Search
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated The Trump Prophecy (2018) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019 (Updated Mar 24, 2019)
My prophetic vision of how bad it could get
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of my bill-paying job is managing our store’s DVD section. This past Tuesday, I opened our new release boxes to find a number of copies of a movie called "The Trump Prophecy." I got physically ill. Not ill enough to go home, but I could feel my stomach turn. It wasn’t because I was holding in my hands a movie about Donald Trump, though, because I can make it through many a title about the Bedswerver-in-Chief. There’s something worse: Associating support of him with Christian faith.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Trump Talking: The Donald, in His Own Words
Book
'Part of the beauty of me is that I'm very rich' But that's just part of it. His fingers, too, are...
David McK (3610 KP) rated The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes in Books
May 18, 2025
I read the original Hunger Games trilogy back in the early to mid 2010s, before I saw any of the movies.
I watched the movie of this one first, before reading the book.
And, I have to say, that a prequel for President Snow - as portrayed by Donald Sutherland in the movies - was not my first thought on how Suzanne Collins could expand her world.
But that's pretty much who this centres on, with one whole section of the 3-part novel also set during the 10th annual Hunger Games which, here, are still relatively new and with large parts of the novel concerning how said Games could be made more 'entertaining' for the viewers in the Capitol.
Note I said 'for viewers in the Capitol', as their children are never selected in The Reaping to take place in said Games ...
Personally, I found Cornelius Snow (and Lucy Gray Baird, who he is chosen to mentor) to not be as strong or engaging a protagonist as Katniss Everdeen was. YMMV, of course.
I watched the movie of this one first, before reading the book.
And, I have to say, that a prequel for President Snow - as portrayed by Donald Sutherland in the movies - was not my first thought on how Suzanne Collins could expand her world.
But that's pretty much who this centres on, with one whole section of the 3-part novel also set during the 10th annual Hunger Games which, here, are still relatively new and with large parts of the novel concerning how said Games could be made more 'entertaining' for the viewers in the Capitol.
Note I said 'for viewers in the Capitol', as their children are never selected in The Reaping to take place in said Games ...
Personally, I found Cornelius Snow (and Lucy Gray Baird, who he is chosen to mentor) to not be as strong or engaging a protagonist as Katniss Everdeen was. YMMV, of course.
Just As I Am
Book
“In her long and extraordinary career, Cicely Tyson has not only succeeded as an actor, she has...
Lynx (Wild Wolves MC #1)
10.0
Rate It
Book
An alpha president with a pack and a club to protect, a human looking for a place to belong. Lynx...
Paranormal MM MC Romance
Mission to Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration
Book
Can astronauts reach Mars by 2035? Absolutely, says Buzz Aldrin, one of the first men to walk on the...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pixels (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The new Sony film ‘Pixels’, was written by Tim Herlihy, Adam Sandler and Timothy Dowling. It stars Adam Sandler (Sam Brenner), Peter Dinklage (Eddie ‘The Fire Blaster’), Kevin James (President Will Cooper), Jane Krakowski (the First Lady), and Josh Gad (Ludlow Lamonsoff).
The movie opens with scenes straight out of the 1980’s and shows Sam, Eddie, Will and Ludlow all gathering at the arcade video world championships. The championships are being recorded to send in a time capsule to outer space, hoping to find alien life forms. The competition comes down to Sam and Eddie (who has nick named himself ‘The Fire Blaster’) and Eddie defeats Sam. Sam is crushed.
Fast forward about 30 years and Sam is working as an installation technician, and somehow Will has become the POTUS. Ludlow and Eddie are no where to be seen.
An attack occurs, Ludlow mysteriously appears in Sams van, and Ludlow reveals that the attack was perpetrated not only by aliens, but by 80’s style pixelated arcade aliens, who apparently intercepted our space bound time capsule, interpreted it as a declaration of war (????) and sent back pixelated arcade aliens to destroy us (?!?).
The two childhood friends go to the president with the information, who at first, under the pressure of his advisors, brushes them off.
After another attack occurs, President Will over rides his advisers and enlists Sam and Ludlows help, and also reaches out to The Fire Blaster (currently in prison, and demanding a list of concessions in exchange for his help and expertise.)
The movie didn’t have any dragging points for me, and I did laugh out loud at some portions. My son who is nearly 7 REALLY enjoyed it, and if it had had slightly less obvious (and what felt like marginally unnecessary) curse words I would have liked it better for his age range. There were children even younger than my son in the theatre though, and I found myself cringing at some of the language, and noticed my son looking at me to see if I noticed him noticing that there were ‘bad words’. Since it IS rated PG-13, there’s not a whole lot to be said about it, but it could have been just as good a movie, and therefore enjoyable by a bigger age range, without the cursing.
When I asked him later whether he liked the movie he said he ‘liked it a lot, but it had some bad words’.
Pixels was pretty action packed, and although I found it to be an odd premise for a movie, I did enjoy it. I don’t feel that they made as good a use of the 3D format as they could have. The soundtrack was good. I liked the characters, even though i couldn’t quite make the jump as to ‘why or how’ Will became president, and I had the hardest time dealing with Eddies accent. It just ‘felt off’, most likely because I’ve been watching him most recently on Game of Thrones.
I think kids will enjoy it for the action and parents will like it well enough for the nostalgia factor.
Overall I would give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars.
The movie opens with scenes straight out of the 1980’s and shows Sam, Eddie, Will and Ludlow all gathering at the arcade video world championships. The championships are being recorded to send in a time capsule to outer space, hoping to find alien life forms. The competition comes down to Sam and Eddie (who has nick named himself ‘The Fire Blaster’) and Eddie defeats Sam. Sam is crushed.
Fast forward about 30 years and Sam is working as an installation technician, and somehow Will has become the POTUS. Ludlow and Eddie are no where to be seen.
An attack occurs, Ludlow mysteriously appears in Sams van, and Ludlow reveals that the attack was perpetrated not only by aliens, but by 80’s style pixelated arcade aliens, who apparently intercepted our space bound time capsule, interpreted it as a declaration of war (????) and sent back pixelated arcade aliens to destroy us (?!?).
The two childhood friends go to the president with the information, who at first, under the pressure of his advisors, brushes them off.
After another attack occurs, President Will over rides his advisers and enlists Sam and Ludlows help, and also reaches out to The Fire Blaster (currently in prison, and demanding a list of concessions in exchange for his help and expertise.)
The movie didn’t have any dragging points for me, and I did laugh out loud at some portions. My son who is nearly 7 REALLY enjoyed it, and if it had had slightly less obvious (and what felt like marginally unnecessary) curse words I would have liked it better for his age range. There were children even younger than my son in the theatre though, and I found myself cringing at some of the language, and noticed my son looking at me to see if I noticed him noticing that there were ‘bad words’. Since it IS rated PG-13, there’s not a whole lot to be said about it, but it could have been just as good a movie, and therefore enjoyable by a bigger age range, without the cursing.
When I asked him later whether he liked the movie he said he ‘liked it a lot, but it had some bad words’.
Pixels was pretty action packed, and although I found it to be an odd premise for a movie, I did enjoy it. I don’t feel that they made as good a use of the 3D format as they could have. The soundtrack was good. I liked the characters, even though i couldn’t quite make the jump as to ‘why or how’ Will became president, and I had the hardest time dealing with Eddies accent. It just ‘felt off’, most likely because I’ve been watching him most recently on Game of Thrones.
I think kids will enjoy it for the action and parents will like it well enough for the nostalgia factor.
Overall I would give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) created a post
Jul 7, 2020
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Clear and Present Danger (1994) in Movies
May 15, 2020
The Cover-Up
Clear and Present Danger- is a thriller pacted movie. It has action, suspense and drama. Its downfall its long and somewhat boring and waits a while to get to the action. The action is also decent, not as good as patriot games.
The plot: Agent Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) becomes acting deputy director of the CIA when Admiral Greer (James Earl Jones) is diagnosed with cancer. When an American businessman, and friend of the president, is murdered on a yacht, Ryan starts discovering links between the man and drug dealers. As CIA agent John Clark (Willem Dafoe) is sent to Colombia to kill drug kingpins in retaliation, Ryan must fight through multiple cover-ups to figure out what happened and who's responsible.
Harrison Ford is excellent as Jack Ryan. He is the best Jack Ryan in my opinon. He nails Jack Ryan perfectly.
Clear and Present Danger- is a decent thriller with the only downfall is it being a little long and boring.
The plot: Agent Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) becomes acting deputy director of the CIA when Admiral Greer (James Earl Jones) is diagnosed with cancer. When an American businessman, and friend of the president, is murdered on a yacht, Ryan starts discovering links between the man and drug dealers. As CIA agent John Clark (Willem Dafoe) is sent to Colombia to kill drug kingpins in retaliation, Ryan must fight through multiple cover-ups to figure out what happened and who's responsible.
Harrison Ford is excellent as Jack Ryan. He is the best Jack Ryan in my opinon. He nails Jack Ryan perfectly.
Clear and Present Danger- is a decent thriller with the only downfall is it being a little long and boring.
ClareR (5975 KP) rated Ordinary People in Books
Apr 6, 2018
This isn't necessarily a book about race, even though it's set just as Obama becomes US President, and the main protagonists of the book are black. It's primarily, in my opinion, a story of relationships, and specifically the relationships of two couples: Melissa and Michael, and Stephanie and Damien. I was really looking forward to a book set in London (my home town) in the relative present day, but i have to admit that i felt very little joy when reading this book. I get that it's not necessarily a happy story; but it made life in a relationship and life with children seem so utterly depressing. No one seemed to be happy, and they all seemed to be completely incapable of speaking to one another. Small things become big things, big things become insurmountable. I felt like shaking them, to try and knock some sense into them - on many occasions!
Don't get me wrong - I liked it (a Goodreads 3 stars, which is a 'like'), but I didn't LOVE it. And I felt it could have been so much more.
Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for the chance to read this book.
Don't get me wrong - I liked it (a Goodreads 3 stars, which is a 'like'), but I didn't LOVE it. And I felt it could have been so much more.
Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for the chance to read this book.