Skip Noah and Its Evil, Pagan Agenda!

I don't plan to see Noah. I don't relish giving money to a Hollywood that mocks Christians and often produces films that lie about our beliefs. The day of the biblical blockbuster that respected Christians even while embelishing the story, The Ten Commandments leaps to mind, is long gone. The cynical view says producers mostly respected our pocketbooks, but at least our values weren't undermined, ridiculed, and distorted.

 I saw The Ten Commandments as a child  (and later Ben Hur) on school field trips and remember well the excitement and the spellbinding impact of seeing them on the big screen. But there's apparently little biblical truth in the current Noah film and a large dose of liberal agenda. Check out this review about Noah pushing evolution and black magic and this one calling the movie "disgusting and evil paganism." Here's how reviewer Ken Ham puts it:

Do you really want your family to see a pagan movie that has Noah as some psychopath who says if his daughter-in-law’s baby is a girl, he will kill it as soon as it’s born. And then when two girls are born, bloodstained Noah (the man the Bible calls righteous Noah-Genesis 7:1), brings a knife down to one of the baby’s heads to kill it and at the last minute doesn’t do it-and then a bit later says he failed because he didn’t kill the babies. How can we recommend this movie and then speak against abortion! Psychopathic Noah sees humans as a blight on the planet and wants to rid the world of people.

Yup, Hollywood couldn't resist giving their favorite sacrament and the culture of death in general a biblical blessing no matter how much they had to twist Genesis to do it. I saw The Ten Commandments as a pre-teen. Would you want to take even a teenager to see this monstrous film?

My recommendation on Noah? Watch the episode in The Bible with John Houston depicting the patriarch. His portrayal of Noah hearing the voice of God reminds me of Bill Cosby's hilarious routine as Noah takes shelter in his workshop and peeps out the door, awe and reverence in his face. In my opinion it's the best part of the film. Here's the scene as the animals load onto the ark with Noah as a sort of zoological Pied Piper.It's charming. I doubt anyone will say that about Hollywood's latest Noah. Anybody with sense would have pushed him off the ark.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

I have a fourth grade grandson who absolutely loves Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Last time he came for a visit he shared large portions of it, reading it to us out loud to everyone's great entertainment. So when I saw the other day that a film based on the book had come out I thought it would be fun to go.

After reading a review of it I'm not so sure. The film, it seems, burst a pipe in the potty humour department and it spews forth throughout the film. Hey, if I want to see and smell pee and poop I'll drive over to a sewage treatment plant. Why are movie-makers so enamored of bodily waste?

Take a look at the review for yourself. From what I've heard listening to my grandson read, the book series is cute and funny. Sounds like the movie took a wrong turn. On the other hand, reviewers don't always get it right.

Have you seen it? What do you think?

Hollywood and the Classics

I have a bone to pick with Hollywood. When they make a movie based on a classic novel, don't the writer and director owe even a modicum of respect to the author by being true to the story? Obviously in a two hour film, it's impossible to cover a 400 or 500 page book, so why not just tell part of the story authentically. Leave out the minor plots and be true to what you tell. But to take a story and gut it and produce something utterly different makes using the original title ludicrous.

The other night my husband and I watched Robinson Crusoe with Pierce Brosnan. It wasn't a bad movie, but it sure wasn't Robinson Crusoe. It began with a a duel over a woman which motivated Crusoe's fleeing to sea. Nope, no woman in the story. (Which would mean omitting the mandatory nude scene.) Crusoe left England against his parents' wishes because he didn't want to study law and wanted adventure. The film left out all of Crusoe's adventures before the shipwreck which was understandable. Some of his activities on the island were true to the book.

However, when he and Friday leave the island and return to Friday's village, they are forced by the inhabitants to engage in a fight to the death to see who would be allowed to live. Nope! total fabrication, new story. So is Crusoe's rescue by slave traders, Friday's demise, and Crusoe's return to his lady love in England. His 28-year adventure was compressed into six - no doubt to preserve the love story. After all, two doddering lovers hobbling toward each other with canes wouldn't be very romantic.

Hey, Hollywood, if you want to write your own story, do it. But please give it another name. Disney's Pocahantis, which was a complete fiction, should have been called "Indian Princess." Robinson Crusoe could have been called "Marooned." Stop stealing other people's titles and make up your own since you feel free to make up everything else within the covers of the book.

An even better solution might be to save the classics for TV. The BBC version of Pride and Prejudice with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth runs what? (six hours I think), but is a beautiful tribute to Jane Austen and, with only a few exceptions, totally true to the story. I certainly can't say that about Robinson Crusoe.

So, kids, if you're assigned the book and are too lazy to read it, don't depend on the movie. Use the cliff notes instead.