My Thoughts on the Golden Compass

I wrote two articles on The Golden Compass for two different online magazines. You can check out my first one here for Christ & Pop Culture, which also got picked up by The Pearcey Report. And you can read my official film review at Decapolis.com

My Movie Review

So I recently saw the movie American Gangster and I've posted a movie review at Christ & Pop Culture. You can see it here.

A New Podcast Takes on the Gangster Motif of Ridley Scott

A New C&PC Podcast takes a look at the blockbuster film American Gangster and asks some hard questions as well as assessing its aesthetic value. Hear what Rich and I thought of the movie and let us know you thoughts in response.

The Kingdom, on C&PC

The popular new film "The Kingdom" has sparked a number of conversations and Rich and I join in on the latest episode of Christ and Pop-Culture. But this isn't your average C&PC conversation, listen in as Rich and I express some genuine disagreement with each other...and I get the chance to poke fun at Rich a bit.

New Post at DECAPOLIS

For anyone interested I've just posted my review of The Kingdom at Decapolis.Com
Everyone but Rich can go and check it out, also look out for an upcoming episode of Christ & Pop-Culture in which Rich and I will be discussing this film.

Recommending the Imaginative: Ratatouille

My outline states that I am suppose to be recommending to you Classic English Literature. Seeing as how I have already done that, however, I have chosen to skip that recommendation and move on to the next, which seems perhaps odd in the company of such a well respected element. My next recommendation for growing your imagination is the 2007 Disney/Pixar animated film Ratatouille. This delightful film about a rat with a keen nose for good food romanticizes creativity and inspires its audience.

Remy the rat, and main star of this film, loves to cook and create wonderful recipes. He takes interest in their smells, their colors, their presentation, and especially in their tastes. And, what's more interesting, as we watch Remy in the kitchen, we can't help but feel that food is as wonderful as he claims it is. We see the colors he sees when he bites into a piece of cheese, and we smell the aromas of the kitchen that he smells. This film has a way of not only telling a story, but drawing us into it and inspiring us to be like Remy.

When I left this film I was reminded of the mandate which God has given me to men to rulers over the earth, part of which involves pop-culture, and requires creative expression. I am delighted to recommend Ratatouille to you.

The Black Crowe: Thoughts on 3:10 to Yuma (Part 2)

If Christian Bale's character in 3:10 to Yuma marks a pointedly different type of Western Hero, then Russell Crowe adds to the revolutionary status of this film by his portrayal of the complex villain.

As the movie begins we see a very sensitive, if somewhat dastardly Ben Wade (Crowe). He desires a female companion, for more than just physical pleasure, and he appreciates good cowboys (so he lets Peter Fonda's character live in the opening scene). But it is not long before we see just how evil he is. In the mere setting of a sun Ben Wade changes from nice guy, to sadistic murderer as he stabs a sleeping man to death with nothing but a kitchen fork. He is a dangerous man!

It is this interplay between pure evil and simply sweet guy down on his luck that makes Wade so compelling, and of course Russel Crowe pulls it off with ease. The end of the movie only reinvigorates this mixture and compels us as the viewers to both like Wade and hate him at the same time.

My co-host on Christ & Pop-Culture discussed this recently in a podcast we did, and came to the conclusion that what makes Wade so interesting as a character is the that he reminds us of another deceptive villain: Satan. The Bible teaches us that Satan can clothe himself like an angel of light and he can compel the unwitting person to trust him. We know Eve, even in a perfect state, fell for his ploys. Ben Wade not only disarms men and women, but he disarms us at points. He is a truly deceptive villain. Yet there is something more to this character.

For While Wade does throughout the movie show himself to be a "devil" of a man, there is real growth, development, and change. His character goes through several major turning points in the plot and comes out on the other side quite different than anyone could expect. This is what makes Wade so compelling of a character: the sheer spectrum of change that he goes through. Now there have been plenty of movies with good character dynamism and growth, even many where villains go through these changes, but none that are so seamless, and unexpected as 3:10 to Yuma, for in the end of this film we are still left with some elements of the unexpected, and ultimately with a question: Is Ben Wade a good guy or a bad guy? Few movies have that capacity to bring a character through such change and in the end leave us where we started...a man who is either really good, or has yet once again deceived us all.

C&PC Updates

The latest podcast for Christ & Pop-Culture is available now. Our topic is again the subject of Heroes, specifically related to the film 3:10 to Yuma. We discussed previously that Christ is the model for all heroes...see how that conversation relates now to Dan Evans, the hero of this film.

Also we are having a special "you tag us we'll tag you" week. If you link to C&PC this week then we will link to you at our site. So be sure and let us know if you are promoting our show on your blog or website.

Bale Out a Dying Genre: Thoughts on 3:10 to Yuma (Part I)

The Western had its heyday, in the 1950s during the era of “The Duke” himself, John Wayne. But since those days the Western as a popular genre has faded. Every once in a while there’s a new cowboy movie made, they are frequently, however, not very good. So, for example, we all remember the waste that is City Slickers and City Slickers II, and we all remember the nonsense that is Will Smith’s Wild, Wild, West. So needless to say that when I saw that new western was going to be coming out this fall I was hesitant. After all the original 3:10 to Yuma came in the midst of the Western’s pinnacle (1957), how could this new version compete? I am happy to report that I was more than just pleasantly surprised by the 2007 remake.

3:10 to Yuma is not only one of the best Westerns I have ever seen (and I’ve seen a lot), but it may be the best movie of the year (at least to date). Christian Bale’s portrayal of the wounded soldier turned struggling farmer is outstanding, and Russell Crowe’s disturbing and emotionally complex villain is among the best villains in recent film history. Beyond the acting the plot is so well crafted and seamless that the story flows like a cool west wind on rolling countryside. Where the scenes are meant to be intense, they are, and where the dialogue is intended to convey meaningful narration or back story it does. But for me it is more than just the standard cinematic elements that make this film so worth watching.

There are hundreds of movies that are crafted well and possess good acting and storytelling. There are even hundreds of good Westerns, mostly from the old era of the mid 50s. No, it is not these elements that compelled me to see 3:10 to Yuma twice. It is the message of bravery that I finally came to love.

Originally I had a bit of difficulty bringing my own conclusions to 3:10 to Yuma, there was something to the story, particularly the end of the film, that both made me disappointed and intrigued. This fact alone is enough to hail the movie as worth seeing, for few films leave me torn on my opinion of it, and it is no small feat for a film to have a so thoroughly well crafted plot as to render me stunned. But in the end it was the message of bravery that has drawn me into the praise of the movie. Everyone knows about the “brave” action hero who saves the day, and demonstrates fearlessness in the face of insurmountable odds (i.e. John McClane, Aragorn, Jason Bourne, etc.). In 3:10 to Yuma, however, we see more clearly what bravery is. Bravery has more to do with forging ahead in the midst of fear, and even less to do with the results. While action movies repeatedly suggest this they almost always undermine it in the major and final action sequence where the hero fearlessly saves the day. But Dan Evans (Christian Bale), and Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) bring the dynamic nature of bravery to a new level in this film. This is a movie about the every day man’s bravery, something that we can all appreciate and something Christians can particularly appreciate.

God calls men to be brave regardless of the circumstances and regardless of the results. He no where guarantees victory in every day battles, just as the martyrs of the early church or the Chinese Christians suffering in prison today. But God also honors men who in the midst of fear and desperation pray for His strength and persevere to do justice, show mercy, and “save the day” (whatever that looks like in our specific contexts). 3:10 to Yuma is not a Christian film, nor was it meant to convey Christian themes (as best I can tell), but just as God uses non-Christians to teach His people Biblical truths (see the how God uses pagan nations to teach Israel in the Old Testament prophetic books), so God can use films like this one to teach the real truth about bravery. Where 3:10 to Yuma stands apart is in representing true bravery in the midst of the glorified action hero of the modern and even past cinema. The brave man is the man who doesn’t always win, isn’t always self-sufficient, and doesn’t always show fearlessness, but does the right thing anyways.

Bourne of a Virgin?

My friend Owen has some thoughts on the new Jason Bourne movie. He believes that what makes Jason Bourne so interesting and compelling is his masculinity. Bourne is a real hero in the sense that he is a strong and reflects the even more heroic person of Jesus Christ. Bourne is, perhaps in an indirect way, a Christ-figure.

I think Owen has some interesting observations, and I agree that Bourne is a compelling action hero. But we have had these sorts of heroes for years: James Bond, Conan, Indiana Jones, etc. How is Bourne any different? I do think that Bourne is unique, but it is not because he is a masculine action hero. I have different thoughts. I won't go into them here because Rich and I are preparing to do a show on this subject...so I'll wait. So look for our new show of Christ & Pop-Culture forthcoming.

I've Been Sprayed

Just plain fun at the movies has been hard to get this summer. A number of supposed block busters turned out to be major disappointments (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, Shrek the Third). Other films were billed towards kids but were found to be inappropriate at points for children (Transformers). A number of films were good but I don’t think I would qualify them as “plain fun,” (Ocean’s Thirteen). But there is one film out now that is just that: plain and simple fun: Hairspray.

If the word kitsch comes to mind I won’t entirely argue, but this film is better than you may think, musicals usually are. With feel good music, spunk, and a talented young new born actress Hairspray brought a bit of “lift” to the summer screen in terms of sheer simple fun. There are no dark lords in this film, no magical spells, no CGI battleship wars, and no sky-scraper sized robots, but perhaps it was that simplicity that brought a smile to my face.

Musicals are rare these days, and appreciation for them has certainly declined from the early days of film, but I contend here that for a peaceful night out, for some relaxation, and for a simple smile a little bit of Hairspray just might do the trick.

The D'oh! Factor

They have been the number one cartoon family on television for the last 18 years and as of July 27th they became the number one 2-D animated movie with the largest opening, and third among all animated movies (just behind Shrek the Third and Shrek 2). The Simpsons have been a beloved family on television and their latest movie proves the point. Yet some are still contending that they have been displaced as America's favorite animated household by Seth MacFarlane's The Family Guy

The Simpsons are, however, treasured icons of 90s television who have maintained their stardom in the 21st Century. Their movie grossed 74 million dollars on opening weekend and dominated the box-office. Their success has paved the way for other adult oriented cartoons such as King of the Hill, Matt Groening's other animated show Futurama, and The Family Guy itself. But The Simpsons aren't ready to give up their spot in the heart of fans just yet. The movie will surely garner new fans and draw back any old fans that were lost for another season. But what makes The Simpsons so much better than The Family Guy? It's the D'Oh! Factor.

Let's be honest, even Chief Wiggum can see the copy-cat work of the creators of The Family Guy. But the real difference is in the characters themselves. Peter Griffin is as bad a father as Homer is, but there is something endearing about Homer. He tries, he wants to be a good father. He is selfish, yes. He is lazy, yes. But he loves his wife, loves his children, and usually fixes his mistakes, apologizes to his family, and starts over. Peter Griffing beats his wife in mock fights, hates his kids, and generally gets away with every form of debauchery and self-indulgence. This is not an absolute truth, but it is a general guiding principle for the two shows. The difference in the shows is not in its build up or plot, it is in its character development! Homer is simply a better man that Peter. While the Simpsons frequently learn a lesson, the Griffins just exist. It's the difference between D'Oh, as in "I made a mistake," and Peter's intentional resistance to love his family. It's the D'Oh! factor that makes the difference!

Top 100 Movies: 51-60

51) Jurassic Park

52) Phantom of the Opera (2004)

53) The Usual Suspects

54) Wait Until Dark

55) The Departed

56) Apocalypse Now

57) Luther

58) Wit

59) Chariots of Fire

60) O Brother Where Art Thou?

A Toy Story Pixar Wouldn't Have Done!

Everybody who is really honest loves their childhood toys. There's a deep affection we carry with us throughout life, no matter how old we get. As I am about to have my first child I think of what toys she will grow up with. If we ever have a boy, I ponder ways that I could secretly convince my son to love my own childhood toys (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, G.I. Joe, My Pet Monster, etc.). Perhaps it is this affection for toys that has driven some movie producers to make films about them (though some less about affection than fear): Chuckie, Pinnochio, The Toy, and of course Pixar's Toy Story. With the exception of perhaps Richard Pryor's The Toy, Disney/Pixar's Toy Story is in a class of its own, and that is largely because of its storytelling. The guys at Pixar know well how to craft a good story. But in recent days there has been another major toy movie that is being hailed as the biggest summer blockbuster of 07, but you'll never see the Pixar name attached to this movie.

I am, of course, talking about Transformers. This nostalgic 80s cartoon has blasted its way on to the big screen with lots of promotion and lots of potential, but at the hands of director Michael Bay the autobots have autobottomed out! Sure there's lots of action, lots of explosions, lots of cool CGI...but its missing that one thing that any movie must have to be a success: story!

Bay had in his hands a movie that had the potential to be brilliant, culturally challenging, and surely fun. But he took that film, and with clunky dialogue, bad acting, and ridiculously fast plot development he has shoved an "all-spark" right into the heart of this story and blown it to pieces.

If it's not as bad as the 1986 Transformers' movie where Optimus Prime is killed off, then it is a close second in destroying a childhood favorite. Michael Bay has repeatedly been given good oppurtunities (Armagadeon, Pearl Harbor, Independance Day, etc.) and repeatedly dropped the ball. Perhas he could sit in on a few Pixar story board sessions and learn a thing or two. Until he does, though, I'll be avoiding his films like they're evil Decepticons!

Top 100 Movies: 41-50

Here's more:


41) Lawrence of Arabia

42) North by Northwest

43) Taxi Driver

44) Field of Dreams

45) The Godfather Trilogy

46) Toy Story

47) A Perfect World

48) Chocolate

49) Jason and the Argonauts

50) Pride & Prejudice (BBC Version)

Top 100 Movies: 31-40

Here's some more:

31) The Princess Bride

32) Good Will Hunting

33) The Sting

34) Good Morning Vietnam

35) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

36) This is Spinal Tap

37) Raising Arizona

38) Gods & Generals

39) Breakfast at Tiffany's

40) Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Top 100 Movies: 21-30

Here's the next installment, again, in no particular order:

21) Red River

22) The Maltese Falcon

23) The Shawshank Redemption

24) The Philadelphia Story

25) The Corpse Bride

26) Batman Begins

27) Cast Away

28) The Sixth Sense

29) SLC Punk

30) Walk the Line

Heaven Help Us

What do you get when you cross hip religion, millions of dollars, and an NBC sitcom? Bad Theology, also going by the title Evan Almighty these days. This latest film by the crew that brought us Bruce Almighty tells the tale of side character Evan Baxter from the previous film as he, like Bruce, comes face to face with God.

Evan Baxter has recently been elected to Congress. The job is a big one and as he contemplates the grand desire he has to "change the world" (which just so happened to be his campaign slogan) he pauses to pray for God's help. But his and God's ideas of how Evan can affect change are not the same and God's command for Evan to build an ark brings on a "comedy of biblical proportions."

The reality, however, is that despite its clever tagline Evan Almighty really isn't that funny. Both Lauren Graham and Steve Carell were rather plastic in the film. I found nobody, save for the monkeys on the ark, very convincing. The attempts at humour were not just cheap, they were inaffective, and the millions invested in this film did little more than make a big screen zoo out of a potentially interesting movie.

But beyond the basic aesthetics this is a film that is marked by terrible theology. That is not to say that a film that doesn't acknowledge salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone is worthless. But rather it is to say that if Hollywood insists on making movies based on the Christian faith they should at least get the basics right.

Sure the god of Evan Almighty (played by the usually brilliant Morgan Freeman) is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. But even this god misunderstand the reality of the true story of Noah, which He supposedly inspired. The whole story of Noah's Ark is recast, here, in terms quite absurd. Noah, if you read the real story, is about God's judgment on sinful mankind, and His salvation of a righteous man named Noah. In this movie the Biblical account is explicitly restated to be about "love." How ridiculous!

What's worse is that the movie has been marketed to Christians. Finally Hollywood has realized that Christians can bring them in some big bucks if they'd make movies that appeal to them. But is this the best they can do? If the period of "Christian" films post Narnia and Lord of the Rings includes this type of bad art and bad theology then all I can say is "Heaven help us!" This is not a Christian film, friends, and worse...it's not a very good film at all.

So what do you get when you cross hip religion, millions of dollars, and an NBC sitcom? Jokes that aren't funny, acting that isn't good, an annoying Wanda Sykes, and a "comedy" of Unbiblical proportions.

Top 100 Movies: 11-20

Here's the next 10 in no particular order:

11) Hotel Rwanda

12) Saving Private Ryan

13) An American in Paris

14) Rope

15) Gettysburg

16) Spiderman 2

17) X-Men 2

18) Simone

19) Finding Nemo

20) Stranger than Fiction

Top 100 Favorite Movies: 1-10

At work a few weeks ago one of my co-workers mentioned that among his favorite movies was Armagedon. You remember this film: it was the cheesy, overly dramatic, and forgetable (if start stacked)adventure in space. The only thing worse than this film was the annoying Aerosmith song that came out attached to it. In response to my co-worker I offered to recommend him a few good movies. He insisted, however, that Armagedon be considered in at least my top 100, but I refused. So as I have had time to think about it, I have come up with my top 100 favorite films. Here's a portion, after number five they are in no particular order:

1. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

2. Young Frankenstein

3. Rear Window

4. Duck Soup

5. Casablanca

6. To Catch a Thief

7. Gladiator

8. The Patriot

9. To Kill a Mockingbird

10. The Three Amigos