I'm Not Jesus Mommy (2010) User Reviews

Idiotic

[racedowling · 2/10 · 26 June 2012]

So rife with scientific errors, but since apparently the film was written for entertaining homeschooled Christian wingnuts, they probably didn't feel scientific accuracy was important.

First, you cannot clone from red blood cells because they contain no DNA. But assuming that you got some white blood cells, you couldn't clone from them since there has been 2000 years of degradation; the information is completely lost. That aside, assuming you could clone Christ and as they say make an exact duplicate (which you cannot BTW), why would he have no Semitic features whatsoever? The kid is the whitest white boy on the block. Finally, and I hate to break it to you if you don't know, but the Shroud of Turin was identified as a complete fraud by carbon dating it to the 13-14th century, so it would be like cloning someone from 1000 years after the alleged existence of Jesus of Nazareth (which again, you couldn't do anyway).

This is billed as a science fiction, but more properly it is just a Christian religious film regarding an interpretation of the end-times. I rated it a 3 rather than a 1 because you cam have it on as background when working on your computer. I only give ones to films that are so bad you have to watch the trainwreck.

Sincerity dampens the hilarity

[dinky-4 · 4/10 · 7 May 2011]

Contrary to its so-bad-it's-good reputation, this thematically-bizarre production plays out with such an earnest tone that the cynical viewer's laughter might very well die on the lips. The first half-hour, in fact, actually shows signs of promise, and there's little evidence of any problems caused by the film's reportedly slim budget. The story-line then jumps ahead seven years, however, and trouble arrives. America, according to the movie, is now in the grip of some sort of new Ice Age, and the cast spends the rest of its time bundled up like extras from Robert Altman's "Quintet," confined to dimly-lit rooms, their breath coming out in visible vapor. The cloning-divinity premise of the movie is so strong -- implausible but strong -- that this sudden swerve into an Ice Age apocalypse seems not only unnecessary but distracting. It's as if the writers' mistakenly thought their premise couldn't carry an entire movie so they decided to throw in something else. The movie weakens at this point and never recovers despite an ending that, to put it mildly, goes beyond the curious. One final note: co-writer, co-star Joe Schneider looks mighty good with his shirt off.

This film now re-released under different name!

[tricky1ricky · 4/10 · 3 December 2012]

This was re-released in 2012 under the title Devil's Angel. produced by Fortaleza Filmwork and distributed by Warner Brothers.

Language: English Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only) Rated: R (Restricted) Studio: Maverick Entertainment Group DVD Release Date: November 13, 2012 Run Time: 86 minutes

Plot: Kimberly is the mother of the world's first successful human clone, a son named David. Seven years after his birth the Earth is plagued with war, famine, and natural disasters that seem to be emanating from the young boy himself.

Review: After illegally implanting herself so she can have a baby, a woman pays for it later along with everyone else as the future deteriorates in the US. There is a connection between this and her young son, shown later at age 7, but you can guess what it is from the DVD cover. Creepy, and eerily shot with 35mm and some deliberate lack of focus.

Poorly written B movie with bad science and a worse climax

[ryansternmd · 1/10 · 22 January 2012]

I'm Not Jesus Mommy is poorly written. I can not leave a spoiler because the conclusion is so vague and the story line so poorly developed that the viewer can not be sure what happened. I was struck by several things about the film from the start that made the story line impossible. First, it is no secret that the plot hinges on a child cloned from the blood stains on the Shroud of Turin. So, anything I tell you about that aspect tells you no more than you already know. The film begins with the secretive, questionable fertility clinic performing human cloning. In a scene where the process is being explained to new scientists recruited for the clinic, the head doctor says that the clones are made from red blood cells. Fact: red blood cells have no DNA or nucleus unlike other cells in the body. Clones are normally made from cells lining the stomach. Strike one. During this presentation, the head doctor shows on a screen a power-point presentation of human DNA used for cloning. In DNA, it is a double helix formed of two base pairs of nucleic acids. The graphics on the film show not base pairs or even two single strands of bases: it shows two strands of base triplets. Fact: nowhere in any organism's DNA are nucleotides in triplets or groups of six; all organism's DNA is in base pairs. Strike two. While the head doctor is manipulating tissue to get more clones, he is shown slicing off large chunks of tissue (from what is probably raw meat from the grocery), which is not the way clone DNA is obtained. Stike three. The plausibility of the film's plot basis is lost in the first few scenes. In some places I found humor. While the head doctor is preparing his tissue samples for cloning, he is listening to Ave Maria, a classical piece of Roman Catholic liturgy praising Mary as the mother of Jesus. Chance or simply too obvious a choice by the film makers?

After this disappointing start that most with a high school knowledge of genetics and human anatomy would know is flawed, we jump several years to an apocalyptic world with no explanation. More time is spent on meaningless following of fundamentalist Christian beliefs about the second coming than in explaining what is happening.

The film also amuses with obvious flaws in costuming that we are not supposed to notice. In order to make the protagonist doctor look more academic, she wears glasses. But she wears them in scenes where accurate vision is not needed and fails to wear them when she would need them most. After she has been developed as a character, the glasses disappear completely. If this woman needs glasses, why is she not wearing them at the appropriate times and wearing them at the inappropriate times?

The film might interest some fundamentalist Christians as it compares well with films on the anti-Christ and the Rapture. But for an educated audience, when it finally ends, we are left without knowing how it has ended. Few films at the end leave me in doubt as to what the climax was or what it meant.

So, file this one away with other B movies based on Revelations. Watch it with an intelligent person and you will both be discussing for some time what the ending was. That is why a spoiler is almost impossible. You would have to be able to give away the ending to provide a spoiler.

Frustrating but I watched the whole thing

[sommer_alvarez · 5/10 · 10 July 2012]

Huge Spoiler Alert!

I would probably never watch this movie again but there is something to say for the fact that I watched the entire thing so it wasn't that bad...but Im not exactly a movie critic either. I think the biggest problem with this movie is most peoples inability to process the information...or lack of it, and gain an understanding. Most people want to be told a story thats somewhat believable...a story that could almost be true. I think on one level this story is that story that could almost be true but we are missing some hints or foreshadowing that can give a tighter grip on who exactly David is. How frustrating! I HATE endings that tell me nothing. This movie appears to do just that. However, after racking my brain to figure it out, I think I get it...and the movie could be genius with people just not realizing it. Depends on directors/writers knowledge and how they were meaning to play it. This is my opinion that I wrote on another forum discussing some questions people had about certain things in the movie. Its on who David is in this movie...more specifically if he is evil or not.

The basic plot is set upon biblical apocalypse theory. It is set in pre-tribulation days and/or during tribulation. Tribulation is a time period when famine and disease will sweep the world and basically a spiritual battle for people is waged, hence the sores that suddenly appear on their skin, lack of food, etc. The disappearing people are a biblical reference to the rapture. Those who know Christ as their savior will be raptured (brought straight to heaven...there are differing theories on when during tribulation this will happen). At first I assumed that Davids friend was evil but I am not so sure. IMO his friend is an angel...I just don't know, for sure, if he is a fallen angel or a heavenly angel/messenger. David is not the anti-Christ or spawn of Satan because he is not old enough. Tribulation lasts 7 years I think. According to the bible, the anti-Christ is an adult leader or king of some sort at the start. According to the actions of David, I would say he is a heavenly angel/messenger. Evil likes to take full control and destroy and we don't see that in Davids case. Now, does that mean it is not a lower ranking demon (fallen angel)? Who knows. David, brings his mouse friend back to life, he says he will bring his mother back to life, and of course, he tells the doc that God would not like what he is doing and tells him what his greatest sin is. Nothing that points to evil unless David was directly causing the doc to shoot his mother or himself. The director doesn't make it clear what the spiritual or unseen forces are here so it is hard to make the decision on David based on those instances. David also does not seem to suffer from any of the pestilences or famine (he doesn't eat) and he rises from the dead without any seeming help. Based on the superficial evidence presented, I say David has a holy protector since he is from holy blood. I don't think we have enough evidence on the unseen to read between the lines and be able to come to a consensus...it will be pure opinion. As for why his mother doesn't want to be revived. For those who know great suffering and know what awaits them in the kingdom of heaven, there is no greater longing than for that of death. It is the absoluteness of her choice in Christ. I think its possible David is happy that his mother chose Christ and hence the rapture. He didn't seem real convincing when he was saying "let me save you mommy" and he wasn't too depressed that she was gone. It could be argued that he was emotionally disconnected but if that was the case, he would have had no desire to assert to her that he would save her when he asked her if she was dying. He would have no concern for her death at all. The clincher for me is when David is baptized. Now this would all depend on the directors knowledge of Christian symbolism and/or which direction he intended to play on. He is marked on the forehead with an upside down cross. I personally think the director is playing on the normal persons ignorance of the meaning of that. Most people would see the burned mark and think the holy water burned him because he is evil (think spraying holy water on a possessed person during an exorcism) and the upside down cross is in defiance of God. There is a reference in the bible of Christians being marked on the forehead. There is also a reference of people having the mark of the beast (satan) on their forehead/ hand. It would be easy to once again go back to the idea that it could be either or, BUT...the mark David bears is not one associated with the beast. Contrary to public opinion, the upside down cross is not in defiance of Christ. It was actually the personal symbol of a saint or pope (I don't remember who) that was crucified. He requested to be crucified upside down because he did not see himself worthy of dying the way Christ did. It is a symbol of humility and unworthiness...hence the title " I am not Jesus Mommy". I don't think he is saying "Im the opposite of Jesus"...I think he is implying he is a humble servant.

Again this is just my opinion and I could have missed something or misinterpreted but I think its half the fun trying to figure it out. I would just like to possibly give some peace to a mind that is frustrated with this movie.

Terrible acting and loopy story make this unwatchable

[nutz4you60 · 1/10 · 22 July 2012]

First off, I'm always the type to push myself to watch every movie through to it's end, some will surprise you and the ending will make it all worth it. Sometimes. But not in the case of this movie. As many have already mentioned there are numerous factual errors that will make even the most polite and grounded viewers roll their eyes. The acting is soap opera bad. Something's up and the character will give that 'who farted' stare. Honestly, the child is probably the best actor in this movie. The movie jumps '7 years' into the future with hardly any explanation as to what's going on. You realize it's the end of times but wouldn't a story of how we have gotten to that point been more interesting than watching s guy tell his sister and niece they have to ask the lord for forgiveness? I won't lie and say the plot of the movie has some promise but that promise is translated into a wreck of a movie with acting that will make you laugh. I've seen kids fake cough with more convincing execution. Bad movie but if you have nothing better to do than gouge your eyes out with spoons take this turd for a drive.

Bad Science, Bad Theology, Bad Movie

[mdiv2000 · 2/10 · 23 August 2012]

If it were only the mangled science and the poorly crafted ending, I would rate this movie higher. I found it on Hulu listed as Horror, but that doesn't do it justice. The movie is a horror on so many levels. Other reviewers have noted the scientific issues, along with the less-than-stellar production values, so I won't repeat those criticisms here. My primary concern is the bad theology on which the film is based. Theologically, the film fails. The early scenes in the military compound/lab are obviously anti-abortion, and the idea that women could be forced to participate in the experiment because they are undocumented immigrants reeks of a cross between Nazism and Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. There is also a strong tendency toward the judgmental, punishing God of Pat Robertson and his ilk, and very little by way of the God who loved the world so much as to send Jesus to save it.

Family Affair

[roswelljones-343-887744 · 3/10 · 20 December 2012]

This was by any measure a bad film. I cannot defend the poor writing, the poor acting and horrible casting, they are indefensible. This was basically a family project financed, produced, directed, written and acted by a husband and wife team...and it shows. The other reviews are so unkind that they deserve mention. The lead actress is a plain woman who is as they say politely "full figured" and is the star because she is the Exectutive Producer and Produce, therefore she paid for the movies and ergo she is the star. To refer to her as fat and ugly is cruel and unkind. I do think that she could have been prepped better, but I would also note that some TV stars are less attractive and larger that she is, but are fawned over by the press. Also the religious sub theme of this film is attacked in almost every review, had the theme been the coming of Satan it would have been received more favorably. Let's just say this is a BAD Sci Fi film and leave it at that.

awful movie

[romeo2323 · 1/10 · 4 July 2012]

this a low cheap movie a sci fi low budget movie, first terrible and in no good shape actors, the principal role is leading for a fat ugly girl, in the first scene show her bad feet (go first to the pedicure) and the dude is kind of archie or Robert Redford after 100 plastic operations......i don't understand where those people are come from??? the director found on the street walking????? well the story is know for everybody,but please why we have to see this kind of movies there are no some first professional review? as always the first review of this movie was from some of the crew....the director of this movie must be ban and all the people inside... don't waste your time bad bad movie

What we are willing to accept as art

[Movie-Bandit · 1/10 · 21 January 2013]

There is simply too many issues with this film to list them all. However, the most blaring of them all, Bridget McGrath should never step on stage or a set again. "Devil's Angel" or "I'm not Jesus mommy" had such potential but was poorly acted and executed. I will not add spoilers to this review, nor will I provide an opinion on the premise of this film. I will say, thank goodness for Redbox. At $1.20 I don't feel as cheated, heck if available on Netflix, the price is ever lower depending on the quantity of movies you watch in a month.

While Bridget McGrath is a lousy, unattractive actress, I am more appalled at what is considered art. No, I am not an actor, nor a writer. I am simply a member of the masses which enjoy movies/films. If you which to waste 98 mins of your life and add another film to your list, go ahead and watch it. But be warned, you will walk away scratching your head asking yourself, what the hell did I just watch.

"Man Made" is a worst-case scenario of what happens when human cloning goes bad.

[Anonymous_AAO · 8/10 · 10 October 2010]

I saw the film at a screening where the director was in attendance and I understand the film has not been released yet, I'm very curious how it will resonate with audiences, but here's my take on it; First off, if you're offended by mad scientists destroying human fetuses, abuse of Mexican immigrants or the human cloning process in general, you will be fired up by this film.I'll be surprised if this film doesn't end up getting some very negative attention from special-interest groups. That being said, the film didn't have even one bit of profanity, nudity or on-camera violence.

Vaughn Juares, the film's director, was in attendance at a small screening I attended and in a Q&A after the film Juares stated that "Man Made" was based on the Biblical Book of Revelations. Seeing the film without that reference I didn't pick up on that right away, but I'm also not a Bible-nut.

The film was done with a "Hitchcock-like" approach with off-camera violence and the use of graphic sounds to get the point across. I'm not sure if that's because of Juares' creative vision or if budget constraints played a greater role in defining his approach (Juares mentioned that the film had a very tight budget which was NOT obvious when watching the film - besides no stars in the movie, it looked like a real Hollywood production).

"Man Made" is very engaging, it pushes a lot of buttons and it has the potential to start a really heated public discussion.

I recommend "Man Made" to anyone who's worried about where the world might be headed.

Not as bad as the reviews portray

[candiceloves · 6/10 · 30 December 2012]

Aside from some of the errors already pointed out (like about the DNA, cloning process, red blood cells...etc), I thought the movie was overall pretty decent.

The acting was OK, and even though our lovely lead/executive producer was a bit "overweight" by Hollywood standards, I thought it gave it a more "real" effect.

This is one of those movies where I wish they had explained things a little better so it would make sense because this isn't the kind of film that I'll want to watch again to get all the Jesus references.

The little boy David, portrayed by Rocko Hale was done very well. I have a thing against child actors who cannot act but he did a very good job. I do wonder who's son he is or who he's connected to get a lead role.

The ending had me questioning if he was good or evil but since it has since been re-released under the title "Devil's Angel", I guess I have my answer.

I say watch it if you want some cheesy B style scary movie thrills! Not as good as Insideous but not as bad as what these reviews might make you think!

My name is Kudles

[nogodnomasters · 1/10 · 26 January 2018]

When I read about the film in the Redbox, it reveals information that is not revealed in the film until the last 5-10 minutes. I won't do that per se, but the film is so bad, spoilers won't matter.

Full figured Dr. Kimmy Gabriel (Bridget McGrath) can not have a child, but keeps on trying. She is very pro-life and reluctantly accepts a position at a human clone project under Dr. Roger Gibson (Charles Hubbell). She steals a cloned embryo and implants it in herself. The film jumps to seven years later as the world is thrust into a post apocalyptic nightmare as Kimmy and her son David (Rocko Hale) live in a run down tenement living off government MRE handouts.

The film has heavy religious messages as both lesion faced Kim and Roger are very religious and frequently read from the Bible and listen to radio preachers. This appears to be a "come to Jesus film" except the "good guys" do nothing heroic to save the day or themselves. Indeed, if anything they appear to be part of the problem which is to make a statement about the condition of human existence.

This film is very low budget. The sets are meager. The acting is bad and dialouge has a religious corniness to it. It fails to get interesting until 10 minutes before the final credits and by then you pray for the end.

Knowing the "secret" of the film by reading the by-line I couldn't help but think during the film..."Funny. He doesn't look Jewish."

Parental Guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity. Bridget McGrath cleavage.

Must Watch

[maryst-helen · 9/10 · 3 October 2010]

I recently was invited to an early, private screening of this film by a friend of one of the film makers.

I was going to give my opinion of the film, which I thought I had already formulated based on the synopsis; not my taste.

The second coming of Christ... through cloning... too far fetched for my blood. That was the opinion that I was building up. I was considering how to voice my opinion, should a Q and A arise. I was prepared.

I was wrong.

This film is very impressive. Director Vaughn Juares has knocked on out of the park.

More impressive than the film is that Vaughn and his wife Bridget McGrath shot this film over the course of 2 years for almost no money. I was blown away when I heard this.

This film looks like a Hollywood movie. It sounds like a Hollywood movie. The actors, though nameless, act like Hollywood actors.

Don't Hollywood movies cost millions of dollars? This story is very thoughtful and gritty-real. It could happen. For Christ's sake I hope not, though. Vaughn Juares and his writing partner, Joseph Schneider, have proved they know how to tell a story worth the inflated price of a movie ticket.

The rumor is that Man Made will film next spring. Watch it as soon as you get a chance.

An interesting interpretation of the Bible's Book of Revelations

[filmdemic · 7/10 · 10 May 2011]

The film begins very soft and clean with a female hero who is willing to sacrifice anything to achieve her dream of being a mother while ironically being a fertility specialist. The first part of the film is quite typical, very smooth and simple with good looking people in good looking apartments with nice jobs, cars and all thing things you'd expect from a rom-com, but not funny. But then, once our hero makes a fatal mis-step, the world is thrown in to chaos.

A crude graphic comes on screen and we're suddenly pushed "Seven years later," and we jump from sitcom to disaster film. The jump is huge and might throw some viewers off track, but after seeing the film for a second time (and the benefit of research), it is clear now what Juares and Schneider set out to do. The problem is that the film doesn't telegraph it with "Hey, this is a movie based on Revelations," and the sudden theological references require some thinking form the audience that wasn't asked of them in the first act. The break in the film makes it feel like two separate films and based on how deliberate the filmmakers were in setting it all up, is clearly intentional and with purpose. I found myself, the first time I viewed the film, having to quickly readjusted my expectations and get in to the world that was suddenly dropped on top of me.

The picture then follows, quite carefully, the theological breakdown of the world as told in the Book of Revelations (or the "Apocalypse" for you Catholic folks). Sores start appearing on some characters, not all, which seem to represent the "mark of the Devil," the Rapture is easily identified in a sort of "Left Behind" treatment of the phenomenon, and despite the last two thirds of the film playing out in confined rooms no larger than your typical 2-car garage, it's engaging. The film is a bit overwrought with symbolism and metaphors that will just fly over the head of the average movie-goer, but that's right in line with the Book of Revelations itself which features purple-headed dragons and whores of Babylon (by the way it's also quite obvious that the USA = Babylon in the film which I found particularity well done).

Overall this film is about arrogance and the consequences of doing what you know you shouldn't no matter how bad you want it. Seems simple enough, right? There are only a few signs of "low-budget" film-making during the entire 90 minute show, but nothing that stands out as ridiculous or absurd with exception to a scene where a doctor listens to "Ave Maria" while cutting up one of his creations with an Exacto blade. Overall the piece was well constructed and the filmmakers certainly shot for the moon in their first efforts to make a splash. The skills of the film making team are clearly substantial and they should get a pat on the back for trying to do something so large and complex the first time out.

What's Not To LIke?

[revbighig · 6/10 · 16 March 2015]

Several male reviewers were quite upset about the lead actress being over-weight and unattractive. These knuckle-dragging sexists would have preferred Lindsey Lohan, no doubt. I don't recall any female comments being concerned with how skinny Charles Hubbell was – kudos to them all. Hubbell though, was noted frequently as an unknown actor of little skill, despite a long list of credits on IMDb itself. He is a fine actor in this movie and elsewhere. Then we have the "scientists" out there upset over the lack of scientific logic in a fantasy/horror movie about the Apocalypse.

Now I'll admit I was having some troubles with this movie at the beginning. I almost gave up on it. The major research facility looked like a walk-in-clinic in a strip mall. But that "Seven Years Later" CONELRAD deal woke me up and piqued my interest, along with some later twists and surprises. (And Hubbell's amazing descent into evangelical madness.) I think I know who that was at the very end: the Slender Man? Christopher Walken? The Tall Man from Phantasm? Oral Roberts? You decide; that's what makes vague endings fun and a source of discussion. The movie was weird, interesting, and different. I liked it.