Changes

|2011

|2011

|R

|R

|Two police officers try to take down a drug ring in high school where the villains are environmentalists and drug dealers. But contains many sexual references, full profanity, and many religious insults. A parodic comedy remake of the 1987–91 [[Fox Network]] police drama of the same name.

|Two police officers try to take down a drug ring in high school, where the villains are environmentalists and drug dealers. But it also contains many sexual references, full profanity, and many religious insults. A parodic comedy remake of the 1987–91 [[Fox Network]] police drama of the same name.

|$201,585,328

|$201,585,328

|-

|-

|2005

|2005

|R

|R

|A bawdy sex comedy about a man who is ridiculed by his peers for his indifference to sex as an adult. His friends, feeling that he isn't "normal", try to encourage him to lose his virginity, starting with pornography, sex toys, and even prostitution. However, their personal attitudes towards women ruin their own relationships, and the man remains steadfast in his abstinence. Later, he meets a woman who connects with him, but is no longer a virgin, as she has a teenage daughter. At one point, her daughter confesses only to him that she is also a virgin and encourages him not to feel bad about it. However, her mother, who has been on multiple dates with him, is still unaware of his virginity. After their proposed deadline by which the two agreed to eventually have sex, he tells her of his virginity and stays reluctant about giving in. There is some drama and confusion between them, but she eventually comes to accept him and the two are happily married at the end before having sex.

|A bawdy sex comedy about a man who is ridiculed by his peers for his indifference to sex as an adult. His friends, feeling that he isn't "normal", try to encourage him to lose his virginity, starting with pornography, sex toys, and even prostitution. However, their personal attitudes towards women ruin their own relationships, and the man remains steadfast in his abstinence. Later, he meets a woman who connects with him, but is no longer a virgin, as she has a teenage daughter. At one point, her daughter confesses only to him that she is also a virgin and encourages him not to feel bad about it. However, her mother, who has been on multiple dates with him, is still unaware of his virginity. After their proposed deadline by which the two agreed to eventually have sex, he tells her of his virginity and stays reluctant about giving in. There is some drama and confusion between them, but she eventually comes to accept him, and the two are happily married at the end before having sex.

|$177.4 million

|$177.4 million

|-

|-

|2006

|2006

|PG-13

|PG-13

|It criticizes the [[Department of Education]] (or colleges and universities in general) and our protagonist lives the America dream by starting his own college, but then the juvenile humor, gross-out humor and drug abuse steps in.  

|It criticizes the [[Department of Education]] (or colleges and universities in general) and our protagonist lives the American dream by starting his own college, but then the juvenile humor, gross-out humor and drug abuse steps in.  

|$36,323,505

|$36,323,505

|-

|-

|1992

|1992

|G

|G

|Based on the classic Arabian folk tale ''Aladdin and the Magic Lamp'', a poor but charitable thief is sent by Jafar, a sinister vizier to a sultan, to search for a mysterious oil lamp rumored to contain unbelievably powerful magic. Upon finding this, he accidentally releases the comical genie inside, who grants his wish to become a prince so he can legally court Jasmine, the sultan's daughter. On the one hand, the film is set within what is implied to be a Muslim state, and Aladdin does resort to lie to try and marry Jasmine. A slight feminist bent is present because Jasmine refuses to marry, ignoring the law requiring it (although, in her defense, it's implied to be a recent law made by her father to be sure she is married with someone to rule the city and "taken care of" because he's "not gonna be around forever"). In addition, some lyrics to the opening song were notably cut due to fears of offending the Arab populace, implying the film is politically correct in nature. The Sultan is shown to be a massive bumbler and overgrown child, which may hint at an anti-parenthood agenda but also showing character and authority in a few circumstances. But on the other hand, the film does ultimately push character integrity because Aladdin ultimately decides against lying and tells Jasmine the truth about himself. Disregarding the film's slight politically correct treatment of Arabia, it ultimately showcases some more negative elements of Islamic culture via a vendor nearly chopping Jasmine's hand off when she "steals" some food to feed a starving child, as well as depicting Prince Achmed in a very negative light via his cruelty to Aladdin and children attempting to stop him. The prince is implied to be a poor example of a husband, so it is subtly implied that Jasmine refused to marry because all the princes she encountered had in fact been as bad as Achmed. She then falls for Aladdin because he saves her life and shows kindness to her. In addition, it is made clear that while Aladdin does steal and initially had an infamous reputation for his thefts, it's solely in order to survive on the streets, with it being heavily implied that he was an orphan, and he also selflessly gives his stolen food to starving children after initially planning to eat it. There is a lesser condemnation against the occult as the only explicit magic-user besides Aladdin's Genie is Jafar, the main villain who dreams of becoming the world's most powerful dark sorcerer.

|Based on the classic Arabian folk tale ''Aladdin and the Magic Lamp'', a poor but charitable thief is sent by Jafar, a sinister vizier, to search for a mysterious oil lamp rumored to contain unbelievably powerful magic. Upon finding this, he accidentally releases the comical genie, who grants his wish to become a prince so he can legally court Jasmine, the sultan's daughter. On the one hand, the film is set in what is implied to be a Muslim state, and Aladdin resorts to lying to try to marry Jasmine. A slight feminist bent is present because Jasmine refuses to marry, ignoring the law requiring it (although, in her defense, it's implied to be a recent law made by her father to be sure she is married to someone to rule the city and "taken care of" because he's "not gonna be around forever"). In addition, some lyrics from the opening song were notably cut for fear of offending the Arab populace, implying that the film is politically correct. The Sultan is portrayed as a massive bumbler and overgrown child, which may hint at an anti-parenthood agenda, but also shows character and authority in a few instances. But on the other hand, the film does ultimately push character integrity because Aladdin ultimately decides against lying and tells Jasmine the truth about himself. Disregarding the film's slight politically correct treatment of Arabia, it ultimately showcases some more negative elements of Islamic culture via a vendor nearly chopping Jasmine's hand off when she "steals" some food to feed a starving child, as well as depicting Prince Achmed in a very negative light via his cruelty to Aladdin and children attempting to stop him. The prince is portrayed as a poor example of a husband, so it is subtly suggested that Jasmine refused to marry because all the princes she encountered had, in fact, been as bad as Achmed. She then falls for Aladdin because he saves her life and shows her kindness. In addition, it is made clear that while Aladdin does steal and initially had an infamous reputation for his thefts, it's solely in order to survive on the streets, with it being heavily implied that he was an orphan, and he also selflessly gives his stolen food to starving children after initially planning to eat it. There is a lesser condemnation against the occult, as the only explicit magic-user besides Aladdin's Genie is Jafar, the main villain, who dreams of becoming the world's most powerful dark sorcerer.

|$504.1 million

|$504.1 million

|-

|-

|1986

|1986

|R

|R

|The second film, ''Aliens'', is an anti-Vietnam statement<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T543J2L-gXU</ref> and, just like its predecessor, copies another previous feature (in this case, the 1954 film ''Them!''<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVoX-C9J4Zk</ref>). However, liberal pundits currently denounce it as a pro-war film, and it is to be noted that despite technically pushing anti-Vietnam messaging, it unintentionally ends up being a pro-Vietnam statement at the same time, as the Vietcong stand-in for the film was the titular antagonists, the Xenomorphs, hinting at the Vietcong being depicted negatively. Motherhood is also given a neutral depiction. Although the Xenomorph Queen, who is depicted as embracing her maternal instincts, is depicted in a negative light, the film's protagonist Ellen Ripley was also shown to embrace motherly instincts as well and treated positively for it, acting as a surrogate mother to the orphan Newt and going out of her way to protect and rescue her in the film (most feminists even back then, much less today, tend to demonize the concept of motherhood).

|The second film, ''Aliens'', is an anti-Vietnam War statement<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T543J2L-gXU</ref> and, like its predecessor, copies another earlier feature (in this case, the 1954 film ''Them!''<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVoX-C9J4Zk</ref>). However, liberal pundits currently denounce it as a pro-war film, and it is to be noted that despite technically pushing anti-Vietnam messaging, it unintentionally ends up being a pro-Vietnam statement at the same time, as the Vietcong stand-in for the film was the titular antagonists, the Xenomorphs, hinting at the Vietcong being depicted negatively. Motherhood is also depicted neutrally. Although the Xenomorph Queen, who is depicted as embracing her maternal instincts, is depicted in a negative light, the film's protagonist Ellen Ripley was also shown to embrace motherly instincts as well and treated positively for it, acting as a surrogate mother to the orphan Newt and going out of her way to protect and rescue her in the film (most feminists even back then, much less today, tend to demonize the concept of motherhood).

|-

|-

|''Alien Resurrection''

|''Alien Resurrection''

|1997

|1997

|R

|R

|The fourth film is overtly feminist. But on the other hand, Annalee Call was also depicted as a Roman Catholic (with the novelization elaborating that she willingly chose to become one due to viewing it as "rational", which acted as a rare instance of rationality and Christianity being rightly treated as compliments, as most liberals tended to act like rationality and religion are completely separate entities since the Enlightenment).

|The fourth film is overtly feminist. But on the other hand, Annalee Call was also depicted as a Roman Catholic (with the novelization elaborating that she willingly chose to become one due to viewing it as "rational", which acted as a rare instance of rationality and Christianity being rightly treated as complements, as most liberals tended to act like rationality and religion are completely separate entities since the Enlightenment).

|-

|-

|''Antz''

|''Antz''

|1998

|1998

|PG

|PG

|It's produced by [[Jeffrey Katzenberg]], downplays the military, and possesses an implicit promotion of Communism via the main character, but also has an Anti-Eugenics message too.

|Produced by [[Jeffrey Katzenberg]], Dreamworks's first animated film downplays the military, and possesses an implicit promotion of Communism via the main character, but also has an Anti-Eugenics message too.

|$90,757,863

|$90,757,863

|-

|-

|1997

|1997

|G

|G

|Paints Christmas in a positive light, and has Beast learning the meaning behind it, as well as putting aside the past relating to it being the reason he was cursed. Also significantly tones down the more feminist messaging from the original film. The manner in which Christmas was depicted, however, was closer to the secular view of Christmas than the actual intended meaning of the holiday being a celebration of the birth of [[Jesus Christ]]. The movie overall, however, is objectively of very low quality and pretty forgettable to say the least, and since it is a direct-to-video sequel/midquel realized by another studio (now defunct) and with a lot of incoherences, it's not even canon in the universe of the original animated classic film that preceeded it.

|Paints Christmas in a positive light and has Beast learn its meaning while putting aside the past he had blamed for his curse. Also significantly tones down the more feminist messaging from the original film. The manner in which Christmas was depicted, however, was closer to the secular view of Christmas than the actual intended meaning of the holiday being a celebration of the birth of [[Jesus Christ]]. The movie overall, however, is objectively of very low quality and pretty forgettable to say the least, and since it is a direct-to-video sequel/midquel realized by another studio (now defunct) and with a lot of incoherences, it's not even canon in the universe of the original animated classic film that preceeded it.

|N/A (Direct to video movie)

|N/A (Direct to video movie)

|-

|-

|2007

|2007

|PG

|PG

|Its debatable whether or not its environmentalist or against it. It does show the destructiveness of environmentalism (i.e. butting into nature's problems in the name of helping her). The anti-human human sentiments in the movie turned out to be wrong, however, the humans are taking the honey made by the bees, similar to the welfare program of taking from those who worked for it. Others believe the movie promotes [[bestiality]], and is just disguised as a family movie.  

|It's debatable whether or not its environmentalist or against it. It does show the destructiveness of environmentalism (i.e. butting into nature's problems in the name of helping her). The anti-human human sentiments in the movie turned out to be wrong, however, the humans are taking the honey made by the bees, similar to the welfare program of taking from those who worked for it. Others believe the movie promotes [[bestiality]], and is just disguised as a family movie.  

|$287,600,000

|$287,600,000

|-

|-

|2018

|2018

|PG-13

|PG-13

|A biopic of [[Freddie Mercury]], the lead singer of the band Queen. While it does show elements of the practice of homosexuality and hedonism, at the same time, the film largely condemned the practice since it was made clear that Mercury's embracing of these things was what ultimately ruined Queen and his personal relationships, and is what ultimately killed him via AIDS. In addition, Paul Prenter, the only other major character to embrace homosexuality in the movie, was depicted in a very negative light, as he was one of the reasons Mercury went down a bad path, with it being made clear later on that Paul largely was using Mercury for his own gratification, blamed others for his bad ideas, and even hid vital information from Mercury deliberately such as the Live Aid concert plans as well as Mary Austin calling him. It also had a promotion of redemption, as Mercury, inspired largely by his former girlfriend/wife, Mary Austin nearing the end of the film, attempts to reconnect with his band and family and make amends in the time he had left before dying from AIDS. That all being said, however, it's debatable whether the film intended to paint his homosexual escapades in a negative light, as several members of the production company, including Freddie Mercury's actor Rami Malek, indicated that it was a "regrettable" decision as a result of not having enough time to give a "more balanced" view of (ie, promoting) his bisexual lifestyle.

|A biopic of [[Freddie Mercury]], the lead singer of the band Queen. While it does show elements of the practice of homosexuality and hedonism, at the same time, the film largely condemns the practice since it was made clear that Mercury's embracing of these things was what ultimately ruined Queen and his personal relationships, and is what ultimately killed him via AIDS. In addition, Paul Prenter, the only other major character to embrace homosexuality in the movie, was depicted in a very negative light, as he was one of the reasons Mercury went down a bad path, with it being made clear later on that Paul largely was using Mercury for his own gratification, blamed others for his bad ideas, and even hid vital information from Mercury deliberately such as the Live Aid concert plans as well as Mary Austin calling him. It also had a promotion of redemption, as Mercury, inspired largely by his former girlfriend/wife, Mary Austin, nearing the end of the film, attempts to reconnect with his band and family and make amends in the time he had left before dying from AIDS. That all being said, however, it's debatable whether the film intended to paint his homosexual escapades in a negative light, as several members of the production company, including Freddie Mercury's actor Rami Malek, indicated that it was a "regrettable" decision as a result of not having enough time to give a "more balanced" view of (ie, promoting) his bisexual lifestyle.

|

|

|-

|-

|1995

|1995

|PG-13

|PG-13

|A parody of the famous 1970s sitcom, the Bradys still act like their normals selves even though it’s set in the mid 1990s. The plot is about Mike owing the IRS $20,000 in back taxes, and with his 1970s architectural style not being hip with new clients, and spending a bunch of money on trips to the Grand Canyon and Hawaii, they may have to sell the house which is what Larry Dittmeyer needs for his plan to turn the neighborhood into a mall. On one hand, the High School counselor is played by infamous drag queen RuPaul, and Marcia’s friend Noreen is heavily implied to be lesbian. However, Peter who’s going through puberty, eventually builds up the courage to knock down the bully Eric Dittmeyer, and win his crush over, along with the Bradys always sticking together regardless if the house forecloses or not even if the road is rough.

|A parody of the famous 1970s sitcom, the Bradys still act like their normal selves even though it’s set in the mid-1990s. The plot is about Mike owing the IRS $20,000 in back taxes, and with his 1970s architectural style not being hip with new clients, and spending a bunch of money on trips to the Grand Canyon and Hawaii, they may have to sell the house, which is what Larry Dittmeyer needs for his plan to turn the neighborhood into a mall. On one hand, the High School counselor is played by the infamous drag queen RuPaul, and Marcia’s friend Noreen is heavily implied to be lesbian. However, Peter, who’s going through puberty, eventually builds up the courage to knock down the bully Eric Dittmeyer and win over his crush, and the Bradys always stick together, regardless of whether the house forecloses or not, even if the road is rough.

Four members of the original cast cameoed in this film being Christopher Knight as a coach who encourages Eric Dittmeyer to beat up Peter, Barry Williams as a record producer who turns down Greg after hearing him sing “Til I Met You (Clowns Never Laughed Before),” Ann B. Davis as a truck driver who finds Jan, and returns her home, and [[Florence Henderson]] as Carol’s mother. Mike Lookinland was supposed to be a background cop, but that scene got cut.

Four members of the original cast cameoed in this film being Christopher Knight as a coach who encourages Eric Dittmeyer to beat up Peter, Barry Williams as a record producer who turns down Greg after hearing him sing “Til I Met You (Clowns Never Laughed Before),” Ann B. Davis as a truck driver who finds Jan, and returns her home, and [[Florence Henderson]] as Carol’s mother. Mike Lookinland was supposed to be a background cop, but that scene got cut.

|2000

|2000

|G

|G

|Produced by [[Jeffrey Katzenberg]], this vegan propaganda film compares a chicken farm to the [[Holocaust]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynn_A73hcfs</ref> The main villain of the movie is a capitalist who wants to make chicken pies. The film also promotes elements of feminism and anti-Americanism. On other hand the main villain of the movie is also a feminist as well as she called her husband's ancestors "poor worthless nothings"

|Produced by [[Jeffrey Katzenberg]], this vegan propaganda film compares a chicken farm to the [[Holocaust]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynn_A73hcfs</ref> The main villain of the movie is a capitalist who wants to make chicken pies. The film also promotes feminist and anti-American themes. On the other hand, the main villain of the movie is also a feminist, as she calls her husband's ancestors "poor, worthless nothings"

|$106,834,564

|$106,834,564

|-

|-

|2023

|2023

|R

|R

|This horror-comedy film directed by feminist Elizabeth Banks is loosely based on an incident in 1985 involving a Georgia black bear consuming 75 pounds of cocaine. While the bear in real-life died from an overdose, the bear in the movie lives and terrorizes people in the Chattahoochee National Forest in northern Georgia. On the one hand, there is plenty of swearing (even from the kids), blood, and drug use in this film. On the other hand, the movie also shows the damage drugs can do; the two main kid characters try a brick of cocaine but spit it out immediately. A sense of family is also upheld, as the single mother Sari is determined to find her lost pre-teen daughter despite being in the woods with a cocaine-riddled bear roaming around. Two drug-dealers also eventually decide not to carry out their boss's insane orders, one of them - his son - promising to be a better father to his son (he had left his son in the drug boss's care to drink over his dead wife, which his father and best friend call him out on).

|This horror-comedy film, directed by feminist Elizabeth Banks, is loosely based on an incident in 1985 involving a Georgia black bear consuming 75 pounds of cocaine. While the bear in real-life died from an overdose, the bear in the movie lives and terrorizes people in the Chattahoochee National Forest in northern Georgia. On the one hand, there is plenty of swearing (even from the kids), blood, and drug use in this film. On the other hand, the movie also shows the damage drugs can do; the two main kid characters try a brick of cocaine but spit it out immediately. A sense of family is also upheld, as the single mother Sari is determined to find her lost pre-teen daughter despite being in the woods with a cocaine-riddled bear roaming around. Two drug-dealers also eventually decide not to carry out their boss's insane orders, one of them - his son - promising to be a better father to his son (he had left his son in the drug boss's care to drink over his dead wife, which his father and best friend call him out on).

|$

|$

|-

|-

|2017

|2017

|PG

|PG

|A beautiful animated film about tradition and family. In Santa Cecilia, Mexico, 12-year-old Miguel Rivera secretly dreams of becoming a musician like Ernesto de la Cruz, a popular actor, and singer of his great-grandmother Coco's generation, despite all music being despised by his family. After entering the Land of the Dead, Miguel encounters Héctor, a down-on-his-luck skeleton who once played music with Ernesto. Héctor offers to help Miguel reach Ernesto; in return, he asks Miguel to take his photo back to the Land of the Living, so that he might visit his now-elderly daughter before she forgets him and he disappears completely. However strong [[feminism]] is present as well, as the men in the movie are all typically weak, and the only strong male figure in the film is the villain. Not to mention it presents a bizarre afterlife without the reality of Heaven, Hell or any need for the Gospel.

|A beautiful animated film about tradition and family. In Santa Cecilia, Mexico, 12-year-old Miguel Rivera secretly dreams of becoming a musician like Ernesto de la Cruz, a popular actor and singer from his great-grandmother Coco's generation, despite his family despising music. After entering the Land of the Dead, Miguel encounters Héctor, a down-on-his-luck skeleton who once played music with Ernesto. Héctor offers to help Miguel reach Ernesto; in return, he asks Miguel to take his photo back to the Land of the Living, so that he might visit his now-elderly daughter before she forgets him and he disappears completely. However, strong [[feminism]] is also present, as the men in the movie are typically weak, and the only strong male figure is the villain. Not to mention it presents a bizarre afterlife without the reality of Heaven, Hell, or any need for the Gospel.

|$591.4 million

|$591.4 million

|-

|-

|2012

|2012

|R

|R

|Quentin Tarantino's own version of the Django character (there's a scene where the original Italian Django as a cameo and Tarantino's version speak to each other, another tribute by Tarantino to the Spaghetti-Western genre that has always been his source of inspiration). As common for Tarantino's movies, graphic violence with practical effects and the constant use of the word nig*er is the norm also here, but this time there is one revisionist take on the author of the book ''[[The Three Musketeers]]'', in which German former dentist and now bounty hunter Dr. Schultz tells the racist slave owner Calvin Candie that [[Alexandre Dumas]], the author of ''The Three Musketeers'', of which Candie is a reader, is black and said in a way like he was not even French. This, of course, is universally known and proven as very far from being true and it takes very little to debunk this gigantic lie. There's also the ridiculously exaggerated reaction of terrorized people when they see a black man on a horse coming into town, this is surprisingly unrealistic for a Tarantino's movie. However, the reason this film is in this section is because the protagonist Django, when discussing with Schultz the plan to take Django's wife from Candie's plantation pretending to be in the business of slave mandingos, he mentions that there's no worse dishonor than being a black slave owner, and this is a more unique than rare time in which really and historically existed black slave owners in America (just like black [[Confederates]]) are mentioned in a liberal Hollywood film.

|Quentin Tarantino's own version of the Django character (there's a scene where the original Italian Django makes a cameo and Tarantino's version speaks to him, another tribute by Tarantino to the Spaghetti-Western genre that has always been his source of inspiration). As common for Tarantino's movies, graphic violence with practical effects and the constant use of the word nig*er is the norm also here, but this time there is one revisionist take on the author of the book ''[[The Three Musketeers]]'', in which German former dentist and now bounty hunter Dr. Schultz tells the racist slave owner Calvin Candie that [[Alexandre Dumas]], the author of ''The Three Musketeers'', of which Candie is a reader, is black and said in a way like he was not even French. This, of course, is universally known and proven to be very far from true, and it takes very little to debunk this gigantic lie. There's also the ridiculously exaggerated reaction of terrorized people when they see a black man on a horse coming into town; this is surprisingly unrealistic for a Tarantino movie. However, the reason this film is in this section is because the protagonist Django, when discussing with Schultz the plan to take Django's wife from Candie's plantation pretending to be in the business of slave mandingos, he mentions that there's no worse dishonor than being a black slave owner, and this is a more unique than rare time in which really and historically existed black slave owners in America (just like black [[Confederates]]) are mentioned in a liberal Hollywood film.

|-

|-

|''The Crow''

|''The Crow''

|1994

|1994

|R

|R

|The tagline claims that our hero is an angel, but he doesn't display any Christian values. However, there is an anti-drug scene were Eric Draven (the hero) makes a drug addict mother realize that her daughter needs her & gets her off drugs. On top of that the film's villains are nihilist anarchists. The film is notable for being Brandon Lee's last film, as an accident on the set killed him during production.

|The tagline claims our hero is an angel, but he doesn't exhibit any Christian values. However, there is an anti-drug scene where Eric Draven (the hero) makes a drug addict mother realize that her daughter needs her & gets her off drugs. On top of that, the film's villains are nihilist anarchists. The film is notable as Brandon Lee's last, as he was killed in a set accident during production.

|$50,693,129

|$50,693,129

|-

|-

|1994

|1994

|R

|R

|Although it does glorify cross dressing and the [[homosexual agenda]], it still is pro-capitalism and the film also glorifies the American dream. Despite the obstacles Wood faces, he still continues doing what he loves in making movies.

|Although it does glorify cross-dressing and the [[homosexual agenda]], it still is pro-capitalism, and the film also glorifies the American dream. Despite the obstacles Wood faces, he still continues doing what he loves in making movies.

|$5,887,457

|$5,887,457

|-

|-

|1990

|1990

|PG-13

|PG-13

|Endorsed by the Christian website ChristianAnswers.net with a 4 out of 5 star rating. Conversely however, a prominently featured Christian character - the only character in the movie ever identified as Christian - is portrayed as fanatical and bigoted against people with scissors for hands.

|Endorsed by the Christian website ChristianAnswers.net, with a 4-star rating. Conversely however, a prominently featured Christian character - the only character in the movie ever identified as Christian - is portrayed as fanatical and bigoted against people with scissors for hands.

|$56,362,352

|$56,362,352

|-

|-

|1993

|1993

|R

|R

|Film takes jabs at many [[liberal values]], [[illegal immigration]], union workers, multiculturalism, (one scene where Bill tells his ex-wife that the ice cream shop him and his family used to go to is now a Mexican store) and foreign aid (in one scene Bill asks an illegal Korean immigrate a rhetorical question on how much America has given his country and yells at him after he refuses to learn the language).<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4tC4qfv92Q</ref> It's also one of the very few films to be truthful in the "Nazis were right wingers" myth perpetrated by liberals, in which Bill informs a Neo-Nazi that he's an American and the Nazi is a sick a-hole. As well as many shots where the America flag is trashed upon (which could symbolize how liberalism has trashed everything America has stood for).<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piPzExBdfIg</ref> But at the same time it also takes jabs at capitalism, where Bill believes he's no longer commercially valuable. And although the plot is about man trying to reach his daughter's birthday party, the film seems to toy with its audience in suggesting whether he's mentally ill or not, as opposed to a pro-family message.   

|Film takes jabs at many [[liberal values]], [[illegal immigration]], union workers, multiculturalism, (one scene where Bill tells his ex-wife that the ice cream shop him and his family used to go to is now a Mexican store) and foreign aid (in one scene Bill asks an illegal Korean immigrate a rhetorical question on how much America has given his country and yells at him after he refuses to learn the language).<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4tC4qfv92Q</ref> It's also one of the very few films to be truthful in the "Nazis were right-wingers" myth perpetrated by liberals, in which Bill informs a Neo-Nazi that he's an American and the Nazi is a sick a-hole. As well as many shots where the America flag is trashed upon (which could symbolize how liberalism has trashed everything America has stood for).<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piPzExBdfIg</ref> But at the same time it also takes jabs at capitalism, where Bill believes he's no longer commercially valuable. And although the plot is about man trying to reach his daughter's birthday party, the film seems to toy with its audience in suggesting whether he's mentally ill or not, as opposed to a pro-family message.   

|$40,903,593

|$40,903,593

|-

|-

|2009

|2009

|PG

|PG

|Based on the 1970 children's book of the same name by Roald Dahl, Wes Anderson's first animated film stars Mr. Fox - an anthropomorphic red fox who used to steal farm birds for a living - growing bored of the domestic life. He decides to get back into stealing poultry with the help of a meek opossum named Kylie, but their attempt at one final heist brings three farmers - Boggis, Bunce, and Bean - to target Mr. Fox and his family, and he has to enlist the help of his friends and family to fight back against them. On the one hand, the farmers appear to be capitalists since the store that the animals take food from belongs to the three of them (Roald Dahl had refused to put this in the book when he was alive, saying that it would be too easy of a solution for the animals, as well as concerned that it would teach kids to steal). Mr. Fox's son Ash is also said to be "different," possibly referencing being homosexual or transgender, with Beaver's son even mentioning that Ash dresses like a girl. The characters also swear, though being a PG movie, they replace these swear words with "cuss." On the other hand, while Wes Anderson's style of dysfunctional family shows up here, Mr. Fox ultimately loves his family and would do anything for them, even willing to sacrifice himself to save his nephew when the farmers capture him; he also fights his former partner-in-crime Rat to the death when the latter threatens his son and acts lecherous to his wife. Mr. Fox also deals with the consequences of his thieving ways and vows to make it up to everyone, showing that despite his arrogance, he wants to do right by his friends and family and admits that he had been in the wrong.  

|Based on the 1970 children's book of the same name by Roald Dahl, Wes Anderson's first animated film stars Mr. Fox - an anthropomorphic red fox who used to steal farm birds for a living - growing bored with domestic life. He decides to get back into stealing poultry with the help of a meek opossum named Kylie, but their attempt at one final heist brings three farmers - Boggis, Bunce, and Bean - to target Mr. Fox and his family, and he has to enlist the help of his friends and family to fight back against them. On the one hand, the farmers appear to be capitalists since the store that the animals take food from belongs to all three of them (Roald Dahl had refused to put this in the book when he was alive, saying that it would be too easy a solution for the animals, as well as concerned that it would teach kids to steal). Mr. Fox's son, Ash, is also said to be "different," possibly referencing being homosexual or transgender, with Beaver's son even mentioning that Ash dresses like a girl. The characters also swear, but since it's a PG movie, they replace these swear words with "cuss." On the other hand, while Wes Anderson's style of dysfunctional family shows up here, Mr. Fox ultimately loves his family and would do anything for them, even willing to sacrifice himself to save his nephew when the farmers capture him; he also fights his former partner-in-crime Rat to the death when the latter threatens his son and acts lecherously toward his wife. Mr. Fox also faces the consequences of his thieving ways and vows to make it up to everyone, showing that, despite his arrogance, he wants to do right by his friends and family and admits he was in the wrong.  

|$21,002,919

|$21,002,919

|-

|-

|1996

|1996

|R

|R

|A pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping, and murder scheme. It remains debatable whether she is a feminist or feminine protagonist.

|A pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping, and murder scheme. It remains debatable whether she is a feminist or a feminine protagonist.

|$24,611,975

|$24,611,975

|-

|-

|2010

|2010

|PG

|PG

|This film is environmentalism and anti-[[Capitalist|capitalist]] on steroids. A wealthy businessman and his employees are the antagonists for doing their job. One of them gets attacked by a raccoon. In the end, the main character, a real estate developer, is forced to change his job after "learning the animals' stories" and he even puts up a poster saying that anyone who violates the forest preservation will be fined at $1,000,000.00. However, the film is also pro-family, as well as taking a jab at LGBT, with a joke of the protagonist being forced to wear his wife's clothes after the animals steal his, this is played for laughs and is clearly anti-[[cross dressing]]. (Though they are wearing again in the end credits).   

|This film is environmentalism and anti-[[Capitalist|capitalist]] on steroids. A wealthy businessman and his employees are the antagonists for doing their job. One of them gets attacked by a raccoon. In the end, the main character, a real estate developer, is forced to change his job after "learning the animals' stories," and he even puts up a poster stating that anyone who violates forest preservation laws will be fined $1,000,000.00. However, the film is also pro-family, as well as taking a jab at LGBT, with a joke of the protagonist being forced to wear his wife's clothes after the animals steal his, this is played for laughs and is clearly anti-[[cross dressing]]. (Though they are wearing again in the end credits).   

|$35,000,000

|$35,000,000

|-

|-

|1990

|1990

|PG-13

|PG-13

|The [[Bible]] claims ghosts don't exist. Still this film toys with idea that they do, also it has liberal actress Whoopi Goldberg as a psychic medium. Nevertheless, the film does show Christian values, as ghost Sam Wheat tries to uncover a bank fraud case, when he does convince Goldberg to give the money to a Christian charity. It also has an anti-infidelity message, as despite being widowed, Sam's wife Molly still refuses to be with anyone else, even when his false friend Carl tries to hit on her. Also it isn't PC on [[Eternal damnation|damnation]], as the villains are seen being cared away helplessly by evil spirits after they die.   

|The [[Bible]] claims ghosts don't exist. Still, this film toys with the idea that they do, and it has a liberal actress, Whoopi Goldberg, as a psychic medium. Nevertheless, the film does show Christian values, as the ghost Sam Wheat tries to uncover a bank fraud case by convincing Goldberg to give the money to a Christian charity. It also has an anti-infidelity message, as despite being widowed, Sam's wife Molly still refuses to be with anyone else, even when his false friend Carl tries to hit on her. Also it isn't PC on [[Eternal damnation|damnation]], as the villains are seen being cared away helplessly by evil spirits after they die.   

|$217,631,306

|$217,631,306

|-

|-

|2000

|2000

|PG-13

|PG-13

|Based on Barry Williams’ 1992 autobiography of the same name, it tells the story of Barry Williams playing Greg Brady on ''The Brady Bunch,'' along with Williams doing questionable stuff such as smoking weed and getting co-star Maureen McCormick to do it, along with taking TV mom Florence Henderson on a date after he initially striking out with McCormick, and shows that Mike Lookinland wanting to make out with Susan Olsen as funny. It also covers Robert Reed’s feud with series creator and executive producer [[Sherwood Schwartz]] due to the show’s tone being incredibly cheesy.

|Based on Barry Williams’ 1992 autobiography of the same name, it tells the story of Barry Williams playing Greg Brady on ''The Brady Bunch,'' along with Williams doing questionable stuff such as smoking weed and getting co-star Maureen McCormick to do it, along with taking TV mom Florence Henderson on a date after he initially striking out with McCormick, and shows that Mike Lookinland wanting to make out with Susan Olsen as funny. It also covers Robert Reed’s feud with series creator and executive producer [[Sherwood Schwartz]] over the show’s incredibly cheesy tone.

It doesn’t condemn Robert Reed’s homosexuality, and shows that Mike Lookinland wanting to make out with Susan Olsen as funny.

It doesn’t condemn Robert Reed’s homosexuality, and shows that Mike Lookinland wanting to make out with Susan Olsen as funny.

|2006

|2006

|PG

|PG

|Environmentalist movie about a bunch of kids who stand up to a CEO company that is trying to put one of its restaurants on a burrowing owl habitat. However, despite a businessman being the main villain, it doesn't condemn capitalism as a whole, as it does not portray the company in negative light. The protagonists clearly have nothing against the business itself; even the main character states "A pancake house would be great." It also shows a police officer in positive light. Overall, the movie contains many morals, including friendship, and it does give kids the great inspiration to stand up for what they believe is right.  

|Environmentalist movie about a bunch of kids who stand up to a CEO company that is trying to put one of its restaurants on a burrowing owl habitat. However, despite a businessman being the main villain, it doesn't condemn capitalism as a whole, since it doesn't portray the company in a negative light. The protagonists clearly have nothing against the business itself; even the main character states, "A pancake house would be great." It also shows a police officer in a positive light. Overall, the movie contains many morals, including friendship, and it gives kids great inspiration to stand up for what they believe is right.  

|$8,117,637

|$8,117,637

|-

|-

|1996

|1996

|G

|G

|Released during Michael Eisner's presidency at Disney, the film presents a mixed package. The original source material was not intended for children, yet the Disney film was marketed as such to young audiences.

|Released during Michael Eisner's presidency at Disney, the film presents a mixed package. The original source material was not intended for children, yet the Disney film was marketed to young audiences as such.

In some cases, the film manages to be slightly more pro-Christian than it's source material. For example, the character of Frollo, who was the corrupt archdeacon in the novel, is now the minister of justice and the Archdeacon is now a separate character voiced by Davis Odegn Steirs, who serves as the positive Christian conscience in the film (albeit the only positive Christian conscience). The Archdeacon is the one responsible for saving Quasimodo from Frollo committing infanticide and encourages Esmeralda to pray to God. Phoebus is also depicted in a good light, an honorable soldier and also was shown to genuinely love Esmeralda, even going as far to save her as well as Quasimodo. This is a stark contrast to the book, where he was a callous womanizer who abandoned Esmeralda to being hanged.

In some cases, the film manages to be slightly more pro-Christian than its source material. For example, the character of Frollo, who was the corrupt archdeacon in the novel, is now the minister of justice, and the Archdeacon is now a separate character voiced by Davis Odegn Steirs, who serves as the positive Christian conscience in the film (albeit the only positive Christian conscience). The Archdeacon is the one responsible for saving Quasimodo from Frollo committing infanticide and encourages Esmeralda to pray to God. Phoebus is also depicted in a good light, as an honorable soldier, and also shown to genuinely love Esmeralda, even going as far as to save her as well as Quasimodo. This is a stark contrast to the book, where he was a callous womanizer who abandoned Esmeralda to be hanged.

Christian imagery is present throughout the film, appropriate since Notre Dame is an actual location, as opposed to several Disney films during the Renaissance where churches are absent of religious imagery to be more politically correct. The Latin Requiem Mass is also present in the musical score.

Christian imagery is present throughout the film, which is appropriate since Notre Dame is an actual location, unlike several Disney films set during the Renaissance, where churches are absent of religious imagery to be more politically correct. The Latin Requiem Mass is also present in the musical score.

Unlike most films in the Disney animated canon, this film actually has the character's relying to God's grace to resolve the conflict, instead of relying on some special magic.

Unlike most films in the Disney animated canon, this film actually has the characters relying on God's grace to resolve the conflict rather than on some special magic.

On the other hand, in some cases, the film actually manages to be even darker than the original novel. Originally, Quasimodo's vicious punishment at the hands of the Parisians during the Feast of Fools ceremony was out of corporal punishment; while in the Disney film, it had been done at the whim of the Parisians just for the sake of it. In addition, Frollo himself was also made significantly more villainous in the movie compared to in the book despite being separated from the archdeacon role, removing most of his redeemable traits in the book (case in point, in the film, Frollo was responsible for killing Quasimodo's mother and nearly killed Quasimodo himself as a baby until being made to raise him as penance by the archdeacon, and was depicted as an abusive father figure overall, as well as depicted as sadistic, in contrast to the original novel, where he willingly took in Quasimodo when he was in fact abandoned by his mom and was depicted as a fairly good father figure, at least until Esmerelda entered the picture). Some Christian concepts were also removed from the film in an attempt to increase Frollo's villainy as a result (for example, Quasimodo in the film was named such as an insult to his deformed appearance, while in the book he was actually named after Quasimodo Tuesday). It's also debatable as to whether it's pro-Christian overall since while the Archdeacon himself was a positive influence, most of the other Christian characters, without even counting Frollo, were nevertheless depicted in a very negative light. The director's commentary also implied that they may have engaged in blasphemous material by having Frollo in the crucifix pose as he's descending into Hell during the visuals for Hellfire.<ref>DVD Commentary: "Here's some more of our ham-fisted symbolism--Frollo falls down in the shape of a crucifix!"</ref> The film, however, shows a clear case of divine punishment in animation, represented by the death of Frollo literally seeing the Devil in the face before falling to his horrible death into the "fiery pit". Also pretty ironic, considering that his last words a few instants before his death were "And he shall smite the wicked, and plunge them into the fiery pit!", when he was going to kill Esmeralda and Quasimodo with his sword.

On the other hand, in some cases, the film actually manages to be even darker than the original novel. Originally, Quasimodo's vicious punishment at the hands of the Parisians during the Feast of Fools ceremony was not corporal punishment; in the Disney film, it was done at the Parisians' whim, just for the sake of it. In addition, Frollo himself was also made significantly more villainous in the movie compared to in the book despite being separated from the archdeacon role, removing most of his redeemable traits in the book (case in point, in the film, Frollo was responsible for killing Quasimodo's mother and nearly killed Quasimodo himself as a baby until being made to raise him as penance by the archdeacon, and was depicted as an abusive father figure overall, as well as depicted as sadistic, in contrast to the original novel, where he willingly took in Quasimodo when he was in fact abandoned by his mom and was depicted as a fairly good father figure, at least until Esmerelda entered the picture). Some Christian concepts were also removed from the film in an attempt to heighten Frollo's villainy (for example, Quasimodo in the film was named as an insult to his deformed appearance, whereas in the book he was actually named after Quasimodo Tuesday). It's also debatable whether it's pro-Christian overall, since while the Archdeacon himself was a positive influence, most of the other Christian characters, without even counting Frollo, were depicted in a very negative light. The director's commentary also implied that they may have included blasphemous material by depicting Frollo in a crucifix pose as he descends into Hell during the Hellfire visuals.<ref>DVD Commentary: "Here's some more of our ham-fisted symbolism--Frollo falls down in the shape of a crucifix!"</ref> The film, however, shows a clear case of divine punishment in animation, represented by the death of Frollo, literally seeing the Devil in the face, before falling to his horrible death into the "fiery pit". Also pretty ironic, considering that his last words a few instants before his death were "And he shall smite the wicked, and plunge them into the fiery pit!", when he was going to kill Esmeralda and Quasimodo with his sword.

To make the film even darker, a gypsy genocide plot is introduced, and Paris was also the victim of arson late into the film. The song 'Hellfire' was also notorious for making explicit references to lust. Not necessarily a bad or negative thing, can be considered corageous, original, surprising and entertaining artistically speaking and for families with kids who are not "snowflakes". However, this is a stark contrast to most other Disney film adaptations, which have a history of toning down the original works (as in ''[[The Jungle Book]]'', in which Disney advised the writers to ignore the book specifically because its contents were unsuitable for children). However, on the other hand, other films from the Walt's era were more dark with particular horror and dramatic elements than their original counterparts and source materials, like ''[[Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs]]'', ''[[Pinocchio]]'' (with evil and sadistic Stromboli unlike his novel countepart Mangiafuoco, the demonic and sa distici Coachman and all the cursed Pleasure Island with the impressive children turning into donkeys scene, and the terrifying whale Monstro), all the ''[[Night on Bald Mountain]]'' segment in ''[[Fantasia]]'' (with Chernabog and even harpies showing bare breasts, though for a few seconds), ''[[Dumbo]]'' (with its Pink Elephants on Parade allucination caused by accidental consumption of alcohol), ''[[Bambi]]'' (for the (in)famous scene of the death of Bambi's mother), ''[[Sleeping Beauty]]'' and ''[[101 Dalmatians]]'', this latter two specifically for their villains' scenes (Maleficent and Cruella De Vil). The Gypsies were also depicted in a more positive light, to the extent that they at times were considered preferable to Christianity, despite Gypsies essentially being pagans. Hints at race swapping were also included in the film, as Esmerelda was made into an ethnic gypsy in the movie, when in the original book, she was actually a blonde parisienne and the daughter of an anchoress who was abducted by the gypsies and made into their own.

To make the film even darker, a gypsy genocide plot is introduced, and Paris is also the victim of arson late into the film. The song 'Hellfire' was also notorious for making explicit references to lust. Not necessarily a bad or negative thing, it can be considered courageous, original, surprising, and entertaining artistically speaking, and for families with kids who are not "snowflakes". However, this is in stark contrast to most other Disney film adaptations, which have a history of toning down the original works (as in ''[[The Jungle Book]]'', where Disney advised the writers to ignore the book specifically because its contents were unsuitable for children). However, on the other hand, other films from the Walt's era were more dark with particular horror and dramatic elements than their original counterparts and source materials, like ''[[Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs]]'', ''[[Pinocchio]]'' (with evil and sadistic Stromboli unlike his novel countepart Mangiafuoco, the demonic and sa distici Coachman and all the cursed Pleasure Island with the impressive children turning into donkeys scene, and the terrifying whale Monstro), all the ''[[Night on Bald Mountain]]'' segment in ''[[Fantasia]]'' (with Chernabog and even harpies showing bare breasts, though for a few seconds), ''[[Dumbo]]'' (with its Pink Elephants on Parade allucination caused by accidental consumption of alcohol), ''[[Bambi]]'' (for the (in)famous scene of the death of Bambi's mother), ''[[Sleeping Beauty]]'' and ''[[101 Dalmatians]]'', this latter two specifically for their villains' scenes (Maleficent and Cruella De Vil). The Gypsies were also depicted in a more positive light, to the extent that they, at times, were considered preferable to Christianity, despite Gypsies essentially being pagans. Hints at race swapping were also included in the film, as Esmerelda was made into an ethnic gypsy in the movie, when in the original book, she was actually a blonde Parisienne and the daughter of an anchoress who was abducted by the gypsies and made into their own.

Worst of all, one of the male gargoyles falls in love with Djali, who is male according to some descriptions (voiced, however, by a female voice-actress and fans mostly refer to it as a female goat, and probably the gargoyle confused Djali with a female goat, assumption supported by his known clear stupidity), which may have meant that liberals will subtly shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even the gargoyles of Notre Dame (and also comes across as extremely hypocritical and blasphemous due to homosexuality being tolerated even less by God than Frollo's lust for Esmerelda, based on God explicitly referring to the concept as an abomination in Leviticus as well as his destroying Sodom and Gomorrah largely because of the practice of homosexuality). However, this should be taken with a grain of salt, because the DVD audio commentary Kirk Wise (co-director), Gary Trousdale (co-director), and Don Hahn (producer) suggest that it's possible that the three gargoyles exist purely in Quasimodo's mind and are in fact split off portions of his own personality created to deal with his loneliness. This doesn't explain, however, their scenes when Quasimodo is absent, how animals (especially Esmeralda's goat) can see them alive, the damage thev do to Frollo's soldiers in the climax, and their constant change of positions when they stop animating themselves.<ref> '''Gary Trousdale:''' We've always operated under the assumption that the gargoyles were kind of figments of Quasimodo's imagination. They didn't really move around, or did they? You know...

Worst of all, one of the male gargoyles falls in love with Djali, who is male according to some descriptions (voiced, however, by a female voice-actress and fans mostly refer to it as a female goat, and probably the gargoyle confused Djali with a female goat, assumption supported by his known clear stupidity), which may have meant that liberals will subtly shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even the gargoyles of Notre Dame (and also comes across as extremely hypocritical and blasphemous due to homosexuality being tolerated even less by God than Frollo's lust for Esmerelda, based on God explicitly referring to the concept as an abomination in Leviticus as well as his destroying Sodom and Gomorrah largely because of the practice of homosexuality). However, this should be taken with a grain of salt, because the DVD audio commentary Kirk Wise (co-director), Gary Trousdale (co-director), and Don Hahn (producer) suggest that it's possible that the three gargoyles exist purely in Quasimodo's mind and are in fact split-off portions of his own personality created to deal with his loneliness. This doesn't explain, however, their scenes when Quasimodo is absent, how animals (especially Esmeralda's goat) can see them alive, the damage thev do to Frollo's soldiers in the climax, and their constant change of positions when they stop animating themselves.<ref> '''Gary Trousdale:''' We've always operated under the assumption that the gargoyles were kind of figments of Quasimodo's imagination. They didn't really move around, or did they? You know...

'''Kirk Wise:''' Yeah, we like leaving a little bit of a question mark; kind of like Harvey the rabbit or Calvin and Hobbes.

'''Kirk Wise:''' Yeah, we like leaving a little bit of a question mark; kind of like Harvey the rabbit or Calvin and Hobbes.

|2012

|2012

|PG-13

|PG-13

|Futuristic totalitarians plan titular annual televised "games" as punishment on the descendants of failed revolutionaries from a past uprising. Although technically a message against totalitarianism and for individualism, Leftist actor Donald Sutherland, who played President Snow, implied that the struggles of the films' protagonists were supposed to be derived from the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the book's author also indicated that the events of the book were based on the George W. Bush administration.

|Futuristic totalitarians plan titular annual televised "games" as punishment for the descendants of failed revolutionaries from a past uprising. Although technically a message against totalitarianism and for individualism, Leftist actor Donald Sutherland, who played President Snow, implied that the struggles of the films' protagonists were supposed to be derived from the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the book's author also indicated that the events of the book were based on the George W. Bush administration.

|$406,267,858

|$406,267,858

|-

|-

|1999

|1999

|PG

|PG

|This animation espouses anti-war themes and also brief but strong anti-hunting sentiments. Firearms in general are shown in a negative light, with the phrase "guns kill" being repeated a total of three times. The titular giant is referred to as a "big gun that walks." From a conservative viewpoint, he is a poor metaphor for a real gun; unlike a law-abiding citizen who is a gun owner, the giant has no choice in his actions because he is a war machine programmed with the inability to use his weapons for good, but only to use them thoughtlessly and senselessly. The story involves him learning to hide his weapons and "not be a gun". The conclusion is that, in order to protect the public from an incoming missile, he must fly into it and kill himself rather than use his guns against it. As it is explained, "It's bad to kill, but it isn't bad to die." In addition, despite being set during the Cold War, it largely downplays the Soviet menace that was occurring during that time, as the main antagonist, Kent Mansley, is a government agent (implied to be part of the NSA) investigating the titular Iron Giant who at one point while launching a tirade against Hogarth Hughes alludes to the possibility that the Communists may have been responsible for the Giant's creation as a means to destroy America and that they must destroy it before "it destroys us" and is treated negatively for it. Also features some foul language.

|This animation espouses anti-war themes and also brief but strong anti-hunting sentiments. Firearms in general are shown in a negative light, with the phrase "guns kill" being repeated a total of three times. The titular giant is called a "big gun that walks." From a conservative viewpoint, he is a poor metaphor for a real gun; unlike a law-abiding citizen who is a gun owner, the giant has no choice in his actions because he is a war machine programmed with the inability to use his weapons for good, but only to use them thoughtlessly and senselessly. The story involves him learning to hide his weapons and "not be a gun". The conclusion is that, in order to protect the public from an incoming missile, he must fly into it and kill himself rather than use his guns against it. As it is explained, "It's bad to kill, but it isn't bad to die." In addition, despite being set during the Cold War, it largely downplays the Soviet menace that was occurring during that time, as the main antagonist, Kent Mansley, is a government agent (implied to be part of the NSA) investigating the titular Iron Giant who at one point while launching a tirade against Hogarth Hughes alludes to the possibility that the Communists may have been responsible for the Giant's creation as a means to destroy America and that they must destroy it before "it destroys us" and is treated negatively for it. Also features some foul language.

That all being said, however, despite the definite anti-gun and anti-hunting themes, the film does portray the military in a fairly positive light, as General Rogarth was shown to be even-headed and only willing to use military force if confronted with evidence requiring for it, also making clear that he was not happy about bringing out an implied large military force for what was apparently a hoax, and while the military does try to attack the Iron Giant late into the film, it was only because they had been manipulated into doing so by Kent Mansley by the latter lying about the giant killing Hogarth Hughes, and only when confronted with evidence that Hogarth had in fact been alive did the military stand down. In addition, when Hogarth left to investigate the evidence of a "martian" taking out an antenna, he proceeded to salute a photograph of his father, who was implied to have died during World War II. Also has a positive portrayal of the American icon Superman in it. There's also an anti-materialist message in it as well as an implicitly Christian message, as Hogarth talks to the Giant about how humans and other forms of life possess souls that live on even after their mortal bodies die.

That all being said, however, despite the definite anti-gun and anti-hunting themes, the film does portray the military in a fairly positive light, as General Rogarth was shown to be even-headed and only willing to use military force if confronted with evidence requiring for it, also making clear that he was not happy about bringing out an implied large military force for what was apparently a hoax, and while the military does try to attack the Iron Giant late into the film, it was only because they had been manipulated into doing so by Kent Mansley by the latter lying about the giant killing Hogarth Hughes, and only when confronted with evidence that Hogarth had in fact been alive did the military stand down. In addition, when Hogarth left to investigate evidence of a "martian" taking out an antenna, he saluted a photograph of his father, who was implied to have died during World War II. Also features a positive portrayal of the American icon Superman. There's also an anti-materialist message, as well as an implicitly Christian one, as Hogarth talks to the Giant about how humans and other forms of life possess souls that live on even after their mortal bodies die.

|$5,732,614

|$5,732,614

|-

|-

|2011

|2011

|PG-13

|PG-13

|The British biopic of [[Conservative Party]] leader and 1979-90 [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]], Margaret Thatcher, showing the effects of conservative economic policy on Britain, helping to lift the country out of its recession. However, it also showed Margaret Thatcher in a somewhat negative light, depicting her during her late years as becoming slightly addled.

|The British biopic of [[Conservative Party]] leader and 1979-90 [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]], Margaret Thatcher, showing the effects of conservative economic policy on Britain and helping to lift the country out of its recession. However, it also showed Margaret Thatcher in a somewhat negative light, depicting her in her later years as slightly addled.

|$80,554,188 (international including UK), $27,081,674 (US - domestic)

|$80,554,188 (international including UK), $27,081,674 (US - domestic)

|-

|-

|1975

|1975

|PG

|PG

|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-capitalist statement. Notable for being one of the first summer blockbusters. It was followed by three sequels in 1978, 1983 and 1987.

|$260,000,000<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jaws.htm</ref>

|$260,000,000<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jaws.htm</ref>

|-

|-

|2015

|2015

|PG-13

|PG-13

|Jurassic Park is now functioning and open for business and the new boss is a woman, an obvious feminist message. Also the military is downgraded as they plan to weaponize dinosaurs. Despite all this feminists weren't impressed and labeled it sexist<ref>https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/10/jurassic-world-a-big-dumb-sexist-mess.html</ref> and even liberal critics called the weaponizing dinosaurs plot asinine.<ref>http://thoughtcatalog.com/olos-nah/2015/06/ill-just-say-what-everyone-is-thinking-jurassic-world-is-terrible/</ref>

|Jurassic Park is now functioning and open for business, and the new boss is a woman, an obvious feminist message. Also the military is downgraded as they plan to weaponize dinosaurs. Despite all this, feminists weren't impressed and labeled it sexist<ref>https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/10/jurassic-world-a-big-dumb-sexist-mess.html</ref> and even liberal critics called the weaponizing dinosaurs plot asinine.<ref>http://thoughtcatalog.com/olos-nah/2015/06/ill-just-say-what-everyone-is-thinking-jurassic-world-is-terrible/</ref>

|$652,270,625

|$652,270,625

|-

|-

|1989

|1989

|G

|G

|The film does show the value of hard work and is pro-capitalism (Kiki owns her own delivery business), but at the same time depicts feminism and witchcraft in a positive light.  

|The film does show the value of hard work and is pro-capitalism (Kiki owns her own delivery business), but it also depicts feminism and witchcraft in a positive light.  

|$18 million

|$18 million

|-

|-

|2005

|2005

|R

|R

|A story set in the Crusades period about a young knight. While the theatrical version was a pure liberal media, the director's cut promotes fighting, honor, duty, and portrays the noble Knights Hospitallers in a positive light. That being said, the movie still portrays Knights Templars in a negative light.

|A story set in the Crusades period about a young knight. While the theatrical version was purely liberal media, the director's cut promotes fighting, honor, and duty, and portrays the noble Knights Hospitallers in a positive light. That being said, the movie still portrays the Knights Templar in a negative light.

|$47,398,413

|$47,398,413

|-

|-

|2019

|2019

|PG

|PG

|Although it contains the chivalry and capitalist themes from the original animated film. This both race and gender swapped live-action remake of the timeless animated classic of the same name shows the Democrat Jim Crow South of the early 1900s as a delusional and misleading multiethnic and multicultural paradise, with also totally legal interracial marriages. Compared to the animated counterparts, the animal characters are soulless, inexpressive and unbearable if not even creepy to watch when they "talk". Jim Dear, white here like in the source material, is legally married to Darling but here changed to a black American woman and with a black-mixed daughter named Lulu instead of a son named Jim, Jr.. Even Aunt Sarah is changed to black in this live-action version, and she even loses the redeeming qualities she had in the original animated film. The neighbor dog and dear Lady's friend Jock is female here, while the antagonistic and mischievous Aunt Sarah's iconic female Siamese cats Si & Am are now changed to be two male Devon Rex cats called Devon & Rex and with a totally different and quite less memorable musical number. The rat, "Herman", is still the main villain and antagonist, but far less intimidating and scary-looking than the animated counterpart, and despite his musical theme is memorable, the same cannot be said for the final fight scene if compared to the animated version.

|Although it contains the chivalry and capitalist themes from the original animated film. This both race and gender swapped live-action remake of the timeless animated classic of the same name shows the Democrat Jim Crow South of the early 1900s as a delusional and misleading multiethnic and multicultural paradise, with also totally legal interracial marriages. Compared to the animated counterparts, the animal characters are soulless, inexpressive, and unbearable if not even creepy to watch when they "talk". Jim Dear, white here like in the source material, is legally married to Darling but here changed to a black American woman and with a black-mixed daughter named Lulu instead of a son named Jim, Jr.. Even Aunt Sarah is cast in black in this live-action version, and she loses the redeeming qualities she had in the original animated film. The neighbor dog and dear Lady's friend Jock is female here, while the antagonistic and mischievous Aunt Sarah's iconic female Siamese cats, Si & Am, are now two male Devon Rex cats named Devon & Rex, with a totally different and much less memorable musical number. The rat, "Herman", is still the main villain and antagonist, but far less intimidating and scary-looking than the animated counterpart, and despite his musical theme being memorable, the same cannot be said for the final fight scene when compared to the animated version.

|-

|-

|''Legally Blonde''

|''Legally Blonde''

|1998

|1998

|G

|G

|The film has Liberals changing history to suit their feminist agenda similar to what they did in Pocahontas as well as some historical revisionism (In the film the Huns are at war with China, even though this never happened, although that said, the name of the villain, Shan Yu, hints at them being Xiongyu). However, the central theme of [[Filial piety]] from work it was based on, [[The Ballad of Mulan]], is still present ultimately, as the main reason Mulan joined the military was because her father suffered a severe injury that made him unfit for combat, and the film is pro-Military.

|The film has Liberals changing history to suit their feminist agenda, similar to what they did in Pocahontas, as well as some historical revisionism (In the film, the Huns are at war with China, even though this never happened, although that said, the name of the villain, Shan Yu, hints at them being Xiongnu). However, the central theme of [[Filial piety]] from the work it was based on, [[The Ballad of Mulan]], is still present ultimately, as the main reason Mulan joined the military was that her father suffered a severe injury that made him unfit for combat, and the film is pro-Military.

|$120,620,254

|$120,620,254

|-  

|-  

|''P.C.U.''

|''P.C.U.''

|1994

|1994