Mo (Mublumm@aol.com) Many reviewers gushed about how this movie is a wonderful drama about coping after a loss. Sure it is, but that's not the point of the movie. It was clear when watching this film that it was one thing only: preachy propaganda. Now, I'm not judging the message of the preachy propaganda, just pointing out what this film is: One strong, loud message, which is so blaring that it scared people away from the box office. It wasn't an emotional fiction, it was 100% political commentary, and moviegoers can smell that a mile away and they usually don't like that. They want entertainment, not a sermon. Not only that, I further submit that John Cusak is an extremely intelligent person and knows exactly what he was doing by agreeing to take on this project. He knew the movie wouldn't do financially well but the message probably spoke to his beliefs. It's not an anti-war message in the literal sense. The point isn't "War is Bad." It's more of an anti-Bush's stupid notion to go into Iraq itself. It's mostly critiquing Bush's main reason of going into Iraq, namely "Ahm a war prezidunt." Most Americans realize now that Bush wanted to go into Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea for a campaign against evil without 1) understanding the true consequences of attempting it and 2) without the determination to stay hard when things get messy, which things did, which is why he never made it past Iraq. This movie's message is: "Hey, future presidential leaders! Please realize that when you make some tossed-out decision about "gowin' tawore" that you're sending real actual men and women who have lives, who have families, and there will be huge repercussions for each loss, every victim is a major tragedy, not just 'Oh, cool, we only lost 4 this week.'" I think the writer of this movie felt that this message was a necessary one to reach the hearts of every American because he probably believed that the Iraq war was a half-thought out plan that Bush decided on just because he felt like it. To make my theory more obvious, they even had a scene where Cheney or Rumsfeld or whomever was saying the rhetoric of 'if we don't continue our aggression it will be seen as a sign of weakness.' Liberals HATE that line of reasoning, which is why it's in here, to have viewers scream "That's why soldiers are dying?!" So, where do I stand? I definitely agree with the message of the film but at the same time, I had no idea I was signing up to join a rally for 90 minutes in watching a movie. The obviousness of the film's message was a bit eye rolling, that's all. And it therefore seems like a project or an after-school special for adults that only reached a handful of US audiences. I guess it's good to have it out there for the record. Perhaps it can even be shown in schools. Great, stellar acting by all, for what it's worth.

rddj05 I had assumed that the reason Grace Is Gone had done so poorly at the box office was because people did not want to see a film with a depressing premise in the middle of a massive recession, and a still-raging war. Now, after viewing, I realize that the low turnout was probably more due to the fact that it's simply not be a very good film. The movie starts out strong, but it's all downhill after the first 10 minutes. It moves at a glacial pace, the plot does not appear to be well thought out, the dialogue is pedestrian, the actions of the main character strain credibility, and there is not one remotely surprising moment in the entire film. Not to mention that it is shot in quite the banal fashion, with sloppy, clichéd camera setups, which don't do much for the visuals in the film. I'll take blatant sentimentality, (don't worry, there's some of that too), over complete boredom any day. I was surely not looking for car chases or gunfights, but simply something to hold my attention, which can be done with the simplest of stories. The director simply seems to lack experience or confidence in trying to tell the story in any other way than he imagined it when writing the script. And from script to screen is where an good idea turns into a great film.The script itself seems without focus and a bit amateur; the type that will occasionally win screen writing competitions, but will almost never make it to the big screen. I can only imagine that the main reason the film was even made was because it piqued the interest of its star, John Cusack. However, a great role (and Cusack is indeed quite good here), does not make up for a film that goes nowhere. There are whole scenes that could've been cut in half, but instead the actions, or lack thereof, of the characters are lingered on with a preciousness that those moments do not deserve. We all know that kids annoy each other and their parents. We don't need 20 shots of this. I can only imagine the disappointment of a couple, who paid for a babysitter and a night out at the movies, and was treated to the insipid, maudlin environment they could've seen by simply staying at home with their own kids. It's a subject matter that had a lot of potential and could've been quite the good film if handled more deftly.

ordebaru As a tearjerker, this is a good movie. Cusack and Shelan O'Keefe had good chemistry together.The best commentary on Cusack's acting is the small exchange in the car, when Heidi asked why their mom went to war. She asked why TV news say it's all a lie. Stanley says that they need faith, belief, and if they don't, then they've lost.First, even now, TV news don't say it's a lie. Commentators, late at night, yes; but not TV news.Second, ever see, on TV news, of North Koreans standing in a field affirming their faith in their Great Leader? Their country is falling apart, yet they truly believe in their leader. I guess that's what Stanley wants Americans to be: full of faith and belief in their leader, because if not then you're lost. Never mind the facts, never mind the truth, just believe.Cusack, as far as I know, is not a radical right-winger. So apparently Cusack wants to show us what kind of people are the war-enablers. Almost a throwaway scene, yet crucial in telling us the kind of person Stanley is.

Gordon-11 This film is about a father who has got no courage to tell his two daughters that their mother died on the battlefields of Iraq.Despite the slow pacing, I find "Grace Is Gone" rather captivating. The character development and portrayal are excellent. The father and the two daughters have different personalities. The father does unconventional and even irresponsible things to hide his grief. The elder daughter is mature and bright, and likes to do things right. The younger daughter is innocent, just like an eight year old ought to be. This remarkable contrast creates chemistry, making viewers interested in knowing what will happen next. The ending scene is painful and emotional, and yet not overdone or over-dramatic. I think "Grace Is Gone" is a good film to touch one's heart.