So, exactly why do you want to see this movie? Need a patriotic war fix because we don’t get to see much real action during this hunt for Bin Ladin? Or, are you just an action picture fan and this looks like a good one?
It’s funny, there’s all these media stories about what you’re able to handle at the movies since September 11th, and they’re all mostly stupid. It seems they were wrong. They delayed the releases of all pictures with blood and figured you wanted just “feel good” stuff. Then when nobody showed up, they decided you wanted violent stuff. That has led to a pushed up release date for this movie, which was scheduled to come out in January. That was a warning sign to me, because January is usually a graveyard spot for the movie studios to dump off some pretty horrible movies.
All in all though, “Behind Enemy Lines” isn’t too bad. It’s set during the Bosnia situation from a few years back and centers on the efforts of a Navy aircraft carrier crew to retrieve a missing navigator whose plane was shot down , well, shot down, “Behind Enemy Lines”. I will put it that way, but just like that crazy time, it’s hard to figure out who the enemy really is. That was the time of Croats, the Serbs and the Muslims, remember? The “ethnic cleansing” and all that.
Owen Wilson plays the navigator, a Lieutenant Burnett. Gene Hackman plays the aircraft carrier’s commander, Admiral Riegart. Yes, Hackman is once again in a lot of movies right now. At least three by my count. And, Wilson seems like a mistake in casting. He’s too surfer dude, give me another drag on that joint kind of guy. The more he keeps his mouth shut, the better. And that’s because there are some awesome action sequences in this movie. Great slow-mo shots of the plane coming apart as it’s shot down, and the same for some land mine explosions and shoot outs. I was riveted. I’ve never been to Bosnia, but with the snow and the mountains and the blown-up cities, this passes for as close as you can get without being there.
If you’re a patriotic kind of person, you might get a kick out of the coalition stuff. The Admiral has to report to a NATO commander, who is appears to be from Spain and could give a damn about rescuing our guy, he’s more concerned about the peace process. Annoying Europeans! I give this movie high marks for navigating through the tricky waters of the politics of coalition building, while still trying to maintain a level of exciting “Americans in action”.
I give “Behind Enemy Lines” a “7.0” , but believe me, I did want to take off a point because the ending is so ludicrous. But then I figured, that could actually be a tribute to this movie because until that point, I must have felt it was so realistic. But the guy does pull off some escape stunts that made my eyes roll. But you flag waving folks will love that ending.
Friday, November 16th, 2001
Oooh, just in time to distract us from this major war on terrorism is what some expect to be the largest money making film of all time. That is some hype. How can any movie stand up to those expectations? Well, this one almost does.
I have not read the Harry Potter books. To some, that means I am not qualified to see, much less review, this movie. Like that matters to me. The success of the books is now very clear to me. Most of us felt pretty powerless as kids. If you can write a story with enough magic and imagination to make an eleven year old boy seem like king of the universe, kids will line up to read it. And, yes, they’ll line up to see the movie too.
Harry Potter is a wizard. His good and magical parents have been killed and Harry the infant is left with his mother’s dumbo sister and her husband and their son. Think “Cinderella” for this part of the story. Harry’s mistreated and misunderstood and eventually the higher powers take him away to the academy for young wizards and witches, called Hogswarts. Don’t ask me, that’s what they call it. This is where you learn to harness and refine your magical powers and then go on to, well, I actually don’t know. I’ll have to wait for the next movie.
Harry is, of course, the star pupil ( I won’t tell you why that is so), and along with discovering himself, he and two buddies he’s picked up along the way, work on the mysteries of the “Sorcerer’s Stone”. Think “The Hardy Boys” meets “Indiana Jones” for this part of the movie. But that’s not to downgrade things. This is a very entertaining movie. The excitement includes a huge troll that looks a lot like “Shrek”, a huge three-headed dog, a huge and elaborate chess game and plenty of wands and spells.
I have to admit I did nod off a bit because this thing is two and half hours long and it stars three kids. Now I’ve got nothing against kids, but as actors, I often lose interest. Except if it’s that “I see dead people” kid. But for a kid’s movie, there’s some intricacy to the plot and some gross moments. Plus, watch all the old English actors in this movie. From Maggie Smith to Richard Harris to Alan Rickman, they have a great time hamming it up. They seem so competent though, I kept wondering why they can’t handle the problems with the sorcerer’s stone. Which reminds me of another thing I always think about when I see movies with witches and wizards. How does anything get done if everybody can go about performing magic? Or, why is there anything to do if everybody’s on the same side? You just go “shazam” or something and all’s well. You follow that? Ah, not important really.
“Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone” does focus a lot on introducing us to all the characters and the scene setting, and that does slow down things a bit. But I didn’t mind. I’ll watch these kids in the next movie too. Like Luke in “Star Wars”, Harry is going to have plenty of enemies to deal with, and friends to help him. The hype is so big for this movie though. I give it a “7.0” only because of that and because I’m not ten years old.
Friday, November 9th, 2001
Here comes a very important warning right upfront. If you’ve seen the commercials for this movie and are expecting a roaring comedy, forget it. Yes, I know, it looks like there are a lot of fat people jokes, and depending on your sense of humor, they might be pretty funny to you. Plus, this movie was made by the guys who brought you “There’s Something About Mary”, so it’s got to be funny. Well, sorry, this movie is a lot of things, but funny is not one of them.
“Shallow Hal” is played by Jack Black, a chubby guy who only likes to date gorgeous women. Of course, he’s often turned down. But, believe it or not, the message of this very politically correct movie is that it’s not because Hal is unattractive, it’s because he’s shallow. Yes, the pretty girls are turned off by Hal because he seems to be only interested in how beautiful they are on the outside. Now, isn’t that lovely?
Bring in Tony Robbins now, and he puts Hal under a spell so that Hal only sees the inner beauty of women. He then falls in love with Rosemary, a “full-figured” woman played by Gwyneth Paltrow. Now I’m doing it. Okay, she’s a porker. Three hundred plus I’d say. But the fat acceptance people, who have called for a boycott of this movie once again, don’t know what they’re talking about.
First of all, Rosemary the fat one is rarely seen. Mostly we see Rosemary through Hal’s eyes and she looks a lot like the beautiful Gwyneth Paltrow. I think this was a mistake. Not that I needed to see a lot of lard coming at me over and over, but the growing love affair between Rosemary and Hal doesn’t play as well when Rosemary looks like Gwyneth, and not like, well, Gwyneth in a fat suit. I got a little sleepy eyed. Throw in the fact that I’m not sure when I’m seeing people through Hal’s rose colored eyes or as they really are, and the whole thing is pretty much a downer. How funny is it when Rosemary breaks another restaurant chair? Would it be funnier if she looked like a fat lady or, as it is in the movie, when she looks like Gwyneth? And what is the purpose of Jason Alexander in this movie as Hal’s friend? He’s shallow too, or is he?
What’s he’s not, is funny and a couple of old Seinfeld type jokes slip in here and they largely fail.
The last twenty minutes of this movie are almost entirely devoted to one of the strangest moral lessons I can recall seeing in a movie. This is when Hal now sees Rosemary at the weight she really is, and other characters reveal their own shallow weaknesses, and it’s one big politically correct blubbering mess. All right, I admit, the kids in the hospital burn unit got to me. But’s that’s all. The rest of “Shallow Hal”, is well, very shallow. I don’t need movies disguised as comedies to teach me that fat people can be very good people too. And of course, not only does Rosemary volunteer at that children’s burn unit, she’s a Peace Corps member too. Enough! I give “Shallow Hal” a “5.0”. But if you’re going in for laughs, you’ll hate it more.
Friday, November 2nd, 2001
The first of the holiday season’s kiddie movies is here. But I don’t know. Will little children be able to go back to the movies after all that’s happened? Especially given the title of this movie and that it’s about scaring kids and all. What do you think? Can they handle it?
Judging by the crowd and the way they reacted to things, I’d say the kids are all right. Monsters, Inc. is a company run by monsters. The kind of monsters you may have imagined were under your bed or in your bedroom closets. Their job is to come out at night, scare you and collect your screams. Yes, collect them. They are apparently the chief component to fuel the monsters energy system. One kids scream can light up a whole building. Do you think the writers were spoofing our energy crises from a few months back? I think this solution is as good as anyone old Governor Davis came up with last spring. Why not just harness a kid’s panic energies?
Our three main monsters are voiced by John Goodman, Billy Crystal and Steve Buscemi. Goodman and Crystal are a team, a couple of good guys called Sully and Mike. Buscemi plays Randall, their chief rival. When I say rival I mean they are competing for the Monsters, Inc. all time scare “record”. And it gets ugly. To the point that a real kid is transported from her bedroom and into the monsters kingdom, which is a major problem. It is believed that if a kid touches a monster, the monster dies. So now, who is really scaring who?
That’s your basic set-up in a movie that looks a lot like “Toy Story”, but plays to a younger crowd. I was pretty glad when they moved past the set-up scenes establishing the monster society because it was getting pretty repetitive. But the movie picks up significantly when the little girl arrives in monsterland. She appears to be about two years old with some language abilities and immediately refers to the Goodman character as “kitty”. That’s pretty cute. He goes from fright to attachment to her and it’s cute. What else can I say? There are some clever lines and some other adult jokes, but the movie is mostly cute. Although, during these sensitive times, is it a good idea to have a bio-containment team on the scene? They show up every time there’s a risk of human contact at Monsters, Inc. and it started to eerily reflect a real life anthrax scare. Okay, I’m just kidding there. But with all the anthrax scares we’ve had the last few weeks, too bad those screams can’t be converted into energy.
I had a good time, but I wasn’t as overwhelmed as I was with the “Toy Story” movies. John Goodman was a great choice as the big old monster with the big old heart. But Billy Crystal sounded so much like Nathan Lane I got distracted. As the frantic sidekick, it mostly didn’t work there as far as funny goes. The kid though – that voice. Well, it’s all so cute. I give “Monsters, Inc.” a 7.0 on the scale. Did I mention it’s cute?
