Change Your Image
Cineleyenda
Reviews
La trinchera infinita (2019)
Could Have Used More Action and Expansion
The Endless Trench takes place during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39) and its very long aftermath. The Franco regime received military and other aid from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in the civil war, and supported the Axis Powers materially until 1945. Afterwards, it gradually maneuvered itself into favor with the Western Allies through the time of Franco's death in 1975. However, until a general amnesty in 1969, it continued to vigorously root out and punish or execute various political enemies.
Some of Franco's political enemies were known to have hidden out over long periods to avoid arrest. Based on some real events, this is the story of one such man, Higinio (Antonio de la Torre), and his wife, Rosa (Belen Cuesta). Higinio, on the Republican side, is pursued at the beginning by fascist soldiers and manages to evade them, but instead of running off further he returns, so as he can hide out while remaining with his wife.
The two main actors did a nice job, and the focus was always primarily on them. There were no third or fourth principals, only secondary actors. The story revolved around Higinio and Rosa, who are tailors, and the movie achieved sentimentality between the two.
The difficult life Higinio led constantly trying to hide out in two residences (they switched to the house of Rosa's father-in-law) was developed well, and some tough moments were shown. Most intense was when neighbor and civil guard Rodrigo watches in secret after Rosa leaves and manages to see that Higinio is there. (Rodrigo blamed Higinio for the death of his brother.) Rodrigo knows the inner alleys and methods to break in, and Higinio is obliged to hide in a small closet and see a threatening Rodrigo through a keyhole. Luckily, Jaime, the son he had with Rosa over this time, was able to intervene.
Earlier, Rosa had been raped by a Gonzalo, a civil guard and customer, and Higinio was forced to watch with inaction (at first). There was doubt as to who Jaime's father was, but Rosa declared him their son. Later, as a student apparently in his teens, Jaime accuses his father of being a coward for hiding out, adding to Higinio's torment. More subtly this was an issue with Rosa too. (It is interesting that the screenplay has Higinio isolated almost right after the war started as opposed to near its end in 1939.) But Higinio did suffer; the miseries of his food and toiletry limitations, along with hygiene and dress, were displayed.
When the general amnesty comes in 1969, Higinio finally emerges from his literally closeted life. But that is as a movie of 2 hours and 27 minutes ends. For almost all of that to be in the orbit of Higinio's hiding in the houses is more than I can bear without becoming bored. I think I also have less tolerance vs. Other people for activity in a movie in dark background, whether it be sex or violence that one cannot see well or general movie action that is difficult to see and understand. The directors here certainly had their share of darker scenes.
So my main thought is, what could have been put in to add more action? Shortly after the movie begins, in a discussion Higinio has with his Republican "comrades," he tells them as he lectures them that bullets are not supposed to be used and landowners and Priests left alone. I guess a convenient set-up of good guys vs. Bad guys, but really, Republicans did that sort of thing too.
Does this preliminary info mean that things are clear and some opening action showing what happened and what Higinio was doing need not be shown? No.
There is an early exchange between Rosa and Isabel, Rodrigo's wife.
Rosa: "I mean that you could say it was a mistake - and take his name off the list." Isabel:
"A mistake? He made the mistake when he burnt down what he shouldn't, huh?" Rosa: "Burnt what? Isabel: "Barcenillas hermitage belongs to the Carmelite nuns... Rosa: "It's not true...
He may have his ideas, but he's not violent. Isabel: "What did he do when they killed Gonzalo's brother? He...didn't do or say anything, and he was a councillor." Rosa: "Isabel, go home."
In other words, there is still some doubt about Higinio's degree of culpability. This also is suggested later, in an exchange between Higinio and Jaime. Regardless, adding this action would have livened the movie up.
Another thing that would have helped would have been to show Franco's police capturing one or more Republicans and doing something to them, showing effect on their families, so to give the viewer an idea of what Higinio might face if caught. A brief sub-plot perhaps, and Higinio becoming aware of and discussing it. Or a few shorter dialogues and scenes, for the same purpose.
Finally, Jaime's political activities could have been shown more in their own right, rather than mainly just showing him bringing home a colleague and having his general conflicts with his dad. Perhaps enough to make him at least a semi-main character rather than only a secondary one.
Instead, the directors chose to have the obligatory gay scene as two gay mean take over the house for a while, reaching an agreement with Higinio. That is just how it works today regardless of LGTB issues being irrelevant to the movie's main points. This could have been cut, and little parts of other scenes could also have been, to add up and make room for more action.
See No Evil, Hear No Evil (1989)
Mostly Not Funny
In my mind, there is nothing inherently wrong with making a comedy film about a deaf man and a blind man. Sure, people having those conditions deserve sympathy. But the notion of a movie about two such people leading somewhat reasonably effective lives that has comic elements resulting from the lack of functionality of hearing in one and eyesight in another is not objectionable to me if it clearly does not mock contemptuously those affected by the conditions. The humor is in the events that occur, theoretically. But the excessive foul language and much else about this movie that was not funny made it come up short.
I enjoyed Blazing Saddles very much and Young Frankenstein quite a lot; I like slapstick. But I did not think Gene Wilder (Dave) was nearly as funny here, although he did not write the script. I do not have much experience with Richard Pryor (Wally), but did not think he was that funny in this movie as the blind man. But the writers of the screenplay, not they, are responsible for the excessive swearing.
Some scenes were humorous. The basic idea of the common-folk, handicapped duo set off against two slick, cool moneyed types (Joan Severance, Eve; Kevin Spacey, Kirgo) was neat. Wally's Dave-aided fight with the bully in the bar toward the beginning was decent. The final scene with a duel between one Blind Man (Wally) and another was well-conceived and executed. Also good was when Dave is hesitant to hit Eve because she is a woman, Wally's sister Adele (Kirsten Childs) clocks her and says "I had brothers." Was the part with Dave popping up and down on a car roof after dislodging the emergency brake funny? Sort of, not that much. Same with Wally driving fast and blind; causes understood, but the bulk of it kind of silly. As was the two of them stranded on a garbage barge in NYC. I add that the excessive emoting between the two there and elsewhere did not do it for me; that stuff serves non-comedies (when not overdone).
A problem was that some of the wit behind the deficiencies in Dave's hearing and Wally's sight was not always immediately perceptible to the viewer; e.g., at the beginning of the movie it was not immediately discernible that Dave could read lips, and how well or not well. Another problem was in the beginning sequence, all the back and forth of the wrongful arrest, bail, witnesses, and interaction with policemen was far-fetched, stretching even if they were deaf/blind. Just go along, I guess. Similarly, with the shower scene with Eve, was it really likely that she would stick her head out of.the shower like that and not notice Dave? Makes it not work.
The worst part in my view was the whole part about Wally posing as a Swedish gynecologist (Dave was a German doctor) and everything to do with it: The exchange with the hotel check-in clerk; the silly accents; Pryor's screaming the solution for the repressed woman was (common gerund swear word) and fake breakdown at the convention (and later saying another swear word insulting to females); and the dialogue with and reactions of the refined convention crowd. I could not stand watching it.
When critics do not like a movie but the public does, I often agree with the public. Here, I understand the critics did not like it. I agree.
.
Beyond Valkyrie: Dawn of the 4th Reich (2016)
Dull and unenjoyably unrealistic
Any viewer of this film will simply go home with images of only a few people outshooting huge amounts of German soldiers. No characters are really interesting, just some attempt at presenting some wholesome American boys with pretty, not rugged, faces. The Russian collaborators in the action looked a bit more tough; they similarly always succeeded in the combat. I am aware there are other films that present excessive scenes of protagonists gunning down German soldiers with little or no damage, but this was to the extreme in the sense of the degree to which they were always wide open to the Germans, and were often surrounded or semi-surrounded, so would obviously be hit, you can only shoot so many at the same time. And running from machine gun fire always resulted in escaping being hit, ludicrously. It was laughably stupid. Where the movie also failed was lack of exposure to the viewer about the Nazi plans for Argentina; what were the roots, what the plans were. None of the enemy had any character development. Oh well, one of the female protagonists was pretty and shot 'em up as well, and there was one nude scene.
The Flight Attendant (2020)
Girly and Not So Great Tongue-in-Cheek Murder Mystery
HBO made this series so that Kaley Cuoco, Zosia Mamet, Rosie Perez, and Stephanie Koenig could audition for a Peloton commercial. It is close, but my vote is they should take Kaley.
Otherwise, very politically correct.
The Social Dilemma (2020)
Good on operations, but
This gave a good picture about operations of the companies: How and why they became so dominant and how they capture our profiles--in general terms. Plus, how advertising is targeted to us. When it went to politics and current events/ issues it made some comments on manipulation., and I guess that could be either left wing or right wing. But it failed to acknowledge the overwhelming leftist bias of tech companies, I guess because the commentators would get in trouble--an ironic corollary of its points about manipulation dividing society and perhaps leading to dictatorship.
The trouble was, a lot of things were too repetitive and general. Instead, they should have provided more specific examples, more individual profiles of persons affected and how. Or even groups of people. Instead, it seemed to focus on how much people enjoy to use their devices.
Nyoka and the Lost Amulet of Vultura (2014)
Spirit of Vultura returns with a Skull and Nyoka and Satan in the Flesh
In Nyoka and the Lost Amulet of Vultura, Nyoka is the granddaughter of Nyoka Gordon of "The Perils of Nyoka." Viewers may recall in that movie a papyrus connected with the Lost Tablet of Hippocrates, and ultimately treasure, was sought.
The villain, Crimson Skull, is vaguely associated with a less-than-admirable group of traders introduced at the beginning of the movie at a jungle trading post run by a middle-aged to older woman named Congo Kate (who is not so great in this movie). He seeks the Amulet that had been worn by villainess Vultura, which will give him power to control the gorilla Satan, the latter-day version of Vultura's executioner gorilla in Perils. It also gives him the power to conjure up Vultura, to raise her from the dead. This in turn would give him the power to control villagers, who fear Satan, and reap mining profits. (In a good nostalgic moment, a picture of Lorna Gray as Vultura shows in the background.) As for Nyoka, she is a "protector" of the villagers, so to have her out of the way is also beneficial.
Nyoka is an attractive large-breasted woman in the athletic-looking tomboy way. Her sister Rulah, who does not emerge till late in the movie, is not attractive, but is a compelling character. She is very vital to the strong finale.
The Amulet changes hands in the movie, sort of paralleling the fights for the papyrus in Perils. Because his face is covered by a skull mask, we do not find out who Crimson Skull is till the end.
The acting is of the subpar quality that seems sort of intentional in Indie movies; I am not always sure if is intentional. But here, it is really not that bad; I think the "sort of intentional" applies more to plots that have a tongue-in-cheek nature, like here. Whatever, there is no lack of enjoyment.
Nyoka's cleavage shows in her outdoor top. One wishes for some nudity from her and her sister (not Congo Kate)-perhaps there should have been more women in the plot too. No complaints about not having it in the original, but it is really called for here. For one thing, the dialogue seems to ask for it. There are a few jokes of a sexual nature, including referencing Nyoka's chest. But no fulfillment, so nudity is a treat that is missing.
On the other hand, there is no shortage of fighting, action, captures, and violence. Like in the original, action dominates, but it is more violent (this is the 21st Century).
In the early stages, the viewer is likely to think this movie is perhaps going to be OK not great. It had the typical limited number of characters of Indie movies. A jungle background yes, but with the sparcity/stillness in physical background and background sounds of Indie movies. The dialogue and the underlying themes seem not that compelling, although the general mysterious treasure hunt atmosphere bears well.
As the movie progresses, it gets better, as the plot and characters richen and more characters come aboard. The rousing finale, with many twists, emerges gradually. More characters are introduced aside from Nyoka's sister, including Cassib, not an exact parallel of Vultura's sidekick of the original. The status of Vultura is an item that hangs in the balance, but it is just one of many themes and developments.
The ending was so strong that I give this an 8, considerably higher than I suspected I would end up giving it earlier.
Perils of Nyoka (1942)
A really exotic Arabian adventure, but more action-packed than any cowboy movie
An expedition in the Mideast seeks Tablets of Hippocrates with medical secrets. It is not much of a spoiler to say it is the cure for cancer-kind of amusing in giving a modern twist to Hippocrates. The expedition is led by Professor Campbell (Forbes Murray) and Dr. Larry Grayson (Clayton Moore). Nyoka Gordon (Kay Aldridge) is roped in; like her father, she can translate the papyrus giving its location, but her father was lost on a previous expedition (and there are twists). They are opposed by the sexy villainess Vultura (Lorna Gray), who has Arab sidekicks in Cassib (Charles Middleton) and his brigands, all with selfish ambitions. They are played by white actors. Also among the good guys is an Italian double agent, Count Torrini (Tristram Coffin), pretending to be one of them but working for Vultura.
Having the plot focused on a tablet, a papyrus, translation of ancient languages, and treasure gives this serial a real aura of Arabic mystery and intrigue. There are temples, tents, and wide open spaces, with frequent horseback and car (even chariot) chases, enough to give a sense of limited dialogue. Black and white embellish the mystical atmosphere.
As each chapter ends, one or more protagonists are in danger, which they get out of at the beginning of the next one. In contrast to a close sporting event, this movie is a cliffhanger literally-many scenes have people dangling from cliffs or threatened by or threatened inside them. People constantly face up against the fire of guns and of flames, wind, falls into pits, spikes, dynamite, bridge sabotage, and falling boulders or concrete. Nyoka in particular is often tied up by the bad guys. There are many daring escapes.
Whereas the gun firing can involve the good guys more broadly, the many fight scenes (fists, swords, throwing, jumping, grabbing, rolling) mostly involve Larry and Nyoka mixing it up with the villains; they are the central focus, the prime movers. Moore may be no Bruce Lee, but he often fights many at one time. The viewer will wonder if he has more fistfights here than in all the episodes of The Lone Ranger series put together, or maybe all his films? With lots of deft strikes, dodging, rolling around, and rendering unsuccessful the villains' efforts to grab and capture her, Nyoka holds her own and Larry rescues her when she is in trouble.
Nyoka and Vultura are both very pretty. Nyoka is more noteworthy for her athleticism and Vultura for her evil sexiness. As a femme fatale villainess, Vultura is up there with Fiona Volpe in Thunderball in my book (and the pronunciation on Vol and Vul is the same!) Beautiful face combined with sexy legs and a turban. Nyoka and Vultura have a number of good catfights for viewers to enjoy.
Not to forget, Nyoka is assisted by her capable German Shepherd Fang and Vultura by her menacing gorilla Satan. Aside from Fang, Red Davis's (Billy Benedict) monkey Jitters also performs heroic actions for the good guys.
Nyoka and the Tigermen is action-packed, exotic, fast-moving, captivating, and without any dull moments. I highly recommend it.
The Last Days of Patton (1986)
Last part too long
It is OK that they made a sequel concerning Patton's life at the end of the war. Proud of his Anglo-Saxon heritage, he has some identification with the Germans for this reason and because he was strongly anti-communist. Whether he made some of the specific remarks he made here is open to question (it can more easily be proved that he said something than he did not say something, of course). In any event, it is historically true that he made an impolitic remark that, like his soldier-slapping, got him into trouble and transferred away from his military governor position.
But after he is seriously injured (spinal column and paralysis) in the auto accident, the movie drags on way too long, over an hour when he is in a hospital bed. There are reminisces from him and many parties, flashbacks, and many well wishers and helpers. The problem is that nothing really happens of significance, it is just a failed attempt at tear-jerking. Patton himself was fiery, so not a person who lends to easy identification with all the softness. For those worried about being bored, I would stay away or leave halfway through. Clearly, a maximum of 20 minutes was needed to cover this period and the director's insistence on doing much more wrecked the movie, in my book. Adding to the pre-injury time would have been a better decision.
The Adventures of Tintin (2011)
Did Spielberg Succeed?
In recreating Tintin novels for a movie, Spielberg faced a difficult challenge. Did he succeed?
I think Spielberg made a good try, particularly in the early scenes. The depiction of the story locations the Old Street Market, 26 Labrador Road, Marlinspike Hall, and aboard the "Karaboudjan" ship made me feel I was in a Tintin book in a fair attempt. Snowy's chase of the cat was right on point with one and more actual occurrences in Herge's books.
But recreating Tintin in another medium for more than 100 minutes is a big task. As one other commentator on this board put it, the panels in the Tintin books are uniquely stylized, and this raises two questions. First, can they be recreated on screen, and second, if not, can Spielberg do anything that in its own way equals Herge's stylization -- artwork, dialogue, atmosphere, action, progression -- in terms of magnitude of achievement?
My answer in both cases is no. Except for the first three not-fully-developed (and sometimes silly) Tintin books and the last, with its mediocre story, to me, there is nothing like Herge's accomplishments with Tintin. It is hard to think of anything that will grip a reader more. Tintin books are so fully absorbing, unique, and compelling in storyline, atmosphere, and drawing detail that I do not think they can ever be matched on film, by Spielberg or anyone else. Even if Spielberg literally copied the dialogue, art, and panels, something would be lost with the film continuum as opposed to separate panels in the books. But no one is going to do that anyway, which leaves me to declare only that no one who makes a Tintin film with his own touches is ever going to match Herge. This is different from, say, taking something that was based only on written prose such as The Godfather, the story of Gordon of Khartoum, and the Seven Pillars of Wisdom and putting it on the big screen (incidentally, "Lawrence of Arabia" will always be No. #1 with me on visuals). Yes, you can outdo prose and some drawing in terms of dramatic impact and entertainment (although some will subjectively say, a written format was still better for them).
Having said that, I have a positive comment on the visuals. I went into this movie expecting overfast, confusing, and bloated action scenes because that is the trend of today. It is true of standard movies with regular people, so with a 3-D, motion-capture, computer-animated adventure movie, I certainly expected even more, as the norm. I am happy to say, I did not find anything overdone until the falcon chase scene and the final conflict, starting around 1:20. Otherwise, I found enough breathing room and thought the action scenes were fitting when measured against the action-packed Tintin books themselves. Starting at the very beginning with "Tintin in the Land of the Soviets," we know that the series will have a lot of wild rides, escapes, and chases on land, sea, air, and under water, even in outer space, as well as frequent fighting and combat, plus slapstick.
The portrayal of the characters themselves I consider separately. Herge's Tintin was incorruptible and had character, poise, and heroic qualities. However, it is not an original comment to say he did not have much personality, as compared with, say, his basically equal co-hero Captain Haddock, Professor Calculus, Bianca Castafiore, and others. But should we demand Spielberg deviate from this and give him more personality?
I suggest yes, some embellishment could have been done. There could have been some introspective discussion between Tintin and Haddock, for example, or Tintin could say more and emote more, or some inner thoughts of his could be revealed. He could even express his likes and dislikes for food or products or have hobbies. Perhaps it was decided that with this first film, which also captures the first meeting between Tintin and Haddock, not much would be done, but embellishment of Tintin's personality is a possibility for future films. In any event, I and others would welcome such an effort.
As for the complaint that linking Captain Haddock to the bottle was overemphasized vs. the Captain as a person, I felt this a little on the first watch, but on the subsequent watch, I said not really. For one key thing, he even lectures Tintin on not giving up, reversing roles that were displayed in several different Tintin books (including two cases in which Tintin used the bottle to change the Captain's mind). I also note that the two books this was based on, "The Secret of the Unicorn" and "The Crab with the Golden Claws," were the ones in which the Captain's whiskey and rum-guzzling were most prominent. So I cannot find much fault here, and even in other books, his drinking is always a theme.
I also had no problem with the inclusion of Bianca Castafiore, though she is not in either of the two books on which the film was (mainly) based. Her persona and physical appearance added something, and Spielberg's engineering of a voice for the glass-shattering Milanese Nightingale complemented Herge's genius. Captain Allan, Haddock's ancient rival, could have been given more personality. The absent Professor Calculus? Ready for the sequel. As for Thompson and Thomson, I thought Spielberg, using wit, actually managed to make them even more dense and bumbling in their quest for the pickpocket than in Herge's "Secret of the Unicorn."
All in all, a good effort by Spielberg, but I hope to see improvements in characterization in other Tintin films by him or whomever.
War Horse (2011)
Refreshing Sentimentality
"War Horse" is a wonderful movie. Not too many movies are able to entertain and, at the same time, depict at length the cruel and exploitative mistreatment of animals in war, and it stands out for this. But it is the storyline that is the strongest point. Take it from someone who does not accept sentimentality from typical modern "character" movies like "Godfather II" or "Pulp Fiction." I'm into nice people, not sleazy ones. For me, the sentimentality of "War Horse" works, all the way. The viewer is removed from overcomplicated, convoluted movies of the Hollywood of today to a simpler world. In spite of the horrors of the Great War, "War Horse" is a movie of optimism and hope.
Albert Narracott is a boy who lives in Devon, England, before World War I. His father Ted overpays for a thoroughbred horse to be used as a plough animal, and young Albert becomes close to the horse, "Joey." When the crop from a ploughing job is destroyed by the weather, Ted is forced to sell "Joey" off to the armed forces, but Albert, who himself later goes into the military, hopes to get Joey back some day.
Joey's circle of experiences during WWI are great and terrible. The throwback world of a century ago that is presented still receives, for its war scenes, the modern fast, furious, and overdone treatment characterizing modern action movies. Then there is an exaggerated sequence in which Joey is entangled with barbed wire over a long haul, and dubiously survives. But that is compensated by the beauty of the countryside of northeastern France and the warmth of the characters in the movie. Admittedly, sometimes I got confused with accents as emitted here. Joey's sojourn with a young French girl and her grandfather is touching, but does his not sound like a German rather than French accent? Similarly, Albert's mother seems to have an Irish accent, and their home and some of the surroundings seem to evoke Ireland more than England. But you know it is England with the local folks' support for their country when the war breaks out.
What was particularly pleasurable to watch during "War Horse" was the depiction of the high level of civility and respect for human feelings, setting aside the general plight of animals in war. For example, there is the sensitivity of War Horse's new owner — Captain Nicholls — toward Albert. He promises to care for the horse and return him after the war to Albert, who so loved the horse. Later, the officer feels compelled to write Albert about how wonderful Joey is looking. Much more transpires before we reach the ending, which is really moving, highly evocative. The wonderfully sympathetic scenes between horse and humans are in stark contrast to the crassness and lack of sensitivity in today's society.
"War Horse" is enjoyable, moving, and visually beautiful in its depiction of the strong bonds that can develop between humans and horses, even during times of turmoil and war. I am an animal lover; my wife is not a horse lover, but this film turned her into one.
When You're Strange (2009)
Footage New, Commentary Not, and Waiting for Ray to...Come Along
As an avid Doors fan for more than 40 years, and with the vast growth of the DVD/Video market and the enormous reservoir for footage that the Internet and YouTube have, I have seen almost all there is to see of The Doors. That includes Jim Morrison's own films "A Feast of Friends" and "HWY," footage from which is contained in "When You're Strange." And most everyone has seen some things on "When You're Strange," such as the scene of The Doors descending from the stairs of an airplane on their European tour, and the bright-eyed look when Jim turns and identifies himself as "Jim."
But setting that aside, this documentary film contains considerable behind-the-scenes and archival footage that I have never seen. The tone is set early with scenes of Jim driving a car through a desert. His own home movie, Doors-like atmosphere, and dialogue. And yes, there are a lot of scenes with the group together, on the road, and interacting, as well as context shots, of locations and other things. The Miami Incident? I must confess, while some people writing about this movie say it gives you a definite answer of what happened, that is not true of this viewer; actually, I don't think anyone will ever know for sure. Still, it has a good presentation.
But the narrative, the commentary? Sorry, it leaves something to be desired. It was very superficial. To have something new and insightful for a hard core fan like myself would be challenging, but still viable. However, I believe it is accurate to say that even for casual fans who know just the basics, there are no revelations. There is certainly nothing on the songwriting process, which some of the more recently released DVDs have some discussion on. Narrator Johnny Depp's words are just the same old story.
It is time for Ray Manzarek to take it upon himself to conceptualize a film containing the very elements whose absence from the Oliver Stone film he used as a basis for criticizing it: namely, Jim's fascination with various French and other literary and theatrical figures. We know many of those names: Rimbaud, Nietzsche, Blake, Artaud, Baudelaire, beat writer Jack Kerouac, and of course Celine: "Take a Highway to the End of the Night." Fans of Jim know, from the many books about him and The Doors, that he memorized many passages of his favorite authors and would challenge visitors to his dorm room to read him the passages so he could cite the page numbers, which could make for a great scene. He was really absorbed. The film could convey how those influences shaped Jim and contributed to his writing of the great songs from The Doors powerful first two albums, The Doors and Strange Days; a few songs on later albums; and his poetry. This could be combined with other elements, including Jim's acid trips in the days when he was sleeping on the Venice rooftops and seeing "television skies." I am surprised that Director Tom DiCillo did not try to find a way to include some of this in his film, whose audience would be looking for something new.
The Pink Panther 2 (2009)
Dream Team Fails to Acquit Pink Panther 2, But Entertaining Enough to See
"Pink Panther 2" is not a great movie, but it is not as bad as some say. A new villain, The Tornado, snatches away the Pink Panther diamond. But The Tornado has also swiped other big-name treasures: The Magna Carta, The Shroud of Turin, and the Emperor's Sword. It is an international "Dream Team" of detectives, not just Inspector Jacques Clouseau, who investigate. Joining Steve Martin (Clouseau) are some accomplished actors: Andy Garcia plays (very well) Italian businessman Vicenzo, Alfred Molina is British inspector Pepperidge, and Yuki Matsuzaki is Japanese electronics expert Kenji. The odd lady out, and a very key person, is the exotic and very pretty Sonia (Aishwarya Rai). She is an expert on criminology and, specifically, The Tornado.
***The following may contain spoilers***
Martin is no Peter Sellers. The Englishman ever had poise and charm as Clouseau: Something about him fit so well into a French policeman's uniform or a trench coat. Sellers carried himself well when not tripping over something, and when he did, he seemed oblivious. His manner of speaking was deliberate yet natural: sophisticated, arrogant, comedic aplomb, if you will, and one reason he was funny was that he was almost always serious. Martin's Clouseau is also egotistical and certainly has presence, but not the same poise. He is too goofy. He is taller and gawkier, older, and more nervous. He also gets depressed when he screws up. Martin is fairly funny when he engages in French-to-English mispronunciation dialogue, but I take Sellers' smooth manner over Martin's verbose. In fairness, part of the problem is the script. Attempting to make the movie funny, the screenwriters concocted a substantial amount of cheap lines, especially politically incorrect dialogue and behavior, for Martin, having him contradict his political correctness mentor Mrs. Berenger (Lily Tomlin) by ogling women and making a bad joke about his "yellow" friend Kenji and sushi. He embarrasses a comrade in front of others by saying "I'm sorry you cannot satisfy your wife," and of his secretary, he says to a group of detectives: "Nicole is here to service your needs...use her in any way you wish." The low sexual humor, of which there is plenty, is not always terrible; but if you go there, limit it and assign it to characters other than Clouseau. Blake Edwards' Clouseau had wit, not cheap humor, including in romantic situations.
As for the slapstick and other humor, it is often predictable and silly. In a less-than-stellar scene at the film's beginning, Clouseau bumbles a parking ticket issuance in a hint of more forced humor to come. Still, there is enough here for viewers to laugh at and enjoy, exerting the right to relax. The same restaurant is accidentally burned down twice by guess who [?], and Clouseau has a meeting with the Pope that ends up with Clouseau encountering some fearsome heights. There is a lot of crashing, bashing, and banging; at some point, this is overdone. Vicenzo and Chief Inspector Dreyfus (John Cleese) have a few good moments of humor. An encounter between The Dream Team and a falsely accused Tornado (played by Jeremy Irons) is fairly funny. This is one of a few moderately good twists concerning The Tornado and those in the villain's orbit.
My favorite aspect of the movie is the romantic tension between Clouseau and his sweetheart of a secretary, Nicole (Emily Mortimer). She is the most compelling person of the film. Finding it difficult to express their love for each other, Clouseau and Nicole still feel it, and this makes for a good climax (seriously, no pun intended). Nicole is very beautiful and so is Sonia, who has a sexier look and, for a while, eyes for Clouseau.
But the reality is that the overall script does not match the four great "Pink Panther" works. In the original series of movies, things started going downhill in "Revenge of the Pink Panther" (and continued much further in the follow-ups without Sellers). Sellers could not salvage "Revenge," in which there was too much klutzy humor including overuse of Cato. But Cato fighting is better than fighting with a colleague's young karate kids, as Martin does here. Overall, the silly overrides the witty or sophisticated in "Pink Panther 2."
Taken (2008)
Dynamic Action Movie, with a Vengeance
"Taken" is a great movie and distinctive among modern action movies, combining more realistic heart-thumping action scenes with a straightforward story line. I find it tiresome when a film has nonstop, gratuitous action that is unrealistic, pompous, and too drawn out. I thought "Quantum of Solace" fell into this category, although it was not as bad as something like "Charlie's Angels" in terms of exaggerated effects. By contrast, I thought the action scenes in "Taken" worked really well, in a suspense movie that steadily lets the mystery unfold.
The continual suspense is presented in an easy-to-follow manner that naturally leads to the next stage. Liam Neeson plays Bryan Mills, a semiretired CIA agent whose daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) wants to go to Paris for a while, ostensibly to visit museums, but later it is revealed that she and her friend want to trail U2 on the rock group's full European tour. Mills was reluctant to let her go in the first place, in conflict with his ex-wife Lenore (that's Bond woman Famke Janssen). The characters have some personality, but Mills is a regular guy, and there is no over-dwelling on their psychology. (I could meet "Dark Knight" halfway on the psychology, but I thought it went too far.) Mills remains skeptical about the trip, and then finds that Kim has been kidnapped into an Albanian sex-slave ring. That's the way I like it: good guys versus bad guys. I had a similar sort of visceral satisfaction as in "Delta Force," in which Chuck Norris really gives it to the terrorists.
The movie's intensive action is mostly in close quarters: a room, an elevator, a car, or just a regular face-to-face confrontation. Skillful filming and sharp editing give scenes an aura of believability. Besides, Mills is an agent skilled in hand-to-hand combat, helping us believe. He does mostly one-on-one nailings, but he dishes it out to a few groups of bad guys too. The fighting and shooting scenes are not padded or overblown, and the viewer is left with the sense that the filmmakers were relying more on coordination and execution of quick movements than on special effects. As for wide-open action scenes, Mills, in a fast-paced, realistic sequence, chases down a villain, who falls onto a lower highway. Wide-open action scenes in "Quantum" and some other movies contain too many unbelievable stunts (in "Quantum," e.g., exaggerated jumps from buildings or to other buildings).
Custer of the West (1967)
The Best Is First
Various elements of this movie make it worth seeing, but this does not include the Last Stand itself, which is poorly done, a big disappointment. It fails in every category. After Lieutenant Colonel Custer (Robert Shaw) returns from giving testimony in Washington, he abruptly tells Captain Benteen (Jeffrey Hunter) and Major Reno (Ty Hardin) of the three-way march against the Sioux and Cheyenne that will take place, and the Seventh Cavalry takes off. There is no captivating dialogue. The scenes are rigid, unorganized, uninteresting, with no substantive interpretation of the cavalry's movements. The death of Custer is done in a pathetic, historically inaccurate attempt at dramatics that completely backfires. The viewer is left with no sense of drama or legacy of the battle. Still, the rest of the film is interesting. It represents a good effort at capturing the real-life chemistry of Custer and the flavor of the period's conflict between whites and Indians in the Midwest/Dakotas.
**The comments below may contain spoilers**
Custer is not portrayed like the hero in "They Died with Their Boots On." Instead, the portrait of Custer in this film seems close to the truth. "Custer of the West" was made only two years before "Little Big Man," during the Vietnam War. But it is not a satirized Custer that is presented; rather, it is a straight-shooting one. Robert Shaw plays Custer the glory hound, the one who desires action, the military man who will execute his duties without regard to whether they offend one's sense of ethics in mistreatment of Indians. He is a cold, rigid, hard-ass person. He takes over his camp with a preoccupation for discipline in the face of lazy soldiers who want to feign diseases when Indian-fighting duty calls. Major Reno is put down for his well-known alcoholism, and Custer makes clear to Captain Benteen he does not care about Benteen's sense of honor toward the Indians. It is an historical fact that Benteen hated Custer and refused to aid him when Custer requested help at The Battle of the Little Bighorn ("Custer's Last Stand"). This film seems to want to explain why.
Would you really find the person described in the previous paragraph interesting? Libby Custer (Mary Ure) is worked into the movie more than incidentally, but nowhere are the inner workings of the man explored, with her or anywhere else. Shaw's Custer is an impersonal Custer, without much in emotions. Still, as he is cast, Shaw puts on a good performance, and I disagree with some of the commentators on this board who say he displays an English accent. He sounds American.
The early parts of the film have a number of scenes involving good action, with some imagination, and wide-open-space cinematography. Whites are encroaching on Indian land; they are interested in mining and railroads. Indians attack railroads and stagecoaches and, at one point, a large white settlement celebrating Independence Day. Custer has a couple of minor skirmishes with the Indians. In one, he pursues the Indians across a desert and attacks them from below the rock face they have scaled in their retreat. As for major action, Custer's Seventh Cavalry, on orders from General Phil Sheridan, attacks and destroys Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle's village in the Battle of the Washita River, in Kansas. General Sheridan had been Custer's Civil War commander and long-time patron, and he was the one who gave Custer his post in the Dakotas. He calls Benteen a "bleeding heart" for being sympathetic to the Indians. Sheridan claims he has told all his officers "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." The real-life Sheridan claimed he never said that. Regardless, it is an historical fact that he was contemptuous of the Indians, and his attitude represented the mindset of the time. In the battle, The Seventh Cavalry kills not only Black Kettle and numerous warriors, but many women and children. Director Robert Siodmark holds back nothing in presenting what occurred in Custer's only major engagement against the Indians before the Last Stand.
The most important scene of the film occurs after this battle. It, rather than the Last Stand, encapsulates the movie. A Cheyenne Indian visits Custer's HQ to ask him about his intentions, as Custer correctly perceives. Custer makes it clear he is not a moralist. He is not in a position to make the substantive decisions, he is an officer in the army, and will obey orders. If that involves trampling the Indians in violation of some ethical notion, so be it. Custer tells the Indian the problem is that the whites are more advanced than the Indians. He tells him that the Cheyenne were stronger than tribes from whom they took land, so they can expect the same from the whites who want their land. Later, the writers try to acquit Custer a little bit by 1) his remarks that the railroad being built will just lead to trouble from the Indians and complaining about what the Indians have to put up with and 2) his testimony in Washington on Indian Bureau corruption that the "Indian Problem" is the fault of the policymakers. This is historically true; according to Custer's testimony, corruption in the granting of Western post traderships and various other dishonest dealings were cheating Indians as well as the U.S. Cavalry. However, although the film presents miners intruding on Indian territory, it does not treat Custer's personal interest in gold mining.
As I previously observed, I think "Custer of the West" is worth seeing in spite of the Last Stand's being poorly done. It would be most interesting for people who know some of the history surrounding Custer's postCivil War life and the conflicts with the Plains Indians leading up to the Last Stand.
Shalako (1968)
Indians Engage in Snobfighting
A group of arrogant European hunters takes to the North American West to pursue game. Apaches? Am I about to say, little do they know that they will have to encounter hostile Apaches? Nope. Actually, it is, once they find out there are hostile Apaches, the more they want to stay. That is the tone set by the group's arrogant leader, Baron Frederick Von Hallstatt (Peter van Eyck). He and his haughty group, a German and a bunch with supercilious British accents, do not want to yield to "savages," but desire to teach them a lesson, even though the Apaches have treaty rights on their side.
Sean Connery plays Carlin, a hunter and tracker, but he is known as Shalako, a name given to him by the Indians. The tracker who leads the group, however, is Bosky Fulton (Steven Boyd). Rivaling Connery's celebrity in the film are those beautiful European actresses Brigitte Bardot (Countess Irina Lazaar) and Honor Blackman (Lady Julia Daggett). The Countess is supposedly being matched with the Baron, but she and Shalako later have eyes for each other. As for Lady Julia, she is married to Sir Charles Daggett, who loves her, but Lady Julia and Fulton have something cooking. The other leading couple is Senator Henry Clarke (Alexander Knox) and his wife Elena (played by the also-beautiful Valerie French). There are a few others in the Europeans' coterie, and Fulton leads a slightly larger group of American frontier types who escort them. Toward the start of the movie, when the Countess is hunting on her own, the Apaches kill the Countess' companion but let her and Shalako, who was passing by, go. This is after Shalako promises to tell the group to get off Apache territory. The group does not cooperate, and the Apaches attack the Europeans' encampment, and I will stop my narrative.
By and large, the characters, including Shalako, are uninteresting. As the protagonist, he continues to make the right moves, in contrast to the loser Baron, but is given no character development and is not a compelling presence. Yes, Sean Connery is miscast and boring here. His character is not even worthy of the mediocre eponymous score. The Europeans have their boring and condescending say; sometimes, one gets the sense that director Edward Dmytryk deliberately has them muttering or whispering inaudibly to emphasize their emptiness, nothing to listen to anyway.
Still, I like the movie, and the reason is its atmosphere. I am not aware of other movies in which Indians are fighting not white American settlers but aristocratic Europeans. Not only is the tension grounded more tightly because the supercilious Europeans add the level of snobbery to the typical superior attitude of whites, but we also know they are unfamiliar with Indians. Like the men, Lady Julia thinks the Indians are savages. She has the stereotypical terror of them one might think a member of 19th-century European nobility might feel. Such a group is not made up of people of the land in the sense of American whites, but people with a silver spoon in their mouth. Perhaps the tension in "Shalako" is comparable to the tension in some flicks in which well-to-do Europeans go to African jungles. Here, the backdrop is instead the wide open expanses of Western plains and mountains, shot well by the cinematographers, who do very well with the distance shots as well as the closer-up action scenes.
Also, the story involves some intrigue, if uncomplicated, including the treachery of Fulton and Lady Julia. Honor Blackman is not a femme fatale Pussy Galore, but she is a traitoress of sorts. Some fairly graphic combat scenes are included, as was beginning to be the trend in the late 1960s in American and European films; Lady Julia screams in a gruesome scene involving a spearing, and in another, suffice it to say she is "handled" by the Indians. That is quite an intense one, worth seeing. However, as a final note, don't expect much from the ending, which as one might expect involves a face-off with the Indians. It befits the mediocrity of the overall script and characters, except it is perhaps worse.
Batman: The Movie (1966)
Just Silly
When I was living overseas, a kid in elementary school in the 1960s, I had heard that Batman was now playing on U.S. TV. I couldn't wait to see the show on home leave during the summer. However, when I did, I was disappointed. I wanted Batman to be a dark imposing figure and Robin not to be a golly-gee cartoon character. As for the villains, it was OK for them to be colorful. However, I wanted them not to be goofs, but authentically threatening. Like a James Bond villain. I wanted the show to be real, like the spy shows of the 1960s. Still, when the TV show was on, I watched it and grew to accept it as it was. Familiarity breeds content. The comic series was extremely popular, more popular than anything else, for a reason, and the show still presented the heroes and criminals. And like other types of humor, campy humor can have its moments. Plus, the females were always very sexy, and there were lots of celebrities: It was all part of popular culture.
"Batman" the movie is like the TV show, a campy satire. All the good-guy actors are the same: Batman & Robin, Commissioner Gordon & Chief O'Hara, Alfred & Aunt Harriet. The three male arch criminals are played by the same actors; only Catwoman (Lee Meriwether) is different, but she is just as voluptuous as Julie Newmar. This being a full-length movie, it was a good idea to include all the leading criminals. They do their pompous cackling and laughing, as on the show. Their hired thugs are the familiar impersonal, subservient losers.
The plot is grandiose: The four villains kidnap the nine members of the U.N. Security Council by dehydrating them into dust with a newfangled machine (rehydration is possible). The villains operate on board a surplus navy submarine. Their intent is to conquer the world. Bruce Wayne is kidnapped, set up through a romantic encounter by a Russian journalist, "Miss Kitka," who is really Catwoman. (Listen to those corny lines between her and Bruce.) The final fight scene takes place on top of the submarine, over the water.
The latter-day Batman films are real by the standards desired by the younger persona of yours truly. As with anyone else, I have my positive and negative comments about them, set forth elsewhere. Can there exist an idealized Batman movie for me? Regardless of the answer, if another Batman movie is coming, I will see it, as an adult. "Batman" of 1966 I would not see as an adult; perhaps some others would. Maybe some creativity went in, but this stuff cannot be taken seriously or have any meaning. As an adult, I can only say it is silly, which is what I thought as a kid too.
The Bunker (1981)
Loudness of the Wolf
Anthony Hopkins displays a commanding presence as Hitler in this TV-made version of Hitler's final days in his underground Berlin bunker. Albert Speer, played by Richard Jordan, somewhat rivals him in prominence.
The film writers put a major focus on Hitler's scorched earth policy of the final days, to destroy civilian infrastructure and life staples of the German people as enemy armies advanced. This is without regard to their survival, and Hitler wants to kill anyone who resists. No Germans really wanted to obey this order, and only Martin Bormann and, we know, Dr. Goebbels, were willing to support it. Speer had received this order on March 19, 1945, and had no interest in enforcing it. He came to the Bunker on April 22, about 10 days before Hitler's death, and left shortly before it. Speer resists Hitler's orders to his face while swearing loyalty and vaguely agreeing to execute them, sort of, always citing obstacles. Later, he tells Hitler to his face he did not implement the orders. Whether this occurred is doubted by some historians. If it did, one might question Hitler's compassionate response.
As evil as he was, Hitler's hypnotic effect on all German people is a reality, and this remained until the days of his death. The women were blindly loyal, idolaters, but then they did not have to give him all the negative military news and be on the wrong end of his tantrums. As for the men who had to, even though they grimaced in the face of Hitler's rants and rolled their eyes behind his back, their faces and conduct at other times in Hitler's presence always seemed to reflect a sincere, unwavering loyalty and idolization. Ultimately, Hitler saw the German people as cattle just like the Nazi-declared inferior races, for he never showed any reluctance to inflict murder and cruelty on German soldiers and civilians. So, those who surrounded him they liked the person, just not what he did? Hitler's female cook (played by Pam St. Clement) remarks "His eyes, so clear and strong as always. The man is a God
" Hopkins displays the intensity and mannerisms that director George Schaefer uses to make the audience understand this.
A distinctive feature here vs. other Bunker films is a substantial focus on the physical layout and maintenance of the Bunker and the people in charge of the maintenance: Machinist Johannes Hentschel (Martin Jarvis) is one of the main characters. We even see Speer considering the logistics of a poison attack on the Bunker as an alternative to letting the resistance to Hitler's scorched earth policy come to a head (another thing questioned by historians).
I got annoyed with the non-moderated British accents all over the place, but on the part of the supporting cast only (Hopkins' accent as Hitler, like that of Alec Guiness in "Hitler: The Last Ten Days," is not as bad as Robert Carlyle's in "Hitler: The Rise of Evil"). Setting this aside, the acting performances are all solid. Goebbels and Bormann are effectively portrayed as the disgusting persons they were. The generals and others are shown as combinations of military men and lackeys who occasionally show some sense of right and wrong. I have noticed that Bunker films after all, this is the movies tend to portray the German women as quite glamorous, and Eva Braun (Susan Blakely) and Magda Goebbels (Piper Laurie) are eye Candy, along with other ladies. Richard Jordan is a dapper, handsome Speer, not creepy at all. Maybe the real Speer did not want to liquidate all German civilians, but Jordan's portrayal does too much kindness to a creepy guy. No worries, for Hopkins as Hitler is the focal point, and any human feelings he shows are superseded by the obvious incarnate evil he represents.
Der Untergang (2004)
Deutschland Unter Alles
Frau Traudl Junge, Hitler's secretary, is the focal point of this 2004 German-made Bunker film. She is portrayed by Alexandra Maria Lara. In her comments at the beginning and end of the film, the real Traudl reflects on the forces that led her to be in the position she was and the immorality of Hitler and the Nazi regime. In the movie, the young Traudl has an innocent and despondent demeanor from the time she was chosen as Hitler's secretary in November 1942 until the end, when she and a group of other Bunker persons have fled, seeking to escape the Russians.
Director Oliver Hirschbiegel does an amazing job in continually making the viewer feel the sense of siege. What is most striking about "Untergang" is its graphic realism. All the scenes of shells dropping bring the viewer there, as if the viewer is experiencing it. In one scene, officers and other Nazis are dancing and making merry in the Old Reich Chancellery (connected to the Bunker by a tunnel) and a wall is blown up by a shell. This is a true story per Traudl's account. The realism of "Saving Private Ryan" may have come a few years before, but in urban battle scenes that use darker colors, military green, and grayish shading, Hirschbiegel makes things interesting in his own way, very vivid. Furthermore, he presents a number of scenes involving the wounded awaiting or undergoing medical treatment, including amputations, that are very graphic and gruesome. There was plenty of morphine available, but other medical supplies were scarce.
As for the characters, the Germans are divided between fanatical Nazis and those who are reasonable, those who have compassion for people suffering from the physical agonies of war. One of the central figures is Dr. Ernst-Gunter Schenck, played by Christian Berkel. He serves to symbolize the force of reason, as he objects to evacuations of installations and supplies that victimize remaining civilians, seeks morphine and other medical supplies, and questions the meaningless honorable-death mindset of remaining fanatical Nazis. Bur realities are remaining fanatics, wandering terrorized civilians, and the agonizing wounded. The scenes showing the human suffering serve to accentuate the evils of Hitler. He chose to commit suicide to avoid capture by the Russians, so he would not have to experience what everyone else was suffering through. In the meantime, many young German children, which could include females, were serving militarily and being killed or mutilated.
Hitler is played by Bruno Ganz. He is the ranter devoid of reason with whom most people are familiar. Ganz is a more wrinkled Hitler than in real life, but he does a good job with the mannerisms, the ravings, and the tremors. He is a totally evil person, as shown in his demand to implement a scorched earth policy even though it would leave German civilians without any necessities. That is on top of his lecture on the savagery of apes, who trample on outsiders; Hitler says humans should learn to be like apes. On this comments board and boards for other Bunker films, it is often noted that the Nazis and others in the Bunker have human feelings and are not totally evil. This observation includes Hitler, who thanks his cooks for things etc. But to me, "Untergang," like other Bunker films, still shows Hitler, Dr. Goebbels, Martin Bormann, and some others as consummately evil, as they should be shown. There are some who seem not to be, military officers or whoever, yet even as they question what Hitler does, they are still loyal. He had a hypnotic effect on people. Even after Hitler refuses Eva Braun (Juliane Kohler) the favor of rescinding his order to execute her brother in law, a favor requested with all trappings of emotion, she says, "You're the Fuhrer." Magda Goebbels (Corinna Harfouch) worships Hitler like her husband does and is willing to kill her seven children and herself to avoid a world without him. A well-acted emotional moment, for right or for wrong, is when she holds Hitler and falls to his feet, before he commits suicide. How sad will be life without Hitler.
One of the final scenes, after Hitler's suicide, involves Traudl in a group of Bunker escapees deciding what to do next. In combat garb, accompanied by a young boy, she is permitted to pass through the Russian lines with the watching Russian soldiers still. I guess it is silly to compare it to "The Birds," for Traudl is not Tippi Hedren. But as in "The Birds," when "Untergang" ends the viewer is left with the sense of having been relieved from a siege in a turbulent epic.
W. (2008)
Simple Minded, But That Is No Excuse
The review may contain spoilers
In a way, this was an atypical Oliver Stone film. He is known as a provocateur: Witness the quintessential example of that, JFK, and also, in their own ways, films like The Doors, Born on the Fourth of July, and Reversal of Fortune.
However, as anti-system and anti-Republican as he may be, Stone, in this film, as in Nixon, decides not to put in many possibilities for bite that he could have. Instead, he looks to essentially paint an interpretive portrait of the current (as I write this) President. Nixon, when Stone made his film, well, that was a while before.
Still, there are differences between W and Nixon. Nixon was a far more complex and intelligent man than Bush (I would like to meet a person who disagrees with that statement). So, inherently, Stone came up with things in the background and makeup for Nixon that constituted food for thought. Maybe some of this reflects that there was more knowledge about Nixon with the passage of more time. But I think that the main point is that Bush has a more simple personality and makeup. Indeed, I would qualify my own statement about an "interpretative portrait" as it applies to W as opposed to Nixon. For in many ways, W is more like a straight documentary that does not portray much that is profound in Bush's childhood, in his character and chemistry, or in the decision-making of the key players in starting the Iraq War.
Most everyone knows Bush as a simple-minded type. While he could have fits of emotion and anger, he is not a redneck. But he does have a cowboy mindset. If there is anything that this movie emphasizes, it is that Bush in no way represents the Eastern aristocracy of his father and mother. Rather, he is a non-intellectual, not-so-well-spoken Christian Texan with roots nowhere but Texas, with a fraternity boy mentality. Everyone is "folks." W was not successful academically, like his brother Phi Beta Kappa brother Jeb. He had some difficulties with success in various jobs and had some trouble with the police. His father had more expectations for Jeb than for older brother George, which George resented.
Nevertheless, W has an ego, and authentically believes, as is widely known, that he is on a mission from God to serve in public office and do Christian good in this World. That means the War in Iraq is a justified war (and, er, the deaths and maimings of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers and civilians) to promote democracy and Christianity. Bush takes the word of his advisers and other sources on WMD evidence, etc. Stone, interestingly, does not portray the folks in the positions of power as wanting to exaggerate and fake evidence, and does not submit much contradiction early on save a doubting Colin Powell. This could have been done on, e.g., Cheney and Nigeria/Uranium, with respect to which the general public knows that Cheney deliberately did not tell the truth. It also was never suggested it was for oil. On the other hand, and importantly, the sense is that from the start, people like Cheney and other advisers save Colin Powell wanted war rather than to avoid it.
As for the casting and acting, it was definitely good. The best lookalike was Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice, but Josh Brolin, who did a great acting job with mannerisms, etc., as W; Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney (perhaps many an old curmudgeon could have looked like him, tho); and Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush were also great lookalikes. Ellen Burstyn is good as Barbara Bush with less wrinkles.
So, to reiterate, Stone seems to mostly want to tell us some facts, in a simplistic way, without showing the complexities of what really was coming into play (e.g., ties to oil interests of Bush and Cheney, interests of other U.S. parties). To each his own; W is a good or bad President, depending on the eyes of the beholder. The badly mutilated American casualties from Iraq (and the female relative of the Latin one to whom Bush speaks to in Spanish) give grudging, restrained acknowledgment to the visitor President's words of caring and sympathy, but Stone subtly suggests they may be thinking something else inside. As is this commentator.
The Alamo (1960)
Great Cinematography, Idealistic
Many people, like myself, are interested in accuracy in historical dramas, and this leads to much debate in evaluating films done in the "epic" fashion. Should the protagonists be portrayed as heroes, villains, idealists, pragmatists, bumblers, egomaniacs? There is often room for interpretation. May I bring out The Alamo Director John Wayne himself in "The Green Berets," set in Vietnam? Were Americans more like the idealistic, well-spoken, and noble heroes in Vietnam as Wayne portrays, or were they drug-infested people who called the enemies "gooks"? The truth, as Oscar Wilde said, "is somewhere in between."
In the siege of The Alamo, however, the defining essentials are clear. I do not care whether Jim Bowie was in many ways a louse in his life before dying at the Alamo. What is relevant is his role at the Alamo. Was Davy Crockett actually captured before being killed? Again, I do not care (besides, the weight of evidence is that he was not captured).
The fact is that these two and Alamo commander Colonel William Barret Travis, along with the others who died at the Alamo, were patriots concerned with freedom for Texas. They were willing to sacrifice their own lives, knowing that they would likely be killed by a much larger force, for an ideal. I do not see any way to say anything else.
Davy Crockett is idealized in American folklore, but John Wayne as Davy confesses to a Spanish lady companion that he has not always been idealistic. Yet he is finding idealism in Texas, in events leading up to the siege. Colonel Travis (Lawrence Harvey) can be seen as nothing other than idealistic, history bears that out. Here, his accent seems like a combination of British (Harvey), New Orleans like in the movie "JFK," and Southern, but it is clearly an educated person's aristocratic drawl, like Travis in real life almost surely had. He is well dressed and groomed, a formal military man. And what the hey, Bowie (Richard Widmark) is here statuesque, like Harvey, clean-shaven, and blond, in comparison to Bowie's real-life dark-haired ruffian looks. Wayne as director draws out well the clash of egos between Travis and Bowie, and Bowie's drinking and partying excesses. But when the chips are down, when Travis draws the line to tell people they can leave if they want, Bowie stays. Has to be accurate, correct?
The cinematography is very well done: the organization and colored uniforms of the Mexican soldiers, the different areas and angles of the Alamo itself, the battlefield surrounding. The musical scores, the majestic background singing, are melodramatic and effective. There is little in terms of excess in scenes despite the film's length. Perhaps something could have been added to portray the point of view of Santa Anna and the Mexicans, but that is not done here; Santa Anna has virtually no time on the screen. The intent of Wayne was to portray the Texas point of view.
The Alamo is one of John Wayne's finest moments.
An Unreasonable Man (2006)
But More Reasonable than Republicans and Democrats?
This documentary is a chronicle of Ralph Nader's life and times, with an above-average dose of commentators. They are many: Nader's associates and many journalists, and others ranging from Phil Donahue to Pat Buchanan, but the latter is there for additional perspective on Nader, not debating points. Indeed, while the commentators support the documentary narrative on Nader's background, activities (including Nader's Raiders), and accomplishments, the biggest debate is on whether Nader did the right thing in not abandoning his independent Presidential bid in 2000 and perhaps costing Al Gore the election.
Some material on Nader's background is included, from his birth in Winsted, Ct. His parents were Lebanese immigrants. His mother was a political activist, and his father ran a restaurant and a bakery, helping shape Nader's lifelong affection for the marketplace and the consumer, as well as political discourse, for the restaurant was a haven for political discussion. The town-meeting-type government, in which Nader's family participated, with citizens voting on laws, was seen by Nader as pure democracy at work. Nader was bright and went to Harvard Law School, and he had a friend become paraplegic because of an auto accident.
Nader has championed many consumer issues. Auto safety, Nader's first claim to fame, is focused on most early and prominently and is a recurring theme, perhaps most appropriately. He took on GM, Ford, and Chrysler on seat belts to pollution control to steering mechanisms, and this is covered well, along with their twisted efforts to discredit him (even by extremely sleazy methods invading his privacy).
As for Nader's candidacy for President in 2000, the commentators debate extensively and, at some moments, venomously. He arguably cost Gore the election versus a reactionary President, and was his staying in until the end justified? But Nader ran because of what he believed in, thinking Democrats had become too much like Republicans. As the documentary covers at length, this had been a theme of Nader's political existence since the time of Nixon and Ford. Jimmy Carter turned out to be undependable in Nader's eyes, but the big problem really arose with the election of Reagan, the force of whose personality made people forget the difference between right and wrong, including on consumer issues. Regulations with their roots in Nader were opposed and sometimes successfully thrown out. Nader saw a lack of sympathy and agreement with his concerns continue through Democratic President Bill Clinton, whose Vice President was Gore. All in all, Nader's stubbornness in 2000 can be attributed to long-time frustration, not just recent events. Hence, the title of the movie, based on George Bernard Shaw's quote.
Nader's contribution on environmental (clean water and air) and safety matters outside of autos could have been discussed a little more. Another possible item for inclusion might have been some specifics on some laws and regulations, enacted and recommended; then, it might have been interesting to hear debate on whether he was right or was going too far, etc. However, this documentary ran more than two hours as is, and it is very well done; it will be thoroughly enjoyed by anyone interested in the subject matter.
Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson (2004)
Thorough and Enjoyable
Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion, is usually seen as one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. Ken Burns' "Unforgivable Blackness" paints a picture of Johnson as a great defensive fighter, ranging from his roots in mainly all-black boxing to showing him demonstrating moves to a younger fighter when Johnson was well into middle age. Indeed, Johnson used his defensive skills to beat not only white boxers like ex-champion Jim Jeffries, in the 1910 racially charged championship bout in Las Vegas, but top black boxers like Joe Jeannete, Sam Langford, and Sam McVey. The pumped-up strong boys in today's diffuse heavyweight division look physically fearsome, but I believe Johnson's defensive skills would have made it difficult for anyone to beat him, including Mike Tyson in his prime.
The portrayal of Johnson in the "Boxing's Best" series was excellent, but nearly three hours shorter than this 216-minute documentary. Some of the same footage and photos are in this video, but here we get more footage and far more of other stuff. Shown are footage of Johnson's fights with Jeffries, Tommy Burns (from whom he won the title), Fireman Jim Flynn, Stanley Ketchel, and Frank Moran, and other boxing clips of himself and others. The buildup, aftermath, and social meaning of the Jeffries fight are thorough and thoughtfully done.
White champions since John L. Sullivan in the 1880s had refused to fight black challengers until Johnson defeated Burns. The subsequent efforts at finding a great white hope are shown (although one omission was no mention of the greatest white hope, Luther McCarty, who died during a match and thus never got to fight Johnson). For whites, regaining the championship was important. Another omission was not mentioning that Johnson lost to white boxer Marvin Hart, who then won the title after Jeffries retired (later, Johnson crushed Burns, who had beaten Hart). I am suspicious of some of the decisions given to white boxers over black boxers in those days. Or, was it a legitimate victory? How about a comment, Ken?
What about Johnson the man? Jack Johnson was an individual to himself and to his own desires. He was not someone who, as the first black heavyweight champion, saw himself as a role model for his race and therefore, obliged to behave in a certain fashion, whether it be, say, more defiant than compliant with white standards. He liked to live the high life, dress well, eat well, drive fancy cars and race cars, perform on vaudeville, etc. Originally from Galveston Texas, he is also the Jack Johnson of Europe and Australia and Cuba and Mexico. He was always on the go, whether chasing Tommy Burns all over the earth to pressure him to fight him for the championship or running off to another country because of trumped-up charges of violation of the Mann Act. Much effort was made to produce expansive footage and photography: Ken Burns tried hard and succeeded.
Johnson and white women would not be such a taboo item today, but would narrators concede in private (they do not in narration) that his being such a frequent consort of prostitutes can justifiably be seen as a negative trait anytime? For this and his individualism and flamboyancy, he was detested by whites and also some blacks.
But Johnson did not care. The film briefly mentions some parallels with Muhammad Ali. However, while Ali could be angered, by political and social issues, and by black opponents calling him Cassius Clay, Johnson was just carefree. He laughed at racial abuse given him in the ring. Ironically, after having such a hard time getting a white champion to fight him, Johnson denied black fighters a chance to fight him because white challengers would result in bigger purses (and presented less risk).
The commentators are writers like Gerald Early (who was also on Burns' "Baseball" and "Jazz" documentaries), Stanley Crouch, Jack Newfield, and George Plimpton; Johnson biographer Randy Roberts; boxing expert Bert Sugar; former light heavyweight champion Jose Torres; James Earl Jones (who played Johnson in "The Great White Hope"), and others. One thing that was better about "Unforgivable Blackness" than "Baseball" was that the celebrity non-baseball experts infused some nonsense into the latter (I enjoyed the baseball personalities); here, the commentators consistently add insights and are knowledgeable about boxing.
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
Clint Eastwood Has Directed an Oscar-Worthy Film This Time
"Letters from Iwo Jima" should go down as an all-time classic like "The Seven Samurai" and "Tora Tora Tora," as well as the best war films not involving Japanese, such as "Paths of Glory." It is an Oscar-worthy effort by director Clint Eastwood, far surpassing "Unforgiven" in artistry and scope. (Whether you agree with Newt Gingrich and put "Sands of Iwo Jima" near the top of your list, who knows I thought "Sands" was good but not great, with hats off to John Wayne.)
As a three-year resident of Tokyo, I know more about Japan/Japanese than most, and I can relate to the humanization of the Japanese soldiers here. "Letters" is highly evocative all the way, but what also makes it great is that it is well-edited. In 2 hours and 20 minutes, it provides little in wasted scenes and self-absorption. Although I thought it dragged a bit while watching it, I later realized virtually all the scenes had meaning. Even the masterpiece "Lawrence of Arabia" (yes, much longer, but "Letters" is also longer than average) had, arguably, a little excess. As for self-absorbed, I won't even get into "Borat."
By lack of self-absorption, I mean that while "Letters" continued to dwell on the emotional makeup of the Japanese military personnel and civilians, it did so in a steady way, showing various aspects of their character, without monotony or pomposity. It brought out certain themes and variations, highlighting differences in chemistry among Japanese. Indeed, the most striking memory from "Letters" is how the individuals (including civilians and women) were so human and so different, in contrast to the machine-like image of the Japanese military. I would not have killed that dog, either.
The film presents a chronological story of the battle, with flashbacks and flash-ins to areas other than the battlefield. It treats Japan's feeling of hopelessness in 1945 and what was left of the rationale for defending to the last man. The knowledge of the Japanese soldier that to fight on means likely death contrasts with the realistic feelings of American marines that their chances of returning home are good. The film portrays the overwhelming material superiority of the Americans, what this looked like to the Japanese (including the bombing preceding the battle), and how it was manifested in the American success as the battle progressed (and as the Japanese ran out of food). It also shows the elaborate tunnel system the Japanese defenders created after realizing a stand on the beaches was impracticable.
Ken Watanabe plays the lead character, General Kuribayashi. He has a thoughtful, independent-thinking defensive strategy, but also feels the conflicts of duty and reality. Kazunari Ninomiya is Saigo, the film's most prominent ordinary soldier, who is not a fanatical samurai type. He is a person with some fear who questions the hard-core military spirit, is concerned about his pregnant wife, and hopes to be home someday. As warranted, the hard-core military spirit was present too, in the persona of Lieutenant Ito (Shido Nakamura).
Basic to the film is how the soldiers' plights and destinies affected their feelings and in turn those of Japanese spouses and other civilians (reference the title, based on the poignant letters from the Japanese soldiers to home). Their letters are balanced by a scene in which a wounded U.S. marine is captured and later dies. "Sam" converses with Baron Nishi (Tsuyoshi Ihara), gold medal winner in equestrian competition at the 1932 Olympics, after the Baron orders his wounds treated. (A flashback had shown Baron Nishi with American officers and their wives at an elegant gathering before the war.) As Nishi relates to Sam his experiences with Americans, and after he reads a letter from Sam's mother, also poignant, found on Sam following his death, we are reminded not to generalize about atrocities on either side in a war. Some Japanese in the film had thought Americans were savages but discovered we weren't, and this was juxtaposed with the realization of some Japanese that U.S. marines at Iwo Jima were not cowards but had displayed bravery and military skill. There is a scene in which some marines have two captured Japanese POWs on their hands who are expected to hurt the marines' logistics on the mountainous terrain, making the Americans sitting ducks, and the prisoners are therefore executed by one of the soldiers. Is this an attempt at being "politically correct"? I cannot read Eastwood's mind, but one could see it partially as excess in a movie made from the Japanese perspective and partially as an emphasis on the horrors of war and what can result when survival is thought to be at stake.
The Japanese soldier was a tough foe his U.S. counterpart. "Letters" focuses on different perspectives of the willingness to fight to the death in a losing cause. The film suggests some Japanese thought fighting on would add time value to Japan's situation, while others carried on as a point of honor. "Letters" also raises the issue of whether running away in a hopeless situation but being willing to fight on in another area of the battlefield should be seen as cowardice or simply good strategy.
Clint Eastwood directed "Unforgiven," and it won an Oscar as the Best Picture, perhaps on passage-of-time sympathy, for many think it was not Oscar material. (I have not seen "Flags of Our Fathers," so cannot comment on it.) Letters from Iwo Jima is Oscar material, and I hope it wins Best Picture.
Field of Dreams (1989)
Empty Ghosts
Possible spoiler
I did not like Field of Dreams for a clear-cut reason: Nothing happened in the movie. It was saccharine sweet without substance, and the empty ghost players at the end, so what? I am a big baseball fan, but Kevin Costner's forte is not baseball movies, witness also For Love of the Game. Let's have a real baseball movie with a good story, like The Natural for fiction, or for nonfiction sentimentality, just watch The Pride of the Yankees or The Jackie Robinson Story. Field of Dreams is nothing but a big bore. For Shoeless Joe, check out Eight Men Out, which captures his soul, not his shell.
The Sound of Music (1965)
Beautiful story, cinematography
The Sound of Music had such a powerful impact on people because it was a film of such great beauty--the beauty of innocence and wholesomeness (the latter perhaps a bit overdone), of the Austrian Alps and Salzburg, of wonderful music, of the Catholic Church from the best light, of idealization of family and children, and of incorruptibility, which it seems we need more of these days.
The screenplay is imaginative, well-executed and well-paced, set in a broad, elaborate scenic backdrop combined with the elegance of more immediate surroundings (and I had the great pleasure of visiting Salzburg and the mansion when I was nine years old, after having seen the movie three times already). So wonderful was the cinematography!! Oh, well, Dr. Zhivago won it that year. The acting is also excellent, fittingly led by Julie Andrews as Fraulein Maria, and Christopher Plummer as the stern but virtuous captain who she lightens up and marries. The Baroness (Eleanor Parker) is Maria's rival for the captain's affections, while the Captain is foiled by "Uncle Max" (Richard Haydn), who wants to get along with everyone, even the Nazis, and antagonist Herr Zeller (Ben Wright).
Certainly, The Sound of Music far outdoes Maria's book, which was often quite boring. And hey, if the Captain's sturdiness of character is overdone in the film, it's also true he was the only one in the area without a swastika on his home. The music, catchy and lively, left a lasting imprint (and isn't Edelweiss ever so pretty). My Favorite Things even moves on to John Coltrane, and The Doors in Light My Fire. If you have not seen The Sound of Music, do so by all means. Aside from the film's being so uplifting, I suspect you'll agree with me that it demonstrates cinematographers should be capable of producing more than today's cheap special effects.