Reviews for the film seem to be fairly split between Evangelical audiences and those who aren't strictly Evangelical Christians.
Evangelical reviews Bob Waliszewski, writing for
Focus on the Family's
PluggedIn, focused his review on the Christian aspects of the film. He contrasts Amanda's and Nathan's lives, pointing out Nathan's comments to Amanda about true treasure being in heaven whenever Amanda mentions her very real financial situation. Waliszewski's review is also broken down into various objections Evangelicals would have with the content. For example, Alan and Amanda are not married, but live together. Alan, at one point, peeks into a women's bathroom in an attempt to find Amanda. Vincent is physically violent with Alan - and so is Grandpa Nathan. There are other scenes involving violence or near-violence. Waliszewski summed up his review by saying that the film provides "one of the wittiest, smartest, most-colorful scripts to come out of the Christian community in a long, long time." Ken James, writing for ChristianAnswers.net, gave the film 4 out of 5 stars, and rated it as 'morally excellent'. While he too focused on the film's Christian themes - notably claiming that Amanda's redemption was fulfilling to watch, he also stated that the movie shows "technical achievement". James also lamented that the "
secular world" had already decided the film fell into the category of "
propagandistic evangelical" fare. Heidi Bortel, writing for
The Register-Herald, stated that the film's main message is that "it's never too late to start life over" regardless of the gravity or shame one feels for one's mistakes.
MovieGuide described the film as a "fast-paced comedy with wholesome values", giving a rating of 3 out of 4 stars. The reviewer found the film entertaining and felt the message conveyed was both serious and relevant.
Critical response Margaret A. McGurk, writing for
The Cincinnati Enquirer, gave the film 2.5 out of 4 stars. Pointing out that humor is a new genre for Christian films of the time, McGurk also notes that most of the comedy within the film is
slapstick in nature and that the jokes otherwise under-perform. She also found the production to be more in line with a
telefilm than a piece distributed in theaters in both appearance and sound quality. Of the cast, McGurk found everyone except for Hingle to be playing cartoonish or stock characters. Scott Foundas, writing for
Variety, found the entire plot implausible but the contrivance is entirely as expected in a film made with the sole purpose of
proselytizing. Foundas described the ideas put forward by Vernon's script as "curiously old-fashioned" and that the biggest mistake of the film is putting forward
dogma intentionally rather than developing it dramatically. He also comments on the characters, which he calls "one-dimensional", and says that the performances are "undistinguished" except for Hingle. Foundas does acknowledge the technical skill employed in the production, specifically with camera use which he compares favorably to World Wide's previous cameraman, James F. Collier. Kathy Cano-Murillo, writing for
The Arizona Republic, also commented on the low quality of the production given the venue. She stated that had this been presented as a telefilm, it would have easily received praise for the performances given and the positive messaging, calling it "an extended version of
Touched by an Angel". Cano-Murillo found the discussions between Amanda and Nathan to be
cliché and noted that the preaching was a detractor from the film's departure from typical
gangster comedy movies. She gave the film 2 out of 5 stars. Rasmi Simhan, writing for
The Kansas City Star, gave the film a 1 out of 4 star rating. The film's biggest flaws in Simhan's view don't center on its incorporation of religion, but rather on things that are typically a movie's downfall: uninspired characters, clichés, and "unbelievable happy endings". Regarding the characters specifically, Simhan found them unrelatable and unsympathetic. But Simhan also took issue with the fact that the film didn't address religious issues that would have given it a deeper meaning, such as the necessity of having faith in a world of "cruelty and injustice". Marc Savlov, writing for
The Austin Chronicle, rated the film 0.5 out of 5 stars. Despite praising the production for being better than many "church-financed films", Savlov described the storyline as unremarkable and plain. His only compliments to the movie were the camera movement, the pacing, and Hingle's performance. ==References==