It is a shame Mr. Church did not do big box office, because it was a really good film. Critics panned it but audiences mostly gave it thumbs up. Why is that? I get it is bit predictable, but repugnant? That is some strong language. Did they watch a different film. This is an example of how critics often get it wrong and often are complete and utter asshats.
In this case the critics focus on that Mr. Church is black and the mother and daughter he cares for are white (the movie is loosely based on writer Susan McMartin's own family story). They are also out to attack the director Bruce Beresford (who previous work includes Driving Miss Daisy). The critics are bringing their own racial and identity politic baggage into their reviews. If you take away the racial difference, or flipped it, would the story still be repugnant to them? Of course not. Ignore the critics.
This film was originally going to star Samuel L. Jackson (he optioned the rights) but he ended up not being able to do it due to scheduling conflicts. Eddie Murphy read the script, love it, and agreed to do it a reduced rate.
If you want a decent movie to rent or stream, this is an excellent choice.Rule 5 and FMJRA
Wombat: Twitchy: Dana Loesch’s Shirt Wins International Womens’ Day and The Jawa Report: Trump’s Speech To Joint Session Of Landsraad