Reviews

Okay, for all the critics who question the release date of this movie; yes, obviously this movie is pro-American. Obviously they're hoping that it will convince people that letting the US Army police the world is somehow a good thing. That's not the movie's fault. No war movie can help but take sides when it's portraying combat, any more than a Western can take the side of the cattle-rustlers. Was Saving Private Ryan criticized because it took the side of the Allies? That's just the way the genre works. And let's take a moment to appreciate all the films merits, especially when we consider that we're dealing with Jerry Bruckheimer, the man who brought us Pearl Harbor. I hope this movie marks a turning point for him. This is the first war movie since Saving Private Ryan that has been all about soldiers fighting each other. Enemy At The Gates, Pearl Harbor, they all made me physically sick with their pointless, clichèd love stories. Why does Hollywood have this compulsion to take a kinetic, entertaining story, and ruin it by throwing in some brunette for the main character(s) to fall in love with? Save it for romantic comedies, please! Stop criticizing the film for what it isn't. It's not an anti-war film, it's certainly not a documentary. It never claimed to be. It is, however, a jarring, violent, well-acted, well-directed and realistic story of soldiers in combat, and that's exactly what I came to see.

I think Dieppe is not only a great WWII movie, but also the only really good Canadian movie out there. The way it blends the stories of the different soldiers with the story of the generals is very well done, and the fact that you know what happens at the end just makes it more powerful and compelling. And the battle scene is superb. Steven Speilberg totally copied it when he did the beach scene in Saving Private Ryan. Sure, he added more explosions and gore (he had a bigger budget), but personally I think Dieppe's battle scene is better than Saving Private Ryan's, because you know the characters and you care about what happens to them, unlike Saving Private Ryan where you're seeing them for the first time. Very good movie.

Phantom Menace has received loads of flak from the critics, and I agree with a lot of it. I don't mean that the movie isn't worth seeing, but there ARE some shortcomings. First of all, the character Jar-Jar Binks. He isn't funny, he's annoying. Some could argue that he's just like R2-D2 or Yoda, but they don't really get on your nerves they way he does. Then there's the ugly fact that many of the aliens in Phantom Menace resembled certain ethnic groups. The Trade Federation aliens sounded unmistakably Oriental. The Gungans sounded (and in the case of their leader, looked) vaguely Jamaican. There is some explaining to be done. Also, the screenplay doesn't allow for much character development, if any. If the acting seems poor, don't blame the actors. It's the script's fault. And, although polished and well done, the special effects are, really, nothing special. Remember that when Star Wars came out, no one had ever seen anything like it. The computer animation and digital effects in Phantom Menace are good, very good, but they're not revolutionary. The entire movie is just not up to Star Wars' standards. This movie is geared toward a younger target audience than any of the others. In fact, it's almost a children's movie. The two aren't in the same class. Star Wars was nominated for, among other awards, Best Picture, and Best Screenplay. The only awards Phantom Menace has a chance of being nominated for are the technical ones. And those aren't guaranteed wins, either. Of course, the movie has good points, too. The cast (with the notable exception of Jake Lloyd) is excellent, Liam Neeson, Ewan MacGregor and Natalie Portman standing out. And the final lightsaber dual between the two Jedi and Darth Maul is superb. I think that it's George Lucas's own fault that Phantom Menace was not as popular as Star Wars. First re-releasing the original trilogy, then coming up with the special edition, all designed to make people interested in Star Wars again. But it worked too well. He got people's expectations up so high that no movie could have satisfied them. It's a shame. But I'm waiting eagerly for Episode II anyway. George Lucas knows what he's doing, and I wouldn't be surprised if Episode II knocks everyone's socks off.

As soon as I finished watching Gandhi, I thought to myself "This movie had to have won Best Picture." I think it's one of the best epics of all time. It masterfully tells one of the most important stories of the 20th century, that of India's struggle to free itself, spearheaded by one of the most extraordinary men of all time, Mahatma Gandhi. I would be hard pressed to name anything lacking about it. Direction, cinematography, costumes, they're all great. And Ben Kingsley! Without a doubt his portrayal of Gandhi is one of the best performances of his career, if not THE best. Playing the pacifist Indian lawyer-turned-leader couldn't have been an easy task, and I don't think anyone could have pulled it off as well as he did. This movie deserves all the praise anyone gives it and more. Excellent.