Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (0)

Related articles and links |  1 of 3

This week the Golden Globes celebrated two cynical comedies, the musical Chicago, the head-trip Adaptation, and the bleak and troubling drama The Hours, while the inspiring Holocaust drama The Pianist was passed by, as was The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. This glamorous, long-running, headline-grabbing program often indicates which way Oscar voters will turn.

Meanwhile, the Promontory Film Critics Circle (a group of eighteen religious press critics of which I am a part) quietly posted the nominations for the films that most impressed them with meaningful stories and technical excellence. Nominees for Best Narrative Film included 25th Hour, Signs, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Minority Report, The Pianist, and Punch-drunk Love. In the group's most specialized category, Most Significant Exploration of Spiritual Issues, the group named Changing Lanes, Signs, 13 Conversations about One Thing, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Songs from the Second Floor, and the documentary Hell House. If you're looking for alternative to the flashy but often empty entertainment celebrated by the mainstream press, you might do well to start with that list, or others nominated here.

Director Dennis Dugan's National Security gives comedian Martin Lawrence another chance for loud-mouthed comedy at the expense of white folks and cops. Police academy reject Earl Montgomery (Lawrence) and Officer Hank Rafferty (Steve Zahn) first meet in a misunderstanding that leads to a minor struggle. On videotape, however, the incident looks like a cop beating a black man. Montgomery takes advantage of this in court and commits perjury, landing Hank in prison. Later, the two run into each other again and have to work together against some bad guys.

In spite of Montgomery's dishonesty and drastic unethical measures, he is consistently celebrated as a crafty hero, and this has both mainstream and religious press critics fuming about reverse prejudice.

Steven Greydanus (Decent Films) derides the film's "huge plot holes" and its celebration of reckless dishonesty and brashness. He also points out how the film is demeaning to women and whites. He concludes, "The denouement is unnecessarily extended by an overlong shootout action sequence culminating in an unabashed revenge-driven climax. Earl's endless racist rants and insolence toward authority, being played for laughs, are generally more tasteless than offensive. Yet the movie plainly expects the audience to enjoy the prospect of a beleaguered white man suffering at the hands of a smug, self-righteous black man who never owns up to what he's done, never gets his comeuppance, and is rewarded in the end with a badge."

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) writes, "Much of the film's 'humor' deals with Montgomery's black and white observation of life: All black men must be good; all cops must be crooked; all white people are prejudiced, all security guards are either thieves or losers, etc. Making such broad, sweeping generalizations is both immature and foolish." He adds, "I find the 'shuck and jive' shtick of Martin Lawrence beginning to wear a bit thin."

Holly McClure (Crosswalk) agrees: "Lawrence's performance … ruined the movie for me. If a Caucasian character said half the stuff Lawrence gets away with saying and accusing, there would be all sorts of protests from minority interest groups."

What these Christian critics found offensive is highlighted as a strength in the review at Movieguide. Joseph L. Kalcso calls the movie's perspective on race relations "surprisingly sharp and honest … especially in the area of law enforcement, and the thorny issue of 'profiling.'" But he adds that the "paper thin plot, utility shoot outs, and assorted car chases would not have amounted to much of anything if it hadn't been for the effective chemistry, and a candid new look at race relations."

next page... |  1 of 3

January (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47