Category: Movies
The Spectacle Ep. 313: Here’s What We’re Leaving Behind in 2025
What didn’t work in 2025 and still won’t work in 2026? DEI, transgender ideology, vaccines — just to name a…
The Weekend Spectator Ep. 53: Ranking the Best Christmas Movies of All Time
With Christmas quickly approaching and endless movie choices, it can be difficult to decide which of the greats to watch….
Is ‘Die Hard’ a Christmas movie? And other questions about the true meaning of Christmas films.
“What is a Christmas movie?”
This is probably a question you’ve heard before in passing. Most of us instinctively have a good idea of what one is, but more than likely, that understanding is rather inexplicable, abstract, or trapped in the minutiae.
Only by leaning into my Christian faith did I begin to see these films and the unique glow that turns a regular film into a Christmas film.
We all know the tropes of Christmas movies — Santa Claus, joy to the world, peace and goodwill toward men, white snow on a warm Christmas morning, jingle bells, presents under the tree, hot chocolate and eggnog, sugar plums, figgy pudding, Nativity scenes, et cetera.
For most people, Christmas is a feeling and an idea as much as it is a day on the calendar. However, trying to put the abstract into words is challenging. In my capacity as a film reviewer, amateur filmmaker, and member of the Music City Film Critics Association, I have spent more than three years talking with friends and puzzling over the question for fun. For the most part, this debate was a lively intellectual exercise between my philosopher and cinephile friends and me; I can recall one particularly fun session of debate with my girlfriend as we discussed the Aristotelian implications of the definition of Christmas movies.
As it will become clear in this text, though, the answer to the question, “What is a Christmas movie?” is surprisingly hard to narrow down and answer definitively.
This was a problem I set out to try to formally solve in late 2024, during a rare moment of adult life when I had the time to sit down for three months and binge-watch out-of-season Christmas movies, while attending to a lengthy family hospice situation. As strange as it felt spending the month of October bingeing on Christmas movies, it was enlightening. Surveying films between the years 1935 and 2024, one sees a number of patterns and tropes fly by, evolving with the culture year by year.
Subsequently I partnered with my good friends at the evangelical ministry Geeks Under Grace to put my ideas to paper, publishing 10 weekly articles on the subject between November and December 2024. But even as I was penning those first essays, I struggled to find the right words; I didn’t have an answer in mind from the outset, merely a series of arguments and anecdotes. I would need to find my thesis in the act of writing this book.
There aren’t enough books written about Christmas films as a genre. If there are many, they are buried under an ocean of histories for specific films, best-of collections, or works written by obscure academics.
It’s easy enough to find resources on the production history of “It’s a Wonderful Life” but less so about the subgenre that flows out of it. Much has been said about the great entries in the subgenre: how “Miracle on 34th Street” became the first financially successful Christmas movie in 1947; how “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “A Christmas Story” were popularized via television broadcasts; how “Mister Magoo’s Christmas Carol” became the first animated Christmas special specifically released for television in 1962; how 2003’s “Elf” is the last Christmas film to be considered a blockbuster.
There is less said about what connects these data points.
One of the few experts on the subject I found was Scottish scholar Tom Christie, who has published multiple books on the history of Christmas films in the past decade through Extremis Publishing, including “The Golden Age of Christmas Movies: Festive Cinema of the 1940s and ’50s” and “A Totally Bodacious Nineties Christmas: Festive Cinema of the 1990s.” The rest of the insight I found was buried in individual articles and YouTube essays, to which I owe a tremendous debt for helping me shape the greater picture. They helped me break through my writer’s block and made the connections I needed to complete the project.
However, the seeds of insight I found in my reading turned me away from the films themselves.
From first principles, there can be no understanding of Christmas movies without first understanding Christmas. And there is no understanding of Christmas without understanding religion, society, secularism, consumerism, and the nature of what American society considers “normal.” It was only through this that the seed blossomed into what I think is the best achievable conception of a Christmas film, and only by leaning into my Christian faith did I begin to see these films and the unique glow that turns a regular film into a Christmas film.
I apologize to any secular readers who may have picked up this book imagining it would be relatively areligious, but I must beg their pardon in the necessity to discuss these issues through the lens of theology. I’m a practicing Christian, and I cannot help but think of life through the lens of a high-church Protestant. However, Christmas is a Christian holiday (at least tacitly), and I don’t think it’s possible to completely excise Jesus from the day bearing his name — at least not without turning the holiday into a parody of itself.
Christianity teaches us that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, became flesh and walked among us. He was both fully God and fully man and became the hinge of history. He was a paradox, described in His Nativity by the apologist C.S. Lewis, “Once in our world, a stable had something in it that was bigger than our whole world.”
The idea that a God so seemingly wrathful, distant, and lawful would be so humble as to allow Himself to be born as a fleshy human baby to a peasant woman in the backwater of the Roman Empire is strange. But this is the event Christmas celebrates — a contradiction and a miracle; the fullness of history fulfilled in humility; the logos breaching into the world; a quiet resistance manifesting against the evils of this rebelling silent planet.
Reflecting on this and the modern reality of Christmas, an idea began to unfold slowly in my mind. The realization came to me that Christmas movies are not defined so easily but are defined by a connection to the supernatural. They are downstream of something greater, containing within them a small drop of the divine-like spring water filtering into a mighty river.
That water may no longer be clear and crisp, or even drinkable, but its flowing is evidence of a source.
Christmas movies are utterly unique in modern film due to the way we interact with them. They are a subgenre unto themselves, intertextually linked with other Christmas movies and the holiday itself, but it is that very intangible glow that makes them unique. They contain an essence of what Lewis once described, in his book “The Problem of Pain,” as “the numinous”:
Those who have not met this term may be introduced to it by the following device. Suppose you were told there was a tiger in the next room: you would know that you were in danger and would probably feel fear. But if you were told, “There is a ghost in the next room,” and believed it, you would feel, indeed, what is often called fear, but of a different kind. It is not based on the knowledge of danger, for no one is primarily afraid of what a ghost may do to him, but of the mere fact that it is a ghost. It is “uncanny” rather than dangerous, and the special kind of fear it excites may be called dread. With the uncanny one has reached the fringes of the numinous.
This is not to call Christmas movies dreadful but that they contain within them a sense of the supernatural, what we might call “awe.” Connecting with that awe is downstream of the supernatural source that created it. Christmas movies grab that stream like a third rail and feel electrified by it.
It may seem like a bit of a leap to say that mean-spirited and cynical movies like “Christmas Vacation” or “Bad Santa” are in some way a reflection of God’s divinity, but as we will come to see, the thing that sets Christmas films apart from other films is an embrace of the supernatural essence of Christmas.
A Christmas movie always contains an element of hope that warps cynicism and pain of its story toward an ideal.
A Christmas movie glows with Christmas spirit.
A phrase like “the true meaning of Christmas” does this too, alluding to some unspoken notion that culture agrees upon, that Christmas is meaningful because it changes people. It scratches upon something divine while remaining achingly human and unspecific.
That thing is not entirely limited to the faithful, as secular people enjoy Christmas too. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and atheists all celebrate Christmas in equal measure. And while I wouldn’t say they celebrate in the same manner as I do at the communion rail on Christmas morning, they are communing with something beyond the superficial layers of cheap plastic junk that Christmas would be if it were merely another day in December.
This book is the result of many months of thought and reflection, brought into the world by the good graces of my friends and colleagues who helped me write it, host it, critique it, and bring the original articles to fruition, here expanded to a thematically rounded 12 chapters. Each chapter has been revised to reflect the conclusions I discovered in the very act of writing the book. One often finds his destination only by setting out on an unknown journey!
So let us start by asking the most immediate and controversial question and then let our understanding unfold: Is “Die Hard” a Christmas movie?
From there, we will discuss Christmas as a secular phenomenon; explore Christmas movies as a subgenre; the role religion, consumerism, normality, and nostalgia play in Christmas cinema; and close on the incarnational implications of Christmas films.
What is a Christmas movie?
Let’s find out!
The above essay was adapted from the book “Is ‘Die Hard’ a Christmas movie? And Other Questions About the True Meaning of Christmas Films,” which is available here.
Sharing Hope at Christmas — Bob Hope
I recently had a strange, sad experience while watching an old movie with the family. Most Saturday evenings, the Kengor…
Christian children’s movie ‘David’ beats out ‘Spongebob’ and Sydney Sweeney in box-office shock
A faith-based children’s movie is making waves just before Christmas.
“David,” an animated Christian musical about the story of David versus Goliath performed valiantly up against some monstrous titles over the weekend.
‘David’ is now the second-biggest blockbuster for Angel Studios, the studio that brought ‘Sound of Freedom’ to theaters.
In a field dominated by animated pictures, “David” managed to outperform both “The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants” and “Zootopia 2.”
Spice rack
While “Zootopia 2” took in just $14 million, that figure comes with a huge asterisk, as it has already been in theaters for a month with more than $1 billion taken in worldwide. However, “David” can relish the fact that it outperformed the beloved SpongeBob character as well as Sydney Sweeney’s new movie “The Housemaid” on their opening weekends.
SpongeBob made $16 million, according BoxOffice Pro, while “The Housemaid” garnered a respectable $18.95 million. At the same time, “David” shocked the media with just over $22 million in its opening, according to Box Office Mojo.
RELATED: ‘Kevin Costner Presents: The First Christmas’ brings scriptural authenticity to Nativity story
While SpongeBob has an established (but aging) fan base, controversy around the film came just ahead of the release when one of its voice actors, rapper Ice Spice — real name Isis Naija Gaston — attended the premiere in a revealing outfit.
The mostly transparent lingerie the rapper wore on the red carpet may have been a factor in parents’ choice of which film was most suitable for their children.
Blue Christmas
“David” is now the second-biggest blockbuster for Angel Studios, the studio that brought “Sound of Freedom” to theaters. The movie about child trafficking went viral online in terms of publicity and took in more than $250 million worldwide. No other film on the studio’s roster has made more than $21 million before “David.”
None of these movies could touch the No.1 film of the weekend, though: James Cameron’s “Avatar: Fire and Ash,” the third in the franchise. It took home a whopping $88 million, more than second through fourth place in the box office combined.
Two more “Avatar” films are set for release, in 2029 and 2031.
RELATED: ‘Matrix’ co-creator: ‘Trans rage’ drives my work
Photo by Jason Mendez/Getty Images for Paramount Pictures
Wrung out
Also to be considered is the SpongeBob franchise’s flailing numbers.
The first movie in 2004 had a promising opening weekend of $32 million, later drawing $142 million worldwide against a budget of $30 million, per the Numbers.
In 2015, the next film in the franchise took a $74 million budget and, despite making just $55 million in its opening weekend, ended up making over $300 million.
In 2020, though, “The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run,” with a $60 million budget, drew just $865,824, likely due to COVID-19 restrictions, and made just over $4.8 million at the end of the day.
Now, with an alleged $64 million budget, according to Variety, Paramount may have cause for worry, with double the budget producing half what original film did in 2004. Then again, the studio may have streaming numbers in mind, instead.
The Oscars will leave TV — and may never come back
A seismic shift is coming for Hollywood’s biggest awards show.
Following a tough decade that has seen the program lose more than 40% of its audience, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has agreed to a multiyear deal that will take it off television airwaves.
In 2021, viewership sank to less than a third of the 2016 audience, with just 10.4 million viewers.
California streaming
Starting in 2029, the 101st Oscars will air in an online format as part of an exclusive deal with YouTube for the global rights to the broadcast. The deal, which runs through 2033, includes the rights to cover the red carpet, behind the scenes, and the Governors Ball.
As reported by Variety, the awards show will leave ABC — where it has been for decades — and will become available on YouTube around the world and to YouTube subscribers in the United States.
Will the show leave extended commercial breaks behind as well? Unlikely. Inside sources revealed to Variety that ads will be a part of the broadcast, and the intent behind the shift was actually to capitalize on YouTube’s captioning and audio translation features.
RELATED: Guillermo del Toro stops awards show music to drop ‘F**k AI’ bomb
Photo by Jeffrey Mayer/WireImage
Falling stars
While the awards telecast has gained some of its viewership back in the last few years, the numbers are still much smaller than they were when President Trump took office the first time.
In 2016, the Oscars saw approximately 34.4 million viewers. That number dropped steadily to 23.6 million by 2020, until a massive free fall in 2021. That year, viewership sank to less than a third of the 2016 audience, with just 10.4 million viewers.
Viewership has climbed back up since and showed decent growth through 2024, when it had 19.5 million viewers. However, the numbers largely stagnated for 2025 with 19.7 million, which is about 57% of what viewership was in 2016.
Still it seems the program will never again reach the peaks it had as recently as 2010, when it garnered over 41 million sets of eyeballs.
RELATED: Can conservatives reclaim pop culture?
Photo by Araya Doheny/Getty Images for YouTube
Global services
Academy CEO Bill Kramer and Academy President Lynette Howell Taylor released a joint statement calling the new deal a “multifaceted global partnership with YouTube” that will reach “the largest worldwide audience possible.”
They added, “This collaboration will leverage YouTube’s vast reach and infuse the Oscars and other Academy programming with innovative opportunities for engagement while honoring our legacy. We will be able to celebrate cinema, inspire new generations of filmmakers, and provide access to our film history on an unprecedented global scale.”
YouTube CEO Neal Mohan labeled the Oscars “one of our essential cultural institutions, honoring excellence in storytelling and artistry.”
Jennifer Lawrence admits she can’t separate her politics from movies: ‘That’s how I’m digesting the world’
Actress Jennifer Lawrence says her creativity and politics are inherently intertwined.
Lawrence revealed her thoughts during a discussion with fellow Oscar-winning actor Leonardo DiCaprio.
‘Maybe she didn’t know that I was on an Ambien.’
Brain trust
Lawrence, 35, and DiCaprio, 51, appeared on Variety’s “Actors on Actors” segment, with the duo discussing their pasts as child actors, upcoming films, and briefly, politics as it pertains to their art.
DiCaprio was discussing his 2025 political film, “One Battle After Another,” when Lawrence asked about bringing politics into the movie industry.
“I think that the creative part of my brain and the political part of my brain are intrinsically linked,” Lawrence prefaced. “Like, I keep finding, like, every time I come up with, like, a movie or, like, it’s more often than not political.”
“I think it’s ’cause that’s how I’m, like, digesting the world. Are you like that?” she asked DiCaprio.
“No,” DiCaprio plainly replied.
Lawrence attempted to move on to another question, but the “Titanic” star was eager to explain why.
RELATED: Handmaid’s fail: Hillary stumps for Jennifer Lawrence’s new pro-abortion documentary
Photo by Taylor Hill/FilmMagic
Stating that his latest film feels “very topical,” DiCaprio said it is “very difficult to say something about the world we live in” on film.
“It has to have an element of irony or comedy to it; otherwise people — they’re not allowed in. … And it feels like, ‘Oh, I’m watching these people’s vocation and, you know, do I relate to them?'” he explained.
DiCaprio tacked on, “There’s all those political films of the ’70s: ‘The Parallax View,’ ‘Three Days of the Condor,’ ‘All the President’s Men.’ And they were taken very seriously. But nowadays, it feels like there’s such polarity and such extremism that if you pick a side, you’re alienating.”
Pillow talk
Later in the interview, Lawrence had more strange anecdotes that seemed to paralyze the veteran actor. She soon brought up the fact that both she and DiCaprio are “obsessive about sleep” when filming a movie, before reciting some of her on-set drug follies.
DiCaprio seemingly played along, smiling and laughing at times, but clearly had nothing to add.
“I took an Adderall instead of a sleeping pill,” Lawrence said, as DiCaprio smirked. “And then I didn’t sleep all night, and I was taking hot showers, panicking, because I am not somebody who can function without sleep. … I also once took an Ambien in the morning, thinking it was something else,” she continued.
“Wow. Those are key screwups,” the leading man laughed in response.
“Elizabeth Banks got really annoyed with me,” Lawrence said about her Ambien usage on the set of “Hunger Games.”
She continued, “Maybe she didn’t know that I was on an Ambien.”
DiCaprio simply put his head down and laughed, without responding.
RELATED: Jennifer Lawrence claims no women were action movie stars before her
Sigourney who?
Lawrence has made interesting claims during sit-downs on the same program before, including in December 2022 when she claimed she was the first female lead of an action movie.
Also on Variety’s “Actors on Actors,” Lawrence told Viola Davis:
“I remember when I was doing ‘Hunger Games,’ nobody had ever put a woman in the lead of an action movie because it wouldn’t work. We were told, girls and boys can both identify with a male lead, but boys cannot identify with a female lead.”
Sigourney Weaver (“Alien”), Uma Thurman (“Kill Bill”), and Milla Jovovich (countless “Resident Evil” films) could not be reached for comment.
‘The Case for Miracles’: A stirring road trip into the heart of faith
Lee Strobel doesn’t mind those who question his midlife Christian conversion.
Strobel’s shift from an atheist to rock-ribbed Christian came to life in 2017’s “The Case for Christ.” The film, based on his life story, showed how Strobel’s efforts to debunk the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the legal editor of the Chicago Tribune had the opposite effect.
‘There is evidence that points — compelling [evidence] — to the truth of biblical miracles and contemporary supernatural encounters. I’m not afraid of that.’
He says his shoe-leather reporting confirmed the resurrection. Looking back, Strobel tells Align his change of heart ruffled some professional feathers.
“After I became a Christian at the Chicago Tribune, somebody told me later that they overheard somebody in the newsroom say, ‘What happened to Strobel? He became a Jesus freak, like, overnight,’” Strobel says, laughing.
Miracle miles
Now, Strobel is back on the big screen with “The Case for Miracles,” in select theaters Dec. 15-18 via Fathom Entertainment. The film finds Strobel and director Mani Sandoval hitting Route 66 in an old Ford Bronco to swap stories and reflect on modern-day miracles.
Among the most poignant? A young woman with severe multiple sclerosis who is able to leave her hospice bed following a crush of community prayers.
It’s part travelogue, part documentary, and Strobel only wishes he had time to share even more remarkable stories on-screen.
“We had to leave out so many good ones. … We had another case documented by medical researchers … a guy who was healed from a paralyzed stomach,” he says. “He was prayed for, felt an electric shock go through him, and for the first time was able to eat normally.”
“He’s fine to this day,” he adds. “It’s the only case in history of its kind of [someone] spontaneously healed from this stomach paralysis.”
Meeting in the middle
Strobel says the film offers two very different perspectives on modern-day miracles given the key players involved.
“Mani grew up in a Pentecostal home. There was an anticipation that the miraculous would take place,” he says. “I was an atheist [growing up].”
The film is based on Strobel’s 2018 book of the same name, but he hopes the Fathom Entertainment release reaches a broader audience beyond his loyal readers.
“I think that cinema is the language of young people,” he says. “If we want to share this account, this evidence of the miraculous with a young generation, what better way than on the big screen? Among younger people, there’s something about a film that register deeply with them. … We should seize opportunities to communicate to those outside the faith.”
RELATED: Lee Strobel’s top supernatural stories to challenge your atheist friends
Blaze Media
Creative control
And the timing couldn’t be better. Faith-friendly films and TV shows are all the rage in today’s pop-culture landscape. Think the groundbreaking series “The Chosen,” along with the upcoming “Passion of the Christ” sequel from Mel Gibson.
Both Netflix and Prime Video are producing faith-friendly content, and recent hits like “Jesus Revolution” flexed the power of spiritual stories.
“It satisfies me on a creative level when I see films that deal with very important topics, like the existence in God, in a way that’s creative and that aren’t going to make people cringe but sit forward in their seat and anticipate what’s coming next,” he says.
And that creative explosion has only begun, Strobel predicts.
“In three, four, or maybe five years, we’re gonna see stuff where we say, ‘Oh, I never thought of doing that,’” he says of the genre.
The incredible made credible
Strobel isn’t a filmmaker by trade. He’s a busy writer, having penned more than 40 books that have been translated into 40 languages.
Strobel, like the late Charlie Kirk, doesn’t mind interacting with skeptics on- or off-screen. He welcomes it. The book on which “The Case for Miracles” is based starts with an extended dialogue with noted atheist Michael Shermer.
Strobel eventually befriended Shermer, who has a cameo in the film version of “Miracles.”
“I let him have his say,” he says of their early exchanges. Strobel is confident in his faith and the miracles he sees flowing through it.
“There is evidence that points — compelling [evidence] — to the truth of biblical miracles and contemporary supernatural encounters,” he says. “I’m not afraid of that.”
For Strobel, a miracle requires four key elements:
- Solid medical documentation;
- Multiple, credible eyewitnesses who have no motive to deceive;
- A lack of natural explanation; and
- An association with prayer.
Meet all four requirements, he says, “and maybe something miraculous is going on.”
Strobel doesn’t mind that some of his former colleagues may question his religious conversion. He’s comforted by the fact that he has company in that regard.
“I’ve seen so many journalists coming to faith. … I think God is stirring something in the culture right now,” he says.
Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary faces anti-Zionism head-on
I must admit to having a complicated relationship with Dinesh D’Souza’s documentaries.
As much as I have enjoyed several of them, I find that they falter in a few ways: They often lack staying power, offering little incentive to return to them after the moment has passed; they are too self-referential — filtering every issue through D’Souza’s own perspective; and they are preoccupied with energizing sympathetic audiences rather than persuading skeptical ones.
Where the film is likely to receive its fiercest pushback is on the subject of eschatology — the theology of the end times.
This last flaw is especially frustrating. Catering to the conservative base is easy, but with D’Souza’s resources and backing, his films could be far sharper — and far more enduring — if they focused on timeless themes rather than re-litigating the 2020 election or attacking whoever happens to be running for president that year.
Chasing the ‘Dragon’
It was with this in mind that I went into D’Souza’s newest effort, “The Dragon’s Prophecy.” A loose adaptation of the Jonathan Cahn book of the same name, the Angel Studios production examines the fallout of the October 7 terrorist attacks and the subsequent two-year war between Israel and Hamas (which effectively ended with a ceasefire on October 10).
Sharpness, at least, is not a problem this time. The film arrives at a harrowing moment. Tucker Carlson is condemning “Christian Zionism” as heresy; New York City has just elected a mayor who wants to arrest the prime minister of Israel; and bipartisan resentment toward American Jews hasn’t been this pronounced since Pat Buchanan implicitly blamed them for supporting the Gulf War.
Anti-Zionism — and its adjacent anti-Semitism — is enjoying a fashionable resurgence, while support for the Israeli government sits at an all-time low.
D’Souza confronts these trends head-on. He calls out Carlson — as well as the far-left bloc of House Democrats known as “the Squad” — by name, even integrating footage from Carlson’s combative June interview with Ted Cruz. The result is a forthright defense of Israel, one that bluntly characterizes Hamas as rapists, murderers, and terrorists — and depicts the group’s atrocities in unflinching detail, including phone calls in which militants boast to their parents about their killings.
Intentional shock
It’s a grisly watch. The film includes insurgents shooting dogs and civilians, and it lingers on the aftermath of violence. But the shock is intentional. As Ambassador Mike Huckabee tells D’Souza, the war is “an eternal battle between good and evil,” with Israel on the side of the angels and Hamas aligned with “the Dragon.”
Amid this devastation, D’Souza wanders the Holy Land and laments that Israel is a place where “nothing is ever solved or resolved,” a region with “no solutions and no idea what the problems even are.” Yet his moral clarity never wavers. He even calls the construction of the Islamic Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount “the true colonialism.”
His mission is to locate meaning in the conflict. To that end, he speaks with Jewish victims, archeologists uncovering evidence of ancient Israelite history, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who uses the occasion to swat at his American critics and to praise Donald Trump.
Disputed dispensation
Where the film is likely to receive its fiercest pushback is on the subject of eschatology — the theology of the end times.
Because D’Souza’s target audience is predominantly Christian, the most vocal critics may be anti-dispensationalists, whose views have become increasingly common among Catholics and mainline Protestants. They correctly note that dispensationalism is a 19th-century American theological development and that the popular notion of a “rapture” is relatively recent.
As the Protestant theologian Brian Mattson writes, “In the grand historical sweep of Christian theology, Dispensationalism is a new arrival.” He explains that its architects argued that salvation unfolds across distinct dispensations, meaning that God’s promises to Israel remain intact for ethnic Jews even as the New Testament opens salvation to Gentiles. “God has two separate ‘tracks’ for the salvation of humanity,” he writes. Thus the national promises to Israel persist in perpetuity.
This is the framework behind the “Left Behind” franchise — 16 books and five films — and it places the modern state of Israel at the center of Revelation in a way that traditional Christian readings do not.
There are legitimate biblical critiques of dispensationalism, just as there are bad-faith motives for attacking it. Mattson notes that many Gen Z “America First” Catholic converts now regard Israel as an unnecessary “foreign entanglement,” while others deploy “heresy” language as a thin veil for anti-Semitism.
RELATED: Haunting play ‘October 7’ lets Hamas terror survivors speak
Phelim McAleer
End-times evidence
Still, D’Souza’s film is thoroughly dispensationalist. Israel’s present turmoil is portrayed as evidence that the end times are near, that evil is intensifying, and that God is making Himself more visible through signs and miracles. The fate of Israel, in this reading, is inseparable from the fate of the world.
The film’s second half is a series of interviews with Israeli archeologists who discuss evidence for figures like King David and Pontius Pilate, treating their discoveries as confirmations of Scripture. When combined with commentary from a Messianic Jew such as Jonathan Cahn, the Israeli-Gaza conflict becomes a mystical drama between cosmic good and cosmic evil.
That argument rests on a contested theological system. However one responds to the film’s defense of Israel, it must be filtered through the angular lenses of American dispensationalism — a hurdle many viewers may be unwilling to clear.
Centrist appeal
There are smaller criticisms as well: The film appears to lean heavily on AI-generated imagery, which raises its own questions about execution. But in the main, the film is preaching to the broad American center — those who support Israel without belonging to either extreme.
Despite these theological quirks, the film ultimately does something I have long wished D’Souza’s documentaries would do: It speaks clearly and with conviction about an issue that possesses lasting moral weight.
Israel will remain a defining struggle for decades. October 7 is only one chapter of that broader conflict. In taking it on, D’Souza presents a moral argument to a conservative audience that is increasingly drifting from him. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, he is operating on the level of enduring questions of faith rather than the transitory skirmishes of electoral politics. For once, he isn’t simply preaching to the choir.
‘Matrix’ co-creator: ‘Trans rage’ drives my work
At 57 years old, writer Lilly Wachowski is still doing a lot of soul-searching.
Born Andrew, and one-half of the famous Wachowski Brothers, Wachowski and his older brother, Lana (60), born Laurence, are known for their iconic movie series “The Matrix.”
Both claim to be transgender.
‘As a trans person, the dark question that I had as a trans person was, “Who will ever love this?”‘
Andy became Lilly in 2016, while Larry was four years ahead, becoming Lana in 2012. Since then, the duo have leaned into their new identities, going so far as to retroactively characterize “The Matrix” trilogy as a “trans metaphor” in 2020.
Freedom fried
During a recent interview on “So True with Caleb Hearon,” Lilly Wachowski took another look back at his previous work and explained that he has a new perspective that helps him see how his work got him to where he is now, in relation to his gender status.
I look back on all of my previous work, and I see it because I’m looking at it from this higher place. It just creates this different perspective from this point of view up here, and I can see “Bound” — the first shot of the movie is a closet. And it’s like, “Okay, it looks like we’re going to be working on some stuff.”
Noting that “The Matrix” was about “liberation and identity and, like, freedom,” Wachowski then repeated a liberal trope about making art that can “will things into being that you need to see in the world,” before further saying that his movies have also been about finding love, while also being subliminal instruments for transgender storytelling.
RELATED: Dave Chappelle calls out censorious transsexual activists who claim his jokes cause violence
“A lot of the things that me and Lana were also writing about was love — that we needed to create stories that gave us a grounding to see that love was possible,” Wachowski tried to explain. “As a trans person … the dark question that I had as a trans person was, ‘Who will ever love this?’ … And it gave us this reminder that there was a future for us.”
Mad for it
Wachowski also noted another powerful source of creativity his new identity has given him: “trans rage.”
In 2017, he and a partner began working on a trans-themed screenplay — a process he described as “purging all this rage and horror out of the world and onto this page.”
After a few years executive producing the Showtime series “Work in Progress” — a vehicle for comedian and self-described “masculine queer dyke” Abby McEnany — Wachowski returned to the script in 2021, finding “catharsis” in responding to a world he found had become “way s**ttier for trans people.”
Wachowski channeled some of his rage into “creating caricature[d] buffoons of the right wing.” He also used it to inspire a vision of “an idealized family, a network, a Weather Underground of trans people coming together and supporting each other and holding each other up, trying to create a story that is the best of us.”
Larry Wachowski, now Lana (L), and Andy Wachowski, now Lilly (R). Photo by Bob Riha Jr/WireImage
Flip-flop
Wachowski’s new creative direction hasn’t been great for the bottom line.
A fourth installment of the beloved Keanu Reeves saga, “The Matrix Resurrections,” flopped when released in December 2021, making only about $38 million on a $190 million budget.
That’s less than a third of the $139 million its predecessor, “The Matrix Revolutions,” pulled in 2004 — and a far cry from 2003’s “The Matrix Reloaded,” which took in over $280 million.
The first “Matrix” made $171 million in 1999.
