Christmas is over, the new year has arrived, and top ten movie lists are springing up all over the place. You can scan almost 200 critics’ lists at Movie City News, and Christianity Today Movies will run its end-of-year lists in the weeks ahead.
Meanwhile, the cineplexes are full of end-of-2006 releases competing for Oscar attention. Are any of them worth watching? Or is it all just a bunch of hype? Here’s an overview of recent releases, and what Christian film critics are saying about some of these movies.
Dreamgirls delivers the musical goods
American Idol finalist Jennifer Hudson is singing up a storm in Dreamgirls, the big screen version of the popular Broadway musical.
Hudson plays Effie, one member of the Dreamettes, a Detroit vocal trio that also includes Deena Jones (Beyoncé Knowles) and Lorrell Robinson (Anika Noni Rose). Effie’s lover, Curtis (Jamie Foxx), is their manager. Add Eddie Murphy in a supporting performance that’s getting some Oscar buzz, and you’ve got quite a cast.
Still, it’s newcomer Hudson, and her show-stopping number near the end of the film, that has critics raving. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the film is something to celebrate. Christian film critics have some reservations about this film, which was hyped as a sure-thing Oscar winner.
Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) praises Hudson, but asks if Oscars should really be handed out for intensity rather than acting. He also notes that it’s “almost a concert movie, and the ‘dramatic’ bits that come between the songs are little more than padding or connective tissue. … What matters is the songs, some of which do work rather well; you’re likely to come out of the theater humming one or two of them, and you might even feel the urge to get the soundtrack. But this isn’t anywhere near the year’s best picture … this shallow film is a product to be sold, pure and simple.”
Brett McCracken (Relevant) praises Hudson’s performance, but is troubled by the way her performance has been “ravenously marketed” as an Oscar-winning turn. “It is not that I don’t want—or think—Hudson should get awards; it’s just a shame that her performance was so quickly co-opted by the E! buzz machine and turned into a vehicle by which the luminous young ingé nue might win a coveted trophy.”
Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says director Bill Condon has “skillfully refashioned the show for the screen, turning most of the sung recitatives into spoken dialogue. And taking a page from the way Chicago was done, he has used a lot of quick cuts here to make sure attention never lags. … The cast is uniformly excellent …” Forbes praises Hudson and Murphy as well.
Adam R. Holz (Plugged In) says, “The film’s all-star cast turns in powerful, emotional performances. … Big, polished and highly produced as it may be, however, Dreamgirls is badly let down by its lack of a solid moral core. … In a world where sexual promiscuity is rampant culturally, it’s always disappointing to see yet another movie that confirms such choices as status quo.”
Stephen McGarvey (Crosswalk) says, “Perhaps this story worked much better on stage, but as one of this year’s most anticipated films, Dreamgirls is disappointing. Successful musicals on both stage and screen must exude a great deal of energy. Dreamgirls unfortunately has very little.”
Mainstream critics have some gripes, but most are taking it for granted the film will be an Oscar frontrunner.
Children of Men bleak … and hopeful
Caution: Alfonso Cuaró n’s new film, Children of Men, is nothing like any of his previous films. It’s not a children’s flick, like A Little Princess of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Nor is it a present-day road movie, like his acclaimed Mexican tale Y Tu Mama Tambien. And it’s not a romantic classic, like his adaptation of Great Expectations.
No, Children of Men is an R-rated, hyperviolent, nightmarish epic set in a bleak version of the future. It’s also an inspiring, bright vision of hope set against a nightmarish backdrop of a disintegrating world.
Based on a story penned by P.D. James, a professing Christian better known for her mystery novels, Cuaró n and four additional screenwriters have streamlined and revised the narrative, turning it into an adrenalin-rush action movie. Fans of the novel will debate Cuaró n’s many and varied departures from the text. Some revisions heighten the story’s connections to present-day crises; others cloud James’ moral vision.
Whatever the case, it would be hard for any moviegoer to deny that there are obvious allusions to the gospel at every turn, reminding us that God gave us hope by providing a vulnerable, miraculous child to a dark, dying, violent world. We watch as a man named Theo (Clive Owen) and a woman Kee (Claire Hope Ashitey) take enormous risks, seek help among the humble, and flee from cruel and malevolent men in power.
It can’t be an accident that the film opened in U.S. theaters on December 25.
My full review is at Christianity Today Movies.
Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) says, “Children of Men moves slowly at times, but always with purpose. It does not meander, nor is it boring. It does, however; require patience. Those who grant it that will be impressed, for the film’s periodic payoffs, and its mesmerizing climax, are among the year’s best cinematic sequences. … [F]or Christian audiences interested in a radical, contemporary approach to hope amid dire circumstances, Children of Men is bound to stir discussion.”
Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) calls it “a bleak futuristic political thriller with pointed parallels to the present day. … Director Alfonso Cuaron’s adaptation of P.D. James’ novel is intentionally dark and disturbing. But the chase sequences are undeniably exciting and quite brilliantly done, and it is in those sequences that the film is most compelling.”
Responding with a mixed review, Greg Wright (Past the Popcorn) writes, “For those who want a creative, violent, and moderately challenging alternative to the schmaltz, materialism, and Hallmark-card shallowness of the usual vision of the Christmas season, Cuaró n is here to save the day. If you’re looking for serious sci-fi, earnest political commentary, or a searing depiction of the future of mankind. … Well, don’t expect that much.”
Even less enthusiastic, Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says, “While believers may extrapolate matters of faith from this thought-provoking story, its makers clearly intend this to be a political film. … As such, the project offers both a not-so-subtle warning for modern-day politicians and a heartfelt statement underscoring the value of children. Both are messages that need to be heard. But both get overshadowed by 1) gaps in the story, and 2) an even darker cloud of unnecessary content.”
Most of these reviewers probably haven’t read P.D. James’ novel in its entirety before seeing the film. (I didn’t.) But Anthony Sacramone (First Things) had read it, and he says the film is an act of vandalism against James’ work, calling it “little more than high-tech agit-prop targeting the Bush administration, the war in Iraq, border policing, and Homeland Security. … Throughout the film, characters from the novel are reassigned roles and political stances as Cuaró n and co-screenwriter Timothy J. Sexton see fit. In fact, the first thing Cuaró n does when he arrives in the year 2027 is eliminate the Christians. … What’s insufferable is his pressing into service someone else’s vision as a commercial vehicle for a personal political screed.”
Meanwhile, mainstream critics are raving about the film as one of the season’s most exciting last-minute releases.
Iwo Jima considers the enemy’s plight
In an unprecedented work of ambition and vision, Clint Eastwood has released two films in one year about that historic battle: Flags of Our Fathers, which illustrates the American side of the conflict, and now Letters from Iwo Jima, which draws us into the experience of the outnumbered, ill-equipped Japanese defeated in that battle in 1945.
The two films, produced with lifelike intensity and meticulous attention to period detail, mirror each other with subtlety and cleverness.
But Letters from Iwo Jima is distinguished by something rarely seen in American war films. To craft a work of art that allows us to enter the minds of our enemies, recognize their humanity, and come to care for them—that is as noble a gesture as an artist can make. “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,” Jesus said. It’s much easier and more invigorating to think of the enemy as soulless devils; all the better for mowing them down with machine guns.
But it’s one thing to learn to love your enemies. It’s another to view them through rose-colored glasses. We also need to honor the memory of those Allied soldiers who suffered from Japanese tactics and agendas, which are largely erased from this picture.
Thus, Letters from Iwo Jima falls short of greatness. While Eastwood certainly encourages us to care for these Japanese soldiers, he also avoids acknowledging the shocking barbarism that the Japanese army famously employed against Allied forces.
My full review is at Christianity Today Movies.
David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, “If Flags was about the nature of heroism, the message here is clearly about our shared humanity and ignorance as a root of international conflict. … Taken together, both movies provide powerful equilibrium to the subject, but each is also well able to stand on its own.”
Mainstream critics are embracing the film as one of the most important of the year, and it’s likely to be a front-runner at the Oscars.
Pan’s Labyrinth a dark, profound fantasy
Are fairy tales just a waste of time? Should children be allowed to read such stuff? What about adults? Should we bother with movies about magic and enchantment? Or is it all just childish madness and reckless escapism?
Clearly, director Guillermo Del Toro believes that fairy tales have something to say to grownups. Otherwise, he would not have crafted Pan’s Labyrinth, an R-rated story about make-believe monsters.
Don’t take your kids to this bloody, nightmarish tale. It’s disturbing and often terrifying.
But it’s also heartfelt and deeply meaningful. Whether he knows it or not, Del Toro has given us a story resonant with echoes of Christianity. Consider the fairy tale about the rose of redemption, which was abandoned by those who feared the rose’s thorns. Consider the suggestion that those who become too focused on their own suffering will forget their true heritage and home. Consider the reminder that innocent blood has been shed for the salvation of the world.
This film would probably have delighted Tolkien and Lewis, who believed that fairy tales—even dark and troubling myths like this one—serve to help us explore spiritual mysteries and apprehend the reality of grace as it glimmers through a glass, or in this case a screen, darkly. Pan’s Labyrinth is a parable so profound it’s like the gospel masquerading in a mysterious disguise.
My full review is at Christianity Today Movies.
Greg Wright (Past the Popcorn) isn’t so impressed. “It’s fine to emphasize that fantasy can often be more real than reality; but for me, the deliberate unreality of del Toro’s Spain undermines the effort. We don’t long to escape to another world because reality is too fake; we long to escape because the place we live is unbearably real. And as for me, I couldn’t wait to escape from fully half of del Toro’s movie. At least the fantasy sequences provided satisfying relief.”
He concludes, “Sadly, del Toro’s flawed reality also undermines whatever political and social commentary he might have in mind. … Pan’s Labyrinth convinces me that del Toro is a master of fantasy, but leads me to question his grip on reality.”
Mainstream critics are enraptured by Del Toro’s work, and several have rated it among the very best films of 2006.
CIA’s history explored in Good Shepherd
Robert De Niro may be one of the greatest American actors to ever grace the big screen, but is he a capable director?
With his second effort as a director—The Good Shepherd—De Niro explores the development of the CIA, letting a much younger actor, Matt Damon, take the lead in this star-studded film, a long, drawn-out espionage thriller that has some critics cheering and others complaining.
Todd Hertz (Christianity Today Movies) writes, “Stoic, simmering and almost film noir, The Good Shepherd creates a very dangerous and intriguing world. This film is a 10-year pet project for DeNiro and it shows. His passion—not only for this story, but also for the greater meaning and personal implications of nations spying on nations—grounds the movie and inspires passion in the viewer.” But Hertz also complains that the movie is too long and “never shifts to a higher gear.”
Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) calls it “an austere but generally absorbing over-the-years saga. … Robert De Niro … directs Eric Roth’s fact-based script with a sure hand, and though the plot has some holes effectively dramatizes the emotional consequences of its protagonist’s overly secretive life and the tragedy of sacrificing one’s humanity for misplaced ideals.”
Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) says it’s “as intricately detailed and finely crafted as an elegant timepiece. The writing (which pushes the story back and forth through time), the acting, and the period sets and costuming all move together with precision. Unfortunately, although the story is historically fascinating and revolves around meaningful themes of truthfulness, family, patriotism and the value of espionage, it lacks emotional resonance.”
Michael Brunk (Past the Popcorn) says, “Given that this is not technically a thriller, you could be forgiven for thinking that this is a recipe for a long, tedious, documentary-style film that only a history major could love. Fortunately, the characters and plot are interesting enough to draw you back in whenever you might begin to get restless. But don’t mistake this for light entertainment. You’ll need to pay close attention just to keep up. … If you enjoy a well-crafted story of political intrigue, I think you’ll find the effort rewarding.”
Mainstream critics end up all over the map on this one. Many recommend it; many were bored stiff.
Is Marshall inspirational? Or too sentimental?
The latest inspirational sports movie, also “based on a true story,” is a little different from others in the genre. In We Are Marshall, the emphasis here isn’t so much on winning as healing. Some Christian film critics say it’s better than most in the genre, but others say it still comes up short of excellence.
“It would be a shame if ‘genre fatigue’ prevents We Are Marshall from being recognized as what it is, one of the better sports films in recent years,” says Steven D. Greydanus (Christianity Today Movies). “More than most films of its ilk, We Are Marshall rises above the cliché s that define the genre, connecting sport to larger issues in an emotionally satisfying way.”
Similarly, Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says the movie “rates as more than several notches above average. … There are solid performances … and worthy messages about winning not being everything, accepting loss, and learning how to heal, with several references showing directly and indirectly that this was a faith-based community.”
Sister Rose Pacatte, F.S.P. (St. Anthony Messenger) says, “This true story about death, grief and the phoenix that rises from the ashes is more than just another football film. Like The Pursuit of Happyness, We Are Marshall is about dimensions of the male experience in America. Marshall shows us how we can keep going and living, one step in front of the other. We are thwarted at times by those who do things they regret because of their grief, and bolstered up by strangers who care.”
Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) disagrees: “We Are Marshall isn’t terrible, but it fails to measure up to the more effective sports movies of recent years. Considering the powerful true story that inspired the film, the movie’s lack of distinction is a little disappointing.”
Mike Smith (Past the Popcorn) says,” … [D]espite its great storytelling potential and awesome star power, this film just does not move me, instead coming off as overdone. It may be the huge swells of emotional music. It could be the smarmy monologue that introduces the story. … No matter that this film tries its best to bring closure and healing—its conclusions about moving on and healing the grief are too simplistic and escapist.”
Bob Smithouser (Plugged In) says, “Watching We Are Marshall is a bit like listening to a tribute album made up of familiar songs rehashed for a noble cause. Sports-movie cliché s abound on and off the field, but they’re forgivable inasmuch as they reflect the historical tragedy memorialized on film.”
Mainstream critics are not so forgiving, calling it “a depressingly mechanical sports drama.”
Night life is wild at this Museum
Ben Stiller. Owen Wilson. Robin Williams. Ricky Gervais. Steve Coogan. Okay, that’s an amazing line-up of comedic talent. Add to the mix veterans like Mickey Rooney and Dick Van Dyke. Put director Shawn Levy (Cheaper By the Dozen) at the helm.
And what do you get? Night at the Museum, a comedy that has some Christian critics responding with modest applause, and others complaining. What? With all of that talent, it’s not a laugh-out-loud classic?
Josh Hurst (Christianity Today Movies) offers the most positive review: “Night at the Museum is a breed of film that’s all too rare these days. Though it draws some comparisons to Pirates of the Caribbean and especially Elf, it’s still a noticeable abnormality—a big-budget, live-action concoction of comedy and adventure that makes no pretense of being anything other than a two-hour romp through goofy humor, history-buff in-jokes, kooky physical comedy, and high-speed chase scenes. They just don’t make ’em like this anymore.”
Steven Isaac (Plugged In) writes, “If every curator in the country spent a solid month brainstorming ideas about promoting their exhibits, they wouldn’t come up with anything better than Night at the Museum. After all, when was the last time kids were inspired by a movie to beg their parents to go to a … museum? … The film itself slides effortlessly into the silly, let’s-just-have-fun camp of moviemaking. It’s not great by any objective standard, but it’s not dreadful, either.”
Christa Banister (Crosswalk) says, “The Museum is generally entertaining from start to finish. … While there’s certainly a few questionable moments with the movie’s worldview … and a lengthy run time, Night at the Museum is largely a flick that both kids and adults will enjoy.”
Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) calls it “a lightweight but diverting comedy-fantasy” that “could be much funnier. … Nonetheless, the effects are pretty terrific, Stiller is appealing, and old-timers such as Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney and Bill Cobbs as the feisty daytime guards, and Stiller’s mom, Anne Meara, as an employment counselor, add to the fun of this entertaining family film.”
Kathy Bledsoe (Past the Popcorn) isn’t too thrilled. “The one bright spot is Ricky Gervais who plays Mr. McPhee, the president of the museum. Ricky alone seems to have enjoyed developing his character and bringing him to life before the camera. Too bad that the rest of the cast makes him look as if he is overacting and overenthusiastic.”
Mainstream critics aren’t so willing to recommend the film.
More reviews of recent releases
Rocky Balboa: David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, “Stallone scores an emotional knockout with … the sixth, and ostensibly final, round in the Rocky saga. After several lightweight sequels, many considered the franchise down for the count, and the idea of Stallone stepping back into the ring at age 60 certainly provided much fodder for jokes. But the movie, like its iconic South Philly underdog, proves it has enough heart to go the distance.”
Adam R. Holz (Plugged In) says, “It’s safe to say that Rocky Balboa exceeded my expectations. By a long shot. Not only does this film redeem the series, it tells a compelling story of an older man trying to make sense of a world that has passed him by.”
But Anthony Sacramone (First Things) says, “Rocky Balboa is by no means the disaster it could have been: As the Rock tells a couple of restaurant patrons who ask what’s good on the menu: ‘It’s all edible.’ But the Italian Stallion—admittedly one of the great American screen characters of all time—has answered the bell one too many times now. So let’s hope that Sly has finally dealt with what was in the basement and put the past behind him.”
The Pursuit of Happyness: Sister Rose Pacatte, F.S.P. (St. Anthony Messenger) writes, ” … [E]very employed person and every person of good will needs to see this explicit immersion into abject homelessness. Pursuit shows the inability of some people to possess the pot of gold at the end of the proverbial American rainbow, no matter how hard they try. … Hopefully, watching this film will motivate us to do something for homeless people as well as the working poor.”
Charlotte’s Web: Sister Rose Pacatte, F.S.P. (St. Anthony Messenger) calls it “charming, humorous, fanciful and inspiring. … Charlotte’s Web teaches us to see the world with new eyes: the cycle of birth and death, and the good there is in every creature. Other themes include keeping promises, dignity, friendship, relationships and respect.”
Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
