What Would Jesus Do? (2010) User Reviews

Much better film than the rating would imply...

[tandtjackson · 6/10 · 22 February 2011]

I've seen about a million movies, and this is my first ever movie review. I just felt motivated to say that this movie really blessed me! It certainly is more tailored for a Christian audience, and is intended as kind of a wake up call for the Church. I would encourage as many people as possible to pray for those who made the film, give it good reviews, and spread the word to others to go and see it. We need more wholesome movies like this to be made.

I would give this film a rating of about 6.5 or so. Definitely don't let the low rating scare you away. Just realize that it isn't going to be a blockbuster major Hollywood production, and sit back and enjoy a simple little story that will make you feel good, and encourage you in your Christian walk!

Interesting but not Hollywood for sure

[stuart-john-byrne · 5/10 · 29 December 2010]

I was really looking forward to this movie as John Schneider was in it...expected it to be good.

Its a Christian movie for Christians...not Hollywood standard...don't expect really good acting, but story is good.

Does make you think WWJD? Could really help some Christians re-think things.

I bought the DVD online as I could not find it anywhere else, but happy that I made the effort..just.

Can think of a few that I would recommend before, like Joshua (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0271582/) and Simon Birch (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124879/) and even Eveyln (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298856/) and Pay It Forward...all good movies.

Then there is Luther (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309820/) and Amazing Grace (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454776/)

Would watch and recommend these before...some like Flywheel and Fireproof a bit weak for me...(made for Christians I think)

Well don't want to de-value movies Christians are making but some need to be ten times better...this one may be not that bad...

What Would Stalin Do ? The Same Probably

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 25 February 2014]

drifter walks in to a small Californian city . He asks for work but everywhere he turns to he is rejected . After an incident involving the drifter some of the residents feel a pang of guilt and do their best to change their ways

Watching this I was struck as to how similar it was to the start of FIRST BLOOD . A drifter wearing a combat jacket passes through town and finds he's not welcome but luckily Brian Dennehy isn't the local sheriff . There does seem to be a few strange characters . Watch the scene where Mr Drifter enters a diner and the waitress is startled to see him . Considering she has no idea who he is and that he doesn't want to buy anything she seems to foretell that he's just come in to listen to Max the singer . She's either able to read peoples minds and other clairvoyant abilities or she's a not very good actress who's read the script in advance , or she's just a bloody awful waitress . You decide

Actually nearly everyone here is bloody awful as a human being but they all change their ways and guess who they use as a role model ? That's right . Josef Stalin

" Hey wait a minute Theo . You know fine well this is yet another Christian movie and yes some of us are aware that communism is defined as " The secular religion " but where's this blood thirsty mass murdering communist despot coming from "

Let me explain then . The bad guy in this movie is Alex Yorke a local businessman and because a story needs a villain he's involved in the inciting incident against the drifter . It's a very weak inciting incident but it's serviceable . That isn't enough however because Yorke wants to build a casino in town , on the site of an old church and all these wonderful people who are trying to mend their ways want to reopen the church in order to praise the Lord . Hmmm now let me see , Mr Yorke wants to kick start the local economy and brings jobs to the area and the pious locals on the road to redemption don't want him to do this . Let me see this means Mr Yorke is the good guy and the local clique are the bad guys ? Nope it's the other way round and no doubt in this alternative world American turkeys like to vote for both thanksgiving and Christmas . Have I got that right comrade ?

The final third of the movie entirely revolves around one of the local women standing as local Mayor against Mr Yorke . Again Yorke constantly bangs on about bringing a casino to town and creating jobs and wealth and yet for some reason this makes him a bad person . Okay because he was involved in the inciting incident this might make him the villain but none of the voters would know about this and it seems that he's merely a villain simply because he wants to bring jobs to town . There's no logic as to why he's being disliked by the voters since he seems to be putting a message across that will appeal to voters who seem to be so opposed to capitalism that they're to the left of Lenin . Or maybe they're Republicans . In fact when Yorke describes his opponents as " Jesus freaks " it's this that what effectively kills his election chances . The Republican party is of course reliant to a certain degree on the religious right so I'm guessing the Christians are running on a Republican ticket ? Strange that they seem like rabid communists in many ways . I wonder if Jerry Falwell would have voted for them ?

That said despite being a Christian film involving politics it isn't as obnoxious as some of these type of movies I've seen recently . Don't get me wrong it isn't a great movie in anyway but if you changed a few details so that it was a story of local townsfolk rallying against a powerful businessman you'd have one of those rather mawkish TVMs where David beats Goliath . I did find it interesting that the characters sometimes mentioned " I want to be like Jesus " . If they put their minds to it they could have built a big wooden cross , hired some Roman legionnaire costumes from a fancy dress shop , bought a hammer and six inch nails and had turns of crucifying one another . There weren't really trying were they ?

They don't know what Jesus would do...

[herosguild · 2/10 · 31 December 2010]

I really like John Schneider. From the nostalgia of looking back to the Dukes of Hazzard from my childhood, to my near obsession with Superman and Smallville, John has always been a draw for me. Hence the reason I watched this movie, knowing exactly what I was in for.

The acting: for an independent film, these actors gave their best, but as the other reviewers said, its not Hollywood. In some ways that's actually a good thing. But these people were 'acting' rather than 'being' their characters and it showed.

The plot: certainly look for clichés and unrealistic transformations of the characters throughout the movie. At one point, the preacher (I refuse to incorrectly refer to him as a "pastor" as the movie does) is robbed, says a few heartfelt words and the crook suddenly goes with him to get a cup of coffee. IRL that never happens. Transformations of the conscience from sin to penitence are longer, harder, and way more powerful than "hey, I feel your pain. Wanna go get a cup of coffee?" The main reason for this review, though, is an examination of the point of the movie. Unfortunately this movie epitomizes the shallow, feel-good view most people in denominational "Christianity" have of the Bible. The message the movie wants to portray is a good one. "Think about what Jesus would do, then do that." But those who put this film together don't really have a firm grasp of what Jesus would do. Jesus spent 3.5 years preaching the Truth as God intended it. He NEVER said "just do what feels right in your heart." In fact, God said that the human heart is deceitful (Jer. 17:9). It is the part that is corrupted and needs to be changed in order to obey the gospel by being immersed in water into Christ (Romans 6:17-18; 1 Pet. 3:21). A sinner who leads with the heart is doomed to eternal damnation. God said instead "come let us reason together" (Isa. 1:18), that the "word of God saves us" (James 1:21).

This movie has little more than the milk, the surface presentation of the do good to others, (that Christians should do!) but with little real look into the reality of the world and how Christians should really change it. John Schneider's character came the closest, answering the conflicts he faced by quoting scripture, much as Jesus did in Matt. 4.

To summarize, then: Do you want to know what Jesus would do? Go read 2 Timothy 2:15 and John 14:31. (KJV) Everyone else is Prov. 12:1.

READ THE BOOK

[ruthvansandt · 2/10 · 26 May 2020]

I only just started the movie, but they should have titled it something else and not used the character names of the 1896 book What Would Jesus Do? (by Charles Sheldon) and the 1990s phenomena with the WWJD bracelets. Please go read that book (and the Bible, too, of course)! It is a masterpiece. THE premise of the book is that the pastor IS successful, has a good family, HUGE congregation, loved by everyone, preaching good doctrine (but with no application) and so busy with 'God's work' that he doesn't have time for the drifter. This version makes him seem a worn out, barely surviving, family killed, empty church, preacher. Why is this important? Because Sheldon's book is INTENDED to shine a light on our prideful natures, thinking we are doing everything right, when we are missing the point. It may have been written in 1896, but (the book) shines an excellent light on modern, prosperity, seeker-sensitive talkers and challenges us all to look at the Word, be led by the Spirit (not our hearts), and do what Jesus would do in our daily lives. (Some of the primary answers to the question being, a removal of self-focus, emphasis on holiness, preaching the Gospel even when it's uncomfortable, etc...) This movie misses the mark by a long-shot. If they didn't use the character and location names and movie title, it might be a good story. Hopefully this review will inspire people to actually read the original book. (It's an easy read, simply written, beautiful, and Biblical.)

Fairly good movie...watch with family!

[acheapmom · 7/10 · 24 August 2015]

This movie's story is roughly based on a wonderful old Christian classic book "In His Steps" by Chas Sheldon.

As in the movie, a church service is disrupted by a drifter (John Schneider) who wonders aloud about his and others' suffering in the face of Christians who don't seem to notice or...help.

It is pretty good where you see the powerful folks start to amend andnot only help individuals...but also...the slumlord will now improve/restore housing to the poor, and the local media head (the owner of the town paper) will cover the coming mayoral election...properly.

Their church building, unlike the book, is scheduled to be destroyed so a casino can be built.

but the stranger's words to the congregation and to others in the city of Raymond do propel to ask themselves. "What would Jesus do?" Indeed, there is a difference!

The film is scripted fairly decently and is suitable for families to view.

One of the worst movies our times

[jacobbowmannotarypublic · 1/10 · 25 December 2022]

I've never written a movie review but after watching this movie I feel compelled to. This is a terrible movie . The only thing redeeming in this movie is the premise. The acting, story, dialog, timing and pacing of this movie is painfully embarrassing. A small child will see the enormous plot mistakes and unrealistic dialog. A child could write a better story. I will tell you one thing Jesus would not do , ask someone to watch this movie . I am a devoted Christian and this is by far the worst Christian movie I have ever watched. Please do not watch this movie. If you are a Christian or not, after this movie you won't want to be one.

Great Motivational Christian Movie

[ltcarizona-1 · 9/10 · 25 November 2011]

Those who rate this movie poorly are missing the intent of the movie and I guess to understand the intent you would have to understand WWJD. Any believer in Jesus believes in what the movie is trying to get across which it did very well. A stranger comes to a town, like many of ours, where the people place everything in their lives ahead of any thought of faith in Jesus. They are pursing what has often happened in the Old Testament wherein sin rules. This movie did for me and I am sure others who have watched it that when we make decisions in life and we are unsure what we should do, we should ask "What Would Jesus Do." I intend to use this movie as the subject of our church's Bible study group.

How did John Schneider ever get involved in this oh-hum, weak, indie production?

[imdb-25288 · 6/10 · 25 December 2021]

I caught this in the middle several years ago, in a local, obscure channel. I remember being fascinated by JS part. This is perhaps, John Schneider's greatest performance of all time. But how did he get involved in this schlock? No one can act in this! It's painful to watch. None of the female leads can (except, perhaps, the homeless girl and the evil old woman, whose home she's brought to).

Let's talk location: the newspaper editor's officed looked like a broom closet. The real estate office? Broom closet with a glass door. The church? A double broom closet with carpet and chairs. The house? Another cheap broom closet. This was filmed in Tujunga. I had the displeasure of being sorta stranded there eons ago. That town is hell on Earth, folks! Think Van Nuys on steroids.

So what is this flick? A straight-to-video VHS production they sell for a $1.99? No one can act here. JS is wasted. Imagine if they'd made this a Hollywood production! Did he give his time for free? I can't wrap my head around it! He was quite good looking here. He was always a goof lookswise back in his Dukes of Hazard and I never watched that "Starsky & Hutch do the boonies" rip off. But boy, did he have presence here. Charisma in droves. Put everyone else's acting to shame.

Everyone else was reciting lines then thinking "I hope I said that right" or "boy! I should have put more effort into that!" and so on. That's why I said: How did JS get involved in this? Everyone is such an amateur (except the 2 aforementioned ladies) it's painful to watch.

Oh and if you're a fan of JS and you're watching for this, he's barely in it. He has a few bits mid-show. One great scene and BAM! Hes gone and pretty much never returns. (Or does he?)

The start was quite shocking. I'm watching 2 actors trying to pretend they can act, they're driving around and then BAM! They just.. they just... I mean. The next scene! Then it's downhill for a while, then Schneider raises the bar each (little) time he appears. This movie is a roller coaster. Back then I gave it a 10, for his performance and the message. Ah, the message. Well, I'm no Christian. I have nothing against those people (actually, I do!) and European-Californians were perfectly well depicted in the beginning as selfish, greedy and uncaring.

That they turn and become kind, caring and helpful puts this flick into the fantasy genre right there. Oh and please do not confuse actor and part: if anyone would be that deluded to think Schneider lives this part... have you seen the crap he's been in since?? The Haves and Haves Not isn't exactly WWJD material. These Hollywood hypocrites don't live up to the standards they set for themselves. Let me backtrack: he set no standard here. He was handed a script and some cash and they bought him to inhabit this drifter character. Nothing more. In fact, he's no Christian: have you not read how he's treated wives and/or girlfriends? A few years back, he was the talk of the town for some scandal involving her (one of them) and him smugly telling people at a party "Do you know who I am?" Uh... I dunno, Legal Blonde version 2.0?

In conclusion 6 stars is very generous. Schneider gets a 10/10 that a piece of scum like him can pull off this role and make you beLIEve he's a good guy is praise-worthy. The production values are about a 4-5/10. The acting from everyone else is a "try again" and "don't quit your day job" 3/10. The movie could have been better, but there's worse. The message, sure, could be a 9/10 if it weren't composed and performed by a bunch of hypocrites.

And how do ya like 'em drifting Xtian apples?!

Sorry...this flick doesn't succeed

[lukecon-63436 · 2/10 · 21 August 2020]

PureFlix has made some excellent films; however, this time, they failed when making this one. First of all, the screenwriting is terribly unrealistic. The characters are not given realistic reactions/emotions to certain situations, which makes them feel unrealistic. The characters are also provided with cliches that don't help with the script, but actually just make it worse. The cliches are obvious before they even appear; they do not feel realistic to real life. The characters should be more realistically written, as should the plot. The dialogue felt a little corny, as well, with awkward one-liners like "You fools!" filling the script pages. Second of all, John Schneider is a little overrated. He didn't do as well in this film as he has done in other movies. Sometimes, the acting by the cast felt unrealistic or melodramatic. The actor who played the antagonistic character, in particular, did a TERRIBLE job at his performance and delivery of lines. The point is, apart from the inspirational message that could be learned through this film, ultimately, this film sets a bad example of filmmaking.

Great example on how Christians can live life

[mikesk · 10/10 · 25 December 2010]

Movie reminds me of the moments of my life when I was clueless about my motives.

Movie shows what the Christian live can be when the Christ is in front of every work we do. When we don't take Christ's example into our everyday live - people around us will not be transformed. And in opposite - the movie shows how the town can be transformed when people do what Jesus would do.

I liked Interesting examples of Christian life in practice. In my opinion Guitar player actor was too over emotional when refused to forgive - seems not very real. I liked the movie because it gives the desire, motivates to persuade a real life.

the film masterfully weaves together elements of drama and introspection, creating a compelling tapestry that challenges its audience to ponder life's ethical complexities.

[arianamartinsrahman · 8/10 · 4 December 2023]

In the realm of cinematic storytelling, "What Would Jesus Do?" transcends the conventional boundaries of religious narratives to deliver a thought-provoking exploration of morality and human nature. Directed by an emerging talent, the film masterfully weaves together elements of drama and introspection, creating a compelling tapestry that challenges its audience to ponder life's ethical complexities.

Synopsis: The narrative unfolds in a small, close-knit community grappling with a surge of moral dilemmas. Centered around a diverse ensemble cast, each character faces a critical juncture, invoking the timeless question: "What would Jesus do?" As the storyline evolves, the characters' choices resonate with profound implications, offering a contemporary twist on age-old moral parables.

Quick Opinion: "What Would Jesus Do?" succeeds in navigating the delicate terrain of faith-based cinema without succumbing to preachiness. It strikes a delicate balance between spiritual contemplation and genuine storytelling, making it accessible to audiences of various beliefs. The film's strength lies not just in its religious undertones but in its universal themes that transcend dogma.

Analysis: 1. Narrative Structure: The film exhibits a narrative prowess reminiscent of Robert McKee's principles. The three-act structure is evident, yet the screenplay masterfully subverts traditional expectations. It seamlessly blends subplots, mirroring the complexity of real-life moral quandaries. This unconventional approach keeps the audience engaged, mirroring the unpredictability of ethical decision-making.

2. Character Depth: Drawing inspiration from David Bordwell's emphasis on character psychology, the film excels in portraying multi-dimensional characters. Each individual grapples with their unique internal conflicts, reflecting the intricate interplay between personal convictions and societal expectations. The nuanced performances elevate the characters beyond mere archetypes, adding layers to the overarching moral discourse.

3. Cinematic Techniques: On the film is evident in its visual language. The cinematography skillfully captures the idyllic setting, juxtaposing it with the characters' moral struggles. The use of symbolism and allegory, akin to Marcel Martin's concepts, subtly reinforces the film's overarching themes without overt exposition.

Curiosities for Analysis: Biblical Allusions:

Explore the subtle biblical references embedded in the narrative. How do these allusions enhance the thematic depth of the film?

Character Motivations:

Analyze the driving forces behind each character's decisions. How do their motivations align with or challenge traditional ethical frameworks?

Visual Metaphors:

Unpack the visual metaphors employed throughout the film. How do these cinematic choices contribute to the audience's emotional engagement with the moral dilemmas presented?

In conclusion, "What Would Jesus Do?" stands as a testament to the potential of cinema to transcend religious boundaries and engage audiences in profound moral contemplation. With a narrative structure that defies conventions and characters whose complexity mirrors real-life struggles, the film beckons viewers to ponder the age-old question in a modern context.