HOLIDAYS & EVENTS
• Fourth of July (U.S.A.)
• Graduation

Home > Movies

Your Feedback

We'd love to hear from you. Click here to send us an e-mail.

Due to the volume of e-mail, we are unable to respond to every letter.

Disrespectful Guru

posted 07/1/08
I cannot believe that Paramount has come out with a movie like The Love Guru. This the utmost disrespect to the Hindu culture!People do not even know what the meaning of guru is; how can someone use it or even portray someone we respect? Whoever decided to create this movie must have been a total idiot. Such a disrespectful piece of entertainment.
Aekta Amin

Smart Is Funny!

posted 07/1/08
Despite your review's contention to the contrary, Get Smart is one of the funniest movies I have seen in a long time. The laughter in our theater was loud and robust throughout themovie. It has been a long time since I laughed so hard that I had tears running down my face. People left the theater laughing and talking about this movie on the way out, in the lobby, andby their cars.
Keith

posted 07/1/08
Get Smart is a wonderful piece of entertainment to all Maxwell Smart fans. Lots of good characterizations and witty remarks that distinguished the original series with old vaudeville humor abound. A great movie for the whole family—humorous and suggestive without being vulgar and debased.
Dr. James Turner

More Sex Talk …

The conversation continues regarding our review of Sex and the City, our follow-up commentary, and earlier reader response …

posted 06/13/08
Thank you for writing your honest opinion of the movie, for acknowledging how well-scripted and interesting the characters were, and for not automatically discounting a decent movie due to a few cinematic moments that you may not agree with. In ways I can't quite explain, your article encouraged me. It was real. Non-religious. Genuine. A breath of fresh air in a Christian culture that still (like I did) judges before truly observing.
Angie Teater

posted 06/13/08
Shame on you! Try as you may, you will find no redeeming value in this film. It is post-modern soft porn for women. By your three 3-star rating, you are leading the way for people to stumble their way in the theater to subject themselves to the temptations of the evil one for 90 minutes or so. Would you further suggest that I go to the local strip club to see what else our culture is doing? I think it is time for you, little froggy, to get out of the boiling pot before you are cooked with the rest of the post-modern rationalists who can't see right from wrong and truth from deception.
David A. Porter

posted 06/13/08
Thank you for giving your readers credit for having a brain, and the discernment to decide what movies are okay for us to go see. I for one appreciate all of your reviews, which is exactly what they are; not someone making a decision for me or my family.
Kathy Burnette

posted 06/13/08
What a disappointment! I am a single woman in my 20s who believes the Word of God is Truth. Your tagline reads, "Biblical perspectives on contemporary cinema." There were no Bible verses used to reference anything. Does this movie truly merita 3-star rating from a Christian perspective? It is not a new concept that we all are "sexual beings who wrestle with balancing loneliness and desire for romantic love." Should there not be a distinction between romance and love? Should I lust after men to fulfill my longings and desires? I will no longer in good faith recommend this website to friends seeking "biblical perspectives on contemporary cinema."
Cindy Ableson

posted 06/13/08
Of course we don't want you deciding what we watch. Yes we want to be aware of all that is going on in the world around us and yes sometimes we go to movies and are repulsed, but often surprised and touched by God's Light shining through. Keep up the good work.
Jack Walker

posted 06/13/08
I understand your desire to be "culturally relative" and appeal to an audience's interests, but I feel that you are doing a disservice to readers and fellow believers by failing to warn them of the effects of watching films like this. I agree with your reviewer that the church often does fail our single members by simply replying that "true loves waits" and not acknowledging their desire for a sexual relationship. However, I don't feel that watching SATC would help this, particularly our single friends who may already be struggling. How does filling your mind with the images of nudity, homosexuality, adultery, fornication or sex within marriage help us wait? Psalm 101:3 makes it very clean that we are to set our eyes before no vile thing.
Melissa Lackey

posted 06/13/08
I was raised by parents who believed in living IN the world, not OF it. While my parents appropriately sheltered me from inappropriate material, they gradually allowed us to experience things that really freaked out their Christian counterparts. Now I am an adult that can make good choices about what I take in and can objectively evaluate media choices. I probably won't go see Sex and the City. However, I don't think I need to be someone else's Holy Spirit and tell them not to go.
Christy Ragle

posted 06/13/08
I would like to recommend an author who discusses the importance of disputing the myths in SATC. Marian Jordan wrote Sex and The City Uncovered, writing about why even Christians find this drama widely popular and how each of the characters from the show are all truthfully searching for the same thing: someone or something to fill the God-shaped hole in their hearts. She points people to the gospel in a unique way. Check her out here.
Suzanne Badger

posted 06/13/08
I have worked as a guitarist/composer in Los Angeles for decades and co-lead an Arts and Entertainment small group at my church, and we talk a lot about the pressures that other Christians put on us to not be involved with anything that doesn't have the "Christian" stamp on it. But the truth is that if we don't know anything about the world around us, the people we are trying to reach aren't going to see what we have to say about it as having any grounding in the reality they live in.
Doug Perkins

posted 06/13/08
Those are led by the Spirit will refrain from Sex in the City. In this light as representatives of Christ your online venture should call a spade a spade and be accurately biblical in its view when "reviewing," which should never mean fence sitting. To have authority to espouse even a minor exegetical view alone on poetic nuance, misplaces your authority as neo-apostolic or prophetic, as a logical line drawn from some ability of interpreting and thus above the allegorical poet. The procedural logic and Spirit is null and void. God help us all run like and from hell.
Glen Jackman

posted 06/13/08
As for the appropriateness of reviewing Sex and the City, I think some religious people, and not just Christians, would rather hide from our culture than walk through it. But as Christians, we are called to be that light upon the hill, not the one hiding in the cave. Jesus met the people where they were—in the streets; Paul became all things to all men so that he might engage their conversions and bring them to know Christ. To do this, we must try to understand them. I am thankful for your reviews of such movies because it means I can learn about what my coworkers and the kids in my youth group are watching, and I don't have to spend money to support it, nor allow myself to be tempted by it. I feel this is a great service to your readers, not just because of the quality of your reviews, but also because it makes us better prepared to be the missionaries we are called to be. Thank you for helping me to fulfill God's plan for my life.
Cathryn Torgerson

posted 06/13/08
Do we follow C.S. Lewis—or Jesus? Surely Jesus? The Word of God says: "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." You have dismally failed the Christian community. You need to publicly apologize.
Triston Jacobsohn

posted 06/13/08
Thanks for posting the feedback from readers on your SATC review. As a film critic and a Christian, I always love reading the responses any time CT says anything remotely positive about a controversial movie, or anything slightly negative about a "Christian" movie. I can definitely relate to the wildly varying responses. They usually show how far we as a church have come and how far we still have to go. Many of those letters illustrate perfectly why we have such a problem reaching non-believers. They represent an us-versus-them mindset that says, "If you want to become a Christian, you have to go to this particular church, dress exactly like they do, give up anything you thought was fun and start acting superior to those different from you." God forbid we attempt to meet lost souls where they are and let them know that weunderstand. Or that we might gain some moral insight from a movie that Christians are supposed to think is bad.
Josh Sewell

posted 06/13/08
To all against the review of SATC, but most specifically to Mike Lumpkin who said: "Sex and the City is just trash and nothing redeeming can be made of a series so riddled with ungodly views of sex, marriage and friendship." Brother, I grieve that your God is so small. My God is bigger than any movie and is able bring "beauty from ashes."
Josh Perryman

posted 06/13/08
I teach a class called "Finding God In Film" at Eugene Bible College in which the goal is to look at contemporary film, observe our culture and the morals found or not found, and discuss whether or not God is an influence in these stories, among other things. I encourage my students to always be discerning in their choices of movies, but to also look beyond the mere entertainment and see what is really going on in that big world in which they live. We use Jeffrey Overstreet's Through a Screen Darkly as a textbook and discussion starter. My students have enjoyed the opportunity to learn to think outside of their boxes and gain even more perspective in their Christian Worldview.
Danell L. Bemis

posted 06/13/08
I am not a SATC fan, but I have always appreciated the way CT respects its readers' ability to make a choice based on their own convictions. I love that movies are not rated based on their use of profanity, violence, etc., in the same way I appreciate that movies with Christian themes are not automatically given 4 stars. I grew up in a legalistic home & church, so I find the freedom I have been given in Christ all the more precious. Thank you for respecting your readers enough to allow them to make their own decisions before the Lord.
Valerie Stewart

For and Against Sex

We weren't surprised that our review of Sex and the City prompted a number of replies, especially when we gave the film 3 stars. But we'd like to again reiterate that our star ratings do NOT imply an "endorsement" or "recommendation." The star ratings have nothing to do with the film's "moral value," because such an assessment can vary widely from person to person—as the sampling of letters below clearly indicates. (For more on our star ratings, mission statement, and philosophy, see our FAQs.)

posted 06/03/08
How can any Christian who takes the Bible seriously want to watch (or review) Sex and the City? Why would CT allow this to be reviewed? What is next? Debbie Does Dallas? Soft porn is still porn. God deliver us from this kind of anemic Christianity. Talk about unsalty salt!
Jeff Straub

posted 06/03/08
Thanks for having the guts and grounding in reality for posting your review and your "Let's Talk About Sex" editorial. If there is a subject that the church in general has "thrown out with the bathwater" it's sex, and as a Christian single I am very familiar with the catch phrases that you get told by (well-meaning and usually married) other Christians to shut you up when you talk about the difficulties in going without it. When Sex and the City (the TV series) first came out, I figured it was what most Christians probably think. But after watching it a bit (the "sanitized version"), I found that it really was showing a lot more moral stance than I expected. Yes, a lot of what they do is unbiblical and unfulfilling, but the characters seem to learn from it and do better next time. Overall it shows what the right path really is by how much the wrong path doesn't work for them. I'm not ashamed at all to say that I will probably see the movie.
Doug Perkins

posted 06/03/08
"I will set before my eyes no vile thing" (Psalm 101:3). I am pretty tolerant of "artistic" reviews of movies that are rough at times in order to make a point. But Sex and the City is just trash and nothing redeeming can be made of a series so riddled with ungodly views of sex, marriage and friendship. Anyone who could actually find something redeeming in these "friendships" on screen is too awfully familiar with the world. There are times you should just avoid reviews altogether. This does not show courage, but compromise.
Mike Lumpkin

posted 06/03/08
This movie is nothing more than pornography for women. Women used to be the moral compass of humanity. Forty years ago that began to change and has accelerated with the success of the feminist movement. The depth of that success can be gauged by the reviewer's remarks that SATC is "a phenomenon even for many Christians. For years, good church-going friends of mine secretly raved about Sex and the City." The fact that they did it secretly reveals that their consciences weren't totally devoid of the ability to tell right from wrong, but the fact they chose to submerse their minds in it anyway reveals a willingness to indulge in corrupt thinking regardless of what the Bible says.
Terry L. Brown

posted 06/03/08
Something is wrong when you give Sex and the City 3 stars and Prince Caspian 2½. You're giving a higher rating to the most godless, perverted, anti-Christian, pro-gay movie/TV series, and a lower rating to Prince Caspian? Is this really Christianity Today??? Are you guys really serious about Jesus, the Bible, holiness, and biblical truth? It seems like you're just a corporation trying to make money off of unsuspecting, immature Christians. I pray you will come back to biblical standards. God have mercy upon you.
Brian Michaels

posted 06/03/08
I wish people would please see the movie before passing judgment. I have seen it. Do you know that in the movie, two of the four main characters are married, and are faithful to their mates? The other two are in long-term (3- and 5-year) relationships, also faithful, (even though, granted, it is outside of marriage.) There is no bed-hopping—the only principle player who cheats is one of the husbands, setting up a major plot line about forgiveness and the restoration of a marriage. Although there are sex scenes, that is not the focus of the movie. It's a movie about commitment, marriage, friendship, and learning to love and forgive. It has merit.
Don and Sheryl Cope

posted 06/03/08
Three out of four stars for Sex and the City? Not a movie for "some" adults (which ones, exactly)? The review, which tosses aside well-intended (if ill-informed) Christian dating advice in favor of validating this "meaningful reunion" of "winning friendships," not to mention all that male "eye-candy"? Sheesh. Why read Cosmo when I can read CT? Good grief, I'm not a prude. I didn't expect you to give the movie zero stars just because it has the word "sex" in the title, but I thought I would encounter at least some discernment in your review. But you proved me wrong again, CT.
T. Strang

posted 06/03/08
I like how you addressed Sex and the City. You're absolutely right that the church is not addressing issues when you write, "But the church has often been slow to regard its singles as not just a 'demographic' that meets at a certain place on a certain night each week, but as sexual human beings who wrestle with the same cravings and longings as any of their 'secular' counterparts." So what do we do about that? How do we address issues such as loneliness, our God-given sex drive, and other issues that secular television and the media are too quick to want to talk about? Shows like SATC and Friends did well because, like good comedy, there's a bit of truth to the stories. Here's a thought: Use CT and other good Christian sources as a sounding board and begin talking about these issues, and keep talking about them. You ask great questions. I certainly don't have the answers, but am willing to ask questions and help find the answers in my own way.
Todd Fitchette

posted 06/03/08
Sex and the City is a pornographic film. You implicitly seem to extol the virtues of pornography. I think you should either abandon your stated Christian aims and mission statement, or stop condoning pornography.
John Kirk

posted 06/03/08
Thanks for the great review of Sex and the City. I appreciate you at a movie that is not typical "Christian" fare. I also appreciate your insights into how the Sex and the City franchise doesn't insult a woman's intelligence. Thanks again for applying your own wisdom and biblical soundness to a real issue—sexuality—in our current culture. I'm a closet SATC fan. The show had many, many profound insights into womanhood, marriage, love, and relationships—and some things that are not too healthy or Christ-centered. But we must be discerning. I was pleased (and proud) of CT for reviewing the movie. Gives me great fodder for deciding whether or not I should see it. CT Movies is always my first go-to resource for movies.
Jana Muntsinger

posted 06/03/08
I was deeply troubled by your review of Sex and the City. Three stars for a film that apparently features nudity, a threesome and other sex scenes—mostly involving single people? How can a Christian publication possibly "recommend" such a film? I also noted the elitist attitude of the reviewer who said the film wasn't for everybody. Oh really? Tell me: Which Christians DO you recommend seeing this? Come on now!
Gary Lesniewski

posted 06/03/08
I enjoyed reading both articles about SATC. However, as a married Christian woman I can tell you we fare little better than the singles in church circles when it comes to being accepted as (gasp) sexual beings! A lot of the teaching inour churches is stuck in the 1950s where married women had a permanent headache and men have to beg every night. Most couple retreats I attended used this afore mentioned tired model and spent a lot of time trying to convince wives to be nice to their husbands in bed. What was never addressed was wives who enjoy sex and want it with the same frequency (or more) than their husbands! I do have a concern about this movie and the series in that the sexual scenes can be a problem for any women suffering from problems with lust, pornography, cyber-sex, and things of that nature! Yes Christian women have these problems as well. Keep up the great articles.
Carmena Fleury

posted 06/03/08
I just read your SATC review and agree with all of it, but I was bummed that you didn't pick up a main underlying theme of the movie—forgiveness! It was a huge struggle for Carrie and especially Miranda to forgive their men, but they did it. Quite meaningful in a movie that didn't really have many other redeeming qualities.
Jenny De Frates

Polytheistic Indy

posted 05/29/08
When reading the Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull review I was struck by the following passage:

"Mutt gets spooked by Indy's stories about the Mayans who distorted the shape of their childrens' skulls to resemble the elongated craniums of their gods. "No," Mutt objects. "God's head is not like that." Indy smiles. "Depends on who your god is." And yet, Indy never bothers to ask for help from the God who has saved him so many times before—especially in Raiders and The Last Crusade. He seems to have cast aside all lessons learned from the Almighty."

I think it's worth pointing out that Indiana Jones as a franchise clearly has a polytheistic worldview. It's easy to convince one's self it is basically Judeo-Christian, but to do so you have to completely ignore Temple of Doom, which makes it quite clear that Indiana Jones exists in a world where most religions are, in fact, true. Aside from the fact that Temple is based entirely around Hinduism, featuring a conflict between Shiva (working through Indy) and Kali (working through the temple cult), it makes reference at one point to how the cult's plans to "conquer" the gods of other religions. The villain at one point says if they get all he magic stones Kali's power as a god will increase to the point where she can "cast down" the gods of Judaism and Christianity (which it, interestingly, sees as two different gods.)

Obviously this whole notion is absurd to Christians, which is probably why most people prefer to ignore Temple's clear polytheistic implications. They are there though, plain as day, in that film. So I think anyone who's paid decent attention to the overall Indiana Jones mythology would realize that Indiana Jones would never believe in a single "god" because he's seen clear evidence that far more than a single Christian deity exists. This makes it difficult, IMO, to "claim" Indiana Jones as Christian … as some Christian fans like to do.
Matthew Weise

Editor's note: Good points, Matthew, but the question is whether Indy embraces the pagan religions depicted in Temple of Doom, as he seems to do so—to some degree—with Judeo-Christian beliefs in Raiders and Last Crusade. As you noted, Doom merely shows that Indy "exists in a world where most religions are, in fact, true." Merely living in such a world does not necessarily mean that Indy believes all of it.

Congrats on Caspian Review

posted 05/29/08
Congratulations for your excellent review of Prince Caspian. Peter Chattaway is the only reviewer I have found who had 1) obviously read and understood the book, and 2) even cared about the original intent of the author. He really nailed the absence of the secondary theme of C.S. Lewis' work. The deep longing for the lost and better things, the happy realization that they aren't really lost, the liberation of Narnia not only by force, but also by joy, the spontaneous response to Aslan by "the hidden elect," and the wonderful encounter of Caspian's nurse with Aslan and later with Caspian himself are a great part of the "magic" of the book. Thank you again for this excellent review. From now on, you are my first stop for movie reviews.
Douglas Griffin

posted 05/29/08
I must express my disappointment in how far Caspian's filmmakers deviated from the actual story. Douglas Gresham, Lewis's stepson, states that the movie might have been too boring if they would have followed the story line. That seems like they just didn't have the imagination to make it work.
Chris Miller

Adamson's Worldview

posted 05/29/08
Answering CT's question about his spirituality, Andrew Adamson says, "I've decided not to use these films as a platform or springboard for my own beliefs." Impossible. One's worldview will always intrude. In fact, my chief complaint with LWW (aside from the fact that Aslan stands shorter than Peter, when he's supposed to be the size of a young elephant)is that it lacks a Christian sensibility. The Focus on the Family Radio Theatre production of Narnia/LWW blows Walden's out of the water.
Jim Woychuk

About That Racer Review

posted 05/29/08
I took my kids to see Speed Racer and we had to leave because of the violence. I don't think your review is critical for Christian viewers. But it's not just the violence. You say the film has "light profanity," but that's more swearing than I've heard in PG lately—including the a-- word several times. How bad does it have to be to be PG-13? I would expect your review to be more critical.
Pastor Matt Skiles

posted 05/29/08
Since when does "s---" and "a--" constitute mild profanity for a children's movie? I expect this sort of moral garbage to be tolerated and even encouraged by Hollywood. However, I was disappointed that any site proclaiming to be Christian could simply gloss over the PG rating for this disaster of a movie.Your lack of concern clearly reflects your spiritual disconnect.
Rick Loveless

Leading People Astray?

posted 05/29/08
I am not reading your reviews any longer or trusting your views as a Christian.

The Iron Man review was outrageous. When you do not view a woman, in bra and panties, on top of a man as outside the scope of what a Christian wants to view, then you are truly coming from the "Christianity today" mindset. I think your mind has gotten so seared with all the filth you see, that you are not offended anymore. I am so sorry for those people you are leading astray with your liberal, worldly views of movies. You have a job of forewarning Christians of the contents of movies; we expect Christian (Bible-based) reviews at your site. Evidently you do not know what that is. I am thankful we have ScreenIt.com to tell us the truth.
Janice Michel

About Those Standard Procedures

posted 04/30/08
I object to your characterization of U.S. military personnel in your latest newsletter: You wrote that "Standard Operating Procedure … recounts the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where U.S. military personnel tortured and abused prisoners of war. … The acts committed upon these human beings were atrocious." Putting panties on someone's head is torture? Then what would you call hacking someone's head off with a knife? Crushing people into hot asphalt with steamrollers? Feeding people feet first into industrial shredders? Where is your outrage over REAL torture? You would do well to keep your focus on movies and leave the left-wing editorial comments to the professional America-haters at the New York Times. Capiche? I subscribe to your newsletter to hear a Christian perspective on movies—NOT your perspective on politics!
Mercedes Dugger

Editor's note: Since when did objection to torture—of any kind—become solely a political issue, and not one meriting a Christian response? Should Christians leave the matter of human rights abuse—of any kind, anywhere in the world—solely to the politicians? Heaven help us. And yes, many of the acts committed at Abu Ghraib were most certainly atrocious—Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt called them "reprehensible," and Army Major General Antonio Taguba called them "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" of prisoners—just as many of the acts committed against American captives were also atrocious. As for Abu Ghraib, one need look no further than these abuses to think of the word "atrocious"—male guards raping female detainees, male prisoners being forced to masturbate and engage in homosexual acts, pouring phosphoric acid on detainees, sodomizing prisoners with a baton, tying a rope around a detainee's penis and dragging him across the floor, having venomous snakes bite prisoners (some of whom died), the list goes on. Were the Iraqis' treatment of our own soldiers more atrocious? Perhaps. But that doesn't diminish our treatment of their POWs. Nor should a Christian website abstain from commenting on such atrocities. It is not solely a political issue.

posted 04/30/08
Torture is ALWAYS wrong.The soldiers involved [merely] humiliated terrorists. The facts around Abu Ghraib are these: Torture used to mean physical abuse including breaking bones, pulling fingernails and fingers out of their sockets, etc. Now it can actually mean anything. I don't agree with torture, but I also don't agree with war, either; unless we are fighting fascists that abuse, murder and torture their citizens.
David D'Arcy, SSgt, USAF (Ret)

posted 04/30/08
Why all the sympathy directed at the enemy? Why aren't there films about all of our guys that had their head slowly cut off as they were screaming and begging for their lives? What happened to the enemy [at Abu Ghraib] wasn't much more than some college pranks in comparison. I'm quite sure if it had been one of your relatives who had their heads chopped off, you would look at it differently. That's not to say what happened was right, but you weren't in their shoes putting up with what our soldiers deal with on a daily basis.
Audrey Pietras

Bad Baby Mama

posted 04/30/08
Baby Mama is just another Hollywood effort to legitimize non-traditional ways of having a child. Hollywood seems determined to eradicate marriage, natural conception and childbirth, fathers and the nuclear family. This is pushed on us as the new normal, and we are supposed to have a good laugh about how cute and adorable it all is. They may not be lesbians but the two women are held out as a new type of family. I am not buying it; children need fathers, plain and simple. This is not even about any perceived "morality"—it is about what works. Thousands of years of family life has taught us what is the most successful. That is what we should believe in and follow and this type of presentation should be rejected for the distortion that it is.
R. Curtis

Editor's note: Before complaining too much about Hollywood trying to "legitimize" non-traditional ways of having a child, we encourage you to look into recent films where Hollywood has "legitimized" pro-life choices—even in raunchy movies. As for Baby Mama, we don't know if you or anyone close to you has ever experienced the pain of infertility, but for them, "natural conception" isn't an option. Such folks—including many committed Christians—often look to "non-traditional" ways to have a child. The desire to bear children is a God-given one, and modern medicine has provided ways to meet that need—including surrogate motherhood. As for Hollywood "pushing" this on us, who's forcing you to see the movie?

Expounding on Expelled

posted 04/30/08
Your review of Expelled is surprisingly thoughtful. (Full disclosure: I'm an atheist and also I am fascinated by science and evolution, and I know ID to be the barren wasteland of non-science that it truly is.) I have one issue with what you say: Dawkins' notorious "alien" comment was not silly. The point he was making is very sensible, even if the filmmakers edited it to seem absurd: We currently do not know exactly how life started on Earth. Scientists are working on it and they have plausible theories, some of which they have partially duplicated in the lab. But since we don't know for sure, it's possible that the cause is something we haven't seen in a lab yet. It is possible that some other life form "seeded" the Earth with a primitive life form (like a tiny self-replicating protein) that eventually evolved through natural selection. However, that other "alien" life form would be subject to its own history of evolution-like development somewhere else. Remember, "alien" doesn't mean green Martians; it means a life form from somewhere other than Earth.
Gil (no last name given)

posted 04/30/08
I consider Expelled to be mostly propaganda. I can't say that I've seen the film either, so that may not be fair to say, but I feel through most the information I've read about it, the same sort of force-fed Intelligent Design argument persists, doggedly nipping at something called "Darwinism." But I read your article to get a take on what the Christian community thinks about this matter. The review explores the film in a mostly unbiased way, and you present questions on the matter that deserve addressing. But I wish you had a clarified what exactly "Darwinism" is. The theory of social Darwinism, which is more likely what Ben Stein is referring to, was not a theory which Darwin subscribed to himself. Social Darwinism is more of a philosophy, and what came about that theory is not connected to evolution, which if anything could have been called Scientific Darwinism. If Intelligent Design or Creationism wants call itself a philosophy, that's fine, because it is. But that isn't what science is. Evolution never claims to know how life originated. Evolution only makes a theory about how life changes over time. As a Christian who believes in Evolution, I hope this dialogue between ideologies can continue.
Ben Thrasher

posted 04/30/08
In his otherwise informative review, Mark Moring offers a misleading parenthetical reference to a Scientific American article contesting Expelled's linkage of Darwinism and the Holocaust. Its author, John Rennie, does assert that the film's "heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency." In fact, his subtitle, "A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust," seems to promise a response. However, the subtitle and that half sentence are the article's sum total of text on the matter. Neither the Holocaust nor any related subject, such as eugenics or social Darwinism, nor any synonymous matter, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc., ever appears again in the Scientific American article. Rather, it simply shifts to other things. Moring's aside will likely mislead readers who don't actually read the Scientific American piece into believing that behind the hyperlink lies a weighty and credible rejoinder. That error deserves correction.
R. Clinton Ohlers, Ph.D.

Editor's note: The review included a link to the Scientific American article, so readers can decide for themselves what it does and doesn't say.

Would Rather Forget Sarah Marshall

posted 04/30/08
I just wanted to convey my outrage regarding Peter Chattaway's review of Forgetting Sarah Marshall. As an evangelical Christian, I usually trust CT's movie reviews, but I was absolutely dismayed to see that Chattaway gave a vile movie like this 3 out of 4 stars and was generally positive in his review. On his advice, I decided to see the film, and was absolutely shocked and repulsed to see what complete smut this movie was. A guy's genitals were clearly shown no less than 3 times (even the non-Christian crowd in the theater I was in was upset about this completely unnecessary and disgusting porn) and he was vividly shown having sex with 5 different women—all within the first 20 minutes of the movie! I was so repulsed that I walked out. If I see any more incompetent reviews like this one, I will not be using CT anymore.
Adam Rollefson

Editor's note: Our star ratings are not an indicator of the "morality factor" in any given movie; rather, they merely indicate if the film is technically well-made. There was plenty of information throughout the review about the amount of smut in the film; the male nudity is referred to in the fourth paragraph and again in The Family Corner. The reason for the R rating, as noted in our review and in The Family Corner, was for "sexual content, language, and graphic nudity." If the reader was surprised by any of these elements in the film, it wasn't because our review didn't include the warnings.

That Gruff Gresham

posted 04/30/08
I appreciated reading the interview with Douglas Gresham about the upcoming film, Prince Caspian. He is not an easy man to like (of course, he makes it clear that's not important to him). I heard him speak in person as The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe was about to be released. When questions were raised, he said, "I've spent 25 years making this movie. People who don't like it can make their own movie." He said he realized in 1990 that he came across as arrogant. I think he still does. But as his stepfather said (in one of the books, can't quote it exactly), "If you think Christians leave a lot to be desired in their behavior, just think how much worse they might be if they weren't Christians." I try to remember that, for it surely includes myself.
Rev. Jeanne Devine

Hates Critics, Digs CT Movies

posted 02/28/08
I studied post-structuralist film theory in grad school and have always hated every so-called "critic" I've ever come across for their self-righteous posturing. I'm also an atheist, against organized religion of almost every kind, and very militant about things like being pro-choice. However, I find your reviews to be the most balanced and well thought out that I have ever read, so I have bookmarked your site and recommended it to my friends. I also used to teach college composition. If I ever do again, I will use your reviews as examples of well-crafted writing for my students.
John Kantor

Shocked About Spiderwick

posted 02/28/08
I am very disappointed in your review of The Spiderwick Chronicles. While I agree that the movie was excellent, imaginative, and fun for children, I could not look past the awful use of language in the film and I am SHOCKED that a Christian website would not include this language in their review. The children in the movie utter "Oh my God" so many times that I lost count. The profanity your reviewer lists as "mild" is when a child says "what the hell?" Since when is "hell" a "mild" profanity for CHILDREN?? Because of said language, I could not recommend this film AT ALL to Christian children. As a Christian review site, you have a duty to be more vigilant on issues such as these.
Todd Patrick

Change Our Name?

posted 02/28/08
I am amazed that you call yourself "Christianity Today" yet you do not tell the readers what the content of movies are. Definitely, Maybe is NOT a movie I think a Christian would wish to see and yet there is not the detail that Screenit.com has. Screenit.com is the best choice for "Christians" to make sure they do not inadvertently go to movies that are not what a believer would wish to fill their minds with. I think you need to change your name.
Janice Michel

Editor's note: ScreenIt.com is a good source for those looking for precise counts on how many times potentially offensive content shows up in a movie, but we believe there's much more to assessing a film than merely counting the number of bad words. Besides, in our review of Definitely, Maybe, we were very clear about the content. We wrote that the film includes "frank dialogue" and strong language, even citing many of the words that are used—like penis, vagina, slut, and the b-word. We wrote: "There are no actual scenes of sex, but it's talked about extensively (even with the 10-year-old) and hinted at many times (e.g., scenes of unmarried couples waking up together). There are a fair share of other swear words and taking the Lord's name in vain. The father character discusses some pretty objectionable things with his daughter, like threesomes." All we can say is, if anyone "inadvertently" goes to this movie and is surprised to hear bad language, they haven't read our review. (And we're not changing our name.)

Focusing on What's True

posted 02/28/08
Thank you for holding true to your God-given calling in the face of what must seem likenever-ending persecution from the Christian community. I just graduated with a film degree from Cornerstone University, and as I think about the future—and how I might handle myself in the face of mainstream success—I can only hope to address the inevitable backlash from my brothers and sisters in Christ with the same grace and humility that you exhibit to your readers on a regular basis. I firmly believe that the only way we, as Christian artists, will ever have any impact on the world for Christ is by discerning the difference between good art and bad art. I think one of the key distinctions between the two is found in Philippians 4:8. Too many individuals hurry past the first part of this passage and onto "pure and lovely" and so on. But,it's what comes first that is the most striking to me—"Finally, brothers, whatever is true … think about such things." This is where so many good-intentioned Christian filmmakers get it wrong. In their rush to make movies blatantly bereft of brokenness, darkness, and sin, they end up creating an artificial version of reality—a world that no one can relate to. The end result is a few Christians get warm fuzzies, and everyone else goes "huh?" We need to tell real stories, about real people, living in a real world. And until God returns to set things right, that world happens to be a broken, sinful place desperately aching for redemption. Until Christian filmmakers begin depicting that level of reality in their films, they will never be offering their audiences anything approaching "true." This is why I applaud the work your staff is doing. You judge films based on their artistic merit, not the legalism that hinders so many Christian publications. And yet, you use your faith and knowledge of the Word to dig deep and accentuate the redemption bubbling just under the surface of the narrative. Despite being labeled "heretics" and "sinners" for watching and reviewing the movies you do, you have stuck to your calling and carried on in the name of Christ.
Jonathan Butrin

Criticizing the Critics

The following e-mails are in response to our Critics' Choice Awards:

posted 02/14/08
Juno at No. 1? I am utterly bewildered! Just walked out of that movie, popped some Tylenol to try to relieve my non-"menstrual migraine," tempted to hit the bottle—but want to maintain my faculties to fire this one across into the la la land in which you folks reside. Did anyone notice the cross with the line through it—as in Ghost Busters, as in no cross, as in anti-uh, well cross? Secondly, OK, she couldn't go through with an abortion, so this therefore places the movie in your thumbs-up category? I know a Satan worshiper who couldn't go through with an abortion. Thirdly, I have seen wild boar on the side of the road keeping their family structure together with more grace and decorum than any character portrayed in this work. This movie would more accurately be titled "Orcs in Heat." I am glad Jennifer Garner's character was given the child—the only redemptive quality this film offered. But how anyone could equate this to anything close to Christianity and its principles is both laughable and pitiable!
Debra Szemplinski

posted 02/14/08
Into Great Silence is a waste of time and money, unless you see this as a promotional film for the Catholic faith. Didn't Jesus say, "Go ye into the world and preach the gospel"? He didn't say, lock yourself up in a building and meditate to God and forget about the world around you. The Bible emphasizes to be among the world, and those in a monastery are mostly not; if you live indoors, who can see the love of God working in you? I feel sorry for them that they have been misled in how to really serve the Lord our GOD. I pray that they may see the light before they close their eyes for good.
Hans Hoekstra

posted 02/14/08
No place in the Top 10 for The Kite Runner?That was one of the most uplifting and interesting movies of my life.
Bruce Mason

posted 02/14/08
I'm bummed that The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was left off of your list. It topped many of the other films chosen in terms of acting, top notch cinematography, profound script, and powerfully subtle soundtrack by Nick Cave & Warren Ellis, along with outstanding sense of place and time created by the wardrobe and set design.
Greg Stump

posted 02/14/08
You have given me a great place to start in catching up on the ones I missed last year and affirmed two of my faves as your top two spots, albeit for two completely different reasons. Juno got me in the heart; There Will Be Blood got me in the head. Both were amazing, inspiring pieces of filmmaking, andambitious for two completely different reasons. One went for epic and succeeded; one went for authentic, true storytelling which could have easily fallen into schmaltz or stereotype, but didn't. Wowza. This list was a good reminder of what I really appreciate about CT Movies—you provide a kindred spirit in watching movies. Most secular sites ignore anything resembling the meaning of a work, focusing too much on style over substance. You are able to balance both, taking them both into consideration equally.
Glenn McCarty

More Redemption

The following e-mails are in response to our Most Redeeming Films of 2007 list:

posted 02/14/08
Michael Clayton hit many great nails on the head! How could you miss it?! Tom Wilkinson's redemption is fantastic. He's walking wonderfully against the grain when he sees "the light." George Clooney's poignant slow redemption is equally powerful, while the defense lawyer's slow meltdown is the result of giving in to the seduction of the soul—great film work.
Christian Turner

posted 02/14/08
How in the world did The Ultimate Gift not make this list?
Jim Phillips

posted 02/14/08
The Great Debaters is a wonderfully redemptive movie that should at least be mentioned. It is on the top of my list!
Cliff Stewart

posted 02/14/08
How about August Rush?
Peggy Forstad

posted 02/14/08
The Last Sin Eater.
Dr. Keith Jones

Concerning Bono …

posted 02/14/08
In response to Brett McCracken's review of U23D and his questioning of Bono's "coexist" message, I find it necessary to positively state that Bono is saying, "Jesus, Jew, Muhammad, it's true, all sons of Abraham." Bono has always been an advocate of peace and coexistence. However, he has never been reported as saying that Islam and Judaism are the same as Christianity. In interviews, concerts, and songs, Bono has recited only verses from the Bible and has only ever declared Jesus Christ as his personal savior. And Bono's speech only supports the idea that these religions have a common father, not a common doctrine.
Lauren Little

posted 02/14/08
I've followed U2 for almost 25 years, and to attempt to assert that Bono is a universalist or has a universalistic message, when he has clearly stated his humble and imperfect following of Jesus, is just silly and irresponsible. It is very clear in this movie, and in their previous other official concert DVD from the Vertigo Tour that Bono is saying, "Jesus, Jew, Mohammed … it's true, all sons of Abraham." If the reviewer read any of the interviews during the last tour, where Bono speaks on this element of the concert, one would discover his message. His aim is for peace, and he feels like this is his avenue to promote this work.
Matt Plotkin

Ungodly Movies

posted 02/14/08
Why, oh why, are you reviewing movies that are truly ungodly? Erotic, profanity, violent. Why would a believer need to go or choose to go to such films? By going to movies like you are reviewing, we are getting desensitized to seeing and hearing what God warns us not to partake of. Please help me understand why a magazine like yours has lowered itself to reviewing the movies that will not build believers' maturity. I am not legalistic at all; I am a "grace" person, but I am shocked at the movies you are reviewing. The use of the name of the Lord in vain—why are you reviewing movies like this? Why not ignore them? The review of Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story was not needed. The movie has frontal male nudity. That is porn. Why are you reviewing porn movies?
Judy Reamer

Thoughtful Reviews

posted 01/21/08
Thank you for providing consistently thoughtful movie reviews. It's refreshing to find Christian reviewers who look for what is good, true, and beautiful in a film without rejecting out of hand because it has nudity, violence, or "bad words." Thanks!
Casey Taylor

Caspian Wishes on the Mark

posted 01/21/08
Thanks and compliments to Devin Brown for articulating what so many of us would like to say about the stories of Narnia ("My Caspian Wish List"). Like a delicious meal or beautiful song, it is difficult to explain why a story is so magical and meaningful. Brown points out some of the spices that if left out, will lessen the impact and meaning of Prince Caspian.
Denise Williams

posted 01/21/08
Devin Brown's comments are very well stated. As a Christian it is easy to gloss over the real world life that continues to be lived after conversion. It is not necessarily a dark to light experience, but often, and more likely, a gradual experience like the dawning of a day. C. S. Lewis' characters portray this awakening.
David D. King

Charlie Wilson's Christian Heroine

posted 01/21/08
Joanne Herring, the heroine in Charlie Wilson's War, is a committed Christian who, sadly, is not portrayed as such in the movie. God led her in her part in this enormous Cold War defeating covert operation. As her closest friend, I would like to suggest that Christians everywhere would love to know about her part extraordinary part in the story and her relationship with Christ.
Desiree Lyon Howe

Keen on Sweeney Review

posted 01/21/08
Your review of Sweeney Todd was excellently written and well covered in every facet of the film! Not even the critics from the "major" newspapers on Rotten Tomatoes covered the film so well; I find too often they get caught up in their own jargon to say something that should be simple. I really appreciate the balance of simple points with well-founded depth in Brett McCracken's review.
Anton Purr

Ease Up on Travis

posted 01/21/08
You were a bit harsh on Randy Travis in your review of The Wager. I am a fan of his music and enjoy his acting. Why must you be so critical? The film might be preachy, but lay off Randy Travis.
Shirley Kordalski

About That Compass …

Editor's note: The following letters are in response to Jeffrey Overstreet's commentary, "Fear Not the Compass."

posted 12/04/07
I was sitting with my 9-year-old daughter when a preview for this movie came on TV. She said she would like to see this movie. I let her know that this was a movie that we would NOT be seeing, because the author doesn't believe in God, and he is not very nice to Him in the movie. Her response to me was, "Mom, how could any silly movie make me not love Jesus? I love Him no matter what." I have been thinking about that often in the past few days. Should we shield our children from everything, or watch stories like this with them, so that they are better equipped to witness to their friends that aren't being shielded from the world? It's a tough call, but I think parents need to take stock in the faith of their children, and not always assume that they will be swayed.
Natalie Tomasello

posted 12/04/07
Thank you for this wise, grace-filled discussion of Mr. Pullman's book. This article is immensely helpful and Christlike in its opinions and suggestions.
Mary Beth Starrett

posted 12/04/07
Mr. Overstreet's views reflect many of my own concerning The Golden Compass. However, having read the first book of the series, my wife and I have decided not to continue with the series after reading Mr. Overstreet's and other stories about Mr. Pullman's apparent agenda. Upon reading the book, our initial impression was that the book was a forceful criticism of organized religion, not the person of Jesus Christ. However this was before we read Mr. Pullman's explicit purpose in writing these books. The Golden Compass then became a gateway book to us, a book that guides the reader into reading the other books in the series in which the real agenda is presented. We have decided not to see the film in the theater because in doing so we will enrich Mr. Pullman as we assume he will receive a portion of the film's receipts. Furthermore, attendance will encourage production of the next two films. We obtained the book from our local library so as not to enrich Mr. Pullman further.
Mike Craig

posted 12/04/07
Good sound stuff, with the wisdom of years added in. Why do Christians get so outraged by books and movies, but not by poverty, injustice and the like? Or is it a lot easier to attack a person or a movie company than it is to do something about the state of the world?
Mike Crowl

posted 12/04/07
Clearly your views and opinions are very different from the majority of Christians of this movie. Christians should not support this movie in any way, especially children. Maybe those in favor of an atheist producer and writer and watching their films should get into the Word of God and then get to their knees in prayer and ask the Lord his view of this. We are to be separate from the world and not have anything to do with things of darkness.
Bev Burkett

posted 12/04/07
I think Overstreet is right in saying that we need to be rational in this, but I do have some major concerns about Pullman's trilogy, mainly that the target audience is young children. My 4-year-old is unable to distinguish reality from fantasy, and I cannot see myself explaining some of the suggested questions with my 6-year-old. Are young children able to see beyond the cool scenes/covers of the books enough to know what they are really reading? Obviously, there would be parent involvement with reading these stories to the very young, but is it really necessary to "scare" them with yet another thing? My first grade son thought the book looked "really cool." I told him the stories were about killing God and he said, "Really? Why would they write about that?" He was disgusted and is no longer interested.
Misty Stoltzfus

posted 12/04/07
I'm glad to get such an open-minded view of these wonderful fiction books! I think these books are wonderful masterpieces and a chance for us to talk about wickedness of the world and how we can cope with it in our everyday lives. What person hasn't met someone who has a grudge against God? It's a chance for parents to talk openly with their children about reality in the church and the beauty of these fictitious books.
Jeannine Larcom

posted 12/04/07
It's nice to see an opinion that doesn't bash anyone, like some Christians are. I have since changed my mind about the movie, and plan on getting the book just to see what the hype is about and make my own opinion from it, rather than bash it too. As God says, we need to be in the world, not of the world.
Christena Holden

posted 12/04/07
Thank you CT movies for the balanced articles. I really like how you encourage adults to talk about the themes of the movies with our kids rather than just condemning. Kids don't learn when we just condemn, because we haven't explained what is it we don't agree with and why.How will our kids learn to evaluate ideas and belief systems if we don't show them how?
Sarah Wickham

posted 12/04/07
Look, debate the content of the movie every which way. But to go to the movie is to put good money in the hands of an atheist. Would you do unnecessary business with an atheist or rather give your money to a Christian?
Kenny Stokes

posted 12/04/07
I've been surprised at your rather liberal and even overly gracious acceptance of a lot of very violent and dark movies. You seem to excuse just about anything by saying "It's a good starting place for discussion." But this commentary about The Golden Compass takes the cake. Sure a very thoughtful and discerning parent could have a great discussion with his bright and attentive and well-grounded children over what's wrong with the views in the movieand the books. But how many families actually will? And what about the unsaved? Will this series draw them toward God? Although I don't think we should call for a boycott, I routinely "vote with my feet"—so, for me, I'll skip The Golden Compass.
Jim Kirkpatrick

posted 12/04/07
Finally, someone with some sensibility has spoken out. I commend CT for allowing Jeffrey's voice to be heard in an increasingly paranoid Christian community. I have been receiving e-mails from friends and family warning us to keep this movie from our young innocent children's eyes and ears. How can Christians be so very threatened when we all claim to know the truth? I believe that Mr. Pullman is misled from the truth from what I've read about him, and I almost feel sorry for him for his own ignorance about heavenly grace and love. I have yet to read the books and judge for myself, though. And if my kids ask about it, I will read the books along with them and discuss it just like I did with Harry Potter. Parental guidance is the key, not censorship. Thanks for presenting Christianity as something that is sensible and intelligent.
Sharleen Rigg

posted 12/04/07
Thank you for the fabulous article. These are sentiments and ideas I've tried to convey to my peers and friends and those at my church, only much better written. In my opinion it is much more important to be informed on what exactly is in these books, and focus on helping our children tell the difference between the good and bad qualities in this series. Virtues are not Christian-only; non-Christians can display wonderful virtues as well, but Christ is the one who exemplifies all good things and virtues perfectly. We should not overlook the storytelling quality and the virtues promoted in this book for the faults, but rather be discerning about what's gone right with this trilogy, and what's gone wrong, and educate ourselves rather than be ignorant bigots.
Aimee Pan<</span>

Disappointing 'Shock-umentary'

posted 11/20/07
Though I agree with the premise of What Would Jesus Buy? and the "minister" who is the film's main driving force, I walked away dissatisfied as both a member of the audience, and a filmmaker of some 20 years. I believe that documentaries exploring and critiquing Christian themes are much needed, but my basic problem with this film is its use of the shock-umentary tactics found in films such as those of Michael Moore. As a film, its use of organic and innovative film form is C-plus. The decisions made by the filmmakers seem to be centered on a need to provoke and to shock—even in the choice of title: What Would Jesus Buy? I defy any human to answer that question. One can't answer for God. The subject of What Would Jesus Buy? was most brilliantly delved into by Thomas Merton in Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, first published in 1965. This subject has been with us for a very long time. Merton's book is slow and circular, and it is all embracing, and self-effacing in its confessions. It is clever, personable, and it still has a presence for the modern reader, all criteria, modern media makers would do well to reflect on. By taking the general promise of What Would Jesus Buy?, and by editing the content into short sound and visual bytes, and to entertain the audience with hyperbolic and questionable protagonists, the filmmakers run the risk of trivializing their noble message. Christian media must be innovative and passionate, but it must also be well versed in the language and the creative historical continuum of film/media. A Christian film can be a work of art. It can be profound and poetic. It can also be crass and a banana.
Carlton Chase

Terror in the Skies

Editor's note: We received a number of replies regarding our recent newsletter, "Terror in the Skies," which addressed airlines showing R-rated and other inappropriate fare, even with young children seated on the plane. Some responses:

posted 09/24/07
On a United flight from Shanghai to San Fran two weeks ago, one of the movies was Mr. Brooks, rated R for sex, nudity and violence. Nothing had been edited. There was a full nude sex scene and then a double murder—and then shown several times in flashback. When I wrote to United that this was inappropriate, I got the standard idiot reply, "We are sorry you did not like the movie we picked." If an airline wishes to be the dirty movie airline, that should be their right, but the public should know which airline shows what.
Roger Meiners

posted 09/24/07
While traveling back from Ecuador following our mission trip, American Airlines played Blades of Glory which was filled with all sorts of bad material. I hope that more Christians will speak up and just not succumb to the fact that it's "just the way society is today." Keep up the great work, you are making a difference.
Carolyn Hoidal

posted 09/24/07
I don't believe the airplane entertainment situation to be as drastic as you described. As a frequent traveler, I have yet to encounter R-rated content on the screen during a flight. Language and graphic material is still edited at least as much as it would be for television. Also, most airplanes now feature individual screens that can be turned off; we now have the option to not watch it. If your neighbor is watching something objectionable, there is also children's programming on other channels. There are options, and I don't believe blaming it all on the airlines or entertainment industry is one of them.
Matt Miles

posted 09/24/07
There are many flyers, and obviously children of all ages, who don't have choices about being forced to watch inappropriate, violent and other abusive films on airlines. Your quotes from a professional airline spokesman are a wake-up call to all travelers! Such remarks are unbelievable!
Audrey Markle

posted 09/24/07
While the airlines perhaps should take into account movie ratings when they show films on board, I do agree with [airline spokesman] Eric Kleiman about parents taking more responsibility for their kids.I thought your comment insinuating that his remarks indicating that "he probably doesn't have kids" was a little uncalled for.
Hillari Hunter

Speed Death of the Eye

Editor's note: A recent CT at the Movies newsletter addressed the notion that an overload of special effects in today's movies might actually be getting in the way of telling the story. Some responses:

posted 09/24/07
Definitely a problem! There are only so many neural circuits available and they suffer from neurotransmitter depletion if overloaded, becoming literally unable to process the information they are gleaning from the environment. That doesn't take into account the limitations of what we could consider the processing speed of the core of our little organic computers, either. Anyone ever had their PC tell them "program not responding"?

Not to mention the additional problem of simply masking critical dialogue with a bunch of sound effects or overly loud music. Related to both is the apparently lost art of enunciation and the expectation by directors that actors practice it.
Jon Eymann

posted 09/24/07
I am appalled at the increasingly bizarre and exceedingly overused special effects in movies today. I believe that sometimes they are used to cover up a weak script, story or acting. But as long as people keep paying money to watch these movies maybe in spite of the overuse of special effects, they will keep coming at us in sensory overload. I get nauseated and dizzy and must leave for a few moments to get my equilibrium back in asomewhat normal zone. Putting it mildly, I am literally sickened in reaction to high tech, bizarre camera angles and lighting in movies and presentations today.
Deborah Stidham

posted 09/24/07
Yes, I have a terrible time trying to figure out what is going on when the camera jerks my eye here and there and I scramble madly trying to keep up. For the most part I just don't go to those movies anymore … and I'm finding myself going back to renting old films where there is character development and a linear story I can follow and engage with.
Jean Coombs

posted 09/24/07
I agree with this report regarding "speed death of the eye." Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith did that for me—too much CGI detail that got in the way. An opposite example is the Lord of the Rings trilogy—a series of films with a rich blend of CGI and special makeup effects.
Alistair McPherson

posted 09/24/07
The day after I saw Transformers, I read a plot summary online, and realized I'd missed half the details because of all the wham-bam action distracting me. So, yes, in this case the CGI was not properly integrated into the storyline.
Jill Murman-Payne

posted 09/24/07
In The Bourne Ultimatum, the story was great and it had just the right amount of action. But the continuous "fluttering" of the camera around the scenes (even when the scene was simply a conversation between two people and should have been still) ended up giving me a headache. I could not focus on one thing before the camera was flashing away at two or three other things. It was very distracting to me, and it definitely marred my enjoyment of the film.
Cindy Kalko

The 'Christian' Kiss of Death?

We received a number of responses to last week's newsletter in which we pondered the possibility that certain films might be hurt by being labeled "Christian." Here are some of those responses.

posted 09/06/07
The real Christian community has gotten fed up with what Hollywood peddles as "Christian" movies. Hollywood hasn't a clue what is Christian or what a Christian is like since they don't seem to ever understand the Bible. Either they pick and choose what they want to believe and accept from the bible or ignore it entirely when making movies they think will appeal to Christians. This is the reason the Christian community has begun to ignore anything that comes out of Hollywood or its so-called "Christian" filmmakers and producers. Most "Christian" moviemakers have to compromise the truth of the Bible so much so as to sell their product to the Hollywood types to get it marketed. Most Christians no longer expect anything "Christian" out of Hollywood and, therefore, we're not disappointed. However, we love well-made movies of all types and we like most of the Hollywood stars that appear in the movies. It's when the Hollywood crowd slams Christians in a few of their movies that we get turned off. Movies should be primarily entertaining, not used to preach left-wing ideas and beliefs. Maybe someday there will be a different place, away from Hollywood, that will be financed by Christians for Christian writers and filmmakers to produce great movies that will be prized for their morality and goodness without them being called "Christian" movies. How refreshing is that thought?!?
Gerald Lawson

posted 09/06/07
The problem with half of the "Christian" films is that they are not made by Christians, so they [filmmakers] cannot understand Christianity. This is the problem with all films that have high production value but no Christian leadership. Amazing Grace was a good film, but the director intentionally avoided, as much as possible, the role that Christ played in Wilberforce's life, making the film a boring History Channel special. If Christians want Christian stories to make it to the screen successfully, they have to insist that they are written and directed by Christians, as counter-culture as that may be. Second, the majority of Christian films made by Christians are terrible. The Last Sin Eater was a terrible movie and any attempt to justify it simply shows that Christians are eager to grab onto any level of mediocrity they can find. A studio makes a name for itself by the films it releases. Fox Faith does not have a good record of releasing quality films. Thus when The Ultimate Gift came out, it was associated with Fox Faith and not given the proper merit, not just because it was associated with a Christian distribution company, but because it was associated with a production company that releases bad films. What do we do? Insist that Christian films be made by Christian filmmakers who have honed their craft and know how to tell a story—or don't make the film at all.
Brandon Adams

posted 09/06/07
I wish people who want to communicate Christian themes would try to do so with more grace. The Spitfire Grill was a wonderful film with fantastic Christian theology, but it didn't hit you over the head with Christian identity. There's a difference between showing how Christ can bring us to new life, and selling Christ like a new soap product.
Jennifer Palin

posted 09/06/07
I have a blog post about this very topic. I think there are more factors at work here than meets the eye. You mention a "very brief theatrical" run for The Ultimate Gift. In actuality, the run lasted longer than One Night with the King, 11 weeks vs. 8 weeks. Yet One Night earned $13.4 million at the box office, compared to Ultimate Gift's $3.5. If the Fox Faith & Christian labels are "kisses of death," why did One Night not succumb? And, let's not forget Amazing Grace, which garnered $30 million at the box office. There's something else to be factored in just beyond the labels. Clearly, if that were the deciding factor for attendance, these other two movies would have tanked.
Angela Walker

posted 09/06/07
It is a shame that your article laments the failure of Evan Almighty. The previews that I saw on TV were blasphemous, and to promote Evan Almighty as a "Christian movie" is laughable at best. They are no more Christian themed than the old John Denver/George Burns Oh God movies. The problem is that if a big budget is involved, the message is often compromised. Christians are not concerned about seeing a gospel message in a movie. We would like to be able to take our families to the movies and see a light-hearted comedy that we do not have to worry about potty talk, foul language or sexual suggestions. It would be nice to just have some family friendly movies that were actually done well.
Johnny Bond

posted 09/06/07
I felt a little guilty that I didn't want to see the faith-based "Christian" films, but I fear they would be "sweet" and "positive"—and not really all that good. Some of the so-called worldly films have Christian messages and themes of truth. We need to discuss what is of God and truth—and what is not—in all films. Christian stuff just tends to be too sweet and sentimental much of the time.
Jean Coombs

posted 09/06/07
With regard to the flop of Evan Almighty, as opposed to the huge success of Bruce, a couple of things spring to mind. 1) It's a "follow-up" and everybody knows they are never as good as the original. 2) Not as well-known lead actors. 3) For the general (not necessarily Christian) audience, it's too clean; Bruce at least had a bit of sexy about it. 4) It's too "preachy," especiallyin the early stages. 5) Targeting movies to a potentially huge worldwide Christian market is always going to be risky, since we are such a fickle lot; some of us still worry about the morality of going to the movies! Personally, I enjoyed Evan Almighty. It wasn't quite as funny as Bruce, and Jim Carrey is a very hard act to follow. But Evan was a well-made, funny, feel-good family movie, and maybe the market is not that strong for that type of film.
Fraser McDougall

posted 09/06/07
The Ultimate Gift was excellent. The lack of support for the film was the failure of a poor advertising campaign, not the film's message. The label of Fox Faith wasn't the culprit. As an adjunct professor, one of my assignments was for the class to observe one of four films, including The Ultimate Gift, then write a paper on how the film related to their understanding of various cultures (where appropriate) and society in general. The students, with no particular religious affiliation, who watched The Ultimate Gift found it insightful and would be a film they would choose to show to their secondary level students because of the virtues highlighted in the film.
Stu Cunningham

About Those Mormons …

posted 08/28/07
Regarding your review of September Dawn: I am a former Mormon and though the present leadership at the LDS Church denies Brigham Young's involvement in the massacre, too many records exist and there are too many books written by the people who lived in that day who were eyewitnesses to it, for them to deny it. Brigham did order the massacre and his doctrine of blood atonement is true. They deny, even to this day, that the blood of Jesus does not cleanse from every sin. Naturally the present leaders of the LDS Church are going to deny Brigham's involvement. They are trying to convince the world that they are Christians just because they believe in Jesus Christ. I always ask and tell them, fine, which one? And then it is plain that they believe in another Jesus, another Gospel and another Spirit. One straight out of 2 Corinthians 11. They are not Christians, they are polytheists, because they believe in the existence of more than one God.
Thomas Slaughter

posted 08/28/07
The review of September Dawn claimed that the 1857 massacre was "the largest mass murder of Americans by other Americans until the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995." Actually, the 1863 Lawrence Massacre in Lawrence, Kansas, saw nearly 200 civilians killed in the morning hours by William Quantrill and his guerilla raiders. This atrocity was also considered the most deadly act of terrorism on U.S. so