Reviews

After seeing the movie, the trailer is a poor representation of the actual film. I only went because I had a screening pass, but I was pleasantly surprised. There was a lot more to it than Carrell falling all over the place. In fact, what I liked about it was that he wasn't a bumbling idiot like Clouseau - he was in fact a very good fighter and a very intelligent agent - he happened to have some goof-ups along the way, but it would always be followed with a very smart moment, not a dumb-luck save, or an "always have to be saved by the girl" save.

The other characters brought a lot to the table as well. Terence Stamp had some of the best lines in the movie, as did Alan Arkin (in fact, my two biggest laughs came from each of them). The action was decent - better than you'd expect from a comedy.

Hathaway handled her physical role very well - reminded me of some of Jennifer Garner's better moments in ALIAS.

The only real weak link for me was the story between Max and 99. The age difference really stands out, and while they actually address that in the storyline, it still just didn't work for me from a romantic angle. However, their verbal sparring was very well done in the first half of the film.

All in all, I was pleasantly surprised. I don't know how much of the enjoyment came from being with a sold-out audience, because I felt free to laugh my booty off since everyone else was, and that kind of fun is contagious. Seeing it alone or with a very small crowd might change the entire tone. I'd say your best bet is to see it Friday or Saturday night with a full audience.

Before I begin, I want to briefly say that this movie in and of itself is very well made and well acted by all involved, including Whittaker, who indeed deserves his nomination. It is highly entertaining, and . . . taken in the right context as a work of FICTION, it is a very good movie. For that, I give it the two stars.

However, rather than wasting your time with what you can read a hundred times elsewhere, I want instead to point out the absolute fictional nature of this film and how dangerous it is to sell people a work of fiction as if it is truth. I stress that this film nowhere in the credits lets us know that the main character, Dr. Nicholas Garrigan, is a complete invention of fiction. Rather, it presents this character into a real historical setting, and allows the uninformed viewer to assume he was in fact real, and what they are seeing is the truth. I have no problem with the blending of fact and fiction - but to do so in such a dishonest matter is, in a word, reprehensible.

There can be no doubt that Africa, along with most Third World Countries is rife with human misery and suffering. Hollywood has long attempted to capture the suffering of people in these countries on film. But Hollywood also has its eye toward making money. The only true way to capture the suffering that seems to happen everywhere but the West is to either experience it for yourself, or to at least have it captured in an honest documentary.

But these depictions of fictional characters in real historical settings can only do so much. At the end of the day, they become less about presenting the facts for the viewer to decide for himself, and more about leading you from image to image and hitting you over the head screaming, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU IT WAS BAD!" The seminal example of this can be found by anyone willing to watch the documentary on the DVD after sitting through the movie. Arguably the most shocking image of the film is the viewing of the body of Kay Amin, Idi's second wife, whom he killed when he discovered her infidelity. In the film, we see that her limbs have been severed and reattached in reverse (arms for legs and vice-versa). This is the director making sure you understand that Amin is, as the Gungans say, Bom-bad! But watching the documentary, we learn that this is in fact nothing more than a myth, which the sitting Minister of Health at the time himself tells us is not true.

So . . . what . . . they just MAKE UP these things? Why? Because Hollywood has a low opinion of our intelligence, that's why! They don't trust us to come to the right conclusion ourselves. Look, that she was murdered and dismembered is in itself enough for us to conclude that Amin was not the likable guy he portrayed to the media - we don't need this Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE inspired imagery to reinforce that! And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What is also not explained to the casual viewer is that lead character Garrigan is himself fictional. There was no young Scottish doctor taken under Amin's wing. As such, Garrigan is clearly present only for the sake of helping us dumb Westerners understand the African world. The producers seem to thing we won't be interested in a film about Africa unless there is a white face in it. (Ironically, even the titular character is portrayed by an American black actor!) The problem with this is that the movie is no longer an expose of Amin and his regime, but instead an exploitative thriller about a white Westerner coming to Africa for all the wrong reasons, making several horrible mistakes, and then "redeeming" himself, even at the cost of three other innocent lives. Honestly, I have to say it is nearly reprehensible to suggest that the real tragic death of Mrs. Amin was the result of a tryst with a fictional Scottish doctor - it almost seems to become a morbid joke for the sake of entertainment! I really wish Hollywood would stop jerking us around for our money. I first realized its propensity to do this with the woefully manipulative A BEAUTIFUL MIND, Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman's sugary-sweet adaptation of the life of John Nash, which deleted the darker side of the man to present only the tortured hero that America just can't get enough of. The sad truth is that Hollywood has been selling us these fakes for years, and viewers, who are predictably and understandably too lazy or uncaring to investigate for themselves, buy these fake portraits hook, line, and sinker.

Look, I'm certainly not suggesting Amin is being turned into a villain he wasn't. My point is, with the truth being so shocking enough to convince us of the brutality of the man, why must Hollywood then go to such fictional lengths? Why must Hollywood continue to insult us by holding our hands through these films? Why can they not trust us to think for ourselves!? Can we not just put the honest portrayals on screen and let the audience decide for themselves? I urge all who continue to watch Hollywood's purportedly "true" movies to do yourself the favor of ALWAYS investigating for yourself, and to NEVER assume that what is on screen is even close to the truth!

When I first saw the original UNDERWORLD, I walked out feeling like I wasted two hours of my life. But, as I usually do, I bought it on DVD anyway and ended up really liking it once I discovered the (get this) complexity of its storyline! That's right, that movie actually had a story behind it that was pretty interesting. Needless to say, I was really interested to see how this sequel would pick things up. What was Marcus going to do when he woke up? Would Selene have to go into exile? Will the war continue? So, I settled in for EVOLUTION and for about thirty minutes, I was floored! Marcus comes out like a bad mother jumper and doesn't just decapitate one character's head - that wouldn't be cool enough - no, he OBLITERATES his head! Yeah, Marcus means business. Shortly thereafter, one of the best sequences of either movie takes place in the form of an intense mountain road truck chase. So far, so good.

Then, Len tries to launch us into a new bit of story. But not before stopping over for what has to be one of the most gratuitous and laughable sex scenes in recent years. I'm not kidding, people were LAUGHING in the theater! The characters are contorted into some strange position and Michael looks like he's not sure where things go - I'll just leave it at that. And not too long after, we get a gratuitous T&A shot of some miscellaneous woman that feels just as tacked on. YAWN.

But the real problem comes in at this point. The character of Tanis fills our heroes in on what Marcus is doing, and after three minutes straight of exposition, I finally gave up trying to follow along. I still don't understand what the plot of this sequel was! Well, then our heroes go on to meet a surprise character who, given who he turns out to be, is VERY anti-climatic. All this leads up to the final action showdown - yet by this point even poor Selene seems bored with the proceedings. I think the quintessential image of this movie is Selene firing round after round from her pistols at the head Lycan while standing firmly in one place for about a full minute or two. It's like the producers decided they were tired of choreographing fight scenes so they just said, "Eh, just stand in one place and shoot at him for a few minutes - that'll be good enough for this scene." As it is, the final dispatching of one of the main baddies is so quick that if you were looking away from the screen for a moment you might miss it. The other is somewhat satisfyingly nasty, but again the action leading up to it is pretty boring.

And poor Michael - after being the focus of the first movie, he hardly seems to be able to do anything in this one besides react and ask questions. An early promise to show him coping with his new found Vampire/Lycan properties goes NOWHERE! So, what happened to our great story that the first movie set us up for? For the duration of this movie, Selene and Michael seem to be the only Vamps left in the world (plus the four or five from the helicopter at the end). Where is this war that we keep hearing about? By the time the movie was in its final act, I had taken on the idea that Selene was the last remaining Vampire in the world (which Derek Jacobi seems to nearly explicitly state). Yet in her closing monologue she refers to clans and battle lines and revenge and wars . . . oh, OK, so there ARE still others out there?? Eh, by that time I was ready to go home and go to bed. Too bad - this really could have been a great sequel if more time had been given to developing the characters and less time on sex and blood/gore/

I gave the pilot a chance (yes, only because it was RIGHT after LOST) and decided there was enough potential to give the show a month's worth of opportunity to involve me. The hour pilot, in and of itself, was pretty lack-luster, offering nothing new to the genre and plopping the viewer down in the middle of a series of family crises with little explanation as to why things are the way they are. The initial hurricane lasts about 15 minutes - with the most impressive visual moment really being the first shot or two of the hurricane plane. From then on follows a series of X-Files type moments - the floating lights seen only by the little girl, the discovery of two missing people found without clothes and seeming disoriented. the discovery of a strange and alien like skeleton . . . and at least one human character who clearly knows what is really going on.

In fact, the show's biggest obstacle is its familiarity. Rather than breaking new ground, it is now one of MANY new entries in this emerging genre of "Serial" drama - 24 had the luxury of being the first cliff-hanger driven prime-time show - LOST has the luxury of it's fantastically unique setting and plot - but INVASION? It is familiar ground - think X-FILES meets INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. And that is the obstacle it must overcome - if it is to survive, it needs to QUICKLY generate something unique - and so far, it has not. It's best asset HAS to be its characters - and none of them broke out of any stereotypical mode in the first hour. The writing was pretty transparent - the acting was serviceable.

Let's break it down: 1) A divorced father with two children (Hmmm . . . never seen that before!) 2) But wait, his ex-wife now remarried is also a lead character (oh wait, that's been done to death as well - doesn't ANYONE stay married on TV?) 3) Brother and Sister of the divorced couple, having to chose loyalties between the parents 4) TV News Anchor - hmmm . . . how many episodes till she "uncovers" some truth and becomes the target of a death plot? I give it three episodes to get to that point.

5) Saving the best for last - we have the "Conspiracy Theory" young adult male who "MAY JUST BE ON TO THE TRUTH THIS TIME!" Yep, it's THAT predictable folks! So, with an unimpressive list of characters and a well-traveled path to go down, I'm afraid the cards are stacked AGAINST this show - but, as I said, I will still give it a chance for the simple reason that you DO want to know what's going on with the three apparently "Body-Snatched" people - are they Pod People, have they been Possessed? If nothing else, it will be interesting to see which alien invasion movie they most copy.

At best, you can pretend it is an extended X-FILES episode, knowing that Mulder and Scully are out there on a different case right now, but they'll get here . . . someday?

I finally got around to watching this movie last night (after buying it for $4 on DVD a few weeks ago) and I can say I was very pleasantly surprised by it after reading so many negative reviews.

The Problem: This film was marketed poorly - the trailers give an accurate idea of the content, but they give you the wrong impression as to the tone. Because Bruce Willis is in it, they chose to make it out to contain tons of action and heroic combat! They also chose to make it appear to be a Bruce Willis vehicle. Let me tell you, if you are renting or buying it for either of the above reasons, you will hate it! The "combat action" scenes are sparse (two scenes) and extremely short (though very exciting when they do occur. And Bruce Willis is really a supporting actor to Farrel - in fact, of the major characters, he probably has less screen time than anyone else, and is rarely seen outside of Farrel's perspective.

The Good: So, the first thing you need to do is lay aside your expectation of a SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or GUNS OF NAVARONNE type movie. This is a drama! And it is a very good one. There are several layers to this story - one is that of Lt. Hart's (Colin Farrel) need for redemption after an early failure in the film. His assignment to defend the falsely accused marine gives him that chance. The main story is the trial of a marine who asserts he was framed for the murder of a fellow marine in the stockade. Farrel quickly learns that the cards are stacked against him as the presiding officer McNamara (Willis) seems bent on a guilty verdict. This sets up some very tense confrontations between the two.

Adding a second layer to this drama is the apparently misunderstood character of the commanding Nazi officer Werner Visser. Visser represents an aging officer who has wound up in a remote post and seems to have accepted this lesser role. He is a foil to Willis's McNamara, who wants nothing more than to get back to the war. The confusion as to why Visser suddenly wants to help Hart is that people perceive this as Visser suddenly becoming the nice Nazi. Well, anyone paying attention can see that Visser is ONLY motivated by getting back at McNamara. Hart is a convenient tool to do so - but there is not fondness for Hart from Visser, as you will see by the film's end.

The third layer is that of the racist motivation behind the original crime. Two of the confined officers are African-American, and they are portrayed in a very heroic light here - but the white enlisted men are very prejudiced to their presence (this is the 40s, remember). This gives ample opportunity to see racism as it truly is - these are fine outstanding officers, but their contributions are ignored by those who only see the color of their skin.

Combining these three threads takes a skillful director, and Hoblit shows himself up to the task. The film never loses momentum, but switches nicely between the various threads. The writing is crisp, the cinematography is appropriately drab and dreary in its own beautiful way (love the light beams coming through the barrack windows) and the few actions scenes keep the excitement level high. All told, this is an excellent movie, and one I am proud to own - it's a shame more people will miss out on it because of the critics who didn't get it.

The Bad: That is not to say it is the perfect film. I did have a difficult time following a lot of what was going on for the first hour, but near the end, when a plot twist was introduced, much of these scenes made more sense. Also, some of the dialog was either poorly recorded, or poorly delivered. But, my main gripe was covered above about the misleading marketing of this film.

The Summation: Think of it as a combination of THE GREAT ESCAPE, A FEW GOOD MEN, and TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD - with the final sum being just a few notches below each of these titles, and you'll get an idea of what you're in for . . . give it a chance!