Changes

|1979-2017

|1979-2017

|R

|R

|Pro-feminist anti-capitalist film franchise. The first film was proven to be a rip-off of the 1965 film ''Planet of the Vampires','<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzToy-Tjz5g</ref> but since it fitted the left's agenda, they didn't care and gave it biased reviews anyway. The second film, ''Aliens'', was an anti-Vietnam statement<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T543J2L-gXU</ref> and just like it's predecessor, was also a rip-off of the 1954 film ''Them!''<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVoX-C9J4Zk</ref>.

|Pro-feminist anti-capitalist film franchise. The first film was proven to be a rip-off of the 1965 film ''Planet of the Vampires'',<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzToy-Tjz5g</ref> but since it fitted the left's agenda, they didn't care and gave it biased reviews anyway. The second film, ''Aliens'', was an anti-Vietnam statement<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T543J2L-gXU</ref> and just like it's predecessor, was also a rip-off of the 1954 film ''Them!''<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVoX-C9J4Zk</ref>.

|$515,930,723 (all together)

|$515,930,723 (all together)

|-

|-

|1989

|1989

|R

|R

| Another anti-Vietnam war statement film with Sean Penn that features a plot involving American solders gang raping a Vietnamese woman, paints America soldiers as the bad guys while failing to acknowledge how the Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge or other communist Insurgents did the same thing.

| Another anti-Vietnam war statement film with Sean Penn that features a plot involving American soldiers gang raping a Vietnamese woman, paints America soldiers as the bad guys while failing to acknowledge how the Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge or other communist Insurgents did the same thing.

|$18,671,317

|$18,671,317

|-

|-

|2011

|2011

|R

|R

|A rip-off of the conservative film Falling Down, this "comedy" has a miserable man and his foul mouthed [[nihilist]] girl sidekick summary executes [[Tea Party]] members, a Fox News like host, Christians and other conservative stereotypes.

|A rip-off of the conservative film Falling Down, this "comedy" has a miserable man and his foul-mouthed [[nihilist]] girl sidekick summary executes [[Tea Party]] members, a Fox News like-host, Christians, and other conservative stereotypes.

|$123,000

|$123,000

|-  

|-  

|2013

|2013

|PG-13

|PG-13

|Mocks conservatives with a liberal plot twist that makes the [[TEA Party]] out to be "terrorists". This movie was made by uber-liberals to counter ''Olympus Has Fallen'', which depicts North Korean terrorists as the bad guys.

|Mocks conservatives with a liberal plot twist that makes the [[TEA Party]] out to be "terrorists". This movie was made by uber-liberals to counter conservative film; ''Olympus Has Fallen'', which depicts North Korean terrorists as the bad guys.

|$73,103,784

|$73,103,784

|-

|-

|2001

|2001

|PG

|PG

|Another film released during the [[Michael Eisner]] era of [[Disney]]. The film has a Military Commander as the bad guy who would endanger the city of Atlantis just to be rich, with it also being implied that he was going to commit treason by selling the power source to the Kaiser during World War I for the same motivation. Simply having an adventure movie in Atlantis is just to much to ask I guess.

|Another film released during the [[Michael Eisner]] era of [[Disney]]. The film has a Military Commander as the bad guy who would endanger the city of Atlantis just to be rich, with it also being implied that he was going to commit treason by selling the power source to the Kaiser during World War I for the same motivation. Simply having an adventure movie in Atlantis is just too much to ask I guess.

|$84,056,472

|$84,056,472

|-

|-

| 2011

| 2011

|R

|R

|An awful high school teacher, who is always getting high and drunk, tries to get breast-implant surgery, and encourages cheating and stealing from her students. The movie contains no [[morals]], and is filled with offensive sexual content.

|An awful high school teacher, who is always getting high and drunk, tries to get breast-implant surgery, and encourages cheating and stealing from her students. The movie contains no [[morals]] and is filled with offensive sexual content.

| $100,292,856

| $100,292,856

|-

|-

|2006

|2006

|PG

|PG

|Promotes disorderly conduct, portrays humans as either ignorant or stupid, and completely demonizes coyotes for being meat eating animals. A ferret character also converts to vegetarianism.

|Promotes disorderly conduct, portrays humans as either ignorant or stupid, and completely demonizes coyotes for being meat eating animals. A ferret character also converts to vegetarianism. Not only that but cows are shown to be male, when they should be bulls.

|$116,500,000

|$116,500,000

|-

|-

|2017

|2017

|PG

|PG

|The 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' is the latest in the film trend of needlessly and shamelessly remaking animated films or children's stories for the sake of earning quick revenue in the dying Hollywood studio system. Liberals also seized the opportunity with the remake to exploit diversity within the ''Beauty and the Beast'' universe. The final result of the diversity inclusion is that it feels self-congratulatory in the sense of putting it in for the sake of having it, rather than having it be just a part of the story and the film. One notable example is the filmmakers' decision to make LeFou, Gaston's diminutive and bumbling sidekick, a homosexual who is conflicted with his feelings for Gaston. At the end of film, LeFou is shown taking a romantic interest in a musketeer who is now a transgender woman after being transformed into one during Gaston's siege of the Beast's castle. Not only is it an atrocious artistic decision of the filmmakers to needlessly incorporate diversity simply for the sake of it, but the 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' also serves as an example that liberals can legitimately shoehorn the [[homosexual agenda]] into Disney films. Adding salt to the wound, the filmmakers also further changed history to suit their feminist agenda, similar to previous Disney films like ''Mulan'' (1998), ''Pocahontas'' (1995) and ''The Princess and the Frog'' (2009). The 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' is now even more of a feminist propaganda film than the 1991 animated film version ever was.

|The 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' is the latest in the film trend of needlessly and shamelessly remaking animated films or children's stories for the sake of earning quick revenue in the dying Hollywood studio system. Liberals also seized the opportunity with the remake to exploit diversity within the ''Beauty and the Beast'' universe. The final result of the diversity inclusion is that it feels self-congratulatory in the sense of putting it in for the sake of having it, rather than having it be just a part of the story and the film. One notable example is the filmmakers' decision to make LeFou, Gaston's diminutive and bumbling sidekick, a homosexual who is conflicted with his feelings for Gaston. At the end of the film, LeFou is shown taking a romantic interest in a musketeer who is now a transgender woman after being transformed into one during Gaston's siege of the Beast's castle. Not only is it an atrocious artistic decision of the filmmakers to needlessly incorporate diversity simply for the sake of it, but the 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' also serves as an example that liberals can legitimately shoehorn the [[homosexual agenda]] into Disney films. Adding salt to the wound, the filmmakers also further changed history to suit their feminist agenda, similar to previous Disney films like ''Mulan'' (1998), ''Pocahontas'' (1995) and ''The Princess and the Frog'' (2009). The 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' is now even more of a feminist propaganda film than the 1991 animated film version ever was.

All of that, along with the other shortcomings of the film, reinforces the statement that most of Hollywood is currently out of ideas for motion pictures. It also re-establishes the fact that Disney would, at times, forsake genuine family entertainment in favor of blatant liberal propaganda.

All of that, along with the other shortcomings of the film, reinforces the statement that most of Hollywood is currently out of ideas for motion pictures. It also re-establishes the fact that Disney would, at times, forsake genuine family entertainment in favor of blatant liberal propaganda.

|2013

|2013

|NC-17

|NC-17

|French film that promotes the [[homosexual agenda]] and graphically shows lesbian sex.  Additionally, it falsely idealizes the idea that homosexuals can be sound mentors to young children.  At the Cannes Film Festival, which was headed by liberal [[Steven Spielberg]] and had a board that included ''[[Brokeback Mountain]]'' director, Ang Lee, it was unanimously awarded the top prize.  It is widely believed that this victory was due to France's legalization of [[same-sex marriage|same-sex "marriage"]] eight days prior. At least one of the stars for the film admitted that she felt disgusted by her role in it.

|French film that promotes the [[homosexual agenda]] and graphically shows lesbian sex.  Additionally, it falsely idealizes the idea that homosexuals can be sound mentors to young children.  At the Cannes Film Festival, which was headed by liberal [[Steven Spielberg]] and had a board that included ''[[Brokeback Mountain]]'' director, Ang Lee, it was unanimously awarded the top prize.  It is widely believed that this victory was due to France's legalization of [[same-sex marriage|same-sex "marriage"]] eight days prior. At least one of the stars of the film admitted that she felt disgusted by her role in it.

|$2,199,787

|$2,199,787

|-

|-

|Another "social" science fiction film that just abuses our [[First Amendment|first amendment right]] to bash capitalism. Neill Blomkamp also directed liberal films District 9 and Elysium too. On an optimistic note, the film got bad reviews (even from liberal critics)<ref>https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chappie/</ref> and the film did poorly in America (70% of its gross came from overseas).<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=chappie.htm</ref>

|Another "social" science fiction film that just abuses our [[First Amendment|first amendment right]] to bash capitalism. Neill Blomkamp also directed liberal films District 9 and Elysium too. On an optimistic note, the film got bad reviews (even from liberal critics)<ref>https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chappie/</ref> and the film did poorly in America (70% of its gross came from overseas).<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=chappie.htm</ref>

|$31,569,268

|$31,569,268

|-

|-

|''[[Clerks]]''  

|''[[Clerks]]''  

|1953

|1953

|Not rated

|Not rated

|Promotes cross dressing and transsexualism.

|Promotes cross-dressing and transsexualism.

|N/A

|N/A

|-

|-

|2011

|2011

|R

|R

|Three men try to kill their bosses. Two of the three bosses are wealthy businessmen.

|Three men try to kill their bosses. Two of the three bosses are wealthy businessmen. The film is also filled with offensive language and many sexual references.

|$117,538,559

|$117,538,559

|-

|-

|2014

|2014

|R

|R

|Sequel to Horrible Bosses.

|Sequel to Horrible Bosses. Though this film could be argued to actually support the American Dream and capitalism, which its processor clearly did not.

|$54,445,357

|$54,445,357

|-

|-

|Promotes feminism and glorifies Satanism, contains a lesbian kiss and them making out.

|Promotes feminism and glorifies Satanism, contains a lesbian kiss and them making out.

|$16,204,793.

|$16,204,793.

|-

|-

|''Kids''  

|''Kids''  

|R

|R

|A coming-of-age film that glorifies drug use and [[homosexuality]].

|A coming-of-age film that glorifies drug use and [[homosexuality]].

|

|$27,557,396 <ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=moonlight2016.htm</ref>

|-

|-

|''Movie 43''

|''Movie 43''

|2002

|2002

|R

|R

|A 2002 schlockumentary directed by and starring [[leftist]] propagandist Michael Moore. It is a pro-[[gun control]] film, and distorts facts in favor of gun-grabbing. Also included a "Brief history of the USA" segment using animation mirroring that of [[South Park]], that distorted historical facts to make it seem as though guns were implemented by racists, which actually led to the South Park [[libertarian]] creators to condemn him, enough to give Moore a cameo in Team America as a suicide bomber and make his death especially graphic.

|A 2002 schlockumentary directed by and starring [[leftist]] propagandist Michael Moore. It is a pro-[[gun control]] film and distorts facts in favor of gun-grabbing. Also included a "Brief history of the USA" segment using animation mirroring that of [[South Park]], that distorted historical facts to make it seem as though guns were implemented by racists, which actually led to the South Park [[libertarian]] creators to condemn him, enough to give Moore a cameo in Team America as a suicide bomber and make his death especially graphic.

|$21,576,018

|$21,576,018

|-

|-

|2014

|2014

|TV-PG

|TV-PG

|Darwinist and global warming-alarmist propaganda disguised as science.

|Darwinist and global-warming-alarmist propaganda disguised as science.

|N/A

|N/A

|-

|-

|1974

|1974

|Not Rated

|Not Rated

|A documentary about the Vietnam War that was inherently anti-American in its nature. Also depicts [[Catholic]]s as bigots. It also had a brief clip at the beginning which had the rolling crew having one of the higher officers forced to talk to them with the false promise that they'd burn the tape once he is finished with it. It also has several moments of graphic sex between soldiers and Vietnamese prostitutes. It also implies throughout the film that several atrocities conducted by the North Vietnamese communists were done by Americans, including the footage where a girl ends up burned by [[napalm]] and running out naked. Noteworthy for being almost single-handedly responsible for forcing America out of Vietnam (even having the NVA mailing the producers thanking them for "ensuring peace" in Vietnam) as well as it being an influence for far-left schlockumentarist/propagandist Michael Moore, with some of its filming techniques even being reused for ''Farenheit 9/11''.

|A documentary about the Vietnam War that was inherently anti-American in its nature. Also, depicts [[Catholic]]s as bigots. It also had a brief clip at the beginning which had the rolling crew having one of the higher officers forced to talk to them with the false promise that they'd burn the tape once he is finished with it. It also has several moments of graphic sex between soldiers and Vietnamese prostitutes. It also implies throughout the film that several atrocities conducted by the North Vietnamese communists were done by Americans, including the footage where a girl ends up burned by [[napalm]] and running out naked. Noteworthy for being almost single-handedly responsible for forcing America out of Vietnam (even having the NVA mailing the producers thanking them for "ensuring peace" in Vietnam) as well as it being an influence for far-left schlockumentarist/propagandist Michael Moore, with some of its filming techniques even being reused for ''Farenheit 9/11''.

|Unknown

|Unknown

|-

|-

|2013-2014

|2013-2014

|Unrated

|Unrated

|A documentary glorifying [[Feminism]], in particular the faction that started with [[Betty Friedan]]'s ''The Second Sex''. Also features as examples of role models and pioneers of feminism such degenerates as [[Lena Dunham]] (creator of the Worst Liberal TV Series ''Girls''), Linda Woolverton, [[Hillary Clinton]], [[Ellen DeGeneres]], [[Jane Fonda]], and [[Gloria Allred]]. On top of that, there's no mention of [[Margaret Thatcher]], [[Sarah Palin]], [[Phyllis Schlafly]], [[Michele Bachman]] or [[Carly Fiorina]]. Only showing more of their bias.

|A documentary glorifying [[Feminism]], in particular, the faction that started with [[Betty Friedan]]'s ''The Second Sex''. Also features as examples of role models and pioneers of feminism such degenerates as [[Lena Dunham]] (creator of the Worst Liberal TV Series ''Girls''), Linda Woolverton, [[Hillary Clinton]], [[Ellen DeGeneres]], [[Jane Fonda]], and [[Gloria Allred]]. On top of that, there's no mention of [[Margaret Thatcher]], [[Sarah Palin]], [[Phyllis Schlafly]], [[Michele Bachman]] or [[Carly Fiorina]]. Only showing more of their bias.

|N/A

|N/A

|-

|-

|2008

|2008

|R

|R

|[[Jewish]] "Comedian" [[Bill Maher]] tries to convince the audience of the folly of all religion, with special focus on Christianity.

|[[Jewish]] "Comedian" [[Bill Maher]] tries to convince the audience of the folly of all religion, with a special focus on Christianity.

|$13,011,160

|$13,011,160

|-

|-

|2012

|2012

|N/A

|N/A

|An animated film written by [[Fred Glass]], narrated by [[Ed Asner]], and made for the California Federation of Teachers. It repeated rhetoric made by the [[Occupy Wall Street]] group about taxing the rich to have "their fair share" and demonized Capitalism in various ways, including blaming it on Asian sweat shops as well as the housing bubble bursting in 2008. [[Kirsten Powers]], a member of [[The Daily Beast]], and herself no stranger to liberal politics, acknowledged alongside conservative economist for ''The Daily Caller'' Tucker Carson on the Sean Hannity show that the cartoon was simply inexcusable and disgusting, with Sean Hannity also explicitly referring to it as a "disgusting hit piece".<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sean-hannity-slams-ed-asner-398102</ref><ref>http://reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121206006-ca-union-class.html</ref> The film was particularly infamous for a scene where, in a segment covering the trickle-down effect, a corpulent rich man representing the 1% of wealthy Americans, after having the scales literally stacked up in his favor regarding money, upon being asked why the 1% needed so much money, he responded "Don't worry, this is good for you too, it will trickle down from us to you", with the latter statement being accompanied with a graphic of the rich man proceeding to urinate on the other ordinary people as they yell in protest. Sean Hannety and Michelle Malkin of the Sean Hannety Show both expressed disgust with the video when covering it, and when one of the producers confronted Ed Asner as the latter was about to attend one of his roles at a play, the latter falsely claimed he didn't remember what he said on it, and also claimed that the bit about rich people peeing on poor people was disgusting only because it should have been in reverse, and then asked the producer if he had any money, and if so, if he should "p*** on [the producer]."<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr1ZzsAzq_M</ref>

|An animated film written by [[Fred Glass]], narrated by [[Ed Asner]], and made for the California Federation of Teachers. It repeated rhetoric made by the [[Occupy Wall Street]] group about taxing the rich to have "their fair share" and demonized Capitalism in various ways, including blaming it on Asian sweatshops as well as the housing bubble bursting in 2008. [[Kirsten Powers]], a member of [[The Daily Beast]], and herself no stranger to liberal politics, acknowledged alongside conservative economist for ''The Daily Caller'' Tucker Carson on the Sean Hannity show that the cartoon was simply inexcusable and disgusting, with Sean Hannity also explicitly referring to it as a "disgusting hit piece".<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sean-hannity-slams-ed-asner-398102</ref><ref>http://reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121206006-ca-union-class.html</ref> The film was particularly infamous for a scene where, in a segment covering the trickle-down effect, a corpulent rich man representing the 1% of wealthy Americans, after having the scales literally stacked up in his favor regarding money, upon being asked why the 1% needed so much money, he responded "Don't worry, this is good for you too, it will trickle down from us to you", with the latter statement being accompanied with a graphic of the rich man proceeding to urinate on the other ordinary people as they yell in protest. Sean Hannety and Michelle Malkin of the Sean Hannety Show both expressed disgust with the video when covering it, and when one of the producers confronted Ed Asner as the latter was about to attend one of his roles at a play, the latter falsely claimed he didn't remember what he said on it, and also claimed that the bit about rich people peeing on poor people was disgusting only because it should have been in reverse, and then asked the producer if he had any money, and if so, if he should "p*** on [the producer]."<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr1ZzsAzq_M</ref>

|

|

|-

|-

|2009

|2009

|NR

|NR

|Gruesome movie with horrifying imagery juxtaposed to Christian symbols.

|A gruesome movie with horrifying imagery juxtaposed to Christian symbols.

|$791,867

|$791,867

|-

|-

|2000

|2000

|PG-13

|PG-13

|Alien invasion sci-fi film which serves as a thinly-veiled promotion of Scientology. The film was a huge box office flop, and is largely considered to be one of the worst movies ever made. The film, even, infamously won nine categories within the Golden Raspberry Awards (Razzie Awards), which until ''Jack and Jill'' was the most Raspberry awards given to a single film, as well as winning the separate awards for "Worst Drama of our first 25 Years" during the 2005 awards, as well as "Worst Picture of the Decade" in 2010. Also plays into the liberal notion of personal characteristics mattering more than true merits, since John Travolta was cast as the main character because of his affiliation with the Scientology "church".

|Alien invasion sci-fi film which serves as a thinly-veiled promotion of Scientology. The film was a huge box-office flop and is largely considered to be one of the worst movies ever made. The film, even, infamously won nine categories within the Golden Raspberry Awards (Razzie Awards), which until ''Jack and Jill'' was the most Raspberry awards given to a single film, as well as winning the separate awards for "Worst Drama of our first 25 Years" during the 2005 awards, as well as "Worst Picture of the Decade" in 2010. Also plays into the liberal notion of personal characteristics mattering more than true merits, since John Travolta was cast as the main character because of his affiliation with the Scientology "church".

|$21 million

|$21 million

|-

|-

|1985

|1985

|NR

|NR

|Marxist filmmaker, Jean-Luc Godard, decided to retell the story of Mary and Joseph in modern day.  As per his business casual, it was ultra controversial upon its release.  [[Pope John Paul II]] condemned it, claiming it was likely to offend the deeply religious because of its explicit nudity.  Additionally, it depicts Joseph as a womanizing man [censored] and Mary in a similar light, as there is a montage where she is completely in the nude for no apparent reason.  The film was banned in deeply religious countries such as [[Brazil]] and [[Argentina]].

|Marxist filmmaker, Jean-Luc Godard, decided to retell the story of Mary and Joseph in the modern day.  As per his business casual, it was ultra-controversial upon its release.  [[Pope John Paul II]] condemned it, claiming it was likely to offend the deeply religious because of its explicit nudity.  Additionally, it depicts Joseph as a womanizing man [censored] and Mary in a similar light, as there is a montage where she is completely in the nude for no apparent reason.  The film was banned in deeply religious countries such as [[Brazil]] and [[Argentina]].

|

|

|-

|-

|2014

|2014

|PG-13

|PG-13

|Film seems to take a more atheistic turn on the Greek hero as apposed to the mythology behind Hercules.

|Film seems to take a more atheistic turn on the Greek hero as opposed to the mythology behind Hercules.

|$72,688,614

|$72,688,614

|-     

|-     

|1984

|1984

|R

|R

|Anti-Christian film where a man becomes a serial killer after abuse from the Christian orphanage he grew up in. Conservatives successfully protested the film and it ended up getting pulled from theaters one week after its release.  

|An anti-Christian film where a man becomes a serial killer after abuse from the Christian orphanage he grew up in. Conservatives successfully protested the film and it ended up getting pulled from theaters one week after its release.  

|$2,491,460

|$2,491,460

|-

|-

|A young woman overcomes a shallow society and finds true love. Although by comparison a powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]] to the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] since, as well as overall promoting redemption (as seen with the Beast's transformation), and also promoting some family values (such as Belle being loyal to her father), there were a few hints at feminist propaganda at the beginning of the film, such as Belle being different from the villagers because she can read, which is implied to not be supported by the villagers at all (feminist propaganda often falsely claims that women couldn't get an education until the 1960s), as well as Belle being unwilling to hold the role of housewife for Gaston or raising children, and later her blaming the titular Beast for her fleeing the castle despite most of the events leading up to and after that event being largely her fault and the story framing that as being a good thing she did. Then-Disney Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg also mentioned that he wanted "a feminist twist" on the original fairy tale by creating a heroine who is "a departure from typical Disney female characters",<ref>http://articles.mcall.com/1991-11-22/features/2825583_1_beast-s-castle-fairy-tale-madame-gabrielle</ref> and the feminist writer [[Linda Woolverton]] made clear that she made Belle a feminist and based her on the women's liberation movement from the 1970s in order to avoid creating another insipid princess.<ref name="Beauty and Maleficent">{{Cite web|url = http://time.com/2798136/maleficent-beauty-beast-writer/|title = The Same Woman Wrote Maleficent and Beauty and the Beast—Here’s How They’re Linked|date = May 30, 2014|accessdate = January 16, 2014|website = Time|publisher = |last = Rothman|first = Lily}}</ref><ref>http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/26/linda-woolverton-alice-belle-disney-heroines?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter</ref> Gaston is a conservative and hardworking hunter who is considered by the villagers to be their town hero, but is shown to be the main villain of the movie (it should also be noted that in the original screenplay for the film, Gaston was intended to be a Marquess [French nobleman], meaning the decision to make him a conservative and hardworking hunter was made after a rewrite). In addition, although not to the same degree as other Disney films that came after it (i.e., ''The Hunchback of Notre Dame'' and ''The Princess and the Frog''), the film also has a slight anti-Christian bent, as the villagers (strongly implied by various verses in the opening song and the mob song, as well as a failed wedding, to be practicing and devout Christians) were later briefly seen supporting a plan that went against God's teachings, as well as overall depicted as being idiots, while Belle, the character framed as an intellectual and a moral figure, is not even seen or even implied to believe in God at all. In addition, Belle's love for Beast (where it is implied that she was largely unaware of the Beast being formerly a human prince) could be seen as promoting bestiality. Also, it is the first Disney movie to neither show nor hint at the two love interests getting married, and in fact, the only "wedding" in the film was the one Belle ruined, creating negative implications about marriage as a result, as well as starting a string of movies that don't paint marriage in a positive light. Similarly, the only three females in the film who are implicitly supportive of marriage and Christianity are demeaned, depicted as dumb blondes with the script and credits explicitly referring to them derogatorily as "the bimbettes." There was also a slight anti-hunting sentiment in the film, due to the main villain, as aforementioned, explicitly being labelled as a hunter. There were also several overtones of a pro-homosexual agenda within the film, including the mob song late into the film, largely because of the executive producer, Howard Ashman, being gay and dying from AIDs at the time the film was made. One of the protagonistic characters, Lumiere, is briefly seen making out with a featherduster and was implied that the two weren't married, with some hints at Lumiere being an unrepentant womanizer. In addition, some elements of the film were later reused in the [[Essay:Worst Liberal Movies#Social|definitely liberal]] ''Maleficent'' movie.<ref name="Beauty and Maleficent" />

|A young woman overcomes a shallow society and finds true love. Although by comparison a powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]] to the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] since, as well as overall promoting redemption (as seen with the Beast's transformation), and also promoting some family values (such as Belle being loyal to her father), there were a few hints at feminist propaganda at the beginning of the film, such as Belle being different from the villagers because she can read, which is implied to not be supported by the villagers at all (feminist propaganda often falsely claims that women couldn't get an education until the 1960s), as well as Belle being unwilling to hold the role of housewife for Gaston or raising children, and later her blaming the titular Beast for her fleeing the castle despite most of the events leading up to and after that event being largely her fault and the story framing that as being a good thing she did. Then-Disney Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg also mentioned that he wanted "a feminist twist" on the original fairy tale by creating a heroine who is "a departure from typical Disney female characters",<ref>http://articles.mcall.com/1991-11-22/features/2825583_1_beast-s-castle-fairy-tale-madame-gabrielle</ref> and the feminist writer [[Linda Woolverton]] made clear that she made Belle a feminist and based her on the women's liberation movement from the 1970s in order to avoid creating another insipid princess.<ref name="Beauty and Maleficent">{{Cite web|url = http://time.com/2798136/maleficent-beauty-beast-writer/|title = The Same Woman Wrote Maleficent and Beauty and the Beast—Here’s How They’re Linked|date = May 30, 2014|accessdate = January 16, 2014|website = Time|publisher = |last = Rothman|first = Lily}}</ref><ref>http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/26/linda-woolverton-alice-belle-disney-heroines?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter</ref> Gaston is a conservative and hardworking hunter who is considered by the villagers to be their town hero, but is shown to be the main villain of the movie (it should also be noted that in the original screenplay for the film, Gaston was intended to be a Marquess [French nobleman], meaning the decision to make him a conservative and hardworking hunter was made after a rewrite). In addition, although not to the same degree as other Disney films that came after it (i.e., ''The Hunchback of Notre Dame'' and ''The Princess and the Frog''), the film also has a slight anti-Christian bent, as the villagers (strongly implied by various verses in the opening song and the mob song, as well as a failed wedding, to be practicing and devout Christians) were later briefly seen supporting a plan that went against God's teachings, as well as overall depicted as being idiots, while Belle, the character framed as an intellectual and a moral figure, is not even seen or even implied to believe in God at all. In addition, Belle's love for Beast (where it is implied that she was largely unaware of the Beast being formerly a human prince) could be seen as promoting bestiality. Also, it is the first Disney movie to neither show nor hint at the two love interests getting married, and in fact, the only "wedding" in the film was the one Belle ruined, creating negative implications about marriage as a result, as well as starting a string of movies that don't paint marriage in a positive light. Similarly, the only three females in the film who are implicitly supportive of marriage and Christianity are demeaned, depicted as dumb blondes with the script and credits explicitly referring to them derogatorily as "the bimbettes." There was also a slight anti-hunting sentiment in the film, due to the main villain, as aforementioned, explicitly being labelled as a hunter. There were also several overtones of a pro-homosexual agenda within the film, including the mob song late into the film, largely because of the executive producer, Howard Ashman, being gay and dying from AIDs at the time the film was made. One of the protagonistic characters, Lumiere, is briefly seen making out with a featherduster and was implied that the two weren't married, with some hints at Lumiere being an unrepentant womanizer. In addition, some elements of the film were later reused in the [[Essay:Worst Liberal Movies#Social|definitely liberal]] ''Maleficent'' movie.<ref name="Beauty and Maleficent" />

|$$218,967,620

|$$218,967,620

|-

|-

|''The Campaign''

|''The Campaign''

|Political comedy depicts the Democrat candidate (Will Ferrell) as an obnoxious, drunken womanizer and satire of [[John Edwards]], although the Republican candidate (Zach Galifinakis) is portrayed just as negatively as a corrupt capitalist.

|Political comedy depicts the Democrat candidate (Will Ferrell) as an obnoxious, drunken womanizer and satire of [[John Edwards]], although the Republican candidate (Zach Galifinakis) is portrayed just as negatively as a corrupt capitalist.

|$33,165,738

|$33,165,738

 

|-

|-

|''The Crow''

|''The Crow''

|Ethan Hawke plays a man who questions the ethics of his job as a drone pilot, while it is taking a jab at the [[Barack Obama]] regime (Obama has droned more people in the Middle East than George W. Bush, most of whom were innocent bystanders and the left has ignored it or claimed it was a "Fox News conspiracy"). It could also be against the War on Terror too.

|Ethan Hawke plays a man who questions the ethics of his job as a drone pilot, while it is taking a jab at the [[Barack Obama]] regime (Obama has droned more people in the Middle East than George W. Bush, most of whom were innocent bystanders and the left has ignored it or claimed it was a "Fox News conspiracy"). It could also be against the War on Terror too.

|$316,472

|$316,472

|-

|-

|''Grave of the Fireflies''

|''Grave of the Fireflies''

|Anti-environmentalism film, the heroes are police chief Brody, WWII vet Quint and Marine Biologist Hooper who team up to take on a monstrous, man-eating great white shark. However, there is a part where (despite the warning) the Mayor keeps the beaches open for the sake of money, which some may say is an anti-capitalism statement. Notable for being one of the first summer blockbusters. It was followed by three sequels in 1978, 1983 and 1987.

|Anti-environmentalism film, the heroes are police chief Brody, WWII vet Quint and Marine Biologist Hooper who team up to take on a monstrous, man-eating great white shark. However, there is a part where (despite the warning) the Mayor keeps the beaches open for the sake of money, which some may say is an anti-capitalism statement. Notable for being one of the first summer blockbusters. It was followed by three sequels in 1978, 1983 and 1987.

|$260,000,000

|$260,000,000

|-

|-

|''Juno''

|''Juno''

|Unemployed, immature and childish 23-year old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) has a one-night stand with serious career woman Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl), with the unintended consequence of pregnancy. Alison's mother (Joanna Kerns) says she should get the pregnancy "[[abortion|taken care of]]", while Ben's best friend Jonah (Jonah Hill) suggests that "I won't say the A-word, but it rhymes with abortion." Alison decides to keep the child, while Ben decides to find a real job, grow up, and become a father.

|Unemployed, immature and childish 23-year old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) has a one-night stand with serious career woman Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl), with the unintended consequence of pregnancy. Alison's mother (Joanna Kerns) says she should get the pregnancy "[[abortion|taken care of]]", while Ben's best friend Jonah (Jonah Hill) suggests that "I won't say the A-word, but it rhymes with abortion." Alison decides to keep the child, while Ben decides to find a real job, grow up, and become a father.

|$148,768,917

|$148,768,917

|-

|-

|''The LEGO Movie''

|''The LEGO Movie''

|The film is about a widower father of a conservative family who marries a widow mother of a liberal family. Their two difference lifestyles contradict with each other, and the film does not really pick a side of on whose lifestyle is better. However it does have a scene where the liberal kids outsmart the conservative kids (By tricking them into thinking there is a fire, and then getting to use the bathrooms to themselves). Also has a scene where the kids work together and use conservative tactics to end bullying without the help of an authority figure. In the end the kids learn to put their differences aside and realize that family is what matters more.

|The film is about a widower father of a conservative family who marries a widow mother of a liberal family. Their two difference lifestyles contradict with each other, and the film does not really pick a side of on whose lifestyle is better. However it does have a scene where the liberal kids outsmart the conservative kids (By tricking them into thinking there is a fire, and then getting to use the bathrooms to themselves). Also has a scene where the kids work together and use conservative tactics to end bullying without the help of an authority figure. In the end the kids learn to put their differences aside and realize that family is what matters more.

|$53,412,862

|$53,412,862

|}

|}