Home > Movies
Your Feedback
We'd love to hear from you. Click here to send us an e-mail.
Due to the volume of e-mail, we are unable to respond to every letter. Letters, or edited portions thereof, might be used in our feedback section below. If you do not want your letter printed, please specify.
Defending Billy
posted 10/15/08
I was very surprised by your negative review of Billy: The Early Years. I am a HUGE film buff and I saw the movie twice this weekend. Just as a frame of reference my favorite directors working today are PT Anderson, Cameron Crowe, and Wes Anderson. So Christian films are not usually what I will go see because of the story lines and quality of films. But I thought Billy was GREAT! Sure it's not going to be up for best screenplay, but I thought the director did a decent enough job of capturing Billy and more importantly how Jesus can change a man's trajectory. I can understand secular reviewers ripping the film, but I expected more of an open viewpoint from you. After all, you write for Christianity Today.
Sam Vara
posted 10/15/08
You really, really need to take a step back and examine your purposes. Your continued and repeated attacks on Christian films is unwarranted. I pray the Lord will convict you soon. Until you pick up a camera and make a movie yourself, you have no right to continually slander Christian films and filmmakers. I will never pick up another copy of CT.
Chris,
fan of Billy Graham: The Early Years
Editor's note: We have no problem with readers taking us to task for our reviews; everybody's got an opinion. What we don't understand is the implication that we, as professional film critics, should give a free critical pass to a movie just because it's "Christian." We like Christian movies, but we have absolutely no obligation to say they're great works of art if they aren't.
More on Religulous
posted 10/15/08
I've read the review and seen the movie, and I find the review really disappointing. No one would be surprised that Christianity Today's film reviewer doesn't share Maher's perspective. But what's surprising and disappointing about the review is how dishonest and hypocritical it is. One passage—"Maher shores up little credibility for his cause by refusing to talk with any opponent with an ounce of nuance of theological rigor"—is patently false. Refusing? In the film, it wasn't Maher refusing to talk to anyone. But he did manage to get some people of note to talk to him—the Vatican's Senior Priest and the Director of the Vatican's Observatory (a Ph.D. and a priest) are two that readily come to mind. But throughout the film he interviews a variety of ministers and other religious people of significant stature. That passage suggests he only talks to cranks with a mike on the street corner. Then there's this passage: "Maher is particularly hard on Islam, offering somewhat surprising pronouncements about the inherent violence and barbarism of that most touchy of all world religions. At moments like these, Maher might actually find allies in conservative Christian circles." Isn't this the height of hypocrisy? That is, we like Maher's analysis, just not when it's applied to us. Your audience is ill-served by an article with inaccurate and hypocritical (and, not to mention, ad hominem) attacks.
David Bryan
posted 10/15/08
Although my views tend more toward the liberal, I have never liked Bill Maher's condescension (as you call it) or sarcasm. I thought your description of him as "an ardently liberal, slightly greasy elitist" was pretty accurate, though I hate the liberal and conservative labels. I would happily watch a film that explored inconsistencies in religious doctrine, and would value a real discussion about why some people turn away from the religion on which they were raised. But, I had no hopes that this film of Maher's would be anything more than what you have described. I will not be watching it.
Ellie Miller-Dyk
Re: Maher and Religulous
posted 10/06/08
In Religulous, Bill Maher makes the same fatal mistake that many make who attacks faith traditions, trying to fit God into human understanding. If we can understand God, then he isn't God. But I respect Maher, because he raises some questions that should be answered. I do find some of his humor funny, and sometimes it makes me think about what I think and believe. I do agree with him that faith is odd and sometimes dangerous. But that's no reason to lump all faith into same hole. Some Christians will respond to Maher with contempt, but I can't help but to think of Jesus's encounter with Nicodemus in John 3. There was an open exchange of ideas. That is what we Christians should do in being true witnesses, not attack dogs.
Frank J. Zbink
posted 10/06/08
Your review says that Maher "goes to the Vatican and interviews some crazy Catholic priest." You're not making a very strong argument for your own intelligence when you dismiss Father Reginald Foster as a crazy. There's a lot to like about Father Foster. He dresses like a plumber. He's an expert in Latin literature. He's the Pope's principal Latinist. He's fluent in Latin, German and Italian. He spends the majority of his day teaching others. The guy's pushing 70 and he only sleeps 4 hours each night. Are you so perfect that you feel qualified to pass judgment on this guy? Hopefully you'll realize some day that when you wrote this review, you proved Mr. Maher's point.
Kyle Dobbs
posted 10/06/08
Your review states that Bill Maher interviews "some crazy Catholic priest." The priest interprets the Bible non-literally, so he's crazy. But Ken Ham, who believes that humans used to saddle dinosaurs and ride them around, is, in your opinion, sane?
Jeff Eyges
posted 10/06/08
I think your review of Religulous is incomplete for its failure to note what Maher does not critique: Eastern religions. It seems that the intellectual community is moving strongly into Eastern and Eastern-influenced thought. A lot of it is not theologically sound, even within the Eastern tradition, but basically it seems like anything from the monotheistic traditions is considered questionable.
Carlene Byron
Robert Bresson Fans
posted 09/26/08
I genuinely appreciated your feature on Robert Bresson, who was new to me. The interiority of it—the acknowledgement of the life of the mind and spirit—is pretty rare, too rare indeed in evangelicalism. I grew up Catholic, in the "intellectual" strain of Catholicism represented by such cultures as the Jesuits (who are so maligned by evangelical culture, and in some respects rightly so), and I find that that alienates me among evangelicals, though my belief system is evangelical Protestant, probably closest to Reformed. So I enjoyed the understanding of the contributions of Catholicism to cultural history displayed in that article. Let's see more of that.
Ingrid Hill
posted 09/26/08
Thank you for the article on Robert Bresson. After Carl Dreyer, Bresson is my favorite director of all-time. I don't think many directors in the history of cinema have put that passion and insight in showing true poetry and the power of Christ on the big screen.
Antoine Tremblay
Tyler Perry Fans
posted 09/26/08
Thanks for the article on Tyler Perry. This man and his movies (and plays) speaks to my soul in his characters—especially Madea. She's all about telling the truth, no matter how much it hurts, while she has her arms around you hugging and loving you. I hope Hollywood doesn't change Mr. Perry. We need men like him there. Keep up the good reporting.
Fran Howard
posted 09/26/08
I am a white American mother, grandmother, Christian, and I think Tyler Perry is wonderful. Hopefully, his audience will grow in all humanity, regardless of color, creed or religion. His plays and films have a great message for all of us. My husband and I do not agree on most TV shows. However, every Wednesday, we are glued to the same TV TOGETHER watching four hours of House of Payne. Tyler Perry is a breath of fresh air!
Gloria Shope
Great Actors, Bad Movies
posted 09/26/08
Many readers responded to a recent newsletter's call for your observations for great actors showing up in bad movies. There were multiple votes for Harrison Ford in The Mosquito Coast, and for Tom Hanks in Joe vs. the Volcano—and we concur. But the most head-scratching response was for Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven—which won four Academy Awards, including Best Director (for Eastwood) and Best Picture! Other nominees for great actors in bad movies:
I don't know if you could find a fall to any greater depth than Sir Lawrence Olivier in The Betsy.
Garry Nation
John Wayne in Jet Pilot.
Lydia C
Robin Williams in Final Cut and What Dreams May Come.
Kirk & Tonya Statler
Tom Hanks in Bonfire of the Vanities.
Linda Brecht Marr
Jeremy Irons and Thora Birch in Dungeons & Dragons.
Sonja Wetzel
Robin Williams in Popeye.
Dean Hix
Harrison Ford in Frantic.
Adam Hartley
Russell Crowe in The Silver Bumby.
Caleb O'Brien
Any movie with Samuel L. Jackson not directed by Quentin Tarantino.
Mike Miller
Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey in Edison
Matt Miles
John Travolta in Battefield Earth.
David DeMoss
Meryl Streep in Mama Mia.
James Wetterau
Tom Hanks in The Money Pit.
Greg Martin
Robin Williams in Toys.
Todd Cramer
Harrison Ford in Six Days, Seven Nights.
Ruth Worman
Responding to Save Me, Allen
Editor's note: We have received many responses to our review of Save Me, a new film about a gay man's involvement at a Christian ex-gay ministry, and our interview with the film's star Chad Allen. Here's just a sampling.
posted 09/08/08
Chad Allen's comments suggest that he is choosing to believe the parts of the Bible that he can accept without changing his life. I pray God will continue to show Chad his love and that by his love, Chad will accept the whole, life-changing truth of God's Word.
Julie Smith
posted 09/08/08
Your review of Save Me leaves me saddened that you endorse this movie and its presentation of homosexuality as okay even if such conciliatory attempts prove unsuccessful and the subject continues in his/her sin.Yes, we should show empathy and biblical love to the person, but must confront their behavior as sinful. I fear that your review focuses too much on loving the person and overlooking sin.
Ron F. Wagley
posted 09/08/08
While Chad Allen continues to be drawn to homosexuality, I continue to be drawn to other women even though married. And I know some men who are "drawn" to females who are younger than 18, and some who are drawn to their sisters. And while Chad is "still gay," that is not the point and is far from St. Paul's direction and counseling for us. We are all sinners and are drawn away from God's commandments, but please don't define gayness as some kind of "pass" or an extraordinary exception, it is just one more temptation to certain among us. I would argue that homosexual attraction is no more driven or powerful or "in our DNA" than any other immoral sexual temptation. Perhaps they can just excerpt preferred passages and use them to argue their case. Let's just do what we do: love them, serve them, tell the truth in love and seek our mighty God. My sins are plentiful and terrible and no better and no worse than overt sexual action with a person of my gender, so please tell me that mybeing a congenital liarand thief is OK because a lot of other people are too.
Jim Black
posted 09/08/08
Being a former "practicing" lesbian (I didn't get the remedy, just the Redemption) I am ecstatic that CT would recommend a film such as Save Me. So many in the Christian community cannot understand that not all of us are "cured" of our homosexuality, that many of us still struggle. But we have found the forgiveness and strength we need to "fight the good fight" in our Savior. It would have been so easy for CT to say they couldn't recommend it because Mr. Allen's character doesn't resolve his sexuality in the end; that because he doesn't end up becoming heterosexual it's still a "gay film." Hopefully this movie will help to bring understanding to the Christian community at large, as well showing the struggle than many of us still endure.
Joyce Sappington
posted 09/08/08
As a called woman of God, devout Bible reader, Sunday school teacher and heterosexual woman, I read this article with interest to find out what the final analysis or interpretation of what the Word of God does in fact state about homosexuality. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. Sin is sin. God hates sin, but not the sinner. We must be diligent in our efforts to stop clouding His Word with political correctness, empty hope for those who do not repent from sin to be included in the righteousness of God. Where do people get their interpretations? Let's start preaching and teaching what the Bible really says, and tell the Christians either to repent or face eternal damnation!
Minister A. Watson
posted 09/08/08
I'm a non-gay 68-year-old semi-retired pastor of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). I think this film must be wonderful, and am happy to see any situation in which gayness is affirmed either with or without reservations.
James Boswell
posted 09/08/08
I have personally helped convert reluctant homosexuals using a process I have developed, which is to release the original unconscious associations (sometimes through watching a movie) because our thoughts go into the spirit (unconscious mind) (1 Cor 2:10). Please check out www.mindrenewal.com.au. I am a hypnotherapist and a born again Christian. I offer help to people from all over the world (often without charge) and work over the Internet via Skype. My heart is to help these people.
Sophie Firmin
posted 09/08/08
The subject of deliverance from homosexuality is complicated. Scripturally, those who have homosexual feelings cannot simply act out their feelings any more than heterosexual people can act out their feelings in promiscuity. Does God love the promiscuous? Absolutely. But does he agree with their behavior? Not a chance. The Christian community seems stuck on "deliverance." I'm not sure that is a healthy approach to homosexuality. The better approach is self-control and not acting on sexual feelings, just like we do so in the heterosexual community. We are not slaves to sex. Are some homosexuals delivered? I do not see why not. But what needs to be taught is that God has ordained sexuality to be expressed between a man and woman within the context of marriage. I would tell Chad Allen, "God loves you. But he has ordained that sexuality be expressed between a man and woman in marriage. You may have sexual feelings that are against that, but the fruit of the Spirit is self-control. Life is a struggle. We are at war with the flesh. We must fight the good fight in faith. God understands the battle and gives grace to the humble."
Rev. Douglas Quenzer
posted 09/08/08
We are so quick to dismiss the Scripture if it doesn't agree with our personal views. Homosexual Christians are really bad about this, even though the plain truth of the Scripture is obvious (that practicing homosexuality is an abomination to God), they'll still justify themselves. Are they going to hell? No. Will I still love them? Of course. Would I allow them in my church if they didn't attempt to repent from this perversion? Not a chance. It's leprosy in the camp.
Will Kearney
posted 09/08/08
Chad Allen is not alone in his self-delusion. Most of gay America would think as he does in regards to God, that God loves us for who we are—and God does love us for who we are, but he also will not tolerate the sin in our lives. The problem with this article is not what Chad has said, but what has been left unsaid by CT—where is the guidance for what is right? You have an obligation to state the truth in all of this misguided talk of what Chad believes is correct. Balance is important. Correct teaching is important, and in this article there is no correcting of Chad's viewpoint. What a shame!
Dave Pracht
posted 09/08/08
I come from two conservative religions that want to rid the world of homosexuality. So, when my own son began to show signs of his sexual orientation, I was concerned how the church I was attending would react. So, rather than reach out to someone, I said nothing. And now I am so glad that I waited. Because over time God showed me that my son's "sin" was covered by his blood. Homosexuality is nothing new to God. And Jesus died for all of our sins. But, some people get confused by religious rules, and can't see or won't see, the full salvation that God has provided to all men." In my church, we have opened the door to everyone—including alcoholics, drug addicts, and some gay men and women. It was important to my pastor to welcome everybody because that is what Jesus did. His stance is to let God be God. If God accepts all of us through Jesus Christ than we can do the same. I am happy to report that my own son, who is still gay, is now experiencing the love of God that God himself gives. We are able to talk about his relationships openly, and as a good mom, I am able to help him see that God will help him through all things.
Elizabeth McAndrew
In defense of Babylon A.D
posted 08/21/08
I am so sorry to see that you gave Babylon A.D. zero stars. The film was extremely thought provoking as it repeatedly drew on Christian themesand worked hard topaint a picture of an innocent young woman working to understand her past and her future relative to the fact that she has two or one very bizarre parent(s).She quoted Scripture, enjoyed the Christian relic sellers in the market, became pregnant without any intercourse, championed the cause of every misunderstood DaVinci/prophet/genius, and then gave birth to two beautiful little girls whotaught the Diesel character how soften up and be an adoptive father, bringing him to a place of true purpose in his life as all children do for their parents.This doesn't even account for [spoilers ahead!] the fact that the Diesel character had to die so that he could truly live—wow! But what clinched it for me was thecompletely pro-life closing scene where the Diesel character is holding the two beautiful girls by their hands and says, "We've gotta go, there's a storm coming." That is where the viewer gets to finish the story with imagination!
Timothy John Schrag
Snotty Mummy?
posted 08/21/08
Brandon Fibbs' take on the newest Mummy movie is a pretty snotty sounding review. If I get his gist, he felt the moviemaker had insulted his intelligence by daring to produce the movie, thus forcing Mr. Fibbs to watch it. Frankly, I had a great time at this movie, as did my friends and family. We cheered and laughed; not a single moment of intellectual angst between us. Many of us spend our hard-earned money at the movies in a desire to be entertained; and this movie did that in spades. Nothing happened that required me to place my hands over any child's eyes, and nothing was said that required me to protect any ears—both big pluses in my book. And the filmmakers brought some much-needed humor to this little pocket of a sub-genre. Frankly, I am very happy to go to a movie that doesn't take itself so seriously. Though, I do get the impression that Mr. Fibbs only likes those "serious" films he deems worth his time. His is not really a review; it is a diatribe. Anyone can be snotty.
Steve Orr
Shocking Express
posted 08/21/08
Peter T. Chattaway's review of Pineapple Express shocks me. We are taking a film with outright violence, prolific drug use, a baudy and gaudy film and trying to say it is about "friendship"? Wow! How did that come out of seeing this? If drug abuse and violence and the ability to escape drug dealers makes for a friendship, then something is messed up. This film is about a whacked-out opinion on what is funny and what is wrong with our culture. This film laughs at violence and mocks civility. This film applauds selfish desire above the law. This film makes fun of and ridicules the solidarity of what makes for true friendship and that is truth, compassion, and integrity. I can't even believe you would compare this to a Jonathan and David type of relationship. Your review stinks and your opinion is ludicrous.
Adam Love
posted 08/21/08
I enjoy many aspects of CT Movies, but I must admit to wondering why you even feel it necessary to review a movie such as Pineapple Express, especially when one can walk away from the review feeling the reviewer is at best neutral on marijuana use. It's almost as if it's ignored as a determining factor as to viewing the movie at all. I am disappointed that some teens will be introduced to a pro-ganga film with the aid of your hazy review.
Claude Zimmerman
Hooray for the Swansons
posted 08/21/08
I just read about the Swansons in "All About Them."As a wife and mother of three, I am very interesting in presenting my family with Christ-centered entertainment, especially movies. Two years ago, my husband and I removed our satellite service; we were unhappy with what even the most popular children's programs were presenting to our kids.Instead, we have movies that the kids can watch (VeggieTales, AngelWars, the Love Comes Softly series) without us having to stand over them, because we know the content of the material presented.As the Family Ministries Coordinator at my church, and as a result of our project at home, I have started a program called Second Saturday Cinema where we are showing Christ-centered family films and invite church members as well as the public to attend.Let's have the church support more filmmakers like the Swansons.
Cheryl Harding
Disrespectful Guru
posted 07/01/08
I cannot believe that Paramount has come out with a movie like The Love Guru. This the utmost disrespect to the Hindu culture!People do not even know what the meaning of guru is; how can someone use it or even portray someone we respect? Whoever decided to create this movie must have been a total idiot. Such a disrespectful piece of entertainment.
Aekta Amin
Smart Is Funny!
posted 07/1/08
Despite your review's contention to the contrary, Get Smart is one of the funniest movies I have seen in a long time. The laughter in our theater was loud and robust throughout themovie. It has been a long time since I laughed so hard that I had tears running down my face. People left the theater laughing and talking about this movie on the way out, in the lobby, andby their cars.
Keith
posted 07/1/08
Get Smart is a wonderful piece of entertainment to all Maxwell Smart fans. Lots of good characterizations and witty remarks that distinguished the original series with old vaudeville humor abound. A great movie for the whole family—humorous and suggestive without being vulgar and debased.
Dr. James Turner
More Sex Talk …
The conversation continues regarding our review of Sex and the City, our follow-up commentary, and earlier reader response …
posted 06/13/08
Thank you for writing your honest opinion of the movie, for acknowledging how well-scripted and interesting the characters were, and for not automatically discounting a decent movie due to a few cinematic moments that you may not agree with. In ways I can't quite explain, your article encouraged me. It was real. Non-religious. Genuine. A breath of fresh air in a Christian culture that still (like I did) judges before truly observing.
Angie Teater
posted 06/13/08
Shame on you! Try as you may, you will find no redeeming value in this film. It is post-modern soft porn for women. By your three 3-star rating, you are leading the way for people to stumble their way in the theater to subject themselves to the temptations of the evil one for 90 minutes or so. Would you further suggest that I go to the local strip club to see what else our culture is doing? I think it is time for you, little froggy, to get out of the boiling pot before you are cooked with the rest of the post-modern rationalists who can't see right from wrong and truth from deception.
David A. Porter
posted 06/13/08
Thank you for giving your readers credit for having a brain, and the discernment to decide what movies are okay for us to go see. I for one appreciate all of your reviews, which is exactly what they are; not someone making a decision for me or my family.
Kathy Burnette
posted 06/13/08
What a disappointment! I am a single woman in my 20s who believes the Word of God is Truth. Your tagline reads, "Biblical perspectives on contemporary cinema." There were no Bible verses used to reference anything. Does this movie truly merita 3-star rating from a Christian perspective? It is not a new concept that we all are "sexual beings who wrestle with balancing loneliness and desire for romantic love." Should there not be a distinction between romance and love? Should I lust after men to fulfill my longings and desires? I will no longer in good faith recommend this website to friends seeking "biblical perspectives on contemporary cinema."
Cindy Ableson
posted 06/13/08
Of course we don't want you deciding what we watch. Yes we want to be aware of all that is going on in the world around us and yes sometimes we go to movies and are repulsed, but often surprised and touched by God's Light shining through. Keep up the good work.
Jack Walker
posted 06/13/08
I understand your desire to be "culturally relative" and appeal to an audience's interests, but I feel that you are doing a disservice to readers and fellow believers by failing to warn them of the effects of watching films like this. I agree with your reviewer that the church often does fail our single members by simply replying that "true loves waits" and not acknowledging their desire for a sexual relationship. However, I don't feel that watching SATC would help this, particularly our single friends who may already be struggling. How does filling your mind with the images of nudity, homosexuality, adultery, fornication or sex within marriage help us wait? Psalm 101:3 makes it very clean that we are to set our eyes before no vile thing.
Melissa Lackey
posted 06/13/08
I was raised by parents who believed in living IN the world, not OF it. While my parents appropriately sheltered me from inappropriate material, they gradually allowed us to experience things that really freaked out their Christian counterparts. Now I am an adult that can make good choices about what I take in and can objectively evaluate media choices. I probably won't go see Sex and the City. However, I don't think I need to be someone else's Holy Spirit and tell them not to go.
Christy Ragle
posted 06/13/08
I would like to recommend an author who discusses the importance of disputing the myths in SATC. Marian Jordan wrote Sex and The City Uncovered, writing about why even Christians find this drama widely popular and how each of the characters from the show are all truthfully searching for the same thing: someone or something to fill the God-shaped hole in their hearts. She points people to the gospel in a unique way. Check her out here.
Suzanne Badger
posted 06/13/08
I have worked as a guitarist/composer in Los Angeles for decades and co-lead an Arts and Entertainment small group at my church, and we talk a lot about the pressures that other Christians put on us to not be involved with anything that doesn't have the "Christian" stamp on it. But the truth is that if we don't know anything about the world around us, the people we are trying to reach aren't going to see what we have to say about it as having any grounding in the reality they live in.
Doug Perkins
posted 06/13/08
Those are led by the Spirit will refrain from Sex in the City. In this light as representatives of Christ your online venture should call a spade a spade and be accurately biblical in its view when "reviewing," which should never mean fence sitting. To have authority to espouse even a minor exegetical view alone on poetic nuance, misplaces your authority as neo-apostolic or prophetic, as a logical line drawn from some ability of interpreting and thus above the allegorical poet. The procedural logic and Spirit is null and void. God help us all run like and from hell.
Glen Jackman
posted 06/13/08
As for the appropriateness of reviewing Sex and the City, I think some religious people, and not just Christians, would rather hide from our culture than walk through it. But as Christians, we are called to be that light upon the hill, not the one hiding in the cave. Jesus met the people where they were—in the streets; Paul became all things to all men so that he might engage their conversions and bring them to know Christ. To do this, we must try to understand them. I am thankful for your reviews of such movies because it means I can learn about what my coworkers and the kids in my youth group are watching, and I don't have to spend money to support it, nor allow myself to be tempted by it. I feel this is a great service to your readers, not just because of the quality of your reviews, but also because it makes us better prepared to be the missionaries we are called to be. Thank you for helping me to fulfill God's plan for my life.
Cathryn Torgerson
posted 06/13/08
Do we follow C.S. Lewis—or Jesus? Surely Jesus? The Word of God says: "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." You have dismally failed the Christian community. You need to publicly apologize.
Triston Jacobsohn
posted 06/13/08
Thanks for posting the feedback from readers on your SATC review. As a film critic and a Christian, I always love reading the responses any time CT says anything remotely positive about a controversial movie, or anything slightly negative about a "Christian" movie. I can definitely relate to the wildly varying responses. They usually show how far we as a church have come and how far we still have to go. Many of those letters illustrate perfectly why we have such a problem reaching non-believers. They represent an us-versus-them mindset that says, "If you want to become a Christian, you have to go to this particular church, dress exactly like they do, give up anything you thought was fun and start acting superior to those different from you." God forbid we attempt to meet lost souls where they are and let them know that weunderstand. Or that we might gain some moral insight from a movie that Christians are supposed to think is bad.
Josh Sewell
posted 06/13/08
To all against the review of SATC, but most specifically to Mike Lumpkin who said: "Sex and the City is just trash and nothing redeeming can be made of a series so riddled with ungodly views of sex, marriage and friendship." Brother, I grieve that your God is so small. My God is bigger than any movie and is able bring "beauty from ashes."
Josh Perryman
posted 06/13/08
I teach a class called "Finding God In Film" at Eugene Bible College in which the goal is to look at contemporary film, observe our culture and the morals found or not found, and discuss whether or not God is an influence in these stories, among other things. I encourage my students to always be discerning in their choices of movies, but to also look beyond the mere entertainment and see what is really going on in that big world in which they live. We use Jeffrey Overstreet's Through a Screen Darkly as a textbook and discussion starter. My students have enjoyed the opportunity to learn to think outside of their boxes and gain even more perspective in their Christian Worldview.
Danell L. Bemis
posted 06/13/08
I am not a SATC fan, but I have always appreciated the way CT respects its readers' ability to make a choice based on their own convictions. I love that movies are not rated based on their use of profanity, violence, etc., in the same way I appreciate that movies with Christian themes are not automatically given 4 stars. I grew up in a legalistic home & church, so I find the freedom I have been given in Christ all the more precious. Thank you for respecting your readers enough to allow them to make their own decisions before the Lord.
Valerie Stewart
For and Against Sex
We weren't surprised that our review of Sex and the City prompted a number of replies, especially when we gave the film 3 stars. But we'd like to again reiterate that our star ratings do NOT imply an "endorsement" or "recommendation." The star ratings have nothing to do with the film's "moral value," because such an assessment can vary widely from person to person—as the sampling of letters below clearly indicates. (For more on our star ratings, mission statement, and philosophy, see our FAQs.)
posted 06/03/08
How can any Christian who takes the Bible seriously want to watch (or review) Sex and the City? Why would CT allow this to be reviewed? What is next? Debbie Does Dallas? Soft porn is still porn. God deliver us from this kind of anemic Christianity. Talk about unsalty salt!
Jeff Straub
posted 06/03/08
Thanks for having the guts and grounding in reality for posting your review and your "Let's Talk About Sex" editorial. If there is a subject that the church in general has "thrown out with the bathwater" it's sex, and as a Christian single I am very familiar with the catch phrases that you get told by (well-meaning and usually married) other Christians to shut you up when you talk about the difficulties in going without it. When Sex and the City (the TV series) first came out, I figured it was what most Christians probably think. But after watching it a bit (the "sanitized version"), I found that it really was showing a lot more moral stance than I expected. Yes, a lot of what they do is unbiblical and unfulfilling, but the characters seem to learn from it and do better next time. Overall it shows what the right path really is by how much the wrong path doesn't work for them. I'm not ashamed at all to say that I will probably see the movie.
Doug Perkins
posted 06/03/08
"I will set before my eyes no vile thing" (Psalm 101:3). I am pretty tolerant of "artistic" reviews of movies that are rough at times in order to make a point. But Sex and the City is just trash and nothing redeeming can be made of a series so riddled with ungodly views of sex, marriage and friendship. Anyone who could actually find something redeeming in these "friendships" on screen is too awfully familiar with the world. There are times you should just avoid reviews altogether. This does not show courage, but compromise.
Mike Lumpkin
posted 06/03/08
This movie is nothing more than pornography for women. Women used to be the moral compass of humanity. Forty years ago that began to change and has accelerated with the success of the feminist movement. The depth of that success can be gauged by the reviewer's remarks that SATC is "a phenomenon even for many Christians. For years, good church-going friends of mine secretly raved about Sex and the City." The fact that they did it secretly reveals that their consciences weren't totally devoid of the ability to tell right from wrong, but the fact they chose to submerse their minds in it anyway reveals a willingness to indulge in corrupt thinking regardless of what the Bible says.
Terry L. Brown
posted 06/03/08
Something is wrong when you give Sex and the City 3 stars and Prince Caspian 2½. You're giving a higher rating to the most godless, perverted, anti-Christian, pro-gay movie/TV series, and a lower rating to Prince Caspian? Is this really Christianity Today??? Are you guys really serious about Jesus, the Bible, holiness, and biblical truth? It seems like you're just a corporation trying to make money off of unsuspecting, immature Christians. I pray you will come back to biblical standards. God have mercy upon you.
Brian Michaels
posted 06/03/08
I wish people would please see the movie before passing judgment. I have seen it. Do you know that in the movie, two of the four main characters are married, and are faithful to their mates? The other two are in long-term (3- and 5-year) relationships, also faithful, (even though, granted, it is outside of marriage.) There is no bed-hopping—the only principle player who cheats is one of the husbands, setting up a major plot line about forgiveness and the restoration of a marriage. Although there are sex scenes, that is not the focus of the movie. It's a movie about commitment, marriage, friendship, and learning to love and forgive. It has merit.
Don and Sheryl Cope
posted 06/03/08
Three out of four stars for Sex and the City? Not a movie for "some" adults (which ones, exactly)? The review, which tosses aside well-intended (if ill-informed) Christian dating advice in favor of validating this "meaningful reunion" of "winning friendships," not to mention all that male "eye-candy"? Sheesh. Why read Cosmo when I can read CT? Good grief, I'm not a prude. I didn't expect you to give the movie zero stars just because it has the word "sex" in the title, but I thought I would encounter at least some discernment in your review. But you proved me wrong again, CT.
T. Strang
posted 06/03/08
I like how you addressed Sex and the City. You're absolutely right that the church is not addressing issues when you write, "But the church has often been slow to regard its singles as not just a 'demographic' that meets at a certain place on a certain night each week, but as sexual human beings who wrestle with the same cravings and longings as any of their 'secular' counterparts." So what do we do about that? How do we address issues such as loneliness, our God-given sex drive, and other issues that secular television and the media are too quick to want to talk about? Shows like SATC and Friends did well because, like good comedy, there's a bit of truth to the stories. Here's a thought: Use CT and other good Christian sources as a sounding board and begin talking about these issues, and keep talking about them. You ask great questions. I certainly don't have the answers, but am willing to ask questions and help find the answers in my own way.
Todd Fitchette
posted 06/03/08
Sex and the City is a pornographic film. You implicitly seem to extol the virtues of pornography. I think you should either abandon your stated Christian aims and mission statement, or stop condoning pornography.
John Kirk
posted 06/03/08
Thanks for the great review of Sex and the City. I appreciate you at a movie that is not typical "Christian" fare. I also appreciate your insights into how the Sex and the City franchise doesn't insult a woman's intelligence. Thanks again for applying your own wisdom and biblical soundness to a real issue—sexuality—in our current culture. I'm a closet SATC fan. The show had many, many profound insights into womanhood, marriage, love, and relationships—and some things that are not too healthy or Christ-centered. But we must be discerning. I was pleased (and proud) of CT for reviewing the movie. Gives me great fodder for deciding whether or not I should see it. CT Movies is always my first go-to resource for movies.
Jana Muntsinger
posted 06/03/08
I was deeply troubled by your review of Sex and the City. Three stars for a film that apparently features nudity, a threesome and other sex scenes—mostly involving single people? How can a Christian publication possibly "recommend" such a film? I also noted the elitist attitude of the reviewer who said the film wasn't for everybody. Oh really? Tell me: Which Christians DO you recommend seeing this? Come on now!
Gary Lesniewski
posted 06/03/08
I enjoyed reading both articles about SATC. However, as a married Christian woman I can tell you we fare little better than the singles in church circles when it comes to being accepted as (gasp) sexual beings! A lot of the teaching inour churches is stuck in the 1950s where married women had a permanent headache and men have to beg every night. Most couple retreats I attended used this afore mentioned tired model and spent a lot of time trying to convince wives to be nice to their husbands in bed. What was never addressed was wives who enjoy sex and want it with the same frequency (or more) than their husbands! I do have a concern about this movie and the series in that the sexual scenes can be a problem for any women suffering from problems with lust, pornography, cyber-sex, and things of that nature! Yes Christian women have these problems as well. Keep up the great articles.
Carmena Fleury
posted 06/03/08
I just read your SATC review and agree with all of it, but I was bummed that you didn't pick up a main underlying theme of the movie—forgiveness! It was a huge struggle for Carrie and especially Miranda to forgive their men, but they did it. Quite meaningful in a movie that didn't really have many other redeeming qualities.
Jenny De Frates
Polytheistic Indy
posted 05/29/08
When reading the Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull review I was struck by the following passage:
"Mutt gets spooked by Indy's stories about the Mayans who distorted the shape of their childrens' skulls to resemble the elongated craniums of their gods. "No," Mutt objects. "God's head is not like that." Indy smiles. "Depends on who your god is." And yet, Indy never bothers to ask for help from the God who has saved him so many times before—especially in Raiders and The Last Crusade. He seems to have cast aside all lessons learned from the Almighty."
I think it's worth pointing out that Indiana Jones as a franchise clearly has a polytheistic worldview. It's easy to convince one's self it is basically Judeo-Christian, but to do so you have to completely ignore Temple of Doom, which makes it quite clear that Indiana Jones exists in a world where most religions are, in fact, true. Aside from the fact that Temple is based entirely around Hinduism, featuring a conflict between Shiva (working through Indy) and Kali (working through the temple cult), it makes reference at one point to how the cult's plans to "conquer" the gods of other religions. The villain at one point says if they get all he magic stones Kali's power as a god will increase to the point where she can "cast down" the gods of Judaism and Christianity (which it, interestingly, sees as two different gods.)
Obviously this whole notion is absurd to Christians, which is probably why most people prefer to ignore Temple's clear polytheistic implications. They are there though, plain as day, in that film. So I think anyone who's paid decent attention to the overall Indiana Jones mythology would realize that Indiana Jones would never believe in a single "god" because he's seen clear evidence that far more than a single Christian deity exists. This makes it difficult, IMO, to "claim" Indiana Jones as Christian … as some Christian fans like to do.
Matthew Weise
Editor's note: Good points, Matthew, but the question is whether Indy embraces the pagan religions depicted in Temple of Doom, as he seems to do so—to some degree—with Judeo-Christian beliefs in Raiders and Last Crusade. As you noted, Doom merely shows that Indy "exists in a world where most religions are, in fact, true." Merely living in such a world does not necessarily mean that Indy believes all of it.
Congrats on Caspian Review
posted 05/29/08
Congratulations for your excellent review of Prince Caspian. Peter Chattaway is the only reviewer I have found who had 1) obviously read and understood the book, and 2) even cared about the original intent of the author. He really nailed the absence of the secondary theme of C.S. Lewis' work. The deep longing for the lost and better things, the happy realization that they aren't really lost, the liberation of Narnia not only by force, but also by joy, the spontaneous response to Aslan by "the hidden elect," and the wonderful encounter of Caspian's nurse with Aslan and later with Caspian himself are a great part of the "magic" of the book. Thank you again for this excellent review. From now on, you are my first stop for movie reviews.
Douglas Griffin
posted 05/29/08
I must express my disappointment in how far Caspian's filmmakers deviated from the actual story. Douglas Gresham, Lewis's stepson, states that the movie might have been too boring if they would have followed the story line. That seems like they just didn't have the imagination to make it work.
Chris Miller
Adamson's Worldview
posted 05/29/08
Answering CT's question about his spirituality, Andrew Adamson says, "I've decided not to use these films as a platform or springboard for my own beliefs." Impossible. One's worldview will always intrude. In fact, my chief complaint with LWW (aside from the fact that Aslan stands shorter than Peter, when he's supposed to be the size of a young elephant)is that it lacks a Christian sensibility. The Focus on the Family Radio Theatre production of Narnia/LWW blows Walden's out of the water.
Jim Woychuk
About That Racer Review
posted 05/29/08
I took my kids to see Speed Racer and we had to leave because of the violence. I don't think your review is critical for Christian viewers. But it's not just the violence. You say the film has "light profanity," but that's more swearing than I've heard in PG lately—including the a-- word several times. How bad does it have to be to be PG-13? I would expect your review to be more critical.
Pastor Matt Skiles
posted 05/29/08
Since when does "s---" and "a--" constitute mild profanity for a children's movie? I expect this sort of moral garbage to be tolerated and even encouraged by Hollywood. However, I was disappointed that any site proclaiming to be Christian could simply gloss over the PG rating for this disaster of a movie.Your lack of concern clearly reflects your spiritual disconnect.
Rick Loveless
Leading People Astray?
posted 05/29/08
I am not reading your reviews any longer or trusting your views as a Christian.
The Iron Man review was outrageous. When you do not view a woman, in bra and panties, on top of a man as outside the scope of what a Christian wants to view, then you are truly coming from the "Christianity today" mindset. I think your mind has gotten so seared with all the filth you see, that you are not offended anymore. I am so sorry for those people you are leading astray with your liberal, worldly views of movies. You have a job of forewarning Christians of the contents of movies; we expect Christian (Bible-based) reviews at your site. Evidently you do not know what that is. I am thankful we have ScreenIt.com to tell us the truth.
Janice Michel
About Those Standard Procedures
posted 04/30/08
I object to your characterization of U.S. military personnel in your latest newsletter: You wrote that "Standard Operating Procedure … recounts the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where U.S. military personnel tortured and abused prisoners of war. … The acts committed upon these human beings were atrocious." Putting panties on someone's head is torture? Then what would you call hacking someone's head off with a knife? Crushing people into hot asphalt with steamrollers? Feeding people feet first into industrial shredders? Where is your outrage over REAL torture? You would do well to keep your focus on movies and leave the left-wing editorial comments to the professional America-haters at the New York Times. Capiche? I subscribe to your newsletter to hear a Christian perspective on movies—NOT your perspective on politics!
Mercedes Dugger
Editor's note: Since when did objection to torture—of any kind—become solely a political issue, and not one meriting a Christian response? Should Christians leave the matter of human rights abuse—of any kind, anywhere in the world—solely to the politicians? Heaven help us. And yes, many of the acts committed at Abu Ghraib were most certainly atrocious—Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt called them "reprehensible," and Army Major General Antonio Taguba called them "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" of prisoners—just as many of the acts committed against American captives were also atrocious. As for Abu Ghraib, one need look no further than these abuses to think of the word "atrocious"—male guards raping female detainees, male prisoners being forced to masturbate and engage in homosexual acts, pouring phosphoric acid on detainees, sodomizing prisoners with a baton, tying a rope around a detainee's penis and dragging him across the floor, having venomous snakes bite prisoners (some of whom died), the list goes on. Were the Iraqis' treatment of our own soldiers more atrocious? Perhaps. But that doesn't diminish our treatment of their POWs. Nor should a Christian website abstain from commenting on such atrocities. It is not solely a political issue.
posted 04/30/08
Torture is ALWAYS wrong.The soldiers involved [merely] humiliated terrorists. The facts around Abu Ghraib are these:
- At no time were any prisoners of war abused or physically harmed.
- All soldiers involved were Army Reservists and all of them were found guilty; most were imprisoned but all, including the commanding general were cashiered out of the Army.
- Terrorists were humiliated which is absolutely never tolerated by the Armed Forces at any time and the military took care of those who did this.
Torture used to mean physical abuse including breaking bones, pulling fingernails and fingers out of their sockets, etc. Now it can actually mean anything. I don't agree with torture, but I also don't agree with war, either; unless we are fighting fascists that abuse, murder and torture their citizens.
David D'Arcy, SSgt, USAF (Ret)
posted 04/30/08
Why all the sympathy directed at the enemy? Why aren't there films about all of our guys that had their head slowly cut off as they were screaming and begging for their lives? What happened to the enemy [at Abu Ghraib] wasn't much more than some college pranks in comparison. I'm quite sure if it had been one of your relatives who had their heads chopped off, you would look at it differently. That's not to say what happened was right, but you weren't in their shoes putting up with what our soldiers deal with on a daily basis.
Audrey Pietras
Bad Baby Mama
posted 04/30/08
Baby Mama is just another Hollywood effort to legitimize non-traditional ways of having a child. Hollywood seems determined to eradicate marriage, natural conception and childbirth, fathers and the nuclear family. This is pushed on us as the new normal, and we are supposed to have a good laugh about how cute and adorable it all is. They may not be lesbians but the two women are held out as a new type of family. I am not buying it; children need fathers, plain and simple. This is not even about any perceived "morality"—it is about what works. Thousands of years of family life has taught us what is the most successful. That is what we should believe in and follow and this type of presentation should be rejected for the distortion that it is.
R. Curtis
Editor's note: Before complaining too much about Hollywood trying to "legitimize" non-traditional ways of having a child, we encourage you to look into recent films where Hollywood has "legitimized" pro-life choices—even in raunchy movies. As for Baby Mama, we don't know if you or anyone close to you has ever experienced the pain of infertility, but for them, "natural conception" isn't an option. Such folks—including many committed Christians—often look to "non-traditional" ways to have a child. The desire to bear children is a God-given one, and modern medicine has provided ways to meet that need—including surrogate motherhood. As for Hollywood "pushing" this on us, who's forcing you to see the movie?
Expounding on Expelled
posted 04/30/08
Your review of Expelled is surprisingly thoughtful. (Full disclosure: I'm an atheist and also I am fascinated by science and evolution, and I know ID to be the barren wasteland of non-science that it truly is.) I have one issue with what you say: Dawkins' notorious "alien" comment was not silly. The point he was making is very sensible, even if the filmmakers edited it to seem absurd: We currently do not know exactly how life started on Earth. Scientists are working on it and they have plausible theories, some of which they have partially duplicated in the lab. But since we don't know for sure, it's possible that the cause is something we haven't seen in a lab yet. It is possible that some other life form "seeded" the Earth with a primitive life form (like a tiny self-replicating protein) that eventually evolved through natural selection. However, that other "alien" life form would be subject to its own history of evolution-like development somewhere else. Remember, "alien" doesn't mean green Martians; it means a life form from somewhere other than Earth.
Gil (no last name given)
posted 04/30/08
I consider Expelled to be mostly propaganda. I can't say that I've seen the film either, so that may not be fair to say, but I feel through most the information I've read about it, the same sort of force-fed Intelligent Design argument persists, doggedly nipping at something called "Darwinism." But I read your article to get a take on what the Christian community thinks about this matter. The review explores the film in a mostly unbiased way, and you present questions on the matter that deserve addressing. But I wish you had a clarified what exactly "Darwinism" is. The theory of social Darwinism, which is more likely what Ben Stein is referring to, was not a theory which Darwin subscribed to himself. Social Darwinism is more of a philosophy, and what came about that theory is not connected to evolution, which if anything could have been called Scientific Darwinism. If Intelligent Design or Creationism wants call itself a philosophy, that's fine, because it is. But that isn't what science is. Evolution never claims to know how life originated. Evolution only makes a theory about how life changes over time. As a Christian who believes in Evolution, I hope this dialogue between ideologies can continue.
Ben Thrasher
posted 04/30/08
In his otherwise informative review, Mark Moring offers a misleading parenthetical reference to a Scientific American article contesting Expelled's linkage of Darwinism and the Holocaust. Its author, John Rennie, does assert that the film's "heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency." In fact, his subtitle, "A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust," seems to promise a response. However, the subtitle and that half sentence are the article's sum total of text on the matter. Neither the Holocaust nor any related subject, such as eugenics or social Darwinism, nor any synonymous matter, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc., ever appears again in the Scientific American article. Rather, it simply shifts to other things. Moring's aside will likely mislead readers who don't actually read the Scientific American piece into believing that behind the hyperlink lies a weighty and credible rejoinder. That error deserves correction.
R. Clinton Ohlers, Ph.D.
Editor's note: The review included a link to the Scientific American article, so readers can decide for themselves what it does and doesn't say.
That Gruff Gresham
posted 04/30/08
I appreciated reading the interview with Douglas Gresham about the upcoming film, Prince Caspian. He is not an easy man to like (of course, he makes it clear that's not important to him). I heard him speak in person as The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe was about to be released. When questions were raised, he said, "I've spent 25 years making this movie. People who don't like it can make their own movie." He said he realized in 1990 that he came across as arrogant. I think he still does. But as his stepfather said (in one of the books, can't quote it exactly), "If you think Christians leave a lot to be desired in their behavior, just think how much worse they might be if they weren't Christians." I try to remember that, for it surely includes myself.
Rev. Jeanne Devine
Hates Critics, Digs CT Movies
posted 02/28/08
I studied post-structuralist film theory in grad school and have always hated every so-called "critic" I've ever come across for their self-righteous posturing. I'm also an atheist, against organized religion of almost every kind, and very militant about things like being pro-choice. However, I find your reviews to be the most balanced and well thought out that I have ever read, so I have bookmarked your site and recommended it to my friends. I also used to teach college composition. If I ever do again, I will use your reviews as examples of well-crafted writing for my students.
John Kantor
Shocked About Spiderwick
posted 02/28/08
I am very disappointed in your review of The Spiderwick Chronicles. While I agree that the movie was excellent, imaginative, and fun for children, I could not look past the awful use of language in the film and I am SHOCKED that a Christian website would not include this language in their review. The children in the movie utter "Oh my God" so many times that I lost count. The profanity your reviewer lists as "mild" is when a child says "what the hell?" Since when is "hell" a "mild" profanity for CHILDREN?? Because of said language, I could not recommend this film AT ALL to Christian children. As a Christian review site, you have a duty to be more vigilant on issues such as these.
Todd Patrick
Change Our Name?
posted 02/28/08
I am amazed that you call yourself "Christianity Today" yet you do not tell the readers what the content of movies are. Definitely, Maybe is NOT a movie I think a Christian would wish to see and yet there is not the detail that Screenit.com has. Screenit.com is the best choice for "Christians" to make sure they do not inadvertently go to movies that are not what a believer would wish to fill their minds with. I think you need to change your name.
Janice Michel
Editor's note: ScreenIt.com is a good source for those looking for precise counts on how many times potentially offensive content shows up in a movie, but we believe there's much more to assessing a film than merely counting the number of bad words. Besides, in our review of Definitely, Maybe, we were very clear about the content. We wrote that the film includes "frank dialogue" and strong language, even citing many of the words that are used—like penis, vagina, slut, and the b-word. We wrote: "There are no actual scenes of sex, but it's talked about extensively (even with the 10-year-old) and hinted at many times (e.g., scenes of unmarried couples waking up together). There are a fair share of other swear words and taking the Lord's name in vain. The father character discusses some pretty objectionable things with his daughter, like threesomes." All we can say is, if anyone "inadvertently" goes to this movie and is surprised to hear bad language, they haven't read our review. (And we're not changing our name.)
Focusing on What's True
posted 02/28/08
Thank you for holding true to your God-given calling in the face of what must seem likenever-ending persecution from the Christian community. I just graduated with a film degree from Cornerstone University, and as I think about the future—and how I might handle myself in the face of mainstream success—I can only hope to address the inevitable backlash from my brothers and sisters in Christ with the same grace and humility that you exhibit to your readers on a regular basis. I firmly believe that the only way we, as Christian artists, will ever have any impact on the world for Christ is by discerning the difference between good art and bad art. I think one of the key distinctions between the two is found in Philippians 4:8. Too many individuals hurry past the first part of this passage and onto "pure and lovely" and so on. But,it's what comes first that is the most striking to me—"Finally, brothers, whatever is true … think about such things." This is where so many good-intentioned Christian filmmakers get it wrong. In their rush to make movies blatantly bereft of brokenness, darkness, and sin, they end up creating an artificial version of reality—a world that no one can relate to. The end result is a few Christians get warm fuzzies, and everyone else goes "huh?" We need to tell real stories, about real people, living in a real world. And until God returns to set things right, that world happens to be a broken, sinful place desperately aching for redemption. Until Christian filmmakers begin depicting that level of reality in their films, they will never be offering their audiences anything approaching "true." This is why I applaud the work your staff is doing. You judge films based on their artistic merit, not the legalism that hinders so many Christian publications. And yet, you use your faith and knowledge of the Word to dig deep and accentuate the redemption bubbling just under the surface of the narrative. Despite being labeled "heretics" and "sinners" for watching and reviewing the movies you do, you have stuck to your calling and carried on in the name of Christ.
Jonathan Butrin
Criticizing the Critics
The following e-mails are in response to our Critics' Choice Awards:
posted 02/14/08
Juno at No. 1? I am utterly bewildered! Just walked out of that movie, popped some Tylenol to try to relieve my non-"menstrual migraine," tempted to hit the bottle—but want to maintain my faculties to fire this one across into the la la land in which you folks reside. Did anyone notice the cross with the line through it—as in Ghost Busters, as in no cross, as in anti-uh, well cross? Secondly, OK, she couldn't go through with an abortion, so this therefore places the movie in your thumbs-up category? I know a Satan worshiper who couldn't go through with an abortion. Thirdly, I have seen wild boar on the side of the road keeping their family structure together with more grace and decorum than any character portrayed in this work. This movie would more accurately be titled "Orcs in Heat." I am glad Jennifer Garner's character was given the child—the only redemptive quality this film offered. But how anyone could equate this to anything close to Christianity and its principles is both laughable and pitiable!
Debra Szemplinski
posted 02/14/08
Into Great Silence is a waste of time and money, unless you see this as a promotional film for the Catholic faith. Didn't Jesus say, "Go ye into the world and preach the gospel"? He didn't say, lock yourself up in a building and meditate to God and forget about the world around you. The Bible emphasizes to be among the world, and those in a monastery are mostly not; if you live indoors, who can see the love of God working in you? I feel sorry for them that they have been misled in how to really serve the Lord our GOD. I pray that they may see the light before they close their eyes for good.
Hans Hoekstra
posted 02/14/08
No place in the Top 10 for The Kite Runner?That was one of the most uplifting and interesting movies of my life.
Bruce Mason
posted 02/14/08
I'm bummed that The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was left off of your list. It topped many of the other films chosen in terms of acting, top notch cinematography, profound script, and powerfully subtle soundtrack by Nick Cave & Warren Ellis, along with outstanding sense of place and time created by the wardrobe and set design.
Greg Stump
posted 02/14/08
You have given me a great place to start in catching up on the ones I missed last year and affirmed two of my faves as your top two spots, albeit for two completely different reasons. Juno got me in the heart; There Will Be Blood got me in the head. Both were amazing, inspiring pieces of filmmaking, andambitious for two completely different reasons. One went for epic and succeeded; one went for authentic, true storytelling which could have easily fallen into schmaltz or stereotype, but didn't. Wowza. This list was a good reminder of what I really appreciate about CT Movies—you provide a kindred spirit in watching movies. Most secular sites ignore anything resembling the meaning of a work, focusing too much on style over substance. You are able to balance both, taking them both into consideration equally.
Glenn McCarty
More Redemption
The following e-mails are in response to our Most Redeeming Films of 2007 list:
posted 02/14/08
Michael Clayton hit many great nails on the head! How could you miss it?! Tom Wilkinson's redemption is fantastic. He's walking wonderfully against the grain when he sees "the light." George Clooney's poignant slow redemption is equally powerful, while the defense lawyer's slow meltdown is the result of giving in to the seduction of the soul—great film work.
Christian Turner
posted 02/14/08
How in the world did The Ultimate Gift not make this list?
Jim Phillips
posted 02/14/08
The Great Debaters is a wonderfully redemptive movie that should at least be mentioned. It is on the top of my list!
Cliff Stewart
posted 02/14/08
How about August Rush?
Peggy Forstad
posted 02/14/08
The Last Sin Eater.
Dr. Keith Jones
Concerning Bono …
posted 02/14/08
In response to Brett McCracken's review of U23D and his questioning of Bono's "coexist" message, I find it necessary to positively state that Bono is saying, "Jesus, Jew, Muhammad, it's true, all sons of Abraham." Bono has always been an advocate of peace and coexistence. However, he has never been reported as saying that Islam and Judaism are the same as Christianity. In interviews, concerts, and songs, Bono has recited only verses from the Bible and has only ever declared Jesus Christ as his personal savior. And Bono's speech only supports the idea that these religions have a common father, not a common doctrine.
Lauren Little
posted 02/14/08
I've followed U2 for almost 25 years, and to attempt to assert that Bono is a universalist or has a universalistic message, when he has clearly stated his humble and imperfect following of Jesus, is just silly and irresponsible. It is very clear in this movie, and in their previous other official concert DVD from the Vertigo Tour that Bono is saying, "Jesus, Jew, Mohammed … it's true, all sons of Abraham." If the reviewer read any of the interviews during the last tour, where Bono speaks on this element of the concert, one would discover his message. His aim is for peace, and he feels like this is his avenue to promote this work.
Matt Plotkin
Ungodly Movies
posted 02/14/08
Why, oh why, are you reviewing movies that are truly ungodly? Erotic, profanity, violent. Why would a believer need to go or choose to go to such films? By going to movies like you are reviewing, we are getting desensitized to seeing and hearing what God warns us not to partake of. Please help me understand why a magazine like yours has lowered itself to reviewing the movies that will not build believers' maturity. I am not legalistic at all; I am a "grace" person, but I am shocked at the movies you are reviewing. The use of the name of the Lord in vain—why are you reviewing movies like this? Why not ignore them? The review of Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story was not needed. The movie has frontal male nudity. That is porn. Why are you reviewing porn movies?
Judy Reamer
Thoughtful Reviews
posted 01/21/08
Thank you for providing consistently thoughtful movie reviews. It's refreshing to find Christian reviewers who look for what is good, true, and beautiful in a film without rejecting out of hand because it has nudity, violence, or "bad words." Thanks!
Casey Taylor
Caspian Wishes on the Mark
posted 01/21/08
Thanks and compliments to Devin Brown for articulating what so many of us would like to say about the stories of Narnia ("My Caspian Wish List"). Like a delicious meal or beautiful song, it is difficult to explain why a story is so magical and meaningful. Brown points out some of the spices that if left out, will lessen the impact and meaning of Prince Caspian.
Denise Williams
posted 01/21/08
Devin Brown's comments are very well stated. As a Christian it is easy to gloss over the real world life that continues to be lived after conversion. It is not necessarily a dark to light experience, but often, and more likely, a gradual experience like the dawning of a day. C. S. Lewis' characters portray this awakening.
David D. King
Charlie Wilson's Christian Heroine
posted 01/21/08
Joanne Herring, the heroine in Charlie Wilson's War, is a committed Christian who, sadly, is not portrayed as such in the movie. God led her in her part in this enormous Cold War defeating covert operation. As her closest friend, I would like to suggest that Christians everywhere would love to know about her part extraordinary part in the story and her relationship with Christ.
Desiree Lyon Howe
Keen on Sweeney Review
posted 01/21/08
Your review of Sweeney Todd was excellently written and well covered in every facet of the film! Not even the critics from the "major" newspapers on Rotten Tomatoes covered the film so well; I find too often they get caught up in their own jargon to say something that should be simple. I really appreciate the balance of simple points with well-founded depth in Brett McCracken's review.
Anton Purr
Ease Up on Travis
posted 01/21/08
You were a bit harsh on Randy Travis in your review of The Wager. I am a fan of his music and enjoy his acting. Why must you be so critical? The film might be preachy, but lay off Randy Travis.
Shirley Kordalski
About That Compass …
Editor's note: The following letters are in response to Jeffrey Overstreet's commentary, "Fear Not the Compass."
posted 12/04/07
I was sitting with my 9-year-old daughter when a preview for this movie came on TV. She said she would like to see this movie. I let her know that this was a movie that we would NOT be seeing, because the author doesn't believe in God, and he is not very nice to Him in the movie. Her response to me was, "Mom, how could any silly movie make me not love Jesus? I love Him no matter what |
