First let me tell you what not to do. Do NOT criticize a romance movie for a predictable plot or an inevitably happy ending. The genre requires either said happy ending (Nora Ephron) or a melodramatically weepy romantically tragic ending (Nicholas Sparks). A movie critic who complains about the plot being predictable or the ending being happy is kin to the moron who complains that comic book movies like Iron Man 2 or Spider Man 3 lack character development or war movies like Saving Private Ryan are too violent. Failure to grasp fundamental concepts underlying the genre inform us as consumers that the reviewer is an idiot and should not be taken seriously.

I have long been of the opinion that most movie critics are so jaded from extended time in the cinema that they are no longer good for much more than critiques of the artsy and off-beat movies. One will get a much stronger sense of a movies appeal by going to a site like Flixup! that aggregates the favorable versus unfavorable tweets on Twitter about a specific movie. You already know whether you like action, romance, fantasy, comic book, cop or whatever type of movie. That is why you are thinking about going to see a specific flick. The best indicator of whether one will enjoy that movie is what other people drawn to the same genre thought of it.

Now, if a critic can clear this admittedly low hurdle, perhaps better characterized as a trip hazard, he or she can turn his consideration to the criteria about which lovers of chick flicks actually care.

1. Chemistry. We viewers must buy that there is chemistry between the protagonists. Think Bogie and Bacall in To Have or Have Not (1944). That was lightning and the movie is a justified classic. Please give us at least a spark.

2. Engaging characters. Humphrey Bogart, Martin Clunes, and Jack Black are not handsome men but they portray characters that engage us, focus our attention. We become involved in what happens to them. The characters can be good (William in William and Mary) or bad or, best of all, a basically good guy who has lost his way and is saved by the love of a good woman. We don’t care so much as long as they themselves have that charisma that connects us with their experience.

Too many movies miss the importance of strong character actors. They add depth of field to the cinemascape. Would Casablanca be the same if Rick walked away from the airport alone instead of with Victor Lazlo? I think not.

If one has chemistry between engaging characters it is pretty hard to disappoint us as an audience. But we do want more.

3. Intelligent writing. Now, there are those who think that there is no such thing as an intelligently written romance. I’d like to introduce you to Nora Ephron and Dorothy Sayers and this dude named Shakespeare.

4. Aesthetics. To the romantically inclined, aesthetics are extraordinarily important. A romance movie without aesthetics is like an action movie without a car chase or an explosion.

4a. Beautiful people. No where near as important as being engaging, but we do want beautiful people. Even if one protagonist is as engaging as Bogart you better deliver up a beautiful Bacall-ish character for counterbalance. Ingrid Bergman would do nicely.

Now some movies try to overcompensate. Let me just say that you could cast all the models from the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition and put them in a movie and it will not compensate for a shortfall in the area of chemistry, charisma, and intelligence. You might sell tickets of course, but not to the chick flick crowd. On the other hand, I think it is a mistake to have all character actors and no one who is easy on the eyes. Give me Jack Black, please, but be sure to serve up a little Kate Winslet on the side.

4b. Dish racks. In our family we talk about dish rack movies. My sister paused a movie and went back to inspect a beautiful dish rack on the set. Then she did it again . . . and again. My nephew calls movies with great sets “dish rack movies” and now so do we. What would Friends be without the coffee shop?

The other 4b. Scenery. It can be the skyscrapers of New York or vistas of Tuscany but romance fans want beautiful scenery. The corollary to this is that cinematography is critical to this genre. One cannot stint on production value in the romance genre. The scenery and scenes must be beautifully framed, lit, and shot. Don’t bother spending the money to go to Greece if you don’t spend the money to bring the proper artisans with you. (I’m looking at you My Life in Ruins.) Positive examples of this are You’ve Got Mail and A Good Year.

Now, frankly, if a movie gets these first four bits right they can pack up and go home. They are done. But there is room for more.

5. Humor. Comedy is an art unto itself. When a movie allows us to identify with a character to the point where we see ourselves doing what they are doing and in laughing at them can laugh at ourselves, it has taken us to a higher level. Think Tom Hanks getting romantic advice from Rob Reiner in Sleepless in Seattle.

6. Sensuality. Sex and sexy are not necessarily the same thing. A movie is probably more likely to be sexy without sex than with it. But it needs to give a nod to the fact that there is a sensual aspect to romance. This is the thinnest of tight ropes. Lean this way too far and the movie becomes cheapened. Sensuality must be an aspect of a relationship without ever becoming the focus of the relationship. Thumping up against walls and knocking dishes off of tables is to be avoided. Do we want cleavage and bounce, six pack abs, tight buns, and toned muscles? Are you kidding me? Just don’t use them to compensate for short falls in the fundamental areas. Don’t throw sex on top of the story. Weave sensuality into the story. Gratuitous no. Integral yes. See point 3.

7. Take us into a world we’ve never known. If we come away from a movie knowing more about what it means to be a race horse trainer or a diamond importer or a tech worker in Mumbai we give the movie bonus points. If we are intimate with a corner of the globe with which we were previously unfamiliar – bonus points. See point 3.

It is actually quite easy for a romance movie to be bad. But it isn’t bad because the plot was predictable or the ending was happy. Those criticisms say more about the reviewer than the movie. But for a movie that pulls together the seven pillars of chick flick excellence, the Flixup! meter will go off the charts. The review that will help me will tell me how the reviewer believes the movie performed with respect to the criteria we chick flick lovers care about.

P.S. I am not the Tom Long who does movie reviews for the Detroit News and he should not be blamed for anything said herein.

Recently, I was asked off line whether I was viewing the ports of our travels through rose colored glasses. This question arose from my positive review of Miami. Well, strike the pose of Rodin’s Thinker, boys and girls (or click here for some mindless YouTube entertainment), we’re going in.

More tragic than a fallen angel, we are fallen bearers of the image of a glorious God. This is the dilemma of man as written about in Reinhold Niebuhr’s book, The Nature and Destiny of Man. Let us call this dilemma ‘ying.’ Where then is the ‘yang’? The yang is in the mystery of God’s judgment and grace. God judges evil and offers grace (through the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ) to fallen image bearers.

This is the theological truth underlying the dark and glorious mystery of our world and our lives. Whether we look at history or the present day, there should be no doubt that evil is real: holocaust, hunger, pollution, oppression, repression, ignorance, hate, laziness, gluttony, insensitivity, selfishness. Why do our languages have words for these things? Because we needed to describe what we see outside ourselves. Perhaps even more depressing, is that we can see dark shadows in ourselves as well.

But there are other words: love, laughter, compassion, creativity, rescue, sacrifice, forgiveness, support, friendship, family. We need words like these because this, too, is a part of our experience.

Some of us, in the arc of our passage through temporal space, will focus on the world’s evil and/or God’s judgment. I have liberal friends who see the world as a bunch of haters seeking to bring pain into the lives of gays, illegal immigrants, AIDS victims, etc. I have conservative friends who see the world as a bunch of illegal immigrants taking their money, gays taking their institutions, and socialists seeking to change our form of government. I listened to a speech by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. this week. He sees the world as oppressed by evil tobacco and carbon fuel companies. If this is our focus, our passage will be marked with an angry pursuit of judgment on the evil observed.

Others of us, focus on the world’s glories and God’s grace. I have liberal friends who focus on positive service to the world’s oppressed and victimized. They find joy in partnering with persons and agencies who share their active compassionate perspective. Instead of focusing on evil over-consumers taking resources from the have-nots, they focus on serving the have-nots. I know conservatives who provide half way house services to girls seeking an alternative to abortion or ex-cons looking for a fresh start. They see the potential in people others are too busy judging.

Remember the story of the old man pulling weeds in the flower bed first seen as visitors entered his town? A family pulls up and the husband asks, “What kind of people are there in this town? My family is looking for a place to live.”

“What kind of people were there where you came from?”, the old man asked.

“A bunch of selfish, thieving bums,” said the visitor.

“That’s just the way we are here,” the old man replied and the family drove on.

A second family pulled up, and this time the wife asked, “What kind of people are there in this town? My family is looking for a place to live.”

“What kind of people were there where you came from?”, the old man asked.

“They were always complaining but never doing anything to make things better. That’s why we’re moving.”

“That’s just the way we are here,” the old man replied and the family drove on.

A third family pulled up. A little girl from the back seat asked the old man, “What kind of people are there in this town? My family is looking for a place to live.”

“What kind of people were there where you came from?”, the old man asked.

“They were the kindest,” said her brother. “Always willing to help out when we needed it”, said the mother. “Really hardworking and honest,” said the father.

“That’s just the way we are here,” the old man replied, “Welcome to your new home.”

The world is woven in fibers both dark and light. We cannot choose our world. Objectively, it is what it is. We are given a choice as to what aspect of our world will receive our focus. In choosing our focus, we choose our experience in this world. This is the power of subjectivity.

I remember the lecturer in my Introduction to Psychology course asking us all to be quiet and then describe what we heard. One of the things we heard was the traffic going by outside of Ogleby Hall. He then pointed out that the sound of traffic had been there while he was lecturing and asked whether we had noticed. We had not. He explained that this was an example of selectivity. The brain filters stimuli to enable it to optimize its processing of that upon which we are focused.

The nature of our focus in our travels will be the same as we have in our own neighborhoods. Of course I realize that our half full glass may at times appear to us to be half empty (or vice versa). There will be times in our lives when, objectively speaking, the glass is pretty low or is nearly so full that it overflows. But our focus over time becomes a characteristic of who we are.

The world is what the world is. The question is who we are and what we bring into the world. How we see things at home will set the tone for how we see things in our travels. Like those families looking for a home in the story above we take our subjective perspectives with us into the world.

I am not unaware of the dark shadows. But I try, as far I am able, to focus on the positive aspects of the people and places we visit. So, what color are your shades – and as Dr. Phil would say, “How’s that working for you?”

I like to think of myself as a strong man.  I have to admit that in my youth this was not so much the case.  But even a grown man can be weakened by temptations as enticing as some left lying about my childhood home.  Louis L’Amour, Agathie Christie, Rex Stout, and, most dangerously, John D. MacDonald.  But as I attained manhood I seldom succumbed to more than the mildest of geeky debauchery as I obsessively pursued some technological project or another.

I certainly was not tempted by, indeed felt pity for the less stout who, like my mother, could not resist the Brit-coms.  I did not feel the least pull though my Mum repeatedly and carelessly exposed me to them.  So I was of this cocky mindset when Mother very irresponsibly exposed me to Doc Martin.  Oh, I know what you’re thinking.  What can be so dangerous about a misanthropic G.P. played by Martin “Dumbo” Clunes and a head mistress played by Caroline “Bucky the Beaver” Catz?

Well, plunk them down in the fictitious village of Portwenn (the only truly beautiful character in the series), sprinkle a bit of the best screenplays ever written on top, stir in chemistry between the protagonists that threatens to melt my plasma screen, and you’ve got a batch of television crack that will addict the very strongest of men.  To say that one enjoys viewing Doc Martin is like saying  one enjoys popping into the pub on the way home for a quick line of coke.  If you are, like myself, a Johnny-come-lately to the Doc Martin party you will find yourself passing up the movie theater on your day off to stay home and watch “just one more” episode.  And, yes, you will subsequently find yourself rubbing your reddened sleep-deprived eyes and straining to see what happens next in the evolution of a romance whose force quite frankly makes Romeo and Juliet look like nothing more than a spat of puppy love.

Oh, it can’t really be that good?  Go ahead.  Sneer and condescend in your ignorance.  Being a compassionate and moral man I won’t say, “Watch an episode or two and see how you end up.”  After all, that would be mean, knowing as I do what havoc this addiction has wrought in my life.

I don’t like being the one to cast my mother in such a bad light, but I’m sure she would be the first to admit that I’ve got it right.  I have to stop writing now.  It’s four fifteen a.m. and I’m feeling fresh enough to dive in to series four.

There now.  You’ve been duly warned.