Film Review: 'Click' (2006) – 8.0/10

Film Review: Fantasy · Comedy · Drama (2006)
'Click'
Written by Joé McKen on Friday, May 15, 2009

Adam Sandler plays an architect with a knack for bad luck as Michael Newman in Columbia Pictures' 2006 flick Click.

I honestly don't understand the general disenchantment towards this movie that's felt by seemingly the majority of critics and moviegoers alike. What I see is a very decent family film, a movie with a solid point that's carried across in a way that's neither shoved down our throats nor is too subtle as to let it slip away; a movie with good humor, and overall a film that is just a joy to watch every now and then, especially during family movie nights or such. This isn't sophisticated comedy; it doesn't try to be, either. It's simply good honest fun mixed with a touching, heartfelt story and honest values. I liked it, my friends and family liked it; why don't more enjoy the feel-good flick that is Click? Not that I'm complaining; it just seems odd.

We start out with Michael Newman, a young but brilliant architect who's constantly torn between his work and his family. Not the most original of dilemmas, I know, but the film goes about it in a way that does make you interested and care in it. His family includes his wife, Donna (Kate Beckinsale), who couldn't be hotter if she'd come out of an oven, and little Samantha and Ben, probably the two sweetest kids you'll see for a while. Michael does greatly care for them and wishes nothing more than for them to be happy – other perhaps than to become a partner at his architecture firm.

Eventually he gets tired enough of fooling around with their various remote controls (opening the garage door, turning on ceiling fans and even cleaving his scalp open while activating a remote toy helicopter) and decides to get a universal remote: "one clicker controls everything", to make his life "a little more simple". He heads to Bed, Bath and Beyond (only because they're the only store still open at the time), and in the "Beyond" section he finds an odd fellow named Morty (at which point my etymological senses began to tingle), played by the exceedingly-appropriate Christopher Walken.

Morty gives Michael a brand-new remote (so new, it's not even listed yet) free of charge, yet with one condition – it's non-returnable. "Why would I wanna return something I got for free?" asks Michael. Trust me, you'll find out soon enough.

It turns out that this is no ordinary remote. It literally controls his universe: pausing the time, fast-forwarding or rewinding to moments of his choice, picture-in-picture, his complete life menu (featuring a commentary by – who else? – James Earl Jones), the Making Of (you can guess what that implies), along with all the usuals (volume control, language controls, hue, aspect ratio, etc.).

However, the fun and games, while providing for some fairly hilarious moments in themselves, soon turn much starker when Michael realizes the remote soon programs itself based on his actions, and before long he ends up fast-forwarding through any sickness, traffic, showering, sexual foreplay, family dinners, etc. that the future holds for him. One disastrous lack of temper has him skipping through an entire promotion, which lands him a full year in to the future. Now his marriage is failing, his kids are growing apart from him, and the beloved family dog (Sundance) has died. And trust me when I say, it quickly gets a whole lot worse, and Michael desperately regrets ever coming across this bittersweet remote.

There are some fairly Adam Sandler-esque moments of bodily comedy that might not apply to everyone's tastes, such as playing with a grotesque flab of skin left over from a recent liposuction, to farting in his boss' face (while the scene is paused, of course), and – of course – numerous kicks to the balls. Yet they seem to work, on a restrained-toilet-humor sort of level.

However, the film is much deeper in dramatic waters than comedic ones; there are several moments of touching emotionality, such as a heartbreaking goodbye to his father, or the final scene when Michael desperately tries to teach his son that one rule he's learned above all: Family Comes First. This is what makes it such a good family film in my opinion: a fair balance between laugh-out-loud inanity, and true feeling. Few movies these days deliver both, and even fewer deliver them as well as Click does.

I must comment on the film's musical score. It's beautiful. Not only are the miscellaneous pop and rock songs pleasantly appropriate for the film's tones and themes (including one of my favorites from U2), but the original score, from the barely-known Rupert Gregson-Williams, displays a curious mix of quirkiness, excitement, and deep emotion that make up the film's various feelings. I'm particularly entranced by one particular piece, which plays during the climax with an aging Michael laying helpless on a road in torrential rains. So resounding.

Overall, this is a fantastic film for all kinds of families to enjoy, especially when there's nothing else to do; give it a try, and I bet you won't be disappointed. It doesn't try to be a masterpiece, but a simple family film to entertain, to touch, and to make one think.

For giving us moments of hilarity interspersed with scenes of genuine emotions coupled with decent moral values, I give Frank Coraci's Click 8.0 twinkies out of 10.

Cast
Michael Newman: Adam Sandler • Morty: Christopher Walken • Donna Newman: Kate Beckinsale
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Frank Coraci • Writer(s): Mark O'Keefe, Steve Koren • Original Score: Rupert Gregson-Williams
General Information
Distributed by: Columbia Pictures • Released: June 23, 2006 (US) • Running Time: 107 mins • Budget: US$70 million • Rated: PG-13

Continued ...»

Film Review: 'Gran Torino' – 9.0/10

Film Review: Drama (2008)
'Gran Torino'
Written by Joé McKen on Saturday, May 02, 2009

Clint Eastwood still looks as menacing as ever as Walt Kowalski in his fantastic drama Gran Torino.

Walt Kowalski doesn't like his neighbors. He hates them, actually. That does tend to happen when you're a bitter, racist old white man and your neighbors are Hmong, an Asian people from Laos and other parts of the region who fought alongside the US in Korea and Vietnam, who were forced to flee following the Communists' crackdown on their people and culture. Walt stares into his neighboring "gooks"' yard to see them decapitating chickens in a sort of ritual. "Barbarians, damned barbarians", he groans under his breath as he heads back in his house.

Walt doesn't like his family, either. While they're continually muttering behind his back at his persistent criticism and intolerance, they certainly fail to recognize how insufferable they themselves are. The only reason they ever call Walt is to ask favors (few of which Walt concedes), and their kids are pure self-centeredness and greed. Typical American family, I suppose … and Walt is your typical 50s cranky old man. To them, at least.

Walt likes his routine. When he's not sipping beer on his front porch, overlooking the downtrodden neighborhood with his faithful aging Labrador girl Daisy resting next to him, he's either doing some housework and maintenance here and there around the place (he's quite the skilled handyman), or obsessively cleaning and polishing his prized car, a fantastically mint-condition vintage 1972 Ford Gran Torino. Any idiot without a care for cars would get a hard-on just looking at that baby. Though they'd probably high-tail it out of there in terror when they saw Walt's look of cold fury which left little to the imagination as in what he'd do to them if he ever caught them snooping around too close to his precious car.

It truly amazes me how Eastwood is still able to look as menacing as he'd ever been, from the days of the Cowboy with No Name to Dirty Harry. The automobile worker may have retired, but not Walt's spirit, still bristling with energy and bitterness towards his "chink" neighbors. Every scowl, every growl, every furrowed brow – one glance at the man tells you whether you're fine, or whether you're about to have a really bad day. Walt certainly isn't afraid to deliver.

One day, Walt is awoken in the middle of the night and sees his worst nightmare come to life: someone's in his garage with his Gran Torino! Wasting no time other than to grab his M-1 Garand assault rifle, he pays the would-be thief a little visit, taking careful aim at the Asian juvenile's head as he follows him slowly around the garage, the rifle's cannon not two feet away from the boy's forehead. A lucky trip, and the kid is able to run away with his brains intact. Walt looked decidedly undecided as to whether he was about to blow the kid's head off or not.

Eventually though, he sees the same boy, quiet and passive, being pressured by a Hmong gang to join their ranks; it soon degenerates into a fight, which spills onto Walt's precious lawn – a grave mistake, as there's Walt right then and there, aiming his rifle at the gangsters and telling them, quite calmly and assuredly, how he'd blow a hole through their skulls and then go home and sleep like a baby. But it's only natural for Walt to be fearless, after all – he'd fought in Korea and, as he poignantly mentions, used to stack enemy corpses five feet high and use them as sandbags. The gangbangers get the point and don't hesitate to leave with their lives.

However, far from this incident leading to his neighbors to leave him alone, he is promptly swamped with all sorts of gifts on his doorstep: plants and flowers, food and ornaments. He can't stuff it down his garbage cans fast enough and it's all back again. See, he just saved the life of young Thao Vang Lor (Bee Vang), the kid who was coerced into attempting to steal his prized Gran Torino as an "initiation" into the aforementioned gang, and he's now a hero to the neighborhood he despises so much. Talk about irony.

Meanwhile, he's approached by Sue, an open and likeable Hmong girl, and despite his usual coldness she gets him to open up – if only just a little – and start to accept the Hmong way of life and culture … somewhat aided by stuffing him full of that delicious "gook food". I've never had Hmong food … I'd be curious to try it, if an old cranky bastard like Walk could fall in love with it.

I will say it: Gran Torino is one of my favorite films. Easily. The drama is thrilling and captivating, the acting (particularly by Eastwood) is as fantastic as it gets, the plot follows down a lifelike and riveting path, and overall the premise of an old man learning to open up his heart and mind to different people and cultures, while not entirely new, is carried out so expertly and genuinely that it truly bears Eastwood's signature in more than one ways. This is the man who also brought us the wonderful Million Dollar Baby (2005). Eastwood is pure talent – his venerable career as an actor and director (among other things) illustrates this perfectly. He truly is the greatest actor ever to embrace the silver screen. H e brings a sort of truth, honest, and soul to his works that you'd be hard-pressed to find anywhere else in Hollywood.

I could go on and on but frankly this review is dragging on by now, so it's time to close it. If you're any sort of a moviegoer, you will want to watch, and own, this movie as soon as possible. If haven't seen it, shame on you. Rent it immediately. If you have seen it, you know how masterful this work truly is.

For bringing one of the most interesting and enthralling tales of racial disparity and genuineness that I've seen in a very long time, I award Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino with 9.0 cans of beer out of 10.

Cast
Walt Kowalski: Clint Eastwood • Thao Van Lor: Bee Vang • Sue Lor: Ahney Her
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Clint Eastwood • Writer(s): Nick Schenk, Dave Johannson • Original Score: Kyle Eastwood, Michael Stevens
General Information
Distributed by: Warner Bros. • Released: January 09, 2009 • Running Time: 116 mins • Budget: US$33 million • Rated: R

Continued ...»

Film Review: 'Fast & Furious' – 7.5/10

Film Review: Racing • Action (2009)
'Fast & Furious'
Written by Joé McKen on Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Dom and Bryan (Vin Diesel and Paul Walker) are rollin’ together again like the good ol’ days in Justin Lin’s Fast & Furious.

It’s probably odd of me to enjoy the Fast and the Furious franchise, considering my inherent disdain for most of those high-octane illegal-racing-type films and games (particularly as they’re mostly comprised of those pathetic snot-headed, backwards-cap-wearing youths I despise so), but what can I say? I’m a sucker for this particular line of films, starting from the excellent first (The Fast & the Furious), then descending into murky waters with the second (2 Fast 2 Furious), and skipping over the third (Tokyo Drift) which I’ve still yet to see. Call me lazy.

If I was disappointed to hear that the original cast of Bryan, Dom and the rest were entirely absent from Tokyo Drift (minus a tiny little scene at the very end), I was equally rejoiced to hear of their return in their entirety for this fourth installment in the iconic series. Really, it just doesn’t feel like The Fast and the Furious without the Dom and Bryan duality. And if before their friendship was strained, imagine how it’ll be some six years later, after Bryan’s betrayal to Dom and his friends, including his sister, Mia (Jordana Brewster).

The film is an interquel, basically a bridge between 2 Fast 2 Furious and Tokyo Drift, and tries to tie up some loose ends, answer some lingering questions (namely, “what’s happened since?”), and set up part of the scene and introducing some of the characters for Tokyo Drift. Whether it’s ultimately better or less impressive than the first film depends on the viewer; personally, I tend to be plagued by that mysterious phenomenon where recent movies feel like they’re “better” than oldies, though this time they feel equal in their entertainment values.

Enough babbling. The film opens with Dom being up to his old tricks: hijacking huge trucks and rigs on open roads and highways. Right now, it’s a four-trailer propane truck he’s attacking (“black gold”, remember?), and although the highly entertaining and thrilling scene ultimately ends in success, he’s now an internationally-wanted criminal and is forced to end his reckless activities. (Oh, this tanker-truck-hijacking bit was in the Dominican Republic. By the way.) He bids goodbye to his love, Letty, and departs in the night.

But his problems are far from over. A short time later, he receives one phone call he’ll never forget: Letty’s been murdered. Heartbroken and bent on revenge (which, if you’ve known Dom, is a very chilling thought to cross any target’s mind), Dom goes on his own private investigation, coercing leads and sources until he arrives at a race for a notorious and powerful yet elusive drug lord, Arturo Braga. The races are orchestrated by Braga’s aid in hiring the best drivers around, Ramon Compos (John Ortiz).

One little surprise for Dom, though: he’ll be competing against, amongst others, Bryan O’Conner, now an undercover FBI agent – again – who’s also actively searching for Braga. Through races, deceptions and lots of troubles and tight situations, the two re-forge their previous friendship and once again race for the same cause: finding the man behind Letty’s murder … and the several million dollars worth of heroin that’s sneaking its way into the U.S. from Mexico every few weeks.

The film has everything you could expect from a Fast and Furious installment: you’ve got fast cars ranging from exotic sportscars to homegrown muscles, you’ve got steely rebels and sneaky villains, you’ve got good guys keeping secrets from each other until it becomes a web of secrets and lies that Charlotte would be deign to tend to; and all the while the viewer is constantly satisfied with high-octane races, lots of action, excellent (though apparent) CGI scenes (including a race/fight in a narrow and sinuous mountain tunnel that’s truly exhilarating to watch), and enough meaningless and deliberate destruction of structures and constructions to send architects and engineers weeping.

The story feels relatively loose and disjointed at times, seemingly made up of random races, explosions and thrills all stitched together via a hastily-concocted and quite uninspired “drug lord” plot that seems to have been lifted straight out of the second film at times. I did enjoy the considerably darker themes and tones contrasting with the previous films – this is the first film with more than one deaths, if I recall correctly, and several of which are really quite brutal – and it feels like the films, much like their audience, are growing up and maturing into something better, riper. Although, perhaps that’s just my personal, and unique, impression.

Overall, Fast & Furious is certainly nothing you won’t have seen before in elements from a dozen other racing movies, and while certain elements and details are uninspired and plain derivative, the overall end product is one that does somehow manage to hold a proud candle to the rest of the franchise. Not a film to have wet-dreams over perhaps, but it will easily pass the time when you’ve got nothing else to do, or when the video store is out of WALL·E or There Will Be Blood. Or whatever.

Roaring through the screens with delightful fast-paced sequences coupled with a decent plot and old familiar faces, Universal Pictures’ Fast & Furious deserves itself 7.5 wrecked vehicles out of 10.

Cast
Dominic “Dom” Toretto: Vin Diesel • Bryan O’Conner: Paul Walker • Ramon Compos/Arturo Braga: John Ortiz • Mia Toretto: Jordana Brewster
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Justin Lin • Writer(s): Chris Morgan. Characters: Gary Scott Thompson. • Original Score: Brian Tyler
General Information
Distributed by: Universal Pictures • Released: April 03, 2009 • Running Time: 107 mins • Budget: US$80 million • Rated: PG-13

Continued ...»

Film Review: 'Ben X' – 8.5/10

Film Review: Drama (2007)
'Ben X'
Written by Joé McKen on Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Greg Timmermans plays an autistic boy with difficulties separating virtual reality from real life in Nic Balthazar's 2007 drama Ben X.

Every morning before breakfast, Ben (Greg Timmermans) wakes up and spends about an hour on ArchLord, an online roleplaying computer game on which he's now attained level 80 – which, for those who don't know, is really freakin' good. He is universally respected, is nigh unbeatable, and even has a sort of "girlfriend", a pretty "healer" known as Scarlite (Laura Verlinden). They share a close emotional bond, with Scarlite helping Ben through some of the tough patches of his life – because that's seemingly all his life is made of.

Following that, he cleans up briefly in the bathroom, while he stares at his image in the mirror, thinking about how a big loser takes up all the visible space in the reflective glass. He straps on a heart monitor – not that it helps with his stress; it just tells him how much stress he's under. He then takes a few bites of toast with his resigned but caring mother (Marijke Pinoy), is kissed goodbye while irked by his little brother, then steps out of his home into the streets as he prepares for his walk and bus-ride to school.

If you think a regular teenager's life is tough, try being an autistic teen. Specifically, a teen with heavy Asperger's, diagnosed by a doctor relatively late in Ben's childhood, to whom routine is the only way to survive in the hellish world he's stuck in as he understands no-one and no-one understands him in return. As his mother says – 'He doesn't have a problem with his autism. It's people he has a problem with.'. Specifically, bullies – which, in Ben's case as an emotionally shut and disabled high school student, is nearly everyone in his class. He's particularly antagonized by two cruel boys who do all they can to make his life a living hell until he returns home to relative safety and comfort and withdraws into his videogame, with Scarlite.

Nic Balthazar sculpted this movie into one of the most powerful and accurate depictions of Asperger's/Autism I've ever seen, and being an "Aspie" myself (albeit much milder a case than poor Ben), this is a story I can't help but relate to as I see the poor boy go through all the hell that no kid should ever be submitted to. Being ridiculed, brutalized and humiliated beyond redemption, because he is either unwilling or unable to defend himself. I will admit I've had some dark times in my own school years, which mercifully are behind me now, yet even though I was never tormented to that extent, this movie had the horrible knack of opening old wounds in me that I would have preferred to have forgotten all about years ago.

I don't mean to turn this review into a plea or a sorry narrative of my own much-hated schoolyears. I call attention to this, not as a cry for sympathy, but to draw attention to the immense emotional power this movie holds. This film does not hold back any punches when it comes to showing just how hard life is for those sorry individuals who are afflicted with autism – unable to communicate and understand what's going on, or how to change it. Some scenes will make you laugh, some might make you weep, and still others will profoundly outrage and shock you. They certainly did to me – but then I've always had a tendency to strongly react with "persecution films".

One day, after a particularly, horrifically vicious bout of torment that ends with Ben lost, mugged, bruised and high on drugs that were crammed down his throat, he goes to to an arranged meeting with the ever-faithful (and pretty) Scarlite, and once she's eliminated his dark thoughts of suicide (which he had apparently been planning for quite some time), they start planning his revenge – but what he has in store for his tormentors is nothing you will have seen coming. It's a twist worthy of M. Night Shyamalan's The Sixth Sense's end scene in which the true sense of the iconic phrase 'I see dead people' is finally revealed.

Greg Timmermans brings us the most realistic depiction of an autistic individual I've ever seen so far in a film. Dustin Hoffman gave us Raymond Babbitt in Rain Man, and while it was a very strong film in itself, his portrayal seemed a bit caricatured at times; he showed virtually all of autism's standard symptoms, which is sort of faulty as no victim of autism or Asperger's ever really shows all the signs. Here we see Ben, we see through is eyes, we hear his thoughts, and I for one can assure you the incarnation is as close to perfect as an actor will likely ever get.

The film is Belgian, and the version I watched was in French – oddly, the film doesn't have an English dub, which certainly explains its lack of publicity and recognition in America. This didn't deter from the experience however – a language really is just a way of communicating ideas and meanings; watch it in whichever tongue you understand best and you will be guaranteed a deeply powerful and moving experience about a tragic tale that truly does happen far, far too often in real life. Everyone's known a Ben now and then. The movie works exceedingly well at raising that old question: if you see people harassing an innocent person, would you step in, or let it carry on?

I know what I would do.

For bringing us such a great film that truly exposes bullying in all its horror, I give Film Movement LLC's Ben X 8.5 Endgames out of 10.

Cast
Ben: Greg Timmermans • Scarlite: Laura Verlinden • Mother: Marijke Pinoy
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Nic Balthazar] • Writer(s): Nic Balthazar • Original Score: Praga Khan
General Information
Distributed by: Film Movement LLC • Released: September 26, 2007 (US) • Running Time: 93 mins

Continued ...»

Film Review: 'Planet of the Apes' – 7.5/10

Film Review: Sci-Fi (1968)
'The Planet of the Apes'
Written by Joé McKen on Thursday, April 10, 2009

Different eras equate to different coupling possibilities in Franklin J. Schaffner's 1968 classic Planet of the Apes.

Planet of the Apes is about as big a classic cultural icon as a movie can be, so I approach reviewing and critiquing it as one would enter a misty cemetery at night renowned for its zombies (perhaps with ape masks). I did happen to see the 2001 remake with Mark Wahlberg though, which I did like albeit finding parts of it a little confusing, and I was disappointed to find what little similarity the two films share. It's odd – add the original's mystique and imagination to the remake's superior technical skill and the female chimp whose name evades me (Amy?) – and Mark Wahlberg (I do have a soft spot for the guy) – and you'd get my ideal Planet of the Apes. But enough about my random ramblings – on with the review.

Hailing from way back in 1968, the film does understandably show its age in many ways, from the remarkably oldschool portrayal of "futuristic technology" (such as the spaceship in the beginning) to the outdated special effects – and also the unimpressive score from Jerry Goldsmith (whose scores I really can't seem to take a liking to) – but considering the film won awards for its technical mastery at the time, I'll just overlook those aspects and concentrate on the story and its meanings – it certainly is rich in those. Heh.

In case the title isn't self-evident enough about it, the story is about a strange and mysterious planet on which the dominant species is apes – bipedal, clothed, English-speaking apes, who force the still-existing humans, who have regressed into primitive scavengers, into slavery, where they are kept in cells and cages to be experimented on, such as with brain surgery. (What's more comforting than humanoid apes strapping you down and cutting into your head, eh?) This is witnessed by George Taylor (Charlton Heston), the ranking officer on a spaceship speeding towards the constellation of Orion, which crashes into a lake on a distant planet (guess which).

He and his crew are soon captured by the dominant apes, and soon only Taylor is left, desperately trying to communicate to his "scientist" captors, headed by Drs. Zira and Copernicus (Kim Hunter and Roddy McDowall, respectively), who all work under the wing of the respectable and powerful Dr. Zaius (Maurice Evans), who is simultaneously the head of scientific studies, and is Defender of the Faith (irony overload approaching …). For yes, these apes have their own religion, with the kinds of parallels to a certain human religion that one cannot help but chuckle at (though whether that's a sympathetic or a derisive chuckle is up to you). Bound and chained, Taylor must try to escape while trying to understand just what sort of monkey business is going on here. (Hey, I HAD to include at least one sad ape pun.)

By far, what amused me most about this movie was all the messages, subtexts and underlying commentary that seemed to bleed out of its pores. I understandably can't go into much detail here, but suffice it to say that a staunch liberal atheist and borderline anti-religionist misanthrope like I was greatly amused and interested by some of the movie's obvious social, political and (most of all) religious commentary. Just watch it for yourself to know what I mean by that. Trust me, it's hard to miss.

I find myself at a curious lack of things to say about this film; yes, I liked it (though the beginning did seem to stretch on unnecessarily at times), but really, I've pretty much exhausted my well of critiques concerning this film.

From my totally uninitiated first-timer's experience with this pop-icon film recognizing the dated technological and storytelling techniques in contrast to the cynical and misanthropic commentary, along with imaginative story and concepts, I give the classic Planet of the Apes 7.5 sacred ape scrolls out of 10.

Cast
George Taylor: Charlton Heston • Dr. Zaius: Maurice Evans • Dr. Zira: Kim Hunter • Dr. Cornelius: Roddy McDowall
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Franklin J. Schaffner • Writer(s): Michael Wilson, Rod Serling. Based on novel by Pierre Boulle. • Original Score: Jerry Goldsmith
General Information
Distributed by: 20th Century Fox • Released: February 08, 1968 • Running Time: 112 mins • Budget: US$5.8 million

Continued ...»

Film Review: 'Deep Impact' – 8.0/10

Film Review: Sci-Fi • Disaster Film (1998)
'Deep Impact'
Written by Joé McKen on Thursday, April 09, 2009

A chilling sight for any knowledgeable astronomer awaits the world in Mimi Leder's 1998 Deep Impact.

For a movie based in science-fiction to work well, there has to be a reasonable compromise between the rigidly scientific and fact-based aspects, and the human drama and artistic license. The result is a film that, while not always strictly accurate to reality, keeps us interested in following the story without driving us away with silly gimmicks and downright ludicrous attempts at explaining all the implausible (if not ridiculous) mechanics and events that go into the overall plot. If one spectacular failure at this was 1998's Armageddon, which really seemed to aspire to being a caricature of typical American Action movies, then conversely, one remarkable attempt at reconciling drama with reason would be Armageddon's "good twin", Deep Impact. While it does contain its fair amount of little icks and irks here and there, it achieves the nonetheless difficult balance between science/reality and fiction.

As the title and cover art not-so-discretely hint at, the overall plot deals with us poor little Humans facing imminent doom from Outer Space from a giant meteor that's "the size of Mount Everest", hurtling towards the Earth, which equals to a textbook E.L.E. scenario – Extinction-Level Event. This is revealed early in the movie, yet as per tradition the good astronomer who first discovers this problem is killed by an inattentive semi-truck driver. (When has a movie ever portrayed a semi-truck that didn't eventually lead to some death or destruction?) Somehow though, the findings aren't lost and the US government quickly stitches together a massive but entirely secret plan to try and prepare for humankind's survival without causing a premature mass panic.

But of course, sticking to the True Action Movie™ formula that dictates that a third party must be made aware of the impending disaster, we also follow MSNBC reporter Jenny Lerner (Téa Leoni) who soon stumbles upon what first appears to be a typical yet juicy bit of gossip: something about an important politician resigning to hide an affair he's having – with a mistress named Ellie. However, some people aren't very happy with her snooping around in this business, and soon Jenny's forcibly escorted to a private meeting with the President himself, Tom Beck, played by Morgan Freeman (really, who else? And doesn't Freeman every play a role that isn't that of some wise and respected old man?), who asks her to wait before breaking out the news on E.L.E. – a curious pronunciation of the mysterious 'Ellie' that you can bet Jenny will look up on the Net, and be profoundly shaken by the results.

Also following the strict Disaster Movie™ guidelines, we see much of the screentime devoted to the relatively meaningless lives of a few relatively random folk, and we follow, not only the unfurling disaster, but also the personal stories of the main characters. I'd say these are the weakest parts of the movie – I've never been one for melodrama, and while this was certainly much better executed than in Armageddon, it still had some dully inane and uninteresting moments, including a love story between two teenagers, and a subplot concerning Jenny and her estranged father. These scenes could stand to have been better written I suppose, but ultimately it's probably pointless for me – I never get hooked by folderol no matter how well it's written; it's still filler.

Oh, and there's also the plot concerning the government's attempt at sparing the Earth a grisly fate, which inevitably includes four things: 1 – it involves flying a spaceship to the comet and depositing a crew on its surface; 2 – there will be nukes involved (albeit in a much more realistic fashion than in Armageddon); 3 – the first attempt will fail, and 4 – they'll suddenly pull a miraculous solution out of the air. But you'll have to see the movie to learn if the end fate of the planet is either disaster of survival, or both.

I'm always glad to see Robert Duvall's name amongst a movie's credits; in this flick, he plays Spurgeon "Fish" Tanner, the veteran astronaut who was the last man to have walked on the Moon, and his performance is enticing as it usually is. Téa Leoni plays her role as the intrepid yet family-conflicted Jenny solidly, and Elijah Wood plays young astronomer Leo Beiderman well enough to keep us from leaving, yet seems to lack the conviction to truly pull off his performance.

Technically, the film is at the height of its craft for a 1998 flick. The special effects are developed and convincing, even if the CGI does start to show by modern standards, and one particular scene where a watery disaster engulfs New York City is quite thrilling, if also fairly reminiscent of the more recent The Day After Tomorrow.

It's sad, albeit inevitable, that Deep Impact didn't fare as well at the box office despite the much higher general critical consensus – Armageddon just had that "mass appeal" feel to it (as Roger Ebert said quite aptly, you could use any portion or scene from the movie and it would become its own trailer) that's quite perfect for pandering to the ever-ADHD-afflicted general public. For the rest of us who can actually appreciate a good movie when it comes along, Deep Impact is the choice to go with.

For enchanting us with an archetypal tale that's told with tact and skill, I give Paramount Pictures' Deep Impact 8.0 deadly Space-rocks out of 10.

Cast
Jenny Lerner: Téa Leoni • President Tom Beck: Morgan Freeman • Leo Beiderman: Elijah Wood • Capt. Spurgeon "Fish" Tanner: Robert Duvall
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Mimi Leder • Writer(s): Bruce Joel Rubin, Michael Tolkin • Original Score: James Horner
General Information
Distributed by: Paramount Pictures • Released: May 08, 1998 • Running Time: 121 mins • Budget: US$75 million • Rated: PG-13

Continued ...»

Film Review: 'Monsters vs. Aliens'

DreamWorks remains unmoved by the massive amounts of criticism they've received regarding their often predictable humor that usually calls for celebrity voices, pop culture references and gags best left in a rest stop. Their largest offense by far appears to be the lack of 'Pixar' charm, because, animated movies MUST HAVE a heart-warming story, cute affable characters and a tone starved of personality. Despite roller coaster box office results that include many disappointments, DreamWorks chugs on. Their films are seemingly of a hardheaded teenager's mindset, yet they've improved, after teetering quickly after their first CGI success, Shrek. Their comedies, being less fruitful, aren't without their contributions to the animated medium. Their latest release, Monsters Vs. Aliens doesn't diverge much from the predictability line in terms of characterization or homage, yet many sequences are effective.

The animation company may overuse their cultural jabs, but in this accessible adventure, it is exercised playfully and classy because it does not exist in such amounts that wear out the viewer. The film does often lose the grasp of its subject matter's initial strength though, and settles for more insubstantial comedic matter. One thing that has changed, references have become more retro in an attempt for more of a timeless feel. But if the execution remains average, the effect is lost too. Like many American animated films today, the movie is lacking spirit, distinctiveness, and edge. With such a 50's element, a lot more can be expected, aside from just borrowing the mere premise of the classics. Films aimed toward children however have to remain along a hard-wired guideline as required by the American public.

While the 3D could be considered a large gimmick, it did add much depth to the movie, I felt. Its 50's-movie homage reflects the scope and period impact of some of the earlier flicks with the depth of the dimensions. It is here with this story element that I wish they had done more, aside from lacing the animation with impressive up to date visuals. The film needed to live up to it's artistic scale. It film flounders significantly toward the end, and is that much more disposable with it's finale. The stronger sections were certainly toward the beginning, where characterization, writing, and execution were on point and were writhing with potential for something more far-reaching. The film also engulfs points with me for having 2 bugs as the protagonists.

Continued ...»

Film Review: 'The Astronaut Farmer' – 8.0/10

Film Review: Drama • Adventure (2006)
'The Astronaut Farmer'
Written by Joé McKen on Sunday, March 29, 2009

Will it work this time? Find out when you watch Warner Bros. Pictures' 2006 inspirational tale, The Astronaut Farmer.

The Astronaut Farmer is the simple story about a man who just wants to go to Space. It's his dream, it's what he's always wanted to do, and it's what his life has always been throwing obstacles at to try and prevent him from accomplishing his dream.

Charles Farmer (Billy Bob Thornton) used to be an astronaut-in-training at NASA, following a stellar career as a jet pilot, when the tragedy of his father's suicide got him discharged from the program before he was able to complete it. Now obsessed with fulfilling his dream, he decides to build his very own rocket (a replica of the historic Mercury-Atlas rocket), using his family as a team and sucking up all his and their assets into his project. However, soon the bank decides he's overdue enough and prepares to foreclosure on his home; as a result, Charles now brings his whole family in, even grabbing his children out of school for extra 'manpower', something his wife Audie (Virginia Madsen) is none too pleased about. Oh, and his 'ground control' support? His own 15-year-old son, Shepard (Max Thieriot).

Of course, eventually this will have to grab the attention of the undesirables. In this case, that's a combination of the FBI, attracted by his purchase of 10,000 pounds of rocket fuel (yeah, like that could ever have gone incognito), and the FAA, curious and threatened by this 'loon''s projects of building his own spacecraft.

Soon however, assets and support starts to run dry, right when the rocket is very nearly finished: they're out of money, he's about to lose his home and moral support, and enemies are taking shots at him from every direction from legal to governmental. Will Farmer's dream be able to survive such brutal onslaught? Or will he be forced to give up his primary motivation in his life?

The Astronaut Farmer is a very sweet and inspirational story, that much cannot be denied. Who hasn't now and then entertained dreams of blasting off into Space and leaving the sorry world behind, if only for a moment? Naturally, dreaming about it and actually doing it are two entirely different universes, something this movie illustrates very well in my opinion as Farmer undergoes pressures that make one wonder how he didn't crack earlier under the strain. However, it's also a fairly dangerous idea at the same time; sucking his family's money and resources dry to entertain his relatively selfish dream, pulling his kids out of school, and even being declared a threat (what if that big unseen rocket is actually a WMD? 'If I were building a Weapon of Mass Destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it,' Farmer says once, none too wisely). Yes, it's empirical that one must follow their dreams in life, it's what keeps us going, but I do think one must find a balance between selfish and risky dreams, and the welfare of the people around them – particularly once they've founded a family. Perhaps Farmer should have waited until he completed his dream before building his rocket. Too bad.

The special effects are decent yet nothing extraordinary: the CGI, though apparent, does its job well. The score, from the sadly-underused Stuart Matthewman, is one of the prettiest and most inspirational scores I've heard in a long time; it has a dreamy, fantastical air to it that truly conveys the essence of the story with remarkable clarity and emotion. I still can't get it out of my head, even after three days since I watched the film, though this isn't a complaint.

The acting is very solid, with excellent performances from Billy Bob Thornton, Max Thieriot and Virginia Madsen; there's also a surprise visit by Bruce Willis as an old friend and 'mentor' to Farmer at NASA (three guesses which movie Willis was in inspired his being here in this movie?).

All I can say about the movie and its plot is that after catching only brief glimpses of that damned rocket for two-thirds of the movie, it's high time we got to see the baby in action – whether it ultimately ends in success or failure, or both, is up to the viewer to find out for him/herself. This is a very pretty story and deserves at least a rental. Some will love it, some will hate it. It all depends on how the movie's message and plot is interpreted, I suppose.

For giving us a tale of wonder and heartwarming despite some little problems here and there, I give Michael Polish's The Astronaut Farmer 8.0 astronaut helmets out of 10.

Cast
Charles Farmer: Billy Bob Thornton • Shepard Farmer: Max Thieriot • Audrey 'Audie' Farmer: Virginia Madsen
Crew & Credits Director(s): Michael Polish • Writer(s): Mark Polish, Michael Polish • Original Score: Stuart Matthewman
General Information
Distributed by: Warner Bros. Pictures • Released: February 23, 2007 • Running Time: 104 mins • Budget: US$13 million • Rated: PG

Continued ...»

Film Review: 'Armageddon' – 7.0/10

Film Review: Disaster • Sci-Fi (1998)
'Armageddon'
Written by Joé McKen on Friday, March 27, 2009

Meteors cause some serious damage, a fact not overlooked in Touchstone Pictures’ 1998 Armageddon.

Armageddon is an ambitious blockbuster that has all the necessary parts for a good Action flick but in the end fails to bring it all together in a way that truly makes it worthwhile. It’s a thrilling premise combined with a good mastery of special effects and technical stuff, but it’s weighed down by sticky problems that cut its reach just sort of reaching true quality. A less ‘typically American’ (ie. less explosions and corny humor) and overall better alternative concerning Death from Space would be the same year’s Deep Impact, at least in my opinion.

The basic premise is one we’ve heard over and over again yet curiously can’t seem to get enough of: a gigantic asteroid from the far depths of Space is hurtling towards poor little Earth at a million miles an hour, posing just large enough a threat to let us know we’re all screwed yet still allow us to think straight enough to try and find a solution. The problem in Armageddon is that said Evil Space Rock is only discovered as it’s at 18 days from smashing into the Earth to begin with. And so, NASA’s best (and only) plan? Send up a ragtag crew of roughnecks onto the rock to drill a hole, in which they’ll drop a nuke to blast the Texas-sized bit of Space junk in half, hopefully sparing Earth from a bitter fate.

The crew in question is helmed by Harry Stamper (Bruce Willis), a ‘legend’ in the oil drilling industry as he’s never failed yet (and probably would do well not to break his streak with this particular job). However, Harry gets slightly sidetracked by the prospect of his beautiful young daughter, Grace (Liv Tyler), ending in the arms of fellow crewmember AJ Frost (Ben Affleck). He does what any regular father does: chases AJ around the rig, sending shotgun blasts ricocheting everywhere (apparently the rig is indestructible). That’s all fine and dandy – until a government chopper comes along unannounced and flies him and his daughter to NASA, where he’s filled in with the horrible details of the world’s impending doom.

Harry has been chosen to lead the space crew into drilling the hole with a drill of his own design (which apparently even NASA couldn’t assemble properly), yet the wet-behind-the-ears crew he’s supplied ain’t good enough: he needs his men.

Somehow they’re all able to be whipped into sufficient astronaut-esque shape in less than twelve days to land themselves in prototype space shuttles and blast off into the unknown above, with less than a day to find the specified landing site and drill eight hundred feet straight down into the rock-and-metal monster.

By far the biggest bunch of blows landed on the film’s broken jaw from critics of all sides have all been about its laudable amounts of scientific gaffes and inaccuracies, but in the spirit of lenience (and because this is a long review already) I’ll cut it some slack and instead focus on the bits I myself found less pleasant.

For me, the largest issue I had with the movie, by far, was with the editing. It’s absolutely chaotic and unrestrained – and that’s when there aren’t explosions and destruction all over the place. Shots get mixed with shots that seem to have little to do with each other, which confuse the viewer into wondering what the hell is going on in the first place – always a bad scratch against a movie. If any good, deep and powerful story can be ripped apart simply by overexcited editing, Armageddon is in mangled tatters.

The movie follows a strictly American Action Film formula: tough guys that seem to sweat pure bravado with every move they make and unironic, uninspired joke they spin off; explosions and unrestrained chaos and pandemonium that occurs at a regular interval of roughly 5 minutes, from ‘warning’ meteors hitting the Earth and obliterating Paris or some riverside Asian town, to fights, to a Very Evil Asteroid bent on wiping the crew off its surface before they can detonate the nuke; and etc. The whole film seems to be built on a foundation of endless clichés and predictable outcomes to events: when you see a space station, you’re guaranteed to see it blow up in the next half-hour, and when the characters try a stunt that even they don’t think would normally succeed, of course they’ll all be alive and asking for more moments after.

On the positive side, the film does boast some excellent special effects for its time, and overall has a good mastery of most technical aspects, including great photography and interesting sets and locations, though I personally wasn’t much impressed with Trevor Rabin’s underwhelmingly generic score. Much effort was brought into bringing the asteroid itself ‘alive’, breathing and throwing obstacles at the would-be heroes from all sides, and while I generally discourage making a rock into more than it actually is, it does add a good sense of horror when things go catastrophically wrong.

Overall, Armageddon is a decent popcorn film to watch with some friends on a late Saturday evening on the bigscreen (it’s what it seems to be made for), and it doesn’t seem to aspire to any more than that – if it did, it failed, hard. A good rental, but that’s all the regular movie-lover will likely get out of it.

Good special effects and a thrilling premise aren’t enough to save the movie from its inaccuracy woes and editing horrors, so Michael Bay's Armageddon only gets 7.0 death-rocks from Space out of 10.

Cast
Harry S. Stamper: Bruce Willis • AJ Frost: Ben Affleck • NASA Admin. Dan Truman: Billy Bob Thornton • Grace Stamper: Liv Tyler
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Michael Bay • Writer(s): Jonathan Hensleigh, JJ Abrams, Robert Roy Pool • Original Score: Trevor Rabin
General Information
Distributed by: Touchstone Pictures • Released: July 01, 1998 • Running Time: 150 mins • Budget: US$140 million • Rated: PG-13

Continued ...»

Film Review: 'Knowing' – 7.0/10

Film Review: Disaster • Sci-Fi • Drama (2009)
'Knowing'
Written by Joé McKen on Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Nicolas Cage sees some pretty disturbing stuff go down as Dr. John Koestler in Alex Proyas' 2009 disaster-thriller Knowing.

What if you could know what was to happen? What if you knew a terrible event was about to unfurl, one that no-one else knew about? Would you do anything you could to try and prevent it, minimize the damage? Or … would you stay out of the way and let inevitability and fate run their course?

These are the sorts of questions raised in Alex Proyas' hair-raising production, Knowing. In this case, they're part of the moral anguish that resides in the head of Dr. John Koestler, an MIT professor of astrophysics who's been having a tough run as of late. His wife died in a freak fire about a year ago, and he's been trying to raise his pained son all alone, eschewing his family and devoting his life to his work, and late-night alcohol benders. (How he manages to pull himself together enough to get to work in the mornings without wanting to kill himself is beyond me.)

In his class, he tells his students that there are two main governing theories about the functioning of the Universe: it's either deterministic, or random. Deterministic (which is what I would personally put my money on) would mean that if someone knew everything about physics and such, they could theoretically predict every single event in past and future, as any event or happening would only be a reaction to a preceding event in a predictable fashion. A random Universe would mean the precise opposite – it's all random, nothing makes sense, events appear out of nowhere and trigger unexpected consequences. When asked by a student as to what he believes in, he says what most would arguably say – 'shit happens'.

Now, his son's school is digging up a time capsule that had been buried at the school's inauguration, containing pictures of what kids back in 1959 imagined the world in 2009 would look like. We get the tons of rockets and space colonies, but when Dr. Koestler's son, Caleb, receives his own picture, he's surprised, perhaps disappointed, to instead receive a paper sheet with rows and rows of seemingly random numbers, from top to bottom. We remember, from the prologue, the strange young girl who had frantically written these numbers out, as though they had been whispered to her by an invisible voice.

But when Dr. Koestler looks at it, a mere glance in a lucky spot on the page leads him to finding a curious coincidence – the exact date, numerically, of 9/11, along with the exact number of deaths. Intrigued, he quickly starts to find other hidden dates in the numbers – and after a few hours, finds himself staring at a 50-year-old prediction of every single major disaster in the last five decades, without a single error. Numbers that didn't seem to 'fit' are soon revealed to be exact geographical coordinates. But that's not even the most troubling part. The worst, is that there are still three 'incomplete' sequences of numbers – disasters that have yet to happen. And now, Koestler knows where, when, and how many would die … unless he could manage to prevent them, somehow.

This is where the plot of Knowing truly takes off at a breathtaking pace into the mysterious realms of the paranormal and the disastrous, with Koestler desperately trying to prevent disasters when he has no idea what will happen or how – only where and when (and how many potential fatalities). The questions raised by the movie – would you stop horrendous events from taking place, or would you let them unfurl unimpeded as to not disturb the intended sequence of fate – are hard-hitting and resonating in those who understand their full power and complexity. They are basically the greatest questions ever asked (other than perhaps 'why are we here?').

There is certainly a lot to be said about this film, but for spoilers' sake I'll have to restrain myself. I can say, however, that this film soon starts to stray from the path of disaster film and science-fiction and plunges into a strange, somewhat uncomfortable world of fantasy that somehow doesn't seem to fit with the previous two-thirds of the story. It's a transition that I suspect is the main cause for the film's sharp distaste from most critics; one that we neither saw coming, nor were quite willing to see happen.

Technically, the film is very decent, with solid special effects (though nothing groundbreaking; I personally found some of the CGI to be a little dated) and very vivid and moving photography that perfectly captures mood and feel. The score, from Marco Beltrami, does its job well without drawing attention to itself, though never quite rising to magnificence.

People seem to either fall in love with his movie (as did Roger Ebert, judging from his glorifying 4/4-star review) or despise it, with little grey area in between. What I found was a great potential that somehow didn't quite fall flat – it was lead in a direction I wasn’t satisfied with. Though I suspect that's just my personal taste at this point.

Being a complex and oftentimes confusing but nonetheless thrilling and intriguing epic awards Alex Proyas' Knowing with 7.0 shiny black rocks out of 10.

Cast
Dr. John Koestler: Nicolas Cage • Caleb Koestler: Chandler Canterbury • Diana Wayland: Rose Byrne
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Alex Proyas • Writer(s): Alex Proyas, Stuart Hazeldine, Juliet Snowden • Original Score: Marco Beltrami
General Information
Distributed by: Summit Entertainment • Released: March 20, 2009 • Running Time: 121 mins • Budget: US$50 million • Rated: PG-13

Continued ...»

Fim Review: 'The Time Machine' – 7.0/10

Film Review: Sci-Fi • Adventure (2002)
'The Time Machine'
Written by Joé McKen on Thursday, March 19, 2009

Even in a ravaged and primitive future, humanity still somehow makes some really cute chicks in Simon Well’s 2002 The Time Machine.

Simon Wells’ 2002 adaptation of the eponymous HG Wells classic (which I have yet to read), The Time Machine, is a curious movie in the sense that it’s an eclectic mixture of both good and negative elements. The result is a movie that, while interesting and entertaining, feels rather disjointed in its tale. (But then, it’s not like real life has any real coherence, either.)

HG Wells’ original nameless Time Traveler now has a name, in the form of Professor Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce), an 1899 New York City-based mathematician and inventor who’s obsessed with time travel (foreshadowing enough?). Though fairly shy and religiously dedicated to his work, he also finds the time to court the pretty Emma (Sienna Guillory) and even asks her hand in marriage. Unfortunately, a freak robbery ends with Emma fatally shot, and a guilty and fervent Alexander subsequently exiles himself in his study, working day and night on his calculations until finally, four years later, he completes his time machine (which I must say, certainly looks up to the job).

Intent on preventing Emma’s seemingly premature death, he turns back the clock four years and makes sure he brings her far away from the location of the robbery, yet once again she dies in a freak accident. Realizing that she’s destined to die and there’s nothing he can do about it, as shown from his thoughtful quote, ‘I could go back a thousand times … and watch her die a thousand ways’, he decides to screw it with the unhappy past (his present) and instead heads to the future, in search of the answer to his one question: ‘Why can’t I save her?’ (the answer to which, given much later, actually makes a surprising amount of sense, in a paradoxal sort of way). He lands in the future, circa 2030, where vehicles fly and the Empire State Building is dwarfed by the shiny futuristic skyscrapers. However, his time-travels, and troubles, are still far from over – you might say they’ve only just begun, as he soon somehow lands himself 800 millennia in the future and discovers a world quite unlike our own. And not in the good way.

One of the key points of any time-travel film – or any Sci-Fi film, really – are the special effects used to tie reality with fiction. The Time Machine’s effects are a motley mix of decent effects – seeing the shattered Moon swerving nauseatingly close to Earth in a future scene is particularly intriguing and frightening – while others, such as some of the CGI and animatronics work for some of the less-than-friendly creatures of tomorrow, are less than spectacular. Actually, they quite frankly stink. No creature is gonna be fear-inspiring, to an audience anyway, when their faces look like they’re made of wooden masks with rubber eyes and a lack of dental care.

One strong point to discern of the movie is its score. Brought to us by the relatively unknown Klaus Badelt, it’s wonderfully beautiful and fits the various themes and feels of the movie very well, from bright-eyed wonder at a new world to the dark and dangerous underworlds of the future, and includes the type of African chant-like theme for a future people that I do have a weakness for, despite it being nothing original. Badelt definitely deserves the award he got for this film’s soundtrack, being crowned Discovery of the Year from the 2003 World Soundtrack Awards. This is a soundtrack I might just get for myself (if I find it).

There are several questions the film raises, willingly or not, that are not answered at the end – how do humans still know English 800,000 years into the future? How have humans remained physically (and mentally) unchanged in such a formidable timespan, when current humans, 800,000 ago, were just a few steps away from Australopithecus? How did sensitive glass and electronic equipment from a library survive the apocalypse, not to mention how is it still functioning without electricity, in a darkened cave? Those are questions perhaps we just shouldn’t ask, though it definitely hurts the movie in that it didn’t at least try to answer them.

Overall, The Time Machine likely won’t bring viewers anything worth remembering for years later, or perhaps even past a few hours after the viewing, but it certainly fulfils the nonetheless crucial purpose of effectively killing time when there’s nothing better to watch or do. Not a masterpiece, but better than the ratings it received from harsher critics, I think.

Giving us a decent Sci-Fi experience with intriguing developments yet underwhelming effects and details, merits DreamWorks’ The Time Machine 7.0 falling lunar chunks out of 10.

Cast
Alexander Hartdegen: Guy Pearce • Mara: Samantha Mumba • Emma: Sienna Guillory • Kalen: Omero Mumba
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Simon Wells • Writer(s): David Duncan, John Logan. Based on novel by HG Wells. • Original Score: Klaus Badelt
General Information
Distributed by: DreamWorks (USA) • Released: March 08, 2002 • Running Time: 96 mins • Budget: US$80 million • Rated: PG-13

Continued ...»

Film Review: 'Dances with Wolves' – 9.0/10

Film Review: Epic • Adventure • Historical (1990)
'Dances with Wolves'
His Indian name: Sticks Out like Sore Thumb
Written by Joé McKen on Saturday, March 14, 2009

Lt. John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) discovers a new side to the Sioux in Costner's epic 1990 directorial debut, Dances with Wolves.

Dances with Wolves is the kind of epic, sweeping and far-reaching narrative that seems to be as extinct from the silver screen as is the wonderful Sioux people it portrays from the land it once owned for so many generations. It is the story about the old frontier between the Whites and the 'Savages' (though you don't hear them called that way in this film) as witnessed and experienced through the discouraged and disillusioned eyes of Lieutenant John J. Dunbar (Kevin Costner) of the American Army; he does not see the world as others do, with the old Black & White scenario of the Good Americans fighting the Savage Indians. He sees it all as it really is (or was): in varying shades of grey.

That is where Dances with Wolves truly displays its incredible storytelling power, the likes of which has not been matched as far as I can tell ever since its release way back in 1990. It does not propel the viewer through action and combat scenes with whizzing arrows and stampeding horses; it does not show one side as being unambiguously good and the other as being diametrically bad; it arguably shows the world as it truly, honestly was back then: two peoples pitted against each other in a desperate, unfair war for survival and conquest. Costner was even awarded the title of honorary member of the Sioux people for his role, and the film was selected as one of the few films to be preserved forever by the Library of Congress in 2007. Not just any movie could've pulled these feats off.

After learning that his injured leg would likely have to be amputated, Union officer Lt. Dunbar rides a horse straight through the crossfire between the Union and the Confederate Armies in the wild hopes of being killed, yet instead this insane act rallies the Union soldiers into winning the battle. Instead of being killed, Dunbar instead gets promoted, his leg is successfully saved and healed, and he gets to choose his next post, riding on his loyal horse Cisco that he was also awarded for his 'heroism'. He decides to head out to a distant military post, right at the frontier between the American Army and the ever-resilient Natives, and even though he finds it mysteriously deserted, he starts repairing the place in wait for the backup that will surely come any day now.

Eventually he starts to encounter some of the nearby Sioux Indian members, and after a few troublesome starts, he decides to introduce himself. Will he be welcome and accepted, or kicked out (which would be the very least of his concerns if the introduction goes wrong)? That remains for the viewer to discover. All I can say, is that it is likely as faithful to reality and what really would've happened as I can imagine.

The film is relatively old by now, yet some of the technical abilities and achievements are truly surprising and inspiring, such as a long and epic scene involving a stampeding herd of buffalo. The score, from John Barry, is deep and soulful, perfectly capturing the essence of the movie.

Much of the dialect in this film is in actual Sioux tongues, so you don't always understand exactly what they're talking about, but the film is clever in the way that it allows you to piece it together from the characters' intonations and mannerisms, along with the scenes preceding and following said dialogues. Personally, I was chagrined to find the lack of subtitles (then irritated when I read the film did have subtitles; where the Hell were mine?), but truth be told, the lack of them doesn't really affect one's understanding of scenes and dialogues all that much.

Dances with Wolves is a film that incorporates all the good of the frontier era, as well as all the bad. Altruism, love and light-heartedness routinely step aside for barbarism, desolation and at times sheer outrage at the actions of both the Indians and the American Army, and a few scenes in particular will be particularly painful to watch; one such scene, when a faithful companion is killed for no other reason than being present out of loyalty to a friend, literally had me clenching fists in anger as I wanted to jump in and crush some skulls in – and then I realized it was only a movie.

That, above, is the perfect example of why I love this movie so much. I usually avoid long-winded 'epic' movies like the plague, but films like this, that grip your heart and truly tug it in any way it desires thanks to its technical and artistic mastery, are of a truly rare caliber I so very rarely get to experience.

All in all, Dances with Wolves is a film you would be absolutely sorely remiss to neglect at least one viewing of; though quite long and at times sedate enough to put a horse to sleep, not once does it allow the viewer to disconnect from its power and momentum. It is a true life-story in every sense, and deserves to be in absolutely any movie-goer's collection.

For bringing us a wonderful, tragic and realist story about the Old West, and so much more, I award Dances with Wolves with 9.0 stampeding buffaloes out of 10.

Cast
Lt. John J Dunbar / Dances with Wolves: Kevin Costner • Stands with a Fist: Mary McDonnell • Kicking Bird: Graham Greene • Wind in his Hair: Rodney A. Grant
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Kevin Costner • Writer(s): Michael Blake • Original Score: John Barry
General Information
Distributed by: Orion Pictures • Released: November 09, 1990 • Running Time: 181 mins • Budget: US$19 million (estimated) • Rated: PG-13

Continued ...»