Conversations with God - Conversazioni con Dio

Proving the so-called spiritual genre still has an awfully long way to go before feeling half has meaningful as underlying content would suggest, this quest for meaning and purpose remains ironically dull for it's intended purpose. Rather then adapting Neale Donald Walsch's massively successful spiritual dialogs, the film version of Conversations with God plays more like a biography, detailing the catalyst behind this reluctant author's unique journey which saw him living on the streets to becoming an international bestseller.

In a film plagued with bad choices, choosing to go the docudrama route proves one of the only wise decisions, producing a few of the Lifetime-worthy affair's only authentic and moving sequences. It is a testament to the inept direction then, when any and all emotional sincerity takes place during the initial struggling and unanimously subsides when relaying the inspirational turn of events that will fail to inspire the viewer. Proving quite contradictory indeed, the more Conversations with God presses on the book's inspirational themes of love, surrender, and other random insights, the less impact any previously watched glimmer of truth seems to reap.

There is just a massive divide between parlaying this intensely personal information in a way that does not feel trite, even laughably condescending, to all but the most ardent of sheep-fans... Meaning, until dedicated efforts into this budding genre begin translating our inner spiritual discussions more believably by refining their techniques into many more subtle shades of consciousness, they will continue to bare the new-age brunt of jokes, contradict what they so earnestly try to capture, and give moviegoers every which reason to extract spiritual qualities from other genres that unconsciously produce this sentiment so much clearer, with a lot less strain. For the few heartfelt moments that detail Walsch's struggle with homelessness, the film rises above the emotional sterile, Hallmark-prone manipulation that the majority seems to be. However, anyone who is not already begging to enjoy this movie, having been a rabid fan of the author's work, has every right to leer in cynical jest at the film's unintentionally ironic tone of detached insincerity.

1. Many have judged this film in a variety of ways, usually in the negative and as propaganda by 'religious types', or as another attempt to make money on the 'religion' bandwagon. Over the years I have come to believe in one God, based upon unconditional love. Not man's versions based upon interpretations and founded in other countries.

2. This movie is what you make of it, just as your life is what you make of it. I have reviewed other movies I consider spiritual in meaning, of entertainment to my human spirit, without judgment, and from all societies and beliefs. And yet, I find that there is always going to be one or more people who will pass personal judgment instead of objective insight when reviewing a film.

3. We are free to express ourselves, within the guidelines of posting (which some of us will argue against also), and forget the bigger picture that we are about life. That when we write, we influence others, or hope to, or vent, or whatever. This is our opportunity to show others our personal qualities, beliefs, and values.

4. I have written and been challenged and ostracized before and will again. I am a college grad, retired military, former law enforcement, former mental health counselor, youth leader, half Japanese, military brat, etc. I have never been particularly religious but do believe in a Supreme Existence. This isn't about me. One thing I learned in my careers in my short 52 years is that when a crisis arises, there are no atheists and that man can show his best and worst. Through it all, people will gather and express thanks in some way.

5. This movie, in particular, does just that...it gathers people together to be entertained, to experience, to reflect, to spend some time connected in some way with others. This is a transformational film. It isn't about 'talking with God'. It is about going inside ourselves and thinking what it meant, what it provoked, what it caused us to feel, and then listen to that inner voice inside and the message received.

6. I received value from it because I chose to see it as having something to give to me. The mechanics of the film don't matter. If you feel drawn to it because of some issue in your life, or want to experience an alternative to what is out there then go with an open mind and heart. Don't go expecting the book. Go with no expectations and no pre-judgments. Just go, and take a friend, or make a new one at the movie.

7. This movie may be like your life, it's what you've made of it so far or not...and then write a review.

I was very familiar with much of the subject matter of the books by Neale Donald Walsch whose "human story" is portrayed in this movie. I was very curious to see how this mass of spiritual material would be integrated into a story based on the trans-formative phase of his life. What I found was a story that I could identify with and which had many of the universal elements of despair, cry for help, and a response. There was no element of preaching , but rather the message to look inside oneself to the answers which abide. The acting and the cinematography was exquisite in bringing out the depths and extremes of the human experience. These were/are real everyday people with real experiences with whom any one who has ever had a sense of hopelessness can identify. The movie left me touched and uplifted and open to possibilities.

For the millions of readers of Neale Donald Walsch's superb trilogy, "Conversations with God" and his sequel, "Tomorrow's God," this film might have special meaning.

It chronicles in dramatic form, highlights from Author Walsch's rise from a struggling wannabe to a best-selling writer.

I've no idea how much of this is fact and how much dramatic license that Scriptor Eric DelaBarre took in fashioning his screenplay. However, I'm sure that structurally he spent too much time with Neale's rags and not enough with the transition to riches.

For over an hour our hero struggles bitterly, becoming an outcast homeless person. Then rather abruptly he's getting his writing inspiration and turning into a great success. This imbalance is probably because Eric saw the poverty part as more dramatic and emotion-driven.

Still, for those unfamiliar with Walsch and his writings, the movie may come off as not too interesting. Only when one is familiar with the writing product (for myself, the books should be included in "Great Books of the Western World" Series) that the bio takes on special meaning.

Fortunately, fine Canadian actor Henry Czerny is cast in the lead role. (Who can forget his mesmerizing performance in "Boys of St. Vincent"?) Yet, Czerny can't save the tedium of DelaBarre's script.

As for the film title, it has little to do with the book per se (how can one make a film of a book that consists entirely of dialog . . . Qs&As?).

In the end, it's appropriate that the film be judged as film and, according to that criteria, it deserves a less that satisfactory rating.

Before seeing the movie, I have read Conversation with God written by NEALE DONALD WALSCH. Although I always had a very high spiritual life, these (3) books were a revelation to me. I was also talking to God but only in a form of monologue. The movie and the books show otherwise; God can actually make dialogs with you if only your heart is receptive. I was in that state of mind when I saw the film. A great story (like I was expected) in a small film. Being an independent low budget movie directed by a not very skilled director (S. Simon) did not bother me at all, because the emotion and the message went through and made this story as one of the most important film of the decade. To me the other great movie similar to this one is THE TRUMAN SHOW. None of these has or will make money. But that is not important. I am persuaded the CONVERSATION WITH GOD will touch thousand of people and that's the most important mission for this story. Figures set up to 7 million people, (and still counting) who read the books. My feeling is that at least several thousand of people will be deeply touched by the movie. As a viewer I believe in this s touching story for two reasons: the magic writing of Neale Donald Walsch but more than that the credibility of the character personified by a great actor Henry Czerny. ( Mission Impossible /Boys of St-Vincent) Neale Donald Walsch in real life was 50 years old with a broken neck when he first started living homeless. And Henry Czerny played that with a rare sensibility and a true conviction. Thanks to both Neale and Henry. Please go see that movie who ever you are either you read or not the books. You too can talk with God because God will always be there for you and …me

9/10 Roger Cardinal Canada.