2 of 4

Moving from bad to worse, The Cell reaped some of the most horrified reviews in recent memory. Crosswalk.com's Holly McClure writes that "despite all of [the] accolades I can give this psychological thriller for it's [sic] style, the core of demonic evil that is tapped into in this story is so dark and depressing it will take you days to forget the things you don't want to remember from this movie." The Cell takes a psychologist (Jennifer Lopez) inside the mind of a killer (Vincent D'Onofrio) in order to discover the whereabouts of his last victim, who might still be alive. The set-up allows former music-video director Tarsem Singh to present striking images of the murderer's mindscape. "When he's not focusing on the killer's perverted eccentricities, Tarsem Singh's visuals can be quite beautiful," writes Movieguide. "In order to experience this beauty, however, viewers must subject themselves to an array of disturbing, often bloody, sadomasochistic images, such as an actual disembowelment, a corpse sitting in a tub filled with blood and women being drowned in a locked cell. … Too many of its images seem to become a celebration of sadomasochistic fantasies, rather than a revulsion." Jeffrey Overstreet of GreenLake Reflections agrees that the film gives evil too much power. "It reminds me of Rick Moranis in Spaceballs saying, 'Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.' Good, in this movie, is very dumb, and evil gets all the best lines, the best costumes, the best lighting, the best music, and on and on and on. … By the half-way point in this movie, I felt as though I had been beat senseless by images of violence, and I didn't care anymore about the half-baked 'real-world' characters trying to reach this villain." A majority of mainstream reviewers also found themselves repulsed by the sick visuals. Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times calls it "all torture, all the time, all photographed … as if it were a TV spot for Chanel," and the San Diego Union-Tribune's David Elliott complains that "it depends on viewers falling into a gazing stupor so tranced that they can duck moral issues of whether we should be slumming this way." A notable exception was Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, who names it one of the year's best and can't understand critics' revulsion. "I dunno: I guess it just overloads the circuits for some people." Strange, since Ebert is usually a critic who picks up on the hokey use of religious elements that The Cell roots itself in. Christian reviewer J. Robert Parks of The Phantom Tollbooth asks why the film suddenly dips into Catholic imagery. "Why a Catholic motif? I have no idea (no one seems to be Catholic), particularly when that transitions into a full-body baptismal sequence. It might seem petty to point out that Catholics practice baptism by sprinkling, not immersion, except that it's so indicative of the movie's use of imagery. Throw something striking on the screen, even if it doesn't fit." Mainstream reviewer Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly also complained about its tiresome exploitation of religion. "Christian ritual has created yet another monster. How old-fashioned of the art of the future."

The Original Kings of Comedy, a film version of the immensely popular comedy tour with Steve Harvey, D.L. Hughley, Cedric the Entertainer, and Bernie Mac, received ample praise for its humor (along with warnings about its obscenities) from Christian critics. "While the foul language is repelling," says the U.S. Catholic Conference, "the humor is never mean-spirited as director Spike Lee aptly splices behind-the-scenes takes with the on stage performances as the four acerbically poke fun at themselves, their African-American culture and race relations." Hillari Hunter of Christian Spotlight agrees that "each of these comedians are very talented, and if you don't mind graphic language (numbering in the hundreds) you may appreciate this hard-edged comedic documentary." Other critics felt that the film perpetuated stereotypes. "Believe me, I want to promote filmmakers of every race," says the Dove Foundation's Phil Boatwright. "I enjoy seeing the perspective of others. But that said, crudity and constant foul language do not represent all black people. … From discussions with friends, I know racial groups are frustrated by how they are portrayed in the cinema. … Here's hoping that someday everyone will be represented in the movies." Crosswalk.com's Michael Elliott also complained that the film serves a niche audience only, yet comes to the dubious conclusion that the solution is to make movies more homogeneous. "The best comedians, the real kings of comedy, find a way to transcend race to reach the hearts, minds, and funny bones of a multi-colored, multi-gendered audience. Even though popular with the predominantly African-American audience who shared the theatre with me, the humor contained in the film did not bridge the cultural divide to attain a universal appeal." Is it really a wise idea to suggest that African-Americans shouldn't talk about their experience in our country without making it relevant to white people? Seems as silly as those Entertainment Weekly music reviews that complain that Christian bands talk about God too much to hold their interest.

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

August (Web-only) 2000, Vol. 44