Among other things, the execrable C Me Dance lays claim to being the first movie to draw its title from a vanity license plate—and it has to cheat to do that, since when we see the plate in question it reads “C Me Danc.” You could call that creative license, I suppose, though the only sign of creativity in this latest outburst of “faith-based” filmmaking is that writer/producer/director/star Greg Robbins managed to fleece anyone into helping finance the enterprise. That must have taken a good deal of creativity.
Even by the none-too-high standards of this kind of movie, C Me Dance is notable for its muddled plot, its abominable acting, its atrocious dialogue, its less-than-rudimentary-filmmaking technique, its threadbare production values and its smug self-righteousness. This witless mess makes Facing the Giants (2006) look like Oscar material. These statements will doubtless bring forth the ire of folks who feel it is their sacred duty to praise anything of a Christian nature regardless of its actual merit, simply because it has “a good message.” Of course, one person’s “good message” is another person’s sanctimonious propaganda.
The story centers on Sheri (Christina DeMarco), a Pittsburgh high-school girl with improbable eyebrows and a passion for dance. But quicker than you can say pas de deux, it turns out that this Pennsylvanian Pavlova has movie leukemia. (Movie leukemia is the kind where you’re only diagnosed in the final stages, have but weeks to live, and look fabulous the entire time.) This leads Dad Vince (Greg Robbins himself) to want to pray—in between romancing Sheri’s doctor, Beth (Laura Romeo). Sheri, on the other hand, just wants to withdraw from everyone—that is until she becomes convinced that God wants her to bring her friend Ally (Samantha Sham) to Jesus. Turns out that this is easier done than said because her in-extremis status allows her to merely touch a person and cause them to see a flash of Jesus’ hand being nailed to the cross—et voila, instant conversion. (That Jesus’ hand is played by the same guy who is Satan’s stunt double surely qualifies as blasphemy of some sort.)
Soon Sheri appears to be on the road to setting the whole world to rights—at least to the specific dictates of Robbins’ take on the Good Book. Everyone who comes into Sheri’s sphere is converted: pornographers stop pornographying, people line up at church doors, TV executives give her free air time, and Hollywood studios shelve potential blockbusters where they will “never be seen” because they might damage “family values.” Not surprisingly, this doesn’t sit well with Satan (co-producer and former Arnold Schwarzenegger stunt double Peter Kent), who starts hanging around in a Hot Topic trench coat to disconcert Sheri (who appears to have been traumatized by The Matrix (1999)).
This is the movie’s purported hook, but the Devil in this film wouldn’t frighten an impressionable 4-year-old. He mostly stands around looking like a pervert on the periphery of a playground. Even on those occasions when he remembers to put in his “scary” contact lenses, he’s hardly persuasively menacing, especially since all you appear to have to do is tell him to go away and he will. If you’re expecting some battle between good and evil, look elsewhere. It’s easy to understand why some people, seeing the trailer, think the whole thing was a put-on.
It is simply not possible to convey the sheer ineptitude of C Me Dance. Ironically, the look of the film often verges on porn (co-critic Justin Souther even remarked at one point, “This is just a pizza-delivery guy shy of a porno”), which I doubt was the intent. There’s not a single person in it who can act, and this is aggravated by Robbins casting himself in a major role. Robbins (complete with matted-animal-pelt Nicolas Cage hair) not only can’t act, but is astonishingly smarmy—something exacerbated by his apparent belief that he’s really cool, an idea of which he needs to be disabused with all possible haste. Rated PG for thematic material, some violence and mild language.
A word to the interested — this opened last Friday at four area theaters. It will be gone by this Friday from all four.
“It will be gone by this Friday from all four.”
Is that a promise?
Is that a promise?
At least according to the listings I was given. I suspect no taradiddle is involved, since almost no one seems to have gone to this. At one theater yesterday, there was exactly one person (who claimed to have seen Fireproof 15 times) in attendance all day.
Hollywood studios shelve potential blockbusters where they will “never be seen” because they might damage “family values.”
Even from a Christian perspective, I’ve never understood the whole “family values” agenda. I see no Biblical basis for the idea that art shouldn’t examine, you know, real life. Obviously, it should be examined in good taste, but that’s a point on which many non-religious viewers can agree.
I suppose, though the only sign of creativity in this latest outburst of “faith-based” filmmaking is that writer/producer/director/star Greg Robbins managed to fleece anyone into helping finance the enterprise. That must have taken a good deal of creativity.
If you ever make ‘a trip down (bad) memory lane part 2’ for the screening room, I vote this quote.
I am guessing the picture above is the ‘devil’ in this movie. Looks like a poorly done makeup job of a vampire henchman from TV show “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”
I am guessing the picture above is the ‘devil’ in this movie. Looks like a poorly done makeup job of a vampire henchman from TV show “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”
And, for the curious, you can see the same actor full-frontal nude as a zombie in Stuart Gordon’s Re-Animator.
I see no Biblical basis for the idea that art shouldn’t examine, you know, real life. Obviously, it should be examined in good taste, but that’s a point on which many non-religious viewers can agree.
I don’t know, Sean, I think you might have a little trouble getting a concensus on what is and isn’t good taste. Then again, is good taste necessarily desirable? Shakespeare has quite a few things that would qualify for not being in good taste, and he’s highly regarded in some quarters.
And, for the curious, you can see the same actor full-frontal nude as a zombie in Stuart Gordon’s Re-Animator.
When I heard “former Schwarzenegger stunt double,” I remembered that little bit of trivia from Re-Animator but never put thought to put the two together.
But I guess if the girl dies from leukemia in the movie, could C Me Re-Animate be too far down the pike?
That’s odd. There’s usually legions of Christians posting to defend a film like this by now…
I don’t know, Sean, I think you might have a little trouble getting a concensus on what is and isn’t good taste.
That’s the rub, isn’t it? All the same, I think most critics would distinguish between the sexuality in The Reader and the sexuality in Good Luck Chuck, and between the violence in Pan’s Labyrinth and the violence in Last House on the Left.
Then again, is good taste necessarily desirable?
I think part of good taste is knowing when and how you can violate it for artistic impact. That’s why Pink Flamingos is called edgy and envelope-pushing and Freddy Got Fingered is just called bad.
Almost no one has seen it (which might make it easier to defend actually).
I film was wunderful!!!!! I wonder if these other people commenting really saw it. I give this MOVIE {{{{{{{5 STARS}}}}}}}……
I think most critics would distinguish between the sexuality in The Reader and the sexuality in Good Luck Chuck, and between the violence in Pan’s Labyrinth and the violence in Last House on the Left.
Critics, yes. The people who flock to (almost) anything because it promotes religion, I am much less certain of in this regard.
That’s why Pink Flamingos is called edgy and envelope-pushing and Freddy Got Fingered is just called bad.
I wouldn’t argue that, but if Nam Vet — in whichever incarnation — was still around, you’d have just opened a can of worms.
I wouldn’t argue that, but if Nam Vet—in whichever incarnation—was still around, you’d have just opened a can of worms.
Give him a day or two… he won’t be able to resist this bait.
Give him a day or two… he won’t be able to resist this bait.
Well, it’s been a while.
If I were Jesus, or the Devil for that matter, I’d sue this movie for slander.
“I film was wunderful!!!!! I wonder if these other people commenting really saw it. I give this MOVIE {{{{{{{5 STARS}}}}}}}……”
Did Tammi like it too?
I am a Christian who has all but given up on the “Christian film”. I simply refuse to support any more of them. Maybe one day I will finally be able to write a GOOD screenplay that has Christian themes of hope and redemption, but most importantly, a film that doesn’t ram a message down your throat to try to force you into Christianity. Something along the lines of MAGNOLIA, or THE APOSTLE. A good character study. I don’t know what to do at this point. Somebody needs to do something about it. At this point, however, I will NOT be going to see any more “Christian films”.
I don’t know what to do at this point. Somebody needs to do something about it.
As long as the occasional film like Fireproof makes a ton of money, you’re going to see more of this. Since these movies cost little to make, it’s a reasonable gamble. While I find your desire to write the film you’re talking about admirable, Adam, you do realize that the particular audience for the Fireproof type of film would be quite appalled by a movie like Magnolia, don’t you?
We christians are not defending it to you because it would just be giving in to what you want. You either like it or you don’t. If you don’t like christian movies, don’t go to them. I don’t like horror movies, therefore I avoid them. Nuff said.
We christians are not defending it to you because it would just be giving in to what you want.
I don’t care one way or the other whether or not you defend it, but an awful lot of Christians “gave in” to this supposed desire when the film was Fireproof. The fact with this one is simple: almost no one went to see it. It garnered exactly five reviews (including this one) on Rotten Tomatoes — all of them were scorchingly bad. It opened locally at four theaters and was history by the next week at all of them.
Did you go see the film? Or, since it was a horror film as well as a Christian one, did you avoid it?
We christians are not defending it to you because it would just be giving in to what you want
I think what most critics want is a good Christian film.
I think what most critics want is a good Christian film.
Amen.
“While I find your desire to write the film you’re talking about admirable, Adam, you do realize that the particular audience for the Fireproof type of film would be quite appalled by a movie like Magnolia, don’t you?”
Yes, I know. I understand what you are saying, but I think it is sad that this is the case. I’d love to see a Christian film that tells the truth. I know I’ve said this before, but I am tired of Christians who live in a bubble. This often is reflected in Christian films. Everything is so sanitized. People need to realize that Jesus was God’s son, but he was tempted just the way that we are tempted. Yes, he resisted that temptation, but nevertheless, he knew that the world was not a G rated place. Plus, for my fellow Christians who condemn the film industry for R rated content in films, my suggestion to all of them is that they pick up the Bible and actually read it, specifically the Old Testament. It’s brutal. It’s most definitely a hard R. Read the story of David! God did not intend for us to sit in a state of ignorance. He certainly did not hold back about the harsh truths of life! Yet, when a filmmaker does the same thing, they are ridiculed for it. All most Christians know how to do is complain and boycott other films, just for the content alone. This may sound shocking to some, but I’ll take PULP FICTION over FIREPROOF any day! At least it’s a flawless film (in my opinion) with some strong, realistic themes of redemption thrown in for good measure! One of the best films about modern day Christian ignorance is the film SAVED. Whenever I hear someone yell, “Lets boycott THE GOLDEN COMPASS!” or “Let’s burn all copies of THE DA VINCI CODE!”, that is the film that I think of. I used to have the same attitude, until I woke up and realized that I needed to snap out of it, and have a piece of humble pie…The world isn’t perfect, it should not be portrayed that way on film. As I heard another fellow Christian say, “I’d rather be told an R-rated truth than a G-rated lie.” Once Christian filmmakers take that to heart, I won’t be going to see them any more.
It’s rather a shame this thread ended after that, but I guess Mr Renkovish about said it all.
Boy, you’ve really been wandering through the depths of the review archive, haven’t you?
I like reading the half a star reviews when I need a pick me up. They’re often the most entertaining.
In a way that’s kind of depressing.
It’s a different kind of thrill than reading effusive praise of something I liked.
And reading your effusive praise of something I loathed just sets my teeth on edge.
And reading your effusive praise of something I loathed just sets my teeth on edge.
Good. Now, you know how I feel when you try to sell me a load of clams about the glories of TV.
Now, you know how I feel when you try to sell me a load of clams about the glories of TV.
Hey, it ain’t my fault you have too short an attention span to watch a story that runs more than a couple of hours.
By and large, it’s my belief that if you can’t tell it in around two hours you’re doing something wrong. But it’s frankly an entirely different animal that just doesn’t interest me.