Films

Legend of 1900, The (1998)

2005-09-25T20:16:00.000-07:00

Why is this film rated R? Sex? Violence? Language? Well, sex or violence are not included in this film. Language, though, is. It is sad when a good film is brought to the brink of "not-watchableness" due to language! There are obscenities and there are blasphemies, though they are non-sexual in nature. If you see this film on DVD or video, and you are bothered by the language, then don't watch it unless it is first "cleaned up." Though not as much as "We Were Soldiers" (reviewed earlier), it is too much for a film like this.

Barring language, this is a great movie.

This film, monickered as a fable, is about a person who was born and died on a ship, never taking a voyage onto the land. Like I said, it is a fable that you and I could learn from, but let me tell you what I received from this.

1900 (which is a person's name due to 1900 was the year that he was born aboard that ship), on the ocean, is like Christianity. Here me out. Medusa Motion Pictures, who released the film, must have as many strands of snake-like hair going as many myriad directions as you could go to explain what this film is about. I chose a Christian approach. Maybe you will choose another. The absolutely marvelous piano playing that 1900 does stands out among those land-lubbers who only thought they could play the piano but couldn't. More on this later.

Max (he is another main character) had eyes that darted this way and that way, a condition known as ocular nystagmus. Although he always saw correctly, I couldn't help but be fixed on his eyes. At first, this bothered me that the director should know better than to hire an actor who had eyes like that. But then I thought, it is part of the fable to have him almost disabled due to that. 1900 would make a good friend out of him. 1900 was known for his piano playing, and Max was known for his trumpet playing. One talent, one superb gift the two of them had!

Oh, the rollicking, rolling piano scene 30 minutes into the film is as a hilariously great time at piano playing as there can be! It is the scene where 1900 finally introduces himself to Max who is wobbling on his feet due to a storm at the beginning of the film. The rollicking piano scene is one which will live in Hollywood memory! A Christian (1900) standing firm amid the billowy waves that the world goes through, is such that only God can allow. God is the creator of the ocean, an immense, all-encompassing sea of doubt if you don't look at it through Christ's eyes.

The Tarantella, a lively Italian folk song supposedly played to help cure a woman biten by the poisonous tarantula, took 1900 just seconds to master, and then you ain't heard nothing yet! The sound coming out of that piano must have been played by four hands, yet 1900 only has two. Another highlight of the film that Christians can so impress the masses (passengers). Read the verse that, in the Old Testament, the world looks up to Israel due to their keeping God's laws.

"I think a lot of land people must be wondering 'why,'" says 1900. He doesn't ask why due to his already knowing! He is only aboard that ship. A ship that he stands firm on. His answers are already there on the ocean, though he took awhile to learn them (and still learns them). Why? The land, a metaphor for the world system, as a wicked, vile place that you would have to sink into. Rather we Christian's must waft on the ocean, learning what goes on on land by the passengers. You are either a land person, or an ocean person. Which one are you?

The piano duel, played by 1900 and Jelly Roll Morton, is another tour-de-force. 1900 wonders what a duel is? Ignorant of how a duel is played, he starts off playing almost like a fool -- a good fool though. Then, after Morton plays another number, he plays exactly how Morton played. 1900 never understanding what a duel is? It is like a Christian dueling it out with an agnostic or a atheist, never understanding what the discussion is all about, but leaving the atheist dead in his tracks because the Word of God stepped on him! 1900, like Morton before him, started of with a cigarette, but didn't light it as Morton did. He played jazz like it had never been played before, and when finished, 1900 took the cigarette a lit it on the strings of the piano. Morton could not have gotten off that ship fast enough! The things of man don't hold a candle to God's ways!

That leaves the score, played by Ennio Morricone. Like his score for Cinema Paradiso (another film by the same director), it holds awe! Most notably is the love song played by 1900. An unrequited, almost love story, about 1900 and a girl he met on the voyage. Well, you have to see the film to know what I'm talking about. Morricone is absolutely my favorite composer of all time.

Now, after WWII, the ship is about to be dynamited, and 1900 is aboard it. He said that the land's people is so many keys waiting to be played, a thousand keys, it is "God's keys" for he could not play it. He was given 88 keys, plus the piece of music had a beginning and an end. He could never play the keys God had be given! Amen for, though I have 88 keys, God says play them well. God doesn't expect you to play the thousands of keys! That is His job.

He died thinking that the mass of land, "one woman, one house" is all for naught. Heaven isn't made of such things as that. Oh that we all should see that, in Heaven, we all are glorifying Christ, not marrying, not a business deal, but Him who is above all thought. When we set our eyes on Christ, everything else will come into focus as we study God's Word.

It is a fable. A fable you turn into a picture that you want. I was able to make it into a Christian film. What do you turn this fable into?

Sister Act (1992)

2005-09-23T13:28:00.000-07:00

I am not a Roman Catholic so I do not believe that Mary, the biological mother of Jesus, is any more holy than other followers of Christ. There are, I think, two songs that the Sisters sing that say Mary is the Mother of God. She is the mother of Jesus in His human form, but still she is sinful, though holy in the Lord. The Trinity, and only the Trinity, can receive any glory from us. They are quite good songs, but they would be better if their focus was about some other aspect of our Faith, rather than a Romanist point of view!

Furthermore, I enjoy a more traditional song service like Martin Luther, Isaac Watts, etc.. Check out The Trinity Hymnal (http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/Hymns/hymns_th.htm). That is a worship service that beats them all into the ground! There are a couple of them in this film of the more traditional type, though.

So, not being a Romanist, and being fond of traditional music, do I find that I like this film?

First of all, Sister Mary Clarence (played by Whoopie Goldberg) finds Christ by the end of the film. How do I know this? Look at her attitude before, in the beginning of the movie, and compare that with how she is at the end of the story. Cursing then, not cursing now. Not liking the church, then liking the church. Rubbing shoulders with the "big-wigs-wanna-be's" in Reno, and placing her trust in the "most obscure" church. Quite a change, huh? Somewhere in the convent, Sister Clarence found Christ.

Second, the Mother Superior thought she might do well in the choir with a completely awful sound! Yet, she managed to "convert" that same choir into a glorious choir that even the Pope could enjoy. [1] Yes, the music got jazzy, plus there were a couple of numbers that were taken from the "secular" world [2] and turned them into jazzy songs for Jesus. Am I turning off jazzy hymns when I like traditional songs of the Faith? The traditional is number one, but jazz or even rock I like, number two and three (see Petra, http://www.mp3.com/petra/artists/1993/summary.html).

We are all Christians, whether we be Romanists, Presbyterians, Baptists or whatever you are (save JW's or Mormons), we believe in Christ's atoning death and He rose again and sits at the right hand of God. Read the Apostles Creed, the oldest creed in existence, and you will see that we, all of these different denominations, are truly, and most assuredly, are Christians! We all like different types of music, too, but that shouldn't separate us either. We need to get into deeper theology to say whether Mary aught to be revered as the Mother of God, whether we need an earthly Pope, or whether the Arminians have anything at all to say to Calvinists (they don't, but I shall leave that to another post!), but underneath it all is the fact that we are Christians because of Christ.

We have plenty to talk about in the deeper theological issues, but several people in this world don't want to hear that. When will it get thru to people that we have Satan to battle in our fight against Humanism, Islam, Hindus or Buddhists. We need to form a front against all that set themselves against Christ!

But I really like this film because Sister Mary Clarence finally knows what she needs to do; lead the choir and dramatically raise the quality of the music is quite good, all under Christ her King!

***
[1] I don't see the Pope in Scripture. I know Peter had been given the Keys to the Kingdom and they, the Romanists, see that he was the first Pope. Without getting into a deep theological discussion (read Loraine Boettner's book Roman Catholicism, among many others), no Protestant will ever say that they believe in a earthly Pope (a heavenly Pope, meaning father, is God).

[2] Is it "secular" to have some song saying that someone loves somebody without reference to Christ? Once someone accepts Christ as his personal Savior, is it wrong to commit to love your wife (or husband)? Why not write a song about it. But is that not secular? I think it is in Isaiah when we all accept Christ, every nook and cranny of our lives are to be marked Holy unto our God. We Christians should lead all of our lives holy as God is Holy! Thus the word "secular" becomes "sacred." I honor my wife by writing music (or whatever else) for her and thus honor God for all we do is holy to the Lord!

Babettes Feast (1987)

2005-09-21T20:50:00.000-07:00

It had sat on my shelf, only taking it down two times and watching it. I think it was four years ago when I got "Babette's Feast," when I had my stroke. Anyway, I watched it again. Did I think it was worth the time? Or did I suspect that it would be another four years until I watch it again? When I finished the film, where did it go on my shelf? Did it go where ever I put it? Or perhaps the section I have placed for my Christian films? What slot do I put it in?

I watched it in english, with the subtitles turned off. I must do that when I have the option to turn it off or on. I love foreign films, and I used to watch it with the language of the films, only getting english in the subtitles. Now I had my stroke, with my brain acting up, I find this ideal.

What I liked about the film was it's Christian over-pinnings. The minister had two daughters, and when he died, the two women took it upon themselves to serve some soup to each one of the old men, for now they were old too. I think it is Lutheran. The film was Danish.

Before long, the two ladies had a visitor from France. Her name was Babette. Her past was never gone into until near the end of the film. She worked for the two ladies, serving up the same soup because that is the way its done, the two ladies said. Babette worked for them 14 plus years.

Babbette won a lottery ticket (Babette didn't buy it, it was purchased for her in France every years), and gave the feast to the small congregation the was dwindling because they where getting old, and there wasn't new blood in the assembly. She gave a feast fit for a king, because she was the premier chef in all of France. The two ladies, while she was preparing it thought that it was a witches brew, for she brought in some birds, a turtle an even a selection of wine. When one of the ladies presented that to the congregation, they all agreed that they will eat the meal, but they won't say anything about the meal, focusing on the weather and like manner.

After the meal you should have seen the assembly. Joyous beyond believe, and about half-way through the meal began to enjoy it so much that they began to talk of the meal. Everything was focused on Christ, which I thought was a Godsend to the heathen. Even the congregation, who was quarreling more and more, gave up that night and began to praise each other. Oh that communion's would be that way! One day it shall!

"Babette's Feast" won an Oscar for Best Foreign Film.

"The Passion," "Luther" (2004), and "Babette's Feast" fill my top three films. It is that good!

The Hulk (2003)

2005-09-21T20:34:00.000-07:00

What if the Hulk had not been given a reason to loose his temper? Would he be "sane;" one given to scientific work? What made him loose his temper?

What made him loose his temper was the corruption and vileness he saw in this world. From his own fathers attempt to "create," to the foul meaness of the fathers nemesis, through the reprehensible thug that runs Atheon, all vileness. And what do I mean by that vileness? Everyone of the ruthless gang flew in the face of God, disobeying the Bible and the commandments that He delivered to us in Scripture such as the proper role of science, the military, or even of a nation!

The Hulk then is sombody to look up to, to admire, not to hold some derision for. I wish everyone of us Christians would be just as angry as the Hulk when we see the Bible coming under dirision by those who set themselves up as diety be it state or national governments or businesses or, shall I say it, PEOPLE. We need to say "we have had enough."

The "Hulk-Christians" will never pass away because we are keep by God through His Son Jesus, just as the end of the movie indicates. We conquer sin and death through Jesus Christ!

Someday that will come to pass!

The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)

2005-09-21T20:16:00.000-07:00

Alexandre Dumas wrote "The Three Musketeers," and "The Count of Monte Cristo" ("The Count..." which I own, part of my top ten collection, and I will write a blog on it too), but he also wrote "The Man in the Iron Mask."

Dumas sets the adventure where the Four Musketeers are quite a bit older than they were in "The Three Musketeers."

Athos (one of the King's musketeers) looses his son only to regain a new one in the brother of the new king, the Man in the Iron Mask. As for myself now, I have two sons, both of which I would die for. What Athos went through was, several years ago, quite beyond me; but now that I have sons, I can get a glimpse of what he's going thru. It is just like God the Father agonizing for His son, Jesus; more so because He is sinless and the pureness of His love is boundless.

The new King of France is starving his people and pursuing an un-godly war. He should have been properly deposed of and a newer King replace him. That is not only the command of the musketeers, but of God in His Word.

Why do the armies of Christ war on each other? I mean, you have Romanists on one side of the fence, and the Protestants on the other. Did it ever occur to talk it out before such bloodshed happened? (I am really foggy on my history here).

I am a Protestant, but are we not struck with the fact that we were born in Christ. We are the same when the Resurrection occurs. Where did you and I go wrong?

The mask, when worn, and stuck up in a prison cell is like wandering in our sin; in a depraved way we ask only to be removed from the prison, but the mask we leave on; either liberals or conservatives, Muslims and, yes, supposed christians, do not realize that it is even on! Oh, the mask we all should wear until we take it off in Jesus' name!

Breathe the fresh air of the gospel, for it leads you back to the Word of God, the Holy Bible. Study the laws, the commandments, discuss them with others, and then make a rule. The mask of making laws as a human, without any recourse to God and His Word, is so reprehensible, so Satanic. We must all have the mask taken off us by the Holy Spirit, to once again see what sinful, human creatures we are, and flee to Christ. He will represent us to God the Father and say, "they are believers because I paid for their sins."

Lilies of the Field (1963)

2005-09-21T20:05:00.000-07:00

A Baptist getting along with Roman Catholic Church (1)! Yep! Why? Why would Sidney Poitier playing Homer Smith, a Baptist, do all of this work for Nuns? Are Romanists bad? Do they worship Mary, the mother of Jesus, and perform Transubstantiation during the Eucharist? For the most part, yes, they do all of that. So Baptists are safe, right?

In recent days (like mid-1800's) there arose some Baptists who espoused a doctrine called Arminianism. As I am a Calvinist (like C. H. Spurgeon, the great Baptist preacher during the late-1800's) I find that doing Salvation by yourself or with a little help from God is not much different that worshiping Mary. Either Mary or yourself, will not earn your Salvation; only God can do this, no one else.

Now I am afraid that I have stepped on a few toes. So be it. Remember, I am a Reformation Calvinist, I can say such things if I want to with Scripture to back me up. If you have a "doctrines of demons" (I Timothy 4:1, NKJV) as your belief, take advantage of the Internet to read more (2), and see that you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to calling God, Father! When you can honestly say that, you are on your way to a more glorious Christian life than you can ever imagine. I did it because I WAS a Arminian, Dispensational Baptist. Why don't you?

But a Baptist doing work for Romanists? We all, Baptists, Romanists, Presbyterians, Methodists and whatever you happen to be are all centered on one thing and one thing only: Jesus Christ (3). Christ, despite the differences which separate us, will use us to bring us together, one day. All are united in Christ, are we not?

I think this film is wonderfully inspiring comedy.

--------------------------------
(1) "Catholic" means "universal," thus I am a catholic Presbyterain, my parents are catholic Baptists. "Catholic" is in the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed to name a few. So to keep "catholic" a Roman Church thing is wrong, don't you agree?

(2) www.chalcedon.edu, www.americanvision.org, www.ligonier.org, www.reformed.org.

(3) Muslims, Hinduists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and all their ilk are not centered on Christ.

Cromwell (1970)

2005-09-21T17:51:00.000-07:00

I own this film. Am I glad I did own this film?

I read (before my stroke) a biography of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England. It was a rather thick book, but I was accustomed to reading such works as those that interested me. This one did! When I finished reading the work, I was amazed that the movie was so accurate. Of course, it all had to be compressed into a 145 minute time slot.

Richard Harris played Oliver Cromwell, and now he should be turning over in his grave to have played a man devoted to God. The actor played a man that was the bringer-in of a republic, if only for a short time when he died.

Alec Guinness did a marvellous job portraying Charles I. His stuttering made it almost worth the price, if such would be given because I own the DVD! If I recall, he even looks like Charles I. I wish Charles I had given over to Cromwell and been the king that Cromwell (and I) wanted.

Now in a nation like ours, would there be but a Cromwell that stood for things. We now stand for a UN army that holds sway over our army that once stood for God, Family and Republic. I know, I know, the UN army hasn't taken control of our army, but isn't that the way through, to take control a little at a time? The President has not done a thing about it. He doesn't do a thing because his nation is so messed up with abortion, illegal immigrants and such as that, that he had better wake up or he shall go down the hole of doomed leaders of our country. I can say that for I didn't vote for him, but a third party that stands for what Cromwell stood for.

Timothy Dalton plays the kings nephew. Everybody did a fantastic job portraying the part. Ken Hughes, the director did a good job. He also did Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang a couple of years before!

So am I glad I own the films? Absolutely! It stand almost alone as the most God honoring film that has ever come from the port of Hollywood.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

2005-01-19T13:04:00.000-08:00

I can’t help it, I love this film. I wish that I had it! I checked this film out at the library. I think four hours or more I have spent viewing the directors profile, the making of the film, cartoons, newsreel, a whole host of things to watch. Yes, I want this film!

Of course it was a flop when it came out, but since has made it one of the all time great motion pictures. Back then, one of them is the fact that no one made such a downer film! I mean, Bogart gets killed at the end. “I thought Bogart lived,” says the old timer.

Bogart plays Dobbs, a downed fellow who gets up a two men to go gold prospecting. Once gold is found, Dobbs gets more suspicious of the other two. Of course, the two of them don’t have anything to hide. Dobbs is more and more consumed with greed which eventually kills him.

The greed of gold prospecting is enough for anybody to think twice about leaving it lying around. What would you or I do? Maim or even kill for it? Horde it to ourselves? Give it away?

What greed strikes me? I mean, I have a stroke and can’t get a job so what covetousness sometimes befalls me? DVD’s? Household chores? Spendings the right amount of time with my sons, with my wife? These are all governed by the Bible, by God’s Word (yes, DVD’s included, just translate that by attending a play or some other fun, despite what benefit comes out of it).

Say, what makes me think greed is a bad thing, as some people think. Sure, we have laws against it, but “they are written by men,” right? Men change their minds, right?

I think I, for one, would rather keep God’s Law, not men’s.

What do you get greedy about? Work? Family? Capitalism? Some charity or even a church? What about giving work a rest and taking a respite?

Greed is a part of everyone. You don’t have greed? Then the pride of life is your greed. Dobbs got killed, but the other two when on, never greedy as far as gold was concerned. What are you, Dobbs, or his compatriots?

Yes, “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” is quite a good film, wouldn’t you say?

"Band of Brothers", Steven Speilberg, a Jew

2005-01-13T13:48:00.000-08:00

Some people are really irrate over Speilberg, saying that not only do they not go to his films but, in several particular cases, any Jew should be castrated and the Jews would die off. Is this the Christian view as a few suppose?

Let me start by saying that Hollywood, during the pre-ratings day, released the films based upon a Christian worldview, subject to a ratings board that was Roman Catholic but still had their finger on the pulse of the people; they still knew that we were Protestants. Do you know the producers, most of them? They were Jews! Jews that made a buck from the protestant cinema going public. Why?

Micheal Medved, a radio talk show host, is a Jew, yet he gives "The Passion of Christ" high marks (http://www.eyeonentertainment.net/id1.html). (I wish to write a blog on that.) I heard on a show of his that we, a Christian Nation, had given them the freedoms that they so desired. They would not trounce our freedoms in the founding of this nation. That is why.

Christians have couched the Jews, one day hoping to lead them to Christ. Romans 10:1 says "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel (the Jews) is that they may be saved," (NKJV) and that after the Resurrection! Read chapter 10 and 11. Paul, the writer of Romans, was a Jew. Even Jesus Christ was a Jew. Our Savior wanted to get back to basics, restoring our love for God.

The Ten Commandments and all of the laws which extend from them, all written in the Word of God, the Bible, does NOT say "kill the Jews!" Maybe some works written in recent days say that, but not Scripture! I mean, Hitler a Christian? Come on now! Hitler was against Christianity, choosing to go into the occult.

I must, yet again, stop the post by these people. God's Law does not say kill the Jews. It says that for murderers. Did the Jews have Christ crucified? Yes. So did the Romans, so did all of us. Christ died for the world, not a select group of malcontents, which I am closing the access to the blog.

Remember, Jesus came first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. The book of Romans in the Bible was writen after the Ressurection and Ascension. God had Paul write "has God cast away His people?" (Romans 11:1) the Jews of which Paul was one? "Certainly not!" concludes that verse.

Again, He died for the world, not the world minus Jews!

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

2004-12-28T18:51:00.000-08:00

I've seen it. My family saw it. Twice we saw it on opening day this December 22nd. Do I think it is good? Would it be included on the website if it weren't good? We all as a family finally agreed on something which has to do with movies: get the DVD! That is the reason I am writing this because nothing is here except DVD's I own (with one exception: Amistad).

When, at the beginning of the movie -- and the tin-type of the opera house is marvellous itself -- they begin raising the chandleer, the full orchestra in one low tune says it all. I got goose bumps, and I am not kidding!

The Director is derided for spending too much time with decorating the set and not enough time directing the actors. Both, in my humble opinion, are well directed. What if he spent alot of time on the set decor. I mean, it's about an opera! Opera's are rich looking, so why can the film look any different?

The Phantom is dreadful as far as singing, or so it seems. After all, I think he is the Angel of Music, and teaches Christine. Christine is one marvellous vocal talent, so why not the Phantom? Could the scar tissue have anything to do with it? Christine's was the voice, and he the talent that gave that voice the aria that it deserved, no matter where his voice happened to be. Gerard Butler as the Phantom turned into a good performance.

The story line follows such movies like Lon Chaney, Sr. in the silent version. The Phantom was much like The Elephant Man, Joseph Merrick. They suffered from a misunderstanding that the public gave them during the Victorian Era. The public thought, I suppose, that they were jokes that God had created. The Phantom was caged in his early days, and you could see him at a price! Like Merrick, it was good to have someone come along that had a proper view of them and thus, a proper view of God.

God placed these people here to test us, to see if we should help them or harm them. I, for one, choose to help them.

That is the way The Phantom of the Opera ends, with hope for the underlings.

The Mission (1986)

2004-11-24T15:04:00.000-08:00

"The Mission" is truly remarkable! I have seen it before and I must have it. Contrary to the email that I saw on Amazon.com, it is filled such hope when the children at the very end of the film go out and start a new village, to take the Word of Christ and raise a family by it. It is interesting how Jeremy Irons did not get followed but DeNiro's character did. The Jesuits, following Irons, and suffering from a lack of true Biblical knowledge (love and might aren't to polar opposites, instead God is a God of love and God of wrath) and sadly did not see a better day coming, even if it takes many, many years to do it!

Funny how the ones who represent Spain and Portugal, along with the priest who sentenced the work of God to cease, are like the three mousekateers. I say "mouse" because they are rats, scurrying about, eating what they may, all the while storing up the wrath of God.

DeNiro died a patriot's death. The little boy, who took the boat with all those children, knew this.

I really want this film, both discs (as the two disc edition comes with). I saw this film many times on VHS, which means it was cropped significantly (1.85:1 instead of the standard TVs version of 1.33:1).

Band of Brothers (2001)

2004-11-21T21:12:00.000-08:00

Was this a good film? When everything compares to it as far as WWII films, is this a sterling piece of celluiod? I can say this, when everything in Hollywood is held up to one another, this film, ten hours in length, holds up not only as a good blockbuster, it certainly is qualified as that, but a good, historical record of the 101st Airborne Division during WWII.

Every episode is phenomenal. All directed by different fellows, Tom Hanks himself directed the fifth segment. I think one of the best - and this is just me, nobody else - is the seventh episode, “The Breaking Point.” In it, two guys have their legs shot off (each one with now only one leg). They both lived, but you can imagine the pain and anguish they must have felt. Not only were they not allowed into the regiment anymore, but hours upon hours of heart-breaking news that not only were they not going to have a leg anymore, but all the physical training that has to come to! I know because I have a stroke and am still going thru physical training as we speak. To not allow them to go into battle with their chumbs is like me not engaging my buddies in one upmanship or anything else for that matter! Never again! I must find something else to occupy my time with.

It is also, the same episode, of Spears. A more stalwart hero you can never find (other than Winters, the leader of the 101st). Spears is seen rushing head onward and back again thru German lines.

The language is this film is a lot better than, let us say “Saving Private Ryan.” Strange, though, how that was made by the same people, Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg. Could they be right on the money how the language has not changed in 60 years? I think not.

Remember, this was back in the forty’s, not today. In the forty’s they’re was enough Christianity in the air that a whole troop wouldn’t have done that. Sure, there was liberty's taken even in the service, but not as much as this movie would have us believe. Even in the fifties they were still adding to the Pledge of Alligiance and the coinage certain phases that has God at its center. I am sure that these soldiers came from a background such as this.

Beside the language, there is a scene in “Why We Fight” that makes my skin crawl. What is it? Early in the film, let us say five or ten minutes, a guy and a girl are in the throws of esctasy and the girl has her breasts exposed. It only lasts 10 or 15 seconds, but the damage has been done.

Why? It is the Seventh Commandment not operable, “You shall not commit adultery?” You just looked at a woman in the moment of esctacy (the man is just as guilty, more so). Well, what about the Sixth commandment, “You shall not murder?” We just spent around ten hours surrounded by murder don’t you think? Yes, but one thing strikes me: it was the murderous Nazies with their question of the Jews, Poles and everybody else that didn’t “measure up” to their standards, as low as they were. We, the Americans, Britons and the rest of the Allied, were defending their cause (and we too as a result of the travesty of Pearl Harbor). But the question of adultery and its step-children of homosexuality, incest, pedophilia and such (all Biblical commands), though we don’t have to step into. Yes, it happened, sadly, but we don’t have to be aquanted with that, right?

Otherwise it is a very, very good -- no excellent film. Anyone aquainted with WWII should get this film. It shows you how the sacrifice of one (America) could win the salavation of the whole world. Strange how that sounds like the purpose for which Christ came, doesn’t it!

The Flight of the Phoenix (1965)

2004-11-20T14:29:00.000-08:00

I dusted my “Flight...” off and watched it again, seeing that there was another one coming out. I wanted to see how this measured up to it. I have not seen the newer version, but with James Stewart, Richard Attenborough, Hardy Kruger, Ernest Borgnine, Peter Finch, George Kennedy and a few other stars, as well as Robert Aldrich directing, what can go wrong!

Nothing!

Will the new release stand up to such an outstanding film? Hopefully.

It is about a crew and passengers on broad a cargo-like plane who crash in the desert and rebuild one with the leftover parts. The passengers are a motley crew, made up from Dapper Dan to you-don’t-have-your-head-screwed-on. What happens to each is a treat to study, especially Stewart as the pilot and Kruger as the aircraft designer. Those two are at each others thoat until the very end.

I especially like the quote from James Stewart when he says “I supposed the guy with the slide-rule and computer will rule the world one of these days.” So true. So true!

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

2004-11-08T21:11:00.000-08:00

Do you like the ocean waves? I do. I listen to them at least twice or three times a week as I go to bed. Of course, I have them all recorded on CD but that doesn’t matter. I go to sleep with visions of waves and frigates on my mind.

This is a very good, no, excellent film. One that should be owned by everyone (if that isn’t a good plug for the movie I don’t know what is!) The shipping terms as they existed back during the 1800’s are seen throughout the film. Along the way one frigate chaces another, scenes of dying and heriocs are all plenty, and a scientist (the doctor) gets a look at the wildlife on an island. One thing after another comes aboard this ship it is no wonder that it is called “Surprise!”

The only thing I have against the film is a muttered f-word, the others spoken as they were in the 1800’s by a His Majesty Warship with Christianity boiling throughout England (in a good way), through true, never should be heard. I go to a motion picture to be lost, to enjoy whatever flick I happen to see, not to bring myself down with the Law of God being broken. Yes, there are films which bring you down, but are in keeping with the Law of God, not agin’ it!

I have this film in my library (as I do everyone of those I review, or blog) and I would recommend you to have it too!

Pearl Harbor (2001)

2004-11-08T20:50:00.000-08:00

Thrity or so years ago “Tora, Tora, Tora” splashed up on screen and it was historic because it tried to tell it the way it happened. “Pearl Harbor” tells a rudementary tale and no more. Watch the former to gain some history credit and watch the latter for special effects because it continues to amaze even me!

The cinematography (the position of the camera) looks outstanding, even the scenes which the bullets are not flying! The editing is subperb and the direction is right-on except for two things: a little more historical accuracy, and not too much on the love story. Yes, a love story but not too much, which is what we have here. Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, girl chooses another boy, first boy shows up, girl is in a quandry, second boy dies leaving the first boy rein to corral the girl. In other words same old story but told in over-blown fashion.

However, the Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle raid on Japan are told, not historically minded, but interesting and mind-blowing when the special effects are brought in! I can’t believe the computer did all of that but it did (most of it). I was grabbed 1:30 minutes into the film by a bomb being dropped to the U.S.S. Arizona. I couldn’t believe that I was looking at a computer screen because the whole scene looked real!

It frustrates me that, once I have purchased the edition I did, they come out with a different one with added footage and a whole lot of behind-the-scenes stuff. I will one day watch it, but not buy it. Somebody ought to tell the marketing people that I, for one, am not made of money!

We Were Soldiers (2002)

2004-10-26T01:03:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of foul language both blasphemous and vulgar. Why? I know they said it and still say it in the battlefield; and I know certain names of people, or the nick-names, have foul words in them and I am not talking about that. Shouldn’t our ears be shielded from the repeated and repeated foul words? Doesn’t Scripture say anything about that?

“Nor should there be obscenity,
foolish talk or coarse joking,
which are out of place...”
Ephesians 5:4

I think so. Why didn’t the filmmaker who brought us “The Passion,” Mel Gibson know that? Okay, he is a Roman Catholic of the more traditional service. But still from my perpective and what I feel to be Scriptural Mel should have known better despite the director Randall Wallace insisting that it get put in there.

Did “The Great Escape” ever do that? How about “The Bridge on the River Kwai,” “The Guns of Navrone,” or even “Lawrence of Arabia"? Did such language exist in WW2 or earlier? Yes it did but you didn’t suffer under the films did you?

No. Then why do we allow such foul words be said? The movie industry demands it? Or do we demand it? We, the movie going public, demand it and look at all the foul words we have here on a daily basis!

Still it is a good film if you can get past the foul language.

We were husbands? Yes, they accomplished that in the film. I was most struck by their wives delivering the telegrams stating that their husbands were dead. My heart was sad. We were fathers? Yes. We were soldiers? Most definitely. Even faith has a stay in this film. (Of course it is a Roman Catholic faith with heavy dependance on Mary, but I think my ears are so sensitive to the use of Mary I am surprised that she gets mentioned by my clan at all, such is my background in Baptist and Presbyterian talk. Yes, I think they mention her name a lot, but when you come to a horrible battlefield with death all around you who gets mentioned? God and His Son Jesus Christ!).

Is this a good film? Is this a better film? I think, despite the foul words, it is probably the finest film that was ever made. It made you feel good about Americans. It even let you feel good about the Viet-con though they were heathen enemy. The Americans though had better equipment and a better reason to fight. The American Nation was a Christian nation fighting against the heathen. But both sides received casualities, both received there dead.

They fought and died not for county or their flag. They fought and died for each other. Oh, so true!

That is what I think. Do you?

Deep Impact (1998)

2004-10-25T20:19:00.000-07:00

A re-make of George Pal’s “When Worlds Collide” made in 1951. Like the first one it took the Biblcal story of Noah’s Ark and made it for today. At least that is what the filmmakers want you to believe. Did either film measure up to God’s standard?

In “When Worlds Collide” we have the destruction of the whole earth with only a spaceship (ark) when all of its passengers and animals escaping. True to the telling of Noah’s Ark and we get pretty much what God intended.

Is “Deep Impact” just as accurate? Does the earth melt away? A portion of it does in a tidal wave but the earths inhabitants, most of them, do live. Is that a true telling of Noah’s Ark? No! It has a lot of the elements there, the line of animals two by two (funny how they missed seven by seven too since that is, partly, how it occured, but the older film missed that), and the allusions drawn from scripture used by the President but it is because the living inhabitants of the earth are still there!

However...

Unlike the first one this has a Messiah. It is the name of a spaceship taking the crew up to see if they can nuke the comet. Of course they can’t. Or can they the second time around? That is what they do but each individual on that ship loses his or her life. They lose their lives for a good cause though.

So in a sense “Deep Impact” has more to tell of the Biblical story than the “When Worlds Collide.” It tells the story from the New Testament of the final Redemption, the Messiah Jesus Christ!

Of course they leave out the Resurrection but so do a lot of Baptists, Methodist and, yes, Presbyterians since they so seldom mention it in their sermons. We need to start mentioning that and see how things in this world change for the better!

Is “When Worlds Collide” more accurate than “Deep Impact”? “Deep Impact” tells a further Biblical story but leaves out the Resurrection so I can say both are pretty much Biblical history but for that one caveat.

It is the “beyond,” the Resurrection, that I want!

The Best Years of Our Lives -- 1946

2004-10-21T13:02:00.000-07:00

I can’t help it, I like this movie!

Number one is because this is a World War Two film, at least it concerns three fellows as they get used to live after the war. It was made in 1946, the year following the war to end all wars. It is quite telling how the three guys all end up after such horrors. Especially one of them as he ended up without hands.

The one who ended up without hands, Homer was his characters name, really did in WW2. Quite unlike the movie he lost his arms while training paratroopers when some TNT exploded in his hands while he was still stateside. I think I most identified with his character. I am starting to come out of my depression just as he did, a depression made by not what others thought of you but what you thought of yourself. Handless or a stroke pretty much hangs you for a handicapped person. Are you going to be handicaped the rest of your life, or try and grow out beyond the handicaped status and excel in the world which God has made?

The “Best Years...” never got into conversations about God but underneath it all God was orchestrating all thinks according to His will and power. It ended the film with Three stories told with heartfelt tenderness, all very good.

By the way, out of all three guys the one who ended up surviveing was the one with no arms, Harold Russell. He died in 2002. Dana Andrews died in 1992, Fredric March died in 1975.

We all die. It’s all in how you live. The Director and Producer of this film when through great lenghts to see that all the positions where filled with WW2 veterans. 1946 is a long way off from 2004 but the tale it told was a magical one.

I don’t own this film but I want to own it one day. There is the DVD that has an interview with Teresa Wright, the younger girl (or woman) in the film, that is the one that I want, not the older copy which I ended up with at the library.

Amistad -- 1997

2004-10-14T23:55:00.000-07:00

"Who we are is who we were," quoting Anthony Hopkins in his role as John Quincy Adams. Hopkins or Adams says that we look our forebears, the Washingtons, the Jeffersons, the Franklins and what did they believe? Does Dreamworks, the producers of this film know what our forebears believed? Does Steven Spielberg know what they believed? At least Spielberg must know being that the Jews recieved such acknowlegement in our court systems much less the Africans?

Alas they do not. Why do I say that when Hollywood turns out to create something historically accurate? Far too many films are decidely not historically accurate, so "Amistad" stands a test of whether it is or is not history in the making.

First of all, let me say that the Amistad event really happened and the results were correct. Is the film accurate? Yes and no. Yes as far as the decision is concerned and yes somewhat to the major players, but no as to how the events led up to that.

Were Christians like that dressed in black and white, mumbling and a minority in this flegeling nation called America? Then what are all the Scripture upon the walls of the government buildings in Washington D.C., what of the charters and declarations and constitutions of the various States about but one Lord and governor of all and that Jesus Christ? Yes, it all exists! Christians were the majority and they did wear colors to attend court or church services.

Now the African takes a liking to the Holy Bible. Did Cinque take the same liking? He looked on with the fellow but it says nothing about him becoming a Christian and traveling back with several missionaries. See http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/amistad/AMISTD.HTM

The Northerners have one up to the South in displaying the entire thing about racism. Gen. Lee and Stonewall Jackson would not agree with this film in playing the Yankee end. See below "Warriors of Honor."

Do I own this film in my collection? I cannot due to the reasons given above. If Amistad were made correctly then I would be happy to own it, but "who we are is who we were," is not to be found in this picture with such a demeaning mood about Christians.

Somewhere in Time -- 1980

2004-10-12T23:15:00.000-07:00

My wife and I saw this film when it was released back in 1980. It was the year that we had married. What a glorious and telling movie for a young couple to see. Now twenty-five years later I have got it on DVD. I watched it and it is still the most beautiful love story one can imagine!

It is a love story that transcends time itself because it does span the gap from 1912 to 1979. The ingenius way of doing time travel was marvelous. Mr. Reeves (he died just this weekend) just puts everything out of his mind and focused on 1912 because of the love of his life was from this time. When one considers God and how He created time (because time was just that, a creation) one can somehow feel very comfortable with the fact that time travel is possible. Will we ever travel in time? I don't think so, but who knows, right?

When Reeves reaches the catatonic state at the end of the movie (you must see the film if you have not already) it is very telling because now I had a really bad stroke almost four years ago. A stroke, as with any illness, can tell you what you have missed or gained through this. In my case it was slow in coming since my brain wasn't working properly (and still isn't but alot of it was gained back with time). My wife and I never had a chance to do the things in the film because I didn't have time, or so I thought (yes, it was just me and not my wife; miserable and horrendous me). Now with half a body and no work how can I do the things that Christopher Reeves did?

Somewhere in time will tell!

The Black Stallion -- 1979

2004-10-11T13:20:00.000-07:00

A more beautiful film is hard to imagine after this! Carroll Ballard directed this one (his first film) with as much panache one can visualize.

The first half of the film is a play for the sound effects engineer because after the first five minutes of dialogue there is not a word spoken. A little boy befriends a horse upon this topical island (which, unfortunately lost his dad on the ship as it went down). The photography is stupendous not only the island but the boy and Blacky (a name that the boy, actor Kelly Reno, came up with).

The second half is just as beautiful as it displays a town which he and his horse is rescued to. He (Blacky) winds his way to a farm, a stable where a jockey lives. Mickey Rooney never plays finer in this role. Eventually he (Mr. Rooney) wakes up to the fact that the Stallion can run. And runs it he does, all the way to the races where Blacky runs the two best horses in the league.

How did he come out, winner or loser? I know you know but wait until you see the film!

Warriors of Honor -- 2004

2004-10-11T11:20:00.000-07:00

“...not what happened, but what people believe what happened which determines the present action of a Nation,” so says the narrator. How many people know that General Lee and Lt. Gen. Thomas Jackson were not for slavery but knew that the cause of the South was justified? This fact sticks in the crawl of the NEA. The North won the war and I suppose won the rights to the text books which our children read from. What facts fly by without getting so much as a mention in the text books or magizines or even the movies. They fly in one ear and out the other, never the twain shall meet!

Jackson started a Sabbath day-school for the black population. Yes, Jackson was a Christian. A Presbyterian one at that (we are Presbyterian).

Gen. Robert E. Lee was a Christian too. A more stalwart, God-honoring general you will never find unless it be Jackson. He too was never for slavery.

Quite different is our thinking today. We are naturally repulsed by the idea of slavery, but the anti-slavery movement was beginning and still had time to work out all of its arguments. Lee and Jackson suffered with this understanding, not the one we have today.

There is a good mini-documentary on slavery. It shows that the North was quite into it and I suppose it is possible that they were the leaders of the slave. For instance, when the slaves were brought over from Africa to America, where were they dropped off, in the Southern states or the Northern states? That is right, the Northern. Plus the Emancipation Proclamation had to do with the Southern states only, not paying mind to the Northern states who were inundated with slaves.

“Warriors of Honor” kind of helps set things right when you have so much right about the War Between the States but most all of them (most) are wrong when it comes to slavery (even when it comes to what is said by the Confederate Vice President; the North was guilty of the same thing). The bloodbath that it was over States Rights,the rights that States have over the encroaching Government, to say "No!" if it came to that, not over slavery which we today find repugnant!

My Fair Lady -- 1964

2004-10-11T10:58:00.000-07:00

Okay, I own the VHS video, not the DVD one. Hopefully though I will own the DVD one with the picture and sound quality excellent.

So what this film about for me? Well, I think for one that, although Higgins has a good corner on the market as far as the job he holds, he hasn’t a clue how to act when it comes to being a good husband. Of course why should he since he hasn’t a wife! A wife is the furtherest think from his mind. To speak a good syllable is at the forefront of his way of thinking! “Why can’t a woman be more like a man!”

And what of Miss Doolittle? Her she is selling flowers not in a florist shop but along the street where scalawags and guttersnipes are to be scampering about. She has a clue, dropped of by Higgins, that she could be a florist in a flower shop. So Miss Doolittle hires Mr. Higgins to do just what he said. But when she shows up after the ball the ragtag flower sellers don’t even recognize her! She has been brought up by Higgins so far that, in her quandary, she doesn’t know what to do!

Higgins can’t understand that. Wouldn’t you know it but they end up falling for each other!

The story, the music and lyrics are superb as well as Rex Harrison as Mr. Higgins and Audrey Hepburn as Miss Doolittle.

A slice of life if ever there was!

What did I think of it from a Christians point of view? Despite what amounts to Higgins spouting foul language (there isn’t a whole lot but it is there) I think two little lovebirds can have a wonderful time because it is about a marriage in the making! Just what I told you about earlier in this post.

A Best Picture (Oscar) bar none (well, for that year at least!)!

Prince of Eygpt -- 1998

2004-10-08T13:51:00.000-07:00

Is it true to the Biblical account? Yes and no. At the beginning of the film we read the words that it is an "adaptation" of the story and "artistic and historic licence has been taken." So is it true that the account of Moses is not there? " The biblical story of Moses can be found in the book of Exodus," so says the first moment of the film. I would say yes with reservation.

The cartoon style is gone I believe. Instead, one can imagine what it was like during that time. The use of computers to do some of the imaging of it is astounding! One can only imagine what it was like for Moses on the Red Sea opening the waves -- so spectacular!

Musically it is nothing short of stupendous. Composer Hans Zimmer did an outstanding job. I think I can stand there and sing or hum the tune so great was his score.

I have a couple of favorite moments in the film I want to share with you. When Moses approached the burning bush God spoke to him. Never had I ever experienced God speaking to me like that. It is so awsome and fantastic.

Then when Moses comes up to the Red Sea God speaks to him again more magnificently. The waves parting, the sea creatures looking at those strange people, all with Zimmer doing what he knows best -- an arousing theme that God would be proud of!

So does this film honor God when death and destruction are all around us? When the first time where we find ourselves thinking about Him in this film we praise and glorify His name. I think that is a film which magnifies and honors God, don't you?

Blast from the Past -- 1999

2004-10-08T13:28:00.000-07:00

"Blast from the Past" is a rip-roaring tale about a family in the '60s thinking that they are under attack by the Russians so they get inside a fallout shelter for 35 years, the time that radiation is dissipated, at least so says the father, Christopher Walken. The son, Brendan Fraser, is going up into the real world that is quite different from the world he is accustomed to.

Not only is this a tremendous treat for one who likes past things like the '50s and '60s, but it is philosopically a film that has roots in a Christian worldview. Is this a Christian film? The filmmakers try and have this family, who is Christian, coming into a non-Christian world. I'm sure the director is trying to get us to laugh at this silly Christian family, but not me.

It's a Christian film because the family prays together (and considering what they've been through a little prayer now and then is probably a good thing!), and homeschools (little choice since the public schools are up there in a world of, well, radiation!).

Why does it have to have bad language? This is totally unaccepible except for one thing: The underground family being Christian is a wonderful foil for the unruly mouth.

As far as being Gay is concerned when it comes to the brother, remember this, Frazer has been down in the shelter for 35 years and is familar with gay as a happy state of being, not Sodomy. His "acceptance" of Gay-hood is based upon that, not the perversity of homosexuality which her brother is thinking about.

You might notice that there is a time when they visit a adult bookstrore and stacks of videos line the shelves. Number one, the boxes are grayed out in certain places which is fortunately good, but number two the fact that they went in there to begin with is morally wrong, at least from a Christians point-of-view.

Language is bad but not as bad most films these days. No nudity, no Gay sex, just sexual situations couched in a time where past meets up with the present where some interesting people meet up with interesting circumstances. Christian verses non-Christian, that will wrap it up pretty nicely, don't you say?

Don't Say A Word -- 2001

2004-10-08T13:06:00.000-07:00

A phychiatrist who is about 55 or 60 years old married to a woman half his age? What does he know that I don’t know? What harm is there in a woman who is hovering around his age, thinking what he maybe thinking? I think it might have something to do with the first scene in the movie where he talks to a younger boy about masterbating. He says that everyone does it. Really? Like you know because of a wife who is half your age!

Other than that (it is a clever plot point though) it is quite good except for the language. Of course it is rated R for that reason. It is profanity and I don’t think it is blasphemous.

It is about a girl in the phychiatric ward who knows a number that the bad men want. She is hiding out in the ward because of these men, so they get Michael Douglas, the above mentioned phychiatrist, to get the number if he wants his daugther back (she was taken when they were asleep).

Strange though how the bad guy who is murdering Douglas's wife (she makes it), when he passes by the restroom I noticed some hangings on the wall. Two of them and the one had, I think, was a razor from way back the turn of the century and back even farther. Douglas doesn’t have a irrepressable need to shave has he? What about a fathers or grandfathers and thier irrepressable needs to do the same? Or could it be that this murderer is carrying a knife to get his wife with rather than a gun?

That is what leads you to study the filmmakers journey on this DVD. Of course you don’t have answers to the problems I’ve posed -- or are they there as plot-points. Who knows? Well, the director for one!

X-MEN & X-MEN 2 -- 2000, 2003

2004-10-06T20:41:00.000-07:00

Now how do I write about a comic book? Do comics say anything about the life we are living? Don't books or even magizines say it better? I think the written word combined with a telling image can say a whole lot about life. Art tells us so much about a given culture and what the artist was going through more than books because with books you leave it up to the reader of the page. Yes, one ends up with the image but is it yours or someone elses who whispered something in the readers ear? Books have there place but art, movies and comics have theres as well.

First of all, when commenting on X-MEN and X-MEN 2, I am afraid it turns me off at the very beginning of both films (we shall just call them X-MEN) is there dependance upon evolution. The world is an evolutionary one. Science can made no claims on such principles as evolution. It isn't a fact, nor is it a theroy. What, pray-tell, was alive way back then when the universe was founded? At least God has given His Word in the Holy Bible. So the concept of the X-MEN is vacuous.

Second, its purpose is that all have a reason to live despite what we feel. Humans and mutants alike are of infinite value, at least that is the message of the mutants. Is it true? Yes, in Scriptural terms it is. White, yellow, black or whatever color you happen to be is allowed life. The beliefs that we hold dear to us are worthy of life. Now one might question some of the beliefs are in doubt, like murderers or pedophiles or homosexuals. Are they worthy of it?

God says they are not worthy. So do we simply seek to kill any of them? No! According to Scriptural principles we are directed to the police force or the Government to redress those evils. We are not to do it period. So what happens when a murderer is released or set up for a lifetime prison sentence? We pray and constantly plead with the Government to murder them so that all could have the privilege of a life of peace.

If the X-MEN is saying that, then I agree.

(Mystique would be better served if she put her clothes on rather than have those sparse doohickeys spattered over her blue body).

Joe versus the Volcano -- 1990

2004-10-06T16:57:00.000-07:00

It is strange how I like this film. I think it's funny as well as insightful. Funny because that is how its made, as a comedy. Meg Ryan did a admirable job playing three roles. She played the first with her hand tight like a fist and her last like her hand was open. That tells you something about her character, and should be telling you about yours! Tom Hanks did an excellent job playing a character whose illness is, for all intents and purposes, hypocondriate. That isn't the case though as he grows up to be the man that he should be.

Insight too as the rectal probe business which begins the film stays with him thoughout. The whole from the beginning to the end of the film is one big rectal probe thinking that it will hopefully turn you, the viewer, inside out, looking on the inside of yourself! Very insightful wouldn't you say? Everything about this film underneath this heading (the probe heading) causes you to think things differently.

It is srange too how Joe, near the end of it, the most mature, come away with a vision of the moon and how insignificant we are our when compared to Gods glory. That is right. Joe gives the glory due His Name!

When you get a chance to watch this tell about it. Tell me about how funny it is. Tell me also about how insightful, how rich it is, how many double-entendras it has. Yes, tell me about what you came away with.

Lawrence of Arabia -- 1962

2004-10-03T20:27:00.000-07:00

"Who are you," which is said by the motorcyclist just before the Intermission. We get a glimpse of T. E. Lawrence though marred by the film. Exceptional marring to be sure! Who is Lawrence? Yes, it showed how he became a hero to the British and Arabs. But who he is in his inner man. He didn't get married. He didn't have time! He was British army all the way. Oh sure, he for a time was Arabian but he was and always will be a Brit. In this stage of the military you didn't place women in a military position. They were nurses. Lawrence went in and about men. It was all he new. But more than that, he loved what he did in freeing Arabs. He was always in a military service of some sort, and that before homosexual's were even thought to be in the Army!

What I have a peeve about is the homosexual community talking about T. E. Lawrence being "gay." Nothing could be furture from the truth! When do you ever see a homosexual speak the truth? Sure, they do speak the truth when it forwards thier agenda. The homosexual community are about as sinful as one can get, and that is according to Scripture. Lawrence was "gay?"

The Turks (and Arabs) prided themselves on what they did to their prisoners. They thought that a man, who had lost in masculinity through homosexually, was about as emasculated as you could make him. Lawrence fell prey to their cunning and was forced into it. Lawrence own comments, nor the friends and family never gave root to say Lawrence was a homosexual. From now on he was a changed man, not for the better, not for the worse. Another man had sexually violated him. Did he like it?

Why do you think he had his name changed twice after this homosexual practice was done upon him? Did Lawrence or his com-patriots say that he liked the homosexual practice? Certainly not! Even the young lad he picked in Arabia would not say that, despite what poem (Lawrence was a poet too) he wrote in his honor. The love a man has for another man is not sexual! The kind that is sexual is lust, not love. T. E. Lawrence was a great man.

Was he great due to Christ? I seriously doubt it but who knows. Was he in favor with the Arabs? Yes. That is the reason for not saying he is a Christian. Yes, he was great on earth but he will not be in Heaven unless he turned around the last few years of his life and found Christ. If he did then he will be in Heaven praising God.

"Who are you," is not only asked of Lawrence but you and me. Am I praising God or myself? If myself then I humbly confess my sin. If God then praise Him all the more!