How many great Christian heroes have you seen at the movies? Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons. Eric Liddell in Chariots of Fire. That passionate Joan of Arc. Sister Helen Prejean in Dead Man Walking. Can you think of others? It's a challenge, because Christian characters are often portrayed as a problem rather than a blessing—and sometimes, it's easy to see why. Christians are, after all, often as prone to misbehavior as anyone else, and we deserve some of the unflattering portrayals that we've seen.

If the real Sophie Scholl was anything like the character played by actress Julia Jentsch in Sophie Scholl: The Final Days, then she deserves a place alongside history's most revered and celebrated Christian women.

The extensive research performed by director Mark Rothemund and screenwriter Fred Breinersdorfer indicates that she was, indeed, a brilliant, brave soul who stood up against the Nazis with fierce determination, making her challengers look ridiculous. Their film about the 21-year-old truth teller is an inspiring testament to faith, passion, and integrity. Sophie Scholl deserved the nomination it received for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars.

If it comes to a theater near, don't miss it; check the official site for theater listings. The scenes of Scholl's interrogation by Gestapo agent Robert Mohr (Alexander Held) are riveting—we haven't seen a comparable clash between a principled heroine and a determined, malevolent villain since Agent Clarice Starling matched wits with Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs. But where Starling and Lecter only met in a few fleeting scenes, this battle of the minds goes on and on, until you're breathless with the heat of it.

My full review is at Christianity Today Movies.

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) gives the movie a rare "A+" rating, saying it's "one of a very few films that accomplishes one of the rarest and most valuable of cinematic achievements: It makes heroic goodness not just admirable, but attractive and interesting. How many films do this?"

He believes the film will challenge viewers to consider their own strength of character. "Throughout the film, viewers are invited to put themselves in Sophie's place: Would I have had the courage and vision to do what she did? In the scene with her parents, viewers may find themselves identifying as much with father or mother as with their daughter: What if it were my child? Would I be as proud and supportive amid such overwhelming circumstances? Not for all the world would I want to go through what Sophie's parents do; but I hope and pray to see my children grow up into young adults not unlike Sophie Scholl."

Article continues below

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, "Though talk of the best films of 2006 is premature, when the time comes, Sophie Scholl: The Final Days … will demand consideration. … Despite his own personal atheism, the filmmaker has crafted a deeply spiritual movie, throughout which he shows Sophie, a devout Protestant, praying to God for strength. … Unvarnished by oversentimentality, the film is a quietly powerful testament to bravery in the face of evil that examines themes of freedom of conscience and peaceful resistance to tyranny while imparting a strong anti-war message."

Darrel Manson (Hollywood Jesus) praises it, with some small reservations. "Sophie's story is an inspiration that is well worth seeing. … It is spiritually uplifting and intellectually challenging. … Sophie's character just wasn't filled in as well as it could have been. … Even a few glimpses into her life before all this could have added a great deal to an already very good film. It would have been especially helpful to understand a bit more of the way that her faith molded her, not just as she faced persecution, but as she saw the work she was doing with The White Rose as calling to a higher law."

Greg Tubbs (Ethics Daily) raves, "While it might be hard to find a showing at your local multiplex, I recommend you hunt it down, because it is worth the extra effort. This film is passionate testament to freedom and personal responsibility that is both haunting and timeless. It should not be missed."

If you think the mainstream media consistently ignores or slanders stories of Christian conviction, think again. They love it.

The title says it all: Failure to Launch

The title of the new Matthew McConaughey/Sarah Jessica Parker comedy is proving to be a gift to critics. Failure to Launch refers to the central character, Tripp (McConaughey), a thirty-something bachelor who still lives with his parents. When they hire a specialist (Parker) to motivate Tripp to get a life, it's a surprise to everyone involved—except the audience of course—when the two begin to fall in love.

Christian film critics are giving the film a pounding, even though it debuted at No. 1 at the box office.

"The subject is certainly ripe for a movie, even a romantic comedy," says Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies), "but Failure to Launch drops the ball almost immediately, by relying on the sorts of gags and tricks that never occur anywhere but on the big screen."

Article continues below

But it's not a total waste of time, says Chattaway, noting "the easygoing charisma of its cast. If you like spending time with the likes of McConaughey, Parker and Deschanel—or with Terry Bradshaw and Kathy Bates, who play Tripp's parents—then this may be a tolerable date movie. But if you don't, then the multiple contrivances and the inevitable grinding of the storytelling gears, especially in the final half-hour, will have you itching to go home—whether you happen to live with your parents or not."

Jonathan Rodriguez (Christian Spotlight) says "the screenwriters should have spent a little more time developing good dialogue and a cohesive plot, instead of cheating themselves and us with cheap animal gags. All this and I haven't even touched the ending, which is so preposterous it makes even Hitch look like a romantic comedy classic."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says, "Ultimately, the story is resolved in a moral way, and the film overall conveys a good message. You may find this an amusing spin— with a surprisingly serious underpinning—on a current phenomenon that's been dubbed 'adultescence,' provided you're willing to overlook … disagreeable elements"—which he details in his review.

Bob Smithouser (Plugged In) finds it hard to care about the central characters, starting with Tripp: "Exactly why are we supposed to rally around this turkey?" And Paula: "So why are women supposed to feel something for her? … [T]he audience spends 95 minutes being cajoled into feeling sorry for the human equivalent of wolverines in heat."

Cliff Vaughn (Ethics Daily) says that "a synopsis or preview basically tells you everything there is to know about the movie. … [T]he plot's trajectory is predictable, but Launch is of course not about narrative inventiveness. It's about laughs amid cliché d family tensions."

Lisa Rice (Crosswalk) says that despite its "cute premise and a few great lines," the story "feels contrived at times, and unable to sustain the cute initial premise. … . [P]erhaps the greater problem for moral-minded audiences is that Failure to Launch goes over the top in its portrayals of alcohol, foul language, the allusion to sex, and Kit appearing to be a functional alcoholic … . Finally, we are subjected to the naked backside of Terry Bradshaw, which most of us could have gone all year without seeing."

Article continues below

Mainstream critics say Failure to Launch simply fails to, er, lift off.

Disney remakes Shaggy Dog … again.

When I was six years old, I saw the first Disney remake of The Shaggy Dog. That movie, The Shaggy D.A., was the first time I'd seen special effects cause someone's face to undergo a transformation. I remember being terrified by the sight of Dean Jones's horrified expression suddenly bristling with white hair and morphing into the reflection of a sheepdog. I had nightmares about that imagery for a long time afterward.

Of course, by the time I was seven, I was used to special effects, thanks mainly to Star Wars. Today, transformations are a dime a dozen on the big screen now, and it's rare to see one that is truly remarkable. So why does the latest Disney remake in this shaggy franchise scare me so much? It has nothing to do with the special effects, but everything to do with the question of why Tim Allen keeps signing up for these formulaic comedies that require him to suffer some kind of ridiculous metamorphosis.

Still, some Christian film critics have been pleasantly surprised by this all-ages comedy.

Carolyn Arends (Christianity Today Movies) says this version "hauls it into the New Millennium, adding plenty of computer generated effects, throwing in a politically correct storyline about the evils of animal experimentation, and making the humor a little ruder and cruder. Still, to ensure that mom and dad will shell out those New Millennium ticket prices for the whole clan, The Shaggy Dog offers a series of dog-eared cliché s about the importance of putting family first. If you buy lots of popcorn and don't think too hard, it's all reasonably entertaining and sometimes genuinely funny."

Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says, "I'm unsure as to why Mickey & Co. deemed it necessary to tell the story a third time, unless it was to add 21st century updates in the form of potty humor, cultural references and issues: animal rights." He concludes that it "offers just enough positive messages and redemption to reel in parents looking for a moral-of-the-story movie for their kids, and just enough silliness—the mildly questionable kind included—to keep kids lapping it up."

Patty Moliterno (Christian Spotlight) says the movie stresses the idea that "family comes first. It is another of Disney's feel good movies about the father beginning to understand his family and becoming the Dad. So many people identify with this type of movie because while moms seem to inherently understand family and relationships, many times it takes Dad a little longer to understand."

Article continues below

But David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says that the lesson can't save the film. "Nice message, but even Allen's comic dexterity can't make this dog of a film hunt."

Mainstream critics are saying, "No biscuit."

The Hills Have Eyes … again

Critics are having fun with the term "nuclear family" in describing of the latest horror-movie remake The Hills Have Eyes. But that doesn't mean they had fun watching it.

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says it's "a grisly and unnecessary remake," though director Alexandre Aja "proves adept at building suspense and an unnerving sense of isolation early on, before plunging into stomach-churning brutality, frequently involving pickaxes and craniums, that escalates as it steams toward its ludicrous climax."

He considers the value of great horror films as "useful metaphors for serious topics." But not in this case: "Irradiated minds may make Hills … out to be a commentary on the consequences of nuclear-age hubris. Yeah, right. Violent depravity passing as entertainment is more like it."

Brett Willis (Christian Spotlight) says the film's violence is "gross, harsh, unrelenting, and in-your-face. Buckets of blood. How many times can they show an axe or a spike being buried in someone's brain, before we get tired of it?" He adds, "Had this film been oriented differently, with a larger emphasis on the humanity of the mutants, it could have been a true heart-wrencher. As it is, it's constructed pretty much as a standard slasher; but the fact that there's lost innocence on both sides of the conflict means that no matter how the story ends, it will be unsatisfying."

"A scathing exposé on the horrible aftereffects of atomic testing? A green-minded assault on the proliferation of nuclear weaponry? Hardly," says Tom Neven (Plugged In). "More like a lame excuse to carnivalize cannibalism. The Hills Have Eyes originally received an NC-17 rating. One shudders to think what was deleted to get it down to this very hard R."

Mainstream critics are divided; some of them are impressed enough by the scare tactics to find it worthwhile. Others just find it mindless and chaotic.

More reviews of recent releases

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada: Denny Wayman (Cinema in Focus) calls it "troubling" because "the vacuous and immoral life of every person in the film creates a spiritual darkness in which even the smallest flicker of light is welcomed."

The Libertine: No Christian film critics have published reviews of this film online, except for this downloadable video response from David Bruce of Hollywood Jesus.

Tags: