Brad Pitt at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival - Photo courtesy of Georges Biard

I recently watched the Pixar / Walt Disney movie RATATOUILLE with my children. It’s a very entertaining, sweet movie about a rat who wants to be a great chef. During one key moment a famous food critic writes in his review: “In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read.”

I immediately thought of a number of negative movie reviews that I’ve read which weren’t just bad, but strived to be scathingly and humorously so. As a filmmaker you certainly don’t ever want to get bad reviews. No matter how thick your skin may be, bad reviews can hurt. And certain words and phrases in those reviews can hurt more than others. One such word is “pretentious.”

The Webster’s dictionary definition for pretentious is: “Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.” Such a description for a movie is worse than it just be called “bad” because while both mean that the film isn’t worth much, pretentious means that it’s intentionally proclaiming itself to be worth much more than it actually is.

This is why I was so surprised to see the reviews for THE TREE OF LIFE, (Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain) a movie that is getting a lot of positive buzz. http://moviereviewintelligence.com/movie-reviews/the_tree_of_life_2011/

Overall the critics love this film. Yet when you read parts of their actual reviews, you’d think that they were panning it. Below are some excerpts of various reviews and as you read them – try to pick out which are saying that the film is “Outstanding” and those that are saying that it’s “poor” or “weak”.

“Call it outlandishly pompous, messy, whatever.” Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune.
“Gorgeous and ambitious, pretentious and baffling, tightly controlled yet free-flowing…” Christy Lemire, Associated Press.

“…confusing (if gorgeous) art film…. extremely pretentious — and at 138 minutes, it unspools as slowly as tree growth.” Thelma Adams, Us Weekly.
“… long, often redundant and certainly on its own wavelength.” Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News.
“…overweening in its spiritual ambition…. [has] very little human interest…. less profound than profoundly eccentric, while too solemn, pompous, and genteel to be truly crazy.” J. Hoberman, Village Voice.
“Malick’s style — wide vistas and extreme close-ups strung together by interior monologues built on non-sequitors — will challenge even the most ardent Malick fan to admire the Emperor’s New Clothes this time.” Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel.
“Beautiful, baffling, poetic, pretentious, it’s one big ball of moviedom… won’t be for everyone.” Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic.
“Could it be more borderline profound? This movie weighs so much, yet contains so little. It’s all vault and little coin.” Wesley Morris, Boston Globe.

In case you want to know how you did, here are the overriding opinions of the reviews above (in order): Outstanding, outstanding, moderate, excellent, poor, weak, outstanding, good.

So whether in the glowing reviews, or the bad reviews, there was almost unanimous agreement that the film is pretentious. How is this possible? Did self-important, self-aggrandizing filmmaking suddenly become a good thing?

The director of the film, Terrence Malick, is an art-house favorite and considered by many as a filmmaking genius. Wikipedia writes: “Malick has received consistent regard for his work, and his films are often considered masterpieces.” Malick was nominated for an Academy Award for both Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Director, and won the Golden Bear at the 49th Berlin International Film Festival for THE THIN RED LINE.

It seems to me that the reactions and overall feelings about THE TREE OF LIFE may have more to do with Malick’s reputation rather than the film itself. No one wants to seem like an uncivilized boor by calling a “masterpiece” bad. Lou Lemenick in his New York Post review stated: “While it’s entirely possible to dismiss this philosophizing head trip of a movie as pretentious, tedious and often inscrutable New Age hooey… you may be doing so at your own peril.” Read that again. This was part of an “outstanding” review for the film!

When TREE OF LIFE won the Palm d’Or at the 2011 Cannes film festival, movie star Robert DeNiro said, upon presenting the award: “it was difficult to choose a winner, but The Tree of Life “ultimately fit the bill”. He explained, “It had the size, the importance, the intention, whatever you want to call it, that seemed to fit the prize.”

I’m sure directors everywhere would LOVE to have their films judged on intention. If they’re anything like mine, they’re always the best.

- Blog by André van Heerden, Writer, Director (2012: PROPHECY OR PANIC?, JUDGMENT)

So how was it?

Really good. It may sound like a cliché but this movie really will make you laugh and cry and sit on the edge of your seat. I think it will do very well opening weekend: Sept. 30th!

However, when I was watching it I couldn’t help feeling, time and again, that this wasn’t a regular movie. There was something very different about it.

What was it?

Could it be because it was made by a church through mostly volunteers? Well, it looks very professional, I don’t think that was it. Could it be because it was written and directed by brothers Alex and Stephen Kendrick – whose full time jobs are as pastors? Actually, the directing is quite good. Could it be that it has a very strong biblical theme? That certainly stands out but I’ve seen many other films with strong themes and messages.

Then it struck me: it was a sense that this movie SHOULDN’T be as effective as it is.

As someone who has worked very hard on producing films and documentaries for a number of years, I know how hard it is to produce something worth seeing. I’ve studied how to do it at University. I’ve read book after book on screenwriting and filmmaking. I’ve reviewed and analyzed great films and directors and mentored under industry professionals. And I’ve even written, directed and produced a number of successful feature films. So I’d like to believe that I know how it’s done.

But movies like COURAGEOUS prove that I, and I’m going to say most other filmmakers, still have a lot to learn.

In the apostle Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians he writes: “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” 1 Cor. 1:27

Against almost all odds Sherwood’s highschool football film FACING THE GIANTS made $10 Million at the box office. Their next film, FIREPROOF, made over $33 Million at the box office. These are great numbers for any independent filmmaker – never mind a group of church volunteers and a whole lot of prayer. Most Hollywood analysts and experts would say that it could never happen. Yet it did. And I believe it’s about to happen again.

COURAGEOUS works because it’s full of emotion and heart and it has a theme that people can relate to. I also believe it works because the filmmakers behind it were committed to honoring God with their work. And they did. Go see it opening weekend!

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film and TV Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

It notes that political posturing in films often spells box office disaster. The article cites examples like THE UNDEFEATED (a pro Sarah Palin documentary) and AN AMERICAN CAROL (a farce about Michael Moore being the Nation’s biggest threat) and ATLAS SHRUGGED PART 1 (an indie drama based on the Ayn Rand novel) to prove its point.

What is interesting is that Toth only cites examples of films with conservative view points. He shows his distaste for these themes when he writes about the target audience: “Personally, I suspect that they are much happier venting their spleen either online or by phone rather than sitting quietly in a theater for a couple of hours.”

Toth again shows his political leanings when writing: “The audience has a virtual Constitutional (and certainly God-given) right not to go to your movie. … This type of free and open selection by the audience is called capitalism. I don’t quite understand why I am having to explain this to right-wing filmmakers, but all I can add is, “Welcome to the pain of the marketplace, pal.”

Those are pretty strong words for filmmakers whose projects have failed. I wonder if he’d have stronger words for politically-biased films that lost much more money? The Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford drama, LIONS FOR LAMBS cost $35 Million to make and had a box office of $15 Million. Matt Damon‘s GREEN ZONE cost a whopping $100 Million to make and only made $35 Million at the box office. This despite having pretty much the same concept, producers and marketing muscle as Damon’s extremely popular BOURNE films. Or the recent Sean Penn, Naomi Watts film: FAIR GAME which only made $6.7 Million at the box office while costing $22 Million to produce.

It’s important to note that none of Toth’s examples had the cast, marketing dollars or production budgets of the left-wing themed films. So which ones had the bigger failure?

Good films need to have themes. Themes though can’t be a sermon – no matter how true or important they may be.

Toth rightly notes that “Most people go to movies for a form of emotional engagement, not politics. … most attempts at political statements in movies end up sounding as if the filmmaker is hectoring the audience. As a rule, people won’t pay to be hectored. They come to see a story, not a harangue. Heck, they might even want a little romance on the side.”

Similarly, I think film reviews and commentaries should also concentrate on the story (i.e. political films often fail) rather than making political speeches (i.e. conservative filmmakers don’t get it).

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film and TV Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

For those who know me, they know that I like debating. It really doesn’t matter what the topic is, I enjoy a good discussion and enjoy testing theories and learning new things.

It’s probably one of the reasons that I enjoy working on our documentaries.

However for there to be a good discussion, you need to know where people stand. If you’re debating with someone and they keep changing their position or suddenly contradict themselves or don’t really care about the topic, it becomes somewhat pointless.

I have worked with many Christian actors on our feature films and had many wonderful discussions with them. Kirk Cameron shares a common interest and passion for the topic of Creation that I do. Mr. T is as humble and polite a guy that you will ever meet. But some of my most enjoyable conversations came from Judd Nelson (BREAKFAST CLUB, DECEIVED) who disagreed with me on most topics. What I loved about Judd was that he didn’t hide who he was and never pretended to be something that he wasn’t.

I don’t think that I’m alone in this feeling. It’s comforting to know where someone is coming from – even if they’re not “on your side”.

I have found that sometimes when I’m trying to ease into a topic or get a sensitive interview or trying to help someone without sounding judgmental, I try to avoid mentioning that I’m a Christian. It seems to me that this may hurt my cause and make things more difficult. However, time and again that approach has proven to be faulty and causes more problems than avoids them.

Conversely most times that I’ve let people know that I’m a Christian and that this is why I believe certain things, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the reaction and I accomplish much more than I ever thought I would.

It is within this context that I read with sadness that the long-standing organization of “Campus Crusade for Christ” was changing its name to “CRU”. I was a member of “Campus Crusade for Athletes” at Carleton University and really admired those who ran it for their loving and straight-forward approach.

Campus Crusade spokesman andVP Steve Seller told Fox News Radio: “Our name was becoming more and more of a hindrance.”

The CRU website states: “We were not trying to eliminate the word Christ from our name. We were looking for a name that would most effectively serve our mission and help us take the gospel to the world. Our mission has not changed. Cru enables us to have discussions about Christ with people who might initially be turned off by a more overtly Christian name. We believe that our interaction and our communication with the world will be what ultimately honors and glorifies Christ.”

Seller’s goes on to say: “It is a name we intend to give meaning so that when people hear it they know that it’s a caring group of Christians who are passionate about lifting up the name of Jesus.”

Omega Letter writer Jack Kinsella disagrees and writes: “So “Cru” is all about lifting up the Name by calling it a ‘hindrance to its mission’ and dropping it from its title in order to make it more popular.  Calling it ‘Cru’ will tell people it is run by a ‘caring group of Christians’?  Really?  What do they care about?  You’ll never be able to figure it out from their name.”

Cloud Ten Pictures recently revised its logo. We wanted something that looked more current and modern. I understand that Campus Crusade may have wanted to do something like that as well. But when you’ve created a brand that is recognized everywhere and recognized for good things and recognized for goals that you’re continuing to pursue… WHY would you change that? The brand that you’ve created is a good thing. Changing that brand and causing confusion is a bad thing.

People like it when they know where someone stands. So does God: “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” Rev. 3:15-16 NIV

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film and TV at Cloud Ten Pictures

André van Heerden, on the set of Cloud Ten's upcoming documentary, 2012: PROPHECY OR PANIC?

Can you rationally discuss a controversial topic without getting emotional?

Can you stop yourself from interrupting another person as they make their points – even if you’ve heard them before?

Can you actually listen to and process what they’re saying rather than just preparing to fire your response back?

It’s a lost art.

On the one side you have people who defend their positions by throwing-out socially barbed terms like “homophobe”, “right-wing”, “patriarchal”, “traditional”, “Zionist” and claim that any views that oppose theirs are offensive.

On the other side you have people who defend their positions with a condescending superiority based more on a moral stance rather than on facts and figures and counter-points.

It’s almost impossible for these two different sides to even converse without getting frustrated. Frustration leads to anger. Anger leads to emotional responses and personal attacks. Suddenly the two sides are further apart than ever. Rather than productive discussion we’re left with name-calling.

I can’t help but be reminded of Bill O’Reilly‘s visit with the ladies on “The View.” Here are people who’s daily JOB is to debate hot topics in a rational manner. They’ve done it for years. They know who they’re going to be talking to and what their views are. There shouldn’t be any surprises. And yet very quickly the show saw Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar swearing and leaving the set. That’s not productive for anyone. For those who are supporters of O’Reilly they’ll think that he was in the right. For those who support the ladies of “The View”, they’ll think that they were right. Nothing was settled because no one actually listened. No one actually learned. No one respected the other.

I recently had the great pleasure of traveling with actor and presenter Jeffrey Douglas to the ancient Mayan ruins in Palenque, Mexico. He is the host for our newest documentary: 2012: PROPHECY OR PANIC? He is also a co-host on the long-running national daily radio program: “As it Happens” with Carol Off and was host for National Geographic‘s “Things That Move” TV series. His background knowledge on many topics is wide and he’s well-read and articulate. He also knows how to have a discussion.

Our trip to Mexico was a long one (the trip back even longer!) but I can’t remember a time that I debated and learned about so many different things. The keys: listening and respect. We didn’t agree on everything but I certainly learned more on what we debated about rather than what we agreed upon.

We recently completed another documentary called THE 12 BIGGEST LIES hosted by Kevin Sorbo (“Hercules”, “Andromeda”, WHAT IF…). It’s a bold title that attracts many strong responses. But hopefully, if someone can swallow their retorts and emotions and world-view, they might take something away from it other than ‘anger’.

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film & TV Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

Host Jeff Douglas on the set of Cloud Ten's upcoming documentary, 2012: PROPHECY OR PANIC?

On the set of Cloud Ten's upcoming documentary, 2012: PROPHECY OR PANIC?

I love good cinema. I love to watch it and share it. I really want Christian filmmaking to be at a high level, but it usually doesn’t have the resources to be the best. Still, I believe it can and should be better. So, how do you make an effective epic disaster film for today’s kids?

1. Always start with your best foot forward. So many movies that save their best stuff (surprises, back stories, etc.) for sequels never get them. I understand that you have a template to follow here, but still, treat this film like it’s the only one you are ever going to get to make.
2. All films, even disaster films, have to be about something. This film should have no problem accomplishing that, but this also applies to the action and disaster scenes. These scenes of peril shouldn’t stop the movie dead, everything should enhance the character relationships.
3. Think, ‘What would Michael Bay do?’ Then, do the opposite.
4. It’s important that the audience care about these characters. Create good arcs and get actors that fit them well (resume’s in the mail).
5. Don’t listen to me. Listen to God. I am insignificant, but this film could be something great. That is why I write, because I care. May God bless your production and be with you every day.

- Blog by Travis Else

I’ve been waiting for a long time for the movie SOUL SURFER to come out.

When I heard that they were making the true-life story about young Bethany Hamilton who lost her arm to a shark and then returned to competitive surfing just a few weeks later I was very excited – especially since Bethany Hamilton is a born-again Christian. She writes: “Being able to turn to Jesus after the shark attack kept me alive”.

I thought and hoped that just like THE BLIND SIDE it would be a movie with a strong organic Christian theme. Because it’s based on an incredible true story and real-life people of faith, it wouldn’t need to be “preachy” (which usually comes from forcing a message where it doesn’t belong) and would be able to reach a wide audience.

It opened this past weekend with the second highest wide release per-screen average (highest among new films) and brought in $10.6M at the box office. It did better than the experts had predicted and received an incredibly rare A+ exit rating from CinemaScore‘s moviegoer poll.

What’s really interesting is the reaction from many critics. On rottentomatoes.com (where it weighs positive reactions vs negative reactions) it notes that only 51% of critics liked it. But like the CinemaScore’s exit poll, 87% of audiences liked it. So why the difference?

I think that can be found in the famous Francis Bacon quotation: “People prefer to believe what they prefer to be true.” (You can see more thoughts on truth here.)

The NY Times’ review was pretty good. It noted the strong performances of the lead actors and the thrilling surfing scenes but the reviewer just couldn’t buy it all. He closes the review by noting: “During the closing credits the real Ms. Hamilton appears on screen and thanks Jesus in voice-over. While this story is certainly about faith, SOUL SURFER is most inspiring when it exalts faith in one’s self.” And this is from someone who liked the film. Interesting how it’s okay to believe in one’s self or love or desire or the environment (you name the the theme) but believing in God isn’t as good.

Here’s what some said who didn’t like the film:

“…barefaced Christian pandering that pretends it isn’t…. Young Ms. Hamilton’s story is inspiring, but if you need it spoon-fed by ‘American Idol’ winner Carrie Underwood’s youth-group leader, you’re better off lost and godless.” (Village Voice/LA Weekly)

And:

“Appealingly photographed and shamelessly manipulative… a wholesome movie for wholesome people who really, really don’t want to think about what their entertainment means.” (Toronto Now)

Notice the attacks are not only on faith but on those who are faithful. It’s not enough to not like the movie because you don’t agree with the theme, you have to criticize those who do like it.

I have to give credit to one brave critic who tried to stay honest about where she was coming from (unlike many contemporaries). Wesley Morris writes:

“Faith for some is a combination of a belief in God and a belief in oneself. When Bethany goes from ‘How can this be God’s plan for me?’ to ‘I don’t need easy, I just need possible,’ I stopped rolling my eyes and just said, ‘Amen.’ ” (Boston Globe)

It’s wonderful to note that how many others are saying “Amen” to this remarkable story as well. JUNO actress Ellen Page and Seattle Seahawks Quarterback Matt Hasselback tweeted excitedly about it. Obviously many people ignore cynical film critics like many critics discount faith.

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film and TV Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

Have you ever learned a new word – one that you’re sure you’ve never heard before – and then within the next few days you hear it again?

Or you read a book or watch a movie about some topic that you didn’t know about and then you see it again and again all around you?

I’ve recently had that experience with a troubling topic. We’re working on two new documentaries. One titled 2012: PROPHECY OR PANIC? And the other titled THE MARK OF THE BEAST. Both deal with the near future.

In beginning the interviewing process I travelled to Tampa, Florida to the International Prophecy Conference put on by Joe VanKoevering’s “God’s News Behind the News” ministry. It’s a wonderful conference full of remarkable speakers with great insights based not only on current in-depth research and study but in many cases, decades of experience and wisdom and prayer.

I got the privilege of interviewing Mark Hitchcock (The Mayan Apocalypse), Grant Jeffrey (Shadow Government), Joe Van Koevering, Donald Perkins (According to Prophecy Ministries), Gary Kah (En Route to Global Occupation), Dr. Chuck Missler (Koinonia House) and Dr. Larry Bates (IRN USA News).

In all of those interviews they all felt that the next few years were going to be tumultuous – to say the least. Two of them predicted that the American dollar and economy would totally collapse because of a National Debt that could no longer be serviced. They had facts and figures to back this up and while this has been predicted in the past – it has never felt so real or possible.

On returning home I was sent an MSNBC video news clip from good friend and socially concerned actor, Kevin Sorbo. It features Harvard History professor and Newsweek Columnist Niall Ferguson talking about how President Obama and the US badly mishandled the recent Egyptian up-rising and in related videos how the US is on the path to collapse like the Soviet Empire in Russia in the 1990s.

Then yesterday I read a recent letter to the editor entitled: “What Has America Become?” And then just this morning I read Jack Kinsella’s “The Omega Letter” and it drove all of the above points home. The “writing is on the wall” for the United States.

Read Daniel Chapter 5 1-25 and see if it sounds familiar?

Unfortunately I think those verses would fit right in with everything else I’m hearing in the news today about America.

- Intro by André van Heerden, President of Film and TV Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

Letter to the Editor: What Has America Become? Click on the photo to enlarge and read.

The National Constitutional Center is running an exhibition called “Ancient Rome and America – The Classical Influence That Shaped Our Nation.”

The exhibition doesn’t look at America and Rome from the perspective that America is following Rome down the road to perdition. Instead, it showcases “the cultural, political, and social connections between the lost world of ancient Rome and modern America.”

The exhibition is organized into five galleries: Introduction, Building a Republic, A Classical Revival, Expansion and Empire, and Epilogue. It sounds kind of . . . Epilogue???

Epilogue is the “after the story” story. Rome’s epilogue was written sometime in the fifth century AD. Contemporary public opinion is split on whether or not work has already begun on America’s.

At its zenith, the Roman Empire was a military superpower that dominated much of what historians call “the known world.” But Roman influence was much broader than mere military conquest and occupation.

The material culture of Rome – Roman architecture, art, fashion, foods and fads was eagerly embraced by nearly everyone who became part of the Empire – even those who fought against it.

Rome’s citizens were modern, wealthy, empowered and the envy of the known world.

As Rome grew more luxurious and wealthy, its citizens grew more complacent. They imported slaves to do the dirty work– until eventually Romans became the defacto minority in their own state.

No doubt they had slogans like; “We need slaves to do the jobs that Romans won’t do” etc.

Roman manufacturing ground to a halt as the wealthy Romans imported what they needed from elsewhere in the Empire. They became fat, lazy hedonists too selfish to make the sacrifices that once elevated them to the zenith of civilization.

They became completely dependent on foreign labor, foreign goods and foreign entertainment. In Rome’s early days, barbarian tribes that moved into the Empire were accommodated on the basis that they assimilate into the Empire as either Roman subjects or citizens.

Eventually, as Roman hedonism overtook the Logic of Empire, Rome looked the other way as barbarians settled themselves in great blocs in Gaul, Spain Africa and elsewhere.

No effort was made to assimilate them, (no doubt under mindless slogans such as “unity in diversity.”)

Eventually, the Romans hired the barbarians to police the Empire, creating vast armies that it was ultimately unable to control.

These alien groups formed the breakaway groups that ultimately overran and conquered the Roman Empire from within.

Hence the phrase, “the barbarians within the gates.”

Assessment:

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” (Daniel 2:44)

America used to be the best the world had to offer. It was the greatest country the world had ever seen – the first country in two millennia to be rightly compared with the Roman Republic.

American products were of a higher quality. American buildings were bigger, safer and the envy of the known world. American freedom was not just an illusion.

Like the ancient Romans, Americans still believe they are the best even as the American Empire begins to crumble for all the same reasons Rome did. America still believes its military is the greatest – but increasingly America is relying on mercenaries to fight its battles for it.

Americans complain about ‘injustice’ – provided they are not asked to do anything to right the ship. The debacle ongoing in Wisconsin sounds more like a morality tale about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

The spectacle of American teachers storming the Wisconsin capital like so many Third World thugs is more than sad. Much more. These are the people that are teaching the next generation.

What are they teaching them? It seems unlikely they are studying much about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Or maybe they don’t care – as long as they have theirs.

Alan Simpson, former Wyoming Senator and co-chair of the Obama Deficit Commission has been stumping his deficit reduction proposals on the various cable news talk shows.

Over the weekend, he appeared on Fox News where he suggested that nobody is worried about their grandchildren because they don’t like them;

“This is fakery. If they care at all about their children or grandchildren, and sometimes I doubt that — I think you know, grandchildren now don’t write a thank-you for the Christmas presents, they’re walking on their pants with the cap on backwards listening to the enema man and Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dogg, and they don’t like them!”

I think that Senator Simpson might have something there. . .

Is America the revived Roman Empire the Bible says will be the superpower of the last days? I don’t believe so for the obvious reason that there is already a revived form of the Roman Empire in place in Europe.

We identify the antichrist as a “prince of Rome” because Daniel says the antichrist will be a prince of the people that were prophesied to destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the Temple) – both of which were accomplished in AD 70 by the Roman Empire.

America’s resemblance to Rome is not that of a revived Roman Empire, but rather a picture of Rome in its final stages of decline.

Bible prophecy depicts the empire of antichrist as the world’s premiere super-power – a place occupied for the time being by the United States of America.

But if the United States of America were to collapse, who stands ready in the wings to replace it? The only logical choice is Europe. America isn’t the revived Roman Empire of prophecy.

But as long as America stands as the world’s premiere superpower, nobody else can be.

The decline of the United States is heartbreaking; its ultimate collapse unthinkable.

Except that now, as this generation winds down to a close, it isn’t just students of Bible prophecy that are beginning to discuss the unthinkable in terms of the inevitable.

Epilogue. It’s not just for the Romans anymore.

With New Year’s Celebrations now over and a new year begun, we’re planning how best to reach others with a message of hope and truth.

Over the last year and a half we’ve produced three documentaries: SHADOW GOVERNMENT (based on the book by Grant Jeffrey), DRAGONS OR DINOSAURS (based on book by Darek Isaacs) and THE 12 BIGGEST LIES hosted by Kevin Sorbo. These all have different audiences and speak to some while not to others.

There’s no shortage of topics to tackle and with world events seeming to come ever quicker and lining-up more and more with Bible Prophecy, we’d love to make the most of our time and resources.

Of course we’ll still be working on our next feature film (look for updates soon on LEFT BEHIND or DIRK AND THE DEVIL or the next APOCALYPSE film) but what topic should our next documentary focus on? On they 2012 Mayan Prophecies? The fraud and manipulation behind the Global Warming warnings? The newest developments in Mark of the Beast technologies? Present day Miracles? Increasing signs that we’re in the end times and approaching the Apocalypse? How the theory of evolution has destroyed America? The age of the Earth? More Big Lies? Exorcisms and demonic possession? How to build a strong family? Israel and Prophecy?

We’ll be praying about it but we’d also love to hear your thoughts ASAP!

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film and Television Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

The danger of course of not “pulling any punches” is that you’re not giving yourself much wiggle room if things don’t go well. But with the sort of topics we were tackling (gender equality, Islam, abortion, truth, evolution, over-population, American greed, political correctness and more!) and the people we were interviewing Dr. Ravi Zacharias, Kerby Anderson, Dr. Jeff Seif, Alex Jones, Jack Kinsella, Dr. Craig Hazen, Dr. Stanley Monteith, Dr. Katherine Albrecht, Michael Coren, Ray Comfort, Nonie Darwish and many, many others, we knew we had to “say it like is.”

I decided to send it for a review from Pastor Myles Holmes. He’d been the host of TCT‘s flagship show REJOICE! for many years and is very well-read. Here’s his initial response:

André,
I can not think of any project I have been more excited about in all my years of ministry!
12 Lies is so sharp and current it makes “cutting edge” look like yesterday’s DULL butter knife!
Dynamite material! You have my heartiest support.”

Myles went on to suggest that we include an indepth study-guide to help ministers and leaders discuss that material. Thankfully he even agreed to help us create it! I’ve had the privilege of reading some of Myles’ sermon contributions to it and they’re remarkable! Look for an announcement about it soon!

- André van Heerden, Executive Producer/Director of Cloud Ten Pictures