Got 1/2 way through watching Gravity on my mates i-pad.
Not going too see him untill next week. Bugger.

NamelessFaceless wrote:I watched Eraserhead the other day. It was . . . I guess . . . I don't really know what to say about it. It was a nightmare. Bizarre.

I think I told you that, or maybe I didn't or maybe you thought I did but I really didn't or I did but you thought I didn't or

Onyx8 wrote:

NamelessFaceless wrote:I watched Eraserhead the other day. It was . . . I guess . . . I don't really know what to say about it. It was a nightmare. Bizarre.

I think I told you that, or maybe I didn't or maybe you thought I did but I really didn't or I did but you thought I didn't or

Yeah, I think I recall you saying something to that effect . . .

I just watched J Edgar. I'm gaining more and more respect for Di Caprio as a character actor. He's really quite good.

Interestingly, I just came on the thread to say the same thing, having just watched The Great Gatsby. Absolutely brilliant.

I've liked DiCaprio since Catch Me If You Can, another cracker.

Yes, after Titanic, I thought he was just another pretty boy, and I avoided him, and especially Blood Diamond, which I thought was terrible. Then I saw that one, became interested, and the new Gatsby is way better than any other version I've seen, and I really love Robert Redford, now I'll watch anything with him in it. He's really good.

I enjoyed Blood Diamond...

hackenslash wrote:I enjoyed Blood Diamond...

My DH loved it. I obsessed about the terrible SA accent all the way through, so I couldn't follow the story.

NamelessFaceless wrote:I never watched Blue Velvet because, for some reason, I thought it was a feel-good movie about a horse.

Deep Throat wasn't the Watergate thriller I was expecting either.

I just added it to my Netflix queue, though. I watched Mulholland Drive a few months ago and liked it.

Blue Velvet is a lot more accessible than Eraserhead.

Dune is worth checking out though it's obvious Lynch was hobbled by the studio on that one.

BlackBart wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

hackenslash wrote:I enjoyed Blood Diamond...

My DH loved it. I obsessed about the terrible SA accent all the way through, so I couldn't follow the story.

Yep, that one too. I love Die Hard BTW.

Lethal Weapon actually.

Onyx8 wrote:Lethal Weapon actually.

Ooops. I meant to say Lethal Weapon. I'm an idiot.

I just watched Hitchcock with Anthony Hopkins and "The Queen." Excellent movie.

Gravity. Here's how it went for me.

** May include vague spoilers **

Hey, astronauts in space. Cool. Is that George Clooney? These visuals are pretty good. Hey, is that Sandra Bullock? I'm pretty sure that's George Clooney. Hmm, these visuals are pretty good. Hey! It is George Clooney! Cool jetpack.

Oh dear! Something bad is happening! Is that Sandra Bullock? Oh noes! Spinning. Lots of spinning! Much spinning. So much spinning. Wow. I'm pretty sure that's Sandra Bullock. Oh, here comes George Clooney! Yay! George Clooney to the rescue! I hope they make it back to the shuttle! Gosh, that jetpack is good, innit?

These visuals are pretty good, I guess. Ooh, lots of bad things did indeed happen. Hmm, it looks like they're gonna have to go across to that thing over there. More jetpack action! Yay! [Time to hit the fast-forward button.]

Right, they're over at the other thing now. Oh my god! It is Sandra Bullock! [Should probably stop fast-forwarding now. Ah screw it.] Yes, that's definitely Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Wow.

The thought suddenly crosses my mind, that I've been skipping over a lot of dialogue, due to my overzealous fast-forwarding. Somehow, though, I don't feel like I've missed out on anything crucial to the story. Hmm. Let's keep going, then. [Continues to fast-forward.]

Hey, where did George Clooney go? Hmm, maybe all that fast-forwarding wasn't such a good idea. Oh! Cool re-entry effects. Yes, that's definitely Sandra Bullock. Meh, I don't have time for this. Ooh! Ender's Game! I've been meaning to see that too...

Spoilers Ahead: Ye Have Been Warned: Since I am sure no one on this site actually is going to care about this film, I won't bother to spoiler this entire wall of text.

So God's Not Dead. Yeah, that movie exists. I liked Fireproof and I actually enjoyed Courageous, once I watched it, but is it just be or have the religious movies this year been really....sucky?

Son of God was the biggest Jesus flop since History channels "The Bible." Made by the same people, I could not tell if it was supposed to be a serious portrayal of Jesus' ministry or not.

Noah comes out next week and it looks like a typical blockbuster deviating from the Bible to include flashy sequences and make it a movie. Typical Hollywood.

But then we get the low-budget God's Not Dead which Kevin Sorbo claims will convert many atheists. So I watched it, knowing many of the arguments about to be brought forth from both sides if the trailers accurately depicted the film and it did, and I laughed at the stupidity of it more than was compelled to agree with any of the arguments presented on either side.

To begin with let us start with the atheist position. Kevin Sorbo plays Prof. Radisson and he is an atheist professor. This movie loves generalizations and stereotypes by the way; it does so in such a blunt manner. Entering the classroom he tells all his philosophy students that there is no God and that a third of their grade is decided by writing God Is Dead on a piece of paper on the first day of class.

First of all, lol. Second of all, what? While it is true that atheist professors challenge their religious (not just Christian) students to think and critically evaluate their beliefs (as all people honestly should), the role of a college professor is to actually do that. A professor is supposed to push a student's knowledge and critical thinking skills. But while that may be true, a professor is not going to make the decision for the student's. That is so unrealistic it is comedic. There is also the matter that the assignment is bigoted and unconstitutional and no professor would risk tenure giving such an assignment. Again it plays on the evil, atheist professor stereotype and it is laughable throughout the film. Sorbo's character is so....dramatic it is borderline unbelievable how dramatic he is.

Second of all, the reveal of Sorbo having a personal trauma in his life being the catalyst for his "unbelief" (Honestly, this film also failed at understanding the atheist position. Atheists don't hate God. They don't believe in God. There is a difference.) is obnoxious and indeed quite offensive to a good majority of sincere atheists who simply don't believe in God because of a lack of empirical data suggesting YHWH as the one and only God. Instead of addressing the majority of atheist's worldview, they fall onto a generalization which presents a massive strawman argument throughout the film. Atheists HATE God. Therefore they refuse to evaluate the evidence. No. Most atheists don't think there is enough evidence to make a conclusion that there is a God. Basic intro to religion and ethics 101.

Moving on to the Christian side of the film, which is probably even worse. The story is of the persecuted Christian and I grow wearisome of this tale. Jesus made it clear that the church would be persecuted. Making movies like this in which it feels like the church is whining about being persecuted is antithetical to the Christian faith. If Paul or Peter whined about being persecuted it does not show. James, who was executed with other Jewish leaders by Rome, considered a great blessing. Go figure.

So we have this film about the protagonist Josh Wheaton who doesn't agree with his professor. He sets out to prove God's existence, sacrificing his girlfriend, his college education, and his life to "proving to his professor" that God is not dead.

So you would think that is what the film would focus on? Nope. Not at all. It has a million subplots to get through as well.

You have a hardcore vegan who happens to believe in evolution. Of course, a low-budget protestant film would not be complete without a jab at evolution. She suddenly converts when she gets diagnosed with terminal cancer and hears Newsboy's Like a Lion.

You have a Chinese communistic family who are shown to be greedy and actually lesser to the American families. Yes. This film loves its stereotypes as I said.

You have a Muslim family, intolerant of all other beliefs and their daughter defies her parents by converting to Christianity.

The subplots are generic and predictable and offer nothing substantial in the way of showing God is not dead. It relies on both argument from emotion as the score and actor's expressions tried to illicit an emotional response AND an argument from authority as Willie Robertson makes an appearance defending God's existence and if a TV celebrity defends it, it must be true!

To start wrapping this review up: Josh Wheaton presents several arguments as to why his professor is wrong and why God exists. The funny thing is he does the same thing he accused his professor of: circular reasoning. God's real because you cannot prove or deny his existence was the ultimate conclusion. The brief mention of cosmology and science is sure to make professional astrophysicists shake their heads in shame and the argument was poorly delivered and badly written. For apologetics it was neither convincing nor compelling. But because it is revealed that the professor doesn't really, not believe in God, but rather has hatred for God because he allowed something bad to happen, the movie glosses over it and focuses on the major strawman it had erected. That's not a debate, that is a logical fallacy.

This movie could have been great if it dropped its stereotypes and actually focused on the fact that there is a huge and oftentimes confusing debate between God's existence and not. It could have been used to show a tolerance, "Hey I disagree with you, as a Christian, but because God is real, I love you all the same." And the atheist responds, "While I may disagree with you, I admire your intellectual zeal and your attempt to critically evaluate your own faith to discover truth."

That would have made the movie more interesting. Instead we get what is obviously Christian propaganda that would not convince anyone who is serious about their atheistic or even agnostic beliefs.

This critic gives it a 2/5. The acting was decent for a low budget film, and the score was actually beautiful. But the ridiculousness of the story and the fact that it was just a preachy, propaganda film instead of a serious let's deal with this issue film was disappointing.