Reviews
The Man Without a Face (1993)
Good Acting, great scenery, but "Face" supporters still miss the point
I practically grew up around the area where this movie was filmed . . . the scenery is indeed that beautiful and more. The acting in this movie is top notch. But still. . . as much as I WANT to like this movie, I can't.
I'm the last person to say a movie is bad just because it changes from the book. That's not the point with "Face." The point is, Mel Gibson DRASTICALLY changed the entire political and social meaning of the original text. He substituted his own extremely conservative slant to the entire film. I think most critics of "Face" concentrate on Gibson's homophobia. That's just the start . . . not a single character in this movie who is against the Vietnam War is presented with any kind of dignity or intelligence. As far as Gibson is concerned, they're all boobs. Send your kid to a military academy in the heat of the Vietnam War! Who cares? There are no moral issues at stake here. All the critics of this kid's desires just don't understand, don't know what they're talking about.
It's too bad . . . this is a good movie overall. But I can do without Gibson's thick conservative interpretation. I could accept a balanced presentation, one where all sides are seen as credible. But that's just not Gibson's agenda. It's like he's out to slam gays and peace activists in one fell swoop. Yup, it's like he wanted to "redefine" patriotism and masculinity.
Mel, you make me sick. And I hope no one responds with, "It's just a movie!" Art counts. It's why Lincoln told Harriet Beecher Stowe that she was the "cause" of the Civil War. "Face" is not comparable to "Uncle Tom's Cabin," of course, but it's still hell bent on its political agenda.
Mississippi Burning (1988)
Um, no, it's still racist . . .
Great production values overall, but this film is still racist.
The previous poster doesn't have all the facts.
In reality, the FBI showed very little interest in this case. They didn't care that two whites were killed. It is a fact that civil rights organizers, both whites and blacks, begged and pleaded with the federal government to step in. From watching this film you'd think that the FBI came in and had to talk people into getting involved! It was the other way around! This film paints the US government as giving a damn when in fact it didn't. It does belittle blacks and it certainly belittles the work of all civil rights activists from that period, both black and white.
Three Kings (1999)
Take it from a prior US Intel Soldier: This movie will blow away your perceptions of the Gulf War
Minor spoilers ahead . . .
While the overall plot is fiction, the background story is absolute fact. The US government abandoned the Iraqi resistance fighters. In fact, the death toll in Karbala alone (the place where the Iraqis are rescued from in the movie) is estimated to be over 20,000! Those were people -- soldiers, men, women, children and the elderly who were all slaughtered when they did as George Bush advised and "rose up against Saddam."
Michael Moore, of Roger & Me, TV Nation and Awful Truth fame, commented that this was the best film of the year, certainly the best film about the Gulf War so far, and that he was amazed that it ever got made.
For those who dislike this film, do you realize how much it took to bring this story to light? Just the fact that it was made makes it one of the most heroic movies created in the past decade, perhaps in the entire history of film. US citizens were spoon fed media reports -- just as the film shows. The collusion between the media and the US government was absolutely frightful. And the story of what the US is doing to Iraq continues to this day. The economic sanctions are doing to the Iraqi people what the so-called cease fire did to the citizens of Karbala -- they give all the power to Saddam while weakening the very people we want to overthrow him!
This film is chock full of stupendous metaphors. The oil being poured down Troy's throat just sank the point home. We weren't there for human rights, the preservation of democracy or to overthrow Saddam. And that's just one example.
This film should be viewed by every American citizen. As a prior US Army Intelligence Analyst, I salute everyone involved in this film for having the courage to present the truth. Now it's up to us -- the viewers -- to do something about what we've known all along about the Gulf War and the sanctions against Iraqi civilians. If this movie doesn't make you care, then I don't know what will.
Office Space (1999)
Who has mocked corporate America to this level?
I watched this film without having seen any of the previews and I wasn't even familiar with Judge's past. Without having any of that baggage, I must say that I was pleasantly surprised.
Ok, this is not the best comedy you'll ever see. Some jokes do fall flat. But some of the jokes are just full of meaning. The FAX machine scene is not just a joke, it's a metaphor for ticked off workers who take out their frustrations on an inanimate object. And I don't think it's about gender, either. (As one person has said here.) Any woman who has worked in that kind of environment would know how bad it gets.
Which brings me to my point. Despite this not being high comedy, who else has attacked this issue? Most movies are wimpy in their depiction of corporate America. Judge went and mocked the hell out of them. That fact alone makes me love this movie.
Message in a Bottle (1999)
Enough with the gender stereotypes!
I'm a guy and I did in fact enjoy this film. Why is it that everyone thinks that men just want Sylvester Stallone or some other jock who only does shoot em ups? My father grew up in the 40's and he also enjoyed this movie because it was little more old fashioned and a little less rushed than most love stories. In other words, the couple don't rush into the sack to have sex on the first night.
It's not a "great" movie, but it's not bad either. And I actually happen to hate Costner.
As for the location, while the story might have been placed on the Outer Banks, just about all the coastal shots were in Maine around around the Popham Beach area. How they thought they could pass off the rocky coast of Maine as the flat Outer Banks is beyond me.
Casualties of War (1989)
Based on a TRUE story
Viewers should note that this film is based on a true story that appeared in both magazine and book format. Having read the original I can say that the film takes only a few liberties with the reported facts. This indeed an "original" story because it wasn't made up -- just like Serpico wasn't made up. (See earlier reviewer remarks.)
This is indeed a gut wrenching film. Penn does overact a little and the final scene seems like a bad effort to make sure audiences don't walk away too depressed. But overall, this was a movie that HAD to be made.
Runaway Bride (1999)
It's deeper than you think . . .
This movie is actually deeper than you think.
I didn't expect much when I went to see this. In fact, I expected the worst. Women don't usually run away from getting married, it's the men. So I assumed this was going to be a really bad joke with some pleasant looking actors. Well, I was wrong. This movie isn't really about a woman running away from commitment. It's about what many women experience as they lose themselves when they get married.
Let me just back up a little . . . Once the 60's hit women began to demand more from their romantic relationships. Divorce went up, supposedly because of the pill and those "damned feminists." A common theme came out of that: Women were not getting enough from their partners. (Hell, they're still not.) Anyway, lots of men, even today, gripe about how more women ask for divorce than men.
This movie is the answer to those concerns! No one wants to watch a movie about a woman who is married for 20 years and then decides she's not happy because she lost herself to the man. It wouldn't even be a comedy. What the makers of this film did was back up and expose the woman being forced to change BEFORE she got married. It's the setup that allows this to be a feel good comedy instead of a dreary drama about divorce.
Some people have said that this movie should have ended before the Fed Ex truck scene. Such an argument completely ignores the meaning of this film. Julia Robert's character hadn't grown. She needed to find out why she kept running away from relationships. Come to think of it, it's REALLY annoying to think that anyone believes the movie should have ended sooner. This movie is not about finding your prince and living happily ever after. It's about finding oneself first and then committing to the right person. There's a big difference.
What I first thought was going to be an misogynistic joke actually turned out to be a critique of the entire western concept of marriage - that a woman has to lose her identity to get married. As a result, it subtlety gives men the message to wise up.
I loved this film! (And by the way, I'm a guy.) I think every heterosexual woman should drag their boyfriend or spouse to this. They might learn something about themselves and teach the person their with a little something as well.
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
The "plot" isn't the plot
Just saw EWS and was more than satisfied. No, it's not great art, or even spectacular cinema, but boy does it have a heavy topic to cover.
The plot is not the "plot" people here seem to be talking about. This film is about trust in a long term relationship. As one newspaper reviewer put it, EWS is about that dangerous question between two people: What are you thinking? This film attempts to answer that question.
I've lived through some of the conversations in this film - and I know of others who have to. EWS, while not a favorite film for me, certainly gave me food for thought. If you don't want to know the answer to the questions then don't see this film. And don't go to see it if you want erotic sex or a thriller plotline, 'cause this ain't that movie. If you're willing to explore the depths of relationships, infidelity and trust, then this is the movie.
Bulworth (1998)
Excellent - and many critics don't know the background or understand the film
There's a reason a film like this is so rare. Warren Beatty had a deal with the studios that he could do whatever he wanted on *one* movie of his choosing. And he picked Bulworth. If it hadn't been for Beatty's interest this flick would have never been made. Of course, once the studio saw how controversial this movie was they quickly distanced themselves and barely even promoted it. In other words, there is no hypocrisy here - Beatty made a film that criticizes the current system with a pure in your face attitude. This isn't a movie cynically produced by Hollywood. It's a gift from a true believer who was able to sneak it through the system.
A lot of critics missed certain obvious points. First, Bulworth hadn't slept in days. It's well documented that people with little sleep can hallucinate. This is the setup for his wild behavior. Lastly, the ending is absolutely appropriate. As Beatty said in an interview, there was no other possible ending. He simply followed the patterns of history. To criticize the ending is to fall into that ethnocentric American attitude of always wanting a happy ending. Well, sometimes you lose, but there are still gains to be made.
There are other points to be made, but 'nuf said. If you're a liberal or moderate you should have good reasons to like this film, especially if you can get past the language. If you're a conservative or pro-big business you'll hate it. But that's the point of the film: Big business is hurting us all and we need to step up and demand our rights back. This is an empowering movie that will help many people make that move to speaking out.
You've Got Mail (1998)
A sugary sweet depiction of big business screwing the small guy
While Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks appear to be genuinely nice people, this film is nothing but a disguised attempt to make sexism and multi-national corporations look good.
Meg Ryan owns a small store that gets put out of business by a chain book store with severely uneducated clerks who earn very little money. And then she gets her coffee at Starbucks. Yeah right! How dumb is Ryan's character anyway? While she enjoys her coffee she's helping put out of business all the local mom and pop coffee shops.
Tom Hanks' character, while becoming more compassionate in his personal approach, makes no change whatsoever in his business practices. Ryan's character teaches him to be kinder, but that's all. And she decides to be with him, even though he'll go on to put other small stores out of business just like her's. What will happen to their happily ever after ending when she sees him do this to another person, except this time he does it with more "compassion?" Because Hanks' character didn't truly change (he would have had to denounce his family's business practices), the message is clear: Give in, submit to big business.
Even the very set-up of this film is sexist. Reverse the roles in this film. Suppose Hanks was Ryan and vice versa. What would audiences think of a man who fell in love with the woman who put him out of business? They wouldn't watch it, that's what. He'd be a wuss, absolutely whipped. But because it's a woman being screwed, it's ok. (Btw, I'm a man and I saw this sexism from the get go.)
This film, in the simplest terms, is a thinly disguised sexist pro big business fairy tale that's supposed to make us feel better about our losing a way of life -- the "shop around the corner" where everyone knows your name, knows the products and isn't out to screw the small guy.