There's a lot of enthusiasm in Christian media today about the new surge of "Christian filmmaking." But there's a problem. Most of those faith-oriented films are getting bad reviews, even from Christian film reviewers.

In the case of Thr3e, the new thriller about a serial killer based on a novel by Ted Dekker, Christian film critics are wasting no words about the film's shoddy quality. Sure, it's important that a movie's message be excellent. But is God glorified by mediocre craftsmanship and lousy storytelling? And what if the film's redeeming elements are buried by the film's darker elements?

Russ Breimeier (Christianity Today Movies) says, "It used to be that Christian films couldn't compete because of quality, but nowadays we're finding that they share more in common with the average Hollywood film—style over substance. Thr3e looks like it should work on paper, as fans of the book will attest. But a shaky narrative, clumsy storytelling, and unintentionally campy acting make this a frustrating movie-going experience that's only worth half the stars of its title."

Cliff Vaughn (Ethics Daily) isn't just disappointed. He's frustrated. "It bothers me, and it should bother you too, that out of all the movies that could have been made with a couple million dollars, Thr3e was chosen. This alleged psychological thriller … is so derivative as to be pointless. … We're supposed to care about a theme of confession planted in the movie, but the characters, like the plot, have been so derived from standard Hollywood fare that we don't recognize life—just other, better movies."

Jeremy Lees and Steven Isaac (Plugged In) are impressed … with what isn't in the movie. They liked "how the film tries to dispense with the over-the-top gore, profanity, sexuality and preternatural decadence so prevalent onscreen these days any time 'horror' or 'suspense' even begins to enter the filmmakers' vocabulary." But what do they think of what is in the movie? They say that "one could easily view this movie as a standard indie thriller, missing entirely the author's and director's oft-stated attempts to convey a Christian worldview."

Lisa Rice (Crosswalk) criticizes it as "sometimes confusing," frowns on "bad casting," and says, "The sparse, tacked on faith elements seem like an afterthought, and it is doubtful whether audiences will truly come away with greater faith or a greater knowledge of God and His ways …" But she does calls it "a cleverly-written psychological thriller with a fun twist at the end …"

Article continues below

Mainstream critics give it thr3e thumbs down, declaring it to be "r3ally, r3ally aw4ul." But the best cutesy quote comes from Frank Swietek (One Guy's Opinion): "Thr3e isn't even half the movie Se7en was."

Freedom Writers is something special

Writer and director Richard LaGravenese (who also wrote The Fisher King) is catching critics by surprise this week. Movies about inspiring teachers who motivate reluctant, troubled students are far too common on the big screen. But Freedom Writers, LaGravenese's latest work, has audiences cheering. It's something special.

Hilary Swank stars in this true story of Erin Gruwell, who stirred up a classroom of students from different ethnic backgrounds.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) says, "Freedom Writers looks like it might be just another one of those films in which a white idealist liberates her non-white pupils, but thankfully, it turns out to be something rather better than that." Impressed, he says, "[M]ost of the other characters are portrayed with warmth and humanity. There obviously isn't time to get into the life story of every one of Erin's students, but several … have their moments in the spotlight, some of which are quite moving."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) calls it "an unexpectedly good classroom drama in the tradition of Dangerous Minds and Stand and Deliver. … LaGravenese overcomes a predictable and, at times, message-heavy script with emotionally powerful performances by the young ensemble and redemptive themes of self-worth, the efficacy of education and empathy to overcome intolerance, and the ability of one person to make a difference."

Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says, "In terms of true stories, Erin Gruwell's is a remarkable adventure that encompasses sacrifice, determination, fearlessness and hope. It's more than worthy to be told onscreen. And the result is that exceptional messages get communicated in almost every scene as these kids grab hold of something beautiful and life-changing."

Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) says, "Although it doesn't reach the peaks of Akeelah and the Bee in its acting, and goes a bit too far in its sermonizing, Freedom Writers, inspired by a true story, is a fine, uplifting tale of an idealistic young woman and the hope she instills in her students."

Mainstream critics are impressed with it as well, and many surprised to find it so much better than other films that follow the same theme.

Article continues below

O'Toole terrific in Venus

After receiving a lifetime achievement award at the Oscars, Peter O'Toole shows no sign of surrender. Playing the role of Maurice in Venus, an aging actor who develops an amorous attachment to his friend's grandniece Jesse (Jodie Whittaker), O'Toole is endearingly mischievous and flirtatious. The result is the most unlikely big screen romance since Lost in Translation … and most likely another Oscar nomination for O'Toole.

Josh Hurst (Christianity Today Movies) raves about O'Toole's "tantalizing performance," saying "It isn't merely a great performance—it's a performance that literally no one else could have given." He concludes, "There are scattered moments of insight into aging, the nature of art and beauty, the importance of selflessness in a relationship, trust, and the meaning of life, but it never quite adds up to anything truly inspiring or challenging; at the end of the film, it's difficult to say what exactly it all means."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says, "On the plus side, writer Hanif Kureishi's screenplay—directed by Roger Michell—has a number of positive aspects and more than a few tender moments. And as you might expect, there are accomplished performances by a fine English cast. … Still, despite an ending involving forgiveness and redemption, the fetishistic nature of the central relationship … the high quotient of bad language … and overall grubby milieu regrettably push the film into the objectionable category."

Mainstream critics, meanwhile, are singing the praises of Peter O'Toole, even if they aren't quite so enthusiastic about the movie as a whole.

Never say N'Everagain

If you're considering taking the family to see Happily N'Ever After, think again. Film critics are urging moviegoers to "Just say never."

The movie looks primitive compared to most CGI animation, and worse, it packs in almost every cartoon-feature cliché , from the relentless pop culture references to the annoying, wisecracking sidekicks, to the fairy-tale revisionism of the Shrek series. It's hard to believe such a shoddy piece of work would draw the participation of talents like Sigourney Weaver and Sarah Michelle Gellar.

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) says, "The script bounces along acceptably on decent throwaway gags and one-liners that will make kids laugh, and may get occasional chuckles from adults. But the story stalls, and never recovers." He adds, "Perhaps a hero doesn't have to be anyone special—perhaps he can be an ordinary guy, without extraordinary courage or skill in battle. Fine. Even so, shouldn't a hero at least be committed to the cause of good? When evil bad guys start taking over the world, starting with the castle you work at, does a hero just shrug and go to work for the new administration?"

Article continues below

Bob Hoose (Plugged In) says, "Happily N'Ever After tries to be more than just another twist on a story we've all seen in a thousand renditions. … Unfortunately, its creators don't do much to break the animated fairy tale mold. They barely live up to it. … And so, Happily N'Ever After ends up being much less than it aspired to be … and a touch more than a lot of families will care to handle."

Jenn Wright (Past the Popcorn) says, "Robert Moreland's writing is rather unremarkable, and perhaps made more so (meaning evenless remarkable) by its delivery. … I felt that the movie would have made a more appropriate TV special than a full-length cinematic release. While the funky little reworking of the fairy tale is kind of fun and light-hearted, the writing, the characterizations, and the animation simply don't stand up well in a theater setting."

Mainstream critics are wishing they'd n'ever seen it.

Painted Veil is praiseworthy

Based on W. Somerset Maugham's novel of the same title, The Painted Veil introduces us to a reckless, irresponsible woman named Kitty (Naomi Watts) who discovers purpose and love when her husband (Edward Norton), a bacteriologist working in Shanghai to fight the spread of cholera, brings her to his place of work—and her perspective on life gets a jolt of reality. Director John Curran has delivered a handsome, praiseworthy picture that will probably go overlooked during this season of heavy-hitting award-seekers.

Lisa Ann Cockrel (Christianity Today Movies) says that the love story, while it "is awkward and offends our modern sensibilities," develops into a meaningful story of redemption. She concludes, "Neither Walter nor Kitty is a saint, and neither becomes one. But the audience does get to see a love of virtue take root in this relationship. … And the process raises the specter of how the tangible circumstances of our lives—in this case a confrontation with disease and oppression—have a very real bearing on the intangible state of our hearts and minds."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says, "Lushly photographed on location, the film … unfolds at a leisurely pace, but the intelligent love story at its core and the spiritual journey and ultimate redemption for its heroine are movingly conveyed. Norton and Watts … give impressive, nuanced performances, as do the others."

Article continues below

Mainstream film critics are pleased, if not enthusiastic, by this unconventional romance.

Code Name: Ugh

Lucy Liu, an underrated comic actress who has shown her talents as an action hero in the Charlie's Angels franchise, is currently trapped in a bad movie called Code Name: The Cleaner. Cedric the Entertainer has top billing in this action/comedy that lacks original action and fails to inspire many laughs.

Adam R. Holz (Plugged In) says, "Dull one-liners are supposed to amp up the humor factor but they don't connect. The wink-wink, nudge-nudge action cliché s Cedric and Co. ape don't seem satirical or smart, just tired. In a sentence, virtually every aspect of this tale has been told somewhere else—and better."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) calls it "a forgettable comedy. … Saddled with such vacuous material, Cedric provides only modest laughs, and director Les Mayfield's unfunny, at times lewd, shenanigans could have been 'cleaner.'"

Mainstream critics wish the film would go undercover and stay there.

Tags: