A few people have wondered what I thought about the movie “Bella” (especially after I linked to Barbara Nicolosi’s less-than-enthusiastic post a couple weeks back). Well, frankly, my weekends have been nuts lately, and it’s been hard to find the time to indulge in the luxury of movie-going. But last weekend, I finally got to see it.

Overall, I liked it. Is it great? No. Some of the writing is awkward and forced, and the plot (what there is of it) starts to peter out after an hour, and the central relationship between the chef and the waitress isn’t entirely plausible. You’re led to think early on that he might be the father, but their friendship is so chaste and un-physical, I almost wondered if he was gay. (But then, as if to deflect that, they tossed in a fleeting appearance by an old girlfriend. Problem solved.) The performances are uniformly excellent. And in the end, the sense of uplift is palpable and well-earned. Parts of it are very affecting and touching.

What surprised me the most: it is not a preachy pro-life movie, as much as it is a pro-living movie. It is about connectedness. It is about being present for another. It’s about listening. It’s about dealing with the broken-ness we all have to live with, and moving beyond it. It doesn’t slam you over the head with its message, but just lets it grow on you. I appreciated that.

Amy Welborn saw it this weekend, too, and had a similar reaction:

It was a small film with some awkwardness and amateurishness about it, but worth seeing. I think young people would enjoy it and be moved by it. It’s not the greatest film ever made and has been overhyped in some quarters in that sense, but by no means is it a total hack job unworthy of anyone’s time, either.

That about sums it up.