Looking Closer’s frequent guest reviewer J. Robert Parks has just turned in his Top Ten Moviegoing Experiences of 2005, plus an alternate Top Ten Films of 2005 list. I’ve posted it at the Looking Closer movie page.
Parks gets to see a much wider variety of films per year than I do, so I always find a lot in his list that helps guide my DVD-watching in the coming year. I think you will too.
This is insane. He makes Fred Phelps look like Jon Stewart.
I doubt Movieguide readers have ever watched the Oscars, so he seems just to be assuring them that the world is going to Hell. “Knowing” George Clooney is soon going to be at Lucifer’s right hand is apparently an extremely comforting thought.
The only thing I’ve seen from the Oscars is Clooney’s speech, and I quite liked it.
I’ll just assume by mentioning Chicken Little, that meant he approved of the main character dropping his pants on the awards show.
I was willing to politely disagree with him until he got to the “homosexual sodomy disease” bit. Say that to children who have HIV around the world. I have zero patience with crap like this.
Still, no thanks to Baehr, I think the nominated movies were awfully preachy and humorless this year. Considering the audience at the Oscars didn’t take too many of Stewart’s jabs well, this all may just be a sign that everyone (Baher, Hollywood, etc..) needs to lighten up.
This is downright painful.
I really hope that Ted Baer and his army lose the “Culture War”.
“So why is it that 9 out of 10 Christians I know who love the movies can’t read this guy’s diatribes without laughing?”
Hehe not only Christians. I have a background in social cultural theory in the tradition of the Fankfurter School. Juergen Habermas is still a personal hero to me. So according to Baehr I am one of the real devils out there…so be afraid…uhm…yeah…lol 😉
It’s better for you to be silent and let men think you are a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Is there any more doubt?
Oops…Anonymous, that was me.
Peter
Food for thought: Why is everyone so fired up about this brokeback mountain movie? It really hasn’t done all that well in the theaters anyways. The numbers I’ve seen say its only made about 76 million. The powers that be say that a movie needs to make 100 million to be a blockbuster so why was it even nominated? In fact, all the movies nominated for best picture made even less than BBM. And most people I’ve talked to say they have not and will not see it.
This is a clear cut case of the liberal agenda trying to force their homosexual opinion on us. And I for one am sick of it. Homosexuality goes against nature and God. You ever see two bucks doin it in the woods? And Leviticus 18:22 says Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. I mean really, how much more proof do you need? Call me narrow minded if you wish. Personally, I don’t care. I don’t claim to be perfect by any means, I’m a sinner just like the rest of you but at least I know what sin is and homosexuality is a sin period. And I for one am sick of seeing it on TV, in politics (gay marriage) and now in the movies. GIVE IT A REST PEOPLE, IT’S WRONG!!!!
One more thing. The Chronicles of Narnia made over 300 million and wasn’t even nominated for best picture. HMMMMMMM, makes you think don’t it?
“”One more thing. The Chronicles of Narnia made over 300 million and wasn’t even nominated for best picture. HMMMMMMM, makes you think don’t it?””
And McDonald’s has billions and billions served. So clearly they are the epitome of haute cuisine.
… Right?
“The powers that be say that a movie needs to make 100 million to be a blockbuster so why was it even nominated?”
Um…because box office is not why a movie is (or should be nominated). From the press Narnia got, I would guess it was not nominated, because it was not one of the best films of the year. The number of people who saw it do not matter. If Christians persist in this argument, they have to do so ignoring the number of money makers that, in fact, do not conform to our moral codes. See Wedding Crashers…huge hit.
Brokeback Mountain is an artfully crafted film with great performances, beautiful cinematography, and is evidence of the formidable talent of one of the best filmmakers working today.
There are a lot of things that make the film a worthwhile work of art, and a lot of things in it worthy of praise.
When you write it off like that, Mr. Anonymous (if you us to take your accusations seriously, you need to stand by your words), you’re exposing your ignorance about art, not culture’s ignorance about the film.
Just because something offends you doesn’t mean it’s wrong. You’ll need to do better than that. And, even if we accept your opinion that homosexuality is thoroughly wrong, that doesn’t mean the MOVIE is wrong. As I’ve mentioned many times, if the filmmakers wanted to GLORIFY homosexuality, they missed all kinds of opportunities to do so. “Brokeback Mountain” shows that its central characters are irresponsible, rather simple-minded, and prone to dishonesty and bad decisions.
When you rant like that, you make it clear that you really don’t know what the film is about… and moreover, you make it clear you haven’t been paying attention to the conversations that have gone on about it on this blog by discerning Christians who *have* seen it and thought about it.
If you’re so concerned with what the Bible says, how about remembering the passages about demonstrating gracy, humility, and love before you launch into another venomous rant.
The Old Testament, by the way, includes all kinds of instructions. If you think that all of them are mandatory laws for Christians today, you may be in for some surprises.
“And you and I both know that ratings are always the measure of excellence, right?”
Exactly. Just as the Oscars are the measure of excellence, too. Baehr needs to get some perspective. He’s taking all this WAY too seriously.
Honestly, I really liked the Narnia movie. I saw it 3 times & liked it better each time. Was it perfect? No. Is any adaption of a beloved book perfect? Not for everybody. Was it the best of the year? Heck, no. Should it be rewarded just because of it’s positive message? Yes, in certain circumstances – but that’s not what the Oscars are about.
What are the Oscars about? Well, that’s a tall question. Supposedly they’re about excellence in achievement but we all know that doesn’t happen consistently. They’re definitely about popularity. Sometimes about agenda. (And that agenda is not necessarily a political or social one. Sometimes it’s just that the accademy felt Jessica Tandy needed an award, to name one example, & Driving Miss Daisy was a convenient vehicle to recognize her lifework.) But the Oscars are not consistenly about . . . anything, frankly. Except extravagance. They are what they are.
In this case, A is really A, Ms Rand. To attempt to read anything more into them is to make oneself mad.
Like Mr Baehr.
What’s really scary is that without his mustache, Ted Baehr looks a lot like my dad. Ewwww.
And, Jeffrey, you know why Baehr gets more attention than the more thoughtful critics: He’s more entertaining. It’s the same reason Pat Robertson gets more attention than the more thoughtful cultural commentators. Just imagine, a TV producer looks at your Oscar comments and Baehr’s, side by side. “Well, they’re both glad Brokeback didn’t win Best Picture, and they’re both complaining that Sophie Scholl didn’t get more nominations. So that’s a tossup. Hm. Which one will goose our ratings more?”
My two favorite things in Baehr’s take on the Oscars:
He makes note that George Clooney didn’t debate certain issues with Jon Stewart during his acceptance speech. Because an acceptance speech is supposed to be a debate…
And in proving that Mr. Clooney is part of the Neo-Marxism conspiracy, Mr. Baehr lists George’s mention of supporting the Civil Rights movement. In other words, Mr. Baehr is still ticked that the progressives force him to share his drinking fountain with Negroes.
Any history study of the Church’s role in the Civil Rights Movement will show that Christianity and Hollywood are both “out of touch.”
Maybe, Mr. Baehr, that isn’t such a bad place to be.
-Sean
So, this is where Larknews comes up with it’s story ideas……
I wouldn’t worry to much Jeffery, et al. about “dr.” Baehr. His performance rant is nothing new – and his target audience is not us (I do have a friend of the family however who would just eat this up and spam the world with it if they could – sigh)….
Keep the faith,
Melissa
Whatever we make of his opinions, I would hope at least that Baehr is open to correction where his FACTS are wrong. He says this year’s Academy Awards got “the lowest ratings ever”, but according to the Associated Press, that honour actually goes to the ceremony that took place three years ago, when Chicago won Best Picture and The Pianist won Best Director.As for the alleged “snubbing” of Narnia and The Passion, neither of those films made my top ten lists — indeed, as we discussed at some length here, the Narnia movie was an almost shocking disappointment, and, compared to its source material, it was really no more Christian than Star Wars or The Matrix or any other movie in which someone dies and comes back to life — so I can’t say it bothers me that the Academy overlooked them. The Academy also “snubbed” Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, both of which made more money than Narnia in 2005; and it “snubbed” Shrek 2, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Spider-Man 2 and The Incredibles, all of which made more money than The Passion in 2004 (although the animated films were, at least, recognized in their own special ghetto-ized category). The Academy does NOT exist purely to give its rubber stamp to the box office.That said, as I explain at my blog, this year is unusual in that it just might be the first year ever in which the Best Picture winner is NOT among the year’s Top 25 box-office performers. As it happens, Brokeback Mountain is in the domestic Top 25 for 2005, but Crash, the film that nabbed the award in the end, is all the way down at #49.