The Mummy (1932)

***

An excerpt of a review recently posted on Schaeffer's Ghost:

The narrative here, like that of many monster stories, is at its heart a romantic one: Once upon a time, Priest Imhotep loved Princess Ankh-es-en-amon. When death separated them, Imhotep was so desperate to be with her again that he acted in deliberate rebellion against the gods he previously served by stealing the Scroll of Thoth in order to bring Ankh-es-en-amon back to life so they could be together. He chose human love over faith. 

Imhotep was caught in the act and, as punishment for his transgression, he was buried alive in complete mummy regalia. Now, having been accidentally resurrected by the nitwitted archaeologist’s assistant, Imhotep picks up where he left off, searching for his long lost love, whose soul apparently resides in her modern day ancestor, the young Helen Grosvenor. Along the way, Imhotep is perfectly willing to kill anyone who gets in his way. His ‘love’ for Ankh-es-en-amon results in disrespect—and violence—toward others. 

Then, it turns out that the final step in his long-planned reunion with Ankh-es-en-amon is Helen’s death—only by killing the body where the soul of Ankh-es-en-amon dwells can she be freed to be with Imhotep forever. This plan doesn’t seem to go over too well with Helen (or, it is implied, Ankh-es-en-amon), but that doesn’t stop Imhotep. What she wants doesn’t matter. His ‘love’ for Ankh-es-en-amon overrides all other considerations. He ‘loves’ her so much that he is willing to kill her—against her will—to be with her.

Full review available here.

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)

***

An excerpt of a review recently posted on Schaeffer's Ghost:

To children, A Good Day to Die Hard offers the simple reminder that parents are fallible. They screw up. They miss out on stuff you wish they’d been around for, and they make all sorts of mistakes that drive you bonkers and, in some cases, cause you serious emotional pain. But at the end of the day, even loving parents get it wrong sometimes. Most goofs were probably more the result of boneheaded thinking and normal human error than of any actual malice or a desire to ruin your life. That doesn’t mean that what they did (or didn’t do) was ok. But at some point, you have to let go, accept them for who they are, and recognize their overtures of affection for what they are—even if said overtures involve offering to help you kill some Russian bad guys. [...] 

To parents, Good Day to Die Hard offers a modern day action retelling of Harry Chapin’s classic hit ‘Cat’s in the Cradle.’ If you prioritize outside activities over family, you pay a very real relational cost. Granted, we’d all be terribly disappointed if John McClane was too busy being a good dad to save Nakatomi Plaza from terrorists thieves, or save Dulles from whoever that psycho general guy was, or save New York from Jeremy Irons or save Lucy McClane from a less-than-terrifying Timothy Olyphant. Saving the day makes for great movies. It may not make for great families.

Full review available here.

Quiet, by Susan Cain (a guest post)

****

Last year, I reviewed Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, by Susan Cain. And I loved it. So when I was presented with a second opportunity to review the book, I recruited my husband to read it and share his thoughts. The book is also the subject of the Book Club over at Patheos, where we both contribute to Schaeffer's Ghost, an Evangelical commentary on books and film. Here's an excerpt of his review:

###

I think part of the problem here is one of categorization. When thinking in terms of Christianity, the absolute categorization of either an introvert ideal or an extrovert ideal falls flat. This is because there is both an introverted and an extroverted component to the Gospel. 

On the one hand, Christians ought to be extroverted. This is true not only because we are expected (even commanded) to engage with others in sharing the Gospel, but also because the very foundation of our faith is someone external to us coming along, dragging us out of ourselves (it’s even more violent than that—the Bible uses the language of putting the old person to death) and planting us firmly in a non-optional relationship with another person (Jesus) and a group of other people (the church). In a very real sense, there is no ‘alone time’ for the Christian—something which no doubt causes many introverts to shudder in panic. In this sense, the Gospel has a quite necessary extroverted component. 

On the other hand, Christians ought to be introverted. We are responsible for our own spiritual lives—the commands to be holy and fight against sin are not Biblical charges to take up political crusades against institutional evil. They are rather directions for examining our interior lives and casting off those aspects of ourselves which continue to persist in rebellion against God. And of course part of this process is being slower to speak, being aware of our own sinful nature, and being on guard against allowing that sinful aspect of ourselves to take control of our tongue and actions (in one sense, the serpent in the Garden was the chief of extroverts—he projected his personality onto others in an attempt to remake them in his own image). Likewise, quiet meditation on Scripture, solitary prayer, and reflection should all increasingly be aspects of the Christian life. In this sense, the Gospel has a quite necessary introverted component as well.

Full review available here.

I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review.

Who Do You Think You Are?, by Mark Driscoll (a guest post)

****

My husband and I both read this book, the latest from Mark Driscoll, and while I liked it fine, he (as a philosopher and longtime Driscoll fan) appreciated it much more and had far more insightful things to say about it. So I let him write the review. You'll thank me later, I promise.  Here's an excerpt:

###

Mark Driscoll may not know it (or heck, maybe he does), but when he wrote a book about searching for personal identity he stepped directly into one of the fundamental philosophical questions of the 20^th century: who am I? When philosophers pitch this question, “identity” is usually paired with some form of the word “authenticity.” The idea is that we should be searching for our identity not as society or culture has shaped it, but as it actually, authentically is when all external factors are stripped away. We should look deep down within ourselves to find out who we are most fundamentally by nature. Think this sounds easy? Not according to Heidegger, Marcuse, Camus, Sartre, or even the Christian response to these thinkers by Francis Schaeffer (to say nothing of the legion of other philosophers who have tackled this issue). 

Mark Driscoll’s contribution to this discussion comes not from a philosophical perspective, but rather from an exegetical one. Who Do You Think You Are? is an exposition of the book of Ephesians that engages the question of personal identity. 

The full review is available on Schaeffer's Ghost (a Patheos blog) here.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”