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."

Article continues below

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."

Sister Rose Pacatte (St. Anthony Messenger) is more blunt: "This rather simplistic, stilted and somewhat boring film is more of a sermon than a movie that inspires. … The producers went for evangelical-style drama, but it could have used some creative subtlety and originality."

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films), who sometimes writes for CT Movies, had a mixed reaction. He says the film "pulls off the potentially problematic combination of religious and athletic inspiration more often than not—at least on the field. … [T]he film finds some clever ways to connect faith and success without reducing belief to a lucky feather or God to a team mascot."

But Greydanus also writes, "Unfortunately, the filmmakers haven't figured out how to realize the critical spiritual turning points off the field … . These moments of conversion are plot points that just happen, with no sense of character development or insight."

Hannah Goldwyn (CBN) says, "Audiences will see a real life testimony of God's power and mercy in Facing the Giants. It has a lesson for everyone to learn from trusting God when you feel like your situation is hopeless to honoring your parents." But she criticizes some of the screenwriting and adds, "Some things could have been better: the beginning and the acting. The first part of the movie is a little slow, but that's soon forgotten as the story starts to pick up a third of the way in. Also, the lack of acting talent is vaguely evident and the story is predictable at times."

Article continues below

Phil Boatwright (Baptist Press) says the movie "had the usual cinematic shortcomings associated with well-meaning Christian moviemaking. During the opening sequences, both the actors and dialogue seem clumsy and forced. But as the film continues, something so sincere about the cast overshadows the handicaps of their amateur status."

Tom Neven and Steven Isaac (Plugged In) say we should be cheering the film because of its volunteer efforts and the Christian message. "[B]y embracing the spiritual concept of faith and then exploring the tension that exists between human experiences and spiritual realities, this little film that could—does. … These amateurs make it look easy. And they make it look good. Maybe that's because they took the film's earnest message to heart: Win or lose, they trusted God and gave Him their very best."

Christa Banister (Crosswalk) says "the screenwriter creates memorable, relatable characters and does an exceptional job of talking about faith in the face of fear without crossing the line into blatant proselytizing."

All in all, then, some mixed reactions from Christian critics. But among mainstream reviewers, only 17 percent are giving it a good review. Art has the power to inspire and challenge in ways that direct preaching and evangelizing does not, but Giants apparently didn't accomplish that with mainstream critics.

"If there were an Oscar category for ultralow-budget movies with all-volunteer casts produced, written and directed by unknown pastors, Facing the Giants would handily be nominated," writes William Lobdell (Los Angeles Times). "But stacked against its competition in theaters, Facing the Giants feels like an overly earnest church sketch of the type many evangelical congregations use as a teaching tool on Sunday between the worship music and pastor's message."

Sean Axmaker (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) writes, "[L]ike too many films of faith, it mixes its message, proclaiming that a life given over to God is a reward unto itself, and then handing over victories to its faithful like some overtime bonus."

Jeff Strickler (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) says, "The religious proselytizing in this football movie is about as subtle as a blindside hit by a 300-pound defensive end."

Chris Hewitt (St. Paul Pioneer Press) asks, "If the Christian football team in Facing the Giants begins to win because God wants them to, does it follow that the acting isn't good because God didn't want it to be?"

Article continues below

So, to sum up: Are audiences loving it? Yes. Does it have a positive Christian message? Obviously. Is it crafted with more professionalism and quality than most "Christian films"? Yes. But are there some valid criticisms? Many accomplished critics think so, in the religious press and in the mainstream press. And since we serve a God who cares about excellence as well as "messages" and crowdpleasing, we should be glad that there are watchful critics challenging us to strive for better and better things.

Film Forum will post links to further reviews as they become available.

Critics fire on Open Season

Is anybody else out there flinching every time the big screen gets a new cartoon full of senselessly jabbering animals? I grew up in a time when an animated Disney feature was an occasional treat and more—a work of art. These days, it seems like there's a new digitally animated movie about critters every week. They seem so much alike, so disposable, and sometimes rather meaningless. I wonder if it's starting to annoy the kids as well.

Anyway, Open Season is this week's talking-animal cartoon, and the celebrities lending their voices to the characters include Martin Lawrence, Ashton Kutcher, and Gary Sinise. It's about a grizzly bear who is turned loose into the wilderness during hunting season, and how a mule tries to help rescue him from the bullets of a wicked hunter.

Carolyn Arends (Christianity Today Movies) writes, "Despite its overly familiar plot elements and the excessive time it takes getting to its real story, Open Season has a lot going for it. The voice cast is uniformly good. The animation … is not remarkably distinct but is highly watchable and sometimes pretty cool … . There are some genuinely funny bits, likely to amuse kids and adults alike. But underneath it all is an edge of mean-spiritedness far more problematic than the lack of originality."

Frederica Matthewes-Green (Frederica.com, originally published in The National Review) says, "[T]here wasn't any element I could honestly say was enjoyable —nothing that sparked wonder. There was lots of skittering and slamming and noise, and the screen often filled up with images that were just plain ugly."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) calls it "an entertaining addition to what has already been a banner year for pixilated pleasures. And while not matching Pixar's best, it can be enjoyed by all but the very youngest viewers. … [T]he film is a bit thin plotwise and padded with slapstick, but its playful tone and amiable message about friendship make it good family fun."

Article continues below

Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says he doesn't blame the filmmakers for turning in something that seems familiar. "The genre is getting more and more competitive, and often, rising to the top means delivering the most laughs per minute with the slickest animation possible. So by those credentials, this cool-looking kiddie-oriented creation earns solid marks." But then he finds fault with "potty humor, surprising language issues and a whole lotta played-for-laughs-but-awkwardly-realistic violence."

Lisa Rice (Crosswalk) says, "Open Season is a fun story with solid character development. … The animation is amazing. … Overall, this skillfully made, high-budget drama/comedy will very likely clean up at the box office as it entertains the masses this fall season."

Mainstream reviews are mixed.

Mixed reax for The Guardian

The Guardian wins some praise thanks to the powerful direction of Andrew Davis (The Fugitive, Holes), and action scenes that leave the audience breathless. Kevin Costner is also earning applause—more praise than his co-star, Ashton Kutcher—for his performance as a veteran Coast Guard officer.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) says, "If Flyboys was Top Gun with biplanes and trench warfare, then The Guardian is Top Gun with diving gear and big waves. Once again, a cocky young hotshot joins a military academy … and once again, the eager young braggart learns more than he expected, as he butts heads with his teachers and experiences a tragedy or two, all of which turn him into a better, more mature, more professional kind of person."

But Chattaway says the movie's too long. "About an hour and a half into it, I began to wonder how it would end. … But about two hours into it, I began to wonder when it would end; it just keeps on going, and keeps on finding subplots in need of resolution."

Bob Hoose (Plugged In) says that "[c]hest-thumping hoo-rah moments, partially undressed romance, a smattering of foul language and a beer-tipping bar brawl" will ensure that moviegoing families are uncomfortable with this picture. "And that's too bad. Because The Guardian also embraces something we haven't seen in a while. It's a movie about sacrifice."

Christa Banister (Crosswalk) says, "Sure, The Guardian has some cheesy dialogue and a touchy-feely core, but the well-executed action sequences more than make up for its inadequacies. Or even Ashton Kutcher's wooden dramatic acting for that matter."

Article continues below

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, "Despite playing at times like a commercial for the Coast Guard, the formulaic film is kept afloat by appealing performances, exciting rescue sequences and an admirable theme about sacrificing one's life to save others."

Mainstream critics have mixed reviews, most finding it too formulaic, but many admitting they were more impressed than they expected to be.

You won't sleep through The Science of Sleep

Have you ever wished you could play back your dreams and study them? That seems to be what director Michael Gondry has done in The Science of Sleep.

In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the favorite film of Christianity Today's film critics in 2004, Gondry worked with screenwriter Charlie Kaufman to take us into the memory and the subconscious of his characters' minds. Thus, it seems like a natural progression for Gondry to take moviegoers next into a dreamworld. And what a dreamworld he's created.

The Science of Sleep is a romance, full of imagination and whimsy that will have you asking "How did he do that?" even as it charms, bewilders, and alarms you. While the unconventional lives and behaviors of its central characters introduce us to some discomforting and reckless behavior, discerning viewers may find delightful rewards as Gondry guides us through his wonderland.

My full review is at Looking Closer.

Josh Hurst (Christianity Today Movies) calls Gondry "the Willy Wonka of cinema. He loves bright colors, punchdrunk whimsy, and, to cop a phrase, pure imagination. He's probably a madman, and that's what makes him so charming. You can't help but laugh at the sheer, giddy joy of his storytelling, even if the laughter is, occasionally, of the nervous variety. But make no mistake—Gondry isn't a candyman. His movies are delicious and delightful, and they'll leave you with a heck of a sugar rush, but their nutritional value is much higher than that of an Everlasting Gobstopper. Gondry's films can pack a surprising emotional wallop, even when they don't necessarily make logical sense."

Of Sleep, Hurst says that "any sense of narrative focus is derailed after half an hour, but don't let that bother you—the fun just keeps flying by, deliriously inventive, full of exuberant whimsy and ramshackle energy. … There are no big, profound statements here about romance and fidelity, nor is there the huge emotional punch of Sunshine, but it's enough to ensure that the film is more than just an exercise in weirdness. That said, if cinematic weirdness is your bread and butter, The Science of Sleep is a feast for the imagination and a triumph of creativity."

Article continues below

Frederica Matthewes-Green (Frederica.com, originally published in The National Review) says her high expectations for the film were "more than fulfilled; the screen is nearly always filled with something playful and delightful to watch, both live action and charmingly old-fashioned stop-motion sequences." She notes, however, that "a couple of inherent problems make the story harder to appreciate than it ought to be."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, "By turns sweet and surreal, the film touches on many of the same themes as Eternal Sunshine, though the net result is less poetic. … [T]he movie's offbeat originality is sabotaged by Gondry's affection for dreamlike images over narrative coherence that ultimately undermines emotional involvement in the story. Overall, The Science of Sleep disappoints, even as it dazzles."

Mainstream critics are happy to be back in Gondry's weird, wild imagination.

Critics flunk School for Scoundrels

Billy Bob Thornton plays an instructor bent on reforming young slackers, like the one played by Napoleon Dynamite's Jon Heder, in Todd Phillips' comedy School for Scoundrels. But the result suggests that it's really Mr. Phillips who needs to learn a few hard lessons.

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) calls it "a dreary and contrived story … . Phillips' putative comedy is almost completely devoid of laughs, indifferently paced, and inconsistent in its character delineation."

According to Christopher Lyon (Plugged In), "School for Scoundrels is yet another film where the promise of concept and cast proves funnier than the execution. … [Phillips'] screenplay seems to be relying heavily on the fact that the performers will just 'be funny.' And though they can be seen swinging for the fences, said heavy hitters rarely connect."

Mainstream critics show no mercy on Phillips' film.

More reviews of recent releases

Half Nelson: Adam Tillman-Young (Relevant) writes, "When examined through the lens of a flawed person in meaningful relationship with Christ, Half Nelson strongly articulates the twisted moral paradox of action versus intention outlined by the apostle Paul in Romans 7. While teaching is a noble profession and crack is a humiliating addiction, the integrity of this film would hold up just as well if it were about a youth pastor with a wandering eye, a banker with a penchant for mugging old ladies, or if it were about you, pitting your greatest calling against your most crippling weakness."

Tags: