The film version of Ted Dekker’s novel, Thr3e, finally hit theaters last week. Some Christian bloggers had 
been pumping up the film for a while, and there are genuine reasons to be excited. For one, it recognizes a mega-popular Christian author who has effectively bridged the gulf between the ABA and CBA. But the film also marks the launch of FoxFaith Movies — a division of Fox aimed at “faith friendly” fare. For these reasons, Thr3e is an important event.
But is the movie any good? To me, that’s the important question.
I strongly believe in supporting Christian artists. But endorsing mediocre work often perpetuates a stereotype that “Christian art” is really just second-rate propaganda. We are viewed as an insular fraternity whose sole aim is to further our cause — whether through film, literature or music — often at the expense of those mediums. As such, Christian reviewers of said works tend to be myopic cheerleaders for their creative counterparts, implementing a radical double-standard and eschewing objectivity in favor of four stars.
I’m afraid that double-standard is at work with Thr3e.
I started my research of the new movie at several Christian blogs and was encouraged to see the positive reviews. The movie was described as well-acted, intense and good-looking. Infuze summarizes the film thus:
In the end, Thr3e is a solid psychological thriller, which tells a compelling and worthwhile story. Fans and non-fans alike will mostly appreciate the film for its entertainment value and thought-provoking ideas that don’t get shoved down your throat — a true first for this market, and proof positive that Fox Faith is on the right track. If this is the future of faith-based films, then there’s genuine hope for the genre yet.
For the record: I like Infuze Mag. I have their banner in my sidebar and think they do a wonderful job charting trends and showcasing rising talent. But juxtapose their review with Rotten Tomatoes which gives the film an overall 9% out of a possible 100% on its “Critics Tomatometer.” Here’s a sampling of what some critics are saying about Thr3e:
“This is one of the most confusing, horribly written movies I’ve ever seen…” Thom Koschwanez Seattle Post-Intelligencer
“Ultimately aimed at a Christian audience looking for genre entertainment with a certain sense of propriety, the film tries to serve two masters and doesn’t quite deliver for either.” Maitland McDonagh TV Guide’s Movie Guide
“Suspenselessly directed by Robby Henson, Thr3e commits the eighth deadly sin — boredom.” Lou Lumenick New York Post
If Thr3e is any indication of what we can expect from the emerging trend of studio-funded faith-based movies, we may find ourselves wishing The Passion of the Christ had been a box-office bomb.” Jeff Shannon Seattle Times
“Thr3e is r3ally, r3ally aw4ul.” Phil Villarreal Arizona Daily Star
Aside from the obvious subjectiveness attached to any review, I’m wondering why there’s such a discrepancy between these opinions. I’ve narrowed the answer down to three options:
- The movie is bad (at least, mediocre) and Christians can’t / won’t admit it
- The movie is good (at least, alright) and non-Christians can’t / won’t admit it
- There is a secular conspiracy against “Christian art”
You know how I feel about conspiracy theories. And while I do believe there’s a general resistance (or downright rejection) of the Christian worldview in some quarters, I seriously doubt that ALL secular reviewers are so militant against anything Christian that they can’t say anything nice about “religious art” — especially, when it’s good. So what I’m left with is the sense that Thr3e isn’t that good and lotsa Christians won’t admit it.
But we’ve been here before.
I wonder that Christians are so desirous to see the Gospel presented that they will wink at mediocre presentations of it. But this hurts both parties. The believer appears shallow, gullible and undiscerning, while the unbeliever is presented with an inferior “product,” a Not-So-Greatest Story Ever Told. Perhaps a better product would be aimed at faith communities if the communities in question did not automatically give two thumbs up to every “Christian film” or “Christian book” that comes down the pike. At this point, I doubt I’ll be seeing Thr3e, but mostly because I’m seeing double.
actually, mike – i think YOU should see this movie and then review it!!!
THEN, we would have an accurate review out there!!!
I agree, Mike. See the movie so you can throw in your own opinion based on your own observations. By the way, I totally get what you are saying. And yes, I agree. I recently got all excited at Blockbuster when I saw The Visitation (the movie made out of Frank Peretti’s book). I rented it and watched it with some friends. It was awful. The novel was great- I thought. But not the film. I read Thr3e and loved it. Dekker is a great novelist and he definately does NOT shove the gospel in your face or preach. Maybe they should have left well enough alone. Or done it better.
Mike, I appreciate the post. And I appreciate your judgement.
I pay attention to reviews. My money is too funny to waste right now.
As for seeing for yourself…that’s why reviewers are important. I review books, so that my reading buddies can decide which book they want to buy or what book they must read.
What you can do is piggyback this post in a few months and tell us if you stand corrected. Or open it up for moviewatchers to post their review of thr3e here.
I saw thr3e saturday and must say that it was pretty good. I loved the book and of course the book is better. But, I applaud the effort. The Visitation was an awful movie, but this is a good one. Not great, but good. ( They showed a preview of House during the previews which looked very good. )
To give a comparison, I personally believe Thr3e was better than Se7en, minus the great acting of the one and only Morgan Freeman, of course.
The effects were weak, but the acting was good, especially Laura Jordan, who played Jennifer.
My biggest fear was the last scene. The reveal. I was a little nervous about how they were going to pull it off, but they did a really good job.
See it before it leaves the theaters, but if not, at least rent the video. I rented the Visitation and would not recommend it to anyone, but I do recommend Thr3e. Out of four stars, I would give it two. The book gets four.
Hope this helps,
dayle james arceneaux
Hey, I appreciate your opinion about the movie, dayle. Most of what I base my views on are, a.) All the negative reviews, including Christian reviewers, b.) The woeful history of “Christian books” to movie, and c.) The history of undiscerning, rah-rah reviews by believers.
I can’t imagine Thr3e is better than Se7en; David Fincher (director) almost single-handedly introduced the grunge, snap-edit look to thrillers, a look which is now copied by countless films. But perhaps the bottom line is: I must see Thr3e to make an honest judgment. Alas, I’ll follow your recommendation and see the movie when it’s out on video. Thanks for the counter-point!
hey mike, I should note that I didn’t like se7en very much. Just trying to give a measuring stick. I personally don’t like the dark and drab visual approach to film making.
The visitation uses style over substance. Visuals alone don’t cut it for me. Three is a huge leap forward in comparison.
I agree with you on the ‘all Christian reviews are good’ thing. It really aggrivates me. One of the reasons I cancelled my subscription to CCM magazine is that every album they reviewed was nothing short of a masterpeice. I’m exaggerating of course, but I bought alot of bad albums because of them.
To help fix this in the Christian novel arena, I started a blog reviewing Christian fiction. (( by the way, christian fiction review does a great job )) I intended to give honest reviews- good or bad. But then I chickened out, because I’m trying to get my manuscript published and didn’t want to step on any toes, So I only reviewed the novels I liked. ( I’d like to hear you opinion on that. Should I care? )
Didn’t want to mislead you. If you liked Se7en, you’ll probably think it’s better than Thr3e.
But, I don’t think it’s as bad as the secular reviewers are saying.
dayle
Interesting post, Mike. I’ve linked to it over at my blog.
I’m curious now. Haven’t read any Dekker myself.
There have been lots of concerns raised about Fox Faith and what kind of material they will turn out for the “captive Christian” audience. I sure hope we will not settle for dreck or poorly crafted sanitized thrillers.
Deb
Hey dayle, I’ve felt the same exact thing about CCM magazine. Where can a Christian go to get good, even-handed, objective reviews about Christian artists? I’m afraid it’s not Contemporary Christian Music magazine.
Sadly, I agree with your assessment that giving negative book reviews can hurt your chances of getting published. Apparently, it’s better to be “loving,” “encouraging” and “optimistic” about “Christian books” than to be honest. This creates an echo chamber and is the reason why it’s so hard to get objective reviews by Christians, for Christians. Furthermore, as an author, I am reading books by people I know, or could rub shoulders with in the future. Saying openly negative things about another author’s work — especially an established author — could be career suicide. It’s a conundrum. We’re called to “speak the truth in love,” but speaking the truth can have repercussions. So most of us opt for love.
It’s one of the reasons I shy away from doing book reviews. I’m a critical person by nature, which is frankly one of the reasons I’ve had some minor success with my writing. But I tend to be far too negative and demanding (just ask my wife and kids), which is not a PR plus. The more I make headway into the industry, I’m finding it’s better to be tactful when dissenting, silent when unenthusiastic, and upbeat overall. You could say it’s disingenuous, but I say it’s wise.
Thanks for your comments, dayle!
mike.
interesting read. i tend to believe projects like “Fox Faith” are more about bottom lines than about “art”. christians like to throw cash at “christian” stuff; it’s a great market to go fishing in. i’ve dabbled in the music industry and the relevance of your entry here abounds within the secular/religious music world. it’s interesting to say the least and borderline embarrassing.
in other thoughts… “But I tend to be far too negative and demanding”… Brett Easton Ellis or Albert Camus had the same “problem” but they’ve shaken souls and critics alike. i do, however, respect your diligence and discretion in “disingenuousness”.
keep shakin’ it up. – matty (of matty and harvest)