Which is, apparently, the fear of an all out nuclear war between the United States and Russia. There’s a funny scene right at the opening of this movie – well, I found it funny. The President of the United States (as played by James Cromwell) is surrounded by his top aides and cabinet members and they are rehearsing for a “nuclear event”. At the conclusion, the Prez turns to his CIA chief (as played by Morgan Freeman) and says something like, “you know, we’re still going through this fire drill like it’s the Cold War, are the Russians really our biggest threat?”
Well, it turns out, our biggest nuclear fear is not from the Russians, but , ta-dah, the Nazis. Yes, the Nazis are back. Yes, this movie is set in 2002 and the Nazis are back. Hitler’s boys are planning to hit us with a nuke, hope we blame the Russians, and then launch an all out war against them. While the Nazis sit back and pick up the pieces after it’s over and I guess end up dominating the world. Or maybe it’s not the Nazis, maybe it’s CHAOS from the old “Get Smart” show. I don’t know. I guess it’s not politically correct to make the evil nuclear terrorists, say, Middle Eastern guys?But I shouldn’t be so cynical. After all, this is based on the Tom Clancy book and didn’t he write about terrorist planes flying into the White House and the Capitol building before September 11th? Maybe he should be required reading at the FBI.
Ben Affleck takes the role of Jack Ryan, the CIA guy with all the right hunches, made popular in a series of past movies by Harrison Ford. First of all, you Ben Affleck, are no Harrison Ford. Not even close. Of course, this time super Jack is back to being a novice in the CIA, not Ford’s accomplished Jack Ryan who already has the President’s confidence. But, still, Affleck is weak. And I mean that literally. He’s weak voiced, weak looking and weak acting. He just doesn’t have that superhero appeal. They give him a girlfriend so he has a reason for living but that subplot is weak too. In fact, this whole movie is pretty weak.
Here are some examples – the nuke explodes at what I guess is supposed to be the Super Bowl Game in Baltimore. Yeah, that will happen. Not the nuke thing – I mean the Super Bowl in Baltimore. And they use a domed stadium. When did that happen? Also, after the nuke blows up a big chunk of Baltimore, Jack Ryan heads over to investigate how the nuke got in the U.S. As he’s headed for danger, an associate calls the Baltimore police to help him out and they get there in about five minutes. Hello? Didn’t a nuke just explode? How do they have the time and manpower to respond to Jack’s problem?
And wait till you see the lame hospital scene with the injured and dying people and the comforting doctors. Yikes. About the only thing worthwhile here is following President Cromwell through the crises. He’s got a fine group of veteran actors around him and they are worth watching. It also takes Affleck out of the movie for a while and that’s a good thing.
For me “The Sum of All Fears” is that I’m going to have to see Ben Affleck play Jack Ryan again. I give the movie a “5.0” on the scale. Ben gets a “1”.
Friday, May 17th, 2002
How about those people lined up for months to be the first ones to see this movie? I don’t get it- of course, I wouldn’t line up for five minutes to get a burger.
Me, I saw going to this movie more as something I had to do rather than wanted to do. After all, the stench of that “Phantom Menace” movie from three years ago still lingers. I lost about seven bucks and over two hours of my time there.
I was twenty years old when the original “Star Wars” was released. I liked all three original stories. I’m saying this because this current crop of “prequels” seem like they’re targeted to ten year-old boys. The new one a little less so, but my opinion still holds.
In fact I was watching “Phantom Menace” on TV just last weekend and I gagged over the bad acting, silly dialogue and phony fight scenes. “Attack of The Clones” starts out like a video game as Obi-Wan and Anakin are immediately off after a bad guy. They fly through a dark sky, crowded with about a billion obstacles and with the greatest of ease land perfectly on the mark. I was fidgeting in my seat. Bored I guess. Now I felt ten years old. The theatre was crowded and people were still talking, some were moving about and a few cell phones were ringing, so that doesn’t help. But I still believe you have to be ten to appreciate this.
Yes, this movie is colorful and full of stuff to watch but after a while, the alien creatures sort of resemble some kind of 1950’s B-movie monsters like the ones from “Creature From The Black Lagoon”. The actual plot of “Attack of The Clones” does faithfully set-up the “Star Wars” story, and you can amuse yourself a bit there fitting the pieces together. Anakin is on his way to becoming Darth Vader and turning to the “dark side” and all that.
Things do pick up near the end, but until then it’s fight after fight resembling something out of the old “Batman” TV show. All I needed was a few “Pow’s” and “Bam’s” and “Smacks” on the screen and I’d have been all set. But here’s what I did like – R2-D2 and C3PO and Yoda. That little robot thing R2 is still a hoot as he whistles and clangs and toots his way along. Figuring things out, he just goes about helping out while chatty C3PO gets in another jam. They should get their own movie. As for Yoda, he finally gets down to combat, showing some of his Jedi Master moves. It’s actually more funny than exciting but it topped off a pretty good last half hour quite well. It’s too bad about the real humans in this movie- those three leave them in the dust.
“Star Wars – Episode II: Attack of The Clones” is, well, what it is. A set-up movie for Star Wars that should keep ten year olds and those goofy guys who sit in lawn chairs outside the theatre dressed up in their favorite characters clothes quite amused. I give it a “6.0” on the scale.
Tuesday, May 14th, 2002
After I was able to settle down and stop trying to figure out whether or not Al Pacino was wearing a toupee, this wasn’t a bad movie.
Let me back up a bit – Pacino plays LAPD Detective Will Dormer, who is sent to Alaska to help solve a homicide in a small town called Nightmute. Now why would a big city, thirty year cop be sent to a hellhole like Nightmute? Let’s just say it’s a little internal affairs problem sort of like the Rampart scandal. He heads there with his partner, Hap, yes that’s his name, and they meet up with a young eager Nightmute cop named Ellie. She’s played by Hillary Swank. Now why Nightmute seems to have a police force of ten or twenty people is beyond me. The town looks to hold about thirty people.
So Detective Dormer comes in and he’s already a legend to Ellie. In a matter of minutes he sizes up the case and picks up on things the dumb hick cops overlooked. I was not impressed until I realized later that that is the point. He’s going to need that expertise and more to solve his own problems. Because before long, Dormer is way in over his head with his own problems. Problems that make it difficult for him to completely solve the Nightmute murder case. That one involves a high school girl and it’s soon clear her killer is a guy by the name of Walter Finch. This is the character played by Robin Williams. Am I giving away too much? Not at all. If you decide to see this movie, believe me, it isn’t going to be about who killed the high school girl.
It is going to be about the cat and mouse game that goes on between Dormer and the killer Finch. It’s also going to be about the demons that haunt Dormer. You can play a little amateur “crime scene investigation” along with the cops and the killer, or you can put yourself in the shoes of Dormer. Here’s a guy who may or may not be a good guy at heart and it’s really the focal point of this movie. You know that old saying about telling a lie and then another one to cover up the first one and so on and so on. Well, that’s the fix Dormer is in and it doesn’t help that he can’t sleep. That only makes him slip up more in a movie where he has to stay one step ahead of the killer and the Nightmute police force. It does draw you in. Dormer goes from super cop to a cop in one hell of a bind and you wonder how it’s all going to turn out. Pacino is in his usual great acting mode. As for Williams, yeah, as the “nerd turned killer” he’s pretty good and Swank does what she can with the naïve, good cop who is in awe of the master detective role.
“Insomnia” takes a while to build, but it is worth the wait. Rarely do you get to see a movie this creative with a standard “who done it”. I give it an “8.0”.
Friday, May 10th, 2002
Many movies have been made about one spouse cheating on another, but I can’t think of a better presentation than the first hour or so of this movie. Diane Lane plays the part of Connie Sumner, a typical suburban Mom with a loving husband and a nine year -old son. Off she goes one day to do some errands in New York City and fate literally sweeps her into the arms of a stereotypical hot Latin lover, played by Oliver Martinez.
His name is Paul Martel (he’s actually supposed to be a French guy), and he looks like he’s right off the pages of some Danielle Steel or Judith Krantz novel. (Did I get that right? I don’t touch those things) What’s amazing about all this as you watch it on the screen is that Connie would do this with all she has going for her. I mean her husband is Richard Gere – come on, how many women fantasize about that? And it appears they still have a happy and active sex life even after eleven years of marriage. He’s got his own company and she’s got her friends and her charities and her curious, sweet kid. Why risk all that? All right, actually the kid is that one from “Malcolm In The Middle”. The youngest one, and he gets pretty annoying after a while. Maybe I’d ditch him. But, still, why take this chance for a fling with a stranger?
The answer is, for the thrill of it. We also find out that wholesome Connie is actually a very bad girl, if you know what I mean. Hot, young Paul knows just how to push her arousal buttons. But what works even better than the hot sex is the build-up. The writers of “Unfaithful” took the time and attention to detail to bring about Connie’s fling. She doesn’t just hop into bed with Paul. She flirts, she dodges, she runs away. Then she comes back again. And that’s an important detail, because that’s part of the thrill too. For a lady approaching forty years old, Diane Lane is still one hot chick and the movie does not shy away from showing that fact. There’s a scene where she’s on the train back home after her first sex encounter with Paul that’s as good as it gets. She recalls the sex and alternates between smiles and tears and panic. You can’t capture the conflicting emotions that run through a person who has done what she’s done any better.
There’s also a scene later in the movie where Connie is on her way to Paul’s apartment when she bumps into some suburban girlfriends. They end up getting coffee together while Paul smolders in the back round. Listen to the other two ladies discuss having affairs. Great stuff! And then watch Connie react – this is how often how it goes for people who cheat.
Now the second half of “Unfaithful” stumbles a bit. I won’t say much more but let’s just say the affair does end and we’re on to a different kind of story. After all, this is a movie by the guy that brought you “Fatal Attraction”. Enough said.
I can’t say enough though about the careful attention to detail they put into this movie. From the opening scene which depicts a windy day in the New York City suburbs to this guy Paul’s apartment (which is loaded with books) to the train rides Connie takes, to her husbands slow rising suspicions, it’s all there and it all comes in due time. It’s so elaborate, it’s like some kind of a painting . Also, check out some of the dialogue. People will say things that may lead you to believe one thing, when they actually mean another. I kept thinking, ‘oh, the jig is up, she’s caught”, but that wasn’t it at all.
“Unfaithful” is clear proof that there is a difference between those dopey Lifetime network “women in peril” movies and one made with real actors and writers and a real budget. Yeah, this is mostly a “chick flick” (I couldn’t believe how many girlfriend couples there were in the audience), but it’s a worthwhile one for all. I give “Unfaithful” an “8.0” on the scale.
Friday, May 3rd, 2002
I passed up the crowds on their way to see “Spider-Man” to join ten other people to see Woody Allen’s latest. I say latest because in my mind he’s been dead for years, not having made a decent movie since around 1990. It’s my morbid side. I have to know how many more studios will bankroll this guy just because he’s a legend. Eventually, time passes us all by, and Woody, like Lou Gehrig, should have known long ago that time was up.
I guess he does sort of get it. After all, “Hollywood Ending” is about a washed-up mental basket case of a director who gets a chance to once again make a major motion picture. That director, Val Waxman, is of course, played by Woody. Tea Leoni plays Ellie, Val’s ex-wife and current fiancé of a studio executive. She pulls the strings to get him the job. Is it because she really feels he’s the best man for it, or is it because she’s still in love with him or because she feels sorry for him? Take your pick – there’s so little chemistry between Woody and Tea, it’s hard to figure. Remember when Woody’s crazy neurotic behavior was bouncing off of Diane Keaton or Mia Farrow? That was funny stuff. Well, hold on to those memories. They are all you’ve got.
The movie’s main comic plot revolves around the fact that nutty Val suddenly goes psychosomatically blind. That’s right – on the eve of his big return to directing, he’s struck sightless. It’s kind of funny at first because, egged on by his agent, he attempts to keep it a secret and go on to direct the film anyway. This leads us to scene after scene of Woody being asked questions or given choices to make between props and then comically bluffing his way through. Well, comically for a few minutes. It does get old. In fact, so does Woody, who really is looking like an old Grandpa. I never thought I ‘d say this, but those old black glasses actually make him look younger.
“Hollywood Ending” isn’t really a comedy, but it fails as a drama too since Woody is too crazy to care about. So what is it? It’s just another major Hollywood studio wanting to give a legend a movie to make because it’s “cool” to work with Woody. How long before he ends up like Val? The sad answer is probably never. Woody’s phone will always ring with more offers. Can he finally say no? “Hollywood Ending” gets a “4.0” for me. Does that seem generous? Well, I did laugh and I do feel sorry for the old guy.
