"Unplanned" the movie

[CatholicSooner]

Bushum:

All of the undercover candid videos done by Project Veritas would beg to differ. There is NOTHING planned parenthood does that cannot be done by any OBGYN, except abortion.

Many health clinics are faith based. It can be hard for some to acquire birth control and other services that PP offers due to backlash, etc. PP exists in part due to barriers placed in front of these young people in regards to their reproductive health.

I have to laugh at the term reproductive health when talking about abortions and contraception

If your statement in this post was truth, which as you said, is what we should all strive for, then you would only see PP in areas where there were no other options.

 

[CatholicSooner]

As someone who is pro-life, I think that the movie did a great disservice to the cause.

The mediocre production value can be forgiven, but the film ends up solidifying the image of pro-life advocates as dishonest and conniving conspiracy theorists driven more by hatred than by love. It would be fine if it were a good rallying cry to the pro-life movement, but I fear that it is going to make many sincere pro-lifers ask whether the movement as portrayed in this film is something they want to be part of. I think by creating such division within the movement itself it will ultimately weaken the movement overall, and further marginalize its supporters as strident kooks, an image I have ardently fought to correct. Now it seems as if all of my hard work has been undone.

Sorry, but I am deeply troubled by the effect the film it will have on the pro-life movement. It had all the subtlety of a Chick track and all the intellectual honesty of a Trump rally. Very off-putting.

As for it expanding the reach of the movement, forget about it. The few pro-choicers who do go to see it will walk out within the first few minutes confirmed in their beliefs. If anything, they will be convinced that pro-lifers are even kookier than they though.

Sorry, but that’s my honest opinion.

I haven’t seen the movie yet but this is the first time I have heard this opinion. And I have heard a lot of statements that go the opposite way. Lots of conversion (choice to life) out there right now

 

[CatholicSooner]

Jbrady:

Even though I have seen the film, I do agree with you that there is no reason to continue this conversation, based on your choice of news sources.

God bless!

So, you can’t debunk the points made or even say what you don’t like about the movie specifically? But you claim to have seen the movie? But you can’t tell us about a specific part of the movie you say hurts the pro-life movement but you claim to be pro-life.

And choose not to continue discussion because you don’t care for the sources? And polls don’t lie folks. I’m sorry if one does not like Christians to use their sources. I figured, any time sources are used and these are from polls, there is a risk someone will attack the sources instead of engaging in debate.

God Bless! Have a nice day. Put down the pro-life movement again and if I see it, I will defend it again.

If I had to guess, it seems like Jbrady hasn’t seen the movie but found an article with some talking points he likes and is regurgitating the article here.

7_Sorrows:

Yeah 93% liked it!

I’m talking about the critic reviews.

Say what? Movie critics don’t like a pro life movie? Get out of here!

 

[jack63]

This is an interesting opinion. I certainly consider myself pro-life, but I haven’t been involved in this movement.

I did see the movie. I had mixed feelings. My major concern was that R rating was justified. I would not let a 13 year old see that. Not to give disturbing spoilers, but the scene where she ended lying in her own blood on the bathroom floor due to an abortion pill was over the top. Why didn’t she just call 911? She was still working a planned parenthood within a few years of this, really?..this left me confused.

Other parts did effect me though such as the ultra-sounds of the children during abortions. I do see the point of that.

What could have been done differently in the movie?

 

[Victoria33]

This reminds me of how people were critiical of the “Passion of Christ” movie. If they give a movie an “R-rating”, I think they owe it to the American public to be consistent in their ratings and this is called into question with “Unplanned” versus other movies.

Pro-lifers are Protestants and Catholics, I would hope one could respect the two sides teaming up as they did with the “Passion of the Christ” in supporting the movie, instead of deciding that Protestant news links on polls should be rejected.

The polls still do not lie; the mainstream media may not report on these things. Or report on it in a different way, so one doesn’t like what a poll says? Reject the source. As if we should be doing the homework for others, the links are provided as a courtesy.

If we don’t team up on mutual interest issues, that takes away a lot from a movement.

I would also point towards “40 days of life”, I don’t know what faith started it up, I know that is part of Abbey’s story as well. “40 days of life” was around back then.

There are extremes in all faiths, I can not see rejecting something out-of-hand, because it was done by protestants.

 

[laylow]

Here is a line from the review of Unplanned from Steven D. Greydanus, National Catholic Register:

"Imagine a version of this story that dared to open with the start of Abby’s first day — in which, rather than Abby’s opening statement, the first thing we heard was the taunts of the goateed man and the first image was the Grim Reaper with his scythe. An opening like that would signal trust in the audience and in the power of the story to convey the message without handholding.

But that’s not the kind of movie Pure Flix appears to be interested in making. Judged for what it is, a rousing personal testimony of conversion addressed to the pro-life faithful, Unplanned delivers."

Steven, who clearly likes the movie, still seems to agree with the many critics who do not, that the movie is tailored to the pro-life faithful. It’s going to seem dishonest and unappealing to anyone outside of that group. Anyone looking for a nuanced review would accept that at the bare minimum.

SDG Reviews ‘Unplanned’: The Abby Johnson Story

Pure Flix’s adaptation of the Planned Parenthood clinic director-turned-pro-life activist makes for a rousing conversion story for the pro-life faithful that’s not entirely without a challenge to the movement.

www.ncregister.com

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

They’re a lower sample size.

 

[laylow]

They’re a lower sample size.

True, but most of the audience are people who want to be there and agree with the subject matter, so I would expect them to like it.

Yes, for people in this forum, if for some reason they are looking at rotten tomatoes to determine whether they want to see the movie, the Audience reviews would be encouraging for them.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That doesn’t make the critics any more reliable.

 

[laylow]

That doesn’t make the critics any more reliable.

If you are applying reliability to opinion, then ultimately you have a category error. Critics generally have training and experience which gives them an advantage. Does it mean they are free of bias? Of course not. I feel like many of the negative reviews were biased against the movie, but not so strongly that their main points be thrown out.

I thought this review was probably the most well written (although the obvious put-downs appear for "juiciness effect and will be a turn off for the opposing side):

Unplanned review – anti-abortion propaganda is a gory mess

In a dim-witted Christian drama part-financed by the disgraced founder of a pillow manufacturer, a woman discovers abortion is evil

www.theguardian.com

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Maybe three good points in that whole review that address the the film, but it’s hard to see in that sea of ad hominems.

 

[Jbrady]

Steven, who clearly likes the movie, still seems to agree with the many critics who do not, that the movie is tailored to the pro-life faithful. It’s going to seem dishonest and unappealing to anyone outside of that group. Anyone looking for a nuanced review would accept that at the bare minimum.

Thanks for the link to the review. I’m surprised that the Register published it.

As for the rest of your comment, you’ve got it almost right. It is tailored to the pro-life faithful who are political conservatives.

As someone who is moderately liberal, and thus outside of the target group, I did indeed find it to be dishonest and unappealing. As I said in a comment above, it had all the subtlety of a Chick tract and all the intellectual honesty of a Trump rally.

Rather than uniting the pro-life movement, the film makes those within the movement who are not political conservatives feel unwelcome. The negative comments to my post in this thread are proof of that.

The insinuation is that if you don’t vote republican, you can’t be a real pro-lifer. I think framing the abortion debate as a republican/democrat issue was a big mistake and prevents the movement from expanding beyond its current base, and of alienating many like me who persist in the cause in spite of politics.

 

[RuthAnne]

My youngsters will definitely be seeing it. I want them to have as much hatred towards Planned Parenthood as I do.

 

[laylow]

As for the rest of your comment, you’ve got it almost right. It is tailored to the pro-life faithful who are political conservatives.

As someone who is moderately liberal, and thus outside of the target group, I did indeed find it to be dishonest and unappealing. As I said in a comment above, it had all the subtlety of a Chick tract and all the intellectual honesty of a Trump rally.

Thanks, yes, in today’s divided world, I sometimes forget those type of people exist. I would also probably identify with being moderately liberal (although in this forum, I would probably be considered far left), but labels sometimes just confuse things even more.

Although we disagree on some big issues, this seems to be proof that one disagreeing individuals can have a conversation without having to assume that bias will distort everything.

I now have a genuine interest in trying to figure out what the true story is around Planned Parenthood.
When I talk to the pro-life crowd I get one story and when I talk to the pro-choice I get another. Both are so radically different from each other that the only logical conclusion is that they are both wrong! So of course the key separating the lies from the facts and getting the real story (close to it anyway). Of course I have found out that being a logical individual is a huge minority, which can make conversations unpleasant many times.

The insinuation is that if you don’t vote republican, you can’t be a real pro-lifer. I think framing the abortion debate as a republican/democrat issue was a big mistake and prevents the movement from expanding beyond its current base, and of alienating many like me who persist in the cause in spite of politics.

Yes. Division in general shuts down the conversation and does very little to help the actual issue. Sometimes it just feels like people want to fight for the “right” cause, but then have very little concern for the actual outcome.

 

[Jbrady]

Sometimes it just feels like people want to fight for the “right” cause, but then have very little concern for the actual outcome.

Boy, did you hit the nail on the head. A lot of people seem more concerned about posturing than actually convincing people outside the movement to join the cause. That would involve talking and listening to people who have very different world views from them, something they are loath to do. It’s more satisfying for them to demonize their opponents than to convert them.

 

[laylow]

A lot of people seem more concerned about posturing than actually convincing people outside the movement to join the cause.

Yes, although you and I may disagree on what the “movement” should actually be. I think the goal of the movement should be to ideally eliminate (not entirely possible) and at the very least minimize any need to have any abortion in the first place, not make it illegal. This deals with attacking a complex set of issues, that would encompass an entire book, if explained indepthly. Anyone immune to the real world prevention conversation, may as well leave the table, as they will be shown to only be able to minimally contribute.

 

[Jbrady]

We don’t disagree at all, from what you have said. I also don’t think that focusing on legality is the best strategy, and also think that our efforts would be better spent on alleviating the social problems that drive women to seek abortions.

I don’t think overturning Roe is a viable or productive option.

 

[7_Sorrows]

As someone who suffered a miscarriage, it didn’t just happen in a few minutes. It was very painful and there was cramping and lots of bleeding. I did not think of calling an ambulance and it took a couple of hours. I was only about 8-9 weeks pregnant. Women suffer in silence through many
things relating to their reproductive organs. Women learn to “get through” pain unless it is unbearable.
Abby was told the pills would gently cleanse her uterus. I am sure if she felt her life was in danger, she would have called an ambulance. She was feeling shame for having to undergo a second
abortion and at Planned Parenthood they
were warned not to call an ambulance.
A miscarriage is not easy for a woman’s
body to go through and the movie is trying
to show an abortion is not either.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The author of this Guardian article is Jewish? we know in Judaism abortion is allowed. Most Jews are liberal and pro-choice.
The author definitely sounds anti - Christian so that is the basis for his biased and bitter article. Of course, he has to attack Mike Lindell.
I would say this writer had his mind made
up before he ever saw the movie.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Have you seen the movie or are you just harping on it?

I would say that any movie with such a huge disparity between critic reviews and audience reviews is a pretty good indicator that the critic reviews are worthless. Seriously, 50% to 94% disparity. That reeks of critic bias. Especially when you read them and they amount to “meh I like planned parenthood, meh prolife people are stupid”. And especially since I saw the movie and found its production value to be very good and not at all in line with these silly critic reviews. And I usually avoid Christian movies.

As a matter of fact, I find critic reviews to be largely worthless. I can’t remember the last time I cared about a critic review of a movie. I trust normal people, not paid hacks who rely on the studios for their income.

Case in point, The Last Jedi was loved by critics. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 91%. Arguably one of the worst plots ever devised and certainly the most hated Star Wars movie ever made. It is crashing the entire Star Wars franchise and Disney is losing money on the merchandise for the first time ever. They are panicking over the final movie. See for yourself:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Rotten Tomatoes has listed The Last Jedi as the 7th best action adventure film of all time. Meanwhile, they list The Empire Strikes Back, objectively the best Star Wars film made, at 47th. Man those critics sure are believable! Look at that consensus statement, then look at that audience score, and tell me critics are worth listening to.