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.

*Daddy's Little Girls (2007)

Tyler Perry's latest film, Daddy's Little Girls, makes all kinds of moves to please the religious folks in the audience. But then, by the end of the story, what has it conveyed to us? That it's best to take measures into your own hands, by force. And worse, the film takes sexual relationships too lightly.

That's the movie that Adam R. Holz (Plugged In) saw. Holz is pleased to see a central character who "puts his children's needs above his own." And further, he's pleased to see Perry "giving his characters faith and taking their participation in church seriously." But he concludes, "Given these positive themes, it is discouraging to watch as characters' faith fails to translate into decisions that demonstrate real trust in God."

But David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) is charmed by the film. "The sweet story is not without some formulaic elements, but the honest performances and strong affirmations of faith, family and community—as well as its positive depiction of African-American fatherhood expressed by its tagline 'Give life. Teach love'—outshine the shortcomings."

Christa Banister (Crosswalk) says, "While Daddy's Little Girls could've been an intriguing and uplifting story, any potential was lost in hackneyed writing and heavy-handed, but inconsistent moralizing. And ultimately, despite Perry's good intentions, the audience deserves far more."

Mainstream critics aren't very impressed.

Days of Glory (2006)

I'll let Greg Wright tell you about this Days of Glory, since he's singing the movie's praises from the rooftops.

"What veteran French director Rachid Bouchareb offers straight up is high-quality visual, aural, and narrative believability," raves Greg Wright (Past the Popcorn). "It’s arresting.... Where Days of Glory sets itself apart, though—and, my gosh! with what power!—is in its performances. You may never have heard of any of these actors before, but you’ll wish you’d been watching them for years. Each of them has a résumé as long as your arm, and each has the chops, charisma, and screen presence to hold you spellbound."

He doesn't stop there. Get this! "If you only drag yourself out to see one foreign-language film every decade, make it this one."

I think that qualifies as a 'thumbs way, way, way up.'

Mainstream reviews are available here.

*Deck the Halls (2006)

Director John Whitesell may have a talented cast of comedy veterans—including Matthew Broderick and Danny Devito—but he doesn't have a worthwhile Christmas movie. Deck the Halls is getting snowballed by Christian film critics.

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says Whitesell "fails to generate much holiday cheer [with this] comedy which, though containing enough Christmas lights to trim the fabled Rockefeller Center tree 10 times over, delivers only low-wattage laughs."

Steven Isaac (Plugged In) says, "Why we're still going to this same well year after year after year I'll never understand. … Christmas should be the least trivial and the most jolly holiday of the year. So why do the movies that 'celebrate' it so often seem to reverse the adjectives?"

Christa Banister (Crosswalk) says, "[I]ts hare-brained premise is neither heartwarming, particularly original, or funny–three essential components for a holiday comedy. … [L]et's just say that it almost makes Chevy Chase's campy Christmas Vacation or Ralphie's quest for a Red Ryder BB gun in A Christmas Story seem Oscar-worthy in comparison."

Jeff Walls (Past the Popcorn) says, "In its first forty-five minutes or so, Deck the Halls shows flashes of a becoming a delightful Christmas treasure. … The movie's second half, however, falls flat as the rivalry between Steve and Buddy turns childish and virtually humorless. Meanwhile, it is all building towards one of the all-time cheesiest endings, in a genre that is known for its cheesy endings."

If you look hard enough, you'll probably find some religious media voices claiming that all of this amounts to a "spiritually uplifting" film.

Mainstream critics can't find anything to celebrate here.

*Déjà Vu (2006)

The last time Tony Scott directed Denzel Washington, moviegoers got the violent revenge thriller Man on Fire, in which an American hero captures and tortures the foreign villains with reckless abandon.

This time, in Déjà Vu, the two cook up more high-energy entertainment, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. This time, Washington plays an agent working for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He's a brilliant investigator, but he may not be prepared for the deeper, more complicated waters of his next case, which leads him into a tangled path that wanders back and forth through time.

Steven D. Greydanus (Christianity Today Movies) says, "The filmmakers spin a slick, engrossing yarn and ratchet up the suspense effectively, but eventually they write themselves into a corner. At some point, they must choose between one ending that follows from everything we've seen, and another ending that gives viewers what they want. Neither is fully satisfying."

He concludes, "If it isn't the brilliant film it could have been, Déjà Vu still contains enough flashes of that film to make it entertaining while you're watching it. On reflection, though, it feels a bit like a shell game in which the conjuror himself has lost track of where the pea is supposed to be."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) calls it "a smart and sufficiently engaging sci-fi flavored mystery, despite some wormholes in story logic."

Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) writes, "Déjà Vu wants to be lots of things: a ripped-from-the-headlines, sci-fi, love story, terrorism-themed police action/thriller. … Is it just too much to sustain the story? Sure. Does it all unravel if you think about it too hard? You betcha. Was I on the edge of my seat most of the time anyway … ? OK, yes."

Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) says it's "not a profound work, nor is it head and shoulders above the filmmakers' earlier projects, but Déjà Vu may be the first film from either man to demand a second viewing—not only because of the complicated plot, but because of the existential issues it raises about God, man and foreordination."

"[W]hile Déjà Vu might not be high art, it proved to be an interesting and entertaining movie," says Michael Brunk (Past the Popcorn). "I don't think you'll be disappointed."

Mainstream critics are offering a mix of responses—some found it "engaging," others call it "preposterous."

*The Departed (2006)

You might be a cop. You might be an undercover agent. You might be a crime kingpin. Or a sexy psychiatrist. No matter who you are, it's like the Bob Dylan song says: "You gotta serve somebody."

In The Departed, Martin Scorsese's hyper-violent remake of the Hong Kong crime classic Infernal Affairs, everybody has secrets, agendas, and a willingness to pull the trigger. And underneath their carefully composed disguises, all of them are devoted to the service of somebody—either a criminal, a cop, the cause of justice, their family's honor, or their own selfish hearts.

In the background, we see the gleaming dome of a church—and it remains distant, glowing, and neglected. It raises the question: Is anyone here serving God?

As Scorsese explores the mean streets of South Boston, he finds the cops at war with an organized crime operation run by ruthless Irish-American thugs. And the farther he takes us into this conflict, the more we realize that both sides are thoroughly corrupt. Undercover operative Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) is trying to get close to crime kingpin Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), but the closer he gets, the more he must involve himself in reprehensible deeds. Meanwhile, one of Costello's fellow conspirators, Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) has crept up in the ranks of the Boston police to become a prominent investigator.

The Departed is a film of superior craftsmanship, with dialogue as jarring and relentless as the gunfire, cinematography that takes us on a tour of a shadowy underworld, editing that winds up the tension to almost unbearable levels, and some of the year's most compelling performances.

But the film falls short of greatness on several counts. First, Jack Nicholson's outrageous over-acting becomes a distraction. Second, the film's only prominent female character—a sophisticated psychiatrist named Madolyn (Vera Farmiga)—is implausibly reckless and unprofessional. And finally, Scorsese fails to give proper attention to the most admirable character of the bunch—Martin Sheen as Oliver Queenan, the chief of the Boston Police Department and a Catholic who is the film's most upright and principled man. And yet, Queenan is all but ignored, lost in the chaos of bullets and double-crossings.

It's a shame that Scorsese, in expanding on Infernal Affairs, is so much more interested in embellishing his characters' sordid behavior than he is in examining marks of virtue and principle. This may cause concern for anyone anticipating his next film—an adaptation of Shazuko Endo's Silence, that magnificent and harrowing novel about a Christian missionary whose faith is put to the test.

My full review is at Looking Closer.

Russ Breimeier (Christianity Today Movies) says, "The Departed … is one of those rare exceptions of a film that generally improves on the source material, despite falling short of it in other ways." He calls the film "an intelligent, briskly paced crime drama that's almost never dull in its 149 minutes. … [A]side from the offensive material, The Departed fires on all cylinders as one of the best crime dramas ever made—smart, suspenseful, and technically well made from every angle. Of course, it's nice that there's an alternative for those unwilling to look past the excesses of The Departed. I cannot deny that it's an extremely well executed flick, but for a less epic and vulgar film experience, yet equally satisfying version of the same story, stick with Infernal Affairs."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says Scorsese is "back in his element, exhibiting the gritty flair he showed in films such as Mean Streets and Goodfellas. … For all its implausibilities, the film, buttressed by solid performances and Scorsese's cinematic bravado, keeps you absorbed."

Forbes also notes, "In this sort of film, a high quotient of violence is to be expected, and though Scorsese doesn't exactly wallow in it, there are some strong sequences that will be hard to take. Less dramatically sound is the nonstop barrage of expletives, excessive even for the underworld environment."

Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) says, "In some ways, The Departed delivers exactly what you would expect from a Scorsese crime movie. Well-crafted storytelling. Impressive tough-guy performances from a crackerjack cast. And several truckloads of brutal, graphic violence and harshly obscene language (especially and endlessly the f-word)."

Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) says the movie is, "overly long, terribly profane, brutally violent and extremely dark. The cinematic technique, especially during the film's first hour, is dazzling—a fluid mix of camera movement, Classic Rock, and Mob machinations that sets a grim and gritty tone for what's to come. But the energy soon lags, and a sea of despair drowns most of the characters, while the law of diminishing returns takes hold of the film."

Mainstream critics are celebrating Scorsese's return to crime sagas, and praising the cast with a flood of superlatives.

Cineaste has an essay on Gangs of New York and The Departed, and how Scorsese is dealing with race issues in those films.
 

*Don't Say a Word (2001)

Don't Say a Word stars Michael Douglas as psychiatrist Nathan Conrad. Nathan tries to spend Thanksgiving with his injured, bedridden wife and his daughter, but is urgently called away to see a patient. This deeply disturbed, terrified woman might be faking her hysteria out of a need to protect herself. But it's up to Nathan to pry information from her broken mind—an especially urgent task after criminals who want the information kidnap his daughter.

Dick Rolfe at Dove compares the film to a recent Mel Gibson thriller: "The suspense is just as intense as in Ransom." He adds, "The acting is also very good."

Movieguide's critic is also impressed, calling it "a taut, well-directed and well-written thriller with a strong moral worldview and a strong, compassionate hero."

But the U.S. Catholic Conference is not as easily won over: "Though the frantic pace … heightens suspense, narrative inconsistencies and shaky characterizations produce a frustrating package."

Paul Bicking at Preview doesn't mind the flaws: "This tense action-thriller may be predictable, but mystery fans will enjoy the unfolding tale." He does observe, however, that our hero "lies to police, breaks laws and resorts to violence as well. With graphic violence and dialogue laced with obscenities … Don't Say a Word can't be recommended."

Michael Elliott applauds "an accomplished cast and crew. … Thanks to their abilities, we are nicely distracted from dwelling upon the plot inconsistencies during the course of the action. It is as we reflect back upon the film that they become all too readily apparent. Still, Don't Say a Word pushes many of the right buttons for audiences seeking an uncomplicated traditional thriller."

Moviegoers made Don't Say a Word the week's top box office hit. This happened in spite of lukewarm reviews from the mainstream press. Roger Ebert for example, admits that the director "shows a poetic visual touch," but concludes, "The movie as a whole looks and occasionally plays better than it is." He criticizes the ending, in which several different implausible, outrageous things are happening at once: "There is a difference between racing through a thriller and wallowing in it."

*Down to Earth (2001)

Down to Earth did not inspire such violent responses, but failed to generate much enthusiasm. The film, which updates the Heaven Can Wait formula, casts Chris Rock as a man given a second chance at life, reincarnated as a wealthy Caucasian industrialist.

While J. Robert Parks at The Phantom Tollbooth admits to being a Chris Rock fan, he advises that we avoid high expectations of the film. "Don't expect much in the way of plot or character development. Don't be surprised when the direction and blocking remind you of an 8th-grade drama performance." He does find one aspect of the film intriguing. "It's this issue of how language changes depending on whether it's uttered by a white person or a black person ... how the very same joke, phrase, or speech can provoke extremely different reactions depending solely on the race of the speaker and the race of his or her audience."

Holly McClure of The Dove Foundation finds it difficult to go along with the film's leaps of logic, especially when the leading lady falls for the reincarnated comic. "It's hard to fathom that a young, beautiful black woman with high ideals and intelligence, would be swept up off her feet and fall for an older white man in his 60's just because he's rich and turns generous doing a good deed for her. That part not only doesn't make sense, it feels wrong, awkward and, well, gross."

Michael Elliot at MovieParables thinks the film's perspective of the afterlife is unsatisfying, and the film disappointing: "The racial twist is by far the most interesting element to this remake but the filmmakers simply don't employ it in ways to make any kind of social statement. It is a wasted opportunity. As a pure comedy, apart from Rock's closing standup routine, there is nothing that gives this film any distinction."

Dragonfly (2002)

In Message in a Bottle, Kevin Costner mailed letters to his dead wife by tossing them into the ocean. This week, in Dragonfly, Costner plays Joe, whose dead wife takes the initiative in maintaining contact. To cope with unexplainable signs and events, Joe seeks the help of a nun (Linda Hunt) and receives some counsel. The movie has critics scoffing. And the counsel Joe receives has given religious press critics a collective furrowed brow.

Nevertheless, the movie opened successfully. Clearly, film buffs are still eager for stories about contact with the dead, perhaps seeking assurance that death will reveal design and meaning in life. Perhaps September 11 still has enough hold on our minds and hearts that many are still seeking answers and insight. Beliefnet's interview with Dragonfly's director Tom Shadyac contains more interesting and provocative ideas than the film itself. Shadyac, a professing Christian, discusses how he believes movies offer promising possibilities for exploring tough spiritual questions.

Dragonfly has won a few fans, including Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat of Trinity Church Wall Street's Spirituality and Health. They argue, "Although there have been a handful of afterlife dramas proclaiming that love is stronger than death, this is one of the best. Dragonfly beautifully conveys how great gifts can be hidden in death and how they can bear fruit in our lives if we only have the patience and the faith to let them unfold."

Similarly, Holly McClure (Crosswalk) affirms "the inspiring and miraculous message of hope and faith represented within the story. Dragonfly is the kind of movie that will stimulate discussion, leaving audiences asking questions and searching for their own answers."

But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' critic calls Dragonfly "inane" and claims "Shadyac's clunky thriller offers some garbled spiritual bunkum about the 'next world' with overripe dialogue and a derivative script that grows increasingly ridiculous."

Phil Boatwright (The Movie Reporter) writes, "This supernatural romance/adventure, one supposedly to make us think about the hereafter, failed on every level. I understand Shadyac is a Christian … [but] I found his attempt here at guiding an audience to questioning spiritual matters less than effective. I wasn't moved. I wasn't interested. I just wanted the howling nonsense to be over."

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, "The journey to the final payoff is a tedious one and afterwards we recognize how manipulative the whole experience was." Elliott was troubled by the idea that Joe's dead wife is trying to communicate with him. "After all, she's dead. The Scriptures tell us plainly that the dead cannot speak."

Douglas Downs (Christian Spotlight) objects to this plot point as well: "Jesus declared in Luke 16 the biblical reality that there 'is between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'"

Some of these critics seem to object to the whole literary device of ghosts in storytelling. Like the magic in Harry Potter, the ghosts in these stories are not presented as an argument for how things really work, but as a way of talking about things we cannot know, to communicate a message of hope or, sometimes, horror. And while Christ certainly had good reason for exhorting us not to seek out contact with the dead, he did not forbid exploration of the idea in storytelling. Scripture itself offers such tales: Saul consults the spirit of Samuel, Jesus talks with Elijah and Moses. Both stories suggest these things are indeed possible, and that tales about such events are valuable.

Jesus himself used characters from beyond the grave in his own storytelling. Downs mentioned Luke 16:17-31 for a profound and even amusing story about tormented souls in Hell shout pleas for help to Abraham, who they can see walking around in Heaven. Sounding a little annoyed, Abraham shouts right back at them. Granted, there is some debate about whether Jesus was telling a parable or a literal happening. Sounds like a parable to me, but either way, Christ offered inhabitants of the afterlife as relevant characters in a good story.

What truly is disturbing about Dragonfly is the counsel that the nun offers Joe — and the audience. She is portrayed as the voice of wisdom and reason. And yet she encourages him to try to contact his wife's ghost, claiming that such a thing is possible if only Joe believes it is possible. "If we can create this world with what we imagine, then why not the next?" she argues. "Belief gets us there."

Lindy Beam (Focus on the Family) objects to this flimsy philosophy: "In an attempt to make a heartwarming statement about the power of faith, Dragonfly forgets that faith has to be a belief in what is true, not just belief for its own sake. This film gets credit for asking all the right questions, but deserves a swat for … failing to produce the right answers."

Douglas LeBlanc (Christianity Today) writes, "Joe's changed belief comes entirely through esoteric experiences. The film clearly rejects Enlightenment notions of reality, and thank God for that, but Dragonfly is too concerned with receiving messages from the other side. As a reflection on heaven, life on Earth, and how the two interact, it's no more nutritious than the popcorn."

Mainstream critics rejected the film almost unanimously. Lisa Schwarzbaum (Entertainment Weekly) groans, "I'd like to think that this silly humbuggery, this preposterous-for-no-good-reason supernatural tale, is throwaway comfort for a plague year. But I fear there's more junk like this about to come our way, whether we repent or not."

"There are deeply religious and spiritual people in this world who would argue that entering a church, synagogue, or temple doesn't mean you have to check your brain at the door," says Stephanie Zacharek (Salon). "The same should go for movie theatres."

*Driving Lessons (2006)

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.

*Dreamgirls (2006)

American Idol finalist Jennifer Hudson is singing up a storm in Dreamgirls, the big screen version of the popular Broadway musical.

Hudson plays Effie, one member of the Dreamettes, a Detroit vocal trio that also includes Deena Jones (Beyoncé Knowles) and Lorrell Robinson (Anika Noni Rose). Effie's lover, Curtis (Jamie Foxx), is their manager. Add Eddie Murphy in a supporting performance that's getting some Oscar buzz, and you've got quite a cast.

Still, it's newcomer Hudson, and her show-stopping number near the end of the film, that has critics raving. But that doesn't necessarily mean the film is something to celebrate. Christian film critics have some reservations about this film, which was hyped as a sure-thing Oscar winner.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) praises Hudson, but asks if Oscars should really be handed out for intensity rather than acting. He also notes that it's "almost a concert movie, and the 'dramatic' bits that come between the songs are little more than padding or connective tissue. … What matters is the songs, some of which do work rather well; you're likely to come out of the theater humming one or two of them, and you might even feel the urge to get the soundtrack. But this isn't anywhere near the year's best picture … this shallow film is a product to be sold, pure and simple."

Brett McCracken (Relevant) praises Hudson's performance, but is troubled by the way her performance has been "ravenously marketed" as an Oscar-winning turn. "It is not that I don't want—or think—Hudson should get awards; it's just a shame that her performance was so quickly co-opted by the E! buzz machine and turned into a vehicle by which the luminous young ingénue might win a coveted trophy."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says director Bill Condon has "skillfully refashioned the show for the screen, turning most of the sung recitatives into spoken dialogue. And taking a page from the way Chicago was done, he has used a lot of quick cuts here to make sure attention never lags. … The cast is uniformly excellent …" Forbes praises Hudson and Murphy as well.

Adam R. Holz (Plugged In) says, "The film's all-star cast turns in powerful, emotional performances. … Big, polished and highly produced as it may be, however, Dreamgirls is badly let down by its lack of a solid moral core. … In a world where sexual promiscuity is rampant culturally, it's always disappointing to see yet another movie that confirms such choices as status quo."

Stephen McGarvey (Crosswalk) says, "Perhaps this story worked much better on stage, but as one of this year's most anticipated films, Dreamgirls is disappointing. Successful musicals on both stage and screen must exude a great deal of energy. Dreamgirls unfortunately has very little."

Mainstream critics have some gripes, but most are taking it for granted the film will be an Oscar frontrunner.