Belief-based films are largely unprofitable to modern film critics, and the filmmakers mentioned are partly at fault.
The genre, relatively new to Hollywood, begins with passion, energy, and a spark of creativity. That often means crooked performances, low budgets, and stories told to loyalists… while driving everyone away.
That started to change.
Let’s say it to select film critics.
They still walk away with faith-friendly fare as if nothing had changed. And, in doing so, they reveal a lot about their own key metrics.
However, “American Underdog” shows that some critics are open to the growth of the genre. The Warner biopic has a 75 percent rated “fresh” at Rotten Tomatoes for example.
Even the AV Club, eager to mock content that doesn’t read the Far Left hymn, gives reluctant credit for “American Underdog.”
However, some stores still insist on treating faith-based films as something unworthy of being a movie theater.
Indiewire, an active freelancing website, savage “American Underdog,” The true story of Kurt Warner’s dramatic rise from grocery store clerk to Super Bowl MVP. Skip snippets from nearly every paragraph in the review, start here:
The amazing true story of a big and handsome man who plays soccer well [emphasis added] and – thanks to his unwavering faith in Jesus Christ – never giving up on his dream of playing it for huge sums of money, Andrew and Jon Erwin’s “American Underdog” doesn’t sell the “anti-” angle at all. back odds” promised by its title.
Does anyone think the following assessment would be remotely fair and/or balanced?
Of course not. And it got worse.
Along the way, we received an unprovoked attack against Representative Lauren Boebert and an ugly attack on actor Adam Baldwin for conservatism (the review called him “the hat”). ass”). This site is definitely conservative and HiT has never stopped rating movies to offend an actor because of their political beliefs.
Critics clearly hate the genre, no matter how good, bad, or mediocre the content may be.
Like so many faith-based biographical works that have helped turn the genre into a border-crossing phenomenon, “American Underdog” is perpetuated by a vague enthusiasm for the subject’s difficulties (in the case of this: poverty, tornadoes, and a wife whose devotion to Jesus Christ is surpassed only by her devotion to bad wigs)
The site then ravaged the filmmakers behind the project – Christian brothers Jon and Andy Erwin.
Telling stories that emphasize the general hardships associated with religious persecution and keeping God quiet until the third act, the Erwins tend to avoid the Newsmax mobs in favor of the Trojan galloping to the screen. god of the American multiplexer and “American Underdog” is the duo’s most impossible bid for mainstream success to date.
Just imagine a similar attack on Muslim or Jewish filmmakers… and judge that as good compared to what Austin Chronicle unfinished. It’s worth noting that while the Erwins are Christians drawn to stories intertwined with faith, their latest film is not a sermon.
Christianity is barely mentioned in the film.
Tell that to critic Austin Chronicle, who seems to have seen another “American Underdog.” The film’s hero embraces “an almost unwavering faith in God every step of the way,” the review said.
The review ends by attacking the sport of football as well as suggesting that Warner’s career life cycle doesn’t deserve to be a biopic (even after acknowledging it’s “legend stuff”) and Hall of Fame. Famer has “unclear aspirations”.
American Underdog becomes terrifyingly ecstatic, fetishizing its fervor for the thrills of a professional sport that many believe has lost its original core values. Americans can, but hardly less.
Movie reviews are subjective. Critics can say whatever they please about a particular movie. However, you would think that a fair measure would be the goal along with guiding readers to the best movies possible.
Do the aforementioned assessments meet either criteria?
The faith-based genre deserves credit for growing beyond its rudimentary roots. Many critics paid attention to that development, but a few insisted that it was an unworthy film category.