The secret about this Secret Service thriller is out: The Sentinel is not so thrilling. Still, Michael Douglas shouldn’t be feeling too badly about it. At least he was smart enough to stay far, far away from Basic Instinct 2.
In The Sentinel, Douglas plays veteran Secret Service agent Pete Garrison. Fellow agent David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland) suspects that Garrison is having an illicit affair with his (Breckinridge’s) ex-wife, and while Breckinridge is right about the affair, he’s wrong about whom it involves. Instead, Garrison’s trysts–and here’s the twist–are with the First Lady (Kim Basinger).
Are you filled with the American spirit yet? Wait, there’s more. Things get complicated when Garrison is assigned to investigate a plot to assassinate the President (David Rasche), and make room for a sexy new agent on the force (Eva Longoria of TV’s Desperate Housewives).
Director Clark Johnson, who also directed the underwhelming S.W.A.T., and writer George Nolfi, who scripted Oceans 12, have apparently fallen short of the standard set by other secret-agent thrillers like Wolfgang Petersen’s In the Line of Fire and Andrew Davis’ The Fugitive. In fact, even Kiefer Sutherland’s hit television series 24 earns higher marks than this.
Russ Breimeier (Christianity Today Movies) compares it to In the Line of Fire and The Fugitive: “Smoosh the two together and you have this cookie cutter conspiracy thriller. While there’s nothing wrong with revisiting familiar material, The Sentinel struggles with execution.” He describes the storytelling as “soapy,” and adds, “As much as people may want to see Douglas and Sutherland interact and outwit each other, the film confuses acting together with yelling at each other. … The Sentinel suffers from a flimsy and predictable story shallower than the average made-for-television production.”
But David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) writes, “The Sentinel strikes a nice balance between being a smart mystery and a straight action film, with some dexterously executed chase sequences. Visually gritty and kinetic, the movie is garnished with pulses of surveillance-style images and sound-bites to create a high-tech atmosphere of paranoia, reminiscent of conspiracy classics like The Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor.”
Bob Hoose (Plugged In) began thinking that it was a “nicely crafted little thriller. … But … while The Sentinel doesn’t overdo the overt content (sex and gore) the way most of its 21st century peers do, it still puts audiences in the line of fire, leaving them to fend for themselves when it comes to ethics and morals.”
Mainstream critics are highlighting the holes in The Sentinel‘s preposterous plot.
Dreamz spoofs American Idol, the Prez, and more
Writer/director Paul Weitz follows up his popular corporate comedy In Good Company and the warm-hearted bachelor antics of About a Boy with something far more ambitious—American Dreamz, a satire about presidents, first ladies, American Idol, and pop culture. And while he’s not winning as many rave reviews as he did for his earlier projects, he is getting mixed reactions from the religious press.
Carolyn Arends (Christianity Today Movies) emphasizes that the movie is “a satire. It cannot, therefore, be held accountable for gaping plot holes, implausible set-ups, Iraqi terrorists who speak to each other in accented English, presidential figures who are more lobotomized than caricatured, and truly dreadful American Idol pop song parodies. All of the above are an intentional part of the fun. You should also know, however, that American Dreamz‘s brand of satire is closer to Saturday Night Live than Oscar Wilde. … Weitz hits his targets mostly because they’re too wide to miss, and there’s nothing particularly nuanced about his portrayal of (North) America’s obsession with celebrity (and apathy about most everything else). Still, cheap or otherwise, there are plenty of laughs. American Dreamz ain’t subtle, but it’s amusing.”
Christa Banister (Crosswalk) writes, “If Weitz really wanted to use the film as a springboard for his opinion about the state of the world, he should’ve taken a cue from better executed, less wishy-washy satire like Wag the Dog or Election. But as a lightweight, escapist comedy for those looking for something to watch on a Friday night, this wildly uneven farce may just do the trick. Or you could save money and add it to your Netflix queue in the coming months.”
Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says, “There are, in fact, probably too many targets … but this is on the whole an amusing satire of fame and politics, despite some elements that on paper might raise eyebrows.” He adds, “Weitz carefully avoids most of the bad-taste pitfalls, but some may still find the terrorist business insensitive fodder for comedy. … But Weitz also underscores the paradox of how those who set out to destroy American culture can be smitten with it. On the other hand, the moderate portrayal of Omer’s relatives is one of the screen’s more positive depictions of Arab-Americans.”
Jenn Wright (Hollywood Jesus) says, “It would be nice to be able to say that, in the midst of the broad satire, Weitz offers some glimmer of hope, or some solution to the idolatrous craze that has become the American dream. Unfortunately, there is a distinct lack of anything—or anyone—acting as a positive influence. Instead, we see myriad examples of manipulation, avarice, naï veté , and willful ignorance, with very little sanity to balance the pessimism.”
Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) says, “One thing is clear after sitting through American Dreamz: If Mandy Moore could sneak on to American Idol, she’d have a real shot at winning the thing. The girl sounds good, even singing the ridiculous numbers voiced by the show’s contestants. But the film isn’t really about the singing. Unfortunately, it’s not about the laughing, either. … As a satire, the effort falls flat. The targets are too broad, the observations tired, and the jokes stale.”
Some mainstream critics are trying to forget these Dreamz, while others are giving Weitz credit for trying to write a warm-hearted political comedy.
Silent Hill‘s Christians are twisted villains
In Silent Hill, this week’s shock-treatment horror film, Radha Mitchell (Melinda and Melinda, Man on Fire) plays a mother searching for her little girl (Jodelle Ferland). When the clues lead her to a ghost town, she encounters demonic monsters and horrific revelations.
Christians are more likely to be disturbed by Silent Hill than others, because they’ll find that director Christopher Gans has included some grossly distorted portrayals of Christian faith, villainizing the church as a malevolent and manipulative force. And all audiences should be warned that the film is based on a video game that includes graphic scenes of rape and violence.
Did I mention that the movie is No. 1 at the box office? Tom Neven (Plugged In) “More disturbing than this film … is the thought that legions of young people have long been absorbing Silent Hill‘s sick worldview as they try to master the various levels of four different games. Before the film’s arrival, various fan sites on the Internet began buzzing with speculation about it, with some worried that … Gans would not stay true to the dark spirit of the game. One complained that a brutal rape scene involving a bound, gagged and blindfolded woman was to be excluded from the production. … I can credit the filmmakers with that small bit of restraint while simultaneously condemning them for their gangrenous portrayal of religious faith.”
David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, “Gans’ journey through hell abounds with nightmarish visions worthy of Dante. But in exploring themes of faith, fanaticism and motherhood, the film, which starts out eerily intriguing, eventually descends into confusion and gore. Its perplexing ending will leave you, like the haunted hamlet, in a fog.”
Mainstream critics are making plenty of noise about their dislike for Silent Hill.
More reviews of recent releases
Friends with Money: Christa Banister (Crosswalk) writes, “Presumably, what the audience is supposed to learn as a result of all these conversations we eavesdrop on at the dinner table and as the girls gossip with their significant others later on, is that middle-aged life has its challenges—with or without money. Wow, that’s surprising; now did it really take 88 minutes to make that point? Ultimately, a better conclusion would’ve been the very non-Hollywood theme that a selfish perspective on life can’t help but lead to emptiness and internal conflict.”
The Notorious Bettie Page: Greg Wright (Hollywood Jesus) writes, “If Pleasantville sang the praises of unfettered sexual awakening, The Notorious Bettie Page employs a similar black-and-white-world-gone-color technique to reach quite a different conclusion: that there’s bondage and blinders, and then there’s moral restraint—and that there’s a world of difference between the two. Pleasantville threw off the former while glibly dismissing the latter; Notorious takes both equally seriously.”
The Wild: Andrew Coffin (World) says, “As with Ice Age: The Meltdown, The Wild‘s creators are convinced that nothing is so funny or entertaining as a kick, whack, swat, fall, bonk, or smack. The voice talent present here is impressive, and it lends some humor to the characters, but these animal-shaped punching bags just don’t register with the heart.”
Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says, “Apparently aiming at the 4-and-under crowd with loud, grating and well-worn attempts at humor, the filmmakers seem to bank on the fact that moviegoers will completely overlook just how unoriginal the material here is. … Add up these and other copycat segments and the final mix is what should’ve been a straight-to-DVD effort. Instead, parents who decide the film’s potty humor, double entendres, language issues and slapstick violence aren’t that big of a deal will be forced to stay awake at the multiplex hoping young ears and eyes will also catch a few positive messages. Namely, ones that accentuate the importance of parent-child relationships and how being true to yourself is better than living a lie.”
Scary Movie 4: Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says, “[I]t’s hard to find a moment not filled with sexual sight gags, crude language and over-the-top violence played for laughs. And by the way, yes, some of those movies were already parodied in the last Scary Movie.”
Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
