American_Delight's Reviews

The Sheik (1921)

6/10

8 July 2011

Lawrence loved Arabia and Meryl Streep fell for Africa, but Diana, the leading lady of "The Sheik," resists the desert with all her might. She reacts badly to Valentino at first, prefers to consort with Europeans, and threatens Arabs with a pistol she can barely shoot. As in every Hollywood romance, however, her heart eventually melts. Maybe this was an unexpected plot twist in 1921.

"The Sheik," will open the eyes of anybody who mistakenly believes that human history has been a steady march of ever increasing open-mindedness about sex. The 1920s were a more open, steamy time in film that the next couple of decades that followed it, which the "The Sheik" non-prudish storyline illustrates.

"The Sheik" is not quite exhilarating enough and is somewhat disappointing if you're looking for exotic passion or a home video for date night. But it succeeds as an early romantic comedy, and distinguishes itself from other silent era fare such as the mawkish humor of Chaplain, the historical bombast of "Birth of a Nation," and the serious reverence of "King of Kings." For romance between appealing leads in locations far from civilization as we know it, "Son of the Sheik" or even "Stagecoach" fifteen years later are better bets. Still, "The Sheik" is historically important and more fun than most films of the time.

13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Thief of Bagdad (1940)

6/10

Fun, non-PC cinematic adventure

5 July 2011

First, though fictional, scenes from "The Thief of Baghdad" such as a public beheading are actually truer to the old (and current) Middle East and less slavish to political correctness than supposedly well-researched contemporary movies like "Kingdom of Heaven." Second, images of a genie materializing from smoke, flying horses, flying carpets, and a man residing underwater are dated visual effects by today's standards, but are clever, imaginative, and groundbreaking for 1940. "The Thief of Baghdad" no doubt set the stage for swashbuckling special effect successors like "Sinbad the Sailor," "Clash of the Titans," and "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad." Third, this movie has good guys versus bad guys (Ahmad & Abu vs. Jaffar), romance (Ahmad & the princess), humor (the battle of wits between Abu and the genie), and a series of mini-adventures within the larger adventure. It's a good formula for popcorn & fun. Recommmended.

5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Deterrence (1999)

7/10

Thought-provoking national security drama

16 May 2011

Far from being an irrelevant glimpse of an alternate history that never materialized, the fictional re-invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in "Deterrence" provides a highly relevant alternative to the U.S. approach to rogue states in the world today. With the U.S. fighting two wars and the budget looking grim, it crosses the mind of even the most hawkish among us whether feckless air wars and costly ground wars are worthwhile. The alternative is simple, elegant, and ghastly: a promise to drop a nuclear bomb on our enemy if they do not meet U.S. demands. Imagine if Afghanistan or Pakistan had been told in September 2001 to turn over Bin Laden and Mullah Omar or face the imminent nuclear annihilation of Kabul and Islamabad. Would Bin Laden not have been swinging from the end of a noose ten years ago?

It's a compelling and stark bit of realpolitik, suitable for discussions at the café among political intellectuals. But it works well as drama too as we watch Kevin Pollak's character, Walter Emerson, grow in the movie from a mousy, underwhelming "second banana" into a steely, decisive leader. Director Rod Lurie says that ultimately, Pres. Emerson is a villain for making such a heinous threat. Viewers can make up their own minds. Some of the scenes involving the local customers in the diner border on cheesy, awkward, or artificial; but the tension, surprising decisions, and political intrigues played out in this film make it a must-see national security drama.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

House of Saddam (2008)

8/10

Indulgent, soapy political drama

16 May 2011

"House of Saddam" covers a quarter century of the Iraqi dictator's ruthless rule over his people. The filmmakers play it straight: they depict the political and historical developments the way Saddam was believed to have viewed them--that Kuwait was unfair and foolish to have increased oil production in the late 1980s/early 1990s, that the Iraqi government believed it had received private assurances from the U.S. ambassador to Iraq that Americans would not interfere with an Iraqi-Kuwaiti conflict, and that Iraq was a world hero standing alone athwart the frightening menace of post-revolutionary Iran.

Although the film lets Saddam Hussein speak for himself without interjecting serious voices of political opposition, the mini-series does not excuse or minimize Saddam's villainy or extreme paranoia. Saddam murders his enemies, and at times renders even shabbier treatment to those closest to him. Saddam kills his best friend to demonstrate his ability to be tough. Saddam cashiers his own half brother, head of his personal security, in favor of an ambitious ruffian from Saddam's father's family. He arranged the murder of his wife's brother and his daughters' husbands.

What gives "House of Saddam" panache is the luxurious production values, the soapy melodrama of the family (Uday's serial addictions, Saddam's love affair with his future second wife, the plucky austerity of Saddam's mother), and casting actors who are sexier and more stylish than the real people they played. This is how history should be told—with personality and flare.

1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Soldiers Pay (2004)

3/10

Mercifully short

1 October 2009

This short 2004 documentary styles itself as a representation of both sides of American views of the Iraq war. However, most of the opposing arguments expressed toward the beginning of the film--that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous threat that needed to be removed on one hand, or that other alternatives to invasion were available on the other hand--are already widely known by most people without having to sit through this.

One topic addressed by the movie that has received less treatment elsewhere is requisitioning--the taking of private goods or supplies for military use. The story of theft by U.S. Army soldiers of cash in a raided Iraqi house where $3 million was found, is told in a way to present SGT Matt Novak, the only soldier dishonorably discharged in connection with the theft, as the patsy of higher ranking crooks. An interesting tale to be sure, which could have even been the subject of the whole 35 minute film. But evidently, the directors didn't have quite enough material on illegal requisitions to even fill half an hour.

The film goes on from there to use snippets from military service members who oppose the war for various reasons--such as contractors getting paid more than soldiers, the requisition abuses, or the psychological effects of deployment--to paste together a left-leaning anti-war message that becomes more apparent as the video progresses. The pro-Kerry filmmakers felt their anti-war arguments would be made more persuasively by soldiers & sailors. (The directors even tried to influence the election by releasing this on the Independent Film Channel the night before the presidential election.) Yet, public opinion polls from 2004 showed that military voters supported Bush 4 to 1 over Kerry. One would have to be very naïve to think this film represented the majority opinion of the military at that time.

If you are a high school social studies teacher who just taught your class a block of instruction on the facts & history of the Iraq war, this short piece may be a useful springboard for discussion and debate among your students. But for average informed adults, even 35 minutes is too long to waste watching this piece.

3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception (2004)

3/10

Scattershot documentary fails to convince or enlighten

25 September 2009

Filmmaker Danny Schechter dismisses news coverage of the budding Iraq insurgency in 2003 as "a catalog of incidents" without context or analysis by war reporters. Ironically, Danny Schechter's documentary is so poorly organized that his film comes across as a "catalog of incidents" itself: first here's a clip of Bill O'Reilly saying something pro-war, now here's a CNN reporter criticizing the embedding of reporters within military units, and here's a graphic of a Time magazine cover that he Schecter finds questionable, now look at some Abu Ghraib photos. "WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception," has a hard time staying on any one topic longer than five minutes. The only common thread is that Schecter thinks all the Iraq war journalism was crummy war boosterism.

Schechter, the self-professed "news dissector," burnishes some selectively chosen evidence to support his argument. He cites the lack of coverage of the Feb. 15, 2003, world-wide peace protests as evidence that the media did not take the opposing views of war critics seriously. Fair enough, but most adults remember that, although most Americans supported the impending war at that time, the prospect of preemptive war was controversial and was being hotly debated in Congress, on talk shows, and among citizens. The idea that dissenting voices were muzzled in a country with as much free speech as we enjoy is absurd.

Ultimately, "WMD" breaks little new ground. Schechter's analysis would resonate with some Democrats, but it will ring utterly hollow with conservatives who know that the only real media bias is a liberal anti-war orientation from Vietnam right up to today. This film would change very few minds, if any. Documentaries like "Hearts and Minds" and "Farenheit 911," are seriously misguided politically, but they contain far more emotional power and narrative appeal than this effort.

A stronger approach would have been for Schechter to focus in on one particular aspect of Iraq war journalism, such as coverage of weapons of mass destruction. The misleading title certainly indicated that would be the focus. The U.S. ultimately concluded that Sadam maintained weapons programs for a "surge capacity," but we did not find WMD stockpiles. This was a serious mistake that all countries (even France, Egypt, and Iraq itself believed Sadam had WMDs!) need to examine about themselves, their intelligence services, their politicians, and yes, their journalists. The documentary would have been far more enlightening if Schechter stuck to "dissecting" the WMD story.

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Message (1976)

4/10

Moustapha misses mark with Muslim "King of Kings"

19 September 2009

Warning: Spoilers

As Muhammad's following grows even among old enemies, Bu-Sofyan says "Muhammad, there is still doubt in my heart." "If we were to cut off your head it would remove all your doubts," responds Khalid.

"Khalid," Bilal chastises, "there's no compulsion in religion." Bilal, one of Muhammad's top lieutenants, must not have received Allah's memo. The Koran's verse on "no compulsion in religion" (2:256) was at this point already abrogated by the more recently revealed verse of the sword: "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them" (9:5). Like Khalid's threat, director Moustapha Akkad's religious epic, "The Message," does depict the violent streak of Islam, but uses sugarcoated dialog throughout the film to allow for easier swallowing by Western audiences.

Akkad must have grown up watching and loving Biblical epics, and wanted to bring the same Hollywood grandeur to the life of Muhammad. For example, Akkad portrays the early Muslims like the Christian martyrs of Nero's Rome in "Quo Vadis." Like Palm Sunday scenes from "Jesus of Nazareth" or "The Greatest Story Ever Told," Muhammad's arrival in Medina is marked by palm-waving locals (just swap out the donkey for a white camel). Anthony Quinn's Hamza character mimics John the Baptist, and Damien Thomas's Zaid is Muhammad's St. Peter. Irene Papas and Michael Ansara serve as the blood-thirsty Herod & Salome of Mecca. And Richard Johnson, the narrator from "Moses the Lawgiver," serves as, you guessed it, narrator of "The Message."

However, gospel parallels end there. Muhammad's ministry ends--not with salvation on a cross--but with a massive armed attack against his political foes, including a beheading spree. This bloody twist is fitting for a religion borne out of combat and a film directed by the future producer of "Halloween." (Another notable similarity: in "Halloween" we don't see the actual face of Michael Myers who, like Muhammad, is periodically played by the camera!)

Sadly, Akkad whitewashes other uncomfortable aspects of Islam: Muhammad's followers in "The Message" proclaim repeatedly to astonished Arabs that women are equal to men, whereas the Koran itself actually ascribes to women lesser rights of inheritance (4:12), lesser innate worth (2:228) and permits wife-beating (4:38). Equally exaggerated is Islam's compatibility with Christianity: the movie's Christian king of Abyssinia tells Muhammad's representatives that the Muslim and Christian are separated by no more than a line on the ground. The scriptwriters thus sidestep the denial of Christ's divinity by Muhammad, the instructions of the Koran to "take not Jews or Christians as friends" (5:56), and that "Jesus is no more than a servant" (43:57).

If you want a more honest assessment of the origins of Islam, try the documentary, "Islam: What the West Needs to Know." For Anthony Quinn fans, check out "Lust for Life." If you want a religious biopic, watch "The Ten Commandments." For a great desert epic, see "Lawrence of Arabia." But leave this snow-job on the shelf.

26 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Voices of Iraq (2004)

7/10

Optimism of Iraqi People Revealed

12 September 2009

How would you like to watch a documentary? With subtitles. In a war zone. Sounds uplifting, right? Yet somehow, the filmmakers--some 150 Iraqis that producer Eric Manes gave cameras to film their families, friends, and neighbors--make it work.

The documentary takes place throughout Iraq, with footage from the Marsh Arab South to the Kurdish North to Baghdad itself, from early 2004 leading up to the Iraqi elections in January 2005. The camera operators ask other Iraqis questions about their painful memories of Sadam; their frustrations with ongoing violence; and their attitudes toward democracy, women, and Iraq's future.

Even during the height of the violence, the film reveals the optimism of the Iraqi people: their belief that eventually normalcy will return, that Baghdad would surpass the appeal of Amman and Sharm El Sheikh, and that there are enough talented Iraqis to catapult their country forward.

The documentary is optimistic and slightly pro-American without ignoring the negative aspects of the invasion. In one memorable scene, an Iraqi elder complains about the ruinous lack of security and stability that followed the invasion. And this, he says, is coming from an avowed opponent of Sadam Hussein. Then the old gentleman drops trou to show two bullet wounds where Baathists shot had shot him just above his buttocks! If you want to see an informative portrayal of life and conversations among Iraqis themselves, without being force-fed talking points from America's anti-war left, this film is for you.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

American_Delight

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed