Ellen Page throws shade on Chris Pratt for not discussing his anti-LGBTQ church

Celebrities at 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert'

Chris Pratt is currently promoting The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part. He appeared on The Late Show last night and as always, Pratt was a good guest. He brought photos and talked extensively about his farm, red meat, and his attempt at The Daniel Diet. Stephen Colbert is a very devout Catholic, so you could tell that Colbert was interested in how Pratt’s pastor encouraged him to try the Daniel Diet, but Colbert didn’t press Pratt too hard about any of it, the diet or Pratt’s church. Here’s the main interview, the part about the Daniel Diet comes several minutes into the video:

I understand why Colbert approached it that way, because it’s supposed to be a lighter late-night interview, but I have to say… whenever I watch a Late Show clip, I’m always struck by how Colbert isn’t great at transitioning, and how he holds himself back from asking deeper questions of his guests. In any case, Ellen Page thinks Colbert should have asked Pratt a bit more about his church too:

I assume she’s referring to Hillsong, which has a lengthy, disturbing history of gay conversion therapies and hate speech against LGBTQ peeps and more. Much like the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists and hundreds of other sects and religions. I’m not disagreeing with Ellen, Colbert should have asked Pratt more about Hillsong, and other people should ask Pratt about Hillsong too. But in this particular case, I wonder if Colbert was basically like “well, I can’t throw stones because the Catholic Church is one big glass house.” It will be interesting to see if Pratt – who seems to be leaning into his churchy image more and more – will have to answer some real questions about his faith and his church this year.

'The Umbrella Academy' Photocall

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

66 Responses to “Ellen Page throws shade on Chris Pratt for not discussing his anti-LGBTQ church”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Nev says:

    Isnt Justin, Selena and some others part of this church as well?

    • Lizzie says:

      yes and you can see how useful it is since both of them have had complete mental breakdowns since they became involved…

      • molee says:

        @Lizzie “yes and you can see how useful it is since both of them have had complete mental breakdowns since they became involved…” Regardless of what anyone thinks of church and/or religion, that’s like saying they both got cancer or the flu or arthritis. Mental illness is a health issue, not a spiritual problem or character flaw.

      • Lizzie says:

        @molee i actually disagree. the pressures put on people from religious organizations can absolutely exacerbate mental illness. causing people to feel less than through shame and burdening them with the anxiety and guilt that can comes with being a “sinner” can be stressful and triggering. this church in particular puts constant pressure on its famous congregants to “witness” to others to bring in more people to the church, practices love bombing and asks for out sized financial contributions.

      • molee says:

        @Lizzie – Good point that trauma, including spiritual trauma, can be a huge cause of mental stress and illness, and even worse are abusive influence and behavior from others that become a source of a person’s self harm. All shade and shame to the source of suffering, be it disease or evil intent, not to the victims. <3

      • Bee says:

        I so rarely get to talk about my area of study/work (spirituality and mental health) that I had to jump in. 🙂 The research essentially says that it can go either way. Emotional resilience tends to be really high in people with strong spiritual beliefs, meaning that a person’s spiritual framework is a powerful resource when they are dealing with difficulties. At the same time, spiritual beliefs held too rigidly, a poor spiritual fit, or spiritual bypassing (meaning that someone avoids their emotional issues by diving into their beliefs) can all be detrimental.

        Personally, places like Hillsong make me very uneasy, because their beliefs seem really rigid, more about being “right” than kind, and the homophobia is absolutely unacceptable. That said, we can’t necessarily say whether it played a role in those mental health crises unless we talked to those folks.

    • Lizzie says:

      yes and you can see how useful it is since both of them have had complete mental breakdowns since they became involved…

    • SarSte says:

      Yes and I have a feeling it’s the new CO$. Sadly, I think it is more likely to be more accepted by the mainstream than the CO$ given the Christian association. Worrying for the reasons mentioned above and by Page. Apparently it’s very pro-capitalism in a very non-Christian way – think like “but Jesus WANTS me to have this private jet” type of logic. I can see this appealing to the likes of Pratt, given what he’s said in the past about his guilt stemming from his success.

      • Algernon says:

        Hillsong is prosperity gospel of an especially evil kind, because it’s not just taking money off people, they deliberately target rich people to become congregants and convince them their success and wealth are signs of their spiritual wholeness, which, if you believe in the Christian god, goes directly against the Bible’s teachings. Also, they give so much to Hillsong and there is no transparency about where it goes. Hillsong is in trouble in other countries for financial improprieties.

      • Snappyfish says:

        I agree. The CO$ analogy is spot on. Much like Joel Osteen’s ‘God wants me to be rich’ BS Hillsong is more blatant by actively recruiting celebrity members.

        Here is a simple fact. If you claim to be a Christian (follower of Christ) you CANNOT be anti LGBTQ. There is no hate in true Christianity. Which is why you rarely meet any. I always find it interesting that these so called Christian’s God hates all the same people they do.

      • yeahyeahyeah says:

        Yeah Hillsong is Australian and started a couple of suburbs from where I grew up. They targeted our school and a few families I knew went there. One friend went to their “super fun” concert Friday night youth event, and after the concert They went in to small groups and told her if she didn’t read the bible everyday she’d go to hell.

        They owned half a suburb, a coffee chain called Gloria Jeans, an ice skating rink..

        Another friend’s family were big in to the church and had a major crisis, had spoken to whatever they pass off as counselling service and no confidentiality was maintained. The whole church knew their business.

        The place is shady AF and we used to call it a cult.

  2. Mia4s says:

    Fair question. 🤷‍♀️ The jovial, “Pratt’s I love all just like Jesus” act is ringing a bit hollow with that association.

    I really hate to derail this but it has to be said. Given how outspoken Ellen has been these past few weeks does anyone else find it really glaring that she hasn’t addressed the Bryan Singer (who she worked with) elephant in the room? I mean….no one has really; but given her usual willingness to speak out I’m absolutely sick thinking about how high his protections must go that she won’t even say anything. At least I hope that’s why she hasn’t said anything. (Remember, don’t let the Singer story fade.)

    • RBC says:

      She did make a comment about Bryan Singer back in 2014 ,calling the allegations “disturbing” But I cant find her saying anything about the recent magazine article regarding Singer.

      • Mia4s says:

        Yeah I found that old comment. She also said it was hard to hear that about someone she liked working with. Sigh. It’s not all on Ellen’s shoulders by any means but overall the silence on Singer is really REALLY disturbing.

      • Otaku fairy... says:

        It seems like a truthful, well-intentioned response. At this point, I’m just relieved when these people aren’t dismissive of people coming forward about men they’ve worked with.

    • Jules says:

      She actually did even back in 2014, saying that the accusations were disturbing and that there are big problems with people in high power manipulating the truth but that it always will come out.

    • leela says:

      I guess she’s one of those actors that give the excuse they didn’t know (or haven’t heard anything) – that’s why they worked with them in the first place, because if she knew beforehand and still worked with him . . .

      • Erinn says:

        To be fair to her, she was only about 18 when her first x-men would have started filming. She was still working on mainly Canadian productions prior to that, and grew up in Nova Scotia – which is nowhere near as present in the industry as somewhere like Toronto or Vancouver so there would be SOME shelter from the goings on. I know that doesn’t completely excuse her, but she had very little name for herself at that point, and probably wasn’t AS aware of what had happened as others could have been based on her age and where she grew up.

        I know she’d talked about Brett Ratner outing her on the set of Last Stand (while she was present) – and then only came out publicly about 10 years later. There was a lot of toxicity happening on the set, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she was kind of overwhelmed with her own treatment at the time. She’d also spoken out about a director trying to make a move on her while she was 16. She spoke about all of this in 2017, and said there are a lot of minors that have been abused on sets that are no longer with us because of drugs/suicide while their predators have been able to continue to work and be protected. She spoke about how doing a Woody Allen film was the biggest regret of her career and how she hadn’t found a voice in the industry to do anything.

        I think all things considered she’s doing a good job. She’s been preyed on, she’s been victimized, and knows that she didn’t feel like she had any power during those times. She does realize that she has a voice now, though, and she is trying to use it to make a difference.

    • Jkl says:

      She did retweet the Atlantic article.

    • Marianne says:

      Wasn’t she also promoting Days of Future Past then? I wonder if she really couldnt say anything more to protect the film and made sure it did well.

    • whatWHAT? says:

      “I’m absolutely sick thinking about how high his protections must go that she won’t even say anything.”

      back when the allegations first surfaced (years ago), I was very surprised at how quickly it all seemed to go away. I fully believe there are some major power players who were (are!) part of that world along with Singer, and that he’s protected by them so he doesn’t implicate them.

    • Amelie says:

      She didn’t really talk about Synger that much but I do remember she criticized Ratner extensively. She also made a public statement about regretting to work with Woody Allen. She did come forth with her story about Ratner’s abuse/misuse of power when they worked together.

      She has already spoken up more than most celebrities. We can’t expect Ellen to do all of the work. Other celebs need to start using their platform as well.

  3. sarahsun says:

    Most churched that strictly follow the Bible consider Homosexuality a sin. I don’t see how this is news.

    • EMc says:

      I’m thinking it was more about the fact that this was a late night talk show, and not the time or place. That being said, Pratt needs to address it on another platform. I think it’s possible to be a Cathlolic or Christian and not agree 100% with everything the church preaches. I’m a Christian who doesnt go to church for various reasons, that being among them. But sometimes I do miss the sermons. I just cant stand to sit next to some if the biggest sinners in town who play the part. But I digress…

      • lucy2 says:

        I agree EMc, a quick couple of minutes on a late night comedy show doesn’t seem the right place. But next time Chris does an interview with an actual journalist…I’d like to see them ask him. If he’s running around promoting the church, he has put himself in the position to be asked about it.

    • Lizzie says:

      there is a difference between thinking perceived sinners go to hell and minding your business and actually taking action against them by threatening to excommunicate them from their community and forcing them to go to mentally and psychically abusive conversion camps…which is what some (i’m being gernerous) evangelical’s think is right.

      chris pratt is leaning into his christian persona in a big way and he has willingly taken on the responsibility of being a role model – why shouldn’t he have to explain what he is shoving down impressionable people’s throats? particularly b/c he could probably change the chruch’s outward stance on issues. he is a big get for hillsong and if he didn’t want them to push conversion therapy – they wouldn’t because he is a huge promotional tool for them. it is a cult that is 100% money and status – ZERO percent about god. whatever the money makers want will happen – just like scientology.

      • sarahsun says:


        Wow i didn’t know Hillsong does this. I know of the other problematic shit about them but this is news to me. I don’t understand why people go to this Church or any Church that Preaches Prosperity Gospel.
        That being said, i don’t understand why people have a problem with Christians talking about sin, all sins including Homosexual acts. Sin and Repentance from Sin is an Important Part of Christianity, why would people expect them to leave that out? That’s just watering down the message.
        I do not agree with how some churches treat Homosexuals and the hurtful things that are said. I also believe all churches should be welcoming to everybody regardless of sexual orientation. Them being sinners according to the church should not be reason to exclude them from church. i mean, everybody else in church is a sinner too and no sin is greater than the other.

    • outoftheshadows says:

      It’s a small hair to split, but technically homosexuality isn’t the sin. The Catholic church considers homosexual sex to be the sin–not same-sex attraction. They also consider any sex outside of marriage a sin, which essentially puts almost all of modern society in the doghouse. I’m a Catholic and this was the main roadblock to my conversion, as I am bi and have many beloved gay friends (including the man who sponsored my conversion, our regular Sunday lector, and others who aren’t Catholic at all. One of my friends is in a gay relationship with the grand-nephew of one of the Popes.)

      I’d be willing to bet that Stephen Colbert didn’t get into this aspect of Pratt’s church because the show isn’t an exploration of sticky interreligious politics (and there are few people lining up for that discussion.) We associate Colbert with politics because of his previous show, but nobody asked Johnny Carson to go in on religious ethics in his show. This is just a different world and a different time. I agree that the practice of gay conversion therapy is abhorrent. I’m just not sure that this show is designed as the place for harder-hitting confrontation, except in Stephen’s opening monologue.

      • LivePlantsCleanAir says:

        @outoftheshadows makes a good point about the technicality, because “God doesn’t make mistakes”. God did, however, give humans free will. So, as I interpret things, it’s acting on the attraction that is the sin. Same as acting on lust feelings, or gluttony, or loving money above all else are also sins (there are 7 deadly sins ie: sins that kill the spiritual link with God, tho’ one is still desperately loved by God and welcomed ‘home’ as per the prodigal son). Thus, I don’t even understand this idea of conversation therapy if they believe in God, because God doesn’t make mistakes…..?? And isn’t the New Testament the New Covenant and in the new covenant, isn’t the most important command LOVE? Love God first, love thy neighbour as thy self, etc. Hence, as I understand/interpret things, these conversionists are idiots and as idiotic as they are, very dangerous

    • Wow says:

      Im pressed to think of any religions other that Buddhism and Hinduism that aren’t riding for homophobia. We’re really getting to a point in history where religion for the most part no longer serves a purpose other than to harm and oppress.

      • whitecat says:

        For some reason, being lesbian is ok in Islam. Not sure why, but I think it has to do with sodomy being a sin.

      • maisie says:

        Reform Judaism and the Unitarian church are extremely inclusive of the LGBTQI community. But you’re right: most organised religions are more about exclusion, punishment, and hate than the original messages of their faiths.

        That said, how is Pratt going to square his religion with his extremely Catholic Kennedy/Schwarzenegger/whatever fiancée? He’s divorced, too. If it ever actually happens (doubtful), it will be interesting.

      • insertpunhere says:

        A lot of churches are terrible as it relates to LGBT issues (or social justice issues in general), but there are a number of Christian churches that are open and affirming of LGBT people, most prominently, the Episcopalian Church.

        There are a growing number of clergy people who believe that the sections of the Bible that talk about homosexuality have either been misinterpreted or have ignored historically relevant information. I’d strongly recommend Ken Wilson’s books on the church and LGBT issues (and not just because he’s one of my mom’s pastors and a really nice guy).

        Realistically, given the shifting social mores, most churches are going to have to become open and affirming with at least LGB people in the near future. There will always be holdouts, but you’re just not going to have the numbers to sustain a multitude of church as older generations die off and millennials and gen z start having children (which is when people typically return to the church, even if they float away in their early 20s).

        Sorry, this discussion is my jam. My mother’s church split about 6 years ago over the issue, and although it was terribly ugly at the time, I have learned about various denominations level of affirmation for members of the LGBTQ community. I’m not really up on the other religions, but Christianity is experiencing a shift. Too late and not radical enough, IMO, but change is coming.

        ETA: because I plugged Ken Wilson’s books, I mean the most recent (Solus Jesus), which he wrote with his co-pastor and the later editions of Letter to my Congregation. Those are the two that talk more about being an actual good person that Jesus would be cool with.

      • JP says:

        I’m pretty much at that point too. Former Catholic…..and I just can’t with religion anymore. I can’t imagine being a part of something in which it’s fine to be an a-hole to certain people in our society because your religion directly or indirectly sanctifies it. Nope. I work in an industry that does a lot of work for one particular, vastly followed religious group. The way I’ve seen their members treat LGBTQ people, by way of actively trying to strip civil-rights protections for them, is abhorrent and the antithesis of how their teachings tell them to behave.

    • Marianne says:

      Yeah, but some churches are more accepting than others. Or dont actively promote hate speech etc.

      • lucy2 says:

        I attended a (not Southern) Baptist church as a kid, and years later the pastor had a gay son, who attended every service with his partner. That was a welcoming and nice congregation, and they always focused more on the kindness and love part of Christianity. Or at least that’s what I retained from it.
        But more and more that seems rare.

    • Algernon says:

      There are many progressive churches, which Hillsong purports to be, that do not preach against homosexualilty and welcome the LGBTQ community. The last church I went to before giving up on religion entirely (raised religious, but it’s just not for me as an adult) was a mega-church, and as soon as gay marriage was legal in our state, they began performing same-sex weddings. The pastor team always preached love and acceptance, and they taught the Bible as a living document written during a time of great misunderstanding, fear, and oppression. I remember one service where the pastor specifically referenced the anti-sodomy writing in the Bible and framed it as a screed against the Romans, who were a-okay with same sex relationships. So much of the Bible is written to destabilize the Roman Empire, and this pastor taught that there are no “red words” (aka God’s words) about same sex relationships, just a few political tracts aimed at the governing superpower of the day. That really stuck with me.

  4. BaronSamedi says:

    I think the difference between the Catholic Church and newer cults like the Hillsong thing is that your run-of-the-mill catholic who goes to mass on Sunday’s don’t talk about their relationship to God with that particular smugness the evangelicals have.

    • Angela82 says:

      Agreed. I notice in general that American Christians are much different with the in your face preaching than Christians in Canada and Europe. Its one of those things that always pissed me off about Conservatives in the USA vs anywhere else.

      • Malificent says:

        There are millions of American Christians who aren’t in-you-face evangelicals. You just don’t know that we’re here because we’re not in your face about our faith.

        Pratt’s not living in a small town in the Bible Belt — if he wants to go to church on Sunday — he has choices. I grew up in a relatively liberal Protestant denomination, but they still wouldn’t ordain female or LGBTQ ministers, and didn’t square with my conscience in several other quarters. So I switched to a more liberal branch of my denomination that does.

      • LivePlantsCleanAir says:

        I’m watching a show called ‘Friday Night Lights’ for the first time and whilst it’s a football themed show, the praying that gets done before each game and at practices, etc at first warmed me…..then I started to hear some (IMHO) mis-representations and started to get steamed….I had to take a break and haven’t even finished the first season! I was surprised that a mainstream TV show would go that route. Above thread someone speaks at how the Bible was written to de-stablize Rome. Now I have to go study some history books, as that idea intrigues me. Also, I’m going to read the pastor’s writings as also mentioned above. Excellent discussion, Celebitches!

  5. J. says:

    Not sure how to feel about this as a gay person. Sure, I would like Pratt’s “everything is awesome” persona to take a hit for multiple reasons including being conservative, but I also don’t need every fluff interviewer taking him to task because he doesn’t support my “lifestyle” specifically and I get exhausted by the constant demand for pitchforks on our behalf.

    • PhillyGal says:

      J. – While I agree with you that people don’t have to “support” your lifestyle, they should “accept” it and respect you.

      • Erinn says:

        And I think if they’re going to bring up a church – basically promoting it – it’s fair to bring it up. I think fluff interviews are easier to give a pass when the topic isn’t really involved, but if he’s openly discussing it then I think there’s a way that it can be questioned without a complete attack.

        For Colbert – where he’s catholic I think it gives him an easy way to bring it up in a ‘softer’ manner. Something like “Hey. So – I know as a devout catholic there are certain things that are preached that don’t align with my own beliefs or feelings. And I see all of the abuse that has happened in the catholic church and am disgusted by it. It’s something that I will never accept as being ‘okay’, and major changes need to take place. I know you’re part of Hillsong, and there’s a lot of anti-LGBT feelings expressed there – like there is in Catholicism – how do you feel about that? Do you wish more would be done to love everyone whether you agree with their lifestyle or not?”

      • LivePlantsCleanAir says:

        @Erinn oh well said, Erinn. Great post!

    • Otaku fairy... says:

      For me, as a bisexual woman it’s less about whether or not they ‘support’ our lifestyles (if they don’t like it they don’t have to participate. They can abstain from it without portraying themselves as morally or psychologically superior for it) and more about whether or not they try to interfere with the lifestyle, and whether or not they respect our existence. No tokens here.

  6. PhillyGal says:

    I have a negative reaction when anyone goes on and on about their religion. People who need to constantly discuss their beliefs, how committed they are … blah, blah, blah … raise a red flag for me. Faith and religion [which are two very different things] should be personal and private in my opinion.

    • outoftheshadows says:

      I think Colbert walks this line a lot. He doesn’t talk about church very much, but his testimony to Congress included a very thoughtful evocation of “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me” when he was testifying on behalf of migrant farm workers and suggesting that we have a special visa program for them. That was a proud moment for Catholics.

    • Algernon says:

      Matthew 6:5: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men.”

      Jesus actually teaches that gaudy faith demonstrations are antithetical. He taught to live a loving, simple life, where your faith is visible in your kindness and goodness, and not in making public demonstrations of faith to be admired by all. If US churches actually taught the way Jesus did, I would probably still be in the church, because this is a beautiful lesson for how to live a purposeful, community-centered life. Unfortunatley, churches like Hillsong make it all about the demonstration and not the actual doing.

  7. OriginalLala says:

    Pratt has shown us time and again that he is a shit person – belonging to a homophobic, conversion therapy-pushing church is not very surprising at all…gross, but not surprising

    • lobstah says:

      Yup. Not to mention the animal abuse…he’s super canceled in my book.

    • whatWHAT? says:

      right?! I find him to be such a dudebro. by far the worst of the four Chris’. In fact, he’s the only one I don’t like.

  8. toni says:

    Evangelicals sound a lot like Scientologist. Especially this HOllywood church.

  9. Angela82 says:

    I wouldn’t be shocked to learn Pratt is a Trump supporter. He is always talking about his conservative values. I have no tolerance for anyone who attends an anti-gay and conversion therapy church.

  10. SM says:

    I think that Colbert is generally a bot more firm with politicians rather than guests from entertainment industry. Which is sort of understandable approach given his job. If he starts asking uncomfortable questions, he won’t book guests that are there to sell their products intended as entertainment. It is different with politicians who were elected and are accountable to the public. Their conform should never be a public priority. Seriously, I never thought I would kind of defend Pratt, but he seems to be quite harmless (not too bright and evidently quite oblivious) so he does not have to step up and speak up on the issues of equality and fairness. It would have been nice if more people were more critical and self aware but we need to accept that not everyone is. And those are just actors, let’s not make them into heroes.

  11. Ellie says:

    I’m sorry, but I don’t see why everyone’s “dirt” has to be drudged up in an interview, and on TV. I absolutely don’t agree with Churches that are against the LGBTQ communities, and I think they’re extremely dangerous and damaging to society, but if someone chooses to go to a church like that, that’s their choice. We have freedom of religion, which includes one’s beliefs (right or wrong). Is it anyone’s job to shame him for it, I don’t think it is. There can be private discussions behind the scenes, but him being attacked publicly for his choices, is no different than Chris attacking others for theirs.

    • whatWHAT? says:

      I understand what you’re saying, but the public, who consumes his “product”, absolutely has the right to know if they are (indirectly) monetarily supporting an org they find to be discriminatory.

      for the same reason I will never see another Tom Cruise movie (until he leaves the cult), I won’t contribute to the bank account of a person who donates from that bank account to a “church” like this.

      sure, he’s got the freedom to go to any church he wants (as do the $cibots), but the public DOES, as a “customer” have the right to know such things. just like any other business that contributes to problematic causes (Chic-fil-A).

      as for “shaming” him for it, he is part of a church that engages in conversion therapy, an EXTREMELY damaging practice. so, yeah, I’ll shame him for that. just as I’d shame someone for supporting a cult like $cientology.

    • Algernon says:

      I think it’s fair game when a celebrity makes it such a big part of their public persona. I don’t expect anyone to challenge Pratt on *why* he is religious, or whether or not he believes in evolution or anything like that, or to mock him for his faith. But he publicly, very publicly, supports a church that encourages and engages in conversion therapy, a practice which is *illegal* in 36 states (so far). I do think it’s fair to ask about the inherent conflict of supporting a church that pushes conversion therapy when he lives in a state where it is illegal. Churches do a lot of political advocacy, which they aren’t supposed to do but get away with anyway, so I do think talking about where specific churches’ practices and teachings conflict with public policy is not only fair, but important. I don’t care if people are religious, but I do care when their religious beliefs dictate policy for how everyone else lives. The whole point of the US is that religion is not supposed to influence public policy, yet it does, and we need to continue breaking that down until religion gets out of the public sphere. It is a personal choice and should remain a private matter of private citizens. Until it is that, it is totally fair to question public figures about their beliefs when they contradict policy.

    • xflare says:

      Yeh, you should be sorry with that nonsense statement.

    • Otaku fairy... says:

      People have the right to go to whatever church they want or course, since there’s freedom of religion. But when a celebrity decides to make his worship everybody’s business, I don’t see it as an ‘attack’ for him to be questioned by a peer in the industry about homophobia within his church. The only thing she probably should have done differently since she decided to bring it up is directing the question at Pratt instead of Colbert.

  12. Ann says:

    I like Ellen Page but I find this kind of thing very off putting. Of course Cobert isn’t going to get into CP’s religion during what is supposed to be a lighthearted, comedic interview. It’s glaringly obvious and her calling it out like this makes her seem argumentative and frankly kind of stupid.

  13. Pandy says:

    I don’t understand why Chris Pratt is a “thing” … he’s not particularly handsome or interesting to look at and Jurassic Park remakes aren’t my idea of an acting clinic … and the preachy Christian nonsense is SO FREAKING TEDIOUS …. Ana made a lucky break!

  14. Lilly (with the double-L) says:

    I dropped worst Chris off of my list awhile back for similar reasons and I loved Andy Dwyer and Guardians of the Galaxy . I have just had a feeling about him and his leaning into his popularity with deplorables. I used to follow him on lots of social media forums. Maybe I’m wrong, but if were a little willing to risk making saying school shootings, child separations etc. are wrong it would go far coming from him.