Mark Wahlberg gives faith-based filmmaking a (slightly) better name in Father Stu
Mark Wahlberg stars and produces this inspiring true story about a boxer-turned-priest
Film Reviews Father Stu
“Faith-based” is a movie qualifier that comes with a lot of baggage. Because this burgeoning sub-genre embraces what might be charitably described as simplistic storytelling, its entries risk baiting critics into grading on a curve. On the other hand, the themes and inner conviction these films explore encourage a certain knee-jerk dismissiveness and groupthink, which calls into question the supposed open-mindedness of critics and their ability to meet these works where they exist.
Father Stu is the latest faith-based big screen offering but, told with sensitivity, earnestness and no small amount of sly, rascally charm, it is first and foremost a sure-handed match of material and a movie star’s strengths. Starring Mark Wahlberg as a boxer-turned-priest, this based-on-a-true-story drama feels wholly lived-in, in part (though not exclusively) because of how capably it taps into the working-class appeal of its lead.
The story centers on Stuart Long, a journeyman amateur boxer in Montana whose family still lives, decades on, in the shadow of loss. The death of his older brother at only six years old ripped apart the marriage of his parents Kathleen (Jacki Weaver) and Bill (Mel Gibson), leaving Stuart estranged from the latter. With occupational prospects seemingly drying up, Stuart impulsively moves to Hollywood, where his father now lives, with dreams of becoming an actor.
When religiously devout Carmen (Teresa Ruiz) catches his eye, Stuart tracks her down at her church. There, feeling called to become a better man, he begins to pull back from the audition circuit, talk less with his fists, and nurture his spirituality. After a dramatic motorcycle accident, he even decides to become a priest. Eventually diagnosed with an incurable, progressively degenerative muscle disease, inclusion body myositis, Stuart must grapple with what he sees as God’s plan for him, and its impact on those he loves.
Father Stu isn’t a cynical play for demographic market share. Once it lands its character in a place of surrender and acceptance, it is, appropriately, utterly sincere about Stuart’s faith. It also melds its religiosity with a certain type of rugged individualism, however, in which simple doggedness is lionized as an attribute, and imbued with outsized virtue. This is, to be fair, a legitimized personality trait, consistent in everything from Stuart’s pursuit of seminary to his persistence in wooing Carmen.
But it’s here that, for some, a bit of discomfort might creep in. This approach is so often misinterpreted for and/or conflated with a “by-one’s-own-bootstraps” mentality (by creators and audiences alike). This is, in turn, used to justify a vision of Christianity in which everything from poverty to disease is something to be personally overcome, with an abdication of any shared social responsibility—or, indeed, the chance even existing for bettering the lives of those outside of our most immediate family and friends. To be clear, this isn’t what Father Stu is primarily selling. But it also doesn’t explicitly reject this, leaving the movie open to a blinkered interpretation.
This concern is mitigated, though, by both the film’s craftsmanship and its acting. Early on, Wahlberg (also a very hands-on producer on the project) pulls familiar levers of gruff, irreverent ambitiousness. But the quality of his performance and the film’s plainspoken charms eventually become more richly evident. They’re most cast into relief in a pair of well-delivered sermons, the latter in which a sick, self-effacing Stuart extols the benefits of suffering as the ultimate chance to be close to Christ. Ruiz (Narcos: Mexico) also gives a very good turn, breathing deep feeling into a role that, in far lesser hands, could have been construed as a wan variation on the “good Catholic Latina” archetype.
In her feature film debut, writer-director Rosalind Ross (Gibson’s real-life partner since 2014) delivers a likable work of easygoing proselytizing. In particular, her script taps into character details with a breezy economy; Stuart happily moving up one tiny station in life, for example, is captured in montage by him cooking and then eating steak out of a frying pan in an unfurnished apartment.
Ross also crafts two composite-type supporting characters — in fellow worshippers Ham (Aaron Moten) and Jacob (Cody Fern) — who serve to reflect the support and pushback toward Stuart’s chosen path; each are nicely fleshed out, and Jacob in particular is given a somewhat moving arc of his own. Most importantly, though, Ross knows her star’s voice quite well, and crafts scenes and dialogue which lean into his offscreen image as a forthright Everyman who still carries with him significant weight from a difficult adolescence.
Solid, non-flashy work from production designer David Meyer abets the movie’s blue-collar sensibilities. Meanwhile, a well-curated selection of songs from Glen Campbell, Loretta Lynn, Waylon Jennings, and Conway Twitty, among others, give Father Stu a further rooted sense of character, even if its score, from composer Dickon Hinchliffe, expresses dolefulness with all the aplomb of an anonymous, hastily grabbed condolence card.
In the end, Father Stu doesn’t necessarily locate or elevate any profundities about religious belief. But neither does it really reach hard and high for those. Instead, the movie concerns itself simply with telling the story of one man’s journey, and its impact on those around him, his family and community. Distilled, it is a fairly well-sketched portrait of self-care — spiritual, yes, but also psychological and physical — and the outwardly rippling effects of healing that can flow from that single choice.
85 Comments
Fuck Mark Wahlberg and his racist past, his insistence that he’d have personally stopped 9/11, his inclusion of an antisemite in a religious movie, and his creepy shift from racist underwear model to guy that wants to preach to you.This guy sucks and giving a film with the problems mentioned a B- also sucks
Also fuck Wahlburgers, that place sucks too
Everyone I know has a story about getting sick eating there
Must be convenient to be able to evaluate films simply by the actors in them and whether you totally agree with every message presented there. It saves you the trouble of watching anything that might not totally match your views.
It’s super convenient, actually. Plenty of stuff to watch (including some that challenges my views) without having to reward assholes.
“Must be convenient to be able to evaluate films simply by the actors in
them and whether you totally agree with every message presented there.
It saves you the trouble of watching anything that might not totally match your views.”I know you’re being snarky, but this is exactly how it works. My time is finite, and life’s too short to support bullshit. So yeah, if some actor wants to be a garbage fire of a human being, then that makes my life a whole lot easier.“bUt yoU’ll mIsS All tHis grEat aRT!”No I won’t.
My problem is that seemingly every comment thread here begins with “Fuck _____,” staking out one’s own righteousness for refusing to engage with something because one of its participants has offended in some way.
Your problem is people having opinions and expressing them? Good luck with that.
Listen buddy, don’t you know that his opinions and form of expression are unimpeachable but yours are an irredeemable garbage fire? Whaddya want, a map?
I saw the article was about a Mark Wahlberg film and knew the first comment thread would be about his past. That’s just how these things work.
The irony of mocking other peoples values as “righteousness” on a thread for a religious movie is pretty delicious. My values and beliefs (you know, the very shit religion cares about) tell me that supporting someone with a horrific past is wrong. It is just mind blowing to me that you can’t get that.
Wow. What a buffoonish fucking chump…
Dude, there is nothing in this to challenge anyone, about anything, ever.
“Must be convenient to be able to evaluate films simply by the actors in
them and whether you totally agree with every message presented there.”You must be a big Leni Riefenstahl fan.
Good art is never a matter of agreement or disagreement. Good art broadens our perspectives. This is not good art.
That’s a much better reason not to watch it than “Fuck Mark Walberg.”
Life is too short to watch obviously terrible films by obviously terrible people with obviously terrible messages
When those views are racist and anti-semitic, yeah. Grow up.
Must be convenient to ignore Wahlberg’s past behavior just because he’s doing a Fucking Faith-Based Thing.
I am far less inclined to like Walberg, or his movies, because he’s “doing a faith-based thing.”
What always cracks me up about Mark Wahlberg’s religiosity is that he claims to be this super devout Catholic who attends mass 5 times a week, even met his wife at church… and then it took him 6 years of fornicating, living in sin, and the births of 3 children before he married her.Like, do you just go to confession every week and seek forgivness for having unprotected sex with your model girlfriend and then it’s okay?
Catholics seek forgiveness for having protected sex.
The sick part is that I can actually hear you masturbating with one hand as you type this with the other.
9/11 never would have happened had I masturbated more, right?
Whatever you were trying with that… didn’t work.
Sure it did. You just lost the point in your attempt to diminish how loathsome Marky Mark is. I mean, the man said he would have been brave enough to stop 9/11, implying those on the planes were cowards.
Ah, since I’m not obsessed enough with Wahlburg to be able to reference his every utterance, I didn’t understand you.
Meh, still not funny.
You have very strong opinions about whether or not people should be allowed to think Marky Mark is an enormous scumbag and shouldn’t be preaching to us
Here’s the thing. I don’t give a fuck who preaches to me. I am a grown-ass adult who is not swayed because a fucking underwear model and the guy who was in a couple of cool action movies with Danny Glover tell me I’m doing it wrong.
Do your posts here really strike you as ones a “grown ass adult” that doesn’t care about the topic at hand would be making?
All I get out of this is that you so frequently eavesdrop on people who are masturbating that you can tell whether they’re using one or two hands just by the sound.
We all are experts about something. This is mine. Don’t judge.
Wahlberg is 50 years old, and engaged in racially-motivated violence when he was in his teens. Is it your view that people are incapable of change over a 35+ year period?
So he can’t change? I am not a big fan of his, but what has he done racist since then? He has been in movies with plenty of other minorities, Denzil Washington comes to mind, so are there stories we are not hearing? do you know something? Or is it that you don’t like him, so he is a racist forever?
You’d prefer he stay a racist underwear model?
I imagine lots of people who are not pure assholes who don’t necessarily have the luxury of choosing what they work on also worked on this. That said, I personally wouldn’t judge anyone that doesn’t want to watch the movie because of his involvement. That’s a legit choice to me. But maybe for other people who don’t view seeing the movie as a 100% endorsement of Walberg or imagine 100% of their ticket goes directly into his pockets may actually want to know the answer to this question: how good is this movie?
It’s a stupid shitty Christian movie made by stupid shitty people. How good do you think it will be?Currently a whopping 45 on Metacritic, btw…
And not forgetting:
writer-director Rosalind Ross (Gibson’s real-life partner since 2014)Because let’s all take a moral lesson from that person.
He looks like something you’d scrape off a shoe.
Uh-oh!
I wish someone would tell Johnny Depp that noted anti-Semite and crazy asshole Mel Gibson is in this, and continues to get work despite being an anti-Semitic crazy asshole, and that Depp should really just drop his defamation case before even more shit is made public about him in court, and just quietly slink off and enjoy his millions for a few years before Hollywood welcomes him back for Pirates of the Caribbean 5 or whatever turd he pulls out of his ass, because from the comments I’ve seen, he has a large and rabid fan base (one could almost call it a “cult”) that will support him no matter what.
Gibson’s career clearly took a big hit because of his unhinged, anti-Semitic behavior. He totally deserved it, but I think it’s a stretch to cite Gibson as evidence that these sort of scandals don’t negatively affect people’s careers, or that Depp need not worry about damage to his career from Heard’s accusations.
oh no that’s not what I’m saying at all—both of their careers absolutely suffered as a result of these allegations; Depp is right to worry about damage to his career; but damage has been done, I feel like a good PR person would gently remind him that that “bell can’t be unrung” with this lawsuit, and arguably he’s airing more dirty laundry that may worsen his situation. Ultimately, Depp and Gibson are super rich but their careers aren’t over, far from it in fact; don’t forget Depp’s “punishment” after this all hit the fan was to be kicked off the Grindelwald movie but not before collecting $16 million for 2 days of work.
I’d say a difference is that Gibson’s transgressions are at least (so he says) behind him and he’s attempted publicly to do better. Depp is still in real-time meltdown mode and no one knows how either the revelations from this lawsuit or future behavior are going to play out. Not to mention he’s transformed into a full-on weirdo. At this point you know what you have with Gibson. There’s more risk to casting Depp due to the simple uncertainty.
Not to mention he’s transformed into a full-on weirdoThat’s recent, bfred? Depp’s gone from an actor I didn’t care one way or the other about to (briefly) an actor I enjoyed watching to an actor who’s so in love with his weird makeup, mannerisms and schtick that I didn’t want to see anything he worked on long before he’d even met Amber Heard.
As for what’s currently going on? I’m not in any position to say….
Gibson is also a better actor than Depp IMO.Gibson is living proof of two things being true once. He is an absolute bigot, and anti-semite.He is also one of the 10, maybe even 5, best actors out there.
This is mostly financed by Wahlberg, and it getting distribution by Sony makes it only the second film Gibson has done apart from Daddy’s Home 2 also starring Wahlberg that a major studio has touched since Gibson took a nose dive.
Gibson made a lot of people a lot of money over the years. And I don’t ever recall Depp getting someone like Jodie Foster or Danny Glover to defend him.
I too had some discomfort creep in. But that’s with any movie Mark Wahlberg is in.
Faith-based films are usually not for me, but thanks Brent for reviewing this as a film first and foremost.I will say that the “own bootstraps” thing does carry a kernel of truth, in that it’s shorthand for forcing yourself to do the right things every day even if it feels like you’re going through the motions, with the hope that putting yourself in productive situations over and over will eventually result in positive outcomes. Not trying, or half-assing, is almost certainly not going to even offer that result. So the stories we hear about self-made people and their bootstraps are by definition coming from a self-selecting universe. Of course we also obviously do not hear from those to strived daily and didn’t succeed in any meaningful way, so YMMV.As for how that ties into religion, it’s a similar concept – ultimately drawing the motivation to press on is between you and your god.
“By your bootstrap” has nothing to do with trying to be a better person. Its a way to abdicate responsibility for your fellow man and encourage him to do it on his own so he doesn’t bother you with his needs. its anti-thetical to a judeo christian morality.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Not offering help to your fellow man is not the same thing as encouraging self-reliance and perseverance.
but that’s where the phrase “by your bootstraps” comes from. Impoverished people would always hear reach people saying, “get going and make something of yourself.” and the poor people would say “I’d would like me lifting myself up by my own bootstraps”You can’t pull your bootstraps to lift yourself up, it was a joke, sarcasm, irony. Then rich people who didn’t understand started using that phrase on poor people. Again as a way to abdicate responsibility for their fellow man. When Jesus pointed out the lady who gave her last coins it was to shame those who gave so little. Now you’d make a movie about a lady sacrificing her all, talk about her perserverance and never reflect.
Somebody is extremely clueless and gullible…
Brent Simon had a job to do, and that’s to review this movie on its own terms. In that respect, he’s done his job well enough. But beyond that, there’s also a responsibility to address a film outside the vacuum of its opening and closing credits. Who made it? What kind of people were in front of and behind the camera? How does who they are compare or contrast with the themes and messages of the movie? Considering the fact that two of its stars are known both for their Catholic faith as well as their very well-documented un-Christian behaviors, those behaviors are worth mentioning in the context of the film’s message. To put it bluntly: two assholes who are Catholic made a movie about how being Catholic makes you a good person. How the fuck are we supposed to take that shit seriously?
Wahlberg’s and Gibson’s unfortunate pasts aside, in general there’s nothing wrong with someone who has a characteristic making art that says that that characteristic’s great. You just take it with a grain of salt.That said, in this case, the two men are unredeemed garbage fires (I really like that phrase today) and I feel just fine not supporting their work. I realize they’re not the only ones who worked on the movie but as someone else put it above, 1) my time is finite and 2) there’s plenty of other art out there that deserves more attention.
Was someone making you?
It’s a movie about persistence in the face of an unforgiving world and finding acceptance via faith. I’m so impressed AV Club reviewed it on its own terms.
Should be noted that Gibson isn’t a standard Catholic, but a member of his father’s extremist sect who believed Jews were going to blow up Vatican City, among other hateful nonsense.
You see I’m a Roman Catholic I have been since the day I was born and the one thing to say about Catholics isThey’ll take you as soon as you’re warm you don’t have to be your 6-footer you don’t have to have a great brain( see Mark Wahlberg)
Oh, Britta’s Wahlberg’s Gibson’s in this?
Wow, it’s the perfect storm of something that is completely diametrically opposite of who I am as a person, what I believe in, what matters to me, and what interests me.Fuck Mel Gibson, fuck Marky Mark, and fuck faith based entertainment in general. And that last one is directly related to the first two.
Really sounds like you shouldn’t see it. Good news! You don’t have to.
I don’t plan on seeing it either, by the way. I just grow so weary of the, “I think I will hate this, so it shouldn’t exist” line of criticism.
Because the Catholic church is and has always been evil to its bone, there are only like two things I can deal with that have Catholicism as a major aspect. Fleabag and Midnight Mass come to mind, but that’s pretty much it. I don’t know that I really believe in evil as an actual thing, but the Catholic church could never, ever do enough good to justify its continued existence. Its assets should be liquidated and its leadership stripped of all power. Half those fucks need to be in prison, and all of them should be pariahs. It’s fucking crazy that anyone still wants to be associated with that hive of monsters
I tend to scoff at the notion of faith-based entertainment, but I realized there are a few entries I enjoy, mainly due to how honest and introspective they are, like:Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring
A Serious Man
Sufjan Stevens’s album Seven Swans (and also the final lines from “Casimir Pulaski Day”)
“Half a Mile a Day” by Johnny Cash
Ramy, especially season 2What these all have in common are none of them are preachy. They’re all about flawed people trying to be better and/or make sense of the world, even if (in Ramy’s case) they fail spectacularly.
Just wondering, why are people mad at Mark Wahlberg? He’s guilty of two horrible hate crimes well over three decades ago, when he was a teenager. No debate there. To my knowledge he’s completely disavowed his own behavior and nothing he’s done since remotely indicates he still thinks that way. I don’t make it my business to know much about Mark Wahlberg, so maybe I’m wrong. But are we actually just sitting here in our internet juices steaming about how terrible this guy was when he was in high school? Why?
He once implied he would have stopped one of the 9/11 planes if he’d been aboard. That rubbed people the wrong way, although I can’t imagine why. (said sarcastically)(This isn’t me saying he does or does not deserve to be hated, I’m submitting one possible answer to your question.)
Yes, well, that’s real dumb. Maybe he meant that Dirk Diggler could have defeated the terrorists with one swing of that mighty penis, plus a couple karate moves for presentation’s sake. Because that would be completely reasonable.
He also, iirc, said some pretty stupid things about Boogie Nights in retrospect.
that was a response to him being scheduled to be on the flight and then God intervened. He just said things might’ve been different. I believe he clarified those words but it’s not as if he’s saying it out of nowhere.
Yeah, I didn’t really make it clear in my post that I was saying this is the impression people got, like most things like this I’m sure contextually it’s not as bad as the way it goes around. It still feels like a “thar be dragons” thing to say – even if his exact words are “it might have been different”. I don’t feel strongly enough about any of this to bother looking.
If Daniel Lewin, co-founder of Akamai technologies and a former Israeli special forces member who was in the business class section of one of the planes was unable to stop them (unfortunately they were seated in front of and behind him probably dooming him from the beginning), this actor who was none of things definitely could never have.
He didn’t apologize to any of the victims of his racist assaults until the mid 2010s when he was coincidentally trying to get a pardon so he could get a liquor license in California. Even then, it was only one of them. He also has said that he’s done enough for god’s forgiveness so he doesn’t have to tell anyone he’s sorry.
OK. Generally speaking the perpetrators of stuff like that don’t apologize to their victims. Not necessarily because they aren’t sorry or don’t care, but because doing so is often rightly seen as self-serving and, besides, do you really want to hear from the asshole who bullied you in fourth grade? Sometimes it’s just best everyone move on. It’s also notable he never followed through on the pardon and says he regrets pursuing it. I also don’t blame anyone for wanting something like that off their record. It’s a shitty thing to live with even if you’ve got resources. Please don’t interpret this as me being attached to the idea that Marky Mark is an A-1 dude, I just think our self-righteousness gets a little arbitrary sometimes.
I don’t take it as self righteousness, and his victims probably would have let things lie if he hadn’t attempted to get a pardon – a literal absolution of his crimes – without giving them a second thought. But they were not happy in the press at the time. I mean, the guy’s a bag of shit, and for me it’s not arbitrary.
I’m sure he’s a bag of shit, I just don’t think a 50 year old is a bag of shit for something they did as a minor. Asking for a court to reconsider the lifelong impacts of a juvenile offense isn’t necessarily about not caring, it’s about moving on. To be clear, I work in public defense so my reasons for piping up about Mark Wahlberg have nothing to do with Mark Whahlberg. I’m happy to be wrong about him, but I’ve seen enough middle aged people who have had their shit ruined for life because of some terrible mistake early on when they had literally, physically a different brain. Granted, none of them were wealthy movie stars so maybe I’m the arbitrary one. But rhetoric around high profile stuff can trickle down to how we think about criminal justice for we the plebs, and I guess it’s just instinct to push back on that.
There has never been a problem in history for which human sacrifice was the answer
Even review judging film based on it’s merits. Comments: fuckkkkkkkk this!
mel gibson can go fuck himself. i become physically ill when i see his fucking face.
And just like that, the reviewer had already lost any and all credibility whatsoever….
The usual consumers of faith-based films (evangelical protestants) won’t touch this one. They are taught Catholics aren’t true Christians and are going to hell.Looks enjoyable for the most part, but I’m assuming the studio shot itself in both feet until I see the box office returns.
Wahlberg and Gibson huh?
I don’t think its a good idea to compare this movie, put out by Sony Pictures in the same category as Made for Tubi level drek coming from PureFlix and the like. Catholic religiousity on film tends to be a bit less offensive/irritating than the Fundamentalist crap coming from most films described as “Faith based”. Generally not going for demonization of “others” like the Protestant variety. Its also clear there is a level of budget, writing and professional production here that PureFlix stuff generally lacks.
I’m not particularly interesting in seeing this, nor am I a fan of Wahlberg or Gibson but I wonder where the people who reject and bitch about the movie out of hand would have stood a generation ago when people were angrily refusing to watch Jane Fonda movies and bitching about them. Or, to extend things a little, destroying Dixie Chicks records? If you expect perfection from your artists, you will never see, read, or hear anything again.