The Da Vinci Code

Okay, let me state right off the bat, without question, I haven’t read the book, and didn’t know that much about the movie until seeing it. I actually went to the movie, as a Christian, with an open agenda. I just wanted to see the movie and take what I got from it home. Truth is, if it hadn’t been for my association with Hollywood Jesus, I would have never seen it except for the interest I had after reading, seeing, and hearing about the Christian protests. More editorial comment will follow.

Most everyone reading this likely knows the story of The Da Vinci Code. Based in large on the book by the same title written by Dan Brown the movie directed by Ron Howard and staring Tom Hanks centers around a murder that takes place in French Louvre. Harvard symbologist, Robert Langdon, played by Hanks, is called in to investigate a murder. While investigating the murder, alongside French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu, played by Audrey Tautou, Langdon and Neveu become involved more than they could have imagined. What follows is a series of events that details to some limited degree, Christianity, and at its core, beliefs regarding the person of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The belief presented in the movie is that they later married, had children, and that the Catholic Church in particular has worked at hiding the truth for almost two thousand years.

Most everyone knows about the debate and the attack on the movie by many in Christian circles. Many know the story because they have either seen the movie or read the book. It is for that reason I won’t delve much into the story. What I will give are my opinions about the movie technically and from a pure story perspective, and then some editorial comments.

Truth is I just didn’t think this was a good movie. The character development was rather thin, and the script itself had enough loop holes to keep some interest, but interest primarily from trying to figure out what was going on. I can’t help but say this, but I kept thinking about what all the hoopla was about. The theories or beliefs regarding Jesus marriage to Mary Magdalene was nothing new, some of those beliefs had been around for a long time, it is just that they weren’t getting the popular press because they didn’t have a movie presenting them. I found the plot thin, and while at times entertaining, difficult to follow. There were times the movie must have tried to shorten the contextual concepts of the book. Again, I don’t know, I haven’t read the book, but that is what it appeared.

Regarding the acting; I wasn’t impressed with any of the cast with the exception of Ian McKellen who plays the part of Sir Leigh Teabing and Paul Bettany who plays the part of Silas. I know that one of the issues many have with the movie is the character of Silas, but truth is, this character was one of the only characters in the movie that interested me. Bettany played the part so well, that frankly without his character the movie would have been a total waste of time for me. Fortunately his character kept me in the story well enough to not get too bored.

The primary characters had something to be desired in my opinion. I am a fan of Hanks, but I must say that this is one of my least favorite characters he has ever played. The character of Langdon must have taken little effort from Hanks as there is little that is required. I would hope in the book the character has more detail and interest than this, otherwise I would have no interest in ever reading it. As much as it pains me, the same can be said for virtually every other character in the movie; I wasn’t drawn to them and was not impressed with any “outstanding” performances with the exception of the two mentioned above.

Now for some of my editorial comment; I can’t believe many within Christendom has made this movie out to be what it is. It is purely a work of fiction, and one, that truth be told, would not have done half of the numbers at the box office it did without the Christian protests. Now I don’t have firm evidence of that, but I can’t help but believe many are seeing it because of the hoopla. I am sure that deep down inside, the film makers are grateful for all of the free publicity the Christian community gave this film.

The second editorial comment; If I hear one more time about how the Christian community is disappointed in little Opie Taylor I think I am going to puke! Ron Howard, and Tom Hanks have in the past, and I am confident will again in the future, told wonderful stories with a talent given by God. That being said, I have no indication they are Christians or adhere to Christian Theology, maybe they do, I just don’t know. What I do know, and what I do believe, is that if Christians would start loving people who don’t believe like us instead of expecting them to act like us, then maybe, just maybe, they/we could be more effective in who we reach. We talk about a personal God yet somehow believe God don’t care for people like Ron Howard or Tom Hanks because they made a movie we don’t like. Personally, that offends me, and I believe offends the integrity of God. God does not change his love based upon what movies someone might or might not make. It is probably time Christians stop expecting non Christians to act like them and start loving them. I can think of no better example of the need to do this than the Christian response to movies, and in particular, as an example, this movie. In our quick rush to judgment, we have likely promoted and helped the very thing we disagree with.

I’ll close with that and let the debate begin. I didn’t go into this movie expecting my faith to be challenged, and sure enough, it wasn’t. I went in to see what I thought was a popular work of fiction, in fact driven in part by the protests, and what I found instead was what I consider to be a lackluster movie and effort by those involved. Was it horrible? No but it wasn’t great either. I would have actually rather passed on this one or at the very least waited until the release of the DVD but I didn’t exercise that option. My problem, but it doesn’t have to be yours.

On a scale of 1-10, a slightly lower than okay rating of a 4

An American Haunting

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—5. Posters (Horror Movies)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads

Growing up in Johnson City, Tennessee, I was rooted in the Americana storytelling tradition: Jonesboro, Tennessee’s oldest town and neighbor to Johnson City, is the home of the International Storytelling Festival. So I had heard the stories of the Bell Witch for years and was excited to hear about An American Haunting and its excellent cast.

You would think that the talented ensemble, including Donald Sutherland, Sissy Spacek, and Rachel Hurd-Wood, would be enough to scare the hell out of people. And that the story, rooted in history, would have enough for the director to put together a contemporary masterpiece. Well, I've learned one thing over the years attending movies and that's not to think too much.

Or talk too much. At my particular theater, the audience was mostly kids between the 6th and 8th grade who talked through the entire movie. To the theater's credit, the ushers ended up escorting 9 of them out. Unfortunately, they didn't remove the ones sitting directly behind me.

As for the movie itself, it was a huge letdown. The horror scenes resembled The Exorcist more than a ghost story. The actors did all they could with what they had, but somewhere on the cutting room floor is a great story the viewer doesn't get to see.

Instead, An American Haunting tells The Bell Witch Story with a series of flashbacks from the early 1800’s that looks at the event from the family's view. I won’t go into much of the story, other than to say that the family apparently had a curse placed on them by a witch. According to some, it was the only case in American history that a death was caused by a ghost. But the event took place in the early 1800’s and the facts of what really happened are not well documented. The writers could have visited Jonesboro and heard this story, and others from the mountains of Tennessee, told better by some of America's greatest storytellers. Instead, they give us a hodgepodge of sequences that make little sense and a movie that's as inconclusive as any I've seen all year.

As bad as the movie is, there are ample questions about evil and good to make discussing it worthwhile. When John Bell cheats a woman by charging her too much interest on a loan, a violation of church guidelines at the time, the woman places a curse on him and his family. The resulting hauntings mostly target his daughter; there are some scary sequences here that play on the terror component of the spiritual realm and illustrate how paramount the challenge between good and evil is in the story.

As the family tries to exorcise their ghosts, the movies shows the challenge of evil and recognizes the power of Jesus to overcome evil. Evil's source is clearly portrayed as Hell, as coming from Satan and his ongoing conflict with God. The Bell family just gets caught in that battle.

Though the family enlists help in exorcising the ghosts, they would have done better to enlist someone other than the skeptical school teacher and drunken church leader. No one fighting the ghosts seems to have any sense, including the Bell family. Though aware of the ongoing attacks on their daughter, they do nothing at first to stop the attacks. They let their daughter stay in her room alone where most of the attacks occur. Not until later do they attempt to leave the property. This family, if they loved their daughter as portrayed in the movie, sure had a strange way of showing it.

Don’t get me wrong, there were times I was scared from the psychological terror surrounding this supernatural battle, but I recommend waiting to see this movie until its DVD release. Who knows, maybe all of those things left on the cutting room floor will go back into place to make a movie worth watching. But unless that happens, this just isn’t a movie I can recommend. Visit the web sites on the Bell Witch, read the story, listen to some of the stories, but stay away from the movie. On a scale of 1-10 I give it a very disappointing 3, and that despite a cast of great actors.

— Overview

United 93

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—5. Posters (Airplanes)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads

United 93 is not a great movie, it's a brilliant movie for a variety of reasons.

There are many who are using this film for political propaganda, and to be honest, that just pisses me off. For those who say it shows a pro war perspective obviously haven’t seen it. It does not praise or justify the war, if anything, it shows how unprepared the United States was for such an attack. It directly comments on the White House's preparation for such an attack, as well as the availability and response from the Pentagon, FAA, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney.

United 93 is more like a docudrama than a theatrical film. I found it ironic that the person selling me the tickets to the movie said, “Enjoy the movie." I knew going in that United 93 was not a movie I was going to enjoy.

I especially appreciated the choices made in filming United 93. Most of the conversation in the movie is documented and adds to the realism of the events on September 11. Not using popular actors made the events more realistic. It was also filmed in real time with 10-15 of the real people behind the scenes during the actual events playing themselves. All of these choices added authenticity to the film.

United 93 is not a pro war movie; nowhere was I moved to the point where I thought, “Yeah, we need to be in Iraq.” It does not present everyone on board United Flight 93 as a hero; some of the passengers are against trying to take the plane back. It does not show all Middle Easterners as terrorists. And the terrorists as depicted are very human: they love their families, are deeply devoted to their spiritual beliefs, and seek to bring about what is right in their own minds.

United 93 shows things the way they occurred based on the knowledge available when making the film. With the number of phone conversations and the tapes from the Air Traffic Control centers of both civilian and military airports, there was more information available than many realized. It is also a movie that the families of those involved wanted released. I left the movie better understanding the situations and events of that day. I had more of an appreciation of those killed and those behind the scenes fighting diligently to save them.

See the movie before you criticize it. No political group should try to capitalize on the events that took place on United 93 or on any other aspect of 9/11. This movie illustrated that point for me. While many did not start out trying to be heroes, they became heroes nonetheless. It doesn’t matter if they weren’t trying to be heroes or were simply trying to save their own lives, their actions were heroic, thus, they were heroes. They weren’t the only heroes of that day, though. Air traffic controllers tried to get control of the situation. People in positions of authority recognized breakdowns in upper levels of the political system and sought to change those systems. Others did the simple things like say a prayer or come to the aid of someone in need.

United 93 reminded me of the diversity of faith, the paths where those faiths conflict, and the hope of resolving some of those paths. I was impressed by the deep faith of all involved, both Christian and Muslim. It made me question what got us to this point and why there are such deep-rooted differences. I asked myself why it is that no matter what faith one may have the same three little words carry such a deep impact. An impact that brings about emotion that runs as deep as an Oak trees roots. Those three little words? "I love you."







— Overview