Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Java_Joe This movie has come back in the news namely because the court case where Mike Huckabee robocalled everybody to promote this movie finally was decided and the makers need to pay out some $32 million dollars in damages. That's a little more than $10.00 per person though but it made me remember this movie all over again.This takes place in an America that never was. It's an America where kids aren't allowed to bring bibles to school. There's never been any law like this on the books except you can't read from the bible in class nor can you teach the bible instead of actual history or science. It's a world where you can't have Christmas decorations anywhere. It's a world where kids never heard of Christmas carols because they don't play them on the radio anymore. In short, this is not happening anywhere in this country. But that never stopped people with an agenda from pushing it and acting like they're the persecuted minority when last time I checked just about everybody in this country celebrates Christmas to one degree or another. It's badly acted, poorly produced and has elements in it that simply aren't true no matter how much the makers want it to be true. Avoid this unless you happen to like that kind of thing. Or even better, try to find a real Christmas movie if you're in the mood for one.

Tony Cruz The previous reviewer's negative, anti-Christian and anti-American rhetoric almost seems deliberately contrived because it perfectly underscores the struggle that the protagonists in this beautiful story endured. This movie is about courage, triumph and redemption, in that order. The subliminal point of the movie's main hero is that when we willingly give up the "bread of freedom", one crumb at a time, we lose track of when the whole loaf is gone. This is also exemplified in the quote taken from Ronald Reagan's California Gubernatorial address in January of 1967, both at the beginning as well as the end of the story. Marshall Teague and Jennifer O'Neil are masterful in their interpretation of a senior couple still very much in love and just as importantly, still in unmitigated support of one another. The rest of the cast without exception, does a superb job of interpreting the various threads of the story line, whether their roles are villainous or virtuous.I cannot recommend this movie enough to anyone who is proud of what it MEANS to be an American and what it means to believe in someone much greater than ourselves. See it with someone you love, particularly if that someone includes a man or woman who's served or is currently serving in our Armed Forces.

johann_hollar Once more a movie is made to make Christians like myself have me want to hide my faith and have me be reluctant to call myself a Christian.It's bad enough we have straw man crap films about the existence of God in the God's Not Dead films or flawed arguments about creation like Matter of Faith, but when it comes to the whole stupid taking away Christmas angle, this piece of crap film takes the cake when it comes to the whole stupid persecution angle.Why the hell would politicians take away Christmas? Would the same morons who are protesting about Christmas do the same thing for Non- Christian holidays? What right do they have to go waving around the American flag on their advertisement, when the film is fighting against the church/state separation, the core foundation of this country? and on a final note: what the hell is with the ACLU like organization doing being depicted as the bad guys?I would expect some kind of answer, but then again with a film that's been approved by Chuck Norris, I might not want an answer.

harlemsushi This review is for the people without a political or religious axe to grind who are just wondering if this is a good movie. Before discussing the film itself, the first thing that the viewer needs to be aware of is the film's chronology which is easily misunderstood and not described particularly well. To explain why, it is first helpful to discuss some of the plot. The main narrative follows Bob Revere who is an Easy Rider-esque veteran of an unidentified war. Bob is a pharmacist by trade and also serves as the mayor of Mount Columbus. Within that narrative are flashbacks (accomplished through old video footage, recollections, and visualizations) introducing Bob's son Thomas to the audience.The way the flashbacks were presented, Thomas got married soon after high school and enlisted in the Army at the age of 20. Unfortunately, he never made it home and left behind his pregnant wife and parents to grieve for him. After the funeral, Thomas' wife left Mount Columbus and moved to California with Thomas' infant son Christian. This made an already emotionally fragile Bob feel abandoned and more alienated. Fourteen years later, Kari returns to Mount Columbus with a teenage Christian and Bob's unresolved issues regarding Kari, Christian, and his son's death.All this exposition compromises the first 13 minutes of the film and they are crucial to understanding the universe within which the film is set. On my initial viewing I assumed that all the flashbacks took place fourteen years ago and that the main narrative occurs in the present day. As a result of this assumption, the film comes off as a heavy-handed and lacking any form of subtlety. However I couldn't shake off the feeling I had missed something and I decided to re-watch the movie trying to figure out if I had missed something.During my re-watch I realized that I had made an error which changed my perception of the film. The error was that the film's flashbacks were not meant to have been in the past. The film does a rather poor job of conveying this and that's why the flashbacks are easily confused as having occurred fourteen years ago. Instead the entire main narrative which tells Bob's story takes place in a future fourteen years from the present that saw an extreme secularization of America that excised religion from all public places and had a zero tolerance policy against any entanglement between religion and government. As such the film should be thought of as existing in some not too distant dystopian future giving it more in common with science fiction than with faith based films.This approach gave me a new appreciation for the film, but this new appreciation did little to hide some of the films short comings. Firstly, the script does very little to ease you into the universe that these characters reside in. The characters talk about the "good old days" and how their freedoms were gradually eroded away in the name of political correctness, but the script does not even attempt give even a rudimentary explanation of exactly how this happened and instead chooses to leave it to the imagination or paranoia of the viewer. Personally the lack of explanation came off as lazy writing and that should have been addressed in some way.Secondly, the direction is uninspired and can be compared to what you would expect from a Lifetime film. The most I could say was that the director made sure he got proper coverage for every scene to give the editors enough to work with. However with that said, there are a few shots in the film that take full advantage of the location and show off the beautiful Colorado landscape and the wonder of its mountains. Those bits of cinematography are really well shot, but few and far between.Thirdly the acting is a very mixed bag. The acting highlights of the film are Marshall R. Teague as Bob Revere, Fred Williamson as Warren Hammerschmidt, Jennifer O'Neill as Bob's wife Dottie, Hunter Gomez as Christian Revere, and Jenna Boyd as Maddie Rogers. All five were competent enough in their craft that they made their clunky dialogue sound somewhat natural. With that said, Nikki Novak who played Kari and Rusty Joiner who played Greg (Thomas' best friend now pining for Kari's affection) were both horrible in every way and had no chemistry. The fact that a significant portion of the film focuses on their romantic subplot hurts the movie in the long run. Some of the minor characters will equally make you question the experience of the casting director.Overall, this is a family film and the worst thematic elements on display are some war images and brief smoking. Ultimately though, whether or not you find Last Ounce of Courage entertaining depends completely on your willingness to overlook its flaws and withstand its lack of subtlety. However, I cannot stress enough that you must approach it as a science fiction film exploring the dystopian genre. Doing so really puts the film into perspective and makes the actions of the characters and the universe they populate seem a bit more rational and grounded.As a side, I have a friend that asked me to include a final little tidbit about the film: As a disclaimer, I don't drink alcohol but I know some of you like to play drinking games. For those of you that do, run out and buy the DVD. Last Ounce of Courage gives you the ability to play along by taking a drink every time one of the characters says the word "freedom" in the film, two drinks for every time either Bill O'Reilly or Ronald Reagan say it, and three drinks for any time someone says the word "Constitution" or quotes it correctly. Whoever is left standing at the end of the film or has not vomited wins.