My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected. If not, visit
http://burrintheburgh.com
and update your bookmarks.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

"Munich" and "The New World" - Reviewing the Reviews

I like movies. And I like history. But I seldom like it when someone joins the two together. Films about historical figures or based on historical events generally disappoint or upset me. That's because most film-makers seem to be less interested in telling the story than in promoting their social agendas. A great example of this is Ridley Scott's latest piece of celluloid excrement, The Kingdom of Heaven. Badly filmed, badly acted, badly edited and, most of all, badly written. The Christians are either insane, idiotic, savage or anachronisitic models of 21st century liberal Protestants. Orlando Bloom is supremely over-rated and needs to stick to playing taciturn fairies. And those are reasons I called The Kingdom of Heaven the worst movie on earth.

But enough about that. There are two new films that deal with historical subjects which are receiving a good deal of attention right now: Munich and The New World. I haven't seen either one of them yet, so I won't offer any personal opinions about them in this post.

I will, however, link you to a few reviewers that I respect.

First, here is Michael Medved on Munich. I'm not very familiar with all the information surrounding the events recounted in the film, but if we assume (for the sake of argument) Mr. Medved is correct with his facts, then Spielberg has done a disservice to Israel, America, and the war on terror. Admittedly, I am a-priori inclined to agree with Medved because I have personally found him to be a level-headed film critic and one whose opinions about movies frequently parallel my own. He particularly earned my respect when, as an observant Orthodox Jew, he vociferously defended Mel Gibson's movie. The fact that the government of Israel is attacking Spielberg's movie Munich also causes me to suspect Medved's evaluation has merit. Religiously, I am no Zionist. I don't think the piece of real estate lying between Egypt and Syria has any more significance today in God's plan than does Lichtenstein. But I wholeheartedly endorse the state of Israel's right to defend itself. And to equate a government's attack on its enemies to terrorist acts is morally irresponsible.

The second film of interest is called The New World and it's about John Smith's landing in America and his relationship with the native girl, Pocahontas. Several Christian critics are speaking favorably of the film such as Steve Beard, Peter T. Chattaway and Jeffrey Overstreet. This film version, I am pleased to report, represents Pocahontas's conversion to Christianity and does so, apparently, without rancor. If so, then this is much better history than the putrid mess put out by Disney a few years ago which turned this Christian native American girl into a tree-hugging, New Age, Greenpeace, Gaia worshipper.

Sphere: Related Content

New Curriculum at Concordia Theological Seminary