The ending is only a minute part of what the movie does wrong, though it is a spectacularly mistaken move.
From your opening statement, it's clear that you were barely paying attention, or you just misinterpreted things outright.
Let me state right now that this is not my kind of movie and I only agreed to see it because I was curious if the critical ratings were correct.
Well, they aren't. In fact, the audience score here on RT is a much more accurate representation of the quality of the film.
I don't care much for the preachy style of these movies, despite my being a Believer. However, I was surprised at how strong the cinematography and characterizations were. Although I would not buy this just for myself, I am not against recommending it.
Now to answer a few of your (non-)issues:
". . . to spend over 90 minutes proclaiming golf to be the greatest thing man has ever created . . . only to announce in the final seconds that, actually, golf isn't really that important . . . in a most maddening, ill-conceived finale."
You clearly missed the entire lesson of the film, or you would not think this. Neither does the film claim any such thing as you stated. Rather, it posits the idea that Golf can mean so much to a person that it becomes the most important thing in their life, and how these 'things' in our lives really aren't that important, because that's all they are (things). The ending is actually very clever (now that you made me think more about it), in how it twists itself into an irony for us, the audience. In fact, the ending makes perfect sense given what the majority of the film is about, though I agree that the website could have been left out.
"She and Luke start a romance so chaste that she might as well be a nun with a strict obedience to her vows . . ."
This is a clear sign that you have been conditioned to think of reality in terms of Hollywood standards. Are you actually complaining that a film of this type has no nudity or sexuality in it? No, I don't believe you are. Rather, you aren't used to guys and gals who behave in such a proper manner, especially on the big screen. In fact, you believe such behavior is far removed from reality, when the truth is that both realities exist and you are simply baffled by the latter (due to personal bias). In danger of shooting myself in the foot, I'll enlighten you with a completely plausible explanation for her behavior:
Knowing full well that he was there temporarily, she was hesitant to form strong emotional bonds that would surely cause her emotional complications and pain at his departure.
This clearly did not occur to you, which just goes to show how terrible you are as a critic.
"The movie is abundantly hokey in its presentation of down-home values. . ."
Actually, it isn't. Such 'hokey' values are commonplace among certain communities, though perhaps not where you live.
"while the way this potential suitor goes about fixing for a fight with Luke for simply looking at Sarah is artificial enough. . ."
Another unjustified criticism. It was clear in the scene that they were interested in each other and that he noticed.
(Look, Mark. I know that it's your job as a critic to be 'critical', but do you really have to go making things up in order to fulfill your perceived purpose?)
". . .the resolution to the tension between the two is just baffling. After a game of tossing washers into a hole in the ground, they suddenly become the best of buddies."
It's something called "no hard feelings", perhaps another concept that's alien to you. Not everyone carries a perpetual chip on their shoulder. He also may have been talked to, or realized that Luke would be leaving soon anyway.
Does everything that happens on screen have to be spoon fed for you to comprehend and accept it? Can you make it a little more obvious that you're just trolling for dirt?
"Then the movie takes a turn out in left field, as Johnny reveals his true intentions: to proselytize Luke to Christianity."
Again, Mark, all you do is reveal your own bias, while failing to understand the very film you are supposed to be critiquing. Johnny's clearly-made and primary intent is to give Luke a sense of perspective and self worth, to believe in himself irrespective of the game. This is a very spiritual film, so the fact that it is presented against a backdrop of spirituality and belief in God is almost inevitable. I don't recall Johnny ever mentioning the words 'Christ' or 'Christianity', so apart from wielding a Bible, what makes you think he was specifically trying to convert Luke to Christianity? Hmm?? Such strange ideas you have, Mark, really!
"It builds and builds until a final, determining putt. Then Seven Days in Utopia simply ends in neither victory nor defeat?only the collective sound of slapping foreheads."
Do you realize the incredible irony of this, your last statement? No, probably not.
The only people who might slap their foreheads are those who either didn't or couldn't get it. I'm guessing that you're one of them, though it
Sep 15 - 01:02 AM
I think you saw a different movie than I did. This was the biggest waste of 90 minutes i've ever seen.
And as a golfer, I am insulted by the movie and fee as though I was duped into watching this christian propaganda.
Apr 3 - 09:36 AM