The two extremes of Nicolas Cage

Without really meaning to, I watched two Nicolas Cage movies this weekend, and they represented the absolute diametric opposition of the two poles of his career.

The first was on Friday night, when I sat down for my fifth viewing of Adaptation for my I'm Thinking of Kaufman Things bi-monthly 2021 series on this blog. I won't write much about the actual movie here, because I'm planning to cover it in its own post alongside Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind for this series' only two-movie month.

But as a role for Cage, it represents the height of his smart decision making. It's an eccentric, unique, infinitely creative script that requires him to play two characters and stretches him to the absolute limits of his technique.

In the other movie, he's not even required to play one character.

That's 2014's Left Behind, which I watched on Saturday night, and which is not only not original, it's a remake of a movie that was already not very good.

I actually liked Vic Sarin's 2000 movie Left Behind, starring Kirk Cameron, more than any self-respecting critic should. I don't dismiss Cameron's proselytizing movies out of hand, and in fact quite liked Fireproof, about a firefighter trying to save his marriage. I see that I gave his rapture movie 2.5 stars on Letterboxd -- a rating given in retrospect years after I saw it, mind you -- and that's probably generous. But I've made a point in my career of calling a not-terrible movie a not-terrible movie, and the original Left Behind was not-terrible in ways that I thought were worth acknowledging. (I think that's just because I had never seen a rapture movie, and the movie had some things going for it just for being the first of its kind).

Vic Armstrong's 2014 remake -- why do all Left Behinds have to be directed by a guy named Vic? -- does not have that same advantage. And the Vic and Nic show is godawful.

Now, Cage always brings a modicum of skill, even when he's sleep-walking through a movie. But this is not a good performance and this is not in any way a good movie.

A few of the terrible things:

- Jordin Sparks plays the wife (ex-wife?) of a football player who steals a gun from a raptured sky marshal and waves it in everybody's face because she believes the rapture was a scheme by her husband to get back his disappeared daughter. This of course does not explain all the other people on the plane who have disappeared. This is not a good look considering that this is also the film's only significant Black character. (There's a really oversized Black dude who gets raptured, but he's only in it until the rapture, and only as the film's lame attempt to show us that Black People Are Also Nice. But then there's also a Black preacher who does not get raptured because he is not a believer, even though he's a preacher.)

- The most disagreeable character in the whole film is a little person, who is constantly angry at everyone else on the plane for the ways he perceives them to be condescending to him because of his height. In reality, I suspect most little people got over that a long time ago.

- Most of the acting. Especially unfortunate is the woman who is some kind of drug addict, who wears her sunglasses at night on the plane and looks like she's being electrocuted most of the time.

If you've noticed that all three of these mentions are of things that occur on the plane piloted by Cage, that's because this plane is in flight for almost the whole movie -- which may be what happened in the original movie, but I feel like it landed before then and got the hilariously named Buck Williams (there played by Cameron, here by Chad Michael Murray) on the ground earlier to start doing some action hero type things, rather than being stuck on the plane where he really has no agency and is not particularly involved in the resolution of events. So ultimately, it becomes more of a "plane in danger" movie than a rapture movie. (Interestingly, the word "rapture" is never spoken, kind of like the characters resisting the use of the word "zombie" in a zombie movie.)

Of course there's also a part on the ground where Cage's daughter (Cassi Thomson, should have been a more recognizable star/better actress) runs around amidst all the panic on the ground. One of the funniest indicators of the movie's general ineptitude is that a good 45 minutes after the rapture moment, when this character (Chloe by name) is making her way back to her house to see if her raptured brother or mother are still around, she sees a school bus go over the side of the bridge, empty of both children and the driver. So, um, did this driver get raptured 45 minutes after everyone else? And if so, why was he still driving around with a busload full of leftover clothing from raptured children?

Her mother is played -- until she is raptured -- by Lea Thompson, an actress I used to dearly love, who I initially assumed lost her way and became a crazy Christian over the years. (The internet tells me she has not made her religious views known, though Chad Michael Murray is a True Believer.) It was interesting to see her appearing in a role just about 30 years after 1985, when Back to the Future came out, and when she played a version of herself who was 30 years older than she was then. I'm glad to say that the real 53-year-old version of Lea Thompson looks better than the 53-year-old version imagined in that movie, though I guess we get two versions of that Lorraine, one good and one bad.

Cage is not a crazy Christian, that I'm aware of, so his involvement is for the same reason as his involvement in seven out of the eight movies he makes per year these days: a paycheck. 

I hope it was a good one, because with every Left Behind he makes, he's a little less likely to appear in whatever the next Adaptation may be. 

One final test for my top 10

Tonight I will be watching Ira Sachs' Love is Strange, the 136th and final film I will rank before finalizing (and publishing) my 2014 rankings sometime after midnight.

See, 12:30 a.m. Melbourne time (Friday) corresponds to 5:30 a.m. Los Angeles time (Thursday), which is when some sleepy actress will be coming on stage with some bushy-tailed Academy bigwig to announce the nominations for the 87th Academy Awards.

That's also my ranking deadline, and when all the madness I've been subjecting myself to will finally come to an end. What madness, you ask? How about 26 new movies so far in 2015? Plus one movie I've rewatched, Rian Johnson's Looper, which makes for 27 total viewings this year.

Naturally, at this point I feel pretty solid about my top 10, to the extent that I don't really want anything to come along and upset the apple cart. However, I also don't like the idea of just watching junk during my last few viewing days, to fill out the numbers. I already did that last night, by cramming in a late-night viewing of the Goddy claptrap Heaven is for Real. It was a total layup in the sense that it very unsurprisingly landed in my bottom 10, rather than top.

So I bypassed a great opportunity to download a movie I really wanted to see this year -- Left Behind -- for a movie I really wanted to see for the right reasons.

And if Love is Strange gives me something to think about in terms of my favorite films of the year, well, that's as it should be. The goal is to see all the year's most beloved films that you can get to ... and a guy on a podcast I just listened to named it his #1 of the year.

In the interest of getting some of the other end-of-the-year stuff started a day early, here are some other movies that just missed out on a conceivable year-end viewing:

The Calling - Borrowed it from the library on Monday but just couldn't fit it in
Get On Up - Just became available for rent on iTunes, and would have rented it if I weren't daunted by the 138-minute running time
Brick Mansions - Available on Netflix streaming, but I just didn't get to it
Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit - Available on Netflix streaming, but I just didn't get to it
Stranger by the Lake - Available on Netflix streaming, and I really meant to get it to it, but I didn't
Mr. Tuner - Wanted to see it in the theater on Monday night, but after five theater movies in the previous six days, I couldn't justify it
Unbroken - Opens today, and considered trying to see it tonight, but I just can't justify the $19 for a viewing so close to my deadline -- and I don't like Angelina Jolie

Al ... most ... there. Don't burn out yet, Vance.

Series I'm glad I've seen none of

1. Big Momma - Big Momma's House (2000), Big Momma's House 2 (2006), Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son (2011)

2. Ernest - Ernest Goes to Camp (1987), Ernest Saves Christmas (1988), Ernest Goes to Jail (1990), Ernest Scared Stupid (1991), Ernest Rides Again (1993), Ernest Goes to School (1994), Ernest Goes to Africa (1997), Ernest in the Army (1988)

3. Ghoulies - Ghoulies (1985), Ghoulies 2 (1987), Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College (1991), Ghoulies IV (1994)

Series I'm surprised I've seen none of:

1. Dirty Harry - Dirty Harry (1971), Magnum Force (1973), The Enforcer (1976), Sudden Impact (1983), The Dead Pool (1988)

2. Nightmare on Elm Street - A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985), A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987), A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988), A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989), Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991), Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994), Freddy vs. Jason (2003), A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

3. Transporter - The Transporter (2002), Transporter 2 (2005), Transporter 3 (2008)

Series I'm embarrassed to have seen all of:

1. Left Behind - Left Behind: The Movie (2000), Left Behind II: Tribulation Force (2002), Left Behind: World at War (2005)

2. Harold and Kumar - Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle (2004), Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008)

3. Saw* - Saw (2004), Saw II (2005), Saw III (2006), Saw IV (2007), Saw V (2008), Saw VI (2009), Saw 3D (2010)*

* - I have yet to see Saw 3D, now called Saw: The Final Chapter. But I thought having seen six of the seven Saws was embarrassing enough to be worth including.

Unabashedly religious

It's possible to make a movie about religion without it being religious.

But not if that movie is a Kirk Cameron movie.

For those of you who don't know, the erstwhile Growing Pains star has Given Himself Over to God. This actually happened while Growing Pains was still filming, but it hasn't become the sole focus of Cameron's career until about the last decade. It was in 2000 that Cameron made the first of three Left Behind movies, which dealt not so subtly with The Rapture, and giving yourself over to Christ. Because I love reviewing movies that no one else sees (no one else I know, anyway), I reviewed the first two, and have just put the third on my next list of requests. They are not good movies, but they are not as bad as they could have been, either. They do, however, explicitly use the language of fundamentalist Christianity throughout.

Because most of us are accustomed to watching the portrayal of religion in some liberal Hollywood context, such as the DaVinci Code movies, it's downright weird to watch a movie that is clearly peddling a different agenda. You just don't see it in mainstream movies, unless you're talking about Tyler Perry movies, which may do good box office, but are not exactly mainstream in the sense that Hollywood usually defines it. It's like you've stumbled in on something fringe, something that wasn't intended for your demographic. When the words "God" and "Christ" are mentioned in Hollywood movies, it's not meant to convert, but to inspire skepticism. There's always something a little off about those characters, and you the viewer are usually invited to align with those who oppose them.

That's not the case in Kirk Cameron movies, and it's not the case in Fireproof, which I've now watched over parts of the last three days, finishing this morning. Despite its name, Fireproof doesn't take the fire-and-brimstone approach of the Left Behind movies -- Cameron's character is a Georgia firefighter on the brink of dissolving his marriage. But Fireproof does on occasion ask us viewers if we have accepted Christ as our personal lord and savior.

But does this mean I hated it? Does this mean I adopted a liberal, Bush-hating, 360-degrees-in-the-other-direction condescension toward it?

Heck no. In fact, I got a little emotional at the end -- twice.

What's interesting about Fireproof is that it shows that Cameron is maturing. No longer does he feel it's necessary to scare religion into us by suggesting that we non-believers will be stranded on a planet scarred by war and sinners, while everyone who went to church on Sunday has ascended to the heavens. Though there are those telltale lines of dialogue that immediately put you on guard -- "Okay, here's what this movie is really about" -- Fireproof seems at least as interested in trying to help people salvage failing marriages, even if it is God's love that's supposed to help you do it. Never is there any doubt that this movie is prostletyzing, but Cameron and his team of collaborators are smart enough to keep the percentage relatively low. We're not meant to think that Christianity is the only lesson to take here. The things that Christianity endorses -- patience in the face of repeated disappointment, love, etc. -- are more the focus than Christianity itself as an institution.

An interesting thing that Cameron does in both this and the Left Behind films is that he puts the character he plays in the role of the skeptic. Of course, since it's Cameron and since you know what his agenda is, you know he will see the light. But Cameron allows himself to speak a number of lines of dialogue doubting the power of religion. Although you can imagine it was quite difficult for him, he makes himself the surrogate of the skeptical viewer, the guy who doesn't believe in all this God-and-Jesus hocus pocus. It may be a devious trick on some level, but it also works. Coming at the viewer head on with a bunch of devout characters whose faith in God is never in question won't cut it. Cameron et al understand that there must be dramatic tension, at least, and that something isn't really a movie at all if everyone's on the same page to begin with. Christianity's many parables relate to turning non-believers into believers, and I guess this is no different, but let's just say these people are not blinded into narrative incompetence by the strength of their beliefs. They still realize that this is a movie, whose goals must involve some level of entertainment and escapism.

And it also has a sense of humor. As part of a firehouse game of one-upsmanship, two firefighters chug a hot sauce called "Wrath of God." There's also a running joke about how Cameron's neighbor always catches him taking his frustration out on some helpless inanimate object in his backyard. Their wry exchange always occurs with a nod of the head, and then, Cameron acknowledging him by saying, "Mr. Rudolph." And the neighbor answering back, "Caleb."

It's probably clear to you that I liked this film, and you're probably wondering how I feel about that. After all, I'm about the most ungodly guy you could find. Not that I'm some rampant sinner, just that I don't choose to characterize my values -- which I'm pretty proud of -- in terms of a church or religion. Nor do I ever expect to.

I should feel sullied by being "taken in" by this movie. After all, I do pride myself on my liberal outlook, which is supposed to greet any attempt at organized religion with downright disdain. I do believe that religion is responsible for the greatest share of the world's problems. But I do also acknowledge that some people use it correctly.

But one other thing I've discovered is that film critics must, to the extent that they can, set aside preexisting opinions when watching a movie like this. You aren't just reviewing this movie for likeminded liberals, but for any person that might be out there, looking for something to see on a Saturday night. (Or maybe a Sunday night in this case, if the Lord allows it.) In fact, reviewing it for liberals would miss the point entirely, since so few of them are likely to consider themselves candidates to see it in the first place.

It's funny, because I know I did request this movie to review because of a preexisting opinion I had about its pernicious agenda. I wanted an opportunity to deliver some subtle slams about Christianity -- nothing so overt that I'd seem like a hater, but just enough that I'd leave people walking away with a clear sense of my perspective. And maybe contribute to one fewer person accepting Jesus Christ as their lord and savior without first enganging in honest, intellectual introspection, to decide if it's really the right thing for them.

But you have to take every film on its own terms, and if a movie actually succeeds, like Fireproof does, I'm not going to let my liberal ideals take it down a peg. The filming is competent, the acting is more than competent (you can't tear up at the end of the movie if the actors are bad), and the dialogue is not even as on-the-nose as I was expecting. Plus, there were two pretty dynamite set pieces involving firefighters engaging in heroic rescues.

So what is my role as a critic in this scenario? An unbiased, disinterested commentator who must meet this film on its own terms? I'll let everyone know that this is a Christian movie -- how could you not. I'll let everyone know that there's some clunky dialogue. And I'll also let everyone know that this movie is darn successful in doing what it set out to do, and that even liberal-minded viewers might walk away from it with their self-respect intact.

It's not my business whether viewers come to adopt the tenets of Christianity as a result of watching. It's only my business to allow Fireproof the opportunity to try, based in part on my own recommendation, given with reservations of course, but not artificial reservations trumped up for the purposes of my own personal agenda.

As much as I would have hated to acknowledge this going in, Fireproof has earned the right.