Keep Your Faith on Fire

The Lincoln Lawyer

2011-03-23T15:37:00.000+08:00

“I’m trying to make it right!”

Crime, punishment and pragmatism? Do the ends ever justify the means? “The Lincoln Lawyer” tells the story of a divorced, smooth talking lawyer Mick Haller (Matthew McConaughey), and his new rich client Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe). The film starts with an old school, 70s feel, although set in modern times. The story starts off simple enough, a man accused of a violent crime professes innocence and hires a lawyer to defend him. However, Mick quickly find that his new client’s story doesn’t pass the bar (pun intended), after a little digging by him and his investigator Frank Levin (William H. Macy). Mick, unfortunately, then finds himself in the trap of attorney-client privilege. We, also, learn through all this that he put an “innocent” man in prison. This starts a long, corrupt road of sordid “redemption.”

Lies and corruption are the name of the game. I can’t say too much without giving it all away; the plot is a bit predictable with a few surprises. I wanted to see the movie for the cast, and I was satisfied with the acting. The storyline felt like an extended version of “Law and Order: SVU,” minus the “ding ding”. Although intense, the film has a flow that kept my attention.

Content of concern
There are graphic scenes of violence including pictures of an abused woman (alleged victim) and a picture of a dead woman who had been beaten and stabbed to death.

There is a flashback view of a woman being repeatedly cut, beaten and raped (simulated, not graphically shown).

There is a semi-drunken sex scene between “Mick” and his ex-wife, where the female is in bra and panty, heavy kissing, but not much beyond that.

Speaking of drunken, there is a lot a drinking; it seems to be the only way Mick knows how to cope with stress. He gets falling down drunk twice and needs to be taken home by a second party.

Prostitution is another aspect portrayed in the plot.

A man is jumped by a small group and beaten with bats.

I counted about 30 swear words, including the “f” word, “s” word (several), the “a” word, the phrase “SOB” was popular and they threw in about dozen hells and damns for good measure. Sadly, you can’t go to a movie these days without hearing the Lord’s name blasphemed, and this movie was no exception; I counted 7, including “G-damn,” “J____” “Christ” OMG.

What make this film believable is its realistic depiction of a fallen world and the corruption that persists throughout, even in our “justice” system—how evil a man without God can be—and how corrupt a lawyer can be even in his quest to right a wrong. There are no truly “good guys” in the “The Lincoln Lawyer,” and its conclusion leaves the audience with questions—“Was justice really served”, “Who really was the bad guy?”

Is there ever such a thing as getting away with murder? According to the Bible, we are all guilty (Romans 3:23), and if we were given justice, our punishment would rightly be Hell.

How good is good enough? Answer

We all have to face a Holy God in final judgment; there are no smooth talking lawyers or any amount of money that can save us. It’s simply the wrath of God or the grace of God through His Son Christ Jesus.

Violence: Heavy / Profanity: Heavy / Sex/Nudity: Moderate

Justin Bieber: Never Say Never

2011-03-14T13:05:00.000+08:00

“Find out what's possible if you never give up.”

This is the story of Justin Bieber's rise to teen sensation. The story begins with his mother talking about the circumstances under which Justin was born. How she was a pregnant teenager, and she and Justin's father split up shortly after he was born. Justin was raised by his mother and his grandparents. It was said, on more than one occasion, that Justin has always been very close to his Grandpa. She saw at an early age that he was musically inclined and did videos of him that she posted on YouTube for family members to see. He was discovered by a man who thought he had the “it” factor and invested quite a bit of his own money to market him in the music world. The story goes on to show how hard he worked to get his name and music out in the public eye, with the culminating factor being selling out the Madison Square Garden arena for a concert.

The tour they are filming in this documentary consists of 86 shows, so we see Justin enjoying time on the tour as well as times where he is feeling sick and run down. His voice teacher mentions once a comment he made about wanting to be a normal kid, and she tells him, that this is his new normal. His manager Scooter Braun makes a comment at one point that his job is to make Justin into a good man. Throughout the movie we see photos of Justin from significant times of his life growing up, as well as videos of baseball games, swimming lessons and shoveling snow.

Overall, I felt the movie was very inspiring. There is more than one occasion that the whole crew (including Justin) pray about the decisions they are making and for the shows they are about to do. After the final concert of the movie (The Madison Square Garden show), there is a voice expressing their thanks to God, as well as praying for the wisdom that comes with the responsibility of Justin's fame.

This movie definitely emphasizes the fact that Justin is “worshiped” by fans all over the world. The looks on their faces and the comments they make when they see him in person are staggering. I don't see how any 16 year old can handle that type of rise to fame and fortune so quickly, but it also shows him praying for all his glory to go to God. Maybe he will be able to use this fame to spread the Name of the Lord.

The idol worship is disturbing, and the another negative I noticed is when Miley Cyrus is on stage with him at a concert wearing an EXTREMELY short and tight mini skirt. I was very disappointed by that. There are also several scenes of fans screaming “Oh my G*d,” as they are trying to get a glimpse of Justin.

I saw the movie with my 9 year old daughter and the theater was pretty full. Girls from ages 7 through teens, and they all seemed to really enjoy it. They were singing and laughing. There were also tears when Justin was sharing his heart and during a time he had to make a difficult decision to cancel a concert. In the car on the way home my daughter, and I talked about how if God puts a passion in your heart, that He can help you to pursue your dreams and never say never! Justin's overall message of the movie to not give up I think could have a big impact on lots of people.

Mars Needs Moms

2011-03-14T13:01:00.000+08:00

“Mom needs a little space.”

Milo is just your average, everyday boy. He has a mom (played by Joan Cusack) and a dad who love him very much. After deliberately disobeying his mother he is sent to his room and tells his mother that he wishes he had never had her as a mom. After a long period of time, Milo decides that he shouldn’t have said what he said and decides to go and apologize to his mother for how he reacted. As he approaches his mom’s bedroom door he sees a flashing light, opening the door to find his mother being abducted by Martians from the planet Mars. He races after the space-ship and climbs aboard in search for his mother. Along the way he runs into another human living on Mars, Gribble. Gribble informs Milo that the Martians are kidnapping moms from earth (who can properly raise their children) so that they can raise the Martian children by extracting the moms’ memories and programming them into their “nanny-bots.” It’s up to Milo, Ki (a friendly Martian), and Gribble to stop the Martians and save Milo’s mom.

Disney has been making movies for a long time. I grew up with Disney and remember the classics like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Beauty and the Beast, etc. I am usually never disappointed when I see a Disney movie and I definitely wasn’t disappointed when I saw their latest installment, “Mars Needs Moms.” This movie made me laugh, it held me in suspense, it did everything a Disney movie should do and for that I applaud “Mars Needs Moms”.

Overall, I was impressed with the film’s quality. The graphics were astounding and so, how should I say, “life-like.” The story was simple which is why it made for such a great children’s movie. Joan Cusack puts in an outstanding role as Milo’s mother, though her scenes are very brief. Cusack was born to play this role. What makes Cusack such a great actress is that she can take a small role, such as Milo’s mother, and turn it into a spectacular performance. I was also quite impressed with our protagonist Milo, voiced by the popular Seth Dusky. I have also seen a few films made by Dusky, such as “Old Dogs,” and have never been disappointed in his performances. Even Dan Fogler put in a humorous performance as Gribble. The music was just right for this film, with a couple exceptions to a few scenes. In general, this is a good film.
objectionable content

This is the part of the review I never enjoy writing, especially when it’s on a movie I enjoyed viewing. Nonetheless, there are some scenes and issues that I have to share with children and their parents. Violence: There was a moderate amount of violence for this film. In the beginning of this film Milo falls down a mountain of trash. In addition there are a few scenes in which the Martians are trying to shoot Milo and Gribble but they are mild and brief. There is a scene where a mother is “disintegrated” and lastly there is a scene where Gribble is electrocuted.

Profanity: There was some profanity but it was very mild and words that you would only hear on the playground at school for the most part. These words include, “cha-chee,” “jerk,” “idiot,” “freakazoid.” Also, there are a couple statements made about botox and about “always have a change of underwear”

Sex/Nudity. My biggest concern was the appearance of the Martians. The female Martians wear little to clothing, except the guards. The Martian babies are also naked. Towards the end of the film, there is a Martian baby peeing on another adult Martian.
spiritual lessons/morals

In the beginning of the film, Milo is disrespectful towards his mother. We can see that he loves his mother very much, but that he, like many children, doesn’t understand that with love comes obedience. Fortunately he realizes how much he has love, respect, and even obey his mother at the end of the film. This message is not only geared towards the children in our lives, but even to those of us who are “grown-ups” and have parents who still live among us as well. The book of Deuteronomy says this:

“Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the Lord you God is giving you” Deuteronomy 5:16 (NIV).

“Mars Needs Moms” is Disney’s latest attempt, since Wall-E, to entertain children on space and the possibility of life outside of Earth. This movie was cute and I can happily recommend this film to parents and children over the age of 7 (due to violent scenes). Children under this age will likely become confused and scared, as I noticed from children in the movie theater. Thank you Disney for bringing clean, family films back into Hollywood’s vision. Note: I did not see this film in Digital 3D. However, I feel that viewers will still enjoy this film without the 3D glasses.

Violence: Moderate / Profanity: Mild / Sex/Nudity: Mild

The Rite

2011-02-10T14:10:00.000+08:00

“You can only defeat it when you believe.”

Exorcist cast thyself. That phrase might best describe the theme of this movie. Two priests, one an unbeliever (actor Colin O'Donoghue, portraying priest apprentice Michael Kovak) who entered seminary to work out his own “demons” of unbelief, and another (actor Anthony Hopkins, portraying Father Lucas Trevant) who spends his advancing years looking after his truly demon-possessed neighborhood, only to finally catch the dark spiritual contagion in his own body. Good theatrical work by all the actors may be acknowledged at the outset.

At one point Hopkins alludes to another movie, The Exorcist, belittling its pea-soup vomiting scene and the 360° head spinning moments, yet The Rite simply replaces them with a solid-object spew of crucifixion symbols and a merely toned down (more believable?) version of the neck-wrenching sequence.

As with most of these exorcism-type films, it is again the Roman Catholic Church that is called upon to handle the situation, and everything seems to work out in the end because they answered the beacon. The audience is even apprised of the ongoing efforts of the theatrically depicted priests today in the real world, and the message is that all this stuff is currently happening on a fairly regular basis, but being handled by your friendly neighborhood padre. Be afraid!

My problem is severalfold. First, I recognize a serious error in Roman Catholicism which denies the Gospel message of salvation by faith alone. This was a doctrine clearly denounced by the Roman church during the Counter Reformation pronouncements at Trent (6th Session, Canons Concerning Justification, January 1547) and it is then that Protestants concluded it ceased to be a true church. If accurately assessed, why would the keepers of a false Gospel, one contrary to God, have any heavenly authority against manifesting demons which are also divinely antithetic?

Second, the star of the show is a young agnostic priest-to-be who lumps the notion of God with that of extraterrestrials. He is the one who eventually confronts Satan face-to-face, only to have his convictions stirred and belief ignited. We might imagine that experiencing what the movie depicts would make a believer out of any of us, and it would, but how would it really occur? In the Bible, some non-Christian magicians tried to do an exorcism and got their tuckuses handed to them (Acts 19:13-20), so how does that comport with “The Rite”?

In the movie, the rather dull demon is tricked into causing faith in the unbelieving priest, which invariably leads to his calling upon God. Ergo, the priest is now a true believer and has the requisite power over the foolish demon that led him to this point. The demon announces his name, Ba’al (which was the Canaanite’s primary idol in the Bible) and having his identity revealed, was at the mercy of the priest who summarily cast him out. Are angelic creatures really so dim?

Thirdly, where biblically do we find exorcism recipes? Demonic encounters were generally dealt with once-for-all and with merely a word by Christ or the Apostles. The movie, of course, has all sorts of religious rigmarole that constitutes a proper “rite,” and these include crucifixes, saint cards, holy water, candles, incantations, rosaries, and sundry other accoutrements. Nobody seems to be exorcised in singular encounters, either, so there are repeated castings out of the same demons time after time. Again, not biblical.

The off-color language in the movie runs the gamut, and includes most everything, but it wasn’t a constant barrage, and was often so quick that one wasn’t certain what was said. Of note, most of the language came from the religious figures, and it included a variety of penis references by synonymous slangs. The F word was used, sh** a few times, and there was the calling of a woman by the acrimonious term for a female dog. “Hell” is uttered as an expletive, and the demon-possessed pregnant woman pulls her skirt up and requests the priest to rape her. She shows little in the way of skin, but bleeds all over the place in the hospital, and there are a couple of rough traffic accident sequences ending in bloody fatality.

The film has a spooky feel over all, and is not bad at delivering that agenda. But where truth and error lie may be found in Scripture. We do not see true Christians ever being possessed in the Bible. Why is that? Because they are possessed by God (1Cor. 6:19-20). God cannot be evicted, and demons are his inferior creatures. When we see a demon-possessed priest we have to ask, “was he ever saved?” After all his exorcisms in the name of God, he gets possessed himself? That seems rather unbiblical (and ridiculous) and if so, incorrect. It’s Hollywood after all, so what should we expect? What would the Vatican expect? Hmmm.

There are some unsettling scenes in a mortuary with the cadavers there; discomfort with the pregnant victim pounding her own tummy, and an all-so-common-these-days “man-at-a-urinal” scene. Smoking cigarettes is commonplace (it is Rome, after all) and there are some lewd allusions uttered by the demon legion.
The good of the film may come from a stirred conviction to prayer, to knowing what Scripture actually says, and to not be slack as a Christian. It may also place wonder in the thoughts of atheists, since the movie puts forth demons as a reality, but it definitely forces the faithful to check Scripture references (which they will find are more often than not, poorly applied in this script).

The movie is a mediocre thrill-ride and not much more. When it concludes, you’ve had your fix, and you probably won’t be lining up again to see what will certainly be available as a rental—perhaps for next Halloween. Amen.

Violence: Moderate / Profanity: Moderate / Sex/Nudity: Minor

The Mechanic

2011-02-10T14:07:00.000+08:00

“Someone has to fix the problems.”

I suppose after Hollywood has spat out a thousand action movies it begins to be a bit difficult to come up with fresh material and original thought. Simon West, director of “The Mechanic,” apparently struggles with this dilemma and attempts to rehash previous story lines by jazzing them up with wild stunts and flashy weapons. Apparently the only new eye popping material the director could find to surge our adrenaline was even more graphic murders, astoundingly disgusting sex scenes and plunges into horrific sexual deviancy. While I have enjoyed Jason Stathum (Arthur the mechanic) in several other coy action movies, this one dove off the charts when it comes to material fit for a human audience.

The storyline goes something like this. A professional assassin demonstrates his incredible skill at terminating lives. We are lured into being enamoured with this skill by his complete command and obscurity as a mechanic or “problem” solver. We see his sense of focus as he callously completes his assignments. Then, he is confronted with a situation that he could not foresee—ending the life of his friend and mentor. Without much hesitation, he completes this task as well. Having now met all mental adversaries possible, he must now decide if he will let this creep into his mind and distract him from the perfectly trained mechanic that he has become.

Enter the reviled son of the mentor. Ardently ignored by his father “Harry”, Steve seeks the affection and tutelage of Arthur, not aware that it was Arthur who ended Harry’s life. Steve is a loose cannon with a sordid past and a reputation as being incompetent and a drifter. His skills are quickly honed with the help of Arthur, albeit through much exasperation and irreverence. Pain, suffering, violence and destruction suit Steve in all aspects of life, and he carries this out without conscious. In the end, Steve must decide who is important to him and which life he must terminate.

It’s a rather undeveloped plot that is really held together by shocking scenes of violence, sex, murder and mayhem. In the end, I felt rather unfulfilled with the story and left wanting for answers that never were addressed. I was disappointed that more of a quality effort was not relied upon rather than typical gratuitous Hollywood filth.

Should you view this movie? No. Nada. As in NEVER. Why? This is the kind of movie that we don’t want to vote for by spending our money on it. Even if the 20 sum accounts of the F word and every variation of it don’t bother you, or the occasional da*@, sh*@, bast@*d, B.S.; then the all too frequent and casual denigration of the Lord’s various names should keep you from enduring this. I can’t even repeat the multiple derivatives of God’s holy name interlaced with the F word, D word, etc., without feeling like I’m participating in the horrid disrespect and blasphemy.

Then, you have to decide whether you can endure scenes of lesbians engaged in physical contact, full female nudity, the main character having sex with some girl that he meets on occasion, a predatory homosexual man with a taste for younger men, a sexual encounter by 2 people bent on abusing each other for pleasure, and multiple deaths with graphic and disturbing violent details. It was so sickening and disturbing that I felt nauseous and spent many moments with my eyes closed. My only ability to endure this gross display of filth was to complete this review and potentially spare others the images that are now stuck in my head.

I just can’t get over the blatant display of horrific events that are being sold in this film. Does viewing those that exchange affection, man for man or woman for woman, become appealing? Are we so unfulfilled that watching someone else participate in sex fulfills us? Does it really require brutal and gory murders to give us the excitement we need to feel good and justify a 20 dollar night out? Movies like this are a warning sign of where our society is headed. Please let Hollywood know this is NOT what you are wanting by choosing a movie based on quality rather than deluded adrenaline laced horrors.

Violence: Heavy / Profanity: Heavy / Sex/Nudity: Extreme

Sanctum

2011-02-10T14:05:00.000+08:00

“The only way out is down.”

In 2009, filmmaker James Cameron released “Avatar”, which has since become the number one film in American box office history. Cameron used a 3D camera system that he helped invent, and while some argue the merits of “Avatar” as a film, no one argues that it was a stunning technical achievement. This new 3D process was immersive and a marvel. It was, also, very lucrative, which meant that, for better or worse, “Avatar” ushered in an era filled with 3D movies.

While this era has produced a few great 3D movies, most have had problems. Some movies like “Clash of the Titans” and “The Last Airbender” did not use Cameron’s technology and just wanted to capitalize on the profitability of 3D. Other films like “Resident Evil: Afterlife” did use the technology, but were poorly made. The new cave-thriller “Sanctum” not only uses the technology made for “Avatar,” but also carries James Cameron’s name as a producer, so it can’t help but be great right? Unfortunately, it can.

Loosely based on a true story, “Sanctum” is the story of a billionaire, played by Ioan Gruffud from “Amazing Grace,” who pays an expert cave exploration team to explore the last unknown cave in the world in Queensland, Australia. They believe that deep in the cave, they can discover a passage to the ocean. As you might have guessed, trouble ensues, communication is lost, and the team is stranded at the bottom of the cave with minimal supplies and must find their way out.

The plot to “Sanctum” is nothing more than a skeleton to hang pounds and pounds of effects on. It reminded me of the old Jackie Chan movies, where the plot was little more than a device that moved the talented Chan from stunt to stunt. Also, it is clear that little time went into the script and character development. For this film to work, the viewer needs to care about the characters and resonate with their plight. Neither of those things happens in the film, and that is thanks to one-dimensional characters and a terrible script that contains laughable dialogue. The only lines in the movie that are not hilarious are those that are intended to be.

The one aspect of “Sanctum” that can be commended is the effects. Emplying the same technology used in “Avatar,” the film bursts on the screen and surrounds the viewer in the world of the characters. If you are a rock climber or deep sea diver, the film delivers an experience that has probably never been seen before on film. “Sanctum” was shot on location in Australia, and viewing this film in IMAX 3D almost made it worth the price of admission. Almost.

Along with being poorly acted, directed, and scripted, “Sanctum” earns its “R” rating with some unnecessary content. While most of the film takes place in a cave, some violence and gore is expected. There are several deaths in the film that are shot up close and are gruesome. From drowning to skin peeling off of bone, the camera lingers, and the viewers see the deaths up close. Also, there are two assisted suicides in the film which raise a completely different set of questions for viewers. Along with the violence, there is one brief shot of a male’s rear end in a scene that is played for humor, but falls flat. Also, strong language is present throughout the film, that includes, but is not limited to, over 20 F words, as well as many uses of God’s name.

“Sanctum” does include a story arc between a father and son that are both in the cave. With some more development, this arc could have been the saving grace of the film. Unfortunately, it isn’t, and the viewer is left with a film that looks great, but is a mess to watch. Outdoor-adventure minded viewers might enjoy “Sanctum,” but for everyone else, there are plenty of other 3D options at the cinema that will gladly take your money.

Violence: Extreme / Profanity: Extreme / Sex/Nudity: Moderate

The Roommate

2011-02-10T14:00:00.000+08:00

“2,000 colleges. 8 million roommates. Which one will you get?”

“Thou shalt not steal” is one of the Big 10—commandents, that is. Apparently the writers and directors of “The Roommate” (2011) skipped Sunday School when that lesson was being covered, because it appears to have been “borrowed” from the pages of the “Single White Female” (1992) screenplay. (Editor's note: Legally, Sony Pictures owns distribution rights to both films, one under their Screen Gems company and the earlier film under their Columbia Pictures company.)

Sure, the actors are younger and “hotter” and the location has been changed to a college campus rather than a big city apartment, but the rest is all there: two girls living together, one likes the other just a little bit too much and wants to remove any hint of human distraction from their idyllic life together through any means necessary [read: psychotic behavior, violence, murder].

Rather than Bridget Fonda and Jennifer Jason Leigh, “The Roommate” centers around the first semester of Rebecca (Leighton Meester from “Gossip Girls” TV series) and Sara (Minka Kelly from “Parenthood” TV series) as they settle into their new lives as college freshmen. Rebecca, still reeling from the tragic loss of her older sister, has set her sights on becoming a star fashion designer, following in the footsteps of an old family friend. She quickly makes friends, especially the fast-and-loose Tracy (Alyson Michalka—“Easy A”) who wants little more than the “traditional” college experience of drunkenness and sexual promiscuity. Sara, on the other hand, has only one desire, spending time with her new “sister” Rebecca. When she is rebuffed and her affections not returned, we quickly see a darker, scarier side of the young coed. She will stop at nothing to protect Rebecca from anything untoward; Sara prefers to keep Rebecca all to herself.

The action of the film was fairly predictable; no real surprises here. It is rated PG-13, but that does not mean safe for children. Although there is no nudity, and the bad language is minimal; there is plenty of mature subject matter here. The film is set on a college campus, and, continuing in true (disappointing) Hollywood fashion, there is plenty of alcohol, risqué behavior, and simulated sex acts to go around. Billy Zane, the one veteran actor in this cast of newbies, plays a lethario professor who trades good grades for special, sexual favors.

“The Roommate” has high production values, so it is not a poorly made film, and viewers who have never seen SWF or films like it, may actually enjoy the cinematography, the acting and well-created suspense. Adult viewers may enjoy a night out watching this film, but this is definitely not a movie for impressionable teens. The viewer is likely to emerge from the film with more questions about the characters as much of the back story is underdeveloped.

In the end, “The Roommate” is a mediocre film of the “I don’t have anything better to do, so I may as well go see a movie” genre.

Violence: Heavy / Profanity: Minor / Sex/Nudity: Heavy

What does the Bible say about intelligent life on other planets?

2011-01-25T10:52:00.000+08:00

The question of UFO's and intelligent life on other planets has become very popular. Many fashionable scientists speculate about the possibilities, insisting that we cannot be alone in the universe. Alien life is the subject of hit television shows and movies, and is also a common belief of many New Age religions. Many people have asked what the Bible has to say about this subject. The following article is an attempt to deal honestly and simply with this subject and to answer the question in an easily understood manner. It is not meant to be an exhaustive or comprehensive theological treatise.

The Scriptures do not directly address the question of alien beings. The Bible does not explicitly confirm or deny the existence of intelligent life from other planets. Although the subject is not addressed explicitly, the Bible teaches implicitly that the only things He created with intelligence are the angels, man, and the animals.

It is important to remember that the stars and planets were not created billions of years before Earth. According to the Bible, Earth is not the result of billions of years of stellar evolution during which many other planets were created. Earth was created before any other planet or star existed. Earth came into existence on the first day of Creation (Genesis 1:1). God withheld the creation of the Sun, Moon and stars until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). Earth is unique and holds center stage in God's Creation.
Furthermore, the Bible clearly indicates that the fate of the universe (every other planet and star) is forever linked to God's timetable for mankind and the Earth. One day, Christ will return to Earth and complete the final act of man's redemption (2 Peter 3:9-10). He will destroy this present universe and create a new heavens and Earth (2 Peter 3:7,10; Revelations 21:1). All the stars and planets will be destroyed, along with the Earth.

What bearing does this have on the question of extraterrestrial life? The timetable (and the whole reason) for this destruction and re-creation clearly seems to be based on God's plan for us Earthlings. If God had created intelligent life on other worlds, it is hard to imagine that their lives would be calibrated by the failures of Earth's inhabitants. It seems unlikely and unfair that their distant planets would be destroyed by God because of His plan for Earth. The implication of Scripture is that there are no other intelligent beings besides man, animals, and the angels.

Why will God destroy the planets and stars along with Earth? When Adam sinned, ALL of creation was affected—the entire universe. Romans 8:18-22 teaches that all “creation was subjected to futility.” Although we are all familiar with the fact that God made man the ruler of Earth (Genesis 1:28), Scripture suggests that even the heavens are subject to mankind.

“Thy heavens, the work of the Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou has ordained…Thou dost make him [man] to rule over the works of Thy hands, Thou has put all things under his feet” (Psalms 8:3,6).

“And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the Lord your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage” (Deuteronomy 4:19).

Practical experience suggests that nothing in the universe is probably in its more perfect, originally created state. Earth is certainly no longer the paradise described in Genesis. Stars are dying. The moon and planets have been pummeled. It seems that everything in the universe will eventually wear out.

Why would God create such a vast universe if it is only for those on the planet Earth? What purpose does the universe hold? Frankly, God has not revealed all the answers, but he has shared at least some of the reasons:

* LIGHT, TIME-KEEPING AND NAVIGATION. Scripture tells us that God created the Sun, Moon and stars to give light (brightening the utter darkness of the night sky) and to assist mankind (Genesis 1:14-15, etc.). That's right, one of the reasons that God made the Moon, solar system and stars was to provide a way for us to distinguish the passage of time (days, months and years) and predict the coming of seasons. Without these heavenly bodies, the job of keeping time and navigation would have been far more difficult. We learn from history that from the earliest days, ancient peoples used the movement of stars in producing their calendars and finding their way across great distances, just as God designed from the beginning. It may be that even some migrating birds make use of the constellations.
*

GLORIFYING THE CREATOR. Another purpose for the myriad of stars is to bring glory to God—focusing man's attention on the Creator's awesome power and greatness. Psalm 19:1 states,

“The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.”

The vastness of the universe is a tremendous expression of God's might and power. God is greater than we could ever imagine, even greater that His spectacular creation, the universe. Psalm 8:1,3,9 states,

“O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth, Who hast displayed Thy splendor above the heavens! …When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, The moon and the stars, which Thou has ordained; …O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth!”

When we consider the vastness of the universe, let us meditate upon the glory of God, not on dreaming up fantasies of alien beings.

The Bible does not teach that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our universe. Although our all-powerful God could have created such life had He desired, it seems rather obvious from Scripture that He did not. The timetable for this present universe is measured by God's dealings with us. It appears that God has created the human race, on the planet called Earth, as the sole beneficiary of His fellowship. This fellowship is of such a unique design that we are told that God's only true extra-terrestrial creations—angels—are eager to observe it in action. It is our privilege to be the center of attention in our vast and wonder-filled universe.

Author: Mark Van Bebber of Eden Communications

Does ET really exist? A study of the alleged “Martian” meteorite

2011-01-25T10:49:00.000+08:00

On August 7th, 1996, NASA (America's National Space and Aeronautics Administration) made a surprise announcement that was quickly reported throughout the world. Almost every news service, national and local news program, newspaper, and talk show soon discussed this "discovery of the century." Scientists throughout the world have been accepting hasty media interviews on the subject and excitedly saying some very foolish things—without actually having read the research papers. Some would have us believe that man evolved from these “seeds” blown from a distant planet. Others boldly say we now know that the whole universe is populated with living creatures of every description.

Has the existence of extraterrestrial life finally been proven?

Certainly not, here are the facts.

Discovering life on another planet is the “Holy Grail” of many modern scientists. Annually, millions of dollars are spent on the search. Year after year, absolutely no evidence has been found. Now that this unusual meteorite has been examined, these scientists have a tiny shred of evidence of a tiny bacteria—but the slimmest, weakest, most insubstantial of evidences. One wonders if the purpose of this announcement was more than anything else, another attempt by NASA to reap more taxpayer money. NASA has been doing a lot of public relations publicity recently—on the airwaves, the Internet, and in Congress—trying to justify their huge budget for extraterrestrial exploration and ignite the public's imagination and support.

[To read our answer on the biblical position on the
possibility of extraterrestrial life, click here.]
What was actually found?

Since 1969, when the first meteorite was picked up in frozen Antarctica, researchers have annually returned to collect more specimens. One of these rocks, found in 1984, was recently examined in painstaking detail using one of the world's finest electron microscopes and the world's most sensitive mass spectrometer. This igneous rock weighs about 4.5-pounds and is about the size of a potato. The researchers involved claim that this meteorite landed in Antarctica 13,000 years ago, leaving us with evidence of bacteria dead for some 4.5 million years. [All of the age estimates in this story are based on questionable Evolutionary theories. We highly doubt their accuracy.]

Although many people following this story have made the leap from single-celled bacteria to intelligent life forms, please note that no living animals, plants or people were discovered. Nor were some tiny petrified single-celled creatures discovered displaying to the microscope their cell structure. What has been found are elements and chemicals common on Earth. The scientists' case relies heavily on chemistry and is rather complex. The supposition is that these materials could have been left behind by the decay and/or burning of tiny bacteria that once lived in water in the fractures and pores of the rock. In reality, every chemical found in this rock could have been created by natural processes that don't involve life. Some could also conceivably have been produced by Earth organisms.

Summary of evidence

A MARTIAN ROCK? Found in an Antarctic ice field, the research team involved is confident that the meteorite in question (Identification #ALH84001) is an igneous rock from the crust of Mars. Why? The supposed 4.5 billion year old gases trapped inside the rock's tiny pores reportedly match today's atmosphere on Mars extremely well—as measured by the Viking Lander (argon-36, argon-40, xenon, krypton, neon, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.).

Is this Martian identification a sure thing? No, there are certainly indications that the identification is correct, but it is not a certainty. To be ejected from Mars gravity, the rock would have to have reached a speed more than five times the muzzle velocity of a hunting rifle. Some very large objects have obviously hit Mars, so this is not impossible. The sun's gravity would draw an object like this in our direction. At any rate, the amounts of gas involved are small, and various assumptions have been made in guessing this volcanic rock's history. Mars may well have been the original source of this rock, but some would like to see more definitive proof. If the rock was blown off Mars, the fractures (in which these bacteria supposedly grew and formed) seem more likely to have been produced by the impact that shot the rock off the planet.

HOW OLD?!? These scientists are claiming that this volcanic rock crystallized from molten lava 4.5 billion years ago. Not long after, it is supposed to somehow have become infested with bacteria. Then the rock got blasted off the planet by a huge comet or asteroid impact with enough force to escape Mars gravity. Next, it floated in space for 16 million years (based on cosmic ray exposure data), and then landed on Earth 13,000 years ago.

THE EVIDENCE INSIDE THE METEORITE. According to NASA's David S. McKay, it is only the fact that the following four items were found together in one location that suggests life was once present in the rock.

*

CARBONATE GLOBULES. These are extremely tiny, generally disc-shaped globules of orange-colored carbonate [see picture on right] (virtually identical to the main ingredient in your antacid tablets—calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate). The largest of these globules is less than 1/100 the diameter of a human hair. Most are 1/1000 that size. They were found along fresh fractures and in pore spaces in the rock. The globules were possibly formed at high temperatures - some 700o C. The scientists' eye of faith can see sausage-shaped microfossils on and within these globules—shapes that somewhat resemble certain supposed “fossils” of microorganisms on Earth. The supposed “fossils” in the meteorite are only 100 millionths of a millimeter in length. It may be important to note that various supposed Precambrian microfossils on Earth have been disproven or brought into serious question. These supposed “nanobacteria” are very tiny things, controversial, and difficult to interpret—even in Earth's rocks. Also, the research team involved was divided on how these globules formed, whether at very high temperature or not. High temperature would make their proposition more unlikely. Proponents hope that the globules can be explained by formation in water under lower temperatures.

Although carbonates are sometimes produced by living creatures, as in our oceans, they can also be formed when a lot of carbon dioxide is dissolved in water causing carbonates to precipitate out. British research, Ian Franchi (Open University) says that spheres of carbonate tend to form on Antarctic rocks after they have been removed from the severe cold. The meteorite research team's rebuttal to this argument is that some of the carbonate spheres are cracked. They say most likely happened when the meteorite struck Earth.

After further research, geophysicists in Hawaii published strong evidence that these carbonate globules are NOT fossils or the result of any biologic processes. Rather they crystalized from shock-melted materials. That is, materials exposed to intense radiation and/or intense heat such as would occur as a meteorite entered Earth's atmosphere. [Edward R.D. Scott, Akira Yamaguchi, and Alexander N. Krot, "Petrological Evidence for Shock Melting of Carbonates in the Martian Meteorite ALH84001," Nature, Vol. 387 (1997), pp. 377-379.]

* HYDROCARBONS—“abundant” but “relatively simple” polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in these “fresh fracture surfaces” (The rock breaks relatively easily.). These PAHs were in highest concentration around the globules and are thus assumed to be related to them.

NOTE: These hydrocarbons are produced when molecules containing carbon are heated to high temperatures. They are found throughout the Earth—and apparently throughout the universe. By themselves, PAHs are definitely not a reliable indicator of life.

* MAGNETITE and IRON SULFIDES—fine-grained magnetic iron oxide (magnetite) and iron sulfides "similar in size and structure" to those produced by earth's bacteria. These were found in surface textures and internal structures of selected carbonate globules.

NOTE: Magnetite is a magnetic compound of iron and oxygen that can be found in bacteria and many other living creatures and left behind after they die. The vast bulk of magnetite is formed inorganically. Iron sulfide is similar. Life is not required to form either of these compounds. However, magnetite forms in oxygen, while iron sulfide forms where there is no oxygen. Therefore, researchers believe that finding these two elements together suggests an organic source.

The researchers concluded their Science magazine article by saying that "although there are alternative explanations for each of these phenomena taken individually, when they are considered collectively, particularly in view of their spatial association, we conclude that they are evidence for primitive life on earthly Mars."
Did these materials get into the rock through contamination on earth?

The scientists involved say it is unlikely because:

* The frozen meteorite was handled carefully in transport to the lab and examined using contamination procedures.
* The meteorite "appears to be essentially free of terrestrial weathering."
* The meteorite is sterile.
* No PAHs were found on the surface of the rock. The concentration PAHs increased deeper inside. (Consistent with the rock having burned on the surface as it sped through Earth's atmosphere. Possibly inconsistent with its having been contaminated while on Earth.)
* "Some of the carbonate globules were shock-faulted. This shock event occurred on Mars or in space, and thus rules out a terrestrial origin for the globules."
* "The isotopic composition of the carbon and oxygen associated with the carbonate globules also indicates that they are indigenous to the meteorite and were not formed during its 13,000-year residence in the Antarctic environment."
* Measurements obtained from the carbonate are interpreted as consistent with having been formed in the high CO2 atmosphere of Mars.

CONCLUSION

Are these materials clear indicators of prior life in this rock? Definitely not. Finding all four items together was merely suggestive of life, not a proof. As the researchers involved admitted, the presence of these materials (even altogether) could be explained by natural, inorganic processes. The research team also agreed that some of the material could have been deposited in the rock on Earth by living things or natural processes. Although Antarctica is harsh, there is life. Scientists never cease to be amazed at its tenacity and ability to surive incredibly harsh conditions. The research team claimed that these explanations were unlikely based on their inability to come up with a fully viable explanation for all of the evidence—based on what they believed to be true about Antarctica and its past.

The director of the Institute of Meteoritics (University of New Mexico), Jim Papike (a geochemist), revealed that the rock failed a key test for biological activity. When pyrite is subjected to bacteria the ratio of its sulfur istopes (32 and 34) change. "We wanted to know if these pyrites in Martian rocks would show this fingerprint of life that would be indicated by a specific type of ratio," says Papike. "When we looked at the ratio, there was no evidence that it was in a ratio for life forms." [For details, see Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, a scientific journal]

In the final analysis, extraterrestrial life researchers need to find something a lot more definitive than these materials in a rock to prove the existence of life on Mars. They need to find something like DNA or cells or tracks—something that can only come from living things—and they must link the find much more firmly to its source of origin. There is still no proof that any life ever existed on Mars or any other planet. In fact, all of the planets (except Earth) are highly inhospitable to life with vastly different atmospheres, concentrated poison gases, horrendous temperatures, deathly gravities, and the like.

Not unexpectedly, NASA has busily been spending millions (perhaps billions) of dollars to send a series of space craft to Mars. In one masterful stroke, they put Mars exploration on the front burner. Sometime after 1997, they intend to land the Mars Pathfinder on the Martian landscape to search for clearer evidences of past life. Of course, the robotic vehicle will not be capable of actually seeing nanobacteria or tiny fossils. The much-touted mission will merely try to determine if there are Martian rocks that could conceivably contain fossils. Previous missions have found nothing but absolute sterility. It is not until well after 2000 that a mission may be able to return rocks to Earth.

To our knowledge, the only life in the universe was created on this beautiful and abundantly provided for planet we call Earth.

Author: Paul S. Taylor of Eden Communications

Are we alone, or is there life elsewhere in the universe?

2011-01-25T10:44:00.000+08:00

For decades, speculation about extraterrestrial life[1] has been boosted by tales of flying saucers and encounters with aliens. In 1996, this was fueled from another source. NASA researchers claimed to have found evidence for simple life forms in a meteorite, allegedly from Mars, found in Antarctica.

Since then, this “proof” of life in the “Mars rock” has very much lost lost favor among the scientific community.[2] The supposed “nanofossils” were probably no more than magnetite whiskers plus artifacts of the experimental process.[3]

Despite this, the 2 kg rock ignited a new surge of “Mars fever.” In the next 20 years, the Americans, Europeans, Japanese, and Russians plan around 20 projects to explore our neighboring planet, which is about 34,580,000 miles (55,651,000 kilometers) away at its closest approach to Earth in 2729 (farthest distance is about 250 million miles or 401,300,000 kilometers).

Meanwhile, belief in extraterrestrial intelligence continues to grow with an almost religious fervor.

The UFO Wave

Harvard University psychiatry professor Dr. John E. Mack recently attracted worldwide attention with his collection of cases of people claiming they were “abducted by aliens.”

There was also the release of a film of an alleged autopsy on an alien from a crash in New Mexico close to the U.S. Air Force Base at Roswell. The blurry footage, which most have dismissed as an obvious and crude forgery, was nevertheless the main attraction at the 1995 UFO World Congress in Dusseldorf, Germany.

Then, of course, there was the “alien invasion” film “Independence Day,” which grossed more in its opening week than any other previous film.

A recent poll in Germany revealed that 17 percent of the population believe in visits by alien craft, while 31 percent believe there is intelligent life in other galaxies.

What should Christians think about UFO accounts?
Science

1. Never a single contact with an “extraterrestrial”

In 1900, the French Academy of Science offered a prize of 100,000 francs for the first person to make contact with an alien civilization—so long as the alien was not from Mars, because the academy was convinced that Martian civilization was an established fact!

Since then, not a trace of “little green men,” or indeed any life, has been found on any of the planets that our probes have explored, including Mars.

Despite this, a great number of astronomers think that, since life supposedly evolved here on earth, it must have evolved near one of the many stars out there. Around the world SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) researchers have scanned the sky, looking in vain for signals from intelligent beings. Despite all the listening, on thousands of frequencies over many years, nothing indicating intelligent life has ever been heard.

2. Conditions must be “just right”

Life on any planet can only survive provided a great number of very stringent requirements are met. For example, the planet must be at the right distance from its sun, so as to be neither too hot nor too cold. In particular, it must be in a very narrow temperature range so that liquid water exists.

Even if planets around other stars are confirmed, it is extremely improbable that any of them would fulfill all the requirements needed for life. Just having liquid water is completely insufficient, despite the excitement created when such was possibly detected on the surface of Jupiter's moon, Europa. (The fluid is now thought to be sulfuric acid.)

3. Life cannot form spontaneously anyway

Without intelligent, creative input, lifeless chemicals cannot form themselves into living things.[4] This is the theory of spontaneous generation, disproved by the great creationist founder of microbiology, Louis Pasteur. Without unfounded evolutionary speculation, UFOlogy would not have its present grip on the public imagination.

4. Vast distances

Even if we assumed life existed somewhere else in the universe, a visit by extraterrestrials to earth, such as is claimed in UFO reports, seems completely impracticable, if not impossible. The distances (and therefore the likely travel times) are unimaginably vast.

The closest star to the earth, Proxima Centauri (a-Centauri C) is 40.7 million million kilometers (approximately 25 million million miles) away. The Apollo flights took three days to get to the moon. At the same speed, one would need 870,000 years to get to the nearest star. Of course, one could accelerate (particularly unmanned) probes to a greater speed.

At the incredible speed of one-tenth the speed of light, the trip, one way would still take 43 years. However, one would need enormous amounts of energy for such an acceleration, roughly equivalent to the electricity consumption of the entire world's population for one month.

Furthermore, in every cubic kilometer of space, there are an estimated 100,000 dust particles (made up of silicates and ice) weighing only a tenth of a gram. At such a velocity, colliding with even one of these tiny objects could destroy a spaceship.[5]

So what about UFOs?

How then, should one understand the UFO phenomena and all the associate hype? In the German magazine Focus, it was recently stated “90% of UFO reports turn out to be a humbug, but there is a residual 10% which are not easy to dismiss.”[6]

The article quoted sociologist Gerald Eberlain as saying:

Research has shown that people who are not affiliated with any church, but who claim they are religious, are particularly susceptible to the possible existence of extraterrestrials. For them, UFOlogy is a substitute religion.[7]

The Bible gives a description of reality concerning all living things. The living God reveals himself as the Triune One—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In heaven, there are the angels, powerful created beings who also serve mankind on earth.

There is another kingdom—that of the devil and the demons.[8] Ephesians 2:2 talks about the “prince of the power of the air,” whose reign is on earth.

The devil has his own repertoire of deception in the form of various occult practices and a multitude of religious rites. It could be that behind those unexplainable UFO reports there is the work of the arch-deceiver.[9] UFO reports, by definition, remain nebulous and not identifiable. People who do not know Christ are easily fascinated by all sorts of phenomena that are difficult to explain. For Christians there is Jesus' warning in Matthew 24:4 to “Take heed that no man deceive you.” What is the best antidote to deception? Paul exhorts us, in 2 Timothy 2:15, “study” the Scripture, so we might “accurately handle the word of truth.”
Secret Bases?… Government Cover-ups?

Many UFO enthusiasts spread the “urban myth” of secret U.S. government experiments on aliens, etc.—an idea reinforced by the movie Independence Day. However, does a cover-up make sense when, under the inspiration of atheists like the late Carl Sagan, the U.S. government has spent millions of taxpayers' dollars listening “out there” for signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life? Many other evolutionary humanists, like Sagan, passionately believe that intelligent life has evolved “out there” in addition to earth, and would pounce on any hard evidence for this idea. Consider the media frenzy about the “life in Mars rock” fiasco. To imagine that a much more exciting discovery would be kept secret for decades defies credibility.
Feasibility of Inter-stellar Travel

The following calculations are given for the benefit of the more technically minded.

1. For a spacecraft to acquire a speed of c/10, the kinetic energy needed is given accurately enough by the non-relativistic formula of mv2. For a very small unmanned spacecraft of 10 kg, this is x 10 kg x (3 x 107 m/s)2 = 4.5 x 1015 J, or approximately the whole world's electricity production for a month.

For a manned spacecraft weighing several tons, the energy requirements would greatly exceed the world's annual electricity consumption. For the city-sized spacecraft in Independence Day, the energy requirements would be staggering. And when the spacecraft slowed again, it would use up to almost this amount of energy in braking.

If the spacecraft had to accelerate to c/10, slow down, and speed up many times, the energy needed would be many times greater.

It would probably be impossible for enough fuel to be carried without some sort of antimatter drive. If perfect annihilation—complete conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2)—where possible, 1 ton of antimatter could annihilate 1 ton of ordinary matter to produce: 2000 kg x (3 x 108 m/s)2, or 1.8 x 1020 J. And this is the absolute maximum amount of energy that could be produced from a given mass of fuel. A real spacecraft could be nowhere near this efficient.

2. The kinetic energy of a speck of dust with a mass of just 0.1 gram impacting at a tenth the speed of light, calculated from the spacecraft's reference frame, is mv2, or…

x 10-4 kg x (3 x 107 m/s)2 = 4.5 x 1010 J.

The combustion energy of TNT is 4,520 kJ/kg, or 4.52 x 109 J/ton. So 4.5 x 1010 J is equivalent to 9.95 tons of TNT. Therefore, the impact energy of a 0.1 g object hitting a spacecraft traveling at c/10 would be equivalent to an explosion of about 10 tons of TNT.

References and Notes

1. Much of this page is based on an article by Dr. Werner Gitt published in Creation, 1997, 19(4):46-48.
2. J.D. Sarfati, “Life on Mars?” Creation, 1996, 19(1):18-20.
J.D. Sarfati, “Life from Mars?” CEN Technical Journal, 1996, 10(3):293-296.
Bob Holmes, “Death Knell for Martian Life,” New Scientist, 1996, 152(2061/2):4.
3. See Anon., “Another Blow to Mars 'Life' Claim,” Creation, 1998, 20(2):8.
4. Some recent creationist critiques of evolutionary origin of life theories are: S.E. Aw, “The Origin of Life: A Critique of Current Scientific Models,” CEN Technical Journal, 1996, 10(3):300-314; J.D. Sarfati, “Self-replicating Enzymes,” CEN Technical Journal, 1997, 11(1):4-6; C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin (New York: Philosophical Library Inc., 1984).
5. This means there is a very small chance of hitting one in each linear kilometer traveled, but over such vast distances, a hit is almost certain.
6. Hallo Erdling, “Ufologie,” Focus, 1995, 45:254.
7. Ibid., p. 252.
8. The devil and his evil angels are fallen created beings. Satan's kingdom will exist only as long as God permits.
9. William Alnor, cult expert and award-winning journalist, has studied UFO phenomenon for many years. His book, UFOs in the New Age (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992) documents his investigations that lead to the conclusion that some UFO phenomena have an occult source.

Author: Prof. Werner Gitt, Creation Ministries International, 19 (4):46-48, September-November 1997 / Supplied by Answers in Genesis

What is Secular Humanism?e

2011-01-24T09:52:00.002+08:00

Accurate definitions are difficult to come by. When one hears the word “humanism,” several different ideas may come to mind. For example, Mr. Webster would define humanism something like this:

"any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, or dignity predominate."[1]

Others may think of a liberal arts education. Both of these are well and good, but what we are seeking is a definition of the worldview known as Secular Humanism.

First, Secular Humanism is a worldview. That is, it is a set of beliefs through which one interprets all of reality—something like a pair of glasses. Second, Secular Humanism is a religious worldview.[2] Do not let the word “secular” mislead you. The Humanists themselves would agree that they adhere to a religious worldview. According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is "a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view."[3]

Not all humanists, though, want to be identified as “religious,” because they understand that religion is (supposedly) not allowed in American public education. To identify Secular Humanism as a religion would eliminate the Humanists' main vehicle for the propagation of their faith. And it is a faith, by their own admission. The Humanist Manifestos declare:

"These affirmations [in the Manifestos] are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith."[4]

What are the basic beliefs of Secular Humanism? What do Secular Humanists believe?

Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says that "Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe."[5] Corliss Lamont agrees, saying that "Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods."[6]

Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists - the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. Carl Sagan said it best in the introduction to his Cosmos series: "The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be."[7] Roy Wood Sellars concurs. “Humanism is naturalistic,” he says, "and rejects the supernaturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic Ruler."[8]

Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution. Julian Huxley, for example, insists that "man ... his body, his mind and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution."[9] Sagan, Lamont, Sellars, Kurtz—all Secular Humanists are in agreement on this.

Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism - the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment.[10] If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. Humanist Max Hocutt says that human beings "may, and do, make up their own rules... Morality is not discovered; it is made."[11]

Secular Humanism, then, can be defined as a religious worldview based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical relativism. But this definition is merely the tip of the iceberg. A more complete discussion of the Secular Humanist worldview can be found in David Noebel's Understanding the Times, which discusses (in detail) humanism's approach to each of ten disciplines: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics and history.

FOOTNOTES

1. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (New York: Gramercy Books, 1989), p. 691.
2. For detailed proof that Secular Humanism is a religion, see Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism by David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 1995).
3. Paul Kurtz, in the preface to Humanist Manifestos I & II (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 3.
4. Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I & II, p. 24. Italics added.
5. "Is Everyone a Humanist?" in The Humanist Alternative, ed. Paul Kurtz (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 177.
6. Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing, 1982), p. 145.
7. Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), p. 4.
8. Roy Wood Sellars, “The Humanist Outlook,” in The Humanist Alternative, ed. Paul Kurtz (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1973), p. 135.
9. Julian Huxley, as cited in Roger E. Greely, ed., The Best of Humanism (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1988), pp. 194-5.
10. David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of Our Day and the Search for Truth (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1991), p. 200.
11. Max Hocutt, "Toward an Ethic of Mutual Accommodation," in Humanist Ethics, ed. Morris B. Storer (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1980), p. 137.

[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]

Adapted from Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth, and Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism by David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater of Summit Ministries

Author: used with permission from Summit Ministries.

Yogi Bear

2011-01-23T00:24:00.000+08:00

“Please do not feed the bears.”

Jellystone Park is a place for families and campers to enjoy the wildlife and, whether they want to or not, for Yogi Bear to snatch their picnic, or as Yogi says, ‘pic-a-nik’ baskets.

Similar to the original cartoon series from the 1960’s, this live-action with CGI film features the “smarter than the average bear” Yogi (voiced now by Dan Aykroyd), his little sidekick Boo Boo (Justin Timberlake), Chief Ranger Smith (Tom Cavanagh) and introduces Ranger Jones (T.J. Miller) and nature documentarian Rachel (Anna Faris).

Early picnic basket antics aside, the film shows Rachel arriving at the park and enlisting Boo Boo’s help to document wildlife at Jellystone from his perspective. However, little does anyone know, but local Mayor Brown (Andrew Daly) has designs on closing Jellystone for good and using its resources to cover up his failure to manage the city’s finances. Enlisting the help of junior Ranger Jones to sabotage Ranger Smith’s fundraising plans, can Yogi and Boo Boo save the day?

Questionable Content

Language: There is one scene with Yogi and Boo Bo dancing to the song, “I Like Big B___s” (think posteriors) and a minor slip of the tongue when a flummoxed Ranger Smith first meets Rachel, though it was so slight that most will miss it. Rachel threatens the mayor’s aide with going ‘gorilla’ on him, but that is the extent of the language used.

Violence: It is all comic in nature, with most of the slapstick centered on Yogi—no overt perils that would frighten younger children.
Lessons

I was disappointed in Ranger Jones’ decision to help the Mayor, especially after he says he was an Eagle Scout and goes as far as quoting the Scout oath (“A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful…”). From the very beginning, our expectations of him are not very high, as he fails in even a simple project that Ranger Smith gives him. Parents can remind their kids what the Word of God says about someone like this.

“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much” (Luke 16:10).

The major villain is the Mayor, who lives up to so many of the definitions of a fool the Bible describes. From the smallest issues (his car window not opening) to the largest things the Mayor is quick to anger.

“A fool shows his annoyance at once…” (Proverbs 12:16).

The Mayor is so accustomed to being unquestionably in charge, that he never really listens to anyone’s opinions but his own, and he is quick to share those.

“A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions” (Proverbs 18:2)

The Mayor’s arrogance in believing he can say whatever he wants without consequences likewise gives truth to the proverb:

“A fool’s mouth is his undoing” (Proverbs 18:7).

While trying to promote the 100th Anniversary of Jellystone, Ranger Smith is surprised to see a small plane advertising it. Rachel confesses she didn’t pay for it, but rather rearranged the letters on the banner before it took off. Ranger Smith’s only response was to say, “Cool.” Not exactly what the straight-laced, law abiding Ranger Smith from the cartoon series would have been expected to say.

“Yogi Bear” is a treat for younger children, but not likely to appeal to older teens on up. The first ‘grown up’ laugh didn’t occur until after Rachel shows up and tries to talk to Yogi using ‘bear talk,’ proving Anna Faris’ comedic talent that is underused in the film. Parents and any familiar with the original primetime show will be disappointed in how much less it targets them than the kids.

A note on the 3D version: It is clearly made with 3D in mind, and the film makes good overall use of it with a few standout scenes thrown in for good measure.

Violence: Mild / Profanity: Minor / Sex/Nudity: Mild

Gulliver's Travels

2011-01-22T01:45:00.000+08:00

“From the studio that brought you ‘Night at the Museum’”

Thomas Jacob Black (aka Jack Black) was once quoted as saying “I’d rather be the king of kids, than the prince of fools.” Unfortunately, I think he may be quickly approaching the latter, especially if he continues to accept roles like this one in “Gulliver’s Travels.” Known for his antics in movies like “Nacho Libre” and “The School of Rock,” Black clearly demonstrates his ability to poke fun at himself—but the laughs are fewer and farther between. Judging by today’s opening-Christmas-Day-family audience—the laugh meter never reached higher than a 3 on a 10 point scale. If you have money “to travel” with over this holiday, you might want to skip “Gulliver” and wait for the DVD—if at all. As to the 3D part of it, you’d be missing nothing, except a disorganized story emphasized in an extra dimension.

For those of you who may be wondering about the tie-in of this film to the classic piece of literature written by Jonathan Swift, let me be clear: there is virtually no resemblance on almost any level. The only thing that might be the same, but for entirely different reasons, may have to do with referenced nuances in current society. In various editions of the book Gulliver’s Travels, there are often footnotes to explain the meaning of various jokes, and the sarcastic wit and humor he used to refer to groups or individuals in Irish or British Society. The same would be true if this movie were to be seen only a decade from now, as many of the pop cultural references made in this film, which are hardly funny—as currently used in the movie (e.g. the lyrics of a Prince song used to court a princess), would be nearly unknown to most young viewers in the future—and therefore need to be explained via subtitles. It’s been said by some critics of Swift’s writing, that if one has to explain his humor to the reader, then it probably isn’t that funny to begin with. Probably not the best comparison, since Swift’s intellectually biting wit is really not on the same wave-length as the adolescent material in this film, but the point is made: If it has to be explained, it probably isn’t funny. In any case, this is where the similarities between the two mediums part ways.

The Plot

Gulliver (Jack Black) is an overgrown adolescent who plays with Star Wars figures, spends hours playing Guitar-Hero™, and who laments being one of the “little people” at the big city newspaper where his sole job is—to deliver the mail to all the “important people.” In between time, he fantasizes about his “crush,” the travel editor Darcy (Amanda Peet), whom he tries to impress by plagiarizing some articles to use as a qualifying writing submission, in order to get an assignment in the Bermuda Triangle and leave his lowly post in the mailroom. She falls for it, and off he sails, alone, to write “Gulliver’s Travels.”

Why couldn’t he just have told her the truth? Well that’s the lesson he must learn in Lilliput when he awakes there—bound by the “little people” (like his former self) where he quickly becomes the resident star. Once the Lilliputians overcome their prejudice and declare him truly valiant, his pride begins to surface. New problems arise with the boastful advice he begins to hand out to those like his new found friend, Horatio (Jason Segel) and Horatio’s “crush” Princess Mary (Emily Blunt). [Okay, veiled references here to British Society and its political misgivings in addition to Swift’s consistent use of paradox between the pride of man in the Age of Reason (Proverbs 16:18) and their “beastly” instincts to return to their baser selves do apply (they refer to Gulliver as ‘the beast’), but they are short lived (Proverbs 26:11).]

Predictably this becomes a plot about unrequited love, and “be true to your self,” complete with Darcy showing up in Lilliput on her own—so that Gulliver can make things right. Will he or won’t he succeed? Meanwhile, the antagonist, General Edward (Chris O’Dowd), the thwarted love interest of Princess Mary, takes on Gulliver for control of Lilliput in nothing less than a robot outfit that assembles itself like something out of a “Transformers” film. I’m not kidding. The story digresses from there with a series of ever more ridiculous “made for Jack-Black vignettes” (like Jack in a lady’s dress inside a dollhouse forced by a “giant girl” to kiss a male doll) that grow tiresome after a point and culminate with an ending that is laughable, and I mean—not in a good way. If you want to imagine the worst anti-war dance number ever created (done to none other than the blatant 1969 anti-Vietnam War song called “War” by Edwin Starr) to make a point about war’s futility, then see the ending to this film, and imagine no more.
Content for concern and spiritual summary

Overall, this film sort of lost its way from the beginning, not being sure of what kind of movie it wanted to become. The PG rating is definitely lax, since the scatological humor along with wedgies, buttocks (you see Jack’s butt crack which eventually falls on top of a Lilliputian soldier) and excessive fat jokes are not appropriate for the younger kids, nor is the cleavage of the 18th century royalty, or the sexual innuendoes like “tell her she’s sexy” and General Edward pointing to Emily’s breasts as two reasons he loves her. She responds with, “That’s not appropriate,” and the boys in my audience chuckled with a muffled laugh. There are the Lilliputians hired for Gulliver’s amusement to perform “Kiss” songs, and freeze on command with tongues hanging out, that are disturbing—just one more scene, like many others, which seem out of place. These things combine with the contrived title of “lameass”—said several times in jest—as a supposed honorable title (from Gulliver’s world) all added to material which borders PG-13 in terms of rating. Also noted in my darkened theater scribble, were two OMG’s or a variation thereof.

Finally, there is one scene that is—more than distasteful—where Gulliver drops his pants and puts out a fire in the King’s chamber by urination. While a similar event did happen in the book, the circumstances were not even close in resemblance, and he certainly didn’t spray all over a host of the Lilliputians for a cheap laugh as is done in the film. I read once of one 4th grader’s response to this “fire extinguisher scene” when the teacher read this aloud to her class. “That’s not funny! That’s despicable. No one will like that!” said the boy. To which she replied, “Well, maybe a few boys would.” That’s about what it was, a few laughs, but mostly disgust from the audience today. [In the book it was the Queen's apartment and was thought by many to be a reference to Swift's extinguishing the flames of Catholicism while defending Protestantism in the name of Queen Anne.]

Why anyone would want to take this classic story by a satirical, yet thoughtful Christian apologist from the Age of Enlightenment, who challenged himself along with all of his contemporaries to think soberly about all their actions in life (be they great or small), and turn it into a wannabe family film is beyond my understanding.

On the other hand, the fact that so little inappropriate language is used (other than what was mentioned) and no sex scenes (other than a kiss and the innuendoes mentioned above) make it more tolerable than it would have been had it gone full-on “Jack Black.” There is a positive romantic spin at the end for both couples, and the plagiarism and lying is confronted head on in the resolution, which is refreshing. Unfortunately, it just isn’t enough to pull this into a truly acceptable family film category. It is morally “average” for this genre, which means it is “somewhat offensive” and is generally not recommended by this site.

Violence: Moderate / Profanity: Mild / Sex/Nudity: Mild

The Fighter

2011-01-22T01:16:00.000+08:00

“based on a true story”

Boxing movies do an excellent job of showing the best and worst of humanity. Whether in the actual physical violence of the sport or in the internal struggle of the characters, boxing films have the ability to magnify every aspect of the human condition. They aren’t all winners, as evidenced by such clunkers as “Price of Glory” and “Against the Ropes”, however, some boxing movies transcend the normalcy and cliché of sports movies to become something more: a redemptive character study. The movie “Rocky” is the classic underdog story that has been mimicked by countless sports movies since. Scorcese’s “Raging Bull” is considered by many to be a masterpiece, and is unflinching in its portrayal of the downfall of a onetime prize fighter. Based on a true story, “The Fighter” tells the story of boxer “Irish” Micky Ward and his troubled brother Dicky Ecklund, and their unlikely run to boxing greatness. While it’s more realistic than “Rocky” and more formulaic than “Raging Bull”, it’s also an excellent addition to the canon of boxing classics.

Micky Ward and his older half brother Dicky Ecklund are local legends in the town of Lowell, Massachusetts. They have seven sisters and an over dramatic mother whom they call Alice. In Ecklund’s prime, he went head to head with boxing legend “Sugar” Ray Leonard. Ecklund is notorious in Lowell for knocking down Leonard, even though he lost the fight. Micky is an aspiring boxer who lives in the shadow of his larger than life brother. Even though Dicky is beloved by everyone in Lowell, he is addicted to cocaine and cares more about himself than he does anyone else. After losing several fights, Micky decides he has had enough of boxing and his entire family. After taking some time off, Micky decides to come back and makes a historical run to the junior welterweight championship of the world.

“The Fighter” sounds like just another sports movie filled with clichés, slow motion, and phony melodrama, and it very well could have been. Instead, director David O. Russell (“Three Kings”, “I Heart Huckabees”) focuses on the people, instead of the sport, weaving a spellbinding story that is gripping and realistic. By the time of the championship fight, it doesn’t matter that the viewer knows what is going to happen, because the journey has been so memorable. Russell was filmed mostly on location in Lowell, using the actual homes and hangouts of Micky and Dicky. The result is a movie that feels incredibly authentic.

While Russell makes the “The Fighter” worth seeing, the acting makes it one of the best movies of the year. As Micky Ward, Mark Wahlberg delivers an impressive and layered performance. He is outdone by Melissa Leo (“Frozen River”) who is pitch-perfect as his exhausting, overbearing manager/mother Alice. She is outdone by Christian Bale, who gives the performance of the year as the eminently likeable Dicky Ecklund. Bale is unrecognizable in the role, and it is reported that he lost a considerable amount of weight for the film.

Advertisements for “The Fighter” have described it as “‘The Blind Side’ meets ‘Rocky’.” While those two movies range from good to great, this comparison could not be further from the truth. It probably comes from the movie being a true story that is also about a boxer, but those are where the similarities end. “The Fighter” is a much grittier, more realistic film. While those two films are more family-friendly (at least for teens), “The Fighter” is for adults only.

Director Russell does not pull any punches (pun intended) when it comes to the violence of boxing or the harsh reality of the people in Lowell, MA. Heavy language is present throughout the film, and there are several scenes of domestic violence. Scenes involving Dicky’s drug use are very realistic and sometimes hard to watch, but there is nothing glamorous or positive about his drug use, and the film clearly shows a direct relationship between Dicky’s addiction and his downfall. While there is no nudity, there are plenty of sexual situations involving women in various stages of undress.

For the considerable amount of objectionable content he or she must sit through, what does the viewer get in return? In one word: redemption. “The Fighter” is a powerful redemptive story of one brother who battles and defeats his addiction and another who gets a second chance at life and at boxing, and he defies the odds to become the unlikeliest of champions. Along with redemption, the film is also about family, and how they can bring you down or help build you up. Just like Ward himself, “The Fighter” is profane and imperfect, but also resilient, redemptive, and ultimately winning.

Violence: Heavy / Profanity: Extreme / Sex/Nudity: Heavy

Season of the Witch

2011-01-22T01:13:00.000+08:00

“Not all souls can be saved.”

One of the difficulties in modern Christianity is answering all the objections about our historic past. The Crusades and the witch burnings of Europe (and even here in America’s 17th century Massachusetts) represent two of these, and this movie with Nicolas Cage deals with both during the brief window of time when the two issues may have been contemporaneous. Go back to medieval times, when the Black Death ravaged the known world; Christian knights were finishing combat with the Muslim presence in the Holy Land, and witch-mania was becoming all the rage throughout Europe. This is where the movie picks up.

The complaint of modern critics culminate in one moment here as the hero of the story puts a sword through the belly of an innocent woman—who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. She dies, Cage feels sick to his stomach, and the movie really kicks off as he and his bro, actor Ron Perlman, desert the army in search of nobler climes.

It’s really quite something, the few moments of Crusader warfare that is presented in various locations through myriad climates where white knights combat Moorish hoards all in the name of God and the Church. The fight scenes are as violent as we’ve seen in such movies as Braveheart, but less protracted and more to measure time as they progress through the Crusader era up to the point of the task at hand; the witches.

Sir Behman (Nicolas Cage) and friend, decide to humor the church which they had already forsaken, and wheel a condemned witch off to some exorcising monastery where the Plague can be halted if some Latin incantations may be uttered and all sorcery destroyed. Turns out, the whole thing has less to do with witchcraft and more to do with demon possession as the girl who holds the answer to the world’s problem proves to have the strength of several men, the power of darkness, and the ability to move the plot forward until she arrives at her destination, which is in the very place the men of God had put their hope. All is lost, it seems, until the knights defeat the demons, the words are incanted, and the girl is released from her oppression.

While watching this movie, I was struck by the thought that finally Cage had found a character he was suited for. He seemed knightly, but the movie itself lacked something. I don’t know what it was, perhaps the “wow” factor? It was okay, and I didn’t feel cheated paying my fare or my son’s, but it was very Hollywood and short on reality. Oh well.

When I consider the efforts of the Crusaders, those soldiers of the past who went into battle, not to hurt civilians but to preserve Christianity, I am somewhat put off by representations that make them out to be little more than villains. We Americans have tried to be the wearers of the white hat in many a military confrontation, only to have such as Lt. Calley and thousands of Amerasian children result for our muddled efforts as sinful, yet generally moral people. So the movie takes a small jab at the then church and its military, of which we all owe a familial allegiance, and then it waves the righteous banner in the end when its defenders do their sworn duty.

Objectionable might be the way in which the church is depicted; it’s illogical in its conclusions about women it deems witchcrafty, and the movie begins with the clergy hanging three of these. But there is something about the corpses that make the audience believe there is some justification in all this—though we know in reality there is not. Witchcraft seems possible, but any Christian worth their salt will soon surmise that these conjurers are not some nature-loving worshippers of pagan-deities-past that are being persecuted, but demon-possessed people who exhibit all the horrid affect of cases from the time of Christ. In pre-revolutionary America, the witch hysteria resulted in repentance from all involved, but in Europe, the Plague dictated the prevailing view, and the devil was surely at work in the day’s thinking. So much so, that all believed in Satan’s witchcrafting agents. I am uncertain if modern people would have perceived the situation any differently.

In any event, the movie provides a respite from reality, an exaltation of right, and a denouncement of evil. That’s a good thing. By the same token, it gives a skewed view of demonic influence and a rather PC view of Christianity. The witches in the movie really do seem to have some guilt, though I think most Christians would agree that the witch hysteria of Europe was probably brought about by their fear of prevailing circumstances rather than actual witchcraft. Also, the movie almost immediately alerts the adept that demonism, and not speculative superstition, rules the venue. No sooner does the viewer meet the primary witch, than they start wondering if she really isn’t more so in league with the devil.

When all is said and done, it becomes clear that witchcraft isn’t the menace here, it is definitely Satan. This is when we start reflecting on the sheer ridiculousness of it all. The Season of the Witch is not about witchcraft at all, it’s about demon possession, and perhaps here we can begin our review.

First, we have to remember that we as a church in times past were essentially united until the Reformation, so Crusader and witch history is everyone’s history. Secondly, the movie really doesn’t spend its lion share on the Crusades, the era only provides a lead-in to the time of witchhunting. The movie does have some salient moments, but if we look at it through a Christian lens, we have to say that “yes, witches are bad, but demons are worse.” Few believe that the persecuted of the time actually practiced divination or necromancy, but the movie puts it out like it’s some kind of fact. Hey folks, that’s not the Christian community, that’s Hollywood; the witches in question are not really witches at all, but some kind of people possessed. We witness the main witch saving the saviors in this movie, while at the same time deceiving them. This is true to form as Satan often acts as an “angel of light” to destroy the saints (2 Cor. 11:14).

What is weird is the idea that demons, spiritual entities (although malevolent) need humans to get to destinations or to do anything their minds conceive as necessary. We have nothing to do with them, really, so to make us their vehicles of transportation or salvation seems very, very weak to me. The movie even has these spirit entities taking physical form like giant bats to combat the heroic Crusaders, only to have themselves “killed” by chopping their heads off or by hearing Latin verses quoted from apocryphal books.

In all, the movie is a great fiction, written to spook the general public, but inadvertently to waken the Christian community to know its own colorful yesteryear. We will wonder at the amazing cinematography, but also at its worldly skew. Many swear-words will be heard, including “Hell” used as an expletive, slangs for urine and feces, “save you’re a@@,” and a synonym for perdition used to refer to the weather. The witch is referred to as such with a b, instead of w, a couple of times, and that pretty much does it for objectionable language in this movie. No “F” bombs, and not too many of the previously mentioned.

The movie does display the use of alcohol, both medicinally and recreationally. It also has one very minute, and I mean minute, moment of nudity when the woman is delivered of her possession and the audience can see from it’s skewed angle that she is probably nude on the floor in the aftermath of her exorcism. It is not lurid, nor is it really, terribly, worthy of mention, but it is there (in case anyone wonders). The violence in the movie has most to do with swordplay, but the demons also fight to the death, and there are some unsettling wolf attacks where the animals bite and presumably eat people.

The Book of Solomon is often referred to in the movie and the Christian may wonder if by this is meant the Song of Solomon or the Song of Songs, but what is meant surely means the deuterocanonical (false) work, the Wisdom of Solomon. One passage reads therein, “thou hatest for doing most odious works of witchcrafts” (12:4). It’s hard to tell, because in the movie this book is especially effective only when read in Latin and when pertaining most specifically to witches or demons. I find the whole thing somewhat silly, as language hardly matters, demons couldn’t care less if your throw holy water at them, and one book or another has no words so magical as to render demons incapable. Biblically speaking, demons respond to commands in “Jesus’ name” and no other. The Bible provides no incantations and no special gymnastics to depose malevolent entities; only the powerful authority of God and that’s it.

There are some graphic depictions of the plague’s ravishing, a minor scene of tavern revelry, some allusion to past sins, and some unsettling moments where dead people seem to momentarily gain consciousness and reach, only to then fall placidly back in their place.

The movie provides some good advice for not believing everything one hears, but to obey God more assuredly. Does the Church speak for God, or is every man responsible to God independent of the ecclesiastical politic? This is a questions raised by the film, and then there is the adventure of good versus evil. Good wins, Satan is defeated, and the poor gal accused of witchcraft is delivered without nary a clue. Most of the heroes die, and there is no reason for the viewer to sit through the credits, as no extra twist or bit of film is delivered after the fact.

I might recommend this film, but not as an award winner, just as something cultural that speaks to our faith and might be of some use for outreach. I don’t find it especially offensive, and, as mentioned previously, I took my high school son to see it with me. His opinions were helpful in this review.

Violence: Heavy / Profanity: Moderate / Sex/Nudity: Moderate

Country Strong

2011-01-22T01:08:00.000+08:00

“It doesn’t matter where you’ve been as long as you come back strong.”

I went into this film with some expectation of what I would be seeing—lots of country music—Gwyneth Paltrow crying a few times—and just generally a basic story line of a fallen star who returns back to stardom. What I didn't expect is the level of profanity and sexual situations and a complete absence of any sense of morality.

The story follows the lives of four main characters—Beau Hutton and Chiles Stanton as two young and rising country singers/songwriters and James Cantor and Kelly Cantor as the country superstar and her husband /manager. The story picks up with Kelly (prematurely) getting out of alcohol rehab and her husband pushing her to get back on the road to rebuild her career. Along for the ride are Beau and Chiles, who are picked out of the local bar scene to perform with Kelly on her comeback tour.

She does indeed make her comeback, after several failed attempts, mostly due to alcohol abuse and just generally reckless and destructive behavior. These include sexual encounters—none of which are with her husband. This destructive behavior is apparently due to an an event a few months earlier in her life, when she had a miscarriage due to a drunken fall from stage at a concert in Dallas. The film’s only slightly moral comment is made by Beau, after after being with Kelly, when he says, “Maybe we should stop—you are married”—maybe? we should stop.

This is one of the most depressing films I have ever seen, with some of the most unlikable and dysfunctional characters, who I never really came to be interested in or care about. Even when Kelly has her predictable comeback moment, it's hard to root for her, because of her horrible behavior up to that point. There is never any remorse or redemptive expressions by any of the characters, even right up to the end—in fact, the end itself is just the natural outcome of a life (lives) of sin and excess. As my wife said—people with no hope, act out in desperation.

As for the negative content, there is much.

Profanity is peppered throughout, with a sum total of almost 50 “cuss” words, plus about 17 missuses of the Lord's name. At times it seemed rapid fire.

Sexual situations are plentiful, also—several scenes of various stages of undress and several implied and not so implied (as in shown) adulterous and inappropriate sexual encounters. No actual nudity, but plenty to make up for it.

Violence is low, with only one punch thrown by James to Beau.

All in all, I cannot recommend this film. It could have been so much better—everybody loves a comeback story—it happens all the time in the movies, and we love to root for the one who comes back, and and we feel good with them when they get back on top. Not so here. Kelly lives a life of excess and never shows remorse for her actions—while very sad—not someone you can get behind and wish the best for.

As for moviemaking quality, it isn't too bad—the acting, writing, filming, etc. is about average. Gwyneth does a fairly decent job on her songs, and most of the music, itself, is pretty good (if you like country music). For this, I say skip the movie and get the soundtrack instead.

Violence: Moderate / Profanity: Heavy / Sex/Nudity: Heavy

Little Fockers

2011-01-22T01:04:00.000+08:00

“Maybe the kids will bring them closer?”

Whodathunkit? Gay and Pam Cakes Focker have gone and had babies! For those who have no clue who the Fockers are and why it is so frightening that they have kids, then let me catch you up on this latest sequel to the 2000 hit “Meet the Parents,” starring Ben Stiller, Robert De Niro, Blythe Danner, Owen Wilson, and Teri Polo.

When we first met male nurse Greg Focker (Stiller), he was being introduced to his fiancée’s parents, Jack (DeNiro) and Deena (Danner) Byrnes. Jack is a former CIA operative, and anyone who dared to enter his family had to prove themselves worthy of being in the “circle of trust.” Jack never quite approved of his daughter Pam’s (Polo) choosing of Greg; he would rather she be with Kevin (Wilson) a handsome, rich playboy with eclectic taste in clothing and spirituality. Love won out, and in the 2004 sequel, “Meet the Fockers,” Pam meets Greg’s parents, Bernie and Rozalin (played by Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand), and after more tests and trials, the couple is married.

In “Little Fockers,” Greg continues to bumble his way through life, especially as a father. His daughter refuses to speak to him, and his son is a chip off the old block. Greg is enjoying some success in his career, but financial woes related to renovating their new home and financing private school for their son (and, of course, pressure from Byrnes to be Jack’s heir apparent—“the God-Focker”), force Greg to seek ways to add extra income. He does so by being a representative for Sustengo, the latest drug for erectile dysfunction, after being cajoled and seduced by the company’s rep, Andi Garcia (Jessica Alba). Greg tries to handle his multiple responsibilities, but in true Focker-style, he has mishap after mishap.

This film is funny, yes, as most of Stiller’s films are humorous. It does try too hard, at times, to “make” the audience laugh. With a cast of characters as rich and deep as this film, the writers and directors should not have had to rely on poor language, sight gags, and pratfalls. They didn’t need a scene where little Henry (Greg’s son) is startled by seeing his dad give his grandfather a hypodermic needle injection into his “manhood,” after Jack had taken too much Sustengo.

The oversexualized dialogue, coarse language, and adult behavior are enough to caution the Christian viewer about seeing this film. While it only has a PG-13 rating, the film is full of mature themes that should make a parent question whether a child or teen should see this film.

Violence: Mild / Profanity: Heavy / Sex/Nudity: Heavy

The Green Hornet

2011-01-22T00:53:00.000+08:00

“breaking the law to protect it”

How do you approach a superhero story about men who dress up in funny costumes with strange names and battle crime? Over the years, directors have taken different approaches. The Batman series is a prime example of how directors have tried everything from campy humor (in the hilarious 1960s TV show) to the dark, brooding, philosophical approach (as in the equally great Christopher Nolan films). The Green Hornet might seem more fitting to the later, as it revolves around crime fighters who pretend to be underworld figures to strike fear into the crime bosses. Seth Rogen, however, opted for the former. Not necessarily a bad choice, except for one notable distinction. The 1960s Batman was funny. “The Green Hornet” is anything but funny, and anything but entertaining.

The story of the Green Hornet is similar to that of Batman—a rich Playboy who crawls the underworld to fight crime and strike fear into the hearts of villains. The twist is that he is, also, the head of a major newspaper that regularly portrays the Green Hornet as a villain, even attributing the murder of people by the mob to the Green Hornet himself. Promising stuff, except that the writer and star of “The Green Hornet” is not known for such material. On the contrary, Seth Rogen is known best as the actor/writer and/or producer of such raunchy, immoral comedies as “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” “Knocked Up,” “Superbad,” and “Pineapple Express.” That raunchy style of humor might work at drunken frat parties, but in a superhero film it is simply falls flat.

Britt Reid, our “hero,” is an obnoxious jerk and an arrogant idiot. Kato, his sidekick, is the real genius and mastermind behind the Green Hornet. Funny right? Well, Kato is definitely the most likable character in the film, but that is not saying much. Having a foul-mouthed, obnoxious hero does little to make the audience care about him or his exploits. This is a trend that is becoming all too common in Hollywood today. More and more films are absent true heroes, or even flawed men with good hearts. They are simply packed with rude egotists who are only heroes because the script says so.

Morally, the film is not suitable for children, at all. It is unfortunate that films like this can get a PG-13 rating seemingly based solely upon its brand name and the fact that all the butchery in the film is done without excessive blood, but does it really matter when a man has both eyes gouged by furniture equipment? Or when we see a tablesaw begin to cut a man's arm off (the scene cuts away)? When we see men crushed under various objects with bodily limbs seen sticking out underneath? Nevertheless, there is some blood and countless acts of brutality and violence.

The violence, alone, would push PG-13 limits, but when we add the amount of language in the film, the PG-13 rating becomes a joke. There are literally more than two dozen instances of sh--, a half dozen references to male genitals (d---), several “a--holes,” a reference to the female vagina, the f-word, and countless “hells,” “damns” and taking of the Lord's name in vain. According to one Web site which counts such words, there are over 80 cuss words in this PG-13 movie!

This is not all, however, for the sexual innuendoes, kicks the crotch, and a scene where Britt is in bed with a woman he does not know (no nudity is shown) add to the already long list of items which should have made this film R rated.

Now, if this is not bad enough, let's talk about the quality of the film itself. CGI is overused, as usual, to make fight scenes look “cool,” but often distract from any realism that might have been offered, as well as becoming illogical. The action scenes are over the top, which might have worked in a campy film—had it actually been funny.

Unfortunately, most of the jokes backfire. Those that are not crude and rude involve Britt acting like a buffoon, such as the scene where he accidentally shoots himself with a gas gun, or awakens from a week long sleep to see himself wearing adult diapers. The few highlights of the film include Kato and the villain, who dubs himself Bloodnofski. Both work very well in their roles, but are stymied by a script which looks like it was written at one of the drunken frat parties featured in Seth's previous films.

My advice is wait until DVD to see this film… if at all.

Violence: Extreme / Profanity: Extreme / Sex/Nudity: Moderate

The Dilemma

2011-01-22T00:50:00.001+08:00

Traditionally, the month of January is considered a dumping ground for bad movies. Movie studios will produce films, and realize after production that they have little to no confidence in the film they have just produced. When this realization comes, they make room for that film in January. These movies open to weak box office receipts while Oscar® hopefuls from December continue to play well. It’s for this reason that when I saw a film featuring two Oscar® winners plus an Oscar® winning director scheduled for a January release, I should have known better. Ron Howard’s “The Dilemma” is an uninspiring movie that earns its spot in the month of January.

Ronny and Nick are best of friends, as well as business partners. Friends since college, they spend a great deal of time together. As a result, their female companions are, also, close. Nick is married to his college sweetheart, Geneva. Ronny is seriously in love with his girlfriend Beth, and because of the positive impression of marriage he sees in his best friend Nick, he’s thinking of proposing to Beth. This ideal world comes crashing down when Ronny spots Geneva with another man, meaning that his best friend’s wife is being unfaithful. From this point forward, “The Dilemma” refers to Ronny’s dilemma—how to tell his best friend the bad news. A few more secrets are revealed along the way, making it more difficult for Ronny to get the truth out, resulting in a tough situation for both couples.

My father used to always say, “If you aim at nothing, you’ll hit it every time.” That saying is a very good description of “The Dilemma”. There seems to be a disconnect between what we are seeing on screen and what the creators of the film were attempting to do. There are a few funny parts, and a few dramatic parts, but the movie never settles into a rhythm, and thus comes off as either a mostly unfunny comedy or an underdeveloped drama. The creators of the film were probably going for a portrayal of real life, but instead they get something far from it. “The Dilemma” is a film without a singular goal; it successfully aims at nothing and hits it dead on.

While the plot and writing is all a bit slipshod, “The Dilemma” is filmed and acted with expertise. Legendary director Ron Howard is known for being a master of many genres, with his excellent work in films like “Apollo 13”, “A Beautiful Mind”, and “Cinderella Man”. Howard brings his excellent eye to the project, but he cannot do much to help the storyline or the script. It’s a wonder why Howard signed on for this film, in the first place.

Acting in “The Dilemma” is exactly what you would expect from the caliber of talent on display. The leading ladies are Oscar® winners Winona Ryder as Geneva and Jennifer Connelly as Beth. Ryder and Connelly both have scenes where they showcase their abilities, even if much of it is in vain. Kevin James (“Paul Blart: Mall Cop”) plays Nick, and is fine in his role, but is kept away from his forté of physical comedy. Vince Vaughn (“Wedding Crashers”, “Old School”) plays Ronny and delivers, well, a Vince Vaughn performance. You’re either a fan of Vaughn’s shtick or you’re not, but you know that you’ll get a performance that includes fast, improvisational dialogue.

“The Dilemma” is rated PG-13 and falls within the boundaries of that rating. There is some heavy language, that includes but is not limited to 2 F-words, and multiple uses of the Lord’s name in vain. There is one sex scene viewed through a window that includes male rear nudity. The film is, also, peppered with sexual dialogue, most of it coming from a supporting role played by Queen Latifah, and the laughs she is supposed to get are nonexistent.

Within this mess of a film, the core message is, as you might have surmised, one of honesty. Through the various secrets kept by each character in “The Dilemma”, the viewer learns that in each situation, the best plan of action was 100% honesty. Each time a character tries to lie or tell a partial truth, it ends poorly for him or her. This is a message that is rarely seen in a movie geared toward adults.

Great directing, great acting, and a solid message should equal a must-see movie, right? Unfortunately, that isn’t the case with “The Dilemma”. Instead of building on a solid foundation, the film just gets messier as it goes along, ultimately leaving the viewer out in the cold. There is no dilemma here, save your money this January.

Violence: Moderate / Profanity: Heavy / Sex/Nudity: Heavy

TRON: Legacy

2011-01-22T00:42:00.000+08:00

“The game has changed.”

In 1982 a movie starring Jeff Bridges and the then unknown Bruce Boxleitner burst upon the entertainment world—and promptly fell out of popularity and was forgotten. This movie was “Tron.” Fans have faithfully loved their spectacularly rotoscoped science fiction phenomena ever since that fateful year. Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner chocked it up to another halfway fun role that didn’t quite pan out. I’m sure they never imagined that 29 years later, they’d be asked to do it all again.

Only a few short years after Flynn’s incredible discovery of The Grid and the programs therein, he vanishes, leaving behind a small son, Sam. Everyone’s instinctive belief is that Flynn just disappeared on a whim, deciding he’d rather spend a fortune on an island somewhere. Sam listens to this talk through his growing-up years. Did his father really leave? What happened to him? Meanwhile Encom, the company Flynn rejuvenated, is back in the hands of power-hungry businessmen focused on the bottomline: making money. Sam (Garret Hedlund) is now twenty-seven years old and despite the pleading of Alan (Bruce Boxleitner), his father’s business companion, Sam refuses to take an active hand in Encom’s future apart from the occasional raid to release a program to the world for free.

But one night Alan receives a page. A page from Flynn’s old arcade, from a line that’s been disconnected for over 20 years. His one thought is that Flynn might have returned, and so he immediately informs Sam of the impossible page. Despite his misgivings and disbelief, Sam investigates the arcade, where he stumbles across a secret passage leading to his father’s research department coated in nearly 20 years of dust and grime.

A few curious clicks on the desktop computer and Sam finds himself zapped into the fairy-tale world of his father, zapped into The Grid. All is not well in The Grid. This is not the peaceful world his father worked so diligently to build. The games that sacrificed programs for entertainment still exist, only this time, they are lead by a far more devious mind than the Master Control. They’re lead by the very program Flynn created to assist his peace-making efforts. They’re lead by Clu.

Sam’s shock at finding himself in The Grid lasts only a short time before he is forced to play the game, coming against good programs forced to fight and even enemy programs fighting because they scent the kill. With hope renewed that his father might still be alive, Sam determines to locate any evidence of him with the assistance of a lovely program by the name of Quorra (Olivia Wilde). It all comes back to needing to find Flynn and return the balance of The Grid from bad to good.

I first saw “Tron” (the original) about 9 months ago. It was late at night to best display the rotoscoping, and I confess it was one of the oddest films I’d ever watched. But it won me over because of its ingenuity and honesty. Tron, the character, believed in the users, no matter how fiercely his faith was defied by his enemies. He was forced to fight and nearly died for that belief. The same essence of faith is carried over into “Tron: Legacy.” The users are everything. They are the creators and without them the programs cannot exist. Yet these very same programs, Clu especially, leads warfare against anyone claiming that users are either real or superior to themselves. Sound familiar?

True, Flynn is no god, but the faith of these programs touched a chord inside me. They believe even when there seems to be no proof, even when the world threatens, they still believe when it feels like there’s no contact between them and their users. This faith should be emulated by Christians everywhere, because we know our God is real. This movie encourages me not to give up even when it seems hopeless. It’s always darkest just before the dawn.

Story aside, the visual effects are stunning! Yes, Jeff Bridges’ face as Clu is, well, a little lacking in realism. But other than that, the CGI is incredibly convincing. You can sense the effort on the part of the creators to enhance the similarity between “Tron: Legacy” and the original film. Diehard fans of the original may not be happy with the changes to the suits and the lightcycles, but the heart of “Tron” remains.

What pleased me was the small amount of objectionable content. No blood to speak of, since when a program is destroyed it turns into tiny microchips and falls apart. The intensity of the action is heightened during the chase scenes, and the fight sequences are passionate, but again no blood. In one scene, Sam has his clothes changed by programs, but it’s very brief and no nudity—just leg and chest (not sexual). Language is limited to only mild terms such as d*mn and h*ll.

Performances were brilliant by all involved, especially young Garrett Hedlund. I’ve been waiting for him to come into his own, and it looks like “Tron…” was a great start. Giving credit where credit is due, Olivia Wilde superbly participated as the only heroine, acting with a freshness and youthful exuberance that equally matched Garrett’s enthusiasm. There’s also a certain euphoria in seeing Bruce Boxleitner on the screen again, even if it is only as Alan, there’s a warmth fans will feel in seeing him. And, of course, Jeff Bridges both as Flynn and Clu. Despite what I said about the unrealistic features of Clu, there are moments when he looks like Jeff Bridges. Plus, the acting is Jeff Bridges all the way. He didn’t participate halfheartedly, and for that I thank him. Don’t forget Michael Sheen in his brief role as Zeus, one of the wackiest programs in the film.

“Tron: Legacy” is not for the faint of heart. Fans of the “The Matrix” series and other similar science fiction films will love it. Children will probably salivate over the action sequences. But for those of you more interested in drama or romance (which I myself love, too) than “Tron: Legacy” might not be the best choice. Truly, it will best appeal to fans of the original film who have been longing for 30 years to see Tron and Flynn onscreen again.

Violence: Moderate / Profanity: Minor / Sex/Nudity: Minor

The Tourist

2010-12-17T21:28:00.000+08:00

This is remake of the 2005 French spy thriller “Anthony Zimmer” about an American tourist manipulated by a female Interpol agent in Europe.”

Angelina Jolie plays Elise Clifton, the abandoned girlfriend of notorious thief Alexander Piers, who single-handedly stole millions from a ruthless gangster. In hopes of arresting her old flame, the Scotland Yard has placed the eloquent beauty under constant surveillance. At a French café, Alexander manages to discreetly send Elise a letter with specific instructions: she must board a train to Venice and then select a man of his similar build in order to throw off the police.

Frank Tupelo (Johnny Depp) is a widowed math teacher and is soon the unlucky selection for Elise’s elaborate ploy. Elise flirts with him, and Frank easily becomes enamored. When the vengeful mobster mistakenly believes Frank is Alexander Piers, Frank soon finds himself running for his life.

Perhaps my expectations were too high. Both Depp and Angelina Jolie have deservedly garnered a solid movie career, however “The Tourist” seems more of a fluffy eye-candy film. There’s hardly anything to the plot, but there’s an abundance of scenes where the attractive leads gaze into each other’s eyes, as the romantic orchestra soars loudly in the background.
Objectionable content

The profanity consists of 1 OMG, plus 2 “f” words, 2 sh*t, 5 hells, and 2 b*stard, etc. The violence is relatively moderate and remains more on the sprightly side. There is a lot of gunfire and chases, but these remain mostly bloodless, with a touch of humor. While in the water, one man gets hit in the head by a boat. There is a disturbing strangulation scene, which lasts several seconds. This act of violence sticks out as particularly aggressive, since the rest of the film’s violent scenes aren’t as dark.

There’s some sexual content, but, refreshingly, there are no sex scenes. In the beginning of the film, the detectives, who spy on Elise, zoom in on her derriere in a tight dress and wonder whether or not she’s wearing any underwear. However, their supervisor quickly tells them to remain professional. There are three kiss scenes. While two are tame, the other is more visually passionate, as it’s Frank’s fantasy of Elise.

After their first kiss, Elisa quickly goes into the bedroom, closes the door, and begins to undress. Brief shots of her slip are shown. Clearly tempted by their kiss, Frank then begins to slowly turn her doorknob, but then decides against it and sleeps on the couch. “The Tourist” is commendable in keeping the characters respectful of one another, in this regard.

The film has a heavy theme on how things aren’t always as they appear. From Elise conning Frank to the detectives being unethical, these facades run rampant. Likewise, Satan makes his appearance beautiful in order to lure people to sin. In 2 Corinthians 11:14, Paul writes that Satan “himself masquerades as an angel of light.” On the farthest possible end of the spectrum, God is completely truthful, cannot lie, and has written the Scripture to be the perfect instrument for us to know Him. Psalm 33:4 reads,

“For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth.”

Another good verse is Deuteronomy 32:4:

He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.

I don’t personally recommend “The Tourist.” Those who prefer seeing movies for a simple escapism, might find this film enjoyable. My advice is to wait for the DVD release.

Violence: Moderate to heavy / Profanity: Moderate / Sex/Nudity: Mild

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

2010-12-12T23:54:00.000+08:00

“Return to magic. Return to hope. Return to Narnia.”

“Voyage of the Dawn Treader” is the third in The Chronicles of Narnia series and the first directed by Michael Apted, who directed the great film “Amazing Grace” as well the Bond film “The World Is Not Enough.”

One will quickly be stricken by the differences in “Voyage of the Dawn Treader” and its predecessors. Most obvious is the human element. “Voyage of the Dawn Treader” focuses much more on human characters and human emotions than the previous films. Except for Reepicheep, every one of the central characters are humans. This allows the viewer to identify better with the human element.

In the third chapter of Narnia, Prince Caspian sets sail to find seven swords scattered across the kingdom. In each case, one or more of the characters falls prey to temptation. Whether lust for wealth, greed, power, or vanity, all must face their sins in order to emerge victorious. Their journey takes them across the seas to the end of the world, but no comparisons to a certain pirate movie are applicable.

Of the original crowd, only Lucy and Edmund return. The older children can no longer return to Narnia. Since this pattern would continue into the next story, Lewis introduced Eustace, a spoiled child who makes the young Edmund look like a spiritual giant by comparison. Edmund will, of course, return for the “Silver Chair,” Narnia's fourth installment (and one best suited to be translated into a film). Here, he is introduced as the young immature brat who undergoes a life transforming event.

Spiritually speaking, the story focuses on temptations and how they hamper our spiritual walk. It shows how the enemy uses our own selfish desires to take our focus off of God and our true purpose in life. We become embedded in our own selfish aspirations and neglect those which we should be promoting.

Morally, there is nothing offensive, except that very young children will be exposed to magic and some mild bloodless violence. The magic element is one which is controversial, but has been dealt with previously. Anyone familiar with C.S. Lewis' stories is already well aware that magic plays a crucial part in the films. There is “dark magic,” and then there is the power of Aslan, but there also appears to be a sort of “neutral” magic in the film which is not developed. There are scenes where incantations are used without any negative connotations, nor any glory to God (Aslan). Parents who have issues with magic might take offense at this, but it is also a good opportunity to discuss these issues with your child. One can look at it as a teaching opportunity.

In reviewing a film like “Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” one is invariably struck with comparisons to the previous installments and questions as to which is better. The truth is that there is no answer. The first film was strongest in terms of its spiritual allegory. “Voyage…” is strongest in its human application. The fantasy world of the first film still encompasses the third film, but there is less emphasis upon fantasy. Does less CGI mean a better film? Some will definitely say “yes.” To be sure, there are still plenty of fantasy creatures and special effects, including a dragon and a sea monster, as well as mysterious mist which appears with evil. “Voyage…” is no less a fantasy than the other films, but it is a movie which explores human frailties. I offer no opinion as to which film is the best, but I assure the reader that The Chronicles of Narnia remains on firm footing with the apt direction of Apted, and a human script.

NOTE : This review is based on the 2D film and not the 3D version.

Violence: Moderate / Profanity: Minor / Sex/Nudity: Mild

The King's Speech

2010-12-12T23:50:00.000+08:00

“When God couldn’t save the King, the Queen turned to someone who could.”

“The King’s Speech” is the story of an unlikely friendship. The setting is England in the 1930s. The film’s final scene takes place on Christmas Day, 1939 when King George VI delivers a holiday greeting to his subjects over the airwaves (that tradition began with his father, George V and continues today with his daughter, Queen Elizabeth II). There was little reason to be festive at the close of 1939. Germany had just invaded Poland, and England was about to enter World War II. Before that fateful year, the English seemed adrift and without a leader who could guide them through the coming storm. The Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler, the so-called “peace in our time” document. King George V had died, and his son, David, the future King Edward VIII, was next in line to succeed him.

David abdicated his title in order to marry the American divorcee, Wallis Simpson. The two married and became the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Their affair was, and I believe still is, referred to as the “romance of the century”. Edward VIII’s brother Albert, the Duke of York, was brought to the throne and crowned King George VI. Albert never planned to be king. He was content to let his brother have the limelight, especially since Albert was handicapped by a stammer that rendered him incapable of communicating with his subjects.

The film is a sometimes heartbreaking, often funny, and always intelligent portrait of a man who struggles to overcome internal demons at a time when his country readies itself to fight external ones. “The King’s Speech” is a personal story and a historical one. The two blend perfectly in what is the best movie of this year, and probably one of the best dramatizations ever made of an episode in history.

I haven’t felt the same kind of exhilaration from watching a British film since I saw “Cavalcade” many years ago. “Cavalcade” (directed by Frank Lloyd and written by Noel Coward and Reginald Berkeley) was made in 1933, and it also covers British history; there are some great World War I scenes and a quite memorable scene aboard the Titanic; and its story coincidentally ends not long before the events in “The King’s Speech” begin.

Tom Hooper directs his movie in a concise and constrained way. He has a delicate, even polite, touch. It’s certainly a British film, but it’s not done in the stodgy Masterpiece Theater style of a lot of English period pieces, and it doesn’t attempt to be the kind of sweeping epic that David Lean used to make. It takes us back in time, and yet it has an immediacy that makes us feel as though what we’re watching could be happening today. He was able to do the same thing with “John Adams,” the television series he directed for HBO, but he’s done a better job with this feature film. Time and budget constraints do have their upsides.

King George (Colin Firth) has a terrible time speaking in public. He cannot read a speech without stuttering over almost every word, to the dismay of his audience, his family and himself. His stern father, George V (Michael Gambon) has no patience for his son’s handicap, and his polished but vapid brother, David (Guy Pearce), teases him mercilessly. George has a good relationship with his daughters, the princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. He doesn’t stutter as much when he is in their company.

His wife, Queen Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), looks for a therapist to cure her husband’s handicap. The Royal Family have tried a number of them, but all were unable to stay the stammer. She finds an unorthodox tutor named Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a would-be actor whose day job is helping vocally handicapped people find their voice. He agrees to accept her husband as a patient, but the sessions must be conducted on Logue’s terms. He does not refer to his student as “Your Majesty”; he dares to call the King by his nickname, Bertie.

Bertie is not amused. It is difficult for the King to accept this unorthodox student teacher relationship at first, but the bond between the two grows, and a friendship develops. They warm to each other over time, but they also clash, and those clashes have real teeth. A delicate balance is hard to achieve between the royal and the commoner. The relationship is more often indelicate, but it has all the ups and downs that real friends, ones who know and understand each other, go through all the time. Strengths and weaknesses get gauged; boundaries get set and get stepped over; hurt and resentment are expressed openly, while devotion and gratitude are more often held back.

Whereas George is a reluctant monarch, who is not just wary of the spotlight, but lives in abject fear of it, Lionel craves the attention and applause that he has always found elusive. In straining for recognition, he sometimes overreaches and offends his often touchy and temperamental student. He gets a bit too familiar at times, as when he tells Bertie that he might make a better king than his brother, the rightful heir to the throne. Bertie dismisses Lionel’s remarks as “impertinence by a nobody”, a cruel rebuke to someone who desperately wants to be a somebody.

You would think that a series of speech exercises and verbal drills would sink a movie in short order. There are a lot of them, and they are silly, but not silly enough to keep you from getting a good laugh out of every one. The humor is subtle, but straight on, even when Lionel encourages His Royal Highness to use gutter words of the four-letter variety as a way to connect the words of a speech that he has a hard time getting out. This is why the film has an “R” rating. The language is offensive, and for that reason I wouldn’t recommend the film for children, but there is no gratuitous vulgarity, and I couldn’t help but let out a snicker or two, along with a gasp, when I listened to a member of the Royal Family say “bugger”. And worse.

The script by David Seidler is a marvel of equilibrium. It’s a serious story that takes place in serious times, but it’s full of fun stuff. The humor is understated, but incisive. Early on, Lionel asks the King to tell him a joke; the king responds: “Timing isn’t my strong suit”. The King watches Hitler giving a televised speech at the Nazi Party Congress in Nurenberg, and he says: “I can’t understand a word he’s saying, but he sure can speak”. Yes, you’re thinking, I guess you’d have to be there, and you’re right. I encourage you to be there, in the theater, taking in the many joys this film has to offer.

The filmmakers respect their audience; the drama and the humor are applied with a light brush and not with a heavy hammer. They allow us to fill in blanks and reach our own judgments about what we’re watching. It’s refreshing to see a director and a writer work with that kind of confidence in themselves and in their viewers. Their project gets considerable help from Alexandre Desplat’s stirring score and Eve Stewart’s apt production design, which is, in equal parts, stately and earthy, and in every way fitting.

The acting is splendid. Colin Firth shines as the accidental monarch who wants to stay in the background but understands that time and country and fate have chosen him, and he must accept their proposal with the grace of a true king. Firth gets you to respect the king’s courage, but he also makes you feel the monarch’s sweat and tears. Geoffrey Rush, as the king’s teacher, complements and equals Firth, but never does one actor outshine the other. The performances are perfectly matched; nobody runs off with the movie or so much as pinches a scene. Rush has some memorable moments of his own when he auditions for the lead in a two bit production of Richard III. His portrayal is awful in the audition, but Rush reveals Logue’s love for performing and his deep-seated need for acceptance and approval in a way that is not embarrassing or cloying. His rejection is not the end of his world. It’s merely a part of it.

Helena Bonham Carter plays George’s wife, Queen Elizabeth (we knew her in recent times as the Queen Mother) with enough wit to make her reserve and ritual look light-hearted and wry. She’s a tough cookie who serves up more spice than sugar. Carter creates a figure that is her husband’s match in strength and determination, a rock on whom her husband and her country can depend. The elder Queen Elizabeth has here been given her due after the unfair and tawdry portrait of her that was put forth in the 2006 film, “The Queen”.

In these days, when we think of royal figures as princesses of hearts or candles in the wind, it’s easy to forget how this woman’s fortitude helped to save a nation. Adolf Hitler called the senior Queen Elizabeth the most dangerous woman alive, because she was a model of the unbreakable British spirit during the dark days of the Battle of Britain. When the Queen was asked if she didn’t fear enough for her own daughters’ safety to accompany them out of England and away to safety she replied:

“The children will leave when I leave. I will leave when the King leaves. The King will never leave.”

The film ends with the King making his speech to the people of Imperial Britain, an empire that at that time still stretched around the world. Lionel Logue was at the King’s side when he made the speech. He told the king to say the words as if “you are saying them to me”. The King then stepped up to the microphone.

In his speech King George VI quotes from a poem:

“I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year: ‘give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown,’ and he replied, ‘Go out into the darkness, and put your hand in the hand of God. That shall be better than a light, and safer than the known way.’”

Don’t miss this remarkable film. Releasing “The King’s Speech” during the Christmas season was a good idea.

It’s a beacon in what can be a dark season for movies. It shines a light on the meaning of friendship, and on the meaning of courage, the virtue that makes all other virtues possible.

Violence: Minor / Profanity: Moderate / Sex/Nudity: None

Black Swan

2010-12-05T23:34:00.000+08:00

“from the director of ‘The Wrestler’ and ‘Requiem for a Dream’”

Producer’s Synopsis: “Nina (Natalie Portman) is a ballerina in a New York City ballet company whose life, like all those in her profession, is completely consumed with dance. She lives with her obsessive former ballerina mother Erica (Hershey) who exerts a suffocating control over her. When artistic director Thomas Leroy (Cassel) decides to replace prima ballerina Beth MacIntyre (Ryder) for the opening production of their new season, Swan Lake, Nina is his first choice. But Nina has competition: a new dancer, Lily (Mila Kunis), who impresses Leroy as well. Swan Lake requires a dancer who can play both the White Swan with innocence and grace,

and the Black Swan, who represents guile and sensuality. Nina fits the White Swan role perfectly but Lily is the personification of the Black Swan. As the two young dancers expand their rivalry into a twisted friendship, Nina begins to get more in touch with her dark side—a recklessness that threatens to destroy her.

The veteran ballerina (Natalie Portman) finds herself locked in a competitive situation with a rival dancer, with the stakes and twists increasing as the dancers approach a big performance. But it's unclear whether the rival is a supernatural apparition or if the protagonist is simply having delusions.”

Love and Other Drugs

2010-11-30T10:39:00.000+08:00

“Love and other Drugs” is a depraved, conflicted film package. While extreme in sexual content and deeply vulgar in debauched dialogue, the film then offers a sincerely candid look at the challenges of falling in love with someone who has an incurable, degenerative disease.

“Love and Other Drugs” marks the second collaboration for Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal; their first being 2005’s “Brokeback Mountain”. Though the script is thematically incoherent (more on that later), both actors deliver apt performances which provides the film with its only consistent quality.

Gyllenhaal plays an immature womanizer, Jamie Randall. After getting fired for having sex on the job, Jamie launches a new career as a pharmaceutical sales rep for Pfizer. His drug to pitch is Zoloft, and trying to get his first sale proves to be tricky. Hounding doctors and charming the receptionists prove to have little effect. After much attempt, Jamie finally manages to bribe Dr. Stan Knight (Hank Azaria) in allowing the young salesman to shadow him. Under the ruse of a medical intern, Jamie views Maggie Murdock’s (Anne Hathaway) examination and seems pleased when he manages to see her breast during the consultation.

Quick to key in on the deception, Maggie ruthlessly attacks Jamie in the parking lot. Though Maggie does get in a few good swings, Jamie is even more entranced by the headstrong female. After some persuasion, Maggie agrees to have coffee with Jamie. While at the coffee date, she further impresses him by reading into his usual game plan and suggests that they skip right to having sex. The two young adults then proceed to have a casual sexual fling, which works for awhile. Of course, feelings slowly begin to emerge, with Maggie being the more reluctant one, since her diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease has made her weary of long-term commitments.

Of all the movies I’ve reviewed for Christian Spotlight, I have never have seen such explicit sexual content in a film. The two actors spend a great deal of time completely naked. There are several graphic sex scenes, and perhaps the only way the filmmakers avoided the much dreaded NC-17 was by not showing complete frontal nudity. This was done by the actors blocking their crotch areas with their legs or by holding something meager in front of it, such as a video camera.

Amongst these very brazen sex scenes and abundant nudity, the dialogue is, also, filled with obscene references. Jamie’s brother, Josh, delivers the bulk of the film’s gratuitous sexual humor. Most of these jokes aren’t funny, and the theatre audience remained either mostly silent or awkwardly chuckled. In the most disturbing scene, Josh is caught masturbating to Jamie and Maggie’s sex tape. Through his nervousness, he stammers of how he’s envious that Jamie’s penis is bigger than his and comments on how Maggie’s breasts look bigger on film than in person.

Despite the film’s jocular presentation of sexual immorality, the film treats Parkinson’s disease seriously and utilizes Maggie’s diagnosis as a realistic conflict between her and Jamie. During a Parkinson’s disease convention, Jamie asks the spouse of an advanced PD sufferer for any advice. The man’s candid response rouses Jamie’s fear of any future with Maggie, since the disease will slowly deteriorate her motor skills. Not wanting to give up, Jamie then becomes obsessed with trying to find a cure for Maggie, as her resentment builds from becoming Jamie’s project.

The accumulation of these scenes, together with the movie’s ending, provide “Love and Other Drugs” with the some heart. However, these heartfelt moments feel minimal when compared to the amounts of sexual content and profanity, which nears the 100 mark. Further damaging the film’s potential is Jamie’s less than admirable qualities. He’s shown spending enormous time pushing his sales tactics to new unethical limits; in several scenes, he is shown stealing and throwing away his competitor’s drug and even having a threesome with two bisexual women, soon after he and Maggie break up.

Though the film likely aims at being an adult romance drama/comedy, it also serves as a commentary of just how greedy pharmaceutical companies are in making their billions. It also illustrates that a couple’s love must be extra strong in order to overcome an incurable diagnosis. The film has its noteworthy merit for displaying the aforementioned. However, they are drowned in the massive sea of graphic nudity and vulgar dialogue, leaving viewers with a sour aftertaste. Even as Gyllenhaal and Hathaway made the film’s interview rounds, the majority of questions were directed towards the amount of nudity. The immoral overexposure results in the film’s loss of delivering what could have been a powerful message of “love conquers all”.

Christians should avoid “Love and Other Drugs”. We are commanded to think of things which are holy and noble (Phil 4:8). In Ephesians 5:3, Paul wrote that there shouldn’t be even a hint of sexual immorality among God’s people. We should completely avoid things that might cause us to stumble during our walk with Christ—and focus on what’s holy. A good verse to end with is Hebrews 12:1-2:

“…let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Violence: Mild / Profanity: Extreme / Sex/Nudity: Extreme