Slashdot Mirror
End of Some Days, Beginning of Others
"The End of Days" is aptly titled: this sorry movie marks the end of Arnold Schwarzenegger's spectacular reign as America's Armageddon Action hero. It also reminds us that Hollywood will soon have to find some doomsday vehicle other than the Millennium.
This movie - awful in almost every conceivable way - is symbolic, if not perhaps in the way it intended. This era in Apocalyptic action movies seems over.
Schwarzenegger has been making end-of-the-world Millenial movies for years, although usually much more inventive ones that this. His films have always had similar plot lines: technology and humanity will collide, possibly to destroy the earth.
In "End of Days," Schwarzenegger plays a suicidal ex-cop up against an adversary that would put Batman to shame - Satan himself. The Evil One has been loosed upon the earth to fulfill ancient prophesies that if he can bed the right virgin at the Millenial hour, the gates of Hell will open so that he and his minions can ravage the earth.
"End of Days" pretends to be a movie about faith versus ultimate evil, about belief versus high-powered shotguns. It suggests that Schwarzenegger has undergone some sort of personal conversion, as the the movie strains mightily to make a personal statement, even down to its pumped-up star's assumption of the cruciform position.
EoD is filled with religious imagery, spiritual mumbo-jumbo and clunky metaphor - fallen priests and others get crucified, burned and butchered almost continuously.
Perhaps fittingly, Satan occupies the body of an investment banker (Gabriel Byrne) as a prelude to his cosmic sexual assault. Byrne is a bright, enthusiastically malignant spot in this dreary tale.
As you might expect, Satan is only nearly as tough as Schwarzenegger, and not nearly as willful. Satan can turn people and buildings into fire, blow up whole blocks with a glare, heal bullet wounds with a touch of his finger, alter fate and time. But he can't quite seem to get his hands on the girl or polish off a suicidal, alcoholic ex-cop or even slow him down much, despite nearly two hours of sometimes mystical, always loud and explosive trying.
The EoD battles rage back and forth across New York city streets and through miles of subway tunnels. Meanwhile, back at the Vatican, the Holy Father and his gloomy cardinals fuss and mumble platitudes and count down to the end of humanity, some trusting in Him, others in more practical solutions like guns and knives.
Around the world, the clerical forces of good are huddled in church basements clacking furiously away at their computer terminals, one of the movie's only original touches (only for the life of me, I can't imagine what they were browsing for).
One of the great blessings of the onrushing Millenium is that there can't be any more movies about Armageddon, since it will either have come or gone.
Or not.
Still, the end of the Schwarzenegger reign - the genre has never seemed more wornout, his stunts increasingly improbably and strained - is bittersweet. In this movie, which fittingly comes with the over-hyped Millenium literally as a backdrop, he seems to be renouncing his own cinematic past, declaring faith and family more powerful than guns and brawn. He seems to be saying that while it's hard to kill Satan off with guns and bombs, pure heart and absolute belief might do it.
It's a wholesome Hollywood message but seems to signal the end of his genre, not humanity's. Movies like "Terminator" were original, even striking in their mixing of dark themes - humans versus machines, technology out of control.
Bully for Arnold if he's found some faith in his life. Really. But he didn't need to share.
The irony in this holiday season is that an animated movie with no humans in it, strikes the more timely themes of humanity, loyalty and friendship, along with technological imagination.
"Toy Story 2"And speaking of imagination, "Toy Story 2" is a knockout. The animation would be unbelievable if it weren't so believable. The movie signals the arrival not just of a breakthrough in computer animation, but the use of computer graphic technologies as a whole new art form, one with amazing creative possibilities. The writing and story line are actually better than the first "Toy Story," a rare achievement for any sequel.
"Dogma""Dogma" is, at least for its first half, a hilariously conceived, funny and brazenly blasphemous poke at Catholic doctrine. That's rare anywhere in American life, let alone from a Hollywood studio (the movie also contains a brief but savage assault on the Disneyfication of American culture). Although the movie struggles over how to end, it's so original as to be shocking.
"Dogma's" weak point is that it's not quite sure whether it wants to be funny, or seeks to make some heavy and serious points about faith and doctrine. This dichotomous struggle shows, giving the movie an oddly-split personality.
"Being John Malkovich"This may be the loopiest premise for a movie in years. A starving geek puppeteer (played by John Cusack) finds himself unexpectedly inside John Malkovich's brain, which he accesses through a closet at work. The result is a hilarious, bizarre and also original journey, the likes of which you are not likely to see very often. This movie has a bit of the same problem as "Dogma": it's a wonderful notion, but the directors aren't entirely sure where to go with it, or how to wrap it up. Still, both are well worth seeing.
"The Insider"
This is one of the best treatments of corporatism and media you'll ever see. "The Insider" purports to tell the story of the squelching of tobacco industry insider Jeffrey Wigand's landmark testimony about nicotine and cigarettes by the supposedly tough and independent-minded newscast "60 Minutes." It's the more or less true story of how CBS producer Lowell Bergman got Wigand, the former head of research at the Brown & Williamson tobacco company to break his confidentiality agreement with the company and go on camera to talk about the biggest health care reform issue in American history.
Wigand's story - that the tobacco industry not only knew that nicotine was addictive, but enhanced the level of addictions in many tobacco products - was explosive. It contradicted the sworn testimony of numerous industry executives, including "The Seven Dwarfs", the tobacco company CEO's who swore before Congress that they didn't? believe nicotine was addictive. Wigand could prove otherwise.
The testimony was suppressed by CBS lawyers - with the acquiescence of timid "60 Minutes" executives - to protect the pending sale of the company to Westinghouse.
Beyond the story of Wigand and the country's most successful TV newsmagazine, "The Insider" is the story of what happens when big corporations take over media, as they've done to virtually all of mainstream American journalism, print and broadcast.
The result isn't pretty, and it's a timely tale for people who love free speech on the Net and Web, as those very same companies are pouring online like the amoral, rapacious and greedy herd that they are.
Apart from the issues it portrays, this is just a great movie. It's mostly a very moving story about what happens to ordinary people when they get caught up in extraordinary events. And it's beautifully shot by director Michael Mann.
"American Movie"This movie blew away the judges at the Sundance Film Festival, and for good reason. It's the documentary account of the profoundly geeky Mark Borchardt, a Milwaukee, Wisconsin cemetery groundskeeper and his obsession with making a retro-horror movie named "Coven" that defies simple discription. Mark's been working on this movie in one form or another his whole life.
His dedication to completing this movie, in the face of staggering familial, financial, aesthetic and emotional odds, is nonething less than heroic. This is an amazing movie, moving, bitterly funny and just plain inspiring.
Pretty mediocre; I've still yet to find anyone who particularly loved it. Typical Arnold Schwartzenegger movie with a theological twist. And twisted theology, at that. You'd be much better off trying to catch Gabriel Byrnes' other recent religion movie, Stigmata.
The writers of this movie appeared to have banked on Arnold's name, and not put an ounce of real creativity into the movie; the lunatic priest's name is "Thomas Aquinas". I mean, how lacking in creativity can one writing staff be?
Dogma
Sorry, John, it's only blasphemous if you let it be, and that's what that splinter-group Catholic faction has done. It's not the church as a whole, it's just a small group of people. You run into that with any denomination within the church, any church within the religion, any religion within the world. It was only blasphemous to those who don't want their beliefs to be challeged... really though, if you can't challenge your beliefs about something, you don't really believe.
In any case, this movie was excellent. Chris Rocke wasn't great, but he's a comedian, no one ever said he could act. Silent Bob's (Kevin Smith) rare one-liners were well-placed as always; the constantly-obscene Jay (Jason Mewes) gets the usual, hilarious exposure. Jason Lee was good as Azrael, but I think would have been better-suited for the role originally planned for him (Matt Damon's character, Loki).
Good discussions of faith issues, although I think they could have been longer. However, that would have bored most audiences these days. A lot of blood and guts, but it, like a lot of Smith's work, is intended, hyperbole.
In the end, a really good, really funny movie. No reason to be offended unless you take your faith so seriously (in that sense, I mean mood, not strength) that any criticism pushes your panic button... in which case, I suggest you cozy up with a Good Book.
Oh yeah. Yet Another Hicks Guy (YAHG?) shows up in this movie, too.
I'm sure, in minutes, there will be any number of posts alleging that the "end of days" plot line somehow invalidates Christianity. I'm sure that some people will even try to assert that, when January 1, 2000 comes, Christianity will finally be proved false. In fact, it seems that that is exactly what Jon Katz is trying to imply. This is untrue.
There are a whole range of opinions on how to interpret scripture regarding the apocalypse. Believe it or not, the "left behind" approach exemplified by "end of days" was not at all popular until about the middle of the nineteenth century. St. Augustine thought that Christ's second coming had /already happened/. For those of you who don't know, St. A was hardly a lightweight (although I tend to disagree with him on many things). I'm not saying that either one of these approaches is valid or correct: I honestly don't know. What I do know is that Jesus Himself said that noone would know when he was coming again (in the first chapter of Acts: look it up yourself) -- and I am skeptical of anyone who claims to be able to narrow the time frame at all through any means. And I know that I hope to be ready whenever Jesus comes. Tomorrow or 2000 years from now.
Anyway, the point is that Christian Doctrine is far more complex than Slashdot readers give it credit for. And often, what non-Christians see are only the most extreme examples of it. After all, the slow rise of society to Godliness over the course of millenia wouldn't make a very good movie, would it?
Martin Luther said that most people are like a drunken horseback rider: they fall off the horse to the left, only to get back on and fall back off the horse to the right. This is very true: people tend to gravitate towards extreme. However, in Christian doctrine correctness most often lies in balance between two seemingly contradictory statements. E.g. Jesus being fully God and being fully man. People, through hubris, try to wittle it down to something far easier to understand. And fall off the horse. Why shouldn't God be a paradox?
Finally, let me point out some things that I, as a serious, conservative Christian, don't believe:
- That there is anything wrong with drinking in moderation.
- That government-employee-led prayer in public schools should be allowed.
- That the the Ten Commandments should be posted in schools.
- That Christians should form Political Action Committees.
- That all Gay people are going to hell.
- Most anything you'll hear come out of the mouths of certain televangelists (these people are, for the most part, not very doctrinally accurate).
- Blue laws (I.e. stores closed on Sundays).
Many slashdot readers choose, like Katz, to confine their knowledge of Christianity to one extremist view (in his case the idea that some have that Jesus will come in y2k). And hence, they not only fall off the proverbial horse, but fall behind it, face down, and wonder how anyone could want to be involved in this horse when all they can see is it's rear end.*sigh* I'll take my flames now. And I really wish that Rob would try for a little more balance in the philosphies and world views he allows on slashdot.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Perhaps the best film out this year (and still playing in a few places to this day) is Run Lola Run - a German film by Tom Twyker starring Franka Potente. This is a brilliant film taking non-linear storytelling elements (like how possible outcomes and futures all tie in to a series of critical decisions).. combined with amazing cinematography and a soundtrack better than the Matrix or Pulp Fiction makes this easily my favorite film. I reccomend it to any person - geek or non geek for the sheer fantastical quality of a very realistic film. The heroine and her boyfriend do exactly was any person in a desperate situation would do - whatever is necessary. It comes out on DVD on the 21st, so if you can't be one of the lucky ones to see this amazing film on the screen, be sure to rent it. I personally have my fingers crossed that they win the Oscar for Best Foreign Film in March... if not something more.
I wouldn't call Dogma at all suspect -- in fact it's probably the most pro-faith movie I've ever seen. It doesn't Christian-bash at all, IMO. I saw it as a very serious (and funny) exploration of faith and religious dogma. It comes down on the side of God, but not on the side of the Church. I'm an atheist, and I've gone through much of the same process -- though I came up with a different answer, I find Smith's exploration fascinating. In short, ignore the people who haven't seen the movie and are merely objecting to questioning Catholicism (like the Catholic League) and see it for yourself.
Before I rant ;-) let me ask you a question...
Do you believe in electricity? In wind? These things have certain measurable effects on the world, but are not visible phenomena. I believe God is much like this.
There are three main evidences that I have seen for God.
1) Man's inherent moral nature
2) Prophicies fufilled
3) His action in my life
Mans moral nature:
C.S. Lewis, a Oxford Prof. or English literature found this to be one of the most convincing evidences for God. He wrote about our "God shaped hole" and how we react to many things in the visable world shows evidence for God. To explain his points well would take to long right now, if you are interested I can write a bit more, or read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. (if you are interested I'll even send you a copy, or your local library will have one.)
(here's a quote from a review on amazon.com:
A staunch agnostic, I read this in college and was floored by the imagery Lewis brings to faith. This book may not convert you, but it offers a view of the power of faith that few writers can create. Religion, in and of itself, is a concept absent of scientific validity because, at its core, is faith. If you are looking for a historical critique or a philosophical deconstruction of Christianity then don't bother becuase, and I will state again, you won't get it. The fact that some will claim the failings of this book are its "flowery postulates without a hint of evidence" show themselves to be living examples of certain characters in the world Lewis creates. It is his attempt to explain that which can not be contained by language that makes this book great. He does not write to prove, he writes to elucidate. It is as if you are reading a landscape painting.
As for the advice to the Atheists, yes, read this book. You might possibly grasp the concept of faith and realize that your "disbelief" is itself a faith, much like Lewis describes, and that your Atheism is a disbelief against the God that is defined and not the God that is.)
Also you might want to do some research on the Bible, find out how many copies we have, and from when.
You will find that we have copies of some of the "Old testament" books from at least a few hundred years before Christ, and every shread of evidence says that they have been around for a long time before that. (we have pieces of books and tablets and such from much before that) It seams that the bible was written by 40 different authors in 10 different countries over a period of 1500 years.
It contains 333 different prophicies about Jesus, with about 60 "major" prophicies. These prophecies included his lineage, his birthplace, his reception by his people, his betrayal and death in minute detail, and many other prophecies. The odds of just 8 of there prophecies coming true in one individual is approx. 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. The odds of all of them coming true is incredible.
Yet, we have records in the Bible of all of these, and no evidence to deny them, despite the fact that the major power of the time hated Christians (burning them alive, etc) and would have loved to be able to prove it wrong. Some of the fulfilment of these proficies are recorded in secular histories also, and by people who disliked Christians also.
There is an astounding amount of evidence for Christianity, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Josh McDowell, an once "anti-thiest" who went to Isreal to disprove the Bible once and for all, came back as one of Christianities loudest spokesmen.
The evidence he found was largely published in a two volume set, "Evidence that demands a verdict".
This is a good source of historical information to show that prophecy happened in the Bible, plus that the bible is historically accurate and evidence that Christ did what the Bible said he did.
Both of the above combined make a rather strong case for Christianity. There are pleanty more writers who I could point you to you make a strong case for Chirstianity, and you would do well to learn a bit about what the eveidence is before you default to no evidence. Research, then conclude, or you are at best a religious bigot, not the rational thinker you believe you are..
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.