Gladiator II (2/5 Stars)

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it without a sense of ironic futility.”
Errol Morris

Edward Gibbon’s landmark The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (published 1776-1789) is distinct from most history texts in its general direction. Most histories start at the infancy of a civilization and follow it through to its maturity. The Decline and Fall starts at the maturity of the Roman civilization and follows it aaaaallllll the way down. The best and most famous of its historical characters are all at the beginning and as the story continues they get worse and more obscure. There are many reasons why the Roman Empire declined and Gibbon’s book has several thousand pages of them, but I will very briefly outline the very basic problem that occurred after the death of Marcus Aurelius (circa 186 A.D.) and continued for the next 100 years until the advent of the reign of Diocletian (circa 284 A.D.). The authority of the emperor rested on the army, and, more specifically, the Praetorian Guard which was that part of the army that was stationed in Rome. Starting with the reign of Commodus and moving forward, many emperors were killed via the honorable usurpation of a crazy tyrant or the dishonorable assassination of a competent prince, but no matter how the transfer of power occurred, the first thing that the new emperor would do would be to pay off the Praetorian guard with a donative, basically a bribe for the army’s loyalty. This first act of business was so ingrained and predictable that it created a moral hazard. After all, the more the army assassinated emperors, the more they benefited financially. For those 100 years, there were an estimated 30-35 emperors/usurpers, only one of which, Septimus Severus, died of natural causes. The rest were murdered.

[Gibbon tells of an extraordinary interregnum after the murder of the Emperor Aurelian (circa 275 A.D.) wherein the army asked the Senate to recommend a successor and the Senate, in turn, asked the army to recommend a successor, and this back and forth went on for eight whole months while the throne remained entirely vacant. Nobody wanted the death sentence.]

Surely, in this context, there is a prurient, exploitative, and lurid story to be told in blockbuster cinematic form. There isn’t really a moral to be found in the circuitous killing of so many princes over such a long period of time, which itself presaged only a further and total decline in the empire, but at least the story would have no lack of sensational violence. It may come as a surprise then that Ridley Scott’s Gladiator II, a story that takes place circa 211-218 during the reigns of Geta, Caracalla, and Macrinus does not use any of it. The most this movie takes from history is the names of those three emperors, but the real crimes of these men are not explored and their interactions with each other, though dramatic and fatal in real life, are not shown and indeed cannot be said to even inspire the plot of the film. It is just generally bewildering to me that the writers could have such a mountain of material to work from and disregard all of it in favor of a storyline that, essentially, could only appeal to an audience entirely ignorant of the historical context in which the movie supposedly takes place.

Modern dramatists come across a very basic problem with interpreting material that either originates or takes place in the past. Shakespeare is a good example. There is always this temptation to update the language and locate the action in venues that are more easily identifiable. The problem is that the best thing about Shakespeare is the language, not the plot, and if you are updating the language, you lose what brought you to the material in the first place. The fact is that the past is old and hard to understand. To truly appreciate it, the audience needs to go to the past, not the other way around. The best Shakespeare performances are those that strip out all distractions from the words themselves and focus almost entirely on helping the audience understand what is being said.

Gladiator II could have been a much better movie with this approach. As it is, the plot concerns Lucius, the son of Maximus Decimus Meridius (Russell Crowe’s character in the original) becoming a gladiator about twenty years after the events of the first film. He is a jaded malcontent that speaks derisively of the Roman Empire and yearns for his grandfather Marcus Aurelius's “Dream of Rome” in which power is returned to the Senate and the empire is once more based on freedom. There is a subplot in which a returning army is going to overthrow the corrupt duo of emperors Geta and Caracalla and enthrone the daughter of Marcus Aurelius (Connie Nielson, still alive from the original, where apparently she totally got it on with Russell Crowe and bore his son. I think we all missed that part) as the rightful heir to Marcus Aurelius with the presumed plan of returning the empire back to the old days of the Republic.

That bullshit plot is historically absurd. The Roman Senate was not a model of republican virtue and indeed had very little semblance with our modern institutions. The Romans did not believe in freedom and certainly no emperors, generals, senators, or sons and daughters of any of them would have paid lip service to a plan to expand "freedom" by granting more power to the Senate. Nor does this confused conspiracy have even internal logic. One cannot support freedom and republican virtues through the assumed authority of hereditary power. And there is no reason to believe that the daughter of Marcus Aurelius has more right to rule than the duo of emperors who are also the sons of emperors. Besides, I very much recall that in the original movie (and also in real life), Marcus Aurelius’ main mistake was giving over the empire to his worthless son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) instead of adopting a competent successor like Maximus. But here we are to assume that Lucius has some legitimate claim to the throne based on who his father and grandfather is. The movie ends with an incredible confrontation and denouement that suggests the “Dream of Rome” has a plausible chance of becoming a reality, perhaps as soon as the next movie. Of course, in reality, the Roman Empire declined and fell. Indeed the very next emperor after Macrinus, Elagabulus, was a teenage orgy enthusiast. He does not make an appearance here and is sorely missed.

There are good elements to the movie. I for one have no problem with the absurd spectacle of an armored Rhinoceros or a naval battle replete with sharks within the Coliseum. Those were fun. Also fun was Denzel Washington’s machiavellian portrayal of Macrinus. While all the other characters are enunciating their lines in “swords-and-sandals” fashion, he just chews through his dialogue as if this was the sequel to Training Day. He didn’t get the memo on how to act in the ancient past. Also, with one exception, this is a good example of color blind casting. Given that race didn’t matter in the Roman Empire (citizenship certainly mattered, but that wasn’t based on race), it doesn’t affect the inherent drama of any particular scene by having a black man play a character that historically wasn’t black. And since Denzel Washingon is one of our best actors, why not hire him to play what, in this historical context, should be a race neutral role. The only exception to this is the plot point, found in this movie but not in history, that Macrinus was once a slave, which for no apparent reason, makes Denzel Washington’s blackness seem relevant when it isn’t.

I’m not sure what the point is in morphing the distant past to pander to modern sensibilities. Most movies take place in the present and already do that. One of the best things about a movie that takes place in the past is that it can provide the modern audience a new experience, a story about humans that have an entirely different worldview. A very good example of this is the recent TV series Shogun, which is a fictional account of feudal Japan that takes pains in helping the audience understand what characters living in early 1600s Japan thought, felt, and were motivated by. I don’t think any of us would condone ritualistic suicide the way that feudal Japan did, but with a well produced story, the audience can understand why the characters do it and how it affects the plot. 

You don’t have to agree with characters in order to find them interesting. To only value the past to the extent that it justifies our actions in the present is a narcissistic, narrow, and numbingly tedious way to interpret historical events. After all, if there is no difference between then and now, then there is also no novelty in setting a story in Ancient Rome. And if all one considers important about the the past is that which comments on the present, then history does repeat itself, but only because one is too vain to consider those elements that are different. This is why movies made by Communists are so stupid and boring. Ridley Scott is usually better than this. 

Napoleon (3/5 Stars)

 

If Ridley Scott were to live long enough (He is presently 86 years of age), we were bound to get a Napoleon movie. He has three loves. Dystopic Science Fiction, Strong Female Leads, and Historical Drama. The historical dramas (Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, The Last Duel) are what we are going to miss the most about him. Not that these are his best films but because no-one else in the movie business makes them. Or at least no-one who has the goodwill and box office clout to make them with the type of big budget production that they require.

Napoleon Bonaparte is a towering historical figure. I read Will Durant’s Story of Civilization, which told the story of the West in eleven volumes and took the author and his wife their entire lives to write. The Quarter Century of the French Revolution and Napoleon took up the entirety of the last volume. As Durant would say, it was a time of compressed history. More happened in that 25 years than usually happens in 100. Ridley Scott brings to this task his usual diligence and competence. The directing is sure, the camera frame doesn’t spare the details, and the production value spares no expense. Cast as Napoleon is Joaquin Phoenix, who seems to have ripened into the go-to actor for complicated characters (He has played both Jesus and The Joker in the past five years). Not that his performance here is all that complicated. Because of the dichotomy between glorious victories in battle and dismal performance in the bedroom, Phoenix’s performance is part entitlement and part impotence, which more remembers than dispels all the satirizations of Napoleon as a very short and very temperamental man. A memorable line herein is, “Destiny has brought me this lamb chop.”

The problem with this mediocre movie is the same one that plagues almost all biopics. It’s a problem of scope. For Napoleon, this is a larger problem than most historical figures. There is a tendency to want to include everything notable that the title character has been involved in. However, when the title character has been in so much, what you get is an abridged version of a life, and the more that is cut out, the less what remains can hold together the plot. 

Here are the items that this movie concerns itself with: Napoleon’s famous battles including Toulonne, Egypt, Austerlitz, the Russian Campaign. (Try as the movie might to be comprehensive, we don’t get Napoleon crossing the alps in the Italian campaign.) The other half (half!) of the plot is about Napoleon's romantic relationship with Josephine. What doesn’t make the cut is the revolutions in political science, the revolutions in science (the meter system anyone?), the liberation of the European Jew, the French breakup and reconciliation with the Catholic Church, the global naval wars and the list goes on and on. In a way, this movie is a really good example of how Hollywood bastardizes history. There was only so much run time in this movie and what was prioritized in Napoleon’s life was the sex and violence. 

To witness how this common problem can be avoided, one can watch Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln which decided to not tell the story of Lincoln’s life but to focus on a six month period where Lincoln set out and succeeded in passing the 13th Amendment through the U.S. Congress. Because that movie constrained the time period, it didn’t have some obvious problems in character development that this one has. For one thing, characters that are introduced in the first half hour of the Lincoln movie still exist in the plot at the end of it. In Napoleon, all the characters besides Napoleon and Josephine that have roles in the first half, don’t make it to the second half. One of the biggest characters, Napoleon’s competing general at Waterloo, Lord Wellington, literally shows up in the last hour. If you didn’t already know the general arc of history of this movie, it might be a bewildering journey through random names and places. And if you do know the general background, you will notice details that are brought up but not really developed. Robespierre really did try to shoot himself but failed. It was dramatic when it happened I’m sure, but it is hardly dramatic when the movie shows it. How could it be, when Robespierre is hardly introduced before he exits stage left. Can you really pick up from watching this movie why it was such a disastrous move by Napoleon to invade Russian and then to hang around in Moscow for so long. The sequence must be about 10-15 minutes at most in this movie. 

But really, the worst part of telling this story fast-forward and only focusing on the battles and the love relationship between Napoleon and Josephine is that it inevitably draws connections that almost certainly are not there. Napoleon didn’t abandon his army early in Egypt because he missed Josephine and was worried that she was cheating on him (she was). He didn’t decide to reclaim his throne after his first exile in Elba because he read about Josephine dancing the waltz with the Russian emperor in the newspaper. That’s crazy. It makes sense to try to draw that connection dramatically in this story because otherwise the two halves of the plot would have absolutely nothing to do with each other. But come one, just do less and you’ll make a better movie. I wonder what this story would feel like if Sofia Coppola told the story entirely from the point of Josephine. Now that is not too much plot for a movie. Imagine a story about Napoleon without battles. Wouldn’t that be interesting.

Alien: Covenant (2/5 Stars)

In what is becoming an “Alien” franchise tradition, a subsequent installment cannibalizes a superior predecessor. I don’t mean that the sequel is inferior or simply does the same thing in an inferior way, I mean that is actually undercuts the pleasure of watching a previous movie. This happened the first time in Alien 3, when in between “Aliens” and “Alien 3” the movie actually killed off important characters that the viewer had come to know and very much like. “Alien: Covenant” does the same thing, killing off the main female lead of “Prometheus,” Elizabeth Shaw, played by Noomi Rapace. The ironic thing about the “Alien” franchises is that one of its major themes is corporate disregard for human life in the face of profit, and the main culprit of these in-between movie killings is most likely the waning stardom of previous main characters. At least that is what seems to be the main impetus behind the lack of Noomi Rapace here. In 2012 came out, Noomi Rapace, coming off the iconic “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy, was a the zenith of her star power. In 2017 she has become largely absent whereas Michael Fassbender, the other survivor from “Prometheus,” is still around. So “Alien: Covenant” kills off Noomi Rapace even before the movie starts and became the Michael Fassbender show. It is notable that this is the first canonical Alien installment that does not feature a strong female lead.

The problems start there and keep going. I am going to limit myself to just a few complaints, but not before noting that this movie was directed by Ridley Scott who directed both the original “Alien” and “Prometheus.” I merely point this out to state that he should know how to make a better movie than this one.

A large problem with blockbusters nowadays is that they use digital effects too much. Digital effects have their place, and that is when the filmmakers cannot make the thing they want to show without digital effects, like say a large crowd, or a landscape, or another world. When digital effects are used to make something really small and close, they should not be used at all. The filmmakers should just make the thing they want to be represented. Compare the baby-alien chest bursting scenes in the original 1979 “Alien” and the one this year in “Alien: Covenant.” Even though a span of thirty-eight years of continual special effects evolution has occurred, the 1979 version is more believable, more visceral, and more effective. It’s that way because they made a puppet out of real material and performed the operation physically. The same scene in “Alien: Covenant” looks like a digital recreation. It’s detailed but the audience can tell the difference. There is no financial reason to do it this way. In fact, a puppet is probably cheaper.

This movie breaks all the rules of the Alien. For it to be a believable story, the rules having been set down explicitly need to stay there. Here is a short list of broken rules in “Alien: Covenant.” One: Aliens can be killed by bullets from guns. Two: The Alien gestates in the stomach and bursts through the chest (as opposed to say, through the upper back vertebrae, which is novel but doesn’t make any sense). Three: The Alien needs time (maybe a couple of weeks) to impregnate the host, grow inside it, burst out of it, go into the wilderness and come back fully formed. In this movie, that whole process happens in a couple of hours.

Mr. Scott perhaps broke these rules because he felt the audience may have been impatient. Well, the first “Alien” movie was great because he took his time to establish the rules and follow them, which made them visceral and effective. If he couldn’t find a way to do it here, he should have gone back to the drawing board. After, the end product is an “Alien” movie that doesn’t have believable Aliens in it.

As far as the philosophical underpinnings of this movie, I am disappointed to relate that it did not follow through on the promises “Prometheus” made in what it was trying to accomplish here. I feel like “Prometheus” got thrown under the bus quite frankly. I’m not happy with this movie. Two Michael Fassbenders did not make it all okay.

The Martian (5/5 Stars)

Science. It works, bitches.

- XKCD T-shirt

“The Martian,” like this year’s other great blockbuster “Mad Max: Fury Road” is a movie that would not have been possible before the silent revolution in moviemaking that took place early this century. It is a niche blockbuster that combines the sort of expensive spectacle you have seen before with an unapologetic high common denominator focus of a particular audience. With Mad Max it was gearheads and metal freaks, in this case its engineering nerds and space wonks or whatever they call themselves. Gone are all the trappings of a Hollywood movie. There is no love triangle or family drama, no superpowers or aliens, no class warfare or crime, or even sex and violence. There is a Mars mission already underway at the start. There is a sandstorm and the team has to abort. During the abort, astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is struck by debris and presumed dead. The crew leaves Mars without him. But he is not dead. He is very much alive and now marooned on Mars. It will be another four years before the next mission can get there. How will he stay alive?

No, really, how exactly will he stay alive? Because the math (and there is a lot of scenes of Mark counting things and making calculations) says he will starve in 300 sols (Mars days) if he keeps to the rations he has stored. What follows for the entire length of the movie is a series of engineering problems. Mark has to use his knowledge of botany, chemistry, physics, and several other nerdy things to stay alive on this alien planet for years with nothing but the tools that were brought for a thirty day excusion. In the past studios were very hesistant to give a bunch of money to a movie that would take ten minutes to take the audience through a step-by-step chemical process on how to create water (interesting spoiler: it takes fire to create water) so the main character can grow potatoes. But this movie has taken that chance and given the box office receipts, it will succeed wildly in finding an audience nobody cared to cater to before. 

If you are into this sort of thing. If you are not turned off by people being smart and building cool things, then “The Martian” plays as an almost absurdly easy crowd-pleasing movie. The optimism and can-do attitude and cooperativeness of the best of science is all over the place. Whereas many other mainstream movies are individualistic in that stupid Ayn Randian sort of way (good me against bad world!), Mark Watney’s experience is no Robinson Crusoe type of existence. He is surviving by standing on the shoulders of giants: the knowledge passed down to him from his education, the equipment built for him by the NASA network, and once he achieves communication with NASA, the around the clock expertise, problem solving (math!), and selflessness of everybody on the ground and in space.

For a movie that is ostensibly about one person on one planet, the star power of the cast belies that it is merely that. In the spaceship, the rest of the crew includes Commander Jessica Chastain, Kate Mara, and the underrated Michael Pena. On the ground Jeff Daniels runs the show, Kristin Wiig is his press secretary, Sean Bean is in charge of the astronauts, Benedict Wong and his team builds the rockets over there at the Jet Propulsion Lab, Chiwetel Ejiofor is the satellite expert, and Donald Glover is calculating the fail-safe plan in Astrodynamics. Everybody is working together to save Mark Watney and though there are many arguments about the best way to do it, nobody is working against each other. Thus although there is plenty of suspense, there is pleasantly no drama.

Not that it’s easy. And this is where this kind of movie, even as successful as it will be, will be hard to replicate. It was based on a book written with no time constraints by an engineer in network with a bunch of nerds who were checking his work for scientific errors. The whole point was to be as scientifically accurate as possible not merely do enough to assuage an audience. I do not know how to replicate that on purpose but I sure hope some studio will try.

Ridley Scott directed this movie. He made his name a long time ago with such movies as Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma and Louise. It has been awhile since he has been culturally relevant but he never stopped being an extremely competent filmmaker. He was the perfect person to be in charge of this movie, which is less about drama and more about technical expertise. Matt Damon stars as Mark Watney. This too is perfect casting as he excels at playing exceptionally smart/charming/handsome people.

One last note: would you be surprised that this movie was almost Rated R? As I said before, no violence and no sex, but there are Fucks abounding. The rule is that you have one Fuck. Two Fucks is an R.There are at least six or seven Fucks in this movie. The astute filmmaker will take notes on how you can have a Fuck in a movie without adding to the Fuck count. And yes take note on when to use that one real Fuck. I think they made the right choice here. After performing self-surgery without anesthesia is fine use of your one Fuck. Having said that, Fucks notwithstanding, all parents who want their kids to go to college and study something other than art history should take them to see this movie, It is a wonderful humorous optimitistic story about determination and teamwork that is appropriate for kids of all ages.

Prometheus (5/5 Stars)

A worthy addition to the franchise

It is the year 2089 and a couple of archaeologists excavate a cave in Scotland. They find a cave painting of a large humanoid pointing at what looks like five stars. The same mural had been found in the ancient murals of the Egyptians, Sumerians, Mayans, and Babylonians as well. These civilizations had little to no contact with each other. What’s more, the five stars can actually be found in the nighttime sky. One of these stars is very similar to Earth’s sun and orbiting it is a large gas planet with a moon very similar to Earth. Is it a message? A warning? An invitation for man to meet its makers? Five years later, the Weyland Corporation sponsors a spaceship named Prometheus and its crew of engineers and scientists to make an investigatory trip to that far off galaxy. They find almost exactly what they are looking for: an ancient pyramid with the long forgotten carvings of a humanoid species of alien. But they also find a not very well intentioned something else living inside. Then people start dying.

The look and the feel of the movie should be instantly recognizable for those familiar with the “Alien” franchise. The font for the title is the same, the style of futurisitic technology and set design is the same, and the director, Ridley Scott, was actually the director of the first “Alien” movie (but none of the others. This was way back in 1979). The plot (humans investigate, find hostile aliens, people start dying, the corporate agents act amorally, and more people die) is fundamentally the same as the first several movies, but differs in all the correct ways. There are new thrills, new themes, and new developments in what happens to who and when. I'm being vague on purpose. This is one of those movies where the less I say about the plot, the better experience the reader will have when they see it. So let me just say that the movie is similar enough to the original movies that they make sense being in this franchise but different enough that you will still actually be shocked when you should be. Or in other words, you can enjoy this movie without having seen any of the others and having seen the other movies won’t diminish the experience of this one. This is a quality (the ability to expand on the themes and look of previous movies without violating basic copyright laws) that marks all great sequels and prequels and what makes “Prometheus” a worthy addition to the “Alien” franchise.

No actors from previous installments of the franchise are present in “Prometheus,” but that does not stop this movie from having one of the best ensemble casts in any movie this year. None of these actors are A-List, but to the cinephile in the audience, it is a hugely heavyweight collection of intelligent badassery. First off, playing the ship’s captain is Idris Elba (aka “Stringer Bell” from “The Wire.”) This guy must be a good 6’4” composed entirely of muscle yet still would not look the least out of place in glasses reading a book on quantum mechanics. Not an easy thing to do. Then there is the corporate overseer played by Charlize Theron (aka the “Monster”), who has recently accomplished the feat of being in her late thirties and more stunningly beautiful than she has ever been. Charlize certainly doesn’t need help being tall, but that doesn’t stop her character from wearing five-inch power high-heels, a touch that along with an icy glare gives her screen presence an effect similar to, well, I can’t think of any other woman but Sigourney Weaver. Next is the new golden-boy of serious cinema, Michael Fassbender, who you may be most familiar as the young “Magneto” in the latest X-Men movie. Fassbender has a face and build that makes him perfect for playing a super intelligent and amoral android.  There’s a great scene when he watches his favorite movie, “Lawrence of Arabia,” and the resemblance is uncanny. He has the same intense gaze of a young Peter O’Toole.

Finally there is Noomi Rapace (aka the original and actually Swedish “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) playing the archeaologist. She is noticeably softer than Lizbeth Salandar but the events she goes through are just as traumatic if not more so. I always hesitate to say an actor/actress is brave because you know in the end, it is all just pretending. But for a select few I will pull out that adjective. Christian Bale is one and also Noomi Rapace. It is hard to judge a science fiction performance come Oscar time because the great ones generally require actions in situations that have never been done before (in contrast a performance in a movie adapted from Shakespeare is perhaps the easiest to judge) but as you reflect on this movie, ask yourself this question about that particular scene you must know I am talking about: Who else could have done it better, or better yet, who else could have even done it? (And don’t say Rooney Mara unless you want to piss me off.) For the fourth time in as many movies as I have seen her in, I believe Noomi Rapace deserves an Oscar Nomination. Perhaps the best compliment I can give this movie however has to do with the fact that Sigourney Weaver is not missed. That’s huge because Weaver is arguably the best female action heroine to ever grace the movie screen. But here I am saying it: Rapace and Theron, more than make up for the absence. There is some serious intelligent badass female empowerment going on here. Ridley Scott never seems to disappoint in that area. 

The main flaw in this movie is that it asks several big questions like: Where do we come from? Who are our makers? What do they think of how we turned out? and then does not answer any of them. This does not bother me that much though because these questions really do not have any decent answers and when a movie tries to provide these answers it is always unsatisfactory anyways (see 6th season of “Lost,” the “Matrix” sequels). There is a moment in this movie when the maker has the opportunity to say something and instead just starts being violent. What could it have said? I have no idea. It could have been cool if he had said the correct thing whatever that is. He does not say anything and that is a shame, but I’m not about to fault the writers for not knowing what the meaning of life is. Asking the questions is good enough for me. 

Body of Lies 10/11/08

Oliver Stone once gave a wonderful insight into telling which war you were watching in a movie if you took away the title, the names, and the dates. He pointed out that you could always tell you were watching a WWII movie because the troops were always going somewhere. The GIs always had a destination. They were going to Berlin, or they were going to a guard a bridge, or they were going to do something anything. He then pointed out that you could always tell you were watching a Vietnam movie because the troops endlessly went in circles, didn't really accomplish anything, and usually ended their fights by calling in airstrikes. 
Ridley Scott's 'Body of Lies' I think will provide a blueprint for movies about the war on terrorism. By the looks of this film, and previous movies about the war on terrorism, this war isn't going to be very entertaining. A movie that is true to the war on terror, like this movie, will be very complex technically and morally, will have convoluted story lines and, for the most part, elusive enemies and far-sighted hard to reach goals. Because this movie resembles something like truth, it is sometimes hard to get through. For half the movie, the enemy isn't clearly defined and is incredibly hard to identify. Leonardo Dicaprio, a CIA agent on the ground, and Russel Crowe, his boss in D.C., go to very great lengths simply to find out what the enemy is doing. After several failures, they stage a super elaborate plot to get to a terrorist responsible for bombings in Europe. Still then the plot goes haywire. The point seems to be that no great expense in technology and good will across the ocean in D.C. will ever compare to actual ground experience and intelligence from allies in the base region. 
The ally in this region, who is continually blown off by the ultimate know nothing arrogant boss, Russell Crowe, is a Jordanian counter-terrorist minister named Mark Strong (He's Middle Eastern even if his name lies opposite). He's morally corrupt (has torture rooms) but is perhaps the only hope for an effective strategy in such a FUBAR place. (The middle east in this movie is a wasteland covered in garbage and sand being roamed by wild scurvy dogs) Unfortunately the only way it seems to get anything done is to involve innocent civilians in the process. This usually gets them killed. When the Russel Crowe character says "no one in this mess is innocent," it sounds like something he needs to constantly repeat to himself in order to sleep. When Dicaprio gets tortured near the end of this film, a part of me thought he certainly deserved it. He certainly did horrible things to get there. 
This movie is tough to watch at times, but I give it a fresh review because it is ultra competent and provides a real on-the-ground look at the war on terrorism. (I would bet the entire thing was shot in the middle east. Some of the war torn vistas seem dangerously close for any film crew) The story makes sense even though sometimes Dicaprio's character seems offset with different principles. Its hard to reconcile the renegade man who would sacrifice innocent civilians and outright challenge government authority with the guy who takes the Arab nurse out on a couple of dates. This is a character with a divergent mind. The role called for a great, maybe impossible, performance. I think Dicaprio's take on it wasn't entirely plausible. Crowe on the other hand was as good as it could be. I heard he gained fifty pounds to play this role. That I think was unnecessary. Unless the character is Oscar worthy stuff (Like Raging Bull or Monster) you really shouldn't be putting yourself through that sort of punishment. It helped the character but this movie doesn't deserve that sort of commitment.
As for Ridley Scott, he has once again proven that he is an ultra-competent director. I don't recall the last time when he did something truly significant (maybe Thelma and Louise) but in the last decade he has been building a list of good (not great) movies. (American Gangster, Kingdom of God, Black Hawk Down, Gladiator). This one certainly updates the war movie genre to current technologies and complexities. It is probably the best movie to come out about the war on terror, but, looking at the track record, that doesn't say much. Still, with the way this war is set up, an easy narrative is going to be hard to come by. 

American Gangster 11/04/07

American Gangster tells the story of two men. Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington), a Harlem drug dealer, who revolutinized the heroin business from 1968 to 1973, and Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) the honest cop who brought him down. The movie moves back and forth between the two characthers, each of them are equally interesting. Frank Lucas is an exemplary businessman, smart serious and humble. Roberts is the kind of man whos only good at his job. Between divorce proceedings he turns in one million dollars in unmarked bills at a time when that sort of thing was looked down upon with suspicion. The movie, which is based on a true story, looks and acts authentic (I don't know what it is about the 70s, but it always appears as grungy and dirty. Did they not have barbers or showers then?) This is an incredibly solid movie and it is as good as it is on paper as it is on the screen. It's two hours forty-five minutes long and never boring. It's not a great Ridley Scott film like Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, or Gladiator. It's more like a Black Hawk Down or Matchstick Men. There's a good reason for this.
This may be a great film if it weren't for the fact that it is the little brother in a genre that is filled with classics. Compare this movie to Goodfellas, Scarface, The Departed, or The Godfather and it falters. It doesn't stand up to them. So while it may be the best gangster movie this year it certainly isn't one of the best. 
Another slight problem is that these roles don't seem made for the main actors. I take a look at the Richie Roberts charachter and it doesn't say 'only Russell Crowe should play me.' Neither does the Frank Lucas charachter say 'Denzel Washington was born for this role.' I got the feeling that these guys could be played by anyone. They are too cut and dry for one person. There isn't the complexity or emotion that gives the audience a 'Tony Montana' who could only be played by Al Pacino or a 'Tommy' who Joe Pesci was born to play. The charachters aren't memorable to be burned in one's mind for too long. Not saying this isn't a good film, just saying it pales in comparison to earlier works in the genre.
Probably the most memorable charachters in the film belonged to the supporting roles. Josh Brolin plays an unrepentant sleazy cop in the first role I've bothered to recognize him in. (He seems to be old enough to have been in a bunch of movies by now.) I find it amusing that he would have a late 80s style slicked back corporate haircut. I think it just goes to show how much the cut has become a metaphor for slimy corruption. It was popularized a good decade after this film took place, and it still works to perfection. 
The second supporting role is a complete surprise. Cuba Gooding Jr. in a role that doesn't completely suck in a decent movie! Wow! I don't care if its only for five minutes, this is the first acting gig he's done in ten years that isn't shameless and embarrassing. The academy, I bet, still wants to take back his oscar, but now with slightly less bitter rage. 

A Good Year 01/16/07

resh: Ridley Scott's new movie is about a successful London stock exchange man, Russel Crowe, who inherits his uncle's French vineyard. He at first wants to sell it but after a good deal of nostalgia he decides to not only keep it but to move there leaving behind his old life.
This might seem like a cliche movie and it is, but the way that Ridley Scott tells it makes it feel like new. There's so many techniques he uses in the beginning part of the story that speeds up the story. Why? Because Max is a stock trader and is life is supercharged all the time. But as he spends more time at the estate the movie itself slows down. Most movies start slow and end fast. This one starts fast and ends slow. It's a very smart way to tell the story and it makes this movie worth seeing. It isn't a must see of any kind. But its a short, clean, and complete movie. Very good.
Of course another good reason to see this movie is the kid Freddie Highmore. He plays the young max and shares many a good scene with the really old Albert Finney. It was kinda cool to see the kid had grown since the last time I saw him in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." I hope someday someone puts that kid in a movie with Dakota Fanning. I think that would be positively righteous.