Watch I'm Not Jesus Mommy For Free

Sadly Over-hyped

Expected more

Captivating movie !

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

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.

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.

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.

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.