Newgnfr Christian film reviews

January 8, 2010

Friday Rewind: The Reaping (2007)

***Originally Posted on June 20, 2008***

Should I see it?
No.

Short Review: The reeking.

Hilary Swank portrays Katherine, an ex-Christian missionary, who spends her time debunking claims of miracles with scientific explanations. Katherine is called to a small southern town that is being inundated with what appears to be replicas of the 10 plagues from Exodus. Sure, there’s lice instead of gnats and the plagues occur in the wrong order but the point is made. Katherine, who has left her faith, is forced to confront her disbelief as each plague ticks off one by one.

Yawn.

The thing about the plot is that it relies on the the stupidity (or arrogance) of its main character. Katherine is shown to be an intellectually aggressive woman with a sharp mind. She travels around the world and is capable of exposing miracles as bunk with ease. All this and she’s still incapable of the intellectual jump that although if she can explain the scientific reasons for the ten plagues that these reasons don't deny the existence of God. Just because you can explain how something happened doesn't mean you've excluded the hand of the Almighty. If she were a missionary, given to the faith she claims to have had, this logical connection would have already been made.

Unfortunately, it is not remarkable to report that a mainstream film places theological concerns on the back burner in order to promote a sophomoric plot. It also isn't shocking that this film doesn't have a deep regard for its Christian characters or the its Biblical source material. Most Christians in the film are shown to be cruel southern booger eaters who spit out condemnations every time they speak. They even go so far as to have the Christian leader be a sweaty, pig-faced Boss Hogg type (complete with all white suit). They’re all thoughtless, impulsive, gun-toting morons who will believe anything – they also don’t pray, mention Jesus or show any reverence towards God at all. Since I’m on the subject of the townsfolk, I’ll also mention they’re all white. You know, just like the real south. It’s nothing but a bunch of angry white Christians sweating on their shotguns waiting to string someone up.

What’s interesting is that this film begins with a depiction of the city of Concepcion in Chile. The city is shown to be a horrid third-world toilet which is being poisoned by an evil corporation. This depiction has nothing to do with the real Concepcion which is modern, clean and apparently free of toxic waste. Did the filmmakers bother to investigate any of the peoples or locations they decided to show in this film?

At least they spread their ineptness equally.

This film also abuses Biblical text for cheap thrills. The plagues don't have a Biblical foundation, and Exodus isn't even quoted. This nonsensical flick offers no connection between the original plagues and the mess this film prattles on about. I’m not against the use of the plagues, but if you’re going to pull from the Bible you better have some context that makes sense IN LIGHT OF YOUR SOURCE MATERIAL. Some of us take this is the word of God after all.

Even forgiving the rather offensive disregard the filmmakers have for the Bible, this film is still an unmitigated disaster. The clunky script doesn’t provide any suspense or mystery. The dialog is functional but doesn’t have any depth or interest. The plagues themselves aren’t visually arresting and aren’t handled to their maximum effect. We’re looking at Biblical plagues and its boring – they actually make them boring.

It’s my recommendation that you skip this film. It doesn’t have the intellectual weight that it should and since it also doesn’t offer any guttural thrills, it can only waste your time.

Related Reviews:
Another Hilary Swank movie
The Gift (2000)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Cinema de Merde
Reel.com

Labels: AnnaSophia Robb, anti-Christian, apocalypse, Christians, film, Friday Rewind, Hilary Swank, movie review, Stephen Rea

Share

November 27, 2008

Stigmata (1999)

Should I see it?
No.

Catholic bigotry at it feverish worst. The Catholic Church is convicted of carrying on an international conspiracy to keep the world from knowing the true path to God by burying the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Based on loopy Gnostic texts and half-truths this film is a shameful attack on Christianity. Even if you hate Christians and don’t mind the bigotry in the piece, you should still steer clear. This is simply a poorly made movie.

Related Reviews:
Anti-Christian films
Will Penny (1968)
Casanova (2005)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Reviews by John
FilmHead

Labels: anti-Christian, film, Gabriel Byrne, Jonathan Pryce, movie review, Patricia Arquette

Share

July 14, 2008

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Should I see it?
Nope.

***Bias Alert - I am a Christian. There is no way this film wouldn't erk me. I went into this thing with my long knives out so keep that in mind while reading the following review.***

Short Review: This thing is as coherent as Keith Richards reciting Naked Lunch.

***Spoiler Alert: I ruin the film in this review so be warned. I mention things like Jesus Christ was The Son of God and was crucified for our sins and was risen. I talk about the movie at some point as well.***

One has to assume Tom Hanks made this film as a result of his issues with his father, and his own troubles with incontinence. Is it possible that his partaking in this ill-founded attack on the Christian faith is little more than a cry for help? Of course, difficulty retaining the love and respect of one’s father must be devastating. We can all imagine the incontinence must be deeply unsettling for a grown man. How these personal issues have brought Mr. Hanks to make this film, we cannot say. Personally, I can’t say for certain they actually drove him to make this silly movie. But alas, the question about if his wetting his pants and his loveless relations with his father remains. Are those to items connected? We will never really know, but its worth discussing.*

Let’s put aside the spiteful anti-Christian core of this piece and look at the film itself. Thanks to Ron Howard’s uncharacteristically inept handing of the production, this is the only place we need to look to bury this piece forever. This is a complete mess. The opening act promises some intrigue but quickly sours into a convoluted hash of pseudo-history and bad dialog. The fact that the story gets convoluted isn’t inherently bad, The Usual Suspects is a knot of a film but retains its potency. The difference between this film and others such as The Usual Suspects or 12 Monkeys is that this story is convoluted not because the story is complicated, it is because the story is poorly told.

The piece centers around a series of murders which eventually lead the hero Dr. Robert Langdon (Hanks) to reveal a conspiracy to hide the truth about Jesus Christ. As the story goes, Christ rolled around in the hay with Mary Magdalene and had a kid or two.** There’s a vicious group of Catholics here, a gaggle of nasties over there and Hanks with his pompadour and a twiggy French woman are stuck in the middle. The whole deal revolves around trying to find the final resting-place of Magdalene, who is otherwise known as “The Holy Grail”. Actually, her birth cavity is The Holy Grail, the rest of her is apparently just regular ol’ chick. From what I can gather from the foggy plot, the film comes down on the side of turning all of Christendom into Mary Magdalene’s personal crotch cult, which will celebrate her ability to produce the offspring of Jesus. The film points to her as being holy because of their unfounded demand that she was Jesus’ sexual partner while at the same time claiming that said unfounded claims prove that Jesus was not God after all. If having relations denies Jesus his Christ title then how is it that Magdalene is anyone important either? If Jesus is not God then Magdalene is no one more important than the girl selling eyeliner down at your local Wal Mart. With all of the Harvard professors mincing about in the film you’d think one of them would work this out. Then again, Hanks playing one of the aforementioned Harvard professors mispronounces the word “liberry” instead of the accepted “library” (it’s a good thing he didn’t say Nu-clur.) Apparently, we’re not dealing with Harvard’s varsity squad in this film.

The film is long and ultimately pointless. The seething hatred expressed towards the Christian faith is like dropping a turd in an already brimming barf bag. Even if you’re not Christian and don’t mind the clumsy slander forwarded by this film, you’re still stuck with a poorly constructed piece. There is nothing good about this movie. It is both Ron Howard’s and Tom Hank’s worst piece in years and yes I’m including both Turner & Hootch and The Missing. Howard’s direction is episodic and littered with broken pacing. Hanks is almost zombie like as he struggles to find something to do until his character expels another litany of useless facts which may or may not actually be facts. This seems like the work of people with far less experience and talent than those who worked on the production.

For those of you who want to offend Christians, you’ll have to do better. This film, if it weren’t such a huge production, wouldn’t be good enough to be deemed offensive. It’s like having a five year old tell you that they hate you. It’s sad day for those who would spend so much effort to construct something so obtuse and pathetic. Christians who are offended by this, I understand your issue. The fact is we should have pity on those who work so hard to deny the truth. Don’t get me wrong, we shouldn’t take their crap laying down, but we should have some pity. Fools abound in a world dedicated to man’s designs.

* I do not posses definitive proof that Mr. Hanks involuntarily wets his pants. I cannot say for certain that his relationship with his father was anything but normal. This said, he has made a number of films with absentee fathers and others where his character has some issue with urination. If it is reasonable to look at The Last Supper to support unfounded claims against Christ, why is it so far fetched to look at Hanks films to deduce things about his personal life? After all, Da Vinci wasn’t hanging around in the time of Christ, for our purposes we’re looking at the direct result of Hank’s work.

** Since we’re defiling Christ and making crap up to suit our purposes how about a sequel where Langdon finds Jesus’ DNA in some sap and then takes the results to produce a Jurassic Park populated with the prophets? If you don’t like that, how about sending Marty McFly back in time to keep his ancestral grandmother from dating the young Jesus. Think these are silly? They’re no worse than the fiction puked out by this rabble.

Related Reviews:
Tom Hanks movies
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
The Terminal (2004)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Celluloid Heroes
DarkMatters: The Mind of Matt

Labels: anti-Christian, Dan Brown, film, movie review, Ron Howard, The DaVinci Code, Tom Hanks

Share

June 20, 2008

The Reaping (2007)

Should I see it?
No.

Short Review: The reeking.

Hilary Swank portrays Katherine, an ex-Christian missionary, who spends her time debunking claims of miracles with scientific explanations. Katherine is called to a small southern town that is being inundated with what appears to be replicas of the 10 plagues from Exodus. Sure, there’s lice instead of gnats and the plagues occur in the wrong order but the point is made. Katherine, who has left her faith, is forced to confront her disbelief as each plague ticks off one by one.

Yawn.

The thing about the plot is that it relies on the the stupidity (or arrogance) of its main character. Katherine is shown to be an intellectually aggressive woman with a sharp mind. She travels around the world and is capable of exposing miracles as bunk with ease. All this and she’s still incapable of the intellectual jump that although if she can explain the scientific reasons for the ten plagues that these reasons don't deny the existence of God. Just because you can explain how something happened doesn't mean you've excluded the hand of the Almighty. If she were a missionary, given to the faith she claims to have had, this logical connection would have already been made.

Unfortunately, it is not remarkable to report that a mainstream film places theological concerns on the back burner in order to promote a sophomoric plot. It also isn't shocking that this film doesn't have a deep regard for its Christian characters or the its Biblical source material. Most Christians in the film are shown to be cruel southern booger eaters who spit out condemnations every time they speak. They even go so far as to have the Christian leader be a sweaty, pig-faced Boss Hogg type (complete with all white suit). They’re all thoughtless, impulsive, gun-toting morons who will believe anything – they also don’t pray, mention Jesus or show any reverence towards God at all. Since I’m on the subject of the townsfolk, I’ll also mention they’re all white. You know, just like the real south. It’s nothing but a bunch of angry white Christians sweating on their shotguns waiting to string someone up.

What’s interesting is that this film begins with a depiction of the city of Concepcion in Chile. The city is shown to be a horrid third-world toilet which is being poisoned by an evil corporation. This depiction has nothing to do with the real Concepcion which is modern, clean and apparently free of toxic waste. Did the filmmakers bother to investigate any of the peoples or locations they decided to show in this film?

At least they spread their ineptness equally.

This film also abuses Biblical text for cheap thrills. The plagues don't have a Biblical foundation, and Exodus isn't even quoted. This nonsensical flick offers no connection between the original plagues and the mess this film prattles on about. I’m not against the use of the plagues, but if you’re going to pull from the Bible you better have some context that makes sense IN LIGHT OF YOUR SOURCE MATERIAL. Some of us take this is the word of God after all.

Even forgiving the rather offensive disregard the filmmakers have for the Bible, this film is still an unmitigated disaster. The clunky script doesn’t provide any suspense or mystery. The dialog is functional but doesn’t have any depth or interest. The plagues themselves aren’t visually arresting and aren’t handled to their maximum effect. We’re looking at Biblical plagues and its boring – they actually make them boring.

It’s my recommendation that you skip this film. It doesn’t have the intellectual weight that it should and since it also doesn’t offer any guttural thrills, it can only waste your time.

Related Reviews:
Another Hilary Swank movie
The Gift (2000)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Cinema de Merde
Reel.com

Labels: AnnaSophia Robb, anti-Christian, apocalypse, Christians, film, Hilary Swank, movie review, Stephen Rea

Share

June 15, 2008

Movie Trailer: Religulous

Bill Maher is making this to be provocative and get some attention in the same vein as Michael Moore. He's a bright enough guy but is sanctimonious tone is grating and I can't imagine he's going to provide anything but a one-sided mockery of people's faith. I'm willing to bet there's plenty of thoughtful moments in this film but I am equally certain they're littered among an endless parade of theological pranks pulled by Maher and director Larry Charles. Christianity will, of course, be the central target of Maher's humor. If you see this, check to see if he actually talks with anyone who can be identified as a real Christian theologian. He will rely on the amusing ramblings of goofy guys like the ones seen in the trailer. Maher will want to be taken seriously in his atheism but at the same time will not confront someone who would be able to take him on. Ambushing everyday people with a camera and a celebrity asking questions is a sure way to make the average person look like a doofus on film. His arrogance is huge, his argument is so right, he doesn't need to bother to take the other position seriously. Yes, religion can be a silly thing at times - but faith is a critical piece of the human experience. Maybe if Bill spent less time at the Playboy Mansion and more time in a church, he'd know that.

The thing that really roils me about this film is that Maher will drag out the usual atheist arguments and then dimwit undergrads are going to parrot them back to me, thinking they're clever.

Visit the official site

Return to the Movie Trailer Page

Director: Larry Charles (Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan)
Actors: Bill Maher (Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death)

Labels: anti-Christian, Bill Maher, Larry Charles

Share

May 9, 2008

Constantine (2005)

Should I see it?
Not even on a dare

Short Review: This film goes over as good as jalapeño dip at a burn center.

Widely considered not to be the greatest actor of his generation, Keanu Reeves remains the poster boy for Hollywood’s lower requirements for fame. His performance in his film is so singularly horrid it boggles my simple mind. It is as if they made a movie from his rehearsals for The Matrix sequels.To complain that he is stiff and poorly executes his lines is like complaining that the ocean is moist.

This man is to acting what Mr. Rosie O’Donnell is to underwear modeling. It is stunning that in a film about Hell, the most frightening thing in it is Keanu’s elocution. There were times when I actually had to (and I am not joking) stop the film and play it with subtitles to understand what Keanu was saying. Marlon Brando whispering with a mouthful of cottage cheese spoke more clearly than this mush mouth.

I should get to the movie.

When you see dogs sniffing one another, they’re actually checking to make sure the other dog doesn’t have the stench of this film on it. This thing is truly awful. It is a grand, brilliant gem of vile stupidity.

This dirty little ditty is based on the Hellblazer comic books. John Constantine (barely played by Keanu) has the gift of exorcism. He kicks demons back to Hell for a living and…what am I doing? I just spent more time explaining the plot than the filmmakers do in the film. The story is about a guy and some demons. The details are in there someplace but no one has bothered to unearth them as of yet.

I urge you NOT to see this film if you have any theological bent to you at all. This is a heretical piece. I do not make that claim lightly. At every turn this film dismisses the Christian faith while embracing its symbols for its own uses. This is a celebration of demonic imagery and humanistic, new age jawboning. If you have any faith in you at all, this movie will turn your stomach. My long-suffering wife, who is particularly sensitive to such displays of disrespect, was yelling at the screen so much that by the time the credits rolled she was sounding like Nick Nolte after a couple of packs of Pall Malls.

I could continue to trash this film but it doesn’t deserve my effort. Steer clear of this movie and hopefully it and its filmmakers will eventually go away. I sincerely hope the filmmakers come around and realize the insulting work they have made and look for forgiveness from God for spitting on him and from the audience for asking us to watch.

Related Reviews:
Keanu Reeves movies
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
The Devil's Advocate (1997)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
Strong Opinion

Labels: anti-Christian, Djimon Hounsou, film, Keanu Reeves, movie review, Peter Stormare, Rachel Weisz, Shia LaBeouf

Share

March 14, 2008

Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)

***Cross-Posted at CATHOLIC MEDIA REVIEW***

Should I see it?
No.

Short Review: Queen Elizabeth I longs for the embrace of Sir Walter Raleigh but he starts to diddle the help and gets one of Lizzy's court members knocked up. This puts Lizzy in a tizzy and - wait, there was something about some Spanish Armada or something and something else about some loony chick in Scotland or Ireland or Vermont or something...anyway, so Raleigh is like real hot and...

Just because something is interesting doesn't mean its worth watching. This clumsy film about the private life of Queen Elizabeth I (played quite well, again, by Cate Blanchett) does hold some moments of passing interest but the piece as a whole poorly framed and a waste of time. The story tracks the budding love interest between Elizabeth and adventurer (read pirate/thief) Sir Walter Raleigh (not played quite well by Clive Owen) and the international dealings between England and Spain. The real focus of the piece is the love relationship. Despite the advertisements pushing the war with Spain scenes, including the image of Elizabeth donning armor in the film's poster, there is surprisingly very little of the war in the actual movie. Much of the movie is Owen and Blanchett breathlessly stating their lines while trying to show how much of a drag it is to be queen.

The screenwriters William Nicholson (Gladiator) and Michael Hirst (Have No Fear: The Life of Pope John Paul II) seemed to be battling with one another for dominance - assuming Nicholson handled the historical Elizabeth stuff and Hirst managed the theological. It doesn't matter because at the helm, director Shekhar Kepur (Elizabeth, Four Feathe rs) couldn't help but allow his meandering style muddy the works. I find it interesting that a film that sells itself as being about a fight between Catholics and Protestants is controlled by a man who appears to have no connection to either denomination. From the text of his website, it would appear Kepur isn't even Christian. While his non-involvement in the faith doesn't automatically disqualify him from being able to work on a film like this (it is of course possibly for a non-believer to have valid opinions on the faith), it is still worth noting considering how poorly rendered the faithful are in the piece. Given the historical, and still existent, tensions between Catholics and Protestants, being so frivolous in dealing with the conflict is a sign of arrogance and stupidity.

Ultimately, this film spends so much time working the romance angle it fails as a whole. When the Spanish invasion comes, there's no time left and the whole war is handled in a passing series of scenes as if they were a distraction for the Queen. Ten thousand people dead is one thing but darn it! The Queen is lonely! Don't be fooled by the trailer, don't be mislead by your expectations, this is a mishandled work and your time is best spent elsewhere.

Click on the Queen to see the movie trailer

***SPOILER WARNING***
I give away some points of the film going forward, although none of it will really hurt viewing this film too much - but you're warned just the same.

Worldview: The Catholics in this film are represented by King Phillip II of Spain. Phillip is shown as a dark version of Snidely Whiplash twilling his mustache waiting to pounce. Elizabeth isn't presented as being a Christian of any real depth and only makes passing references to her faith, just enough to oil the plot. The Queen is shown more as a secular, very material woman who must fight against the imposing forces of theology and control. The minor Catholic characters in the piece are all wild eyed terrorists or nuts. Mary Stuart (Samantha Morton) is shown to be a hapless, loopy, birdbrain - which may have been the case, but Morton overcooks the character and completely saps her of any humanity. What is being done here is that the faithful are shown to all be horrid, evil folks while those more aligned with humanism are shown to be the real saints. When Elizabeth finds her confidants are disloyal she transforms into this odd super human. She "marries England" - having defeated the Catholics and her own need for human love (she's defeats God and human needs); she becomes a bride of the state. She gives herself to her post and sacrifices her self for the sake of her country. She is then shown in one of the more heavy handed scenes I've seen in a long time (and this is coming from someone who has seen Michael Moore's works), Elizabeth is shown with angel wings standing in a shaft of light glimmering from the heavens.

From what I can tell, the film asks us to trade one set of oppressing set of values (using the film's definitions here) for another. One is set by the church the other by the state. I'll cast my lot with God, thank you very much. Overall, this film is a disappointment. I'd like to see an adult version of this piece done where a fair depiction of the conflict between Catholics and Protestants is handled. It is good for both sides to honestly look at our differences and a film is a great place for this to happen. As it stands, this work only serves to spit on both groups in favor of offering vacuous secular remedies that help no one.

Cautions: This film has some violence including torture. There's a good deal of blood. There's some sensuality but nothing you wouldn't see on television...wait, I take it back, it's not that harsh.

Related Reviews:
Cate Blanchette movies
The Gift (2000)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003)

Other Critic's Reviews:
The Austin Chronicle
Eric D. Snider

Labels: anti-Christian, Cate Blanchett, Clive Owen, film, movie review

Share

March 3, 2008

There Will Be Blood (2007)

***Cross-Posted at CATHOLIC MEDIA REVIEW***

Should I see it?
Films geeks: Yes.
Actual humans: No.

Short Review: This has been hailed as a masterpiece. When did we redefine “masterpiece” to mean a self-indulgent bore?

Watching a 2 1/2 half hour slideshow of what Paul Thomas Anderson ate for breakfast may be more invigorating than watching his sprawling yawn-fest. This film has been praised to a ridiculous level with easy comparisons to Citizen Kane and other cinematic milestones. There are honestly stunning moments in this work but it is not – and I repeat NOT – one of the greatest movies ever made.

If critics would step back and stop belching out overstated and sycophantic articles like this one they’d see that this is unwatchable for most audiences and demands an unfair amount of patience from those of us who are more inclined to put in the time. It is at least forty-five minutes too long (there’s thirty seconds of men hammering stakes into the ground – that’s it, that’s all they’re doing, hammering stakes - where's the editing?), there’s no defined characters outside of the main figure (brilliantly portrayed by Daniel Day Lewis), there’s no deep central external conflict driving the plot and the resolution comes in a dry whimper offering no proposals or reason.

Why is this film getting such overwhelming praise when the piece is so imperfect? First, to be fair, Paul Thomas Anderson is a talented writer/director, he is easily one of the great talents of his generation. The problem is that he is unrestrained with his talents and apparently hasn’t met one of his own ideas he hasn’t liked. His works, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Punch-Drunk Love are all moving pieces with stark performances and some great scene work. They are all, just like this piece, also very indulgent and dismissive of the audience. Anderson’s work often feels like someone has taken the podium and refuses to relinquish control it until they’ve had their say regardless he is on point or not.

Another reason this is getting such high marks is because Anderson’s crew outperformed him. It is beautifully shot by cinematographer Robert Elswit and the sets and costumes are marvelous. There is a feeling of realness to the whole production that is attention getting. This is a carefully plotted and created film and the attention to detail gives the piece more gravity than it otherwise would have gotten.

The central reason this film is critically acclaimed is easy to identify – Daniel Day Lewis. His portrayal of the cruel oil man Daniel Plainview is one of the great on-screen performances. This is where you’re going to find your masterpiece. Day-Lewis is the film. Now, to be fair Anderson’s script focuses with unblinking concentration on Plainview (to the detriment of the overall piece) and the supporting cast is weak by comparison. Day-Lewis’ performance of this complicated and disintegrating man places him in a realm of achievement in his field rarely reached. His performance is so real, so deep, it actually makes this boring film worth sitting through. It is a thrill to see an actor so buried in his character. It is a reminder of how the craft of acting can be transformed into art.

This could have been the masterpiece others would like it to be if Anderson would have stuck with his story. Plainview’s nemesis in the film is the wimpy voiced preacher Eli Sunday, passively portrayed by Paul Dano. Sunday hopes to build a congregation from his small town and compile enough money from them to build a church. As Plainview’s fortunes increase, so do Sunday’s since his congregation is made up in part by Plainview’s employees. In Plainview’s eyes this makes the young preacher a distracting parasite. Sunday claims to be able to heal through channeling the Holy Spirit. When he is unable, or unwilling, to heal Plainview’s son when he goes deaf, the two men are sent on an unavoidable collision. Anderson uses this conflict to burn some matches on the heels of Christianity. But his efforts to show the errors of religion fall flat. Sunday is a straw man that is knocked down to no effect. The character is a caricature and while there are certainly thieves and bad ministers in the world, the one in this film never comes across as real. Much of this has to do with Dano’s pathetic performance. His performance would have been passable in a normal situation but when placed next to Day-Lewis’ groundbreaking performance, Dano looks like a dinner theater version of Harry Powell. The conflict with, or more aptly – the abusing of Sunday was the film’s real story. The story is in the conflict between the material and the heavenly, the contrast of the filthy oil workers and the clean parishioners, greed vs. charity. If Anderson had put more into Sunday to make him into a complete character and if he had cast an actor who could have put more love (and talent) into the role, this film would really have been something special.

To sum it up, if you’re a film geek you’re probably going to enjoy how intricately crafted this piece is. If you’re not a loser, er – film geek, you should avoid this movie like the plague.

Click below to view the trailer

***Spoiler Warning***
The rest of this review ruins the movie

Worldview: If you do a search for this film it won't take you too long before you find cheerful reviews citing this as some atheistic blow against religion. This film puts the main character Daniel Plainview up against a poorly rendered pastor character named Sunday. The conflict between the two can be taken as Plainview's materialism confronting the false pretenses of Sunday's theology. Plainview and his men spend their lives clawing in the earth trying to extract its oily blood. Sunday slowly builds his church, speaking in a wispy voice and moving with a nearly feminine way. The two lock horns throughout the story with most conflicts end with Sunday being humiliated and defeated. In the final scene, when Sunday attempts to sell some property to him, Plainview having the upper hand forces the preacher to exclaim "I am a false prophet, God is a superstition!" over and over again. Sunday recites this heresy in hopes of making money he dearly needs. Having lured the pastor to literally selling his soul Plainview then beats the man to death with a bowling pin. This undoing of Sunday is taken by some as a symbolic undoing of religion itself. These "some" are what I like to refer to as "morons". Showing a single man, symbol or not, breaking from his loyalties doesn't mean that that which he was loyal to was a fraud. This couldn't be more true than with members of the clergy and their loyalty to God. Christians do not make Christianity - Christ does. The fall of any of its members does not prove the non-existence of God. It simply solidifies the fact that we need him.

The ending of the film is more about the final result of Plainview's doomed soul than about the frailty of theology. Plainview is the personification of the Godless man. He is cruel, petty, materialistic and infertile. He lies, murders and cheats without a second thought. Without God this is what we are, since there is no reasonable point to keeping a strict moral code. Pleasure and might makes right rule the day. Love itself becomes a fleeting thing without value without God as well since again, there's no purpose to morality. Love is a passing fancy that can be corrupted by other desires.

Throughout the film Plainview pushes everything and everyone away. His final act of damning Sunday and then killing him serves to sever Plainview completely since he symbolically kills God with this action. He is finally truly alone in the universe, which is his life's main goal. In the final moment of the film he states "I'm finished" as he rests bloodied and tired on a bowling alley, literally sitting in the gutter. He is the existential hero - alone in the universe and without reason. Yippie! No thanks, I'll cast my lot with God. Having a purpose to life makes it so much nicer to live.

This film unashamedly sets up Christianity to be its whipping boy. The Christians in the film are two dimensional and never approach reality. The leader Sunday is likewise thin. Paul Dano portrays Sunday as an effete charlatan who wouldn't be able to collect a bunch of head lice, let alone parishioners in real life. Anderson's film is so carefully crafted that his poorly drawn preacher sticks out like Rosie O'Donnell kicking in line with the Rockettes. Anderson doesn't give religion a fair hearing and simply puts it out there to kick around. This is a shame because Christianity can withstand the scrutiny and is the only religion deserving of the discussion.

Most Christians will probably look at the portrayal of their faith in this film with a smirk. Its become so pedestrian to see the dimwitted, zombie-like parishioners along with the bellowing preacher, it actually makes me laugh at this point. The stereotype has been so overdone it is embarrassment to Anderson to see it dragged out yet again.

Cautions: There is blood. The violence in this film isn't gory and hardly unsettling to anyone who has been exposed to cinematic violence before. There is a brutal murder that can be disturbing to some viewers however. No sex, the language is mild considering this is an R-rated film. The biggest concern here is all of the time you're going to kill just sitting there waiting for something interesting to happen.

Related Reviews:
Great performances
Silence of the Lambs (1991) - Anthony Hopkins
Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) - Johnny Depp
Downfall (2004) - Bruno Ganz

Other Critic's Reviews:
Westminster Wisdom
ChristianityToday

Labels: anti-Christian, Ciarán Hinds, Daniel Day Lewis, film, movie review, Paul Dano, Paul Thomas Anderson

Share

November 7, 2007

Is The Golden Compass a Concern for Christians?

On December 6th The Golden Compass, based on the first book of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, hits theaters. This has many Christians concerned. Why? The books begin innocently enough, but as the trilogy moves forward the story twists into a venomous attack on Christianity. Will the film follow suit?

As a Christian I loath attacks on the faith (at least unfounded ones). Usually these attacks, such as The Da Vinci Code tend to be tedious affairs but they still get a number of Christians all whipped up. As a general rule Christians react to potential attacks on the faith with a loud whining sound. Even when the perceived attack is actually not intended to be harmful (see the reactions to Evan Almighty) Christians can still become a gaggle huffy sourpusses.

There is a great article on The Golden Compass over at FamilyLife (click the link to read). They speak with Looking Closer Journal's Jeffrey Overstreet about the books and the film and they provide a reasonable approach for Christians.

View the trailer for The Golden Compass below

Labels: anti-Christian, Christian culture, commentary, film, The Golden Compass

Share