The Tide has Come!

As I have said many times, I generally love action movies, as long as they feature an exciting plot with amazing action sequences, good acting, and decent dialogue. Yes, it’s difficult to get those things in action films, but sometimes it happens. Sometimes one will overrule the others, such as when a movie’s action scenes are so amazing that the cheesy dialogue doesn’t matter. Although I haven’t seen Top Gun (1986) since I was a kid, I remember it being that way. Yes, the dialogue was cheesy and the plot was overdone, but the airplane sequences were great! At least when I was a kid. So I have liked director Tony Scott ever since I saw Top Gun back then.

Until now, I couldn’t tell you any other movie Tony Scott had directed. I can rattle off many of Ridley Scott’s films, but not his brothers’. On a whim, however, I requested Crimson Tide (1995), and when the credits came on, I felt like my friend who saw The Fugitive (1993). When they announced that Tommy Lee was in it, his jaw dropped, and he uttered, “Nawwww….”, until they showed that it was actually Tommy Lee Jones and not the drummer for Motley Crue. In other words, I had no idea that Tony Scott had done this movie, or that he had done any other movies besides Top Gun.

Based on these two films, my love for Tony Scott is solidified. Yes, he has tarnished his record with some terrible films so forgettable that I hardly remember them—Days of Thunder (1990), anyone?—but Crimson Tide is an excellent submarine film (True Romance (1993) and The Hunger (1983) are both worth watching, too). I don’t love submarine films, or maritime films in general, because they’re always so claustrophobic. I know that’s part of the point, but it makes me a bit uneasy. Yes, Das Boot (1982) is great, but these films are generally unexciting and uninspired.

Crimson Tide, however, is quite riveting. My only complaint is that the film is a bit too long. At a running time of nearly two hours, my heart couldn’t take it. With the series of “mutinies,” the movie is simply too taut to be bearable for two hours. And I kept thinking, “I hope he’s right; I hope he’s right!” If you have seen the movie, you know what I mean, and if you haven’t seen it, well, you should.

Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman are great together. They’re both such good actors that it’s nice to see them play off one another. And there are some other familiar faces that I enjoyed seeing, as well.

Overall, Crimson Tide is a great action film that features superb dialogue and great acting. The plot is interesting and engaging, although not the best I have seen. The action scenes are pretty sparse, though. Perhaps I should call this a thriller rather than an action film because it really doesn’t feature too much action. But the movie is so tense that I didn’t miss it.

Grade: 7

Transport Me Outta Here!

With The Transporter 2 coming out soon, I figured I had better watch the first one to see why the need for a second one. And frankly, I just don’t see it.

In short, there is nothing worthwhile in The Transporter (2002) that I can’t get in far superior movies.

Martial arts action scenes? They’re far better in any other martial arts film: try Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (1999) or Hero (2004). In The Transporter, they’re too long and not that interesting. And they don’t fit with the plot that well, either. They were probably one of the best things about the movie, but they just weren’t executed well enough to make them engaging. And then I saw that the DVD included extended fight scenes. I avoided them.

Car chases? It could have been good, but the editing was way too choppy. Go for The French Connection (1971) or Ronin (1998) instead.

Plot? Terrible. Simply one of the worst plots for an action movie I have seen in a long time. I like the idea of “the transporter,” and especially one who simply gets mixed up in something, but the inclusion of the girl as the love interest didn’t work at all. And the daughter/father thing was tacked on and terrible.

Jason Statham was the best thing about this movie, and yet even he couldn’t make it work. He’s a hard-ass, and I love his ability to never crack a smile, but it gets old after a while. Snatch (2001) is one of my favorite movies, however, and watching The Transporter made me think about why I liked him there and not here. Statham needs a foil, a buddy, a side-kick, someone who is goofy that he can play off of. In Snatch, there was the guy who bought the gun that didn’t work. Statham played the same basic stoic character, but he was there to play off the other bumbling idiot. It’s like Laurel and Hardy or Martin and Lewis—the comic needs a straight man. But the straight man needs the comic, too! And here, there is no comic. Here, it’s simply straight man. And it makes for a really boring movie.

The Transporter gets a 3 out of 10 simply because the scenery is beautiful, and the action scenes were interesting for a brief while. You definitely won’t find me in the theater for the sequel, unless it’s to see a different film. I will probably get it from the library when it’s available, though. Even though the first one was stupid, I can’t pass up an action film.

I Guess I’m In Good Company

Since the terms conservative and liberal have come up several times, I decided I would dedicate another blog entry to them. Specifically, I have been trying to figure out whether In Good Company is conservative or liberal. I know it’s one of them, but I’m not quite sure which it is yet. Maybe I will just explain why I think it is either conservative or liberal and let you fill in the rest.

Before I do that, though, let me say that I think this movie is excellent. In fact, I think I would say that it is one of the best drama/comedies that I have seen in a long time. The acting is superb, even from Topher Grace, about whom I was unsure at first. Scarlett Johanssen was as beautiful as ever. Her dad, played by Dennis Quaid, portrayed fatherhood with interest, compassion, and sincerity.

A lot of this good acting is due largely to a great script, full of wonderful dialogue that was witty yet not over the top. I used to love Dawson’s Creek, and now I love Gilmore Girls (I know, I know, I deserve a lot of flak for these loves), because those shows have characters whose dialogue is fun and funny and smart and exciting. But let’s face it: none of use actually talk like that. In Good Company isn’t that way. The characters sound like real people, and they have real problems that everyone seems to go through. It’s tear-provoking and then hilarious, the way real life is.

Perhaps that’s why I have trouble knowing whether it’s liberal or conservative—because portrayals of our lives are not liberal or conservative. I’m actually quite liberal politically, but I look over my blog, and I come across as a freakin’ prude. Maybe I’m both! But that’s the point. In Good Company seems to be both, too, and that makes it compelling.

In order to explain what I mean, I am going to have to spoil the movie for you, at least partially. So if you haven’t seen it, you may want to stop reading.

The main point of the movie is that Topher Grace is a mover and shaker in a sales firm. He is put in charge of sales for a magazine, something that he is probably not ready for, and he is put in way over his head. Dennis Quaid was the boss before him, and now he is made an underling of this twenty-something kid. At the end, though, the kid is fired, and Dennis Quaid is made boss again.

What’s the point here? The old can do it better than the young. That’s a conservative viewpoint, a kind of romanticizing of the old days. Dennis Quaid continually says that they can’t fire his team that has been with him for seven years, even though Topher Grace wants to. For Grace, it’s all about the bottom line, at least at first. Then he realizes that Quaid may be right: maybe these people are good at their jobs. They have families they have to support, and their jobs are their lifeblood. It’s difficult to fire someone when you know their situations, after all. Perhaps companies should not be concerned solely with money. Perhaps there is a human factor here, as well.

But wait! Topher Grace is actually pretty good at his job. Yes, he spends way too much time working and loses his wife because of it, but he’s also a good employee. He may stink as a boss, but it’s only because he demands so much of his employees. And he gets cut in the end, not because he has failed in some way, but because the company is sold and everyone belonging to the last guy is fired.

The company does make fun of the new idea of synergy, as expounded on by both Grace and Teddy K, played by Malcolm McDowell, and Grace’s idea for cellphones for kids is laughable, too, but only because it works. Whereas Quaid does well because he believes in his company, Grace does well because he knows what works, even if it is shallow.

So I guess it comes off on the conservative side. I hope that’s not why I liked it…

Grade for In Good Company: 9

Finding Sentimentalism

I haven’t revealed my source of movies yet, but I’m not too proud to say that I get them from the library, both my university library and my public city library. This source means two things, besides that I get my movies for free: 1) about half of the movies I get screw up in the middle because they’re scratched, and I never get to finish them, and 2) I rarely get to watch very recent movies.

I did manage to put Finding Neverland (2004) on hold a couple of months ago, and I finally got it and watched it. My initial reaction to this movie was that it was great: although a bit overly sentimental, it was still charming and uplifting.

I know he’s a favorite of many, but I generally don’t like Johnny Depp. He seems a one-trick pony to me. He’s always the slightly goofy guy who either doesn’t smile or smiles too much. It fit Pirates of the Caribbean (2003), but we had seen the same character in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) and Blow (2001). In fact, I was beginning to wonder whether Depp knew how to pick good scripts. He had hopefully already done Secret Window (2004) before Pirates was released. Now he’s choosing wisely. We have Finding Neverland and the anticipated, well-received Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). He’s great in Neverland. His Irish accent was good, and he was imaginative without being childish. Depp was gold here.

Although I have never really liked Johnny Depp (except in his 21 Jump Street days), I have always liked Kate Winslet. Ever since Heavenly Creatures (1994), Winslet has proven herself a good actress who knows how to pick quirky, good movies. Her list of movies is really impressive, with only a few dark spots (Titanic and Life of David Gale). And even these dark spots are somewhat redeemable. She is excellent in Neverland, too. She isn’t flashy, but she’s still beautiful, and she comes across as simply an excellent actress.

The kids are great, too, but they seem beside the point. Yes, the Peter character is well-done, but he really just has to stand there and either smile or look brooding. It’s Depp and Winslet who carry the show.

So this is overall an excellent movie. My favorite part was the editing, which was so necessary. This film was obviously much longer to begin with, and the editor did a great job of cutting to scenes without explanation. Yet we were able to figure out what was happening. It was wonderful to see a great drama that wasn’t drawn out. See my review of The Horse Whisperer to hear me gripe about these overwrought films.

But I’m thinking about the message of the movie now, and it makes me question it. People are never really gone if you imagine them—that’s not all that bad, is it? No, not really. It’s a nice sentiment, but that’s what is, a sentiment. I can live with that.

The part I can’t live with is Barrie’s relationship with his wife. Perhaps it’s the fact that I just finished reading Edith Wharton’s House of Mirth last night, but the movie didn’t spend much time on the scandal of Barrie, Mrs. Barrie, and Winslet’s character. As society players, all three of them would have been shunned for their actions. The mom was right when she criticized Barrie for putting Winslet up in the summer cottage: that’s what a rich man does for his mistress, not for a simple friend. And those things are expected to be “paid for.”

But let’s take a step back. Mrs. Barrie gets a bad rap here as a general witch, but she’s not all that bad. Barrie says that she has no imagination, but she’s right, too: she couldn’t join him in his flights of introverted fancy. Perhaps he never let her join, or perhaps she couldn’t, but it’s sad to see him forsake his marriage nevertheless. That’s what really bugs me here. Instead of trying to save his marriage, he lets it all go for another family of kids. Could he not have children of his own? Would that have satisfied them? Sure, they’re his “muses,” but couldn’t he have found that in his own family?

Barrie doesn’t exactly commit adultery, but he comes close to it. In fact, an argument could be made that he DOES commit adultery. The film makes sure we know that his wife runs off with another man, so that she becomes the bad one, but it’s really Barrie who has pushed her away.

Those kinds of strange familial messages bother me. They don’t take away from the quality of the film, but they do make it a bit more than simply a nice sentimental movie. If my kids watched this, I would have to have a long talk with them about marriage.

Yes, I know I’m becoming conservative in my old age. Perhaps I should just accept it.

Grade of Finding Neverland: 8

Friday with Friday Night Lights

Billy Bob Thornton has always been a good actor. His movie choices, however, are hit or miss: some are really great (see Sling Blade and Bandits) and some, well, not so much (see Armageddon or The Alamo). There’s no consistency here about the types of movies he chooses—some seem like small arty films, and others are huge, big-budget blow-ups.

Friday Night Lights is one of his good ones, but not because of Billy Bob Thornton. He’s good, of course, but this movie is really about the players and only incidentally about the coach, played by Thornton. What makes this film good is a) the truth behind small-town high school football, b) the way the individual characters are dramatized, and c) the ending.

Throughout the movie, we are shown shots of the high school stadium, as well as the small Texas town where the movie takes place—Odessa, in West Texas. During the games, the entire town basically shuts down, and the businesses write “Gone to the Game!” on their windows. In fact, the town seems to internalize the school’s victories, putting tremendous pressure on the players and coaches. After one loss, the coach finds 20 for sale signs in his yard—that’s how committed these people are to this team. It’s a lot like my high school in South Carolina. In these small towns, there’s nothing to do, so the people take their local sports very seriously.

I appreciated these details, because they made the characters so real, which brings us to the next reason the movie was good: the individual characters were remarkably real. Everything here had been done before, sure, but these characters were not caricatures or one-dimensional kids; they were real people with real problems. My wife actually left the movie half-way through because one kid was abused by his father. It was gut-wrenching without being trite or over-emotional.

Which is what I loved about the ending. I won’t give it away, but it is powerful. This is not your typical movie, let’s just say that. Remember when I mentioned that all films were about overcoming adversity? Well, this one does isn’t standard. I really did almost cry here.

As a side note, there is only one piece of music throughout the entire movie, unless the students were at a party or something. The entire night I kept telling my wife, “I know this song!” I told her it sounded like a band we had seen open for Fugazi about five years earlier called Explosions in the Sky. She didn’t even really remember seeing the band, but I waited for the credits at the end, and ... sure enough, was them! I was vindicated!

Overall, this is a great movie, even for those of us, like me, who don’t like football. Grade? I give it an 8, and this could go up to 8.5, but I will stick with 8 for now. It’s not one of the best movies I have ever seen, but it’s good.

Terrorism Lessons from the Movies

I was listening NPR—you know, that liberally biased station that should be shut down—and they said that the terrorists in Iraq had struck again, killing three more people. And that term was there, just as it’s always there: terrorists.

So I began thinking about ways to deal with this term, and whether there were any examples from movies that may help us understand it. As you know, all of life’s lessons can be garnered from film. So this entry is dedicated to that—a look at terrorism from the viewpoint of film.

Let me give two disclaimers here: 1) Filmmakers, and, thus, films are generally fairly liberal. We have to understand that before we begin. If we go to films looking for conservatism, we’re going to have a hard time, as I have already said in a previous blog entry. 2) I have not seen every film, so I can’t reference every mention of terrorism. In fact, I will have to use several of the films I have already reviewed here. I will try not to just rehash, but some of it will come up again.

First, there is X-Men 2, which I just watched again (since writing the review here, in fact). Yes, the bad guys are the U.S. military, or at least the corporation that operates under government and military jurisdiction. The bad guy’s name is Colonel Striker, after all. There’s an interesting reference to the first X-Men film, where the Senator, who is actually Magneto’s friend in disguise, asks Striker how he knows about the X-Men mansion. Colonel Striker says that he learned it from one of the “Liberty Island terrorists,” meaning Magneto.

But wait, terrorists? Who in that battle is actually a terrorist? According to Striker, and almost all of the general population, they’re probably ALL considered terrorists. The point is not that Magneto is a terrorist and the X-Men are good. No, all of them are bad, and therefore, they’re terrorists. Yes, Magneto wants to destroy things and kill all humans, so he’s really bad, but there is really no distinction between him and the X-Men in the mind of most of the human characters in the film. For us there is, sure. The X-Men are the cool good guys who just want to save the day. Watch Wolverine brutally kill those soldiers that are just doing their job, though, and we can’t quite say that. We’re supposed to “support the troops,” right? Not kill them.

Then I began thinking about that 80s movie Red Dawn (1984), starring Patrick Swayze. I liked it when I was a kid, and I really want to see it again, so I will have to look it up. But I was thinking about the plot of it: the Soviets invade and easily take over the U.S., so it’s up to a bunch of kids to start their own army to overthrow the Soviets. How do they do it? They stage ambushes, hide and then attack, and then generally try to kill every Soviet they see. If I’m remembering correctly, that’s what they do. And we call them heroes, patriots, freedom fighters. The actual war was over, though. The military had been defeated. What would the Soviets call those people? Terrorists?

Ok, ok, I know the analogies aren’t perfect—Iraq was ruled by a cruel dictator, and we have a democratically elected government.

But what if we were supporting a revolution in Nicaragua, say, when they had a government that we didn’t like? We didn’t invade, but we funded the “rebels” or terrorists. France, meanwhile, likes the government of Nicaragua and tells us we have to stop supporting this terrorism. We say no, so France invades the U.S. and easily overthrows our government, while all they want to do is to have new elections and have a new government.

Well, I live in Texas, and there would be a lot of Texans who would be exercising their right to bear arms and trying to kill every “Frog” they came across. Would they be freedom fighters, patriots, rebels, or terrorists?

Just some ideas that I’m pondering. Yeah, I know I sound like I’m saying the Iraqis are right for killing U.S. troops, but I really didn’t say anything like that. I don’t want any U.S. troops to die, or anyone else for that matter!! I’m really talking about the word “terrorist,” and how we use it. Our terms are loaded, and we use them as they help us define people, not as they really are.

Movies teach us that much.