The Sobbing Stone

This movie is terrible in so many ways. First, the story. It's an unusual one, which isn't a bad thing in itself, but "The Sobbing Stone" tries to be a mystery working up to a twist in the end, but fails miserably because the big revelation in the end is obvious from the beginning, which make the whole "story" pointless. There's lots of bad acting and tedious religious discussions that start out of nowhere not because it comes natural in the story but because the movie needs them because it is a Christian film and to pad the running time (basically there's a Christian character and an angry atheist who argue about who's the worst hypocrite and it turns out the atheist has some Freudian reason to dislike Christians because they remind him of his bad mother). Second, I can forgive a low budget feeling if a movie is well made but director and editor Robert G. Christie shows a complete lack of talent. I haven't seen such bad directing and editing in years. He seems to be unaware of such basics as the 180 degree rule.

There's really no reason to watch "The Sobbing Stone" unless you want to experience a new low in Christian filmmaking. This is a film that truly deserves its IMDb rating of 1,3/10. It makes movies like "C Me Dance" and "Spirits Among Us" look like Oscar material. This may very well be the worst Christian movie ever made outside of Nigeria (and at least "666, Beware the End is at Hand" had some entertainment value).

Try this... Watch the movie in its entirety. Every time one of the "scientists" speaks, respond with phrases like "What?!" or "Huh?!" or "What you just said was nonsense." It will mesh perfectly with the dialogue. That pretty much sums up the quality of the writing on display here.

Contrary to some people's feelings on the film, I found Sobbing Stone to be quite a fascinating concept. If there was a lack of understanding to the plot, it came from a lack of attention span. It was pretty clear cut.

I always like to believe that I would have tried to stop Jesus from being crucified but in actuality, who knows? I could have been just as bad as the rest of the mob that was there.

As for the look of the film, I thought that the environment looked dark but considering the nature of the film, I thought it was appropriate.

Robert Christie did a phenomenal job with the budget that he had to work with and I would be very impressed if anyone could have done what he did with this film.

There is always room for growth in the entertainment industry and I think Robert just took a big step forward.

As an enthusiast of independent films, I applaud the Sobbing Stone for it's originality and spirit. After viewing this work it was encouraging to know there are filmmakers out there willing to risk public scrutiny and undue criticism for their endeavors in spiritual matters. Although the film was a bit slow in the beginning the pace seemed to pick up soon after and, when the story did begin to unfold, we were treated to some fine performances and storytelling. I will encourage others to view the Sobbing Stone if anything for it's unabashed commitment and willingness to be an original work with fine storytelling. I'm sure the director has a place in the entertainment industry. There is a great void in Hollywood for this kind of material and it seems there are productions stepping up to the plate.

The Christian movie tropes in The Sobbing Stone are more or less par for the course in this cinematic genre: scientists who know nothing of the scientific method; atheists who don't really disbelieve but are only angry at God because of something that happened to them as children; music with zero subtlety; location scouting with dubious results (does the slope of Golgotha really have lush trees and mown grass?); and so on. Sample words put in the mouth of atheists: "Science has proven that no god exists." (Wrong: atheists maintain that there is no reliable evidence, not that there is proof.) Sample words put in mouth of scientists: "There's no explanation for it; not even a theory." (In science a theory IS an explanation, one with firm evidentiary support). Sample scientific method: When a group of psychic researchers (I'm not sure the writer realized that is what you would label the Ghostbusters) are given the task for figuring out why the title stone is making noises, their first decision is "the professor says the sounds come randomly, so no sense recording times when sounds are observed." Right: deliberately avoid gathering data. Sample line: "Have you ever murdered someone?" Only in a Christian movie would the hearer of that line do anything but back away slowly, then turn and bolt.

The story, though conceptually a little clever, is particularly unsavory. It drives home the thesis that human beings are worthless, and that nobody, however well intentioned they may be, would have supported the saviour in his time of trial.

As a movie, it fails most fundamentally because its mystery's solution is detectable within minutes of the film's opening. Much of the acting is silly at best when it is not just embarrassing. The music seems to have been composed in whole notes entirely on the bottom octave of a synthesizer. The characters are utterly unlikeable (which I supposed matches the basic premise). And the camera work is just plain ugly to behold. There were numerous laugh-out-loud moments (like when one researcher speculates from the sounds of echoes around footsteps that it must have happened at night??) but most of the film is painful to watch due to its gross misrepresentation of, well, the quality of humanity. Not recommended to those who would watch it ironically; it will probably be eaten up by its target audience, if their cinematic expectations take an extreme backseat to their theological views.