Lost Missing Pieces #1
Hi Folks, this is being posted a little later than I planned, but I'll have the others coming up very soon. The following is a recap of the first installment of the Lost Missing Pieces that have been running through Verizon and abc.com.
Enjoy! - Shannon
"The Watch"
Piece missing from: "Do No Harm" Season 1, Episode 20
Goes Between: (Jack's Flashbacks) Christian's late night, poolside arrival, and the wedding
The scene opens with a deliberately misleading shot of Jack standing on a beach, tossing rocks into the ocean. It's only when the camera pans around that we see he's outside of an expensive beach resort and not on the Island.
Christian joins Jack on the beach, and after some light-hearted small talk about avoiding the wedding planner, Christian reveals that he actually came out to give Jack a family heirloom before the ceremony. He presents Jack with a silver watch that was given to him, by his father, the day he married Jack's mother.
Jack points out that he's never seen Christian wear the watch, and Christian concedes that he never has. The reason, he explains, is that when his father gave him the watch, on his wedding day, he told Christian that he didn't like Jack's mother, and thought she was the wrong choice for a wife.
Jack hesitates, and then asks if Christian is trying to tell him something. Christian replies that, unlike himself, Jack has made the absolute perfect choice. He turns to leave, but decides to say one last thing. He asks Jack to promise that if he and Sarah ever have children, that Jack will treat his children better than Christian treated Jack.
Rather than making the promise, Jack responds, "No pressure, right?" Christian pats him on the shoulder, and returns to the resort.
Knight Rider returns. I'm not sure why
I almost didn't write this review, because I could feel an inordinate amount of sarcasm welling up inside me. Yes, we're desperate right now; there's so little new stuff to watch that anything that isn't a rerun looks pretty good. But the new and improved Knight Rider doesn't feel all that new, and I'm not sure they improved anything. It feels like a re-do of a show that wasn't all that good in the first place.
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Terminator: "Come with me if you want to live."
[This review contains spoilers.]
T2 did everything a good sequel is supposed to do, and more.
The structure of the two movies is the same. Two warriors arrive from the future, one to kill and one to protect. There are battles, massive chases and action sequences, culminating in a pulse-pounding resolution in a huge, industrial space. The killer is destroyed, and the protector is sacrificed.
And yet, despite the similar structure and the many, many clever homages to the original movie, T2 isn't a rehash. It took the story to a whole new place. Most importantly, the end of the first movie was utterly bleak, with humankind facing certain destruction. The second ended on a more positive note. The world could still end, but it was no longer certain.
The circular paradox stuff continued. Dyson created the technology which led to the Terminator. But he did it using the chip and the hand from the original Terminator that Sarah crushed. So even the end of the world was circular, directly caused by Terminator coming back in time. It's like this is a story that shouldn't even exist. If it circles in upon itself, how can anyone break the loop, stop the inevitable?
The original was Michael Biehn's movie, but T2 belongs to Linda Hamilton. She owned the character of Sarah Connor, and it was hard to take your eyes off her while she was onscreen. She was in great physical shape for this movie, and it worked for the character; it made sense that Sarah would have made herself so strong. She was emotionally damaged, though. Like Cassandra in Greek mythology, she knew the future but was unable to make anyone believe her. And she had made a lot of mistakes raising John, with the best of intentions.
I liked Arnold's performance in this one. His minimalist acting skills had improved. And Edward Furlong was good as ten-year-old John Connor. His battle smarts and the way he turned "Uncle Bob" into something resembling a human being made his future self believable. Many of the best scenes were of John Connor playing with his very own killer robot. "Hasta la vista, baby." "Chill out, dickwad." "No problemo." I've always liked how John made Terminator swear not to kill anybody, and afterward Terminator carefully shot everyone in the leg.
Roles shifted. Terminator became protector instead of killer, making this into the classic sci-fi story of the robot giving his life to protect humans. Sarah and "Uncle Bob" connected because they were both protecting John; they became like a family unit. When Sarah went after Dyson, she was like a Terminator. (Except she couldn't go through with it.) And Dyson was rather like Sarah in the first movie: confused and overwhelmed, the focus of Sarah's rage. Dyson sacrificed himself to save the world, too, much like Kyle Reese did.
I'm always less about the action sequences than the story, but they were outstanding, world class action sequences. Unlike the original which was made on a shoestring, T2 (at the time it came out) was the most expensive movie ever made, and it looked it. Fortunately, James Cameron was always too smart to make the common mistake of sacrificing the story to the special effects.
Bits and pieces:
-- The action took place in 1994 or 1995; they don't tell us, but John is ten. Judgment Day was August 29, 1997, which is now ten years ago. That's one of the problems with sci-fi as a genre; it often gets dated way too quickly.
-- Although the original theatrical release is fine, I prefer the "Ultimate Edition." There are several more scenes that add depth to the story. My favorite was Sarah dreaming she was talking to Kyle. I really wish they had kept that one; Michael Biehn should have been in this movie.
-- Twins were used twice. The guard in Pescadero duplicated by the T-1000, for one. And Linda Hamilton's twin sister, Leslie, was in that final scene in the steel mill. In the Ultimate Edition, there's an extra scene with a mirror that also includes Leslie.
-- John Connor was a juvenile delinquent. Throughout the movie, he was wearing a tee shirt that said "Public Enemy." John was carrying the photo of Sarah that Kyle had in the original movie. That's one movie prop I'd love to have. We got a glimpse of the adult John Connor. Scarred and rather scary looking.
-- Earl Boen reprised his original role as slimy police psychiatrist Dr. Silberman. In the original movie, he said he could have made a career out of Kyle. Apparently, he did make a career out of Sarah.
-- I'd like to say some good things about Robert Patrick as T-1000, too. He was sleek and cat-like, the opposite of Arnold; just the way he moved and walked was menacing. He did a fine job with a very strange part.
-- One quibble. I thought the time machine would only transport living tissue. He looked human when he wanted to, but the T-1000 was liquid metal.
-- Okay, two quibbles. The Connors, mere et fils, both spent the entire movie pushing bangs out of their eyes. Wouldn't warrior types make certain their hair wouldn't obscure their vision? There's a reason they cut your hair when you join the military.
-- The way Dougie the revolting orderly licked Sarah's face has always given me the creeps.
-- Always liked the way the T-1000 shook his finger at Sarah. And how the Terminator's last gesture was a thumbs up.
Quotes:
John: "Please insert your stolen card now."
Sarah: "On August 29, 1997, it's gonna feel pretty fucking real to you, too. Anybody not wearing two million sunblock is going to have a real bad day."
John: "Who sent you?"
Terminator: "You did."
Silberman: "You broke my arm!"
Sarah: "There are two hundred and fifteen bones in the human body. That's one."
John: "We're not gonna make it, are we? People, I mean."
Terminator: "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."
John: "Yeah. Major drag, huh?"
Sarah: "Dyson listened while the Terminator laid it all down. Skynet. Judgment Day. The history of things to come. It's not every day that you find out you're responsible for three billion deaths. He took it pretty well."
Dyson: "How were we supposed to know?"
Sarah: "Yeah. Right. How are you supposed to know? Fucking men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you're so creative. You don't know what it's like to really create something." I always liked the way Linda Hamilton delivered these lines.
John: "We got company."
Dyson: "Police?"
Sarah: "How many?"
John: "All of them, I think."
Terminator: "Stay here. I'll be back."
Terminator: "Hasta la vista, baby."
John: "Holy shit."
Terminator: "I need a vacation."
If I had to choose between T1 and T2, I'd choose T1. But it would be close. This is an outstanding movie. Four out of four stars,
Billie
(This is one of Billie's favorite movies.)
Star Wars 6: Return of the Jedi
[This review includes spoilers.]Han: "A Jedi knight? I'm out of it for a little while, and everybody gets delusions of grandeur."
I hate Ewoks. I hate their cute, fuzzy little faces and their squeaky little voices. And why? Because they almost single-handedly turned the heaviness volume way down on this movie. This one could have been the best of the trilogy. Instead, it was the weakest of the three. Although I must be fair and admit it wasn't just the Ewoks. Much of Jedi just felt juvenile, like blue elephants playing the xylophone, generals that looked like toads, Carrie Fisher in a steel bikini.
But there's still a lot to love about Jedi. I always enjoyed the long rescue sequence in Jabba's palace, Luke's calm ascension to Jedi knighthood, and every freaking scene with Darth Vader. I loved watching the Emperor trying to turn Luke to the dark side, as Luke was turning Anakin back toward the light. Yes, the blue bolts of death coming from the Emperor's hands went on way too long, but Darth Vader finally redeeming himself and sacrificing his life for his son was classic.
As always, the visuals were stunning. Simply outstanding. Nothing else looks like a Star Wars movie. For the record, I have to say I liked the revisions that Lucas made to the re-release. There was something fitting about Hayden Christensen as one of those three spirits in the end, and I loved the addition of the celebratory scenes on all of the planets. And I always thought that Lucas did a masterful job of continuity in matching up the details in both trilogies. The only discordant detail was Leia's memories of her mother, and I shouldn't say more because it will spoil the prequel trilogy.
Bits and pieces:
-- I don't hate the speeder chase through the redwoods. It's better than the pod race in episode one.
-- Light on the dismemberments this time. Darth Vader lost his artificial hand (and we don't get the story behind that one until Episode three). C3PO lost an eye.
-- C3PO: "R2, I have a bad feeling about this."
-- Yoda: "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it rule your destiny."
-- Han: "Keep your distance. I don't know. Fly casual."
-- Han: "Great, Chewie, great. Always thinking with your stomach."
Part of me feels that every Star Wars movie should get four stars because, hey, it's Star Wars, the geek holy grail. But if I'm honest with myself -- three out of four stars,
Billie
Terminator
[Spoilers below!]Kyle: "Come with me if you want to live."
I love science fiction, time travel stories, and strong female characters. And I'm a romantic. So you can imagine how I've always felt about this movie.
The whole freaking story is a paradox. How could John Connor even exist in the first place if John himself had to send his father back in time to rescue and impregnate his mother? And yet, it's the circular time travel elements that I love most. Like the photograph of Sarah that Kyle carried with him in the future. He always wondered what Sarah was thinking when it was taken, and of course, she was thinking of him. I always wondered why James Cameron didn't give us the biggest paradox of all: the name of the factory in that final action sequence, Cyberdyne Systems.
I've never liked Arnold Schwarzenegger. I particularly dislike him in his most recent role as governator. But I will grudgingly admit that he was pretty much perfect casting as a killer cyborg, and this movie launched his career. His best work as an actor was always physical, and this was a very physical role. And his expressionless and memorable delivery of the line, "I'll be back," has become part of our culture.
Anyway, Arnold, smarnold. I've always felt that this was Michael Biehn's movie. Kyle Reese was a tragic, memorable character. A refugee from an unspeakable future, he made a quixotic, heroic journey through time because he fell in love with a photograph, and sacrificed his life after only one night of love. His death was painful; we didn't want him to die, and it hurt when he did. No wonder Sarah threw herself at him. I'd do it.
Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor was also very good, although the sequel was where her character really shone. Sarah started out as an aimless young waitress who was helpless and completely out of her depth. She weathered the deaths of her best friend, her mother and her lover, along with the complete rearrangement of her entire universe, and she became exactly what Kyle believed she was in the first place. She was the one who had the strength to kill the Terminator in the end, after all. I've always loved the way Linda Hamilton delivered the line, "You're terminated, fucker."
This movie was James Cameron's first original work, and it was pre-CGI and made on the cheap since Arnold wasn't a big name yet. Nearly all of it holds up, though, because the story and the acting were the center of the movie, not the effects. The stop-motion metal skeleton in the final action sequence looked a bit jerky, but when we saw it in close-up, it looked really scary. (And it even looked like it could be Arnold.) The only scenes that looked fake to me were the ones with the cyborg head. It just doesn't look real, and I can't imagine that it did when the movie first came out, either. I think Cameron should have made do with just the actor, the X-acto knife, and eyeball plopping into the sink. It would have worked.
This is a fast, exciting, memorable movie. It's also bleak and dark, with a fatalistic, negative view of a future where technology has destroyed our humanity. In the end, Sarah, like a pre-apocalyptic Madonna, is waiting for the world to end in order for her son to play his part. John Connor is the holy child, the twenty-first century Jesus who will come to save us.
Bits and pieces:
-- The action takes place in May and November, 1984. The future sequences were set in 2029, although they were mostly Kyle's dreams, all of which ended with his death. As the movie did.
-- I've always loved the skilfully filmed scenes in TechNoir (which means "black technology", exactly what the Terminator was). There were other interesting, negative images of technology throughout the movie, too, like the answering machine that "needed love, too." My favorite was the children staring into a fire burning inside the shell of a television set.
-- The scenes of the future showed wreckage twisted in on itself, like the story. When the metal skeleton of the Terminator rose from the fire (the scariest moment in the movie), the wreckage behind it was twisted in much the same way.
-- The opening scene with Arnold and the three punks was shot at one of my favorite places in Los Angeles, the Griffith Observatory. One of the punks was future star Bill Paxton; another was Brian Thompson, who played multiple monsters on Buffy.
-- Paul Winfield and Lance Henriksen were just marvelous as the two cops, bouncing lines off each other like the pros they are. Henriksen was originally Cameron's choice to play the Terminator, but the concept of the movie changed.
-- We got a very romantic, poignant and sexy love scene. You don't usually get those in sci-fi movies. I've always loved it. Why can't sci-fi movies be romantic?
-- In an early scene, Sarah was wearing a tee shirt with the Jetsons on it.
-- I just have to say that most single women don't put their entire name in the phone book. If this had been done realistically, the Terminator would have had to work his way through every S. Connor in the listings.
-- The music Ginger was listening to when she was killed was "It's a mistake." One of the songs in TechNoir was, "You've got me burning," which is what happened to the Terminator.
-- Sarah called her mother. What was she thinking? Yes, it was the only way to start the action again, but come on. She called her mother?
Quotes:
Waitress: "Look at it this way. In a hundred years, who's gonna care?"
Traxler: "A one day pattern killer."
Vukovich: "I hate the weird ones."
Vukovich: "That coffee's two hours cold."
Traxler: "Um hum."
Vukovich: "And I put a cigarette out in it."
Kyle: "That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."
Silberman: "And this computer thinks it can win by killing the mother of its enemy. Killing him, in effect, before he's even conceived. A sort of retroactive abortion?"
Kyle: "He'll find her. It's what he does. It's all he does." This has always been one of my favorite quotes, especially the last two sentences and the way Biehn said them. Dan and I say it all the time about a lot of things. Mostly about my cat Spike.
Sarah: "So Reese is crazy?"
Silberman: "In technical terminology? He's a loon."
Kyle: "I'd die for John Connor."
Sarah: "At least now I know what to name him. I don't suppose you know who the father is, so I won't tell him to get lost when I meet him?"
Sarah: "You're talking about things I haven't done yet in the past tense. It's driving me crazy. Are you sure you have the right person?"
Kyle: "I'm sure."
Sarah: "Come on. Do I look like the mother of the future? Am I tough, organized? I can't even balance my checkbook."
Sarah: "What have we got? Mothballs, corn syrup, ammonia. What's for dinner?"
This is classic, excellent sci-fi. Four out of four stars,
Billie
(This is one of Billie's favorite movies.)
Star Wars 5: The Empire Strikes Back
[This review includes spoilers.]Leia: "I love you."
Han: "I know."
It's a middle movie. But it never felt like one.
The opening battle on the ice planet Hoth with the imperial walkers is just stunning. I remember being totally floored when I saw it in the theater. (Yes, I'm old enough to have seen Empire in the theater.) And I was shocked down to my socks three times -- when Vader cut off Luke's hand (they didn't do stuff like that so much back then), when Vader told Luke he was his father, and when they dropped Han Solo into the carbonite. I watched Empire, like, two days after it was released and I was totally unspoiled. Ah, for the good old days.
Darth Vader was so much scarier. Maybe it was the string of hapless commanders that he killed for displeasing him. Although it was probably mostly the big revelation of who he was. I also remember how exciting it was to catch the smallest glimpse of Darth Vader without his helmet. How tantalizing to learn that Darth Vader was human, and disfigured. It instantly gave him more dimension, even before we learned he was Luke's father.
I must admit I loved the Han/Leia romance, too. Yes, it was juvenile, but Harrison Ford pulled it off, and Carrie Fisher managed to keep up with him. Less enjoyable is Leia kissing Luke, although it continued with the popular archetype of a princess torn between a good guy and a not so good guy.
This movie had a bigger budget and better writing than the original, and it showed. The story was exceptionally detailed and compelling. They had the most amazing Muppet ever created, plus the most exciting male lead in the movies, Harrison Ford. No wonder that Empire is nearly everyone's favorite Star Wars movie.
Bits and pieces:
-- Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher were both noticeably better than in the original.
-- C3PO was classic in this one, working much better as comic relief than ever before.
-- Loved the clever introduction of a hugely favorite character, Yoda. At the time, he was the most complex and believable puppet that had ever been created.
-- The addition of the imperial march to the classic score still gives me chills.
-- The walkers have always been a favorite of mine, even though I always thought the legs made them way too easily toppled.
-- I always liked the sequence where Yoda trained Luke. (Maybe it was Mark Hamill's biceps.) And the khaki on Luke on Dagobah was always my favorite look for him.
-- This episode's dismemberments: Luke lost his hand, of course. The snow critter in the opener lost his arm. Luke decapitated his Vader hallucination. And C3PO ended up in pieces.
Empire is by far and away the most quotable Star Wars movie, so here you go:
Leia: "I'd just as soon kiss a wookiee."
Han: "I can arrange that."
Han: "Laugh it up, fuzzball."
Leia: "Why, you stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy looking... nerf herder!"
Han: "Who's scruffy looking?"
C3PO: "Sir, the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field are approximately three thousand seven hundred and twenty to one!"
Han: "Never tell me the odds."
Leia got to say it this time. "I don't know. I have a bad feeling about this."
Luke: "I'll give it a try."
Yoda: "No. Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
Darth Vader: "Apology accepted, Captain Needa."
Obi-Wan: "That boy is our last hope."
Yoda: "No. There is another."
That drove us nuts. Who could they possibly be talking about, we endlessly discussed?
Lando: (looking at C3PO in pieces) "Having trouble with your droid?"
Han: "No. No problem. Why?"
Darth Vader: "No. I am your father." He never says "Luke, I am your father," but that's how he's always quoted. Much like "Play it again, Sam," which Humphrey Bogart never actually said in Casablanca.
The Empire Strikes Back is one of the best movies ever made, and beloved by geeks all over the world. Four out of four stars,
Billie
(This is one of Billie's favorite movies.)
Star Wars 4: A New Hope
[This review includes spoilers.]
Leia: "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope."
I feel somewhat inadequate to the task of reviewing a movie whose impact has been felt for decades all over the world. Those are pretty big shoes for a melodramatic science fiction movie with aliens and robots, but let's face it, Star Wars is very, very special.
The big thing that works about the original Star Wars is that, even though it gave us a brand new science fiction universe, the story is as old as the hills. Every character and situation comes from a common literary archetype: the powerful changeling raised in secret; the young man on a quest; the wise man who trains him in mystical powers and sacrifices his life for him; the princess torn between the good man and the bad man.
One thing the original trilogy has that couldn't have been predicted was the young Harrison Ford. Han Solo is the ultimate in dashing, romantic hero, and Harrison Ford is the ultimate classic, hot leading man. The brash charm and humor he injected into his portrayal of Han Solo just jumps off the screen. How many directors luck into a superstar in the making? Unfortunately, Mark Hamill spends way too much time whining, particularly in the beginning. He improved in Empire and Jedi, though. And although I'm very fond of Carrie Fisher's Leia, her lack of acting experience is obvious.
Let me weigh in on the fan controversy about the alterations George Lucas made to the original trilogy. Personally, I liked all of them. If someone else had come in and fooled around with Lucas' creation, I would have been outraged. But it was Lucas himself, and I think he had every right.
I think the main reason he did it was to make all six movies flow together more smoothly. Lucas was exceptionally careful to make the prequel trilogy match the original. Even Obi-Wan's Jedi duds have a hole and patch in the same spot. Plus, he must have longed to put details and bits in the first three movies that he had imagined, but technology hadn't supported at the time. And the original versions are still out there, aren't they?
Bits and pieces:
-- When I finally got around to writing reviews of the six Star Wars movies, I decided to watch them in episode order for a change. When you do, they fit together like puzzle pieces. I was impressed. You should try it.
-- From a technical and special effects standpoint, when you look at all six movies, this one is the weakest and most primitive. Which is understandable, considering.
-- I have many favorite scenes: "These aren't the droids you're looking for." The cell block rescue of Princess Leia. The trash compactor. The Tarzan rope-swinging scene. The final raid on the Death Star is classic, but it's never been a favorite.
-- Dismemberment again. C3PO lost his arm, as did one of the bar patrons.
-- Obi-Wan: "Mos Eisely. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." One of the great things about Alec Guinness is that he can say a line like this, and we all believe it.
-- Luke and Han both said. Luke: (when he first glimpses the Death Star) "I have a very bad feeling about this." And Han, in the trash compactor: "I got a bad feeling about this."
Four out of four stars,
Billie
(This is one of Billie's favorite movies.)
Star Wars 3: Revenge of the Sith
[This review includes spoilers. And it was written right after I saw it in the theater.]Padme: "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."
I just saw Revenge of the Sith, and I can't get it out of my head. For me, it's up there with Empire, which has always been my favorite. This one is darker than Empire. It had to be. George Lucas deserves some heavy-duty praise after all the well-deserved criticism he took for Episodes One and Two.
During Episodes One and Two, I had some distance; I enjoyed them, but I couldn't stop obsessing about what was wrong with them and they didn't stay with me. They never felt like real Star Wars to me. But not this time. I was hooked from the first moment, and stayed completely absorbed until the final credits. Lucas gave us every single moment that we needed to see, tied up every loose end, and made it riveting at the same time. No stupid pod races, no Jar Jar (well, one second of Jar Jar, which was about right). The effects were out of this world, but they were there to support the story, which was what they were supposed to do.
It wasn't a fun ride. I felt dread almost immediately, and just kept feeling it. It grew throughout, as we watched that beautiful young man lose his soul out of fear of losing his love. I was surprised that I desperately didn't want Anakin to turn into Darth Vader, all the while knowing that it was inevitable. And I cried, twice. So did Dan, which almost never happens.
Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman are big talents that were pretty much wasted in Episodes One and Two, but their talent certainly wasn't wasted here. McGregor was terrific, clearly channeling Alec Guinness, and carrying so much of the drama. And Hayden Christensen -- it's really his movie more than anyone else's, and frankly, I thought he was awesome. My heart just bled for him. Ian McDarmid, as the Emperor, was also very good, as was pretty much everyone else. There were no bad performances, or at least I didn't notice any. The stilted Lucas dialogue was present, but it didn't bother me because this was Star Wars. It really was.
The most disturbing scene was so hard to watch that Dan actually looked away (this was his second time, my first). It was seeing Anakin dismembered and burned. Extremely graphic and very disturbing, pretty far out there for a Star Wars movie. But again, it had to be. We all knew that there wasn't much left that was human, after all. The parallel scenes of Padme's death and Anakin's rebirth as Darth Vader were exceptionally strong, too.
Anyway, I cried, and I really can't get it out of my head. Those are the two major signs of an outstanding movie, as far as I'm concerned. I even want to go see it again in the theater, and I honestly don't do that much any more. I can see the critics finding something wrong with it and they may even be right, but frankly, if people don't find this movie totally engrossing, then they probably never really liked Star Wars in the first place.
Bits and pieces:
-- How long was the break between Episodes 2 and 3? Anakin was clearly older; his face was scarred. Obi-Wan had grey at his temples.
-- Chancellor Palpatine was such a minor player in the first two episodes. His seduction of Anakin and slow transformation into the Emperor was very effective. This was not an easy part to play. Samuel L. Jackson, who looked amazingly distinguished totally bald, did a fine job portraying the ambiguity that Anakin saw in the leader of the Jedi Council.
-- They did some obvious echoes of Leia in Padme. The first time we see her, she's wearing The Hair: the cinnamon buns over the ears Princess Leia do. Then she did Leia's beige and brown look with the braid, too.
-- Again, Lucas inserted bits that set up the earlier trilogy: Chewbacca, and the Wookiee army we should have gotten in Episode 6; a brief glance of the surface of Alderan; a quick glimpse of Grand Moff Tarkin.
-- Perhaps George Lucas should have spread out some of the goodness in this film into the first two.
-- The mass slaughter of the Jedis really got to me. Darth Vader slaughtering the younglings may have been the darkest moment in all six movies.
-- Dismemberment again. Here, there were so many instances that I'm probably missing them: Count Dooku, Mace Windu, General Grevious, and of course, Darth Vader, who lost his remaining three limbs.
-- There was a lot of stuff that could be interpreted as criticism of the Bush administration, and I never get tired of that. Palpatine literally tore up the Senate during that final duel with Yoda, symbolically tearing apart democracy.
-- General Grievous was a reflection of the future Darth: gooey organics and mostly mechanical.
-- I thought the PG-13 rating was appropriate. I wouldn't take a small child to see this movie.
-- Obi-Wan got to say it again. "Oh, I have a bad feeling about this."
Four out of four stars,
Billie
(This is one of Billie's favorite movies.)
Star Wars 2: Attack of the Clones
[This review includes spoilers.]
Obi-Wan: "Why do I get the feeling you're going to be the death of me?"
I have to come down on the side of those who liked it. (Am I a Pollyanna, or what?) What I thought was particularly strong about this movie were (1) the visuals, of course; (2) the careful, accurate way it set up Episode 3, as well as the original trilogy, and (3) little Darth Christensen.
I know that reaction to Hayden Christensen was mixed, but I thought he was near perfect casting. Everyone, but everyone, must have had preconceived notions of what Anakin Skywalker would be like. He had to be talented, arrogant, headstrong, petulant and rebellious, and at the same time dashing, attractive, and compelling enough to be a love interest for Queen Senator Padme Amidala. I think Christensen pulled it off. I mean, really. Compare his performance in this movie to Mark Hamill's in Episode 4. Sorry about that, Mark.
What was wrong with this movie? Well, it could have been a lot more romantic. Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman managed to cope fairly well with the stilted Lucas dialogue while exchanging mildly smoldering looks of near passion, but it didn't satisfy. This was supposed to be a love story. It made the juvenile sniping between Han and Leia look pretty good. And Dooku was an uninteresting villain. Maybe they should have stepped up Palpatine a little earlier, instead.
Is this trilogy flawed? Absolutely. After so many years, what could possibly live up to the expectations of the fans? The original trilogy was world famous, after all. But it is all that much better than this? "Attack of the Clones" is very ... Star Wars-y. It is incredible, and I mean incredible, to look at, and it even gave me a thrill a few times.
I think the biggest problem was that we are watching a trilogy centered around a tremendously evil character as the hero, and it's very difficult to make that work. Plus someone needs to sit George Lucas down and explain to him that he CANNOT WRITE DIALOGUE! Why didn't the man hire his buddy Spielberg to direct, and bring in the writers from "Empire"?
Bits and pieces:
-- I liked how Lucas finally explained the stormtroopers in the original trilogy. I had no idea they were clones.
-- The chase scene through the city was fun and exciting. Much better than the pod race. (But everything is better than the pod race.) And the big Jedi battle in the arena was exciting, too. More fun than Gungans and droids, for sure. Was this the only time we saw a huge Jedi battle?
-- Anakin's obscene rage when he lost his mother and the brutal way he slaughtered all of the sand people was a good way to give us a glimpse of his future self.
-- Why did they have to put in a negative librarian stereotype? We're not all old ladies with buns, you know. At least she didn't shush him.
-- Yoda didn't look like Yoda in Episode 1 (Dan said he looked stoned in Episode 1). He got a much-needed upgrade. And he got to duel with Dooku. That was fun.
-- Dismemberment is a huge theme in the Star Wars movies. Here, Anakin lost his hand and Shmi's husband his leg. And C3PO lost his head.
-- This time, it was Anakin who said, "I've got a bad feeling about this." He said it in the arena. The arena scene reminded me strongly of the arenas in Edgar Rice Burroughs' classic Mars series. Yeah, Roman, I know.
"The Phantom Menace" seems to get worse every time I see it. But "Attack of the Clones" improves on acquaintance, at least for me. Three out of four stars,
Billie
Star Wars 1: The Phantom Menace
[This review includes spoilers.]Obi-Wan: "I have a bad feeling about this."
Probably most sci-fi geeks do just what Dan and I do every time we watch this movie: debate what went wrong.
Let's see. We have a boy with a great talent, leading a dull and pointless existence on a backwater planet. A great mentor and wise man comes along and sets him on his path before sacrificing his own life. The major focus is saving the life of a beautiful princess. I know what George Lucas had in mind. He was deliberately echoing his first "Star Wars" movie, now known as episode four.
Where I think he really went wrong was the casting. Little Jake Lloyd most certainly did his best with the material, but the character was just too young to carry the weight of the story. Anakin should have been at least fourteen. (The age difference between Anakin and Amidala was too great and made me cringe, thinking about their future relationship.) And the story itself was just too juvenile. Did Lucas not realize that his fans had grown up?
The other major, and I do mean major, mistakes were (1) Jar Jar Binks, (2) the Gungan/droid battle, (3) the incomprehensible political situation, and (4) the endless, oddly boring pod race that we knew Anakin would win. What was the point?
I don't think anything could have fixed Jar Jar. My instant dislike for him made the Gungans uninteresting as characters, too, which made the huge Gungan/droid battle scene pointless, especially since it was all CGI characters and I had no emotional investment in any of them. It was like watching chess pieces blowing up. Pointless. But the pod race could have been exciting if it had been truly deadly. What if the life of Anakin's mother had been at stake? What if winning would have meant her death? What if Anakin had had an alien friend also in the race, and he had crashed and died?
So what did I like about "The Phantom Menace?" Let me think.
It's visually stunning. This movie was the first in which George Lucas could fully express his imagination on screen without the limitations of puppets and models. The alien landscapes are just amazing, all of them. And then there are my glorious Jedi knights -- Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson, who were both terrific. They gave us one of the best sword fights I've ever seen on film, too.
The casting gods smiled on George Lucas when he cast Ewan McGregor as the younger version of the character played so memorably by Sir Alec Guinness. I shudder to think of what the prequel trilogy would have been like without him. And I have always liked Natalie Portman, and I think she did her best as Padme/Amidala. If her performance is mildly wooden, I can readily blame it on the stilted dialogue. Why, oh why didn't Lucas hire a script doctor? Imagine what this movie would have been like if, say, Joss Whedon had pumped up the dialogue.
Bits and pieces:
-- Along with debating What Went Wrong, it can also be fun playing "Who's behind the make-up" game. Is the Queen Natalie Portman or is it Keira Knightley?
-- Mitichlorians. Virgin birth. No and no. And how could they say Anakin is too old to be trained as a Jedi? When do they usually start? When they're two?
-- How could a fourteen-year-old girl be "elected" queen? Idiotic.
-- The Sith Lord Darth Maul might have been scarier without horns. And why didn't they do an establishing scene, with him making mincemeat of some other poor Jedi knight?
-- The most famous quote from this movie is Yoda's. It is constantly parodied. "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
-- Speaking of Yoda, he looks terrible and un-Yoda-like in this movie. He got an upgrade in episode 2.
I sort of liked this movie when I first saw it. But now, every time I see it, I like it less. Two out of four stars,
Billie
Pleasantville
Jen: "We're supposed to be at home, David. We're supposed to be in color."
A long time ago when I still liked Reese Witherspoon, I was bowled over by Pleasantville. It's still one of my absolute favorite fantasy movies. The first part of the movie is hilarious and original, while the second part explores some pretty serious topics and goes in unexpected directions. I've often wondered why it didn't do better with audiences and critics than it did. Was it just supposed to stay funny, perhaps? Was it just too different? I think many people wanted it to be either more or less than it was.
Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon play David and Jen, siblings who become trapped in an alternate reality: the black and white world of a 1958 situation comedy called "Pleasantville." Although David tries to conform to the reality of a place where Father always knows best and nothing ever goes truly wrong, Jen immediately begins making ripples by introducing the residents of Pleasantville to two things they know nothing about: sex and books.
As the black and white two dimensional characters begin to learn about the real world (moving in a metaphorical sense from the 1950s to the late 1960s), their changes are physically illustrated by color, which symbolizes knowledge. The way the town rejects people of "color" is an echo of prejudice and segregation, even though everyone in the movie is white.
But what I love most is the books. When Jen and David arrive in Pleasantville, all of the books are blank. When David tells the fictional characters what is actually in one of the books (probably my favorite scene), the pages start to magically fill in. People start reading. There is suddenly a run on the library, quickly followed by a book burning. (Nearly every book mentioned in this movie was once a banned book, like Huckleberry Finn and Lady Chatterley's Lover.) The mural that Jeff Daniels' character creates on a wall has burning books floating into the sky. New ideas are dangerous. Change is dangerous. But the end of innocence, change, brings rewards as well.
The color that slowly creeps into the story is just stunning. This movie has the most imaginative use of color I have seen in any film, ever. I was particularly blown away by David and his date driving up to Lovers Lane; there are showers of rose petals right before an explosion of color in the scenery. I remember the first time I saw it, I got chills down my spine. You know, those chills you get when you see something very, very special. Maybe the impact is much less on television, but in the theater, it was spectacular.
Just as an aside, this movie also featured several extras and bit parts played by several actors who have been on my favorite show, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Danny Strong has two lines. Marc Blucas is seen, but not heard. We can also see Jason Behr from "Lie to Me" in one scene, and the Tupperware lady from "Dead Man's Party" in another.
I love this movie. It's a personal favorite. Four out of four stars,
Billie
(This is one of Billie's favorite movies.)
RoboCop
[This review includes spoilers.]
Murphy: "Dead or alive, you're coming with me."
I don't care for heavy-duty violence in movies. But I've always had a soft spot for RoboCop. It should have been a forgettable B movie, and it wasn't. It was clever, bitingly satirical, moving and visceral. It stayed in my head a long time after I first saw it.
Murphy is the only truly human character in this movie. He is a dead man in a super suit, a Frankenstein monster who is more human than those he hunts. We're with Murphy throughout the movie. We see his death and his transformation into RoboCop through his own dead eyes, from his perspective. The poor guy lost everything: his life, his family, everything that made him human. But he still managed to be a good person, and one we cared about.
How did a monster in a metal suit remain human and vulnerable? The dreams about his family. His relationship with Lewis. The baby food. (Good writing there.) And we can always see his lips; such a vulnerable part of the human body. When his fellow cops turned on Murphy in the parking garage scene, his face plate was damaged and we could see his eye. (He crawled like a baby, too.) Peter Weller, an often underrated actor, did an outstanding job projecting strength, sensitivity, emotion, and most importantly, vulnerability from under that immense robot suit and disfiguring make-up. Weller clearly put a lot of work into his portrayal of RoboCop, and it showed.
And the villains in this movie -- all of them, including the supporting players -- were something special. Ronny Cox's Dick Jones, corporate shark extraordinaire, may be one of my favorite villains of all time. Kurtwood Smith's Clarence Boddicker was also brilliant as well as memorable; so over the top but believably evil that he just jumped off the screen. I particularly loved the scene where he pulled the pin on the grenade with his tongue, as well as the one where he spit blood on the police desk.
The dialogue was so clever. I particularly loved Boddicker screaming "What is this shiiiiittttt..." as RoboCop was throwing him through windows while simultaneously reading him his rights. RoboCop's law enforcement platitudes were humorous as well as a little poignant. ("I have to go. Somewhere there is a crime happening.") We're very conscious that all RoboCop has left is law enforcement, after all.
The ending ("Dick! You're fired!") was totally satisfying. The human element triumphed, goodness won, justice was served; Murphy avenged his own murder and made peace with himself. The president of OCP, the very corporation that made Murphy into a monster in the first place, acknowledged and applauded Murphy's humanity. Yes, Murphy had only an imitation of life left, but at least he had a purpose that he cared deeply about. It was something.
Bits and pieces:
-- The RoboCop suit was freaking cool. It's one of the best things about this movie. It just works. You believe it.
-- The satirical news segments and commercials were delicious. The news in particular reflected the current downward trend toward info-tainment and took it to a comically absurd level.
-- One of my favorite bits has always been the city councilman plummeting to the ground with the cameraman following his fall with a camera. It said all there was to say about predatory reporters. And it's really funny.
-- ED-209, the scary enforcement droid, was just hilarious in the initial boardroom scene that pretty much set the tone for the entire movie, as well as when it fell down the stairs. The stop-motion effects are starting to look a little dated, but I think it still works.
-- Why were objects in the Murphy house burned? That has never made sense to me.
-- Even though the extreme violence in this movie has literary warrant and worked well as a backdrop to the story (inhumanity was sort of the point, after all), it still bothered me and I think it went too far. To this day, I have to look away when Boddicker and his minions blow Murphy to pieces. And the minion disfigured by toxic waste? Come on. Was that extreme level of gross-out really necessary? I don't think Verhoeven could have gotten more blood in this movie if he had tried. (And he probably did.)
-- I'll answer the obvious question. No, I didn't like the sequels. Although I did rather like the too brief television series. It was going in the right direction: exploring RoboCop's humanity and human relationships. Ah, well.
Quotes:
Prisoner: "I'm what you call a repeat offender. I repeat, I will offend again."
Reporter: "Robo, excuse me, Robo, any special message for all the kids watching at home?"
RoboCop: "Stay out of trouble."
Cop: "Okay, Miller. Don't hurt the mayor! We'll give you what you want."
Miller: "First, don't fuck with me! I'm a desperate man. And second, I want some fresh coffee. And third, I want a recount! And no matter how it turns out, I want my old job back!"
Cop: "Okay."
Miller: "And I want a bigger office! And I want a new car! And I want the city to pay for it all."
Cop: "What kind of car, Miller?"
Miller: "Something with reclining leather seats that goes really fast and gets really shitty gas mileage."
Cop: "How about a 6000 SUX?"
Miller: "Yeah, okay, sure. What about cruise control? Does it come with cruise control?"
Cop: "Hey, no problem, Miller. You let the mayor go, we'll even throw in a Blaupunkt."
(Commercial)
Voice-over: "Red alert! Red alert!"
Girl: "You crossed my line of death."
Mom: "You haven't dismantled your MX stockpile."
Boy: "Pakistan is threatening my border!"
Dad: "That's it, buster. No more military aid."
(nuclear explosion over the game board)
Voice-Over: "Nukem. Get them before they get you. Another quality home game from Butler Brothers."
OCP President: "Nice shooting, son. What's your name?"
RoboCop: "Murphy."
I've noticed that critics rarely give science fiction movies more than three stars, no matter how good they are. But science fiction movies are my favorites, and this is an outstanding science fiction movie. So I'm giving it four stars,
Billie
(This is one of Billie's favorite movies.)
Highlander: The Raven
Why didn't this spinoff series work? There are so many reasons. Let's start at the top.
Highlander: The Source
(Movie : 2007)
Guardian: "There can be only me."
This review contains spoilers. But don't let that stop you. You don't want to waste your time by actually watching this movie.
Highlander 3: The Final Dimension
(Movie : 1995)
Alex: "'There can be only one.' Only one what?"
Realizing the ghastly mistake they had made with Highlander 2, the very same producers decided that the answer was to just re-make the first movie. Yes, it was a smart decision to retcon the entire second movie, but remaking the first one was not the way to go.
Highlander
(Movie : 1986)
Brenda: "What can you tell me about a seven foot lunatic hacking away with a broadsword at one o'clock in the morning in New York City in 1985?"
Connor: "Not much."
As B-movies go, this one isn't all that good. But it did something extraordinary: it introduced a unique fantasy universe that has captivated fans for years. I've spent a lot of time fantasizing about the Highlander-verse. If I wrote fanfic, it would probably be Highlander fanfic.
Fahrenheit 9 11
Go see this movie. You owe it to yourself.
If you don't care much for Michael Moore, don't worry -- you won't see much of him here. Moore narrates, and his opinion of the current administration is a strong one, but his viewpoint is not what makes this documentary so effective. What I found overwhelming were the visuals, things that we're not seeing on CNN: documents about the connections between the Bush family and the house of Saud; harmless American peace groups being infiltrated by the FBI because of provisions of the Patriot Act; burned Iraqi women and babies who committed the terrible crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time; and wounded American soldiers who must now live out their young lives without arms or legs.
George W. Bush strongly limits his public appearances, and has given fewer press conferences than any president in recent history. But we see plenty of him in this movie, and there is something deeply disturbing about seeing him playing golf, enjoying a life of privilege, gleefully calling a roomful of millionaires his "base," constantly connecting September 11 to Saddam Hussein as if saying it repeatedly will make it so. What I found especially unnerving was Bush's glee, his constant grin. He never shows any sign whatsoever that the deaths of hundreds of soldiers and thousands of Iraqis, just or unjust, has had any effect on him. Bush looks like a guy who is having a good time, who sleeps well at night, unlike many of the soldiers who talk to Moore about their feelings.
There are some images that are unforgettable: Bush looking stunned, sitting for seven minutes in an elementary school with "My Pet Goat" in his hands while the towers fell; young American soldiers talking about what songs they play in their tanks while attacking; Michael Moore driving around the capital in an ice cream truck reading the Patriot Act on the loud speaker (making the point that members of Congress hadn't actually read the thing before making it law). The most moving clips are of women who have lost the most: an Iraqi woman screaming to God for justice and revenge on America for what we have done to her family, and a Michigan woman named Lilah Lipscomb who lost her son in Iraq and who now sees this war as a travesty. I think I will always see one particular shot of Lipscomb, overwhelmed with grief and anger, just standing in front of the White House.
It is not surprising that the right wing is doing everything up to and including playground insults of Moore in order to suppress this film; they are unable to refute it factually, and it makes Bush and company look like mercenary deceivers simply by showing us their unvarnished words and deeds. But I came away thinking that this film was deeply patriotic. Moore shows over and over throughout the film that he loves his country, that he respects our troops. What can be more American than expressing one's opinion about the government? Trying to expose a wrong in order to right it? Isn't that the kind of freedom America is supposed to be about, whether you agree with it or not?
Blade Runner
Roy Batty: "All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain."
Blade Runner is my favorite science fiction movie. It is so rich and powerful that it lends itself to repeated watching and analysis. It asks the big questions. What is a human being? What is not? Where do we draw the line?
As likable as Harrison Ford is in every other movie he's ever made, I never liked him in this one. But I don't think we're supposed to like Deckard. Deckard's job is to kill replicants, after all. What sort of job is this for a human being? Is Deckard less human than the replicants he kills? Well, of course, he is. Replicants look and act almost exactly like human beings, after all. Is Deckard himself a replicant? If he were, how could we tell?
Rutger Hauer, as replicant Roy Batty, stole this movie from Harrison Ford. Batty is scary and inhuman. At first. As his options run out and he loses his companions, Batty becomes more... well, human. His big scene near the end of the movie is just stunning, filled with pathos and meaning, and it never fails to get to me. I've had a soft spot for Rutger Hauer for years, despite his less than stellar employment choices, simply because of the power of his performance in this movie.
Eyes are the windows of the soul, and there is constant, and I do mean constant, eye imagery throughout the movie: disembodied eyes, glowing eyes, eye patches, weird glasses, and so on. The test to determine if someone is a replicant is even based on eye movements. Also in the symbolism department, there are dolls, mannequins, genetically created animals, and human-looking living toys. Edward James Olmos' character creates tiny origami figures of a bird, a man, and a unicorn. The unicorn, in particular, has special meaning.
One more thing. I don't like the original theatrical version of this movie. I read somewhere that, what with U.S. versions and European versions and all of the different cuts, there are actually five different versions of Blade Runner. I prefer, and recommend, the U.S. director's cut. (Note from later: The Final Cut, version number six, is much like the U.S. director's cut, and is also recommended.)
Bits and pieces:
-- Deckard has an exceptionally odd and strained relationship with Rachel, who is also a replicant. He orders her to love him, and she does. She is utterly dependent on him for her life; he could kill her at any time. What is she really feeling? We never do find out.
-- There is a strong mix of Asian and American cultures in this future world. I believe Joss Whedon borrowed a flavor of this mix as the setting for Firefly.
-- Speaking of my favorite shows, the Cylons on Battlestar Galactica are much like replicants. They even borrowed the term "skin job," which is slang for replicant. And of course, the star of Battlestar Galactica, Edward James Olmos, was also in Blade Runner.
-- The movie features two famous buildings in LA., often used for filming: Deckard's apartment was in the Ennis Brown House, which was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. And the building where much of the action takes place -- the one with the skylight and the incredible staircases -- is the Bradbury Building. I visited both of these sites when I first came to L.A. because of my love for this movie.
-- Past memories for replicants are associated with photographs. I think the photographs are also a clue as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant himself.
-- Batty: "If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes."
-- Leon: "Wake up. Time to die."
What other rating could I give one of my very favorite movies? Four out of four stars,
Billie
(This is one of Billie's favorite movies.)
Emotional Arithmetic
Also known as: Autumn Hearts: A New Beginning
In English (2007)
Jakob: "I should not have said 'remember'. I should have said 'live'."
Emotional Arithmetic is about the reunion, in Quebec and over forty years later, of three Holocaust survivors of a French transit camp called Drancy. Melanie (Susan Sarandon) and Christopher (Gabriel Byrne) were imprisoned as children and cared for by a young man named Jakob (Max von Sydow) who even traded his life for theirs but somehow didn't die after all.
Holocaust stories are important, but in order to work for the audience, I think they also need to be uplifting. This movie was not uplifting. What was the point of the reunion of these "second-rate survivors", really? All three of them were (understandably) emotionally unstable and profoundly unhappy. They relived their experience together, and nothing really changed; the love between Melanie and Christopher remained unfulfilled. The present-day autumn scenery was beautiful, but the black and white flashbacks of Drancy had delusions of Schindler's List and never worked for me. It was like they were too self-conscious of the gravity of the story and didn't quite find the right way to tell it.
The cast was outstanding, and they all did their jobs. Susan Sarandon in particular gave a strong, vibrant performance; this was her movie. Christopher Plummer was also good as Melanie's husband the history professor, who was permanently peeved that his wife had a more profound life experience than he did. Roy Dupuis as Benjamin, their son, was adjacent to the story, like an observer or even like us, the audience. He had a couple of nice scenes, but mostly he cooked and moved furniture -- not his most challenging role. And it was jarring that he played Susan Sarandon's son. She just didn't seem old enough to be his mother. They should have mentioned something offhand up front about her having him at sixteen or something; it would have helped. Or maybe not.
And the original title, Emotional Arithmetic, was a lot more interesting and memorable. Autumn Hearts: A New Beginning is a totally forgettable title. I guess that's appropriate because, unfortunately, it's a forgettable movie. I know I'm going to forget it.
Two stars,
Billie
Shake Hands with the Devil
In English (2007)
This movie is about the experiences of General Romeo Dallaire (Roy Dupuis) during the Rwandan genocide, and the effect it had on his life. I decided not to watch it because the content is just too upsetting for me personally. Rather than not cover the movie at all, I asked members of the Roy Dupuis fan list Amis par Roy to contribute their impressions, and got several thoughtful responses. Thank you to everyone who contributed.
I saw the film on a River's gathering, in June. Excellent movie, but it shook me to my soul. Hotel Rwanda had a more hopeful ending. Shake Hands with the Devil did not. Shake Hands with the Devil was important in that I felt it had a more realistic ending. Perhaps it is because I am very involved with Darfur, and human rights. The very atrocities that were brought forth in this movie are happening in Darfur today and in several places around the world. I felt that you could play this movie and put a different title on it and the message would be "this still goes on -- TODAY!" Rwanda does give some hope, today. They seem to be getting on with their lives and progressing, minus the droughts. I'm sure it is an uneasy peace and thoughts of the civil war are never far from their minds.-- Sharon
[It] was wonderful... and awful. Hotel Rwanda was nowhere near as good as Shake Hands with the Devil. Apparently, Shake Hands with the Devil was far more accurate; e.g., if a killing took place in, say, a certain street, then it was made that way for the film. Everything was in the right place and was accurate. Whereas, Hotel Rwanda was really just a story. As Romeo Dallaire said, no one came to him and asked him anything for the making of Hotel Rwanda. Roy was wonderful. He just BECAME Dallaire, as he often does with his characters, and was so sensitive.-- Susan
I have seen Shake Hands with the Devil three times and have read the book twice. The subject is very disturbing. I think watchers get caught up in the atrocities and miss the point of this film -- that everyday soldiers/warriors suffer silently as a result of performing their responsibilities.-- Barb
I was a subscriber to Time magazine for a long time and remember, quite vividly, reading about Rwanda and looking at the pictures the photographers were taking to call attention to that situation back in 1994. I can also recall crying, from anger, compassion, pain and incapacity, when I saw the photos of men, women and children beaten and cut to death with machetes and other weapons. It moved me greatly at the time and then, like they did to most people, all these facts fell into oblivion. Other genocides happened since then and are still happening in different parts of the globe. If our generation can't stop these atrocities from happening, maybe the future generations, based on sufficient collective knowledge, can shout out loud NO MORE and impose a radical reversal of the way men and nations do war.
So, when I watched the movie, I really knew what to expect, and though it moved me deeply, it didn't shock me as much as those Time 1994 photos. Nevertheless, we can see and feel the vulnerability of the Tutsi people, their fear, their suffering, their trying to flee the horror and their dignity. On the other hand, we can also grasp the arrogance, malevolence and prepotency of those in power and the sheer cruelty that humans can exact on fellow humans. But these are the "normal" conditions of a power struggle in an armed take-over movement (and in almost all absolute dictatorships): the oppressed and the oppressors, the vulnerability and the arrogance, the suffering and the cruelty. The soldiers are aware of these conditions and play by the rules that apply, but the civilians get caught in the middle of the conflict and are stunned by the hatred all around, especially because they can't absorb why a neighbour, a friend or a relative can suddenly become fierce enemies for reasons beyond their understanding.
We can see this in the movie. The commander of the Tutsi rebel army (the character?), who is the current president of Rwanda (if I'm not mistaken), displays a clear awariness of the situation and a sense of the inevitability of the bloody conflict to come. He is portrayed as a reasonable and efficient man, who can discuss with the general and accede to his requests. The other side, well, they have the temporary power and they aim to retain it by eliminating all opposition or potential opposition as faster as possible. And the genocide happens. The civilians are lost and the escape routes are closed. So, they die by the hundreds of thousands and their corpses are left all around.
What most moved me in this film was the general himself. Of course we are seeing what happened through his eyes and feelings, his heart and mind. Bias or no bias, I think he did remain faithful to all that occurred. We can feel the general's enormous capacity for compassion, his emotional deterioration, his stubbornness in trying to maintain peace and bring reason to the negotiating table and to the opposing chiefs, his constant disappointments, his generosity to his men, his final breakdown. The politics are well described: the orders and counter-orders of his superiors at the United Nations, the indifference of the foreign ambassadors and the lack of a strong attitude on the part of the president of Rwanda who was later killed in an aircraft accident, a fact that favored the chaos that ensued. We can feel the water starting to boil in the pan.
Roy's performance is, in a way, astounding. He beautifully shows the anger, the compassion, the anguish, the frustration, the authority, the courage and the pain. But I felt, in a few takes, that he gave the impression of following a strict script and he seemed tied. But these were very few occasions. He really gives a grand performance and bring us very close to his character. We suffer with him and we feel all his other emotions.-- Glorita
What happened in Rwanda was horrifying and as a people we have a responsibility to do what we can, no matter how small, to keep such things from happening again. Roy and I actually spoke about this briefly in June. He stressed that we as a people, the human race needs to stop competing with each other and start helping each other. We have a long way to go.
Many of the images in Shake Hands were difficult to watch, the feelings hard to handle. But what I got out of the movie was ... hope. General Dallaire has said over and over again that he didn't do enough. He went into mental breakdown because he felt that he failed. Yet, he made a huge difference. One man, standing up for what he knew to be right, against all odds saved thousands. One man made the choice to do what was right over what was easy. I would imagine that the people who lived through the massacre do not think he failed, that he did make a difference. He is still making a difference.
I may not be a Dallaire, but I can try to make a difference every day in the lives that I touch. Roy and the General are wonderful examples of that: they do it everyday. I may not save thousands (or rivers), but if I can touch the life of even one other person and make that life better, more positive, then I won't be a failure, either. We, each of us, following the example that the General set forth in Rwanda, that Roy sets forth with the rivers, can start making the positive changes we wish to see in the world.
Roy's performance was amazing, and it still affects him. He is haunted by Rwanda even now. He became the General (as he does with all his characters) and that allowed the people watching the movie to really understand who this man was and put a very real face on the tragedy that occurred.-- Seals Lady
I think I looked at Shake Hands differently than some of the others. I looked at the movie as Gen. Dallaire's story regarding not getting any help to stop the genocide from the UN. It was bloody and gory, but my thoughts were on the general most of the time and his problems with not being able to do anything for the people of Rwanda.-- Signme
That Beautiful Somewhere
In English (2006)
Harold: "To be healed, you have to die and be reborn."
I had read a number of reviews of this movie, and not single one was good, so I wasn't expecting a lot. But actually, I thought this movie just missed being really good. It was interesting and deeply romantic, in a suicidal and depressing sort of way.
Conk (Roy Dupuis) is a police detective and veteran haunted by his experiences in Bosnia and unable to pull the plug on his terminally ill mother. Catherine (Jane MacGregor) is an archaeologist with a rare form of migraine that has left her in constant agony and longing for a way out. The two of them are drowning in anguish, and in desperate need of healing. They connect when they investigate the long ago death of an Indian named Red Wind, whose remains are found in a sacred healing bog. As they investigate Red Wind's death together and grow closer, they slowly discover that what happened to Red Wing is the key to healing them both.
The scenery in this movie is amazing. It is cold, bleak and dramatic, much like the story. Also gorgeous. The sacred bog itself is visually stunning. There is a lot of symbolism, but the plot is also completely coherent and not too arty. Both Dupuis and MacGregor did a good job, too, although I didn't think they had a lot of romantic chemistry. I was also thinking that her constant vomiting might make love scenes a little difficult, although by the time we got to one (a brief one), she hadn't thrown up in awhile.
That Beautiful Somewhere could have been very special, but it didn't quite hit the mark. It's hard to talk about why without giving away the ending, but I thought that there just wasn't sufficient motivation for the characters to make the denouement work for me. It should have gotten to me, and it didn't. And that's just too bad.
Bits and pieces:
-- The story opened with Conk putting a gun to his own head, followed shortly afterward by Catherine putting a power drill to her own. I thought that was an interesting way to introduce them. It pretty much said it all.
-- Conk kept hurting Catherine. The injection right on her bruise, the cigarettes. (Roy smoked a lot in this movie.) The name "Conk" actually had meaning, too, in the "conk someone on the head" sense.
-- There was a twelve minute interview with Roy Dupuis on the DVD, and wonder of wonders, it's in English. He talks a lot about aboriginal culture and Fondations Rivieres. And he is, of course, wearing a plaid shirt.
I was sort of intrigued, entertained and disappointed at the same time. Two out of four stars,
Billie
Maurice Richard
Also known as The Rocket
In French, with English subtitles (2005)
Lucille: "You shatter records, fill arenas, but the league doesn't protect you. Why? They protect every star player but you."
This is a period biopic about Quebecois hockey great Maurice Richard, starting and ending with the 1955 riots in Montreal when Richard was suspended unfairly for a fight he didn't start.
Maurice Richard was the epitome of the quiet, modest sports hero. He worked all day as a machinist, and played hockey at night. Hard to believe, considering how professional athletes are treated today, but Richard didn't even make enough money to buy his own home. Since French Canadians were treated like second class citizens, Richard also had to endure constant insults as well as physical attacks on the ice. The fact that he spoke little English but was interviewed in English made him look stupid. He literally lived the cliche: he had to be twice as good to go half as far.
Roy Dupuis turns in an excellent performance as Richard. Roy has always done an outstanding job conveying a great deal of emotion with very little expression, and that's Maurice Richard to a T. (Roy even resembles the real Maurice Richard, except in coloring; the dark contacts and short black hair made me feel a bit of a disconnect, because Roy didn't look like Roy.) Julie le Breton is also fine as Maurice's wife, Lucille, although it is basically a one-note part. The real dramatic relationship throughout the film is Maurice's with his coach, Dick Irvin (Stephen McHattie, who is also terrific).
Although the film's climax is somewhat unclimactic, there are many moving moments. Maurice's stoicism in the face of such unfair treatment made it all the more effective when he finally did lose control. For me, the highlights of the movie were when the owner of the Canadiens told Maurice that he had just given him the greatest moment in hockey he'd ever seen, and Maurice literally burst into tears and sobbed uncontrollably. And Maurice's face when Dick Irvin congratulated his team on winning the Stanley Cup... in French.
Good news for English-speaking fans: There are English subtitles, of course. But the DVD extras, in French, also have English subtitling. That almost never happens.
Truthfully, I'm not much for sports movies, but this is a good one. Three stars,
Billie
Les Etats Unis d'Albert
In French, with English subtitles (2005)
Jack Dekker: "Partial amnesia. I'd give anything to forget Arizona and get back my virginity."
This is an absurd and occasionally raunchy screwball comedy. I laughed all the way through it.
It is 1926, and Valentino had just died. On his way to Los Angeles to become a movie star, young Albert (Eric Bruneau) meets and falls in love with a lovely, idealistic feminist Mormon named Grace (Emilie Dequenne). Circumstances strand Albert, dressed as Valentino's Sheik, in the desert with a lunatic golfer, Jack Dekker (Roy Dupuis), who has been ejected from an Arizona town because of his amorous exploits and a bad case of cooties. No, I'm not kidding.
Albert must deal with a romantic rival, a deranged killer, and the amorous ghost of his lecherous drama teacher. And Jack Dekker, of course. Roy was really a hoot. And I did mention raunchy, didn't I? Yes, he can do a strong, supporting role; in fact, I think he and his golf clubs walked off with this movie.
Celine Bonnier plays Hannah, a sexually frustrated woman whose husband is trying to set a world record for something that involves living in a boat positioned on top of a flagpole. Unfortunately, Hannah has severe vertigo. My favorite scene was actually pretty much the only Roy/Celine scene in the movie; he was making a valiant attempt to seduce her with words, and she was fondling a candle and clearly thinking of her husband instead. Roy's eyes were just amazing. (I know, I'm obsessed, but they really were.)
As funny as it was, I had a hard time writing about this one. Was it because I prefer Roy as a lead? Was it because his character is so goofy that it was hard to get a handle on it? And finally, I have a question. How does Roy manage to get nearly naked in so many of his movies? Public demand?
Three out of four stars,
Billie
C'est Pas Moi, C'est l'Autre
In French (2004)
This is a light romantic comedy with broad, physical humor. I laughed out loud several times, and enjoyed it all the way to the end.
Roy Dupuis plays Vincent Papineau, an inept burglar who accidentally runs afoul of the Marseilles Mafia. As he is trying to evade them, he cuts his hair and shaves his beard, and is promptly mistaken for a cop named Claude Laurin. With bad guys chasing him and Claude conveniently away on an extended vacation, Vincent takes over Claude's job and apartment and romances Claude's pretty partner on the force, while trying to figure out how to appease the Mafia and benefit financially from the whole situation.
Even though you can see a lot of the situations coming a mile off, (particularly when Claude finally shows up, as we know he will), this movie is a lot of fun. Although I prefer him doing drama, Roy can definitely handle comedy and he is terrific in both roles. One of my perennial complaints about many of Roy's movies is that there isn't enough of him, but I can't say that here. Roy is in almost every scene of this movie, and sometimes twice.
I would like to complain about the lack of English subtitles on the DVD, though. Yes, this was a joint Quebec/France production, but Roy Dupuis is a Canadian star. Isn't Canada a major market for this movie? What were they thinking? I know enough French to follow the plot and I thought it was fairly easy to understand what was going on even if you don't speak French, but I still would have liked to catch all of the subtleties.
Lots of fun. Three out of four stars,
Billie
Manners of Dying
Also known as L'execution
In English (2004)
Parlington: "Please believe that I share in your grief. Yours truly, Harry Parlington. Director, Cantos, Correctional Institution."
Manners of Dying is about the last few hours in the life of a condemned convict, Kevin Barlow (Roy Dupuis), before his execution by lethal injection. It starts with his last meal, and continues through to his death -- eight times. Serge Houde plays Harry Parlington, the warden who supervises Kevin's execution. As he dictates one letter after another to Kevin's mother, we see several completely different and totally unreconcilable versions of Kevin's last hours.
Roy Dupuis is outstanding in this movie. Simply fabulous. The man can act. He goes to every possible emotional extreme in the different versions of Kevin's last hours; he fights violently, screams obscenities, pleads for his life, trembles with fear, laughs, cries, you get the picture. It's a dream part for an actor, no question about it.
But the movie itself lacks something. Manners is less of a cohesive story and more a string of dramatic vignettes. The story doesn't go anywhere. Despite the exceptional writing and acting, I never became emotionally engaged, and I should have, considering that I watched my favorite actor die eight times in a series of exceptional performances. As I watched version after version, I became frustrated with the film because I wanted to know what really happened to Kevin. Of course, I knew that wasn't the point. But I wanted it to be.
Four stars for Roy's performance, and two stars for the story. Averaged out, that makes three out of four stars,
Billie
Memoires Affectives
Also known as Looking for Alexander
In French, with English subtitles available (2004)
Alexander: "It's like I was born an old man."
Nurse: "Don't worry. You look great for forty."
I was very impressed with the power of the story, the beauty of the photography, and the strength of Roy's performance.
Roy Dupuis plays Alexander Tourneur, a veterinarian who is in a hit and run accident. Alexander wakes up unexpectedly from a coma when his life support is turned off, and has no memory of his former life.
As Alexander slowly recovers physically and interacts with his wife, daughter, and friends, none of whom he remembers, he sorts through confusing flashes of memory as well as contradictory accounts of his past relationships. What I found fascinating was that Alexander's perceptions appear to ricochet and affect the memories of others; his amnesia is apparently catching. (This is fairly subtle at first.) His only "unaffected" conversations are with the police who are investigating the hit-and-run as well as the attempt on his life.
Early on, one of the cops says, "He looks like he needed an extra week in intensive care." Alexander does look gray and drawn (actually, pretty terrible) at the start of the film, and Alexander's mental and physical state is reflected in the photography. It is winter; the color is muted and much of the background is gray. Roy's performance goes from subdued and exhausted to deeply emotional as Alexander discovers the truth about himself, and as the story progresses, the color in the film increases in intensity along with Alexander. The photography is just stunning. Many of the images are very powerful and quite beautiful.
Much of this film can be interpreted in more than one way, but this is not one of those abstract movies where you get to the end and you don't know what happened. The resolution is moving and everything pretty much makes sense. I recommend watching it twice; the second time, for me, was like watching tumblers click into place, and I found even more layers of meaning and depth in what was happening.
Very impressive. Four out of four stars,
Billie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)