Christian Film Got Rated ‘R.’

This would be best in a mud pit but unfortunately there isn't one for this sort of thing. I foresee a lot of bickering over this topic instead of a civil one. But... Let's begin anyways.

It looks like a Christian film was given an R rating. A film that had no "No Nudity, Sex, Bad Language, Gore, Drugs" and so forth. So what could possibly be the cause?

The MPAA’s explanation is vague and inconsistent, but most likely, a scene wherein a 12-year-old skillfully uses a handgun to defend his sister from the villain.

Hmmmm Seriously?

I think this is motivated by liberalistic views, personally.

The Source goes on to say that there are actual violent and more deserving movies out there that doesn't get the R rating. Why should this film?

Facebook: Graphic images of a woman smashing and eating a baby do not violate “community standards” but quoting a Bible verse on homosexuality does.

Twitter: Conservative voices and alternative news sources frequently find themselves muzzled while profane rants against them are celebrated.

Google: Discriminatory algorithms ensure that articles praising the Second Amendment, President Trump, traditional marriage, and lashing out against illegal immigration are suppressed while the “fake news media” gets free rein.

Kids killing each other in “The Hunger Games” with swords and spears and killer bees? PG-13. A zombie witch in the “Suicide Squad” wearing a lacy bikini gets her heart ripped out in the finale? PG-13. But the faith-based action moving “The Reliant” which has no foul language, no nudity, no torture, no glamorized violence or gore or zombies or orc beheadings or anything near “R” rated violence?

Interesting Cast? Nah, there the same old same old.

“The Reliant” stars Kevin Sorbo (“Hercules”), Brian Bosworth (“The Longest Yard”), Eric Roberts (“The Dark Knight”), and Mollee Gray (“High School Musical”).

Yeah I don't get it either. Kevin Sorbo isn't showing his ripped abs in this one. I know! Eric Roberts.... That's the reason. Eric alone in a movie demands an R rating.

According to a mother who home schools her 13 year old:

“My children and I viewed ‘The Reliant’ together and found it perfectly appropriate for family viewing. It deals with social issues in a meaningful way that is generally acceptable to children and adults alike. Unlike other movies, there is no nudity, sex, horror, profanity, innuendo, intoxication, blasphemy or racism in ‘The Reliant.’ There is more to dislike in the animated children’s movie ‘Captain Underpants’ than in ‘The Reliant.'”

This is just some Nut Jobs wet dream film. There is literally nothing "Christian" about people getting shot with rifles or rioting, etc. It looks super violent. Not that I care, but call a spade a spade. Suicide Squad was a joke of a movie and had almost zero real gore outside of comic book stuff. Dude are straight up getting blown away in cut scenes on this movie.

a reply to: StallionDuck


Even though it's rated R I still will most likely pass, let me know if they decide to be a bit edgier and go for an X rating.

I see this giving the movie a huge boost in ticket sales. The filmmakers will most likely ve thanking the MPAA for this move.

Does anyone actually pay attention to the movies rating?
I don't remember the last time I even bothered looking.

If books got ratings, the Bible would definitely get some kind of "Adults Only" rating due to all the mass murder and incest.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Seems like the movie deserves an r rating
Looks a little silly as well

Blue shift, the bible is a historical book discussing history of the Jewish people,,history is never pretty buddy
Most countries and people lie about their history, Israel didn't, they certainly didn't try and make themselves look good

Should we put an r rating on your civil war, WW 1 and 2, should we hide the truth because it may offend

Incest, that's all throughout European history, but lest it offend you, hide it away

Crazy how some people think guns are synonymous with Christianity.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

heres a description of the movie

Economic collapse causes widespread rioting and social unrest, leaving a lovesick 19-year-old girl struggling to care for her siblings in a stretch of woods bordered by lawless anarchy, wondering why a good God would let this happen.


how does that description not rate and >R" ?

a reply to: StallionDuck

Do ratings have much relevance anymore in the digital age? R just keeps kids out of it at the theatres, it would seem. With torrents readily available once it releases anyone that wants to see an R movie wouldn't have too much trouble making it so.

a reply to: StallionDuck

G-rated films from Disney have cursing...murder...and farts.

Sounds like this Christian movie is going to sell a lot of tickets!

a reply to: StallionDuck

Hmmm....sounds like a marketing ploy to me. Personally, I never would have heard of this movie at all if you hadn't posted this thread about it being r rated.

Still looks like # whatever the rating.

-looks to me - like a bibles and bullets wank fest

Christians are awesome.

Only Christians will see the kingdom.

Nobody else.

It's an exclusive club.

And it's awesome.

In theory.

But it seems sort of contradictory. Isn't it love that is supposed to be the point?

originally posted by: Phage
Christians are awesome.

Only Christians will see the kingdom.

Nobody else.

It's an exclusive club.

And it's awesome.

In theory.

The Jamie Fox movie?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Who's Jamie Fox?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ScepticScot

Who's Jamie Fox?

Forgot the double xx.

People talk about his performance in Ray but frankly how anyone can think that's better than White House Down is beyond me...

a reply to: ScepticScot

Who's Jamie Foxx?

originally posted by: Blue Shift
If books got ratings, the Bible would definitely get some kind of "Adults Only" rating due to all the mass murder and incest.

Just as an aside, have you considered that in evolution, new populations arise from mutated individuals and that the new trait spreads out through the population, eventually becoming dominant due to natural selection forces.

How much incest is implicit in the process if the entire population comes to share a trait?

Should we ban Darwin's works, then?

Or is the mention or reference to violence or incest different than gratuitous promotion of them?