by Dave White
Who's In It: Billy Mitchell, Steve Wiebe, Mr. Awesome
The Basics: Men love to fight. It's why there are civil wars and Spanish Inquisitions and Hell's Kitchen and Puck from Real World: San Francisco. It's also why I watched a movie about competitive air-guitaring earlier this year and why I just watched this one about two dudes who want to Donkey Kong each other into an early grave. Chicken-wing retail pioneer, hot-sauce CEO and reigning high-scoring Donkey Kong champ Mitchell gets his record challenged by high school science teacher Wiebe. Then the soundtrack plays a song from The Karate Kid. Yeah, it's like that.
What's the Deal? Unlike spelling bees and dog shows and drag balls and air-guitar competitions, no one really seems to care about Donkey Kong smackdowns. I mean, yes, someone does, but their numbers are small. More people will probably watch this than will ever actually take time out of their lives to witness an ultimate grudge-match battle live and in person. And that's why this is cool: It compels you to be almost affectionately concerned about the fates of these two weirdos for a full 80 minutes, but mostly for Wiebe the science teacher, because Mitchell, with his prince-of-darkness persona, has long since crossed the line of hard nerd no return.
How to Explain Mr. Awesome: Nearly impossible. He's a supporting character in this geek-a-thon; he likes Missile Command, and he's very good at it. But even fewer people care about Missile Command than give a flying heck about Donkey Kong. This makes him upset. And you will witness that. He's not that awesome.
Best Scene: Wiebe seems like a good father, but even good fathers have moments where they neglect their children. Unfortunately for Wiebe, he had his while the cameras were on. So when his little kid needs help in the bathroom while Dad's busy playing Donkey Kong, you might not know whether to laugh or cringe when the child shouts, "Dad! Wipe my butt! Stop playing!"
Who'll Hate This: Vintage video-gamers who think they are the true champions of the "sport." Also, people like my mom who can't even figure out what people are doing when they play video games. Like when I tried to explain to her once that I smoked the competition while Wii-boxing as a heavyweight Joan Didion, she just shook her head.
::source: www.movies.go.com
Sep 16, 2007
Movie Critics: THE KING OF KONG (2007)
Upcoming Movie: THE JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB (2007)
A group of women and one man get together regularly to discuss the books of Jane Austen. They become so obsessed with the auther, they start to believe that their own lives resemble the plots to her novels. Based on the book by Karen Joy Fowler.
View more photos | Traillers and Clips
Cast Maggie Grace, Emily Blunt, Maria Bello, Hugh Dancy, Kathy Baker, Jimmy Smits (more)
Director(s) Robin Swicord
Writer(s) Robin Swicord
Status Upcoming (limited)
Genre(s) Drama
Release Date Sept. 21, 2007
MPAA Rating PG-13 - for mature thematic material, sexual content, brief strong language and some drug use
Web Site Official Site for The Jane Austen Book Club
Keywords Women, Based On A Novel
::source: http://movies.go.com
Upcoming Movie: BEAUTY REMAINS (2007)
Fei (Zhou Xun) and Ying (Vivian Wu) are half-sisters. Their dad, Master Li, was a rich entrepeneur before he died. While Ying is Li's legitimate daughter with his wife, Fei is the product of an affair with Li's maid. While Fei was sent off to school, after Master Li passed away, she is compelled to return home as a stipulation of his will.Already angry that her half-sister has come back, Ying only gets even more enraged when her boyfriend (Wang Zhi Wen) falls in love with Fei.
Cast Zhou Xun, Vivian Wu, Wang Zhiwen, Lisa Lu, Zhu Man Fang (more)
Director(s) Ann Hu
Writer(s) Beth Schacter, Wang Bin, Michael Eldridge
Status Upcoming (limited)
Genre(s) Foreign
Release Date Sept. 21, 2007 — New York
Web Site Official Site for Beauty Remains
Keywords Chinese/Mandarin, Family Interaction, Love Triangle, Theatrical Release, Love Triangles, Chinese, Chin
Share your movie knowledge!
Got some great trivia, hot news or rumors to share about Beauty Remains? POST A TIDBIT TODAY »
Sep 15, 2007
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
A PREVIEW OF INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL
Theatrical Release Date: May 22, 2008 (Wide)
Cast & Crew:
Harrison Ford, Shia LaBeouf, Cate Blanchett, John Hurt, Ray Winstone directed by Steven Allan Spielberg more »
Synopsis:
Twenty-five years after "Raiders of the Lost Ark," Harrison Ford reprises his role in "Indiana Jones 4." more »
MPAA Rating: Not Rated
Release Company: Paramount Pictures
Genre: Action/Adventure, Action, Adventure
The Latest News:
On Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull • Sex and the City Adds Cast, Release Date After years in development limbo, the Sex and the City feature film is wasting no time going from gr... • Breaking: Shia LaBeouf Spills New Indiana Jones Movie Title! Sunday night at the MTV Video Music Awards, Indy 4 co-star Shia LaBeouf made the long-awaited, Spiel... • LaBeouf to Be Disturbia Director's Last Man? Only a few short years ago, Shia LaBeouf was just another Disney Channel tween actor hoping to make ... • New Indiana Jones 4 Video Diary Up! If you've been eagerly waiting for a new Indiana Jones movie since the closing moments of Indiana Jo... • Karen Allen Back as Marion Ravenwood in Indiana Jones 4 Speaking in a live feed before a raptured audience at Comic-Con, Steven Spielberg announced that Kar... • Comic-Con Packs it in for Preview Night The unofficial start of the four-day nerd-off that is Comic-Con International really began Wednesday... • Lucasfilm Denies the Extra Indiana Jones Sequels One of the juicier movie rumors we've heard lately was that Harrison Ford and Shia LaBeouf had been ... • Harrison Ford Doing His Own Stunts in Indy IV He just celebrated his 65th birthday, but Harrison Ford will apparently still be doing his own stunt...
Toronto Film Fest: Interview with Atonement Director Joe Wright
We speak with the Pride & Prejudice director about his upcoming film.
For the past few years, Joe Wright has had every reason to celebrate. After graduating from British television, he went on to make 2005's Pride and Prejudice (the Certified Fresh phenomenon that bred a new generation of Austenites), made history as the youngest director to ever open the Venice Film Festival, and last week became engaged to actress Rosamund Pike.
Wright's newest film, Atonement, shows little sign of breaking the streak. With a 100 percent Tomatometer from nearly 20 early reviews, critics are responding ecstatically and Oscar buzz is already percolating. Adapted from the best-selling Ian McEwan novel of the same name, Atonement is a romantic epic starring Keira Knightley and James McAvoy as two lovers separated by circumstance and war. (Check out our review here.) Atonement opens December 7, and Rotten Tomatoes caught up with Wright during the Toronto Film Fest to discuss the film, Method acting, and the unique pleasure of the long tracking shot.
Rotten Tomatoes: Like anything you've seen at Toronto so far?
Joe Wright: I loved The Assassination Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. I thought it was wonderful. I think Casey Affleck's performance in it is genius.
RT: Atonement has a lot of strong visuals. Was it difficult finding all the locations?
JW: My designer, Sarah Greenwood, is probably my closest collaborator. And I always get her on very, very early in the process. We started looking for locations at least six months before we started filming. So the locations were being found as we were developing the script [and] we would write locations into the screenplay. That is quite important to me.
RT: You frequently collaborate with the same people, both in production and the actors. What would be difficult about filmmaking without this relationship?
JW: I like working with the same people over and over. It's like a theater company. We all know each other very well. We support each other, we know each other's strengths and weaknesses. It's just important to me. I don't like the jumping of one group of people to another. I like the continuity.
RT: Does each project get easier to do?
JW: Yeah. Well, no. Not easier and easier. It develops. You get to watch people change. I think you have to know people really well to communicate with them.
RT: It's surprising more filmmakers don't try to find their personal troupes.
JW: It surprises me as well. I come from a theater-ish background. Puppet theater. And I've always had the romantic notion of the touring theater company. So I guess I try to model my film crews on that.
RT: Atonement's performances are modeled after the British films of the 1930s and 1940s. Did you envision this during film production or while reading the novel?
JW: I saw that happening when I read the novel. I'm a big fan of films from the 1930s and 1940s, and I'm a big fan of actors from that period. You meet a lot of young actors in London these days who absurdly try imitations of Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.
RT: You're not a fan of Method acting.
JW: I'm not a fan of Method acting. I think it has its place certainly, and I'm not dismissing it at all. But I think acting is the one area of filmmaking that has not moved on in the past 35 years at all. Young actors seem to think they're being very modern by investigating the Method. Whereas, in actual fact, they're being very old-fashioned. So I think it's time to reexamine acting as a craft and what it means. And the only way to do that is perhaps to look back, earlier, and then move forward.
To me, the best director of actors in the American system is David Lynch. I've always loved his direction of acting. And no one ever talks about his performances.
RT: His style and stories tend to obscure the other qualities of his films.
JW: Absolutely. Naomi Watts's [performance] in Mulholland Dr. is one of the most extraordinary I've ever seen. And the choice to go with that style of performance that somehow heightens realism throughout the entire movie except when she's in that casting scene and she decides to play naturalism...it flips the whole idea of artifice being natural, and naturalism being artifice. And, suddenly, that scene, that audition scene, it is so terrifying, so effective. I found [that] brilliant. I don't know how Lynch does it. I think he's one of the only directors [who's] pushing the craft into new places.
RT: Pride and Prejudice and Atonement both have elaborate steadicam tracking shots. Is this the sort of thing that excites you when you're watching a movie?
JW: It does, yeah. I like making them, for a start. I really get a kick out of them. You get an amazing adrenaline rush from making those shots because it's a big, big gamble. A lot of choreography. And also because you're spending an entire day's shoot on one shot. If [it] goes wrong, you've gambled away a lot of money and time and effort. I enjoy that gamble. It's fun.
But, also, I like the happening aspect. Do you know what I mean? You create a kind of happening. A piece of theater. Everyone engages: you have 1,600 people focusing on the same five minutes and viewing that time as such importance. It's a beautiful thing.
RT: Which are your favorite long takes?
JW: Touch of Evil's is a masterstroke. I particularly like the Russian Ark film, which I thought was staggering. I was also influenced by a British director you might know. His name is Alan Clarke. He made films like Elephant, which inspired Gus van Sant's Elephant, and another great film for TV called Road. He was one of the first people to use Steadicam in Britain, not long after The Shining.
An artist called Sam Taylor-Wood did a music video for Elton John in which Robert Downey Jr. sang "I Want Love." And that was a one take shot. I like that one very much.
RT: The original Atonement screenplay you saw was different from the novel. In what way?
JW: It digressed from the novel quite a lot. It had become much more straightforward, much more linear. They had cut the idea of replaying the same moment from different points of view, which I thought was a great shame. A lot of the structural ideas had been lost. The idea of the film in three distinct parts had been lost. And death...was portrayed in big, operatic moments. I felt that was the wrong depiction of death. I've always thought of death as something very small.
Angelina Jolie's Wanted Leaps from Comic Books with a Hard R
Michael Brandt and Derek Haas discuss Wanted's cast, action, and MPAA rating
Writer/directors Michael Brandt and Derek Haas had to go into production on Wanted before the comic book had even picked up steam. With only two issues published, the writers came up with their own story based on the set up.
"The first two issues were pretty much act one," said Haas. "The first two issues were a great set up, the first two issues of the comic. Then it went in a different direction than what we took the film."
The story of a loser drafted by assassins who believe he has his father's talents, the movie is action packed adventure, but not comic book-y. "Our take on the material was big, but not big like the comic book," said Brandt. "The comic book took it to crazy heights with superheroes and we kept ours kind of grounded into today's world so you could actually believe that it could take place in today's world."
Haas still promises hard action. "We really want to make a hard R movie," said Haas. "To the studio's credit, all the way through they said, 'Do it. Keep that same tone'. And then when they cast Angelina [Jolie], Morgan Freeman and James McAvoy we thought, 'Oh here it comes. Here comes the PG-13, got to have the broadest audience possible.' But, no. The whole time they said keep it the same way so that's the movie they shot."
Wanted is due March 28, 2008 and will be the English language Hollywood debut of Night Watch director Timur Bekmambetov.
Sep 12, 2007
Movie Review:"The Sixth Sense" (1999)
Evil Rears Its Pretty Little Head, Again, in a Slick Remake of 'The Omen'
By Stephen Hunter
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 6, 2006; Page C01
Hell'z still a-poppin' in the remake -- well, it's more a tracing -- of the surprise hit of the 1976 movie season, "The Omen," which gets a rare Tuesday opening in salute to an even rarer day of three sixes.
The original was the first to put high-end stars (Gregory Peck, Lee Remick) in a blood-soaked, Devil-worshiping, supernatural, slick and -- did I say blood-soaked? -- horror movie, which had been theretofore the province of second- and third-tier faces (such as the one belonging to Vincent Price). It was such a hit, it got its director, Richard Donner, in line for a mainstream career (his next film was "Superman," and he later was founder and franchise owner of the "Lethal Weapon" series). One hopes it nicely feathered the nest of those sturdy yeomen of the American industry, Peck and Remick.
Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick as Damien, Boy Devil, in a new version of the 1976 supernatural thriller, released on a satanically significant date.
Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick as Damien, Boy Devil, in a new version of the 1976 supernatural thriller, released on a satanically significant date. (By Vince Valitutti -- 20Th Century Fox)
More Movie Details
* 'The Omen': National Showtimes
* Movie Trailers
* This Week's New Releases
* What's on DVD
* More on Movies in Arts & Living
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
* Icarus Fallen :: Main Page
* Icarus Fallen :: Main Page
Full List of Blogs (2 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
Save & Share Article What's This?
Digg
Google
del.icio.us
Yahoo!
Reddit
Facebook
ad_icon
Click here!
The remake is directed by another slickster, the Irishman John Moore, who is no deep thinker (as his "Behind Enemy Lines" confirmed) but, like Donner, he's an able hack -- smooth, stylish, clever, soulless and a hoot. And so's his damned movie. And it is damned.
It's still the same old story, hardly updated, possibly because the same typist is behind the same keyboard, hitting the same keys. That writer would be David Seltzer, here as before earning a solo writing credit. He hits the same high notes as before: a horrifying moral paradox driving a taut, detective-like story ahead, well-lubricated by highly choreographed murders engineered from down under by His Satanic Majesty. Impalements, burnings, beheadings, hangings, all those nasty things done to witches in days of yore. Here they're done again, to the tune of malodorous choral music, only the victims are the chaste, the good and the pure. And on top of that: You get to see Mia Farrow get creamed.
Seltzer's plot is simple and serviceable. When the just-born son of an American diplomat dies in the postnatal care theater, the father (Liev Schreiber) knows it will break his fragile wife's heart, if not her brain. A priest points out that an unwed mother has just perished in giving birth; could we not switch the now parentless newborn for the now-dead newborn?
He doesn't bother to tell the young man that the baby's mommy was a hyena or maybe a jackal or some other slavering canine from beyond the Styx. That deed done, the son Damien grows into a beautiful boy but one with an odd sense of aloofness. He never speaks but projects a spooky sense of implacable serenity. At the same time, he can issue a laser-shot of contempt through his beady little eyes (the production must have looked for months before it came up with a tot with just such a willed coldness to his presence in newcomer Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) that would give a black cat a myocardial infarction.
When he's about 4, deaths begin happening around him, each calculated to advance his position; a nanny spectacularly hangs herself (shocking in 1976, still shocking 30 years later). Soon, lovable old Mrs. Baylock (Farrow) has shown up to take over as nanny, and she bonds with Damien and begins radiating nutcase heat waves. A priest (Pete Postlethwaite) who comes to warn the couple (Schreiber's Robert Thorn is, by dint of another weird accident, now full ambassador) seems nuts, but ends up skewered like a Vienna cocktail wienie on a really big toothpick for his trouble. A photographer (David Thewlis) notes suggestive light streaks in the photos he's taken of two early victims, implying their spectacular ends, and so he begins to investigate, first on his own, then with Thorn. Cue the beheading machine.
Anyway, soon enough Daddy begins to wonder if the boy is actually He Whom the Liturgical Chants on the Soundtrack Heavily Suggest to Be Old Scratch in Diapers; that is, the Devil himself, the Antichrist. What's a father to do?
A lot of things stay the same. The movie still has the gloss of a Lincoln Continental commercial as it prowls through swanky European backdrops (Italy, then England; it was filmed mostly in Prague). It's handsome in the way it's fast-moving: sleek, well-engineered, full of gooses and honks.
Some of the casting seems a little off. For example, the heroic parents, David and Katherine Thorn, played in the original by the patrician Peck and Remick, are played by Schreiber and Julia Stiles. Whatever you think of their talent (Schreiber has lots, Stiles less), the truth is they are too young for their roles, which insist that he ends up the ambassador to the Court of St. James's. Schreiber, hardly a patrician, looks more like the ambassador to the Kensington Gardens Courtyard by Marriott. Stiles looks like a hatcheck girl in a '40s melodrama. You keep thinking: Where are the Pecks of yesteryear? What are these kids doing in grown-up clothes?
Still, it works. Moore keeps the thing humming, leaping from atrocity to atrocity. And he gets something weird: that is, the deep and abiding pleasure certain people feel in watching the elaborate extermination tricks assembled diabolically. For Moore, anything can be a killing machine. To cite one example, when a certain character gets that extremely deep crew cut (note to cultural scorekeepers: The ever-progressive American film industry has finally surpassed the Japanese film industry in depicting that magic moment when Mr. Head goes over here and Mr. Body goes over there) he has a laff riot of a time tracking the implausibilities that lead up to it. A roofer ticks a hammer with his foot, it lands squarely on a rusty bolt, shearing it, and thus a heavy steel sign is freed to rotate on a rusty rod, its lower edge picking up the speed and fury of Mme. Guillotine, and it loops down just as today's victim is standing in the arc of its rotation and --
And Moore reiterates the other unsettling, disturbing aspect of "The Omen," which is in itself a cautionary warning of the power of film to manipulate. That is, as the movie rushes toward its finish it subverts the audience into mobhood; it makes us no longer human. It makes us yearn to break our deepest moral code, and harm a child. The guy behind me summed it up: "Kill that little freak!" he implored. Now that's scary.
The Omen (110 minutes, at area theaters) is rated R for disturbing, extreme and graphic violence and some profanity.
::link source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501426.html
Movie Review: "Seven" (1995)
A Film Review by James Berardinelli 3 stars
United States, 1995
U.S. Release Date: 9/22/95 (wide)
Running Length: 2:03
MPAA Classification: R (Gory crime scenes, violence, profanity)
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Cast: Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow, John C. McGinley, Richard Roundtree, Kevin Spacey
Director: David Fincher
Producers: Arnold Kopelson and Phyllis Carlyle
Screenplay: Andrew Kevin Walker
Cinematography: Darius Khondji
Music: Howard Shore
U.S. Distributor: New Line Cinema
Frequently, mystery/thrillers present us with a cast of about six or seven characters, set up a sequence of grizzly murders, then "surprise" us by revealing which of those six or seven characters is the guilty party. It's a time-honored method that's repeated in at least several movies each year. At the outset, Seven has all the hallmarks of this kind of motion picture. Fortunately, it turns out somewhat smarter and less predictable. Though not without significant flaws, Seven isn't transparent or moronic, and it doesn't insult the average viewer's intelligence.
When all is said and done, the mystery of Seven is not who the killer is -- there's never any question about the identity -- but how he will outsmart the police next, and what he will do as a climax to his killing spree. It's refreshing to find an intelligent maniac who is not undone by a moment of sheer stupidity. From beginning to end, Seven's murderer has the situation under control. The police are his pawns, not the other way around. Shades of Silence of the Lambs.
The good guys are a pair of detectives at opposite ends of their careers. David Mills (Brad Pitt) is new on the job, full of energy and high ideals, and ready to "make a difference" by catching the crooks. William Somerset (Morgan Freeman) is in his last week on the job. His long years studying crime scenes and following up on clues have left him weary and jaded. To him, being a detective isn't about nabbing criminals -- it's about methodically collecting and cataloguing evidence in case a prosecutor ever needs it.
The serial killer pursued by Mills and Somerset is choosing each of his victims based on which of the seven deadly sins (gluttony, greed, sloth, lust, pride, envy, wrath) they have most clearly violated. The deaths form a portion of a decidedly warped sermon.. In their quest to end this bloody, sadistic spree, the two cops appear well-paired, as together they make the perfect detective. Mills is all brawn and little brain. Somerset, on the other hand, spends long hours in the library researching Dante and Chaucer, looking for clues that will enable him to prevent the next killing.
One of the problems with Seven is that Pitt's Mills is not an especially likable character. He's cocky and arrogant, with an inflated opinion of himself. Up until the end, he's convinced that his way is always the best. Pitt doesn't turn in one of his most impressive performances here, either. There's no subtlety whatsoever. In this film, the actor has a single mode: overdrive. Somerset, on the other hand, is a subdued and balanced personality perfectly essayed by Morgan Freeman. By emoting less than his co-star, Freeman frequently steals scenes from him. Gwyneth Paltrow (Flesh and Bone, Jefferson in Paris), one of today's better young actresses, is woefully underused in the role of Mills' wife, Tracy.
Seven is unnecessarily gory and runs for a little too long, but neither of these elements detracts much from the film's enjoyability (unless you have a weak stomach). The same is true of several logical flaws -- they're there, but not overly apparent while the film is on-screen (they can be ruminated about after the credits have rolled). While Seven lacks the cleverness of the superior Usual Suspects, it's strong enough to hold its own against most other thrillers. Seven may always be grim, dark, and rainy, but at least there's a little substance beneath the atmosphere.
::link source: www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1066164-seven/
Babel (2006) Movie Review
My weekly column, “The Devil’s Hammer,” appears every Monday on www.FromTheBalcony.com. The Devil's Hammer on FTB
I am a huge fan of Alejandro González Iñárritu’s previous films, “21 Grams” (2003) and “Amores perros” (2000). Iñárritu is able to bring intensely felt human suffering to the screen. While the onslaught of popular films like “Hostel” and the “Saw” franchise exploit physical suffering in the extreme, Iñárritu shows us emotional pain.
It is not surprising that movie stars Brad Pitt and Cate Blachette wanted to work with Iñárritu even if it meant being a small part of an ensemble cast. Iñárritu’s films possess an emotional peak that embraces suffering everyone can relate to.
Iñárritu and his “21 Grams” and “Amores perros” screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga have fashioned a story that blends together four diverse families and countries: Richard (Pitt) and Susan (Blanchett) are on vacation in Morocco. Their youngest child has died and they are trying to mend their individual guilt over the infant’s death. Their other two children are at home in San Diego being cared for by their long-time housekeeper Amelia (Adriana Barraza).
Traveling in a bus filled with tourists, Susan is hit by a stray bullet. Dangerously close to death and four hours away from a hospital, the bus driver goes to the nearest village, where a villager provides help. The other tourists, selfish Westerners, want to leave Richard and Susan behind and continue their road trip. It is a cruel indictment of how rich people on vacation behave while the poor villagers show wordless compassion.
The bullet was fired from a rifle given to a Moroccan guide by a Japanese hunter. The man then sold the rifle to a goat herder, Anwar (Mohamed Akhzam).
Anwar gives the rifle to his two young sons to shoot jackals killing their goats. In trying to see how far the bullets will go, the youngest boy fires at the bus. Richard has a hard time getting help from the U.S. embassy but does get through to Amelia. She must stay with the children even though her son is getting married in Mexico. Unable to find another sitter for the children, she has no choice but to take the children with her and her nephew Santiago (Gael Garcia Bernal) across the border into Mexico. On the way back to San Diego, Santiago, drunk, gets stopped at the border and then bolts. Pursued by the border police, he leaves Amelia and the two kids in the desert to fend for themselves.
The story shifts to Tokyo, where a young deaf-mute teenager, Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi), is distraught over her mother’s death. Her father (Koji Yakusho) was the Japanese hunter who gave away the rifle. Being deaf in an environment fueled by rock music and sensation-driven language, Chieko indulges in daring sexual behavior as her form of communication.
Even though the title “Babel” explains the theme of the film, it resonated with me on another level. Even though the language barrier or lack thereof (the Japanese storyline) is the dominant theme, it is clear that human pain and suffering has a universal language. The old Moroccan woman understood Susan’s pain and empathized, the father’s anguish over his son’s actions required no subtitles, we understood Chieko’s naked pain, Richard’s frustration and fear did not require dialogue, and Amelia’s horror and tears were emotionally riveting.
Pitt gives the emotional performance required of Iñárritu’s actors. Pitt can portray an ordinary man. And while non-actor Akhzam also finds the right emotional cord, it is Barraza who gives the performance worthy of a Best Supporting Actress nomination.
About author:
Victoria Alexander lives in Las Vegas, Nevada and answers every email. You can contact Victoria directly at masauu@aol.com or by visiting www.FilmsInReview.com
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
In this film, muckraker Michael Moore turns his eye on George W. Bush and his War on Terrorism agenda. He illustrates his argument about how this failed businessman with deep connections to the royal house of Saud of Saudia Arabia and the Bin Ladins got elected on fraudulent circumstances and proceeded to blunder through his duties while ignoring warnings of the looming betrayal by his foreign partners. When that treachery hits with the 9/11 attacks, Moore explains how Bush failed to take immediate action to defend his nation, only to later cynically manipulate it to serve his wealthy backers' corrupt ambitions. Through facts, footage and interviews, Moore illustrates his contention of how Bush and his cronies have gotten America into worse trouble than ever before and why Americans should not stand for it.
The silence before the ovation is what stays with me
Contrary to what so many of us were lead to believe, this movie does not portray a negative message. George W. Bush and his administration aren't painted as fascist tyrants at all. They appear to be fools, power-hungry but fallible. As such, their stranglehold over the American people isn't concrete. There is hope that things can change, and that seems to be the overall message in this film.
For every American soldier Moore shows talking about the adrenaline rush they get when they kill, every soldier that appears on screen as a trigger-happy madman, he shows an American soldier dead on the streets of Iraq. The film progresses as a two-hour reenactment of the thoughts that must go through so many soldiers minds, starting out as a soldier going to war, fighting for the safety of their country against enemies that surely want all Americans dead, but all certainty of their righteousness gives way to hesitation, to men and women questioning why they are there fighting a war that has no clear justification.
Moore also uses his various clips and interviews to show how similar the American civilian population are to the Iraqis. His portrayal of the Saddam-era Iraq was certainly biased, but so many people are happy, looking for joy and prosperity, something that isn't as alien as some of us would like to think of the Iraqis as being. One thing that stays in my mind now, the day after watching this film, is one Iraqi woman crying for her lost family members outside her burned and ruined home, screaming to Allah for help. Comparing that woman to Ms. Lipscombe from Flint, Michigan, who lost her son in the war, crying in her interview with Moore and asking for support from Jesus just shows how this war affects all the people caught up in it equally.
That is to say, all of the people, except those running it. Throughout the horrifying clips of war, we see Bush, who appears to be completely out of touch with how his war is affecting those who are fighting it for him. Bush's bumbling makes up the lighter moments in the film, but in retrospect, they are just as frightening as the War itself.
Moore's overall message was that hope exists, but without action on the part of the silent and downtrodden, that hope will vanish. This is a film designed to have people take action, whether it is in the form of taking to the streets in protest, or simply voting Bush out of office in November. It was a powerful message for a powerful film, and as many have said before me, it received standing ovation at the end. But it was that short moment of silence before the applause that really stays with me. That quiet collective gasp where people are trying to digest the weight of Moore's message.
Yes this movie is biased. It is the war and the world through Moore's eyes, but the message is not buried in the bias. I suppose I can sum it up best by saying this film was painfully human. It is human nature to question injustice and hypocrisy, and Moore is there to remind us of that.
::link source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
