I enjoy Steve Martin; I think he is a marvellous actor. Rarely have I come across a movie that of his that I didn't care much for. This, however, falls into that category.
It wasn't Martin's fault. He does a good job as Jonas Nightingale, the quack faith healer and miracle worker. I didn't think he was well used, though. Yes, he did a good caricature of the quack faith healers; but aside from his personal transformation near the end that was pretty much all he was allowed to do. What a waste of a fine actor. The movie just didn't work for me.
I wasn't offended by it. I had feared when I first watched it that the movie would just be a cheap shot at Christian faith; instead I thought it was clear that the shot was being taken at people who abuse the faith for their own ends. In fact, the one true miracle that happens, in my opinion, was very cleverly shown by the director to be the result of a young boy's faith. So, the movie didn't offend me; I just didn't like it.
First off, I simply can't see Liam Neeson as a small-town, no nonsense, by the book sheriff. Who in the world cast him in this role? The movie also focussed too much in my view on the developing relationship between Sheriff Will (Neeson) and Nightingale's assistant Jane (Debra Winger.) The problem is that their relationship was neither interesting nor believable. How is it that this no-nonsense sheriff meets a girl, falls hopelessly in love within a couple of days and spends significant time chasing butterflies with her? I'm serious! Is this at all believable? The relationship between Nightingale (Martin) and Marva (Lolita Davidovitch) had more tension to it and more creative possibilities but was almost completely ignored. And what of Boyd (Lukas Haas) - Marva's son? His innocent faith in Nightingale could have been an important part of the movie; again, it was relegated to the background behind the Jane-Will romance. I just don't understand that decision at all.
One technical criticism revolves around the use of the crucifix. Although I'm not Catholic, I have absolutely nothing against the crucifix. It seemed, however, (to me at least) relatively clear that whatever Nightingale was, he was definitely not a Catholic, and since Protestants (and Protestant faith healers) rarely would use a crucifix, it seemed out of place to me. An empty cross would have been more believable in this context.
I give this a 5, beased solely on Martin's strong performance, within the limitations placed on him.
It wasn't Martin's fault. He does a good job as Jonas Nightingale, the quack faith healer and miracle worker. I didn't think he was well used, though. Yes, he did a good caricature of the quack faith healers; but aside from his personal transformation near the end that was pretty much all he was allowed to do. What a waste of a fine actor. The movie just didn't work for me.
I wasn't offended by it. I had feared when I first watched it that the movie would just be a cheap shot at Christian faith; instead I thought it was clear that the shot was being taken at people who abuse the faith for their own ends. In fact, the one true miracle that happens, in my opinion, was very cleverly shown by the director to be the result of a young boy's faith. So, the movie didn't offend me; I just didn't like it.
First off, I simply can't see Liam Neeson as a small-town, no nonsense, by the book sheriff. Who in the world cast him in this role? The movie also focussed too much in my view on the developing relationship between Sheriff Will (Neeson) and Nightingale's assistant Jane (Debra Winger.) The problem is that their relationship was neither interesting nor believable. How is it that this no-nonsense sheriff meets a girl, falls hopelessly in love within a couple of days and spends significant time chasing butterflies with her? I'm serious! Is this at all believable? The relationship between Nightingale (Martin) and Marva (Lolita Davidovitch) had more tension to it and more creative possibilities but was almost completely ignored. And what of Boyd (Lukas Haas) - Marva's son? His innocent faith in Nightingale could have been an important part of the movie; again, it was relegated to the background behind the Jane-Will romance. I just don't understand that decision at all.
One technical criticism revolves around the use of the crucifix. Although I'm not Catholic, I have absolutely nothing against the crucifix. It seemed, however, (to me at least) relatively clear that whatever Nightingale was, he was definitely not a Catholic, and since Protestants (and Protestant faith healers) rarely would use a crucifix, it seemed out of place to me. An empty cross would have been more believable in this context.
I give this a 5, beased solely on Martin's strong performance, within the limitations placed on him.