Why I hate Christian movie reviews

Posted: July 3, 2021 by ng36b in catholic
Tags: , , , , , ,

I love movie critics. My YouTube subscriptions include a host of movie critics like Filmento and The Critical Drinker (the last of which is not appropriate for younger viewers), and its enjoyable to watch them expertly diagnose where a movie goes right and where it flops. Their reviews and criticism help me understand the different elements of a movie, what a character arc is and really unveil the “why” behind a movie just feeling right. It’s this learning that I’m using as I write my book (more on that later), and it helps me appreciate good camera work and music while I’m watching a movie.

Movie critics are a dime a dozen, and with the expansion of “wokeness” in the movie world, it is hard to get honest assessments on movies. Plus, everyone and their brother’s soy latte barista friend is trying to sneak in elements that advance the LGBTQ+, BLM and other causes, even when it doesn’t align with the movie. Nothing says “I hate you” to your movie watchers like subverting their franchises to preach about some woke nonsense.

Well, when you get preachy with LGBTQ stuff, guess what happens? Image from rottentomatoes.com

Knowing that, you would think I would welcome the reviews of Christian and Family based movie critics. These people would warn me to the dangers of watching a movie with my kids, so that I, as a parent, wouldn’t have to explain human sexuality the poor choices people make in life to my children at an early age. Well, you would think that, and you’d be wrong. To illustrate this point, I’m going to pick two movies, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, and compare their reception.

To set my credentials, I’ve watched both of these movies. I’m a huge Star Wars fan, and a decent Lord of the Rings fan. And, much to everyone’s shock, I’ve let my kids, including my two year old, watch both movies. But let’s imagine I’m none of these things, and I want to get an honest review that tells me not just whether the movie is good, but if its Christian or Family Friendly enough for my kids to watch.

Let’s start with Dove.org. Dove is a label I first saw on a DVD cover for Studio Ghibli. It approved of My Neighbor Totoro, but didn’t have a rating for one of the other Ghibli Studio works. My brother-in-law made the comment “Well, maybe we shouldn’t watch it,” to which I quickly scoffed and said “When did this Dove icon become the mark of the devil.” To give Dove its due, they’ve been around a while and have done some awesome work, like bringing a family friendly movie channel to the Ronald McDonald Houses. So, let’s see what they think of my two movies

What?

What is going on here? How does a movie based on a novel written by a devout Catholic not get the “coveted” Dove rating, yet a poorly written work with plenty of woke-ism to go around gets the nod? Let’s break it down.

Rise of Skywalker (RoS) has a long integrity bar, which when I highlight it says “due to fantasy violence.” OK, there is LOTS of fantasy violence in RoS, with plenty of blaster and lightsaber deaths. But why is that not in the violence section? Oh wait, it is, but it gets downgraded to a 2 instead of a 4. The Two Towers (TTT) has violence too, with plenty of orcs and men meeting their doom at the hands of the Nazgul, random swords or even flying rocks. Yet it gets a 4. Given that swarms of people are killed in each film, this seems a bit unfair.

Dove also seems to have a huge distaste for magic. If you’re a wizard casting spells, Dove.org will give you significant thumbs down. But “the force” is totally ok, because its not wizardry in the magical world that Dove.org raters work in. Also, the lesbian kiss in RoS…totally fine, called a “girl/girl” kiss to downplay it, despite the fact that Singapore, Dubai and others are requiring deletion before the movie shows in their countries.

It’s not just Dove with which I have a bone to pick. Looking at pluggedin.com, the TTT review says “But the often dreary onslaught here may be more than some families want to endure (this is not a film for children).,” yet the RoS review states “The violence, while largely bloodless, can feel more visceral and even grisly than it did in some earlier segments (though, admittedly, even the earliest allowed our heroes to spill the ropelike guts of a tauntaun in The Empire Strikes Back).” It seems like if you choose to show blood, like TTT does, then its over, but if you hack people up with a lightsaber, that’s totally OK.

After delving into these and other websites for too long now, I think I’ve come to three main conclusions. First, you should never trust composite ratings. Dove’s blanket “seal of approval” doesn’t mean anything. Some types of violence are OK, some are not. Remember that 2 vs 4 rating? A 4 rating on anything means you don’t get a Dove seal. I’m going to go out on a limb and say the Dove rater for RoS was a Star Wars fan, and wanted people to be able to take part in the movie, hence the weird classification.

Second, I’m really tired of this focus on magic. Every rating site I went to had this odd hangup on magic. If any character used magic, it was an automatic down vote. Take the Harry Potter series, which are well made movies set in a world where magic exists. Dove does NOT approve of these, and their hangup is all about magic. This point makes me wonder why. I simply explain to my kids that magic is fun in movies, but its not real. Is that really so hard to do? I can’t be the only father to do this. Sure, some kids grow up believing in stupid things like Slenderman and even acting on them. But these cases are rare. Most kids understand the difference between magic in the movies and the real world.

Which brings me to my third, and most important point. These ratings dumb us down and don’t challenge us to think. The Lord of the Rings movies are excellent movies that stay true to the book and challenge us to think about deep topics. Tolkien’s Catholic influence is very much alive in the work, but its not so over-the-top that you can’t apply it to a variety of world situations. The characters are real, have real struggles, and don’t always make the right decisions…kind of like real life. When these characters are challenged, they often have to dig deep within themselves to find the strength to fight great evil…kind of like real life. The last few Star Wars movies far pale in comparison, giving us Mary Sue characters that don’t have to struggle physically, mentally or morally, which makes them completely unrelatable to any real person.

Maybe that’s the real point. The raters at Dove, PluggedIn and others can best identify with Mary Sue characters like Rey and Captain Marvel, who don’t struggle or have to grow to overcome challenges. Maybe these raters have it all worked out, and its simply a matter of them telling us, poor uninformed Christians that we are, of what to watch. I could make several points here about how this talks down to people, or how similar this is to how the BLM or LGBTQ+~ people talk to normal human beings, but I won’t. I’ll leave you with some screen capture of Dove reviews and let you decide for yourself.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

Car Shopping today UPDATE: Right into the 495-I95 “Rise of the Moors” Mess.

Posted: July 3, 2021 by datechguy in Uncategorized

So blogging will have to wait

Update: On 495 on my way to check out a 2005 Buick LeSabre (Yes I know they haven’t made them since 2005 but I LIKE Buick LeSabres and will buy them when available) when I noted the traffic was much heavier on 495 then I expected on the way down and the northbound lanes were even worse on the why home. Here’s why (via Citizen Free Press)

I’ve never heard of their group, here is what Citizen Free Press had:

A group identifying as Rise of the Moors posted multiple videos since the initial police interaction.

Jamhal Talib Abdullah Bey is identified on the group’s website as the Moorish American Consular for the organization. His biography on the group’s website lists him as having served in the United States Marine Corps.

“We’re not anti-government, we’re not anti-police, we’re not sovereign citizens, we’re not Black-identity extremists,” he said during a livestreamed video posted to YouTube Saturday morning.

“Police seen us on the side of the road with our guns secured. We were afraid so we got out with our arms.”

Afraid and armed is usually a volatile combination, here is an ABC piece on the subject:

The incident unfolded around 1:30 a.m. when a state trooper came across a group of 8 to 10 people refueling on the side of the I-95 highway in Wakefield, a suburb of Boston. The group was dressed in military-style uniforms, carried tactical gear like body cameras and helmets and had long guns slung over their shoulders.

They told officials they were on their way to Maine from Rhode Island for “training,” Col. Christopher Mason said.

Officials said they made two initial arrests and the rest of the group, which calls itself “Moorish American Arms,” fled into a wooded area. As a result, a stretch of I-95 was closed and shelter-in-place orders were set for people who live nearby.

Police negotiators talked to those hiding in the woods throughout the early morning.

“We’re trying to successfully and peacefully resolve this,” Mason said early Saturday.

To my understanding no shots were fired, nobody was hurt and everyone involved had been pretty much minding their own business but that being said it’s the job of police to investigate the unusual and this certainly qualifies.

I have no idea what the arrests were for ( I presume violation of Massachusetts firearms laws which are rather tough) or how this will play out but it will be interesting to see how the national media play this.

Five Thoughts about The Chosen Under the Fedora

Posted: July 2, 2021 by datechguy in catholic, culture, entertainment

I’ve been watching the TV series “The Chosen” which incidentally is the only TV series I watch these days and have a few thoughts.

The latest episode is Episode seven, of season two and next to episode 2 of season 1 is likely the least biblical (that is the most dramatized) episode of the series. As we Catholics are not sola scripture this doesn’t offend me as much as it bothers some others but I found everything in the episode extremely plausible, particularly the idea that the local Roman authorities would have an interest in Christ when he’s drawing large crowds. The meeting between Jesus and Quintus is one of my favorite scenes in the entire series.

While some might disagree I as a daily Mass Catholic particularly like how Mary has been portrayed. She is very much humanized, which is important as is in fact human and did in fact live the life of a 1st century AD Jewish woman. What many likely do not catch is the idea that she would travel with the disciples makes a lot of sense as being a widow with no other children her son would be her only support and don’t think I didn’t notice that when Mary Magdalene fell and was afraid to face Jesus it was Mary the Mother of God who brought her in the tent and stood with her.

You don’t get more Catholic then that.

A lot of people apparently took issue with the fall and return of Mary Magdalene and it’s the one thing that the creator Dallas Jenkins really took issue with. He gives Jesus this classic line: “You thought you were never going to sin again?” As Father Z put it when talking about how to deal with a couple not married licitly:

Or course there may be times when they fail in their determination to live in continence and they have sexual relations.

What then?

Simple.  They go to confession and start over with a firm purpose of amendment.

That’s what we all do when we sin in any way.  We go to confession with a firm purpose of amendment and start over with God’s help.

Again this is very Catholic and is almost a dramatization of the first sacramental confession as there she was before Christ and receiving absolution

There is no release date for the season finale yet (at least not to my knowledge) but the thing I’m most waiting for is the introduction of Judas.

How they decide to play Judas is going to be I suspect the toughest thing they do because while John in his Gospel notes him as a thief he was still not just a disciple but an apostle in good standing right up until the last supper.

How he is portrayed and what kind of backstory they give him will be interesting. All the disciples have been humanized and in some ways sympathized but it will be very hard to do so with Judas when everyone knows what’s coming in the end. Furthermore in every scene that he’s in people will be looking for and seeing the signs of the betrayal.

Will we see Judas as the Betrayer from day one or Judas as the disciple who in the end doesn’t seek the forgiveness that Mary did in season two or that Simon Peter will have to in the final season?

That the big question mark for the remaining seasons to me.

The crowd funding for season three seems to be stuck at episode five, which is about a half million away from what they need to finish the season (They’re looking for 1.875 mill to cover all eight episodes). I suspect that it’s because this season we’re seeing more conflict both within and without and this might be turning off a few people. Still with an avg contribution of about $30 bucks a head the 1.3 mil they’ve raised isn’t chicken feed but it also means they need about 20K people to kick in to finish things off. While I recommend this show to others I’m holding off the cash spigot for two reasons:

  1. Money has been rather tight with DaWife’s illness this year
  2. I want to see what they do with John 6

It will be very interesting to see the conflict between a very devout Catholic actor who plays Jesus and a very Protestant team that’s writing and producing the series handles the bread of life discourses. Most biblical movies duck it. I don’t see how that’s done given the episodic nature of the series.

But what I think really hurts the fund raising are all the “chosen commentary” things on Youtube that are drawing potential “pay it forward” people away from the site and app that offers it free anyways.

Yes Joe Biden did threaten those of us who believe in the founding principles of the United States with military aircraft and nuclear weapons

Posted: July 1, 2021 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

On June 23rd Joe Biden made some extremely disturbing comments about the Second Ammendment.  They are captured in this official Whitehouse transcript: Remarks by President Biden and Attorney General Garland on Gun Crime Prevention Strategy

This particular part of the statement is very troubling because it demonstrates that Joe Biden operates under the delusion that the purpose of the Second Amendment is all about hunting.  That is a delusion that is shared by a majority of those on the political left.

For folks at home, here’s what you need to know: I’ve been at this a long time and there are things we know that work that reduce gun violence and violent crime, and things that we don’t know about. But things we know about: Background checks for purchasing a firearm are important; a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines — no one needs to have a weapon that can fire over 30, 40, 50, even up to 100 rounds unless you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests or something; community policing and programs that keep neighborhoods safe and keep folks out of trouble.

This next quote contains so many dangerous falsehoods about the Second Amendment that I will discuss each one separately.

And I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.
 
Those who say the blood of lib- — “the blood of patriots,” you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.
 
The point is that there has always been the ability to limit — rationally limit the type of weapon that can be owned and who can own it.

The statement about the Second Amendment limiting what kind of weapons we Americans can own is so egregious that even the liberal Washington Post Gives Biden Four Pinocchios for ‘False’ Cannon Claims

The Post also talked with University of Pennsylvania’s Kermit Roosevelt, who remarked, “I think what he’s saying here is that the Second Amendment was never understood to guarantee everyone the right to own all types of weapons, which I believe is true.”

However, Roosevelt noted that Biden’s statement “as phrased…sounds like the Second Amendment itself limited ownership, which is not true.”

The first half of the fact check demonstrates the bias of the Washington Post. Notice that the so called expert ends it with the phrase “which I believe is true” rather than any actual proof.  It was not until 1934 that the federal government began restricting what type of Americans can own, in direct violation of the Second Amendment.  This is chronicled in this Time Magazine article: Here’s a Timeline of the Major Gun Control Laws in America

1934 The first piece of national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) — part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime“— was meant to curtail “gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.”

1938  The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 required gun manufacturers, importers, and dealers to obtain a federal firearms license. It also defined a group of people, including convicted felons, who could not purchase guns, and mandated that gun sellers keep customer records. The FFA was repealed in 1968 by the Gun Control Act (GCA), though many of its provisions were reenacted by the GCA.

As I discussed in a previous article, the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to make sure we the people could deal with an abusive federal government, contrary the lunacy spouted by Joe Biden..  This quote from the House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution August 17, 1789 by Elbridge Gerry informs us that the Second Amendment was added specifically so the people could deal with the federal government if it became abusive to the rights of the people of the United States.  

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

It is abundantly clear from the transcripts of the drafting and ratification of the Second Amendment that the United States was never meant to have a standing army because standing armies proved to be a threat to the liberty of the people of any nation that had one.  Militias, which are meant to be made up of almost the entire population were meant to provide the defense of our local communities, States, and the United States.  Militias, made up of the people of the individual states were meant to be a barrier protecting the people of the United States from an abusive federal government.

When the Second Amendment was ratified all weapons held by the people of the United States were military weapons. The people of the United States, who make up the militia, were meant from the beginning to have the military type weapons.

The idea that the people of the United States would stand up against an abusive federal government is one of our most cherished and important founding principles.  Any president, including this illegitimate president, who would even contemplate using tanks, military aircraft, or nuclear weapons against Americans who are standing up for their rights should be impeached immediately.  Should any attempt be made by a president to use weapons of war on Americans simply standing up for their rights, that president’s legitimacy would immediately evaporate and the American people would rise up.  Most members of the American military would refuse such orders.

Older Entries
Newer Entries