A few weeks back, Film Forum sorted through portrayals of Christians on the big screen. Some were convincing, even if the characters portrayed were flawed. Others betrayed the anti-Christian bias of their storytellers. Still others reflected the filmmakers’ lack of understanding regarding what Christians believe.
This week, look out: a whole host of Christian characters are parading across the big screen. Some come from Christian filmmakers (Hangman’s Curse). Some inhabit MTV’s idea of a Baptist church (The Fighting Temptations). Malevolent priests haunt one particularly troubling film (The Order.) And the Messiah himself appears in the latest installment of the Visual Bible (The Gospel of John).
Peretti’s Hangman’s Curse skips blood’n’guts, chokes on agenda
Frank Peretti, the Christian novelist who found success in religious and mainstream bookstores with This Present Darkness, is now the brains behind a movie. Hangman’s Curse, adapted from his novel with the help of screenwriters Kathy Mackel and Stan Foster, looks at first glance like a horror film. It is playing on only a few screens around the country, but it will be available at video stores soon.
Curse begins with Abel Frye, a troubled teen, hanging himself. His fellow high school students, believing their school is now haunted by Frye’s ghost, experience increasing anxiety as some of their classmates suffer hallucinations and illness. They believe Frye is attempting revenge from beyond the grave on those who taunted him in the halls—the school bullies. Suspicion also falls on the goth crowd, who are apparently involved in some kind of Satan worship.
Since the schoolteachers seem inept and out-of-touch, it’s up to a family of secret agents to root out the evil at its source. Spy kids Elijah and Elisha Springfield (Douglas Smith and Leighton Meester) are part of a family involved in the Veritas Project, a government agency that investigates suspicious circumstances. Posing as students, they infiltrate the school and get to work solving its mysteries. Their parents, Nate (David Keith) and Sarah (Mel Harris), play the parts of a gym teacher and a guidance counselor. Little by little, they work to discredit the supernatural theories and close in on whatever trickster is endangering the school.
Peretti’s film is flashy compared to other films funded and produced by Christian organizations. It borrows from The X-Files, Spy Kids, and a host of prime-time teen soap operas. Parents can rest easy knowing that it recommends kindness rather than meanness, and that viewers will not be learning any foul language or witnessing anything nasty—except a few arachnids.
And for most of its running time, Curse avoids any kind of Christian preachiness. But the filmmakers’ agenda is painfully clear, especially because the “Christianly correct” opinions come from the mouths of the nice, smart, and glamorous kids. Basically, what we have here are Christian filmmakers stooping to use the same manipulative storytelling tactics that anti-Christian filmmakers often use to express their own bias. Many conversations are rigged to make our young righteous heroes look like super-intellects while grownups who teach evolution or oppose school prayer are made to look like pompous imbeciles. This does not promote intelligent conversation amongst viewers—it promotes a feeling of smug superiority among those who agree with the filmmakers, and more than likely it will put off viewers who disagree.
At the film’s conclusion, that restraint collapses entirely. The heroine endures her moment of highest stress by singing “Jesus Loves Me,” a startling choice, since spirituality has not been an important part of the plot thus far. Then, as if trying to stuff in a sermon before time runs out, the soundtrack hijacks the movie during its climactic scene, serving up a solo performance of, believe it or not, the Doxology! Steven Isaac (Focus on the Family) correctly calls this “a stunt that feels about as fluid as postscripting Scream 3 with the ‘Hallelujah Chorus.'”
But Isaac is pleased, nevertheless, to see that the movie “is exceedingly tame by today’s ‘horror movie’ standards, and the creators went out of their way to avoid gore, profanity and sexual content.”
While it is easy to admire the film’s avoidance of typical horror-flick excesses, it is difficult to admire anything that the film does do. The characters are clearly pawns in a game rigged so that the Christian conservatives win. The heroes all look like teen fashion models to make their views appealing, but they demonstrate very little depth. Peretti casts himself as a wacky mad-scientist; he is supposed to get laughs, but his overacting makes him more of an annoyance. The spy kids’ parents do not strike us as intelligent master spies at all: they even need help defining common words like “pheromone” in their investigation. Portrayals of rebellious teens are simplistic and stereotyped: there are big boorish bullies and a crowd of heavily pierced goth-rockers who walk around emanating their own personal soundtrack of the “secular” music many Christians prematurely assume is “Satanic.” In a film that is meant to reach kids, I have a feeling many will come away feeling like once again they have been misunderstood and judged by grownups. Indeed, the whole film feels populated by what some folks wish kids were like, instead of representing the complex spectrum of individuals, behaviors, motivations, and struggles of today’s teenagers. For a much more realistic glimpse of life in the halls of today’s high schools, check out Thirteen, which Movieguide‘s critic says “feels frighteningly real.”
But the biggest problem with this “horror film” is that it is never scary, except for a somewhat creepy-crawly scenario near the end straight out of Arachnophobia.
As Isaac concludes, viewers looking for a movie without blood and guts will find one—but “anyone looking for anything more will be sorely disappointed.”
Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, “It is hard not to appreciate the intent behind Hangman’s Curse.” He compares the heroes’ quest to the adventures of “the gang from Scooby-Doo.” However, “due to some rather stilted writing, their journey is somewhat less exciting than that of their cartoon counterparts. The acting isn’t bad, but neither can we say that it is all that notable.”
Nevertheless, Holly McClure (Crosswalk) writes, “Parents, please get your adolescent age kids and teens to see this movie. I think they’ll be pleasantly surprised at how it relates to their world and will speak to their hearts and minds. [It’s] another great example of how God is using Christians to make a difference in Hollywood!”
Most mainstream critics are ignoring the release. The few that have written about it are relatively unimpressed. Lou Carlozo (Chicago Tribune) says, “You’ll get a ham-fisted dose of … Peretti’s religious worldview, oversalting scenes that scold the lack of school prayer or make a pompous point about Darwinism—in the climax, no less. Even if you’re squarely in Peretti’s spiritual camp, Hangman’s Curse is simplistic. The film’s shallow points add up to a thick file for anyone teaching the don’ts of screenplay writing. We definitely could use more wholesome teenage flicks, but Hangman’s Curse is just plain hokum—not so much for the values it tries to convey, but the slipshod way it conveys them.”
Matt Weitz (Dallas Morning News) says “Glacial pacing and a series of highly unlikely plot contrivances manage to obscure positive attributes and leave you feeling like you’ve just seen a rather mediocre TV movie-of-the-week.”
Gospel music fails to redeem The Fighting Temptations
In Jonathan Lynn’s new comedy The Fighting Temptations, a movie resonating with sensational gospel music, a prodigal son returns to his small town church from the big city and falls for the local nightclub singer. He also gets into a whole mess of trouble, and has to work fast to pry himself free.
According to several religious press critics, Christians who buy into the idea that this is a pro-church movie are in a lot of trouble themselves.
Cuba Gooding Jr. plays Darrin, a successful advertising executive who lied his way to the top, and who quickly plunges back down when his lies are exposed. Fortunately, he discovers he has inherited a good deal of money from his late Aunt Sally. That is, he’ll receive the cash if he goes back to Montecarlo, Georgia, and lead the Beulah Baptist Church’s choir all the way to the grand prize of the Gospel Explosion choir competition.
Within minutes of his homecoming, Darrin is smitten with Lilly, the local beauty (pop singer Beyoncé Knowles), and begins lying his way toward winning her heart. But before long, his life has become complicated. His attempts to train the choir are disrupted by a tyrannical church legalist named Paulina (LaTanya Richardson), the pastor’s sister, who wants to control the choir herself, and who insists that Lilly keep her secular-music-singing vocal chords far away from the house of God. As the police pick up Darrin’s criminal trail, he grapples with the moralist and hurries his makeshift choir toward the big competition, hoping he comes out of it with Lily on his arm.
The movie is bound to win rave reviews for fantastic gospel music performances. The impressive musical guest stars include Montell Jordan, Angie Stone, Shirley Caesar, the Blind Boys of Alabama, Faith Evans, the O’Jays, Melba Moore, and rapper T-Bone. That sanctuary looks likely to explode when the choir gets rocking, and Cuba Gooding, Jr. seems to be re-enacting his hyperactive Oscar acceptance speech as he leaps, cavorts, and breakdances his way across the platform directing them.
But the storyline is sharply dissonant with the messages of the songs. You might think this prodigal would learn to take responsibility for his lies. You might think he would humbly accept the consequences of his crimes and change. You might also expect Lilly, a single mom, to see the error of her ways as she works as a sultry seductress at the local tavern. The church’s pastor might also learn to exhibit some real spiritual leadership instead of seesawing between cowardice and loud public humiliations of his sinful churchgoers. He might also reconsider his cooperation in baptizing criminals who do not understand what they’re doing. Further, he might teach his choir to perform their music for God’s glory instead of for worldly honors.
None of these things come about. In fact, the film’s loudest message is that we should not only stop judging wrongdoers, but we should accept and even embrace all manner of sinners and ignore their misbehavior. The person who is most severely punished by the film is the pompous and judgmental church legalist, Paulina. She may be arrogant. She may be a liar herself. But she is also the only person in the movie who seems to care at all about teaching the churchgoers right from wrong. Indeed, the only “gospel” in this film is in the music. The filmmakers seem oblivious to the lyrics of their own soundtrack.
Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) agrees. He says the film is “so woefully misconceived, so completely devoid of even generic, safely banal Hollywood spiritual uplift, that it made me long for the spiritual depth and religious meaning of Sister Act and Bruce Almighty.”
He concludes, “The Fighting Temptations never manages even the most generic sort of pro-faith cliché. [It’s] a redemption story without the redemption. This film is rife with barely veiled contempt for Christians and Christianity, and the fact that the studio apparently thinks they can market and sell this movie to Christians may just be the apex of that contempt. What an indictment of the churchgoing world if they turn out to be right.”
Peter T. Chattaway (Canadian Christianity) backs up the point: “Temptations affirms the notion that we are all sinners, but rather than suggest ways to overcome that, it just asks us to wink at the sin and possibly even revel in it a little; people are welcomed into the church not to have a life-transforming experience, but to make church more entertaining. And perhaps that’s to be expected when a church choir’s whole raison d’etre is not worship, but winning a talent contest.” He adds, “Some of the songs in this film are pretty good, but just as the choir should be about more than the music, so too should the film. Likewise, as moviegoers, our Christian witness should be about more than proving our demographic clout.”
Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says the film “just isn’t spiritually edifying. The Christians depicted on screen are not ‘walking the talk.’ It is not Christ or God which gets them in line … It is the music. And that in and of itself can send a wrong message. Don’t get me wrong. Music can be a beautiful expression of love and worship. Yet, we should never so focus upon the tool that we forget the reason we are using it. Spiritual music is intended to glorify God, not the singers.”
Jon Hanna, editor of Connection Magazine, was asked to run an ad for Temptations in his publication. He went to see the movie and then printed an explanation of why he would not run the ad. He calls the movie “a shameful parody of black Christians. Both MTV and Paramount validate lawlessness in their make-believe church.” He accuses it of suggesting “that blanket toleration and acceptance of unrepentant and lawless worship leaders is the loving thing to do. Unfortunately, no godly repentance ever happens in the movie. Here’s a ‘Revelation’ for MTV: God chastens and rebukes those He loves, (Revelation 3:19).”
Nevertheless, a few Christian film critics claim the movie is reason for rejoicing.
Bill Osmun (Relevant) avoids any discussion of the film’s relevance, quickly declaring it “a perfect movie for anybody looking to laugh at a fun, feel-good family film.” (Relevant also made a splashy cover story about the film in a previous issue.)
Anne Navarro (CNS) faults it for “a predictable story line, some canned humor and a few needless sexual references.” But she rules in its favor, crediting it with “an endearing charm that is peppered with lessons of redemption, forgiveness and looking beyond outward appearances to see the goodness in people.”
Jenn Wright (Hollywood Jesus) says, “Temptations offers unique (and uplifting) insight into the poignant power of ‘home.’ We leave the film asking ourselves: What is home? What drives some people to escape from home, while others endure all kinds of pain rather than risk leaving?”
Chris Monroe (Christian Spotlight) says that if you see the film “you will be encouraged, exhorted, uplifted and, of course, edified when it is over.”
Mainstream critics are impressed with the music, but they point out some of the same fallacies highlighted by Greydanus, Hanna, and Elliott. Ed Gonzalez (Slant) calls the movie “TV-grade material”, and he observes that the real lesson learned by Darrin is “the meaning of trust and snagging ‘Southern booty.'” He concludes, “Too bad the film is never as soulful as the songs the character’s sing.”
A con artist reaps what he has sown in Matchstick Men
Roy (Nicolas Cage), the central character of Ridley Scott’s modest comedy/crime-caper Matchstick Men, is a quivering mass of distress signals. His body, his mind, his speech, and his daily routine are racked with obsessive-compulsive tics. These are outward manifestations of his inner turmoil. He’s a crook—he insists on “con artist” rather than “con man.” Roy’s apartment may be spotless, but his inner life is a mess. Somewhere along the way, his pregnant wife left him. Now he suspects he might have a child out there and he’s trying not to think about it.
Sure enough, 14-year-old Angela (the extraordinary Alison Lohman) shows up and moves in. Roy has to get used to being called Dad even as he adjusts to living with a teenage roommate. Before long, he’s on his therapist’s couch, head in his hands, trying to figure out how to keep his carefully controlled existence from falling apart. His protégé/partner Frank (Sam Rockwell, goofy as always) is concerned that the new development might disrupt their next big con against a sitting-duck rich guy (Wings Hauser).
Nicolas Cage revels in the chance to be explosive, zany, and manic … a welcome return to his strengths as an actor. He and Rockwell have a wacky, likable chemistry. But the scenes between Cage and the convincingly juvenile Lohman (who is actually 24 years old!) are wonderful—I hated to see them end. Directing this talented cast and casting this story in marvelous color and light, Ridley Scott (Gladiator) has made one of his smallest but finest films, a tale of redemption that is funny, clever, and full of heart.
My full review is at Looking Closer.
Steven Isaac (Decent Films) says it “doesn’t remotely condone … criminal activity, nor does it portray crime without consequences.” He admits, “There’s nothing here that we haven’t seen before. Yet the acting is uniformly excellent, and, while the climax is easily predictable if one is paying attention, the dénouement is unexpectedly thoughtful and open-ended. The film’s biggest surprise isn’t any of its twists and turns, but how much we finally care about the characters and their ultimate fates.”
“The final scenes … have been criticized by some secular critics,” says Michael Elliott (Movie Parables). “For me, it made the film complete. These scenes allow us to see the redemption that is available when we allow love to come into and direct our lives.”
David DiCerto (CNS) says the movie “impart[s] a crime-burns-you-in-the-end message. This stance, however, is undermined by … a crime-is-cool attitude.”
Movieguide calls it “a great story of redemption. The very last scene is a tearjerker, love-of-family moment.” But then the reviewer claims that this “great story” is “spoiled by foul language, sexual content, and a portrayal of teenage drinking and smoking.”
Similarly, Steven Isaac (Focus on the Family) praises the writing, acting and direction of this criminal’s story. But he is disappointed by the film’s profanity, cigarette smoke, and other details related to the criminals’ uh … criminal behavior.
How can a movie properly portray a criminal, behaving like a criminal, surrounded by criminals, and yet keep the audience from glimpsing any offensive behavior? Should storytellers to edit out glimpses of immoral behavior from stories about redemption?
Elsewhere, frequent faith-and-film blogger Barbara Nicolosi notes: “I found the dark and disturbing last act of the film to be completely irreconciliable in tone to the first two acts which were funny and humane. If you have nothing else to do, Matchstick Men won’t make you sick. It won’t make you well though either.” (Reader beware: Nicolosi’s blog hints at the twist-ending, so you may want to avoid reading this until after you’ve seen it.)
Two lonely souls connect in powerful, poetic Lost in Translation
Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is an American celebrity in Tokyo to film a whiskey commercial. He’s lonely, dislocated, unhappy, and having a hard time communicating with his wife over the telephone. When he meets Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), the lonely wife of a workaholic American photographer, they strike up a friendship based on their mutual dilemma. Their uniquely intimate (but fortunately not sexual) relationship slowly guides them to a place of new insight, an invigorated of hope, and adventurousness. It may even prepare and equip them for their futures as spouses.
Directed by Sofia Coppola (The Virgin Suicides) and filmed entirely in Japan, the film feels like a very personal work. Few films have betrayed such a deep love for a city. But Coppola also notes many of the sad realities of a generation immersed in new technology and empty pop culture. Showing the restraint, subtlety, and poetry of a master filmmaker, Coppola makes her second film something to treasure, a movie likely to win Bill Murray an Oscar nomination. (Johansson deserves one too.)
Many religious press critics are moved and delighted by the picture. Stef Loy (The Film Forum) says Translation‘s characters discover “something deeper than just a trading of physical bodies in the hope for mortal bliss. Their love story is a reflection of the needs they each have back home—Bob, to remember and recapture the zeal of his youth, and Charlotte, to find wisdom in how to keep her love alive in the years ahead.”
Loy adds that Coppola has found “a style all her own. There are so many beautifully crafted shots that one is astounded at the magic of cinema. [This] could very well be the best film to hit mainstream audiences this year. It reminds us of the basics of great filmmaking: a well written script with great actors and gifted filmmakers aiming to entertain, inspire, probe, and ultimately challenge.”
Michael Leary (The Matthews House Project) says, “[The film] is about the way people find homes in each other, an experience that in contemporary urban society is a familiar bedrock of meaning. In an endless city filled with what for them are empty signs and meaningless interactions they find a language game of their own to play.”
J. Robert Parks (Phantom Tollbooth) calls the film “Murray’s finest hour. His way with a glance or a simple gesture is pure poetry. Murray’s performance reminds us of our own mortality and confronts us with our own choices. Are we sliding through life, lost in the neon glitter, or are we breaking down the barriers that separate us from true communication, true communion?”
David DiCerto (CNS) says it balances “poignant drama and lighthearted comedy, painting a tender and layered portrait of both physical and emotional isolation and effectively capturing the sense of being a stranger in a strange land.”
Movieguide‘s critic spoils all of the movie’s surprises including the ending (Beware!), and then gets technical: “Coppola is clearly a talented filmmaker, but her first two movies avoid the classic three-act structure that most great movies possess: a beginning, middle, and an end. It seems to lack a dramatic premise that carries the story through to a convincing, captivating climax.”
I disagree with this assessment. The story begins with two lonely hearts setting up in the same hotel and whiling away their days on the edge of despair. The story has a middle, in which they meet and strike up a friendship that re-invigorates their mood, their minds, and their hope for a brighter future. The conclusion sends them off enlightened by their experiences, their friendship, and their sexual restraint. For me, that’s a “dramatic premise” that indeed “carries the story through to a convincing, captivating climax.” In fact, Lost in Translation is the richest, most rewarding story I’ve been told in the theatre all year. My review is at Looking Closer.
Once Upon a(Very Bloody) Time in Mexico
Before director Robert Rodriguez gained fame with his popular Spy Kids franchise, he burst onto the scene with a low-budget action flick called El Mariachi, about a gunslinging guitar player in Mexico. The film was a success with critics and audiences; he earned enough to produce a big-budget sequel starring Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek—Desperado.
Now, Banderas and Hayek are back as Rodriguez completes the trilogy with Once Upon a Time in Mexico. The title is a direct reference to a Sergio Leone film, and the movie pays obvious tribute to the great director of Westerns with a large cast of characters, shootouts, double-crosses, a complex web of plots and subplots, and exhilarating chases down dusty roads. The stars are joined by a host of supporting celebrities like pop star Enrique Iglesias, Willem Dafoe, Rubén Blades, Mickey Rourke, Cheech Marin. But the movie is stolen by this year’s favorite comic relief: Johnny Depp.
Unfortunately, Depp’s character is unfocused and bewildering. On the one hand, he is amusing and likeable, but then he abruptly turns to excessive violence, and our sympathies are confused. In fact, in the film’s story of revenge and a political coup, so much blood is spilled, so many vices are upheld as virtues, and the story is told with such slapdash carelessness, that religious press critics are fuming.
Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, “I was struck by how I didn’t care for any of the characters. Every character … was driven by a negative emotion or rationalization: Greed, revenge, thirst for power.”
Bob Waliszewski (Focus on the Family) concludes, “What moviegoers end up with is a lot of bloody violence in an vacant, amoral framework.”
Movieguide‘s reviewer says, “Mexico is not suitable for moral audiences. Let’s pray that … Rodriguez directs his attention back to the action/family films that he does so well.”
David DiCerto (CNS) is especially troubled by the way “Rodriguez juxtaposes violent images with religious iconography or gestures. It displays a desecrating disregard for sacred sensibilities.” He adds the film’s violence “promotes … a skewed sense of cheapness and triviality concerning human life, treating peripheral characters as so many moving targets, to be mowed down indiscriminately.”
Critics note pros and cons of Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star
David Spade of TV’s Just Shoot Me stars in this comedy of a forgotten celebrity who tries to win his way back into the spotlight and discovers what success is really all about.
Religious press critics are usually quick to condemn the simple, crowdpleasing comedies that feature Saturday Night Live alumni. Indeed, most of those movies are merely crass, crudely crafted, and formulaic. But this moved some of them to offer a few compliments.
Tom Snyder (Movieguide) says, “Parts of this movie show viewers that fame is fleeting and that love and family are more important than career. Other parts of the movie contain mostly light foul language, crude humor and other objectionable elements.”
David DiCerto (CNS) calls it an “unexpectedly entertaining comedy.”
Michael Medved (Crosswalk) says, “The set-up for the movie … makes no sense and feels so flimsy, complex and convoluted that the movie nearly collapses in its opening half hour.” But he finds that in the end, it “achieves an unexpected emotional resonance.”
Cliff Vaughn (EthicsDaily) says, “Amid the jokes and pop culture references is a positive message about love and things that really matter. Roberts can kick-start some meaningful reflection about the nature of celebrity, especially childhood celebrity.”
Holly McClure (Crosswalk) is dissatisfied: “Although there are a few funny moments in this waste of a movie, there aren’t enough to redeem the story or the idea.”
Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) writes, “The filmmakers didn’t commit to the feel good family picture that it clearly wants to be. It’s too bad because it had the potential of delivering a message that we can never hear enough. Love that comes from a family’s bond is a much desired thing.”
Most mainstream critics agree with Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times): “There are laughs, to be sure, and some gleeful supporting performances, but after a promising start the movie sinks in a bog of sentiment.”
Critics declare The Order “out of order”
Actors Heath Ledger and Shannyn Sossamon, stars of director Brian Helgeland’s popular fantasy A Knight’s Tale, reunited with him to make The Order, a troubling medieval murder mystery about an excommunicated priest whose death inspires his protégée to investigate the matter in Rome.
The film is inspiring religious press and mainstream critics to give it some of the year’s worst reviews. Movieguide‘s critic calls it “a confused pagan mix of Christian, Roman Catholic, and occult elements, with an ambiguous hero and an unsatisfying ending.”
Michael Morgan (Christian Spotlight) says, “The Order leads one to believe that not only does God not care about us, and turns a deaf ear, but that there is another way to eternal salvation without taking Jesus into your heart. This is just not true.”
David DiCerto (CNS) writes, “Helgeland’s film is full of egregious theological distortions and bogus stereotypes, targeted at painting the church and its clergy as callous, corrupt, and ultimately faithless.” DiCerto also notes “a vortex of muddled narrative threads, which Helgeland seems unable to channel into a cohesive story. Ledger sulks through the movie with all the charisma of a wet blanket.”
Mainstream critics are similarly aggravated. Bob Campbell (Seattle Times) writes, “Helgeland’s stupefying theo-thriller is a surprise contender for lists of the most awful movies ever made, and perhaps for lists of most regrettable world events.”
While moviegoers wait and debate Passion, Jesus arrives onscreen in The Gospel of John
Need I mention that the controversy over Mel Gibson’s Jesus movie continues?
The Globe and Mail reports, “A group of leading U.S. Roman Catholic and Jewish scriptural scholars have labeled it an intolerable historical and theological travesty that is at risk of promoting anti-Semitism. The scholars made their criticisms in a confidential 18-page report sent to Mr. Gibson and obtained by The Globe and Mail.” Excerpts from the report are included.
Meanwhile at Forward, David Finnigan reports on the way that Mel Gibson’s scandalous film is inspiring Christian filmmakers in Hollywood.
This week, Peter T. Chattaway (Canadian Christianity) reports that Mel Gibson may be “yielding to criticism” over his Jesus movie. But he also says, “For my part, until I see the film when it comes out next year, I am quite willing to believe that the cry of anti-Semitism amounts to little more than oversensitivity on the part of people whose job it is to be very sensitive. What does concern me, though, is the thing that Gibson keeps pitching as the film’s main selling point: its graphic violence.”
Want to enter the fray? You can send your own message to Mel Gibson at this forum.
Chattaway goes on to mention another Jesus movie showing at film festivals: The Gospel of John, the latest installment in the series called The Visual Bible.
In Phillip Saville’s adaptation of John’s gospel, Henry Ian Cusick plays Jesus. The film is scheduled for limited release on September 26. It will spread to other cities throughout the autumn. You can listen to an interview with producer Garth Drabinsky at this link.
A few religious press critics have already seen it. Holly McClure (Crosswalk) says, “The story is so compelling and entertaining that it doesn’t feel like a long movie. And when it was over, I wanted more. Watching this movie gave me a renewed appreciation for Jesus and the struggles he went through to bring God’s message to the world.”
Movieguide‘s critic says, “There are other Jesus movies in preparation, but [this film] is the one that most Christians have been waiting for. It is inspired truth, a biblical sermon. Christians need to go into all the world to bring their friends to watch the Good News of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in The Gospel of John.”
Mainstream critics caught the film at the Toronto Film Festival on “the symbolically chosen September 11.” Richard Ostling (Associated Press) notes that the movie “consists entirely of John’s Gospel, word for word. But that verbal straitjacket doesn’t sap the drama and sometimes enhances it, creating thought-provoking entertainment.”
Ron Csillag (Seattle Times) calls it “a sprawling, visually stunning work … [its authenticity] reinforced by a haunting musical score created with instruments from Jesus’ time, and with hundreds of meticulously researched period costumes, using only fabrics from the era. The movie, like the book, is poetic, restless—almost otherworldly.”
James Adams (The Globe and Mail) says, “Saville has done an admirable job … pulling together a handsome, polished production. Gospel’s greatest overarching characteristic, besides textual integrity, is sincerity, evinced in both Christopher Plummer’s measured, almost sotto voce narration and British actor Henry Ian Cusick’s assured, robust portrayal of Jesus.” (Commentary from religion columnist Michael Valpy is also online.)
Taking a different view, Martin Knelman (Toronto Star) calls it “relentlessly high-minded, making one yearn for the trashy sacrilege of a Hollywood biblical potboiler.”
Avoid catching Cabin Fever
In Cabin Fever, some college students are attacked by a flesh-destroying virus during their weekend vacation in a cabin deep in the woods. And sure enough, the camera captures the whole gory mess.
This is the third movie this year to show people running from a monstrous affliction. Dreamcatcher had a nasty alien that entered people’s bodies and provoked a great deal of ugly havoc … including terrible reviews. 28 Days Later, however, won raves with its tale of a virus that turned London into a city of zombies. Cabin Fever? Christian critics wish it would disintegrate under the influence of its own disease.
Loren Eaton (Focus on the Family) calls it “Vile. Gruesome. Exploitative. Mean-spirited. And just plain gross.”
Movieguide‘s reviewer calls it “a thoroughly unappetizing horror movie. Even fans of the horror genre may find this movie unappealing. One can only hope.” The critic also condemns the movie for being “pro-environmentalist.” (So, we should hope for horror movies that promote pollution?)
Dismaying depiction of teen high school experiences make Thirteen a rough reality check
Thirteen, a hard-hitting drama about a teenage girl and a bad role model, continues to earn mixed reviews from religious press critics.
Bob Waliszewski (Focus on the Family) says, “To display prodigal behavior in and of itself is not wrong. The problem with Thirteen is that it’s so scared of showing consequences, offering solutions, making any type of moral judgment, or presenting a positive character who epitomizes the flip-side of the coin that all moviegoers are offered is a sleazy opportunity to become voyeurs. So in the role of Peeping Tom, what do they see? Two seventh graders taking drugs, having sex, spouting obscenities, and being rebellious.”
Denny Wayman and Hal Conklin (Cinema in Focus) say the film’s strengths outweigh its weaknesses. “There are some films which are difficult to watch but valuable to see. This is a film that every person working with teenagers should view and then discuss with their peers. What is disappointing is that the film leaves us … without either offering a hope for resolution or a larger community of people who will love and support her, committing to helping the family navigate through life.”
Looking into other links
Peter T. Chattaway reviews The Magdalene Sisters this week, a movie “far more interested in provoking a sense of outrage than in creating genuine characters. I would certainly criticize the film as bad drama, bad art, and maybe even bad history. But I am not so sure I can dismiss the film altogether. The church does have its own sins to repent of—and while the characters in this film often did not feel real to me, the abuses that transpired between them did.”
Michael Leary (The Matthews House Project) reviews American Splendour, calling it “a genuine love story, as refreshing as it is uncommon.” He also coversDirty Pretty Things, which he says “seems to be several films packed into one, and though at times it is a bit of a mess, the efforts of the cast to lend the script an uncommon touch of humanity pays off very well.” And although the film is already disappearing from theatres, Alan Rudolph’s latest film earns Leary’s praise as well: “The Secret Lives of Dentists is not a charming film by any means. But it is a compelling look at what really lies at the heart of marriage.”
And in this month’s issue of Books and Culture, I re-examine the trend of films that focus on anger as a virtue, and then focus on a few films that suggest healthier approaches to anger—The Apostle, Signs, and Punch-drunk Love.
Next week: A new family film with Robert Duvall and Michael Caine—Secondhand Lions—and more on The Fighting Temptations, including an interview with one of the film’s stars, Christian rap star T-Bone.
