April 8, 2011, - 7:38 pm

Wknd Box Office: Hanna, Your Highness, Soul Surfer, Of Gods and Men

By Debbie Schlussel

The absolute worst new movie this weekend is the one where the main character wears a severed penis around his neck for the last third of the movie.  But, then, I didn’t see the “Arthur” remake, so I can’t say that it’s the absolute worst with absolute certainty.  I hated the original Dudley Moore “Arthur,” so when I didn’t feel well, I didn’t feel bad about missing the Osama Bin Laden-admirer Russell Brand version.  I also did not see “Born to Be Wild.”

*  “Hanna“:  Normally I don’t like movies with ass-kicking girls who weigh less than 100 pounds beating up every brutish tough guy on the planet.  It’s just not believable.  But this one is different.  It’s cool, campy, weird, and funny.  Plus the ending explains why the tiny girl tough girl act is possible (sort of).  And, despite the PG-13 rating, it’s not for kids, as it’s quite violent, bloody, and has some kidding around about lesbianism, not to mention a very brief sort of suggestive lesbian kids kiss, which was troubling, disgusting, and unnecessary.

Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) is a sixteen-year-old girl trained in the Arctic wilderness by her father (Eric Bana) to be a violent assassin for her ultimate mission in the U.S.  The mission is to find CIA agent Cate Blanchett and kill her or be killed by her.  Her mission not only takes her to CIA headquarters in Langley, where she outsmarts every agent and interrogator, but also to Morocco, Germany, and assorted other locales, as she tries to escape a number of CIA agents and freelance assassins.  How she outsmarts and gets by on little or no money is interesting and fun.

I mostly enjoyed this movie, even if there are holes in it, and Blanchett does a very bad, fake-sounding Southern accent.  It’s not a great movie, but it’s fun and escapist as a night out at the movies is supposed to be.  It’s non-stop action, and I never got bored.  It’s clever, visually stunning, and just so bizarre, you’ll enjoy it.  I love the way it’s shot and the brilliant colors and stark contrasts.

If I had one reservation, it’s the usual, stale storyline at the end about who Hanna is and why she’s on her mission.  But, like I said, it does explain the completely unbelievable stunts throughout.


Watch the trailer . . .

*  “Your Highness“:  This is the movie in which the main character wears a severed penis pendant suspended from his neck for the latter portion of the movie.  If that doesn’t tell  you what absolute garbage this failed parody is, well, I’ll just tell you:  it’s absolutely awful, filthy, and just not funny.  I wanted to walk out on this movie soooo badly, but the rules are that I cannot review a movie if I don’t stay for the whole screening. You don’t need to be a prude to know that this movie completely sucks.

I barely laughed and mostly struggled to stay awake amidst my boredom.  So many f-words and c-words (the one that rhymes with “rock”), and so little of anything else.  Like I said, it’s meant to be a parody of all the medieval “damsel in distress rescued by royal prince on horseback” movies.  But that’s no excuse for this utter piece of trash pretending to be a movie.  Danny McBride is the latest talentless hack to arise from the gutter into Hollywood stardom in writing, directing, acting, and filmmaking, all because idiotic slacker frat boys flock to his celluloid crap.

McBride plays the younger prince in a royal family.  His far more attractive valiant prince brother (James Franco) will become king, and is a handsome, heroic warrior.  McBride, on the other hand, is a fat, ugly loser, who just wants to get stoned, drink, and have sex.  But he also wants to prove himself.  So, he helps his brother rescue his virgin fiancee who was kidnapped by an evil wizard character who threatens to have sex with the virgin first and thereby destroy the world.  I feel silly just even repeating this, um, “story” if you can call it that.  The movie, which is supposed to be a comedy, simply isn’t worth your laugh or your bucks and time.  A gay child molester wizard, princes performing oral and manual sex on the wizard, and “jokes” about a soup bowl haircut making a guy look like his head is a penis–that’s supposed to be funny?

Fifty years ago, McBride and Franco would have been run out of town and become lifelong pariahs for making this utter dung.  One hundred years ago, if we’re lucky, they’d have been beheaded.  Now, they are the toast of Hollywood.  Ditto for Natalie Portman, who also stars in this disgusting waste of time.  Would she want her soon-to-be-born kid to see this movie?  If no, then why did she make it?  If yes, then she has no business giving birth and should probably get an abortion (yes, I’m making a needed exception to my pro-life stance in her case, given this movie; people associated with the movie shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce).

Hey, American “civilization,” Congrats!  You’ve regressed a long way, baby. If you like this movie, you should automatically be deported.


Watch the trailer . . .

*  “Soul Surfer“: This is terrific for kids and entertaining enough to take the whole family.  It’s also a decent sports comeback movie.

Originally, this movie based on the true life story of Bethany Hamilton had mild Christian themes, which were removed to please Hollywood.  But the Hamilton family, devout Christians who produced the film, insisted that the spirituality be restored to the scenes.  And I’m glad.  I enjoyed this uplifting movie about the teen surfer, who lost her arm to a shark and got back into the game.  While some parts of the movie were a little hokey, overall it’s very inspirational with fantastic messages for kids.

I’m also glad the movie didn’t show the one-armed girl (played by the beautiful AnnaSophia Robb) immediately making a comeback and winning the surfing championship.  That’s not how real life works, though in time, the real-life Hamilton went on to win many national surfing competitions despite her disability.

Dennis Quaid and Helen Hunt play the Hamilton parents, and Kevin Sorbo (TV’s “Hercules”) plays a family friend.  Country singer Carrie Underwood does well in her first movie role as a teen church minister who takes Bethany on a mission to tsunami-afflicted Thailand to see that there are more unfortunate things in life than losing an arm and possibly not being able to surf again.

This is the kind of movie responsible parents pine for:  chock full of good values, great role models, inspiration, and positive outlook on life and its obstacles.


Watch the trailer . . .

*  “Of Gods and Men [Des Hommes et Des Dieux]“:  Muslim and Islamo-pandering filmmakers are becoming ever more clever.  Ostensibly, this is a movie about kindly Trappist monks who sacrificed their lives to help the good Muslim people of an Algerian village (and were murdered by Islamic terrorists in 1996).  But here’s what it really is:  Muslim propaganda made by Muslims and pan-Muslims for Western non-Muslim consumption.  I stayed at the end of this French- and Arabic-subtitled movie to watch the entire credits as they rolled.  I wanted to learn who made the film and why.  Many of the names were Muslim.  And if that wasn’t enough of a hint, the production company rolled a quick audio watermark at the end, with a young kid shouting, “Bismillah” [“in the name of allah”].

The repeated refusals of Trappist monks to accept the protection of the “corrupt” Algerian government (because they’d rather get murdered by Islamic terrorists) smacks of every single media propaganda story we’ve been hearing on the news from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya to Bahrain about “corrupt” stable governments versus the “liberal democrat” on the streets, who are actually murderous Muslim mobs that openly worship Al-Qaeda and the Ayatollahs.

And while I appreciate that this “based on a true story” flick is ultimately stealth Muslim propaganda, I had mixed feelings.  The monks see Islamic terrorists come to town and instantly slit the throats of all Christian construction workers, allowing the one Muslim to live.  The monks know they will soon be next, and ultimately we see these kindly, elderly, saintlike monks being forced to march to their deaths in the freezing cold snow by their Islamic terrorist captors.  Only two monks escaped because they hid in the monastery.

Though the film presents the falsity that the villagers of Algiers are just nice, peaceful  Muslims who openly oppose Islamic terrorists and accept the generosity and charity of medical care, honey, and food from the monks, only a moron would believe that in light of the strong scenes of Islamic violence.  In the real world, it’s well known in real life as an Islamic terrorist hotbed with the support of the people of these villages, where Bin Laden and similar savages generally dominate approval polls.  And there are no scenes in this movie in which the “kindly” Muslim villagers rise up against the Islamic terrorists to protect the monks who’ve sacrificed to serve them.  That simply doesn’t happen in real life and the movie would have seemed even more over the top had that fiction been presented.

At the end of the movie, despite the vocal pronouncements by one of the monks–in his diary or a letter to someone–that he understands that most Muslims are peaceful and they are different from the “Islamists” who murdered him, it comes off as the fictional distinction that it is.  We all know there are only Muslims, not Islamists, a term created by those who choose to conveniently ignore the fatal problem posed by an entire world religion, until it swallows us all up.

Yes, there were touching scenes of the monks in this movie and they seem truly saintly.  But their sacrifice seems stupid and all for nothing.  It was beyond nauseating and over the top when a sickly murdered monk–who had provided free medical services for this entire village of Muslims who did nothing to save his life–tells us how “Islam is a body and a soul,” whatever that means, and then thanks his killers, the Islamic terrorists. Barf. In watching this movie, I’m so glad that turning the other cheek isn’t a recommended concept in my particular religion.  Religions that do that, ultimately run out of cheeks, lives, and, most importantly, congregants.  There’s a reason that Islam is on the rise worldwide, while the other religions–most of whom refuse to adequately defend themselves and their adherents–are dying out.

Again, this movie ends with the audio clip, “Bismillah.”  It’s not in the name of the Trappist monk’s god or mine.  It’s the god of Mohammed Atta and Faisal Shahzah and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Nidal Malik Hassan, as well as so many other like them and their nearly two billion moral supporters.  Take the hint.


Watch the trailer . . .

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

35 Responses

I saw both hanna and your highness. Hanna borders on the edge of child porn and a poor rehash of Bourne identity set to chemical brothers music.

Your highness was great. It’s exactly what I expected it to be. It’s a the Kenny powers version of pineapple express

Brads3wood on April 8, 2011 at 11:36 pm

    Now that you mention it, can’t stand Matt Damon’s politics. But he’s superb as Jason Bourne. I liked the movies and the Ludlum novels – they’re excellent spy thrillers. When you see the Bourne films, you’ll understand why the novels are much better than the movies based upon them.

    NormanF on April 10, 2011 at 12:21 am

    Brads3wood, I like your thumbnail sketches of Hanna and Your Highness and hope you’ll share more of your reactions to movies in the future.

    Burke on April 11, 2011 at 1:01 am

About the remark pertaining to “Your Highness”:
“So many f-words and c-words (the one that rhymes with “rock”) . . . ”
I’m surprised, in a way, they didn’t have the other c-word (the one that rhymes with “hunt,” that’s used by the Charlie Sheen/Bill Maher crowd to denigrate the likes of Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, Debbie’s detailed reservations about the latter notwithstanding), given the gutter mentality of Danny McBride and, by association, those who participated in that sad excuse for a film. (Not that I would have seen it anyway; in fact, far from it, I’m with her on skipping this garbage.)

And as for Bethany Hamilton’s family (re “Soul Surfer”): I, for one, sure wish there were more like them in Hollywood, and less of the McBride ilk.

ConcernedPatriot on April 9, 2011 at 2:11 am

    I was just reminded that in the “Golden Age” of Hollywood, there was an industry-wide censorship system in place and because you couldn’t show certain topics explicitly on screen or use filthy or vulgar language, writers were forced to be creative and use their imagination to tell better stories and for filmmakers to make better movies.

    There’s no incentive to do that today. And the idiotic parts of the public are poor judges about movie quality. That’s why we have film critics to tell us what movies aren’t simply worth going to see.

    NormanF on April 10, 2011 at 7:07 am

This is what happens when children have the run of the show. That there is a market for this tripe speaks to the debasement of our culture. In this one instance, I agree with the Islamists. They hate us as much for our debauched culture as anything else we do.

JeffT on April 9, 2011 at 10:54 am

    They seem to enjoy our debauched culture. Its worth pointing out again all of the Islamic mass murderers indulged in its sybaritic pursuits with no guilt whatsoever. Its not our culture they find degrading. Remember, they’re the biggest consumers of porn, alcohol and gambling.

    They’re hardly paragons of moral virtue.

    NormanF on April 10, 2011 at 12:25 am

Wow! Your review of the Islamopropaganda movie was interesting. I never heard that other word for allah ’til last week when Mark Steyn filled in for Rush. It was interesting because I finally knew what Freddie Mercury was saying at the end of “Bohemian Rhaspody” (after 10 million years). The quick, audio watermark at the end and your translation of the propaganda tie it all together nicely. Sadly, I know those who see this will prolly buy into the Islamoprop. Thanks for the heads up.

I liked your point re: turning the other cheek. I am more in line with the Jewish aspect of that and really struggle with the Catholic doctine on that.

Funny, that Blanchette did a crap southern accent. The Australian accent is sorta close to a fluffy southern accent. That with a mix of Brit and Bostonian.

I still don’t know how to say the lead acctress’ name in Hanna.

Skunky on April 9, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    Skunky, Saoirse is pronounced Seer-sha.

    thammai on April 9, 2011 at 4:34 pm

      The Irish revival of the old Gaelic language of Ireland has been a flop.

      Very few Irish speak it and they are far more comfortable with the language left to them by their erstwhile English oppressors.

      I dare say history has a unique sense of irony about the fate of those who struggle to regain their freedom and their culture.

      NormanF on April 10, 2011 at 12:01 am

Some snotty foreigners say that Americans can’t do convincing British accents (probably because there are about 1000 UK accents in an area smaller than most US states), but British actors are good at American accents, which is baloney. Liam Neeson (technically Irish) can’t do a good American accent. About the only good accents some Brit actors can do is the generic midwestern (no) accent that is taught to all US communications majors. And it seems like all actors think that Southern accents are easy to do. Actually, they are quite hard to do convincingly, that is without coming accross like a parody.

Your Lowness on April 9, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    I liked your post YL. Yes, Carey Elwes has struggled mightily with the Yank accent.

    I am always knocked out when Australians like Anthony LaPaglia, Rachel Griffiths and Toni Collette can do smashing Yank accents with ease. The Aussie female accent has to be one of the hardest to master thou’. Twice as hard as the male, I reckon.

    Skunky on April 9, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    For that they could hire Canadians who speak the Queen’s English. Though I doubt Sir Alexander MacDonald was completely successful with the endeavor.

    NormanF on April 10, 2011 at 12:03 am


In the Bohemian Rhapsody song, the villains of that song were the ones saying Bismillah. Freddie Mercury died in 1991, and was not a Muslim: he was a gay Zoroastrian or probably an Atheist. So he was not celebrating Muslims in that song of his.

Infidel Pride on April 9, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    Thanks for the info IP. Hope I didn’t imply that I thought Freddie M was celebrating Islam (LOL, he couldn’t be after I read a recent article on him in the Daily Mail.). I was just speaking of his singing voice…and I never knew what BR was about anyway, heh, heh.

    What is that Z word you mentioned though. Never heard of that.

    Thanks to the person who provided the pronounciation! (I used to think German was hard…it’s nothing compaired to Gaelic or whatever that language is in Ireland.)

    Skunky on April 9, 2011 at 5:02 pm


Suggestion: for negative movies, use Marxes only for movies that have nothing to do w/ Islam/Muslims, but for the ones that do, get rid of Marxes altogether, and use only Bin Ladens. Seeing Obamas, Arafats, bin Ladens & Marxes for a single movie is too confusing

Infidel Pride on April 9, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    I think Debbie could use the Bin Laden for obviously Islamocrap movies, Arafats for obvious anti-Israelcrap movies, Obamas for obviously crappy American movies and Marxes for Eurotrash crap movies.

    It has merit as a rating system to tell apart all those movies destined for the cinematic graveyard. The only distinction being the particular rotten pedigree that inspired their fate.

    NormanF on April 10, 2011 at 12:16 am

      Agreed, NormanF.

      JeffE on April 10, 2011 at 12:33 am

        NormanF, the improved rating system you suggest is ingenious and I chuckled reading it. The truth is, though, that there’s a huge overlap in these four groups, as I’m sure you know. Take Body of Lies which attacks the CIA (and so is anti-American) and also is pro-Muslim and anti-Israel. What should we give that film? I think Debbie’s right to use her rating system more as an art than a science; to define the categories more rigidly would suggest wrongly that there isn’t a lot of shared gray area.

        Burke on April 10, 2011 at 12:18 pm

“Would she want her soon-to-be-born kid to see this movie? If no, then why did she make it? If yes, then she has no business giving birth and should probably get an abortion (yes, I’m making a needed exception to my pro-life stance in her case, given this movie; people associated with the movie shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce).”

I understand the sentiment but it isn’t the unborn child’s fault for the mother’s stupidity. At least take the child away and sterilize the mother. No need to take the mother’s idiocy out onto the child. You may never know… the child may grow up to be one of the strongest conservative activists for Israel… despite the mother’s political leanings and stupidity.

Pats on April 9, 2011 at 5:24 pm

We can but hope that natalie Portman’s kid rebels against his mom and becomes the Prime Minister of Israel that wins the war against the scum.

Occam's Tool on April 9, 2011 at 7:32 pm

The same religion that produced Edward the Confessor produced Richard the Lionheart

sg on April 9, 2011 at 11:18 pm

As always, I ask myself, “Would I give up – nay, sacrifice – 2 hours of my transient existence to see something that might potentially underwhelm me into apathy?”

Eff it! I’m going to play Civ V instead. At least it suspends disbelief a lot better! :p

The Reverend Jacques on April 9, 2011 at 11:28 pm

Speaking of “Gods And Men”, I doubt the last great Roman writer, Augustine would recognize today what became of what the Romans called Africa. His old see of Hippo, is now known as Bone in Algeria. And Islam throughly eradicated the presence of Christianity across the region from Morocco to Egypt. But we’re not allowed to acknowledge this genocide.

Islam after all is the Religion Of Peace and its real record of barbarism and mass murder, from antiquity down to our day, must never be brought to the light of day.

And so it in this movie, in which fiction and truth, like everything in our lives today, has been completely inverted for those who are witnesses to it.

NormanF on April 9, 2011 at 11:55 pm

Speaking Of “Hanna” it does remind me of “Alias.” The notion a slender young woman can put down several guys far stronger than her is scarcely believable.

We put the truth aside simply because the premise is an entertaining one – and pay homage to the view the feminine virtue can triumph over the male vice for power and greed.

Its an old story. But it has to be admitted we get a vicarious thrill over watching a beautiful woman best the bad guys at their own game.

NormanF on April 10, 2011 at 12:10 am

Debbie, on behalf of all fantasy fans everywhere, please let me apologize for you having to sit through Your Highness. We were the target audience for this, and never have we been so insulted.

My friends and I have a lot of fun discussing this sort of thing, but we’re also intelligent enough to realize that no one will be dumb enough to give us millions of dollars to make movies. Apparently, Universal was dumb enough to give McBride millions for this, and James Franco and Natalie Portman, both of whom I normally like in films, were dumb enough to think this will help their careers. (I do think calling for Portman’s sterilization is a bit harsh. Even John Wayne made some bad career choices.)

From what I understand, this was pretty much McBride’s idea from start to finish. If so, he must have some incredible dirt on someone in Hollywood, or there was more Mary Jane smoked during screenwriting than in the movie.

So again, apologies. Maybe next time someone gets the idea to spend millions on a “parody” of fantasy, someone else will sit on them until the urge passes. Or maybe they’ll just make a decent movie instead. Hope springs eternal.

Sentinel on April 10, 2011 at 12:16 am

I agree. Actors have been known to make an entirely forgettable movies so bad no one remembers them and which they tastefully omit from their filmography credits.

NormanF on April 10, 2011 at 12:29 am

Why did you hate the original Arthur? It was terrific.

Amanda on April 10, 2011 at 4:45 am

Dudley Moore was funny… but even the bad comedies of my youth weren’t vulgar and indecent like today’s so-called laughfests.

You never know if its going to be a porn production.

NormanF on April 10, 2011 at 6:40 am

Has anyone seen “The Borgia’s” a TV series on Showtime? I’ll bet the Catholics among us would NOT like it…. It shows the Pope & Cardinals as, um, rather unspiritual. But I watched it anyway becuase I loved the costumes. It is odd how sometimes you know you are consuming mind-trash but you keep watching. That can be quite dangerous for many people. If they enjoy a movie it can be effective persuasion. & Thanks, Debbie for great movie reviews-once again.

Cat K on April 10, 2011 at 8:37 am

    Cat, back during the Borgias’ day, the Popes and Cardinals were *distinctly* unspiritual. One of the reasons why the Reformation happened.

    Sentinel on April 10, 2011 at 11:45 am

The Church has always been a political animal. It has had to involve itself in worldly affairs. That’s still true today.

NormanF on April 10, 2011 at 4:14 pm

In the right hands “Of Gods and Men” could have been an excellent movie. I was looking forward to Deb’s review because I knew it could fall either way. Unfortunatelly it fell all the way, bummer.

BTW: When it comes to Clergy ‘Sentinel’ is, unfortunatelly, correct. The higher up the heirarchy ladder one climbs, the more earthbound one becomes. Their hands become too tied up with the lesser gods: Money, power, etc. The most spiritual don’t strive to rule but to serve.

NormanF on April 10, 2011 at 12:16 am
I like your idea for ratings but how about
“Obamas for obviously crappy” ANTI-“American movies”

theShadow on April 10, 2011 at 4:41 pm

Debbie, I so agree with you that Soul Surfer was a wholesome gem of a movie. Here’s a rare teenage movie which doesn’t waste any time dwelling on commonplace clichés like the temptation of drugs, alcohol, and promiscuity. That’s because the film had more complicated and profound concerns, like how to be a tough parent, loving and firm at once; how to retain competitive focus while retaining a generous spirit towards others; how to respond to suffering around the world without reflexively bouncing into Marxism; how to keep one’s religious faith when faced with what seems an uncaring and capricious universe; what it means to be courageous as a teen; and so forth.

I also agreed with and loved your review of Gods and Men which I saw three weeks ago when it was released in S. Cal. Other reviewers around the country can’t even begin to match your insights about that movie. Yes, it certainly is what you name it, a Trojan Horse sneaking in liberal respect and compassion for Muslims under the guise of a smug pretense of disparaging “those radical terrorists” who apparently don’t “get” how kind-hearted Islam really is. And, like you, I didn’t find the Christians in the movie any kind of role models I admired, either. Passive, weak sheep waiting to be slaughtered; obviously they aren’t real conservatives, because real conservatives don’t revel in that kind of martyrdom. This is Christianity a la the French, who one minute will be savoring the romanticized pure experience of being sacrificed by terrorists and the next rioting in the streets inflicting mayhem for a cause.

I agree with your criticisms of Hanna, but not so much your praise. Yes, I understand how the sharp production values and stylized direction combined with a brazen girl-power fantasy could all be seductive. But I don’t like what it teaches young teen girls, to receive a guilty pleasure from the idea of becoming robotic and slaughtering men who get in one’s way. And, as you noted, the “stale” anti-U.S. government storyline of the CIA developing new human weapons is a dead horse that’s been beaten. This is Bourne Identity targeted to girls of all ages with all of Ludlum’s not very subtle anti-U.S. propaganda. I also incidentally did not like the way the “dad” was casually dispensed with in the storyline following one of Hanna’s teen tantrums—that kind of careless abandonment seemed typical of the film’s soullessness.

About Your Highness. You may have noticed as I have the recent renaissance in fantasy as film genre what with Red Riding Hood, Beastly, The Season of the Witch, Drive Angry and now Your Highness. Fantasy is generally inimical to liberal-fascism, because liberal-fascism is based on an Enlightenment myth that once we become truly rational and leave superstitious ideas like religion, God and country behind, we’ll achieve utopian heaven on earth. I liked Your Highness, then, more than you, because it’s part of a genre I like to see encouraged. I would also argue that there was a conservative subtext to the movie in terms of affirming old-fashioned values like honor, loyalty, courage, and “the quest.” However, your own points about the movie are well made also. For some reason the filmmakers decided to mix British “dry” humor, wit and tradition with extremely “wet” or broad and crass humor. There was just lots and lots of bad language, drugs and sex jokes that never stopped. Watch the movie carefully, though, and you will observe no sneaky hints of an underlying Marxist ideology such as you’ll find in a typical Will Farrell comedy, for example.

This new Arthur was much superior to the original Arthur with Dudley Moore. Moore played Arthur as a wastrel, yes, but also as a pathetic wimp. This new Arthur is played by Russell Brand as a wastrel also, but the character is so much wittier and more intelligent than everyone around him that he amazes. In that way, he has the attraction of a Falstaff, likewise debauched and likewise smarter and more appealingly mercurial than all around him. I think Gordon who wrote this script should get a lot of credit for pulling this off. There was also a consistent and subversively conservative subtext; my favorite line in the movie was when the blond bimbo is caught stealing red-handed; flustered, she doesn’t know what to say, so she spouts what every liberal spouts when flummoxed: “You’re just a racist!” The line would make no sense at all unless you were aware that this is just what liberals do, and they do it so consistently that it’s time someone made a joke about it.

Burke on April 11, 2011 at 12:54 am

Regarding Of Gods and Men. Debbie,thanks for presenting “the rest of the backstory”. Very good sleuthing and expose of the film makers and agenda. Very clever on their part. There is a gross misunderstanding in the popular culture about what “turn the other cheek” means. It is NOT an endorsement of masochism-although time and custom have made it so. It has more to do with establishing equality based on Roman customs. That’s another story. More importantly, at least to me, is the historical fact that at one time Christendom fought aggressively to keep Muslims (aka Mohammedans) from attacking the West. The Catholic Church did that. We all know this threat is nothing new. It rises up periodically over the centuries. And lest anyone get hung up about Crusades, they were to protect the Holy Land, among other things. Christendom has become effeminate, weak, politically correct-the modern Church certainly will not call evil evil. But there was a time when the Pope could muster armies. Our government won’t do it, our Church won’t do it. We don’t protect any longer what is important to us because we’ve been seduced into thinking it’s not important. “Be Nice” can sometimes get you killed.

Kathleen on May 19, 2011 at 1:54 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field