The Golden Compass

The Bait and Switch

“I don’t expect Christians to see God as a metaphor, but that’s what he is. Perhaps it might be clearer to call him a character in fiction, and a very interesting one too: one of the greatest and most complex villains of all—savage, petty, boastful and jealous, and yet capable of moments of tenderness and extremes of arbitrary affection – for David, for example. But he’s not real…

----Philip Pullman, author of His Dark Materials

Dec 2007

It is not without much research (and without bracing myself), that the movie, The Golden Compass will not make its way onto our shelves. This will be the third blockbuster movie that we have decided not to carry due to its content, which was in direct conflict with our Christian faith.

The first movie we chose not to offer to our patrons was Brokeback Mountain, due to its homosexual content. Our decision received a significant amount of attention—some good, some bad. This is surprising, given the 98% straight demographic in the US (slightly lower in the UK). In this politically correct era, even those not falling within the homosexual demographic apparently felt the need to give a shout-out to support the oppressed homosexual community. Can’t they even have a movie of their own? Absolutely. Just not in my store. Oh, the freedom of being the owner!

The second movie was The DaVinci Code, which we decided not to carry due to its religious content, or rather, anti-religious content. Sadly enough, this caused very little ruckus. I had less than five customers question why it was missing from our new release wall, and why it wasn’t up on the "new this week board." Apparently it’s OK to be politically incorrect in regards to those of No Faith—I guess their backing isn’t as strong?

Now, onto The Golden Compass. What? You saw it in the theatre and didn’t find anything religiously objectionable? There really wasn’t, or so I’ve heard. I never did watch it. Most critics say it was very well done. The things we did above--refusing to carry movies with questionable content, doing things that might offend a specific group of people—Hollywood doesn’t do this. A least not unless the flaming is intentional for the purposes of increasing their bottom line in some other way. I mean, gosh, a group of people might be offended (in this case, Christians), and could wreak media havoc, ultimately impacting their bottom line.

This is a BIG movie with grand special effects that cast ridiculously expensive actors and actresses. Movies of this caliber take money to produce. The Golden Compass ran over $180M. Now, obviously the production company and distributers expect box office revenue to exceed that figure—a figure that’s big even by movie standards. This requires an extremely large audience that needs to appeal not only to one segment of the population, but to as many as possible. Alienating an entire segment of the population is missed opportunity. That’s what we are. Opportunity. Cheddar. ROI. You can’t always please everyone, but Hollywood sure gives it a good whirl by trying to smooth out certain questionable material that would otherwise provoke a showdown with a cantankerous lobby.

So what was the end result of Hollywood’s smoothing out of Pullman’s God-bashing story? The classic bait and switch. It’s unlikely that it was intentional on Hollywood’s part, or even on the part of the author who is quite proud of his work and its anti-God theme. But the motivation of the multiple parties involved seems irrelevant when the end result is the same. How is this a bait and switch? Hollywood created the bait: here is this dazzling movie with wonderful characters, superb special effects, and a benign story line that is not offensive to the church or to Christianity. They removed all direct references to God and to the church (which were present in the book) and used other verbiage instead, which they deemed would cause less friction within the Christian community. His Dark Materials, at the hands of Hollywood, becomes the cheery Golden Compass. And now the switch: Suzie loved this movie so much, she went out and bought Pullman’s trilogy, which was written with the intent to discredit the Christian-based C.S. Lewis novels, The Chronicles of Narnia, God, and Christianity in general, in which Pullman depicts God not only as a fictional, fallible, terrible yet merciful character, but tells of his ultimate death, and thus the creation of free will. The author is not unclear in his motives, is proud to make a stand against Christianity, and is irritated by the use of words such as “spirituality,” which he thinks is a put-on. The result of this switcheroo is the creation of a backdoor into the world of atheism, a very subtle one--so regardless of Hollywood’s attempt at keeping this PC to ensure maximum profits, what they, in fact, have done, was disguised the author’s real intent, attracting many unsuspecting movie goers (including children) to Pullman’s books, who will have no idea that the books are slamming the entire premise of Christianity and promoting atheism (until after they’ve read it). I think I would have preferred the honesty of the upfront and in-your-face version. For example, “This is a movie is about atheism, and it’s anti-God.” At least you know what you are being offered so you can decide whether you wish to be a taker.

So why didn’t Hollywood do that? I think that part is obvious: Because the movie would tank, that’s why. The vast majority of the US population consider themselves to be Christian, and this outward announcement of an anti-God movie would ruffle feathers--the majority would feel this is crossing the line and just plain wrong. This line-crossing would have a huge negative impact on their bottom line--New Line would have suffered from massive boycotts, and Hollywood knew this! They didn’t become a large movie conglomerate without knowing what the public wants to see (and doesn’t want to see). They’re smart cookies. Anti-God-In-Your-Face-Movie=no revenue.

Well, I’m a clever gal, too. And you know what? I recognize this for what it is. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A simple bait and switch. I don’t tolerate bait and switches in stores, and I won't tolerate them in the theatre, or in my DVD player at home. I wouldn’t carry this movie if it were in my face, stating that it was anti-God, and no one would question that decision. Hardly anyone would want to see it anyway. But we know this story is anti-God, because the author said so. So how is it different, exactly?

So, Hollywood covers it up, smooths it out, and hopes we won’t notice that it’s the same story with a few words changed? Don’t worry, folks, you’ll find out when you read the books, which are abhorrent. And if they weren’t, all the trash they took out would have made it into the movie as-is! And just when you were thinking what a lovely movie it was, and, gosh you bet the books are good too, and, you heard there were three…switch….
I won’t stand for it when I know it’s there but cleverly disguised either.

You can argue that it’s OK because they took the “bad stuff” out (which mainly consists of substituting words for church and God), if that’s what you think happened. You can argue that watching the movie itself won’t hurt anyone. I guess the latter part is true, if that’s all that ever happened. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there, or Mr. Pullman wouldn’t see an increase in his book sales when the movie comes out. You know, like what didn’t happen when Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings came out with the movie to complement the novels (note the heavy sarcasm). What Hollywood really did was cover it up, tuck it away, and save it (read: bad stuff) until the movie-goers run to the bookstore to get the book. It is what it is--an atheistic God-bashing, Christian-hating story disguised as a marvelous and benign movie masterpiece in the vein of Narnia and Lord of the Rings. And I, for one, won’t be conned, nor will I let my children be.

So as a business, we have made the decision not to perpetuate Pullman’s anti-Christian agenda. Whether this agenda was clearly spelled out in the movie is irrelevant to me—it will be made clear when fans flock to the bookstore. Backdoor or front door—it all lets you into the same place. Of course, everyone will decide for themselves whether they should see this movie. I just can’t be the one to hold the door open for you. I hope you understand our position.

“I’m not deluded: Christians are. There is no God.”
---Philip Pullman

NEW TO DVD APRIL 14, 2008

NEW TO DVD TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2008

AVP:Requiem (Alien vs. Predator: Requiem) – UR- Starring Steven Pasquale, John Ortiz, Johnny Lewis, and Ariel Gade. Sci-Fi. Ah, yes, another in the Alien series. Or the Predator series. Or the Alien and Predator series. Unlike so many runaway sequels, especially number…. 7 (I think 9 if you count Predator and Predator 2) this one isn’t terrible. It’s actually quite good. The special effects are good and the acting isn’t horrible, although not vying for any Academy awards. The story line is actually original, and it truly is a sequel, not just more of the same story. A Predator is bringing home a dead Predator and a couple of facehugger thingys on a ship back to their home planet after winning their “game,” but soon discover the dead Predator wasn’t really dead. Actually infested with an Alien, it pops out and it kills the pilot, resulting in a crash landing somewhere in Colorado (why do aliens tend to flock to tiny hick towns?). Before dying, the Predator pilot sends out a distress signal to his home planet. Now this newly hatched thing is an Alien Predator hybrid, I’ll now call PredAlien. The facehugger thingys escape and kill two hunters in the forest. Meanwhile, Predators are on their way to earth to rectify this disaster. Needless to say, PredAlien and the facehuggers manage to wreak havoc on this little town, and Dallas (Pasquale), a recently released convict, and his former best friend turned sheriff (Oritiz), are on a mission to save the day. The National Guard is called in and tries to “help.” There is a lot of action, gore, and some language. Like I said, the acting is OK. I didn’t really care for Ms. Gade. Pasquale was very good, as was Ortiz and Lewis. In summary, it was a good movie, great considering it was a sequel of the 7th generation. I have only one major complaint. Ever watch one of those movies where something shocking happens, like some irreversible injustice happens to a favorable main character, or it ends with something good happening to an irritating character when clearly something bad was supposed to happen (you know what I’m talking about)? There are certain “movie rules” which one must follow. Good people win. Bad people lose. Main characters can only die at the end of movies. The most irritating or stupid characters get killed off first in horror movies. Why? Because that’s just the way it works. There are a few exceptions, of course, like movies based on true stories, and a few other oddities, I guess. What I’m trying to say is that there are those movies where it seems like the writer deliberately does something just to break the mold and for no other reason—like it doesn’t even fit with the story. Jack was hated, but Jack won the lotto, because the audience wouldn’t like it, or it would surprise the audience. Note to writers: Stop trying so hard. Most of us are simple people (I won’t speak for all of you). Let the good guys win. Make the bad people lose. People like to see justice served. This is one of those movies where the writer didn’t always follow the rules, and it made me a little angry, like when some kids (I won’t name names) colored outside the lines when I was in kindergarten. (I still don’t understand why Miss Miller had a problem with me taking their crayons away—where is the justice in that?)


The Backwoods (Bosque de Sombras)-R for violence, language, and brief nudity. Starring Gary Oldman and Paddy Considine (Bourne Ultimatum, Hot Fuzz) Thriller/Creepy Drama. In the vein of Deliverance and Wrong Turn, a couple decides to rent a house in the backwoods of Spain. They find a girl with extremely deformed hands chained and locked in a cabin in the woods (don’t you hate that?). They attempt to rescue her, but the locals are determined to keep her in her present conditions. Sounds groovy. I had a tough time with deliverance. I liked Wrong Turn. I have loved Gary Oldman ever since True Romance. And I like Paddy Considine. The plot sounds interesting, if not contrived. BUT, the movie was not reviewed well, with critics saying that not even two good actors can save a bad film. Of course, this could be the same critics that gave terrible reviews to Alvin & the Chipmunks, saying that it was not “respectful” of the chipmunk legacy. We all know how much $$ that movie ended up making. Whoops! I’ll get back with you on this one, as I will surely see it.


Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead – R for a scene of strong graphic sexuality, nudity, violence, drug use, and language-starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei, and Albert Finney. Suspense/Thriller. Two brothers (Hoffman, Hawke) conspire to rob their parent’s small jewelry store-an easy target, or so they think. When an accomplice decides to ignore the previously discussed rules that were in place to ensure the plan went off without a hitch, the deal goes terribly bad and the downward spiral begins. Reminiscent of the Tarantino flashback timeline, this does not start at the beginning and end at the end.



Border Lost-R For strong violence, language, some drug use, and sexual content- Starring Emilio Roso, Wes McGee, and Chris Cleveland. Action. A task force is put together to stop the crime against illegal aliens crossing the border. The operation is stopped for political reasons, and the criminal activities against the border crossers increase to drastic proportions. After an agent is murdered, a few rogue agents take matters into their own hands and seek revenge for their colleague. Well, this one just looks bad all around; from the story to the cover art, the tag line (“3 men, 2000 miles and a ton of ammo”), to the acting.


The Final Season – PG for language, thematic elements, and some teen smoking-starring Sean Astin, Powers Boothe, Rachael Leigh Cook, and James Gammon. Family/Sports. Based on a true story. One of those lovely underdog stories everyone loves, and one for the whole family. Set in a small town in Iowa, a high school baseball team must defend their record of 19 championships. When the coach is fired and quickly replaced by the young assistant coach, it seems nearly impossible… but of course, this is an underdog story… I haven’t seen it, but I’m guessing the good guys win in the end …


In the Name of the King-PG13 for intense battle sequences-Starring Jason Statham, Leelee Sobieski, Matthew Lillard, Ray Liotta, and Burt Reynolds. Action/Sci-Fi. A pack of half-man half-creatures (the Krugs) led by a wizard (Liotta), attempt to overthrow an entire kingdom. One farmer (Statham, coincidentally named Farmer), after a family tragedy brought on by the Krugs, stands up and fights with the King for vengeance, and finds he is more than he (and others) knew. Sobieski is so not good here—at all. Liotta was disappointing, not helped at all by the surrounding second-rate special effects. Statham is great. Reynolds is good. The wood ninjas were funny, but probably not supposed to be. Lillard served as comic relief, which might have been intentional, and though probably inappropriate for the movie, was enjoyable nonetheless. Overall the movie was not nearly as bad as the critics made it out to be. Statham truly did save the day, both in character in the movie and in real life in the film. It might not have been worth the full price movie ticket, but is certainly worth the rental.


Juno-PG13 for mature thematic material, sexual content, and language. Starring Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, and Jason Bateman. Offbeat Comedy. A teenage girl finds herself unexpectedly pregnant, and tries to find an adoptive couple for her baby. Normally I would be all over “offbeat” for the comedy genre. However… I happen to have 5 teenage daughters, ages 14, 16, 16, 17, and 17—so as you can imagine, I wasn’t rushing out to see a “funny” movie about teenage pregnancy. This won a few awards and was purported to be cute, well-acted, and well-written. Kudos. I fail to see how this can be remotely funny. As a foster parent and as an adoptive parent, I see the other side of the coin. I’m the person caring for those children born to the teenage girls who can’t, or won’t, take care of them. I’m the person who is witness to the aftermath, who plays cleanup to the emotional damage done, although admittedly always inadequate. I’m the person who plays intermediary between parent and child when the parent, 10 years later, decides they now have grown up and are finally able to be a responsible parent. And I’m the one receiving your tax dollars to make this possible. So, although I realize there was certainly no malice intended with the movie, if you were to look out of my window, you would not be able to see the humor, even if it were only presented in the form of intermittent comic relief. Climbing off my soap box, I will not say the movie is good or bad; I will say only that my lifestyle simply prohibits me from finding certain subject matters amusing. And that I like Jason Bateman.



Lars and the Real Girl-PG13 For some sex-related content- Starring Ryan Gosling, Emily Mortimer, Paul Schneider, Kelli Garner, and Patricia Clarkson. Comedy. This was nominated for an Academy Award for best screenplay. Lars (Gosling) has a girlfriend. Her name is Bianca. Lars is happy with Bianca. Interestingly enough, Bianca happens to be a life-sized doll. Yeah… a doll. But then Lars starts to develop this relationship with another female co-worker (a real person this time). And now Lars finds himself caught in this crazy love triangle with his girlfriend-doll and his female co-worker interest. This received some good reviews, and obviously did well at the Awards. Sounds a little odd, needless to say. Although I guess I said it anyway.

One, Two, Many: National Lampoon Presents-R for pervasive strong crude sexual content including dialogue, and for language and some drug use. Comedy/Slapstick. You know, there are, like, 25 of these National Lampoon movies. I buy them because they rent well. They look stupid, they all look like they have the same plot, the same type of actors, and the same crude and raunchy humor. I would review this, but it would be like reviewing the other 24. Here’s my quick take on this movie: If you liked the other 24, odds are you will like this one. If you didn’t like numbers 1-24, number 25 is not likely to be any better, so save the $2.99 and rent AVP: Requiem or In the Name of the King.

Retribution-R for some violent content. Starring Koji Yakusho, Manami Konishi, Manami Konishi, and Tsuyoshi Ihara. Horror. Official selection of the New York Asian Film Festival, FantAsia Film Festival, and Fantastic Fest. A young woman is found dead in a muddy puddle, but the detective assigned to the case discovers she has been drowned in sea water. The detective soon becomes the number one suspect as fingerprints and other items belonging to him are found on-scene. As more bodies turn up following the same modus operandi, the detective begins to question the link between the killer, the bodies, and the possibility of his own involvement.

NEW TO DVD APRIL 08, 2008

NEW TO DVD TUESDAY, APRIL 08, 2008

11th Hour, The-NR-Starring Leonardo DiCaprio-Documentary. This is one of those “save the planet” movies. DiCaprio doesn’t actually narrate a big portion of the movie, due to his apparent lack of actual expert knowledge on the subject, unlike Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. A large portion of the movie is spent hearing from the “experts”. Renew and recycle to save yourself from impending doom. There, now you don’t have to sit through it.

Cellar Door-R for strong bloody violence and terror, and language-Starring James DuMont and Michelle Tomlinson. Horror/Thriller. OK, tell me this is not funny. James DuMont has been in a lot of movies. Most often his characters do not have names. His characters are like “gas can guy,” and, “well-meaning father,” and “vacuum salesman,” and “prison driver,” oh, the list goes on. This is funny to me. Apparently his does quite a good job in this movie. Kind of a twisted plot, yet an already used one. Not only did they use a plot that another movie has already used, they used the name of another movie as well. There was a short horror movie with the same name that was just released with the exact same title. There was another movie with the same title released a few years ago as well. Aside from the fact they used the name and plot from another movie, I’m sure it’s quite original. A girl finds herself the obsession of a creepy stalker guy, who turns out to be one of those guys who takes girls and keeps them in cages in his basement for purposes of twisted and sadistic torturing—you know the type. Finding herself in a wooden cage, and realizing she is not the first target of his…affection, she attempts an escape through a cellar door.

Day of the Dead-R for strong pervasive horror violence and gore, and language-Starring Mena Suvari, Michael Welch, and Ving Rhames Horror/Thriller This gets a little confusing, so try to follow along: There was Romero’s movie Night of the Living Dead in 1968, following by his sequel, Dawn of the Dead in 1979, right? Then in 1985 Romero came out with a sequel to Dawn of the Dead, titled Day of the Dead (#3). Night of the Living Dead was remade in 1990, and again in 2006 (Night of the Living Dead 3D). This week, Steve Miner brings us a remake of Romero’s 1985 Day of the Dead. This skipped the box office and went straight to DVD. Also in this series was Land of the Dead (2005), and Diary of the Dead (2007). (Dawn of the Dead was remade in 2004 but was not a sequel to the 1968 Night of the Living Dead version…) The Return of the Living Dead, and The Return of the Living Dead II, III, etc. are NOT part of this series, officially. Romero has plans to make one more in the Night of the Living Dead series. All I have to say is, wow. The disorganization pains me. As far as the quality of the movie, it really got terrible reviews. I’m not sure why it was remade to begin with, going straight to DVD. If you are going to remake a movie, your purpose should be to make it better than the first. I’m guessing by the comments that it anything but.


Lions for Lambs-R for some war violence and language-Starring Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise, Michael Pena, and Andrew Garfield. Drama/War. Two stories intermingle here and tie up neatly at the end. An experienced journalist (Streep) who feels like her employers have sold out in the name of ratings and advertising takes on a difficult interview with a politician (Cruise) trying to spin America’s view of the Iraqi war via the media. Meanwhile, a college professor (Redford) questions one of his bright-but-slacker students, telling him about two of his former students who now are serving in the war in Afghanistan, in the very military action Cruise is trying to sell to the media. Streep, sensing a sham, is torn between printing what she knows to be hype, and following her employers instructions, led by advertising dollars rather than the truth. The story is actually quite good, if not politically motivated to some degree. You can set everything aside (yes, even Tom Cruise), simply because Meryl Streep and Robert Redford are in it. There aren’t words to describe what they bring to any film. One of them alone is enough. Having both is just too good to be true. It could be a movie about the phone book, and it would still be good. Michael Pena (The Shield) was also very good, as was Andrew Garfield. Cruise was OK, just not a very big fan. The story was sad, at least the Robert Redford/war storyline. The Meryl Streep/Cruise story line was great. This is the must-see movie of the week.

Music Within-R for language including sexual references and some drug content-Starring Ron Livingston, Melissa George (30 Days and Nights), Michael Sheen, Yul Vazquez, Rebecca De Mornay, Hector Elizondo, and Leslie Neilson. With Marion Ross (Happy Days). Comedy/Drama. The true story of a public speaker who returns from Vietnam with a severe hearing impairment, and is forced to find a new purpose. He channels his efforts into Americans with Disabilities, paving the way for many disabled Americans. Won awards, is purported to be both witty and engaging. Authentic story.

Reservation Road-R- Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Elle Fanning, Jennifer Connelly, Mark Ruffalo, and Mira Sorvino. A big cast for a movie that did less than $1M in the box office. Drama/Thriller. Based on the novel. A hit-and-run car accident takes the life of one father, and destroys the life of another. The movie starts off with the tragedy, and then takes the entire movie to resolve the conflicts. I think this would be exhausting rather than enjoyable, not to mention that I can’t stand movies where a character makes bad decisions (or a single bad decision) throughout the movie, when the audience can clearly see the positive outcome of the alternate decision. This is like watching your two-year-old stick their finger in a light socket, telling them not to do it, and them watching them do it again. And again. It’s painful to watch, and certainly not enjoyable. (No, my children have never stuck their finger into a light socket, but most of my children come to me after the age of 14… that would be r….e….a…l…l….y stupid.)

Resurrecting the Champ-PG13 for some violence and brief language-Starring Samuel L. Jackson, Josh Hartnett, Kathryn Morris, Alan Alda, and Teri Hatcher Drama/Sport/Boxing A sports reporter (Harnett) rescues a homeless man (Jackson), and discovers he is a former boxing champ formerly thought to have been deceased. Harnett attempts to cash in on the champ’s story to make a name for himself as a reporter, escaping the shadow cast by his father’s success. This is loosely based on the true story of boxer Bob Satterfield and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Moehringer. Possibly a sleeper. Not very many of these out there. The cast is solid, and the story sounds good. Looks good to me.

P2-R for strong violence/gore and language-Starring Rachel Nichols and Wes Bentley. Horror/Canada. By the maker of Hills Have Eyes and High Tension. A woman finds herself stalked by a psychopath after being locked in a parking garage on Christmas Eve. This actually isn’t supposed to be half bad, although I have not seen it.


There Will Be Blood (aka Oil!)-R for some violence-Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Kevin O’Connor, Colleen Foy. Crime/Drama. Won 2 Oscars, nominated and won over 30 other awards. Set in California at the turn of the century, this is a story about the a greedy prospector obsessed with his success and the failure of others, and the effects this early prospecting had on a family and the town, and his eventual self-alienation. Based on the novel Oil!

Walk Hard-Dewey Cox Story-R for sexual content, graphic nudity, drug use and language-Starring John C Reilly, Jenna Fisher, Raymond Barry, and Margo Martindale. Comedy. The story of singer Dewey Cox, who apparently has had over 400…. relationships….. has habitually taken every drug and then kicked the habit, and so on, and still managed to be a music legend (how uncanny). It looks as bad as the summary sounds.