eqmanson-68588

And God Made Man is a terrible movie for all the cinematic schlock reasons, not the least of which is the use of montage with narration to paper over large sections of the plot, but that is a minor concern. Why does the county courthouse look like a State Capitol building? Why is the judge never shown in the same shot with anyone else in the courtroom? Why does the incessant cello solo musical score sound so familiar to viewers of other films of this genre? But the movie transcends moviemaking badness with its propaganda. Three of the characters are men falsely claiming to be trans women. (Note I did not say "claiming to be women.") They are clearly not actually transitioning. They make no attempt to present as women. The closest one wears a thick mustache, a comical wig, and a dress that Norman Bates would be embarrassed to be seen in. The makers apparently never met or spoke with a genuine trans person, or (for that matter) genuine lawyer, educator, judge, doctor, hospital administrator, or progressive minister. Why would a movie about trans women put forth characters so obviously bogus, if not hateful? Because the movie seeks only to elicit cheers from audiences that agree with its premise, by regurgitating misinformation or outright falsehoods. An insult to medicine, education, science, the law, the practice of law, and religion.

Leap: A Tale of the End Days has all the hallmarks of amateurish Christian cinema: shoddy camerawork, illogical framing, padding the runtime with meaningless montages, uneven sound, songs intruding on the action for no purpose, characters behaving inscrutably, questionable sports, purchased special effects that stick out from the cheap cinematography like a sore thumb, and of course a plot that relies on cherry-picked Bible quotes. It stands out from the crowd, not so much by self-referential passages (where a character in this, a sequel, actually watches the preceding film on video!), but by breaking the Christian cinematic convention of clean mouths (some amazing cursing dialogue is heard) and bloody violence (not counting the stuff coming from rivers and water faucets). As usual, the good guys are the Christians, and a very specific type of Christian. I would bet a dime to a dollar that filmmaker Christopher Temple does not really know any actual Catholics, based on his portrayal of a college senior "brought up Catholic" whose responses to questions about religion bear zero resemblance to how any Catholic - good, bad, active or lapsed - would talk. I won't spoil the ending, but lets just say it is infuriating how the worst characters win because they espouse the "correct" interpretation of the Bible, and others lose no matter that they pray fervently every second of their waking lives.

Two stars for the uproariously funny performance of Annalise Cook as the television reporter. Also rib-tickling are the closing credits, which mention one name so many times I fear the Sin of Pride may have overtaken him.