Reviews

Robert Altman's simple and brilliant reprise of the celebrated fictional naval trial succeeds both as a series of character studies, and, more effectively than the Bogart film, as a rebuke of the sprawling anti-military novels (such as the Naked and the Dead) that followed World War II. Unlike the 1954 movie, this version is based on Herman Wouk's stage play and focuses exclusively on the trial itself. As events focus on the progression of witnesses in the temporary courtroom (it's a converted gym), each man is scrutinized under a microscope which reveals strengths, weaknesses, hypocrisy and anguish.

Facing the thankless task of following in Bogart's wake, Brad Davis gives an edgy performance as Qeeg, a ticky personality that slowly melts and becomes unglued in the witness chair. Eric Bogosian is just as watchable as Lt Greenwald, the razor-sharp defense lawyer who is torn as the issues of the trial tear into his own changing moral attitudes about the war. A cynical intellectual when he entered the Marines as a flyer, Greenwald now sees the pragmatic need for a structured military to defeat the evils of fascism (particularly as a Jewish American). To win the trial, he must destroy the life of a career officer and he's sick about it.

Jeff Daniels, Peter Gallagher and the rest of the cast are all top drawer. The 1988 TV Movie version is also able to briefly touch on issues of anti-Semitism and homosexuality that were expunged in the 50s big-screen version. The Caine Mutiny Court Martial offers that all-too-rare treat of allowing Hollywood stars to get into some meaty characters and performances which are normally reserved for the stage. Offered with Altman's trademark overlapping dialogue, it's great drama, an under-appreciated gem, and is well worth 100 minutes of your time.

First off, The Bounty is historical film making at its finest, and many comments justly pay tribute to the cast and particularly to Anthony Hopkins for fleshing out the very human complexities of Lt. William Bligh.

The Royal Navy's most infamous captain was not a monster, after all, but a somewhat ambitious officer sent on a very difficult mission with a small ship and no Royal Marines to maintain discipline. Unlike the tyrant portrayed in Nordoff and Hall's book and as played in earlier movies by Charles Laughton and Trevor Howard, naval records show the real-life Bligh flogged and disciplined his sailors far less often than the more revered Captain Cook or Captain Vancouver. Conversely, the real-life Fletcher Christian was a volatile man who may have acted upon impulse when leading the mutiny.

Instead of the simplistic good-evil storyline of earlier Bounty films, 1984's version presents the meaty conflict between two complex men placed in extraordinary circumstances. It's probably the most engaging historical battle of wills in movies since the clash of the colonels in Bridge on the River Kwai. So let's give credit where credit is due, namely screenwriter Robert Bolt.

Bolt made a career of creating memorable, complex and believable characters for historical films. His writing credits include Lawrence of Arabia, The Mission, Dr. Zhivago and Man for All Seasons (he also wrote the play). Bolt's intelligent and character-driven style is sadly missing in films today -- just imagine Gladiator with sharp dialogue along with the eye-candy -- but The Bounty showcases a screenwriter at the top of his form. Each line of dialogue rings true, each character is real and each scene seems authentic. When you're dealing with the wide canvas of history's most engaging mutiny, that's all you need.

The Germanic forest is dark and foreboding, packed with two armies braced for battle just before the onset of winter. Backed by a score with lashings of Holst's Mars - Bringer of War and dabs of African war chants lifted from the movie Zulu (really), the barbarian hordes assail the Romans in Wagnerian combat. It's all quite magnificently done, and so is the post-battle speeches between Emperor Richard Harris and Russell Crowe.

Indeed, as far as summer movies go, there are many moments and performances to like in Gladiator -- Oliver Reed's final performance as a gladiator merchant, stoic and powerful Crowe, a villain with complex motivation, technology-stretching computerized visions of the Eternal City and some awe-inspiring sets and cinematography -- so why did I want it to end?

A couple of reasons, actually. There's the my-rump-is-getting-sore-and-this-doesn't-really-need 155 minutes problem. Plots and intrigues in dungeons and alleys that swerve on for too long and don't lead anywhere. There's an over-indulgent hand at the tiller towards the end, as the epic bathed in grey and fatalistic sentiments struggles for an ending - and finds two or three that don't really satisfy.

And there's that troubling speech from the moral senator played by Derek Jacobi - the one gnawing at me through most of the movie. What kind of people were in this mob that would come to see the spectacle blood and death for entertainment? But was he talking about the Romans in the coliseum or the mob in the multiplex? Ridley Scott is a tremendously talented visual director, and he offers human butchery that looks like a Chanel commercial. With whiplash editing, art deco warrior masks and chariot crashes that sound like atomic blasts, the carnage is pitched to be irresistible - and it is until you start thinking about it. Basically, it's the same kind of hypocrisy DeMille offered - blood-lusting sequences with elephants crushing people and bulls goring slaves, all vindicated by good Christian outrage in the final scene. Gladiator isn't played as a straightforward adventure flick a'la Conan, it strives for more weight and pathos. But while the director heaps on the nobility in the unlikely finale, he's served up plenty of blood and guts in the first 150 minutes.

Is it worth seeing? Given what is in the trailers it may be the only choice you have for a few months. Would I see it a second time? Thumbs down.

Stanley Kubrick was a filmmaker blessed by a brilliant eye and cursed by an overly analytical mind. The result is a film legacy that is beautiful yet cold, exciting yet distant, hypnotic yet detached.

The people and characters populating Kubrick's movies are simply tools that act like slides under a microscope. They exist to help explore issues, such as violence or de-humanization, that intrigued the director. Fleshed-out characters that emotionally attracted audiences were shunned -- they distracted us from the bigger issues. Given his goals, it's no coincide that Kubrick's most memorable and tragic character is a deranged and homicidal machine. The film's star was always Stanley, and Jack Nicholson, Ryan O'Neal or Keir Dullea always ran in second place.

Reviewing his concerns and style, Full Metal Jacket stands as a definitive Kubrick project. It's a beautifully shot film with a camera that glides effortlessly as it follows Private Joker (Matthew Modine) through Marine boot camp and Viet Nam. It deals with war and dehumanization, two of Kubrick's main themes, and features the amazing draftee-abusing talents of real-life Gunnery Sergeant R. Lee Emery as Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. Emery landed the role by keeping up a barrage of swearing for 15 minutes while crew members pelted him with tennis balls. Tim Colceri, originally slated to play the role, was bumped to the bit part of the crazed helicopter gunner.

But while the characters are interesting to watch, we come away from Full Metal Jacket not caring about them. There's none of the emotional investment we get with the grunts in Apocalypse Now, Platoon or the Deer Hunter. And that's very intentional. The killing, whoring and fighting is all displayed with a strange detachment. All Kubrick's soldiers spout military jargon or hollow bravado in flat, deliberate voices. In several scenes, the camera simply pivot as individual troops successively mouth one Soldier of Fortune cliche after another. The teenagers from small towns in Iowa, Kansas and Oregon have become transformed into killer bugs on view under Kubrick's microscope.

This mini-series of Ivanhoe is that rare breed of production, a costume epic with fleshed-out characters we can believe in and care about. Lavishly filmed on locations in the United Kingdom, it's a project that appeals to the eye as well as the mind. And best of all, it's got really great bad guys.

There's nothing unusual about villains holding center-stage, but Ciaran Hinds' turn as the tormented Brian de Bois-Guilbert in Ivanhoe stands as one of the most complex and riveting evildoers you'll see on a screen.

Hinds' Guilbert is a fleshed-out Darth Vader, a valiant knight who's become jaded and abandoned youthful convictions after years of bearing the sword in a harsh world. He murders and plots, but can still be moved to anguish and despair.

Hinds' strong performance typifies this powerful presentation of Walter Scott's convoluted story of knights, castles, revenge and redemption during the reign of Richard the Lionhearted. The tricky-to-follow story is still there, but it hardly matters amid exciting chain-mail carnage, scheming monarchs and great characters.

Nothing can beat Sian Phillips (I Claudius) as Queen Eleanor, chiding her grown sons Richard and Prince John. Even evil princes can't talk back to mother. Christopher Lee is Lucard de Beaumanoir, head of the hard-praying, hard-fighting Templar Knights. Lee's piercing eyes and rich voice demand respect in his few scenes. It's truly a shame he hasn't been in more high-quality productions over the years. Susan Lynch (Cracker, Waking Ned Devine) offers another strong presence as Rebecca, the Jewess who enters the hearts of Guilbert and Ivanhoe. And it's refreshing to see such larger-than-lifers like Robin Hood and Friar Tuck look like real men for a change.

In the title role, Steven Waddington is stoic and strong, but through much of the story he's a wounded hero on the run. Shown in North America by A&E, this mini-series is now available on video. It's well worth seeing for anyone who wants meaty characters to go along with castles and swordplay.