Change Your Image
kedunlap
Reviews
The Aviator (2004)
Sort of like watching a turtle on its back
Knowing quite a bit about Howard Hughes, I expected to see a movie chronicling his minimal exploits in movie-making and his greater exploits as an aviator and a capitalist who built an airline and an aircraft corporation, took on a senate investigating committee and won, and, oh yes, bedded the most beautiful actresses in Hollywood. (NOTE: I was amazed to see that in casting this movie they could find no actresses who could do justice to the beauty of Jean Harlow, Ava Gardner, or even Faith Domergue. That may sound shallow, but beauty is what it was all about. I'll give a grudging pass to Cate Blanchett because of her superb acting. Besides, who ever had the regal beauty of Katherine Hepburne). Back to Hughes: the other interesting fact about Hughes is that at the end of his life he was destroyed by a mental illness we now refer to as obsessive/compulsive disorder. However, few of Hughes' biographers mention the OCD as a significant factor in Hughes' life prior to the late 1950's which is well beyond the time frame of this movie.
To my surprise, the movie was about little other than his OCD which, according to Scorsese, was the driving force behind almost everything Hughes did. I could have lived with that, except for the way it was presented. Poor Leo DeCaprio was forced to spend most of the movie looking as if he had just eaten something nasty. I guess that's what OCD does to you according to Scorsese. In painfully long scenes, DeCaprio would stand unable to function while the camera allowed us to stare at him. It was like watching a turtle on its back trying desperately to right itself.
People all over the theater were holding up their arms, apparently trying to check their watches as we passed the two-hour mark, and a few gave up and left early. Unfortunately, my curiosity overcame my discomfort and I stayed to the bitter end.
Howard Hughes was a much more interesting and complex man than this movie reveals, and his accomplishments were much greater than one would realize from the manner in which they are presented in "The Aviator".
Leo is not the right man for this role he just isn't able to radiate the power, self-confidence, and even arrogance of Howard Hughes. Scorsese's Hughes comes off as a victim taking apparently stupid risks because of a mental affliction which in real life he had not yet acquired.
Michael Moore Hates America (2004)
Should not be judged by its title
First of all, let's tackle the provocative title, 'Michael Moore Hates America.' I believe Michael Wilson used it in order to get his movie noticed. It is clear that he is uncomfortable with it to the point that he apologizes for it: at the end of his interview with the extremely ethical documentarian, Albert Maysles, he sheepishly reveals the title, apparently expecting to be rebuked and possibly scolded. To his surprise Maysles simply responds, 'Maybe he does.'
The film is really about ethics in the making of documentary films, using scenes from Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' and to a lesser extent 'Roger and Me' (both of which I have seen) as a basis for the comments of recognized experts such as Penn Jillette, Albert Maysles, and David Horowitz as well as people whom Moore chose to interview in making 'Bowling for Columbine'. When viewed in that light, the film is quite interesting and worthwhile for any avid movie fan.
Some IMDb reviewers, along with other reviewers, have stated that all movies shade the truth or worse. That may be literally true; however, it is clearly unethical to manipulate scenes in such a way as to create 'facts' or connections (particularly to create the appearance of cause and effect or guilt by association) that are false or misleading. There is general agreement that Moore was repeatedly guilty of that in 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Roger and Me'. I have not seen 'Fahrenheit 9/11', but most movie reviewers, even those who apparently agree with Moore's cause, seem to agree that he does the same in that movie.
Telling lies in historical movies is not new, (I believe it may have been John Ford who said that when a director is forced to choose between telling what really happened and telling what should have happened, he should do the latter) and I would say it creates no major ethical problem when it simply fills in material that is unknown, such as unheard (fictitious) conversations that clarify issues for the benefit of the audience, or is of no major importance. Of all movies I have seen Oliver Stone's movie, 'JFK', is almost certainly the prime example of unethical movie-making because it is untrue in every important statement it makes and is presented as true. Although it is not a documentary, millions of people believe it portrays the JFK assassination accurately, which could not be further from the truth. A major point of Wilson's movie is that it is so easy to allow one's self to bend the truth for expediency's sake that he found it very difficult to avoid doing so in making his movie. To his credit, Wilson points out his flaws in this regard. This, however, is not an excuse that applies to the films of Stone and Moore.
Some reviewers indicate that the truth doesn't matter as long as a film is entertaining. Fine, as long as the fiction is advertised as such. The problem I have with Michael Moore is not so much that he is unethical; rather that his movies have gotten so much attention and praise that he has set the ethical bar for documentaries far lower than it has been in the past and will certainly encourage other film makers to follow his lead. This will mean that documentaries will no longer serve as credible sources of information. Since that is the primary reason documentaries exist at all, that is a serious problem.
More and more people are reluctantly coming to realize that newspapers and TV news have lost most of their credibility, so it shouldn't be too surprising that the trend would spread. Still, it sure is a pain in the butt to be forced to expend time doing major research on every significant issue in order to have a reasonably accurate view of the world.
Of course, for those who view factual truth as no big deal, ethics are no big deal either.
The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara (2003)
An interesting study of a conflicted man
I found this movie to be quite interesting. I would rate it an 8/10 as documentaries go. The file footage added greatly to the commentary. The problem with that is that film makers do not always use footage actually shot with the action being discussed. That can distort the viewer's image of what actually occurred.
This is not my favorite style of documentary (I prefer those shot in real time such as "Hoop Dreams" because I know the film maker at least had the opportunity to shoot the scenes as they actually occurred. That doesn't mean the director will use the film honestly, however.), but in this case that was not an option. It was, however, a real documentary as opposed to the current crop of movies that are shot in documentary style and, not only get released as true documentaries, but receive awards as well. Oliver Stone's movie, "JFK", was fiction, but at least he didn't call it a documentary. End of Rant!!!
I believe that McNamara was being pretty open. The 11 lessons (Supplied by Morris) issue troubles me, because it makes me wonder what else might have come from the director rather than McNamara. However, since I lived through most of what was shown in the movie, I know that it was pretty faithful to the facts, at least as we know them.
McNamara seemed almost to be viewing two parallel wars in the WW2 segment. He said that he agreed with Curtis LeMay that the war had to be won and, in a war that killed tens of millions of people, it had to be ended as quickly as possible and that meant killing a lot of people. And yet, when LeMay faced up to the reality of such a war and killed 100,000 people in Tokyo, McNamara starts talking about proportionality. In a war that kills tens of millions of people all over the world, what can proportionality possibly mean? McNamara seemed quite proud of his role in improving the efficiency of the military but then tries to distance himself from the resulting deaths.
Again, referring to Vietnam, McNamara is very conflicted. He criticizes the war, but at the end says Johnson did what he had to do. He seems to distance himself from the brutality even though he was Sec. of Defense for almost two full terms. McNamara is a man who never lived up to his potential and seems to be trying to make up for it by advising current leaders to do what he did not do when it counted. That's pretty chicken. He cannot seem to come to grips with the fact that it's the decisions we make when they count, not the ones we make in retrospect, that we have to live with.
Comments inspired by other reviewers:
The 11 lessons: I viewed the DVD and in the supplementary scenes McNamara says that the 11 lessons were not his. They were imposed by the director. He then gave his own 10 lessons that fit what he said much better. So, it appeared that the director made some unapproved changes, but tried to make up for it by letting McNamara respond in supplementary. Theater viewers would not have seen that.
Would Kennedy have pulled out? He said that Kennedy intended to pull out of Vietnam before Diem was assassinated. That changed everything. Most 'experts' on JFK say that there was no evidence that he would have pulled out.
The fact the domino effect was not seen in the late '70s does not mean it would not have in the '60s had we not intervened. Communism was expanding all over the world in the '60s. By the time we left Vietnam it was not.
Saved! (2004)
"It isn't really bashing Christians, just intolerance"
Richard Roeper of "Ebert and " fame said that the movie is not bashing Christians; it's about intolerance of any kind with Christians merely providing the role for this film. The critic in my local paper said that "Saved" only criticizes "confused Christians, not all faith."
During Woody Allen's best years he created some great comedy portraying himself as a paranoid, intolerant Jew. Allen, however, had no political agenda. He was not trying to send a social message. He was merely doing ethnic humor. Nowadays, no one is satisfied to do that; there must be a politically correct social message.
When a Hollywood movie is released that attacks intolerance in the form of a gay guy who will not tolerate anyone who does not agree with the full gay/lesbian/transgendered political agenda, I will believe that it is really the concept of intolerance and not a despised politically incorrect group that is being attacked.
Big Fish (2003)
Outstanding, in spite of ...
I did not care much for the performance of Ewan McGregor and I am not a fan of Albert Finney. In spite of that, I thought the movie was absolutely outstanding. My wife and I watched "Love Actually" the night before and after seeing "Big Fish" we had no doubt that we saved the better for last. Perhaps, for those who didn't care for it, a certain amount of experience with people you don't care for until you come to understand them and then realize how nice they really are helps. The fact that it reminded me of my dad who passed away several years ago and whom I miss very much made the ending more poignant for me. But, I liked the movie before that.
In a way, the movie was a bit of a mystery with the viewer trying to figure out just what was true and what was not as the story progressed. Such clues as the fact that older Ed was always thirsty, which implied that the fish story was more significant than the others, and the obvious significance of the town of Specter gave the viewer a lot to think about. I think that for me, trying to solve the riddle was what held my attention: and then, given all that, the ending made perfect sense.
Love Actually (2003)
I'm amazed at the high ratings
This is a pretty good movie considering that the director took a meat axe to his original creation because he had made it 80 minutes too long. Apparently, almost all of the scenes that were to introduce us to the characters were chopped leaving a very disconnected beginning. In addition, the ending was supposed to bring everything neatly together (rather than just having everyone show up at Heathrow) with Rowan Atkinson portraying an angel who brought all of the couples together (didn't it look strange that Atkinson just happened to be in line where Liam Neeson needed him?). Not only was the angel dropped, everything the angel did (which was supposed to make it all make sense) went with it. It is hard to believe that a director could leave himself in the position of having to chop one-third of his film. It is even harder to believe that fans would give the pasted-together two-thirds such high marks. The acting, which was almost uniformly top notch, and the outstanding music made the movie look much better than the director deserved, and perhaps the story he ended up with was better than the one he wanted to make. I guess it truly is better to be lucky than good.