Ridley Scott is a brilliant director who has a tendency to stumble every once in a while. He’s made impressive, consequential works like Alien, Gladiator and Blade Runner. He’s also responsible for G.I. Jane, Hannibal, Kingdom of Heaven and Black Rain. When he makes a film he goes all out. Sometimes he finds his groove sometimes he doesn’t. When he misses his efforts aren’t abysmal, they’re still loaded with carefully crafted scenes and some good performances. The pieces as a whole are flat and in this case lethargic as if his message isn’t able to get through coherently. Even his most awkward efforts are still better than most films out there.

This particular production fails to give a reason for its being. It happens, we watch and nothing is learned or gained. It’s well organized but ultimately static. The story about isolated CIA agent, Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio), who operates out of Jordan and who is under the whims of his stateside handler Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe), is typically cynical and convoluted. The plot unrolls in the expected fashion of a war on terror flick with the conventional relativist conclusions and sneering account of American motives. The problem with moral equivalence and not picking a side is that you end up having no point of view to express. A plague on both your houses argument may seem like a reasonable reaction to modern international politics but in a narrative such as this it is hard to posit without becoming muddled.

The film would have been better with clearer lines drawn. For those who would argue that is not how the real world operates, here’s a clue, this is a movie not the real world. To tell a story you need to make concessions to get a useful point across. I’m looking forward to Scott’s next film, he tends to follow up his fumbles with touchdowns.


Related Reviews:
Leonardo DiCaprio movies
The Aviator (2004)
Catch Me if You Can (2002)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
ReelViews
Critical Culture

Labels: film, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Strong, movie review, Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, terrorism

Short Review: A film you simply must see.


The filmmakers fully understand the gravity of the subject and the sensitivity in which it must be handled. With painstaking accuracy they show us what must be very close to what occurred on the doomed flight that ended in a forced crash in Pennsylvania farmland. The entire film is as real as possible. The actors are not name brands. The tone and feel are reminiscent not of Hollywood but of the reality. None of the actors look like actors, which is important. These people look like regular folk. They have blotchy faces and wrinkled shirts, they are not stunningly handsome and some have paunches. Both in the plane and in the air control centers as well as the offices of the FAA, everyone looks like they actually belong there. This kind of realism is infused in every aspect of the film.

What will be striking to most people is how much it will bring back from that terrible day. The film is careful to keep all historical elements far away from the narrative and dialog. The event is as it was on that day, a unique experience in human history. There is no precedent for what was happening. There was nothing to alert the passengers or the people on the ground that these planes were hijacked and turned into missiles. The passengers at first try to reason that they will land and eventually be allowed to leave. The people on the ground scoff at the idea of a hijacked plane and casually try to recollect when the last instance of a hijacking took place. Even after planes started hitting buildings, we are reminded of the deep confusion of the day. No one in America knew who was doing this, how many times they were going to do it? Who is doing it? Are were we now at war?

For the most part, this film avoids the tedious politicization that has grown from this day. There is a thread of wanting to blame President Bush for inaction however. Constant complaints of being unable to reach the President are heard and at the end we are told that President Bush didn’t give the order to shoot down commercial airlines until after the danger had passed. Without context, this does smell of a shot at what President Bush was doing that day and with the lingering image of the President sitting in that classroom after being told of the first crash rises to the surface. It is vital for people to keep their hindsight in check. This was unprecedented and no one at the time would have done everything correctly. The fact is that even the FAA didn’t know which planes were hijacked and crashed. They sent confused information to the military on which planes were still up in the air. To offer a complaint that the President didn’t authorize the shooting down of commercial airplanes is a weak place to make a stand. If the FAA was still confused on which planes were even in the air what person would start taking shots at planes without an absolute idea of which ones were really a danger? We were caught with our pants firmly affixed around our ankles that day. To pretend we were anything but inept as a result of our complacency is simply daydreaming. People, all people, did their best that day with the information and tools available.

The people on United 93 and the other planes have found a fitting tribute in this film. We get to mildly experience what they had to contend with that morning in this solemn film. Suck it up and go see the film. Like Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan and The Passion of The Christ it is an important piece that demands your attention.


Related Reviews:
Terrorism movies
Dirty War (2004)
Right at Your Door (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Cineopinion
Roger Ebert

Labels: film, movie review, terrorism

Short Review: This is the first Oliver Stone film where I didn’t walk away shaking my head, asking everyone else, “Its not just me, that guy is nuts right?”


It is striking that proven conspiracy nut Oliver Stone’s film about 9/11 goes out of its way to avoid the actual conspiracy at the heart of that murderous day. Besides some distant remarks on televisions and curses thrown by a hefty skulled man from Wisconsin, the events of 9/11 seem like a natural occurrence rather than the results of a terrorist plot. I’m not saying Stone should have had a gaggle of undulating, burka-laden women shuffling through the wreckage or wild-eyed Islamofacists mincing about with suicide belts. What I was looking for was any clear statement that the two planes steered into the World Trade Center buildings, along with the ones flown into The Pentagon and another into the ground were piloted by Islamic terrorists. Acknowledging this conspiracy would have made some difference. As it stands, this is like watching a better version of The Towering Inferno. The buildings may as well have been knocked down by the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

This huge issue aside, the film itself serves its purpose. It is there to be the more comfortable 9/11 film. Following the French documentary 9/11 which showed the actual events as they happened, and Paul Greengrass’ stark and realistic United 93, Stone brought Hollywood dramatics to the subject. We have the big star (Nicholas Cage) supported by melodramatic music and good lighting going through the day. The narrative of three trapped port authority cops is rolled out in a systematic, almost mechanical fashion. The end of the film provides an effective emotional reunion between the men and their wives.

This isn’t a bad movie, I’d actually recommend it for the most part. Again, it serves its commercial purpose and provides an emotional arc. The problem is not that this is a bad movie, it is that it isn’t an important one. Film is one of the great forms of communication. It has deep impact on our lives because one of its many purposes we use it for is to memorialize people and events. Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan and Roots are just three examples. One of the great honors in our civilization is to have a movie made about your life. Given this, the first big Hollywood movie about 9/11 should have provided more. There is a lack of depth to this piece that serves to pull the historical importance from the day. I understand Stone was attempting to show the real life, the individual impact of the terror attacks. The problem with this is that this was an act of war and the World Trade Center buildings didn’t just happen to a group of people, they happened to the free world. The structure of this film should have followed the framework of most war films. Tell the story of individual sacrifice and pain in the midst of an ensemble presence. You get your individual impact while expressing the wider results. This story of these survivors of 9/11 provides many moments of interest, but without the overall picture being shown, they don’t have any lasting impression.

Given that the audience brings in their own memories and impressions on 9/11, this film does give enough to make it worth seeing at least once. The final verdict has to be that many will probably not have any reason to see it a second time.


Related Reviews:
Terrorism movies
Dirty War (2004)
Right at Your Door (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Happy Catholic
ReelViews

Labels: film, Maria Bello, movie review, Nicholas Cage, Oliver Stone, terrorism

Short Review: This film is about a suicide bomber with a heart of gold. He only murders the innocent civilians that REALLY have it coming.


We follow the journey of Said and Khaled, two Palestinian losers who go from being shiftless mechanics to determined suicide bombers. Kais Nashefis offers one of the most striking cinematic debuts in recent memory as the brooding, troubled, Said. It is fascinating to watch his performance as a man following his faith into oblivion while his desires for Earthly things tug at his heart. His counterpart Ali Suliman provides a rock-solid supporting performance as Khaled, a more personable but equally determined young man. The performances in this film are truly brilliant. Like every other aspect (with the exception of worldview) of this film, the acting is raw and natural - very realistic and believable. You can see these two young men growing up with one another and you can see them getting lost in the theological net of modern day terrorism.

The problem I have with writer/director Hany Abu-Assad’s film is that it appears to be peaceful but it is not. While it does offer what is presumptively the human rights angle of the argument, “Hey, maybe blowing up innocent people on the way to the mall is a bad thing” it doesn’t commit to that ideal. Khaled and Said are sent on a mission to blow themselves up but fail. After some chasing each other around Palestine, the two return to their terrorist bosses. Said is told he cannot go out for another mission and he should return home. Then, in one of the film’s strongest moments, Said opens himself up and explains his desire to kill Israelis. He then falls into a litany of blame and suspicion that permeates the film. The disturbed Said blames Israel for the death of his father even though his own people executed the man. Said wishes to exact his revenge on the innocent people of Israel. He is allowed to do so. In the end of the film Khaled is talked out of igniting his bomb laden body and returns home crying. Said is committed and performs the act. To show Said is a good man, he decides not to get on a bus with a small girl running around in the aisle. He waits for one with just adults. What a guy.

Hany Abu-Assad allows his character to commit a crime against humanity, and showing this without absolute condemnation is inexcusable. Regardless of the masterful way this film was made and regardless of the faint recognition that the actions of Palestinian terrorists are wrong, this film fails to take the moral stand that it flat out wrong to murder innocents. This failure makes this film disgusting.

This film won the Amnesty International Film Prize in 2005. We have real people blowing themselves up and killing real innocent people. If Hany Abu-Assad is incapable of condemning these acts without equivocation he doesn’t deserve a moment’s notice. If Amnesty International is willing to cherish his moral failure they don’t deserve their status. The troubles in Palestine and Israel are deep and harsh. This film does nothing to help in that struggle. This film pretends to support peace, but it supports the opposite. What this film offers in spades however, is a story of oppression and anti-Israeli sentiment.

A final note for Christians. A special slap in the face waits for you in this film. When their terrorist handlers are preparing the two suicide bombers for their murderous work, they are all treated to a final meal. When the group sits down to eat, we are presented with a shot of that replicates da Vinci’s The Last Supper. The two suicide bombers, with bomb belts strapped on, sit in the center framed by their handlers. If you remember the painting, this places the two suicide bombers in place of Jesus Christ in the composition. Nice. Thanks for that.

Overall, this film makes a strong statement, but fails to actually say anything positive. It does give a sense of the Palestinian side of the issue but doesn’t look down on the tactics that side has developed. For that reason I cannot recommend this film. This is a shame because it is very well done.


Related Reviews:
Terrorist movies
Munich (2005)
Right at Your Door (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Celluloid Heroes
Roger Ebert

Labels: film, Hany Abu Assad, Kais Nashefis, movie review, terrorism

Labels: film, Mary McCormack, movie review, Rory Cocrane, terrorism

Labels: Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, movie trailer, Peter Berg, terrorism