No, no he does not. He can't see beyond that heavy handedness. It's consumed his brain and reason.Remus said:Here's my reaction to this review, and pretty much any movie with Kirk Cameron - "Jesus" Drink! "Jesus" Drink! ad infiniteum. Does the poor sod not know how to play in anything without a heavy-handed Christian message?
Ya... See that's the issue with Christian films. They are made by Christians for Christians, but they seem to think they would function as good outreach. The issue with that stems in the fact that Christian films rarely stand as good films in their own right. They put moral and message before story. [Good] Hollywood movies do the opposite.WickedLordJasper said:I've never seen Fireproof before, but from the MDF clip, I got that the movie was overly Christian and written for a strongly religious audience. So that's what makes the movie bad?
Worse than God's Not Dead? I don't know if I would aim THAT low... Kirk isn't a great actor... but comparing it to God's Not Dead...Tanis said:O,u.
The acting is WORSE than 'God's Not Dead'.
Do you know how HARD that is?
That's like, worse than SyFy original movies bad!
Kirk Cameron (or maybe his mother, accounts differ) got Julie McCullough fired from Growing Pains for doing a Playboy photoshoot. Once he was married, Cameron refused to take off his wedding ring when he was playing Mike Seaver (in the later episodes, you can see it was covered with a flesh-colored band-aid). He regularly combines efforts with this idiot:Remus said:Does the poor sod not know how to play in anything without a heavy-handed Christian message?
So what about the films "Thank You for Smoking", and "Bob Roberts"?MarsAtlas said:Well any movie built on the idea of ideological masturbation that isn't a documentary is destined to be awful....WickedLordJasper said:So that's what makes the movie bad?
Meh, I don't consider it a shame. He wasn't a very good actor, and still isn't. The fact that his religious nutbaggery has him sidelined into stupid religious propoganda works and nothing else, doesn't bother me in the slightest.twosage said:The final stage is Kirk Cameron.
You can fight it at the early stages (Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis have been living with it for years), but once it reaches Cameron's advanced state... it's terminal. It's just a shame it took him so young.
...This was my favorite episode of the show yet and I laughed my ass off. And I think I could stand to live in that world, might be I could find it in my heart to be happy about it evenjosh4president said:Really?
I could have sworn you wrote this:
http://i.imgur.com/8kBylHs.png
But seriously, I can't help but feel you're in much better form when you're actually defending a neglected/maligned/hated film instead of just taking something terrible and turning sarcasm mode on. Even in your Mall Rats/'Michael Rooker's Ass episode you at least did mention a few things about the overall feature before descending into frame after frame of jiggly man-buttock.
At this rate you could very well do an episode 'defending' Attack of the Clones by gushing breathlessly about how brilliantly the romantic sub-plot is written and how it artistically elevates the series as a whole with 1950s-style space diners and children acting terribly with buckets on their head.
Do you really want to live in a world where you could actually make a Movie Defense Force of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones?
Is that what you want, Jim?
I agree 100% I mean I'm Catholic. You know what my favorite "Catholic" movie is? The Excorsist. My Priests is Return of the Jedi. Although it must be said I have never met a Priest that is not as letter perfect on Monty Python's the Life of Brian as they are on the Bible. (Which really tells you everything you need to know about how the Catholic Hierachy actually works. The answer... like government, in spite of itself.)Lilani said:Even as a Christian I find these sorts of movies insufferable. It's made to be the sort of thing "Christians" want to see, and while apparently that works for some, what gets me really compelled is the stuff I DON'T want to hear. I want tough analyses of the Bible that look at the plausibility of things, and the stories in the context of their time. I've read the works of people like John Spong, whose extremely historical and scholarly approach to the Bible shows that that Mary wasn't called a virgin until the later gospels and Joseph didn't exist until those same later gospels (because of Mary is a virgin you need some kind of a father figure to make sure Jesus isn't dismissed as a bastard, which is exactly how he is addressed in the early gospels), and that the prophecy from Isaiah which Matthew references to demonstrate that the messiah was predicted to come from a virgin was actually a Greek mistranslation which took the word Hebrew "almah" which is simply a young woman of childbearing years (marital status unspecified) and translated it as "parthenos" which does mean "virgin."
So yeah, after seeing some extremely hard to fight reasons for Mary to not have been a virgin, stuff like this comes off at best as rather soft. And at worst it's self-gratifying, self-righteous, and downright masturbatory. Certain types of Christians get off on this stuff the way housewives get off on 50 Shades. This stuff doesn't challenge or compel anybody looking for a challenge to their faith or a compelling reason to consider Christianity, it's a way for Christians who want to maintain their status quo and not think about new things to feel secure in their beliefs. By the end they're like "Yeah, porn's bad, and I knew that. Faith validated, Jesus points earned."
Can you just keep your solely ironic sarcastic videos confined to your youtube channel? As much as I like it every once and awhile, its not actually defending a movie, which is confusing to people who are new to the site as it messes with their expectations for future videos and gets those who like the original format disappointed creating a divide on a weekly basis. Its also a shame that out of so many underrated movies out there, a week is wasted because of this.Jimothy Sterling said:"I miss the old style MDF."
Like the one we had before this one?
Christ, you change the formula up now and then, and people think it's the end of days. There's nothing to miss, people. I just do these types of episodes to keep things interesting for me from time to time.
I disagree. Because I do your point is mute. You want it one way, I want it the other so Jim's only course of action is to make the things HE wants to make not what one of us specifically wantsTheUnbeholden said:Can you just keep your solely ironic sarcastic videos confined to your youtube channel? As much as I like it every once and awhile, its not actually defending a movie, which is confusing to people who are new to the site as it messes with their expectations for future videos and gets those who like the original format disappointed creating a divide on a weekly basis. Its also a shame that out of so many underrated movies out there, a week is wasted because of this.Jimothy Sterling said:"I miss the old style MDF."
Like the one we had before this one?
Christ, you change the formula up now and then, and people think it's the end of days. There's nothing to miss, people. I just do these types of episodes to keep things interesting for me from time to time.
I meant it was more of a shame on a human level. It depresses me to see anyone reduced to buffoonery by insidious memes they can neither understand nor control.Happyninja42 said:Meh, I don't consider it a shame. He wasn't a very good actor, and still isn't. The fact that his religious nutbaggery has him sidelined into stupid religious propoganda works and nothing else, doesn't bother me in the slightest.twosage said:The final stage is Kirk Cameron.
You can fight it at the early stages (Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis have been living with it for years), but once it reaches Cameron's advanced state... it's terminal. It's just a shame it took him so young.