Will critics bury For Greater Glory?

posted at 3:21 pm on June 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

It’s opening day in the US for a widely-anticipated film that recounts a war of which few have even heard.  For Greater Glory has already opened to packed houses and long lines in Mexico for the past month, as many filmgoers connect with a part of their nation’s history that has rarely been discussed.  The film stars Andy Garcia as Enrique Gorostieta, an agnostic who took up the cause of religious freedom when the socialist government of President Plutarco Calles (Ruben Blades) tries to suppress the Catholic Church, provoking a civil war (called the Cristiada or Cristero War) that lasted for three years.

When the production of For Greater Glory began a couple of years ago, no one could have known that the film would have direct relevance to current events.  Thanks to the battle between the Obama administration and religious groups (including and especially the Catholic bishops) over the HHS contraception/sterilization mandate, the issue of government defining religious expression has become acute in the US.  That will undoubtedly drive more traffic to the theaters, as well as keep the mandate on the front political burner all summer long.

Critics, thus far, are dismissing the film.  It gets only a 17% “freshness” rating at the critic-aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, although the audience rating is 73%, with an average rating of 3.9 points on a five-point scale.  The New York Times is among the more generous, with some praise and criticism:

The movie is a much softer echo of fervent 1950s blockbusters with religious themes, like “The Robe,” set at the dawn of Christianity, in which humble true believers who are ready to sacrifice their lives for their faith stand up to their godless oppressors. The best of those quasi-biblical movies still have the power to stir the blood and elicit tears. Mel Gibson has more recently made angrier and gorier versions of the same thing.

There may be no miracles or choirs of angels here, but religiosity, although restrained, is pervasive. Pablo José Barroso, the film’s producer, founded Dos Corazones Films, a Mexican production company that the press notes state was “created as part of a ministry that produces films to convey messages of faith and family values.”

Dean Wright, who directed “For Greater Glory” from a screenplay by Michael Love, was the visual effects wizard behind the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. This movie, which was filmed on many of the actual sites of the conflict, is impressively spacious. The expansive scale and brisk but unhurried editing keep “For Greater Glory” from stumbling over itself and becoming a bloated, grandiose exhibition of righteous saber rattling. The symphonic score by James Horner confers an inspirational mood that is uplifting without being syrupy.

Even if “For Greater Glory” is considerably more sophisticated than some of its forerunners, its characters are clear-cut saints and sinners. To its credit, the film acknowledges the political history leading up to the war and the bargaining behind the scenes. Bruce Greenwood plays Dwight Morrow, the United States ambassador to Mexico, dispatched from Washington to protect American oil interests while brokering a peace.

But the diplomacy is just a footnote to the struggle for religious freedom.

We’ve discussed the film a number of times at Hot Air.  I wrote my own review from a rough cut in March, while Green Room contributor Dustin Siggins provided another perspective this week:

Such things were on my mind as I watched “For Greater Glory,” a movie about the Cristeros, or “soldiers for Christ,” who fought against religious persecution by the Mexican government from 1926 to 1929. The movie starts with laws which encroach upon religious freedom relatively benignly, such as not allowing the public wear of religious symbols. The Mexican government then moves to decry foreigners who allegedly control the nation’s citizens, particularly the Vatican, and rounds up all foreign-born bishops and priests to force them to leave the country. Peaceful rallies and protests are responded to with military force, which leads to an economic boycott.

The boycott is the last straw for Mexican President Plutarco Elías Calles. Ignoring the counsel of his advisers, he begins invading churches and killing Catholic priests and parishioners. This leads to protests of various forms, from peacefully marching in the streets to violent rebellion. At the heart of the entire movie are a teenage boy who sees his mentor shot before his eyes, an atheist whose wife’s Catholic faith and his own belief in religious freedom cause him to lead the rebellion, a woman whose network of faithful Catholic women is critical to the rebellion’s early formation, a rebel whose legendary fighting skills are matched by his disdain for authority, and a priest whose violent leadership in the rebellion causes a great deal of spiritual uncertainty.

As a movie, “For Greater Glory” isn’t a bad watch. It is rated R for violence and graphic imagery (a number of lynched bodies are seen hanging, for example, throughout the film). However, it often struggles to capture and hold the viewer’s emotions. In aiming to fully develop over half-a-dozen major characters, often through individual scenes and interactions with secondary and lower-ranked characters, the movie comes across as a bit of a whirlwind.

Be sure to read it all. Above all, I’d also tell readers to see the film for yourself.  It’s a visually lush, thematically bold production that tells an important story about religious freedom and its cost — and in a sense, the cost to maintain liberty in general.  The cast is superb, and the story will grip audiences.  Even though the version I saw is quite close to the version that went into release today, I plan on seeing it again at the theater this weekend.

I interviewed Andy Garcia about the film a month ago:

I’ve also interviewed Dennis Rice, the film’s distributor, as well as director Dean Wright.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It gets only a 17% “freshness” rating at the critic-aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes

Rotten Tomatoes is infested with moronic progtards who haven’t even seen the films they rate.

Walter Sobchak on June 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM

No, they will ignore it. Even if it turns out to be a success.

Ward Cleaver on June 1, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Can’t wait till it gets here. (We’re a backwater of SOCAL, getting the non-blockbusters typically 2-3 weeks after they open elsewhere.) I rarely want to see movies anymore, but this one will be worth it.

J.E. Dyer on June 1, 2012 at 3:26 PM

The irony? This movie is a sponsor for Rush’s show.
And one of the dumbest, racist, kool aid drinking, don’t stop short or her head will get shoved up Obama’s orifice liberals, Eva Longoria, stars in this movie.
I hope she chokes on it.

AllahsNippleHair on June 1, 2012 at 3:28 PM

The marketing of this movie should draw a parallel:

“What if the government said being gay was a violation of the official State religion? Would you resist? Would you fight?

“Well, the government of Mexico said being Catholic was a violation of the official State rules on religious belief. And Mexico’s Catholics DID resist, and DID fight.”

Perhaps then the people who find it fashionable to hate Christianity would realize it could as easily be one of their sacred cows being gored.

stuiec on June 1, 2012 at 3:30 PM

“There may be no miracles or choirs of angels here, but religiosity, although restrained, is pervasive.”

Noun 1. religiosity – exaggerated or affected piety and religious zeal
religiousism, pietism, religionism
devoutness, religiousness – piety by virtue of being devout

I’m sure if the movie was a book…

… the New York Times would want it burned.

/

Seven Percent Solution on June 1, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Most people don’t know that extreamist socialists took over Mexico in the 1920s and ruled that country for 80 years. We can see the results of that: Abject poverty. The laws supressing religous expression were still on the books until very recently.

LakeLevel on June 1, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Of course they will

Plan on watching it with mr cmsinaz

cmsinaz on June 1, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Will go see it, reminds me of the Last Crusade (about the Spanish Civil War and it comes down HARD on the socialist Spanish Republicans:

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Crusade-Warren-H-Carroll/dp/0931888670

NoDonkey on June 1, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Never in my life (and I’m old) have I ever gone to see a movie because critics said it was good… or not seen a movie because critics said it was bad.

Critics are for the most part political and not at all truthful.

Axion on June 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM

You would think that Eva Longoria would be able to find some common themes from the story in For Greater Glory and the WH mandates coming out of HHS, but that doesn’t seem to be the case…as she actively fundraises for Obama.

Maybe connecting the dots is haaard.

mojowt on June 1, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I hear it is even better than Tribulation Force.

Pablo Honey on June 1, 2012 at 3:36 PM

…a production company that … “… convey[s] messages of faith and family values.”

A sure way to get mainstream critics’ dander up!

Even if “For Greater Glory” is considerably more sophisticated than some of its forerunners, its characters are clear-cut saints and sinners.

In other words, unless the characters are spiritually confused and lack a moral compass, the film must be for those simpleton rubes out in flyover country.

KS Rex on June 1, 2012 at 3:36 PM

After reading Ed’s initial review of For Greater Glory, I saw an advance screening of the movie last week. I highly recommend this movie!

Since it was an advance screening, the theater was completely full and there were several times when the audience broke into spontaneous applause. I haven’t seen that happen at a movie in a long time.

The movie shows how threatened Socialist leaders are by religious faith and how far Socialists will go to stamp out this threat to their power.

It is an inspiring movie that makes you think about what is important enough to you that you are willing to fight for it.

And the fundamental issues in the movie about religious freedom are extremely relevant today.

Many thanks to Ed for letting us all know about this important movie!

wren on June 1, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I hear it is even better than Tribulation Force.

Pablo Honey on June 1, 2012 at 3:36 PM

The real test will be when “The Choom Gang” gets released.

NoDonkey on June 1, 2012 at 3:43 PM

call me small minded and petty, but since Eva Longoria is Obama campaign co chair I have no plans to see this film, I don’t care how good it is.

exceller on June 1, 2012 at 3:44 PM

One problem with the positive reviews is that most of the praise goes to what the film is about, rather than how the story is told. Critics might bury the film, because they think they don’t care about the latter, although it could be that some are biased about the film because they’re uncomfortable about the religiosity.

Mister Mets on June 1, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Rush was talking about this on his show today. He said he got two cd’s for a viewing and both were in Spanish. But he said from what he could see, it was well worth watching! I would imagine Rush will get an English versions soon?
L

letget on June 1, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Obama promotor Eva Longoria starring in a film that reflects Obama’s attack on religion (esp Catholics right now). Bet she didn’t see that coming.

DanMan on June 1, 2012 at 3:48 PM

It sounds like a decent flick and I intend to watch it.

I do have a concern about historical accuracy though.

And this:

and a priest whose violent leadership in the rebellion causes a great deal of spiritual uncertainty.

tends to disagree with this part of the NYT review:

its characters are clear-cut saints and sinners.

cozmo on June 1, 2012 at 3:48 PM

As is pretty much S.O.P., the socialists have to stamp out religion in order to usher in their totalitarian policies.

an atheist whose wife’s Catholic faith and his own belief in religious freedom cause him to lead the rebellion

As I’ve often suggested here at Hot Air, fiscal conservatives who side with the removal of Christianity from the public square, are siding with those who will remove their freedoms as well.

Christian Conservative on June 1, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Critics will not pan it because it has to do with Mexicans. Now if the story was exactly the same but about whites, then yeah, the critics would demolish it.

The Notorious G.O.P on June 1, 2012 at 3:52 PM

This weekend here in San Antonio, relics from the six martyred priests depicted in this film, will be on display at the historic San Fernando Cathedral:

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/religion/2012/05/rare-relics-of-cristero-war-martyrs-at-cathedral-this-weekend/

NoDonkey on June 1, 2012 at 3:52 PM

extreamist socialists

Never heard of a ‘moderate’ socialist.

It’s an all or nothing deal. Exhibit A: The Current US Regime.

CorporatePiggy on June 1, 2012 at 3:53 PM

call me small minded and petty, but since Eva Longoria is Obama campaign co chair I have no plans to see this film, I don’t care how good it is.

exceller on June 1, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Eva Longoria plays her role well. And you would never guess that she is an Obama-supporter from her role in this movie, since she plays the devout Catholic wife who is quite upset by the Socialist power grab.

Don’t let Eva Longoria’s current political confusion prevent you from seeing this inspiring movie!

Perhaps, even Eva Longoria will see the world more clearly after she sees the whole movie.

wren on June 1, 2012 at 3:59 PM

I couldn’t stand the last critically acclaimed movie I wasted money on: Inception.
Last straw for me to put any faith in the words of critics on whether a movie was good or not.

smfic on June 1, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Critics didn’t like Led Zeppelin either. Just saying.

shick on June 1, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Many films that are savaged by critics are good, decent films. I’ve never gone or not gone to a film I wanted to see based on critics reviews.

It is kinda perplexing that they would release this film now – at the beginning of the summer blockbusters. Why not more towards the holidays?

catmman on June 1, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Anyone who would listen to the opinion of a film critic is too illiterate to know what they are watching. Since Obama has been elected the liberals have expressed, what they falsely perceieve, their intellectually superior beliefs upon those they consider inferior. The saddest part is they are incapable of creating and only theorize on what might be. Our country is being exploited by a mental disorder. Film critics are not even a bump in the scheme of things.

volsense on June 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM

call me small minded and petty, but since Eva Longoria is Obama campaign co chair I have no plans to see this film, I don’t care how good it is.

exceller on June 1, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Hey, Satan has more than a bit part in The Bible, but it’s still a good read… :-)

Kraken on June 1, 2012 at 4:16 PM

The real test will be when “The Choom Gang” gets released.

NoDonkey on June 1, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Full title: The Choom Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight

The Rogue Tomato on June 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

it could be that some are biased about the film because they’re uncomfortable about the religiosity.

Mister Mets on June 1, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Gee, ya think?

Burke on June 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

It gets only a 17% “freshness” rating at the critic-aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes

Rotten Tomatoes is infested with moronic progtards who haven’t even seen the films they rate.

Walter Sobchak on June 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Maybe, but you obviously have no idea how Rotten Tomatoes works. The 77% positive rating is from Rotten Tomatoes’ members. The 17% “freshness” rating is from bona fide movie critics around the Net.

Mitchell Heisman on June 1, 2012 at 4:36 PM

I couldn’t stand the last critically acclaimed movie I wasted money on: Inception.
Last straw for me to put any faith in the words of critics on whether a movie was good or not.

smfic on June 1, 2012 at 4:00 PM

This chick I was banging insisted I had to see it. She kept on talking about it.

It was awful. You are right about that.

Mitchell Heisman on June 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Hey wasn’t this about the time communists were the ruling class? Yeah, Godless Commies. No wonder pious people were persecuted. Even Trotsky was exiled from the Soviet Union to many places but finally Norway sent him to Mexico in 1933. Of course a local commie was sent to kill eventually.

jake49 on June 1, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I just came home from seeing ‘For Greater Glory’. Its a wonderful movie. Its not ‘perfect’, but I didn’t expect it to be. For me, the most important thing was getting across the history and the story behind what happened. For critics who say, it was too ‘Catholic’ – DOH! That’s what the war was about you dough heads. I refer that comment specifically to Roger Ebert.

It really was a great movie about a great story – a very important story. Thankfully, our own ‘Cristero War’ here in the US is only being fought in the courts. I took both my children to this film so that they would understand that ‘freedom’ is not ‘free’.

I highly recommend seeing the film.

joadard on June 1, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Hey, Satan has more than a bit part in The Bible, but it’s still a good read… :-)

Kraken on June 1, 2012 at 4:16 PM

if and when Satan stars in a movie I will also boycott it.

exceller on June 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM

The Dean Wright interview was much better than the Andy Garcia. Garcia seems to be another clueless actor, not sure of what to say about the story, but led very well by Ed.

KenInIL on June 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM

…JugEars (to the Mexican Government at that time *speaking Mexican*…) Viva la Mexico!

KOOLAID2 on June 1, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Rush was talking about this on his show today. He said he got two cd’s for a viewing and both were in Spanish. But he said from what he could see, it was well worth watching! I would imagine Rush will get an English versions soon?

letget on June 1, 2012 at 3:45 PM

The film is in English. Rush was referring to the Spanish subtitles at the bottom of the screen. I imagine he uses subtitles or closed captioning a lot to follow spoken dialogue by reading it, his cochlear implant being unable to distinguish dialogue from the sound effects and music which comprise a film’s soundtrack. It must sound like a lot of distorted gibberish to him.

Not knowing how much “Spanish lingo” Rush understands, I’m guessing that the Spanish subtitles made it harder for him to keep up with reading the dialogue as the movie progressed. No idea why the DVD didn’t have English closed captioning, though.

de rigueur on June 1, 2012 at 5:04 PM

if and when Satan stars in a movie I will also boycott it.

exceller on June 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Normally, I would agree with you. But there are a few times where I’ll bend a little bit and watch a movie even if it has someone acting in it who irritates me to no end. I think this is one of those times when the story and the message outweighs some of the actors/actresses in it. I think it’s important for people to know how close communism existed to the US for almost 80 years, what it did to Mexico (albeit only a small part is covered in this movie), and yet our history books don’t really even cover it.

Just my $0.02.

Kraken on June 1, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Eva Longoria is in it. That race baiter won’t get my money.

reddevil on June 1, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Eva Longoria is in it. That race baiter won’t get my money.

reddevil on June 1, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Interesting. She must have been willing to ‘compromise’ her liberal beliefs enough to get paid for playing a character in a movie that has diametrically opposed views to hers. So there’s another liberal hypocrisy exposed: they’re perfectly willing to scuttle their beliefs as soon as someone shows them lots of green. I’ll bet she doesn’t see the irony.

The hubby and I are planning to see this film.

PatriotGal2257 on June 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM

All I know is that my daughter and I were planning on going tonight until we found out that it is no closer than 60 miles from our area.
I live in Rochester and would have to travel to Buffalo. Since that’s not happening, I will have to wait for the video release.
*sigh*

redlucy on June 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM

General: “I never had a son, but if I did, I would want him to be just like you!”

Obama: If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.”

Spooky coincidences–and contrasts–abound!

I think this is the kind of movie I will LOVE!

mountainaires on June 1, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Looks like a great movie. And the timing is literally perfect.

Key West Reader on June 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM

@wren on June 1, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Awesome! Can’t wait to see it. I will love it!

mountainaires on June 1, 2012 at 5:57 PM

The Robe (1953)… Samson and Delilah.. Victor Mature was in both and both films played a major part in how I learned to view my faith.

This one.. I might see it. I don’t know.

I usually wait till they hit DVD, possibly I’ll make an exception this time. Film critics to me were always a negative influence if they liked it I knew I wouldn’t. If they went thumbs up I figured it’d be crap.

mark81150 on June 1, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Full title: The Choom Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight

The Rogue Tomato on June 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

The Choom Gang’s Excellent Marxist Adventure

kirkill on June 1, 2012 at 6:07 PM

A Must See because liberals hate it…

kirkill on June 1, 2012 at 6:08 PM

I will be endlessly amused if this film helps the GOP with the Hispanic vote as Hispanic moviegoers compare the Mexican government in the film with the Odministration.

Charlemagne on June 1, 2012 at 6:10 PM

AG was on Medved today.

Capitalist Hog on June 1, 2012 at 6:12 PM

PatriotGal2257 on June 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM

I read somewhere that Eva is the only child in her family without blonde hair and blue eyes. Supposedly her sisters are both blondes. So in spite of Eva’s race baiting ways, she’s a white Mexican-American of probably pure Spanish ancestry.

Charlemagne on June 1, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Will critics bury For Greater Glory?

Pro-religion and anti-socialist? Of course they will.

iurockhead on June 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I just returned from seeing the movie and found myself moved to tears more than once and completely engaged throughout the movie, and I am not one easily engaged. It made me realize just how precious religion freedom is and to realize I have to be ready to sacrifice and even suffer if necessary to protect it. The movie will not be given a fair chance because it is one that I think will be frightening and angering to those who want to keep religion out of daily life as much as possible and would like to phase it out of our lives bit by bit without being reminded of what has happened in the past.

lukjuj on June 1, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Mr. Garcia is a solid actor. I probably won’t go to the theater to see it (because I no longer find that experience enjoyable), but would be very interested in catching it down the line.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 1, 2012 at 6:32 PM

I only trust the Audience tally from Rotten.

And, compare it to IMDB, which I actually trust most of all.

Usually, the IMDB and Rotten percentages are fairly close. The critics – never. The critics are (over) paid pompous partisan hacks with overblown ideologies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1566501/

so-notbuyingit on June 1, 2012 at 7:02 PM

I’ll never watch anything that has La Raza’s favorite pinup, Longoria, in it…ever

thedevilinside on June 1, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I’m sure it will be a smashing success, just like Atlas Shrugged. If it manages to recoup even 30% of its costs it would be far more successful commercially.

lester on June 1, 2012 at 7:17 PM

I only trust the Audience tally from Rotten.

And, compare it to IMDB, which I actually trust most of all.

Usually, the IMDB and Rotten percentages are fairly close. The critics – never. The critics are (over) paid pompous partisan hacks with overblown ideologies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1566501/

so-notbuyingit on June 1, 2012 at 7:02 PM

329 users is not a proper sample size for IMDB. Usually the first thousand or so for major US releases are people interested in the particular movie and ratings will drop as more votes come in.

Wait until it his a couple of thousand votes, take out 10s and 1s, and then average the 2-9 to get a sensible rating.

lester on June 1, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Charlemagne on June 1, 2012 at 6:13 PM

This is from her IMDB biography:

Is the only one among her parents’ children to have dark skin, dark eyes, and dark hair. Her three sisters all have fair hair, blue eyes, and Caucasian skin color. Eva thought for a long time that she was adopted because of her features.

Apparently she isn’t smart enough to conclude that if she physically resembled her parents and sisters in every way except hair and eye color, or even studied the photos of her ancestors, then she probably wasn’t adopted. No doubt it was one of those pesky recessive genes that is causing all her angst.

She must be some kind of actress if she can convincingly play a devout Catholic woman and sublimate the usual self-centered shallowness most actresses (and actors) are known for.

PatriotGal2257 on June 1, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Maybe it’s just that it is the NYT but the word religiosity has the ring of an insult.

Cindy Munford on June 1, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Cindy Munford on June 1, 2012 at 8:00 PM

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette thinks the timing of this movie is odd. The only thing that is really odd is that Barbara Vancheri emerged from her ultra-liberal cocoon long enough to see it. The P-G, by the way, has a long history of subtle and not-so-subtle anti-Catholicism in its pages.

‘Greater Glory’ not glorious, but still stirring

PatriotGal2257 on June 1, 2012 at 8:21 PM

The WaPo gave the film one star because they thought it sermonized too much. Really.

Happy Nomad on June 1, 2012 at 9:09 PM

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette thinks the timing of this movie is odd.

PatriotGal2257 on June 1, 2012 at 8:21 PM

I’d call it providential if you are for religious freedom and inconvenient if you support Obama’s war on Christ.

Happy Nomad on June 1, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Roger Moore (of the Mcclatchy-Tribune service)published a ‘review’ today in my paper…Here is my response to the paper..

About Roger Moore’s ‘review’ of “For Greater Glory”…Come on folks. This is the same fellow who lauded so many bad political films over the last decade. You know, those films so bad NO ONE paid to see them. He does not seem to demand anything remotely as even handed or well researched when the film was from the far left for the gullible left. He thought Al Gore’s fiction, ‘An Inconvenient truth’ was brilliant, even though time has shown it to be mostly propaganda and not science.

Using the fellows own words ‘Roger’” If you are tackling a subject this complex, you need to be more careful. You need to aim higher than this”

Your reviewer wears his politics on his sleeves. He tipped his hand when he noted the ‘Catholic knights of Columbus’ helped fund it. I never read such a line when the far left was funding films for their fellow travelers.

JIMV on June 1, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Advice to Romney:

Get the press to cover YOU attending a showing of this movie and arrange for the press to ask you juicy, batting practice questions to hit out of the park on Religious Freedom.

It will go over well and emphasize what a secular totalitarian Obama is.

Demographic: Christians, especially those idiot midwest Catholics that voted for O in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Do it Mittens, because it will work.

KirknBurker on June 1, 2012 at 9:52 PM

The WaPo gave the film one star because they thought it sermonized too much. Really.

Happy Nomad on June 1, 2012 at 9:09 PM

What did they expect a movie about a religious war to be about, Gay rights?

JIMV on June 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

The WaPo gave the film one star because they thought it sermonized too much. Really.

Happy Nomad on June 1, 2012 at 9:09 PM

What did they expect a movie about a religious war to be about, Gay rights?

JIMV on June 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

They probably strongly believe that it should advocate the Sainthood of the Jugeared One, regardless of his non-association with Catholicism and anything Godly in general, and how abortion can save the Mother Gaia from (wo)mankind.

hillbillyjim on June 1, 2012 at 10:05 PM

After seeing the trailer weeks ago. I predicted that this film will do well in cross-over country and tank or not be seen on either coast.

Looks like I was right.

I put very little faith in anything Rotten Tomatoes does. More often than not, their reviews are bias, liberal and ridiculous in the extreme.

Jack Deth on June 1, 2012 at 11:16 PM

I hope it comes to the Philippines. It will play well here.

Timothy S. Carlson on June 1, 2012 at 11:36 PM

They did much the same thing with Andy Garcia’s previous ‘labor of love’ the adaptation of Guillermo Cabrera Infante’s the Lost City,
where he had to find his own distribution deal, because no major studio would touch it. It has a strong Catholic influence, but it
has greater resonance, for Garcia’s character, Gorostiada, was a mason, and not particularly religious, but he could not stand what Calles was doing,

narciso on June 2, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Never imagine that any script will get through to any of the Hollywood elite acting corps. It’s just a lie they are well paid to portray. A payday. The vast majority of them, despite their play-acted intelligence, are drugged-up dropouts with no more substance than a balloon or smarts of a brick. There’s no light bulb up there nor conviction inside.

Should be noted that FGG is only showing on 3 screens in Northern VA outside DC. I may try to go see it tonight.

ironked on June 2, 2012 at 9:14 AM

The reviews from the media would be more positive if the filmmaker had simply had the people begging the Mexican governor for relief from the heavy-handed morality of the Catholic church. Why, even Kathleen Sibelius would be giving it a lusty “two thumbs-up”. And changed Andy Garcia’s character into something that Kevin Costner would bugger his movie up with – namely a “strong” female lead with a short haircut.

tpitman on June 2, 2012 at 9:18 AM

if and when Satan stars in a movie I will also boycott it.
exceller on June 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM

He doesn’t have to star — he owns most of the production team.

AesopFan on June 2, 2012 at 11:20 AM

The movie starts with laws which encroach upon religious freedom relatively benignly, such as not allowing the public wear of religious symbols. The Mexican government then moves to decry foreigners who allegedly control the nation’s citizens, particularly the Vatican, and rounds up all foreign-born bishops and priests to force them to leave the country. Peaceful rallies and protests are responded to with military force, which leads to an economic boycott.
The boycott is the last straw for Mexican President Plutarco Elías Calles. Ignoring the counsel of his advisers, he begins invading churches and killing Catholic priests and parishioners. This leads to protests of various forms, from peacefully marching in the streets to violent rebellion.

I used to scoff at conservatives and others who warn us about the slippery slope, the camel’s nose, the inch leading to a mile, and all those cliches invoked to oppose some governmental policy.

Not any more.

There are just too many examples of regulations and policies growing like cancers once they get into the body politic.

As is pretty much S.O.P., the socialists have to stamp out religion in order to usher in their totalitarian policies. ..
As I’ve often suggested here at Hot Air, fiscal conservatives who side with the removal of Christianity from the public square, are siding with those who will remove their freedoms as well.
Christian Conservative on June 1, 2012 at 3:52 PM

AesopFan on June 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM

mojowt on June 1, 2012 at 3:35 PM

This is a woman who is utterly convinced that the US stole the Southwest and occupied Mexico, completely ignoring the FACT that the reason Mexicans are called Hispanics stems from SPAIN’S 300-year occupation of Mexico.

So, no, she won’t – EVER – connect the dots, even if you only give her 2 dots.

PJ Emeritus on June 2, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Eva Longoria. If she is in it or for it I am on the opposite side.

FireBlogger on June 2, 2012 at 12:13 PM

call me small minded and petty, but since Eva Longoria is Obama campaign co chair I have no plans to see this film, I don’t care how good it is.

exceller on June 1, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Eva Longoria. If she is in it or for it I am on the opposite side.

FireBlogger on June 2, 2012 at 12:13 PM

It may be wishful thinking on my part, but some of that story line could rub off on Eva, and it may open her eyes. How can someone be immersed in such a project and not be influenced?

Pazman on June 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

For Greater Glory is outstanding.

ansonia on June 2, 2012 at 2:39 PM

I probably won’t go to the theater to see it (because I no longer find that experience enjoyable), but would be very interested in catching it down the line.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 1, 2012 at 6:32 PM

.
You and me both.

I go to theaters ONLY when one of my family drags me.

listens2glenn on June 2, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Saw this movie over the weekend and the word i would use is ‘chilling’ to describe it. Not because of its applicability to our own condition here in America (yet), but because so few people know this story and because so many are so eager to explain this historical piece away with foolish obfuscations about sex abuse and contemporary ills of the Church.

Sadly, the movie could only tell so much of the story but left out so much. For instance, at Rome’s command, the Cristeros laid down their weapons after the agreement allowed for resumed worship–and they were summarily executed by the Calles government. Yes, THEY ALL DIED. Why Garcia would leave this out, even as a narrative at the end of the film, is a HUGE omission. I hope it was not because he did not wish to inflame whatever ‘powers that be’, but if it was so the film could be released at all, then I understand somewhat. The performances were powerful–especially the performance of Mauricio Kuri–as Blessed Jose Luiz Sanchez Del Rio. Watching him portray the suffering of little Jose was gut wrenching. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SEE THIS FILM, whether you hate Mother Church or love her. It’s important to know about events like this that have been whitewashed, dismissed, or ignored altogether by history.

GoodSamaritan on June 4, 2012 at 2:21 PM