it is strange to define it. because it seems be a form of spring morning. simple, touching, delicate, convincing. and charming. it is the film of an if. one so present in Christian denominations than the film seems be the universal answer. and one of the basic ingredients of its special beauty is the impeccable performance of Tony Goldwyn. this detail does the film more than one of many religious films with status of Neoprotestant message. it does it more than a film for the believers. it propose only an interesting perspective about a certainly event. and it does a great work.

The book was really not bad but the movie is just neo fundamentalist tripe.They've taken a fairly nuanced and subtle interpretation of a Jesus story and did absolutely nothing interesting with it.The characters hope to be one dimensional when they grow up. The story is very similar to being hit over the head with a brick.Repeatedly.I don't know why they bought the rights to this book and then decided to do absolutely nothing with it.It's a shame.

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.