Be the first kid on your block to join my new Facebook Page.

Why join my Facebook page? Because all the cool kids are doing it. That's why.

Click here to join the Good News Film Reviews FB Page





If that doesn't float your boat, then why not join my Facebook page for my upcoming book You Are What You See: Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens. Get the latest news, insight and promotional stuff! Besides, it will feed my tender ego.

Click here to join the You Are What You See: Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens FB page.






Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: miscellaneous, site news, You Are What You See

I apologize for the unannounced absence. I've have been sidelined by a few unexpected events. I beg your patience and will be back to a regular schedule next week

In the meantime, here an interesting video, "Stargate Studios Virtual Backlot Reel 2009".

Just because you see something doesn't mean its there.






And here's some junk I've had on the hard drive that's slightly film-related. I have found them here and there online (deaddog.com, chive.com, etc.):

Labels: miscellaneous, site news

I am back. My first post back? All about me. Me, me, me, more me now.

Thank you to everyone who wrote letting me know what you missed my site. I will begin posting once again this week. Starting out I probably won't do too much as I get back into the swing of things and reestablish my routine. If I know myself however, I will have multiple posts up before too long.

As I begin rebuilding my post schedule and how I do things around here, I would like to ask my remaining readers for their input. What would you like to see on the site (other than proper grammar)? More reviews? More trailers? More film news? Commentary? Do you want the Carnival of Cinema back? Leave a comment or email me at carnvialofcinema (at sign) gmail dot com

This summer has been very productive. I have spent lots of time with my wife and kids (celebrating my 18th wedding anniversary tomorrow). I worked on my garden and had a huge harvest. I also managed to finish up my book. It has been a mostly relaxing time and I am very happy I decided to back away for a while.

Regarding the book, I am putting the final touches on things right now and expect a release in early January (we'll see). It is titled You Are What You See: Watching Film Through a Christian Lens and it offers a Biblical approach to movies and makes the argument not for cultural engagement by Christians, but for cultural renovation. I will give more news as I have it on the book front. I do know I will be starting up a new site http://www.youarewhatyousee.com and will have some other things I will be doing to to support the book. If you know of anyone who is any good at setting sites up and works cheap, let me know (email above).

Again, thanks to everyone for their kind words and messages encouraging me to return over the past few months. I do appreciate them.

Now, on with the bad grammar and under-educated cynicism

Labels: miscellaneous, site news

Posting will be light for the remainder of the week.

Many projects, one man.

Labels: miscellaneous, site news

Have you caught yourself thinking, "Hey, I like Good News Film Reviews, but he's heretical fodder for Hades." Well, today is your lucky day. Show your appreciation for all of my hell-ready reviews by voting for my site as the "Best Blog by a Heretic" in the Cannonball Awards.

Labels: miscellaneous, site news

For my more clean cut and/or cautious readers, I will warn that they do post some stuff that is NSFW - no nudity though. Now I guess I have to post why a Christian would post on a site that has posts that can be NSFW.

I've very happy to be with these guys and look forward to working with them.

I am also cross-posting over at Catholic Media Review - I'm the house heretic. Yes, they keep me in the backyard and yes, I have to hide in the attic when company comes over but what the heck, they feed me warm scraps and I have my own blanket.

If you are interested in having my reviews on your site, drop me a line and let's talk. I work cheap and movie reviews are great feed fodder.

Labels: miscellaneous, site news

Comment fight!

When you post your opinions online you have to expect the whole world to come by and kick you in the soft bits every once in a while. I've become so used to complete strangers saying all kinds of things to me over the most inane comments, mistakes and/or opinions. My favorite is still a woman named Tessa who hoped I would be raped and contract A.I.D.S. over my reivew of The Constant Gardener.

One of the interesting things about running film review site is that many people expect me to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every film I discuss. I will be honest, I am a one man show. I research the films I watch when I can. I pay attention to changes in the market and track rumors and news. This said, I do have a life outside of posting my thoughts on films online and things get past me.

Last month I posted my review of Låt den rätte komma in “Let the Right One In”. To sum up my review, I say it is a smart and great film. It is a genre changer. This said, there is a one second shot of a twelve-year-old's public region. In my review I cite this as being pornography. The scene is simple, a boy opens a door and walks in on his twelve-year-old girl friend. Her lower half is naked and we see her pubic region. This disturbed me because in my book the scene was meant to be sexual in nature. The girl was naked, not nude (nude being the intentional removal of clothes, naked being against one's will). Given the budding relationship between the two characters there was also an obvious sexual overtone to the moment. This pushed the scene into the pornographic realm in my estimation. This understanding that pornography includes exposed flesh, not just overt sexual action.

Well, get someone to post a link to the review on Facebook and let the floodgates open.

People who have no idea what I'm up to, who have no idea my point-of-view are flooding my inbox with all sorts of e-mails and comments.

It is interesting, at least to me , to see the absolute refusal of people to see what I'm trying to say. Perhaps its just that I am incapable of expressing my viewpoint (actually, that's likely the case.) Just the same, there's plenty of huffing and puffing going on, click on this link to read the fun.

Labels: comment of the day, miscellaneous, site news

My in box is swelling with anonymous comments. About 90% of anonymous comments impatiently explain to me the writer's opinion of my mental stability, my relationship with my mother and which end of my body I can insert my reviews. The other 10% just insult me without getting into specifics.

There are things you have to expect when you put your opinions out for the world to see: random drive-by comments, trolls, thieves and hackers. Every time a segment of one of my posts is lifted and dumped on some lame forum I have to spend the next two weeks filtering out invective from my e-mail. Right now I have folks from three different forums coming by and kicking me in the soft bits. There's a Twilight group that has it out for me, some northern European forum about something - I'm not sure, I can't read it but I do know they use a lot of umlauts and vowels. Then there's my private troll Greg who has dumped a quote of mine on another forum filled with particularly slow witted folk. So as you can guess, I have plenty of seething visitors who don't know what I'm about and don't much care to learn. Two of these groups see the word "Christian" and get into a lather and start sending me comments.*

For all of you new to the site, let me explain what's going on here.

What seems to be frustrating people is my posts involving trailers and films I haven't seen yet. There are plenty of people who get rather upset that I would dare pre-judge a film based on the trailer and other marketing. When I post a movie trailer I give my thoughts on my reaction to it. Sometimes I discuss the marketing aspect, sometimes I simply react. A trailer is a commercial. To get a reaction is the point of the ad in the first place. Are there some films I do not need to see to dismiss? Sure. I don't need to see all of the Saw movies to understand what they are all about. I get it. Most films I will give a fair shake when the time comes. If I run down a movie prior to seeing it and I am proven to be wrong, I publish a correction. My reaction to Fireproof is an example. To judge a film, and publish my opinion of it based on the trailer is not wrong. It is no different than if/when I state that I am looking forward to a film's release based on the marketing. There are plenty of films I've looked forward to seeing only to be disappointed by the end product.

I hope this clears things up for you foul mouthed goofballs out there.

As for my grammar and spelling. I cop to bad grammar. I have grammatical tourette's, I go along and WHAM I throw in a comma or a dash, slash or whatever - I can't control myself.

Please note the above bit on trailers is not directed to K or Darrell. You both had good points on Bart Got a Room. If I'm wrong on it, I will certainly admit it.




* - to be fair, I don't know exactly which of these forums is getting me these comments. It is possible, though unlikely, my recent uptick in nasty comments is just a random occurrence - but they all seem to really like teenage vampires and graphic novels.

Labels: miscellaneous, site news

Yet another notable comment from yet anonymous commenter. For a fresh change of pace, this comment isn't littered with invective and implications about my parentage.

In reaction to my review for Facing the Giants, I received the following from a reader in Las Vegas:

"In one part of his review, the critic says that Facing The Giants pushes it agenda way too hard. I, for one, strongly disagree. All this movie was trying to do was share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with people that, otherwise, are lost and on their way to spend eternity in Hell. And as for the comment that most non-Christians would turn up their noses to the message, I say that, if they're offended, that's their problem. At least the producers of this wonderful film realized their responsibility to make sure the message is presented in a clear way that would lead souls to be saved."

The reason this comment interests me is the line "And as for the comment that most non-Christians would turn up their noses to the message, I say that, if they're offended, that's their problem." I find it remarkable that someone who presumptively is a Christian is so cavalier about the message of Christ being missed. We believe that Christ is the only way to Heaven - the only way. To say "if they're offended, that's their problem" says I'm going to hammer you with the message of Christ, non-believer, if you repel because I'm too strong, well then there's nothing I can do for you - tough luck. We're not talking about people misunderstanding a political viewpoint or ignoring warnings about smoking, we're talking about eternal souls - the most critical aspect of existence. If you believe the Bible you believe these people not getting the message are going to languish apart from God for eternity. To turn from them because you're not interested in considering how the message is being delivered is misguided at best.

By accepting the label of "Christian film" the film makers take on the responsibility to preach the Word to all audiences. The point of the review was to say that the film Facing the Giants, like many "Christian films", is overt with its agenda. While this blunt presentation isn't considered out of line by many Christians and may speak to a minority of borderline converts, it is uncomfortable or even laughable by most non-believers. While it may be the intention of the film makers to preach to the choir, I assume and hope they are attempting to spread the word beyond the church walls. If this is their intent then they are too heavy-handed in their efforts. My point is that a more nuanced approach will be more digestible by non-believers. We should look to plant the seed not offer a sermon to these people. We don't win tons of converts by being pushy but by nudging and guidance. We certainly don't do the Lord's work by turning our backs to those we're preaching to when we refuse to speak their language or engage their cultural norms.

Labels: miscellaneous, site news

Zee of ZEE SAYS = FILM ADDICT + TEEN LIBRARIAN has been kind enough to give this site The Prémio Dardos Award. Here's the poop on the award:

Labels: miscellaneous, site news

I get plenty of comments and e-mails from readers. A good portion are anonymous comments from passing trolls who don't appreciate my acidic style.

On my post regarding the trailer for Fling (Lie to Me) I said "A pair of self-absorbed jerks sleep around on each other and pretend it doesn't matter until they begin to have feelings for their sack partners. Personally, I'm getting too old to be titillated by this and seen enough films to know this is just depraved content for the sake of being depraved (sex sells y'know)." The thing is that I wrote "deprived" instead of "depraved". No big deal, I write more in one week than most people read in one month, brain farts will happen.

Well, the aforementioned brain fart was brought to my attention by a humorless troll. It wrote me a little comment citing the definition of "depraved" and then whined that I was judging the movie before seeing it. I read the comment, thankful for the correction, they're always welcome, and promptly deleted it since I no longer accept anonymous comments - I put my name on things, why shouldn't they?

Well, the troll came back today with this:

"Nice save on the "deprived" typo there, you ignorant coward. Why do you love judging others so much that you'll judge things without seeing them? That's a sad life, my friend. "

Okay, if you're going to goad me, let's have at it. Besides it brings up a point I want to explore.

#1. Don't toss out coward and then refuse to provide your own identify. it kinda cuts into your attack.

#2. You admit its a typo which means you already know it wasn't a mistake based in knowledge but rather in editing. Why bother getting whipped up over it?

#3. Moving on to "judging others". I wasn't judging others, I was judging their works. You will find this kind of thing when reading a website that has at it's core mission to review products. The trailer and the product it was promoting was being reviewed. My slamming the trailer doesn't mean I loathe the people behind it. This is like me complaining that Pepsi One "tastes more like Pepsi Number Two" and having it taken to mean I think Chairwoman/CEO of Pepsico Indra K. Nooyi is a bad person.

#4. The last thing I want to get into is my reviews of trailers. I've gotten plenty of anonymous comments from those who are so enamored with entertainment culture than when someone poo-poos on their favorite actor or director they are sent into a hyperventilating tantrum like I just told them their girlfriend is ugly (which is she, but I have the good grace not to pick on her). Here is the scoop on the movie trailer reviews: movie trailers are advertisements that are selling a product. They can be clever, they can even be artful, but they're just commercials. The intent of these commercials is to get me to consider their product, the movie. I know how trailers work, I know how they try to sell their product. I review the content of the trailers and offer my thoughts. Often I can make educated guesses at the likelihood of the quality of the film based on its advertising. Can I be wrong? Sure...I haven't been yet, but its bound to occur. You do not need to see the whole film to decide if it is something worth sitting through - that's the whole point of the trailer in the first place. If someone hands me a warm, heavy sack with the words "barf bag" written on the outside, I can pretty much discern the contents without having to spill them out on the carpet for closer inspection.

Tell you what my trolly friend, you come back and give us your name. I will post whatever comment you have right here. I'll even go one step further. If you would like to send me your own thoughts on the trailer, I will post them with the only condition that I will not accept foul language - you are a troll after all. I will even clean up your spelling. I am certain that your fumbling, sophomoric thoughts will be a serious treat for everyone involved. I'm confident you won't however since you'd have to give your name which I assume means the local authorities will realize you've been using your computer again despite that court order stemming from that molestation business back in '97.

You see, when you go anonymous you don't actually exist and I get to make up stuff about you all day long.

Good day.

Labels: miscellaneous, site news

Sitemeter went through an "upgrade" today. The results are hideous.

This new version is clumsily designed and far too busy to be useful. The stats I need are not intuitively found and not easily reviewed. I loved Sitemeter for its ease of use, and its straight-forward display. I could drop in, quickly check out my stats, figure out what works, what's driving traffic and page counts and then drop out. Now I have to careful click my way in, fumble around to find my stats, manupulate scroll bars, click here and do that and then finally I get info. It's like ordering at a drive-thru window and then having to get out of my car and go inside the restaurant to pick up my food.

Attention Sitemeter, I want my stats quickly and clearly. You used to offer this and I was more than happy to use you. By trying to increase your game you've screwed with the one thing you had on your competition - clarity. You're slowing me down and now I won't use you.

If you agree that Sitemeter has wasted their resources fixing something that wasn't broken you can send your comments here.

Ann Althouse appears to be equally as irritated with this unfortunate mishap.


Can anyone out there recommend a new stat service?


UPDATE: SiteMeter has announced that they're switching back to their previous version! Sometimes thrashing your arms, kicking your legs and throwing your rattle in a huff will get you what you want.

Kudos to SiteMeter for not only listening to their clients but for having the wisdom to acknowledge their mistake and correcting themselves.

Labels: miscellaneous, site news

Julie D. of HAPPY CATHOLIC and I have been having disagreements over films for years now. Well, they're really not disagreements, its more just her being too stubborn to acknowledge the overwhelming logic of my views. Anyhoo, Julie was kind enough to invite me to record my post Movies Have Meaning in Our Lives for her podcast. She's posted the podcast on her site FORGOTTEN CLASSICS.


Thank you Julie for your compliments and the honor of being your first guest essayist. Obviously, she's better behind a mike than I am. Her voice is soothing and calm and I sound like caffeinated Kermit the Frog bellowing into a Styrofoam cup.

Labels: audio, links, miscellaneous, site news

This morning I posted a link to the new Dark Knight trailer that was hosted on the Dominos Pizza corporate site. This morning, said trailer was free to the world available to been seen without coughing up any dough (pun intended). This afternoon they changed their site to be restricted to only people who have purchased one of their pizzas.

No thanks.

The original post is gone and so is the link.

What kind of world is it when you can't even trust a run-of-the-mill, faceless corporate entity?

Labels: miscellaneous, site news

The online DVD store has been updated. I've compiled a bunch of DVDs that I recommend. Not all are family-friendly but all are worth owning. You can click on the "DVD Store" link at the top of the page to see what's available.

Labels: miscellaneous, site news