Star Wars I & II

-
Blockbusters Reviewed
Welcome to the 17th edition of My Fortnightly Movie/TV Thoughts!  Last fortnight I reviewed Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi (1983).  This fortnight, I’m reviewing:
  • Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999), rated PG for mild violence
  • Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002), rated PG for mild themes and violence
Those are the Australian ratings; in the United States, they’re rated:
  • The Phantom Menace – PG for sci-fi action/violence
  • Attack of the Clones – PG for sustained sequences of sci-fi action/violence
As usual, I give the trailer and a clip at the end.  And as usual, I offer the following disclaimer just to be safe:
WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD.  PROCEED AT OWN RISK.
Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999)
Related image
To quote the opening paragraph from Roger Ebert’s review: “If it were the first “Star Wars
View original post 1,680 more words

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

KJV Only?

-
Image
The KJV Only movement is a belief on the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible - also known as the Authorised Version (AV) or the Authorised King James Version (AKJV) - that ranges from preferring it over other, later translations, to the belief that it's inspired, perfect, and superior to the original Hebrew & Greek texts, and that all other translations are intentionally corrupt, satanic, and unreliable.  The former is of course entirely a matter of personal preference & opinion, and you won't hear criticism of it from me.  The latter on the other hand... well, that's the focus of this article. First, some historic background (although most will be at least partly familiar with it: following his coronation as King of England and Ireland in 1604, King James I (VI of Scotland) commissioned a new translation of the Bible into English.  The project was handed over to committees - each of which translated a separate portion of the Bible - which separately compl...
Read more

Evidence for Giants

-
Image
You will find in the Bible and in innumerable ancient legends references to giant; humanoids who were (often much) taller (and stronger) than normal.  (Gigantism – where a person is abnormally large, but weak – is entirely different.)  They often have a supernatural origin, the result of a union between supernatural beings and human women.  The Bible calls them the Nephillim and Rephaim.  The Greeks called them the Titans. They don’t fit into Evolution, and so are generally regarded as myths.  However, there is direct evidence – PHYSICAL evidence – that they were (and probably still are) very real.  The following is an article titled Traces of Giants Discovered Worldwide from Tales from Out There: The skeletons of giants were removed; whenever a new one appears the bones are quickly removed; they are carried far away to big hangars hidden from the public eye  or are destroyed. The Smithsonian Institute has admitted in court tha...
Read more

Revisiting Christmas

-
Image
Well, today (in Australia) is Christmas Day.  Quite possibly THE most popular holiday in the world (although the media’s trying to make horrid Halloween more and more popular). For those of you who celebrate it, I hope you’re having/have a great day.  For those of you (like me) for whom it’s just another normal day (and no, that’s not “legalistic”), I hope you’re having/have a great day. Although it’s become lost in modern consumerism, Christmas is claimed to be a celebration of Christ’s birthday – although it’s generally agreed that He wasn’t born on that day. Some of you might remember my post Christmas , in which I argued that it is an appropriated pagan festival (see Deuteronomy 12:30-31, Matthew 5, and Does the Torah Still Apply? ).  However, I have since discovered that some of the claims are false. “False” as in I’m seriously questioning my view of Christmas as a pagan festival. I’m going to go through each incorrect (or only partially correct...
Read more