Christmas with a Capital C

Awful, simply awful. The atheist who returns to the town after 20 years, seems like an embittered and angry man, out on a personal vendetta against the heroic Christian mayor.The premise is that the mayor is building (and using some city funds) to build a stand outside of the town's city hall, for Christmas. There will be Christian decorations displayed along with more secular Christmas decorations. So this evil atheist type files an injunction to stop work on this stand.

Now, atheists aren't the only people who support keeping government and religion untangled, many Christians (though usually not evangelical types) also favor that. Atheists aren't out on personal vendettas against some Christian mayor or politician when we do so. Also, the "Merry Christmas" banner is moved because of this injunction. Frankly, no atheist has ever objected to a "Merry Christmas" sign, even in front of a courthouse.

In fact, I don't know if any church/state or atheist group would even object to this stand, unless it solely has Christian symbols. Atheists just want neutrality or at least, an open forum. Have Christian symbols such as a nativity scene, fine, but allow a display of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The Christian mayor in one scene recites the free exercise clause of religion, which for some reason makes this evil atheist type, say touché. That seems to imply the atheist knows he is violating the free exercise rights of the residents, but there is of course no free exercise right to have the government put up a display, even if not centered around Christian images solely.

This movie was produced by people who seem to have never met an actual atheist in their lives. Full of fear and straw man. If I could give a negative star, I would.

Why is it that Christians don't seem to get the long-settled Constitutional issue of not putting religious displays on public property? And that said issue doesn't affect private property, including privately-owned stores? The very premise of this movie is based on a lie. It doesn't matter if it's a "tradition" to put a nativity scene on the grounds of city hall; the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that it violated the First Amendment. Also, not even the most hardcore atheist is "offended" by Christmas; pointing out that it's unconstitutional is NOT the same as being offended.

In the film's defense, though, it does feature a drug-addled Daniel Baldwin attempting to act, Ted McGinley acting out every "regular Christian guy" trope and Brad Stine acting like a crazy homeless guy. I assume he's just aplying himself.

Rather than actually watching this movie, I suggest watching Hugo & Jake's review of it on You Tube. They explain the issues in a much more entertaining fashion than I.

BEWARE OF BOGUS REVIEWS. SOME REVIEWERS HAVE ONLY ONE REVIEW. WHEN ITS A POSITIVE REVIEW THAT TELLS ME THEY WERE INVOLVED WITH THE PRODUCTION. IF ITS A NEGATIVE REVIEW THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE A GRUDGE AGAINST THAT PRODUCTION. NOW I HAVE REVIEWED OVER 200 Christmas MOVIES. I HAVE NO AGENDA. I AM FARE ABOUT THESE FILMS.

This film is not a love it or hate it film. What this film is passable entertainment with a lesson about??

In this film Christmas has always been an exceptional time of love and tradition in the small town of Trapper Falls, Alaska. Hometown of Mayor Dan Reed (Ted McGinley) looks forward to each year with enthusiasm. Together with his brother Greg (Brad Stine), they dedicate time away from their adventure tour company to drape the town is Christmas cheer. When Dan's old high school rival Mitch Bright (Daniel Baldwin), a mean-spirited and embittered militant atheist returns home after 20 years, Dan is immediately suspicious. Mitch is a highly successful big city lawyer who has never wanted anything to do with Trapper Falls. The rivalry re-ignites when the frustrated Mitch takes offense to what he sees as the town's violation of his rights. Mitch wants the Nativity scene removed from the front of City hall and the word Christmas switched to Happy Holidays on all signs. Fifty years of tradition are now challenged not by an outsider but a former member of the community. As the conflict escalates it goes beyond one person's opinion but magnifies into an entire town problem when Mitch enters into the mayoral race to have Dan replaced.

Now I am very liberal. I liked this film. Its not great but it is sweet. The motivations of everyone in this film is understandable. Now people who made this film had an agenda to say that there is a war on Christmas which is not true.

"Retailers Love Christmas". I worked all over the USA and have always said "Merry Christmas" and nobody said "I shouldn't" and no customer ever complained.

Now my Christians readers would you get mad if a Jewish Person said to you "Happy Hanukkah"? I doubt it. Normal people would say "Thank you" or "Same to you".

Happy Holidays came about only because it was cheaper for stores to have a window painted with just one message and no re-paint for Hanukkah. That's all. When I worked at stores I never got in trouble for saying "Merry Christmas".

Now back to the film. AS film the plot is passable. the film moved quickly along. The film has a conclusion that I find almost laughable but the message isn't laughable.

Small Children will be bored. Some adults too. But what comes through is that "Christmas is a time where we should open our minds and our hearts"

The title for this film is somewhat clever from the plot, but otherwise, "Christmas with a Capital C" has very little original. With Christmas movies being made every year, originality in the plot is quite important. Some of the acting is good while most of it isn't.

The story has some well-worn small plots. One is about a school days feud and later reconciliation. Another is about a modern battle of secularism with religion. Here, it's over the display of a traditional Christmas scene on public property, because it is connected to religion. There's a third smaller plot about two young teens - a boy and a girl, competing and discovering mutual attraction for one another.

But with all of this, the story just isn't very interesting. The screenplay is weak and choppy. The actions of the townsfolk seem forced or contrived. The character of Mitch Bright is stiff and strange in the smugness that Daniel Baldwin gives it. On the other hand, the Greg Reed role by Brad Stine is over the top goofy in his staged belligerence. And, the teens aren't at all convincing.

Ted McGinley as Dan Reed and Nancy Stafford as his wife, Kristen, are the only roles done well and that seem like real people. The film was shot entirely in Seward, Alaska. For the scenic shots, the movie is worth five stars.

I will say that Christmas With A Capital C has one undeniable value. If you want to know the kind of place that spawned the Palin family and inflicted them on the world than this film is a must. Wasilla where Sarah Palin was mayor was just the kind of place you see here with Ted McGinley as chief executive.

This looks like a most homogeneous community when McGinley's old rival Dan Baldwin comes back. He's seen the great big world outside and made a small fortune doing it. For some reason he's decided to be the Grinch and is starting a lawsuit to get the nativity scene removed. The 'war' on Christmas is a big theme in the evangelical circuit where this played.

Baldwin does have ulterior motives and they are discovered, of course. I only thought that Stephen Baldwin went the Christian route. I've always said Thanksgivings are most interesting when the Baldwins gather. Now more than ever.

Nancy Stafford late of Matlock plays McGinley's wife and part of the reason for Baldwin's Grinch like behavior is as always beautiful. Christmas With A Capital C is not overtly preachy and could be enjoyed in a theater as well as a church.