2 of 3
2
Movie Reviews (Fiction)
Posted: 12 June 2009 04:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

EDIT: I wrote this whole review before finishing the movie so I wouldn’t spoil the ending. But now after watching to the end I feel I must amend a few things, so I will do so in edits so that you can see the impression I got half way through and then see my impression after seeing it through to the end.

Jeers: The flick has the stereotypical Wise Negro dispensing sage advice to this white man. I found that really irritating.

Actually the “wise negro” is just his co-worker who happens to have a good relationship with his own wife and thinks that what worked for him [counseling] will work for Caleb [the main character]. Unlike typical Holyweird films in this one the white man is not at all moved by the sage advice of his Negro pal. The Negro keeps on trying to counsel Caleb after Caleb very clearly told him counseling was not for him. After a few attempts Caleb informs the Negro that he allowed him a certain amount of liberty with his tongue on the job but that now he was stepping over the line and abusing the tolerance he had shown him. Those aren’t his exact words but that is what it sounded like to me.

EDIT: It turns out that his Negro co-worker professes Christianity. At least I assume it is Christianity. I am not really sure since he never actually quotes the Bible and never says anything distinctly Christian to Caleb. All the advise he gives is of the sort I have heard Uncle Tom Negroes in more mainstream movies give such as “go all out for her, don’t be cheap, buy her only the best” and “a woman is like a flower. If you treat it right it will bloom. If you don’t it will wilt.” That last one Caleb asks him “where’d you get that from?” [he seemed to know right away he wasn’t wise enough to come up with that on his own] to which he responds, “counseling.” So this Negro’s wisdom comes not from the Bible but from marriage counseling and it wasn’t faith in Christ that saved the Negro’s marriage as it was later with Caleb.

Anyway, I am very grateful to the script writers that they didn’t have the Negro preaching the Word or trying to convert Caleb, instead they had his own father do it which to me was what makes the movie so great. How many fathers do that now a days to their grown son? Mine never did. He was kind of a workaholic. But he did show me the example of a good Christian man and later we did talk about our faith after I had found it on my own.

Aside from saving lives and being a good captain at work, he’s a rather unlikable guy. He doesn’t help around the house. He yells at his wife over every little thing. And, he frequently takes a baseball bat to the trash to relieve anger.

This is not what I saw. What I saw was a very likeable guy. That was why it was so hard for him to accept his marriage problems. Because he was so liked and respected by everyone he knew, except his wife.

He doesn’t yell at his wife over every little thing. The movie picks up at a point in his life after he had already been married for 7 years and the impression I got was that it happened very slow and subtle over time and only now at the point we meet him does it sneak up on him as if it just happened all of a sudden.

So now after several years the cumulative effects of an un-Christ-like marriage [not that it was terrible, just not quite up to Biblical Christian standards, so it did take years for the negative effects to accumulate] have come to a head and it is starting to take it’s toll in more obvious ways than it had in the years prior to the point the movie picks up the story at. Such as with shouting matches, not sleeping together, not eating together, not doing anything together and finally divorce papers.

At this point neither husband nor wife really understand what is going on just that they both know something is not right. Both pretty much feel the same way, not enough respect from the other. But both also feel it is the other’s problem not their own. So what is one to do in such a situation?

In a patriarchal society such as the Bible has always been about the responsibility to take action naturally falls to the man of the house. That is why the movie focuses on the man, Caleb, as the main character and focuses on the actions he takes. Not because he is the one in the wrong and his wife shares none of the blame for their problems.

Clearly both are equally in the wrong and suffer the same problem [in my view it can be summed up with one word, “autonomy.” It is an age old problem and one that almost always happens to those without God. They’ve fallen into the age old trap of leading autonomous lives. They need a paradigm shift from stubborn and selfish independence to dependence on God first, and on each other second, and only after those first two are satisfied can there be any room for the third which is self.

[EDIT: Later in the movie when Caleb’s father finally reveals to his son the key to true love, perseverance and patience and in a word, peace, which is Christ in your heart and mind, he echoes my thoughts above almost to the letter. So apparently I got the message exactly as the film producers intended and quite early on at that. ]

It is the man’s job to be mature enough to break the vicious cycle, sacrifice his own pride, selfishness, autonomy, independence, etc. and show his wife the right example to follow, even if he hasn’t been the best example in the past. It is never too late to start. That is basically what this movie is about.

[EDIT: Apparently the patriarchal angle I read into the film was unintended. I still believe it is there but I see now that the producers did not intend to put that in there. And so at the end they turn it around and have the father reveal to his son that he copied the “love dare” in a journal written to Caleb because he knew that was the only way to get him to read and follow it. He reveals to him that it was originally used on him by his wife who was the one who found faith in Christ and who took the “love dare” to save their marriage and it ended with his conversion to the faith. I don’t see what difference it makes though. It doesn’t disprove the Biblical concept of patriarchal family and society. Just because she found God before her husband did does not make Caleb’s dad any less of a patriarch. If anything I would think that if his wife’s conversion was true and she truly believed in the Biblical way then she would expect him to become a true fully mature man of the house and fulfill the role of patriarch of the family as part of his conversion. His wife’s actions do absolutely nothing to support feminism.]

As for the beating up trash cans, how does that make him an unlikeable guy? Sure his neighbor didn’t appreciate the outbursts while he was trying to relax in his back yard. But he took his anger out on the trash so he wasn’t taking it out on his wife and also wasn’t damaging anything of value. Very smart and even kind of noble by todays standards if you ask me. Also each time he saw his neighbor he quickly hid his anger and was clearly embarrassed that his neighbor had seen him lose his cool.

[EDIT: This trashcan bit actually leads into a humorous part at an inspirational moment later on but I won’t spoil that. His neighbor does think Caleb is a nut but his own wife tells him “takes one to know one.” lol

Typical of most movies, it did have some silly things. The fireman spends time looking at a boat on the internet that he is going to buy with his savings. His mother-in-law needs the same savings to buy medical equipment. Yet, bizzarly, that grand selfishness goes unnoticed by his wife and the movie script until the end of the movie

I didn’t find this silly at all. No mention was made until much later in the movie about his mother-in-law needing money for treatment. The impression I got for the first half of the movie was that her condition was unknown and permanent. And really nothing seemed wrong with her other than that she couldn’t speak. I thought maybe she had a stroke at some point and just lost the power to speak or something like that.

They only show her being visited by her daughter, Caleb’s wife, one time throughout the first two thirds of the movie so clearly if we are seeing things from Caleb’s point of view we can be fairly certain he was about as aware of his mother in law’s problem as we the audience are throughout most of the film. So saving up for a boat did not seem like “grand selfishness” to me.

[EDIT: Ok, the money that is needed is for a wheelchair not treatment. Turns out I was right, she did have a stroke and that is what took her power of speech away, and it is permanent. So there is nothing Caleb can do to make her better. But apparently he does know about his wife wanting to get her mom a new wheelchair [she already has an old one by the way]. So it is understandable that Caleb doesn’t feel too bad about not offering to pay for it. When he does pay for it he does so out of love for his wife but he doesn’t do it to show off, he tells the wheelchair sales person not to tell anyone who paid for it. So at first she assumes her doctor friend who is sweet on her must have paid for it. And when she thanks her doctor friend he says it was the least he could do [but I won’t spoil that angle either].

He worked hard for that money and risked his life everyday on the job, saved lives, and his only vice seemed to be internet voyerism and dreaming of owning his own boat some day. He never went out and came home drunk. He spent much of his off time at home on the internet. He may have been looking at things he shouldn’t have [especially considering the fact that his wife is in perfect health, not at all overweight and very attractive] but at least he wasn’t out sleeping around with other women. In fact, it his wife who is on the verge of cheating on him [with a doctor at the hospital she works at] and not the other way around!

[EDIT: I really liked the part when Caleb is wrestling with his own inner demon - the temptation to click on porn site popup ads - and at just the right time he reads his father’s journal warning about parasites and how they will ruin a marriage. One of the parasites mentioned is pornography. What it says about parasites is so true and Caleb’s reaction is classic, it is my favorite part of the movie, I was cheering him on by that point. Again, I won’t spoil it for you.]

Christians should complain about the limp-wristed Christianity of the movie. Far from hating women, you’d think the movie was written by a feminist. One character makes a point of explaining that the “book” was written by a woman, to shame the fireman for assuming a male author. The book provides a 40-day plan with daily tasks along the line of: give her flowers, make her dinner, listen to her, and then pray about it (apparently until you’re motivated to give her bigger flowers).

I don’t know where this guy got this from but what I saw was not a published book, the main character Caleb would never have gone for a self-help book whether it was written by a man or a woman. What it was was a journal written by his father. His father talked his son into promising him to accept the simple easy to follow step by step day by day chores explained in the journal [it is narrated by the voice of his father each time Caleb reads it and his father quotes the Bible frequently to back up what he is asking Caleb to do each day]. It wasn’t written by a woman it was written by his dad. Caleb wouldn’t even listen to his mother give him advice because she sounded too much like his wife and didn’t seem to understand his POV, so he would only talk to his father about this, man to man.

Even if it was written by a woman originally it is all backed up by Bible verses so it would be God’s Word leading a woman to write what she wrote if it was indeed a woman who originally thought up the idea of the “dare journal.” I am against women being in positions of leadership over the man in the family, over whole congregations in a local community, and over whole societies in government, but I am certainly not above taking advice from a good woman, especially concerning how to run the home and how to show a woman you love her. The Bible also defines exactly what a “good woman” is, but that is another topic [“far above rubies”].

I think the reviewer who complained about this journal representing limp-wristed Christianity seems to me to be guilty of the woman hating he complained the secular critics [influenced by feminism] accused the film of, and yet he totally missed the Patriarchal angle of the movie which is clearly what the secular feminist critics were complaining about. Funny how our critics sometimes see things more clearly than our own supposedly informed “in-the-know” brethren do.

Ok maybe the reviewer isn’t guilty of the “woman hating” feminist accusation exactly [I hate to take their side on anything] but he definitely does not understand the Christian principle of tolerance and charity. I agree with him that Christians past and present have been far to tolerant and charitable to outsiders and throwing away pearls before swine but if anything the exact opposite is true when it comes to the family and the home and one’s own community.

That has been our problem for that last century. While we as a society have been bending over backwards to show how loving and tolerant we are towards those not like us we’ve completely neglected our own kind and the surest sign of this is the well documented breakdown of the traditional family and general decline in family values. The average Western family no longer extends the same amount of tolerance, love and respect for their own that they have been programmed to mindlessly shower upon all others.

Another comment I saw on the movie was that after seven years of marriage the couple had no children to show for it. Apparently they do have a daughter as we hear her talking with her mother about how perfect daddy is in the opening credits and we see a picture of her kissing daddy in his fireman hat. So there is child though she doesn’t appear in most of the movie. Apparently she comes after they work out their marriage. Perhaps it is like in the OT when the Lord holds off on blessing a family with a child until they are ready. However, the thought did occur to me that the critic was right about the lack of focus modern Christianity has on the importance of large families. The problem in my view stems from eschatology. Why would a Christian want to bring a child into the world when they believe the end times is upon them, or as most C.I. believe that it is “the time of Jacob’s trouble”?

EDIT: In conclusion, after watching it all the way through I can say I loved it. I highly recommend it to any Christian family or couple and especially to teenagers or college kids so they can get an idea of what a real marriage is about before they go jumping into one unprepared.

[ Edited: 12 June 2009 07:09 AM by Ken ]
 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2009 02:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2180
Joined  2008-02-18

A good review of the film.

First Word-Movie: “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” 1967

In each generation, it appears that Hollywood produces one centerpiece sermon-movie to instruct the goyim on their most serious besetting sin of the time, including an “application” section on how to make progress in sanctification. This movie was the chosen vehicle for the 60s generation, presumably to make sure the free speech/sexual revolution did not stop short of full consistency. The denounced sin appears to be resistance to miscegenation. To ensure an impact, heavyweight Hollywood legends Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy were marshaled for service as the parents of the gushing bride-to-be…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2009 04:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

Knowing starring Nicholas Cage. What I think is most interesting about this film is the reviews. I’ve read many of them after having seen it already myself only to compare notes before writing up my own review. Just look at the Wikipedia review I linked to above.

I was rather surprised to find no mention of the faith element so obvious to me throughout this film, in any popular or mainstream review. It reminds me of a point in the movie when the Protagonist played by Nicholas Cage is informed by what are obviously meant to be angelic celestial beings from the heavens that only the chosen were called and only the chosen knew who they were because they could hear the “whisperers” talking to them and calling them.

Apparently secular reviewers suffer from the same problem as most people in the film who could not hear the messages warning them and calling them to seek refuge. The reviewers and perhaps most people out there if they take their cues from the reviewers or are like them just don’t have the eyes to see and ears to hear a faith based message when a story or film is built around it. Just as Christ spoke His message to the multitudes but only those with eyes and ears receptive to His message or of the right constitution were capable of seeing and hearing or rather apprehending it.

As far as the message in the film is concerned it reminds me more of stuff I’ve read by Von Daniken [Chariots of the Gods] or Sitchin, those authors who reinterpret the Old Testament sightings of angels and miracles and other supernatural events as evidences of ancient extraterrestrial visitations by a super advanced extraterrestrial civilization [the Annunaki worshipped by the Sumerians - our first great historical civilization]. Interesting stuff but certainly not Biblical.

I think this movie pulled it off in such a way that these celestial beings actually fit the supernatural profile better than they do the sci-fi profile of Star Trek or Von Daniken, Sitchin and co. So think of this film as a sort of comprimise between the Biblical Old Testament view and that of the ancient astronaught enthusiasts. So basically what you get out of it is based more on what you already believe than on what the film writers and directors intended you to get out of it. I kind of like that. Sort of a modern day parable. But maybe thats just me. I tend to view most movies that way, reinterpreting it through my own weltanschauung.

I like how it takes the post-apocalyptic theme beyond the end and into a new Edenic beginning. Most reviewers seemed to find the conclusion of this film morbid and depressing. I did not. I think the end was the best part, well that and getting to see all those mighty urban centers of abomination being cleansed by fire.

[ Edited: 04 July 2009 04:54 AM by Ken ]
 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2009 05:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

Has anyone seen The Village? It was a 2004 film by Manoj Night Shyamalan. It is surprising that an East Indian would come up with something like this, especially one known for some pretty weird stuff like The Happening. Please overlook the fact that this was written and produced by a non-Westerner and disregard the plot descriptions such as that which appears on IMDB as they do not do this film justice. I watched it twice now, once before ever hearing of Kinism and now again after becoming convinced of it’s importance for the long term survival and well being of our folk. I highly recommend it.

I will write a review sometime for it but for now I would just like to give the regulars here a chance to see it first. I recommend you don’t read anything about it before watching it as this one can too easily be spoiled by knowing too much. For Kinists it will have appeal right away from the beginning simply because it depicts the ideal agrarian lifestyle of early American colonialism. But the film holds a big surprise for those who watch without knowing the true nature of this ideal modest little community [and yes they are homogeneous not multicultural or miscegenated]. For those who’ve seen it, please don’t give it away too soon. I would like to know what you think about it though. Maybe after everyone has spoken up and told us whether they’ve seen it yet or not.

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2009 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3246
Joined  2007-05-04

No, haven’t seen it. I am waaay behind on movie watching. Like years behind.

Laurel

 Signature 

Deo Volente, Deo Vindice.

God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. Heb. 6:10

“Victory is won not in miles but in inches. Win a little now, hold your ground, and later, win a little more.”– Louis L’Amour

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2009 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  998
Joined  2008-04-25
Ken - 08 July 2009 05:28 AM

Has anyone seen The Village? It was a 2004 film by Manoj Night Shyamalan. It is surprising that an East Indian would come up with something like this, especially one known for some pretty weird stuff like The Happening. Please overlook the fact that this was written and produced by a non-Westerner and disregard the plot descriptions such as that which appears on IMDB as they do not do this film justice. I watched it twice now, once before ever hearing of Kinism and now again after becoming convinced of it’s importance for the long term survival and well being of our folk. I highly recommend it.

I will write a review sometime for it but for now I would just like to give the regulars here a chance to see it first. I recommend you don’t read anything about it before watching it as this one can too easily be spoiled by knowing too much. For Kinists it will have appeal right away from the beginning simply because it depicts the ideal agrarian lifestyle of early American colonialism. But the film holds a big surprise for those who watch without knowing the true nature of this ideal modest little community [and yes they are homogeneous not multicultural or miscegenated]. For those who’ve seen it, please don’t give it away too soon. I would like to know what you think about it though. Maybe after everyone has spoken up and told us whether they’ve seen it yet or not.

Thanks. I’ll try to watch it soon.

I haven’t seen The Happening either I’m afraid.

I tend to like Eastern movies better than the pornographic, race mixing prop that too often comes from the West.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2009 10:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  639
Joined  2007-01-26

Since several of you haven’t seen it, I will not reveal any spoilers. It is not a film you would expect from Shyamalan, who is known for edgy, claustrophobic thrillers. It’s a movie about a farming community “set” in the late 19th century. After seeing the film, you will understand why “set” is in quotes. I can’t say more without revealing a major plot device.

The movie does contain a “horror” element, but it is so fully integrated with the plot of the movie that it seems inevitable, and not self-indulgent whatsoever, in my opinion. The horror element evolves in a seemingly necessary way from the commitments of the community leaders to live a life very different from that of the surrounding world. Themes of sacrifice, personal loss, and determination run through the movie. Some children may be frightened by the “monsters” that make a very brief appearance, but they play such an integral role in the plot that eliminating the scenes where they appear would gut the film.

I would not hesitate to recommend it to any Kinist. There’s no guarantee you’ll like it. Opinion seems to run very hot or cold on this film. Some people just don’t like M.N. Shyamalan’s approach. Critical opinion runs the gamut from “cloying” to “brilliant.” Sometimes the very best films are those on which opinions are strongly divided. I’m not embarrassed to say that it’s in my top 20 list. Don’t be dissuaded by the negative reviews you may read about it. See it for yourself and then decide. There’s no foul language to speak of, no sexual content (though the theme of sexual longing does arise), no race mixing, and no skin. There’s excellent period costuming as well. It’s a modest, small budget picture that is really surprising, especially due to the plot twist at the end that is very characteristic of Shyamalan. But in this case it’s quite fitting. It’s easily one of his most artistically successful films, where admittedly he’s made some missteps in the past (such as The Lady in the Water, which I thought was truly bad). It has an all-star cast and some very effective acting, with surprisingly convincing roles by Joaquin Phoenix, William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, and Ron Howard’s daughter.

[ Edited: 09 July 2009 10:40 PM by W.M. Godfrey ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 04:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  998
Joined  2008-04-25

Thunderbolt (1995) starring Jackie Chan

Chan is a Herculean hero who has to fight off gangs of bad guys and overcome impossible odds to save his family.

Positive: It’s a clean movie. No nudity, no sex, Jackie Chan and another girl fall in love at the end of the movie (they kiss with a peck on the lips - that’s all the intimacy in the entire film too). Reinforces manly virtues. No interracial relationships. No homos. No post-modern or globalist propaganda.

Negative: The chief negative of the film is the antagonist is Nordic (blond blue eyes), and the characters are Chinese. This is an A movie, but the special effects are noticeably bad at times.

It’s a shame Europeans don’t make clean, normal movies like this.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 07:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3246
Joined  2007-05-04

Sigh. The stereotype of the evil Nordic. I recently watched Bladerunner again; you have Rutger Hauer playing the android Roy Batty with angular Scandinavian chill. Cold as ice, but emotional to the core.

Only 50% of Swedes are blondes; I come from a family which was mixed blonde/brunette. I got the brown hair. Lucky me. No one will say that I am either a) evil or b) stupid. Poor blondes…

Laurel

 Signature 

Deo Volente, Deo Vindice.

God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. Heb. 6:10

“Victory is won not in miles but in inches. Win a little now, hold your ground, and later, win a little more.”– Louis L’Amour

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2009 07:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  998
Joined  2008-04-25

I like how the East Asians view “Yankees” as barbarians. However, I wish their stereotype for us were more mixed race like, ah, Vin Diesel.

Instead they use what might derive from the post-WWII evil Nordic stereotype…

On the other hand: Nordic features provide a nice contrast against East Asian characters. The Nordic is readily recognisable.

[ Edited: 10 August 2009 06:50 PM by Frank ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2009 12:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3246
Joined  2007-05-04

Nordics tend to be easily recognizable against any other ethnic group but other Nordics…

Hehe…

Laurel

 Signature 

Deo Volente, Deo Vindice.

God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. Heb. 6:10

“Victory is won not in miles but in inches. Win a little now, hold your ground, and later, win a little more.”– Louis L’Amour

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2009 04:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2180
Joined  2008-02-18

“Bright Star” (film about poet John Keats)

Bright Star (film website)
Youtube: “Bright Star” - Official Trailer

Lawrence Auster’s Review of Bright Star

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2009 10:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2180
Joined  2008-02-18

Have not seen this yet but it looks interesting.

Russian Ark, a 2002 film directed by Alexander Sokurov, which was filmed using a single 96-minute Steadicam sequence shot in which the narrator travels from room to room of the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg seeing visions of three-hundred-years of Russian history.

Youtube: Russian Ark
Russkiy kovcheg
Russian Ark

And
“Clash of the Titans”

and I also recommend The Snow Queen (1957 film)

[ Edited: 11 December 2009 09:13 AM by Faust ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 December 2009 02:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2180
Joined  2008-02-18

James Cameron’s $230 million sci-fi movie “Avatar” sounds pretty bad:

“Avatar” Liberal Propaganda Blockbuster
Invictus, Avatar: The democratic reign of homo vulgaris(Christianity’s NIhilism?)
Why do Pandorans get to be traditionalists?
Does ‘Avatar’ Contain Hidden Messages?
Cameron’s cinematic liberal paradise makes viewers hate reality

[ Edited: 26 January 2010 11:13 PM by Faust ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 December 2009 01:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3246
Joined  2007-05-04

OK, I’ve found a winner, a very affecting film. Trés European (French), made me cry. Really.

Les Choristes (The Chorus)

It’s available through Netflix and can be purchased through Amazon.

The IMDB plot summary can be read here.

It’s filmed in a very 1950s style; no special effects; very little reference to unnatural things (one line). The songs are so lovely, the story so affecting, I dare you to come away from it without a tear in your eye.

Laurel

 Signature 

Deo Volente, Deo Vindice.

God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. Heb. 6:10

“Victory is won not in miles but in inches. Win a little now, hold your ground, and later, win a little more.”– Louis L’Amour

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
{google_analytics_script}