Sleepless in Alaska

This weekend, the new Tom Clancy thriller The Sum of All Fears will open nationwide. Fears portrays the early CIA adventures of young Jack Ryan (Ben Affleck), a hero portrayed in his later years by Alec Baldwin and Harrison Ford in The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, and Clear and Present Danger. In this episode, Ryan faces his toughest challenge—a terrorist threat to detonate a nuclear bomb at the Super Bowl.

When stories about this film reached the entertainment press last fall, many voiced doubts regarding Affleck's ability to meet the standard set by Baldwin and Ford in the earlier episodes. But there were more urgent and troubling questions. Many were dismayed that a studio would go forward with a film about such large-scale terrorist violence while audiences are still tending the wounds of September 11. Some critics declared that the days of glorified big-screen terrorism were over—a fact quickly discredited as films like Big Trouble arrived with bombs intact. Now that the World Trade Center disaster has made terrorism a daily possibility in American life, isn't it inappropriate for this type of story to be packaged as entertainment?

Let me know what you think. Is this a subject that can be meaningfully addressed by a major motion picture? What will distinguish a good film about nuclear holocaust from a bad one? And if you see the movie, I would welcome your thoughts on it. Is it capitalizing on recent waves of patriotism, or exploiting the headlines? Or is it leading us to a deeper understanding of the world we live in?

Hot from the Oven

In last week's Film Forum, I offered my own thoughts on Insomnia, the new thriller from director Christopher Nolan (my complete review is at Looking Closer). Over the weekend, reviewers everywhere turned in more praise for the film, making it the year's first title likely to be remembered at Oscar time. (Perhaps The Rookie will make the grade, but I fear it was not audacious enough to leave a lasting impression on the forgetful Academy members.) Insomnia's top notch cast is winning raves: Al Pacino, Robin Williams, and Hilary Swank are indeed very impressive. But it is even more interesting to see how this film, like last month's surprise hit Changing Lanes, is leading critics and audiences alike to chew over its unsettling moral questions. The film opened in third place this week, behind Attack of the Clones and Spider-Man, an impressive debut for a late-spring release light on the visual effects.

A critic for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says, "Insomnia is a dramatic character study unlikely to have anyone dozing off." It introduces us to Will Dormer (Pacino), a tough L.A. cop who is sent to Alaska to help investigate the death of a young woman. Dormer is trying to keep his reputation clean during a period when his department is under intense scrutiny, but his fear of becoming tainted leads to mistrust and anxiety that mar his ability to solve the case. When another corpse is discovered, Dormer struggles with whether he bears the responsibility for it. Plagued by guilt and fear, he tampers with evidence to cover his tracks, while continuing to set traps for the killer that he came to catch. All this time, the sun never sets, keeping him awake at night, burning him like his own conscience.

Several questions take their toll on Dormer's heart, and they challenge us as well. Should he commit a crime to achieve a greater good? What makes him different from the villain he is chasing? Who should we be rooting for? Do the ends justify the means?

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) calls Insomnia "a well-done morality play. Both Pacino and Williams have the potential to go over the top as actors, but Nolan elicits restrained, effective performances from each of them, and their cat-and-mouse sparring is riveting. Insomnia is a satisfying thriller that confirms Christopher Nolan as a talented filmmaker to watch."

Holly McClure (Crosswalk), Michael Elliott (Movie Parables), and Phil Boatwright (The Movie Reporter) highlight the moral dilemma at the center of the film. McClure writes, "Insomnia shows how one moment, act, or conflict can change your life, your circumstances and your entire future, and how once you blur those lines of truth, everything becomes relative." Elliott praises Pacino's performance as riveting (a popular term among the film's critics), but he isn't as complimentary of Williams: "He fails to put any kind of distinctive stamp on his role. It is a subdued and rather bland performance." Boatwright calls the film "a most compelling and somewhat demanding thriller. The performances, the direction, and the cinematography are each outstanding."

But Joseph L. Kalcso and Lisa Rice (Movieguide) sound like they have seen a different film: "It tries to succeed, but regrettably … [it] takes an increasingly negative toll the longer it runs. Nolan … does not fail to miss every possible opportunity to turn this movie from a good police thriller to a great one. Insomnia fails to make its point at almost every turn." And Mary Draughon (Preview) says, "Discerning viewers, who refuse to support films with filthy language, will certainly avoid this thriller and hope Hollywood pays attention!"

* * *

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron is the latest animated adventure from DreamWorks, the studio that produced the memorable Prince of Egypt and Shrek. Critics are again impressed by the abilities of the artists, who work here in a mix of traditional hand-drawn animation and cutting-edge digital work. Horse lovers finally have an animated movie that does justice to the animals. The songs composed by Bryan Adams, whose popularity peaked in the mid-'80s, are drawing mixed but strong reviews. The story follows the misadventures of a wild horse who learns the good and the bad of dealing with human beings; he finds respect and friendship in a Native American who cares for him, but suffers at the hands of the advancing representatives of Western civilization.

Steven D. Greydanus calls the movie "a wonder to behold. I'm particularly impressed by the animation of the horses, which are (as I can personally vouch with my background in illustration) notoriously difficult to draw. The film is also effective in the way it allows the horses to express themselves nonverbally, without turning them into talking cartoon characters. Like Bambi, Spirit is visually eloquent, though musically it's banal."

"The animation has a lovely painterly quality," says a critic for the USCCB "[It's] an engaging tale that's cinematically beautiful to behold. Most big animated films lately have been very sassy, stressing smart-alecky comebacks and wise-cracking talking animals. Not so this gentle yet sometimes cruel film which celebrates the beauty of nature, respect for life, homeland and family."

Holly McClure raves, "Not only is it a visually satisfying movie, but there's a strong message about never letting anyone break your spirit, and about valuing your family and the freedom we have. This is what family entertainment should be." Theresa Zumwalt (Preview) agrees, calling it "a highly entertaining story set in a historical context, that could spark some excellent dialogue between parents and children." And Michael Elliott says, "Spirit's artwork is simplistically stunning. The musical score … matches the film's themes and images with stirring inspirational and patriotic fervor. In addition to the fact that it is completely free of any offensive content … there are any number of spiritual lessons to be found within the story."

But some Christian media critics would not agree that the film is "completely free of any offensive content." Lindy Beam (Focus on the Family) calls the animation spectacular, but adds, "A line from the tale's opening segment provides a telling insight into Spirit's spirit: 'Whether the West was won or lost, I'll leave that up to you to decide.' It turns out to be the biggest rhetorical question ever, because the intended message is clear: White men bad; Indians and animals good. Industrial progress bad; nature good." Likewise, Ted Baehr (Movieguide) argues, "The problem … for people of the Christian faith is that the movie has a Romantic worldview. Jean Jacques Rousseau formulated Romantic philosophy to depose Christian theology. To a large degree, this is the philosophical perspective of the film. The animals and the Indians are noble. The representatives of Western Civilization are mean, cruel, and repressive."

Phil Boatwright agrees that the film is guilty of "reverse bigotry." But he confesses that he is "hooked on horse movies," and says Spirit has joined his list of favorites: "While aimed more at little ones with its color and movement, the stylish animated film has enough intrigue and action to keep accompanying parents from going out of their skulls."

Most mainstream critics are dazzled by the animation, but argue over other aspects. Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) says, "Uncluttered by comic supporting characters and cute sidekicks, Spirit is more pure and direct than most of the stories we see in animation—a fable I suspect younger viewers will strongly identify with. The animals do not speak … and I think that's important to the film's success. It elevates the story from a children's fantasy to one wider audiences can enjoy, because although the stallion's adventures are admittedly pumped-up melodrama, the hero is nevertheless a horse and not a human with four legs."

MaryAnn Johanson (Flick Filosopher) argues that the movie "is so close to being a great film that it can't help but leave you with the bitter aftertaste of what might have been." She praises its animation and storytelling, but adds, "Matt Damon's flat narration … does nothing but needlessly reiterate thoughts and feelings that are already clearly understood, and Bryan Adams' songs are worse, hammering us so that the story's genuine passion gets crushed into phony sentimentality. An unaffected score—one that actually featured some Western twang or Native American rhythms—was all that was needed."

* * *

For moviegoers who prefer something classical, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest makes a welcome return to the "stage" in a new adaptation directed by Oliver Parker. It is unlikely that any production of the play has ever boasted such a talented cast. Rupert Everett (An Ideal Husband), Colin Firth (Bridget Jones's Diary), Reese Witherspoon (Legally Blonde), Frances O'Connor (A.I. Artificial Intelligence), and Dame Judi Dench (Chocolat) bring to life this witty, literate comedy of manners, romance, and misunderstanding.

However, many critics in both the religious and mainstream press find something lacking in this particular version. The USCCB's critic writes, "The importance of being honest requires advising that The Importance of Being Earnest … is far off the mark. Oscar Wilde's bitingly witty satire of upper-class romantic silliness is reduced to a bland drawing room comedy."

But Eric and Lisa Rice (Movieguide) write, "This movie looks great with beautifully designed costumes and sets. Earnest displays the tangled web of deception and the incredible hardship that it causes. [The actors] all do a marvelous job of keeping this complicated plot going."

Mary Draughon (Preview) does not comment on how this version of the play compares to others. Rather, she gives Earnest a "plus" because it is "absolutely free of foul language, violence and explicit sexual content" but cautions that it "has some slightly sensual material."

Some critics praise it but worry that today's average moviegoer is not educated enough or sophisticated enough to appreciate its subtle achievements. Roger Ebert says, "I yearn for a world in which every drawing room is a stage, and we but players on it. But does anyone these days know what a drawing room is? How can people recognize wit who begin with only a half-measure of it?"

MaryAnn Johanson (Flick Filosopher) says, "It's a sorry commentary on the state of contemporary film that the script for the best-written movie so far this year is more than a century old. It's arrant nonsense, of course, but even this hundred-year-old nonsense is fresher, sillier, more vibrant, more delicious than anything of recent vintage. The point is merely to laugh—a lot—and leave the theater walking on air and feeling that surely silliness will never reach so splendid an apex again."

* * *

Director Michael Apted's new movie Enough may remind audiences of Julia Roberts's hit film Sleeping with the Enemy. Here again we have a woman whose husband suddenly reveals himself to be a monstrous, abusive, controlling villain. Jennifer Lopez plays Slim, a waitress, wife, and mother determined to protect herself and her daughter from Mitch (Billy Campbell of TV's Once and Again), who is not only unfaithful but violently insistent on having everything his own way.

"It is difficult to summarize the story of Enough without making it sound somewhat ridiculous," says Michael Elliott. "But we cannot dismiss it entirely. Apted … has the talent to keep the suspense taut and pace clipped. Unfortunately, his skills behind the camera can do little to change what screenwriter Nicholas Kazan has left on the printed page. Not only is character development an oxymoron here, the characters, undeveloped as they are, don't make much sense."

A critic for the USCCB writes, "Slim's vengeful intentions … in many ways denigrate the very real danger of abused spouses. It says that if you are strong enough, disciplined enough and willing to learn keen self-defense tactics, you can fight back and win. Had the film focused more seriously and realistically on the danger of spousal abuse and its repercussions, it might have made a powerful impression. Instead, it is a very Hollywoodesque take on domestic violence where the bad guy is punished and the good guy, no matter by what means, wins." Likewise, Douglas Downs (Christian Spotlight) says, "I honestly cannot recommend Enough because of the negative solutions offered for a serious problem in our society." And Paul Bicking (Preview) says that "poor messages about legal protection for spouse abuse and planned retaliation, several obscenities, and graphic brutality" will turn off "discerning viewers."

Tom Snyder (Movieguide) writes, "Enough does pack some emotional punch. After all, who can resist rooting for a mother who's trying to protect herself and her child from an abusive husband? The ending plays a bit like some kind of wrestling program. Titles like 'Marital Smackdown' or 'Suburban Cage Fight' come to mind. Although the movie strongly condemns adultery and domestic abuse, Slim's ultimate solution seems to be somewhat humanistic."

Phil Boatwright says, "What starts out as a poignant look at spousal abuse and the difficulties of obtaining legal justice and protection for battered wives eventually slides into a silly and sadistic Lifetime-television-for-woman-like revenge fantasy. Filmmakers, if you're going to address this disturbing subject, don't turn it into a cartoon."

Mainstream critics like Ebert use the word cartoon in their reviews as well. Ebert complains, "Enough is a nasty item masquerading as a feminist revenge picture. It's surprising to see a director like Michael Apted and an actress like Jennifer Lopez associated with such tacky material."

Still Cooking

Star War—Episode Two: Attack of the Clones topped the box office again this week, and continued stirring up critics who either revile the film for its juvenile dialogue or rejoice at its visually enthralling adventure. Religious media critics, however, continue to discuss the spiritual lessons illustrated by the ongoing saga.

Roger Thomas (Ethics Daily) talks about one of the ways in which this trilogy differs from the previous films: "George Lucas has said that he believes the message of his new Star Wars trilogy … is that the journey toward evil is often a gradual one. Anakin Skywalker … is destined to become one of the most evil characters in film history, Darth Vader. With the outcome already determined, the thrill of the prequels is discovering the journey." As far as his estimation of the new film goes, Thomas calls it "a worthy addition to the canon. Some of the dialogue could have seen a rewrite or two. But for even marginal fans of the series, most will be satisfied by the story of this latest chapter."

Do the Jedi have anything to teach Christians? Cultural commentator Dick Staub thinks so. He suggests forming an "Order of Jedi Christians" to "recover the radical nature of Jesus' original vision for his disciples."

On the same page, Staub shares some of George Lucas's own statements about the spirituality portrayed in the saga. For example, in a February 2002 interview at Well-Rounded.com, Lucas explains, "Star Wars is designed to make people think about the larger entities and mysteries of life. But there aren't enough answers in Star Wars to turn it into a religion." And in a conversation with Bill Moyers in 1999, Lucas said, "I put the Force into the movie … in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people—more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system."

Meanwhile, Christian critics continued arguing over whether this is a good chapter compared to the others in the series. Dawn Xiana Moon (Relevant Magazine) says, "Somewhere along the way, it seems George Lucas lost sight of his original vision and caved in to marketing pressures and the urge to show off his technical wizardry. The movie was better than I feared, but worse than I hoped it would be." And Peter T. Chattaway (The Vancouver Courier) isn't thrilled with the results either: "There is much to admire in this film, on a visual level. But like the film that came before it … Clones fails to make its characters all that interesting, and as a result, it lacks both the joy and the dramatic heft of the original trilogy; instead, it is saddled with bad puns … and stilted moments that exist not for their own sake but to set up the following episodes. But the most alarming thing about this film may be that, for the first time, a Star Wars movie has no greater moral or spiritual lesson to impart, beyond paying lip service to democracy."

Some opposing views are available this week at The Film Forum, run by Steve Lansingh (who originated this very column a few years ago). Lansingh calls Clones "a morally complex tale that rivals The Empire Strikes Back for brain food. It gives the series richer, more resonsant tones. I can't wait to get back in line to soak it all in again, to grasp things that might have slipped by me."

Lansingh also answers critics that have criticized the film for not having the simple, compelling, good guys vs. bad guys plot of the original trilogy: "Many reviewers have criticized the movie on this front, saying there's no real story here, just an assemblage of spare parts. While I can see their point, I think it's a whole lot easier to tell the story of one man's journey (as the original trilogy did) than the whole galaxy's journey (as this new series attempts). Not every character gets as solid an arc as in the originals, but the machinations of the universe follow a fairly clear arc if you choose to look at it from that 'certain point of view.' For me, at least, the busyness of Episode II is not a turn off but an invitation to explore further."

At the same Web site, critic Jeff Diaz writes: "Many of the intelligentsia and their rivals the cultureless rednecks are in agreement that this film is heavily flawed … the first for reasons of dialogue or because the film was too popular by nature … the second because there isn't enough action and a person must possess a brain in order to appreciate this movie. But to the normal person who still possesses the ability to like a movie because of a good plot, good action, and stunning effects, get out there and be impressed."

* * *

Christian critics also continued thinking through the new comedy About a Boy, which tells the story of a shallow, self-centered man (Hugh Grant) who starts growing up and learning his need for other people and the importance of being trustworthy and dependable.

Peter T. Chattaway (Vancouver Courier) says, "Some writers, looking for a way to pigeonhole this movie, have called it a 'romantic comedy.' But although About a Boy is very much a story worth telling, it's, like the title says, ultimately about a boy—about two boys, in fact, and the effect they have on each other's lives. The [filmmakers] allow the humor to come … naturally out of the interactions between the characters, and they thankfully refuse to exploit these same serious moments for their sentimental value. … For the most part, the film strikes just the right tone."

Simon Remark (Hollywood Jesus) calls the movie "warm and funny … one of the most entertaining films I've seen in a while. It shows the importance of connecting with other people, as truly 'no man is an island.' We all have a need for love and relationship; also, Will learns that true wealth and happiness can only come from the immaterial."

Next week: Are post-9/11 audiences ready for big-screen nuclear holocaust? We'll look at reactions to The Sum of All Fears.

Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.