|
 |
|
|
| Tuesday, April 26, 2005 |
When thrillers were thrilling
 I long for the day when thrillers actually got the hairs on the back of your neck into a forward and upright position. I long for the time when Sydney Pollack could deliver that cinematic experience. I so very much wanted such a movie experience when the lights dimmed for "The Interpreter."
I'm still waiting.
Don't get me wrong. It wasn't a bad film. It was a good film. The acting was good. The directing was superb. The realism was spot on. That was helped in large part from a carefully negotiated first -- the film was shot inside the actual UN -- and since the film itself is a bit of a snore by the end, I'll tell you about that instead.
As it turned out, the UN is very uptight about filming on their premises. Even Alfred Hitchcock was turned away, and initially so was Sydney Pollack. The production even went to the expense of building sets at a pretty penny. Sadly, they weren't working out, so it was up to Sydney to score a meeting with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg (a mensch he is) even coughed up some support in exchange for a deal to use an all New Yorker crew.
The UN finally caved, but shooting was allowed only at night and on weekends. This adds to the movie, I suppose. It's always possible that a regular set would've done just as well, but who knows?
Oh yeah, getting back to the movie. Ultimately it's a procedural drama with less drama and a rather forced bus bombing, and here's where I'll say the film was a missed opportunity. Imagine a film about the United Nations that features threats of trial for war crimes against a head of state, a bus bombing, and a biased internationalist. There's not an Israeli in sight.
I'm not saying the film should've been about Israel. The bus bombing was in New York, not Tel Aviv. But what I am saying is, why didn't this film tackle the subject matter rather than use it as a back drop? I think it's great they shot inside the real UN. Why didn't they tackle the controversies of the real UN?
When Kidman's character says she believes in the UN, the best the script can do is have Penn retort, "It must've been a tough year for you." Why not pit a staunch anti-UN against Kidman? Why not have a genuine exploration of the biases of UN staff and diplomats that colors their actions and undermines the ideals Kidman keeps spouting about? Instead we merely have Kidman's biases laid out bit-by-bit as a means to make Penn doubt her, and explain her rather odd end-of-film antics.
If you're going to make a movie about the UN, and you're going to shoot it in the actual building, then you've got an opportunity to do something brilliant with cinema that audiences will actually see. Sydney, what were you thinking?
And yes, it might have been more compelling to do such a substantive film if instead of inventing an entire African country and an entire African language (I suppose they didn't actually invent an entire language) they took the poster country for UN controversy and bias -- Israel.
But what do I know? It's got Nicole Kidman waxing poetic and Sean Penn looking forever distraught. There's even international intrigue. But don't expect a thick steak. This is more those bites of Mongolian beef on a toothpick offered by your local food court Chinese restaurant.
That's the best international reference I could come up with, and it's about on par with the best this film could do.
|
|
How an oceanographer ended up in the desert
...or, how one movie insulted an entire genre.
Yes, I speak now of "Sahara." I'll admit up front that I didn't have high hopes going in. The trailer even bothered me, for I am a fan of the genre this movie trying to sneak in the back door of. I grew up on a steady diet of archaeology Indiana Jones style. I spent my Christmas Day 2004 munching Chinese food and, oh yes, seeing "National Treasure."
But what am I to make of a movie with Dirk Pitt as its leading character? Apparently, I can make two movies out of him (see 1980's debacle of a film and budgetary disaster "Raise the Titanic"), but why would I want to? In this stretch of the imagination we find oceanographic explorer Dirk getting dirty on the sands of the Sahara (yes, lots of water there). Why? Because against all notions of reality, a Civil War era ironclad managed to sail across the ocean and up a river deep into the desert before being buried when the water evaporated -- or something.
Mix in a despotic African dictator, a corrupt businessman, corporate pollution, lots of explosions and I suppose you've got yourself a blockbluster. Just in case you were concerned there wouldn't be enough action, feel confident in the plains, trains, and wind-propelled airplanes-turned-sand surfers. Did we mention there were lots of explosions.
And normally, I'd be the guy who'd give the film a pass. I've made this point before: we shouldn't judge movies by an unfair standard. If it's supposed to be a mindless action film, let it be. Eat your popcorn and then go home to read a nice thick book.
I can't do it. I'm sorry. This is an insult to the genre. It posseses none of the magic and charm that made Indiana Jones a piece of cinema lore. It has none of the clever humor and real chemistry that turned National Treasure into a romp of mirth and joy. It has little more than a checklist of action adventure cliches and mediocre characters.
Then it goes and tries for more, which is never a good idea. I gave up after they turned the wreck of an airplane half-buried in the sand into a sand-surfing contraption of epic stupidity.
I thought Jews controlled the media, but we've got to be smarter than this. No Jewish conspiracy could reach so low as to produce Dirk Pitt's Excellent Adventure. For that, I suppose I'll give it a couple of stars, but not one twinkle more.
|
| Friday, April 15, 2005 |
Oh the horror?
I long ago came to terms with the fact that not all movies are created equal, and I'm not talking about talent or budget or even the marquee status of the actors. Rather, I speak of intention. Some films were made to be Oscar winners. Others were purposely crafted to cash in at the box office, while still others were made to be... you know, good. Each film should be judged on the merits of its category, I suppose.
 All of which is why I won't call "The Amityville Horror" a bad movie. There are plenty of other critics out there willing to take their swipes with the critical ax. The Associated Press' David Germain and Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek are particularly brutal.
This remake of a fairly mediocre 1979 horror film is clearly designed to be a box office draw, and in the pantheon of horror flicks this one is designed to scare your girlfriend into your lap. On the first count, this film will probably be a success -- with an estimated $18 million budget, it will probably turn a profit in theaters, and will certainly turn one on DVD.
On the second count, yes it'll probably succeed too. It has to, given the copious use of horror flick cliche. Ghastly figures showing up just around the darkened corner accompanied by sharp bang noise, for example, are the most common tool. It's not exactly McG, but the MTV-influenced editing helps out in jolting the audience. That's not surprising, given the director's roots in commercials and music videos.
For the average movie-going couple, this is probably enough. For the horror aficionados, the poor dialogue, middling acting and plodding plot points (just kill the dog already, you've telegraphed it on a Times Square billboard) will surely offend. It can't, however, be as offensive as other excuses for a horror film that have found their way to the silver screen in recent years. In the end, for both sets of audiences, it'll be forgotten in a month (probably less).
And in the end, is it worth damning a film whose worst crime is that it's merely forgettable, not nearly as good as any other horror remake we've been suckered into over the past couple years but not nearly as bad as a Jennifer Love Hewitt slasher vehicle?
Yes, if you're asking the film to be more than it's trying to be. Sure, we'd all be better off if Hollywood could get back to making good films first, even good blockbusters. But ask yourselves honestly. How much revisionist history have we been spoon fed to believe Hollywood was ever in the business of making good films rather than profitable ones? The art is tied up in the talent of those involved, and is something of a happy accident in any event. To fight the battle for a utopian film industry where art is revered above glitz, glamour, and whatever gets your $18 million dollars back on opening weekend is hardly worth the time.
It's certainly not worth the Pavlovian froth of the critics who constantly lambaste these films simply because their publication requires them to see them.
If you're looking to scare your date into your lap, then go see this film and whichever one will inevitable replace it in a few weeks. For the rest of us, forget about. Whether you see it or not, you'll forget about it anyways. So don't go see it, save yourself some money, and send it to me and all the other critics so offended by "The Amityville Horror" (including the original).
It just might take the edge off our candor.
|
|
|
|
