Courage Under Fire

Can you remember a time when Denzel Washington wasn’t type casted into roles involving screaming, gun fire, and a typical speech about never giving up? It’s hard to think back that far. Especially after his Oscar winning role in [i]Training Day[/i], it became increasingly difficult to find him in any sort of diverse role. But back in the day—as they say—he was able to just squeak by in his role as Nathaniel Sterling in the 1996 film [i]Courage Under Fire[/i].

Almost mirroring the exact amount of time between 9/11 and the film [i]Flight 93[/i] CUF tells the story of events in the first Gulf War, and how soldiers’ actions were continuing to affect their lives. Nathaniel Sterling (Washington) is reviewing the case of Captain Karen Emma Walden (Meg Ryan) to see if her actions qualify her as the first woman to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Haunted by his own involvement in the war, and mistakes leading to the death of friendly soldiers, Sterling must keep himself composed while investigating the seemingly inconsistent stories of the soldiers who fought with Captain Sterling.

I think one of the things I liked about this movie the most was the fact that none of the stories matched. When Sterling goes to each of the surviving crew members of the downed helicopter, each one of them has a different perspective of how the events unfolded. Each has their own perspective of how Captain Walden responded to stress and leadership during the attack. It makes for an interesting little mystery as the film unfolds the events.

It’s been quite some time since I’ve seen this film, so I can’t honestly say that I report its greatness now based on my childhood enjoyment of this film. I don’t really care for Meg Ryan, or the roles that she’s been in; however, I do think that she did an excellent job in this film creating an inconsistent character each time her story is revealed. It’s strange how being inconsistent can be a powerful tool, but in this film, it was pivotal.

And yes, even Denzel brings some emotion to the camera (something I feel is very rare these days). Edward Zwick, director, did an excellent job working together with the post-tramatic-symptomous characters, as well as the lead and supporting actors that bring them to life. It’s a story that demonstrates the gripping, ripping nature of war, and what effects it has on the men and women that fight in them. It’s a good time period piece, as well as a good military film. Not the best, but entertaining still. If you’ve not seen it, check it out, but don’t go paying more than three dollars for a rental. It’s a popcorn sort of movie on a Tuesday night after a regular day at work.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Harry Potter returns for his fifth year at Hogwarts. The ministry of magic has sent in Dolores Umbridge to reform the school to the standards set by higher authority. This proves very detrimental to the children’s education in their defense against the dark arts. Harry Potter, encouraged by his friends, leads a small group of student to a secret room to teach them the powers of defense. But Lord Voldemort’s grip on Harry’s mind becomes more and more powerful, causing a stir in the secret Order of the Phoenix.

If you’ve not read the books, it’s a lot to take in. If you’ve only seen the movies, it’s still a hell of a lot to take in. But overall, I can say that I was very pleased with this film, and how the story unfolded. I’ve been told that, during this book, a major focus is placed on Harry’s feelings on being an outsider. This is evident in the film, as the script emphasizes the theme of being an outsider. Of course, one problem is that it tip-toes on the border of teen-angst, which I wasn’t looking forward to.

Though Hogwarts and the classes that happen this year does play a role in the film, it seems to me that the focus was much greater this time around. Unlike its predecessors, this film contains a lot more conflict between the powers that be. Dumbeldore, and even Snape get considerably more screen time than films previous. As a long standing series, I think this helps to make the film more effective. As we follow these characters throughout their 7 year quest, we want to see more: more feelings, more reasons, more reactions. In this film (as I am told, a bigger portion of the book) Snape teaches Harry Potter the power to block mind control. In a retort, we learn more about a somewhat mysterious character, Snape, and his past. I think elements like this really help to bring this story to those that have not read the books. And I think that’s extremely important for the continued success of these films.

The direction wasn’t as powerful as my personal favorite (in terms of direction), the third Prisoner of Azkaban. But I did enjoy the fact that the battle scenes that were created, were done very well, very powerful, and most importantly, very tense. Again, for those that have not read the books, conflict has run somewhat dry over the course of the 4 previous films. It was good to finally see some wizard on wizard action

It’s a good film to watch, especially if you’re into the story. If you’ve not read the books, like me, but have seen the other films (not necessarily in gauntlet, extra large pizza and two 2 liters of Coke style), I think you’ll enjoy this film. It has tied for best in the series so far (Prisoner of Azkaban). I remember seeing kids around the age of 4 in the theatre; not quite sure it’s a film for those audiences. The film does cater to a wide range of age, though, spotlighting themes of teenage emotion explosion, and true danger and heroism for others. Check it out if you can find a seat. A-

(Please, someone, let me know if I need to read these books. I have the horrible habit of having to read though an entire series, and I just don’t want to dive in without at least hearing from a few that have read them.)

Black Snake Moan

I had a conversation with my roommate once about a style of film that hasn’t really been represented as often as we’d like. It’s what we call “Down-South Film Noir.” To best site an example of this style would be Billy Bob Thornton’s Slingblade. They are dark tales of rural areas, involving almost the opposite of most films being dumped out of Hollywood. Instead of big breaks and collagen lips, we have torn shorts, and bottles of whiskey. I didn’t think much of the preview when I first saw it, but as of last night, I have nothing but good things to say about Black Snake Moan.

Rae (Ricci) is a nymphomaniac living out her life in the rural south. Her boyfriend, Ronnie (Timberlake) is headed off to the military, trying to establish a more solid future for himself. Within hours of his departure, Rae has an attack, and seeks out sexual contact. She later refuses, and insults one of Ronny’s friends, and is beaten and left on the side of the street, where Lazarus (Jackson) finds her, and tries to help her battle her “affliction.”

Ok, let’s be honest: this really doesn’t sound like an awesome film, with thought out characters, good dialogue, and interesting themes. It sounds more like Ricci wandering around the movie for 60 minutes in underwear and a torn shirt (which, let’s face it, isn’t bad at all. She’s grown up quite a bit since her days as Wednesday Adams). But I was surprised at how tight the dialogue was, how accurate the actors were in their portrayal of their characters, and how enjoyable this film really was.

I think the one thing that I would attribute to be the strongest aspect of this film is the actor’s execution of their characters. First off, Samuel Jackson gives one of his most powerful performances in years, portraying an older man bound by the rules of the bible, and struggling with a crushed marriage. He finds his redemption, and purpose in creating a relationship with Rae. Outside of the wonderful buildup there, he plays an old jazzman, complete with accent and slang of the old south. Even the dialect was spot on, creating a perfectly believable experience for the audience. Coupled with Ricci, who also executes her foul mouthed character near perfection, every moment was wonderful to watch.

And hopefully without losing credibility, I’m going step out and say that Justin Timberlake, a Memphis native, did an excellent job portraying not only a southern man working towards a greater life, but a man struggling with a crippling affliction (anxiety) and powerful love for his girlfriend Rae.

I know that this film flew under the radar, and was passed up by many due to its strong sexual content. Personally, to me, that just added to the film, and was at no point a distraction from the purpose of the film. This isn’t a story about a woman who’s so sexually active, she’ll take it from anyone she can get. This is a story about three people struggling with problems in their lives, and how they needed each other to see that they had control over what was holding them back. It’s a character development story, and one of the better ones, despite what it might sound like. This isn’t a film for younger audiences, but if you have the chance, I’d recommend it. It’s what film stories ought to take to heart. 7.5 of 10

Live Free or Die Hard: Die Hard 4

Live Free or Die Hard is about John McClane’s (Bruce Willis) entanglement in the newest bout of terrorism against the United States. This time, he faces a foe beyond his technological intelligence: techno-terrorism. The terrorists (American with aid of the French) initial what’s called a Fire Sale: a shutdown of all major digital services, including services, power, Wall Street, banks records, FAA, communication and on.

What I find most interesting about this film, outside of the fact that it is a kick ass summer action film that will forever be burned into the back of my mind, is that it addresses such a real threat that currently exists. We live in an age where we rely very heavily on technology, be it our business, social services, hospitals, communication, whatever. It was interesting to see how the world might be crippled if such services were rendered useless or unavailable. Overall, the “concept” of the film was rather believable. That’s not to say that such sequences involving fighter jets, and semi trucks are everyday happenings; I’m saying that the terrorists, their motives, and their actions are very believable and convincing.

I think there are two major things that make action films good: being able to relate and root for the main characters, and being in a situation where the action doesn’t dull to tell story. This film achieves both. John McClane is a character we’ve followed for years. We know who he is, why he does the things he does, why he laughs, why he stones up. We know his past about his wife, his daughter and why he finds it easy to kill. On the flip side, he’s paired with Matt Ferrell (Justin Long), a weaker character looking to find the way to sturdy up. These two men work together to find a balance to solve the problems at hand. And both characters actually keep their depth without going into unnecessary exposition to explain their fears.

That being said, the action doesn’t stop once it gets going. The bad guy, Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) never yields as the calm, soft spoken but powerfully dangerous nemesis in this film. The action, though not necessarily realistic, does make this film an excellent watch in terms of action films. Director Len Wiseman and crew do an excellent job keeping the audience visually interested in both the exterior shots of the nation falling apart, as well as the cyber world crumbling at the fingertips of Gabriel.

If you love the Die Hard series, you’ll enjoy this film. It might not be your favorite, but it certainly does have its moments. As a stand alone action, it holds its ground, relying very little on the previous McClane films. It’s what I will call the better of the two “near-July 4th” releases, up against Michael Bay’s Transformers. I suggest seeing Live Free or Die Hard as I enjoyed it from reel to reel. It’s worth the ticket regardless of the city. 7.7 of 10 (A- in action)

Vintage: 12 Monkeys

When most people think of the Monty Python films, they don’t think of post-apocalypse worlds abandoned by humans. Rather, we think of poorly animated foots, and holy hand grenades used to kill rabbits. But believe it or not, the man behind the 1995 sci-fi classic 12 Monkeys is co-writer and director Terry Gilliam. Gilliam later went on to write and direct a strong, coked-up film with Johnny Depp called Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas. Though filmed in a very similar style, the films are completely different!

12 Monkeys is a film that takes place in 2027, where humans have abandoned the surface of the planet in order to survive a deadly virus that wiped out 5 billion people. Their plan is to send someone back in time to find clues as to where the virus started, and where to obtain the original strain before it mutates. These scientists volunteer an inmate for the work. His name is James Cole (Bruce Willis). His travels back and forth leave him disoriented as to what the real world might be, confused as to what past, present and future really are.

Style equals definition. And Gilliam never falls short on style. Filmed with a special flat-lens camera, the visual effects give the viewer some experience of the disorienting nature of time travel, and the mental stress placed on Cole.

While on one of his trips, he is imprisoned in one of the mental hospitals. This is where Cole meets his partner, Dr Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe), who has a strange connection to Cole’s past. After being abducted by Cole, Railly is slowly convinced that Cole is telling the truth, and that the world is to end in only a few days. They search out what they believe to be the people responsible for the virus: a group of people calling themselves the Army of the 12 Monkeys. This group is led by an insane fanatic named Jeffrey (Brad Pitt), a fellow inmate when Cole was imprisoned.

This film is not only directed well, the actors do an excellent job to portray the time period that they exist in, and the dangers that exist if they fail. Willis does an excellent job in portraying the mental pressure placed on a human when passing back and forth between a world he can only remember, and one in which he must hide from the surface and any germs.

The cinematography is also a powerful element in this film. From the very beginning, Cole is exposed to locations he feels as if he has visited before. Birds fluttering and bears roaring pave way to echoes he experiences when he later visits these locations (in the past, that is). That, and Gilliam’s flat-lens camera create a world that we rarely get to see on camera: one that we can believe and still be afraid of!

If you’ve not seen this film, I’d suggest it. It’s one of my favorite sci-fi films, and holds its ground against those that are similar. If you have seen it, watch it again. It’s a great film!