Reviews

*Warning: some spoilers here.

When I first saw "The Hunt for Red October" back in 1990, I was impressed by the stunning cinematography, and though the film doesn't stand up nearly so well among today's top caliber special-effect films, "The Hunt for Red October" still has something to offer which many more modern action film competitors do not: an engaging plot. "The Hunt for Red October" is one unexpected moment after another (even if you have read the book), suspenseful, the kind of film that for once fulfills its promise to keep you at the edge of your seat. Yes, the film is unashamedly "pro-American", but it is not completely unsympathetic to the Russian side (though granted only the defectors are shown in a sympathetic light); nonetheless, it is still enjoyable to watch. I was also struck by what one critic said regarding Poledouris' fantastic score, that he thought this was a Russian classic; in my ignorance at the time, I also looked for Poledouris' music in Russian import shops, convinced that it was something from the days of the great five composers, including Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Borodin, and Rimsky-Korsakov. Yes, Poledouris' score is that good. In my opinion, the stirring music of "The Hunt for Red October" propels the action and keeps one's attention riveted to the screen when the visual shots (slow turning of large submarines...) might begin to lose one's attention. It is true that often the subtitles are strangely (or incorrectly) translated. True also is that Captain Ramius' (Connery) Russian accent is absolutely atrocious (with Sam Neill's almost as bad). Neverthless, I found this didn't affront me as much as I thought it might; Connery's presence is decisive and his manner is entirely convincing. And why shouldn't he be rebellious against the Soviet bureaucracy or have an odd accent?... Ramius is a NON-RUSSIAN, *Latvian* Captain with no real loyalties to the foreign Russian communists in Moscow who have control of Latvia... Moreover, Sam Neill is nothing short of compelling in his portrayal of Ramius' confidant, Vasili Borodin, despite the imperfect accent. When he says "I would have liked to have seen Montana", I found myself thinking, "Any other actor and that remark might have seemed comical..." Yet with a display of almost naive, exuberant charm, Neill pulls it off. For me, his death was the most moving moment of the film. Peter Firth (of 1979's *Tess*) is remarkable in his performance as the political officer, and by way of comparison with everyone else, his Russian accent *is* quite good. James Earl Jones makes a brief but notable appearance as James Greer. Joss Ackland, another underrated actor, is also quite good as the disappointed Lysenko (his last scene near the end is marvelous). But the best performance of this film, in my opinion, has got to be that of Alec Baldwin. Considering his liberal, democratic political views, he has done a fantastic job convincing us that he IS Jack Ryan, the unexpected hero, the smart wise guy with no field experience who jumps headlong into an international incident and saves the day with his wits, tenacity, and reckless courage. He is the only one who stops to consider Ramius' intent, the only one who can avert a major international crisis. His relationship with the older Ramius is intriguing... by the end, it is almost as though he is the son Ramius never had. Yes, it all seems pretty unbelievable. But "The Hunt for Red October" makes one believe every moment, and that is why this action film is so memorable. Even if you don't ordinarily like action films, you will probably enjoy this one. My rating: 8.5/10

*Warning: spoilers.

Recently, a kind person out there notified me of an historical mistake in my previous commentary, pointing out to me that it was Lucius Verus who co-ruled with Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris' character in the film) and not Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix). I have to thank that person, because to be honest, I have not read much about the later years of the Roman Empire in many years, and had forgotten many details concerning the end of the Pax Romana. Nonetheless, and I may be wrong about this as it comes off the top of my head, I do believe that Marcus Aurelius did in fact approve of the choice of his son Commodus, which was not the case in "Gladiator". But I have to say, in this matter, I prefer the fictional account of the events over the reality. And to me, "Gladiator" does capture the essence of a broader Roman history in microcosm. In particular I found it strikingly interesting that at one of the gladiating tournaments in the film, the commentator spoke of the ancient Roman enemy of mighty Carthage as something out of "hallowed antiquity"... it seems unbelievable to imagine that the Roman empire lasted nearly a thousand years, and its citizens would probably have never been able to imagine it ending (doesn't it LOOK in the film as though the colosseum was built to last forever? And they do call Rome "the Eternal City", after all) or that a dark age would follow, with a thousand more years of ignorance and illiteracy until our modern age. It's hard to imagine that by the time in which "Gladiator" takes place, the Punic wars against Carthage which they use to stage gladiator battles in "Gladiator" had been over for around four hundred years! It kind of puts it into perspective how short-lived our own modern era is thus far. And just how long will we prosper before our "empire" begins to decline? When I think of this and put myself in Marcus Aurelius' shoes, who, in "Gladiator", could foresee that under his son Commodus, the empire would be heading into disaster (it IS nice to think that Marcus Aurelius would have foreseen this), I can understand why he was so determined to choose Maximus as his successor in order to return Rome to a republic (arguably something better). "Gladiator" is on one level a satisfying film because it not only asks what might have been possible to save the Roman Empire from collapsing but tempts us with a possible answer! As it turned out, nothing could save Rome; though the strength of Maximus' character is such that you begin to believe that he can save Rome from itself. To sum it up: if you enjoy a thought-provoking film that will leave you with more questions long after the film is over, you'll enjoy "Gladiator".

Warning: possible spoilers. I first saw "the Robe" about fifteen years ago... and marveled at the artistic quality and acting within the first half of the film... imagine, ancient Rome in all its glory! Years later, I still find that "The Robe" offers moments of greatness, but its main appeal for me is no longer predominantly of a visual nature. It is the love story of "the Robe" which endures in my mind. No matter how cynical one is tempted to be when revisiting an old favourite film, the story between Marcellus and Diane still manages to evince strong emotions; it still has the power to convince me of the strength of the love between them. All in all, I would say that "the Robe" is a worthwhile viewing for the classical or religious enthusiast; however, I found the latter half of the film in parts overly dramatic and religious, in particular as Victor Mature's character and the new Christians begin pontificating rather heavily... but then again, I did find the strength which his new religious revelations afford Marcellus rather uplifting in an odd way, especially towards the end of the film, when Marcellus is tested over how strongly he can hold to his newfound religious beliefs... and triumphs so bravely. If you can sit through an epic, this film is worth a go, and if you admire fine acting, you'll enjoy the fine performances of the greats Richard Burton (later in Cleoptra) and the lovely Jean Simmons (who also starred in Spartacus), especially the first scene in which they meet again after many years... My rating: 8/10 (it would have been higher if the film had been less "preachy")

Warning: possible spoilers!

"As Good as it Gets" is definitely one of the best films of 1997; only L. A. Confidential and in some respects, Titanic, match this level of cinematic quality, though for entirely different reasons. While L.A. Confidential more clearly deserves the award for best plot, As Good as it Gets could arguably beat it for best writing and performances (in my opinion, it is a toss-up between the two). This film is not a big blockbuster which blows you away with superfluous special effects, but rather a slice-of-life story brought to film with fantastic, intriguing, and amusing writing and incredibly vivid, daring, and raw, emotional performances; and though perhaps the plot of "As Good as it Gets" was somewhat predictable, real life can also be, given the same assembly of characters and situations... But make no mistake, "As Good as it Gets" is well worth watching for the characters alone, as motley a crew of eccentric, on-going NYC survivors as you will find on the silver screen. All in all, it has to be said that this is a superb comedy with golden moments from Nicholson and Hunt, in particular the scene in which Helen's character receives the nicest compliment of her life. Though I had no inkling of who exactly Greg Kinnear was before I saw this film, his performance was so remarkable that at moments, I was stunned to have been so deeply moved by it. He is truly one of the most talented actors to appear in recent years, and should win an academy award before the end of his career. As a comedy, "As Good as it Gets" lived up to its most daring name in 1997, easily standing head and shoulders above the rest. See it. My rating: 9.5/10.

Warning: perhaps a spoiler here.

I have to agree that Okno v Parizh is an unexpectedly delightful comedy, though the premise of the film might at first glance seem a bit ridiculous... a magic window that takes a group of Russians directly to Paris? Yes, exactly, that sounds a bit ridiculous, but it's a load of fun, too. And this group of inter-window travellers soon embarks on an adventure where they must (for a moment) brave (or happily succumb to) the delicious terrors of the temptations of capitalism... Okno v Parizh is hysterical but also makes some serious points if you look below the surface. In fact, it is amazing how well the film manages to keep a light-hearted tone throughout, despite the obvious dangers the film portrays within St. Petersburg, where the group of Russians must return and where an unsuspecting French woman is transported through the magic window... Overall, I give this funny film high marks: 8/10.

*warning, there may be an unintentional spoiler here:

I avoided this film for a long time, as I generally try to avoid flippant, trite, cotton candy fluff or neurotic-obsessive romantic-comedies, or films which I dread may fall into these categories. But I have to say, I did enjoy You've Got Mail much much more than I ever expected to, having rented it two years after the film's original release while living on the upper east side of Manhattan, partially because I suppose I was curious to see what another New York film would whine about. Sadly, Meg Ryan did not, as usual, stretch her range very far for this film, but once again as far as the demands of her role are concerned, she was well cast. Nevertheless, in this film, she does manage to be charming. There was a moment in which I found myself unexpectedly moved by her for the first time, in the scene where she relives a memory of "twirling" with her mother. Though I was never a Meg Ryan fan before, I found I liked her character in this film and her performance of the stalwart Kathleen Kelly (could she really exist in New York, though?). And though I have begun to feel that Tom Hanks is becoming a tediously ubiquitous face in Hollywood, much like Gerard Depardieu in France, I found his performance intriguing, as he avoided the pitfall of another clean cut Jimmy Stewart type nice guy role and allowed himself to appear as a modest modern villain: the head of a soul-eating big books corporation. Greg Kinnear's eccentric performance as Kathleen Kelly's writer/boyfriend Frank is very humorous and shines within the supporting cast. In general, this film is enjoyable, even though the plot is somewhat predictable. I liked it nonetheless and would recommend it, to sentimentalists and skeptics alike. Tom Hank's partial reformation and quest for redemption and reward is particularly believable and cleverly concocted. This is a romantic-comedy lover's must-see, and others will like it, too. My score: 8/10