Pajiba

It makes me sad that Stringer Bell moved on from The Wire to dreck like this. I mean, Hilary Swank - I like her and all, but she was in the Next Karate Kid, so her pedigree is already a little tarnished.

Anyway, as much of a pagan baby as I am, I'm still disappointed that no one seems to be able to make a GOOD religious movie. The history is ripe with ideas, but it falls flat every damn time.

Oh, go on, spoil it for me. That way I won't be tempted to spend the money on what I knew weeks ago would be a shittacular movie just to satisfy my curiousity.

What is most amazing to me is that Hillary Swank a two- (count 'em) two-time Oscar winner (in fact, she had two Oscars before Scorcese had one, think about that for a second...) can't get better movies. I know actors like to work and all, but can't she get better scripts? Who is her agent and why is that person letting her do shizzle like this? Halle Berry, too. Her latest has her sexin' it up with Bruce Willis to solve her friend's murder? Damn. Maybe I need to move out to Hollywood and become an agent. I can't do worse than whoever represents Halle and Hillary. Seriously, they should sue whoever it is for malpractice.

Well, she is a high-school dropout.

Phillip - Good call on pointing out that Hollywood can't seem to make a "serious" movie without insulting (a) religious people, (b) scientific people, or (c) rural or Southern U.S. people. CONGRATULATIONS to "The Reaping" for hitting all three at once!! It's a trifecta!!!!!

And although you didn't reveal the ending, I do thank you for revealing that the true cause was NOT religious. This was a movie I had already decided to NOT see, but I was still pretty curious how they were going to work in the 10 plagues angle. In the biblical story, god sends the 10 plagues because the Egyptian pharoah wouldn't let Moses and his people leave Egypt, so what was going to be the justification for the 10 plagues today?? Does Louisiana have some type of no-emigration policy that the rest of the world doesn't know about?

TK & renee - I totally agree with your frustration with the inability of Hollywood to make any good religious flicks. There's a LOT of potential material in the original myths and stories. Alternatively, the movie could have been one of those ambiguous movies where the events COULD have a scientific explanation but not a very good one so the case for miracles can't be completely dismissed either.

But no. Instead, we get crap.

But... *sputter*... it's got Stringer Bell in it! I loved Stringer Bell! (Idris Elba, terrific name, too) So I was sort-of hoping it would be at least good enough to Netflix. However, it seems like Hilary Swank (whom I still haven't forgiven for that "Black Dahlia" piece of crap) is taking roles that Sandra Bullock is too busy having a life for. And I have an answer for the above question as to why a two-time Oscar winner would choose such bad scripts, when surely she gets sent good ones: SHE CAN'T READ. No, I don't really mean she literally can't read, just that she's too stupid to know good scripts from bad ones. Same with Halle Berry, for damned sure. I'll bet neither of those two ever read a book after junior high. Let's face it -- most of these so-called actors never even finished high school, let alone went to college. It always amuses me at these award shows when most of these pretentious a-holes can't even stumble through their cue-cards with any sort of proper inflection or timing. And their "thank-you" speeches are always like something a 14-year old might giggle and gasp through (that goes for you, too, Meryl Streep). I think most film celebrities are all about bone structure, skin tone, and proportion (HUGE heads, little tiny bodies). Most of them, when you see them in person, look like freaks. I'm not kidding. And they are dumb, dumb, dumb.

I've never understood Hillary Swank's choices of movies. She's cute and charismatic and a pleasure to watch - hell, I remember seeing "The Next Karate Kid" *in theaters* (I was bored and in East Tennessee... believe me, it was the most intellectual activity on offer that Friday night), and thinking that she was the movie's only real saving grace. And she *can* act, a talent I've never attributed to Halle Berry (as much as I like the woman).

I dunno. There is a fair point to be made about the lack of good roles for women, but then, some good, talented actors are just utterly undiscriminating about their roles. Any charge that could be leveled against Hillary on this point can be made doubly against Ben Kingsley, among others. But you know, the more I think of it, the more I have to wonder, are there any female stars who *can* act - other than maybe Nicole Kidman - who do manage to consistently stay out of trashy crap? (shrug)

Hilary Swank is great at playing two types of characters: Blue Collar and Lesbian Blue Collar. What Julia Roberts is to the "must get married" romantic comedies, what Doris Day was to musical sex comedies, Hilary Swank is to the "poor ignorant white trash try to better themselves"genre. She won as Oscar for playing virtually the same character in "Boys Don't Cry" as in "Million Dollar Baby" (and the same character in "The Karate Kid" if you think about it). For better or for worse, she's found what works for her and when she tries to break out it usually falls flat. I bet she looked at this script and thought, "Rural South? Check... Ignorant, tormented characters? Check.... Bad accents? Check... Remotely competent writing?....Well, three out of four ain't bad." Yes, she signed on to the trainwreck, but it probably looked too good, too familiar, too comfortable to pass up. As we say in the South, "Bless her heart."

So, since the cause of the plagues was not God...then the answer to the question asked by the posters is "God hath wrought nothing"?

Landon:

Unfortunately, Nicole Kidmas does some crappy movies too. "Stepford Wives" was AWFUL, and for that reason alone, I refused to see "Bewitched" either.

The thing is, even if a movie like this sucks, and you walk out of the theatre going, "Wow that was awful," if it's the LEAST bit entertaining while you're watching, then maybe it works in some strange way? Or maybe my standards are just really, really low.

"In a perfect world, actors who are serious would only do wonderful movies everyone respects, no matter how small the budget or the pay, and would do theater to perfect their craft. Maybe that's just not possible ALL the time."

Uhm.
I don't know why you think theatre acting would perfect 'the craft'. I think that's a pretense a lot of actors go for because they think theatre actors have a longer tradition and more respect.
But theatre acting and film acting are two very different animals.
Plus, I hate it when people call acting 'the craft'.

I like her and all, but she was in the Next Karate Kid,

Yes, because all real talent springs fully formed from the head of the Oscar statue.

Zardoz, anyone?

Wow, sounds like a movie I would hate with all the force of my God-loving, science-studying self.

She won as Oscar for playing virtually the same character in "Boys Don't Cry" as in "Million Dollar Baby" (and the same character in "The Karate Kid" if you think about it).

OK, maybe I'm missing something here, as I haven't seen Million Dollar Baby. I thought she was a female boxer in MDB. I didn't realize she was a man trapped in a woman's body letting others think she's a man?

Look, I agree about Annette Benning clearly being the stronger actress. I agree that Hilary continues to take crappy, WTF roles. I even agree that Halle Berry isn't much of an actress (although strangely enough, I thought she was decent early on - thinking of Losing Isaiah and it seemed to go downhill). But Hilary is hardly the first Oscar winner to do crappy movies post-win. Getting an Academy Award is equivalent to sealing your doom, IMO. It's pretty rare that I've seen a well-known Oscar winner, particularly women, continue to do decent flicks afterwards. I don't know if they stop caring or what (maybe it's a "I've obtained the so-called highest honor in my field, there's nothing left" element), but it appears to be a trend.

Add to it that women don't exactly have it easy in Hollywood, with regard to juicy roles, and the problem is compounded.

Hilary should have never left The Chad.

Am I the only one who saw the trailer for this and thought it looked like Seventh Sign 2: Electric Boogaloo?

The Stew: WHAT!?!?!!?!!! THAT WAS THE ENDING?!!?!?!!!! Oh, fuck that!

Daphne: I think they meant that in all three movies Hilary played the down-and-out attention-starved outcast, whether by being the new person (NKK), confused about their gender identity (BDC), or entering a traditionally masculine world (MDB). The only thing her characters need is that ONE PERSON who will make everything better, put their life in focus, tell them they are good or pretty or kickass, etc.

And if you think about it, Freedom Writers falls into that string as well! Replace the ONE PERSON with some delinquents, and there you go!

The "post-Oscar suckfest": I must say, I can only come up with a few names where Oscar winners continued to make good movies afterwards. Maybe the problem is the sense of achomplishment. Or maybe it is what we here at Pajiba and others have realized:

the Oscars don't mean shit.

They really don't. When you put your heart and soul into a flick, striving for that golden statue, it still won't get your film out of the 6-million-dollar box office basement while movies like Road Hogs and Norbit make money hand over fist. And really, we have known the Oscars were rigged for a long ass time. So even if a movie or an actor truly deserved one, chances are good they won't get it unless there is a lot of public pressure (LotR is a prime example). So these big winners, they realized this and said "Fuck it. I need some dough. Where's that fat suit?" At least Michael Caine will admit that he does his crappy movies for shits and giggles half the time, and I love him for it.

The "crappy religous movie": In a word, Amen. No wonder people think Hollywood is a godless wasteland of sin and vice (besides, you know, the actual sin and vice). We can make kickass movies about Greek/Roman mythohistory (a neat little word I came up with for those times when separating the historical fact from the mythology is really difficult and/or boring) like 300, but we can't find a way to do it for anyone else, not just Christians? I mean, come on!

If they do go through with that Paradise Lost movie, there may be some hope.

Good (American) religious movie--at least in the minds of many many many film buffs--is The Exorcist. I personally love it because it's as good a drama (Karras' crisis of faith) as it is a Christo-horror.

Yea, but it still doth walk through the valley of "exception that proves the rule." Amen.

(I also love The Omen. Can't help it. Leave me alone--it's solid, compared to most of the rest of the dreck.)

Don't forget that the scripts or ideas originally pitched to actors don't often make it to screen unmolested. After the heavy feet of studio executives, rewriters, script doctors, producers, executive producers, directors and actors (not to mention the editors) are finished treading all over an original screenplay, the end result can often bear no resemblance to the original. For all you know, The Reaping could have started out as a biopic of Cyrus McCormick, the guy who invented the the McCormick Reaper.

Ari,

DeMille liked filming "Biblical" epics because he could work in T&A and not get in trouble with the the Code folks. That's why the Golden Calf episode is so pivotal to DeMille's film--that's where the dancin' girls are.

My argument for The Exorcist is that it at least takes Catholicism seriously, treats it as something that has power and weight. Many religious thrillers fail for just the reason you stated--they treat their subject irreverently. The religious elements are simply props, ookum-spookum to give a lame story "weight." As a Christian, I have no problem with thrilling movies being made using the materials of my faith. I just want those materials to be well-handled.

Dogma btw, hews very closely to much Roman Catholic lore. Some of the ridiculous effect comes from Kevin Smith (a practicing Catholic) taking that teaching to its logical conclusion in extreme situations. He also works questions of Biblical scholarship into his story, rather than just throwing it in as exposition. I thought Dogma took religion seriously in a way few other films have done.

Ari, it's okay. You don't have to apologize so much. You were expressing your feelings about the subject in a thoughtful, coherent manner, which is much more than some can manage here.

As far as your problem with religious films, well, what can I say? apocalipstick is right about Dogma, in that is does take the religion (Catholicism) quite seriously compared to most, but shows the inherent problem of doing so. He tries to make it okay to both laugh at your religion and wonder about your faith. I can't say I understand your using The Exorcist as an example (I honestly don't remember any pro-Catholic messages, just that the characters apparently were Catholic), but I can see you point about apparent disregard for people of faith. But I don't take it personally or anything. I realize that there are those who assume that all people of faith are crazy, deluded, uneducated, or worse because of a few people with their screws loose. But I am secure enough in my personal beliefs that it doesn't bother me. They can say whatever the hell they want, but it doesn't make their words more valid than mine.

Your question about the 'mythology' the movies seem to take on: you would be surprised how much of Christianity, in general and in its myriad forms, stems from such misinterpretations. A lot of constantly held beliefs are either contradicted or not found in the Bible, but tacked on by self-declared religious leaders. That is pretty much why there are so many different branches of Christianity now. So this 'mythology' is pretty much a hodgepodge of half-understood concepts and marketing, like most Hollywood projects.

As far as Pajiba's attitude towards Christianity, well, what did you think they were gonna feel about it? I hate it when it is used as an excuse, but it is apt here: this is a site made by bitchy people. It figures they would bitch about religion as well. And it just so happens the dominant religion in the media is Christianity. Who else are they gonna pick on, Buddhists?

As far as your question about what kind of religious film someone would like, I have to say I would like one that, first and foremost, is based on something besides Jesus or the Apocalypse. Apparently those two are the only subjects in Christianity as a whole that are worth filming. I want to see something different, not necessarily Christian-based either. While I am a Christian, I do see the Bible as literature, and would love for a filmmaker to treat it as such. Instead of using their movies to proselytize, they could just make a film about a great story. No shoving it down audience throats, no guilt trips, no tacked-on overwrought feel-good moments, no manipulation. If the stories by themselves were good enough for 6,000+ years, then they should be good enough on their own now. The same goes for other mythohistory stories. The Ramayana would be awesome to see on the big screen. And can a brother get a decent live-action "Journey to the West" movie?

By the way, THIS is rambling.

I should probably point out that I was responding to what I perceived to be a call for "good religious _horror_ movies," not religious films in general. I'm sure if we hunted and gathered, we could come up with better examples of non-horror "religious" films than my beloved Exorcist.

And for what it's worth, Vermillion, I always found The Exorcist to be anything but anti-Catholic. Maybe there aren't any overt "pro-Catholic" messages, either--as you say--but I never got the sense it was disparaging the believers. After all, their faith is what saves them and what returns the world to its norm; Karras' return to faith and martyrdom are positioned as beautiful solutions. And the faithful mother, daughter (with her rosary at the end) and priests are all presented as lovely people (when not inhabited by the fell Pazuzu, of course).

Pazuzu...Pajiba--URK!!!!

I don't have enough learnin' to really speak about religious messages, or films with religious themes (I think the last movie I saw that had gods in it was Clash of the Titans).

However, I will say that many actresses serve up some incredible performances early in their careers, only to succumb to the perceived glamour of Hollywood, and it's as if they don't want to look "ugly" in movies (this is not the same as actresses who make themselves literally unattractive because they think it makes their acting better. Charlize Theron is one of only few who successfully pulled this off).
I'm reminded of Nicole Kidman in Dead Calm- excellent acting and she looked human. Now? She has a scary mask of a face, and seems to have lost her humanity for the sake of being a star, instead of an actress.
On the other hand, Halle Berry was initially more famous for being beautiful than being a good actress, yet she turned in some great performances in Monster's Ball and in Introducing Dorothy Dandridge where she played flawed and imperfect characters with some measure of humanity and authenticity (not perfect, but pretty good). She still makes Gothika and similar crap, though- but we all gots bills to pay.
I read a good article in the Boston Globe a couple years ago about why America (at the time) was loving Matt Damon and hating on Ben Affleck and it described the fundamental differences between being a star and being an actor, and how we percieve those who choose one or the other.
I think a lot of actors/actresses start out wanting to make good movies and to be good actors, but for some reason or another, stardom overtakes the acting, and that's where the career suckfest starts.

I think you could be right about that link, Ari.

Are you guys looking for films that actually retell Bible stories, or just any old drama that centres on Xian beliefs/takes Xian beliefs for granted (without being scary-preachy weirdness like the "Left Behind" series?)

RE Hillary's choice of movies: I was just wondering why a two-time Oscar winner (and recent wins, not 20-years-ago wins) doesn't have more pull in getting decent scripts. I mean, if this movie sucks as hard as the review says it does (and I'm sure it does), surely you can tell that from the script. A crappy idea is a crappy idea. So how come Hillary can't say, "Sure, I'll do your movie if you get someone in here to rewrite it so it doesn't stink so much." Surely two Oscars gives you enough power in Hollywood (even for a chick) to get that done. And of course, winning an Oscar doesn't guarantee you won't do any more crappy movies, but I can't believe Hillary can't do better than "The Reaping." When even the title sucks that bad, how good can the movie be? That's all I'm saying. What's the point of having the PR that an Oscar is supposed to confer if you don't use it get better roles? It has been done. I guess it's especially disappointing to see chicks sorta jack up a post-Oscar career because women have (compared to men) relatively fewer opportunities to create better roles for themselves. So you do some crap movies to finance the good ones. No problemo. Personally, I think Hillary Swank is one of the better actresses out there, I hate to see her waste her time with crap when she doesn't have to.

"Are you guys looking for films that actually retell Bible stories, or just any old drama that centres on Xian beliefs/takes Xian beliefs for granted (without being scary-preachy weirdness like the "Left Behind" series?)
Posted by: Ranylt at April 9, 2007 6:17 PM"

I'm going to echo apocalipstick as my answer.

I don't need anything blatantly Christian. It's the same with my music. I avoid so-called Christian bands because to me, Christianity is more than buzzwords and constant chatter about "God in my life" and "Oh how I love Jesus". Those things are, to me, the Thomas Kinkaid brand of Christianity (let's see how many times I can malign him here).

Oh, and apocalipstick, I thought what you related about the woman in your class was very interesting, and I couldn't agree with you more-- what a terrible place to end a story! Just because you 'find Jesus' doesn't mean life suddenly becomes a Thomas Kinkaid (heaven forbid it ever could) (2) painting. God only promised one couple a rose garden and they boffed it so badly they ruined it for the rest of us. Life's tough. before and after you find religion.
And that's what I want out of a religious movie, whether they echo Christian values, biblical themes, or retell Biblical stories. Life's tough. It's meant to be. There's bad and good. "To descend from bright heaven to earth, whereon there are shadows because there are hills"-- that's life, to me.
And isn't that life for most people?
However, I think I strayed well away from the original question, which related more to movies made about Bible stories, not just movies with biblical themes. Apocalypstick makes another good point about the story of David. His life as a whole could make for a brilliant movie. His adultery, while not creating a permanent breach between him and God, was never fully repaired, and his descendants paid the consequences of his actions. Ultimately, kind of a bittersweet ending-- and those are fairly popular currently.
Well all this has been a very long-winded way to say-- I want my movies, whether they are tellings of Biblical stories or movies with Christian or Biblical themes-- to be handled with the respect and understanding needed for their complexities. I don't want people of faith automatically disrespected or made absurd. Because ultimately, these stories are about human beings.

Incidentally, off the top of my head I can think of two excellent 'Buddhist' movies. "Spring Summer Winter Fall Spring" and "Kundun". They both treat Buddhism with respect and understanding, neither making it appear trite, or overly mystical.
Apocalypstic, Ranylt, and Vermillion-- you three have all been amazing to communicate with about this. Very interesing!

Ranylt,

Yeah, King David failed the first standard--it wasn't very good as a movie. :)

Another thing I want out of my 'biblical movies'--

for them not to have Richard Gere in them. :D

Oh lord, I've come into this thread way too late to make any kind of serious contribution (I have long comment induced posting-fright apparently) because pretty much everything I would want to say Re: movies not being able to commit to the supernatural side and insisting on throwing up the "is it spookay or is she insane?" making them much, much, much worse and harder to take seriously has already been said.

Much more articulately than that too.

I did however just want to pop my head in to state that the idea of wanting to punch a movie in the face has been an emotional need that I've never been able to properly vocalise and has caused me massive amounts of frustration in the past. Thankyou pajiba (and Phillip) for taking me one step further away from a stomach ulcer.