5 of 5

Taking a different approach, J. Robert Parks (The Phantom Tollbooth) is frustrated by the film on an artistic level. "There are a number of provocative elements in Vanilla Sky: Is it possible to change your life? What is the relationship of fantasy and reality? How important is your image to your self-image? Unfortunately, those are only fitfully explored. … Cameron Crowe was not a good choice to direct the project."

The U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops critics agree: "Crowe's film is initially intriguing before becoming increasingly incomprehensible as the elaborate narrative plays games with reality and illusion, cryogenics and character identities."

While I found it difficult to follow, awkwardly paced, and a little preachy in places, the film's tough questions echo in my memory several days later. Do I find my security in temporal, fragile things of this world? Do I use God's gifts to make myself comfortable and appease my own ego? Do I blind myself to the harsh realities of life so I can avoid responsibility?

* * *

Another movie opening this week seems to anticipate what many will say when they see the commercials—Not Another Teen Movie. The flick attempts to spoof the recent, base-humored, teen-oriented sex comedies like American Pie. According to critics, this just takes a bad thing and makes it worse.

Mary Draughon (Preview) says, "Not Another Teen Movie portrays teenagers as stupid, immoral, and perverted. Avoid it."

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) writes, "The filmmakers go for shock humor rather than wit or genuine satire."

Bob Smithouser (Focus on the Family) speculates about the project's genesis: "Somewhere there must have been a casting call that read: Wanted, aspiring young actors and actresses willing to prostitute themselves for a spot on the big screen. Must be attractive and possess no moral standards. Talent optional."

The USCC calls it a "witless spoof" that "reaches new depths by debasing every character and demeaning sexuality."

There is an ongoing debate on the web about the merit, or lack of it, in the writing of online critics who answer only to themselves. A story about the controversy is currently posted at New York University's Read Me. Writer Alex Ginsberg asks, "Has a new breed of film reviewer emerged on the Web? Many critics see a difference in tone, approach, and aesthetics among online movie reviewers. According to the conventional wisdom, this new critic compensates for a lack of reputation and credentials with honesty, unpretentiousness, and a more open mind toward unusual or controversial movies. But more conservative voices warn that today's Web writer is simply yesterday's uncritical fanboy, with a soapbox."

Referring to the independents, he comments, "Some websites may start out trying to please young audiences, with an anti-establishment style and flashy tone, but those who want to be respected inevitably retain intelligent, thoughtful critics."

We hope you find rewarding insights in the perspectives of all of the critics we cite here at Film Forum. You'll notice we link to Web sites for established print magazines as well as independent online columnists. After all, the more lenses you have for your telescope, the better, and the farther, you'll see.

Next week: This year's holiday batch arrives—The Majestic, Joe Somebody, and Lantana.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

first page |  5 of 5

share this page

December (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45