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.

You've probably heard that, while the name and the number are the same, James Bond, a.k.a. 007, has changed.

In Martin Campbell's latest James Bond adventure, Casino Royale, there's a new actor in the lead—Daniel Craig. Craig will be an unfamiliar face to many, but he's been lurking in the background of many popular films. Recently he appeared in Enduring Love, Infamous, and Steven Spielberg's Munich, and he played the troublesome son of Paul Newman's gangster in The Road to Perdition and an assassin monk hunting Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth. Craig gives James Bond some surprising new dimension. He's more likely to make mistakes. He has a heart, and is fully capable of falling in love. And he's not as preoccupied with sensual pleasure as he is with catching the bad guys.

While the film begins with enough chase scenes and death-defying stunts to fill two action movies, the pace slows as the film progresses, requiring us to turn our brains on instead of insulting our intelligence.

Todd Hertz (Christianity Today Movies) says it "twists and turns through espionage, crossings and double-crossings that gets too convoluted and goes on for about 20 minutes too long. But it's excusable because Casino Royale gives us so much that the Bond franchise has longed for: credibility, actual human drama, maturity, intensity and great unpredicted surprises. … [It's] fun and often laugh-out-loud funny. The film isn't action-centered, loud and explosion-focused. But there are still three incredibly exciting and impressively executed action sequences that—surprisingly in a day where we've seen it all—offer some action bits we've never quite seen before."

"Casino Royale certainly introduces the Bond character better than any of the previous movies," says Mike Parnell (Ethics Daily), "and it offers much hope for the franchise."

Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) says, "At a time when we can be reasonably sure there really are guys out there licensed and eager to kill in the name of country—whether justified or not—Bond seems less naturally heroic and more morally culpable for his actions than ever." He concludes that the story is "far better," but the result is "less outright 'fun' than previous incarnations."

Lisa Rice (Crosswalk) says the new Bond is "gritty and real—but is that what we really want? … Casino Royale's realness might be a bit much to handle." She adds, "The movie's worldview is basically biblical in its extolling of bravery and diligence in overcoming evil, but the tools used are overweening violence and adultery, which dilute the message."

Greg Wright (Past the Popcorn) says, "For Bond fans, I'd suggest seeing Casino Royale with an open mind. For non-Bond action film fans, I'd suggest the same. … For fans of just plain great filmmaking, though, I'd say cast your net a bit wider. Haggis' script is pretty savvy and self-aware, Campbell's direction is competent, and Craig's Bond is very compelling; but the whole affair is pretty transparent nonetheless. There should be better cinematic opportunities over the holidays."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) writes, "Some fans will applaud its harder-edged return to the grittiness of Ian Fleming's novels. Others may feel it's too dark and serious, and lacks the sense of campy fun of earlier films."

Mainstream critics are enthusiastic about the new Bond.

*Catch a Fire (2006)

Catch a Fire is the latest film from director Phillip Noyce, who brought us Patriot Games and The Quiet American, and it gives the talented young actor Derek Luke (Antwone Fisher, Pieces of April) his most demanding role yet.

Fire illustrates the troubled journey of Patrick Chamusso, a black man who endured persecution from the oppressive South African government in the early '80s, and then went on to participate in a violent uprising.

Christian film critics are cheering for the inspiring message of Chamusso's story, but they're not so impressed with the movie itself.

Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) says, "It's a powerful story well told … [The filmmakers do] much more than just make a grand political statement. Or just provide a two-hour history lesson. … [I]t registers on a personal level. … Catch a Fire ignites our God-given desires for justice, equality, freedom and peace."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, "The film is an intelligent, if unevenly compelling, truth-based drama. … [F]rom an emotional standpoint … Catch a Fire never ignites." But he adds, "Luke continues to establish himself as one of the best young actors today."

Most mainstream critics are turning in positive reviews, but a few opinions—such as that published in The New York Times—describe it as a mess.

*Charlotte's Web (2006)

Charlotte's Web, by E.B. White, now, that's some book. And its generations of fans have long been grateful that the only movie version of the book—a musical animated feature from 1973—is actually quite memorable and worthwhile.

So it is with fear and trepidation that the story's countless fans are approaching the flashy new Hollywood version of White's classic tale directed by Gary Winick. After all, too many forgettable talking-animal tales have traipsed across the screen in the last few years.

And it wasn't necessarily good news when it was announced that the new version would be loaded with celebrity voice talents. That's sure to sell tickets, but it can wreak havoc on the art of storytelling if the actors' familiar personalities overpower the personalities from the pages of the book.

But according to Christian film critics, this Web—with a screenplay adapted by Susannah Grant and Karey Kirkpatrick—is impressively spun. It isn't perfect, but most reviewers are recommending it to families for Christmastime viewing.

Russ Breimeier (Christianity Today Movies) has mixed feelings about the movie's sense of humor, but he says, "[T]he film's saving grace is that it takes subtle themes from the book and runs with them fully, pumping up the dialogue with some excellent life lessons that work well with Christian beliefs, making this an ideal movie parable for kids."

He concludes, "This movie never quite does full justice to White's book, and it may simply be a story that's stronger on the written page. But little gripes aside, it's terrific—or radiant, pick your own word from the web—and bound to satisfy the intended audience … perhaps communicating something even deeper than expected to a new generation."

"I'd rather rewatch the cartoon with my kids," Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films), "or better yet, reread the book." But he does rate it as "fair family entertainment, though the story would have been better served by a more faithful adaptation—and more inspired direction. The basic appeal of White's story is sturdy enough to survive the filmmakers' more dubious choices, and the emotional climax may even leave viewers with a lump in their throat."

Bob Hoose (Plugged In) says, "This new non-musical version has a few flat spots. … But there's something very endearing about E. B. White's tale of friendship and innocent longing to believe the best of others. The CGI special effects are realistic … the Norman Rockwell-esque setting is welcoming, and the script is funny and engaging. It's Wilbur expressing wonder over the 'ordinary miracles' of everyday life, though, that will most charm the kids and inspire the rest of us."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says it's "one of the best family films of the year. … While the 1973 animated version is hard to beat, Winick's use of live action—enhanced by computer effects as in Babe—is charming, and the all-star voice talent … is obviously impressive."

Also a fan of the book, Christa Banister (Crosswalk) says it's a "lovingly crafted film that mostly stays faithful to the book, given an artistic liberty here and there for the sake of humor. And fortunately, unlike a lot of kids' movies these days, the jokes take the witty course, rather than relying on pop culture references, sexual innuendo or an abundance of flatulence."

Kathy Bledsoe (Past the Popcorn) says, "The important messages of Charlotte's Web are intact and strong in this new movie version. … [T]he movie brings [the author's] imagination to full living color and life that parents and children can enjoy together. … Give a really great family gift this holiday season and see a film that is both enjoyable and educational."

Most mainstream critics are finding ways to use the word "terrific," of course.

*Children of Men (2006)

Caution: Alfonso Cuarón's new film, Children of Men, is nothing like any of his previous films. It's not a children's flick, like A Little Princess of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Nor is it a present-day road movie, like his acclaimed Mexican tale Y Tu Mama Tambien. And it's not a romantic classic, like his adaptation of Great Expectations.

No, Children of Men is an R-rated, hyperviolent, nightmarish epic set in a bleak version of the future. It's also an inspiring, bright vision of hope set against a nightmarish backdrop of a disintegrating world.

Based on a story penned by P.D. James, a professing Christian better known for her mystery novels, Cuarón and four additional screenwriters have streamlined and revised the narrative, turning it into an adrenalin-rush action movie. Fans of the novel will debate Cuarón's many and varied departures from the text. Some revisions heighten the story's connections to present-day crises; others cloud James' moral vision.

Whatever the case, it would be hard for any moviegoer to deny that there are obvious allusions to the gospel at every turn, reminding us that God gave us hope by providing a vulnerable, miraculous child to a dark, dying, violent world. We watch as a man named Theo (Clive Owen) and a woman Kee (Claire Hope Ashitey) take enormous risks, seek help among the humble, and flee from cruel and malevolent men in power.

It can't be an accident that the film opened in U.S. theaters on December 25.

My full review is at Christianity Today Movies.

Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) says, "Children of Men moves slowly at times, but always with purpose. It does not meander, nor is it boring. It does, however; require patience. Those who grant it that will be impressed, for the film's periodic payoffs, and its mesmerizing climax, are among the year's best cinematic sequences. … [F]or Christian audiences interested in a radical, contemporary approach to hope amid dire circumstances, Children of Men is bound to stir discussion."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) calls it "a bleak futuristic political thriller with pointed parallels to the present day. … Director Alfonso Cuaron's adaptation of P.D. James' novel is intentionally dark and disturbing. But the chase sequences are undeniably exciting and quite brilliantly done, and it is in those sequences that the film is most compelling."

Responding with a mixed review, Greg Wright (Past the Popcorn) writes, "For those who want a creative, violent, and moderately challenging alternative to the schmaltz, materialism, and Hallmark-card shallowness of the usual vision of the Christmas season, Cuarón is here to save the day. If you're looking for serious sci-fi, earnest political commentary, or a searing depiction of the future of mankind. … Well, don't expect that much."

Even less enthusiastic, Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says, "While believers may extrapolate matters of faith from this thought-provoking story, its makers clearly intend this to be a political film. … As such, the project offers both a not-so-subtle warning for modern-day politicians and a heartfelt statement underscoring the value of children. Both are messages that need to be heard. But both get overshadowed by 1) gaps in the story, and 2) an even darker cloud of unnecessary content."

Most of these reviewers probably haven't read P.D. James' novel in its entirety before seeing the film. (I didn't.) But Anthony Sacramone (First Things) had read it, and he says the film is an act of vandalism against James' work, calling it "little more than high-tech agit-prop targeting the Bush administration, the war in Iraq, border policing, and Homeland Security. … Throughout the film, characters from the novel are reassigned roles and political stances as Cuarón and co-screenwriter Timothy J. Sexton see fit. In fact, the first thing Cuarón does when he arrives in the year 2027 is eliminate the Christians. … What's insufferable is his pressing into service someone else's vision as a commercial vehicle for a personal political screed."

Dennis Mullen (Relevant) says, "What happens to people when hope for the future dries up? … Children of Men … offers a grim answer and tells an incredible story along the way. … [The film] is rough, brutal and profane. It is also a study in magnificent filmmaking. … But in the end, Children of Men is a story lacking any solution to the desperate condition of hopelessness."

Meanwhile, mainstream critics are raving about the film as one of the season's most exciting last-minute releases.

*Code Name: The Cleaner (2007)

Lucy Liu, an underrated comic actress who has shown her talents as an action hero in the Charlie's Angels franchise, is currently trapped in a bad movie called Code Name: The Cleaner. Cedric the Entertainer has top billing in this action/comedy that lacks original action and fails to inspire many laughs.

Adam R. Holz (Plugged In) says, "Dull one-liners are supposed to amp up the humor factor but they don't connect. The wink-wink, nudge-nudge action clichés Cedric and Co. ape don't seem satirical or smart, just tired. In a sentence, virtually every aspect of this tale has been told somewhere else—and better."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) calls it "a forgettable comedy. … Saddled with such vacuous material, Cedric provides only modest laughs, and director Les Mayfield's unfunny, at times lewd, shenanigans could have been 'cleaner.'"

Michael Brunk (Past the Popcorn) says, "Okay, the bottom line … if you want a light movie with a dash of comedy and a sprinkle of action—and you happen to like Cedric the Entertainer—you could probably do worse than Code Name: The Cleaner. But don't expect much more than that."

Mainstream critics wish the film would go undercover and stay there.

*Conversations with God (2006)

Based on the bestselling inspirational books by Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations With God dramatizes Walsch's journey through loss and trial into a spiritual awakening.

With Henry Czerny in the lead role, Conversations charts how Walsch ended up living among the homeless in southern Oregon, where he says he was visited by God.

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) describes the problems, contradictions, and heresies evident in the bestselling book. Regarding the film, he says, "Czerny gives a credible and poignantly human performance that overcomes screenwriter Eric DelaBarre's uneven script. … The books aside, this movie, while clearly containing ideas incompatible with Christian theology, nevertheless imparts a sincere message about God's unconditional love and abiding presence that should resonate with Catholic viewers."

At his brand-new website, Greg Wright (Past the Popcorn) says director Stephen Simon "wrings a heartfelt, warm, and convincing performance out of Henry Czerny, whose résumé in no way suggests that he's capable of carrying a film as he does here. … And fortunately, Eric DelaBarre's script doesn't get overly preachy. … To the extent that anyone is interested in artistic fare that challenges spiritual complacency, Conversations with God could be a welcome, if perhaps too-gently couched, starting place."

Mainstream critics don't look likely to become Walsch's disciples.

*The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

I was pleasantly surprised by The Count of Monte Cristo. It's director Kevin Reynolds's (Waterworld, Robin Hood) strongest adventure film yet. While it drastically rewrites the classic story by Alexander Dumas, it focuses boldly on questions of God's justice and the ethics of revenge.

James Caviezel (Frequency) stars as Edmond Dantés, a traveling Frenchman who agrees to deliver a letter when he arrives back in Paris. Fortunately, he is stopped before he delivers it, and a secret military communiqué from Napoleon is thwarted. But the letter threatens to expose one politician's dark secret, and the innocent Dantés is quickly condemned and silenced about the matter. He suffers under a cruel prison warden (Michael Wincott). But a God-fearing old prisoner (Richard Harris) educates Dantés behind the warden's back, preparing him for a valiant escape and a chance for fame and fortune. Dantés is more interested in revenge.

2002 is off to a good start with this surprisingly solid, old-fashioned adventure flick, which reminded me (and others) of The Mask of Zorro. The script is flawed and anachronistic, but the performances won me over. Caviezel is especially striking; he convincingly carries his character through almost a decade of trials and transformations, from a meek and naïve youngster to a bold, confident, and crafty Count. Lacking big-budget special effects, the film draws energy from Dantes's careful plotting and impressive swordsmanship. But the film's emphasis on the hero's moral quandary becomes its greatest distinction. The formulaic finale is a bit of a cop-out, but Dantes's twinge of conscience is a strength rarely found in big screen heroes.

Bob Smithouser (Focus on the Family) says, "These days, action films rely far too heavily on gaudy special effects and dopey catch phrases, and far too little on intelligent scripts and interesting characters. Monte Cristo succeeds because it ultimately isn't about action. It's about people. It's about issues that transcend a high-speed chase or an explosion."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' critic writes, "Reynolds honors his source material by seamlessly interweaving themes of jealousy, betrayal, and vengeance transformed into mercy and redemption in an opulent production, although it underplays the main character's spiritual struggles with God."

Steven J. Greydanus (Decent Films) writes, "Monte Cristo balances its anachronistic sensibilities and over-the-top set pieces with genuine emotion and a real moral dimension—even a spiritual dimension." He concludes, "Monte Cristo is … as much fun as you're liable to have at the movies for quite some time."

Paul Bicking (Preview) determines that "Teens and older can enjoy this adventurous tale" without elaborating on why, except to say that it is "virtually free of coarse language."

Mainstream critics are doing some dueling of their own. Roger Ebert declares that it is "so traditional it almost feels new … the kind of movie that used to be right at home at the Saturday matinee, and it still is. We can imagine Errol Flynn in this material, although Caviezel and Pearce bring more conviction to it."

But Jeff Stark (Salon.com) gripes, "it commits the gravest sin against great literature—it makes it boring. Reynolds has thrown out all the rich subtlety and deep irony of the novel in favor of neat resolutions."