Batman Begins

Director: Christopher Nolan
Main Cast: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Katie Holmes, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy
Writer(s): Christopher Nolan & David S. Goyer
Director of Photography: Wally Pfister
Producer: Larry J. Franco, Charles Roven, & Emma Thomas
Editor(s): Lee Smith
Original Score By: James Newton Howard & Hans Zimmer
Release Date: 2005 June 15

I was a bit aprehensive about this one. But as I marched out of the theater all I could think was: finally. Finally someone has done some justice to the billionaire masked crusader. Finally I can clean the disgusting taste from my mouth that Schumacher left with his last two bastardizations of the Batman series. Finally I am freed from the vision of Batman in his suit complete with nipples. Finally I can clear my head of the Governator as Mr. Freeze saying, "You're not sending ME to the COOLER! " Finally.

This film succeeded on many levels, not the least of which was its dedication to capturing the heart of the source material. The Batman comics and character, created by Bob Kane and begun circa 1939, have always had a dark side. Nolan and Goyer worked hard in their writing to capture this essence. Diehard comic book fans will probably be willing to argue about details of the story that are not correct or otherwise nitpick the film apart. I, however, am willing to accept the deviations because the outcome was something of substance. While many may view comic books as children's fare Batman is, at its core, deep, dark, and intelligent. That is what this movie is all about. The darkness, in fact, is sometimes so real that the characters and sequences actually border on frightening.

While the intent of the writing and directing may have been to stay true to the original material what I thoroughly liked about this interpretation was its dedication to believability. Gotham City did not seem all that unusual. A nice mix of present day, near future, and classic style. All just enough so that you think it could occur in the present day world, but indistinct enough to prevent the pinpointing of an exact era. The close shot fight scenes were chaotic and realistic. The criminals did not attack, conveniently, one at a time but moved in all at once against the aspiring crime fighter. The filmmakers were not afraid to let the action get messy and raw.

Most superhero items are sufficiently explained to make them believable with only a minor stretch of the imagination. The gadgets, gizmos, vehicles, fighting, flying, and the Batcave do not just mysteriously appear, but are provided historical and logical context. The cast and filmakers don't force you to check your sense of reason at the door. They treat you with respect and dignity.

The audienced is served a series of flashbacks as Bruce Wayne deals with his childhood fears and anti-criminal training. We are given a glimpse of the driving forces that move Wayne's passion to be so deep seated in his soul. We identify and understand his motivation for the life and balance he is seeking. The training is intense and the mentor/pupil dialague is intriguing throughout.

I did miss the art deco Gotham City; the overly stylized tall buildings with sweeping "speed lines", sunbursts, and leaded glass. But the grittiness of the city is ubiquitous and well communicated. The social castes are well established. The poverty stricken live in the slums as those more fortunate in the shining skyscraper metropolis. It is only characters like Wayne's father, and to some degree Batman, who are willing to cross the social boundaries for the good of the city.

Despite Wayne's initial impetus of vengeance and his apparent dissimilarity from his humanitarian father, he at many points, makes decisions to choose the morale high ground. His motivation is not to needlessly inflict pain and death but to seek justice and balance. He looks on at Gotham and sees a city destined to be more, but ravaged to its foundation by the evil that pervades it. Instead of turning his back on the sinful masses, he humbles himself from his billionaire lifestyle to the level of those he intends to rescue and battles the ruffians on their turf. While his methods may be unconventional and, at times even dubious, his purpose is heartfelt and honest. And interestingly, just as Batman believes that something can be done to rescue Gotham Alfred frequently repeats, even in times of despair, that he will never give up on Master Wayne and the man that he can be.

There were admittedly a few times when characters delivered campy roll-your-eyes dialogue. Since they were infrequent and occasionally even humorous, the overall effect was negligible.

The star-studded cast stretched all the way across the bottom of the theatrical poster and each was expertly chosen. Even Holmes character was sufficiently bland as to not make her limited acting skills overtly apparent. We can only cross our fingers in hopes that many, if not all, of the thespians will be returning for another chapter. All in all the misteps were minimal and easily overlooked.

Bottom Line: This work was more mainstream for Nolan and falls somewhat short of his other filmic achievements. Exceeding even Tim Burton's interpretation of the saga, Nolan and Goyer together create a wonderful mix of comic book qualities with believable settings. The story is captivating and smart. The style subdued, but appropriate. The cast fall effortlessly into each of their roles. All the ingredients are right. Put it all together and the real bottom line here is: Batman is back.

An unmasked, 7 out of 10.

~RG

Mr. & Mrs. Smith

Director: Doug Liman
Main Cast: Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Vince Vaughn
Writer(s): Simon Kinberg
Director of Photography: Bojan Bazelli
Producer: Lucas Foster, Akiva Goldsman...
Editor(s): Michael Tronick
Original Score By: John Powell
Release Date: 2005 June 10

This film surprised me. I expected, not unlike most people I spoke with, that it would be a non-stop tour-de-force of action, bullets, and car chases. What I got instead was an interesting and insightful commentary on marriages and their successes and failures wrapped in an action film bow. This, suffice it say, was hardly what I anticipated from Liman, the director of the recent espionage thriller The Bourne Identity. But despite my surprise, I was not disappointed by the final outcome.

The most intriguing portions of the movie were the group and individual counseling sessions that Pitt and Jolie go through. The actors sat facing the camera answering questions like "On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your marriage?" delivered from an off-screen voice, apparently their counselor. The discussion between the couple as they attempt to answer the inquiries is unforgettable. They maintain an amiable tone, but obviously do not agree. These statically shot scenes are all about the actors. They are extremely uncomfortable as can be witnessed by their awkard glances, shifty eyes, stumbling dialogue, and fidgety body language. These kind of reserved, but congenial interactions fill the air thick with uncomfortability every time the couple are on screen together in the first act.

The film did not really, in my view, provide an opinion as to whether marriage was good or bad simply that certain things needed to be in place for it to thrive. The driving end of its message is that trust and honesty are key to a successful marriage. This is fulfilled when Pitt and Jolie finally uncover each other's secret and they are able to have a conversation about it. Of course this discussion follows, what would for normal couples be a shouting match, but for them is a physically exhausting battle filled with gunfight and brutal hand-to-hand combat. The relationship is further solidified when they find a common ground of survival on which to rebuild what had been lost. The couple battles through a period of wanting to call off the marriage when all the lies, half-truths, and distrust is revealed. Actually it is more like wanting to kill each other, but that is really neither here nor there. Despite the actions that each of them takes it is evident that they both care for each other and would like to find a way to work out their differences and move on.

The marriage after the revelation of their mutual occupations becomes a psuedo-competition. Pitt's "You have got to be kidding me" comment follows Jolie's question of "Why do I have to have the 'girl' gun?". The dialogue is filled with humorous give and take that is not uncommon in any relationship, but here is tainted with killer-for-hire innuendo. The comparison and competition go so far as to account for how many kills each has. Much to Pitt's astonishment he seems overwhelmed by the idea that his wife has 312 kills to his 50 or 60. I wondered to myself if this was all that unlike a dual-income family comparing salaries and equating monetary achievement and gender roles assignments with their own self worth.

Even though much of the movie is either direct or indirect metaphor for the marriage institution, I would be remiss to not mention the actions scenes. Although they were fairly few in number, they did not dissatisfy. There were two grandiose and gratuitous action scenes that stuck out in my mind. The first begins after Pitt and Jolie have realized each others secret and are eating fruit and coffee on the floor of their kitchen that they destroyed in a gun battle the night before as they worked out their differences. Their respective agencies send assassins to kill them. The battle that ensues is spectacular with no shortage of bullets, shaterring glass, and explosions as the two battle the hitmen in rubber galoshes and their shirts and undies. The battle leads Jolie to comment later in one of the counseling sessions that they had "remodeled" their house.

The second battle is a well-choreographed shootout in a home decor superstore. This finale plays out more like a beautiful dance and is reminiscent of an earlier scene where Pitt and Jolie tango at a fancy restaurant. This one, however, has way more bullets. The couple pairs up as an unstoppable team reading each others moves and fending off bad guys left and right. While the incident is over the top and spectacularly unbelievable it keys us into the idea of how successful a marriage can be when both partners are tuned into the needs of the other and work together toward a common goal, in this case survival.

For Mr. and Mrs. Smith sex was an area of extreme turmoil, as can be seen by the reactions to one of the questions during one of the counseling sessions. During the course of the film they are able to rekindle the passion that they experienced when they first met. This act assists in rebuilding their rocky relationship. Some reviewers have complained of the semi-graphic sensuality of the film. This boils down at its heart to caring for the other individual's needs and it does certainly have a place in every married couples relationship. I did not find it gratuitous nor really inappropriate. It merely served the purpose of being the catalyst to bring the couples relationship back together. Also, not that it is necessarily a good argument, but with sex-symbol superstars like Pitt and Jolie it could have been much worse. (Rumor has it that some parts of this portion of the film were cut to achieve the MPAA's PG-13 rating. Thankfully.)

Liman uses few camera tricks or new techniques, but the slow motion action scenese never cease to be enjoyable. He also pays homage to Hong Kong style action movies with the shoot-outs filled with hundreds of bullets. Actually the grand fight finale could have been straight out of John Woo movie with the simple addition of some doves.

Just because it is another favorite movie of mine I'll mention this bit of trivia. Keep a look out for the Fight Club t-shirt worn by the hostage at the end of the movie. A little tongue-in-cheek recognition of Pitt's other film successes.

Bottom Line: A surprising, insightful, and humorous commentary of a marriage on the rocks. Pitt and Jolie have incredible on screen chemistry and drive the film's relational undertones. Liman works hard at keeping the film from fraying into a mindless action movie and succeeds on most counts. Overall, a pleasant entertaining movie that could even warrant repeat viewing.

An astonished, but honest, 7 out of 10.

~RG

Cinderella Man

Director: Ron Howard
Main Cast: Russell Crowe, Renee Zellweger, Paul Giamatti
Writer(s): Cliff Hollingsworth & Akiva Goldsman
Director of Photography: Salvatore Totino
Producer: Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Penny Marshall
Editor(s): Mike Hill & Daniel P. Hanley
Original Score By: Thomas Newman
Release Date: 2005 May 23

There is one thing undeniable about Ron Howard and his goofy grin and thinning red hair: he knows how to tell a story. From Apollo 13, to A Beautiful Mind, to Cinderella Man his skills are exemplary. He is one of those people, we have all met them, that just know how to tell a great story. It keeps your attention. It moves your emotions. You almost cannot help but get involved and care for those characters and topics being discussed. I believe Ron Howard has this gift. His stories are not those told around the campfire, but rather they are communicated in theaters across the globe. Nevertheless, the ability to take a simple situation and make of it a story is not often realized in the fashion and grandeur which Howard successfully achieves. Don't be surprised to see the man on stage next March accepting a statue or two.

When you boil this film down to its bone you will find that it is less about a boxer and his rise and fall and more about hope. Hope for something better. Hope for second chances. Hope for those who have none. In fact the tag line says it well, "When America was on its knees, he brought us to our feet." Braddock's life was a pillar of hope for all those that knew him and even those who had merely heard of him and his story. His legacy is powerful enough to move us almost 75 years later.

Despite troubles off the set, Crowe manages to create an unforgettable character and masters the art of the fallen man given a second chance. Isn't this really what we all are? Here on the Earth fallen from grace given a second change at Life? Crowe plays the boxer,Braddock, magnificently.

Braddock is a man of his word. His 'yes' is a 'yes' and his 'no' a 'no'. I kept waiting for him to recant on his promise to never send his kids away and fall into a not atypical Hollywood trap, but he remained steadfast. His word meant so much to him that he was willing to humble himself in extraordinary ways to maintain its significance. Begging from friends at the boxing venue and standing in line at the federal assistance office you could visibly see the pain that it caused him to do so. He sacrificed his reputation to hold his family together. What a deep and meaningful expression of his loyalty to his family and to his own honor. His character continued in this vein when he made his comeback and repaid the money to the financial assistance office that he had used during the period when he had none. This moment was truly a testament to the character.

His desparation ran so deep that he even commented, "I'm all prayed out, Mae". He had become so down that he had given up on God. He had lost his faith. He knew that he could no longer control the things around him and adequately provide for his responsiblities. He was at the bottom of the barrel. The interesting thing about it is that God had not given up on him. The moment when Zellweger goes to the church to pray for his big fight and finds out that the pews are filled with believers praying for her husband is inspiring. Prayers that night were heard and answered.

The relationship of Mr. and Mrs. Braddock was near flawlessly developed. I cannot remember one time where one told the other, "I love you". Yet, there wasn't a single point in the movie where their dedication, encouragement, and undying affection for one another wasn't clearly communicated. The teasing about the girls at the fight, the working hard even with a broken hand, the looks, the long embraces, there was no denying the two were crazy about each other. Their's was an unforgettable testament to the sanctity and perserverance of a marriage during times of significant difficulty.

This film brought the Great Depression alive off the screen. I likened it to reading a great Steinbeck novel. The excruciating detail of the poverty was brutally apparent and the pain and suffering of regular everyday families was heart wrenching. The destititution that most lived through was in many ways unbearable to watch. How the lack of work and money broke apart families. Husbands leaving their wives, parents sending their kids away. It brought home the reality of the era in which the story took place. A critical mind may also wonder how far each of us is away from living like many of the families portrayed in this film. One paycheck? Two? It is an undeniably sobering realization.

Despite the ubiquitous poverty, there were many who continued to keep up appearances. I found the moment when Zellweger entered Giamatti's (Bradock's manager) apartment to find only a card table and four chairs in an empty room to be particularly poignant to this point. No one wants to admit that they are down and out, but the stronger of the men, Braddock, is willing to confess his situation and do whatever it took to make ends meet, even sacrifice his self respect.

There were few items in the film that I found troublesome or annoying, but I will mention the ones I noticed. I was so taken by the story that I'm sure my enjoyment clouded my vision for defects. However, isn't that a sign of a successful film?

I have never been very impressed with Renee Zellweger. Since Jerry Macguire I have often grown weary of her sideways smile and squinty eyes. I find her performances flat and and her lines too whiny. That being said her agent has been victoriously getting her parts in terrific movies. I'm still not convinced she deserved the Oscar she got, but then again, I don't get to vote. All that aside, I do not feel she is a bad actress, but merely average. She is able to communicate the emotional intensity of the character, but for some reaon, and I cannot quite pinpoint it, she does not stir me as other actresses are able to.

There were a couple of other negative issues with Cinderella Man that stood out to me. The first was the inconsistent accents. At one point Jim has a untarnished American accent and then a few scenes later he sounds like a native Bostonian. Supporting characters speak with no accent and then suddenly are Irish. I think uniformity one way or the other would have been preferable. Just pick one and stick with it.

Also, the score of a film should be their for one reason: to enhance the experience. It should be used to evoke more emotion, be it terror to sentimentality. It should blend with the dialogue, visuals, and sound effects to give the viewer a better feel for what is occuring on the screen. We are not listening to a symphony performance, but watching a film, an art form that intermingles together many others. Unfortunately, I did not experience this with Newman's overly emphasized score. In many cases I felt it did not blend well with the scene and often detracted from the overall tone of the story.

Finally, the coloring in the film was bad in several scenes. Howard apparently used an aging technique, whether digital or traditional, to give the film a Saving Private Ryan look and the feel of the depression era films. This was a well planned concept, but the execution was poor. Cut to cut, even in the same scene, the film had highly varied graininess and coloring, sometimes so much so that I couldn't focus on the dialogue. Variation with the film tone could be in part due to the fact that I viewed the movie a couple of weeks following initial release after it had been shown multiple times previously. Because of the somewhat fragile nature of the film stock it is possible that the print was becoming worn and that is what I witnessed. Nevertheless, I felt it worthwhile to mention. This is just another point in the argument of moving to fully digital filmmaking.

Bottom Line: Harkening back to the Steinbeck era, Ron Howard creates an epic story of Hope during an era of Desparation. Most of the performances on screen are commendable, save some issues I had with Zellweger. Offscreen disciplines, editing, directing, photography, were all subtle and understated, but served the picture well. The score was overbearing and intrusive, but it hardly was enough to fully undermine the powerful and wonderful story assembled by the brilliant team of filmmakers.

An uppercut, 8 out of 10.

~RG

Assault on Precinct 13

Director: Jean-François Richet
Main Cast: Ethan Hawke, Laurence Fishburne, Gariel Byrne, Brian Dennehy
Writer(s): James DeMonaco
Director of Photography: Robert Gantz
Producer: Pascal Caucheteux, Jeffrey Silver, Stephane Sperry
Editor(s): Bill Pankow
Original Score By: Graeme Revell
Release Date: 2005 January 19

The best part of this film occurs before the beginning of the opening credits. Hawke plays an undercover cop acting as a hyperactive drug pusher in the middle of a drug deal. Things go awry and the scene turns deadly for many of those involved. The pace, filming, sets, and lighting communicate the intensity of the situation and its unfortunate conclusion. The use of handheld camera, while somewhat dizzying, gives a first-person perspective on much of the action. The slick well-delivered dialogue, though caricaturized, also plays well between the characters. The introductory scene concludes with a camera’s closing iris fading to black from the point of view of one of the characters slipping away into death. Unfortunately, this is where I should have let my eyes close as well.

A remake of John Carpenter’s original 1976 cop thriller on a budget, this version was an unfortunate reminder of why some movies should remain in their tombs. The story was far too simplistic and underdeveloped. I was neither motivated to root for the good guys nor feel hatred for the bad guys. It reeked with an extreme scent of indifference toward the characters, the story, and most importantly, the audience.

The gaping holes in the plot had the tendency to force my mind to wander. How does a group of dirty cops attack a precinct office with a SWAT team chopper and expect that no one will ever find out? How will they account for their expended ammunition? Can their cover-up mentality really be this dense? Conveniently there is no power, cell phone service, or email to communicate with the outside world from inside the closing precinct office. These things are all explained away, but were still flimsy and unlikely. The few plot twists that existed didn’t make up for these poorly conceptualized inconsistencies. And the storyline revelations, quite honestly, were not that impressive or unpredictable to begin with.

There were a couple of character assassinations (literally) that took me by surprise. I’ll give credit to the writer and director for not shying away from clear, unashamed brutality. In this respect, they had no fears.

Amazingly, all the shooters, except, a little too conveniently at times, the “good” guys, were unusually adept at shooting people right in the center of the forehead with any weapon they happened to be wielding at that moment from astonishing distances. Following the successful impact the audience is served the glorious souvenir of excruciatingly long lingering on the bullet-sized hemorrhaging head wounds as a trophy of the characters’ mind-boggling accuracy.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a mindless action flick just as much as the next guy, but this one just did not have any distinctive qualities that were capable of holding my attention or making it notable. It did not make me think, it did not keep my interest, and I wasn’t shocked by the violence. In the end, the movie was not even entertaining. That is when you know a film has truly fallen flat, if you could not even extract an ounce of enjoyment from it. This one was as dry as the Arizona desert.

Since the story was less than spectacular, or even original, I had hopes that perhaps the characters would be somehow remarkable. But, alas, I was once more disappointed. The development of characters was essentially nonexistent. The characters primarily consisted of two-bit lackeys designed to fill the air with worthless conversation and curse words. Occasionally, when someone would say something interesting, it would be quickly followed by something ridiculous that sucked the steam right out of the partially intelligent comment it trailed. Hawke was afforded the most opportunity to deal with his guilty past, but even this came across as somewhat contrived and substandard. To be fair the execution of the characters was not wholly sub-par, merely the development of them within the story. In my opinion, Leguizamo was sensational. He was the one shining thing about this film. He gave an exceptional performance with material that was less than stellar. Fishburne played the cool collected gangster well, but it reminded me suspiciously of a rehash of his character in The Matrix.

In an interesting companionship between Fishburne, the worst of the bad guys, and Hawke, the best of the good guys, they frequently repeated the phrase, "Looks like our sh--'s on pause" to remind each other that the differences they have with one another are going to have to wait until they settle things with the dirty cops trying to kill them. It does offer an interesting, albeit perverted, take on camaraderie, but it ultimately fails to come to any sort of fulfilling fruition. Indeed, I kept thinking to myself as I watched, “I wish I could put this sh-- on pause”. Nevertheless, I suffered through.

What the movie lacked in substance, it also lacked in style. Mostly mundane techniques and boring execution saturated the film's entirety. Richet does get credit for using a lot of bullets. My suggestion: Take a lesson from John Woo and when you use bullets in excess couple it with visually intriguing filmmaking or a mentally stimulating story. I think you'll find the end result is much more rewarding.

Bottom Line: An unfortunate soiree of gangster thieves, crooked cops, and helpless ladies. Hawke is written in to merely to save them all and escape his personal demons, a task at which he barely succeeds. The desire to watch this movie again or even recommend it follows only a highly accurate shot to the head in a list of things I'd love to do. Underdeveloped story, over-the-top and trite characters, predictable twists all add up to a film that starts with a bang and ends with a thud. This is one that should have stayed in the vault.

An execution-style, 3 out of 10

~RG

Primer

Director: Shane Carruth
Main Cast: Shane Carruth, David Sullivan, Casey Gooden, Anand Upadhyaya
Writer(s): Shane Carruth
Director of Photography: Shane Carruth & Anand Upadhyaya
Producer: Shane Carruth
Editor(s): Shane Carruth
Original Score By: Shane Carruth
Release Date: 2004 January 16
(This data is correct. It was unmistakably a one man show. ~RG)

I like to consider myself a reasonably intelligent person, but this movie forced me into serious thoughts of self insufficiency. It was one of those films that I watched intently and when the credit reel began I said to myself, "Uh, I don't get it". It begs for repeat viewing, not because it was so fantastic, but because it was so bewildering. With that said, temper my opinions with the knowledge that after watching only once I may have missed something or possibly a lot of things.

For a first time director/writer/composer/producer/editor on a measly $7000 budget, this was quite a feat for Carruth. I was impressed with the acting and the complex dialogue. The characters were believable and not overstated. The scene where they are working in the garage building things in dress slacks and ties was a testament to the true men they were: engineers. The dialogue delivery, particularly in the first part of the movie, was muddled by multiple characters talking at once about complex topics. The result was a feeling of playing catch up the rest of the movie as things unfolded. This storytelling method was a bit too abrupt for me.

The editing was rough, but may have been intentionally so to communicate a degree of confusion and frustration that was being experienced by the characters. If that was the intent, it was successful. I was amply baffled by a majority of the second act. It is here that repeated viewing would have assisted in the comprehension of the charcters' dilemmas. Carruth moved effectively to using quick edits and closer shots to portray the intensity at the film's end.

The camera work was simple and effective. Many of the shots at the beginning were static with medium focus allowing the viewer to let his eyes meander through the scene at will. In some cases, this method felt very lethargic. But, as the story progressed and the tension built, closer focus and the occasional handheld shot assisted in creating a feeling of unknown expectation and tension.

I was intrigued by the details of the device. The discussion of its construction and the masked effects of its function baited me to want to know more about it. The engineering specifications within the film went way over my head in most cases, but I enjoyed the author's commitment to authenticity. I did, however, wonder why he made such a big deal about the argon gas.

The device, when functional, was primarily used to assist Abe and Aaron in making money in the stock market as they traveled back and forth through time. Aaron talked one time about hitting his boss in the face and the way it would feel. The implication following was that he pursued that fantasy using the device. It seemed that very little good things were accomplished through the devices power other than the "shotgun" incident. The ethical dilemmas faced by the characters were ubiquitous throughout the film's plot development and left me wondering how I would react if faced with similar possibilities.

Here are few questions I have (and there are many more) that will remain unanswered unless I can get some assistance or experience some sort of epiphany:

• What was going on with Abe and his roommates? It was weird. Was he just a really nice guy?
• Why didn't they like their friends and want to include them in the discovery? Were they just being selfish?
• Did the rich guy find the box and use it?
• How many "Aarons" were there at the end of the film? Did he kill himself or his double?
• The prerecorded conversations did not always match the actual events. Aaron was able to redirect the words being used back to the original recorded version. Was he changing the past?

Bottom Line: This film is less about sci-fi special effects and more about intellectual reasoning. I enjoyed it. It made my head spin, but I can't say I didn't take pleasure in the ride. Given the constraints, the writing was solid and thought-provoking, the camera work simple and effective, the lighting natural, and the plot profound, in a heady sort of way. Despite its good qualities and overall successes I refuse to give a film a high rating just because I couldn't understand it and that makes it, by default, artistic.

An admittedly confused, 6 out of 10

~RG

A Few Good Men

Director: Rob Reiner
Main Cast: Tom Cruise, Demi Moore, Jack Nicholson, Kevin Bacon
Writer(s): Aaron Sorkin
Director of Photography: Robert Richardson
Producer: Rob Reiner & David Brown
Editor(s): Robert Leighton & Steven Nevius
Original Score By: Marc Shaiman
Release Date: 1992 December 9

Rob Reiner is an exceptional director, but the brilliance here is not in the directing but the writing. Originally a stage play, the storyline from concept to dialogue is undeniably the most intriguing part of this film. Sorkin has fantastic complexity, believable characters, and unwavering delivery. He does not resort to unnecessary wisecracks for comic relief or obliterate the sexual tension with superfluous consummation. The audience is treated to a wonderful exploration of military cover-up, courtroom drama, and coming-of-age all in a neatly packaged script. It is no wonder that his career achievments are primarily comprised of stories for the highly successful, though somewhat left-slanted, West Wing.

This film is a true drama. There was no need to make jokes to relieve the tension or force characters into scenes that were designed to capture a primary demographic and sell more tickets. The cast consists of high-caliber all-stars. It was near miraculous that this movie did not end up being a star-studded vehicle designed only to pimp those stars that were lucky enough to get cast. Each one, from Cruise to Nicholson, to Moore to Bacon delivered, without resorting to self-infatuated pandering to the camera.

The editing, score, lighting, and directing were all so amazingly understated that even after multiple viewing I have little to say. They were smart and stayed out of the way of the story.

Kaffee lived under the oppression of the memory of his highly successful father. The story, at its core, is about his move to adulthood and a point where he meets and maybe even exceeds his own expectations. Sam said it best when he said, and I paraphrase, "It doesn't matter what I would do or your father would do. It only matters what you would do." He must make a choice on his own for himself and live with the consequences that may result. The earning of respect and honoring an agreement that you have given your word to is a central theme. For Kaffee the final step toward earning respect comes at the end of the film when Dawson salutes him in the courtroom. Others have recognized his acheivement and his journey is complete.

The underlying subplots seem particularly poignant given the recent observance of Memorial Day and the media barage of reports of terrorist prisoners being mistreated. Should those protecting our country be allowed to use any means necessary to protect us that live as civilians? The answer is an emphatic no. Jessup's courtroom speech leaves the audience a lot to think about, however:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a d--n what you think you are entitled to. "

We do indeed live in a world where we need protection. We must take care not to take for granted the lives that are lived and given to ensure our freedom.

Bottom Line: The exceptional story and writing, though in some areas predictable, was the driving force behind this movie. Intelligent well-constructed dialogue and an intriguing plot gave the director much to work with. The actors delivered good performances and the cinematography was sufficiently subtle as to avoid interference in the story. The end result is great work with few complaints.

A Code Red, 9 out of 10.

~RG