Last of the Monster Kids

Last of the Monster Kids
"LAST OF THE MONSTER KIDS" - Available Now on the Amazon Kindle Marketplace!

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

CHUCK'S ROUNDHOUSE: Bells of Innocence (2003)


The 1960s saw evangelical fundamentalists, Biblical literalists who rejected modern science and changing social ideology, grow more influential within American Protestant congregations. Their tenets include the spreading of the gospel, the conversion of non-believers, that every good thing that happens to you is an act of God, the end times are upon us, that Satan and his demons are active in the world, and the adoration of Christ and Him alone. This necessitated the creation of a Christian media, in opposition to a secular – and therefore sinful – media. What we now call the "faith-based" film industry began to take shape at the start of the seventies. While apocalyptic oddities like "If Footmen Tire, What Will Horses Do?" and "A Thief in the Night" soon emerged, this style of filmmaking has mostly been defined by banalities like "The Cross and the Switchblade." 
 
The modern Christian movie functions a lot like fetish pornography. It exists to serve its intended audience what they want to see and are already familiar with, at the sacrifice of complex narratives, quality acting, and realistic dialogue. (Also the budgets are usually comparable.) A year before "The Passion of the Christ" gave cinematic proselytizing its biggest moment, a much less notable Christian film was released straight-to-video for the intended audience of church goers, youth pastors, and blind grandmothers. "Bells of Innocence" would be of little notoriety for anyone outside this demographic if it wasn't for its top-billed actor. Chuck Norris became "born again" sometime in the mid-nineties. He began incorporating conservative Christian hysterics into "Walker" shortly after this, so it's not surprising he ended up in one of these. The film also starred his son Mike, his granddaughter Gabby, and frequent "Walker" guest star Marshall R. Teague, so I guess it was a family affair. 

The film follows the improbably named Jux Jonas, a man whose young daughter died after being hit by a car. That loss shattered his faith in God and now he's a suicidal alcoholic. Despite that, his devout friends Conrad and Oren talk him into flying them into Mexico, where they will distribute Bibles at a small ministry. Their plane breaks down in the middle of the Texas desert and they wander into a town called Ceres. The locals seem totally unaware and cut off from the outside world, react strangely to visitors, avoid all physical touching, and bare distinctive marks on their arms. Only a solitary rancher named Matthew offers any assistance. Jux meets Lyric, a little girl that reminds him of his lost daughter, and she beckons him to stay. That's because Ceres is actually run by demonically possessed humans, town elder Joshua being a literal minion of Satan. A war between good and evil has been playing out there for decades. Now, the fate of Jux's immortal soul is the latest battle in this conflict. 

I am, usually, a fan of films made outside of the Hollywood system. I have, from time to time, praised movies made by largely unprofessional crews that lack the polished attributes of your bigger budgeted productions. I admire the can-do spirit of artists with more of a dream than experience or money, pursuing it anyway. Any resulting jank usually becomes part of the charm of such a motion picture and the best of these can reach the level of stupefying outsider art. I suppose this same attitude could be applied to movies like "Bells of Innocence." Cinematographer Hamid Shams was a camera assistant on "Evil Dead II" and "Death Wish 3" and done some lo-fi TV stuff, so he wasn't exactly an amateur. Nevertheless, "Bells of Innocence" has a flat, colorless visual style that, on several occasions, lapses into shaky handheld work. A chase scene has the camera flipping back and forth, for one example of this awkwardness. This is emphasized by blunt editing, the cuts between scenes being so abrupt as to often become unintentionally funny. This is apparent from the very first scene, a mostly unconnected sequence of people running in the dark from some villains on horseback and running into Native Americans doing a ritual of some sort, that is incoherently assembled. (There's a smattering of indigenous characters in the film, so the Norris family hasn't totally let go of that fixation yet.) Director Alin Bijan, his second feature after an un-faith based 1995 skin flick, does not distinguish himself. 

More than any other technical deficiency, two factors make "Bells of Innocence" an especially difficult watch. The acting is quite poor, distressingly so. Mike Norris is a wooden actor who does not have the screen presence of his father. His delivery of dialogue is awkward and unconvincing. His attempts at bigger emotions feel stilted and forced. This is largely true of the rest of the cast. Carey Scott gives a very annoying performance as Oren, acting in a childish, mawkish fashion that honestly makes the character seem unaware of certain social cues. His reoccurring trait of telling a joke he never gets to finish, because people start randomly laughing before he gets to the punchline, is a very questionable choice. David A.R. White as Conrad always feels like he is reading a prepared speech from the pulpit, trying to invest it with deeper emotions he cannot summon, than someone acting out a character. This is true of most of the acting in "Bells of Innocence" and partially what marks it as an unprofessional, church basement production. You know something has gone very wrong when Chuck Norris gives the best, most relaxed and natural performance in your motion picture. 

This points towards the biggest problem with "Bells of Innocence" and the majority of so-called "faith-based" film making. This is not so much a movie as it is a sermon. The narrative is not told with the intention of invoking certain feelings or ideas in the viewer. The goal is not fleshing out characters, experiences, themes or moods. Instead, it's preaching, telling you exactly what it means and what you should think about these events, with no room for ambiguity or personal interpretation. The message relayed in "Bells of Innocence" is that the devil is real and apocalyptic war with the forces of evil is inevitable, Luckily, all you have to do to be on the winning side is accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior, no matter what bad things happen to you. Jux's grief upon his daughter's senseless death would seem to present one of the most complicated aspects of faith: How can you believe in an all-good and all-loving God if life just constantly grinds you down and takes away the people you love? Rather than address this idea, such events are presented as temptations by Satan and his minions. Jux's faith is turned like a light switch, from Questioning God's Plan to Jesus Loves All the Little Children, during the key points in the film. The subtext, that it is God's will that people die and lives get ruined, is never addressed simply because he chooses God over the Devil. Why? Ostensibly because his experience in Ceres has proven to him that Jesus is the way but, in execution, it looks more like he simply changes his mind. To evangelicals, is faith just God saying "Trust me, bro, it'll all make sense" and taking him at his word? It is an attempted persuasion without nuance. 

Moreover, "Bells of Innocence" delivers this idea in as didactic a fashion as possible. Before the trio arrives in town, we get several scenes of the town's sinister elders discussing what is to happen. When the gang takes shelter in Chuck Norris' cabin, he flatly explains that he is an angel, the history of the town, and what this all forebodes. The heroes outright proclaim their faith in God, against the demonic villains' statements. With such a hamfisted approach, it is unsurprising that the film has no grasp on the subtleties necessary to create an effective horror movie. The film seems to think having someone's eyes glow red and a red skull appear over their faces is the height of terror, alongside other thoroughly unimpressive CGI effects. The script is generally inconsistent, how much the people in the town can or cannot touch an outsider seeming inconsistent, and is totally unable to build up any tension at all. After all, we know that God is Good and Jux's soul will be safe, so there's not much in the way of suspense. 

It should probably be unsurprising that "Bells of Innocence" also does not feature much in the way of the Chuck Norris action you might be hoping for. The most exciting thing he does is talk down a crowd of demonic meanies, projecting a bolt of light from his finger and making a guy groan and grimace. This is, admittedly, one of the fewer moments that made me laugh here. Otherwise, he shows up in a few scenes, hangs out with the protagonists, and drones out some exposition. I went into "Bells of Innocence" hoping it would make me chuckle more often but it is mostly a tedious affair. The first act is extremely slow, as the film takes far too long to get all its characters in place, has them wait around for a while, before the plot finally begins to move. The film seems to reach its climax before chugging forward to a proper ending, the story heading into the credits with little drive or energy. While I'm sure some films made within the Sunday School approved method feature better acting, sturdier writing, and zippier pacing than this motion picture, my impression of the genre is that it's mostly stuff like this: Preachy and limp and boring, with one or two actors who were once semi-relevant but got saved and are now doing shit like this. I like my Chuck Norris movies with more punching and kicking than preaching. [3/10]

[THE CHUCK OF NORRIS: 2 outta 5]
[X] Facial Hair
[] Jumps or Kicks Through a Window or Wall
[] Performs Spin Kick or Spin Punch to Enemy's Face
[] Shows Off His Hairy Chest
[X] Sports Some Cowboy Getup



No comments: