Archive for February, 2006
255 – The Cave
Even though I like action movies, and I particularly like movies that take place in inhospitable settings, I was not prepared to like The Cave at all. I saw The Core last year, and although that one wasn’t too good it did have a sense of humor about itself. In other words, it was harmless fun. But when I saw that a movie called The Cave was coming out, I figured we’d all soon be getting a stern lecture on the dangers of spelunking, a treatise on Man versus Creepy Beasties. In short, I expected The Cave to take itself way too seriously.
I was a bit surprised. Sure, it lacked wit, but it wasn’t witless. An old church in a remote area of Romania lies in ruins, blocking what appears to be the entrance to a huge cave. Tough-minded, superskilled cave divers are brought in to investigate. Some remains of previous attempts are seen. Then there’s a cave in (who saw that coming?), and our heroes must find a way out while surviving against the yet-unknown inhabitants of the deepest, darkest cave.
The group is made up of smart people, hotheads, and hotheaded smart people. Okay, they’re all a little smart, but some are more hotheaded than others. It’s also important to note that there are two females among the cavers, and since we have a good idea that some in this intrepid band won’t make it back alive, the odds are that at least one of the females will die. The question is, which one?
To make a simple plot even easier: They dive, there’s a cave-in, they can’t get out, they must go deeper and deeper, and then they run into things that kill them off, one by one. And some things that play with them a little. The film moves pretty quickly, but that’s a double-edged sword. On the one hand, one doesn’t have time to dwell on plot problems, but on the other hand, action scenes look like an MTV video; you can’t see what’s happening, not at all. Who’s fighting whom? Who’s winning? I see that so-and-so got a scratch later – what gave him that? And did he give as good as he got?
The characters aren’t fleshed out at all, which isn’t strictly necessary in these movies. Thankfully, the screenwriters decided against there being any romantic entanglements; why distract the viewer from the real attraction, the journey into the unknown? But one interesting bit about character development – even though these cavers have apparently worked with each other for eons, they’re quick to jump on Jack (Cole Hauser), their leader, for his command decisions. That is, they don’t seem particularly like a well-oiled machine.
The film’s pretty well shot, especially considering nearly all of it takes place in a cave. Hey, it’s tough shooting in a cave. It’s dark, everything looks to be the same color. Leads to boring, boring, boring scenes. The director here got around this by using different colors for some of the scenes, anything to differentiate them from the previous scene. Still, you won’t find any gorgeous vistas here.
At any rate, the plot is mostly plausible, the creatures are seen only glancingly (which is usually a good thing), and the characters aren’t too cardboard. (The acting, however, was a tad wooden all around.) Henry V this ain’t, but it might tickle you if you’re in the right frame of mind.
The Cave: ***
253 – North Country
Posted by frothy in North Country on February 25, 2006
This movie, based on the true story of female miners who sued their company to get equal rights in the workplace, suffers from a malady that affects most true-story movies, and that is that its characters are either REALLY GOOD or REALLY BAD for 80% of the movie, then some of the bad ones magically see the light in the final scenes, this redeeming themselves and helping the hero(ine) to win the day.
Charlize Theron dresses down again, somewhat, as Josie Aimes, a single mom of two kids (by different fathers) who leaves her abusive husband to live with her parents. Her dad Hank works at the local mine, and when Josie runs into an old (and female) schoolmate who encourages her to join the company, Josie reluctantly does so.
But she finds it’s not easy – and that’s not even including the work itself. The men resent her and try every kind of harassment they can think of. The women want her to sit down and take it so they don’t have to suffer, too. Her dad hates her, because she’s in a man’s job (plus, he’s a real misogynist jerk), and her mom doesn’t like her much either, because Josie did, after all, leave her husband, and you’re supposed to stand by your man.
See where the problem lies? The movie tries hard to paint each character with one brush only, and then beats you over the head with that characterization for much of the movie. The script is so obvious, it’s tough not to see the big setup coming, and sure enough it turns out that not all men ARE bad. Why, some were merely confused, and by gosh they’re gonna do the right thing, here in the final ten minutes of the movie! The movie is bookended by court scenes, as various characters testify against or on behalf of the suit. Much of the movie deals with the (sometimes literal) crap that Josie and the other women had to go through, although she’s the only one with any kind of gumption to do do anything about it.
Theron’s pretty good, although this isn’t a “gettin’ ugly” kind of role like that of Aileen Wuornos. Her Josie actually looks pretty throughout the movie, for the most part. But Theron hit all of the right notes and might even have deserved her Oscar nomination. Frances McDormand plays her tough-as-nails friend, who’s a union rep at the plant. McDormand is a great actress, and she turned in a good performance in a made-for-Oscar role. Woody Harrelson (yes, can you imagine) is solid as Josie’s lawyer, a former hockey player.
North Country is manipulative treacle, but even the toughest miner would melt a little during the final scenes, but it’s an outcome that’s telegraphed from the get-go. The fun should be in getting there, but when the characters are given laughable, overwrought dialog to mouth, it’s as much fun as.. well, maybe working in an actual mine.
North Country: **1/2
254 – Saw II
A bunch of people wake up and groggily get to their feet. They’re in a creepy looking room. They don’t know each other. Then they’re informed they have to find a way out of the house in a matter of hours, or the nerve gas they’ve been inhaling will strike ‘em dead as a doornail. Naturally, some booby traps aim to prevent this.
This follow up to the 2004 original could have lapsed into typical sequelitis and just been terribly derivative and dull. You know the drill: Kill a whole slew o’ people in horrible, disgusting ways that in no way further the plot. But Saw II doesn’t quite stoop that low. The horrible, disgusting killings do indeed further the plot.
I am reminded of an old radio program called The Shadow. You might recognize the name, since Alec Baldwin played the titular hero in a 1994 movie. But it began in radio, and there was one episode called “The House That Death Built.” In the episode, people were offed in creative ways by booby traps, such as a gas chamber and a series of shotguns.
It’s usually difficult to translate the unseen horror, like radio can,to a full-length feature film, and indeed most movies fail to do so. But Saw II does do so. You know right away these aren’t characters we’re meant to find appealing, or root for. No needless attention is paid to their backgrounds; all that you get on each character is all that you need to put things together. No dialog is especially wasted, and that – along with the always-fun gore – is what makes this movie work.
Of course, if you don’t like blood in your film, you’re going to really hate this one. It’s everywhere. People spurt from all sorts of orifices, plus some new ones. But things don’t seem to be done with the intent to shock, another point in the movie’s favor.
Saw II: ***
252 – A History of Violence
Posted by frothy in History of Violence on February 21, 2006
The mild-mannered owner of a small-town diner foils an attempted armed robbery (not to mention potential rape and murder) and is immediately exulted as an angel of mercy, hero to the denizens of the placid burg. But it’s soon obvious that there’s more to Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) than meets the eye, particularly when three unsavory characters show up in his diner calling him “Joey” and alluding to a past in Philadelphia.
David Cronenberg’s latest is a mildly fascinating look at what can lie beneath a seemingly innocuous surface, but it turns out that those hidden layers are even shallower than the top one. Josh Olsen’s screenplay doesn’t invite close scrutiny, and his knack for crisp dialog is nearly nonexistent. Too often, events weren’t trumpeted well ahead of time by loose writing.
Mortensen is effectively earnest as Tom, and the ethereal Maria Bello is mostly perfect as his wife (she oscillates from subtle to hammy). Ed Harris is on hand as a one-eyed baddie who’s after Tom. And William Hurt has a showy role as a mob big boss. Note that I said it was showy and not meaty; it’s not a particuarly interesting role, and Hurt seems out of place. Still, he managed to get his fourth Oscar nomination for the movie, which might be more of an indication of the weak supporting-actor field this time around.
The movie seemed well cast – at least it wasn’t miscast to the point where I noticed – and it moved along at a pretty quick clip. In retrospect, that seems a little strange, since there were tertiary storylines that simply didn’t need to be explored. For example, Tom’s son Jack (Ashton Holmes) is having trouble with a bully at school. Do we see that storyline somehow dovetailing with the main one? Nope, it’s just there to toss in some gratuitous violence. Same with the sexcapades of Tom and Edie – yeah I know, a married couple, who knew – their games didn’t necessarily add much to the plot, but they were a fun diversion.
I do wish there’d been more depth given to the main characters, especially Tom. What’s been his motivation? Why did he change? These questions are answered almost offhandedly, in a pat manner that won’t satisfy most viewers. Why didn’t Cronenberg explore these questions further? Instead, he padded the running time with sex and violence that, while entertaining, didn’t do much to further the story. It’s impossible to get into details about that, though, without ruining some of the plot.
A History of Violence does grab you right away, but then it drops you, wanders aimlessly, then keeps you riveted for the final few scenes. Olsen’s weak script is helped enormously by Mortensen and Bello, upon whom the bulk of the acting load rests – at least until Hurt chews the scenery. There’s just enough intensity for the movie to work, although the final scene seems anticlimactic, indeed.
A History of Violence: ***
251 – Brokeback Mountain
Posted by frothy in Brokeback Mountain on February 17, 2006
The story of a long-time romantic relationship between two cowboys should, in a perfect world, be a beautiful tale. It should show that despite the taboo of same-sex relationships, love and compassion can reign supreme. Instead, we’re stuck with a deadeningly dull piece of slop that would put any sentimentalist to sleep if there weren’t so many goshdarn panoramic views of mountains.
Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis del Mar (Heath Ledger) are itinerant cowpokes who sign up to herd a mess o’ sheep across Brokeback Mountains, and during the long drive, they fall for each other. Only it doesn’t happen gradually, it’s lust at first sight, after a cold night in a hot tent up in the mountains. After that, it’s decades of pining and not immediately getting what one wants.
I honestly believe that this movie has been such a big hit (critically and commercially) because of its same-sex theme, rather than because of its, oh I don’t know, good acting or script. The plot is exceedingly simplistic; it’s so easy to follow, you’ll be able to predict the next scene with ease. But because the two principals are men, suddenly what’s such a humdrum story ascends to an exalted level of genius.
Make no mistake, it’s a pretty picture to look at, and I do recommend watching it with the sound off. Maybe you love lovely scenery – there’s a lot of gorgeous setting. Or maybe you’re a straight woman or gay man and think Ledger and Gyllenhaal are hot hunks. With no sound, you’ll be very happy. Turn the sound on, though, and you’ll quickly realize there’s no there, there. The problem with being a Beautiful Person on the outside, of course, is that people often assume you’re a dullard inside. When Ennis or Jack speaks, there aren’t pearls of wisdom that come dropping out; no, they’re more like balls of silt, spoken either sotto voce or outright mumbled, the better to fame the words as Profound. There’s nothing profound about the movie, other than the vast infinity of the untamed mountains.
The movie perks up only when other actors show up. Randy Quaid has a few short scenes, and he easily outacts the younger leads. Michelle Williams, who plays Ennis’s wife Alma, and Anne Hathaway, who plays Jack’s wife Lureen, light up the screen when they’re there, showing more vigor and passion with the hook of an eyebrow than either of the lunkheaded leads can with every expressionless countenance they can conjur. Ledger, who seemed to be channelling Steve McQueen’s look, mumbles incoherently through much of the movie; this was partly owing to the chaw in his mouth (I presume), but still – when trying to be Profound, it is wise to be Understandable.
I believe that this movie was swept up in hype, as people were first astonished at the man-on-man sex scenes (which looked and sounded as loving as a rape scene, although I’m no expert on gay sex scenes) and then proud of themselves for deigning to watch it. It’s a real shame a taboo like this couldn’t have been broken by a solid, adult film instead of the crappy, one-dimensional cliches and characterizations that screenwriter Larry McMurtry came up with; somehow, in the world of this movie, laconic equals deep.
Brokeback Mountain: *1/2
250 – Junebug
Madeleine (Embeth Davidtz), an art dealer in Chicago journeys to North Carolina to visit a reclusive artist with her husband George, and meets her new in-laws for the first time in this slow-moving, disappointing melodrama.
See, George is from a wacky, somewhat boisterous family, whereas Madeleine is more reserved; friendly, perhaps, but she doesn’t wear her emotions on her sleeve, as George’s family (his mom, dad, brother, and sister-in-law) do. Yes, it’s a culture-clash movie, a fish-out-of-water dollop of treacle and mush. Only not well done.
George and Madeleine have been married just a few months, but no one in George’s close-knit family has met her. It’s obvious from the git-go that they’re from different worlds, when Madeleine does that European kissy kissy on both cheeks thing. And she’s quickly introduced to the clan – mother Peg, dowdy and domineering; father Eugene, taciturn and methodical; brother Johnny, angry and ignorant; and sister-in-law Ashley, pregnant, optimistic, and unburdened by brains.
There’s not much of a narrative at work here; Ashley quickly senses she has someone new to talk to and adopts Madeleine for the short time they’ll be visiting. Exuberant and bouncy, Ashley chats idly with Madeleine but reveals to the rest of us that things aren’t all that good with her and Johnny, who’s struggling through the nuances of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in a GED class. While interacting with Ashley and the rest of the family, Madeleine finds time to attend a church function with them, too. You know, the family that churches together…. or something.
Amy Adams, as Ashley, garnered an Oscar nod for her work here, but to me it wasn’t anything special. In fact, the entire movie is nothing special, because nothing happens. There’s no real plot development, and there’s certainly no character development. I kept waiting for something, a twist, an epiphany, maybe Ashley saying, “That’s it, Johnny, I’m leaving!” or something. Anything. None of these people had a pulse.
Which leads me to the one aspect I did like – Scott Wilson as Eugene, the dad. He has the fewest lines of the main characters, but he made every one of them count. Eugene is an amateur woodworker, and a man who’s content to just let things be what they are. He’s not the type to put his arm around someone; he just keeps on keepin’ on. Eugene, in other words, just is, while everyone else floats like butterflies and stings like bees.
There are some unexplored themes in the movie, which always aggravates me. For example, there might be a scene with two people, and maybe some blunt hints are dropped as to What’s Really Going On, and you think, “Hm, I bet they resolve this somehow!” but they don’t. They never do. This should have been known Unresolved Mysteries.
Junebug: **
249 – Hustle and Flow
Posted by frothy in Hustle and Flow on February 13, 2006
Terrence Howard plays a Memphis pimp who decides to give hardcore rapping a shot in this arresting, gritty drama. Howard plays DJay, who pimps girls out of his beat-up Chevy Nova. When he comes into the possession of an electronic keyboard, DJay plays around with it and finds he has a talent for writing and performing hard, violent lyrics.
On its face, this seems like a typical “man rises from the ashes of his hardscrabble life to experience success and then watches it all crash down around him” kind of movie. It’s not a movie about suffering, success, and redemption, in other words. But it’s not as predictable as it may seem at first blush, and Howard is not your typical actor, by any shot.
DJay lives with his small stable of prostitutes in a tumble-down shack in the Memphis ghetto. As pimps go, he’s not exactly Donald Trump. Some dance for an exotic club during the day and hook at night; some hook all day. But the money’s not rolling in for DJay, who remains somewhat confident that he’ll someday come out ahead. When he obtains the keyboard, inspiration strikes, and a chance encounter with an old classmate (Anthony Anderson) who’s now a producer (of sorts) gives DJay the opportunity to jump out of the rotten life he’s carved for himself.
This never feels like a typical rise-and-fall story, and that’s thanks in no small part to the powerful performance by Howard, who’s much better here than in the critically lauded (by some) Crash. Appearing with Howard in Crash was Ludicris, who also has a big role in Hustle and Flow – hey, some rappers are very good actors, it turns out. Howard, aided by a crisp script from Craig Brewer, who also directed, never portrays DJay as simply a nice guy with some flaws, someone who’s been handed a bad hand and is making the best of it. It’s clear that DJay’s made all of his own choices, and the situation he finds himself in – depending on hookers for his livelihood – is of his own doing.
But neither does the script show DJay as being entirely bad, either, as evidenced by some surprisingly tender, moving scenes between DJay and Key (Anderson) and DJay and Shug, his pregnant woman. These scenes don’t come off as stilted or insincere, and that’s thanks especially to Howard’s strong performance. True, too, are the scenes in which DJay lays down a rap track in his home; you can feel the rage seeping through your television.
This movie might be a difficult sell to those who have trouble relating to the environment and atmosphere in which DJay operates. Undoubtedly those who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks will recognize aspects of their own lives, identifying strongly with one or more of the characters. But even those of us who have never lived in squalor, who’ve generally had advantages that others do not, can appreciate the intense, gray world in which DJay and his associates live. Had this been a simple, typical biography of a musician from the mean streets, it wouldn’t have had near the effectiveness, the passion of Hustle and Flow. The movie intrigues you, makes you want to know what happens to DJay, even when it’s obvious he’s a bit of a jerk. But because he’s not a stupid man, his actions cannot be painted as simply good or simply bad. Howard, in particular, is well deserving of his critical accolades here.
Hustle and Flow: ***1/2
248 – Capote
To begin with, how you feel about Capote the movie will depend almost entirely on how you feel about Philip Seymour Hoffman’s portrayal of him. Some will find his highly mannered performance to be highly grating, while others will note that that’s how the real Capote looked and sounded.
I fall into the former group. I just couldn’t stomach Hoffmann’s high-pitched whine. I also didn’t care for the breakneck editing, or even the long, tiresome shots of nothing in particular happening. I felt the movie was pretty poorly put together, to be quite frank about it.
Although it’s a biography of the writer, the film covers the time Capote spent researching and writing his magnum opus, In Cold Blood, from his assignment by The New Yorker to cover the legal proceedings to the final publication of his “nonfiction novel,” several years later. The focus is on Capote’s relationship with the murderers of the title, particularly Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.). Capote figures if he gets close to Smith and Dick Hickock, he’ll get information he can use in his book. Is he using the killers, or does he really care for him? You wouldn’t know from a movie whose script has Capote constantly talking about himself, no matter what the topic is. What, you killed four people in their beds? Pshaw, you should hear about my upbringing. And on it goes.
As I said, Hoffman’s performance is quite mannered – some might say flamboyant – and there will no doubt be plenty of you out there who will think he was spot on, quite a show, and all that. And there will be plenty others who think about five minutes of hearing him “talk Capote” would be about four minutes too long.
So on to the others in the cast. Catherine Keener, who’s been so great in movies like Being John Malkovich and The Interpreter, acts circles around Hoffman. Yes, circles. Keener plays novelist Harper Lee, she of To Kill a Mockingbird fame, and she absolutely disappears into the role – with two exceptions, her dazzling, dancing eyes. Keener is superb, clearly deserving of her Oscar nomination. Lee has a pretty good idea of what Capote’s all about, as does his lover, Jack Dunphy (Bruce Greenwood). Chris Cooper is along as the sheriff in charge of the case, and Bob Balaban is Capote’s publisher.
There’s far too much focus on the Wonder That Is Truman Capote for a film that insists on covering only one period in his life. Capote is manipulative, egotistical, and constantly condescending. Not an appealing guy, to be sure. And that’s fine, but we never really get a sense of what he was about, just how this one event affected him.
Interminable and overwrought, Capote is not worthy of its many accolades.
Capote: **
247 – Good Night, and Good Luck.
Posted by frothy in Good Night and Good Luck on February 7, 2006
Good Night, and Good Luck is a singularly gripping, powerful movie about the epic battle between a blustery, Red-obsessed senator and a resolved veteran newsman. Photographed in stark black and white and infused with a real 1950s feel, George Clooney’s sharp homage to one of the greatest journalists America’s ever known is utterly captivating and discomfiting.
Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn) was one of the biggest stars in CBS News as the host of “Person to Person” and “See It NoW.” When he gets wind of a soldier who’s been fired from the Air Force for a tenuous Communist connection, Murrow springs into action, choosing to use Senator Joseph P. McCarthy’s own words and actions against him, rather than attacking the man.
What Murrow did was nothing short of astonishing. This was the mid-1950s. The press genuflected to royalty (i.e., politicos) much more than exercised genuine critical analysis of it. What’s more, McCarthy’s fellow senators did little to prevent the man from running roughshod over the rights of those suspecting of being “card-carrying Communists.” With no press to question him and no colleagues to rein him in, McCarthy had carte blanche to root out the evil-doin’ Reds from all facets of American life.
The stand that Murrow took – putting the reputations of himself, producer Fred Friendly (Clooney), and the CBS network on the line – took an incalculable amount of courage. One misstep by Murrow and his team, and his career would be over. (As it turned out, his undoing of McCarthy was also his own undoing, but that was less his fault than the fault of CBS chief William Paley.)
More than fifty years have passed since Murrow won by decision over McCarthy (the senator was censured by his colleagues, which allowed him to remain in the Senate but severely diminished his influence), but the events that take place in this film resonate deeply today. Indeed, it is not unimaginable to see a politican like McCarthy run amok in a avaricious grab for power and prestige. The passage of time, however, allows us to reflect perhaps a bit more objectively, to examine the fight for the civil rights of every man, woman, and child in the United States. How far have we come in the ensuing half-century? Who are the Murrows of today?
Strathairn is nothing short of remarkable. He’s not an especially large man, but he has such gravitas in this film that he seems to fill the screen even when he’s merely sitting in the background. He is a man of many faces and expressions, and every one of them seems to ring perfectly true. Strathairn has knocked around Hollywood for more than a quarter century, earning scores of accolades from his peers and the media, but he’s never been a leading man in a such a widely praised film. Indeed, he’s the kind of actor who disappears into roles, who is a superb character actor, adding color and depth to every role he touches. He’s been nominated for an Academy award at this writing, and he stands a good chance at bringing home the statuette. It’s long overdue.
Strathairn is ably supported by a well-picked cast, including Robert Downey Jr. in his fortieth comeback, Frank Langella as Paley, and Clooney as producer Friendly. Even more beneficial, though, is the look and feel of the movie, and the near-flawless direction by Clooney. Clooney wisely stuck to the main tet-a-tet between Murrow and McCarthy, rather than building up Murrow as a character first; indeed, there’s little else in the movie besides the row with McCarthy. For one thing, we learn virtually nothing about the personal lives of Friendly and Murrow. And that omission works very well within the structure of this film.
Good Night, and Good Luck is a mesmerizing glimpse at how the power of the press can be used to uphold the rights of man, and a chilling snapshot at what can happen if ego and authority go unchecked.
Good Night, and Good Luck: ****
244 – The Constant Gardener
Posted by frothy in Constant Gardener on February 6, 2006
Ralph Fiennes plays a reserved British diplomat (and gardener of the title) whose activist wife Tessa (Rachel Weisz) is murdered in deepest, darkest Africa. Who did it? Was it her driver and partner-in-outrage? Was it a group of bandits, common in the area? Was it a sinister government operative?
Justin Quayle is haunted by the suspicion that his wife had been unfaithful in the months preceding her death. He knows that she had been working with local AIDS activists in Kenya, but after her death he decides to look into the matter a bit more carefully, deciding against leaving the matter in the hands of the British High Commission, for which he works. This laconic gardener tries desperately to understand what his wife was up to, and perhaps who or what caused her imminent demise.
Fiennes is excellent as the quiet Justin, a man who’s always been resigned to circumstances – as opposed to Tessa, who’s always shaped her own circumstances. Fiennes has a very expressive face, saying so much with so few words, that one does get a fuller sense of what his character was going through – and what he was up against. But in this movie, he takes a backseat to the acting chops of Rachel Weisz – who knew? I mean, who could tell that the strong female sidekick of movies like The Mummy and Constantine, the requisite love interest, would outact Ralph Fiennes, who seems to be a perennial Oscar contender?
The gripping story, adapted by Jeffrey Caine from John Le Carre’s novel, takes the viewer through several areas of Africa and Europe, spectacularly filmed (particularly the final scenes). Sure, it’s a Le Carre novel, but the beautiful cinematography and crisp editing – not to mention the timeliness of the plot, in a world full of conspiracies du jour – make all of the events seem chillingly plausible. The dual themes of love and betrayal are well represented here.
Weisz was nominated for an Oscar, and the movie also received nods for best adapted screenplay, best original score, and best editing.
The Constant Gardener: ***
245 – Munich
Gripping, almost unwatchable drama about the assassinations of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, West Germany. Steven Spielberg’s narrative is never complacent, and it never seems to take the easy way out, choosing not to portray either side as completely good or bad.
Told from the viewpoint of Avner (Eric Bana, who looks like a younger Liam Neeson), a man charged by Israel to avenge the deaths of the athletes – no matter what the cost. Avner is given a small group of men with which to carry out his task: Kill all 11 members of the terrorist group Black September.
Although not quite as evocative or provocative (to me) as Spielberg’s earlier Schindler’s List, Munich is compelling nonfiction, crisply moving Avner and his crew from target to target and juxtaposing his thirst for revenge with his thoughts of his family, including his newborn daughter. Spielberg does a good job, too, of compelling the viewer to care about Avner, even while the latter mows down bad men using guns and bombs and other toys.
The movie is unsettling, probably much more so if you remember the events of the 1972 Olympics, which I do not. In fact, considering I am not Jewish and do not remember those events, this movie still unnerved me quite a bit. One of the recurring themes is the old “eye for an eye” mantra that pops up in any revenge tale. Which is preferred – sinking to the level of our enemies, or rising above it? It’s not a question that’s easily answered.
Bana is very good as Avner, as is Geoffrey Rush (whom I almost mistook for James Woods) as Avner’s liaison with Mossad. There’s not a slacker in the bunch, though, no insincere performances, no flat notes.
The movie manages to be eerily compelling considering that the outcome is already known – that it, in fact, is still fresh in the minds of many people. Schindler’s List had the benefit of arriving more than 50 years after the Holocaust, but with the events in Munich so chronologically close, it would have been easy for the story to lose its footing, to perhaps expose itself as propaganda one way or another. But it doesn’t. Although it is pro-Israeli, it is not so to the exclusion of anti-Israeli views; to wit, it is not posited as a clear honorable-revenge story with an easily seen resolution.
Munich: ***1/2
-
You are currently browsing the archives for February, 2006
People Had This to Say