It's good to see all these Slate knees jerking uncontrollably in response to Evan Almighty. Obviously, someone did something right, and the inevitable financial success of the film is only one of the many rewards which the film-makers can enjoy: they can also witness the buckets of bile backing up in Dana and David's delicate constitutions, proof that, yes, Virginia... there IS A GOD.

Oh, and on a side-note, let us not let this remarkably tasty tidbit of vapidity go un-ridiculed:

and the fact that the only black woman in this apparently all-white, all-male Congress is a secretary is hereby noted with a resigned sigh.

Right... because it would have been FAR less condescending to cast her as... what? Condi Rice? Oy... but this is what happens when liberalism is learned from pamphlets and flyers and For Dummies books...

I don't think you quite understood the review. What Plots said was that the movie trivializes and insults Christianity - not promotes it. It takes a story, puts it on its head. Instead of mass slaughter of all living things this God is reduced to producing McMiracles using the vilest and stupidest person on the planet.

If this movie makes loads of cash it will be an ample proof that so-called religious people in this country are more attracted to the idea of being religious than to what their faith really means to them.

Oh, I understood the review, probably a tad better than you appear to have. David's argument requires accepting that any unorthodox take on a bible story is inherently disrespectful or insulting to the faithful. But there's no real evidence that the movie is attempting to either promote Christian orthodoxy (there's clearly way too much goofing around to take that argument seriously) or ridicule or trivialize it.

Yes, the movie does imply that God is leveraging the ORIGINAL Noah approach to rouse someone from out of their stupor, but I don't see anything inherently trivializing or demeaning about that.

In missing the point completely (this isn't THE Noah story, this is A Noah story) David spends most of the review jerking his knee compulsively on how Evan Almighty apparently isn't a cold reading of the biblical account (duh!), but in the end fails to make a coherent point about why that's a problem, to either Christians or the audience at large.

Bottom line, there's NOTHING inherently "insulting" or demeaning about a God who takes a dumbass, treats him like the dumbass he is, forces him to get a clue by giving him a higher purpose, and sits back to watch the ensuing fun. Does God really have to go around smiting and drowning the world at all times? Nope... apparently he can come down and mess with one very wayward soul and give him some perspective, too.

The fact that this movie will succeed proves only one thing: that people of a religious bent clearly have more depth and are having more fun than the small cheerless gaggle of atheist-lite newbies who just cracked their new copy of God Is Not Great.

Wait. Whether or not the movie promotes a Christian orthodoxy, isn't the article focused primarily on how the movie is pandering to Christian audiences? Assuming Plotz isn't making stuff up, the makers of this movie still hired a "religious marketing firm" to sell Evan Almighty. I can only assume this firm is selling the movie to a religious market and if that is so, then surely it does become a problem if the message in Evan Almighty is something as bland (the article's phrase is "universal hokum") the environment is good, don't back out on your promises.

Like you said, if this movie chooses not to ridicule, trivialize, or promote Christian orthodoxy, then what exactly is it doing with the story? Should a movie actively advertise to a certain movie-goer if the message is half-assed? I mean, surely you'll agree that diluting Christianity to "being a good guy" and "taking care of nature" doesn't really achieve anything?

that trivializes and insults Christianity can't be all bad

"I am the way, the truth and the money shot."

Ha! Well said.I can't imagine criticizing a comedy for its "flaccid" portrayal of religion.

I do not, however, understand how knee jerk liberals are the ones offended by biblical parody. Though liberals are offended by things that are offending; that is, they are politically correct in their empathy for the offended. But christian sensibilities have never been a soft spot for them because Christianity has always been at the top, never the victim.

I hear that the movie is very funny without the sexual overtones of Bruce and that kids love the animals. Think I'll take my 8 grandchildren to see it.

It's your money. No reason you can't waste it on Beavis and Butthead, Biblical Style.

It's a Beavis and Butthead world, and that has nothing to do with style, biblical or otherwise.

So, AGAIN, how exactly is the movie "pandering" to Christian audiences? Why is the targeted marketing in this specific case any more or less significant than the targeting that was done/is being done for An Inconvenient Truth or Borat or Sicko?

It's ALL entertainment product, folks... where exactly is the overriding, unique pandering aspect of this particular helping of "universal hokum" (which, in case you were asleep, is a major ingredient of 99% of all entertainment), just because the target audience is Christians?

What the movie is doing with the story is ENTERTAINING, telling a goofy modern perspective story using a biblical passage as its key reference. Is this movie's message any more "half-assed" than any other movie with a main premise based on a "prior art" reference? So far, I haven't read a single rational argument on why this movie is "pandering" to Christians or "trivializing" Christianity.

The content of most of these posts indicates that most people are in fact deeply confused by Evan Almighty, but don't actually have the critical vocabulary to express exactly why.

Seems you have difficulty telling the difference between different film genres. Now, that could be the result of the filmmakers' deficiencies. But, your posts indicate otherwise. "Euoooee Almighty" specifically targeted "Christian" audiences. It did so incompetently and in a sleazy manner as, despite my own dislike of the movie, The Passion did not and as Veggie Tales do not when the aiming for the kids in that same audience. Hence , the pandering, or, rather, the attempt at pandering. I think the box office results will end up verifying that no one's fancies were indulged.

Being upset that the sacred is turned into the braindead for the sake of money is not such a surprising take for a liberal. Or a conservative.

Crunchyfrog gets it entirely wrong. If this is politics motivating the bad reviews of Evan Almighty, it isn't your traditional left-right divide. This is a studio that wants to rewrite the bible just to turn it into a bland, inoffensive comedy.

Sorry, but that's just the worst. Not jailable or anything, but a little deplorable. If you're going to make a comedy about the Bible, doesn't it at least deserve a storyline that either supports or rebuts the Biblical vision?

Bruce/Evan Almighty is truly the logical conclusion of Charlie Brown's plastic Christmas tree commercialism. It uses empty Christian symbolism to sell something while sidestepping all the hard, important parts of the Bible. The movies are toothless by design, with all the actual Christianity scrubbed out.

At that point, it seems like you'd be better off taking the kids to see the Transformers. Equally emptyheaded, just more honest about what it's offering up.

Crunchyfrog gets it entirely wrong. If this is politics motivating the bad reviews of Evan Almighty, it isn't your traditional left-right divide. This is a studio that wants to rewrite the bible just to turn it into a bland, inoffensive comedy.

Sorry, just saying "you're wrong" but failing to justify that statement with logic is just a waste of everyone's time. As I keep asking (while noticing the very-telling absence of actual answers to the question): who exactly get harmed if a studio (who is CLEARLY aiming the movie at Christians) wants to create bland, inoffensive comedies based on bible stories?

Sorry, but that's just the worst. Not jailable or anything, but a little deplorable. If you're going to make a comedy about the Bible, doesn't it at least deserve a storyline that either supports or rebuts the Biblical vision?

OK, and STILL my original question remains utterly unanswered, which means my argument continues to stand unchallenged: why, exactly is it a problem to create a comedy based on a biblical passage that neither "supports" nor "rebuts" the biblical version? Let me present to you a concept that few seem to grasp: Christians are NOT as binary, narrowminded or pedantic as most of the posters here. They understand that this is humorous entertainment product that employs a bible entry as its launching point. PERIOD. It's no more conspiratorial or didactic or intrusive or suspicious.

Sure, there are a lot of wacky tin-foil theories that one can spin about what the movie's REAL agenda is (Cutesy-pie Christian propaganda, or Hollywood reaching for collection plate dollars?) and there can be much pointless hand-wringing over how Evan Almighty is just another sad example of the Dumbing Down of America. But there's a foul stench of intellectual dishonesty to a lot of those theories, which would otherwise be instantly ridiculed out of the room if they were floated over a purely secular subject.

You seem to be extraordinarily confused, especially when erroneously perceiving that this issue is about "film genres" (hint: we're only discussing one "genre" here, and it is comedy).

At no time was the targeting of the movie either incompetent or sleazy, and that fact reinforces an overall assessement that you're just confused.

So, if you can provide distinct, clear and coherent examples of how Christians were are any way "pandered" (hint # 2: so far you haven't), then maybe you'll be able to get some credibility back. Right now, you're just babbling.