Dr. Don-2 Reviews

My Father's Angel (1999)

Powerful film, compelling subject, amazingly well done on such a small budget...

[9/10 · 4 March 2001]

Though obviously not a well-funded effort, there is not much to complain about technically in this important film which, unfortunately, few people will ever see.

Set in Vancouver, B. C., the film portrays a brutalized Bosnian muslim refugee family (father, his catatonic wife, and their rebellious teen-aged son) whose lives and suffering in Bosnia are never forgotten in their day-to-day existence as emigres, with hints at their experiences provided in conversations which blend in naturally in the script and, if anything, are sometimes more bleak or chilling than contrived film recreations would have been. Their paths cross with a family of Bosnian Serb immigrants who left Bosnia prior to the genocide of the muslims by the Serb forces. The natural emotions among members of both families are convincingly portrayed, powerful and poignant.

This film takes the side of long-suffering humanity and mercifully makes no judgment on the main characters despite their frequent failures to achieve Hollywood-style implausible triumphs of good will over old prejudices and fears. It brings the horror of ethnic violence and genocide down to the level of the individual, and spares us the kind of tidy, satisfying and utterly ridiculous happy ending which most producers would have insisted upon and which would have ruined this gem of a film. It's bleak, but that's realistic and necessary, and its honesty allows the moments of grace which do occur to seem real and possible, not contrived, and therefore to touch the soul more deeply.

I'm tempted to say that this film should be seen by every Serb, but that would be unfair -- it should be seen by all of us who have been tempted to see another group of people as, well, somehow not quite as good, quite as human, or quite as deserving as themselves.

That systematic rape, murder of civilians and mass forced relocations of whole communities occurred in Europe so recently, after what we supposed we 'civilized' folks had learned from the Nazi horrors, is a chilling piece of insight into what makes us tick and what makes seemingly ordinary people somehow become capable of torture, rape and murder of their neighbours. Having said that, this is not a propaganda film for any group or ideology, though it is apparent that many people in the Serb diaspora as well as, certainly, most Serbs still living in the Balkans, choose to remain blind to the deeds of their countrymen, much as many Germans did during and after the Nazi reign of terror across Europe.

If you get a chance to see this film, don't miss it. It's a better film than many Oscar nominees over the past few years.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Okay, if you want the observations of a former IV narcotics addict, here's one.

[10/10 · 7 January 2001]

Though I am pleased to see that most people have given this film very positive reviews, I had to laugh at some of the negative ones questioning the validity of Aronofsky's presentation of drug addiction, including those alluding to the film being anti-drug 'propaganda'.

Hello, all you deep thinkers. This former IV narcotics addict can verify that "Requiem for a Dream" comes closer than any film I've ever seen (that's a whole lot of celluloid, folks) in portraying what addiction -- no matter what the chemical -- is really like. With all due respect to good efforts such as "Clean and Sober" and "Trainspotting", none of those films takes us into the inner desperation, insanity (literally), anger, isolation, shame and hopelessness that addiction ultimately becomes, nearly as well as "Requiem" does. If you haven't stolen or otherwise degraded yourself repeatedly to get a drug "one last time", used to overdose levels knowingly without wanting to, used drugs you hate just because they're there and something awful is better than nothing at all, become capable of hurting others you love intentionally when having to choose between them and the drug, lost the ability to function as a friend, worker, family member or citizen, and kept coming back for more because the compulsion and obsession overwhelmed everything you knew or wanted to do, then please do not pretend to be able to say whether this film is an accurate representation of drug addiction. Thank you.

As for technical merit, the acting performances especially by Burstyn and Leto were absolutely brilliant. I knew Burstyn was that talented, by Leto totally surprised me and gave one of the very best male lead performances of Y2K. The script was flawless, the camera work inspired, the frequent flash sequences representing the process of getting loaded were cut to the bone. This is an exceedingly important film. It's been over eleven years since I touched any mood-altering chemical, nor do I crave to use, but this film brought all that pathetic, degrading, relentless, bleak hopelessness right back. All you nice little suburban dope smokers who think you know better, please keep your pleasant little self-delusions about the harmlessness of drug use to your pleasant little addled brain numbed selves. This film shows what it's really like in the big time. It sucks.

Mission to Mars (2000)

Mommy, mommy, make it stop!

[1/10 · 12 March 2000]

After five minutes I turned to my friends and said, "See you later, I've got to go home and write my review." I wish I had been serious. What are Tim Robbins and Gary Sinise doing in a piece of tripe like this? The best scenes consume approximately three minutes and are availble on line in the form of a trailer. The other almost two hours are excruciating. Everything is explained to the level of a ten year old's comprehension, and improbably explained at that. Ouch, my head hurts. This is the sort of film that is made to make very bad films look very good. And also to make quite a lot of money for everyone involved. What a precipitious drop from "Scarface" to mindlessness. Wooden performances, a hideously awful brain numbing script, unconvincing special effects, and it's going to make a half a billion dollars. This film has no redeeming qualities. Therefore I fully expect it to receive ten Academy Award nominations.

Magnolia (1999)

Gets my vote for Best Picture of 1999

[10/10 · 15 January 2000]

What a refreshing film, starting with the frenzied beginning -- frenetic, exhuberant, witty, left me breathless and kept pouring it on and on. This is a mosaic of stories, each one worth telling on its own, all woven together by threads of circumstance -- coincidence? Fate? Jason Robards gives a marvelous performance, Tom Cruise finally gets to shuck his inhibitions and use all his talents in the best role of his career, and a host of other fine performances enliven an Altmanesque ensemble production worth several viewings. Innovative and daring script and editing, a perfect score, hilarity, irony and moments of grace -- I haven't been this excited by a film since Malick's magnificent "The Thin Red Line". But then again, I'm a sucker for filmmakers who dare to create highly entertaining genuine works of art.

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

Now THIS is an excellent film. Should garner 6 Oscar nominations but probably won't.

[10/10 · 27 December 1999]

First of all -- arrrggghhh! Please look up the words "sociopath" and "psychopath" before using them in reviews of this film. "Pulp Fiction" was full of the former, and Hannibal Lecter is the best example of the latter ever portrayed on film. Thank you.

Minghella, who created a truly remarkable and excellent film last time around, adapting an even better novel by Ondaatje ("The English Patient", of course), this time has bettered the novelist (Patricia Highsmith), IMHO, with an engaging story worth telling and exceedingly well told. Matt Damon's portrayal of Tom Ripley fulfills the promise his earlier performances made but never quite materialised. This is no psychopath nor a sociopath (cf., the scene in the drifting boat with him and the body in repose; the tear in the opera scene; his "basement room" that no one can enter but in which he wanders alone and afraid, wanting to give someone the key so they can enter), but a complex, credible human being led astray by greed, envy, jealousy, infatuation and chance opportunity. Oh, talented indeed, Mr. Ripley, and not the first fine film character whose talents bring him and others to tragic ends. In the novel(s) Mr. Ripley is more two-dimensional and more indeed psychopathic, in the colloquial sense at least. Here his character is more rich and hence, to me, both more chilling and more sympathetic.

Jude Law's portrayal of Dickie was also superb. I had less sympathy for this spoiled and arrogant cold fish than for his nemesis -- and that speaks to how well Law played the part -- nuances of speech, gesture and inflection which came not only, I'm sure, from fine writing and directing, but from his own feel for the role and ability to express it.

Gwyneth Paltrow was given a much more developed role here than in "Shakespeare in Love" and handled it deftly and convincingly. Cate Blanchett in her smaller role was able to convey both the repellent character of the spoiled rich, beneath the veneer of culture, and at the same time the ordinary human need for connection, attention and affection which makes even the idle rich human after all.

Smaller roles by Philip Hoffman (who plays creepy but very sharp chacters very well: "Boogie Nights", "Happiness") as Dickie's well, sort of friend; Jack Davenport as Peter (just the scene when he and Tom first collide in the opera house -- when everything was communicated in a couple of glances and gestures -- was enough for kudos) and Sergio Rubini as Inspector Riverini all contributed to the overall acting excellence.

Add to this the breathtaking scenery and cinematography and the diverse musical score (jazz, opera, symphonic) and intelligent script writing and it's a thoroughly fine film.

The crafting of the last scene on the cruise ship exemplifies the very pleasing attentiveness to detail in this film.

I'd nominate Minghella for director and screenplay adaptation, Damon for actor, Law for supporting actor, John Seale for cinematography, Walter Murch for editing. Costumes and art direction were very well done.

I would not give this film all these awards -- there's "Besieged", "American Beauty", "The Fight Club" (yup, that's right), "Bringing Out the Dead" and "The Insider" to consider (and no NOT the manipulative and simple-minded "The Green Mile"). All in all a great year for films after last year, when "The Thin Red Line" was way ahead of the rest, leaving "Gods and Monsters", "Celebration" and "Central Station" to vie for second best.

IMHO, that is.

The Green Mile (1999)

It's not a great film just because they made you cry.

[1/10 · 24 December 1999]

Nice packaging, but too much of it. Typical Stephen King story, well-told but not much weight. Full of stereotypes and predictable good guy/bad guy stuff. I loved Tom Hanks in "Philadelphia" -- that was a challenging role and he performed it magnificently, with depth of character, pathos but no sentimentality. Ever since, though, he's taken on one interchangeable role after another. Enough, already. The sad thing is that I truly CAN believe that almost 50% of the IMDB voters so far rate this very average and over-long film as a "10". Excellence apparently is a function of the volume of tears they make you shed. I say, "make you", because I think this film fully intends to manipulate emotions -- the emotions of white, comfortable, middle class Americans who enjoy cheering for the oppressed, simple but pure of heart big black man who is abused by Southern crackers. Aren't we glad we're not like that? Yet again, a black man gets to be a parody, not a person. We white folks don't have to be afraid just because he's big and black, see, 'cause he's really a Jesus figure ("J. C.", his initials). What a relief. Still wouldn't want him living next door, though, would we? All in all, good actors playing two dimensional roles. In the real world, as Kosovo and Northern Ireland and Rwanda show, we're all just a hair-trigger away from being cruel. Let's have more films that recognize that there are few good guys and bad guys, just a whole lot of us doing the best we can and trying to do it right. That's too complicated for most Hollywood types, and doesn't usually make much money. "Dead Man Walking" was ten times the film that this one was, and even it wasn't a "10".

"Besieged" and "The Informer" were so much better than "The Green Mile" that to mention Oscars without naming those films is ridiculous.

And that's all this middle-aged long-time and ardent lover of films has to say.

Bringing Out the Dead (1999)

This should win Scorcese his long-deserved Best Director award.

[9/10 · 27 October 1999]

There wasn't a single scene I would change in this masterpiece by one of America's finest directors.

Watching Nicolas Cage deteriorate in "Leaving Las Vegas", I thought he was a better actor than he was allowed to be by the script he was given. Watching him go crazy in this film convinces me of how good he really can be.

There are some intensely disturbing scenes in this film -- not the usual blood and gore kind of disturbing scenes so popular with the kiddies, but scenes of the dark side of NYC street life that are all too real. The cinematography, directing and editing of these scenes are masterful. Counterpoint to all this is found in the tenderness and humour woven seamlessly into the fabric of the plot.

Arquette: "What's wrong with the doctor in there (emergency)? He keeps mumbling and poking his eye when he talks to me." Cage (great deadpan, brief pause, and says, as if it should be obvious): "He's working a double shift." Calmly, like talking to someone who clearly should see how all this is normal and to be expected. Hilarious.

Cage, in ambulance with IV line, O2 mask, seeing his partner staring at him, only then aware of how he might appear: "These are hard times, Tom." Had to laugh out loud.

This is a great piece of work that entertained me by involving me in the characters and the story line, disturbed me by the content and travails of the people I saw, and uplifted me ever so gently, not by speechifying but by stubborn nuances of human compassion in the midst of, well, hell.

This film is a 10 out of 10, and should earn Scorcese the Oscar for Best Director that he has long deserved. I'll see it a few more times.

Fight Club (1999)

This film is a fine piece of art, not a political statement.

[10/10 · 27 October 1999]

That is, I've already read reviews trashing it for its supposed support of physical violence, anarchic bombings, and so on.

However, this is actually a film -- in this case, a work of art in form of a film -- and not a manifesto! Starting from the dramatic opening, followed closely by some excellent dry humour (Ikeaworld), the film follows the disintegration of the finely-wrought defenses of a man whose illusions and reality are untenably in conflict.

Edward Norton is brilliant as the narrator. Picking up from his fine performance in "American History X", he is better still in this role, with the gradual deconstruction of a highly-strung mind expressed with glimpses, gestures, hesitations, mutterings and unpredictable outbursts. Very convincing, very sympathetic and also very scary.

Brad Pitt, who I like to discount as an actor (for good reason, generally) was a great and pleasant surprise in the role of alter ego. Given the chance to play, he shows a lot in this role and earns respect as an actor, not a pretty face.

The dark humour leavens the subject matter sufficiently to make it hard for me to understand how critics such as in Entertainment Weakly (sic) rail at the film for being in favour of violence and mayhem. For goodness sake -- it's a portrayal of characters, not propaganda. This film is no more a proposal for violence than "Silence of the Lambs" promotes cannibalism.

I saw this film on consecutive nights and was just as satisfied with its editing, script, cinematography, direction and acting on the second night as on the first. Rates a 9 out of 10 from me.

So far this is turning out to be a fine year for American cinema. "Eyes Wide Shut" (a satire that most people mistook for a story about orgies), "American Beauty", "Bringing Out the Dead" and "The Fight Club", plus the non-American film "Besieged" all are worthy of Oscar nominations for Best Film and for Best Director, plus some acting nominations for each.

Three Kings (1999)

Worth seeing if only for exposing some Gulf War myths.

[7/10 · 4 October 1999]

Decent enough of a film. It's being called a "Western" instead of a war movie -- if so, it's a Western with an attempt at a conscience.

I appreciated the brief acknowledgements of the devastation caused by the Iraqi invasion, looting and burning of Kuwait, including its environment, although incredibly more destruction resulted than just a few birds dying agonizingly in tar pits. I was happily surprised that the film blew the "collateral damage" myth out of the water -- the American press, which was totally muzzled by the U. S. Army throughout the conflict, bought right into that lie, so its citizens didn't have to fret over the civilian toll of U. S. bombs on Iraq. Islam was treated with uncharacteristic respect for an American film. The irony of the U. S. having previously equipped the Iraqi army (including training it in torture techniques) during the Iran-Iraq war was nicely noted.

Finally, it was quite unexpected that a Hollywood film would tell the truth about the cynical U. S. government encouragement given to the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein -- these people did rise up and are still paying the price for their betrayal by the indecisive Mr. George Bush, who apparently thought Kuwaiti oil (and a few hundred autocratic Kuwaiti oil sheikhs) were pretty important, but a few million ordinary Shiites in Iraq were not. They were left hanging -- thousands of them quite literally -- as a consequence.

The acting was fair to good, but not IMHO "Oscar material" as some people are suggesting, and the film can't compare on any level with "Besieged", "Eyes Wide Shut" or "American Beauty" as far as Academy Awards go. Oops, there I go again, imagining that the voters for the awards have functioning brains... Sorry.

The Hollywood ending cost the film some points in my rating -- without spoiling the ending for those who haven't seen it, I'll just say the finale was unrealistic. Also, it's tiring to have so many films telling you what happened to the protagonists after the end of the story ("Joe Blow now sells real estate in Guatemala", etc.).

Worth seeing; 7 out of 10.

American Beauty (1999)

Oscars all around -- in a perfect world.

[10/10 · 26 September 1999]

Whaddya know, a fine film which assumes I can think and know how to feel! Phenomenal acting, editing, script and very effective cinematography, plus a story worth telling and credible characters to care about.

Kevin Spacey and Annette Bening are brilliant yet only slightly outshine Wes Bentley and Mena Suvari. There is a tenderness to this film which makes its black satire intensely involving -- not the cheap bleakness and cynicism of Tarantino and his equally sophomoric imitators. The characters in this film, even at their worst (and they do behave badly), are fully human and demand compassion even while making us sick with contempt or when they're just plain pathetic.

The cinematography was effective and innovative, especially the scenes-within-scenes (on Bentley's TV/digital video monitor), to give us both detail, gentle irony and multiple perspectives.

In a plot with several plausible endings, it was gratifying to be unsure of the precise outcome because, as in real life, so many possibilities existed and were developed. Spacey can act -- he doesn't have to give us a ham-fisted monologue for us to know his thoughts and feelings. What a moment of grace for his character Lester when he hears "It's my first time", and how convincing and understated is his awakening from the tunnel vision of his obsession to the humble truths, his and hers.

I would predict Oscars (certainly there will be nominations) for this film for Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Actress in a Leading Role, and Best Supporting Actor, as well as, perhaps, best screenplay and Best Actress in a Supporting Role, except I know the voters for the Academy Awards are mostly village idiots who collect Star Wars trinkets for intellectual stimulation and rarely see half the films they vote on anyway, but that's another matter, eh?

Recommended without reservation -- "10 out of 10", first film over an "8" this year for me.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

More Spielberg melodrama. Yawn.

[3/10 · 26 September 1999]

Sorry, but I don't like being manipulated and constantly being told what to feel, and Spielberg ALWAYS does this in his "serious" films. He should stick to light-hearted adventure stories, at which he is very good.

The opening and closing cemetery scenes were heavy-handed. The subject matter doesn't need flag-waving, Steven, we get the point without you rubbing our faces in it.

The opening battle scene is very well done, except it's voyeuristic and even pornographic. I saw the reaction of the kids in the front row and they were getting off on the blood and gore, just like in a video game. I think Malick's filming of the battle scenes in The Thin Red Line was much more effective -- it puts you in the midst of the grass, fire, smoke, concussive explosions and total chaos and is quite unnerving. Should've gotten the Best Cinematography Oscar.

I cringed at Hanks' line "Earn this". Again, Spielberg seems to think we can't get such insights on our own without them being crammed down our throats. It's insulting. To have Hanks speak that line implies an insult to Damon's character, too.

The line,"Tell me I was a good man" is just awful script-writing. Groan.

Let's see, how can I put this without giving away the plot and therefore having this review banned? Okay, I thought it was really sophomoric to have the German POW that "X" (a main American character who shall remain unnamed) turned loose be the one to kill "X" in the end -- the odds against such a turn of events actually happening were quite overwhelming. To put that in the script was an "in your face" attempt at irony, right out of a bad film school project.

I was mostly disappointed with what could have been a fine film if the director had not done what he always does -- practice overkill and leave nothing to the imagination, underestimating his audience, and propagandizing.

I also think it's offensive to make a "Good Yanks, Bad Krauts" film. My uncles who fought against the German army knew better. This war, contrary to those who want to rewrite history to make it pretty, was about property, not saving the Jews nor stopping fascism (except when fascism threatened other people's property). Nazism was tolerated and even approved of in Britain, France and the U. S. before Hitler invaded France, and Britain and the U. S. turned away Jewish refugees from Hitlerism even after the start of the war. The Americans didn't enter the war to stop Hitler, they made huge profits from it till 1941, and only entered it when the Japanese made it impossible for them to stay out of it. This film's ideology pretends otherwise.

Malick's film is much more accurate and, therefore, much less popular. Based faithfully on the novel by James Jones (who fought in Guadalcanal), it doesn't use war as a way to make people feel good, it tells the truth about war and those who fight in it, not disparagingly but realistically. I care about its characters, because they are believable, not caricatures like those in Private Ryan. The Thin Red Line is all the more uplifting because of its realism, and more enduring.

For those, by the way, who keep writing that we who prefer The Thin Red Line are "pseudo-intellectual", I think they really mean that they themselves are anti-intellectual, a popular stance in the U. S. these days.

From a friend in Canada, where unlike most of you in the States, we take ourselves and our mythologies with a healthy grain of salt.

Besieged (1998)

A finely constructed film, a story worth telling.

[10/10 · 19 June 1999]

After the first few minutes I knew I could just relax and enjoy this film -- that it would be well-acted, subtle, visually appealing and well-edited. Bertolucci presents an engaging variation of a love triangle with his characteristic sensitivity and attention to detail.

How wonderful to see a film in which the range of human emotions is revealed by acting instead of with clumsy or forced dialogue. We see his hand linger on her dress draped over a chair in her vacant room, her evolving and conflicting attraction and doubts shown in her gestures and expressions -- nothing overstated, much left to the imagination.

The musical score (Chopin, Coltrane, Keita and others) is in itself totally enjoyable as it binds together the images and themes of this fine film. Bertolucci's editing is superb. The film's climax and ending are, well, perfect.

Nine out of ten, maybe more -- I'll be seeing it again soon.

The General's Daughter (1999)

Wasted cast, snuff porn scenes, and please stop explaining everything!

[3/10 · 19 June 1999]

A film with James Woods, John Travolta, Madelaine Stowe, Timothy Hutton and James (how is Babe?) Cromwell could not be missed. And I won't miss it, having seen it -- as in, I'll dash off this review and try to forget it.

I won't criticize it for being unabashedly formulaic -- which it is -- because, well, innovative and creative films are few and far between anyway. But, sheesh!, the first third had way too many obviously portentous scenes -- we're bludgeoned with them. There's heavy innuendo whenever anyone speaks, hammed up with the kind of facial expressions so characteristic of overacting. Further, the behaviour of the army characters was confusingly erratic -- sometimes too stereotypically puffed-up to be believed, sometimes informal enough to demand a courts-martial.

Things picked up after about thirty minutes and an interesting plot seemed to be unfolding, notwithstanding a totally pointless distracting sideline -- a hokey, done-a-thousand-times-better bit of turf-war animosity between a civilian cop and the swaggering military investigator (Travolta). The depiction of the crime scene, however, was offensive. Panning repeatedly on the woman's nude body, lingering grisly images over and over in the rape scene, complete with graphic descriptions of how it felt -- all of this was gratuitous to the point of pornography. This carried through to the end of the film (snuff porn fanciers, God help them, will be quite gratified, at least).

Compared with the gruesome murder scenes in, say, "Seven", which horrify by presenting brief glimpses and letting the imagination do the rest, these scenes are drawn-out and heavy-handed. The murder scenes in "Seven" left me queasy about the psychopath; those in this film leave me worried about the film director. If nothing else, that's a distraction.

If you're the sort of film-goer who likes to sleep through most of the movie and have everything explained by monologues at the end, this is your kind of film. Leaving nothing unsaid, the last half hour is full of exactly the sort of confessions of the soul that do not ever happen in real life. People with no compelling reason to expose their career-threatening secrets -- people who have spent seven years concealing them in a cold, calculated and rigid conspiracy -- crumble one at a time before two underling investigators with little to go on other than hunches and the occasional totally illegal and improbable beating of a witness.

Not content to treat us as severely lacking in imagination, the filmmakers felt a further need to tell us in a written postscript that the bad guy got his just deserts and that there are lots of women in the armed forces who are going to do just fine. What's the point? That despite this gang rape the military is a cool place for women? There must be a point; this film can't resist making points.

My point is, this cast is full of people who can act. I hope each of them finds a film worthy of talented actors and actresses next time.

My rating is five out of ten, including one point each for the two very funny one-liners. Spend your money on something worthwhile and entertaining, like "Besieged".

The Celebration (1998)

This family would need a lot of help just to be dysfunctional.

[10/10 · 26 May 1999]

First of all, the home video camera style, casting and editing perfectly suited the subject matter and script. Wealthy and overbearing patriarch is feted on the occasion of his 60th birthday -- extended family and hangers-on gather with some of the best and worst aspects of our culture on display. It's also a rather sad occasion, as one of daddy's daughters killed herself not long ago, but several guests mention how "nice" the funeral was, and which room is mine? Eldest son rises to give a toast to the old man -- and out comes some unpleasantness that people would either prefer to pretend they didn't hear, or stuff forcefully back down his throat. Then the fun really starts.

Thanks to the cast for acting with restraint -- and being believable.

Some very black humour (including pathetic scenes of the decadent bourgeoisie at play), none of it gratuitous, some of it damning, some just outrageously funny. But this is not a light film in any sense. Guess what really happens when the victimised family member tells the truth? Ouch! What about when mommy gets to choose between husband and child? Double ouch!! And finally, when victim asks dad why he did it -- well, prepare for the blow to the old solar plexus...

Trust me, I know. This is how it really happens. It's good to see a well-crafted film (that gives its human themes paramount importance) on this subject. I'm tired of watching films which try to make me feel sorry for rich kids whose parents just don't understand how hard it is to be a rich kid with pimples.

As the families (one in ten?) with histories like this one can attest, being "dysfunctional" would have been a very happy place to be, compared to the reality as shown in this fine film.

The Mummy (1999)

"Indiana Jones lite" (very lite)

[6/10 · 10 May 1999]

Others have done the hard (tedious?) work of detailing the plot and acting mediocrity.

In the opening sequences we are told that the Egyptian guardians of life and the afterworld first of all want to wreak the worst punishment imaginable on Pharaoh's murderer -- but that, holy smokes, if he's ever unearthed and set free he'll gain all the power necessary to destroy all. Somebody's idea of a consolation prize???

The special effects were okay but, hey, when aren't they, these days (at that price, anyway!), which leaves us with a plot full of holes, very average acting, a few nice desert scenes and the sort of toss-off one-liners that are credible coming from a character (and actor -- Harrison Ford) we believe to be tough as nails despite real fear, but not credible from Fraser's character.

Not a waste of time if you've got time to kill (I don't) or kids who will believe this movie is scary.

Rating = 6 of 10.

P. S. For all you Hollywood types planning to do "Blade Runner Lite", HANDS OFF!!!

Central Station (1998)

The best foreign language film of 1998, hands down.

[10/10 · 4 May 1999]

What a stunning achievement in a leading actress role for Fernanda Montenegro! It's easy to see why, at 69, she is the most popular film and legitimate theatre actress in Brazil.

This is a story worth telling, lovingly and credibly told. I stopped waiting for the emotional manipulations so predictable in Hollywood films with this sort of theme -- after a half hour or so I relaxed, knowing I'd be allowed to witness a story unfold on the screen without heavy-handed moralizing or sugar-coated characterizations. This film was populated with human characters, not stereotypes. Because of this it was possible to stay emotionally in touch with the two main characters and those in smaller roles throughout -- as each faced crises or morally ambiguent choices unpredictably but true to the characters as they were developed by time spent with them.

Caught up in the tensions of the story line, I didn't fully appreciate the cinematography as much as on the second viewing. I'll bet it strikes a particularly deep chord in its Brazilian audience.

Such iconography so naturally blended into the film visually -- the reverse Madonna and child, the religious ecstasy of the celebrants, the barrenness yet stubborn hopefulness in the prefabricated barracks-style freshly created "communities" in the countryside, the older and younger brother at the lathe, the summary execution of the young thief in the rail line...

What a breath of fresh air this film was. Superior to all its Oscar competitors, and I certainly would have awarded Best Actress to Montenegro!

10 of 10. (only two films got that rating from me in '98)

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Every movie-goer sees his own film...

[10/10 · 1 May 1999]

Having taken the time to read scores of reviews for TTRL (including IMDb ones here), I'm reminded of the movie subscript for this most controversial film: "Every man fights his own war." What a polarization exists amongst its viewers, and a lot of emotion both ways.

I was stunned, moved, transfixed and totally absorbed by this film, even more so on subsequent viewings. I was one of the considerable number of people who, as the credits appear, sit quietly till one has to leave -- still stuck in the film's experience. I'm not angry at others who merely fell asleep. It's odd how some of the film's harsher critics seem compelled to vent their anger in disparaging comments against those who loved it -- most of those who liked the film were gentler in commenting on its critics.

In contrast to what some have written, "The thin red line" has nothing to do with the British infantry in its imperial past. Jones referred to two related quotes in his excellent book, both having to do with a thin line between sanity and insanity. Whether "justified" or not, necessary or not, there is a lot of insanity in the war experience by anyone's definition of insanity.

War exists and seems to recreate itself -- I never got the idea from Malick's film that he was preaching that we should just stop having wars. On the contrary, he takes war as a given in the human part of nature, and shows how individual human beings variously adapted (or mal-adapted!) in order to be able to keep eating, breathing and, yes, killing. The war experience is not primarily about shooting and blowing things up -- as Jones described from his own experience, it's largely about what happens between skirmishes -- strife and comradeship, fear and bravado, homesickness and freedom from past constraints, and waiting to die or to see a buddy die. People came, died, and were replaced -- much as portrayed by the cameo appearances in the film that confused or upset some viewers. Veterans always talk about how hard it is when you have to rely on your buddies (and feel for them) even though odds are most of them will die.

What is most important to me (and it doesn't have to be for anyone else, I know that) is how the eternal themes of humanity are affected and expressed in such circumstances. All great works of art have something to do with the themes of beauty, pain, triumph, despair, good and evil. There's nothing wrong with entertainment as a diversion (The Matrix was fine fun); there's room both for film for fun and for film as art. Saving Ryan's Privates was mostly good entertainment (although I found it terribly manipulative and jingoistic), while TTRL explores the themes I mentioned above, never with easy answers. If you found the voice-overs heavy-handed, maybe it's because you're used to Hollywood telling us what to think and feel and thought Malick was doing the same. Watch again and see if he's not just giving us access to various individuals' often conflicting perspectives.

As for those who think the film portrays "our soldiers" in a bad light, my family members who fought in WWII described their experiences and their reactions much as those shown in TTRL -- they were ordinary men, decent enough people, not heroes though sometimes unpredictably capable of the heroic, and devastated by their experiences. I'm proud of them for having done all they could to do what they felt was their responsibility, and to keep some humanity intact in spite of the horror. None of them told me they felt "ennobled" by war; they endured it and were badly hurt by it but didn't feel sorry for themselves, either.

In TTRL I got to see this portrayed with such compassion I wept. Even the guy (Dale) who ripped gold teeth out of the mouths of dying Japanese soldiers was no stereotypical villain -- he has his moment of grace as do they all. No one's defenses are portrayed as impregnable, not even Witt's. No stereotype himself, we see him kill over a dozen soldiers in battle, while still trying to see God in the midst of the chaos. And what a powerful scene at his life's end, fulfilling his own striving for self-sacrifice, and recognizing in a moment of epiphany where his own immortality lie. Those who couldn't find a plot line in the film must have missed the first ten minutes...

Maybe it's because of my own experience in life that I respond to this film so strongly. I endured and survived ten years of intense, inescapable unrelenting abuse as a child. I remember even as a small child trying to make sense of it all -- looking for the good, the reasons, God's plan, my purpose. Others who've survived trauma (in the Holocaust camps, on the cancer wards) often describe how such experiences focussed their attention on things that matter, beyond the physical realities they could not control. Ever since my childhood I've moved through life with a second awareness -- that examination and self-examination while "real time" goes on.

That's what Malick portrayed, for me, in this film. Maybe you think that's "sophomoric" or "pretentious". It may not seem so when you're in the midst of a struggle, or on your death bed...

DGH

P. S. I organized a special screening of this film locally for a few friends -- 400 others paid to come, by word of mouth. Over a hundred sat spell-bound as the credits scrolled by -- hushed and not wanting to leave. Fellow wounded souls, some of them, I'll bet.