"Thr3e" (2006)
Rated: PG-13
STARRING: Marc Blucas, Justine Waddell, Laura Jordan, Max Ryan
SUMMARY: A serial bomber stalks a seminary student, his childhood friend, and a seemingly unrelated Police psychologist. Based on the novel by Ted Dekker.
This is the first Christian movie I've reviewed so far. Before I go on, I have to call attention to the courage 20th Century Fox has exhibited in starting their "Fox Faith" branch of production. After "The Passion of the Christ," they realized that Christians have money, too! Go figure. And at the forefront of the Christian movie movement is producer Ralph Winter, who also produces many Comic Book franchise movies, most notably the "X-Men" movies and the "Fantastic Four" movies. He also worked on "Star Trek III, IV, V, and VI," "Inspector Gadget," and the Tim Burton remake of "Planet of the Apes." Lately, though, he's clearly been trying to really push the Christian movies with a couple Frank Peretti adaptations and "The Screwtape Letters" slated for 2008. I'm very anxious to see how that last one will be approached.
The problem, however, is that even a veteran producer with a proven track record like Mr. Winters doesn't seem to be able push the "Christian Movie" movement toward where I've long felt it needs to be. Now, I've written several essays on the Christian movie industry, so I won't go into the subject in depth here. I'll just briefly state my philosophy on Christian cinema and then go on with my review.
The reason that the vast majority of "Christian Movies" are bad is that the filmmakers are trying to make a CHRISTIAN movie. The Christian aspect is first in their mind. What SHOULD be first in their mind is quality. If they tried to make a GOOD movie with Christian themes, they would be much closer to the mark.
Fortunately, I think Mr. Winters and the team behind "Thr3e" seems to be getting this better than some of their peers.
I was very grateful that there was not a lot of preaching or even theology in this movie. The main character is a seminary student, so there is some theology addressed. But it is mostly aimed at the nature of good and evil. In what seems to be a landmark decision for a "Christian movie," there is no Altar Call! My biggest problem with "Left Behind II: Tribulation Force," besides the fact that it was just a bad movie, was that they changed a good portion of the plot of the book so that they could put in a "Come to Christ" scene that was so horribly executed I nearly cried. Ignoring the fact that that kind of scene doesn't belong in a movie anyway, it was POORLY DONE. But I'm getting off track. What I'm trying to say was that "Thr3e" didn't do that, and for that I applaud the filmmakers. Now, I could have done without the "We need God" line at the end. I felt that it was understood and didn't need to be spoken. But that was about as preachy as it got.
The writing as a whole, I wasn't impressed with. The writer has an interesting track record. He's done this movie and "Left Behind," but then he's also done "Halloween 4," "Spawn," "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever," and "The Marine." Very interesting background for a guy who writes Christian movies. The problem is, though, that I don't think he's very good. He's not bad by any means. He delivers the goods. He knows HOW to write a movie. But his writing isn't inspired. And one of the problems I felt with this movie was the fact that it was based on a novel.
I haven't read the novel, so I can't vouch for its accuracy. But I felt like they tried to put the entire book into the movie, and that just doesn't work. Adaptation is a very difficult, because, for one, there is simply too much material in a novel to put it all on screen. That's why, in adaptation, you need to find the barebones of the story, the important moments, and the character specifics, and run from there. The "Lord of the Rings" films didn't follow the books exactly. Peter Jackson and his writing partners took the essentials from the books, what Tolkien was trying to say, and said it the way that they would. I didn't feel like they trimmed much from the book. I COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG. But that's what it felt like. It felt rushed. And it felt cramped.
The director was pretty good. I thought the cinematography was quite effective. However, and this does have to do with the direction, I though the casting was pretty bad in some cases, and a director's ability to work with actors his always evident on screen.
Marc Blucas (another "Buffy alum…can anyone tell I'm a fan of a certain teenage heroine?) is quite good as the main character Kevin Parson. I've never seen him do poorly in a film, but I would like to see him branch out. He really only has one character that he keeps playing, that I've seen at least. Justine Waddell, the Police psychologist, however, I though was not very good at all. The fact that her character survives a bomb explosion in the first scene and walks away with only a slight cut on her cheek aside, I didn't believe for one second that she was who she was claiming to be…as an actor I mean. She came off weak and weepy for a hardened Police psychologist out for revenge on the man who killed her brother. It just didn't work. There were several other instances of this kind of evident casting errors, but that was the most egregious. I am not saying that Ms. Waddell is a bad actress. She clearly has chops. I'm just saying she was bad in this part. Most critics never care enough to differentiate that. For instance, I don't think Kirsten Dunst is a particularly good actress, but she was great in "Drop Dead Gorgeous." There must always be a delineation between an artists ability, whether he is a good at what he does, and his art, whether or not a specific piece or role of his is any good.
Last comment on the actual filmmaking. They could have used a larger visual effects budget. The couple scenes where they had to use visual effects (computer effects in today's world of technology), it was VERY clear what they were and where they were. They were not integrated all that well.
Now, as for the movies as a whole, this is supposed to be a thriller. In fact, on of the reasons behind its PG-13 rating is supposedly "terror." But to be perfectly honest, I wasn't that scared at all. Actually, I was more scared by the episode of "Supernatural" I watched a couple hours later which would have aired during primetime on a network TV channel. Thrillers need to be scary. And this one just wasn't. It would be scary for younger kids, of course, but for adults…eh…not so much.
Content, of course, being a "Christian movie," it's quite clean. Almost too clean, if you ask me, but I actually found myself surprised at how much I DIDN'T miss the profanity. That's one good thing I have to say about the writing. Normally, the absence of profanity in adult situations like these is painfully evident to me, but it wasn't here. So, cheers to the writer there. No sex. No nudity. Violence, however, is where it gets a little rough. Several scenes of gunplay and a "Mexican Stand-off" (a stand-off in which there can be no clear winner, popularized by Quentin Tarantino in this modern age of filmmaking). Also, the story deals with a serial bomber, so, of course, there are several explosions, some rather large. There are also some rather disturbing scenes involving the main character's VERY bizarre childhood with his psychotic aunt terrorizing him, which could be what the MPAA meant by "terror." If there is one part of this movie that would make me NOT want to show this to any kids, it would be those scenes. Legitimately disturbing.
Finally, as I said before, this movie is, at the end of the day, still a Christian movie, but it got MUCH closer to the mark. I think with producers like Mr. Winters championing this new movement, we'll have some pretty good Christian movies here in the years to come.
OVERALL: 5.5
LANGUAGE: 0
VIOLENCE: 3
GORE: 1
SEXUALITY: 0
NUDITY: 0
