josiahkwhite Reviews

Johnny (I) (2022)

I'm not a recovering Catholic, so I loved, loved, loved it.

[10/10 · 20 July 2023]

If you despise the Catholic Church, you might have difficulty with this movie. If you don't want to face the topic of dying, you also might want to skip this movie.

But I'm a recovering Protestant, so I'm a lot more likely to have problems with so-called "Christian" movies done by American Christian conservatives. In fact, as a Christian, I consider it a special treat when I find a good Christian movie which is NOT your typical movie made by conservative Protestants. This is one of those rare treats, and it's the best of them all.

I also love those ennobling movies where the hero of the movie lives a life where his actions are far more praiseworthy than the life of a typical Christian -- even when the movie isn't about Christians at all. For example, Schindler's List; can you possibly have a better hero than Oskar Schindler? This movie isn't a blockbuster movie like Schindler's List. No, this is more of a "little" movie. But it might actually be as good as Schindler's List. I also liked My Name is Khan, which is far less realistic than Johnny or Schindler's List. But in that movie, a Muslim acts as heroically as any Christian ought to act. And don't actions speak louder than words?

Actions certainly speak louder than words in this movie. While the real saint of the movie is Johnny, the movie's main protagonist is Patrick. By the end of the movie, you'll love them both. A lot.

LA 92 (2017)

Everyone needs to see it, but after watching it, you'll feel at least a little traumatized.

[9/10 · 1 March 2021]

The film was more balanced than I thought it would be. What the angriest blacks did was wrong, though they had every right to be angry. The film shows the horror of what they did: the looting was widespread, but it was minor compared with the burning of entire city blocks and the people beaten to death simply because they were white. Therefore, the few negative reviewers who claim that the movie was too positive to the blacks and too negative to the police are clearly delusional, because the movie certainly portrayed the black rioters in a very negative light.

Before seeing the movie, I knew about the riots, the crazy jury verdict, the videotaped beating of King, and King's speech urging us to get along. However, there was so much more, so much that I never knew. I never knew about the murder of Latasha Harlins by the Korean woman. I never knew that two white judges made crazy rulings that practically guaranteed that these riots would occur: 1) letting the Korean woman off in spite of the jury verdict, and 2) changing the venue of the King trial so that the jurors would all come from CopLand. The wrong that these two judges did was enormous, yet it's ignored, because the media rarely holds judges to account.

In fact, the movie is a little too "fair and balanced," in equating the wrong the blacks did to the wrong the white cops, judges, and juries did. Blacks have been subjected to over 400 years of racism and horrible injustice. Whites have committed unspeakable crimes against blacks, and have almost always gotten away with it. It is only when you see the movie against this backdrop of 400 years of racist history that the viewer can see the truth: all the bad things the blacks did in this movie, horrific as they were to the viewer, are virtually insignificant compared to all the horrors that black Americans have suffered over the years.

Black Halt (2017)

Good beginning, interesting ending, barely watchable in between.

[3/10 · 25 September 2019]

This might be a documentary. I'm not sure, as the movie is strange by any standards. It starts out with an animated history of humanity's use of energy through the ages. This was well done and easy to follow.

After that, a beach provides a nice visual backdrop to what seems to be almost a summary of a college-level course on the supply and demand of oil, and what happens to oil prices as a result. This includes a discussion of OPEC, the macroeconomics of India, and the fact that the world is running out of oil.

While global warming is mentioned once or twice at the end of the movie, the focus is much more on the economic disaster which will occur when the world runs out of oil.

At the end, the special effects are pretty cool, as Indian spirituality is introduced as part of the plot while the viewer takes a ride in space through the galaxy. However, the spirituality itself seemed contrived. For example, the movie posited that natural sciences and the science of the soul would be united and reconciled by the newly discovered science of spirituality.

Now I can imagine these kinds of spiritual insights happening in someone's dream. But do they resemble real spirituality in any way?

Anyway, this movie is also supposed to have a plot. You can read the plot summary on the main IMDB page. The character John, who's the source of most of these spiritual insights, is a major part of the plot in that plot summary. However, you'll see that the plot as I've described it doesn't much resemble the official plot written by the people who wrote the movie.

It kind of makes me wonder if anyone could watch the movie and discern the plot for themselves without reading the official plot summary.

It's certainly not a Bollywood movie, and so I suspect that it might be just as strange and hard to follow for an Indian audience as it was for me.

Kona fer í stríð (2018)

She's no Greta Thunberg, but at least her heart's in the right place.

[9/10 · 27 April 2019]

The film works well on an absurdist or symbolic level, but certainly not on a literal level. She's fighting the good fight against corporate pollution, but if this were reality rather than an absurdist film, she'd probably be hurting the environment, not helping it.

In reality, the treeless environments of the North, in places like Iceland and Scotland, were once covered with trees. Climate change might be prevented (a little) by replanting those ancient forests. But that might hurt the traditional shepherd culture in rural Iceland, so it isn't done. The film portrays these traditional shepherds as environmental heroes, while the aluminum plant is the villain.

In reality, the aluminum industry has always been desperate for cheap electricity, because it uses a lot of it. So if you're really trying to combat climate change, then where better to site such a plant than Iceland, where all the electrical power is generated without burning any fossil fuels at all? I'm not implying that the big aluminum plant is some kind of environmental hero, but at a literal level, the film's hero has got her environmentalism exactly backward, going after exactly the wrong target.

I'm not naïve about the fact that corporations in general are usually the worst villains in today's world. We liberals in the west might like to imagine that the democratic socialists in Scandinavian countries live in some kind of anti-corporate utopian paradise, but the film reminds us that our utopianism is naive. In reality, Iceland's leaders have recently been shown to be as corrupt as any Brazilian leaders, not just once but twice. First, during the recent bailout of the big banks, Iceland's leaders were implicated as having ruined Iceland's economy by investing in exactly the wrong American derivatives. Second, the more recent Panama Papers scandal showed us that Iceland's rulers are still up to their corrupt tricks. The film's got it exactly right when it characterizes the entire culture of Iceland's leaders (and probably the leaders of almost all countries) as "psychopathic." Today's American corporate culture can best be described as psychopathic, too, especially now that it seems bent on turning the entire planet into Hell on Earth.

I think the film's director is probably on the side of the most naïve, hippie-trippy, clueless environmentalists. One big clue is the film's reverence toward the New Age religion which characterizes that whole hippie-trippy culture. Anything big and corporate is by definition bad, and anything small and local (e.g., the shepherds) is by definition good. No more thinking is required.

Well, as the Swede Greta Thunberg points out, we need to fix global warming now, or we won't have a future to look forward to. If we need to fix all political and social problems (read: corporate capitalism) first, then it'll be too late and we're all doomed. Instead, we've got to force the system we've got now (corporate capitalism) into an environmentalist direction. And if we actually take the trouble to think, then it's pretty easy to see what we need to do as soon as possible. We've got to generate cheap, abundant electricity just like they do in Iceland, without using any fossil fuels. Then by switching our transportation and industry from fossil fuels to electricity, we might just have a green future to look forward to, even if our corporations remain as happy, profitable, and psychopathic as they are now. We've got to force our corporations to move in this direction. Psychopaths can't even be trusted to follow our direction, so they certainly can't be trusted to lead us into the promised land. Our leaders will kill us if we keep letting them lead.

Even if the politics of this film are squarely within the hippie-trippy environmentalist camp which seems incapable of rational thought, it'll certainly get you to think seriously about the issues which matter most today. Any film which leads to thoughtful discussion afterwards is a great film -- whether you agree with the film's politics or not. Another mark of a great film is whether a film is worth seeing twice. This one definitely is. I only hope that the Hollywood remake of this film is at least half as good as the Icelandic original. If it is, then maybe it will help create young American versions of Greta Thunberg. If enough Gretas take to the streets to lead our leaders, then maybe, just maybe, we can save the world.

The Magical World of Disney: Our Friend the Atom (1957) Season 3, Episode 14

Almost a Classic

[8/10 · 9 April 2019]

Sure, it's a propaganda film. But that doesn't make it any less a classic piece of art. Art is about form more than content. Two of the most classic films of all time -- Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will -- deserve a 10/10 rating for their form, but their content is worse than reprehensible.

Just as DW Griffith was embarrassed by the criticism he received for Birth of a Nation, Disney must have been similarly embarrassed at the reaction it received for Our Friend the Atom. A few years later, they produced an updated (and greatly shortened) version called The Atom: a Closer Look, where they point out some of the dangers of nuclear power that they omitted in their first film. Both Disney films can easily be found on the Internet for free, and are certainly worth a look.

As you can see from the reviews here, nuclear power is a controversial issue. In fact, it's such a controversial issue that it's much easier to find people who completely love it or people who completely hate it. Balanced views are few and far between -- the only balanced view I've seen is the short and informative Wikipedia article on background radiation.

I found out about the film via the anti-nuclear book "The Radioactive Boy Scout." The author mocks the movie as rah-rah propaganda, which isn't far from the truth. Still, nuclear power is becoming a more important issue than ever before, thanks to the impending catastrophe of climate change which we must quickly solve somehow. Therefore, it is important to consider all sides of the argument -- both pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear. You can't hope to learn the truth if you've only seen one side of the story.

Convinced (2015)

Most of Us Catholics Aren't This Bad

[6/10 · 8 April 2019]

The people in this movie are zealots. Please don't judge the majority of Catholics as being like these guys. We're just regular Christians like everybody else.

The movie was well made, and some of the people in the movie recount some really touching stories. Some people talked about their first experiences with prayer. Others talked about how atheism just wasn't working for them. Many of these stories are even quite sweet.

Unfortunately, the Church often makes the mistake of trying to convince people by telling a completely one-sided story -- even when it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that what you're hearing is more than a little biased. This movie is like that, only more so.

Most of us Catholics don't necessarily agree with the Church's teachings on everything. Most of us Catholics are well aware that our Church is far from perfect. Probably only 10% of the Church is made up of Catholic fundamentalists -- but unfortunately, that 10% is by far the most vocal about their beliefs -- to the point of being "in your face" about how you need to be just like they are.

"Convinced" certainly isn't a bad movie. Just bear in mind that you're not getting a picture of what the Church is really like. You're only hearing from the most vocal and preachy 10%. And that's more than a little sad. The rest of us have other reasons why we like, or even love, our Church -- like the way Catholics care for poor folks more than most Protestants do. If you believed the movie, you'd think that we love the Church because of Apostolic Succession, which is ridiculous.

Pandora's Promise (2013)

The only realistic solution to stopping global warming in time.

[9/10 · 6 April 2019]

My only criticism of Pandora's Promise is that it didn't stress global warming enough. Yes, it was implicit in the use of Stewart Brand and other environmentalists (who all believe global warming is a huge problem). However, it wasn't mentioned anywhere that climate change could make the planet entirely uninhabitable by the year 2100 -- or even much sooner than that.

Given the nature of the catastrophe staring all of us in the face, we must build nuclear reactors even if the Helen Caldicotts of the world are correct. If we build a thousand new power plants before 2100, and 5 of them suffer meltdowns as bad as Chernobyl, then we could be looking at 5 million deaths, if Caldicott is correct. But so what? If the construction of coal plants continues to accelerate, then we'll have 10 billion deaths by 2100, as almost all humans will die as the earth warms up by 10 degrees C.

Germany has tried to build more solar and wind farms recently. But because of a lack of power storage batteries and the intermittency of wind and solar, they've had to construct gas power plants -- so the net result is to make global warming worse, not better. Plus German electricity prices are roughly double what nuclear France's prices are.

In 50 years, we may have solved these problems of power storage and intermittency. In 50 years, the world may have successfully figured out how to completely rely on the greenest of renewables like sun, wind, tidal, hydro, etc. I hope that we do. But if we don't solve global warming now, the state of human research in 50 years will be irrelevant. We need something which will get us to the year 2100, and nuclear energy is the only technology we have which is practical to do the job.

One of your anti-nuclear reviewers referred the reader to the beyondnuclear.org's reviews of the film. Given the need to solve global warming now, only one of the points on their website is relevant:

"Nuclear power, no matter the reactor design, cannot address climate change in time. In order to displace a significant amount of carbon-emitting fossil-fuel generation, another 1,000 to 1,500 new 1,000+ Megawatt reactors would need to come on line worldwide by 2050, a completely prohibitive proposition."

Our nation developed a crash program to put a man on the moon within a decade of JFK's announcement. And we did it. Our nation developed a crash program called the Manhattan Project to build and test The Bomb before the war ended. Against all odds, we did it. So if we are willing to do what the French did, and build standardized-design nuclear reactors mostly in factories, there's no reason why we can't build one or two hundred reactors by 2025 -- just 6 years from now. But this will only happen if we make it our number one national priority, like Apollo and Manhattan were.

Copperhead (2013)

It's best if the Civil War is already an interest of yours.

[8/10 · 22 April 2017]

It's certainly not a movie I'd recommend if it's your first Civil War movie. Start with a crowd pleaser like Glory instead. The movie has a lot to say about war and peace, but it's hardly a good introduction to anti-war movies. Start with a winner like Hacksaw Ridge instead. This movie isn't in the same league with either of those great war movies.

About the only other valid criticisms you could make are: 1) The first 3/4 of the movie is a bit slow moving, and could have been more dramatic. 2) The quality of the sound was a bit lacking, which is unfortunate when the use of dialect already makes the words a bit hard to follow.

As other reviewers have said, it's great especially because it's different from most Civil War movies, showing the way a war can tear a country apart almost as much on the home front as it does on the battlefield.

But part of the reason I loved it so much is that I find myself in agreement with the film's disparaged "Copperhead." While slavery is unbelievably cruel and inhumane, ending slavery in 1865 just wasn't worth the terribly high cost in blood. Brazil was the last country where slavery was legal in the Western Hemisphere, and they ended it in 1888. So even if the Civil War had never been fought, slavery in the South would almost certainly have ended by then anyway. If America had split into two countries, why would this have been so wrong? This is a controversial point of view -- then and now -- but I was pleased to see it argued with such conviction in a very watchable movie.

Woodlawn (2015)

Civil rights history gets nearly overshadowed by all the preaching.

[6/10 · 28 March 2017]

My DVD contained "extras" that told us the real history of the events portrayed in the film. You can easily see the obnoxious Bible-Belt bias (done to appeal to the Bible-Belters who are the film's intended audience). Whenever this bias intrudes into the film, it makes me wonder how much more inspirational this film could have been, if these events had been handled by a truly great Christian director.

Evangelicals today seriously believe that they are a persecuted minority, which is why they've taken their kids out of the "secular humanist" public schools. To pander to this ridiculous belief, the film added token atheists to persecute the poor Christians -- but this is pure fiction, and never happened in Alabama back then. Why add something completely false and then lie by implying this is history?

This could have been more a film about civil rights, non-violent protests, and the tremendous emotions which were roiling the South (and the rest of the country) during that incendiary era. There are a ton of excellent films which have been made about this important historical period.

But if anything, this film deemphasizes the racial tension. Why? The film had a chance to try to reach a wider audience -- liberals for whom race is likely to be a huge issue. Instead, it panders to its conservative Christian base, and conservatives don't even think racism is a problem in America today.

Jesus was a huge part of what was happening back then. All the fans overflowing the stadium in the climactic game seemed to be there as much for what amounts to a Christian rally as for a great football game. This really happened in Alabama, and there's nothing wrong with giving the glory to Jesus because black and white players were able to come together for Him, and even rival teams were able to come together for Him.

Still, did the film really have to preach Jesus at its audience quite so incessantly? It's not like there are lots of Americans who need to hear such a message. We've all been "Jesused at" until we're about ready to vomit. No, when the message is so heavy-handed, it's likely to appeal only to those who are already Christian. Those who are "on the fence" are more likely to be turned off by all the preaching than turned on.

And that's really sad. Christianity has such an important message to deliver. But this film's preachiness won't even appeal to most Christians. No, it's a pretty good football movie, and well worth seeing for that reason alone. But it's appeal of "Come to Jesus" is only likely to find a sympathetic audience among those who are not only already Christians, but also Creationists, who think global warming is a hoax, and who think the "Left Behind" series is realistic.

Away from Here (2014)

Brave to the point of being a bit too far ahead of its time

[8/10 · 16 August 2016]

Politically, it's definitely controversial. That's perhaps the film's strongest point: that it'll get you thinking and talking about some important issues. It's not a bad little film at all.

It is a "little" film. It has some of the same themes as a true classic like American Beauty. It's no classic, though. On the other hand, it's not easily forgettable, like most little films are.

To avoid spoiling the movie, I'll try to create a good analogy. Imagine a father who gets "raped" in divorce court, losing custody of his children, even though he's a much better parent than his ex is. What if this father then kidnaps his kids, spirits them away to another state, and his kids get their pictures on "have you seen me?" milk cartons.

Then imagine that the father gets arrested and charged with kidnapping. Yet the movie goes out of its way to paint him as the good guy, the innocent victim. That kind of movie would certainly anger a lot of people, wouldn't it? Hillary supporters would sure hate it.

This movie isn't about divorce and custody rights. Instead, it's about an even more controversial theme, to the point where it's likely to anger Trump supporters as well. (The movie doesn't make conservative Christians look good at all.)

So consider yourself warned. I like controversial movies like this, especially those which are a little ahead of their time.

High Sierra: A Journey on the John Muir Trail (2011)

A realistic long backpacking trip high in the Sierras

[8/10 · 16 June 2016]

The film will probably be of more interest to backpackers, or to folks thinking seriously about backpacking. If you've done it, the film will rekindle enough good memories that it might inspire you to do it again.

If you haven't done it, it may seem a little boring. These are typical young men, not movie actors. There's no "story" to keep it interesting, other than the trip itself. And while the trip itself is plenty interesting for a hiker to actually do, does it provide enough interest for the casual viewer to watch just for entertainment?

The young and inexperienced hikers made a lot of mistakes. But so what? Even experienced backpackers have adventures (and sometimes misadventures) while pitting themselves against real challenges. The film isn't intended to set an example for how to do it right -- just as often, it's about how to do it wrong. But at least it's real.

This is not a blockbuster movie intended for big audiences, like a few of those about Everest have been. No, it's obviously shot on a cheap budget. But it's got one thing in common with those Himalayan flicks: absolutely spectacular views of John Muir's "Range of Light." So give it a try. You'll know in the first 5 or 10 minutes if you're going to like it or not.

A Lamp in the Dark: The Untold History of the Bible (2009)

A toxic anti-Catholic diatribe

[3/10 · 16 June 2016]

I can't believe I watched the whole 3 hours, but I did learn more about the dark side of my Church. Since I grew up Protestant, I already knew about the dark side of Protestantism -- which was never mentioned by this completely slanted film.

I certainly never knew about the evil side of the Jesuits. They're like the CIA of the Catholic Church. They're sworn to protect the Pope, and to convert everyone to Papal allegiance. But if a Pope dares to object to the Jesuits, his lifespan will be short. Scary stuff.

And here the director reveals his true colors. He calls the Jesuits assassins, spies, and even (horror of horrors) intellectuals. Anti-intellectualism is just one part of toxic Protestantism. You won't find Catholics denying evolution, global warming, and science itself -- not since the days of Galileo, anyway.

The production values of the movie are OK at best. Everything is so slanted, even the music, that it feels like you've just sat through 3 hours of something like "The Secret History of the Evil Masons." Yes, it really is that bad.

Much of the movie is probably true, even if it's hopelessly slanted, which is why I sat through it, and gave it 3 stars. It did have some redeeming qualities.

But there are some bits that are almost ridiculously false. The movie ended by implying that someday the Catholics want to come up with a new Bible that omits the book of Revelation. This is completely ridiculous, but certainly does pander to its Protestant audience. The nuttiest Protestants of all are the ones who are fixated on the book of Revelation, the rapture, the second coming, etc. Catholics find the whole Protestant idea of the rapture ridiculous. But Catholics would never consider omitting the wonderful Revelation of St. John.

The movie left a truly foul taste in my mouth, and seems more like a movie made in 1850 than one made recently. You'd never guess that both Catholics and Protestants have so much in common after watching this horror flick. Do you really think God cares which flavor of Christianity a believer prefers? According to Luke 11:28, what God cares most about is whether we hear the word of God and obey it. And since we all have so much trouble obeying God, why aren't we focused on that? Compared to following God's will, nothing else matters.

Our core beliefs are found in our creeds -- the Nicene and the Apostles' Creeds. And here both Catholics and Protestants are in complete agreement. Great Christians -- and lousy Christians -- are found in both churches. You'd certainly never know it after watching this film, though.

Out of the Blue (2003 TV Movie)

It's the opposite of "The War of the Worlds"

[9/10 · 8 June 2016]

They're peaceful, which is a good thing, because our weapons pose absolutely no threat to their superior technology. In fact, there's more than a little evidence that they don't much like humanity's warlike nature.

Before seeing this movie (twice), I'd have wondered if someone writing the above paragraph had his feet planted firmly on the ground. But now that the movie has opened my eyes, it seems a little silly to believe that we're alone in the universe.

It's a relatively dry documentary. But I give it 9 stars anyway, because 1) it's by far the best of a bad genre (you could do a lot worse), and 2) because it turned me from an agnostic on the subject into a believer.

It still didn't turn me into a "True Believer," meaning someone who thinks the whole subject is Really Important. It's not. But it certainly leaves the viewer speculating: why are they here, where do they come from, etc.

I guess the only real "spoiler" is that the movie explains how France and America have taken opposite approaches. The Good Ole USA is still locked into a 1950's mindset on the subject. Everything is top secret, because if the public ever learned the truth, they'd surely panic -- straight out of "The War of the Worlds." And anyone who doubts the official story is some kind of a nut.

France published an official report which was more like, "Well, of course they're out there. Of course they're visiting us." And it was published by the top scientists in France, backed by the top people in government, the military, and industry. And then the French equivalent of Time Magazine devoted an entire issue to the official report.

The movie certainly won't convince everyone, even though it definitely convinced me. So if you've got an even halfway open mind on the subject, give it try.

The Jesus Guy (2007)

A man who really lives his Christian faith

[9/10 · 26 April 2016]

I liked his conversations with Catholic Charismatics most of all. He obviously felt very comfortable talking about the Holy Spirit. He talked a lot about the practical details of "walking the walk" known as the Christian faith, including its inevitable pitfalls and difficulties (especially pride).

In other words, even though he's living a strange lifestyle that reminds me of some wandering Hindu holy man, he's just a normal Christian guy. He doesn't come across as some weirdo -- just as someone who takes his faith a little bit more seriously than most of us do. You'd expect him to seem a little intense, but actually he's rather mellow.

After seeing this movie, I'd certainly have no problem inviting him into our home. In fact, it would be an honor and a privilege.

Flywheel (2003)

For a Christian movie, it's surprisingly good

[9/10 · 18 April 2016]

If you turn your life over to God and do whatever He tells you to do, then your life will get much better. That's the moral of this cheaply-made little movie. In other words, it's really simple.

God then proceeds to work miracles, and the formerly sleazy used-car salesman has a miraculously new and wonderful life. The story is so dramatic precisely because the man's profession is one that is so notoriously sleazy. Maybe we'll see movies about how it's possible to be an honorable politician, or honest lawyer, or even a noble drug company executive.

In spite of those negative reviewers who say otherwise, God really does work miracles today, and the miracles God typically works in people's lives are precisely like the ones described in this little gem. In fact, that's what I loved most about the film. I've never seen "what God typically does in people's lives" described so accurately before. Getting saved from financial ruin at the last minute, having it "coincidentally" work out to the exact penny. Yep. That's something Christians see when God is truly at work in their lives.

But not always. Christians aren't usually willing to do whatever God tells them to do, and so are unlikely to get the blessings that accrue to those who truly surrender their lives. Plus a lot of "blessings" feel like anything but. Tragedy happens, and the lives of even fully surrendered Christians are likely to be more full of pain and suffering than the lives of non-believers are.

This movie doesn't make Christianity seem easy to practice. But it's even harder than the movie makes it out to be. However, the blessings are there for those who're truly willing to let God have His way with them.

Dad's in Heaven with Nixon (2010)

Lower your expectations, and then it might be OK

[5/10 · 18 April 2016]

Have you ever seen a family's home movies from the 1920's? You know, the kind they drag out of the dusty basement, and then you end up thinking it probably wasn't worth the bother? Well, if you go into this movie thinking expecting that kind of "moldy oldie" experience, then you won't be disappointed. Even though this documentary resembles those old home movies in many ways, it's not that bad. There are many ways in which it's quite a bit better.

For one thing, it's realistic enough and detailed enough to provoke interesting discussions from viewers afterward -- discussions about family, wealth, and making the most of life.

For another, it's about the life of an unusual artist. It's about a man who successfully overcomes the kinds of mental challenges which often lead to someone being institutionalized.

And the artist, who's more or less the focus of the movie, is a sweet, innocent, and positive person. And nobody else in the movie is bad, either. It's certainly not one of those movies where none of the characters are likable.

But it really is like sitting through some old family movies. We almost didn't finish watching it. If you make it to the halfway point, it does improve a little after that.

American Commune (2013)

This commune had true community

[9/10 · 14 April 2016]

There's enough original footage and recent commentary that you, the viewer, can draw your own conclusions about the Grand Experiment formally known as The Farm. It's all there. The Farm has always been known for it's blunt honesty, and the film is certainly honest enough (and unbiased enough) for the viewer to draw her own conclusions.

My mind focused mainly on the history and the economics of The Farm. And that part of the movie was fleshed out in enough detail to provide plenty of food for thought.

But how the movie spoke to my heart is more difficult to put into words. I visited The Farm when I was young, and it was indeed like visiting a foreign country. In fact, I've never visited a foreign country that seemed anywhere near as different as visiting The Farm did.

When my heart quietly reflects on the movie, I see the beauty of the land. The children walk to school through the forest, and are perfectly safe in doing so. In fact, they're perfectly safe, no matter where they go and what they do. How different from America!

Just looking at the people's faces as they're talking taught me so much. By comparison to the faces of most Americans, they're alive with emotion. They haven't had an upbringing which has beaten them down or broken them, or drained the life out of them.

Their upbringing was both impoverished and strict. The strict rules are well-intentioned, and generally derived from hippie culture. Because it was so strict, I was asking myself, "Was this a cult?" And I'd say no. Even though Stephen Gaskin was unquestionably the leader of The Farm, he was a very benign dictator. Not always right, but always concerned for what was best for the community, rather than what was best for himself.

Francis of Brooklyn (2012)

A big message for such a little movie

[9/10 · 4 April 2016]

What would happen if we were to take our Christianity seriously, and really walk the walk (not just talk the talk)? That's the question this movie seeks to answer.

It's a low-budget flick, and certainly doesn't have the polish of most movies. But it kind of makes up for this with interesting views of New York City.

The movie doesn't actually try to be offensive. But perhaps it's not for fans of most Christian movies, who are likely to be easily offended. It's more than a little "gritty," but maybe the life of the original St. Francis was more than a little gritty, too.

Occasionally the film is light-hearted and funny. Even so, it has an unforgettable message to impart. This movie is likely to stay with me for a long time. Now I can much more easily imagine what might happen if I were to live the gospel, to take the words of Jesus as literally as possible. So I'm intensely grateful that I saw this charming "little" movie.

The God Who Wasn't There (2005)

Higher Ground is so much better

[4/10 · 28 January 2016]

How can this awful movie possibly get a higher IMDb rating than Higher Ground? Higher Ground also came from a recovering fundamentalist, but treated her religious experiences with great insight and sensitivity. Compared to that movie, this one is embarrassing.

I give it 4 stars because it was at least very thought-provoking. It's very interesting because it doesn't just debunk Christian theology. Instead, it actually goes so far as to come up with an "atheist theology" which is even easier to debunk.

I mean, seriously: Jesus didn't exist because many parts of his life are also found in the lives of contemporary gods like Dionysus? Dionysus and countless others are also depicted as having had a virgin birth, a resurrection, etc. Therefore, Jesus was no more real that Dionysus and the others? Seriously? There's a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation. Imagine God saying the following to himself, before sending his son to earth: They already have a model or a prototype that they expect their little gods to follow, even though these gods are completely mythical. So I'll blow them away even more if I more-or-less follow that model, but make it all true: really heal the sick, really resurrect dead people, etc. But again and again, this director ignores the possibility of reasonable explanations, and never proves his assertions like, "Therefore, Jesus is no more real than any of these other mythical gods were."

And why attack Mel Gibson's Passion movie for being so violent? Was his point that Christians should be criticized because they actually liked this portrayal of their Christ? Perhaps the world is simply, on occasion, a very violent place. It's like criticizing patriotic Americans because they like the violence of Saving Private Ryan. I didn't like the violence of WW2, but the reality of what our troops suffered on Omaha Beach made me respect their heroism more, not less.

While I'm no fan of any kind of fundamentalism, this movie made it clear that atheist fundamentalism can be equally as obnoxious as the religious kind is. Many atheists are actually very nice people who believe religion is at best a crutch used to help and comfort those too weak to stand on their own. They would never go around kicking the crutches of people recovering from broken legs. But the obnoxious tone of this whole movie is nothing more than "kicking the crutch" out from under Christians who need their faith to get through life.

See Higher Ground instead. That was so well done. This movie did nothing but ridicule, and instead ended up making itself ridiculous.

Wild Tales (2014)

Shockingly Original

[10/10 · 27 October 2015]

What a movie! I compared it to Tarentino's Pulp Fiction, and it made Tarentino seem less like a classic and more like a comic book. I compared it to Carnage by Polanski, and even though I'd thought of Carnage as stunning, Wild Tales was a lot more stunning.

While the short opening story set the scene perfectly for the rest, it was far more than an appetizer. Instead, Wild Tales is more like a movie marathon, a six-course dinner.

I loved the last tale best, even though it was one of the least violent. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Other reviewers disliked it because the woman's violent tornado of emotions was illogical or crazy. But I've never seen a tornado of emotion better rendered as plot in my life. What is raw and wounded on the inside becomes an open wound of a wedding ceremony. The only thing I can compare it to is a few stories of angry Goddesses from Greek or Roman mythology. The raw pain inside of her creates pictures that will remain with me forever.

And that is why I love Wild Tales so much. I usually forget most movies fairly quickly. But not these stories. I want more from this director.