Here's a movie with a very promising idea and apparently wholesome motives. Unfortunately it is handled in such a completely lackluster and tiresomely pedestrian manner by just about all concerned — writer, director, producer and players — that it negates its "message".
I have complained before that Hollywood sees Christianity as a vehicle primarily or exclusively for social work. To film-makers, religion is something that causes its believers to give their services and their money to the needy. That is just about the beginning and end of the Hollywood gospel. It's a position that not only leaves every important question unanswered — but not even asked! Is there a supernatural? If so, is there a God? If so, who is he, and is it possible or indeed desirable to relate to him? These are the questions people want answered. Alas, they won't get any clues from "God Is My Partner". Indeed the villain can't even give a reply as to why he belongs to and supports his local church. Presumably he's a member for business reasons, or maybe because the community expects it of him. Or does he too view the church simply as an agency for social charity?
Even on the extremely superficial level of the film, many essential details remain obscure (for instance why does Grayson feel he has the right to distribute his money the way he wants to? If God is his partner as he continually assures us, shouldn't God have some say? Or is God strictly a silent partner?), while many less important and indeed supernumerary details (like all the Santa Claus stuff) are treated at wearisomely verbose length.
Whether because of its dubious philosophy, its lack of sound principles, its heavy-handed playing and/or its depressingly low- budget atmosphere (including Claxton's overbearingly uninspired direction and Strenge's relentlessly dull lighting and flat compositions), "God Is My Partner" leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
I always had a high regard for Walter Brennan, both as an actor and a personality, until I saw "God Is My Partner". Now I feel cheated, let down. How could an actor with any respect either for himself or his public, consent to appear in such a Z-grade charade?
I have complained before that Hollywood sees Christianity as a vehicle primarily or exclusively for social work. To film-makers, religion is something that causes its believers to give their services and their money to the needy. That is just about the beginning and end of the Hollywood gospel. It's a position that not only leaves every important question unanswered — but not even asked! Is there a supernatural? If so, is there a God? If so, who is he, and is it possible or indeed desirable to relate to him? These are the questions people want answered. Alas, they won't get any clues from "God Is My Partner". Indeed the villain can't even give a reply as to why he belongs to and supports his local church. Presumably he's a member for business reasons, or maybe because the community expects it of him. Or does he too view the church simply as an agency for social charity?
Even on the extremely superficial level of the film, many essential details remain obscure (for instance why does Grayson feel he has the right to distribute his money the way he wants to? If God is his partner as he continually assures us, shouldn't God have some say? Or is God strictly a silent partner?), while many less important and indeed supernumerary details (like all the Santa Claus stuff) are treated at wearisomely verbose length.
Whether because of its dubious philosophy, its lack of sound principles, its heavy-handed playing and/or its depressingly low- budget atmosphere (including Claxton's overbearingly uninspired direction and Strenge's relentlessly dull lighting and flat compositions), "God Is My Partner" leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
I always had a high regard for Walter Brennan, both as an actor and a personality, until I saw "God Is My Partner". Now I feel cheated, let down. How could an actor with any respect either for himself or his public, consent to appear in such a Z-grade charade?
