Love is patient, love is kind, but film criticism is none of these things.

This is my review of Old Fashioned!

CGB follower “G.S.” asked me to review this movie when it came out in February, so now I am following through on that request.
Old Fashioned, which came out on the same day as Fifty Shades of Grey (remember this detail; it will be important later), tells the story of a rigid, introverted man named Clay who owns his aunt’s antique shop.  When an innocent, free-spirited woman named Amber becomes a tenant above the antique shop, the two develop an odd friendship that slowly but surely works its way into a chaste courtship in contemporary America.

Clay is a guy who gets in his own way with his strict theories on love and romance…and so does this movie.

The Hits
There are some gems to be found in this film.  For one, the color palate is something to be admired.  Because Old Fashioned embraces the simplisticity of its premise, the backgrounds are colored with earth tones with the lighting scheme of a late-afternoon sunset.  This color palate gives the film a cozy, little-town feel that I greatly appreciated.  In fact, one shot of a sun rising was so gorgeous that I actually took a picture of it on my phone.  I will post the picture on the Catholic Girl Bloggin’ Facebook page.
The two leads, Clay and Amber, have genuine chemistry.  Their interactions are believeable and their archs are well-defined.  Amber is just a delight.  She’s written less as a shallow modernist and more as a go-with-the-flow optimistic nomad who chases happiness and adventure.  She’s like Elizabeth Gilbert from Eat Pray Love; seeking new life after a doomed relationship.
Something else I really liked is that this Christian film attempts to show the two extremes of faith.  A loose faith leads to inconsistency and aimlessness.  A rigid faith leads to stagnation and resentment.  This is a rare and noble message that needs to be showcased more in Christian films.
The story itself is unique on paper; an age-old courtship in modern society can make for a great story when done right.  But when executed poorly…(sighs) well, here are my points of frustration with this film.

The Misses
Some of the editing choices are just off-putting.  This movie likes to have Clay and Amber talking, and then show a separate scene with Clay running on a track field because–potatoes!–or have Amber walk across a bridge because–banana!–and these odd transitions are going on WHILE Clay and Amber are in the middle of a conversation in the present day.  That kind of editing is great for the trailer, but it gets so distracting in the final product.
Speaking of Clay….oh, boy.  I’m sure the actor playing Clay is giving it his all, but his line delivery is so stilted.  It seriously felt like he was just reading off cue cards. Where Amber feels like a fleshed-out character who could exist in real life, Clay has the vibe of a character who was created to promote an agenda.  The rigid, introverted traditionalist arch can work, but because his dialogue consists of pro-courtship slogans and the delivery of those lines is borderline robotic, I could not for the life of me connect with Clay’s character.
Why did I bring up that this movie came out on the exact same day as that cinematic cancer we humans call “Fifty Shades of Grey?”  Because it’s quite obvious that this movie exists as a counter to Fifty Shades.  I recently wrote an op-ed titled “Putting a Hashtag on Human Life,” in which I talked about the animosity between the #BlackLivesMatter camp and the #AllLivesMatter camp.  One of the things I said was, “#AllLivesMatter is tainted by its own inception: It was created for the sole purpose of opposing #BlackLivesMatter and had no further vision.”  Old Fashioned has this exact same problem.  This movie exists because Fifty Shades exists.  As a result, it feels as though the ideas are trying to be the story, not the story trying to have ideas.

Overall Old Fashioned is a well-intentioned, even innovative film that falls short because of its inception.  Despite its shortcomings, it is a good start to the depiction of courtship in cinema.

Am I the only person who actually likes Joel Schumacher’s interpretation of Phantom of the Opera?
I guess I’ll just have to review, wait and see…

This is my review of The Phantom of the Opera!

The Phantom of the Opera tells the story of a Swedish chorus girl named Christine Daae (pronounced as DIE-EH) who lands the lead role in an opera.  Unbeknownst to anyone else, she has been coached from afar by her “Angel of Music,” who turns out to be a disfigured composer only known as the Phantom.

The Hits
The first half of the film is amazing!  I have always been fascinated by the toxic relationship between Christine and the Phantom.  There’s so much sexual tension without them getting physical.  I think that a relationship that is physically chaste yet emotionally sexual is far more compelling than an explicit sex scene.  Christine is both enamoured with and intimidated by her “Angel of Music.”  The Phantom has a possessive grip on her even when he’s not in the room.  Even if he has his hand on her shoulder or his arm around her waist, there’s a prevailing sense of his dominance and power over her.   I’ve always felt that the most dangerous villain is the villain who the protagonist needs.  Christine needs his instruction to be a better singer.
I really appreciate that the relationship is emotionally abusive and portrayed negatively unlike a more recent film that was based on a certain Twilight fan fiction.  Anyway, there’s a misconception, especially in film and television, that abuse is only physical.  Emotional and psychological abuse are silent forms of violence, like a toad in a pot of boiling water.
All of the actors give top-notch performances.  Emmy Rossum is sweet and sympathetic as Christine, Patrick Wilson brings the kind and passionate Raoul to life, and for the most part, Gerard Butler’s possessive, tormented Phantom is a great antihero.  All of the singing is high quality and professional…well, actually, almost all of the singing.  There is one actor who makes it obvious that he’s not musically trained and had only so much time to prepare…

The Misses
Gerard Butler’s singing…yeah.  Let me put it this way: He sounds great when he sings, “Night time sharpens, heightens each sensation.  Darkness stirs and wakes imagination…” But it’s when he sings “close your eyes and let your spirit start…to…SOAR!” that I rub my ears and say, “Oh, honey, high notes are not up your alley, are they?”  He does get better as the movie progresses, but once you know that he was the only non-musically-trained actor in the PotO cast and you hear him during the first couple of songs, it gets distracting.
The second half of the film is where the story gets formulaic.  Once Raoul steps into the picture…well, is it bad to say that I wish there was no love triangle between Christine, the Phantom and Raoul?   Christine and the Phantom alone make for a great character study of a parasitic semi-romance.  In my opinion, instead of throwing Raoul into the mix, how about have Christine come to realize on her own that she’s a great singer without the Phantom’s help?  Then have Phantom remind her, “I’m the one who made you the star that you are,” and build the story around this psychological conflict?   Christine’s journey could either lead to her breaking free and standing on her own two feet, or she sinks deeper into the depths of Phantom’s manipulation and waltzes with her master to a tragic end.

All that being said, I don’t hate Joel Schumacher’s 2004 version as much as some people do.  For what it is, I think it works.  I have the soundtrack to this film and I listen to it all the time because the music is great.  I like that Christine is younger in this version, and her interaction with the Phantom is riveting to watch.

Saint Clare of Assisi, pray for us.

I don’t want to beat around the bush, so I’m just going to attach a disclaimer from both the CGB Facebook page and my personal profile:

My next review requires a disclaimer.
I will be posting my review of a Christian film called “Right to Believe.” It tells the story of a Christian journalist interviewing a gay man who is organizing an LBGT pride parade in their home town.
I will try to be as charitable to both Christian readers and LGBT readers as possible, but my motto is, “If I was interested in making friends, I wouldn’t blog.” Keep in mind that I am critiquing it as a film and nothing more.
The review will be up soon.

This is my review of Right to Believe!

After journalist Tony Morris is demoted when his high-profile article is discredited, he is assigned to cover a “community fluff piece,” which happens to be a gay pride parade.  Though reluctant, Tony takes the assignment and meets LGBT parade organizer Markus Fry.  The first interview goes smoothly, though it is interrupted when Markus gets a distressing phone call.  However things get complicated when, during the second interview, Markus calls out Tony when he sees how uncomfortable Tony acts around him [Markus].  From there, the next series of interviews are a rigorous discussion/debate between Tony and Markus on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible.

The Hits
In my new movie review notebook (my old one was starting to fall apart), the first thing I wrote down was, “how does this Christian film handle homosexuality?”  I am pleased to say that Right to Believe treats the topic with the best care that it can.  Markus Fry is not a gay stereotype; in fact when we first meet him, you don’t know what his sexual orientation is.  An approachable, mild-mannered man who happens to be gay, Markus is written as a character and not an agenda prop.  I could see myself meeting someone like him at Starbucks or a concert.  His homosexuality is an aspect of who he is, not the entirety of who he is.  The movie makes sure that there is more to him than his sexual preference.
The first half of the film is the strongest.  Tony’s situation is believable; after being demoted, he must take the fluff piece in order to keep his job and lay low.  Also Tony’s pride is the reason behind his hesitance to take the assignment.  This is a guy who does infamous murder trials and political scandals, so to be given a task that is mostly for newbie reporters is, in his eyes, beneath him.  His Christian faith adds to his resigned demeanor when approaching the assignment.  Also I would like to point out that the Christian character [Tony] is shown as being less virtuous than the non-believing character [Markus], which is shockingly rare in a lot of Christian films.  In fact, there are times where the script allows Markus to look more logical than Tony.  Overall Tony and Markus are presented in an honest and humanistic way, which is something to be appreciated.

The Misses
Every story has a formula, and how this type of story usually goes is that the two characters from opposing sides would start out forming a friendship or some form of acquaintanceship before tackling the controversial issues surrounding their identities.  Here, it’s an interviewer-interviewee relationship that jumps right into debate partner mode.  Their debate on the Bible and homosexuality is too rushed and could have use a smoother transition.
The actual debate plays out like a heated discussion you would see between two people talking at a café.  A LOT of the dialogue gets preachy and this criticism goes to both Tony and Markus.  Some of what Tony says about the Bible frustrated me, and Markus became unrealistically nasty from time to time.  Also I would have liked to have seen Tony meeting a friend or boyfriend of Markus, or even having Tony’s wife bump into Markus without Tony present; humanize the opposing characters to each other, show the complexities of their positions by having Tony see Markus happy with a boyfriend or vice versa.  Granted, that doesn’t mean that either man should recant his beliefs, but Christian filmmakers should keep in mind that adult issues are always complicated.
What really bothered me as a Catholic Christian is the “only belief in Jesus will get you to Heaven; good works have no say” rhetoric that Tony preaches.  I’m sorry, but I can’t let this go.  If you believe in Jesus, but your actions contradict His teachings, then that’s hypocrisy.  Saint Paul the Apostle says, “faith without work is dead.”

The final verdict is that Right to Believe handles homosexuality the best way it can.  It’s a noble attempt where even though the agenda gets in the way at times, the filmmakers never forgot to tell a story about two human beings.

Update: I have been corrected.  It wasn’t Paul the Apostle who said, “Faith without works is dead.”  Actually here is the real passage:
“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. “
–James 2:14-26