Change Your Image
tom1978
Reviews
Death of a President (2006)
what a surprise
I was very skeptical before seeing this movie. Title and premise of "Death of a President" led me, and probably others, to expect either a shallow Bush-bashing hack-job or some sort of bizarre, "24"-like "we against the evildoers" hero-epic in a cheap documentary costume.
I'm happy to report: I was wrong. "Death of a President" is a very well written, performed and directed drama in the style of a modern (and hardly opinionated) documentary. And most surprisingly, it isn't really a movie about George W Bush.
It was a very smart move to make it a "mock" documentary, since it keeps the viewer on a skeptical distance to all the protagonists, so the movie doesn't push the audience into immediately placing the characters into the "good" and "bad" categories like it would be the case with a drama done in a conventional narrative. That gives room to examine the characters different motives and actions without having to rely on pressing the emotion-buttons too much. Of course this approach relies on convincing performances from all actors involved (mabybe even more so than with a conventional drama) to keep the illusion alive of actually watching a documentary.... over-acting could have been a disaster for this movie, and i'm very glad cast and director avoided that pitfall. Fine performances all around.
Now, to the obvious elephant in the room (and the reason why this movie is so controversial): Why did the makers of the movie not just have a fictional president killed? Shock value? Some kind of perverse joy in getting rid of the real President? I don't think so.
First of all, having the real President Bush in the movie obviously makes this theoretical exercise just more authentic and convincing. And more importantly, the viewer is forced to place himself somewhere among the characters, to place his sympathy and antipathy bets just based on preconceived notions, so to speak. I doubt there are many people who don't have a clear opinion about George W Bush and his administration (I certainly have mine. And in the interest of full disclosure, I'm no fan, to say the least). But that opinion (whatever it is) is important for the movie to get it's point across: it's the setup to play effectively with the viewers prejudices.
"Death of a President" manages to make you look beyond the stereotypes and makes a solid point about the misleading force of preconceived notions (for the viewer as well as the characters in the movie). The tag line "Do not rush to judge" is well chosen. The movie in particular makes a valid point about the worrying tendency in the US (and the world in general, I cant think of any society that's not to some degree affected by this "disease") of more and more dumbing everything down to "us versus them".
Be it the inflation of the word "Terrorist" as a magic opinion maker, (and drifting away from the movie for a second) be it Republicans versus Democrats, be it the insane shouting matches that pass as talk shows these days or be it the bizarre notion of an inevitable "clash of the civilizations".
The movie isn't perfect though. For example, the character of Bushs speech writer was a bit over the top in her praise for the man, while the protesting crowds remained rather stereotypical. Also, some doctored shots didn't quite live up to the otherwise impressive technical level of this production.
Yet "Death of a Presindent" offers a bit of much needed perspective on the Terrorism-issue; it sure does it by rather drastic means but it doesn't fail to deliver. Of course for me, as a distant observer of the USA, the fact that the actual President gets "assasinated" in this movie doesn't have quite the emotional punch as it must have for Americans. So I can understand the very mixed reactions it gets from reviewers.
But if you feel up to it, go see it yourself and then make up your mind, instead of rushing to judgment based on title and plot outline.
The Last Castle (2001)
i just invented something really cool:
its a typewriter, but instead of letters you can hit buttons to fill random Hollywood-crap into your movie script. Now place a drunk monkey in front of it for a few hours and you end up with something like "The Last Castle".
Oh it has it all: the poor stutterer who regains back his pride but has to die to at least somehow get the plot ahead, a fallen hero (who of course proves that he still is a a genuine all American, battle hardened super-dude), a villain (who of course didn't understand all the noble principles of the American military) that is not just beyond evil, but also on the brink from stupidity to complete retardedness (here in the form of the military prison warden... not exactly a new scheme either, is it?), prisoners making (unnoticed from all the guards) a huge catapult and to top it of even a spiffy gas tank-bazooka, a guy (the cynical doubter, who in the end of course decides to join in in the noble efforts) climbing up on a chain to a flying helicopter and capturing it (even surprising the dude in it WHO HAS A FRIGGIN SHOTGUN!), brave prisoners fighting of dudes in full riot gear with cafeteria equipment, the loyal aid to the villain who in the very end finally has the guts to end his master's madness, former enemies among the prisons who overcome their differences in their fight against evil, a troubled relationship between the hero and his daughter (he's never seen his grandson....sniff), awesomely inspiring monologues from our hero that will probably one day become the very definition of pathos... well the list is long. In case you're thinking "well, that's a pretty normal amount of crap and stereotypes in a movie, isn't it?", I saved the knock-out scene for last: While our great hero is dying from several gunshot wounds (inflicted by the crazy villain himself of course), the last thing he does is proudly raising the star spangled banner on the flag pole in the middle of the prison courtyard and then doing his last breath with a hint of a smile on his face. Glorious!
So...yeah, Robert Redford might be a decent actor and the supporting cast isn't too bad either....but the drunk monkeys, i tell ya, can ruin everyone's portfolio. ;)
Brazil (1985)
as Gilliam as it gets
Trying to put Brazil into a certain genre is hard to do, probably even impossible. So i won't try. This movie is hilariously funny and utterly creepy at the same time, it'retro-futuristic and an ironic view of the times we live in, it's a love story with a sad ending, it's political satire without a single politician in it, it's slapstick comedy with torture, it's women wearing shoes on their heads and terrorism, it's plastic surgery and an LSD-trip like funeral... to put it all in other words: it's Terry Gilliam's take on Orwell's "1984" (sortof....plus of course a guerrilla heating technician; ninja style!).
But if you're expecting to just get "1984" mixed into a bit of Monty Python's bizarro-world, you will be disappointed: you wont get the "trademarks" of neither of them. No pointless jokes like the "silly walks", and no warning words for the future printed in bold, capital letters either. What you get with "Brazil" is a visually very clever (and partially even stunning) movie, that might leave you a bit lost when the credits start to roll. I don't think that's a bad thing, quite the opposite actually. Brazil is one of the few movies that defies all categorization, that is thought provoking and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time. Don't miss this gem! Although i can see why Brazil doesn't appeal to everyone (the wild genre-mix sure isn't everybody's taste), i highly recommend you at least give it a try some time, if you haven't seen it yet. Oh, and make sure you get the version with the original ending, not the butchered "happy ending".
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
feel guilty already, you sinners!
A warning word ahead: yes, you might be offended by my following comments if you happen to be a Christian. So if you don't want to be offended, there's one simple solution: don't read any further.
well, OK, i tagged this comment containing spoilers, so here we go: Jesus dies. So much about the plot of this movie. That sure doesn't sound like it could fill 127 minutes worth of film reel, but if you manage to add just enough blood, whipping, beating, blatant sadism, torn up flesh and...well...a bit more blood still, it works out. Actually i believe there's so much blood in this movie, you would probably have to drain at least 3 skinny men to get to the amount Jesus is managing to bleed in this film.
Now why on earth did Mel Gibson choose to depict the most defining part of Christian mythology as a state-of-the-art splatter film? The reason is to me pretty obvious: the viewer should feel guilty, very guilty. Afterall, if Jesus didn't "die on the cross for our sins", as the writers of the bible wanted us to believe, he'd be just one of the many magic-tricks performing, sweet talking "messiases" the world has seen for thousands of years.
Now to make things clear, i don't think there's anything wrong with believing in the story Jesus died for your sins (remembering that guilt i.e. the concept of "sins" is a strong (and obviously convincing) element in so many religions), but when guilt becomes the very central element of your reasons to follow a certain religion, you're not only bound to lead an unhappy life (which is none of my business actually), you also are more likely to be willing to impose your believes on other people, since you might "owe" it to your god to save as many souls as possible (which then effects me too).
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" therefor stands out for me among the many films about Jesus and other religious figures as the most obviously manipulating of all of them. There's only one single point made by this movie, and that's: "look how this fellow suffered....for you! Now dammit make up for it!". The tool which Mr.Gibson uses to bring across his point is not the often in the comments here seen "historic accuracy" (which is kind of an oxymoron anyways ...we're talking about the gospel, or put in other words: mythology), its straight out "shock and awe" to the extreme - kind of a bastard son of attention grabbing and good old emotional manipulation.
in closing, the 2 points I gave this movie go directly to the special effects crew.
Ying xiong (2002)
beautiful for sure, but also very worrying.
Hero is a beautiful film, no doubt about that. The cinematography is nothing short of spectacular, incredible martial arts display and the script itself isn't exactly shallow as well.... i'm not going too much into details here, since other viewers have cheered about this movie at length already.
But there is a flaw, and it's an overshadowing flaw, and thats the message. This message of "all under heaven" (or greater china) being the supreme idea to uphold even if it means death and suffering for many is indeed an unforgivable slap in the face for all those who have suffered from tyranny or even found death when trying to challenge the people in power. The "message" is taken to an extreme when the "wise" King of Qin orders, with a tear in his eyes, to execute the nameless hero even after he aborted his plans to kill the king.... since the law needs to be enforced to keep order in the kingdom, right? In the movie, Nameless accepts his faith willingly and is obviously aware that it's all for the "greater good". For everyone remembering the tienanmen square massacre in 1989 this kind of blatant propaganda is just disgusting. And i find it deeply worrying that so many people can rave about this movie without even noticing the ugly and i think pretty obvious connection to the china from the cultural revolution till now.