I am not a regular viewer of Christian films, and I was kind of surprised that this film is considered one. But I guess when the initial distributor dropped the picture at the last minute, a Christian company picked it up. But why, if a movie conveys decent human values, and there happen to be a couple of scenes in a church, is it pigeonholed? It's message is not overtly Christian, yet it is so powerful it should speak to anyone, religious or not. I was truly shocked to read that the critics' reviews were not entirely favourable, that they thought it saccharine, and simplistic in terms of racial issues. Because of a dream, a couple of rich white folks befriend an old homeless black man, and it changes not only their three lives but those of many people in the community. I don't think that's self-congratulatory; it's TRUE! I thought all the characters were well developed, given that there wasn't a ton of backstory, but just enough. They were portrayed fairly but all they faced demons in their own ways. I was so moved and touched by the story, especially by the truly stunning acting of Djimon Hounsou, and by the scenes of his childhood in Jim Crow Louisiana. I'd easily see this again just for Hounsou's acting alone. What would anyone want to change? I am baffled.

This film was made by well-intentioned and decent people, who wanted to tell a heartwarming story based on real events. Unfortunately, the movie was overwhelmed by sentimentality without offering a logic to the events it sought to portray.

Debbie is the controlling figure as "a girl with a heart so big that Texas can't hold it." She forgives her husband Ron for an affair that nearly destroys their marriage. Years later, when she is dying of cancer, the saintly Debbie says that the adultery was a good thing.

The constant spinning of real life calamity into the theme of "God works in mysterious ways" is the heart and soul of this film. But the film fails to acknowledge that there were some genuinely cruel characters being depicted. One malicious woman tips off Debbie to Ron's affair. A similarly callous wife of the doctor is the first to inform Debbie that she is "terminal" with her cancer. A racist politely asks Ron to stop bringing "the Negro" to the swanky club. And the Scrooge-like father of Ron is the most callow of all...until his unexpected, Scrooge-like reformation at the end.

The most interesting character was Denver, the homeless man filled with secrets of the heart, whose potential is recognized by Debbie while working in a "mission" serving hot meals to the homeless. But whereas we clearly follow the transformation of Denver into a wise and articulate self-sufficient individual and, by his speech, an accomplished poet, he curiously remained homeless, living in the bushes through the entire action of the film. It was not until the closing credits that we learn how Denver assisted Ron Hall with the book that became a spiritual bestseller, then accompanied him on the lecture circuit.

One especially human trait that is left unexamined in this motion picture was the human emotion of guilt. Ron clearly is driven to help out at the mission by the guilt of adultery and for selling Debbie's anniversary gift of the Mary Cassatt painting, then replacing it with a copy. Debbie is motivated by the guilt of her gaudy, opulent, shallow lifestyle to work at the mission and "dream" of a new man entering her life with obvious sexual innuendo. Denver is guilt-ridden for having committed murder while imprisoned at Angola. And the guilt finally catches up to the mean-spirited ex-soda salesman father of Ron.

If the collective guilt experienced by these characters had been examined thoughtfully by the film artists, "Same Kind of Different as Men" might have been elevated from a mundane soap opera into more profound existential film about genuine human realities. If that had happened, it might have been possible for Ron to address his father as "Dad," as opposed to "Earl."

That this movie has not received the publicity and advanced advertising that it truly deserves is shameful -- the producers and production studio should be ashamed of themselves and they will reap their due reward from low attendance and most likely box office profit loss. This film definitely is worth its proverbial weight (cost) in gold. First and foremost is the plot itself, which propels the human instinct of avoidance of the uncomfortable, as with dirty homeless people, to a higher plane of reaching out, in caring rather than invasive ways, in order to actually help those less fortunate despite their social handicaps. That there is a Christian spirit about this movie is without doubt, but there is no specific religious dogma or theology. There is no "action", there is no graphic violence, there is no nudity, there is no profanity -- how completely refreshing in a movie. It is all character and dialog driven -- the acting is absolutely top notch, the dialog thoughtful and smart. The theme: reconciliation in all of our weakened or seemingly broken relationships if possible, with the onus being on ourselves to make the effort, in other words doing what we can to heal ourselves, and then being able to effectively, meaningfully reach out to and help those less fortunate, with respect rather than pity. This movie is a true treasure which, sadly I fear, will be missed by a very large audience due to lack of effective promotion.