Sunday, August 17, 2025

God's Not Dead: In God We Trust (2024) and the Franchise's Different Christian Persecution Storylines


I started writing Sunday “Bad” Movies posts in December 2012. That’s nearly thirteen years ago. Over that time, I’ve seen a myriad of bad movies, as well as some surprisingly good ones. I’ve watched one-offs and I’ve seen franchises. I’ve followed some actors through their bad movie careers, while there are some I still need to touch upon. It’s all in the name of learning about film in general.

One of the more enduring staples of Sunday “Bad” Movies has been the God’s Not Dead franchise. It took me a while to get into it. Over 200 posts, in fact. But once I was in, the franchise kept coming back. I was four and a half years into Sunday “Bad” Movies when I watched the first two. I watched each subsequent sequel as they were released. I guess you could say that’s my thing. I even ventured outside the franchise to check out Brother White, another religious movie featuring David A.R. White. Then I got around to what may have been his origin, Second Glance. There’s something about that man’s movie charisma that keeps pulling me back in.


The God’s Not Dead franchise are your stereotypical Christian propaganda movies. They don’t dive into historical Christian dramatizations. They aren’t that sort of story. God’s Not Dead and its four sequels are that type of Christian movie where people tell Christians they’re not allowed to believe in God. Yeah, this franchise is all about the persecution complex that flows through the entire Christian film genre. It might be the best at it, too. Sure, there are some missteps in each of the movies. Some things that might come down to ideologies being different. But they do a good job of coming up with interesting conflicts.

I’m honestly a little surprised that they managed to tell a different story within the confines of Christian persecution in each instalment. I’m even more surprised they managed to bring something interesting each time, too. I’m not going to outright say the movies are good. The persecution of Christians has never, in modern society, been as bad as the movies make it out to be. Or as miraculous.


God’s Not Dead began as a simple story that could have worked well outside the Christian audience if it were tweaked just slightly. And if all the surrounding “cancer cured by prayer” and “Christianity is better than Islam” stuff was removed. At its core, the first movie was about a philosophy professor telling his students that they could no longer believe in God, and the one student who refused to conform to this demand. Had the story positioned itself as a conflict about the freedom to believe, it would have been a perfect, captivating story. It didn’t do that. 

God’s Not Dead saw the student guest lecturing for three classes in a debate with the professor. These lectures should have been about the aforementioned freedom of belief. Allow people to believe in whatever they chose. That would have been a universal theme that could have garnered a bigger audience. It wouldn’t be a Christian movie, though. The Christian filmmakers had to position themselves as the sole victim. The student argued about why God was real, essentially turning his trilogy of lectures into sermons to convert his classmates. The basis was there for a strong story about a teacher infringing upon people’s rights, but the Christian part of the Christian persecution complex brought it down.


God’s Not Dead 2 might have had the strongest conflict of the entire franchise. There were still some flaws as the inherently Christian story was pushed too far into the persecution side of things. A high school teacher was in court because of a classroom incident. A student who was exploring her religious beliefs asked the teacher about a comparison between a historical event and a Biblical event. The teacher answered the question with the relation between the events. Another student reported it and BOOM! A court case was opened because the teacher didn’t respect the boundaries within the separation of church and state.

The thing that held God’s Not Dead 2 back was how hard they hit the Christian persecution angle. The movie would have been fine as a court case involving the use of religion in a public school lesson, even though the teacher was just answering a question her student had. They took it a few steps further, though. The opposing lawyer had to declare he was using the case to “prove once and for all that God is dead.” He demanded they prove the Bible was historically accurate. They weren’t going after the teacher for her lesson as much as they were going after Christianity for existing.

Another storyline in God’s Not Dead 2 was that the government wanted Pastor Dave to turn over his sermons. He refused to share them, which led to his arrest at the conclusion of the film. I don’t know how accurate that is to reality, but it only helped to reinforce the persecution of Christians. It also led into the opening of the third God’s Not Dead movie.


God’s Not Dead: A Light in Darkness may not have had the strongest conflict, but it put an interesting spin on the Christian persecution stuff that permeated throughout the franchise. It made the third God’s Not Dead movie the most palatable. Pastor Dave was released from prison in time to see his campus church be vandalized. An angry student threw a brick through a window and started a fire. This coincided with the college’s decision to remove the church from campus grounds. Pastor Dave hired his lawyer brother to help him fight the school so he could keep the church.

There was a self-awareness to God’s Not Dead: A Light in Darkness that wasn’t present in the rest of the franchise. Yeah, it was still a movie about a pastor fighting against a college that wanted to remove Christianity from their campus. That Christian persecution complex was still there. The self-awareness made it feel different, though. It ended up not being a story about stopping belief. The lesson was about people having an equal opportunity to find faith, rather than have one faith pushed upon them. Pastor Dave was in the wrong for most of the movie. They never shied away from that fact. He even assaulted the vandal. He was not a heroic figure in this story, which made things more interesting. God’s Not Dead: A Light in Darkness was interesting because Pastor Dave learned that all faiths deserve to have followers, and his followers would come to Christianity no matter where his church was. It was humbling, in a way, to the Christian persecution complex that plagued the series.


Three movies. Three different ways that people tried to keep Christians from worshipping God. Or so the Christian audience would have you believe. Surely, the people behind the franchise would run into some repetition if they kept going. Not so fast. God’s Not Dead: We the People took the fight to congress. Pastor Dave led a bunch of church-sanctioned homeschooling. When a federal representative deemed their curriculum not up to governmental standards, he headed to Washington to fight the government in the capitol for their rights to homeschool their way.

If I remember correctly, a lot of the conflict was based on the whole science versus religion argument. Evolution and that sort of stuff. God’s Not Dead: We the People felt like the most fabricated conflict for the sake of Christian persecution. Each of these movies pulled from real stories, exaggerating them to pull on the persecution complex strings to their fullest extent. There are real stories of students being told they can’t be religious at school, or teachers getting in trouble for talking about religion. Colleges are moving away from having only one religion on campus due to inclusivity. These things are happening, though not to the extremes that these movies made them out to be. There has not, however, been a targeted governmental assault on religion in homeschooling. Between that wholly fabricated story and this instalment being kind of boring, it was time for a change.


That change would come in the form of God’s Not Dead: In God We Trust. The fifth film in the franchise would move away from the education thread that flowed through the first four movies, and dive fully into politics. Pastor Dave (David A.R. White) was enlisted to run in an election against Peter Kane (Ray Wise). Kane wanted to do all the right things. Tax churches, allow universal healthcare, make sure laws weren’t written in the name of God. But he went about it through mudslinging and manipulation. Pastor Dave, on the other hand, wanted to get elected to help his church, and he wouldn’t compromise his beliefs or his friendliness to do it. He thought honesty and openness was the best path. As much as his campaign manager wanted to tone down his religious side, it was a part of him. His honesty and openness required all of him. People would elect the real him, not a fabricated image of himself that hid key parts of who he was. And he wasn’t going to say anything bad about his opponent.

God’s Not Dead: In God We Trust changed things up in two major ways. First, it dropped the education thread that had been the backbone of every conflict in the series thus far. The other major change was that it didn’t attempt to play the story off as true. Sure, it somewhat satirized how broken the US political system is, and that things need to change. But it wasn’t some real story about how someone’s religious beliefs were being infringed upon. Outside of the bookend storyline about a church shelter that was being shut down. God’s Not Dead: In God We Trust mostly eschewed the Christian persecution complex and the education system for an election campaign storyline with a religious character. I guess, five movies in, the Christian persecution complex finally felt a little too tired to be the main focus of another movie.


The God’s Not Dead franchise has been going for over a decade. Five movies in eleven years. It is a franchise that has thrived off the Christian persecution complex. That hooked the audience the first time around. The Christian audience wanted to be the underdog fighting against the people putting them down. Somehow, the franchise kept finding new fights to be fought, mostly by the same pastor from the same Arkansas church. The fact that they’ve kept the franchise going as long as they have is a (new) testament to the Christian audiences’ appetites to watch movies where they can vicariously fight back against the anti-Christian forces that be. I’m curious how long it will be until they run out of causes for Pastor Dave to fight for.

I’ve been writing Sunday “Bad” Movies posts since 2012. There are only a few movies and franchises that have stuck with me then way God’s Not Dead has. It’s not that they’re great movies. There might only be two of them that I legitimately enjoy. And I don’t agree with the Christian persecution complex. Yet there’s something about them that has a grip on me. The conflicts have potential. David A.R. White has been a good presence as Pastor Dave. If they keep finding reasons to play victim, I’ll keep watching.


The last thing to do with this post is the notes:

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, August 10, 2025

Showdown (1993)


When you think of movies that inspired things that came after, there are a few that pop into mind immediately. Die Hard was followed by a whole bunch of copycats that were called “Die Hard in a…” movies. Jaws led the way for a bunch of animal, and one lawnmower, attack movies that followed. Porky’s kicked off a sex comedy craze, while Friday the 13th inspired a bunch of slasher movies set at summer camps. Then there was The Avengers, which made every studio think it was okay to build a cinematic universe.

One movie I didn’t know inspired so many others was The Karate Kid. It was a 1984 movie about a high school kid who moved to a new town, only to be bullied by a local karate student for befriending the bully’s girlfriend. The new kid befriended an old man who taught him karate, before the kid faced off against his bully in a tournament. It was a fairly simple story with some key elements.


The first step to having a movie that influences so many others is to branch off into a franchise. The Karate Kid had that. There were three sequels to the original that saw the mentor go to his home country, saw them essentially rehash the first movie with a new villain who worked with the original villain, and saw a new Karate Kid come in. Then there was the remake. And, finally, a legasequel that brought the originals into the same continuity as the remake. Oh, and the show, Cobra Kai. That’s out there, too.

After the franchise has been established, the other movies can happen. People either consciously or subconsciously write a story with the same beats. Maybe they moved some stuff around. Maybe they removed something or added something else. But the same story is the same story. I always say that originality comes not from the story but from how the story is told. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s the same story.


Look at a movie like Showdown. This 1993 flick had Ken Marks (Ken Scott) move to a new town and enroll in a new school. He immediately fell for Julie (Christine Taylor), the girlfriend of martial arts student Tom (Ken McLeod). Tom violently bullied Ken, but Ken befriended Billy (Billy Blanks), a former cop turned school janitor, who taught him martial arts. Ken eventually went on to fight Tom in a martial arts show, and earned his bully’s respect.

That was the same story as The Karate Kid. They even had the bully’s sensei be a needlessly violent teacher who only cared about hurting the enemy. They didn’t even try to hide it. Some of the movies changed details that blurred the lines a little bit. They tried to repackage the story of The Karate Kid to make their retelling feel a little more unique. Showdown didn’t care to do that. The people behind it basically took the story, added more violence, and called it a day.


Let’s break it down in more detail. Ken was the new kid in school. He just moved to town with his single mother. This was the same start as The Karate Kid, where Daniel moved from New Jersey to California with his single mother. The schools were a little different. Daniel’s felt like a regular middle-class, bordering on upper-class movie high school. Ken’s felt like an inner-city high school that needed a new teacher to come in and clean it up. It was a stark difference that only helped to build the violent atmosphere of Showdown.

There was a little difference with who Ken met when he got to the school. Ken got a best friend for comic relief and exposition that Daniel didn’t have. After that, things went about the same. Ken met Julie. Her jealous boyfriend, Tom, was a star martial artist at a local dojo. He began tormenting Ken for talking to his girl. He relentlessly beat Ken multiple times throughout Showdown. Put a pin in that. I’ll get back to it later. Now let’s look at The Karate Kid. Daniel went to a beach party where he met Ali. Her jealous boyfriend, Johnny, a star student at a local dojo targeted and tormented Daniel for talking to Ali. He bullied and beat Daniel throughout the movie.


Before I get into more detail about the beatings, I want to get into the dojo. John Kreese was the sensei in The Karate Kid. He was an emotionally abusive Vietnam veteran who only cared about winning, at whatever cost. He went as far as to tell his students to intentionally injure Daniel during a tournament. “Sweep the leg,” he said. Compare that to Showdown. Lee ran the dojo. He was a troublemaker whose brother had been accidentally killed by police during a house party he was harassing. Yes, he and his brother harassed an entire party. He opened a dojo where he taught his students to use violent force against others. Students who slept with his assistant, but that’s beside the point. Lee wasn’t just emotionally abusive, though. He set up sanctioned matches where he would beat up his own students. He was such a great role model for Tom. No wonder Tom was messed up. That’s two abusive sensei for you.

The bullies in both The Karate Kid and Showdown each had abusive mentors. The main characters also had mentors. However, their mentors were much less abusive. Daniel had Mr. Miyagi helping him throughout The Karate Kid. Mr. Miyagi was the handyman at the apartment complex Daniel and his mother moved into. He taught Daniel the ways of martial arts through waxing and painting and sanding. Menial tasks helped Daniel build defensive habits. And let’s go back to that pin that I put in the beatings a little earlier. Mr. Miyagi jumped in and fended off the bullies when Daniel was being attacked. Protector and mentor. The same could be said for Billy in Showdown. He was the janitor at Ken’s high school. He taught Ken some basic martial arts and had Ken do some cleaning. Those two weren’t related this time, outside of the cleaning being a payment for training. However, it did lead to a direct reference to The Karate Kid. On the protection front, Tom and his friends chased Ken into the school gymnasium for a beating. Billy jumped in, fended off the bullies, and ran off. Aside from how the chores connected to the training, the story beats were essentially the same in both movies.

The final thing worth mentioning about the similarities between The Karate Kid and Showdown was the ending. The Karate Kid built to a tournament where Daniel would be matched against Johnny in the finals. Through that match, Daniel earned the respect of his rival. Showdown saw Ken join a martial arts showcase at Lee’s dojo, where he would be in a match against Tom. Through that match and what directly followed it, Ken earned his rival’s respect. Yeah, they essentially had the same ending.


Now you can see all the similarities between The Karate Kid and Showdown. That’s because The Karate Kid made such an impression on people that they couldn’t help but make their own versions of that story. Showdown was the extreme version. What other versions are out there? Two come to mind immediately.

Never Back Down was a 2008 movie that shared numerous similarities. A teenager moved to a new city with his mother and brother. He discovered an underground fight club involving a bunch of students using MMA. A local gym owner from Brazil trained him so he could face off in an MMA tournament against the school bully. That bully was in a relationship with a girl the main character liked.

The story of Never Back Down was a slightly reworked version of The Karate Kid. The characters filled the same roles. The new kid was there, as was the bully, the girl, and the mentor. The only one that was really missing was the bully’s mentor. The biggest difference was the personality of the characters. The main kid was aggressive in a way that The Karate Kid didn’t feature. He was much angrier than Daniel. It was understandable, though. His father died in a drunk driving accident, and he hadn’t handled his anger over that situation well. So that was probably the biggest wrinkle in this retelling 


The other movie clearly inspired by The Karate Kid was the 2006 entry into The Fast and the Furious franchise, Tokyo Drift. A high school kid was charged by police for street racing through a construction zone and sent to live with his father in Tokyo. He was introduced to underground drift racing and soon met the girlfriend of the best drifter. The rival then went out of his way to embarrass the new kid and make his life hell. The new kid found a mentor who taught him to drive, and he eventually earned everyone’s respect.

Tokyo Drift was essentially The Karate Kid with cars. There were a few major deviations in the plot, though. Some important characters died. That didn’t happen in other tellings of this story. The main character moved in with his dad instead of moving somewhere with his mom. And, yeah, cars instead of hand-to-hand combat. Yet the essential beats were still there. The main character was a fish-out-of-water who joined some sort of battle scene. He made rivals with the boyfriend of the girl he liked. He got a mentor. He gained people’s respect through a final battle. That was the story of The Karate Kid told through a street racing franchise.

I’m sure there are more movies out there that told the same story as The Karate Kid. There are only so many stories that can be told. These were only three of the subsequent versions of this story, the three that came to mind. What I can say is that The Karate Kid was influential enough that they got made. It managed to inspire a few different filmmakers to make movies with essentially the same story to tell. They told it their own way, though, which is the important part.


Think back to when you were younger. Not necessarily when you were a child, but it could be back then, too. Think more about your formative years. Those pre-teen and teenage years where you took in as much as you could. You learned social skills from the people around you. You listened to music, watched television, played video games, and watched movies to find your tastes. You built yourself into the person you are through what you took in. Surely, some of that inspired you.

Movies inspire a lot of people. They might push you to change the course of your life. A movie might inspire you to act a certain way, talk a certain way, or do certain things. A road trip movie could inspire you to travel more. When it comes to filmmakers, a lot of their style comes from the different movies they watched. A story might be inspired by something a character said, or it might be inspired by a whole movie itself. What’s important is that the newer generation doesn’t only take from one thing. They take from multiple inspirations to turn what built them into something that feels new. Kind of like what these movies did with The Karate Kid.


And here come the notes:

  • The director of Showdown was Robert Radler. He also directed The Substitute 3: Winner Takes All and The Substitute 4: Failure is Not an Option.
  • The principal of the school in Showdown was played by Brion James. He was previously featured in Cabin Boy, Return to Frogtown, and Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park.
  • James Lew returned to Sunday “Bad” Movies in Showdown, after appearing in Savage Beach, Martial Law, and Guns.
  • Patrick Kilpatrick was in The Toxic Avenger, The Substitute 4: Failure is Not an Option, and Showdown.
  • Finally, Billy Blanks played the good mentor in Showdown. He also popped up in Jack and Jill.
  • Have you seen Showdown? Are there any other movies that used The Karate Kid story that I missed? If you have any thoughts, leave them in the comments, on Bluesky, or on Threads.
  • Bluesky, Threads, and the comments are good places to suggest movies for me to check out for future Sunday “Bad” Movies posts. Let me know about them.
  • The last thing to do is look ahead at what’s coming up for Sunday “Bad” Movies. I already have a post for God’s Not Dead: In God We Trust written, but it needs some work. It should drop next week. Then I’ll write a little something about a 1989 movie called Teen Witch. After that, I’ll probably do a little something about the 2025 remake of War of the Worlds. I have no idea after that. We might be into October by then, so probably a little bit of horror. We’ll see. And I’ll see you when I get the next post up.
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, July 27, 2025

He's All That (2021)


If you’re looking for a wholly original story in movies, you’re not going to find it. Most stories have already been told. It’s difficult to find something that doesn’t tell a similar story to one that people already know. That’s why I always say that originality doesn’t come from a story. Originality comes from the way the story is told. One filmmaker could tell a story in a completely different way from another filmmaker. The things that they bring to the story make it feel original.

Things get more complicated when it comes to reboots and remakes and all that sort of stuff. Making it feel more original can be tougher because the building blocks are essentially the same. It’s not just the story that feels similar. The characters, their interactions, the locations… All that sort of stuff feels the same, too. The filmmakers need to find a new twist on the same material to make it feel fresh. Maybe they add some new themes to modernize the story.

A new theme can really bring a remake or reboot together. It allows the same story to be told, while adding another layer to make things a little more interesting. The people watching who think that the filmmakers are ruining their favourite movie might find something surprising with the new telling. They might be able to give it credit for what it did. Or they might be sexist assholes who hate a Ghostbusters remake from pre-production to years after release simply because it put women in the lead roles. Hopefully the first option.


That’s how we get to He’s All That, a gender-swapped remake of She’s All That. Much like the original, the movie was based on a bet. Padgett (Addison Rae) was a social media influencer who went through a bad breakup on a live stream and lost a bunch of followers. In an attempt to get her following back, she accepted a bet from Alden (Madison Pettis) to turn one of the most undesirable people in the school, Cameron (Tanner Buchanan), into the prom king. Romance ensued.

He's All That was clearly a remake of She’s All That. The core elements were all there, just with the roles reversed. The girl made a bet that she could turn the guy into the prom king, where the original had the guy making the bet that he could turn the girl into the prom queen. The friend turned foe twist was in there, with Madison Pettis instead of Paul Walker. The sibling who was maybe a little too involved with their brother’s life taking the place of the sibling maybe a little too involved with their sister’s life. The prom dance scene was there. Kiss Me was on the soundtrack again, though it was a cover version.


The big change, however, with bringing this gender-swapped version of the movie to the modern day was to add the influence of social media on everything. Padgett was a major social influencer. She lost that popularity early in the movie because of the livestream breakup she had when she found her boyfriend cheating on her. People memed a snot bubble she had while scream crying. The boyfriend was also an important part of this story. He was an aspiring musician, so a lot of what he did was also geared towards fame and popularity. The hook that made He’s All That have a reason to exist as a remake, beyond the financial benefits the studio was sure to be hoping for, was fame and social media.

There was a message that came with that theme, too. He’s All That tried to show that social media and big followings weren’t… Well… All that. Padgett started the movie as an influencer who tried to hide her true living situation behind the glamour of her online persona. She pretended to be someone she wasn’t. She built her life behind that lie. Cameron didn’t participate in social media, enjoying life by just being himself. Except, not really. He was also hiding from his feelings about losing his father. But he was much truer to himself than Padgett ever was to herself. He had simply isolated himself, emotionally, from other people. Including his sister.

It was through their relationship, which started from a bet and would lead to trouble later, that they both learned to change their ways. Cameron opened himself up to his friends and family. Padgett was where the theme really hit. Kind of. When she was betrayed by Alden, she lost everything. People knew she wasn’t rich. Cameron knew their relationship started with a bet. But, you know what? In true romantic comedy fashion, it opened her up to being who she always should have been. She started being proud of her background. Her mom, her humble class status, just plain not being the horrible person that Alden was. She didn’t need to present herself as perfect or rich. Her imperfection and relatability made her perfect. There was even a whole speech about it where she owned the embarrassing moments that tore her down early in the movie. It didn’t matter what people online thought about her. It mattered that she was true to herself and that she was happy being herself.


This was an interesting theme because of what we know about social media. It’s an addictive, time-consuming, mentally-exhausting thing. People, myself included, are addicted to the high of other people liking what they post. Pictures, opinions, videos, links… All kinds of stuff. The more we focus on social media, the more depressed we get from the negativity. The more we get addicted to the likes, the more likely it is that we start to tailor our output to what we think others will like. We lose ourselves to what we want to present to the world. We lose our mind to opinions that other people share. Are we really who we are when we use social media? What if we just tried to be ourselves instead of trying to farm engagement?

The only real issue with the theme was that the ending spoiled everything that had been built up. I’m not talking about the moment at prom where Padgett got up on stage and owned her embarrassing social media moments. That was good stuff. That was her realizing that what people thought about you online didn’t matter. What mattered was your self worth. A good message that the demographic of He’s All That needed to hear. The problem was the stuff that came after that climactic moment. The movie closed on Padgett riding a horse and going live on her social media to let everyone know she was riding a horse. She even forced her new boyfriend, Cameron, who didn’t like social media at all, to participate in her live stream. That scene went completely against the themes that the movie had been utilizing for the entire runtime. It was a movie that thrived on letting people know that social media wasn’t all it was cracked up to be and that you had to be true to yourself and not your followers if you wanted to be truly happy. After a moment of clarity at prom, Padgett fell back on her old ways and brought someone else into it. Someone who adamantly said earlier in the movie that he didn’t do social media. Way to fumble the ball in the red zone, writers.


In order to update She’s All That into He’s All That, the same story but gender-flipped for a new generation, the writers added the social media theme to make things different enough. They wanted to give their version of the story a way to stand on its own. They wanted to justify telling the story again, by adding a new layer to things. For the most part, it worked. The ending faltered what was a strong theme, but aside from that final scene, the theme was solid. Did they make a good movie? That’s a whole other question. They made something that felt like a Disney Channel Original mixed with a more adult-oriented teen movie of the late 90s. It was a strange mixture that worked in some moments but completely missed the mark in others. Was it good? No. Was it bad? No. It was somewhere in the middle.

Remakes can be a tough challenge to completely succeed in. There’s a fine line that must be ridden to make a successful remake. That’s probably why so many movies go the route of legacy sequel, now. A remake must be beholden to what made the original special, while also branching out to do its own thing. It’s much easier to make a legacy sequel that can directly pull elements from the original while blazing its own trail. Do I find legacy sequels entertaining? Sure. But I’ll always be more impressed by something like He’s All That, which tried something new without directly calling back to the original. Outside of a couple cast members in new roles, of course.

Originality isn’t something that exists in great abundance anymore. If you want originality on a story level, that is. There are only so many stories that can be told and most of them have been told at this point. Where originality truly shines is in how the stories are told. The hero’s journey. The search for lost treasure. Romance. Slashers. The originality comes in the details, not in the general structure. You could line up twenty people and get them to tell you the same story. No two people will tell it exactly the same. That’s where originality comes from. That’s what I look for. Originality is not in the story. It is in how the story is told.


Now it’s time for some notes, and I’m sure there are a bunch with this one:

  • Madison Pettis returned to Sunday “Bad” Movies with He’s All That. She was previously in Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2, Beverly Hills Chihuahua 3: Viva la Fiesta!, and The Search for Santa Paws.
  • Next up is Matthew Lillard. He popped up as the principal in He’s All That, but was also seen in In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale and Wing Commander.
  • The other cast member to return from She’s All That for He’s All That was Rachael Leigh Cook. She was previously in Sunday “Bad” Movies in a little movie called Spirit Halloween: The Movie.
  • Finally, Bianca Brewton was in Sandy Wexler and He’s All That.
  • Have you seen He’s All That? What did you think? What do you think would make remakes successful? Let me know in the comments, or you could tell me on Bluesky or Threads.
  • Bluesky, Threads, and the comments are good places to tell me what I should be checking out for Sunday “Bad” Movies.
  • Now it’s time to take a look at what’s coming up. I’m pretty sure I told you in the last couple posts that I’ll be writing a little something about 1993’s Showdown. Well, I’ve got another movie lined up now. After I put up the post for Showdown, I’ll be writing about God’s Not Dead: In God We Trust. Yeah, I went back to that franchise. We’ll see what’s after that. I’ll let you know next time. See you then.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)