About Me

Name:Emmett of the Unblinking Eye
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

"Flags of Our Fathers" -- Not An American Masterpiece, But Pretty Darn Close

I'm trying to dash this off before I'm called to the big Hewitt table, so if I'm less coherent than normal, please indulge me.

Flags of Our Fathers was one of the better books of 2000, and one of the most personal.  John Bradley tells the story of his father, "Doc" Bradley, a Navy corpsman who helped raise the flag on Iwo Jima, and who was part of a photograph that was emblazoned on the hearts and minds of every American during WWII.  His search for an explanation of why his father never spoke of Iwo Jima or the war made for fascinating reading.

Clint Eastwood has done a masterful job of translating that story to the screen.  Flags of Our Fathers is not strictly speaking, a war movie.  Although there are many battle scenes, they are tangential to the main story -- what makes a hero, and how the media culture can massage and manage reality to serve whatever purpose it chooses.  What the movie makes clear is that the heroes of Iwo Jima were those who remained on the island, not those who, by circumstance, found themselves stateside on a goodwill bond tour.  And no one recognized that more than the three survivors of the flag raising.

If Eastwood isn't nominated for Best Director, if the film is not nominated for Best Picture, and if Adam Beach (whose career has apparently survived Windtalkers) is not nominated for Best Supporting Actor, there's simply no justice.  Eastwood directorial style is perfect for the subject matter, and his mastery of light and color is apparent in every scene.  Beach is wonderful as the one, truly tragic character in the story, the Native American Ira Hayes (previously portrayed by -- ta dah! -- Tony Curtis in The Outsider).  The movie is graphic and, at times, grueling, but it is a cinematic journey well worth taking.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Man of the Year" - A Slight Case of False Advertising

You don't train much to be a parent.  The guidebooks are iffy, at best, and flat wrong, at worst.  But one invariable rule exists:  if you promise your daughter a pony, don't bring home a badger.

Which brings us to "Man of the Year", the latest effort by writer and director Barry Levinson.  Now, if you watch the trailer, it's crystal clear that what you have to look forward to is a Robin Williams "laff riot".  And that is exactly what the filmmakers (apparently) want you to think, because that is what will get you and your money through the door.  But that is absolutely not what you're going to get.  Instead of an off-the-wall comedy -- and given the premise, it could well have been that -- what you get is a fairly dark, very political allegory on the risks of computerized voting and our media culture.  Are there laughs?  Well, smirks maybe, perhaps a couple of chuckles, maybe a guffaw here and there.  But they're few and far between.

Which is what makes the movie so hard to fairly review.  When you have been told that your blind date has a great personality, you expect that might be true, but you know that he or she will defiinitely be ugly.  When it turns out he or she is gorgeous but dull as dirt, it takes a while for you to adjust to your dashed expectations.  And having done so, I have to admit that the movie, for what it is, is not bad.  Not good, but not bad.  Laura Linney shows why she is a truly great film actress as she portrays the compjuter company employee who discovers the computer glitch and is then stalked, drugged, defamed, nearly killed and generally hounded by the powers of Silicon Valley.  Jeff Goldblum is at his smarmy best as the company's lawyer, and Lewis Black gets the chance to almost be funny at times (but not nearly as unleashed as he was in the recent Accepted).  Williams is, for good or bad, Williams, and you either like him or you don't.  And although the story is interesting, if poorly executed and more-than-a-bit implausible, the romance between Williams and Linney never takes off, or makes much sense. 

So should you see it?  If you liked Wag the Dog, and are willing to settle for much less, it may be worth your entertainment dollar.  But if you're expecting Dave (a much better film), go find it and let this dog lie.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Terrific Performances Make "The Last King of Scotland" a Terrific Film

The Last King of Scotland is an astonishing movie with amazing performances by Forest Whitaker as the evil, paranoid and charismatic Idi Amin and James McAvoy as his young Scot doctor.  This fictionalized account of Amin's tyrannical reign is beautifully photographed, eerily bizarre and, at times, horribly gruesome.  It is not for the squeamish or the easily-offended, but it is truly a spectacular film.

Although Whitaker, an underappreciated actor who has starred in some great films (Ghost Dog -- The Way of the Samurai (one of my all-time favorite odd movies), Bird), supported many others (Fast Times at Ridgemont High (close to his debut), Platoon, Good Morning, Vietnam and The Crying Game, among many others) and had his share of stinkers (Battlefield Earth), gives an Oscar-worthy performance as Amin, but it is McAvoy (best known, I suppose as Mr. Tumnus, the Faun in The Chronicles of Narnia) who is the revelation.  He gives a wonderful, nuanced performance as a Scot physician who realizes, too late, that he has hitched his wagon to a very wrong star.

It's in limited release at this time, but if you can find it, go see it.  It's well worth your while.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"The Departed" Is A Truly Great Film

"The Departed" is, quite simply, one of the best, most powerful and most watchable movies of the year.   Jack Nicholson plays Frank Costello, the most feared and powerful member of the Irish mafia in Boston, as a vicious, devious, conflicted miscreant who keeps his kingdom in check through force and fear.  He befriends and recruits a young boy (Matt Damon, in his best and most complex role since Good Will Hunting) in to his gang, and ultimately into the State Police force.  While Damon is reporting the police activities to Nicholson, the police have placed their own informant (Leonardo DiCaprio, who is slowly proving himself to be a fine actor and, in one scene at least, a sort of junior Nicholson) smack in the middle of Nicholson's crew.  Who's going to be found out first?

"The Departed" is brilliantly directed, wonderfully written and well-deserving of its hard "R" rating.  If you are squeamish about violence and language, don't go.  If you're not, and want to see once of the three best pictures so far this year, go out and see it on the big screen.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Top 10 Devil Movies of All Time!!

Interested?  Then take a look!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"The Guardian" - Here It Comes Again!

The big release this week is "The Guardian", and you honestly have to wonder why.  If you stacked all of the movies in which the whole plot revolved around the-crusty-old-guard-training-the-eager-new-guard" -- well, you'd have a lot of movies, with Men of Honor and An Officer and a Gentleman leading the pack.  And this is just one more -- and a very long one, at that.

The plot is fairly predictable:  A legendary, aging, almost washed up Coast Guard rescue swimmer (Kevin Costner, mastering his grizzled look) is forced to train a new generation of Coast Guard swimmers, including one out to break all of his records (Ashton Kutcher, who, for once, comes close to actually acting).  After instilling the ethics of team work and self-sacrifice during the interminable training sequences, they wind up -- surprise!! -- teamed up at the same remote Kodiak, Alaska, location.  From there you can pretty much figure out what happens next.

Is it a bad movie?  No, just predicable.  It's a tremendous morale builder for the Coast Guard, often viewed as the poor stepchild of the uniformed services; the rescue sequences and CGI are seamless and admirable (if not particularly exciting); the exterior scenes in Alaska are spectacular; and the acting is decent.  But -- did I say this before? -- it is loooonnngggg, much longer than it could or should have been, and even with that, some of the characters simply vanish with no explanation.  It's not a disappointment, however, simply because my expectations were so low.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Clinton-Wallace Duel Back on YouTube

From my favorite spot on the internet, imdb.com:  "Fox News on Tuesday demanded that YouTube.com remove a video of Bill Clinton's combative interview with Chris Wallace last Sunday, then allowed the website to restore the video the following day. The Boston Phoenix, which noted that other Fox News clips, which showed the network's commentators in dominant command, had not been ordered removed, asked a Fox spokesperson to explain. The response: 'Our Internet division used poor judgment in asking this to be taken down. We're thrilled the Wallace-Clinton clip has received so many hits on YouTube.' Meanwhile Fox News chief Roger Ailes called Clinton's response to Wallace a 'wild overreaction' to the reporter's question and 'an assault on all journalists.' Ailes told the Associated Press: 'If you can't sit there and answer a question from a professional, mild-mannered, respectful reporter like Chris Wallace, then the hatred for journalists is showing. ... I've never had an interview like that, certainly not with a former president of the United States. ... No one could have been more shocked than I was.'"

So if you haven't seen the interview, you still can.   And don't miss Keith Olberman's "insightful" yet insane take on the interview along with the Fox News "excerpts".
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Top 10 World War I Movies Of All Time ...

... can be viewed here.  Now it's not as complete as I'd like it to be, but it's as complete as I'd like it to be tonight.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Top 10 Substitute Movies of All Time!!

And here it is!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Flyboys" Flies High

Okay, I admit it, I'm an old sap.  I stated watching old movies, I still watch old movies, and I find a charm in old movies that is, frankly, lost in much of what is produced and released today.  Much of the current cinema is form over substance, picture over plot, charisma over character.  And I miss the old style.

Which may be one of the reasons why I liked Flyboys as much as I did.  At the kind invitation of Pete Weitzner, head of Chapman University's TV and Broadcast Journalism Department at its Dodge College of Film and Media Arts, I attended a screening last week at its magnificent 500 seat stadium-style theater, followed by a panel discussion with its producer (Dean Devlin), its director (Tony Bill) and its writer (David S. Ward).  Now, candidly, when the movie began I was more than a little concerned.  The standard this-is-how-we-get-the-boys-together sequence did not bode well for the rest of the movie.  And as the movie rolled along, it seemed that the romance between James Franco and Jennifer Decker added nothing to the story and simply served to stretch the film out to its 127 minute length, rather than to add anything substantive to the mix.  And the depiction of the one overtly Christian character is, frankly, more than a trifle offensive.

But by the time
Flyboys wings its way to its ending -- and it is one of the most unique and imaginative, and least contrived, endings of any movie in a long time (or at least since Crank) -- I found it to be one of the most involving, entertaining and honest movies I've seen in some time.  Because it was made without studio influence or money, the writer, producer and director could make the kind of movie they wanted, not the kind that the studios want you to want, and could make it as true to the real-life Escadrille as dramatic license will allow.  The film was shot in only 50 days, and every cent they spent appears right on the screen.  Using a group of young, talented, generally unknown actors (except for Franco and the inimitable Jean Reno) rather than "stars" allowed them to focus their funds where they belonged -- on the dogfights and the planes.  While the movie is far from perfect, and there are parts that will make many viewers groan, Flyboys remains a stirring epic with a unique and unexpected ending, and spectacular special effects.  And it's suitable for the whole family, although the flying scenes may scare younger viewers.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"The Black Dahlia" Looks Good...

You can always tell a Brian De Palma movie.  His style is distinctive and extremely visual, and when it works, as it did in Phantom of the Paradise (one of my all-time favorite movies), Carrie, Scarface and The Untouchables, it really works.  Unfortunately, when it doesn't --  like in Bonfire of the Vanities and Mission to Mars -- it's almost unwatchable.  But it is never, ever boring.

Which brings us to "The Black Dahlia", De Palma's latest work starring Josh Hartnett, Aaron Eckhart, Hillary Swank and Scarlett JohanssonThe Black Dahlia murder in 1947 Los Angeles was, and remains, one of the great unsolved murders in American history, partially because of the starlet-found-dead angle, partly because of the circumstances of her death, and mostly because it's, well, Los Angeles in the 40's.  Hartnett and Eckhart play boxers and cops who team up in warrants follow the Zoot Suit Riots (a marvelously filmed sequence).  Eckhart has a long term, although admittedly odd, relationship with Johansson, and the three are soon inseparable.  Only when Hartnett and Eckhart become involved in the investigation of the Black Dahlia murder do things begin to unravel.

The movie is stylish, lavishly designed, wonderfully filmed (there's always something going on in the background) and well-costumed.  It even has a special appearance by William Finley, the lead in Phantom of the Paradise, in a brief but crucial role.  What it lacks, unfortunately, is a coherent plot.  The last half hour of the movie loses its focus, and with it, much of the audience.

What distinguishes The Black Dahlia from Hollywoodland, both of which deal with Los Angeles and the film industry in the middle of the 20th Century is that the Dahlia actually has a point of view.  It has a culprit, it has a motive (sorta) and at least it tries to reach a conclusion.  Three factors that Hollywoodland sorely lacks.

Is it worth your $10?  I wish it were.  But its array of disturbing images and its lack of a coherent plot cannot be cured by its well-cast and well-directed cast or by De Palma's flair as a director.  So wait for the DVD.  And buy it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"The Path to 9/11" a Right Wing Screed??

Well, no.  Much as some would like you to believe it was, any reasonably rational, fair-minded critic would have to acknowledge that it did a pretty good job of hammering at both sides for their many terrorism failings.  Although not without its flaws, the telefilm is probably the best, and most accessible, depiction of the root causes of 9/11 produced to date.  If you did not see it, and get a chance to, you should.  And you should get it in the hands of your friends on both sides of the political aisle.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Dem's Attempt to Squelch "The Path to 9/11"

As you may know, there has been a fairly-concerted (and ultimately unsuccessful) effort to squelch "The Path to 9/11" by the Dems.  The letter from the Democratic leadership to Disney is the most egregious.

Now, the question is, do the following references...
  • "Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation"
  • "The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events."
  • "Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged."
... threaten Disney's and ABC's public broadcasting license?  Explicitly, no; implicitly, yes.  Otherwise, there would be no reason to include these references in the letter, since they add nothing to the arguments made.  And such threats are something that no one, regardless of their political persuasion, should do, condone or tolerate.  If you agree, contact Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer and Dorgan -- politely and civilly -- and let them know -- particularly if they directly represent you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"The Path to 9/11": A Scary Proposition

The first half of "the Path to 9/11" is now in, and if ABC caved to the critics, it was not patently obvious on the screening.  The only clear change was the addition of a mostly-meaningless disclaimer at the beginning, explaining that it was, in fact, a movie, not a documentary; that it was derived from a number of sources, including, but not limited to, the official 9/11 report; and that it's a movie, for heaven's sake.

With that said, and even though the content was important and, at times, absorbing, it was not a great or even memorable movie.  Although some may adore the modern film traits of extreme closeups and 1 second cuts, I don't.  But what it did do is emphasize that those that we are at war with take this battle very seriously, that they are very determined and scary adversaries, and if we don't take them seriously -- if we treat it as a "police action" and indict those who are out to kill us -- we are in for equally serious trouble.

More tomorrow.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Box Office Barely Makes a Mark

The new movies came in with a whimper this weekend, with "The Covenant" taking the number 1 spot.  It was not screened for the critics, which shows why films often aren't screened by the critics.  The pecking order with gross, number of outlets, total gross and weeks in release:

1. The Covenant (Sony / Screen Gems)
   $9.0 million | 2,681 | $9.0 million | 1

2. Hollywoodland (Focus Features)
   $6.0 million | 1,548 | $6.0 million | 1

3. Invincible (Buena Vista)
   $5.8 million | 2,987 | $45.7 million | 3

4. The Protector (Weinstein Company)
   $5.0 million | 1,541 | $5.0 million | 1

5. Crank (Lions Gate)
   $4.8 million | 2,515 | $19.9 million | 2

Source: Box Office Mojo (www.boxofficemojo.com)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive