COMING ATTRACTIONS: GODZILLA (GOJIRA)

First up, we have the trailer put out for the American release of Godzilla.



While this is the original Japanese trailer for Gojira. A slight difference in focus and tone perhaps?

INTERMISSION

At some point, even the most rabid of movie lovers has to leave the comfort of the darkened theater and wander out into the lobby. And on those rare occasions when I can actually tear myself away from the screen, I think I'll use the time to pass along some of the interesting things I run across while preparing my movie reviews.

It looks like Father Roderick and the folks over at SQPN will soon be getting into the movie review business. Of course, while we here at The B-Movie Catechism are content to hang out at the drive-ins and bargain matinées, SQPN can afford to send Father Roderick to the megaplex to review movies with a little higher budget than the fare you'll find here. Check out their first test run at Beyond The Movies where the good Father takes a look at Harrison Ford in Firewall. (Personally, I think that movie could have been much improved by a guy in a rubber monster suit, but what do I know?)

In Eegah related news, The B-Movie Cast (Episode 8) recently scored an interview with Eegah himself, Richard Kiel. Vince talks to Mr. Kiel about his long acting career and his upcoming biographical novel on Cassius Clay (the southern abolitionist, not the boxer). It turns out he's something of a Renaissance giant, who knew? Richard Kiel also comes across as a pretty decent guy. There's an interesting testimonial on his home page where he discusses his struggle with alcohol and how he conquered it through prayer.

And finally, if you don't mind occasionally reading opposing viewpoints, I ran across a blog by Steve Gerber, the guy who wrote the memorable 1970s run of Man-Thing. Gerber is a declared agnostic who recently was given the assignment by DC Comics to write a story featuring an angel/super-hero. In his two part post, here and here, he discusses the problem of writing God and the Heavenly Hosts as comic book characters, especially when he doesn't believe in them. I bring it up for two reasons. One is that he raises some of the basic questions many people have which a Christian should be able to address. But the main reason is simply to point out to some of the Catholic Dads who might stop by just what's going on in comic books these days. A majority of today's comics are aimed squarely at the high school/college age crowd. The stories often have very adult oriented writing and graphics, and the authors freely advance their personal views on politics, sex, religion, etc. (And I think it's a fair statement to say that the majority of them are not orthodox Catholic in their beliefs. The words "openly hostile" often come to mind.) If one of your younger kids has a stack of comics lying around, and you haven't flipped through them, it might be well worth your time to make sure you think they're age appropriate.

Anyway, it's time to head back into the theater where I belong. The main focus of this blog will always be on the movie reviews, but if enough people find this interesting, I'll poke my head back out into the light every now and then. Got to go now, the lights are already dimming.

EEGAH

TYPICAL REVIEW

"Reputed to be one of the worst movies of all time." - Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever

THE PLOT

While driving on a darkened freeway, teenaged (oh, sure) Roxy nearly mows down a hulking figure standing in the middle of the road. It's Eegah, wearing a Flinstones hand-me-down fur toga and the world's most incredibly fake beard while carrying a paper mache club in one hand and a live goat in the other. After her father disappears attempting to track down Eegah, Roxy and her boyfriend Tom dune buggy out into the desert to find him, only to have Roxy herself fall captive to the giant. Not having seen a woman for a few hundred years, Eegah, acting like some kind of Neanderthal, begins to make inappropriate advances towards Roxy. (This is a huge faux pas as Eegah is clearly Cro-Magnon or later.) Tom, with the unlikely strategy of running away combined with getting his butt kicked, somehow manages a rescue. Undaunted by this setback, Eegah follows the group into town where chaos... where tumult... (sigh) where mild commotion breaks out.

THE POINT

Emile Chartier once wrote that "nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one you have." Well, Arch Hall Sr. had one idea; make Arch Hall Jr. into a multi-media teen sensation by any means necessary. To accomplish this, Arch Sr. set in motion his master plan to produce movies that would showcase his son's alleged acting and musical talent. Between the years 1961 and 1965, drive-Ins everywhere reeled under the assault of films like The Choppers, Wild Guitar, and The Nasty Rabbit. But the penultimate chapter of the Hall saga would have to be 1962's Eegah starring Arch Jr., Arch Sr. (who also wrote, produced, and directed the film), and 7'2" Richard Kiel, best known as the James Bond villain Jaws, but beloved by genre fans for his roles in movies like The Human Duplicators as well as every television show ever made in the 60s and 70s.

Where does one even start with this movie? With a warning, I suppose. To the casual moviegoer, Eegah is likely to bring nothing but pain. It has been known to leave even the strong curled in a fetus position rasping in Kurtz-like dread, "The horror, the horror." But in spite of, or maybe because of, its inherent dangers, Eegah has become one of the rites of passage for the true B-Movie aficionado. We approach it like the greatest of Zen Koans, knowing that the answers to the inexhaustible number of "whys" raised by the movie are inaccessible to rational understanding, but might by some minuscule chance be ferreted out if we just meditate on it long enough. Struggle as I might, I haven't figured out squat yet.

Why does Eegah flee in terror from Tom's car when he's already shrugged off a direct hit from Roxie's? Why does a complete orchestra and backup chorus erupt anytime Tom strums a guitar? Why is Eegah's secluded mountain home considered unreachable in one scene, yet Tom is able to drive a dune buggy straight there a few scenes later? Why are there tire tracks everywhere in this uncharted region? Why doesn't Arch Jr.'s aerodynamic hairdo move? (My brain is starting to hurt.) Why, in an American made film, do disembodied voices suddenly yell out nonsensical things like "watch out for snakes" when absolutely no characters mouth is moving on screen? Why are there ovens in people's living rooms? Why, when trapped in a cave and discussing her potential fate at the hands of Eegah, does Roxie decide the best course of action is to give her father a shave? (Must not...succumb...to pain.) Why can no living human being see a 7'2" tall giant until he's less than one foot away? Why is there no glass in the windows Eegah breaks through? Why are the police wearing those hats? (Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow.) Why does Roxie's father, the learned doctor, declare that exposure to sulfur is the cause of Eegah's immortality? Why don't we all use sulfur to live forever instead of just using it to get rid of dandruff? (Conciousness fading...) Why does the doctor justify Eegah's existence by quoting Genesis, Chapter 4, Verse 32, when there is, in fact, NO Genesis, Chapter4, Verse 32?!?

Wait, I might be able to answer that one! Anything to stop the pain, to stop thinking about Eegah for even a minute. Like so many things in this movie, this misquote is likely due to budgetary concerns. Arch Sr. probably remembered some Biblical reference to giants from Sunday School, but didn't feel he had the time to stop shooting and verify the exact passage. I know, let's just throw out a chapter and verse then? Even though the book of Genesis features prominently in three major religions, no one will notice if we get it wrong, will they?

The obscure quote which Arch Sr. bungles is actually from Genesis 6:4, which in an older translation reads "Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown." and in a newer version goes like "At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown." It's one of those odd passages which has kept Bible geeks arguing for centuries. Just who are these giants of old and who were their fathers, the sons of God?

There are a few theories. The earliest, supported by such heavy hitters as St. Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, is that the sons of God were fallen angels who bred with human women and produced the Nephilim, a race of ornery giants. Another theory, championed by the likes of St. Augustine, is that the "sons of God" was a reference to the bloodline of Seth and the giants were their corrupt offspring born from intermingling with the bloodline of Cain, a.k.a. the "daughters of man". Yet a third explanation arose among Jewish rabbis in the 2nd century that interpreted sons of God to mean young nobles who married below their rank and bred "giant" offspring, giant in the sense that they were a strong and overpowering fighting force. And there's probably more, but those are the biggies.

This being a Catholic oriented blog, the obvious question arises as to which theory a good Catholic boy should accept. The surprising answer seems to be... anyone he wants to. The fact that Catholicism has no official verse-by-verse guide on how to read Holy Scripture often comes as a shock to all those (including some Catholics) who consider the Church as some all-controlling monolith. But all Catholicism requires of those reading Scripture is that when questionable passages arise they "be attentive to the analogy of faith. By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation." In short, if your interpretation contradicts or opposes the fundamentals of Christian belief as preserved and taught by the Church, you probably need to reexamine your conclusions. We must never forget that the teachings came first, and the Bible came later as a way of preserving them.

So, since there is no conclusive historical evidence regarding the Nephilim, and since none of the three theories presented above contradict any of the truths about God as taught by the Church, a Christian can in good conscience subscribe to any of them. (Although, admittedly, the fallen angel theory raises both weird theological questions and interesting fictional story possibilities.) In fact, within the context of the larger Noah story in Genesis 6, whatever the giants really are is of little consequence. Because of their tainted bloodline, they're presented as just another example of the corruption which has overtaken mankind. When the Nephilim reappear in Numbers 13 blocking the Hebrews entrance into Canaan, they represent a test of faith. Do the Hebrews trust God's word to help them defeat this enemy and enter the promised land, or do they punk out at the first site of overwhelming odds? It's the basic understanding of our relationship with God which the texts ultimately reveal in these passages that interests the Church. Who fathered the "giants" is just trivia.

THE STINGER

For those of us who subscribe to a Christian world view, the same principle we apply to the interpretation of the Bible also works in regards to the knowledge provided by scholars and scientists. All learning is welcome and useful, but the true Christian interprets empirical scientific evidence with the basic understanding that behind everything there is God, and that God is concerned for and involved in the universe he created.

Take the various theories of evolution for example. In the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Piux XII wrote that, "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter." Encyclicals get translated in ways that often confuse me, but as Pope John Paul II would later confirm, the gist of the statement is that some form of evolution is a possibility in Catholicism. But Pius XII does go on to clarify that certain evolutionary theories, such as those based on Naturalism, are incompatible with Christianity. As a Catholic, if you're going to accept one of the theories of evolution, the physical process of creation is only a non-issue as long it doesn't exclude such beliefs as the human soul, free will, or God's intimate involvement in his creation. But those who favor a more scientific view shouldn't feel singled out. Those same guidelines apply to everyone whether they believe man showed up on the sixth day or the sixth millionth year.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: EEGAH

If there's one thing we love almost as much (and sometimes more) than a good B-Movie, it's a trailer for a good B-Movie. I thought it would be fun in between posts, if I could find them, to post coming attractions for upcoming reviews. (Once I know what they are, that is.) If I can't find a trailer, I'll try to at least put up a poster. So without further ado, COMING SOON TO A B-MOVIE CATECHISM NEAR YOU...

BEAST FROM HAUNTED CAVE

TYPICAL REVIEW

"After it's over, you'll be scratching your head, asking, "So who's left alive and who's dead?" That's just one of the reasons horror fans love this unconventional B-movie." - Jeff Stafford, Turner Classic Movies

THE PLOT

After staging a heist, a small gang of crooks con ski instructor Gil Jackson into taking them to his mountain lodge where a plane will pick them up. To divert the police during the getaway, the thugs set off a bomb in a nearby newly-opened gold mine. Things take a turn for the complicated, however, when the obligatory blizzard sets in and the getaway plane is unable to land. With the group stranded inside the cabin, tensions begin to rise. Gypsy, the moll-with-a-heart-somewhat-resembling-gold, begins to develop feelings for our hero Gil, much to the irritation of her current boyfriend, gang leader Alex. Worst of all, however, is that the bombed mine shaft was in fact the ancient home of a blood starved ghoul from Hell! (Well, that's how the poster describes it, anyway.) Suffice to say, The Beast isn't very happy to have its home blasted to smithereens, and follows the gang to the cabin for revenge and light snacks.

THE POINT

Let's see. Black and white cheapy released by legendary B-master Roger Corman's production company: check. Starring nobody who ever made it above B-movie or television guest star status: check. Special effects eerily reminiscent of Sigmund and The Sea Monsters: check. Well, it certainly sounds like what we've got here is the makings of another one of those late 50s drive-in stinkers that is going to be a real chore to watch without the MST3K guys along the bottom of the screen. Surprise, surprise. This one's actually pretty enjoyable.

Don't rush to add it to your Netflix Queue just yet, though, as there are some obstacles to overcome. Corman was notorious for shooting two movies simultaneously so he could double up on the sets, the cast, etc. And sadly, from what's on-screen here, it's obvious that the other flick being shot, Ski Troop Attack, got the lion's share of the budget between the two films. And that's a shame, because all of about 5 people have ever watched Ski Troop Attack and the 50 bucks Corman spent on that film could have really benefited Beast From Haunted Cave. Also, as might be expected, some of the acting is less than stellar. Michael Forest is serviceable, but still fairly vanilla as the hero Gil and Linné Ahlstrand as Natalie the waitress is just what you would expect from the Playmate of the Month for July 1958... not an actress. SO not an actress, in fact, that I'm fairly certain in one scene someone off camera is poking her with a stick every time its her turn to speak.

But that kind of stuff is no shock in these movies. What is surprising about Beast From Haunted Cave is all of the things which work. First time director Monte Hellman makes great use of the location, grounding the film in real world settings that are both familiar and creepy at the same time. The best example is one sequence in the middle of the film in which one of the gangsters trudges through the dark snow-covered woods trying to find the source of some strange noises. Slowly scanning the trees with a small flashlight, he discovers a character he thought was dead cocooned high in the branches. The camera slowly moves in as she opens her eyes and begs for death. I'm glad I missed this one as a little boy because, even now, this scene gave me that little chill you get when a film nails the creep factor perfectly. (I'd be willing to wager that this film did give some poor kid nightmares, a kid who would later grow up to work on the Alien films. Go back and compare some of the chest-burster scenes to this moment and you'll see what I mean. I was literally waiting for a little squealing Alien to pop out.) Another plus, despite the earlier misgivings, is that most of the acting isn't that bad. In particular, Sheila Noonan does a good job with Gypsy, the bad girl considering a turn for the good. She comes across as a poor man's Lauren Bacall recovering from a three day drunk, which is kind of what the roll calls for, so it's okay.

But the best thing Beast From Haunted Cave has going for it is the script. Yes, there are plot holes. One scene in which a man is nearly mauled to death by the Beast is followed by a scene in which everyone seems more concerned about the weather than what is outside the door. But Corman's 2-3 week shooting schedules always allowed inconsistencies like this to slip in, so you tend to accept them as an unavoidable evil. What this movies script does so well is make near perfect use of its time. The movie clocks in at about 73 minutes, which is just right for a film intended as part of a drive-in double feature, but doesn't usually leave much time for little things like, say, character development. This one's different. Every single major character and plot point is introduced in the first 20 minutes, and yet it never feels rushed. The script is so deft at setting up the characters that I was actually surprised when one of the women I had pegged as one of the majors is taken out by the Beast at the end of act one. And although the movie still contains some walking scenes, one of Corman's favorite ways to pad a film's running time, most of the "filler" moments are spent building up the supporting cast so you at least have some investment in them when the Beast starts picking them off in the final reel. Despite its necessary short length, the film has surprising depth for a B-movie.

"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.", wrote Thomas Jefferson. And that doesn't just apply to federal documents and screenplays. Writing about the Lord’s Prayer, the 3rd century bishop St. Cyprian suggested that Christ did not want “His disciples to be burdened by memorizing His teaching.” Jesus stated the basics, something that could be learned easily by anyone. What basics do we need to know? St. Cyprian quotes the Gospel of John: “And eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.” And how do you do this? St, Cyprian suggests that it's all right there in the Lord's Prayer where Christ "summarized His teaching on the mystery of eternal life and its meaning with an admirable, divine brevity.”

Divine brevity. The Scriptures are a marvel at it. Consider that Marcel Proust's Remembrance of Things Past holds the Guinness Book of Records title as longest novel. Published in 13 volumes from 1913 to 1927, the work contains nearly 1.5 million words. (Frighteningly, L. Ron Hubbard's Mission Earth comes in at a close second with 1.2 million.) Now, depending on the translation, the Bible clocks in at just under a measly 800,000 words, or about as long as 4 Harry Potter novels. If that still seems long, remember that the Bible is basically a self-contained library, so you have to divide those 800,000 words up between 73 books. (Yes, 73. I'm Catholic remember?) While the actual length of the individual books vary widely, you're still down to about an average of 11,000 words per book, or twice the length of the average article in Time magazine. That means I've got guys in my office who could read an entire book of the Bible sitting on the toilet!

And talk about getting to the point. If you imagine a blow-by-blow description of the current theories regarding the biological process of evolution starting from the beginning of time, you could get to page ten thousand and still not be anywhere close to explaining WHY all of this is going on in the first place. Using literary forms common for the time, the writers of Genesis establish the context of the relationships between God, humankind, and the physical universe... in two pages. Divine brevity indeed.

THE STINGER

“I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Albert Einstein said that, you may have heard of him.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: BEAST FROM HAUNTED CAVE

Sadly, I can't find any trailers anywhere for this one. Nice pulp poster art though.

STUDENT BODIES

TYPICAL REVIEW

"As if the plethora of mindless slasher films weren't enough, they were followed by a flood of mindless slasher film parodies, including STUDENT BODIES." - TVGuide.Com

THE PLOT

The idea of sex is so yucky to high-schooler Toby that she wears a "Sex Is Bad" button on her sweater.... AND another one under it. This might turn out to be a prudent stance, however, as a mad-killer known as The Breather is stalking every teen who gets the slightest bit turned on. And they're ALL getting turned on except for Toby. In fact, she is so vocal in her opposition to pre-marital sex, that both the police and the school administration suspect Toby might just be the killer herself. Can The Breather be caught before the entire student body ends up in green plastic trash bags? Naturally, it all leads to a showdown at the big school dance.

THE POINT

"This motion picture is based on an actual incident. Last year 26 horror films were released...None of them lost money."

So begins Student Bodies, which I'm fairly certain is the first ever slasher movie parody. Made in 1981, only one year after Friday The 13th hit the screen, it was more proof that the slasher genre and all of it's perceived cliches were already becoming ingrained in the public conscious. In fact, slasher movies were so omnipresent in the early 80s, I find it a little hard to believe there were only 26 of them released in 1980. But regardless of the actual number, there was more than enough slashers to establish recognizable scenes and situations ripe for parody. And, if you have a high tolerance for silliness, Student Bodies does the job nicely. But, be warned, you do need a very high tolerance. How high, you ask? Well....

Like any good slasher, Student Bodies begins on a holiday, but with all the good ones already taken, it settles for the best it can find; Jamie Lee Curtis' birthday. All slashers need their unique murder weapon, and The Breather is no exception, brandishing such deadly objects as an unfolded paper clip, a garbage bag, an eggplant, and a horse head bookend. (Don't even get this movie started on horse head bookends.) Once the victims begin to pile up, a big flashing number appears on screen to tally the body count, eventually reaching the grand total of 13... and 1/2. As the investigation flounders, The Breather calls to taunt the authorities, disguising his voice by talking through a rubber chicken. Unperplexed, one administrator responds, "I thought it sounded like you were speaking through a rubber chicken."

Goofy dialog like that is one of the things that makes Student Bodies so enjoyable. It's just one ridiculous line after another. "Julie, you're not responding to my maleness." "Great physical beauty can be a handicap, too." "Hasn't there been enough senseless killing? Let's have a murder that makes sense!" "Horse head bookends make me hot!" (Again with the horse head bookends.) And it's all delivered in perfect deadpan by a likable cast who all but disappeared after making this movie. I'd really like to know where these folks went to, especially the actor who played Malvert The Custodian, a double-jointed human oddity listed in the credits only as "The Stick".

It's all such dumb fun that I've become really fond of this movie, liking it much better than the unfunny and crude Scary Movie franchise. I'll concede, though, that your enjoyment of Student Bodies will likely depend on your familiarity with the genre's cliches. Unlike the aforementioned Scary Movie, which parrots and skewers widely recognizable scenes from hit films, Student Bodies rolls along on its own course, expecting you to recognize the motifs as they appear while rarely pointing them out. (Well, unless pointing them out is part of the joke like, say, flashing the word "Suspect" on the screen any time a new character is introduced.) Outside of some slow parts, this reliance on fan boy in-jokes is probably the greatest weakness of the film for the casual viewer.

Thanks in large part to the Scream franchise, however, even the infrequent horror viewer is probably familiar with the primary slasher movie cliches. And Student Bodies relies heavily on the grandaddy of them all, the notion of the slasher movie as Morality Play. Popular in the 15th & 16th centuries, Moralities were a form of secular theater in which allegorical characters representing vices and virtues faced a number of perils, with only the ones who stuck to the moral path left standing in the end. While the sheer number of slasher movies released in the early 80s guaranteed exceptions, it's probably safe to say that the majority of them fit comfortably into the Morality Play mold. Generic young adult stereotypes like the jock, the geek, the slut, the stoner, etc. give into vice and are systematically slaughtered. By the end of the movie only the virgin (or at the very least, the sober monogamist) is left to overcome the embodiment of evil. Student Bodies embraces this concept whole heartedly, especially with its truly bizarre and rather serious ending. Toby wakes up Wizard Of Oz style and realizes the whole movie was nothing but a bad dream brought on by her sexual repression. To cure her "condition", Toby decides to finally offer herself to her boyfriend, at which point he promptly murders her. All sinners must die. The End.

In his book "Decade of Nightmares", Professor Philip Jenkins implies that this kind of movie arose out of some irrational collective fear religious conservatives were feeling over the emerging cults, serial killers, and general permissiveness of youth culture in the 1970s. Professor Tony Williams goes as far as to suggest that the killers in slasher movies were "patriarchal avengers" for the Reagan era religious right. In contrast, many of the filmmakers themselves denied this religious/political subtext, with Halloween's director John Carpenter flat out declaring that critics missed the point entirely. Be that as it may, the critics won out and their views have become the generally accepted theories. Which brings up the question; If these films do represent some kind of Christian death wish for the transgressors of the world, do we really have the right to make that kind of wish in the first place?

It sure would be easy to quote "vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord", declare the case closed, and move on to the next subject. Unfortunately, there's that pesky Bible to deal with. There's more than enough instances in both the Old and New Testaments where someone seemingly calls down the wrath of God on an enemy. Some of the Old Testament scripture comes across so harsh that a 2nd century sect known as the Marcionites actually demanded the entirety of the Jewish texts be removed from Christian canon. But we kept them, (the Scriptures, not the Marcionites) and so, must deal with them.

But how, especially when you have infamous passages like 2 Kings 2:23-24? This is the story where the prophet Elisha is verbally abused by a gang of young children because of his bald head. Elisha curses them in the name of the Lord, at which point two she-bears amble out of the woods and maul 42 of the kids to death. Woo-hoo! Tell me, is there a single anti-Christian website in all of cyberspace that doesn't drag out this story as proof that God is nothing but a cruel sadistic jerk? Can there be a rational Christian response to this story?

Thank God (seriously), Catholicism does not require us to be literalists in the same sense that some Protestant faiths do. The Catechism states that "In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words. In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."

So, taking all that into account, what might be happening in this story? One possible explanation is that what we have here is not meant to be taken as historical reporting, but as more of a parable told in a style not dissimilar to Grimm's Fairy Tales. You see, it turns out that calling someone "bald" was sometimes meant as an insult to there authority and power, not necessarily their hairlessness. And as for all those children, well, the number 42 might be important. Like many ancient societies, the Jews had a complex and meaningful numerology. If you wanted to imply something immeasurable, one way was to multiply it by 7. (Forgive your brother 7 x 70 times, remember?) And the number 6 often represented evil. So if you've got 7 x 6 "children", you've actually got ultimate evil. In other words, regardless of whether or not the event happened as described, the story is told in such a way which the audience at that time would have recognized as an allegorical tale of a just God exercising his power and triumphing over the evils of the world. Like I said, it's one possible explanation. Take that, internet!

So really, the answer actually was "vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" all the time, it just required a little clarification in this instance to prove it. "Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity." states the Catechism. "Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." So, while the general public has accepted the critics' assertion that slasher movies represent some type of Christian revenge fantasy against individual sinners, we, as Christians, cannot. Which just about wraps up a particularly long review. Now, if only I could come up with one more clever thing to say about horse head bookends...

THE STINGER

I'm not ordained and I've had no schooling in religious studies. I'm just one of those church geeks who likes studying this stuff. With no credentials of my own and not having discussed this yet with anyone with some authority, I really have no way of knowing how much credibility my solution to the Elisha story has. But it is at least more consistent with the overall attributes of God taught by the Church than the idea that God is some vindictive child killer. The nice part is that it only took about two hours of internet research to come up with. (And at least an hour of that was sifting through websites using the story as part of anti-Christian diatribes.) 120 minutes in exchange for a possible answer I didn't really have before seems a fair trade. "The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ."

COMING ATTRACTIONS: STUDENT BODIES

You can view the trailer here.