I remember, many years ago, I saw a film called Holy Man, and I did enjoy it, despite it being nothing particularly memorable. It was a film that didn’t exactly define my cinematic education, but it was an entertaining one. In recent years, with the internet giving access to more extensive views and criticisms, I was somewhat shocked to discover that Holy Man is almost universally reviled, which is unfortunate. Certainly not a great film, and it does have considerable flaws, but I always thought it was a well-meaning film with only the best intentions. I recently underwent another viewing, and while I can understand the critical malignment towards this film, I also believe that in a current social, political and economic climate, Holy Man does hold some relevance and it is a satire that deserves a re-evaluation, because while it is an imperfect film, it has some fascinating things to say, with only the execution being somewhat problematic. For all intents and purposes, Holy Man is a delightfully entertaining example of escapist cinema, and it is worth another look.

Ricky Hayman (Jeff Goldblum) is a marketing executive at a fledgling home shopping network. His boss (Robert Loggia) forces him to work alongside cutthroat executive Kate (Kelly Preston) to boost the sales for the network, or else Ricky will be ousted from his job. In an ironically celestial twist, the duo comes to encounter a mysterious man named G (Eddie Murphy), who dresses in white robes, seems to be incapable of expressing any emotion except peace and joy, and is apparently able to resist any earthly pleasures or temptations. G forces his way into the lives of the Ricky and Kate, and purely by chance, he becomes an overnight sensation for the network, boosting their sales and becoming a national celebrity However, G’s new fame is directly oppositional to the tranquil, peaceful life he has lead so far, and questions of materialism are brought to the forefront, as our protagonists grapple between money and morality.

Here’s the problem with Holy Man: it is a film that was not written with these actors in mind, which is why it feels so lifeless. According to this film’s production history, Holy Man was written in 1993 and was going to star John Candy in the titular role. This makes sense because Candy was able to derive some of the most endearing comedy out of his effortless pathos as a performer – you just need to look at something like Planes, Trains, and Automobiles or Uncle Buck to understand Candy’s style. He would’ve been perfect for something like Holy Man. As talented as Eddie Murphy is, he is only as good as the role, particularly because his finest roles has integrated his surreal, zany style that defined his career. The character of G in Holy Man seems to be an entirely wrong fit for Murphy, because we have been conditioned to see Murphy as the eccentric madman who, even at his most lucid, is never too far away from delving into the wonderful incomprehensible. There is a quality about Murphy that just does not work particularly well with a character like G, who is intended to be played with dire sincerity, which is not Murphy’s strongest quality.

Jeff Goldblum, who I have expressed my absolute adoration for on countless instances, is always great, but Holy Man doesn’t explore his range of talents, much in the same way it wastes Eddie Murphy. Considering two of the most effortlessly hilarious actors of all time are in your film, one would expect the filmmakers would utilize their natural talents more notably, but they are prominently ignored him. Kelly Preston is fine, and does nothing particularly special, but is at least consistent. Let’s not even mention Robert Loggia, who made David Lynch’s Lost Highway the year before, and seemed to think he was still on the set of that film, judging by his performance here, which was not particularly pleasant, to say the least. Holy Man would be a film that would succeed if it utilized its cast and harnessed their abilities more clearly. It is not enough to have a film with two highly-popular and endearing actors like Murphy and Goldblum and not harness the exact qualities that garnered them legions of admirers. Holy Man assembled a great cast, but failed to use them to their full potential, which is why Holy Man is not particularly memorable, but it is far from resembling anything close to a bad film, and considering my main issue with this film is that it didn’t use its leads adequately, it does say that it is not nearly as awful as it has been perceived.

Here is what Holy Man does well, but could have done better: stay true to its audacious concept. It takes two seemingly irreconcilable concepts – the relentlessly materialistic nature of home shopping networks, and the tranquil beauty of spirituality, and merges them together. Despite its quite toothless execution, Holy Man has a really cutting-edge underlying story, and it could have been made into quite an exciting and brilliantly sardonic satire about the virtues of modern society. This film was made in 1998, and nothing has changed since then – we are still a product-driven society, and it only worsens as time goes on. A film like Holy Man attempts to comment on our consumerist society and make a bold statement about the fact that happiness isn’t found in material items that are often the result of impulse purchases, none of which anyone actually needs. Happiness is found in the small, intimate aspects of life – love, friendship and self-worth (I said Holy Man was audacious, I didn’t say it wasn’t cliched), and it does deliver this message.

However, the message contained in Holy Man seems to be in the wrong hands, particularly in terms of the director, Stephen Herek. Herek is a director I have always been aware of, as he has made many noteworthy films, but has never fully been realized as a director of his own, always seeming to be the archetypal “director-for-hire”, rather than a filmmaker with a singular vision. He has made some classic films, such as Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure and Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead, both of which are terrific satires and brilliant comedies, executing their audacious concepts wonderfully. Holy Man is not along the same lines, and it just seems to be another in the range of Herek films in which he serves to simply make sure the film gets made. Even worse, Holy Man was written by Tom Schulman, the Academy Award-winning writer of Dead Poet’s Society, as well as the excellent What About Bob? One can only imagine if a more capable director had taken on this script (such as Frank Oz, who made Schulman’s script for What About Bob? one of the best films of the 1990s), what this film could’ve become. The strengths of Holy Man – its concept and underlying satirical streak – was wasted with Herek, who made something entertaining but not close to being as biting as one would hope.

Holy Man is an entertaining film, and it is not the dismal failure it is seen to be. It is not particularly memorable, and it does leave quite a bit to be desired, especially from its talented cast. However, it has a genuine heart and manages to be an exceptionally interesting film. The only problem is that it didn’t realize its full potential, and rather gets mistaken for something unnecessarily dull and far too conventional. There was something truly special underlying this film, but it seems no one paid enough attention to transforming this otherwise middling film into something great. This is a perfect example of a great intention and sheer audacity being lost to mediocre execution, which results in a film that could have been far better than it ended up being.