Related articles and links |  1 of 5

Film critics sometimes face daunting challenges—especially when their responsibility to assess a film's strengths, weaknesses, and artistic integrity ends up offending moviegoers who were inspired by a particular movie.

Such was the case recently for Christian film critics who saw Facing the Giants. Several factors contributed to this:

1) The film had already been in the national news when the MPAA gave Giants a PG rating instead of a G. Initial reports claimed that the MPAA cited the film's proselytizing as the reason, but the MPAA soon said it was for other "thematic" reasons.

2) Giants is one of those rare films in which Christian faith is presented as a positive thing—a rare treat for Christians who get tired of seeing themselves portrayed as buffoons or villains.

3) The journey of making Giants—by a Baptist church in Georgia—is an inspiring tale. Giants was funded by Christians, put together by volunteers, and looks impressive considering its low budget.

4) Giants follows in a long line of sports-related films that inspire audiences with a David-and-Goliath story; audiences love a tale of underdogs who overcome the odds.

Thus, any critic who, in assessing its technical and artistic excellence, dares to point out Giants' weaknesses along with its strengths is bound to upset people who think that Christian content alone is sufficient to make it a good movie.

But the critic's job is not to judge the film based on whether or not the audience will cheer. Nor should he base his assessment on whether or not the film preaches a Christian message. The critic is responsible to consider how the film is made, and assess whether it is sloppy, mediocre, adequate, admirable, or—and this doesn't happen very often—excellent. He must consider the quality of the performances, editing, soundtrack, cinematography, screenwriting, direction, and more. He must hold it up to other films of its kind, to see how its artistry compares to others. In short, he must consider not only what story the movie tells, but also whether or not it tells that story in the best possible way.

Here at Christianity Today Movies, Josh Hurst's one-star review noted, "When the players are on the field and the football is in the air, it's a surefire audience pleaser." But then he adds, "[W]hen the action cools down and we're left with just the characters and the story, the fumbles start adding up awfully fast."

Hurst notes the admirable intentions of the filmmakers, but finds the film lacking on several levels—including its implausible "happily ever after" ending. "[W]hen a film is as unintentionally corny as this one, it's anyone's guess as to how many viewers can stomach all the schmaltz for the positive message at the end."

Hurst's review provoked a few angry e-mails from readers; one called it "disgusting," another accused us of being "anti-Christian," another said we should be "ashamed," and another said, "I hardly expected this type of criticism from a respected Christian periodical."

Turns out that other respected Christian periodicals also had some problems with the film, so Hurst was hardly alone.

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, "The narrative uses a standard underdog formula. As if the David-versus-Goliath analogy isn't clear enough, the team's undersized placekicker is named David. … [W]hile the movie's heart is in the right place, its positive theme about trusting in God is handicapped by a prosaic script … that tends toward the preachy."

next page... |  1 of 5

share this page

October (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50