Courageous @ Box-Office

So, I just looked on IMDB.com and saw that the movie Courageous came in fourth at the box office behind Dolphin tale, Money ball, the Lion King, and ahead of 50/50. I looked it up since I spoke with my dad a short time ago and he mentioned it.

Anyhow, it's by the same people who did "flywheel" and "facing your giants" and "fireproof," and I have to admit, I'm quite surprised it did this well. I've seen all 3 of their previous movies and initially, I didn't like them; they just seemed so fake, and I don't think it was just the fact that they were low budget. I looked through the comments on this recent film and found right off the bat an interesting statement calling people who hate the movie to just admit that they hate the film because it's pro-christian, pro-god, and they hate what it stands for.
Personally, I think that's bogus.

I won't sit through a second viewing of any of the previous movies, and it's not because "I hate what it stands for" I just think, like Leeper mentioned, maybe there's too much editing going on. Tough situations are watered down to cliche dialogue, such as in the case of "fireproof" when the husband yells at his wife during an argument.

It really irks me because by doing this, I ,as an audience member, feel somewhat insulted.

By smoothing out edges a bit, it's almost as though they're assuming I can't handle the gravity of a situation portrayed in a rawer light; I'm not saying they should throw in a few curse words or anything, but I think more should be demanded of the dialog and of the actors, otherwise, they're not believeable and are practically lying to us.

Some comments on the website agreed; there are other Christians who demand more as well:

"I just want films to have ambition and this had nothing more in its goal than to be a cash cow for middle American protestant sentimentality and a aversion to any sort of risk through experimentation."
RE:
"To say this film lacks ambition is simply a statement of ignorance. The ambition for Courageous is very specific and righteous. It is to teach and offer families struggling with raising children how God designed the father's role to be."

Looking at the bold part in that last statement reminds me of one of the previous readings we've had insisting that the purpose of art is not to teach, but to delight; suppose Courageous is effective in teaching this lesson and it produces something positive- does this mean that it's right in having this ambition, or should teaching not even be part of the intent, as the reading asserted? What makes a film different so that it is clearly intended to delight, but may have "taught" or shared some lesson and caused change within the audience member(s) as a result?

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this, but I was just surprised that it was in the top five, so I figured I'd blog. ( No offence intended to anyone who likes these movies).