jimmy-120 Reviews

Gladiator (2000)

Like a cheap chocolate Easter Bunny: pretty package, but hollow

[5/10 · 13 February 2001]

There is a scene in Gladiator where Maximus is eating with a couple other gladiators. One is Juba, the man he befriends almost immediately after getting captured; and the other is the really big man (I'll call him Big Guy), I am not sure of the name, who Maximus refused to fight earlier, while the gladiators were, I presume, getting evaluated on their skills. In the scene Big Guy asks Maximus about his days as being a general. He asks if he fought in Germania, and Maximus responds, and I apologize for not having the exact quote, "I've fought in lots of countries." Something to that effect. When the question was asked, I thought to myself how interesting it would be if Big Guy had lost family in Germania. When you think about it it was a terribly odd question for Big Guy to ask. It became a distraction. I kept waiting for the great climax of the film, when Rome is safe and secure with Maximus finally being able to retire, when along comes Big Guy to do what none of the Romans could do: kill Maximus. And why not, I figured. After all, there were families killed in Germania too, right. Unfortunately nothing came of it, and I don't think I am giving anything away when I say that Big Guy eventually gets shot with arrows (despite the obviously apparent safety vest underneath his tunic). O.k. So I am giving something away, but he is a very minor character, as it turned out.

I only mention this delusion of mine because I think it says something about how hollow the script was, and what could have been. I mean, we had already been given a possible subplot during the "evaluation scene" when the two men give each other very serious looks, to put it mildly. I thought that this subplot would have given the film what it dearly lacked: something worth saying--perhaps a comment on violence in our society, how the brutality of war effects people on both sides of the battlefield. Frankly I would have liked to have had it happen. It would have made the experience much more enjoyable. Of course, the F/X still would have looked kind of cheesey, and the battle scenes would have been confusing and, quite frankly, poorly executed; but what a turn it would have made. Only a handful of people (possibly those who had long since gone bonkers) would have seen it coming. Instead of this we get nothing really. Just an especially brutal film that has nothing serious to say about anything.

Traffic (2000)

A unique and terrific film

[10/10 · 20 January 2001]

The world of film criticism is filled with cliches, but I will submit yet one more: this film was one of the best I have seen in a long time. The plot has been covered, so there is no need for me to do that again; but what needs to be stressed, above all the good things about this film, is the quality of performance by the actors. Benicio Del Toro played a character that I will not soon forget, and his Golden Globe nomination proves that (as should his win). A pregnant Catherine Zeta-Jones' character was not only beautiful but believable in its complexity. Michael Douglas is Michael Douglas, and I think he is beginning to turn his "name brand" into something more than meaning just a solid performance. Juan Guzman and Don Cheadle are hilarious. Particularly Guzman, who, as Paul Thomas Anderson might say, was F***ing terrific. And don't forget Miguel Ferrer playing yet another nasty person (I am reminded of his character in Twin Peaks, who gets decked by Sheriff Truman and threatens a lawsuit).

They all blend into an intriguing film that I could have watched for another hour or two and not felt encumbered or angered by the loss of time. Benicio Del Toro deserves an Oscar nomination, but I think most people understand that he will probably not get it. And this is a shame too. But if you have followed the Oscars over its history you understand that the award has always been a popularity contest, the award is given out to bolster the image of the film industry. Just look at all the great films and great performances that have never won and all those that have been forgotten that actually did. But I don't want this film to be forgotten. It has something to say, and it doesn't hit you over the head with it. To put this review even more briefly, and to add yet another cliche: go see this film. Notice the rating by IMD users. We do not lie.

The Bullwinkle Show (1959–1963)

A Great TV show for Kids and Adults, or Look What the Moose Dragged In

[1 July 2000]

There was a station in Huntsville, Alabama that used to play Rocky and Bullwinkle early on Sunday mornings. The reception was poor, but I would wake up early, nonetheless. I never got the jokes, but I knew that there was something there that I was missing and laughed anyway (Remember the Ruby Yacht of Omar Kiyam? Hilarious! What kid gets that joke?). I loved the other shorts too--Mr. Peabody, Bullwinkle's Corner, Dudley Doright, Fractured Fairy Tales, Mr. Know It All--which all seemed to be just as funny, and in some cases funnier, than the moose and squirrel.

I am only 27, but the show reminds me of better times, and I enjoy watching it to this day, finally being able to get the jokes. I can never find it, but when I do, and I rarely do, I sit and watch and remember. I am not sure if I will ever see the live action/animated version of the film, however, because I hate what modern technology has done to the animated characters I grew up loving in flat monotone colors. Isn't this the only way to view Rocky and Bullwinkle, and if Peabody the dog and his boy Sherman ain't in it do I really want to pay money to watch? Oh well, maybe the film will make the TV show more available. One can only hope.

A River Runs Through It (1992)

Book and Film are different, but each has its merits

[8 October 1999]

I was floored the first time I viewed the film, and on subsequent viewings became obsessed. I did not read the book until about the seventh viewing, but I was impressed with it even more.

However, I was disheartened to find that the book is considered fiction. From my research into the life of Maclean I found that some of the scenes actually happened, but most of it was made up. I am guessing, because I do not really know, that the film was more of an attempt at a biography because much of the film is based on Maclean's articles and lectures.

Here are some major differences between the film and the novella for your perusal. One, Paul and Norman were much older in the book, Norm in his mid-thirties, Paul in his early thirties. The film shows the romance of Norm and Jesse, but they were already married in the book (in fact, when Neal gets burned it sets up some real conflict between the husband, Norm and the wife, Jesse). Rev. Maclean had longed been retired in the book.

One of the more disturbing things I have come across in my research is what I call the "Phantom Line." The line is: "it is the world with dew still on it, more touched by wonder and possiblity than any I have since known." The film sets up to believe, from the opening narration through to the famous closing, that the spoken words are words of Maclean himself. This line, however, is from a literature critic writing on the novella, but a beautiful line nonetheless.

Where the movie succeeds over the book is the examination of a life lived. It is slow because life is slow, and is lived moment by moment. In the end all you have is your memories of those moments. The book tends to live more in the moment.

There are many differences and I could name a hundred. These are perhaps the most interesting. Buy the book, and read all three stories. Also read YOUNG MEN AND FIRE, also by Maclean. This is a true story of the Mann Gulch fires, and it will fill you in on what happened to Jesse in her later years. Whatever you do, understand that these two works of art are separate and should be kept that way.