The Last Sin Eater

I watch these missionary films from time to time. There is an earnestness in most of them that makes up for the fact that they are so horrible.

In my city is Pat Robertson's film school, training hundreds of people a year to make these things. I often wonder what will happen when they actually are able to make good movies?

I am beginning to believe that this may never happen. Film may be making Christianity obsolete. I know this may sound strange. Cinema seems profoundly malleable, a vehicle for any story. And Christianity has survived by adapting far, far from what Jesus believed, making any necessary compromise.

But film has rather rigid dynamics when combined with the forces of how we define ourselves through stories. It is extremely flexible, but only within a conceptual marketplace where the collective projections of self reinforce each other. Cinema allows us to define our own cosmos. It worries me that the rivers are sometimes so banal, but such the way of the collective — and young imaginations have surprising sophistication.

Christianity on the other hand is about accepting a prefabricated story. Well, different ones depending on the preacher's agenda, but the cosmos is defined in a very top down manner. Theoretically, they could overlap a lot, but that is not what the world seems to want. Even the most obvious Jesus stories like Harry Potter don't follow the rules of the Christian institution.

This film has prompted me to believe that it may be impossible to make powerful cinema with the existing dogma. Everything about it fails.

The irony is that the story flows are about rigid superstition being made obsolete, not by the Bible in the story, but because people simply want to explain for themselves what the world is.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

This movie had very good elements, a grieving family, a community secret, dark undertones, a message of hope.....but it was all destroyed by the editing. While this movie was being filmed, the emotions were palpable on the set; the hair on the back of my neck stood up many times. Unfortunately, the director was so concerned about not showing any violence on screen, that all the passion was edited out.

Mr. Landon edited the most emotional scenes like it was an MTV video. He did not allow many of the camera shots to stay with one character for more than 2 seconds. This created very choppy scenes and disconnected his audience from the story. Mr. Landon did allow the scenic shots to pan, and zoom in (they were beautiful shots due to the DP), but we could have done with shorter scenic shots and longer camera time during the emotional scenes.

The three most disappointing scenes were Brogan Kai choking Caddie, the Sin Eater taking Caddie's sins away, and the Indian Massacre scenes. When these were being filmed, many of the crew had tears in their eyes. You could have heard a pin drop, no one was breathing. These were intense, emotional scenes, and Mr. Landon edited them down to very bad, home movie play-acting.

It is ashame, because Mr. Landon directed this film very nicely, and the original camera shots stayed on the actors for a much longer time. Mr. Landon should not have been allowed in the editing room.

This is a film that requires some willing suspension of disbelief, since its makers seem possibly to be prey to the fallacy that it enough that Christian art be Christian. Which is not to say that they didn't get most of it right, just that their missteps are so avoidable. Fortunately, most (like the young star's unbelievably sumptuous wardrobe) weren't major distractions for me. But the crudeness of the special effects scenes (which, thankfully, are brief) did disrupt my experience, as I wondered, "What were they thinking that this looked right to them?"

Most of the cast does a truly fine job, with all the central characters (the Forbes family and Fagan Kai) getting moving, heartfelt and convincing performances from their players. There's a relationship here between quantity of screen time and quality, so the minor characters remain pretty two-dimensional, though not distractingly so.

The cinematography (except for special effects, as noted) is beautiful and effective, and successfully evokes the feeling of confining, dense Appalachian woods and isolation.

Bottom line: despite its minor shortcomings, this is an effective, affecting, non-preachy and original retelling of one of the central concepts of Christianity.

First off the budget is small so be kind. Its a pretty solid story although it probably could have been fleshed out and feels a little disjointed in places. It is still a solid film and an excellent addition for fans of Christian films, unlike many Christian films it does not whitewash its message.

The best part of the film is the performance of Peter Wingfield as the Sin Eater. While he is almost a minor character as far as screen time his performance makes the film. His voice is so sorrowful in his scenes (he is hidden for the majority of the movie) that you could just sob for him. His pathos is spot on. He is not overly dramatic but succeeds in selling the believability of the film.

I had no idea what this movie was about however I did have some preconceived ideas about "sin eaters" coming from a Celtic background. Having said this....I very much enjoyed this movie, bad accents aside and little inaccuracies here and there, I would definitely recommend. A movie that can make me sad, happy, tearful and ultimately hopeful, is all right in my book!

This movie showed how fear can rule no matter what time or place, how old traditions and beliefs are not always the way to go, especially coming from the old world to the new. Man kinds inability at times to adapt to his surroundings is not only sad but can be brutal and horrific in the process. There is a moral in this story for all.

Happy viewing.