Gary's Movie Reviews: Six Rather Lackluster Comedies Have a Few Redeeming Qualities

As usual, the movie titles link to previews 

ParentalGuidance

 

This was a pleasing enough comedy, if a bit on the forgettable side.  Billy Crystal and Bette Midler do their best with this formulaic material, and it comes off as quite charming at times.  At other times, it’s groan-worthy, such as the scene that was played up in the trailer where the kids use marker on Grandpa Billy Crystal’s face while he’s sleeping, or the unbelievable scene where Crystal’s character, a sports announcer, tries to act hip and cool and yet doesn’t know who Tony Hawk is.  Even I know who Tony Hawk is, and I’m not into sports at all!  The whole time, he allows his grandson to wander freely around the skateboard park, and the kid decides to take a wiz on the skating surface, causing one skateboarder to fall.  The film feels more like a vehicle for Billy Crystal, and there’s actually little here for Bette to do.  As she does with most of the movies she’s in, young Bailee Madison steals this otherwise unremarkable little farce with some good acting that rises above what is written on the page.  When her character stresses over her violin practice, or gets upset with her mother, you really feel the emotions, and she also handles the comedy quite well.  A favorite scene is also one featured in the trailer where the kids freak out after the grandparents hype them up on sugar, and she tussles with her mom over a cake, exclaiming, “You lied to me!  Yogurt is not like ice cream!”

     Not counting Bailee Madison, one more thing I liked about the movie was the way it took modern parenting and child-rearing techniques to task in favor of more traditional, old-fashioned ideas.  While the parents here don’t help their kids prepare for the real world by not keeping score in their Little League Baseball, or being overly sensitive when the kids act up, with the kind of spoiled kids you might expect from such an approach, Crystal’s and Midler’s more old-fashioned approach ends up reaching the kids where their parents haven’t all these years.  Crystal is even able to help his stuttering grandson overcome his stutter!  That’s one in the win column for conservativism, which is hard to come by these days in Hollywood!  Another thing I liked:  It’s not filthy!  That’s also hard to come by these days in Hollywood, even in a family film!

RumorHas It

I should have known when the first words out of Aniston's mouth in the TRAILER was, "Do you want to have sex in the bathroom?" while she and her boyfriend are on an airplane.  This film posited that the book The Graduate by Charles Webb that eventually became the movie starring Dustin Hoffman, Anne Bancroft, and Katharine Ross about a young man, Ben Braddock, who ends up being seduced by his girlfriend’s mother, was based on real people and real events.  

Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft in a famous pose from "The Graduate"

In this update, Jennifer Aniston’s character discovers it was all based on her family.  It was her deceased mother who was the girlfriend in the movie, and Aniston confronts her grandmother with this accusation:  “You’re Anne Bancroft.”  She tracks down the real Ben Braddock, who is actually Beau Burroughs (Kevin Costner), rules out the possibility that he’s her dad, and then promptly sleeps with him, which causes Costner’s character to wind up sleeping with not only his former lover, but her mother, and now her daughter.  I get the feeling that was really the impetus for making this update – to get that character into bed with the new generation!  Never mind that Aniston then finds evidence that he might still be her father (Creepy!  Thank God THAT doesn’t pan out!) or that she ends up screwing up her relationship with her perfectly fine fiancé played by Mark Ruffalo!  But this is the romance movies we get in America these days, and I’m afraid it’s only reflecting the times.  In the end, Aniston drops the lothario who bedded her mother and grandmother, apologizes to the boyfriend (and she has to do a lot of apologizing) and everything is okay in the end.  The movie was charming at times, and all the actors do some good work, but in the end, it’s nothing to write home about, and when all is said and done, it’s pretty darn disturbing!

Madea’sWitness Protection

I don’t know about some of these Madea movies anymore.  I first became a fan of Tyler Perry with Diary of a Mad Black Woman, which introduced the comic character of Madea to uninitiated audiences in a story that gave us equal parts broad humor, searing drama, and some Christian themes.  Since then, both Perry and his character have made a name for themselves, and every so often, he’ll don the dress again, along with the other costumes, such as Madea’s somewhat blunt but clueless husband Joe, for another comic go-round with some strong dramatic and Christian themes.  And in all truth, the character, and the formula, works better for Perry than it does for Eddie Murphy in the Klump movies or Martin Lawrence in the Big Momma flicks.  Yet it also seems the longer Perry keeps doing these Madea movies, the more comic, and the less dramatic or Christian they become.  There is still a little bit of drama and a Christian message buried in this comedy, but it’s much harder to find than it was in some of the earlier Madea films.

     With that said, I will also say this is an improvement over the last Madea film, though critics and audiences haven’t been too kind this time around either.  For one thing, this film made you believe that Eugene Levy, in fine comic form as a shmuck at the heart of a ponzi scheme, is married to Denise Richards, of all people!  Even at the age of 41, she doesn’t seem the type to be caught dead married to Eugene Levy (who, at the age of 66, is still 25 years her senior), though this role was actually more believable than the nuclear physicist she played in the James Bond movie The World is Not Enough.  And poor Doris Roberts is in the thankless role of Levy’s ditzy mother on the verge of Alzheimer’s.  The drama was mostly supplied by the story of Jake, played by Romeo Miller, a family member who lost money for his father’s church in the same ponzi scheme, meaning that the climax must center around the two families’ attempts to get the money back.  I find it odd that not only does the conclusion rip off the movie Ghost, when Whoopi Goldberg’s character goes to the bank pretending to be somebody else to get money out of a fake account, but they even show this scene in this movie before they rip it off, using it as inspiration to do the same thing!  Most of the movie rests squarely on Tyler Perry’s shoulders, and most of the good jokes center on his outspoken Madea character, though Eugene Levy is a welcome addition to the cast.  But why does it still feel like they’re all slumming here?

     Truthfully, Ghost was better! 

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

Steve Carell (great as Grue in the Despicable Me animated films), Steve Buscemi, and Jim Carey take on the world of modern stage and street magicians a la Penn & Teller, David Copperfield (who has a cameo here), David Blaine, and Criss Angel (Mind Freak).  

The results aren’t really comedy gold, and despite a valiant effort, they don’t really pull a rabbit out of a hat.  Like the main characters, and many a movie these days, it’s watchable, but nothing really Incredible.  It’s competent, but in the end, Wonderstone isn’t all that wonderful.  

G-Force

I was going to say I liked it, and shame on all these online critics who don’t appreciate the artistry that went into it, or the cute storyline.  I’m fascinated by the way these animators can make these guinea pigs and hamsters look so real.  There’s a scene in this movie about half-way through where the main guinea pig Darwin (get the reference?) is on the run with a normal guinea pig Hurley (who thinks Darwin is his long lost brother) and Hurley ends up sitting on a sprinkler head, which turns on and douses him with water.  The animation of the water, and Hurley’s wet fur, is spot on, and looks so realistic, just like almost everything else in this movie!

     On the other hand, this is no longer such a spectacle in and of itself, and after once again enjoying the technical aspect of what they’re able to do with CGI animation these days, one has to ask, as with any movie, “What else you got?”  Well, the premise is just about as cute as those guinea pigs and hamsters, about a team of trained, super-spy rodents saving the day, but it really starts to get tiresome by the second half, which devolves into another Jerry Bruckheimer slick action flick, with chase scenes and amazing explosions galore, which actually turns it into somewhat of an action film parody.  I would have preferred something less bombastic.  With the exception of Steve Buscemi, the voice actors are nothing more than perfunctory, and Tracey Morgan, as usual, is gratingly annoying, and the human actors are nothing special either, and that includes Zach Galifianakis, Bill Nighy, and Will Arnett.  Add to that the silly, Disney channel writing, and the simplistic solution when the mole turns out to be “the mole”, and the over-the-top ending, and I’m afraid I’d have to agree with the majority of the critics.  This is a mess.  It is technically amazing, and often cute, with a few nice action scenes, and a message or two, as any CGI film has to have these days, but it’s a bit of a mess none-the-less.

 

Yogi Bear

What was I just saying about computer animated movies above?

     Some people won’t give even the good ones a chance.  However, on the downside of all this animation, it also means we get lackluster movies like this mix of CGI animation and live action, based on the old Hannah Barbera cartoons.  As usual, the quality of the animation is not the issue here.  In fact, given the material, the animators, the voice actors (Dan Aykroyd and Justin Timberlake as Yogi and Boo Boo), and the live actors Tom Cavanagh, Anna Faris, T.J. Miller, Nathan Corddry, and Andrew Daly all do what they can.  The operative part of this last sentence, however, was “given the material”.  The script is flat.  

The cast of Yogi Bear - the voices, the famous actors, the unknown actors, are all quite appealing, but wasted!

We know from the TV show Ed and the Scary Movie franchise that Cavanagh and Faris are good comedians with some great comic timing, and the same goes for Aykroyd, Timberlake, and Corddry from Harry’s Law.  Unfortunately, there’s not much here they can really hang their hats on.  This movie wasn’t God-awful.  In fact, it is much, much better than Furry Vengeance, a film in a similar vein.  By the same token, the flat characters, plot, and a lack of funny comedy has it pale when compared to analogous films like Charlotte’s Web, Stuart Little, and even Scooby Doo.

Okay, Let's Tackle It: Looking at the Evidence in the Evolution/Creation Debate

“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?”

            - Isaac Newton

     It was time to pull back my sleeves and dig in!  From all the evidence I've been able to find, and I've really been looking for some irrefutable, hard evidence, evolution has not been found to exist in the fossil record, or in any living creatures on earth.  I'm not talking about evolution in the general sense.  Of course species change over time!  I'm talking about Darwinian evolution.  When people, especially scientists, talk about believing in the theory of evolution, this is the type of evolution they're referring to.  It's not general changes in a species or a culture over time, which any idiot believes, of course.  They're talking about the Darwinian origin of life, species turning into other species, and man evolving from lower forms of life, traced all the way back to a single cell forming by chance in some primordial pool, and by the way, since they're usually atheists, all of this occurred without God or any kind of designer.  It's just an accident; you know, happenstance and all that!  Here's just a small smattering of some of the evidence I've found.  You can find it too, if you look hard enough.  The funny thing is, evolutionary scientists will use this same failed science as (somehow, and incredibly) proof of evolution!  Check it out for yourselves and see if they don't!
     An experiment (one of hundreds) with fruit flies to produce a new species never produced anything but mutated fruit flies (that couldn’t survive, I might add).  Even with scientists actually trying to produce a new species by any manner of means, they never produced anything but fruit flies.  A fruit fly is a fruit fly is a fruit fly, and it is neither a butterfly nor a bird, nor will it ever be.  A lizard is not a bird, and will never be a bird, and will never give birth to a bird, no matter how many years we may give it to evolve into a bird.  
     Have you ever asked yourself this question?  If all of these species are supposedly changing into other species, as the Darwiniacs say, then where is the abundant evidence (let alone any at all) of all the intermediate species that would have needed to exist in order for one species to become another?  Why are there no intermediate species currently living (say a creature that is part lizard, part bird)?  In fact, why are there species?  If everything and everyone, every creature and every plant, is in the process of evolving, there shouldn’t be distinct species, only intermediates in one long, evolving line.  The scientists then say "Puncuated mutation."  Oh, of course.  How convenient!  
     Or how about this question:  If we all evolved from a single cell, then how did the eye evolve?  Not only that, but how did it possibly evolve time and time again with all the various species, including the compound eyes of a fly, the front seeing human eye, the side seeing bird’s eye, or the fossils of the Trilobite arthropod from the early Cambrian period that some scientists say is more complex than the human eye, or the hookup to the brain to allow the collected images to be processed?  How about the ear, or the brain?  If lizards evolved into birds, then how did legs become wings?  It's a legitimate question to ask of a scientific community that expounds such things.  Over the millions of years (or at the very, very least, hundreds of thousands of years if we’re talking about the scientific concept of “punctuated mutations”) it would take for lizards to evolve into birds, their complex, scaled legs turning into differently structured yet even more complex feathered wings would first have to become useless appendages, and lizards with useless appendages would be much less likely to survive, let alone thrive and dominate among their kin who all have good, strong legs!  Darwin's theory was of "survival of the fittest" after all, and that crazy looking lizard with that ridiculous, useless leg wouldn't be as likely to survive, especially if all the other lizards didn't want to mate with the poor, unfortunate creature with the leg/wing appendage - unless... unless all the other lizards started developing these leg/wing appendages at the same time (!)... which throws even another wrench into the evolutionists' theory!  In order to work with the concept of "survival of the fittest", which IS how nature operates, it would then have to mean that this rather miraculous punctuated mutation would have to affect an entire species all at the same time, over and over again from one lizard to the next!  In order for this ugly little lizard to survive and evolve into a bird, it would have to fly in the face of all the reasoning behind Darwin's "survival of the fittest" that Darwin had so boldly proclaimed, and that scientists embraced whole-heartedly!  Scientists have still never been able to explain this.  But even if, by some miracle, all the other lizards had the same useless appendages at the same time, the odds on these useless appendages becoming wings by chance, or even with environmental influences, are still so great as to be impossible!  Multiply this one little change by all the changes needed to create all these different species, and the odds become so overwhelmingly against it occurring as to enter into the realm of the utterly ridiculous and unbelievable – requiring the need for faith - and yet this is the theory that scientists and teachers believe in without any reservations whatsoever?  
       If all these changes supposedly occurred to create all these species, where is the evidence in life today OR in the fossil record?  There is no lizard/bird creature that I know of, and don’t even bring up Archaeopteryx!  (1) There is evidence that Archaeopteryx may have been an elaborate hoax, (2) there is no living or fossil evidence to support the supposition that a lizard became Archaeopteryx and then Archaeopteryx became a bird, and (3) using the carbon dating system, some fossils of ancient birds have been found that predate Archaeopteryx.  And that's just one example.  (Yes, I have more).
     In all, science has been unable to prove that one species has ever become another species, though it was fun to suppose that we evolved from lizards and marmosets for that crazy Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Genesis,” which also showed Data’s cat Spot de-evolving into a lizard.  Evolutionary theory itself can be just as fun sometimes, but is as fictional as this Star Trek episode.
     Here’s just a few more example (and sorry for such a long post, but the usual retort from the scientific community would be "Is that all you got?" and then to refute the evidence with just a smirk, and so the creationists then have to be rather long winded with their response, "No, I'm just getting started!"):

     Scientists claim that we evolved from a single cell created by chance in a “primordial soup” here on Earth.  This sounds simple and believable enough until you realize exactly what it would take to create a “simple” single cell.  The design of a cell is so intricate and complex as to rival a modern man-made city, all shrunk to microscopic size.  In the field of evolution, it is generally thought that because these things are small, they are not complex, and have the ability to “spring up by chance.”  Yet these building blocks are just as complex as the organisms made up of them.  In the “simple” cell, for instance, different parts of the cell serve different functions, and each part is not able to survive outside the cell membrane wall separated from the other working parts of the cell.  These amino acids, which combine to create proteins, tend to break down naturally rather than combine, so for them to create a stable protein to begin with, in any kind of solution or atmosphere, is already difficult to fathom.  When these miraculous amino acids combined in these “plasma pools” (doing the opposite of what normal amino acids tend to do), any oxygen in the air would have caused oxidization, which is deadly to amino acids.  Yet equally deadly would have been an atmosphere with no oxygen; without oxygen, there would have been no o-zone layer, meaning the earth would have been bombarded with deadly ultraviolet radiation, which also kills amino acids.  The amino acids in existence within our own bodies are protected by the very cell membrane walls they are a part of, but back when they were just forming, there were no cell membranes to protect them.  This whole argument casts a tremendous shadow of doubt on belief in the theory of evolution, for there are not one, not two, but thousands of near impossible events that would have to occur in order to create a cell that the forming of one without the aid of a designer to make it all happen could only be described as a “miracle.”

     From there, scientists say that all life evolved from this single cell (or even more miraculous, they claim that the impossible happened many times over, with many cells springing into existence by chance).  They then claim that these single cells later split into other cells, eventually becoming organisms with two cells, then three, then four, and so on.  Yet the scientific community has not discovered the existence of any two celled organisms, either alive or in the fossil records, nor any three, four, five, or six celled organisms.  Additionally, all organisms in existence today that have less than 20 cells, except for a single celled organism, are parasites that exist merely to live off of other organisms with more cells.  So if these single celled organisms that sprang into existence somehow developed into organisms with more than twenty cells, then how did they manage to get past these hurdles?  How did they develop into organisms with more than twenty cells if there were no other organisms to live off of at the time as a parasite, or no creator to lend them a hand?  Science cannot explain this.

     Somewhere along the evolutionary line, sexual reproduction had to enter into the picture, with the equivalent of male and female reproductive organs developing independently of each other, yet absolutely dependent on the counterpart organism in order to function properly and be able to perpetuate the continued existence of the species.  One change, even a microscopic one, in the makeup of either organism would mean the end of the sexual reproduction of the species (they would be unable to perpetuate themselves).  Exactly how did sexual reproductive organs evolve?

     As with the first cell, those first multi-celled organisms were also highly complex, and not “simple” in the least.  The bacterias Salmonella, E. Coli, and Streptococci all propel themselves with the use of a tiny, highly efficient, built-in motor, complete with bushings, rods, rings, rotors, s-rings, sophisticated sensors, switches, and control mechanisms.  Man himself has been unable to duplicate it to build as efficient a motor, yet according to scientists, these tiny bacterial motors evolved by chance on a microscopic scale.  Eight million of these motors could fit on the cross-sectional area of a normal human hair!
     I believe in an intelligent designer.  Boy, do I ever!  I guess I wanted to believe all along.  Some of these proofs, and more, helped to open my eyes and give me the answers I’d been looking for all along concerning the arguments for or against both evolution and creation.

- From my journal, 1995

Gary's So-So Movie Grab-Bag: A "Guilty" Pleasure "Trip", A Safe Haven, a Scary But G-Rated Disney Nature Doc, an Old Downey Jr. Romance, and a Really Old Alice in Wonderland.

As usual, the titles link to trailers or other movie clips

The Guilt Trip

Despite knowing her talent, I am not a fan of Barbara Streisand (if you want to know why, check this out, from ForAmerica.org):

And as far as the recent spate of comedy stars goes, I’m also not a fan of Seth Rogen.  I heard his character in the “comedy” Observe and Report was quite dark with a disturbing mean streak.  In fact, if it was left up to me, I never would have picked this movie.  However, we have a rule that whoever gets to pick the movie for our weekly movie night, the rest of us have to watch it.  My niece picked this, and since it was the day before Mother’s Day, it was a rather apt choice since it was a movie about a mother and her grown son on a road trip.  I was actually pleasantly surprised.  It wasn’t crass, and was one of the most agreeable comedies I’ve ever seen Rogen in, and was not a waste of two hours like most modern comedies.  In fact, I wish more comedies were like this, but unfortunately, the critics and audiences just seem to want The Hangover Part 7 these days.  They seem to find a film like this trite, and actually prefer “crass”.  Despite its low ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, from critics and audiences alike, it was one of the better films I saw in May. 

Safe Haven

This was much better than I thought it was going to be, and Julianne Hough and Josh Duhamel were good in it.  The critics complained because it was “another Nicolas Sparks sudser”, this one reminiscent of Enough with Jennifer Lopez or Sleeping with the Enemy with Julia Roberts since they’re all about a woman moving and trying to get away from their abusive husbands.  There are a few interesting twists and turns, especially the ending (though it made critics roll their eyes, as expected).  In the end, it’s not a monumental film-going experience, but just an enjoyable time at the movies, and that’s all it was meant to be.  As Nicolas Sparks movies go, since it has aspects of a thriller, this one was just a little different.  The actors made it work.  And the kids were cute.

Chimpanzee

Eh, this was a cute but throwaway nature documentary from Disney.  It was kinda short.  An orphaned chimp is adopted by the leader of a group in the midst of a war with another group.  (This is what they consider a “G” rating these days?  Death and war? I know a lot of little tykes that might be traumatized by this tale of an orphaned monkey whose mother is killed during an ongoing series of vicious battles with another group of chimps!)

     Tim Allen narrates the tale, and he was alright, though I found it quite irritating when he brought in his “Tim the Toolman Taylor” character on occasion, and rolled my eyes when he did his trademark “Ooh, ooh, ooh!”  It just didn’t pack the emotional punch of a similar old doc I remember called People of the Forest narrated by Donald Sutherland, where an orphaned chimp actually died after his mother was killed!  That one stayed with me over the years.

Only You

We like Robert Downey Jr., and I had liked him in a few older romantic comedies he starred in, notably The Pick Up Artist, Chances Are, and Heart and Souls.  But we had never seen this old romantic comedy in which Marisa Tomei’s character was told long ago that her future husband was named Damon Bradley.  On the verge of marriage, an old friend of her fiancé’s turns out to be none other than Damon Bradley, currently traveling in Italy, and she whisks off to at least get a glimpse of her “soul mate” before committing to marriage.  Once in Italy, she meets Downey’s character Peter Wright, who falls instantly in love with her, gets wind of her kooky obsession, and then pretends to be Damon Bradley.  He tells her pretty early on that he is not Damon Bradley, she balks, and then he spends the rest of the movie trying to convince her that, Damon Bradley or not, he is the man of her dreams.  The movie is romantic and Downey Jr. and Tomei have sparks onscreen, and Bonnie Hunt as the best friend that accompanies Tomei to Italy makes it that much better.  The idea is cute, while at the same time making the main character a bit of a loony tune.

Alice inWonderland

Not the Disney classic, which I actually found rather shrill, or the Tim Burton 2010 version that was actually a sequel and that I already named as a favorite in my journal, but an early Hollywood production from 1933 featuring (get this) Gary Cooper as the White Knight and Cary Grant as the Mock Turtle!  The film was impressive for being such an early production, but suffered mainly from the main problems that plagued the Disney version in my opinion.  Alice jumps from one silly event to another with hardly any narrative structure to tie these isolated events together, so there is no point.  Oh, there’s the build up to a confrontation with the Red Queen, but even this seems like just one more weird and ridiculous adventure, and both tales end rather abruptly with Alice waking up and realizing it was all just a dream.  It didn’t work for that season of Dallas, and this is equally pointless.  Perhaps that’s the purpose of the “literary nonsense” genre, but it doesn’t translate all that well to the screen (and no, it didn’t work for The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy either).  Tim Burton’s sequel worked mostly because they found a way to make the narrative work, so that it wasn’t just a series of non-related events.  Burton’s sequel had a beginning, a middle, and a satisfying ending in which the main character learns from these events and changes, and so do some of the other characters, such as Johnny Depp’s Mad Hater; this is something sorely missing from these other versions.

Searching for God: Scratching the Surface on Our Quest for Truth in the Creation/Evolution Debate

     I know someone - quite a few people, actually - who claims to have discovered the TRUTH in some college classrooms at the age of 22, and is satisfied enough with the answers she’s found to stop searching.  Well, if she’s discovered all the truths of life and how we all got here, and she’s sure of it to such a degree that she doesn’t need to search anymore, I sure wish she’d let the rest of us in on it!  I’d like to be as sure of everything as she is!  Hell, wouldn’t we all?  Just think; all the great minds and the great discoveries of all time, and all the great mysteries of the world, have been solved by a 22 year old college student who has had all of life’s burning questions answered for her in a few classes (her teachers must be sheer geniuses!).  Oh, would that I were her!

     She is merely one of millions of people who decide to stop learning because they think they already possess all the knowledge they need, or enough knowledge to stop having to search for more.  But then there’s me and people like me:  If I could live for a thousand years, I still wouldn’t know all there is to know.  I still wouldn’t know a fraction of all there is to know!  And I say shame on her and all the millions of people like her who think they already know it all (or act as if you do)!  They, we, really know nothing!

     We know about microscopic molecules and even though it’s so very tiny, we’ve been able to split the atom!  We know about neutrons and electrons and other atomic elements, and we even know some of the properties that make them do what they do and move as they move.  We can even scientifically modify or predict those actions!  And yet, for all of this, we have only scratched the surface!  We know an atom is composed of neutrons and electons, and that these neutrons and electrons actually have great spaces between them within the atom, and that they operate under certain physical conditions, spiraling around the nucleus in a very fast and consistent pattern.  But why?  And what makes up the neutrons and electrons?  And if we ever do answer the question of what tiny elements neutrons and electrons are composed of, the next logical question would be, “What makes up those tinier elements?"  And this would spark more questions:  "And what elements make up these elements within tinier elements, and how do they operate, and why?”  And this could go on ad infinitum.  Where did the first one come from?  Just how small can things get?  Where does it end?  Does it end?  Man doesn’t know, and will never know.  He can only guess, theorize, and speculate, even with all the expensive, electron microscopes and space telescopes and genius quantum scientists and molecular biologists at their disposal.  

     And this is just one example of how much we know, and how little we know.  For all the gigantic leaps we’ve made in the world of science; for all the questions we’ve been able to answer; for all the great technological advances we’ve created; we still know nothing!  What lies outside the universe?  What life, if any, exists on other planets?  What will America be like in 200 years (if it’s still here)?  What made Mozart a child prodigy?  What did the platypus evolve from, and what is it evolving into, and what does it mean?  How was the earth created?  And if you can answer any of these questions with absolute certainty, then I would have to ask, “What makes you so sure?  Where’s your proof?”  If we don’t really know everything about neutrons, electrons, atoms and molecules, then we can’t really know about the things they comprise, such as living biological organisms or the complex human mind.  These questions, and their answers, require the ability of abstract thought, and the complexity and physicality of the abstract thought process within the human brain is actually incomprehensible to the same mind that is able to engage in abstract thought.  This may be a difficult idea to comprehend, but it is akin to a baby saying his first word, “Dada,” and then being able to articulate how he was able to say it, explaining the process of thinking of the word “Dada” and then the processes required in order for him to actually verbalize it.  All of this is just my way of saying that, given our limited intelligence and growth as a species (which is still the most advanced on this planet), we still know virtually nothing, and those who disagree are fooling themselves.  We can know a lot, and yet for all our accumulated wisdom, there is still so much we do not know, and we still haven’t cured the common cold.

     So I will always search for the truth, and I won’t find it in this world or in this lifetime without the concept of “belief,” and neither will anyone else.  Yet I’m still one step ahead of those who simply stop searching for answers because they think they know it all, or enough, or are just plain apathetic.  In that respect, and getting back to the proof of a creator that I seem to require in order to believe in that creator (which I posted in last week's blog, linked here), I am fortunate; because I do seek truth and knowledge, and my faith is strengthened by the knowledge I find, for it tends to “prove” the existence of a creator.  To explain:

     If there is no God (creator or creators), then we must ask, “How did we get here?  How did man, the living creatures he shares this planet with, the planet earth and all the things in it, the other planets and solar systems and galaxies, and the universe (and whatever is beyond the universe), and all the elements that make up all of these things, get here?  What is the history of existence and how did existence begin (if it had a beginning)?”  These questions are scientifically unanswerable (and don’t believe any scientist who tells you otherwise, because he’s just furthering a particular agenda).  In fact, science has tried to answer them, but despite their propensity for stating conjecture as cold, hard facts, they’re really nothing more than theories and guesses which have not been proven, not by a long shot.  Oh sure, there are all kinds of mathematical formulas and statistics, but like anything else, these elements can be, and have been, manipulated to fit a preconceived notion.  It still boggles my mind that these theories have become accepted as unquestioned facts simply because a group of scientists and teachers have repeated it so often, the public just believes them.  And don’t dare to question them or you may find yourself ostracized and ridiculed, especially if you are a member of the current scientific or educational community. 

     How many of us were taught that the THEORY of evolution was undisputed fact?  I know I was!  It has always been just a theory, which, by it's own definition, has not been proven, and yet it is taught in our schools as if it were a fact.  In some cases, the teacher may even elaborate at some point that it is only a theory, and then continue to treat it and teach it as if it were a fact.  And why not?  After all, it is the accepted and authorized scientific view of the how we all got here.  And if you teach another theory – say, that the earth and universe may have been created by an omnipotent being, then just watch the sparks fly! You can teach one theory in today’s public school classroom, the accepted, authorized one, but try teaching another one, especially one that toys with the ideas that are usually left up to religion, and you’re going to be in hot water, Buddy!

     So the scientific and educational communities continue to support and present this theory as if it were fact, but without having all the answers, and even having some glaringly obvious errors!  In fact, most secular scientists and liberal teachers are more devout in their belief of these unproven evolutionary theories than most Christians are of the Bible!  The sad truth of the matter is that they actually have to be, for if they doubt these theories, that means there may, in fact, be a creator, and everybody knows that the second you admit there might be the possibility of a creator, then you’re talking about religious dogma, and there is no room in science for religious dogma, of course!  You’d be laughed out of the scientific community, loose your job, your friends, and the respect of your scientific peers.  A combination of peer pressure, fear, and indoctrination keeps some scientists fastly glued to their belief in the theory of evolution.

     When I look, purely scientifically, at what the scientists are treating as fact, I instead find it to be a belief that takes an even greater stretch of the imagination to believe in (no creator) than to believe in a creator.  Creationism is also just a theory, and so, like evolution, it is unable to be irrefutably proven, and yet, even by this definition, it still manages to cast a tremendous shadow of doubt over the theory of evolution and the belief that there is no creator.  

     I used to believe in the theory of evolution.  I used to just blindly accept it.  It sounded okay to me, and rather logical, and I saw no need to refute it.  It was taught by people who were smarter than me (they had doctorates and degrees and prodigious standing in the scientific and/or educational communities), and who was I to refute them?  Yet I too have a brain, and can use it to think and study the proofs they have and decide for myself if they are right or wrong.  My eyes have been opened to the lies I was taught (and taught to accept without question), and I no longer see the theory of evolution with the eyes of the scientific community’s accepting little puppy dogs.  I believe in God, and I believe in creationism, and I believe God created everything, without having to resort to the imperfect travesty of evolution to accomplish His task, especially regarding the origin of life. 

     And don't even get me started on the concept of "theistic evolution".  If you are a Christian, and believe in the Bible, you can’t just pick and choose what you are going to believe in – a committed Christian should believe in all of it (but realizing as well that the bible is not 100% literal or figurative, but a mixing of the two).  The Bible itself dispels much of the thinking and reasoning of the theistic evolutionist who tries to marry the two disparate concepts of God's creation and a godless evolution.  Besides, after studying all the facts, I just don’t see how evolution can be possible at all, creator or no creator!

     In future posts, I'll present just a few arguments to back up these claims.

Good Reads: Some of My Favorite Books

I don't just spend all my time watching movies and TV shows, you know, and even though I haven't written much about the books I've read in my journal, to share on my blog, that doesn't mean I don't read.  Looking over my list, I realize I'm actually a fairly avid reader!

My tastes run towards the conservative Christian right in non-fiction, and towards the supernatural in my fiction, and a melding of the two is nearly irresistible to someone who titled his blog Thoughts of a Sci Fi Christian Guy (though, interestingly, the few Frank Peretti or Ted Dekker novels I've picked up haven't impressed me too much)!  I just finished Who Do You Think You Are? by Pastor Mark Driscoll, Not a Fan by Pastor Kyle Idleman, and I bought Ann Coulter's How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) from a thrift store and started enjoying it, but then realized I had already read it, and already have a copy of it in my bookcase.  Oops!  I'm currently working my way through The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis, which I never read before, and just finished the first two published Narnia books, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian.  I’ve also recently read, and enjoyed, Godforsaken and Life After Death: The Evidence by Dinesh D’Souza, Heaven is for Real by Todd Burpo, The Conservative's Handbook by Phil Valentine, and By Faith, Not by Sight by blind American Idol contestant Scott MacIntyre, and I found them all to be very interesting, well written page-turners.  

I also recently listened to the audiobook Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone by JK Rowling, and have been re-listening to Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter and What’s So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D’Souza.  I also have Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard on my iPod, and read a little bit here and there when I get a chance.  Either at night, or in the morning, I read a chapter from the Bible (LOVE the New Living Translation), and I've also been reading the American History edition of The Intellectual Devotional, which has a one page write-ups on the people and events that have shaped our country.  I won't remember all of it, I'm sure, but reading about it every night might help me recollect some of it (and at the very least, it can't hurt).  

I also have a child-like sense of humor, and have been nibbling at Horrifyingly Mad, a collection of spooky parodies culled from the pages of Mad Magazine that someone bought me from Barnes and Noble last Halloween.  Instead of one of those Bathroom Readers, I keep in my bathroom a book called Reflections for Movie Lovers that I picked up from the Family Christian Store, and which has Christian readings and interpretations of 365 films, one for every day of the year.  (This is also irresistible to someone like me, who just posted Christian interpretations of the Stephen King movies and books Firestarter and The Tommyknockers on my blog, and linked here through the titles).  

     Books are like plays.  I don’t read as many as the movies or TV shows I watch, or the music I listen to, but there’s still a rather extensive list of books over the years I’ve read and enjoyed, and that I might like to talk about sometime.  Just off the top of my head, the list includes Angela’s Ashes by Frank McCourt, Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton, Firestarter, The Green Mile, and The Shining, which are some of my favorite Stephen King books, and Wolfen by Whitley Steiber, the book that, way back in Junior High School, had me hooked on horror novels to begin with!

Then there's Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, The Diary of Anne Frank, The Hiding Place by Corrie ten Boom, The Roots of Obama’s Rage by Dinesh D’Souza, Let Freedom Ring and Deliver Us From Evil by Sean Hannity, Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, and Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias, all of which took me further into the realm of the Christian right.

Jesus Freak, Live Like a Jesus Freak, and Under God were all books by band members from dc Talk.  A few other favorite fictional books over the years have included The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien, 1984 by George Orwell, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, and, of course, Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, which are my two favorites by William Shakespeare.

Things got a bit heady with books like Beyond the Cosmos by Hugh Ross, the Intellectual Devotional books by David S. Kidder and Noah D. Oppenheim, The Metaphysics of Star Trek by Richard Hanley, and speaking of Star Trek, I found Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion by Terry J. Erdmann and Paula M. Block to be, by far, the best of the Star Trek companions due to the expressive writing and the great amounts of detail!  Carrying on the association with books based on sci fi TV shows, I thoroughly enjoyed X Files Book of the Unexplained Volumes 1 & 2 by Jane Goldman, and going back a bit further, I enjoyed several books by Roald Dahl, Bill Peet, and Dr. Seuss in my childhood.

A few other favorites from childhood included the “Ramona” books by Beverly Cleary, Where the Red Fern Grows by Wilson Rawls, and A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L’Engle. 

     A few others, such as Decision Points by George W. Bush, The Reagan Diaries, The Shack by William P. Young, Timeline by Michael Crichton, and Through My Eyes by Tim Tebow I just didn’t like quite as much, for various reasons, but that's okay.  This list is quite extensive as it is, and as I said, this is just off the top of my head.  I'm now wondering what I might have forgotten I've read... like the Ann Coulter book I just bought and already had!

My Walk with God: How an Intellectual Investigation for the Truth Produced Yet Another Christian (Just Like C.S. Lewis!)

     Despite my questions about the validity and the impact of Christianity and the Bible on individual people or the society as a whole, and my sometimes obsessive fascination for some decidedly un-Christian things (like horror movies), and the fact that, yes, I am also a weak, back-sliding sinner – despite all of this, I still believe.  I’m still a Christian.  I still think that Jesus is the only thing that can save this sick, twisted society, and the Christian morals and values that go with Him hand in hand.

     We live in a cesspool of sin and depravity; of course it’s going to rub off on people, and that may even include me.  I am not above the influence of the evil one.  None of us are.  It’s in our nature to sin.  We were born into sin nature.  Like Lot in the land of Sodom, we are surrounded by sin, and we need God to keep us grounded in morals, and to help us make the right choices – the choices that will help us as a nation.  We can see what a lack of morals has done to us by visiting our public schools or turning on the TV, or shopping, or just walking down the street.  I see rude people, nasty people, selfish people, even evil people; I see people who frown all the time or who laugh at me and others; I see people who insult others or judge others using all the wrong criteria.  The same people who use that old Christian phrase “Thou shalt not judge” as retribution against judgmental Christians still end up judging others, particularly Christians.  Some people think that it is we Christians who are the nasty, evil people of this world (and it doesn’t help that, as with the Pharisees of Jesus' day, some so-called Christians really are nasty and evil).  Yet liberals see even good, true Christians as nasty and evil because we happen to think that homosexuality is a choice, and a wrong choice that is helping to warp our country.  They hate us because we value the life of the unborn over the choice of the mother.  They hate us because we don’t accept all people and lifestyles, and because we draw a line in the sand.  They hated Jesus for the same reason when He walked the earth, and for this, for being like Jesus, or trying to be like Jesus, we are ridiculed, viewed as “Crazy Church Nazis,” ostracized, or lumped with the likes of "the three Jims":  Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Baker, and Jim Jones.

     What I would like to do here and now [and in future posts] is to look at my faith critically; my belief in the Bible, my morals and values, and even my sinning nature and my belief that the blood of Jesus wipes away my sin, and compare this belief to the liberal view that everything and everyone is okay, and that we must accept everybody as they are because it is who they are based on their genetic makeup, and that they are not even responsible for the lifestyles they engage in or even the crimes they commit. 

     First of all, I do believe in God!  I believe there has to be a creator.  Both fortunately and unfortunately, this was not faith on my part that brought me to believe this, but rather a search for physical proof that God exists.  It’s unfortunate in that some Christians don’t need to search for proof of God’s existence – they just know it in their hearts that He exists; they have faith, and faith is simply good enough for them, and it’s all they need to believe.  They might even look at me as less of a Christian because I had this need to search for proof of my creator’s existence, and faith alone wasn’t good enough for me like it was for them.  However, I feel fortunate to be the kind of Christian who began my walk with God searching for proof, because it was in that search that I found truth as well.  I’m not the only one who has ever found God this way either, and I consider myself in good company.

     We didn’t go to church as a family when I was growing up, yet I still feel that God was in our home and in our hearts – we believed in Him without question (or at least I did – though I know this could just be the unquestioning belief of a child; after all, I believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny).  As I grew older, the world opened up, as it does for all children, and I learned about other schools of thoughts, scientific theories, and was exposed to the beliefs of atheists, and of the other religions.  Some of them contradicted the Christian religion I was taught, and many other things cast a shadow of doubt over my beliefs, as I'm sure it does for many children as they grow up.  Examples include the corruption of the Christian church throughout its history, the varied Bible translations and the different ways to interpret them, and the manipulation, indoctrination, and “peer pressure” that Christianity sometimes used to make converts and that were the same rather underhanded ways other religions used to increase their congregations.  The business side of church and their "pack 'em in the pews" mentality, is sometimes very easy to see, and not always pretty.  Viewed in this way, Christianity was merely just another religion, one of hundreds, even thousands, and let’s not forget the hundreds of various Christian denominations!  Methodist, Catholic, Protestant, and Nazarene are but a few of the different types of Christianity one can follow, and logically it would seem that with all these different kinds of Christianity floating about that the particular one I might choose to follow is almost certainly the wrong one.  I mean, what would make my brand of Christianity the right one?  Just my faith?  If that’s the case, couldn’t all the followers of these other types of Christianity, let alone another complete religion, be able to make the same claim?  With so many other choices out there, just what makes me think I’m right?

     The good news is that this line of reasoning casts doubts over all religions, or any school of thought really, be it religious or secular, and it's one of the main reasons quite a few people are allergic to any form of organized religion.  And given this argument, Christianity, if nothing else, still has as much possibility of being right as any of the others, and that includes all the different versions of Christianity itself.  All these religions and beliefs actually share the same “shadow of doubt.”

     So, in the end, having blind faith or just believing – just knowing it in your heart – doesn’t seem to be quite enough.  One should certainly love God with all their heart and soul, but also their head.  In fact, that is often, at least for me, the one greatest determining factor in my belief.  I believe a person should “search for the truth” if for no other reason than to strengthen his beliefs and defend them to others.  Additionally, I know that a big part of being a Christian and walking the Christian walk is an attempt to reach and teach others, those in the religion included, but particularly those outside of it, so that they may know about the saving grace of Jesus and join Him in heaven – so that the lost may be found.  The more versed a man or woman is in their religion, and the more facts they possess to back up the Bible and their belief, then the more equipped they will be to bring the Christian message of salvation to their neighbors and friends, or even members of their own family (and maybe even their enemies).  The healing message is one of Christ’s crucifixion on the cross for the purpose of saving us, and that whoever hears that message and truly believes it in their heart is saved.  Christians are actually required to be the bearer of God’s message to the rest of the world, and so the search for the facts to support that belief can also become the tools that can convert a non-believer!  Regardless, one should always search for the truth.  I think Jesus wants us to.

- From my journal, 1995 (and it still applies to today!)

Gary's Movie Reveiws: Thumbs Up for Three Great Old Movies "True Romance", "Airplane!" and "Superman II", But with Reservations

True Romance

When Sopranos actor James Gandolfini died unexpectedly this month of a heart attack, my friend Kenny suggested that we watch the only film of his I happen to own.  In True Romance from 1993, directed by Tony Scott and written by Quentin Tarantino, Gandolfini is just one of more a dozen character actors that brings this otherwise vulgar and violent material to vibrant and vivid life.  

Christian Slater stars as Clarence, a guy who works in a comic book store, and is quite possibly the coolest geek you’re ever likely to see.  When his boss hires a hooker to be his date on his birthday, he meets Alabama, a very bubbly Patricia Arquette, who comes clean with Clarence about everything, convincing him that she’s only been a call-girl for three days and that she has, in fact, fallen head over heels in love with him and wants to “straighten up and fly right.”  Prompted by his subconscious, which masquerades as the ghost of Elvis (Val Kilmer), he decides to see her pimp Drexl (Gary Oldman), a scary, scarred white dude with dreadlocks who actually thinks he’s black.  Drexl has already managed to gun down a business associate (Samuel L. Jackson), leaving him in possession of a great deal of cocaine belonging to the mob.  A showdown with him leaves Clarence in possession of the coke, and after reconnecting with his father Clifford (Dennis Hopper), now a security guard who used to be a cop, he and Alabama take off for Hollywood to get married and make some quick money by offloading the drugs to arrogant film producer Lee Donowitz (Saul Rubinek).  Meanwhile, the mob, including self described mob lawyer Vincenzo Coccotti, expertly played by Christopher Walken (who can do these kinds of quirky mob characters in his sleep), attempts to track down Clarence and Alabama, and their first stop is Clarence’s dad, Clifford, leading to a fascinating scene between Hopper and Walken that is equal parts chilling, emotional, and hilarious, all at the same time.  Clarence’s Hollywood connection is a rather naively affable friend who is a struggling actor, the appealing Michael Rapaport as Dick Ritchie, and whose roommate is a perpetually wasted pothead named Floyd, hilariously portrayed by Brad Pitt!  Their connection to the movie producer is Elliot Blitzer (Bronson Pinchot), a PA who bites off more than he can chew when [SPOILER ALERT] a fight with a girlfriend during a routine traffic stop by the police leaves him covered in coke!  To avoid jail, he agrees to wear a wire for two hyped up, excited detectives (Chris Penn & Tom Sizemore).  Meanwhile, mob hitman Virgil (James Gandolfini) manages to catch up with the main couple on the run, and he surprises Alabama in their motel room, beating the living crap out of her; yet she's not really the helpless victim she appears to be! 

True Romance:  What a Cast of Characters!

With the mob questioning the wasted Floyd for information, and not getting anywhere, it all leads to a showdown in the movie producer’s hotel room between Clarence, Alabama, and Ritchie with Elliot (who is now working with the police), the movie producer and his trigger happy body guards, the cops, and eventually, the mob!  As with many of Quentin Tarantino’s movies, almost every scene is an entertaining classic piece of celluloid, all leading up to a satisfying conclusion and a bit of poetic voiceover from Patricia Arquette as the southerly charming Alabama.  The film is filled with drugs, violence, and profanity, making it a very questionable choice, especially for a Christian, yet I found it to be one of the most entertaining guilty pleasures I’ve ever seen!    If you’re a fan of Quentin Tarantino movies, yet haven’t seen this one since he only wrote the screenplay, do yourself a favor and SEE THIS MOVIE!

Airplane!

With the possible exception of Young Frankenstein, surely this was the forerunner for all the satires and parodies that have flooded the market as of late, and almost everyone knows the drill by now:  “Stop calling me Shirley!”  These modern parodies have gotten worse over the years, I’m afraid, starting with even the sequel to Airplane!  And some of the humor is pretty darned racy for an old PG film.  Was that a pair of naked breasts I saw running through the screaming, panicked passengers?  Did I just see that old lady give the drunk a stink eye, and then proceed to snort coke right there on camera?  There are many questionable moments like this peppering the film, getting thrown at the wall with all the jokes to see what sticks, and I don’t want these moments to drag this very funny film down, but if you start keeping a tally, they do!  If I listed them all here, you might have the same response I had.  This is PG?

     I suppose all these satire comedies have their fair share of raunch (and some have much more than their fair share).  And sometimes I don’t know which is worse.  Many comedies of this type (and other types) aren’t all they funny.  They have the references to other movies, but simply having those references isn’t always funny in and of itself, making them nothing but raunchy without being funny.  But what do you do when they ARE funny, like the first two Naked Gun movies and most of the flicks in the Scary Movie franchise?  You wind up attempting to excuse the raunch in the name of comedy, forcing them to become a guilty pleasure at best. My contention here isn't necessarily even with the raunch itself, but with the rating.  I still cannot believe this is rated PG.

     But given all this, I guess the best that I can say is that, even with this raunch, it is funny from beginning to end, and if you’re going to use that as the only barometer, then it’s a hit!  A cleaned up version with all the questionable stuff eliminated (such as Captain Over's wife in bed with a horse, or Lloyd Bridges character picking the wrong week to quit drinking, smoking, taking amphetamines, and sniffing glue, or Julie Hagarty "blowing" the blowup autopilot named Otto) or at least some of it toned down, would be preferable,

Superman II

It’s funny.  You go to these movies when they come out in the theater (and we saw this in 1981) and you’re blown away by the special effects, and you end up thinking how much they’ve improved over the years since those old 50's sci fi films or superhero movie serials.  And then 30 slip by, they essentially remake the film, and then you go back and revisit this one you held up as a great film , and it ends up seeming quite quaint!  What once impressed and ended with such a bang now seems substandard and just a bit ridiculous.  And consider:  This really IS the best of the old Christopher Reeves Superman movies!

     As such, some of it still hold up.  I was just complaining about the new one, saying how I missed some of the more organic effects and lighter tone of this one, not to mention Christopher Reeves.  This still isn’t a bad film, and the new one could have used some of the levity of this one.  Yet in light of the fact that they’ve started adding new effects shots to old science fiction films like Star Trek: The Motion Picture (and the series), the first three Star Wars movies, and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, perhaps they could update this film at the same time.

     It’s still a good movie.  It did boast some good special effects for the time, and the conclusion where Superman bested General Zod by knowing Lex Luther would try to double cross him was simply delightful.  I just don’t like to see some of these old favorites become so dated!  I mean, Superman III and IV, sure, but not this one too!  Please say it isn’t so!  This one was really good!