The shadow of September 11 still darkens front page headlines almost daily, and continues to color film criticism almost every week. Two big movies this week are being criticized for inappropriateness in view of last fall’s devastating events. Big Trouble is under fire for lightly treating the threat of nuclear terror, and High Crimes is harassed for portraying the American military as thoroughly corrupt.
Those aren’t the only new titles offending critics. But the other headline-grabbing releases are bothersome for far different reasons. National Lampoon’s Van Wilder is as crass as they come. Kissing Jessica Stein, while popular with mainstream critics, bothers conservative viewers for condoning a homosexual romance. And the year’s most highly acclaimed foreign release, a Mexican teen drama called Y Tu Mama Tambien, is stirring up discussions about whether graphic sex acts can ever be portrayed as art rather than pornography. (Film Forum will offer reviews on the film next week.) But according to some critics, even a few in the religious press, these controversial titles are not without considerable merit.
Hot from the Oven
Based on a novel by humorist Dave Barry, Big Trouble introduces a long list of characters and more than a dozen storylines. All of them are concerned with the journey of a suitcase from one caper to another. It’s not an ordinary suitcase—it contains a nuclear bomb. Tim Allen, Renee Russo, Patrick Warburton (The Dish), and other familiar faces populate this zany release from director Barry Sonnenfeld (Men in Black). And yet, like last week’s Death to Smoochy, this celebrity-packed movie has critics wondering how so much talent could produce such disappointing work.
Steven Isaac (Focus on the Family) says, “Big Trouble works like a giant funnel, channeling radically disparate elements into one final blowup. Literally. [It] offers more than a couple of scenes that are laugh-out-loud funny. But they’re outnumbered by the ones that are squirm-in-your-seat awkward. It’s disappointing that in Big Trouble, all the crafty, clever, genuinely funny stuff gets hidden behind the off-color jokes and crude gags.”
Holly McClure (Crosswalk), Phil Boatwright (The Movie Reporter), and John Barber (Preview) complain of the film’s excessive language, and “sophomoric, crude, and profane humor.”
Likewise, Lisa Rice (Movieguide) writes, “Despite some clever special effects … the cute storyline and some funny, exciting moments, Big Trouble falls way short. Too many of the gags were silly, inane, and uninteresting. The foul language was excessive, the characters were void of moral compasses, and the violence was irritating.”
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops critic goes easy on the caper, calling it a “witty but slight farce” with “amiable performances.”
Some argue that, although Big Trouble was made before September 11 (it was originally scheduled to release September 21), its humorous treatment of terrorism should have provoked the studio to cancel its release entirely. Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) writes, “We cannot ignore the fact that there are scenes in this film which may trigger painful memories … especially in those who were most personally affected by those tragic events.”
Elliott does give the film some credit: “With a talented ensemble cast … [Sonnenfeld] manages to capture the irreverent and often hilarious writing style of Dave Barry. The ensemble cast … light up the screen with comedic brilliance.”
But Douglas Downs (Christian Spotlight) argues, “Disney’s Touchstone pictures can blame all they want on rotten timing … there are many other ingredients that make this offbeat comedy lean more to the ‘off’ side. Big Trouble is without a doubt a big waste of time.”
The movie did not fare much better in the mainstream press. Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) gave it a few points: “It seems so crowded that it sometimes feels like the casting call for an eventual picture not yet made—but it has its charms. These are terrorists and bombs from a simpler and more innocent time. The movie is a reminder of an age when such plots were obviously not to be taken seriously. It’s nice to be reminded of that time.”
* * *
High Crimes is powered by the popular onscreen pairing of Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman, who starred together in Kiss the Girls, and adds the increasingly popular Jim Caviezel, who starred in Frequency, The Count of Monte Cristo, and The Thin Red Line. It also has a first-class director at the helm—Carl Franklin became a favorite among thriller buffs and movie critics with his early releases One False Move and Devil in a Blue Dress.
So critics are wondering why such talented filmmakers agreed to bring such a terrible script to the screen. High Crimes tells the story of a woman (Judd) who works with a disgraced ex-Marine (Freeman) to prove the innocence of her husband (Caviezel), an ex-soldier accused of murdering El Salvadorian civilians. They discover a massive military cover-up, but never notice themselves stumbling through massive plot holes.
“This movie feels like a paint-by-numbers operation,” says J. Robert Parks (The Phantom Tollbooth). “Take a standard conspiracy-thriller canvas, add the paint of two likable and bankable stars, add some red (herring) flourishes, and wrap it up with a twist ending. Judd gives a solid performance and Freeman is great as always … but the talent in front of and behind the camera can’t overcome the boring, derivative script.”
Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) says, “Once you begin thinking about it … the whole thing starts to break down. The military … comes off as a corrupt world in which everyone is protecting a secret and doesn’t care who gets hurt in the process. The filmmakers try to create the impression of a happy ending with a tacked-on denouement. The determinedly perky sitcom banter of these final moments serves only to ensure that High Crimes goes out on a note as bland as its title.”
The USCCB critic describes it as “Well acted and nicely paced … It’s possible to enjoy the movie if you just let it wash over you, but once you try to connect the dots, the whole plot collapses in a senseless finale of unanswered questions.”
Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) praises the cast: “The film’s saving grace is the seemingly effortless work of Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman. Freeman is, quite simply, a joy to watch.”
“For the first hour and 45 minutes, High Crimes is a bedeviling, well-acted, thinking man’s thriller,” says Bob Smithouser (Focus on the Family). “Then it chokes. The film’s unnecessary, illogical finale sells out to a cheap plot twist that renders everything else in the movie moot. The more I reflected on the details … the more frustrated and manipulated I felt.”
Smithouser adds a question raised by many other critics: “Is it just me or is this a remarkably inappropriate time to release a drama that so thoroughly vilifies the American military?”
Lisa Rice (Movieguide) finds other reasons to applaud: “High Crimes is fast moving, fun, well-acted by top stars, and gripping in its suspense. It plays on one of a woman’s greatest fears. … that she might not really know her mate. It challenges us all to dig deeply from within and ask ourselves how far we would be willing to go to find and defend hard truth.” But she concludes that, due to “elements that disparage the military and patriotism,” the movie is only appropriate for “some adults.”
“Well, it looks as if Hollywood’s brief love affair with the military has come to an end,” says Phil Boatwright (The Movie Reporter). “High Crimes has a definite anti-military perspective. Early on, Morgan Freeman says, ‘No one in uniform can think for themselves.’ Oh, really? And nearly every officer in this production is portrayed as conniving or murderous.”
Boatwright also complains about Jim Caviezel’s use of God’s name in vain in the film: “I have always wondered how Christian actors justify the profaning of God’s name while on camera. In Exodus 20, we are instructed, ‘You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God … ‘ And it doesn’t add, ‘Unless you are in a movie.'”
Similarly, Paul Bicking (Preview) says “vulgar dialogue and sexual content earns a guilty verdict for High Crimes.”
Holly McClure (Crosswalk) writes, “I enjoyed this movie mainly because of the cast, but the story was also interesting and entertaining. I have to qualify my praise by saying that I was rewriting the ending in my head as I left the theater, wishing the filmmakers had gone for something more realistic and creative than a clichéd ‘Hollywood’ ending.”
Only Douglas Downs (Christian Spotlight) takes a strong positive view of the film: “There is plenty of suspense and the soundtrack is perfect for this film. I love the unique blend of the hyper and the hokey as … Franklin pushes our buttons. Though still flawed, this could be the perfect date movie.”
Mainstream critics took turns scoffing at the implausibilities and contrived plot twists. Stephen Hunter (Washington Post) says the movie “isn’t worth the crayons used to write the script.” And Lou Lumenick (New York Post) says it “feels like the product of a computer program that’s assembled every cliché and stereotype of court-martial thrillers.”
* * *
National Lampoon’s Van Wilder is one of those movies that makes me glad I am not required to see very movie that I mention in this column. It follows the lowbrow antics of a college senior who pays his tuition with profits he earns from his own parties. Reactions from critics in both the religious and mainstream press make it clear—avoid this one at all costs.
The USCCB critic asks, “Can a film sink any lower? Save your money.”
Mary Draughon (Preview) says, “Disgusting, gross bathroom humor permeates nearly every scene.”
Phil Boatwright (Movie Reporter) calls it “93 minutes of vulgarity.”
Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) writes, “Only in the movies is a wasteful slacker with a major lack of ambition held in such esteem. Van Wilder shows himself to be a first class loser. The same can be said of the film which bears his name.”
Mainstream critics turned up their noses. Ebert writes, “Laughter for me was such a physical impossibility during Van Wilder that had I not been pledged to sit through the film, I would have fled.”
Side Dishes
Kissing Jessica Stein is a light, whimsical romance about a young woman who meets a new romantic interest through a personals ad. The person advertising uses a quote from Rainer Maria Rilke that also happens to be a favorite line of Jessica’s. The fact that her date is a woman poses a challenge, because Jessica is not a lesbian … at least not yet.
The USCCB‘s critic is troubled by the film: “Though director Charles Herman-Wurmfeld thoughtfully raises sensitive questions about sexual orientation, the film’s positive depiction of the homosexual lifestyle sidesteps the harder moral ones by condoning the women’s romance.”
But Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat (the all-religions-welcome Spirituality and Health site) say, “The savvy screenplay … conveys some of the anxieties of modern day sexual politics and especially the challenges of friendships between women. Jessica’s experiences with Helen enable her to break out of her cocoon and to finally face the world and other people with a courageous and confident openness.”
Peter T. Chattaway (Vancouver Courier) says it “isn’t the most daring or original romantic comedy ever made, but it is a sweet, funny film that wins us over through the sheer likeability of its characters. It fits quite well into that grand tradition of films about neurotic New Yorkers who look for love but don’t know quite what to do with it when they find it. The dialogue occasionally turns a little sitcom-esque, but the story moves in some unpredictable directions, and it has a real sympathy for its characters.”
Foreign Fare
Son of the Bride offers viewers a brief respite from disappointment. Director Juan Jose Campanella’s movie introduces us to Rafael, a divorced restaurateur who is forced to change his way of life after he suffers a heart attack. With his renewed perspective, he decides to help his father fulfill his ailing mother’s life-long wish to have an elaborate church wedding.
The USCCB critic says, “It is the convincing rapport between the characters that is the grease that keeps this film going. With heart-warming moments as well as hearty laughs, Son of the Bride reflects on the importance of appreciating life here and now.”
Bruce Donaldson (Movieguide) calls it “a heart-warming, well-made story,” but says its perspective is a “non-Christian, Romantic worldview, with humanistic elements.” He is also bothered that the church is portrayed in an unflattering light: “The church, as an institution, exists to equip congregations or parishioners—people—to do the work of ministry themselves. If the filmmakers had understood, or experienced, this point, they might have written a powerful ‘Christian’ story.”
But it is true that, no matter why the church exists, many churches are unfriendly. Perhaps the story’s unhealthy church can serve as a caution and a reminder to churchgoers about Christian responsibility.
The USCCB’s critic responds to the issue, saying: “The representation of the Church as cold-hearted doesn’t seem to be intended to single it out as much as to say it is just another place where Rafael doesn’t find help.”
Mainstream critics gave it mixed reviews, in spite of its Academy Award nomination for Best Foreign Film. Some argue that it is too sentimental. But Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat (Spirituality and Health) write, “Son of the Bride is a heartwarming story about personal transformation that is consistently fresh and funny.”
Still Cooking
Panic Room continues to draw the attention of critics and the dollars of moviegoers.
David Fincher’s nerve-wracking thriller was number one at the box office again this week. (Film Forum covered it in depth last week.)
This week, Bob Smithouser (Focus on the Family) writes, “Panic Room features some of the coolest, most inventive opening credits ever put to film. Part of Panic Room‘s grit lies in its unsettling excessiveness. Nonstop obscenities. Brutal violence. It’s just too much to navigate.”
* * *
Disney’s inspiring true-life baseball story The Rookie continued to draw applause this week, easily making it the most popular film with Christian critics so far this year.
Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) calls the story of baseball hero Jim Morris “sweetly appealing, inspirational, and wholesome—a story you’re glad to learn really happened, more or less as the movie presents it, without the problematic historical footnotes that intrude upon films like A Beautiful Mind.”
I caught up with it myself and was deeply moved by its honesty and grace—not words I would usually use to describe formulaic Disney product. It takes the touch of an artist to invigorate a familiar outline with fresh ideas, or to use metaphors that make the work resonate on different levels. The Rookie is one of those rare, wonderful “formula” films that tells its story with earnestness, believability, attention to detail, and fully developed characters. It favors understatement over exaggeration, subtlety over sentimentality (although occasionally it lets the syrup flow). Even in the “familiar” moments, the filmmakers restrain the music, effects, and close-ups that routinely command us to weep. Instead we have that uncomfortable feeling of watching real people in quiet, intimate, life-changing moments.
There is a startling moment near the film’s conclusion when Jim Morris (Dennis Quaid, in an Oscar-worthy performance) grabs hold of his wife’s hand and looks at her with an expression of amazement and gratitude that was in no way the Hollywood moment you’d expect—it turns our attention away from Morris and reminds us of the powers and miracles that brought him to that place. It rings true. Morris is not a big-screen hero in the “I did it my way” tradition. His achievements are the result of a cooperative effort that emphasize how we are all role models for each other—parent to child, husband to wife, teacher to student, and sometimes even students to teacher.
Coming up: Who’s the “good guy” in Changing Lanes? Is Y Tu Mama Tambien a heartbreaking story about corruption in Mexico—or is it pornography? Is there any truth in Frailty‘s story of God’s judgment? We’ll look at these questions and at other films as well.
Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
