Documentary
57 minutes; 2002
Rating: 8/10
The Book of Abraham is one of five parts of the Pearl of Great Price, which is one of the the four books in the Mormon scriptural canon (the other three being the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants).
Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, claims that the Book of Abraham came into his possession as a papyrus scroll which he bought from a traveling antiquities dealer in 1835. He said it was a work by Abraham, the father of the world's three main monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This papyrus was in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic and hieratic text, which at the time no one in the US was able to translate. But with divine help, Smith claimed, he was able to do it.
While no one back then was able to read Ancient Egyptian, many people today can. So how well does Joseph Smith's translation work measure up? The Lost Book of Abraham makes a compelling and thorough case that Smith's translation work was completely wrong. As the film shows in a methodical fashion, egyptologists, both modern and contemporary to Smith, disputed the authenticity of his translation work.
This has some devastating implications for the Latter Day Saints. If this is the type of translation work Joseph Smith did on the Book of Abraham, where we can today check his work, why should we believe he did any better with the Book of Mormon, where we can't? Joseph Smith claims that the original source for the Book of Mormon - golden plates - were taken back by their angelic guardian, leaving us nothing today to examine. We simply have to take Joseph Smith's word that his translation work was correct.
This is a well produced, engaging and thought-provoking documentary. A great one to watch and share if you have any Mormon friends.
For more, check out their website at www.bookofabraham.info
Monday, October 15, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012
The Three Investigators in The Secret of Skeleton Island
Family/Drama
91 minutes, 2007
Rating 7/10
The Three Investigators started as a book series that ran from 1964-1987 and included more than 40 books. I own many of them, and hope to pass them to my kids, so when I discovered there was a movie, I knew I wanted to see this one. It lived up to my expectations.
Jupiter Jones, Pete Crenshaw and Bob Andrews are a team of juvenile detectives that "have never lost a case." Jupiter is the "Sherlock Holmes" of the group, always able to put the pieces together. Pete is the athletic, fearless "muscle" (or, at least, as much as a 13-year-old can be) while Bob is the researcher extraordinaire, their very own version of Google, always ready with a pertinent fact. The team has their headquarters secreted away in Jupiter's aunt and uncle's salvage yard, complete with secret entrances and research materials and old case files.
When Pete's dad invites them to come visit him at his new job site building an amusement park on an island in South Africa, the Three Investigators set out on what they think will be a nice vacation. But, like the book series, events quickly take what seems to be a supernatural/mystical turn - a fearsome mythical beast appears to be haunting Skeleton Island. But, again like the books, there turns out to be a logical explanation, and it is up to Jupiter Jones and his team to figure out what sort of beast it might be, and what secrets it is hiding.
Cautions
In films starring children, parents are mostly absent, and that holds true here too. While the Three Investigators are only 12 or maybe 13 or 14, they are portrayed as smarter and more capable than the adults around them. And because they are smarter this gives them a reason to ignore parental authority - Pete's dad orders them home, but they decide they have to keep investigating instead. So this is a not so subtle challenge to parental authority, and authority figures overall.
There is minimal violence (some folks get scratched by the beast and a man is hit in the head with a flower pot) but there is enough peril and tension to make this a film that would scare children. I would recommend it for young teens, and no younger.
Conclusion
This will be enjoyed by anyone who grew up reading the Three Investigators series and now wants to point their kids to it. The feel and spirit of the books is captured quite effectively, even if the film doesn't have that much to do with the book of the same title.
91 minutes, 2007
Rating 7/10
The Three Investigators started as a book series that ran from 1964-1987 and included more than 40 books. I own many of them, and hope to pass them to my kids, so when I discovered there was a movie, I knew I wanted to see this one. It lived up to my expectations.
Jupiter Jones, Pete Crenshaw and Bob Andrews are a team of juvenile detectives that "have never lost a case." Jupiter is the "Sherlock Holmes" of the group, always able to put the pieces together. Pete is the athletic, fearless "muscle" (or, at least, as much as a 13-year-old can be) while Bob is the researcher extraordinaire, their very own version of Google, always ready with a pertinent fact. The team has their headquarters secreted away in Jupiter's aunt and uncle's salvage yard, complete with secret entrances and research materials and old case files.
When Pete's dad invites them to come visit him at his new job site building an amusement park on an island in South Africa, the Three Investigators set out on what they think will be a nice vacation. But, like the book series, events quickly take what seems to be a supernatural/mystical turn - a fearsome mythical beast appears to be haunting Skeleton Island. But, again like the books, there turns out to be a logical explanation, and it is up to Jupiter Jones and his team to figure out what sort of beast it might be, and what secrets it is hiding.
Cautions
In films starring children, parents are mostly absent, and that holds true here too. While the Three Investigators are only 12 or maybe 13 or 14, they are portrayed as smarter and more capable than the adults around them. And because they are smarter this gives them a reason to ignore parental authority - Pete's dad orders them home, but they decide they have to keep investigating instead. So this is a not so subtle challenge to parental authority, and authority figures overall.
There is minimal violence (some folks get scratched by the beast and a man is hit in the head with a flower pot) but there is enough peril and tension to make this a film that would scare children. I would recommend it for young teens, and no younger.
Conclusion
This will be enjoyed by anyone who grew up reading the Three Investigators series and now wants to point their kids to it. The feel and spirit of the books is captured quite effectively, even if the film doesn't have that much to do with the book of the same title.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Jericho Unearthed
Documentary
34 minutes
Rating 8 / 10
The claim has been made that the biblical account of the fall of Jericho's walls cannot be true because, archeological evidence tells us, the city of Jericho didn't yet exist. So how should Bible-believing Christians respond?
This film argues that while the prevailing interpretation of the archeological evidence does differ with the biblical account, there are good reasons to believe the prevailing interpretation is wrong. For example, there is the evidence provided by the remains of the walls, which show that they fell outward, and by doing so provided a ramp of rubble up to the mound on which the city was built, "so everyone charged straight in" (Joshua 6:20). This, and other physical facts match up nicely with the biblical description of the city's destruction.
I really enjoyed this instructive, fast-paced documentary and appreciated the way in which the producers addressed the evidence head-on to show that it does not present us with a contradiction after all. To find out more about this film and others by the film's producers visit their website at sourceflix.com/jericho-unearthed/. You can watch the trailer below.
34 minutes
Rating 8 / 10
The claim has been made that the biblical account of the fall of Jericho's walls cannot be true because, archeological evidence tells us, the city of Jericho didn't yet exist. So how should Bible-believing Christians respond?
This film argues that while the prevailing interpretation of the archeological evidence does differ with the biblical account, there are good reasons to believe the prevailing interpretation is wrong. For example, there is the evidence provided by the remains of the walls, which show that they fell outward, and by doing so provided a ramp of rubble up to the mound on which the city was built, "so everyone charged straight in" (Joshua 6:20). This, and other physical facts match up nicely with the biblical description of the city's destruction.
I really enjoyed this instructive, fast-paced documentary and appreciated the way in which the producers addressed the evidence head-on to show that it does not present us with a contradiction after all. To find out more about this film and others by the film's producers visit their website at sourceflix.com/jericho-unearthed/. You can watch the trailer below.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Free online film: a pro-life take on the birth control pill
28 days on the Pill
Documentary
2010 / 46 minutes
Can the Birth Control Pill cause spontaneous abortions? This is not a slickly-produced film, but it is well-argued and thought-provoking and shows there is good reason to think that it may.
So can the Pill cause abortions? The answer provided in 28 Days is... maybe.
The pill has two main mechanisms of action, both of which act to prevent conception. The first stops ovulation (the release of an egg) and the second thickens cervical mucous to stop sperm in their tracks. But some of the experts the film's producers visit, talk about a third mechanism as well, that thins the lining of the uterine wall. Should conception occur, these doctors believe the lining is likely to be less hospitable to the implantation of the newly conceived baby and that may result in an abortion or miscarriage of that child. The evidence is less than conclusive, but worth examining.
While 28 Days has noticeably low production values – it looks like something the average viewer might be able to make – but this is more than made up for with the sheer utility of this documentary. The producers have talked to the experts, done the research, and in a short space of time present a lot of information in an understandable, concise manner. The end result is a film that anyone using the Pill, or considering it, must see.
You can buy the DVD at 28daysonthepill.com. The 46-minute version is available below, and you can watch the 7-minute version here: ThePill.notlong.com.
The Birth Control Pill Documentary from T Herbert on Vimeo.
Documentary
2010 / 46 minutes
Can the Birth Control Pill cause spontaneous abortions? This is not a slickly-produced film, but it is well-argued and thought-provoking and shows there is good reason to think that it may.
So can the Pill cause abortions? The answer provided in 28 Days is... maybe.
The pill has two main mechanisms of action, both of which act to prevent conception. The first stops ovulation (the release of an egg) and the second thickens cervical mucous to stop sperm in their tracks. But some of the experts the film's producers visit, talk about a third mechanism as well, that thins the lining of the uterine wall. Should conception occur, these doctors believe the lining is likely to be less hospitable to the implantation of the newly conceived baby and that may result in an abortion or miscarriage of that child. The evidence is less than conclusive, but worth examining.
While 28 Days has noticeably low production values – it looks like something the average viewer might be able to make – but this is more than made up for with the sheer utility of this documentary. The producers have talked to the experts, done the research, and in a short space of time present a lot of information in an understandable, concise manner. The end result is a film that anyone using the Pill, or considering it, must see.
You can buy the DVD at 28daysonthepill.com. The 46-minute version is available below, and you can watch the 7-minute version here: ThePill.notlong.com.
The Birth Control Pill Documentary from T Herbert on Vimeo.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
3 helpful movie review sites
When I'm trying to get a good read on a film currently in theatres there are three websites I go to:
Kids-In-Mind.com
Kids-in-Mind doesn't do age-specific rating like that G, PG, PG-13 and R rating done by the Motion Picture Association of America. Instead they assign 1-10 ratings for three distinct categories:
1) Sex & Nudity
2) Violence & Gore
3) Profanity
So a film with a 1-8-5 rating will have minimal sexual content, but lots of violence and quite a bit of profanity. A great site for parents looking to get the lowdown on the movies their kids want to see.
Plugged In
This Focus on the Family site’s strength is in the sheer amount of valuable, detailed information it packs into film, DVD and even CD and video game reviews. Its weakness? While reviews are written from a generally conservative Christian perspective some films (Hellboy, Dark Knight, etc.) are treated far too charitably – having a self-sacrificing hero, or “Christ figure” in a film doesn’t mean the film has anything to offer Christians.
Kids-in-Mind doesn't do age-specific rating like that G, PG, PG-13 and R rating done by the Motion Picture Association of America. Instead they assign 1-10 ratings for three distinct categories:
1) Sex & Nudity
2) Violence & Gore
3) Profanity
So a film with a 1-8-5 rating will have minimal sexual content, but lots of violence and quite a bit of profanity. A great site for parents looking to get the lowdown on the movies their kids want to see.
Plugged In
This Focus on the Family site’s strength is in the sheer amount of valuable, detailed information it packs into film, DVD and even CD and video game reviews. Its weakness? While reviews are written from a generally conservative Christian perspective some films (Hellboy, Dark Knight, etc.) are treated far too charitably – having a self-sacrificing hero, or “Christ figure” in a film doesn’t mean the film has anything to offer Christians.
Movieology describes itself as "your ticket to engaging the spectacular world of film from a bedrock of biblical truth." These guys are Reformed, amusing and they will make you think. The site is now longer being updated, but the reviews they have there, and more importantly the presentations they include on how to think about films are well worth checking out.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Every movie has a moral
…whether we realize it or not
I recently came across an article in which Hollywood scriptwriter Doug Tennapel spent some time outlining what it takes to write a good movie script. The first step he outlines is a surprising one – the best way to begin, he says, is by picking a moral for your story.
“Why does it have to be moral? Because a story without a moral isn't much of a story... unless you're in France and you're trying to celebrate that there is no such thing as morals…. Stories preach.”
Every film has a moral, he says, and he’s one who knows. But do our kids know that? Do they have the discernment to notice when a secular point of view is being preached at them through the silver screen?
Sometimes a movie’s moral is so obvious anyone can catch it. For example, in The CiderHouse Rules a doctor who won’t perform abortions meets a poor young girl who’s pregnant from incest. What moral does the audience learn by the end of the film? That abortion is good. Hardly subtle, but the presentation was compelling enough to win the film multiple Oscars.
Movie morals are not always that obvious. The kid’s film Brother Bear was praised by many Christian movie reviewers as a gentle family-friendly treat – it was, after all, a Disney film, animated, hardly violent, and clear of objectionable language. But Tennapel summarizes the moral of Brother Bear this way:
“The Indian boy chooses to be a [expletive] BEAR at the end instead of a human. You may not know it but the author is preaching to you saying that ‘Indian mysticism or animism is a valid worldview.’”
In other words this film was very family-friendly film… except for its moral. The Christian reviewers focused on the films trappings, and ignored its core.
The moral is always there. Sometimes it’s overt, like in the euthanasia promoting Million Dollar Baby, in which a paralyzed boxer asks her coach to kill her. Sometimes it is a bit more subtle, such as in the sci-fi X-Men III where persecuted mutants defend their minority rights by shouting out slogans borrowed directly from homosexual “rights” movement.
But either way, the moral is always there, and more often than not the moral of a film, even of a nice G-rated Disney film, is not going to be “family-friendly.” May God grant us the discernment to see which films truly do, and do not, honor Him.
I recently came across an article in which Hollywood scriptwriter Doug Tennapel spent some time outlining what it takes to write a good movie script. The first step he outlines is a surprising one – the best way to begin, he says, is by picking a moral for your story.
“Why does it have to be moral? Because a story without a moral isn't much of a story... unless you're in France and you're trying to celebrate that there is no such thing as morals…. Stories preach.”
Every film has a moral, he says, and he’s one who knows. But do our kids know that? Do they have the discernment to notice when a secular point of view is being preached at them through the silver screen?
 |
| Million Dollar Baby wasn't subtle about pushing euthanasia |
Movie morals are not always that obvious. The kid’s film Brother Bear was praised by many Christian movie reviewers as a gentle family-friendly treat – it was, after all, a Disney film, animated, hardly violent, and clear of objectionable language. But Tennapel summarizes the moral of Brother Bear this way:
“The Indian boy chooses to be a [expletive] BEAR at the end instead of a human. You may not know it but the author is preaching to you saying that ‘Indian mysticism or animism is a valid worldview.’”
In other words this film was very family-friendly film… except for its moral. The Christian reviewers focused on the films trappings, and ignored its core.
The moral is always there. Sometimes it’s overt, like in the euthanasia promoting Million Dollar Baby, in which a paralyzed boxer asks her coach to kill her. Sometimes it is a bit more subtle, such as in the sci-fi X-Men III where persecuted mutants defend their minority rights by shouting out slogans borrowed directly from homosexual “rights” movement.
But either way, the moral is always there, and more often than not the moral of a film, even of a nice G-rated Disney film, is not going to be “family-friendly.” May God grant us the discernment to see which films truly do, and do not, honor Him.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Dragons or Dinosaurs? Creation or Evolution?
Documentary
84 minutes, 2010
Rating: 7 / 10
The Chinese lunar calendar cycle includes twelve animals, eleven of which are quite familiar to us: the rat, ox, tiger, rabbit, snake, horse, goat, monkey, rooster, dog and pig. The twelfth, however, is a mythical beast that no one has ever seen: dragon. But could we be wrong? Could the ancient Chinese be giving us a clue that dragons were once more than myth? Could they have been just as real as all the other animals in this calendar?
Dragons or Dinosaurs? argues, quite convincingly, that the dragon legends present in cultures around the world are actually describing dinosaurs. The dragons are described as large, scaled, reptilian animals that can sometimes fly, breathe fire, swim or eat people whole. These are descriptions that match up well with various dinosaurs that have been discovered: the flying Pterodactyl, the massive Sauropods, or the ferocious Tyrannosaurus Rex.
And we don’t have to rely on legends alone. Pictures of very dinosaur-like creatures can be found on pottery thousands of years old. Primitive paintings on cave walls, and detailed reliefs sculpted onto the walls of ancient temples, have been discovered that seem to indicate the artists were personally acquainted with dinosaurs.
Rating: 7 / 10
The Chinese lunar calendar cycle includes twelve animals, eleven of which are quite familiar to us: the rat, ox, tiger, rabbit, snake, horse, goat, monkey, rooster, dog and pig. The twelfth, however, is a mythical beast that no one has ever seen: dragon. But could we be wrong? Could the ancient Chinese be giving us a clue that dragons were once more than myth? Could they have been just as real as all the other animals in this calendar?
Dragons or Dinosaurs? argues, quite convincingly, that the dragon legends present in cultures around the world are actually describing dinosaurs. The dragons are described as large, scaled, reptilian animals that can sometimes fly, breathe fire, swim or eat people whole. These are descriptions that match up well with various dinosaurs that have been discovered: the flying Pterodactyl, the massive Sauropods, or the ferocious Tyrannosaurus Rex.
And we don’t have to rely on legends alone. Pictures of very dinosaur-like creatures can be found on pottery thousands of years old. Primitive paintings on cave walls, and detailed reliefs sculpted onto the walls of ancient temples, have been discovered that seem to indicate the artists were personally acquainted with dinosaurs.
Ancient historians, and some not so ancient ones too, present us with more to consider. We can read historical accounts of dragon-encounters that seem likely to have involved dinosaurs.
DARWIN VS. DRAGONS
That these dragons may have been dinosaurs is not a conclusion evolutionists are willing to entertain. According to their version of events, man and dinosaur could not have lived together at the same time; they were separated by at least 60 million years.
Thus the point of this presentation: these dragon myths, historical accounts, and ancient artwork are a compelling argument against the evolutionary account. As the Bible explains, God created everything over the course of just 6 days, so men and dragons (or, rather, dinosaurs) did live at the same time!
This is a professionally produced, entertaining production. It gives a solid overview of the evidence, providing viewers with an idea of how very much there is.
CAUTIONS
The only caution doesn’t concern the main feature.
The DVD’s special features include a 28-minute mini-documentary called The Faith... behind the Science, which is awkwardly interrupted midway through with a 6-minute ad for Cloud Ten’s other films. These other films are premillennial dramas, including the Left Behind series. Premillennialists believe the Lord will return to "rapture" believers into heaven and unbelievers will be "left behind" for a 7-year period of tribulation in which they can still choose to repent and believe. This idea – of unbelievers having a "second chance" after the Lord's return – is a dangerous error, and clearly contrary to Scripture.
This jarring and quite annoying insertion ruins this mini-documentary, which would have otherwise been an interesting bonus to the main feature.
CONCLUSION
So skip the special features and this will be a fun film for families with older children – those with the required attention span for an 84-minute feature. And it is an absolute must-see for anyone who grew up devouring every book they could find about dragons or dinosaurs.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Alleged
Drama / Romance
93 minutes; 2011
Rating: 8 / 10
Dayton, Tennessee is a small town in 1925, and too small for local reporter Charles Anderson who wants to make a big name for himself by going to the big city and working for legendary Baltimore Sun editor H.L. Mencken. His fiancee and coworker Rose is rooting for him, and when a legal battle in the town's courtroom garners attention from the national media, it looks like Charlie may have just the news story he needs to grab Mencken's attention.
Only, things don't go quite how he was expecting. He does get Mencken's attention, who is even willing to teach Charlie how to craft a news story. But this close-up tutelage lets Charlie see that his mentor won't let a little something like the truth get in the way of a good story. Mencken is more than willing to make up a story, if it will sell papers. Is Charlie willing to go that far to land the job he's been dreaming of?
Setting
In 1925 an anti-evolution law, which forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools, was challenged in a Dayton, Tennessee courtroom. John Scopes, a high school teacher, was charged with violating the law by teaching his students about Charles Darwin's theory.
The "Scopes Monkey Trial" pitted creationists vs. evolutionists and enlisted big name "stars": the Scripture-quoting, Bible-believing, 3-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution; and for the defense, Clarence Darrow, infamous for his defense of two indefensible child-killing clients. These big names got the attention of one other: Baltimore Sun editor H. L. Mencken. His columns largely influenced how the trial was perceived by the public - while the creationists won the court case, Mencken made sure that the evolutionists won the publicity battle.
Cautions
Only a couple of cautions to consider. Charles is drunk as a skunk in one scene, though his fiancee's disappointment and disapproval makes this an object lesson in the idiocy of drinking to excess, so not too much to object to on that point. Also one character shouts "Hallelujah!" insincerely in a church service. I should add, because the film teaches about the implication of Darwinian thought, there is a subplot that deals with eugenics. This is a topic that our older children need to learn about, but is also too much information for a younger audience that doesn't yet need to know how horrible the world can be.
Conclusion
More than three decades later, the events of the trial were again fictionalized in the play (1955) and film Inherit the Wind (1960). Both presented creationists as ignorant, foolish, bigoted and even bloodthirsty (the film has the townspeople threatening to burn John Scopes!) and because the film was shown to generations of American public school children it has had a lasting impact on the way the creation/evolution debate is conducted. It can be given much of the credit for why creationist arguments are most often mocked, rather than answered.
Rating: 8 / 10
Dayton, Tennessee is a small town in 1925, and too small for local reporter Charles Anderson who wants to make a big name for himself by going to the big city and working for legendary Baltimore Sun editor H.L. Mencken. His fiancee and coworker Rose is rooting for him, and when a legal battle in the town's courtroom garners attention from the national media, it looks like Charlie may have just the news story he needs to grab Mencken's attention.
Only, things don't go quite how he was expecting. He does get Mencken's attention, who is even willing to teach Charlie how to craft a news story. But this close-up tutelage lets Charlie see that his mentor won't let a little something like the truth get in the way of a good story. Mencken is more than willing to make up a story, if it will sell papers. Is Charlie willing to go that far to land the job he's been dreaming of?
Setting
In 1925 an anti-evolution law, which forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools, was challenged in a Dayton, Tennessee courtroom. John Scopes, a high school teacher, was charged with violating the law by teaching his students about Charles Darwin's theory.
The "Scopes Monkey Trial" pitted creationists vs. evolutionists and enlisted big name "stars": the Scripture-quoting, Bible-believing, 3-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution; and for the defense, Clarence Darrow, infamous for his defense of two indefensible child-killing clients. These big names got the attention of one other: Baltimore Sun editor H. L. Mencken. His columns largely influenced how the trial was perceived by the public - while the creationists won the court case, Mencken made sure that the evolutionists won the publicity battle.
Cautions
Only a couple of cautions to consider. Charles is drunk as a skunk in one scene, though his fiancee's disappointment and disapproval makes this an object lesson in the idiocy of drinking to excess, so not too much to object to on that point. Also one character shouts "Hallelujah!" insincerely in a church service. I should add, because the film teaches about the implication of Darwinian thought, there is a subplot that deals with eugenics. This is a topic that our older children need to learn about, but is also too much information for a younger audience that doesn't yet need to know how horrible the world can be.
Conclusion
More than three decades later, the events of the trial were again fictionalized in the play (1955) and film Inherit the Wind (1960). Both presented creationists as ignorant, foolish, bigoted and even bloodthirsty (the film has the townspeople threatening to burn John Scopes!) and because the film was shown to generations of American public school children it has had a lasting impact on the way the creation/evolution debate is conducted. It can be given much of the credit for why creationist arguments are most often mocked, rather than answered.
Alleged is an enjoyable counter to Inherit the Wind, presenting a much more accurate account of the trial. It could be enjoyed as an above average Christian romance, but the setting makes this more than a fun little film. The historical importance of this event means this is a film for just about anyone. It is educational and informative, yes, but also fun, romantic, generally light, and quite well acted. Highly recommend for older teens and adults. See the trailer below.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Courageous
Drama
2011, 129 minutes
Rating: 7/10
Like Fireproof, Facing the Giants and Flywheel before it, Courageous is a sermon wrapped up as a film. But unlike those earlier Kendrick brothers’ efforts – where the message took precedence over the moviemaking – this time the sermon has been wrapped up in a really good film!
The moral of this story is that fathers are vital to their kids, and consequently to the whole country. We follow five fathers, four of them police officers, only one of which seems to be doing a great job as a dad. Another, Adam Mitchell, will seem quite familiar to most of us – he isn’t a bad father; he just isn’t as good as he could be. Or to put it in his own words, “I’m doing about half of what I should be.”
Courageous begins and ends with a pair of chase scenes which give the Kendricks a chance to show just how good they have become at staging action sequences. These are basically police chase scenes, and they are intense! In the middle of the film we have some comedic scenes that are laugh out loud funny, and of course plenty of edifying conversations about the challenges of fatherhood.
Cautions
Two cautions: the comedy and action make this a film that most of the family would enjoy, however there is one tragic event that makes this too emotional for children, and might make it quite unpleasant for some parents too. Without giving too much away, one of the five families is struck by tragedy, which is what gets that father to reassess just what he’s doing as a dad. It is a necessary plot element, but it turns this from a start-to-finish feel-good movie to one that will take viewers through the full range of emotions.
The second caution would only be not to expect too much from the film. If you're looking for depth and nuance and Academy Award winning acting. then this isn't for you. The acting's not remarkable but it is solid. And while the biblical model of godly fatherhood is given a compelling presentation here, it certainly isn't a comprehensive one - there isn't time for more in a 2-hour film.
Conclusion
What you will find here is an encouraging, inspiring plea for fathers to get on with the task and privilege of raising their children. If you don’t mind being challenged as you are being amused, you’ll enjoy it. Edifying and entertaining – it’s a rare combination, but the Kendricks have pulled it off!
2011, 129 minutes
Rating: 7/10
Like Fireproof, Facing the Giants and Flywheel before it, Courageous is a sermon wrapped up as a film. But unlike those earlier Kendrick brothers’ efforts – where the message took precedence over the moviemaking – this time the sermon has been wrapped up in a really good film!
The moral of this story is that fathers are vital to their kids, and consequently to the whole country. We follow five fathers, four of them police officers, only one of which seems to be doing a great job as a dad. Another, Adam Mitchell, will seem quite familiar to most of us – he isn’t a bad father; he just isn’t as good as he could be. Or to put it in his own words, “I’m doing about half of what I should be.”
Courageous begins and ends with a pair of chase scenes which give the Kendricks a chance to show just how good they have become at staging action sequences. These are basically police chase scenes, and they are intense! In the middle of the film we have some comedic scenes that are laugh out loud funny, and of course plenty of edifying conversations about the challenges of fatherhood.
Cautions
Two cautions: the comedy and action make this a film that most of the family would enjoy, however there is one tragic event that makes this too emotional for children, and might make it quite unpleasant for some parents too. Without giving too much away, one of the five families is struck by tragedy, which is what gets that father to reassess just what he’s doing as a dad. It is a necessary plot element, but it turns this from a start-to-finish feel-good movie to one that will take viewers through the full range of emotions.
The second caution would only be not to expect too much from the film. If you're looking for depth and nuance and Academy Award winning acting. then this isn't for you. The acting's not remarkable but it is solid. And while the biblical model of godly fatherhood is given a compelling presentation here, it certainly isn't a comprehensive one - there isn't time for more in a 2-hour film.
Conclusion
What you will find here is an encouraging, inspiring plea for fathers to get on with the task and privilege of raising their children. If you don’t mind being challenged as you are being amused, you’ll enjoy it. Edifying and entertaining – it’s a rare combination, but the Kendricks have pulled it off!
Friday, June 1, 2012
Like Dandelion Dust
Drama
104 minutes, 2009
Rating 8/10
Like Dandelion Dust pits two families against each other for the custody of Joey, a six-year-old boy they both claim as their own. The Porters are a troubled couple – in the film’s opening scenes we see a drunk Rip Porter being taken to jail for beating his wife Wendy. The Campbells couldn’t be more different – Jack and Molly have the big house, the sailing yacht and the happy family life. And they have Joey.
But the Porters are Joey’s biological parents. Wendy discovered she was pregnant soon after Rip’s arrest and imprisonment, and she decided to give Joey up for adoption. She also decided not to let Rip know about the pregnancy or adoption, so he only learns about Joey seven years later, after his release from prison. Since Rip didn’t know about Joey, he never gave his consent to the adoption. When Rip decides he wants Joey back from the Campbells, it turns out he has the law in his favor.
So the big question in this film is, what would you give up for your children? The Campbells don’t seem to have any legal means to keep Joey; should they explore illegal options? The Porters are in the right legally, but are they morally right to take Joey back?
104 minutes, 2009
Rating 8/10
Like Dandelion Dust pits two families against each other for the custody of Joey, a six-year-old boy they both claim as their own. The Porters are a troubled couple – in the film’s opening scenes we see a drunk Rip Porter being taken to jail for beating his wife Wendy. The Campbells couldn’t be more different – Jack and Molly have the big house, the sailing yacht and the happy family life. And they have Joey.
But the Porters are Joey’s biological parents. Wendy discovered she was pregnant soon after Rip’s arrest and imprisonment, and she decided to give Joey up for adoption. She also decided not to let Rip know about the pregnancy or adoption, so he only learns about Joey seven years later, after his release from prison. Since Rip didn’t know about Joey, he never gave his consent to the adoption. When Rip decides he wants Joey back from the Campbells, it turns out he has the law in his favor.
So the big question in this film is, what would you give up for your children? The Campbells don’t seem to have any legal means to keep Joey; should they explore illegal options? The Porters are in the right legally, but are they morally right to take Joey back?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)