Top 15 Movies of the Last Sixish Years

I'll try to keep my ramblings short to get to the list quickly, but I figure an intro is in order.

I got the idea of putting such a list as this together when I rewatched Whiplash a couple months ago and stated "1 of the 10 best movies in the last 5 years to me". Then, during a recent text conversation with a friend, she asked if I ever considered being a movie critic. Well I have, from time to time, and as you might be able to tell from previous blog posts I've written, I'm quite quite fond of watching movies and talking about them.

With that being said though, there seems to be an oversaturation of movie review people online, especially in blog form and on Youtube. Even in the Catholic world, there's multiple people who make their name known for being movie critics.

However, that does not stop me from creating a list of movies to back up my original statement on Whiplash being in the Top 10 movies recently. I got to wondering "What else is on that list?" and "How many people are out there making best movie lists at this time of year?". So, I will do my best to list movies in ranking order of my least favorite to most favorite. I have expanded the idea from 10 to 15 movies, and the past 6 years (i.e. best movies of the 2010s so far) instad of just 5.

This list will also include honorable mentions and list of movies that I have not seen within this time frame but I really really need to. Here and there you'll also notice places where I sprinkled in other reviews and posts I've done on the particular movie in question. My goal with this list, other than making it, is to recommend a bunch of movies to you that you may have otherwise not heard of or have forgotten how awesome they are. This is not exactly a "Best Of" list or a "Most Underrated" list, but rather a list of movies in various genres that I consider to be top quality, top notch filmmaking. Each movie quip will also include a warning on some negative aspects and also my considerations on why I would watch it again. Some of these movies I've only seen once, but I would like to think that the best movies out there are worth repeated viewings, and I will justify why I would watch all of these again and again.

15. Coolest Road Trip Documentary: Big Easy Express (2012)

Three intriguing folk-style bands, one week, and a whole lot of shots of trains and concerts. This documentary is about a traveling concert series featuring the bands Mumford & Sons, Old Crow Medicine Show, and Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeroes. This was back when Mumford first got big, so each bands' discography was smaller then and there's been line up changes in the bands since. However, this was the movie that got me into Old Crow Medicine Show and gave me a deeper appreciate for acoustic music/ folk music. Like I said, a lot of the movie is just the bands playing songs while the images go back and forth between the concerts and the landscape that passes by the train that the bands are traveling on. The bands are all having a good time just jamming out and their joy is shared by me as a viewer. There's some quick interviews of different band members that give you some insight into the history of the bands as well as the philosophy behind some of the music. The movie's greatest problem is that it's barely over an hour long and there's so much more footage that could've been added to this unique experience to make it at least 90 minutes, if not 2 hours.

Watch Out for: The unedited version of Little Lion Man along with a few other moments of minor profanities. I can't think of too much besides.

What Makes It Rewatchable: The short time span along with the constant folk tunes and premier musicianship.

14. Most Underrated Harry Potter Movie: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

So so many people put this movie on the low end of the spectrum of Harry Potter movie rankings while they put Part 2 at the top. However, we need to remember that all we really got in Part 2 was:

 Recap, a bank robbery, a giant battle set up, a giant battle, a flashback montage, and a prologue wrap up.

That's it in a nutshell that pulls super hard on the heart strings, which I think is why people like it so much. Here in Part 1, there's:

An establishment of changes since the sixth movie, gathering of the heroes, everything falling apart, a ministry break-in, a large camping trip, the break up of the heroes, one of the craziest Christmas Eves, heroes reunited, intro to the new magic maguffins, heroes captured, then heroes escape.

All with the same emotional highlights as the following film. I have to admit that when it came time to see this movie for the first time in theatres, I was skeptical. The previous two films had butchered the source material and were not beloved by me. The thought of having to sit through two more instead of just one seemed like a chore. However, I was astounded at the quality dramatic acting presented by the three main leads. This is some of their best acting in any of the movies, especially Rupert Grint. Plus, it was a smart move to separate the final book into two, that way you could tell majority of the same story and stay close to the source material. The camping scenes, some of the longest and worst parts of the book, actually play out rather well here. They're paced correctly and yet everything made for the movie fits while staying as true to the book's purpose of these moments as possible.

Watch Out for: Hhhssss. Scary up close shotssss of ssssnakesssss. Also, some blood/ gore.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Impressive dramatic acting from the main trio and the constant tension that lingers from one scene to the next.

13. Old School New School Spooks: The Conjuring (2013)

I've grown a passion for exorcism movies in recent years, in part because they demonstrate the powerful tools that the Catholic Church possesses in ridding people of demonic possessions. The Conjuring is not exactly an exorcism movie in the same way as The Rite or Deliver Us From Evil. This movie is more of a classic, atmospheric horror film while the other two are modern exorcism dramas. The thing that both other movies have over this one though is that the priests are the actual warriors who combat the demons in intense exorcism rites. Here in The Conjuring, the warriors are a married couple, who collectively are an awesome combination, just not the standard spiritual warriors you expect in horror movies or real life. The characters and story are all based on real historical people and events and I'm not here to get into the amount of real history in the movie. I'm just saying it's just nice to know that not all of this particular horror film is entirely fictionalized. This definitely has the look and feel of an older horror movie, the classic 70s style that essentially defined the horror genre back in the day, but it still is new enough to keep the thrills and chills coming.

Watch Out for: Witches! Demons! LOUD NOISES GOING BUMP IN THE NIGHT! This is a scary movie, for sure, and the make up effects for the evil spirits and the bloody images are all top notch, so it will definitely keep you intimidated.

What Makes It Rewatchable: The authentically haunting atmosphere on top of the moments of grace provided by faith and family.

12. Top Foreign Animated Movie: Song of the Sea (2014)

There is more to animated family movies than Disney, Pixar, and Dreamworks. And yes, Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli are usually considered the masters of animated movies made in lands foreign to the U.S. However, there was one animation company that blended the modern with the classic styles, the 3-D with the 2-D, and shared the beauty of local folklore and artistry in a new, different way than Studio Ghibli. That was Tomm Moore and the Irish company Cartoon Saloon (amongst fellow companies in other countries) that made Song of the Sea.

Some people go back and forth on whether this movie or its predecessor, The Secret of Kells, is a better movie, but everyone agrees there is something unique and delightful about the artistry in both. This movie is like a cartoon tour through modern day Ireland, only if that tour included a detour into the fantastic mythological components hidden behind ordinary life. The kid characters are very well done, making you believe these are real siblings. The story touches on tragedy and drama, but offers enough lighthearted moments and grandeur to counterbalance. Plus, this movie will teach you how to properly pronounce the Irish name Saoirse (Sare-sha basically).

Watch Out for: Sometimes the artwork can get creepy, especially with the owl characters.

What Makes It Rewatchable: The illuminating glows and bizarre patterns of the beautiful artwork combined with touching family drama.

11. Top Movie Involving Catholicism: Calvary (2014)

We currently live in a time where movies in the Christian genre are lame and any movies focusing on the Catholic Church are not positive. This is not without reason, but it's tough to share the strength and beauty of the Catholic faith in movie form when the entertainment industry is constantly reminding everybody of the unfortunate crimes committed by some of its members. Calvary is a blend between both. I've seen people label this a dark comedy, but I cannot help but remember it as a gripping drama.

Ireland is a fantastic setting for this movie. The history of the Catholic faith runs deep in its culture, yet that faith has been battered and worn away on the Emerald Isle because of sins committed by some of its religious. Now, while Ireland is normally identified as a Catholic country, its citizens are rebelling against the people and institutions that hurt it, and so the state of the Church and its religious are ones of underdogs fighting against large odds.

Brendan Gleeson's priest is a great representation of the priesthood and the Church in Ireland. He has full knowledge of the world and its evils yet he relies on the virtues and the strength found in the spiritual life. He works to evangelize to people who are only Catholic on the surface as well as people who stay as far from the Church as possible. The cassock is a great look for him and we get to see him endure suffering, struggle & succumb to weakness before finally having his moment of radiant glory.

Watch Out for: A man urinates on a painting...okay, it's not the worst thing in this movie. This movie does not shy away from talking about sin, if not really showing it. There's plenty of open dialogue involving sexuality/ sex abuse. There's profanity and blasphemy. There's drunkenness. It's not a timid shy movie but realistic and honest.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Brendan Gleeson is a one man army, waging spiritual warfare against arrogant snobs. With the priest's gruff attitude and Irish virtues, he is a loving authority to some and a good-willed road block to others. Plus there's beer drinking, cool cassocks, and gorgeous Irish scenery involved.

10. Top Middle Ground Cause It's Coen Bros: Hail, Caesar! (2016)

This movie did not make many Best Of lists from 2016. It was received as kind of a 'meh' movie, where it was kinda funny, but many people felt like overall it was some inside industry joke they were missing. Because the Coen Brothers make bizarre films, many of which would be panned by the critics if they in the hands of lesser creative minds, it's no wonder this movie would slip the minds of so many or be regarded as a barely funny dramedy by those who remember it.

So, what's it doing here? Well, to me, it's a much better movie than the other most recently made Coen Brothers movie, Inside Llewyn Davis, and it's a funnier comedy than their last comedy, Burn After Reading, which I started twice but could never finish because of how bored I was. I love all the little snippets of the various genre movies we see throughout the movie, whether the musical or the western or the drama or the biblical epic. I love Hobie Doyle, one of the best characters in Coen Brothers history, with stupendous dialogue delivered by a lesser known actor who outshown the stars. I love that the stars were much more cameos than main attractions. I love the struggle of the lead character, Eddie Mannix, a Catholic man who seeks Reconciliation often and prays the Rosary in times of crisis. The jokes are so clever and highbrow that, yes, it takes a few tries to catch some of them. Inside Llewyn Davis was an ugly confusing snooze fest that was about an interesting subject. True Grit was barely recognizable as a Coen Brothers Movie even if it was entertaining overall. Hail, Caesar was a bizarre tribute to a period of Hollywood and a beautifully looking modern morality play.

Watch Out for: Confusing, dead-panned jokes and lots of philosophical dialogue about Communism. There's also some profane/ blasphemous language on occasion. Plus there's a mature sexual reference briefly made late in the game.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Were that it were so simple? Hobie Doyle and Eddie Mannix are the most delightful characters to watch and listen to. Then there's all of the little tributes to various film genres that are stupendous, especially through great looking cinematography.

9. It's Scary Cause It's Really Happening: Sicario (2015)

Sicario is one of those movies that I remembered greatly enjoying after watching it, but it has almost fallen from chatter or memory since its release. Which is a shame, because if there's one movie we should be watching concerning the political, financial, militaristic, and moralistic costs of dealing with the drug cartel crisis facing the U.S. and Mexico, it's this one. Cartel Land is actually a documentary about the same subject released the same year, but the focus there is on two particular groups of vigilantes on both sides, their personal interpretation of the events, and there are enough conveniences or movie magic moments that I wonder if some of it was made up or coordinated by the movie making team to seem legitimate.

Anyway, Sicario seems just as if not more realistic than Cartel Land. There are moralistic dilemmas involved in taking on the cartels and there is a line that can be crossed. The tension is built mainly by the cinematography and the music, as we stare at passing images with a dark brooding beat thumping in the background. All of the actors are stellar performers in this. This movie has a less happier ending than The Conjuring, but the journey we go on gets the adrenaline pumping so much more and the uneasiness of it actually makes you want more not less.

Watch Out for: BANG! BANG! Gunshots. Blood splatter. Dead naked bodies hanging from the rafters. This movie is almost careless with how much death and destruction it leaves in its path.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Emily Blunt kicks plenty of butt, while Benicio Del Toro and Josh Brolin keep you on edge and uneasy. Plus there are a few tense moments you can't believe the characters survive.

8. The Passion is Awesome, Food is Awesomer Comedy: Chef (2014)

If you read other reviews of this movie, you'll essentially hear that it's all a metaphor for Jon Favreau's directorial career and how he wanted to go back to small indie films after major blockbuster success found in the Marvel franchise. What I care more about in this movie is 1) The relationship between the father and the son and 2) The food. This is a fantastic character piece where a self-centered dad builds his relationship with a son who wants to know him more. They depend upon each other for their success and instruct each other, whether it's the father teaching the son life lessons or it's the son showing the father business and marketing strategies. There is so much great food in this movie, you can almost smell it coming off the screen. And it's constantly going from dish to dish, flavor to flavor, depending on where the scene is located. I think it would be an awesome idea for theaters or movie watching groups to prepare dishes from the movie to eat along while watching it. Ultimately this movie is top notch because it has a fun premise and builds lovable characters very well.

Watch Out for: The dad is not always the best role model, whether saying profanities around the boy or making sexual innuendos with his friends.

What Makes It Rewatchable: FOOD! Glorious food! It's a celebration involving feasts!

7. Top American Animated Movie: Inside Out (2015)

Disney is almost going through another Renaissance period with its string of hits. Dreamworks has made itself a brand by successfully franchising audience favorites. Little movie companies have popped up trying to match the quality and success of the powerhouses, and the most triumphant underdog that is meeting that criteria to me would appear to be Laika. Pixar, on the other hand, has been struggling through several disappointing sequels and even Toy Story 3, while good, could not match the spark and might of Pixar movies a decade ago. And yet, one original idea came out as a total shock to the system in a refreshing way: Inside Out.

The trailers never got me excited for the movie and I was stunned by audiences raving about how good it was. After watching it a few times, I concur with everyone else's sentiments. Inside Out is a work of art both in terms of what it looks like and what it establishes for the characters' journeys. Each of the emotions are entertaining, even if Anger gets all the best lines. The creativity of the world inside the brain is witty and charming. I loved that they experimented with a little bit of various art styles while also establishing such solid texture and vibrant colors to the world it created. It's an emotional journey about emotions and we can all relate  in some way to the struggles that the preteen girl goes through

Watch Out for: TEARS! So much sadness and so much joy and the whole range in between is experienced during the course of this movie.

What Makes It Rewatchable: The emotions of the...emotions. As well as stunning computerized visuals and a fun family unit outside the brain.

6. Top Surprise Movie: Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016)

If I was shocked by how well I enjoyed Inside Out (I tend to only almost-like movies as much as the people that rave about them), this one shocked me even more. This is another movie that is not on too many of the Best Of 2016 lists but it should be. I only watched it cause it was recommended on enough lists and it was one of the few 2016 movies on DVD already. At first you think a young city kid obsessed with hip hop and a grumpy old introvert would get annoying real easily, but the script is so well written that they are extremely likable because of these qualities. There's tons of great humor but also some heartfelt drama that develops our characters over the course of the movie. There are plenty of moments where the camera flies over the New Zealand landscape, showing us beautiful places that even Lord of the Rings did not.

I think it surprised me how well I liked this movie because it was one of those quirky movies that it seemed like only movie snobs would appreciate. The indie soundtrack, the nearly cliche characters, and the obscure humor should have made me just barely appreciate it as one of those charming indie movies. I think I was also disenchanted beforehand because I had just recently watched What We Do In the Shadows, a mockumentary that involved the writer and director of Hunt for the Wilderpeople  and that definitely an obscure, movie-snob movie that I only appreciated. The character in Hunt however are all just charming, even the crazy villain, and the leads actually go through a touching story arc development. I had a great smile and laugh throughout the whole thing.

Watch Out for: Gangsta stuff! Sprinklings of profanity and bloody action. An awkward funeral scene and a couple of tear-worthy scenes involving death.

5. Yes, I'm Recommending a Romantic Comedy: About Time (2013)

A few years ago, during my adventure in the Pacific Northwest with Reach Youth Ministry, I by chance watched a time traveling romance called About Time. Its intriguing premise would make you think it's sci-fi where a man is gifted the ability to travel to any time within his memories, yet the human interaction that plays out keeps it a light and emotional drama. The romance between Domnhall Gleeson and Rachel McAdams is charming and this is one of the first times I can remember a movie where a man coming close to giving in to sexual temptation and infidelity and denying those lustful desires in the end. I love the character building that happens in this movie. It's an emotional journey of a movie that is not melodramatic nor is it taking itself too lightly for how absurd of a premise it is.

Watch Out for: A couple of sex scenes, or at least scenes with near nudity and sexual content. Also probably some minor profanities.

What Makes It Rewatchable: The true growth of the relationship between Domnhall Glesson and Rachel McAdams, as well as the stellar relationship he has with the dad played by Bill Nighy.

4. Greatest Movie I Barely Understand: The Big Short (2015)

So, this is a greatly entertaining movie, even if it is about a very serious issue and is more of a drama than a comedy. The creative team knew this was a serious subject however, so they found as many ways to inject creative comedy into the mix. Sometimes they will introduce a random celebrity out of nowhere, Margot Robbie or Anthony Bourdain jump to mind, in order to explain a term or idea in a mundane manner for the common guy to understand. Really, I get dizzy thinking too hard about finances, accounting, and the stock market in reality, so majority of this movie was really beyond my comprehension. What kept me going though was the intriguing characters and the intriguing way they came across one of the terrible crises in America of the past decade.

Some of the star cast members really blend in to their role, making you forget who they are in real life. Then there's Steve Carrell, who seems more like Michael Scott pretending to have anger management issues and wearing a bad toupe and he gets so much screen time. And yet, I like this guy despite the surface level issues and he has some of the best scenes with his posse.

Watch Out for: Footloose use of various R-rated profanities and one scene in a strip club that is terribly uncomfortable to watch, whether you're on your own or if you're watching with your father.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Again, what makes this movie work so well is its delivery, meaning what it's trying to convey, how it's trying to convey it, and how it tries to help the average joe understand it all.

3. Top Superhero Movie: Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Yes, Marvel is making the best superhero movies of this decade, and many people would normally consider Captain America: Winter Soldier to be the superior movie to this one. However, Guardians of the Galaxy is so much more entertaining and uplifting in an odd way than any Captain America movie. This movie is colorful, high tech, and its main characters are technically criminals. The witty dialogue and the retro soundtrack keep the movie from getting too dower and dark in its serious moments. Even the true villains, the 'bad guys', of the movie provide some hearty entertainment. People give Marvel a lot of credit for being the jokers, the light hearted comedians of a superhero genre that is turning gritty and realistic, and Guardians of the Galaxy is the best example of proving those people right. It's fun, it's adventurous, and the soundtrack is just too catchy to ignore.

Watch Out for: Sci-fi action and a shower of innuendos and profanities.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Peter Quill a.k.a. Star Lord. Gamora. Rocket Raccoon. Groot "I Am Groot" Groot. And Drax the Destroyer.

2. Top Drama Between a Dynamic Duo: Whiplash (2014)

Like I said, I recently watched this movie for a second time. It's even more tense and awkward than the first time since you already know all of the hardship that's going to happen. Yet, it's still engaging and thrilling. J.K. Simmons deserved the Oscar for his intimidating performance (I like to think I emulate him a bit on stage from time to time), but Miles Teller also deserved tons of credit for how driven and psychotic his own performance was. This movie shows that there is a danger in pursuing eternal fame and that there is a cost to being the greatest there ever was, especially what it costs to your relationships. So much gets packed into like 80 minutes, 1/4 of which is just playing sweet sweet jazz music.

Watch Out for: LOUD ABUSIVE PROFANITY! TONS OF IT! Also, if you get queesy seeing blood, better cover your eyes here and there.

What Makes It Rewatchable: Oddly enough, the loud shouting and madness provided by J.K. Simmons leaves you wanting more. The jazz music keeps you hyped while Miles Teller's character just keeps asking for punishment.

1. Most Quirky Presentation Childhood Nostalgia: Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Seriously, this movie gave me a deep sense of nostalgia and longing for my youth, imagining the feeling of carefree summer time adventures I never even had but I knew the joy of. The music adds so much to the charm and splendor of this world, almost making it a fantasy rather than a realistic setting. The cinematography is what stands out in this film the most. From the way the shots are symmetrically framed as they package lots of minute detail to the fun way the camera zooms in and out of character's faces. It is signature Wes Anderson cinematography. Some people may consider Grand Budapest Hotel to be the better Anderson film of this decade, but they'd be WRONG! and the key to their wrongness is the children. The fact this movie has kids for main characters is what makes this movie so nostalgic and charming because they are wide-eyed, curious, naive, overdramatic, and they are the main reason why we get to explore so much beautiful landscapes and go through a fun innocent romance.

Watch Out for: The only really negative thing in this movie is whenever the kids are running around in their underwear. There's an especially awkward scene, about halfway through,on a beach where the leads really break each other's bubble which ruins an awesome song and dance moment for me and I generally skip it anytime I watch this movie.

What Makes It Rewatchable: It's a charming movie with beautiful cinematography. The characters are all quirky in some way, which provides some good humor and lightheartedness in otherwise grim situations.

Honorable Mentions:

-Of Gods and Men (2010)

Perhaps a more straight up Catholic movie than Calvary, or at least a more positive look at the faith. There are many quiet moments in this movie, some of which just include monks praying or celebrating Mass. It almost has a documentary quality because of the slice-of-life approach to the drama, as well as being based on real events. This movie also shows what peaceful communities can look like between people of Islamic and Christian faiths. The monks help and serve their Muslim neighbors because that is the community they live in and those are the specific people who are in need of their assistance. This is a gentle biopic about men you would have otherwise not really have heard of.

-Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

I really don't see this as some big philosophical study of feminism or environmentalism or social constructs or any of that other thematic nonsense that other people see in it. I just see this movie as one of the most thrilling, adrenaline-pumping, buckle up, white knuckled thrill rides to have graced our screens. It's so much cooler than any of that fake crap you see in Fast & Furious and any of their knock offs. Now, perhaps because the story is kind of simplistic and the imagery gets too bizarre sometimes, that's why I wouldn't include this in my Top 15 overall. However, the ride is just too good to ignore.

-Beware of Mr. Baker (2012)

I think I may like this movie so much more because of the experience I had seeing it than because of the movie itself. I was by myself on a Friday night and decided to check out the local indie theater in my college town. I got a beer, popcorn, and M&Ms and sat down on old, classic style theater seats in this small black box space that could only fit 30 people max . This was no luxury seated, padded wall, high tech home theater system. It just had the basic essentials and that was it. It was awesome!

The movie still sticks out in my mind after all these years of only seeing it 1.5 times (I tried rewatching it on Youtube within the past year or so). Ginger Baker, the man best known as the drummer for 60s band Cream, is not a likable man. He is selfish, arrogant, foul mouthed, bitterly disgruntled, and tiring to endure. And yet, his life has been full of hardships that he is a tragic figure to watch. Plus, all of these other well known drummers and musicians give his skills as a drummer high praise, so it can't all just be arrogant boasting from Mr. Baker. I think this movie also gave me an appreciation for jazz and in particular jazz drums, especially because of how it influenced rock music, showing me a side of jazz music I had not known before and I would not know again until Whiplash.

-The Kid with a Bike (2011)

I borrowed this movie from the library after Mr. Decent Films a.k.a. Steven D. Greydanus recommended watching movies by the Dardennes Brothers when Two Days, One Night was listed as one of 2015's best movies. It's entirely in French because it takes place in Belgium. It seems like a simple premise, boy gets abandoned by his dad and a woman takes pity on the boy. Yet, the boy is such an intriguing character, such a disobedient selfish jerk while at the same time so needy and vulnerable. It's a sad tragic look at the life of someone who needs basic emotional and mental necessities to be met.

Need to See List:

Tree of Life (2011) & Knight of Cups (2015)

Terrence Mallick has peaked my interest as a director worth checking out, especially since Tree of Life has gotten so much acclaim and buzz ever since it came out. Knight of Cups was also one of those movies that was on a few Best Of lists last year, but just wasn't noticed by too many people.

Two Days, One Night (2015)

Again, it was one of the best movies last year and came recommended by a movie critic whose opinion I greatly respect. Plus, I feel extra cultured every time I watch a foreign film.

Drive (2011)

This movie was on every single list I saw online when researching lists of Best Movies of This Decade So Far. It sounds like the simple premise matches well with some great acting and wonderful cinematography.

Her (2013)

Another movie that was on every other list essentially. I think the quirkiness and the relationship the character has with technology are what appeal to me.

The Babadook (2014)

A movie that is simulatenously a scary horror flick AND a family drama? Sold!

Lenten Renewal

Man, did I get really tired really fast of seeing and hearing the phrase "give up" these past couple weeks. Of course, I refer to "give up" in the context of "What are you giving up for Lent? I gave up blah blah blah for Lent". Most of us in America, at least those of us that understand what ashes on someone's forehead on Wednesday means, know that when it comes to Lent, people get really caught up in 'giving something up' for Lent, meaning that for a 40+ day period they will attempt to stay away from something or another, whether it's a particular food, social media, or a "bad habit" that in all likeliness will return as part of their regular routine during the first week of the Easter season.

No, I'm not degrading the sacrifice and people's intentions to "give up" something for Lent. I'm just slightly burnt out after hearing something asked more regularly than the question "What high school did you go to?" gets asked in the St. Louis area. Because the phrase "give up" is so surface level to the purpose of Lent, so so easy, and yet so many people still make it sound like a chore, like a kid who is being forced to mow the lawn against his will. Well, kid, mowing the lawn isn't all that bad and it is so much easier than other acts you have to do to maintain a house, just like "giving something up" is easier than other acts we can and need to do during Lent to maintain our spiritual lives.

All right, so I've already used GU so many times that I'm sick of it again and I'm sure you're sick of it too, so I'll just use the initials here on out. Anywho, when people say GU in reference to Lent, I think what they really mean is "Sacrifice" and perhaps what mean is "Fasting". At least, based on my experiences that's the case.

As I started to take Lent more seriously after my reversion to Catholicism during college, I tried to take on multiple huge tasks of things. I began to divide my penitential acts between two categories, sacrifices and commitments. I would sacrifice or GU two or three things and I would also try to commit myself to a particular action or duty throughout the Lenten season. I've come to the realization that what I was trying to do, and what I am currently trying to do, is summed up in three categories, not two. Those categories are Prayer, Fasting, and Almsgiving.

There's many good reasons why each Ash Wednesday, the Catholic Church uses Matthew 6: 1-6, 16-18 as the Gospel reading at Mass. One of the big reasons is because it highlights the three components of penance that we need to be doing each Lent. This Gospel passage tells us how important it is to pray, to fast, and to give alms as acts of penance. These acts are not necessarily always individual, either, but can be interwoven, combined for one centralized purpose. Moreover, the Gospel tells us that we should do these acts not for personal gain, not for self-gratification or to improve ourselves in a narcissistic sense, but to do these things because there are people who need our help AND there are things that we let get in the way of God's will in our lives.

Can I also take a break for a moment and say that the Church's requirements for Fasting and Abstinence on Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent are really not all that bad. Really, they should be even more challenging. Steven D. Greydanus, a man I frequently reference in my posts, a film critic as well as a Catholic Deacon, has pointed out from time to time how the fast requirements in the Orthodox, Jewish, and Eastern Rite Catholic faiths are much much more strict than our Westernized American version and how weak our version is.

Really when you think about it, how hard is it? For two days of the year, we restrict ourselves to 1 whole meal but we're still allowed a couple of snacks and all the water we want. That's the only fasting requirement of Lent. For Friday food abstinence, we just cannot eat meat, which in reality is just any warm blooded, flesh creature, but we can still have 3 normal sized meals and substitute fish for meat. Is that really that challenging? Our ancestors, who lived in greater poverty than we did, had greater restrictions on when they could eat meat, dairy products, fish, and had much more limited diets during Lent, and somehow they and the faith survived into our present times!

The reason I bring this up is because when we complain about the requirements and just talk about them on the surface level, it does three things. It diminishes the acts themselves, it confuses and turns off people who are not Catholic or believers of any kind, and it undermines the true poverty that starving people face every day around the world. When we focus on "how hard" it is to GU something or to restrict our diets on particular days, we lose focus on the purpose of those acts and it takes away any meaning or wisdom gained when we do those acts.

If people outside of the Catholic faith, especially those with heavy doubts about God, just see a bunch of miserable whiners complaining about simplistic restrictions, are they going to pursue interest in God or Catholicism or are they going to think to themselves "Well why would anyone want to be like these people if this is the case?". And finally, there are so so many people in this country and in countries worldwide that struggle just to have one solid meal each day, much less gathering food scraps and drinking good water. Just because they do not have people around them stuffing their faces on fasting days nor are surrounded by steaming plates of gluttony does not mean that they do not suffer and struggle any less than we do. In fact, it would be prudent of us to act charitably DURING LENT for those poor starving people by giving alms to them or saying prayers in our hunger for those who are truly hungry.

So, my whole point here is that we need to refocus on the true purpose of Lent. It's not just to GU one silly thing for a short period of time. It's not just to gripe and moan about food restrictions for a few days of the year (though really all Fridays should be meatless for Catholics, but we're not back to that strength of faith yet). Lent is about repenting of our sins. How do we repent? What's the best way to repent? By practicing prayer, fasting and almsgiving. All three, hopefully combined, but if not at least doing something involving all three during the Lenten season. We need to challenge ourselves. We all know that challenge is the best way we grow and strengthen our resolve. If we want a stronger faith and a stronger community, let's challenge ourselves through these three penitential acts and not complain along the way.

For further reading on my opinions about Lent and penitential practices, here's a post I wrote a couple years ago in defense of food and social media fasts.

Oscars 2017 Talk

As you might be able to tell by reading my previous blog posts, I love movies. I privately include watching movies and talking about movies as some of my chief hobbies (which makes me great for trivia nights). However, I have not seen a lot of movies that came to theaters in 2016. Everyone is making their best movies of the year lists, the Oscar nominations have been called, and here I am making my must-see movies list for the year so that during 2017 I can watch the DVD versions of some of 2016's best movies.

So, just to have some fun (and to give me something to write about), I decided to examine some of the nominations for the Academy Awards in 2017. Under each category, I will list the actual nominees, examine some snubs and any nominees that perhaps should not be included on the list, predict who the Academy will give the award to and then name who the actual winner should be. Some of these will be an attempt at humor, some will be more serious, and all will be completely ludicrous because, like I said, I have not seen many of the movies involved in the nominations. So, instead I'll be stealing thoughts and ideas from other people who have seen them...I mean, I will be utilizing the wise words of movie critics and word of mouth from other best movies lists to provide me with context.

Best documentary feature:
“13th,” Ava DuVernay, Spencer Averick and Howard Barish
“Fire at Sea,” Gianfranco Rosi and Donatella Palermo
“I Am Not Your Negro,” Raoul Peck, Remi Grellety and Hebert Peck
“Life, Animated,” Roger Ross Williams and Julie Goldman

“O.J.: Made in America,” Ezra Edelman and Caroline Waterlow

Snubs/ Overestimations: This is probably the hardest category to make this call for, because documentaries are more subjective than other genres. Plus, who really watches documentaries except for film snobs and students? With that being said, I've seen majority of these movies on best of 2016 lists, with the biggest support for the 7.5 hour O.J. Simpson special on ESPN as well as that one about an autistic boy who uses Disney animated movies to help communicate. If there were any snubs, I'd primarily put "Weiner" at the top of the list, because apparently everyone loves the combination of sex scandals and politics. The other doc. I'd nominate is "Almost Holy", which is about a pastor in Ukraine using his faith to rescue his people from drugs, abuse, and crime by any force necessary (i.e. literally kicking ass). Wouldn't you rather see a real-life Daredevil movie nominated than whatever "Fire at Sea" was about?

What WILL Win?: Most likely "O.J.". There's too many exciting elements for the Academy to ignore, from scandal, to sports entertainment, to tragedy, to racism issues and other factors, on top of the fact that our culture can't seem to get over the man after talking about him for 20 years.

What SHOULD Win: "Fire at Sea". While I joked above, "Fire at Sea" is about probably one of the greatest globally human conflicts currently going on, that being the crisis of refugees and immigrants fleeing the Middle East mainly into Europe.

Cinematography:
“Arrival,” Bradford Young
“La La Land,” Linus Sandgren
“Lion,” Greig Fraser
“Moonlight,” James Laxton
“Silence,” Rodrigo Prieto

Snubs/ Overestimations: I think the snubs are probably easier to pick out in a category like this than others. Mainly because each movie demands a different look/ aesthetic, so the grades given for cinematography are much more subjective, making it harder to eliminate a movie from this list. With that being said, "Doctor Strange" was obviously snubbed. Yeah, it's nominated for visual effects, but the movie's best quality is its overall look, having to make reality look real, having to make magic look uniquely real, and then blending both together into a credible story and look based upon yet separate from all of the Marvel movies before it. "Doctor Strange" is a visual feast! "Birth of a Nation" is the other snub. Mainly because, in a movie about historically racist issues between people with black and white skin tones, the movie is filtered with black and white imagery. Not totally colorless, but tonally like a computerized system gave the tone of colors contrasting shades to make the black and white stand out more.

Who WILL Win: "La La Land"! These colors pop out a lot, but they are not neon or overblown. The movie is set in reality like "Silence" or "Lion", but with a sense of magical realism that brings things to life in a much more vibrant, urgent, and fun way.

What SHOULD Win: "Doctor Strange". If there's one movie this whole year whose hype and positive reviews solely depended upon its high quality cinematography alone, it's this Marvel movie right here.

Animated feature:
“Kubo and the Two Strings,” Travis Knight and Arianne Sutner
“Moana,” John Musker, Ron Clements and Osnat Shurer
“My Life as a Zucchini,” Claude Barras and Max Karli
“The Red Turtle,” Michael Dudok de Wit and Toshio Suzuki
“Zootopia,” Byron Howard, Rich Moore and Clark Spencer

Snubs/ Overestimations: The sad thing is, even with the incredibly large amount of animated movies that came out this year, this might be the best possible list of nominees. Disney made some very popular films involving the trendy themes surrounding diversity. Pixar screwed up a sequel. Dreamworks made some lazy generic animal features. Laika, already the best secondary animation company after those giants listed above, made one of their best movies ever. Any movie with Studio Ghibli attached to it automatically gets favored buzz, and "The Red Turtle" actually looks different and interesting. I'm not sure about the Zucchini choice, but it sounds more like a horror film to me. While I can respect claymation as much as the next man, this movie's particular style is uglier than any of Aardman's designs. The only movie that could have possibly been put on this list and would've made sense was "April and the Extraordinary World", an intriguing steam punk piece from the same people who already have Oscar connections due to Persepolis. Replace Zucchini with April, I say. It matches the Oscar profile better.

What WILL Win: My prediction is "Zootopia". It looked better and was more well received overall than Disney's other piece "Moana", and it is very thematically trendy, connecting to our current sociopolitical climate. The Oscars seem to like movies about sociopolitical trends for some reason.

What SHOULD Win: "Kubo and the Two Strings". The only movie on this list I've actually seen is Kubo but that's not why I'm saying it should win. It should win because the artistic style was vastly different than the other animated movies, and even superior to previous Laika animations. It's much more gorgeous than the Zucchini choice, its closest comparison arts-wise. It had an intriguing story, some plot twists and turns, and fun likable characters in an environment that was familiar yet refreshingly new.

Best director:

“La La Land,” Damien Chazelle
“Hacksaw Ridge,” Mel Gibson
“Moonlight,” Barry Jenkins
“Manchester by the Sea,” Kenneth Lonergan
“Arrival,” Denis Villeneuve

Snubs/Overestimations: This is also the kind of category where the snubs are much more noticeable than any overestimations. Majority of these directors have a handful or less of big budget, Hollywood movies to their credits, but at the same time their movies turned out to be some of the best this year. Only Denis Villeneuve and Mel Gibson have the street cred experience to match some of the best/ well known directors working today, and both deserve to be on this list. The snubs that are most obvious include Martin Scorsese for Silence", in part or mainly because it's a project he's been developing for nearly three decades and he still crafted a captivating drama. The other snub is Denzel Washington for "Fences", since he had to juggle multiple responsibilities and also does not have as much experience in this particular director's chair like Scorcese or Gibson.

Who WILL Win:The controversial pick would be Mel Gibson, but I don't think "Hacksaw Ridge" has enough steam to get him to the finish line. Damien Chazelle is a likely candidate since he has clout from "Whiplash" and this is one of the most appealing movies for the Academy to award, not to mention the fact that this is his second major motion picture that he wrote AND directed. My money, however, would be on Barry Jenkins for directing a dramatic piece about a mature subject and doing it with plenty of creative and artistry, all the while leading a company of minority cast and crew to much success.

Who SHOULD Win: Martin Scorsese. The dude had to work decades to make this movie and he created a heartwrenching thinkpiece that only adds another feather in his cap of noteworthy dramatic movies. And he probably deserves to win for this even more than he did "The Departed". 

Supporting actress:
Viola Davis, “Fences”
Naomie Harris, “Moonlight”
Nicole Kidman, “Lion”
Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures”
Michelle Williams, “Manchester by the Sea”

Snubs/Overestimations: None apparently. This is THE EXACT SAME LIST of nominees as the Golden Globes AND The Screen Actors Guild Awards. Is Hollywood just rigging the system on this one?

Who WILL Win: Often times in this category, it's usually the lady with the most buzz that gets the award. Right now, Viola Davis has the most buzz, so Viola Davis will win.

Who SHOULD Win: Viola Davis. All of the actresses in all the other movies were overshadowed by the other actors in those movies. Viola Davis, meanwhile, kept up right alongside with Denzel Washington and brought a strong A-Game to the screen. Plus, she was the one awarded the Golden Globe and the Screen Actors Guild Award

Supporting actor:
Mahershala Ali, “Moonlight”
Jeff Bridges, “Hell or High Water”
Lucas Hedges, “Manchester by the Sea”
Dev Patel, “Lion”
Michael Shannon, “Nocturnal Animals”

Snubs/ Overestimations: Across the board, I think the Academy overestimated "Lion". Yes, it's on other people's best of lists, but not nearly as much as other movies, and the story sounds dry to the bone, though I'm sure Dev Patel is one of the best things about the movie. The other overestimation I think is Lucas Hedges, and yes I am saying that just because he is a kid. I think with a great director, stupendous actors, and a great script, you can surround any teen or kid in a movie with enough quality and skill to train them enough to do well. Compare Jacob Tremblay between "The Smurfs 2" and "Room". One major snub in my opinion was Sam Neill in Hunt for the Wilderpeople. The man had to fake a New Zealand accent for goodness sake! That and he had to pretend to be a disgruntled old bushwhacker with a story arc of becoming a caring father figure, and he had to do that in an authentically funny way. The other snub for me, coming out of nowhere, is Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle in "Hail, Caesar!". In an almost forgettable movie filled with Hollywood A-listers, Ehrenreich's character was the best part of the movie. His line delivery was hilarious, his accent got your attention, and he was bringing us all along on a good time.

Who WILL Win: In all likelihood, it's going to be Mahershala Ali for his role in Moonlight. I don't have any funny quips or random remarks about this choice.

Who SHOULD Win: Jeff Bridges. He was despicably hilarious in "Hell or High Water". His snarky, snappy dialogue with his deputy were some of the movie's highlights for me. Yet, his character did change through an arc, and Jeff Bridges showed he had range between funny and dramatic, between deadly serious and playfully arrogant. He made it look so easy too.

Lead actor:
Casey Affleck, “Manchester by the Sea”
Andrew Garfield, “Hacksaw Ridge”
Ryan Gosling, “La La Land,”
Viggo Mortensen, “Captain Fantastic”
Denzel Washington, “Fences”

Snubs/ Overestimations: The biggest overestimation in this category is Viggo Mortensen. However much I like the man for playing Aragorn and leading other fantastic movies, this is not the first time we've seen him play a grizzled outcast authority figure (see "The Road" for previous evidence). Viggo does plenty of good work, but this role didn't seem like too much of a stretch. I'm surprised Adam Driver is left out, in part because of the range that he has shown not just in previous years, but also in this one year between playing a Portuguese Jesuit, a U.S. government psycho operative,  and a New Jersey bus driver. His role in "Paterson" has driven this movie to the top of a lot of best of 2016 lists. The other snub I think is "Swiss Army Man" for both Paul Dano & Daniel Radcliffe. Say what you will about how weird the movie is, but Daniel Radcliffe had to play a talking, farting corpse with so many strange powers and a reversal of limitations while Paul Dano had to give a dramatic and funny performance playing off of Radcliffe's character.

Who WILL Win: This one is a little trickier, because there's lots of buzz and recognition for more than just one of these guys. Will it be Ryan Gosling, whose movie leads the number of nominations and has tons of favoritism going for him? Will it be Denzel Washington, the well established actor who improved upon his own stage performance as well as balanced multiple responsibilities for the project? I think, despite recent scandal and controversy, Casey Affleck has the best chance of winning the award. He has the most buzz (at the moment), he also has a well established career, and it's often the most emotionally dramatic roles that take the acting award. So, if the controversy doesn't overshadow him, Affleck wins. (Note: Should the controversy overtake Affleck, pretend I predicted that Denzel will win).

Who SHOULD Win: Andrew Garfield. Another actor who showed plenty of dramatic acting capabilities. Plus he delivered two great performances based on strong religious convictions. Garfield for be awarded for his performance in "Hacksaw Ridge" based on his great representation of a real life man, his ability to struggle against and overcome such strong obstacles while maintaining his faith,and for the emotional depth he showed.

Lead actress:
Isabelle Huppert, “Elle”
Ruth Negga, “Loving”
Natalie Portman, “Jackie”
Emma Stone, “La La Land”
Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins”

Snubs and Overestimations: It's hard to say if any of these ladies were overestimated in this category because most of these performances come from movies otherwise ignored by the Academy so no one has really seen or heard of these movies outside of watching these leading ladies carry the weight of the movie (with the exception of "La La Land" of course). The biggest snub in this category, as everyone else has pointed out, is Amy Adams for "Arrival". Another performer who showed range in multiple roles this year, Amy Adams is one of the most talked about components of one of the most talked about movies of the year. Without her, "Arrival" would probably not succeed as much as it has.

Who WILL Win: Meryl Streep. She's essentially a shoe-in because of her clout and status. Though I do not fully understand the industry's fascination with Meryl Streep. Majority of the movies I know of that have her in starring roles are problematic for one of two reasons, either A) The movie itself is not good or B) Meryl Streep herself is not outstanding in her role. The only time I can think off the top of my head where both were the case is "The Deer Hunter", and that was 38 YEARS AGO!

Who SHOULD Win: Amy Adams. See snub reasons above.

Best picture:
“Arrival”
“Fences”
“Hacksaw Ridge”
“Hell or High Water”
“Hidden Figures”
“La La Land”
“Lion”
“Manchester by the Sea”
“Moonlight”

Snubs/ Overestimations: Oh boy, where to begin on this one? Let's start with overestimations. Again, the Academy seems to think more highly of "Lion" than other groups or lists. "Hidden Figures" is the only movie on this list that is surprisingly lacking in other categories. Some people think that there were snubs for HF in other categories, but I think the theme is what overall propelled the movie to this list while it lacked in the other departments (compared to the other movies it is competing against). Plus I think "Crash" proved that an important theme does not equal a movie good enough to truly deserve the Oscar.

Now, the snubs. The most obvious one is "Silence" which should've gotten more nominations in more categories. It's got all of the drama, themes, history, and edginess that the Academy usually loves. "Birth of a Nation" is the next obvious snub, because again it has the drama and the themes that are usually award worthy, but perhaps the scandal of the people involved is what kept it off the list (though if scandal is enough to get you booted, why would Affleck still be nominated? I don't know...). Shockingly, "Hail Caesar!", a movie all about the entertainment industry and the golden age of cinema, which Hollywood loves to pat itself on the back for, did not get nominated. Finally, if the Academy were to expand their horizons a little bit past the drama genre, they'd see how well received and how entertaining "The Witch" and "Captain America: Civil War" were and nominate them for Best Picture.

Who WILL Win: "La La Land". Closely followed by "Moonlight". It's no secret that the Academy loves movies about the entertainment industry (see "Birdman" and "The Artist"), which isn't to say that these kinds of movies are not worthy of their nominations. On the contrary, these are usually quite high quality in terms of artistry and entertainment. I'm just saying, based on previous history and jokes on the internet, that Hollywood loves to pat itself on the back with awards. "La La Land" is kind of a pat on the back, but it's also thematically uplifting and genuinely inspiring, a pleasant blend of old school and modern entertainment. "Moonlight" may be the most dramatic and most mature and have the most buzz outside of "La La Land".

Who SHOULD Win: "Arrival". For something that should've a melodramatic sci-fi snoozefest, "Arrival" actually managed to keep people's attention. I've heard talks not just about how wonderful Amy Adams is, but also about the positive reinforcement of the value of life. The director went from totally dark and depressing real life dramas ("Prisoners" and "Sicario") into the realm of realistic sci-fi that is not all too dark and depressing. Plus, it's a thinking man's sci-fi, and the science and themes on top of the rest should be more than enough to garner an award.

Random Ending: If I were the Academy and actually only had 5 movies to put in the Best Movie category, I would put "Arrival", "La La Land", "Moonlight", "Manchester by the Sea", and "Silence".

Focusing on FOCUS

FOCUS (the Fellowship Of Catholic University Students) is a 20 year old (I rounded up) American, Catholic ministry organization in America. They are now on 100+ campuses (including 2 in Austria), generally consisting of 4 missionaries per team (though the numbers range from 2-12), an online resource group for campuses that do not have FOCUS missionaries, and they are becoming one of the most renowned Catholic ministries in our time. I was personally introduced to FOCUS when I began life as a college student, going to the Catholic Campus Ministry building next to Missouri State University in Springfield. It has been seven, going on eight years, since that time (which is a strange realization of passing time for me). So I would like to examine my time with FOCUS, how I grew as a Catholic man because of FOCUS, and what the outside perception is for FOCUS at this time in order to dig through and find the golden fruit that stems from their ministry.

Random note, in my examination for this post, I discovered that FOCUS is no longer on Missouri State's campus (which is not the first time this sort of thing has happened) and a part of me wonders what the various reasons are when FOCUS has left college campuses in the past. Anyway, onward we go.

Entering College:

I was a fallen away cradle Catholic when I entered my freshman year in college. I was never a regular attendant at Sunday Mass, even as a child, and I largely received the Sacraments due to my attendance through Catholic school (up until 6th grade) and then PSR (or whatever your local Religious Education program is called). After I received the Sacrament of Confirmation and entered high school, I sadly went to Mass very little or rarely did any prayers. I was also very much caught up in relativism (the idea that truth to me is not true for everyone) which mainly reflected in my minimal personal objections to/ minimal support of subjects of abortion and same-sex unions. It was only during my senior year of high school, and the summer just before I went to college, that I was asked to become a godfather to my cousin's first child. He is one of the two main reasons why I reverted back to my Catholic faith. My interaction with FOCUS during college is the other main reason.

During College:

There is a lot to cover during this four year history, so I will try to give you the short version. FOCUS was brought to Springfield and Missouri State University the same year as I started college. During my first Sunday at CCM, I wrote down my contact info for CCM as well as FOCUS, which I did not realize at the time was a separate entity (FOCUS missionaries are a separate organizational body from a campus' Catholic organization but they cooperate for the same purposes). Anyway, one of the missionary men, Tom May, reached out to me early on just for some recreation and he gave me the Bible I used throughout and beyond my college career. Lee Brokaw, the other male missionary who I have talked about before, led Bible Study for my age during his tenure, and he was influential in my understanding of masculinity, truth, and what being a Catholic man is all about. Through them, I joined a small group of fellow MSU Catholic men, the first real group of solid fellowship I became a part of, and throughout my time at college this group would do recreational things like go bowling as well as spiritual things like gather together to pray the Rosary once a week.

It was because of FOCUS's influence that I actually started attending Mass not just every single Sunday, but during the week as well. It is also because of my involvement with the FOCUS men that I went to Confession for the first time in many years, and I can only be grateful that our God is merciful and forgiving of my selfishness and ignorance. Now, while I credit FOCUS with much of my spiritual growth, there are some things I independently chose to do. I voluntarily become a Lector and Eucharistic Minister for Masses, as well as that guy that handles the collection basket before the Liturgy of the Eucharist.  I also went on to be a part of the Catholic Campus Ministry Student Council (StuCo) for my last two years at MSU. Again, since I became a godfather, I began to realize I had a personal responsibility for my faith life.

During this timeline, I also participated in my first legit spiritual retreats and went on 1 spring break volunteer trip. I was asked to become a FOCUS student leader junior year, which meant I was participating in FOCUS' evangelization efforts on MSU's campus and eventually I led a Bible Study senior year while also being on CCM's StuCo both years.

Here was where there was an interesting, contrasting union between the two organizations. We had both FOCUS and StuCo, which should've been attempting to do the same things. However, I saw that FOCUS was more of the spiritual leadership and influence during this time while CCM was the place to have the events. Some of my journal entries from that time reflect my frustration at all of the events StuCo was planning while also trying to get them to be more spiritually focused and more spiritually invested in our peers. FOCUS was the group leading Bible Studies, evangelizing to students on campus, and I think that many people would come to this or that event at CCM because of the FOCUS missionary or FOCUS student leader they encountered encouraging them to go instead of the event itself drawing them in.

I interviewed with FOCUS twice to become a missionary. During the second time, I had a moment of realization during the interview that I wouldn't be a missionary because I had not done everything in what I will call 'The FOCUS way' (there are multiple reasons why I did not become a missionary but this was one of them). During that interview, I felt like they were asking for lots of responsibility from a student leader, whose main focus was trying to graduate college. You know, I was attending classes full time, studying and doing the coursework outside of class, maintaining a certain GPA for my scholariship, involved in CCM StuCo, involved in FOCUS student leadership, leading a Bible Study my senior year, attempting to participate in theatre projects, do a part time desk job during my last two years, figure out what to do for the rest of my life, and still have a social life. Not saying I was constantly overwhelmed, but there were many things I was trying to juggle and focus on during college that I did not dedicate all of my time and energy into things the way I think FOCUS wanted me to. 'The FOCUS way', in the context of this interview, was wanting me to spend so much time with the men around me, doing more campus evangelization, and essentially meeting a quota increase on how many men I was bringing to Bible Study and mentoring, which I believe would have required me to put FOCUS as my top priority in college.


FOCUS Conferences:

Since SEEK 2017, the annual FOCUS conference, happened last week, I figure it would only be fitting to talk about my own experiences at their past conferences since they are the largest FOCUS event of the year. I attended 3 FOCUS conferences during college. When looking back on those experiences off hand, one of the things that comes to mind is I remember the venues and locations almost more than the talks each day. Which makes sense, that's like saying I remember college events and experiences more than the classes I took. For the talks I do remember, what makes them stand out is how they impacted my faith formation. Perhaps not immediately, but overtime I began to understand the truth of those talks more and my morality and faith was strengthened for the better because of those talks. The most memorable experiences I had were multiple times for Mass, Adoration, and Reconciliation at each, and I think these stand out just because thousands upon thousands of college students, religious, and missionaries were all together in a large crowd for spiritual activity and glorification of God. Some more subtle yet personal things I took away from these conferences involved learning to be less selfish, more patient, less angry, and less about my plans and more on God's.

One of the best things that can be said about FOCUS conferences is that they have so many religious orders and Catholic organizations to encounter and get to know. This is the one collective place where it's not odd to see various orders of monks and nuns in traditional habits roaming around. You can get so many good CDs, books, and other resources on subjects important in the Catholic Church from many booths. You can learn about organizations that are looking for staff or volunteers for future projects and endeavors. Of course, as I will explain below, you better come with extra cash in your pocket if you really really want to get so many of these good things to bring home.

Post College:

Instead of being a FOCUS missionary and instead of trying to get a career job immediately after undergrad, I volunteered for Reach Youth Ministry, which was a traveling Catholic ministry in the Pacific Northwest. This was the first time I remember being in a place where people knew of FOCUS but were not enthusiastic about them. One of my teammates from Benedictine College and I learned there used to be a FOCUS team in the Diocese of Helena (where I was living) in the past. What would anyone have against FOCUS, I wondered then? My guesses and examinations to follow in a bit. My main point in this is that even without the presence of FOCUS and without a shared enthusiasm for them, I continued to grow in my faith through my Reach experiences, especially Daily Mass and Daily Prayer that was part of ministry life. I was learning more, getting out of my comfort zone more, and becoming more proud and glad for my Catholicism. The challenge came from returning home after Reach and continuing my faith journey alone, or rather, doing it without some ministry organization guiding my daily life and faith practices. I had to build a routine of Daily Mass before work, Daily Scripture reading, and Daily Rosary (noticing a pattern?) in order to maintain faith life and continue to grow through obstacles, doubts, and struggles. My only real ties to FOCUS during this time, aside from the occasional Facebook read-through of acquaintances' posts, was that I donated to a friend who became a FOCUS missionary.

Others Complaints about FOCUS:

As I mentioned before, not everyone is a fan of FOCUS. Since they're not perfect, and there's always room for improvement, there are some areas that people critique FOCUS on and mayhaps rightfully so. Here is what I have compiled, in no particular order, as to what people criticize FOCUS on and why as an outsider now I can see why they think that.

-FOCUS is the cool kid's club:

I remember during one of my interview weekends, one of the men gave a speech about not worrying whether we were called to be FOCUS missionaries or not because "FOCUS is not the end all be all". While people who organize FOCUS may not claim it to be the end all be all, that does not stop other people from seeing it that way. There's a certain attitude around FOCUS that exudes from people involved, mainly because of how excited and how invested they are in the organization. Even during college, I could tell some people would feel like the people most involved with FOCUS formed a clique, and I could understand where they were coming from. Even sometimes on social media, the way that people talk about FOCUS (like with SEEK)  makes it seems like some humble bragging about the greatest organization of all time. FOCUS is a great tool, with lots of time to improve since it's only 20 years old, but their mission is to reach out to everyone, to be the New Evangelization for everyone whether they grew up Catholic or not, so outsiders looking in need to see that FOCUS is not some posh country club that has a restrictive VIP list.

-FOCUS has a specific target audience, and it's not me:

As someone who has graduated from university and is now moving on into the truly adult stage of life, I am an outsider looking in on FOCUS. While FOCUS puts out a lot of great material, not as much of it really resonates with me as it used to. Because it's no longer speaking to me, at least, it's not aiming for me. FOCUS has a specific demographic that they gear their material towards: College students, specifically undergrads, who are either away from the Church or are at a very minimal level of their faith. Of course some of their stuff is going to sound rudimentary, generic, and beginner level. Of course some of their stuff is going to be infused with pop culture and hip, trendy lingo. They understand who their audience is and in order to reach out to them, they cannot make their material too complex and they have to use language that appeals to a wide-ranging demographic. I may personally be someone who is looking for material to go deeply orthodox, and I may personally be someone who distastes trendy words in an attempt to be cool, but that does not mean that someone else isn't getting something good spiritually from that.

-Money:

If there's one thing that FOCUS has truly developed a skill at, it's finding sponsors and donors. There's no way that all of these FOCUS teams could survive and thrive without the investment of thousands of people who donate financially either to specific missionaries and to the organization in general. Of course, FOCUS can also come with a price (pun intended). The conferences generally cost $700-$800 for four days of travel, to stay at a hotel, and to cover a single meal's cost per day. There's all the extra money one would need to bring for the rest of the meals and for purchasing items at all the vendor booths. FOCUS also has international mission trips, going to third world countries and areas of need, but this again requires a lot of money for travel, food, and shelter. They're asking college students, majority of whom cannot already afford college and/or are taking out student loans, to spend large amounts of dough while at the same time reminding everyone to serve and give to the poor. There are also all of the finances and resources that each diocese and campus ministry utilizes to bring and maintain FOCUS on their college campuses. Yes, everyone is aware from the beginning of the financial obligations and necessities that are required for FOCUS to stay a non-profit organization whose staff live entirely on donations, but that does not mean people on the outside will see all of the money being used for the best good.

-FOCUS acts like a business:

This goes back to the idea of meeting a quota and what I suspect is one of the reasons why FOCUS may come and go from different campuses. The importance of the mission of evangelization can sometimes lead to people pushing to increase the numbers and find fault with any Bible studies or groups that are not growing in number. Again, that was one of my faults when interviewing to be a missionary, I never kept mentored a fellow student leader within FOCUS for a long time and I had trouble growing my freshmen Bible Study group beyond 2-3 guys each week. I was not meeting the quota and in some ways may be part of the reason why FOCUS was not successful on campus with freshmen men during my time on campus. When you are an organization built upon donations, and having to strategize how to use all of your resources wisely, sometimes you have to play a numbers game, which is what businesses do in order to continue making profit (this is all spoken on a very generic surface level understanding of business operations and my own understanding of FOCUS).

-FOCUS is all charismatic and not too traditional:

Perhaps the most minor of other people's complaints, though still relevant to the discussion of why people may not like FOCUS. One of the things that I did not enjoy about my experiences at FOCUS Conferences was the music. What I mean is, a lot of the songs being played were done in a very modern way, like the kind of rock band one might find at certain Protestant services. In fact, the band would sometimes get on my nerves because  they would play too long and too modern, like their music was one of the most important things you should be focusing on in the moment instead of say THE MASS or going over whatever you learned the past couple of days. I get that music is a form of prayer, and I'm sure the musicians were just trying to lead us in prayer, but I only really enjoyed praise and worship in other circumstances back on campus or during Reach, not so much through FOCUS. This is emblematic of the way FOCUS presents itself, again going back to the trendy cool kids and target group ideas.

Some people may also see FOCUS as a charismatic tool keying in on emotions. One of the most powerful moments during FOCUS Conferences (and I suppose even Steubenville Conferences for the youth) is the night of Adoration, where everyone is gathered to pray in front of the Eucharist, coupled with Reconciliation opportunities. It's a very emotional highlight of the conference because you're in a large dark room with thousands of other people, focusing on prayer and reflecting on past rights and wrongs, trying to get cleansed and draw closer to Christ. This is different from every day Adoration, where you're usually alone or in a small group in a chapel and still praying but in a calmer atmosphere. At least from what I could tell when I was involved, there's not much offered for those of the traditional, Solemn High Mass in Latin crowd, again because FOCUS is trying to reach a specific audience and it's hard enough to get young adults invested in the now standard form of Mass, much less the more traditional forms.

Recap:

Please remember that everything I have written down here is just based on my memories of the past, minimal research into FOCUS as an organization, and any chatter I catch from other people on social media.The mission of FOCUS is "Launching Catholic Students into Lifelong Catholic Mission". So really, they're just a starting point, a jumpstart, a catalyst, for someone to understand and grow in their Catholic faith. They're not trying to be a monastery or a seminary with deep, deep theological and historical studies (for the most part). They are trying to reach young Catholics raised in a relativistic secular American culture and prepare them to be disciples.

In fact, if we think of the original disciples, the Apostles, and use their timeline for example, FOCUS is really just that three year period where the Apostles were called by Jesus Christ, educated/instructed/challenged by Him, made and fixed their mistakes, and then once He ascended and gave them the Great Commission (i.e. once someone graduates from college), then the Apostles/disciples/college graduates take it upon themselves to live out their faith, to proclaim Christ as Lord and God, and to live a truly authentic Catholic life for the rest of their time here on Earth.

I've heard stories and known people who have gone on to seminaries and convents because of their involvement in FOCUS. I also know of some people (though not as many) who have fallen away from the Catholic faith even with their involvement in FOCUS activities. FOCUS is a resource that is constantly growing and adjusting its approach in its ministry. It provides multiple resources for people to jumpstart their faith and I think it will help us see more young adults in the Catholic Church overall. If we want to stop complaining about shrinking number of Mass attendees and how millenials are no longer practicing their faith, then we need to take all of the good that FOCUS is doing and continue to nurture that past the college years in order to help the American and global Catholic Church continue its mission.