Related articles and links |  1 of 5

First off, a salute to Steve Lansingh, who introduced Film Forum, has kept it in fine form since November 1999, and who is now moving on to other things. Steve has done us all a favor, keeping us informed of different perspectives and opinions within the Christian community as well as the film criticism community at large. His work has promoted healthy dialogue about filmmaking, and because of Film Forum many of us have encountered good work we might otherwise have missed. Thanks, Steve, and best wishes in whatever you do for a sequel. It will be a challenge to maintain the standard that you have set.

We've been experiencing "post-Oscar slump." Studios threw all of their quality work at us in the past few months to qualify for Oscar nominations in time, and now critics in the mainstream and religious media alike have been picking through leftovers—half-baked, primarily commercial fare. Here is a review of what they have concluded about February's big releases.

While audiences gave Ridley Scott's Hannibal one of the highest opening weekends in history, many critics in both the religious and mainstream press have reservations about the infamous cannibal's return to the big screen. Like many viewers, Dick Rolfe at The Dove Foundation finds the film's excessively gory spectacles difficult to, uh, stomach. "I had to turn away from the screen lest I pass out in the midst of my film critic peers, some of whom I caught turning their heads at the same time. … We don't need to patronize Hannibal to know what man is capable of at his lowest, most demented state." Others found more to unsettle them than the violence. J. Robert Parks at The Phantom Tollbooth takes issue with the film's " typically condescending approach to religion, specifically Christianity. "The film's two vilest characters … are both linked to Christianity," he observes, "and Christianity is offhandedly linked to child molestation. Later, a genuinely blasphemous crucifixion metaphor is introduced, which is followed by a revolting pre-'dinner' prayer." Jonathan V. Last atBeliefnet notes the evolution of Hannibal Lecter's character over the three films. "He first appeared as a caged monster, then softened into an evil genius, and now he stands before us as a nondenominational leading man. The Hannibal in Hannibal is no longer a villain. Where Lecter was once an evil genius, he is now simply a genius—he has moved beyond good and evil. … What is truly pernicious about Hannibal is that it puts us in a universe where the very notions good and evil are laughable." Ted Baehr of Movieguide simply calls the film "a thoroughly despicable movie."

Down to Earth did not inspire such violent responses, but failed to generate much enthusiasm. The film, which updates the Heaven Can Wait formula, casts Chris Rock as a man given a second chance at life, reincarnated as a wealthy Caucasian industrialist. While J. Robert Parks at The Phantom Tollbooth admits to being a Chris Rock fan, he advises that we avoid high expectations of the film. "Don't expect much in the way of plot or character development. Don't be surprised when the direction and blocking remind you of an 8th-grade drama performance." He does find one aspect of the film intriguing. "It's this issue of how language changes depending on whether it's uttered by a white person or a black person … how the very same joke, phrase, or speech can provoke extremely different reactions depending solely on the race of the speaker and the race of his or her audience." Holly McClure of The Dove Foundation finds it difficult to go along with the film's leaps of logic, especially when the leading lady falls for the reincarnated comic. "It's hard to fathom that a young, beautiful black woman with high ideals and intelligence, would be swept up off her feet and fall for an older white man in his 60's just because he's rich and turns generous doing a good deed for her. That part not only doesn't make sense, it feels wrong, awkward and, well, gross." Ted Baehr at Movieguide writes off the film for its "abhorrent New Age theology and left-wing ideology." Michael Elliot atMovieParables thinks the film's perspective of the afterlife is unsatisfying, and the film disappointing: "The racial twist is by far the most interesting element to this remake but the filmmakers simply don't employ it in ways to make any kind of social statement. It is a wasted opportunity. As a pure comedy, apart from Rock's closing standup routine, there is nothing that gives this film any distinction."

next page... |  1 of 5

share this page

February (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45