Last minute rush to win the Worst Movie of 2014

It’s got Kevin Sorbo in it — there’s a man whose career has taken a swan dive into the black pit of stupid suckiness. It’s about a world in which gun rights are limited…which means everyone is blasting away with guns and everything is blowing up. Antifa are the armed and dangerous bad guys. Behold, The Reliant.

Best part: don’t blink or you’ll miss it. It’s only showing for one day, 24 October, before it vanishes into far right wing church basements, rather like Eric Hovind’s crappy Genesis movie, that only had a limited release and they actually had to lease theaters to get it shown.

Sad. I remember watching Hercules with the kids and enjoying it as campy fun. Who knew he was a soggy-brained twit back then?


  1. anthrosciguy says

    It’s a shame about Sorbo, and Dean Cain too (not in this one, I guess). Both hunky guys with a nice comedic touch in superhero series, but promoting rightwingedness doesn’t provide the opportunity to do anything like that.

  2. drivenb4u says

    The radical left really needs to step up their batshit propaganda cinema department. Are they even trying?

  3. blf says

    @4, I presume the wingnuts claim all of hollywood is producing batshit propaganda cinema, yadda yadda yadda…

  4. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    @1 Yeah, somehow trying to defend your rights to be a selfish, greedy, boorish, science-denying twit makes it kind of hard to look heroic.

  5. wzrd1 says

    Oh joy, a movie that makes a K car look good in comparison.
    Yeah, I had a Plymouth Reliant, had to replace the wiring harness, which was infamous for burning the paint off of the hood.
    My takeaway from the trailer, guns are outlawed and everyone has a gun.
    And well, Jesus wants everyone to sell their cloak and buy swords to die by or something.

  6. hemidactylus says

    Never watched Sorbo or Cain as Hercules or Ubermensch. Never watched Zena much either, but do fondly recall D’Anna Biers (#3) and Ron Swanson’s 3rd wife (non-Tammy). Hmmm…3. Coincidence?

    Did watch first God Didn’t Croak movie and the characters Reverends Dave and Jude were affable enough. Didn’t Reverend Dave try to get Sorbo to confess being an insufferable B-movie schmuck at the end of the movie?

  7. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    re @9:
    beat me to it.
    Hercules was limp sauce, trying too hard to be a facetious version of the legend. It’s only moment of value was when it introduced Xena to us..

  8. says

    Eric Roberts is in it too. Looking at his IMDB entry he’s working lots these days, making me think he could be in your film too if you send him a cheque that doesn’t bounce.

  9. Jazzlet says

    I used to know someone that almost burned to death in a Reliant Robin, he had that old Chuck Berry “riding along in my calaboose, still trying to get that belt unloose” problem. He said it took about five minutes to reduce the car to engine, drive shaft axles and wheels.

  10. R Johnston says

    Sad to say, this movie is my cousin’s brainfart.

    Happily, it may have trouble making its way into all those church basements. The female lead came out and married her girlfriend shortly after filming wrapped up. I can’t imagine that will go over well with the intended audience.

  11. R Johnston says


    I don’t know about 2014, but post-production wrapped in 2017 and they’ve been trying ever since then to find a theater willing to show this thing.

  12. microraptor says

    From what I understand, Sorbo wasn’t terribly religious when Hercules was being produced, it was a few years later when he was tapped to lead Starship Andromeda that he became a born-again evangelical.

  13. rossthompson says

    For a movie hinging on the fact that the good guys have no guns… the good guys sure have a lot of guns in that trailer, huh?

  14. PaulBC says

    When guns are outlawed. Only outlaws will have guns. And… Everyone. Will. Be. An. Outlaw.

    Haven’t watched the trailer, but it makes total sense to me.

  15. unclefrogy says

    that show started out ok then proceeded devolve toward polemics before your eyes until it became unwatchable.
    sounds like they have dumped the pretense of a good story and jumped straight to the crap polemics.
    back in ’68 I saw the film Barbraella great fun movie. It was paired in Orange county cal. where I saw it with a really bizarre movie which looked like it was made in the same studios that made the “study films” they would show us in grade school it was about the evil sino-asians trying to take over the world or something and written by a committee of Birchers on acid for with the production cost of no more than $50,000 and shot in at most 2 days
    sounds like the same studio did this bomb

  16. Akira MacKenzie says

    Sorbo, Caine, David A. R. White and other has-beens never had any actual acting ability. So when their careers die and they can’t get real acting gigs, they find Jesus and move on to Christian movies we’re their lack of talent will go unnoticed by the uncultured redneck trash who are still stupid enough believe in a god and sign up for a subscription for Pureflix/Dove TV.

  17. bcwebb says

    Hercules was kind of a dim-witted character in the show so I guess it was a a real stretch for Sorbo to play him.

  18. F.O. says

    Antifa hasn’t killed a single person.
    No antifa has ever been found with an illegal arsenal at home.
    It’s fucking scary how these people inhabit a reality of their own imagination.

  19. komarov says

    To be fair, this is absolutely what it’s like in Europe, where we never even invented a second amendment. (We truly are a benighted people) The filmmakers could have saved a lot of money on special effects by sending an (armoured) film crew to any European city and making a documentary instead.
    At least the trailer reminded me that I need to pick up a new sixpack of molotovs from the market. Rumour has it that our cops have stopped retreating, and as an upstanding outlaw I can’t abide that. Won’t have them lot creeping back in and interfering with my rioting.

  20. GerrardOfTitanServer says

    To be fair, this is absolutely what it’s like in Europe, where we never even invented a second amendment.

    The Bill of Rights 1689, also known as the English Bill of Rights, is an Act of the Parliament of England that sets out certain basic civil rights and clarifies who would be next to inherit the Crown.

    That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

  21. PaulBC says

    That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

    Uh, isn’t that kind of the opposite of the 2nd amendment, which asserts (taking it out of context in the best tradition of gun rights activists) “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    But the provision quoted above states (a) arms are permitted for one side of a religious conflict and (b) they can be regulated in some manner not specified here.

    While I object to the religious test, I would be entirely happy to replace the 2nd amendment with text that permitted a “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” “for their defence suitable to their conditions and allowed by law.” In fact, that’s much better than what we have now. There is nothing very shocking about amending the constitution. It’s been done many times. I assume you’d be on board with this change.

  22. PaulBC says

    In fact, nearly every other nation that establishes a right to keep and bear arms does a much better job of defining that right. I like this one from the Mexican constitution (translated I assumed):

    The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms within their domicile, for their safety and legitimate defense, except those forbidden by Federal Law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Militia, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms

    I’m not sure they do a great job enforcing it, but it comes right out and states that some weapons may be “forbidden.” It pragmatically refers to “the exclusive use…” i.e., the monopoly of force we all understand to be possessed by a functioning and legitimate state by the consent of the governed. This is part of the social contract. Another thing, it mentions an Air Force, suggesting it’s been updated since the 18th century, which kind of makes sense, because these aren’t your great great great great grandpa’s guns we’re talking about.

    Right, if it is too onerous, nations may rebel, and that’s covered by the Declaration of Independence (a more eloquent founding document than the constitution) but the declaration also explains that we have governments “to secure these rights.” That’s what happens most of the time.

    It’s nice to live under a functioning government and not in a failed state where you need to rely on your own firepower to protect yourself. It’s a lot easier, say, to study spiders if you’re so inclined, or write fan fiction, or bake pies, or do whatever normal people want to do who aren’t fantasizing about protecting themselves from feral hogs and jackbooted thugs. Parkland reminded me a lot of my kids’ high school. I hope gun laws are better in California (but there was the shooting in Gilroy). We have feral hogs, believe it or not, in San Jose. And yet I am more worried about guns at my kids’ high school than about a feral hog attack. Imagine that!

    Normal people understand that the social contract involves some compromises. One day, maybe normal people will have the guts to stand up to the NRA and get rid of the 2nd amendment. Until that time, we might as well just count on the carnage to continue.

  23. favog says

    Yeah, this “keep and bear” thing is a definite reading comprehension problem on the part of the right wingers. It’s like this: at my job, I have a bank issued to me by my employer. They’ve also issued me a key to that bank. I “keep and bear” that key on my person almost all the time that I’m dressed because it’s in my pocket, whether I’m at work or not. But I don’t own that key. I have to turn it in on termination of employment, or even if I go for more than one week of vacation at a time. This is an important point: “keep and bear” does NOT equate to “own”. Now read the amendment again. Hey, there’s nothing in there at all about ownership, at all, one way or another now, is there? Or … is there, perhaps with more subtlety. Because “keep and bear” is a little more wordy than “own”, and yet the simple word “own” is eschewed. One reason a writer might do that is that the simpler word is specifically what they do NOT intend to say. Now reread the amendment again. Hmmm.

  24. GerrardOfTitanServer says

    To Ichthyic
    The prior assault weapons ban, to the extent that it banned “assault weapons”, did precisely nothing. It did place a limit on capacity of detachable magazines, which had an impact albeit extremely minor.

    Just because these laws are almost useless does not mean all gun laws are useless. I support universal background checks, waiting periods, gun owners licenses and mandatory extensive training to get a license, mandatory safe storage laws especially where minors are present. Those laws would be very useful. I also think that a ban on all semiauto guns and revolvers would have a huge impact – this is what I think many people want when they talk about “military style assault weapons”.

    However, the prior assault weapons ban was almost useless, and if you take away the mag capacity limit, then it was basically completely useless. I am trying to help you by pointing out that the thing that you are fighting for is almost completely useless.