Everyone can relate, to some extent, with Bridget’s frustrations. So singles and couples alike are packing the cinemas to see Bridget Jones’s Diary, making it the biggest romantic comedy of the year. Diary was a bestseller by British author Helen Fielding before it became a movie, and Bridget has become something of a national hero in England. Thus it was with some protest that the news came: Sharon Maguire would direct Renee Zellweger, an American, in the role of this courageous romantic adventurer.
Surprise. Critics—including Brits who treasure the book—are delighted with Zellweger’s performance. Audiences are loving it. But reviewers in the religious media, while also impressed with much of the film, are arguing that Bridget’s self-confident march into a life of hasty sex is not something to applaud. Perhaps dating is not the cure-all for loneliness and insecurity.
In discussing the film on the OnFilm e-mail discussion list, Peter Chattaway observes that the movie deteriorates into a familiar “ping pong game”—which guy will Bridget end up with? “Thing is,” he writes, “neither of the men she’s attracted to is exactly unattached. I find it hard, personally, to root for Bridget’s relationship with the ‘good’ guy if it means splitting up his relationship with another woman.” The Phantom Tollbooth‘s J. Robert Parks writes, “The movie has no room for the possibility that Bridget might not need a husband. In that sense, the film fits into the post-feminist climate dominating Hollywood today. Bridget is a largely unhappy character who can only envision happiness with a strong man in her bed. She obsesses about her weight and makes ever-more humiliating overtures to the men in her life.” Bridget’s embarrassing attempts to overcome her insecurities brought MovieParables‘ critic Michael Elliott to consider a different response to a poor self image: “It is clear that Bridget’s bravado is a façade. Underneath her showy exterior is a mass of insecurities. Every embarrassing moment serves to reinforce the critical view she has of herself. This is a highly human tendency and one that is commonly shared. This is why we should take the time to ‘step out of our skin’ every so often and look at ourselves as God sees us.”
Preview‘s Web site posts many objections to the film, including that it is “filled with vulgar jokes and crude comments. And premarital sex is implied a few times as acceptable behavior.” Movieguide similarly laments, “Bridget Jones’s Diary is a charming, warm-hearted, funny romantic comedy spoiled by plenty of strong foul language and some immoral sexual situations.” The U.S. Catholic Conference adds, “Its atmosphere of promiscuity is troublesome.”
Nevertheless, these writers agree that Zellweger’s performance is a revelation, and that there are a lot of laughs to be had. “Witty dialogue and an appealing cast … help to overcome one-dimensional characterizations and a predictably structured plot,” says the Catholic Conference. And Movieguide claims, “Ms. Zellweger breathes life into what is already a sympathetic character.” J. Robert Parks also praises the actress: “Her winning personality helps soften the film’s hard edges and keeps you rooting for her despite the paucity of choices the movie gives her.” He calls co-star Hugh Grant “genuinely hilarious. Every scene he’s in is delightful.” “Hugh Grant has never been better,” agrees Elliott. “Despicably charming, good looking and witty, Grant just ought to change his name to Cary, the comparisons are that obvious.”
Most mainstream critics were not bothered by the character’s attempt to find self-worth through romantic conquest. They seemed more preoccupied with whether or not the movie botched the book’s unique storytelling style. “Glory be, they didn’t muck it up,” exclaims Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times. “Bridget Jones’s Diary has been made against all odds into a funny movie that understands the charm of the original, and preserves it.” Anthony Lane at The New Yorker says the film starts out strong but then, “the director and her screenwriters give up on the choppy, staccato attitude of the original and settle into the more comfortable, dozy rhythms of the romantic comedy: will-she, won’t-she; win-one, lose-one. Somewhere along the way, [the film] has lost its sardonic bite, its grind of comic desperation, and softened into entertaining mush.” He concludes, “It should therefore do solid business.”
Hot from the Oven
Josie and the Pussycats also opened this week, and it looks like the band will be a one-hit wonder. Perhaps you remember the characters—they made their first appearance in Archie-era comics. The movie, from writer-directors Deborah Kaplan and Harry Elfont, sticks to an upbeat, wafer-thin style, with a trio of vigorous teenage girls navigating the perilous road to fame and fortune as pop stars.“The jokes in this satirical comedy bomb so frequently, the actors should receive hazard pay,” says MovieParables‘ Michael Elliott. He notes the film’s attempts to lampoon the rock music industry, the commercialization of its stars, and the marketing of products that goes on in promoting popular artists. In conclusion, he writes, “Someone really ought to make a movie to humorously skewer both of these subjects. … Josie and the Pussycats just isn’t up to it.” Movieguide complains that, although the film deals with “positive virtues,” overall it “has a tacky feel.” Most mainstream critics sounded like watching the film was a chore. Roger Ebert wrote, “Maybe it’s supposed to sound like brainless pre-teen fodder, but it’s not good enough at being bad to be funny, and stops merely at the bad stage.”
But at Crosswalk, Phil Boatwright takes a stand defending the film. “I actually had a good time with Josie and the Pussycats. They made me laugh. I was pleased to find that the lead ladies were more about doing the right thing than extolling girl power. There’s no heavy message in this comic adventure, other than friendship being more important than financial gain. It’s just family-friendly fluff.” The reviewer at Preview agrees: “Pussycats is a fun, funny and lively experience aimed at teenagers. But there’s nothing subliminal about the messages. Josie, Melody, and Val learn the importance of friendship and being honest about who you are.” (The unnamed reviewer cautions parents, however, that the Pussycats’ costumes “leave little to the imagination.”) The U.S. Catholic Conference says the film is “silly fun as well as a snapshot of today’s pop culture.”
* * *
Joe Dirt is the invention of comedian David Spade and the latest in the long line of goofy characters paraded onto the big screen by Saturday Night Live alumni in hopes of creating a franchise. As we have seen with such disposable comedies as A Night at the Roxbury, The Ladies’ Man, and Superstar, this rarely works. And Spade’s Joe, a persecuted redneck janitor, doesn’t look to be one that makes as big a splash as the inventions of Mike Meyers or Adam Sandler.
Movieguide reports the film has “a lot of stupid, sometimes gross and offensive, humor.” Reviewer Ted Baehr concludes, “Joe Dirt has more than enough sleazy moments not to recommend it.” Preview‘s summary is not impressed with the film either: “David Spade seems to have difficulty carrying the comedic load alone.” Their critic adds, however, that the film “does touch upon the importance of parents in a child’s life, even after they’ve grown. And children need the security that comes with belonging to a family.”
Digging a little deeper, Focus on the Family‘s Steven Issac observes, “Joe’s positivity in the face of adversity regales all common sense and reason. On one level it’s just plain silly. On another, it’s a great moral lesson for despondent teens. Joe’s quest to find his parents leads him on a crazy journey around the country. It also leads moviegoers to a singular truth: Parents serve more than a biological function. They can make or break a young person’s life by how they act, how they think and how they raise—or don’t raise—their kids.” Despite its simple moral, Issac concludes, “A few feel-good moral lessons are never reason enough to wallow in Spade’s sorry brand of humor—on TV or at the movies.”
MovieParables‘ Michael Elliott also finds some value in the film. “Not only does it have structural merit, it has a few decent performances and a worthwhile message at its heart.” He says David Spade gives “a sweet and endearing performance as a white trash loser with a good soul. His continual upbeat attitude in the face of all the negative reactions thrown his way is the very thing that changes the people’s reactions to him. This is a lesson that is a worthy one to learn. It’s just a shame that the filmmakers chose for Joe to suffer through such ridiculous and distasteful situations just to make their point.”
* * *
Kingdom Come introduces us to the Slocum family, a large cast of characters brought together for a funeral. There they learn a lot about life, love, and friendship. Matters of faith are discussed quite naturally, considering the circumstances. But reviewers seemed to agree that the comedy stays on shallow ground.
The critic at Preview highlights some of the film’s unusual virtues: “Most of the characters show respect for the church and believe in God. The main message about embracing family and friends before it’s too late is well presented.” But the review claims that the film affirms a Universalist philosophy of salvation, and that it never really succeeds at becoming either “outrageous comedy” or “heart-tugging drama.”
The Phantom Tollbooth‘s J. Robert Parks notes that the movie “is happy to coast on … good feelings” and he compliments the performances of Anthony Anderson and Vivica A. Fox. In spite of this, Parks says Kingdom Come—based on a play—has been simplified to please a typical moviegoing audience: “The subtleties of character have been replaced by the broad outlines of caricature. So we have the good-natured but rather pathetic preacher who not only talks with a lisp but is prone to bouts of indigestion, we get the classic brassy mother and her put-upon son, and we have the wife who milks her husband’s infidelity for all the attention she can get.”
Steven Issac at Focus on the Family disagrees. He writes that the film “works beautifully, not because of some high concept, but thanks to delicately nuanced characters. Vivid and full of life, this family fights, hurts, cries, loves … and learns.” He emphasizes the film’s focus on redemption from dilemmas such as “alcoholism, marital unfaithfulness, and family relationships,” and says the film portrays “unconditional love, devotion to church, gospel music and scripture recitation.” He concludes that the comedy is “better than most in this genre.”
Still Cooking
While Spy Kids still reigns supreme at the box office, delighting families for three weeks straight, the Morgan Freeman thriller Along Came a Spider entertained a large audience again as well. Peter T. Chattaway at The Vancouver Courier caught up with this detective-versus-serial killer flick this week, and writes, “As formulaic as it may be, Along Came a Spider has a number of things working in its favour, beginning with the performances.” He gives special praise to actress Monica Potter, saying that she “gets to flex her acting muscles well beyond the girlfriend roles and lame romantic comedies that have dominated her career to date.” He also applauds the film’s “intriguing set pieces.”Side Dishes
2001’s most highly acclaimed movie to date is a long, intense, and violent picture about several characters whose lives collide in a car chase through Mexico City. Amores Perros has won major awards around the world, was nominated for Best Foreign Language film at the Oscars, and is finally showing in a limited release here in the States. Critics in the religious media have yet to write about the film, but the mainstream press is raving about it. And they point out that one of the film’s strengths is a strong moral sensibility often lacking in movies that explore the darker side of human nature.Entertainment Weekly‘s Lisa Schwarzbaum says this first feature from Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu is “fierce, loving, and electric.” While the story contains a good deal of criminal behavior, Schwarzbaum observes that, in this film’s perspective, wrongful actions are shown to bring on heavy consequences. She concludes, “The elemental dog-eat-dog nature of humans is expressed not only in disturbing glimpses of brutal, backroom dogfights, but also in the relationships between the animals and their owners.” At the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert raves, “[Iñárritu’s] characters are not the bland, amoral totems of so much modern Hollywood violence, but people with feelings and motives. They want love, money and revenge. They not only love their dogs but desperately depend on them. And it is clear that the lower classes are better at survival than the wealthy, whose confidence comes from their possessions, not their mettle.”
Next week: You think comedies have been sinking low? Wait until you read critical reaction to Freddy Got Fingered. Also, early reports on The Claim, and, no, I am not making this up … Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles.
Jeffrey Overstreet is on the board of Promontory Artists Association, a non-profit organization based in Seattle, which provides community, resources, and encouragement for Christian artists. He edits an artists’ magazine (The Crossing), publishes frequent film and music reviews on his Web site (Looking Closer), and is at work on a series of novels.
Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
