Movie Review: "Hacksaw Ridge" (2016)

Movie: "Hacksaw Ridge"
Director: Mel Gibson
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 11 minutes

Image Source

A Seventh Day Adventist named Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield) joins the Army as a medic during WWII, but due to his religious convictions, he refuses to use a gun. Branded a coward by his C.O., Doss goes into battle unarmed and risks his life to save dozens of his fellow soldiers without ever firing a single bullet. 

"Hacksaw Ridge" is directed by Mel Gibson, who has been a controversial figure in recent years due to some very public personal issues. Before all of that, he had directed such films as the Academy Award winning "Braveheart" and the highest grossing R rated film of all time domestically in "The Passion of the Christ." This movie stars Andrew Garfield as Private Desmond Doss, a devout Seventh Day Adventist who took to heart God's commandment that thou shall not kill. He never attempts to compromise or rationalize that statement and takes it as literal. When he first joins the Army and goes through basic training, he is dubbed a coward by his fellow soldiers and is considered insane by his commanding officer Captain Glover, played by Sam Worthington, due to his refusal to pick up a rifle even during the most perilous of wars. At one point, Doss even gets court-martialled for disobeying a direct order, again, never compromising his beliefs. He is eventually allowed to "go into the hell fire of battle without a single weapon to protect" himself. Also in the film are Teresa Palmer, who plays Doss's love interest Dorothy Schutte, Hugo Weaving as Doss's abusive alcoholic father Tom, Rachel Griffiths as Doss's loving mother Bertha, Vince Vaughn as the ball-busting Sergeant Howell, and Luke Bracey giving one of the best performances of his young career as Private 'Idiot' Smitty Ryker.

If we know one thing from Gibson's past works, it's that word "restraint" is not in his vocabulary. This does not change with "Hacksaw Ridge." It is an ultra-violent, gore-filled display of carnage and war. To paint a picture for you: there is a moment where a soldier takes a bullet to the back of his head and his face literally comes off as the bullet exits and it hits another soldier in the face. Though the first two portions of the film are relatively safe in terms of being bloody and gross, this changes in the last portion of the film, once Doss and his unit arrive at Hacksaw Ridge itself. After climbing up the arduous ropes to the top of the cliff, the soldiers walk over intestines that have spilled out of their fellow fallen soldiers, which cover the ground as rats and maggots feed on rotting corpses in graphic detail. Though we do believe Gibson has a point in putting this level of bloodshed on display, it is still hard to watch at times and can be a bit excessive. Though gratuitous, we can't help but imagine these very long sequences are mostly accurate in their depiction of battle. Amidst all of the destruction, Gibson frames his shots in an artful and gorgeous manner. Lord knows he knows what he's doing behind the camera.

Andrew Garfield has been on our radar more recently as of late. After "99 Homes" last year, we found ourselves realizing the true greatness of his acting abilities. Garfield is stunningly excellent as Desmond Doss. As a man who stays true to his convictions, Garfield sells the part as this faithful conscientious objector in an award-worthy performance. In fact, the entire cast comes together to comprise a stellar ensemble. Though BigJ didn't quite believe Vince Vaughn in the role of Doss's sergeant, I personally enjoyed his performance, which managed to be slightly humorous even in the darkest of times, and even though he spends the majority of the movie yelling at those he is training. Hugo Weaving gives an impassioned performance as Desmond's alcoholic and abusive father, a former World War I veteran haunted by the demons he saw in battle. Sam Worthington, Teresa Palmer, and the aforementioned Luke Bracey are all actually quite impressive in their performances as well.

Many war movies look to glorify the battle, leaving you with a sense of pride and wanting to chant "USA! USA! USA!," but that's not how we felt leaving this film. It's true that Private Doss's actions, saving about 75 injured soldiers without ever firing a bullet, are truly heroic and utterly amazing. However, we left "Hacksaw Ridge" with a feeling of having seen on full display the true horrors of war and what little glory there actually is to it. It is a horrific practice and we left hoping we as a world would never, ever want to send our young men and women into something like that ever again unless it is absolutely necessary. It is good to show that heroics aren't about how many lives you take, but how many lives you save. Gibson does a spectacular job after a long layoff from directing crafting this important but horrific film. Its message is one that is relevant today, even as we type this review.

My Rating: 8/10
BigJ's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 8.7/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 86%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!

Movie Review: "The Passion of the Christ" (2004)

Image Source

Movie: "The Passion of the Christ"
Director: Mel Gibson
Year: 2004
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 7 minutes

Accused of blasphemy, Jesus of Nazareth (Jim Caviezel) is convicted to death by crucifixion and is scourged and crucified.

Mel Gibson might be an insane sexist racist, but he sure as hell has a good eye behind the camera.

Director Mel Gibson shares his take on the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth in "The Passion of the Christ," which is the highest grossing R-rated movie of all time domestically. Taking on the role of Jesus is Jim Caviezel, who seemingly went through hell filming this movie, including being struck by lightning, but hey, they have the same initials! All of the dialogue in the movie is spoken in either Aramaic, Hebrew, or Latin, which was an interesting choice on the part of Gibson. We're glad he opted for a more realistic dialect, and even if it's not 100% historically accurate, this choice at least signals a good effort to create an authentic feel.

As we mentioned, you can say what you will about Mel Gibson the man and his very publicized private life, but he no doubt has a good directorial eye. Gibson makes some beautiful looking movies, even in their brutality, and boy, is this film ever brutal. The cinematography and framing are all gorgeous. Gibson captures the scourge and crucifixion of Jesus in the most detailed, horrifying way possible, but they are framed in such a spectacular way, it's hard to turn away from it, even if you want to do so. The scenes are just flat out disturbing as Jesus is beaten sticks over and over, as he is further whipped with the cat of nine tails as literal pieces of flesh spray in every which direction, tearing off of his body. You thought that was enough? No no, then, the thorny crown is driven way down deep onto Jesus's head for him to adorn for the rest of his natural life. The executioners implement and inflict this torture all while laughing gleefully in an almost sadistic joy as they beat this man within an inch of his life, making it that much more disturbing. We have seen horror films far more tame and much less graphic than what is depicted in "The Passion of the Christ."

All of this being said, these scenes of graphic torture and crucifixion are really all this film has, and they kind of defeat the purpose of the story Gibson is trying to retell. Plus, this story has been told many times before that Gibson's interpretation only serves as the most extreme representation. As cool as the other visuals are, the overuse of slow motion does become a bit excessive and is one of the technical problems we have with the film. These elongated sequences don't add any drama or meaning, they only stretch the already long movie out that much longer. Jim Caviezel does a fine job portraying the son of the man above, and we commend him for speaking in a different language for the entire film, but it's really nothing to write home about. The behind the camera efforts outweigh anything else about this film, and it's definitely not something we want to watch over and over again, even for its technical achievements.

My Rating: 7/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 49%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?

Movie Review: "Ben-Hur" (2016)

Movie: "Ben-Hur"
Director: Timur Bekmambetov
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 4 minutes

Image Source

After harboring a zealot that murders a Roman soldier, Judah Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) is charged with sedition by his adopted brother Messala (Toby Kebbell). He is imprisoned as an ores-man on a Roman galley for five years. During a battle on the sea, he breaks free and makes his way back to Judea to exact his revenge on Messala. 

Who watches the 11-time Academy Award winning "Ben-Hur," one of the three most winningest films in all of Oscar history, and thinks, "you know what, I think we can improve upon this!" Apparently, that man is Timur Bekmambetov, the director of such films as "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," "The Arena," and now, 2016's soulless, artificial, stripped down version of "Ben-Hur." It stars Jack Huston as the titular Judah Ben-Hur and Toby Kebbell as his adopted brother Mesalla Severus. Joining them are Morgan "Sure, I'll take the part" Freeman (along with one of the worst fake wigs we have ever seen in all of cinematic history), Sofia Black-D'Elia, Pilou Asbæk, Ayelet Zurer, Nazanin Boniada, and Rodrigo Santoro as sexy Italian Jesus, who not only gets to show his face in this version, but gets to spout off the occasional Bible verse as he now always has them at the ready. These actors come together to...what exactly we don't know, because so much is changed from the original that to bear the same name would make Charlton Heston and his cold dead hands spin from his grave all the way back to 1959 so he could un-star in the original to ensure this remake would never see the light of day.

We had two big questions that ran across our minds while sitting in our astonishingly crowded for a midday Thursday showing of "Ben-Hur." One, how did Bekmambetov manage to take a story that earned 11 Oscars and rip the soul out of it, turning into such a heartless spectacle? And two, how did he manage to make a film with a hundred million dollar budget look so damn cheap? The screenwriters manage to make a few major changes that totally destroy the spirit of this story, altering its entire premise and meaning in the process. Despite many of his claims to the contrary, in this version, Ben-Hur is actually guilty of a crime as opposed to being completely innocent. By harboring an enemy of the state who attacked and killed a Roman soldier and letting him go free, Ben-Hur is deserving of prison under Roman law. The films also attempt to make Messala a much more sympathetic character, but why did they need to do that? This gives Ben-Hur little reason to seek revenge against him, making Ben-Hur feel too much like a vindictive little prick and not enough like someone who had their entire world stolen from underneath them. Finally, in the crucial scene where, after a long, arduous, near death walk through the desert with the hundreds of other slaves, Ben-Hur sees Jesus Christ for the very first time and is aided by him and given water in his moment of dire need. In this scene in the original, this desert walk looks and feels like it has gone on for hours, possibly even days. In the remake, this first encounter with Jesus happens after a 2 block stroll when Ben-Hur falls over and in a clamor, Jesus rushes to his side to say some Bible verse and then "peace out." There is no sense of time, no sense of meaning, and no sense of true help needed. There are other massive changes as well, ones which leave gaping plot holes in the story and make it inexplicably stupid and meaningless.

Then, in one of the worst parts of this updated version of the movie, comes the chariot race. If you've seen the original "Ben-Hur," you know what an epic, stunning scene this is. It is absolutely amazing and still so spectacular, holding up well even today. When Messala rolls out into first place during the first lap, the instant we get a good look at his chariot we see THERE ARE NO BLADES ON HIS HUBCAPS. This is the instance where we went from generally annoyed and mildly angry to complete and absolute "f-you, new "Ben-Hur"" status. Bekmambetov and co. manage to take this once exciting, brutal scene and make it feel entirely underwhelming, without any sort of substance, and have now turned it into a complete and utter digital bore to boot.

We like to make it a habit of judging remakes on their own merits. Just earlier this year, we did so with "Ghostbusters," something a lot of the movie going population flat out refused to do. We went into "Ben-Hur" giving it was every chance in the world to prove us wrong, that there can actually be good remakes. This is not one of them, and we have no choice but to compare it to the film that came before it, and let us stress again, the 11-time Academy Award winner that should have never been touched or sullied. This movie is awful. It looks cheap, it is completely changed, the acting is not great, the CGI is abysmal, and it shouldn't have been made, period. It should be forgotten, buried in the annals of history like the tomb of Jesus himself. The producers of this tripe deserve to lose money on this box office bomb.

My Rating: 3/10
BigJ's Rating: 3/10
IMDB's Rating: 5.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 26%
Do we recommend this movie: AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!

Movie Review: "Ben-Hur" (1959)

Image Source

Movie: "Ben-Hur"
Year Nominated: 1960
Director: William Wyler
Rating: R
Running Time: 3 hours, 32 minutes
Did It Win?: Yes.

After Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is imprisoned for a crime he did not commit by his childhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd), he swears that one day he will break free and get his revenge.

Directed by William Wyler, "Ben-Hur" is a dramatic epic that takes place around the time of the biblical Jesus Christ and his subsequent crucifixion. Charlton Heston plays the titular Judah Ben-Hur, an wealthy Jewish prince who gets betrayed by his childhood friend Messala, played by Stephen Boyd, a Roman Tribune who convicts Ben-Hur of a crime he didn't commit without even the courtesy of a trial. Messala also imprisons Ben-Hur's sister Tirzah, played by Cathy O'Donnell, and mother Miriam, played by Martha Scott, in a dark, dank cell. This film tells of Judah's quest for revenge, through his time as a slave on a Roman galley to his days as a champion chariot racer. His story runs parallel to the story of Christ, who plays a minor character throughout the film, and the entire notion of faith plays a prominent role within the context of this story.

"Ben-Hur" is considered a classic by many in the cinephile community and it's easy to see why this might be the case. It won 11 of the 12 Academy Awards it was nominated for, and it jointly holds the record for most Oscar wins by any single picture. It was the sole record holder for 38 years before being tied by "Titanic," and later, "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King." We can't deny this is a technically well made film. It boasts some striking cinematography, beautiful art direction, sets, and costumes, as well as a few spectacular, epic, and intense memorable moments that have gone down in cinematic history as some of the best ever created. The most impressive of these moments is, of course, the now iconic chariot race. This is an amazing, fantastic scene full of never-been-done-before excitement that is sure to keep you fully engaged and glued to the screen as it plays out in spectacular fashion. In fact, there are many memorable moments in the early parts of "Ben-Hur." The entire opening hour is quite engaging, setting the stage for things to come later in the film.

Unfortunately, we can't in all honest say the same thing for the entire movie. At 3 hours and 32 minutes, needless to say, this is quite a long movie. We have never been people that mind longer films so long as they are appropriately paced and don't feel like they are drowning out the point of the story with frivolous scenes that don't fit or are too extra to matter. "Gone With the Wind" is the perfect example of a long film that doesn't feel long. Clocking in at 3 hours and 58 minutes, when all is said and done, it's a movie that feels like a drop in the bucket compared to "Ben-Hur." Even "Lawrence of Arabia" felt more engaging as a whole, and it's 3 hours and 48 minutes long and includes many, many unnecessary but gorgeous long shots of desert walking. While watching "Ben-Hur," we couldn't help but feel it didn't really need to be as long as it is. There are many scenes which feel superfluous to the flow of the film. In these scenes, we found ourselves not engaged with the story and/or the characters, but rather, engaged with the clock. Instead of wondering if Ben-Hur would get his ultimate revenge and keep his faith through the course of the pain and horrors he had to endure during the story, we found ourselves wondering how long the filmmakers were going to drag this or that scene out, sometimes much longer than necessary. We know, we know, blasphemy! How dare we criticize "Ben-Hur"! In our honest opinion, this film isn't nearly as gripping as it was promised to be. Maybe this is a case of decades worth of build-up, only to meet initial disappointment, and maybe one day (decades in the future) we will watch it again, but as of right now, we can't help but be a little underwhelmed. The production itself is not underwhelming in the slightest, and in fact, is quite a lesson in Hollywood largess, but the story, and the length, and even some of the acting, feels uneven.

We have heard throughout the years that "Ben-Hur" is the greatest film of all time. When you hear such a bold statement like this, you expect to be completely taken in by it emotionally, and maybe even physically when it comes to being moved. Unfortunately, this didn't happen for us. Everything after the amazing chariot race, it seems to slog by and feels a bit redundant to the point of it all. Even after Jesus is crucified, the film still goes on and on. This isn't a movie we would feel compelled to watch over and over again, though we will most likely give it a try at some later point to see if we've changed our minds. Of course, we would watch the chariot scene again right now given the opportunity. Like we said in our "Lawrence of Arabia" movie review, don't hate us.

My Rating: 7.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 8.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 88%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "The Tale of Princess Kaguya"

Movie Review #405: "Miracles From Heaven" (2016)

Movie: "Miracles From Heaven"
Ticket Price: $10.00
Director: Patricia Riggen
Rating: PG
Running Time: 1 hour, 49 minutes

Image Source

Christy (Jennifer Garner) and Kevin Beam (Martin Henderson) go through a major crisis of faith when their daughter Anna (Kylie Rogers) is diagnosed with a chronic gastrointestinal disorder that could be fatal. Now, the only thing that might be able to help Anna is a miracle.

Based on a "true story," "Miracles from Heaven" is the latest release from Sony's AffirmFilms. Like all of their movies, "Miracles from Heaven" is targeted towards Christian audiences in an effort to help reaffirm their faith. These types of films seem to be drawing bigger and bigger stars for their lead roles, and though we weren't absolutely sure we'd be seeing this one, we figured having Jennifer Garner and Queen Latifah was a good sign given its relatively cheap production. This movie tells the story of the Beam family, whose daughter Anna, played by Kylie Rogers, was miraculously healed from her chronic gastrointestinal disorder when she fell several feet into a hollowed out tree. We would normally call this a spoiler, but since it's shown in every bit of marketing, it's safe to say this is information filmmakers want you to know going into the movie. The overall story is more about the journey this one family goes through, as well as their financial struggles, the balancing of their three daughters, and Christy Beam's own battle with keeping her faith when her daughter is diagnosed with this possibly fatal condition.

There are good elements of "Miracles from Heaven." Jennifer Garner puts on a good performance as Christy Beam, a mother looking for solutions and becoming frustrated when she can't find any. We've always liked Garner, and she's able to convey frustration, elation, and sadness very well. Kylie Rogers is adorable in her part. The trailers must have showcased the worst parts of her acting because we were worried she'd be one of those child actors who overcompensates their lack of skill with theatrics. Rogers' Anna is as sweet as pie, so it makes it all the more difficult to watch her be put through so much physical torment at the hands of her illness. Eugenio Derbez also is very charming and likable as the Patch Adams-esque pediatrician in Boston named Dr. Nurko. Though we don't have children, you don't need them to understand and get invested in the film's subject matter. It is very emotionally tugging at all the right strings, and only a person with a heart of stone would not to feel sympathy for our sick, dying protagonist, as well as the several other ill children shown in the hospital.

As we expected, the movie is also interlaced with massive doses of religion, as well as literal sermons on the importance of faith. These are further inter-spliced with Christian rock montages for both dramatic and godly emphasis. The intended audience will enjoy these portions, but those who do not practice will feel out of place as it starts to feel a little heavy handed when you aren't already a member of the choir. We can put aside our own feelings about religion as best we can, but we hate to see the constant bashing of non-believers and atheists, as well as the field of science. Those who are designated as non-believers are often portrayed as huge jerks with chips on their shoulders who are seemingly unhappy in life. It can get pretty tiresome. Plus, the emotional tugging at heart strings starts to feel a bit less like it's done out of necessity and a bit more like it's done to pander its message another 12 times before the credits roll.

All of this being said, "Miracles from Heaven" isn't a terrible film. Though it doesn't speak to us in a significant manner, we didn't completely hate it. It would have been infinitely more compelling to watch Jennifer Garner's Christy never lose her faith instead of pushing it aside when times got tough, only to pray reeeeally hard after an emotional and spiritual layoff when time deemed it necessary. When characters lose their faith in films, something always happens to facilitate the loss, only to have characters change their minds again when stuff gets tough. We'd imagine the greatest test of faith would be during times of hardship, and this would make a much bigger case for becoming a believer than watching someone lose and regain it. Judging by the audience reaction upon completion of this movie, its target audience definitely found "Miracles from Heaven" quite enjoyable because as the credits rolled, people in our screening began to clap, which is a rare occurrence and has only happened 5 or 6 times in 405 movies.

My Rating: 5/10
BigJ's Rating: 5.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 48%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.
~~~~~~~~~~

One year ago, we were watching: "Safe Haven"

Movie Review #392: "Risen" (2016)

Movie: "Risen"
Director: Kevin Reynolds
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 47 minutes

Image Source

A Roman Tribune name Clavius (Joseph Fiennes) searches for the body of a crucified Jew named Yeshua (Cliff Curtis) that has disappeared from his tomb. The followers of Yeshua begin to spread rumors that he has actually risen from the dead, a rumor Clavius may discover to be true.

BigJ and I have avoided the majority of religious films in the theater because we feel we cannot fairly judge them. Most of the time, the quality of these films are laughably bad, and if you don't believe us, see our review for "Left Behind." In addition, they are either movies that don't speak to us as individuals, or they are so exploitative, they make us angry. We took a chance on "Risen" because the trailers didn't make us want to crawl out of our skin.

Sony's Affirmfilms specializes in faith based cinema, and "Risen" is their latest offering. This throwback to the biblical epics of old tells the story of a Roman Tribune named Clavius, played by Joseph Fiennes, who investigates the disappearance of the body of Yeshua, played by Cliff Curtis, the man believed by his followers to be the messiah. The film begins as an early first century crime investigation story. It shows the tail end and result of Yeshua's crucifixion, his entombment behind a gigantic stone wheel that needed to be moved by 7 men, and then displays open tomb with no body inside. This begs the question: has Yeshua been resurrected, or did his followers steal his body to further the rumors that he is in fact the messiah? Clavius interviews witnesses and digs up decomposing dead bodies throughout the city trying to find the body of Yeshua to prove these rumors to be just that.

The first couple acts of "Risen" are, surprisingly, quite well done. The mystery and investigation are actually very riveting as the director keeps the answer to the above questions ambiguous for a good portion of the film. Early on, we see evidence supporting both claims as an unbelieving Clavius refuses to accept anything but facts, until he discovers he might actually be wrong. Joseph Fiennes does a solid job as Clavius, a man who is set on a task that puts him in an internal conflict between what he is looking for and what he is finding within himself. Tom Felton stars as Lucius, Clavius' sidekick, and is fine in his limited role. Cliff Curtis is also excellent as Yeshu, and we're happy those responsible for "Risen" didn't pull a "Gods of Egypt" situation and make everybody pale and blonde. Apart from the acting, where the film begins to unravel a little bit is in its third act. The conclusion is painfully obvious, given the name of the film, and a big reveal happens towards the end of the second act. From that point on, it sort of devolves into a religious sermon about faith and simultaneously removes any element of faith that may be required. What we would have liked to see happen was a full on leap of faith on the part of Clavius. Of course, this would have been a completely different movie, but we think it would have been infinitely better to leave things a bit more unexpected and ambiguous. The final act we are given kind of meanders a bit towards its eventual end that is content to retell a couple biblical tales which now happen to include the character of Clavius.

In the end, "Risen" is a mostly enjoyable film despite both its predictability and its ending, though we can't say we expected less than what we got. The acting is solid, it has some genuinely great moments even with a more saccharine version displaying the good portions of the resurrection of Christ. If you've had doubts about faith based films in the past, this one is a good enough choice.

My Rating: 6.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.0/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 58%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~

One year ago, we were watching: "McFarland, USA"

Movie Review: "Left Behind" (2014)

Movie: "Left Behind"
Director: Vic Armstrong
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 50 minutes

Image Source

Chloe Steele (Cassi Thomson) flies home for her father Rayford's (Nicholas Cage) birthday, only to find out that he has been called into work. Rayford is a pilot and must fly to England on short notice. He may also be having an affair with a flight attendant named Hattie (Nicky Whelan). This leaves Chloe with her devoutly religious mother Irene (Leah Thompson), who Chloe butts heads with over her mom's religious evangelism. After an argument with her mom, Chloe takes her little brother Raymie (Major Dodson) to the mall. It seems like a normal day when suddenly millions of people just vanish, including Ramie and Irene, causing mass chaos. It's up to those left behind to figure out what happened. 

We are going to attempt to review this film as delicately as possible without coming off as huge, heathenish jerks. It's impossible to deny that this is a faith-based movie, so it will come up, but my point is, as petulant atheists, I'm sure we could pick this movie apart, but our goal is not to hurt or offend, ever. What we believe might not necessarily be what you believe, and that's just fine with us. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We know many people personally who believe in God, and it is not our goal as movie reviewers to try and change your belief system. We would never push our beliefs on to anyone, and in turn, we expect the same respect. We will be discussing the religious aspects of this film, so we just figured we'd put this out there before beginning.

All of this being said, this movie is simply atrocious. To say that it is formulaic is also being too generous. There is a reason it has such low scores across the internet because it is one of the worst movies we have seen in quite a while. Nicolas Cage's time as an actor, though once storied and vast, if you can call it that, is now just a joke. And he knows it. To say Cage is phoning it in would give him way more credit than he deserved. It's almost as if filmmakers specifically made it a point to meticulously avoid making him look insane, and they did this with cheap cutaways and a really bad hair cape. I'd rather be stuck to a chair a la "A Clockwork Orange" and forced to watch all of Nicolas Cage's freak-out scenes on a loop repeated to infinity then be forced to watch this movie again. Even thinking about now it makes me angry. When Chad Michael Murray is the best actor in your film, you know you are in trouble. Jordin Sparks, girl, stick to singing. In fact, the acting is heinous all around. The dialogue is shabby, delivered in a forced fashion, and makes no connection to us whatsoever.

If the filmmakers were really going to go all in and do a spectacular Biblical end of days film, which we would love to see happen some day, we would prefer to see a movie that heavily focused on the story of Revelations and the four horseman of the apocalypse, as well as famine, pestilence, etc. It would be a much better film visually with the inclusion of these apocalyptic elements. Instead, what we are given is a cheesy, low budget film that focused on the possibility of a plane crash and tons of overt reference to religion and faith without anything other than an assumption that what they were experiencing was the rapture. Plus, we have seen better CGI in movies from the 1970's. The CGI here looked like a computer game that was buried and forgotten and unearthed only to be laughed at in 2014. It's just so, so bad.

It's really nothing more than religious fear mongering at its worst. Movies like "The Passion of the Christ" seek to show how and what Jesus sacrificed for our sins instead of trying to scare people into believing in their religion, which is all this movie does. Is the idea of the rapture scary? Sure, but if you're a believer out of fear, you might be believing for the wrong reasons. Again, this is just our opinion, so please don't take it personally. The worst part of this movie, however, is how clear it is that certain people just won't be making it into the rapture.
1) OBVIOUSLY atheists and non-believers, as referenced by Chloe and Buck, who constantly badmouth god and down-talk those who believe.
2) the adulterers, as referenced by Rayford the pilot and Hattie the stewardess who are having an (implied) affair. Plus, they like U2.
3) a gambler, who just happens to also be a little person and is quite angry and bitter with everything the whole freakin' movie. Plus, he's obviously racist against Muslims.
4) the devout Muslim, who made the foolish mistake of following the wrong religion, though he believes in the same god. He also has the one good line in the whole movie.
5) the scientist, who is convinced that Area-51 is a thing and that a 6-second plane ride is just around the corner.
6) the drug addict, who does heroin in the bathroom of the airplane, only to be the first person who mentions the rapture and is the first person who overtly prays in the entire film.
7) the rich man, because he covets riches and rich people don't go to heaven.
8) the backsliding preacher, who has fallen away from his faith and does a really poor fake-cry.
9) Jordin Sparks = disobedient wife/perhaps because she's a bad actress???????????
If this is all true, see ya later, it's been nice knowing you.

At worst, this is a poorly acted disaster film shrouded in religious rhetoric. The only thing "biblical" about this movie is how badly it sucks. At best, well, there is no best. There's no way this movie will be overlooked at the Razzie awards this year.

My Rating: 2/10
BigJ's Rating: 2/10
IMDB's Rating: 3.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 2%
Do we recommend this movie: AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE (LITERALLY!!!)!!!!!!