Christmas Thoughts...

As I noted a bit earlier this morning via Twitter, I discovered last night that the version of It's a Wonderful Life that exists in my memory is notably superior to the Frank Capra film.

I feel unChristmas-like when I say that it was not only boring, but for some reason I had a hard time believing that Harry Bailey was graduating high school at what appeared to be something like 36 years old, and that George Bailey was only slightly older than your typical college-aged guy when he looked 52. Kinda like Napoleon's classmate and antagonist Don in Napoleon Dynamite.

In other news, we're about to go get the ingredients for Christmas Eve fondue! I'd like to point you to BestFondue.com, where last year I discovered an incredible beef fondue recipe. I made the mushroom dipping sauce, too. Not only did the family not hate it, they (and I) actually loved it. I think it kept our Christmas Eve fondue tradition from dying. Had it been bad we might not have planned to do it again this year.

Finally, stop by Amazon.com and download the absolutely free Green Hill Christmas Music Sampler! It's a straight-ahead, mostly traditional (and on occasion easy-listening) Christmas album.

Merry early Christmas!

Read more »

The Teaser Trailer Gospel

DreamWorks' Megamind was released on DVD an BluRay a week ago. It may not appeal to you for one reason or another, but hopefully it'll work for an illustration. When I saw this trailer, I really wanted to see the movie:



In just a few minutes we get the whole story laid out for us, from the birth of the "anti-hero" through the climax of the story. If you liked the trailer, there's a good chance that you decided to either see the movie in theaters or buy the DVD/BluRay when it was released. You wanted to see the whole thing.

Would anyone realistically watch only the trailer and then claim that they loved the movie? Would anyone buy the DVD and fast-forward through it, watching only the scenes they thought would be funny or action-packed, and think that they knew everything about the movie?

Read more »

Movie Review: "Star Trek"

It's with some hesitation that I post a video from The Onion, an irreverent satire outlet. I doubt that this video will offend anyone's sensitivities unless they're a harcore Star Trek fan (I consider myself to be pretty close to that level, but kept laughing throughout).

I had removed the video because of an offensive word in the "crawler" at the bottom, but after some thinking, I've decided to leave the video embedded, but I've moved it to the bottom of the post. If you're offended by seeing a heavy slang word in print (in the bottom margin of the video), don't watch it.

I highly recommend seeing Star Trek. It was amazingly good. I'm used to seeing movies that I enjoy, receiving poor or average scores at sites like RottenTomatoes, but this one got a whopping 96% rating overall!

A short gratuitous lewd part was in the flick. I understand that it was part of character development (really), but would love to have seen the movie without that kind of suggestiveness ("suggestive" isn't the right word, really, but for a guy sitting there it will be rather easy for the mind to wander).

Die-hard fans will surely leave the theater a little annoyed at the way some things play out. One showcased relationship, in particular, was just dumb, but there is no denying that this movie breathes new life into the franchise while respecting (though tampering with) its history.

Read more »

No Cheap Imitations Desired

My son and I were killing some time in a video store yesterday, seeing if there were any unbelievable deals to be had in the "Buy 2 get 1 free" bins. The Naked Gun 2½ and Naked Gun 33 1/3 were in there for pretty cheap, but I couldn't find a third movie to round things out, until we saw the fairly recent blockbuster Transmorphers.

Wait... "Transmorphers"?

For only $15.99 (you have to pay for the higher-priced movies to get the "free" stuff) we could take home what I assumed would be a low-budget ripoff of the Shia LaBeouf hit movie (which was fun but got only 57% on the RottenTomatoes.com meter) Transformers.

The featured user review of the movie at imdb.com says, "why oh why?"

So why would anyone do this? Isn't there some level of integrity in filmmakers that would prevent them from making a movie like this, made-for-TV or not? I guess that they hope that it'll make money due to the success of the more well-known movie. Maybe families will buy it thinking it's actually Transformers, or maybe people will be anxious to watch robot movies, or something. Whatever the case, they've copied the original, apparently without the resources or creativity to come up with something original.

In looking at this, I want to encourage Christ-followers and churches and church leaders to learn from the programs and formats of other church fellowships, but to remember that trying to plug, say, North Point Community Church's small group program into that of your own fellowship is likely not going to work the same way, if it works at all. Trying to make sermons more appealing to the younger, hipper generation by wearing a shirt without a collar (or, heaven forbid, a Hawaiian shirt) while speaking is most likely just going to be silly.

Just as all church fellowships are different, all Christians are different. What God has planned for me is probably going to be different, even if only slightly, from what He has for you. While it's good to learn from what other Christians are doing, never be afraid to venture out into that unknown territory that God has marked out for you. Okay, maybe you're allowed to be afraid. Just don't let that paralyze you. I often wonder how much greater the influence of Christians would be if we took the daunting step into adventure that awaits just outside our front doors (as Dave Smelzer describes in his book "Not the Religious Type: Confessions of a Turncoat Atheist").

There is no one else in the world with your influence, your personality, or your purpose.

Read more »

"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed"

I'm interested in your thoughts, general or specific, on Ben Stein's movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Our church is showing it next week in both small groups and a larger showing in the worship center for people who aren't involved in Sunday School, upon which the small groups are based.

The movie is, at its core, an argument for the idea that Intelligent Design is a viable theory and its proponents should not be blacklisted from educational institutions. It states that ID is not necessarily a religious theory, but is instead a scientific one. It also states that Darwinism inevitably leads to atheism.

I'm watching it again now, remembering some of the things I didn't like about it. For one, it uses a bit of slapstick humor in an effort to throw stones at some of the opinions and theories that the Darwinists who are interviewed hold. Another is the nearly direct statement that Darwinism has the nearly inevitable conclusion of leading to events like the Holocaust due to the devaluation of life.

In spite of those things, I found it to be extremely strong, and states its case well. The movie certainly gives equal time to both sides, which Ben Stein of course had no obligation to do.

One question for you... in your opinion, should I or should I not read Darwin's "Origin of the Species" as one bit of preparation for leading the discussion in the sanctuary following the movie? Incidentally, I began reading Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" some time ago in order to be able to offer my perspective on it, but didn't get far before I got distracted to other things. One friend told me that this sort of approach to learning an opposing viewpoint would be similar to me "investigating" internet pornography in order to better help a friend who was coping with it. Agree with that? I didn't.

Read more »

They're Out To Get Us!

Whew! Sporadic blogging lately. My apologies to those of you who've visited hoping looking for new stuff. Hopefully you'll find today's ideas intriguing.

I seem to be on a spate of talking about things that I've presented here before, but it's been a while on this one. Remember how The Wonderful World of Disney used to come on TV on Sunday nights, when all good folks should have been at church? Conspiracy or just regular ol' programming?

When posting "What Makes a Bad Word Bad?" the other day, I thought about the lyrics to that wonderfully non-potentially-offensive-to-anyone song, "What Made the Red Man Red?" from Disney's Peter Pan, and specifically remembered this part:

Let's go back a million years
To the very first Injun prince*

Huh? A million years? So that's when Native Americans began to populate our soil? Is this Disney's subtle way of instilling old-earth (or evolutionary, though the two are not necessarily intertwined) thoughts in children? (Actually, even by the most hardcore evolutionist's standards, that's too long ago for there to have been any "Injun princes.")

Do you think that we Christians are too paranoid that the world is out to get us? Is paranoia justified, or would you call it realism?

And hey, what about that part in the Red Man song where it talks bad about mothers-in-law?

In the Injun book it say,
When first brave married squaw,
He gave out with heap big, "Ugh!"
When he saw his mother-in-law.*

What gives? Disney's trying to undermine the family unit!

If the world is, indeed, out to get us, how should we react? By fighting fire with fire? What would Jesus have done? Better yet, what did Jesus do when He was confronted with people calling Him a liar or challenging the things that He taught?

Is this this verse is out of context in such a discussion?

He was oppressed and treated harshly,
    yet He never said a word.
He was led like a lamb to the slaughter.
    And as a sheep is silent before the shearers,
    He did not open his mouth.
- Isaiah 53:7 (NLT)

*"What Made the Red Man Red?" was written by Sammy Cahn and Sammy Fain (odd that they were both named "Sammy," eh?), copyright 1951 Walt Disney Music Company

Read more »

Prince Caspian

You may notice that there is a new section on the right-hand side of the page here. This "widget" should give us all news of upcoming Narnia movies (as well as, obviously, "Prince Caspian Movie News").

While on our mini-vacation (the one where I nit-picked the elevator "flair" to pieces), we went to see Prince Caspian. I love to love my favorite books and characters being made into blockbuster movies. Matter of fact, I overlook faults on a regular basis -- I even bought the Superman boxed set (which contains Superman III and Superman IV, two flicks which are pretty much abominable, even to a staunch Superman fan like me).

Just as spaghetti sauce is occasionally missing "something," the lack of which makes us scrunch up our faces because we think it needs that certain something but can't quite put our finger on it, Prince Caspian, like The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe before it, felt a little hollow. I wanted to offer some thoughts because I wasn't happy with my other ideas for blog posts today. I'm interested in knowing what you thought about the movie.

To me, the movie's lack of oregano (the "something") could be the result of any one, or a combination, of these elements:

• mental CG withdrawal after having seen the 10,000-monster armies in the Lord of the Rings trilogy that dwarfed (pun sort of intended) the armies in Caspian
• heavy-handed (and sometimes poor) puns scattered throughout the movie
• occasional wisps of mediocre acting, at which I was really surprised

[Warning: spoilers ahead -- do not read if you prefer to see the movie with fresh eyes]

Some artistic license must be taken in book-to-big-screen adaptations, but when the Narnians stormed Miraz' castle (just exactly like they didn't do in the book), I wondered how it added to the mystique and suspense of the story. As it turned out, my son found this to be one of the best parts of the movie. This kind of thing is where I need to learn to be open-minded. I didn't dislike this part, but didn't see its necessity. Of course, I am not a filmmaker and know little about how to pace a movie.

Tension existed between Peter and Caspian (the Spaniard) from their first meeting onward, and while this appeared a time or two in the book, it didn't serve the story well to keep it up the whole time, in my opinion.

Speaking of Caspian's apparent Hispanic descent (he's actually a Telmarine), I'm surprised we haven't heard any outcry about the movie somehow stereotyping the Conquistadors (aren't people supposed to complain about stuff like that?). I always imagined Caspian as having a British accent, and I don't know how I'll handle hearing Prince Rilian speak with a Spanish accent, either, if the films get to The Silver Chair. Don't get me wrong -- I love Spanish accents. Just not when they mess with my preconceived notions (this is why book-to-movie scenarios rarely work for everyone).

One personal disappointment: we don't get to see the part from the book where the mean ol' school teacher is spanking a child and is turned into a tree as punishment. Rats!

On a positive note, the movie could not have been cast better, and despite its length (two hours and 35 minutes), it rarely felt like it was lumbering along, except during the second and third sixths of the movie (see summary paragraph below).

So, my from-the-hip, non-movie-critic-sounding summary (again, interested in knowing if you concur) was that the movie could be divided this way:

The first, fourth, fifth, and sixth sixths of the movie were really good, while the second and third sixths were forgettable and made me want to go browse for popcorn toppings at the concession counter. It was certainly worth the price of admission, and is definitely a film that should be seen in a theater -- great sound and visual eye-poppingness.

Read more »