Michael Landon Jr.'s new film, THE LAST SIN EATER, is one of several that he's making for Believe Pictures and Fox Faith.  I volunteered to review the film because, well, I'm Appalachian, I loved the concept and because I keep holding out hope -- and the belief -- that there can be a religious film that is both a well-made work of art and satisfying for adult filmgoers.  In other words, a movie that can hold it's own with the best films out there and can also say something meaningful to anyone over the age of ten.  Unfortunately, this hope has become a matter of faith with surprisingly little evidence.  Despite all the criticism of Hollywood, most "faith-based" movies are even more simplistic than the usual Hollywood drivel.  Maybe the movies would get better if negative reviews weren't immediately assumed to be the critic's or audience's unwillingness to embrace religious or spiritual content. 

My point is two-fold: that Christians can be critical of religious art without endangering their souls and that non-Christians and the non-religious can indeed appreciate Christian art if it is done well.  Think of the Sistine Chapel.  The Last Supper.  If there were a well-made Christian film, it would not be panned by most critics or avoided by audiences.  Give us a little more credit.  Bad film reviews actually can be an assessment that the film under review fails in dramatic and cinematic terms.  Specific content, good intentions or "The Truth" on the filmmaker's side do not automatically mean great (or even satisfactory) art or films.  If Christian filmmakers want to be taken seriously, they need to be good filmmakers, not just messengers of God.  Great, memorable films are usually made by filmmakers who are willing to question their content in complex ways, revealing it artistically, and leading the audience to unexpected realizations.  Maybe this is because great filmmakers are willing to be surprised as well, to really dig into the material.

Of course, it seems to me that many filmmakers these days (regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof) have no interest in making great films.  They are simply providing a product for purchase.  At my most cynical, I could assume that Fox Faith only exists because someone saw the box office returns for THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and has less interest in getting religious messages out than making a profit by finding "new" audiences.  The marriage of Christian ideals with commerce seems a bit ironic, but I guess no more so than the marriage of Christian ideals with our political system.

Which brings us to THE LAST SIN EATER, an earnest film that would be considered laughable (or at least the equivalent of a bad TV movie) if it were any content other than Christian.  Because it is Christian, faithful audience members and critics have treated it like the Second Coming.  But if this is what we have to look forward to, the Rapture is going to be slow, agonizing and filled with melodrama.  Oh, wait, that IS the Rapture, isn't it? 

Now before you send Film Monthly hate mail, get a sense of humor.  I mean, really, Christians have become the new Feminists -- taking everything way too seriously.  Okay, I guess I've just doubled the hate mail, haven't I?  Both of you, get a grip.  THE LAST SIN EATER suffers from too much sin, too many confessions, too many guilty consciences.  Flashbacks to past traumatic events do not a drama make -- often times (and in this film in particular) they're sloppy storytelling. 

When watching this film, if you haven't figured out what 10-year old Cadie's sin is before the flashback, well, I guess this movie really is for you.  For the rest of us, it's devoid of any dramatic tension because we "get it" within the first couple of scenes.  Seriously, do you have any doubt that her sister's death is an accident?  Now if she had pushed her sister into the ravine, we'd have a sin worth all the angst.  Instead, we have the equivalent of the self-inflicted sibling trauma that made the secular film MERMAIDS a groaner.

Even the mother's confession at the end of the film is exactly what you'd expect.  While the town's traumatic past is certainly a surprise in its introduction of the Native American angle, there was no doubt that the film was going to up the stakes by having the town have a dark secret as well.  Unfortunately, this flashback seems like an ingredient thrown in to simply create Drama with a capital D and it give the film added Importance.  I know this movie is based on a novel, but here's a case where less could be more; as a film adaptation, the story brings up too many issues that it doesn't have time to integrate and develop.  As a result, the film feels overloaded, with too much going on.   Sadly this only calls attention to the fact that what is here often feels predictable and paint-by-the-numbers.

I have no doubt that the filmmaker and writers are sincere.  And I can appreciate the effort while acknowledging that the film does not coalesce into a satisfying film.  The most interesting aspects of the film center around the Sin Eater ritual.  Cadie's inner desire to not have to wait till death to have her sin forgiven makes for an interesting character and conflict.  But the Sin Eater's identity and past is the most tragic story here.  Either he or Cadie is worthy of an entire film, but neither gets fully developed because of the other and because of tangents that bring about big revelations but ultimately dilute the film's focus.  Add to this the inexplicable fact that, for so much story material, the film's pacing is interminable, and you've got a film that only a Christian would be patient enough to watch through to the end.  And before you start casting aspersions, I did watch every minute of this film.

Which leads me to the one aspect that stretches my credibility more than any other -- the implication that Cadie and several others in this group of people, while believing in God, have never heard of Jesus Christ.  Now, I'm no historian, and I know the film presents the community as extremely isolated, and I realize that I am overstating this point, but... 

As an Appalachian who sees more Christian churches in a square country mile than all of Los Angeles sees Starbucks coffee shops -- and whose Welsh/Irish/English family knew about Jesus long before they came to America -- I find it hard to believe that Cadie and her friends and family have not seen a Bible or heard of Jesus until a stranger, a traveling Man of God, arrives.

When the film has the obligatory beating of the Man of God due to intolerance, I was struck (no pun intended) by the fact that many modern Christian stories present Christians as persecuted and picked on by mean intolerant (i.e., non-Christian) repressed sinners.  I'm sure this is rationalized as creating an analogous situation to Christ's.  Unfortunately, this dramatic device seems to feed into an indignation that ignores the fact that we live in a society heavily influenced and lobbied by Christian interests which are sometimes extremely intolerant -- and yet Christians regularly present themselves as a powerless persecuted minority.  Talk about spin.

Despite a certain cachet of actors like Louise Fletcher being present, THE LAST SIN EATER ultimately feels like a children's story.  But even at that level, the dramatic and pacing problems remain.  Personally, I'm still waiting for a film that treats religion with serious insight and complexity.  A truly religious film.

Several religious writers have posed that most of what passes for religious literature in the present day is actually inspirational literature, not religious.  That true religious literature is not about the answers, but rather the questions.  Maybe this helps to explain why films like THE LAST SIN EATER and so many of our self-proclaimed religious films come off as simplistic -- they are less interested in raising questions for adult contemplation than in providing the childlike reassurance of "the answer."  Hollywood already treats most of its audiences as idiots.  Do religious filmmakers have to treat us that way too?