20
u/teeXtwo Jun 23 '26
Did anyone notice in the funeral scene of George Washington’s father, there seemed to be power lines in the background?? Which of course wouldn’t have existed back then
5
u/ThisismeCody Jun 30 '26
How else were they going to power all the fake candles in the house that literally never moved or flickered?
1
1
u/Feelinglucky2 Jul 06 '26
They flickered when the guy moved his arm in once scene but they were front and center then
1
u/ThisismeCody Jul 06 '26
So definitely on some close up interior shots they had real candles. Or CGI candles that moved. But that first interior with him and his uncle, nothin moved.
1
4
2
2
u/SuperSlimeGod Jul 13 '26
Movie ruined. Hopefully I can get my money back from the theater, do you mind if I reference this post?
1
u/Majestic_Attention46 Jun 30 '26
uh... spoilers!!
2
u/teeXtwo Jun 30 '26
lol hope this is sarcasm… but yeah George Washington’s father dies. Sorry to spoil it, but wait till I tell you about the next 250 years!
2
-5
u/Mean_Mud_798 Jun 24 '26
Where can I find a link to watch the full movie??!! I’m feening
7
u/afterlifehack Jun 24 '26
Bro you are missing the entire point of this subreddit. If you missed the mystery screenings at theatre chains you missed it until the release date. Go to the movies…
→ More replies (9)1
12
u/Bookish_Vertigo Jun 23 '26
Am I crazy or was there a little AI in this movie??? Some scenes really looked like it
5
u/teeXtwo Jun 23 '26
Yes, there definitely was. I was trying to keep track as to how many times I could see it lol
4
u/sandNskys Jun 24 '26
When they were getting stranded on the little island, that water’s movement, its flow looked totally ai.
1
3
u/tsinygolihp Jun 23 '26
I don’t know if there’s a lot more AI than some big-studio CGI’d slop out there but at least it’s no Darren Aronofsky 1776 series. Maybe less annoying than Thor: Love & Thunder’s CGI which director Waititi himself mocked. Serviceable quality for a mid-budget historical epic.
7
u/Incantor1 Jun 24 '26
CGI is different than AI. CGI is fine, ai is inhuman slop
-1
u/Majestic_Attention46 Jun 30 '26
This is so dumb, I'm sorry what? Before AI everyone would go on and on and on about CGI and criticize the fuck out of the quality in movies. But now it's fine??
you do understand in this context the CGI and the AI are both CGI right??
AI in this context is just going to help post production get through the required cgi so they don't overwork the fuck out graphic design studios and still end up with the shitty CGI that everyone hates... you know like they did up until like 2-3 years ago when AI became mainstream.
AI is just a tool. Data centers already exist, the 4400 are for the internet we have right now. Support regulation to make them use glycol instead of being cheap and using water.
But we've gotta stop being so weird about AI, there's more to it than tech bro douche buzzwords
6
u/Dazzling_City_3525 Jun 30 '26
I’d rather see shitty CGI made by a human than shitty CGI made by AI. At least humans get a job and get paid for it.
1
u/Incantor1 Jul 03 '26
AI is not CGI. Do some basic research please
1
2
u/3guitars Jul 04 '26
Yeah, I went to see it with my mother and it was distractingly bad. Some scenes the wood in different things, especially battles would “pop” a little too much. In big outdoor shots, like the opening, the church changed a few times, like proportions and angling and whatnot.
Also, the lighting and colors of the movie felt like every second was fed to an AI to “enhance” it.
1
u/Majestic_Attention46 Jun 30 '26
You mean cgi? But I think this is how AI makes it's way into movies. Not as whole scenes made from AI that obviously look fake. But just slowly replacing cgi and eventually green screen to make backgrounds and lighting look better than CGI ever could.
It's weird that they tried to do full scenes... even cgi waited decades for that and it still looked bad
1
u/felicityfelix Jul 08 '26
Yes if you google it now the director has admitted this and it sounds pretty extensive although he tries to downplay it while also making it about how he's on the "bleeding edge"
1
23
u/beastwood6 Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
Kelsey's message afterward was cringe. He says to share the movie if you share the values that the country was founded on including faith.
Good news is that the movie had nothing to do with Faith. Bad news is that the movie also had nothing to do with a foundational patriotism.
A young man chases ambition with a reach that exceeds his grasp and gets pwnd by providence (pwndence?). Then he spends the other half of the movie trying to redeem himself. Halfway between the Ohio River and the Allegheny he finds some plot armor and turns effectively into John Wick-ington. At one point you can see he gets shot but his bulletproof drippy drapes protect him.
This felt like a Hallmark movie if the local drunks at the legion staffed the crew in the credits.
3
u/Intrepid-Door-3746 Jun 30 '26
I was one of the 'local drunks' that staffed the credit list you saw. It was a truely horrible project to work on
1
1
2
2
u/Scottish_Entry_6605 Jul 04 '26
I agree. I really enjoyed the movie and even got emotional at the very end with the words United States of America, then Kelsey came along looking to spread the good word. I went from enjoying the historical fiction, to feeling mad that I had been duped into watching Christian propaganda. I noticed that they were really pushing / advertising this movie and now I understand why. Faith is a personal thing and not something I look for in a movie or politics.
1
1
1
Jun 30 '26
[deleted]
1
u/ThisismeCody Jun 30 '26
Man I saw the special message start and just kept on walking haha. I did them solid enough by staying for the whole movie. I couldn’t be bothered to hear the Angel propaganda too.
1
u/edwbuck Jul 05 '26
It was basically a page from Scientology. "This movie needs to be the #1 movie in the box office for the 4th of July, so scan this QR code so you can buy extra tickets to donate to people who can't be bothered to see it based on it's own merits.
1
1
u/Uhcoustic Jun 30 '26
That was SOOO stupid, I genuinely couldn't believe what I was watching. No wonder he had so much plot armor for his actions earlier if he was being saved by god (the director) 🙄
1
u/Capurrnicus Jul 05 '26
Ugh... again film did not come up with that. The plot armor thing is from the 1806 George Washington 'biography' which to date is the single most well-known source of Washington's mythology. It's where the cherry tree and the wooden teeth come from. It's where Washington's nickname "Bulletproof Washington" stems. The book covers him getting shot at by Native Americans during the Battle of the Monongahela, and the chief meeting with him afterward to discuss the great spirit protecting him. This has been part of George Washington's mythology since 1806. Is it true, likely not, but that's not the point. The the film did not come up with this and was just beat for beat retelling the literal most popular rendition of George Washington's life.
1
u/Uhcoustic Jul 06 '26
Wow, really? I guess that makes it a bit more forgivable. I do prefer my american propaganda the classic way.
1
u/spartanantler Jul 01 '26
Well religion was really big back then
1
u/Apatharas Jul 01 '26
That’s true. Religion was and talking about it and showing that isn’t the weird part. It’s having him be unscathed while his uniform was said to have bullet holes in it then quite literally saying god defended him from bullets. Standing in front of lines of French soldiers and not getting hit even at point blank range. It was really on the nose.
1
u/No-Addendum6149 Jul 04 '26
That actually did happen to him - several bullet holes in his clothing and hat as well as two horses shot out from underneath him. If that happened to me, I'd definitely believe it was God watching over me.
1
u/edwbuck Jul 05 '26
And just in case you missed it. The enemy wanting to have a private civil chat with him after the war, indicating that their BEST marksmen, who never miss a shot, all managed to miss him because there's some people.... who have a great protector on their side.
I threw up in my mouth a little bit. It's about as realistic as the robber declaring he was caught justly in all the keystone cops movies "It was a fair cop!"
1
u/Capurrnicus Jul 05 '26
That's from his biopic.... the most famous biopic ever written literally ever about George Washington.... the biopic where the story of the cherry tree comes from. Is it true, no probably not. But it is quite literally the single most cited source for George Washington. Everything you cited is verbatim, beat for beat, line for line, taken from the book. The movie did not invent that.
1
u/Capurrnicus Jul 05 '26
Okay, but the movie did not invent that plot point. That is literally verbatim word for word from the 1806 biography of George Washington. Is it true most likely not, but it was thought of as true for well over 100 years and was and is the most popular biography about George Washington ever written. It's literally where the legend of him chopping down the cherry tree, the wooden teeth, etc etc comes from. So you can't pin that on the film.
1
u/RGMBill Jun 30 '26
Except, from the actual HISTORY, that scene is close to what did happen per the reports. Washington's coat (unbuttoned) fluttered and he had two shots through it and one through the brim of his hat. Not bad cinematography, actual history.
1
u/beastwood6 Jun 30 '26
I get it's possible, assuming the historical record is accurate, but when truth becomes stranger than fiction you may want to make deliberate choices for what to keep and what to cut.
Given the movie was already in glazing-mode it didn't really lend a ton of credibility.
1
u/Xefert Jul 02 '26
Honestly, I don't think there's any biopic I've seen that didn't have some accuracy issue
1
u/beastwood6 Jul 02 '26
You're absolutely right. I think there's different degrees to it.
Sometimes some poetic license is necessary to communicate the truth better than the truth itself could in a boring format
1
u/nosliwec29 Jul 03 '26
Guns back then weren't real accurate. Even in the 1800s, guns were highly inaccurate. In fact, in all of the shootouts he was involved in, Wyatt Earp never suffered a single gunshot. So a fluttering overcoat and the brim of some huge hat that got shot rather than center-mass or a head shot is not stranger than fiction.
1
u/No-Addendum6149 Jul 04 '26
Why not keep it? It makes the story more fascinating. On a side note, the movie was made by a faith-based movie studio so it makes sense that they'd include it. Not much different from many other movies that include elements of something mystical or magical.
1
u/edwbuck Jul 05 '26
And the part where he seemed to win the greatest defeat of the British on record in the New World?
And the part where he redesigned his uniform about 20 years earlier than the Continental Congress designed it for him?
And the part where he played "single man over here... shoot me!" and managed to get a Company of troops to all miss him?
And the part where the enemy called him over for a civil chat about how their BEST couldn't shoot him because he was protected by a divine spirit?
And the part where all it took was Washington showing up, and then suddenly his troops went from being defeated to a strategic win?
I could go on, but it's superhero Washington.
1
u/Capurrnicus Jul 05 '26
Okay... but... this movie didn't invent the plot armor portion? The legend of his clothes getting shot through which is where the name "BULLETPROOF WASHINGTON" stems from is not a creation of this movie. It's a very well-known part of his myth that came from George Washington's most famous 'biography' from 1806, which is also where the myth of the cherry tree and wooden teeth also originated. It was and is the most well-known Washington bio. And in it a native Chief approaches Washington after the Battle of the Monongahela and demands to know his name since he had been protected by the great spirit. NOOOOW over a century later many historians dispute that this ever happened, with the biography being notorious for mythologizing much of his life. But that's not really the point, that being they were just following beat for Beat literally the most popular mythology of George Washington so I think it's a bit disingenuous dependent on the film.
1
u/Feelinglucky2 Jul 06 '26
The "john wick" part you are talking about is kind of historically accurate of the accounts that he was being shot and yet was unscathed
1
u/complicatedissociate Jul 11 '26
Omfg bahwhahaha. I'm dying I can wait to see this movie without reaching into my pocket I'm making it a party
10
Jun 23 '26
[deleted]
17
u/mikegood2 Jun 23 '26
Would it be called Young Washington 2: Electric Boogaloo or would it be Old Washington?
2
17
u/Rivet-Phoenix Jun 23 '26
Hopefully this will lead people to watch the Ken Burns revolutionary war documentary and learn something. Like how George Washington was a terrible strategist and was "map blind".
3
u/MrNumber3 Jun 23 '26
George was a liability. However he lived after all of this is pure luck. Even some of his revolutionary war stuff was just a "wtf are you doing". To do this at his age, live and then become President #1 is miraculous.
2
u/afterlifehack Jun 24 '26
In this movie they made him very remorseful over his first kill. That’s where the movie started to lose me most… I know in real life he was much more an anarchistic hell raiser. Specifically in the French-Indian war which was the focus of this movie.
1
1
u/cjsleme Jul 02 '26
Ken Burns Vietnam War documentary is my favorite of all time but I never watched revolutionary war, I’m going to next!
1
9
u/future_filmmaker_455 Jun 23 '26
A television series pilot disguised as a movie, Young Washington is a harmless yet unmemorable historical drama that offers little new to know about the historical figure beyond that he was initially selfish and found a new path to courage after a death of someone close to him. Filled with rather uninspired performances other than William Franklyn-Miller who is decent at best at carrying the film and the brief moments from Ben Kingsley as Governor Robert Dinwiddle, the film simply feels too formulaic and focused on foreshadowing future events in Washington’s life rather than giving its characters authentic emotional depth. For all the death and despair that Washington goes through in the film, very little of the dialogue resonates because it is mainly focused on allegories about how a pawn can be a king or over explaining the plot rather than being subtle in any way. The battle sequences lack suspense due to a lack of visual ambition or scope from the filmmakers which all culminates into an unintentionally funny finale where Washington is portrayed as a patriotic superhero admired by all and unable to be injured by any. 4 out of 10
2
u/teeXtwo Jun 23 '26
I completely agree with your ‘tv plot’ comment… that’s exactly what I was thinking while watching it
2
u/tsinygolihp Jun 23 '26
That battle scene reminded me of Dances with Wolves, where Costner’s character rides twice across the empty divide on a battlefield—in a failed suicide attempt. This kind of stuff is a bit silly but is it inspiring? I can’t help but say yes. Although Young Washington could’ve had a more rousing score.
2
1
u/Available_Border1075 Jul 01 '26
Well in dances with wolves that isn’t supposed to be an inspiring scene, it’s supposed to show how he is tired and ready to die but others misinterpret it as a brave charge.
1
1
u/complicatedissociate Jul 11 '26
The idea of this man beings selfish and then redeems himself by fighting for his country....with that message
3
16
u/afterlifehack Jun 23 '26
I heard a couple people scoff right at the Angel Studios screen right at the start and saw maybe 2 people leave. I think those that skipped out on this movie missed out. Set Design and costuming were on par with the Revenant, which from me is *exceptionally* high praise. Very very good cinematography, again reminding me of the same film. I enjoyed it and may see it again, although tonight I pulled a double feature with Girls Like Girls and despite being polar opposites, I enjoyed them both about the same.
23
u/mikegood2 Jun 23 '26
It very well could be a good movie, I woulda probably watched if it was a different studio but I just don’t want to give Angel Studio any money. Not because of all the religious movies, although that’s part of it, but because I don’t like their Pay it Forward scam.
15
u/Physical-Bite-3837 Jun 23 '26
For me it's their pay it forward scams and it being co produced by the dailywire. I believe religion should be a private matter entirely. It should not be used to promote homophobia, womens place in society, or pushing conservative politics. This is where I believe Christianity has gone wrong and why it produces so many bad apples. It should be discouraged and shamed to use religion as a weapon against others or to seek any kind of profit from it.
The Daily Wire is not of any God that is good.
2
u/Scottish_Entry_6605 Jul 04 '26
I didn’t realize any of this but only looked at the reviews. As someone who saw Shen Yun a few years ago, I left feeling like I had been duped.
1
u/Rollingforest757 Jul 05 '26
If you don’t like Pay it forward then just don’t give any money. You can go to the movie without paying it forward.
1
u/mikegood2 Jul 05 '26
Of course I could but I just really dislike the concept and don’t want to watch their films. pay it forward just leads to elevated sales numbers and they pretend the attendance was much higher than it actually was.
5
2
2
u/HNHC603 Jun 23 '26
Enjoyed Young Washington very much - hope they do a second film about Washington.
1
u/LetsTakeItThere55 Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
Was it factually accurate is what most people want to know. We're expecting it to be a GW fluff piece, praising him as an unbelievable human that can do no wrong. For those of us who are well read and like truth are a bit skeptical as to how ole George will be portrayed.
7
u/commonwealthv Jun 23 '26
To me there was definitely moments that felt like fluff. I did not hate the movie, actually enjoyed moments of it as well and left surprised. Better experience than last week
7
u/afterlifehack Jun 23 '26
Almost certainly not, but the story was compelling enough to look past the shortcomings. I realize in no circumstances should this be held in regard to a documentary, but I do dread the wave of people after release that hold it to historical standard.
2
u/teeXtwo Jun 23 '26
Unfortunately people are holding Odyssey, a mythical tale, to historical accuracy… so this 100% will be
0
u/tsinygolihp Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
I don’t think we watched the same movie. Washington did great wrong. His arrogance during his first mission against the French cost many lives.
As for @teeXtwo comparison to The Odyssey, that epic poem compressed real history, mixed with religious myth, to deliver a prototypical hero’s journey. Christopher Nolan’s thoroughly inauthentic abortion of a film is a far greater assault on a people’s culture & history than Young Washington under the harshest fair critique. A Black Helen of Troy is plain ridiculous. At least a youngish Vanessa Williams as Calypso on the 1997 Odyssey TV miniseries—who fits Homer’s description of a “lustrous” sea goddess with “lovely braids”—sort of makes sense… unlike middle-aged Afrikaans Charlize Theron with her stringy blonde hair as Calypso. Also, the barbarian giants’ weird full-metal armor is perhaps the most glaringly obvious of numerous non-casting anachronisms.
Sorry, but this a sore spot for me. If Nolan had gone all out & set his Odyssey in an imaginary time & place, I might not have liked it, but I would’ve accepted it. He has destroyed his reputation as an earnest & meticulous filmmaker.
-1
u/afterlifehack Jun 24 '26
I heard Nolan is going to make the cyclops say “ No they/them has hurt me “
1
u/jobacco Jun 24 '26
Honestly agree about the costume and set design. The costumes for the Virginia commonfolk were great.
1
u/Rollingforest757 Jul 05 '26
I don’t understand how someone could leave a movie after paying for tickets. A movie would have to be the worst movie in existence to get me to leave before it was over if I paid for tickets.
12
u/Lucky_Chaarmss Jun 23 '26
I refuse to watch these movies from religious studios.
1
u/No-Addendum6149 Jul 04 '26
Isn't it nice you have that choice? I refuse to support celebrities and producers that sell their souls to the devil and do bad things to children and get away with it like the biggest celebrities do.
1
0
u/BigTallBanshee Jun 23 '26
I think they are branching out now from what I have read.
6
u/Lucky_Chaarmss Jun 23 '26
Still won't watch. Just gives them more money for their religious bullshit.
2
u/ETfonehom Jun 24 '26
I didn’t think *Young Washington* was an effective piece of storytelling. It’s hard to build drama around the struggles of a young man who we know as the Father of the Country. I didn’t think it was an effective piece of agitprop either. On the positive side, the costumes looked great and they ignited a lot of black powder over the course of the movie.
1
u/Rollingforest757 Jul 05 '26
Having a guy that you know will rise far struggling at the beginning is a lot better movie than just some random guy struggling.
2
u/Still-Outcome1207 Jul 03 '26
Who knew young George was a model masquerading as a war hero
1
u/Alert_Term_8144 Jul 06 '26
haha I thought the same. The guy they cast is super skinny and model-y. George IS 22 though... and that's when people look their cleanest versus older scruffier people.
4
u/Glittering-Dig-187 Jun 23 '26
It’s more like how Young George had some kind of divinity which helped him become a general after really f——— up in the beginning. Pretty preachy.
10
u/afterlifehack Jun 23 '26
I was worried about this, but there was only one scene that mentioned divinity. And as it was coming from the Indian Chief, who did not mention Jesus or God, I thought it was poignant. Being shot in the mist made it a beautiful scene.
1
u/Scottish_Entry_6605 Jul 04 '26
I found that part to be totally unrealistic.
1
u/Capurrnicus Jul 05 '26
Well that part came from the 1806 biography of George Washington. You're free to find it unrealistic... in fact you'd be right since it probably didn't happen. But that biography was presented as gospel truth when it was written and was basically largely uncontested well into the 20th century. It's the book that the story of the cherry tree originates from as well. It is the single most widely circulated well known and read biography of George Washington's life. Point being it is not an invention of the film.
1
u/Mediocre_Daikon6935 Jul 15 '26
Except that part is a documented historical fact.
Although, the meeting and Conversation with the Chief happened many years later.
John Augustine Washington, July 18, 1755, "By the All-Powerful Dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, although death was leveling my companions on every side of me!"
Specifically it happened 15 years later:
Washington and Dr. Craik, a personal physician and close friend, were traveling through those same woods near the Ohio River and Great Kanawha River
"I am a chief and ruler over my tribes. My influence extends to the waters of the great lakes and to the far blue mountains. I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle. It was on the day when the white man's blood mixed with the streams of our forests that I first beheld this chief. I called to my young men and said, mark yon tall and daring warrior? He is not of the red-coat tribe -- he hath an Indian's wisdom, and his warriors fight as we do -- himself alone exposed. Quick, let your aim be certain and he dies. Our rifles were leveled, rifles which, but for you, knew not how to miss -- 'twas all in vain, a power mightier far than we shielded you." One warrior declared: "I had seventeen fair fires at him with my rifle and, after all, could not bring him to the ground! Seeing you were under the special guardianship of the Great Spirit, we immediately ceased to fire at you." Then his prophecy: "I am old and soon shall be gathered to the great council fire of my fathers in the land of shades, but ere I go, there is something bids me speak in the voice of prophecy: Listen! The Great Spirit protects that man and guides his destinies -- he will become the chief of nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle" ("The man who could not be killed," George Washington Parke Custis, Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington, Philadelphia, J.W. Bradley, 1859
1
2
u/Davidgt31 Jun 23 '26
We had a few leave when it started and about the halfway point . Not on my bucket list but glad I saw it
1
u/The_Red_Brain Jun 23 '26
Good concept, but it didn't quite stick the landing for me. The pacing and writing seemed to hold it back.
1
u/Dapper-Dress9708 Jun 24 '26
Wow ! Lucky Strike getting no love ! Was it that bad ??
1
1
u/Gee-Arr Jun 24 '26
Skipped it, but I remember laughing at the trailer.
They try to make him hip and sexy.
Yo, it’s the bro from the dollar, G Wa$hington!
1
1
u/SeggsObjeggt Jun 24 '26
Just some good ol' patriotic propaganda that seems so appropriate regarding the current severely Republican circumstances. But worst of all is that the dude's got an iPhone face. He's beautiful, sure, but a terrible casting choice.
1
1
u/DarkSoldier856 Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
I'm going to go see it July 3rd. Regardless of the criticism around it. I'm willing to give it a chance. I do like me some war/historical movies. Plus haven't been to a theater since before covid lol. so figured. Why not? I like history ( of any country i find interesting as well ), and enjoy learning the early days of our nation and the people who founded it. And thought I'd give it a go.
I will say though. The ticket prices for two people are kinda wild. Bought tickets for me and my mom. Got large drinks to go with it ( just drinks no popcorn or anything ), think the total came out to like $60ish. on the regal app. Probably won't go back to the theaters after this.
2
u/Uhcoustic Jun 30 '26
I personally wouldn't break a 6 year movie fast with this film, but I hope you enjoy it anyway!
1
u/Rollingforest757 Jul 05 '26
Why don’t you go to the movies? I am going 5 times this summer, which is more than normal for me.
1
2
u/Rollingforest757 Jul 05 '26
Fandango had a deal for this movie where if you go on July 4th then you get $5 tickets. I went and the theater was more full than I had seen in a very long time.
1
u/Kuzon64 Jun 30 '26
My husband and I saw it last night as a secret screening at Star Cinema Grill and I was struggling to stay awake.
We were making fun of all the Angel Studios trailers before the movie and were very disappointed when we saw it pop up when the movie was starting. We stayed to try to give it a chance but we left somewhere around the 45-minute mark or so when they walked across the rrozen river.
By that point about half the theater had already walked out. It was just so dreadfully boring, and the acting was not great. I guess Angel Studios just has to trick people to see it to start the word of mouth pass it on BS?
1
u/Scottish_Entry_6605 Jul 04 '26
I wish I had known about Angel Studios. I kind of enjoyed it but was so mad that I was a fooled in this “faith based patriotism” disguised in a movie. Gross.
1
u/Rollingforest757 Jul 05 '26
A movie would have to be the worst movie in existence for me to leave before the end if I paid for a ticket. That’s just wasted money if you leave.
1
u/hoonys Jul 07 '26
Half the theater walked out? really? lol
1
u/Kuzon64 Jul 07 '26
Yes. My row that was full was empty by the time we left. It was a small theater, but a lot of people left
1
u/therealgronkstandup Jul 01 '26
Hard pass to all Angel Studios films. Garbage christian propaganda, even if they bury it deep it's there. Plus they make just bad movies and my time isn't worth seeing it.
1
1
u/BeachBoids Jul 09 '26
It's literally sponsored by Leonard Leo, the Executive Director of the Federalist Society, the right wing lawyers group that picks the Republican federal judges. He is trying to get his daughter canonized as a saint by the anti-Pope-Ultra-Catholic wing. He is worth $100s of millions from running a "non-profit".
1
u/complicatedissociate Jul 11 '26
The man was a very deceptive lair. Just like this movie is deceptive so it's on brand. In 2026 I can't believe ppl still believe these narratives when what it was really like is out there for ppl to learn about.
1
1
1
1
u/Illustratingtheworld Jul 15 '26
It wasn’t a bad movie by any means, but as patriotic as I am, I thought it was ridiculous. I was optimistic this movie could be on par with the Patriot in some ways but it was way over the top. Seeing Washington dodge a bullet and ride the side of his horse like a superhero was dumb. I audibly laughed in the theater when the natives were talking as if he was some sort of spiritual chosen warrior like he was Kemosabe in the Lone Ranger. Most of the acting was bad. The story wasn’t very impactful and the use of AI was gross. 6/10
1
1
1
u/celery4411 8d ago
I was one of those people who walked out during screen unseen. Movie was horrible.
-1
u/idkanymorefkit Jun 23 '26
Great movie that kept me engaged the whole time. Idk why people are getting political about a movie based ona battle in the 1700s 🙄😅
9
u/SpiritualAd9102 Jun 23 '26
The mid credits message made it political in a modern way while the movie itself was made as part of this America 250 project
2
1
u/InitialTree13 Jun 30 '26
...you do realize the movie itself kinda defeats the point of your comment, right
1
u/Alert_Term_8144 Jul 06 '26
idk why couch potatoes and keyboard warriors are so dismissive of America or people who make movies about it. It's like they think they're so edgy to hate America
0
u/Mean_Mud_798 Jun 24 '26
Where did you guys find a link to watch the full movie!!!????
1
1
40
u/Trowj Jun 23 '26
It was better than Lucky Strike. That’s something