St Bernadette of Lourdes

Unrated

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

I generally consider it unwise to do a movie with a cast of -only- children.  Occasionally, there's a child actor who knows what they're doing, but most of the time, people just don't have any faith in all-child casts, and so, a film like this one would wind up with very poor sets or costume-design, or with several lousy shots, which could have been done over, to make them look better, and while I will admit that many of the children in this movie are clearly reading from cue-cards, I was surprised by just how many of the key players in the piece were convincing.

Bernadette, to start with, and the skeptic, the priest, and although he played a somewhat cliche part, I though the police commissioner did a fine job acting it out.  Some actors were truly bad, and others just average, but there were just enough good ones, and in the right places, that the movie is enjoyable nonetheless.

As for the rest, I was genuinely shocked by how good the costumes and sets were.  For the most part, they actually looked convincing, which is hard to do when you're dressing kids up as military guards or saracens.  I was particularly impressed with the scene, near the very beginning, of dozens of kids, all dressed up as saracen invaders and Charlemagne's troops, charging each other from either side of a field, and battling it out as best they could.  Clearly, some significant manpower, and expense for costuming was needed to put just that one scene together, and it wasn't lost on me.

There is a narrator, but only briefly at the beginning and end of the film, so I didn't mind him so much.  What surprised me, though, was that while there is humor in the movie from time to time, it doesn't generally play up the humor of having an all-child cast, preferring to play the story almost completely straight, regardless, and here's the weird part; it actually does a pretty good job of that.

The sight of kids in nun outfits, or wearing soldier's uniforms did throw me off just a bit, but not as much as I might have expected it to.  I'd like to give it a slightly-less-than-perfect grade, but to be honest, it's amazing they were able to do so much with the cast they had.  I was very impressed, overall.

Two Suitcases

Unrated

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 0.5 of 5

I thought about just launching right into a normal critique of everything I did and didn't like, but really, there was one main thing I liked, and a lot of things I didn't like.  For the sake of brevity, I'll mention the one thing I liked first, and then try to classify the problems in the next section.

Nothing in this film; and I mean -nothing at all,- contradicts actual history, scripture, or the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Now, on to the problems.  Again, I could be brief and just say "everything else," but I think it would be better to divide these problems into categories, to make them easier to understand.

I've heard this film called a docu-drama.  That's two categories right there.  How does it fare as a documentary, and how does it fare as a drama?

The last category I'll want to look at is how the film stacks up to the -other- Bakhita move; the one that, in spite of its inaccuracies (it was a historical fiction,) I actually liked.

Category 1: Documentary.

Documentaries exist in order to provide people with a method of gaining information about a particular subject by watching a video.  This is done without a lot of embellishment, in order to keep the focus on the information, which is what viewers of documentaries are after.  They're not looking to be entertained.  They want to know about the subject of the documentary.  Therefore, documentaries succeed on the basis of whether they deliver -true- information, and whether they deliver -sufficient- information.

As I said, there's no question that this film delivers -true- information about Saint Bakhita.  The problems arise when it comes to whether the information is -sufficient.-  It's not.  At all.  All you find out here is that Bakhita was black, that she was raised in Africa, that she was captured by men as a slave, sold to other men as a slave, was repeatedly beaten and suffered, and eventually became a nun.  Much more is known about her life than just this.  This is only the barest skeleton of what happened to her, and it doesn't even say why she was canonized.  As a documentary, this movie fails.

Category 2: Drama.

The greater part of the film is gobbled up by drama-like scenes of a Bakhita-obsessed nun and her brother, who didn't want her to join the convent.  They go on a tour to places that were important for Bakhita, and in the process, the brother learns some kind of lesson, or something.  What, precisely, he learns, and how is not sufficiently explained, however.  He gets upset from time to time, but I wouldn't call it "drama."

"Drama" involves some kind of emotional scene taking place on screen; some sympathetic character going through something that's difficult for them.  However, there are no sympathetic characters in this movie.  I cared less and less about the nun and her brother as the film wore on, because all they talked about was Bakhita or things related to her, and you can't consider Saint Bakhita to be a sympathetic character in this movie, for the simple reason that -she's not in this movie.-  As a drama, therefore, this movie fails.

Category 3: From Slave to Saint

The very-inaccurate movie "From Slave to Saint," is superior to this film in a lot of ways.  It does drama exceptionally well, where this film does not, and tells an amazing story which, even though it was fiction, was still entertaining.  There is really only one thing that this film could offer to surpass it, and that is information that the previous film left out; another chapter in Saint Bakhita's story.  It could talk about Augusto Michieli and his wife and daughter.  It could talk about the time she spent in the convent (something that the previous movie touched on very little,) or, perhaps most conspicuously, it could discuss that one elephant in the room; her forced conversion to Islam while she was a slave.

However, the movie doesn't do any of these things.  No mention is made of Michieli, of Alice, of what she did in the convent, or worst of all, of Islam.  What term do they use when describing those to whom she was sold?  "A man."  Care to be a little more specific, movie?  We're waiting.  Sorry, but... fail.

Conclusion

This is a very poorly-constructed and low-budget travelogue with stock footage and narration played over the rare instances where information is given about Bakhita.  Even then, it's information that is -all- in "Bakhita; From Slave to Saint."  My conclusion is this; just watch the other Bakhita movie instead.  It will give you all the information you get here, and perhaps encourage you to read up on the real person, as it did for me.  Besides, it's actually entertaining and well-written, and this simply is not.

My grade, however, will be lenient, because what little information it -does- put in is correct, for whatever that's worth.

Saint Philip Neri: I Prefer Heaven

Not Rated

Catholic-ometer: 2.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

It's strange.  When I finished watching this movie for the first time, I remember really enjoying it, but having had some time to think it over, I realize that this movie really has nothing that Bakhita didn't have, and, in fact, is just a tad bit worse in some areas.

This movie is made by the same director who did Bakhita and St. Giuseppe Moscatti, and I can't say I'm surprised.  Those films, like this one, were largely sensational pieces intended to amuse, but contained little or nothing that resembled the lives of the real people they were named after.  This film claims to be about Saint Philip Neri, and as usual, it has nothing to do with him.

St. Philip Neri was a very holy man who, at first, wanted to go to India as a missionary, but eventually decided to stay in Rome, where he started a secular club of sorts for educated Catholics who wanted to learn about God.  It had fairly lenient regulations, and he himself was a joyful man who believed that everyone else should strive for joy as well; particularly in prayer and worship.

Regrettably, he's not the star of this movie.

What we have, instead, is a very holy man who, at first, wanted to go to India as a missionary, but no positions were open, so he had to stay in Rome.  There, he runs into a gang of kids and spends some time caring for them and trying to raise them right.  Hijinks and misadventures ensue with the children, before and after reaching adulthood, and most of the story centers around them.  What little has to do with the film's title character is either wrapped up in his relationships with the kids, or in charity work with the poor and destitute, as though he were Mother Theresa, or in warding off a militant cardinal of the church who manages to sick two popes on him.  He then needs to satisfy both of them somehow to keep everything running.

Neri has something of a catchphrase throughout this movie "be good, if you can."  As far as I can tell, this disgusting catchphrase was never attributed to him, and shouldn't have been allowed to pass through the dark depths of the pen used by whoever wrote this movie.  It's one of the worst things about this film.

Another of the worst things about the movie is, as I've said, the repeated use of the church hierarchy as the villains.  It'd be one thing if it actually happened that way, but I've never read anything that would indicate that.  I won't say that higher-ups within the church never abuse their power.  Living in a place like the US, where organized protests against rampant evil on the part of the nation's cardinals and bishops are so rare, I wouldn't even think of making a claim like that, but it's a lack of devotion to church teaching, not an overabundance of it, that's the problem here.

Thirdly, the children dominate far too much of the movie.  This movie shouldn't be about them; particularly since Neri hardly ever worked with people under 30 in real life.  One of them (the girl Ippolita) also has a questionable neckline as an adult, which, in that time period, would have gotten her mistaken for a prostitute, and, in fact, does get her mistaken for one at least once in the film, if I remember correctly.

Now for the film's strengths.  Like previous movies by this director, it's a strongly-written story with a heartwarming conclusion and endearing characters.  If the real Saint Philip Neri had never existed, I'd have given it an A-.

The music of the movie centers largely around the main piece; "I prefer Heaven," which, while simple, is easy to remember and catchy, and I'm been humming it off and on since I finished watching the film.  Most of the other pieces of music in the film are built around the same basic tune as the main theme, which is a bold move to make, but is used to great effect.  Some of the costumes were impressive, while others, in my mind, were less impressive.  It's not as strong as Bakhita in that respect.

Still, I honestly found that it made more enjoyable viewing than Bakhita, for a number of reasons, really, mainly to do with the quality of the characters invented for the piece, and the hard work of the actors involved; depicting their roles so well.

However, there's one last thing that I just can't get past with this movie.  It was less evident in Bakhita, and more in this production, but really, visible in both.  There's an unhealthy notion in the modern world that the role of those in the church is largely to help the sick and needy with their bodily needs, and then mostly get out of the way when big wrongs need to be righted, or when anything needs to be said about morality.  While Bakhita was shown caring for the sick, and rarely said a proactive word about morality, this movie goes out of its way to paint its main character as just as much of a hospice-runner as Mother Theresa, but without all those "offensive" viewpoints that condemn the popular views of the world as "evil," "reprehensible" and "sinful."  I find that kind of bias on the part of a filmmaker to be the really offensive thing.

The fact that I had a good time in spite of all that is a strong testimony in favor of this film.  However, whether you want to watch it or not is really up to you.  There was a movie based on the life of Saint John Bosco, which did basically everything this film did, except that it was about a person who really did do some of these things, and it didn't try to paint him as weak-willed or morally-silent.

At the end of the day, I simply have to say that this is a very good movie, but not very good for Catholics.  Judging it just based on the strength of its characters and story, it was excellent.  Judging it on its faithfulness to the church produces a less-favorable result.  Let's just hope this director can get his act together for whatever he decides to do next.  I did have fun watching it, but I don't want to see any more good, decent people misrepresented or lied about.  That always puts a damper on my mood.

Blessed Duns Scotus

Not Rated

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 3 of 5

For those who don't know, Duns Scotus was a Franciscan theologian, who argued for the immaculate conception of Mary; eventually overcoming the intellectual difficulties which had once prevented even Saint Thomas Aquinas from acknowledging the notion.  This eventually became a doctrine of the Catholic Church; an everlasting testament to the success of this great man.

However, historically, Scotus is know primarily for his accomplishments in theology.  Little is known about his friends, his feelings, his motives (apart from holiness,) and so forth.  Because of this, I was expecting a rather dry movie about theological truths, but at the very least, something different from the norm.

However, what I got instead was a sort of midway point between what I was expecting (and hoping) to get, and your average, run-of-the-mill studio flick.  There are things this movie does, which it shouldn't.  Regardless, I think I should talk about the good parts first, before moving on to the bad.

The costumes in this movie are excellent, for what they're intended to depict, and much of the acting is very good as well, though I thought the main lead was a bit too melodramatic; particularly when the situation didn't call for it.  It's a minor gripe at best, though.

The scenery is a little lackluster.  It seems that they had an abbey and a countryside to film in, and that's just what they did.  Still, the story doesn't call for much else, and I was never expecting the film to dazzle me with its visual panoramas.

Much of Scotus' theology is faithfully depicted in this movie, just as I was hoping it would be.  However, there's one scene where, rather than discussing things like formal distinction or haecceity, he talks about "the eucharist being for the purpose of uniting everything."  I'm not convinced that he would ever say it as imprecisely as this.  The Eucharist is for the purpose of uniting people to God, not to one another, and certainly not to the world.  Still, again, a minor gripe.

The one thing that I don't consider minor, and the one thing that I refuse to let pass is the truly awful subplot about a seminarian who learns theology under Scotus, leaves the seminary to get married to a flower girl, and is encouraged in this by Scotus using, it must be admitted, no coherent reasoning at all.  Stupid, empty-headed romances pop up like daffodils in the modern moviescape, it seems, and no film featuring such will ever get a perfect score from me.

This movie tries to stuff a romance into a story about a great theologian, but it's a very badly-written romance, so it won't really appeal to the romantic.  It tries to depict a debate on theology, but you have to get to that debate by skipping over a horrible romance subplot, so theology students would be better served by just reading a book.

I want to give this movie a good grade, because at least 75% of it is spent discussing theology and holiness, and that's a rare thing these days.  Still, I need to acknowledge its failings as well.  This movie wasn't terrible, but it could and should have been better than it was.

Why Be Catholic?

Not Rated

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

First, the facts.  This is a DVD; about an hour and a half long, by a Catholic evangelist named Tim Staples.  He's one of my personal favorite evangelists, and here, he demonstrates why.  Step by step, he goes over every single major belief that leads to belief in the Catholic Church, and establishes why we believe each one from a very logical and sound perspective, using scripture, historical fact, and ordinary reason.  However, when I describe the talk in this way, I'm afraid that I'm doing him a bit of a disservice, because his strong, likable personality, and vast enthusiasm for the subject at hand do a huge amount to add to the presentation, and really draw you in, keeping it entertaining and interesting.

He covers, first, why atheism makes so little sense, and how we can prove that there's a God, using simple logic.  He talks about how science leads us closer to establishing God's existence with mere data, how only Christianity fits all the facts that pure logic can teach us about God, and how we know the sacred scriptures were divinely-inspired, and Jesus was God in the flesh.

Lastly, he caps it off with an explanation of many proofs from sacred scripture (some of the best, in my mind; especially Matthew 18;15-17.  I love those verses,) and how they prove that Jesus personally established ONE church; only one, and that he founded it on Saint Peter and the apostles, giving them special authority that no one else has.  That authority eventually came to be the Catholic Church that we know today, and Saint Peter (the Pope,) still has the same authority he enjoyed back then, within the Catholic Church.

It's a great talk.  I watched the whole thing, and there isn't a single thing he says that's false, which accounts for the Catholic-ometer grade I gave it.  He also speaks with force, enthusiasm and charisma, and even says a few things that I didn't know about Islam, which accounts for the enjoyability grade I gave it.

However, there's also a minefield waiting over the horizon, which I feel I should clarify.  He doesn't say anything specifically false, but it deserves clarification.

Near the end of the talk, he says something like "there are folks who asked 'who is that guy in Rome to tell us we have to have mass in english?'"  That's true.  There were folks like that (sedevecantists and others,) and they were wrong.  Not just in refusing Papal Authority, however.  They were also wrong, because the Pope never said that.

The Tridentine Mass (the traditional latin mass that was nearly universal in the Catholic Church in the last several centuries prior to Vatican II) was not abrogated by the documents of Vatican II, OR by the decree of the pope.  Furthermore, the Vatican II documents said nothing about excising latin from the mass, or about a host of other changes that have sprung up since then (about the mid to late 60s.)

I'm not suggesting that Tim Staples doesn't realize this, and he's right to go after the sedevecantists and their ilk for abandoning the Holy Father and Rome, but there are also countless groups that broke off and became protestants at around that time, and many more who stayed in the church, and used their influence to cover up or support liturgical abuses.  Those people are betraying the faith just as much as the sedevecantists; they just don't get the spotlight shined on them as often.

Still, don't take this clarification on a point as anything more than that; a clarification.  This is a fantastic talk, and Tim Staples remains one of my favorite Catholic evangelists.  This DVD probably won't penetrate the stubbornness of your anti-Catholic, protestant relatives, but it will give you some of the knowledge that you need to defend yourself when they start badmouthing the Church, and who knows?  If they keep hearing it from you, maybe they'll listen some day.

Bakhita; From Slave to Saint

Not Rated

Catholic-ometer: 3 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

Recently, our current pope, Pope Benedict, saw this movie and said that it was "beautiful."  While you'll never find me disagreeing with his holiness on any matter of Catholic Doctrine, or on the beauty of this movie, I don't feel it would be right of me to reccomend it.

To start with, I feel I should point out the first and most glaring flaw of this movie; it's about as faithful in depicting the events of Bakhita's life as "the Neverending Story; Part 2" was in depicting the events of the second half of the book it was based on.  In fact, I'd say this movie bares much in common with your typical, Hollywood, book-to-movie transition, in that virtually nothing of the original story survives, except the name of the main character.

In this movie, Bakhita is kidnapped by slavers when she's young, raised as a slave by a rich, african slave-trader, and kept until rebels attack.  An italian named Federico Marin saves her from the rebels and takes her to Italy as his own slave, where she becomes the nanny of his daughter; Aurora.

In reality, the slavers who kidnapped Bakhita was arabs; not africans, and they forced her to convert to Islam when they enslaved her.  She had several "masters" in Africa; not one, and the rich italian was her fifth "master;" not her second.  Furthermore, his name was Callisto Legnani, not Marin, and she was given by him as a gift to the wife of another man; named Augusto Michieli.  It was Michieli's daughter Alice; not Aurora, who Bakhita became the nanny of, and they didn't spend all their time in Italy.  They went back to the Sudan together for a while.

In the movie, Marin lost his wife while she was giving birth to Aurora, and bore an old wound from his loss.  Bakhita eventually ran away from him and sought shelter in a church, where she first learned about Jesus, and was given sanctuary, eventually, by the Canossian sisters.

In reality, Michieli and his wife were both alive, and both together, when Bakhita entered their household.  They bought a hotel at Suakin; the largest port of the Sudan at the time, and left to manage it, leaving Bakhita and Alice in the care of the Canossian sisters.

In the movie, Bakhita spends a long time in Marin's village, caring for sick people during a smallpox epidemic, in a Mother Theresa-like way.  She's eventually offered a free ride to Venice by Marin, and eventually accepts, once the epidemic is over.  Once there, however, she decides to become a Canossian sister, instead of rejoining Marin and his family.  Marin raises a fuss about it in the courts, but they decide in her favor.

In reality, Bakhita spent no time caring for smallpox victims before deciding to become a nun, though there was a legal battle with Michieli, which was eventually decided in her favor.

At this point, the movie pretty much ends.  Marin turns over a new leaf, and makes peace with being forced to leave Bakhita behind, which could well have happened to Michieli as well, though we can't know for certain.  In reality, many more things happened to Bakhita while she was a sister, but that's a story for another time.

I just don't see the point of changing so much about the life story of such a great person.  I mean, she's already canonized.  This movie's lies can be found out by five minutes on wikipedia, and won't do much to prop up her entry in the anals of hagiography, simply because they are, of course, lies.

There's a strong sense that this film made such an effort to reconstruct Bakhita's life out of wholecloth, just so that it could promote the agendas of those who funded its production, though again, I can't prove anything.  I will say, however, that the total removal of the forced Islamic conversion from the movie seems suspiciously like a direct injustice to a very saintly woman, just to "keep muslims happy."  Furthermore, there's a scene at the beginning, dwelled on much too strongly throughout the film, in which a witchdoctor proclaims that she's "lucky," almost as though the film was attempting to encourage non-Catholic superstitions.  Lastly, the whole smallpox subplot seems to have been inserted, as if to remind everyone of the church's role in social wellfare.  The problem is, that's not the church's main role.  It's to lead souls to Heaven; not full stomachs.

Why did they change the names of so many of the other characters?  I'm not really sure.  Maybe they figured they'd already warped so much of the story that it wouldn't hurt.

Now, the question is just this; if it's so unfaithful and disrespectful to the life and history of this great woman, why didn't I hate it?

The truth is, the movie really isn't that bad.  I bemoan the changes made, seemingly out of a secular, accomodationist view, but as a fictional story (which, let's be honest here, is what this movie is,) it's actually very touching and inspiring.  It's moving, beautiful and well-paced.  The settings are well-rendered, the costumes are wonderful, and nearly every actor did their job incredibly.  It's a beautiful story about a woman who touches the hearts and souls of those around her, with her gentleness, compassion and faith.

At the start of this review, I said that it wouldn't be right to reccomend this movie, but thinking it over again, I don't think that's true.  If you can accept that this movie is just fiction, and take it as such, there's no real harm in watching it, and you might even enjoy it.  Just don't let anyone fool you into thinking it's a biography.

Lourdes: A Story of Faith, Science and Miracles

Not Rated

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I'd nearly been soured to this film early on by the opinions of some of my relatives, but the movie itself eventually won me over.  The acting is fantastic, the story is endearing, and the special effects are surprisingly believable.

This movie is about a lot of things; the apparitions at Lourdes, the spiritual journey of Henri Giullaumet at the time of the apparitions and healings, and the modern-day study of the whole affair by his descendant; Bernard.  Because of this, the film flits constantly between two different time periods, which can be a bit distracting if you walked in late, but if not, you should pick up on what the movie is doing fairly quickly.

Both Henri and Bernard seem to start out the movie as adamant atheists, who must gradually learn that there's more to life than 1s and 0s; a harder lesson for Henri, it would seem, since he's staked so much on his atheism and rationalism.

The film moves a bit slowly at times, which can actually be a benefit, and some of the minor characters are a bit irritating at first, but the major characters are the real focus, and they do manage to go through some interesting development over the course of the movie, in spite of Henri's stubbornness.  The movie's not over-the-top in its depictions of the characters, but it is entirely faithful to what really happened there, which is something we can all be thankful for.

On top of this, I also feel I should mention the sets and costume-design.  They were very well-done as well.  I'd have given it five stars in enjoyment as well, except that the ending was a bit abrupt.  On the whole, I'd say that there's no good reason for Catholics not to watch this.  It's a good, inspirational film with a strong storytelling talent, and what's not to love about that?

"The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima" and "Apparitions at Fatima"

The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima

Not Rated

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

Apparitions at Fatima

Not Rated

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 0.5 of 5

The apparitions at Fatima have gotten a lot of press, and for good reason.  It was one of the few times in recent history when a miracle has occurred so clearly, and to so many at once, in the midst of one of the most skeptical and secular societies in human history; Portugal during the first world war.  In that terrible climate of religious oppression, Mary; the mother of God appeared to three young children, and after several appearances, the sun was seen to move by more than eighteen thousand people; some of whom were a huge distance away from the apparition when it took place.  To them, the sun almost seemed to be dancing through the air, and its motion was accompanied by many other miracles as well, such as the near-instant curing of many people who were sick, blind and injured.  Such a clear and undeniable miracle has, to this day, won many souls for God, and millions still believe in the miracle of the sun.

It's no wonder, then, that so many movies have been made about the dancing sun and the blessed mother's appearance at Fatima.  I certainly can't cover all of those movies in one entry, so today, I'd just like to talk about two, which are virtually on opposite ends of the scale in quality.  "The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima" (hereafter called MOLF) and "Apparitions at Fatima."

I started watching MOLF fairly recently, and was surprised by its quality as a film.  It's very well-done.  Its characters are believable and likable people, its special effects are believable for the most part, its script was very well-written, and on the whole, I thought that it succeeded magnificently as a movie.  However, it's still not completely perfect.

There are two reasons why MOLF gets one half point down on the Catholic-ometer.  The first is that the movie spends so much of its time dwelling on the ordeals of the children, and the people of Fatima, that much of the lady's intended message wasn't clear.  The second is that in the real apparitions, the lady was preceded by an angel, who gave the children holy communion, and warned them to pray diligently and make sacrifices.  Of all the movies based off Fatima that I've seen, only a couple include this detail.

One movie that includes this episode is "Apparitions," another film I saw recently, and I must say, that in terms of including all the actual historical facts of the case, it was more complete.  The angel was included, as well as the sacrifices made by the children, and the full messages of the blessed mother.  This is why it gets an extra half-point from me on the Catholic-ometer; because it includes more of the truth of what happened.  However, this is the only honest compliment that I can give to "Apparitions," because in every other respect, the movie was brain-destroyingly awful.

Believe me; I don't say this lightly, and I didn't want to hate "Apparitions," but I think that, if anything, it's likely to lead people away from the faith because of its poor quality, rather than inspiring them, or leading them to God.  Excusing, for a moment, the fact that it's a very badly-dubbed foreign film which relies on a frequent narrator to provide exposition throughout the beginning, middle and end of the film, every line of dialogue sounds like it was taken verbatim from a textbook on Fatima, and recited in the blandest and least interesting way possible.  Not a single performance in this movie is moving, or even convincing.  Every last word sounds forced and wooden, and that's not even getting into the cheap camera-smudge, painting and filter special effects used in the movie, which were done just as badly as the rest of the film, or the short, unconvincing puppet used to represent Mary.  I'm seriously not kidding about any of this.

What else can I say?  "Apparitions" was more faithful to what really happened by a small margin, so I have to give it that last half star for pure faithfulness, but I can't think of any reason for watching it, when you can get all of that technical information out of a book or on the internet.  If you're watching a movie, you want to have a good time.

This is how I see "Apparitions."  It's as if someone tried to scribble out a very boring and annoying textbook using crayons, and kept breaking them midway through.  It's faithful to what actually happened to a fault, but cinematically-incompetent.

MOLF, by comparison, is an enjoyable ride, full of lovable, memorable characters and charming scenes that inspired my faith, and at more than one point, actually made me cry a little.  It's a masterpiece of writing and acting, and if I didn't already know about the miracle of the sun, this movie would have encouraged me to read up on it.

My conclusion, therefore, is simply this; be careful not to mistake "Apparitions" for MOLF in a video store.  They're as different as night and day.  You can rent or buy MOLF anytime you want, and enjoy it with your kids.  You won't regret the experience.  Pick up "Apparitions," however, and I make no promises about whether or not you'll regret it.

Pope Benedict XVI; A Love Affair with the Truth

Not Rated

Catholic-ometer: 2.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 3 of 5

You really have to be careful with documentaries; especially ones that rely on a narrator, background music and jump-cuts, because nearly every documentary that does this has an axe to grind, and is trying to get some point across.

That most definitely holds true for this documentary, so the only question that we really need to ask ourselves is this; is that axe aimed at the enemies of Catholicism, or at its neck?

The question of the quality of the documentary may not even come up.  For the record, though, it's made about as well as any documentary, which is to say that it left very little impression on me, primarily because about eighty percent of the talking was done by the narrator, telling us what the pope believes, instead of letting us hear his own words.  That was a warning sign for me, though it wasn't obvious in the early parts of the film.

You see, there's a trick that documentary-makers like to use.  Before they start giving you their message, they start off with information about history, or the person's childhood and rise to fame, which is usually accurate enough.  They do this because they want to convince the viewer of their trustworthiness.

However, once the set-up of the person's life is established, the documentary's message rears its ugly head.  Using, I think, some of the heaviest bias I've ever seen on film, this documentary tries to establish the pope as harmless and inoffensive.  In short, as someone bland, who just wants to go back to his library and leave the rest of us alone.

Maybe I'm being too hard on them, and maybe this isn't the message they intended to give, but I have a hard time believing that all of this documentary's tremendous missteps could have been accidental.  They lay huge stress on how the pope is accepting the loss of the church's holdings into his coat of arms, how he's a prolific writer, how he preaches peace and truth, etc... none of which means a thing according to the gospel.  Accepting the loss of holdings is economic, not spiritual, and being a great writer is only important if you use that to serve God.  However, this movie makes no mention of what kinds of things the pope wrote about; it drops a couple names and summaries, but no specific themes in his work, which, I think, is a massive disservice to both the pope and the truth.

As for "peace" and "truth," neither of those words can be assumed to be truly good or Catholic anymore.

On the subject of peace, I suggest reading John 14:27, followed by Matthew 10:34.  Jesus came to Earth to preach peace, but not worldly peace.  He came to bring the peace of God, and as it happens, there's already an established definition for that, found in the Summa Theologica; Second part of Part 2, Question 29, Article 1.

"There can be concord in evil between wicked men. But 'there is no peace to the wicked' (Isaiah 48:22). Therefore peace is not the same as concord."

The trend in the modern world is to pretend that all non-war is neccesarily peace, when, in fact, worldly peace often leads to a lack of God's peace.  Because of this, pursuing agreements with other human beings, and ignoring the truths of the faith is the same thing as buying into a lie, which leads me to the other point.

Truth.  Of course, a good Catholic recognizes truth as an absolute value, set in place by God, but that's not the way the world sees it, and we need to be careful to point this out, whenever we use the word in Catholic circles.  This movie fails to do this; to the point of making it look deliberate; as though some attempt to deconstruct the church is involved here.

There are three main examples of this.  In one instance, the narrator says that the pope needed to guide "traditionalists" to implement the teachings of the second vatican council, almost as though it was only "traditionalists" who ever failed to implement those teachings, or who rebelled against them openly.  Furthermore, in the modern, American church, the word "traditionalist" has come to merely mean "a Catholic who honors the traditional values of the faith," in which case, no one can truly be Catholic without being, in some manner, a traditionalist.  Comments like these give cover to heretics who want to transform the church into their own kind of worship, which has nothing to do with Catholic Church teaching.

The second example of this was when the pope's books were being described, and although the film is loath to actually mention anything contained in those magnificent books, it does mention that one of his books was very popular among Lutherans.  Lutherans!  Why would any Catholic care about that?  The Catholic Church has no stake in the Lutheran religion, beyond a blanket duty to convert as many of them as possible, so that they can be led to the truths of the Catholic Church.  Why would anyone want a Catholic pope to be loved by Lutherans?  For that matter, what does the pope's popularity among protestant groups have to do with anything?  Isn't the point how well and how far he preaches the true word of God?

The third example of this kind of thing is worse, however, because it pertains to the church's relations with Islam.  The narrator informs us that the pope quoted a bizantine emperor, infuriating muslims, but doesn't mention what he said, or what message he was trying to get across.  However, the narrator does go over, in excruciating detail, how the pope went to a muslim nation shortly afterwards, and prayed to God, while standing in a muslim temple.  It even has the gall to use the term "universal God" in these surroundings, as if trying to convince us that, in the end, all of our religions are the same; something which any faithful Catholic knows is absolutely false.

These kinds of things gave me the distinct impression that modernist, humanist-minded individuals, who want to claim that the church is just one of many valid religions, have made a documentary about the pope's life, putting their own spin on it, to try to mislead the flock.  It's subtle enough that I can't prove anything, which is why it's not rated lower, but this is not something faithful Catholics will get anything out of.

For the record, Jesus came to Earth in a time when peace came in the form of the dreaded "Pax Romana;" the iron-fisted roman oppression that eventually served as the vehicle for his own death, and the early church fathers didn't see their religion in terms of peacemaking.  They saw it as a war or competition.  To quote Saint Paul; "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith."

Jesus didn't teach that worldly peace was an end unto itself, much less the ultimate end, and you will not find the word "tolerance" anywhere in the entire bible.  What he did teach was that he was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one could come to God, except through him.  This is what the pope of the Catholic Church really believes, and the message that he works to spread, no matter what a fifty-five minute documentary might imply to the contrary, and you can take that to the bank.