Why so much hype?

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

It took me seven years to appreciate this film. Not a constant seven years, but that was the interval between when I first saw it and mostly disliked it, until now, when I love it. The reason is that the book the movie is drawn from is so powerful, I couldn't see why the movie diverted from it so greatly.However for some reason I felt a leading to watch the film again last week, and now I was able to appreciate it on its own merits. And they are many.I think the reason this movie is so powerful is that Joshua exhibits a "natural spirituality". There is nothing religious or sanctimonious about him. With him, it's all about relationships based on serving each other. In other words, it's about love.Of course, the supernatural power is there too, and it's what gives Joshua the man his special credibility. But it works alongside his loving character.There were several moments in this film that I found moving. The odd thing is that they were not flashy, raising-the-dead moments. They were little things that spoke of the love and power of God, of Christ having come to gently serve us and show us the way.I found the scene with what happens to the broken glass vase moving, and I thought that Stacy Edwards did a fantastic job in her role as Maggie. I particularly liked the scene with the pope. Giannini did an awesome job of showing a quiet humble spirituality. Also Kurt Fuller was totally believable in his role. And of course, Tony Goodwyn was superb. Excellent job also, Colleen and Eddie, as Joan and Theo! Now that I'm over the book-movie comparison, I really appreciate this film. Also, MW Smith's score is really excellent. Fantastic job all around. This film is great for believers and those not quite there yet. Turn your friends and family onto it. They will be glad you did.

I have to admit, I went into this film with a bad attitude. Joshua, the book by Joseph Girzone, is among my favorite books. This film was a low-budget, ninety-minute rehash of the base elements. That's what I expected. I was disappointed. As someone that holds Girzone's book in such esteem, I have to ask what on earth he was thinking.The film had very little to with the book. Barely anything, in fact. Names were changed for no apparent reason. My favorite parts of the book, like the conversations between Joshua and the residents, and the debates with the churches were excised entirely. The ending was completely ruined. In the book, it was meant to be a modern-day Jesus, where a man comes to Earth, does his work, and leaves. In the film, they go for a downright pathetic cop-out, trying to be as sugary sweet as possible.But by far the worst thing about the film is Joshua himself, played by Tony Goldwyn. To be frank, he is abysmal. The Joshua of the book was calm, friendly, loving, honest, and above all, wouldn't preach unless he was forced to. In the movie, he's calm, friendly, but in the worst possible way. Honestly, I felt slightly unnerved by Goldwyn's performance. It was like if Klaus Kinski did a ton of morphine before being told to act like a God. It's difficult to explain, and I might not be making sense, but Goldwyn was simply miscast.Really, there is nothing I can recommend the film for. There are really only three types of people who will see this film: The Average Person who will see it, hate it, and forget it, The Christian, who will enjoy it regardless of quality, or the Person Who Loved the Book, and will be invariably disappointed. Regardless of which category you may fall into, I'm wasting my time talking about it. Skip it, and read the book. It's a masterpiece of modern Christian literature.

The News & Observer Todd Lothery Staff WriterPublished: April 19, 2002 The company that produced the "faith-based" movie "Joshua" released the following statement: "We at Epiphany Films have decided that sex, profanity and violence are not necessary to telling a good story. Despite what the rest of Hollywood says, we recognize that there is a real demand for wholesome entertainment."I couldn't agree more. But why does "wholesome entertainment" so often translate as hackneyed stories, one-dimensional characters and an inspirational message delivered in a ham-handed manner? "Wholesome" means "conducive to moral or general well-being." It doesn't mean "simplistic" or "trite" or "thunderingly obvious." "Wholesome," it seems to me, is not incompatible with "subtle" or "penetrating" or "artistic."But the makers of wholesome entertainment are so busy bludgeoning us with their message that they neglect pretty much everything else. The moral of the story is the story of the moral.Take "Joshua." The title character is a reticent, enigmatic stranger who wanders out of nowhere into a stereotypically folksy town, promptly takes up residence in a conveniently empty, curiously rentable barn and stumbles upon the remnants of a church that burned down long ago. "Sometimes you have to tear something down to build it back up again," the symbolically named Joshua says symbolically, as he sets out to build a new church while the perplexed townsfolk look on.Soon Joshua becomes the talk and toast of the town. He sets an example and unites the community through his good deeds, his unconditional love and his message of faith and hope. He's a jack-of-all-trades -- carpenter, woodcarver (which is ostensibly how he earns his living), expert fisherman and cook. He plays a mean electric guitar and shoots pool like a shark. He bonds with a troubled teen and mends a marriage on the rocks.He also comes between two priests, one of whom is played by Oscar-winner F. Murray Abraham ("Amadeus"), who does what he can with the underwritten role. But like everything else in the film, we can see the conflict a mile away and we know how it will play out.Everybody in town comes to Joshua with problems, and he magically solves them. Each scene is set up expressly to push across the movie's moral rather than to develop the story or characters.Joshua also performs miracles. Is he the second coming of Christ?Actor/director Tony Goldwyn ("Bounce"), who plays Joshua, is almost entirely without expression -- facial, emotional or otherwise. Perhaps his flat performance was a deliberate attempt to make Joshua a blank slate upon which the townsfolk could project their feelings. Not to be blasphemous, but if Jesus returned to Earth and was this vanilla, this spectacularly bland, this utterly lacking in charisma, he'd have a hard time panhandling for change, to say nothing of attracting disciples."Joshua's" intentions are unimpeachable, to be sure. But there's something about Joshua, and "Joshua," that comes off as glib, smug and sententious. There are no easy answers in life. Any movie that pretends there are is a fraud.

This was a beautiful movie-period. Apart from all the wonderful comments other people have written about it, it pointed out subtly that we CAN react to people who attack us in a positive, non-defensive way, while telling the truth at the same time. I thought this was very useful for us today, because we are bombarded by the media with all the things we 'must' do to keep ourselves safe, be it safe economically, politically, physically, educationally,emotionally, etc.This bombardment of course is not just for our own good-it is meant to sell us all kinds of things and services to 'keep us safe'. It sets us up to always be on the lookout, on the defensive, as if the world is strictly a dangerous place. It is dangerous often, but if all we do is protect ourselves from it, we miss all the chances for happiness this world also offers. This movie clearly shows what a Christian is supposed to be like-a sure, confident person, unafraid to love and help others. There is only one thing that spoiled the enjoyment for me-the very loud music. This loudness is common in many modern films, and forces people who watch movies at home to change volume all the time, as if music is not anymore an integral 'component' of the movie, but mainly meant to sell itself. Needless to say I don't buy any film music whose volume is too high because it connects with that annoyance....