There was no need to add Gilbert Roland’s character to
the story. It only dragged the story down.
Rating: 1 / 5

Salve-God-oola-menchicka-boo-la Bibble-di-bobbidi-boo

He won’t do magic, believe it or not

Bibble-di-bobbidi-boo

Now God will be there for you, whenever you ask Him to,

But you’ve gotta move your arse as well to

Bibbidi-bobbidi-boo!

Salve-God-oola-thanksalot-too-la Bibble-di-bobbidi-boo

God’s got more serious things to do than

Bibbidi-bobbidi bibbidi-bobbidi bibbidi-bobbidi-boo!
Rating: 2 / 5

Fly Wheel is a great movie about a car dealer that has a change of heart. In this review I will talk about the great acting, the wonderful music and the heart warming story.

First I will talk about the great acting. I love how the mom just casually says “we are having fruit for dinner, is that okay with you?” and how the husband says “That’s Fine.” Without asking why are we having fruit for dinner and were you just lazy so you chopped a watermelon in half? The kids face expression makes him look like he is mentally retarded which really goes with how he talks. I also want to mention the clean versions of swears on this movie like “That Scum Sucking Snake!” or “What In The Jumping Jack’s Is Going On In Here!” , these quotes really go with the quality of the movie… bad.

I would also like to mention the music in this movie which is the best thing about this movie because there is none.

The last thing that I would like to mention is the heart warming story. It is about a car dealer that rips people off but then has a change of heart and becomes a fair car dealer, and this not all that happens, he also gets his kid to not be proud of him and gets his wife pregnant and umm… that’s about it. Ok the story may sound half decent but it is horrible to watch and it does not run smoothly and in some parts of the story it does not make any sense at all.

Ok, so the movie is not so great, but it is a must see for people don’t believe it is this bad. I could genially say that this is the worst movie I have ever seen.

Yes. I sadly picked this movie off the self of Blockbuster.

Rating: 1 / 5

Then talk to your school’s financial aid office to see if it is possible for you to have any options within your fa package to cover the tuition at another school with concurrent enrollment. Your academic advisor should also be able to help with you with specifics regarding concurrent enrollment policies and procedures.

Another option is to explore if the graduate school of your choice offers undergraduate courses and take them there.

Once you graduate with your BA, you’ll only be able to take undergraduate courses as a non-degree seeking student, a designation which makes you ineligible for financial aid. I encourage you to take as many as you can before you graduate in order to manage the cost of tuition.

Good luck to you.

The people in this movie had an unbelievable house…I was like, the seem to be pretty concerned material possessions. Also, when he figured he might be going out of business, why wasn’t he looking for a NEW JOB? God expects us to HELP OURSELVES you know?

I just thought it was extremely simplistic and pretty corny. It reminded me of why I am still a Christian, but no longer a Southern Baptist.
Rating: 2 / 5

Flywheel tells the story of Jay Austin, a morally-bankrupt used car dealer who thinks of church (and God) as something you visit on Sundays, but don’t really incorporate into your daily life. When he finally submits his life fully to God, things change in a radical and sometimes funny way.

No, some of the acting isn’t as professional as it could be, but the story itself is so strong, you find yourself not caring. Flywheel made me laugh, made me cry, and made me think about my own life and how much of it I am still holding onto rather than yielding to Christ. I also loved the powerful example of a man yielding his life to God. Jay Austin realizes his need for Christ without appearing weak or preachy. My ten-year-old son watched it several times and we had great conversations about it afterward.

A simply great film. This one’s a classic.
Rating: 4 / 5

blueletterBible(dot)org

But then again….. I’m just a douchebag right ?

Read this for some samples: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/21charity.html

Foreign (including U.S.) health insurance is not valid in Haiti, and there is no way to get around. There is no food, water, sanitation, or electricity for anyone. Volunteers who are injured, for example by breaking a limb, have have no painkillers, no doctor, no treatment, and no way to get home.

Please read this article about the trouble that well intentioned people are causing: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34958965/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/

Over 80,000 pounds of food and emergency resources such as tents, tarps, water filtration bottles and medical supplies donated by the Church.

“Charity is the pure love of Christ.”

God loves you……God bless

First, you need to separate the subject matter from the film. Just becauise the film is about the life of Jesus doesn’t automatically make it an untouchable masterpiece of cinema.

While I definitely give Stevens his props — there are some truly magnificently-done scenes here, and the film as a whole remains watchable — the attempt to, it seems, put most of Hollywood in the film willy-nilly almost sunk the whole thing. In addition, certain elements of Christ’s life one would consider key are completely glossed over.

Von Sydow (who incidentally, may be the only actor to have played both Jesus and Satan, not to mention an exorcist) tries; he really does. He makes an interesting Christ, certainly far more believable than Jeffrey Hunter’s blue-eyed, always immaculately-groomed version in King of Kings. His acting ranges from OK to incredible, and he’s on-screen for almost the entire film. He brings a definite sincerity and warmth to the role, even if the scipt gets a bit too heavy-handed at times, but in the final analysis, his peformance alone isn’t enough to sustain the whole movie.

The rest of the cast is split between just OK or just plain wrong/bad. Dorothy Macquire as Mary was… well, an unexpected choice, but she actually fared far better than many others. The actress who played Mary Magdeline was completely mediocre;in this film, maybe Claudia Cardinale would’ve been the best choice.

Claude Rains could’ve phoned in his part. Sidney Poiter,Roddy M, Martin Landau and even Sal MIneo were surprisingly effective.

But some of the other casting was just strange or ill-conceived.

Watch the film objectively and see if you don’t agree with some of this:

Both Heston and Ferrer (and even Pleasance) were WAY over the top, and not in a good way at all. Telly Savalas looked like he was bored, and delivered his lines appropriately. The Barabbas scene was flatter than a surfboard. Victor Buono tried too hard to be slimy. Angela Lansbury is a great actress, but was completely wasted here. Van Heflin was trying too hard. Ed Wynn as Isiah and Shelly Winters as a healed person? Huh? And of course, the crown jewel; John Wayne as the Roman officer supervising the crucifixion. His one line brings the definition of “wooden” to dizzying new heights.

They’re only some; there are scores more of miscasts. And yes, while many of them are indeed little more than cameos, they all add up to derail the film from what it could’ve been. As it stands, you actually find yourself laughing at some of the performances. A sincere effort, but too ambitious overall.
Rating: 3 / 5

because you clearly…. lack some ability here.

I made if perfectly clear that you saying that it was a lie was not what made me mad. I made that perfectly clear. What did i say? think hard. I said…. you questioning my integrity was what made me mad.

You know what I think? You are a fucking bitch. Nothing more nothing less.

Mistake bluntness for smugness? perhaps. But what followed has only backed it up as smugness.

Perhaps your statement made me uncomfortable? Fuck yes it did. Did I not make that clear enough for you?

What is wrong with this individual?

I have given you plenty of jumping off points and chances to redeem yourself. I told you exactly how I felt about it. Yet you keep going back… back to that high horse. I’m saddened by your response really. Because you’re just another one of them. Those people you think you’re different from. You’re one of them.

I don’t know what to say anymore. You think that what you said made me uncomfortable? as if what you said was going to change my mind? or cause me to ‘open my eyes’. No, not at all.

I’m trying to help you. Help you to stop being such a terrible person.

“You confuse me, sir” ?! who the hell am I talking to?

I think you’re the one who needs to learn. You are the one who has lost sight of reality. I just hope you heard me.

Have I embarrassed you enough? Made your blood boil? Even in the slightest? Or will I get more of the same from you Sh0nin?

“Oh!! no!! didn’t get me!! I’m smarter than you- ha ha!”

Grow up!!! Realize that people have the ability to believe in something while recognizing the odds. Your fantasy of superiority is a lie. Thats right!! a lie.

I think all the scenes could have done in half the time and I think that would’ve given a likeable movie. But not this way.
I got bored and my legs sored at the end.
Rating: 1 / 5

Although you don’t need a graph to tell you how dumb some of those states are…

I thought YouTube was bought out by Google, and Google was usually more cool about these things…

nothing like that can be proved by something as simple as a graph, lets be honest here. most atheists ive met are only atheists because they think its “fashionable”

Everybody knows the making of videos for youtube is the prime and most accurate way of calculating a persons IQ !!!

prepare to freeze

So those aren’t best examples for the exceptions on the video’s message, I think.

rather hard to read due to the font size.
Rating: 5 / 5

The surveyors use statistical categories which are inaccurate and misleading. They categorize Protestants into three categories: Conservataive Protestant, Mainline Protestants, and Black Protetants. These groups are each compared to one large dumping group called “Roman Catholics”, and “Roman Catholics” come out at the bottom of the barrel each time. No surprise. Why? Because it was an unfair comparison. Had they compared Conservative Protestants with Catholic youth who consider themselves “conservative”, it would have been a fair an accurate comparison. The percentage numbers indicating their understanding of their faith, their religious life, etc, would have been comparable. Similarly they would have produced a more accurate and fair result had they compared the Mainline Protestant youth with the average once-a-week-Cathlic who is educated at CCD, and the Black Protestant youth, who tend to be Penecostal and Baptist in many cases, with Catholic Charismatic youth who are similar in their worhship and living out of their faith. This casuses the survey to be deeply flawed in my opinion. Whether or not it was intentional is not for me to judge. I believe it simply shows ignorance of the Catholic community rather than malicious intent, but nonetheless it flaws the results.

The other categories which were thrown into the mix were Morman/Latter Day Saints, Jewish, and in some tables, No Religion at all when appropriate. Muslims were left out altogether.

It’s section on Catholic youth, while accurate in that the section highlghted three intereviews with three “Catholics”, did in fact, give a distorted image of Catholic Youth in general because among these three “representative” Catholic youth interviewed, not one was really religious, or understanding of their faith. Not one had even been EDUCATED IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL! Why did they not at least choose ONE student who had through the Cathoic school system. That would have been fair and representative of the Catholic population. It almost seems as though they went out of their way to find the least religious, most ill-educated of Catholic youths to represent the whole group. I really believe this was an enormous flaw.

I shared one of the case studies, “Heather”, with some youth I know. They were appalled at the lack of information this young women had in terms of her faith, and were embarassed that she should have been chosen to represent them, young Catholics.

In addition to this, the treatment of contemporary Catholic adults, while, again, true in part, leaves something to be desired as well. It is true that many contemporary Catholic adults have become successful and engaged in their careers and communities. The authors imply that this demonstrates that they have,in effect, abandoned their faith. I believe that this does not mean that they have abandoned their faith at all; they have been assimilated into the society are large and “look” like the rest of the community. Isn’t that a good thing? If Catholics had not assimilated, then they would be accused of being “radical” or “fundamentalist”. Also, it is precisely because of the education they received in the CATHOLIC SCHOOLS of the nineteen fifties and sixities, AND/OR because of the Catholic Chrisitan values and ethics which formed them, handed onto them by thier religious, Catholic immigrant grandparents and parents, in some cases, that they have become so successful in the world today. How about a CHEER for Catholic schools and Catholic families??

These are just some of my criticisms. To sum up, I was disappointed and frustrated in the book. However, to give the book its due, the authors did put in a tremendous amount of statistical and research work, and it could serve as a great discussion starter. There is certainly value for those who read it, and in a sense it has accomplished its goal in that it certainly makes one search one’s soul. Thank you.

Rating: 3 / 5

More people have died in the name of death than religeon but how many of you are trying to stop death.
Stop wars? Easy.
Try stopping death it’s impossible.
That’s real Punk that is.