Several weeks ago I was trying to pick which film to recommend and came across a couple that made me think, "That one is pretty good" or "that one isn't too bad". I suddenly realized what lame and half-hearted praise that was. I'm sure you can find mediocre entertainment without any help from me. I didn't recommend either of those films to you and I decided for the first time since I started this weekly feature it was time to add something to my list of "Laura-Lee's Requirements". If I am not actually anxious to tell you about a film and equally anxious to know what you think of it (in short), if I'm not "jazzed" about sharing it with you, then it's simply not good enough to share with you. So as you read down my list of requirements you will find a new, highlighted one.
The film I'm recommending this week I am quite anxious for you to see. I've been checking and searching for it on YouTube for more than a year and finally someone has uploaded it. It is the 1997 British film, "Mrs. Brown" which portrays the story of the days of extended grieving of Queen Victoria after the death of her beloved husband, Albert in 1861. Her family and certain members of the royal court, hoping to shake the Queen from her grief and encourage her back to her public duties summon John Brown, who was the groom and trusted servant of her late husband. However, they may get more than what they wished for when it appears Mr. Brown may have more influence over the Queen than anyone could have imagined.
It is beautifully made and wonderfully acted by all, especially the two principal actors, [Dame] Judi Dench and Billy Connolly. And also the first film role for Scottish actor Gerard Butler, who plays John Brown's brother Archie.
Gerard Butler
Enjoy and have a wonderful weekend. Sincerely, Laura-Lee
LAURA-LEE'S REQUIREMENTS:
Good Story
Appeals to BOTH Men & Women
Funny
Witty
Good acting
Plot Twist
Evokes "warm fuzzies"
Motivates snuggling
No Graphic Sex, Violence or Swearing
Leaves you with good feelings/thoughts
'Jazzed' and anxious to share it
Available on the Internet right now for FREE (so you can watch it Immediately)
An extra photo of Gerard Butler because he's so very, very pretty. (L-L)
After Ray Comfort made his film, "The Atheist Delusion" he let fellow filmmaker, Scott Burdick have an advanced look and asked him to review it. You will find his review of the film and his opinions of Ray Comfort copied below in their entirety directly from the Comments Section for Burdick's video, "Lawrence Krauss VS Ray Comfort."
"My thoughts on Ray Comfort’s film 'The Atheist Delusion' "
[ by Scott Burdick ]"Ray sent me a preview link to his film, 'The Atheist Delusion' and asked my opinion.
After watching the link to your film, my first thought is that you certainly chose some low-hanging atheist fruit to debate (preach to) in most of the film. The people you selected seemed to know little of the very basics of biology. It would be like me making a film called “The Christian Delusion” and only interviewing students who had hardly read the Bible and knew very little of the history of the church and how the Gospels were compiled in the first place. I imagine if I convinced such people that Christianity was a hoax, you’d cry foul (as you should). Why is it any different when you do this?
Of course, Lawrence Krauss was the lone exception, and yet you chose to edit down your discussion with him from approximately 6 minutes to around 2 minutes 15 seconds. Almost everything you cut out were his more detailed elaborations on your questions so it looked like he was simply making claims and failing to back them up. I'm wondering why you would do that? You gave more time to almost every one of the other clueless “atheists” you interviewed on the street who lacked any familiarity with the subject, and even then you mostly preached to them so I'm left to wonder how much of what they said you also edited out.
So the one time you had a truly intelligent person who could elucidate the actual facts and arguments on the other side, you consciously limited him to a sound bite and edited out much of his argument. This is the opposite of what I did when I interviewed you. I asked you tough questions, just as you did of Lawrence, but I left in your full reply so your view point came through clearly. I imagine that this is why you thanked me afterward.
After watching your film, your intellectual dishonesty was quite clear to me.
After I posted my one-hour YouTube film with the full, unedited version of you and Lawrence, as well as parts of the sit-down interviews I did with each of you, I received a nice email from you thanking me for the fairness of my questions and allowing you to have your full say without editing your replies. Your cameraman and editor, Scotty, also emailed and said he felt it was quite fair and balanced.
In contrast, you did not extend the same courtesy to atheists with your film. Instead, you chose to mischaracterize the arguments by finding people on the street who could not identify a false analogy and knew little about basic biology and the subject matter in general. You very deliberately used this deceptive tactic to make it seem like they were representative of non-believers generally.
While beautifully filmed and edited, what you chose to do in you film was dishonest, plain and simple. It is one thing to have a point of view, but another to deliberately distort the opposing viewpoint and hide facts to convince your audience that your argument is correct. If you really believe what you're saying, then you shouldn't be afraid of letting the other side put their best argument forward and actually debate it on the merits. Instead, you choose to argue against a straw-man.
I enjoy a true intellectual discussion, which is why I wanted to interview you and then film you and Lawrence, but it's clear you do not—or at least you don't actually want your audience to see one. My guess is that no one would have ever seen the full discussion between you and Lawrence had I not filmed it as well as your crew, and certainly not if I didn't have a good release form covering everything I filmed that day that allowed me to release it on my YouTube channel as well.
I'm now sorry I provided you with my footage for your film (and I noticed you used only my footage of your discussion with Lawrence, rather than your own). I felt comfortable doing this knowing your agreement with Lawrence to use all or nothing of your interview with him, and you neglected to inform me, either then or later, of your decision to cut out 2/3rds of what he said.
You said you wanted my opinion, so here it is. On the whole, I found the film quite slanted and not a very serious exploration of the subject. To be completely honest, I was left wondering if you actually believed what you preached when you purposely avoided having anyone actually explain the mechanisms of evolution, but chose rather to mischaracterize it so you could pretend to knock it down. I'm sure you must have heard the real argument many time, and it wouldn't have been hard to have someone in the film lay out the basics, so the fact that you didn't do this makes me suspect you are afraid to allow your audience to hear the other side's thoughts at all.
Oh well, live and learn. It’s your film, so it’s your decision of how to present it, but since you asked me my opinion of 'The Atheist Delusion,' there it is."
Scott Burdick"
Lawrence Krauss talks with Ray Comfort
MY First Comments (in response to Scott Burdick)
Dear Scott;
I'm a Christian (38 years) and a supporter of Ray Comfort, but I found your review of Ray's "The Atheist Delusion" as pretty accurate. However, there is a large difference between standing on a street corner and having only a few minutes to ask questions of someone who can walk away from you at any moment and the time to sit down and probe into the 'deep-ness' of things. If you had only 5 minutes of Krauss's time and he might get up and leave at any moment, how different would your video be?
Please don't feel ill used. I don't think Ray was trying to "manipulate" or purposely "deceive" you. In fact, to give you (a person who is not another Christian) an advanced copy of "The Atheist Delusion" and asking you to give your opinion publically demonstrates he actually values you and your opinion very much (even though he fully realized you might give the negative opinions that you did give).
It's the things he says when he has the time to say them properly and more thoroughly that demonstrate what he's really all about. For me, "The Atheist Delusion" isn't Ray at his best until you get right to the end when he tells people that they have "worth and value and purpose". This is what he truly believes and also the reason he makes his films and stands on street corners when he could be at home in his Lazy-Boy.
As Christians, we believe we are assured of Heaven. We gain or lose nothing by how many people we may convince or convert. The only reason we tell people about Jesus is because we love them and want them to know there is a better way to live (right now AND later in Heaven). We believe this because we've lived BOTH ways: without God in our lives and then with Him.
MY Second Comments (in response to Scott Burdick)
To begin with, when I review a film I NEVER do so until I've watched it completely. TWICE. Just like tasting food, the first bite just prepares your taste buds, but the second bite allows you to really focus on what you're tasting.
The next thing is that you have to determine the "theme" of the film and the "point" in making it.
Ray made a previous film called "Evolution vs God" and In the title we find his purpose in making that film. It's more of a "debate" film, so he actually interviews several of the "experts" and "teachers", not merely 'some low-hanging atheist fruit' [as you refer to several of his subjects].
The point of the "Atheist Delusion" is NOT for a debate. The point (or theme) to this new film can also be found in it's title. You hit upon it intuitively but then went right past it. You're correct in saying the young people Ray interviewed knew very little about evolution, science, biology etc. That's probably exactly why Ray chose them. Each one claimed to be "devout", firm Atheists but it wasn't based on their knowledge of Evolution. That IS the point. They are clinging hard to their beliefs (Atheism and Evolution) without knowing why. They can barely answer the most basic questions about these beliefs yet they cling firmly to them. Ray is not there to DEBATE the points of Evolution and the merits of Atheism but to expose a "delusion". To show these people they have a "blind faith" in something they know almost nothing about.
Now that you know the point behind the creation of the film "Atheist Delusion" why don't you go back and watch it again and then compare it to Ray's other film "Evolution vs God", which IS meant more for debating purposes and where he DOES interview the "experts.
Ray Comfort is definitely very knowledgeable about science, evolution, Atheism, biology and the Bible yet he wears this knowledge with humility. The film also includes a great deal of humor but it is filmed in a most vivid and colorful High Definition. It is most definitely meant to highlight the beauty of nature and the fact that God has given so many good things in this life to enjoy.
When this film was over I had a fresh sense of the HUGEness of our God, the goodness and righteousness of His character, the fact that he desires each of us to have a purpose and views us with value and through his love and mercy.
It seems to me extremely tragic that the "delusion" of Atheism keeps us away from all these things. As Ray often says, "soften your heart and think about these things because today is the day of your salvation."
"The Atheist Delusion" can now be viewed free at YouTube and I give it 7 out of 10 little, Christian 'fishies' :
This week I'm going to do something a bit unusual. I've been watching a bunch of classic episodes of "All in the Family". Most of the episodes I haven't seen since they were originally aired in the 1970's when I was just a child. I've picked 6 episodes which I feel are the absolute best the show had to offer and have linked them together in an "All in the Family Play List" so that you can watch them in order (just like they were a film). Follow the LINK, click on the first episode in the Play List and go right to the last episode that I've recommended. (it's particularly touching and enlightening)
Please don't shuffle them and watch ALL of them. I've placed them in this order for a reason. They not only demonstrate how the show continued to get better as the years passed, but also how the characters' complexities were developed.
I describe "All in the Family" like this: "You'll be laughing one moment, crying the next and learning something all the time." I hope you enjoy them my wonderful, faithful blog friends. I guarantee you will laugh. Sincerely, Laura-Lee P.S. Even though they do not have "graphic" scenes, they still require exercising CAUTION for sensitive viewers as many of the topics are adult orientated. LINK "All in the Family" Play List at YouTube
Since I have so many new readers at this blog AND the "Church Lady P.I. Mystery" is still getting almost 100 new readers a month over at the "Master's Peace Theatre" Blog simply from 'word of mouth', I thought I would recommend it again for those who may have missed out on it the first time. Or for those who might like to give it a second read for something to do on this long Canadian "Thanksgiving" weekend. I hope you like it and remember I LOVE comments and feedback! Sincerely, Laura-Lee (Rahn)
My Uncle Harvey liked the movies "The Godfather" and "Gladiator" very much. But he LOVED the film "Shane" (with Alan Ladd) more than all the rest.
Alan Ladd in "Shane"
And ANN BLYTH was his favorite actress.
Until now I didn't realize how much my mother (Irene) looked like Ann Blyth when she was a young woman. Hmmm?
This may sound weird but in memory of Harvey R. Martel I recommend the classic, western film "Shane" and any film with Ann Blyth. (try "Mildred Pierce" first) Some of our deepest and endearing memories of someone can be the films we enjoyed watching with them and the comments they made. Sincerely, Laura-Lee So in memory of "Mrs. Brown, who dies of sour pusses."
Here is another first for this feature. I am going to recommend a few documentaries. All are unique, educating, interesting and entertaining. Take your pick OR watch all of them. You are spoiled for choice. Enjoy. Sincerely, Laura-Lee Extreme Survival Episode 5 Season 2
(TOPIC: Survival techniques & story of Father & Son lost while skiing. Hosted by Ray Mears. From the BBC = 30 minutes)
(TOPIC: Same-Sex Marriage. Part unscripted street interviews & part scripted story. Hosted by Ray Comfort from Living Waters Ministries = 55 minutes)
"RICK STEVES EUROPE" Play List (Like to travel but can't get away right now? Rick Steves is the BEST tour guide for us 'arm-chair' travelers. Take your pick from his massive Play List)
Rick Steves European CHRISTMAS (my personal favorite as Steves travels Europe AND examines how Christmas is celebrated in the different European countries = 55 minutes)
LAURA-LEE's REQUIREMENTS :
Good Story
Appeals to BOTH Men & Women
Funny
Witty
Good acting
Plot Twist
Evokes "warm fuzzies"
Motivates snuggling
No Graphic Sex, Violence or Swearing
Leaves you with good feelings/thoughts
Available somewhere on the Internet for FREE (so you can watch it Immediately)
