Stop-Loss 03/29/08

Stop-Loss is about the controversial military loophole that keeps soldiers in the army after their tour of duty has been fulfilled. A soldier played by Ryan Phillipe has just gotten back from Iraq to his small All-American Texas town. He is given a bronze star and a purple heart. People call him a hero. Then he refuses to comply with the unfair ruling of his superior officers. Haunted by his tour in Iraq he refuses to bend to the loophole. He is threatened with felony convictions and becomes a fugitive. Certainly this is not the way to treat war heroes. This movie will rattle your soul and convince you of the subjects injustice. To that particular purpose it succeeds. But otherwise for as many good performances and scenes in this movie, there are a couple that fall flat, and it contains a melodramatic ending that almost kills it.

Kimberly Pierce, the director of Boys Don't Cry, another movie set in poor and lonely Texas, has not made a film in years. And it shows just a little bit. Her sincerity is unquestionable but there are some choices she made that are simply wrong. I usually don't bash actors, but I wonder how Ryan Phillippe is becoming the go-to-guy for a war veteran (His last movie was Flags of Our Fathers). He does a good job most of the time, but there's just a couple scenes too many where his voice quivers and his lips tremble and he seems like he's about to cry. It makes more sense for him to be mad. The scene where he contradicts his superior officer and says "Fuck the President," is great. There needed to be more scenes like that. 
Pierce is also hit and miss with the post combat syndrome of these soldiers. It makes sense when one soldier gets completely wasted, thinks he's in Iraq, and starts digging a trench to sleep in. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance is certainly powerful and compelling. (Gordon-Levitt is quietly putting together a string of small good movies like last year's "The Lookout" and this one. I'm quietly starting to pay attention.) Other scenes though, like when Phillipe goes psycho on a bunch of street thugs ring false. The delusion goes on for too long, besides Ryan is supposed to be the sensible one. None of this compares though to the biggest miscalculation of the movie. And that is the WWF style fight scene that takes place in a graveyard at the movie's end. A soldier's funeral is supposed to be serious stuff right. And these characters obviously take it seriously. Why on Earth did Director Pierce choose to stage a completely unrealistic and exploitative fight? And then after that, have the characters start crying again. 
These are my reservations about the film. But I still recommend it because for every bad scene there are three good ones. The part in Iraq, the military hospital, the medals ceremony, the Texan society, and especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt's doomed veteran are all worthy of praise. I wonder if it will take Kimberly Pierce another ten years to make her next movie. I hope its sooner.

Flags of Our Father 11/27/06

Clint Eastwood's new war movie left something to be desired. Most of it was good enough, definitely the battle scenes and the subsequent publicity tour. The biggest problem was the over abundance of voice over narration and the subsequent confusion. 
It was very confusing as to who was tellling this story, when, and how. Only at the end did I finally understand that it was the son of one of the soldiers that was visiting other veterans and interviewing them. If that's so then this story is being told by that son. So it's his story. Therefore Eastwood should have made that clear up front and then given the son more background. That way when the end of the movie come around, and it happens to be mostly about the son, I the viewer shouldn't think that the final scenes have very little to do with the movie. The movie was a bit anti-climatic. It's what's stopping this movie from becoming something other than run-of-the-mill. 

The battle scenes have a weird look to them. This isn't really a complaint, but it sort of looked like a video game and when it didn't look like a video game it looked like 'Saving Private Ryan.' On that note I really liked the casting of Barry Pepper. As one may remember he was the sniper in 'Saving Private Ryan.' Having him in this movie gave it a more authentic feel. Ryan Phillipe does a fine job too I guess. Most of the other guys I plain didn't recognize. 
There is so much talk about the flag-raising and how it was paticularly meaningless to the men who did it. But Eastwood also makes such a big deal over the flag-raising also that it completely substitutes the rest of the battle. This begs the question I think. Why didn't Eastwood make a movie about the battle of Iwo Jima and not about the flag-raising if he thought the flag raising wasn't that great. There's a look and feel to Eastwood's movies that makes them seem great, but I find that I look closer and I can never quite find the heart. The movies don't go to much farther than skin-deep. That's why I rarely watch an Eastwood film twice, although this one is definitely worth seeing once. I hope it doesn't win any oscars.