Friday, December 07, 2007

Four Witnesses (2002)

Four Witnesses is a great, great book! Period. I read all 340 pages in less than two days. For a "non-reader" like myself, that's saying something.

As a Catholic, I have often wondered how the church got where it is today. What were the catalysts for certain beliefs, traditions and rituals? And how close is it now to what the original Apostles instituted?

The Roman Catholic church is an apostolic church, meaning it is based solely on the teachings and examples of the Apostles. But, some 2000 years later, how do we know what the Apostles truly meant? Since the Luther schism, reinterpretations of what it means to be a Christian has generated numerous versions and denominations of the faith.

So, how can we know the Apostle's intent? And under what historical context were such decisions decided... decisions which helped form the Catholic church today?

It's wise and logical to turn to the immediate followers of the Apostles to get a glimpse into how the Apostles intended the faith to be lived and grown. After all, these followers would pattern their lives after the Apostles and these Apostles would have been the first to have converted a belief in Jesus Christ into a day-to-day existence.

Four Witnesses examines the lives and the writings of the early church fathers who were either followers of the Apostles or the Apostles' apprentices: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons.

The author, Rod Bennett, was surprised to find that these early days of the church formation were well documented... over 1000 pages are available for reading and study. Pages written in the first 100 years or so after the resurrection of Christ. And he has taken that information and consolidated it, along with his own personal journey of faith, into a format easily digestible to today's reader.

A couple of broad-stroke differences culturally that both helped define the creation and growth of the church are the Mentor/Apprentice structure of the society and the importance of oral tradition at the time.

In Christ's day, one learned a craft or skill or knowledge from a master. There were no vocational schools or grand university system available at the time. The validity of the apprentice was based almost solely on the validity of the master. Jesus learned to be a carpenter from his father, Joseph. If Jesus were to say "I'm a carpenter," the first question to follow was "who was your master?" "Joseph." If they liked Joseph's work, they trusted Jesus' carpenter skills.

So, when the Apostles set forth in their ministry, their master was Jesus. And as their ministries grew, the Apostles took on apprentices to pass along all that they knew and how to live as this new thing called a "Christian." By analyzing the writings and rituals used by these apprentices, you can immediately understand what they were handed down from their masters, the Apostles.

Secondly, oral tradition was critical. Most people couldn't read or write, so having the written word did not reach the majority of the Christian church at that time. Tradition and how to live as a Christian was passed on using a "listen to what I say and do what I do" philosophy.

I was amazed to find out that the majority of what we call the Catholic Mass and Catholic Church had already been instituted before most of the New Testament had even been written!

Also critical to the Church at the time was the importance of following and obeying your spiritual "masters." Peter was the greatest of the Apostles. Everyone agreed on this. But, to avoid heresy, churches had to completely submit to the skill and knowledge of the Apostle's apprentices, meaning the bishops, priests and deacons. Heresy always started when the lineage, the direct line back to the Apostles, was broken.

The same occurs today.

The book is so rich and full of wonderful information that I could write about it for hours. But, some of the highlights that surprised me were that the first catechesis of the Christian faith (called the Didache), written between 60 and 90 A.D., tells Christians how to live their faith and includes "do not kill a fetus by abortion." That means such a belief must have come from the Apostles themselves. By 200 A.D. the church stated "we acknowledge that life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul begins at conception. Life begins when the soul begins."

So, if you wonder why the Catholic church is so adamantly against abortion, you can rest assured its because the men who walked with Jesus Christ himself believed it to be murder.

The second amazing aspect of the early church is that it was attacked, via heresy, immediately upon Jesus' resurrection. I'm sure Satan felt the best time to kill the faith is in its infancy. The leader of the heretical movement, which later became known as the Gnosticism, was led by Simon the Magician (or Simon Magus). How confusing it must have been for pagans to hear similar, but very different versions of Christianity from two men called Simon. And how effectively evil of Satan to devise such a simple attack.

For the next 500 years, the church would fight various forms of Gnosticism, which basically believed that Jesus was never human, only a ghost or spirit. This means his suffering is invalidated. Which means his sacrifice for sins is invalidated. Which leads to undermining the true need for salvation from sin and avoiding a sinful life. Which leads to a whole lot of un-Christian behavior. But the message preached by both Simons sounded a lot alike.

The thing that separated Simon Peter from Simon Magus is the same thing that caused Simon Peter to deny Christ three times... people recognized him as a follower of Christ. They saw him with Jesus. They understood him to be the apprentice to Jesus, his master.

That's just the tip of of the iceberg. There is so much more in this book. I could write a hundred more paragraphs... but then, that would be plagiarism.

Find this book. Get it, read it, love it. It's an amazing, enlightening experience!

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Next (2007)

Imagine, if you will, that you were born with the ability to see two minutes into your future. Not "the" future, only "your" future. What would you do with it? How would you keep a talent like that hidden? How would you hide in plain sight?

In the film Next, starring Nicholas Cage, Jessica Biel and Julianne Moore, Cage plays Chris Johnson, the man with the gift who hides by performing as a magician in Vegas.

He's fallen for teacher Liz Cooper (Biel) while trying to avoid FBI Agent Farris (Moore), who is looking for Johnson in order to help her stop a nuke from going off in California.

Next is a good ol' fashioned popcorn movie that asks the viewer to enjoy the ride.... and it's a pretty fun ride. The story unfolds quickly and believably, considering you buy into the entire concept to begin with.

Cage's ability to portray the everyman, even though he's far from it, continues to amaze me. It doesn't matter if he's a down and out two-bit criminal (Raising Arizona) or geeky historian stealing the Declaration of Independence (National Treasure) or a man with the ability to see two minutes into his future... Cage is able to make you think you could be him. That's a gift few actors in history have been able to pull off.

Biel continues to rise up the Hollywood food chain. I've liked her since 7th Heaven. I remember seeing the show for the first time and when she came onto the screen, immediately asking my wife "who's that?" "Jessica something..." my wife responded. "She's got the look," I replied. "What look?" my wife asked. "Movie star look."

My wife didn't believe me. But, alas, here we are... what can I say. I'm brilliant.

Anyway, her work in The Illusionist was wonderful and she continues to command greater roles and more screen time with every film. She's a real natural beauty and, I hope, will someday rise to the level of a true A-list star. It must be frustrating for her... having been in so many projects that have not quite reached their full potential. But she has some nice, real acting moments in Next, which is hard to do in a film such as this. She'll have to fight the likes of Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johannsen for the juiciest roles available for actresses in her age range.

The ever-talented Moore, however, seems miscast as the tough-as-nails FBI agent. Her "tough guy" lines just don't ring true. I wanted to like her... I've liked her in so many films, including Children of Men, but in Next... well, I hope she doesn't play another tough gal.

The pacing and direction of Next, helmed by Lee Tamahori, are well done. The special effects, however, were surprisingly weak at times. Seemed like old technology was being used or something. Odd to sacrifice there on a movie that relies so heavily on it. Or maybe they just hired the wrong company. They spent $70 million bucks on this movie. The SFX look like they spent $20 million.

All that being said, however, Next is a fun movie ride. If you can accept the premise and just enjoy the story, you can forgive the rest.

Plus, the ending is very, very cool.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003)

I don't just watch movies. Sure, I watch a lot of movies, but I also read books. The latest book I've finished is called A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong.

The book is chalk full of biblical references to the traditions and tenets of the Catholic faith, including faith and works, purgatory and so on.

Armstrong does a good job of showing both Old and New Testament connections to the subject matter... not an easy job. The book itself is a very good reference piece, but not an easy read. It makes consistent and repeated examples from various books in the bible that validate various Catholic beliefs, but it is little more than that. It lacks a personal story to make it enticing, however it doesn't lessen its overall effectiveness when it comes to fulfilling the title of the book.

I would strongly recommend this book for those of you looking for biblical connections to certain Catholic beliefs. If you want to simply scan quoted bible references or, instead, use each chapter to propel you into deeper study, the book will provide you the directions to such a journey.

Apocalypto (2006)

Using the influx of heavenly cash stored from The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson used his new found clout and freedom to make another film with an ancient language to tell the tale of the dead Mayan culture.

The story follows a young father, Jaguar Paw, who is captured along with the bulk of his tribe, all intended to be a human sacrifices in one of the large Mayan cities. Paw manages an escape and for the last half of the film, the chase is on.

Gibson does a wonderful job introducing us into a society we've never known, quickly making us care about the people by using universal connection points... humor, family, parental love, communal interactions. When the idyllic, simple tribal life is accosted and Jaguar Paw is bound and lead to the city, we are exposed to a dying civilization, full of intense superstition and waste.


Production value for the film is entirely on the screen. And, I will say this about Gibson... he likes showing violence for what it is... grotesque. Some people call Gibson a violence-lover because his films are relentless in their graphic nature, but I think Gibson is just the opposite. In a world dulled by years of "movie violence" and "video game violence" Gibson shows real violence and the real outcomes of such violence, whether that be decapitations, gougings or blood squirting from the veins. For Gibson, violence should be uncomfortable, and he makes it that way.

Gibson also works in Christian spiritual themes as well. Jaguar Paw's father tells him "be not afraid" or fear will overwhelm you. He shows the sharing of burden, similar to Simon helping Christ carry the cross, and self-sacrifice. There are nice, weighty messages interspersed between the blood-letting and head-chopping.


In its entirety, Apocalypto is a satisfying film with some inventive plot points and obstacles. Not as powerful as Passion... but then again what is... Apocalypto, along with Braveheart, shows he knows how to direct action sequences. I just can't wait for him to direct a movie that actually takes place today.

Apocalypto is not for everyone, but it is quality cinema.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

New Sonlight Pictures Logo

After a couple of tries, this weekend I came up with a new Sonlight Pictures logo...

Monday, December 03, 2007

King Solomon's Mines (1985)

Cannon Film Group was a company in the 80's that made films that sounded vaguely familiar or in the same genre as another hit you think you've seen. Knock-offs. Riding coat tail on the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Cannon acquired the rights to shoot King Solomon's Mines, starring Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone.

Mines is not a good film... and it knows it. It knows it can't compete against Raiders... what can? So, Mines doesn't try to and never takes itself too seriously. And that's where I find its charm.

The story follows Chamberlain as adventurer Allan Quartermain who is hired by the cute and dim Jesse Huston (Stone) to find her father. Her father was on the trail to find the legendary King Solomon's Mines and was kidnapped by a Turkish brutal leader (Raiders alum John Rhys-Davies) and a pre-WWII German commander (Herbert Lom).

Quartermain and Huston stay one step ahead of the baddies, hustling on trains and planes and automobiles, through angry tribes and as the main course for a large cannibal contingent. Eventually they find the mines and try to acquire a massive diamond, jewel and gold cache before the world literally comes crumbling down around them.

The production value for a Cannon film is pretty impressive, considering it's a Cannon film. The cast, sans Stone, are all very solid in this light-hearted take on the material. Director J. Lee Thompson, known for The Guns of Navarone, helmed the project and the soundtrack, by Jerry Goldsmith, is far better than the film deserves. The massive amounts of extras and set pieces shows Cannon was putting all of their money into this flick trying to turn it into some sort of franchise.

While shooting Mines, they also shoot the sequel, Allan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold.

Well, apparently, the franchise idea didn't turn out too well. And the money quickly dried up. Some of the effects in Mines are pretty cheesy. The effects in Gold are outright amateurish. Embarrasingly so.

Gold is an outright horrendous film with Chamberlain and Stone returning as well as James Earl Jones cashing a paycheck as some tribal guide. Gold is as bad compared to Mines as Mines is in comparison to Raiders.

But, I have a special affinity for Mines. Why? I don't really know. Shouldn't I know better? Yes. But Chamberlain really looks like he's having fun in what can only be called a modern day B-Movie.

It's silly and doesn't care.

Is it a great movie? Hec no. Is it a good movie? Depends on what mood you're in. But I liked it.

I'm weird that way.