Amazing Grace

[Mike Schutz]

This is the story of William Wilberforce, the british MP who led the long battle to end the slave trade in the British empire. The title comes from his relationship with John Newton, the former slave ship captain who became a great faith mentor to many, and who wrote the beloved song.

This film is excellent, very well-made, and will encourage discussion. However, it is probably helpful to know a bit about the history before you see it.

My wife and I saw it the weekend it opened. We loved it, and cried at the end (always the sign of a good film for my spouse). Last weekend she took my 16 year old son. When he walked in the door after returning from the theater he proclaimed, "Dad, you didn't talk up that film enough. Everyone has to see it."

We will purchase the video when it comes out and use it for one of our "Movie Nights" at church.

(We probably will NOT show the movie my son and I saw three weeks ago, "Ghost Rider." While that also provokes interesting theological discussions... well, you understand.) :basic05

[Doug Kitchen]

Overall "Amazing Grace" is a good, non-fiction, historical movie. It is really worth seeing.

I think young people (especially who have studied American history) should watch it and they may even enjoy the story. The website provides many good teaching tools for schools and churches.

The film portrays William Wilberforce's 20 year effort to abolish slavery in England. It starts in the middle and works back about 10 years and then forward about 10 years. 2007 is the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in England.

It barely covers Wilberforce's conversion but there is extensive coverage of his religion and connections to other abolitionists (who were generally ministers). It is not simply a political drama. There are many personal details about Wilberforce's life including his marriage and long-term battle with colitis. The characters are presented as real people not just historic figures with halos.

Wilberforce and William Pitt are members of parliament and Pitt becomes the Britain's youngest prime minister. There are many subtle comparisons made to other events of the time, including both the American and French revolutions. It is a great change in perspective for those of us who grew up learning American history - certainly lots of things I didn't know or hadn't thought about.

There are many great lines. The acting is generally very good - a couple of spots seemed a bit over-the-top. The scenery is beautifully filmed. Albert Finney is really excellent as John Newton.

The film addresses many contemporary themes such as non-violent resistance, boycotts, christianty and politics.

There were some things I didn't like:
The film covers 20 years of history with probably 20 significant figures involved and therefore the story is a little sketchy.

The connection to the song seems weak except to those of us who know that John Newton was an ex-slave trader.

Nazarene "special rules" warnings:
There are some very minor language issues - words which were used commonly in 1790 in Britain. Also, some may find certain costumes a bit revealing.

[Doug Kitchen]

Mike,

Your post beat mine by just a few minutes ;) Maybe Hans can move mine under yours as a reply?

I saw a nice interview of Eric Metaxis on cspan. He just wrote a book about Wilberforce and the reviews on Amazon are quite good. Metaxis was actually quite funny during the interview. It turns out he's written for veggie tales and children's books. I'm going to order a copy but I'm not sure what to expect.

Say hi to Heather for us.

Doug Kitchen

[Hans Deventer]

Your post beat mine by just a few minutes ;) Maybe Hans can move mine under yours as a reply?

Done!

[Rosalie Ross]

I with a friend went to see this movie, and really enjoyed it to the end. It is very informative with the historical backgrounds. I liked the way the movie started out with Wilburforce singing "Amazing Grace". I loved some of the english scenes of nature and other, and thought that it was very well done. I will usually only go to the ones that are recommended on our christian radio station here in houston. I thought that alot of the scenes were probably very well depicted from the actual real life. (portrayed well). Rosalie:)

[Kathryn Burns]

I would recommend this movie to everyone from middle school age up. Albert Finney is incredible in his roll as John Newton. The idea that a Christian can also be active in political and social issues is a significant factor in the movie.

[Ryan Scott]

I know this is kind of an old topic, but I haven't check the site in quite some time and this movie has really intrigued me for a number of reasons.

I am baffled by the number of Christians and Christian publications I have seen raving about Amazing Grace. I think it's a fantastic story and one that needs to be told, but I found this version of the story just nearly unwatchable.

Below is a few excerpts of the review I wrote for another site the day after seeing it:

Albert Finney, who plays John Newton and Ioan Gruffudd, the Welshman who plays Wilberforce did as well as can be expected with what they were given (the guy who played William Pitt wasn't that bad either), but the script was severely lacking. The scenes were disconnected, the direction seemed dull, the cinematography and camera choices were amateurish and most of the acting seemed either over-the-top or forced. Even the score was dreadful.

This was a monumental story that contains plenty of excitement and emotion on its own, but somehow Michael Apted found a way to drain it of this entirely on screen. As much as I tried to like it, there is no possible way for anyone to become emotionally involved.

They try to cover a huge span of time and end up glossing over the whole story. They keep a safe distance from any of the characters, never revealing anything or become involved in their thoughts. It's as if the whole story is a historical lecture being told by an outside observer. Total audience disconnect.

I wouldn't want to be offensive to anyone, especially the Ayatollah above, who I respect very much, but the disconnect between what I saw and what many other Christians saw was like night and day. I love the story and especially the website that they've set up to help educate people on modern slavery (http://www.theamazingchange.com). The movie was just not up to the quality of a major motion picture.

I've come to two conclusions and I'm wondering what other people think. Either,

1) There's a lot of Christians who just don't go to many movies, so they don't notice when one is poorly made;

or

2) Christians, perhaps more than any other subset of people, know the background to this story (and the intersecting story of John Newton) so well. I found myself at times filling in the blanks in the plot with my own knowledge of the people and events.

I think the latter may be more true. At times, as Wilberforce was struggling with his call to speak on behalf of the enslaved against his desire to not make a scene, I recalled my own similar struggles and infused that emotion into the story.

Amazing Grace is probably better explained as a great reminder to Christians of the importance of social action than it is a good movie to show anyone. I'm just not sure that a more secular audience could get past the poor craftsmanship and ultimately slow-moving (boring) storyline.

[Mike Schutz]

Ryan!

Good to hear from you.

They say genius is the ability to hold seemingly contradictory opinions at the same time. If that is true, then this thread indicates my true intelligence.

I don't disagree with anything you said. Yet, I still loved the movie.

How is that possible?

I think that you are right about "filling in the blanks in the plot with my own knowledge of the people and events," both in terms of the historical account (especially the one-sided presentation of Newton) and the spiritual dynamic of the struggle between the false dichotomy of the sacred and the secular.

Perhaps it is similar to attending a performance of the Boston Symphony on Saturday night and critically analyzing great musicians, and then on Sunday morning cheering the children in the church musical. Lower expectations? Emotional involvement?

Say hello to your lovely wife, to your parents, and to your in-laws from Esther and me. My son Luke says HI !

[Brad Mercer]

the disconnect between what I saw and what many other Christians saw was like night and day.

I experience that routinely when going to Christian-themed movies, even big-budget ones. I think many Christians are so desperate for movies that tell our story and our stories, that reflect our values, culture, world-view, that they can forgive or not even notice the actual terrible quality of the movie as a movie - as entertainment. Those movies so seldom provide an adequate degree of laughter, dramatic, engaging characters, emotionally connected relationships, as to be just painfully boring, even when they're not amatuerish.

I basically never go to a movie that is being touted mainly by the Christian community. I've just hardly ever been pleasantly surprised.

Brad

[Marsha Lynn]

I've come to two conclusions and I'm wondering what other people think. Either,

1) There's a lot of Christians who just don't go to many movies, so they don't notice when one is poorly made;

or

2) Christians, perhaps more than any other subset of people, know the background to this story (and the intersecting story of John Newton) so well. I found myself at times filling in the blanks in the plot with my own knowledge of the people and events.

I think the latter may be more true.

I'll confess to being in the former group. I watch very little television and choose the few movies I watch primarily on the basis of low offensiveness. It's sort of like tea -- since I don't like tea at all, I can't even begin to distinguish between good tea and bad tea. It all tastes bad to me. Or maybe it's more like chocolate. I can tell a difference between gourmet chocolate and a Hershey bar but I'm pretty happy with the Hershey bar, particularly when I have coins to jingle in my pocket after buying it. To me, It's not often worth the extra cost (whether we're talking money for chocolate or offended sensitivities for movies) to get the gourmet stuff.

Now, if you start talking about literature, I'm much more choosy there and am always suspicious of "Christian" fiction. A coworker raved about a particular book in the library until I finally decided to check it out, knowing nothing about it other than that it was spending all of its time on the reserve shelf between checkouts. I wasn't even through the first couple of chapters, which had not contained a single reference to anything spiritual, when a little voice in my head whispered, "This reads just like those formulaic little Christian paperback romances." Sure enough, it was simply a longer version of the Christian "lite" stuff. That sort of thing is extremely popular and many people read nothing else and find inspiration in it, but it's not going to win any literary prizes.

I enjoyed "Amazing Grace". I found the storyline educational and the characterization appealing. But I'll readily accept your assessment that it's simply because I don't know any better. One can learn to assess quality in only so many areas during a lifetime and I've made a lifestyle choice that leaves the film industry out of my areas of expertise. I realize that doing so hampers my ability to converse with people, but I'm hoping that somehow, by the grace of God, I can still make some small contribution to the world.

:basic07

Marsha

[Ryan Scott]

Now, if you start talking about literature, I'm much more choosy there and am always suspicious of "Christian" fiction.

I think that's a great parallel in this situation. My wife (an English teacher) is always so bewildered with the books people from church recommend to her as they are mostly "Christian" fiction. I can respect those people who want to avoid elements and themes that make them uncomfortable, but at the same time it can shelter them from the beauty and tragedy of real life.

[Kevin Bowser]

I am not a movie reviewer. But I have some experience in theater, having been involved on both sides of the stage as an actor and director. So, I thought I would add my 2 cents.

Albert Finney, who plays John Newton and Ioan Gruffudd, the Welshman who plays Wilberforce did as well as can be expected with what they were given (the guy who played William Pitt wasn't that bad either), but the script was severely lacking. The scenes were disconnected, the direction seemed dull, the cinematography and camera choices were amateurish and most of the acting seemed either over-the-top or forced. Even the score was dreadful.

I found the script completely acceptable. however, I was not altogether excited by Albert Finney's performance. I enjoyed Ioan Gruffudd's performance and I thought he captured the internal and mental turmoil of the task that Wilberforce was called to accomplish.

And I really enjoyed the cinematography. But, then again, I love period pieces and I especially like this period of history. Some of the scenes that were shot clearly captured the heavy dew and I could almost smell the English country-side.

This was a monumental story that contains plenty of excitement and emotion on its own, but somehow Michael Apted found a way to drain it of this entirely on screen. As much as I tried to like it, there is no possible way for anyone to become emotionally involved.

I found myself, and the the other three folks who were with me, highly invested mentally and emotionally in the story. The other couple who we watched it with are mega-movie goers. They see 3-4 movies per week and they thoroughly enjoyed it.

They try to cover a huge span of time and end up glossing over the whole story. They keep a safe distance from any of the characters, never revealing anything or become involved in their thoughts. It's as if the whole story is a historical lecture being told by an outside observer. Total audience disconnect.

Again, I do not agree. I thought that they did a fairly decent job given the broad cast of characters. I particularly found the characters of Lord Fox and Thomas Clarkson to be engaging and somewhat tragic.

1) There's a lot of Christians who just don't go to many movies, so they don't notice when one is poorly made;

Although this statement is a little dismissive, I tend to agree with you. Any of us Nazarene's over the age of 40 (and I am one of them!:basic05) can hardly be considered to be a connoisseur of fine cinema! We are still worried the floor will open up and we will drop straight to hell for even being in a theater! But I do not think the film was poorly made. It didn't have "Star Warsian" (is that a word?) special effects. And it didn't have a car chase. Nothing was blown up and there was not copious amounts of blood gushing from the screen. But, I thought the cinematography and screenplay was good without being overly "preachy" about a topic that still has some deeply emotional aspects to it. And it was "better" than most of what was recognized at the recent Academy Awards.

Again, this is my two cents.

[Ryan Scott]

I guess I' in the minority here, which is good. While I don't really understand how people enjoyed the movie, I am certainly glad they did. It is such a worthy story and a great topic for a film to cover.

By the way,I agree with you 100% that this year's crop of Oscar winners was pretty weak.

[Kevin Bowser]

I guess I' in the minority here, which is good. While I don't really understand how people enjoyed the movie, I am certainly glad they did. It is such a worthy story and a great topic for a film to cover.

What are/were your thoughts on "The Passion of the Christ"? I could use your quote above for myself when it comes to this movie. But, that wouldn't be fair in reality, since I did not see the movie. I simply could not get past the violence. Does that make me a wimp?

I "get it" about the events of Easter week in the life of our Lord. I do not, nor did not, need to see it in 70mm Dolby Surround Sound. But it was an immensly popular movie among Christians. I know it also had a trememdous impact for good. And I am thankful for that. I just "wimped out" in seeing it. I still haven't seen it and I don't plan to unless He tells me to!

[Ryan Scott]

I thought the cinematography was fantastic. It was an exquisitely beautiful film. It wasn't bad, nor boring, but I haven't seen it a second time. I thought the horror and guilt at the suffering of Christ was beneficial for a modern understanding of Jesus' sacrifice. Our culture has become so accustomed to violence that the censored portrayals in other "Jesus" films just doesn't evoke the required emotion.

I think it worked for me. I'm not against the movie, but there were enough awkward and strange sections that I wouldn't call it fantastic. I'd rate it slightly higher than Amazing Grace just because it was more engaging, but I wouldn't put either of them in my top 100.

[Marsha Lynn]

What are/were your thoughts on "The Passion of the Christ"? I could use your quote above for myself when it comes to this movie. But, that wouldn't be fair in reality, since I did not see the movie. I simply could not get past the violence. Does that make me a wimp?

I "get it" about the events of Easter week in the life of our Lord. I do not, nor did not, need to see it in 70mm Dolby Surround Sound. But it was an immensly popular movie among Christians. I know it also had a trememdous impact for good. And I am thankful for that. I just "wimped out" in seeing it. I still haven't seen it and I don't plan to unless He tells me to!

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for expressing them here, Kevin. Many seem to think that since so many of us regularly expose ourselves to blood and gore on television and in movies, we should be willing to be confronted by the horrors of crucifixion. What they seem to overlook is that some of us manage to avoid such exposure and are very sensitive to such images.

I went to the first "Passion play" I remember attending last Friday evening. If I work it right, I may manage to never attend another. I get much more out of reading the Book without being knocked flat by the horror.

I find justification for my reluctance to watch theatrical versions of the crucifixion in these words of C. S. Lewis:

There is ... one mental image which does not lure me away into trivial elaborations. I mean the Crucifixion itself; not seen in terms of all the pictures and crucifixes, but as we must suppose it to have been in its raw, historical reality. But even this is of less spiritual value than one might expect. Compunction, compassion, gratitude -- all the fruitful emotions -- are strangled. Sheer physical horror leaves no room for them. Nightmare. Even so, the image ought to be periodically faced. But no one could live with it. It did not become a frequent motive of Christian art until the generations which had seen real crucifixions were all dead. As for many hymns and sermons on the subject -- endlessly harping on blood, as if that were all that mattered -- they must be the work either of people so far above me that they can't reach me, or else of people with no imagination at all. (Some might be cut off from me by both these gulfs.) -- from Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer

I tend to "live with" images that I see. For that reason, I guard against being exposed to images that horrify me unless there is some extremely good reason for it. I trust that the Bible is sufficient to convey what I need to know about the death of Christ without a need for interpretation by means of human-created dramatization. It's not like anyone is ever going to accurately capture that scene on film.

Marsha

[Mike Schutz]

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for expressing them here, Kevin. Many seem to think that since so many of us regularly expose ourselves to blood and gore on television and in movies, we should be willing to be confronted by the horrors of crucifixion. What they seem to overlook is that some of us manage to avoid such exposure and are very sensitive to such images.

I went to the first "Passion play" I remember attending last Friday evening. If I work it right, I may manage to never attend another. I get much more out of reading the Book without being knocked flat by the horror.

I find justification for my reluctance to watch theatrical versions of the crucifixion in these words of C. S. Lewis:

There is ... one mental image which does not lure me away into trivial elaborations. I mean the Crucifixion itself; not seen in terms of all the pictures and crucifixes, but as we must suppose it to have been in its raw, historical reality. But even this is of less spiritual value than one might expect. Compunction, compassion, gratitude -- all the fruitful emotions -- are strangled. Sheer physical horror leaves no room for them. Nightmare. Even so, the image ought to be periodically faced. But no one could live with it. It did not become a frequent motive of Christian art until the generations which had seen real crucifixions were all dead. As for many hymns and sermons on the subject -- endlessly harping on blood, as if that were all that mattered -- they must be the work either of people so far above me that they can't reach me, or else of people with no imagination at all. (Some might be cut off from me by both these gulfs.) -- from Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer

I tend to "live with" images that I see. For that reason, I guard against being exposed to images that horrify me unless there is some extremely good reason for it. I trust that the Bible is sufficient to convey what I need to know about the death of Christ without a need for interpretation by means of human-created dramatization. It's not like anyone is ever going to accurately capture that scene on film.

Marsha



Marsha,
Thanks for the Lewis quote. First, because I was looking for it the other day and couldn't remember where it was. Second, because it is helpful.
Knowledge of Gibson's theologicial perspective that requires the literal pain of Christ's experience on the cross be understood in order to understand the sacrifice is illuminating here. In fact, some have said that the movie wasn't enough. In other words, if someone could stand to watch it, then they did not fully comprehend it.

[Walter Thompson]

I missed this movie at the theatre. I know it will come out on DVD as Blockbuster already has it listed but not a date for release. Does anyone know the release date?
BTW I have read the reviews and I am glad that it is being discussed. However one thing I noticed is that some criticisms might keep individuals from seeing the movie. That would be a shame, we can't expect family orientated movies to be produced if we won't support them. If we (and I do not) go to see PG13 and R rated movies, (And I am not saying oany on here have stated that they do), and we rate this movie below those then we deserve what we get. The best way to get better movies is to see movies like this, Flywheel, Facing the Giants etc, to encourage major studios to produce these type of movies. then we would have a better variety, better quality and better messages being delivered. As long as Christians as satisfied in seeing movies that they ought not be seeing, then we will continue to get movies that are less than what we want.
Please, I am not saying anyone has indicated they are on the wrong side of this, I am saying these things because many in churches that I know DO go and see the horror, filth, perverted movies, with all of the language, nudity and violence that we should avoid to encourage movie makers to make decent movies.

[Ryan Scott]

I agree that we can help to promote the production of good movies with solid values and messages by our attendance and support of them. I would just like to also send the message that major studios can't make money by putting out a "family friendly" movie with poor production values. Obviously I'm pretty much alone in turning my nose up at the values of this particular movie, but it remains the same. We're not doing anyone else any good if we go to see movies that are so poorly made no one else will see them.

I also don't think the rating system is a good way to determine which movies are worth seeing and which ones aren't. It does, to a certain degree, let you know which ones contain elements you might not want your kids (or yourself) to see, but it doesn't tell you about the theme or message of the movie. There are plenty of PG movies with awful messages for children and then you have a movie like Crash, with a crush of violence, profanity and nudity in the first twenty minutes, but a movie that has a monumentally important message. I'm not telling you to take your ten year old, but I think certainly every adult should see it.

I do agree with your statement, but I think there is more to this than just ratings, although I have been happy to see many more kid-friendly movies with high production values and solid messages recently.

[Marsha Lynn]

... and then you have a movie like Crash, with a crush of violence, profanity and nudity in the first twenty minutes, but a movie that has a monumentally important message. I'm not telling you to take your ten year old, but I think certainly every adult should see it.

And I think every adult should read Les Miserables. (The movies/stage production don't do it justice.) :basic03

Again, I have chosen a lifestyle that does not depend on theatrical productions for life's lessons. Is there any message in Crash that cannot be gleaned from other sources? (If so, how did the screenwriters manage to discover the truth behind the movie?)

Since I read for learning and watch the few shows/movies I see entirely for entertainment, I find the rating system completely effective for me. There happens to be a lot of overlap between what bothers me and what drives the rating system.

Sure, paying attention to ratings means missing great movies like Crash, but it also means keeping my mind free of the disturbing images that are imbedded in such movies. I hope I can gain the message in other ways. I may see more than a few totally stupid movies rated PG, but, then, if I wanted to partake of something with substance, I would read a book.

I have made a few exceptions over the years. I can think of only a couple of instances when the message contained within the movie came close to having enough enduring value to justify the offensive images, but I'm still not sure that even those few were worth it.

I often get the feeling that not watching offensive movies labels me as a wimpy Christian who is afraid to confront the realities of life, that no Christian who has kept their intellect intact will shy away from movies simply because of offensive scenes. To that I say: Is it not enough to walk fearlessly out into the real world and confront the never-ending drama there? Must one also engage it in the safety of a movie theater as interpreted by screenwriters before we can really "get it"?

Marsha

[Ryan Scott]

I often get the feeling that not watching offensive movies labels me as a wimpy Christian who is afraid to confront the realities of life, that no Christian who has kept their intellect intact will shy away from movies simply because of offensive scenes. To that I say: Is it not enough to walk fearlessly out into the real world and confront the never-ending drama there? Must one also engage it in the safety of a movie theater as interpreted by screenwriters before we can really "get it"?


I hope that there aren't any people out there labeling you wimpy. Everyone has to make up their minds and set their standards for behavior. We can't have a strict rule for everyone as we're all different. I certainly don't begrudge your choices (or those of my wife, which often leaves me watching a movie by myself). I do think that the ideas and themes presented in Crash are very important ones to deal with and ponder, I know there are other ways to encounter those. The movie did present a unique view into racism in its various forms; one that I would not have had in its complete form from my life experience. Although you bring up a fantastic point. There's a lot of great reading out there that can deal with more intense subjects and not force residual images on people. If only the screenplay to Crash was readily available.

[Marsha Lynn]

I often get the feeling that not watching offensive movies labels me as a wimpy Christian who is afraid to confront the realities of life, that no Christian who has kept their intellect intact will shy away from movies simply because of offensive scenes. To that I say: Is it not enough to walk fearlessly out into the real world and confront the never-ending drama there? Must one also engage it in the safety of a movie theater as interpreted by screenwriters before we can really "get it"?

I hope that there aren't any people out there labeling you wimpy. Everyone has to make up their minds and set their standards for behavior.

Okay, maybe "wimpy" isn't the right word. What I'm trying to say is that, as a thinking Christian, I often encounter peer pressure from other thinking Christians to be more in tune with the motion picture industry, as though no one who ignores such a strong cultural influence can call themselves a thinking Christian.

I encounter two primary voices in the church -- the "ain't it awful" message that tears down the motion-picture industry (and a lot of other industries) as the great destroyer of our culture, and the "spoil the Egyptians" message that sorts through all the garbage for redeeming value and can't figure out why I don't participate.

I don't want to be part of the "ain't it awful" camp. They traipse from one cause to another with their "the end is near" signs, tearing down everything outside their little subculture as evil. But neither do I see enough value in the treasures of the filmmaking Egyptians to be worth digging through the garbage to retrieve it. Thus, I enjoy a film such as "Amazing Grace" now and then in spite of its shortcomings which are invisible to my untrained eye, and endure a film such as "Facing the Giants" now and then in spite of its way-too-perfect resolution which even I can't overlook, while usually passing up the gourmet side of an industry that seems somehow unable to produce quality without offensiveness. I could choose to push aside my sensitivities, and occasionally I do, but I want to make that a very intentional and rare choice and know exactly what I will gain and what I will lose by doing so. Because as with roller-coasters, I can endure things I don't like, but I'm old enough that I can also simply say, "You know, I never did really like roller-coasters; I only rode them because I could," and let others enjoy them without me.

Marsha

[Walter Thompson]

I agree that we can help to promote the production of good movies with solid values and messages by our attendance and support of them. I would just like to also send the message that major studios can't make money by putting out a "family friendly" movie with poor production values. Obviously I'm pretty much alone in turning my nose up at the values of this particular movie, but it remains the same. We're not doing anyone else any good if we go to see movies that are so poorly made no one else will see them.

I also don't think the rating system is a good way to determine which movies are worth seeing and which ones aren't. It does, to a certain degree, let you know which ones contain elements you might not want your kids (or yourself) to see, but it doesn't tell you about the theme or message of the movie. There are plenty of PG movies with awful messages for children and then you have a movie like Crash, with a crush of violence, profanity and nudity in the first twenty minutes, but a movie that has a monumentally important message. I'm not telling you to take your ten year old, but I think certainly every adult should see it.

I do agree with your statement, but I think there is more to this than just ratings, although I have been happy to see many more kid-friendly movies with high production values and solid messages recently.

Actually, Sony liked what they saw in Flywheel and went to the pastor to see if he was interested in doing another movie. If I understand it correctly, Facing the Giants only opened in 400 theaters. The weekend it opened they were second or third on the most seen movies for that weekend. Sony believed in the movie even if it was very amature (Flywheel), so I think it ibehoves us to go and see these movies.
I disagree with you about seeing movies that are loaded with language, nudity or violence. The more we do the more they keep it in there. It is already proven that G and PG movies make more money than PG13 and R rated movies. I have only seen two R rated movies in my life, one was the Passion and the other was Russel Crows movie, Gladiator (I think that was the name.) What studios need to see is an overwhelming response to seeing good G and PG movies that are good family films. They will produce more. Fox Films is a good example of this with the creation of FoxFaith division, as well as FoxFamily.
Generally I wait until a R or PG-13 movie is on TV and then watch it, but that is not as safe as it once was, Saving of Private Ryan for example.