Movie Reviews

.

The following overview lists all movie reviews elaborated by this ministry since the year 2023.
The previous groundwork for those reviews is found in the section 'Discernment', and problematic terms, teachings and teachers are directly linked to the respective discernment, while specific theology is linked to the respective study of this ministry.

Alphabetical List

1 Message (2011), by Jefferson Moore (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 24/08/2024)
American Gospel: Christ Alone (2018), by Brandon Kimber (5 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 01/01/2024)
Apostle Peter and the Last Supper (2012), by Gabriel Sabloff (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 20/07/2024)
The Ark (2015), by Kenneth Glenaan (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 14/09/2024)
The Ark and the Darkness (2024), by Ralph Strean (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 20/03/2024)
Bamboo in Winter (1991), by Bill Myers (10 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 05/10/2024)
Barabbas (1961), by Richard Fleischer (not rated 〣 Reviewed 14/11/2024)
Beautifully Broken (2018), by Eric Welch (5 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 02/11/2024)
Because of Grácia (2017), by Tom Simes (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 27/07/2024)
Behind the Sun (1995), by Robin B. Armstrong (10 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 28/07/2024)
Beyond the Next Mountain (1981), by James F. Collier, Rolf Forsberg (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 01/12/2024)
The Bible Collection: Esther (1999), by Raffaele Mertes (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 08/12/2024)
Blessed and Cursed (2010), by Joel Kapity (5 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 14/01/2024)
The Blind Side (2009), by John Lee Hancock (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 02/06/2024)
Bobbi Jo: Under the Influence (2021), by Brent L. Jones (10 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 01/01/2024)
Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin. (2024), by Todd Komarnicki (2 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 21/11/2024)
The Book of Daniel (2013), by Anna Zielinski (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 14/07/2024)
Born to Win (2017), by Frans Cronjé (4 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 15/12/2024)
Break Every Chain (2021), by Tim Searfoss (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 17/08/2024)
Captive (2015), by Jerry Jameson (2 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 04/12/2024)
Catching Hearts (2012), by F.C. Rabbath (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 11/11/2024)
Cessationist (2023), by Les Lanphere (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 06/07/2024)
Charge Over You (2010), by Regardt Steenekamp (2 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 07/04/2024)
Chasing After You (2019), by Paige B. Alston (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 01/04/2024)
Christian Mingle (2014), by Corbin Bernsen (2 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 22/09/2024)
The Chosen (2021 -), by Dallas Jenkins (2 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 12/06/2024)
Clancy (2009), by Jefferson Moore (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 11/05/2024)
The Climb (2002), by John Schmidt (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 25/05/2024)
The Coming Convergence (2017), by Brent Miller Jr. (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 05/05/2024)
The Creation (1988), by Don Lusk and Ray Patterson (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 06/10/2024)
Cry from the Mountain (2019), by James F. Collier (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 06/12/2024)
Cult Explosion (1980), by Walter Martin (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 16/08/2024)
Dialtone (2009 Video), by Brian Lohr (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 07/04/2024)
Dolly Parton's Coat of Many Colors (2015), by Stephen Herek (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 07/01/2024)
Do You Believe?, by Jon Gunn (1 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 01/11/2024)
The Emissary: A Biblical Epic (1997), by Robert Marcarelli (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 02/06/2024)
The Encounter (2010), by David A.R. White (5 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 19/07/2024)
End of the Spear (2019), by Jim Hanon (1 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 09/12/2024)
Evolution's Achilles' Heels (2014), by Robert Carter (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 10/12/2024)
Facing the Giants, by Alex Kendrick (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 21/09/2024)
Faith Happens (2016), by Rick Garside (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 10/08/2024)
Faith Like Potatoes, by Regardt van den Bergh (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 04/11/2024)
The Final Prophecies, by Brent Miller Jr. (4 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 21/09/2024)
Fireproof (2008), by Alex Kendrick (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 02/09/2024)
Flame in the Wind (1971), by Katherine Stenholm (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 20/10/2024)
Flywheel (2003), by and with Alex Kendrick (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 28/09/2024)
The Forge (2012), by Alex Kendrick (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 12/11/2024)
For the Glory (2012), by Donald Leow (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 16/07/2024)
Foundations (2021), by Brett Varvel (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 10/05/2024)
Free Burma Rangers (2020), by Brent Gudgel, Chris Sinclair (2 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 16/11/2024)
Genesis: Paradise Lost (2017), by Ralph Strean (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 30/09/2024)
God's Compass (2016), by Stephan Schultze (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 18/08/2024)
God's Not Dead (2014), by Harold Cronk (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 25/08/2024)
Godspell (1973), by David Greene (1 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 27/10/2024)
The Grace Card (2010), by David G. Evans (5 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 08/11/2024)
Grace Unplugged (2013), by Brad J. Silverman (4 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 26/10/2024)
The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), by George Stevens (4 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 12/10/2024)
The Healing (1983), by Russell Doughten (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 06/07/2024)
The Hill (2023), by Jeff Celentano (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 06/11/2024)
Hoovey (2015), by Sean McNamara (10 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 05/08/2024)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996), by Gary Trousdale, Kirk Wise (5 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 25/02/2024)
I Can Only Imagine (2018), by Andrew & Jon Erwin (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 04/01/2024)
An Interview with God (2018), by Perry Lang (4 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 13/04/2024)
Is Genesis History? (2017), by Thomas Purifoy (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 04/02/2024)
I Still Believe, by Andrew & Jon Erwin (4 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 03/11/2024)
It's a Life Worth Living (2020), by Keith Perna (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 12/04/2024)
The Jesus Film (1979), by John Krish, Peter Sykes (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 19/11/2024)
Jesus of Nazareth (1977), by Franco Zeffirelli (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 17/03/2024)
Joseph: King of Dreams (2000), by Rob LaDuca, Robert C. Ramirez (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 08/06/2024)
King of Kings (1961), by Nicholas Ray (2 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 12/12/2024)
Last Flight Out (2004), by Jerry Jameson (10 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 13/10/2024)
Late One Night (2001), by Dave Christiano (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 20/04/2024)
Life Changes Everything: Discover Zac Ryan (2017), by Corey Paul (10 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 16/03/2024)
Lifemark (2019), by Kevin Peeples (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 04/12/2024)
Like Dandelion Dust (2009), by Jon Gunn (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 18/11/2024)
Love Different (2016), by Anthony Hackett (2 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 04/08/2024)
The Man from Earth (2007), by Richard Schenkman (2 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 16/03/2024)
Marjoe (1972), by Sarah Kernochan, Howard Smith (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 16/03/2024)
Mass (2021), by Fran Kranz (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 17/03/2024)
Milltown Pride (2011), by Tim Rogers (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 16/11/2024)
The Miracle Maker (1999), by Derek W. Hayes, Stanislav Sokolov (2 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 20/12/2024)
Miracle Worker (2015), by John Lyde (5 rated out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 05/10/2024)
Modern Day Miracles (2017), by Luke Broersma (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 01/01/2024)
Mountain Top (2017), by Gary Wheeler and Robert Whitlow (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 28/07/2024)
October Baby (2011), by Andrew & Jon Erwin (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 17/08/2024)
One Night with the King (2006), by Michael O. Sajbel (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 28/01/2024)
The Perfect Stranger (2005), by Jefferson Moore (5 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 25/05/2024)
Polycarp (2015), by Joe Henline (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 30/04/2024)
Priceless (2016), by Ben Smallbone (4 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 28/10/2024)
The Prince of Egypt, by Brenda Chapman, Steve Hickner, Simon Wells (not rated 〣 Reviewed 13/11/2024)
The Printing (1990), by Tim Rogers (10 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 15/09/2024)
Procession (2021), by Robert Greene (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 07/09/2024)
Prophecies of the Passion (2005), by Wayne P. Allen (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 24/03/2024)
A Question of Faith (2017), by Kevan Otto (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 14/12/2024)
A Question of Miracles, by Antony Thomas (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 21/07/2024)
Quo Vadis (1951), by Mervyn LeRoy, Anthony Mann (1 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 09/11/2024)
Remember the Goal (2016), by Dave Christiano (10 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 18/04/2024)
The Resurrection of Gavin Stone (2017), by Dallas Jenkins (4 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 05/05/2024)
A Return to Grace: Luther's Life and Legacy (2017), by David Batty (2 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 17/02/2023)
Risen (2016), by Kevin Reynolds (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 10/03/2024)
Run The Race (2018), by Chris Dowling, Tim Tebow (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 10/11/2024)
Sabina: Tortured for Christ - The Nazi Years (2021), by John Grooters (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 12/10/2024)
Samson (2018), by Bruce Macdonald (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 29/09/2024)
Sarah's Choice (2009), by Chad Kapper (10 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 12/07/2024)
Searching for a King: Israel's United Kingdom (2019), by Stuart Peck (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 17/12/2024)
Seasons of Gray (2013), by Paul Stehlik Jr. (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 30/06/2024)
The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry (2008), by Rich Christiano (10 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 05/08/2024)
Seven Days in Utopia (2011), by Matthew Dean Russell (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 19/05/2024)
The Soloist (2009), by Joe Wright (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 12/05/2024)
The Song (2014), by Richard L. Ramsey, Kyle Idleman (4 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 10/11/2024)
Son of God (2014), by Christopher Spencer (2 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 05/11/2024)
Soul Surfer (2018), by Sean McNamarar (not rated 〣 Reviewed 10/11/2024)
So, Who Is This Jesus? (1999), by Crawford Telfer (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 25/03/2024)
Stand Strong (2011), by Amy Kenney (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 24/11/2024)
Stephen's Test of Faith (1998), by Stephen Yake (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 05/05/2024)
The Story of Ruth, by Henry Koster (1 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 14/09/2024)
This Is Our Time (2013), by Lisa Arnold (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 10/08/2024)
Time Changer (2002), by Rich Christiano (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 06/01/2024)
Tortured for Christ, by Richard Wurmbrand (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 06/01/2024)
Touched by Grace (2014), by Donald Leow (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 22/06/2024)
Tyson's Run (2022), by Kim Bass (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 27/11/2024)
The Ultimate Gift (2006), by Michael O. Sajbel (7 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 25/05/2024)
Uncle Nino (2003), by Robert Shallcross (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 23/11/2024)
Unconditional (2012), by Brent Mccorkle (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 19/10/2024)
Undaunted... The Early Life of Josh McDowell (2011), by Cristobal Krusen (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 01/04/2024)
Unplanned (2019), by Chuck Konzelman, Cary Solomon (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 21/11/2024)
Until Forever (2016), by Michael Linn (6 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 14/12/2024)
Virtuous (2015), by Bill Rahn (4 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 29/06/2024)
The Visual Bible: The Gospel of John (2003), by Philip Saville (9 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 15/06/2024)
When the Game Stands Tall (2014), by Thomas Carter (3 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 07/11/2024)
Where Hope Grows (2014), by Chris Dowling (4 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 28/11/2024)
Where Is My Home (2017), by Jiayun Huang, Jun Zhang (1 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 31/08/2024)
The Woodcarver (2012), by Terry Ingram (8 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 19/10/2024)
Woodlawn, by Andrew & Jon Erwin (4 out of 10 stars 〣 Reviewed 30/10/2024)
Find the full list @ IMDb

1 Message, by Jefferson Moore (8*)

Highly recommended.

A good movie which shows us the enormous influence one person can have on our lives in times of crisis. One faithful brother who truly helps, no matter all the stubbornness of her who ought to receive his help. And one friend far away who is also persistent enough to overcome insults, who looks behind the hurt and decides to help, while he is indeed the one who needs help. This is the real and very biblical essence of the movie, to show us that the only way out of misery is to help others, such as the cashier or the handicapped friend. Once we help, we forget about ourselves and heal on the go.

PROS

+ Good actors, not overacting as so often seen when it comes to dramata.

+ A slow pace of the movie (which is good) and a deep dive into the crisis of Becca.

+ Beautiful theme of forgiveness between daughter - mother, and ex-partners.

NEUTRAL

- The Christian theme is not strong. The first ever hint of anything related to faith comes at minute 81: "Look at it this way - if G-d can forgive me for all I do, then how can I not forgive others?" The movie does not include any salvation, but at least underlying themes of Christianity.

CONS

- The main actor describes herself as having overweight, but the screen shows something different.

- The opening scene with several minutes of a door bell is very annoying.

- The movie employs a quote from Eddie Rickenbacker, member of the Los Angeles Elks Lodge #99, a Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (Rites, traditions, and regalia from the Freemasons).

- One foul language 'Son of a b...'

- Sublime endorsement of the American Rep***ican party.

American Gospel: Christ Alone (2018), by Brandon Kimber (5*)

A must-watch, but requiring discernment, in order to not be drawn away from one evil into another evil.

This documentary does a good job in discerning the NAR, the Roman Catholic Church and other questionable teachers. But it requires a good portion of discernment in itself.

It rightly criticizes the Catholic emphasis on Works. But at the same time it shows a strong imbalance, and does not show any understanding of the important differentiation between 'Works of the Law' and 'Works of Faith'. It rather leads the viewer away from doing any works at all.

It shows a view Luther held in his worst days, but does not reflect that even he in his better days recognized 'Works of Faith' as necessary.

The documentary repeats over and over mantras such as 'Grace Alone' and 'Faith Alone', the latter being a popular-, but false reductionism (Luther made that teaching popular by interpolating the word 'alone' in Romans 3:28, which caused a great scandal). THEOS contributes His grace, love, mercy and JESUS' sacrifice. Our contribution to Past Salvation is to hear the Word, believe in JESUS and His resurrection, repent from being a sinner, confess with our mouth and have active faith. Present Salvation further implies sanctification, making disciples and baptizing them, obedience, discipline and self-denial by putting everything second to THEOS.

Nearly all of the speakers are Calvinists. The same behavior has been noted in many books by that group, when a cult-like mentality is applied by exclusively selecting / endorsing Calvinist interview partners. Especially a documentary on discernment should be balanced. Their attack on the RCC is also not credible and more of an effort in order to distract from their common patriarch, Augustine.

LIST OF INTERVIEW PARTNERS

Bryan Chapell (Calvinist & Presbyterian, Grace Presbyterian Church)
Chris Rosebrough (Lutheran, Fighting for the Faith)
Constance Troutman (?, Truthhandfire.com)
Costi Hinn (Calvinist, Executive Pastor, Mission Bible Church)
Dan Burgoyne (Calvinist, Founding Pastor, Neo Church)
David W. Jones (Calvinist & Baptist, Professor of Christian Ethics, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Don Green (Calvinist, Pastor, Truth Community Church)
Emilio Ramos (Calvinist, Red Grace Media
Jackie Hill-Perry (Calvinist, Spoken Word Artist)
J.D. Greear (Calvinist, The Summit Church)
John MacArthur (Calvinist, Grace Community Church)
Julius Kim (Calvinist, Professor of Practical Theology, Westminster Seminary California)
Justin Peters (Calvinist, Justin Peters Ministries)
Mark Dever (Calvinist, Pastor, Capitol Hill Baptist Church)
Marshall Brandon (?, Pastor, Christ Community Chapel)
Matt Chandler (Calvinist & Baptist, Pastor, The Village Church)
Michael Durham (Calvinist & Baptist with Pentecostal background, Founder & President, Real Truth Matters)
Michael Horton (Calvinist, Professor of Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary)
Mike Gendron (Calvinist, Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries)
Nabeel Qureshi (Seeking Allah Finding Jesus)
Nate Pickowicz (Calvinist, Pastor, Harvest Bible Church)
Paul Washer (Calvinist, Heartcry Missionary Society)
Phill Howell (Baptist, Pastor, Embassy Church)
Phil Johnson (Calvinist, Executive Director, Grace to You)
Ray Comfort (Calvinist tendencies - works with Emeal Zwayne, Livingwaters.com)
R. Scott Clark (Calvinist, Professor of Church History, Westminster Seminary California)
Robert M. Bowman Jr. (Calvinist, The Word Faith Controversy)
Sean Demars (Calvinist, 6th Ave Church of G-d)
Simeon Williams (Calvinist, Former Researcher, 9 Marks)
Steven J. Lawson (Calvinist, One Passion Ministries)
Steve Kozar (Lutheran, Messed Up Church)
Voddie Baucham (Calvinist)

Apostle Peter and the Last Supper (2012), by Gabriel Sabloff (6*)

A good movie depicting how the Apostle Peter might have died and how he looked back on the NT.

What can I say? It is a great Christian movie, made by secular people. It is indeed surprising how a director, who promotes artwork on his very own website which is clearly satanic, has the motivation for such a movie.

Does a director of a Christian movie need to be Christian? No, he doesn't, but it is hypocrisy to do something just for the money.

Should a director of a Christian movie be a Christian? Yes, that is what makes sense.

Can a director of a Christian movie promote the other side while doing this and several other popular Christian movies? Only in America ...

PROS

+ Great depictions of an extra-biblical story, which tells in parts biblical elements. Obviously, a great creative license is taken, but the movie does not equal to an apocryphal book which someone wants to insert into the Bible.

+ It is beautiful how they portrayed Peter, without the least of fear before his death.

+ Beautiful end with the conversion of two soldiers and one's wife.

CONS

- The movie tries hard to impress through extreme tonality in voices and by excessive music.

- The satan character is certainly not what the Bible describes as a wolf in sheep's clothing. He does not come anywhere close to a 'sheep' in human terms, but is the typical Hollywood scheme to make things appear more extreme ...

- It would have been nice if they would have made at least for some scenes their way out of the LA studios and filmed in an actual setting - be it in Israel or similar.

- The prayer 'you sanctified us with your commandments' shows a fundamental lack of Bible knowledge. We might walk on the road of sanctification while obeying commandments, but we are not sanctified with commandments ...

- When the two Roman soldiers become Christians under Peter's hand (which is beautiful), smoke comes up and eastern meditation music is played. It looks and sounds more like a conversion to Buddhism, if the words would not have been different.

- Peter could have only died in Rome long after the conversion of Saul to Paul. Nevertheless the movie states at the end that they have to empty the cell for a certain 'Saul of Tarsus'. That's why unbelievers should never do a Christian movie.

The Ark (2015), by Kenneth Glenaan (3*)

Very pleasant to watch, but in parts heretical and definitely not the Christian account.

Quote of the movie: "What can science do exactly, except marvel at G-d's work and document it?"

PROS

+ Focus on his family and not on dramatic special effects.

+ The movie is in many parts well made and pleasant to watch (if it would not include serious transgressions).

+ Very great actors.

NEUTRAL

o When Noah kicked around two thieves who wanted to steal from his son, we are at first surprised. But it could have indeed happened in OT times, when the rule was still an eye-for-an-eye. Nevertheless, it was not adequate to include this detail in the movie.

CONS

- The movie depicts the salvation of dozens of other people who just randomly came from far off some days or weeks before the rain, and are actually the first ones to walk into the ark while Noah's family stands on the side line at some distance to the ark. This is a horrible twisting of Scripture.

- The director either sympathizes with Islam or he actually made a movie which is not Christian, although most viewers take it as Christian movie. The inclusion of a fourth son of Noah into the movie cannot simply be an accident.

According to this movie, this fourth son was a habitual fornicator (at least every day "for several weeks") and was so badly trapped in his sin that he even punched his father Noah when the waters came, refused to go on the ark and died being left behind with his girlfriend.

When we investigate the name of this fourth son, we suddenly realize that only Islam includes a fourth son -and surprise- uses the exact same name.

- When the Angel of KYRIOS appears to Noah, he is not even afraid of him, as should be expected by numerous biblical examples. In the movie, they have a nice small talk ...

- Although the movie often provides a good balance including Noah's possible struggles with his family, it goes definitely too far in several aspects. The disrespect by his sons is certainly not something we could imagine to fit into the biblical account.

- Even worse, his wife calls him an idiot, which is definitely to be considered highly probklematic and far outside the creative license of a 'Christian' filmmaker. I quote: "Although you have clearly gone mad and you made the leap from farmer to idiot in one felt swoop, you are my idiot and I love you." No matter how charming she is in this quote, it crosses the red line by far.

- Noah's family is displayed as rather unbelievers, which would be a very, very sad testimony for the most pious family on earth at a given point. This element of the movie is therefore also heretical. No Christian would believe such a thing. They had their struggles after the flood, but this does not reflect pre-flood history.

- The ark displayed in the movie is way too small compared to the biblical specifications.

- Bad movie set. It is highly unlikely that Noah lived in such a setting, where no trees for the ark are seen far and wide. Maybe someone came up one day with the idea that it would be nice to contrast water with a previous desert in order to make it more dramatic, but does the biblical story really require such a dramatization? Is it not much more probable that Noah lived in an area with a vast vegetation?

- Noah's sons are seen watering their large field with hand buckets and hand-by-hand which is truly ridiculous. This is probably based on the extrabiblical myth that it did not rain until the flood. Some facts from my study 'Noah's Flood':

1. The consecration of the element 'rainbow' does not really say anything about the moment of its first appearance. We read too much into the Bible, when we assume that a rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood. THEOS connected it in this moment to a covenant (in the same way a dove did not come into existance at Christ's baptism), but this does not mean he created it in this moment.

2. The existence of springs or mist in the first days of creation does also not imply the absence of rain. Springs are still found today all over the world - active simultaneously with rain.

3. Noah would not have had any building materials for his ark if it would not have rained. He required hundreds of trees and we can hardly assume that he planted and manually watered those for decades, nor did THEOS indicate at any point to plant trees which require years or decades to grow to a size suitable for a gigantic ark.

The Ark and the Darkness (2024), by Ralph Strean (9*)

Overall highly recommended. A wonderful documentary and a blessing to the world.

PROS

+ Great production quality.

+ Well investigated and clearly presented facts.

+ Good selection of scholars, without the pseudo-critical injections sometimes found in other documentaries, while leaving the viewer puzzled which parts ought to be endorsed.

+ One of the few documentaries which actually teaches the Good Message (towards the end, but with precision and love).

+ Excellent argument that museums intentionally do not show e.g. dinos & ducks together, and create a twisted and more dramatized version of the whole thing.

+ It is also very important to point out that barely 40 years have passed since the new consensus had been established.

CONS

- It is probably not true that Eden was buried under hundreds of meters of material. The traditionally proposed Lower / Southern Mesopotamia lies barely at 34 meters ASL, while the Karaca Dag location in Upper Mesopotamia, discovered by Spire and this ministry in 2021, and also proposed by CMI some months later as landing site for the ark, lies still only at 498 meters ASL (plateau around the mountain; 1957 meters the mountain itself). 34 meters ASL do definitely exclude any additional layers and 498 meters do not provide much leverage. We often forget that everywhere material got added, elsewhere it needed to go. The flood stripped bare vast regions, while adding substantially to many other regions. I rather suspect by a look at the current condition, that Mesopotamia as a whole lost during the flood a significant substance (except the mountains which rose during and after the flood). Inspiration for another documentary.

- Usage of the later flood date which collides with the pyramids (2518/2348 BC versus the correct 3298 BC in the Greek OT) and 370 days duration versus the correct 360 days (equal to one year, see Rev 11:3, 13:5) provided in the Greek OT (from 27/02 until 27/02 = exactly one year, not from 17/02 until 27/02). A small detail, but a stumbling block for some unbelievers.

- I would have wished to see a little bit more on the abyss, e.g. to have a quick look at Ringwoodite, and to mention with some words the probable connection between the Pacific Ring of Fire (as localization for the underwater fissures) and the nearby Gran Canyon.

- Another very interesting point would have been the 2 great land bridges (Bering btw. Russia & US, 45 meters BSL; and Doggerland btw. Europe & GB, 35 meters BSL) which clearly existed until the flood.

Bamboo in Winter (1991), by Bill Myers (10*)

A short, but wonderful testimony of faith in action.

PROS

+ Great display of family unity, and especially of the unity of the church in the midst of imminent persecution. The scene in the water (minute 33), where many join the preacher while the soldiers are threatening, is unforgettable. It reminds me of the monumental scene in 'The Printing' (minute 62), where the assembly meets in the forest.

+ Good display of the evil forces within our society, which helps us to discern when Satan is speaking through a human voice which has nothing to do with the typical stereotypes of Satan we see often in Hollywood movies. He speaks nicely and gently, but suddenly becomes very angry and violent when we oppose him. Many Christians of our and the past generations have no idea about such things, but our future will bring again a change to the other extreme.

NEUTRAL

o The picture and production quality is low, but this does not affect the spiritual value of the movie.

o She baptized herself, which would normally not be seen as valid. But having been some days earlier already in the water when the arrests started, it would probably be a valid baptism of herself, because she stepped publically forward and now only finished the process of immersion.

CONS

- Absolutely none, which is rare.

Barabbas (1961), by Richard Fleischer (not rated)

Significant twisting of Scripture.

After half an hour into the movie it becomes very clear that its content is clearly of the format of apocryphal works - here simply in the film format which in THEOS' eyes is most probably identical in sinful transgression.

I would see a smaller problem if the writers would have developed a story independently from the Bible, meaning that they would have produced a fictional story and taken only the person Barabbas from the Bible. But the movie shows a strong overlap with the Bible and does not stop here, but actually twists the Word of THEOS to a very serious and heretical degree.

First we see Barabbas walk right into the crucifixion scene and then it shows the wife or girlfriend of Barabbas sitting besides JESUS' open tomb. As if not enough transgression for 30 minutes, we even see Barabbas preceding JESUS in visiting His disciples, and then visiting the risen Lazarus.

At this point I tuned out in order to protect my scriptural memory and to not further twist it. Once again works of darkness, produced in Rome and with the main musical theme based on the 'Kyrie' from 'Orbis Factor: Missa XI' which is a part of the Roman Catholic Ordinary.

Stay far away from this movie.

Beautifully Broken (2018), by Eric Welch (5*)

Somehow inspirational, but also problematic.

PROS

+ Good motivation to care for the less privileged.

NEUTRAL

o William acted very well, but the other actors were only average.

o The movie is spiritually sound, but has also not really spiritual depth. The name of JESUS CHRIST is not even mentioned once as far as I remember.

CONS

- The beginning of the movie is inadequate at best. Horrible scenes of gun violence in Rwanda are mixed with scenes of luxurious birthday parties in the US, and with scenes of a rocking Toby Mac.

- The movie is an adequate depiction of what many would call the white-savior-complex, others would call it social justice.

- This movie is hardly believable and shows how far even pastors are from being in the SPIRIT. If a pastor's daughter is being raped and overnight converts from being rather holy to evil behavior, and both her believing mother and father, who is a pastor, do not at least sense at some point during several weeks that something is wrong, then they have no connection to THEOS.

Even the other believer, William does not sense in the SPIRIT that something terrible has happened and gives the worldly advice "difficult age - no clay has become beautiful without going through some fire". What words after such a horrible act. It is hardly believable that any believer could be so spiritually blind.

- It becomes more problematic when the parents find after some weeks her letters wherein she wrote to her friend that something terrible has happened, but the parents take no action. While I am opposed to Social Justice, it is very problematic if a movie suggests that a rape should not even be reported, that nothing should be done about it. This is truly, truly problematic and shocking.

- The movie centers around the First Presbyterian Church of Nashville (Calvinist). Further endorsed is 'The Outreach Foundation' which speaks in their Statement of Faith of "ecumenical creeds and the Reformed confessions".

- 'Special thanks to Michael W. Smith' (Roman Catholic, part of the Passion Translation project).

Because of Grácia (2017), by Tom Simes (8*)

Great movie.

PROS

+ After the movie is relatively flat in the beginning, appearing to be just one more of the many teenage stories out there, it quickly gains momentum and quality.

+ Good defense of the creation account of the Bible.

+ Beautiful example what it means to stand up for the Christian faith and to be firm in it, no matter the opposition.

+ Great example of emotional and spiritual support of Gracia for Amy.

+ Faithful example of the couple to wait until marriage - very beautiful images at the end of the movie.

+ Very good actors.

CONS

- The movie does not show any effort of Amy to get together again with the father of the child. It is beautiful to celebrate a newborn, but it is tragic that this movie simply shows a break-up of two sentences over the phone and simply treats it as sidenote that the child will grow up fatherless.

- Ben Davies was a better fit in his role in 'I'm Not Ashamed'. It was not the best fit for him to play a teacher.

- It was certainly not wise to endorse Socrates in a Christian movie.

Behind the Sun (1995), by Robin B. Armstrong (10*)

Excellent (short) film.

This movie shows in an impressive manner the totally different tolerance levels we encounter in different countries and religions. While it is unthinkable in most countries that the possession of a religious book could cause the death of a family member, this sadly is still reality today in some countries, almost 30 years after the production of this excellent and very impressive movie.

But as the Bible already says, JESUS did not come to bring peace in the first instance, but to divide between good and evil. Nowhere becomes this division more obvious than in the Middle East, which is still widely oppressed by those who do not accept THEOS.

What a surprising and great end of the movie. Highly recommended.

Beyond the Next Mountain (1981), by James F. Collier, Rolf Forsberg (6*)

Good documentary, but to be watched with discernment.

PROS

+ Wonderful testimony of planting seeds, and waiting patiently for the fruits, no matter if that takes decades or does not even bear full fruit during someone's lifetime.

+ Great display of faith in action.

+ Good defense of the flood.

+ Quote: "My tribe is mostly Christian, two generations, with no help from white missionaries. Former times in my tribe, we cut heads off our enemies. Now we pray for our enemies. Former times in my tribe, we make slaves of weakling, now we help make weaklings strong."

+ Quote: "You told me to never doubt in darkness what G-d has taught us in the light."

NEUTRAL

o Watkin Roberts was from the Welsh Calvinist Methodist Church also called the Presbyterian Church of Wales. But the churches that resulted had no denominational attachment.

CONS

-The producer is James F. Collier, who was sort of Billy Graham's right hand in the movie industry (Collier was Presbyterian; he produced from the late 1950s - 1988 for Billy Graham's World Wide Pictures; Caught, Cry from the Mountain, For Pete's Sake!, Time to Run, Joni, The Hiding Place, The Prodigal).

-Endorsement of the 1904-05 Welsh Revival, which is associated with the obligatory speaking in tongues.

- Some discrepancies to the information shown in Wikipedia. The missionary is shown to have arrived in 1906 instead of 1908. The movie repeatedly suggests that he "lived" rather several years with them and grew very close to them, but in reality he only stayed 2-5 days.

- Highly problematic remarks during the debate: "I learned ... wise and beautiful sayings from Buddha, and strong and beautiful teachings of Koran". Pudaite would never have said such things, and it is very sad that the producers inserted such a prologue in his speech.

- He lies on his first date that he does not understand English.

The Bible Collection: Esther (1999), by Raffaele Mertes (7*)

A good depiction of the Book of Esther - recommended.

PROS

+ Wonderful display of the story of Esther. It is overall faithful to the Bible (Masoretic text, not the Greek OT received at CHRIST's coming).

+ Excellent actors, with the exception of the king who is only good.

+ Great production quality.

CONS

- The royal facilities are very small for a King of Persia.

- Haman lied when he said that no girl was in his house. He then also bribed the official, which is a serious sin. He later bribed again his way into the palace.

- Although the movie is generally rather faithful to Scripture, there are some deviations.

Est 5:4-5: And Esther said, "If it please the king, let the king and Haman come today to a feast that I have prepared for the king." 5Then the king said, "Bring Haman quickly, so that we may do as Esther has asked."

Movie: And Esther said, "If it pleases the king, let the king and Haman come today to the banquet I have prepared in my quarters for the king." 5Then the king said, "Let it be as our queen desires." [the portion 'bring Haman quickly' is ignored because Haman sits in the movie already behind the king, which is contrary to Scripture]

The scriptural comparison is far from being comprehensive and only includes a sample.

- Several pieces of music come from the Roman Catholic Ennio Morricone.

- Louise Lombard, who plays Esther, attended Trinity Catholic High School, a Roman Catholic school. It is not known if she is a person of faith now.

Blessed and Cursed (2010), by Joel Kapity (5*)

A mixed bag.

This movie is hard to review.

Did it draw me closer to THEOS or inspire me to serve more in church? Sadly not.

It is too worldly, showing a church which is rather a club than a church. A church which is rather a business, with its elders being rich and condescending to people under their responsibility. Of course part of it was intentional, to show how the star made his way through those obstacles. But there is little to no holiness and the wording 'oh you are so annointed' is constantly being abused, by confusing it with the singing talent and charisma of a singer.

I like his performance, which is good for a singer who is not an actor by default. Only one scene was bad, when he first pretended to be shy and then suddenly made the biggest show and waved his arms. That change was too sudden and poorly instructed. The rest was good.

But the movie, although long in time, has no real substance, something you walk away and say, yes, that inspired me. I fear that it rather creates a mentality of performance in churches, and of making it more like a business. Worth watching, but not worth recommending it to someone who wants to grow in Christ and especially in holiness.

The Blind Side (2009), by John Lee Hancock (3*)

A movie with some good morals and based on a good story, but used to promote a Christianity which is not Christian at all.

PROS

+ A truly beautiful story.

+ It displays an overall very good moral, to care for the less privileged.

+ Leigh opposes her friends when they ridicule Michael.

CONS

- It comes along with a white-savior mentality and the propagation of the American dream.

- Several lies and problematic practices are displayed:

Leigh (supposedly a Christian) broke into the principals' computer to find out Michael's grades.

Leigh scanned a picture off an Internet ad for a toddler boutique and displayed it at Michael's graduation.

Her husband lies when saying that the instructor lost cell phone service.

- A sex scene is included, where Leigh even brags about her skill to multitask while having sex. It can probably not become anymore anti0-Christian than this, but luckily we do not see any skin.

- Leigh wears extremely provocative dresses throughout the movie.

- Leigh slapped the b.. of the instructor and said about a recruiter in front of her husband: "I find him extremely handsome."

- Leigh showcased outmost disrespectful treatment of players, grabbing one by the helmet and then pushing him back. She later says that she would cut off the p.. of Michael if he would get a girl pregnant. Michael is being honored after throwing another player over the fence.

- Leigh is displayed throughout the movie as the factual head of her family, which is a highly problematic and anti biblical showcase.

- Several profanities (Leigh uses the b-word, and we hear from another character the SoaB words).

- The true spiritual character of the movie shows when it unabashedly promotes a political party and bashes the other:

Quote: "Who would have thought we would have a black son before we knew a democrat?" [this is evil]

- Promotion of gun associations:

Quote: "I'm in a prayer group with the DA, and a member of the NRA." [this is evil]

- Throughout the movie, the University of Mississippi is promoted, which supports Freemasonry, specifically the fraternities Alpha Phi Alpha, Kappa Alpha Psi, Omega Psi Phi, Phi Beta Sigma, Delta Sigma Theta, Sigma Gamma Rho and Iota Phi Theta.

- The movie includes a prayer and a holding of hands at the dinner table, but this is absolutely everything when it comes to the spiritual discipleship of Michael. They want him to find his 'salvation' in football, but not a word is lost and not a scene is shown where Michael receives any spiritual guidance from his parents, or from any other character in the movie. This movie is abusing Christianity, and is in many parts the antithesis of Christianity.

Bobbi Jo: Under the Influence (2021), by Brent L. Jones (10*)

A highly encouraging documentary.

This documentary is one-of-a-kind. You watch it and you will never forget it.

Some of the content is very hard to watch, but at the end it simply shows the extremes of society we often willingly or unwillingly ignore. It shows the results of a fallen world and what might happen if we live in total disobedience to Him, or if simply circumstances hit us.

But on the other hand it shows the wonderful redemption and forgiveness of our sins we can experience, and that He can restore a totally broken life into something millions of viewers and hearers will praise afterwards, no matter if they are believers or not.

It is incredible what one single person can do, and Bobbi Jo is simply a very powerful example of how to help literally thousands of others, no matter all the obstacles she experienced even after she got physically and spiritually saved.

What a powerful testimony, and what a powerful woman.

Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin. (2024), by Todd Komarnicki (2*)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer Glorified?

This movie glorifies a man, who died as a hero, in opposition to what we all agree was pure evil, the N-regime.

But it does not reflect anywhere on the fact that this man was a Freemason and never renounced his religion of Lutheranism, which was decisive for the suffering in first instance, after the Catholic church had previously institutionalized antis**itism through the creation of discriminatory laws and the establishment of the Inquisition, which led to a widespread persecution of Jews, including forced conversions, expulsions, and pogroms during the Middle Ages.

Luther's anti-Judaistic views then contributed significantly to the development of antis**itism in Germany.

To present now precisely a Lutheran as savior of those who suffered the ugly consequences of Luther's antis**itism, is ridiculous at best, it is audacious.

The only real justification for this movie - and it would have been a perfect opportunity - would have been to apologize in the name of the Lutheran / Reformed Church for the Hol**aust which would probably not have existed without Luther. But apart from a tight-lipped declaration that the Lutherans felt sorrow for not having stood up earlier, we do not find any apology for the causation of this evil, but to the contrary we even find extracts from the Luther Bible in the epilogue of the movie.

PROS

+ Excellent actors and production quality. Jonas Dassler, who plays Dietrich Bonhoeffer, is outstanding.

+ Rather accurate depiction of the evil involvement of the Nationalist Movement within the German church.

CONS

- This movie tries very hard to raise post-mortem a second Martin Luther King, but this production has not even discerned the former. Just as MLK was not a Christian and his war cry 'I have a dream' not surprisingly inspired the New Age Civil Rights Movements, so Bonhoffer was not a Christian and we can only fear what he will inspire now in the midst of an apostate America ...

- The movie includes at least 3 times the scheme of strawberries providing magic power, and although initially meant in a childish way, it becomes a serious transgression of THEOS' Word, when Bonhoeffer's walks to the gallow, and the last message to his mother includes once again that sublime reference to magic power.

- The movie twists numerous passages - sometimes even to the contrary.

While we know well from Dietrich's writings that he was dismayed about his experience in New York, specifically because of the liberalism of Union Seminary founded by the Presbyterian Church, and hastily returned to Germany, this movie depicts the other extreme. Union Seminary was only "boredom" but he had no problem with it; he fell in love with the city, led supposedly Jazz sessions and returned many times.

Quote min 34: "In Harlem I finally saw real faith instead of dead religion and now I am planning to teach the German church all about it."

How can he be dismayed about their lack of faith and return after only 6 months, but the movie depicts a deep inspiration and 'real faith'?

Another scene in minute 67 shows him freeing people from prison, and in supposed divine wisdom saving the prisoners from death by stopping the flight, but we have a hard time finding proof for such an injection - that such an event happened indeed.

A third, and a very clear twisting of the events is found in what can be read on Wikipedia as 'Operation 7'. In the movie we see 7 instead of 14 people; they did not flee but were handed over at the border while offering money; they were not prepared one year in advance but received only a briefing of less than a minute during a stop in the middle of the forest; erroneous claim that Bonhoeffer raised the money from friends in Sweden and Ireland; ending in once again a glorification of Bonhoeffer: "Today we saved 7 lives. But more need to be saved. Sobbing. But 7 is a beautiful start."

- The movie strongly promotes the Abyssinian Baptist Church (Harlem) and specifically Adam Clayton Powell Sr, who was not only a member of fraternal organizations, including the Masons, Odd Fellows and Knights of Pythias, but actually founded several fraternal organizations! But neither here nor in general do we find any information why Bonhoeffer as a Freemason chose this church of a Freemason. Dietrich, his father and his uncle were all freemasons, specifically members of the black fraternity 'Der Igel' (The Hedgehog) in Tübingen.

- Dietrich is shown several times smoking, a practise that should rather not be found in a Christian movie depicting a pastor which is supposed to be a role-model.

- The movie abuses Scripture. When Martin Niemoller is arrested, he speaks words allusive to JESUS: "It is me whom you seek, leave the rest alone."

- The movie promotes the breaking of the 10 commandments: "Sometimes the only way to defeat the father of lies, is to lie better than he does".

- In minute 85, we see Bonhoeffer hailing Hi**er. No Christian martyr ever hailed another god or celebrity. Rather than hailing anyone else other than JESUS, they chose death.

- The movie is not filmed in Germany, but entirely in Ireland and Belgium.

The Book of Daniel (2013), by Anna Zielinski (9*)

Very good movie, highly recommended.

PROS

+ The movie is very faithful to the biblical narrative as far as I can tell without reading the Bible along.

+ I am very grateful that they chose this book to be made into a movie and that they told most of Daniel's life.

+ I appreciated the two viewpoints, that the movie starts with Daniel telling his story in his old age while looking back at his younger years, and then later to merge the two viewpoints with a wonderful transition into one perspective. Well made.

CONS

- A mixed bag regarding the actors, some doing a great-, while others a regular job.

- The backgrounds could be better animated.

- Very few women are included in the movie, especially in the beginning.

Overall highly recommended to those who want to see the book of Daniel come to life.

Born to Win (2017), by Frans Cronjé (4*)

Powerful, but problematic.

PROS

+ Good display how helping others will not only affect their lives, but will eventually result in returned help in times of struggle.

+ Great example of working with people who are less privileged.

+ Inclusion of many Bible verses.

+ Inclusion of several Bible teachings / sermons.

+ Good actors.

CONS

- The movie has a certain potential of creating doubts in weak believers: (Min 18) "Don't talk to me about praying. That's all I ever did. I used to pray and pray and pray. Look what I got. Absolutely nothing. I stopped praying."

- Min 70 When one of the kids sets his room on fire, we see a huge burn wound on the face of Leon, but not a single hair is burned just centimeters beside the burn wound ...

- No baptism is included as a sign of Leon's conversion.

- While it is ok to show the struggles of a milk-Christian, the movie sadly crosses a red line when the rebellion against THEOS is shown in Min 79: "I am done with you." Leon then slams the Bible at the floor.

After he wakes up, joyful music is played as if nothing happened and he walks past the teared Bible on the floor without picking it up nor paying attention to it. This is a transgression and desecration of the Word of THEOS rarely seen in a 'Christian' movie.

- The Carpe Diem School for the disabled is shown to have its students pray for Leon and to be close to CHRIST. But a quick search of the website (site:carpediemskool.co.za) reveals that the entire website does not once mention the words 'Bible, Church, Faith, G-d, Jesus'. This is very odd.

The slogan 'Carpe Diem' is also rather opposed to the Bible, which opposes this ideology of 'Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die' (1Cor 15:32). But not enough, the camera zooms several times into the school's logo, where the additional slogan 'Dum vivimus vivamus' appears, which is a Latin phrase that means "While we live, let us live".

- The movie includes the narrative and visualization of 3 female angels, which Leon saw in a vision as a young child. This is strictly heretical, because we nowhere in the Bible read of female angels nor could derive this from the Bible.

This inclusion of 3 female angels makes it clear that this movie is outside of the will of THEOS and to be considered heretical, and highly problematic as a whole.

- THEOS speaks twice audibly to Leon, which is already a very gray area. But it becomes highly problematic when THEOS 'speaks' the second time to him, and he yells into the sky in utter rebellion and disgrace.

- This 2014 movie claims to have been inspired by the book 'Born to Win: Learn to Roar, Lion!' by Leon Terblanche. But this book was only published in 2020, 6 years after the movie. While there could be an explanation for this, it is obviously very strange. But it is more, the foreword for this book comes from Andre Roebert, president of the highly problematic Faith Broadcasting Networks. The book itself includes written verses of the heretical 'The Message Bible'.

Break Every Chain (2021), by Tim Searfoss (3 *)

No redemption, but a movie rather generating doubts.

This movie would have a great potential, if the music would not destroy it and the lack of redemption would conclude it to be senseless. It is marketed as Christian movie, but the underlying message is very anti-Christian and can create serious doubts in a believer.

PROS

+ Powerful story.

+ Great actors.

+ Great filmography.

CONS

- The movie starts with deep frustration and a severe critique of KYRIOS, and it never recovers from that. It ends with a main actor who hadn't found any redemption after some loose contacts with a pastor, but searched for a solution in counseling, as if KYRIOS would have failed him. Yes, he throws aways his alcohol, yes they have another baby and seem to recover their relationship, but there is no spiritual redemption, no salvation, nada. This is probably the saddest state a 'Christian' movie can end with.

- The music is disturbing and overly dramatic. I had to take my headphones several times off, because it was impossible to stand that nearly demonic music. Yes, the makers wanted to make a point, but that point could have been achieved without torturing the viewer and without an endless repetition of an image of a dead woman's face.

- The producers have sadly no proper theological understanding and have obviously never heard of the age of accountability. "Sydney, 16 all her dreams gone" is a conclusion that could not be more at odds with the Bible, which makes it clear that every child, no matter believer or unbeliever, who dies before the age of 20, will automatically experience salvation.

So why should her dreams be gone, if she experiences something infinitely more beautiful right now? The same applied with the death of their unborn child. We might excuse this misunderstanding with the unbelief of the main actor who just acted how a pagan would react, but his wife is portrayed as a believer and nevertheless has a total breakdown. She should have known her child in much better hands than she could ever provide. This is sadly a very selfish mindset, to put the personal relationship over the joy of the child's salvation he or she would have possibly never experienced if having passed the age of 20.

- Even though his wife is portrayed as believer, it is weird that she never invites him to church or shares her faith with him, while he must be invited by another police officer.

- Very inappropriate dress (2x) of his wife.

Captive (2015), by Jerry Jameson (2*)

Captivating, but spiritually misleading.

PROS

+ A captivating drama.

+ Great production quality and acting.

CONS

- The movie discredits the church through the statement of the killer "a lady cheated on me with a minister from church".

- The movie sadly goes as far as to give to a sinner of the worst kind a strong sex appeal, by putting him in a jacket without shirt, and showing him in only a towel.

- The movie directly shows the great anti-Christ and New Age-figurehead Oprah Winfrey.

- The movie is a continuation of the promotion of the Purpose-Driven Life and also showed directly the highly problematic teacher Rick Warren.

- The movie description includes as writers both Ashley Smith and Stacy Mattingly. Stacy is actually the ghostwriter for Ashley (2005 book: 'Captive: The Untold Story of the Atlanta Hostage Hero').

Things becomes interesting when we notice that Stacy ghost-wrote 5 books for Billy Graham's wife Ruth and even more knowing that Billy Graham also pushed Rick Warren into the spotlight, long before he was then main beneficiary of the 2005 Atlanta Courthouse Shooting.

- David Oyelowo, who played Brian Nichols, played in the same year also the false Christian Martin Luther King. Reflecting on his portrayal of King in the film Selma, Oyelowo has asserted: "I always knew that in order to play Dr. King, I had to have G-d flow through me because when you see Dr. King giving those speeches, you see that he is moving in his anointing."

What a terrible deception of Oyelowo. Investigating his person, we quickly find him to be a Roman Catholic who attended in 2022 with his wife (who also acted in this movie) the 'Vitae Summit' in the Vatican.

The following actors, artists and musicians attended: Jessica Oyelowo, David Oyelowo, Edwina Findley, Jonathan Roumie, Patricia Heaton, Eduardo Verastegui, Denzel Washington, Hayley Atwell, Darius Marder, Issac Chung, Pete Doctor, Pauletta Washington, Dan Lin, Marcus Mumford, Andrea Boccelli, J Balvin, Bull Nene, Alessia Cara, Julio Reyes Copello, Eva Cavalli, Alexander Acha and Alejandro Roemmers.

Catching Hearts (2012), by F.C. Rabbath (8*)

Not a great production, but of very great spiritual value.

PROS

+ Very thought-provoking movie.

+ Great storyline.

+ The gardener played a great role. He shows a risk according to human understanding, but is certainly led by the Spirit when sending the two lost souls to an Atheist in order to reflect on their lostness. This is probably what the Bible means to hand someone over to Satan so that his soul might be saved. Obviously this cannot be a general advice and we should always first evangelize as the gardener also did, and only then send someone to the enemy while simultaneously pray for him before and during that encounter, that the HOLY SPIRIT might open his eyes.

+ Very balanced end, showing the salvation of two characters, while the third, who had seen the greatest answer to any possible prayer, remains stubborn. In real life it is very similar - those who cannot but see THEOS remain stubborn while those who oppose him most (sometimes) lose their veil.

NEUTRAL

o Low production quality, but this is not what counts in the end. As Christians, we have to rather ignore what would please our eyes and entertains us, and look at the spiritual value of the movie which is very great.

o The movie did not exactly show what Mark saw, but the allusion was enough and we got an idea at the beginning of the debate.

CONS

- No questionable endorsements and avoidance of pseudo-critical arguments against THEOS.

- The scene with the street preacher is obviously very staged, but it still fulfilled its purpose.

- The reactions to the loss of the child are strange, especially of the boyfriend.

- No real repentance and baptism is shown, therefore we can only assume a salvation to follow the change of heart we notice.

Cessationist (2023), by Les Lanphere (3*)

Some good -, but overall highly deficient discernment and theology.

I have warned Justin Peters already in 2022 (1, 2), before this documentary went into production, but sadly to no avail as I now saw two years later.

See also my studies on Spiritual Gifts and Continuationism vs. Cessationism, which is the necessary groundwork for this review.

PROS

+ Great production quality, images, visualizations and music.

+ Some good discernment on the excesses of (extreme) Pentecostalism and Charismatics (Aimee Semple Mc Pherson, Alexander Pagani, Benny Hinn, David Diga Hernandez, Eric Shonebarger, Isaiah Salvidar, Jeremiah Johnson, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, John G. Lake, Kathryn Kuhlman, Mark Taylor, Michael Brown, Mike Bickel, Mike Signorelli, Morris Cerullo, Paula White, Robin Bullock, Ryan Rufus, Sid Roth, Smith Wigglesworth, Todd Bentley, Todd Smith).

+ Correct exhortation on not speaking gibberish, not having the primary focus on tongues, and not confusing ecstatic experiences -which occur even in Pagan religions- with Christian salvation.

+ Quote Dan Phillips: "In biblical times when you stood up and you spoke in G-d's name and it was not G-d's word, you were stoned to death. Today if somebody does that, either it's inconsequential or doesn't come true, nothing happens. It's just another day ... in the Charismatic community. At least they should be excommunicated." I fully affirm this notion.

CONS

- This documentary is a Calvinist gong-show (see list below). Practically all of the speakers are Calvinists. The same method has been noted in many books and movies by that group, when a cult-like mentality is applied by exclusively selecting / endorsing Calvinist interview partners. A documentary on discernment should be balanced and not just come from like-minded people.

- Min 05:10: Appeal to emotionalism when Elijah raises the widow's son. Here they still pretend to accept miracles, but just one minute later they reveal their real motifs:

- Min 06:20: "There were times, 3 of them in Scripture, where G-d gave to man the power to work miracles"

5500-1400BC No miracles

1400BC Moses & Joshua 65 years of miracles

1400-800BC No miracles

800BC Elijah & Elisha 65 years of miracles

800BC-30AD No miracles

30-100AD JESUS & The Apostles 65-70 years of miracles

100-2024AD No more miracles

The interview partners are essentially claiming that miracles in biblical history only occurred during 195-200 years in total!! This is one the most ridiculous claims ever heard and every serious reader of the Bible will instantly have one's hair stand on end when hearing such a claim.

Not only does the Bible tell us countless miracles of Samuel, Samson and many others in between those 3 times, most importantly the Bible itself refutes their erroneous claim in Jer 32:20: "You have shown signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, and TO THIS DAY in Israel and among all mankind, and have made a name for yourself, as at this day." Jeremiah was written ~585-570 BC, meaning 800+ years after the Exodus and 200+ years after Elijah/Elisha.

- Min 10:30: Here Sam Waldron manipulates the viewer by confusing JESUS being the cornerstone and foundation of the church, with the spiritual gifts itself. The foundation of a church building has little to do with the gifts used inside, but Waldron suggests that because the foundation was laid in a specific moment, so spiritual gifts ceased instantly after that moment. A truly ridiculous comparison.

- Min 11:20: Here Tom Pennington explains the qualifications of an Apostle, but he either unintentionally or rather intentionally leaves out the Spiritual Gift of Apostleship, which definitely continues to be a gift for believers selected by the Holy Spirit. The mission is to have authority over unclean spirits and healing (Mat 10:1-2), and further to encourage and strengthen other churches, to plant new ministries and churches, go into places where the Gospel is not preached (missionaries, 'apostello'), raise up and develop leaders, and call out and lead pastors. Their own Conrad Mbewe, whom they sent out to plant Calvinist churches in Africa, is pretty much in such a role (although on the bad side).

- Min 14:20: Steven Lawson and Tom Pennington tell us that there is no mention of signs and miracles once you pass the book of 1Cor. This is a highly ignorant claim, knowing very well that the narrative of the Bible was nearly closed with the 4 Gospels and the book of Acts. Everything that follows are simply letters and the next narrative is Revelation, which is our future. To now say that because we have no narrative between Acts and Revelation, we have also no use of Spiritual Gifts, is a straw man fallacy.

- Min 18:40: Nathan Busenitz endorses Augustine and uses him to strengthen the argument for Cessationism (while leaving out that Augustine changed his view ...). Augustine was one of the most problematic figures in ~Christian~ history, being the doctor of the RCC and the patriarch of Calvinism, and of countless heresies that came into the church through and shortly after him, only to mention the Apocrypha, infant baptism, financial tithing, sex being evil, perpetual virginity of Mary, prayers to saints, the 7 Catholic sacraments, amillennialism .... He was also the father of the doctrine of persecution.

Busenitz shows therefore a fundamental lack of discernment, which is sadly very common amongst academics. Solely based on Chrysostom and Augustine, he then suddenly concludes: "The view of the (early) church has been decidedly Cessationist". This is a very poor scholarship.

We have to be aware of the fact that quoting history and / or historians opens the gate for every kind of false teaching, because we can find a historian for nearly every theology we want to propagate. This would not be such a problem if we would only use reliable historians. But this is definitely not the case as perfectly seen by the common use e.g. of those church fathers 'Augustine' or also very often 'Origen', both very problematic figures of 'Christian' history. At the end of the day we have to go back to the Word and avoid extrabiblical sources - what is possible in the vast majority of Bible studies.

Busenitz then drifts into primitive manipulation, by putting Continuationists into the role of those desperately searching for historical reference points and associating them with a heretical movement which literally no Christian of our day has ever heard of:

"In order to find evidence of miraculous gifts throughout church history, the modern continuationist has to redefine what those gifts are. They generally [Who ?] do so by pointing to french movements and french groups like the Montanus movement, which was declared a heresy by the early church."

- Min 32:30: Sam Waldron goes here as far as to open war within their own rows, by discrediting D.A Carson, John Piper, Sam Storms and Wayne Grudem as having 'reformed inclinations' simply because they describe themselves as 'open but cautious' (so as to say 'Second-class Calvinists' in his eyes; later they sequence a video of Sam Storms with Mike Bickel, and even use the repentance of Sam Storms from Cessationism to discredit him; David Lovi/Les Lanphere have obviously a serious issue with him). Firstly, all of those are problematic teachers (and Calvinists) and this is an inhouse discussion. Secondly, one like John Piper can hardly be anymore Calvinist than he is. This war within their own rows shows that they are divided even on that issue.

- Min 58:30: Here Sam Waldron underlines his evil intentions, by criticizing Sam Storms' correct preaching of 1Cor 14:1, where Paul commands to earnestly desire the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Waldron then states that "All commands of the Bible come to us within an assumed context" and terribly twists the Bible when stating that Paul violated JESUS' command to not take money on the journey (Mat 10:9-10), but had accepted donations on the journey. Even to the most naive viewer it should be obvious that there is a huge difference between taking money along, and receiving it later. JESUS never forbade any apostle to receive money or material gifts, He only said that they ought to start with essentailly nothing.

- Min 62:50: Scott Aniol creates the false notion that speaking in tongues is always referring to known languages. He uses Act 2:8 which correctly refers to known languages and then extrapolates this to be the general rule for all expressions of tongues, while ignoring 1Cor 13:1 !!!

Speaking in tongues includes both 'foreign languages' and an 'ecstatic / heavenly language' (see 1Cor 13:1 with the clear differentiation btw. A) tongues of men and B) tongues of angels who obviously do not primarily speak earthly languages; and 1Cor 14:2 with the remark 'no one understands' the 'mysteries in the Spirit'). Speaking in tongues serves as A) Communication with, and impression of unbelievers (Act 2:1-15, 1Cor 14:16, 22), B) Edification of the church (1Cor 14:5-6, 12, 24) and C) Edification of yourself (1Cor 14:4, 27-28). Tongues spoken in public must be interpreted (1Cor 12:10, 1Cor 14:2, 11, 13, 27-28), but we see this almost never being practiced in today's churches.

Nathan Busenitz then supports their perceived abolition of ecstatic languages by stating that it occurred for the first time in history ever when noted through the Charismatic Movement, which is an unsubstantiated claim. (What he does not mention at this point is that the Charismatic Movement / Pentecostalism) was decisively shaped by Harald Bredesen, a Dutch Reformed & Lutheran pastor ...).

Min 95:55 confirms their de-facto abolishment of Spiritual Gifts: "Well, if we don't have the Spiritual Gifts, what do we have? We have the self-authenticating Word of G-d. When we have the HOLY SPIRIT promised to bless that Word, there is no reason for disappointment ... that is all we need."

LIST OF INTERVIEW PARTNERS

Andreas Wiget (not Wigit ...; Calvinist)
Brian Borgman (Calvinist, Grace Community Church)
Chad Vegas (Calvinist; Sovereign Grace Church
Conrad Mbewe (Calvinist; Kabwata Baptist Church)
Gabriel Hughes (Calvinist; Master's Seminary)
Geoff Thomas (Calvinist; Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary)
Jim Osman (Calvinist)
Joel Beeke (Calvinist; Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary)
John Piper (Calvinist)
John Reuther (Calvinist; Reformed Baptist Seminary)
Jonathan Master (Calvinist; Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary)
Josh Buice (Calvinist; G3 Ministries)
Justin Peters (Calvinist)
Mike Riccardi (Calvinist; Master's Seminary)
Nathan Busenitz (Calvinist; Master's Seminary)
Phil Johnsons (Calvinist; Grace To You)
Robert McCurley (Calvinist; Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary)
Ryan M. McGraw (Presbyterian)
Sam Waldron (Calvinist; pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist)
Scott Aniol (Calvinist; G3 Ministries)
Steven J. Lawson (Calvinist; Master's Seminary)
Tom Pennington (Calvinist; Master's Seminary)
Virgil Walker (Calvinist)
William VanDoodewaard (Calvinist; Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary)

Charge Over You (2010), by Regardt Steenekamp (2*)

Hardly a Christian movie.

The movie opens with a scene where paramedics cut open the shirt and expose the bra of a young woman.

Then we find a scene where evolution is promoted, while the professor mentions intelligent design as an afterthought and as an 'and if you believe in that ...' option.

Soon after the main protagonist is found to participate in fortune telling, and she wears inappropriate clothing in nearly every scene of the movie.

Then there is the first scene of extramarital sex, followed soon after by an even more intimate scene.

That was 30 minutes in.

Those scenes alone have the strong potential to lead someone away from THEOS.

Later the movie endorses Nietzsche (well known to have hated THEOS by declaring: "G-d is Dead"):

"Nietzsche is arguing that we have peeled G-d off and put ourselves in his place. Now the magnet in the story is ridiculed by the people in the marketplace for making his search for G-d known, they laugh at him and make sarcastic excuses."

The warfare displayed is also not a spiritual warfare which could come from the Bible. It is just a primitive copy of the paranormal stuff we find in secular movies, with a touch of THEOS in it and with a happy end.

The whole story might include some good elements, but it is the last I would recommend to anyone I want to bring to THEOS. This movie rather brings people away from Him and builds a very bad foundation for someone who (want to) become(s) a Christian.

Chasing After You (2019), by Paige B. Alston (8*)

A good movie with a strong Christian theme.

While the beginning of the movie appears somehow flat, it becomes increasingly deeper and more meaningful.

PROS

+ There is actually a lot of Christian talk and content, and not just one of the many 'faith-based' movies with maybe five Christian phrases.

+ It generally displays good morals to strive for.

+ No heresies.

+ No blasphemy, just once he took the name of JESUS with his friend in vain, but not in a negative way.

CONS

- Improper dress of the main actor which could lead to other Christians to adapt such a provocative style.

- It is not understandable why she did not choose a marriage with the father of their child when he asked her to move in together and recover the family relationship.

- Her boyfriend is talking at the grave to his dead father, which is surely not a biblical practice.

- The background music is partly problematic.

- The end is very abrupt.

The Chosen (2017-), by Dallas Jenkins (2*)

Great production & entertainment, but it does barely serve as milk.

The following is not a typical review of this ministry. The author of this ministry has watched season 1, and the first episode of season 2, and relies for most of the following points on external discernment collected here in a condensed form.

PROS

+ Great production quality.

+ Great acting.

NEUTRAL

o Although there can be learned a lot from the series, the bottom line is rather confusion about what belongs now to the Bible and what not. Christians with a very solid foundation could in theory watch the content while being able to discern the differences. But tragically most viewers are precisely those with no-, or with a weak biblical foundation, and typically without the general ability for spiritual discernment.

CONS

- Dallas Jenkins admitted that 95% of The Chosen's content is not from the Bible.

- Originally initiated by three Mormon businessmen having approached Jenkins. The executive producer and the distributor are Mormons. Many episodes were filmed on a Mormon property in Utah, where previously only Mormon productions were allowed to be filmed.

- JESUS is being shown as seeking counsel from His disciples before preaching the Sermon on the Mount (Season 2, Episode 8, min 20).

- JESUS is prematurely arrested before Gethsemane (Season 1, Episode 7, min 33).

- JESUS makes fun of JOHN's diet of carobs and honey, which would have been impossible to happen.

- JOHN THE BAPTIST is being displayed as 'creepy John', contrary to the Bible stating that "no one born of women is greater than him" (Mat 11:11, Luk 7:28).

- MARY MAGDALENE is backsliding from her faith in the series, which is a twisting of the Bible (Season 2, Episode 8). While backsliding was not foreign to JESUS' circle, it resulted in this one instance in the condemnation and death of Judas. To assume that Mary shipwrecked her faith and was restored a second time, is not only heretical, but provokes a laissez-faire 'faith' in viewers.

- Highly problematic actors: Jonathan Roumie (New Age; open support of the Hallow app > Catholic Mysticism / Contemplative Prayer; private use of the 'Divine Mercy Chaplet' > meditative Catholic prayer ritual by Saint Faustina).

Christian Mingle (2014), by Corbin Bernsen (2*)

A gigantic commercial for a dating app which tries hard to be funny, but is hardly bearable.

PROS

+ Good display of repentance, when she repents of her lies.

+ Great that it shows a firm stance on believer-believer couples.

+ The concept has a lot of potential, if it would have only been better scripted and executed by people who fear THEOS.

CONS

- There is absolutely no holiness reflected in this movie.

- The movie is repeatedly ridiculing prayer. We get it, an unbeliever is initially lying about being a Christian. But one of such prayers would have been more than enough.

- Her other weaknesses (e.g. not finding a Bible passage, misquoting Scripture) are also repeated ad nauseam. A good movie gives us hints about a character trait or a certain dynamic, but does not repeat it endlessly.

- Bad language (She says to her friends "Get me a filler and get me hitched")

- The movie shows her throwing the Bible in a trash bin.

- The movie does not only show a weak transformation of hers, but also contains two of the most bizarre testimonies one could ever invent, one about a carved piece of wood and another about a piece of cheese and mice, both leading indirectly to salvation. The producer / director has absolutely no fear of THEOS (Bernsen earned his Master's in Playwriting from UCLA which is famous for Freemasonry / Fraternities).

- Average actors.

- They kiss each other while he does not even know if she is a believer.

- Inadequate dresses of hers throughout the movie.

- The producers did not even see it necessary to travel for the mission trip scenes to Mexico, but filmed in California at the Veluzat Ranch movie set.

- The movie is simply a promotional tool of The Mingle LLC for their app of the same name.

Clancy (2009), by Jefferson Moore (9*)

A very beautiful movie.

What a beautiful surprise of a movie. A tremendous story which could have been perfectly written by THEOS.

PROS

+ Great lessons for life, no matter if you believe or not (yet).

+ Great example how to treat homeless people with respect and love, knowing that each one has his or her own story, which is often not by election. We will be surprised in eternity how many homeless people there will be and how few majors.

+ Great production, great and very creative script.

+ Wonderful teaching of the Good Message (just a little bit too much focussed on heaven instead on a renewed earth, but a truly secondary issue here). The inclusion of her book is so very special and the Good Message can hardly be told in a more beautiful way through a child. What a memorable scene. Also very beautiful how he then framed her book.

NEUTRAL

o She was a bit too optimistic if you see her character from a worldly perspective. But seeing it through spiritual eyes, she could have indeed had such joy in the midst of suffering and violence.

o A good example of caring neighbors, but I would have inserted at least a scene where they intend to talk to the mother. They were caring but also well aware of the consequences. Overall a good lesson and warning for single parents who are about to get into a similar pattern.

CONS

- She prays once to a statue of JESUS. It would have been better for this scene to have her pray sitting down on a bench.

- Sadly no redemption of him, but a real transformation.

- Sadly no redemption of her mother, but her restoration would have probably filled another movie.

The Climb (2002), by John Schmidt (6*)

Good movie, but sadly a promo tool for Billy Graham.

PROS

+ The movie puts a spotlight on opposing selfishness, and is today more relevant than 22 years ago. Our culture is now saturated with those types of 'me, me, me'. I do that mountain on my own, I am my own boss in life, I, I, I. What a wonderful lesson Jason could learn in this movie, and is able to teach many others trapped in that selfish mentality today.

+ It elevates the family and the responsibilities of a father. At the same time it elevates the role of a father of the bride and shows how good protection looks alike, but also how biblical forgiveness should be alike.

CONS

- I never saw in a movie such a blatant endorsement, even including a closeup of one of his books. Billy Graham was one of the biggest frauds of Christian history, and this is also the reason why I sadly cannot promote this overall very good movie. (He was a great admirer of the 33° Mason Norman Vincent Peale; had a strong tendency towards Universalism; key figure in the ecumenical movement; used Roman Catholic lay people as supervisors and altar workers; close collaboration with the Vatican and the Pope; endorsement of female pastors)

- The advice Ned gives to the then girlfriend of Jason, when she was trying to get out of fornication, was 'we all go through periods like that'. This is a deeply troubling advise, which has contributed to the notion that it is ok in younger years to commit some 'mistakes', and then simply ask later for forgiveness.

- While it might be true that THEOS can (and will upon repentance) forgive any sin, there is no assurance that we are ever drawn to the awareness of those sins and to the respective repentance. The further down the road, the more a miracle it requires getting out of it. But to the credit of this movie, this bad advice is obviously (and at least in parts) 'overwritten' by the later repentance of Jason.

- When Jason repents, he asks JESUS to come into his heart. This is a formula foreign to the Bible and part of the evangelism scheme of Billy Graham, which enabled him to count the 'conversions'. Another part of this scheme, as now more often seen in churches, is the lifting of hands and then counting those lifted hands as saved people.

The Coming Convergence (2017), by Brent Miller Jr. (3*)

Good teaching mixed with very bad teaching.

This documentary starts out to denounce false prophets from the past, who employed vague prophecies, but curiously enough falls just minutes later into a very similar pattern.

1. One key message of this documentary is the fig tree prophecy - standing for the end times which ought to begin with the rebirth of Israel.

First they say in one sentence that many scholars believe the fig tree to be Israel. One sentence later, now from another commentator, they suddenly change to "Now understanding that the fig tree IS Israel" ...

They confuse a UN declaration done in 1948 with the -SPIRITUAL- rebirth of Israel, while ignoring that people in Israel are currently far away from THEOS and little to no spiritual rebirth as biblically specified has taken place. The vast majority of people still denies JESUS and some Jewish denominations even plainly deny THEOS.

Then they calculate 80 to 120 years from that date, exclusively based on the very generic statement of Psalm 102:12: "Let this be recorded for A GENERATION TO COME, so that a people yet to be created may praise the Lord"

They now state that the word usually translated with 'TO COME', means the 'LAST' generation. But looking at the Greek text, which is the text the 1st century church received as authoritative, we find a clear contradiction to this, because it uses the word 'HETEROS', which -as we all know very well- means 'ANOTHER' or 'DIFFERENT' (Strong's G2087)!

Greek text (here Psalm 101:19): Let this be written for ANOTHER generation; and the people that shall be created shall praise the Lord.

Even the KJV translates the verse with "... remembrance unto ALL GENERATIONS."

It is abstruse exegesis to use this generic verse, to inject 'LAST' into it and then connect it to the fig tree prophecy!

2. Later they state that 3 specific countries will be attacking Israel, but they do not inform us how they see those countries in the biblical context (especially Russia, probably extrapolated from 'Gog').

3. They justify in minute 45 a nuclear war through Ezekiel 39:12, supposedly including a command to leave the bodies alone for 7 months, which in their opinion is an indicator for a nuclear war. But this is a plain lie, because the text states that the people of Israel will be in the very place being affected, cleaning it up for 7 months.

4. When it comes to the 'kings from the East' that wage war, they accuse the big players in what we commonly know as the East. But this is based on a bad reading of the world's map. The biblical map almost certainly connects the world at the Bering Strait, meaning that the East is America!

The Creation (1988), by Don Lusk and Ray Patterson (8*)

Great short movie depicting the creation account through animation.

The only downside is that animation lacks by nature the proper transmission of THEOS' holiness.

Cry from the Mountain (2019), by James F. Collier (3*)

Ft. Billy Graham and his crusades ...

This movie carries a very good message of salvation after a near-divorce and a near-death. It shows us what years of drifting away from THEOS can do and that in such circumstances only dramatic events can change the course of death into life.

But this movie is sadly also a very negative surprise. I had previously deleted all movies produced by James F. Collier, but somehow missed this and had my first dose of a mini-sermon of Billy Graham towards the end of the movie, as earlier hinted at through 2 short dialogues. Knowing of the evil nature of Graham, I was all the more surprised how he perfectly matches the description of the Bible, precisely as an 'Angel of Light'. A perfect masquerade, eloquence and charisma. Everything that makes Satan as good as he is in deceiving people. I now better understand why so many people fell for him and had been drawn into the arms of the Catholic church & the Southern Baptist Convention.

Please study the discernment of this person.

About the producer: James F. Collier was sort of Billy Graham's right hand in the movie industry (Collier was also a Presbyterian; he produced from the late 1950s - 1988 for Billy Graham's World Wide Pictures; Caught, Cry from the Mountain, For Pete's Sake!, Time to Run, Joni, The Hiding Place, The Prodigal ...).

Cult Explosion (1980), by Walter Martin (8*)

Overall highly recommended.

I am very grateful for such productions which are sadly rare. What Martin Martin produced here, is of eternal value, literally. This documentary provides a good first insight into many cults and religions. It is a bit scary when they speak about out-of-body experiences and fake spiritual encounters, but when we belief in a spiritual life, then those evil facets are possibly also true.

The documentary lacked though a proper introduction to each cult. Some quick facts of 1 minute per religion would have made a great difference (size at that time, countries, exact names and groups to avoid ...). It is also not systematic enough, but follows more the format of modern documentaries to sequence / overlap various topics with the preference of keeping the viewer entertained. This results in a wild rollercoaster and it is hard to get a clear picture of a specific cult spoken about. Lots of bits and pieces. The viewer definitely knows that it is urgent to avoid any of those cults, but he or she would have a very hard time to tell someone else a brief summary of a specific religion after watching this.

Overall highly recommended though.

Dialtone (2009), by Brian Lohr (8*)

Strange concept which justifies the means.

Does this movie have the potential to bring the viewer closer to THEOS?

Yes, it has.

Does this movie have the potential to bring those close to the viewer closer to THEOS?

Yes, it definitely has.

Is this movie biblical?

Rather not. We cannot play THEOS nor go back in time. BUT we are definitely in power to influence our future and the future of others.

Therefore, although being based on an unbiblical concept and with a great creative license, it is a good movie which stimulates the minds of the viewers in a very powerful way.

The music is sometimes a bit overly dramatic, but the concept is well-elaborated and fulfills its purpose.

Clear recommendation.

Dolly Parton's Coat of Many Colors (2015), by Stephen Herek (9*)

A truly wonderful movie.

Worthy is His name, and He works out all things for good, even in the difficult times of life. Sometimes we are so richly blessed, little Dolly with a big family, that we do not realize the blessing until He takes away part of it.

We do not understand why a child has to die so early, but forget that all those little children do not have to go through this hard school of life and work out their salvation with fear and trembling. They just go over into Eternity, because they do not know yet the difference between good and evil (Deu 1:39) and have not yet reached the Age of Accountability.

Remarkable actors (especially Dolly and her mother), beautiful settings, thrown back in time into a typical life of hard work and little diplomacy in words. And a story of a stubborn father, as so many out there, who refused to follow our faith, even though modeled at perfection by his wife. Her perseverance will be decisive.

* The only negative point of the movie is the scene where little Dolly argues with THEOS. This dialogue is overly dramatic and the language is nearly blasphemous. The script writers should not have chosen such language. We can utter our doubts and frustrations, but this one went way too far.

Do You Believe?, by Jon Gunn (1*)

A sublime deconstruction of the Christian faith.

This movie pretends to overcome doubts, but it actually creates more doubts.

The chances that the viewer develops out of that patchwork of mostly anti-Christian and some pro-Christian fragments the birds-eye view of THEOS and takes away something positive he can build a new faith or support his or her existing faith, are sadly dwindling small.

PROS

+ Matthew presents a beautiful example of how to serve THEOS not only in church, but also in his private life.

+ The movie includes some other beautiful examples of people caring for strangers, and finding healing themselves in that process.

+ Great display of Bobby saving the life of the lawyer.

Quote of the movie: "We turned our grief into our most prized possession. G-d doesn't want that."

CONS

- The movie includes the strong, although sublime suggestion that an angel sculpture protected the girl. This angel figure shows up numerous times in the movie.

- Carlos (played by J.J. Soria, who partakes in many evil movies) moves at the end of the movie into the apartment with his acquaintance, although not being married . This fact alone distances the movie very far from being a Christian movie.

- The only convert of this movie -the criminal- is killed days after his conversion.

- Matthew serves wholeheartedly at church, gives shelter to a homeless mother and her daughter while sleeping on a bench in front of his home, an act which makes him sick and a few weeks later cough blood, then he dies and resurrects after 8 minutes, after the death certificate is already issued. Does this give us more motivation to serve THEOS? Rather to the contrary.

- The man who later sheltered the woman and her girl nearly dies when bringing the girl to the dying men who first helped the two. We see that man falling down a very high bridge in his car (with a broken leg and no seatbelt), presume him dead, but soon later he appears as if nothing had happened.

- The couple who helps the pregnant girl gets badly hurt in an accident. The pregnant girl supposedly dies. Does this give us more motivation to serve THEOS? Rather to the contrary.

- Problematic quotes: [The homeless mother] "My husband brought us to church every Sunday and look at where we are."

- Derogatory conversation between the lawyer and her husband:

"Hey, hon, hot date, new client, the wife of an accent, a victim ambulance chasing. Not quite your style. It is when the victim is forcibly converted to Christianity while he's trapped, dying forcibly, meanwhile, his wife is restrained out of earshot by the police. Picture, this a Bible thumping EMT, has poor Ron Carson as his captive audience, painting him pictures of hell, fire and damnation in his final moments. Isn't that kind of what they do? Maybe he was a believer too, and she just didn't know it. Both are members of the American Humanist Association. Their motto is good without G-d. I like it. It still kind of seems like her word against his. That's the best part. These Christian types, you swear them in, they put their hand on the Bible. They actually tell the truth, imagine that."

No matter that both persons involved in that conversation had later their eye-opening moments, such a conversation should not be found in a Christian movie. It is especially problematic given the fact that Bobby is portrayed as a solid Christian, but is suddenly a Humanist (why should the lawyer lie to her husband about this)?

- Serious inconsistencies: The pregnant girl gives birth only days or weeks after she run out of an abortion clinic ...

- The Associate Producer is Sean Astin, who is known for 6 different Lord of the Rings movies (!). You cannot so habitually participate in works of darkness, and then produce a Christian movie and even play a role in it.

- The music of Newsboys is heavily featured, which is highly problematic. The band's drummer, Ducan Phillips, once said in an interview: "I think what I love about Newsboys is it's so interdenominational. We see Mennonites to Catholics to Protestants to you name it. Three generations of fans coming to enjoy Newsboys." George Perdikis, co-founder of Newsboys, said he had "renounced Christianity once and for all and declared myself an atheist".

- The filming of the movie involved St. Simon Catholic Church, with Father Wayne B. Wheeler.

- The filming further involved Father Britto, who served at King-St Francis de Sales Catholic Parish and a number of other Catholic churches, and the Mason County Reformed Church (Calvinists).

- Part of the film crew lodged during the filming at a Casino Resort, which is unheard of for the filming of a Christian movie.

The Emissary: A Biblical Epic (1997), by Robert Marcarelli (8*)

Wonderful movie about the life of Paul.

It is an art in itself to avoid producing another lengthy movie, to compact much material into a format of less than an hour, but still to make this movie appear long. It appears as some commentators prefer longer movies, but I appreciate compact productions with a high content of information as found here.

PROS

+ Great summary and highlights of Paul's life.

+ Mostly great acting.

+ Good production considering a limited budget.

NEUTRAL

Words are added / subtracted to Saul's vision and other stories, but it is never to the spiritual detriment of the viewer and expected to a certain degree in such a movie. And it is good to see a great faithfulness in the dialogue with Agrippa. The accuracy could be higher, but is already much higher than most Christian movies which rather use bits and pieces from the Bible, but not such lengthy passages.

JESUS is shown in the cloud and in Paul's vision. This is not necessarily problematic, but it still doesn't feel right to produce such images of Him.

CONS

- The camera is often excellent, but also sometimes a bit wild.

- Paul healed the son of the sorcerer, a story I do not remember from the Bible. The burning of the books would have implied multiple sorcerers.

- The boat from the last mission trip is way too small and very few prisoners (maybe a dozen compared to 276 people in the biblical account) are present. But the small budget justifies this.

- Paul is not martyred in the Bible.

The Encounter (2010), by David A.R. White (5*)

Very interesting movie, but a depiction of an extrabiblical Jesus.

I was very much surprised and somehow shocked when I saw the first movie with a depiction of THEOS ('An Interview With God'). After having come across the terrible 'The Man from Earth' and the much better 'The Perfect Stranger', I am still surprised about yet a fourth film depicting JESUS CHRIST in an extrabiblical manner, although this movie is certainly the best out of those four.

It includes excellent acting and a well-thought concept and narrative. It really motivates the viewer to think deeply about his or her own relationship with JESUS CHRIST. There is no transgression.

I do not think that it is wrong per se to depict our KYRIOS, as long as it is an outmost faithful and respectful portrayal of a biblical narrative. But I do not think that this new business field of extrabiblical depictions of CHRIST as an everyday man from around the corner, sitting alternately on park tables, restaurant tables or being a guest at a party or a restaurant owner, is something we should endorse, no matter how moving this movie might be.

End of the Spear (2019), by Jim Hanon (1*)

Excellent from a pagan perspective - very poor, blasphemous and heretical from a Christian perspective.

This movie is a tragic example of a great Christian story (originally), which was converted into a great production, but is almost void of any Christian element for the sake of broader sales.

PROS

+ Great actors, except Nate Saint, who was played by a gay-rights-activist. We should not be unequally yoked, and this principle certainly applies for a movie which is supposedly produced by Christians for Christians.

+ Great production quality.

+ Very great images and beautiful nature.

+ Very strong display of forgiveness and peace instead of weapons.

+ Although the movie naturally included much (semi-)nudity, it has handled this topic very well by giving especially the women more clothing than it would have been in reality.

NEUTRAL

o It would have been good to film the movie in the actual country the story occured ...

CONS

- There is absolutely no motivation shown why the missionaries wanted to reach the natives. There is a sublime message that they wanted them to prevent from further killing, but there is zero indication that they wanted to bring them the Good Message of JESUS CHRIST. Only if someone would read the books and articles about the story, would one know this.

- While the movie was being marketed as 'Christian' and its original story is 'Christian', this movie had been almost entirely emptied from any Christianity. More than a few prayer requests for healing did not really happen and the movie could have equally been a pagan movie, where we probably would have found the same amount of references to THEOS.

I do not recall having heard the name JESUS CHRIST once in the movie. Let that sink a bit. A movie about evangelism and no mention of JESUS CHRIST ...

There were some moral changes in characters (which could have happened in any pagan movie), but we see no salvation, no baptism, not even conversations with the natives about JESUS. No Bible reading, no actual prayers, no mention of sin although the movie contains plenty of it, nothing. Instead we have many references to their spirits and see even the name of G-d being replaced with another name.

- In real life, Steve was baptized by one of the natives who killed the missionaries. Not even this most important and powerful scene was shown, although it would have not required more than 15 seconds to show this and would have been probably the cheapest part of the movie.

- The scene with the 3 angels is strictly heretical. We see messengers in the Bible with specific functions, but 3 angels overlooking the execution of 5 members of CHRIST's church is ridiculous and highly problematic at best, it is heretical. Could someone imagine 3 angels having overlooked JESUS' death on the cross instead of appearing to His resurrection in a specific function? Certainly not.

Why then should it make any sense that powerful angels overlooked the ongoing execution of 5 men, but did not intervene? This is a very poor attempt in order to impress naive Christians, and it is ridiculing the Word of THEOS. It is one more example where many pagans will possibly shake their heads and have contempt for Christians who are impressed by false signs and wonders. How can a Christian movie misrepresent Christianity in such a ridiculous way?

- Open blasphemy. Instead of THEOS (G-d's) name, the producers used the name of another god, of a creator god named Waeng***, after a mythical Wao figure. There is no problem if the movie would simply reflect their beliefs, but it is blasphemy when the mention of this name is packaged in a false 'Gospel' message.

There is no salvation except through the name of JESUS CHRIST and even people, who have never heard this name, will certainly be impressed by the HOLY SPIRIT in the moment they hear his name. But the makers of this movie thought themselves smarter, with the need to replace the name of JESUS with a mythical Wao figure.

Do they honestly think that a person could be saved in such a way??? Can you picture Paul visiting foreign cities and villages, many of which most probably had not yet heard CHRIST's name, and tell them the Gospel in the name of a local god while distorting the story????

- Elizabeth Elliot, who is closely connected to the story, is a highly problematic figure (Episcopalian; she regularly joins hands with such recognized anti-separatists as Billy Graham, Luis Palau, John Stott and James Dobson; she considers it acceptable to celebrate the Catholic Eucharist ...).

- The credits include 'Hobby Lobby'.

Evolution's Achilles' Heels (2014), by Robert Carter (7*)

Very valuable affirmation of creation through JESUS CHRIST.

A quick glance at the reviews and their reactions at IMDB reveals how much Satan hates this movie. In all that time since I began elaborating on movie reviews, I rarely saw such a dramatic and orchestrated dynamic.

Satan attacks the family, gender and of course the Bible itself which analogous to human history is built not 'only' on JESUS CHRIST, but more specifically on His works as displayed in the book of Genesis. Not the Father created this world, but JESUS CHRIST as made clear throughout the Bible.

In the end, it is all about the question, do we accept JESUS CHRIST and His works through Genesis & the Cross?

Or do we reject Him? Please notice, there are no nuances in accepting Him. Either you do or you do not. Those 'Christians' who think they can go to bed with 'Progressive Science' and expect to sit at the table which JESUS will prepare, might be more than just disappointed.

PROS

+ Although obviously not being comprehensive, this documentary is a very good summary of some key findings, and sufficient in itself to debunk the theory of evolution. What I learned through many lengthy books I had to bear in the past, is beautifully packaged here.

+ Perfect presentation of the Good Message of JESUS CHRIST at the end of the documentary.

NEUTRAL

+ No errors noted (from the viewpoint of my limited technical knowledge). But I generally distrust probability calculations found in every book related to this topic. Those are a nice signpost and are probably more precise than carbon dating methods, but should not be taken too literal.

CONS

- The first third of the documentary is overly technical, although it is still possible to follow the overall thought and grasp the conclusions.

*This discernment does not include a discernment of the respective teachers presented in this documentary.

Facing the Giants (8*)

A very strong Christian movie.

PROS

+ Wonderful display how a leader can influence others through his faith, to follow the same, to have even a small revival on the football field and to fully trust in THEOS in the ups and downs of (football) life.

+ Great acting, which comes across as very natural.

+ Great display of the restoration of a relationship between a father and one of the players.

+ Good and honest display of the suffering of the coach.

CONS

- The movie brings up the topic of in vitro fertilization, but fails to decidedly judge it. Brooke should have at least said to the doctor that she is a Christian and cannot follow such an approach. The couple did not do it in the end, but the viewer could be misled to consider it as an option, because he or she now associates it subconsciously with the Christian faith.

- The movie oversimplifies the Good Message and displays it rather as something you receive than something you give. It would have been great if the coach would have taken his team to serve others, do some good works in the neighborhood or in a church, to have some Bible studies et al.

The Good Message is very different, it is predominantly about serving and trusting, and only eventually to receive something in return. This movie could lead especially new Christians to become quickly disappointed if they do not receive at least some small miracles.

Faith Happens (2016), by Rick Garside (8*)

Evaluation of the 2016 series. Well-made and definitely recommended.

This review does reflect on the first season of the series available on Pureflix. No movie could be found at the time of the review, neither online nor specifically on their website as pointed out before the closing credits.

The series is overall great, and the individual testimonies and stories are very powerful. They chose different topics (adultery, child abuse, drug addiction, foregiveness, illness, money fraud, refugees ...) which they balanced very well and wove them into an overall story, where individual characters played initially secondary roles and then had their story told later on (or the other way around).

There are many painful stories which turn into redemption, but also stories of a Calvinist pastor which started with an intact family but then turned into pure evil in the form of adultery and a complete breakdown of a family, while telling the story from the perspective of the future couple, which was rather inadequate.

Another definitely inadequate part was in episode 2, when the pastor prayed in the counseling session and said in his prayer: "It doesn't make sense. And it's your [the Lord's] fault. [sobbing and pause] It's his fault. It's your fault." This sadly destroys quite a lot of the overall great production and of the lessons we can definitely learn from it. It is a mystery why they included such a prayer. Surely lamentation is sometimes ok, but this is not a prayer we could find anywhere in the Bible, to blame THEOS that it is His fault that this child abuse happened.

Otherwise a great production, but sad to not find the second season to continue.

Faith Like Potatoes, by Regardt van den Bergh (7*)

Great movie.

PROS

+ Great testimony of the conversion of a racist farmer in Africa.

+ Good actors.

+ Beautiful scene of his conversion.

+ Authentic display of the struggle and the hard labor of farmers.

NEUTRAL

o It is very much appreciated that the movie includes some sequences of conversations in the Zulu language. But it is inadequate that those sequences do not offer subtitles.

o The mircles of the healing of the woman, the rain upon the wildfire and the crops seem somehow over the top, but are perfectly possible with THEOS. There is also a healthy balance when the child dies and no supernatural resurrection is even intended.

CONS

- Intentional promotion of divisive denominationalism (Methodist Church).

- He preached in de-facto women's clothing.

- He preached only a few weeks or months after his conversion, but the Bible rather models 3 years of discipleship before going into the world (see the example of JESUS, but necessarily descriptive).

- The conversion appears only as lip service, no baptism is shown nor any display of active repentance towards those whom he verbally and physically abused.

Addendum 15/12/2024: This movie includes many scenes which have the potential of creating doubts in weak believers. Its producer 'Frans Cronjé' has also created the movie 'Born to Win' which includes a nearly identical pattern of alcoholism and rebellion leading to conversion and a pastor. 'Born to Win is highly problematic in regards of very rebellious language towards THEOS, desecreates a copy of the Bible and shows 3 female angels.

The Final Prophecies, by Brent Miller Jr. (4 *)

Some good arguments, but overall poorly investigated.

PROS

+ Generally speaking a good defense of Christianity, with some good arguments.

CONS

- Sadly this documentary is hardly reliable. Most of the content is hastily pieced together, while lacking depth and in many cases obviously investigation and simple Bible study.

- It starts with the claim that the Jews, specifically speaking about the Masoretes, "preserved the text in its most original and purest form". While this is a simplified claim we hear today very often, it is plainly wrong. It should be well known that even the Masoretes complained to have received a corrupted Proto-Masoretic text (corrupted by Akiva and Aquila, 2nd. c. AD).

The documentary does not even mention the Greek text which is much more reliable, and was the predominant text for 5-6 centuries - long before and after CHRIST came. Hebrew played a very minor role until Jerome (while working as secretary for the Pope) revived it. But the movie pretends that there had been a Hebrew tradition reaching from ancient times to our times which is simply wrong.

- It further claims that "even today the ancient Hebrew language is perfectly intact", which is an abstruse claim. Closer to the truth, we speak about very different alphabets and added vowels, and not even Moses would be able to read a single word of what is called Hebrew today. It is more, the term 'Hebrew' (G1447 ΕΒΡΑΙϹΤΙ) in regards of language is exclusively found in the New Testament, while the OT speaks only of 'Aramaic / Syrian' (G4948, ϹΥΡΟϹ) and 'Jewish' (G2451, ΙΟΥΔΑΙϹΤΙ).

- They try to find naturalistic explanations for the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, while not relying exclusively on the biblical miracle.

- They show a burned peak of a supposed Mt. Sinai and do not even mention the name of the mountain nor give at least a few hints why they think it is the correct candidate. The same with the split rock, with no location and little explanation.

- They claim that the Bible says about the anti-Christ, that "they will call him the greatest leader who ever lived". But the Bible does nowhere say anything similar and they also fail to recognize that the anti-Christ is not only a person.

- They randomly suggest that the Jews will search for protection in Petra, but everyone who has only once looked at the region will see that it is very exposed and can hardly serve as refuge.

- They lack an understanding of the 'Last Days' which refers not only to our end times, but all the time since JESUS' resurrection.

- Quote: "Approx. 2500 prophecies exist within the ancient Scripture, each built chronologically upon the previous". I had to laugh aloud when hearing this. Anyone who has even touched eschatology, knows that prophecies are all over the place and that not even individual Bible books containing prophecy usually preserve a chronological order.

- Similar to his 2017 movie, Brent abuses here also Fig Tree Prophecy to supposedly stand for the end times which ought to begin with the rebirth of Israel. This abuse usually implies to confuse a UN declaration done in 1948 with the -SPIRITUAL- rebirth of Israel, to add a generation of 80 to 120 years from that date while badly abusing Psalm 102:12, to add some sensationalism or frightening music like here and to imply that JESUS is just around the corner ...

I refute this Fig Tree Prophecy in more detail in the review about 'The Coming Convergence', where he also better explains what he sketched out here.

- Quote: "The Bible clearly teaches that some day there will be a global unity, eventually a one-world government, a one-world government empire, a one-world government economy and religion, all united in a one-world religion."

This is nowhere 'CLEARLY' found in Scripture and it usually implies not only quite some fantasy and sensationalism, but also to read Daniel 7 into our future, while ignoring that Daniel 7 unquestionably referred to CHRIST's ascension (only Daniel 12:1-4 affects our future!). Some of those hair-raising claims could become true, but we should never add to Scripture as clearly done here.

- The few times the documentary shows Scripture, it is usually just crosstalked which is very disrespectful to THEOS.

Fireproof (2008), by Alex Kendrick (8*)

Great movie, warmly recommended.

Quote of the movie: "Aren't you afraid of dying? No. Cause I know where I am going. I just don't wanna go there because I got hit by a train."

PROS

+ Great example of a father-son relationship, where the son respects his father, puts his trust in him and follows his plan, although initially not knowing what it is all about.

+ Great example of leading by own example, and by the example of JESUS CHRIST.

+ Great Christian theme, without holding back much like in many other 'Christian' movies.

CONS

- Caleb's conversion is very, very thin.

Father: Can't you see that you need his forgiveness?

Son: Yes

Father: Will you trust him with your life?

Son: Slight nodding.

Those words ought to constitute his salvation, what is a farce. There is no repentance nor is there any indication of a baptism.

- No repentance from the real adultery of Caleb and the de-facto adultery of Catherine. We cannot only teach human wisdom from a book, but must more importantly follow the biblical teachings for restoration. There will not be a lasting restoration if the most basic step of repentance is neglected, both a repentance towards THEOS and towards the spouse. A generic apology only to the spouse is not enough.

- No salvation of Catherine. She constantly rejects his efforts during the 40 days, does not show the slightest sign of improvement or redemption from her side, and only changes her mind after the 24k donation of her husband. This sends a very materialistic message to the viewer of the movie and tells us that all his efforts would have failed and they would have divorced, if he would not have made that donation.

They remarry again which is very beautiful and he is a changed and supposedly saved person, but that marriage would in real life continue to suffer if there is zero change from her side and her disrespect resurges after a time.

- The movie contains a scene with car racing on a public street, which is shocking for a Christian movie, especially as it is a scene totally disconnected from the movie.

- A hot sauce contest might be entertaining to the viewer, but 1. the label 'Wrath of G-d' is inadequate and takes His name in vain in a totally unnecessary way, and 2. at least one in a hundred will repeat this and eventually end up in hospital.

- The website www.fireproofmymarriage.com is not working although this movie is still being sold.

Flame in the Wind (1971), by Katherine Stenholm (9*)

Extremely valuable movie.

It was by (divine) coincidence to have found this movie today, after having watched the excellent 'The Printing' from the same producers, Unusual Films. It is an old movie with the respective quality of the image, but this does not take away anything from its enormous spiritual quality and faithfulness to the true Christian faith and history. What a beautiful surprise to have found the movie-equivalent to the book 'Foxe's Books of Martyrs', and I can only put it on the heart of you esteemed reader to watch this movie, which can be truly seen as a 'Must Watch' for every Christian.

PROS

+ Very faithful depiction of the dynamics inside the Spanish Inquisition.

+ Great display of the struggles of even the people who are (or once were) part of the enemy's scheme. With a great display of THEOS' faithfulness, to accept even those who conformed for a time to the enemy, if the victim finds his way out of the enormous psychological pressure that many (hundreds of) thousands suffered in those times. May history never repeat itself, but sadly we are getting closer to a repetition every day that the current Ecumenism moves forward.

+ Great actors and movie sets.

+ Good handling of violent scenes. The producers showed or rather indicated what needed to be seen, but did not torture the mind of the viewer.

NEUTRAL

O We hear several times the term 'Lutherans', which in itself is problematic. Protestantism never meant to go back to the Early Christianity of the Apostles, but it meant to go back to the early Roman Catholic Church (legalized by Constantine in 313 AD; Augustine soon later provided most of its doctrines). Luther was an Augustinian by training, and he continued to practice many of the core tenets of that version of Catholicism after his excommunication and until his deathbed. Little has changed to this day - his religion of Lutheranism is still close to Catholicism and most Lutheran bodies have made efforts in recent years to mend the 'breach' with the RCC. Many Protestant bodies strive for the same evil.

But we find no real endorsement of Lutheranism in this movie, because the term is rather used by the enemy and the following quote from the movie states clearly that it is not about Luther, but about CHRIST:

Quote: "My son, you're accused of deserving the Holy Catholic religion for the heresy of Luther.

I have not varied from the faith since I knew it.

Do you then confess to embracing the heresy of Lutheranism?

I don't know what Lutheranism is. I have embraced the truth of Jesus Christ as revealed in The Holy Scriptures.

Do you deny that Luther is an evil heretic? I know nothing of Luther. He must be a great man if he teaches the Gospel of Christ.

Unhappy creature. He blasphemes that he confesses to embracing Lutheranism.

My son, confess you are in error. We are your spiritual fathers. We are activated solely by the desire to save your soul. Only a sincere confession can deliver you in the next life, spare you in this one from the just vengeance of G-d. Confess, confess your sin."

The enemy was very smart in those times to use the false dilemna between Catholicism and Lutheranism. At least he thought so.

CONS

- None.

Flywheel (2003), by and with Alex Kendrick (8*)

A truly great Christian movie with a very strong Christian message.

PROS

+ Strong display against male pride, and against the mentality that job goes before family.

+ Strong case for humility and for the restoration of a broken family.

+ A message and example rarely seen elsewhere outside the Bible: to restore what has been stolen from others and to chose the good and honest path for the future, no matter the cost.

NEUTRAL

o The movie is sometimes a bit idealized and over the top, but so is the Bible in some regards in our flawed understanding. It makes points which do not necessarily happen in ordinary life (a deceptive TV interview, and minutes later a corrective interview after supporters came to him), but everything is just as THEOS could and would do it in extreme situations.

CONS

- There is a scene where a woman is slapping him in the face -after- he apologizes to her, while her friend is cheering her. This is meant to be funny and indeed is to a certain degree, but I think it goes too far. If a man would slap a woman in the same manner after she apologized sincerely to him, it would be outrageous.

The Forge (2012), by Alex Kendrick (8*)

A wonderful surprise - superb in (almost) every regard.

I did not expect much from the description and movie cover, but all the greater the surprise to find a very solid Christian movie, which also proves that a high end production and faithful movie can go hand in hand.

PROS

+ A topic so often neglected and urgent to be covered - discipleship!

+ A very great motivation to give a chance to those we would normally not consider worthy. Joshua showed us the qualities JESUS desires from us, to look at a human from a much different perspective the world would have, to see potential, trust in THEOS and invest some time to make a great disciple (and worker!).

+ A very beautiful conversion, including a baptism which is sadly very rare to observe in a Christian movie.

+ Very beautiful to see the joy of his mother when things change, which means also a potential motivation for frustrated mothers out there.

+ A powerful display against video games, and for obedience to THEOS.

+ Perfect production quality.

+ Very great acting, except Joshua's prayer for his father, which was overly angry and barely within the limits of divine awe.

+ Very decent and intelligent end, to not include his date with Abigail and with his father as the typical happy-end within in the movie itself, but to put it in the epilogue.

NEUTRAL

o 'Joshua' should probably be an allusion to JESUS, and it is probably also not a coincidence that Joshua's group consisted of 12 disciples before they welcomed the 13th disciple, Isaiah. This is a bit odd and an explanation would have been nice why they chose this number. But in the end it is the orientation and example JESUS gave us - not meaning that everyone of us needs to have 12 disciples, but to raise the bar, especially when considering that most male Christians do not even have 1 disciple and fail the Great Commission.

o Many of the chapters of this movies had been obviously idealized and stylized, and such a story would not necessarily occur as such in the real world (e.g. his father standing in the gate or a boss opening his home so fast), but this is not to a detrimental effect because the movie makes a point, and gives us hope of what can happen, even though this might not occur in such an idealized manner. It might not be the boss, but another co-worker or acquaintance who takes the scepter and disciples such a young and lost soul. The movie achieves its aim, to state that not even a CEO should be too proud to take the least respected, and make him a great disciple of CHRIST and great worker.

- While a Christian movie should rather take a stance against overly competitive practises as shown in the movie (producing 3000 units over night), and the example should be rather to trust in KYRIOS while not trying to force things, it still makes a very important point, to precisely show how a lost soul cannot only become a great disciple, but even show leadership qualities.

CONS

- Derogatory remarks regarding truck drivers, which is an elitist and strongly anti-Christian attitude.

- Endorsement / appreciation of

North Presbyterian Church (Calvinist Church)

Rhema Intl. Ministries (Apostles & Female Teachers, Word of Faith inspired by Kenneth E. Hagin)

High prevalence of Baptist churches, but not problematic.

For the Glory (2012), by Donald Leow (3*)

Interesting and motivational movie, but problematic.

PROS

+ Good example of his wife to set priorities and to look for a man who shares her faith, although it is not clear in the movie if he really found JESUS or just went to church for her.

+ Great willpower to overcome obstacles from his side and to pursue his goals.

CONS

- Indirect promotion of Freemasonry, specifically of a 'Phi Tau Gamma' fraternity.

- Showcase of a ritual where several men are put down psychologically by wearing diapers and being without shirt, both in a community room and later in public in a restaurant.

- Sadly no salvation for parents - they keep pursuing worldly goals at the end of the movie, but at least show one happy moment in the scene where all hug each other. It would have been beautiful for his mother to find JESUS and to get healed.

- The movie is a good example of what to not seek in Christianity. It is not about following JESUS in order to find fulfillment in own plans and worldly goals. It can involve worldly success, but first before anything it means to follow JESUS and to serve others. Becoming famous and pursuing a career has little to do with Christianity.

Foundations (2021), by Brett Varvel (9*)

Great education.

It is a sad testimony for the world that we need such movies. A world which assumes to have become smarter, has become much more drawn into their sin, into self-centered lifestyles.

It would be very easy for evolutionists to accept the other, much more logical side. But they would never, at no cost. Because that would mean to let go of that lifestyle of endless 'possibilities', of freely being able to chose between evil (and good).

But what the people don't see is that while coming to THEOS, they could still chose between good and evil. With the huge difference that they would not be drawn anymore to do evil, but would find fulfillment in their purpose, to not only live for self, but for the well of others.

We don't know if one of the coming generations will wake up to the lie of millions of years. Maybe. Then people would look back and would say how ridiculous their parents or grandparents had been.

Sadly we are right now at the point of people looking back in ridicule at their grandparents, saying how narrow-minded and religious they had been. Yes, they have sometimes been a bit too legalistic, but what is better, a bit too legalistic (or let's say spiritually cautious knowing very well the dramatic consequences there could be) or being drawn to an extreme which has no precedent in any past millennia.

Humans have believed many things we would call today funny at best. But what society believes right now, that we came from fish and monkeys, is not funny anymore.

Look at yourself. Are you not a wonder?

Free Burma Rangers (2020), by Brent Gudgel, Chris Sinclair (2*)

The anti-Gospel and Social Justice on Steroids.

PROS

+ The baptism of one of the formerly brutal soldiers is very beautiful to see.

+ Great music sessions with local kids.

+ They are shown to save several lives.

CONS

- They "have no program to arm our teams. We are not pacifists, but if they are gonna be armed, they arm themselves."

> This is contrary to the New Covenant, which clearly teaches that we are to search for peace (rather Pacifism). It is also problematic that they expect their members to be armed, and the movie does not reveal where the money for those weapons comes from, for people who have lost everything and are without income and probably not savings in order to purchase arms.

- While they fight in Burma, we do not only see arms, but one scene shows them also how they wrap together half a dozen of grenades. This is truly shocking. Later in Iraq, we also see a team member throw a grenade.

- Min 32 "Dear G-d, I am so sorry for those girls (2 missionaries raped and murdered), and their family. I do want to kill all the Burma Army, no question in my mind. Help me know how to - I don't know how to forgive them. I only dare to do that because you commanded it. I don't even want to forgive them. I just want to kill them. But I will obey you Lord. So help me to forgive them and to love them."

- Min 33 - "It would be really simple if the world was just like Lord of the Rings. Here's the humans and the elves and the dwarves and the hobbits and we are pretty good. And there is the evil orcs and they're all terrible. And so, the line of evil is here."

- When they drive in Iraq, Dave is shown sitting on the back of a driving truck with a long arm ready for combat.

- Min 50 - It is shocking to see Dave smile when saying the following line: "The volume of fire was incredible. I think probably any given day in Mosul more shootings happen than any year in Burma." (at this point he smiles which is deeply disturbing).

- Min 53 (bombs exploding, tank screeching) "All right, Dave Eubank, Free Burma, Free Kurd Rangers. We are going to a town that IS*S has held for 2 years now, to be part of the group that liberates it. All in Jesus' name. And thank you for all your help and support and prayers."

- Now we see them praying for a family, and shortly after they leave them, the family gets into a mine. When they hurry back, Dave prays for the life of the girl in Jesus' name and she dies. I am not sure what message the makers of this movie want to transmit with such a degradation of THEOS.

Not only do they paint such a negative picture of THEOS, they use this episode also to manipulate the viewer in justifying the American war on IS*S:

"We evacuated the wounded the best we could. And I turned to Monkey ... That's it man. We're gonna hunt down IS*S from now on. This is why, the reason we fight IS*S is because of this. Killed that little kid. Blew up the family. People who do that, you have to kill them until they decide they're not going to do it. And we pray for them to surrender. But when they stand and do that, then they have chosen to die. We ar- going to share the Gospel of Jesus."

[...] We are going to go after it. And that's justice. What do you think? I think it's right. Let's ask G-d. So that night I said, Lord Jesus, show me the truth of what happened today. Open my Kindle up to the Bible. And I put my finger, and it said: Vengeance is mine. Oh what I thought justice, was (actually) vengeance."

- Min 63 - Dave is shown with a small bleeding on his arm.

Then a team member says about Dave: "And he killed three IS*S. Three Daesh. Terrorists. He (Dave) killed them." Dave now justifies his killing: "What do we gotta do? Can we find another way? A lot of us had near misses. Our vehicles were shot up."

- Min 68 One of the group members is supposedly shot 8 times and brought back to life by Jesus: "I see a dream. I told her, which dream did you see? She said: I see you, you are dead. In the white room. And came to you, He wore white clothes. He is very handsome. And He said to you 'Wake up.' And you woke up."

- Min 72 - Here the producers translate what a local women is saying: "Thanks to G-d for sending your team here." But one can clearly hear that she is not thanking THEOS, but Al***.

- Min 76 - Dave makes one call and the American army drops several bombs. At this point it is crystal clear that this is not a Christian mission, but simply a group of soldiers with its leader believing in Christ, and which does some good things in between.

- Min 83 - Dave uses the Muslim 'Isa' as name for Jesus: "So I grab Zuhair's hand and I just wisper this 'G-d help, in Isa's name' In the transcript, the producers filled in 'Jesus' instead of what Dave actually spoke.

- Francis Chan is Executive Producer.

- The title is deceptive. Most of the movie is dedicated to the war in Iraq.

Genesis: Paradise Lost (2017), by Ralph Strean (7*)

Highly recommended.

Quote of the documentary: "I would rather play the lottery with my wife's savings than bet on something like that." [no endorsement of gambling!]

PROS

+ Incredible production quality, especially the truly outstanding animations.

+ Great display of the Good Message, analogous to Ralph Strean's more recent documentary 'The Ark and the Darkness'.

+ Great defense of Christianity and specifically the Genesis account.

CONS

- Even though the animations are outstanding, a bit more natural material would have been nice to see. In combination with almost exclusively interviewed academics, the documentary became a bit too artificial.

- It would have been great to hear some voices of pastors, ministers et al. This battle of academics against academics is rather a continuation of dozens of apologetic books, which have mostly the same scheme, to generate and potentiate a battle which would be much smaller without the Christian 'answer' which is not really an answer anymore, but has long ago become a driving force behind this conflict. Yes, we sometimes need answers, but those answers have not really led to a solution. Even if we would produce a documentary full of geniuses like the outstanding Charles Jackson and would overwhelm the enemy with the perfect arguments, we would still be far away from breaking spiritually through.

This is not only due to the fact that the enemy most certainly knows that this field of apologetics has today a strong connotation of being a very effective business model which happens to defend the Bible (speaking in general terms), but it is mostly because we underestimate the role of the HOLY SPIRIT in taking away the veil. The book 'The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus', by Gary R. Habermas is to date the only book and / or documentary I have come across which has not forgotten to discuss the role of the Holy Spirit in breaking through the defense of the unbeliever, and sadly this documentary does also not reflect on this most important topic at all.

- Erroneous use of the ~4000 BC (MT), instead of the correct ~5500 BC (Greek OT) creation date affirmed by the following figures:

Demetrius the Chronographer (225 BC)
Flavius Josephus (1c. AD; "history of 5000 years")
Eupolemus (158 BC; creation date 5307 BC)
Hippolytus of Rome (2c. AD; creation date 5502 BC)
Theophilus of Antioch (2c. AD; creation date 5559 BC)
Clement of Alexandria (198 AD; creation date 5627 BC)
Demetrius the Chronographer (225 BC)
Julius Africanus (221 AD; 5500 years to Christ)
John Chrysostom (4c. AD; 5000 years to Christ)
Augustine of Hippo (5c. AD; "not 6000 years have passed")
Alexandrian World Chronicle (~5-6c. AD; creation date 5462 BC)
Isaac the Syrian (7c. AD; 5500 years to Christ)
Quinisext Council (691 AD; creation date 5500 BC)
Doukas (1460 AD; creation date 5500 BC)

This creation date also coincides with the Byzantine Calendar and a long list of Church fathers and other thinkers such as Chrysostom, Doukas, Hippolytus, Isaac the Syrian ...

- Involvement of several Calvinists (Emeal Zwayne, Voddie Baucham and others), but overall a good selection of interview partners.

God's Compass (2016), by Stephan Schultze (6 *)

A beautiful story THEOS could have written.

A truly beautiful movie with some surprising turns. Just as the Bible assigns specific roles for widows / people after a certain age, so THEOS assigned in the precise moment of Suzanne's retirement to fill her life with a new responsibility. It is indeed a story THEOS could have written, of bringing together the dots in the right moment of time and to bring about something good out of misery and evil.

PROS

+ Great plot.

+ Great acting by Suzanne, Eli and his sister, average acting of David and Jessica.

+ Beautiful display of strength of Suzanne, in the time when she felt as having lost Eli, her car and 100k.

NEUTRAL

o Great Christian story, but no true redemption. Suzanne was sadly not able to lead Eli to true repentance for his acts, to lead him in prayer confessing his sins. The judge might have forgiven him, but what about THEOS? Though the end is beautiful and we could expect from this a changed life without further crimes.

o Overall great filmography, but the camera in the first scene in the car was not stable.

CONS

- The arrest of Eli was strange. We see no sign why the cop arrested him.

- The comment that prisoners who encounter JESUS in prison and are being saved, return after their release always to their old life, is deeply ignorant, destructive and demotivating for all the workers of the Kingdom who labor in prison ministries. Nowhere in the movie is this devastating comment being corrected.

- The closing credits show highly problematic entries, such as Liberty University (Jerry Falwell and many controversies), Freemason Baptist Church (seriously???) and Holy Cross Regional Catholic School, but no denominational influence is noticed in the movie itself.

God's Not Dead, by Harold Cronk (3*)

Not recommended - neither to believers nor to unbelievers.

While this movie has a very strong Christian theme and seems to defend the Christian faith, it allows through some highly problematic passages of professor Radisson also for the creation of serious doubts in weak believers. I had to tune out from certain passages, while certainly not considering myself weak. Yes, attacks will come to every believer, but it is plainly wrong to project those attacks to millions of believers and unbelievers alike. This movie could seriously lead some honest believers astray, especially considering its strong association to Catholicism and even to Freemasonry.

PROS

+ Good actors.

+ Great display what the boldness of one individual (Josh Wheaton) can cause.

+ Great scene of the possible salvation of the professor before his death.

CONS

- Creation of a false dichotomy, to say that the opposite to Darwinism is Theistic Evolution. TE is a third new way which reaches the hand to unbelieving scientists, while placing the creation account millions years ago and 'converting' THEOS into the role of a bystander, who watched the Big Bang happen. They plainly endorse in the movie the Cambrian Explosion commonly placed 530 million years ago.

- Inclusion of a Franklin Graham sermon (de-facto Catholic; highly problematic teacher ...).

- Endorsement of C.S. Lewis through a quote (Believed in purgatory; Tao is the highest morality; rejected biblical inerrancy; theistic evolutionist; considered Hindu, Buddhist and Muslims as brothers in Christ ...).

- Endorsement of Lee Strobel through a quote (de-facto Catholic; strong support of Catholic Mysticism; Theistic Evolution; Purgatory ...)

- The inclusion of Willie Robertson and the defense of him shooting ducks is confusing, to say the least.

- The song performed by Newsboys has lyrics which have very little to do with Christianity and are rather twisting it.

"Let love explode and bring the dead to life [absurd blathering]

A love so bold to see a revolution somehow [ " ]

In this world I'll overcome [the Bible says you will be hated and persecuted; we will only overcome after our Resurrection]

He's living on the inside, roaring like a lion [this is not biblical at all and rather pop-religion]

My faith is dead, I need a resurrection somehow [confusing words]

Come shake the ground with the sound of revival

Let heaven roar and fire fall" [this is not biblical and can probably be found in the New Apostolic Reformation or in Pentecostalism]

- Another song including absurd blathering is 'This Is The Time' by 'Superchick'. It is a true mystery how such a song made it into this movie. I could go through more soundtracks but will leave it with that ...

"This is the story of your life. A movie starring you. What's the next scene have for you to do? Leave the dishes in the sink. Leave your fear there too. Live the story you would write for you. Say hey hey wake your heart. And break break break apart. The walls that keep you from being you. And walk walk towards the light. And don't stop till you live your life. Like someone died for you. This is the time to try. Step out your life is waiting. And as you fall you'll find that you can fly."

- The closing credits contain references to problematic institutions / organizations:

Alpha Iota Omega 'Christian' Fraternity [Freemasons, seriously?]

Badger Catholic Foundation

Beta Upsilon Chi [Freemasons, seriously?]

St. James Episcopal Church

Godspell (1973), by David Greene (1*)

One word: sac·ri·le·gious /ˌsakrəˈlijəs/

I am not aware what will happen if a believer makes it to watch this entire movie. Will his or her faith suffer a serious damage? Probably. I made it 16 minutes into the movie and could not believe my eyes and ears.

I have seen many attacks on Christianity, but this one is without comparison. Scandalous, sacrilegious and deeply blasphemous, no matter all the beautiful smiles.

The Grace Card (2010), by David G. Evans (5*)

A very mixed bag. Not recommended.

PROS

+ Powerful display of foregiveness and reconciliation.

+ Powerful display of biblical justice - although with a touch of Social Justice which the movie redefines at the end as grace:

Pastor Sam: "I hear that every single day, like justice is gonna change our hearts. It won't." Congregation: "That's right." Sam: "It's not justice we need or even want. It's grace."

CONS

- Min 6 - One officer lays his hands on officer Sam's breast, while laughing: "Bless me father for I have sinned". Sam: "I'm a Nazarene [CHRIST and Christians were called so], I don't want to hear your confessions." Laughter.

- Min 16 - Highly problematic prayer:

Daughter: "And Uncle Joseph and Grandpa George, and for Winky too. And Jesus, thank you for Mama's lasagna. You know, I don't like lasagna, but Mama says children in Africa would kill for her lasagna. So, Lord, maybe you can send some to them so they don't have to kill anybody."

Mother: "And Lord, please make Gracie's fanny hurt a lot when I whip it in about 10 seconds."

Father: "And the Wright family said, Amen."

- Min 26 - Second prayer, before they sleep:

Wife: "Are we forgetting something?"

Husband: "Oh yeah, right. Lord, I thank you for another day, and Lord, I, Lord, I, I'm so hungry."

Wife, still praying: "Well, go get yourself some more broccoli after prayers."

Husband: "Broc?"

Wife: "Ohh, oh let me do it. Thank you, Father, for all your blessings, for this life and our beautiful children and this wonderful man you have given me. Speak through him tomorrow and let him rest in that. And his new partner ... What's his name honey?"

Husband: "Mac." The prayer turns now finally serious, but it is a ridiculous display of 'Christianity' with a total lack of any holiness.

- Min 37 - Plain promotion of 'Christian' counseling, which is conducted here without prayer, the involvement of biblical principles or the Bible itself. Prior to the counseling, the movie does not display any biblical methods such as prayer, but places its hope instantly in psychology.

- Min 44 - Sam is in the library of his grandfather, holding up the book 'Spurgeon's Sermons on the Death And Resurrection of Jesus', which is strategically placed next to the book 'Spurgeon's Sermon Notes' and the Roman Catholic book 'The Greatest Story Ever Told' by Fulton Oursler'.

Grandfather to Sam: "Spurgeon? That's good stuff."

[the camera shows a photo of the false Christian Martin Luther King]

Sam: "How long did it take you to collect all these books, grandpa?"

Grandfather: "Oh boy, 50 years. And each and every one of these, I'm gonna turn over to you."

- Min 76 -

Sam: "I'm a pastor. I was called to minister to people, or so I thought."

Wife: "What's that supposed to mean?"

Sam: "It's my part-time job. I can't focus on it or grow it or really even commit to it because I have to ride around in a cop car for hours a day [...] Chasing the bad guys, wearing the badge, that's real. And I'm growing there, but my church isn't growing. It's growing stale. And soon enough, it'll just die, because of me."

This is a very sad testimony about the problematic setup of churches today. The biblical church is never composed of a single pastorate with a full-time salary, but always of a plurality of elders who occupy the very same office, and have the very same function as pastors or overseers. How many more movies do we have to watch, and real-life situations like this to suffer until we read the Word of THEOS, apply it to our setup of churches and avoid all this misery as now even complained about in this movie?

At least we see in the movie towards the end, that pastor Sam 'resigns' himself to being a police office and pastor, but he continues with all the weight on his shoulders.

- Min 94 - Plain endorsement of the Roman Catholic concept of making amends / doing penance:

A man who killed years earlier the officer's son on a police chase, is now walking into the church in a priestly garment: "I surrendered my life to my father, and I sought to make amends for the mess that I made of that life.

For penance, I entered the mission field in my ancestors' land of Kenya. Now it is the thing for which I live. I paid society for my crime with eight years of my life."

Wikipedia: "Penance is any act or a set of actions done out of repentance for sins committed, as well as an alternate name for the Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession. It also plays a part in confession among Anglicans and Methodists, in which it is a rite ..."

While the scene is very beautiful and powerful, it is also a very subtle manipulation of the viewer to accept such an heretical concept of penance, of doing specific actions in order to earn THEOS' grace and forgiveness. While tears are shed and a hip song is played, the viewer is drawn into this Catholic concept without even realizing it and associates it subconsciously with something good and biblical. While this alone will obviously not make a viewer a Catholic, it plants an evil seed which other movies, resources and sermons will further water.

- The credits include the following:

Father Joseph M. Gohn

Highland Heights Presbyterian Church

Michael's Catholic Church

Morning Sun Cumberland Presbyterian Church

St. Francis of Assisi St.

Spurgeon Books published by Hendrickson Publishing

Grace Unplugged (2013), by Brad J. Silverman (4*)

A movie which is ok, but not what I would recommend.

PROS

+ Good, but not great actors.

+ Good script.

+ Good display of Christian boundaries when it comes to dating (or better courting).

+ No problematic endorsement, no foul language or other transgressions.

CONS

- In parts over-acted and overly dramatic, both when it comes to the father and daughter.

- She is lying in the movie, by saying that her father is happy when she clearly knows that he is not.

- She appears to be (nearly) drunk in one scene.

- The movie contains some Christian, but also some anti-Christian values, e.g. it pushes a celebrity-Christianity with the focus on the worship team and specific persons.

- The movie does rather not edify a Christian in his walk with THEOS.

The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), by George Stevens (4*)

Mediocre Telling of the Greatest Story Ever Occurred

This movie provides us with a good summary of the biblical events and is made for those who have rather no knowledge of the Bible and don't bother with details or holiness. It is interesting for sure, but void of emotions or any passion, and is filmed on movie sets which are too obvious to not be true.

CONS

- The character of JESUS is not well selected. He seems more to be a parody of JESUS and the movie feels the same at times. There is little holiness and some of his sermons even take place under a bridge, while limping people walk above and continue unaffected by JESUS' presence below.

(When Max von Sydow was playing JESUS in this movie, he prepared himself already for 'The Quiller Memorandum' (one year later; 1966; a Cold War Neo-Nazi intrigue), played Catholic Father Lankester Merrin in 'The Exorcist' (1973) and Emperor Ming in the anti-Christian movie 'Flash Gordon' (1980). Sydow was reported to be either an agnostic or an atheist. He was also divorced and remarried.)

- The costumes are not very good. Most ordinary people are simply dressed in white or beige and it seems more like a procession of Jesuits than an imagery one could have imagined from that time. Especially the men wearing white head coverings, while sometimes holding torches, contribute to this notion.

- The magi have a direct conversation with Herod, without any interpreters, which is highly unlikely to have occurred.

- Heretical self-fulfilling prophecy: Herod, who did not believe in THEOS, quotes aloud Jer 31:15 "Thus says the Lord: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.", and then commands his soldiers to fulfill this prophecy (!!!) This is rather a diminishing of the power of prophecy and most certainly would not have occurred in such an unsophisticated manner.

- When JESUS comes to John the Baptist, he asks him: "Do I know you" [...] JESUS: "What is your name". After the baptism, no dove ascends.

- The conversation between JESUS and Satan is spurious. The order is changed at random and Satan does not leave him at the end, which should be the essence of the whole dialogue. If Satan would not have left Him, JESUS would not have triumphed.

- The selection process of the disciples is twisted to an extreme (both order and places). Judas Iscariot is the first disciple here to be recruited (!) which did certainly not happen. Neither Simon Peter, nor Andrew or John are fishing, but are standing in white clothes near a lake.

- Little respect of His disciples is shown - to the contrary: One disciple rejects a tunic from JESUS. Another disciple tells JESUS that he "made a bad mistake" when he selected the tax collector. His disciples later question him why he wants to go to save Lazarus.

- Senseless dialogues: James to JESUS "What is your name". "JESUS". "Oh, that's a good name."

- The first miracle of JESUS is the most twisted depiction one could imagine. It firstly takes place in a synagogue which would hardly have occurred. Then the unbelief of the man is so great that JESUS literally gets angry and has to repeat his invitation of healing several times. The man gets up after a long wait and while he walks, his legs are still visibly crippled ...

- The story of the woman caught in adultery is not found in the Bible (Joh 7:53-8:11 is added).

- Many scenes are stylized as if coming from a painting. At the last supper, all disciples sit in a row facing the camera, which definitely did not occur in such a manner.

- Upon the first repetition of the Lord's Prayer, they include the extrabiblical phrase "for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen". Here we notice that the producers / writers are not Christians, if not they would have known what belongs to the Bible.

- They claim in the movie that JESUS entered Jerusalem on a Holy Sabbath or Weekly Sabbath, which is incorrect, because He entered on the second day of the week which was 4.5 days before the Holy Sabbath. He cleanses in the movie the temple on the same day, while the Bible makes it clear that this occurred one the day after his triumphal entry.

- The order of the people witnessing the resurrection is reversed. In the movie it is 1. soldiers 2. disciples and 3. the women ...

The Healing (1983), by Russell Doughten (9*)

Probably the most Christian fiction ever seen. Highly recommended.

I was at first skeptical about the movie being very old, and the first minutes are a bit of a contrast to overcome. But once you get into the movie and allow yourself to be taken back in time for some decades, you will very soon enjoy this wonderful movie.

PROS

+ A beautiful story of fallenness turned into redemption.

+ A story of tragedy allowed by THEOS in order to wake up a backslider and bring him not only into salvation for himself, but also for others.

+ A beautiful example of how serving others is, and has always been the best remedy for healing yourself while forgetting about your own pain.

CONS

- None.

The movie is a bit cheesy at times, and the actors and the budget are average, but this does not take away from the spiritual benefit of this movie, which is enormous. It is one of the very few movies which really shows how to act as a believer in ordinary life and to bring the Good Message to others. Most Christian movies talk about the WORD a bit here and there, but this movie is built around the WORD. Again - it is wonderful and highly recommended.

The Hill (2023), by Jeff Celentano (6*)

This movie is confusing and rather troubling than encouraging.

In summary and from the perspective of Rickey, the movie wants to make us believe that it is eventually praiseworthy to disobey your parents, to falsify a signature, to go from wreck to player to wreck to player, to be a celebrity for 4 short years, to have one's spine give out and never play baseball again, to get married in between, commit adultery, to marry again and divorce once again.

And voilà, this makes a Christian worth to be made a movie of, and a model to be followed. Seriously? While this movie pretends to be Christian, it is rather a deconstruction of Christianity. It is a sad display that America is much closer to an apostasy than to a revival.

PROS

+ Great performance of Pastor Hill (Dennis Quaid). He might be overzealous, but he much rather represents biblical values than any other character in the movie.

+ Great example when the boys admit that they smashed the windshield of a neighbor.

CONS

- Although the boys admit that they sinned by falsifying signatures, there is no sign of repentance, but a rebelious kid who challenges his father to be beaten by him all night and not to change. Such a rebellion is a horrible and highly unbiblical example.

- Should we really imply legalism when a pastor rebukes a churchgoer who smokes during the sermon, or a women who spits repeatedly her saliva mixed with a texture of food (chewing tobacco) into a bowl on the floor, right in the front row? We do not know the peculiar intentions why the producers included such details in the movie, but in the end it is senseless to invent a desecration of the sanctury and at the same time use this as means as to paint a legalistic pastor. Any pastor who would not instantly rebuke such actions, should not be a pastor.

- The movie is loaded with foul language, mixed with overly spiritual language.

- The movie displays a solo pastorate which is not biblical. The biblical pattern is always a plurality of elders who are the exact same office and function as pastors. And such people usually work for their bread. While a movie is free to show such transgressions if this happened indeed, it has the obligation to add some corrective remarks, in order that the viewer understands that this situation was caused by human error. But instead we see the situation deviate further and further, and see even family members question THEOS.

- Repeated disrespect towards his father, who in real life would have been rather in the SPIRIT, because he understood much better that life is not about celebrity status and a meagre career of 4 years before breaking the back for lifetime.

- Totally unnecesarry divisiveness, by endorsing denominational churches such as First Baptist and Warrengton First United Methodist Church. The Bible condemns such divisions and it is therefore sinful to intentionally include such in a movie, no matter how often this is done and how foreign and legalistic this comment may appear to the reader.

- The director, Jeff Celentano is not a Christian at all ('no religious background').

Hoovey (2015), by Sean McNamara (10 *)

Excellent movie, and captivating drama.

It is rare to find a great Christian movie which comes in such a high quality. Even though I am tired of watching another movie about the American Dream and sports, this movie is different. It is strongly based on Christian morals and Bible stories such as the story of Job. It is a drama such as THEOS could have written it, of a suffering He sometimes allows, of a beautiful family unity and strength of that family, and of course especially of Hoovey.

PROS

+ Very great actors.

+ Excellent camera and images.

+ Wonderful movie, to simply enjoy and lean back.

NEUTRAL

o The 3 men who helped to pull out the car could have made some people scratch their head, but there is nothing biblically speaking that does disallow for something like that to happen today. The movie is very sound and apart from this scene which scratches the limits of orthodoxy, there is absolutely nothing to object which is very, very rare in a Christian movie. No swearing, no transgressions, no questionable endorsements or doctrine.

CONS

- The movie is a bit too much focused on the family and we do not see characters involving their church members, friends or extended family.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996), by Gary Trousdale, Kirk Wise (5*)

A great movie, but not a recommendation.

A masterpiece of a movie I would like to recommend, but I sadly cannot do so because of palm-reading and associations to witchcraft on the good side of the characters.

The movie is great in many aspects, and it is good to see Disney having taken justice against the Catholic Church, and having revealed their often unbiblical, or let us say rather evil motives against those the church should protect.

This movie showed one of the ugly facets, which only centuries ago had still been visible, and has damaged the image of THEOS' church until today.

The true church will protect the innocent and those cast out by society.

I Can Only Imagine (2018), by Andrew Erwin, Jon Erwin (7*)

A great movie, but some discernment required.

This movie is warmly recommended. I watched it in 2020 and 2024, and appreciate this remarkable story based on true events. It starts as a story so often told and lived, within a broken family, with a drinking father and all the ugly consequences.

But this story involves much more, a son who goes out to find himself and to follow his calling, despite the negative messages received over the years from his father, saying that 'you are not enough' and 'you won't make it to anything'. Although Christian life is not necessarily about realizing oneself and gaining a big name, this story is surely orchestrated by THEOS and shows His wonderful redemption and restoration in the midst of brokenness. Not a perfect restoration and with scars remaining, but still very powerful.

CONS

- We don't really see the salvation of Bart, which would have been the most important point to include in this movie.

- The first mention of anything related to faith was a youth pastor from Greenville -Baptist- church. It is sad that we cannot just be Christians and that the first mention of the movie is divisive and denominational.

Only when we follow the link at the end of the movie, we understand the intention behind the explicit mention of the Baptist denomination. The website is chataboutfaith.com, which partners with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Org. (SBC), Saddleback Church (SBC), the International Mission Board (SBC) and the North American Mission Board (SBC). See also my discernment on the SBC.

- Direct appearance of the singer Michael W. Smith (Roman Catholic, part of the Passion Translation project).

- Promotion of the highly problematic band U2 through their song 'Into the Heart'

- The first smalltalk of the band includes references to Confucius, Aristotle and fortune cookies. Not sure why the producer found this fitting for a Christian movie.

An Interview with God (2018), by Perry Lang (4*)

Well made, but problematic. Catholic / Jesuit influence / movie.

PROS

+ Very good plot.

+ Very good music.

+ Very good acting.

+ Overall well made.

CONS

- It is fundamentally wrong to display THEOS in such a way. It is not blasphemous, but has the great potential to permanently damage a believer's journey and relationship with Him. I watched the movie, but intentionally only listened to the scenes with 'g-d'. Even this was partly disturbing because of words and attitudes THEOS would never display.

- The movie contains some erroneous theology. It is stated as fact that JESUS repeated only six out of ten commandments (probably to justify Catholic idols, because precisely the commands I-IV are excluded in their interpretation). But JESUS affirmed every single command repeatedly (I-Mat 22:37; II-1Joh 5:21; III-Mar 3:29; IV-Luk 14:3; V- Mat 19:19; VI-Luk 18:20; VII-Mat 5:27-28; VIII-Mat 15:19; IX-Mat 15:19; X-Rom 13:9).

- The first opening quote comes from William Cowper, an Anglican.

- The second opening quote comes from Henry Ward Beecher, a Presbyterian.

QUOTES

- Quote in minute 72:

"sono l'unico vero dio" (I am the only true G-d).

Your Italian is very good.

Loyola Rome, junior year abroad.

Well, that's time well spent."

>> Loyola Rome is a Jesuit University.

- Quote at the end of the movie:

"Having faith is not worth much if you don't really believe."

>> They turn it upside down. Belief is first. Even Satan believes. Faith is much more than belief.

Is Genesis History? (2017), by Thomas Purifoy (9*)

Highly recommended.

It was a beautiful surprise to find this movie.

And it is a rare find to have producers and so many contributors to stand with the Bible, in times where only -2- out of 200 professors at Wheaton College are believing in a true Genesis account. Wild times as we also see through the ratings, either 10 stars or 1 star, especially in Canada, Australia and UK, while the same documentary has 9 stars on Amazon.

This documentary is a wonderful defense of the biblical account and the producer has a great talent in interviewing the right people.

There was one small error, the localization of Babylon which is obviously wrong (Eze 26:7 "For thus says KYRIOS the THEOS: "Look! I am bringing to -TYRE- Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon from the NORTH").

The rest is just wonderful. Highly recommended.

I Still Believe, by Andrew & Jon Erwin (4*)

Deeply touching, but no biblical faith.

PROS

+ The beach session with 'Find Me In The River' is superb.

+ Both main actors are great.

+ The story is deeply touching.

CONS

- The movie creates a dangerous precedent of mixing worship songs with romantic love songs, as repeatedly expressed in the movie through Jeremy Camp and TheKry. This is sadly a very bad example and confirms the suspicions many of us had already before watching this movie.

- He is singing "would you take the nails from His hands", while smiling at his girl in the crowd. Mat 15:8: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me"

- All the characters involved in the movie show very much the same reactions before and after the death of Melissa than any pagan would show.

Jeremy praises his wife for her faith, but little faith is shown in the movie, to the contrary - both are deeply distressed and depressed until her very last day. If we show true faith, we are maybe distressed, but there is a beautiful expectancy of being with THEOS sooner than later. In the movie, we find no expectancy of that, no hope and therefore no real faith.

Instead we see a Jeremy who questions THEOS why she is gone. "I begged G-d to heal Melissa, what am I supposed to do with that." Soon later he even smashes his prized guitar into pieces.

Could we imagine such a reaction e.g. from the biblical Paul if he would have been married? To question THEOS and to smash valued possessions into pieces? Hardly, and by that comparison it becomes clear that the faith of this movie has very little to do with the Bible.

Biblical faith is that of David, who suffers until the death of his son, but then his joy of meeting his child in Heaven overwhelms.

- The movie includes the breaking of a vow to THEOS, which is scandalous to see in a Christian movie. The producers had no need to mention such a vow, but did it intentionally and offered no justification why she should have been free to break the vow.

- Repeated violation of the Moral Law - lying (Min 8: Jeremy: "Norm sent me" in order to gain access to the venue; Min 31: They agree to keep their dating a secret and 10 seconds later she calls her friend).

- The band is worshiping with head coverings. While the Bible is clear that men should never wear any head covering during prayer, this might also apply to worship because it is in a strong sense a form of prayer. I personally prefer not to sing with my head covered and not to get into the gray area, but this is a point which everyone must decide individually for him- / or herself after asking the HOLY SPIRIT.

- One of the main actors is Gary Sinise, a Roman Catholic.

- 'Special thanks' includes: Christ Anglican Church, Christ Methodist Church, Harvest Ministries, with a strong focus on Baptist churches.

- The prominent link at the end of the movie is chataboutfaith.com, which partners with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Org. (SBC), Saddleback Church (SBC), the International Mission Board (SBC) and the North American Mission Board (SBC). See also my discernment on the SBC.

It's a Life Worth Living (2020), by Keith Perna (9*)

Wonderful, encouraging movie. Clear recommendation.

It had been a while since I cried at a movie, but this one got me. It is not easy to watch, as it shows in a quite natural way the consequences of broken families and the ugly facets of conflict and drug abuse. But so worth it.

PROS

+ Overall good acting, just sometimes the changes in mood were a bit forced and over pronounced.

+ Overall quite authentic.

+ Very encouraging, especially for those who had been involved in such drug abuse.

+ A strong Christian theme, although the conversations related to CHRIST did not always flow naturally. This theme includes restoration & salvation, and restoration of others.

CONS

- Some scenes came across a bit artificial (especially the scene when he visits her at her office, but still a beautiful moment).

> Overall clear recommendation.

The Jesus Film (1979), by John Krish, Peter Sykes (7*)

Overall a good movie, but with some errors and a problematic prayer.

This movie is overall a good movie, but it sadly discredits itself through a Sinner's Prayer, lacking any words for repentance and suggesting that praying this prayer has resulted in eternal life, which is a deeply heretical teaching. The remastered version includes a slightly modified version where repentance is included, but it still suggests eternal life based on that prayer.

"To experience his love and forgiveness and receive eternal life you must receive him as G-d's sacrifice for your sin, and invite him to come into your life by faith. If this is the desire of your heart, you can pray a prayer of faith and Jesus Christ will come into your life. This is a suggested prayer, I will say it first:

'Lord Jesus I need you, thank you for dying on the cross for my sin. I open the door of my life and receive you as my Savior and Lord. Take control of my life. Make me the kind of person you want me to be. Amen.'

If this prayer expresses the desire of your heart, pray this prayer right now, where you are. Pray after me silently, as I repeat one phrase at a time:

'Lord Jesus I need you. Thank you for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive you as my Savior and Lord. Take control of my life. Make me the kind of person you want me to be. Amen.'

Now that you have prayed this prayer of faith, and invited Jesus Christ to come into your life, you can be sure that He came in, because he promised he would if only you would ask Him. You can also be sure that your sins are forgiven, that you are a child of G-d and have eternal life. If you want to experience the full and abundant life which Jesus promised, talk with Him every day in prayer. Discover his wonderful plan for your life by reading the Scriptures and meet with others who love and follow him ..."

The remastered version includes additionally the following wording, but no hint of baptism is given:

"I confess and repent of my sins. I open the door of my life and receive you as my Savior and Lord. Thank you for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life."

PROS

+ Overall good actors

+ Supernatural elements are shown in a very decent way.

+ Filmed on location in Israel at authentic biblical sites.

CONS

- Although the movie is generally faithful to Scripture, it still sometimes represents a patchwork of scenes. Several accounts are thrown together into new narratives which results in a potpourri.

- The account of the Transfiguration adds extrabiblical and problematic speech of Moses, who says here to JESUS that He will die in Jerusalem.

- The account of the crucifixion includes a Fast-Track-Trial which is nowhere found in Scripture and clearly wrong.

- The inscription on the cross is lacking 'Jesus of Nazareth' and only says 'King of the Jews'. While this is the reading of Luke, it is only a partial reading which the other Gospels complete. Even though this movie focusses on Luke, this cannot mean that we produce a false sign.

ΙΗϹΟΥϹ Ο ΝΑΖⲰΡΑΙΟϹ Ο ΒΑϹΙΛΕΥϹ ΤⲰΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙⲰΝ.

iesous ho nazoraios ho basileus ton ioudaion

- Sinner's Prayer suggesting Eternal Salvation

- The film used the Good News Bible, which is highly problematic for the fact that the 1979 version (same year this movie was released) added the Apocrypha!! This means that millions of viewers were potentially introduced to the Apocrypha (a total of 4 billion people supposedly viewed this movie).

Jesus of Nazareth (1977), by Franco Zeffirelli (9*)

A Monumental Masterpiece of Christian Cinema.

* Review of the 104 min version.

PROS

+ Very well-made for the 80's.

+ Very authentic and lively conversations; not always truthful to the Bible, but overall showing very well how the individual people groups would have spoken and interacted without being stiff as often seen in other movies.

+ Excellent actors.

+ The Lord's Prayer is fully recited, what a monumental scene.

+ Beautiful scene where JESUS heals the servant of the Roman ruler.

CONS

- The narrative is overthrown and stories are mixed.

- The story of the woman caught in adultery is not found in the Bible (Joh 7:53-8:11 is added).

- Some false quotations, e.g. "it took centuries to rebuild this temple ...".

- The phrase during JESUS' trial "I too know some Greek" shows a fundamental lack of understanding that Greek was the predominant language in that time, and even the Romans spoke rather Greek than Latin in that area.

Joseph: King of Dreams (2000), by Rob LaDuca, Robert C. Ramirez (7*)

A wonderful production.

PROS

+ Great animations - made with a lot of effort, love and creativity.

+ Overall faithful to the Bible.

+ Great teaching of one of the most beautiful stories of the Bible.

+ Beautiful songs.

+ No swearing, no problematic content or doctrines.

CONS

- It does not fit Joseph's character and the biblical narrative to see Joseph standing in front of all his relatives on a mountain, while raising his arms and seeking admiration. He was made special, but did probably not pretend to be special.

- Joseph would have certainly not used an amulet to protect himself from evil.

- His father would not have said: "You are a miracle child".

- There is basically no display of the faith of Jacob, nor of Joseph, but the faith and the ceremonies of the Pharaoh are displayed.

- The first communication of Joseph with THEOS is at min 42, complaining to THEOS.

- According to the movie, Joseph also asked his brothers for forgiveness which is rather not true. He offered forgiveness.

King of Kings (2019), by Nicholas Ray (2*)

A masterpiece of heresies.

This movie is a tragic example that greatness is not found in the quantity of movie sets and actors, but rather in its quality and much rather in its biblical faithfulness. Although the movie is great in a few regards, it utterly fails when it comes to its personifications and its ultra-liberal interpretation of the Bible, while unscrupulously adding to the Word of THEOS.

- The movie is deeply Catholic in its character and also regarding its actors. I ran a random discernment on some selected figures (the ones who play the good side of the biblical narrative and who should therefore have higher standards than someone who plays a Roman) and the results were unambiguous:

Jeffrey Hunter (who played Jesus) was a Freemason (member of Phi Delta Theta fraternity) and Episcopalian (= de facto Catholic).

Siobhán McKenna (who played Mary) was a Catholic.

Carmen Sevilla (who played Mary Magdalene) was a Catholic.

Robert Ryan (who played John the Baptist) was raised Catholic and educated at a Jesuit institution (Loyola Academy).

- Mary has a costume which is ridiculous and does not fit anywhere into what a local woman would have worn in that time. She is portrayed as extraordinarily holy and is wearing a costume that fits this description.

In one scene, she is approached by another woman: "Will you speak to your son for me? Intercede!" It is clear at this point that the movie tries hard to introduce a basis for Mariology.

The following points reflect in the order of the movie the discrepancies:

- The wise men came instantly when the child was born, not some months later.

- The movie adds a whole narrative thread which is totally foreign to the Bible and could come straight from apocryphal or pseudepigraphal books. While it invests during 168 minutes only 2 derisory minutes in the resurrection, it invests a great portion into Barabbas, the one who is set free instead of JESUS.

He is made into a kind of revolutionary who leads a small army and in the movie even overshadows the activities of JESUS, but then fails to prevail against the Romans, which are rather glorified in this movie, which is not surprising considering the fact that it is a movie of the Roman Catholic (State) Church. The movie goes as far as to replace the trilingual sign on the cross with a Latin abbreviation of 4 letters (Inri).

- JESUS' baptism is the worst film version one could imagine, excluding the biblical script entirely and not even showing a dove. JESUS does not even go into the water, entirely in line with the modern Catholic abuse of habitual sprinkling.

- There is much added regarding John the Baptist.

- Salome (the one who demanded John's head) is presented in an almost sympathetic light, which is of course pure evil.

- Several healings are shown without the presence of JESUS and are hastily patched together.

- JESUS tells the Parable of the Sower while walking on a city street ...

- The movie adds the story of the woman caught in adultery which is entirely foreign to the Bible.

- JESUS is trying to free John, but fails to do so when visiting him in prison. This is of course outmost heretical. If JESUS would have wanted to free John, he could have done so at any given moment. But certain things had to occur.

- John does here not send his disciples to JESUS, but while being in person, he sends a Roman soldier with the task to ask JESUS if he is the one. A horrible twisting of Scripture.

- While not being aware which translation was used, it was sometimes a challenge to follow along the lines of supposed biblical text.

- When JESUS is going through the 6 trials, He is assigned a literal defense lawyer (of course a Roman), who argues for him. This is one of the worst moments of supposedly Christian cinema I have seen.

- After JESUS delivered the Sermon on the Mount, we hear the degrading dialogue of one of the bystanders: "... your friend is one of those who did not understand"

- JESUS is show to have gone to teach in the temple the same day He arrived to Jerusalem (first day only visit, teaching second day onwards)

- Very strange dialogue before His arrest: "Keep watch and pray." Disciple: "Why must we wait?" JESUS: "What can I say?"

- The movie explicitly states that the Passover began after His arrest, which is once again heresy.

- JESUS is taken down after sunset = when the Sabbath of Sabbaths had already begun. This is once again a clear and significant violation of Scripture.

Stay far away from the movie.

Last Flight Out (2004), by Jerry Jameson (10*)

Great Christian cinema.

This movie deeply touched me, not only because of the fact that I previously lived for many years in South America, but most importantly because it carries a very important message and is well made.

PROS

+ Wonderful testimony of restoration and redemption. THEOS can even restore the worst criminals who steal millions of dollars and use those criminals for his purposes. It is also a beautiful testimony of the suffering He sometimes allows, but that He never leaves us nor forsakes us.

+ Great action, without harmful violence through the Christians in the movie. Dan's actions could be seen as overly violent, but he soon after repented of his sins and experienced salvation.

NEUTRAL

- Some would qualify his prayer as the 'Sinner's Prayer' which could be insufficient for Past Salvation, but to make this prayer in an airplane is certainly valid, and we can assume that he would have been baptized soon after.

CONS

- I would not have watched this movie if I would have known beforehand that it was financed by the Billy Graham foundation. After prayer, I decided to nevertheless recommend this movie, but to remove the link to Amazon Prime and only leave the free link to TubiTV. The movie itself does not contain any questionable elements nor does it endorse the Catholic Church of Graham, therefore I endorse this movie as per exception.

Late One Night (2001), by Dave Christiano (9*)

Highly recommended.

I am surprised how many emotions a short movie of half an hour can include. This movie is challenging in many aspects, to both believers and unbelievers.

It leaves the unbeliever with the choice if to continue making fun of those Christians and of THEOS, or if to take those warnings about our destiny seriously.

And it challenges a believer who is too comfortable, and who is rather a nominal Christian.

And even more importantly, it challenges the Christian church to become more serious about the business of THEOS and less about money, signs and miracles. The overall image of the church is very important and we have to cleanse the church by a proper discernment of false teachings, which leave such impressions on unbelievers.

Life Changes Everything: Discover Zac Ryan (2017), by Corey Paul (10*)

A truly excellent movie.

It was a pleasant delight to watch this movie. It is apparently filmed on a low budget, but it is very well-made and the script is perfect.

I was only wondering when it would turn out to be a Christian movie and this finally happened in the last part of the movie. It was then just a bit too spontaneous and felt more like injected as afterthought (what it certainly was not).

It is a very beautiful story with a sudden and perfect ending, which leaves the viewer pondering about the essential message of the movie: do not murder innocent babies or embryos.

We never know what THEOS has prepared and what consequences such an act could have.

Lifemark (2019), by Kevin Peeples (6*)

Great morality, but a slim and incognito Christianity.

PROS

+ Great production quality and great actors.

+ The movie is very great in removing many psychological barriers. This implies the barrier for reconciliation after a very long time and distance, and especially to consider adoption instead of murder.

+ No problematic language or violence.

CONS

- A mix between superficiality, matched clothing styles and super-emotionalism.

- While the movie is very pleasant to watch and carries a very great message, it is far away from the Good Message of JESUS CHRIST.

We can certainly all agree that adoption is a considerable alternative, but have to ask ourselves if this is the plan A of the Bible, especially given the fact of its complete absence from it. Yes, it is true that not everything is stipulated in the Bible, but could we come to the same quintessence of the movie, specifically of David's advise to his sister, to simply think it over again based on his example?

This culmination of the movie in this worldly advise is problematic. It is one thing what David experienced in the past, but a whole other thing what he now makes out of that knowledge. He presented his sister literally the Good Message of his upbringing, but how much more important would it have been to present her not just a plan B, but the Good Message of JESUS CHRIST, which would include to first follow Him instead of her brother?

Without CHRIST she might eventually make the right decision, but it would rather be a product of chance if this would not result in a mother-child relationship, but also father-mother-child family.

What is presented here is beautiful, but if such an extreme situation of life is not being used in order to present the Good Message, then where should THEOS be allowed to work? This is the very tragic failure of the movie. It presented a plan B and laid it wonderfully out, but apart from some Christian undertones, the movie never proposed the wonderful plan A anywhere.

- The credits include the following:

St. Luke Methodist Church

St. Mark United Methodist Church

Grace Presbyterian Highland Community Church (Calvinist, false Gospel)

Focus on the Family

March for Life

Like Dandelion Dust (2009), by Jon Gunn (3*)

The possibly most un-Christian film ever promoted as Christian.

This movie is great in many regards, but a bitter disappointment when looking for a Christian element in a movie. Aside from one short scene of a church service towards the end of the movie, there is close to zero Christianity inside. Rip comes out of prison and he hands his wife a business card from a Father he can call in case of trouble, and some reviewers such as Movieguide interpret this as salvation, which is an extremely far-fetched interpretation. Either they received a specific briefing or even a pre-written review from the producers, but it is impossible to get that information from the movie itself.

Yes, we see good behavior from his side for a little while before he becomes violent again, but there is no talk about JESUS CHRIST, the Bible, faith, salvation, baptism, prayer, absolutely nothing. The other couple are also not Christians and never become such during the movie, but to the contrary, they badly abuse Christianity in order to abduct the child. Then we have Molly's sister Neth and her husband who attend what looks and sounds like a Presbyterian church (a respective reference is found in the credits), but we see them instantly shouting at each other. The only ray of hope is Wendy who shows a moral character which comes closest to what the Bible describes as good, but neither do we find in her a Christian, especially given the fact that she falsified a signature and even lies now when being confronted with it.

PROS

+ Great actors and production.

+ Great display of forgiveness by Wendy.

CONS

- Jack and his wife are showing all anti-biblical vices one could imagine. Physical violence, repeated bribery, abuse of power, incitement for criminal offenses, child abduction, forgery of travel papers against payment ... This would be ok to include in a Christian movie if it would later lead to repentance and if the viewer is taught a lesson through this. But nothing of that happens, not a single warning against such behavior is shown, and the moral of this pagan story is that this highly unbiblical and evil behavior wins. Yes, by worldly standards they have rather the right for the child. But a Christian film cannot be about mere morals or social justice.

It must show us how to follow the biblical way, even when injustice rules. But nearly everything in this movie, aside from Wendy, is the unbiblical and even evil way.

- The title is built on a scene, where Wendy displays a very pagan behavior:

"Hey Joey you know about dandelions, how you can make wishes on them? You just close your eyes make a wish and then re-blow.

Joey: "Why blow on it?

Wendy: "Because there's a wish inside here, and when you blow on it that wish gets set free, and then it can come true ..."

Dandelion Wishes are not something we should find in a Christian movie. It should rather teach how to pray if a child has specific dreams.

Love Different (2016), by Anthony Hackett (2 *)

Horrible movie.

This movie has basically a good thought, to take away mental boundaries between different skin colours. I appreciate this thought and wish that more movies are being done on this matter. But this movie is below grade and it is to no surprise at the end, to notice that it was produced by the Seventh-day Adventists. There is no positive Christian message in the movie and it displays Christianity in a rather bad light.

PROS

+ Good thought to break down barriers.

CONS

- Often with ridiculous performances. Stereotypes are often overemphasized and the movie tries too hard to be funny where it is clearly not.

- The main actor claims to be Christian, but displays repeated bursts of anger, bad parenting and badly insults a man which also provokes an almost violent situation where she has to be rescued by the good guys.

- Other actors repeatedly lie, be it pretending to know each other while actually not being the case, et al.

- The movie endorses the abuse of numerologies, in this case that the number 70 means something special as soon as the Christian main actor made a purchase with the bill resulting in that precise number.

- The movie teaches that the wife is the number 1, but no mention of THEOS.

- The client at the end of the movie introduces himself as a 'head elder', an office totally foreign to the Bible. If we allow such offices to be created and being promoted in movies, then we do not have to wonder when other religions call this office on top of the biblical office of an elder a bishop or pope. There is only one position on top of elders, it is JESUS CHRIST.

- The producers are Seventh-day Adventists, belonging to The Call TV. Further endorsements made: the 'North American Division youth Department of SDA', the 'Washington Adventist University', 'Spencerville Adventist Academy', the 'Living Well Christian Bookstore', 'Sonset Friday Entertainment (Anthony Hackett)' and the music producer Brandon Dent Jr. (all SDA) et al.

- The movie displays at the end twice the message: "Executive producer: G-d". This is truly ridiculous and summarizes the mindset of the movie - disrespect of true Christianity.

The Man from Earth (2007), by Richard Schenkman (2*)

Heretical movie, to be avoided by Christians.

This movie is maybe helpful for those who want to widen their horizon and for those who are still searching for spiritual truth. But sadly it is not a movie any professing Christian would agree with, nor has it the least potential in bringing someone to CHRIST.

It is technically well-made and the music is good, but the whole concept does not make sense and comes from a confused mind. Everyone expects that this confused story makes some sense in the end, but it does end as abruptly as it entered our mind. Spiritual brainstorming with a dead end.

CONS

- A lot of swearing.

- He implies that Buddha was the greatest man ever lived.

- He claims that he lived 14 000 years, but at the same time that dinosaurs were not around in that time.

- He said that Moses is based on a Syriac myth.

- He claims that he -was- CHRIST and met the apostles.

The movie is deeply heretical and should be strictly avoided by any professing Christian.

Marjoe (1972), by Sarah Kernochan, Howard Smith (6*)

Lots of courage, but no salvation.

This documentary is a hard, but necessary pill for us Christians. Especially for those who like Marjoe confess His name with great words and fake tongues, but have no substance in their faith.

This whole scandal comes as no surprise, but still surprises in its magnitude of insolence. We know about many false teachers and similar techniques, but it is enlightening to hear from the very mouth of one who deceived so many with simple salesman tactics and motivational talent.

Kudos to his courage to speak about him having been a con-man, but at the same time with sadness to see no true repentance of his acts which would have enabled him to find the true Christ, no matter how evil his past was.

Mass (2021), by Fran Kranz (8*)

Truly memorable. Much needed production.

At first I was suspicious about the title, but there was no connection to the Catholic 'Mass', simply an unfortunate choice while limiting the potential reach of the movie.

The movie is truly excellent, and I highly recommend it. It is a surprise that no other denomination has come across with such a movie, which is urgently needed in America, where one tragedy follows another tragedy.

Even in the midst of all that evil, there can be forgiveness and reconciliation.

PROS

+ Excellent actors.

+ Powerful display for reconciliation.

+ Powerful testimony against violent video games, mobbing at schools and unbelieving psychologists who try to improve someone while neglecting THEOS.

CONS

- JESUS' name was spoken several times in vain.

- It takes place in an Episcopal Church, a "middle way between Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions". But it does not show any Anglican elements, only once the term 'parishioners' is used and the EC is mentioned twice as reference for the meeting place.

- No pastor present (at least in the background) to lead people to Christ and to ultimate forgiveness.

Milltown Pride (2011), by Tim Rogers (7*)

Good movie, but with some flaws.

PROS

+ Good actors. Great clothing and hairstyles of the women - everything felt like an authentic throw-back in time.

+ Well-made movie with a low budget.

+ Good display of breaking the barriers between those of rural areas and the town boys.

+ Good display of restoration.

NEUTRAL

o Good warning about the dangers of alcohol. But the movie has rather a legalistic tone, as if Christians should never drink at all, which is far from the teaching of the Bible. When we avoid those two extremes, we also avoid that people suddenly get from one extreme to another. We have to educate about the dangers, but we have also to find a balance and not condemn anyone who has e.g. a cup of wine.

o Good example by Ginnie to stand firm and to pause the dating process when she saw no commitment to CHRIST. But the repeated 'we are only friends'-mantra while holding hands is not biblical - a Christian film should rather show a more defined dating process, similar to what many call 'courting', which is with a specific aim in mind. This movie did not show any aim and we can only imagine that it would have led to marriage.

CONS

- His salvation is very superficial and rather unbiblical. He stands at a tower with his friend, cries out into the air some lines of repentance to G-d and his friend even asks: "Are you just pretending?". Then we see Will in the next scene say "I asked the Lord to save me", although he only asked for forgiveness and no display of faith is seen. Even worse, the name of JESUS CHRIST does not even come from his lips in both dialogues. We see no reading of the Bible and no baptism, but he is suddenly dating again.

- The emphasis on Billy Sunday was a bit too much. Instead of repeating the question, "What did Billy Sunday say?", we should rather ask "What did JESUS CHRIST say?". Billy Sunday was also a Presbyterian teacher, but it is reported that he did rather not teach Calvinist doctrines and evangelized all people.

The Miracle Maker (1999), by Derek W. Hayes, Stanislav Sokolov (2*)

Great animation - horrible abuse of Scripture.

PROS

+ Great 2D and 3D animations, which can generally be considered as a more decent way in depicting the Good Message when compared to actors who are most often not suited for depicting biblical characters.

CONS

- The official consultants of the movie were Roman Catholics and Anglicans, together with some Orthodox priests.

Father Dominic Milroy OSB, Benedictine monk of Ampleforth Abbey, was the film's Roman Catholic consultant (he was criticised for his handling of sexual abuse claims).

Further theological advisors include: M. F. Brearley, Richard Alan Burridge (Anglican priest), Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Rev. Noel A. Davies, Rev. Lord John Habgood (Anglican bishop), Pryderi Llwyd Jones (Presbyterian), Stephen Travis (Anglican), Bishop Rowan Williams (Anglican bishop), Rev. N. T. Wright (Anglican bishop).

The script editors, Martin Lamb and his wife Penelope Middleboe, are Catholics.

Ralph Fiennes, who is the voice of Jesus, was brought up a Catholic and considers himself a lapsed but curious Catholic, played a Catholic cardinal in Edward Berger's 'Conclave'.

- Filmography of the director, Stanislav Sokolov:

Shakespeare: the Animated Tales - The Winter's Tale (Зимняя сказка, 1994)

The Miracle Maker (Чудотворец, 1999)

Our Father (Christian prayer) (Молитва «Отче наш», 2000)

Alfatitah (Muslim prayer) (Аль-фатиха, Мусульманская молитва, 2001)

- In comparison with this movie, heretical paraphrases such as the Passion Translation look like amateurs.

Movie: "Show me a denarius. Thank you. Whose portrait and title are on it? Caesar's. Well then! You give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. But give to G-d what belongs to G-d! At last! Yes! Glory to G-d! [Bystander:] Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar? Give to Caesar?"

Luke 20 "Show me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?" They said, "Caesar's." 25 He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to G-d the things that are G-d's."

- Unnecessary additions to the Bible, such as:

"It's Lazarus! He's so sick. Lazarus. Please! You must come to us! Martha and Mary! They're begging you. Please! If you don't come now. Reuben! Tell Martha and Mary I will come. I will come soon. Please! Why didn't you go? Why? If your friend ... There is a purpose in our grief."

John 11:14-15: "Lazarus has died, and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."

- When JESUS raises Lazarus from the dead, He is shown to walk into the grave and pull Lazarus up and literally drag him out of the grave. The Bible says that Lazarus walked out of the grave on his own.

- The Last Supper is rather a comical depiction:

"Come on. We're all here. What's Jesus doing? He's thanking G-d for the bread.

He lifts it so high. He always does that. It's his way.

Blessed are You, 0 Lord our G-d, who brings forth bread from the earth. Take and eat! This is my body, which is broken for you. [strictly heretical, Scripture says 'which is given to you' and that not one of His bones will be broken] Your body? Do this in memory of me. Drink from this, all of you, for this is my blood. My blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. This is the last time I will ever drink wine with you. Master! Until I drink the new wine with you in the Kingdom of my Father in Heaven.

In Heaven? No! No! [...]

Simon Peter. Satan wants to grind you into powder and scatter you to the wind! But I have prayed for you. Master! You know me! I won't leave you! Simon! I'll go to prison with you! Execution! Simon Peter! [...]

By the time the cock crows today, you'll have denied three times that you know me!

Judas... Go and do what you have to do. Master? While you have the chance. Go on. Go and do it! Go and do it, quickly! ..."

- JESUS' prayer on the Mount of Olives is turned into a heretical soap opera:

- Luke 22: "And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, 42 saying, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done." 43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him."

Movie: "Father! Father! Father, let there... Let there be some other way! Let there be... Let there be some other way!

No! Take this cup away! Take... take it away! Take it away! Father! Father, dear Father! Listen to me! Listen! If there is another way... A way out? A way out!

[evil character to Jesus:] Go! Run! There's still time. Run! Run for it! Come on! Run!

No! No! Not my will! It's not my will, it's Your will! It's Your will Father! Your will be done! Your will. Father... Father... Your will be done..."

...

Miracle Worker (2015), by John Lyde (5*)

90 minutes which are hardly bearable.

This movie is one of the most stilted and awkward movies I have seen.

PROS

+ One quotation of Mat 9:27-29 which comes indeed from the Christian Bible.

+ The movie demonstrates some good values when it comes to family and community.

CONS

- Partly senseless dialogues and much gossip.

- Poor acting.

- Artificial and extremely rudimentary movie sets (mostly filmed in Utah on Mormon movie sets)

- Poor and incoherent script.

The pastor's mother is bedridden for at least months, then suddenly stands up when a chair comes as a present, with her not showing any sign of surprise that she is walking ...

The movie includes an unmarried pastor who is in love with the daughter of someone who owns all buildings and fires him as pastor (no information on which authority), before he finally allows his daughter to marry the pastor. The spontaneous wedding on Christmas evening is orchestrated by the beggar on the street. Less than 5 seconds later we see the mother of 5 giving birth to their daughter who is then presented to everyone at the town plaza during the same Christmas evening celebration ... This movie is a dulling of the mind.

- Although we thankfully do not find any Mormon doctrine, it is clear that this movie is a Mormon production. The director is a member of the Latter-Day-Saints and the endorsements include numerous references to Utah and Mormons.

Modern Day Miracles (2017), by Luke Broersma (9*)

Highly recommended.

One of the best-rated Christian documentaries out there and rightly so.

Some of the content is hard to watch, but overall the documentary is highly inspirational, both from the viewpoint of simply seeing the good others do, and also from the viewpoint of potentially encouraging others to imitate those good deeds.

It is not a high-budget documentary and some viewers might expect more, but it intentionally slows us down to the basics of life. A very good, but still ordinary movie shows ordinary deeds of humans with an extraordinary mercy and grace towards others, namely to relieve their suffering. It is heartbreaking to see such suffering and to imagine much more suffering in those countries, but it is beautiful to see what can be done, even though at only a small scale.

Mountain Top (2017), by Gary Wheeler and Robert Whitlow (7*)

A good movie. Recommended.

PROS

+ Very creative plot based on the book of the same name (Robert Whitlow). Just some things we never learn and that are left vague. The end was kind of crammed together.

+ Great performances, even though Coby does not fit in at all as pastor and conveys little spiritual authority.

+ Beautiful outdoor shots.

+ Powerful music.

NEUTRAL

o Even though the Bible paints the profession of a lawyer in a negative image, it is entirely possible that THEOS would use the talents of a lawyer for His purposes. But it is questionable that He would sacrifice a pastor for a lawyer. The end of the movie rather suggests that he continued as a lawyer and visited only part time the prisons as pastor.

The movie is entirely based on the erroneous application of the Bible, saying that we have one pastor + elders instead of a plurality of elders / overseers / pastors (all the very same office). The overworked pastor we see here is only in such a position because today's churches don't apply the Bible. A conflict between the income-earning profession of a pastor and his pastoral duties is not something Paul would have encountered. He worked at least part time and still fulfilled his pastoral duties.

o While it is perfectly possible that THEOS speaks to us in visions and dreams today, the movie could also create a dangerous precedent for people who seek to abuse this way of communication. But everything in the movie itself is sound.

CONS

- The image of a pastor definitely suffers through that movie. Coby does not look like a pastor, he is an angry pastor with little compassion and he is overworked. He is also not in walking the Spirit, given the amount of times he rejected the request to help, even after THEOS spoke to Him through his future son. If a pastor does not see at this point that THEOS is speaking, then he is nothing more than a professional with the title 'pastor'.

October Baby (2011), by Andrew Erwin and Jon Erwin (9 *)

Quote of the movie: "Hate the crime, not the criminal."

One of the few movies that really gets you. But it starts slow, appearing to have little potential to be great. Though this slow start probably helped the real target group to connect. Connect to just an ordinary life, of ordinary young people, who live life. Or at least they think so, until they realize the consequences. Or are caught by the acts of others.

The movie masters to not judge the target group, nor the victim, nor the ones caught in between. It masters a perfect balance from every point of view, while provoking deep thoughts, reflection and emotions for every group, including the ordinary viewer who was never involved in such a drama.

The movie has everything - action, drama, heartbreak, 'crime', romance - everything except more sex which is good - Hannah showing a very beautiful example of chastity here (a word which feels interesting to use). It is deeply moving, brutally honest in every detail and does not embellish anything. This story and wonderful idea would have been fruitless and average if not having been acted out by such a great cast. Hannah, Jason, Jacob, Nurse Mary - what a performance! And as if not enough of surprising turns, the epilogue brought about another surprise which even entirely changed our perception of the cold birthmother.

The only thing which lacked was more Christianity and a real pastor who would have had at least the heart to pray with that vulnerable Hannah. But even this reflected the sad reality of closed church doors which contribute to such dramas. Today we have the norm that the doors of abortion clinics are always open while the doors of churches are almost always closed, except for a few hours of service. This was not the case in the past and vulnerable women would not have had this additional barrier to find spiritual help. Where have we gone ...

But overall it is a beautiful testimony for Christianity, for foster parents who care and go great lengths in bringing up the orphaned, and for life itself - good and sometimes evil. But we do not hate the evildoer, but rather evil - as the police-officer worded it well.

One Night with the King (2006), by Michael O. Sajbel (6*)

Beautiful movie, but not faithful to the Bible.

This movie can be enjoyed and brings the biblical story beautifully to life. A story of improbabilities, of ordinary people used for THEOS's mighty purposes.

It is low budget which shows in the poor renderings of panorama shots, but this is ok. If a scene needs to be faked, let it be obvious that it is a fake. This is in some way honest.

But what is not good is the biblical accuracy. If a movie is based on a specific story in the Bible, it should at least be 70-80% in line with the Bible, but this movie was maybe faithful by 40-50%.

This movie should only be watched while reading the biblical account immediately afterwards, in order to not confuse the biblical narrative in our minds.

The Perfect Stranger (2005), by Jefferson Moore (5*)

A good movie, but impossible to recommend.

This movie is difficult to review. The director and main actor does (almost) not show any transgressions, by not adding extrabiblical elements to the story.

He tells a background from JESUS' childhood which is added to the Bible and therefore problematic. But the remainder of the dialogue is true to the Bible and possibly not far from His real character. One could argue that JESUS did not speak with a more intense and dramatic voice, but those of us who know the Bible, know better.

But I have a serious problem with the whole concept, to show JESUS at a dinner table. He certainly could do this, in a similar form He appeared in the Old Testament long before his incarnation as the Messenger of Great Counsel, better known as the Angel of KYRIOS. We do not know how many or few times He actually appeared, but we know that he appeared without doubt to many people and did even go before / behind Israel during the Exodus, meaning that he was seen at the same time in some form by hundreds of thousands of people.

But still, this does not give us the allowance to create such an image of a JESUS, who just happens to sit in a restaurant. JESUS works today in visions, e.g. Muslims often have those dreams and visions before they come to Christ.

Many people would argue for the validity of the concept, but here is the catch. This movie gives us the example of goodness (M. Teresa) versus evil (H**ler). Now JESUS in the movie answers 'alright', which is rather affirmative to her assertion of MT being good. He continues to say that 'she did many good things', which might be even correct in a very limited sense.

But JESUS would never affirm a goodness of Mother Teresa, and appearing today, He would tell us how we got fooled by the Catholic Church and by the media in believing she was a saint. He would warn us that we have to develop a better discernment and not trust what the world calls morally good.

JESUS knows that Teresa lied in 1994, when she argued that the abuse allegations against Jesuit priest Donald McGuire were untrue and when she successfully enabled years of further abuse. He knows that she lied, when she defended him again, right before he was convicted to 25 years of prison after 40 years of horrific crimes. He knows that she committed idolatry when she called Mary our patroness and our Mother, and when she claimed that it is her who is always leading us to JESUS.

While the movie correctly states that there is only one way to JESUS, Teresa would have never believed such a thing, being a Universalist. She rather said things such as "All is G-d - B's, H's, C's, etc., all have access to the same G-d." This woman went as far as to directly worship Buddha.

Now we have the catch. People watch this movie, their picture of JESUS is transformed away from the holy, and they wrongly assume that He would call good what in reality is evil.

This is not JESUS.

Polycarp (2015), by Joe Henline (9*)

Great throwback in time.

This is a great journey back in time, right into Early Christianity. It does leave out the real brutality which happened in that time, but still gives us a good sensation how the dynamics in that time had been, and challenges us to stand firm in our faith, no matter how big or -compared with those events- rather small our opposition might be.

PROS

+ Great representation of Early Christianity.

+ Great plot.

+ Great screenplay.

+ Great actors.

+ No problematic theology, but a wonderful proclamation of the Good Message.

CONS

- Many scenes are obviously rendered on a computer. Usually this is not visible (and generally not problematic at all), but sometimes details are missing in rendered materials (e.g. the doors of the government building appear very plain) and / or the movement of the picture is unsteady. Probably the worst scene is minute 68, where Polycarb is about to escape and stands in front of a poorly animated backdrop of a hill. It is painfully obvious that the actors stand before a huge screen / animation, and it would have been very inexpensive to film this scene in the setting of an actual hill.

Rendering should be used when it comes to complex buildings that are expensive to actually reproduce, but never to avoid the trip to the next hill.

- It would be more authentic if the language throughout the movie would be Greek with English subtitles. All the people in that place and time, including the Jews, spoke Greek. It is a bit strange to watch such a movie in English language.

Priceless (2016), by Ben Smallbone (4*)

Good moral story, but rather Social Justice than Christianity.

This movie might be a 9 out of 10 if it would be a secular movie. But it definitely does not represent Christianity. While Christianity can include some aspects of that Social Justice presented here, most of the aspects presented in this movie are utterly anti-Christian.

PROS

+ Good example to not look away from those bitter realities.

+ Great actors, great music and well-made movie.

CONS

- In Christianity we are commanded to go into the world, to preach the Good Message to our neighbors and to baptize them. This is the approach JESUS gave us. He did not punch those who sell the prostitutes, but told us indirectly to convert those who purchase the prostitutes, because those are included amongst our neighbors. If we now convert both sellers and buyers, then we create a better world, with less women suffering abuse. To take a violent shortcut as suggested in this movie, is against the biblical teaching. We are to live in peace.

- I never heard of any instance that THEOS would allow a true Christian (aka Antonia) to be brought to another country and then being raped there together with her daughter. THEOS does allow some suffering (sanctification), but such a dynamic as displayed in this movie is a bad misrepresentation of our reality in CHRIST.

- Display of anti-biblical violence involving a knock-out through an extinguisher, and twice the usage of a loaded weapon.

- No salvation of James, apart from morally changing sides. In this -most important- regard a very sad end of the story.

The Prince of Egypt, by Brenda Chapman, Steve Hickner, Simon Wells (not rated)

Intentional Twisting of Scripture.

Yes, we are warned right at the beginning of the movie that the producers would employ a creative license. While I am not sure if my tolerance for 'creative licenses' grew or rather diminished over the course of dozens of books and movies containing those, I am more certain than ever about the limitations such an undertaking should have.

Yes, we can fill certain gaps with additional dialogues and historical details, if such does not contradict Scripture in any regard. But it crosses a red line when Scripture is twisted without any need, as it happens at plain sight in this movie.

I watched it exactly until the scene where Moses kills the Egyptian, and saw until that point already various minor transgressions such as the rebel picture they paint of Moses. But the killing of the Egyptian crossed the red line, because it intentionally twists the story so as to commit the murder in plain sight of hundreds of people, while the Bible clearly states that Moses was shocked that anyone had seen it at all. While the movie then depicts a great drama in order to supposedly hinder him on his flight, the Bible again speaks of a totally different scenario.

This was enough for what I needed to see of this movie. There is no problem if some gaps are filled. But if our scriptural memory is twisted to such a degree while there is not the slightest need to add anything to the rich narrative of the Bible, and it instead sets out to intentionally and willingly twist it, then I have to stay away from such works and recommend the reader to do the same.

The Printing (1990), by Tim Rogers (originally Katherine Stenholm) (10 *)

Highly, highly, highly recommended.

The first seconds of the movie did not promise much, because we are spoiled with high quality images and do not appreciate blurred images. But this did not take away in the least from the joy of having watched this movie - to the contrary, the low image quality made this movie even more special.

I do not want to lose much words, but encourage you to watch this movie before reading 1 more minute of reviews. 10 stars cannot express my gratitude and the spiritual quality this movie has.

It is a tremendously made masterpiece of Christian cinema, with an excellent script, actors and most importantly a story about following JESUS CHRIST with all your heart, no matter the cost and the setting.

Highly, highly, highly recommended.

Procession (2021), by Robert Greene (7*)

PROS

+ Much needed documentary. Mostly well made.

+ Great courage of the producers and especially protagonists.

NEUTRAL

o Generally a good concept, but it was sometimes a bit too creative and too improvised. Lots of good approaches which seem to have worked for those men, but it is questionable if it works for others to drive back to a crime scene, and if that could not eventually cause more trauma (or even serious police incidents) for the hundreds or thousands of victims amongst the viewers. They should have added a warning to not imitate such approaches.

I found it also troubling that the victims changed roles in this documentary, especially when knowing that many real victims become in real life real perpetrators. Not that there would be any risk with those men, but it could be a risk for victims who see this. Yes, the producer's approach is to shift mental perspectives and to help them through that role reversal, but I never heard of role reversal as a therapeutic approach.

CONS

- Lots of excessive swearing. Yes, Mike is authentic and it hurts to see men hurting still after 4 decades. But it is also sad that not one character seems to have found salvation in JESUS CHRIST, to have recognized the evil perversion of the true church through the Roman Catholic State Church after 313 AD.

What is the obvious reason there is this institutional church masquerading as followers of CHRIST? If there are masquerades, then there must be somewhere truth to be revealed. My prayer is that those men will find the truth, because only this can set them free after all those decades of suffering. If they would only realize that the devil is very good at imitating (as the Bible already warns us of 'The Angel of Light') then they would be very close to the truth that sets them free.

Prophecies of the Passion (2005), by Wayne P. Allen (7*)

A wonderful testimony for CHRIST.

PROS

+ Great comparison of OT prophecies, having been fulfilled in the time of CHRIST.

+ Great outlook into our future, the Second Coming of CHRIST.

+ Overall a wonderful testimony for CHRIST.

CONS

- They claimed that CHRIST died before the Passover Lamb was eaten and before Judas died. This firstly contradicts the narrative thread in Matthew 27, where Judas' death and the final purchase of the potter's field both happened before JESUS' death and even before His first trial before Pilate. A field could not be purchased without the involvement of Roman officials (plus payment of taxes) and therefore took time (impossibly some hours in the night; in our societies usually days or weeks). It also does not seem plausible to have Judas die on the very same day as JESUS and therefore to take away significance from JESUS' death, but he rather died in the hours after he knew that JESUS was going to be condemned - and several days before JESUS.

- A Fast-Track trial is not biblical. JESUS died on the penultimate day of the Passover Week - on the second, not the first Day of Preparation.

- Amnon Shor states that JESUS prayed at the Last Supper the Jewish Hamotzi prayer: "Blessed are You, LORD our G-d, King of the universe, Who brings forth bread from the earth." There is no scriptural basis for this and it would have been unusual that He spoke such a prayer in Hebrew and not in Greek. The NT specifically points out the rare instances where something was uttered in Aramaic / Hebrew (see Mar 5:41-42, Mar 7:34, Act 22:1-2, Joh 20:15-17), and then translates this into Greek, clearly affirming the niche existence of Hebrew in that time. We should abstain from injecting things into the Bible that are not there, and especially from Judaizing.

- Almost exclusively academics are being interviewed.

- Involvement of Focus on the Family, Greg Laurie, John Bloom (Calvinist), Lee Strobel (de facto Catholic) and Paul Crouch (TBN, Kenneth Copeland).

A Question of Faith (2017), by Kevan Otto (8*)

Valuable lessons for life.

PROS

+ Very, very powerful display of forgiveness.

+ Powerful display against distracted driving.

+ Past Salvation of Maria, but no indication of a planned baptism.

CONS

- It was not reasonable to see Maria go into prison the same day she was arrested for distracted driving.

- The displayed church is not according to the biblical guidelines. A single Senior Pastor is nowhere stipulated in the Bible and much less a 'First Lady', which is a very bad example propagated throughout the movie. There is also no such thing as leaders of a church sitting in special costumes in a row on an elevated platform between the choir and the congregation.

A biblical church should not be a playhouse and always consists of a plurality of elders / overseers / pastors (all the exact same office). Movies should have a higher standard and not just reflect the status quo of a fallen church. Because they reach hundreds of thousands, they should go along the Bible, and not along culture.

- The movie shows entitlement and a lack of respect towards doctors. We as Christians ought not to ask for the best doctors or ask for senior cardiologists above chief cardiologists.

This would be ok if it would be a lesson to teach us, but John is nowhere seen apologizing to the doctors. We as Christians ought to be different from the world and trust THEOS, not in titles while questioning authorities.

- The movie shows a behavior after the death of a son, which is exactly the same behavior any pagan would have.

This is a sad testimony of the church, showing that most (American) Christians have not understood the Bible. The Bible is clear about the salvation of those who have not yet reached the Age of Accountability and do not yet know the difference between good and evil.

The David of the Bible was rather in joy after his son had died, because he knew him to have taken a significant shortcut to Heaven. So why are we Christians just imitating, and sometimes even worse than pagans?

I have now seen many American 'Christian' movies where children die, but almost without exception we see bitterness and anger, and very rarely joy or any mention of Heaven.

What American filmmakers display, is the exact opposite of the Good Message of Salvation. It looks and feels as if all those children go straight to Gehenna.

- Display of a luxury lifestyle of a pastor.

A Question of Miracles, by Antony Thomas (8*)

Important documentary.

The Bible warned of exactly those people, that many wolves will come in the name of Jesus Christ.

It fills me with grief, to see the people of Africa, many of whom have already suffered much for a long time, are being abused by those teachers in the name of the Most High. But the truth is that even people in the west are susceptible to those practices, although we could not imagine seeing this happen at such a scale.

What is the remedy? We need to read our Bibles, repeatedly if you are a believer, and at least once in your lifetime if you are an unbeliever. It is the most-sold book of all time and it has all the answers to suffering and healing.

Jesus still heals today on occasions, but certainly not through jacket-throwing charlatans.

Quo Vadis (1951), by Mervyn LeRoy, Anthony Mann (1*)

A masterpiece in many regards, but heretical in decisive parts.

Although this movie is great in many regards, it is heretical in some parts and should therefore be avoided.

Decisive is Peter's extra-biblical appearance in Rome promoting the Roman Catholic Church and specifically Peter's vision ('Domine, quo vadis?', therefore the title) leading him supposedly back to Rome, a vision which comes straight from the apocryphal 'Acts of Peter'. The movie also carries very strong Roman Catholic notions (water poured over head for baptism; Sign of the cross; Kyrie Eleison; Universalism assuming Marcus to be saved) and at least one of the main actors is a Roman Catholic (Deborah Kerr).

PROS

+ A small detail, but the inclusion of an overture would be beautiful to see again today. It does not need to be 3 minutes, but one minute of mental preparation.

+ Interesting to see the Appian Road come to life, where once Paul walked and where I also had the not-so-privilege to ride a bicycle in 2016.

+ Great display against the evil of Rome:

Lygia: "You have told [me stories] from your own lips, ugly stories of conquest and bloodshed."

Marcus the soldier: "Conquest is the only method of uniting and civilizing the world under one power. You have to spill a little blood to do it."

Lygia: "No. There is a gentler way of doing that, without bloodshed and war, without slaves and captives bound in chains to your triumphal chariots."

NEUTRAL

o The movie is full of idolatry in the form of worship of humans and gods. But this is nothing to be objected to, because the movie simply reflects the evil nature of Rome in that time. It would have only been wise if the producers could have avoided speaking out the names of other gods as instructed in the Bible.

CONS

- Deborah Kerr, one of the main actors, was raised in the Scottish Presbyterian faith, and she later assimilated to Roman Catholicism when she married her first husband, Anthony Bartley. Kerr remained a practicing Catholic until her death.

- Problematic dialogue in min 22:

Roman soldiers to Paul: "What do you teach? He teaches philosophy."

Paul: "Yes. Yes, I'd suppose you'd call it that."

Paul to Lygia in a slightly ironic tone: "Did you know that all this time I've been teaching philosophy?"

- A supposed miracle occurs in min 26, when a flame comes out of a lampstand.

Lygia to Paul: "You are asking for miracles."

Paul: "I am. I am indeed." [this is utter blasphemy; Paul would have never spoken those words]

- Min 67, A Christian gathering sings the Kyrie Eleison: "Jesu Lord, Sweet Jesu, Kyrie Eleison. On us thy children. Christe eleison. Have mercy Lord. Holy Savior." This prayer has a very strong Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox connotation. There are several other songs with questionable origin.

A giant cross is also shown amongst the worshippers and it is highly questionable that Christians in that time would have created such an image.

A baptism is shown as water being poured over the head, instead of immersion.

Peter appears, which is historically not documented in the Bible and rather made up by the Roman Catholic Church in order to retroactively construct their entirely missing link to Damasus, the First Pope of the See of Rome in the 4th century AD.

Peter is introduced by making the 'Sign of the cross', which is most prominent in the Roman Catholic Church and also in the Eastern Orthodox. It is a practice not based on the Bible, but on man-made tradition.

Peter: "Unworthy though I am, Jesus said to me, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. He has guided me to Rome so that together we can build His church here."

- JESUS' disciples are depicted in both the Last Supper and His appearance after His resurrection as men of approx. 60-70 years of age. While the Bible does not stipulate the ages of the disciples, we can certainly narrow it down to 13-30 years. Disciples were generally younger than their Master. To choose men of 60-70 years of age in the movie, is ridiculous and directly degrades JESUS.

- Min 76, One of the Christians (Ursus) kills a Roman. Although he is already unconscious, he throws him down a cliff.

- Min 128 includes a scene, where Peter walks away from Rome, but is led back through a vision. While I wondered what the phrase 'Domine, quo vadis?' means, I came across an Wikipedia article of the same name referring to a painting, which enlightens us that this phrase comes from the apocryphal Acts of Peter. The description of the scene is exactly what is being depicted in the movie, meaning that the movie copied almost 1:1 an entire story from the Apocrypha!

"Saint Peter, while fleeing Rome along the ancient Via Appia, meets Christ outside the city, who is walking in the opposite direction towards the city, carrying his cross. Peter asks him, Domine, quo vadis? This question is in Latin and means "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus replies, Eo Romam iterum crucifigi, which means: "I am going to Rome to be crucified again."

The 'Acts of Peter' goes as far as to state that Peter was crucified head-down in Rome. An inverted cross is a satanic symbol and we can only guess why the Roman Catholic Church obviously invented such a story and symbolism as origin for their church. It becomes worse when we ponder on the previous quotation (Jesus saying that -I- will be crucified again) which implies that JESUS should be crucified a second time in the form of Peter, as if His crucifixion would not have been enough and with the obvious motif to transfer the Holy City from Jerusalem (Golgotha) to Rome (Vatican Hill). It is absurd how the Catholic church constantly tries to deceive people.

- Min 133 includes a double suicide at a packed dinner table, which is a first to see in a movie, and scandalous.

- Min 140 Peter appears in the arena and speaks to all the people, a scene which is obviously also made up like most of the movie.

- Min 146 includes erroneous theology, that marriage continues in Heaven:

Lygia: "I would so loved to have given you a son."

Marcus: "Lygia!"

Lygia: "No matter what, I want to be your wife now. Peter will say the words over us." [which is heretical in itself because Peter would have impossibly married a Christian with an unbeliever who is not baptized]

Marcus: "Lygia!"

Lygia: "I want you to be that way before they take us. So it will be that way when we are together again."

Firstly, the Bible clearly states that we will not be married in Heaven. Secondly this points to Universalism because although Marcus helped the Christians in order to save his love, he has not done a single step for repentance of his acts, and much less for salvation. He states shortly after that he feels Christian, but again, that does absolutely nothing have to do with biblical salvation.

- Min 150 Now it is stated that the Apostle Peter made his first preachment at Vatican Hill ... Now we do not have to guess anymore who commissioned this movie.

- Min 151 Unbelievable, but even the head-down crucifixion from the apocryphal book 'Acts of Peter' is shown in the movie.

- This is probably the lowest point of Christian cinema in all history. -

- Min 151 Marcus shouts 'Hail Galba' (the next emperor), which makes it crystal clear that he had not become a Christian.

Remember the Goal (2016), by Dave Christiano (10*)

A wonderful movie, highly recommended.

This movie surprised me greatly. The cover looked like a primitive movie, and the beginning of the movie seemed flat. But this movie became 'better' very quickly, and turned out to be a very great movie.

+ Great Christian theme which develops after a third of the movie.

+ Great teaching of Christian values (how to care for your body, how to obey a leader, how to obey parents, how to restore relationships with parents, how to overcome opposition, how to be faithful, how to stay sexually pure and most importantly how to trust Him ...).

+ A good reflection on the unhealthy pressures many parents not only in the US are generating, and how their interference -if tolerated- could lead to results contrary to the ones desired. A beautiful reminder to parents to sometimes let go and trust teachers and coaches, instead of being overly demanding.

+ Highly inspirational and enjoyable.

+ No questionable theology, quotations or endorsements. No objectionable clothing.

+ Probably the first review I did not find anything to object to. This says a lot. My sincere compliments to the director and the crew.

The Resurrection of Gavin Stone (2017), by Dallas Jenkins (4*)

Some good elements, but very laissez-faire.

This movie is difficult to review. It has the Christian element of restoration. But sadly there is no restoration when it comes to the main actor.

PROS

+ Great actors.

+ Great script.

CONS

- When he looks for a Christian testimony, he gets to Bono. To mention him as a Christian, is ridiculous.

- The pastor states that the other candidates are "terrible actors", which is a strong anti-Christian attitude.

- They quote the Catholic Assisi.

- They allow him to take communion, even though he is obviously not a Christian. This displays a very bad example for churches in America.

- They play the scene of the women caught in adultery, a passage that is foreign to the original Bible.

- At the end of the movie the pastor's daughter falls in love with an unbeliever who would probably lead her in real life away from church or cause serious problems, if no conversion occurred. Worse than that, they offer him indirectly new roles in the church.

This movie has some beautiful elements, but is laissez-faire in many regards and puts pressure on American churches to rather not chose the 'boring and real' Christians to play a role, but to put up a show no matter what.

It is hard to write those words, because the movie causes positive emotions. But from a Christian perspective and for the sake of building up healthy churches, stay away from this movie.

A Return to Grace: Luther's Life and Legacy (2017), by David Batty (2*)

Timothy Dolan? Really?

Explicit promotion of Timothy Dolan, directly involved in the earlier s**ual abuse scandal. It is hard to grasp why a Catholic even appears in a documentary on the Reformation, but it is even harder to grasp why specifically one had been chosen who had been involved in covering up such a scandal.

The documentary also does not even mention once Luther's connections to the Augustian order, that he famously wanted Hebrews, James, Jude and the book of Revelation removed from the Christian Canon, that he gave his blessing to have Anabaptists executed simply based on their correct opposition of infant baptism and emphasis on adult baptism, his ruthless rejection of biblical inerrancy in his commentary on Chronicles, his anti-Judaistic views that contributed significantly to the development of antis**itism in Germany and of the Na*i Party, and his entire rejection of the biblical concept of 'Free Will'.

I do not expect all those details to be reflected, but I expect at least some discernment and honesty. Minor issues can be left out, but to overlook all those details previously mentioned and to only paint a grossly distorted picture with the positive attributes, is certainly not a Christian attitude.

Risen (2016), by Kevin Reynolds (6*)

A good movie, but not a recommendation.

PROS

+ Good actors.

+ In general well-made, good movie set.

+ Interesting idea to tell a story from the viewpoint of a roman soldier.

CONS

- The earthquake was erroneously shown to have occurred before His death.

- The phrase "surely this man was innocent" occurred too early.

- It is not credible that a Roman ruler (Clavius Aquila) let Bartholomew go, after he ridiculed him in front of his guards.

- Thomas stormed into the room (instead of JESUS entering it), and hugged JESUS before being shown His wounds without asking for it.

- The miracle of a leper after His resurrection is not biblical.

- The 'Simon, do you love me'- conversation is fragmented.

- JESUS would certainly not have appeared in a black robe. We associate black robes on the shore of a lake with another character ...

- There were many scenes where an outsider such as Clavius would not have fit in, but it was an honorable idea to tell the story from his viewpoint.

Run The Race (2018), by Chris Dowling, Tim Tebow (3*)

Not bad, but far from a recommendation.

PROS

+ Quote of the movie: "I'm not saying his behavior is excusable, but it is forgivable. You'd be surprised how things can start to change when you forgive someone."

+ Great testimony of forgiveness.

+ The movie is much quieter and decent than most other films on sports.

CONS

- Unnecessary display of violence. The son (Zach) is threatening to use his baseball bat against his father.

- The movie contains a record of lies never seen to such a degree in a Christian movie.

1 Zach lies to his brother regarding the bat, saying that it was for coyotes. His brother Dave, who is a believer, did not rebuke him for this obvious lie.

2 Dave lies to Louise, saying that Zach is icing his leg (while he is out with friends). While a lie of Zach can be displayed in order to display his sinful past, a lie of a believer is a serious transgression.

3 Zach lies before his first date, saying that the coffee there is really good, only to be exposed that he was never there. The first monologue during the date, when answering Ginger's question, is an endless rambling of lies. She obviously understands that every phrase is intentionally lied, but takes it cool instead of correcting him in a gentle and biblical way in her function as a believer.

4 Zach even lies when he is caught by his brother while praying.

5 The biggest lie comes just days after his 'salvation'. He signs into a race pretending to be his brother and even the coach admits that he might get fired for this. While continuing his fraud and in the exact moment he is running the race, his brother died in the hospital.

What is the moral of the story? You should not lie, if not your brother will die? We don't know, but the end of the movie is totally senseless, especially given the fact that Zach specifically prayed for his brother's health, and the expectation is high after he was disappointed over and over in his life.

This movie rather feels like a deconstruction of Christianity, displaying a totally unjust THEOS who does not even hear Zach after his 'salvation'. Its message reads between the lines as encouraging, but spread over the movie, from beginning to end, is a degradation of THEOS. Not even Dave gives us hope, being battled by epileptic fits, while the only ray of light comes from Louise.

- The music is below grade.

Some lyrics: "Biz busy on the boards, came from nothin' I remember spendin' summers on the corner, me and BJ in that cutlass CD playin', missin' buttons, up at lincoln high in dallas with that Jesus music pumpin"

- The most serious transgression occurs when Zach has his first 'parents-in-law-date':

"I don't understand why Peter was crucified upside down."

While the other objections make sense coming from an unbeliever, it is heretical and outmost problematic to include in a Christian movie such a blatant lie which comes straight from the apocryphal 'Acts of Peter'. This 'objection' left me speechless, as it does so much damage to CHRIST's Church to promote such a lie.

- Zach's salvation is extremely thin (no repentance, no baptism): "Listen man [to his brother]. You know how you asked me to pray for you. I did it." Dave: "That's awesome." Zach: "And as I was praying for you, I started praying for me. I walked into that house not believing, and I walked out ..." This is the full display of his salvation, which is ridiculous.

Sabina: Tortured for Christ - The Nazi Years (2021), by John Grooters (6*)

A Perfect Double-edged Sword

This movie is probably the perfect double -edged sword.

On the one hand it is absolutely perfect. Perfect actors, perfect movie sets, music et al. But this movie is obviously not about performance, although the VOM has apparently invested a lot into it, to have their donations rolling.

It is about an incredible story of salvation of the Wurmbrand's, and at least the physical salvation of others, while we are not aware through this movie if spiritual salvations occurred.

My two favorite quotes will give you a glimpse of what awaits you in this movie:

Richard "... it reveals to us the death of our sinfulness, our deep need for a Savior. No, I think, no, I do not want a Jesus who has been calculated, explained and believed in. I want a real Jesus. Is that such an impossible ideal?"

Sabine "From the day of my wedding forward, I only ever kissed two men, one my husband, and two, a man who murdered my family."

Now why a double -edged sword?

Because the producers could not take their hand away from the Anglican and Lutheran church. It is incomprehensible why such a movie had to be ruined through denominational divisions. Why could Wurmbrand not simply have found his salvation in a church building which had not been hastily decorated with a big print of 'Anglican Mission to the Jews'? Why did the producer commit the incredible error to involve Luther's name in this movie?

The only reason I see to have included Luther into this movie, -and it would have been a perfect opportunity- would have been to apologize in the name of the Reformed / Lutheran Church for the Holocaust which would probably not have existed without Luther (very hard words but we cannot ignore this well-known truth). But to present now precisely a Lutheran as savior of those who suffered the ugly consequences of Luther's antis**itism, is ridiculous at best, it is audacious.

I deeply respect Wurmbrand for what he has done and suffered, no matter the denomination. But precisely this denomination should have been left out of the movie. It would have been so easy to leave the church door blank and to let him be just a Christian pastor.

General warning regarding Voice of the Martyrs (VOM): Abstain from donations to this organization which has sadly after the death of Richard and the expulsion of his son converted itself into a monster.

Samson (2018), by Bruce Macdonald (3*)

Good depiction of Judges 13-16, but with many flaws.

PROS

+ The movie generally shows respect to THEOS.

+ This is visible e.g. by how they handled the theologically difficult scene of the 30 tunics. The writers / director handled this with a lot of delicacy and built a narrative which rather justifies the 'acquisition' of those tunics.

+ Great actors, especially for the role of Samson. The king's son is annoying, but that was his job.

CONS

- The film opens with Samson violating the 10 Commandments - stealing food from their oppressors. This might be a nice addition in a secular movie, but a display of social justice while violating the Moral Law is crossing the red line.

- Samson stops killing the Egyptian giant (a story added for entertainment) solely because of money offered to him, while supposedly being filled with the HOLY SPIRIT. Bribery is certainly not something that can harmonize with the HOLY SPIRIT !!!

- When Samson challenges with the riddle, he gives a deadline of 'until morning', while the Bible stipulates 7 days. I see no major issue in such a movie 'filling the gaps' (although this should not be necessary in a biblical story spanning over 4 Bible chapters and providing material for several movies), but there is a serious issue when a book or a movie twists intentionally the word of THEOS, no matter how small the detail might appear in our eyes.

- Samson does in the movie not receive the offer to marry the younger sister (Jdg 15:2).

- Samson's Philistine wife is not burned, but in the movie thrown down from a wall (Jdg 15:6).

- Samson is not displayed as if 'dying of thirst', but instantly receives water after killing the 1000 (Jdg 15:18).

- When Samson returns after more than 20 years to Gaza, he does not really appear in the image of a judge, he barely aged and has only different hair. The king did not age, the king's son did not age, nor did Samson's prostitute age. In a movie done in 2018 (with vast possibilities of having actors age without exchanging them for a different set), this is poor execution.

- The writer invented a negotiation of Samson with the king, which is rather adding too much to the Bible.

"Jdg 16:1 Samson went to Gaza, and there he saw a prostitute, and he went in to her. The Gazites were told, "Samson has come here." And they surrounded the place and set an ambush for him all night at the gate of the city."

In the movie, he first negotiates, is persecuted, pulls the gate apart and then meets his prostitute. What drives the 3 writers to change the story to such a degree?

This movie could have indeed been very great, if the writers would have done a better job.

Sarah's Choice (2009), by Chad Kapper (10*)

Wonderful movie.

PROS

+ The movie is quite organic, with great actors speaking how they would speak and act in normal life.

+ It addresses many different aspects when it comes to abortion and unplanned pregnancy. It is a great tragedy that we are one of the few generations who live in the midst of the biggest genocide in history, which in the US alone cost tens of millions of lives and changed the landscape dramatically. Yes, the US became a successful nation, but at what cost? Is self-sacrifice for an employer, a job title or even for a prestigious account worth the negation of life? Certainly not, as this movie shows in an impressive manner.

+ It is especially insightful that those who speak with Satan's voice to kill a baby, are sometimes the same who can admit in a weak moment that they are tormented by their own past choice(s). It would have been beautiful if Sarah could have already ministered to those lost souls and offer them forgiveness for their sins through JESUS CHRIST, but this would probably fill another movie.

CONS

- None. No curses, no promotion of denominations, no questionable endorsements.

Seasons of Gray (2013), by Paul Stehlik Jr. (9*)

Great movie.

This movie is not for the faint-hearted. It involves many extremes, from butterflies to extreme violence. Usually violence does not combine with a Christian movie, but what Brady suffered by the hands of his brothers, is possibly not far from what Joseph suffered some 4000 years ago. Many, if not most details of this movie do obviously not coincide with the biblical story, but the movie never claims this nor is a close match required, because it is framed in subtle allusion.

PROS

+ Excellent actors. Brady is especially excellent.

+ Great plot.

+ Chris showcases the Good Samaritan, a behavior rarely seen in our age.

+ Wonderful testimony of reconciliation, of overcoming hurt and pride. And a good testimony of what damage broken marriages can cause.

NEUTRAL

- The scene were his brothers nearly beat him to death is hard to bear, and a car in a lake without a body is not credible, but it still serves its purpose - in a similar way Joseph's coat was used to simulate his death.

CONS

- I disliked the parallel drawn from a real estate agent to the Pharaoh's palace, but this is without doubt how the world thinks in terms of status. And it would not have been credible that Brady would have worked under the president of the US just years after starting a new life. But maybe here the movie should have taken a greater leap of faith and indeed portrayed a closer parallel to the biblical account.

Overall a clear recommendation.

Searching for a King: Israel's United Kingdom (2019), by Stuart Peck (8*)

Very valuable documentary.

PROS

+ They do a great job connecting the Bible to actual real places in Israel, and consider many very interesting details.

+ Inclusion of many biblical passages. It is beautiful to see the producers having gone along with the Bible and not treating it as an afterthought and in a purely academic manner as seen so many times in similar documentaries.

NEUTRAL

o The protagonists are honest when it comes to speculations (e.g. it could also be another shaft, but you will certainly get a close to accurate image). This was very positive to see. Nevertheless, there had been a couple of speculations not declared as such, e.g. it was declared that the Dead Sea Scrolls come from the Essenes, while others declare this to be speculation.

CONS

- None.

QUOTE OF THE MOVIE

"Faith is a venture based on evidence.

Evidence adequate enough to justify the decision to leap.

Evidence adequate enough to create hope in the success of leaping.

I would say that my job as an apologist is to encourage responsible leaping.

I try to show that the leap is not hopeless, that you can reach the other side,

that many have done it before you, that the dangers below aren't as great as you think.

Beyond this however the apologist can't go. I present the evidence. You must decide to leap."

The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry (2008), by Rich Christiano (10*)

A very beautiful movie.

What a beautiful surprise of a movie. No teenage drama, no American dream, nothing about self but purely of Christ.

It almost feels like an idealistic throwback in time, and this is sad indeed. Rarely do we find personalities like Mr. Sperry today, who live truly for Christ and their neighbors, and can even forgive a drunken neighbor who killed his wife in a car accident. At the same time we find less and less characters such as that of the children, earning their extra money through small jobs, having respect for parents and the elderly, and especially not rejecting the Bible once motivated to read it.

What a beautiful and encouraging story of love, respect, motivation, fellowship, foregiveness, restoration, redemption and biblical perspective. Highly recommended.

Seven Days in Utopia (2011), by Matthew Dean Russell (6*)

A good movie, but not recommended.

PROS

+ Teaches some good values and Christian principles.

+ Strong example for unity in villages, when it comes to holding together and helping even a stranger.

+ Good example how to obey and follow the wisdom of older and more experienced people.

NEUTRAL

No redemption of the main actor, but a beautiful restoration.

CONS

- A bit too American and over the top.

- Too much driven by performance thinking.

- They play with money. Although not specified as such in the Bible, it has a negative taste.

- They endorse rodeo, which is already problematic by worldly standards.

Overall a good movie, but not one that I would recommend based on gambling and rodeo.

The Soloist (2009), by Joe Wright (3*)

An interesting movie, but definitely not Christian.

It is strange that this movie was being recommended as being Christian. It shows a good message of a social gospel, but nothing else. No restoration, no redemption.

PROS

+ Great example how to help homeless people. He did it while being a professional, but still with some heart and persistence involved.

+ Great production quality and story-telling.

+ Perfect acting.

CONS

- Initial quote by Sigmund Freud.

- 2x SOAB, F-word.

- Use of the name of 'G-d' in vain.

- Blasphemy through 'G.. Da..'.

- Although being clear that Nathaniel could have only been helped by THEOS, the movie actually ridicules the efforts of the Christian musician who prayed for him.

- The movie goes as far as to have Steve being proclaimed g-d by Nathaniel, then the journalist 'commands' him in his name and answers him that he is granted eternal life by him. Outmost blasphemy. The director of this movie has a serious problem with THEOS.

The Song (2014), by Richard L. Ramsey (4*)

By worldly standards a great movie, by biblical standard an utter failure.

PROS

+ Great camera, beautiful scenery.

+ Great actors.

+ Mostly great music.

+ Reconciliation over divorce.

+ Strong display against the evil act of adultery, showing many of its ugly consequences.

CONS

- Inadequate mini skirt of Rose in minute 13. This is not a good example in a 'Christian' movie. Her beauty could have been shown in a thousand other ways.

- In minute 14, we see a supposed Christian (Jed) singing to a Christian (Rose) in public, while badly offending the ex-partner of Rose who is listening in the crowd. Badmouthing on stage at a festival? Seriously in a Christian movie??? Where has the American church gone?

- In minute 19, we see what some would call a white lie - Rose is lying that she did not listen to Jed's conversation with her father.

- Coming to the main drama and main issues of the movie:

Jed sinned for months, by breaking the Moral Law, the 10 Commandments. He did so when Satan tricked him, but his defense fell already long before on stage. He then committed adultery for several months and consumes drugs, which means he would have clearly shipwrecked his faith and his salvation (while not taking any responsibility). Thinking about the biblical example to follow in such a case, yeah, it would be the same King David as alluded to in the movie.

But tragically we see no single action for biblical restoration, except that he physically restored the little chapel he had previously destroyed, after he stated in minute 82 that "I did this and I'm glad I did this." . This arrogance and pride later vanish, but other than a sung apology to his wife on yet another festival, there is nothing.

Not a single prayer or lament to THEOS over his grievous sin. No biblical repentance, no search for a restoration of his faith. And then suddenly, while in the late afternoon still destined to follow in his old paths and to reject his family a third time, his wife takes him back after a spontaneously canceled career and an emotional song in the evening.

This might work for pagans, but it does not work in the Christian church. This whole story, as beautiful as it is in its production, is utterly un-Christian and is in fact a very dangerous example of how not to handle such a situation.

It gets worse when seeing the involvement of City on the Hill productions, which had collaborated since a long time with Kyle Idleman on many of his earlier productions. Here we have a pastor directly involved in the movie (Executive Producer!) and even appearing in it, but he was not even able to teach the director and writers which elements for biblical restoration ought to be included??

This movie could have been great, but if the Bible is treated as a minion for the poetic element of this movie, and is not consulted for anything else, then this movie fails as it tragically has done so.

Son of God (2014), by Christopher Spencer (2*)

A Roman Catholic production which rather ridicules the character of JESUS.

CONS

- The character of Jesus is played by a Roman Catholic, Diogo Morgado.

- The character of Mary, Mother of Jesus, is played by a Roman Catholic, Roma Downey. Roma prays in private the Rosary, and was educated by the Sisters of Mercy. She believes that THEOS is in everyone and in everything.

- The first miraculous catch ocurs in the movie when JESUS first meets Peter and is alone with him in the boat. This is a clear distortion of Scripture, in order to make Peter more special by 'dedicating a miracle to him' and elevating the supposed rock the Roman Catholic church built their foundation upon. But looking at the biblical story, clearly more people had been in the boat.

- Inclusion of the extrabiblical scene of the woman caught in adultery. But to make matters much worse, this movie even twists what is usually included in our Bibles, by JESUS saying "I will give -MY- stone to the first person who tells me he has never sinned". This is horrible, because it shows JESUS with a stone in his hand. Even if that story occurred, it is outmost heretical to imply that JESUS took possession of a stone during the planned stoning of this woman.

- The feeding of the 5000 does not imply the previous teaching by JESUS for 3 days, but here JESUS just walks towards the crowd and instantly feeds them. This destroys the whole meaning and symbolism of this story. Also contrary to the Bible, JESUS' disciples do not leave instantly, but they remain and allow Him to be celebrated by the crowd with loud chants. Then the Pharisees say that 5000 came to see him, which is ignorant of the fact that 5000 only included men.

- Overall, this movie creates a patchwork of the stories of JESUS, randomly changes the order and groups stories together at random. Dialogues cannot even be described anymore by 'creative license' or filling the gaps, it is often replacing what the Bible speaks. Sensationalism and show go over truthfulness.

- When Jesus cleanses the temple, someone speaks the words 'is it not written' and Jesus repeats. This scene has a comical character, as if the producer wants to make fun of JESUS' rebuke.

- A deeply troubling scene occurs when JESUS speaks to a little girl: "You see that building. Not one stone will be left standing." He speaks this to the girl with people surrounding both, while poking her and both laugh. This movie is a charade and ridicules even such serious words of JESUS.

- The producers are Mark Burnett and Roma Downey. Mark's father was a Roman Catholic and his mother was a Presbyterian. He is described as 'staunch Catholic' and 2 times divorced. Roma Downey is his third wife. Burnett had once also been interviewed by Rick Warren, who is very close to the Roman Catholic Church. Pat Robertson: "Mark Burnett is just a genius, an absolute genius."

*This is only a partial recollection of the errors. I watched this movie until the 1-hour mark and decided to not continue it, in order to protect myself from spiritual harm and especially from confusing my scriptural memory. The above collected points should suffice for painting a clear picture and urgent warning to stay far away from this work of darkness.

Soul Surfer (2018), by Sean McNamarar (not rated)

After I purchased this movie in order to conduct a review, something unusual happened. I was not able to watch it after the HOLY SPIRIT pointed me to first scan some scenes, something I never do. When doing this, it first was surprised to instantly notice serious transgressions. In the hope that an eventual conversion during the movie could create more modesty, I scanned 2 scenes towards the end of the movie, sadly with the very same result.

I am deeply shocked how far American Christian cinema has fallen. This movie is a stumbling block for both women and especially men and in direct words, it is a scandal and disgrace. I see no problem if a woman wears tight swimwear on a beach, but the ultra-minimalist swimwear shown in the movie is a scandal for a Christian movie and I wonder how many viewers have fallen through this movie, either into fornication or po****aphy.

It would have been a unique chance to create a Christian culture of more modesty, to use at least mid-thigh swim shorts and closed swim-bras. But the producers did obviously not take this chance and badly polluted the Christian church through this movie.

So, Who Is This Jesus? (1999), by Crawford Telfer (9*)

A wonderful documentary which I can highly recommend.

Great documentary for that time. Not high quality in picture and low budget overall, but this makes it more authentic and does not take away anything. In fact, considering the small means, it is a great documentary.

He goes into the key places and shows ordinary people (who sometimes make interesting faces behind his back ...). More importantly, he teaches the Good Message in a simple and compact, yet comprehensive way. And he traces the way of JESUS CHRIST all the way back to the Old Testament and then connects to the one who announced Him, John the Baptist.

It is a wonderful documentary which I can highly recommend.

CONS

- Endorsement of Martin Luther King at the beginning of the movie (he was not a Christian at all)

- JESUS did not die on a Friday, but on the penultimate day of the Passover week (the 2nd, not the 1st Day of Preparation).

Stand Strong (2011), by Amy Kenney (6*)

Not great, but a recommendation.

PROS

+ Great display against materialism.

+ Wonderful example of families helping each other, and of a mother saying 'no' for the benefit of her son's family, in order to get on their own feet.

+ Great display of an intact family which is rare to see in American movies where we rather see the negative examples and warnings.

CONS

- Not great acting. Many of the dialogues are somewhat mechanical, as if someone would have read the script a few seconds earlier and the actors repeat. But the mention of an 'Acting Coach' in the epilogue shows that at least some amateur actors had been used, and from that viewpoint it is quite solid.

- Gossiping & badmouthing at the beginning of the movie: "Shopping is not gonna help her face".

- Minute 34: Up to that point Matt had rejected THEOS entirely, and now he is suddenly 'preaching' to his wife. This is not organic and comes without any previous indication of faith.

- Minute 65: Here he is preaching to his son, and again, it still does not fit.

The movie would have greatly benefitted from more spiritual content. We see an ideal family with an apparently strong Christian background and disciplines, but we do not see any Bible reading or worship with both families. There is some help which is rather secular and implies worldly counsel, but that which would have been infinitely more important, spiritual guidance on how to center their life on THEOS in the day-by-day, is entirely missing.

- Promotion of the book 'Dragon Spell', by Donita K. Pau (similar to the witchcraft books of C.S. Lewis which are highly problematic). This specific endorsement is a very negative surprise.

Stephen's Test of Faith (1998), by Stephen Yake (9*)

Great short movie.

I am a bit skeptical when it comes to visions, but Stephen's vision of the real Stephen is obviously not being sold as something that indeed occurred. Not to say that visions cannot occur anymore, which would be far from the biblical truth. But we all know how much abuse has been done.

This being said, we see a great idea behind the movie, to have the boy go in his dream through a quick time travel throughout Christian history. A low-budget movie, but well-made and without any expectation for more. It fulfilled its purpose in a wonderful way, to educate both children and adults about our history, and not to repeat (or at least to a lesser degree) the endless accounts of Christians going on a holiday trip to Rome and coming back with a big smile, knowing little about what place they had been.

This movie did probably a more important job than many other lengthy movies and dozens of books, written without discernment and watering down the boundaries of the church.

It is very important in our times of increasing Ecumenism, when we are about to forget the past of the 'church' and think that everything is at peace, just right before the other side will one day show its ugly face again.

The Story of Ruth, by Henry Koster (1*)

One of most horrible twists of Scripture ever seen.

I have no major problem with a movie that adds 45 minutes of screen time in between verse 1 and 3 of Ruth 1. It is certainly interesting to picture from what evil setting Ruth could have been redeemed. But the movie goes way too far when it shows Ruth praying to such a god and when it over and over mentions the name of that god, although the Bible strictly forbids to mention names of other gods. It is also unthinkable that JESUS would have been born into a genealogy of a former priestess of another god. His redemption and grace is without limits and He used murderers such as Moses, but it is very hard to picture a former priestess of a stone god as a direct ancestor of our SAVIOR. Here the movie went way too far.

And sadly the enormous creative license continues in the area of transgression:

Bible: "But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons." Film: Elimelech and his son Chilion died at the same time.

Bible: "These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years" Film: Ruth's husband did not live 10 years after the marriage, but literally less than 10 seconds ...

Bible: "Then she arose with her daughters-in-law to return from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the fields of Moab that the Lord had visited his people and given them food." Film: The reason for her return is not food, but an escape initiated by Ruth.

Now that we are 54 minutes into the movie, we actually find the first coinciding dialogue, verse 16 of still the first chapter: "But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your G-d my G-d."

Minute 65: Naomi reveals to Ruth that it was Boaz who forced a Moabite man (who possibly killed a Judean man), to drink from a poisoned well and cause him to die. Now we have not only Ruth being a former priestess, but Moab being a murderer ...

But even worse than the killing is the use of Scripture to initiate the death of the Moabite. Boaz: "Have you not heard the teaching of our Father, if your enemy is hungry, give him meat. If he is thirsty, give him water." Boaz after he killed him: "So should it be to all Moabites. And let jackals do the rest."

Ruth's first encounter with Boaz then ends very ugly, while the biblical account is the exact opposite of it. Here Boaz also hears that she is a Moabite, but treats her with outmost friendliness and even servitude instead of challenging her severely in the movie.

In the movie, Ruth rejects Boaz' provision in reaction to his attitude, while the Bible tells us in Ruth 2:14 that 'she ate and was satisfied'. It is horrendous how this movie twists Scripture.

It does of course not stop here and just goes on. The movie depicts a competition between Boaz and another redeemer, while the Bible tells us that the other redeemer rejected to take Ruth (Ruth 4:6 "Take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem it."). The movie goes as far as to have the wedding celebration of the other redeemer to start with Ruth and dozens of guests, until Ruth then rejects the redeemer during the wedding and marries at the very same celebration Boaz ... this is making a comedy and a soap opera out of the Bible.

As if not enough, the movie adds the story of an angel who appeared to Ruth and announced the Messiah through the line of Boaz. The angels later hangs around at the wedding celebration ... while the Bible tells us about the fear every onlooker of an angel had.

What a horrible movie. It spits in the face of THEOS and His Word, by horribly and intentionally twisting it to an extreme rarely seen in any production.

A QUICK BACK GROUND CHECK ON THE DIRECTOR ---

Henry Koster, the director of this movie, once proclaimed proudly: "I did stories about Catholics, Protestants and Jews". He has also made a film for the man who would become Pope Pius.

His movie 'The Bishop's Wife' portrays an angel sent to help an Episcopalian bishop.

His movie 'Come to the Stable, featured nuns who enlist a gang of unlikely volunteers to help build a children's hospital. The star, Loretta Young, was a devout Catholic. The film originated as a fact-based story submitted to the studio by writer Clare Boothe Luce, a convert to Catholicism.

This Is Our Time (2013), by Lisa Arnold (8*)

A very powerful message.

This movie is definitely not the average movie, and this is meant in the rather positive sense.

Speaking about the negative elements first, it has sometimes the look and feel as if trying hard to make up a Christian 'Friends' format. This is not really negative, but in the scene where one character speaks in the sandwich bar with his ex-girlfriend and his friends on the table behind synchronize their conversation, is definitely in the category of sin, of gossip. Not a Christian thing to do. But that was already all the negative and the positive prevails by far.

The movie is very honest with hard questions to THEOS and with the challenges and sometimes toughness of Christian life. This is far above average and very positive, to have a movie speak about those uncomfortable truths we usually rather ignore. And after we learn many small lessons between the tragic element and the end of the movie, we see then a more complete picture of a purpose which could indeed be of THEOS.

Time Changer (2002), by Rich Christiano (9*)

A great movie - Warmly recommended.

When a brother recommended this movie, I was at first skeptical.

The title nor the motion picture appears any Christian. But watching the movie, I was greatly surprised about a profound and very edifying movie. It is apparent that the makers used an extraordinary portion of fantasy for this movie, but this stretch is surely inspired by the Spirit.

Every one of us would do good to go mentally back in time, may it just be to the 80s, to see a glimpse of the decent and much more moral world we are currently losing at a speed of transformation and especially transgression never seen before.

Today we sadly do not consider many things as transgression anymore, things which would have been scandalous just a few decades ago. Today many of us are quick to call fundamentalist, what would have been utterly normal or regarded as high good back then.

Tortured for Christ, by Richard Wurmbrand (7*)

Excellent, but Reformed (Lutheran & Calvinist).

A movie difficult to watch. Difficult in the sense of hard to swallow amid the cruelties. But truly inspirational - obviously not in the sense to repeat such a tragic story, but to be steadfast in the ordinary life of a Christian and the small things of life.

It is also refreshing to read through the book of the same name a story which is not saturated with half-lies or made-up anecdotes.

It would be an excellent movie if the producer would not have partly ruined it, by inserting at the end music from Calvinists (The Gettys) and composing the hall-of-fame of martyrs almost exclusively of Orthodox monks and priests. When it comes to sufferings for CHRIST, we should focus on CHRIST and not on divisions / denominations.

Quote of the movie: "There are two kinds of Christians: Those who sincerely believe in G-d and those that, just as sincerely, believe that they believe in G-d."

Touched by Grace (2014), by Donald Leow (6*)

An average movie with a great message.

The first half of the movie requires a lot of discipline to watch, in the hope that a primitive movie turns into a good movie. And indeed there is a dramatic shift with a beautiful end.

PROS

+ Wonderful message - what ugly consequences bullying can have and how to do it much better by becoming friends with the less privileged and accepted.

+ Great message about forgiveness.

CONS

- Utterly American movie, with homecoming parties and living the American dream with a perfect house, car, suit-wearing husband et al.

- While the main actor did a great job, some of the other roles did not act as well.

- Although she became a morally better person, there is no redemption. She might become a Christian, but she did not.

Tyson's Run (2022), by Kim Bass (9*)

Highly recommended.

PROS

+ Excellent actors (except Eleanor who was made to overact in this movie).

+ Good example of a coach who does not put career over family, but takes a break when he is most needed.

+ Adequate display of some of the problems at (American) schools.

+ Wonderful display against racism, against discrimination based on news articles and for the acceptance of ASD.

CONS

- Some unrealistic scenarios. We e.g. do not know how Tyson ended up in a lake or why he had his knee bleeding before and during the race.

- Eleanor does not find healing in this movie from her outbursts of anger.

- 2 half-naked scenes.

- The scene in the epilogue is meant to be funny, but it displays vengeance, and reveals one problem of the movie, the lacking reconciliation between both parties.

The Ultimate Gift (2006), by Michael O. Sajbel (7*)

Morally an excellent movie, but definitely not a Christian one.

I am somehow surprised.

Surprised about a beautiful movie, and a magnificent storyline I did not expect. But also surprised why this movie has been, and is being endorsed as a Christian movie.

Yes, there are some scenes inside a room with a statue of CHRIST and the name of 'G-d' is mentioned. Yes, there is quite a transformation of an arrogant and selfish guy toward a person he himself did not even know that existed within him. There are a lot of elements that are morally good.

But morals are, although being part of Christianity, equally found in the world. Moral does not make someone a Christian, but only the proclamation to follow JESUS. Now JESUS is not even mentioned in this movie, neither does the main actor find any kind of salvation in this movie. He became a better person, but spiritually not an inch closer to eternity with THEOS than before. This might be a hard pill for some, but the Bible does not teach us that becoming a better I than you had been before, makes you a Christian. Such stories are beautiful, but to be really saved we need to accept the offer for salvation from JESUS CHRIST.

No amount of good deeds and charities and donations will bring you into Eternity. Only to follow Him, and then of course plus the good deeds that follow this decision.

Addendum: What I saw by accident some months after the review: The producer was or is a Freemason (Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity).

Uncle Nino (2003), by Robert Shallcross (8*)

What a Joy - What about Humanity.

I do not remember where I picked up this movie a few years ago, supposedly as a Christian movie. Was I disappointed when I noticed that it is not even faith-based? Somehow, and this movie would have been perfected if THEOS would have been 'included'.

But on the other hand, its message is of invaluable value for us, for not only an American society, which is drifting or has rather long ago drifted to the opposite of humanity, to mutual exploitation under the disguise of the American dream, the big story of prosperity and worldly success most of our current societies are hooked on. The sad news is that most of us walk in that mist and there is little hope to get out of that worldly hamster-wheel. What are the chances that we have a lost family member who can teach us life? Sadly dwindling small. But we all can access to JESUS CHRIST, no matter in which society we live.

I was once in this worldly hamster-wheel, travelling hundreds of thousands of kilometers a year and being responsible for many people. Then I found JESUS CHRIST and he led me out of this false world of self-exploitation. He gave me a new heart, a heart of flesh and not of stone. He was and is even (infinitely) better than this friend Uncle Nino, because He cannot only teach us to live a better life, but most importantly to get your focus on what matters eternally. He can do the same for you, no matter where you stand and how trapped you are in matters which do not matter.

Unconditional (2012), by Brent Mccorkle (6*)

Powerful Moral Story, but Christian?

PROS

+ Great drama, although fabricated in parts and barely a sequence of events that would happen like this.

+ Very strong case against racism.

+ Good actors who are transparently showing their character's struggles.

+ Good display of THEOS' unconditional love, when He meets the violent Joe in prison.

+ A display of violence is ok when it involves stories of redemption, but the fact that Samantha endorses the little Joe, instantly after he brutally punched his classmate, is not something we should see in a Christian movie.

+ No denomination mentioned.

NEUTRAL

o The music is sometimes a bit overwhelming. One scene where she raises her hands would be just ridiculous without music, but the music is so dramatized that even that scene has probably an impact on the viewer.

CONS

- Although the movie shows some underlying biblical concepts and has a handful of short G-d-talks in it, it can hardly go as Christian movie. If it would not have been promoted explicitly as Christian and had some Christian supporters shown in the epilogue, the vast majority of people would have probably not noticed that this could be a Christian movie. Even secular movies often include references to G-d and its truly powerful moral story could come from any other secular movie. I can also not remember any reference to JESUS CHRIST and we do therefore not even know which G-d is meant in this movie. Is it the Catholic, Mormon or Muslim god, or is it indeed the Christian THEOS?

- Samantha wanted to commit suic**e, but is not even told the Gospel anywhere in that movie. She is just getting a slightly better person, who still almost gets her into prison at the end of the movie through her acting on revenge in combination with a weapon, but there is no redemption, no salvation, just a new perspective with kids and of serving those in ways that could come indeed from the Bible. It is sad when producers are more in fear of repercussions or lower sales than in a proper holy fear to actually produce some Christian content.

- The plot is all over the place, which is ok to a certain extent, but it gets at a certain point too much. Throwbacks can be a stylistic device, but should not form the main narrative on repeat.

Undaunted... The Early Life of Josh McDowell (2011), by Cristobal Krusen (8*)

Highly encouraging biography.

This biography is truly remarkable and well recommended to watch.

What a beautiful testimony of a family that converted from violence, deceit, abuse, drunkenness, hate, suicide and near murder - to a widely restored family of forgiveness, love, compassion and most importantly of faith in THEOS.

He allows a lot of suffering when every member of a family is rejecting Him, but only one member of the family already changed the whole trajectory.

THEOS obviously loves to write stories as such, with some stark contrasts between good and evil, making a powerful testimony to the world and a further motivation to seek him.

PROS

+ Very powerful testimony.

+ They put a lot of effort into adapting his different stages of life with the proper settings.

+ Just about right length.

CONS

- It was kind of shocking to hear in such testimony the two evil names of C. S. Lewis and Billy Graham. This is very sad, but hopefully it was simply a lack of discernment and not a conscious endorsement of the evil within the 'Christian' world.

Unplanned (2019), by Chuck Konzelman, Cary Solomon (6*)

Powerful movie, with some issues.

PROS

+ Good actors and production quality.

+ Powerful display for the loving endurance of the praying Christians.

+ Powerful display how the most ardent enemies of the Kingdom of THEOS can be changed.

NEUTRAL

o The movie contains very difficult scenes most viewers should probably not see (or look away). But I understand why those scenes are included.

CONS

- The movie is rather a display of a Social Gospel than of the real Gospel. Yes, there are many Christian elements, e.g. the praying people on the other side of the fence, and a loving and ultra-patient husband. But we entirely miss a biblical transformation of Abby, namely to not only repent on moral standards, but to have gone on her knees and repent in front of JESUS, to receive the forgiveness of her sins and get baptized in water and SPIRIT. Without a spirit re-birth this movie still remains very powerful, but it misses its entire essence. It is not just about getting on the right side of good vs. evil. It is getting saved in His name and following him until the last day of our lives. Then true forgiveness can occur - even of those most horrible sins.

- The most significant problem of this movie is the totally unnecessary inclusion of Kris Vallotton as pastor. His Bethel church is teaching Kenosis; NAR 'On Earth as it is in Heaven'; a mix of Word of Faith and Pentecostalism, Dominionism; 'Revelation Knowledge' which includes Contemplative Prayer, out-of-body trips to Heaven, receiving messages from departed angels and saints, prophetic word, open visions, dreams and trances; Manifestation of the Sons of G-d (MSOG); very strong New Age fascination; children at Bethel are trained to 'go to heaven'; illuminated pyramid on the Alabaster House Prayer Center; heavily focused on angels; tuning forks for the purpose of healing; 'mantle' of William Marion Branham, known as the father of the Latter Rain / Charismatic Movement; 'Grave Soaking'; 'Treasure Hunting'; 'Fire Tunnels' and gold dust in their ventilation system ...

- Very strong promotion of Bethel Music, which can be described as 'Hansel and Gretel's crumbs' that is used by Bethel as a way to lure and indoctrinate unsuspecting people, especially youth, into the New Age's and New Apostolic Reformation's cesspool of deception.

- The movie is a trojan horse for the sublime introduction of Halloween into the Christian church. It is a shock that they precisely chose to have the most exemplary Christians in that movie celebrate that evil feast.

The very first celebration of 'All Hallow's Eve' (Hallow-een = Holy Evening before All Saint's Day), occurred in the year 609 AD, when Pope Boniface IV dedicated the Pantheon in Rome to the virgin Mary. Pan-theion = [Temple of] all gods.

"Ye who are approaching the evil day, who are drawing near and adopting false Sabbaths ..." Amo 6:3 (Greek OT)

- The final credits include 'St. Francis Xavier Catholic church'.

Until Forever (2016), by Michael Linn (6*)

Deeply moving, but with a strong potential to create doubts.

PROS

+ Beautiful display of a strong faith in the midst of the final struggle. This is how faith should look alike, to even be able to laugh and to motivate others when things become dark but Heaven gets much closer.

+ Excellent actors.

CONS

- The movie endorses the practice of making wishes on a shooting star. Such a practice should never be displayed in a Christian movie.

- Although the main character shows a strong faith, the movie has overall a strong potential to create doubts in believers. If the atheist in the movie would have been converted, the essence of the movie would be that THEOS had a purpose in Michael's death. This would have been a powerful testimony. But more than calling the atheist a friend and being a wonderful testimony for him, did sadly not happen.

- The movie includes a highly problematic scene, where Michael's brother is about to cut his wrist with a glass splitter.

- To compare eternity with a pig mobile might be funny in that scene, but it is rather problematic and the producers could have chosen any other analogy, especially given the fact that the pig mobile did not exist in that form and that the producers added the slogan and the ears in order to increase the profit of the movie.

- While the couple had been 13-15 years old when they met, the movie twists that and shows them having met around the age of 18. In reality they knew each other ~7 years when Michael died, but the movie rather suggests a couple of months.

- Furthermore, Michael is shown to have died the day after the wedding night, but in reality he died only 6 weeks later. It is spiritually irresponsible to mix a wedding celebration with death.

Virtuous (2015), by Bill Rahn (4*)

A mixed bag.

PROS

+ Excellent actors (with the exception of the cameraman ...).

+ Great plot, except the inclusion of Afghanistan, which was only to dramatize the movie, but didn't fit at all.

+ Mostly sound theology.

+ A movie lifting up the value of women. It does a great job in reflecting on unhealthy, and sometimes even criminal behaviors and practices of men of status and power.

CONS

- The movie is partly idealized and far away from reality. A women who killed someone in order to prevent a rape may indeed be set free under certain circumstances, but she still has to repent of that act before THEOS. The movie rather celebrated her, which is not right. It should have included spiritual repentance, because her acts -although in self-defense- went against the teachings of the Bible to exchange violence for violence.

- In one scene, the female judge gives her husband a trolley as a Christmas present and sends him after 40 years of marriage out of the house. He abused her verbally which was painful to watch, but such a thing does not justify a divorce as suggested in the movie. This lesson is therefore strictly anti-biblical, no matter how good it might feel to the viewer when seeing justice done.

- While the music is good, the timing and selection for the scenes is terrible. It is often totally disconnected from the mood of the respective scene. It seems as if they got a stock of songs and then just spread them evenly over the movie.

In one scene there is joyful music while an old man falls out of his hospital bed. A few minutes later, we hear again joyful music while a dead body is examined.

- The last song she performed in the church was also not synchronized at all to her performance.

The Visual Bible: The Gospel of John (2003), by Philip Saville (9*)

A superlative in Christian movies.

I can hardly imagine being able to enjoy a better screen adaptation of the Book of John than this movie. It is a tremendous work without comparison, at least as far as I can judge. It is a superlative when it comes to Christian movies.

PROS

+ Perfectly faithful adaptation - faithful to the exact wording of the Bible.

+ Excellent acting. Every character is great - even Pilate who is so often portrayed in other adaptations in not convincing ways.

+ Wonderful choice of the narrator.

+ Not perfect, but great movie sets.

+ Even small details are reflected accurately, e.g. the full moon is shown on Abib 14th.

+ Perfect decency when it comes to critical and delicate details, e.g. they intentionally do not show the 2 angels.

+ Perfect decency when it comes to the display of an image of JESUS CHRIST.

+ Their adaptation does not suggest an erroneous fast-track-trial as in many other adaptations.

CONS

- The women are rather chosen by beauty.

- JESUS comes in my opinion too close to a woman in Joh 6:37.

- Inclusion of the woman caught in adultery, a text which is foreign to the Bible, but sadly expected by the common audience.

- The inscription on the cross is lacking '... of the Jews'. I suspect that they missed it for making up a long text; but no matter what, it should have been included.

IESOUS HO NAZORAIOS HO BASILEUS ... TON IOUDAION

ΙΗϹΟΥϹ Ο ΝΑΖⲰΡΑΙΟϹ Ο ΒΑϹΙΛΕΥϹ ... ΤⲰΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙⲰΝ.

- The choice of the Bible translation is ok, but not very good. The 'Day of Preparation' is e.g. translated with 'Friday', and once with 'Passover'.

- The producers might have reflected on this, but I was confused when laying down the 'outer garment' meant to see JESUS shirtless. But the display might be accurate.

When the Game Stands Tall (2014), by Thomas Carter (3*)

Catholic school, actors and 'success' story. Stay far away from it.

CONS

- Denominationalism, mention of 'Pleasant Hill Baptist Church'

- Extremely vulgar language, e.g. music in the movie includes the word 'gangba**er'.

- Needless violence is shown in the movie. In order to give the movie a more dramatic spin, one father is brutally punching his son in front of the coach, in order to drive him to a record.

- Needless promotion of soldiers fighting in American wars. It is deeply disturbing to find such an endorsement in a supposedly Christian movie.

- The movie is mostly about worldly wisdom and mantras. Christianity is rather a label and apart from a vow of chastity, a school lesson where the one attacking the Christian wins, and a few snippets of Lord's prayers, there is little to no spiritual value in this movie. Christianity is rather abused in order to provide the player's success and especially to give credibility to the Roman Catholic church, by associating a winning streak to the supposed favor of THEOS.

Those worldly mantras and the confusing spiritual concept is show during the following 50 seconds of the movie, which give you quite an accurate picture:

Coach: "Growing up is tough. It's not easy. That's what our program is about. It aint about the football. It aint about scoring the touchdowns. It's about moving you in a direction that can help you grow up."

Team in a Catholic prayer room: "And forgive us for our trespasses."

Coach: "So when you take your place out in the world or out in our community, you can be depended on."

Music: "This is how I show my love. I made it in my mind, because."

Player: "You guys are rock stars! Great game Chris, whoo. Hey, streak 2.0. It's a streak, man."

Music: "This is how an angel dies. I blame it on my own supply."

This is one of the most senseless dialogues I have ever seen in a movie. And this movie is full of those dialogues.

- The movie shows a distinctively Catholic crucifix hanging on the wall of a meeting room.

- The story takes place at a Catholic school. De La Salle High School is a private Lasallian Catholic school for boys run by the De La Salle Christian Brothers. Jean-Baptiste de La Salle was a French Catholic priest, and founder of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools. He is a saint of the Catholic Church and the patron saint for teachers of youth.

- Many of the actors are Catholics.

Jim Caviezel (who plays Bob Ladouceur) is Catholic. Bob Ladouceur is Catholic.

Laura Dern (who plays Bob Ladouceur's wife) is Catholic and is into Eastern Mysticism. Early in her career, Dern was roommate to the famous New-age guru Marrianne Williamson. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Dern once said, "I am Catholic, as far as my religion, but I believe in reincarnation, divorce and abortion." She also burns incense, lights candles, holds rock crystals in her hand and meditates. She concludes: "I like having time to light my candles and really get focused."

Where Hope Grows (2014), by Chris Dowling (4*)

Not Christian - not recommended.

PROS

+ Great acting.

+ Wonderful role of 'Produce', and a wonderful example for not making any difference, no matter the condition.

CONS

- We do not see any repentance, nor salvation, nor baptism. The only thing we see is a great moral redemption, but this does not qualify it to be a Christian movie, nor does visiting one church service or one panic prayer for survival of a friend do. He is not drinking anymore, his daughter is not dating anymore the wrong guy, but both are far from any salvation.

- 'Produce' is shown to be a Christian, but he commits a crime when switching the driver's seat while his friend is under the influence of alcohol. This is shocking to see in a supposedly Christian movie.

- While not being a Christian problem, it is morally wrong to play baseball with food and to leave it on the ground. This is a very bad example for the world, especially for poorer countries.

- The movie shows the participation of a Christian in a game called laser tag, where people simulate war-like man-hunts with lasers instead of actual weapons. JESUS said that murder begins in our hearts, and if we pay our hard-earned money and waste our time in order to stimulate fantasies of killing people, then we are definitely not walking in the SPIRIT.

- JESUS CHRIST is not mentioned once.

Where Is My Home(2017), by Jiayun Huang, Jun Zhang (1 *)

Beautiful story, but from a cult.

This movie contains a beautiful story, when viewing it from a purely human perspective. A story of suffering children, victims of selfish adults. And of restoration. Although it is not well acted and the language synchronization is primitive, it is well made, very touching and speaks to the human heart.

But sadly it is a very ugly story from a spiritual viewpoint. Minutes 43-50, later 118-122 and once again 127-128 contain a ~scripture~ reading of 15 minutes in total. If that would be from the Bible, it would be a new record in a Christian movie and truly beautiful.

But while it pretends to be from the Bible, it does not take more than 30 seconds into the first sequence to realize that, although it contains scriptural truth, it is not the Bible at all, not even in the most generous translation, but a paraphrasing of the general concepts of the Bible, a clear distortion of it.

Then looking at the publisher, one sees that the movie was produced by the 'Church of the Almighty god', also known as 'Eastern Lightning', a split from the 'Shouters' led by Witness Lee. Digging deeper, one sees that they see the Bible as obsolete record which "offers no understanding" according to their website.

Now we understand why the movie does not contain the Bible, but reads a text from a book most certainly written by that religious group, which is being led by Zhao Weishan and his wife Yang Xiangbin, the latter who is defined by the group as 'Almighty god', and reincarnated 'christ of the Last Days'.

Stay far away from this movie and from this dangerous cult.

The Woodcarver (2012), by Terry Ingram (8*)

Highly recommended.

I was greatly surprised by the wonderful script. It is a movie which has a very strong Christian theme and which includes excellent lessons about life, especially in our society which is often very far away from the basics.

PROS

+ Great example how to constantly ask yourself the simple question 'What would JESUS do in that situation?'

+ Great example how a good workfield, such as being a finishing carpenter, can strongly contribute to the stability of a youth. Nowadays we often have the focus on extensive education and office-career, which is in this movie shown to be responsible for the near-break-up of the couple's marriage and the breakdown of their son (aside from not being believers). His decision to break out from that circle and to pursue honest and challenging work, changes at the end the course of that whole family and brings a whole new unity.

+ The movie is also a great example of how important older people are in discipling younger people in faith and practical work, topics which went hand-in-hand already in JESUS' and Paul's time, who both worked hard and discipled in their free time other people. If our society does not have such informal teachers as shown in this movie or e.g. in 'The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry', then we have a real problem.

+ This movie also displays a bad example of a pastor, by not knowing the attendance of his flock and not having authority over them while wearing a collar (which is probably not baptist-style). But his example of practical forgiveness is very great.

CONS

- Speaking about Baptists, it is surprising that we do not see any baptism in this movie, which would have been a beautiful conclusion of it. I have to say that I find it overall shocking how few North American Christian movies actually show a salvation and / or a baptism. Out of 90 movies reviewed to date, I remember only 2 including a baptism ('The Printing' and 'Bamboo in Winter').

- If Paul would have seen this movie including a very angry father and mother, he would have probably objected that the Holy Spirit was absent from the story, because apart from job changes, a new family unity and some hugs we do not find any fulfillment of the Great Commission, to both make disciples and to baptize them. Not one of the family members found their salvation in this movie - they only became better people.

- Some of the dialogues had been hard to understand due to dialect spoken and / or unclear recording.

- Ernest speaks to his dead wife. This is not necessarily a problem because he clearly states that he hears her voice only from past memories, but to include such a scene and to repeat it even twice was probably not wise in a Christian movie.

- The scene with the chisel is hardly realistic. Even if someone were to flip it and it should be very sharp, there would not be nearly enough energy to penetrate trousers and cut deep into flesh at a distance of approx. half a meter.

Woodlawn, by Andrew & Jon Erwin (4*)

Sadly a direct promotion of Billy Graham.

PROS

+ Great display against racism.

+ Great actors.

+ Great camera.

NEUTRAL

+ Great to see the conversion of so many players, but we see apart from a lip service no signs of repentance nor any baptism in the movie.

CONS

- Propagation of a false Christianity, where the Christian faith is rather abused in order to win games. It culminates in a pre-game rally and a prayer meeting, where THEOS' favor is thought in order to win the game. Quote: "If you play for something greater than you serve, then something extraordinary can happen. G-d has a purpose for your life."

- Heavy endorsement of Billy Graham, who is not only mentioned during the movie, but even one of his sermons is shown (Graham had a strong tendency towards universalism; key figure in the ecumenical movement; close collaboration with the Vatican and the Pope; unfriendly takeover of Halley's Bible Handbook and deletion of Jesuit references; advised his friend Nixon to end the Vietnam conflict in a blaze of glory; trained female pastors; great admirer of the 33° Mason Norman Vincent Peale; taught theistic evolution; promoted the catholic-influenced Alpha Course).

- Propagation of the Ecumenical movement, the Jesus Movement and the Explo 1972 in Dallas. The Explo '72 is known for its ecumenical involvement with both Protestant and Roman Catholic ministries, and heavily influenced Pope John Paul II. Billy Graham spoke on six occasions during the event.

- Hank, the sports chaplain, is played by Sean Astin, who is known for 6 different Lord of the Rings movies (!). I am not aware why the Erwin's precisely chose someone, who so habitually participates in works of darkness, precisely for the role of a pious teacher ...

- The film sound is often exaggerated and in parts ridiculous, especially the scene where a player opens his mouth and we hear literally the sound of a lion ...

imdb 〣 all reviews