Sometimes hope alone doesn’t get the job done.
I liked The Hangover just fine—thought it had some very funny stuff. But I admit I’m baffled by many folks' “OMGFUNNIESTMOVIETHISYEAROREVER!!” response to it. So given that—and my nostalgic affection for director Harold Ramis, my general appreciation of Jack Black, Michael Cera, and for the whole Apatow Crew—I really wanted to show up here and declare Year One to be funnier than The Hangover, if only to be a contrary cuss.
Alas, ‘tis not to be. Everything you’ve heard about Year One or suspected about it from the commercials is true. It is, to get every cliché out of the way: uneven, hit and miss, slapdash, slap-happy, and much more silly than satiric. Still stubbornly clinging to my pathological need to go against the grain, I will say that Year One was not as bad as I’d feared, but never as good as I’d hoped. (Anyone want to blurb that for the ads?)
Interestingly, this is not exactly the film you’ve been pelted with commercials for over the past months. Sure, it’s the tale of two misfit hunter-gatherers (Black and Cera) who are exiled from their tribe into the wider world of sometime B.C. But the marketing department has gone to great lengths to hide the fact that the figures and events of "Genesis"—the forbidden fruit, Cain and Abel, Abraham and Isaac, Sodom and Gomorrah--play a much larger role in the plot than the trailers would have had you believe. (Yes, of course the time periods and civilizations never match up—that’s the joke. High school history teachers will spend the next five years correcting students who believe cavemen lived just over the hill from the Bronze Age.)
And the script, co-written by Ramis, takes a few broad swipes at the nature of religious dogma. Which is fine by me—I’m all for a little poking fun at Biblical history and the strictures of organized religion. I’m actually a lot for it. (“Why can't we go into the room of the Holiest of Holies?” “Tell us again why we need to cut off our foreskins and/or sacrifice virgins?”) Ramis has often used comedy to examine philosophical issues—the results have varied from the sublime in Groundhog Day, to the mundane in Multiplicity, and the misfire in his Bedazzled remake. But Year One only goes halfway. It nibbles around the edges of religious satire, but never fully commits.
The same is true of its humor. Every week I become more convinced the PG-13 rating is a blight upon modern mainstream film making. Whether it’s horror (Drag Me to Hell) or action (Terminator Salvation) or humor (Land of the Lost and now Year One), all PG-13 does anymore is let filmmakers push the boundaries of sex, language, and violence just enough to still upset folks who are not comfortable with such crudities, and yet fall short and disappoints those of us who want sex, bad language, and violence. So again nobody goes home happy. (Except with Drag Me to Hell, which is just all kinds of fun.)
As with Land of the Lost, Year One goes much too far for kids under 14, and yet never far enough for fans of the Apatow Factory’s parade of gross-outs. (Yes, this is yet another Apatow-produced comedy.) The result is a lot of smutty and scatological gags (nearly 30 years later, Ramis takes his Caddyshack Baby Ruth joke to its logical conclusion). They're sometimes funny (because it’s true—gas, pee, and poop jokes are forever funny) but probably best appreciated by snickering teens and pre-teens. (Yes, yes, we know. It's a goat... and you're having improper relations with it... Run along now, both of you...) There's nothing here clever enough that you’ll have it on your shelf to show your own kids 15 years from now.
Year One falls far short of the bar for religious satire set by Monty Python’s Life of Brian. And it also falls short of the so-stupid-it’s-genius silliness of Mel Brooks’ best work. (Though it’s easy to see Black and Cera as following in the giant footsteps of Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder.) So what do we end up with? Unfortunately, something closer to the woe-begotten 1980 Dudley Moore Python-wannabe dud, Wholly Moses! (Sorry, Lorraine Newman. Not every SNL player gets to be a movie star.)
On the up side, Black and Cera do their thing perfectly. In fact, probably too perfectly—neither wanders anywhere outside their well-defined wheelhouses. You know what sort of Jack Black you’re going to get. You know the Cera screen persona. Black is the guy who's fun to be around until he accidentally sits on your dog. Cera is the guy whose dog is forever being sat on. Both use their tricks to fine effect, and frankly they make a decent, if kinda obvious comedy team. (Rebellious and conforming! Extroverted and introverted! Heroic and neurotic! Id and super-ego!)
If their routines are getting too familiar (I agree with those who want to see Cera do something other than passive-aggressively mutter under his awk-shucks-I-just-want-to-have-sex breath), at least they work well here. The pair’s impeccable timing and self-assurance helps ground a movie that veers wildly all over the place.
And the supporting cast is a who's-who of Apatow all-stars (Bill Hader, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Paul Rudd in cameos) and older pros, especially David Cross (as a whining, weaselly Cain), Hank Azaria (as an Abraham obsessed with foreskin cutting), and my long-time favorite, Oliver Platt (as an affectionate high priest). Everyone is on his game—even in the midst of Bad Wigfest ’09—as they try to run a massive comedy relay, handing the baton off to the next guy in hopes of keeping the movie rolling along.
The baton hand-off is not always successful—like so many big comedies today, the laughs are there, but they lurch, lull, and lag between gags. (I suppose that's The Hangover’s strength—I didn’t feel it hit any new comedic highs, but it maintains an even flow of funny.) The first half of Year One especially feels like a disjointed string of sketches, some of them coming to abrupt ends simply because it seems the filmmakers couldn’t come up with a clever or funny finish.
You’re left wondering if you should feel frustrated and angry that they didn’t seem to try, or sad that maybe they did try and just couldn’t close. At least the rapid, jerking scene changes mean that there’s a new gag, each sillier than the previous, coming along every few minutes to take your mind off the previous shortcomings. (My favorite was a “high speed” oxen cart chase.) And you have to hand it to the stars and the supporting players--they're taking some obvious and worn-out jokes and goosing laughs out of them by sheer force of will and talent.
In the end Year One continually raises hopes and then not so much dashes them as slowly smothers them and wanders away aimlessly. Smarter than it seems, the movie is never quite as funny as it should be. So I'll cave, Hangover. You are the funniest film out there right now. For now...
Follow me on Twitter! It's fun! And educational!
Very informative review! I'd been wondering if I should go see this one, but it sounds like a wait-for-DVD kind of thing. Thanks for the scoop!
Posted by: Chitowngrrrl | June 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM
I agree completely. I wasn't big on LAND OF THE LOST, but YEAR ONE slid so far below it, that (between the two), I'd recommend LOST in a heartbeat.
Posted by: UnratedVersion.com | July 07, 2009 at 02:47 PM
BIG LET DOWN. My husband & I would have walked out if it had not been the first movie we had been to see without kids in years! 3 couples and a family of 7 did walk out of the theatre! I would not let children watch this. It made a complete mockery of the Bible.
Posted by: Carla | July 08, 2009 at 01:55 PM
I did not care for this movie, I actually left half way through. It was just plain stupid in my opinion and did make a complete mockery of the bible. I, for one, would never recommend this movie to any generation.
Posted by: Nanagoat | July 08, 2009 at 02:17 PM
Peterseim says, "I’m all for a little poking fun at Biblical history and the strictures of organized religion. I’m actually a lot for it. (“Why can't we go into the room of the Holiest of Holies?” “Tell us again why we need to cut off our foreskins and/or sacrifice virgins?”)" Both he and Ramis have a clever way with words, but their pathetic biblical ignorance disqualifies them both from mocking it.
Posted by: Dave | July 08, 2009 at 03:16 PM
Well duh it mocks the Bible. Didn't anyone see the previews? I did not watch it because I do take the Bible seriously, but for people to walk into the theater and expect it NOT to be a "bible parody" (so to speak) is just ridiculous. It was painfully obvious that it was going to be that way. The only advice I give is at least watch the previews before you watch or maybe read some reviews first. You'll save yourself a LOT of misery trust me.
Posted by: J.D. | July 08, 2009 at 03:22 PM
i agree this movie was not even good ... i would had left but i think the family fell asleep why wake them. snooze movie. yes not to funny about the bible in parts they i guess attempted to be funny. so hands down to NO NO on this movie.
Posted by: Tina | July 08, 2009 at 03:40 PM
Dave, where exactly have I shown "Pathetic biblical ignorance"?
And yes, J.D, though as I pointed out, the studio DID go out of its way in ads to minimize mentions of the Biblical material in Year One -- for exactly the reason that they didn't want to turn away potential viewers who might be offended. I, for one, was surprised at how MUCH of the film is specifically Genesis-based--the promotion for it focused mostly on the cave-man angle.
Posted by: Locke Peterseim | July 08, 2009 at 03:51 PM
Locke's statement,
"the script, co-written by Ramis, takes a few broad swipes at the nature of religious dogma. Which is fine by me—I’m all for a little poking fun at Biblical history and the strictures of organized religion. I’m actually a lot for it. (“Why can't we go into the room of the Holiest of Holies?” “Tell us again why we need to cut off our foreskins and/or sacrifice virgins?”)"
clearly illustrates that he and Ramis certainly do have a way with words, but not The Word. They reveal a pathetic ignorance of the Bible that disqualifies them from mocking it. Those who find this stuff sardonically funny probably do so because they actually believe the Bible doesn't answer these questions or that it advocates virgin sacrifice, which is sadder still. George Carlin was right when he labeled atheism a "non-prophet" religion. And funny!
Posted by: Locke'd Up | July 08, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Great review that gets it exactly right. Black and Cera are too likeable to hate but Year One IS a complete, disappointing mess. I also compared it (unfavorably!) to The Life of Brian, a movie which parodies the Jesus story with stunning respect and intelligence. (Cleese even talked about the Pythons studying the New Testament and finding the life of Christ too pure and too important to poke fun at it without such.) I am prepared to forgive Cera and even Black; for every Nacho Libre there was a solid School of Rock or Be Kind Rewind, but a cast so talented deserves far better than this movie.
Posted by: Simon | July 08, 2009 at 04:23 PM
Wait, so Dave, are you now posting as "Locke'd Up" or is Locke'd Up stealing your material?
And no Locke'd Up, I was pointing out the topics joked about in the FILM, which makes more fun of general religious dogma, rather than just Hebrew Law.
Clearly it's NOT a historically or Biblically accurate movie, nor does it intend or pretend to be, but Ramis IS trying to get at some overall themes about religious practices and traditions. He uses a fictionalized notion of pagan Sodom and its virgin sacrifices and "holiest of holies" as a stand-in for general ancient near-Eastern belief systems.
And are you using George Carlin to to support an ANTI-atheism stance? That will come as quite a shock to the late comedian...
Posted by: Locke Peterseim | July 08, 2009 at 04:34 PM
i hated it
Posted by: marissa | July 08, 2009 at 05:01 PM
I took kids to see Year One, but Up came on before it at the drive-in. Up was good, but Year One we all thought was going to be funny because of Jack Black the kids loved him in School of Rock. Boy this movie really missed it's mark! There were so many cars pulling out it was sad, and I was one of them, I did not even make it to the mid point. Very dissapointing, and I too take the bible seriously and the previews did not imply any spoofing about the bible. I Jack Blacks kids see all his other work before they ever see this, shame on him a father too. This movie is a real let down don't even waste a dollar on it!
Posted by: ann | July 09, 2009 at 01:21 PM
Locke, I can see why Jews and Christians would be offended by this movie. If Ramis isn't going to present the Bible accurately, then his criticism shows itself to be pedantic and flawed. It is in essence Reducto ad Absurdum. That is pretty insulting.
However, having not seen the movie, I can't really comment on what I think about it personally. Having seen the previews and heard the pre-release hype, my first instinct was to be offended, but most of it seems harmless. Either way, I'd have to reserve judgement until I see it.
As for Carlin, his quote compares Atheism to religion. Sure, Carlin was vocally against organized religion, but was he an atheist or an agnostic? I'd also like to point out that there are plenty of Christians (and I assume quite a few Jews) who are against organized religion. To understand this, I think that the term "organized religion" should be replaced with the more accurate "institutionalized religion." People are by nature organizational and social creatures, so it would be exceedingly rare for anyone with religious belief to avoid organization.
Posted by: Fiirvoen (Jason) | July 09, 2009 at 03:13 PM
"If Ramis isn't going to present the Bible accurately, then his criticism shows itself to be pedantic and flawed."
I fully disagree, Jason--comedy isn't an exact science and I'm willing to give Ramis room to play fast and loose with Biblical and historical texts in order to get at the satiric points he wants to make.
It should be noted that Year One falls short of effectively making those satiric jabs land not because of inaccuracy or ignorance, but because clearly the studio wanted it shaped into a Big Summer Movie Starring Jack Black that would play more as a gross-out crowd-pleaser than a Life-of-Brian type satire. (As we all know from George Kaufman, "Satire is what closes on Saturday night.") Naturally, by trying to have it both ways, Year One fails at BOTH.
The points Ramis seemed to want to make about religious rules, tradition, and dogma are not absurd--any more than he wanted to expound Buddhist beliefs by having Bill Murray live through the same day over and over. Reducing those points to silly slapstick jokes is of course absurd, but isn't that WHAT comedy and satire DO? Groundhog Day just did it much, much BETTER.
And how exactly does ANYONE "present the Bible accurately"? Certainly every single Biblical film has--like any historical or period film--played around with the original text. Is Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ "Biblicaly accurate"? Of course not--most of it is drawn from a non-Biblical source.
In fact, Ramis in Year One IS mostly accurate in his presentation of the details of some of the events of Genesis, but of course he exaggerates for comedic effect and slaps all sorts of characters and stories together in a condensed chronology--in fact, that's one of the intentional jokes of the Year One: that hunter-gatherer cavemen eat of the Tree of Knowledge, then meet Adam, Cain, and Abel, then Abraham and Isaac, then travel to Sodom (where most of the film is set and where the most creative liberties are taken, presenting the city--about which NOTHING is known historically--as a mishmash of ancient Mesopotamian cultures).
Year One is certainly a failed film, both as broad comedy (though it has plenty of very funny bits) and as religious satire, but that failing is more one of sloppy, lazy film making than lack of Biblical fidelity. My sense is that Ramis was trying to make a film that was NOT just a Biblical satire, but rather a satiric riff on the nature of dogma among several ancient cultures (part of his muddled point is that so much of this stuff crossed cultures as various myths bled together), all of it intended, of course, to comment on our own current society and beliefs.
Posted by: Locke Peterseim | July 09, 2009 at 03:47 PM
I don't think it's impossible or even hard to present the Bible accurately. Sure, there are plenty of interpretations, but most of those are INTERPRETATIONS not ideas that came from nowhere.
Also, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Ramis was poking fun at any other religion.
One last point, what is the comedy here designed to do? All comedy has a purpose. As a Christian, it's hard not to feel like my beliefs are being purposely attacked. Is this comedy good-natured, or subversive? I'm all for subverting what needs to be subverted, but most people can't tell the difference between the "religion" and the "belief."
Put yourself in the shoes of a Christian for a minute: If you believed that anyone who did not accept Jesus was going to burn eternally in hell, wouldn't you want to do everything you possibly could to convince them of the same? From that perspective, does this movie help or hinder?
That is why Christians can be so acidic towards anything that might poke fun at something that they take incredibly seriously.
I don't mean to preach, I just think that Christians are incredibly misunderstood by today's culture. There are very few "stupid Christians" and most are people just like the rest of us. But the way Christians are portrayed in the media is becoming increasingly negative. So things like this become a sore subject very quickly.
Posted by: Fiirvoen (Jason) | July 09, 2009 at 05:28 PM
'Year One' is supposed to be a fun movie! If you take everything too seriously all the time then you have no right to respond on blogs about the funny side life. If you are one of those people who honestly takes the bible seriously, then you should notice that there is a lot of humor in the holy book. Basically, lighten up and have fun with the life. God has a sense of humor and so should you. Enjoy Life and don't push your beliefs on other people (it even says that in the bible!). And don't let your beliefs stop you from experiencing all that life has to offer. Laugh every day, make someone else laugh every day and try learning something new every day!
MicroGirl :)
Posted by: Micro Girl | July 09, 2009 at 05:30 PM
Locke, one last thing, I know you're a good guy, and I like you. I think you're pretty cool. So don't take anything I say the wrong way. I'm not trying to piss anyone off, here.
Posted by: Fiirvoen (Jason) | July 09, 2009 at 05:31 PM
Oh, not to worry at ALL, Jason! I LOVE this sort of discussion!
In fact, I just went through and responded to your points and then, when finished, realized it was nearly 1,000 freaking words LONG!
So now I don't know what to do with it all... I could break it up and post it as comments bit by bit... or just e-mail it to you directly... LOL
Okay, I'll post some parts of it... bear with me, folks... multiple rambling comments coming up...
Posted by: Locke Peterseim | July 09, 2009 at 07:04 PM
"I don't think it's impossible or even hard to present the Bible accurately. Sure, there are plenty of interpretations, but most of those are INTERPRETATIONS not ideas that came from nowhere. "
But no film maker, comedic or dramatic, is REQUIRED to be accurate about it--artistic interpretation, etc. Anyone is free to consume and repurpose the Bible (or anything) to meet their creative needs. The Bible isn't off-limits or sacrosanct just because it's "The Bible." After all, for centuries artists and writers--including Dante and Milton--took liberties with Biblical stories for the sake of their art. Ramis's comedic swipes clearly did NOT "come from nowhere"--he DOES know his Old Testament. And no, I'm in NO way putting Ramis on a level with Dante and Milton! LOL
"Also, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Ramis was poking fun at any other religion."
Sorry, Jason, but you're wrong here, not having seen the film. Like I said, half the film takes place in Sodom. Ramis's mocking of the notion of a "holiest of holies" temple chamber and the sacrificing of virgins took place in SODOM-- he's using the (fictional) religious beliefs and rites of the Sodomites to make a larger point about institutionalized religion.
"One last point, what is the comedy here designed to do? All comedy has a purpose."
I've stated that several times: Ramis is going after the way societies build up religious traditions and rules in order to maintain a certain amount of control of their people.
Posted by: Locke Peterseim | July 09, 2009 at 07:07 PM
"As a Christian, it's hard not to feel like my beliefs are being purposely attacked."
Except Ramis, a lapsed Jew, is only going after very big HEBREW targets. Sure, they're part of the Christian Bible, too, but it seems a bit like playing the victim for Christians to claim THEY are being targeted for mockery.
"Put yourself in the shoes of a Christian for a minute: If you believed that anyone who did not accept Jesus was going to burn eternally in hell, wouldn't you want to do everything you possibly could to convince them of the same? From that perspective, does this movie help or hinder?"
But setting aside the studio's obvious hope that Year One would have done better box office, WHY does Harold Ramis have to make sure his movie "helps" according to your standards and definitions? I don't think ANYONE wants to go back to an era where a work of art or entertainment has to pass some sort of "Christian" sniff test before it's deemed safe and appropriate to be seen. Obviously people vote with their dollars: if something offends them--if they feel it hinders, not helps--they don't go see it.
But at the same time, you have to understand that YOUR beliefs do not mean you get to dictate what everyone else says, does, watches, or creates. Of course, if you're a studio making a mainstream comedy that you hope will be a box-office hit, you aren't going to go out of your way to offend three-fourths of your potential audience. And really, Ramis doesn't. He doesn't mock BELIEF--he mocks those thousand-year-old rules that sometimes get carried along with "institutionalized religion." So while you have not seen Year One yet, I'm not sure you'd automatically hate it or disapprove of it's intentions. (Now its comedy, that's more hit and miss).
Posted by: Locke Peterseim | July 09, 2009 at 07:10 PM
"holiest of holies" temple chamber comes from Judaism. Look it up.
"Except Ramis, a lapsed Jew, is only going after very big HEBREW targets. Sure, they're part of the Christian Bible, too, but it seems a bit like playing the victim for Christians to claim THEY are being targeted for mockery."
Not at all, I'm sure there are Jews, Christians, and Muslims who are all equally offended. We all believe in the Old Testament after all. Though it is nice to hear there is no anti-Jesus stuff.
"But setting aside the studio's obvious hope that Year One would have done better box office, WHY does Harold Ramis have to make sure his movie "helps" according to your standards and definitions? I don't think ANYONE wants to go back to an era where a work of art or entertainment has to pass some sort of "Christian" sniff test before it's deemed safe and appropriate to be seen. Obviously people vote with their dollars: if something offends them--if they feel it hinders, not helps--they don't go see it."
Its not that he has to. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just pointing out why a Christian, Jew, or Muslim might be offended. Anything that lampoons your religion is hard to swallow and not get upset by, however, most are smart enough to know that outlawing such things and censoring just opens the door for our own message to be censored at some point. Once you censor one person, everyone else becomes fair game. I'm not trying to keep him from saying what I don't like, I'm just saying why I don't like it. I guess my plethora of disclaimers didn't get that across. Sorry. :)
"Of course, if you're a studio making a mainstream comedy that you hope will be a box-office hit, you aren't going to go out of your way to offend three-fourths of your potential audience. And really, Ramis doesn't. He doesn't mock BELIEF--he mocks those thousand-year-old rules that sometimes get carried along with "institutionalized religion." So while you have not seen Year One yet, I'm not sure you'd automatically hate it or disapprove of it's intentions."
And this right here answers what I was afraid of. Some people who attack religion tend to attack belief as well (whether intentionally or accidentally). You'd have to agree that the majority of those who are vocally against religion, tend to be against the other as well. Most intelligent and open-minded people aren't. Don't get me started on atheism though.
Posted by: Fiirvoen (Jason) | July 10, 2009 at 11:03 AM
i have absolutely no interest in seeing this film based on the previews, content and reviews. However after reading some of this spirited debate i now feel compelled to see this film so i too may comment. i feel left out. on second thought, the movie looks so dumb that i may have to remain blissfully ignorant and alone.
Posted by: millar74 | July 10, 2009 at 11:28 AM
""holiest of holies" temple chamber comes from Judaism. Look it up."
Yes, I'm well aware of that. But in this film the idea is used in Sodom, not Judaism. Sure, that's a bit of a cheat on Ramis's part--sliding it over to Sodom so he can still poke fun at the notion but do so outside of any actual religion. On the other hand, circumcision--which Ramis makes big fun of--predated Judaism. And the idea of a Tree of Life/Knowledge or special plants that confer knowledge or immortality (complete with attendant serpent) also predates Genesis, most notably in Gilgamesh. And technically, I believe the idea of a Holiest of Holies did not arise in Judaism until after the Exodus. Point is, Ramis may be sliding religious notions around, but they were pretty slid around and cross-pollinated already.
"I'm sure there are Jews, Christians, and Muslims who are all equally offended."
Trust me, the swipes at religious dogma are VERY tame and silly and inoffensive. I haven't been paying close attention--because honestly Year One was so much of a comedic and satiric and box-office misfire that I stopped thinking about soon after I saw it--but I haven't heard anyone from any religion getting too upset about the film anywhere other than here.
"I'm just saying why I don't like it. "
But you haven't seen it. You understand how that gets at one of the things that causes creative folks to backlash against Christian outrage?
I'm certainly not saying you have to go out and see Year One in the theater--like I've been saying, it's a very so-so comedy and who has time for that? But check it out on DVD this fall and let me know what you think.
I understand your larger points about why Christians get offended (even if I may disagree with some of them), but when it comes to specifics about Year One and Ramis's big, soft nudges on religion, we'll have to wait until you've seen the film to really discuss it in detail.
Trust me, you and I (for the sake of argument) are getting MUCH deeper into it and making a MUCH bigger deal out of it than it probably deserves. I'm guessing this is the most ANYONE has bothered to talk about ANYTHING in Year One. :)
Posted by: Locke Peterseim | July 10, 2009 at 12:24 PM
And EXACTLY, Millar! I WISH you guys could see it so we could discuss and argue it more, but on the other hand, I can't WISH that on anyone! (Oh, I kid--it's not an AWFUL, unwatchable film by ANY means -- parts of it ARE quite funny... but still... I hate making you spend time on "so-so")
On the other hand, Jason and Millar, you CAN go rent Knowing right now and we can argue about THAT (and it's weird sorta-maybe religious themes) for DAYS! Of course, that would also mean *I* would have to RE-watch Knowing... which, Nic Cage gooniness aside, might not be a bad idea...
Posted by: Locke Peterseim | July 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Hmmmm. Knowing sounds like a good idea.
"Yes, I'm well aware of that. But in this film the idea is used in Sodom, not Judaism. Sure, that's a bit of a cheat on Ramis's part--sliding it over to Sodom so he can still poke fun at the notion but do so outside of any actual religion." Gotcha.
"I haven't heard anyone from any religion getting too upset about the film anywhere other than here." You probably wouldn't. Christian's being offended doesn't exactly make headline news unless its, "Hey look at the crazy Christians! Aren't they CRAZY?"
"But you haven't seen it. You understand how that gets at one of the things that causes creative folks to backlash against Christian outrage?" You misunderstood. I was speaking more in the general sense than the specific here. I never said that this movie was offensive. I just explained why people might get offended and (attempted) to explain the Christian point of view.
"I understand your larger points about why Christians get offended (even if I may disagree with some of them), but when it comes to specifics about Year One and Ramis's big, soft nudges on religion, we'll have to wait until you've seen the film to really discuss it in detail." I agree wholeheartedly.
Posted by: Fiirvoen (Jason) | July 10, 2009 at 01:52 PM
I just watched Knowing last night. it wasn't bad until the last 15 minutes. then it took a left turn at WTF and arrived safely at its cheesyville. i like Nic Cage. I can always watch Face Off and be impressed. But it seemed like he was channeling the stilted acting of Keanu Reeves and this movie took itself way too seriously overall.
back to the actual subject at hand....I am fortunate enough to have a $1 theater in my neighborhood. so i may get to see Year One before it hits DVD. There really has been a lot more "religious" discussion than i would've thought for the film. i've seen a lot clips and i don't think i'll walk away offended. btw i am a christian. i went to Jerry Falwell's school, but don't hold it against me :) you go where the most scholarship money is!
it seems to me that this type of dialogue is best suited for a movie like Dogma. Now there's a movie to get up in arms about.
Posted by: millar74 | July 10, 2009 at 03:41 PM
Well, Millar, I'll nab a redbox copy of Knowing today or tomorrow if I can and rewatch it and we can try to figure it out!
Here's my original review from the theatrical run:
http://blog.redbox.com/redblog/2009/03/knowing.html
And James's recent DVD review:
http://blog.redbox.com/redblog/2009/07/knowing.html
Lots and LOTS to talk about with that ending, eh?
Posted by: Locke Peterseim | July 10, 2009 at 04:03 PM
"it seems to me that this type of dialogue is best suited for a movie like Dogma. Now there's a movie to get up in arms about."
Millar, I actually DID mention Dogma in the "director's cut" version of my WAY TOO LONG initial response to Jason's earlier post, but ended up not re-posting it. I'd said "you're not going to see many mainstream comedies today mock the Gospels--THAT would be box-office suicide. Sure, Kevin Smith gave it an honest, heartfelt shot (and he's a VERY devote Christian) but that was more than a decade ago--I'd suggest the cultural climate is very different today."
Also in my initial response to Jason yesterday I'd gone a short bit into my personal religious background, just to show that I certainly did NOT grow up in a religious vacuum: "I was raised Methodist in a VERY Mennonite and Amish community. I attended Mennonite summer Bible Schools, sang in Mennonite church choirs, and participated in Methodist youth groups. And today my sister is a lay minister."
I only mention that because just as people sometimes jump to stereotypical conclusions about Christians (esp those who went to Liberty U! LOL), sometimes Christians make assumptions about religious critics or skeptics not having any religious upbringing or background or knowledge. And that's certainly true sometimes, but not in my case. :)
Otherwise, I backed away from most of that because I was trying to keep this a discussion about the movie Year One and not let it open into a full-blown, sprawling discussion of religion and Christianity and skepticism, etc. Which personally I would LOVE to have, but would probably be testing the boundaries of redblog's editorial purpose, and the patience of anyone else still reading these comments. :)
Posted by: Locke Peterseim | July 10, 2009 at 04:13 PM
To Locke Peterseim, who appears to be the writer of the movie review. First off, I have not seen the movie & have no interest in wasting time or money even before reading the insights here. And it seems to be Ramis that made the original comments about "Holy of Holies", fore skins and virgin sacrifice.
The reason just anyone cannot go into the Holy of Holies is ( and I am going to scale this down drasticly to make it revelant in 2009) the same reason, only more so, way way more so, you cannot just decide to go waltzing into the Oval Office & say "wuss happinin" to the president.
The fore skin issue was for sanitation, & if any one needs details on that see your doctor.
AND NOWHERE in the Bible do people who serve God, THE GOD, CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE; GOD, WHO THE BIBLE IS WRITTEN ABOUT; GOD, sacrifice virgins or any other human for that matter. Other groups of people did, yes it happened sadly enough, along with children, basicly any one who was innocent. satan only does the reverse of God. Jesus was innocent and yet was willing to be the ultimate sacriifce.
Posted by: Gene Williams | July 13, 2009 at 09:39 AM
"it seems to me that this type of dialogue is best suited for a movie like Dogma. Now there's a movie to get up in arms about."
No kidding.
"Kevin Smith gave it an honest, heartfelt shot (and he's a VERY devote Christian)"
No way...really!?
"Also in my initial response to Jason yesterday I'd gone a short bit into my personal religious background"
I knew that you were raised somewhat religiously...
"sometimes Christians make assumptions about religious critics or skeptics not having any religious upbringing or background or knowledge."
I don't think I claimed that...I could be wrong. If I did, sorry.
"Which personally I would LOVE to have, but would probably be testing the boundaries of redblog's editorial purpose, and the patience of anyone else still reading these comments. :)"
LOL! That would be epic!
To Gene: I believe that Locke and the others pointed out that the virgin sacrifice and the holy of holies parts were presented in reference to the pagan religion of Sodom. (Although Judaism does have a holy of holies.)
Also, the Judaic holy of holies was accessible to only one priest (the others had to wait in an outer room) who had to perform rigorous ritual cleansing and mental/spiritual preparations was allowed in. This one priest entered wearing special robes and had a rope tied around him that lead back out into the outer room in case he was struck down by God. Perhaps you know all this, and to be fair you did include a disclaimer, but I just wanted to clarify.
Posted by: Fiirvoen (Jason) | July 13, 2009 at 11:06 AM