Anybody ever heard of this movie? Hey, I just saw it and boy do I have to go to the bathroom! At three hours, it kind of creeps up on you. Not the movie, I mean the urge to purge.
Gosh, it seems like only yesterday I saw the first of 1,221 trailers for this thing. Was it only a year ago it all started?
So here’s a movie I spent my time saying “I love this movie, I love this movie not, I love this movie, I love it not”. I mean it’s got all the corny stuff of “Independence Day” and the dreadful “Armageddon” but some of the cool stuff of “Saving Private Ryan”. But enough about other movies. In case you don’t know, the actual attack is buried about an hour and a half into this movie. Till then, it’s a story of two guys and a girl and everyone else building up for the Japanese attack.
Ben Affleck plays Rafe, Josh Hartnett is Danny. They’re a couple of boyhood friends from Tennessee who dream of one day being fighter pilots. The first thing I notice is that Affleck does a terrible Southern accent and Hartnett could play Tommy Lee Jones’ son, but anyway, they soon enlist, get stationed in Hawaii and meet up with Evelyn, a military nurse played by Kate Beckinsale. Of course, both our Tennessee boys fall in love with the same girl. But this girl can act! She actually manages to rise above lines like “I know every time I see a sunset I’ll think of you”. This falls under the category of “things people never say in real life”.
The love story build up, I have to say, while slow at times, is never that bad. I recognize that Hollywood has to give us characters to bond with, yes, to feel for. And while if you’re a guy it all seems to only get in the way as we head towards the good war scenes, I learned to live with it.
But let’s get to the really good part – the attack by the Japs(yeah, they use that word in the movie, maybe twice). And what an attack it is! The reality is sensational. The “surprise” element the Japanese pulled off is well played out. (Is the surprise thing why some racists call Asians “sneaky”?) This 35 minute sequence is fantastic. Watch how those at Pearl Harbor fail to notice the attack even when torpedoes and gunfire rain down on them. It reminds me of interviews I’ve seen with people who have survived disasters. They always seem to say “I didn’t realize what was happening – it was all so surreal”. That’s what I’m talking about. The chaos, the devastation. I could see where the $135 million went. Outstanding entertainment for the violence crazed guys in the audience.
Then it was over and the question is “what now?”. I wondered going in how they were going to make a movie about one of the biggest losing situations in American war history and satisfy moviegoers. Then I got my answer. The rest of the movie is built around our revenge, and oh, yes, solving that little “semi-boring” love triangle thing.
So the last half hour is kind of a hokey “Top Gun” revisited as our heroes head out on what appears to be a suicide mission. Funny, as they approach Japan it looks more like Catalina Island and the city of Tokyo looks a lot like Long Beach, but overall the scenery is great and I know they spent plenty filming in Hawaii. And as for all those fears that Asian Americans might be attacked by nutty people all fired up after seeing this movie, let me say I doubt it. The Japanese military are pretty laid back, their commander goes so far as to call off a third wave of attack and laments that he fears the Japanese may have awakened a sleeping giant.
The action sequences make up for much of what comes up short in “Pearl Harbor”. I give it an “8.0” on the scale.
Saturday, May 19th, 2001
It’s the first big animated movie release of the summer! “Shrek” is a Dreamworks movie studio production. These are the guys trying to take a big chunk of the kiddie business away from Disney. One of the Dreamworks executives, Jeffrey Katzenberg, left Disney and ended up suing the mouse-eared people for money he said he was owed. It’s not pretty and I mention all this because the villain in this movie, the evil, all controlling, dwarf-like Lord Farquaard, is said to be patterned after Michael Eisner.
Let’s put all that aside for a bit. “Shrek” is sort of the anti-fairy tale fairy tale. The story is pretty simple. “Shrek” is an ogre living out in the swamps. He’s lonely and bitter but pretends he’s happier all by himself. The voice of Shrek is provided by Mike Meyers and is sort of an Irish-Canadian thing if that makes any sense. One day Shrek stumbles into a talking donkey, voiced by Eddie Murphy. They are, of course, polar opposites. Shrek is quiet and moody, the donkey is talkative and upbeat. Before long, they travel on a mission to rescue a Princess. She is to marry Lord Farquaad, who’s looking to be made a king. The voice of the Princess is done by Cameron Diaz and the Lord’s voice is performed by John Lithgow.
It’s hard to pick on this movie. It’s rare that you get to see an animated kid’s movie that plays around so openly with all the fairy tale stereotypes. There are some hoots. Shrek enjoys some unusual foods, including what appeared to be a bowl full of eyeballs for breakfast. And who can resist laughing when the Princess sings along with a sweet songbird until she hits a note that would make Mariah Carey proud and the bird bursts apart and the Princess cheerfully takes the eggs from it’s nest and fries them up.
Pretty sick, huh? But, sadly, too rare in this movie. Nearly all the fairy tale busting jokes can be seen in the movie previews. Most of the rest of this movie is spent in a fairly tame fairy tale mode. Shrek and the Princess meet, get to know each other, bond, fight, misunderstand each other, keep secrets from each other, well, you know the routine. I wish some of this had been funnier, but it’s not. Yeah, Eddie Murphy the donkey does provide some laughs, but he peters out after a while. “Shrek” soon became a real child’s film without some of the sharp, witty writing I’ve seen in, gulp, the Disney movies. I actually hate saying that but I can remember many more laughs while watching “The Lion King” or “Toy Story”. Plus, I’m not sure the very young kid’s aren’t going to be horrified by some of the goings on. Hey, the Dreamworks people started this battle with Disney. They’re going to have to get used to the comparisons.
I guess I had heard so much about this movie, maybe my expectations were too high. I have to say the “animation” was something I’ve never seen before. I sometimes felt like I was watching a 3-D movie. I guess it’s breakthrough technology which is worth seeing more of, but I found it distracting at times. I also believe the Disney references will go over most people’s heads, including Lord Farquaad and his neat and fascist looking empire, which is supposed to be a swipe at the “magic kingdom”. The appearance of Snow White and Cinderella and the rest of the fairy tale world is a more recognizable spoof, but it isn’t funny enough for long enough. I give “Shrek” a 6.0. The effort is there. The results just come up a bit short.
Saturday, May 12th, 2001
Heath Ledger, which actually sounds more like an accountant’s name than a actor’s, gets his first big starring role after “breaking through” as the oldest kid in Mel Gibson’s movie from last summer, “The Patriot”. He’s cast as William, a peasant in medieval times who dreams of being a knight and winning great jousting contests. As the movie opens, he gets his chance when the knight he serves dies suddenly. William then steps in and takes his place and a new career is born.
One of the first things you will notice is the odd placement of rock music to accompany the action. Specifically, the “boom-boom thwack” of the 70’s tune by Queen called “We Are The Champions”. What the heck is this doing being played for a crowd hundreds of years ago? But that didn’t bother me. It actually helped this movie, because it needed plenty of help.
“A Knight’s Tale” is another one of those smack dab in the middle movies for me. I wasn’t annoyed or offended but I wasn’t entertained much either. It just kind of sits there, just as I just kind of sat there, waiting for something to happen. Yes, we have men riding on horseback jabbing long dangerous sticks into each other, and yes, we have a story of the underdog peasant trying to keep his true identity a secret while winning these contests, and , of course, getting the seemingly unobtainable girl, but despite all that “plot”, something seemed to be missing.
Maybe I’m just getting too jaded for this stuff. I was thinking “here’s another very predictable movie”. “Shakespeare In Love” or “Romeo and Juliet” or one of those plots reworked is all it seemed to be. Rufus Sewell played the big rival to William, trying to beat him with the lance and trying to beat him to the girl. Rufus added some edge to this movie, acting his heart out as the big villain. William also gets a cast of assistants, all aware of his real identity and all loyal to him. They act their heart out too. And Heath Ledger is a capable actor who brings all he can to the part of William. By the end, we also get to see William’s old blind Dad, whose chief duty seems to be to get our emotions up and running. For me, it didn’t work. This was a movie I tried to like a lot more than I did. The jousting scenes were even pretty realistic! And I’m a guy who sort of dreaded seeing this movie, having been dragged to the “Medieval Times” restaurant some time back. I can’t stand really bad fake fights, but the contests in this movie were well played out.
So what’s wrong with this picture? Well, everything and nothing. Everything because from beginning to end I kept waiting for things to jack up a level or two and they never do. Nothing, because that’s how I felt sitting there. Nothing. Sort of like watching a very pleasant shuffleboard match between two old guys in the park. I’m pretty sure that’s not what the makers of this movie were aiming for. It doesn’t help that this movie is also very English with accents and references that quite a few people will cock their heads at and say “Huh?”. There’s even a guy playing a character named Geoffrey Chaucer and his role is to wax eloquent for the crowds at the jousting matches. Now do you have an idea of what’s wrong with this movie? I wanted this to turn out better, I really did. I give “A Knight’s Tale” a 5.0.
Friday, May 4th, 2001
It’s the kick-off of the summer movie season and in what will probably become known as the summer of sequels, here’s the first one to arrive.
I wasn’t a big fan of the first mummy movie, and as I watched this one unfold, I figured out why. But more on that later.
With “The Mummy Returns”, we have a bigger budget, which means more special effects, which is good, but more characters and more story, which is not so good.
Brendon Fraser returns as Rick O’Connell, sort of the poor man’s Indiana Jones. He’s now married to Evelyn, played again by Rachel Weisz. This time around they have an eight year old son. Has it been that long since the first movie? (Actually only two years have passed)
The movie wastes no time getting to the action. After a quick intro involving a new character known as “The Scorpian King”, Rick and Evelyn and the kid go right to work digging up ancient artifacts which unleash the usual potentially horrific chain of events. And once again, there are people right on their trail seeking to either become very wealthy or to take over the world.
This time instead of one super evil villain, we get two. Arnold Voosloo returns as the main bad Mummy. He’s out to dig up the Scorpian King (played by the professional wrestler “The Rock”) so he can use the guy’s deadly army to, yes, it’s true, to take over the world.
I like these two villains. Voosloo is great in fact, at keeping this movie on a semi-serious note. Because Rick and Evelyn and the rest of our “heroes” sure put things on a goofy course. Never for a minute do they seem like they are in any real danger. They can swat away all evil at a moments notice and throw in a wisecrack or two for good measure. This wears me out after a while. I’m not ten years old. Which brings me to why I’m not real impressed with these movies. They’re for the crowd that likes professional wrestling and “Zena” and “Hercules”. You know, fake fights and phony looking sets. People that take hit after hit and their make-up still looks fresh. Which reminds me, movies like “The Mummy Returns” are using more and more computer generated stunts. I’m starting to like the old time real stunts better.
Now, having said all that, there are some good things to say here. There’s never a boring moment in this movie. The action comes at you time and time again and I did laugh a few times at some of the throwaway lines. There was also some care taken to build a real historical context to the characters. It turns out Rick and Evelyn and their little kid do have a purpose and I guess powers to match the mummy monsters. In fact, there’s so much going on here and so many people involved, it’s easy to get lost. But I appreciated the effort to explain things.
So in the end, maybe ignore my viewpoint. I’m giving “The Mummy Returns” a 6.0, but the people around me in the theatre seemed very pleased. This movie is going to make a lot of money and there are many more “Mummies” to come.
