The God Who Wasn't There- Film Review

 

 

Recently on the advice of someone whose opinion I greatly respect, I watched Brian Fleming’s “The God Who Wasn’t There.”   The film is right at an hour long and can be viewed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE4qzFDCyCE            

Firstly, hats off to Fleming for attempting a very daunting task in a very short amount of time. Although the compressed time frame did not help prove his case beyond all doubt, there is plenty of content worth discussing.

Let me start by saying that I am no theologian or professional researcher. I will do my upmost to not babble on since this is by means a complete review. What I am is a believer who wants to expand his knowledge of faith by studying the objections of atheists. Knowledge is power.

I will start with brief overall impression of the film. Then I will address the worthwhile issues raised followed by a few of the mistakes the film makes. This is not an exhaustive list. I plan on posting a 2^nd entry to address a few more mistakes.

                           

Fleming’s story is a common one. As the old saying goes, “The Single Greatest Cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians.”  In a nutshell Fleming was brought up in the faith but it is obvious the presentation of the life and teachings of Christ he was subjected to growing up did more harm than good.  The reason why teaching the Gospel of Christ is more difficult than it should be is that we as humans take it, put our own spin on it and pass it off as our own.  This is something I come across often- people don’t have a proper view of Christ because they weren’t taught one.  They take a negative view or outright deny the existence of God based on the so called “Christians” they have come across. Perhaps there is not enough talk of everyone being a sinner in need of grace. People love to talk about themselves and condemn others, just like the Pharisees. It is so easy then for the Gospel to be preached in a vague, general sense that is short on specifics and runs away from dialogue and debate.

Teaching the Bible and the story of Christ to educated adults can be difficult but teaching it to young and impressionable children is an exercise that must be done carefully.  Too often churches will resort to the “shock and awe” method, telling kids of all the miraculous (i.e. supernatural) things God has done. Or they may decide to simply scare kids into coming into the faith with threats of damnation.   It is easy to incorrectly imply that unless one is consistently experiencing radical physical, mental and emotion transformations or revelations, one is not truly communing with God.  Of course often times those things do happen, especially at the moment of conversion, but a personal relationship with Christ starts as a result and it is that relationship that sustains us. These amazing experiences may occur again and again, or they may not. Regardless, after the shock and awe end, the teaching should begin. Teaching should not consist of handing out a list of rules and leaving it at that. Or shoving a bible in someone’s hand and walking away, assuming everything will be fine. But instead it is essential to proceed with a slow, methodical, in depth process that explains the history and spiritual significances.  Yes, including scientific teachings. I fear this kind of real teaching doesn’t happen much, to children or adults. Maybe it didn’t happen to Fleming? If he didn’t receive biblical teaching in such a way perhaps that led to where he is today? I don’t know.

It’s clear from the beginning that perhaps Fleming’s main issue deals with Christians and Christianity and not with Christ and his heavenly father, God.  It might be the claim that after Jesus’s time Christians distorted and changed his story. They certainly twisted it for their own gain (the Crusades, the Inquisition, hello?) but studying the scriptures will show that is not how Christ wanted his people to treat others. I think that makes the title of the film a bit misleading but that’s only an opinion.

If Fleming has an issue with Christians he’ll have to get in line behind me before he can speak his peace.  People who call themselves Christians have been responsible for blasphemy and false teachings for centuries. However such actions are not limited to Christians only. Far from it. Human beings are flawed creatures. Again, the point and focus must be on Christ and NOT on his sinful, prideful, selfish and often misguided followers.

I applaud Fleming for pointing out the obvious fact that few Christians know the history of the Gospel in the context of the overall history of mankind.   They read the Bible, they learn and preach it but rarely do they look deeper.  It is not a prerequisite for salvation but if people are not keenly aware of certain objections, guys like Fleming will make them look like mindless zombies, members of a cult spending their lives in a perpetual haze.  Christians have been and will continue to be wrong or ignorant of certain facts but luckily they have put their faith in God who has all the answers and is never wrong.

Point of Order: I thought it had become almost common knowledge that Christ was NOT born on December 25^th but most likely in the springtime. In part December 25^th was chosen to correspond with the Roman holiday of Saturnalia (among other winter solstice holidays) as a way to ease new believers into the fold. Would changing the date help? I don’t know. I think there are more important issues to study.

                                                                                                                                                                               

The best thing about the film:

I thank Fleming for pointing out the fact that the history of how the gospel was spread after Christ’s death is not well known to many Christians- at least not the whopping 3 he interviewed. But in all honesty it’s an area I myself need to expand my knowledge of. Luckily you don’t have to pass a test to receive salvation. All thanks to the sacrifice of Christ. But there is no reason for Christians to remain ignorant to the claims this film makes and the responses they are entitled to give.

Yes, we are to live by faith but the tradition of anti-intellectualism in the church has done and will continue to do great harm to its members and by extension the world.

 

Now for my biggest objections to the film:

1.       Which historical figures does Fleming list as top examples of the face of Christianity? Charles Manson and David Koresh.  Even a minimal amount of Biblical knowledge would clearly show these guys as evil egomaniacs who do not live a spirit-filled life. They decided to worship themselves. The type of false prophets/teachers Christ warned about. Makes sense, it’s very easy to dismiss people. God on the other hand… He also kindly referred to the Branch Dividians as “crispy.” 

2.       About 14 minutes in Fleming states the “fact” that after Jesus died everyone “forgot” about his story “and then remembered.”  I’ve been going to church off and on almost my whole life and I’ve never heard that. The Apostles travelled far and wide telling the story of Christ and his teachings starting right after his death. The writing and publishing of the Gospels and the writings of the Apostle Paul are massive enough subjects to be mentioned in their own future posting, probably by someone more learned than I am.

3.       Next he asks a few random Christians if they know anything about a few mythical beings that supposedly share qualities with Christ. The Christians are pretty clueless. First off these are mythical beings, not historical. Among the mythical beings Flemings mentions as being like Jesus are:

Dionysus- either a god or a half god who was conceived by the god Zeus either by Zeus’s lightning bolts, his placing Dionysus’s physical heart in the womb of his mother, his becoming a snake, or his becoming a human. The identity of his mother is disputed. Some say Semele. Others say Persephone.  In either case his mother did not give birth to him, he was born out of Zeus’s physical thigh. Zeus was far from a virgin. So called similar titles given to both Christ and Dionysus don’t match up. There are other examples as well. I will say that Dionysus was said to have been raised from the dead. However I was only able to find a few mentions of this event and all were brief and short on specifics such as the names of witnesses.

Osiris/Horace- Egyptian deity.  Can’t even decipher if these were two separate beings or one. “He” was conceived by either a galaxy of stars or a non-virgin mother along with a father whose identity is disputed. Supposedly he was crucified but there is no evidence the ancient Egyptian practiced such a method.

Mithras- Roman or Persian god.  Born from a rock (not a human).  Earliest evidence of his existence comes from ancient sculptures. There are no known complete writings from the age he supposedly lived in, only sparse fragments. He’s a being who was not widely known until the publication of a book in the 1800s. Very little has been written about him and those few writings list no consistent claims of a virgin birth, crucifixion, etc. He supposedly rose from the dead from a rock (just as in his birth). I DID find an article that said he has been widely known as “the son of god” so there’s one similarity.

In case you were wondering if he does any such “man on the street” interviews with your average atheist, he doesn’t. He asks well known scholars instead. Odd. There are a plethora of Christian scholars he could have interviewed. He chooses not to.

 

4.       About 23 minutes in a rather odd statement is made about an “official position” of the church that exists to this day. This is concerning early pagan objections to the description of Jesus as being too close to the pagan mythological figures listed above. The church simply stated, “Oh, well, this one is true. Satan counterfeited those others in advance in order to cast doubt on Christ.”  I have never heard such an “official statement” but again, teachings on this subject rarely occur. Therefore, I can’t say it has never been said. So that’s not an objection perhaps but a case of Fleming boldly stating a fact and not mentioning where it can from.

5.       At around 33 minutes in, he shows a very old video of some guy named Bailey Smith (whom I’ve never heard of) spouting outright blasphemy that God does not listen to the prayers of people such as Jews. First off, this is biblically incorrect, God hears all prayers. Secondly, who is this guy and why is this video footage so old? Couldn’t Fleming find some contemporary video? In all honesty, I bet there are a few poor individuals who currently proclaim that crap. These are the words of a sinful man, not of Christ the son of God.

6.       Yes myths can become considered fact, but one must concede that if the belief in God can be a myth so too can the belief that there is no God. Perhaps this is what happened to the Council of Nicea? This too is a massive enough subject for a future posting.

That’s all for now. Thanks for reading and I believe there’s a way to leave comments on here.     

As I said, I plan on future entries to address certain subjects in depth that were only briefly mentioned here.

Keep asking questions of each other everyone. Debate. Discuss. Listen!

Ben

For documentation purposes here are a few of the resources I used for the discussions on the mythical figures.

 “Mythology” by Edith Hamilton (I still had my copy from 7^th grade Latin class)

               http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html (comparing Jesus to mythical gods)

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#Birth

         http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/

                          http://www.tektonics.org/                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                     

Ben's Oscar Picks 2013

The Oscars really snuck up on me this year, I guess I'm still not used to them being in February.  I plan on breaking down my favorites films in a future posting so I'll try to keep this one brief.  As usual I break it down as to what I think WILL win and what I think SHOULD win and yes it's not always different!  But don't fret, this year I'm adding something new- overlooked nominations!  Not saying they should win, not a nomination was in order.

Best Picture:  WILL win: Argo     SHOULD win: Argo     Overlooked: The Dark Knight Rises/The Avengers/Skyfall
OK so I'm not starting off with a standoff... but I will say it was beyond refreshing to see two comic book movies and a Bond flick be done so well.  With expanded nominations one of them should have gotten in.  I'd give up Django Unchained's spot if it were up to me.

Best Director:   WILL win: Steven Spielberg     SHOULD win: David O. Russell     Overlooked: Ben Affleck for Argo, Juan Antonio Bayona for The Impossible
I can't say that Spielberg doesn't deserve it, he does, but David O. Russell created an incredible movie which is highlighted by being he first film in decades to get nominations in all 4 acting categories.  The Impossible may be the most overlooked film of the year, it's hard to imagine a more difficult project to undertake. True, Bigelow being overlooked for Zero Dark Thirty is beyond shocking but she just won so I think she'll survive just fine. And Affleck, duh.

Best Actor:     WILL win: Daniel Day Lewis     SHOULD win: Hugh Jackman     Overlooked: Ben Affleck for Argo, John Hawkes for The Sessions
Overlooking Affleck is understandable here but as someone who wrote him off years ago I'm happy to say I was wrong.  As I said above, I can't say that Daniel Day Lewis doesn't deserve it, he does, but as Jean Valjean Jackman got to experience EVERY emotion known to man and knocked each one out of the park. But musicals get Best Supporting nods if anything at all.  I think Mr. Phoenix swooped in and grabbed Mr. Hawke's nomination which is too bad. Hawkes portrayed a nearly paralyzed polio victim with only his face as a tool and made it look easy.

Best Actress:     WILL win: Jessica Chastain     SHOULD win: Naomi Watts     Overlooked: Noomi Rapace in Prometheus
An old Oscar rule I have is when things look pretty even, go with the more political/socially important film- hence Chastain.  I will say she had the tough job of somewhere conveying a wealth of emotions without being allowed to express any of them.  Watts however, as a desperate mother/wife separated from her family following the sudden 2004 Tsunami played every second of screen time with such force that its a shame she's not even being considered.  Actually the word "sudden" is not even close to being adequate.  Rapace is a stretch here for sure but whenever she was on screen I was simply mesmerized by her.  She too showed great range, but when its on an Alien planet the Academy rarely notices.

Best Supp. Actor:     WILL win: Tommy Lee Jones     SHOULD win: Robert DeNiro  Overlooked: Ewan McGregor for The Impossible
Lincoln probably has enough power to give the Oscar to Jones for the second time though DeNiro certainly gives a wonderful performance as a father trying to help his bipolar adult son start his life over.  Waltz is also a possible spoiler thanks to his win at the Golden Globes but it might just be too soon after winning for Inglorious Basterds. McGregor didn't get as much screen time in The Impossible as Watts but his search as a husband/father is no less gripping.  16 year old Tom Holland was remarkable in that movie as well.  I'm one of the few that is OK with DiCaprio being overlooked.

Best Supp. Actress:     WILL win: Anne Hathaway     SHOULD win: Anne Hathaway     Overlooked: here's the only place I'll put in a name for a film I haven't seen but everyone so raved about Maggie Smith in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" that I was very shocked to see her overlooked. Or maybe it's just because I've been watching a lot of Downton Abbey lately.  Samantha Banks deserved a nod too but they weren't going to nominate two actresses from the same film and since Hathaway is the biggest lock of them all, Banks takes a back seat.

Screenplays are really hard to say this year but Adapted Screenplay just might be the only shot for Silver Linings Playbook to walk away with anything this year (which is a real shame).  Argo is the safe choice here I guess.  As for Original Screenplay I simply have no idea. If I absolutely had to say, I guess the safe choice would be either Tarantino or Boal though I'd like to see John Gatins win for Flight, another almost-casualty this year.

Here's hoping Skyfall becomes walks away with Best Song. Adele is soooooo good.

I'd give Amour good odds at Best Foreign Film.  Beyond that its hard to say so I'm not gonna.

Enjoy the show!

-Ben

An Attempt at the Big Picture

I too was upset over the Chik Fila story- until I actually read the statement and the follow up conciliatory clarification (see below). I personally know people who work for Chik Fila. People who would never discriminate or hate anyone for any reason.  Each franchise has a separate owner so one person’s views don’t speak for all. I agree with these recent statements of tolerance and respect so I guess I’ll have protestors outside my home now?  Ask around- I don’t hate anyone. Many people I care about are gay and I love them all and if anyone voiced actual messages of hate I’d be happy to protest against them in support of my loved ones.  I admire people who stand up for what they believe.  I’m for separation of church and state. I’m for free speech.  I’m for tolerance.  It appears that makes me some kind of monster.  If you chose to express yourself but not eating a chicken sandwich, there’s no judgment here from me- good for you I say. I pray for all people on both “sides” of this “event” which has sadly drawn our attention away from the governmental and political debate over this issue which needs to be the focus.  Please don’t jump the gun, anyone on any side, before getting the facts.  I hope against feelings of superiority anyone from any side may have on this event. #HateIsPoison.

http://www.dennyburk.com/chick-fil-a-and-the-irony-of-the-tolerance-police/

"Blue Like Jazz"

When I first heard Don Miller's semi-autobiographical faith journey "Blue Like Jazz" was being turned into a movie, I was shocked. How? By Who? Then I forgot about it until a member of my weekly bible study invited people to come see it at a theater in Burbank. And I thought, "Why not?"

   At first I was just happy when more people joined my friend Mike and me in the theater. Then I was happy when 4 more of our church friends showed up. I decided that was a good omen. Having not read the book in about 3 years (and having never read Miller's "A Million Miles in a Thousand Years" which told the story of how he adapted "Blue" into a screenplay) I didn't remember enough to accurately critique its adaptation (which is a favorite hobby of mine) but in effect, that allowed me to sit back and take them film as it came at me.

    As usual a bit of backstory courtesy mainly of Wikipedia. Director Steven Taylor was struggling to fund the film when Miller blogged about it. In response some readers set out to raise funds through Kickstarter. Slightly doubtful at his chances, Taylor agreed to personally call any backer who donated more than $10 once funding exceeded $125,000. $345,992 ended up being raised. One of the original donors took that as a good sign and upped their initial ante. Thus Taylor ended up shooting the film for $750,000 with a post-production budget of $500,000. And yes, thought it took around a year and a half, word is Taylor did call each donor- and the credits for the film list a very long list of "producers."


    Even though I just saw it last night, I am having a hard time articulating my views on the film past saying that I liked it. It was an important step in Faith-based films for sure just as last years "Courageous" was as well. It was well acted, thanks to performances by Prison Break's Marshall Allman, LOST's Tania Raymonde and The Vampire Diaries' Claire Holt and a supporting cast who all had to tackle extremely difficult subject matter. I applaud it for putting forward tough questions and not shying away from showing that people of faith can make mistakes and end up growing because of it. I also found the film to be fair in its depiction of un-believers, not simply non-Christians but atheists and agnostics. However the focus of the film is not on these groups, but on Miller's journey from small town Texas Christian to liberal Reed College student. We see Miller at odds with the perceived failures of his faith, anger over the hypocrisy of its adherents and relatable objections voiced by non-believers. Truly knowledge is power and Miller got more than he ever bargained for.


    I will be interested in whatever positive points critics will have to say about the film. There will be negative ones to be certain, many of them probably justified, but I think we as a movie going public like the idea of an underdog, independent movie with a risky message that is willing to put itself out there, flaws and all, for the world to see. www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOglQgyxYkI Check out the trailer on YouTube.

My Top Ten Films of 2011

Honorable Mentions: The Girl With the Dragoon Tattoo, Puss N Boots, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, X Men, Bridesmaids.
Did Not Care For: Iron Lady, Hugo, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,

Most Overlooked film of the year: Melancholia

Best Performance in a movie I didn't overly care for: Sandra Bullock in "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" who in one scene
was able to bring an entire film to a screeching holt and remind us she is actually is very talented.

Overlooked for recognition: Andy Serkis, Albert Brooks

And Now Here We Go!
10. Beginners

No, it's NOT just because my friend Rafael Noble is in it. It's actually because the movie was simply a delight to watch and I was reminded once again that Ewan McGregor is one of the most underappreciated actors around. Mr Plummer is a shoe in for his first Oscar to boot. I won't take up any more space here- the movie is a delight and kept me invested the whole time.


9. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Wha???? Yes, it's true. Toy Story's Brad Bird put together what was possibly my favorite all around movie going experience of the year. In IMAX this movie grabbed me and never let go. It is possible for action movies to not just be entertaining but well rounded in all areas. Techincal arts are shone to be truly artistic.

8. The Help

Yeah, I paused the DVD once or twice because I got a little teary-eyed. Even now I have a hard time pinpointing all of what I liked. It comes down to this- 1) when I need to pause during a movie to consider what is happening and 2) feel an overwhelming sense of contentment in what I've just watched when the credits roll = a film that deserves to be rewarded.

7. The Descendants

Yes, its at #7. I liked this movie, I liked it a lot. Quite possibly George Clooney's best work so far. I love Alexander Payne and it boasted a great cast all the way down. BUT, I didn't love it and that's just me.

6. My Week With Marilyn

I once again send apologies to Michelle Williams for ever having doubted her. She converted me last year in "Blue Valentine" and here we are again with me touting her as my "Should Win but Won't Win" Award of the Year. Though far from revolutionary the film is solid, thanks to a tried and true storytelling style and the likes of Kenneth Branaugh and Judi Dench. It made me want to go out and watch some of Marilyn's own films and gave me a boost as I begin watching TV's "Smash"

5. Warrior

My most recently viewed film that made this list. Although between the trailer and the first 10 minutes of the film there would seem little to be surprised by, I was still quite often surprised. I applaud the casting of lesser known actors to portray extremely and precisely drawn characters. I love seeing Nick Nolte in his element. A few hiccups here and there are gladly overlooked as we allow ourselves to be once again inspired and rejuvenated.


4. Melancholia

Just my opinion but I'd venture to say poor "Melancholia" got K.O.'d by Malick's "Tree of Life." Perhaps yearly there is only ever room for one Arty/Internal/Non linier/untraditional/ and perhaps just a tad of simply-weird-for-the-sake-of-being-weird film this year. It's too bad. Kirsten Dunst converted me (like Michelle Williams did last year) through her powerful and raw portrayal of a young woman gripped by depression. But alongside her internal struggle, Dunst's character also manages to outwardly become the model of calm when outside forces threaten all that is around her. The two sides to the film play out like the beautiful music the accompanies the action. Dunst is in good company as Charlotte Gainsbourg and Kiefer Sutherland deliver award worthy performances. I am too much of a neophyte to comment more on a film such as this (Or Tree of Life for that matter) and I am equally lacking in knowledge of filmmaker Lars von Trier, so I will close by commending this excellent film and wishing it had gotten more praise that it so obviously deserved.

3. Moneyball

No, its not just because Aaron Sorkin co-wrote the screenplay, though I'm sure that helped a ton to mold the movie into what it is. I am doing my own part to congratulate this film for being the type of movie that rarely gets made and rarely gets enough acclaim. That is the straight-forward, no frills, so amazing that it has to be true film that somehow gets made by a studio. The word solid doesn't have enough zing but it fits because its almost impossible to see chips in the film's armor. It won't win much because its just not quite "arty" enough but 50 years from now but just be the most admired film from this year. Plus, I still can't get that song out of my head.

2. The Artist

I admit I had pretty much decided I was going to like this movie before I saw it but I had no idea how much. It didn't blow my mind but it was as well done a movie as I have seen in a long time. It transports you back to Hollywood's Golden Age but it holds your hand by somehow encouraging you to see the 1920s through 2012 eyes. The film never loses its modern flair even as it reminds us not only of an era gone by but also of moviemaking techniques that would do us all well to learn about. It's not that it just took risks, it took them, broke them and did so without ego or shoving it down our throats. It's most powerful moments equaled the most powerful moments in film this year.

1. Midnight In Paris

Yep, Woody Allen still has it. In fact he's so good he made me a fan of Owen Wilson for 90 minutes which I did not see coming (I don't have anything against Wilson but had gone into the film doubting his casting). Allen can make a well done story in his sleep but he does so much more here. Even if you're only half the hopeless dreamer I am, I bet you still saw yourself in the main character as he encounters the ideal life he thought he wanted- hobnobbing with artistic giants in the City of Lights during a period of (seemingly) unprecedented creativity. Allen allows us to go on a journey through different times as we see if there ever truly was a "golden age."

It's Groundhog Day... again....

Hey Wood-chuck Chuckers, its Groundhog Day! (it is as I write this at least)

This morning in Punxsutawney, PA ole’ Phil the groundhog saw his shadow. Such a revelation was met with an anemic reaction since thus far the winter has been quite mild. So, why do we watch, why does this town put on this yearly pageant? Perhaps even more puzzling- why has a comedy centered around this holiday only grown in acclaim and even reverence since it premiered back in 1993? American literary theorist and legal scholar Stanley Fish named the film as one of the 10 best American films ever made. What about it led the United States National Film Registry to deem it "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” back in 2006 when it added the film to its ranks? Now I love Bill Murray and Harold Ramis but those guys don’t seem the type to hobnob with (what I’m assuming) must be a slightly snobby crowd in their new registry abode. Roger Ebert is an avowed fan- ok, you get the picture.

The super short summary is this: Bill Murray plays Phil Connors, an obnoxious weatherman who is sent on his yearly assignment to cover the Groundhog Day festivities and ends up reliving that same day over and over….and over again, until he has morphed into a new man with a new outlook on life.

We don’t know for sure how many times Phil relives that day. Director Ramis guessed about 10 years, though later he said that was probably not enough time and proposed a span of 30 to 40 years. After researching the film the website WolfGnards.com put forth the number of eight years, eight months, and 16 days based on how long it might take for Phil to master the many skills he has by the film’s end. Co-star Stephen Tobolowsky says that he was told by Ramis it took Phil 10,000 years to get it right.

One day repeated for 10,000 years?

The religious themes in this film run shallow and deep. It’s not at all hard to see for instance that Phil needs to be redeemed and given his comeuppance. And somehow this small town turns into his own personal Purgatory- even death doesn’t last. I read recently that the film is a fan of many Buddhists as Phil is seen experiencing a rebirth as he casts off his own selfishness to embrace caring for others. To look at it another way, Phil essentially reincarnates into himself and is only allowed to move on after experiencing a profound spiritual change (dare I use the word enlightenment?)

It makes perfect sense that it would take Phil a ridiculous amount of time to truly change. His initial reactions are very human and thus easily understood and even encouraged. One such reaction creates in him a potent God-complex and he seems to relish in his own brand of hedonism. He selfishly uses the absence of real consequences to indulge in all manner of sins, from robbing an armored car to seducing a naïve woman using information he gleaned from her during a previous “day.” He indulges his body knowing he doesn’t need to worry about after effects. He even wows a group of people by correctly answering every single Jeopardy question with subdued but still somehow potent panache.

Perhaps it is only after exhausting his options at being selfish does Phil start to get around to helping others. At the start he’s probably only doing so out of boredom. But the blanket of positive energy is just as fleeting as the previous selfish overtones- he is subjected to repeated failures at saving an old homeless man and is downright angry at how a boy he saves from falling “never says thank you.” It’s a wonder to me that we’re not shone what has to have been multiple relapses into his old ways that surely happened. His “unsuccessful” suicide attempts seem oddly justified and when doing good proves just as insignificant as being selfish it’s almost weird that he doesn’t again try to end his life. And yet, Phil finds a way to move on with a new attitude, perhaps even taking comfort in the fact that his future is oddly secure and he can bask in praise and pride for as long as the fates allow. The glow given by others is felt more deeply than the glow he had gotten so good at bestowing upon himself.

I could go on and on, (this is already twice as long as I assumed it would be) but that is not only because this movie is exceptionally well made and seems to only get better with age, but also because it stands as one of the most spiritual films I have ever seen. An expert on comparative religions could have a field day with it. A novice like me is almost incapable of separating and identifying all the themes. It’s all here: elements of karma, fate, purgatory, Prometheus reborn, hedonism, fatalism, and existentialism are shone to degrees unimaginable.

It might just take 10,000 years to fully explain “Groundhog Day”

Alex Kendrick's "Courageous"

There are many reasons why Alex Kendrick's film "Courageous" is worth taking the time to see and review on one’s own. First off, it is an independent film with a modest budget that has outperformed much bigger films. Two, it is a decidedly amateur film which, while it will never be confused with a film undertaken by seasoned professionals, is still worth recognizing for its strengths against great odds. Thirdly, it stands as huge step forward for faith-influenced films aiming at vey adult type problems and themes.
I happen to think that such a film being made and widely seen is an important step for filmmaking (as when any other such small film gets much attention) it is an astronomically huge step for Independent Christian Cinema. This film costs a mere $2 million dollars, had an opening weekend gross of $9 million and to date has made more than $30 million- or 15 times its budget.
***Take note America: there is a huge market in Christian themed movies. If this small movie can make $30 million imagine what a truly professionally made film can do****

Now for the honest truth- Is it a truly good movie? No, it’s not. Its cast and crew are almost all volunteers who are members of a church and who are not trained in the techniques of filmmaking. They have heart, time and some money and are willing to take a great risk in putting out such a film for the entire world to see and critique. But as I said the film is a huge improvement when compared to other Christian themed films released in the pastor decade or so (including Kendrick's previous film Fireproof which was quite poor but nonetheless successful)

So considering Kendrick is a pastor and author and not a screenwriter, director or actor (at least by trade) he handles all his duties surprisingly well. His direction of an action filled shoot out scene was a pleasant surprise for example, as was the occasional surprise in the dialogue that hints at a deeper concept of Christian living instead of just the generic lines we all know whether we believe or not. The bulk of the dialogue is still in need of a script doctor though. The non-student in me admires the slow pace of the film, it wasn't the usual 89 minute Christian film, and the obvious lack of ironclad story structure, at least to the degree that the story keep my surprised as to what would happen next and rarely created any sense of assumption of results. But even a non-student like me could see the poor execution in the story and script. True, I could never really tell what would happen next that is mostly due to Kendrick's willingness to take chances and not shy away from the hardships of life.

Therefore it ranks as one giant leap for Christian filmmaking and worthy of a more in depth analysis than I can do here.

In His Love,
Ben

"Hate" Series Part 1- Hate: The New IT Word

Not too long ago the most commonly used buzz word used during debates was "intolerant."  Though I for one never quite thought that "tolerant" sounded like a ringing endorsement either, I did see the obvious ways the intolerant was being used.

And now a new word has taken its place- its unambiguous, ugly and is getting thrown around way too much: Hate (hatred, hating as well of course)

Whether we're talking politics, religion (or any numbers of issues us Facebook users decide to bring up), somehow debate has taken yet another step away from civil discourse.  Once upon a time the phrase. "Agree to disagree" was said so often it nearly lost all meaning and now I'm wishing for it to make a comeback. As I said before "intolerant" does not have enough zing anymore, it doesn't show the world just how right we are and perhaps above all, it fails to show those who disagree with us as the subhuman mobsters they so obviously are.  Hence we went looking for a new word to settle all our woes and we found an oldie but a goody: Hate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the word should never be used, far from it.  Its just that nowadays it is being used too freakin' much.  Perhaps most sad of all, when it is used its too often directed at people 1) instead of actions and 2) even when such people have shown no signs of their own hatred.

Yes I am putting own my proverbial Christian hat here, but the Bible clearly teaches us to hate the sin, not the sinner.  Will we always succeed? No, most likely we will fail and hate the sinner more than we hate the sin they committed

The word "hate" fascinates me for some reason and so I have decided to toss it around in a few postings.

One small request- when someone disagrees with a choice or action of yours consider it might be coming from a place of love and not hate. Perhaps they care about you so much they "hate" what is happening to you which often makes them realize they "love" you even more than they thought.

Taking A Step Back: Tombstone & Wyatt Earp Part I

Catching the film "Wyatt Earp" on TV recently took me back to 1994 when two films about the same people but with very different styles battled over the life of American legend "Wyatt Earp"  I will touch on the films themselves but its the behind-the-scenes stories that interest me just as much.

In 1994 screenwriter Kevin Jarre (Rambo First Blood: Part II, Glory) and actor Kevin Costner set out to make a film, "Tombstone", about Wyatt Earp.  Early troubles led the pair to part ways with Jarre writing a script that revolved around the OK Corral gunfight and Costner teaming with Lawrence Kasdan to make a biopic about Earp's entire life. 

Tombstone
Jarre, who would direct the film as well, approached Kurt Russell to play Earp and secured a $25 million dollar budget from Disney's minor studio Buena Vista Pictures, reportably after Costner convinced all major studios to turn the movie down.  The first task was to cast Doc Holliday, the long suffering friend of Earp.  Their first choice was Wilhem Dafoe but Disney vetoed the idea since Dafoe had starred in the controversial film "The Last Temptation of Christ" and so Val Kilmer was cast.

The film went to shoot in Arizona where Jarre clashed with his producers and actors when he refused to cut his script down.  According to Kilmer,  "virtually every main character, every cowboy, for example, had a subplot and a story told, and none of them are left in the film."  Veteran actors Robert Mitchum and Glenn Ford dropped out and the production had fallen behind two weeks by the time Jarre was fired.  What happened next has been the subject of some conjecture in recent years.

According to Russell, the cast and crew were fearful of being shut down and Russell stepped in to "ghost direct" the film until a replacement was hired.  Italian George P. Cosmatos was hired but the story goes that Russell continued to ghost-direct by creating shot sheets for Cosmatos to use and giving him secret hand signals during filming.  Russell did not speak on this until after Cosmatos died in 2005 and his claims were somewhat bolstered when Sylvestor Stallone claimed he ghost-directed "Cobra" for Cosmatos in the 1980s.

Tombstone would go on to be one of my favorite all time movies.  Perhaps that is due to my young age, the subject matter or most likely because I saw it with my Dad on a "guys night"  However, in my opinion the film has remained a favorite of mine because even after 15 years in, I enjoy watching it every bit as much as I did in 1994.

Next time I will discuss"Wyatt Earp" as well as talk about my comparison of the 2 films.

Play Review: "The Tragedy of Macbeth Part II: The Seed of Banquo" by Noah Lukeman

“A poetic, well-paced drama.”--Booklist

“An audacious achievement.”--Jennifer Lee Carrell, Ph.D. (Harvard)
New York Times Bestselling author of
Interred With Their Bones/The Shakespeare SecretThe first lines of Shakespeare I ever read were from "MacBeth"  I was in the 3rd grade and we all had to memorize MacBeth's "Tomorrow and Tomorrow..." speech.  I kept up my fascination over the years watching as many movie and stage versions as I could while attempting to forge my own interpretation of the text.  In college I was an assistant director on the play and thanks to the long rehearsal process memorized a very large chunk of the script.  I knew I was not alone in thinking of all the interpretations one could glean form such a script.


More than one play throughout the years has sought to use the works of William Shakespeare as inspiration for either new works or playful satires on the original ones.  Usually this is done through comedy.  Plays like "Rosencrantz and Guidenstern Are Dead" "I Hate Hamlet" "Dogg's Hamlet & Cahoot's MacBeth" "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare Abridged" and many more have found success in getting us to laugh at some of the most tragic moments in theater history.  And yet there is a small number of other works who seek to faithfully continue plays in which there seems to be more story to tell.  While buying a copy of Dorothy Dunnett's novel "King Hereafter" (which retells real events in the life the actual MacBeth), I stumbled upon a play which (despite its unfortunately slightly cheesy title) grabbed my attention.  I ordered it as soon as I had the money!  It needs to be reminded that the full title of the original is "The Tragedy of MacBeth King of Scotland"  This helps put the sequel's title in a brighter light.

The thinking behind such an undertaking in remarkably solid.  Though the promise of becoming King pushes MacBeth to murder near the start of Shakespeare's play, it is another prophecy that pushed him though the rest of the play: that MacBeth will have no lineage, that the crown will live on through his comrade Banquo's descendants starting with Banquo's son Fleance.  MacBeth's frantic and fruitless efforts to prevent such a future bring about his moral decay and death.  The play, however does not end with Fleance on the throne, but rather with Malcolm, eldest son of the murdered king.  The prophecy still stands that a new line of kings will start with Fleance and so Malcolm's legitimately held throne is no less secure than MacBeth's was.

Lukeman's play picks up 10 years later.  King Malcolm has never married and his fear over losing his family's throne is forcing him into desperation.  A major story line deals with his brother Donalbain.  Donalbain is another unanswered question from Shakespeare's work. After their father King Duncan is murdered, he and Malcolm both flee for safety.  Malcolm returns and as eldest son avenges his father and retakes the crown, but there is no mention of Donalbain again.  We know he flees to Ireland but nothing more.  Like Malcolm had years before, Donalbain has found sanctuary and a friendly army to keep his place as heir secure.  But now this could be viewed as a threat to Malcolm, just as Malcolm and his English army threatened and overcame MacBeth.  Malcolm also has a tenuous relationship with MacDuff, his previous savior and has become obsessed with the prophecy of the "three weird sisters"  This, added to his lack of children, has turned Malcolm into a king on the brink of both sanity and power. The as of yet unfulfilled prohecy of Banquo is still waiting to take control.   

With my eternal promise of "no spoilers" I will end the summary there.  There are many morI highly recommend those who have a good knowledge of MacBeth to give Lukeman's play a try.  A link below will direct you to the author's website where you can read the play's introduction and first three scenes for free.  Lukeman, a language expert, know his Shakespeare both theatrically and linguistically.  He has made a true effort to continue Shakespeare's play in a thoughtful way that never attempts to improve or negate its origins. His Shakespearean dialogue flows, simultaneously reminding us of Shakespeare while never attempted to be of the same caliber.  It is simply written in the same style as Shakespeare, the same style countless other writers have used as well.  His plot is solid and "reaches" in ways similar to the original and there is more one twist that raised my eyebrows.

Purist will ask, "Should Lukeman have attempted such a thing?"  Perhaps not, but he has done so and not only is it interesting, it just might be worthy as well.

Rating: A-

For more information and to read the introduction and first 3 scenes please visit:
http://www.lukeman.com/macbeth2/index.htm

Scream 4 Review

   I shouldn't have been surprised but I was.  In fact the surprise grew and was quickly followed by disbelief, confusion and downright anger.  When first told by a friend that there was to be a Scream 4 that was the series of emotions I went through after prematurely and erroneously telling him he was perhaps mistaken.

   But first, a trip down memory lane!

   In early 2001 I sat in a sold out movie theater in Burlington, NC.  I actually remember the date, February 4th, as it was a good friend's birthday.  I had an idea and being too timid to do it myself, turned to my friend Mario and said, "you should get all these people to sing 'Happy Birthday' to David.  He stood up and accomplished said feat.  Many of us had spent that afternoon (and previous evening I believe) watching the first b2 Scream movies on the 3rd floor of our dorm.  Then our small caravan ventured to the theater for Part 3. Even though one friend whispered me his theory on the killer which turned out to be true, I loved Scream 3.  It was smart, scary and effectively surprising in the way it concluded the trilogy.  It smartly went back to the beginning and tied the whole film series together, as opposed to simply adding another movie to the list (yes, I'm speaking to you, Saw people).  It was in a word, satisfying.  The fact that it wasn't written by Kevin Williamson was saved by the combination his own already conceived story lines that were then given over to screenwriter Ehren Kruger, who had recently wowed me with his debut script for "Arlington Road"
   Since I pride myself on writing no spoilers unless I proclaim at the start of an entry that I feel I must do so, I will not do so here.  Therefore, my review is thus.  What I liked:  The film kept the spirit of the original in its tone and sense of humor.  The film kept my guessing.  It also kept its climax a secret though I also admit I never really thought too much about it.  Most of all it seemed to me that the purpose of Scream 4 was to serve as a passing of the torch to the next chapter in the series.  We have Scream 1, 2 and 3 as Chapter One and Scream 4 as the start of Chapter Two. 
   What I didn't like:  Though it kept me guessing I wasn't as entertained as before nor did I care as much to see the story though.  The characters, both new and old, seemed under developed and thus less likable.  I felt less for Sydney and Dewey though I sort of liked Gayle's new arc.  I only hope that future entries will flesh out the characters better.
   Final Grade:  B.  Its my least favorite in the series thus far but its still better than most of the films in its genre.

Book Review: Romanitas by Sophia McDougall

  

   Recently I finished Sophia McDougall's novel Romanitas, the first in a trilogy about a modern world still dominated by The Roman Empire.  I am a great fan of alternative history in any form so I was intrigued when I found out that this 2005 novel presented a modern tale of revenge and love against a backdrop of slaves, crucifixions and Praetorian guards.  That being said, I can't help but come away from it more than a little disappointed, but more on that in a minute.

   As the story opens there is a massive state funeral for the Emperor's brother and sister-in-law who recently died in a car crash leaving behind a teenage son, Marcus.  Very soon after he is summoned to the villa of old family friends and told that they have reason to believe his parents were murdered.  This sets off a series of events that force Marcus to flee for his life into the underground of the Empire.  Meanwhile a young runaway slave named Una (who has mysterious mind-reading powers) rescues her brother Sulien from certain death before his crucifixion.  Together our three heroes meet up in a secret camp for escaped slaves trying to survive without being found out. 

   As I said, I was disappointed with this novel.  The writing showed a few flashes of brilliance during moments that otherwise would have been mundane.  But other than that the idea of a modern Roman Empire is almost completely lost.  Apart from large televisions that pop up along with the occasional car, there was little to remind me we are talking about a world circa 2005.  Very little explanation is given to how the Empire operates internally or externally with its competing nations.  Instead the novel focuses on Marcus, first his escape from danger then his quest for revenge.  The descriptions of settings were clunky and much of the dialogue boring.  It was almost like a short story had been stretched out when it should have been wrapped up much, much faster.  I had a hard time remembering who all these characters were and for some reason, a very hard time finding out how old there were and then remembering that fact as well.  That is partly my fault but you can only keep turning back pages hoping to find reminders before you simply give up.

   I will say the last 40-50 pages were by far the best in the novel.  The ending twists were surprising and since this is the first in a series of books the ending did leave me wanting to find out more.  The explanations though fell a little flat and I can only hope they are explored further in the next book.  Will I read the next book? Yes I will. But it won't be anytime soon. 

 Overall grade:  C+ (the end saved it from being a C)

 

Taking A Step Back: A New take on "The Blind Side"

Every now and then I will have a posting entitled "Taking A Step Back"  Posts like these will talk about a movie, book, TV Show or even a sermon but also will talk about how it has been perceived by others.  Not to say that I perceive both the piece and its reviews better than others (even when it's true, lol) but if I feel I can bring a truly unique take on it, I will put it out there.
 
There are certain movies I always try and watch alone: crappy straight to DVD action films that star Dolph Lungren, Indie Christian films that actually got released somehow and the 1) occasional sentimental, 2) based on real life, 3) dramatic yet funny type film.  Such a film as "The Blind Side" fits pretty well into that rambling third set of movies.  As a dramatic interpretation of actual events, compressed and reinvented in the ways that movies must do, it has caused quite a rift between moviegoers, critics and even people who haven't seen it.

I won't get into details of the film itself since that's been done.  Instead I will focus on what I have observed about the reaction to the film.  Few things irk me more than people praising or (more than likely) ridiculing a film before they have seen it.  It would be nice if such people would keep their opinions to themselves before they adversely affect those who have not seen it but that is simply not the nature of the movie going public.

I started hearing negative things about the film before it came out.  No, this is not a for sure sign that the film will in fact prove good, quite the opposite.  But there was such backlash I was simply curious as to whether or not I could see the film and have an independent reaction to it.

So after the awards season had started up, complete with coverage directed at the film itself and at star Sandra Bullock, I sat down on a weekday evening in my room where I could watch undisturbed. I will admit my favorite thing about the film had little to do with the film itself.  The portrayal of selflessness, compassion and love shown got to me and some personal things I happened to be dealing with at the time.  This led to me to pause the film a one point and have one of my patented "one on one" conversations with the Lord which ranged from tears to yelling to quiet moments of reflection.  I then turned the film back on and continued.

There's nothing really special about this film but it’s a solid film and better than I expected.  The script was decent, in need of a smooth script doctor but solid and believable for the most part.  The overly sentimental moments were played for what they were meant to be: straight forward moments of humility and honesty that for some reason seem to always come across as hokey.  The directing was fine but nothing to write home about.  Sandra Bullock's performance was quite "large" (even compared to her real life counter-part) but what impressed me was how easy she portrayed it, unapologetic and (in the case of the super-sentimental moments) fearless.  Bullock is a very honest actress and even in her interviews she spoke lovingly of the part she never over-sold it or the film.  The ultimate example was her opening line of her Oscar acceptance speech, to the effect of "Did I really deserve this or did I just wear you people down?"  I'm guessing she did the part the best that she could, realized its limitations and most importantly, how it played only a part of the reason she was holding Oscar that night.  I admire her honesty, and besides Meryl Streep gets nominated for getting up in the morning.  I loved her in Julie & Julia, don't get me wrong.  But in the big picture Streep will earn multiple Oscars and it may be a rare event for Bullock to be nominated, let alone win.  So, why not award Bullock for some of her best work, playing against type to boost.  I can't say it was the best actress performance that year but it was one of my favorites and it deserved to be congratulated even if Oscar was a stretch.  If she did "steal" it, Oscar will quickly recover.

I'm going to pause here because this just might prove to be my main point (we'll wait and see).  Because this movie may have had an impact on me because of who I am and, more importantly, where I was in my life says a lot about its reception I think.  Not that I was blinded (pardon the usage) but it did give me a different way to look at it.  Movies like this don't hit everybody on the first viewing and as such rarely warrants a hasty second viewing.  Perhaps after time passes and events in someone's life sets them in a different mood their opinion may change.  When you stack "The Blind Side" up next to films of that year like "Inglorious Basterds" "Up In The Air" and "The Hurt Locker" it looks silly.  Yes, even I would agree its Best Picture nomination was a mistake.  I was interested to hear some fans of "Up" dislike "The Blind Side."  I wonder if "Up" had been filmed live action and "The Blind Side" in animation, would their views hold steady?  I doubt it.  Parts of "Up" that were so tender were aided and elevated by animation.  To see them live action would probably have elicited more than a few groans (unless Meryl Streep played at least one role). 

Wow, I wrote a lot here.  To close, I can not stand and say "The Blind Side" is a great movie.  It's not.  It's a good movie- solid, enjoyable but not great.  Parts of it were very emotionally powerful but they had eevry right to be that way and drove the movie even more than Bullock.  Watch it now and watch it again when you think you just might get something out of it that is bigger than the film itself.  Labor of love films deserve that much at least.  As forme, I admire the film for what it made me experience and that wasn't just the film by itself.  If you still can't find anything to like about it, it doesn't mean you have no heart, but I would check to be sure :)

Closing thought:
If one's opinion about any (movie, book, sermon) good or bad, does not evolve and grow over time, that is the true tragedy. 

Happy watching!
-Ben

Machete!

I hesitated to write this not because of what this movie is but what it means to represent, what is it an homage too?  Having not seen the "fake trailer" before the movie Grindhouse (because as you guessed I have not seen Grindhouse) nor having a treasure-trove of B movie knowledge to fall back on (minus the Ayslum of course), left me once again with only the film itself as my main source of knowledge.  I had a general idea of what the film was paying tribute to whoch I think helped a lot.  B movies are B movies because they just aren't as good as main stream A movies.  They are often over the top in their use of gore, violence, sex and campy dialouge.
Machete walks the fine line between A and B remarkably well, one of the reasons (I feel) it got as critically well received as it did.  It has A list talent in Robert DeNiro and Jessica Alba, old fan favorites in Steven Seagal and Don Johnson, working actors getting a well deserved shot in Danny Trejo and Jeff Fahey AND Cheech Marin (cuz why the heck not).  Oh and Lindsay Lohan but I'm not gonna go there, its too easy to be mean.
While the film has the look of an A movie (with a few throwback excpetions) it retains the B movie feel, pacing and plot which was likely to upset some people.  Though filmed on the relatively small budget of $10 million it lacks nothing in terms of sets, effects and makeup.  The script seems to be to be the most representative homage of all- silly at times, unbeliveable at others but still somehow highly enjoyable.  It seemed to me to be a hard script to conceptualize and then I read how Chris Cooper turned it down because  "it's the most absurd thing I've ever read"  Just goes to show you how the words on a page don't always hold all the keys.
I don't want to go on here so I will throw out a few bullet points of things I liked about Machete:
- Nice to see Steven Seagal in his first purely villian role.  Its small size suits Seagal's shortcomings while showcasing a different side to the actor
-Danny Trejo finally getting a starring role.  Hopefully this will lead to more, but Trejo made his character deeper than any B movie ever could give its protagonist
-Michelle Rodriquez, who I like in small doses, starts well but by the time her character (and her) are worn out the movie is minutes from finishing
-Robert DeNiro gets to make a small, oddball movie and shows he can laugh at himself. Also its probably the last time he gets a role Chris Cooper was offered first
-The nudity in the film, while unnecessary, wasn't offensive since it came off as silly and laughable
-Don Johnson and Cheech reunite!

So to wrap up, Machete is a highly enjoyable, purposefully bad movie.  Bad it its plot and (most characters) but enjoyable in its acting and homages to B movies of the past.  I'd give it a watch!

Oscar do-overs: Giant, aka My Giant not your Giant which is not the Billy Crystal movie

In the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly there was an article entitled something like "Top 10 Over-rated Best Picture Winners"  Besides the ongoing conversation on how many times Martin Scorcesse got robbed (losing to Ordinary People in 1980 and Goodfellas losing to Dances With Wolves in 1990) it brought up how some best picture winners stand up over time and who might have been more deserving.



I agree that in 1959 Giant got robbed losing to a big budget adaptation of Around The World in 80 Days and i am saying that even though I haven't seen the latter.  Is that fair? No its not.  I base it solely on the fact that Giant is one of my favorite all time films and everything I've read on the later is that it was less than stellar.  Side note on part of my love for Giant: When I first saw the film through Netflix many years ago and I was working my way through the first AFI list of Top 100 movies.  I sat on the floor of my small Studio City Apartment not completely believing how much I was enjoying Giant.  In those days I never glanced at the Info sleeve to find out running time or even subject matter and usually ended up enjoying it more.  Anyways, after a very dramtic scene in the film the screen all of a sudden went black and I actually yelled "NO!!!!!"  Then I sat in stunned darkness for a bit and then I realized no closing credits had come up.  Even more curious I opened the DVD player to fight with great joy that it was a two sided DVD.  Though ending the film at movie at the break would have been very bold and exciting, I am sure glad it didn't.  And if you are wondering, the answer is No I did not fuller learn from the oversight.  I don't even recall how much of Dr Zhivago I watched on Side B before realizing my mistake and flipping the disc over.  Let's just say it made for a very long evening.

AHA!

My niece Ann Hinckley ANderson was diagnosed last year with aplastic anemia, a blood disorder.  It has been a tough year but the latest test results are a reason to praise the Lord!  My sister posted the following online:

"The biopsy showed no cancer or PNH!  We also found out the her percentage of healthy bone marrow cells has increased drastically since last year.  Hooray!  In February last year her body had only 20% healthy, functioning bone marrow cells.  This February, the doctors estimate that to be up to between 60-70% healthy cells!!  This confirms what we had suspected: that the drug is working and her marrow is building back... Ann Hinckley is doing wonderfully.  There are still many uncertainties about our future, but we have become more comfortable with that truth and God has definitely provided John and me with more peace in our hearts.  We are so thrilled that she is feeling so well, and able to participate in so many things.  We have seen so many of you lately and I continue to be honored and amazed by your prayers and your children's prayers for our daughter.  You are a huge part of why we are where we are.  Thank you for your consistent support throughout this last year.  Words fail us to express our gratefulness to you and our Lord."
Thank you all for your continued prayers!
Ben

Top Ten List explained (sort of)

First off, special thanks to Jason Eaken for giving me the idea to include movie posters in my top ten list AND for allowing ties.  I have a feeling once I see Toy STory 3, 127 Hours, Rabbitt Hole, etc I will have more ties. 

If my list seems a little too "normal" that's because, well, it is normal.  Most of the films I was able to see were thanks to the SAG awards.  Between free screenings and free home screeners I was able to see a great deal but I know there are many small independent films out there that should be on the list. 

This is by no means a complete breakdown but here are some thoughts on each film, NO SPOILERS!

Get Low- Got to a screening f this complete with a Q&A with Robert Duvall himself.  I really wonder where this film was in all the awards hoopla.  Great writing, acting, sets, makeup, etc.  But it was a small movie that couldn't afford the Weinstein public relations machine that I'm sure didn't help King's Speech at all (cough, cough).  Robert Duvall, Bill Murray, Sissy Spacek and a great supporting cast of mostly unknown actors turn in a highly enjoyable film from beginning to end.  I could go on about Duvall but don't want any spoilers

Solitary Man- I'll be honest, I'm not a huge Michael Douglas fan.  Nothing against, he's always decent but I never fell for one of his perfomances.  With the (slight) ferver over Wallstreet2 this one got left behind which is a huge shame.  As you watch him spiral from wealthy married guy to single desperate guy you get rooting for him to wake up and change his ways.  He even gets you to feel sorry for him despite his obvious self-destruction.  And Danny DeVito is always a plus for me.

Voyage of the Dawn Treader- One of my biggest all-time movie pet-peeves is how in thisHarryPotterTwilight mania we live in that the Narnia series is barely a blip on the radar.  I love Harry Potter and what it's down for both books and films (especially for young actors) and for that matter I loved Lord of the Rings.  SO it just baffles me how the fans of those films don't line up for Narnia.  It's got good young talent, great effects, solid story, I just don't see why it got shunned by both the box office and the awards crowd.  But I have the feeling even if it was widely seen there just may not be enough room for it right now.  I wush they'ad waited a few years to start ther series

The Town- I have a like/hate thing with Ben Affleck.  He's a decent actor, a better director, he just needs to pick better projects.  Well he has one here.  What could have been a run of the mill robber flick turns into a great character study where even the obligatory love story works just fune.  ANother great supporting cast down to the smallest part and specific direction makes it a surprising but fitting part of many such lists.

Inception- I think it another year, past or future, Inception could have been a real Best Picture threat,  It was a huge blockbuster that still managed to be revolutionary and engrossing.  Confusing yes, but you really don't care, you make an attempt at least to accept each reality as it comes up.  Also, I love me some Tom Berenger

Winter's Bone-  I almost didn't see this movie but I am so glad I did.  Probably the biggest surprise of my year.  I went to the SAG screening because John Hawkes was giving a Q&A afterwards and he is a fav of mine.  This small film about a young girl is rural Missouri left to take care of her entire family while trying not to get killed (thanks to her deadbeat dad) had me from the beginning.  Great perfomances.  Also the film was in a often misused word- real.  The "sets", the people, it all screamed reality.  I learned from John that the little girl in the film actually lived in the house they filmed in, hence she got the part.  Jennifer Lawrence, who I was not familiar with was incredible and John Hawkes would later get a well deserved Oscar nod.

Black Swan- Yes the Natalie Portman ballet movie where she "hooks up" with Mila Kunis.  But it is also a hard hitting, engrossing film that doesn't really let you go until the end.  Whether you "figure out" the end doesn't seem to matter, in fact its almost better if you do.  I found myself thinking of ways she could turn things around right up until the end, it kept be guessing.  Great directing and Portman's incredble acting mad ethis one worth it, even if there are a few parts you may not care for.

Blue Valentine- Let me say this first off, this is my pick for best acting of the entire year.  Ryan Gosling was robbed of a Oscar nod (I blame Jeff Bridges but only a little).  I have not been a huge fan of Michelle Williams but she was flawless in this movie and was my "should win but won't" pick for Best Actress.  It is not an easy movie to watch, it runs the gamit from slightly uncomfortable to so uncomfortable I had to turn away for a few moments.  It's like you were in each scene with them and again, even if you figure out the ending you still root for them to change it.

The Fighter- A friend saw a early test screening and told me "I didn't expect to like it and I didn't, I loved it."  I feel the same way. It would have been so easy to make this another mediocre sports film that you appreciate because its a true story and everyone loves an underdog, but it ended up being so much more.  Yes Mark Wahlberg is over shadowed by pretty much every other actor in the film but he still manages to turn in a solid performance.  Christian Bale won a very well deserved Oscar.  Amy Adams shows us she's not just a frail Disney princess.  Melissa Leo took what could have been only a caricature and tutrned it into a real character and won an Oscar in the process.  Yes I think she stole it from Adams (who was the only actor other than Bale who succeced in playing against type)

King's Speech- I go back and forth on this movie.  I loved it, in fact I'd use the word "flawless" but I see no difference between it and a well made HBO or TNT made for TV film.  It's the type of film that gets made just about every year, in that you love it, can't find any cracks in its facade but still not blown away by it.  It makes #2 on my list, even though I wanted to bump it back at first, because it was in a word, flawless.  It had a great cast and a story that was so touching that it made me wish I had lived through it.  I would not have given it the Best Picture Oscar but Oscar loves British dramas over American dramas and in the end nothing could stop its momentum.  I will say though that it doesn't hurt when you have the proven Weinstein team pushing for you, they know how to win Best Picture Oscars.  I am reminded of Shakespeare In Love beating out Saving Private Ryan but at least Speilberg got a Oscar for his direction.  Tom Hooper is talented but with a director-proof script and a talented cast, anyone could have directed this film.

The Social Network- I figured I would like this movie but I mainly went because some friends were extras in it and with my main man Aaron Sorkin writing the script I knew it would be decent.  It was more than that, it was incredible.  I was one who laughed upon hearing about "the Facebook movie" but the careful scene selection between past and present got me hooked.  Exceptional acting from a mostly young cast handled Sorkin's writing with energy and excitement.  I never had anything against the cast members I was aware of but now I can't wait to see where they go from here.  Special mention goes to Rooney Mara who did more in two scenes than most lead actors achieved this year.  Can't wait to see her in "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"  I walked away from the Oscars pleased with Aaron Sorkin's screenplay award and oddly content with the film's loss to King's Speech.  Social Network will live on without question while I think King's Speech needed Best Picture to make sure it didn't get lost in the countless British dramas that preceeded it.  Also contemporary films had a much harder time at the Oscars.  The past decade had more winners than usual what with American Beauty, Crash and The Hurt Locker, but its still hard for contemporary films to compete with period dramas and if they happen to be British, forget about it.

I still have yet to decide if this year had more films I liked than last year and I think its because I saw so many more this year.  And I feel that though most of the acting awards were the usual forgone conclusions, there were still no shortage of well deserved nominees that easily could have won in another year.  Can't wait to see more movies and see how my list gets shaken up.