marriage, friendship, and learning to love and forgive. It has merit.
Don and Sheryl Cope
posted 06/03/08
Three out of four stars for Sex and the City? Not a movie for "some" adults (which ones, exactly)? The review, which tosses aside well-intended (if ill-informed) Christian dating advice in favor of validating this "meaningful reunion" of "winning friendships," not to mention all that male "eye-candy"? Sheesh. Why read Cosmo when I can read CT? Good grief, I'm not a prude. I didn't expect you to give the movie zero stars just because it has the word "sex" in the title, but I thought I would encounter at least some discernment in your review. But you proved me wrong again, CT.
T. Strang
posted 06/03/08
I like how you addressed Sex and the City. You're absolutely right that the church is not addressing issues when you write, "But the church has often been slow to regard its singles as not just a 'demographic' that meets at a certain place on a certain night each week, but as sexual human beings who wrestle with the same cravings and longings as any of their 'secular' counterparts." So what do we do about that? How do we address issues such as loneliness, our God-given sex drive, and other issues that secular television and the media are too quick to want to talk about? Shows like SATC and Friends did well because, like good comedy, there's a bit of truth to the stories. Here's a thought: Use CT and other good Christian sources as a sounding board and begin talking about these issues, and keep talking about them. You ask great questions. I certainly don't have the answers, but am willing to ask questions and help find the answers in my own way.
Todd Fitchette
posted 06/03/08
Sex and the City is a pornographic film. You implicitly seem to extol the virtues of pornography. I think you should either abandon your stated Christian aims and mission statement, or stop condoning pornography.
John Kirk
posted 06/03/08
Thanks for the great review of Sex and the City. I appreciate you at a movie that is not typical "Christian" fare. I also appreciate your insights into how the Sex and the City franchise doesn't insult a woman's intelligence. Thanks again for applying your own wisdom and biblical soundness to a real issue—sexuality—in our current culture. I'm a closet SATC fan. The show had many, many profound insights into womanhood, marriage, love, and relationships—and some things that are not too healthy or Christ-centered. But we must be discerning. I was pleased (and proud) of CT for reviewing the movie. Gives me great fodder for deciding whether or not I should see it. CT Movies is always my first go-to resource for movies.
Jana Muntsinger
posted 06/03/08
I was deeply troubled by your review of Sex and the City. Three stars for a film that apparently features nudity, a threesome and other sex scenes—mostly involving single people? How can a Christian publication possibly "recommend" such a film? I also noted the elitist attitude of the reviewer who said the film wasn't for everybody. Oh really? Tell me: Which Christians DO you recommend seeing this? Come on now!
Gary Lesniewski
posted 06/03/08
I enjoyed reading both articles about SATC. However, as a married Christian woman I can tell you we fare little better than the singles in church circles when it comes to being accepted as (gasp) sexual beings! A lot of the teaching inour churches is stuck in the 1950s where married women had a permanent headache and men have to beg every night. Most couple retreats I attended used this afore mentioned tired model and spent a lot of time trying to convince wives to be nice to their husbands in bed. What was never addressed was wives who enjoy sex and want it with the same frequency (or more) than their husbands! I do have a concern about this movie and the series in that the sexual scenes can be a problem for any women suffering from problems with lust, pornography, cyber-sex, and things of that nature! Yes Christian women have these problems as well. Keep up the great articles.
Carmena Fleury
posted 06/03/08
I just read your SATC review and agree with all of it, but I was bummed that you didn't pick up a main underlying theme of the movie—forgiveness! It was a huge struggle for Carrie and especially Miranda to forgive their men, but they did it. Quite meaningful in a movie that didn't really have many other redeeming qualities.
Jenny De Frates
Polytheistic Indy
posted 05/29/08
When reading the Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull review I was struck by the following passage:
"Mutt gets spooked by Indy's stories about the Mayans who distorted the shape of their childrens' skulls to resemble the elongated craniums of their gods. "No," Mutt objects. "God's head is not like that." Indy smiles. "Depends on who your god is." And yet, Indy never bothers to ask for help from the God who has saved him so many times before—especially in Raiders and The Last Crusade. He seems to have cast aside all lessons learned from the Almighty."
I think it's worth pointing out that Indiana Jones as a franchise clearly has a polytheistic worldview. It's easy to convince one's self it is basically Judeo-Christian, but to do so you have to completely ignore Temple of Doom, which makes it quite clear that Indiana Jones exists in a world where most religions are, in fact, true. Aside from the fact that Temple is based entirely around Hinduism, featuring a conflict between Shiva (working through Indy) and Kali (working through the temple cult), it makes reference at one point to how the cult's plans to "conquer" the gods of other religions. The villain at one point says if they get all he magic stones Kali's power as a god will increase to the point where she can "cast down" the gods of Judaism and Christianity (which it, interestingly, sees as two different gods.)
Obviously this whole notion is absurd to Christians, which is probably why most people prefer to ignore Temple's clear polytheistic implications. They are there though, plain as day, in that film. So I think anyone who's paid decent attention to the overall Indiana Jones mythology would realize that Indiana Jones would never believe in a single "god" because he's seen clear evidence that far more than a single Christian deity exists. This makes it difficult, IMO, to "claim" Indiana Jones as Christian … as some Christian fans like to do.
Matthew Weise
Editor's note: Good points, Matthew, but the question is whether Indy embraces the pagan religions depicted in Temple of Doom, as he seems to do so—to some degree—with Judeo-Christian beliefs in Raiders and Last Crusade. As you noted, Doom merely shows that Indy "exists in a world where most religions are, in fact, true." Merely living in such a world does not necessarily mean that Indy believes all of it.
Congrats on Caspian Review
posted 05/29/08
Congratulations for your excellent review of Prince Caspian. Peter Chattaway is the only reviewer I have found who had 1) obviously read and understood the book, and 2) even cared about the original intent of the author. He really nailed the absence of the secondary theme of C.S. Lewis' work. The deep longing for the lost and better things, the happy realization that they aren't really lost, the liberation of Narnia not only by force, but also by joy, the spontaneous response to Aslan by "the hidden elect," and the wonderful encounter of Caspian's nurse with Aslan and later with Caspian himself are a great part of the "magic" of the book. Thank you again for this excellent review. From now on, you are my first stop for movie reviews.
Douglas Griffin
posted 05/29/08
I must express my disappointment in how far Caspian's filmmakers deviated from the actual story. Douglas Gresham, Lewis's stepson, states that the movie might have been too boring if they would have followed the story line. That seems like they just didn't have the imagination to make it work.
Chris Miller
Adamson's Worldview
posted 05/29/08
Answering CT's question about his spirituality, Andrew Adamson says, "I've decided not to use these films as a platform or springboard for my own beliefs." Impossible. One's worldview will always intrude. In fact, my chief complaint with LWW (aside from the fact that Aslan stands shorter than Peter, when he's supposed to be the size of a young elephant)is that it lacks a Christian sensibility. The Focus on the Family Radio Theatre production of Narnia/LWW blows Walden's out of the water.
Jim Woychuk
About That Racer Review
posted 05/29/08
I took my kids to see Speed Racer and we had to leave because of the violence. I don't think your review is critical for Christian viewers. But it's not just the violence. You say the film has "light profanity," but that's more swearing than I've heard in PG lately—including the a-- word several times. How bad does it have to be to be PG-13? I would expect your review to be more critical.
Pastor Matt Skiles
posted 05/29/08
Since when does "s---" and "a--" constitute mild profanity for a children's movie? I expect this sort of moral garbage to be tolerated and even encouraged by Hollywood. However, I was disappointed that any site proclaiming to be Christian could simply gloss over the PG rating for this disaster of a movie.Your lack of concern clearly reflects your spiritual disconnect.
Rick Loveless
Leading People Astray?
posted 05/29/08
I am not reading your reviews any longer or trusting your views as a Christian.
The Iron Man review was outrageous. When you do not view a woman, in bra and panties, on top of a man as outside the scope of what a Christian wants to view, then you are truly coming from the "Christianity today" mindset. I think your mind has gotten so seared with all the filth you see, that you are not offended anymore. I am so sorry for those people you are leading astray with your liberal, worldly views of movies. You have a job of forewarning Christians of the contents of movies; we expect Christian (Bible-based) reviews at your site. Evidently you do not know what that is. I am thankful we have ScreenIt.com to tell us the truth.
Janice Michel
About Those Standard Procedures
posted 04/30/08
I object to your characterization of U.S. military personnel in your latest newsletter: You wrote that "Standard Operating Procedure … recounts the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where U.S. military personnel tortured and abused prisoners of war. … The acts committed upon these human beings were atrocious." Putting panties on someone's head is torture? Then what would you call hacking someone's head off with a knife? Crushing people into hot asphalt with steamrollers? Feeding people feet first into industrial shredders? Where is your outrage over REAL torture? You would do well to keep your focus on movies and leave the left-wing editorial comments to the professional America-haters at the New York Times. Capiche? I subscribe to your newsletter to hear a Christian perspective on movies—NOT your perspective on politics!
Mercedes Dugger
Editor's note: Since when did objection to torture—of any kind—become solely a political issue, and not one meriting a Christian response? Should Christians leave the matter of human rights abuse—of any kind, anywhere in the world—solely to the politicians? Heaven help us. And yes, many of the acts committed at Abu Ghraib were most certainly atrocious—Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt called them "reprehensible," and Army Major General Antonio Taguba called them "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" of prisoners—just as many of the acts committed against American captives were also atrocious. As for Abu Ghraib, one need look no further than these abuses to think of the word "atrocious"—male guards raping female detainees, male prisoners being forced to masturbate and engage in homosexual acts, pouring phosphoric acid on detainees, sodomizing prisoners with a baton, tying a rope around a detainee's penis and dragging him across the floor, having venomous snakes bite prisoners (some of whom died), the list goes on. Were the Iraqis' treatment of our own soldiers more atrocious? Perhaps. But that doesn't diminish our treatment of their POWs. Nor should a Christian website abstain from commenting on such atrocities. It is not solely a political issue.
posted 04/30/08
Torture is ALWAYS wrong.The soldiers involved [merely] humiliated terrorists. The facts around Abu Ghraib are these:
- At no time were any prisoners of war abused or physically harmed.
- All soldiers involved were Army Reservists and all of them were found guilty; most were imprisoned but all, including the commanding general were cashiered out of the Army.
- Terrorists were humiliated which is absolutely never tolerated by the Armed Forces at any time and the military took care of those who did this.
Torture used to mean physical abuse including breaking bones, pulling fingernails and fingers out of their sockets, etc. Now it can actually mean anything. I don't agree with torture, but I also don't agree with war, either; unless we are fighting fascists that abuse, murder and torture their citizens.
David D'Arcy, SSgt, USAF (Ret)
posted 04/30/08
Why all the sympathy directed at the enemy? Why aren't there films about all of our guys that had their head slowly cut off as they were screaming and begging for their lives? What happened to the enemy [at Abu Ghraib] wasn't much more than some college pranks in comparison. I'm quite sure if it had been one of your relatives who had their heads chopped off, you would look at it differently. That's not to say what happened was right, but you weren't in their shoes putting up with what our soldiers deal with on a daily basis.
Audrey Pietras
Bad Baby Mama
posted 04/30/08
Baby Mama is just another Hollywood effort to legitimize non-traditional ways of having a child. Hollywood seems determined to eradicate marriage, natural conception and childbirth, fathers and the nuclear family. This is pushed on us as the new normal, and we are supposed to have a good laugh about how cute and adorable it all is. They may not be lesbians but the two women are held out as a new type of family. I am not buying it; children need fathers, plain and simple. This is not even about any perceived "morality"—it is about what works. Thousands of years of family life has taught us what is the most successful. That is what we should believe in and follow and this type of presentation should be rejected for the distortion that it is.
R. Curtis
Editor's note: Before complaining too much about Hollywood trying to "legitimize" non-traditional ways of having a child, we encourage you to look into recent films where Hollywood has "legitimized" pro-life choices—even in raunchy movies. As for Baby Mama, we don't know if you or anyone close to you has ever experienced the pain of infertility, but for them, "natural conception" isn't an option. Such folks—including many committed Christians—often look to "non-traditional" ways to have a child. The desire to bear children is a God-given one, and modern medicine has provided ways to meet that need—including surrogate motherhood. As for Hollywood "pushing" this on us, who's forcing you to see the movie?
Expounding on Expelled
posted 04/30/08
Your review of Expelled is surprisingly thoughtful. (Full disclosure: I'm an atheist and also I am fascinated by science and evolution, and I know ID to be the barren wasteland of non-science that it truly is.) I have one issue with what you say: Dawkins' notorious "alien" comment was not silly. The point he was making is very sensible, even if the filmmakers edited it to seem absurd: We currently do not know exactly how life started on Earth. Scientists are working on it and they have plausible theories, some of which they have partially duplicated in the lab. But since we don't know for sure, it's possible that the cause is something we haven't seen in a lab yet. It is possible that some other life form "seeded" the Earth with a primitive life form (like a tiny self-replicating protein) that eventually evolved through natural selection. However, that other "alien" life form would be subject to its own history of evolution-like development somewhere else. Remember, "alien" doesn't mean green Martians; it means a life form from somewhere other than Earth.
Gil (no last name given)
posted 04/30/08
I consider Expelled to be mostly propaganda. I can't say that I've seen the film either, so that may not be fair to say, but I feel through most the information I've read about it, the same sort of force-fed Intelligent Design argument persists, doggedly nipping at something called "Darwinism." But I read your article to get a take on what the Christian community thinks about this matter. The review explores the film in a mostly unbiased way, and you present questions on the matter that deserve addressing. But I wish you had a clarified what exactly "Darwinism" is. The theory of social Darwinism, which is more likely what Ben Stein is referring to, was not a theory which Darwin subscribed to himself. Social Darwinism is more of a philosophy, and what came about that theory is not connected to evolution, which if anything could have been called Scientific Darwinism. If Intelligent Design or Creationism wants call itself a philosophy, that's fine, because it is. But that isn't what science is. Evolution never claims to know how life originated. Evolution only makes a theory about how life changes over time. As a Christian who believes in Evolution, I hope this dialogue between ideologies can continue.
Ben Thrasher
posted 04/30/08
In his otherwise informative review, Mark Moring offers a misleading parenthetical reference to a Scientific American article contesting Expelled's linkage of Darwinism and the Holocaust. Its author, John Rennie, does assert that the film's "heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency." In fact, his subtitle, "A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust," seems to promise a response. However, the subtitle and that half sentence are the article's sum total of text on the matter. Neither the Holocaust nor any related subject, such as eugenics or social Darwinism, nor any synonymous matter, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc., ever appears again in the Scientific American article. Rather, it simply shifts to other things. Moring's aside will likely mislead readers who don't actually read the Scientific American piece into believing that behind the hyperlink lies a weighty and credible rejoinder. That error deserves correction.
R. Clinton Ohlers, Ph.D.
Editor's note: The review included a link to the Scientific American article, so readers can decide for themselves what it does and doesn't say.
That Gruff Gresham
posted 04/30/08
I appreciated reading the interview with Douglas Gresham about the upcoming film, Prince Caspian. He is not an easy man to like (of course, he makes it clear that's not important to him). I heard him speak in person as The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe was about to be released. When questions were raised, he said, "I've spent 25 years making this movie. People who don't like it can make their own movie." He said he realized in 1990 that he came across as arrogant. I think he still does. But as his stepfather said (in one of the books, can't quote it exactly), "If you think Christians leave a lot to be desired in their behavior, just think how much worse they might be if they weren't Christians." I try to remember that, for it surely includes myself.
Rev. Jeanne Devine
Hates Critics, Digs CT Movies
posted 02/28/08
I studied post-structuralist film theory in grad school and have always hated every so-called "critic" I've ever come across for their self-righteous posturing. I'm also an atheist, against organized religion of almost every kind, and very militant about things like being pro-choice. However, I find your reviews to be the most balanced and well thought out that I have ever read, so I have bookmarked your site and recommended it to my friends. I also used to teach college composition. If I ever do again, I will use your reviews as examples of well-crafted writing for my students.
John Kantor
Shocked About Spiderwick
posted 02/28/08
I am very disappointed in your review of The Spiderwick Chronicles. While I agree that the movie was excellent, imaginative, and fun for children, I could not look past the awful use of language in the film and I am SHOCKED that a Christian website would not include this language in their review. The children in the movie utter "Oh my God" so many times that I lost count. The profanity your reviewer lists as "mild" is when a child says "what the hell?" Since when is "hell" a "mild" profanity for CHILDREN?? Because of said language, I could not recommend this film AT ALL to Christian children. As a Christian review site, you have a duty to be more vigilant on issues such as these.
Todd Patrick
Change Our Name?
posted 02/28/08
I am amazed that you call yourself "Christianity Today" yet you do not tell the readers what the content of movies are. Definitely, Maybe is NOT a movie I think a Christian would wish to see and yet there is not the detail that Screenit.com has. Screenit.com is the best choice for "Christians" to make sure they do not inadvertently go to movies that are not what a believer would wish to fill their minds with. I think you need to change your name.
Janice Michel
Editor's note: ScreenIt.com is a good source for those looking for precise counts on how many times potentially offensive content shows up in a movie, but we believe there's much more to assessing a film than merely counting the number of bad words. Besides, in our review of Definitely, Maybe, we were very clear about the content. We wrote that the film includes "frank dialogue" and strong language, even citing many of the words that are used—like penis, vagina, slut, and the b-word. We wrote: "There are no actual scenes of sex, but it's talked about extensively (even with the 10-year-old) and hinted at many times (e.g., scenes of unmarried couples waking up together). There are a fair share of other swear words and taking the Lord's name in vain. The father character discusses some pretty objectionable things with his daughter, like threesomes." All we can say is, if anyone "inadvertently" goes to this movie and is surprised to hear bad language, they haven't read our review. (And we're not changing our name.)
Focusing on What's True
posted 02/28/08
Thank you for holding true to your God-given calling in the face of what must seem likenever-ending persecution from the Christian community. I just graduated with a film degree from Cornerstone University, and as I think about the future—and how I might handle myself in the face of mainstream success—I can only hope to address the inevitable backlash from my brothers and sisters in Christ with the same grace and humility that you exhibit to your readers on a regular basis. I firmly believe that the only way we, as Christian artists, will ever have any impact on the world for Christ is by discerning the difference between good art and bad art. I think one of the key distinctions between the two is found in Philippians 4:8. Too many individuals hurry past the first part of this passage and onto "pure and lovely" and so on. But,it's what comes first that is the most striking to me—"Finally, brothers, whatever is true … think about such things." This is where so many good-intentioned Christian filmmakers get it wrong. In their rush to make movies blatantly bereft of brokenness, darkness, and sin, they end up creating an artificial version of reality—a world that no one can relate to. The end result is a few Christians get warm fuzzies, and everyone else goes "huh?" We need to tell real stories, about real people, living in a real world. And until God returns to set things right, that world happens to be a broken, sinful place desperately aching for redemption. Until Christian filmmakers begin depicting that level of reality in their films, they will never be offering their audiences anything approaching "true." This is why I applaud the work your staff is doing. You judge films based on their artistic merit, not the legalism that hinders so many Christian publications. And yet, you use your faith and knowledge of the Word to dig deep and accentuate the redemption bubbling just under the surface of the narrative. Despite being labeled "heretics" and "sinners" for watching and reviewing the movies you do, you have stuck to your calling and carried on in the name of Christ.
Jonathan Butrin
Criticizing the Critics
The following e-mails are in response to our Critics' Choice Awards:
posted 02/14/08
Juno at No. 1? I am utterly bewildered! Just walked out of that movie, popped some Tylenol to try to relieve my non-"menstrual migraine," tempted to hit the bottle—but want to maintain my faculties to fire this one across into the la la land in which you folks reside. Did anyone notice the cross with the line through it—as in Ghost Busters, as in no cross, as in anti-uh, well cross? Secondly, OK, she couldn't go through with an abortion, so this therefore places the movie in your thumbs-up category? I know a Satan worshiper who couldn't go through with an abortion. Thirdly, I have seen wild boar on the side of the road keeping their family structure together with more grace and decorum than any character portrayed in this work. This movie would more accurately be titled "Orcs in Heat." I am glad Jennifer Garner's character was given the child—the only redemptive quality this film offered. But how anyone could equate this to anything close to Christianity and its principles is both laughable and pitiable!
Debra Szemplinski
posted 02/14/08
Into Great Silence is a waste of time and money, unless you see this as a promotional film for the Catholic faith. Didn't Jesus say, "Go ye into the world and preach the gospel"? He didn't say, lock yourself up in a building and meditate to God and forget about the world around you. The Bible emphasizes to be among the world, and those in a monastery are mostly not; if you live indoors, who can see the love of God working in you? I feel sorry for them that they have been misled in how to really serve the Lord our GOD. I pray that they may see the light before they close their eyes for good.
Hans Hoekstra
posted 02/14/08
No place in the Top 10 for The Kite Runner?That was one of the most uplifting and interesting movies of my life.
Bruce Mason
posted 02/14/08
I'm bummed that The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was left off of your list. It topped many of the other films chosen in terms of acting, top notch cinematography, profound script, and powerfully subtle soundtrack by Nick Cave & Warren Ellis, along with outstanding sense of place and time created by the wardrobe and set design.
Greg Stump
posted 02/14/08
You have given me a great place to start in catching up on the ones I missed last year and affirmed two of my faves as your top two spots, albeit for two completely different reasons. Juno got me in the heart; There Will Be Blood got me in the head. Both were amazing, inspiring pieces of filmmaking, andambitious for two completely different reasons. One went for epic and succeeded; one went for authentic, true storytelling which could have easily fallen into schmaltz or stereotype, but didn't. Wowza. This list was a good reminder of what I really appreciate about CT Movies—you provide a kindred spirit in watching movies. Most secular sites ignore anything resembling the meaning of a work, focusing too much on style over substance. You are able to balance both, taking them both into consideration equally.
Glenn McCarty
More Redemption
The following e-mails are in response to our Most Redeeming Films of 2007 list:
posted 02/14/08
Michael Clayton hit many great nails on the head! How could you miss it?! Tom Wilkinson's redemption is fantastic. He's walking wonderfully against the grain when he sees "the light." George Clooney's poignant slow redemption is equally powerful, while the defense lawyer's slow meltdown is the result of giving in to the seduction of the soul—great film work.
Christian Turner
posted 02/14/08
How in the world did The Ultimate Gift not make this list?
Jim Phillips
posted 02/14/08
The Great Debaters is a wonderfully redemptive movie that should at least be mentioned. It is on the top of my list!
Cliff Stewart
posted 02/14/08
How about August Rush?
Peggy Forstad
posted 02/14/08
The Last Sin Eater.
Dr. Keith Jones
Concerning Bono …
posted 02/14/08
In response to Brett McCracken's review of U23D and his questioning of Bono's "coexist" message, I find it necessary to positively state that Bono is saying, "Jesus, Jew, Muhammad, it's true, all sons of Abraham." Bono has always been an advocate of peace and coexistence. However, he has never been reported as saying that Islam and Judaism are the same as Christianity. In interviews, concerts, and songs, Bono has recited only verses from the Bible and has only ever declared Jesus Christ as his personal savior. And Bono's speech only supports the idea that these religions have a common father, not a common doctrine.
Lauren Little
posted 02/14/08
I've followed U2 for almost 25 years, and to attempt to assert that Bono is a universalist or has a universalistic message, when he has clearly stated his humble and imperfect following of Jesus, is just silly and irresponsible. It is very clear in this movie, and in their previous other official concert DVD from the Vertigo Tour that Bono is saying, "Jesus, Jew, Mohammed … it's true, all sons of Abraham." If the reviewer read any of the interviews during the last tour, where Bono speaks on this element of the concert, one would discover his message. His aim is for peace, and he feels like this is his avenue to promote this work.
Matt Plotkin
Ungodly Movies
posted 02/14/08
Why, oh why, are you reviewing movies that are truly ungodly? Erotic, profanity, violent. Why would a believer need to go or choose to go to such films? By going to movies like you are reviewing, we are getting desensitized to seeing and hearing what God warns us not to partake of. Please help me understand why a magazine like yours has lowered itself to reviewing the movies that will not build believers' maturity. I am not legalistic at all; I am a "grace" person, but I am shocked at the movies you are reviewing. The use of the name of the Lord in vain—why are you reviewing movies like this? Why not ignore them? The review of Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story was not needed. The movie has frontal male nudity. That is porn. Why are you reviewing porn movies?
Judy Reamer
Thoughtful Reviews
posted 01/21/08
Thank you for providing consistently thoughtful movie reviews. It's refreshing to find Christian reviewers who look for what is good, true, and beautiful in a film without rejecting out of hand because it has nudity, violence, or "bad words." Thanks!
Casey Taylor
Caspian Wishes on the Mark
posted 01/21/08
Thanks and compliments to Devin Brown for articulating what so many of us would like to say about the stories of Narnia ("My Caspian Wish List"). Like a delicious meal or beautiful song, it is difficult to explain why a story is so magical and meaningful. Brown points out some of the spices that if left out, will lessen the impact and meaning of Prince Caspian.
Denise Williams
posted 01/21/08
Devin Brown's comments are very well stated. As a Christian it is easy to gloss over the real world life that continues to be lived after conversion. It is not necessarily a dark to light experience, but often, and more likely, a gradual experience like the dawning of a day. C. S. Lewis' characters portray this awakening.
David D. King
Charlie Wilson's Christian Heroine
posted 01/21/08
Joanne Herring, the heroine in Charlie Wilson's War, is a committed Christian who, sadly, is not portrayed as such in the movie. God led her in her part in this enormous Cold War defeating covert operation. As her closest friend, I would like to suggest that Christians everywhere would love to know about her part extraordinary part in the story and her relationship with Christ.
Desiree Lyon Howe
Keen on Sweeney Review
posted 01/21/08
Your review of Sweeney Todd was excellently written and well covered in every facet of the film! Not even the critics from the "major" newspapers on Rotten Tomatoes covered the film so well; I find too often they get caught up in their own jargon to say something that should be simple. I really appreciate the balance of simple points with well-founded depth in Brett McCracken's review.
Anton Purr
Ease Up on Travis
posted 01/21/08
You were a bit harsh on Randy Travis in your review of The Wager. I am a fan of his music and enjoy his acting. Why must you be so critical? The film might be preachy, but lay off Randy Travis.
Shirley Kordalski
About That Compass …
Editor's note: The following letters are in response to Jeffrey Overstreet's commentary, "Fear Not the Compass."
posted 12/04/07
I was sitting with my 9-year-old daughter when a preview for this movie came on TV. She said she would like to see this movie. I let her know that this was a movie that we would NOT be seeing, because the author doesn't believe in God, and he is not very nice to Him in the movie. Her response to me was, "Mom, how could any silly movie make me not love Jesus? I love Him no matter what." I have been thinking about that often in the past few days. Should we shield our children from everything, or watch stories like this with them, so that they are better equipped to witness to their friends that aren't being shielded from the world? It's a tough call, but I think parents need to take stock in the faith of their children, and not always assume that they will be swayed.
Natalie Tomasello
posted 12/04/07
Thank you for this wise, grace-filled discussion of Mr. Pullman's book. This article is immensely helpful and Christlike in its opinions and suggestions.
Mary Beth Starrett
posted 12/04/07
Mr. Overstreet's views reflect many of my own concerning The Golden Compass. However, having read the first book of the series, my wife and I have decided not to continue with the series after reading Mr. Overstreet's and other stories about Mr. Pullman's apparent agenda. Upon reading the book, our initial impression was that the book was a forceful criticism of organized religion, not the person of Jesus Christ. However this was before we read Mr. Pullman's explicit purpose in writing these books. The Golden Compass then became a gateway book to us, a book that guides the reader into reading the other books in the series in which the real agenda is presented. We have decided not to see the film in the theater because in doing so we will enrich Mr. Pullman as we assume he will receive a portion of the film's receipts. Furthermore, attendance will encourage production of the next two films. We obtained the book from our local library so as not to enrich Mr. Pullman further.
Mike Craig
posted 12/04/07
Good sound stuff, with the wisdom of years added in. Why do Christians get so outraged by books and movies, but not by poverty, injustice and the like? Or is it a lot easier to attack a person or a movie company than it is to do something about the state of the world?
Mike Crowl
posted 12/04/07
Clearly your views and opinions are very different from the majority of Christians of this movie. Christians should not support this movie in any way, especially children. Maybe those in favor of an atheist producer and writer and watching their films should get into the Word of God and then get to their knees in prayer and ask the Lord his view of this. We are to be separate from the world and not have anything to do with things of darkness.
Bev Burkett
posted 12/04/07
I think Overstreet is right in saying that we need to be rational in this, but I do have some major concerns about Pullman's trilogy, mainly that the target audience is young children. My 4-year-old is unable to distinguish reality from fantasy, and I cannot see myself explaining some of the suggested questions with my 6-year-old. Are young children able to see beyond the cool scenes/covers of the books enough to know what they are really reading? Obviously, there would be parent involvement with reading these stories to the very young, but is it really necessary to "scare" them with yet another thing? My first grade son thought the book looked "really cool." I told him the stories were about killing God and he said, "Really? Why would they write about that?" He was disgusted and is no longer interested.
Misty Stoltzfus
posted 12/04/07
I'm glad to get such an open-minded view of these wonderful fiction books! I think these books are wonderful masterpieces and a chance for us to talk about wickedness of the world and how we can cope with it in our everyday lives. What person hasn't met someone who has a grudge against God? It's a chance for parents to talk openly with their children about reality in the church and the beauty of these fictitious books.
Jeannine Larcom
posted 12/04/07
It's nice to see an opinion that doesn't bash anyone, like some Christians are. I have since changed my mind about the movie, and plan on getting the book just to see what the hype is about and make my own opinion from it, rather than bash it too. As God says, we need to be in the world, not of the world.
Christena Holden
posted 12/04/07
Thank you CT movies for the balanced articles. I really like how you encourage adults to talk about the themes of the movies with our kids rather than just condemning. Kids don't learn when we just condemn, because we haven't explained what is it we don't agree with and why.How will our kids learn to evaluate ideas and belief systems if we don't show them how?
Sarah Wickham
posted 12/04/07
Look, debate the content of the movie every which way. But to go to the movie is to put good money in the hands of an atheist. Would you do unnecessary business with an atheist or rather give your money to a Christian?
Kenny Stokes
posted 12/04/07
I've been surprised at your rather liberal and even overly gracious acceptance of a lot of very violent and dark movies. You seem to excuse just about anything by saying "It's a good starting place for discussion." But this commentary about The Golden Compass takes the cake. Sure a very thoughtful and discerning parent could have a great discussion with his bright and attentive and well-grounded children over what's wrong with the views in the movieand the books. But how many families actually will? And what about the unsaved? Will this series draw them toward God? Although I don't think we should call for a boycott, I routinely "vote with my feet"—so, for me, I'll skip The Golden Compass.
Jim Kirkpatrick
posted 12/04/07
Finally, someone with some sensibility has spoken out. I commend CT for allowing Jeffrey's voice to be heard in an increasingly paranoid Christian community. I have been receiving e-mails from friends and family warning us to keep this movie from our young innocent children's eyes and ears. How can Christians be so very threatened when we all claim to know the truth? I believe that Mr. Pullman is misled from the truth from what I've read about him, and I almost feel sorry for him for his own ignorance about heavenly grace and love. I have yet to read the books and judge for myself, though. And if my kids ask about it, I will read the books along with them and discuss it just like I did with Harry Potter. Parental guidance is the key, not censorship. Thanks for presenting Christianity as something that is sensible and intelligent.
Sharleen Rigg
posted 12/04/07
Thank you for the fabulous article. These are sentiments and ideas I've tried to convey to my peers and friends and those at my church, only much better written. In my opinion it is much more important to be informed on what exactly is in these books, and focus on helping our children tell the difference between the good and bad qualities in this series. Virtues are not Christian-only; non-Christians can display wonderful virtues as well, but Christ is the one who exemplifies all good things and virtues perfectly. We should not overlook the storytelling quality and the virtues promoted in this book for the faults, but rather be discerning about what's gone right with this trilogy, and what's gone wrong, and educate ourselves rather than be ignorant bigots.
Aimee Pan<
Disappointing 'Shock-umentary'
posted 11/20/07
Though I agree with the premise of What Would Jesus Buy? and the "minister" who is the film's main driving force, I walked away dissatisfied as both a member of the audience, and a filmmaker of some 20 years. I believe that documentaries exploring and critiquing Christian themes are much needed, but my basic problem with this film is its use of the shock-umentary tactics found in films such as those of Michael Moore. As a film, its use of organic and innovative film form is C-plus. The decisions made by the filmmakers seem to be centered on a need to provoke and to shock—even in the choice of title: What Would Jesus Buy? I defy any human to answer that question. One can't answer for God. The subject of What Would Jesus Buy? was most brilliantly delved into by Thomas Merton in Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, first published in 1965. This subject has been with us for a very long time. Merton's book is slow and circular, and it is all embracing, and self-effacing in its confessions. It is clever, personable, and it still has a presence for the modern reader, all criteria, modern media makers would do well to reflect on. By taking the general promise of What Would Jesus Buy?, and by editing the content into short sound and visual bytes, and to entertain the audience with hyperbolic and questionable protagonists, the filmmakers run the risk of trivializing their noble message. Christian media must be innovative and passionate, but it must also be well versed in the language and the creative historical continuum of film/media. A Christian film can be a work of art. It can be profound and poetic. It can also be crass and a banana.
Carlton Chase
Terror in the Skies
Editor's note: We received a number of replies regarding our recent newsletter, "Terror in the Skies," which addressed airlines showing R-rated and other inappropriate fare, even with young children seated on the plane. Some responses:
posted 09/24/07
On a United flight from Shanghai to San Fran two weeks ago, one of the movies was Mr. Brooks, rated R for sex, nudity and violence. Nothing had been edited. There was a full nude sex scene and then a double murder—and then shown several times in flashback. When I wrote to United that this was inappropriate, I got the standard idiot reply, "We are sorry you did not like the movie we picked." If an airline wishes to be the dirty movie airline, that should be their right, but the public should know which airline shows what.
Roger Meiners
posted 09/24/07
While traveling back from Ecuador following our mission trip, American Airlines played Blades of Glory which was filled with all sorts of bad material. I hope that more Christians will speak up and just not succumb to the fact that it's "just the way society is today." Keep up the great work, you are making a difference.
Carolyn Hoidal
posted 09/24/07
I don't believe the airplane entertainment situation to be as drastic as you described. As a frequent traveler, I have yet to encounter R-rated content on the screen during a flight. Language and graphic material is still edited at least as much as it would be for television. Also, most airplanes now feature individual screens that can be turned off; we now have the option to not watch it. If your neighbor is watching something objectionable, there is also children's programming on other channels. There are options, and I don't believe blaming it all on the airlines or entertainment industry is one of them.
Matt Miles
posted 09/24/07
There are many flyers, and obviously children of all ages, who don't have choices about being forced to watch inappropriate, violent and other abusive films on airlines. Your quotes from a professional airline spokesman are a wake-up call to all travelers! Such remarks are unbelievable!
Audrey Markle
posted 09/24/07
While the airlines perhaps should take into account movie ratings when they show films on board, I do agree with [airline spokesman] Eric Kleiman about parents taking more responsibility for their kids.I thought your comment insinuating that his remarks indicating that "he probably doesn't have kids" was a little uncalled for.
Hillari Hunter
Speed Death of the Eye
Editor's note: A recent CT at the Movies newsletter addressed the notion that an overload of special effects in today's movies might actually be getting in the way of telling the story. Some responses:
posted 09/24/07
Definitely a problem! There are only so many neural circuits available and they suffer from neurotransmitter depletion if overloaded, becoming literally unable to process the information they are gleaning from the environment. That doesn't take into account the limitations of what we could consider the processing speed of the core of our little organic computers, either. Anyone ever had their PC tell them "program not responding"?
Not to mention the additional problem of simply masking critical dialogue with a bunch of sound effects or overly loud music. Related to both is the apparently lost art of enunciation and the expectation by directors that actors practice it.
Jon Eymann
posted 09/24/07
I am appalled at the increasingly bizarre and exceedingly overused special effects in movies today. I believe that sometimes they are used to cover up a weak script, story or acting. But as long as people keep paying money to watch these movies maybe in spite of the overuse of special effects, they will keep coming at us in sensory overload. I get nauseated and dizzy and must leave for a few moments to get my equilibrium back in asomewhat normal zone. Putting it mildly, I am literally sickened in reaction to high tech, bizarre camera angles and lighting in movies and presentations today.
Deborah Stidham
posted 09/24/07
Yes, I have a terrible time trying to figure out what is going on when the camera jerks my eye here and there and I scramble madly trying to keep up. For the most part I just don't go to those movies anymore … and I'm finding myself going back to renting old films where there is character development and a linear story I can follow and engage with.
Jean Coombs
posted 09/24/07
I agree with this report regarding "speed death of the eye." Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith did that for me—too much CGI detail that got in the way. An opposite example is the Lord of the Rings trilogy—a series of films with a rich blend of CGI and special makeup effects.
Alistair McPherson
posted 09/24/07
The day after I saw Transformers, I read a plot summary online, and realized I'd missed half the details because of all the wham-bam action distracting me. So, yes, in this case the CGI was not properly integrated into the storyline.
Jill Murman-Payne
posted 09/24/07
In The Bourne Ultimatum, the story was great and it had just the right amount of action. But the continuous "fluttering" of the camera around the scenes (even when the scene was simply a conversation between two people and should have been still) ended up giving me a headache. I could not focus on one thing before the camera was flashing away at two or three other things. It was very distracting to me, and it definitely marred my enjoyment of the film.
Cindy Kalko
The 'Christian' Kiss of Death?
We received a number of responses to last week's newsletter in which we pondered the possibility that certain films might be hurt by being labeled "Christian." Here are some of those responses.
posted 09/06/07
The real Christian community has gotten fed up with what Hollywood peddles as "Christian" movies. Hollywood hasn't a clue what is Christian or what a Christian is like since they don't seem to ever understand the Bible. Either they pick and choose what they want to believe and accept from the bible or ignore it entirely when making movies they think will appeal to Christians. This is the reason the Christian community has begun to ignore anything that comes out of Hollywood or its so-called "Christian" filmmakers and producers. Most "Christian" moviemakers have to compromise the truth of the Bible so much so as to sell their product to the Hollywood types to get it marketed. Most Christians no longer expect anything "Christian" out of Hollywood and, therefore, we're not disappointed. However, we love well-made movies of all types and we like most of the Hollywood stars that appear in the movies. It's when the Hollywood crowd slams Christians in a few of their movies that we get turned off. Movies should be primarily entertaining, not used to preach left-wing ideas and beliefs. Maybe someday there will be a different place, away from Hollywood, that will be financed by Christians for Christian writers and filmmakers to produce great movies that will be prized for their morality and goodness without them being called "Christian" movies. How refreshing is that thought?!?
Gerald Lawson
posted 09/06/07
The problem with half of the "Christian" films is that they are not made by Christians, so they [filmmakers] cannot understand Christianity. This is the problem with all films that have high production value but no Christian leadership. Amazing Grace was a good film, but the director intentionally avoided, as much as possible, the role that Christ played in Wilberforce's life, making the film a boring History Channel special. If Christians want Christian stories to make it to the screen successfully, they have to insist that they are written and directed by Christians, as counter-culture as that may be. Second, the majority of Christian films made by Christians are terrible. The Last Sin Eater was a terrible movie and any attempt to justify it simply shows that Christians are eager to grab onto any level of mediocrity they can find. A studio makes a name for itself by the films it releases. Fox Faith does not have a good record of releasing quality films. Thus when The Ultimate Gift came out, it was associated with Fox Faith and not given the proper merit, not just because it was associated with a Christian distribution company, but because it was associated with a production company that releases bad films. What do we do? Insist that Christian films be made by Christian filmmakers who have honed their craft and know how to tell a story—or don't make the film at all.
Brandon Adams
posted 09/06/07
I wish people who want to communicate Christian themes would try to do so with more grace. The Spitfire Grill was a wonderful film with fantastic Christian theology, but it didn't hit you over the head with Christian identity. There's a difference between showing how Christ can bring us to new life, and selling Christ like a new soap product.
Jennifer Palin
posted 09/06/07
I have a blog post about this very topic. I think there are more factors at work here than meets the eye. You mention a "very brief theatrical" run for The Ultimate Gift. In actuality, the run lasted longer than One Night with the King, 11 weeks vs. 8 weeks. Yet One Night earned $13.4 million at the box office, compared to Ultimate Gift's $3.5. If the Fox Faith & Christian labels are "kisses of death," why did One Night not succumb? And, let's not forget Amazing Grace, which garnered $30 million at the box office. There's something else to be factored in just beyond the labels. Clearly, if that were the deciding factor for attendance, these other two movies would have tanked.
Angela Walker
posted 09/06/07
It is a shame that your article laments the failure of Evan Almighty. The previews that I saw on TV were blasphemous, and to promote Evan Almighty as a "Christian movie" is laughable at best. They are no more Christian themed than the old John Denver/George Burns Oh God movies. The problem is that if a big budget is involved, the message is often compromised. Christians are not concerned about seeing a gospel message in a movie. We would like to be able to take our families to the movies and see a light-hearted comedy that we do not have to worry about potty talk, foul language or sexual suggestions. It would be nice to just have some family friendly movies that were actually done well.
Johnny Bond
posted 09/06/07
I felt a little guilty that I didn't want to see the faith-based "Christian" films, but I fear they would be "sweet" and "positive"—and not really all that good. Some of the so-called worldly films have Christian messages and themes of truth. We need to discuss what is of God and truth—and what is not—in all films. Christian stuff just tends to be too sweet and sentimental much of the time.
Jean Coombs
posted 09/06/07
With regard to the flop of Evan Almighty, as opposed to the huge success of Bruce, a couple of things spring to mind. 1) It's a "follow-up" and everybody knows they are never as good as the original. 2) Not as well-known lead actors. 3) For the general (not necessarily Christian) audience, it's too clean; Bruce at least had a bit of sexy about it. 4) It's too "preachy," especiallyin the early stages. 5) Targeting movies to a potentially huge worldwide Christian market is always going to be risky, since we are such a fickle lot; some of us still worry about the morality of going to the movies! Personally, I enjoyed Evan Almighty. It wasn't quite as funny as Bruce, and Jim Carrey is a very hard act to follow. But Evan was a well-made, funny, feel-good family movie, and maybe the market is not that strong for that type of film.
Fraser McDougall
posted 09/06/07
The Ultimate Gift was excellent. The lack of support for the film was the failure of a poor advertising campaign, not the film's message. The label of Fox Faith wasn't the culprit. As an adjunct professor, one of my assignments was for the class to observe one of four films, including The Ultimate Gift, then write a paper on how the film related to their understanding of various cultures (where appropriate) and society in general. The students, with no particular religious affiliation, who watched The Ultimate Gift found it insightful and would be a film they would choose to show to their secondary level students because of the virtues highlighted in the film.
Stu Cunningham
About Those Mormons …
posted 08/28/07
Regarding your review of September Dawn: I am a former Mormon and though the present leadership at the LDS Church denies Brigham Young's involvement in the massacre, too many records exist and there are too many books written by the people who lived in that day who were eyewitnesses to it, for them to deny it. Brigham did order the massacre and his doctrine of blood atonement is true. They deny, even to this day, that the blood of Jesus does not cleanse from every sin. Naturally the present leaders of the LDS Church are going to deny Brigham's involvement. They are trying to convince the world that they are Christians just because they believe in Jesus Christ. I always ask and tell them, fine, which one? And then it is plain that they believe in another Jesus, another Gospel and another Spirit. One straight out of 2 Corinthians 11. They are not Christians, they are polytheists, because they believe in the existence of more than one God.
Thomas Slaughter
posted 08/28/07
The review of September Dawn claimed that the 1857 massacre was "the largest mass murder of Americans by other Americans until the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995." Actually, the 1863 Lawrence Massacre in Lawrence, Kansas, saw nearly 200 civilians killed in the morning hours by William Quantrill and his guerilla raiders. This atrocity was also considered the most deadly act of terrorism on U.S. soil until the Oklahoma City bombings.
Nate Jackson
About Bart's Part …
posted 08/10/07
I read your review of The Simpsons Movie. I have never watched an episode of the show,but when I heard a report saying that this film was going to make movie history by showing full frontal nudity, I thought a line had been crossed. So I wrote the following letter to the editor to our local newspaper, The Billings Gazette [Editor's note: This is an abridged version of the letter]:
"Indecency and pornography have so infiltrated society that they often go unnoticed. As the conscience of the individual and the conscience of society are coarsened by the destructive nature of sexual immorality, we no longer blush or feel guilt when confronted by it.
"How could this happen? Ever notice that humor has a way of lowering one's inhibitions? We laugh at things that are vulgar when set in a comedic context that we would find disgusting if set in a serious context. We laugh at things knowing we shouldn't, knowing that we will hate ourselves for it later, but laugh we do. Comedy plays a major roll in the breakdown of morality because it makes evil seem less evil.
"The Simpsons Movie shows Bart Simpson completely nude. This may not rise to the level of pornography in the minds of some, but it is at the very least indecent. The fact that this is a cartoon does not make the nudity more innocent or less offensive. It does make it more likely to appeal to children, especially if they see the adults they look up to laughing at it instead of seeing the shame, embarrassment, and guilt indecency should elicit.
"This movie is making cinematographic history by wrapping sexual immorality in a camouflage package. And that's not funny."
Terry L. Brown
Tarkovsky's Magnum Mysterium
posted 07/25/07
Thank you for Eric David's article on Andrei Tarkovsky. Along with Bergman and Passolini,he was always one of my favorite filmmakers whose profound cinematic efforts constantly put those by most American filmmakers to shame. As with any great storytelling, it is often what is found between the lines—through the interpretation of the intellectually and emotionally engaged audience member—that can make for the most satisfying experience. As opposed to the spoon-fed efforts of most Hollywood evangelicals, the ability to question God and embrace the magnum mysterium can make for the most faith-filled and richly satisfying efforts. That was what Mr. Tarkovsky was all about. Ambiguity can be a strength to the thinking theologian. Give the viewers the respect to prayerfully figure it out on their own, to find the answers to the questions within their own hearts and minds.
Thomas Rhodes
Flanders Not Okely Dokely?
posted 08/01/07
Your comments about Ned Flanders in The Simpsons Movie leave me uncomfortable. In the list of assets portrayed that show Flanders to be an admirable Evangelical ("He's a regular churchgoer who tithes and is in a Bible study group. He believes in salvation by grace, the Second Coming, and the inerrancy of the Bible. He prays at every meal and before bed. He's even an active volunteer in the community."), I suspect that this is one of the most fundamental (no pun intended) reasons that Evangelicalism has not made more of an impact on our society. Notice that all but one of those features has to do with habits of personal morality. We assume that if those habits are performed religiously, we are living the role of an admirable disciple of Jesus. This is a reflection of our individualistic, "Jesus and me," kind of Christianity that has little impact outside the walls of our worship buildings or our homes. Is this not perhaps why the world around us labels us irrelevant? Even the way we use the word church, "go to church, after church," gives evidence that church is a place, set apart from the world we are left here to be salt and light for. When "good Christianity" is reduced to these factors, we deserve to be marginalized. Being cognitive of certain doctrines, performing personal religious rituals is powerless apart from "the Church" entering into the community, listening, engaging, in short, understanding and loving those around us in ways that Jesus did. Rather than WWDJ? perhaps we need to dwell in the Scriptures once again and ask WDJD?—What did Jesus do? He is the perfect example of mission rooted in the heart of God, with the purpose and objective of evidencing the Kingdom of God "on earth as it is in heaven."
Gaylan Mathiesen, PhD
Lutheran Brethren Seminary
All About Harry
posted 07/25/07
I love the Harry Potter books and movies. What I love about them is the age old combat between good and evil—and you know who is good and who is evil. The good try to keep the mortals (muggles) out of their fight and the evil, of course, could care less. Can you draw Christian analogies? Sure. Or you could just enjoy the books. Harry and friends learn about love and tolerance of others' differences. What can be wrong with that? But, I can see where some kids might get mixed up if they are not firmly grounded in their beliefs. What I don't understand is why the Christian community gives J.K. Rowling such a hard time and puts J.R. Tolkien on a pedestal? With Tolkien, there is a good wizard and a bad wizard, plus a lot of magical creatures and magical things going on. Bad fighting against good. Yet Tolkien gets a pass and people throw stones at Rowling. That doesn't make sense to me.
Kelley Rouse
posted 07/25/07
Peter Chattaway seems to miss an important element in his review of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Harry is lost in adolescence. He doesn't know how to behave; he doesn't know who to be mad at; he doesn't know what his purpose might be. The brilliance of the fifth book (and the film barely catches this) is that we are offered a glimpse into the mind and emotion of a young boy becoming a man. Harry says something like this in the film: "Why am I always so angry?" The storms of adolescence are difficult for anybody—we get to see the working out of that confusion in Harry … a very tough thing to do in less than three hours.
Gary Archibeck
posted 07/25/07
Should we as Christians even be going to Harry Potter? It deals with sorcery and witchcraft, death and darkness. By attending such films that deal with this, aren't we only giving opportunity to Satan to place doubt in our minds? I feel this is just another vehicle for placing doubt in our minds that eventually draws us away from Christ because we think we can safely practice witchcraft or palm reading. I don't go to movies that deal with this subject and I don't feel that those who call themselves Christian should either. Galatians 5:19-21 lists witchcraft as sinful, and those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Nancy Link
Pro-Life Cinema?
posted 07/25/07
In his commentary, Brett McCracken writes, "Perhaps the popularity of these life-affirming films indicates a more general cultural longing for life, in the midst of a world that is increasingly cavalier in its cheap treatment of it. It is interesting that these films come at a time when the 'death-affirming' exploits of new horror genres are beginning to wear out their welcome." Indeed. As Children of Men drew to a close, we all sat there, worn out and trying to process what we had just seen. My brother-in-law commented that what increased the impact of the child's birth was that he'd never seen a film with such a high death count in which every death mattered. From the moment one of Theo's companions shoots a cop and he (Theo) becomes drawn into a non-stop whirlwind of experiencing death madly and first-hand, the film never lets us forget that each of these lives lost matters. Are we sick of "death-affirming" films? Absolutely! Many filmgoers like realism in their films, and it's refreshing that studios are finally starting to realize that realism doesn't always equal hopelessness and death.
Elly Runnalls
posted 07/25/07
I've noticed this theme in a number of films lately, even in Craig Brewer's Black Snake Moan, which presents itself as an "exploitation flick" with all the expected violence, sex and foul language, but clearly intends to find redemption for its damaged characters. Whowould ever have expected a grindhouse-style picture to express qualms about abortion? (Or to present a preacher with such courage, grace and integrity? But that's another subject).
Ron Reed
posted 07/25/07
In Waitress, the moment where they put the baby in Jenna's arms and she almost immediately ditches the jerk husband (who just really has no redeeming qualities or any likelihood that fatherhood will change him) to create a new and positive life for her child still brings goosebumps. The fact that Jenna just assumes the baby's right to life even though the pregnancy comes at a bad time for her on so many levels was profoundly pro-life. No matter how the pro-abortion movement is helped along by feminism (in its current ugly extreme) or evolutionism, I believe that the God-given maternal instinct will ultimately prove undeniable.
Karen Davis
Harry Potter and Jesus
posted 07/13/07
This whole Christ figure phenomena is getting a bit crazy, especially with your articles prior to the releases of Spider-Man 3 and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It's all getting a bit old at this point, and I feel that it is like the boy who cried Christ figure when there really isn't one. I think we confuse people who live sacrificial lives as Christ figures, and while that is an attribute of Christ it's simplifying him if that is all you present of him. Where's the prophetic Christ who preaches of the destruction of the temple and his death and resurrection? And where is the controversial Christ who overturned the table of the moneychangers or performed miracles on the Sabbath? He is missing from the big screen, leaving us with cardboard cutouts of Christ at which we point out and exclaim "Christ" like a young child does at a thin, poorly dressed Santa.
James Ewing
Bay Watch
In a recent CT at the Movies newsletter, we expressed our frustration at director Michael Bay's decision to include so much bad language and sexuality in Transformers—including a subplot that the main character, played by Shia LaBeouf, may have a porn and masturbation problem. Many readers were also upset about it—but a few said we should just lighten up.
posted 07/13/07
I'm in 100 percent agreement with your editorial about Transformers. My family and I were looking forward to seeing it, but now I've had to give my teen and pre-teen sons the bad news that it's no longer an option. Hard to say who's more disappointed, them or me. (These days, a large part of my enjoyment of movies is enjoying the fun they have when they enjoy a movie.) I also share your concern that so many teen and under boys are going to be exposed to content that is completely inappropriate, and your frustration that there will be so many clueless or careless parents who will allow that to happen. No excuse for Bay and company to have spoiled it, but little or no chance that they'll be held accountable for it. The good news is that your reviews serve a critical purpose; you helped save a Christian father from an embarrassing surprise and his Christian sons from the wrong kind of education. Thank you for your work.
David J. Myers
posted 07/13/07
I have not seen the movie, thanks to your critique. But my sweet 7-year-old grandson, who has been looking forward to this movie from the day the trailers were released, will be greatly disappointed! How sad it is that Hollywood feels they must permeate movies with four-letter words, God's name in vain, and scantily-clad young women to sell tickets to young people.
Colleen C. Rogers
posted 07/13/07
I agree wholeheartedly about Transformers. I took my 9-year-old boy and 11-year-old girl and was very disappointed with the extra language and the sexual inferences.
Lee Snyder
posted 07/13/07
I went to see Transformers with my 13-year-old daughter and 14-year-old son. I am a Christian single mom, and I try to instill good choices and morals in my kids. After seeing this movie, we discussed the masturbation references, the porno magazines, and the way the girl was dressed—and they hardly remembered it. My kids both have very discriminating tastes for their age. I think kids these days are a lot more mature than we give them credit for. I'm not condoning some of the stuff that Bay puts in his films, but actually I don't feel the masturbation issue was put in there to make anyone feel guilty—most boys do it, and I think it actually would make a teenage boy feel like he was normal, erasing some guilt he may feel about it. And the girl was by no means an airhead; she held her own in the plot, scantily clad or not. I think as Christians we can get way too upset over these things. It's just a movie, and we can't control what every filmmaker does. Just enjoy it for what it's worth. I respect your views, but on this one I think you went a little too to the left.
Sharleen Rigg
posted 07/13/07
Thank you so much for the details about Transformers. My husband had planned to take our 6-year-old son, but now we wouldn't take him even if they paid us!
Michelle Habrych
posted 07/13/07
While Transformers is rated PG-13 in the USA, here in Australia it has an M rating, which means that it is recommended for people 15 years of age and older—which is probably more suitable considering its content, although even 15-year-olds should probably stay away (or at the very least be with a parent when viewing the film).
Adrian Brown
posted 07/13/07
Why don't you see a movie before you pass judgment on it? I can't imagine anything lamer than condemning something you haven't seen. The language was colorful but I didn't notice that much swearing. You are way too uptight over this movie.
Lawrence Schrader
posted 07/13/07
I just finished reading Brandon Fibbs' review of Transformers, and I am less than pleased that he could not see past his own veneer of snobbish film critic and realize what the film was really supposed to be—big budget, popcorn fun featuring cool looking vehicles that morph into huge, butt-kicking robots. Honestly, what more would you expect from a film from which the characters were based on a comic book/toy line/children's animated program from the mid-1980s? As to Mr. Fibbs' question as to why Transformers can't take itself seriously, come on. It's freaking TRANSFORMERS!!! It's ROBOTS from ANOTHER WORLD that morph into VEHICLES and do MAJOR DAMAGE. It's like Godzilla without the indigenous life and with thousands of moving parts. And it does a phenomenal job of kicking cinematic butt.
Zach W. Lorton
posted 07/13/07
Regarding Brandon Fibbs' review of Transformers: Wowser … lighten up! It is apparent that you were not able to even begin to set aside your dislike for Michael Bay. But this is a cartoon turned into a film for children. Your dislike of Mr. Bay has blinded you to a most enjoyable and fun little movie.
Chris Burlew
Is Evan from Heaven …
posted 07/05/07
Tonight I took my two teenagers and a couple of their friends to see Evan Almighty. I am going to recommend this movie to everyone I know! We laughed until we cried, and I was so absolutely touched by the accurate re-telling of this Noah's Ark story—so relevant for today, I almost cried during the movie. This is exactly how Noah's wife and his kids must have felt. This movie was so perfect—the message was wonderful, and there was not a drop of profanity, violence, or sex. I felt the hand of God on the actors and this movie. There's hope in this hurting world after all.
Kim Ryan
… or from Hell?
posted 07/05/07
Sure, Evan Almighty may have some laughs and even some good lessons, but where is truth? How do these movies portray a holy, omnipotent God who hates sin? I know God is love and that he is patient, kind, and forgiving, but it seems to me that this generation has all but lost the "otherness" of God's essence. He is not as we are. The best word we have for that is "holy." These movies that make light of God and his history with man just rankle me no end.
Sherry White
posted 07/05/07
How on earth are we ever going to stand in front of a Holy God and explain how we had a good laugh at a man portraying a Holy God of heaven and earth? I know the Lord has times of laughter, but I am not sure of the world's interpretation. Folly has nothing to do with God, only man. I guess you would have to call me a straight shooter! Straight talk has always been my specialty in church and Sunday school. Too bad you don't have a place on your website to become a teacher instead of an entertainer of worldliness and fads.
Lori Giesbrecht
posted 07/05/07
The man who made Evan Almighty does not sound like he has a personal relationship with Christ his Savior. He quotes that "art affects our Christianity." This is not true. If Christ is in us, then what we do will be a reflection of the hope that is in us. He also mentioned "this creative force we call God." What is that?! He is our Creator, not just some creative force we call God. He's not some cool idea for living. He deserves much more honor than that. SHAME on you who can't pick up on this deceptive umbrella of Christianity that Shadyac has placed on himself.
Rachel Allender
Sick of Sicko
posted 07/05/07
Brandon Fibbs' review of Michael Moore's Sicko is itself sicko. Fibbs, in the name of Christianity, has swallowed the socialist agenda. Not using facts but liberal propaganda, he echoes Moore's railings against the American system. To be sure, there are things wrong about health care in this country, but the socialist approach would be disastrous; let Fibbs live in Moore's exalted Cuba. Sad to say, but Christianity Today has moved from its conservative roots both in its politics and its theology: pietistic ignorance.
Don Glover
posted 07/05/07
I grant that American health care isn't perfect, but those who damn it as among the worst in the world remind me of rather bright 14-year-olds who know chapter and verse of their parents' faults, but not one of their virtues—or any of their own faults. Neither the film, nor the advocates of socialized medicine, addresses the issue of why so many people from countries with socialized medicine come to the USA for treatment when they can get it for free in their own country. Anyone who's spent time traveling, especially in the second and third worlds, knows we don't do as bad as Moore and other critics of our system say.
Cristi Breden
posted 07/05/07
Why in the world are you prepared to believe Moore about anything? He's not a documentarian. He's a propagandist, our latter-day Leni Riefenstahl. The misinformation and outright falsifications in his previous films are well documented. I read those heart-rending situations you recount in your review, and I thought, "What has Moore left out? How is he trying to deceive us this time?" I don't know the answer to our health care deficiencies, but I do know this. The profit motive has produced most of the world's medical breakthroughs, so think twice before eliminating it. It's not Britain, Canada, Cuba, or France that created medical imaging technology or mapped the human genome. I've heard of no miracle drugs out of Cuba. Finally, try having a run-in with socialized medicine before you praise it. I was all for it until I wound up in a London emergency room. One survey found that 85 percent of Canadians are satisfied with their health care system, and the rest are sick. That's not a joke. Taking Michael Moore seriously is.
Toni Mack
Quick Change for Waitress
posted 07/05/07
In your review of Waitress, it's interesting that a Christian critic found it hard to swallow that the main character "finds her life-altering answer in about five seconds flat." While I realize that many a relationship with Christ is a slow burn (it was for me), I do know of those who come to that moment of sanctification in an instant. Life is made up of those moments, supernatural or otherwise. Sorry to be a critic's critic, but I just found this comment inconsistent with the faith.
Dan Wyatt
Bad Guys We Love
In a recent CT at the Movies newsletter, we discussed certain cinematic bad guys that had just enough charm, you couldn't help but like them. We asked readers to tell us about their favorite "lovable scoundrels," and here are some of their responses.
posted 07/05/07
In Collateral, Tom Cruise is a character that you come to appreciate. I can't help but feel for his lonely woundedness, like the sickly and aimless solo coyote wandering through the city. Hmm, aren't we all a little bit like him? I think we all hope we aren't "that bad," but there's some small voice raising up to say: "You really are a long way off from goodness. You need God … desperately!"
Christian Turner
posted 07/05/07
Clark Gable as Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind. The rogue and scoundrel is actually a kind-hearted realist we just can't resist. In the end, he always does the right thing.
Judy Reeve
posted 07/05/07
Captain Jack Sparrow.
Alex Hawkins
posted 07/05/07
Michael Corleone in The Godfather. Just when he is so close to getting out, they always drag him back in! What an amazing, complex villain. Even after slapping Kay around, even after having his brother murdered, and on and on, there's this endearing vulnerability—we just feel his pain and loss. Is it Pacino's acting, the haunting score, the great scripts? All three, I think.
Sherrie Gumienny
posted 07/05/07
H. I. McDonnough from Raising Arizona. Every awful thing he did was because of his love for his wife, Ed, and their mutual need for a "family unit." Even after a stress-relieving convenience store hold-up, he still managed to keep hold of the Huggies location. A nice guy who did the wrong things for the right reasons.
Karen Willingham
posted 07/05/07
Hugh Grant in About a Boy, all charm and languid wit. John Malkovich in Empire of the Sun.
Carolyne Aarsen
posted 07/05/07
Maybe he's not truly lovable, but who wouldn't be at least fascinated by a smooth talker like Harry Lime (black marketeer, murderer) in The Third Man? Any guy who can charm a woman as beautiful as Anna Schmidt must have something!
James Allan Ragsdale
posted 07/05/07
Brad Pitt playing Joe/Death in Meet Joe Black. To play death, and then to personify him as to fall in love with Claire Forlani and peanut butter, well, that's enough to make you wish it wouldn't end like you know it will. I think this is the epitome of a nice bad guy.
CJ Jahnsen
posted 07/05/07
Salieri in Amadeus. He had enough talent to know that Mozart had a gift from God, but not enough talent to write anything nearly as beautiful. Worst of all, he knew he had little talent compared to Mozart, so he tries to claim a requiem of Mozart's as his own, but he failed. He ends the movie being pushed by in a wheelchair saying, "I absolve all mediocrity." You want him to get some credit and recognition, even though he stole it.
Jerry Koleski
posted 07/05/07
Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday in Tombstone! He's the most lovable, drunken, promiscuous, murdering gambler ever, and that southern gentleman's drawl … 'Nuff said.
Fredonna Walker
A Christian Niche Market?
We received a number of e-mails in response to our recent story, "Christians as a Niche Market?" Some are all for it, some quite against it, and many are somewhere in between.
posted 05/04/07
"Christian" as a film niche is ridiculous! Faith in Christ is something that is all-encompassing, affecting every area of our life. It's one of the reasons I respect the critic team at CT Movies—they get it. What really scares me is that there are Christians out there wanting to be sheltered into a niche, because that's really all a niche is. Christianity can never be a style, or else it is inauthentic. What do you fear? Too much violence, sexuality, etc.? We've been given a spirit of power not fear!
Brad Forbes
posted 05/04/07
I'm a Christian who recently took up writing film scripts. I'm wary of a niche market, and I'm firmly committed to the vision of Christians working within the secular media, rather than creating another genre. It's OK, I suppose, to have a separate niche targeting Christians, but deep down I just don't think that's why we Christians are here. We're here to be "salt and light," and we've lost a lot of time as it is not being represented within the film world.
Margaret Mills
posted 05/04/07
On the one hand, the Christian "niche" has included films like The Mission, Chariots of Fire, Narnia, Lord of the Rings and so on, so if we're talking about that level of Christian niche, fine. On the other hand, if films that have been done by Christians are to be the standard, then we're in trouble. We need to learn more about "Why Heathens Make the Best Christian Movies."
Gaylan Mathiesen
posted 05/04/07
C.S. Lewis once said that a good children's book is just a good book period. That is how I feel about so-called Christian films. I no longer compartmentalize my life, and I cringe when I hear that a film is a "Christian" film. Good movies are like good books—do they accomplish their purpose to entertain or educate or provoke thoughts? The best films can accomplish all three. At the same time, I do believe there is a market for good family-friendly films—without bad language, violence and sexual innuendo.
Karen Davis
posted 05/04/07
There is probably a place for "Christian" films in the marketplace, but we lose our effectiveness as salt and light if we settle for living in the Christian bubble. I would rather see Christians participating across the board in a wide range of quality works. Our natural tendency is to look for comfort and fellowship, collaborating with our brothers and sisters in the faith, and to want to have a choice of films we can take our children to without worrying. But we must look for opportunities to engage the culture and make a difference outside our comfort zone. This may sound scandalous for a minister's family, but we have very little "Christian art" in our home. We try to have good art in our home, and unfortunately, I have yet to find a piece of art in a Christian bookstore that I want to take home.
Bonnie Joyce
posted 05/04/07
Whether or not a niche is a good idea from a marketing point of view is a different question altogether from whether or not it is living out salty theology in a bland world and calling people to be a part of the kingdom of God. In some ways that market-driven justification for anything and everything is exactly the thing we have to guard against—not that kingdom things can't be materially successful, but it's not the way Jesus taught us to think about the kingdom. I think Christians can and should make great films, but it seems to me the more they care about niche marketing to a Christian audience, the less true to the kingdom they may end up being. Ezekiel never won any Oscars. Nor did Jeremiah, or Hosea or John the Baptist.
Michelle Crouch
posted 05/04/07
Niche, what niche? The United States was founded by predominantly Christian people. The vast majority of citizens claim to be of Christian leaning, or at least say they believe in God. Hollywood has missed the boat in believing that relevant story telling and biblical truth are incompatible. Basically, we fall into two camps; those who have faith and those who wish to have. Properly themed movies have the opportunity to attract and challenge both camps.
Steve Schoonover
posted 05/04/07
The Christian music industry has really been thriving over the last decade, so it's definitely time for more top quality Christian movies. I want movie theater options where I can feel confident taking my kids, not having to worry about inappropriate language and situations, knowing that there will be strong biblical themes to talk about with them after the film.
John Pearson
posted 05/04/07
It's good to that Christian artists out there having serious discussions on ways to improve "Christian" filmmaking. As a Christian, it's embarrassing when I see that most of the films that are created for and marketed to Christian audiences are so superficial and simple-minded. What are we saying to the world, or more importantly, what does this say about us? Hopefully we will see an improvement in the next few years. But I worry about the Christian "niche" market that may not support or accept more authentic and challenging films about faith.
Lance Mar
posted 05/04/07
I am a Christian who is a screenwriter in Hollywood, and I get tired of hearing that Christians only produce bad scripts. Frankly, after having read more scripts by non-Christians than I care to remember, the percentage of garbage and poorly written scripts by the world is at least equal to that of believers. Honestly, let's quit beating each other up. And for Dean Batali to be mad at God for blessing crap while he became successful producing That '70s Show is an absolute laugher! Come on, Dean, back down a little, brother.
David Jones
Some Cinematic Musings
posted 04/03/07
In my semi-frequent perusals of CT film reviews, there seem to be two constants: 1) Your film reviewers are an insightful, well-watched bunch who actually appreciate film (a refreshing change from the typical Christian film review), and 2) You get a lot of letters from people who think you're all a bunch of hypocritical, un-Christian slugs every time you appreciate or say anything at all good about a film with an R rating. I'm constantly baffled by people accusing the CT reviewers of irresponsibly "endorsing" a film they don't like. I have yet to read a CT review that tells anyone to see a given film, though I have read a lot of said reviews that appreciated a film. Why this ingrained assumption that because someone likes a film, they are telling you to go see it? Disagree with the reviewer all you like, but take responsibility for your desire or lack thereof to go to the movies. Honestly, it's like accusing someone of hounding you to go to Starbucks every time they walk past you holding a coffee. If you are so fearful that because a Christian writer enjoyed something about an R-rated film it will make you or or children watch it, I really don't think the writer is the problem. And you worry about the reviewers being too easily influenced by the media!
Elly Runnalls
Bad Blades
posted 04/03/07
I am saddened and perplexed that your reviewer for Blades of Glory would not point out from the start that this movie, and others like it, are simply not for Christians. Would we be watching these crotch-grabs and sexual innuendos if Jesus were sitting next to us? We are so far immersed in the culture that we no longer make distinctions between what the unbelievers watch and what we watch. These days our time is spent watching things that would horrify Christians of past generations. If Christianity Today cannot review movies from a biblical perspective, why review at all?
John Lanagan
Editor's note: Why review at all? To help Christians make informed decisions about what movies they will, and will not, watch. We do not make decisions for people; we only equip them to make their own decisions, based on their own level of maturity and discernment. Many Christians will skip Blades of Glory because our review has given them the information they need to make a discerning choice. Mission accomplished.
About Nativity's Inactivity
Editor's note: In a recent story about The Nativity Story coming to video, the producer and director offered theories on why the film didn't do well at the box office. Many readers also had their own theories. Here are some of them.
posted 03/23/07
Perhaps another reason it didn't do well at the box office is that so many Christians choose to live lives as hermetically sealed from the world as they can. So they were simply not aware of what was happening "out there in the world." The movie got attention in the San Francisco Bay Area. I learned about it from simply being aware of billboards, not from other Christians thinking this will be the next and greatest evangelism tool in existence.
Andrew Dósa
posted 03/23/07
If it had been a great movie, it would have generated more buzz. We make a point of going to Christian themed movies to support them, but I'm afraid I couldn't endorse that movie enthusiastically. The scenery and costumes were great and the actors looked authentic enough, but it just did not connect emotionally. An episode of 24 evokes more suspense and empathy than this movie did. What I liked least about it were the cheesy Christmas card set shots, with the manger scene as the crowning example. That was practically laughable.
Steve Irwin
posted 03/23/07
To promote it just before the holiday season and expect people, especially church-going Christians, to have time to see it, even if fabulous, is not going to work, unless there is a huge marketing push, so that it becomes everyone's priority. Christmas events, parties, programs, concerts, rehearsals, etc., at churches, schools, and in the arts make December a jammed month already, so that even if you wanted to see it, you had trouble doing so. Still, I'm praying the DVD does extremely well and becomes a classic for many families, because it really is an excellent film.
Evy Stamoolis
posted 03/23/07
Lousy acting (on Mary's part) and lousy script by and large. The actor who played Joseph was the only bright spot. They should have taken lessons from the folks who made Amazing Grace. You wanted to watch that one, rather than just have to endure it.
Rick Kuhn
posted 03/23/07
I avoided The Nativity Story because the media was drawing parallels between Mary, the unmarried virgin mother of Jesus, and actress Keisha Castle-Hughes, who played her in the film and became pregnant out-of- wedlock. It left a sour taste in my mouth.
Elizabeth Hopkins
posted 03/23/07
You left out the main reason why none of our church members went to see it. How can you look at Mary (Keisha Castle-Hughes) who is knocked up by her boy friend and feel a true portrayal of the Virgin Mother?
Bob Peura
posted 03/23/07
I wonder if the lack of success had anything to do with articles about the teen pregnancy of Keisha Castle-Hughes. Although this had no bearing on our reasons for missing the movie, I can almost guarantee that it stopped others who perhaps couldn't get past the people in the movie being portrayed by sinners. Funny how people forget that Mary and Joseph were fully human and that only Jesus was perfect and without sin. Maybe some Christians can't separate the actors from the characters they portray.
Michelle Oates
posted 03/23/07
On Christmas Day we saw the film in a local theater (only about six other people there). We thought it was a true work of art, and were highly impressed by the acting, professionalism and presentation. The scene at Jesus' birth was an emotional blessing! We were thrilled and inspired by the movie and highly recommend it to everyone! It saddens us to think that so many Christians missed what to us was such a blessing in a world of so much negativism toward Christianity.
Rev. Dan and Karen McKinley
posted 03/23/07
It was a mediocre movie. Critics basically said it was Hallmark movie—nice, but not gripping, unlike The Passion of the Christ. That is what I read and heard from friends that saw it, and why I didn't make an effort to go. I will rent it, but am not excited to see it.
Mike Graham
posted 03/23/07
It is a truly beautiful film, sensitive and reverent. It will become a classic. I do not know why people did not go to see it. Here in New Zealand we have a very full timetable before Christmas—school year ends, graduations, preparations for summer holidays plus Christmas itself—so it does need to be highlighted long before, so that individuals or groups will plan to go. Plus, having a Kiwi (Keisha Castle-Hughes) as Mary you might have thought would be a great draw, but it did not have as much impact as we had expected.
David Troughton
posted 03/23/07
Simply put, this film lacked majesty. The quick cuts between frames, the dim lighting of many scenes, the use of hand-held cameras all conspired to give a Blair Witch feeling to much of this movie—not exactly the flavor that most Christmas-season believers are hoping to experience. Any one of the Rocky pictures (including most of the fairly-lame middle ones) brings more majesty, more awe, and more sense of underlying drama than this film managed to capture. It was nearly impossible to care about these characters as the montage of scenes flashed by the viewers' consciousness. Even knowing the story didn't help. The angelic appearances seemed quirky, not awe-inspiring. The magi were played for laughs instead of drama. Moviemaking has come a long way in the past fifty years, but Nativity lacked what The Robe or even The Ten Commandments captured a half-century ago: a compelling sense of drama, majesty and awe. If you can't deliver those things with a story like the birth of Jesus, what kind of story are you looking for?
Dr. David Frisbie
posted 03/23/07
I think it was not marketed well. That was the most touching story of Jesus I've ever seen. I cried all the way through it. The Mary and Joseph depiction was wonderful.
Webb Kline
posted 03/23/07
The article left out the religious reasons why the movie did not do well. As a Catholic Christian, I wish the film had followed Scripture more closely. For example, Gabriel's greeting of Mary was changed. And when Mary gave her Magnificat, she left out "all generations will call me blessed." These things appeared to me to be a deliberate tampering with Scripture in order to be anti-Catholic. It's hard for us as Catholics (the majority of American Christians) to be excited about a film which appears to deliberately change Scripture in order to be prejudiced and hateful. This is how it came across to at least several of us.
John P. Morrison
Editor's note: Steven D. Greydanus, a Catholic who writes reviews for CT Movies, might tend to disagree with Mr. Morrison. In his review at DecentFilms.com, Steven noted that in the film, "nothing here need be a serious obstacle for Catholic viewers," and he further explored some Catholic objections to the film in this article, ultimately concluding that he is glad the film was made, and that he plans to watch it with his family for many Advents to come.
Is 300 Really 'Art'?
posted 03/12/07
Regarding your review of 300, I'm disappointed you could be so supportive of a movie that is graphically R and beyond by standards from even 6-8 years ago. Calling it art doesn't mean it's worthy. With all the evidence/research on the impact of violence on kids, you're telling people to see this, unless you have a problem with blood, sex and killing?
Dan Seidman
posted 03/12/07
I do not see how any Christian could justify viewing the movie with its nude scenes. Hopefully, they will clean it up for TV. Sorry, I don't believe Jesus would go.
Stephen Miller
An Enjoyable Gift
posted 03/12/07
I was enthralled with The Ultimate Gift. I suppose that the more movies you watch, the more that has to be added to get your attention each viewing. Surrounded by common Christians who were not movie-hardened, we thoroughly enjoyed this film and its message. Perhaps FoxFaith has it right in making movies for the average Christian moviegoer, not the professional film critic. I would find it really trying to spend so much time being critical rather than enjoying the movie experience.
Dannie Smith
posted 03/12/07
Seems you all are pretty good at being lukewarm about Christian-based films. I imagine they need more work to be sure, but they're giving it a great run and a great try. For my money and my family, I'm thrilled that movies like this give me an opportunity to create discussion with my family about values.
Greg Leith
Those Darn Trailers
Editor's note: A recent CT at the Movies newsletter addressed the topic of inappropriate trailers shown before certain movies at the theater—including trailers for R movies before a PG-13 film. One reader said he felt he had been "sucker-punched" by the trailers preceding Ghost Rider, to which he had taken his 12-year-old daughter. Many readers responded; here's a sampling.
posted 03/12/07
I cannot stand it when I think I have done what I am supposed to do as a concerned and involved parent—research, research, research—and then get nailed with incredibly out-of-place trailers. G movie means G trailers, PG movie means PG trailers! Duh!
Rob Daniels
posted 03/12/07
My husband and I took our 9- and 10-year-olds to see Night at the Museum. Good movie, did my homework. But I was appalled at the trailers; all were inappropriate. The worst by far was Norbit—wiggles, a swimsuit scene with the actor being asked if he's wearing bottoms, breasts smashed on a windshield, and more. I was very angry. I will most likely keep the kids out of the theater until the trailers are over. I won't be "sucker punched" again!
Joanne Schubert
posted 03/12/07
Boy, have I been slammed with previews before. They say "approved for all audiences," and I want to ask, "Approved by WHOM?" If they are going to show a preview of a film with a higher rating, then they need to make sure that it doesn't show the worst parts of that film. If I, as a parent, have decided that my children are not going to watch a certain rating—and I am going to the trouble of policing that—I shouldn't be undermined by the previews. I am not trying to censor their films, but they also need to respect my rights as a parent.
Karen Davis
posted 03/12/07
We have found that it is better to get our seats, and then my daughter and I wait outside until the trailers are done so we won't be offended by the offerings. While inconvenient, it is better than being exposed to visuals and topics we find distressing.
Barbara Hoeft
posted 03/12/07
I would not take a child to a movie theater in today's environment. Do what I do and wait until the movie of choice is available on rental DVD. Complain to the studios? That's a laugher. They, along with their Hollywood crowd, don't have a clue to what is happening in America in general. They make movies based on what they perceive is reality based on their own lives in their party-wild community.
Gerald Lawson
posted 03/12/07
I think the trailers before a movie should correspond to the movie being shown. I have a 5-year-old daughter that I have just begun to take to movies in theatres. We are very picky about the movies she sees, and we are often broadsided by the movie trailers. I think the trailers should correspond to the rating of the movie to be seen.
Heidi Strybos
posted 03/12/07
The trailers before Night at the Museum caused me to get up and complain to the manager, but he said the studio is responsible. I asked to make the case for us with the studio, but got a polite brush-off. At any rate, it was too late to undo the damage of the scenes these kids had just witnessed—the trailers were chock full of violence and gore and way-inappropriate for that audience. I felt like I was going to be sick. And I felt like I had been suckered.
Kara Oakley
Not So Amazing?
posted 03/07/07
I find it disappointing that none of the Christian reviews of Amazing Grace (our review; other reviews) makes even a scant mention of Wilberforce's compassion for animals leading to his being a founding member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He imitated God's compassion over all he has made, eliciting the praise of all his creatures (Psalm 145:9, 13, 17, 21). However, this neglect is a reflection of the evangelical community as a whole. Francis Schaeffer, in Pollution and the Death of Man, said that people concerned about the environment and animal welfare turn to Eastern religions because they see a strong indifference, if not antipathy toward such matters from evangelical Christians. As a pastor who has preached on our creation obligations, I am often met by well-meaning but misinformed Christians who say that as long as people are suffering we should not waste our time on animals, as if we can't do both. Wilberforce contradicted this by showing that we can and should do both. The movie brought this out in just the right proportion.
Craig DiBenedictis
posted 03/07/07
We were dismally disappointed with Amazing Grace. What should have been an eye-opening and inspiring movie, my husband (a pastor) and I (a history teacher) found incredibly dull!Beautiful sets and costuming, but the script was very boring, even though dealing with such a pivotal issue. There were so many opportunities to truly cause this film to soar.Could some "flashback" scenes illustrating the horror of slave ships through Newton's memories not have been included?The incessant dialogue was exhausting and the script was arranged in such a confusing manner that we actually had to keep nudging each other to stay awake.Unfortunately, it missed the opportunity to do anything significant with Wilberforce's faith either.The scene at Pitt's deathbed was stunning in that Wilberforce did not even respond when his friend said he wished he (Pitt)had had his (Wilberforce's) faith! I just think it is very sad to miss the mark, with such a wonderful opportunity.
Alanda Burgess
Have We Lost Our Minds?
We recently ran a commentary with that title, an article by Jeffrey Overstreet that further explains our philosophy at CT Movies—and how we can give poor reviews to "Christian" movies and good reviews to films with objectionable content. Here are some of the replies.
posted 03/05/07
Have you lost your minds? Most certainly not. Thanks for the excellent article from Jeffrey Overstreet about how he, and by extension, the CT reviewers, view their calling. That is precisely the reason I so frequently look to your reviews for guidance in determining which films to see. We, and all of creation, are God's work of art. It is not given to me to understand why he chose to even allow the "unfrutiful deeds of darkness," but clearly they are a part of his bigger picture. In eternity no one will be able to deny the beauty of His work. Our own art, if truly reflective of the imago Dei, will not deny the reality of evil, but will point, however tentatively, to redemption. I believe that is true for the Christian and the non-Christian artist alike.
Skip Mckinstry
posted 03/05/07
I, too, am weary of the Christian faith being held hostage by an isolationist and contemptuous or sentimental and naive worldview. Art reveals both the splendor and the degradation of the world—the world that God so loved that he gave his only begotten Son on its behalf. It is the task of art to reveal; it is the task of the thoughtful Christian to discern. Or, again, it is the task of art to describe; it is the task of religion to prescribe. If the ugliness revealed by art is in no way prescribed, or glorified, then beholding it is a lesson and a necessary challenge to the soul. And when art reveals the glory and beauty of God—even unawares—then it is a marvel and a wonder to give thanks unto God for. The same is true for the criticism of art; and I give thanks unto God for the truth and beauty contained within this essay.
Rev. Teresa Davis
posted 03/05/07
I regularly read your reviews because you do such a great job of bringing a love of the art form (and an understanding; too many critics don't understand and consequently their reviews are rubbish) and a profound faith to your work. It gives me something to think about and another view of the movie before I see it. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. But you folks do a great job. A great critical job. A great Christian job.
Jay Phillippi
posted 03/05/07
I am not a heathen by any means, but certainly represent the left of the religious spectrum; I characterize myself as having a flexible theology. Jeffrey's view of his work as a reviewer begins to explain the excellence of the reviews. Good work is a form of worship. Life indeed is not family friendly or even redeeming at times. We also live in a secular society that is composed of a myriad of faiths that have threads interwoven with our very fabric. Right on, Jeffrey!
Bill Frerichs
posted 03/05/07
A wonderful piece of writing that reflects the years of inquiry, growth and maturing wisdom that Mr. Overstreet has experienced. I have been a pastor for over 25 years and a lover of movies all my life. I too appreciate the emotion, inspiration and intellectual or moral challenge films can provide. And, while I believe we are called to be "defenders of the faith," giving just cause for the hope that lies within us, I too have grown to realize that God is bigger than all of us, and we needn't be "defensive" about that faith. Clearly, it is much more important for us to avail ourselves of any and every opportunity to communicate with our world, and so perhaps communicate the gospel to it, than it is for us to prematurely (and inappropriately, since it is God's job, not ours) judge others unto condemnation. The judgments we are called upon by Scripture to perform are all about discernment, a point Mr. Overstreet makes repeatedly in his piece. We must continue to fearlessly follow the path that Jesus took, namely, the path of being in the world, though not of it. It is a path of humility to be sure, and one that is not without its inherent dangers, but should the Lord come during our lifetime, I would much rather be found among "sinners," seeking for some way to convey Christ to them, than standing on the sidelines, arms folded tightly around myself, sneering my disapproval. Keep up the good work.
Rev. Rick Brundin
posted 03/05/07
The honesty and willingness to see God work even in our sinful world through sinful people (even unbelievers) is the reason that I appreciate and read Christianity Today. There is enough quick judgment in the church already. Thank you for doing your work and for speaking with honesty and integrity without easy answers and simple responses.You have opened up my mind to movies that in the past I would have condemned but now am blessed by because of the creativity and honesty portrayed in them. I believe that God is pleased by your work.
Lisa Harman
posted 03/05/07
Bravo! Thank you for the timely and much-needed essay. I run a classical music station owned by a missionary radio network inthe Philippines and often run into similar perspectives from certain evangelicals here; this makes sustaining the station a challenge. Why not just play Hillsong all day long? Why not just play Beethoven as a music bed for the Four Spiritual Laws? I am told that this is what "works." Perhaps. There will always be people who respond to the formulas and pat answers. On some days it is less than encouraging that the formulas and pat answers appear to bring in the numbers. But I am encouraged by your team and others who continue to champion the value of art, excellence, complexity, myth and mystery on the frontier of the faith.
TJ Liong
posted 03/05/07
Overstreet's essay was a brave proclamation that we all as Christians must take to heart. This ideal for observing art and respecting the truths it offers fits perfectly into our worldview. Christians must realize the significance of an honest look at people and an honest approach to finding God in nature, human nature. Movies that beg the question ofhow we are inherently sinful and why we feel a need for redemption have a justified reason for vigorously exposing our flaws. Of course our flaws are not pretty, and that is precisely why a good movie makes our flaws look ugly. As Christians, we can not be afraid to paint with dark colors, exposing the sin of the world and offering alternatives in an artistic, touching, and redemptive style. But truth is not enough for movies. Movies must be of quality, and if the Christian film industry does not devote itself to quality, Christian movies that reflect the goodness of God and the love of Jesus Christ will never be as powerful as romantic action flicks. I am aiming to be a Christian filmmaker, and I have pondered this question of artistry for a long time. I want to carry this standard with me and reflect it in my films. I have desired that this standard could be explained precisely, so I thoroughly enjoyed your words.
Duran Smith
Glossing over Sin?
posted 03/05/07
I am looking for a review from someone with a Christian worldview. Is that you? I was amazed by some of your remarks about The Departed. My 16-year-old son wanted to see it, so we looked it up at another Christian movie review website, where they are very specific about the disgusting material in that movie. I began to read him their list of objections listed under "sexual content." After one item, he said, "OK, Mom, I get it." Your review is not specific enough. You're glossing over the darkness and sin by reminding us that it is rated R. Because I could tell my son the hideous specifics, he was completely turned off and will not ever want to see it. As a Christian publication, I believe that your responsibility goes beyond reminding us what an R rating means. I'm going pray that you will live up to your commitment to Christ in all that you do, especially in your position of reviewing movies from the perspective of a Christian worldview.
Rebbecca Luz
Editor's note: We do not typically do "itemized lists" of sins depicted in a film. However, our review of The Departed was very clear that this movie was full of such depictions. We wrote: "The Departed is rated R for strong brutal violence, pervasive language, some strong sexual content, and drug material. There's relentless profanity, including use of the f-bomb nearly as often as the average person uses 'the,' not to mention irreverent references to God, racial slurs, and crude sexual references. The strong sexual content seems less a reference a scene of intimacy and more in connection with a scene that takes place in a porno theater."
We Liked This Astronaut
posted 03/05/07
I really liked The Astronaut Farmer and found your review missed the point; I thought it was wholesome and good for the whole family, and made us all want to leave and go after our dreams. Compared to other movies, this is so much better and so much healthier for the culture. I was surprised you didn't support this moral family parable. Sure, Charles Farmer is a little intense with his rocket vision, but he really has his heart in the right place: he loves his wife, and kids, he's never cheated on his wife, they go to church, etc. Why don't you mention some of the good in your article instead of just picking on one or two small things?
Timothy Thamers
Criticizing the Criticizers
We recently heard from many readers who didn't like our annual Critics' Choice list (see the heading "Critiquing the Critics" below, and this newsletter). But we've also heard from a ton of readers who feel quite differently. Now it's their turn for some feedback.
posted 02/14/07
Regarding the criticisms of your Critics' Choice list, I want to remind you that there are people out here who appreciate very much your willingness to engage the culture and the world the way it is. One really can be so heavenly-minded that one is no earthly good, and I am so glad that CT Movies isn't like that.
Bruce Mason
posted 02/14/07
I find your lists and reviews incredibly helpful.I am so sick of the treacle most often dished out by "Christians" that I could vomit from the whole culture. Do not ever water down a movie of worth because someone utters an obscenity while a nuclear holocaust is taking place. No wonder the "world" does not take Christianity seriously.
K. Browne
posted 02/14/07
Thank you for making a "critical" stand on a top 10. I neither need nor desire to know about the best poorly produced films with a "Christian" stamp on them. Thank you for helping me learn what movies I can enjoy and appreciate that will build bridges to others who may not think like me—but are thinking. I desire to walk with Paul in Acts 17 to be where "real" people are. If I want to hide under the Christian Defense Systems, they are really easy to find and scurry under.
Nace Lanier
posted 02/14/07
I have been a youth director for 11 years and I often turn to your suggestions and reviews before choosing movies to use with our youth groups. There are always people to complain, but there are many more who truly value all you do.
Cathi Reckenbeil
posted 02/14/07
I guess the good thing about criticism of your Critics' Choice list is that you can just dredge out the response year after year, as the criticisms are always the same—and always way off the mark. Keep on keeping on.
Justin Lawrence
posted 02/14/07
I appreciate how you guys aren't afraid to speak about what's out there in the movies, the good and the bad. Without knowing what's out there, how can we make intelligent choices for ourselves, our minds, and for our children? Based on your Critics' Choice list, I'm going to check out all of the films, before I pass judgment on whether I think the film was "good" "bad" or "ugly."
Tamerut Adams
posted 02/14/07
As the pastor of an unconventional church, I appreciate your movie recommendations. Our church is on the ragged edge, reaching the lost and strays (we are part of the Cowboy Church movement in Texas). If and when we Christians enter into dialog with the lost and the carnal Christians around us, we must talk in their terms. They don't endorse poor movies just because they are redeeming. Rather, if following your lead, we can point out how a movie like Little Children illustrates what Christ and the Bible say, then we are talking their language in a culturally relevant way. We should wake up and recognize that we are on their turf; they are not on our Christian turf. After all, we don't usually have Bible studies at the water cooler; we discuss movies, Anna Nicole, etc.
John Myers
Pastor, Narrow Trail Cowboy Church
posted 02/14/07
I check out your reviews regularly, and use your lists of best/most redeeming films to consider movies to check out. Thanks to you, I have more to think about when enjoying a thought-provoking and well made film, and I don't waste my time on other films that lack artistic value.
Ken Grant
posted 02/14/07
When will Christians start praying for Hollywood instead of just complaining about it? I really appreciate all you guys do at CT Movies. It is obvious that you have a passion for films and for seeking truth, beauty, and goodness in a Hollywood that is so covered in their own self-centered darkness.
Luke Granlund
posted 02/14/07
I specifically read your reviews on every movie I am considering seeing because I know I will get a complete, intelligent and very honest description of the work. I am so thankful that you do not limit yourselves to "family friendly" movies. Don't get me wrong; I do appreciate a good quality, wholesome movie. But the art form would be incomplete if that were the only type of movie made. Some Christian reviewers will throw out a movie because of some foul language or inappropriate behavior. But in doing that, they may have thrown out an opportunity for us to have our eyes opened to a side of life or a moral question that we may not have considered before. The best movies help me understand people and my world a little better. As a Christian, I think that is important so that we can minister to others. And your ministry is so helpful because I can know before I decide whether or not to see a particular movie just what to expect.
Linda Hayes
posted 02/14/07
Don't ever let those "Christians" who cut at your efforts deter you. Many in that group would never go where Jesus bids us go to touch the last the least and the lost.
J Grinnell
posted 02/14/07
I would like to commend you on your lists and your critiques of the latest films. We sometimes do a "Faith and Flicks" series at our church for single adults. We don't choose "Christian" movies, rather films that show some redemptive quality in them—and how "the world" sometimes gets it better than we do! I wish Christians could lighten up, hang onto their faith, but watch and read more critically (in a literary sense) and appreciate things that are well done, even if they have some offensive content. This is reality, and it is where we live and are called to be salt and light.
Jeanie McGowan
posted 02/14/07
Thank you for the intelligent, reasonable Christian perspective you bring to your movie reviews. You strive for balance in your critiques. Just because a film is made by a Christian or has an obvious Christian message, that does not mean it is flawless, and you are not afraid to say so. I also appreciate the fact that you review secular films, even those with messages that may be contrary or even hostile to Christian teaching, with a fair and balanced approach, considering how Christians might respond to these characters or situations, or how the Good News might positively influence the world as it is depicted in these films. I came to this conclusion after reading your reviews on Rent (which I enjoyed very much) and Brokeback Mountain (which I did not see). It is wonderful that you provide Christian readers with insight and direction in navigating this powerful medium. The fact that you catch some occasional flack from readers who take a more strict approach to films tells me that you are making people think, and that can sometimes be uncomfortable.
Jill Murman Payne
posted 02/14/07
Thank you for your thoughtful look into the world of cinema. Your desire to see the beauty, light, darkness, pain, joy, suffering and reality that film can capture is apparent. Your top ten lists have some risky choices, so I applaud you for being brave and true to your mission of looking closer and finding God's truth wherever it may be found. I work with Young Life, with kids who are broken, lonely, afraid, abandoned and hurt—and the last thing they need are sensitized portrayals of life that paint rosy pictures. Many "faith-based" films seem to do this, and frankly it turns the kids away from Jesus because it is not real. Thanks again for pointing me to some great films.
Adam Powers
posted 02/14/07
While clean, family films are a vital part of the industry, mature films that offer a less-obvious moral perspective are also important. A "Christian" film doesn't have to be all sunshine and roses; it can also portray sin—so long as the sin is portrayed as ugly. Nice job on your list!
Tony Rossi
posted 02/14/07
Thank you so much for including Children of Men at the top of your list. It was so spiritual, so powerful—and it stands to be the most pro-life movie I've ever seen. People who complain about ratings and reviews do not realize that one cannot understand the depths of God's compassion and mercy when limiting yourself to merely G-rated plotlines. To limit one's appreciation of God-centered storylines because the characters who need redemption say a couple of bad words strikes me as completely ludicrous. It is counter-productive to what being a "light in the darkness" is all about; what's the point if your light refuses to engage the darkness? Thanks for expanding Christian criticism to the heights it needs to reach a fallen world.
Nick Alexander
posted 02/14/07
I wanted to express my support for the engagement you have with culture and with artistic excellence. It's a credit to the Body of Christ and, as a 44-year-old evangelical Christian who was saved at the age of 7, it's a real breath of fresh air to me.
Mike Harris-Stone
posted 02/14/07
Someone in the church needs to critique the culture and not run away from it, and this is exactly whatyou are doing every week. Even though I may not always agree with every review you publish, I highly respect the work you do for the Kingdom. Continue this critical task of sifting through and experiencing the art and stories that are worth seeing, so that the Body of Christ may be built up and not isolated from the world we so desperately need to minister to.
Doug Kimball
posted 02/14/07
Your honest reviews pierce to the heart of a film, rather than looking at the rating and giving it an automatic no-go. Your reviewers keep in mind the fact that we are called be "in the world but not of the world." They refuse the shut themselves in a Christian bubble, where no films can have anything redeeming if they have swear words or violence or nudity. As an avid moviegoer, I love to read reviews that let me know not only what I am getting into, but what I will get out of a particular movie. Keep up the good work.
Ryan Ruppe
posted 02/14/07
Your movie reviews are not only consistently thoughtful and well-written, they also represent a serious attempt to evaluate art from a Christian perspective. So many Christian reviewers tend to grade movies on ideology or "message" alone, and while there may be a place for this, I find it deeply frustrating; it ignores everything I care about in movies. CT's approach is refreshing and encouraging.
Helen Wiley
About that Sin Eater …
posted 02/14/07
Thanks for your honest review, Mr. Chattaway. We did our best with this little film on limited resources. It would have been nice to have the luxury of a big Hollywood budget, but we didn't, so we strived for excellence in the places where we could find it. We know it's not a perfect film, but in test screenings, audience members have wept and we got standing ovations, so we'll take comfort with those reviews if we can't get the professionals to admire the film. And we'll try not to be, as you say, so "pedestrian or trivial," on our next one.
Brian Bird
Producer/Co-writer
Critiquing the Critics
We recently posted our annual Critics' Choice Awards of the top ten movies of the year—and, as usual, it has sparked a bunch of responses. Here's a sampling:
posted 02/09/07
You people are a joke with your Critics' Choices. The devil lives in the extremes. Get back to the cross.
David Kelly
posted 02/09/07
Casino Royale? Are you serious? I have been a James Bond fan since reading the books by Ian Fleming back in the early 60s, and I think I have seen all the 007 movies. But I would hardly rate the newest one as one of the best movies of the year. Good grief.
Adrien Neely
posted 02/09/07
I'm really surprised that you didn't include "Facing the Giants" on your list. I personally think it is the best movie I've seen over the past decade!
Jim Brubaker
posted 02/09/07
Your Critics' Choice Awards saddens me. The majority are rated R and PG-13 and so is it any wonder that we are dealing with such immorality in our churches. I can't help but wonder how we pridefully think we can watch hours of sexual content and violence and not have it affect our minds. Violence has become the standard for entertainment and we no longer comprehend how our great Lord will ultimately deal with sin. With our focus so much on grace and understanding our culture, I fear we are becoming like it. However, I did enjoy The Queen!
Susie Hardin
posted 02/09/07
I feel very disturbed that you would rate Little Children in your 10 Top Movies of 2006. Are you not supposed to be a Christian magazine? What is wrong with you? I will pray God conflicts your hearts and opens your eyes.
Jerry Allonas
posted 02/09/07
Thank you for your list of Top Movies. As a youth minister I find it extremely helpful.
Michelle Halm
posted 02/09/07
Overall, I've really appreciated your reviews from a Christian perspective, so I hope this e-mail does not sound too harsh or condemning. But I'm concerned and a little confused about the inclusion of Little Miss Sunshine. I have not seen the movie, but I went to the Little Miss Sunshine link at Amazon to see what people are saying about the movie. Most of them are overwhelmingly positive, but the minority who found this movie disgusting were consistently saying the same things, like this one: "If you think it's funny to watch a grandfather say the 'F' word constantly in the presence of his 7 yr old granddaughter and to advise his teen grandson to 'F' a lot of women, then this movie is for you. Christian bashing is alive and well as the teen boy wears a T-shirt saying 'Jesus Was Wrong.' Also, pornography is endorsed and the 7 yr old does a striptease at the end that some would label child porn. This movie will damage your soul and your children's souls." I am seriously disturbed that CT would in any way promote any movie that requires a 7-year-old child actor to striptease for the camera. What could this movie possibly be worth that justifies that?
Brad Cooper
Editor's note: To clarify, the young girl does not take her clothes off in the film. It's more of a "pretend" striptease, but she is still clothed when she is finished.
posted 02/09/07
Sorry you missed out on An Inconvenient Truth.
Bob Andrews
posted 02/09/07
Regarding your choice of Letters From Iwo Jima, while I have compassion for all soldiers who fight to defend their country during the trying times of war, I also feel like we need to remember our part in WWII. Why did we get involved? Because of Pearl Harbor. Who attacked us at Pearl Harbor, destroying fleets of ships and taking thousands of innocent lives? The Japanese. While I realize that not every person from their country agreed with that act, or the war itself, I still believe that we should support our troops, both then and now. I have communicated with the three surviving Medal of Honor recipients from the battle of Iwo Jima, and cannot imagine their opinion of this film. I think it is a great insult to them, to others who lived through the horrible tragedy there, as well as all our troops who are serving in this current war. It also appears to send a message to those of other wars, including the current one, that we need to examine and find political correctness with the enemy.
Judy McNelley
posted 02/09/07
I like most of your choices. But, really, you don't think End of the Spear deserves even an honorable mention? Maybe the greatest missionary story of the last century?
Steve Schellin
posted 02/09/07
You justified Children of Men as your top choice in part by saying: "James' enthusiasts say that Cuaron's film takes far too many liberties, even going out of its way to avoid some of the clearly Christian metaphors that James intended. But it's not entirely stripped of such imagery: The film … still depicts a young woman carrying a 'miracle child,' a baby on whom the future of the world will depend." I take issue with your interpretation of James' novel. You missed her fundamental message! James' is not pointing to a baby as the hope of the humanity's future, but rather to a recovery of faith, personally and collectively, as humanity's hope. She spends the majority of the text illustrating humanism's futility and resulting despair. And in the climatic moment it is not the baby who has brought the world hope, but the recovery of faith in God. In her novel, the hope was always in the faith and the cross. That hope is missing in Cuaron's adaptation. How could you miss it?
Paul Edwards
posted 02/09/07
Where was The Departed? And how could you leave off Pan's Labyrinth?
Santosh Ninan
posted 02/09/07
You missed the boat on The New World in both your Critics' Choice and your Most Redeeming lists. I thought it was neither redeeming, nor worthy of your Critics' Choice list. I am an artist by nature, so I have no problem with "creation speaking." But I did not like this movie until the final 20 minutes when there was actually a plot. The way the dialog was almost exclusively in the mind, the way the camera followed the actors so closely that you thought you were going to step on someone's foot, it was very awkward. It made me work to get the story instead of feeling it inside me.
Sabrina Beasley
Redeeming, but Horrible
posted 02/09/07
I appreciate your attempt at writing the 10 Most Redeeming Films of 2006, although I was highly disappointed with your top three films (The Nativity Story, The New World and Sophie Scholl) and your No. 5 choice (The Second Chance) because they were horrible films. While the content may have been wonderfully Christian, they were pitiable examples of filmmaking—from horrible acting, stretched out stories that should have been edited down, to high-school level special effects. We as Christians have no excuse for not striving to be even better than the secular norm—especially in filmmaking. I am a Christian and a film/TV maker, and I want films to aim for more. Films claiming to be Christian films need to be the best-made cinema on the block. The films that I see having the most powerful influence on secular society aren't the overtly Christian films, but secular films that have strong Christian themes or characters that make people interested in researching or seeking out Christianity for themselves. My five most redeeming films of 2006 would be, in order: Pan's Labyrinth, World Trade Center, The Fountain, Little Miss Sunshine, and Children of Men.
Natalie Chovancek Ebnet
About your list …
posted 02/06/07
I just read your list of The 10 Most Redeeming Films of 2006. Unfortunately, I don't believe I'll be going any further than No. 10 on your list. As a Christian magazine,I would think your goal would be to guide people toward Christ, or at the very least, the truth. I just found this choice not very impressive. Redeeming? Hmmm. In Children of Men, you have to weed through a vat-full of unnecessary violence, sexuality, drug use, vulgarity and blasphemy for aveiled reference to a "Ba***rd" Christ Child. If that's redemption, I'll pass.
Rachel Blanco
posted 02/06/07
How did you not include End of the Spear and One Night with the King? I'm stumped.
Stephanie Nelson
posted 02/06/07
Apparently, I wouldn't know redeeming if it hit me in the face, or speared me in the heart. A renowned story of a man forgiving (and even loving)the man who killed his father seemingly carries no weight with your editorial department as much as spelling bees, a pig-saving spider and even an honorary mention for a comic book hero. You missed the number one redeeming film (and story) of 2006 and maybe for the century. I should probably start seeing a wider variety of movies. Because either I'm out of touch with our culture, or you're out of touch with your readers who have more than a passing interest in a famous martyrdom story.
Marc Harper
posted 02/06/07
Nice list, but I was very disappointed that Blood Diamond was missing! The Three Burials of Mequiades Estrada??? I missed the value in that one; it felt like it worked too hard to "say something." Still, thank you for putting your movies lists. As a Christian, it's wonderful to have such a reference even though I don't always agree with your perspective!
Lori Leaman
posted 02/06/07
Once again, Facing the Giants was snubbed by CT. Don't say it was too predictable (Akeelah and the Bee) or sub-par acting (Charlotte's Web) and unbelievable happy ending (also Akeelah and the Bee). The message means nothing I suppose.
Scott Holbach
posted 02/06/07
I'm not sure "redeeming" is a word that accommodates a comparative usage. There is either redemption or there isn't, surely. Or put differently, when God redeems (and arguably he is the subject in the only proper Christian usage of the verb) he redeems fully. What would the comparative usage imply? That a certain movie was able to "redeem" most of my attitude while watching it? Or was the best "redeemer" of the time spent watching it? Or was it used by God to actually redeem the most souls? I'm not sure any of these were intended, but rather, that you wanted to list the movies that expressed Christian values most consistently or clearly. I hope you'll look for another word that expresses that, and resist watering down a precious Christian term.
Dave Dorman
Release this Catch!
posted 02/06/07
My wife and I thought Catch and Release was one of the worst if not the worst movie we ever saw. Poor writing, acting and scene development. It didn't take Gray long to quit mourning and start sleeping around again. By the way, I'm no prude. I liked Pretty Woman and Saturday Night Fever.
Jim Nevison
posted 02/06/07
Two-and-a-half stars for Catch and Release? You've missed it by a mile. This movie is pure Hollywood garbage. I am deeply disappointed that you would mislead people into believing that this is some kind of worthwhile romantic comedy. Zero stars is where you should be on this one, at least if you are going to be reviewing movies for a Christian source.
Dave Pracht
Panning the Labyrinth
posted 02/06/07
Four stars for Pan's Labyrinth? AARRRGHHH! What a wretched film! I was willing to wade through the graphic cruelty for the redeeming fairy story you suggested. It was a confused variant on testing the hero that ends in a fantasy martyrdom. Fairy story meets Fear Factor. Tolkien would have been offended by the lame story and grotesque presentation. One star for the character of Mercedes and her conflicted response to an innocent girl caught in her conflict. I am unlikely to take your rating system seriously.
John Nicholson
Sean Bean, Looking Sharpe!
posted 01/24/07
We'd love to see Sean Bean in more good-guy roles or leading man roles in chick flicks. He's a great actor who should branch out more. His appeal to audiences would be even greater! His portrayal of Boromir was both touching and heroic. Someone call his agent: He's capable of so much more!
Catherine Curtis
posted 01/24/07
Have you not seen Sean Bean in the Richard Sharpe movies? He plays a British enlisted man during the Napoleonic Wars who saves Wellington's life and is given a field commission by Wellington and then quickly rises through the ranks. It was definitely a leading hero role, very virtuous and he did a fabulous job.
Corina Hyer
posted 01/24/07
I couldn't let your editorial "Mean Mr. Bean" go by without comment. I can point out a few roles that you missed where he plays a very good guy. These will make up for his villains:
- The entire Sharpe series. I can't believe you left out all fifteen of these (full-length features no less), where Bean plays the gutter-snipe-turned-Napoleonic-war-hero Richard Sharpe. Risen from the rank of Sergeant to Lieutenant for saving General Wellington from a French cavalry ambush, Richard goes on to some pretty gripping adventures. While he's not a squeaky-clean hero (he's described by one character as "The bastard son of a peasant whore") he is no less than endearing.
- Farmer Grey in Black Beauty (1994). 'Nuff said.
- Captain Rich in Flightplan (2005). Although he appears to be the villain at first glance … I'd better not say anymore in case your readers haven't seen it.
- Andy McNab in Bravo Two Zero (1999). An exciting true story of a British soldier who was captured and tortured during the first Gulf War.
- Perhaps one of the cutest roles of all: Mr. Bean had a small role in an episode of Jim Henson's delightful TV series, The Storyteller (1987).
Bob Fraser
Yo, Rocky! Got Jesus?
posted 01/08/07
Unfortunately, while Sylvester Stallone thinks he is a Christian, according to the interview, by his own statements in the same interview, he is not. Statements such as "I've always been a Christian" reveal a basic lack of the fundamentals. Did the interviewer bring up such basic facts as a respectable religious man, raised on the Bible and considered an able teacher of it, was told by Jesus he must be born again if he was to see or enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:1-21)? Furthermore, Stallone says, "I was raised very religiously, and I went to many Catholic schools. It's always played a big part in my life." He also states, "I've always been spiritual. I've always been part of the faith." Acknowledging his mistakes is noteworthy. "We have to stand by our mistakes and say, 'I am human, and the flesh is weak.' But I've moved on, and hopefully you redeem yourself by doing good deeds later on." Is the message of Christianity that we redeem ourselves? Where is the place for "the blood of Jesus which cleanses us from all our sins"? We cannot excuse Mr. Stallone by saying he is not a theologian. He is missing the basics and the basis. May someone get the good news to him before he hears those dreadful words: "Depart from Me for I never knew you!"
Gregory Poulos
'Detestable' Labyrinth
posted 01/08/07
I cannot fathom how your reviewer can recommend seeing that detestable movie, Pan's Labyrinth. His description of it was of something which no Christian should partake of, and I am shocked that you have given it such an overwhelmingly good review. I have not seen it and don't intend to see it due to the darkness and violence it portrays, and am further shocked that CT would permit such a demented film to be in anyway compared to the loveliness we are to aspire to in the Scriptures.
Sue Schultz
Thr3e: Good Book, Bad Flick
posted 01/08/07
Your Thr3e review said the story "probably plays better on the printed page in this case, because visuals are far more powerful in providing the audience with facts and details that we assume to be true, only to have them contradicted later. Thr3e simply does not play fair when it comes to the mystery, and though it tries to explain some of the film's previous scenes, it cannot possibly explain them all." That is exactly I felt when I first read the book some years ago. I even said much the same thing in my review of the book. It's a book that never should have been made into a movie, because it was so perfect as a book.
Tim Frankovich
posted 01/08/07
If Thr3e isn't a very good movie, do you think FoxFaith is insulting us by not putting real money behind these movies, or are they purposely trying to ruin their faith division so they don't have to be bothered? Then again, maybe there are just not enough talented Christian filmmakers with real talent.
Kevin Purcell
About That Dragon …
posted 12/20/06
I saw Eragon with my 12- and 10-year-old sons. They have both read the two volumes of the Eragon series; they have also been immersed in the Star Wars world and have read and watched the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Eragon book has a decent plot, not necessarily great literature but an interesting storyline. But I agree with your review that the film is a profound disappointment. For my boys and their peers who anticipated the movie as a reflection of the book, it is not a Merry Christmas. It did not develop the book's themes or even provide important details. It seemed that the screenwriter, director and producer were so hurried and that they cut corners wherever and however they could. They have made a film with a disjointed plot, poor technical imagery and disappointed a huge potential franchise fan club.
Dave Johnstone
posted 12/20/06
I read Eragon the book with my 11-year-old son, and the first thing he said in the car after leaving the theater was, "If you didn't read the book, that movie wouldn't make much sense." I totally agree. It's very choppy. Large, intriguing sections of the book are entirely missed. Most of the people at our screening had read Eragon, and I could sense they were disappointed too. I can see that a reviewer would find very little to commend in this movie, and discover only far too many parallels with other epic stories like Star Wars, etc. Eragon the movie is avery poorly done movie of a wonderfully written novel by a young creative artist, Christopher Paolini. I feel bad for him.
Jim Pot
It's Greek to Me
posted 12/20/06
Usually, I can depend on your reviews to give me a fair sense of a movie's strengths and weaknesses, but your review of The Pursuit of Happyness didn't live up to your usual high standards. I want to know more about the FILM, and quite a bit less about Greek philosophy. In fact, you could leave out the Greek philosophy altogether. The point was not lost on me; it just registered as irrelevant to a movie review.
Hannah Flynn
Defending Apocalypto
posted 12/14/06
I was surprised by your 2½-star review of Apocalypto. First, to compare it to The Passion of The Christ is unfair and irresponsible. There is only one story of Jesus Christ, which transcends all others, and although it has been interpreted in many ways, Gibson's portrayal will be considered among the best ever. To try and find these motifs of values in a pagan culture, and then say, "Well, it doesn't add up," represents a bias that is only matched by preset fundamentalism, or critics on the left with their preset positions as well. As a person who loves The Passion (I saw it nine times in the theaters and I don't know how many times on DVD), Apocalypto only reaffirms that Mel Gibson is a great storyteller. Sure, there is a formula, but, ultimately, it is a "formula" that breaks down to the human level, the simplest level—a man who loves his wife and children and will do anything for them. I expected something "deeper" from Christianity Today. I am a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, a frequent visitor to this site, and I expect more than the "rank and file" interpretation of such a complex film. And just as you think Gibson's Passion is stained because of Apocalypto, well, from my point of you, your film reviews are "forever stained" because you failed to observe the deeper principles embedded in this film—which cautions me, from now on, to be wary of all of your film reviews.
Wiliam J Tsamis
Speaking as a Christian, a bit of a wimp who once almost fainted at the sight of a drop of blood, and a former movie review columnist, I have to take issue with some of the interpretations and analyses regarding Mel Gibson and and his most stunning film to date, Apocalypto. Some critics have focused far too much on the frame, the peripherals, the facade, the bloody grotesteries shall we say, and an obvious disdain for Mr. Gibson, to the extent that they have missed the meaning and the message, not to mention the extraordinary artistry of this of this masterful work of, dare I say, genius. Apocalypto is a courageous masterpiece of cinematic ingenuity. Like The Passion, it sets a new aesthetic and technical standard, and at the same time challenges the mind to reconsider the timelessness of truths that never change regardless of contemporary adornments and self-serving justifications. Indeed, Apocalypto literally emboldens the senses and moves the viewer right out his or her comfy 21st century techno-chair existence into the stirring madness of an ancient chase and its requisite response: a tenacious unshakeable will to survive in order to protect and support the beauty and goodness of life itself. We see and exist beneath the surface of our well-covered conventions in this most remarkable film. And like the Passion of the Christ, Gibson is teaching by the very extremity of his visual and emotional contrasts. … The bloody, horrific backdrop in the film is not without purpose. Gibson's violence is never gratuitous or manipulative, but rather an attempt to illustrate by exposing the great divide between what it really means to live and to die, to suffer, to survive, and to sacrifice, and the vast spiritual difference between what actually constitutes Life and Death. Like the old one armed warrior who spins stories in the evening around a roaring fire, enchanting all his tribal family members, Gibson is telling a grand and very scary once-upon-a-time story about the survival and determination of a brave young man in a long forgotten culture. And more important, it is a story about the central importance of fatherhood and family, the simple joys of love and humor, even in the midst of the natural savagery of a primitive existence. And in so doing, Gibson has crafted characters who personify the sometimes subtle distinctions between good and evil. That any film director would be able to conceive and deliver such astounding performances from a cast of "actors," all of whom are not only unknown, but most have never acted before, is an amazing feat. I'm one of those Christians who were hoping Gibson would spend his Passion profits on a whole series of Christian films. But after seeing Apocalypto, I do believe Mel Gibson is using his talent and money to convey some very important messages that all "who have eyes to see" (not to mention a fairly strong stomach) will very much appreciate and support.
Diane Garvin
"Christian" Reviews?
posted 12/14/06
You're supposed to be a Christian magazine and website, and therefore one would expect everything associated with these to be "Christ-like" and "Christ honoring," right? I was expecting to find some really good movie reviews based on a Christian perspective, and what do I find? You are no better than the hundreds of other secular reviewers. What right do you have to call yourselves "Christians" when you are no different than the world? It is disgraceful and blasphemous to give filthy and immoral films a "thumbs up." I'm talking about movies with drunkenness, drugs, violence, nudity and cursing, especially taking our dear Lord's name in vain. Would you sit with Jesus and watch a film like this? I know Jesus wouldn't sit with you and watch a film like this. But if all of that garbage doesn't bother you and you so desire to fill your mind with smut, then by all means go ahead and do so. I do not believe that you really have Christ living in your heart, or you would not choose to defend things of this world over what our dear Lord and Savior would want us to do. I really expected better from a so-called Christian organization. I will never access the CT site again.
Ms. S. Mendez
Castle-Hughes: The Right Choice
posted 12/07/06
Thank you for taking such a bold stand and not being one of the people who will "crucify" Keisha Castle-Hughes [the 16-year-old who plays Mary in The Nativity Story and is now pregnant in real life]. I work in health care, and am aware that for every young, unwed, pregnant girl I see, there are at least 10 who were not brave enough to admit their errors, and in the process have committed the worst sin against their own child. It is not uncommon for me to see girls who are in their early 20s and late teens who have been pregnant four or more times, yet have no children. When you chose abortion, you get to keep up the appearances of a "good girl." Christians need to embrace and support young women who make this sacrifice and rightfully continue their pregnancy. If more Christians would be supportive, in love—not condoning the behavior, but loving the sinner—I believe more young girls would be able to make the right choice after a wrong choice. Thank you for letting others know that all Christians are not self-righteous, better-than-thou and judgmental people!
Dawn Peterson
I appreciate your comments on Keisha Castle-Hughes. Thirty-one years ago, I too was a single unwed mother. Praise the Lord for his forgiveness and love! Because of my Savior and my personal experience, I will never condone fornication. But because of Grace, neither will I judge (or point any fingers) at any other female in similar circumstances. I can, however, become a positive mentor or role model for that person and show her the Lord's love and grace. And so did you, CT Movies. God bless.
Deborah Welch
Nativity Story Slanderous?
posted 12/07/06
I am shocked that the Vatican approved The Nativity Story. The clergy that run the Catholic church today have gone insane. The scene where Mary goes into labor pains and Joseph delivering baby Jesus is contrary to the special dignity and power God has bestowed upon her. We true Catholics believe Mary is ever virgin, before, during and after Jesus' birth. So how can we believe the labor pains and Joseph pulling the baby out from her and still believe she gave birth as a virgin? This movie is taking away the dignity of our Lady by making her like a common human being. We believe Jesus was conceived without human intervention entering and developing in her womb, but people have a hard time believing he came out the same way. I believe true Catholics should not go see this slanderous movie. Many Catholics today are spiritually blinded.
A concerned Catholic
Neff on Nativity
posted 12/07/06
I enjoyed David Neff's commentary on The Nativity Story. But I thought the filmmakers had to put the "nativity scene" as they did, because that is the accepted picture; if they hadn't done it that way, then most of the general public would have gone away saying, "But that's not what happened." At least people will see a good representation of what life was like then, of what Joseph and Mary went through and how evil the leaders of the day were, all done very well.
Frank Haegler
Though I appreciate Neff's commentary and acknowledge some of the inconsistencies with the Gospel accounts, I think screenwriter Mike Rich did an excellent job of bringing Mary and Joseph to life.And I agree this does make for a great DVD family movie that is worth seeing from year to year.
Brian Keezer
Nice Capra Tribute
posted 12/07/06
Frank Smith's article on Frank Capra was one of the best, most uplifting, insightful tributes toCaprathat I have come across. Excellently done on a most excellent man! Many thanks.
William Stevenson
Mormon Tolerance?
posted 11/27/06
The fact that Christianity Today would even have an article about Mormonism in the light of being part of the true Christian umbrella is really crazy to me. It seems as when time goes by Christian media becomes more and more watered down and "tolerant" with what Christianity is defined as (even when it compromises the gospel). I wish a disclaimer was placed before or after the article that stated that the views of the Mormon "church" does not reflect that of Christianity Today—but I suppose Christianity is relative and subjective to some. I would appreciate it if we truly define who we are as Christians and not accept something so out there as Mormonism and try and place it as a true Christ-taught thing.
Anonymous
Editor's note: Um, the article wasn't "about Mormonism," but was an interview with film director Richard Dutcher, who has a Mormon background. The article never said that Mormonism is "part of the true Christian umbrella," nor did the article "try and place it as a true Christ-taught thing." Matter of fact, we even noted to Dutcher that many evangelicals believe Mormonism is a cult. Can we not interview filmmakers and actors of all stripes without readers assuming that we're saying they're evangelicals?
Good filmmaker, bad attitude
posted 11/27/06
I just read the article with the interview with Richard Dutcher. He says he has been rejected by Mormons because of States of Grace.I've seen the movie, I really appreciated it, and I'm a Mormon. He's not being rejected by Mormons; he's being rejected by some Mormons. Big difference. Any time we create something, we are putting ourselves out there to be criticized. When that happens, we can make one of two choices. We can use that criticism to make ourselves, and our art, stronger, or we can whine and complain about how misunderstood we are. Mr. Dutcher has, unfortunately, taken the second path. I admire his filmmaking and the edgy approach he's taking, bringing religion into real life and making it more applicable to more people. But I don't admire his attitude. It's his attitude more than his edgy films that is costing him money.
Tristi Pinkston
No Heads in the Sand
posted 11/02/06
I am a pastor of a large church in Denver and appreciate your approach on reviewing films. I am proud of you for reviewing R-rated movies and coming to the conclusions you come to. Because of you, I am going to see Little Children because I want to live in the real world. I regret that some Christians have adopted the attitude where we are afraid or unwilling to see the world as it really is—sinful and broken and in need of a Savior. Jesus met the world with the appropriate attitude—to seek and save the lost. Please don't succumb to the pressure to conform to the "ostrich with his head in the sand" mentality of many Christians today. Face films with a realistic and honest approach as you have been doing.
Joe Mayes
Have We Lost Our Minds?
posted 11/02/06
Have you people lost your minds and perhaps your souls? I saw The Departed, and your review astounded me. This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Besides their obvious attempt to break the world record for profanity and violence in one single movie, the movie contained a ridiculous story line. It was typical Hollywood in its attempt to denigrate and corrupt every possible authority figure and profession that our society has commonly held in great esteem—policeman, detectives, psychologists, firemen, priests, nuns, etc. Just who are we supposed to identify with in this film? Did I really need a lesson in just how fallen this world actually is? We would not want to end a movie with the "good guy" actually bringing the "bad guy" to justice—that would offend our new post-modern, hip sensibilities. Come on, CT, you should know better. Want to be really cutting edge, revolutionary in thought, hip, and shake the world? Tell the truth and don't worry about what others might think!
Elizabeth Wallench
Giants, Artistic Excellence, Etc.
posted 10/12/06
I think many of your readers' comments taking you to task over the 1-star rating for Facing the Giants is unfortunately indicative of many Christians' ho-hum attitude toward the arts and beyond. Too many Christians think, "Why should I strive for excellence when OK will do?" Or, "Who cares if it's done well, as long as I thank Jesus at the end." I think Jesus wants us to do our best in everything, whether it's cleaning our homes, entertaining our neighbors, planning a Sunday morning worship service or making a movie. Unfortunately, half-hearted efforts in our artistic and scholarly pursuits only confirms what the world already think of us—religious fanatics who left our brains at the door, are driven only by emotion and are content with average. How sad.
Christine Becker
posted 10/12/06
I agree whole-heartedly with your philosophy of rating movies. Nothing makes me more sick than a Christian movie that is not done well. Who is our God? What does he expect of us? What can he accomplish through us? We should be making the best movies on the planet. Shame on us for not doing so.
Bill Lueg
posted 10/12/06
When I was at Covenant College in the 1980s, some of us went to see a Billy Graham Productions movie. Afterward, I commented that I liked the message but that the movie itself wasn't very good—mediocre acting, predictable story, etc. A couple of people objected that the message should outweigh the art, and for a "Christian film," the level of quality isn't as important as the message. My point then, and now, is that the quality of the art is as important as the message, especially if the film is trying to reach beyond the "choir." Thank you again for pushing the importance of art.
Tom Chapman
posted 10/12/06
Stick by your guns on rating films. You don't serve us by boosting a rating just because the film espouses Christian values.
Prince Altom
posted 10/12/06
Thank you for your honest, intelligent, and fair critiques of movies.You appreciate the value in the artistry in movies, and you give honest evaluations. I appreciate your Christian perspective, and your lack of need to instantly write off anything that might be deemed offensive.Your openness about Facing the Giants only confirmed my trust in your reviews.
Genilyn McCaffrey
posted 10/12/06
The "Christian community" has accepted a lot of bad stuff—movies, TV, music, preaching, and singing—just because it had a good message or someone did it with a good heart. If the "Christian community" was really following what Christ wanted, they would be setting the industry standards for excellence in every area. Thank you for setting the standard of screening movies at a level of excellence.
Pastor Steve Magoon
posted 10/12/06
For a very early attempt at moviemaking, Facing the Giants has done a good job. It would be interesting to see Speilberg's or Lucas' early attempt at moviemaking. I agree that, as Christians, we should make our efforts as quality as possible, but the message is most important: How shall they hear without a preacher? Art alone will not lead to a saving knowledge of Christ. I trust that Facing the Giants will lead to better and better movies by the Sherwood group.But you have to start somewhere, and by any count they have done a good job. A little encouragement might be in order.
Rev. Dannie L. Smith
posted 10/12/06
You asked, "What do you think is more important, artistic quality or the message?" I ask, "What is the point of artistic quality if there is no worthy message? Doesn't a message worth presenting become a point of artistic quality?"
Deena Peterson
Defending the Giants
posted 10/03/06
Your review of Facing the Giants is disgusting. This was one of the greatest movies I have ever seen. The audience seemed to agree with me also. There were cheers, whoops, laughter (in all the right places, not as you stated at the actors), and the inspirational parts were, well, flat out inspirational. I think your reviewer needs to be more in touch with the average Christian rather than set themselves up as a movie critic. I see this is one more example of Christianity Today going further away from the Bible and moving toward a liberal theology.
Dave Peterson
posted 10/03/06
It's hard to imagine you've seen the same movie that I did.I guess they don't call you "critics" for no reason. It's a shame that your obvious determination to find fault with this movie kept you from enjoying it. How sad.
Nick Thompson
posted 10/03/06
Shame, shame, shame on you for giving Facing the Giants a bad review! I've heard that Christianity Today is anti-Christian. Now, I believe it!
T. Jean
posted 10/03/06
It was a wonderful movie! It was so good to see areas of our own beliefs played out on the screen as a normal couple and normal kids, but they were all special because of their devotion to the Lord. I was fighting back tears of sadness and joy throughout the entire movie. I hope to see more movies like this in the future.
Anne Jones
posted 10/03/06
I was shocked at your low (one star) rating. Josh Hurst's analysis interpreted the film in the most negative manner possible. While there are no Academy Award performances from the actors, the acting is far better than you find in almost all "action" movies and it is certainly on a par with "made for television" movies. Characterizing the acting as wooden or melodramatic is a great overstatement. No doubt many people will consider this movie "corny"—the same criticism was leveled at Papa was a Preacher—but that's because they consider the Christian life to be "corny." I hardly expected this type of criticism from a respected Christian periodical.
Michael Burnside
posted 10/03/06
My husband and I and a full house at the theater loved the movie. It had some super funny parts. The crowd cheered together and everyone clapped when the movie was over. We'd give it 3 stars. We need to encourage those who are making Christian movies. Our society needs them.
Ruth Beierwaltes
posted 10/03/06
In a world where Christians curse the darkness, it's a welcome change to see a movie daring enough to light a candle. Yeah it's a littleover-the-top at times, but I would expect Christianity Today to embrace a movie that challenges Hollywood in every way. I believe audiences will prove your last comment wrong and turn out to support this movie. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for giving this film a negative review. I believe God is proud of this movie, and that is enough to deserve my support. I guess that's not enough for your publication.
Ken Horstmann
posted 10/03/06
I read Josh Hurst's review of Facing the Giants as well as the responses above. I know Josh personally, and he is truly a caring, thoughtful, and fervent Christian. He is a leader in the pro-life movement at his college, is currently starting a new Bible study and fellowship group at that college, helps out at with his church's youth group, and works in the nursery and Sunday school. Josh spends time in God's Word each day, reads countless Christian books, and fully loves the Lord Jesus Christ. So please don't take his review as any indication of his being out of touch with the average Christian. Josh desires excellence for the world of Christian art, especially in regard to movies. His critique is based upon his desire to see Christian filmmaking flourish and be accepted in the wider culture so as to impact the world for the Lord. Josh must give his honest assessment of a film if he is to glorify God. While that may upset some people, my hope is that his integrity will not be further impugned. I pray that any disagreement would be made with the assessment of the movie and not with Mr. Hurst's faith. This review was not a personal attack, and a difference of opinion between Christians must be resolved lovingly, with the benefit of the doubt given fully. Anyone who got to know Mr. Hurst would find him an earnest, young Christian who serves Christ with all his mind, heart, soul, and strength.
Jason Gregory
Assistant Minister
Covenant Presbyterian Church
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Jesus Camp = Religious Abuse?
posted 09/29/06
Watching trailers for Jesus Camp throws me back to the age of 10 when I attended Camp Good News in Texas. This is a horrible thing to do to little kids. I had a similar and very terrifying experience at Camp Good News, being told how the world would soon end in fire and flood and that I needed to repent and cry for my sins or I was going to hell. This horrible experience traumatized me, made me question religion for the last 32 years. I got married at 16, and had two babies by the time I was 21 thinking I would never get to do these things because I was forced to believe that the world was soon coming to a hellish end. I felt as though I had to rush my life to get everything done or miss out.All because of the stupid counselors at this camp in 1974-75. They left a burning impression on my young little mind. This type of brainwashing can permanently harm children and change who they are and who they are supposed to become as adults. It harmed me terribly. Thank God I am still married and have two wonderful kids in spite of starting motherhood and marriage so early due to this religious abuse.
C. Kiener
posted 09/29/06
Copies of your commentary should be handed out at every screening of Jesus Camp, to place what people are seeing into a context of the larger evangelical movement. What bothers me about this movie is that the North Dakota A/G general counsel has not commented on it, from what I can tell. I grew up going to Lakewood Park Bible Camp in North Dakota for the regular A/G events. That camp, and the friendships I made there, shaped who I am as an adult. I hate to see the entire camp, and evangelicals, painted with one broad brush stroke by how we are reflected in one person's ministry.
Janelle Walker
Flyboys Fantastic
posted 09/25/06
I absolutely loved Flyboys. I was involved from the beginning to the end and I liked all the characters. The acting was fine and the storyline carried me along. What is up with your reviewer? This was a clean, action packed drama with lovely scenery and some very trying, emotional moments which were very gripping for me. I am a 65-year-old grandma, and I don't like most of today's movies because they glorify the worst of mankind and have lots of foul language or they are pushing the homosexual agenda. This movie did none of that and was still very insightful and exciting.
Sue Schultz
Jesus Camp Divides the Camp
Editor's note: One of our recent newsletters expressed concern about how Jesus Camp depicts Christians, and another commentary was also troubled by the film. A number of readers are weighing in.
posted 09/21/06
I have watched Jesus Camp, and I have never been more frightened by any movie I have ever seen in my life. As a Quaker, I have always been dedicated to the Lord and a life in the Spirit. But these children are being indoctrinated in a warlike version of Christianity that is frightening to behold. When does the teaching they are being inculcated with turn from intolerance, to hatred, to violence? Will these youngsters be the instruments of an unscrupulous leader's desires for power someday (or perhaps are they already)? Will they be the ones who will insist on homosexuals being made to wear pink triangles, or evolutionists being made to wear green stars, or simply non-born again Christians being singled out and discriminated against? Will they call for a holy crusade against Muslims? May God forgive us.
Robert Denton
posted 09/21/06
I am a pastor's wife of a large Foursquare church. I have not seen the movie, but I find these bizarre "displays" very distressing.We are called to be light in the world and reach people for Christ. I don't know many unbelievers who would be drawn to Christ by this. We do not have any of the things you mentioned going on in our church, and if anybody came in and attempted to behave this way they would be immediately stopped and corrected. We do not consider this to be biblical, nor do we see how it could ever favorably influence people for Christ. It is embarrassing for me too—partly because we are lumped with "those weird Pentecostals" whom I believe Paul clearly addresses in 1 Corinthians 14.I am embarrassed every time something like this is publicized as if we are somehow "witnessing" to the world as to how spiritual we are.It is a farce, and the enemy loves it.
Ginger Simmons
posted 09/21/06
Mark Moring's thoughts about Jesus Camp could hardly have been less spineless. Your cautionary advisement misses the point. At least the subjects of this documentary are passionate and honest about that which they choose to believe, however misguided. You go out of your way though to wash your hands of passing judgment on these actions. Your warning comes not because this group is militaristically aiming to "take back America for Christ"—a concept that is completely foreign to Christian Scripture—but rather because it will be viewed by non-Christians as "typical" behavior of all Christians. That's pathetic. I don't care nearly as much what "those on the outside" think as I care how fellow believers will respond to their dogmatic brothers and sisters in Christ. You write that the Jesus Camp parents are "simply doing the best they can to grow in faith, to teach their children well, and to spread the gospel." Are you serious? The kind of behavior depicted in this documentary will be seen by non-Christians as isolationist and scaremongering. It concerns me that you don't recognize that yourself. The brothers and sisters seen in Jesus Camp are not being served by your neutrality. No other Christian camp would be either, "typical" or otherwise for that matter, that failed to teach Christ's message of breaking down barriers, turning the other cheek, and loving the unlovable. If mainstream America thinks that the actions it sees in the film are typical, then the rest of Christianity hasn't been taking the heart of the gospel seriously. That's the unfortunate thing.
J. Craig Johnson
posted 09/21/06
I appreciate your comments on some of the so-called charismatic elements in the movie. I grew up a conservative Baptist where if you even raised your hands in worship you would be subject to severe scrutiny and most likely asked to leave. Imagine my shock when attending a local charismatic meeting several years ago when I came across people speaking in tongues, laying hands on the sick, and at times speaking prophetic utterances. After studying the Scriptures regarding all of what I was seeing, I have come to the conclusion that the "church" should certainly rethink some of their attitudes toward these "charismatic" gifts and probably would benefit by seeking God regarding their attitudes toward some of these manifestations of His Spirit. As one famous author put it "normal is a setting on your dryer." Dead conservatism is as imbalanced (but certainly more of a safe refuge) as radical charismatic displays. But in my experience in seeking to "see if these things be true," I have found an abundance of proof that God is willing to do a lot more than we are willing to ask him for. Yes the movie is over the edge, but there are some aspects of it that should cause us to pause and think as Christians.
Doug Bratton
posted 09/21/06
Who cares what people will think? I pray that youth and children will become filled with God's power and look "different" to the world—because we are to be "set apart" from the world. Maybe this movie will shed a negative light on born-again Christians. That's too bad, but it's par for the course because God tells us that in end times those who are his true believers will be persecuted. We are not to be lukewarm; God would rather have us cold than lukewarm, because those who are lukewarm will be spit out and cast into the lake of fire. God tells us that in the end, people will claim to believe in God, but will deny his powers. That's what mainstream (safe) Christians do in America—they deny the power of the Holy Spirit, even when it's right before them.
Kerri Frisch
posted 09/21/06
Moring wrote, "I'm convinced that the people in this film are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't think this is a cult or anything. I think they're Christians who, like most Christians I know, are simply doing the best they can to grow in faith, to teach their children well, and to spread the gospel. But my concern is this: What will those on the outside think?" Isn't that the point? I am like you, sitting on my duff watching ESPN, my daughter's in gymnastics, we do children's worship here in our church, and we complain about the weather and the world like everyone else. But sadly we are not raising up an army—our kids can't do battle. I used to be the children's pastor at another church, and we did teach our kids about the power of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, being slain in the Spirit, laying on hands. We taught them why we did this, what it meant, and how it was to be done. These kids knew how to battle because they had the tools, the knowledge. I'm glad somebody is still training these kids for God's army, because when the Enemy grows tired of showing himself in video games, in the latest prime-time offerings, somebody is going to have to be ready to "lay hands" on him and throw him out! So, please don't be embarrassed by those who are doing what you and I have become too complacent to do.
Darrell Phillips
posted 09/21/06
I implore you to begin using the Bible as your guide for reviewing movies. Movies filled with the occult, sexual perversion, and blasphemy have no place in a Christian's life. I'll pray for you (and us all) to see sin as God sees sin. Read the reviews for Lady in the Water and The Illusionist and truly compare them with the standard of God's Word. Do not make an excuse for sin, just because it's portrayed in a fictional story.
Greg Norris
Regarding Superman …
posted 07/12/06
I loved Superman Returns, seeing the film as a lyricizing, and a very effective one, of the style and substance of the original.The special effects work well in this regard. I tend to agree with your reviewer about the flatness of the characters of Clark and Lois, but there really wasn't much for them to do; the flatness being there in the script, not the acting. But then, the film is not meant to be about them but about notions of love and sacrifice. In that regard, the film's rather abstract, like a medieval morality play.The one character that requires life and personality, so we feel his threat, is Lex Luthor, and that we get in spades.I'm putting most of these comments in the context of my chapter on the original Superman in my book.For me, given that, this is a smashing sequel.
Roy Anker
Professor of English, Calvin College
posted 07/12/06
I thought you were a Christian magazine. Where is the concern about the context for Superman Returns?
The messages I gleaned from the movie include: 1) Sex outside of marriage is a good thing; Superman and Lois Lane did it; 2) Children out of wedlock are just fine; 3) Cohabitation is great; Lois Lane and her fella are living together because she does not want to marry him; 4) Lies are just fine too; when confronted about her relationship with Superman, Lois lied. Hmm, must be OK. And all this from our latest superhero and his gal! Who knows what I missed because I was so taken aback.
Barbara F. Foster, Ph.D
The Devil Wears Comedy?
posted 07/12/06
I thought The Devil Wears Prada was quite good, but why it's considered a comedy is beyond me. As to your reviewer's comment of "I'm not quite sure what Andy learns by the end of the flick," well, what I saw was, if you want to have this kind of power and money (and Miranda has both) and to get to the top and maintain it, you have to not only work 24/7, but you have to be totally ruthless and sell your soul. In the movie, Andy realizes (after Miranda tells her in the car) that she was becoming basically ruthless like her (Miranda) and that she did, indeed, have a choice that she (Andy) would rather be ethical, have relationships and really would rather not sell her soul for such a superficial lifestyle.
P. L. Bennett
Those Darn Democrats
posted 07/12/06
I enjoyed An Inconvenient Truth and were informed on many issues, but I found that Al Gore's presentation of the facts concerning the "scientific community" somewhat faulty, since he really never states who they are! He gets his political digs in as well, being a Democrat. He kept stressing the point of it being a "moral issue," and coming from a Democrat, I had to laugh. From a biblical perspective, I don't think the world is going to be destroyed by the ice caps melting or by massive droughts. The Word paints a far different picture.
Rev. William Sandstedt
About That AFI List …
We recently took the American Film Institute to task for its omission of Jesus movies—and a certain film about hobbits—from its list of the Most Inspiring Movies of All Time. Here are some reader reactions.
posted 06/23/06
Just goes to indicate how much one's worldview will determine one's value of things. If Jesus and the Bible aren't viewed as important, nor play a vital role in one's life, why would films about him and the Bible inspire?
Ray Hauser
posted 06/23/06
The AFI is populated with Hollywood liberals of the most rabidly atheistic, ignorant and bigoted kind. As a former professional actor and long ago denizen of that dark, demented part of the world, Hollywood, I cannot even begin to explain how perpetually blind those troglodytes are to artistic and Christian values of any kind. Even if the more recent films about Christ had been as supremely excellent as, say, Lord of the Rings, they would have been ignored nevertheless because of their politically incorrect content. Sadly, the AFI finds socialist, humanist and politically liberal values trump artistic genius in whatever form every time, so we should not be the least surprised at their film rankings which are, of course, mere mindless prattle not to be taken seriously.
Colin Cody
posted 06/23/06
Perhaps the AFI should consider sending their ballots to those who watched the films from the little theaters and towns across the continent. I think most filmmakers are hoping to leave a message within their films, but I'm not sure that the "message" is always clearly inspired. To not have included some films—A Christmas Carol, in particular—seems very much an oversight.
Jo-Anne Thomas
posted 06/23/06
I dislike the tone of your commentary, where you claim the AFI ignored Jesus completely, "unless you count Ben-Hur." I do count Ben-Hur, as does the alternate title, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. The movie may not have had the full Jesus narratives, but Jesus is most prominent in the picture, and the crucifixion scene is amongst the most powerful. This should not be taken lightly.
Nick Alexander
Riding in Cars
posted 06/13/06
I disagree with your review that Cars was a letdown. Our entire family loved every minute of it. Pixar has consistently made movies that are clean, family friendly, and full of laughs. I appreciate your critical eye, but you need to remember what Cars offers by way of clean entertainment in contrast to all of the other so-called "family movies." As a parent, I can't wait for Pixar movies because they are one of the few companies that target children and adults.
Scott Magnuson
posted 06/13/06
Your review missed the essence of Cars. The storyline of how to meet people you don't know, finding common ground, having fun, and doing the right thing are basic lessons that are seriously lacking in culture. I work with youth in a correctional setting. I see very little understanding in my students on how to live with others. Cars offers a primer of what that might look like. And, perhaps more importantly, the theme that good looks, fame and self-absorption are shallow imitations of a joyful (not easy) life lived in community is rarely presented in such a stark manner. A fun movie with such deep and foreign messages to our culture is very welcome. Plus, the kids and I had a great time watching Cars. Four stars is a much more appropriate rating.
Gary Archibeck
posted 06/13/06
My husband and I were completely satisfied with Cars. I'm glad I didn't read this review before seeing it. We thought it was extremely entertaining and thoroughly enjoyed it. I am so thankful that someone out there is finally making good family movies in the "G" rating. I highly recommend this movie for all to see.
Yvonne Knight
posted 06/13/06
I'm a bit surprised how positive this review is. Specifically I found:
• The character "Ramone," in my opinion, is disparaging of Latinos.
• "Fillmore," named after the once infamous San Francisco neighborhood famous in the '60s drug culture, speaks as if perpetually stoned.
• In the "bloopers" section, there is a reference to "Chrysler" which seems to refer to our Lord.
Andy L.
Global Warming: Junk Science?
posted 06/05/06
Regarding your commentary on Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth, be very careful you don't overdose on junk science. It is as hazardous to your health as junk food. It's really funny to me that global warming has become vogue, because the real global long-term trend in temperature is to the cooler side. Thirty-five years ago the panic prediction was of an on-rushing Ice Age, the onset of which in geologic terms is now overdue. Any fractional degree of warming observed in the last 50 years is a part of a cyclical change in temperature that lasts about 200 years. You did a great job recognizing "junk history" when The DaVinci Code came along. Let's not get swept away with the tide of panic led by Mr. Gore.
Rev. DL Frantz
posted 06/05/06
Al Gore vs. The Omen? I don't know which is scarier (or should I say dumber). No, I take it back: Al Gore wins the prize. God bless him, but I don't buy it.
Dan Keefe
posted 06/05/06
The earth has been cyclically colder and hotter for millions of years. There have been times of zero ice and balmy polar regions. Sometimes hotter than now, sometimes much cooler. We simply do not know all the factors that cause the warming and cooling. The assumptions swamp the actual evidence. Our data sample is extremely small. Extrapolations are always risky, and even more so with such a small observation period. I'm first to agree that God has commanded us to be good stewards of the earth, but the demands of the global warming crowd would lead to much human sacrifice and could actually work against cleaning the earth. If we rolled back carbon emissions today to the extent that we're told is needed, whole economies would be seriously hurt. Prosperity would decrease and I say, based on observation, so would concerns about the environment and measures to protect it. I also think it is morally wrong to directly hurt millions of people based on highly speculative assumptions. It is a great stretch to say that "we evangelicals" are somehow missing the moral boat by not jumping on the global-warming bandwagon.
Leo DePaul
posted 06/05/06
You compare Al Gore to "a Baptist preacher" whose "favorite sermon is about the judgment day that will come upon us if we do not mend our ways and stop contributing to global warming." Gee, I thought Baptist preachers' favorite sermon was about the Judgment Day that will come upon us if we do not repent and accept Jesus Christ as our Savior. I don't think Jesus spent a lot of time discussing "global warming" as much has he did "eternal warming."
Darrell Phillips
posted 06/05/06
You wrote, "In the five-and-a-half years since he won the popular vote but lost the presidency." This statement was uncalled for. You should never mix politics with religion. But most of all, he lost the election, that's it. Trying to make something different out of it just won't work. As far as his global warming thing goes: God, and only God, has the control button on that. I will not give him my precious time to listen to his negative talks.
Pat Ballard
posted 06/05/06
Man causing global warming. Nothing but hogwash. Junk science.
James T. Sparks
Down with Da Vinci?
Editor's note: We recently ran a tongue-in-cheek commentary about boycotting The Da Vinci Code—a column that actually suggests that Christians be willing to consider seeing the film and taking part in the larger cultural conversation. We received a flurry of e-mails in response …
posted 04/27/06
Outstanding commentary, but I sensed there might have been a hint of sarcasm. Jesus and Paul would never do that-well, except for those few verses, here and there.
Rick Kuhn
posted 04/27/06
Thanks for a thoughtful and fun look at how to respond to this new movie. We Christians have spent way too much time and energy on being dismissive instead of engaging.
T. Doty
posted 04/27/06
Thank you for your tongue-in-cheek response to what has become the "typical Christian response," at least as it is seen by the rest of society. As one who is part of the Body, but has always been bewildered by evangelical culture, I applaud this effort from within the community to encourage others to engage in thoughtful dialogue and actions, rather than resorting to reactionary tactics-which almost always end in bitter irony.
Daniel Black
posted 04/27/06
I agree with your article in concept, but your tone really annoyed me. I agree that the book and movie provide a great opportunity to present people with the truth, and that is probably more effective than boycotts and protests. That being said, I wouldn't run down Christians who actually get out of the pew and do something that is unpopular to the secular culture and stand up for something worth standing for. Perhaps these people hold the name of God as so sacred that they can't sit still when someone blasphemes his name or writes a lie-filled book or makes a lie-filled movie. If I'm going to run people down so sarcastically and severely, I probably wouldn't choose my brothers and sisters in Christ and especially not in a situation where they are reacting to lies about their God. Is this article a good example of the "gentleness and respect" you are talking about? And by the way, Ron and Tom and Dan are not good people. Neither are you, and neither am I. If we were, we would have no need for Jesus. I'm surprised Jesus didn't know that; it seems odd that he didn't know why he came. Oops, sorry about that. I guess sarcasm is fun.
Kevin Campbell
posted 04/27/06
I wish every Christian would read this excellent article, and refer to it when they are apt to make their protest signs about any seeming attacks against their faith. Indeed, God is big enough to take it, and we can use these opportunities to engage in a good conversation with those seeking the truth and who can be easily swayed-and perhaps dig a little deep ourselves to be able to understand the Truth that we love so much.
Thanks to Christianity Today for always being balanced and thoughtful.
Laura McBride
posted 04/27/06
I was put off by the tone employed toward fellow Christians regarding their reactions to certain movies. I think there is something bordering on dangerous arrogance when a POV is advocated by attempting to mimic the voice of Christ and what he would allegedly say in response to such a situation. But also, instead of mocking those who out of their sincere response to the outrage of this film wish to organize fellow Christians into a boycott, why can there not be room for both approaches in which collectively they can be seen as complementing each other? I applaud those who are motivated to do boycott the film in a responsible fashion, and I would proudly point to them as Christians who have had enough of the bigoted mentality of our nation's media, and who will not stay silent about it. But when there are other people in the Christian community who seem to take great relish in mocking their brethren, while insisting we should regard Dan Brown as "not a bad person," I really have to throw up my hands in bewilderment.
Eric Paddon
posted 04/27/06
Regarding your piece about alternative things to do with Da Vinci, I heard the best solution yet: That is to speak with our dollars by not only not going to see the movie, but to see another movie during opening weekend. That would make Da Vinci a non-event.
Paulette Kincaid
posted 04/27/06
I read the commentary and I disagree. People like Tom Hanks, Ron Howard and Dan Brown aren't looking for truth. They're looking to cash in. I also think that most people who are going to see the movie aren't
looking for truth either. They're just looking to be entertained. The juicier, the better. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that many of them will see the movie and afterwards say (like Pontius Pilate), "What is truth?" Personally, I have no interest in the movie or the book. As it says in Scriptures, "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless" (Titus 3:9).
Jon Day
posted 04/27/06
Thanks for your entertaining and insightful article. It's amazing that as Christians, our first response is to be defensive and right away decide to picket and boycott. As Christians, we need to be informed-we need to read the book, see the movie and read other books such as Breaking the Da Vinci Code or Cracking the Da Vinci Code, both great resources that we can use to talk with our friends and co-workers about flaws in Dan Brown's story. If our friends and neighbors decide they'd rather believe Dan Brown than the Bible, then we need to respect that choice. We should pray for them, but being argumentative isn't the answer. Nor is a boycott or a noisy protest.
Sandi Scott
posted 04/27/06
I am disappointed at the tone of this article. I would suggest that it would have been far more effective had you stated your case without the hyperbole designed to make the other side simply look foolish. I may agree with your point, but I will not use your method to make it.
Terry Chaney
Too self-promotional?
posted 04/27/06
Of course Dr. Jim Garlow wants Christians to go see The Da Vinci Code. What a surprise: He's got a book to sell, a name to tout-and the bottom line in too many Christian circles is all too often … the bottom line. But at any rate, there's no justification for encouraging people to see a film that is an anti Christian propaganda piece made for profit (and subsequently, a multitude of anti-Christian causes). You might say it's a bit of high-tech blather for the weakening of unsuspecting hearts, minds, and souls. The road to Greedyville remains a constant and popular lure for poorly formed Christians who still think yapping about Jesus supersedes loyalty, action, and avoiding at all costs those Hollywood efforts to undermine the faith. In the aftermath of cashing in, The Da Vinci Code filmmakers-and other secular film producers who regularly prey off Christian pocket books-will be planning the next "attack." A drop of poison will destroy a glass of the purest water. And yet, repeatedly we subject ourselves to intolerable doses of TV and film poison.
Diane Garvin
posted 04/27/06
Your subtitle about using Da Vinci to help Christians share their faith and sharpen their own beliefs could have also been said about Elmer Gantry. Somehow, in my own mind, this would not exactly be a proper "training film" on how to do church, had your subtitle read like this: "Rather than ignore or boycott Elmer Gantry, Christians now have a great opportunity to share their faith-and to sharpen their own beliefs in the process.
Bill Simpson
More Jesus Movies
Editor's note: We recently ran one man's list of Top Ten Jesus Movies. Many readers applauded the list, but some felt that it had omitted a few key films.
posted 04/13/06
Your list of the Jesus movies missed two very important, and recent, films on the life of Christ, both from The Visual Bible: Matthew and The Gospel of John.
Martin Sheppard
posted 04/13/06
You should have included Jesus of Montreal, without a doubt the best film on Jesus I have ever seen.
Graham Hutchins
posted 04/13/06
I am curious why you left off the movie Jesus, produced by Warner Bros. in association with Inspirational Films and now distributed by Campus Crusade for Christ around the world. This film has been viewed by more people than any other film in history. It is also the most translated film of all time. Despite being produced in the late '70s, it is still being used widely today, and Billy Graham has stated that it is most likely responsible for more people coming to faith in Christ than any other tool of all time. How can it not be on the list?
Bob Kraemer
V for Violence?
posted 04/05/06
I saw V for Vendetta, and I am appalled that the cruelty shown toward the Natalie Portman character has been overlooked in practically every movie review I've read. She was at the hands of a bloody sadist who tortured her for an indefinite period, and who let her go only when her spirit was broken. Why is no one noticing this? This is a film about a rape, not a revolt. Why is everybody seeing a love story? Is violence against a woman, her dehumanization, so completely invisible?
Rachelle Cournoyer
Shaggy and Buddha?
posted 04/05/06
Why didn't you mention the New Age twist to The Shaggy Dog? As cute as this movie is, don't you think it preaches a pagan worldview? Buddhist meditation? The movie even illustrates the Buddhist belief in the equality of animals and humans, with its opening scenes of Buddhist temple prayer. We took our family to this movie, but we had to explain to our girls that this remake was not like the Fred MacMurray version, and as Christians, we did not agree with these beliefs. You did not do a very complete job on this review.
Darrell Phillips
Millions = Hogwash
posted 04/05/06
I bought the DVD Millions based on your review. How can you classify this as the Most Redeeming Film of 2005? It features young boys teaching each other how to access pictures of women's breasts on the Internet. It portrays saints appearing to 7-year-old Damien who smoke, swear, and use God's name in vain. The kicker which finally made us shut it of was the eyewitness account from Saint Peter telling Damien that Jesus did not really multiply the loaves and fishes, but through the generosity of his gift other people were influenced to donate to help feed everyone. Your reviewer's take on that, "Saint Peter offers a new interpretation of the loaves and fishes story which, while unorthodox, is a worthwhile lesson." Hogwash! Shame on you for this review! I failed to find any redeeming value or character in this movie.
James Barlow
Editor's note: In The Family Corner of our review of Millions, we clearly stated that the film "portrays some behavior that might make parents uncomfortable." And this: There's also a scene in which the boys ogle ads for lingerie on the Internet, zooming in on flaunted bosoms."
Violence Review 'Right On'
posted 04/05/06
I read your review of A History of Violence after I saw the movie, and your review was insightful and right on. How I wish I'd read it before I saw it; I don't think I'd have chosen to see it. Yes, it was complex, powerful and so stinking heavy I could barely stomach it. Thank you for doing a job I'd never choose for myself. Another reminder to read your reviews before I decide whether or not to see the movie.
Mary Guleserian
Regarding Shadyac
posted 03/14/06
In response to Eric David's article on director Tom Shadyac: Frankly, I've been turned off by Jim Carrey and his larger-than-life antics, so I've not seen all the films listed in the article. But this article intercepts my prejudices about the actor and provides unique insight into Shadyac's films, along with an indication of possible freedom in films to move beyond the intimidations of "politically correct," lucrative-goals and accepted lifestyle pressures in that industry. Hopefully, the "journey toward redemption" trend will provide opportunities to make clear the straight-and-narrow-path to truth through the maze of living, and may that trend lead many people to complete redemption through Jesus Christ. Eric David's article broke through my prejudices to supply insights about Shadyac's films, and, in so doing, plant a seed of hope that the ties-that-bind the film industry can and will be broken.
John Chandler
posted 03/14/06
As a Christian, I was very proud of how Bruce Almighty how it dealt with Christianity in an honest way. After reading your article, I was even more impressed.
Jack Walker
Great Perspectives
posted 03/14/06
You guys put such great perspectives to American cinema. I am a film student, and I just want to let you know that you guys have really given me some pride for the voice that Christ has given us. While I feel you may be a little conservative for us to agree all the time, that isn't the point. The point is that you articulate yourself and many people's beliefs and fears incredibly well. Christians watch movies too, and it is important for "the industry" to realize that, and you guys do a great job at driving that home. I, and even some of my research papers, thank you very much.
Lucas Diercouff
Spear Dropped the Ball
posted 03/14/06
My wife and I finally saw End of the Spear, and I'm sorry to say that apart from the great cinematography, we felt like we had wasted our time. We were aghast at the blatant ignorance of a group of men that would blunder into a situation such as was portrayed on the screen. According to this film, the lack of understanding of the language (which could have been learned from the girl who escaped from her tribe and was now living among them), the blatant disregard for cultural differences, and miscellaneous other blundering was what resulted in their deaths, they were not martyrs for Christ in the classical sense. The film did not make it clear why they were even there in the first place—as I noted from whispers behind me in the theater, twittering about what those men were drinking from that jar, and gasps when one of the men disrobed in front of the approaching women from the tribe they were attempting to contact.
The gospel message of the atoning death and resurrection of Christ was not clearly portrayed at all. It appeared that the tribe had been somehow saved from their old ways of murdering each other and had now put on "civilized clothing," but death still brought with it some sort of leap over a snake that somehow Nate Saint had been able to achieve during his expiration while under the familiar glow of Touched by an Angel. The movie truly does a disservice to the cause of Christ and denigrates the death of these men—and any other missionaries who may meet a violent end while trying to reach the world for God. Sorry, this one gets a double thumbs down from my wife and me.
John D. Ferguson
Debating The McPassion
Last week, we ran an interview with Christian filmmaker Rik Swartzwelder regarding his new short film, The McPassion, which he intended as a satire about the way the church seems to be more involved in marketing Hollywood movies from the pulpit. Some see the film as funny, some as blasphemy. Not surprisingly, we received a number of e-mails in response. Here's a sampling.
posted 03/07/06
I agree that the marketing of The Passion was a way Christians were dupedinto filling the pockets of filmmakers, but The McPassion can only be described as blasphemous and shocking. I was offended by it as much as I am American marketing of religion. I could have done without seeing the death of Christ being made a laughing matter.
Anthony W. Giezendanner
posted 03/07/06
I found The McPassion sadly lacking in humor, sarcasm or whatever else Swartzwelder was supposedly trying to accomplishwith his "project." Basically, McPassion was McPathetic. Swartzwelder didn't like the way The Passion was pitched from pulpits, so he decides two years later to come up with a four-minute spoof of our Lord in order to bring attention to something that just about no Christian finds a problem with. Did he think he was to be like a voice calling out but dressed up as "Ronald McDonald"? I got the impression that Swartzwelder's McMotives were entirely different than what he professed. I hope he's happy with his 15 minutes of fame—or is that four minutes of flame? Finally, I guess Swartzwelder never read or was told in Sunday school that saying the Lord's name in vain was a sin. I hope he finds the time during Lent for some self-reflection and repentance.
A. Alonso
posted 03/07/06
Cardboard "crowns of thorns," ketchup that "tastes like real blood," toy hammers to nail the little sister to the cross—these cross the line, even for satire of Christians.
Reed Siebenthal
posted 03/07/06
I remember the scene of my pastor at the viewing of The Passion of The Christ, at a theater bought out by our church. My pastor was standing in the doorway, just before the showing, with a super-sized Coca-Cola and a barrel of popcorn big enough to perform a baptism in. I am not sure that The McPassion doesn't hit the nail sadly but squarely on the head. Nevertheless I do find this effort offensive, even as I did the pastor's behavior.
William C. Manuel
posted 03/07/06
Right on, Rik Swartzwelder! Jesus said he must be about his father's business, but many church organizations are about, well, just business. Churches that reject any and all sacred images in their misinterpretation of the commandment will sell cross earrings and chains, magnetic fish on the back of their cars, and hawk T-shirts that say, "His pain, my gain." I am tired of receiving conference material featuring speakers who could win Pat Boone look-alike contests, whose aim is to build a megachurch, and who are more interested in profits than prophets with their endless conferences and workshops that promise rejuvenated congregations for the price of admission. The moneychangers are alive and well in the temple. They have turned the house of God into a den of thieves.
Claudia Horak
posted 03/07/06
I hear why Swartzwelder says he made the film, but honestly, I don't believe him! This film doesn't come across as a sincere loving confrontation of mass marketing in the church, but an angry semi-conscious reaction to being told what to watch from the pulpit. I wish Swartzwelder could have found another way to challenge us and express his feelings, because this film just made me want to weep.
Stephen Steger
posted 03/07/06
I watched the movie with my college and high school sons, and we all loved it. It's close enough to the truth to be relevant and funny. I saw a video clip of a pastor promoting the Narnia movie to his kids' ministry, and it looked like an infomercial with stuffed lion prizes and stuff like that. It was obvious that marketers had set that up, and I was disappointed that a "man of God" would use his "authority" to officially promote a movie. It went beyond a recommendation to a full-blown endorsement. If the movie had been The Passion, this church's promotion would have looked just like The McPassion. Swartzwelder is exposing those who would market the faith by copying the world. Which is more offensive to God, making fun of people who trivialize or sell out their own faith, or actually trying to turn our sacred relationship with God into a marketing choice?
James Gayfield
posted 03/07/06
Have there been too many Passion-ate pronouncements from the pulpit? Yes. Was there a way to say that without getting sacrilegious? Yes. The fact is, I laughed and felt terribly uncomfortable about laughing when I watched The McPassion. It's more than possible to take anything and make a joke out of it, but does that mean that we should? No. The Passion was absolutely over-hyped, but is the way to deal with that by trivializing the gospel, and our God? Personally, I think it went a bit too far. Even though I laughed.
Tom Sharkey
posted 03/07/06
Swartzwelder didn't appear to have thought out his views thoroughly. I watched the video and it was difficult for me. I appreciate Christian satire as a message or warning of individual or church silliness / hypocrisy, but this was different. It blurred the lines of mocking Christian commercialism and the horrific crucifixion of our Lord. I just feel sad when I watch this stuff.
Brian Norton
posted 03/07/06
I thought The McPassion was funny. What struck me was how close it seemed to reality, not with churches' worship services, but with Christian retail stores' products—breath mints with crosses on them, passion nails, etc.
Deanna King
Life Lessons from Brokeback
posted 02/21/06
I went to see Brokeback Mountain recently with my wife, and for me, it was a soul stirring moment. I chose 19 years ago to leave behind the gay lifestyle. I called out to God and through the prayers of many (mixed with determination), I am rescued in soul from the pit I knew. I have been married 16 years to a God-sent wife. Our journey together hasn't always been easy, but it has been more peaceful than that I knew of in the gay lifestyle. What has made it survive is a love born out of honesty and vulnerability, mixed with faith in God throughthe Messiah, the Lord Jesus. The movie reminded me of the true pain of the soul that the gay lifestyle creates. I could relate to the movie's depiction of the need of love, even between the two male characters. I grew up a military brat with good parents, but never established a close love/relationship for my father during my teen years; I had no godly male mentoring, I was insecure, and I didn't know the Lord, so I was easy prey for the destroyer's plan. I entered the gay lifestyle out of the need to belong, to be one of the guys—only it ended consuming my soul. It took me about two years to realize that this path would not have a happy ending.
I related to Heath Ledger's character "Ennis" in Brokeback—and the tear in the soul between the need of love both of a woman and of a man. I concluded a few years ago that neither of these two loves are sinful when they are in the right context. The intense love and sexual intimacy of a man and a woman in marriage is what the Lord intended. And the intense love experienced between two people of the same sex or opposite sex is not wrong as long as it doesn't become a sexual relationship. I'm always reminded of the love of David and Jonathan; there was no sin it.
Brokeback Mountain showed me many things from God's perspective. He is grieved for his beloved lost sheep—these isolated souls he wants to bring back to his mountain and give them the love they so desperately seek. In this place they will be in the company of other sheep who now know love and are not lonely anymore. Brokeback Mountain is not for everybody. Its themes of loneliness, broken relationships, and death are painfully true to life even if you can't relate to the story subject matter. Watching it made me realize what God has done in my life: He's spared me the destruction I saw in the lives of the characters of the movie. I could have been either "Ennis" or "Jack." As a result of seeing that movie, I love my wife, my life, and my Savior more. I don't believe you'll go to hell for seeing the movie, but if you do see the movie, you'll get a glimpse of the private hell that rules in the lives of many. Pray for the isolated sheep to find their way.
J. L. Moss
Role Playing
Editor's note: In a recent CT at the Movies newsletter, we argued that Steve Martin shouldn't be playing the lead role in The Pink Panther, that no one but Peter Sellers should be allowed to play the role of Inspector Clouseau. We also mentioned a few other "iconic" roles through the years, roles that no one else should ever try to reprise: Julie Andrews as Maria, Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey, and more. We asked readers for their favorite "iconic" roles, and we got a ton of responses—including a few who took us to task on our own icons!
posted 02/16/06
Although the original Pink Panther is a classic, it's one of those classics that begs to be redone for a new generation. Give Steve Martin some credit for his comedic genius. He's only one who can pull it off.
Lynda Stringer
posted 02/16/06
I agree: No one can play the inspector like Peter Sellers, but I am a big fan of Steve Martin, and he did an excellent job. He picked up the comedic torch and carried it faithfully.
Allan Knowlden
posted 02/16/06
I find it ironic that you argue that only Julie Andrews is allowed to be The Sound of Music's Maria and only Audrey Hepburn can be Eliza Doolittle. But long before Julie came twirling along the mountaintop, Mary Martin took home a Tony award for originating the role of Maria on Broadway. And many Broadway purists were furious that Hepburn became Eliza Doolittle over … who? Yep, Julie Andrews, who won so many hearts on stage as the original Eliza. Those roles, it seems, were a bit more "touchable" than you realize. Perhaps some roles are iconic, but I would argue that they are very rare indeed. So go ahead and let Martin tackle Clouseau. If he falls flat on his face, at least it will be in character.
Jack Brown
posted 02/16/06
I beg to differ with you on Audrey Hepburn as Eliza Doolittle. The cute little non-singing wretch should never even have played the role: it belonged to Julie Andrews, who created the character. Another stoopid Hollywood producer trick.
James Allan Ragsdale
posted 02/16/06
For me, Christopher Lee will always be Dracula, despite the fine characterizations of Lugosi and Gary Oldman. This may not be the most "Christian" role to pick, but the greatest B-movie actors such
as Lee tended to portray their characters with more theatrical refinement than modern actors and directors who capitalize on a lot of graphic violence/sensuality. Other iconic roles: Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, Clint Eastwood as "The Man with No Name" and Dirty Harry, Peter Cushing as Sherlock Holmes (despite the fine presentations of Basil Rathbone) and as Van Helsing (not Anthony Hopkins and certainly not Hugh Jackman).
Claude Liboiron
posted 02/16/06
Alastair Sims in Scrooge is one of those defining roles; Sean Connery as James Bond is another. In each case, the actor transcends mere portrayal.
Denis Gray
posted 02/16/06
No one but Gene Wilder should play Willy Wonka (including the inestimable Johnny Depp).
J. Craig Johnson
posted 02/16/06
For Pirates of the Caribbean, no one but Johnny Depp could pull off Captain Jack!
Pat Godbey
posted 02/16/06
How about James Cagney playing George M. Cohan in Yankee Doodle Dandy? Or Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn as Charlie and Rose in The African Queen? But my favorite has to be Ronald Reagan playing George Gipp in Knute Rockne: All American. The attitude of "The Gipper" he captured in the movie was the one and same that served him well as President.
Jerry Lawson
posted 02/16/06
Alan Ladd as Shane. Clint Eastwood tried to make a copy with Pale Rider, but it was indeed a pale imitation.
Jim Wetterau
posted 02/16/06
Peter O'Toole as Lawrence of Arabia and his co-star, Alec Guinness, in just about any role he ever played. And can anyone ever replace Charlie Chaplin? Also, Jack Nicholson for his roles as The Joker in Batman, J.J. Gittes in Chinatown, Randle Patrick McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and as Jack Torrance in The Shining. And then, Humphrey Bogart as Rick in Casablanca and as Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon. And Jimmy Stewart not just for George Bailey, but also for Jefferson Smith in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Oh, and Christopher Reeve as Superman.
Eric Hallett
posted 02/16/06
No one but Russell Crowe could play the Gladiator Maximus.
Joyce Ameh
posted 02/16/06
Bogey as Rick in Casablanca, James Dean in Rebel, or Al Pacino as Tony in Scarface.
Dawne Polis
posted 02/16/06
There are some movies—not just roles—where the original is still great and needs no expansion or explanation or updating. I'll never understand why Kevin Costner even attempted to do Robin Hood (sans British accent). It should have been left to Errol Flynn. But I don't know that it's the role that's sacrosanct as much as the movie. If the original is still good and can be seen and appreciated and understood today, then stick with the original. If anything, this constant trend toward re-makes in Hollywood speaks more of the lack of creativity on Hollywood's part, and their need to resurrect old stories and characters rather than move on to new ones.
Tom Sharkey
posted 02/16/06
Orson Wells in Citizen Kane. Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly and Christopher Lloyd as Dr. Emmit Brown in the Back to the Future series. Bruce Willis in the Die Hard series. Bob Hope and Bing Crosby in their Road series.
Pastor Randy Evans
posted 02/16/06
Megan Follows in the Anne of Green Gables movies! She just brings the essence of "Anne-girl" to the screen.
Kristine den Boon
posted 02/16/06
Charlton Heston as Moses! When I get to heaven, I think I'll be disappointed if Moses doesn't look like Charlton Heston.
Tom Smith
posted 02/16/06
No one but Jim Caviezel can play Christ.
Barb Dixon
Redeeming Movies
posted 02/10/06
I'm impressed with your list of 2005's Most Redeeming Movies, and that you are dedicated to showing appreciation for well-made films. Bad films with a "good message" are simply an embarrassment to Christianity. However, I disagree with your approval of Crash. I was highly offended by the film. I thought that in showing the awfulness of prejudice, it actually helped the viewer become more prejudiced. The same thing happens when movies show rampant sexuality in a disapproving manner. It often makes the viewer want to go out and have sex! I also think that showing continuous instances of prejudice in Crash was so unrealistic and so disconnected that it weakened the message rather than strengthening it. A movie such as To Kill a Mockingbird is much more persuasive because it is much more realistic. I thought Crash alienated the viewer rather than winning him over to a proper moral stance.
Dr. Jim Meek
posted 02/10/06
The list is a good one based on useful criteria. It reflects a broad taste and a sensitivity to social and cultural interests and realities.Well done.
Steve Bailey
posted 02/10/06
Some quick reactions to your Redeeming Films list: Cinderella Man and Crash would be near the top of my list. On your recommendation, I watched Millions, an enjoyable film but rather disappointing with a number of gaps in the story. As for The New World, your thoughtful, sensitive comments about the role(s) of movies in the life of believers are provocative and valuable. Your biggest surprise is Broken Flowers; what am I missing here? I found little of real substance. I sometimes wonder if in our quest as 21st century Christians to know and understand the world in which we live, we don't go a bit too far in looking for redeeming qualities in some things that just don't have them. We don't care to be seen legalistic prudes, foolishly rejecting everything that fails to meet our Christian paradigm, but even to non-believers, there are things that don't deserve recognition/justification—like Broken Flowers.
David Moore
posted 02/10/06
Since you needed to redeem yourself after giving Brokeback Mountain 3 stars, I'm glad to see this list!
Greg Leith
posted 02/10/06
I cannot believe you put Murderball on your list of redeeming films! Yes the message was good, yes it was inspiring, especially the young players who choose to visit rehabilitation facilities to encourage others. But there is some very graphic sex, full nudity and plenty of vulgar language. I agree the film has wonderful potential and may, in some aspects, qualify as "redeeming," but let's be clear about the full content so parents won't let their youngsters watch it. Are we so hard up for good movies that R-rated Murderball has to be included?
Sue Scott
Your Two Bits on Brokeback
Our recent review of Brokeback Mountain—also known throughout the media as the "gay cowboy movie"—prompted a mountain of replies, many of them comprising this article. And the replies keep pouring in, including the ones below—some of which are in response to reader replies as much as to the review itself.
posted 12/30/05
I enjoyed your review of the movie and was glad to read the readers' comments. I am amazed how so many Christians want simply to be told what to do and believe, abdicating their personal responsibility to make discerning judgments about what we do—such as seeing a movie or not. I grew up being told whether everything was right or wrong. Thank you for not being our pontiff and telling us what we must do and believe in order to put the proper Christian spin on things. We are adults; we are Christians and the Holy Spirit is still working in our midst.
Rev. Larry D. Ellis
posted 12/30/05
I read with interest the comments from those who said CT should refrain from reviewing this type of film, especially because of its homosexual content. Why is homosexuality the "it" sin when it comes to the loudest condemnation from Christians? What about the excessive exploitation of partially or fully unclothed females, or the vast array of extramarital hetero-sex? What about the commonality of drunkenness? The list goes on. As Christians, we are called to be salt and light, not vinegar and blinders. Compassionate understanding of people whose lives parallel the characters in Brokeback Mountain increases our potential for effective and Christlike witness. We need to welcome the opportunity to get a realistic grasp for where the world is at, instead of running from it.
Wendy Holland
posted 12/30/05
Of course it's controversial to review a movie about a homosexual relationship. Unfortunately we evangelicals have trouble acknowledging the complexities of things like homosexual attraction—something that many people struggle with on a real level. So we are not very good at accepting stories of people who sin in this particular way as parables of ourselves, though it may be in different skin. Flannery O'Connor said of the novelist (and it could also be applied to the filmmaker), "The serious writer has always taken the flaw in human nature for his starting point, usually the flaw in an otherwise admirable character. Drama usually bases itself on the bedrock of original sin, whether the writer thinks in theological terms or not … The novelist [or filmmaker] doesn't write about people in a vacuum; he writes about people in a world where something is obviously lacking, where there is the general mystery of incompleteness and the particular tragedy of our own times to be demonstrated, and the novelist [or filmmaker] tries to give you, within the form of the book, a total experience of human nature at any time." I haven't seen the movie, and some movies are just as propagandist as our bad Christian movies, but many movies that deal well with relationships such as those in this movie are simply parables for the many different struggles in life. If, as Christians, we can't hear the stories of real people—if we can only handle the stories of people who have it all together, who always make the right decisions, who are perfect—then we are neither in the world, or of it. We're in our own world, a fantasy world that will not be real until God steps into the most deeply scarred stories and redeems them for good. O'Connor again: "The real novelist, the one with an instinct for what he is about, knows that he cannot approach the infinite directly, that he must penetrate the real world as it is. The more sacramental his theology, the more encouragement he will get from it to do just that."
Propagandist attempts or entertainment aside, I don't believe that a movie depicting a homosexual relationship is inherently worse than a movie depicting the destructive power of other kinds of sin—greed (Wall Street), corruption of power (The Constant Gardener), drugs (Traffic), abortion (Vera Drake), euthanasia (Million Dollar Baby), anger (Mystic River), or hypocrisy. Each Christian needs to make the personal decision whether watching and reflecting on any particular parable, in all of its gory detail, is going to be more edifying or distracting in his or her journey of developing the mind of Christ. But the telling of stories like this is simply the filmmaker, novelist, etc. doing his or her job of embracing the reality of what it means to be human, in one particular manifestation of that humanity. We ought not to condemn the storyteller outright without trying to hear the message behind it. Sometimes the message is surprisingly compatible with the Bible's evaluation of the human condition, and of redemption (i.e. forgiveness). Sometimes not, but that must be expected from the world rather than decried as somehow an aberration from what is normal.
Tim McCarthy
posted 12/30/05
As a non-Christian, I applaud you for your review of Brokeback Mountain. Unlike many of the other Christian sites, you gave a meaningful insight on the movie without throwing cheap pot-shots at the creation. I fully understand some Christian sites' stances on advising their readers to skip the movie, but what makes me mad is their treatment of homosexuals, and saying this movie is a Marxist creation to brainwash America. I applaud you for not stooping to those levels, and for letting readers make their own decisions instead of being told how to think.
Michael Goodridge
posted 12/30/05
Good grief, what in the world were you thinking? Giving this piece of filth ANY stars constitutes an endorsement! Anything positive you say about this disgusting piece of homosexual propaganda just encourages Christians to go see it. God makes it very clear we're to not participate in (by giving our money, for instance) the evil deeds of darkness. The Bible commands us, "Do not enter the path of the wicked and do not proceed in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not pass by it; turn away from it and pass on" (Proverbs 4:14-15). You have violated this injunction entirely.
Robert Sexton
posted 12/30/05
It took a lot of courage for Christianity Today Movies to post the review of Brokeback Mountain and I commend you. Especially since it is, overall, a favorable review that lucidly describes the many levels of pain and sorrow that the central characters feel. It's just too bad that the Editor had to trot in and "mark his territory" with his lip-pursed disclaimer. The review should have been simply posted and allowed to stand on its own merits.
Charlie Lester
posted 12/30/05
This film being nominated for Golden Globes and Oscars means nothing. It only reflects the large number of gay people in the movie industry who are out to push the homosexual agenda. Nothing more. The fact that the scenery is beautiful means nothing either. The filmmaker has taken God's beautiful creation, and used it as a backdrop to push the homosexual agenda. The young people who are being drawn into this web is enormous. Don't contribute to this slide into moral oblivion! That you should give this propaganda such a high rating is inexcusable. You have lost credibility with me.
Sondra Perkins
posted 12/30/05
Your thoughtful and careful analysis is a boon to your credibility. I especially appreciated the sensitive discussion questions at the end of the review. As a gay Christian, I am all too often hurt and excluded by mainstream "Christian" organizations that propagate a malicious tone when discussing homosexuality. I appreciate your candor and sensitivity.
Nathan Henning
posted 12/30/05
Why do we need to be subjected to this filth? When are we going to stand up for decent morals in this country and stop sugar coating movies like this under the guise of great filmmaking?
P. Persell
posted 12/30/05
I did not read your review, but saw you gave it 3 stars. My first feeling was shock that you would sit through it. Did you really have to go see it to know it would stand against everything biblical? So will you be going to other obviously nasty movies which fly in the face of everything a "Christian" should stand for? I don't think we need to be informed on this one to "decide" whether or not to see it. Filth is filth, no matter how "pretty" the cinematography is or how good the acting is. If you are a believer and walk the walk, there is no decision.
Amy Luckie
posted 12/30/05
The hypocrisy and complete logical disconnect of some people astound me. How has homosexuality become this uber-sin that trumps all others? Why aren't people all up in arms when CT reviews movies that have other examples of extramarital sex? Oh, but those movies are OK because it's a man and a woman, and it "serves the story." Please.
Jeremy Akins
posted 12/30/05
Isn't anyone just a tad embarrassed by all this homophobic outcry? This is Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson territory.
Randall Curwen
posted 12/30/05
That we are even asking this question shows how morally decadent we so-called 21st century Christians are! In the good old days we would not even discuss this topic at all. How could you give this movie three stars? Are you out of your mind? You need deliverance.
Aja Chinyere
posted 12/30/05
Thanks for reviewing Brokeback Mountain. For 30 years, I've been pastor of a church in Marin County, California which probably has the lowest percentage of worshippers in the USA (around 4%) and is among the highest as a movie-going place. If I'm going to engage with people in this culture on behalf of Jesus, I need to be able to talk about films. So far I've seen 86 movies in theaters this year. I really appreciate your courage. You help me influence people who are far from God for the sake of their eternal destiny.
Dr. Prince Altom
posted 12/30/05
I went to this website as a lapsed Christian, heterosexual moviegoer, out of curiosity on just how flexible you'd be in reviewing controversial films. I was expecting to be preached to and patronized, but came away pleasantly surprised at your even-handedness in reviewing Brokeback Mountain. I'll visit again.
Stacy Taylor
Walk the Line Concerns
posted 12/01/05
Carolyn Arends' review of Walk the Line review captures exactly what had me worried and introspective in the movie. I wrestled throughout the movie to not do what Arends seems to be unashamed of, with regard to Cash and Carter's attraction to one another while married. Arends described that as the emotional center of the movie, which caused us to be "caring and rooting for them through a decade of detours and demons." While it seemed to work out by God's mercy, I don't think we should have been rooting for the failure of their marriages, plus their eventual adultery! This is one of those things which we should only look back on with shame.
Doug Mattox
Agreeing with Gresham
posted 11/08/05
I completely and wholeheartedly agree with Douglas Gresham's statement in your interview: "The problem with evangelical Christianity in America today, a large majority of you have sacrificed the essential for the sake of the trivial. You concentrate on the trivialities—not smoking, not drinking, not using bad language, not dressing inappropriately in church, and so on. Jesus doesn't give two hoots for that sort of bulls---." Gresham clearly sets the record straight, and what a blessing and a comfort to know that Jesus, indeed, doesn't give a hoot for the trivial!
Katrelya Angus
007: Yes or No?
posted 11/08/05
An article about James Bond on a Christian site? Surely you are not supporting James Bond.
Terry McGinnis
posted 11/08/05
I can't help have a warm place in my heart for Roger Moore as Bond. I've read the Fleming books and I realize his Bond is probably the furthest removed from the original vision, but like you, he was Bond when I was a kid. I remember seeing For Your Eyes Only four times the summer it came out. It's still my favorite Roger Moore Bond film and I think the best of his run.
Rick Mansfield
Zorro Rules!
posted 11/08/05
My wife and I just saw The Legend of Zorro today. It was excellent. The music, his horse, his little boy all worked good together, along with the humor. As a kid in the '50s, I watched some old Zorro movies on TV, in black & white. I loved all of the shows then, and still do now. I completely disagree with your review.
Clayton McDonald
Good Night and Good Grief
posted 10/26/05
Stefan Ulstein's irritating review of Good Night and Good Luck furthers the dominant media's leftist view of the McCarthy era. Having just finished reading the chapters on the McCarthy era in Ann Coulter's Treason, I challenge reviews that see George Clooney's movie as anything other than another piece of leftist, Hollywood agitprop. Even without the overwhelming evidence that Coulter documents, Ulstein's review clearly lacks care for historical fact. Ulstein's careless association of Senator Joseph McCarthy with the House Committee on Unamerican Activities forms a salient example, hypocritical in light of his statement that "McCarthy's twisting of facts created guilt by association." McCarthy's and others' concern about communist infiltration of the U.S. government, even to the highest level levels, had solid justification. The hysteria, it seems, came not from anti-communists, but from a Democrat-dominated establishment whose loyalty the emerging facts challenged. I hate to see Christianity Today play into George Clooney's partisan rewrite of history and the demonization of a flawed public servant who, it turns out, was right.
Richard Wheeler
Left Behind Plot Not 'Silly'
posted 10/26/05
I'd like to correct you on one point in your review of the new Left Behind movie. You can't blame the book for the "silly" resolve of the virus plot line, because this is a plot line that wasn't even in the book. In fact, most of the plot of this film barely resembles the book at all. Practically the only resemblance is the cast of characters. I don't mind the so-called cheesiness since the Left Behind movies are less cheesy than many of the end-times movies of the past. Anyway, I love your website. Keep up the good work.
Linda Weinmunson
Hooray for Serenity
posted 10/26/05
Thank you so much for a good review of Serenity. I'm a Joss Whedon fan, and it's great to see a positive review on an actual original movie in today's movie world of crappy remakes and sequels.
Annissa Mosher
Flight's Plan Revealed?
posted 10/06/05
Now that I've read the review of Flightplan, I don't really need to see the film. I don't understand why you need to reveal the whole plot and ending just to review a film. Can't you leave some of the mystery out of your review? I have enjoyed many of your past reviews, but I may have to stop reading them altogether if I want to enjoy a movie in the future.
Gerald K. "Jerry" Lawson
Wishy-Washy Relativism?
posted 10/06/05
After reading your review of Just Like Heaven, I have to say that Christianity Today Movies could be nominated as the poster child of wishy-washy, whatever feels good, relativistic modern American Christianity. Perhaps your reviewer should have followed her first hunch; that there are places we as Christians shouldn't go. Your site offers a powerful illustration of the startling spiritual decline in this country. How sad.
Tim Hobbs
posted 10/06/05
After reading your review of Just Like Heaven, my wife and I went to see it. I was a little disappointed in the movie. A positive review in CT Movies made me expect more. My complaints? (1) You'd think the characters would have prayed about their situation. (2) You'd think there would have been some mention, however trivial, of life after death. This movie was most decidedly NOT religious. The movie Ghost, on the other hand, did a splendid job of bringing to our minds the ideas of reward and punishment and accountability that are completely missing from Just Like Heaven.
Grant Cottam
Betrayed by Emily Rose
posted 10/06/05
Am I the only born-again Christian who felt somewhat betrayed by the ending of The Exorcism of Emily Rose? I was pretty much into the film (knowing full well that Scripture teaches that demon possession is possible and Satan is alive and well on planet earth), until the ending when "The Blessed Virgin Mary" appears to Emily. Having grown up Catholic, I believe the adulation of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church is demonic, since it takes away from the glory that belongs only to Christ. And this film promotes the idea of Mary as a loving, caring, beatific person. Why not Jesus appearing to her instead? But of course, Jesus wouldn't get any glory, which is exactly what Satan likes. Christians need to remember that Mary herself said she needed a Savior in the Magnificat, which Catholics quote, but apparently fail to see what is being said: "My soul doth magnify the Lord, my Savior." If she were perfectly sinless, as Catholics believe, why the need for a Savior?
Jean Worland
posted 10/06/05
I am a former Christian (graduate of Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minn., with a Bible degree; worked for Billy Graham for years) and I have become an atheist. I saw Emily Rose with my girlfriend—also an atheist—and we liked it. I would have preferred more skepticism, plus a closer reading of the original story on which it was based. But overall, I think it goes some distance toward getting people to start talking about issues of faith and evidence, which can only benefit both sides. People of faith need to be able to explain why they accept as truth the things they do, and nonbelievers must have credible challenges to faith if they expect religious folks to rethink their positions. I'd recommend it to everyone I felt was mature enough to handle the themes. Thanks for a thoughtful, provocative, and in-depth review.
Greg Peterson
Browse More Movies
CT Movies Home Page | Now Showing | New on Video | All Reviews
Coming Soon | Discussion Guides | Interviews | Commentary
News & Misc. | Special Sections | About Us
Your Feedback | About Us | CT Mag Home Page
| |
|
