300, He Said

This film depicts the world at the dawn of democracy, although this may not be apparent to the slaves. We begin with Leonidas. This child of Sparta will be raised to be a warrior king. His rite of passage begins in early as he is taught discipline, fighting skills and allegiance to Sparta. His initiation is to be placed in the wilderness to survive on his wits and guile. His encounter with a mythical wolf insures his acceptance and enables him to become King of Sparta.

The Spartan culture of this time (480 BC) allows any citizen to speak on any issue and be heard. Leonidas is well respected and has only one real rival Theron a politician, not a warrior, who has amassed his power through his schemes and arrangements.

So we have the basis for the conflict, that will not be settled in a battle on the Plains of Thermopylae, which is so richly depicted in the greater part of this film, but in the senate. (I can't avoid, as I am sure others will, the comparison to today's dialogue over Iraq.)
The real conflict is staged when King Leonidas against the wishes of his senate and of the mystic's leads a group of three hundred of the best Spartan warriors to stop Xerxes and his hordes from invading and conquering Greece.

In fact,and not unlike our foray into Iraq, this is a suicide mission. The Spartans are badly out numbered. Outside of a strategic advantage, the Spartans occupy a pass which the enemy must take from them before they have access to Greece, there is no way the Spartans are going to win this battle. While they seem to be doing the impossible and holding off the invaders, they are betrayed by a disgruntled Greek who leads the enemy to a secret pass that enables the enemy to surround the 300.

Back in Sparta, Leonidas's rival,Theron, is undermining what little support the King has with his countrymen. Queen Gorgo, Leonida's wife, in a futile attempt to solicit Theron's support submits to his advances and allows him to have sex with her in exchange for his support to rally the citizens and send the rest of the army to assist Leonidas.

Her speech to the Senate is compelling and thoughtful. It sounds like a plea that Condoleezza Rice might make to justify our invasion of Iraq, including the need for more troops, but Theron betrays her. Why and what results I will it you find out if you choose to see this movie.

I would normally put this film in the "rent it" category for content and craft, but the visual presentation is going to be enjoyed so much more on the big screen. This adaptation of a graphic novel is done in and interesting way and for those curious about the direction of new commercial films, this would make a good example

Shooter, He Said

I know that if "she" ever decides to write this column that she and I will agree on one thing. this film is as commercial as they come and not all that well done. We should have known it was going to be one of those brainless action adventure films when we saw the back row of the theater was a solid line of junior high school kids.

I have never been a big Wahlberg fan. Despite the running love affair that the critic's have with "Boogie Nights", I thought the film sucked. (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that) He has that look about him that permits the playing of characters that are brooding and act on basic instincts. Thoughtful, intelligent or cerebral is defiantly a stretch for his limited acting ability.

All that being said, the character he plays in "Shooter" is not thoughtful, intelligent nor cerebral. He is a highly trained and skillful counter insurgency warrior and with our troops in Iraq fighting this kind of war, we are suckers for this kind of myth making. Our hero is, and I'm sure they focus grouped this one, Bob Lee Swagger. The name has all of the attributes of race car, football and southern rebel that can be stuffed into it. Unfortunately, the face that popped into my mind is comedian, Will Ferrell in his role as race car driver Ricky Bobby.

This whole redneck image is enhanced by the love interest. Bob, (Remember to spell that with one O not two), in his moment of need turns to the widow of his fallen partner Sarah, played by Kate Mara. While she is an attractive and skilled actress, her syrupy southern drawl only serves to drag us further down this cartoon like action adventure trail.

The scene that will immortalize this film occurs shortly after Bob learns that the bad guys concoct the story that he is that guy that tried to assassinate the president. They postulate that since he knew he would never be able to go home he shot his dog. Later, Sarah is begging him not to go after the men that have framed him. They have all of the resources, manpower and money. He could never beat them. He agrees, but argues, "You have to understand, they shot my dog."

If this film had anything going for it other than a high body count and some flagrant, gratuitous violence it might have been fun, but the script was so uneven, the dialogue was so flawed and premise so ridiculous that nothing other than teenagers that talk during the whole
film could be more aggravating, but I'll let her tell you about them.

Paradise Now, He Said

If you a rabid believer in the legitimize of the Jewish state of Israel, you probably are not going to like this story of two young men who are going to become human bombs for their cause of Palestinian independence. On the other hand you and all of us should watch this film that takes us into the minds of people that go into combat where they know they are going to die, in fact, you will be pulling the trigger on yourself.

There is little doubt that most of us when we hear of someone blowing themselves up in a crowded area, wonder how you get to that place in your head. Most of us would die for our kids, our family or in military service, but to strap a bomb to you body and get on a bus or to walk through a market place knowing that you're going to kill all of the people around you gets into the area of the unthinkable. We have to think that there is a better way to confront a problem that would pose such a solution. This is the question that this film attempts to answer.

These young men have never really know freedom. Their parents and grandparents are the ones who were eyewitness to the birth of the Jewish State. What they know is the camp mentality and prison atmosphere of the West Bank Settlements. What they know is the one sided history of a people in search of what they believe is their homeland. What they know is that fulfillment of their ancestors dream is being prevented by the Israel. To them the face of Israel is the border guards and soldiers, who humiliate them and remind them of their subjugation.

In the beginning of the film we meet two very bright and hardworking young men, who are trapped in jobs that are below their capabilities, but there are no opportunities in this place. When they get the news that they have been selected to carry out a mission of vengeance they celebrate the opportunity. However as they prepare for their mission, they waffle back and forth on the question of are they doing the right thing. Much of this indecision comes not from a lack of personal bravery, but their concern and love for each other.

Their voice of reason resides in the character of a young women who is the daughter of one of the hero's of the resistance and is attracted to one of our fighters,. She is adamant that this kind of resistance is futile and counter productive in that it only infuriates their enemy and turns the rest of the world, outside of Islam, against them. The difference here is that she has lived and traveled outside of the West Bank and has seen the enemy and know them for what they are, people just like them.

She tells them that wasting their lives for the movement is crazy and in the end will have no effect. For the moment neither of them is moved. In an almost keystone cop telling of events the moment of decision is finally reached. Will they become one of the nameless and forgotten hero's of this kind of warfare or will they turn back and work for meaningful peace?

Because of this film, I no longer wonder why people become suicide bombers. I don't condone it. I still believe that it doesn't serve their cause nor does it do anything but needlessly take useful innocent lives. However, if in order to negotiate a peaceful ending to this terrible conflict, we need to understand the mindset of the combatants, this film gives us plenty to think about.

Premonition, He Said

I swear we are a nation becoming obsessed with the paranormal. TV is loaded with people who have super powers, including the Series "Medium". We seem to want to believe that we can see into the future and somehow change bad events into good.
In this film, Linda Hanson, played by Sandra Bullock, believes that her husband has died in an automobile accident until she wakes up the next day and he is sitting in the kitchen catching up on the news and eating breakfast. His two daughters, who the day before had been told that their daddy had died, were non-plussed about his appearance.
The story is told entirely from the Point of view of Linda. As the film progresses we are pulled into a continuing and increasingly horrible nightmare, where reality and imagination are challenged. The story resolves itself in a decision by her husband to stay with his family or leave them for another woman. The premonition's are resolved as real and the ending is a shocker.
I found the script in this film very weak. The sequences of events had to be explained by a device where Linda actually charts the sequence so that she and we could understand it. This is not going onto my favorite film list
Sandra Bullock has always been a lovable cute and funny actress. Her recent appearance in "Crash" and her dramatic portrayal in this film impress with her breadth as an actress.

The Italian, He Said

The star of this truly "little film" compels you to watch him embark on, for him, an epic journey. We open with an Italian couple selecting our little friend, Vanya for their child. We meet the hard adoption worker and her thuggish driver-major domo as they run out of gas on a lonely fog laden road in the snow covered grey countryside on the drive to the orphanage. After she makes a phone call to the home, we witness a troop of kids trotting down the road and with little fanfare they push the SUV the rest of the way.
This foreshadows the way the kids are regarded by their caretakers and what we might expect from them in the future. While all of the kids are excited and greet with restrained envy Vanya' selection, the departure must be delayed. Vanya wonders if he goes to Italy how will his mother find him.

With the aid of his friends and strangers on the way ,Vanya escapes from the orphanage and strikes out to find his mother. He is beaten, robbed, sheltered and harassed. All this while being pursued by the adoption worker and her henchman.

This touching tale is served well by the little Russian boy playing Vanya, Koyla Spiridonva. His ability to convey the sadness and hope of this boys life draws you in to the story. While the script is rather formulaic the actors get the best out of their spare lines and the predictable plot turns. The film is shot in such a dismal, dark and wet surroundings that when the boy dons a red jacket, soon after his escape, it serves us as a marker, much like the little concentration camp girl in "Schindler's List". His life now has materially changed, he will never be the same again.

If the film is suppose to be some commentary on contemporary life in Russia, I found it lacking. But the plucky look of little Vanya is something that will stay with you after you leave the theater.

Zodiac, He Said

The ticket taker warned us as we raced in to the showing of "Zodiac". "Be prepared. It's a three hour showing." Unfortunately, it felt like three hours, maybe four.
This screen adaption of Robert Graysmith's book is the account of the pursuit of the infamous "Zodiac Killer" in San Francisco during the 1960's and 1970's. The account depends heavily on Graysmith's obsession with finding the identity of the killer. Not a strange thing, seeing he was working for the local newspaper. But yes, it was strange because he was a cartoonist not a reporter.
We follow the cops as they are lead up one blind ally after another. The foibles of the law enforcement community, from their inability to communicate between jurisdictions and the quality of people they had in key positions. It makes you wonder how they catch anyone who does not turn themselves in.
While interesting in part the script was weak and not particularly compelling. I knew from interviews I heard that the killer is never really found. The attempt to substitute a satisfactory ending was weak and ineffectual. This film was unnecessarily long. The lighting and certain affects the director, David Fincher, choose to use only served to confuse and irritate me.
Except for great performances by a number of good actors (They didn't have a lot to work with) this film was a waste of time. A lot of time, actually

Amazing Grace, He Said

By the efforts of one man great things have happened and things that seemed infallible have been defeated. And so the story of William Wilberforce, the British magistrate who dared say that the slave trade was the shame of the British Empire, is told in an emotional and compelling way by Director Michael Apted. He builds his story around the well known protest song, "Amazing Grace".

The story occurs in the 1790's in London. William Wilberforce is torn between service to the church or a career in government. His friend and soon to be Prime Minister, William Pitt, encourages him to choose politics. Pitt wants Wilberforce to be his point man on the issue of the slave trade. England rules the seas and therefore has a monopoly on the securing and selling of slaves, mainly in the new colonies of America and the Islands of the Caribbean.

It is interesting how the arguments for the slave trade echo the arguments we often hear today when change is called for. While respecting the concern for the humanitarian aspects of the issue,supporters of the Slaver's pointed out that the magistrates who were calling for abolition of the slave trade were not well informed. The slaves were well taken care of and the rumors of their demise en route and poor treatment were exaggerated and untrue. Actually, we hear one supporter of slaveing tell his colluges that slaves were residing in near paradise with land animals and patch to grow their own vegetables on, while his constituency had no such thing. Besides, they argued, the economic effect of abolition would bring down the empire. On top of that, if Britain didn't fill this need, certainly their vile and sworn enemies the French would. Why it would be like giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Really anyone who thought such things could be accused, and they were, of sedition.

The story of Wilberforce's long and complicated battle to pass legislation to abolish the slave trade centers around his relationship with a former slave ship captain, played by Albert Finny. This man in his guilt and grief over his participation in the transportation of slaves, wrote the hymn, "Amazing Grace". This music became the rallying cry for the cause and as we know went on to serve the same purpose for the civil rights movement in this country in the 1960's.

While the sitting in this film is England in the late 1700's and early 1800's, I found it interesting that when they debated the war with the colonies they used the same arguments that we hear in our legislature about the war in Iraq. When the French begin their rebellion, they worry about it "crossing the channel". Their talk of high principle and concern for the their constituency is resounding and sounds sincere, but it seems can be purchased for the perks normally associated with politics, dinners and show tickets. I sat in the theater and thought to myself that while the subject might change and issues might be looked at anew, how we operate changes not very much.

Infamous, He Said

The year of Truman Capote? In the last year, two films recounted the events and process Capote went through as he wrote his masterpiece book "In Cold Blood". In "Capote", which was released first, the star, Philip Seymour Hoffman was clearly the focus of the film. His masterful portrayal of the flamboyant author and social gadfly, was the thing that has stuck in my mind after all of these months. Capote's relationship with Harper Lee, (To Kill a Mockingbird) at once loving and competitive was fleshed out by a brilliant performance by Katherine Keener. There was the hint that Capote actually had an affair with the one of the killers Perry Smith. In both films, Capote's legendary relationships with the famous wealthy and socially prominent was featured.

I won't quibble about who did a better Capote. Philip Seymour Hoffman played a subtler version that struck me as more like the guy I remember from the few television appearances I saw him on, but I don't know what he was like in private.

What was striking is the cast of "Infamous". It might have been titled "Famous" instead, since even minor roles like singer Kitty Dean were covered by recognizable stars, in Dean's case Gwyneth Paltrow. The role of Harper Lee, played by Sandra Bullock, was meatier and featured as more of a compelling aspect in Capote's life in the "Infamous" version. The biggest difference was the depiction of a love affair between Capote and Perry Smith.

I do not think Capote was a substantial man. His ethic's were self serving and if he did fall in love with Perry Smith, he was less than candid with his life partner. He at times appeared to try and manipulate events, such a trying to get Smith to apologize on the gallows, because it would make a better book. And he was tortured by the fact that the four appeals that the killers pursued delayed the publication of his book

However, He was a outstanding writer. "In Cold Blood" is the judged to be beginning of the development of the docudrama. What is sad is that he never wrote anything substantial after this book. He proceeded to drink himself to death. This has lead to the speculation that his love for Perry Smith and his execution was more than Capote could deal with. Both of these films are worth seeing, but if I had to say one was better than the other I would watch "Infamous".

Lives of Others, He Said

If you aren't afraid of the "Patriot Act" possibly you should see the film "Das leben der Anderen" (Lives of Others). Of course, most of us will say that it can never happen here and this is just one more reason why communism failed in the Soviet Union, but than the German people in Eastern Germany never thought they would live like they did either.

The film opens in Eastern Germany during the waning days of the Soviet Union. The Stasi, the East German secret police, have spies everywhere. It seems that everyone is spying on everyone else. The price for merely being suspected of disloyalty is high since all privilege comes from the state. The state controls where you live and what kind of a job you can have. It dictates the education you and your children can get. In general most people act and admit, if to themselves if no one else, that they are being watched.

Some are living in a home that has been completely wire tapped, where every thing they do or say is recorded and reported. some are being followed and observed constantly. Our unlikely hero is a hardcore Stasi operative, Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler. He is assigned the task of wiretapping and observing the states golden boy playwright, Georg Dreyman and his lover, Actress Christa-Maria Sieland. While he is suspicious of Dreymen his boss, Oberstleutnant Anton Grubitz, is not until, Minister Bruno Hempf tells them to observe and get something on Dreyman. Hempf's motivation is less than being the "Sword and Shield of the State." Hempf is infatuated with the Actress Sieland, he feels with Dreyman compromised he can convince Sieland to be his lover.

Wiesler invades Dreyman's apartment plants his bugs and begins listening in on their activities. What he observes is the conversion of Dreyman from a loyal servant of the state to a subversive of the first order. What catalyses this conversion is Dreyman's realization of how corrupt the state has become and how it is stifling the creativity and production of talented and good people. The irony is that as Dreymean is being turned so is Weisler.

This film is funny in a black humor sense of such things, but we are laughing at tragedy in order to cover our own concerns. We can always look at the Lives of Others and say it will never happen to us, but we can never be sure. Giving up individual rights, we have inherited from people who fought and died for those rights is a responsibility not simply a right