Full story here.

Link to the thread on Facing the Giants.

I was supposed to visit the set last month, but there was a major SNAFU with regard to the plane tickets, so I didn't, in the end. But man, that alone suggests the filmmakers have moved on and up in the world, at least when it comes to budgets!

I didn't get to visit the set, but I did visit the church and speak to the producers/directors ... and this is the first article to come of that. More later.

It's weird, by the way, looking at some of my earlier references to these guys, since when I first heard about the kerfuffle over Facing the Giants' PG rating, I got pretty skeptical and reacted to their soundbites in a perhaps more pointed way than I would use now, having met them. I like these guys, and I even like their films, for what they are -- which is to say, these films are created by regular church members as a form of ministry and need to be judged by different standards than we would use when evaluating regular movies, or even when evaluating stuff like Left Behind, which is pretty clearly just entertainment for churchgoers (even "evangelical pornography", to use kenmorefield's term). Like I've said elsewhere, I've done my share of church drama groups, and it can be hard just to do a night of dinner-theatre sketches -- so I am very, very impressed with what the people at Sherwood have been able to do, so far. I do hope that they keep getting better, and I would personally prefer films that allow for more a little more ambiguity (I'm more of a Job/Ecclesiastes kind of guy than a Proverbs kind of guy, if you get my drift), but right now I'm far more interested in encouraging these guys than slamming them. New talent needs to be nurtured, and all of that.

Incidentally, re: Left Behind, there is an interesting comment in Kirk Cameron's new autobiography about how there were virtually no Christians on the set of that film -- so when I interviewed him about Fireproof a little while ago, I had to ask about the differences between doing a Christian film where everyone on set was a "professional" who was there strictly to do a job, on the one hand, and doing a Christian film where virtually everyone on set was an amateur or volunteer doing it out of a desire to be part of a media ministry, on the other hand. More on that later.

Watch the trailer here:

http://www.fireproofthemovie.com/main.php

I can't help but like this for some reason. Even with the ol' "car trapped on the train tracks" bit!

Kirk Cameron says the film is partly about men taking the leadership role in a relationship. (If I watch this interview again, I'll be sure to watch the female interviewer's face more closely when he makes this statement.) I've seen the film, though -- twice, in fact -- and I'm not so sure that it DOES place any special onus on husbands in general. But I can't get into that any deeper without getting into spoiler-ish territory.

Here's a cool tidbit of information, folks: the guy who wrote the novelization for Facing the Giants and Fireproof--Eric Wilson--rocks the Casbah. :cool: Starting in October, he will introduce The Jerusalem Undead vampire trilogy, with IMNSHO the most unique take on the legend of the living dead in the history of literature. Head to www.wilsonwriter.com and www.jerusalemsundead.com for more info.

The trailer moved me. I don't know if it's because I am counseling a lot of broke marriages right now, but it really moved me.

Has anyone seen this yet?

Yes. Twice. (The rough cut once, the final cut once.)

And here is the second. The first article focuses just on the Kendrick brothers, the second one is also about them but looks a little broader; it's more about the church as a whole, and includes an interview with the senior pastor, in addition to the Kendricks.

And yes, despite having identical headlines, they ARE different stories. I haven't double-checked, but if memory serves, there aren't even any overlapping quotes.

A review from Mark Earley of Prison Fellowship:

I was expecting a ‘B’ grade movie. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised. By the end of the two-hour-long screening, there wasn’t a dry eye in the house, including mine. ...

Of course the film has its cheesy moments, as any movie produced on a shoestring budget is bound to have. And, in my opinion, the movie’s step-by-step presentation of the Gospel was a little over the top. As my colleague Zoe Sandvig wrote at our blog, The Point, the makers of Fireproof obviously know how to tell a good story. Clearly, they “didn’t want to risk the possibility that someone—particularly a non-Christian—might miss the spiritual significance of the moment.” But if they had allowed the audience to “connect the dots,” so to speak, the film would have been even stronger.

So go see Fireproof when it hits theaters on September 26. Trust me, you’ll leave the film with plenty of reasons why any marriage, including your own, is worth fighting for.

Just remember to bring a tissue or two.

My translation: "This film might be screamingly obvious, but go see it: It'll make you cry!"

I am biting my tongue:

The film, from Sherwood Pictures, producer of the under-the-radar, Christian-themed success “Facing the Giants” from 2006, has been No. 1 in advance sales on movie ticketing site Fandango.com with 31% of this week's business, albeit in a slow marketplace — even outpacing sales for the big-budget popcorn thriller "Eagle Eye," starring heartthrob Shia LaBeouf. ...

[Fireproof] could open at least as well as “Facing the Giants,” a high-school football saga that launched to $1.3 million and kept on playing, riding word-of-mouth to an ultimate gross of $10.2 million and robust business on DVD. Advance sales for “Fireproof” are much stronger, its marriage theme is more universal and the movie opens on twice as many screens, notes Michael Silberman, Goldwyn’s head of distribution. “The appetite is there but the meal has to be a good one,” Silberman says.

FWIW, my interview with Kirk Cameron.

(from that interview)

Huh? What is so confusing about "devout Catholic"? Even outside of whether he considers Catholics Christians, you don't need to look TOO too hard to find out what a devout Catholic thinks about the "essentials of the faith". Perhaps someone could clarify for me where this guy is coming from, his comment seems totally out of the blue to me.

I don't mean this as a slight to this film in particular at all, but I believe there's some sort of axiom or law that could be constructed here. My first attempt was framed like this:

Every evangelical film project eventually involves Kirk Cameron.

But I think it's missed the target slightly. I'm sure there's a way to fix it, though!

Am I alone in finding some arrogance in a statement that "My wife and I were the only Christians", right after saying "there were some professing Christians"? He seems to use cast and crew interchangeably. But it really comes across like, "Sure, there were people who said they were Christians. But my wife and me? We were the only real Christians I saw on the set." Maybe I am reading something unfairly here...

No, I'm with you on this. Especially his reaction to what Trivette, er, Gilyard said about his faith. At least from the interview, Cameron seems to be clinging to the "the only TRUE Christians are the ones that believe exactly what I believe" mindset. I could be wrong, of course.

Since he's part of a ministry called, "The Way of the Master" which, IMO, reduces (and distorts) the gospel message into a series of propositional truths to be affirmed, this is not surprising. Roman Catholic spirituality would be completely foreign to them. While I am not Roman Catholic for a number of reasons, there is no inherent biblical excuse to automatically assume that a Roman Catholic person's faith is non-Christian.

Hmmm. I have to admit I wondered if I should cut that bit from the interview, lest it be a big distraction or something. This particular quote has NOTHING to do with Fireproof, which is, after all, the movie that he was promoting when I was talking to him, and I wouldn't want his thoughts on this subject to cause anyone to avoid the movie or anything like that. But I was following up something he had claimed in his book, about the making of Left Behind, and I figured people might be interested in hearing a little more about that.

I don't think Cameron's response is all THAT bad, necessarily. He is absolutely right when he says that there is a wide range of belief systems within BOTH Catholic AND Protestant circles. At the risk of sounding inflammatory, there are heretics in both circles who openly call themselves "devout" -- and they might very well be sincere and devout in their devotion to God as they understand him, etc., but their theology is still pretty much non-Christian. (And I'm not talking here about the disagreements in doctrine that separate Catholics from Orthodox from Protestants, I'm thinking more of the way people say Jesus was basically just a good man, or the way they gravitate towards denying the historicity of the Resurrection, etc. -- the stuff that all three major branches of Christianity are supposed to have in common.)

So when Cameron says he doesn't know what a person means by calling himself or herself a "devout" so-and-so, I can appreciate the ambiguity there. Of course, I would hope that he and Gilyard TALKED about their beliefs, but maybe they didn't, I dunno. (A part of me does wonder what a "devout Catholic" was doing in a Rapture movie, since the eschatology that underlies those films comes from a Protestant sect that didn't exist until the 1800s.)

At any rate, even if Cameron and Gilyard DID have the basic beliefs in common, they obviously would have parted ways on the denominational differences, since being a "devout Catholic" entails believing in a lot of stuff that Cameron's brand of "biblical Christianity" does not include. I mean, would Cameron consider belief in the Rapture an "essential of the faith"? If he does, then that alone would put him at odds with "devout Catholics" and devout Orthodox and many devout Protestants, too.

Interesting question. I wonder what his response would be...as a Catholic, I personally couldn't justify acting in a Left Behind movie, because the whole series is intended to popularize belief in a religious dogma that I don't hold (not that I'm an actor anyway). But he's not responsible for the content of the movie, just for his particular work. And while I wouldn't agree myself, I can see the appeal in arguing that we have to work inside the system, and that a Left Behind project is better than 99.9% of other projects out there.

It sounded pretty typically evangelical to me.

Reminds me of a joke:


And that's the last off-topic post I'll make in this thread, sorry.

Oh no he didn't!

That is just incredible. I hope I never see those two movies mentioned in the same article again. Ever.

Here's my review, FWIW.

I hope Peter doesn't mind if I link his review. Very kind, Peter. Very kind.

As I mentioned to Peter privately, I haven't seen the previous Sherwood Baptist films, so whether or not Fireproof represents a step up -- something that Peter's review emphasizes -- is absent from my review, as it was absent from my assessment of the film while watching it. I noted several caveats in Peter's review, and in the PluggedIn review, although both came down favorable on the film despite those things.

Oh, one more thing not in my review. I'll be blunt. The depiction of the wife's black, female co-workers really pissed me off. Some "Mmmmm-hmmmm," and "girl" references, that sort of thing. The film has only one or two of these scenes, but one comes early. It's possible that the scene in question put me in a foul mood and didn't allow me to give the filmmakers the benefit of other doubts I have about the film.

Finke:

Also a surprise was the 3rd place debut of Provident/Sony's Fireproof whch opened to $2.6 million Friday even without stars, and a weekend estimate of $7.5M even though it was released into only 839 dates. The reason why is that the studio targeted the Christian audience and hired a Christian PR/marketing firm to push the PG-13 film starring the grown-up child TV star Kirk Cameron. "Just between you and me, keep your eye on the Fireproof per screen averages this weekend," a Grace Hill Media source tipped me. "On Sunday, I think there will be some distribution execs around town who will be asking 'What the hell is Fireproof?' The answer is Sony’s quietly, but most-assuredly, in the Christian game -- and unlike some other studios, they’re actually earnest about it."

BTW, my review has a stupid error. I wrote that Facing the Giants had a budget of "just $1 million," but I must have added a zero when I transcribed; the movie reportedly had a budget of $100,000. I expected some readers to come after me for giving Fireproof a negative review, but I didn't think I'd walk into a blatant error like that, giving them an easy opening. Still, I appreciate that someone pointed it out to me. I'm afraid it won't be fixed until Monday.

Christian wrote:
: The depiction of the wife's black, female co-workers really pissed me off. Some "Mmmmm-hmmmm," and "girl" references, that sort of thing.

I can appreciate that. But this is one of those places where I, a Canadian, tend to defer to the Southerners who made this film on their own home turf. I don't really feel I'm in a position to judge whether this is too extreme a caricature of their culture.

I do believe that, in the making-of on the Flywheel DVD, the filmmakers talk about a scene in which a black woman talks in a similar manner, and it turns out that the woman in question was basically ad-libbing and just being herself and the filmmakers decided to leave it in there.

My problem with the "Mmmmm-hmmmm" was not the racial-cultural thing, but the fact that it underscored, in triple bright red lines, the fact that the doctor was interested in someone else's wife, and that these co-workers had noticed that he was interested in someone else's wife, and that these co-workers had TALKED about the fact that they noticed he was interested in someone else's wife. So much underscoring already. And then they added the "Mmmmm-hmmmm."

: BTW, my review has a stupid error. I wrote that Facing the Giants had a budget of "just $1 million," but I must have added a zero when I transcribed; the movie reportedly had a budget of $100,000.

Heh. FWIW, when I interviewed the Kendricks, they said Flywheel had cost $20,000, Facing the Giants $100,000, and Fireproof $500,000. So if they keep multiplying their budgets by five, the next movie oughtta cost $2.5 million.

Nikki Finke wrote:
: Also a surprise was the 3rd place debut of Provident/Sony's Fireproof whch opened to $2.6 million Friday even without stars, and a weekend estimate of $7.5M even though it was released into only 839 dates.

FWIW, the biggest opening weekend for any independent evangelical film to date is the $6.2 million earned by Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie in 2002. (It went on to gross $25.6 million in total, easily the top gross of any indy evie film to date. 2nd place goes to One Night with the King, 2006, $13.4 million.)

: The reason why is that the studio targeted the Christian audience and hired a Christian PR/marketing firm to push the PG-13 film starring the grown-up child TV star Kirk Cameron. "Just between you and me, keep your eye on the Fireproof per screen averages this weekend," a Grace Hill Media source tipped me. "On Sunday, I think there will be some distribution execs around town who will be asking 'What the hell is Fireproof?' The answer is Sony’s quietly, but most-assuredly, in the Christian game -- and unlike some other studios, they’re actually earnest about it."

I love that a Grace Hill rep is quoted as saying "What the hell". Even if it's in quotes.

One other fun stat:

Fireproof is on track to be one of the top five films of the weekend, and possibly one of the top three. Either way, this is a first for an evangelical film.

The highest ranking any evangelical film has ever had before is the 6th-place start that Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie had in October 2002. It slipped to #11 in its 2nd week, but then rose back to #9 in its 3rd week and #10 in its 4th week. So it spent 3 of its first 4 weeks in the Top Ten.

Only four other films have ever cracked the Top Ten, each of them for one week only: End of the Spear debuted at #8 in January 2006, The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything at #9 in January 2008, and The Omega Code at #10 in October 1999 and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at #10 in April 2008.

So three evangelical films have opened in the Top Ten this year alone. One was a kid-oriented cartoon, one was a documentary, and one was a grownup-oriented drama. That suggests a certain diversity, at least.

I noticed earlier today that Finke had revised her weekend estimate down to $6 million. If that holds up, I guess that means Veggie Tales keeps its record. (Which makes me happy because I love Veggie Tales. )

Heh.

Looking at Kirk Cameron's filmography, BTW, I see that everything he's done has been for TV or video, with the exception of five big-screen movies -- including this one.

The other four movies are:

• The Best of Times (1986, $7.8 million)
• Like Father Like Son (1987, $34.4 million)
• Listen to Me (1989, $4.3 million)
• Left Behind (2001, $4.2 million)

So Fireproof is guaranteed to beat pretty much all of them, at least before inflation is taken into account, with the probable exception of Like Father Like Son.

cbd.com sent out an e-mail blast telling people to go see this movie. Here are their reasons:

Okay, so they're basically saying that the movie *is* propaganda. And the fact that somebody somewhere has *prayed* about a work of art makes that work of art required viewing.

In other words, they're doing all they can to convince me that this movie has nothing to do with artmaking whatsoever.

Or, at least, they're doing all they can to convince you that they think that the target audience of the e-blast (if not the film itself) will be best motivated to see the film by reasons that have nothing to do with artmaking whatsoever.

Mark Joseph's site, The Press, is forwarding an e-mail that excerpts the Boston Globe's review of this film. I don't agree with some of its reasons for dismissing the film, but the conclusion made me chuckle:

With the production values of a straight-to-video cheapie and the script of a mediocre soap opera, "Fireproof" is good for just about one thing: dousing whatever flames might be left in your marriage.

I wouldn't go that far!

Gina wrote:
: I noticed earlier today that Finke had revised her weekend estimate down to $6 million. If that holds up, I guess that means Veggie Tales keeps its record. (Which makes me happy because I love Veggie Tales. )

Alas for VeggieTales fans, the current estimate for the weekend is $6.5 million, which is just a hair above Jonah's $6.2 million. But I'm sure that, if you adjusted for inflation, Jonah would still come out on top.

cbd.com wrote:
: Any movie that has in its credits a "prayer coordinator," you should see.

Really? What if they're, like, Mormon or Muslim prayers, etc.?

Overstreet wrote:
: Okay, so they're basically saying that the movie *is* propaganda.

Well, there may be a fine line between "propaganda" and "ministry", but I'd tilt towards the latter word, m'self, in this case.

: And the fact that somebody somewhere has *prayed* about a work of art makes that work of art required viewing.

I suspect the "prayer coordinator" was involved in organizing the praying that took place on the movie set, in adjoining rooms, while the movie was being filmed. It's probably not just a case of "somebody somewhere" doing the praying; it was as much a part of the filmmaking experience as, e.g., getting a good caterer. (They say that if the cast and crew of a movie have not been well fed, it shows in what ends up on screen.)

Christian wrote:
: Mark Joseph's site, The Press, is forwarding an e-mail that excerpts the Boston Globe's review of this film. . . .

Yikes!

FWIW, some of the secular reviews I've liked so far have included, e.g., Variety's Joe Leydon:

. . . pic represents a notable uptick in tech values and narrative sturdiness for the filmmakers.

. . . Cameron is genuinely compelling as Caleb, a work-obsessed firefighter on the verge of divorce from his neglected wife, Catherine (Erin Bethea), a hospital PR rep.

. . . Happily-ever-aftering is inevitable in this type of pic, especially when characters rely heavily on the power of prayer. But the Kendricks test their aud's patience by unduly delaying the feel-good payoff to Caleb's "Love Dare" crusade.

Bethea's lack of acting experience is too obvious by half. But supporting players cast as Caleb's firehouse buddies -- most of them non-pros -- provide snatches of welcome comic relief.

Or the New York Times's Neil Genzlinger:

“Fireproof” may not be the most profound movie ever made, but it does have its commendable elements, including that rarest of creatures on the big (or small) screen: characters with a strong, conservative Christian faith who don’t sound crazy.

. . . The screenwriters, the brothers Alex Kendrick (who also directed) and Stephen Kendrick, give the story some pull by not making Catherine into the usual neglected wallflower of a wife. Instead she’s a publicist at a hospital who spends most of the film contemplating whether to hop into bed with one of the doctors.

For two-thirds of the movie, the filmmakers show a restraint rare in the movie-with-a-Message genre, so much so that the two most appealing characters are those nudging Caleb toward Christianity (Mr. Malcom and Ken Bevel as a fellow firefighter).

. . . But the cast of mostly amateurs (Mr. Cameron of “Growing Pains” being the exception) is surprisingly good. And the moments of comic relief are mildly amusing.

Only at the end do the filmmakers get heavy-handed, and they seem not to know when to wrap up, letting the movie run on for several smarmy scenes beyond its natural endpoint. Until then, though, this is a decent attempt to combine faith and storytelling that will certainly register with its target audience.

And maybe with other folks as well: among those caring-for-marriage tips are some that anyone could use to improve any type of relationship, with or without the God part.

Personally, I rather liked the "extra" ending. When I spoke to the filmmakers, they volunteered -- without my asking -- the fact that they knew the movie went on a bit beyond what many would regard as its natural endpoint. But they felt the need to add those extra scenes for "ministry" reasons, rather than "entertainment" reasons. And FWIW, I, personally, think the extra scenes work even as entertainment, or should I say as drama. At any rate, I appreciate the fact that those final scenes include a twist which brings the movie's depiction of gender roles into a slightly better balance.

And yes, as I noted in my own review, the evangelistic stuff feels kind of tacked on in this film, and it is quite conceivable that someone could put the vast bulk of the "love dare" into practice WITHOUT subscribing to Christianity. The filmmakers have said that Caleb needs to know Christ if he is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, but, well, that just raises ANOTHER issue, which is that Caleb doesn't seem to have any sort of church community -- at least not until the epilogue, when the main story is over, and we see Caleb get into a car with a Bible in his hand.

Most nauseating quote of the thread so far: "Sony is definately in the Christian game."

Granted, I haven't seen this yet, and was only able to stomach the first half hour of "Facing the Giants..." but I find myself struggling with the placement of ministry films in the regular film world. I certainly appreciate what the church is doing, and think it is really cool that they are putting so much time and effort into a rather unique ministry. But as my theater prof (at a Baptist school, no less) always said: "Effort does not equal excellence."

Opening weekend has already shown there is a market for it, and the Sony quote reveals that, of course, the film industry is ultimately a money-making game.

But should there be lines on what is mass-marketed in an entertainment industry? Should these low-budget, volunteer efforts be applauded, but confined to other venues?

Of course, not everything high-budget and out of Hollywood can be considered "excellent" either, and I guess that hasn't cast it out of the public theater....

There is a very important question raised by Fireproof. If someone were to make a movie about your conversion experience: Who would play you?

Our home group is going to spend a few weeks trying to deal with this important theological issue.

JennyLynne wrote:
: I find myself struggling with the placement of ministry films in the regular film world. I certainly appreciate what the church is doing, and think it is really cool that they are putting so much time and effort into a rather unique ministry. But as my theater prof (at a Baptist school, no less) always said: "Effort does not equal excellence."

Heck, as a church-drama veteran, I'd say you're lucky if it equals mediocrity.

: But should there be lines on what is mass-marketed in an entertainment industry? Should these low-budget, volunteer efforts be applauded, but confined to other venues?

That's a very interesting question. In the old days, Billy Graham films were "four-walled", meaning that the organization rented the theatre outright and sold/distributed tickets as it saw fit, with ALL the proceeds (if any) going back to the organization. So those films simply did not show up on the box-office charts, which as I understand it are limited to films that do the usual Hollywood thing of splitting revenues between the studios and the theatres. (It is because the studios share the revenues with the theatres, and with movie stars and others who keep a percentage of the gross, that it is so important to have an accurate, objective record of how much money was earned at the box office.)

What we have seen in the past decade is a tendency to release "Christian films" like regular movies, instead of as special ministry-outreach deals. And part of this is, admittedly, driven by a desire for bragging rights. When The Omega Code opened in the Top 10 in 1999, it shocked everyone, and suddenly "Christian films" were something that people had to "pay attention" to. A year and a half later, the makers of Left Behind proclaimed that they wanted to open at #1 ... but they opened at #17 instead. Still, the point is, they made box-office ranking a part of their stated mission. They wanted to prove their (sub)cultural clout.

Now, paying attention to the box-office stuff isn't so bad if the films you're putting out are regular family films (e.g. the VeggieTales movies) or regular dramas telling stories about famous Christians (e.g. End of the Spear) or openly political-activist kind of movies, where the whole POINT is to shake up the broader culture (e.g. Expelled). But if the film you're making is designed as a "ministry tool" rather than entertainment -- and I don't think there is anything wrong with that -- then yeah, treating it the same way you'd treat Lakeview Terrace or Eagle Eye is a little weird.

It is certainly absurd -- or creepy, according to taste -- for a studio to look at something like Fireproof and start asking how they can replicate that sort of box-office success. The whole POINT of Fireproof, supposedly, is that the people who made it did so because they felt led by God to do so, and because they covered the moviemaking in prayer, and so on, and so on. The financial success of Facing the Giants surprised everyone, and even with Fireproof, I think there was a degree of surprise; I mean, Facing the Giants had a major controversy stoking its success, and Fireproof didn't, and how often does lightning hit twice anyway, etc., etc.

So, these movies have, so far, been motivated by something OTHER than profit. And it's going to be very hard for someone else to come along and "copy" that if profit is their MAIN motive, let alone their only motive. How do you "copy" the leading of God? But when the film is released like most other films, and its box-office success is celebrated the way it is, you can hardly blame a studio for thinking that way.

Ok, first what I liked:

The production itself was a huge improvement over Facing the Giants. The camera work in particular has gotten better. The Kendrick's obviously got ahold of a crane and used it every chance they got.

Most of Kirk Cameron's performance was pretty strong. I was not expecting him to be so believably explosive (at the beginning) and tearful (at the end).

What I did not like so much:

Kirk Cameron looks like a 12 year old in all the firefighter gear.

I didn't believe for a second that Mrs. Holt would fall for cheesy doctor guy.

As others have pointed out, the Kendricks are still telling more than they are showing but they are getting better. The brief scene where we learn the doctor is married was handled really well compared to everything else. No words, just a character doing something that gives us all the information we need.

This is not a great film by any stretch but I'm glad I saw it and I hope the Kendricks keep improving.

I posted a few reviews (Peter's, the NY Times, EW) on my blog.

It inspired this response:



I responded (hastily and clumsily, I admit). And his response made things even more interesting.

All of you -- yes, even my fellow elitists -- can follow, and join in, here.

A friend of mine hosted the radio broadcast for the Hollywood premier. The mp3 is on his website, and includes comments from most of the cast, and people like Ted Baehr, who says that by showing up at the theatre and buying popcorn, "You're not spending money at the theatre, you're spending money into the kingdom of God."

Hmmm.

I'm torn between this...



and this...

The latest "love note" from a reader of my review, currently appearing on Crosswalk for all to see:

Please, PLEASE: no more reviews by Christian Hamaker. He's horrible. He has no more insight than a bat. Obviously, he has neither the gift of cinematic criticism nor the gift of spiritual discernment. He judges a movie by its overall gloss, without any concern for heart, story, character development, vision, inspiration or anything else that goes into good story-telling or godly filmmaking. I hate to be so blunt, and I hate to sound unkind, but you guys have subjected us to his worldly opinions long enough. It's time to get a real Christian film critic in there. Please take Mr. Hamaker off the dole before we take you off our e-mail lists. Thanks. Waitsel Smith

Remember that witch in the Bugs Bunny cartoons who would say, "Hansel. Hansel? HANSEL!?"

Now imagine me saying "Waitsel. Waitsel? WAITSEL!?"

Christian, I think you should make a collage out of all your "love notes." Anyone else feel just a bit delighted when they receive notes like that?

I print them and pin them to my bulletin board in my office. They keep me motivated and remind me how far we still have to go in our crusade. Did I just say "crusade"?

And then I also pin up those in which I've been thoroughly and rightfully cut down to size. Just to keep me humble. I deserve about 1 in 4 of my angry letters. The other three usually don't even have anything to do with what I've written, and end up revealing more about those who wrote the letters than they probably would ever guess.

Yeah, my first inclination when I get nastygrams is to kick myself for not making myself clearer, for not being a better writer, for not expressing my opinion more persuasively. Often, however, it's apparent that no amount of finesse and writerly ability would change the reader's opinion.

From the Crosswalk comments:



Christian, I thought your review wasn't all that harsh, certainly not enough to warrant that kind of response. But I think it's clear from browsing Crosswalk for a bit... your comparison to a Seventh Heaven episode, while framed as a negative, may be exactly what a lot of readers are looking for in their movies.

Dear Jeffrey Overstreet. You suck at life, and everything you do with yours.

Sincerely,
popechild

[/trying to make Jeff's bulletin board]