|
|
Megan Basham reviews movies for WORLD magazine.
Friday, October 5th, 2007 | 10:46 AM
Critical consensus on “The Kingdom” (RATED R for violence and language) has been that it is nothing more than an action movie whose setting in a Muslim country with the specter of Islamic terrorists is incidental. In fact, the film is so thought-provoking I couldn’t help but wonder if some reviewers are deeming it a “popcorn thriller” as punishment for not provoking the right kind of thoughts.
In an Oscar season defined by a spate of anti-war, anti- Bush films, “The Kingdom” is neither. It also isn’t necessarily pro-war or pro-Bush. Rather it is a well-acted, well-paced, and phenomenally directed film about the complex nature of the fight we’re in. After terrorists attack a U.S. oil company compound in Riyadh, intentionally killing women and children, a team of FBI investigators (Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner, and Jason Bateman) gains clearance to help the Saudis investigate. Once they arrive they find their efforts hampered by bureaucratic red tape and fear of the Taliban. Their own behavior doesn’t help matters as they make little attempt to conform to the Middle East’s cultural norms. The team members not only curse indiscriminately, they also move with a swagger that gives some credence to the “ugly American” stereotype.
Director Peter Berg doesn’t shy away from showing the methods of Islamo-fascists. It is difficult to overcome a foe who is willing to sacrifice not only his own life to a false god, but also those of his wife and children. Unlike most War on Terror films hitting theaters this fall, he also isn’t afraid to acknowledge 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole, and American embassy bombings as part of our reason for engaging in this fight. Yes, there are scenes that will elicit rage—any story that deals truthfully with the nature and tactics of the enemy should elicit our rage. But there are also scenes that humble us, engendering love for Muslims who have suffered at the hands of terrorists as much as we have. In spite of a couple of missteps—like a tacked-on ending and a few too many one-liners—”The Kingdom” is a serious movie for serious times.
Posted in Movies & TV, Reviews | 9 Comments »
Thursday, October 4th, 2007 | 5:29 PM
Last year the NBC drama Heroes proved that comic-book culture may have officially reached its zenith. It’s one thing for films featuring Spider-Man and Batman to succeed. But geek-chic deserves a new level of recognition when a prime-time television show—whose entire framing device is comic panels come to life— scores major ratings.
For the most part, the program’s popularity is well-earned. The lineup of characters—all of whom possess supernatural abilities thanks to a genetic mutation—are well-drawn and endearing. Has anyone ever watched an episode without coming away smitten by time-traveling Hiro (Masi Oka)? And unlike the problems that have plagued Lost, Heroes’ complex plots appear to have clear direction that offer frequent, satisfying explanations. Though the storyline of Nikki (Ali Larter), a former stripper, provided some objectionable material early on, producers backed off from that content.
What they haven’t backed off from is violence, and when the good and the bad guys clash here, they do so with a gross-out factor that rivals CSI. On the other hand, true to graphic novel tradition, Heroes also boasts characters who feel duty-bound to use their abilities honorably. Parents will especially appreciate Claire (Hayden Panettiere), a bright, thoughtful, and, incidentally, indestructible 17-year-old who actually shows her father love and respect.
Posted in Movies & TV, Reviews, Television | 22 Comments »
Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 | 10:49 PM
Kid Nation may not be the most well-advised program the Tiffany Network ever green-lighted, but it certainly isn’t living up to the controversy that surrounded its launch. Because the show places 40 kids in a New Mexico ghost town for 40 days supposedly without adult supervision (a film crew, doctors, nutritionists, and child psychologists are off-camera), it received criticism for everything from violating child labor laws to being anti-union.
But rather than feeling like an Old West version of Lord of the Flies, the show makes for a rather comforting spectacle, especially for those inclined to believe that today’s youth are little more than an ADD-riddled, Paris Hilton-admiring, violent-video-game-obsessed horde of miscreants. Instead, the 8- to 15-year-olds populating Bonanza City provide reassuring evidence that while our culture has slouched closer to Gomorrah, some kids are alright.
Though CBS undoubtedly screened out contestants with real behavioral problems, the conflicts are little to write home about. A boy scout is too earnest in his desire to be a good leader, irritating the other boys. One girl is a bit of a priss, announcing that beauty queens don’t do dishes. Yet another boy becomes the town rebel when he writes his team’s name over another’s with chalk, an act of vandalism that sets tiny tongues wagging. On the flip side, while their squabbles are rarely exceptional, their maturity often is. They work together, comfort one another, and try to ensure fairness in ways that put most reality show participants to shame.
In fact, the most problematic element of Kid Nation comes from the adult producers. Shortly after they arrive, monotone and not-at-all kid-friendly host Jonathan Karch informs the town they will be divided into four classes—laborers, cooks, merchants, and upper class—who will be paid differing amounts. The upper class, he tells them, will receive the most and have the option of not working at all. The message is clear: people who are well-off financially are just lucky and don’t have to earn their living. Unfortunately, not too many critics will find that angle controversial.
Posted in Movies & TV, Television | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 | 3:47 PM
What makes a man a man? In the midst of all the gunfights, barn burning, and stagecoach robbing, this is the question that 3:10 to Yuma (rated R for violence and language), like so many classic Westerns, poses. While the film features a few modern flourishes to engage attention-challenged audiences, its answer remains surprisingly the same.
From the outset, we are given two models of masculinity. The rakish and charming Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is an outlaw who takes what he wants from life—money, women, and lives—without regard to conscience or consequence. Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is Wade’s physical and psychological opposite. A crippled Civil War veteran trying desperately to save his farm, Dan fears that his inability to provide is turning him into something less than a man in the eyes of his family. But he refuses to let his woes drive him to sin, and during the worst of his troubles he turns to prayer.
The two men’s paths cross after Ben’s gang raids an armored wagon carrying the fortunes of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Once Ben is apprehended, a railroad representative calls for volunteers to escort the legendary bandit to Yuma. Dan accepts the job not only because he needs the money but also, he says, because he is tired—tired of the way his son (Logan Lerman) looks at him and tired of the way his wife doesn’t. “No one will think less of you,” she says, pleading with him not to go. “No one can think less of me,” he snaps back. But as the action progresses, we see that it isn’t just cash propelling Dan, but a chance to teach his son the meaning of integrity.
With its great acting, great pacing, and crackerjack storyline, Yuma is not only fun, it is surprisingly moral. In many films today (think Pulp Fiction, Scarface, or nearly every mafia movie made in the last two decades) Ben Wade would be the hero. Even our Westerns tend to celebrate outlaws rather than the men who bring them to justice. And when filmmakers aren’t outright cheering the bad guys, they’re giving them a postmodern shrug. Perhaps this is why, even though Yuma’s style is old, its sentiments feel fresh.
Posted in Movies & TV, Reviews | 2 Comments »
Monday, September 10th, 2007 | 7:41 AM
As its poor opening weekend earnings show, Stardust is a movie that can’t quite decide who its audience is. It’s too childlike for the hordes of fan-boys and -girls that make any film associated with a comic book or J.R.R. Tolkien a hit, and too adult for the children who would normally be its target demographic.
Unlike The Princess Bride to which it is being compared, Stardust (rated PG-13 for risqué humor, violence, and adult situations) can’t be comfortably enjoyed by the whole family. At least not if you mind your kids seeing a gay, cross-dressing pirate (Robert DeNiro) and a fair maiden who wakes up with her hero sans ball gown.
The DeNiro character is particularly annoying given that there is no such person in the original novel. It is simply a tired, Hollywood addition that temporarily rips us out of fantasyland and back to the politically correct mundane. Beyond these troubling elements, however, Stardust is an airy, whimsical delight.
When Tristan (Charlie Cox) sees a star fall from the sky, he vows to cross the wall surrounding his small English village and bring it back as a love-token for his shallow would-be bride (Sienna Miller). But once he arrives at the crash site, he finds a beautiful, shimmering girl (Claire Danes) instead of a meteor. He also discovers that a far more dangerous terrain lies beyond the town’s boundary.
From there, the fairy tale is fairly predictable—a wicked witch (a magnificent Michelle Pfeiffer) wants to kill the star and steal her youth, as does a power-mad evil prince. But the way it comes together is not. Thanks to a host of wonderfully funny supporting players, Stardust never bores us getting to the happy ending we know is coming. This is one time special effects don’t serve as a stand-in for good acting, but rather enhance it, truly transporting us into a romantic magical realm.
So while Stardust might not be a good choice for a family outing, it’s not a bad choice for date night.
Posted in Movies & TV, Reviews | Comments Off
|
|