Tuesday, September 30, 2014

The Grand Budapest Hotel

***DISCLAIMER*** The following review is entirely my opinion. If you comment (which I encourage you to do) be respectful. If you don't agree with my opinion, that's fine. To each their own. These reviews are not meant to be statements of facts or endorsements, I am just sharing my opinions and my perspective when watching the film and is not meant to reflect how these films should be viewed. Finally, the reviews are given on a scale of 0-5. 0, of course, being unwatchable. 1, being terrible. 2, being not great. 3, being okay. 4, being great and 5, being epic! And if you enjoy these reviews feel free to share them and follow the blog or follow me on Twitter (@RevRonster) for links to my reviews and the occasional live-Tweet session of the movie I'm watching! I'm no movie critic...but I did stay at the Grand Budapest Hotel last night.





The Grand Budapest Hotel – 5 out of 5

Wes Anderson films have a reputation that spans all over the possible spectrum of how one enjoys movies.  Some find him quirky and fun (I do), while others think he is a golden god to the hipsters—but, let’s face it, with every movie he makes and the more mainstream he becomes, the more hipsters will hate him and stop throwing their vintage panties at him and his muse Jason Schwartzman—and there are probably some out there that think he’s a reptile man working for the Illuminati (Having been to the world called the Internet, I wouldn’t rule out this possibility of those types existing).  Never the less, I enjoy the guy and felt he really knocked it out of the whimsical park with The Grand Budapest Hotel.
The most whimsical part?  The extra long staring contest between Jude Law
and F. Murray Abraham.

Hey, I draw on my facial hair every morning, too, Zero!
In the fictional Republic of Zubrowka, a young writer (Jude Law) is held up in a dying hotel.  While there, he meets the owner; Mr. Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham) and, over dinner, gets him to tell the story of a time when the hotel was a little more…um…better?  No, a little more…grand!  Yeah, that’s a good descriptive.  Mr. Moustafa tells about how he started in the hotel as a lobby boy (played by Tony Revolori) and how he received tutelage from the greatest concierge in the business; Gustave (Ralph Fiennes).  What follows is a tale about him falling in love with a young bakery girl named Agatha (Saoirse Ronan), how he would come to hold the hotel with such esteem that he would one day work to make it his own, and how Gustave ends up being accused of murder and is forced to clear his name before the angry relatives of the victims send an assassin (Willem Dafoe) to silence him forever.
Jesus, Dafoe looks like a Bullwinkle villain.
 

I have no caption.  Just gaze on Jeff Goldblum's
glory.
When Wes Anderson first popped on the screen, I found him to be not really my cup of tea.  While I enjoyed his films, I didn’t enjoy it as much as the barista making my iced tea was telling me how awesome he was and how he was modeling the script he was writing after his work.  However, as time went by and Wes Anderson’s work started to become something that is best described as Wes Anderson parodying Wes Anderson, I’ve started to find myself enjoying his work more (except his venture into stop-motion animation, I couldn’t find myself enjoying that one if it handed me 100 dollar bills for every passing 60 seconds that occurred). 
It is now to the point you can just describe his films as being very
"Wes Anderson."
 

I can't even caption this...just look at it.
Ultimately, The Grand Budapest Hotel takes all the conventions that you know Wes Anderson from (and what a lot of people make fun of Wes Anderson for doing) and makes it work and work hysterically well.  When Wes Anderson takes the stories and Wes Andersons the shit out of them—like makes the entire film look like an elaborate stage production and gives the film an other-worldly eccentricity and an askew fairy tale whimsy about it—I think that is when he succeeds the most and all that is evident in the film.  It has all the bright colors, the tracking and panning shots, and intricate sets that Anderson is known for and, like much of his other work, all of it comes together to make something that looks like a masterly painted portrait of wild fun and a hint of oddity.
Adrien Brody looks like the bass player in a glam/goth fusion band.
 

Wes Anderson is one of those directors who is known for getting great performances out of his actors—sure, that might have to do with the fact he keeps pulling from the same acting pool over and over again and he just knows how to ask/inspire/threaten/coerce the actors in the right way but, The Grand Budapest Hotel, is once again no exception.  The usual gang is here but the film’s standout performance is from Ralph Fiennes,  who is just absolutely rocking as Gustave.  He’s absolutely enthralling and hysterical on his own but there is a sort of magic that can be seen when he shares scenes with Tony Revolori.  Wes Anderson’s unique eye behind the camera makes the movie look good but Fiennes makes the film feel good—which sounds kinda creepy but it’s my way of saying that this movie was just ridiculously fucking entertaining with Fiennes leading the cast.
Ralph Fiennes was, simply put, just fucking awesome in this one.
 

Is Ed Norton hard to deal with in Wes Anderson films
as he is supposedly is on all other films?
In the end, I had absolutely no complaints about The Grand Budapest Hotel.  The story never really falters at any point, the presentation is wonderfully exotic and varying so the visuals never get stale, and all the players, including the likes of Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Keitel, Edward Norton, Tom Wilkinson, and Tilda Swinton, are all just exemplary in their roles.  Not to mention that Ralph Fiennes somehow made swearing a near art form and was somehow able to use F-bombs as a punchline—something that is usually the sign of both weak comedy and even weaker writing.  To put it another way, The Grand Budapest Hotel is just absolutely fun!

Chef

***DISCLAIMER*** The following review is entirely my opinion. If you comment (which I encourage you to do) be respectful. If you don't agree with my opinion, that's fine. To each their own. These reviews are not meant to be statements of facts or endorsements, I am just sharing my opinions and my perspective when watching the film and is not meant to reflect how these films should be viewed. Finally, the reviews are given on a scale of 0-5. 0, of course, being unwatchable. 1, being terrible. 2, being not great. 3, being okay. 4, being great and 5, being epic! And if you enjoy these reviews feel free to share them and follow the blog or follow me on Twitter (@RevRonster) for links to my reviews and the occasional live-Tweet session of the movie I'm watching! Let's get cooking!





Chef – 5 out of 5
 
Let's start this review off with hungry bellies.
 
I love to cook and bake.  I would never say that I am a chef or that I am even remotely close to being as amazing as the top paid chefs in the world (or even the low paid chef at my local diner who keeps talking to me about his old jar collection) but I can follow a recipe and the end result is both eatable and tasty.  Which is good because my girlfriend can’t cook, so we aren’t doomed to eating Ramen noodles like we are college students trapped in the bodies of hard working adults.  Anyway, that was my lame way of opening my review of Chef, so let’s now jump to the synopsis.  (Also, Karl, I have some more jars for you.  You promised me free hash browns for every three jars I bring you.)

But before we get to the synopsis, here's a picture from the film.


Oh my glob!  That grilled cheese looks glorious!
Carl Casper (Jon Favreau) is a passionate cook working for a man (Dustin Hoffman) who often squishes his ambition.  However, when the opportunity to shine comes along when a food critic (Oliver Platt) visits the restaurant, Carl sees a chance to showcase his skills but is forced to stick to the “usual,” and the resulting bad review sends him over the edge.  After starting a flame war on Twitter with the critic, Carl loses his job and is sent into a spiral.  That is, until, he gets himself a food truck and, alongside his old coworker from the restaurant (John Leguizamo), he aims to make this truck his second chance and his time to rediscover his love of cooking.  He also uses the time to reconnect with his son (Emjay Antony) and ex-wife (Sofia Vergara).  However, Carl is soon shocked to learn that his truck is suddenly becoming a sensation when his more tech-savvy son uses social media to make the mobile food dispensary an internet sensation.
 


Jon Favreau seems like the kinda guy who would never take
the last slice of pizza but insist that you have it.  He seems like
a nice guy, is what I'm saying.


 

As you can tell from my perfect score, I really enjoyed Chef.  The movie isn’t a product that will change the world or shatter the parameters of filmmaking, it is just a fun, entertaining movie.  Written and directed by Jon Favreau, the film is a simple story that knows how to hit the funny marks perfectly and is capable of including the right amount of character growth and drama to it in order make it relatable.  Sure, the end of the film resolves itself in a grossly predictable, happy-ending way but it never felt like it robbed the rest of the film’s integrity or was too overtly cheesy.  And sure, the rekindling romance between Favreau’s Carl and his ex-wife isn’t developed the best but it’s still good enough to work. 
But who gives a shit because his character was married to Sofia Vergara!
 
Ultimately though, these weaker elements are completely overshadowed by the excellent treatment that is the relationship between Carl and his son.  Watching them come together over a fryer, Cuban sandwiches, and hungry masses outside the truck made the film sweet alongside hilarious and offered up a nice gravy of drama that was the right portion side and not too heavy or thick.  I'm not saying there were some parts that made tears threaten to fall out of my eyeballs but I'm not not saying that such a thing might have happened.
Just a dad having a heartfelt moment with his son on top of his food truck...
we've all been there.
 

It was nice of Tony Stark to provide the startup for
the food truck.
Additionally, the film has a fantastic cast all giving great performances.  Other than the great father/son dynamic from Jon Favreau and Emjay Anthony, and the great trio of those two with John Leguizamo, the movie also contains Dustin Hoffman and Scarlett Johansson working at the restaurant that Carl will soon put under his past employment portion of his resume, a cameo from Robert Downey Jr., and Oliver “Freaking” Platt as the snobby food critic. 
Seriously, I don't trust anyone who doesn't like Oliver Platt.
 
I can't even see the food Leguizamo is preparing but I'm
already hungry.
Everyone in this film is absolutely delightful and nails their characters down to help tell a very solid and absolutely amusing story.  I would have liked to see more interaction between Favreau and Platt in the film because of the tension it could have brought to the story but the few scenes they do share are great—and pretty much any scene that has Favreau, Leguizamo, and Anthony are the best the film has, especially the scene that involves the guys using cornstarch on their nether-regions in an effort to find comfort from the South’s humidity!
Just three cool dudes doing cool dude stuff.

The chants of "Feed Us" were heard the next town over.
Chef was one of those films that had me smiling through the entire ride.  Yes, even when Carl Casper is embarrassing himself by throwing a tantrum in front of the food critic and all the patrons in the restaurant.  Even when that was happening, the movie still made me giggle and smile because Favreau wrote a very funny film that was entertaining at every turn...and had some amazing looking food in it, as well.  Some might criticize me for giving this a perfect score when it has some problems with its writing—like how not nearly enough attention is given to Carl and his ex-wife—but those minor problems didn’t hurt my overall joyful experience...plus, I don't see them as problems at all, so get off my case already.  In the end, the film was just a delightful comedy that I, will no doubt, watch many times in the future.
And this happened in the movie and was a major factor in my perfect score.

Lucky Bastard

***DISCLAIMER*** The following review is entirely my opinion. If you comment (which I encourage you to do) be respectful. If you don't agree with my opinion, that's fine. To each their own. These reviews are not meant to be statements of facts or endorsements, I am just sharing my opinions and my perspective when watching the film and is not meant to reflect how these films should be viewed. Finally, the reviews are given on a scale of 0-5. 0, of course, being unwatchable. 1, being terrible. 2, being not great. 3, being okay. 4, being great and 5, being epic! And if you enjoy these reviews feel free to share them and follow the blog or follow me on Twitter (@RevRonster) for links to my reviews and the occasional live-Tweet session of the movie I'm watching! The real "Lucky Bastard" is the one who doesn't bother watching this movie.




Lucky Bastard – 1 out of 5

It was probably only a matter of time, I guess.  Despite the fact it seems that the “found footage” subgenre is finally starting to fade away, someone in the magical world of movies decided that there has to be a marriage of “found footage” and porno.  Not surprisingly, the result is not very good, not at all frightening, and not even confusingly arousing.
And since this is a "found footage" film, you know there is going to be a ton of fluff
that pads out the running time to an hour and a half and only about 10 minutes of that
time will actually have any content to it.
 

Lucky Bastard is an website where average Joes become Lucky Bastards and get to have sexual intercourse with the porn stars they spend their time wacking it to.  One of porn’s biggest names; Ashley Saint (Betsy Rue), is asked by the man behind the Bastard; Mike (Don McManus), to do him a solid and take a solid from a Lucky Bastard of her choosing.  Reluctantly, she agrees and picks the seemingly harmless Dave (Jay Paulson).  However, as the day goes by and the fuckening gets closer, Dave’s supposedly harmless demeanor starts to change and become a little more disturbing…then he snaps and all potential boning and sexy sex turns into pure terror.
Director - "And then you get naked..."

Crew - "When does the thriller part start?"

Director - "The what?"
 

Of course, I am being generous in my synopsis about this film turning into something terrifying because it really doesn’t do that at all.  In fact, the movie is pretty freakin’ boring.  So much so that if I ever find myself suffering from insomnia again, I’m just going to put myself through the torture of watching Lucky Bastard all over again and *BOOM* instantly cured.  Why is this movie so awful?  Is it the acting?  Partially.  However, the biggest and most glowing stain on this used mattress of a film is the fact everything about it is stretched and stretched so that every single second of the film is dragging out longer than how I am currently constructing this sentence.
Thrill at the emotional rollercoaster and heart-pounding chills that is Lucky Bastard!
 

First, I’ll touch on the acting.  I have to say that Don McManus was very good in the film.  He is giving a very strong performance throughout the entire film and is, without a doubt, the most believable actor in the film.  The rest of the cast…not so much.  Everyone is way too cheesy or unbelievable in their role.  Whether it be Chris Wylde as the cameraman who comes off flat or Betsy Rue and Jay Paulson hamming it up like this is a community theater production, the acting only seems to show how little thought and potential horror the film really has placed within its story and plot.
Seriously though, McManus was probably the only good thing about this film--
nope, I'm wrong.  He was the only good thing.
 

Entire scenes—shit, nearly the entire movie—plays out like there was no script but a piece of scratch paper with a simple idea on it.  The end result is a group of actors who look like they are improvising all their scenes but all collectively look like they are unfamiliar with the concept of improvisation and end up making Michael Scott’s improv look brilliant and the work of a phenomenally creative mind.  So, in that sense, it looks like all “found footage” films. 
Victim in the film or victim of the film?
 

Nothing looks realistic in Lucky Bastard.  Even when Chris Wylde and another cameraman are laughing hysterically at Jay Paulson’s character, it just ends up looking fake as they even stretch out the premise of someone laughing at someone else’s expense to the point it just looks horribly acted.  They just laughed too hard and for too long for it to even look remotely real.  That’s basically the entire film in a nutshell.  Every scene will go and go and the actors all look confused as if whether they should keep going or not, so there is tons of hesitation and completely hopeless looks by the performers on what they should do next.  This ends up killing the whole reason the film was produced.
Oh, I get it.  Because the film involves a porn crew, there had to be a guy with  a
porn 'stache.  Nice work, movie.  Very deep.
 

"You guys ever wonder what it would be like to touch a cloud...
I mean, I'm a dangerous scary man!  Arrrr!"
On that little piece of scrap that the movie’s ideas came from, it says this film is suppose to be tension-filled and a little bit of unsettling and scary mixed in because Dave goes off the deep end and is ready to kill all who stand in his way of conquering Sex Mountain with his favorite porn star.  The problem is that all those scenes that go on way too long end up going to such a length that any potential terror that should be coming with it is lost in the boredom of trying to conclude if the director just forgot to yell “cut” or if the editor stepped out for a cigarette when editing pretty much every scene—or maybe just had a grudge with the production and put in all the unusable takes.  When the disturbing part is suppose to be here, it’s already lost because every scene will stay in one place for too long and look way too confused on how to proceed to the next.
She spat in his face and, for the record, that is probably the least threatening bodily
fluid you could get shot in your face on the set of a porno.
 

Some people take their porn very seriously.
Matters aren’t helped by the fact that Jay Paulson just can’t pull off the deeply disturbed and potentially horrifying angry and hurt character that Dave is suppose to be.  Sure, he has a moment here and there where his character’s frustration looks palpable and believable but, for the most part, he looks unsure of himself and, instead, just settles for repeating himself over an over again than actually making any headway with his character and his psychotic tendencies.  Things aren’t improved when a majority of your cast can’t really pull of the “frightened for their lives reactions” that are required when the shit finally hits the fan in the film.
Then again...this is about as frightening as Dave gets.  So, the weak reactions have
a bit of reasoning to them.
 

Lucky Bastard is just lazy.  It suffers from all the usual falls that the “found footage” platforms find themselves trapped under.  The movie does almost nothing to build up to the unhinged terror that the film’s climax is suppose to be (it’s takes an entire hour before the “terror” even starts—an HOUR!), the characters have almost no depth to them, the acting is terribly cheesy and often laughable, and the film just plain didn’t care if it added anything that could potentially lead to something terrifying or even interesting.  To put it very bluntly, Lucky Bastard is boring and I’m not kidding that I almost fell asleep several times.
And when I wasn't falling asleep, I looked like this over my failure of stopping
the boredom when I had the chance.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

God's Not Dead

***DISCLAIMER*** The following review is entirely my opinion. If you comment (which I encourage you to do) be respectful. If you don't agree with my opinion, that's fine. To each their own. These reviews are not meant to be statements of facts or endorsements, I am just sharing my opinions and my perspective when watching the film and is not meant to reflect how these films should be viewed. Finally, the reviews are given on a scale of 0-5. 0, of course, being unwatchable. 1, being terrible. 2, being not great. 3, being okay. 4, being great and 5, being epic! And if you enjoy these reviews feel free to share them and follow the blog or follow me on Twitter (@RevRonster) for links to my reviews and the occasional live-Tweet session of the movie I'm watching! God's not dead, he's resting.  Beautiful plumage.





God’s Not Dead – 0 out of 5

Loyal readers are probably wondering what the deal is with this sudden influx of religious films I’m viewing. With Noah and now God’s Not Dead, some of you might be worried that the good old ordained reverend and atheist Rev. Ron has found Jesus but that’s not true—it’s only two movies for crying out loud. Like bad B-movie horror films, Christian propaganda films can be some of the best comedy out there because it comes off like satire but the production is 100% serious and God’s Not Dead proved to be some of the funniest shit I’ve seen from the Christian movie industry ever.
 
The director didn't want to be too obvious so he refrained from putting up the
Equality bumper sticker and a Darwin fish.
 

"Why can't this stupid professor see that I am right because
of the circumstances of my birth and the way my parents
raised me."
When young devotee Josh Wheaton (played by Shane Harper and sounds too close to Joss Whedon for my comfort) heads to college, he is horrified to learn that his philosophy professor, the evil atheist Professor Radisson (Kevin Sorbo), wants his class to sign a sheet of paper declaring that "God is Dead." Josh won’t stand for that bull-poopy because he said God is telling him to stand up for Himself and decides that he will defend God against the vile heathen (conveniently ignoring that he is clearly hearing voices in his head). The Professor says that if he can’t convince Josh’s classmates that God is, in fact, not dead, then he will fail him. So, Josh goes into overtime and spends the semester working on his arguments, even though it is alienating him from those around him—gee, it’s like he’s being tested or something. Meanwhile, several short storylines are randomly inserted around this that show an evil liberal vegan pro-evolutionist blogger trying to take down Willie Robertson from Duck Dynasty, a poor Muslim girl trying to convert to Christianity and get away from her mean daddy who is mean because he’s Muslim, and the hardships Professor Radisson’s girlfriend must deal with because she believes in Christ’s love.
 
"Yes, obey me puppets.  After I make you atheists, I will have you all get gay marriages,
and then we'll help Obama takes everybody's guns! Bwaa-ha-ha!"
 

God’s Not Dead is basically those Facebook posts that your right-wing Aunt shares that states that colleges are where kids are indoctrinated to be atheists (we’ve all seen that post where a marine punches out the professor who claims there’s no God because the marine is doing what God didn’t have time for—which is assault people, apparently, and prove that your religion is a tolerant one by, say, knocking the teeth out of those who don’t believe). Well, that paranoia, fear, and hatred of higher learning that permeates with Facebook Christians comes to life in this film and what follows is a movie that is so ridiculous that it’s almost satire against Christianity and so poorly written that it looks more like it was produced by people who are insecure about their own faith rather than trying to endorse the church.
 
"Can we hurry this up, I have babies to eat."

The propaganda of the film clearly takes precedent to such a point that the very integrity of making a somewhat cohesive film is sacrificed. The several stories barely connect except for saying "God is totes awesome" and having all the characters show up at a Christian Rock concert where they all collectively ignore that they are listening to terrible music and pretend that they are enjoying themselves (like this film, admitting that you don’t like Christian Rock is the equivalent of being an evil atheist and saying you don’t believe in God or one of those horrible agnostics who believe but won’t commit to Christianity). The side stories really have no connection to Josh’s battle other than a playground for the non-Christians to get over their stupid selves and just accept Christ.
 
And cue the shitty Christian Rock!
 
 
"Ha!  I'm the funny one in the group...funny, for Jesus.  Praise him!"
 
"Yay!  This music is horrible but we can't admit it because we fear it will offend our
God.  We act the same way with our movies!"

"And now I shall stand like Mr. Burns to show that I am
right, you are wrong, and I am the real good guy!"
The writing in God’s Not Dead is so insultingly bad that it actually makes toddler cartoons on Nick Jr. look wildly complex and intricate. Every single character is a cardboard cutout with only one—maybe two—defining characteristics.  For example, all atheists are wicked people who secretly believe but are just angry at God. Christians, on the other hand, are just good people who atheists are just out to spit bile at. Muslims are violent and angry who, like atheists, secretly want to be Christians, and, finally, all college kids are stupid and easily lead. 
 
"We're dumb and incapable of independent thought, show us what to believe!"
 
 
No character in the film has any depth to them; they are all these simple constructs. However, these simple constructs make all the characters—not just the atheists—come off like assholes. Josh, the supposed hero of the film, comes off just as bad as his professor. Both men look smug and think they are smarter than the other. Neither looks good during their final debate and it only gets more unbearable when the debate breaks down into a shouting match. Yes, the film’s climax, which was suppose to be the ultimate reveal that God isn’t dead and atheists are stupid fat heads who are wrong wrong wrong, boils down to childish antics and who can yell louder and will have the final word. It was like a Twitter/Facebook religious debate come to life…just without the name calling.
 
"Well, maybe I should kill you so that you can meet God yourself*."

*A Christian actually once said that to me when I revealed I was an atheist.
 

The most amusing part about this film is the fact it is clearly not grounded in any kind of reality and only exists in the imagination of a very insecure and angry writer. Sure, pretty much all movies are products of an imagination but this movie is so hard to take seriously and my suspension of disbelief so impossible to achieve that Man of Steel, Iron Man, Blade Runner, Back to the Future, and the entire Twilight series comes off more realistic than anything that happens in this film.  Fuck, every film in all of existence is easier to believe that the events held within could actually happen than anything that takes place in this film.  If this movie is a representation of real life, then I feel robbed because I went to college and my professors only taught me about the stuff that the class was about and never tried to push atheism on me. I, stupidly, had to come to my own atheistic believes through introspection and self-discovery.
 
"I hate you so much for not sharing the same views that I do!"
 

Man, his atheist ways makes him so evil that even the lighting
in the room responds to him.
The overly simplistic views this movie takes is insulting to both filmmaking and to any sort of religious discussion. Nothing in life is as simplistic as God’s Not Dead will make you believe. No, college professors are not out to make colleges atheist-making machines, no believers personal connection with God isn’t as one-dimensional as the film will make it look (hopefully), and, no, not everyone out there is harboring a secret desire to be one with Christ. In the end, this film is just offensive. Offensive that the people who made it thought that it was sending a good message and offensive that they thought it could possibly be entertaining.
 
Wait...Kevin Sorbo, Dean Cain and one of those Duck Dynasty guys?  This movie has
serious star power--ha, ha...oh, it was hard to finish that sentence with a straight face.
 

Noah, another religious film I viewed recently, took the concept of faith and made it something meaningful. There was respect and reverence in Darren Aronofsky’s film about the fictional flood. The themes of sin, redemption, hope, and love were dynamically and beautifully presented. God’s Not Dead is a mean-spirited cartoon with no subtlety whatsoever trying to disguise itself as beauty, love, hope, and respect. How was it mean-spirited? Well, (and fuck your spoilers here), both atheists in the film are converted to Christianity due to the lingering threat of death: One gets cancer and another is hit by a car. The film makes the assumption that atheists are not fine with their viewpoints but just need that push to find God…and sometimes that push comes from attempted vehicular manslaughter. 
 
You probably already guessed it.  It was the evil atheist professor who was hit by a car.
 






"Dear Jesus, thank you so much for giving this heathen
atheist cancer so she could finally see your
love and grace."
When the atheist in question is hit by a car, a nearby preacher makes a single statement about calling 9-1-1 before immediately telling the victim he is about to die (even though there is pretty much no blood or any indication of trauma) and that he should find God like totes quick. The preacher is not a doctor and really had no point to make such an assumption about a possible death. He should have been comforting the man and seeking help rather than worrying about upping the followers on God’s holy Twitter account. Then, after the man accepts Christ and dies, a missionary with the preacher talks about how great it is that they converted him—a man just died and you’re happy because he thinks the same way you do?!? 




"Hey, that guy was hit by a car...let's convert his ass by not
calling for emergency services and telling him he's going to die.
We're such good people!"
 

The moral system in this movie is royally fucked up.  These two say, fuck getting this accident victim physical help, let’s just usher him into the unknown with a promise that an eternity of happiness awaits him—a claim based entirely on a book that includes a lot of racism and incest—and then rejoice in his death.  Then, to make matters worse and make us look selfish but trying to convince the audience that we are being benevolent, let's clearly showcase our apathetic feelings and not even bother getting him to a hospital or calling 9-1-1 ourselves even though it will be established in the next scene that we both had cell phones on us the whole time.  I fully realize the entire production thinks they made something that makes Christians look charitable and metaphoric saviors of their fellow human beings but the end result is just two self-absorbed and superstitious people who are more worried about hive-mind thinking than they were about providing care and need to their fellow man...I don't know Jesus but I'm pretty sure He would have called 9-1-1 rather than worrying if the man dying at his feet was a man of faith or not.
 
Oh no, that small abrasion on your cheek means you're going to die!
 

I would make a joke about Dean Cain calling his agent in order to
get him out of this movie but we all know he wanted this part.
In the end, God’s Not Dead is just a poorly made piece of propaganda that does everything it can to make atheists look bad and, in the process, make Christians look like petty, whiny people. This isn’t a loving representation of a person expressing their faith and being persecuted along the way. The film is a representation of the victim mentality that Christians are loving so much right now. It is all the Fox News viewers crying about there being a war on Christmas (it’s September as I write this, so those arguments will start in a few days when the three month long holiday begins), it’s all the right wing nutcases who never shut up about "Under God" in the pledge, it’s all the people who claim Bibles aren’t allowed in schools and demand prayer before every class, it’s all the insecure people who think that because this country won’t mandate that Christianity be our official religion they start to cry that they are persecuted. Fuck, this movie was transparent in its presentation and obvious in hitting all its redundant and recycled messages that I was hoping there would have been a moment explaining how homosexuality is a sin…if that would have happened I would have won Christian Movie Bingo.