Nevertheless, if you found it mostly uninvolving, there is no way one can persuade you otherwise. Cinematically, I believe Shanley and cinematographer Roger Deakins did a predominantly splendid job of creating a world unto itself that was confined to the parish. Some of the dutch angles did become annoying, but some were used well to underline the tripartite tension of so much of the drama.

Regardless, a terrific review. And just keep in mind my Doubt-defending comes from a fellow who didn’t think terribly highly of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

You’re right, Sam. The stage-to-screen argument has raged for quite a while, and I was quite aware that many critics (yourself and CK over at LiC) specifically addressed the stage-to-screen issues, and found the film succeeded within those confines. As to “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” I’d much rather a director lean towards the “damned if you do” camp. It’s a film, after all – give us something we could not have seen on the stage. But, of course, that is a matter of preference, which is often what film criticism comes down to.

Craig, as to “what I wanted,” I think it was a process of being emotionally uninvolved with the film and attempting to reason backwards to the cause. For me, the film lacked a larger context; I didn’t feel the weight of what was transpiring. I was impressed with all of the acting, certainly, entertained even, but never riveted by the content, and honestly could not have cared how it ended. Part of that, I believe, was because it did feel so stagey and contained. I wanted Shanley to take me outside of the parish, into the characters lives in other contexts. Barring that, everything began to feel artificial to me. As Luke put, sometimes the constrained setting of such adaptations can really enhance them cinematically, but not for Doubt.

And yes, as Luke already stated, we will be doing Top 10 lists sometime in January, Adam. I’ve already seen almost everything worth seeing (Sam, perhaps it’s best that I don’t state my position on Wendy and Lucy), but my colleagues have not. We plan on compiling those next year. Hopefully our lists will be interesting and set apart from the usual critics’ lists.

I’m honestly not sure what happened to my MZ colleagues, though…I haven’t heard from any of them, in any form, in a long time. Hopefully, they’re just enjoying the holidays.

That’s all I got. Thanks for the holiday wishes, Craig.

I can’t compare the stage version to the screen version because I’ve only seen the latter, but this is one of the best movies of the year in my book.

It was opened up cinematically no more than it needed to be. Shanley (and Roger Deakins) took ample advantage of the tools of the trade without going for cinema for cinema’s sake. What did you want? Monkeys with laser riles and jetpacks?

I had a couple of small issues with it (They literally used the words “doubt” and “certainty” like 4 too many times), but the performances alone were worth the price of admission. I don’t care if it’s on stage or on screen, I’ll watch Streep at her best any day of the week and the others weren’t too shabby either.

That’s not to say you’re required to agree with me…if a movie doesn’t grab you, it doesn’t grab you, but I think the stage-screen criticism is a little overused.

Hi Adam. I did love WENDY AND LUCY quite a bit, as did my wife, Allan Fish and Kaleem Hasan. It will probably just missed my top ten list, but it’s a certain runner-up to it. Thanks for asking, and happy you felt the way you did on it.

I totally agree with you on the stage-to-screen blah-ness of this film.

I know it’s a much different scenario, but I saw the same flaws with Mamma Mia! on the screen. The director didn’t know what to do with the camera. It was insulting.

Anyway, I would go further and say that Shanley brings us nothing new or exciting from this work, whether on stage or screen.

The answer is yes.

That’s all I wanted to know.

I see well over 170 films a year theatrically as do so many others, including the distinguished group here at Movie Zeal, and the head critics at LIC, CCC, and many others sites. What I mean is this: “Before one embarks on making a year-end ten best list, one should try and see all the potential inclusions on that list.” Hence, until I see WENDY AND LUCY tonite, CHE on Tuesday night and WALTZ WITH BASHIR on Wednesday, I won’t firm up anything until every possibility is exhausted.

Hence, the ten best lists you spoke of (regardless of the duration of MZ’s existance) should rightfully be submitted when said critic has seen as many of the major possibilities. Anything less would lead to cumbersome revisions and a less that thorough judgement.

Isn’t that fair enough? I wish you and yours a Happy New Year!

And I’m not sure what you mean by after someone has seen “all” the films. Although many print and even online reviewers post Top Tens before the end of the year, there’s certainly a kind of sense in waiting until the year is literally over. But I’d feel presumptuous, even in my most cinephilic years, to claim that I’ve seen all of the “vital” works of a given calendar year, let alone everything there is/was to be seen. One has to arbitrarily draw a line somewhere, and then the immediate fun of reevaluation begins.

I plan on releasing my own ten-best list on Friday, January 2nd.