Christmas with a Capital C

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.

Most offensive piece of crap I've ever seen. Why didn't they just cast the Palin family and call it a day. Some of My favorite lines..."what we have to include all religions now! A menorah and whatever symbol Kwanzaa has.." and "98% of America is Christian so I will continue to say merry Christmas"

I loved Baldwin's character and couldn't agree with his viewpoints more...turns out he is the scrooge character because he does not want to be MADE to celebrate Christmas.

This movie makes an ass out of itself, the actors in the film, and Christians in general. Terrible acting...terrible story...and terribly offensive.

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.

What in the name of cheez-its were they thinking? You have to be trying to make a movie this bad. But the fact that some people like this movie is interesting to say the least. In this garbage, an atheist guy comes back to his old town and tries to "ruin" Christmas for his old high school rival . His plan? Take down the nativity scene in front of the church for some reason. Quick question... why does he still have a grudge? It's been probably many years since they were in high school, just get over it dude. Throughout this movie, he continues to jump the shark. Heck, he even calls the police because a 6 year-old was singing in town. This caused me to laugh harder than ever before, I swear this dumb movie makes zero sense. Spoilers I guess ahead, but who even cares? In the end the town feels bad for him and line up at his house and burn it down. The End. Jk, they instead help him by giving him goods. Heh? Didn't see that comin'. And so, the huge bully is stopped because of love, cool, whatever. If you like this, whatever, it just makes me cringe.

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.