Johnbobb posted...I was too busy seeing Immaculate, the other movie about the same thing that came out the same time
This struck me as such a baffling decision. Char and I ended up seeing both in theaters roughly ten days apart, maybe less, and the resemblance is striking between the two. For the record I enjoyed both, but I had to give the nod to
Immaculate for the originality and complexity of the themes, and of course for not relying on an existing IP. Plus Sydney Sweeney absolutely
crushed it
pun completely intended in her role.
I will say that though the method is the same
impregnate vulnerable nun initiate, and the goal is ultimately the same
make people believe in God again, the way the respective powers that be went about
achieving their goal is at least different.
One oppressive system wants to fear monger people into organized religion by proving the existence of the devil, and one wants to bring about the second coming of the savior by literally recreating him using remnants of his own DNA. The latter is completely delusional in my opinion, which I think the movie Immaculate did a decent job of portraying. Even if you can recreate the manner of his birth (the immaculate conception) through lies and manipulation, and even if you can get a complete map of his DNA and create a perfect clone of him, you can't synthesize the voice of God to guide his moral compass and color his decisions. Their efforts were ultimately ineffective and futile anyway, as heard by the seemingly malformed infant that struggled to cry or even breathe by the end. I think it would've made a stronger statement to have the baby come out perfect, and then have Sweeney's character do what she ended up doing with it anyway, but I'm sure audiences would have frowned upon such an ending.