Posted on 01/21/2006 9:18:48 AM PST by bulldozer
Thanks for posting those brief reviews. It is sad that people are so wrapped up in the sexuality of the actor who plays this role that they will not see the movie. That seems to me to be hypocritical.
If the telling of a fine story, as this one is, is the goal, then the personal life of an ACTOR in the film is irrelevant. The film stands on its own merits. Most people will never hear of this ACTOR's off-screen life. Why would they care? On-screen he is Nate Saint, a Christian hero. That is who the movie-goers will see.
Homosexuality may be a sin. It may be abhorrent to many. It is not depicted in this film. There is no homosexuality in the film. There is a homosexual actor playing a Christian missionary whose dedication cost him his life. Feh!
Jesus would go to this film, I'm quite sure. Pity that many Christians won't.
Why a strong group of Christians is terrified about a sinner entering their midst is just beyond me. The devil is the one who should be worried.
As for 'End of the Spear', there are two issues that bother me.
Number one, what self-respecting Christian father would risk depriving his children of one the two most prized posessions of their youth? If this aspect of the movie is supposed to impress me of Christian values, it will fail miserably.
Number two, this movie is going to play right into the hands of the left who will champion it's message for their twisted purposes. It's their claim already that we should not stike out against terrorists as this multiplies terrorism, their claim not mine.
To fail to strike out against terrorists would be suicide. None the less the Steven Spielbergs of the world think movies like Munich tell us what we should know.
The end of 'End of the Spear' may be worth the journey. I do see some glaring problems with the flick.
Probably the most offensive aspect of this brainless drivel. I don't know if it's liberals' false egalitarianism that leads them to redefine the Almighty as the God Dude, or if it's their fear of moral inferiority. But I am so sick of Our Savior being depicted as some surfer at the beach. It's a characterization that hardly bespeaks Splendor and Glory.
"Sadly, this is not true. We don't live in a vaccuum. If our kids want to see this film, and then learn more about the actors, where do we stop them? Where does the information flow end? If they believe the story on the screen, they will likely believe the story being told on any screen, TV, etc."
Incidentally, the lead actor in "Chariots of Fire" was gay...died of AIDS. That did not diminish the movie or the story, though.
How about using a gay actor to portray Gandolf in "Lord of the Rings". Tolkien was a Christian...nobody had an issue with that. Very interesting.
It's about the story, the message, and not the actor, who did a good job, by the way.
Chad Allen had an opportunity to attend bible studies every day (on the set of EOTS). Chad was shown unconditional love and acceptance by Christians on this project. Where else would that have happened to him? Who knows what God intends to do with him, or through his experience here.
"Who have you been listening to? I have never heard it described as anything but sleaze and scorn."
Which one are you talking about. Not the "End of the Spear," right? There's nothing sleazy or scornful about that film. Be more specific, please.
However, I believe people understood that it was the message that was most important. Did everyone check out the personal lives of those involved in the "Passion"? I'll bet they were sinners!
So if Mel Gibson had picked Chad Allen for the lead in the Passion of the Christ, you would have felt that we should simply ignore his lifestyle.
The movie is already in a competition to see who's story will get more widespread play among the public, the movie subject or the gay power activist who was given his platform by the movie. The bigger the movie, the bigger his interview offers by the MSM. Magazines will print his point of view, and newspaper reviews will mention it. I'm not boycotting the movie, but since my enthusiasm for it has had cold water thrown on it , I will wait for the DVD.
It's not all bad. It's good for Christianity to know who it's enemies are.
Wide is the gate and broad is the way...
By definition the narrow gate is not in the majority.
Great point! If memory serves, the woman who played Mary had been in several sexually charged roles ncluding nudity. Where was that boycott?
I probably did the post before reading thing. Book of Daniel I was referring to. I have one contact lens I am trying to get use to and it is driving me nut's.
The filmmakers are Godly men. You do not know them, and you don't know God's purpose in putting Chad in this position. Incidentally, we didn't know God's purpose in allowing 5 Godly missionaries to die in 1956....but He has used that to inspire millions and draw them closer to Him.
Thanks for the insight, might be worth a look.
IMHO, that's a lot more powerful in God's eyes than a Christian film that does nothing but preach to the already saved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.