The Order (2003) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

According to the Rotten Tomatoes site, this was one of the ten worst-reviewed wide releases of 2003 (forty or more reviews), That places it in some very impressive company.

Worst: House of the Dead. 5% positive reviews.

#2: Boat Trip. 6%.

#3 (tie): Gigli, My Boss's Daughter, Marci X. 7%

#6 (tie): The Order, Kangaroo Jack. 8%

#8 (tie): From Justin to Kelly, A Man Apart. 9%

 

This film was originally to be called The Sin Eater, which would have made a lot more sense in two ways:

a. the film is actually about a sin-eater.

b. about two years ago, there was a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie called The Order.

Unless you are thinking about Jean Claude Van Damme, in which case you are probably on the wrong web site, I'll bet you're now thinking, "what the hell is a sin-eater, anyway"? Fair question. It's another one of those far-fetched "ecclesiastical horror" concepts based upon some obscure element of dogma or myth. In this case, the sin-eater premise is about half dogmatic (or rather it's about misunderstood and misapplied dogma), and half mythical.

The Dogma:

Since the Catholic Church excommunicates people, and preaches (or has preached in the past) that eternal salvation is not possible outside the Church, some people assume that excommunication is equivalent to damnation. If Catholic teaching is applied correctly and compassionately, that is not true. While excommunicates are denied salvation and the sacraments (most importantly the purification rituals of last rites and confession), there is theoretically no such thing as a state or place beyond God's forgiveness. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it as follows:

Excommunication is not equivalent to damnation. Excommunications vary in gravity, and in grave cases readmission may be possible only by action of the Holy See, but excommunicates are always free to return to the church on repentance. Excommunication, it must be remembered, is a medicinal penalty intended, above all, for the correction of the culprit; therefore his first duty is to solicit pardon by showing an inclination to obey the orders given him, just as it is the duty of ecclesiastical authority to receive back the sinner as soon as he repents and declares himself disposed to give the required satisfaction.

It is important to remember, however, that dogma is not always applied correctly. The Catholic Church is an institution run by men, and those human men make mistakes, sometimes even commit evil acts of their own. The propensity for abuse was far greater in the Middle Ages, when the Pope of one all-too-earthly family might excommunicate a member of a rival family, then staunchly deny readmission to the Church, no matter what. In such a case, excommunication would be equivalent to damnation. How, then, might the excommunicate find a way to heaven, if it could not be done through the Church, through the sacraments, or even through the holiest of lives?

Furthermore, the Church has never had an open policy toward suicide. It is a mortal sin, and since it is the final act of life, it occurs too late for forgiveness to be applicable. In theory, there doesn't seem to be a way, within the parameters of Catholic orthodoxy, for someone to commit suicide and avoid hell. This fact sometimes led to desperation in the grieving family of one who has committed suicide.

Given those ostensibly redoubtable barriers to salvation, it stands to reason that folk tales would spring up among grassroots Catholics about "back doors" to heaven outside the Church.

(Personally, I don't think it would be worth believing in a God who can be so easily tricked! For all his unrepentant philandering, Captain Kirk could sneak past such a God simply by using the Mudd's Robots trick.)

The Myth:

Among the Celtic peoples, there was a long-standing custom involving sin-eaters. Nobody knows exactly how it all started, but the gist of it is that the sin-eater would attend the final ceremony for the recently deceased, and eat food that had been touching the dead body. In such a way, the sin-eater would ceremonially cleanse the last sins from the departed, allowing his or her soul to proceed directly to heaven. I have read that the custom still persists among some of the descendants of Celtic peoples who settled in the Appalachian Mountains.

You may have heard of it, the custom of sin eating? An old Celtic tradition that may still happen back in these mountains ... Somebody dies, and a huge meal is laid out, with an extra portion placed directly on the coffin. The real purists put the food right on the dead person’s skin and make sure water and salt are part of the meal. There’s feasting all ‘round, but all stops when the Sin Eater arrives. He, she, is usually a person not quite whole in body or in mind, but there’s a job to be done and a ritual to be consummated. He goes to the coffin . . . mumbles a prayer . . . and eats. The Sin Eater symbolically consumes the sins of the dead person, so the spirit can rest in peace. When he leaves the house of mourning, there’s one more thing to be done. The Sin Eater goes to a body of preferably salt water and with all his energy (her energy) makes a throwing gesture toward the shore:

By the Stones, by the Wind, by the Fire, by the Tree,
From the dead man's sins set me free, set me free!

You gotta do this or the dead person’s sins will stick . . . to you!

Interestingly, many reference sources say that a virtually identical ritual was practiced in parts of India, so there is nothing uniquely Christian about the belief. It's just one of those instances of folklore becoming custom.


This movie combines the dogma and the myth. The premise is that the unforgivable, those who cannot receive salvation through the Church, must turn to the mythical sin-eaters. In this particular reworking of the myth, the sin-eater does not necessarily wait until death. He is called for by the unforgivable person himself, usually from that person's deathbed.

I suppose you can guess that eating all those sins has to have an impact on the eater as well:

  • For one thing, it makes them thirsty. I mean, if you can go through six beers just from eating some bar peanuts, imagine how many you could go through if you spent all day eating sins. Not to mention a box of Ritz Crackers off the bodies of dying guys. Apparently sin is channeled through Ritz Crackers, because as soon as the cracker is lifted from the person's chest, all sorts of mystical looking strands of spaghetti come pouring from the soul of the dying man, until they congeal into the form of a transparent squid. In a pinch, the sin-eater may substitute Andes Mints, which possess excellent sin-absorbing power, and also do a good job of killing the taste of the sin. You can always identify a sin-eater because they're the only ones who take actually their change in mints at the cash register.
  • For another thing, and probably more important, it makes them immortal unless (1) they can be killed by a special consecrated knife, or (2) they can find a way to pass their eternal sin-eating responsibilities on to the first runner up.

The movie begins as Heath Ledger, playing a young priest from a truly obscure order - they only have three members - finds out that his mentor has died. Oops. Make that two members. So the two remaining "Carolingians", Heath Ledger and the fat guy from The Full Monty, meet in Rome to investigate the death of their beloved leader. The fat guy is really not any help in this investigation, since he spends the entire film skulking around, holding a cross in front of him, mumbling in Aramaic, and constantly spinning around to make sure that no demons sneak up behind him.

So Heath is sort of on his own.

Heath finds out that the old fella used a sin-eater, presumably because Carolingians are considered heretics, have thus been excommunicated, and will not repent because ... well, because they're right, dammit, and the Church is wrong! How does Heath know about the sin-eater? They leave behind tell-tale signs, like cracker crumbs, and silver candy wrappers, and empty cans of that spray-on cheese spread.

Blah ... blah ... yadda ... yadda.

Skip through the set-up , and it all turns out to be a three-way power struggle among Heath, the immortal sin-eater, and Robocop. Robocop is now Robocardinal, an evil chain-smoking heretic who seems likely to become the next Pope - "the warrior pope" as he calls himself, or Robopope for short. After some evil minions of Robopope kill the Full Monty guy, Heath's only ally is a woman he once exorcised, who has only recently been released from a mental institution. Long gone are the days when people were released from institutions with a baggy suit and twenty bucks, because this woman has apparently been released with a designer wardrobe that would make Jackie Kennedy envious. In fact, she looks so good that Heath screws her socks off, and we begin to see why those Carolingians are considered to be heretics by the mainstream Catholics.

NUDITY REPORT

In theory, there is a scene in which Shannyn Sossamon shows her left breast from the side. The scene is so dark that nothing much can be clearly identified.

DVD info from Amazon

  • Commentary by director Brian Helgeland

  • Unrated deleted scenes and dailies with optional director's commentary

  • Full-screen and widescreen anamorphic formats

The final complication is that the sin-eater is actually not that bad a guy, is really pretty darned sick of sin-eating, and would like it very much if Heath would take over his responsibilities for a few centuries. He tells a few zany anecdotes about the good times with Caravaggio to illustrate how great immortality can be, but Heath is not easily persuaded, so all parties must proceed to their destinies through more circuitous routes.

The Critics Vote

  • General panel consensus: no stars. Entertainment Weekly (Glieberman): F. BBC: 1/5.

The People Vote ...

  • Box Office Mojo. Most films finish with about triple the gross of their opening weekend. This one opened with a respectable $4.4 million weekend, but finished at $7.6, having been shut down by bad reviews and worse word-of-mouth.
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a D. It is boring, windy, and not scary. When it isn't boring, it is illogical. When neither, it is unintentionally funny. The corporeal "sins" are the worst CGI ever. The dialogue is cornier than the Kellogg's factory. The film does, however, sometimes have a chilling atmosphere, excellent imagery, and has a special baroque look to it. If you can give up scary for creepy, you might not find it so bad, but I just can't recommend it to anybody.

Return to the Movie House home page