Not Recommended. I wanted to see this movie because of the fact that it was shelved and redone by Renny Harlin. Well, I wanted to see why they studio felt they would lose so much money that they would need to remake it. And now I see why. Boy, Studios are not always stupid. This is a version done by Paul Shrader, who may never direct again. And he has a Christian past, which would make you think he would deal with spiritual things well, but think again. This is supposed to be the story of Father Merrin BEFORE the Exorcist movie, that is, his past. This movie was really bad. Bad acting by the melodramatic young priest, and female lead. Bad writing, bad directing. First mistake was the first scene, which was supposed to be Merrin’s past of having to chose which Jews to kill by the Nazis, which is what causes him to lose his faith but remain an archeologist. Well, the lead Nazi starts with a slight German accent and then loses it entirely. This was terrible. And the scene was boringly edited and acted. This was a sign of the rest of the movie. A couple good things about the movie: One theme of evil, “No one wanted to believe the atrocities of Hitler were going on. It’s easier to believe evil is random rather than the fact that it is in everyone and everyone is capable of it.” Another thoughtful idea spoken by a priest, “Faith’s ultimate strength lies in its ability to strengthen men, not conquer evil.” That’s cool. Many times, the faithful are martyred or do not in fact experience worldy victory, because God has something else he is teaching them. Winning in losing. Some ridiculous elements. Okay, sometimes you can make something eerie and evil by doing the opposite, by showing something that is normally mundane as an expression of evil. Irony helps surprise the audience and see things a new way. However, in this movie, it is done in such a poor way that it is really quite laughable. One of the “evil ironies” is that they have some cattle kill a herd of hyenas. Of course, we don’t see it, we just see the after effects of a few cows in a field around a bunch of dead hyena bodies. And then they show a bad CG shot of a cattle chewing on hyena remains. It was something out of Attack of the Killer Tomatos. Of course, there are the cliché characters, like the stupid priest who thinks the spirit of our Savior is in a demon possessed kid. The big showdown between the faithless priest and the demon possessed child was almost purely metaphysical and not even interesting. The big Showdown was the priest quoting Roman rites of exorcism as the demon possessed man cowered with each phrase. But it lacked entirely any real drama to it. No stakes. Okay a couple cool things: The demon possessed man came to look very much like an Eastern Buddha or avatar figure, which I like. Also, a couple of great lines from the demon that show us the truth in its opposite form, “ You hate God and why not? He gives you guilt.” The big temptation was telling the priest that he could “cease to care” which would protect himself. And when the priest finally faces this demon, he gets on his knees at home and asks God to forgive him for his unbelief. Very cool repentance. But silly special effects, like stuff out of the 70s or 80s. Overall, this film is a waste of time, but on the other hand, it’s good to see movies illustrating that there is real personal evil in the world, and you can’t brush that away with your pomo relativism. But alas, a failed poor quality attempt to do so.
Crash
Highly Recommended for mature viewers (Lots of harsh “language”). This is an incredible movie about prejudice and bigotry that has an even-handed portrayal of all sides of the issue. Rather than just another cliché “victimizing” movie about racism against one minority by the majority, this film illustrates the prejudice at the heart of ALL classes, rich and poor, majority and minority, conservative and liberal, White, Black, Asian, Middle Eastern and others. It’s a special genre film that I have dubbed “Providential Ensemble:” A story about multiple unconnected character’s individual stories that providentially connect by the end of the film to reinforce a special theme. These movies have such great power to communicate theme because they portray the theme from so many angles, therefore being an exploration more universal or wide than a single story. But they also tend to reinforce a providential view of reality that we are all interconnected, even if we don’t think we are. That is, we all are experiencing our own stories with ourselves as heros in our own stories, but we don’t realize that every other person has just as complex and intimate human experiences as we do. By using multiple intersecting plots rather than merely subplots of one person’s main plot, we get a “God’s eye view” of the value of other people by seeing that they have stories just as important and valuable as we do. That is, all those people we see at a distance as we go through our own stories, have their own stories just as important to them as ours are to us, whether we know it or not. The “God’s eye view” of this helps us to connect the providential dots and appreciate the value of others. Movies of this genre are Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Three Days in the Valley, Go, Pulp Fiction, Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her, Thirteen Conversations About One Thing, Magnolia, and others. And I think I would have to say that this is my absolute favorite genre of film. In Crash, we are introduced to the story at a large multiple car accident. One of the characters in the film telegraphs the theme of the movie with the very first words of the film, “In L.A. nobody touches you. We’re all separated by glass and steel. We have to crash into each other just to feel something.” And the movie then proceeds to show how we prejudge people who are “distant” from us, that is, different than us, separate from us. We have to “crash” into them to realize how human they really are and how they are very much like us. It’s so easy to reduce others to inhuman stereotypes in order to justify our anger when they hurt us. But when we intersect with them on a human level, we see our prejudices for what they really are: often reflections of our own anger, not reality. I say “often” because the downside to stereotypes is that they exist for a reason. Every lie is based on some truth, and the fact is that, culturally, we do tend towards homogeneity and this complicates things. There are in fact certain cultural patterns to every race, but these are cultural, not racial, that is, not intrinsic to the race. When we attribute it to the race, we are bigoted, but when we recognize its cultural origins, we go along way toward understanding the truth behind the lie. Anyway, the story is loaded with all the kinds of racial stereotypes you can imagine, black, white, Hispanic, Persian, Asian, etc. There is a litany of absolute idiocies, like how people make their racial claim about a person, and they’re not even right about the race! Which really shows the stupidity of much prejudice. For instance, a black man makes remarks about Lazy Mexicans to a woman he thinks is Mexican, but she reveals to him that she is not Mexican, but El Salvadoran! Another guy makes a remark about an “Arab store owner,” who he doesn’t realize is Persian, not Arab! A very light skinned black woman married to a black man is misperceived as a white woman in a mixed marriage. But she’s not! Then there are also the traditional victims of bigotry shown to have their own bigotry. A black kid complains of how racist every white person is in thinking he’s a criminal, just cause he’s black, and he DOES turn out to be a criminal! An Asian man and woman selling their own people into slavery! We see a rich white woman complain about her Hispanic housekeeper, and that housekeeper turns out to be the only one willing to help the white lady when she hurts herself in a fall! There is the Hispanic locksmith who looks like a gang kid, but is a loving father. But then he thinks he can get away from evil by moving away from the bad neighborhood, yet the crime follows him into the “safe” neighborhood when a Persian man filled with hatred FALSELY believing the Hispanic is guilty of having the Persian’s store ransacked, hunts him down to shoot him. And the reality is that it was the Persian storekeeper’s own irresponsible impatience that cause the ransacking! Tons of reversals in this movie makes you really think about the reality and blindness of prejudice on ALL levels. One of the most human and thought-provoking aspect was how the movie showed that even bigots are capable of great goodness and “non-bigots” are capable of great evil. The racist cop who hates blacks and even “molests” a woman while unjustly searching her, ends up saving that same woman later, in a “chance” encounter by risking his own life and pulling her from a burning car. Then the cop’s partner, who can’t stand the cop’s racism, asks to be reassigned, and he ends of shooting a black kid, thinking he’s pulling a gun on him, when the kid wasn’t! In another turn of events, the hard edged car jacking black kid who is racist against those he thinks are racist against him, ends up rescuing some Thai people from being sold into slavery because he recognizes the value of people! And as he is letting them go, we hear him spew out a few racial remarks of insensitivity, so that we see that we are not simple cut and dry good or bad people. And then there’s the black Sergeant at the precinct that allows bigotry against other blacks to maintain his own secure position in the force. There is also the situation where men use a racist claim to falsely frame a man in order to bring him down. In other words, the mere accusation of racism unfairly destroys people’s lives. We are all a confusing mixture of good and evil in this world. No one is exempt from prejudice. But the great positive power of this movie is that it also shows that no one is exempt or incapable of doing great good, not even criminals! This is a real redeeming movie because it’s not about MERELY showing our hypocrisy and concluding with a glib nihilism disguised as “realism” that we’re all hopeless, but rather it incarnates positive actions overcoming prejudice as well. But it’s kinda funny, cause when you think of it, the movie itself engages in stereotyping those who stereotype others. You have the “rich white woman” who is afraid of blacks, and the “rich white woman” who has a Hispanic maid. You have the racist cop who’s racist because of working around blacks, but he is loving to his own jerk of a father. You have the “Middle Eastern store owner who refuses to learn English.” You have the District Attorney liberal who thinks in terms of racial favoritism to help his career. Get photo ops of himself with a black fireman, that kind of stuff. HE doesn’t even realize his patronizing IS racism too! In other words, this film is truly profound because it does not reduce the issue down to a cut and dry accusation like a Spike Lee movie, it shows that prejudice cuts all ways, and prejudice is an evil, but it is not an all encompassing, total definition of a person because people we may call “bigots” are sometimes the most compassionate people in other ways in society. They have a blind spot. What is OUR blind spot? This is a complex issue that demands a wise balanced exploration and Crash gives it one hundred percent quality, like King Solomon would. I have one personal desire for a storyline I would have liked to see in the movie. In Crash they had a TV producer story that was good in showing how TV perpetuates stereotypes by forcing black characters to talk ghetto. But I would have liked to have seen what I happen to know is a major problem at Television studios, and that is the racism of affirmative action, where they force way too many minorities into roles that do not reflect the broader culture at large. I know personally of some one who has experienced a studio putting persons in roles BECAUSE they were minorities even though they were not the best actors for the parts. And the irony was that one person was supposed to be filling a Japanese quota, but THEY WERE CHINESE! Oh well, I guess you can’t do all stories.
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
Not Recommended. A gazillion dollar extravagant waste of two and a half hours. Yeah! It’s finally over! Sorry, Star Wars fans, I only like the original two, Episodes 4 and 5. But there were a few cool things in this one. The Special effects were great, but empty and ultimately boring because the drama was so uninspiring. Also, very cool how Lucas was able to weave together a story that would ultimately set up for A New Hope and Empire, and explain the background for them. Ridiculous lines: After a crash landing, Obi Wan says, “Another happy landing.” Overall cool concept of the analogy with Hitler’s Germany, the story replicates how Hitler, seized power to make Germany his empire while being a Chancellor with emergency powers. Order 66: the execution of all the Emperor’s enemies and Jedis was a reflection of the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 when Hitler killed his questionable enemies in the SA and elsewhere. Okay, I liked that analogy. Battles: Boring. Especially when they are fighting droids, who are merely little machines. There is no seriousness to destroying machines, no human element to make it scary. Unforgivable inconsistent philosophy: Obi Wan tells Anakin to go ahead and deal with the senate because, “I’m not brave enough for politics. I have to report to the counsel (of Jedi).” And what, may I ask, is a counsel of Jedis, BUT A FREAKIN’ POLITICAL BODY that is just as political as the Senate?! And all in the same sentence is this contradiction. Unforgivable, it is. When the “turned” Anakin says to Obi Wan, in an obvious reference to Jesus, “you are either for me or against me,” Obi says, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” But then a few minutes later, Obi tells Anakin the “Chancellor is evil.” Oh? Well, Mr. supposed-to-be-wise-man, if there are no absolutes, then how can you call the Chancellor evil? Are you a Sith now? Actually, Anakin responds with a good line that reveals the dark side as Relativistic: “From my point of view, the Jedi are evil.” I think this is great. The evil side are postmoderns and relativistic. The bad guy even says the Jedi are “narrow minded and dogmatic, we must study all sides of the force to understand the bigger picture.” Yeah! All you relativists and pomos out there are victims of the dark side. Na na na na! But then Lucas contradicts himself because to be dogmatic, as he says the Jedi are, is to be absolutistic, which is what Obi said the Sith were. Sheesh! Stop the pain! But the contradictions don’t stop. More Buddhist B.S. occurs when Anakin is told by a Jedi that “Fear of loss is a path to the dark side. Attachment leads to jealousy, Let go of everything you fear to lose.” This Eastern style philosophy of detachment is what makes the East so cruel and heartless to pain and suffering. They fight against compassion, you know the kind of thing that Jesus said we should have with the suffering. But instead this “detachment” makes Eastern culture into a barbaric cruelty to those who suffer, by ignoring them, and avoiding the attachment that love brings to the object of affection. This is why Eastern monks are so heartless and uncompassionate. They cannot make true human connection because that would be attachment. This is definitely the philosophy of Hollywood celebrity. The Eastern worldview is soulless and cruel. Here is a great ridiculous line that telegraphs the poor philosophy that this whole mythology is about. When Obi can’t find someone he is looking for, Yoda tells him, “Use your feelings, and find him, you will.” Well, obviously the line should be “use the Force.” So we see that the Force really is just a metaphor for your feelings. Once again, follow your heart, not an absolute objective truth. Let your feelings rule you. Well, I’ve got to stop. I’ve already given this blog way too much time on this unworthy movie.
The Kingdom of Heaven
Not really recommended. Ridley Scott is one of the finest filmmakers in Hollywood. He is really quite brilliant with the look of all his films from Alien on up to Gladiator. But this movie turns out to be another Troy, a humanistic dismissal of religion. It deals with the Crusade of 1184 and focuses on a young Blacksmith, Balian, who becomes a knight and make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order to insure his dead wife’s forgiveness for committing suicide, a decidedly non-Christian motive. His estranged father, encourages him to go to Jerusalem because all can be forgiven there in the Holy City, “a better world, a kingdom of conscience,” now presided over by a good Christian king who allows Christians, Jews and Muslims to live together in peace. Balian’s theme is pretty much spelled out in the plaque he has over his blacksmith shop: “What man is a man who does not make the world better.” (by the end of this movie, this saying ends up meaning, “be good without God, cause being good matters more than religion”) Okay, there are some good qualities in this movie that I have to give credit to: It does show good knights and bad knights. At least they are not all marauding pillagers of infidels, which is the typical mischaracterization. Yes, there was much that was wrong in the Crusades. The Roman Catholic Church here was diabolical in its treatments at times of non-christians. But not all of it was evil. There were a lot of stories from the Crusades, and the one that is picked by the storytellers is the one that reflects their particular viewpoint. For instance, they did not show the Muslims raping and pillaging the Holy Land and stealing Jerusalem in the first place that started the whole mess. No, that would be politically incorrect. So, this is not the first Crusade. Along the lines of this, it is important to note the things that are chosen to be shown and those that are chosen to be left out. For instance, there is a strange lack of the word and concept of jihad in this movie, yet plenty of “crusade” language – Hmmmm. It is interesting that they show some kooky Catholic Priests or Christian “fanatics” preaching on street corners, “To kill an infidel is not murder, it is the path to heaven,” But they do not show the fact that MOST ALL Muslims believed and preached this very “kill the infidel” idea at the time. They show a city controlled by Christians who allow Muslims to pray to Allah if they pay a tax. Yet, they do not show the fact that it is Islam that is famous for this very notion of dhimmitude, that is, of allowing Christians to live if they pay a tax. Bat Ye’Or has written extensively on the slavery of Christians under dhimmitude in books like “The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam” and “Islam and Dhimmitude.” In these books she catalogs the cruelty experienced by Jews and Christians under Islamic rule. But the movie also shows a good side to both the Christian king Baldwin, and the Muslim leader Saladin, by showing Baldwin hanging Templar knights for murdering Muslims and showing Saladin put a fallen crucifix back up in its place after it had fallen in battle. Even though this movie is balanced in showing good and bad knights, good kings and bad kings, it is not so balanced when it comes to Islam. There are no real fanatics shown on the Islamic side, something that is painfully foolishly fallacious. This is especially grievous in the light of modern day fanaticism that is almost exclusively engaged in by Muslims. Saladin was famous for his evenhandedness in dealing with his enemies sometimes, but come on, there were just as many fanatical Muslims to match the ridiculous warmongering of Catholic Guy de Lusignan and his General, Reynald portrayed in the picture as cartoon villains who loved to kill. But no, the Muslims are portrayed as mere enemies, not as the fanatics that they were, even under Saladin. I guess Ridley Scott just doesn’t want to have a fatwah on his head, (that is, to be killed by Muslim fanatics) so he plays it safe by avoiding the full truth and makes the Muslims look less fanatical. One good side is that the filmmakers DO show both sides claiming that “God wills it” of their actions. That is, both sides claim God’s favor or direction. So who is right? In this story, it is neither, it is Humanistic peace and brotherhood that is preached. A perspective that completely misses the truth. This is basically the story of a humanist, Balian, who experiences the ravages of religion, and decides it is all destructive. Here is how it is done. Every religious claim, is countered by our hero with an individualistic self-righteous appeal to “goodness” without God as the source of that goodness. A chess game illustrates that “none of us choose our ends,” to which our hero replies, “the king may move a man, but the soul of a man belongs to the man.” Balian demands that the kingdom of heaven is a “kingdom of conscience or nothing.” That is, the individual and his own conscience against the mean cruel “institutionalized religion.” The ultimacy of the individual as opposed to the collective in this movie is pure humanism. As if evil comes from the collective, but not the individual. And whay, pray tell is the collective, save a group of individuals who agree on their individual consciences? Humanism leads the terror of collective oppression, but it does so under the guise of no absolutes. At least religions can be wrong in their understanding of absolutes and CHANGE. But with humanism, there is no absolute, just the Will to Power in the name of some undefinable unjustifiable “good” (a “good” they have already denied by denying absolutes). There is a great saying by one of the heroic knights. He spurns “religion,” “Religion is full of fanatics. Holiness is right action. Goodness is what God desires in the mind and in the heart.” There is a sense in which this is true, but in the context of the film it basically means, “All that matters is being good, which of course, can be done individually without God.” (The storytellers seem to have missed Jesus’ enforcement of the Old Testament Law, that the most important commands are TO LOVE GOD with all your heart and mind and love your neighbor. So loving God rightly IS THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT THING TO GOD, loving people according to HIS dictates is second, but an important second – Matthew 22:35-40.) Balian, the man without God, who claims throughout the film that God is not with him, cause he cannot feel him and cannot feel forgiveness even on the place of Christ’s crucifixion, this humanistic man is portrayed as having the highest ethic of all those religious believers around him. “God’s will” is always used as an obvious rationalization for personal gain throughout the movie. Balian is told that Jerusalem is great because once you are there, people “are not what they were born into, but what they have inside themselves to be.” This of course, is the humanistic FALSE supposition that all these religious believers are only their religion because that is what they were born into. Humanism presents itself as the great individualizer that allows people to be what THEY want to be. Of course, being born into religions or atheism or humanism IS OFTEN influential on a person’s beliefs, but the problem is that the world is full of hundreds of millions of converts that became NOT what they were raised to be. So it is simply a fallacy to suggest that we only believe what we were taught to believe. The question is NOT why we believe something, the question is whether what we believe is TRUE OR NOT. Truth is not determined by genetic origin within our psychologies, another humanistic ignorance. When Balian must gather his forces in Jerusalem to fight Saladin in an impossible battle, he says to them, “Your Muslim places of worship lie over Christian places of worship that lie over Jewish places of worship that were taken over by the Romans. Which is more holy? Who has claim? No one has claim. All have claim. We will defend Jerusalem for the people within its walls.” This typical contradictory proposition that all have claim and none have claim may sound wise in a pithy way, but it actually means nothing. If no one has claim, then “all” cannot have claim. What it really means is that the storytellers are telling us, your religious beliefs are irrelevant, my humanism is superior because I care about the people, not some religious claims, which are unprovable. This is the arrogance of humanism. It considers itself so superior to religions that it is above it all and better – as if it is its own god. But there is a problem here. Without the living transcendent God, people have no value, only the arbitrary value that those in power give them. So, ironically, if you take away Christianity, YOU DO NOT HAVE the love of people, you have the tyranny and manipulation of people. The fact of the matter is that the Roman Catholic Crusaders WERE NOT ACTING IN ACCORD WITH THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS. They were wrong NOT because they were religious, but because they did not follow their religion consistently or biblically. But the French Revolution and Communist Russia, now that is what you get of so-called, “liberty, equality, fraternity” the brotherhood of man without God. Humanists just want to get rid of religion and keep the ethics of religion, but the problem is that when they get rid of Christianity, they get rid of the ONLY THING that can give true and absolute value to the dignity and life of human beings. And they get rid of the absolutes that are the only foundation of ethics. They want to have Christian ethics without Christianity. This is patently absurd. Without an absolute Christian foundation of ethics, you are left with arbitrary rule of power. This will always end in tyranny and despotism, whether of the majority, the elite or of a dictator. May I remind the reader once again that yes, several million were killed in the name of religion over the 20 centuries, but HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS were murdered in but ONE CENTURY, the century of modernism without God. So, misguided religion is bad, but consistent humanism is one hundred times worse. The 20th century proved that modernism/humanism is more evil than all the worst of religions added together. So stop your belly aching. When Balian must burn the dead soldiers in the walls to keep from spreading disease, he is chastised by a priest for desecration, to which he replies, “God will understand. And if he does not, then he is not God, and it doesn’t matter.” Another pithy line that shows the arrogance of humanistic (and I might add, Thomistic Classical apologetics) that if God does not meet MY understanding of logic, then he is just not God. In other words, if God bows down and fits into MY (faulty) logical understanding, then I will allow him to be God, Which obviously means he wouldn’t be God if he had to do that. The real problem here was not that Christianity was absurd, but that the priests were prohibiting something (desecration) THAT WAS NOT PROHIBITED BY GOD (Matthew 15:2-9). Big difference, folks. Too much of Romanism was simply NOT BIBLICAL. So it is not Christianity that is absurd, it is Romanism, with it’s humanistic traditions that violated Scripture. At the end, Balian looks upon Jerusalem and says, “If this is the Kingdom of Heaven, let God do with it what he wills.” In other words, Balian is done with religion. He goes back to his home town to be a blacksmith again and have a wife. And when King Richard the Lionheart comes to town looking for Balian, the hero, Balian denies he is the man, and simply says he is a blacksmith. In other words, “I have had enough of religion and Christianity, I believe in just living my good life as a husband and worker, rather than the useless squabbles of religion.” So in this film, religion is tried and found wanting in favor of humanism. Unfortunately, it is humanism that ACTUALLY takes away the value and dignity of life, so the filmmakers are engaging in the classical Van Tillian parable of sitting on their Father’s knees in order to be able to slap the Father that gave them life. They deny the only warranted foundation of ethics, Christianity, and then try to have Christian morality without Christianity. But if there is no foundation of the Triune God, then THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “GOOD” OR “FAIR” OR EVEN “EVIL.” There is simply opposing wills in conflict, without moral value attached to any act whatsoever.. How dare any humanist claim THEY know what is right or good, when there are millions who disagree with them. These humanists would impose their religion (and that is what it ultimately is, is religion) upon the rest of the world, all in the name of their definition of the “absolute good,” as they see it, a good, that they have already denied exists. And if there is no absolute good as defined by God, then who are they to impose their version of right or good on everybody else? There is no higher transcendence in this movie, just the disparagement of transcendence, which makes this movie an unsatisfying weak story without soul.
The Interpreter
Hard to recommend. This was a well done political thriller about an attempted assassination of some president of an African country while he is at the U.N. building in New York. Brilliant performances by Sean Penn as the cop and Nicole Kidman as the Interpreter who overhears the assassination plot. What I liked about this film was an underlying theme that was explored about the effect of revenge on the soul of the avenger. Nicole’s brother is killed by this African president’s henchmen, a president whose origins is as a Nelson Mandela type figure who began as a freedom fighter for his country’s people, but when he got into power, he turned into a killer himself, slaughtering those who were against him. Well, we find out about a tradition of this African tribe who, when they catch a killer, they bind him and drop him in the river, and if the survivors of the victim want to, they can either let him drown as justice, or jump in and save him with mercy. If they save him, then the crime is atoned for and the criminal has redemption, but if they let him drown, they may have their justice, but they will live with the impact of their decision for the rest of their lives. Of course, this very parable is what this movie is about, as Nicole discovers the president killed her brother and then she must decide if she wants to kill the president or let him go. A saying, “Vengeance is a lazy form of grief” is said in the movie, along with some other very clever lines. I think this is a very thoughtful theme. We all too often think revenge will get us justice, but we do not think about its effect on us after we do. I think that this is also somewhat biblical. For example, as I understand the Law of God, the punishments prescribed by God for most crimes are victim oriented, meaning that they are maximum penalties (eye for an eye), but not absolute, in that the victim’s survivors do not have to press for the maximum penalty, UNLESS the Scriptures mandate a punishment. So, for example, God gives the right for a victim of an adultery to press for capital punishment, but this is not necessary if they choose forgiveness. But other crimes, like murder contain the pleonasm, “Dying he shall die,” which indicates a mandated penalty that the State must enforce regardless of individual charges. Biblical law is victim oriented. A great Must Read book that applies God’s Law to modern day terms is “Victim’s Rights” by Gary North. Boy, talk about the confusion that is cleared up in legal jurisprudence if people would just use the Creator’s directions when constructing legal theory. Anyway, there is one caveat that I would add. That is, biblically, the victim CAN experience just retribution in state enforced punishment and walk away feeling good knowing that justice is done and crime is atoned for. The difference is that the Bible says this is to be done through due process. That is, the victim can throw the first stone as long as the crime has gone through proper channels judicially through the State. The State is God’s ordained means of justice, NOT the individual. This is where so many miss the beauty and goodness of biblical justice. Eye for an eye is not about personal revenge, it is to be administered judicially through the state. Personal revenge is sin, punishment through the State is God ordained justice (Romans 12:17-13:6). So many think that Jesus was denying this “lex talionis” principle when he said to the accusers of a woman caught in adultery to cast the first stone if they were without sin (John 8). But a careful look into Old Testament law will yield the fact that Jesus was REINFORCING biblical law, not contradicting it. You see, the men who caught the woman were not following due process, they were being vigilantes operating outside the law courts. This was not biblical. AND the Law said they were supposed to stone BOTH parties of an adultery, so they were not following the Law, they were being partial. Also, the Law said that those who engaged in capital penalties on others could not themselves be guilty of a known crime (Deut 19:15; Num 17:7). All this to say that biblical justice can be experienced without soul guilt if it is done through due process of law. So vigilante vengeance is not biblical but capital punishment through the State is biblical. So when Nicole has the gun pointed at the president who killed her brother and many others, she forces him to read his own words he wrote about justice before he came to power. It’s a powerful thematic moment, but ultimately did not ring true to me because we see this genocidal monster “realize” what he had done wrong, and I just don’t believe that these monsters ever do recognize such evil in themselves outside of a religious conversion. You see, without God, there is ultimately nothing but power, might makes right. Without God, morality is arbitrary. This brings me to the main problem I have with the worldview of the film. The U.N. is depicted in this movie as the answer to our world’s hatred and evil. As if the U.N. represents the harmony that all nations should have. Nicole says, “Words and compassion are a better way, even if it’s slower than a gun.” Well, the bottom line is that a gun is the only thing that will stop genocidal maniacs, tyrants, and maniacal dictators. There simply is no reasoning with such evil men. Neville Chamberlain cried for peace and harmony in our time through compassion and words, and let Hitler almost destroy and kill them all, It took the “gun” of Winston Churchill to save them. Some evil can only be stopped by force, that is just and righteous force. The plain reality is that the UN is NOT about peace and harmony among nations, it is about two things: The dismantling of US hegemony and global socialism. THAT is not peace and harmony that is bigotry, hatred and tyranny. Hey, the UN sub-commission on the protection and promotion of human rights contains such shining beacons of human rights violators as Cuba, China, and Pakistan, and THEY talk about human rights as their hands are dripping with the blood of millions? I think not. The Interpreter is unfortunately self-righteous bumper sticker propaganda for one world socialism, or in other words, Communism. Too bad, cause it was a well-written political thriller, as genres go.
Chocolat
Not Recommended. My brother-in-law recently did a detailed analysis of this movie to point up how it is an anti-christian movie. I thought it was very helpful, so here it is:
I guess my main concern was with the underlying message of the film. Yes, you are correct that it was a good portrayal of being bound by legalistic ways, but unfortunately the answer to the problem was not freedom through Christ (or anything to do with His attributes or character). Freedom was found through self expression. Or as the director stated in the bonus materials, “This is a story about temptation and not denying yourself the good things in life.” In other words, the age-old, “If it feels good, do it.” What could have been a good morality tale ended up being yet another manifesto of existentialism and humanism. (BTW, the director—Lasse Hahlstrom—also directed “Cider House Rules” which was more of the same.)
Every drama has a hero or messianic figure, and Vianne (Juliet Binoche) was the “savior” of this movie. She is presented as sweet and kind and all-embracing, but has obvious disdain for anything to do with the church or the people’s chosen attempts to be more godly (lent, fasting, etc.). Anything coming close to self-denial or self-discipline is represented as bondage. Vianne is the standard “against-the-rules” type along with Armaund (Judi Dench), the other character who is presented in a positive light. Between the two of them, their godless ways are flaunted instead of being presented as shameful, sinful or unwise. Worse, they teach their rebellious ways to others. Consider…
• Armaund shares a story with Vianne about sneaking out at night as a youth and swimming naked with her boyfriend. They both laugh with glee that she didn’t get caught by her mother.
• Armaund slams her daughter Caroline for not allowing her to see her grandson Luc because Caroline feels Armaund is a bad influence. Armaund frequently denigrates Caroline’s choices and modes of parenting, while Vianne empathizes with Armaund instead of supporting Caroline’s wishes and parental authority with the child. Worse, Vianne goes on to lure Luc into visiting (even after he tells her his mother has forbidden it) by asking him to draw a portrait of Armaund. He does this deceptively behind his mother’s back while she is at the hair salon.
• During one of Luc’s visits to the chocolate shop, he is offered some cake. “I’m not supposed to,” he says (because of lent). Armaund replies, “Don’t worry so much about ‘not supposed to’.” The boy eats it. Armaund says, “Live a little.”
• When the inevitable confrontation happens with Caroline finding out what’s been going on, Armaund sarcastically tells her, “Blame me for corrupting him with cocoa.” Caroline replies, “How dare you, Mother?” Armaund says, “Look at him, he’s fine.” Caroline turns to Luc and says, “Come with me.” Luc says, “I don’t want to.” Another character chimes in and says, “He’s happy here. It’s good for him.” Thankfully, Caroline responds, “I will decide what is good for my son.” Yet the whole scene paints Caroline as cruel and stifling, as if Luc is in some kind of abusive situation.
• The boy continues his deceptive ways by sneaking out for his grandmother’s birthday party. No consequence is portrayed for any of his deliberate disobedience.
• Armaund states proudly, “I swear. I read dirty books. And I won’t go to church.” She gives Luc a poetry book with poems that read, “Dead bodies, skin rotting, worms in my armpits and in my hair.” Yet she doesn’t seem to think she is a bad influence on her grandson. She dies after what she terms “a perfectly decadent evening” but is another “positive” character in the film.
• When Anouk (Vianne’s daughter) is teased at school for not having a father, she responds, “I have a father. We just don’t know who he is.” As if this is something the child, or anyone else, should consider normal.
• Vianne visits a woman who says, “He thinks you’re a bad influence.” The woman is speaking of Reynaud (Alfred Molina), but Vianne thinks she is talking about her husband and says, “You don’t have to listen to a word your husband has to say.” The woman also asks Vianne, “Does my husband know you’re here?” Vianne replies, “Does it matter?”
Another major concern I had was the way the church was portrayed. I know that Reynaud was the villain, but since the church was in his back pocket, it was also vilified. And we’re not talking about a “cultic” church like LDS or something else like Islam. This was Catholicism, basically the only other major faith in the world that adheres to the main tenets of Christianity. Anything to do with the church was usually presented irreverently or as something stifling. Consider…
• During the sex scene between Vianne’s parents, the voiceover said, “Now George had been raised a good Catholic. But in his romance with Cheetza (sp?), he was willing to slightly bend the rules of Christian courtship.”
• An abusive husband says, “We are still married in the eyes of God.” His wife replies, “Then He must be blind.”
• After an attempt at rehabilitation, the abusive husband said, “God has made me a new man.” But the man hadn’t really changed, so does that mean God is powerless? Although change can indeed occur through accountability at a Christ-centered church, the church was portrayed as weak and having no influence.
• Anouk asks her mother, “Why can’t we go to church.” Vianne replies, “You can if you want. But it won’t make things easier.” Once again, ‘do whatever is right for you’ followed by another slam against the church.
• When Reynaud finally appeals to God for help, he seemingly appears very contrite, crying out, “Tell me what to do.” But then he immediately looks up at Jesus on the cross and then down at the letter opener in his hand, then heads off to the chocolate shop with a somewhat manic look upon his face. So what was that supposed to mean? God told him to kill? He violently stabs at the chocolate, but then submits to its pleasure, gobbling it like an animal, eventually literally writhing around in it. He tries to “kill” his enemy, as represented by the pleasures of chocolate, but gives in to its allure. Again, this would seem to represent that following God is useless because one will always be powerless to innate sinful urges.
• Probably the most disturbing moment was the sermon on Easter Sunday, which followed the movie’s climax and summed up the whole film. The priest said, “Do I want to speak of the miracle of our Lord’s divine transformation? Not really, no. I don’t want to talk about his divinity. I’d rather talk about his humanity—how He lived His life here on earth, His kindness, His tolerance. I think we can’t go around measuring our goodness by what we don’t do, by what we deny ourselves, what we resist, and who we exclude. I think we’ve got to measure goodness by what we embrace, what we create, and who we include.” The blatant humanism here is appalling. To downplay Christ’s divinity in light of His humanity is chilling. And the irony of it all is that it was Christ’s divinity that allowed Him to be all-embracing and loving and all these other things the movie is saying we’re supposed to enact through our humanity. Furthermore, goodness is not measured by our actions or deeds; it is measured solely by the Word of God. Even if we were able to achieve all this “goodness” in our own strength and flesh, it would still be as filthy rags apart from the righteousness of Jesus.
• Immediately following the sermon, the final voiceover says, “It was certainly not the most fiery or eloquent sermon. But the parishoners felt a new sensation that day—a lightening of the spirit, a freedom from the old tradition.” A sermon that told them not to focus on the divinity of Jesus Christ is what lightened their spirits and brought freedom. Go figure.
Sahara
Kinda recommended for popcorn fun only. I was a Dirk Pitt fan when I was a kid. And this is a an okay standard action fare type stunt film. But I don’t really have anything to say about it because it is not inspirational in any way. It’s just a bunch of action and stunts and treasure hunting. Why do I go to these films? I gotta say that these action movies are getting more and more boring to me. Action, action, action, stunts, stunts, stunts, special effects, special effects, special effects. This is all very empty to me. I am more intrigued by drama, humanity, emotion, relationships, people, human beings and the meaning of life. Okay, so that’s my bias. But life is short, and I want entertainment that challenges me as a human being to be better, to examine my life. All right, yes, the simplest version of inspiration to fight evil is the action movie. And that in and of itself is good. I won’t deny that. But I just want more. I want a deeper meaning or at least a rudimentary exploration of the complexities of human nature. Life is too short to waste it on empty action.
Sin City
Not Recommended. This is a visual masterpiece of cinematography that more accurately translates a black and white graphic novel into cinema than any other movie has ever done. Splashes of color on a black and white canvas, harsh contrasts of light and dark, surreal landscapes, exaggerated characters. It is inescapably brilliant in this aspect. BUT it is pornography. And I don’t mean merely the sexual softcore porn that litters its celluloid like a two hour Victoria’s Secret Ad on steroids, but the violence is also pornographic and exploitative. This is a juvenile male fantasy, with all the women as sex objects—literally all of them tramping around in leather and lingerie AND shooting guns — the two male idols of the mind. And it is an orgy of revenge without redemption. The most extreme violence you can imagine contextualized as legitimate because it’s less bad guys giving it to worse bad guys. And for that reason it will do extremely well in the box office and monstrously better on DVD with all the myriads of teenage youth who should NOT be ingesting this filth watching it by the droves. And they wonder why kids are killing kids with guns in our schools. Its various episodes are all based on vengeance. Mickey Rourke is Marv, a killer who goes on a killing rampage of criminals connected to the murder of the only woman who would sleep with his ugly mug, a high class call girl. And because the ultimate killer is himself a sick cannibalistic serial killer who mounts the heads of his victims on the wall, well, it’s supposed to be all right that Marv cuts off the cannibal’s arms and legs and keeps him alive to have his own wolf eat him alive. And oh, yeah, the serial killer, of course, READS A BIBLE with a cross on it, once again linking Christianity with the worst of the worst in humanity. Religious bigotry at its finest. And this is the kind of stuff in this story that doesn’t stop. Another episode of Josh Hartnett as a contract hit man who mulls over the beauty and value of certain women before he kills them for his employers. Clive Owen goes on a murderous rampage to protect a town of prostitutes who are themselves murderous rampagers. But it’s all supposed to be moral because after all, it’s women beaters, women murderers and women haters who are getting their comeuppance. Bruce Willis is a cop, who is the closest thing to a good guy in this movie, but even he is a cynical nihilist just like everyone else. And his revenge on bludgeoning a yellow criminal monstrosity is supposed to be okay as well because it is in the defense of a little girl who was going to be raped and murdered by the “yellow bastard” as he is called. So this depraved little series of tales is diabolically genius because it cloaks its nihilistic evolutionary survival of the fittest worldview in a pseudo-moral context. It makes the villains all woman haters and woman abusers so extreme that the moral protective sense in all of us wants to see them pay for their evil. But the problem is, it is all entirely violent vigilante revenge outside the law. It is a nihilistic world of the flesh without grace anywhere. Even all the religious characters are frauds (A corrupt priest and a cannibalistic cardinal). There is no hope outside of sheer brutal violence driven by hatred. Now, I would not say that I do not want all these evil men to die. I do. In fact, I know some people whose young girl was killed by a serial killer, and I can tell you that the God of the Universe gave lex talionis (“eye for an eye”) for a good and just reason. Because rape and murder and certain other crimes can only be justly paid with by another life. BUT that God also dictates that it must only be accomplished through due process, through the law, NOT through vigilanteism (Romans 12:19-13:4). God says that the state is God’s avenger, not individuals. If you want a more in depth examination of this concept, see my article, A Time For Revenge? Vigilanteism and Movie Justice in A Time to Kill. The difference between this movie and a moral movie about revenge, like Man on Fire, is that Man on Fire acknowledges that inner lust for personal revenge that we all have for the wicked of this world, but concludes that it does not accomplish true justice. It begins with vengeance, but ends with grace. Man on Fire illustrates atonement and grace from God found in the midst of this dark world. Sin City exploits an inner sense of justice against evil into a rationalization for unjust violence. It is a religion of carnage, where personal revenge, not grace or justice is what accomplishes redemption. Sure, there’s concern for girls and woman in this movie, sure there’s self-sacrifice and even substitutionary atonement (one dies that another may live) and protective instincts for the “innocent.” But there is no transcendent context for these values. They take place in a Godless universe of nihilistic meaninglessness, of kill or be killed ultimacy. At best, this is an example where, as Francis Schaeffer would say, the unbelieving artist cannot escape God’s image in himself. These reflections of redemption are echos of the conscience in the writer, that bleed out, regardless of how hopelessly lost he is. Even the depraved lovers of violence know the universal need for redemption. But I would say that the dominant ethic of this movie is ultimately: kill or be killed.
Romans 12:17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. 13:1 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.
p.s. Oh, and by the way, I never thought I would see a movie that had more useless voice-over narration than Million Dollar Baby, but Sin City beats it hands down. I realize that was part of the translation of the graphic novel, which relies heavily upon thought bubbles and narration, but it only works half the time. The other half, it’s just telling us what we are seeing the character do anyway. I love voice-over narration, but this is the kind of movie that gives it a bad reputation.
Robots
Not really recommended. This CGI animated story about a small town robot that wants to go to the big city and be a famous inventor was a good little cartoon with some good morals. The moral themes were pretty obvious here from the mouths of the characters: “Follow your dream, and never give up,” “a dream that you don’t fight for can haunt you the rest of your life,” and “You can shine, no matter what you’re made of” (The old tagline for the company of inventions that the hero wants to be a part of). These are simple but good inspirational morals about the value of each and every person, even the oddballs, as represented in this story by oddball robots that are made of spare parts. But it also contains a theme of comparing the modern greedy corporate exploitation of the consumer with the old school understanding of “see a need, fill a need.” As one of the robots says, “It used to be about making life better. Now, it’s about money.” The new head of the biggest company decides to abolish making spare parts for robots to fix themselves and to advertise “Why just be yourself, when you can be NEW!” or something like that. In other words, they are going to only make upgrades, and robots who can’t afford it become outmoded and are sent to the chop shop, where the villain’s evil mother destroys and burns up all such old robot pieces. She is the Hilary Clinton of the corporation. Now, this obviously has a Marxist bent to it with it’s reduction of people to poor robots being economically exploited by the rich, but it’s not all bad or entirely false. What made it so unmoving to me personally was the inherent inhumanity in robots. Even though they were anthropomorphized and even though the themes were very human, at the end of the day, these are ultimately contraptions of mechanical soullessness. I could not ultimately care for them because they are not soulish animals. No matter how much you “humanize” them, they simply aren’t alive. It’s one thing to anthropomorphize animals like Finding Nemo and Ice Age. But these are animals that have souls, living organisms that have that link with humans in their “breath of life.” But I’m sorry, robots just don’t draw my affection. They may work as comic relief, as in Star Wars, but not as a materialistic world of machines. This is another argument against Darwinism and the claim that consciousness is merely a higher order of complexity or organization of matter without transcendence. But why did Toy Story work then? I think because even though they were toys, they were toys of people (Buzz and Woody) as well as animals (Godzilla, etc.) So the few purely mechanical toys that were not of living things were clearly overshadowed by the toys of “living things.” I am not against anthropomorphism, I’m just saying that anthropomorphizing robots is not satisfying to me because the gap between lifeless robots and humans is too great to draw human affection, whereas the gap between humans and animals is not.
The Downfall
Recommended. I confess a morbid fascination with what went on down in that Fuehrerbunker during the last ten days of Hitler’s Germany. And this German movie delivers with brilliance and verisimilitude. Bruno Ganz as Hitler is absolutely incredibly frighteningly real. In fact, all of the men, Himmler, Goebbels, and others are eerie look alikes that accomplish the goal chillingly to the bone. The descent into madness of this titan of evil accurately portrays the irrationality of evil. When a man is so consumed with evil motive, reality will soon crush him, as it does here on Hitler. And this is one of the best Anti-evolution movies ever. As Hitler and his high men use the language of Darwin, we see the logical fruit of the atheist evolutionary worldview. They weed out the weak and unfit members of society. They trample over the people who are in the way of their pursuit of Triumph for the German people. When evolution allegedly destroys the foundation for all moral claims and truth claims by reducing reality to chance and eliminating Intelligence, then there is simply absolutely NO moral outrage that is justifiable against Nazism. If it is the strongest, then it kills the weak to further its survival. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say there is no morality or truth because of your theory and then cry “unfair” or “false” when a society lives consistently with that dictum. Who are you to impose your morality on the Germans anyway? Or to impose YOUR version of evolution? Your moral views have already been reduced to conventions of your own ignorance and chance. And your views of what evolution SHOULD BE are simply social constructs YOU created for your survival. Which is merely in competition with others’ views. And may the strongest man win. Cooperation is the morality of the weak in a consistent evolutionary worldview. That’s one complaint I had about the film: No Nietszsche references, another origin of Nazism and 20th century evil. These mealy mouthed Western evolutionists who claim there is no morality, survival of the fittest, etc. etc. and then cry like babies that societies take that belief to its logical conclusion? They complain when the Supermen move beyond good and evil? Namely the weeding out of the weak and sickly members of society for the health of the whole. So, the fact of the matter is that atheist evolution gives justification to genocide and Christianity is the only bulwark against such thinking. These antichrists who attack religion (read: Christianity) as evil and the cause of evil in this world, are so stupid not to realize that they are letting the pit bull out of the cage, and there is nothing to protect them any longer. Well, I simply say, what did you expect when you convinced people that there is no transcendent morality and hell is a fantasy and people are mere animals? Did you expect them to act morally and polite? Or according to YOUR morals? The darkness of loyalty to National Socialism as political salvation is frighteningly true to the Far Left Wing religious zealots in this country who believe that the government will save us, save the poor, save the sick, save the old, save us from ourselves. instead of us taking responsibility for our own lives. We see the young woman hero of the story follow her Fuehrer like a Monica Lewinsky, just worshipping his saviorhood, just dying to light his cigar to serve his greatness. To see the dedication to evil that occurs in those who are not dedicated to a Transcendent God, but to some political salvation was scary. Goebbels’ wife kills all five of her children because she can’t imagine them living in a world without National Socialism. It was just brutal. One saving grace of the film was how much suicide was accomplished by so many of these true believers in political salvation and National Socialism. In a twisted way, it was good to see the self-destruction that such loyalty breeds in Socialism. Made me think of the politicians dedicated to their political salvation religions rather than the living God and His Law. There are only two choices in government: Theonomy or Autonomy. If man is not ruled by God’s Law, then he will be ruled by Man’s Law, and man’s law always ends in tyranny. That made me truly frightened for my country.