One Night with the King ...and The Queen

One Night With the King brings the story of Esther to life on a scale that will remind viewers of big screen biblical classics like The Ten Commandments. But does director Michael O. Sajbel's film do justice to this beloved Old Testament story?

Is Stephan Blinn's screenplay faithful to Scripture—or to the Tommy Tenney novel of the same title, which varies from the Bible story on some significant points?

Is Tiffany Dupont up to the challenge of portraying this complex character?

Christian film critics are coming to different conclusions.

Russ Breimeier (Christianity Today Movies) says, "One Night with the King may well be the best-looking movie from a Christian company to date, with sumptuous visuals that are both artistic and authentic. … Praise is also deserved for the film's impressive casting."

And yet, Breimeier finds some significant flaws. "Blinn's screenplay … is as complicated as Shakespeare crossed with The History Channel, constantly trying to explain the cultural and historical points without allowing the audience to comfortably sit back and enjoy the storytelling. … It ends up trying to say too much in too little time."

Breimeier concludes that the filmmakers have "made a commendable attempt at telling the story … and giving it sweeping production values to match. … But a good film still needs to communicate its story effectively, even one as familiar as this one is to Christians and Jews. … A tighter script could have made this a classic Bible epic."

The story of Esther could certainly be made into a great film someday, says Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films). "One Night with the King is not that film. In a number of ways, it's not even that story."

Greydanus says the film has "a distinctly made-for-TV vibe," and while he's impressed with some of the casting, that's about all. He says the script is "home-video hackneyed rather than silver-screen sophisticated," and compares the romantic scenes between Xerxes and Esther to "a smitten schoolboy mooning over the head cheerleader."

Finally, he notes that, while the novel "takes significant liberties with the biblical story," the film departs from the Bible story even further.

Cliff Vaughn (Ethics Daily) says, "Three factors make One Night unsatisfying: the loosey-goosey script, some spotty acting and an ill-conceived musical score."

Matt Page (BibleFilms blog) observes, "It's a far better effort than anyone who watched [the filmmakers'] previous effort (The Omega Code) would have expected. This is one of the most visually impressive epics in years. … Ultimately though, even the most impressive visuals in the world cannot compensate for poor acting. … Sadly, the acting side of things is let down, badly, by poor performances by Luke Goss and Tommy 'Tiny' Lister as Xerxes and Hagai respectively." He also faults the script, and concludes that the movie is "a mixed affair."

Steven Isaac (Plugged In) seems as impressed with what the movie doesn't do than what it does. He says it "soars far more often than it stumbles. While actors' accents are all over the map and the story feels too dense to follow in spots, the action and intrigue is undeniably exciting and compelling—without ever resorting to gratuitous gore, violence, foul language or sexual situations."

"One Night With the King is worth seeing just for the palace, effects, music score, and acting," says Lisa Rice (Crosswalk), "but the true takeaway is the story."

But she could have done without so much attention on the plight of the young eunuchs, whose involvement in the story "competes with the inspirational lessons. … "

And Elliott Ryan (CBN) says, "While the film does not follow the biblical narrative completely faithfully, the film does a great job of communicating the heart and message of the historical account."

Mainstream critics aren't very impressed. Josh Bell (Las Vegas Weekly) asks, "Dear Lord, why must Your most ardent followers unleash such bad movies in Your name? Surely, as our Creator, You wish for us to have better entertainment than the cut-rate fare that passes for faith-based film?" But Joe Leydon (Variety) says it's "a surprisingly satisfying attempt to revive the Old Hollywood tradition of lavishly appointed Biblical epics aimed at mainstream audiences."

Is Frears' Queen his career's crown jewel?

There aren't many directors capable of doing what Steven Frears has done so far in his career—a wide array of memorable films which have spanned many subjects in strikingly different contexts, genres, and styles. From sumptuous period pieces like Dangerous Liaisons and Mary Reilly to the hip crime caper The Grifters, small-scale comedies like The Snapper and The Van, troubling thrillers like Dirty Pretty Things, and hip comedies like High Fidelity, he's one of the most versatile directors working today.

But The Queen may be the movie that takes him into the winners' circle at the Oscars. Frears' focus on goings-on within the House of Windsor in the days just before and immediately following the death of Princess Diana is revealing and convincing. And his fictional speculation lets us see the world through the eyes of a woman who lives according to the customs and concerns of a bygone era—Queen Elizabeth II.

While the film serves to inspire sympathy for the Queen's perspective, it also inspires us to appreciate one of the greatest actors working today. Frears will likely earn a nomination for his direction, but at this stage in the game it looks like Helen Mirren is the front-runner for the Best Actress award.

My full review is at Looking Closer.

Camerin Courtney (Christianity Today Movies) raves, "From the opening portrait-sitting scene, [Mirren] embodies Queen Elizabeth II. … Sheen's Tony Blair is pitch perfect as well. … A thin phone line and the weight of history spans the gap between these two people and their vastly different worlds. And it's the delicate dance they choreograph together in those phone conversations that makes this such a fascinating and moving study of a part of English culture. Whether they make any missteps along the way is for the viewer and future historians to decide."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) raves, "Stephen Frears directs beautifully, and even if Peter Morgan's script is mostly speculative, what we see on-screen plays convincingly, just as anyone who followed the proceedings at the time might have imagined. … [A]s a fascinating chronicle of conflict between time-honored tradition and the encroachment of modernity, as exemplified by Blair, The Queen makes compelling drama of a high order."

Mainstream critics are praising Frears—as usual—and heralding her highness.

Alex Rider is no Bond, nor is it fresh or fun

The commercials are telling us that the new James Bond movie stars Daniel Craig as the new Bond.

But according to critics, despite its adolescent star, Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker is basically a Bond movie minus the sleaze. That'll sound like a good thing to moviegoing families. Having Ewan McGregor involved won't hurt it either, even if he's only in the movie for a moment.

But Alex Rider is missing more than just the Bond girls. According to critics, it also lacks originality … and fun.

Todd Hertz (Christianity Today Movies) writes, "Without a teen zest, a youthful joy or themes specific to being a young spy, Stormbreaker isn't a teen spin on James Bond movie. It is a James Bond movie with a younger actor (and no sex). The character's age brings nothing new, fun or fresh to the character or the adventure. … The only changes are that the promiscuity is deleted and a new exposition is added to explain the young age of our hero."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says the film is "a step up from the similarly themed Agent Cody Banks movies, but it's still lightweight stuff with its slim plot padded with chases and explosions."

Mainstream critics are calling it "lame and disappointing."

Man of the Year not even the Movie of the Week

Director Barry Levinson made a memorable movie with Robin Williams once before—1987's Good Morning Vietnam was an entertaining, compelling character study, and it gave Williams what may be his greatest role, the hilarious wartime radio DJ Adrian Cronauer. Later, with 1997's Wag the Dog, Levinson showed that he could deliver a clever, funny, and observant political comedy.

But according to critics, Man of the Year, in which Levinson directs Williams again, falls far short of the marks set by those films.

It might be fun to imagine that a wisecracking comedian could run for President and unravel the tangled mess in Washington. But it will take a different team of imaginations to make it into a movie worth seeing.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) says it's "surprisingly light on political content," and "surprisingly light on humor." And he concludes, "It will draw audiences who want to see topical humor, and it will bog them down in a typical thriller, before capping things off with a serious, earnest, yet cautious political statement."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) writes, "Levinson … hasn't decided what film he wanted to make: part Capraesque fantasy; part polemic against the corporatization of politics; part satire about the blurring of entertainment and news; part romance. The jokes are funny, but the treatment of politics is oversimplified."

Bob Hoose (Plugged In) muses, "The truth of the matter is that some politicians are corrupt. Others aren't. But Man of the Year wants you to walk out of the theater brooding that nothing works at all." He concludes that the film is "torpedoed" by "brazenly unabashed 'humor' related to drug use, pornography, prostitution, masturbation, gay marriage, bestiality and oral sex."

"Despite a boatload of flaws, I still have to hand it to Williams and Linney," writes Christa Banister (Crosswalk). "I'm not sure anyone else could've fared as well with such silly, unconvincing material. But unfortunately for those hoping for a flick that'll lead to some provocative post-movie conversation, you'll have to look elsewhere."

Mainstream critics are quick to cast their "no" votes.

Driving Lessons drives critics to disapproval

Rupert Grint, the young actor who has played Harry Potter's faithful friend Ronald throughout the Potter franchise, has the lead role opposite Julie Walters (Billy Elliott, Educating Rita), a legend of the stage and screen, in Driving Lessons. It's a comedy about a boy who goes to work for an aging actress while trying to escape from the influence of his intimidating, self-righteous, Bible-thumping mother.

While most critics waste no time in pointing out the similarity between this film and the cult-classic comedy Harold and Maude, they also agree that Driving Lessons is the inferior work.

Lisa Ann Cockrel (Christianity Today Movies) says, "[T]he subtlety and unpredictable quirkiness that made Harold and Maude a cult favorite largely eludes Driving Lessons as it moves from one ineffectual cliché to another."

She adds that she was "surprised to learn that Driving Lessons is somewhat autobiographical; writer/director Jeremy Brock is a vicar's son and even spent a summer with Oscar-winner Dame Peggy Ashcroft. Given this, it's unfortunate the narrative isn't suffused with more zest and nuance. Instead, it feels calculated and even the most emotional scenes fall flat."

Mainstream critics aren't entirely pleased with Driving Lessons, but some are enjoying the ride.

No medals for this Marine

John Cena is a successful professional wrestler, and he's also a hip-hop artist. So that means he's imminently qualified to be a movie star, right?

Some people seem to think so. Critics refuse to award any medals to Cena's first film, The Marine, but the movie did break into the top ten this week. Cena plays a Rambo-like Marine who must save his wife from a wicked diamond thief (Terminator 2's Robert Patrick), so he opens fire with a barrage of action-film cliché s.

Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says, "The paint-by-numbers characters, the Rambo-reminiscent story line and the sheer impossibility of virtually every action scene may be brushed aside as par for the course. Same goes for the lame attempts at comedy spliced between all those punches, shots and explosions. … But the celebration of foul language, illicit sex and violence? Not excusable."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, "Cena lacks the charisma of fellow ex-wrestler Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, but is reasonably appealing. … Director John Bonito piles on the pyrotechnics, chases and ammo rounds, all strung together with a B-movie script."

Mainstream critics would like to send Cena back to the wrestling ring, although a few critics got a kick out of the film's unapologetically derivative tricks.

Critics' grudges can't stop this No. 1 hit

Takashi Shimizu is breaking new ground by taking the popular and successful horror series he has already made in Japan and now re-making it for Americans.

You might think that would make The Grudge 2 something worth catching. And surely the participation of Joan of Arcadia (I mean, Amber Tamblyn) and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (I mean, Sarah Michelle Gellar) makes it something to see!

No, wrong. The movie amounts to little more than a freaky wraith killing one empty-headed teenager after another.

Critics aren't wasting any time calling it a piece of trash. But not most American moviegoers, apparently, who happily sent the movie to No. 1 at the box office.

Adam R. Holz (Plugged In) sums it up: "In a nutshell … the film teaches that there are evil spirits, they can kill us, and there's nothing we can do to resist them. Hope and redemption have left the dark building these spirits inhabit—not to mention the script of The Grudge 2."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service): "Emphasizing creepiness over coherence … [the director] provides some chills, but the spooky effects are wasted on a nonsensical script, made all the more confusing by its nonlinear plot."

Mainstream critics would like to take this franchise and snap its neck.

More reviews of recent releases

Love's Abiding Joy: Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) compliments the direction, design, cinematography, and music, but says that "both the script … and performances are bland and way too contemporary. … There was more period flavor in old TV Westerns like 'Bonanza' and 'Gunsmoke' than you find here." He also concludes, "The faith elements, though admirable, are heavy-handed."

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.