Post by Paddy by Grace on Nov 21, 2009 12:00:59 GMT -7
Beings I believe in God, I reserve the right to review this movie first in my own forum...lol (and I haven't seen it yet).
I am also going to review this 'review' below for you as I DID read it and I already saw problems there. So here goes nothing...
I already give this movie 5 stars even though I have not seen it for one reason.
1. I love CGI (computer generated special effects)! I have always liked them. Perhaps it started as I was growing up watching movies like this but I still think it goes deeper than that and I hope I can explain.
I started off with SF movies with the same theme. "Earth vs. The Flying Saucers" was horribly titled, and the acting was atrocious, but it was the special effects that got my blood flowing. "When Worlds Collide", "The Day The Earth Stood Still", and "The War of the Worlds", (movie version), captivated me and are my faves and are still in my collection.
As I grew older and wanted more reality, aliens and u.f.o.'s were replaced with reality disaster movies like "The Poseiden Adventure" and "The Towering Inferno". Yet something was missing and I soon discovered what that was. These movies were small in their views; a ship, a building... what about the entire world or universe?
Later, After becoming a christian, I wondered what it was inside of me that still desired these kinds of movies. It kept me bewildered for years yet I still liked them.
Then I got to studying end time theology. I was intrigued at what God had in store for all creation and I realized that this WAS NOT a new movie, but absolute reality yet to come. A reality in the year 2012 is anyone's guess, but only a guess. No one knows the day nor the hour except God Himself. That is where the reality of this movie stops. This WILL happen, but I think this is a human perspective. What I have read in the Bible about the end times is more frightening that anything man can imagine. Making a movie about it would cost more than there is money on the earth! So forget the movie, read the book...lol!
I WILL go see this movie, my faith is in Yeshua though, this is merely a small reality of a very real horror to come.
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/11/2012_a_theological_disaster.html?hpid=talkbox1
Theologians began predicting the end of the world long before Hollywood did, so it's not surprising that "2012," the latest disaster blockbuster, contains more than a few religious images and references. But does Roland Emmerich's box-office hit also qualify as a theological disaster? Several faith-based reviewers are raising interesting questions about the movie's religious implications.
A review by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was disappointed by the film's "theological glibness . . . despite a plethora of religious imagery and references to faith and prayer." ,"What's genuinely disturbing about this disaster movie to end all disaster movies -- even taken as a popcorn flick engineered solely to entertain -- is the almost sadistic way (direct) Emmerich and his computer-generated special-effects wizards kill off billions of people."
A review on Focus on the Family's pluggedin.com is equally troubled by circus-style attentiveness to carnage, but appreciative of numerous Christian references: two characters singing the old Christian hymn "Will the Circle be Unbroken," another character reciting the opening of the 23rd Psalm, and several faith-based nods to the prospect of life beyond this world. This reviewer also liked the emphasis on family bonds, and "the characters' willingness to sacrifice themselves to save others."
A review by Christianity Today wonders why Christians -- and Catholics in particular -- seemed to bear the brunt of Emmerich's wrath: The movie shows both St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and the towering Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio being destroyed, but no Islamic or Jewish sacred landmarks. A Tibetan monk is among the survivors, but "the only Christian clergy shown are the Catholic prelates who die at St. Peter's . . . If Emmerich is going to specifically show the Vatican leadership going down with St. Peter's, I want to see Catholic (and/or Orthodox) bishops among the survivors--somewhere on the planet."
Personally, I think that expecting to find any theological sensitivity from a Hollywood blockbuster is like expecting to find nutritional value in a jelly donut. On the other hand, there's no doubt that Emmerich was aware of at least some of the theological implications of his work.
In an interview before the movie's premiere, Emmerich said the screenplay included the disintegration of the Kaaba in Mecca, Islam's most holy site. "Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit," Emmerich says. "But my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right . . . Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with an Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it's just something which I kind of didn't think was an important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out."
So which is it? Should Hollywood pay more -- or less -- attention to real-world religious values and sensitivities? Should blockbuster movies be theologically correct, or at least religiously neutral? And which will come first? An end to end-of-the-world disaster movies, or the actual end of the world?
OK, my review of THEIR review. I hear alot of whining here. The director used alot of christian images in the movie because Christianity is well known for their end times belief's. I know Islam has something similar with their "Mahdi', (most people do not), but you also know that if we start destroying Mecca or the Dome of the Rock, a group of muslim crybabies somewhere will cry and whine and riot and people will die so lighten up and let them be children. Even the director stated he didn't want a fatwa on his head.
As far as St Peters Bascillica and the large Jesus Statue being destroyed, he probably used them because it had never been done before and wanted to give us new images. Lighten up you catholics and be glad he put you in there at all.
Personally, I thought it was poetic justice to the RCC as they have twisted the bible since the 3rd century and brought more paganism to the "church" than anyone else. Consider this movie the easy judgement, the next one WILL be worse!
I am also going to review this 'review' below for you as I DID read it and I already saw problems there. So here goes nothing...
I already give this movie 5 stars even though I have not seen it for one reason.
1. I love CGI (computer generated special effects)! I have always liked them. Perhaps it started as I was growing up watching movies like this but I still think it goes deeper than that and I hope I can explain.
I started off with SF movies with the same theme. "Earth vs. The Flying Saucers" was horribly titled, and the acting was atrocious, but it was the special effects that got my blood flowing. "When Worlds Collide", "The Day The Earth Stood Still", and "The War of the Worlds", (movie version), captivated me and are my faves and are still in my collection.
As I grew older and wanted more reality, aliens and u.f.o.'s were replaced with reality disaster movies like "The Poseiden Adventure" and "The Towering Inferno". Yet something was missing and I soon discovered what that was. These movies were small in their views; a ship, a building... what about the entire world or universe?
Later, After becoming a christian, I wondered what it was inside of me that still desired these kinds of movies. It kept me bewildered for years yet I still liked them.
Then I got to studying end time theology. I was intrigued at what God had in store for all creation and I realized that this WAS NOT a new movie, but absolute reality yet to come. A reality in the year 2012 is anyone's guess, but only a guess. No one knows the day nor the hour except God Himself. That is where the reality of this movie stops. This WILL happen, but I think this is a human perspective. What I have read in the Bible about the end times is more frightening that anything man can imagine. Making a movie about it would cost more than there is money on the earth! So forget the movie, read the book...lol!
I WILL go see this movie, my faith is in Yeshua though, this is merely a small reality of a very real horror to come.
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/11/2012_a_theological_disaster.html?hpid=talkbox1
Theologians began predicting the end of the world long before Hollywood did, so it's not surprising that "2012," the latest disaster blockbuster, contains more than a few religious images and references. But does Roland Emmerich's box-office hit also qualify as a theological disaster? Several faith-based reviewers are raising interesting questions about the movie's religious implications.
A review by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was disappointed by the film's "theological glibness . . . despite a plethora of religious imagery and references to faith and prayer." ,"What's genuinely disturbing about this disaster movie to end all disaster movies -- even taken as a popcorn flick engineered solely to entertain -- is the almost sadistic way (direct) Emmerich and his computer-generated special-effects wizards kill off billions of people."
A review on Focus on the Family's pluggedin.com is equally troubled by circus-style attentiveness to carnage, but appreciative of numerous Christian references: two characters singing the old Christian hymn "Will the Circle be Unbroken," another character reciting the opening of the 23rd Psalm, and several faith-based nods to the prospect of life beyond this world. This reviewer also liked the emphasis on family bonds, and "the characters' willingness to sacrifice themselves to save others."
A review by Christianity Today wonders why Christians -- and Catholics in particular -- seemed to bear the brunt of Emmerich's wrath: The movie shows both St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and the towering Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio being destroyed, but no Islamic or Jewish sacred landmarks. A Tibetan monk is among the survivors, but "the only Christian clergy shown are the Catholic prelates who die at St. Peter's . . . If Emmerich is going to specifically show the Vatican leadership going down with St. Peter's, I want to see Catholic (and/or Orthodox) bishops among the survivors--somewhere on the planet."
Personally, I think that expecting to find any theological sensitivity from a Hollywood blockbuster is like expecting to find nutritional value in a jelly donut. On the other hand, there's no doubt that Emmerich was aware of at least some of the theological implications of his work.
In an interview before the movie's premiere, Emmerich said the screenplay included the disintegration of the Kaaba in Mecca, Islam's most holy site. "Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit," Emmerich says. "But my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right . . . Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with an Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it's just something which I kind of didn't think was an important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out."
So which is it? Should Hollywood pay more -- or less -- attention to real-world religious values and sensitivities? Should blockbuster movies be theologically correct, or at least religiously neutral? And which will come first? An end to end-of-the-world disaster movies, or the actual end of the world?
OK, my review of THEIR review. I hear alot of whining here. The director used alot of christian images in the movie because Christianity is well known for their end times belief's. I know Islam has something similar with their "Mahdi', (most people do not), but you also know that if we start destroying Mecca or the Dome of the Rock, a group of muslim crybabies somewhere will cry and whine and riot and people will die so lighten up and let them be children. Even the director stated he didn't want a fatwa on his head.
As far as St Peters Bascillica and the large Jesus Statue being destroyed, he probably used them because it had never been done before and wanted to give us new images. Lighten up you catholics and be glad he put you in there at all.
Personally, I thought it was poetic justice to the RCC as they have twisted the bible since the 3rd century and brought more paganism to the "church" than anyone else. Consider this movie the easy judgement, the next one WILL be worse!
