What flicks will rock you this summer? Here’s an educated guess.

1.) Spider-man 2 (June 30): Everybody loves the Spider-man. First of all, he does whatever a spider can. Second of all, he makes the only comic book flicks that double as date movies. Finally, the guy’s trailer makes this look like some sort of epic. Plus, we like Doctor Octopus.

2.) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (June 4): Director Alfonso Cuaron’s last movie was the raunchy teen sex comedy, Y Tu Mama Tambien. Now, we don’t think anyone’s going to get naked, but the trailer sure is creepy.

3.) The Day After Tomorrow (May 28): We like to see the world end. Even though this comes from the director of Godzilla, we’re still all about the destruction.

4.) The Terminal (June 18): Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg and Catherine Zeta Jones deliver something to take your significant other to.

5.) Troy (May 14): Lord of the Rings spoiled us for battle scenes, but we’re still looking forward to this. Props for casting Peter O’Toole!

6.) Shrek 2 (May 21): The first one was funny. Here’s hoping this one is even funnier.

7.) Anchorman (July 9): Will Ferrell is on a roll after Old School and Elf. Maybe he’ll keep the funny going here. Or maybe not.

8.) The Bourne Supremacy (July 23): The Bourne Identity was a great time at the movies and Matt Damon was a believably unconvincing action hero. This one looks to be just as fun.

9.) Collateral (Aug. 6): Tom Cruise as a villain? We’re interested! But will his teeth distract too much?

10.) Dodgeball (June 18): This one could really, really suck, but it’s got Stephen Root (Milton from Office Space) and we love that guy!

Weirdest summer movie: Two Brothers, which stars Guy Pearce and is about two separated tigers, of all things.

Worst-looking summer movie: White Girls. Watch this trailer and try not to have nightmares about the hideous makeup.

Hope for dirty old men everywhere: The Olsen twins, Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan (the unholy trinity of tween movie stars) all have films coming this summer!

Arthouse hit that the critics will love which will never come here: Napoleon Dynamite.

Nothing to do this summer? Why don’t you start a band? Don’t know how to play an instrument? No problem. After this handy-dandy lesson, you’ll be the best pianist ever!

1. Take a look at a piano keyboard.

You’ll notice that it’s made up of a constantly repeating group of keys. First, we have two black keys surrounded by three white keys. Then we have three black keys surrounded by four white keys. Over and over and over and over . . . .

2. Sit down at the piano.

Center yourself on the bench. Look for a group of two black/three white. Put your thumb on the farthest left white key of this group. Congratulations! You’ve found Middle C!

3. The musical alphabet only has seven letters.

Why? We don’t know so stop asking! The letters fall on white keys and the black keys are the notes in between (flats and sharps). Therefore, the two white keys to the left of Middle C are B and A, while the four white keys to the right of Middle C are D, E, F and G. After G, we go back to A and start all over again. Take a moment to get used to this. You’ll notice that A is always in the same place all the way up the keyboard, B is always in the same place, C is always … and on and on.

4. Take your right hand.

Place your index finger on F and your middle finger on G. Play both notes together. This is the first chord of “Chopsticks.” Play it six times!

5. Now move your index finger to E, while keeping your middle finger on G.

Play both notes together to make the second chord. Play THIS six times!

6. Now we make a big leap.

Place your thumb on D and the B above G (take a moment to look over the keyboard if this confuses you). Play both notes together for the third chord. Again with the six times.

7. Move your thumb to Middle C and put your pinky on the next C above Middle C.

This is the final chord. Strike it once and hold it for a bit, then hit it again.

8. Now go backwards through the chords to get back to where you started.

This time, things will be slightly different. It goes: thumb on Middle C/pinky on next C, then thumb on D/pinky on B, then index on E/ring on A (its important you catch this difference or your “Chopsticks” will never sound quite right), then index on F/middle on G.

9. You’re back where you started!

Good job! Now endlessly repeat to annoy friends and family!

10. This step is optional.

Take your left hand and play around on the lower end of the keyboard to see if you can make up a fun accompaniment for what your right hand is doing. If you can’t, don’t worry. The melody of “Chopsticks” is annoying enough on its own.

13 Going on 30 … is notable for exactly one reason: Jennifer Garner takes flight as a star in this movie. She’s not quite to the heights of Roberts or Witherspoon, but she’s a reliable back-up player nonetheless.

Those who enjoy Garner on TV’s Alias won’t be surprised by her acting ability, but they might be surprised by her goofiness.

Her portrayal of a woman-child does not have the emotional heart of Tom Hanks’s portrayal of a man-child in Big, but she comes close enough.

Indie director Gary Winick (Tadpole) gives this comedy a winning sheen, but has trouble ignoring the fact that it is assembled from bits of other, better comedies (even the score is ripped off from About a Boy). The movie actually seems to drop its girl-grows-up-too-fast premise, lest it mess up the romantic complications.

But you don’t care, do you? All you care about is the fact that Garner is winning and Mark Ruffalo is easy-going as her love interest. Judy Greer adds some fun spice as a best friend/rival and Andy Serkis proves that he’s more than just Gollum with a slightly catty role. three out of five stars

Man on Fire …feels like one of the first movies to deal with this country’s post-Sept. 11 emotions honestly and openly. In it, characters are deeply wronged and the only proper response is brutal savagery. Evil exists in the world and it can only be destroyed by descending to evil’s depraved level.

Theoretically, this should be okay. After other moments of national grief (Vietnam, Watergate, etc.), revenge movies were big business. Clearly the renaissance of revenge flicks indicates that we want some hardcore revenge.

It’s just too bad we can’t get a slightly better movie.

Man on Fire is elegant for its first hour and 15 minutes or so, but then it descends into bloody clich

I don’t know if Richard Clarke or any of the other recent intelligence community whistle blowers know what they’re talking about or if they just want to draw attention to themselves. Since Clarke has a book to sell touting the inefficiencies of the federal governement’s counter-terrorism efforts, one would assume that he would be an all-out PR machine right about now, aggressively pushing his point of view, the facts be damned.

The problem with this view, however, is the fact that Clarke is not acting like a man who has a book to sell. He’s been acting like a man who feels deeply that he did something wrong and that he did not serve the people he was to work for to the best of his abilities.

Of course, Clarke could be a terrific actor who just decided to go into public service rather than tromp across the stages of Broadway or the screens of Hollywood. But look at the guy. He’s worn-down, tired looking. If he’s acting, Sean Penn should hang on tightly to his Oscar because Richard Clarke is the best actor of the year.

Perhaps Richard Clarke is just a partisan wag, who wishes to kick Bush while he’s (a little bit) down. Of course, then one must ignore the fact that Clarke served Reagan and both Bushes to his utmost. One must also ignore the fact that he has several criticisms of the way Clinton handled the terrorism situation in the 1990s.

To read Clarke’s book (which I have not yet completed) is to read sheer urgency. Clarke honestly believes that the United States is not dealing with terrorism adequately. He brings up accusation after accusation against the Bush White House in this regard. These accusations have been backed up by documents and other sources (in the few cases where Clarke is not documented, others are filling in the gaps).

Of course, the White House could answer these charges if it wanted to. Certainly it at least has an official party line?

For whatever reason, however, the White House has done little to rebuke Clarke’s accusations (the one they did rebuke-that Clarke and Bush did not meet immediately after Sept. 11-was later proven to be something they shouldn’t have rebuked; in fact, the White House admitted Clarke was right Sunday). The White House, instead, is attacking Clarke’s motives. What does this mean? I don’t know. It seems to indicate that they rather think he’s beneath them, but that seems rather stupid since a.) they worked with him and b.) his accusations hurt Bush’s credibility.

I don’t honestly believe that this will affect Bush’s chances at re-election (unless it uncovers some huge level of corruption no one has even guessed at yet), but it is interesting that Bush’s administration refuses to discuss the issues Clarke has raised, instead wishing to slum around in low blows and character attacks.

***

Have you been following the Supreme Court case about whether the “under God” should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I’m aware that a vast majority of you probably think “under God” is the bees’ knees, but bear with me here. The guy who wants “under God” taken out needs to be made into a movie. His story is just crazy enough to make a great bio-pic.

This man divorced his wife, a born-again Christian, then decided he didn’t want his daughter (of whom he does not have custody) to say the Pledge if it said “under God.” So, he brushed off his law school learnin’ (which he hadn’t used in years) and got the Ninth Circuit Court to rule “under God” unconstitutional. Then, he went to the Supreme Court, where he got Antonin Scalia to recuse himself (the Democrats can’t even do that) and argued the court from what was a likely 8-0 vote against him to a possible 4-4 tie.

Whatever you say about his cause, he’s got chutzpah and that’s the sort of thing we make movies about. Me? I think the words “under God” are probably OK in the Pledge, but I’m not an atheist. How do I know how this guy feels every time he sees his daughter recite it?

Should infinitessimal minorities be able to exert their wills on the majority? That’s a question we probably will never answer here in America, but at least we have a system that allows us to raise these sorts of issues without civil wars (well, except that one time).

Todd VanDerWerff is our editor-in-chief (though he’s only got a few issues left now). You can verbally assault him at ambiguousdog@hotmail.com.

Smiling faces beamed from the backs of pickup trucks, broadcasting the joy of soldiers thrilled to be back home after 15 months spent in a foreign land.

The 727th Transportation Company (Palletized Load System) returned to the communities it is based out of Friday with a parade and ceremony in Brookings befitting those who had given of their time and interrupted their lives to serve their country.

The 727th was the first South Dakota unit deployed to the Middle East, going from freezing January temperatures to the scalding heat of Kuwait in a short matter of time.

The parade worked its way down Sixth Street, ending up at the Swiftel Center. The soldiers rode in over 100 pickups, often filled with family members ecstatic to have their spouses, parents or siblings safe on American soil.

Spectators lined the street, cheering the 727th on.

“I think it’s great. … I’d like to see them all back (though). I’d like to see it done with,” said Gaylord Woods, a veteran of the Vietnam War.

Woods said that when he returned from Vietnam, few turned out to welcome him. He said he was happy to see many people had turned out for the 727th.

Royal and Ilsa Grindeland stood beneath giant American flags that billowed in the wind.

“We’re proud to be Americans. We’re proud to support our troops. We’re proud to wave the flag,” Ilsa Grindeland said.

At the Swiftel Center, the soldiers seemed to smile endlessly, embracing family members and sitting patiently through many speakers.

Warrin Ludemand, the mayor of Flandreau, said that the 727th was uniquely fortunate.

“We are fortunate,” he said. “Look around. There’s not an empty seat never to be filled. You are all back.”

Ludemand and others asked the soldiers to enjoy their time with their loved ones, but also to return to the lives and jobs they had left behind.

Mayor Scott Munsterman of Brookings said he hoped the future would be bright for the members of the 727th.

“I pray that God will honor your sacrifices and just bless you richly,” he said.

The prevailing mood was one of happiness.

“On the 18th of January last year, I saw a lot of tears of concern and apprehension,” said Adjunctant Major General Michael A. Gorman. “Today, I see tears of joy.”

Gorman pointed out some of the awards members of the 727th won, including six Navy Achievement Medals, nine bronze stars and 20 Army commendations. Only three members sustained serious injury when they were accidentally run over.

Gorman also cautioned the soldiers to be cautious and to ask for help if they needed to after their return.

“Remember that you’ve all been through things that have changed you,” he said.

Governor Michael Rounds spoke next to last, saying that the soldiers of the 727th had answered the call issued on Sept. 11, 2001.

“Because of that change (to our country), men and women were called to serve and defend the freedoms we had taken for granted,” Rounds said.

Other speakers at the event included Mayor Brenda Barger of Watertown, Mayor Elizabeth Trobaugh of Elk Point, Don Kelpin, Karen Bekaert of Family Support, SDSU President Peggy Gordon Miller. and 727th Captain Bob DeJong. The SDSU concert choir performed the national anthem.

The Ladykillers is a curious little trifle from America’s favorite weird stylists of the cinema, the Coen brothers. That the film works at all is a tribute to the Coens (and their wildly wonderful cast). That the film doesn’t quite work completely is also a tribute to the Coens.

Here, the Coens tread on holy ground, remaking a film for the first time. The film in question is the classic from the British Ealing Studios, which churned out a number of hilarious comedies in the 1950s, most starring Alec Guiness. The basic plot of both films is the same: a con-man uses an old woman’s cellar to tunnel to riches and glory, though he pretends to be practicing with his band for her benefit. When things go awry, the title of the film becomes quite appropriate.

The Alec Guiness role is filled by Tom Hanks in the remake (which has been transplanted to the American South). Hanks hasn’t been this all-out weird in quite some time and the performance is really something to watch. Hanks simply doesn’t seem to care about his traditional nice-guy persona. He has created a real creep who is also quite odd this time around and he’s great at it. The other members of his team vary from the quite effective (Tzi Ma as the General) to the slightly less effective (Marlon Wayans as the “inside man” and all-around naughty word generator who seems oddly out of place in this near-family comedy).

Irma P. Hall, however, matches Hanks from beat to beat.

Her church-going, sassy old lady goes from cliche to fascinating in her very first scene. From there on, it becomes obvious that Hall will be a more formidable match for Hanks than initially supposed.

Hall infuses this performance with zest and heart.

Ultimately, this film is too much of a trifle to be truly effective. It feels like a weird little exercise the Coens are playing at (much like Intolerable Cruelty) rather than a full film.

The Coens certainly enjoy playing around with random actors and objects on screen and sometimes that enjoyment overwhelms the rest of their film.

Occasionally, they hit on an emotional core (as they did in Fargo), but most of the time they’re just being weird and stylish for the sake of being weird and stylish. The Ladykillers is no exception.

That’s not to say that The Ladykillers is a terrible film. In fact, it has its moments and has much to recommend. In particular, there are some fun jokes and the cast plays them all very well.

The only wish I had was that it all added up to more. Ultimately, The Ladykillers is a bunch of interesting ideas in search of a more successful movie.

3 stars (out of 5)

After a large meth bust in Mitchell and warnings that drugs are entering our rural state, some students might wonder if SDSU and Brookings are at any risk for drug infiltration.

However, while the danger is real, most students and some officials say things in Brookings are fairly quiet in the area of drugs. Few would have it any other way.

“I’d be inclined to say it’s more just alcohol abuse than illegal drugs,” student Ryan Siebrasse said.

Most students agreed with Siebrasse.

“It’s easier to find buyers (for alcohol) if you’re underage,” Sara Landau said.

The general impression students left was that alcohol is easier to get than drugs, so it has become the mood-alterer of choice for SDSU students. The relative peace and quiet of SDSU may give some hints as to why it has fewer drug problems when compared to other universities.

“We’re more secluded than other universities in the Midwest,” Jessica Eikmeier said.

While officials said that drug problems in Brookings are not as big as they could be, they still keep an eye out.

“I haven’t seen an increase or a decrease (since I came to campus in 1995). It’s there, but not like rampant abuse of it,” said UPD police chief Tim Heaton. “On campus, it’s mainly marijuana that we catch.”

Heaton said that typically his officers will pull over a student who is using marijuana or find marijuana during a room search. Sometimes, students complain when smelling it coming from a room or call in their roommate, but in most occasions like that, the students contact Residential Life.

Heaton agrees that SDSU is secluded enough to not have a major illegal drug problem.

“I think it’s because of the location. SDSU is in a more rural environment,” Heaton said. “We’re not on the big, big routes for the cities that (people) are transporting from.”

Heaton said that he is happy to take care of drug-related problems but that sometimes students feel more comfortable talking to Residential Life or Student Health. He also said that eventually, he deals with drug problems through the student judicial affairs committee.

“My area of expertise is strictly the law enforcement end of it. If (students) know somebody that’s using an illegal substance, they should report it to me and I’ll take care of it,” Heaton said.

Brookings county sheriff Martin Stanwick has worked in Brookings County for 25 years. He says that the only dramatic increase in drug arrests came when the department began using a drug-sniffing dog two years ago.

For example, in 1999, 51 people were arrested for marijuana possession. In 2000, 57 were arrested. In 2001, 63 arrests were made. In 2002, 68 arrests were made. In 2003, however, 103 arrests were made.

Similarly, in 1999, only one arrest was made of a person who ingested a substance to become intoxicated. In 2000, six were arrested. In 2001, the number climbed to 13 and stayed there in 2002. In 2003, however, 32 were arrested for that crime. Stanwick attributes the sudden jump in both cases to the drug dog.

“Since the use of the dog … two years ago, the number of arrests for the Brookings county sheriff’s office has increased,” Stanwick said. “I think that the officers are better trained now too. But are there more people using drugs? It’s hard to say.”

Stanwick said that eventually, whether through incarceration or a lengthy court process, all taxpayers pay for drug abuse. He urged people to talk to their friends who might have problems.

“Sometimes they need outside intervention … and I know SDSU has got a lot of good counselors that can help,” he said.

Arden Gerber counsels those with drug problems one day a week at SDSU. During the rest of the week, he works at the Keystone Treatment Center in Sioux Falls. He said most students he sees are referred to him by someone else, usually the judicial affairs committee or Residential Life.

Gerber said that addiction to anything can hurt a person’s academic career. In addition, he pointed out that addiction is a disease which needs to be treated. Like any disease, addiction can be overcome with proper treatment.

“An addiction is a medical condition and properly treated, (an addicted person) should be able to do whatever they want to do,” Gerber said.

He urged those who thought their friends had drug problems to speak with their friends and possibly refer them to Residential Life or Student Health.

Dawn of the Dead

Adam Simon’s documentary The American Nightmare suggests that in the Vietnam and Watergate era, cheaply made independent horror films that broke the rules of the cinema (as it were) expressed a country’s anguish. Perhaps it is fitting then, that in a time which seems like a remake of those times (political division and paranoia), we get remakes of the horror classics. Just like our modern times, however, these new films are rather glossy and sanitized for your protection. The new wave started with the over-baked The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and continues with the surprisingly good Dawn of the Dead.

Dawn of the Dead is not a patch on the original (since it eschewed most of that film’s brilliant social satire), but it is a rather effective zombie film. What it does better than almost any horror film with this large of a scale is show the utter devastation and apocalyptic feel of this world-ending event. The film opens with an extended prologue that shows the world falling apart through the eyes of a nurse named Anna (played by Sarah Polley, the wonderful independent film actress). First, the girl across the street attacks her husband, then her husband attacks her. Then, she escapes into the greater Milwaukee metropolitan area, where we get a glimpse of the horrors of the zombie plague.

Dawn of the Dead never quite reaches those heights again, but it isn’t for lack of trying. Director Zack Snyder and his excellent cast make every stupid horror movie clich

That SDSU can host a preliminary pageant for the Miss America scholarship pageant at all should be a testament to the people who make the show tick.

In a time when the ratings for the televised Miss America pageant continue to crumble and the Miss USD pageant had to be cancelled due to a lack of contestants, SDSU continues to put on a show that features some of the campus’s finest young women showing off their talent and poise.

Jessica Peterson, a 21-year-old senior communication studies and theatre major with an emphasis on radio, television and film from Bruce, won Miss SDSU with 19-year-old Huron native and music merchandising major Callee Bauman placing as her runner-up and Miss Congeniality.

Amy Vickroy, a 20-year-old communication studies and theatre major with an emphasis in theatre from Volga, won Miss Brookings with 19-year-old Spanish and music education major Jenna Hardy of Sioux Falls placing as her runner-up.

Though these four took all the titles available Sunday afternoon, a brief overview of the show would indicate that the judges must have had a hard time making a decision. The talent competition alone showcased women who excelled at everything from singing to ballet dancing to marimba playing.

The great production values of the Miss SDSU/Brookings pageant have always been the show’s calling card. State producer Raymond Peterson (who is currently serving as SDSU’s director of theatre) keeps an eye on things and longtime pageant producer Cleo Edeburn works as the pageant’s executive director. This year, Peterson said, many people came together in a group effort to make the show work. Edeburn and Peterson both did much for the pageant, but dedicated students and Brookings residents helped out as well.

Peterson has been involved with the South Dakota pageant at some level for over 30 years. He says these pageants are important because they are traditions, but they also help condition women for the working world by providing skills in interviewing and poise.

“Families say they’re surprised at how much is to be learned,” Peterson said.

Peterson also said that a pageant allows those who like to perform, but do not always have the opportunity to get on stage, to do so because of how limited the time span involved in the pageant is.

Bauman agrees, but feels that the friends made are just as important.

“You get to know (the other girls) quite a bit. You get to be pretty good friends with all of them,” Bauman said.

Bauman’s platform issue (all girls in the pageant are expected to research a particular issue) was value-added agriculture with an emphasis on ethanol production. She says this will help the state.

Hardy is very concerned with cultural diversity for one reason: she sees a lot of ignorance around her that she wants to correct.

“When I first came to live here in the dorms, … I was hearing a lot of negative comments, a lot of prejudiced and racist comments, and I realized that many of the students didn’t know that what they were saying was offensive to other people,” she said.

For Hardy, the pageant is a way to discuss these issues and grow as a person. She will continue to participate in the system.

Vickroy is probably happy just to be standing on stage, much less wearing a crown. Just a few months ago, she was in a terrible car accident that left her unable to walk for several months. Now, however, she is Miss Brookings and she hopes to use that platform to discuss drunk driving.

“If I can make someone realize the dangers of drinking and driving (and say) ‘I remember hearing this girl’s story … and I’ll call somebody for a ride.’ Just one person. That could be one life spared. A whole family’s remorse spared,” she said.

Peterson has gone to the state pageant for the last three years.

Still, she feels just as excited to win at the local level so she can speak about her platform of character development.

“My ultimate goal right now is to get out to Miss South Dakota and do the best I can out there,” she said. “It’s really exciting to get to go out there. It’s an honor.”

I had expected to receive some letters after I reviewed “The Passion of the Christ” and was less than enthusiastic about it. Newspapers around the nation that ran negative reviews found themselves bombarded by letter after letter from those who liked the film, saying the reviewer either didn’t “get” the film (if the letter was nice) or the reviewer was not a good enough Christian (if a Christian at all) who would be going to Hell.

Frankly, then, I was kind of disappointed when I only got one letter from someone who didn’t even give their name so we could use it as a letter to the editor. Mind you, I don’t greatly enjoy undue controversy, but I do enjoy when people use this newspaper as a forum to discuss things. Debates that have been sparked by articles and columns over the last two years in our letters to the editor section are some of my favorite memories of my work here.

Still, I was hoping for more comments, more thoughts on the issue. However, to be fair, I doubt many people go into a review expecting to be offended. They expect a review to express an opinion, unlike, say, a news story, which should remain unbiased. Therefore, when a review expresses an opinion, even one those people disagree with, they simply chalk it up to freedom of speech and move on to other things. Of course, it’s also possible that only one person read that review.

Still, what interests me most is how “The Passion of the Christ” has become a media sensation. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a huge audience of Christian moviegoers out there who hunger for something that speaks to their own personal experiences with faith. By and large, Hollywood does a terrible job conveying religious issues, probably because faith requires belief and all storytelling, to some degree, is based around lies. If anything, Mel Gibson should be commended for making a film which tries to deal with these issues head on.

Why, however, have the audiences that embraced “The Passion” utterly ignored other, worthy Christian films? I’m talking about films like “The Gospel of John” and “Luther,” which were worthy, independent efforts that didn’t have a tenth of the marketing budget of “The Passion.” “The Gospel of John,” in particular, shows the titular gospel word for word on screen. The writers literally turned the gospel into a screenplay, which was turned into a deeply affecting movie. I will admit that that movie’s Passion scenes are not nearly as intense as Gibson’s to watch, but they are as intense emotionally. Why didn’t Christians rally behind this film as they did behind “The Passion?” Why don’t Christians rally behind dozens of pieces of “family” entertainment that deserve larger audiences? I don’t know.

I do admit that some of the coverage of “The Passion” has been rather ridiculous. “The New York Times,” in particular, has attacked the film mercilessly without ever really talking about it as a film. They are reviewing Gibson (and Gibson’s hideously prejudiced father) instead of the film. Other reviewers are unfairly biased towards the film because they have been waiting for so long to see the story of Christ treated with the kind of respect it deserves. “San Francisco Gate” critic Mick LaSalle argues that movies have joined politics and religion as a subject that should remain off-limits in polite conversation because it is so easy to get angry at someone for not understanding why you think “Men in Black II” is the finest thing on celluloid.

Perhaps he is right.

What interests me most, however, is the response some critics have gotten from practicing Christians. I’m not denying that these people have every right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, but to suggest that the reviewer does not have a firm understanding of Christianity or to suggest that the reviewer hates Jesus (or something equally ridiculous) as some have done (and, I might point out, not to me-you people are wonderfully polite) stinks of idiocy. I am aware that many people view this film as a life-changing religious experience, but it remains a movie. For many of us, it will always JUST be a movie, with good points and flaws.

To some degree, “The Passion” was unreviewable. The early publicity had turned the film into something polarizing. You either got it or you were against Christians. Christians are terrified of persecution and they certainly could feel that way in the media (when was the last time you saw a realistic TV portrayal of a Christian? When Ned Flanders, who began as a stereotype, is the best Hollywood can do, Christians have every right to feel misrepresented). How many times have you seen a character in a movie, show or book who was “too religious,” but learns to “lighten up and have fun?”

However, when this fear of persecution leads to reverse persecution, nobody wins. To suggest that those who don’t get “The Passion” are bad Christians is ridiculous. I think it would behoove us all to remember the pastor who stood up after an early screening of “The Passion,” which he was invited to by Mel Gibson. According to “Entertainment Weekly,” that pastor reminded people in the audience that some would simply think “The Passion” was a bad film and that no one should be demonized for having that opinion.

I think those are words we can all agree with.

Todd VanDerWerff is our editor-in-chief. Verbally assault him at ambiguousdog@hotmail.com.