Change Your Image
lawstudent007
Reviews
Gods and Generals (2003)
Uncohesive
I had heard great things about the new movie Gods and Generals. On one hand there were enthusiastic reviews by Civil War buffs and some columnists. On the other hand were reviews from Roger Ebert and others critics who I respected that said it wasn't very good.
The film is very sprawling, with many characters that aren't developed very well. The script is filled with speeches that are overly long and overly melodramatic. Though not necessarily bad in and of themselves, these often rob the movie of its energy, intensity and drive.
Acting wise, I feel that though Stephen Lang does a fine job as Stonewall Jackson in most scenes, he totally misses the character he is playing. Stonewall Jackson was an enigma to everyone. He was a man who had strange, weird habits, and wasn't very good with people, but who was also very intelligent and driven. He had quirks that ranged from always sitting up straight to keep his intestines in alignment, to memorizing and repeating his lessons word for word. He was hated as a teacher at VMI, and only when he got on a battlefield did any of his drive and fire come out. But, if you see this film, Jackson is a well liked person, who seems to get along well with everyone, and has none of these quirks. Some are mentioned in passing, but what is portrayed contradicts this. Lang hints at, but never really shows, the fire that he could have had, and comes off as some sort of mad scientist type.
Jackson also had a vibrant faith in God. This is very strongly portrayed, but because of the melodramatic readings of his lines and speeches, he seems quaint and unreal, like an otherworldly being with no relation to the real world. He is a lunatic whose opinions and faith are easily dismissed. This goes for the other performances as well, which range from melodramatic to decent.
The battles sequences in `Gods and Generals' are interesting, but not as engaging as they could have been. I enjoyed them, as I did other points in the movie, but would have liked them to link to other scenes better and form a cohesive whole, which would make all the scenes better individually. The civilian scenes totally lose whatever momentum was going with the strategy and battle scenes. Having something to break up the intensity of battle is okay; here they are just too many and too long.
There is such a need now for films and television programs that show what life should really be like, and what true Christians are like. This film isn't real enough, and it ends up looking like another one of those `Christian' movies that everyone laughs at, and no one takes seriously. Slavery is glossed over, and the reasons for the war are heavily weighted to the Southern side. Religion and morality, while strongly presented, have an aura of unreality. This movie should be extremely powerful and moving, but it comes across as melodramatic and fake.
In summary, `Gods and Generals' is too unfocused and plodding. The ideas behind the film are good, but generally not well thought out and explained. It is enjoyable as a general history lesson, and the action does convey what happened, but it could have been, and should have been, so much more. I enjoyed the film for certain scenes, but it was only a grouping of moments, never rising to a cohesive whole.
Jesus of Nazareth (1977)
Not as good as you would hope...
This film is rather rocky.
First, acting. Powell's Jesus is so out of it he seems to be on drugs or something. He is always looking like he is "holy" and he never gets real (except briefly in one scene). Jesus Christ was God, but also a human being, not just this Godlike character that Powell portrays. Some of the other star turns, such as Anthony Quinn and Lawrence Olivier are also strangely bad. They don't seem to have any concept of what their characters really are like. The guy who plays Peter is always reacting the same way to everything that happens.
The story is beefed up, and changed slightly. This happens all the time, but is really unnecessary. They also botch the resurection. This is likely because the filmakers don't really believe it.
Overall, the film isn't powerful enough because the filmakers don't understand this man who literally changed the world.
That said, the cinematography is excellent. Particularly the shot when Pilate calls Jesus in after he has been flogged, and you see Jesus framed in the doorway with intense backlighting. Beautiful.
Some acting is great. Rod Steiger as Pilate is superb. He catches the character, but doesn't overplay him. His Pilate is more caught in what happens than intentionally vindictive (read the account in the Gospels, right on portrayal).
So, in all, a very rocky film. Better than many "Jesus" films, but not close to the power of the real account. This man changed the world. We measure time in relation to his birth. You wouldn't get that from this film.
My Fair Lady (1964)
Rex Rex
Rex Harrison is perfect. What else can one say? He does a great job.
Audrey Hepburn also is fantastic. She has the grace and dignity befitting a princess, but in the beginning she is convincing as a lower class "gutter snipe". I think her performance was better than Julie Andrew in Mary Poppins(which won Andrews the Oscar over Hepburn) and I think she is likely also better than Andrews was in this role.
The movie moves along nicely. It isn't fast, but it is never slow. The dialogue is witty (listen carefully. Higgins uses wonderful language) the plot is fun. It is "loverly"!
Sleuth (1972)
You never know. A dallying couple, a passing sheep-rapist.
Ah, it is lines like these that make Sleuth one of the most enjoyable films around. The very flamboyant performance by Olivier, which is one of his best in my opinion, is classic. This man was bested by Marlon Brando at the Academy Awards?! Brando was fine, but this is a tour de force, requiring more than gauze in the cheeks and a husky voice. (I am one of the few, though supported by Stanley Kaufman, who didn't find Brando's performance to be all that it was cracked up to be) Olivier gets to act scared, outrageously confident; impotent to vigorous. And you totally believe him as the character.
Michael Caine, who has been in more great films than many, gives a great performance that is very convincing, and totally gives Olivier a run or his money. The roles in this film are to die for, and both are very well filled.
The script is priceless. It goes from deadly serious, to almost silly fun. Who would think up a line like the one in my title? Sheep rapist?!
In short, the writing is great, the acting is great, and the plot is adequate and suspenseful.
The Long and Short of It (2003)
Fun short
This is a wonderful little short about cooperation. The direction is great. Sean took a very simple approach, not a lot of angles, just letting the simple story and setting come out. It seems like it was done simply as a fun diversion while filming the epic Lord of the Rings, and illustrating on a small level what all those involved learned. Watch for Peter Jackson's cameo. And be sure to read the credits. Some are just plain funny! All in all, a fun short film, that proves that Sean Astin has the instinct to become a great director, if he wants to.
Behind Enemy Lines (2001)
A great MOVIE
I went to see this movie after reading the New York Times review, and I have to say that the Times was right on. No, this is not a great film, the way The Elephant Man or Citizen Kane is, but it is a well done movie. The plot is fairly conventional, the execution was really good. This was the directors first film, and he does well. I felt that his use of special effects enhanced the film, though I know some felt it detracted. The use of slow motion and sound after explosions fits into what soldiers have said about what they feel at that moment. The director knows how to ratchet up the suspense, and though in the back of my mind I knew how it would end, I still felt suspense at what would happen.
The performance by Owen Wilson was great. I have liked what he has done in the past, and this was totally different. Here, he is an action hero, but then again, he isn't. He seemed to come across as a regular guy, even a bit cynical about being a soldier, who is thrust into a situation that needs extraordinary courage and reflexes to get out of. He aquit himself very well.
Gene Hackman did a great job, as usuall, as Wilson's commander. Hackman can take any role and make you believe that it is a real person.
All in all, this is worth watching if you want to see a fun war related film, that is patriotic. It even gets into, though subtley, the reason for being in any war.
Citizen Kane (1941)
The most innovative film ever
When I first saw this film, I was impressed enough to buy it, and to invest in *The Citizen Kane Book* with the treatise Raising Kane by Pauline Kael, which I would highly recommend. The article goes into great detail on the making of the film, and of the time period it came out of.
This film is great because of the innovations it made. No, it was not the first to use overlapping dialogue, or the first to use flashbacks to tell the story, or the first to use deep focus. But the way that Orson Welles used these innovations was innovative. Not only that, but the script, which is by Herman Mankiewicz and not Orson Welles, as many would believe, is superb, and was better in earlier drafts. Welles clearly deserves credit for his combining of great talent, in Mankiewicz, cinematographer Greg Toland, and his actors, and for his excellent acting as Kane. This is the best film I have seen.