Reviews

I'm only going to comment on one short part of the film. One of the biggest hurdles in Christian storytelling and film making is how to avoid the classic "Deux Ex Machina" scenario. In Greek plays, if the writers came up against a plot problem they couldn't solve, a god (like Zeus or Athena or whoever) was lowered in on a platform, gave a whack-whack here and a whack-whack there, and all of the character's problems went away. Christian writers are horribly guilty of using this plot device. However, how do we write about genuine miracles without looking like lazy writers? Any Christ follower can tell you that miracles do happen, at crazy-ridiculous perfect moments, that would put any lazy writer to shame. "Naw, there's no way that could have happened!!! You're making that up!" The Kendricks' came up with a *fantastic* answer-to-prayer scenario that looked *nothing* like Deus Ex Machina, when Javier was looking for a job, and was "miraculously" hired by a guy who (legitimately, set-up earlier in the story) thought he was someone else. It turned out to be a great source of comic relief later on as well. If only more writers would take cues from this, and make good art that doesn't rely on Deus Ex Machina techniques, then we would be much more successful at making art which accurately reflects the Christian life, and glorifies the Father.

I've been a huge fan of Teddy Newton since I saw his amazing collages on the "Incredibles" special features. I'm a mixed-media/collage artist myself, and I wanted to hang his art on my wall with spotlights and background music. :) He's incredibly talented, and I'm thrilled that he got to direct a short.

The concept and the characters were absolutely precious. However, do we HAVE to have another movie/cartoon/kids show about the virtues of tolerance and understanding? I can't keep PBS Kids on the TV without my kids being spoon-fed "tolerance" in 100 different ways. It's apparently one of the highest virtues possible, other than caring for the environment. /sarc.

Plus, a lesson on the evils of preconceived notions just feels like cheesy story-telling. I remember on the commentary for "One Man Band," the directors said (in essence), "We thought about having the two work together at the end, but we found out that working together just isn't very *funny.*" If story is built on conflict, and yet your story tries to teach us that conflict could be avoided with just a little more understanding, it stops being a story! It starts being a sermon. (Side note: The reason why I hate Christian movies is because they're 99% sermons, and sacrifice story on the altar of persuasion. I really hope Pixar doesn't take that route in the secular world.) I hope Teddy Newton directs again soon. I love his work. I just don't like being preached at.

This is only the **second** Christian movie that I would ever recommend to friends, and buy the DVD. (The first was "The Second Chance", directed by Steve Taylor, starring Michael W. Smith.) "Fireproof" is a wonderful example of *how far* Christian movies have come. Both Christian and non-Christian characters are shown as flawed people, the dialogue was (mostly) believable and well-paced, and the script was awesome.

Best of all--everyone's problems didn't magically go away when people got saved. Most Christian movies are choked with a "deus ex machina" that shows life being all sunshine and roses after a simple sinner's prayer. This element, more than any other, is what makes Christian movies unbelievable and unpalatable in the eyes of believers and unbelievers alike. Fireproof gave the main character plenty of room for growth *after* he accepted Christ, then made us wonder if he ever would reach his goal of restoring his marriage.

We can overlook the obvious product placement for Chic-fil-A, since they probably gave a hefty grant to fund the movie. :) What I can't overlook is the way that the characters talked about Christianity. The "Christian-ese" of this movie was ladled on like thick gravy, and it was hard to get at the yummy story underneath. When Caleb and his dad were talking about salvation, they tossed around phrases like "significance" that most people just don't use in casual conversation. There's no need to dress up basic human needs in fancy words. However, most Christian *ministers* have this problem, so it's not restricted to these film makers. We as a body of artists need to find words that communicate salvation in common, every-day language. (Just like the apostles did, using Koine Greek!) All in all, I'm thankful this movie was made, and I'm thankful for the blessing it's been in the lives and marriages of the people that watched it.

Looking over this movie piece by piece, anyone could say it was excellent.

The acting was phenomenal. Heath Ledger deserves every accolade that's heaped on him by fans and reviewers alike.

The dialogue was sharp, relevant, and paced well.

The action was mind-boggling, but not so over-the-top that you were taken out of the story. That is an excellent, and incredibly difficult, balance to achieve.

The directing and camera work was outstanding.

The music was great.

Even the makeup and costuming deserves a nod, especially for the fascinating re-design of the classic "Joker" look. And I loved the new batsuit. (Nestor Carbonell was wearing eyeliner--was that a shout-out to LOST fans? :) ) All-in-all, it was a superbly *crafted* piece of art.

****But I will never, ever watch it again. Why?*****

Well, let's put the shoe on a different foot and see how it fits. What if the story of "Lord of the Rings" was told this way? What if, after their long, arduous journey, Sam decides that *he* wants the ring, kills Gollum to get it, then Frodo has to throw Sam into the pit of Mount Doom to destroy the ring...but destroying the ring doesn't really rid Middle Earth of Sauron, and Frodo spends the rest of his (short) life in disgrace, and dies of a broken heart? What would we say after we left the theater? "Why the hell did I just sit through that movie? What was the point?"

Or what if Harry Potter was told this way? After 7 books and 17 years, what if it ended with Hermione being tortured to death, Ron blaming Harry and becoming a Death-Eater, Harry refusing to kill Voldemort out of respect for all living things, and the entire wizarding world blaming Harry for Hermione's death? What would we say after putting down book 7? "Why the hell did I just read all those books? What was the point?"

The Dark Knight's over-arching theme was, "You either die the hero, or live long enough to watch yourself become the villain." The story that this movie tells is simply this: no matter how hard you try to fight evil, evil will take everything from you, and the world will be no better off for your sacrifice. If you stand against evil, here's what you'll get. Maniacs with no motives, misguided moralists, or simply "blind chance" will take the people you love, break your body, destroy your mind, and leave you with nothing in return. And as the Joker unflinchingly tells Batman, insanity is just a little "push" away.

Oh, great.

Does it surprise anyone that Heath Ledger had anxiety attacks and insomnia after immersing himself in this script?

The creators of this movie used an immense amount of story-telling talent to create a film that tears hope away from the soul. Why? What's the point? What a waste of time, creativity, and resources! What a waste of a good story! What a waste of spirit!

Prince Caspian has to be one of the most difficult of the Narnia books to translate onto the screen. The first several chapters involve walking around in the woods, lots of talking, an extended flashback, and 1300 years of history to cover. Therefore, I cannot criticize the writers for deviating from the story. In fact, I have to give them credit: their **ideas** for re-inventing Prince Caspian were phenomenal.

The execution of those ideas could have been much, much better.

When we begin, we see that Peter is struggling with re-adjusting to life as an English schoolboy after being a Narnian king. (beautiful idea!) We see him trying to prove himself to his schoolmates and acting out his aggression on some poor soul who bumped him. We later see him challenging Caspian publicly, refusing to wait for Aslan, acting as the Narnain leader himself, failing miserably in battle (and it was a beautifully choreographed battle), spilling buckets of Narnian blood.........

.....and then what happens? Well, he still doesn't wait for Aslan, and he still acts as the Narnian leader, and he's nearly sucked into Jadis' temptation, and he **never once has a turn-around moment.** The writers *almost* gave him one, then Lucy is given the lame line of "Maybe Aslan is waiting for us to prove ourselves." Isn't that what Peter has been doing all along? There was no turning point/redemption/learning curve to this character. Now, since he can't come back to Narnia, he will never have one.

True, he did hand over his sword at the end and say, "We're not needed here anymore." But after the level of conflict and tension that the movie had developed, that scene had all the effect of someone telling a toddler, "You have to share your toys."

Caspian is simply never given a chance to be anything other than confused in this movie. He has very little character development. While he is allowed to be merciful, he's never allowed to grow into a king.

Susan was given a great reason to become bitter against Narnia in future movies, so her character was at least given a great set-up. Other than that, she said and did very little.

Why was Lucy riding into the forest? Did they think she could summon Aslan? Wake the trees? Find more Narnians? Well, we *were* lucky that Aslan showed up, like Athena on a rope and pulley, to save the day just in time. :(

All-in-all, I was disappointed. I was *thrilled* that the writers had come up with good ideas for adapting the book to the screen. But if they'd spent half as much time developing these story lines as the visual guys did developing the River-god or the gryphons, then it could have been a great movie. As it was, it gets a C+ at best.

I've just finished watching all 5 of the HP movies back-to-back.....with my husband, who has not read the books.

For the entire first 4 movies, I had to provide a running commentary for him to understand what was actually happening on the screen. "Oh, Sirus, James (Harry's dad), Lupin and Pettigrew were all close friends. They actually wrote the marauder's map--that's how Lupin knew how to use it." We couldn't get through 10 minutes of ANY of the movies without that! However, for "Phoenix," the screenwriter did something amazingly intelligent---he let the film stand on its own! He TRANSLATED the book to the screen, instead of just trying to film chunks of the book exactly as they were written. Every time I thought I would have to explain something to my husband, the brilliant screenwriter did it for me. And he did it naturally, in the proper context. Nothing seemed forced or contrived.

I have to give a major "THANK YOU" to the director as well. The previous four movies were almost exercises in special effects. In #2, for example, it was, "Ooooh, let's see how scary we can make a Basilisk look!" But, they left out Ginny Weasley's ENTIRE STORY--- until she was brought in at the end, like a lousy Deus Ex Machina contraption. "Phoenix" actually focused (gasp!) on the STORY, and the effects were there to enhance it. The director is a master of visual story-telling. We could feel the love Sirius had for Harry in the first glance from Gary Oldman's amazing eyes. We felt slimy every time Umbridge walked into a room. We were SHOWN what was happening, not told the plot in these stupid little summary/exposition dialogs by the characters (which dominated the previous four movies).

The actors have grown by leaps and bounds. (thanks again to the director?) Everyone wants to whine about how much worse Michael Gambon was as Dumbledore, compared to Richard Harris. Well, with the crappy lines he was given (especially in #3) he didn't have much of a chance. But he shines in the hands of a competent writer and director. Daniel Radcliffe's range has expanded exponentially (he was amazing in Sirius' death scene) and Matthew Lewis took Neville Longbottom from gangly nerd to budding hero.

I just read that the same screenwriter from the first four movies (Steve Kloves) is being brought back for "The Half-Blood Prince." Please, please, sack him and bring back Michael Goldenberg for the final installment. The man knows how to write. Steve Kloves has shown that he knows very little about adapting these books to the screen.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, David Yates and Michael Goldenberg, for bringing such a fantastic story to the screen.

...not just because Steve Taylor is my favorite lyricist of all time, but because he made this transition to the big screen with a well-written drama that peels back many layers of the Southern, Christian, racial divide.

Unlike other Christian movies (End of the Spear comes to mind) Taylor and the other writers understand that a story is not made simply by having someone get saved at the end. The church as a body has so much room for growth and development, and the role of the artist should always be to shine a light into dark places. "the bible...says I'm supposed to love you, but all I want to do is beat the he11 out of you." If we never talk about such struggles, how can we overcome them?

I had a few plot problems with the script. I feel like Smitty was never quite believable as a rebel, not because of his acting skills, but because he never got to *act like a rebel.* What's the worst thing he did? Mess up the church order of service? We didn't even get to see him as a materialist, he just threw out a comment about gravy on his Guccis. :) A couple of very small scenes would have fixed this--show him designing his house, or buying an engagement ring.

The fiancée (what was her name again? ;) ) could have been a great foil for this'---"You know, it's just us, I don't *need* 5 bedrooms..." But she seems to *suddenly* enter the story-arc as a good-hearted woman, with no set-up. Someone posted "Why would a woman who was picking out a $350/set china pattern *suddenly* agree to move to the hood?" I have to agree there. We were not given a lot of motivation for her actions.

We get hints of Ethan's past--but does he still struggle with it? If he was a drug addict himself, even in a high-quality rehab center, wouldn't he have a better understanding of what drove the actions of the men at the small group? With the character as it was portrayed, Ethan Jenkins would have been better written as just a normal, spoiled preacher's kid who happens to be a good singer. If his past is there, it needs to have a payoff.

With all the anger, bitterness, and swearing :) that Jake gave us, I kept waiting for a repentance on his part as well. After Ethan led the music for the SC choir---Jake's wall was still up. After Ethan saved him from the gang attack---Jake's wall was still up. I feel like Ethan was learning humility after his time on the streets, but Jake kept an arrogant, angry stance until he broke down at the pulpit while talking about "loving your enemies." Maybe this is just the Southern, white girl perspective, but even that sermon could have been *easily* misinterpreted as "self-righteousness, part deux." As if, "I haven't done anything wrong, but I'm going to love the people that are hurting me." Truthfully, Jake was a racist. In racial reconciliation, doesn't everyone have to repent of racism? Or is it just white people? So, Mr. Taylor, keep making movies! If you have a mailing list, put me on it! dottyjyoung@yahoo.com :)

Yes, there were some very good scenes in this movie.

Yes, the cinematography and settings and costumes were great.

Yes, Chad Allen did a good job.

And after reading Elizabeth Elliot's books and Jim Elliot's journals, it was wonderful to see Jim Elliot being portrayed as a clown, and to see Elizabeth Elliot's courage in going back into the woods to love her husband's killers.

But this was a poorly-written movie. The writers left out key information about the Aucas, gave sermons instead of organizing plots, and wrote such wooden dialogue as, "Hitting the dog won't make the hurt go away." Mincayani's scene over the dead child sealed it for me. Who was this child? Why did this death evoke such a strong reaction from him? Why the references to termites? Or jumping the great Boa? Why was this not mentioned earlier in the movie? Until this point, we have NO INDICATION of what Mincayani's people believed, except that they killed each other. And why oh why were fathers and mothers asking that their live children be "put in the ground" with them? These things could have easily been explained in the course of the movie, if the writers focused more on the story, and less on trying to please everyone.

I was so confused by the jilted dialogue and the poor screen writing craft that was displayed, that I looked up the Auca people on Wikipedia, and was able to fill in some of the plot holes for myself.

You guys can do better than this. I know you can. Getting someone saved by the end of the movie does NOT make the movie good. Read the book "Story" by Robert McKee. And do NOT rely on Deus Ex Machina to move your plot forward.

Keep writing. Christian movies need good writers.

Yes, in the first 10 minutes, the shaky-cam and ultra-fast editing made me a little motion sick. But it was appropriate because the characters themselves were in an ultra-fast-paced environment, with scattered thoughts and drastic consequences to their actions.

Yes, I also thought the movie went too slow at times. But life does too, and this movie was very true to life.

Bella lives up to it's hype. :) Not because the movie was perfect---it was far from it----but because it doesn't turn away from the depth of human pain, and try to bandage it up with simple, cliché answers. "Oh, you're off the soccer team? Well, let's have the whole team come to your restaurant and get you back. You're pregnant? Let's have a handy-dandy abortion/adoption/pro-life crusade and make it all better. You hit a kid with your car? Let's have the mom come out at the end of the movie and forgive you." The story never offered those as options. The characters were left to face the naked, raw pain of life and life's choices, and figure out what to do next. I left the theater smiling, choked with tears, a little sick on my stomach, and wishing I could have seen more. I absolutely loved it.

I did have a couple of problems with the script:

1) The story never really shows us WHY Jose cared so much about Nina in the first place. The movie was short enough, so there was plenty of room in the script for this. The scene with Manny asking Jose "Where's Nina?" implied that there was SOME form of connection with them beforehand, but never lets us in on the nature of that connection.

2) The ending was very touching, but it was also disjointed and a bit confusing. Who had Bella been with all this time--Jose or his parents? Why was Nina just NOW meeting her?

3) I've heard it said a thousand times, "If you take the time in a story to put a horseshoe over a door, make sure you use it later." The soccer team, and Jose's old manager of all people, announced they were coming to Manny's restaurant at the beginning of the movie.......then they never show up, and were never mentioned again. Why? What was the point?

I absolutely loved the dynamic between the brothers, the simple but profound portrait of Jose's family, and the moving backstory of Nina's mom.

I can't wait to see more movies from Metanoia films. Thanks for producing a film of such great quality.

I'm tired of writing bad reviews on Christian movies.

Instead of pointing out how this could have been made better, I'm going to spend that energy writing my own scripts. I just finished my first short film script, and have 2 more in development. Pray for me.

I'm not trying to bash anyone. I'm just hoping that the writers can admit that this script was poorly crafted, and not say, "This movie wasn't accepted because it was (gasp!) faith-based!" Regardless of your source material, there are methods for writing successful stories---and they are not secrets! Just go to the local library and check out the book "Story" by Robert McKee. That book taught me more than 4 years of sitting through creative writing classes in college.

I will say that this movie gave me hope in one area: there was so much money, talent, and energy spent here, so we can know that Christians are hungry for good stories, and will pay for them to be produced. If I write a good script, there *will* be an audience for it.

For right now, however, you're better off watching Veggie Tales. At least the writers there pay attention to their craft. And (can you believe it) the writers have read the above-mentioned book, "Story."

Just a little under half, actually........

So everyone agrees that there were too many story lines, no adequate development for *any* of the stories, that Venom got the short end of thestick on screen time, that Peter Parker could have spent 50% less time looking like a GQ-wanna-be, and that Bryce Dallas Howard's character (what was her name again?) got no character development.

Since we all agree on that, I'm going to (gasp!) point out a few of its strong points. If these points had been given time to grow, this could havebeen the most powerful of all three. Unfortunately for all of us, they were not, but my hope is to encourage people reading this to grow as writers.

For starters, there IS something beyond the "happily ever after" ending of most love stories---there's the conflict of learning how to be together! I was thrilled to see Peter Parker and MJ dealing with the age-old "I don't want you to fix my problem, I just want you to listen and be there for me" issue. I loved the (little bit of) wisdom that aunt Mae tried to share with Peter--you have to put your wife/husband before yourself. Both MJ and Spidey were completely self-absorbed and not ready to get married. (MJ was wrapped up in her problems, Spidey in his success.) This was a beautiful gem that could have been polished more.

My husband and I nearly fell out of our seats when we saw the redemption of Harry, and the forgiveness of Flint. It's wonderful to see a movie where people are not locked into an ever-deepening pit of despair. (I still want to take a shower every time I *think* about the movie The Prestige) People do have a choice---my mistakes in life are not all my parents' fault, society's fault, or even God's fault. They're MY mistakes. I can choose to wallow in my misery, or forgive and move on. It was wonderful to see both Harry and Spiderman choose to forgive. I wish for the life of me that we had seen more of the conflict with Harry. Their opening fight scene was the best in the trilogy, and James Franco proved to be an incredibly versatile and subtle actor.

And who didn't cheer when Stan Lee showed up for a cameo? :)

So, it's worth going to see again----at the dollar theater. :)

I love to read a good novelization of a movie. When the Mr. & Mrs. Smith novel came out, I thought, "Hey, I'll read the first page to see if this could be any good!" I ended up buying the book. :) It was a GREAT picture of how honesty in marriage, throwing aside all pretenses and expectations, and accepting the other for exactly who they are, is the real path to true marital bliss.

So why was the movie so awful? Angelina Jolie had to have given her worst performance ever. She was as stiff as a wax doll. Brad Pitt wasn't much better. There was no chemistry between them until GUNS came out. Whoop-de-do.

Call me crazy, but could it POSSIBLY be because they were having an extra-marital affair in the midst of a movie on marriage? (Sorry folks, real life does influence your art.) I also have to lay some of the blame on the director. If their hearts are really being torn apart by this, and they're covering their emotions with trained coldness, you HAVE to show the audience that. Give us a glimpse of their soul with the camera! The novelization was very well-written. If you want to know what the story is really about, go buy the book.

I have to give it an A for effort! What is a bedtime story? A cow jumps over a moon, a dish runs away with a spoon, a baby is rocking in a cradle that, for some ungodly reason, is on a treetop....

...or a little duckling has lost it's mother and goes to the cow, the pig, and the horse to ask, "Are you my mother?" This is the effect that the Lady in the Water has on us. She is all dewey innocence and beauty, and says, "I'm lost---are YOU the one I'm looking for?"

My incredibly verbal 16-month old will not go to bed without a two-story bedtime routine, so I've had a chance to *deeply* study this art form. :) Lady in the Water attempts to meld a bedtime story with comedy and heart-wrenching adult drama---HOW in the world is that accomplished?

Well, by making a few mistakes. :) But since this movie almost defines a new GENRE, the grown-up-bedtime-story, we should allow for mistakes! Aren't we all hungry for something to surprise us in a theater?

SinceI've only watched it once so far (and we have to take it back today) it's easier for me to remember those mistakes than it is to remember the high points. When I enjoy a movie, the mistakes are what bring me OUT of my fantasy-land and into movie-analysis land. The good parts just yank on my heartstrings.

1) We could have done without the prologue. Could you imagine "The Sixth Sense" beginning with a little story about a boy who could talk to ghosts? It would have robbed the "I see dead people" scene of it's power. Since discovering your purpose is a huge controlling idea in this story, the prologue could have been incorporated into the action of the movie somehow.

2) While I loved every single character in this movie, the Asian family's role wasn't used well. Every time Heep talked to them, the effect was, "Here is your next plot point on a platter." Since this is a bedtime story, why not have someone reading a story to a kid? Since kids can be both insatiably curious and very loose-lipped, that kid could follow Heep around, annoying the living daylights out of the janitor with this story his grandmother tells him, until one day he says the word "Narf". That's just a thought, but you get my point. If I, as an audience, am TOLD what to expect next, it takes the wind right out of my sails.

3) Reggie, the right-sided body builder, was virtually unknown to us, then comes in and saves the day. Towards the end, my husband said, "That body builder guy is probably the guardian. He's the only character who hasn't had a payoff." I said, "I would have thought so too, but we haven't seen him for over an hour. It would be pretty weird for him to be SUDDENLY brought back into the movie like that." Then, lo and behold, drumroll please, Reggie is the guardian! Maybe I'm just mad that hubby won the bet, lol, but there was something off about leaving a major character out of the movie, and bringing him in like Athena on the lowered platform at the end of the story.

4) The movie critic's death dialogue was too long. He needed a reason to stay there. Shivering, wetting himself, shaking and sloshing his cup, whatever---something needed to keep him in place instead of talking into the camera.

5) We find out that the writer's going to die for his beliefs. The writer doesn't seem to react to that very much, so why even have that information in the story? All he says is, "Don't tell my sister." That knowledge doesn't create a crisis of belief for the character (or if it does, it lasts a fraction of a second and still doesn't affect the story.) It EITHER needed to be cut, or be opened up for exploration.

I loved the ensemble cast. I loved Heep's deep wound opening up and being healed by *his* act of healing. I really liked the 1-armed body builder just because he was weird, and I love butterflies and bedtime stories. This movie was great, and it could have been even better if someone had seen the genre blend and stopped saying "This is really weird" long enough to give the script the attention it needed. :) I just hope Shamaylan keeps making movies.

Dotty J. Young

This was my favorite Peretti novel of all time, but the discrepancies between the book and the movie are not what bothered me. EVERY novel must undergo some re-structuring to work in a 2-hour movie. To Peretti's credit, the idea of Marion being murdered was a good way to start the adaptation.

But that's where the good ideas end.

The plot holes in this movie are large enough to drive a truck through them. The dialogue was so cheesy that I was tempted to mute, and the STORY was so disjointed that I simply covered my face and thought: "One more strike against Christian movies!" 1) If Justin Cantwell's goal was simply to get a victim for his sacrifice, WHY pull the false-Christ routine at all? Why not just snatch some other clueless Marion Jordan? His revenge against Travis for "alerting the authorities" would be a great story by itself, and you could throw in a few "Am I a bad minister?" self-discovery side plots for flavor. But with this script, the purpose in his false-Christ routine is never explained, or even hinted at, which makes the whole story fall flat on its face.

Just so you know, in the book, Cantwell is JUST as deceived as the rest of the crowd. He doesn't believe he's Jesus, but he does believe that the three demonic companions are his "friends", when they're actually using him.

2)The "flying Bible stops the falling knife" trick at the end was just too much cheese, but I shouldn't have been surprised. Christian writers really struggle with Deus Ex Machina in their fiction. There's a good reason for this: miracles DO happen in the life of a Christian, but it's hard to get them on paper in a believable form. The difference is this: a miracle is an **event**, while Deus Ex Machina is a technique used to resolve a plot (God comes in and miraculously saves the hero from certain death, end of story) and it tells you nothing about the journey of the character. If all Christians really meditated on the function of miracles in our own lives, and our own response to them, we would stop using this awful, pointless technique and start writing better stories. Peretti should know better.

3) I'm pretty sure that Washington state has the highest rate of occultic and New Age practitioners in the country. Peretti is simultaneously too familiar with these practices and disdainful of them. A follower of ANY religion believes that he has found Truth, and to mock the practices with the camera (Nancy Barrons' sultry sway down the stairs, or Cantwell's screaming at the fake fence post--and what was THAT all about?) robs the audience of the chance to know these characters. The rest of the country is not as familiar with these practices as Peretti obviously is, so he needs to explain WHY they're false/harmful/ridiculous, or whatever, with his story craft----NOT resort to making them look stupid. It doesn't work.

Peretti's book "Piercing the Darkness" actually led me to Christ, so I may have come to this movie with higher than normal expectations. However, I would like a Christian movie to be AT LEAST as well written as the latest Batman flick. It wasn't. We as Christians have been charged with sharing the greatest story of all time. Maybe if we learned how to tell stories more effectively, we'd do a better job of that.