Reviews

"Stop the Pounding Heart" is a dramatic title for such a quiet, gentle, observant film. The filmmakers offer no real plot to speak of, but instead simply follow the daily life of Sara, a 14-year old girl raised on farm in Texas by a devotedly Christian family. With absolute naturalism, the film observes the details of her life: Sara going about her chores, attending family prayer time and Bible studies, helping to home school the many siblings, watching an actual home birth, practicing shooting with her father. We hear her parent's words as they teach the Bible and talk with deep sincerity of marriage, a woman's "Biblical" role as subservient to the husband, and abstinence before marriage. We see the family visiting the local rodeo and the young bull rider that catches Sara's eye. We slowly, very slowly, observe discontent rising up in Sara's heart.

Having been personally raised in a Christian family, and near communities of home schoolers, I have never witnessed such an authentic portrayal of these types of beliefs and this very specific type of American faith. The insider language and internal logic of this community feel absolutely genuine at every moment. The acting is so natural that I'm convinced the players were cast from within that type of community. The people on the farm are absolutely kind, but also insular and self-reinforcing. The film does not judge, but simply observes and ponders. We can understand the pull of such a loving place with so many answers and so many people who all believe the same way. We can also understand the suffocation.

While I found the details of the film fascinating to watch, the film offers little else but those details. It watches, and we watch, and hopefully we ponder with it, but those seeking narrative momentum will be left unsatisfied. Those seeking reflection and observation will come away full.

This review is mostly in response to film critics. Rarely have I seen reviewers become so uptight and unable to engage a film as with "Beowulf." Most reviews have been positive, but with a superior back-handed complimentary attitude. Writers acknowledge the great 3-D imagery, the fun action, and, of course, a nude (kind of) Angelina Jolie as crowd-pleasing elements, but they are never fooled by this low-brow Hollywood entertainment; not for a moment. And they must mention how movie is different from the book--the near-incomprehensible 1400 year-old book. Shocking.

In response, I say yes, the 3-D animation, the lively action, and the weirdly nude-but-not Angelina Jolie are fun, and they should be, but they are never tacky or unintentionally cheesy. These elements supply the surface gloss to a story dealing with deeper business. "Beowulf" examines dimensional characters dealing with dark demons, both literal and internal. It deals with a cursed land ruled by cursed kings, who attain and keep power through black deals forged from black souls. It shows loud angry strength, and quiet chilling loss. And it conveys all this through animation. Director Robert Zemeckis presents all these themes and thoughts and ambitions through animation, which is a real achievement. For so long American animation has been relegated to the genre of children films, instead of acting as a platform to explore all genres. Beowulf stands as the first American major release to warrant a PG-13 rating (it should be higher actually) and deal with adult concepts and characters. This alone heralds a special and much needed change in film-making.

All this is not to say "Beowulf" is some challenging think piece, or that it even tries to be. Of course the film is not as deep as the book, or maybe even a well-written college paper on the book. But give it credit for trying to be more than some empty-headed 3-D gimmick. It risks and achieves more.

"Red Beard" was Akira Kurosawa final prayer for human kindness. Most of his previous work touched on this issue, especially "Ikiru", but this would be the last. Afterwards, his films grew dark in their examination of human weakness, and unable to see a good future for mankind. They also lost the talent of Toshiro Mifune; this too would be his last appearance in a Kurosawa film.

The story is simple, almost elementary in its convention. In early 19th century Japan, the young, naïve doctor Yasumoto (Yuzo Kayama) comes to work in a free health clinic. He accepts his post grudgingly, judging his surroundings to be beneath him. Through the instruction of an older doctor, the wise Red Beard (Mifune), and exposure to human suffering around him, he grows up and finds his place in the world of medicine. Although the plot seems predictable, the human emotion Kurosawa discovers is not.

Each episode of the movie feels alive with emotion, alive with sorrow and with hope. Although the story surrounds Yasumoto with human suffering, it is not about suffering, but about learning step by step to find compassion. As we journey with Yasumoto through the story, we are also the ones being challenged.

Modern life bombards us suffering on a global scale. We read headlines from around the world, know statics on poverty, wars, genocides, and natural disasters. We see the overwhelming tide of human weakness, and feel duly overwhelmed. Yet, it felt so refreshing to see a film with characters who did not know the statics, who only knew the hurting people in front of them. I felt challenged to know people the same way.

I love good action films, the kind that entertain and enthrall, and every once in a while leave a viewer in awe. I love gladiator movies. Since childhood, I have been a fan of swordfighting and swashbuckling melodramas, as most young boys are. There is nothing wrong with the fun in them, because every once in while a great one like "Spartacus" and "Braveheart" comes along, a truly epic film that not only pierces the eye, but the imagination as well. Those films were not just spectacle, but had real heart in them. They contained stories that worked with enough good writing and direction to move beyond just a popcorn flick. The film "Gladiator" did not. I know people love this film, that even many critics called it a wonderful success. In that light, I tried hard to like it. I sat down twice in the theater and once at home to give it an honest look, but sadly, a new revelation never came. At best, it is just an action flick, and since I love these types of movies so much, that label saddens me all the more.

Here is my argument. Many claim that the action scenes were the best they had seen. I thought those claims were simply caught up in the flashy technique that was used, but not the resulting experience. Director Ridley Scott used quick cuts and blurry hand-held camera work to film the fighting scenes, copying much of the same style that Spielberg introduced in "Saving Private Ryan"'s opening sequence. It places the viewer almost inside the battle with the same kind of confusion that a soldier might feel. All fine and dandy in a modern battle that uses guns and explosives, weapons that require little skill to use or watch on screen, but in mid-evil warfare, I would like to actually see and understand the fighting with swords that takes a focused camera to capture. It can be done. "Braveheart" gave scenes just as strong in action, and much more understandable. those scenes were enthralling, and are still the standard in my opinion. Sadly, every action scene in this movie was much the same: blurry, quick cutting, not easy to understand, and therefore not easy to enjoy. I wanted to scream at the screen "Just let me watch the fighting!!!" This movie was not trying to make some great statement about war or its time, like the Spielberg film, and therefore did not need to go all artistic for not reason at the moment the crowd is supposed to sit back and enjoy the ride. Since the action let me down so much, it was now the job of the plot to pull me along.

There were many things that worked in this film concerning the plot. The actors were very good, particularly Richard Harris in the beginning as Caesar. Many scenes worked by themselves, but did not really add up to a complete picture. Often I felt like the characters were acting a particular way not because the story had given them any real motivation to, but because the plot required it for the moment. When Maximus was needed to be mad, or noble, or depressed, or vengeful, or hopeful, or hopeless, he simply was. The man was a rollercoaster of emotion in this film, but his reason for being such was not consistantly shown. A plot cannot drive the characters, it must be driven by them and what they would actually do if they existed. While it was all handled well by Russel Crowe, a fine actor, it made me feel manipulated as the viewer.

Overall, it was a popcorn flick, a movie to entertain, but to challenge, and certainly not to win an Academy Award, the worst presented in years. The special effects were very noticable, made so to appear "wowing", but they detracted from the reality instead of enhancing it. I do not understand why people think "Gladiator" is greater than it is, a movie that will not be remembered 20 years from now as a great film, unlike other films that were nominated right along side of it.

There are just certain things a movie 6 hours in length can do that a regular movie cannot, especially when the writing is completely intriguing and the acting is dynamic. The critic Roger Ebert has said often that a good movie is never too long, nor a bad movie ever too short. Such is the case with "Lonesome Dove." Although this was a made for television mini-series that is about three times the length of most movies, it is completely captivating all the way through. Much like a good television show, the audience is given a great deal of time to experience the characters and their lives, and they are some of the best developed screen presenses I have seen. I wanted to sit all day long and watch Capt. Woodrow Call and Capt. Gus McCray talk, and poke fun, and have their adventures, and make their speeches, and just be who they are in the lives and time they embodied. Robert Duvall said in in a documentary about the film that McCray was his favorite character he ever played, and it is not hard to see why.

As the golden years of the wild west comes come to an end, and the lawless lands become the populated towns and cities of civilization, two old men who helped to tame it decide to go on one last wild run before their end comes too. On this journey to bring closure to their wandering lives, Capt. Call (Tommy Lee Jones) and Capt. McCray (Robert Duvall) will also deal with their past: the romances that got away, the friendships that were made and lost, the outlaws they never caught, and the love neither were brave enough or wise enough to embrace.

It is an epic story told with striking scenes and setting, on the plains and in the cow towns of an old time lost. If my words seem overly romantic, it is because of a movie that forces them out. Few films have touched me with its honest truth. It almost never reaches for an effect, and bends a character into an untrue moment. Some scenes could have been over the top with emotion, straining to produce tears, but simply did not because the characters in the story would not have acted in such a fashion. These were men who survived in a tough world and a dangerous time, hiding their feeling even from themselves, and living with a past full of regret. It is simply a wonderful film, and one of my personal favorites.

"There is no gene for the human spirit." This is the TAG line of the movie Gattaca, a film that searches deep within the heart of man. This is one of Ethan Hawke's strongest performances as a man who refuses to trust the odds, and relies on fate and sheer will to achieve his dreams. He borrows the body of a man without dreams, played by Jude Law in his best performance to date as well. Law simply captures every scene with his sly intelligence and deeply darkened soul. He has no illusions about life, or himself, and he is the perfect counterpoint to Hawke's unrelenting dreamer.

The performances only enhance, however, a wonderful script by first time writer/director Andrew Niccol. It deals with science fiction and the future in the best way, by exploring ideas. He quickly and easily presents a future not unimaginable, and truly existing in a "not-too-distant future." Genetic engineering is happening today all the time in areas outside the human species, and sometimes within. How long will it take before the gloves are taken off and science truly starts to decide the type of people humanity will become? What issues will be addressed when that time comes? Niccol addresses many of them already, mostly dealing with the discrimination that would probably take place in society. The most subtle and yet important question he asks though is whether a man is truly the sum of his genes, or could his spirit somehow carry him beyond all expectations? Such thoughts are dealt with through intelligent characters given intelligent diolague and placed with intelligent situations. It is interesting how such a thoughtful picture can be at time a real thriller to watch as well.

Gattaca is one of my favorite movies because it is not afraid to address important issues that are truly current in modern day society, and do it with great thought and heart. It wisely stresses the subtle theological questions of whether man ought to tamper with God's work, and whether the result would be a better society, or a better humanity.