Book Review : The Gospel According to Jesus

I decided to take a break from movie reviews to review this classic book by John MacArthur : The Gospel According to Jesus. This book by the host of the "Grace To You" radio broadcast takes a hard look at the claims of Jesus to see if the modern Gospel message of today measures up to what Jesus really says about becoming a Christian.   Dr. MacArthur concludes that much of the gospel preached today doesn't give the full picture of what it means to follow Christ.   He believes that because the gospel is getting watered down today, many professing Christians fail to demonstrate any difference in their life after making a decision for Christ.  I believe he would then conclude that many professing Christians who fail to grow are really not Christians at all but are what I would term a "false convert" which is someone who just "talks the talk" but fails to truly follow the Word of God and "walk the walk".

The Controversy 

This book seems to have a lot of controversy surrounding it because some people believe that John MacArthur is adding pre-conditions and works to the salvation message and making the gospel be about more than all grace from God.  MacArthur believes that either "Jesus is Lord of all your life, or he is not Lord at all" (not sure if that is the exact quote).  He believes that you can't separate the role of Savior that Jesus is from His role as Lord of your life.  In other words: you can't have Jesus as your Savior if He is not also the Lord of your life.  Others disagree with this position,  believing that Jesus can become your Savior, but may not be Lord of your life until a later point in time.  MacArthur's opponents also would believe that accepting salvation is one distinct act in a believer's life,  but growing in surrendering all of their life to Christ is a continual process that may not happen at the same time as salvation.

Where do I fall?

To be honest, I'm still reading the alternate view to this book found in Charles Ryrie's book So Great Salvation : What it means to believe in Jesus Christ.  After I finish that book I will make a conclusion but I will state what I agree with John MacArthur on:

1. In a day and age when many profess to be Christians, there are going to be people who think they are Christians but really aren't.  Many people want the benefits of being a Christian,  but don't want to repent and turn to God.  I agree in these cases, that people should really question whether they are born-again and a true follower of Christ.

2. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus didn't always make it easy to follow Him.  The rich young ruler is a classic example of a guy who wanted to follow Jesus, but didn't want to follow Him in the area of finances.  Jesus didn't run after him - He told him what he needed to do, and then shared with His disciples how hard it was for rich men to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  

3. As the book of James says : "Faith without works is dead".   It is very easy to claim to believe but a true faith and conversion will evidence in someone's life by truly working out in Christian fruit and good works. No one is saved by works,  but a true faith in Christ will have works that follow because of their faith not in place of their faith.  John MacArthur really makes the point that no one should expect to be saved if there is no evidence that would show they truly love God and have placed their faith in Him alone for salvation.  

What am I not positive on?  

Is Christian discipleship always part of conversion?   Discipleship usually accompanies salvation, but does it have to?  I'm still investigating this question,  but I agree with John MacArthur that salvation is by grace alone and obedience to Christ has to be present in a person's life.   Overall I think this was an excellent book about the dangers of easy-believism in today's modern world.  Watering down the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a dangerous error (potentially the most dangerous) and I believe Dr. MacArthur effectively shows the need to stay true to the Gospel according to Jesus Christ Himself.  I recommend this book as it deals with one of the most important topics for any person Christian or non-Christian.

A Different Type of Comedy : A Review of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

Ben Stiller hasn't done a whole lot of movies recently (other than Zoolander 2), but he recently came

out with this movie The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.  This is kind of a different movie in the comedy department.  It doesn't revolve around sophomore humor (a definite plus in my book),  and I wouldn't call it intensely witty either.  Instead it revolves around an outlandish plot and awkward humor like you would witness in The Office TV show.   However, despite that set-apart trait, it does seem to work.  I recently found out this movie is a remake of a movie that came out with Danny Kaye with the same name.  I have not watched the older version,  so I can't contrast this one with that version.  Ben Stiller does play a convincing part, and the story works.  Here is what I liked about The Secret Life of Walter Mitty:

1. Funny story about a guy who wants to live another life.  Many people fantasize about another life with different circumstances.  This movie appears to play the "what if?" line out in Walter Mitty's own life as he nurses kind of an alter-ego to be someone unlike his normal day-to-day self.

2. A comedy that is funny but doesn't rely on dirty jokes to make it that way.  Too many comedies today have to add off-color humor and situations to make it a comedy.  The Secret Life of Walter Mitty doesn't do that.  It is still a very funny movie that doesn't cross the line into adult humor.  Since I've never seen the Danny Kaye version I don't know if that is the case in his version of the movie, but my guess is that Ben Stiller kept that part faithful to the original movie of the same name.

Here is what could have been better:

A. More witty humor lines, and less dependence on situational comedy scenes.  Ben Stiller has the ability to deliver a good line, so I wish there were more humorous lines and less dependence on funny scenes.  The funny scenes didn't distract from the story though,  I would have just preferred a wittier script for the comedy.  Maybe I'm expecting too much for what this movie tries to be though.

B. Less "crazy stupid" parts in the movie.  There is one scene in particular that I wonder if it went a little too far in the "crazy" direction (those who have seen this will know when I mention this scene also involves a Brad Pitt movie theme) - but I guess it is matter of taste.  When funny movies go too nutty they can either make you bust your gut laughing, or leave you scratching your head as to why that part even got approved to stay in the movie.    I guess I felt more of the latter on some parts of this movie.

Most of Ben Stiller's movie I have found to be funny.  This one is no exception.  I thought it was well acted, directed, and still a funny movie to enjoy with the whole family.  If you want to know what The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is really about,  I recommend checking this one out.

Terminator is back - do you care?

I am not against the Terminator movie series as a concept. In light of that fact, I rented Terminator : Genisys to see what new wiles Skynet was going to use to try to kill Sarah Conner.  The best part of this movie was seeing Arnold playing his trademark role as "The Terminator".  This Terminator movie takes some twists to keep things fresh.  First of all it adds in the element of time travel.  Time travel to any sci-fi movie allows the writers to basically reboot ANYTHING.  If time/history can be changed, new characters and plot lines can make a whole new story.  That is one of the main themes of Terminator : Genisys.   Arnold is back in an older version of the protector Terminator from T2: Judgement Day.  However due to his age and the time travel mechanism he travels back to the 1980s and Sarah Conner views him more as a father figure, and affectionately calls him "Pops".

No, that is not a typo.  

Arnold is now "Pops" Terminator and still trying to keep Sarah Conner from dying early.   John Conner is still in the movie a good bit, but the rest of the movie involves a time-traveling character who comes back for Sarah trying to keep her alive with "Pops" Terminator and trying to outwit the Skynet system which continually wants to send indestructible robots to end her life.   I like good science fiction as much as the next guy - but I also know that sometimes you just have to end the series on a high note.  The Terminator series is classic when it comes to science fiction.  However, without Arnold I'm not sure it has much chance of surviving for several more movies.  Yet producers seem to continue pumping money into this franchise in hopes of another movie that has all the timeless appeal of T2 : Judgement Day.   Unfortunately,  I feel that Terminator : Genisys fails for the following reasons:

1. Regenerating robots are cool for just so long.  I like to see good robots beat bad robots, and an exciting plot to help battle them out,  but after a while, seeing a robot regenerate again and again just gets ..... tiring.

2. Sarah Conner is still going to live - if you haven't figured that out by movie 5 in the series - I don't know what to say.

3. Arnold continues to shine in the role he was born for.  Don't get me wrong, Arnold is still great as "The Terminator", and his role in this movie made the movie work.  I just don't know how many more they can crank out in this series.  So point 3 isn't a failure point - just a point that the series may need to close eventually.

4. The plot not completely outlandish but not as easy to follow as prior movies either.   Time travel definitely adds some complexity,  but understanding what was really going on in Terminator : Genisys seemed to be a bit more of a challenge in this installment than in prior movies.

In light of these points, I give Terminator : Genisys a 3 star rating.  It wasn't a movie I will re-watch, nor do I think it added some serious plots/thoughts to the Terminator Series.   It was entertaining and the special effects weren't terrible,  but unless you are a die-hard Terminator fan,  I would recommend skipping this one.  Star Wars : Episode VII was better.

A Second Look at Steve Jobs

After watching the recent movie Steve Jobs, I decided to sit down and watch the first movie made about Steve Jobs simple called Jobs and starring Ashton Kutcher.   This movie seemed to take a very different (and less artistic) view of Steve's life and I felt gave us a broader view.  Steve Jobs focused more on Steve's difficult personality and his relationship with his girlfriend and daughter Lisa.  Jobs on the other hand focuses more on Steve's entire life (up to the launch of the iPod at least) with much less focus on his relationship to his daughter Lisa.  In Jobs, Josh Gad (the voice of Olaf in Frozen) plays Steve Wozniak and does a great job.  I thought the entire movie did a exceptional job in finding people that actually looked like the people they were playing.   Here is what I liked about Jobs compared to the movie I reviewed earlier Steve Jobs:

1. Did a great job showing more of the life of Steve Jobs and his relationship to the Apple Computer Company compared to the movie : Steve Jobs.  Granted, Steve was mainly associated with Apple Computer but I felt that Jobs did a better job showing us the big picture of the man Steve Jobs then the other movie did.

2. In many areas (at least as his family was concerned) seemed to be more accurate of the personal life of Steve Jobs.  This movie showed his rise and falls in the corporate world, and also seemed to be a bit more accurate about his family life (from my understanding).

3. Great acting in both movies.   I actually thought that the movie Jobs was not going to be as well acted as the other movie Steve Jobs.  I think they both had strong actors and acting roles and was pleasantly surprised how well the movie Jobs was acted and directed.  Ashton Kutcher surprised me, and I think really took seriously his role as Steve Jobs.

4. Josh Gad played Steve Wozniak well.   I know I stated that I really like Seth Rogen playing Steve Wozniak in the Steve Jobs movie, but I think Josh Gad may have looked more like Steve Wozniak in this movie.  I don't think the script gave him as strong of a role as in the Steve Jobs movie,  but I thought Josh Gad did a great job with the role he was given.   At the end of the movie true-life pictures are shown of the original people compared to the actors - and Josh Gad really does look a lot like Steve Wozniak.

What would have a liked to see that wasn't portrayed?

1. Coverage of his illness and maybe his work with Pixar. For some reason neither movie chose to cover either of these major parts of Steve's life.  It would have been fun to see how he started Pixar and worked with Disney,  but I guess there wasn't enough time.

2. Some inspirational quotes that motivate you to innovate in your life by Steve.  To be fair - there are some lines in the movie Jobs that are pretty inspirational as you see Steve becoming more well-known and strong in the Apple Computer Company, but I think it would have been very memorable to close the movie with several quotes from Steve's lectures/writings that would encourage others to get out and innovate.

All in all, I thought both movies were well-done for biographical movies and enjoyed viewing them. If you have any interest in the man Steve Jobs, you may want to watch Jobs along with reading a good biography about him.  He definitely left a lasting mark on the personal computer world as we know it today.  

Steve Jobs Review

No doubt about it: Steve Jobs was a fascinating individual and a brilliant business man in some ways.   He also had some personality traits that made him less than easy to get along with.  After Steve died a few years ago,  I went out and bought the biography about him by Walter Isaacson.  It was a fascinating read and gave me a better understanding of Steve's strength and weaknesses.  Later this movie came out, and I wanted to see how the 2nd movie about Steve portrayed him.  The first movie called Jobs starred Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs and I have yet to get around to watching that one.   This movie had some big names behind it as well, and looked like it could be a whole different perspective on Steve.

Here are my takeaways from the biographical movie Steve Jobs:

1. Great artistic look at the life of Steve Jobs.  Steve Jobs definitely appreciated art and his products (at least the ones that were designed while he was running Apple) have great attention to artistic look and feel for pieces of technology.

2. Don't expect all parts of this movie to be 100% accurate.  Having read the book and consulting with Chrystal who did some Internet research after watching this movie,  it didn't appear that the screenwriters were going for accuracy in all details.  In fact some parts of the movie are completely false and untrue about Steve's life. 

3. Great acting including a great supporting cast.  I really liked Seth Rogen as Steve Wozniak in this movie. I thought he did a really good job with the part and it was fascinating to hear some of the exchanges he had with Steve Jobs.  Kate Winslet also did a great job as Job's assistant and moral compass (at some points).

4. Great movie for showing how important family and friends are over business in a person's life.  If that is what the writers and directors were going for,  then I think they delivered that point well.

Steve Jobs wasn't a real people person.  He knew how to market but his mannerisms were hardly what you would call compassionate and caring at times.  I liked this movie for showing us an artistic look at his life (with some creative liberties) and making me realize the importance of people over products in anyone's life.  True friendships are worth more than any product line can provide.

The Money Pit Review

The Money Pit was on Netflix instant, and so since I know a little about how homes can run you a lot of money - decided to see what this one was all about.  I generally like Tom Hanks in much of his work, but this one just did not have me laughing that much.

This movie is about as funny as actually buying a money pit house (which isn't funny at all).   Hard to believe that Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks had their names on this movie.  The gags were over the top and kind of ridiculous.  The humor was mainly slapstick with very little witty dialog at all.   There were some funny scenes with collapsing housing, but after 2 or 3 scenes of collapsing structures, you start to look at your watch and wonder how long the writers can keep this up.   Also I didn't really feel that Shelley Long and Tom Hanks had that much chemistry on screen.  Granted it was a comedy,  but as a couple they didn't really have me convinced that they loved each other much at all.

Sadly I think this movie could have been better, but kind of failed in the screenwriting department.  The actors/actresses tried to make the material funny, but it just didn't come off as a winner in the romantic comedy (or even the comedy genre for that matter) department.

The good news:  Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks work together on much better projects in the future (Saving Private Ryan and Bridge of Spies come to mind).  This movie was a waste of my time, but thankfully some of the others movies that Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Hanks work on together do not get that same vote from me.   I would give this 1.5 stars out of 5.   Save your time and work on a real house project.  It may turn out to be more fun than viewing this movie.

Smashed Review

I rented this movie because it looked like an interesting portrait of alcoholism.  The movie centers around a young lady who hangs out with her husband and her relationship revolves around bar singing and drinking.  However, after several problems in her life - she decides to go to an AA meeting and see what life is like when she doesn't drink.  It turns out - she likes her life, but her husband doesn't enjoy the constant reminder of his drunken lifestyle which presents a turning point in her life:  does she stay married to an alcoholic, or does she walk away from her husband and alcohol all together?  I think this movie had great potential, but sadly I came away disappointed for the following reasons:

1. For a fictional story this movie centers on realism at the expense of redemption.  

Unfortunately unless you are presenting a true story I expect a better ending.  This movie didn't deliver in the ending department mainly because it focuses SO MUCH on realism that a redemptive ending is never in sight.

2.  It accurately shows the horrors of alcoholism without convincing you of the benefits of being sober and addiction free.  

Although this movie shows the main character triumphing over alcohol, the story line didn't seem to make me root for an AA group and the freedoms living free of drunkenness can bring to a life.  Yet that is what living sober can do.  Getting drunk is a sin, and it hurts those around you.  Yet this movie didn't portray the alternative in a good enough light in my opinion.

3. It showed some advantages of giving up alcohol but failed to show the joys of replacing it with a life-giving joy in knowing Jesus.

Being an alcoholic is hard.  The main character gives it up, but she doesn't really find a life-changing experience with Jesus to replace it.  Therefore, it presents her life as better, but not as good as it could be.  She doesn't find a new passion as she lives for Christ.  She doesn't really find anything worthwhile to replace her alcoholism.   Therefore this movie leaves you sad and kind of down.  In my opinion this could have been much better,  but the script wasn't very funny or redemptive.    The acting was well done - but unless you adequately show the joys of living free and serving God Almighty,  it fails to deliver a sobering alternative to drunkenness.

4. Great acting but offensive language.   

I know the writers were probably going for realism but this movie had a LOT of offensive language.  It has been even categorized as a comedy movie, yet I hardly laughed.  It wasn't as funny as it was accurate and real.  For this reason and the three reasons listed above,  I give this movie only 2.5 stars out of 5.  There are better movies out there than this one, although I think the actors/actresses made a noble effort.