(REVIEW) “American Underdog” is arguably the best-shot and worst-written movie by Christian filmmakers the Erwin Brothers, prompting one to ask if faith-based films will ever overcome their bad writing problem.

“American Underdog” tells the true story of Kurt Warner (played by Zackary Levi), an NFL Hall of Fame quarterback who used to stock shelves at a supermarket. The film explores his dream to be in the NFL and the obstacles, both internal and external, that he had to overcome to achieve that dream.

The Erwin Brothers are easily the best-known overtly Christian filmmakers working today whose names aren’t Dallas Jenkins. Having gotten their start in the business under the tutelage of the Kendrick Brothers (“Facing the Giants,” “Fireproof,” “Courageous”), the Erwin Brothers finally broke into the mainstream with their inspirational biopic “I Can Only Imagine,” which became the highest-grossing independent film of 2018.

Shortly after, the Erwin Brothers made a more formal partnership with Lionsgate and created Kingdom Story Company, a production company with the goal of producing both their own films and the films of other like-minded Christian filmmakers. “American Underdog” is the sixth feature film directed by the Erwin Brothers and the second they’ve released under their Kingdom Story Company logo.

I have long been a fan of the Erwin Brothers’ work. They make beautiful-looking movies that tend to avoid some of the problems of other faith-based films. They don’t shoehorn long-winded speeches into their movies like the Kendrick Brothers do, and they don’t encourage the worst in conservative political instincts like the “God’s Not Dead” movies do.

That said, their films do have consistent flaws. Sometimes their cinematography — their biggest strength — feels like it has the “Michael Bay” problem of trying to make every shot look cool for the sake of looking cool rather than choosing shots based on what that particular scene needs. The writing tends to be the weakest part, with characters and themes left underdeveloped so that the story ends up feeling trite and shallow. And shallow isn’t a quality you want in a faith-based film. Particularly when you are positioned, like the Erwin Brothers, as the biggest faith-based filmmakers in the industry today and therefore have a big effect on where the industry goes.

The Erwin Brothers always shine with their cinematography, and this is their best-shot movie yet. Every scene is gorgeous, and this time it truly feels like the beautiful visuals are being driven by the story and not just aesthetics. The heroic shots of Kurt Warner on the field and the humble shots of his deepening relationships with Brenda (played by Anna Paquin) and her children are stunning but also match the tone of each scene.

There is also some good writing. By now, I think it’s safe to say that the Erwin brothers and their screenwriting collaborators can reliably tell endearing love stories and create characters that will charm our socks off. “American Underdog” once again gives us people that we immediately want to hang out with and root for — Kurt, Brenda and her adorable kids. They’re also showing great improvement in their ability to introduce characters and themes with minimal exposition through sweet, funny moments that don’t overstay their welcome.

But as usual, developing these characters and themes is where the film falls apart. And this film is even weaker in those areas than most Erwin Brothers films. Whereas “I Still Believe” had fairly consistent themes and character arcs that were merely underdeveloped, the themes and arcs in “American Underdog” are a mess. The film introduces various character arcs and themes throughout the story, some of which seem contradictory to each other, but randomly drops them — never to be brought up again or to be brought up in a way that undermines the previous theme they developed or contradicts the previous events in the story. 

The film starts out telling us that Kurt has a dream to be a football star but is held back by the fact that he’s not willing to lean into the hard parts of football — a metaphor for life. This weakness is then dropped and not brought up again. We’re next told that Kurt’s dream to play football comes from a toxic place, where he feels like he has to earn his father’s love. This sets up a plot where he has to discover that his affinity for football is toxic and give it up to put the real important things — like his relationships — first.

The film proceeds to tell us that he’s putting his dreams over his relationships, even though we can see from the events of the movie he’s clearly not. They resolve this plotline with 40 minutes still left in the film. So the film pivots again to how Kurt following his dreams is awesome and he deserves to be a football star because — unfortunately, the reasons are never clear, even though the film puts Kurt on a soapbox to share his story.

Kurt and Brenda’s temporary breakup in the movie is a perfect example of why the film’s story makes no sense. Brenda initiates the breakup because he’s picking his dreams over her and the kids. Yet that is completely false. They spend several scenes beforehand showing us in great detail how working at his current job is the exact opposite of his dream and that he’s only doing it to help Brenda pay the bills for the family so that she can stay in school. So everything he’s doing right now is already picking the family over his dreams.

Yet he never brings that up with her. He acts like she’s right, and then he has a whole personal revelation that he needs to prioritize her instead of his career — which he already did — and tells her he promises to do just that. Immediately after he does that, he gets an offer to play for the Rams and takes it, even though that means he will be having to spend his time away from his family playing football again — just like he did when Brenda broke up with him over that. But for some reason, she’s totally supportive this time. What changed? The film never explains.

I’m spending so much time picking apart the writing in the film because I don’t want to be just another critic saying Christian films are “badly written.” I want to get specific so they can be better. I’m not asking the films to be at the level of an Aaron Sorkin film. I just want the characters, plot and themes that the Erwin Brothers are trying to convey to hang together so I can have the inspirational experience they clearly want me to have.

Weak writing is always the biggest problem with faith-based films, and that’s always baffled me. Different Christian films have different problems based on the strengths and weaknesses of the particular filmmaker. But the writing is the part that always sinks the ship. This is bizarre because writing is the one thing that can be good regardless of the budget. Money might affect whether or not you can get good actors or good cameras or good effects. But, as film critic Tyler Smith says, “a bad script costs just as much money as a good script.”

Yet, even as we’ve seen the acting, cinematography and just about everything else improve in faith-based films, the writing has stayed nearly just as bad as it ever has. This is especially sad for faith-based films because the writing is how they can explore deeper themes of faith — whether that script tells that story visually or through dialogue. Faith-based films are some of the only places we can see cinema grapple with the questions of life with God present in the equation.

As a Christian artist, I’ve struggled with the tension of following God while following my dreams and trying to discern where one ends and the other begins. When the treatment of that topic is shallow and nonsensical, I not only feel ill-represented but also get no help or guidance in processing that struggle — and neither do other Christians. Moreover, a film like “American Underdog” is probably the only version of faith many secular people will ever see, and if they see our treatment of those topics as shallow and badly thought through, that’s what they’ll think of our faith.

So why is the writing in Christian films always so weak? In a piece I wrote for An Unexpected Journal on the problems with Christian films, I said that I think pride is a big part of it. Christians who aren’t good at writing want to write anyway. They won’t admit it’s something they’re not good at and give it over to someone else. The Erwin Brothers and their writing collaborators seem humble. But I can’t think of another reason.

This is the sixth film by the Erwin Brothers. It is long past time for them to make such basic writing mistakes. And if their writers can’t improve, it’s high time the brothers gave the writing in their movies over to people who can do a better job. They’re still the directors. They can still make sure that the movie says what they want it to say. So there’s no reason not to.

The Erwin Brothers have something valuable that they offer the world through their films. What’s always been beautiful about their movies is how tenderly they make family-friendly dramas that portray wholesome people who believe in wholesome values wholesomely living out and celebrating those values — however imperfectly.

The Erwin Brothers celebrate those people and the humble way they live out those values shamelessly and unironically, which is almost impossible to find in most places today. I get a shameless thrill out of seeing Kurt Warner play with Brenda’s blind son in the same way I get a shameless thrill out of seeing Marvel heroes engage in witty banter with each other while punching bad guys. I can see what’s beautiful about it even through the murky glass of bad writing. 

But you can be wholesome family entertainment and still be great if you take your craft seriously. You don’t have to be “Silence,” “Tree of Life” or “Calvary” to be a great movie about faith that deals profoundly with deep questions. Pixar has been knocking it out of the park lately with PG movies that still critically examine whether “following your dreams” is a worthwhile pursuit.

“Coco” shows how dreams are beautiful, but putting your dreams over your family can hurt the people you should care most about. “Soul” shows how dreams are beautiful, but obsessing over your dream at the expense of everything else makes your life dull and empty. How much more could a film like “American Underdog” deal with these same questions since it can bring God into the conversation? And all it would have to do is develop characters and themes beyond the surface level and actually connect those themes together with rational cause and effect.

That said, I don’t know that there’s much motivation to change. “American Underdog” is, as of this writing, the best-reviewed movie The Erwin Brothers have ever made — both with critics and audiences. Critics like the shallowness of the story because it means the faith elements are less offensive to their sensibilities, and faith-based audiences by this time have self-selected to those who don’t care about the craft itself.

But hopefully the Erwin Brothers will work on the writing anyway — or someone else will step up. Until the writing in faith-based films changes, our ability to grapple with our faith artistically will stay decidedly shallow. And the world will be worse for it.

Joseph Holmes is an award-nominated filmmaker and culture critic living in New York City. He is co-host of the podcast “The Overthinkers” and its companion website theoverthinkersjournal.com, where he discusses art, culture and faith with his fellow overthinkers.