Fireproof shouldn’t be critic-proof
Full disclosure: I saw only the first 20 minutes of Fireproof. If this causes you to dismiss my assessment of the movie as a cinematic disaster, then you can stop reading right now. I will say in my defense, however, that in those 20 minutes I saw enough bad acting, heard enough bad dialogue, was assaulted by enough amateur lighting set-ups, and was distracted by enough bad directing to give me full confidence in my thinking.
I realize, of course, that for many of my evangelical brethren, it takes more than bad acting, bad dialogue, bad directing, etc., to make a bad movie. It also takes bad intentions, and even I admit that the amateur Fireproof team intended to make a good movie.
And because they made a bad movie doesn’t make them bad people. Neither does it mean they eventually will not make a good one. Director and writer Alex Kendrick plans to make a film every two years, and he is clearly learning a few things about movie making. Fireproof, which stars one “pro” actor, Kirk Cameron, is much better than his previous effort, Facing The Giants, which was an improvement over his first film, Flywheel. Who knows? Kendrick and his brother Stephen, his co-writer and producer of the first two films, are both young. If they keep making this much progress, perhaps the next movie—or the one after that—will be the one they and those who have stuck by them can be proud of.
Let’s be plain: The Kendricks’ movies are apprentice efforts, and there’s nothing wrong with that—all great artists and craftsmen go through an apprentice stage. But for an apprentice to graduate into true mastery, someone must give him honest feedback, and it appears no one in the evangelical community is willing to do that. Some of the most prominent movie reviewers in the Christian world acknowledged the film’s shortcomings but said—inexplicably—that they didn’t matter. Among rank-and-file Christians, any criticism of the movie is met with vitriol, such as the hate I was met with on an online discussion group. You would have thought I had nominated Osama bin Laden for the Nobel Peace Prize.
We do the Kendrick brothers no favors when we grant them a “pass” based on good intentions. I learned this lesson as a writer many years ago. I am not the greatest writer in the world, but (I assure you) I am much better than I was last year, and I am much, much better than I was a decade ago. I improved because of tough feedback from teachers, mentors, and—sometimes—critics.
The artist’s life, a helpful college professor once told me, is a vocation, a calling. It should be engaged in to tell the truth about the world, and not just to make money or even to propagate a message. It takes discipline, perseverance, and mastery of the tools of that particular art. Most of all it takes an unsentimental view of what you’ve done and what you’re capable of doing. And it takes the courage to hear the truth about your work. Tough feedback is not a discouragement—it is a gift.
If we truly want to encourage the Kendricks, let’s say: “Congratulations. Making a movie, even a bad one, is no easy task. This one is an honorable ‘next step’ in the process, but is it really your best?”
If the Kendrick brothers have any artistic integrity at all, they will not be discouraged by such feedback, and—in the end—they might one day make that great Christian movie we all have longed to see.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top64 Comments to “Fireproof shouldn’t be critic-proof”
Havent seen it. But you are right. Say anything about the inferior acting, bad cinematography in a Christian film and some well-intentioned folks are ready to hit you with the rotten heresy tomato.
Better we have merely so-so secular films with a strong message that lends itself to or points out a solid biblical value?
Let’s hear now from Christian actors and others involved with entertainmt. Do yall find yourselves subjugating good film quality to drive home the Christian theme a lot?
I hate movies that earn more from audience loyalty than their artistic merit. (That’s a lot of Christian stuff these days, but one could just as easily point to the later Elvis movies).
Report comment to moderator
Warren is correct that FP shouldn’t be critic-proof. No movie should.
Speaking of audience loyalty, a prime example is the Star Wars franchise. Overall, they have a decent adventure story arc, and of course the special effects on the first (now last) three movies were awesome for the era.
But George Lucas was no master of dialogue, and his characters were cardboard cutouts. Consider this exchange between Leia and Han in Episode V:
LEIA: You’re imagining things.
HAN: Am I? Then why are you following me? Afraid I was going to leave without giving you a goodbye kiss?
LEIA: I’d just as soon kiss a Wookie.
HAN: I can arrange that. You could use a good kiss!
Heh. It’s like an amateurishly translated and dubbed-in flirtation from a Hong Kong martial arts movie.
I still haven’t seen Fireproof, altho my wife and I are looking at our schedules to sneak out for a matinee showing. We’re hoping it’s as good as this couple at church keeps telling us. Of course, this couple also just adores anything that comes with a Focus on the Family stamp of approval …
Report comment to moderator
I certainly agree no movie should be critic-proof. I hope that Fireproof will receive good constructive criticism – from both Christians and non-Christians – and that the Kendricks take it to heart and learn from it.
That said, I wouldn’t assume that Christians who have only praise for the movie are necessarily granting the Kendricks a “pass” based on good intentions rather than artistic value. How many Christians have much idea how to critique a movie from an artistic viewpoint? I know I don’t.
I had one (required) class (at a Christian college) on the arts in general, and it was more about how art reflects worldview (using books by Francis Schaeffer) than on how to recognize artistic merit in art. It briefly covered some of the elements of good art, but when I walk through an art gallery I only know how to recognize what I like, and I have little idea how much that corresponds to what is “good art.”
When I was in college, we weren’t even allowed to go see movies, except those that were brought in by the student activities committee to watch on campus. So we certainly didn’t learn how to recognize good artistry vs poor artistry in movies. And I still don’t know how. I might be able to say that one movie was better than another (for instance, I enjoyed both the LOTR movies and the Harry Potter movies, but I can easily say that the LOTR movies are better, as movies) but I have trouble identifying specific elements that make it better.
My literature classes in college did a better job, teaching us to recognize good literature regardless of whether it was written from a Christian worldview, and to be critical of poorly written “Christian books.” From a conceptual viewpoint, we were taught that the same principle would apply to other forms of art, but not trained in how to do it. And not knowing it myself, I can hardly help my sons learn better.
Report comment to moderator
I have seen the movie, as well as Facing the Giants and Flywheel their first movie effort. It totality the acting is not great in any of the three. However, that did not sway my opinion of these movies. I like them all. No Country for Old Men may be the best acted, most cinematic movie ever made (my words) but that doesn’t mean that it is a movie that has a message that I need to hear or that changes my heart/life. In grading the Kendrick movies I take into account their potential to impact families instead of their artistic merit alone. Would I like to see a Christian movie of the quality of No Country…sure. But I will not diminish Fireproof because it is not. And, unlike what the writer said, don’t all movies “propagate a message”??
Report comment to moderator
What has MICHAEL MEDVED said about FP?
RR, on audience loyalty/fanbase: I often wonder how much of the Star Wars franchise’s earnings are based on those folks who camp out waiting for the tickets to go on sell? You know, we’re talking dudes who not only own stormtrooper uniforms, but also memorize poetry in Klingonese!
Report comment to moderator
This weekend I’m hoping to take in a double feature at the drive-in: FIREPROOF and Bill Maher’s new mockumentary RELIGULOUS.
Not sure if WMB will find much to criticize in the Maher film though.
Report comment to moderator
I have only seen Facing the Giants, and it was just a month or two ago. Ouch. It was worse than I thought.
I love movies, but I don’t consider myself a movie snob. I have guilty pleasures just like everyone else.
I have a question for fans of Facing the Giants…OK, sure, we can all agree that the acting and directing is poor. But what is it that you like about the message? I at least expected the message to be good, but why should I be impressed with a movie that says that if you only have faith in God, all of the crappy things in your life will suddenly turn good?
As a Christian, I was offended at the notion that faith in God equals higher salary, new car, championship football teams, and a fruitful womb.
How about a movie that shows that faith in God DOESN’T always turn out peachy? I know a lot of people whose faith is stronger than mine, but have had incredibly hard lives. I kept waiting for the point in the movie where good things turned bad…but it never came. If that’s not the prosperity gospel, I don’t know what is.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner,
I searched MM’s movie review site, and it doesn’t appear that he’s reviewed it yet.
Report comment to moderator
Graceland:
I can only answer for myself. The message is one of trusting God in all things. Sure, in the movie all things turn out peachy. I thought about that after I saw it. However, he does say in the movie that he will trust God no matter the outcome and besides who wants to see a movie where the outcome is bad? We know in real life things don’t always turn out peachy but is that why we go to the movies? Anyway, maybe I see things through tinted glasses but I like the movies they produce. And I think they will only get better. The article was more about people being upset that there is criticism and how it is being handled in the Christian community and not just about the movie.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm. It’s interesting…given how cheap digital FX and special FX have gotten, green screen usage, etc., it appears that Christian and religious movies are still stuck in the “crappy” category.
When will the church come around to the idea of infiltrating Hollywood with missionaries to actually work in the industry and get excellent, and try changing things from the inside?
Report comment to moderator
I really could care less about special effects and all that.
It will be so nice to watch a movie that shows what God can do for a failing marriage. I don’t want to watch a movie with bad language and immoral behavior and I know I won’t get that in this movie. I don’t think movies like these really do much for unbelievers because they probably won’t go. And if they do go, they will think it’s dumb. If a movie can uplift and encourage a Christian in his walk, then I believe the movie is a success.
I asked my brother if he’s going to watch this movie. He laughed and said that he doesn’t do these low budget productions. How snobbish! (Sorry, bro…but the truth is good for you.)
Report comment to moderator
I saw Facing the Giants, but on a TV with a little tiny screen. It was better than I expected (it kept me engaged, and I’m not a big movie person, or a football fan). But I’m not a movie reviewer–I’m simply not visual enough to be an intelligent critic of film.
I frequently have this reaction to other Christians’ tastes in books. (I’m going to name one in particular as an example, and then I’ll duck.) My sister had raved about a book that apparently made our mother decide as a young girl that she wanted to have children when she’d previously been ambivalent. (She had seven of us, so I guess it “worked”!) It was a wonderful book for turning a young girl’s thoughts toward motherhood, and thus she wanted to raise her own daughters on this beautiful book. Our sister-in-law liked it too. I borrowed a copy from said sister-in-law…and was so appalled I didn’t know where to start. The book is called Mother, and the easiest way to desscribe it is that it’s a sappy romance where the “beloved” isn’t a man, but the idea of motherhood. I’ve only read it once, and sometimes I get a different feel for a book the second time through, but I found it pretty bad. And if it isn’t OK to teach young girls of the joy of marriage by giving them romanice novels, why is it OK to give them an equivalent book to teach them the joys of motherhood?
(My sister raves about Vision Forum, and I simply keep my mouth shut. But nearly all the books I’ve read from their catalog, including that one–and I’ve read quite a few–are similarly sentimental. Photos of the employees’ families with the girls and women all in prarie-style dresses make me think a little too much of Mormon cult groups, not of culturally relevant 21st century Christianity. Nothing against prarie dresses–they’re beautiful. But they’re not a good way to influence today’s culture for Christ.)
Report comment to moderator
However, he does say in the movie that he will trust God no matter the outcome and besides who wants to see a movie where the outcome is bad?
There’s the rub. The character says he’ll trust God no matter what, but I too saw FTG and things turned out pretty well, actually. Every specific problem was resolved to his liking, therefore his claim remains untested. You’re right that we all like happy endings, but in this life we don’t always see them. This kind of story puts rose-colored glasses on real suffering. I’m glad it uplifts some, but I do wonder about the family in the row behind them facing heartbreaks that are not resolved before the credits roll. They can exit the theatre thinking they’ve learned that they just don’t have enough faith.
I’ve gotta agree with Graceland that stories like this exhibit a subtle form of the prosperity gospel.
Report comment to moderator
RR:
But also it gives hope to those with real suffering. Prosperity gospel does skip over the fact that faith and character are built on the altar of suffering and persecution (often times brought on by ourselves). When your drowning you don’t want someone to be in the water with you, you want them on the shore with a life line.
Report comment to moderator
Must everything be so important? I doubt the people at Sherwood think they’re making Great Art. It’s hardly insightful of the critics to point out that it isn’t.
Report comment to moderator
NCTIGER,
I’m fine with a happy ending, but this movie went well beyond that. They intentionally set up several cases of hardship, only to show that through faith, each one was made better.
–The old car that is unreliable
–The football team that can’t win
–The job that just doesn’t pay enough
–The seemingly barren couple.
–The broken relationships.
The Lord is good, and he chooses to bless people. That is true. But what does it tell the audience when EVERYTHING in someone’s life is failure, and then with a little faith, EVERYTHING becomes success?
Report comment to moderator
Graceland:
I agree with your premise about the movie. I said that very same thing to my wife after seeing FTG. BUT, I do see those things happening in the lives of fellow believers around me. AND, I do see a lot suffering as well. My point it that a movie doesn’t have to be all things and a positive message with a positive outcome is preferred over one that is not. I kinda agree with STUBOB. They focused on the message as much as anything else. I think that is the most important thing anyway.
Report comment to moderator
I doubt the people at Sherwood think they’re making Great Art.
I completely agree. They’re not trying to win any awards, and they are doing the best they can with limited resources.
It’s clear that the most important thing for them is to produce a movie with a good message. I support that effort.
I just wish the message were more in line with Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t get it, Warren… are you hoping they are as smooth and seamless as the professional circus churches we have setting the pace these days?
Report comment to moderator
graceland wrote:
>I just wish the message were more in line with Scripture.
What part did you think was out of line? I agree sometimes it is pragmatic but this particular one went to the point where you had to keep faith even when it seemed you were going to lose. He was never promised a win here, he really seemed to understand it wasn’t about saving his marriage, it was about Christ no matter what happened with his wife.
You can only explore so many issues in the space of one feature length movie and they already pushed the time length quite a bit.
I would like to see them explore the idea too of someone remaining faithful though he loses everything. Still someone would complain because we are at the end promised hope and life. So eventually Christ will grant us rest and reward.. so is that pragmatism? You tell me. Because it’s in the Bible and I am not a pragmatist.
Report comment to moderator
Warren wrote:ireproof, >which stars one “pro” actor, Kirk Cameron, is much better than his previous effort, Facing The Giants
I’m confused, Warren — how can you say this? You only saw the first 20 minutes.
Report comment to moderator
BUT, I do see those things happening in the lives of fellow believers around me.
Of course you do. Good things happen to good people. And bad people.
My point is that our God does not reward us for our faith, which seemed to be the message of the film. I’m not questioning the intentions of the filmmakers, nor their theology. But the film was clearly showing a link between someone’s faith and the amount of earthly blessings in his life. I think that is a dangerous message to send.
God gives to the faithful and faithless. He takes away from both as well. I don’t expect them to make a movie that is depressing, but a little realistic would be better.
Report comment to moderator
My husband and I went to see Fireproof last weekend. We are Christians, newly married, and have been having a rough time. We were looking for hope. Neither of us cared or even noticed anything about the “lighting” or dialogue or whatever. The message was clear and we left with renewed faith for our marriage. My husband is finally reading devotions with me, and we even ordered the Fireproof Bible study online for additional guidance. We already feel more peaceful with each other. Say what you want, but I am very thankful they took a step of faith and produced this movie because it has sparked the beginning of something wonderful in our home.
Report comment to moderator
I have seen and reviewed both Fireproof and Religulous. Check out:
http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2008/s08090164.htm (Fireproof) and: http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2008/s08100034.htm (Religulous).
Michael Ireland
Chief Correspondent
ASSIST News Service (ANS)
http://www.assistnews.net
Report comment to moderator
When you’re drowning you don’t want someone to be in the water with you, you want them on the shore with a life line.
But NCTIGER, that’s the very problem with this sort of storytelling: FTG presented a false lifeline, the sort that breaks just when you grasp hold of it. As Graceland has summarized, the movie didn’t leave a single broken-down truck still broken down. Every item on the protagonist’s list of needs was providentially met. Contrast this with Job, who after a time is given more children, but doesn’t get the lost ones back, at least in this life. Yes, the qualification was made that the coach would trust God no matter what, but we didn’t see that demonstrated.
Of course, numerous people saw the film and didn’t come away with this impression, but the facts of the story remain. How much more interesting, and compelling, the story might have been had at least one of the football coach’s prayers not been answered, and had he instead learned joy in the midst of sorrow. It would have been bracing, but more true to the life we are called to lead in Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Michael, I read your Fireproof review. Thank you, especially for dealing with how the gospel is presented in movies – a touchy subject, to say the least.
* * *
btw, may I suggest a couple of edits? This sentence: “There’s plenty of firefighting action, emotional drama, and good cinematography, with strong performances from Cameron as Caleb Holt and Erin Bethea, the leading lady who plays his wife, Katherine, as well as other fine supporting roles in this PG-rated movie, from the makers of Facing the Giants, and which opened in 850 theaters nationwide today.” It’s rather long, and grammatically it can be read that Erin Bethea plays both the wife and other supporting roles in the film. (Does she?) Then in the next paragraph, I think you mean “meeting,” not “meting.”
Report comment to moderator
This movie is one of the best films I have ever seen. What a beautiful example of how the medium of film can be used to glorify God. I found it real, encouraging, and convicting. I am looking forward to taking The Love Dare myself and I have invited other men I know to take it with me. I believe that God is going to use this film to strengthen and save marriages. I actually enjoyed the writing and the acting tremendously. In my opinion this movie is gold. Take your wife or husband tonight.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a thought on the necessity of happy endings: How about finding out that God is faithful, and that He is enough even in the hard times, and that sure knowledge being the happy ending?! Millions through history have testified to this–could it work in a film or a book?
The infertile couple is still unfertile, but they realize the neighbor kids don’t have anyone who loves them, and they can build into their lives. They still have an old car, but that’s life. They still struggle with the bills, but they know that God is the One who provides so that is actually sort of God’s problem and not theirs. That’s how life faith goes in the real world–that God is enough even when we don’t get everything we want. And sometimes God gives us what we want and even more…and it’s His blessing and not His “reward” or something He somehow owes to us.
Can that message work in art?
Report comment to moderator
RR said: btw, may I suggest a couple of edits? This sentence: “There’s plenty of firefighting action, emotional drama, and good cinematography, with strong performances from Cameron as Caleb Holt and Erin Bethea, the leading lady who plays his wife, Katherine, as well as other fine supporting roles in this PG-rated movie, from the makers of Facing the Giants, and which opened in 850 theaters nationwide today.” It’s rather long, and grammatically it can be read that Erin Bethea plays both the wife and other supporting roles in the film. (Does she?) Then in the next paragraph, I think you mean “meeting,” not “meting.”
Thank you for your input. You are right, it is a complex sentence, and yes, I did mean “meeting”, but was working under a deadline — miss it and you’re dead in journalism — but thought I caught and changed that typo. Blessings! Michael.
Report comment to moderator
Mireland:
I read your review and agree that the movie is probably more encouraging to Christians than non-Christians. Maybe that’s not necessarily a bad thing though. If a Christian couple is strengthened, they can be a real-life example of hope to non-believers around them, or even just to their children. Just a thought, I’m certainly no professional critic! However, I do know that Christians need encouraging sometimes too.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? The critics loved it–I didn’t get it, didn’t like it…
I really liked Fireproof. I just don’t put much stock in critical reviews. They seem to use a different standard than I do.
And why must every effort be THE BEST MOVIE EVER? Who outside Hollywood can fund such productions? I have been amazed that the Kendricks could do as well as they did with their film budgets. I watched with admiration, realizing what a feat they pulled off!
I get tired of Christians beating up those who are out there trying just because “the critics” don’t fall all over themselves to give their snobby approval.
Whose approval are we seeking, anyway?
Report comment to moderator
As a filmmaker and a follower of the Messiah Jesus, I found Facing the Giants to be a good film and I saw it wh en I was extremely discouraged in my faith. It did it’s job… it lifted me out of a pit of discouragement. As a filmmaker I was deeply moved from seeing it and got caught up in the story which is what makes a good film successful when you’re not looking at your clock when you watch it. I’ve not yet seen Fireproof, but my hopes are that they will release it in their expansion in my neighborhood.
I’ve heard more complaints about Facing the Giants from Christians than from non-Christians which saddens my heart and it’s not for the reasons one would think. Most Christians criticise the film Facing the Giants because of the content not for the quality of the film.
If I were to make a movie about the stories in the Bible where God answered prayers and rescued people I could do that and satisfy that aspect of a story like that. If I made a movie about showing people suffering and dying for their faith I could do that as well. Both films could probably be judged as unscriptural. In 90 minutes how can you expect filmmakers of faith to present all aspects of the large aspect of our faith and all that our great and mighty God reveals in Himself?
I ask you for those who criticise the Biblical content of Facing the Giants, how about the man who “Stands” for his son and never is healed of his paralysis at the end of the film? How about the kid who gets a broken limb and is taken out of the game near the end? How about the broken hearted wife of Grant Taylor who thinks she’s not pregnant and looks up to heaven and says “I will still love you, LORD…” How about the exhausted player in the game who says, “Coach… I need to stop…” and Grant tells him “Now is the time you lead… now!” How about the revival that comes not really because of Grant but because of the old timer who spends day and night walking and praying over every one of those lockers — how many years did he spend doing that and see no fruit? Sure it’s a movie and it’s inspiring… but there is a lot of Scriptural accuracy in that film.
Report comment to moderator
Awakenpictures,
Well said. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
In 90 minutes how can you expect filmmakers of faith to present all aspects of the large aspect of our faith and all that our great and mighty God reveals in Himself?
I don’t expect EVERYTHING to be included in a feature film. But let’s be honest here…they didn’t choose to just show the good stuff because of a lack of time. It was a very clear and intentional effort to present several instances of suffering on behalf of the main character, only to have it all work out in the end because of his faith.
There were a lot of principles in FTG that were very much biblical, and I applaud the creators for that. But you cannot deny that the film shows a direct correlation between a man’s strengthened faith and all of his problems being solved.
I don’t expect the filmmakers to end the story with him wallowing in depression, but like CherylD said, why can’t a happy ending show God as being sufficient even when things don’t work out?
Report comment to moderator
And why must every effort be THE BEST MOVIE EVER?
I don’t think anyone is arguing for best movie ever. But is there anything wrong with desiring quality?
Like I said before, I admire the filmmakers’ efforts, especially considering their small budget. But they chose to use a form of art in order to present their message–should we not judge their efforts as art?
I don’t expect their movies to please all of the critics, primarily because the critics don’t want to hear a Christian message. But don’t you think there is a problem with holding Christians to a lower standard? Is a film “good” if it makes people happy and encourages their relationship with God? Maybe. Is a worship service “good” as long as people are being saved?
I hate to be on the side of criticism, but I do think it is called for sometimes, even on fellow Christians.
I am thrilled for the people who say that these films have done good in their lives. That is good! But why is it such a bad thing for me to say how much FTG discouraged me? I took it as a watered-down version of the Gospel, one where the most faithful get the most blessings. I guess I expect more from Christians.
Report comment to moderator
I hear you, that it could have gone a little overboard at times… but there’s so much more good in the film than bad from a scriptural point of view.
If I made a film about the first books of the Bible I could end at the crossing of the REd Sea or the Children of Israel being judged in the wilderness or Joshua entering hte land or in the bookf of Judges going astray and so on and so forth. That’s the point I’m making.
You could make a film showing Job’s suffering or you could end it with Job being restored twicefold at the end. There’s different stories with different perspectives.
You can make a film showing people who are faithful being rewarded for the consequences of obedience (Facing the Giants). Or you can show someone being persecuted for doing what’s right (The Hiding Place).
Report comment to moderator
I ask you for those who criticise the Biblical content of Facing the Giants, how about …
Those examples you noted do not make up the overarching theme of the movie. FTG clearly focuses on one man (coach) and the many struggles of his life. Once he gets his focus right, all of the struggles are one by one turned into wonderful earthly blessings.
There is nothing unbiblical about showing how God blesses people. But that was NOT the theme of this movie. The movie showed that God’s blessings were a result of coach’s faith. That is unbiblical.
Report comment to moderator
Awaken,
I hear you–there are happy stories and very sad ones, and you have to capture one of those in the film.
And I’m sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but my gripe isn’t that they created a happy story rather than a sad one. It’s that I think the happy story they created is misleading. Yes, things can go really well in someone’s life, but it’s not a reward for faith.
I am concerned for those who have little to no understanding of the Gospel, and I don’t want that to be their first impression.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #31
Yes, Momof5, I saw “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and I loved it. But then, I have a “thing” for martial arts/Kung Fu movies. “Kung Fu Hustle” is one of my favorite movies. And anything with Jet Li in it. I love the artistry in them. The color and movement just mesmerizes me.
**********
In regards to “Fireproof”, it’s not on my list of movies to see. The movie was not pre-screened for the critics, which is usually a sign that the movie is a bomb. And it’s received terrible reviews across the board.
As y’all know, I see 50 movies a year. I’ve seen some pretty awful ones, many good ones, and a few great ones. I care not whether it’s Christian or not, if it’s good. Here are some of the problems I see with “Christian” movies:
1. They aren’t willing to depict “evil” realistically. They hold back on depictions of evil out of fear that they will be glorifying it or offend their Christian audience.
2. They aren’t willing to show life as it really is. Sometimes good does win over evil. Sometimes things do end badly. Sometimes relationships are complicated and messy. Certainly sex and sexuality cannot be realistically portrayed or explored.
3. The movies are geared toward the Christian market instead of the general public. If you want to make a movie that’s a commercial success you’ve got to pull in a bigger audience than just Christians.
4. The movies aren’t made for sheer beauty, or artistry, or human interest, or just a good story. They have to have the Gospel message, which limits the range of movies that can be made.
5. They won’t make movies that examine, poke fun at, or are critical of Christianity. That’s too bad. You should be willing to laugh at your self, question things, and expound a little “heresy” now and then.
Report comment to moderator
I agree that the first 20 minutes had some cringe-worthy moments, but the story pulled me in and I noticed them less and less. That can happen with any movie, A-list or B. There have been plenty of movies, no matter how well produced that have yanked me out of the suspension of disbelief by poor story or character choices.
I also agree that a movie like this unfortunately has to be qualified when recommending it to non-church friends. “It’s a low budget movie made by non-professionals.”
The Kendricks are getting better with every movie, whether they are getting good feedback from their friends or not. I look forward to the next movie.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I guess I wouldn’t be a great choice for you to bring along for movie night!
I admit it. I like stories with a sweet ending. I do not want to waste my time with lots of unresolved “reality” that just leaves me needing a chocolate fix.
I don’t like hokey or contrived, either. And Fireproof wasn’t, from my point of view. There were no big chase scenes or soaring vistas, but there were some pretty intense moments, especially when Caleb’s character was being established as a clueless, selfish jerk.
It was uncomfortable, frankly, to watch as a couple at times because of the reality of the difficulties of marriage.
It was so encouraging, too, to be reminded that Christ does make the difference, and that you just continue to do the right thing regardless of others’ response.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think I “gifted” the author of this post earlier so I am writing again to opine that condescension made to look like artistic critique is in poor form. What gets people’s hackles up is not so much the content, but the tone. I really doubt the intent of this post was a charitable one.
Report comment to moderator
I guess I’m going to have to graciously agree to disagree with you, my friends here who disagree with me and others about the Biblical context of Facing the Giants. I hear your hearts,though. There are people who do the right thing and they suffer.
However Scripture still tells stories of folks who obeyed God and were blessed in the natural (like Abraham) and then there are also people who were obedient and suffered (like Jeremiah, Isaiah, or even David at the hand of Saul). So how does a filmmaker deal with that? Would Christians in Rome still have confidence in the story of Daniel and the lion’s den when their brothers were being thrown to lions and many were dying and not being rescued? Sometimes I think we as Christians are uncomfortable with sharing messages of God blessing obedience because there are those who are obedient and suffer. Yet what of the folks who obey and are blessed?
I actually agree with the author of this article that we need to not lower the bar for Christians making films when there is a need for constructive criticism. I’ve heard stories that anyone with constructive criticism about Facing the Giants (which you all now know I love now) has been attacked for trying to discuss the faults with it and that’s not good either. I’ve also heard non believers argue that Christians attack them when they give an honest but bad review of a Christian film and they are accused of having an anti-Christian bias. That is equally wrong. But can we really trust ourselves to judge fairly when we so badly want a successful movie made by Christians or trust the non-believer’s judgment when there is a spiritual element underneath it all?
Report comment to moderator
In secular (non-religious) society, many people who study artistic expression make a distinction between “artistic value” and “moral value.”
Vladamir Nabakov, a talented writer, was one of the most articulate exponents that a work of art (in his case, literature) had a value based on its artistic value and that a work of literature that expressed uplifting (inspirational) values did not have “artistic” value because of its inspirational value.
In music, for example, composers such as Bach or Handel were complete religious believers and saw no conflict or disparity between there religious values and their artistic values.
My wife is like me an atheist. However, she loves Handel’s Messiah and perceives no contradiction for her love of this very religious artistic work and her atheism.
Nabakov’s most famous work of literature is Lolita. In a sense this novel is an enormous practical joke. It is so well and carefully written as a description of what it must be like to be a pedophile that it gets away with it as an act of imagination, just as there are books that describe what it must be like to be a sociopath as acts of imagination.
As far as I know, Nabakov, as a person was not a pedophile. He just imagined what it would be like to be one. As a work of art, some people might say that work has artistic value. As a work of morality, the kindest thing one might say is that it doesn’t turn anyone into a pedophile.
I haven’t seen the movie Fireproof, but underlying the discussion here is this conflict between “artistic values” and “moral values.”
Report comment to moderator
I only read the first three sentences of your review, but I think your argument is very weak, and your writing style leaves much to be desired.
Report comment to moderator
but is it really your best?
That was asked of the Kendrick brothers by the writer. Since he only saw 20 mins of the movie, tell me…is this your best on this article?
Report comment to moderator
“4. The movies aren’t made for sheer beauty, or artistry, or human interest, or just a good story. They have to have the Gospel message, which limits the range of movies that can be made.”
I will only respond to Anlir’s fourth point. Not that the others aren’t valid. But #4 is why FTG and FP get eye rolls. It is not the gospel message that is limiting, I think, so much as the formulaic way it is told and the way the gospel is forever interpreted one way. It’s not so much the gospel that is limiting as one way Provident insists it be told. Saul conversion would make a great special effects movie while the woman at the well, her’s cries for good dialogue. Did Zaccheaus recieve a Bible in the mail? Does the NT describe any of these people “accepting” Jesus? The NT follows the classic rule “Show, don’t tell.”
Our men’s retreat is called “Stories,” not being a man I only heard three of the stories, but any one of those would have made a better screenplay that the FP twaddle.
Report comment to moderator
I did see the movie and for the first 20 minutes or so also felt I would be in for a long night. I didn’t dare think of turning to my wife and telling her that I thought there was some historically bad acting taking place.
But I have to admit, either the movie got better after that point or I reached a point where I just wanted to let it go and enjoy the message. Overall, the story line with the twists and turns was very professional and the characters eventually became rather endearing. The movie had some issues but it’s worth seeing.
Report comment to moderator
Warren:
Your lack of journalistic integrity undermines your argument. The fact that you can label a film “amateur” when you lack the professionalism to watch more than 16% of it is a sad commentary on the state of Christian journalism. I hope in the future the editors of World will hold you to a higher standard.
Regarding your argument, Fireproof is much more than an improvement over Left Behind — Fireproof is a smashing success. To verify this, I recommend you look at movie reviews from secular publications. Fireproof made $6.8 million its opening weekend compared to Religulous’ $3 million. According to Time Magazine’s review, the Kendrick brothers have already been approached by two studios and one TV production company. Even the New York Times has good things to say about Fireproof.
I do agree with you on your point that we need to hold Christian artists to a higher standard. Like you, I don’t believe we should call art beautiful merely because it was made by a Christian. But either way you cut it, Fireproof is an astounding success, especially considering it was made on a shoestring budget. Of course it could have been better, and I hope some legitimate media critics offer constructive criticism to the Kendrick brothers.
Report comment to moderator
I heard they went to Hollywood to find some actors and gave up after six months of not being able to find someone with enough integrity to help convey a moral essence to the story.
The critic has missed the intellectual point if entertainment was the thing sought. However I didn’t read past the second paragraph.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think 20 minutes of viewing a movie is enough for one to make a valid opinion. Reading one paragraph of a column isn’t enough for one to make a valid judgement of the writer. If you comment on the movie, at least watch the entire thing!
I agree that the acting in Facing the Giants and Fireproof isn’t top notch, but what do you expect with a movie made almost entirely of volunteers and on a shoestring budget? I agree, let’s be honest about it…once the entire movie has been viewed.
Report comment to moderator
#51 I disagree. I watched about 20 minutes of Date Movie and was able to determine that it wasn’t the type of movie I wanted to invest two hours in. Granted, a movie may have a fourth quarter turn-around, but it is hard to expect one if the first twenty-minutes is filled with clearly amaturish mistakes.
Report comment to moderator
My husband was one of the few Christian movie critics to write an unfavorable review of Fireproof (http://www.crosswalk.com/movies/11582168/), and he has gotten a lot of flak and some not-so-nice comments because he dared to judge the movie as a movie, focusing on the acting, directing, script, etc. Why should we as Christians “settle” for bad movies because the content is something we agree with? I think we need to hold Christian screenwriters, directors, actors, cinematographers to the same standard as we do “secular” ones. Concentrate on making a movie that has good directing, good acting, good writing and good filming. I, for one, will be thankful not to have to sit through another badly done movie paved with “good” intentions from its Christian filmmakers.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if some Christians feel a sense of concern for publicly critiquing their brothers and sisters as filmmakers. Maybe they would rather see Christans privately send a critique rather than publicly. Perhaps there’s a sense of the concern that David had for the “Lord’s annointed”. This might explain some of what is happening when there’s hostility. On the other hand, though, can secular reviewers truly be trusted to critique a Christian movie without a bias?
Report comment to moderator
Shamaker:
The reason you see such defense of this movie (IMHO of course) is that it resonates in the hearts of so many who have seen it. Just look at the website for fireproof and see the lives and marriages that have begun to change because of this. A bad movie does not do this. I doubt Ishtar would merit such a response.
Report comment to moderator
If you went to a church on Sunday, and the minister was not very articulate and the sermon not very inspirational, but there was not anything “wrong” in terms of his theology and his faith, how would the congregation react?
I am not a church-goer and not a believer, but poor preaching must happen from time to time. How much do good intentions count in these matters?
Report comment to moderator
Graceland
How can you say God doesn’t reward our faith? Can you back it up with scripture? Becuase in Hebrews, Ephesians, and the gospels there are clear rewards to faith. Abraham became the father of a nation, Moses led his people from slavery, and Eshter saved her people. By faith we are saved. How can God not reward us for faith?
Report comment to moderator
By the way I LOVE Fireproof!
Report comment to moderator
With all due respect to Warren Smith, I believe he should have stayed for more than 20 minutes of Fireproof before writing such a scathing review. I just got back from the movie myself (I saw the whole thing), and I’m angry because I almost did not see it all after reading Mr. Smith’s take on it. I don’t take issue with all of his critical comments, but I do take issue with the fact that his review could stop other Christians from seeing this film, as it almost stopped me and my husband. I can agree with him that the movie was not perfect, and it certainly had a few bad acting moments. But overall, it is a deeply moving film with a powerful message that everyone should see, especially married couples and young people considering marriage. In my opinion, sometimes the MESSAGE is far more important than how it is presented. So many marriages today are in crisis, especially in the Church, and the message of this film, that love is a choice, that marriage is worth protecting at all costs, that Jesus is the source of True Love, is something we all need to hear. I am no professional movie critic (and I don’t believe Mr. Smith is either) but I know a good movie when I see one, and with all the trash and family-destroying movies we are subjected to every day in this country, we should be praising the Lord that movies like Fireproof can be made on low budgets and actually get into the theaters for people to see. People in the audience were laughing at times during the movie, and at times, many in the audience were crying. To me, that is the judge of a good movie. Does it make you laugh, does it make you cry? And, even more importantly, does it make you want to be a better person? In this case, work hard to preserve your marriage? The answer to all of these questions is yes. Mr. Smith should have had enough respect for his fellow Christian brothers (and sisters) who made this film to stay until the end, and withhold his judgement until then. I think if he had, he might have come away with a different perspective, if not about the abilities of the Kendrick brothers, then about the nature of marriage and how important it is that we fight for its preservation. I am all for holding Christian artists, writers, producers, directors, politicans, to the highest standards, but God expects us to do our best with what we are given. With the resources they had, the makers of Fireproof did an excellent job and they should be commended for it.
Report comment to moderator
A movie critic? Why in the world would anybody want to be a movie critic in the first place?
Does someone become an authority on critiquing movies because he or she has spent four years or more in some institution of higher learning and then receives a piece of paper that says they are “smart” enough to do such a thing as a lifetime career? Give me a break! I wonder if that is the same kind of a person who sits in church with his or her arms folded across their chest, staring at the preacher and thinking, “I dare you to make me believe what you’re saying so that I’ll change my mind?” Or maybe like the person who sits in church and corrects all the grammatical and typographical errors in that week’s bulletin thus missing what he or she probably needed to hear in that day’s sermon. (And the same for the writing of this comment that I’m now typing. Find any errors yet??? If yes, PTL I’m still human and haven’t yet arrived to perfection in this world like I believe, in MY opinion, most critics think they’ve arrived.)
I wonder if critics are married people and if so I wonder how long the marriages last? Hey…great idea Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Critic. May I suggest a GREAT Christian film that is sure to help improve your marriage if you’ll SEE THE WHOLE FILM, instead of only 20 minutes, and heed its messages WITHOUT sitting there as a critic with a critical attitude? I promise you that you’ll learn something if you have an open mind and heart.
Christian films like Flywheel, Facing the Giants, and Fireproof apparently were not made for people in the “Critic” profession. (Even though Critics will probably say they were just to be critical of what I am now writing.) Get my drift?
Critics are a dime a dozen and those who read them and make their decisions based on what they read or hear will be just like the the Israelites of old who wandered in the wilderness for 40 years because they listened to some real bad critics during their day and age. And what’s really sad is that some needy believers and unbelievers who really need to see these movies will probably never see them now because some “smart guy” with a critics degree from some institution of higher learning told them what he or she thought, about anything, and then believed them and will now be the worse off because of it.
I guess it’s just best to heed the advice that I heard more than 30 years ago when I heard it said that, “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and be regarded as a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Report comment to moderator
I am definitely not one to rubber-stamp all Christian movies as worthy of praise. I thought “Left Behind” was a train wreck. “Facing the Giants” had a great message but a good deal of wooden acting. I don’t even like the “Jesus” film (very wooden acting; almost petrified). But I just saw and very much _liked_ “Fireproof”! And as I left the theater, I found my emotional mix included gratitude that someone had made a wonderful film like this, joy that Kirk Cameron is using his considerable acting skills to further God’s kingdom and ANGER that I almost didn’t see this film because of Mr. Smith’s review!
I would have to completely agree with the comments above from Jack2277, Alysse Elhage Watson, and Kippy (among others). You folks said it better than I could.
When I go to a movie and don’t like it, I can walk out because I’m there _to_be_entertained_. You, Mr. Smith, are there in a professional capacity and your having written such a review after walking out after 20 minutes is highly unprofessional. We all make mistakes and I can see that your writing style is good. Just please, Mr. Smith, don’t repeat this error with any other movie. Even better, why don’t you go back and watch all of “Fireproof” and then give us your opinion.
Report comment to moderator
“I haven’t seen the movie Fireproof, but underlying the discussion here is this conflict between “artistic values” and “moral values.”
It comes down to priorities. Do artistic values ever become more important than moral values (truth) for a Christian? It seems to me the reason people are willing to overlook lower quality art that still has a good message is because they value truth over art.
Report comment to moderator
I only read the first few words of your review. With more practice, I’m sure your writing will improve.
If you had wasted your time with the rest of the movie you would have found the message was much more powerful than any artistic value that you believe to be necessary. Personally, I have encouraged many to view FIREPROOF. The message is so compelling, its worth the time, money, and effort.
I discourage people from going to see blockbuster hits due to the great artistic value. The message is worthless and is a waste of time, money, and effort.
Report comment to moderator
I would strongly echo the comments by NOPOPREACHER. Well said.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!