Change Your Image
fsvoboda
Reviews
Adaptation. (2002)
Oops! Where's the movie?
Here's the dilemma with "Adaptation." It's either a smart satire of the typical overgrown, pointless Hollywood movie--or it's just another overgrown, pointless Hollywood movie. I'm coming down on the side of number two. I think that a lot of viewers are giving this movie way too much credit for coming from the "Being John Malkovich" crew, but this film isn't "Being John Malkovich." It's more like a car wreck (two, actually) masquerading as a real movie. The film is at least a half an hour too long for the joke to hold up, and it's wildly inconsistent about what sort of movie it's trying to be. There are a couple of good performances, but they're in a vacuum so far as script and direction are concerned. Indeed, it seems like the various characters exist in different movies: "Deliverance," and "Plenty" and any number of Woody Allen films, to name a few. And worst, there's no wink to the audience to let it know that the filmmakers know that they're joking. Instead there's a random assemblage of hopelessly "serious" pieces that make no coherent whole. See it if you're a "Being John Malkovich" fan, but expect as little as possible. Ultimately, the only movie that this film satirizes is itself.
Gods and Generals (2003)
Too Sentimental, Too Embalmed
`Gettysburg,' based on a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel, was a successful realistic depiction of the Civil War battle, marred mainly by fake beards that seemed about to come to life and attack several actors playing Confederate generals. This prequel is based on a lesser novel by the son of the original prizewinner and attempts to tell the entire first half of the war in one movie. Only the beards have been improved-somewhat. While `Gods and Generals' has been condemned by some as partial to the Confederates, which it probably is, it does not serve them well. Almost all the actors have been directed to speak slowly and sonorously, and their lines often are overwhelmingly sentimental. Sentiment certainly was a feature of American thought at the time of the Civil War, but sentiment was not all of it. The sentimentalism embalms the southerners rather than letting them come alive as real, passionate believers in their cause. Even the magnetic and weird Stonewall Jackson is presented for the most part as a kind man fond of small children rather than a fierce personality who thought he was doing God's will by killing as many Yankees as possible. While Jackson is intended to be the center of the film, the best performance in the film is that of Jeff Daniels, reprising his role as a Maine college professor turned Colonel of infantry. Well over an hour and a half into the film he convincingly recites an account of Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, introducing the harrowing recreation of the Union's suicidal charges on Confederate entrenchments at Fredericksburg. This sequence, though long, is not too long. It gives a real sense of the bravery and danger that existed on Civil War battlefields. Daniels and his Irish sergeant (played by Kevin Conway) are the characters we care about in the thick of it. Wearing their own beards, not products of the makeup department, they come across as scruffy, scared yet real people. It is no surprise that they will persevere and help to win the war for the North. After this great battle scene the movie returns again to sentimentalism until the surprise Confederate counterattack at the Battle of Chancellorsville, again convincingly staged, and with Jackson finally as an engaging central character to focus our attention. Of course, many of those watching the film will know how it must end, and know many of the famous historical lines spoken by its main characters. It is unfortunate that the filmmakers could not make those lines seem as if new.
The Final Countdown (1980)
Plot Holes
**This is all more or less a spoiler, so beware.**
I enjoyed this film when it first came out, even though its tone was sometimes skewed too much in the direction of Navy recruiting. It is best when it takes its premise and the realities of the Navy seriously.
There are loads of great "movie moments," including the Tomcats vs. Zeros dogfight, the captured Japanese pilot continuing to act like he's at war, the time-traveling pooch and, especially, the many moments of idiocy from the rescued Senator who can't believe he hasn't been let in on the "secret" of the Nimitz and--horrors--that at least one senior officer of the vintage 1980 carrier is African-American.
But there are problems in the script that could have been addressed to make it a more convincing movie. The characters spend way too much time pondering "should we or shouldn't we change history?" when in reality as intelligent, pragmatic problem solvers they likely would have been addressing other immediate difficulties:
1) Traveling through the time storm, the Nimitz arrives in 1941 without its accompanying destroyer escorts. While the film pretends that the 1980s technology is pretty much invulnerable, that isn't the case, particularly given carriers' status as large targets. Not only would the carrier have launched air patrols (as done in the film) but its officers immediately would have been spending considerable effort in trying to decide how to defend against possible submarine attack. (The Japanese had excellent torpedoes, quite capable of sinking or severely damaging a carrier of any vintage.)
1a) One possible solution would have been to rendezvous with the existing 1941 American carriers at sea (remember, the Nimitz has a Pearl Harbor expert on board who would know their location), thus gaining a destroyer screen *and* being able to lead a combined attack on the Japanese fleet. (BTW, this follows the military principles of concentration of force and surprise, both well known to serving officers.)
2) However, this introduces another difficulty. Tensions were fairly high at the time, and a strange aircraft carrier appearing near Oahu would have been assumed to be a hostile Japanese ship and likely attacked on sight (just as an actual Japanese miniature sub was sunk before the air assault on Pearl Harbor). Thus the other big problem would have been how to make contact with American forces and provide warning. This should have engaged considerable attention, particularly given that even their historical expert wouldn't likely know specific codes, frequencies, recognition signals and the like. The many possible plot complications are obvious. Since the characters don't know that the Nimitz will return to 1980 at film's end, they would be assuming contact to be necessary. (The Nimitz can't wander around unseen and unsupplied for the rest of WWII. It will have to make contact.)
3) I won't say too much about the possible violations of the space-time continuum involved, but all of you who are "Back to the Future" fans can fill them in. If we take these seriously contact becomes very difficult and the movie actual ending seems almost inevitable.
4) A possible solution with minimal effect on the continuum and taking advantage of the contact difficulty would have been for the Nimitz to launch its own mock attack on Pearl Harbor in advance of the Japanese attack (preferably before dawn, so its planes could not be identified as alien to the time). This would alert US defenses and greatly reduce US casualties and damage. (However, this assumes more or less that the Nimitz knows it's going back to 1980.)
5) Whatever the Nimitz's possible intervention, it would not be able to prevent US entry into WWII, since other Japanese attacks on US bases, most notably in the Philippines, would bring the US into the war, as would any hostile action by the Nimitz. The historical expert on board would know this, as would all the senior officers, products of an excellent educational system. Figuring this into their deliberations would have added considerable interest. Destruction of the Japanese fleet aircraft carriers six months before it actually happened (at the Battle of Midway) might have considerably shortened the war.
Thus, the biggest logical flaw in the film is not that aircraft carriers cannot go rocketing through time portals. That's a part of the film's premise and we have to accept it or immediately leave the theater. Rather, the film doesn't take the very real problems that would be faced by its decision-makers quite seriously enough, as suggested above. (I could go on, but there's a word limit here.) The more seriously these are dealt with within the limitations of screen time, the better the film would have been.
That said, it's still a cool film. Much, much better than "Pearl Harbor," which doesn't take any of its subject matter seriously. But that would be another review.
The Battle of the Sexes (1928)
Surprisingly Good
This late jazz age comic morality tale directed by D. W. Griffith is surprisingly good--and its relative sophistication will be a surprise to those who are familiar with Griffith via the standard films such as "The Birth of a Nation," "Intolerance," "Way Down East," or even "Broken Blossoms." This film feels much more modern and far less overtly moralizing than those earlier films, though its 1920s "feel" is a part of its appeal for contemporary viewers.
The new DVD is well scored with period music cues that evoke a consistent, slightly melancholy mood as Jean Hersholt (better known as the villain of "Greed") is thrown into his midlife crisis by gold digger Phyllis Haver. His family is convincingly shown in turmoil--and eventually acts to rescue Hersholt's character from his folly. The film is well structured and altogether charming.