Change Your Image
TeachStuph
Reviews
Gran Torino (2008)
Good, but not Great
Clint Eastwood delivers a masterful performance as Korean War veteran Walt Kowalski. Subtle and thought-provoking, Eastwood deserves critical raves for yet another demonstration of his creative prowess.
Other than that, the performances of the other actors, especially those playing Sue, Thao, and just about every gang member in the film, are absolutely horrendous. Sometimes actors fall into the trap of "just reading lines" - the result is a stilted, wooden delivery that makes it sound like they are reading from a page in the script instead of internalizing and then emoting.
Gran Torino is a good film, but it is uneven and doesn't pack the same wallop as it should. It is not a Top 100 caliber film by any stretch, and I would venture to say that time will not be kind to it in terms of distinguishing it from the pack.
Taken (2008)
Mixed Messages
From beginning to end, this film packs an amazing adrenaline rush - that much is certain. Perhaps it is the straightforward, nearly nonstop Liam Neeson-as-Steven Seagal action that is buoying the movie's reputation as it enters the rental phase of its life, or the legitimately serious topic of child exploitation / the worldwide child/young adult sex trade, but despite these strengths, the film also causes me to pause and consider its even more distressing qualities - plot holes and inconsistencies, ethnic stereotypes, and the exchanging of one inexcusable violence for another.
Plot Holes: Almost too numerous to mention. Take your pick. Why break into a 5th floor apartment in the middle of the day, carrying two young girls out kicking and screaming when you can pick them up for a "party" later, isolate them somewhere in the city, and then kidnap them? How does a man with an Irish/American brogue pass as a French police officer without speaking a word of French? Why does Neeson say he "was a traitor, not a villain" (or whatever he says on the rooftop) - was there any other explanation of this? I can do willing suspension of disbelief. Really. I know that it's meant to be mindless entertainment... but Rambo Does Paris? It's too much to be a film of any serious importance.
Ethnic Stereotypes: This was particularly bad - spoiled, ignorant Americans safe in their virginal land of California until they discover the dangers that lurk across the ocean in a "foreign" land... the French cutting deals with crudely stereotyped Albanians and Muslims (the "Paris always surrenders" myth) while the righteous Americans have to step in and kick tail... and on down the line. Worse still was the death of the traveling companion (because she has sex with boys) and the salvation of the daughter (spared long enough to be saved because she was pure and thus more valuable) - while this may be a dirty truth of the human slave trade, it still sends an unmistakably puritanical message to audiences.
Violence: Violence against women - especially sexual violence - is abhorrent. That being said, vigilantism, torture, and murder are no panacea for what ails human society. If everyone pulled a Liam Neeson, there would be anarchy.
A 7 or 8 out of 10 means that you want people to take a film seriously. This film, while interesting in some respects, adrenaline-pumping and exciting throughout, merits no more than a 5 or a 6 for those qualities. It is meant to be eye candy and a good mindless summer rental. It is NOT a serious film that will have a lasting impact upon cinema.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing to me as a member of the critically thinking (?) public is that lately we have been eating these sorts of movies up like it's our job - and then assigning critical kudos where none are deserved. Whether it's "Wanted" or "Taken", we are mistaking mindless action (which has its place at times) for Oscar-worthy material. I hope that we come to our senses soon and learn to keep the two in their separate spheres of influence.
A good summer rental. Nothing more. And please, I beg you, critically analyze the mixed messages of the film. I think you'll begin to see how many a moviegoer may have been "Taken" at the box office.
The Emperor's Club (2002)
Superficially pleasant, but critically flawed...
Many of us (myself included) are drawn to stories of timeless truths - in fact, it is the very basis for entire theories of historical interpretation and educational instructional pedagogy. The problem is, the more we are educated as to how the vast majority of people actually learn, the "classic" interpretation is shown to be critically flawed.
Although Kevin Kline is indeed stellar in this film, and points are scored for the overarching post-9/11 discussion regarding virtue and its tempering of the blind seeking of ambition and power, the beat-me-over-the-head-with-the-symbolism-bat mentality of the movie and the flawed premise of the timeless beauty of a classical approach to instructional pedagogy kills the film (for me) on a critical basis, and becomes nothing more than manipulative dreck disguised as intellectual gold.
Contention One: You don't have to beat me with a bat. I get it. The senator (and then his son) who loves cigars, civil-war era guns, ordering his secretaries around, and generally abusing the power of his high office is bad because his is a naked, unadulterated ambition. He gets what he wants, but at what cost? This is repeated over and over and over again in the film. I get it. Say it once, show me the American flag fluttering at the end, and let's have a discussion about it. Drag it out, show me a disappointed child who has overheard a conversation in the bathroom, and mix in some classical references to the Greeks, Romans, and paths we should walk on, and I'm done with it.
The problem? Well, we simply can't ignore the fact that Julius Caesar (along with many of the other 'greats' mentioned so reverently in the film) acted mainly out of... yep... naked, unadulterated ambition. And people will say "Yes, but what about his great contributions?" Well, many evil, evil people (Hitler, for example) made contributions, too. The inspiration for America's interstate highway system (if you can even consider that a great contribution given the headaches it has caused) was inspired by the ruthless efficiency of Nazi Germany. This is just an example, but history is not so black and white - and even Socrates and Plato didn't have the market cornered on selfless sacrifice.
Contention Two: People don't learn the way Mr. H. teaches. 10% of the people might learn very well through rote memorization and drill-and-test style instructional pedagogy. This is the "classic" way of learning, right? Many of us learned to play this game. Unfortunately, what happens with the other 90% of society who aren't attending St. Benedict's? Part of us is forced to agree with young Mr. Bell when he says: "Who gives a s...?"
As someone who loves and reads about the classics (and reads voraciously on a number of subjects), I will state here and now that only a small fraction of the population can walk the path Mr. H. so steadfastly praises. I can teach about honesty, virtue, and right thinking and living without even touching Socrates, Plato, or the whole of Western Civilization for that matter. Confucius and Lao Tse might want to get in on the discussion, as well. So believe me that while I sympathize with the overarching message, I am horrified by the fact that we are encouraging people to watch this film and say: "Yes, that's how all children should be educated in America, by golly! We have to get back to the basics!"
All of our emerging knowledge of teaching and learning styles and pedagogically-sound instructional practices SCREAMS against the rows of desks, endless rote memorization, quiz- show style assessments, and class rankings that for the vast majority of the population NO LONGER HOLD A USEFUL PURPOSE.
On the surface, this is a calm, beautiful film that should inspire us to go back to the great works and read them. Underneath, however, are critical flaws that doom the enterprise and should make us shiver to the core of our being for being drawn into the charade in the first place.
Gothika (2003)
The little film that sold out...
Three quarters of this movie was fairly well-developed. Like the character of Miranda Grey, it is difficult to know which way is up, who to trust, and who will eventually figure in to the solution of the conflict. And then, shortly after we get to the beginning of the resolution of the film with Miranda's discovery that her devoted and loving husband is a perverse sex fiend, the film completely falls apart.
I can pinpoint the moment this happened, dear reader. It occurred when the
portly white sheriff stripped off his shirt and began chasing Dr. Grey around the station like a mentally disabled monkey - essentially turning what to that point had been a good psychological build into a bad episode of Tales from the Crypt.
It was campy (and not good campy at that), and the acting never recovered. The entire theater seemed to glance at each other at the same time and say: "Isn't that the guy who wears the dress on the Drew Carey Show?"
The final scene was even worse. Miranda Grey: destined to walk the Earth to
help other displaced victimized souls for the good of mankind... and for at least one bad sequel...
For a movie that took itself seriously and presented a good product for 75% of the viewing, it was so unbelievably disappointing that when a potentially riveting resolution was in everyone's sight, it was simply left by the wayside in one of the greatest sell-outs of all time; a sell-out to camp and abject stupidity.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Points for originality, but nothing else.
The Blair Witch Project may be a cult classic for years, just like Rocky Horror Picture Show, and others of that nature. However, it will never be more than it was - a gigantic hoax on the movie-going public.
Blair Witch did some interesting things - the use of method acting to the extreme, where the actors were issued secret instructions and forced to go without food and sleep, etc. Creative and "real" as it is however, the film falls flat on its face.
Heather is shrill and annoying throughout... her "method" acting reminiscent of a bad introductory college acting course. Thus, the psychological horror that the film is going for never quite hits the target. The 'seasick' inducing camera shots don't help, either. Additionally, when the actors get stuck as to what they should be doing, they solve the conundrum by screaming at each other and having a "dramatic fight scene." Too little substance. Points for originality, but ultimately falls short. A forgettable one-hit hoax!