Why would a Christian Reviewer See this Movie?

The short answer is that I like to think for myself. I don't believe in “a secular” and “a sacred.” Everything is sacred for those who are in Christ. This is a fallen world. Nothing here is entirely good, but it was created to be good and if we look sometimes we can see the good hidden in it. I'm not afraid that some satanic movie is going to rub off on me, rather where light is darkness flees. That doesn't mean I shouldn't use discernment about what I soak my brain in. Still, I'd rather view a movie that turns out to be “filthy” with my feelers up than passively absorb a couple hours of TV complacent in the knowledge that network censors protected my innocence.

So Was the Movie as Evil as “They” Said it Was?

Well, Mr. Pullman is a well-documented, self-avowed atheist who set out to write his answer to the “Chronicles of Narnia.” The film reveals a clear repulsion for organized religion which would rather kill someone than let people question authority. “Here, here,” I say to that sentiment. If only it stopped there.

Most atheists strike as a bit too passionate about there not being a God. I can't really hazard a guess what Mr. Pullman's motives were but I know you have to believe in God to be angry with him. Star Dust the books are of course different than the film. I'm speaking only of the film so I'll try to leave Mr. Pullman out of it from now on.

The Plot

The film touts a land where everyone has an external soul in the form of an animal which they innocently happen to call a demon. The children's souls morph into several animals while the adults are stuck with one animal. If you hurt either the soul or the person the other feels it equally. Kill one and the other dies too. Our heroin must recover a pair of boys she likes, find her Uncle and figure out what Dust is. To aid her she is given the last Golden Compass which will tell her the truth about anything she asks it. She also has a loyal band of Gypsies. Along the way she picks up her own armored bear, a balloon pilot, and a pack of witches.

I figured the witches and demons were enough to stir up the fundamentalists, and that's what all the hype was about. There is more though…read on.

The boys are abducted by “GOBlers” who work for the Magisterium trying to separate the youths from their souls. While most of the film sticks to adventure there are two scenes which explain some of the mystery. Those two scenes are likely the objectionable part of the film to most Christians. The first scene is a video of a dust leaving another realm, passing through a man's soul/pet and entering him. This upsets the magisterium because they don't want other realms to challenge their authority. The second scene is when the character Marisa Coulter explains why she saved the heroin from the other children's fate. Coulter explains that (I'm paraphrasing) long ago their ancestors made a mistake that allowed dust into the world and that's why the souls of adults couldn't change form. The magisterium wanted to raise a generation of kids that didn't have a soul so that they would remain unaffected by the dust, rendering them easy to control.

I know what you're thinking. That's it? That's the plot? Pretty week, uh?

Larger Story: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

If the dust represents the knowledge of good and evil then our antagonists are trying to separate children from their souls so they'll be pliable. They are trying to create a false state of innocence. The protagonists are only guilty of wanting to explore other realms of possibilities. This is an old refrain we've heard before. A connection is being drawn between innocence and ignorance, between obedience and slavery. Satin's line is, “God is holding out on you. If you don't open Pandora's box you don't know what you're missing.” God's line is, “You know who I am. I had to put Pandora's box in reach, because without the option to open it you'd be a slave.”

The message of this film is that demons connect us to the spirit realm, and to the power and knowledge we need to make up our own minds. The truth is that the option to know good and evil made not choosing it an act of obedience. It is evil that would seek to rob us of choice and free will. Every Christian believes that Christ died to restore choice to us. It was once a choice of fall or not, now it's a choice of accept salvation or not.

Avoid “Golden Compass” but Not For the Reason you Think

The bottom line here is that, controversy aside; this isn't a great film. The scenery was beautiful, and the steam punk costuming and setting is imaginative but the acting was a little clunky and the plot was full of holes. Sam Elliot was good in his roll but he was pretty much playing himself. Daniel Craig was still 007. Nicole Kidman was beautifully costumed, but a slightly more sophisticated version of her psycho, news-reporter roll Suzanne Maretto in “To Die For.”

As far as the plot holes go, here's an example, why did the “GOBlers” have to transport the children they stole to the remote arctic lands in order to experiment on them. They couldn't find an empty barn in the countryside I guess. What about the Armored Bear who becomes king of his people. Why can't he bring his army of ninja bears along to the fight?

In general the film just fell short of spectacular. It's not awful just not worthy of the buzz.

God Bless and Happy Viewing.

This movie is great. It's not as gripping as other films that dealt with similar themes, but I think that's ok. They can't all be Mr. Tibbs. Or Mr. Escalante. Freedom Writers is not only entertaining to watch but suggests at answers.

Where other movies have promised that a teacher who cares can impact students lives, Erin Gruwell's methods could be studied and replicated. This movie is a primer for anyone who wants to learn about dealing with diverse communities and long standing grudges. It's also valuable for those who want to help others replace failure oriented thought cycles with success oriented thought cycles.

What about the “PG-13” Rating?

This is a pretty tame film considering. They really tried to portray tough street life etc. but they kept it inbounds really well and still accomplished their goals. They showed just enough for us to say ok we get it, then they moved into the inspirational answers.

I'm guessing that they succeeded at that due to the book. I feel like a gritty book gives screenplay adapters the ability to surgically pick their scenes, walk the line more finely, etc. But I'm guessing because I haven't read the book… yet.

What if I hate Hilary Swank?

I didn't take to Hilary right away either. Her acting was great in Million Dollar Baby, and it was great in this movie. I haven't seen enough of her interviews to have truly formed an opinion, but she's on a roll at this point.

Larger Story

Erin Gruwell's concern for her students borders on obsession. She seems to be willing to single handedly make up for the fact that everyone else has written these kids off. Many of us have had radically different experiences with teachers. After parents, teachers make the most impact on us as we form into adults. Since teachers are exposed to greater numbers of children than parents they can be an amazing force for good in our society.

I've had my fair share of teachers, good and bad, and I know many teachers now that I'm an adult. It's a difficult, often thankless task, which most of them perform with every good intention a human being can muster. Knowing what I do now, I feel that teaching should be treated like other critical occupations-like airline traffic controllers or doctors.

We need ways to reward them for good work, and we need ways to get rid of them if they burn out. The idea that we'd underpay people, but if they stick it out long enough they become un-fireable, is amazing. You don't see that anywhere else occupationally because it's a bad idea.

I know much of the problem starts at the top. Schools are fast becoming factories that churn out consumers. Freedom Writers makes many good comments about racial tension, but the real miracle here is the fact that Gruwell was able to fight her way through the varied levels of bureaucracy and gain support for effective teaching methods.

Sorry to sound political folks, but on the bright side the lesson here is, if you're passionate about helping people you will find allies.

This series is based (loosely) on the books by Robert Ludlum. They retain they basic theme although many other elements that I wish they had also retained were sacrificed to maintain an action pacing.

What about the “PG-13” Rating?

I have been critical of the action sequences in the past. They are over edited, either for style or to cover up the fact that Matt Damon isn't Jet Li or Jackie Chan. Other than that there's no nudity or excess violence. There are only fight scenes, one depicting a guy being strangled.

One of the themes of the film is the extent some people go to in order to play the spy game. Some people get caught up in the game and use their patriotism as an excuse to be barbaric. To me all the violence is justified by one scene, where Bourne doesn't kill the assassin sent after him, because he remembers the torture it took to turn him into a killer, and he realizes that it can all change. The assassin chases him down to ask him why and with very little dialogue we see a man learn about identity.

Larger Story

The main theme of these books captivates my attention. Super assassin Jason Bourne becomes involved in an accident that gives him amnesia. It echoes Socrates idea that we knew everything before we were born and then forgot it upon entering the world, only to spend our lives rediscovering knowledge and wisdom. Only in the Bourne series the suspense comes from the question, “is Jason Bourne a better man without his assassin identity?” In the first movie, “the Bourne Identity,” Jason discovers that his amnesia might have less to do with his accident than with an attack of conscience which won't let him be who he has become.

There are two possible larger story themes here. First, how much of our past must we deal with after conversion? When we make a change to who we are doesn't our past line up to steal that positive move away from us?

The second theme that I like better is this. Bourne was obviously something incredible, but he lives in a fallen state. While he's tempted to believe that his knew ignorance could be a blessing he finds himself unable to move on with life until he discovers who he really is. The truth is that who he really is, lays deeper than the identity he can't remember. This resonates with me. I think I was designed for more than I've become in this world. Before accepting the reality of the world I've been born into, there is everything God designed me to be. Like Jason Bourne, I'm on a life-long quest to rediscover the deeper truer things about me.

Running time: 2hr 2 mins.

Release Date: June 8, 2007

Also Staring:

• Ellen Barken
• Andy Garcia
• Don Cheadle
• Bernie Mac
• Eddie Jemison
• Shaobo Qin
• Casey Affleck
• Scott Caan
• Eddie Izzard

Go see “Ocean's 13” on matinee

This is an entertaining movie that won't waste your time or money. That being said, there is a ton of talent here and we could expect greater things from them. This movie falls victim to its own huge cast of great stars. They had to leave the women out of this film and keep Rubin (Gould's character) in bed for the whole film. Danny Ocean (Clooney) and Rusty Ryan (Pitt) are duplicates, not of each other, but they fill the same role in the film.

In order to have something to do they manufactured these little scenes that are supposed to be cute, like the crying at Opra thing, that really don't add much to the movie. Virgil and Turk Malloy are also duplicates but at least they have a couple funny scenes.

Carl Riener is still as solid as ever and though nothing really big hinges on his role he stands out amongst the others. Other noteworthy performances were by Ellen Barkin, Michael Mantell, (super) Dave Osborne and Ray Xifo-all small roles which the actors made stand out. My hat's off to them for shining amongst all the bright stars.

Enough about the Acting: What about the Plot?

Like the acting, the plot is good. Not amazing, just good. There isn't anything wrong with this film it just isn't fantastic. Seriously, go see it. You'll have fun.

What about the “PG-13” Rating?

There is nothing to worry about in this film. At its core, it's a movie about people who rip off a casino in Vegas. I don't think you could give it a G rating. Nothing really bad though.

The Larger Story:

It's touching that these guys pull together to defend a senior member of there group. They have always deferred to the two most senior members of their crew. As the baby boomers reach retirement and don't always retire I'm glad people are making movies like this.

The larger story issue is that of aging gracefully. What happens when Rocky gets old? What about the seniors that can't make it on their fixed income? What about industries like nursing where the median age of their workers is 55? What about the high rate of men who die within 2 years of retiring? Moving from the king of your ranch style tract home to sage of the Florida retirement village isn't an easy transition or even what God intends for us.

Aging is at the heart the Ocean movies. Ocean and Ryan are aging out of the role of King and into a Sage role. Linus is trying to earn his parents respect in a field they have excelled in.

In a sequel perhaps the best issue to deal with is this, “What do you do after you've won?” What does it look like to live happily ever after? These are issues close to home for many of us and this movie can stimulate some interesting conversations along these lines.

• Run time: 2 hours, 45 minutes
• Buena Vista Pictures: Disney folks
• Rated: PG-13

Go see “Pirates 3”

For the action. It's a great action film. It's almost impossible to review this movie without spoiling it. Frankly there is a big twist at the end and for me it kinda ruined the whole film. They were trying not to have a trite, Hollywood ending, or perhaps they didn't have a clue how to end it, but however they got there they should have thought of something else. It's not horrible but it fails to give me a reason to cheer.

They really betray the whole point of the trilogy. Ok I'll stop talking about it because its ticking me off.

What about the “PG-13” Rating?

There really is a lot of violence in this film. Then again it's about pirates. They capture our imagination and there is a limit to how much we can clean them up before they loose their charm.

What if I hate Jonny Depp?

Face it some of the actors we can't stand are really good at what they do. Johnny Depp is great in this movie as he is in most of his movies. I can't stand him in real life, but he's good.

Larger Story

There could have been a number of things that pointed to the larger story but they wrecked it at the end. Seriously. They could have gone somewhere with a man who would keep his heart in a box because a women hurt him. But they chose instead to have the film's deity only really show concern for those already dead. They could have gone there with the courageous and foolhardy way that people grasp for life against all odds. But instead they chose to juggle themes of loving your father verses loving your wife and where honor fits in. We so often confuse making vows with honor. Like the apostle Paul says, “my conscience is clear but that doesn't make me right.”

There's a couple of life's lessons portrayed. One might be that you have to be careful of the company you keep. If you are around people who back stab you will at least keep secrets that can cost you someone you love.

If you're me this is the best movie of the year. This is essentially number 2 film from the same people who did “Shaun of the Dead.” I didn't see SotD because I'm not a fan of horror films so I didn't think I'd get many of the gags. I'm told their were a ton of running gags that were continued from the first film. If that's true the Wright did a great job of fitting them in without disrupting this film, because I never felt like I was the only one not in on the joke.

This film out does it's self. The first half is gentle and engaging, we really learn to like the characters. The second half is hilarious, over the top action made all the more ridiculous because of the unlikely bad guys. I was reminded of the old Tim Conway film “The Detectives.” I really recommend this film.

What about the “R” Rating?

If you don't like violence in your movies or can barely tolerate violence if there is a good plot-understand that this is basically a spoof of violent action films with some other genres thrown in, including horror. The violence is turned up and made fun of.

There's some tough language too.

What if I hate Shaun of the Dead?

You'll hate this movie too.

Larger Story

There is none that I saw. It's just fun.

• Writen/Directed by Sam Raimi
• Running time: 2hr 20 mins.
• Rated PG-13
• Also released widely in Imax

Go see “Spiderman 3”

Usually it's the second movie in a trilogy that can't hold up to the hype. Then the third movie comes through with the goods. In this case it would have been impossible for a movie to have lived up to the level of buzz this movie had.

Let's take it a piece at a time. The special effects are incredible. The acting is good right up to the end. The plot falls victim to the monumental task this crew gave themselves. Tobey has been pretty vocal about not thinking there should be a third movie--much less a third or fourth. When they were going to go ahead with the project even without him, (spidey would have been Jake Gillianhall), he did the right thing and signed on. Still everyone on this project seems to have suffered from the syndrome I call, “there can be only three.” As a result they tried to cram everything into this last piece.

At times it works and the aggressive pace keeps the action going despite the dramatic relationship stuff. Then at the very end its just a little much going on. For the most part this is a really great movie with a lot to offer. I wouldn't hesitate to go see it. It just won't go down as the best of the trilogy.

What about the “PG-13” Rating?

Standard stuff. Lots of action.

What if I hate Tobey Maguire?

Lots of people do. He's really good for this role though. Spiderman should be a little skinny, a little nerdy.

Larger Story

The Spiderman trilogy, in my opinion comes in second only to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy for larger story allegory. The “there's a little hero in all of us” speech in Spiderman 1 is awesome.

Now in Spiderman 3 we have the struggle to deal with our own dark side brought to a head. Where the superhero ends and vigilante begins is a common theme for comic books, but the struggle to live free from thoughts of revenge is a struggle we can all empathize with. It's dealt with very tenderly in this film. There are some great lines. “First we attack his heart,” and “when you say that I hear my father,” are really great.

• Writers: Gary Goldman, and Jonathan Hensleigh
• Directed by : Lee Tamahori
• Running time: 1 hr 36 mins.
• Cameo by : Peter Falk
• Rated: PG-13

Go see “Next”

I really was pleasantly surprised by this film. I totally enjoyed it. I have a special place in my heart for heroes that aren't bullet proof, but have a gift that they make the most of.

The way the heroin was handled in this movie truly sets it apart. The character Chris is used to having to trust his instincts, but when Liz overrules her head and follows her heart I cheered out loud. A movie should be about that one time when the major character didn't live from their jaded side, but instead took a gamble on what might bring them true happiness. In that vain this movie has an epic feel. She trusts him and he fights for her with everything he has. Awesome movie!

What about the PG-13” Rating?

Mostly for violent sequences. Not really a big deal. This film is probably just barely a PG-13. There's a lot of gun play but not much gore.

What if I hate Nicolas Cage?

I personally love Cage as an actor. I think he's brilliant, but I created this category because many popular actors aren't popular in every demographic. They are liked by women but not young men or vise versa. Some just rub you the wrong way.

This is a standard Nick Cage movie. If you like him you'll like the film. If you don't like him he'll annoy you. There are two films by Cage that I would call, “see them anyway films” one is Con Air and the other is leaving Los Vegas. I don't even recommend Leaving Los Vegas to everyone-it's a tough film to see with lots of excessive sex scenes, but it is a different role.

Larger Story

“There are many gifts but one Spirit…” There is a big difference between prognostication and prophesy, but when we see Hollywood address super powers they very often speak to troubles we face with our own unique gifting. As a single guy, learning to live in all that God has for me the question arises how does the future Mrs. Bunch fit into the picture. How will she enhance my life and what decisions are responsible to make considering her. This movie really got me thinking.

• director: Marcus Nispel
• screenplay: Laeta Kalogridis
• Rated: “R?” Strong Violence all the way through.
• Running time: 1hr 28 minutes.

Go see “Pathfinder”:

We've seen Karl Urban in other movie's such as, “Born Supremacy,” and “Chronicles of Riddick,” but he nearly always plays a bad guy. I must admit I've been anticipating this movie for nearly a year. I love movies about clashing cultures and the people caught between them. This movie was a little bit of a let down, I probably anticipated it too much. It won't win any awards but its fun to watch. The action could have been less edited but it's not bad.

There is one ridiculous scene when they sled down hill and fight. We've seen it before in “Willow,” and it fit better there. I'm also a bit disappointed that the bad guys weren't better developed. I know that sounds hypocritical from me-Mr. just let the villain be evil-but in this case Vikings make such interesting subjects it would have been nice to have some motive behind their ethnic cleansing.

What about the “R” rating?

There's violence and there's violence. Some is comical, some serious. Some is gratuitous and some is needed. The reason I think they decided to mention strong violence throughout in the ads for this movie is because there is a lot of Viking-killing-women-and-children violence. It's integral to the plot, the movie wouldn't make any sense without it, but we'd all have been more comfortable with warriors clashing in battle, or good guys chasing down bad guys with guns blazing.

Larger Story

The violence in this movie serves to dehumanize the Vikings and make us want Ghost to kill them all. The violence seems so much worse in contrast to the simple, innocent villagers and if Ghost kills all the Vikings isn't he transformed into one of them? The film plays with that theme fairly effectively without getting annoying.

At its core, this is a story of redemption, and true identity. Ghost is abandoned by the Vikings because he lacks their bloodthirstiness. In the end his thirst for revenge could finally drive him over the edge to become what his Viking father wanted. This is a struggle every man can identify with. Do we live out of the cruelty we experienced sometimes as we grew up, are we transformed by the trials we face as an adult, or will we find the courage to live from who we really are-being valiant or peaceful as the situation requires.

• Hyde Park Films
• Written by Bill Kelly
• Directed by Mennan Yapo
• Mystery/Thriller/Fantasy/Drama (officially but it's really a depressing chick flick)

Running Time

110 minutes

Don't see “Premonition”

Ok lots of people will enjoy this film because its well made and well acted. I might have enjoyed it too except, I'm a man. There are some things that were done well. I lost my father in 2003 and the movie handled the shock and pain very accurately. My problem is the advertising led me to believe that I would enjoy this film for its mystery and suspense. It didn't lead me to believe that I would only enjoy this film if wanted a good cry.

(Spoiler Alert) What really spoiled the film for me was that the heroin didn't really try to save her husband until she knew he still loved her. That and fact that we are supposed to accept her inheriting extra money and being knocked up as a happy ending. Maybe for her but not for her husband. She just wasn't that likable.

What about the “PG-13” Rating?

Mostly suggested husband wife stuff. Some brief language.

Larger Story

There is only one great scene in this film. The scene when the heroin seeks out a priest for comfort. What he tells her is interesting, controversial but interesting.