Oceans (2010)

Rated: G
Length: 103 minutes
Grade: CACC=C
Budget: $80 million
Box Office: $84 million (19 U.S., 63 Intl., 2 DVD)

Written and Directed by: Jacques Perrin and Jacques Cluzaud (First notable film for both)
Narrated by: Pierce Brosnan

This is Disney’s effort to recapture the glory days of Disney nature films following their release of Earth and The Crimson Wing. It’s a presentation of amazing underwater footage from Earth’s five oceans with some light narration about what’s going on and how man has been harming aquatic life.

Entertainment Value: C
This is periodically breathtaking, but otherwise actually profoundly dull. I walked away feeling like I had seen a lot of pretty things but had learned virtually nothing. It’s really a case of opportunity lost in terms of explaining what might have been going on or educating me about things in the ocean that were mysterious. That being said, the cinematography really is amazing. I just felt a bit bored by it toward the end.

Superficial Content: A
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity A, Violence A, Language A
Seriously? It’s G.

Significant Content: C
On the one hand, this will be seen by some as a bit heavy-handed on the eco-harms of mankind. But I thought the perspective was pretty light compared to other similar kinds of presentations. And fair, quite frankly. Some will be bothered by the evolutionary hints, but even these seemed light compared to other films. In reality, the narration is there just to add a British accent, I suppose. The main point of this film is to just see it, and that’s all. The real missed opportunity, however, is that all this overwhelming glorious creation was not credited to the God Who made it. Sad, but perhaps the creative genius behind all these stunning creatures speaks of itself even when the narrator forgets that bit.

Artistic/Thought Value: C
As I said, they sort of managed to just miss being a variety of things they could have been in an effort, I hope, to mostly just be amazing video footage.

Discussion Questions:
~Is mankind harming the oceans as much as this movie seems to believe? Do you tend to believe the oceans are strong and resilient or weak and fragile? Which view does this film endorse?
~What insights about God did you draw from what you saw in this movie?
~Is God’s creation entirely for man’s benefit or for it’s own sake and pleasure of entertaining God?
~Is it important to preserve the ocean and ocean life? Who is responsible for this task? Do you think God will be angry with us if we fail to do so?
Overall Grade: C+
I wish I could have liked this more, and I’m sure many people did. It’s worth seeing once. Our kids enjoyed the wild creatures they saw.

Everybody’s Fine (2009)

Rated: PG-13 for thematic elements and brief strong language.
Length: 99 minutes
Grade: DCCD=D+
Budget: $21 million
Box Office: $20 million (9 U.S., 5 Intl., 6 DVD)

Written by: Massimo DeRita, Tonino Guerra, and Giuseppe Tornatore (All three prolific Italian screenwriters, but nothing you’d recognize)
Also Written and Directed by: Kirk Jones (Nanny McPhee and Waking Ned Devine)
Starring: Robert De Niro
With: Drew Barrymore, Kate Beckinsale, and Sam Rockwell.

After the death of his wife, a retired telephone wire manufacturer in ill health feels like he’s losing touch with his children. So he decides to take a cross-country bus and train ride to pay each of them a surprise visit. Little does he know that they have all been deceiving him about their lives in one way or another.

Entertainment Value: D
This was depressing to watch, both in content and in tone/pace. It’s dealing with extremely important subject matter, but it’s just plain dull in dealing with it.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol B, Sex/Nudity B-, Violence B-, Language C-
One plot involves someone using drugs, but we never see it. One character turns out to be lesbian, and there is some discussion of infidelity. There is a mugging, a scene of a panic attack/heart attack and some concerns about death. Weirdly, the thing that got this a PG-13 rating instead of a PG was one completely superfluous scene with several profanities. I have no idea why they wrote that in or why they chose that one thing to cost them the lower rating over. PG-13 is right.

Significant Content: C
It’s important for families to be honest with each other about both their successes and their struggles because the whole idea of family is that you’re there for each other no matter what. A parent who pushes his children to succeed often unintentionally conveys to them the message that they are only pleasing to him if they are doing well. It’s important for parents to affirm their children, so long as their children are doing what makes them happy.

Artistic/Thought Value: D
The one neatest device used in the film was almost so overused that it became obnoxious, which was having him meet each of the kids and see them as their young child selves. Otherwise, I actually suspect that the writers here didn’t even recognize their own failure to grasp the point of their movie. See, we encounter Frank as a sad old man trying to reconnect with his family. We eventually learn that he has made family achievement into an idol which has led him to treat his children with some neglect and conditional love, so that they all want to lie to him so they’ll get his approval. Eventually he discovers the truth and decides to just love them for who they are. Fine, except that he’s only substituted his achievement idol for a family idol. The implied “and they all lived happily ever after having learned this lesson” just doesn’t seem likely. And if, instead, they move back to semi-neglecting him, he’ll find himself no better off than he was with his success-idol. But this is very symptomatic of our society which is always trying to talk people first into idols like achievement and success and then to replace those with others like family or entertainment when they don’t hold up.

Discussion Questions:
~Who in this movie strikes you as more pathetic: the children or Frank?
~Would you describe Frank as a good or a bad father, based on what this movie shows? How responsible do you think he is for any of the various problems in his or his children’s lives?
~How important is it to you to please your parents or fulfill their desires for your life? How much have your parents pushed you in this regard? ~Which of his children seem truly happy? By the end, are any more of them happy?
~What do you think is the reason to raise a family? What did Frank think the reason for raising a family was?
~How might Frank’s life have been different if he had learned to gain his significance and identity from Jesus instead of from other things?
~What’s the meaning of the title? Is it meant to be ironic? Prophetic? Is being “fine” a byproduct of circumstances or of relational acceptance?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The mugging. Why is that scene such a brilliant encapsulation of Frank’s entire life strategy? Whom does the mugger represent, symbolically?
~Connecting with his symphony conductor son.
~Around the picnic table with the rain.
Getting the unreleased painting by his son.
Overall Grade: D+
A boring and sad movie about a boring and sad family which tries to send a useful message, but mostly just winds up making us bored and sad by watching it.

Stoning of Soraya M., The (2009)

Rated: R for a disturbing sequence of cruel and brutal violence, and brief strong language.
Length: 114 minutes
Grade: CDBC=C+
Budget: Perhaps $2 million?
Box Office: $1 million (637,000 U.S., 449,000 Intl.)

Written and Directed by: Cyrus Nowrasteh (First major movie), cowritten by Betsy Giffen Nowrasteh (First script), based on the book by Freidoune Sahebjam
Starring: Shohreh Aghdashloo, Mozran Marno, and Jim Caviezel
With: Navid Negahban, Ali Pourtash, and David Diaan.

A French journalist travelling in Iran is stranded in a remote village by his car breaking down. While there, a woman tells him the story of Saroya M., a young mother who just the previous day was falsely charged with adultery and stoned to death.

Entertainment Value: C
It’s difficult to assess this movie as entertainment, because as such it really isn’t. It’s very unpleasant to watch and the fact that the ending is known in advance removes any of the dramatic tension you might normally have. The story itself is based on a real account which a French-Iranian journalist published in 1998 in an effort to reveal the life of Iranians since the fall of the Shah, particularly with regards to the oppression of women. The script, acting, and direction are all good. I just can’t describe it as entertaining.

Superficial Content: D
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sex/Nudity A, Violence D-, Language C
Almost all of the movie is in subtitles, so the language, such as it is, is read not heard. The subject matter is allegations of adultery, but there is no sex or nudity at all. In fact, you hardly see anything but women’s faces or hair. The real issue is violence, which involves a woman showing bruises, being slapped, and ultimately an extended scene of her being stoned to death. This scene will remind you of the imagery in Passion of the Christ, which isn’t a big surprise with Caviezel’s presence and one of the Producers having produced that movie as well. It’s hard for me to tell you what age this is appropriate for, since it depends on whether you think children should be shown injustices such as the Holocaust. But the violence and occasional strong language certainly justify the R rating.

Significant Content: B
The entire point of the movie is to show what injustice looks like and how it happens in corrupt societies. In a world where women have no standing and men are subject to being manipulated and deceived, especially where the justice system is not transparent, grave evils can be done in the name of moral purity. The other lesson is about the importance of being loyal to both the truth and to decent people who are threatened by evil. Unholy men pretending to work under the authority of God (Allah) do unspeakable things.

Artistic/Thought Value: C
From the point of view of producing a horrified reaction, this is good art. But in the “what can I do with this” point of view, there’s really no answer anywhere on the horizon. “Just know it happens,” doesn’t seem to be a very useful response. Perhaps we can put ourselves in the various shoes of this movie and ask how we might behave differently, but the setting is so remote that it’s hard to make that cognitive leap.

Discussion Questions:
~What features of American society do you take for granted that in this movie are missing? What features of our justice system might have averted this end result?
~Does this movie seem more to be saying how awful repressive regimes are or how capable of evil ordinary people are? How much of the injustice of this movie is attributable to Iran’s Islamic status and how much to mere individual evil and manipulation?
~What messages does this movie have about gender oppression and the importance of men not having sole authority over women?
~Adultery is a capital offense in the Old Testament. Do you think adultery should be punishable at all today? What sort of issues about such crimes does this movie raise?
~Looking at each of the characters in this movie, if you had advice to give them, what would you say? How would you behave differently? How might being a Christian have changed any of them?
~The mayor seems at two different times to be on the verge of interceding because of possible signs from God. Have you ever failed to heed that sort of a warning from Him?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The opening scene, when Ebrahim doesn’t want to work on the car because he’s tired. How does Caviezel pressing money into his hands strike you in retrospect?
~The stoning, especially with the boys.
Overall Grade: C+
I don’t think I can really recommend this movie, but I will say that if you want to get a behind-the-scenes sense of frustration and injustice in an Islamic state, especially concerning the mistreatment of women, this will do.

To Save a Life (2010)

Rated: PG-13 for mature thematic elements involving teen suicide, teen drinking, some drug content, disturbing images and sexuality.
Length: 120 minutes
Grade: BCAC=B+
Budget: $500,000
Box Office: $3.7 million

Written by: Jim Britts (First Script)
Directed by: Brian Baugh (First movie, but he directed the photography on The Ultimate Gift and An American Carol.)
Starring: Randy Wayne, Deja Kreutzberg, and Joshua Weigel

An all-star basketball player feels remorse when his boyhood best friend kills himself in school. Dealing with this, he comes in contact with a youth pastor, starts taking Christianity seriously, and befriends outcasts at the expense of his jock buddies and cheerleader girlfriend.

Entertainment Value: B
First things first, any movie you make for half a million dollars isn’t likely to have super-high production value. Nevertheless, lots of the contributors here volunteered their time once they saw the script, and the production value for a church-made movie is pretty good. Yes, the characters are drawn a bit thin, but there’s still a sense of real people being represented by these semi-stereotypes. This is an unabashedly Christian movie, however, unlike Facing the Giants or Fireproof, there is no explicit presentation of the Gospel or even Jesus Christ particularly. It’s a movie critics will hate (whether for being Christian or for feeling at times like an after-school special), but ordinary people and particularly Christians will like or love. As confirmation of this fact, Rotten Tomatoes has it at 33% favorable for the critics, but the audiences give it 82%.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol C-, Sex/Nudity C, Violence C, Language C
This is definitely a content-heavy movie and not for younger kids. However, the makers always shied away from indulging in any of it, and it’s obvious that the bad things are portrayed as bad things. Nevertheless, there is alcohol and drunkenness at some teenage parties, marijuana use, teenage sex, teen pregnancy, a number of semi-provocatively dressed young girls, suicide, and cutting. This is definitely PG-13, but I think teenagers not just can but probably should see this. And it’s PG-13 precisely because of what it wants to help people understand and solve, not because of the lurid things it wants to tempt them with.

Significant Content: A
The essence of Christ’s message is to befriend people who don’t deserve it, to positively do something to help instead of hiding behind the idea that it’s not your responsibility, and to have patience with people no matter how bad they are. Love is shown by personal sacrifice for someone else’s benefit. And it’s something that will be emulated by some and mocked by others. But don’t give up, even some of the scoffers may come around eventually.

Artistic/Thought Value: C
As I mentioned before, it would be easy to dislike this movie because of the feel and tone of it all. Nevertheless, just when it seems like a movie that falls over into the category of “crummy Christian art,” either the plot or the actors themselves seem to prevent that from happening. Also, one thing I appreciated was the refusal to portray the youth group or the church itself as a pure and wonderful collection of good people. That the most evil person in the movie was the pastor’s kid is a wonderful reminder of how incongruous the real world often is.

Discussion Questions:
~In this movie, who are you prone to despise? Why is it so important to the Gospel that we should want to see them redeemed every bit as much as the outsiders and unpopular kids?
~What are some of the characteristics that distinguish Jake after his conversion from Jake prior to that?
~One of the crisis moments for Jake comes when he talks with Chris about how his life has gotten significantly worse since becoming a Christian. What perspective does Chris give him. Have you ever felt like it was unfair that your life wasn’t roses and lollipops when you felt like you were doing everything you were supposed to do? What is the Christian perspective on this error?
~Negative responsibility is the idea that I am only responsible for making things worse. Positive responsibility is the idea that anything I could have made better is something I’m responsible for if I didn’t. Which one of these is Biblical? Which one does Jake internalize? What sort of society do you want to live in: one where others believe only in negative responsibility, or one in which they also believe in positive responsibility?
~There are many moments in Chris’s relationship with Jake where Chris could have felt the need to do or say more than he did. What gave him the patience to have such restraint and calm? What is the theological error at the heart of our sense of aggressive urgency with other people and their growth?
~Idoltary is what the Bible calls it when we put any goal or source of identity or satisfaction ahead of God or His way of doing things. Considering each of the characters, can you identify their idols and how overcoming them was a major transition for them?
~Is it enough for a movie to tell people to treat others better without really explaining why Christians are so intensely motivated to do this? Would this movie have been more effective if it had left out some of the issues but instead brought in a presentation of the Gospel and connected it with what motivates us to love difficult people?
~Given that this is a PG-13 movie, would you want to show it to a teenage youth group? How does the Bible deal with difficult topics and content?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~Jake betraying Roger for a night out with Amy.
~Leaving the beer pong game.
~Jake confronting the youth group.
~Starting the lunchtime get together spot.
~Jake pondering his future at Louisville.
Overall Grade: B+
The sort of movie I’m really glad exists and would be excellent discussion material for a youth group. It’s not great art, but it is an excellent vehicle for showing the basic social implications of the Christian Gospel even without much talk of Jesus or His atonement.

World’s Greatest Dad (2009)

Rated: R for language, crude and sexual content, some drug use and disturbing images.
Length: 99 minutes
Grade: F/BFBB=D
Budget: $10 million
Box Office: $223,000

Written and directed by: Bobcat Goldthwaite (Sleeping Dogs Lie)
Starring: Robin Williams
With: Daryl Sabara, Morgan Murphy, Evan Martin, and Henry Simmons

Lance Clayton aspires to be a novelist, but instead he teaches a dwindling high school poetry class, has a relationship with another teacher who’s too ashamed of him to be seen in public together, and his son is a consummate jerk. When Kyle (his son) dies perversely, Lance pretends it was suicide and fakes a note and journal. This leads to a cult of Kyle with Lance as the beneficiary on all fronts.

Entertainment Value: F/B
The first half of this film is unwatchably bad. I actually quit about 45 minutes into it, but Rotten Tomatoes said 88%, so I forced myself to continue. Oddly, the second half is brilliant. Funny, poignant, insightful. Then the almost ending is horrible again and the final ending awesome. It’s such a schizophrenic movie. I can’t tell you to watch it. It’s not really worth enduring the bad stuff to get to the good stuff. But having watched it, I will say that the second half is genius satire on death cults and modern fame. Even the ending is wonderful, except for naked Robin Williams in the swimming pool. That was imbecilic.

Superficial Content: F
Drugs/Alcohol D, Sex/Nudity F, Violence C, Language F
This is a for-adults-only film, if at all. There’s a death and a fistfight, but that’s the least of the concerns. Language is very heavy. Characters get high on marijuana and drink alcohol. Several sex scenes, and lots (lots!) of filthy discussion or behavior. This is absolutely not for kids!

Significant Content: B
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it and hate yourself for it. People don’t care about those they idolize, they only care about the satisfaction it gives them to idolize them. People read themselves into other people to worship this projection. Your true friends are the ones who love you for exactly who you really are, not for who you pretend to be. When you succeed on a lie, the success is more burden than any amount of genuine failure could possibly be. The worst thing in life isn’t being all alone, but being with people who make you feel all alone. Modern media is absurd, as are modern people.

Artistic/Thought Value: B
In some sense, this is a fascinating exploration of the Noble Lie concept of Plato. When, if ever, is it useful to lie? But it’s also a fantastic expose on the absurdity of public opinion compared to merit.

Discussion Questions:
~If you could fabricate a story that made everyone’s lives better but it was premised on a complete lie, would you tell it? If you had already told it, would you take it and its benefits away by admitting the truth? What is generosity? What is selfish? These are the sort of questions raised here. What do you think of each of Lance’s decisions in this movie?
~Have you ever had the chance to experience acceptance and praise for a lie and rejection for a truth? Which is more satisfying? Why does love when it is based on dishonesty actually hurt more than rejection?
~Which matters more: who a person really is or who people think that person is, even after his death?
~Kyle’s friend, Andrew, has a peculiar relationship with Lance throughout the movie. Would you say that Andrew represents God in this film?
~What does Murphy (the girlfriend) represent? Is she supposed to be fame and popularity?
~What’s sadder: the loss of actual Kyle or the possibility of the loss of his fake meaning to the school?
~Why does it seem to make such a difference whether the writings came from a misunderstood suicidal boy or from the talented parent of a worthless jerk?
~If you had to summarize the point(s) of this movie, what are they?
~Which is worse, to be all alone or to be surrounded by people who don’t know or love the real you? Why do you think famous people suffer so much? Are people who, for instance, publish anonymously smarter than the rest?
~What’s the title supposed to mean?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~When the suicide note is being read all around the school in the paper.
~The Oprah-like interview.
~The very ending. Who are Lance’s real friends? Why? What is the symbolic significance of putting Kyle’s photo back up? What did it mean during the movie?

Overall Grade: D
I would never encourage someone to endure the first half (disturbing and vulgar) or the penultimate scene (vulgar enough) to get what’s valuable in the rest. Nevertheless, the remainder is both brilliant satire and even moderately inspirational, if understood properly.

Big Fan (2009)

Rated: R for language and some sexuality.
Length: 88 minutes
Grade: AFAA+=A
Budget: $250,000
Box Office: $234,000

Written and Directed by: Robert D. Siegel (The Wrestler, The Onion Movie)
Starring: Patton Oswalt
With: Kevin Corrigan and Michael Rapaport

Paul is a middle-aged, single, parking lot attendant who lives with his mother and whose entire life is defined by his love of the Giants and his ability to be a regular caller to a sports talk show in New York. Aside from that, Paul has nothing in life, but the kicker is that he doesn’t WANT anything else. Though his family keeps pressing him to get a good job or a wife, he just finds their suggestions offensive. He and his friend (who worships his ability to call the radio show) are completely happy despite their seemingly pathetic and ridiculous lives which revolve around football and sports radio. Then, they have the best night of their lives as they follow their hero to a strip club and sit nervously watching him from across the room. When they finally get up the courage to meet him, he beats Paul within an inch of his life. This gets him suspended and threatens to ruin the Giants’ season. So Paul decides to not press charges in the hopes his team can return to their former selves and a run at the playoffs. I know I don’t normally tell you so much about the plot of a movie, but I doubt very many of you have seen or even will see this movie. And since I wanted to talk about this movie so much, I have to tell you the plot so you’ll understand the analysis.

Entertainment Value: A
This is one of my favorite movies in recent months, and the saddest thing about it is that so few people ever have or ever will see it. Also, I have to admit that I doubt most people would even enjoy it so much, so I really have to give it an A for me but a C or D for most other people. Nevertheless, this script from the writer of The Wrestler proves that brilliant insights about people and life can make profound movies. The script, the characters, the acting, and even all the little details like home or road jerseys are perfect here. It’s also, by the way, a wonderfully unexpected thriller.

Superficial Content: F
Drugs/Alcohol C, Sex/Nudity D, Violence C, Language F
There is one scene where Paul gets badly beaten in the beginning and one scene of strong violence in the end. An entire scene takes place in a strip club, although nudity is minimal, and there are several implied masturbations. There is constant F profanity throughout. This is definitely an R film and not for an kids. Maybe older teens could watch it.

Significant Content: A
Everyone serves an ultimate value of some sort, but not everyone is made genuinely happy by that devotion. But everyone will try to push their idol on someone else who doesn’t seem to want to participate in that system of achieving significance. Happiness comes when everything in your life is submitted to your ultimate value, especially by making significant personal sacrifices. A true friend is someone who loves you, loves what you love, and serves your love alongside you.

Artistic/Thought Value: A+
This is a film about devotion and idolatry. And it’s absolutely brilliant. Paul’s religion is the Giants. His sacrament is watching them. And his sermon is scribbling down comments to perform on the radio. The only problem is that no one around him understands the simple fact that this actually makes him happy. Really happy. He doesn’t want a wife or a career or even to live on his own. He only wants to be a Giants fan. Now, you’d think that the movie sets out to show how pathetic this is, but that’s exactly the opposite of the point. Instead, the prejudice the movie depends on is that all of us will start by viewing him just as his family does so that our own idols can be shown as no more absurd than his and maybe even more absurd since they don’t even make us happy like his does. And the variety of ways this movie accomplishes this are amazing. For instance, they follow Quantrell Bishop (their hero) to a strip club, and they sit there completely ignoring the naked women while they stare at him from across the room. When he wakes up from a coma, his first question to anyone is to ask his friend how the game Sunday went. It’s just brilliant. Plus, with regular cutaways to religious icons (rosary on the rear-view, e.g.) the idea of religious devotion, but not to God, is clearly on the director’s mind. This is an incredibly sticky movie for me, I just can’t stop thinking about all the amazing elements to it. Very reminiscent of The Wrestler with the end decision to put his life at risk to re-enter the one domain that gives him significance.

Discussion Questions:
~Identify some of the ways this movie builds the character of Paul and shows his devotion to the Giants. Name as many scenes as you can where his devotion violates what you expect from a “normal” person in his situation.
~Are Paul and Sal pathetic or beautiful? What about noble? What features of their lives would you call beautiful? What parts pathetic? Would you call any parts noble?
~Kierkegaard said that purity of the heart is to will just one thing. Would you say Paul and Sal have purity of heart? What is the one thing they want? When this purity is threatened by the lawsuit and the suspension, how do they feel? When it’s restored, how do they react? Do you have anything in your life that you are as devoted to as Paul and Sal are?
~Going through each of the other characters in the film (the sister, the brother, the mother, and the detective) identify what they idolize. When Paul refuses to sacrifice his highest good for theirs, how do they react to him? Would it be fair to say that they only want to convert him to their religion? Are their religions of any more worth than his?
~When we finally meet Philadelphia Phil, what is different between him and Paul in terms of their level of devotion? Does this make him and his behavior seem better or worse to you?
~When his brother sues on his behalf, is the brother really serving Paul or only his own goals? Can we truly be said to be acting in someone else’s best interests when that person hates what we’re doing because it violates his highest values?
~Is Sal a true friend? Why? What would a wife bring to Paul that he doesn’t already have in Sal?
~Why does this movie continually show images of Catholic religion in and around Paul’s family? What is it saying? Is this just anti-Christian bias or something else?
~In sports (and elsewhere) they say that a good player is someone who knows how to “take one for the team” when necessary. Is Paul a good player or part of the team?
~Why do you think the NFL allowed this film to be made using Giants/Jets paraphernalia? Do you think they understood the message?
~Many people will likely think this movie is a critique of being a sports fan. What do you think? Could you make the case that Paul and Sal are the only real sports fans in the movie, including everyone at the games?

Poignant or memorable scenes:
~The encounter with the detective at the diner and the end result. What do you observe about Paul immediately after this? What about on his first phone call to the radio station afterward?
~The on-air press conference late at night. What happens and why is it so devastating? Would you call his mother’s behavior here evil? What did she take away from him? Which is more awful, her unwillingness to understand her own son or her celebratory and oblivious destruction of what he holds most dear?
~The bar scene at the end. What do you expect to happen? Why are you so willing to expect that outcome?
Overall Grade: A
Honestly. I know I’m pretty much gushing about this film. Dani found it average at best, but I thought it was amazing. I may even try to get Robert Siegel on the show just because his grasp of devotion/idolatry is profound. A tiny little movie with massively important things to say. By the way, despite the terrible box office, Rotten Tomatoes has this at 88% favorable. So at least I’m not alone in loving this one.