Even critics are having trouble keeping track of the current new release onrush. Religious press critics weigh in this week with a heap of reviews on the most prominent titles. Here is a run-down of no less than 16 titles currently on the marquee.
Hot from the Oven
You may find it romantic, innovative, and fascinating. You might be downright annoyed. But judging from critical and audience response, chances are you will not forget Punch-Drunk Love, the new film from Paul Thomas Anderson. The 32-year-old director already has three acclaimed films to his name—Magnolia, Boogie Nights, and Hard Eight. At only 89 minutes, this is his first “small” movie.
It stars Saturday Night Live alum Adam Sandler and Oscar-nominee Emily Watson (Breaking the Waves, Gosford Park, Red Dragon.) Their performances and Anderson’s unique style are earning the film euphoric raves, shrugs, and accusations of pretension and “randomness.” But almost everyone agrees—Sandler, the goofy wisecracker of The Wedding Singer and Happy Gilmore, is surprisingly good.
A few, like Gerri Pare (Catholic News), disagree. Pare calls it “one of the least-engaging romances in years. Many … are likely to find Sandler and the entire film not, as intended, goofy-charming, but downright annoying. The sudden spurts of violence … [are] entirely out of keeping with what should have been a light, entertainingly quirky comedy.”
Pare and other critics who explain how the film could have succeeded as a “light, quirky comedy” are, in my opinion, misunderstanding Anderson’s intentions. This film is whimsical in places, romantic in others. Nevertheless, at the center of this strange, unpredictable story is a thoughtful exploration of repressed anger, and its various healthy and unhealthy manifestations.
Here’s the set-up: Barry Egan (Sandler) is a toilet plunger salesman whose emotional pipes are clogged with insecurity, fear, and anger. Seven contentious sisters have made his life nerve-wracking, to say the least. He’s prone to explosive eruptions of rage. He’s also inclined to reach in the wrong direction for companionship. One night, in loneliness and despair, he makes a foolish call to a phone-sex “service,” only to set in motion events that will endanger his sanity and his life. (A caution to viewers: Barry’s anger leads him to some profanity-laced outbursts. And the phone-sex operator is typically perverse on the phone.) It’s clear that Barry’s breaking down.
But three things just might change the course of his life. The first is the mysterious arrival of a musical instrument on his doorstep. The second is a limited-time offer from Healthy Choice pudding and American Airlines. (I’m not going to ruin surprises by explaining that one.) The third is the arrival of a woman named Lena (Watson). Encouraged by Lena’s unconditional love and patience, Barry finds the strength to get a handle on his anger and grow into an individual with strong convictions and powerful self-control.
While most movies about angry young men lead the viewer to a violent showdown, Punch-Drunk Love offers something more poetic, profound, and rewarding. Of this year’s big screen parables, this is the one that has surprised and delighted me the most. My full review is at Looking Closer.
Michael Leary (Relevant Magazine) found the film to be “an emotional and visual jigsaw puzzle connected only slightly by Anderson’s pleasantly disorienting camera work and Jon Brion’s intelligent and original musical score. In this fairy tale, the hero doesn’t really teach us anything other than showing us how it is possible to stumble ‘Punch-Drunk’ through life … “
Steven D. Greydanus, in a mixed review, says, “If you see one Adam Sandler movie in your life, Punch-Drunk Love would be the one to see. Here, for perhaps the first time, a Sandler film shows us where the character’s neuroses come from.”
Mainstream critics praise the film as unconventional, unpredictable, and worthy of multiple viewings. Roger Ebert says, “I feel liberated in films where I have absolutely no idea what will happen next. Lena and Barry are odd enough that anything could happen in their relationship.”
Andrew Sarris (New York Observer) says, “Punch-Drunk Love … turns out to be one of the most initially mystifying movies I have ever seen, which is to say I was completely in the dark about what was happening for the first half-hour or so, and then very pleasantly surprised thereafter. Mr. Anderson has found a way to fashion a passionate romance out of the materials of postmodern chaos.”
Charles Taylor (Salon.com) raves about the star: “Sandler’s performance isn’t a stunt. He does something very difficult, working as an actor to articulate Barry’s painful lack of articulation. It’s an amazing performance.”
Jeffrey Wells (Hollywood Elsewhere) defends the film’s confusing tactics. “A lot of us complain about movies being too formulaic and hitting the same old beats, and then something like Punch-Drunk Love comes along and we say it’s too caught up in itself, or overly curious or unfamiliar. Unusual, convention-defying films can feel frustrating because we can’t figure what bag they belong in. We should probably try to be more … accepting about such films, or at least think them over a bit more before rendering judgment.”
Punch-Drunk Love played in limited release this week, and opens across the country Friday.
***
Why does America have a higher murder rate than any other industrial nation? More specifically—why do we shoot each other so frequently? Those are the questions that drive Michael Moore’s occasionally insightful, often infuriatingly simple-minded documentary Bowling for Columbine.
Many readers of this column are probably going to avoid anything made by Michael Moore. Moore is famous, after all, for his left-wing rants, aggressive campaigns against big business, diatribes against the President’s policies, and brusque interviewing techniques. But in this film, Moore puts an elbow in the ribs of both conservatives and liberals. Sure, there are rants a-plenty. But no other film out there will stimulate discussion on these relevant cultural issues better than this one. By the film’s end, he’s raised more questions than he’s answered. They are excellent questions.
It’s also entertaining, at times hilarious, and full of surprising revelations. Many viewers will find their opinions challenged regarding the causes of America’s gun-violence epidemic. One by one, Moore shoots down the popular explanations. Some say, “Too many guns result in too much violence.” Moore, a member of the NRA, discovers otherwise, learning that other nations have similarly widespread gun ownership, but far fewer shootings. Others say, “Our culture is saturated with violent music, violent video games, and violent movies.” That’s true, but nations that rarely see gun violence are obsessed with America’s violent media exports.
Moore zeroes in on a specifically American problem—a rising condition of fear and distrust in its general populace. Isn’t it interesting that as violent crime has decreased over the last few years, news media coverage of violent crime has risen 600 percent? When the news spends most of its time reporting criminals-at-large, epidemics, wars, and dangerous possibilities, how does this affect the way we view our neighbors? And what does this all have to do with Columbine? You may not agree with many of Moore’s opinions—I’ll admit, some of his claims made me roll my eyes. But I encourage you to give his high-spirited documentary a chance. It will provide fuel for challenging discussions. It’s one of the year’s most important and entertaining films.
Other online religious press reviewers are excited about the film as well, offering similar disclaimers about the show’s frank-talking host.
Doug Cummings (Chiaroscuro) writes, “That a documentary … addresses this subject at this time—when school shootings and terrorism warnings and American war-making are at a fervor—makes it a must see. It’s clear that American culture breeds violence and Moore’s confrontational ethics and social musings point toward a deep-rooted problem calling for genuine soul searching and active redemption.”
Mike Hertenstein (Cornerstone) writes that viewers may well “leave this film devastated, wanting to sit alone for awhile and ponder the world we have made.”
Mainstream critics continue to celebrate Moore’s accomplishment. At the Cannes Film Festival, Bowling for Columbine was the first documentary to win special attention in 46 years, earning a standing ovation that ran for nearly 20 minutes.
Michael Wilmington (Chicago Tribune) writes, “Columbine is … one of the most blisteringly effective polemics and documentaries ever. It’s unnerving, stimulating, likely to provoke anger and sorrow on both political sides—and, above all, it’s extremely funny. It’s only in America that you could make a movie like Bowling for Columbine.” David Denby (New Yorker) characterizes Moore as “a malicious media ironist … an all-around pain in the neck. He will never be much of a thinker or social analyst, and he can be stunningly unfair. But when he follows his nose … he implicates himself in what he hates and fears, and he emerges as a wounded patriot searching for a small measure of clarity.”
Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) has one major complaint—the film’s rating. “The movie is rated R. The MPAA continues its policy of banning teenagers from those films they most need to see. What utopian world do the flywheels of the ratings board think they are protecting?”
Indeed. Bowling‘s brief violent images are no harsher than what can be seen almost any night on network television. But here, these images are in service of something far more important.
***
Tuck Everlasting offers something more traditional—a classic fairy tale executed with the style of Disney. It tells the story of a young woman drawn into friendship with a mysterious family who guard a precious secret that holds the possibility of immortality.
Ken James (Christian Spotlight) raves about the film’s central romance, which he finds “pure and innocent.” Bob Smithouser (Focus on the Family) is also thrilled that this “wholesome” film has a commendable “lack of profanity and sexual situations.” Phil Boatwright agrees that it has “a great many redeeming values.” Preview issues “a warning about some moderately violent scenes”, but adds that the film may offer “interesting discussion points” for parents and teens.
Dale Wilker (Catholic News) cautions viewers not to forget that Tuck is a fantasy: “While it does not fully endorse a childish Peter Pan-like existence, it does depict immortality as resulting from the animistic forces of ‘nature’ as opposed to Christian beliefs in God and his salvation that leads to eternal life after death.” Similarly, Dick Staub (CultureWatch) comments, “Unfortunately … Tuck Everlasting emphasizes a ‘circle of life’ worldview and is less explicit than the book in its Christian view of true life everlasting. Nevertheless it is a wonderful conversation starter.”
Some find the film provocative and even profound. Michael Elliott concludes, “Tuck Everlasting achieves a delicate balance of romantic innocence and philosophical depth.” Holly McClure (Crosswalk) and Dave Urbanski (Passageway) take time to highlight important questions about mortality that viewers can ponder and discuss after seeing the film.
But Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) says the film “leaves itself insufficient time to explore the very issues the story is about.” Above all, he faults its unnecessary voiceover narration. Yet, he concludes, “Together with this spring’s The Rookie, Tuck Everlasting represents Walt Disney Pictures’ best work in years.”
Mainstream critics debated whether the film was philosophical or merely frothy. Lou Lumenick (NY Post) calls it “solid family entertainment” and “handsomely crafted.” Ty Burr (Boston Globe) calls it “solid and affecting and exactly as thought-provoking as it should be.”
But Ann Hornaday (Washington Post) complains, “Its weighty themes are too grave for youngsters … the story is too steeped in fairy tales and other childish things to appeal much to teenagers.”
Question for Ann Hornaday: If stories steeped in “childish things” like fairy tales are a turn-off to teens, how do you explain the widespread popularity of The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and The Golden Compass among that age group?
***
The dark side of foster care is the subject of White Oleander. The film, directed by Peter Kosminsky, is based on a bestselling novel and stars an A-list cast of actresses. The main character is a young girl named Astrid (Alison Lohman) who must survive nightmarish conditions in foster care after her mother (Michelle Pfeiffer) is imprisoned for killing her boyfriend. What’s so bad about foster care? It turns out her foster mother is—insert drum roll here—a born again Christian
With the film’s central Christian portrayed as a freakish monster, it should be no surprise that Christian press critics are displeased with the film.
Critics at Preview and Movieguide critic criticize the film for “references to suicide, murder, violence, adultery, under-age fornication, alcoholism.” They also criticize the film’s “anti-Christian bigotry.” Megan Basham (Christian Spotlight) says, “White Oleander doesn’t even consider what would happen if Astrid was taken in by Christians of mature, deeply informed faith—it seems Kosminsky refuses to recognize such people exist.”
Phil Boatwright is also bothered by “the most outlandish view of Christianity I can remember on film.” But he admits, “The Christian church is an easy target for lampooning, because it is rife with folks who don’t think it is necessary to practice what they preach.”
Michael Elliott gives it some credit: “Kosminsky gives these women a forum to demonstrate their acting ‘chops’ and they take full advantage. All of the major characters are completely realized, complex individuals. For Alison Lohman, this is a star making performance.”
But Holly McClure says, “I was saddened by the dysfunctional characters and twisted parenting that sadly rings a little too real in today’s Godless culture. There’s no way to walk away from this movie without a heavy heart.”
Michael Medved is also disappointed: “With its abundance of superb female performances, the film’s never less than absorbing, but it sometimes shirks the most absorbing questions it begins to pose.”
Gerard J. Hekker (Catholic News) and Steven Isaac (Focus on the Family) highlight the film’s sad portrait of a flawed childcare system. Isaac says, “[It’s] enough to make you want to rush right out and draw up a new will to doubly protect your children from such a fate. It also makes you think long and hard about how your own decisions will affect loved ones.”
Dick Staub’s CultureWatch offers questions for after-viewing discussion.
Mainstream critics predict Oscar-attention for some of the actresses, but criticize the film’s soap-operatic tendencies.
Robert Kohler (Variety) writes, “Never rising above routine episodic storytelling, White Oleander nonetheless retains something of its source novel’s ravaged emotional surface and cool, observant manner.” Michael Wilmington (Chicago Tribune) argues that the film “seems shallow. It plays like a synopsis, jumping from scene to scene, grief to grief, and it doesn’t let us relax into the various worlds it’s creating.”
***
The Ring may be this year’s The Others, which was in turn was last year’s The Sixth Sense. Creepy horror movies that involve children and the paranormal are still very much in vogue. Gore Verbinksi’s Americanized version of a blockbuster Japanese horror film is this week’s box office champ. In this spooky thriller, Naomi Watts (Mulholland Drive) plays a Seattle resident troubled by a videotape that kills its viewers. (Sounds like a job for … CleanFlicks and MovieMask software!)
Religious press critics are not enthusiastic. Michael Elliott praises the filmmaking, but adds, “I don’t understand the appeal for this whole genre of horror/urban legend films.” Edward Blank (Catholic News) lauds the cinematography and score, but criticizes the over-used scare tactic of “abrupt sound effects.” Movieguide‘s critic is bothered to see evil portrayed as “all-powerful, unrepentant, and unrelenting. The evil imagery … will etch itself into the moviegoer’s mind and stick with him long after the credits roll. This movie offers no hope for those stalked by evil.”
Phil Boatwright says it successfully blends jolting red herrings with genuine frights. Yet, he concludes, “The film’s plot is rather lame.” But Douglas Downs (Christian Spotlight) calls it “an extremely intelligent thriller. If you like scary films … I do recommend The Ring.”
Mainstream critics were divided over the film. Ebert says, “Enormous craft has been put into the movie, which looks just great, but the story goes beyond contrivance into the dizzy realms of the absurd.”
***
In Abandon, Katie Holmes (Dawson’s Creek) runs for her life from a stalker who looks like her former boyfriend. One problem—her former boyfriend is dead.
Critics find plenty of problems with the film, even though its directed by Steve Gaghan, Oscar-winning screenwriter of Traffic.
Michael Elliott says, “It would appear that they decided to Abandon their film before giving it a proper ending. The ending is trite and foreseen while the rest of the film is fresh and offbeat.” Holly McClure calls it “dark, depressing and a great disappointment.” Steven Isaac says that viewers will find it hard to care “after the boredom sets in.”
Mainstream critics Elvis Mitchell (New York Times) and Charles Taylor (Salon.com), like most of their colleagues, spend their reviews pointing out various flaws.
***
Apparently derivative and hyperviolent, the mob movie Knockaround Guys is faring even worse with critics than Abandon. John Malkovich and Dennis Hopper join a cast of talented young actors like Vin Diesel and Barry Pepper for a story about four Brooklyn thugs who get mixed up with crooks. The amateurs end up on the run when they lose a bag of mob money.
Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) concludes, “The acting is better than the script deserves … [but] Knockaround Guys knocks around quite a bit without really deciding what it wants to be.” Critics at Preview and Movieguide agree that the film should be avoided due to violence and profanity. But Gerri Pare (Catholic News) says, “For all its repelling aspects, the film can be seen as a cautionary tale: Those who opt for crime and greed are no better off for it.”
Similar criticisms hail from mainstream critics Owen Gleiberman (Entertainment Weekly), Stephanie Zacharek (Salon.com), and Ed Park (Village Voice). Park writes, “The only drama is in waiting to hear how John Malkovich’s reedy consigliere will pronounce his next line.”
One film currently in theatres has received stronger condemnation from the religious press than any film since Film Forum began three years ago. The Rules of Attraction, directed by Roger Avary, is based on Bret Easton Ellis’s satirical novel about collegiate hedonists and their after-hours debauchery. According to its critics, the filmmakers revel in exploiting these tales of sexual manipulation, abusive relationships, and monstrous selfishness.
Bob Smithouser (Focus on the Family) echoes the views of his colleagues: “Call it an occupational hazard. As a film reviewer, I have to see movies that make me uncomfortable. Others are downright offensive. But on rare occasions there’s a picture so vile that it leaves me feeling, at my very core, severely cheapened for having seen it. The Rules of Attraction is such a movie.” Preview‘s critic says this “pornographic venture degrades both cast and audience.”
In the mainstream press, Manohla Dargis (L.A. Times) says, “Cinematic pyrotechnics aside, the only thing Avary seems to care about are mean giggles and pulchritude. His film is a frat boy’s idea of a good time.”
***
Critics are lining up to discourage viewers from seeing Guy Ritchie’s re-make of the romantic comedy Swept Away. The film stars Madonna as a vain, wealthy American who ends up stranded on a desert island with a roguish fisherman.
Gerri Pare (Catholic News) says the film has its ups and downs—especially the downs. And apparently, Madonna is the film’s biggest problem. “Eventually one tires of Madonna’s overmuscled appearance and looks forward to her disappearance from the island and this underachieving movie.” Phil Boatwright agrees: “At one time, Madonna showed promise as an actress … but her character here and her portrayal lack any depth or nuance. It’s merely a vanity piece allowing her to showcase a well-sculptured physique. It’s not really a screwball comedy, or a very intense love story or a perceptive look at the nature of men and women. So what is its purpose? Beats me.”
The shrugs and head-shaking of mainstream critics who saw Swept Away can be found here.
***
Summer may be over, but action movies keep coming. The Transporter is produced by Luc Besson, the French action-movie master responsible for La Femme Nikita and The Fifth Element. It concerns Martin (Jason Statham), a self-appointed courier for criminals who has one rule: he will not look in the trunk to see what questionable goods he is delivering. When he breaks that rule, a marathon of stylish action ensues.
Phil Boatwright says the film started strong, but then, “The smirky dialogue became inane, the wisecracking performances became amateurish and the well-choreographed kung fu battles and chase scenes became over-produced and badly photographed.”
Others agree that the film is a mixed bag. Michael Elliott writes: “Despite all the high-energy thrills and chases, it doesn’t really go anywhere. It’s all speed with no destination.” Preview‘s critic is pleased that “Martin appears to rediscover his moral foundation about what’s right,” but he is troubled by “obscenities, premarital sex, and exploited violence.” Loren Eaton (Focus on the Family) applauds “a well-told story with more than serviceable acting,” but criticizes “constant violence.” Gerri Pare (Catholic News) says, “The movie is little more than a series of violent confrontations between the title character and up to a dozen thugs at a time.”
Mainstream press critics had similar views. Peter T. Chattaway (Vancouver Courier) says, “If you see this film for the action, you’ll be reasonably satisfied, but that will depend on how willing you are to put up with the film’s unending silliness.”
***
Below is the second action film from famed screenwriter David Twohy, who clearly loves making comic-book-style B-movies. His first, a sci-fi actioner called Pitch Black has gained a cult following, and a trilogy of films about one of its characters—Riddick (Vin Diesel)—is on the way. This film, however, takes place on planet Earth, where a submarine crew becomes trapped and is subjected to a terrifying undersea ordeal.
Gerri Pare is unimpressed: “Twohy’s direction relies on horror-film clichés more than it builds genuine suspense or a sense of mounting dread. Developments in the murky proceedings are telegraphed well in advance, making the film unreel rather slowly and predictably. It’s never truly frightening nor does the narrative become emotionally involving.”
***
On the subject of action films—Formula 51 isn’t garnering much attention from religious press critics. So far only Preview reviews it, listing off the usual offensive elements. This violent, tongue-in-cheek crime flick is being described by Ebert as “a fourth-rate Pulp Fiction.”
***
Amidst the pile of typical Hollywood failures stands a romantic comedy that is gaining some responses of surprise and pleasure. Brown Sugar tells the story of a man and woman who fall in love as they explore what hip-hop music has meant to them over the years.
J. Robert Parks (The Phantom Tollbooth) “walked out with the proverbial smile on my face.” But the glow didn’t last long. “Writing about Brown Sugar just reminds me of how mediocre it is.”
Michael Elliott says, “Rick Famuyiwa directs his cast very well. But of more merit, I think, is the level and close consideration of the musical direction. In fact, how the characters relate to the music mirrors in some ways to how they relate to each other.”
Preview‘s critic seems anxious to watch the film with the help of MovieMask software: “With offensive language blocked and removing the notion that premarital sex is a required part of the dating game, Brown Sugar could be recommendable.”
***
Still Cooking
Jonah: A Veggie Tales Movie continues to draw raves from critics who like movies to present a clear Gospel message. But concerning its craftsmanship, there are a few more mixed reviews sprouting up.
David DiCerto (Catholic News) says, “Much of the picture’s shortcomings hinge on the inevitable comparisons to bigger-budgeted, animated features. In addition to taking a back seat technically to what Disney or DreamWorks release, Jonah unfortunately offers less-than-memorable musical numbers. The celery, asparagus and assorted crudites, while cute, are at times difficult to distinguish from each other and lack the endearing personality of a Buzz Lightyear or cowboy Woody. Several scenes are overly pedantic, with dialogue bordering on preachy. This moralizing may work better in an episodic series, but seems contrived in a movie.”
Hannah Eagleson (World) says, “The movie presents a strong message of God’s forgiveness and His command to forgive others. However, it softens a bit the crimes being forgiven. While it’s clear that the Ninevites do evil, the film asserts that the king of Nineveh didn’t know that the things they did were wrong. The movie also takes liberties with the biblical storyline, which Big Idea should have acknowledged in a disclaimer.”
***
Moonlight Mile is a drama about parents (Dustin Hoffman, Susan Sarandon) grieving the murder of their daughter and trying to figure out how to relate to her devastated fiancé, Joe (Jake Gyllenhaal.) Film Forum offered early reviews a couple of weeks ago. You will find more religious press reviews at Christian Spotlight, Ethics Daily, and Michael Medved‘s sites. Medved sums the film up as “honest but unsatisfying.”
I caught up with the film this week, and I agree with Medved. It deals well with a sensitive, sobering subject. But the story ends up offering only meager encouragement. As the family and friends seem to have no faith or beliefs about life after death, they can only comfort each other and encourage each other to pick up and move on.
Having said that, Silberling’s film is surprisingly willing to portray the humor that can be found even in the hardest, saddest chapters of the human experience. The talented cast strikes a delicate balance of comedy and drama. Young Gyllenhaal is a tremendous talent, turning in a performance every bit as complex and affecting as those offered by his veteran co-stars Hoffman and Sarandon.
***
One of the year’s most extraordinary films, Spirited Away, continues to impress religious press film critics. Mike Hertenstein (Cornerstone) offers not only a rave review of the film, but an in-depth look at the life’s work of master animator Hayao Miyazaki. “Miyazaki is a world-maker like Tolkien, like George Lucas aspires to be, and he continues to find new colors and pluck new notes.”
***
Next week:Auto-Focus, a true story about the wages of sexual addiction. Plus, Heaven, The Truth about Charlie, and more.
Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
