Movies with a strong Christian component

RonaldB

Sparrow
I'm surprised no one has brought up "Signs" with Mel Gibson. The aliens are basically fallen angels. All the events that happened in the life of Mel Gibson's family (in the movie) led to the moment where the Alien try to kill his son but instead he gets killed by water. According to Jay Dyer, the use of water represents how baptism is a way to defeat Satan, a fallen angel.

Another movie that has Christian components is the "Omen". You'll probably be shocked to hear this, but remember that "The Omen" is a trilogy and in the third movie called "The Final Conflict" the Antichrist is defeated and Christ comes back at the end. It takes a lot of liberties with Scripture, but in the end, it leaves the audience with a sense that Satan will always lose no matter what.
 

Max Roscoe

Pelican
The Omen was made from a Christian perspective, and they had a priest on set and advising the director.
This priest warned that one of Satan's greatest strengths lies in being hidden, and that there was a danger he would fight this attempt to reveal him. And so there were many disturbing "coincidences" and tragedies that occurred in the film's production, to the point that The Omen is often called the most haunted or cursed film ever made.


The plane Gregory Peck flew on to begin work was struck by lightning, and another plane he was supposed to take but cancelled, crashed and killed everyone onboard, including the pilots wife, as the plane landed on her car on the highway. The crew was heading to a restaurant, got delayed, and then the IRA bombed the restaurant right before they arrived, which would have killed them. The special effects man got in a car wreck that closely resembled a scene in the film, and his wife was decapitated in a similar manner, and the man saw a sign nearby saying Ommen 66.6 KM....... Creepy stuff.
 
I haven’t seen Risen mentioned yet. Saw it on Roku a few months back. Was pleasantly surprised, even with the inaccuracies.

There is a scene in there when the lead character is pretty stunned. I related to that scene in terms of my own conversion moment (His eyes were opened).

Agreed on Risen. I was surprised how enjoyable the movie was. For me it was a prime example what a good, Christian flick could be. Without being too preachy or focusing on theological nuances yet still overtly Christian and entertaining at the same time. The cinematography was excellent, acting was good and, might be wrong, but I think the story was told in such an interesting way that even non-Christians or non-believers can still enjoy it.

I also quite liked Calvary, an Irish movie about a Catholic priest in a small rural parish. It's not 100% Christian or Catholic movie, I had some problems with the way Catholicism or Christianity in general was portrayed (some very left leaning talking points). But a couple of very valid criticisms of the current society was also shown and the main character was presented in a positive way.

(Unfortunately, the trailer is pretty bad in my opinion, gives off a vibe as if it was comedy which it definitely isn't except for a few moments of dark humour).
 
We all know that Hollywood is willing to leave millions -hundreds of milions - on the table rather than make a Christian movie. They did just that with Gibson's Passion - they refused to make and literally reacted like demons.

What many don't realize is that the stories Hollywood turns into films are often scrubbed of their original Christian content. Examples:
2019 biopic of Tolkien - no reference to his deep faith (*he voluntarily attended mass daily even as a young man)

This is a great film explorers a man wrestling with his inner demons .. but..

I read the book which is even more amazing -it's basically a come-to-faith book but in a totally unexpected sublte way - but the movie removed all references to its Christian content.

Some even go further and turn the message on it's head.
Amistad is a famous example it made the slave traders seem like hypocritical Christians and almost made the abolitionists look like ACLU jews :) despite the fact the abolitionists movement was deeply, exclusively Christian while the slave trade was dominated by you know who.

A more subtle example is the movie Zulu-- otherwise a top tier masculine film- in the film the missionary minister is a hypocritical cowardly drunk who undermines the defense of Roark's Drift. In realty two army chaplains served with honor and were awarded bravery medals by Queen Victoria - they are absent from the film. Just remember Hollywood and Big Media send this message EVERY DAY>

This is not overtly Christian about the Boer war from the Boer perspective, but generally I consider it Christian in its temperament. Showing the good faith and resolve of the Boers (who were screwed over and had their land taken by the lust for (((diamonds))) )
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
It's not much of a rise, is it? Sure Al Pacino grows in power and wealth but what is the cost? His wife leaves him. His siblings fear him. His son hates him and he dies all alone after a life full of regret and seeking repentance but not being able to let go of his sinful ways and to top it off, he doesn't recieve an easy-out death like in a Jimmy Cagney movie but a living death. You call that glory? I call that tragic. What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?

In the second film, a Jew mobster puts Brando and Pacino to shame with his depth of dishonesty. That Pacino is Catholic further adds to the irony and tragedy of his character.

Have you ever actually watched these films?

Vito Corleone was very successful, lived to old age in luxury and died of a heart attack in his family estate, not much to regret and not much soul searching there. As to his son, lot of the "midlife crisis Michael" you describe was in Part3, which was kind of a redheaded stepchild sequel that came out decades after the first two parts. Overall, the character is portrayed as a badass macho Italian stud who kicked ass and won, the soul searching aspects were a relatively minor side effect of his triumph as a mobster.
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Regarding Apocalypto, it was an excellent film, but the critiques of its historicity are somewhat valid. The accounts of human sacrifice and cannibalism are more associated with the Aztec culture, not the Maya. Further, the Maya Empire had ceased to exist by the time of European arrival; it was the Aztecs who ruled Mesoamerica. If he had simply used Aztec culture rather than Maya (which still exists in local communities, just not in empire form), it would have negated much of the criticism. But I still loved the movie, even as a Mesoamerica scholar.

Those critiques of Apocalypto's historicity are not valid, they are politically motivated by the industry, which absolutely hates Gibson. I have addressed these two major lies in this post:

1- that the Mayas weren't around by the time the Spanish arrived

2-that the Mayas didn't practice human sacrifice on a large scale in the manner depicted in the movie

Human sacrifice in Maya culture​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sculpture in the Great Ballcourt at Chichen Itza depicting sacrifice by decapitation. The figure at left holds the severed head of the figure at right, who spouts blood in the form of serpents from his neck


During the pre-Columbian era, human sacrifice in Maya culture was the ritual offering of nourishment to the gods. Blood was viewed as a potent source of nourishment for the Maya deities, and the sacrifice of a living creature was a powerful blood offering. By extension, the sacrifice of a human life was the ultimate offering of blood to the gods, and the most important Maya rituals culminated in human sacrifice. Generally only high status prisoners of war were sacrificed, with lower status captives being used for labour.[1]

Human sacrifice among the Maya is evident from at least the Classic period (c. AD 250–900) right through to the final stages of the Spanish conquest in the 17th century. Human sacrifice is depicted in Classic Maya art, is mentioned in Classic period hieroglyphic texts and has been verified archaeologically by analysis of skeletal remains from the Classic and Postclassic (c. AD 900–1524) periods. Additionally, human sacrifice is described in a number of late Maya and early Spanish colonial texts, including the Madrid Codex, the Kʼicheʼ epic Popol Vuh, the Kʼicheʼ Título de Totonicapán, the Kʼicheʼ language Rabinal Achi, the Annals of the Kaqchikels, the Yucatec Songs of Dzitbalche and Diego de Landa's Relación de las cosas de Yucatán.

A number of methods were employed by the Maya, the most common being decapitation and heart extraction. Additional forms of sacrifice included ritually shooting the victim with arrows, hurling sacrifices into a deep sinkhole, entombing alive to accompany a noble burial, tying the sacrifice into a ball for a ritual reenactment of the Mesoamerican ballgame and disembowelment.


(((Critics))) hated this film because it was blacklisted actor-director Gibson's work, they were butthurt because it was objectively one of the best films from that decade, and one which showed the truth instead of the false noble savage narrative, as the pre-Columbian tribes were absolute savages who practiced human sacrifice on a large scale before the arrival of Christian Europeans.
 

An0dyne

Robin
Those critiques of Apocalypto's historicity are not valid, they are politically motivated by the industry, which absolutely hates Gibson. I have addressed these two major lies in this post:

1- that the Mayas weren't around by the time the Spanish arrived

2-that the Mayas didn't practice human sacrifice on a large scale in the manner depicted in the movie

Human sacrifice in Maya culture​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sculpture in the Great Ballcourt at Chichen Itza depicting sacrifice by decapitation. The figure at left holds the severed head of the figure at right, who spouts blood in the form of serpents from his neck


During the pre-Columbian era, human sacrifice in Maya culture was the ritual offering of nourishment to the gods. Blood was viewed as a potent source of nourishment for the Maya deities, and the sacrifice of a living creature was a powerful blood offering. By extension, the sacrifice of a human life was the ultimate offering of blood to the gods, and the most important Maya rituals culminated in human sacrifice. Generally only high status prisoners of war were sacrificed, with lower status captives being used for labour.[1]

Human sacrifice among the Maya is evident from at least the Classic period (c. AD 250–900) right through to the final stages of the Spanish conquest in the 17th century. Human sacrifice is depicted in Classic Maya art, is mentioned in Classic period hieroglyphic texts and has been verified archaeologically by analysis of skeletal remains from the Classic and Postclassic (c. AD 900–1524) periods. Additionally, human sacrifice is described in a number of late Maya and early Spanish colonial texts, including the Madrid Codex, the Kʼicheʼ epic Popol Vuh, the Kʼicheʼ Título de Totonicapán, the Kʼicheʼ language Rabinal Achi, the Annals of the Kaqchikels, the Yucatec Songs of Dzitbalche and Diego de Landa's Relación de las cosas de Yucatán.

A number of methods were employed by the Maya, the most common being decapitation and heart extraction. Additional forms of sacrifice included ritually shooting the victim with arrows, hurling sacrifices into a deep sinkhole, entombing alive to accompany a noble burial, tying the sacrifice into a ball for a ritual reenactment of the Mesoamerican ballgame and disembowelment.


(((Critics))) hated this film because it was blacklisted actor-director Gibson's work, they were butthurt because it was objectively one of the best films from that decade, and one which showed the truth instead of the false noble savage narrative, as the pre-Columbian tribes were absolute savages who practiced human sacrifice on a large scale before the arrival of Christian Europeans.


1) I did not say there was no human sacrifice in Maya culture. Rather that the cannibalism and profundity in scale of human sacrifice were greater with the Aztecs. In fact, there is little to no evidence of cannibalism at all among the Maya, whereas the Spanish literally saw the Aztecs eating people. The scale and delusion of human sacrifice was so great that the masses offered themselves willingly thinking they were pleasing their demon gods (I suppose they were).

2) I literally said that the Maya still were around, but that the empire had ceased to exist long before. The Aztec Empire was the ruling empire at the time of European conquest and dominated the region.

Also if you’re worried about (((misinformation))) around every corner, you may want to avoid using a site as the basis of your evidence which casts aspersions on the historicity of the Gospel, claims the world is billions of years old, and is just altogether generally critical of western civilization.
 

DeFide

Robin
Babette’s Feast (1987)
At once a rousing paean to artistic creation, a delicate evocation of divine grace, and the ultimate film about food, the Oscar-winning Babette’s Feast is a deeply beloved treasure of cinema. Directed by Gabriel Axel and adapted from a story by Isak Dinesen, it is the lovingly layered tale of a French housekeeper with a mysterious past who brings quiet revolution in the form of one exquisite meal to a circle of starkly pious villagers in late nineteenth-century Denmark. Babette’s Feast combines earthiness and reverence in an indescribably moving depiction of sensual pleasure that goes to your head like fine champagne.
 

Pooch32

Robin
I was pleasantly surprised with the recent WW2 naval war movie, Greyhound. No diversity. Just white men doing battle. The protagonist and Captain is established as a Christian of strong faith almost instantly. He’s shown praying both on his knees and silently before every meal. Scripture is also subtly invoked throughout the movie: Hebrews 13:8 is referenced on several occasions, and as the Greyhound pursues a German U-Boat, the Captain whispers under his breath Proverbs 3:6: “Acknowledge him, and he will direct thy path.” Although the Christian component is relatively minor, It's nice to know movies like this can slip through the cracks and still be made in the current year.

 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Babette’s Feast (1987)
At once a rousing paean to artistic creation, a delicate evocation of divine grace, and the ultimate film about food, the Oscar-winning Babette’s Feast is a deeply beloved treasure of cinema. Directed by Gabriel Axel and adapted from a story by Isak Dinesen, it is the lovingly layered tale of a French housekeeper with a mysterious past who brings quiet revolution in the form of one exquisite meal to a circle of starkly pious villagers in late nineteenth-century Denmark. Babette’s Feast combines earthiness and reverence in an indescribably moving depiction of sensual pleasure that goes to your head like fine champagne.

There are literally dozens of movies made on that theme, uptight Christian society "cured" by enlightened outsider. This is anything but complimentary of Christian culture, it's quite the opposite. Here's a typical example, a movie about a single mom that moves into a conservative rural village and disrupts their observation of lent, with her chocolate standing in for the forbiden fruit of the garden of eden:

Chocolat_sheet.jpg


Chocolat tells the story of Vianne Rocher, played by Juliette Binoche, who arrives in the fictional French village of Lansquenet-sous-Tannes at the beginning of Lent with her six-year-old daughter, Anouk. She opens a small chocolaterie. Soon, she and her chocolate influence the lives of the townspeople of this repressed French community in different and interesting ways.
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
1) I did not say there was no human sacrifice in Maya culture. Rather that the cannibalism and profundity in scale of human sacrifice were greater with the Aztecs. In fact, there is little to no evidence of cannibalism at all among the Maya, whereas the Spanish literally saw the Aztecs eating people. The scale and delusion of human sacrifice was so great that the masses offered themselves willingly thinking they were pleasing their demon gods (I suppose they were).

I never mentioned anything about cannibalism, and it wasn't an important feature in Apocalypto, so you're using a strawman here. As to human sacrifice, you've claimed that "The accounts of human sacrifice are more associated with the Aztec culture, not the Maya", and I've proved you were wrong.

You probably just took the pseudohistorical denigrations of Gibson's work as truth, I have shown here 7 historic documents that prove that human sacrifice was an integral part of Mayan culture. Here's another study, the historic illustration and depiction in the text are exactly like the scenes depicted in Apocalypto, if anything the movie was less gory than described here:

1612547087743.png



2) I literally said that the Maya still were around, but that the empire had ceased to exist long before. The Aztec Empire was the ruling empire at the time of European conquest and dominated the region.

False.

1612548093949.png

Mayan kingdoms were still around when the Spaniards arrived, in fact it took Spain almost two centuries to defeat and conquer them completely:

"The Spanish conquest of the Maya was a prolonged affair; the Maya kingdoms resisted integration into the Spanish Empire with such tenacity that their defeat took almost two centuries.[3] The Itza Maya and other lowland groups in the Petén Basin were first contacted by Hernán Cortés in 1525, but remained independent and hostile to the encroaching Spanish until 1697, when a concerted Spanish assault led by Martín de Urzúa y Arizmendi finally defeated the last independent Maya kingdom."

 
Last edited:
"Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima"
Someone had recommended it on this forum a few months back. Surprised to find a DVD copy at the local library.
1952 film about the Marian apparition in Portugal about a century ago. Had no knowledge of this event prior to the film.
Wholesome acting, children are polite and show equal or greater faith than any of the adult characters.

Looks like the whole film is on Youtube as well:
An earlier post mentioned "12 Angry Men" - though I did not see much Christian imagery I second that recommendation. For a film that can be described simply as "men arguing in a room" it was dramatic and kept my attention.
 

An0dyne

Robin
H
I never mentioned anything about cannibalism, and it wasn't an important feature in Apocalypto, so you're using a strawman here. As to human sacrifice, you've claimed that "The accounts of human sacrifice are more associated with the Aztec culture, not the Maya", and I've proved you were wrong.

You probably just took the pseudohistorical denigrations of Gibson's work as truth, I have shown here 7 historic documents that prove that human sacrifice was an integral part of Mayan culture. Here's another study, the historic illustration and depiction in the text are exactly like the scenes depicted in Apocalypto, if anything the movie was less gory than described here:

View attachment 28993





False.

View attachment 28994

Mayan kingdoms were still around when the Spaniards arrived, in fact it took Spain almost two centuries to defeat and conquer them completely:

"The Spanish conquest of the Maya was a prolonged affair; the Maya kingdoms resisted integration into the Spanish Empire with such tenacity that their defeat took almost two centuries.[3] The Itza Maya and other lowland groups in the Petén Basin were first contacted by Hernán Cortés in 1525, but remained independent and hostile to the encroaching Spanish until 1697, when a concerted Spanish assault led by Martín de Urzúa y Arizmendi finally defeated the last independent Maya kingdom."


You are the one creating a strawman— you removed “cannibalism” from my quote then claimed to have refuted something. It is not a crime to observe a tangential fact even if not directly relevant. I was not using the point to attack you. Notwithstanding, I never denied the existence of human sacrifice in Maya culture. I merely observed that academically it is usually more closely associated with Aztec culture, *not that it didn’t exist.* Though I will note that even your Wikipedia grants that Aztec practices influenced the Maya in this regard.

It is important to note that the terminally classic Maya were in no wise a unified people. As I stated twice now, they existed in localized groups (using “empire” for the Chicen Itza group a bit misleading I would argue, but fine, we can use that term. But that is akin to saying the medieval Holy Roman Empire was the classical Roman Empire). Many of them were dominated by the Aztec empire and paid tribute. To quote your favorite source:

Classic Maya social organization was based on the ritual authority of the ruler, rather than central control of trade and food distribution. This model of rulership was poorly structured to respond to changes, because the ruler's actions were limited by tradition to such activities as construction, ritual, and warfare. This only served to exacerbate systemic problems.[75] By the 9th and 10th centuries, this resulted in collapse of this system of rulership. In the northern Yucatán, individual rule was replaced by a ruling council formed from elite lineages. In the southern Yucatán and central Petén, kingdoms declined; in western Petén and some other areas, the changes were catastrophic and resulted in the rapid depopulation of cities.[76]Within a couple of generations, large swathes of the central Maya area were all but abandoned.[77] Both the capitals and their secondary centres were generally abandoned within a period of 50 to 100 years.[55] One by one, cities stopped sculpting dated monuments; the last Long Count date was inscribed at Toniná in 909. Stelae were no longer raised, and squatters moved into abandoned royal palaces. Mesoamerican trade routes shifted and bypassed Petén.[78]

Postclassic period (c. 950–1539 AD)​

See also: League of Mayapan

Zaculeu was capital of the Postclassic Mam kingdom in the Guatemalan Highlands.[79]
Although much reduced, a significant Maya presence remained into the Postclassic period after the abandonment of the major Classic period cities; the population was particularly concentrated near permanent water sources.[80] Unlike during previous cycles of contraction in the Maya region, abandoned lands were not quickly resettled in the Postclassic.[55] Activity shifted to the northern lowlands and the Maya Highlands; this may have involved migration from the southern lowlands, because many Postclassic Maya groups had migration myths.[81] Chichen Itza and its Puucneighbours declined dramatically in the 11th century, and this may represent the final episode of Classic Period collapse. After the decline of Chichen Itza, the Maya region lacked a dominant power until the rise of the city of Mayapan in the 12th century. New cities arose near the Caribbean and Gulf coasts, and new trade networks were formed.[82]

The Postclassic Period was marked by changes from the preceding Classic Period.[83] The once-great city of Kaminaljuyu in the Valley of Guatemala was abandoned after continuous occupation of almost 2,000 years.[84] Across the highlands and neighbouring Pacific coast, long-occupied cities in exposed locations were relocated, apparently due to a proliferation of warfare. Cities came to occupy more-easily defended hilltop locations surrounded by deep ravines, with ditch-and-wall defences sometimes supplementing the protection provided by the natural terrain.[84] One of the most important cities in the Guatemalan Highlands at this time was Qʼumarkaj, the capital of the aggressive Kʼicheʼ kingdom.[83] The government of Maya states, from the Yucatán to the Guatemalan highlands, was often organised as joint rule by a council. However, in practice one member of the council could act as a supreme ruler, while the other members served him as advisors.[85]


Mayapan was an important Postclassic city in the northern Yucatán Peninsula.
Mayapan was abandoned around 1448, after a period of political, social and environmental turbulence that in many ways echoed the Classic period collapse in the southern Maya region. The abandonment of the city was followed by a period of prolonged warfare, disease and natural disasters in the Yucatán Peninsula, which ended only shortly before Spanish contact in 1511.[86] Even without a dominant regional capital, the early Spanish explorers reported wealthy coastal cities and thriving marketplaces.[82] During the Late Postclassic, the Yucatán Peninsula was divided into a number of independent provinces that shared a common culture but varied in internal sociopolitical organization.

————

All of that being said, I suppose one could argue that Gibson was portraying one of these stronger independent kingdoms. I still think it is fair to say that some of the historical criticisms are valid, but I will cede the point that many of the reviewers who panned it had an axe to grind and don’t know the first thing about Mesoamerica and the place of horror it truly was.
 

GodfatherPartTwo

Woodpecker
Vito Corleone was very successful, lived to old age in luxury and died of a heart attack in his family estate, not much to regret and not much soul searching there.
Funny how you say that when the scene right before that is Vito telling Michael how much he regrets how Michael followed him into a life of crime and how he wanted so much more for him.

As to his son, lot of the "midlife crisis Michael" you describe was in Part3, which was kind of a redheaded stepchild sequel that came out decades after the first two parts.
The tragedy of Michael is prevalent even in the first film. By Part 3, Coppola has to spell it out for those who still think his movie glorifies crime.

Overall, the character is portrayed as a badass macho Italian stud who kicked ass and won, the soul searching aspects were a relatively minor side effect of his triumph as a mobster.
Overall, the character is portrayed as a tragic figure who lost himself and his family, the worldly triumphs were a relatively minor side effect of selling his soul.
 
Last edited:
Top