artemis_5 Reviews

The Red Baron (2008)

High Flying Nobility

[7/10 · 16 June 2010]

"The Red Baron" represents the English nickname given to Manfred von Richthofen (Matthias Schweighöfer), the handsome aristocratic ace German fighter pilot of World War I who went on to become a legend in his country and abroad. As a fighter pilot experienced in dog fighting, von Richthofen sees war in terms of duels fought between individuals governed by the rules of gentlemanly sport. Enemy pilots become friends, and the object of aerial combat becomes forcing an enemy plane to land rather than killing its pilot. When his brother and fellow aviator causes a French pilot to crash and burn in front of his eyes, von Richthofen expresses dismay.

While stationed in France, he befriends a Canadian pilot after shooting him down named Captain Roy Brown (Joseph Fiennes), and begins a romance with a German nurse named Käte Otersdorf (Lena Headey). It is Otersdorf who introduces von Richthofen into the harsh realities of war when she takes him to a hospital ward filled with men who are horribly disfigured. Otersdorf comes off as an early 20th century pacifist; she treats soldiers regardless of their nationality and cannot understand why anyone would want to be a soldier. As a result of her feelings about war, she is initially put off by von Richthofen, but it should come as no surprise that she eventually succumbs to his charms.

Inspite of his relationship with Otersdorf, von Richthofen never loses his enthusiasm for combat, even taking to the air after suffering a serious injury. Von Richthofen's reasons for wanting to fly go beyond the natural desire of any pilot for risk and the sensation of souring like a hawk. He wants to be with his men, and he knows that the German fighting force looks to him for inspiration.

As for the presentation of Richthofen, my initial objection that Schweighofer looked too young to play an experienced pilot turned out to be unfounded once I researched the character. However, the fact that I later discovered that although Oterdorf was a real character, von Richthofen did not have a romance with her, made me feel that the filmmakers were playing down to the audience by playing the romance card unnecessarily. In addition, I was distracted by the obvious age difference between the two characters and their lack of chemistry. I found Von Richthofen, as portrayed brilliantly by Schwighofer, and his squadron interesting enough in and of themselves without Oterdorf.

Besides the casting, there were positive elements in the presentation of the film. The aerial combat was beautifully shot, and the score adequate. I recommend that you at least rent this film.

Coach Carter (2005)

Violence, Poverty, and Basketball

[7/10 · 2 May 2006]

I grew up 3 blocks from the Richmond border, and am all too familiar with the poverty, violence, and desperation that plagues its residents. In Richmond, like in many parts of this country, young men cope with the rough environment in which they grew up by playing basketball (jerseys are sported by just about any boy under 22).

Having gone to high school with these kids (or rather with the Richmond kids who were bussed to my local high school), I became familiar with their subculture. What struck me most about the movie was just how well it captured the boys that I knew from Richmond. Maybe urban culture is the same around the country, but having grown up near Richmond and San Pablo (another neighboring city), they were the only urban youth with whom I was familiar.

By the way, in case anyone was wondering about the party in the wealthy neighborhood to which the Richmond basketball team was invited, here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the communities are so close together that it is not uncommon for kids from poorer areas to hang out in areas that are more affluent, or to go to parties in those areas. However, I have heard that in other parts of the country, the "borders" between urban areas and the suburbs are not as fluid.

I do not remember reading about the dramatic victories of the Richmond High basketball team in the local paper, but I did take a community college class taught by an instructor who my mother told me once had Coach Carter in his class, and many of my clients have kids who were or are students at Richmond High.

After seeing so many films about events that took place years ago and far away, it was refreshing to see an interesting film about a community with which I am somewhat familiar. This film is worth at least a rental, particularly if you are from the East Bay.

On another note: Go, CAL Bears.....

Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998)

Sweet and Romantic Retelling of Cinderella

[8/10 · 14 April 2006]

Usually when a director tries to remake a beloved story, he or she ends up butchering it. Just think of all of the television adaptations of fairy tales that fall short of their intended mark. This story, however, succeeds in being clever and sweet, while still maintaining the basic elements of the classic story. There is an evil stepmother who works the main character to the bone, evil stepsisters (or at least one evil stepsister), a prince who is looking for a wife, our heroine posing as nobility to win the prince's heart, and a glass slipper. Only, instead of a fairy godmother, we have Leonardo da Vinci.

The actors are interesting, the dialogue funny and touching. True Dougray Scott may be a little too mature to play the immature prince, but he is so wonderful that you forget his age. Drew Barrymore is delightful, and is brilliant when it comes to humor. Angelica Huston and Megan Dodds are deliciously evil, and Melanie Lynskey is well-cast as the sweeter and less glamorous of the stepsisters.

In short, this film would make a wonderful addition to your family's film collection, and would make a particularly nice gift for a young girl.

Munich (2005)

Very Relevant to Our Times

[10/10 · 1 March 2006]

Steven Spielberg's latest film begins with a terrorist attack on innocent civilians that is witnessed throughout the world. Both the families of the victims and those of the terrorists are affected, and a nation is left with the question of how to respond. Sound familiar? The year is 1972, and a group of terrorists, who have come to be known as Black September, have kidnapped and killed 11 Israeli athletes and their coaches participating in the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. This prompts Golda Meir, Israel's prime minister, to call a cabinet meeting in which the decision is made to assemble a team of elite assassins headed by Meir's former bodyguard; a gentle family man "with butcher's hands" whose wife is expecting their first child.

The team includes people who are experts in different areas of espionage. Robert is an expert in bombs. Until he was given this assignment, he worked taking them apart. Hans is a forgery expert; it is his job to keep the real identities of the group members secret with falsified documents. Then there are those who do not seem to have any particular talent, but are needed to do things like clean up after hits (i.e. Carl), or look really cool in sun glasses and add a touch of glamor to undercover work (i.e. Steve, who appropriately enough is played by the newest James Bond).

As the body counts start rising, Spielberg has some of his characters question whether their mission is really the best way that they can serve Israel and their own humanity. Robert questions whether killing people goes against what Judaism stands for. He reminds Avner that the Jews are a "righteous" people, and that is what makes them "beautiful." Avner questions the purpose of killing one group of terrorists, only to have them replaced by a group far more dangerous to Israel.

As a whole, I found this film very thought provoking. However, like "Shindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan," it is also extremely violent. Spielberg, like Mel Gibson, is not a director to give the audience much relief from painful images. A worthy film, which deserves its nomination as best picture, with a cast dominated by strong actors, with no one giving a bad performance. The only criticism that I had of the film was that it may be a little too long, or it at least felt that way. As you can imagine, when the plot involves the location and killing of several antagonists, there is a tendency for repetition, although Spielberg somewhat avoids that by making each killing unique (as morbid as that sounds!).

The Constant Gardener (2005)

"Gardener" Moves at Same Pace as Flowers Grow

[6/10 · 28 January 2006]

"The Constant Gardener" seems like an appropriate name for this film due to the speed at which it moves. Furthermore, it takes the patience of a gardener to try to sort out the story. The movie begins with the death of Tessa Quayle, the wife of a mild-mannered and very conventional English diplomat. The last time that the diplomat, Justin, saw his wife, she was flying to Kenya with a Kenyan doctor with whom she has developed a close professional (and possibly personal) relationship. However, when she is found, she is in the company of another man, not the doctor.

We learn quickly that Tessa is both passionate and compulsive. Justin and her meet when she stands up during a press conference that he is giving and confronts him about the policies of the British government towards "third world" countries. Her behavior interestingly enough, has the opposite effect than that intended (perhaps because Justin finds her cute and spunky), and Justin and Tessa go straight from the press conference to her town house to get "closer." After Justin and Tessa are married, Tessa manages to convince Justin to take her with him on an official trip to Kenya, and once there, she witnesses the mysterious death of a young Kenyan woman. This motivates Tessa to try to learn more about AIDS drug trials in Africa.

After Tessa's death, Justin decides to try to retrace Tessa steps in order to learn how she died, and uncovers a vast conspiracy involving a profitable drug company.

Although the movie does succeed in being somewhat suspenseful at times, it takes too long to reach its conclusion, elements of which are foreseeable.

King Kong (2005)

Kong's Box Office Crown Seems Ill Deserved

[6/10 · 28 January 2006]

I am sorry to say that I was not as charmed with this film as many other people clearly were. Inspite of having a good cast and an Academy Award winning director, "King Kong" failed to keep my attention. I was disappointed with the pace of the film, as it took approximately an hour to even reach Skull Island (Kong's home). Once there, too much time was wasted on pointless chase scenes involving CGI creatures. Although, the movie begins to pick up once the main characters and Kong reach New York, by that time it is two-thirds done.

Furthermore, most of the potentially memorable scenes are somehow diminished, such as the "sacrifice" of Ann Darrow to Kong by the natives of Skull Island, the capture of Kong, and Kong's "debut" in New York. The only scenes that I really enjoyed were somewhat minor scenes: Ann putting on a show for Kong, and Kong ice skating. Then, of course, there is the famous scaling of the Empire State Building, which was very well done.

As for the human love story that was supposed to be interwoven with the main Ann/Kong "love" story, I did not feel that it was as strong as it could have been, which is a pity, because both Naomi Watts and Adrian Brody have demonstrated in other films that they are capable of connecting emotionally with other actors on screen.

All in all, I was somewhat bored throughout most of the movie. Granted I have not seen the original 1933 movie as yet, so I cannot compare this version to that one, but I much preferred the 1976 Jeff Bridges/Jessica Lange version. Many of the pivotal moments in the story were made more memorable in spite of the vastly inferior special effects available to filmmakers in the mid-70s, including the aforementioned "native sacrifice" scene, the capture, and the unveiling scene.

Gladiator (2000)

Beautiful Tale of Revenge and Power

[9/10 · 26 January 2006]

"Gladiator" is about revenge and the struggle between two men for Rome, one an emperor, the other a gladiator slave. The movie begins as Emperor Marcus Aurelius ends his twelve year campaign against the "barbarians" to secure the borders of the Roman empire. Following a victory against a Germanic tribe, Aurelius tells his favorite general (who is like a son to him) that he wants him to be his successor and to be the "protector" of Rome until the Senate is ready to rule. He wants Rome to be republic once more, but has reservations about whether his son Commodos is willing to give up power. The favored general, Maximus, turns down the emperor's offer because he does not feel that he has the political background to rule Rome, and because he wants nothing more than to go home to his wife and child.

In less than a night, Maximus' hand is forced when Commodos assassinates Aurelius and declares himself his heir. When Maximus realizes what has happened, he refuses to give Commodos his loyalty. Commodos orders him and his family executed. Maximus escapes, but his family is burned and crucified (an execution method of which the Romans were particularly fond). Maximus is enslaved and turned into a gladiator when a passing caravan finds him at his burned out home unconscious. Gladiator fights have become very popular since Commodos overturned his father's ban on them, and the man who runs the gladiator school where Maximus is being trained, Proximo, if looking to profit from his new acquisition. Although he initially refuses to fight, Maximus soon gains fame throughout the empire, and respect from his fellow fighters, as "the Spaniard," and eventually finds himself fighting in the Coloseum in Rome.

The Rome that greets Maximus is completely under the spell of Commodos, who has won the people over with spectacular gladiator matches. When Maximus become a crowd favorite, Commodos takes an interest in him (not having recognized him). As the two men meet in the middle of the arena, and "the Spaniard"'s real identify is revealed, a power shift occurs, and Commodos realizes that he can no longer kill Maximus and still keep the Roman public on his side. Maximus realizes this as well, and what follows is a beautifully orchestrated contest of powers between the two men, which culminates in a final showdown in the Coloseum, and an emotionally charged ending.

Also to be commended is Hans Zimmer for his beautiful score.

Cinderella Man (2005)

A Fighter With Heart

[9/10 · 20 January 2006]

Ron Howard's biographical account of the "comeback" of James Braddock, a Depression era boxer who briefly found himself poor and out of favor with the boxing commission (and the public) after having reached the zenith of his fame in the 1920s, is a truly inspiring story. Although I am not a boxing fan, and do not generally voluntarily see boxing films (ie. I was forcibly taken to see "Million Dollar Baby" by a family member, and still have not seen a "Rocky" film or "Raging Bull."), I had heard wonderful things about "Cinderella Man" and decided to give the film the benefit of the doubt. I am so happy that I did! This film is appealing on so many levels. At its core, it is more about love and family, and the sacrifices couples make for each other and their children than it is about boxing. Even the scenes that take place within the ring pack emotional punch (no pun intended), and are moving.

The match between Max Bauer and James Braddock is particularly well shown, and I found myself enthralled in their monumental struggle, which is shown as being a kind of David and Goliath conflict. As a result, I put aside for a few minutes my social objections to boxing, and found myself cheering for the "Cinderella Man". Russell Crowe brings the same Oscar worthy caliber of acting that he did to his role of Maximus in "Gladiator" and John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind", allowing the audience to identify and sympathize with James Braddock. By the end of the film, one is made to care about the character, and the plight of his family.

It is a pity that this film made only $50 million in box office sales, because it deserved far more, making it perhaps the most underrated film of 2005.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Proof Lucas Still Has It!!!!

[9/10 · 16 December 2005]

After seeing Episodes I and II, I was beginning to wonder what had happened to Star Wars. Would the prequel ever live up to the quality of the original trilogy?

I am happy to be able to say that Episode III equals or excels "The Return of the Jedi" (which I consider the best of the original). Like many Star Wars fans, who did not understand all the whining that Anakin did in Episode II, I was not overly impressed with the acting. For that reason, I gave Episode II a mixed review (finding it fun to watch, but not worthy of the Star Wars name). I now see, having re watched Mark Hamill's performance as Luke Skywalker in Episode IV, and finding it comparable to Hayden Christiensen's in Episode II, that Lucas wanted Anakin and Luke to take similar paths of emotional development (in order to make Luke turning to the dark side plausible). And in fact, I suspect that those who had seen Christiensen's work in "Shattered Glass" were not surprised to see him shine in Episode III.

Lucas has put together a good story, and one that succeeded in moving me at times. Among the highlights were some nice scenes of Anakin and Padme together, several particularly well done dramatic scenes (i.e. the confrontation between Anakin and Count Dooku, the "Order 66" scenes, the "opera" scene, the "turning" scene, the battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan, the "immolation" scene, and the placement of Anakin in the Vader suit).

True there are problems with Episode III. However, it has enough good going for it to overlook its faults. Like Episodes I and II, heroes escape from villains too easily (perhaps a throw back to the original trilogy in which not even one storm trooper could hit his target). The dialogue has improved only slightly; with C3PO and Yoda having the best lines. Although I have always had a great deal of affection for Yoda, unlike some Star Wars fans, I was never too keen on his fights, finding his resemblance to a green yo-yo on speed distracting. And, like many Star Wars fans, I was more amused than moved by Vader's "noooooo" (you know what scene I am talking about!).

War and Remembrance (1988–1989)

A Miniseries Like No Other

[9/10 · 23 November 2005]

The broadcast of "War and Remembrance", based on Herman Wouk's novel, was a television event. Although recapturing the excitement of watching the miniseries can cost you around $180, it is well worth it. From its beautiful opening and closing score to its unforgettable images and people, "War and Remembrance" is like no other. Because it was an epic miniseries, which cost around $110 million to make, the television powers that be were able to film at various locations around the world and bring vastly different (yet interconnected) stories of the war to the small screen. In that sense, it is like several miniseries rolled into one.

"War and Remembrance" revolves around the lives of two families, the Henrys and the Jastrows. The connection between them is provided through the marriage of Byron Henry and Natalie Jastrow. The Henrys are a naval family: Victor "Pug" Henry serves both as a diplomat and as the commander of a destroyer at various times in the series, Byron Henry serves on a submarine in the Pacific, Warren Henry is a naval pilot married to the daughter of a Senator. Byron's wife, Natalie Jastrow is an American Jew in Europe trying to escape the Nazis along with her uncle, Aaron Jastrow, and her son with Byron, Louis Henry. Aaron Jastrow's cousin is a Jewish Polish soldier trying to survive Auschwitz. Those are just some of the characters whose stories captivate the audience. There are also the experiences of their spouses, lovers, and the relatives of their spouses and lovers.

The audience is also given a glimpse into the thinking of the Nazi leadership, with Steven Berkoff providing a chilling and brilliant portrayal of Adolf Hitler. Here was a look at the Holocaust and the events and decisions leading up to it that was unprecedented at the time that the series debuted in 1988.

It is unfortunate that I have not found many libraries that carry copies of this miniseries on either VHS or DVD, forcing many people to either buy it or miss out on experiencing it. I, for one, have chosen to buy it, and I do not regret it for a day. I also recommend reading the book.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

A Very Earthly Kingdom

[9/10 · 17 October 2005]

The term "kingdom of heaven" takes on many meanings in the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" as it did in reality, referring both to the city of Jerusalem, and the border-less kingdom on earth that belongs to Yahweh or Allah (depending on your religion). Inspite of media reports that suggested that Ridley Scott's film was jumping on the bandwagon of religious films that began with "The Passion of the Christ," the "Kingdom of Heaven" is not really a religious film. While the city means a great deal to certain people on both sides of the Christian/Muslim conflict, to most of the characters in the movie its just a piece of land that they happen to reside on. When the opportunity arises to exit it peacefully, the news is greeted with cheers.

The story revolves around Balian, a young French blacksmith who finds out at the beginning of the film that he is the illegitimate son of a crusading knight, Lord Godfrey (Liam Neeson). Balian has just lost his child, and his wife in despair has committed suicide, condemning her (in the eyes of the Catholic church) to eternity in hell. After Balian takes revenge on a despicable priest who abuses Balain's wife corpse and steals her cross from around her neck, Balain is forced to flee his village. His father invites him to join him in a crusade to defend the holy land from Muslim attack, promising wealth, and salvation for Balian and his dead wife. So father and son set off for the holy land, but Godfrey dies in route, leaving Balain with his title and his lands; as well as knighting him in what is one of a few morally significant scenes. Before he dies, Godfrey commands his son to defend the king of Jerusalem, and when the king dies, to defend the people. This is an oath which Balian takes to heart, and it becomes his "golden rule" throughout the film.

Although the audience in lead to believe by the first few minutes of the film, as well as by the religious significance of Jerusalem that Balian is going to undergo some spiritual awakening by the end of the movie, in reality he does not really develop "a personal relationship" with God. His social awakening occurs with his knighting by his father, and his moral outlook remains the same throughout the rest of the movie. Godfrey, the Hospitaler, Baldwin IV ("the Leper King") all seem to share Balian's philosophy, which I would describe as secular humanism. No one seems to have genuine religious beliefs, neither on the side of the Christians nor on the Muslims. Other than shouts of "God wills it" and "may Allah give us victory," which serve more as arrogant slogans than genuine expressions of faith, there is little reliance on God. In fact, if not for the political significance of the holy land, I think that the film could have been set in any town in the world, and the ending would not have been any less powerful.

Sybilla in turn does not really seem to have a philosophy other than to try to survive in a world in which women are given in marriage to men they do not know when they are fifteen, and true love requires that one sin against his or her religious beliefs. Indeed, of the three major relationships she has in the movie, the one between her brother and her is more moving than either of her sexual ones.

The one controversial aspect of this film, which may have made it unpopular with some Christians, is that it points out the harshness of medieval Christianity, which unfortunately included corrupt clergy, holy wars against innocent people, and the declaration that an otherwise good person like Balian's wife could go to hell simply for being desperate enough to kill herself. Not to mention the dilemma that Sybilla faces between abiding by wedding vows she did not consent to take and finding love with Balian.

This is one of those films where no one gives a bad performance, and the visuals are just stunning. I liked it a great deal, although the siege of Jerusalem lasted a little too long.

Life as a House (2001)

Pretty House Inhabited by Confused People

[6/10 · 14 October 2005]

I wanted to like "Life as a House," because it was the type of film that I usually rave about. The concept was great--- after being fired from his job and finding out he has a serious illness, the main character decides to bond with his estranged teenage son and make peace with his ex-wife while building a house that he can be proud to leave to his son.

However, I had mixed feelings about the performances and the way the characters were written. Kevin Kline delivers a heartfelt performance as George Monroe, as does Kristin Scott Thomas as Robin Kimball(George's ex-wife) but I did not find myself engaged by them until the last few minutes of the movie. I did find myself engaged by George's son, Sam (Hayden Christensen), who seemed the most emotionally open of the characters. I also liked Jena Malone. As George and Sam's neighbor, Alyssa Beck, she provides a little sunshine for both the movie audience and Sam, while Mary Steenburgen and Ian Somerhalder, as Colleen Beck and Josh respectively, introduce an unnecessary soap opera quality to the film.

As for Robin's current husband and children, their purpose was limited. Robin's husband, Peter Kimball, is barely present in the film, which I guess is one of the reasons that their marriage is troubled. The children are cute, but they seem to be merely accessories for their mother, whom they accompany on visits to her ex-husband's.

I also felt that the movie has just too many badly used clichés to truly hold people's attentions: 1) the middle-aged mom who sleeps with the boyfriend of her teenage daughter, 2) the middle-aged man who undergoes a spiritual awakening only after losing his job and being told he has four months to live, 3) the angry scary looking teenager who gets his bearings, a makeover into a respectable looking guy, and a new free-spirited girlfriend after meeting said girlfriend (although the reverse sometimes happens in films: respectable guy loses his bearings, and adopts angry scary looking persona after meeting a free-spirited girl). But, like I said before, while Sam and Alyssa's relationship followed a cliché, I actually found it the most interesting part of this film, and real at some level. In fact, some of my favorite films have relied partly on clichés; so it really depends on how you approach them.

Although I must admit that this film actually did make me cry at the end.

Crash (I) (2004)

"Crash" Is A Brave Look at Human Interactions

[14 October 2005]

"Crash" is one of those brave films that dares to confront issues that nobody wants to talk about. There have been other films about racism, but they have tended to point fingers or avoid taking positions that are not politically correct. But "Crash" is too intelligent of a film to do that.

Instead we are given a group of diverse individuals, some of whom fit social and ethnic stereotypes, and some whom defy them. No one is demonized, not even those who fit somewhat into negative stereotypes, although all but one of the major character have serious emotional issues that they need to work out.

The interesting thing about "Crash" is how much I found myself identifying with each of the characters in that I have both been a victim of racism, and yet have also been one of those people made to feel guilty every time I do not like someone of another race, even if my feelings about them later prove to be right. I watched it with my mother, and we both found ourselves saying "that's right" and "aha" many times out loud. It was uncanny how much of what the characters said was either true or has been said before.

I cannot recommend this film enough!

Thirteen Days (2000)

Kennedy Finally Gets His Due on Film

[9/10 · 30 September 2005]

While the Kennedy administration had its share of scandal and improper behavior, movies about the Kennedys, and JFK in particular, have tended to focus too much on the details of a torrid personal life, and not enough on moments of triumph, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then "Thirteen Days" came along, and dared to break from the mold. This is Kennedy at his finest, and while critics charge that "Thirteen Days" is just pro-Kennedy propaganda (JFK's nephew even has a role), historical dramas make for more intelligent movie-making than soap operas.

Besides an intelligent topic, we have a well assembled cast, with particularly good performances provided by Bruce Greenwood as JFK (who manages to be convincing in spite of bearing no resemblance to any Kennedy, let alone JFK) and Steven Culp (who is making his second appearance as RFK on film, having previously played him in "Norma Jean & Marilyn" (1997). Unfortunately, I do not have the same feeling about Kevin Costner's performance, and I cannot help but to think of Jim Garrison (his character in "JFK" (1991)) every time his character, Kenneth O'Donnell, appears. It is as if Garrison had jumped into some time machine so as to better fulfill his obsession with Kennedy. That is the problem with using the same actor for two different roles in two different movies dealing with the same man. Nothing against Costner, he just does not seem to quite fit.

Unlike many other films, this movie relies almost entirely on dialogue, with little action or romance, so it is not entertaining in the conventional sense. It is wholly about those conversations that happen behind close doors that shape human history, and much of the drama is played out sitting down.

For those equipped for DVDs, that version of this film is especially desirable, for it includes archival footage and interviews which cast further light on the crisis; thirteen days in which the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. came to the brink of war over the U.S.S.R.'s placement of offensive nuclear weapons on the Cuban island. For those who know the outcome, the movie does not reduce the suspense, while those learning about the crisis for the first time receive a valuable lesson in diplomacy and military self-control.

The Quiet Man (1952)

The Violent Man

[4/10 · 23 August 2005]

Inspite of being directed by John Ford and starring John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara, "The Quiet Man," fails to live up to its potential. First of all, I cannot tell whether it is supposed to be a comedy or a drama.

"The Quiet Man" is a reference to Wayne's character, Sean Thorton, an ex-boxer who swears off violence against men (but not against women) following the tragic death of his opponent in the ring. Thorton decides to return to his birthplace in Ireland, where he hopes to live in anonymity in the house where he was born.

Within minutes of arriving, he meets Mary Kate Danaher (Maureen O'Hara) and her brother, William Dahaher (Victor McLaglen). Mary Kate is the local spitfire, the kind of woman who drives both men and women away from her with her sharp tongue. Will Danaher is also interested in Thorton's birth home, as well as in the widow who currently owns it. However, Thorton wins out in the bid for the home, and Danaher takes his revenge on Thorton by forbidding him from courting Mary Kate (he later changes his mind when the local matchmaker assures him that the widow will accept Will's marriage proposal as soon as Will moves Mary Kate out of his house).

After establishing the tragic circumstances under which Thorton returns to Ireland, and allowing the audience to share in Mary Kate's frustration at being denied a husband by her brother, the movie seems to be trying to evolve into a comedy. After a very brief courting period, during which Thorton and Mary Kate show their shared rebellious streaks by escaping their chaperon, our hero and heroine are married. However, Will, having now realized the trick played by the matchmaker, refuses to give the couple Mary Kate's dowry. Thorton, who is determined not to confront anyone and provoke a fight, takes the position that the dowry is not important, but Mary Kate wants what rightfully belongs to her. When Thorton refuses to fight for her, she decides to leave him. Rather than see his wife's point of view, Thorton decides to "assert himself" by throwing Mary Kate around like a sack of potatoes, first around their bedroom, then around the Irish countryside. Mary Kate's response to his rough treatment is to develop a new found respect for him; evidence that Neanderthal behavior sometimes gets the girl. After all, if it worked for Rhett Butler, why not for Sean Thorton.

Of course, in defense of John Ford's treatment of this "love story", the idea that violence against certain women is acceptable still prevails in film. The female protagonist who can take anything that a man can dish out still finds her way on to the screen. Back then, like now, tough girls like Mary Kate Danaher Thorton take the blows with little sympathy. The message that Wayne's character and Ford's direction convey is the message evidently present in many of Wayne's pictures, nonviolence gets you nowhere, and what women respect is a strong, domineering man. While I am not one of those women who is offended by every film that shows a woman doing "traditional" work or having a soft-spoken personality, I think that the message that this film gives overrides any charming qualities that Ford thought the film might possess. This may have been a love letter to Ireland, which some have suggested, but it was written with a poison pen.

How to Make an American Quilt (1995)

This Quilt of Intricately Woven Stories Warms the Soul

[9/10 · 16 August 2005]

When Berkeley graduate student Finn decides to spend some time away from her live-in boyfriend, and moves in with her grandmother and great aunt for the summer, while finishing her master's thesis, she gets an important and heart-warming lesson about love and commitment. Finn's grandmother and great aunt are members of a quilting bee, and their group (whose members have known each other for a long time) decide that their latest project should have the theme of "where love resides." As the quilt is made, each woman remembers significant events in their lives which relate to love and the joy and pain that it brings. Each woman brings her own perspective to the nature of love, from Anna (who signs off on men completely after a bad experience)to her daughter Marianne (who cannot settle on just one man). Some of the women have been cheated on, some have done the cheating, while others just let love die.

Along the way, Finn faces temptation in the form of Leon, a smoldering hunk who pursues her in spite of knowing that she is taken. At the same time, Finn must come to terms with her parents' failed marriage, as she decides whether to accept her boyfriend's marriage proposal.

Inspite of the pains that the women have suffered in the name of love, the movie does not in any way bash love or marriage (which has recently become popular). It is a beautifully made film, and while it is definitely a "chick flick," it might also appeal to the more romantically minded guy.

Alexander (2004)

March to Your Local Video Rental Place and Get This DVD

[9/10 · 5 August 2005]

"Alexander" is a triumph in film-making on several levels. It is visually stunning, beautifully scored, and wonderfully paced. The movie opens with a prologue by Ptolemy, the first pharaoh to rule following the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great. Ptolemy was one of Alexander's closest friends.

We are then introduced to Olympias, Alexander's foreign-born mother, whose fierce ambition for her son is driven by her belief that the Greek god Zeus, rather than her husband King Phillip, is the father of Alexander. She teaches her son courage at an early age, encouraging him to touch a poisonous snake without hesitation.

From the first time we meet him, it is clear that Alexander is indeed courageous, as well as a sensitive and scholarly young man, who questions his great teacher Aristotle about everything. His is both resented and admired by his father, a drunken and lecherous man. Nevertheless, Alexander proves himself early in life to his father by taming a seemingly wild horse, who along with his best friend, Hephaistion, becomes his greatest love.

Oliver Stone's portrayal is honest, showing those aspects of Alexander that are more controversial, such as Alexander's bisexuality, and mental decline after the death of Hephaistion.

At the same time, we see a man who embraced diversity, respected women, and had a vision for a united world that modern audiences can appreciate. A brilliant military strategist who tempered his drive for power and conquest with a profound ability to love. All in all, a well rounded portrait of Alexander emerges.

The musical score is haunting, and the closing credits are some of the best that I have seen. The costumes are spectacular, the scenery breathtaking. Furthermore, the movie has an authentic old-world feel in spite of its Hollywood cast, making it closer to "The Passion of the Christ" than a big Hollywood production like "Troy." Indeed, listening to Stone' commentary on his film, you appreciate how hard he worked on it, and it shows.

"Alexander" is a stirring timeless epic that leaves one moved and inspired.

Batman Begins (2005)

Batman at His Best

[9/10 · 17 June 2005]

"Batman Begins" joins the Superman films of the 1980s and both Spiderman movies as an example of a movie comic book adaptation at its best. This is no surprise with Chrisopher Nolan at the helm, the man who brought us "Memento." True to the unique take that Nolan has on Batman, this film is not a sequel to the other four, but rather a new beginning for the caped crusader (as the name suggests). Like the other films, Batman faces multiple villains at the same time, including an old-style gangster named Carmine Falcone (played remarkably convincingly by Tom Wilkinson, who would not have been my first choice), and a devious psychiatrist named Dr. Crane (who proves that looks can be deceptive). There is a third villain whose arrival on the scene comes as a shock to the audience as well as to Batman (no, it is probably not who you think it is!). Naturally, I will not give anything away, except to say that there is a history between Batman and this person that makes facing him or her a psychological challenge as well as a physical one.

Of course on the down side, Nolan continues the comic book practice of giving the villains a stupid plot to attack Gotham City, but that is to be expected. I have yet to see a comic book adaptation where the bad guys came up with any truly brilliant ideas. Instead they come up with ideas like harvesting people's brain waves so that the villain can become smarter (an actual scheme from another Batman movie).

Every comic book hero must have his love interest, who thankfully is usually an intelligent woman. In this movie, it is a young and idealistic assistant D.A. played by Katie Holmes, who does a fair job of it. Among the other supporting actors- Michael Caine is good as Alfred, and Morgan Freeman brings his usual professionalism to the role of Lucius Fox (who in spite of the name is not a pimp, but rather a developer of advanced technology for Wayne Enterprises). Liam Neeson and Ken Watanabe are particularly good as the martial art experts who train Bruce Wayne, and the future Commissioner Gordon makes his appearance in the form of Gary Oldman, who has always been one of my favorite actors.

This film is wonderful from beginning to end, although the scenes in the ice village at the beginning of the film were somewhat confusing, and required a great deal of concentration to follow. Hang in there, and it will pay off.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

The Music of the Night Lives Forever in Musical Masterpiece

[10/10 · 10 May 2005]

Like many other people who wrote reviews for this film, I have not seen the stage version of "The Phantom of the Opera," so I have only the Lon Chaney version (see my review of that film) and an Andrew Lloyd Webber compilation CD with four "The Phantom of the Opera" songs (all of which I have loved as long as I can remember) for a comparison. I must say that I absolutely loved this version, so much in fact that I spent the extra money to get the Special Edition and the movie soundtrack.

As for the soundtrack- Even though I have only heard the songs sung by Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman before the movie came out, I would not dream of listening to any other version but the movie's. Unlike some people, I absolutely loved Gerard Butler's voice, which I find sexy and soulful. Granted Butler's singing may not appeal to some the most distinguishing of music critics (I am just a regular girl-not a music expert), unlike the angelic singing of Emmy Rossum, but it is not unappealing. It has an organic quality which I find refreshing. Patrick Wilson, who has done stage musicals, brings the same vocal strength to his role of Raoul as Rossum does to Christine.

There has been a certain amount of controversy about the age of the actors who play Christine and the Phantom, but I think they are perfectly cast. Emmy Rossum was about the same age as her character Christine, and Butler is more believable as a seductive "angel of music" than a much older man would be. I think that the Phantom's good looks (pre-unmasking) are a strength rather than a weakness because they create sexual tension. Think of how much less interesting the story would have been if the Phantom had shown up and Christine had flat out rejected him. Then he would just be this creepy old man who cannot take no for any answer. No---the story of the Phantom is compelling precisely because Christine feels a powerful attraction to him that competes with her feelings for Raoul. At the heart of the tale is the war which rages inside Christine between her reason (which sees Raoul as the better match) and her dark desire for the deadly Phantom. I will not tell you how it ends, although I knew the ending before seeing the movie just from word of mouth and knowing about the stage musical, and chances are most people who have not seen the movie do too.

Final word-outstanding music and lyrics. Perfect casting decisions and wonderful acting all around. Very compelling story told with fantastic visuals.

Beyond Borders (2003)

Interesting But Unmemorable Border Crossing

[8/10 · 14 April 2005]

Somewhat interesting, although largely unmemorable romantic drama set against war, disease, and hunger. Clive Owen plays a maverick doctor and relief worker, who manages to be both engaged in the world around him and oblivious to other people's feelings. He is the typical Hollywood revolutionary type, whose dedication to a greater cause means he does not have to say "please" and "thank you." He crashes a charity party with a poor African boy in tow to point out the hypocrisy of rich benefactors who deceive themselves into thinking that they have fulfilled their duty to those less fortunate than themselves while not really concerning themselves with them. Angelina Jolie's character, a rich American whose father-in-law founded the charity being benefited, is moved by the doctor's display, and resolves to go to Africa herself, along with a generous shipment of supplies. Although Jolie's character is not initially well received by the doctor, a romance entails.

Angelina Jolie and Clive Owen deliver very good performances, although the schizephrentic nature of the film somewhat diminishes its power as a social commentary, which it clearly strives to be. As a romance, it succeeds a lot better, which is remarkable considering that the main characters do not have that much on-screen time together. The audience gets to know them enough to care about them both, and it is not difficult to see the attraction each holds for the other. As far as its value for bringing attention to the plights of refugees around the world, it serves as an introduction, and hopefully will peak the interest of at least some of those who see this film. However, by jumping from locale to locale, the audience does not get the opportunity to appreciate the social and political backdrops in which the relief camps are situated. Sure, there are powerful scenes scattered throughout the film, but these serve to punctuate large stretches of time in which nothing much is going on. Much of the movie takes place in London, and examines Jolie's character's strained relationship with her husband. During those times, the audience does not even get to "look in" on the doctor until she rejoins him, which is a pity because I found the doctor more interesting than his girlfriend, although she definitely gets higher points for her bedside manners.

Rent this movie at least once if you are an Angelina Jolie or Clive Owen fan.

Henry V (1989)

A Kingly Feast for the Eyes and Ears

[10/10 · 7 December 2004]

"Henry V" marks Kenneth Branagh's greatest achievement to date. Branagh not only directs this rich and visually stunning film, he stars as the title character. The movie opens with Derek Jacobi (Branagh's Shakespearean mentor) in modern garb passionately delivering the prologue. Then we are taken into the dark, dank rooms of Henry's castle. The king makes his dramatic entrance, complete with a Darth Vader style cape.

The entire film is filled with grandeur and pomp, with any faults in the story line being attributable more to Shakespeare himself than Branagh. Henry V as I remember it from my college English class is a decidingly pro-British play (and film). There is little question that France should be conquered, and Henry speaks of his war against France as if it were France that attacked England. Indeed, Henry's famous "St. Chrispin's day speech" is so rousing, that it has been quoted often and inspired the name of the "Band of Brothers" miniseries about World War II. This is no surprise, since Shakespeare's prose is famously beautiful.

There is definitely a difference in the way that both sides of the conflict are presented. The French, at least in Branagh's movie are presented as arrogant (and somewhat effeminate), while on the side of the English, even children are filled with manly courage. Henry is presented as noble, fair, and merciful. True he threatens the mayor of one French town, telling him that if he does not surrender the town, the English will do terrible things to its residents, but does not carry out his threat. He also hangs the one English soldier who steals from a French church, refusing to show favoritism for him just because he was his friend. Apparently mercy towards your own countrymen was not a virtue that Henry saw particularly important.

The films greatest attribute is its soundtrack, particularly the use of music in the scene following the battle of Agincourt in which the warring parties collect their dead for burial.

All in all, a fascinating look inside the mind of a king.

Bananas (1971)

Bananas Is Not One of Woody Allen's More Ripe Comedies (May contain spoilers, I don't know!)

[2 December 2004]

I have always found Woody Allen's more high brow style of humor refreshing in a industry where each new year brings its crop of toilet bowl humor. In spite of Allen's obsession with prostitutes and porn, he manages to make the lives of his intelligent, but neurotic and dysfunctional characters largely interesting. Here, he takes a "common man;" a product tester named Fielding Mellish and transforms him into the dictator of a Latin American country. However, the concept turns out funnier than the actual delivery. Before seeing this movie, I thought of films like "The Mouse that Roared," "The Great Dictator," or "Dr. Strangelove," which take the ideas of war, and/or dictatorships (both normally very serious subjects) and make them hilarious.

However, Allen's film never reaches the comedic heights of these other films. First he opens with a confusing scene in which ABC Wide World of Sports covers the assassination of the president of San Marcos. Next we see Fielding at work in a scene that looks like a tribute to Charlie Chaplin's chaotic scene in "Modern Times," in which he is made to carry out multiple tasks at the same time, but with less comedic impact than in Chaplin's scene (where Chaplin is even fed while working on an assembly line). Bored and without love in his life, Fielding goes home to his lonely little apartment, and is soon visited by Nancy, an political activist collecting signature for a petition. In order to get her in bed, Fielding convinces Nancy that he agrees with her about her support for the guerrillas fighting the dictatorship of San Marcos, and takes part in a series of demonstrations. After Nancy dumps him because "there is something missing" in their relationship, Fielding flies to San Marcos, where he fights with the rebels.

When the rebels win the war, they name him the new dictator. Fielding then makes a state trip to the U.S. and encounters a smitten Nancy (who not recognizing him, badmouths Fielding). The U.S. Government soon realizes that Fielding is a U.S. citizen, so they put him on trial for trying to sabotage the U.S. Government (or something like that). One of the somewhat humorous moments of the movie is the courtroom scene where Fielding acts both as his own attorney and as a witness for himself. Once that whole nasty treason thing ends, Fielding is free to pursue Nancy again, and the movie ends with yet another ABC Wide World of Sports event. I for one, would have rather watch ABC cover the world of golf than look at this film again. Sorry Woody, but this is not your best effort.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Spider-Man 2 Outspins The First (tiny little spoilers, maybe one larger)

[8/10 · 2 December 2004]

As much as I liked the first Spiderman, it pales in comparison to the sequel. This version has more action, more emotion, and better CGI. Tobey Maguire and James Franco push the emotional envelope here, with Kirsten Dunst offering the same reliable performance that she did in the first. Alfred Molina replaces William DeFoe as Spiderman's main adversary, although DeFoe gets a short but emotionally packed cameo.

The movie opens two years after the end of first film, and things have changed for the better for Mary Jane ("MJ") Watson, but not for poor Peter Parker. He is still trying to sell pictures of Spiderman to newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson with little success. His housing situation has been downgraded since the first film, now that he is no longer rooming with wealthy Harry Osborne (who has moved into his late father's mansion). Peter is failing his college classes, and has to take a job as a pizza delivery person (from which he is fired five minutes into the movie) to survive. Meanwhile, MJ has a lead in a major play (posters featuring her face are all over NYC), and soon becomes engaged to an astronaut.

Conflicted and depressed by his inability to balance daily life and the world of the superhero, Peter must decide whether to continue to do good as Spiderman or leave it all behind to be with M.J. His struggle forms the heart of the movie, and Raimi deals with it nicely until the last scene of the movie, in which I feel he takes the easy way out (although the DVD commentary suggests that Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire both found the last scene powerful). I hope that I am not giving too much away when I say that the closing scene lacks the emotional courage that the closing of the first movie had. All in all, though, an outstanding effort with many memorable moments.

As far as adversaries go, I liked Doc Ock more than the Green Goblin, maybe partly because Doc's legs had personalities of their own, whereas the glider was just a form of transportation, and partly because I felt sorrier for Dr. Octavius than I did for Norman Osborne. The battles between Doc Ock and Spiderman were more intense, partly because Spiderman seemed more comfortable with his powers than in Spiderman 1. The audience also got to see more of Peter Parker as Spiderman, but without the mask. I, for one, always felt the mask was somewhat inhibiting, since it was easy to forget the humanity of the character of Spiderman when Peter disappeared behind those emotionless fabric eyes. I can hardly wait until Spiderman 3.

The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)

von Sydow Struggles Under Greatest Role Ever Played

[2 August 2004]

The story of Jesus Christ may be the greatest story ever told, but George Stevens movie does not provide the most convincing telling of that story. In spite of beautiful cinematography and music, there is something missing of the power of other tellings. With the exception of a couple of scenes, Max von Sydow does not seem quite up to the role, despite clearly being a good actor. This is not necessarily von Sydow's fault, as it takes more than great acting to convince the audience that you are the character. Imagine Ingrid Bergman as Scarlett O'Hara instead of Vivian Leigh or Gregory Peck as Rhett Butler. Max von Sydow has moments of passion and succeeds in occasionally moving you, but somehow seems too much like the actors who play his apostles to distinguish himself from them, a necessary feat for an actor who hopefully is surrounded by twelve other good actors at all times.

Max von Sydow's highlights are the raising of Lazarus from the dead and the sequence of his entry into Jerusalem and speech at the temple. In fact, I would say that for those two scenes, he outdoes many of his fellow actors that have donned the robe of Jesus. But two scenes are not enough to carry the movie. In fact, with all my respect to the impressive cast which participated in this movie, Stephens seems to have completely missed the mark when it came to casting a few of the roles: Ed Wynn of "Mary Poppins" fame as the blind man, John Wayne as a Roman centurion, and Shelley Winters as "Woman of no name." On the other hand, few actors can portray the almost fanatic mania of John the Baptist, "a voice crying in the wilderness," like Charlton Heston. Jose Ferrer also puts in a good performance as Herod Antipas, and Roddy McDowall convincing plays both a smart aleck and a reverent follower. His exchange with Jesus over collecting taxes offers one of the few somewhat humorous moments.

It is not a surprise to learn that George Stevens put so much effort into his movie. Like Mel Gibson with "The Passion of the Christ," "Greatest Story" is like a painting, with each stroke carefully put onto the canvas. However, unlike Gibson, whose characters seem right out of 1st Century Judah, there is modern quality to Stephens film. There are, however, more positive aspects to this film than negative. Besides the cinematography and the wise choice of Hendel's beautiful "Messiah", other positives are showing Mary Madgelene as traveling with the apostles (there is even a wonderful little scene where Mary annoints Jesus with oil which shows a kind of intimacy between them lacking from other versions of the story).

While some commentators have criticized the screenplay, I think it is one of the best. As much as it pains me to say this, I think casting alone made this movie less powerful. Still I recommend that everyone see it at least once.

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

Not At All That Tempting (Spoilers)

[28 April 2004]

I do not quite understand what Martin Scorcese hoped to accomplish to making this film. It is not really an accurate film about the historic figure of Christ, since the character bears little resemblance to him. Neither is it a religious film, since Scorcese shows little reverence for his subject.

As the movie begins, Jesus tells the audience that he has been hearing voices. We then see Jesus back at home and hard at work carving a cross for the Romans, who are preparing to crucify a Jewish prophet whose only crime seems to have been to announce that the Messiah was coming. Jesus is confronted by Judas Iscariot, a supposed friend of his, who belates Jesus for cooperating with the Romans in crucifying his fellow Jews. "You are worse than they are," he yells at Jesus.

After the crucifixtion of the hapless prophet, during which Jesus actually drives the nails into the prophet's wrists and ankles, Jesus is led by his voices to the village of Magdelene, where he finds his childhood friend Mary in a brothel. Having arrived at the brothel, he then proceeds to sit on the floor in front of Mary's bed and watch her work her magic on the other men in the room. Only after everyone has finished "visiting" Mary does he suggest to her that her profession may not be an ideal line of work, and she responds by questioning his manhood.

As Jesus travels around Judea, he meets different people, most of whom are wiser than he. Perhaps the most meaningful interaction is the one he has with John the Baptist, who is heading a baptism movement. The movement, like most of the events in this movie, has sexual undertones. When Jesus tells John that he preaches love, John tells him that God is not about love, he is about "the ax". After watching a crowd of people try to stone Mary Magdelene to death for adultery, he becomes convinced that John was right and fills with anger. He tells the crowds that come to hear him speak that he will "burn" them and that he is building an "army".

What makes the film problematic is not that Jesus is tempted by the very human desire to have a wife and children, and to avoid suffering, but that he is shown as morally weak, and as Mary Magdelene put it "pitiful."

Some people may object to seeing Jesus flogged and crucified naked, but that is how the Romans did these things. True, seeing Jesus naked is akin to seeing you brother or father naked, and is sure to make you wince if you have an ounce of reverence for him. Perhaps the most disconcerting scene is the sex scene between Jesus and Mary Magdelene. If Scorcese would have shown Mary with a baby after marrying Jesus, we would have gotten the picture.

As a film, it is largely well done. The music and visuals are beautiful, and Jesus' miracles are shown better than they have been in some other films (particularly the casting out of demons). However, the part of the movie between Jesus' removal from the cross and his return to it (you have to see the movie to know what I am talking about) is too long.

Scorcese puts a disclaimer at the beginning of the film that the movie is not based on the gospels, but on a fictional novel. The problem is that the movie still deals with a historical figure and the center of a major religious movement. Furthermore, Scorcese puts enough of the gospels into the movie to twist Jesus' words. If Scorcese wanted to show the eternal struggle between body and spirit, he should have found a fictional character to show it, not someone who actually lived. Scorcese's treatment of Jesus' life goes beyond mere creative license, and borders on character assassination.