Evan Almost Mighty?
by
Steve Watters
on Jun 25, 2007 at 11:25 AM
In a summer of sequels, Evan Almighty offers an interesting follow up to the surprise hit Bruce Almighty (read Plugged In review). This time around, director Tom Shadyac turned in a more family-friendly movie and tried to turn up the faith message a little. The studio also ponied up a $200 million budget -- much more than the budget for Bruce Almighty. The film also worked with organizations that stir up interest among the Christians at the grassroots level.
So what was the result? Well, reviews were mixed and the movie didn't end up opening as strong as Bruce Almighty did. The studio still hopes the movie will pick up some momentum, but that depends on the word-of-mouth it gets. Did you watch the movie? If so, what kind of word-of-mouth would you give it?
1. Robert J Espe had the following to say on Jun 25 at 11:49 AM:
I want to see it. I read the plugged-in review, and Dr. Dobson's disclaimer at the end. The director took a risk by making this movie more family friendly. If the movie doesn't ultimately do better than the original, what incentive is there for him to ever listen to Christian critics again? Besides, it's Morgan Freeman, why not?
2. JJ had the following to say on Jun 25 at 12:20 PM:
I thought it was a fun movie. I wouldn't go to the movie expecting to see a Biblical redition of Noah's Ark. However, it is entertaining, family friendly and presents quite a few family converstaion starters. I think it's worth watching.
3. Jenelle had the following to say on Jun 25 at 12:36 PM:
I saw it this weekend. It was FUNNY! The Biblical references were a refreshing surprise. I definitely felt this movie was LESS sacriligious than "Bruce Almighty" (if that is a concern in not seeing "Evan"...). I liked how this movie made me reflect on how Noah must have really felt when everyone was ridiculing him. Don't we all assume WE would have taken the high road and not laughed at him with the rest of the crowd? This movie made Noah's "lunacy" realistic, and made me question 'what would i have done? how would i have treated Noah?'
If Christians are worried about incentives to make more family-friendly movies, shouldn't we all make an effort to support these types of films?
GO SEE IT!
4. NeedACatchyName had the following to say on Jun 25 at 12:42 PM:
At first, I thought the movie looked a little too cheesy for my tastes. However, the movie has Steve Carrell in it, and if he's even half as funny as he is in "The Office" (hilarious show, btw) it should be a winner. I'll probably go see it eventually, and if not, I'll definitely rent it when it comes out on video.
5. Oxanna had the following to say on Jun 25 at 1:39 PM:
I haven't seen it, and I don't plan to. Want to know why? Check out this article from Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2168886/
Now, I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article - it's written from a secular perspective. But this was right on:
But Evan Almighty also strips away anything Christian (or Jewish) about the story and replaces it with a message of universal hokum. God's entire instruction to his flock? Practice "acts of random kindness." (Look at the initial letters of that phrase.) That's not religion or even morality. It's a coffee mug slogan. The proof of Evan's redemption is that he starts to like dogs.
And...
Evan Almighty is evidence that Hollywood wants the trappings of faith in movies, but without the substance.
Also, this film apparently uses God's name in vain. I don't know about you, but I have more problems with a movie that claims to be "faith-and-family-friendly" and uses God's name in vain than with bad language.
McFaith? McFamilyFriendly? Coming right up!
6. Dan H. had the following to say on Jun 25 at 1:43 PM:
I saw this movie on Saturday and I thought it was good. Steve Carrell was very funny in his role as Evan (AKA Noah). The storyline didn't try to follow the story of Noah as much as it just used the concepts as a launching point for the movie. Overall I thought it worked very well and would recommend going to see it.
7. abby had the following to say on Jun 25 at 2:24 PM:
After seeing the previews for the movie, I feel very offended, much like hearing someone use Jesus' name as an exclamation of frustration makes me uncomfortable and upset. I think that it's great that Hollywood has made a "family friendly" movie, but just because it lacks sex scenes doesn't mean that the movie is something we should see. It trivializes the story of Noah and makes a mockery of the REAL reason God sent the flood.
Am I the only one who remembers reading of the covenant God made with Noah to never send that immense of a judgement again? Hmm... now that Morgan Freeman is taking over for Him, I suppose it is ok that Hollywood is showing "God" as going back on His word?
Just because it's "funny" and "family friendly" doesn't mean it's good.
8. abby had the following to say on Jun 25 at 2:28 PM:
In response to Jenelle who said "I definitely felt this movie was LESS sacriligious than "Bruce Almighty""...
As long as it is still sacriligious, I couldn't care less if it is worse than Bruce Almighty or not. Great, it isn't AS irreverant, but it still is in some way, isn't it?
9. Maria had the following to say on Jun 25 at 2:44 PM:
Abby - I typically share your opinion when hollywood tries to handle bible stories, etc.
However, I would suggest you see this one before writing it off. It actually is very family friendly, not so much because it doesn't have sex scenes so much as because a large majority of the plot centers around the family becoming closer as Evan starts to reallize the investment he should be putting into his family.
The kids are surprsingly well behaved and respectful to their parents, something you don't often seen in many movies that are labled family friendly.
Also, it doesn't really trivialize the flood. Hollywood was very smart and didn't even try to compare with the original event, either in the purpose behind it or the magnitude of it. I was worried with how they would handle that aspect and was plesantly surprised with the way the flood worked with the climax and twist at the end of the movie.
I typically am one who will form an opinion of movies before seeing them or based on friends reviews. But I have started to reallize that just isn't wise. My opinions easily lose credibility, since they aren't based on actuall obeservations I personally have made. So I very respectfully suggest that you see a movie and think over the various themes presented before offering a strong opinion. Obviously that doesn't totally apply to one's opinions on obviously vulgar movies (e.g. Wedding Crashers). You don't have to see that to have an opinion. However, even in those cases, I suggest offering a quieter opinion on things I haven't actually seen. It makes the advise and opinions you do have that much more valuable.
10. Maria had the following to say on Jun 25 at 2:58 PM:
I saw this movie on Saturday and I was very pleasantly surprised. For one thing I thought it would be very sacrilegious, that it would make mockery of the story of Noah’s ark. It was actually very funny and used the story of Noah’s ark as a reference but it was not like some would think a modern day take on that story. I was surprised by the biblical references, and I preferred it over Bruce Almighty. It actually made me think about a few things 1. How Noah must have felt while he was building the ark, 2. How embarrassed his wife and children must have felt initially, 3. The struggle he must have had to get his family and neighbors to believe in him.
It also gave me something to think about namely (without giving away plot details) our prayers to God. In the part where the wife or was it Evan himself (hmm its only been 2 days and I have already forgotten) was asking God why, and He said when someone prays for more family time do they just get zapped with warm fuzzy feelings or do they get the opportunity to create that more family time, or when you pray to change the world does it just go poof and its changed (or something like that)? That stuck with me and has been on my mind all weekend. The two main prayer items on my heart this year have been the provision of a godly man to ask me out with good intentions leading to marriage and to be able to reduce my student loan debt. So I did not think that God would zap a man to my front door, although that would be really nice because I would really sure that he was the ONE but I really did think it would be easy that it would happen at church, on the bus/train, at the gym etc if I only just prayed enough and had enough faith. Today I am starting to realize well other than the 2 ministries I am involved with at church, work, the gym and occasional dinner/movie/coffee dates with girl friends I am not exactly in a place or doing those things that would bring me into contact with the kind of guy I would want to marry. Same with my finances, I keep praying but I then I turn down the opportunities that come my way through friends to interview for jobs with their companies that would actually pay me a salary fitting of someone who has an MBA.
I would highly recommend this movie – it is funny, family friendly, no sex, great story of a family pulling closer together and I like how they handled the flood aspect, it’s not what you think and it does not trivialize the real flood or the promise God made. It was actually realistic and I believe something similar happened in Hawaii several years ago.
11. Heather Jarmon had the following to say on Jun 25 at 3:08 PM:
A co-worker of mine, and close Christian friend, happened to take her family to see the movie this past weekend. Believe me...I had a hundred questions for her...because it IS Hollywood we're talking about here. And the one thing I kept asking her was "...but did they portray God accurately?" She stated, He was. However, I can't help but to agree with Abby in the sence that the Bible calls us to be "set apart" and to not "conform to the imagination" of this world, but to be "transformed into the image of Christ". Anything about God coming out of Hollywood will spark contraversy, that's inevitable. We could talk about Bruce and Evan almighty till Jesus returns, but at the end of the day, what's YOUR family viewing? -God bless-Heather
12. Denise Morris had the following to say on Jun 25 at 3:36 PM:
Wow, we Christians are hard to please, aren't we? :-)
I liked the film. I appreciated the part about prayer. When we ask God for things (patience, love, etc.) He often gives us the opportunity to work on those things -- He doesn't just give them to us automatically.
13. Michael had the following to say on Jun 25 at 4:33 PM:
I like movies. I like Steve Carell. I like family-friendly films. I love God. But I don't like Evan Almighty.
My only problems with this movie are the ones the Dr. Dobson found: a distortion of Scripture and of God's holiness.
In the film, God is portrayed as more of an all-powerful, joking, friendly, good-hearted magician. Not to say God doesn't have a sense of humor, but the Morgan Freeman rendition of "God" dances around and cracks a bunch of jokes and performs miracles for the fun of it at times. This is far different from the holy, righteous, almighty God we see in Scripture. A secular critic even noticed that God would tell Evan he was giving him an opportunity to do acts of random kindness, only to force the conditions on the character. Even a non-Christian saw this difference between the God of the Bible and the God of Hollywood.
Also, the fact that the original flood is toned down from "the wickedness of man" to not enough good deeds is disgustingly twisted. It's not blasphemous, but it's deceiving and misleading, and anyone who is familiar with God's holiness portrayed in Scripture will realize that this interpretation is far from the truth. God flooded the earth because of man's evil and wickedness, because "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually," not because men were not doing enough acts of random kindness.
This, along with the fact that using God's name in vain was not avoided, just makes the movie not worth seeing.
Some say that since this is a comedy, we don't need to nag over these little things or take it seriously. The fact is, the movie has a moral message it's trying to send, so it wants to at least somewhat be taken seriously, and it's granted that people will, just like The Da Vinci Code was eaten up by those who did not care to check the facts. This movies is similar to the practices of seeker-sensitives who would rather have a work-based man-centered gospel than one that's based on grace and the glory of God. This is not a movie to support.
14. Scott had the following to say on Jun 25 at 5:31 PM:
Well, then there's also the problem of Exodus 20:4-6 when dealing with both films (and 'The Passion' in particular). Regardless of whether one takes the position that this passage (and the corresponding part of Deuteronomy) only prohibits actual physical images of worship or whether it regulates worship practices as a whole, I think it's grievous how we've ingrained images of God and Christ from media within our life. After all, if you read the account of the original Golden Calf, Aaron made to represent Yahweh, but it was still an abhorrence.
Yes, Christ came to fulfill the Law, and He did so fully, but I believe the Moral Law of the 10 still represents God's will for how believers should live their lives out of gratitude for His forgiveness of their sins.
And please don't think I've come in here to condemn. I merely want to incite and redirect thoughts on what i see as an often-neglected issue.
15. John had the following to say on Jun 25 at 7:40 PM:
Call me a curmudgeon, but I have a big problem with Evan Almighty, which I have not seen and probably won't, for the same reason I had a problem with Touched By An Angel, which many Christians used to swoon over: the faith portrayed bears little resemblance to the Biblical faith I know and love.
A benevolent God is depicted as acting in the affairs of men, but Christian viewers will notice that a key aspect of God's relationship with man is missing. To be more precise, a certain Name is conspicuously absent and never mentioned.
Then said they unto him, what shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him that he hath sent.
John 6:28-29
This is actually a matter of the utmost gravity. God has one message to Adam's rebellious race: what will you do with my Son who came to die for you? Man has to come to the cross before God will treat him as anything but a rebel. God is not interested in coaxing random acts of kindness out of unregenerate sinners; God is offering mankind either forgiveness through Christ's blood and righteousness or the fires of hell. Anything less is not the Christian faith, and is actually an attack on the Gospel. It's ironic that the reviewer from Slate gets it while many Christians apparently don't.
16. Scott had the following to say on Jun 25 at 8:09 PM:
Great point, John.
17. James had the following to say on Jun 25 at 11:41 PM:
I read the plugged-in online review and Dr. Dobson's disclaimer at the end. And, I side with Dr. Dobson.
Still much too irreverent for my tastes.
Then again, God has been developing in me an even higher and higher respect for Him and His Word. Movies like this, no matter how "family friendly" they may be, serve only to begin to trivialize God and make Him far less than He really is.
When it comes to irreverence towards God, I continually find myself siding more and more on the line of, "Don't. Just DON'T go there, AT ALL." Though I have to admit that Bill Cosby's Noah sketch is still something I enjoy (though honestly the one being toyed with in that is Noah, not necessarily God).
18. Kristine had the following to say on Jun 25 at 11:48 PM:
Well, I just saw the movie tonight, because it was family friendly and looked interesting. As for the impressions I walked away with...
Positives:
- family friendly
- lots of birds (I love birds, if you don't, this might be a negative)
- the section where "God" talked about how we don't just get patience, love, family closeness, etc. by praying for it; God gives us opportunities to practice and develop them. Very well said.
Negatives:
- the casualness with which God is treated. He's not just some tame, funny guy with great power who likes to hang out with trees and would destroy part or all of His world to make a point about environmentalism. He is amazing, all-powerful God Who - though He is to be loved - is also to be feared. When He makes a promise, He delivers.
- The "God" in the movie said that most people misunderstand the true meaning behind the story of Noah, that it wasn't about God's wrath, but rather "family closeness." Family closeness? Where in Genesis 6-8 does it say that? I do not believe that God wiped out most of the human and animal population for the sake of family closeness.
- Evan was more of a Jonah than a Noah. Noah was chosen because He alone loved and served God. He was righteous and walked with God. (Gen. 6:8-9) Evan - like Jonah - had to be cornered and humiliated before He gave in. Even then, Evan had serious doubts and almost gave up and walked out of the ark at the end
- In the movie, the people were allowed to mock God, mock His servants, and wait until the very last minute, and all were saved anyway. God doesn't want anyone to die and suffer eternal punishment. He gave to us the choice to accept or reject Him. The people of Noah's day had that choice, and people today have that choice. God won't just forgive and welcome everyone on judgment day just for the sake of love and kindness.
19. Michelle had the following to say on Jun 26 at 1:37 AM:
Yeah, I read that Slate article and thought it was really good - very insightful, especially considering the author's not a believer.
20. apryl had the following to say on Jun 27 at 12:46 AM:
This movie and these discussions have got me thinking about how I should be more of a discerning movie viewer.
I am seriously debating whether to watch tv or a movie again. Yeah, very extreme, and honestly, probably not going to happen. But what is the point of tv or a movie anyway (besides news)... entertainment... and why do I feel I have to be entertained or get lost in a movie or tv show. I mean, what on Earth did people do before the television? :-)
For the longest time I have wondered where I could find more time to study God's Word and talk to Him, and to me I'm beginning to think that it's a no-brainer: if I wasn't so worried about my own entertainment, I would have plenty of time to spend with God.
I think I'll go ahead and trade in the 2 hours to watch Evan Almighty for some good ol' quiet time with my Lord. This isn't a choice I'm saying should be for everyone, but it's just the point I'm at in my walk with Christ right now. It's something to think about though.
21. wanda miller had the following to say on Jun 27 at 9:02 AM:
the church is very quick to compromise. but remember this - you are nothing but a target audience for marketers. they will use whatever bait it takes to separate you from your money. it is not their place to try the spirits whether they are of God or not. it is ours.
a little poison in the koolaid is all it takes.
the movie does not reverence a Holy God. it trivializes Him. and whether or not it has "good" messages, it is not the message Christ delivered to us once and for all. it is a diversion from the truth.
22. Colin Moore had the following to say on Jun 27 at 7:49 PM:
Apryl--That's an idea which I've thought about, however, I've decided that to be "in the world, but not of it" in our age may, in my opinion, include watching television and movies. While I've had to tone down my entertainment diet to talk to God and read his Word more, I still have not completely banned entertainment from my life. While I would definitely not watch a movie like "Wedding Crashers" (just to use an example), and would watch all movies with discernment, I think a complete rejection of TV and movies will hurt our witness to nonbelievers and deprive Christians of knowledge of what needs to be done to influence the world.
23. Debra Sue had the following to say on Jun 30 at 9:15 AM:
I thought this review made sense...Holy Hollywood from tothesource:
http://www.tothesource.org/6_26_2007/6_26_2007.htm
24. Daniel Lemire had the following to say on Jul 2 at 3:41 PM:
I quite enjoyed this film. The great thing about a film like this is you can enjoy it without feeling embarrassed to admit you paid money to see it. For me it was a light-hearted and down to earth experience. I even had a moment of realization during the film.
I'll take this film over virtually everything else out right now. Honestly, I walked out feeling better (and even a little closer to God) than I did when I walked in.