NOTE: This is not intended to be a comprehensive overview of available reviews. This is instead intended as an archive of commentaries and examinations that have caught my attention, challenged my opinions, inspired me to reflect, and helped me appreciate films more deeply. Some of these reviews have upset me, but in doing so they've sharpened my views and challenged me to think more carefully, look more closely.

*Babel (2006)

Babel takes its title from the Genesis tale in which God punishes and scatters an arrogant people by confusing their languages. The film clearly demonstrates that the separation continues. Fault lines run between nations and traditions, but they also splinter to divide communities, families, and marriages. A simple dispute between brothers can tear a rift in history, and a gesture of grace between strangers can make a difference too.

To demonstrate this division, director Alejandro Gonzalez Ińárritu and his screenwriter, Guillermo Arriago, weave plots through Babel's 142 minutes, continuing a trend of complicated big-screen tapestries. Many will compare it to Crash, Magnolia, Syriania, and Traffic. But it's also worthwhile to compare it to Ińárritu's first two films, which were similarly convoluted—the critically acclaimed Amores Perros and his first American effort, 21 Grams.

Babel is the most ambitious of the three, taking us into four strikingly different cultural contexts. In its intricate web of narratives, it is more accomplished and affecting than the Oscar-winning Crash. But it's not likely to be as popular. Audiences found it easy to applaud Crash, because who could possibly argue with its premise? Prejudice is bad, love is good. Babel's revelations are more painful to watch, more discomforting, and ultimately humbling. We're likely to see our own limitations mirrored back to us in uncomfortable ways—flaws that know no borders. (Americans especially could learn from its portrait of tourists becoming impatient with the limitations of other, less-privileged cultures.)

My full review is at Christianity Today Movies.

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) raves, "Inarritu's somber and lengthy film … imparts an admirable message about our shared global humanity and the senselessness of violence. … Along the way, the film makes a powerful case for a more compassionate view of undocumented workers. … The film's international cast gives extraordinary performances across the board. … The film is leisurely paced and resolutely noncommercial, but if you stick with it and can look past some provocative elements, you may find yourself both devastated and uplifted."

Some mainstream critics suspect that Babel will stand tall at the next Oscar ceremony.

*A Beautiful Mind (2001)

A Beautiful Mind is the latest drama from director Ron Howard (Apollo 13, Dr. Seuss's How the Grinch Stole Christmas). It is based on the life of John Nash, a brilliant mathematician whose groundbreaking work was hindered by a mental disorder that led to confusion and paranoia.

J. Robert Parks praises the film's star, last year's Oscar-winner Russell Crowe: "Crowe conveys every facet of John Nash's personality with clarity and feeling. It's an intense and personal portrayal. Matching Crowe scene for scene is Jennifer Connelly ... her steely-eyed performance and classic-Hollywood good looks are a strong addition." He notes that the film has "a well-told story and two strong performances. The ending is unfortunately far too Hollywood (a nauseating speech about love is followed by a standing ovation ...yuck!), but I was happy to blame that, like John Nash might have, on faceless operatives."

But for Michael Elliott, the protagonist made the film a hard sell: "Director Howard never gets the pacing of the film beyond a slow trot. Nash may be a fascinating character and his story may indeed be interesting ... but, as filmed, it simply isn't compelling enough to arrest our attention."

Mary Draughon (Preview) comments, "John's tormented delusions are disturbing, but the audience never loses sight of his gentle nature, dry wit and brilliant mind. This story of courage, love and strength, as Alicia helps John learn to distinguish reality from illusion, helps us all better understand mental illness."

Mainstream press critics offer widely differing opinions of the film and Crowe's performance. MaryAnn Johanson (The Flick Filosopher) writes, "My major quibble with Howard's direction is that the script gets us so inside Nash's head that it makes us a party to his illness and the paranoia that it spawns ... but Howard doesn't know how to show us this without, ultimately, making us feel cheated and jerked around. Crowe does, finally, make A Beautiful Mind worth seeing. But maybe only for Crowe fans."

But Charles Taylor (Salon.com) disagrees, calling Crowe's performance "possibly the biggest load of hooey to stink up the screen this year. Beautiful Mind is a typical example of Hollywood's chickening out on chancy material, softening the edges of a story and characters, and shoehorning things into a tidy inspirational package. It's John Nash's life, being turned into an Oscar machine and an easy way to jerk tears."

Beyond the Gates (2007)

Beyond the Gates revisits the horrors of the Rwandan genocide, an event that many moviegoers did not notice until they saw Terry George's powerful Hotel Rwanda a few years ago. Michael Caton-Jones's movie, which was released outside of America last year under the title Shooting Dogs, stars John Hurt as a Catholic priest. Through this character's eyes, the nightmare is cast in a light that reveals the spiritual conflict in the midst of the bloodshed.

Stephen Holden (New York Times) writes that the film addresses "the question of religious and spiritual faith in the face of genocide. What is true faith, and how much horror does it take to erode it? Can a reasonable person still believe in God amid the slaughter of 800,000 people? Does reason have anything to do with it?"

Nick Schager (Slant) begins his review like this: "Not a definitive cinematic statement on the Rwandan genocide but certainly a far preferable dramatic treatment of the atrocity than Hotel Rwanda, Beyond the Gates tackles its true story ... with the type of blunt realism absent from Terry George's celebrated 2004 Don Cheadle vehicle. Director Michael Caton-Jones shoots with a rough-around-the-edges griminess that brings urgency to his tale...."

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) compares it to Hotel Rwanda and says Beyond the Gates is "a rawer, more pitiless film offering less reassurance and more outrage at the diffidence of the Western world in the face of the Rwandan genocide." He concludes that it is "most worth seeing for its uncompromising portrait of an episode more representative of the Rwandan genocide than the events depicted in Hotel Rwanda. At the same time, Beyond the Gates offers little insight into the Hutu or Tutsi experience, little depth to match the courage of its convictions."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says it "towers above most current films, with even the more worthy ones seeming like fluff in comparison. It's a gripping film about one of recent history's most regrettable episodes: the international community's failure to come to the aid of the thousands of men, women and children who lost their lives during the Rwandan genocide. ... Hurt -- in real life, a clergyman's son and monk's brother -- gives a wonderfully committed and believable performance, and Dancy ... convincingly conveys the growing horror and disillusionment of his character."

Denny Wayman (Cinema in Focus) offers a post-viewing discussion guide for the film.

Mainstream critics are offering a wide variety of responses.

Here's a piece that ran in The Guardian about co-writer and producer David Belton, and his experience in making the film. And here's another about some of the trouble that the filmmakers stirred up during production.

*The Black Dahlia (2006)

The Black Dahlia just won't stay buried. Since remakes are almost as frequent as original films these days, it was probably inevitable that this famous unsolved murder case from 1940s Hollywood would be revised for the big screen. And sure enough, audiences are venturing back into this dark, troubling piece of film noir, which is brought to life this time by an all-star cast, including Josh Hartnett, Scarlett Johansson, Hilary Swank, and Aaron Eckhart.

This time, Brian DePalma, a veteran director of sinister crime stories and sleazy mysteries, calls the shots. And, true to form, he delivers two hours of gloss, glamour, and grisly violence. It's enough to make some critics argue that the film is exploiting is subject matter, inviting us to revel in the portrayals of wicked behavior.

The film follows the young, gorgeous Elizabeth Short in her attempt to fulfill her dreams of big screen stardom. But when she is brutally murdered, the investigation of her death reveals a maddening puzzle.

"The Black Dahlia is indeed tragic, but not because of the murder depicted," says Russ Breimeier (Christianity Today Movies). "It's unusual to see a movie start off so strongly (De Palma's best work in a decade), only to collapse so badly by the finale. It begins like L.A. Confidential, but ends like a bad direct-to-video release. The real mystery in this movie is not who killed Elizabeth Short, but why the storytelling and filmmaking couldn't be consistently strong."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) writes, "DePalma's film-noir homage looks terrific in terms of production design, but is uneven as drama (with an overly complex script). So, too, there are many stylish flourishes and generally good performances … " But he finds the film "morally offensive" due to "the pileup of sordid revelations" and "sundry other lurid plot elements."

Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) notes that the director's "ability to capture and maintain a stylistic tone—as well as his technical achievements with the camera—are simply undeniable. … Again, however, the famed director puts all that skill into the service of a gruesome, ugly, ultimately unredeemed story that leaves you feeling the need for a shower."

Here comes the obligatory movie play-on-words: Mainstream critics, often enthusiastic about DePalma's thrillers, aren't so thrilled this time around.

*Black Hawk Down (2002)

Director Ridley Scott has proven he can create thought-provoking genre classics (Alien, Blade Runner), mediocre star vehicles (G.I. Jane, White Squall) and perverse commercial products (Hannibal). Black Hawk Down is his latest splashy release, an intense war drama about the 1993 United States raid on Somalia. We watch an Élite American squad of soldiers (including Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, and Sam Shepard) plunge into civilian territories to abduct two warlords. The mission goes awry. Some critics believe the movie does too.

Religious press critics find it more exhausting than exhilarating. "War is hell. If you don't believe that, try sitting through this movie," says Phil Boatwright (The Movie Reporter). "It's a good actioner, with fine performances, but it's just too much. It's not just intense; it assaults the eyes and ears from beginning to end."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' critic says, "The relentless, raw combat scenes … are strikingly realistic, evoking a deep revulsion for war, but it comes at the expense of character development with the soldiers barely distinguishable from one another."

Ed Crumley (Preview) compliments the film's realistic portrayals of brave U.S. soldiers, which can "make a viewer proud," but then says the film loses its acceptability because it portrays graphic violence and foul language. (How could the film have given audiences an idea of what this war was really like in a way that Crumley would have found acceptable?)

The writer of the synopsis at Hollywood Jesus praises an "outstanding ensemble cast" but cautions that "The violence of the film is brutal and nearly constant. Scott unflinchingly captures the chaos and mayhem of battle with tremendous visual finesse."

Tom Neven (Focus on the Family) remarks, "While the portrayal of heroism and selflessness is a wonderful example for teens and adults alike, Black Hawk Down goes to some lengths to make the grisly battle real onscreen. Families will have to think long and hard before choosing to study this chapter in American history at the local Cineplex."

"There are so many characters that there's no time for us to get to know or care deeply about all of them," says Brett Willis (Christian Spotlight on the Movies). "But I believe the film succeeds at what it sets out to do, and may be destined for a number of awards. I recommend this film to anyone mature enough to handle the content and imagery."

If Ridley Scott had followed a simple good-guy/bad-guy formula, he might have had a crowdpleaser. But if art is to reflect the complicated truth of such conflicts, artists must resist the allure of paraphrase. This kind of war is complex. While its general conflict might seem clear-cut, the specific methods and maneuvers of the day-to-day conflict involve complex decisions in which the "right thing to do" is hard to determine. Soldiers are sent in with specific assignments, and most never come into direct conflict with the head bad guy. I've seen too many films take complicated historical battles and turn them into the equivalent of a street fight between a heroic president and a wicked warlord. Such political cartoons stir our patriotism, but they don't teach us anything about what real soldiers experience on the field.

Some critics in both the religious and mainstream press complain that Black Hawk fails to explain complicated political dilemmas that made this particular conflict so difficult.

Peter T. Chattaway wrote at the OnFilm discussion list: "The film ended up being a non-stop series of bullets, bombs, and missiles … and the very few, fleeting attempts to build character tended to be trite and conventional. We don't get any real sense of the political context in which this fiasco took place. The only detail I knew about this incident … was that an American soldier's body had been dragged through the street … but that most famous of details is left out of the film! That's a little like showing the bombing of Pearl Harbor without the sinking of the Arizona, isn't it?"

Rick Groen (Toronto Globe and Mail) writes, "If this is artistry, it comes perilously close to the spirit and intent of propaganda—a paean to the triumph of soldierly will. Brave American lads killing dusky foreigners in the name of a cause charged with nobility yet drained of context. Theirs is not to reason why—nor is ours, apparently."

Jamie Russell (BBC News) explains the film is "too close to the current world situation to suit a no-brains action story. [It's] a patriotic airbrushing of what was actually America's worst day of combat since Vietnam. It gets top marks for the action; zero marks for the message."

But a few find realistic blood and guts enough to merit a recommendation. Mike Clark (USA Today) finds realism enough to merit a recommendation: "No war movie I have ever seen so vividly shows battle from differing perspectives."

And Michael Elliott (Christian Critic) argues, "After all the propaganda and political positioning is swept away, the bottom line is that these … soldiers put themselves in harm's way to support, protect, and defend the lives of the men fighting with them. Let others debate the politics of the time. This film instead recognizes and portrays the incredible camaraderie that exists among combat troops. These men were willing to sacrifice their lives, not for some idealistic cause or humanitarian effort … but simply for each other." Elliott cautions those interested in the film: "There is a considerable amount of carnage up there on the screen and it continues throughout the length of the film."

The ever-popular Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) calls it one of the year's best films: "Films like this are more useful than gung-ho capers like Behind Enemy Lines. They help audiences understand and sympathize with the actual experiences of combat troops, instead of trivializing them into entertainments."

But that's not enough for Stanley Kauffman (The New Republic): "Many … war films have had some point other than the visceral excitements of slaughter. What's particularly depressing about Black Hawk Down … is that it doesn't even sense the need for a point. Just slosh a lot of realistic carnage on the screen, it seems to say, and people will come. Roll on, Roman games."

Black Snake Moan (2007)

Craig Brewer's Hustle and Flow stirred things up a couple of years ago, with a tale of a pimp's redemption through hip-hop. This time, with Black Snake Moan, Brewer's causing even more controversy. He's embraced the hyper-indulgent, politically incorrect approach of the exploitation film and packed it with so much quality and so much thoughtful storytelling that critics are taking it seriously.

Samuel Jackson plays Lazarus, a troubled Memphis bluesman whose wife is committing adultery. Down, depressed, and dangerous when drunk, Lazarus needs something to lift him up out of the pit.

Into his lap falls a half-naked (okay, more than half-naked) young woman named Rae (Christina Ricci) who misses her dearly beloved military boyfriend (Justin Timberlake) so much that she can't control her sexual urges. Rae's been sleeping with every available guy in town. So Lazarus, filled with moral outrageous and righteous anger, chains her up, determined to teach her a lesson. It's not "sexual healing" that she needs. Lazarus is the father figure she never had, a sort of megaphone from God, determined to teach her not only that she needs to get some dignity, but that she is loved... truly loved.

The lesson hits home, and the last act of Brewer's film is surprising, unpredictable, and actually rather touching. But it's sorely compromised by the director's willingness to tantalyze his audience with a super-sized helping of lurid imagery. He seems as eager to bait our appetite for sin as he is to cause us to consider the call of conscience.

And that's too bad... because this is one of Samuel Jackson's best performances in years.

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) calls Black Snake Moan "an extremely lurid, but ultimately redemptive, melodrama.... Brewer pulls out the stops with an intentionally florid style. When the film begins, the sordid milieu and characters are extremely off-putting, and some of the situations even risible, but as the narrative progresses, you understand Brewer's intent."

Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) calls it "a depraved, at times despicable story devoted to sin, addiction, perversion and the fallen human condition. ... For every redeeming statement or action presented, it seems writer/director Craig Brewer's intent was to do everything he could to pulverize the message."

Michael Brunk (Past the Popcorn) says, "With Samuel L. Jackson in the role of Lazarus, you can expect a healthy dose of his unique wit, and more than a little salty language to go along with it. It’s safe to say this movie has its raw moments as well, and that includes a few fairly graphic sexual scenes featuring Christina Ricci’s Rae. She’s a good match on-screen for Jackson, though. Still, if that’s all the movie had to offer, it would be easy to dismiss. Fortunately, wrapped inside is a touching story of redemption."

Well, after a charge like that, you might expect that Craig Brewer would want to defend himself! That's not likely to happen, as I doubt Brewer reads anything from Focus on the Family. But he does offer an explanation for why he made this film in Paste Magazine:

"I wanted to tell this story in a sexy, tactile way—and there wasn’t a better way to do that than through north Mississippi blues music. The rhythm down here personifies sin and salvation. You go out on Saturday night, you’re gonna get drunk and dance with the devil. The next day, you really do earnestly pray to God. You’re gonna sin again, but you truly want that salvation. The next week, you’re right back in that same place.”

“To get through the misery, you’ve gotta sing through it and move through it,” he muses. “That’s what the blues is.”

Huh. Okay. So... it really is about the longing for salvation. But if the Plugged In guys are representing the film accurately, than Brewer's words still don't explain why he would be so "generous" in portraying the sensuality of sin, which is more likely to lure people into trouble than the film's message.

Nathan Lee (Film Society of Lincoln Center) is willing to stand up and defend the film as "visionary."

Hustle & Flow was a (wack) hip-hop joint; Black Snake Moan sings the blues — hard, long, from the bottom of the gut, slushing around in bile and Jack Daniels and yesterday’s grits, wailing on a slide guitar, thunder, lightning, heartbreak, death, regret, baby Jesus, gravy. Life hurts bad, and Brewer doesn’t shy from real suffering. Snarky retro camp has nothing to do with it. There’s no condescension here. Rae’s road back to something like self-control is hard won, fraught with slippage, as serious and persuasive as the journey of L’Enfant. Brewer’s recipe is solid: home-cooked meals, hothouse blues, God’s love, patience.

Anybody else want to defend Black Snake Moan's rather vivid content? Or is Brewer exploiting this morality play, using it as an excuse to slap a bunch of lurid, inappropriate, excessive imagery on the screen?

Louis Wittig (National Review) says, "Of course pulp is bad. It turns everything it touches — sex and violence usually — into a tawdry cartoon, colored with sensation and high emotion, devoid of thought or respect. That debasing power works both ways though. It lowers things we ought to elevate. And, in its own campy way, it can also cut things we respect too much back down to size."
 

Blade 2 (2002)

There's another inhuman savior on screens this week, but this one saves with a bloody sword. Blade 2, directed by Guillermo del Toro (The Devil's Backbone) pits the half-man, half-vampire hero (Wesley Snipes) against a new enemy: mutant vampires called the Reapers.

In the original, Blade's vampire qualities were held at bay with the help of his guide Whistler (Kris Kristofferson), and together they worked to resist that wholly vampiric Nosferatus. The Reapers are worse, feeding on both humans and vampires and threatening both with extinction. Thus Blade has to join forces with his old enemies to stand a chance. Roger Ebert describes the scene: "This news is conveyed by a vampire leader whose brain can be dimly seen through a light blue translucent plastic shell, more evidence of the design influence of the original iMac." Chaotic, stylish, indulgent violence follows, choreographed like ballet, delighting action fans and troubling those who are worried about the excess of bloodshed on today's movie screens.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' critic reports, "del Toro's tedious bloodfest follows a ridiculous story line where pretentious characters engage in brutal acts while spluttering absurd dialogue."

J. Robert Parks (The Phantom Tollbooth) argues that it delivers the goods to its intended audience: "By reducing the dialogue to a minimum, the film buys into the video game aesthetic. Viewers of that genre don't want to be bothered with worthless exposition. The plot doesn't make any sense, so why bother explaining it? Many critics have decried the influence of video games on contemporary cinema, and I, too, am uncomfortable with that direction. But there's something refreshing about a movie that knows its target audience and gives them exactly what they want—video-game mayhem."

Many mainstream critics praised the film's top-notch technical accomplishments, but David Hunter (Hollywood Reporter) goes further: "For all the admiration one can have for the superior level of filmmaking and clarity of vision, Blade II is an abominably imaginative celebration of violence that revels in guns and all the current gadgetry for hunting and killing. Sickening and utterly pointless, when it's not just outrageously tweaked for shock value, the film is soulless and caters to the darkest of human instincts."

*Blood Diamond (2006)

Due to his riveting work in The Departed, Leonardo DiCaprio may be one of the front-runners for the Best Actor award at the Oscars in a few months. He's winning more raves for his leading role in Blood Diamond, the new thriller from Edward Zwick (The Last Samurai).

And the movie itself is winning some praise too for its challenging attempt to teach audiences about the evils of the diamond trade, and the impact of consumerism in wealthy countries on the lives of the poor in Africa. But critics aren't entirely impressed with how the film illustrates that problem. And Christian critics are again troubled by so much violence on the big screen.

Carolyn Arends (Christianity Today Movies) says it's "an ambitious movie that aspires to combine mainstream, swash-buckling Hollywood entertainment with insightful psychodrama and serious social statement. Some viewers will wonder whether heavy problems like genocide, Western exploitation and the tragedy of child soldiers should be explored in a film that also uses carnage and conflict as a source of entertainment. Blood Diamond is so relentlessly violent that it runs the risk of desensitizing its audience to the very atrocities it aims to decry. At the beginning of the film I flinched at every act of brutality, but by its end I had seen so much death depicted that the images no longer had the same impact."

And yet, the film made her think. "Still, I left the film thinking about—and caring about—a country I had never seriously thought about before."

Steven Isaac (Plugged In) writes, "As the credits rolled and I walked out of the theater, I wasn't thinking about Leonardo DiCaprio's studiously performed accent, I was thinking about my own younger days of romance and how they were punctuated by the flash of a diamond solitaire. … Movies change the way people think. And intense, well-crafted, brooding, war movies do it more than most. … Blood Diamond screams out a protest that should be heard and well-heeded. How does it do it, though? With graphic, sometimes gratuitous images of violence, and obscene and profane language."

Mainstream critics are split over the film. Summarizing common complaints, Manohla Dargis (The New York Times) says, "If films were judged solely by their good intentions, this one would be best in show. Instead, gilded in money and dripping with sanctimony, confused and mindlessly contradictory, the film is a textbook example of how easily commercialism can trump do-goodism, particularly in Hollywood

*Bobby (2006)

Emilio Estevez takes a turn as director for Bobby, a film celebrating the life and convictions of Robert F. Kennedy. And he has a lot of talented actors helping him out—from Anthony Hopkins to Elijah Wood.

But according to most Christian film critics, Bobby is not nearly as inspiring as a film about RFK should be.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) says that none of the film's many subplots are very impressive, "but together, they add up to a remarkable portrait of a particular time and place … . We also come to realize that it is in the lives of individual people—as individuals and communities—that ideals are ultimately lived out or betrayed, and the moment of Kennedy's assassination is remarkable for how it puts all that came before it into a new perspective, one that even sees opponents coming together out of a renewed prioritization of their own shared humanity. Bobby may not make the case for its messiah as much as it would like to, but on its own terms, it is a reasonably moving portrayal of a society in need of salvation."

Bob Hoose (Plugged In) says that the film's "rambling, purposeless storylines and stereotypical characters … ultimately disappoint."

"Bobby is less concerned with its title character than it is with teaching 1960s history," says Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk). "What we get is a 'highlight reel' of late-sixties turbulence set to the most obvious period songs imaginable … . The film's biggest surprise is that the end result is so banal."

Mike Smith (Past the Popcorn) says it's "an inventive but embarrassingly sentimental re-enactment of Bobby Kennedy's assassination. … [The film is] a slow moving, syrupy quasi-sermon about what made Bobby Kennedy great in the minds of those who knew him."

Taking a different approach than the majority, one Christian media personality seized this occasion to attack Bobby Kennedy directly, saying that his message amounts to "empty political platitudes." And he claims that the movie will "lead many people astray, morally, politically and theologically" with its "false Romantic, Neo-Marxist liberal ideology and … rhetoric." He begs us to protect our "family, friends, children, church, [and] country" from this movie.

Mainstream critics manage to focus on the movie itself, and they're not terribly impressed.

*Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006)

What's the difference between a good practical joke and a bad one?

From TV's Candid Camera in the '60s to Ashton Kutcher's present-day Punk'd, audiences have made it clear that they love to watch other people suffer from pranks and practical jokes. But a new film now playing to packed theaters takes this kind of ruse to a new level.

The British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, who created the popular HBO character Ali G, has pulled the wool over a lot of eyes in the last several months, playing a journalist from Kazakhstan named Borat Sagdiyev. He's been getting the best of gullible targets, and he's come up with a wealth of material bound to make audiences laugh, flinch, and respond in outrage.

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan displays many spectacularly funny pranks. No one who agreed to go on camera with Borat is safe … least of all Cohen himself, who shows that he will subject himself to more humiliation than anyone. This will come as no surprise to those who saw his no-holds-barred comedy in Will Ferrell's Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.

But as Cohen's Borat tests his subjects with exhibitions of blatant racism, prejudice, sexism, and other offensive attitudes—not sincerely, but just as part of the act—the reactions become as interesting, and as troubling, as his charade. Borat exposes some alarming naiveté, cultural insensitivity (at best), and outright bigotry in those around him.

But is he too reckless? Too abrasive? Audiences will likely be taken aback by just how far Cohen is willing to go as one unsuspecting participant after another is, well, "punk'd" by his brave, bawdy shtick.

Critics are preoccupied with several complicated questions about the nature and ethics of satire: Is Cohen promoting misogyny, anti-Semitism, bigotry, and perversion? Or is he putting on this shocking show for our own good, in order to expose our tolerance for dehumanizing behavior?

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, "Some of the outrageous pranks—many involving real people not in on the joke—are, admittedly, funny. … But in satirizing American culture and politics, any wit is heavily outweighed by vulgarity, as Cohen and director Larry Charles go for shock laughs that range from the distasteful … to the visually gross."

Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says, "Sacha Baron Cohen is on a mission to simultaneously entertain and offend absolutely everyone on the planet. His primary method? Keep the cameras rolling in public settings while 'Borat' reduces unsuspecting targets to a state of apoplexy." He concludes, "Once or twice he's really funny. … The rest of Cohen's material gets buried by an avalanche of perverse, odious and repulsive satire."

Mainstream critics are almost unanimously impressed by these cultural leanings.

*Breach (2007)

For more than twenty years, Robert Philip Hanssen, an FBI counterintelligence agent, betrayed the United States. And as he's paying for his crimes with a prison sentence that will last the rest of his life, director Billy Ray is telling his story on the big screen.

Ray made a strong impression with his first film, Shattered Glass. In that film, Hayden "Vader" Christensen played a similarly crafty fellow, Stephen Glass, who made up stories and sold them as arresting features in The New Republic; and Peter Sarsgaard played the editor who eventually exposed the crook. In Breach, Ryan Phillippe plays the agent who discovers Hanssen's deceit and strives to expose him.

The film notes the strange contradictions in Hanssen's life. Even though he went through the motions of Catholic faith, the things he did behind closed doors spoiled his integrity and endangered the nation.

The film is earning high praise as a thriller of rare intelligence, driven by admirable performances from Chris Cooper (The Bourne Identity, Lone Star) and Ryan Phillippe (Flags of Our Fathers).

Todd Hertz (Christianity Today Movies) says, "Really, there are two different Robert Hanssens portrayed in Breach. One is a deeply religious Catholic who has attended mass every day for years. He loves his family and his God with great passion. He is a well-respected and admired Russian analyst who'd do anything for his country. But the other Hanssen is an angry, judgmental man ruled by pride, lust and ego. … So which Hanssen is the real one? Breach thankfully doesn't answer that question. Instead, it seems to realistically present the case that no man is truly good or evil—but has the capacity for both. … The film ends with an amazing image of a man fallen—and knowing it."

Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) says, "Breach is an example of a strong studio film powered by high-caliber acting, open to differing interpretations. It's a movie for older teens and adults to see and discuss—a cautionary tale about the perils of power and greed, and the deceitfulness of the human heart."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says the movie is "deliberately paced, but ultimately delivers on suspense …" He adds, "There is secondary interest for Catholic viewers in Hanssen's staunch commitment to Catholicism—and to Opus Dei (mentioned only briefly in the film)—though given the unsavory aspects of his personality, the connection is more unfortunate than not. … Still, the church scenes are reverently presented, and the religious commitment of the principals … is shown to be sincere."

Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) calls it "a slow-moving, slow-building introspective thriller that, like a 25-year FBI veteran, is concerned more with nuance—the minutia of Hanssen's day-to-day life and that of those chasing him—than exploding bombs and nail-biting chase scenes. … Chris Cooper and Ryan Phillippe splendidly deliver that nuance. And Ray offers an intriguing, albeit permeable, character study of those whom our country's security so delicately rests upon." But Yoars also thinks that the characters' bad language and the film's brief sexual content should steer viewers away from it.

Michael Brunk (Past the Popcorn) says Breach was "interesting enough to be entertaining. Like The Good Shepherd before it, this movie shares with the audience a different perspective on patriotism and the cost that the men and women who work in the shadowy world of our intelligence agencies often pay in the performance of their duties. It also serves as a reminder that the real enemy isn't always the obvious one."

Mainstream critics say it's a refreshingly intelligent thriller, more challenging than dazzling.

*Breaking and Entering (2007)

In Secrets and Lies, Mike Leigh's fantastic drama about marriage, parenthood, and the secrets we conceal, the closing act becomes a sort of round-table confession. Everyone is crying and confessing things.

A similar thing happens in Anthony Minghella's new film Breaking and Entering, which stars Jude Law and Juliette Binoche. A wide range of characters engage in all manner of misbehavior, which can, if viewers are not discerning, become quite enjoyable to watch. But whether or not it has its heart in the right place as it unfolds these stories of crime and irresponsibility, it arrives at a conclusion of repentance.

Christian critics are trying to decide if the meaningful conclusion justifies the amount of wrongdoing graphically illustrated earlier in the film.

Bob Hoose (Plugged In) says, "Is it celebrating lustful desire? Or lauding commitment and mercy? If the answer is both, I'm left with one more question: Should we justify the former by hoping for the latter?"

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says, "[The movie] is a thematically worthy but only so-so drama. … [Minghella] has assembled a quality cast, but interweaves his serious themes of immigration, motherhood (as sharply contrasted by the passionate Amira and too-cool Liv), and economic disparity into an only mildly compelling—and, as noted, not very plausible—plot, though the film's moral resolution involves a strong affirmation of forgiveness and reconciliation."

Mike Smith (Past the Popcorn) is impressed. "The film is intriguing, satisfying, and entertaining. I was surprised at the details of life that caused catharsis in some characters and bitterness in others, the greatness of spirit in the least likely, and the weakness of character of the most 'regular.'"

Most mainstream critics are not arrested by Breaking and Entering.

*Bridge to Terabithia (2007)

Katherine Paterson, like Madeleine L'Engle, is a Christian writer who crafts poignant stories about young people who struggle with serious issues and then make sense of their world through vivid imagination and flourishes of fantasy.

But critics are cautioning audiences that the first feature film based on Paterson's work, Bridge to Terabithia, is not The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It's a story about a remarkable friendship between two young people who weave a world of imagination that helps them cope with daily hardships.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) says, "Those who take a chance on the film … may find it a reasonably mature and even poignant story about friendship, family and tragic loss."

But the film is unable to stimulate viewers' imaginations in the same way the book does. "In the original book, the children's experiences in Terabithia are described in strictly naturalistic terms; it is often only the dialogue between the children that clues you in to their imaginary world. … The film, on the other hand, turns Terabithia into a digitally-animated spectacle that invites the viewer to do nothing more than sit back and stare."

He adds, "The film taps into spiritual themes, too, though not as well as it could have—which becomes a bit of a liability when the story turns tragic."

Michael Brunk (Past the Popcorn) raves, "Happily, this may be among the best translations of a book to the big screen that I have seen, and I don't say that lightly. This is a very, very good thing in the case of Bridge to Terabithia, serving to introduce this heart-warming tale to new generations of readers. Adults will also likely find the movie just as engrossing as children. … There is a message here about strength of character and the value of friendship—and yes, love—that can't help but leave a lasting impression with audience members."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, "The young leads are charming and the sweet story imparts worthy messages about friendship and the power of imagination. Also, there is a strong affirmation of family and the depictions of authority figures are consistently positive. … But narratively, the movie, faithfully adapted by the author's son, David Paterson, is a bit of a letdown, as the anticipated fantastical elements are marginal. The closing five minutes deliver a sense of wonder and enchantment that director Gabor Csupo spreads too thinly throughout the rest of the film."

Jeremy Lees (Plugged In) says, "Bridge to Terabithia is one of the more character-driven fantasy movies I've seen. To watch its magical kingdom take a backseat to the story's real-world personalities is a refreshing departure from most middle-of-the-road examples of the genre (not Narnia) wherein campy dialogue serves only to inspire the hero for his next battle sequence, in which he'll learn an important lesson about—you guessed it—bravery. Put simply, there's more to explore here than in eight Eragons." But he's not too happy about what the film implies about the kingdom of God—which is interesting, since the book's author is a Christian.

Christa Banister (Crosswalk) likes the film's "extraordinary characterization. … Much likeCharlotte's Web, [this movie] isn't just happy-go-lucky, family-friendly entertainment. In a surprising plot twist, it explores some darker themes … that will certainly provoke some post-movie discussion. Despite the bittersweet turn of events, however, the resolution isn't what most would probably expect, which makes the movie, not to mention the young actors' performances, even more emotionally affecting and powerful."

Mainstream critics are surprised by the meaningful and poignant storytelling, even if they do have some complaints.