Condescending film doesn't support its own arguments
348298
A long held tradition on the side of those with lots of emotion and little to say has been to insult the other side.  Here you find more than an hour of laborious, droning, brow-beating insults to the mountains of evidence science has provided for a model of the universe that does not need an intelligent creator.  Meanwhile, the film does nothing to support its own claims that an alternative argument has any merit at all.

Be not fooled; when it's not making false conflations and comparing anything and everything to Hitler's regime (Ben, you should be ashamed of yourself for belittling the suffering of millions so you can turn a buck and pander to those who mock education!), it's clobbering you with clumsy imagery and ad-hominems.

Spare yourself suffering, cost and loss of time.  There are much better ways to hear the weak arguments against a material universe.
3564418
When I saw this movie, I suspected that Malick was missing the point, so I got the book, which only confirmed my impression.  I was amazed by his ability to hew closely to the plot line of the book, but suppress most of  its virtues.  In place of James Jones' sharp characterizations and  down-to-earth realism, Malick imposes pompous philosophizing that makes  almost everyone seem the same.  This dreary sameness makes the last 45  minutes of the movie quite dull.  Excellent performances by Nick Nolte,  Sean Penn, and Elias Koteas inject a degree of individuality to their  characters, but they seem to succeed in spite of Malick's efforts to  advance his ethereal message that war is unnatural.  He errs most  spectacularly in deviating from the book to hammer this silly point home by  showing two AWOL soliers going AWOL in an idyllic Polynesian village.  These scenes manage to be hackneyed, implausible, and condescending all at  once.
Even so, there's no denying that this is a beautiful movie, which  is responsible for one of my stars.  But the book was a much more rewarding  experience.
697671
First of all, I can't give it one star, as it's actually not the worst movie I've seen. This is no Cool Cat Saves The Kids, but this still isn't a very good movie in my opinion. The movie follows an old man who decides to go to college to fight atheism, and while he's at it he kicks everyone's ass at chess, running, and various other sports. He also thinks he kicks everyone's ass with his logic, but really he's leaving a lot of open ends with some subpar arguments, and making himself look stupid and like he thinks he's better than everyone else, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the his intention when he wrote this movie. Yeah, if you watch this movie, keep in mind that the man who plays Gramps also wrote the story and is responsible for the script. Everything, or nearly everything everyone else says in the movie was written by him. Of course you're going to win arguments if you argue with yourself. Not only this, but he portrays the world as evil and set against Christianity. There's a scene of the first biology 101 class when the teacher starts by asking every creationist to stand up, then says something to effect of "by the end of this course, no one still clings to this foolish superstition." This is how Donald thinks the world is. In reality, nobody cares what you believe in, as long as you keep it to yourself (unless asked about it) and try to coexist, but Gramps does the opposite.

This movie doesn't tell a good story or leave you feeling anything except disappointed in yourself for wasting 102 minutes of your life that you'll never get back.
2520416
This movie is terrible. Absolute garbage. I was hoping for an intelligent debate and instead all I got was straw man arguments.
914507
I bought this video because I've always enjoyed Jennifer Garner's work.  About 5 minutes into the movie, one realizes that the jokes are running thin, and then the main character "invents" lying by telling his dying mother that there will be a wonderful place to go after she dies.  I was insulted by the overall storyline that a belief in God, and of the afterlife, was the invention of lying.  This movie is a STEAMING PILE of horse manure put out by a production company with an obvious political agenda.  (Oh, Shame on you Mrs. Garner for accepting this type of role.)  I was NOT impressed.  PS:  Amazon made me as a reviewer give a star rating.  I had to give it one star because of this, but if given a chance would have given it -2 stars.
1378817
It's funny how EVERYONE misses the point about how dumb and misguided this film turns out to be - for years the gay/lesbian argument has been that homosexuality is a genetic pre-desposition, instead of a conscious choice; therefore, straights don't have to worry about being TURNED gay! And this movie starts out with a great idea, how fear and prejudice make the perfectly normal lead character to be sent to a 'Gay-Curing' camp. However - and this IS THE POINT FOLKS - when she gets there and is thrown together with a lesbian, the lesbian TURNS HER GAY!!! What a horrible message that is 180 degrees opposite of what the gay community has been trying to project. If the filmmakers had stuck with the original premise it might have been watchable, however the confused and wrongheaded direction it takes makes it a true waste of 91 minutes of your life. Don't bother!
4474081
We just watched this at home as a rental and enjoyed it as lighthearted fare with a message.

As a theatrical production it's so-so, more made-for-TV than a big picture release.  But I was struck by the professional critics' pans (18% on Rotten Tomatoes according to Google) compared to overwhelmingly positive reviews here on Amazon.  I traipsed over to the review on the late Roger Ebert website (a guy who at the Sun-Times symbolized old-fashioned common sense, somebody who could remember there's something called middle-of-the-road because there's a view to the left and one to the right and the two views might have individually valid points of their own), written by a Christy Lemire whose pan seemed to be about this movie's "regressive and borderline dangerous" message to women.

Then I watched my own wife's reaction to this film, and especially to her tearing up at the central statement delivered by the Trace Adkins character Bones towards the end of the movie.  We are evangelical Christians but I'm not especially fond of much of what goes out as Christian entertainment, but this movie was not preachy at all.  What it does give is an affirming message that women who have sacrificed (and sacrifice is the right word) for a mission of raising children and maintaining the home are, as the Sean Astin character says, important.  Mainstream reviews seem to imply women can't take accept that message without by definition being labeled regressive and borderline dangerous (is empowerment just for the office, I wonder?).  And that seemed to tell me more about Ms. Lemire herself than the validity of any view she's trying to argue.

If you want to understand Cultural Wars in America, you can find an example here in the contrast between Mainstream reviews and what many (not all) of everyday people think.
2918098
I liked the first half of the film: the acting was really decent, the filming was beautiful, has meaningful characters, and I really loved the music.

The whole point of the film is NOT child rebellion (like some other reviewers have stated) because "Sam" is not a child.  The point of the film is for "Sam" to start acting her age and learn to be capable.  She is 21 years old and is severely oppressed by her own mother to the point of complete mental abuse.  The film is about breaking "Sam" out of the disabling prison that her mother has locked her in.  While there are many positives to the initial half of the film, there are several red flags you need to be aware of before renting this title.

If you're a Deaf culture lover... this film is not for you or me.  The Deaf character was forced to grow up in an oral school her entire life, and suddenly in her college freshman year she's automatically fluent enough in ASL to warrant having an interpreter that stays with her all the time like a nanny (even living with the family during summer break). The interpreter is horrible, she has zero work ethic whatsoever.  It is infuriating how the interpreter aids the mother in further oppressing "Sam".  Lip reading is misrepresented, "Sam" seemingly automatically understands everything her boyfriend says verbally all the time.  ASL is considered forbidden and is randomly dropped and used and dropped again.  VRS and TTY and texting apparently do not exist in this movie's universe.  Neither does closed captioning on films at the theater on date nights.  I don't expect any Deaf person to feel empowered by this film, it's more of a damsel in distress film.  Yes, it even has a handsome boyfriend to rescue the dame.

As is the norm: The cochlear implant saves the day.  Again.  I do agree that for "Sam", CI was definitely a great choice for her because she really wanted it and she wants to be a musician (she was old enough to remember music when she lost her hearing to meningitis).  But the CI was presented as a form of salvation and the film botched it.  She goes in for surgery at the beginning of the day, and walks out of surgery at the end of the day with the processor on her ear and turned on.  Not realistic.  In real life it takes at least 3 months before the CI can even be turned on.

The second half of the film needs to be its own movie.  Or just not exist at all.  Even the final ending theme song that was supposed to tie everything together needs to not exist.  Compared to the really good music in the beginning of the film, the ending theme music was really weak.  There's too much drama for anyone to handle in this secondary plot.  If you have a heart, or if you cried through "My Sister's Keeper" you will bawl your eyes out at least 10 times.  You have been warned!
2837227
This movie is supposed to be entertaining and perhaps informative(?)
Alas there is no credible climate change arguments at all, leaving it to be entertaining only, or does it?
There are 5 black characters in the movie, a kid (Brian) who is over and over told to "shut up". A black woman who doesn't speak English. A black homeless thief (of course, who else is a homeless thief in America?) a black scientist who only sleeps on the job. And finally a black cop who leads a whole bunch of good ol folks to certain death.
These all happen in such a subtle way that only a "man of color" like myself can feel. However not so subtle when the screen write throws in "Nietzsche was a schauwinistic pig who was in love with his sister" oh wait, "he is not a schauwinistic pig" but "he was in love with his sister". Then of course ONE white guy saves half of the country. Color me surprise.
I despise idiots who somehow become spokespersons for cinema in America.
1802139
The condescending (and dishonest) political views were forced down the throat of viewers ruining the very good "against all odds" story line. No wonder this bombed at the box office (only $3 million on 440 screens ranking #17 on opening weekend.).
2862673
A stilted, biased piece of nonhistory, or rather nonsense, this film has to be one of the worst animation jobs I have ever seen.  The conservative bias is manifestly apparent in every action of the plot.  I hope that no one is insane enough to show those as an educational tool (something I believe is the genesis and raison d'etre of the creators).
4382520
Surely in this day and age the consumer is aware enough to understand that a documentary should in best case present an unbiased view of a situation.
So why is it that films like this are being made?
LET ME ASSURE YOU THE ISSUES THAT ARE PRESENTED ARE EXTREEMLY IMPORTANT AND VALID!! However that way in which it is presented is going to frustrate anyone who likes to come to their own conclusions with out being beaten into the presenters point of view. I feel that this film could potentially harm the cause, by compounding the already existing stereotype of the hard arse and slightly ignorant feminist radical... Come on people let the facts to do the talking and grow the hell up...
654278
I watched this because it was included with my Prime membership.  There is a strong urge to give it one star because the premise is so disingenuous.  But it would be a lie to say I hated it.  I didn't really like it, but it mostly kept my attention.

I echo anyone who says that the professor is a caricature of both professors and atheists.  That's the biggest problem with the movie structurally.  A giant straw man lies at the center of the film's thesis.

For me, however, the worst part is the band at the end.  That was around fifteen minutes of unwatchable dreck, set to bad music.
888972
I don't care for plays that are made into film. They usually turn into a talky bore that is heavy on pretentious dialogue. This film is no exception. It thinks it is smarter than it is. I am led to question the old man's motives when challenging Considine's desire to stay sober. He hurls most of the rationalizations at him, but his intentions remain unclear. Was it all a game he played to bait his wife into having an affair, to test her loyalty? When Considine resigns at the end, the old man appears triumphant, as if the young man served his purpose in some bizarre manipulative game. Was Considine, the drunk poet, really a pawn in a larger game, or was he the true protagonist defending the disease model of AA and ultimately winning his sobriety?  I felt as if I didn't care in the end.
91684
Firstly, this film contains a sickening number of animals' corpses being used as props: skinned and gutted sheep hoisted on poles, a man reclining on the corpse of a bovine, the carcass of a pig used to carry cement, an tree filled with the corpses of chickens. Furthermore, there is actual on-screen animal abuse. They blow-up parts of the set with live toads on it like some deranged 12-year-old, and there is a possible real dog fight. Apparently, this director wasn't intelligent enough to get across the brilliant message that "corporations, the government, and organized religion are bad, man" without killing and abusing animals. This movie goes beyond ordinary pretentiousness, taking it to a callous level. I would not have paid t watch this movie if I had known that it contained animal abuse, and it should have a disclaimer.
657155
There's a not-well-respected genre called the "shaggy God" story, of which "Star Trek V" is one. "Signs" is another.
It's a numbingly dumb film, in which the ending was conceived first, then the "plot" constructed to force the desired ending. ("My Cousin Vinnie" has the same lame construction.) This rather negates the philosophical and metaphysical debates at the center of the film. How can you have a meaningful discussion about man's relationship with God, when the writer/director is _playing_ God?
Mel's performance is okay, I guess, but he persists in interpreting "confused" or "upset" as "loony." He adores the Three Stooges, and too much of that adoration informs his performances (qv, "Maverick").
The worst of M. Night's three films and the last, I hope, until he comes up a story idea as good as "The Sixth Sense."
2569304
There are plenty other reviews of this film that will provide the story line.  I do not believe it is worth the time to repeat it as I do not think this film deserves a lengthy review.  There may be people as gullible and stupid as the characters in this film, but to find so many in the same location is such a stretch that it makes the film annoyingly unbelievable.  The total absence of common sense exhibited by the characters is so unlikely as to taint the message of the movie.  It is a shame the filmmakers had to go so far with the circumstances as to render the film worthless and virtually unwatchable by a person of average intellect.  This film should make you even angrier with its exaggerated voyeurism than your waste of time and effort in viewing it.  A good bit less gullibility and stupidity by the characters may have made this an excellent film.  I think they blew it.