So much average

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

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.

I happened to see this at my local library and, generally liking John Cusack even in lesser properties (really, "2012" takes the big-dumb-blockbuster movie template to a ridiculous level, but it's still watchable in part because of oddballs like Cusack and Woody H.), thought I'd give it a try even though it sounded a tad more somber than what I was in the mood for. I'm glad I watched it. I like 'road movies,' anyway, and this one is built around that classic structure, but there's a lot more said in this film than is actually SAID.A perusal of comments regarding this film reveals the not surprising ability of _Moron americanus_ to totally miss the point, in this case that group being divided about equally into people who bemoan the fact that every facet of the film was not laid out for them and explained at length, undoubtedly using small words, and those who in true knee-jerk manner decry the whole as 'liberal' propaganda or anti-American, whatever THAT is supposed to mean in today's USA. The first criticism stems, I think, from the film being one that includes some relatively subtle and quite realistic (i.e., not always making narrative sense) aspects to the storyline and the characters' journeys. The second criticism is, predictably, totally off target. This film has no political agenda, at least not one that's going to hit any sane person over the head. The main character's brother gets in a few jibes about the Bush Jr maladministration but he's not without flaws himself and his more hawkish, neocon-enabling brother is similarly not devoid of sense or perspective. The actor and citizen John Cusack IS one of the people who, like me, sees the whole Iraq fiasco as not just flawed from the start but massively criminal (not at the level of those sent abroad to prosecute the war but at the level of the chickenhawks in DC and elsewhere who blithely sent them) but, to his and the film's credit, his character in this piece does not have some sudden epiphany at film's end and start wearing Birkenstocks and sipping lattes.The bottom line, to my mind, is that in this film the tragedy at the story's core happens to be one with military context but that, when it comes down to it, the very touching and well-presented (cutting to the music was a good touch) beach scene near the end could be ANY situation wherein a parent is telling his or her children that the other parent has died. That's what I felt, anyway, that the film was far more universally relevant and that particular scene universally applicable; to me, that's what made it even more sad, thinking of how many millions of people over the years, around the world, have had moments like that.The acting is perfect. The two kids are excellent in what, so far, remains the sole film role for each. John Cusack is great, too, not only playing against type to a degree but playing his part completely convincingly. And when I saw the music was by Clint Eastwood I, of course, immediately wondered "THE Clint Eastwood?" -- his music is fitting and used very effectively. A talented man, is old Clint.

Anytime a word like "grace" appears in a movie's title, it's time to set your pun-detector on high alert. In the case of "Grace is Gone," the word refers, on a literal level, to a woman named Grace who is killed while fighting in Iraq, and, on a figurative level, to the loss of innocence and hope suffered by the husband (John Cusack) and two young daughters she leaves behind.When Stanley Phillips (John Cusack) receives the devastating news, he decides not to tell the girls (Shelan O'Keefe, Gracie Bednarkczyk) right away, choosing instead to take them on a road trip from their home in Minnesota to a favorite amusement park in Florida, as a means of delaying the inevitable for himself as well as giving them one last happy memory before delivering the life-shattering blow. On the way, they meet various people - including Stanley's liberal, antiwar brother (well-played by Alessandro Nivola) - but basically it's a story of this one family's heartbreaking odyssey into gut-wrenching knowledge, an odyssey too many families are forced to take in a time of war.James C. Strouse's "Grace is Gone" is a very short (82 minutes), very low-keyed look at how certain individuals cope with tragedy. Many, like Stanley, refuse even to accept the reality of their loss and hope to postpone the day of reckoning as long as possible. However, Stanley, who's ex-military himself, also has to confront the tremendous guilt he feels for having supported not only Grace's choice to serve in Iraq but the Republican policies that led to the war in the first place. Stanley is faced with having to do something no father should ever have to do, and for the time being, he is being forced to hide the truth from not only an exuberant 8-year-old (Dawn) but a far more perceptive 12-year-old (Heidi), who is caught in that unique moment between the naivete of childhood and the knowingness that comes with growing up. She can sense that something's "up," based on her father's slightly off-kilter behavior, but she can't quite put her finger on what it is. Indeed, the conversations between Stanley and Heidi - wherein they wind up communicating far more than just what they say with their words - are the best things in the movie.And there simply aren't adjectives adequate to describe the miraculous performances of Cusack, O'Keefe and Bednarkczyk in the principal roles. This is an "actors' picture" if ever there was one, and these three extraordinary individuals prove themselves more than equal to the enormously challenging task they've been called upon to do.With its spare settings, self-effacing direction and heartfelt emotions, this is a beautifully understated and moving work that drives home with shattering force the simple truth - one we are all too prone to forget - that not all of war's casualties occur on the battlefield.

This is a moving story of a man whose wife, a soldier, is killed in Iraq, and the almost unbearable task placed on him to tell his two daughters, aged 9 and 12, the terrible news. John Cusack played the part of the of the husband of the dead wife, and father of the girls, superbly. I tried to put myself in his position, having to break the news of their mother's death to the two youngsters, and it almost brought me to tears, as the end of the movie actually did.This movie is a fitting tribute to the young Americans who fight and sometimes die for the country and for the families of those who wait for their return; when sometimes the waiting is in vain.Whether the war is a just or unjust war or whether it's useless debacle, young men and women die whilst fulfilling what is, in their mind, their duty. The validity of the war detracts nothing from their heroism.