Christmas and Carols.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

I’m not the only one who’s been doing their Christmas shopping this week. Ideally, I would do it at the beginning of the month, but I tend to forget about it till Christmas is one week away.

Anyway, just thought I’d mention that.

I wonder if people really think about the true meaning of Christmas anymore. I’m supposed to read “The Man who Invented Christmas” for my book group, it’s about how Dickens wrote a Christmas Carol.

I don’t think I really think about the Christmas story. I’ve heard it so many time, it goes over my head.

It takes the Charlie Brown special, or a ghostly little book to remind me that the Christmas story has power.

Also those old carols.

If you have ever learned more than the first two verses of old hymns, you know the standards versions are totally ripping us off. Jesus Loves Me has two more awesome verses. And all the Carols are way cooler if you get further in.

I love O come Emmanuel, O Holy Night, and We Three Kings.

And I love the extra verses.

“O come thou wisdom from on high, and order all things far and nigh; to us the path of knowledge show, and cause us in her ways to go.

O come desire of nations bind, in one the hearts of all mankind; bid thou our sad divisions cease, and be thyself our king of peace.”

Isn’t that great?

One other song that improves upon more verse is Little Town of Bethlehem.

That song used to bore me, but when I learned it had three more verses that were very cool, I started to love it.

For example:

How silently, how silently, this wondrous gift is given, as God imparts to human hearts the blessings of his heaven; no ear may hear His coming, but in this World of Sin, where meek souls will receive Him still, the dear Christ enters in.”

What I like about that last line is how it being the song to us, in our modern day. Even though the Christmas story id definitely more celebrated than the Crucifixion, Christians tend to turn to the Cross more for symbolism than for…any other story.

I mean, if you turn on Christian Radio, you’ll hear the cross and death mentioned in jsut aobut every single song.

That’s not wrong of course. But I think the Christmas story had importance as more than just nostalgia.

I wish I kept this in mind more, but it’s like the songs says.

“O holy Child of Bethlehem, descend on us, we pray, cast out our sin, and enter in, be born in us today; we hear the Christmas Angels the great glad tidings tell, o come to us, abide with us, Our Lord Emmanuel.”

If you are not a Christian, or even if you are one and are sick to death of hearing these songs, then maybe it’s sounds like mumbo jumbo.

And for the record, some of it is poetic license. I don’t actually think that we now hear Christmas Angels (unless you’ve had a more face to face experience than I have.)

I doubt there are angels specifically for Christmas, because Christmas, as Dickens pointed out, is not a day, it’s a way of life.

Christmas just means Christ Mass, or Christ Day.

As the song says, “Be born in us today.”

The true meaning of that refers to how Jesus told us that to enter the kingdom of heaven we must be born again.

Jesus Himself was born again, in a way, since he already lived before becoming a baby.

It may sound whacked out, I won’t argue. I don’t think God always intends to sound sane to mere mortals. I don’t think God much cares if we understand how He does things. We don’t understand ourselves.

That it sounds crazy is actually the point. Most people don’t have a problem believing a Man in the brutal times of Roman Occupation in Israel could have been crucified as a heretic. It happened frequently.

But people do have a hard time swallowing that A virgin could supernaturally conceive and give birth to the son of God, made flesh.

Though, when I consider that I’m questioning how the Person who made DNA could make up for the other 23 chromosomes….I feel stupid.

Believing that Jesus was born in a miraculous way is the first step to believing you ca be reborn.

When I was little the idea of Jesus living inside of me wasn’t weird to me at all, now I realize it could sound crazy to some…a lot… of people.

Of course, I don’t actually mean that a man is moving inside of m body. That’s not what it means at all.

But that God puts His own Spirit in us, and it becomes one with our spirit.

Which is actually how it was meant to be in original creation. The reason we say sin is spiritual death is because it severs us from God’s spirit, which is life.

God cannot dwell with unholiness, which is why Christ’s work clear us of our guilt and makes us holy.

Which all started with him being born, not into sin, but blameless.

The miracle of Christmas is that rebirth is even possible. That we all have a chance at being made new.

That’s worth living out every day.

Until Next Time–Natasha (Christ’s Birthday)

Racial Stereotypes and Movies.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

You know what I notice when I watch internet reviews? Most of the ones out there are by more…liberal minded youths.

Youths being subjective, some of them are in their thirties.

But they more to the left, if you know what I mean.

I still enjoy their reviews and get something from them, but on certain issues, they always end up disappointing me by taking the opposite stance from what I would.

A common example would be racism in films (by the way it’s a lot easier to see racism in films than in books.)

A lot of the time it’s just pointed out to make a sarcastic joke, and the observation is not based on substantial evidence that the movie was being racist.

Like in old Disney movies.

Maybe, and I say it with reluctance, Walt Disney did have some racist leanings. A lot of people did in the forties and fifties, even those who wouldn’t have identified themselves as for segregation.

But I might point out his movies were probably one of the first, if not the first, to feature ethnic characters in a kid’s film.

Also, I question whether all stereotyping is harmful.

To a kid, the stereotyping is a lot less about color or speech and a lot more about how the character acts. They won’t recognize singing a certain way as a stereotype. They’ll be paying more attention to whether the character is being good or bad.

And that’s why black is associated with evil and white is associated with good.

Before you get all offended (if you’re the type who does.) Let me further explain.

The black vs white thing has nothing to do with race, as much as certain groups of people would like you to believe it does. It’s all about the contrast between darkness and light.

This goes way back to the Bible itself, along with plenty of mythologies around the world. Darkness, night, underground, etc, is always representative of evil.

Which is not a coincidence or a chance but a deep truth. In darkness you are blind and you lose your way. That’s how you become evil. In a nutshell.

But light, daytime, open air, they all represent truth and goodness.

And we all know the connection there. Freedom and seeing things clearly leads to happiness and goodness.

Plus most people are afraid of the dark as children and prefer the daylight hours.

That villains are traditionally clothed in black or other dark colors is not a racist thing, nor are references to things looking blacker than before. Context, people, context.

Black characters are not often cast as villains anyway.

Which is also called racist, but I think the white people ought to be more offended over this.

why are we always portrayed as evil maniacs who lie, kill, steal, as if it were nothing?

And if this doesn’t bother you, but black characters not being villains does, you have a problem.

Because that’s basically saying white people can be evil and it’s normal, but black people can be evil and it’s special. It makes them important.

How messed up is that idea on so many levels?

Furthermore, if old movies portrayed black and Asian characters as goofy, quirky, and stereotypical, were they any better to white characters?

Couldn’t the whole tea party thing from Alice in Wonderland be called an English stereotype? Could the white rabbit who’s always in a hurry and kind of a milksop be a stereotype?

Actually all the characters int eh movie are white and very quirky.

But if that’s not the best example, what aobut the princess movies?

The only non white princesses are also ones portrayed as more proactive and hardworking and anti damsel in distress. (Pocahontas, Tiana, and Jasmine.) You can argue all day about how their ethnicity as a whole is portrayed, but aren’t they less helpless and docile than Cinderella and Snow White and Aurora; all European.

And aren’t all the white princesses up till Merida stereotypically man–oriented without any power of their own?

Merida and Elsa are still the only real exceptions to this so far.

Am I saying we should come down on Disney for all this? NO.

I don’t care.

I really don’t need movie characters to tell me what my gender should do or be. I don’t see little boys walking around being princely. (Too bad.) If I like identifying with princesses, it’s because something in the idea of it itself appeals to me. Not because i think that’s the embodiment of what a woman should be.

I would find that thought ridiculous.

And I don’t ask movies to define femininity for me. Wonder Woman is just as feminine to me as Cinderella. Because woman are different, and what we share is hard to capture in one film.

Saying that Cinderella or Wonder Woman are the peak of womanliness is as silly as trying to pick between a t\super smart guy or the tough wrestler guy as the epitome of manliness.

Doesn’t a man need both brains and brawn? Don’t most men fall between those two extremes. Or in some cases, are both. (Hi Batman….and most Superhero men.)

And don’t most women have both a tough and bold side, and a demure and beauty loving side.

For me those two sides are inseparable. I can be bold and appreciate the finer things in life simultaneously.

And any movie that says those are mutually exclusive is idiotic.

Just like any movie that thinks it can accurate portray an entire ethnicity is idiotic.

Here’s the rub.

People are all different. A movie portraying an ethnicity can only portray the most well known parts of it, or the worst parts, or the funniest parts, to get so many people to follow along.

It’s not a movie’s place to define a race. Only to use race as a storytelling tool.

It can’t tell you what you are, and how you live. It’s not able to do that. And no one should ask it too.

That’s not to excuse any film that’s using stereotypes just to put people down and dump on one culture or another. Those films are garbage.

But most films are just trying to tell the story using what the majority is familiar with. And that’s true whether it’s an american film portraying English stereotypes, or a Bollywood film portraying American stereotypes. (It happens.)

Whatever. Can I just focus on the actual message?

Those are my thoughts anyway, until next time–Natasha.

Spiderman 3

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

I know I did talk about this already but at the time I hadn’t seen it yet. Now that I have I want to give you my assessment of all the complaints I’ve heard about it.

My assessment is: THE COMPLAINTS ARE STUPID.

I don’t normally just dismiss all the hate a movie gets as ridiculous, but this time, I am.

Okay, okay, to be fair. It was not perfect.

The only part I thought the criticism of the pacing rung true with was the end.

I thought each villain was set up well, but bringing them all together was too rushed, and though it made for an interesting battle, Venom and Sandman’s partnership wasn’t very intimidating or epic. For me it was more about Harry coming through than either of them.

And Harry’s change of heart was…not bad, no, but rushed.  Again.

I put all this up to superhero films not being allowed to be longer than 2hrs+. I mean, they aren’t 3 hrs long ever.

I would say this movie was written as well (for what it was) as Braveheart or Titanic. But those movies had more time to wrap up all their plot devices, and character arcs. This one set everything up flawlessly, but it couldn’t deliver slowly enough.

But I have no real complaints. The timing thing made it weird, but by no means un-moving. I actually teared up when Harry died.

And yes, Peter as one weird nerd. As MJ even says.

 

You don’t like Peter because he’s some dreamboat, hunky, suave playboy…like Tony Stark. (Sorry.) You like Peter for all the opposite reasons. Because he’s dorky and normal-ish. And a good guy despite how many times his heart gets ripped out. And he’s smart of course. (thought hey really down play that in this trilogy.)

It’s a little weird to me to have so much voice-over, with such blatant message giving in a superhero movie. But I don’t think it’s wrong.

IT’s a stylistic choice, and it doesn’t kill the gravity of the moment.

Spiderman 3 is a comic movie and it’s not wrong for it to play out as such. Even the special affects are way more comic book than sci-fi. But that’s why you love it, if you love it.

And at the end of the day, and the movie, it’s not about all that anyway. It’s about the heart.

Aunt May kicks off the message of this film by talking about revenge and how it eats away at you. Which the space mud is a not so subtle representation of. You may not remember in the scene where it latches on to Peter it forms itself first into a goblin shape, and then into a claw-like hand which  goes for his heart.

Creepy. And exactly what revenge does.

I actually appreciate that the movie isn’t pretending like this is a new idea. It’s not. We all know (or should) that revenge is bad. But we also know that Peter never truly dealt with his revenge against the man in the first film whom he thought killed Uncle Ben, and it’s been a stain on his character (at least for me,) I like that they went back to it instead of repeating it never happened.

Peter never forgave himself or the killer for what happened. Sot his movie is not pulling this plot out of nowhere, but actually addressing what they’ve built up to for a long time. Yes, it’s shaky because the guy in the first movie pretty much admits to killing Uncle Ben. I don’t like that, but I sympathize with them wishing they could tell a different story, and knowing that movies are kind of set in stone until they are remade. So they didn’t have a real choice in the matter.

Anyway, not only is the mud symbolic of revenge, but revenge has been the driving force of Harry and his father’s characters since the first movie. So it was gong to be a major part of this one anyway.

And the contrast between how Peter, Harry, and that other guy (Eddie?) handle their revengeful wishes is important.

All three are consumed by it for a time, but we see that with people who’s character started off stronger and more loyal in the beginning can easier throw off their anger an hatred.

Harry, even though h’es mostly a wimp, a crybaby, and a jerk; had his moments of being willing to help MJ and not wanting to kill his best friend.

Those moments of humanity and mercy on Harry’s part show he’s better than his father, who didn’t really resist the goblin’s sway. And also show that he truly felt something for Peter and MJ at one time.

Eddie (?) on the other hand was dishonest and cocksure from the start. It’s not exactly fair to say he was evil; and he had less reason for his actions than Peter or Harry. But the mud was influencing his mind, and he clearly did not have the character to resist.

A brilliance of this plot was having Peter’s revenge and jerkish-ness be verbal as well as physical. And show up in other areas of life. We see how vicious he has become in the club scene with MJ, but it’s enough to make him realize what this has done to him.

That he runs to a church is not a coincidence. He did tell Eddie “If you want forgiveness, get religion.” How interesting that you could read that as “if you want forgiveness in yourself.”

It’s never been hidden that Aunt May is a Christian, and that Peter has been raised with some knowledge of that faith. It shows in a lot of the things he says and does at critical moments in all three movies.

This movie was dark. Peter is a lot less nice in it. He’s starting to get a big head. MJ also does a lot of stuff we don’t love.

But as Peter says, when people have problems, they work through them.

There’s times in our lives when we aren’t so pretty, and we aren’t so loving as we might wish. I’ve had them. You’ve had them. The point is not that we are worse people, it’s nothing out of the ordinary, but that we move on and become better for it. That’s the extraordinary thing.

This movie is also about choice. As Peter says at the end in his narration. All three movies were about having a choice. Peter says Harry taught him that.

But really, Harry just capped it off. Peter had seen that already with Norman Osborne, and Dr. Octopus, and Venom, and his own life.

We have a choice. We can choose to forgive. Even ourselves.

That’s the movie’s message in a nutshell.

–Natasha.

Of Christmas Classics and Childhood Innocence.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

Who doesn’t love old Christmas Classics?

Even though I realize now that there’s a lot of things in those movies that are not explained very well, I don’t think they have to be for the movie to be good.

Actually, I think they make it better.

If you’ve ever seen Frosty Returns, you might recall that Frosty tells one kid that “Some things just can’t be explained.”

And it’s true. I mean, can anyone really explain gravity? Can anyone decide what light is?

 

I don’t know about anyone else, but when I watch Frosty the Snowman now, the nostalgia makes me want to cry.

Because I’m sad for what we have lost.

I love the innocence of these old films. They have songs in them that would never make the cut now. Like the “If you sit on my lap today” Song from Santa Claus is coming to town.

That song is innocent. Whatever might be read into it now.

I am not saying by the way, that we should write songs like that for our modern movies. The problem with losing innocence is that once it’s gone, it’s gone.

You can never un-see or un-know what you know.

It’s impossible for me to forget the threats of terrorism, and drug abuse, and sex trafficking.

And that’s why I would like to encourage any parents our would be parents reading it that innocence is actually a very wise thing to preserve in your child.

It’s going out of fashion now.  The general attitude is that children will have to face reality sooner or later, and hiding it from them is stupid.

And parents who choose to shelter their kids rarely explain why in terms that make sense to those who hold the above view of it.

When parents say they don’t allow their kids to watch or listen to certain things, they usually justify it by saying those things are inappropriate.

But what does that mean? And in the day of gender confusion and school shootings, does that idea have any merit?

I think so.

The way my parents handled the issue was never voluntarily bringing up any shocking behavior. But if I asked about it, they would explain. My dad often more than I wanted to hear. My mom usually more vaguely, because she didn’t like talking about the stuff herself.

My parents used both caution, timing, and natural curiosity to handle the problem of telling my siblings and I about the crud in the world. And that’s the key.

Now that I’m almost 20, I hope I will not be in for too many more moral shocks. (please Lord.) But I am glad that most of the ones I had came when I was over the age of 10.

I am glad I can remember a time when I did not know those things. And that I did not grow up hearing about them all the time. Or that if I did hear, I did not understand, so I cannot remember.

I am glad that I had many years of relative carefreeness.

Why? Because I had no suspicions. I still remember when I could watch a movie and not get the sexual innuendos. Wasn’t’ that great?

I mentioned in my Wonder Woman review that I had the experience later of being horrified to learn about how corrupt people can be. That’s not a fun experience, but I would urge anyone with children not to avoid it by letting their children in on everything without setting boundaries.

Obviously, adults don’t talk directly to children about this stuff (usually) but they let them watch or read things without screening them first. And it adds up.

I am glad to be horrified over sin. It does not make you weak. It is actually a good thing to be sickened by it. To a certain extent. It’s a godly quality. The Lord himself is horrified by sin.

Did you know that there are some sins God does not even imagine us doing? It’s true. It says in Jeremiah 19:5, 7:31, and 32:35 that the sin Israel was committing had not even entered his mind.

God then, is innocent.

You may ask how that’s even possible. And the reason I can think of ties back in to shielding children from corruption.

A pure mind cannot ever conceive the depths a corrupt, sick mind will stoop too. A good man cannot even imagine doing what an evil man does.

The best protection from corruption is to not know about it. Innocence in childhood can be a great foundation fro a strong moral character. Because a child is not ready to process e evil and sort it out from good. That’s why it is the parent’s job to feed them on good things.

I want to make it clear I do not mean parents should pretend evil isn’t real. Children will figure that out no matter how much you try to hie it. What I mean is, trying to give them the best you can and make sure what’s influencing their thinking is a pure as possible. Evil is always evil, and it’s always defeated.

(I recommend A Thomas Jefferson Education for more on how to ease children into knowing evils sometimes wins and preparing them for that harsh reality through their books and movies.)

We are told nowadays that children only grow up with concepts of good and evil because we teach them too. And we are advised to throw away responsibility and treat them like case experiments. Exposing them to all things and letting them decide.

but no matter how hard you pretend it’s otherwise, children will decide based on you. Whether they reject your morality, or imitate it. You will be their guideline. You are teaching them one way, whether you like it or not.

So, why not teach them good, noble things, while it’s up to you. Before friends and school have a stronger grip on them. (Though find the best school you can by all means. And encourage healthy friendships.)

I want innocence for my children because it’s the last part of life that remains a little linked to how things were mean to be. And a child who has that experience will be able to imagine better things more easily than one who only ever saw the darkness in the world.

Irreverence.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

I watch a lot of YouTube, and a lot of movies. This often gives you a look into the worst of humanity (the part of it that’s online.)

Like Furrys, I mean, there’s nothing wrong with liking anthropomorphic animals, but do you know the sick connotations that term has?

I hope not for your sake. But I’ve picked it up streaming through videos.

Anyway, you know what I notice, there’s a growing problem that’s being almost ignored by he folks who comment on this stiff. (Like I am now, I guess.)

Maybe this is familiar to you, some one who thinks they are super funny is going on aobut something, and they throw in some remark against God. (It can even be a non christian God.)

I don’t know about Buddhists, Muslims, or Jews, but this really bugs me when it happens.

The insolent tone these folks use is kind of disturbing.

I won’t defend other gods, but I don’t really think they are something to joke aobut when someone truly believes in them.

Take an example from a movie I recently watched (it wasn’t good, by the way) the main character calls God a racist b—, with no real grounds for it that I could see, and other people in the movie think this is great. And funny. She’s applauded for her…moxie, I guess.

You know what’s celebrated in our culture? Irreverence.

We laugh at it, even applaud. Those who are out of control and insolent to everybody are praised as fearless and independent.

I wish I could say it was just unbelievers. but I’ve seen it among Christians too.

Some of you 40+ readers will remember when it was bad to use the phrase “Oh my God.” or any other cockamamie phrase that threw around God’s name.

Now I hear that all the time in church.

It’s hilarious. kid shows even nowadays will not use that phrase, or words like “heck” or “darn” because it would bother parents, but I hear it in church. Even in Sunday school.

I use darn and heck myself. Because to me, they mean nothing, or nothing important. You darn a sock. Heck isn’t even a real word exactly.

But throwing God’s name around implies that you feel the same way about that word that I do about these two words. That it means nothing to you.

And I’m convinced that for many people, it doesn’t. The idea that God would even take offense to that, if they believe in him at all, never crosses their mind.

It may seem like I’m being judgmental to mind this. But I’m really not. It’s a serious problem, your language reflects your attitude.

Now people will swear up and down that that’s not the case. We all deny stuff. It’s not a spectacular example of human failings. That’s why we shouldn’t buy it. People deny plenty of things that are harmful to themselves and others.

It’s like my cousins who use exclamations like that because their parents do, and they never stop to think what they are actually saying. And their parents learned it from their parents. And so on.

Irreverence is a huge problem because it signals a lack of ability to take anything seriously when it comes to the Spiritual side of life.

The Spiritual may not actually be ridiculous, but as C. S. Lewis pointed out, treating it like it has already been found ridiculous is both lazier than trying, and creates a general attitude of flippancy that ruins morality.

I think it is also possible to take things too seriously, but at this point, the only thing we’re in danger of taking too seriously is ourselves.

So the challenge is, do we need to look at how we talk aobut things and start watching ourselves more closely.

I’m pretty sure I do.

Those are my thoughts for now, until next time–Natasha.

The Encounter

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

Okay, I am going to take a slight detour from my normal review and talk about a Christian movie.

I stay away from reviewing those because I think a lot less people have seen them and frankly, they aren’t usually very good unless they are based on a true story. (Like Soul Surfer.)

That said, there’s a few of them out there worth seeing.

One of my favorites, back in the days when I searched for Christian cinema online, was “The Encounter” and its sequel “The Encounter 2: Paradise Lost.”

I’ll say upfront I think the second one was the better made and scripted, but the first one is what introduces us to the movie’s premise.

Which is, what if Jesus appeared to us today, in person. Like he did while he was on earth.

It’s also an old idea, if you’ve grown up in church you’ve heard it a thousand times “What if Jesus appeared now?” and it’s usually followed with “would you be ready?”

Well, I think Left Behind style books have their place. But this movie is actually not about that, it’s about Jesus simply meeting people, like you’d meet anyone else. And engaging their attention.

There’s a score of examples form the gospel of this happening, and the movie copies some of them. It most strongly resembles the story of the woman at the well. Because Jesus knows all about each of the five people who come into the Diner.

I should explain, the setting is a dark and stormy night, and five people have turn back because the remote road they’re on is blocked. So they go into the only building for miles Last Chance Diner. Which they think is a joke. (I think I actually saw the same name in another movie, or possibly in real life.)

The people are Sarah, a woman driving 500 miles to see her boyfriend hoping he’s going to propose; Kayla, a runaway who’s been sexually abused by her stepdad; Hank and Catherine, a couple headed for divorce, against Hank’s will; and Nick, a wealthy owner of a chain of restaurants.

Sarah and Hank are Christians, the other three are not though Catherine claims to be.

In one way, I’m glad there are some Christians already, because turning it into a five people get saved story would be kind of predictable.

So they all sit down, have some of the best water they’e ever tasted, and Jesus tells them all what they want for dinner. He somehow know their favorites foods. Then he makes it for them for free.

(I hate to pick apart the metaphor, but I’m sure when Jesus did honest work as a carpenter, he charged people for it.)

But if you think I’m too interested in semantics, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Because this movie is about 60% semantics. Jesus explaining free will, and creation, and salvation, and forgiveness.

There is nothing wrong with that, exactly, but I think the writers stressed it too much. When I read about Jesus, I don’t feel that semantics were a problem for him. When he is literally the truth, the living word, then whatever he says is correct. He doesn’t ‘ have to explain why.

That’s the thing, God doesn’t explain himself a whole lot. Especially to people of little faith. Like Nick, who is very scornful of his claim.

With some basis of course. It’s a little weird, and there’s a lot of phonies claiming to be Jesus out there.

Personally, I would have quoted that verse aobut “Many who will come in my name.” Or the one about false Christs. But that never comes up. Which you’d think it should.

Notwithstanding, I don’t have a problem with the idea of Jesus appearing to people. I just think the way it was written was under-baked.

I even think him telling them about themselves is within biblical limits.

But what leaves a bad taste in my mouth is how he shares all these people’s deep personal issues with total strangers. And basically goads them into telling even more aobut. Kayla’s rape story wasn’t really something all of them needed to hear. Neither was Catherine’s lack of faith. Or Nick’s past of feeling embarrassed because of his father’s Italian ways.

Yeah, I just don’t see Jesus exposing people like that.

Theologically, I agree with most of the film. But on a few points I think they are too glib. They treat tough topics like they can be easily explained. I notice a lot of christian movies do that.

Also, it makes it seem like we should expect Jesus to answer all our questions before we trust in him. But that’s not how faith works.

Faith means having enough reason to believe in something, without having so much reason that it ceases to be a choice. Unless you’re the C. S. Lewis type and reason can actually convince you of something. (Many people are not convinced by reasons or facts.)

Things like rape can’t be reasoned into being accepted. Only faith can cover it.

In the end, four people decide to believe in Him. Nick goes to the devil. Literally. Teh devil character is in this too.

Now, as cheesy as this may sound. I believe this movie does work in some ways. It’s more like an allegory than a real life representation. And the writers were trying to answer peoples questions aobut the faith. And some of their answers were good.

The acting is also very good for one of these movies.

But it lacks character depth. Even in Jesus, which is the worst crime of all. Though he is likable and almost believable, he doesn’t seem quite real.

That’s the problem, because for this to work, he needs to.

And the other characters need to be relatable.

But on record, the sequel does correct some of the problems of the first one.

What I think gives these movies merit is that they do help you imagine Jesus more as a person. And picture what it must have been like for people to meet him.

I would say another film that does it even better is “Another Perfect Stranger.”

And that’s all for now–Natasha.