Home > Movies
Your Feedback
We'd love to hear from you. Post your comments on our message boards, or click here to send us an e-mail.
Due to the volume of e-mail, we are unable to respond to every letter.
About That AFI List …
We recently took the American Film Institute to task for its omission of Jesus movies—and a certain film about hobbits—from its list of the Most Inspiring Movies of All Time. Here are some reader reactions.
posted 06/23/06
Just goes to indicate how much one's worldview will determine one's value of things. If Jesus and the Bible aren't viewed as important, nor play a vital role in one's life, why would films about him and the Bible inspire?
Ray Hauser
posted 06/23/06
The AFI is populated with Hollywood liberals of the most rabidly atheistic, ignorant and bigoted kind. As a former professional actor and long ago denizen of that dark, demented part of the world, Hollywood, I cannot even begin to explain how perpetually blind those troglodytes are to artistic and Christian values of any kind. Even if the more recent films about Christ had been as supremely excellent as, say, Lord of the Rings, they would have been ignored nevertheless because of their politically incorrect content. Sadly, the AFI finds socialist, humanist and politically liberal values trump artistic genius in whatever form every time, so we should not be the least surprised at their film rankings which are, of course, mere mindless prattle not to be taken seriously.
Colin Cody
posted 06/23/06
Perhaps the AFI should consider sending their ballots to those who watched the films from the little theaters and towns across the continent. I think most filmmakers are hoping to leave a message within their films, but I'm not sure that the "message" is always clearly inspired. To not have included some films—A Christmas Carol, in particular—seems very much an oversight.
Jo-Anne Thomas
posted 06/23/06
I dislike the tone of your commentary, where you claim the AFI ignored Jesus completely, "unless you count Ben-Hur." I do count Ben-Hur, as does the alternate title, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. The movie may not have had the full Jesus narratives, but Jesus is most prominent in the picture, and the crucifixion scene is amongst the most powerful. This should not be taken lightly.
Nick Alexander
Riding in Cars
posted 06/13/06
I disagree with your review that Cars was a letdown. Our entire family loved every minute of it. Pixar has consistently made movies that are clean, family friendly, and full of laughs. I appreciate your critical eye, but you need to remember what Cars offers by way of clean entertainment in contrast to all of the other so-called "family movies." As a parent, I can't wait for Pixar movies because they are one of the few companies that target children and adults.
Scott Magnuson
posted 06/13/06
Your review missed the essence of Cars. The storyline of how to meet people you don't know, finding common ground, having fun, and doing the right thing are basic lessons that are seriously lacking in culture. I work with youth in a correctional setting. I see very little understanding in my students on how to live with others. Cars offers a primer of what that might look like. And, perhaps more importantly, the theme that good looks, fame and self-absorption are shallow imitations of a joyful (not easy) life lived in community is rarely presented in such a stark manner. A fun movie with such deep and foreign messages to our culture is very welcome. Plus, the kids and I had a great time watching Cars. Four stars is a much more appropriate rating.
Gary Archibeck
posted 06/13/06
My husband and I were completely satisfied with Cars. I'm glad I didn't read this review before seeing it. We thought it was extremely entertaining and thoroughly enjoyed it. I am so thankful that someone out there is finally making good family movies in the "G" rating. I highly recommend this movie for all to see.
Yvonne Knight
posted 06/13/06
I'm a bit surprised how positive this review is. Specifically I found:
• The character "Ramone," in my opinion, is disparaging of Latinos.
• "Fillmore," named after the once infamous San Francisco neighborhood famous in the '60s drug culture, speaks as if perpetually stoned.
• In the "bloopers" section, there is a reference to "Chrysler" which seems to refer to our Lord.
Andy L.
Global Warming: Junk Science?
posted 06/05/06
Regarding your commentary on Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth, be very careful you don't overdose on junk science. It is as hazardous to your health as junk food. It's really funny to me that global warming has become vogue, because the real global long-term trend in temperature is to the cooler side. Thirty-five years ago the panic prediction was of an on-rushing Ice Age, the onset of which in geologic terms is now overdue. Any fractional degree of warming observed in the last 50 years is a part of a cyclical change in temperature that lasts about 200 years. You did a great job recognizing "junk history" when The DaVinci Code came along. Let's not get swept away with the tide of panic led by Mr. Gore.
Rev. DL Frantz
posted 06/05/06
Al Gore vs. The Omen? I don't know which is scarier (or should I say dumber). No, I take it back: Al Gore wins the prize. God bless him, but I don't buy it.
Dan Keefe
posted 06/05/06
The earth has been cyclically colder and hotter for millions of years. There have been times of zero ice and balmy polar regions. Sometimes hotter than now, sometimes much cooler. We simply do not know all the factors that cause the warming and cooling. The assumptions swamp the actual evidence. Our data sample is extremely small. Extrapolations are always risky, and even more so with such a small observation period. I'm first to agree that God has commanded us to be good stewards of the earth, but the demands of the global warming crowd would lead to much human sacrifice and could actually work against cleaning the earth. If we rolled back carbon emissions today to the extent that we're told is needed, whole economies would be seriously hurt. Prosperity would decrease and I say, based on observation, so would concerns about the environment and measures to protect it. I also think it is morally wrong to directly hurt millions of people based on highly speculative assumptions. It is a great stretch to say that "we evangelicals" are somehow missing the moral boat by not jumping on the global-warming bandwagon.
Leo DePaul
posted 06/05/06
You compare Al Gore to "a Baptist preacher" whose "favorite sermon is about the judgment day that will come upon us if we do not mend our ways and stop contributing to global warming." Gee, I thought Baptist preachers' favorite sermon was about the Judgment Day that will come upon us if we do not repent and accept Jesus Christ as our Savior. I don't think Jesus spent a lot of time discussing "global warming" as much has he did "eternal warming."
Darrell Phillips
posted 06/05/06
You wrote, "In the five-and-a-half years since he won the popular vote but lost the presidency." This statement was uncalled for. You should never mix politics with religion. But most of all, he lost the election, that's it. Trying to make something different out of it just won't work. As far as his global warming thing goes: God, and only God, has the control button on that. I will not give him my precious time to listen to his negative talks.
Pat Ballard
posted 06/05/06
Man causing global warming. Nothing but hogwash. Junk science.
James T. Sparks
Down with Da Vinci?
Editor's note: We recently ran a tongue-in-cheek commentary about boycotting The Da Vinci Code—a column that actually suggests that Christians be willing to consider seeing the film and taking part in the larger cultural conversation. We received a flurry of e-mails in response …
posted 04/27/06
Outstanding commentary, but I sensed there might have been a hint of sarcasm. Jesus and Paul would never do that-well, except for those few verses, here and there.
Rick Kuhn
posted 04/27/06
Thanks for a thoughtful and fun look at how to respond to this new movie. We Christians have spent way too much time and energy on being dismissive instead of engaging.
T. Doty
posted 04/27/06
Thank you for your tongue-in-cheek response to what has become the "typical Christian response," at least as it is seen by the rest of society. As one who is part of the Body, but has always been bewildered by evangelical culture, I applaud this effort from within the community to encourage others to engage in thoughtful dialogue and actions, rather than resorting to reactionary tactics-which almost always end in bitter irony.
Daniel Black
posted 04/27/06
I agree with your article in concept, but your tone really annoyed me. I agree that the book and movie provide a great opportunity to present people with the truth, and that is probably more effective than boycotts and protests. That being said, I wouldn't run down Christians who actually get out of the pew and do something that is unpopular to the secular culture and stand up for something worth standing for. Perhaps these people hold the name of God as so sacred that they can't sit still when someone blasphemes his name or writes a lie-filled book or makes a lie-filled movie. If I'm going to run people down so sarcastically and severely, I probably wouldn't choose my brothers and sisters in Christ and especially not in a situation where they are reacting to lies about their God. Is this article a good example of the "gentleness and respect" you are talking about? And by the way, Ron and Tom and Dan are not good people. Neither are you, and neither am I. If we were, we would have no need for Jesus. I'm surprised Jesus didn't know that; it seems odd that he didn't know why he came. Oops, sorry about that. I guess sarcasm is fun.
Kevin Campbell
posted 04/27/06
I wish every Christian would read this excellent article, and refer to it when they are apt to make their protest signs about any seeming attacks against their faith. Indeed, God is big enough to take it, and we can use these opportunities to engage in a good conversation with those seeking the truth and who can be easily swayed-and perhaps dig a little deep ourselves to be able to understand the Truth that we love so much.
Thanks to Christianity Today for always being balanced and thoughtful.
Laura McBride
posted 04/27/06
I was put off by the tone employed toward fellow Christians regarding their reactions to certain movies. I think there is something bordering on dangerous arrogance when a POV is advocated by attempting to mimic the voice of Christ and what he would allegedly say in response to such a situation. But also, instead of mocking those who out of their sincere response to the outrage of this film wish to organize fellow Christians into a boycott, why can there not be room for both approaches in which collectively they can be seen as complementing each other? I applaud those who are motivated to do boycott the film in a responsible fashion, and I would proudly point to them as Christians who have had enough of the bigoted mentality of our nation's media, and who will not stay silent about it. But when there are other people in the Christian community who seem to take great relish in mocking their brethren, while insisting we should regard Dan Brown as "not a bad person," I really have to throw up my hands in bewilderment.
Eric Paddon
posted 04/27/06
Regarding your piece about alternative things to do with Da Vinci, I heard the best solution yet: That is to speak with our dollars by not only not going to see the movie, but to see another movie during opening weekend. That would make Da Vinci a non-event.
Paulette Kincaid
posted 04/27/06
I read the commentary and I disagree. People like Tom Hanks, Ron Howard and Dan Brown aren't looking for truth. They're looking to cash in. I also think that most people who are going to see the movie aren't
looking for truth either. They're just looking to be entertained. The juicier, the better. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that many of them will see the movie and afterwards say (like Pontius Pilate), "What is truth?" Personally, I have no interest in the movie or the book. As it says in Scriptures, "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless" (Titus 3:9).
Jon Day
posted 04/27/06
Thanks for your entertaining and insightful article. It's amazing that as Christians, our first response is to be defensive and right away decide to picket and boycott. As Christians, we need to be informed-we need to read the book, see the movie and read other books such as Breaking the Da Vinci Code or Cracking the Da Vinci Code, both great resources that we can use to talk with our friends and co-workers about flaws in Dan Brown's story. If our friends and neighbors decide they'd rather believe Dan Brown than the Bible, then we need to respect that choice. We should pray for them, but being argumentative isn't the answer. Nor is a boycott or a noisy protest.
Sandi Scott
posted 04/27/06
I am disappointed at the tone of this article. I would suggest that it would have been far more effective had you stated your case without the hyperbole designed to make the other side simply look foolish. I may agree with your point, but I will not use your method to make it.
Terry Chaney
Too self-promotional?
posted 04/27/06
Of course Dr. Jim Garlow wants Christians to go see The Da Vinci Code. What a surprise: He's got a book to sell, a name to tout-and the bottom line in too many Christian circles is all too often … the bottom line. But at any rate, there's no justification for encouraging people to see a film that is an anti Christian propaganda piece made for profit (and subsequently, a multitude of anti-Christian causes). You might say it's a bit of high-tech blather for the weakening of unsuspecting hearts, minds, and souls. The road to Greedyville remains a constant and popular lure for poorly formed Christians who still think yapping about Jesus supersedes loyalty, action, and avoiding at all costs those Hollywood efforts to undermine the faith. In the aftermath of cashing in, The Da Vinci Code filmmakers-and other secular film producers who regularly prey off Christian pocket books-will be planning the next "attack." A drop of poison will destroy a glass of the purest water. And yet, repeatedly we subject ourselves to intolerable doses of TV and film poison.
Diane Garvin
posted 04/27/06
Your subtitle about using Da Vinci to help Christians share their faith and sharpen their own beliefs could have also been said about Elmer Gantry. Somehow, in my own mind, this would not exactly be a proper "training film" on how to do church, had your subtitle read like this: "Rather than ignore or boycott Elmer Gantry, Christians now have a great opportunity to share their faith-and to sharpen their own beliefs in the process.
Bill Simpson
More Jesus Movies
Editor's note: We recently ran one man's list of Top Ten Jesus Movies. Many readers applauded the list, but some felt that it had omitted a few key films.
posted 04/13/06
Your list of the Jesus movies missed two very important, and recent, films on the life of Christ, both from The Visual Bible: Matthew and The Gospel of John.
Martin Sheppard
posted 04/13/06
You should have included Jesus of Montreal, without a doubt the best film on Jesus I have ever seen.
Graham Hutchins
posted 04/13/06
I am curious why you left off the movie Jesus, produced by Warner Bros. in association with Inspirational Films and now distributed by Campus Crusade for Christ around the world. This film has been viewed by more people than any other film in history. It is also the most translated film of all time. Despite being produced in the late '70s, it is still being used widely today, and Billy Graham has stated that it is most likely responsible for more people coming to faith in Christ than any other tool of all time. How can it not be on the list?
Bob Kraemer
V for Violence?
posted 04/05/06
I saw V for Vendetta, and I am appalled that the cruelty shown toward the Natalie Portman character has been overlooked in practically every movie review I've read. She was at the hands of a bloody sadist who tortured her for an indefinite period, and who let her go only when her spirit was broken. Why is no one noticing this? This is a film about a rape, not a revolt. Why is everybody seeing a love story? Is violence against a woman, her dehumanization, so completely invisible?
Rachelle Cournoyer
Shaggy and Buddha?
posted 04/05/06
Why didn't you mention the New Age twist to The Shaggy Dog? As cute as this movie is, don't you think it preaches a pagan worldview? Buddhist meditation? The movie even illustrates the Buddhist belief in the equality of animals and humans, with its opening scenes of Buddhist temple prayer. We took our family to this movie, but we had to explain to our girls that this remake was not like the Fred MacMurray version, and as Christians, we did not agree with these beliefs. You did not do a very complete job on this review.
Darrell Phillips
Millions = Hogwash
posted 04/05/06
I bought the DVD Millions based on your review. How can you classify this as the Most Redeeming Film of 2005? It features young boys teaching each other how to access pictures of women's breasts on the Internet. It portrays saints appearing to 7-year-old Damien who smoke, swear, and use God's name in vain. The kicker which finally made us shut it of was the eyewitness account from Saint Peter telling Damien that Jesus did not really multiply the loaves and fishes, but through the generosity of his gift other people were influenced to donate to help feed everyone. Your reviewer's take on that, "Saint Peter offers a new interpretation of the loaves and fishes story which, while unorthodox, is a worthwhile lesson." Hogwash! Shame on you for this review! I failed to find any redeeming value or character in this movie.
James Barlow
Editor's note: In The Family Corner of our review of Millions, we clearly stated that the film "portrays some behavior that might make parents uncomfortable." And this: There's also a scene in which the boys ogle ads for lingerie on the Internet, zooming in on flaunted bosoms."
Violence Review 'Right On'
posted 04/05/06
I read your review of A History of Violence after I saw the movie, and your review was insightful and right on. How I wish I'd read it before I saw it; I don't think I'd have chosen to see it. Yes, it was complex, powerful and so stinking heavy I could barely stomach it. Thank you for doing a job I'd never choose for myself. Another reminder to read your reviews before I decide whether or not to see the movie.
Mary Guleserian
Regarding Shadyac
posted 03/14/06
In response to Eric David's article on director Tom Shadyac: Frankly, I've been turned off by Jim Carrey and his larger-than-life antics, so I've not seen all the films listed in the article. But this article intercepts my prejudices about the actor and provides unique insight into Shadyac's films, along with an indication of possible freedom in films to move beyond the intimidations of "politically correct," lucrative-goals and accepted lifestyle pressures in that industry. Hopefully, the "journey toward redemption" trend will provide opportunities to make clear the straight-and-narrow-path to truth through the maze of living, and may that trend lead many people to complete redemption through Jesus Christ. Eric David's article broke through my prejudices to supply insights about Shadyac's films, and, in so doing, plant a seed of hope that the ties-that-bind the film industry can and will be broken.
John Chandler
posted 03/14/06
As a Christian, I was very proud of how Bruce Almighty how it dealt with Christianity in an honest way. After reading your article, I was even more impressed.
Jack Walker
Great Perspectives
posted 03/14/06
You guys put such great perspectives to American cinema. I am a film student, and I just want to let you know that you guys have really given me some pride for the voice that Christ has given us. While I feel you may be a little conservative for us to agree all the time, that isn't the point. The point is that you articulate yourself and many people's beliefs and fears incredibly well. Christians watch movies too, and it is important for "the industry" to realize that, and you guys do a great job at driving that home. I, and even some of my research papers, thank you very much.
Lucas Diercouff
Spear Dropped the Ball
posted 03/14/06
My wife and I finally saw End of the Spear, and I'm sorry to say that apart from the great cinematography, we felt like we had wasted our time. We were aghast at the blatant ignorance of a group of men that would blunder into a situation such as was portrayed on the screen. According to this film, the lack of understanding of the language (which could have been learned from the girl who escaped from her tribe and was now living among them), the blatant disregard for cultural differences, and miscellaneous other blundering was what resulted in their deaths, they were not martyrs for Christ in the classical sense. The film did not make it clear why they were even there in the first place—as I noted from whispers behind me in the theater, twittering about what those men were drinking from that jar, and gasps when one of the men disrobed in front of the approaching women from the tribe they were attempting to contact.
The gospel message of the atoning death and resurrection of Christ was not clearly portrayed at all. It appeared that the tribe had been somehow saved from their old ways of murdering each other and had now put on "civilized clothing," but death still brought with it some sort of leap over a snake that somehow Nate Saint had been able to achieve during his expiration while under the familiar glow of Touched by an Angel. The movie truly does a disservice to the cause of Christ and denigrates the death of these men—and any other missionaries who may meet a violent end while trying to reach the world for God. Sorry, this one gets a double thumbs down from my wife and me.
John D. Ferguson
Debating The McPassion
Last week, we ran an interview with Christian filmmaker Rik Swartzwelder regarding his new short film, The McPassion, which he intended as a satire about the way the church seems to be more involved in marketing Hollywood movies from the pulpit. Some see the film as funny, some as blasphemy. Not surprisingly, we received a number of e-mails in response. Here's a sampling.
posted 03/07/06
I agree that the marketing of The Passion was a way Christians were dupedinto filling the pockets of filmmakers, but The McPassion can only be described as blasphemous and shocking. I was offended by it as much as I am American marketing of religion. I could have done without seeing the death of Christ being made a laughing matter.
Anthony W. Giezendanner
posted 03/07/06
I found The McPassion sadly lacking in humor, sarcasm or whatever else Swartzwelder was supposedly trying to accomplishwith his "project." Basically, McPassion was McPathetic. Swartzwelder didn't like the way The Passion was pitched from pulpits, so he decides two years later to come up with a four-minute spoof of our Lord in order to bring attention to something that just about no Christian finds a problem with. Did he think he was to be like a voice calling out but dressed up as "Ronald McDonald"? I got the impression that Swartzwelder's McMotives were entirely different than what he professed. I hope he's happy with his 15 minutes of fame—or is that four minutes of flame? Finally, I guess Swartzwelder never read or was told in Sunday school that saying the Lord's name in vain was a sin. I hope he finds the time during Lent for some self-reflection and repentance.
A. Alonso
posted 03/07/06
Cardboard "crowns of thorns," ketchup that "tastes like real blood," toy hammers to nail the little sister to the cross—these cross the line, even for satire of Christians.
Reed Siebenthal
posted 03/07/06
I remember the scene of my pastor at the viewing of The Passion of The Christ, at a theater bought out by our church. My pastor was standing in the doorway, just before the showing, with a super-sized Coca-Cola and a barrel of popcorn big enough to perform a baptism in. I am not sure that The McPassion doesn't hit the nail sadly but squarely on the head. Nevertheless I do find this effort offensive, even as I did the pastor's behavior.
William C. Manuel
posted 03/07/06
You gotta love a guy who can laugh at the mistakes of mainstream Christian marketing. Now, if only he could do the same with The Prayer of Jabez.
James Kutnow
posted 03/07/06
Right on, Rik Swartzwelder! Jesus said he must be about his father's business, but many church organizations are about, well, just business. Churches that reject any and all sacred images in their misinterpretation of the commandment will sell cross earrings and chains, magnetic fish on the back of their cars, and hawk T-shirts that say, "His pain, my gain." I am tired of receiving conference material featuring speakers who could win Pat Boone look-alike contests, whose aim is to build a megachurch, and who are more interested in profits than prophets with their endless conferences and workshops that promise rejuvenated congregations for the price of admission. The moneychangers are alive and well in the temple. They have turned the house of God into a den of thieves.
Claudia Horak
posted 03/07/06
I hear why Swartzwelder says he made the film, but honestly, I don't believe him! This film doesn't come across as a sincere loving confrontation of mass marketing in the church, but an angry semi-conscious reaction to being told what to watch from the pulpit. I wish Swartzwelder could have found another way to challenge us and express his feelings, because this film just made me want to weep.
Stephen Steger
posted 03/07/06
I watched the movie with my college and high school sons, and we all loved it. It's close enough to the truth to be relevant and funny. I saw a video clip of a pastor promoting the Narnia movie to his kids' ministry, and it looked like an infomercial with stuffed lion prizes and stuff like that. It was obvious that marketers had set that up, and I was disappointed that a "man of God" would use his "authority" to officially promote a movie. It went beyond a recommendation to a full-blown endorsement. If the movie had been The Passion, this church's promotion would have looked just like The McPassion. Swartzwelder is exposing those who would market the faith by copying the world. Which is more offensive to God, making fun of people who trivialize or sell out their own faith, or actually trying to turn our sacred relationship with God into a marketing choice?
James Gayfield
posted 03/07/06
Have there been too many Passion-ate pronouncements from the pulpit? Yes. Was there a way to say that without getting sacrilegious? Yes. The fact is, I laughed and felt terribly uncomfortable about laughing when I watched The McPassion. It's more than possible to take anything and make a joke out of it, but does that mean that we should? No. The Passion was absolutely over-hyped, but is the way to deal with that by trivializing the gospel, and our God? Personally, I think it went a bit too far. Even though I laughed.
Tom Sharkey
posted 03/07/06
Swartzwelder didn't appear to have thought out his views thoroughly. I watched the video and it was difficult for me. I appreciate Christian satire as a message or warning of individual or church silliness / hypocrisy, but this was different. It blurred the lines of mocking Christian commercialism and the horrific crucifixion of our Lord. I just feel sad when I watch this stuff.
Brian Norton
posted 03/07/06
I thought The McPassion was funny. What struck me was how close it seemed to reality, not with churches' worship services, but with Christian retail stores' products—breath mints with crosses on them, passion nails, etc.
Deanna King
Life Lessons from Brokeback
posted 02/21/06
I went to see Brokeback Mountain recently with my wife, and for me, it was a soul stirring moment. I chose 19 years ago to leave behind the gay lifestyle. I called out to God and through the prayers of many (mixed with determination), I am rescued in soul from the pit I knew. I have been married 16 years to a God-sent wife. Our journey together hasn't always been easy, but it has been more peaceful than that I knew of in the gay lifestyle. What has made it survive is a love born out of honesty and vulnerability, mixed with faith in God throughthe Messiah, the Lord Jesus. The movie reminded me of the true pain of the soul that the gay lifestyle creates. I could relate to the movie's depiction of the need of love, even between the two male characters. I grew up a military brat with good parents, but never established a close love/relationship for my father during my teen years; I had no godly male mentoring, I was insecure, and I didn't know the Lord, so I was easy prey for the destroyer's plan. I entered the gay lifestyle out of the need to belong, to be one of the guys—only it ended consuming my soul. It took me about two years to realize that this path would not have a happy ending.
I related to Heath Ledger's character "Ennis" in Brokeback—and the tear in the soul between the need of love both of a woman and of a man. I concluded a few years ago that neither of these two loves are sinful when they are in the right context. The intense love and sexual intimacy of a man and a woman in marriage is what the Lord intended. And the intense love experienced between two people of the same sex or opposite sex is not wrong as long as it doesn't become a sexual relationship. I'm always reminded of the love of David and Jonathan; there was no sin it.
Brokeback Mountain showed me many things from God's perspective. He is grieved for his beloved lost sheep—these isolated souls he wants to bring back to his mountain and give them the love they so desperately seek. In this place they will be in the company of other sheep who now know love and are not lonely anymore. Brokeback Mountain is not for everybody. Its themes of loneliness, broken relationships, and death are painfully true to life even if you can't relate to the story subject matter. Watching it made me realize what God has done in my life: He's spared me the destruction I saw in the lives of the characters of the movie. I could have been either "Ennis" or "Jack." As a result of seeing that movie, I love my wife, my life, and my Savior more. I don't believe you'll go to hell for seeing the movie, but if you do see the movie, you'll get a glimpse of the private hell that rules in the lives of many. Pray for the isolated sheep to find their way.
J. L. Moss
Role Playing
Editor's note: In a recent CT at the Movies newsletter, we argued that Steve Martin shouldn't be playing the lead role in The Pink Panther, that no one but Peter Sellers should be allowed to play the role of Inspector Clouseau. We also mentioned a few other "iconic" roles through the years, roles that no one else should ever try to reprise: Julie Andrews as Maria, Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey, and more. We asked readers for their favorite "iconic" roles, and we got a ton of responses—including a few who took us to task on our own icons!
posted 02/16/06
Although the original Pink Panther is a classic, it's one of those classics that begs to be redone for a new generation. Give Steve Martin some credit for his comedic genius. He's only one who can pull it off.
Lynda Stringer
posted 02/16/06
I agree: No one can play the inspector like Peter Sellers, but I am a big fan of Steve Martin, and he did an excellent job. He picked up the comedic torch and carried it faithfully.
Allan Knowlden
posted 02/16/06
I find it ironic that you argue that only Julie Andrews is allowed to be The Sound of Music's Maria and only Audrey Hepburn can be Eliza Doolittle. But long before Julie came twirling along the mountaintop, Mary Martin took home a Tony award for originating the role of Maria on Broadway. And many Broadway purists were furious that Hepburn became Eliza Doolittle over … who? Yep, Julie Andrews, who won so many hearts on stage as the original Eliza. Those roles, it seems, were a bit more "touchable" than you realize. Perhaps some roles are iconic, but I would argue that they are very rare indeed. So go ahead and let Martin tackle Clouseau. If he falls flat on his face, at least it will be in character.
Jack Brown
posted 02/16/06
I beg to differ with you on Audrey Hepburn as Eliza Doolittle. The cute little non-singing wretch should never even have played the role: it belonged to Julie Andrews, who created the character. Another stoopid Hollywood producer trick.
James Allan Ragsdale
posted 02/16/06
For me, Christopher Lee will always be Dracula, despite the fine characterizations of Lugosi and Gary Oldman. This may not be the most "Christian" role to pick, but the greatest B-movie actors such
as Lee tended to portray their characters with more theatrical refinement than modern actors and directors who capitalize on a lot of graphic violence/sensuality. Other iconic roles: Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, Clint Eastwood as "The Man with No Name" and Dirty Harry, Peter Cushing as Sherlock Holmes (despite the fine presentations of Basil Rathbone) and as Van Helsing (not Anthony Hopkins and certainly not Hugh Jackman).
Claude Liboiron
posted 02/16/06
Alastair Sims in Scrooge is one of those defining roles; Sean Connery as James Bond is another. In each case, the actor transcends mere portrayal.
Denis Gray
posted 02/16/06
No one but Gene Wilder should play Willy Wonka (including the inestimable Johnny Depp).
J. Craig Johnson
posted 02/16/06
For Pirates of the Caribbean, no one but Johnny Depp could pull off Captain Jack!
Pat Godbey
posted 02/16/06
How about James Cagney playing George M. Cohan in Yankee Doodle Dandy? Or Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn as Charlie and Rose in The African Queen? But my favorite has to be Ronald Reagan playing George Gipp in Knute Rockne: All American. The attitude of "The Gipper" he captured in the movie was the one and same that served him well as President.
Jerry Lawson
posted 02/16/06
Alan Ladd as Shane. Clint Eastwood tried to make a copy with Pale Rider, but it was indeed a pale imitation.
Jim Wetterau
posted 02/16/06
Peter O'Toole as Lawrence of Arabia and his co-star, Alec Guinness, in just about any role he ever played. And can anyone ever replace Charlie Chaplin? Also, Jack Nicholson for his roles as The Joker in Batman, J.J. Gittes in Chinatown, Randle Patrick McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and as Jack Torrance in The Shining. And then, Humphrey Bogart as Rick in Casablanca and as Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon. And Jimmy Stewart not just for George Bailey, but also for Jefferson Smith in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Oh, and Christopher Reeve as Superman.
Eric Hallett
posted 02/16/06
No one but Russell Crowe could play the Gladiator Maximus.
Joyce Ameh
posted 02/16/06
Bogey as Rick in Casablanca, James Dean in Rebel, or Al Pacino as Tony in Scarface.
Dawne Polis
posted 02/16/06
There are some movies—not just roles—where the original is still great and needs no expansion or explanation or updating. I'll never understand why Kevin Costner even attempted to do Robin Hood (sans British accent). It should have been left to Errol Flynn. But I don't know that it's the role that's sacrosanct as much as the movie. If the original is still good and can be seen and appreciated and understood today, then stick with the original. If anything, this constant trend toward re-makes in Hollywood speaks more of the lack of creativity on Hollywood's part, and their need to resurrect old stories and characters rather than move on to new ones.
Tom Sharkey
posted 02/16/06
Orson Wells in Citizen Kane. Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly and Christopher Lloyd as Dr. Emmit Brown in the Back to the Future series. Bruce Willis in the Die Hard series. Bob Hope and Bing Crosby in their Road series.
Pastor Randy Evans
posted 02/16/06
Megan Follows in the Anne of Green Gables movies! She just brings the essence of "Anne-girl" to the screen.
Kristine den Boon
posted 02/16/06
Charlton Heston as Moses! When I get to heaven, I think I'll be disappointed if Moses doesn't look like Charlton Heston.
Tom Smith
posted 02/16/06
No one but Jim Caviezel can play Christ.
Barb Dixon
Redeeming Movies
posted 02/10/06
I'm impressed with your list of 2005's Most Redeeming Movies, and that you are dedicated to showing appreciation for well-made films. Bad films with a "good message" are simply an embarrassment to Christianity. However, I disagree with your approval of Crash. I was highly offended by the film. I thought that in showing the awfulness of prejudice, it actually helped the viewer become more prejudiced. The same thing happens when movies show rampant sexuality in a disapproving manner. It often makes the viewer want to go out and have sex! I also think that showing continuous instances of prejudice in Crash was so unrealistic and so disconnected that it weakened the message rather than strengthening it. A movie such as To Kill a Mockingbird is much more persuasive because it is much more realistic. I thought Crash alienated the viewer rather than winning him over to a proper moral stance.
Dr. Jim Meek
posted 02/10/06
The list is a good one based on useful criteria. It reflects a broad taste and a sensitivity to social and cultural interests and realities.Well done.
Steve Bailey
posted 02/10/06
Some quick reactions to your Redeeming Films list: Cinderella Man and Crash would be near the top of my list. On your recommendation, I watched Millions, an enjoyable film but rather disappointing with a number of gaps in the story. As for The New World, your thoughtful, sensitive comments about the role(s) of movies in the life of believers are provocative and valuable. Your biggest surprise is Broken Flowers; what am I missing here? I found little of real substance. I sometimes wonder if in our quest as 21st century Christians to know and understand the world in which we live, we don't go a bit too far in looking for redeeming qualities in some things that just don't have them. We don't care to be seen legalistic prudes, foolishly rejecting everything that fails to meet our Christian paradigm, but even to non-believers, there are things that don't deserve recognition/justification—like Broken Flowers.
David Moore
posted 02/10/06
Since you needed to redeem yourself after giving Brokeback Mountain 3 stars, I'm glad to see this list!
Greg Leith
posted 02/10/06
I cannot believe you put Murderball on your list of redeeming films! Yes the message was good, yes it was inspiring, especially the young players who choose to visit rehabilitation facilities to encourage others. But there is some very graphic sex, full nudity and plenty of vulgar language. I agree the film has wonderful potential and may, in some aspects, qualify as "redeeming," but let's be clear about the full content so parents won't let their youngsters watch it. Are we so hard up for good movies that R-rated Murderball has to be included?
Sue Scott
Your Two Bits on Brokeback
Our recent review of Brokeback Mountain—also known throughout the media as the "gay cowboy movie"—prompted a mountain of replies, many of them comprising this article. And the replies keep pouring in, including the ones below—some of which are in response to reader replies as much as to the review itself.
posted 12/30/05
I enjoyed your review of the movie and was glad to read the readers' comments. I am amazed how so many Christians want simply to be told what to do and believe, abdicating their personal responsibility to make discerning judgments about what we do—such as seeing a movie or not. I grew up being told whether everything was right or wrong. Thank you for not being our pontiff and telling us what we must do and believe in order to put the proper Christian spin on things. We are adults; we are Christians and the Holy Spirit is still working in our midst.
Rev. Larry D. Ellis
posted 12/30/05
I read with interest the comments from those who said CT should refrain from reviewing this type of film, especially because of its homosexual content. Why is homosexuality the "it" sin when it comes to the loudest condemnation from Christians? What about the excessive exploitation of partially or fully unclothed females, or the vast array of extramarital hetero-sex? What about the commonality of drunkenness? The list goes on. As Christians, we are called to be salt and light, not vinegar and blinders. Compassionate understanding of people whose lives parallel the characters in Brokeback Mountain increases our potential for effective and Christlike witness. We need to welcome the opportunity to get a realistic grasp for where the world is at, instead of running from it.
Wendy Holland
posted 12/30/05
Of course it's controversial to review a movie about a homosexual relationship. Unfortunately we evangelicals have trouble acknowledging the complexities of things like homosexual attraction—something that many people struggle with on a real level. So we are not very good at accepting stories of people who sin in this particular way as parables of ourselves, though it may be in different skin. Flannery O'Connor said of the novelist (and it could also be applied to the filmmaker), "The serious writer has always taken the flaw in human nature for his starting point, usually the flaw in an otherwise admirable character. Drama usually bases itself on the bedrock of original sin, whether the writer thinks in theological terms or not … The novelist [or filmmaker] doesn't write about people in a vacuum; he writes about people in a world where something is obviously lacking, where there is the general mystery of incompleteness and the particular tragedy of our own times to be demonstrated, and the novelist [or filmmaker] tries to give you, within the form of the book, a total experience of human nature at any time." I haven't seen the movie, and some movies are just as propagandist as our bad Christian movies, but many movies that deal well with relationships such as those in this movie are simply parables for the many different struggles in life. If, as Christians, we can't hear the stories of real people—if we can only handle the stories of people who have it all together, who always make the right decisions, who are perfect—then we are neither in the world, or of it. We're in our own world, a fantasy world that will not be real until God steps into the most deeply scarred stories and redeems them for good. O'Connor again: "The real novelist, the one with an instinct for what he is about, knows that he cannot approach the infinite directly, that he must penetrate the real world as it is. The more sacramental his theology, the more encouragement he will get from it to do just that."
Propagandist attempts or entertainment aside, I don't believe that a movie depicting a homosexual relationship is inherently worse than a movie depicting the destructive power of other kinds of sin—greed (Wall Street), corruption of power (The Constant Gardener), drugs (Traffic), abortion (Vera Drake), euthanasia (Million Dollar Baby), anger (Mystic River), or hypocrisy. Each Christian needs to make the personal decision whether watching and reflecting on any particular parable, in all of its gory detail, is going to be more edifying or distracting in his or her journey of developing the mind of Christ. But the telling of stories like this is simply the filmmaker, novelist, etc. doing his or her job of embracing the reality of what it means to be human, in one particular manifestation of that humanity. We ought not to condemn the storyteller outright without trying to hear the message behind it. Sometimes the message is surprisingly compatible with the Bible's evaluation of the human condition, and of redemption (i.e. forgiveness). Sometimes not, but that must be expected from the world rather than decried as somehow an aberration from what is normal.
Tim McCarthy
posted 12/30/05
As a non-Christian, I applaud you for your review of Brokeback Mountain. Unlike many of the other Christian sites, you gave a meaningful insight on the movie without throwing cheap pot-shots at the creation. I fully understand some Christian sites' stances on advising their readers to skip the movie, but what makes me mad is their treatment of homosexuals, and saying this movie is a Marxist creation to brainwash America. I applaud you for not stooping to those levels, and for letting readers make their own decisions instead of being told how to think.
Michael Goodridge
posted 12/30/05
Good grief, what in the world were you thinking? Giving this piece of filth ANY stars constitutes an endorsement! Anything positive you say about this disgusting piece of homosexual propaganda just encourages Christians to go see it. God makes it very clear we're to not participate in (by giving our money, for instance) the evil deeds of darkness. The Bible commands us, "Do not enter the path of the wicked and do not proceed in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not pass by it; turn away from it and pass on" (Proverbs 4:14-15). You have violated this injunction entirely.
Robert Sexton
posted 12/30/05
It took a lot of courage for Christianity Today Movies to post the review of Brokeback Mountain and I commend you. Especially since it is, overall, a favorable review that lucidly describes the many levels of pain and sorrow that the central characters feel. It's just too bad that the Editor had to trot in and "mark his territory" with his lip-pursed disclaimer. The review should have been simply posted and allowed to stand on its own merits.
Charlie Lester
posted 12/30/05
This film being nominated for Golden Globes and Oscars means nothing. It only reflects the large number of gay people in the movie industry who are out to push the homosexual agenda. Nothing more. The fact that the scenery is beautiful means nothing either. The filmmaker has taken God's beautiful creation, and used it as a backdrop to push the homosexual agenda. The young people who are being drawn into this web is enormous. Don't contribute to this slide into moral oblivion! That you should give this propaganda such a high rating is inexcusable. You have lost credibility with me.
Sondra Perkins
posted 12/30/05
Your thoughtful and careful analysis is a boon to your credibility. I especially appreciated the sensitive discussion questions at the end of the review. As a gay Christian, I am all too often hurt and excluded by mainstream "Christian" organizations that propagate a malicious tone when discussing homosexuality. I appreciate your candor and sensitivity.
Nathan Henning
posted 12/30/05
Why do we need to be subjected to this filth? When are we going to stand up for decent morals in this country and stop sugar coating movies like this under the guise of great filmmaking?
P. Persell
posted 12/30/05
I did not read your review, but saw you gave it 3 stars. My first feeling was shock that you would sit through it. Did you really have to go see it to know it would stand against everything biblical? So will you be going to other obviously nasty movies which fly in the face of everything a "Christian" should stand for? I don't think we need to be informed on this one to "decide" whether or not to see it. Filth is filth, no matter how "pretty" the cinematography is or how good the acting is. If you are a believer and walk the walk, there is no decision.
Amy Luckie
posted 12/30/05
The hypocrisy and complete logical disconnect of some people astound me. How has homosexuality become this uber-sin that trumps all others? Why aren't people all up in arms when CT reviews movies that have other examples of extramarital sex? Oh, but those movies are OK because it's a man and a woman, and it "serves the story." Please.
Jeremy Akins
posted 12/30/05
Isn't anyone just a tad embarrassed by all this homophobic outcry? This is Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson territory.
Randall Curwen
posted 12/30/05
That we are even asking this question shows how morally decadent we so-called 21st century Christians are! In the good old days we would not even discuss this topic at all. How could you give this movie three stars? Are you out of your mind? You need deliverance.
Aja Chinyere
posted 12/30/05
Thanks for reviewing Brokeback Mountain. For 30 years, I've been pastor of a church in Marin County, California which probably has the lowest percentage of worshippers in the USA (around 4%) and is among the highest as a movie-going place. If I'm going to engage with people in this culture on behalf of Jesus, I need to be able to talk about films. So far I've seen 86 movies in theaters this year. I really appreciate your courage. You help me influence people who are far from God for the sake of their eternal destiny.
Dr. Prince Altom
posted 12/30/05
I went to this website as a lapsed Christian, heterosexual moviegoer, out of curiosity on just how flexible you'd be in reviewing controversial films. I was expecting to be preached to and patronized, but came away pleasantly surprised at your even-handedness in reviewing Brokeback Mountain. I'll visit again.
Stacy Taylor
Walk the Line Concerns
posted 12/01/05
Carolyn Arends' review of Walk the Line review captures exactly what had me worried and introspective in the movie. I wrestled throughout the movie to not do what Arends seems to be unashamed of, with regard to Cash and Carter's attraction to one another while married. Arends described that as the emotional center of the movie, which caused us to be "caring and rooting for them through a decade of detours and demons." While it seemed to work out by God's mercy, I don't think we should have been rooting for the failure of their marriages, plus their eventual adultery! This is one of those things which we should only look back on with shame.
Doug Mattox
Agreeing with Gresham
posted 11/08/05
I completely and wholeheartedly agree with Douglas Gresham's statement in your interview: "The problem with evangelical Christianity in America today, a large majority of you have sacrificed the essential for the sake of the trivial. You concentrate on the trivialities—not smoking, not drinking, not using bad language, not dressing inappropriately in church, and so on. Jesus doesn't give two hoots for that sort of bulls---." Gresham clearly sets the record straight, and what a blessing and a comfort to know that Jesus, indeed, doesn't give a hoot for the trivial!
Katrelya Angus
007: Yes or No?
posted 11/08/05
An article about James Bond on a Christian site? Surely you are not supporting James Bond.
Terry McGinnis
posted 11/08/05
I can't help have a warm place in my heart for Roger Moore as Bond. I've read the Fleming books and I realize his Bond is probably the furthest removed from the original vision, but like you, he was Bond when I was a kid. I remember seeing For Your Eyes Only four times the summer it came out. It's still my favorite Roger Moore Bond film and I think the best of his run.
Rick Mansfield
Zorro Rules!
posted 11/08/05
My wife and I just saw The Legend of Zorro today. It was excellent. The music, his horse, his little boy all worked good together, along with the humor. As a kid in the '50s, I watched some old Zorro movies on TV, in black & white. I loved all of the shows then, and still do now. I completely disagree with your review.
Clayton McDonald
Good Night and Good Grief
posted 10/26/05
Stefan Ulstein's irritating review of Good Night and Good Luck furthers the dominant media's leftist view of the McCarthy era. Having just finished reading the chapters on the McCarthy era in Ann Coulter's Treason, I challenge reviews that see George Clooney's movie as anything other than another piece of leftist, Hollywood agitprop. Even without the overwhelming evidence that Coulter documents, Ulstein's review clearly lacks care for historical fact. Ulstein's careless association of Senator Joseph McCarthy with the House Committee on Unamerican Activities forms a salient example, hypocritical in light of his statement that "McCarthy's twisting of facts created guilt by association." McCarthy's and others' concern about communist infiltration of the U.S. government, even to the highest level levels, had solid justification. The hysteria, it seems, came not from anti-communists, but from a Democrat-dominated establishment whose loyalty the emerging facts challenged. I hate to see Christianity Today play into George Clooney's partisan rewrite of history and the demonization of a flawed public servant who, it turns out, was right.
Richard Wheeler
Left Behind Plot Not 'Silly'
posted 10/26/05
I'd like to correct you on one point in your review of the new Left Behind movie. You can't blame the book for the "silly" resolve of the virus plot line, because this is a plot line that wasn't even in the book. In fact, most of the plot of this film barely resembles the book at all. Practically the only resemblance is the cast of characters. I don't mind the so-called cheesiness since the Left Behind movies are less cheesy than many of the end-times movies of the past. Anyway, I love your website. Keep up the good work.
Linda Weinmunson
Hooray for Serenity
posted 10/26/05
Thank you so much for a good review of Serenity. I'm a Joss Whedon fan, and it's great to see a positive review on an actual original movie in today's movie world of crappy remakes and sequels.
Annissa Mosher
Flight's Plan Revealed?
posted 10/06/05
Now that I've read the review of Flightplan, I don't really need to see the film. I don't understand why you need to reveal the whole plot and ending just to review a film. Can't you leave some of the mystery out of your review? I have enjoyed many of your past reviews, but I may have to stop reading them altogether if I want to enjoy a movie in the future.
Gerald K. "Jerry" Lawson
Wishy-Washy Relativism?
posted 10/06/05
After reading your review of Just Like Heaven, I have to say that Christianity Today Movies could be nominated as the poster child of wishy-washy, whatever feels good, relativistic modern American Christianity. Perhaps your reviewer should have followed her first hunch; that there are places we as Christians shouldn't go. Your site offers a powerful illustration of the startling spiritual decline in this country. How sad.
Tim Hobbs
posted 10/06/05
After reading your review of Just Like Heaven, my wife and I went to see it. I was a little disappointed in the movie. A positive review in CT Movies made me expect more. My complaints? (1) You'd think the characters would have prayed about their situation. (2) You'd think there would have been some mention, however trivial, of life after death. This movie was most decidedly NOT religious. The movie Ghost, on the other hand, did a splendid job of bringing to our minds the ideas of reward and punishment and accountability that are completely missing from Just Like Heaven.
Grant Cottam
Betrayed by Emily Rose
posted 10/06/05
Am I the only born-again Christian who felt somewhat betrayed by the ending of The Exorcism of Emily Rose? I was pretty much into the film (knowing full well that Scripture teaches that demon possession is possible and Satan is alive and well on planet earth), until the ending when "The Blessed Virgin Mary" appears to Emily. Having grown up Catholic, I believe the adulation of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church is demonic, since it takes away from the glory that belongs only to Christ. And this film promotes the idea of Mary as a loving, caring, beatific person. Why not Jesus appearing to her instead? But of course, Jesus wouldn't get any glory, which is exactly what Satan likes. Christians need to remember that Mary herself said she needed a Savior in the Magnificat, which Catholics quote, but apparently fail to see what is being said: "My soul doth magnify the Lord, my Savior." If she were perfectly sinless, as Catholics believe, why the need for a Savior?
Jean Worland
posted 10/06/05
I am a former Christian (graduate of Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minn., with a Bible degree; worked for Billy Graham for years) and I have become an atheist. I saw Emily Rose with my girlfriend—also an atheist—and we liked it. I would have preferred more skepticism, plus a closer reading of the original story on which it was based. But overall, I think it goes some distance toward getting people to start talking about issues of faith and evidence, which can only benefit both sides. People of faith need to be able to explain why they accept as truth the things they do, and nonbelievers must have credible challenges to faith if they expect religious folks to rethink their positions. I'd recommend it to everyone I felt was mature enough to handle the themes. Thanks for a thoughtful, provocative, and in-depth review.
Greg Peterson
Browse More Movies
CT Movies Home Page | Now Showing | New on Video | All Reviews
Coming Soon | Discussion Guides | Film Forum | Interviews | Commentary
News & Misc. | Special Sections | Message Boards | About Us
Your Feedback | About Us | CT Mag Home Page
| | |
