JAM-31 Reviews

Terminator Salvation (2009)

Why this film didn't work

[3/10 · 12 June 2010]

"Terminator 2: Judgment Day" is one of my all time favorite films. The way that movie ended, so beautifully wrapping things up, I was against any more sequels being made. I am glad that that film still stands on its own, self contained, and that James Cameron had nothing to do with this film or the last one.

I was still excited about "Terminator Salvation," though. The mythical future war against the machines I thought would be a great setting for a movie. But it turned out to be an opportunity wasted.

The main problem with this film is John Connor. Casting Christian Bale in this role was a great start, but unfortunately a finish. After reading an article about how director "McG" (No, it's not too late for him to change that name) pleaded with a resisting Bale to take the role, "Give me a chance!" I was willing to give him one too. But then I read that John Connor wasn't even originally in the script. That he was added later. This makes the role almost unnecessary, and it shows. Why was the script written without him in the first place? If you are going to do a "Terminator" movie without Arnold, then you HAVE to have John Connor in it.

John Connor in this film is flatly written and boring. It diminishes his importance and damages the mythology of the franchise. His brief entrance and appearance in T2 presented him like a legend as did Kyle Reese's description of him in the first Terminator film. Instead, Connor is never interesting or charismatic, and his only "motivational" moments come with passionless speeches over the radio. He needs to be William Wallace, Spartacus, George Washington, and all great leaders rolled into one.

The other major problem with the film is its convoluted story and lack of originality. I found Sam Worthington's character and performance mediocre in this film. His terminator-like character is a ruthless, evil bad guy, then a bad guy with heart, who is a machine, but he doesn't know it character arc is not so clear, and at the same time a cliché. One of the worst moments of cliché in this film comes when the "Blair Williams" character learns that Worthington is a terminator machine, yet still decides to rescue him from Connor and the resistance. OK, so Worthington saved her in a previous scene, but now she knows he's a terminator! Hello? Don't you think she should listen to the resistance when they prove to her that he's a machine and a dangerous enemy? Even if you can argue that her actions were plausible, do we really need to see this tired, dumb-character cliché in another movie?

As for the rest of the film, action scenes are ranked somewhat exciting to routine. Special effects are decent, although the world these characters live in isn't that impressive, exciting, or believable.

Grade: D+

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Bad. Simply Bad.

[3/10 · 15 May 2010]

Okay, I am not a big comic book fan, nor do I know too much about "Iron Man." I am a big-time movie fan though, and there are certain things that a comic book movie (and basically ANY movie) needs to be successful.

And they are: THRILLS... EXCITEMENT... SUSPENSE... STORY... "Iron Man 2" has none of them. How does a movie like this get released without them? "Iron Man 2" has no exciting plot for the hero to overcome to stop drastic consequences. No exciting action sequences to keep us on the edge of our seats. I don't know or really care how much this film keeps to the comic it was based on--if it doesn't have an involving, exciting story, it fails.

All of the actors, Downey, Johannsen, Favreau, Rourke, Cheadle, give mediocre, forgettable performances. All of them are good actors who I have enjoyed watching in other films, but seem to just be trying to be cool, hip, and clever in front of the camera this time.

This film should have reminded me of the "Batman," "Superman," or "Spiderman," films, but it has more in common with the "Ocean's 11" movies: a bunch of big stars hamming it up, trying to be "cool," and having fun in front of the camera, instead of trying to make a good movie.

What does Mickey Rourke's villain want in this film? How will it affect the world if he achieves his aims? Why should we care if he succeeds? Why are there no moments when Iron Man seems on the verge of losing everything? This film is an example of letting success go to the producers' and actors' heads. Hopefully the fan-boys will realize and admit it stinks before more action and comic book films turn out as dull as this one.

Grade: D

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

As an Indy Fan, I am bound to be more critical...

[6/10 · 26 May 2008]

I am a die-hard Indiana Jones fan. The originals meant so much to me as I grew up. But I wasn't expecting too much from this film. Mostly because of the hype and anticipation a movie like this brings, after 19 years of absence. Also because of Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III, which proved that George Lucas was out of touch.

"Crystal Skull" could have delivered. It had all the potential to be another great film in the series, maybe not an equal to the almost perfect films, "Raiders," and "Temple of Doom," but could have been a great adventure masterpiece. It has good moments, and it is enjoyable just to see Indy and Marion and the Spielberg/Lucas crew at it again. But it never achieves greatness because of three main things.

First: The plot. I found it hard to understand the motives of the characters or what they were looking for throughout most of the film. The dialog that begins when Mutt Williams enters is clunky, and confusing. It reminded me of the heavily plot-related dialog from "Phantom Menace": weird, uninteresting and boring. We should get chills when we hear the characters talk about the magical treasures and dangers that await them. Here it never really makes sense what they are talking about. The crystal skulls of the title aren't a great macguffin, its surprising how important they were to George Lucas. I'm not crazy about the idea of Indy fighting over an alien artifact. Indiana Jones searches for lost legendary treasures and remnants of ancient civilizations. Part of our love for the character is the thought of him uncovering the sites we have always heard about, the excitement that such magic and amazing places could actually be out there in our own world, waiting to be discovered by adventurers. It's not like there's nothing left for Indy to discover, or for his villains to be after (Atlantis, the Fountain of Youth, etc). The alien plot could have worked, but Lucas failed to make the concept interesting. It's just too weird.

Second: The film is missing the thrilling (and often brutal) exciting action that characterized the original films. There were no moments in this film that really shocked or scared us, no suspense scenes that kept us on edge of our seats or made us look away, or watch through our fingers. No shock or gore. Spielberg has gone a little too soft in his older years. Perhaps he is worried about the effect his (non-serious) films might have on children, but he really doesn't need to worry--most kids ten and up could handle it fine. In "Raiders" (which I saw and loved when I was only seven) Indy thrust a Nazi's face into the dashboard of a truck, forward and back again, eventually throwing the guy through the window and driving over him! In the originals Indy's enemies got decapitated by plane propellers and smashed into dust by rock crushers. Indy also received his share of getting beat up, and we actually did fear for him (even if we knew he would survive in the end.) Not so in this movie. I kept waiting, for instance, for Indy to throw a Russian baddie into the jaws or blades of one of the jungle vehicles, but it never happened. The villains seem to be in on the joke. They aren't evil enough. I appreciate it that Indy fought a Russian heavy in a similar fashion to the way he fought the German mechanic in "Raiders," but it really just felt like a weak retread of that fight. The Russian wasn't memorable or much bigger than Indy and the fight wasn't as rough as it could have been (although the ants add a nice touch where the movie DOES grant a moment of squeamishness). I'm not crazy about the main villain being a woman. Cate Blanchett is decent as "Irina Spalko," but obviously I never wanted to see Indy land a punch on her, something he did so well against his former lead villains.

Third: The movie rushes through all of its best potential moments. Every action scene seems to be over as quickly as it started, a complaint I had about "Last Crusade." The motorcycle chase in Connecticut started off decently, but then ended abruptly. Same with the jungle chase. The bar fight in the college town could have been a great scene, but we cut away from it right after it starts. Think of all the missed opportunities--a bar fight resembling the original one in "Raiders," and maybe some satire of bar-fight clichés in general. The waterfalls our heroes later go down are really just punchlines, not adventure scenes.

"Crystal Skull" is still a decent film, and in my opinion about equal to "Last Crusade" (I know I am in the minority in my preference for "Doom" over that one.) I wouldn't be so critical of it if I didn't enjoy the originals so greatly. It is worth seeing just to see Harrison Ford play Indy again. I also appreciated the inclusion of Karen Allen as Marion, and on Spielberg's effort to film the movie in a way that made it resemble the originals (and it does.) I am a 20th century history buff, and the 1950's have always been my least favorite decade--they are just so unexciting in comparison to the decades before and after. But this movie, in its setting, gave me new appreciation for the 1950's. The styles and feel of the film gave it a good atmosphere to work with. I also liked the direction Indy takes in his relationship with Marion, and the acknowledgments of his past. I could totally see him as an OSS agent in WWII. The film left me wanting to see another Indy film. Hopefully, the next one will be done with a little less Lucas, and a little more old-fashioned Spielberg. Grade: B-

Munich (2005)

Enjoyed the movie, disagreed with the message.

[7/10 · 3 November 2007]

Spielberg has described "Munich" as his "prayer for peace," and that theme has overshadowed most of the real events this film is based on. It tries to see the actions of both sides, Israeli commandos and Palestinian terrorists, as equal. This brings down the film in an idealistic and preachy way.

When I first heard about this film, I was very excited that Spielberg would be directing it. I thought he could bring attention to the way Israelis have suffered under terrorism in the way he brought attention to the holocaust in "Schindler's List." Most of what I know about the Munich massacre and its aftermath comes from Aaron J. Klein 's "Striking Back," one of the most recent studies of the affair. What that work states is that the targets of "Munich" were high profile PLO members. The Israelis were anxious to fight offensively, not defensively, against Arab terrorists. Most of their targets did not have a direct hand in planning Munich. But in the film Eric Bana's "Avner" is not informed of this until the end, and it is presented to us as if the Israeli government is being shady, just eliminating people it had old rivalries with. The purpose of these assassinations was 1. to prevent terrorists from committing future attacks, 2.to deter terrorists by making them feel unsafe, wherever they were by knowing that while they sought the murder of Jews, they too could never sleep soundly at night, and 3. revenge.

"Munich" doesn't express well enough the motives for the reprisal killings, and the Israelis who take part in the operations are depicted as too somber and glum--Israel could not survive if its agents and leaders acted this way. Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, in the film, states the film's often quoted line, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." In reality, Meir knew well that the perpetrators needed to be hunted down and punished, mercilessly. The impact of the targeted killings, especially the operation "Spring of Youth" in Lebanon, is not given proper significance in the film. "Munich" implies that each of these missions was a bloody, unnecessary mess that lead to more tit-for-tat violence. "Spring of Youth" made Israel's enemies look at the Mossad with tremendous fear and awe; that Israeli agents could hunt down and kill supreme heads of the PLO in an Arab country, while their targets lay in their own beds. The "deterrence" motive definitely seems to have been achieved by these operations. Although controversial, "targeted killings" have proved to be very effective. Israel brings the threat of death to those who plan terrorist attacks, and as a result, the terrorists spend 90% of their time hiding and only 10% of their time planning attacks. Avner says in the film, "Those we killed are being replaced by worse." This is a myth held by the world. True, everyone is replaceable, but often when a highly experienced, skilled, and charismatic Arab terrorist is killed, his replacement is a young person who can't understand the intructions of his weapons because they are in Farsi. Targeted kills are a blow to their organizations, and it is particularly demoralizing to terrorists when their "best" leaders are elminated.

My other complaint about "Munich" is that it feels rushed. Spielberg needed to slow down here, and he should have story-boarded the film. The Munich massacre is sped through too quickly, and there should have been more about how the Germans, with no anti-terror squad at the time, maddeningly bungled the rescue mission of the athletes. What Spielberg instead focused on was the violence (this is one of his bloodiest and most gruesome films to date). The final sequences, involving a concoction of scenes of Abner having rough, sweaty sex with his wife and the murder of the athletes, is bizarre and does not sit well. Many might find it offensive.

What do I like about the film? Well, at least Spielberg tried to make a personal film about the conflict. You can tell that his heart goes out to both sides in an idealistic way. The cinematography, lighting, set pieces, vehicles and costume design appear authentic and dead-on. It has a suspenseful opening and tense moments throughout. It is skillfully cast and all the actors do very well--especially Eric Bana, Geoffrey Rush, Omar Metwally, and Daniel Craig, who needed more scenes. Craig is the toughest, most gung-ho character and has the more memorable lines in the film, like "Don't f**k with the Jews," and "The only blood I care about is Jewish blood." The movie gives us great exotic locales and interesting character faces, and a noir-ish feel with a look into a shadowy world of espionage. The film seems at times more about the toll taken on government agents who do hard and ugly things loyally for their governments than about Israel and the Palestinians.

What we have in the end is a film that wears its heart on its sleeve. It is Spielberg's "prayer for peace," with some loss in accuracy as a casualty. Grade: B.

Babel (I) (2006)

Forced and Underwhelming

[5/10 · 2 February 2007]

I had heard mixed reviews on this film, but I figured I would enjoy it. I expected to find it at least emotionally exhausting, with maybe some interesting points of view for discussion. I also really liked the director's other films, "21 Grams," and "Amores Perros." But "Babel" never amounts to much. It gives us random stories, with supposedly interesting characters, that have forced histories and conclusions.

We have the Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett couple, traveling in Morocco. Blanchett explains that the couple had a newborn die recently, probably of SIDS. This doesn't appear heartbreaking or real--it's just another back-story, a "so this baggage explains our current mood and want to escape" revelation. I never felt like I knew much about the couple at all. They're just another plot device with a back-story. Why do people think this is Pitt's best performance ever? The couple's story involves Blanchett getting shot at random in Morocco, yet still the movie never feels urgent. We know too little about this couple to care whether or not she'll make it.

Then there is the couple's illegal alien maid back at home, watching over their children. The character is a saint, and so are the children. That's all she is, a saint, another by-the-numbers character.

The young Japanese girl has a more involving story, but it doesn't feel any less contrived. She's deaf, mute, has an attitude, her mother died, she has a strained and distant relationship with her father and she's sexually frustrated. I don't understand why the makers of this movie thought the character's sexual frustration made her more complex, interesting, or unique--she's not much different from any other (somewhat exhibitionist) girl her age. And I can't believe that young males would shun her because she's deaf, when she's cute and obviously willing. When we learn about the true reason behind her mother's death, the movie starts to feel like we're watching "Lost" episode flashbacks. The film is a group of stories that have back-stories we've seen in movies and on television more often than they happen in real life. The director seems to love the idea of having the audience wonder how these random stories could be related. When we do find out how, with a photograph, even the photo appears to have been doctored.

The film's political messages are underwhelming. They aren't completely clear and don't have much fire to them. We are supposed to feel for the couple's maid, as she is stopped at the border by immigration officials. I didn't see any reason why her nephew would step on the gas and try to flee--it felt very forced. This leads to the tragedy of her spending the night with the kids in the desert and walking around for an hour or so the next morning--big deal. We later learn that she is illegal and will be deported. This is really only an afterthought, which has nothing to do with the movie (oh, BTW--she's ILLEGAL. And she loves the children. And she will be deported--how tragic!) The rest of the other political messages are unconvincing. Terrorism is just American paranoia? Moroccans and the Moroccan government care deeply about punishing their own who hurt Americans?

Director Alejandro González Iñárritu seems to have been in a rush to make this film with gimmicky plots, back-stories, and irrelevant political messages. Grade: C+

The Aviator (2004)

Major Disappointment

[5/10 · 23 February 2005]

I was looking forward to this movie probably more than any other this year. After all, I love aviation, aviation history, the 1930's, the 1940's, and am a fan of biopics. Based on the early reviews for it, I was not going to be disappointed. But regardless of the acclaim that this film gets or the awards that it may receive, "The Aviator" is pretty much a mess.

To be fair, although I have always found him interesting, I am not very knowledgeable on Howard Hughes' life. I knew that he had contributed much to aviation, that he was very rich and successful, about the "Spruce Goose" fiasco, about his reclusive end, and I had loved "Hell's Angels." It's tough not to admire a pilot pioneer whose main passions appeared to have been flying, making films, and hot women. But all of these elements failed to live up to those things on screen.

"Hell's Angels" is one of the most interesting and unusual films that can be seen today. It wasn't a dramatic masterpiece; it was more of a guilty pleasure. Today we marvel at the incredible stunt work and visuals from that film, as well as a zeppelin attack that resembles campy science fiction, a silly love triangle with over-the-top acting, and images that have been colored by hand, long before movies were in color. The stories behind the making of that film are equally interesting; it is rumored that three pilots died while making it, and that Hughes himself performed a stunt that nobody else would. These things are only mentioned as an afterthought at the movie's premiere.

Then there is Hughes' "womanizing." Leonardo Dicaprio is too boyish, and just not believable when it comes to this. Since we know that Hughes had every major starlet at some point, we are just supposed to accept that Hughes had the charm and wit to get them. But what is his charm, other than that he's a hot-shot pilot with lots of money (ahem... did I just answer my own question?) A scene where HH seduces a cigarette girl (added at Leo DiCaprio's request) is poorly written and flat-out unconvincing--he's doing a poor man's imitation of Trent seducing the cocktail waitress in "Swingers," at best. Leo never has much chemistry with the women who come and go throughout his life. Why did they stay (if, only briefly) with him? A scene with Catherine Hepburn's family makes us believe that she was his most important connection, yet the scene really doesn't fit in with the rest of the story--it is a plant with no payoff.

Many other scenes are just there, yet provide no drive or momentum for the film; why do we need to see Jude Law play Errol Flynn (also unconvincingly) in one scene? What was the point of the (suppossedly hilarious) scene in which Ian Holm tries to convince the ratings board with calipers that the cleavage presented in "The Outlaw" is acceptable? What I was most disappointed with in "The Aviator" were HH's achievements in aviation. We all know that he was an important pioneer in aviation, but after seeing this film, I can't exactly say why. The dream of expanding the airlines is mostly dealt with by depicting the rivalries of Pan-Am and TWA--not very interesting. Most of his daring exploits are, again, poor imitations, this time of the daring exploits from "The Right Stuff"--a far superior film. Great emphasis is placed on the "Spruce Goose," which is probably not something that HH should be too proud of. The film really loses steam in its last third; by the time he made it to the hearings, I really didn't care whether HH won or lost.

Howard Hughes was a lot of things, but I can't tell what was most important about him after watching "The Aviator." Grade: C+

The Village (2004)

Lame and Uninspiring

[14 August 2004]

(Spoilers, of course)

I haven't "given-up" on Shyamalan yet. I really liked "The Sixth Sense," and "Unbreakable" was a decent film too, if not as good as TSS. "Signs" had some great scenes and moments of suspense, even if it had gaping plot holes (aliens killed by WATER??? The essential building block of all life in the universe???)

But "The Village" has almost nothing to offer. Besides a few eerie scenes, it can't be considered a "horror film" for very long. And it has a "big twist" that, unlike "6th Sense" or "Unbreakable," this time I saw coming.

We are introduced to a bizzarely timeless village. It resembles a village in Colonial America in the 1600's, but then we see a tombstone that states it is the 1890's. So what is the purpose then, of this outpost? Why do they act more like colonial pilgrims than people from the turn of the century? Nobody we meet has much of a defined role, and we know little about how these people live. Nobody makes a very strong impression (although Adrien Brody really tries to, disappointingly bad after his outstanding performance in "The Pianist")

We learn early on about "those we do not speak of," monsters whom the village is at war with, and get a brief glimpse of the creatures shortly afterward. At about the half-way point we learn that we have been cheated out of the horror-film that we were expecting, and find that those monster-creatures are an illusion to keep the occupants of the village within its boundaries. I understand that Shyamalan wants to shock us, but couldn't he at least do it by sticking to the same genre? At that moment, I thought the "big twist" was abundantly clear; the adults speak of the "outside world" and talk about how important it is that their children not learn of it. I also caught that the adults seem to drop their way of speaking at this point, too. They have also mentioned the evils of money and wealth.

As young Ron Howard's daughter makes her way to the outside world, I kept waiting for her to come across a Pepsi-can, or some other hint that would give us the twist. When it does come, surprise-surprise, with a jeep and a park ranger, some of the theatre was surprised. I expected it to come this way, so obviously I wasn't shocked.

When a writer is in his earliest stages of brainstorming, he often comes up with a concept that he likes. After thinking more and more about it, he may come across plot-holes or other elements that convince him that the story is not worth writing, and that he should dump the idea and move on to other things. Shyamalan should have dumped this idea in this stage, because it doesn't work--it's stupid! When learning of these people's history, we are supposed to believe that this is their backstory for forming some timeless cult in the woods of Pennsylvania? This idea is dumb and unbelieveable. Why couldn't they just join up with the Amish? Each adult in the village has an explanation of why they are there, and none of them are genuine--they are all just weak excuses to pull a lame twist on the audience that we would never find believeable in the first place.

Grade: D-

The Stepford Wives (1975)

"I'll just die if I don't get this recipe... I'll just die if I don't get this recipe..."

[30 April 2004]

Spoilers

A friend of mine who had just watched this film told me that once I saw it, the term "Stepford Wife" would enter our lexicon of references. He was right about that.

Joanna moves with her husband to Stepford, CT. While Walter is at work, Joanna and her new friend Bobbie are both appalled at the behavior of the wives of Stepford, a bunch of milfs who all seem to have come from dish-washing detergent commercials.

At first, I thought that this film too deeply resembled "Rosemary's Baby". The couple moves into a new place and slowly realizes that something bizarre is going on, although it doesn't appear life-threatening. The difference becomes more and more obvious, and the married couple grows further and further apart. The oddities in both films put their heroines in an ominous subtlety that they find frustrating or almost impossible to explain to other members of the cast, and the women wonder if it is they, themselves who are the oddities.

The strategy is rather obvious; after about four months, the men take their wives off to a "weekend getaway," and when the couple returns the wife is another brain-dead subservient slave to her husband. The wives sure don't catch this, even though it appears as though the suspicious Joanna and Bobby probably would have figured it out. Its technical and social references make the film appear dated; It is quite laughable that the Stepford Wives could get their entire vocabulary from recording their voices into a microphone. I also don't see what is so shocking about a guy groping his girl on the front lawn--hey, some of us do that all the time!

Where the film works is in its payoff, which surprisingly, I didn't predict. I thought that these women were being hypnotized or lobotomized, or something else. Where it becomes chilling and eerie, is when we learn that indeed, these women will never return to their original selves. I figured Joanna's friend Bobbie would "snap out of it," however, Joanna stabs her, and the model goes haywire--this isn't Bobbie--Bobbie is dead. Looking back, certain clues for us are eerie, like Walter's first dream-like encounter with a Stepford wife, or even hilarious, like one man's smiling expression along with his "thumbs up," gesture as he tears up his wife's tennis court to make room for his new swimming pool.

And then there is Joanna's final scene, which holds up disturbingly well, as does the thought that the wives were created by someone who used to work at Disneyland. I think that deep-down we all find animatronic humanoids quite creepy, as there seems to be an almost sinister magic behind the lovable robots on the rides we enjoyed as children and still do today. When we meet Janet's stacked (nice touch!) replica, she appears without eyes. It is an image and a haunting ending that probably couldn't be as frightening if it were done today (oh yeah, they are remaking it). I'm glad I didn't see this film as a child.

Grade: B+

Cold Mountain (2003)

A Flawed but Interesting Civil-War Epic

[1 March 2004]

(Moderate Spoilers)

I enjoyed this film, and am surprised at the amount of criticism and

anger lavished upon it. True, it is flawed, and for most of the

reasons that people have cited; Nicole Kidman looks out of

place--tall and beautiful, with great skin and teeth;. There is an

absence of black characters, when at this time, 1/3 of the

population of North Carolina was black; The film was made in

Romania, when it took place in the states.

I personally don't mind it that the characters are all too "pretty" to be

in this film. The way people look has much to do with the reason

they become stars. The absence of black characters may be a

more valid criticism, as there were many in the book. But this

does not take away from the story. And, although I feel for the

people who protested this movie because it meant losing

entertainment jobs for Americans, Romania served as a great

location to film this movie, as it had many spots untouched by

industry, could convincingly depict the four seasons of the year in

the short period that they had to film, and of course, it brought the

budget down.

"Cold Mountain" is a brutal and disturbing odyssey, much more so

than Anthony Minghella's other epic, "The English Patient." In it, we

witness graphic animal slaughter, cruelty toward Southern

deserters, (including a pair of sons murdered in front of their

mother while she is being tortured), and other violent encounters.

At times, it is as unpredictable as it is formulaic, as we are

surprised by characters who are suddenly killed off, or who

unexpectedly come back to us.

I can't understand why people find it unbelievable that Jude Law

and Nicole Kidman would have a connection from only a few

moments together. War rushes things, and relationships like this

have been common (I don't know as much about the Civil War, but

during WWII, many couples divorced after the man returned home,

as they hastily got married before they went overseas.) Even

without war, people have devoted themselves to others whom they

hardly knew, off of brief connections they felt with each-other. I

also do not agree with those who complain that Law and Kidman

spend the entire movie apart, when we are paying to see them

together. The two leads have quite a few scenes together.

As Law deserts and travels back to Nicole Kidman, he experiences many different encounters with interesting characters,

including a woman who slaughters her loyal goat in front of us,

people who routinely try to turn him over to the Confederacy, and a

very powerful sequence with a war-widow (I never knew Natalie

Portman could act!). These encounters are unfortunately uneven

when compared to each other, but they all work in their own right,

and always keep us interested. Nicole Kidman's life back at home

is equally important, as is her relationship with Oscar-winner,

Renee Zellweger (and I do pity that poor rooster!) A posse of men

stays in the town to hunt and kill deserters, providing many

suspenseful and frightening moments; these characters are

outrageously evil and murderous. My biggest complaint about the

film is how their story unsatisfyingly ends with a quick shootout.

Now while I found the film to be one of the more creative,

interesting, and entertaining movies of the year, I found it achieved

far less than the greatness that the filmmakers probably tried to

produce. The script needed more work. I haven't read the book,

and I suppose it was difficult to adapt. Something overall is

missing from "Cold Mountain." It has random glimpses of great

poignancy and emotional impact, but seems to give up tying them

together to better define the movie.

Grade: B+

Lost in Translation (2003)

Couldn't really empathize

[29 December 2003]

On the one hand, this film will inspire many conversations, about the film itself, about the future of the characters, and about the meanings and relevance of the situations that the characters experience (assuming you take enough interest in the film not to just blow it off). But I can't LOVE this film the way so many people seem to. I just couldn't get into it, despite its strengths.

Why I couldn't is that I just feel little sympathy for Bob Harris, played by Bill Murray, no matter how good the performance was. He is presented as somewhat of a "has-been" actor. He is miserable in Japan, as he gets 2 million dollars for a couple of whiskey spots--I'll let the absurdity of that thought speak for itself. I understand that he feels he is selling out, and he would rather be doing a play. Well Bob, you just made 2 million dollars--go home and do a play now! A friend who loved the film said that doing those commercials in Japan is "demeaning." Why? Its a regular part of the acting profession. They make their money doing things like this, then they can afford to do the projects they want. This might sound cliche, but I just have trouble feeling bad for a man who has been successful in a field that has such a low success rate; millions of people have tried and failed to break in, and would kill to be in his position. Then there are the experiences in Japan, in particular, the ones on the set, that drive him bonkers. I don't know why. One segment has a director speak in long speeches in Japanese, then his translator gives instructions to Bob with only one word commands. Ok, so that's a little weird and annoying. Then there's the next director, who is nicer, but asks Bob to do things to advertise the drink that don't really make sense, mostly because we sense translation difficulties. So again, that's weird, and yes, this culture is different from our own--what's the big deal here? Bob is asked if he drinks the whiskey, and he replies that he will "as soon as I'm done." As with most of his commercial-set experiences, I just can't share in his cynicism.

Where Sophia Coppolla's cynicism is more successful is in her depiction of actors and directors. Apparently, everyone in this film is based off of someone she knew, with Scareltt Johansson playing "Charlotte," based on Sophia, herself. Sophia met actress Cameron Diaz on the set of her husband's (Spike Jones) film, "Being John Malkovich." This is where the film gets "ballsy." I know of many films in which real people, including actors are represented by fictional characters. The representation of Cameron Diaz in this film, by Anna Farris takes this concept one step further; it is a flat-out vicious ATTACK. Farris plays "Kelly," who is possibly the most clueless, annoying, and outrageously stupid character I've ever seen in a serious film. Since the word is out, Anna has said that she admires Diaz, and comparisons between Diaz and her character are not true. This is mostly damage control I suspect, but I guess it would be necessary here, if to prevent a feud. In recent times, I can't think of anything more specific and nasty!

Then there is the relationship between Bob and Charlotte (which actually takes too long to get going). I don't feel what others do for several reasons. I noticed Scarlett Johansson first in "Ghost World." I don't know why it took so long for her to become the new "it-girl." She is extremely interesting and charismatic (and as she matures is becoming quite sexy). People I have talked to have described the two characters in this film as soul-mates, and have talked about how special their time together was. I have traveled and have actually had similar experiences, and in this case, I empathize with Bob. But I can't see that in Charlotte. Bob will, of course, think of this experience forever. He will always look at it as a bright spot in his depressed existence, and yearn for the day he comes back into contact with Charlotte. Charlotte will probably move on in a few days. Not that this experience couldn't mean as much to a young woman as it does to a man (as it was well presented in, "Before Sunrise"), but I did not get that feeling from her. She will go back to her life, maybe change things, but she will probably meet plenty of others with whom she will share this connection, others who will probably mean much more to her. She was flattered by Bob, and enjoyed his company, but her interest appears misleading in my eyes (maybe this film is more proof that MEN are the real romantics!)

One final thing: I'm getting really tired of seeing marriage depicted in a cynical way by Hollywood. In this film, Bob's wife no longer pays attention to his "needs" as he talks to her on the phone. She is more concerned with material things, like the items and utilities of their house, and doesn't listen to him. He tries to connect with her and she rudely rejects him--she doesn't "get" him, we know! They are in a tired relationship--I've seen this a thousand times in modern movies.

The best thing I can say about "Lost in Translation" is the discussion that it might provoke after viewing it. Grade: B-

The Pianist (2002)

Awesome... You will bear witness!

[15 December 2003]

"The Pianist" is one of the most realistic and convincing films about the holocaust and about Poland in the war years. What makes it so grand is that it is told with honesty and without emotion, or dramatization. We see the events as they happen, without any added emphasis or, without what some would call "manipulation."

Watching "The Pianist" is like bearing witness to life in the Warsaw Ghetto. We see what Szpileman saw, and we never extend beyond his point of view. As a result, things are left unexplained; characters that help him or know him disappear, and we do not learn of their fates (like the blond female resistance fighter). Other events do not always have an explanation, but we see them anyway; the SS man who suddenly appears and randomly forces a bunch of workers to lie face down for execution never gives us a reason for his presence. Was it to keep the Reich's quota of dead Jews, was it "disciplinary" or was it simple bloodlust? In any case, this random sequence turns out to be one of the most disturbing and memorable scenes in the film. Watching, we often get one angle, from a distance, and often without close-ups (this is a film that really should be viewed on the big screen, and I understood this when I first saw it in the theater). We also witness horrors without any added emphasis; a family is cruely massacred, and inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto are forced to perform humiliating tasks and do unpleasant things (like eat food off the ground) just to survive.

"The Pianist" is a visual masterpiece. The perfect cinematography gives us a real vision of what happened in Poland. I felt like I was watching a real column of German troops as they goose-stepped through Warsaw. Again, Polanski does not give us a closeup: we see what Szpielman is watching and nothing more. For history buffs and historians, there are some extremely impressive recreated images, recreations that required an effort that those not familiar with this period would not appreciate. In particular, there is a shot of Jurgen Stroop, the SS man in charge of putting down the ghetto uprising, that completely matches (down to the soldier's faces) a photo taken of him and other soldiers watching ghetto buildings burn. Another scene has ghetto residents traveling over a bridge in the ghetto; the match to the real photo is so convincing its uncanny (I showed a friend the photos while I paused the dvd and he too, was amazed.)

I was also surprised at how good the film's few combat sequences were. Most of them are short and involve German/SS assault squads and resistance fighters. They are choreographed beautifully, and are filmed in the same sort of undramatized way as the rest of the movie. It will probably never happen, but I'd love to see Polanski direct a straight-war film.

Given Polanski's past, it is hard to endorse his works with a totally clear conscience. But one can not doubt the impact of his deeply troubled life on his very powerful works.

Grade: A

Saving Jessica Lynch (2003 TV Movie)

I'm happy they made it.

[7/10 · 14 November 2003]

First of all, it was not "too early" to make this film. Alot of people are criticizing it for coming out too soon after the events, "it happened like, six months ago!" a friend of mine, who refused to watch it said. People should be reminded that war films to rally the homefront, released shortly after the real events took place are a tradition. During World War II, there were many such examples, such as "Wake Island," and "30 Seconds Over Tokyo." So this TV-movie is not only a product of the short-attention, mass-media cash-in-on-every- human interest story trend.

That's not to say that this is a "war-propaganda" film, even if it does have heroic and patriotic elements. The story itself isn't totally sensational, and it hasn't been spectacularly "spiced-up"; The original myth behind this story had Lynch claiming that she'd "rather die" than surrender, emptying her M-16 against her attackers. The un-sensational details of the event stay that way for the most part.

The truth is that there are many stories that could be told about what happened (and what is still happening of this writing) in Iraq, and I think we should appreciate a dramatized depiction of events there. Since the Jessica Lynch rescue received so much attention, this was not a bad choice for a story to tell.

The film is best in its opening 40 minutes. The atmosphere and situation are very convincing; driving Humvees through fog, crashing because of lack of sleep, and the fear of being left alone in the desert during the advance all contribute to the atmosphere of "being there." When the action moves to the ambush, it is shot with realism and depicts many of the things that have characterized this conflict; seeing armed Iraqi soldiers at a checkpoint, not knowing whether or not they will fire upon the Americans; the stares and ambiguous nature of the Iraqis, whether they are soldiers or civilians. The nature of this war's conflict is presented well, with the Iraqis slowly setting up an ambush and then initiating the fight with a Molotov-cocktail thrown at a humvee. The combat that follows is shot realistically and is frightening and graphic. Honest respect is given to our enemies, who are much less-well equipped, as they take down an American convoy and, exhilarated, fire shots into the air.

The rest of the story is subjective, as conflicting views from analysts, the Iraqi lawyer, the hospital workers, and Lynch herself make it difficult to tell. But there is a myth behind this story that, although admittedly "dramatized," isn't really exploited.

There are some touching, genuine moments, including the rescue when the American troopers meet Jessica, and she says, "I'm an American soldier, too." It is understood that there was no resistance at the hospital, and that the hospital staff would have handed her over to the Americans. But the brave US troopers did not know this, and for all they knew they could have been walking into an ambush.

Where the story is flawed is when it depicts the interactions of the Iraqi lawyer who took part in Jessica Lynch's rescue. His vocal explanation of why he must help Lynch doesn't appear authentic nor does his logic seem genuine; he claims that he feels for her as he sees her being abused, "what if she were my daughter?" Wouldn't he have seen numerous similar crimes committed by the Fedayeen before? His encounter with those Hussein loyalists is suspenseful, but probably somewhat fictionalized. I also would have liked to have known more about the real Jessica Lynch, her background and desire to be a teacher serve more as typical backstory here than they do to flesh out her character.

Probably the most controversial moment of the film comes when we see Jessica's parents informed by the military that she is ok, by phone. I didn't know how to react to this, since many family members across the US are receiving the exact opposite message from military messengers. But I am grateful for a look inside this current conflict, and hope that more films about the Iraqi war are made in the future.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Bizarre, and without the "Swashbuckling" Spirit

[14 July 2003]

I guess many may find it strange that I would be disappointed in a movie like this. But I love a good swashbuckler, and this film would seem to be a great opportunity to make just that. But it is not one, its just, in a word, WEIRD. "Pirates of the Caribbean" is a very strange movie. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, but this film just doesn't have the spirit of the old fashioned pirate films, or, despite the many references to it, the ride it was based on.

What was I expecting? I guess a film that was at least in the tradition of "The Mask of Zorro," or if we want to dip into the serial age, Errol Flynn's "Captain Blood" or "Robin Hood." People might claim that the cliches of these films are old and uninteresting, and that the other attempts to imitate them did not go over well (many will site "Cutthroat Island.") But I don't think it would have been that hard for the producers of this film to come up with something that had a traditional, fun, engaging, and original storyline. "Zorro," "The Three Musketeers," and Kevin Costner's "Robin Hood" arguably held their audiences and entertained them, without the absence of this rousing spirit. Some might even claim that "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy has swashbuckler-pirate film influences.

"Pirates of the Caribbean" has a bizarre plot and even stranger characters. I still can't really explain what this film was about--not what one would expect from a straight-pirate movie. The plot involves pirates who are "undead." I have no problem with that--in fact, the movie would have been great if it had been influenced by "Army of Darkness." The undead skeletons of this movie wearily drag their feet along, argue with each other, and act miserable. Other than a few monologues on how it really sucks to be dead, I never really got the feeling that these pirates were really that bad-off. After all, they can't be "killed" this way (which somewhat makes the sword-fights irrelevant.) An even bigger mystery to me was why these pirates needed to be STOPPED from lifting their curse. I'm sure it was right there in the script (I believe it had something to do with the safety of those whose blood was needed to lift it) but this never really added any urgency to the plot.

The bottom line seems to be that nobody is ever having much fun on the screen; even Johnny Depp, for all of his eccentricities, never seems to be enjoying himself. Orlando Bloom expressed delight in counting his number of kills and in sliding down the smooth stones of a castle, shooting arrows in "The Two Towers," yet he never does anything like that here. On a level that is rather un-PC, I'm sure that in many ways it would have been a blast to have been a pirate! Nobody seems to believe that in this movie. The pirates on the ride sure did--they drank, they sang, they raped and pillaged, and burned villages to the ground. The pirates in this movie just lumber, whine and argue with each other. They do some plundering but never seem too thrilled about it. Where's all the drunken debauchery? This movie needed more of that. It also needed the partying band of skeletons from "Army of Darkness," a campy and fearful villain (Jeffrey Rush could have still played the part), and a hero in the tradition of the films I have mentioned above.

There are some positives. The props and ships are impressive, the special effects and cinematography are quite good, and there was much thought put into the elaborate (although strangely isolated) set pieces. I guess I am glad that this movie is doing well, in that it may bring back the genre. But "Pirates of the Caribbean" probably doesn't deserve to be the movie to do that. Grade: C

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

This one gave me nightmares

[3 November 2002]

I found this film disturbingly scary on a level I'd compare to "The Exorcist." It won't affect everyone the same way--I've yet to see a decent horror film that didn't terrify one viewer and humorously amuse another with indifference. But this one should affect anyone with an active imagination.

Imagination is what makes this film so disturbing. I know it is a cliche to say that "less is more," and that scenes of horror that are "implied" are more successful than those that show it explicitly. But "Rosemary's Baby" does more than that--it almost displays everything that is happening in front of us in a banal way, so that we accept it at face value, without shock, until it is too late.

The story starts out rather happily, and non-threatening. A young, attractive couple is searching for an apartment in New York City. They meet an old, eccentric couple living in the apartment above them who seem rather intrusive and annoying, but we accept these characteristics as the affects of aging and loneliness. A series of strange events occur, some of them involving deaths. But we are not frightened by any of them yet. They accelerate rapidly until the now pregnant Rosemary is obviously in great danger, and so is her unborn baby. There is a conspiracy against her, but it still is not clear exactly who is involved, who she can trust, and who is leading it. The answers are right in front of us the whole time, with a final twist that is as disturbing as those from the "great shockers" of recent films, including "The Sixth Sense," "Fight Club," and "The Others," yet it is not as abrupt. This is because the story builds to the climax without really hiding much, for the film uses our assumptions against us. The elderly couple CAN'T be poisoning Rosemary could they? Rosemary's husband HAS to be the one person she can rely on, right? Rosemary's nightmare that seemed "so real" was just a nightmare, wasn't it?

SPOILERS AHEAD***

The vague glimpses of Satan himself fornicating with the heroine are not evident to us until much later. When we see a group of elderly, seemingly innocuous nude people gathering around and commenting on what is happening, we at first refuse to take it at face value. After all, it is not just these weird people we see, Rosemary's husband is there (John Cassavettes, "Franco," from "The Dirty Dozen.") Cassavettes actually turns out to be, in my opinion, the most evil character here--so self-serving that he actually sells his wife's womb just to further his career.

The final scene is somewhat campy, but isn't any less frightening. It is also interesting to see that the people involved in this cult of witches ("All of them Witches") are really, at heart, "normal" elderly people, who knit, tell lots of boring stories, enjoy having visitors out of loneliness, etc.--they just worship Satan!

***END SPOILERS

In general, I think this film is definitely worth seeing. How one will react to it is a different story. I found the grainy film, toned-down special effects (the snake-eyes were very effective), the leisurely pace, and the old-fashioned style of directing by Roman Polansky to be the key factors in the success of this film as a horror movie, or "thriller." All of these elements make us think and force us to use our imagination, and then shudder with revulsion, and the end result seems very real. If you agree on the success of these elements, watch the film, but be cautious, after all, I again admit that at 28, I had nightmares after seeing it... Grade: A.

Presumed Innocent (1990)

The Best Courtroom Drama

[21 September 2002]

I am not the biggest fan of movies or TV shows about court, lawyers, or the justice system. But "Presumed Innocent" is one of my favorite movies. This is because the film excels in almost every area: It is exceptionally directed, acted, edited, and written. It has compelling and interesting characters that seem often overlooked by other legal dramas, and their dialogue and relationships with each other is entertaining and convincing.

The story is intriguing and technical, not tedious, but enlightening. As a prosecutor who knows the system well enough, Harrison Ford struggles with it to prove his innocence, despite a vast amount of evidence that seems to prove that he is guilty of murder. What is best about his character, a very hardworking and intelligent prosecutor who probably never misses a shred of evidence, is his two-dimensional weakness: his lust for the woman who will become a murder victim. He turns into an obsessive stalker, following and confronting Greta Scacchi and calling her at all hours and hanging up on her like a "little kid." We can see his pain and Harrison Ford is not worried about appearing tortured and pathetic.

The supporting characters are excellently casted and all deliver great performances. Paul Winfield is funny and authoritative as the judge presiding the case. He adds more personality to his judge than do most cinematic judges who just call out "overruled," etc to quarreling attorneys. I particularly liked his response to the prosecutor's attempt to use Ford's "You're right!" in response to being accused of murder as evidence. "Oh, come on!" that really means, "you're wrong," or "your momma!" as Winfield explains it. John Spencer, as a detective and Ford's best friend presents a colorful and believable relationship in a cop and prosecutor team. But in my opinion, the most memorable actor and character in this film is Raul Julia. Almost all of the best scenes and memorable moments involve him, as Ford's former adversary-turned defense attorney. Julia is very commanding and analytical. He strategizes and uses his logic well, countering Ford's ideas. His performance, along with the well written dialogue, help make scenes very interesting: Julia convinces Ford to take the fifth on the stand, Ford embarassingly states to Julia that he is "innocent," something that this defense attorney has probably heard from all of his guilty clients. Every time that Raul Julia councels Ford, we are convinced that it is advice that should be taken.

All of the intricacies involving evidence and the trial build up the pressure until we reach the climax of the film, and if you haven't seen it yet, do so before someone casually reveals the end for you. This film was very popular upon its release, and so was the book, but I'm not sure how many people refer to it today with a genre that is over-impacted. This is a film that should be seen and not forgotten. Grade: A.

Sidewalks of New York (2001)

Burns needs to move on

[30 August 2002]

"Sidewalks of New York" feels like a retread of Ed Burns' earlier works. Once again we have a bunch of intermingling couples who do nothing but talk talk talk and obsess about relationships and their personal insecurities with them. When I first saw "The Brothers McMullen," I was surprised at how drawn into the story I was. But this story (as was also the case with "She's the One") seems way too similar to "McMullen." Things that were forgivable in that film are growing tired and distractive: Everyone meets in a classical "cute" way from the golden era of cinema. Everyone coincidentally runs into each other at the most convenient moment. Most of the characters are forgettable, and their relationships are not very believable. The film isn't very funny, and most of the running jokes fail. The film also doesn't live up to its title in that New York is shot in a most un-passionate, unflattering way--this better not appear on any list about the best films depicting New York. Burns puts alot of trust into improvisation, apparently telling his actors to just "roll with it." But he seems to feel that realism and improvisation can substitute for substance, and this is not true--many actors rant on and blurt out lines that don't feel genuine, almost forced by improvisation, when Burns should have just shouted "cut" and done a retake. The phony "interview" moments when the fictional characters speak to the camera, react to something offscreen, or ask if they should "start over" come off equally unnatural. Performances are bland for the most part, save Dennis Farina. Heather Graham comes off particularly bad, at one point I even thought I caught her fighting a smile, ready to bust out laughing during a "serious" scene.

Once again, we have a self-hating, self obsessed older male jerk who has an affair behind his insecure wife's back, we have a young idealistic kid who romances a girl with immediate promises of love and marriage, and again we have Ed Burns meeting someone by fighting over a material object--in "McMullen" it was an apartment, in "Sidewalks," it is a copy of "Breakfast at Tiffany's."

It's not that I hate this movie, its just that I see a lack of passion in it. It is almost as if Ed Burns doesn't trust his ability to move on, and that leaves us with total mediocrity. Grade: C-

The Sum of All Fears (2002)

Marred by political correctness and a lack of punch (moderate spoilers)

[20 July 2002]

`The Sum of All Fears' is unfortunately marred by political correctness. An extremely scary premise (the thievery and detonation of an atomic bomb within the United States) loses most of its impact when, as opposed to the book, the perpetrators who steal and detonate the bomb are white supremacists (yeah, RIGHT!) Neo-Nazis are of course a very safe target for Hollywood as villains, but let's be for real: the only real nuclear terrorist threat in the world right now comes from Islamic extremists, people who feel extremely safe that they are destined for an afterlife of paradise, such as the Al Qaeda hijackers (Do I even need to explain this?) Changing the villain to a Neo-Nazi makes us feel like we are in the James Bond fantasy world, where villains are German or British-accented intellectuals who listen to classical music while they express their mad theories. Tom Clancy's books are strengthened by their non-"Bond"-ish approach to espionage. Neo-Nazis are in fact dangerous, however this is not a suitable realm to depict them as the villains. A standoffish scene between one of them and a black marine comes off more laughable than it does disturbing, as do other references to Nazism. Maybe the filmmakers actually wanted to take us out of the real world and make this story appear more fantastic, but the result reeks of BS.

As for the other aspects of the film, it has some good moments and other ones that don't work. The setup and characters are decent, and so is much of the cinematography, if it is wholly routine and unoriginal (lots and lots of blue or red-lighted Pentagon-like military planning rooms.) I was at least into the story, if I had a problem with it as stated above, until the `money shots,' when the bomb went off. I liked how there were no shots of a `ticking clock' or other clichés involved with ticking time bombs. But after the bomb goes off, the plot resorts to the shuffling sequences we have seen commonly in movies from `Thirteen Days' to `Doctor Strangelove' to `Crimson Tide.' It is not nearly as successful as any of these. It also feels tired, and even somewhat irrelevant. After a nuclear bomb is triggered off in the United States, I don't feel very satisfied with the momentum turning to an agent trying to STOP retaliation or nuclear war. And having Russia as a potential threat to us is something that should probably leave the movies until we find that country to be a serious threat again. In the end, it is frustrating and unbelievable that the American people would allow a nuclear attack without a major retaliation against those responsible. The justice that comes to the villains as an "afterthought" is really unsatisfying--that we could just forget a nuclear attack and go back to normal immediately is absurd, and this was obvious long before 9/11.

Ben Affleck, replacing Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan is decent in the role. If not entirely believable, he is an entertaining character actor. It is understandable that the filmmakers made his character out to be young and inexperienced. But in the end, it isn't very convincing that this young kid would have the President of the US and the Premier of Russia on the same line. Liev Schreiber (who steals most of the scenes he is in) and Morgan Freeman are good additions to the cast.

I don't know why I expected this Clancy film to be different than the others, but for me it suffered from something that the others did, too: a lack of punch. I don't think Tom Clancy's books are as ideal for movies as they may appear. I'm not saying that they should be less technical, nor should they present typical action film Hollywood climaxes-these are aspects of Clancy's works that make his stories so appealing and successful. I just wish there was a way for me to be more drawn into the story. I have found every Clancy film thus far to be more interesting than entertaining. Grade: C+

Black Hawk Down (2001)

Good... But not great.

[6 May 2002]

I looked forward to `Black Hawk Down' with expectations that were almost impossible to meet.

I never read the book, and I didn't know the specifics, but I remember the incident that took place in Somalia in 1993. What I remember most about it (and will never forget) were the photographs released from the aftermath of the operation; in particular a very sickening picture of a Somali, smiling wide, looking gleefully into the camera while a dead, shirtless American GI lay dead in the background, after being dragged through the streets. Then I heard that a movie was being made about this incident.

The reviews and buzz that came out before the film's release seemed to claim that it was a modern movie classic, comparable to the ground breaking films about war and diplomatic failure of the past. `It's at times very difficult to watch' is what I read in many different articles about `Black Hawk Down.' After seeing the trailer, which depicted a mob of blood-hungry Somali militia walking toward the camera (apparently approaching downed soldiers off-screen), I was very enthralled and nervous about seeing it. A recreation of what I had seen in those photographs would be difficult to watch indeed.

But the events depicted on screen were of course, as is almost always the case when recreating real, tragic events, not as moving as they were in those photographs. I understand that this is an extremely difficult task. What the reviewers were referring to in respect to the `difficulty' in watching it consisted of more graphic battle gore that is becoming commonplace, resembling scenes from `Band of Brothers' and other graphic war recreations. `Black Hawk Down' is an exciting and involving story of soldiers under fire after a mission goes wrong, and it keeps us interested in the fate of those involved. But it really doesn't offer anything particularly new to the genre, nor does it have any profound statements about war or diplomacy that haven't already been explored.

BHD is essentially a true story, but its production values keep it from feeling entirely real. There is too much surface gloss. It is shot mostly in the fluorescent-bluish shade that dominates all of Bruckheimer-produced films, and there is also an abundant use of slow motion. I will be the first to defend war films that are criticized for not having enough `character development,' since stories about soldiers under fire don't necessarily need extremely different personalities to define their characters-combat will define their actions. But BHD's characters usually only offer plot developing lines throughout the film. Again, this is a true story, but it doesn't seem much different than fictional military thrillers, especially concerning the limited character classes-there are only three: the soldiers in combat, the enemy, and the men behind the blue blip screens trying to get things in order. Ewan McGregor's reluctant soldier presented what felt like the most realistic personality in the film, but most of the other characters felt like they came out of a Tom Clancy novel. The veterans of this mission deserve more. I am one who feels that Ridley Scott's best days are behind him. I didn't care much for `Gladiator' or `Hannibal,' both of which had too much surface gloss and not enough personal involvement with the characters. `Alien' is still (and probably always will be) his best work, others may say `Blade Runner' is.

Where Scott does succeed in this film is in his coherence of the battle, which was quite a difficult task. The battle scenes, although somewhat standard for a combat film these days, are intense. They are also quite exhilarating-I found myself cheering aloud at times. It was satisfying to see our superior troops fighting hard against enemies that have a similar value system to the ones we are fighting today. SPOILER WARNING: Most of the soldiers survive, and our superior training and equipment inflicts tremendous casualties on our foes. The end result is that, with all due respect to the veterans who died in this horrible conflict, I actually felt better about what happened in this incident than I did when all I knew of it was those horrifying pictures. I don't know if that was the film makers' intention. Grade: B.

Pleasantville (1998)

Dull and pointless

[1/10 · 14 February 2002]

Pleasantville is a really messy, unfocused film that has nothing to do but define its' own atmosphere for over two hours, while trying to convince us that there is a much deeper meaning behind it all.

I'm no expert on shows from the fifties, and I am not a product of that era, but I have of course watched many shows from that period and I understand what the movie was going for; it was trying to show us that things aren't as picture perfect as they appeared in those shows, and that change into the modern world isn't so bad--it just makes us "free". Fine, that's a cute premise, maybe for one of today's sitcoms (in which it has already been done many times before), but the town of "Pleasantville" is such an extreme exaggeration that I never bought the fantasy world presented within it. This is something that is necessary to the viewer when it comes to films involving fantasy--we must believe in the world depicted. It didn't work for me at all. Sex was something that was never talked about on shows from the 1950's, but I'm sure Mrs. Cleaver (Yes, I mean the fictional character) knew what it was! I also think that the characters from those shows also knew that there was a world beyond their own town, that there were days when it would rain, and that the local sports teams didn't always win.

Director Gary Ross seems pretty unsure of his material himself, and that is probably why the film keeps defining itself; within the last half-hour of the movie, a young boy punches another. Those watching look on in surprise and wonder. "They've never seen violence before" someone a few rows behind me in the theatre said. Well, duh! I thought this was clear as soon as the movie started (but I still never bought it), leaving the audience to defend the monotony of the screenplay. At one point, William H. Macy looks all over the place for his wife, looking for his dinner. "I feel sorry for him," an uncomfortable audience member said.

When the movie is not overdoing itself in explaining its world, it is trying to shock us with sexual humor, also in the same, tedious, overblown way--after Paul Walker is deflowered by Reese Witherspoon, the camera LINGERS on him, emphasizing his shocked and dumbfounded expression, milking it for ungenuine laughs. The film then TEDIOUSLY expands this single joke commonly throughout the movie, showing us shocking images of kinky sex acts, some I can't even mention here, for my comments won't be posted (HINT: one involves a popular number in the double digits), and when we're not seeing the acts of sex or the blown-away expressions of those who have just experienced it, we get some really "shocking" conversation; Reese Witherspoon has been shacking up with every guy in sight, then educates her mother on ways to "please" herself--Oh, MY! Another shock, provoking embarrassed and courteous laughs from the audience.

The final scenes of the film dissolve into complete disorder; Don Knotts starts getting angry at the kids for their disruption of Pleasantville, and goes quite mad, but what was he expecting in the first place, and why does his demeanor change so radically from that of the first act? Other characters end their stories without solutions, not that its wrong to leave certain stories open-ended--I just feel that Ross didn't know what he wanted to do with most of his characters. The final scene "Gee, you know you're pretty smart" is poorly written, tacked-on, unsatisfying, and forced.

I think what bothers me most about the film is that, since these banal characters are just imaginary, dull caricatures of 50's television shows, who don't even really exist, why should we care about them? At one point, Tobey Macguire's character is offered the chance to leave Pleasantville, but he turns it down--he wants to make a "difference" here. WHO CARES! It's just a TV show! Maybe I would have cared if I found the world of Pleasantville to be believable, but I never did. Grade: D

The Patriot (2000)

More of an action film than historical fiction (Some Spoilers)

[13 February 2002]

The Emmerich-Devlin-Rodat team set out to accomplish a great deal when they began production on "The Patriot." The American Revolution is full of great stories and dramatic events, but surprisingly there aren't many films on this period. The film makers wanted to fill this void and also dispel many of the myths about the revolution, and present the truth that, as Dean Devlin said, "the revolution started in the north, was fought in the south, and was won by the French."

"The Patriot" isn't a horrible movie, but it fails on many levels. First, the issue of slavery: Well, while his sister-in-law has slaves, Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) has black "workers" who work for him out of their own free-will. This is a difficult issue to deal with. Francis Marion, the character whom Benjamin is based on, did have slaves, and he was guilty of many other horrible things. Depicting Martin with these workers is basically a white-wash of the period--so much that it's offensive. Although at the time freedom, separation of church and state, and free speech were considered revolutionary ideas, audiences could not root for a slave-owner. Perhaps it would have worked better if Martin had neither slaves nor these `workers' employed for him. As presented in the film, it doesn't appear genuine--it's a cop-out.

Second, the raw brutality of the film is so manipulative that it's almost flat out ridiculous. Nobody, we learn early on, is safe from being killed off, just to get a rise out of us. "The Patriot" premiered at a time when unflinching realism was politically correct and popular with audiences. In some ways it seems as if Emmerich, Devlin, and Rodat wanted to cash in on this phenomenon, if not to at least add their own entry to the genre of shocking, harsh war films. Jason Isaacs as Col. Tavington gives a completely monstrous performance, having no sympathy for anyone, in one scene stuffing all the inhabitants of a village into a church and burning it to the ground. Many atrocities were committed during the American Revolution, but this scene is not an accurate representation of events that occurred at this time (Dean Devlin admits on the commentary track that the scene was complete artistic license.) But the scene wasn't even necessary--in fact, all Tavington needed to do to appear a "monster" was shoot prisoners of war (in which case, "Tarleton," the character he is based on, did.) Another embarrassing scene that (thankfully) didn't make it to the final cut had Tarleton torturing one of his defiant victims, brazenly claiming to him that he `always' does his worst. American audiences do not need to be convinced that the Revolution was necessary. In fact, "The Patriot" would have been much more successful if it had been ambiguous--tough, uncouth, and unsaintly militia taking on a more humane British enemy would have been more intriguing. Many of the militia members are rough and unmerciful, but the general black and white theme is present at all times. Other problems include various inaccuracies, like those amazingly accurate pistols from the 18th century, that always seem to find their targets. A monologue from Mel Gibson about one of his past atrocities is so clichéd it fails to have any impact. A character plays dead, faking out his opponent, dating back to action films of the 80's (or before.) And let's not forget that unforgivable line, `It's a free country… or at least it will be.'

These strong weaknesses definitely demote the film, especially considering that it was created to earn prestige and acclaim. But `The Patriot' does succeed on some levels, and it is worth seeing. Mel Gibson claims that he strongly identified with his Benjamin Martin, being that he is also a father of seven children. This strengthens his credible performance. The period sets, costumes, and a great assemblage of character actors create awesome spectacle, and the film is photographed very well. Many of the film's most obvious exploits do work: A moment between Benjamin Martin and one of his daughters is truly touching, and Heath Ledger's apology to his father about one of his past mistakes is a very moving scene. The sound and visual effects are very good, and so are many of the battle scenes. The theme that militia tactics were a large factor in the defeat of the by-the-book British is what works best.

I enjoyed "The Patriot," I just wish they did better. Grade: B-/C+

Vanilla Sky (2001)

Cameron Crowe Fails (Spoilers, of course)

[29 January 2002]

I know that "Vanilla Sky" is supposed to be a remake of "Abre Los Ojos," which I haven't seen. But I think Cameron Crowe was more influenced by other films and trends when he made this film.

It is usually a good thing for directors to step outside their boundaries, and experiment with new techniques, material, and subject matter. But it doesn't always work. I am not the biggest fan of Cameron Crowe. I wasn't impressed by "Jerry Maguire," which was overly long and clichéd, nor by "Almost Famous," which I found slow and uninvolving (although I know I am clearly alone here.) But I know there was something about these two films that audiences and critics loved, which probably had to do with the amount of heart that Crowe put into them. I could definitely see Crowe's passion in this movie, but it didn't mean the movie was a success.

"Vanilla Sky" plays like bunch of sampled techniques from films that are superior in their experimentation. It seems that Crowe wanted to make his "Requiem for a Dream," "Fight Club," or "The Devil's Advocate." The crafts that he borrows are tired now, and the film never appears like anything more than a failure and exploitation of these methods. The quick cuts, splices, and camera tricks have no punch and fail to grab us. The numerous twists and eventual copouts offered by the plot never have any impact. The film starts out coherently, but I found the first half hour to be just awful--for some reason, in this and the other Crowe films I have mentioned, I was totally uninvolved in the story. I found Tom Cruise's character to be really dull and he left me detached from his interactions with Penelope Cruz. I never felt like I knew who these two characters were or why I should care (or not care) about them. The "car crash" sequence interrupts the weary story but isn't anything special, and I found Cameron Diaz' performance to be too much on the campy side. Many have commended the opening dream sequence, which shows us an empty Times Square in New York City. But I found that it irritatingly resembled an internet or cell phone commercial. There really isn't any imagination to the brief sequence--we have already seen empty streets of once busy places to fill us in that "this is a dream"--the fact that it's Times Square just reminds us that there are thousands of frustrated New Yorkers waiting off camera to go about their business. The scenes involving Cruise's irritation with his broken face are gruesome, but not disturbing enough to equal good moviemaking. These moments are sometimes humorous, and the final sequence is photographed very well, but the answers of the movie are unsatisfying, and make questions and plot points presented earlier in the film irrelevant.

Cameron Crowe was passionate about this film, but this just isn't his field. Grade: D+

Uprising (2001 TV Movie)

Good, but too much sensationalism

[29 January 2002]

"Uprising," from what I know, is pretty accurate as far as most "Based on a true story" films go. But the dramatic events portrayed are exciting and exhilarating to a degree that the director's original intention gets out of hand.

Director John Avnet claims that he wanted to do a film on the subject of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising because he was tired of seeing films that depicted Holocaust victims (in particular, Jews) as helpless, passive people, being lead like sheep to slaughter. Jewish leaders (of their councils) collaborated with the Nazis in the holocaust, and this is something that is very frustrating for Jews and others who study this history. Avnet wanted to show that this passive destruction wasn't always the case when it came to the "final solution." There were Jews who resisted, and none are more legendary than those of the Warsaw Ghetto. Television critics have also pointed out that the concept of Jewish resistance is fresh, and this production wouldn't contribute to apathy when it comes to more and more films on the holocaust.

But "Uprising" has too many moments of exhilarating action, scenes of heroic resistance that more resemble those of action films, not of serious drama that this story calls for. With very good production values, camera work, and performances, "Uprising" is a moving entertainment, however, most would agree that this subject requires more. The doomed Jews of the Warsaw ghetto were fighting for their dignity, to inflict casualties on their genocidal enemy--they all knew they were going to die. The futility of this situation came off somewhat better, if on less of a grand scale, in the 1978 mini-series, "Holocaust."

As for the performances, Hank Azaria does a good job in his role as the uprising's leader, although the real Mordechai Anielewicz was twenty years younger. Donald Sutherland represents the passive side of the Jewish councils as a negotiable and submissive Ghetto leader. Cary Elwes gives off a chilling performance as Fritz Hippler, whose contribution to genocide was in his films. But the performance I was most impressed with came from Leelee Sobieski: as a female resistance fighter, she came off very tough, stoic, determined, and... dare I say sexy? She was well deserving of her Golden Globe nomination.

A good film, just maybe a little more entertaining than it should be. Grade: B

Band of Brothers (2001)

A difficult, but mostly successful adaptation of Stephen Ambrose's book

[11 December 2001]

I had read historian Stephen Ambrose's "D-DAY" and "Citizen Soldiers" before I read "Band of Brothers." I thought both of the former works were excellent, and could understand why many claim that this author has made history popular among the general public again. Steven Spielberg had originally planned to adapt "Citizen Soldiers" into a mini-series to represent the stories and experiences of American GI's in WWII, and this would have been an enormous, almost impossible task. Tom Hanks convinced him to go with "Band of Brothers," since the work covered a Company of soldiers, not that of the entire United States Army in the ETO. However, "BoB" wasn't such an easily adaptable book.

"Band of Brothers" turned out to be not much smaller in scope than Ambrose's other works. Nor was it as narrowly focused. Following an entire company of soldiers is not as intimate as the producers may have expected. This resulted in a weakness that has drawn the most criticism--that (with some exceptions) it is hard for us to distinguish between the many characters whom we meet throughout the mini-series, and that none of them are examined closely enough for us to really know them. The book was even broader, without giving us the luxury of having faces to attach the many names to. Being a fan of this material, I followed the characters tediously as they appeared on screen, using the book to remember who they were and what roles they played in the story. I doubt any casual viewer did this, and that's why the series drew much criticism.

But the creators of "BoB" must definitely be commended for their mostly successful efforts to pick and choose the stories to put an emphasis on, and for going outside the source material when they needed to. Ambrose surprisingly sped through and devoted little to many of E Company's most dramatic moments, like Captain Sobel's loss of command, the gloomy story of private Blythe, Denver Randleman's extremely tense fight with a German soldier in a barn, and the company's liberation of a concentration camp. Certain characters who have large roles in the mini-series (like Percante, Blythe, Medic Gene Roe, etc.) were mentioned only on one or two pages in the book.

The episodes are well selected stories from the book. The first two that aired simultaneously were very well done, although viewing them gave me more of a sense of adventure, exhilaration and heroism than they did of sacrifice. That theme comes off best in the episode "Breaking Point," which is probably the best installment of the series. Most of the emphasis of the early episodes is on combat, later it focuses more on the characters. I couldn't get enough of the realistic, jarring battle sequences, however they are becoming more commonplace in the wake of "Saving Private Ryan." I wasn't too surprised that that film expressed the theme and efforts of the greatest generation superior to this series after viewing all of the episodes.

The production is of course very impressive. Gunners on top of Sherman tanks, convincing German vehicles, hundreds of soldiers on screen at a time, and well constructed period sets give the series a feeling of great authenticity. It is quite bloody, and gorier as the episodes progress. Casual observers may feel that they've got all that they need from watching a few episodes. But for many of us that would not be enough. I'm glad that it was completed, at such a grand scale. I can't wait for the DVD. Grade: B+

Come and See (1985)

Possibly the definitive Russian front film

[11 December 2001]

"Come and See" is bizarre, disturbing, and haunting. It is more moving and enlightening than all of the other (mostly disappointing) films I have seen depicting the Russian front in World War II. Strangely enough, the Red Army is entirely absent from the movie.

As a Russian film, it begins less conventionally than most films produced in the west. It starts off very surreal, and it is difficult at some points to understand what is going on or what certain characters are doing. This gives the theme a foreign and realistic feel. We follow the life of a peasant boy in Byleorussia in 1943, as he joins the partisans. Certain events involving his family and his introduction to the partisans (especially one involving a young girl) make his fight more personal. Strange interactions between characters and Director Elem Klimov's follow tracking shots dominate the film, and give it a unique method of storytelling. Then the nightmare begins.

The destruction of a Russian village is the horrific centerpiece of the story. It is brutally realistic, with more tracking shots that hold for long periods of time without cutting. We see the German Wehrmacht burn a barn loaded with civilians to the ground as these soldiers clap, smile, and embrace each other. The chaotic action involves many scenes that are sporadic (flames burning out of control, a German soldier accidently shoved into the barn house with the victims) and possibly improvised, which lend a great authenticity to the material. The images are unforgettable, and will stay with you long after you've seen the film. Klimov has succeeded in putting the viewer in the village. Surprisingly, despite coming out of the Soviet Union in 1985, "Come and See" never felt to me like propaganda. There was no communist rhetoric, and the heroes were all partisans, many of which were flawed. The Germans aren't caricatures at the same time they commit acts of evil, and view their actions in a banal way. When one of them defends the atrocities of his platoon, he states, "inferior races spread the microbes of communism." The character delivers this line not with fierce anger, but with nonchalance, as if it were common knowledge, not something that he needs to explain to anyone.

Some reviews have criticized the "afterthought," a rewind of the Nazi rise to power and invasion of Europe, as unnecessary. It may be, but it is still powerful. Other "flaws" people find with the movie are all characteristics of the director's style, therefore I don't find them flaws. "Come and See" is a great, very different, and very moving film. Grade: "A-"

Cross of Iron (1977)

Hell on the Eastern Front

[6 December 2001]

I just gave this film a second viewing, and realized that it is far superior in many ways to other films depicting the eastern front, primarily "Enemy at the Gates" and "Stalingrad."

I originally didn't think there was much separating it from Peckinpah's other films; it has a heavy influence on manly bonding, slow-motion shots of soldiers twitching as blood-squibs explode on their bodies, and what some may see as a sexist attitude towards women. These are soldiers who are fighting a war against kids and women, fed up and disgusted by those, like Captain Stansky, who still see the Russian conquest as an heroic adventure. These soldiers aren't much different from Pike's outfit in "The Wild Bunch." But "Cross of Iron" displays a very convincing atmosphere of death, horror, and futility.

The film has a few low and dated production values--the 1970's haircuts, old methods of filming combat (the slow-motion, again) and some lack of scope hurt the film a small amount. But the movie excels in depicting the terror of combat. Being shelled by one's enemies comes off as particularly devastating. However, scenes without combat are just as effective; A high-ranking officer realizes he can not shake hands with a combat veteran who has stubs, a truck drives right over the carcass of a rotting German soldier, and the dialogue and appearance of the men in Steiner's platoon constantly reflect weariness and fatigue. "Cross of Iron," together with "Come and See," may be the definitive war films on the Russian Front. Grade: B+