When I read about the film in the Redbox, it reveals information that is not revealed in the film until the last 5-10 minutes. I won't do that per se, but the film is so bad, spoilers won't matter.Full figured Dr. Kimmy Gabriel (Bridget McGrath) can not have a child, but keeps on trying. She is very pro-life and reluctantly accepts a position at a human clone project under Dr. Roger Gibson (Charles Hubbell). She steals a cloned embryo and implants it in herself. The film jumps to seven years later as the world is thrust into a post apocalyptic nightmare as Kimmy and her son David (Rocko Hale) live in a run down tenement living off government MRE handouts.The film has heavy religious messages as both lesion faced Kim and Roger are very religious and frequently read from the Bible and listen to radio preachers. This appears to be a "come to Jesus film" except the "good guys" do nothing heroic to save the day or themselves. Indeed, if anything they appear to be part of the problem which is to make a statement about the condition of human existence.This film is very low budget. The sets are meager. The acting is bad and dialouge has a religious corniness to it. It fails to get interesting until 10 minutes before the final credits and by then you pray for the end.Knowing the "secret" of the film by reading the by-line I couldn't help but think during the film..."Funny. He doesn't look Jewish."Parental Guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity. Bridget McGrath cleavage.

Several male reviewers were quite upset about the lead actress being over-weight and unattractive. These knuckle-dragging sexists would have preferred Lindsey Lohan, no doubt. I don't recall any female comments being concerned with how skinny Charles Hubbell was – kudos to them all. Hubbell though, was noted frequently as an unknown actor of little skill, despite a long list of credits on IMDb itself. He is a fine actor in this movie and elsewhere. Then we have the "scientists" out there upset over the lack of scientific logic in a fantasy/horror movie about the Apocalypse.Now I'll admit I was having some troubles with this movie at the beginning. I almost gave up on it. The major research facility looked like a walk-in-clinic in a strip mall. But that "Seven Years Later" CONELRAD deal woke me up and piqued my interest, along with some later twists and surprises. (And Hubbell's amazing descent into evangelical madness.) I think I know who that was at the very end: the Slender Man? Christopher Walken? The Tall Man from Phantasm? Oral Roberts? You decide; that's what makes vague endings fun and a source of discussion. The movie was weird, interesting, and different. I liked it.

So rife with scientific errors, but since apparently the film was written for entertaining homeschooled Christian wingnuts, they probably didn't feel scientific accuracy was important.First, you cannot clone from red blood cells because they contain no DNA. But assuming that you got some white blood cells, you couldn't clone from them since there has been 2000 years of degradation; the information is completely lost. That aside, assuming you could clone Christ and as they say make an exact duplicate (which you cannot BTW), why would he have no Semitic features whatsoever? The kid is the whitest white boy on the block. Finally, and I hate to break it to you if you don't know, but the Shroud of Turin was identified as a complete fraud by carbon dating it to the 13-14th century, so it would be like cloning someone from 1000 years after the alleged existence of Jesus of Nazareth (which again, you couldn't do anyway).This is billed as a science fiction, but more properly it is just a Christian religious film regarding an interpretation of the end-times. I rated it a 3 rather than a 1 because you cam have it on as background when working on your computer. I only give ones to films that are so bad you have to watch the trainwreck.

I'm Not Jesus Mommy is poorly written. I can not leave a spoiler because the conclusion is so vague and the story line so poorly developed that the viewer can not be sure what happened. I was struck by several things about the film from the start that made the story line impossible. First, it is no secret that the plot hinges on a child cloned from the blood stains on the Shroud of Turin. So, anything I tell you about that aspect tells you no more than you already know. The film begins with the secretive, questionable fertility clinic performing human cloning. In a scene where the process is being explained to new scientists recruited for the clinic, the head doctor says that the clones are made from red blood cells. Fact: red blood cells have no DNA or nucleus unlike other cells in the body. Clones are normally made from cells lining the stomach. Strike one. During this presentation, the head doctor shows on a screen a power-point presentation of human DNA used for cloning. In DNA, it is a double helix formed of two base pairs of nucleic acids. The graphics on the film show not base pairs or even two single strands of bases: it shows two strands of base triplets. Fact: nowhere in any organism's DNA are nucleotides in triplets or groups of six; all organism's DNA is in base pairs. Strike two. While the head doctor is manipulating tissue to get more clones, he is shown slicing off large chunks of tissue (from what is probably raw meat from the grocery), which is not the way clone DNA is obtained. Stike three. The plausibility of the film's plot basis is lost in the first few scenes. In some places I found humor. While the head doctor is preparing his tissue samples for cloning, he is listening to Ave Maria, a classical piece of Roman Catholic liturgy praising Mary as the mother of Jesus. Chance or simply too obvious a choice by the film makers?After this disappointing start that most with a high school knowledge of genetics and human anatomy would know is flawed, we jump several years to an apocalyptic world with no explanation. More time is spent on meaningless following of fundamentalist Christian beliefs about the second coming than in explaining what is happening.The film also amuses with obvious flaws in costuming that we are not supposed to notice. In order to make the protagonist doctor look more academic, she wears glasses. But she wears them in scenes where accurate vision is not needed and fails to wear them when she would need them most. After she has been developed as a character, the glasses disappear completely. If this woman needs glasses, why is she not wearing them at the appropriate times and wearing them at the inappropriate times?The film might interest some fundamentalist Christians as it compares well with films on the anti-Christ and the Rapture. But for an educated audience, when it finally ends, we are left without knowing how it has ended. Few films at the end leave me in doubt as to what the climax was or what it meant.So, file this one away with other B movies based on Revelations. Watch it with an intelligent person and you will both be discussing for some time what the ending was. That is why a spoiler is almost impossible. You would have to be able to give away the ending to provide a spoiler.