Into the Wild

Christopher McCandless aka Alexander Supertramp

Directed by Sean Penn

I realize that my last post says that this post would be about Spielberg’s ‘Munich’. However, I didn’t realize that ‘Munich’ released some time ago, and I try to keep my reviews to films that have been released within the past year. So I decided to switch over to ‘Into the Wild’.

‘Wild’ is a film about Christopher McCandless, who after college graduation decided to wander America on his own without money and test his hand at survival. He ended up spending several months living in an abandoned bus in the Alaskan wilderness, where he eventually died of starvation.

Penn’s work is outstanding. The story structure is sound, the acting is great, and the scenery shots are breathtaking. The problem I have with the film lies not in the structure, but in the main character. I didn’t like McCandless (he traveled under the pseudonym ‘Alexander Supertramp’) and I was disturbed that his stubborn will and his fate were romanticized.

I do take my hat off to Chris for having the desire and courage to forge out on his own to ‘find’ himself, but I still thought he was somewhat of a brat. He had lived a privileged life: his parents were well to do, and his college education was paid for. But early on in the film he throws a temper tantrum when his father suggests that Chris’ car is old and beat up. When his father offers him a car for graduation Chris gets upset, suggesting that he is above the commercialism that surrounds him. If that’s the case, fine, but acting like a jerk about it is a real turnoff.

Chris works his way across the country in odd jobs, even taking one working on a grain elevator. While there one of his co-workers teaches him how to properly work the meat off a fresh hunting kill. More on that later. Eventually Chris decides he wants to kayak down the Colorado River. When told he would have to wait for a permit, he puts in anyway, ignoring the laws and he rides down the rapids without a helmet. He seemed to pride himself on doing things like this, taking on adventures without preparation or standard precautions. It just came across to me as a lack of common sense.

Eventually he makes his way to Alaska where he hikes in with little more than some food supplies, a gun and some books. After spending time in the bus he decides to head back out only to find that the river that he had waded across on his way in is swollen from Spring runoff, and impassable. Had he done a little research on the area he might have planned for this or been able to find a passable point on the river.

Chris spends most of his time in the wilderness living off of small game. But he eventually kills a moose, which could have fed him for a long time. However, he tries to smoke the meat, as his co-worker had taught him to do. However, he improperly smokes the meat, and maggots claim the food. Again, had he understood that smoking moose meat is different than keeping it of smaller game in different climates , he wouldn’t have spoiled the entire kill.

McCandless resorts to eating local berries and leaves for sustenance while punching holes in his belt as his waistline continues to shrink. He ends up eating poisonous berries, which eventually causes his starvation (although later autopsy reports dispute his poisoning, claiming that he simply starved). Again his lack of common sense is demonstrated. After getting sick he reads in his book on local plants that those that he has eaten are poisonous. He had the book all along, but didn’t use it until it was too late.

McCandless to me represents one of those people who are book smart but can’t rationalize real-world situations. The only time that he exercises good judgment is when a he is living in a gypsy camp and an under-age girl tries to seduce him. His response to her is ‘We can’t do that.’ If only he had said that more often he might be alive today.

This film earns a 6 out of 10.

Beowulf

Directed by Robert Zemeckis

I have seen a great many bad films in my lifetime, so I am not going to go ‘Comic Book Guy’ from the Simpsons and declare “Worst movie ever!” However, I can say that this was one of the worst movies in a long time. It’s not that I am surprised that this movie was no good. I saw the previews, I read the reviews, and I knew what to expect. But sometimes you just have to know how bad a film can be. I should say that that actors like Anthony Hopkins and John Malkovich and director Robert Zemeckis (Castaway, Contact) as well as screenwriter Neil Gaiman (whose Sandman comics are great) should all be ashamed to say that they are associated with this film. Angelina Jolie is a chronically bad actress, so I am not disturbed to see that she was a part of this. She was a good fit.

Often times when a literary work is made into a film, readership of the book is increased. With the release of the Lord of the Rings films one saw many people with copies of the books that featured characters from the films. Such was the case for me with the release of The Hunt for Red October in 1990. I ran right out and bought a copy of Tom’s Clancy’s novel, and then proceeded to read everything that he had written. The recent screen version of Beowulf may incite people to read or re-read the poem, but not the same reasons as those that sparked interest in ‘Rings’, ‘Red October’ or even Harry Potter. In my case I have decided to read Beowulf again so that my last memory of this great epic is not one of badly generated CG effects and Ray Winstone (Beowulf) wrestling the monster Grendel while naked.

Beowulf originated as early as 1010AD (according to Wikipedia) composed by an unknown author. Somewhere that unknown author is rolling over in the grave. In the original story, Beowulf engages in three battles. In the first the hero engages in hand to hand combat with Grendel and tears the monsters arm off. Grendel then retreats to his home to die. The film got this even pretty close to the mark, except for the needless nudity of Beowulf. However, the film suggests that Grendel is the illegitimate son of King Hrothgar (Hopkins) who had relations with Grendel’s mother (Jolie).

The second battle is between Beowulf and Grendel’s mother, who has begun killing in revenge of her son’s death. Here’s where the film goes awry. In the real story, the hero kills the monster with her own sword after discovering that his own sword cannot. The cinematic version suggests that Beowulf is seduced by Grendel’s mother, and promised that he cannot be defeated in battle as long as she possesses a golden horn that she takes from him.

The final battle takes place many years later when a slave steals the golden horn from the cave of a dragon, which kills in revenge. An older Beowulf engages the dragon in battle and again emerges victorious. The film version suggests that the dragon is Beowulf’s son, just as Grendel was Hrothgar’s bastard son. The story ends with Beowulf’s funeral, as he succumbs to wounds suffered while fighting the dragon. However, the film ends with the king who succeeds Beowulf spotting the ageless Jolie, who will presumably seduce him as well.

Zemeckis portrays Beowulf as arrogant, selfish, and proud, a liar and a philanderer. While agree that the protagonist was proud, in the epic you had to work to realize his pride. In the film it was thrust in your face at every turn. The rest of the negative attributes associated with Beowulf I don’t recall, despite reading it three times during my college career. That is why I will go back to revisit the text.

The film also portrays Beowulf as a last holdout of paganism against Christianity. Characters are often heard yelling praises to Odin, a Norse God. At one point in the film Hrothgar is asked if maybe the villagers should pray for protection from Grendel to this ‘new’ Christ Jesus. Hrothgar waves the suggestion off. Toward the end of the film Beowulf’s wife Wealthow (Robin Wright Penn) is seen walking around carrying a cross and flanked by her Christian priests. Beowulf is a man that seems to be larger than God, a man who cannot be defeated in battle by other men. But with his passing the faith in man gives way to the faith in God, who truly cannot be defeated.

I was amazed to find that after nearly 30,000 votes on the Internet Movie Database the average score was 6.8. I give it 2 out of 10.

Next up: Munich directed by Steven Spielberg

The Bourne Identity directed by Doug Lyman
The Bourne Supremacy and
The Bourne Ultimatum directed by Paul Greengrass

I didn’t see any of these films until the last came out on DVD. I then took the trilogy and loaded them on to my iPod, watching them as I shuffled to and from work on the train day after day. I enjoyed all of them, most of all ‘Identity’.

Usually I prefer the first film in a trilogy, The Lord of the Rings being the exception. Generally the first film if well done outshines the rest, and the subsequent installments fail to live up to the first. But I don’t think that was the case here. All three of the films were exciting, and the action and suspense never got stale. The reason the first was the best in this case was mostly attributed to the film making style. I found that the second and third films were a bit choppy, which created confusion. I understand that during a chase scene (of which there are many) the movement of the camera can create a sense that the viewer is in the middle of the action. But there were many times when the shaking of the camera made me lose sight of what was happening, and at times I just waited until the scene was over to see who was alive and who was dead. There was just too much motion. I can imagine that people who saw these films in theaters and sat too close to the screen could have become nauseated.

I have heard many people compare Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) to James Bond. I can understand this comparison when I think about Bourne’s resourcefulness, but I think the link ends there. In Bond’s case, you don’t ever see remorse for all of the people he has killed, except a bit in the recent ‘Casino Royale’. At the beginning of the trilogy Bourne does not know who he is. The more he learns about his past, he realizes that he has killed several people in service to his country. And he doesn’t like it.

The fact that Bourne doesn’t like the things he has done makes him a complex character. Eventually he finds out that the super-secret force that he had been a part of did not recruit him, but he approached them. Bourne battles the knowledge that he has volunteered for the service but later had a change of heart.

The films were replete with all kinds of traditional film conventions that you would expect to find in a spy thriller. My favorite was the old ‘shoot the driver’ bit. Have you seen this one? When a car is being chased and a fight is going on between the hero and villain, who gets shot? The driver of the pursued car. In the back. While on a bridge. And the car plunges off the bridge. Don’t get me wrong. Conventions like these didn’t take away from the films. In the case of Bourne, they made the films more fun, much like the conventions in a Bond film make them more fun. I think that is why I enjoyed these films so much. Here we have action thriller films that kept good suspense, but didn’t take themselves too seriously. The directors didn’t have to resort to blood and guts to keep the tension up. A spy movie that can be entertaining while keeping a PG-13 rating can’t be easy to pull off. And in this case they pulled it off three times in a row.

If you don’t want plot spoilers, stop reading right now. I like how the trilogy came full circle. The first scene in the first film showed Bourne in the ocean, floating motionless after having been shot in the back. This scene is recalled in the last scene of the last film, where Bourne is seen floating motionless in a river after having been shot at from behind by Noah Voss (David Straithairn). Both shots are limed from underneath the body, with a single light from above illuminating Bourne. However, in the final scene Bourne shudders and swims off camera, reminding us that he can’t be killed by a cowardly shot in the back. I thought it was a nice touch.

‘Identity’ earned an 8 out of 10. ‘Supremacy’ got a 6 and ‘Ultimatum’ earned a 7.

Next review: Beowulf, directed by Robert Zemeckis

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Directed by Andrew Dominik

Is this really the best title that Dominik could come up with? I have a big problem with it on many levels. First, let’s talk about the obvious: It doesn’t leave a lot of room for suspense. We know before we even watch that Jesse James (Brad Pitt) will die before the film is over. You might say that the James isn’t who the movie is really about. To which I would ask: Why include it in the title?

The second issue I have with this unnecessarily long title is the fact that Ford is labeled a coward. It is not that I have an issue with Ford (Casey Affleck) being labeled a coward; I think he was. But by announcing it in the title of the film, Dominik declares that Ford will be painted a certain way. He deprives audiences the ability to watch and judge for themselves. By telling us that James is going to be killed and that the man who does it is a coward, Dominik gives us a pass to mindlessly watch the film, while enjoying the outdoor scenes and pretty costumes.

Now that I’ve railed against the stupid title, let’s talk about the film itself. Dominik must be a fan of the great John Ford, because he copies several shot techniques from Ford’s 1956 film ‘The Searchers’. Two shots in particular stand out to me. Early in The Searchers, a woman walks out of a farm house door. The camera is placed behind her, so that as she opens the door and walks out, the unfolding scene is framed by the door. Ford became famous for using this shot in many of his films, and Dominik uses it several times in ‘Jesse James’.

At one point in the movie James and Charley Ford (Sam Rockwell) walk across the ice of a frozen lake. Both are on foot and James walks ahead while Ford leads the horses. But before the two are seen, we see the ice, with rows of pine trees in the background. The two men enter from the right side of the screen, walking across while the camera freezes. This introduction is not unlike another winter scene from ‘The Searchers’ where Ethan Edwards (The Duke, John Wayne) and Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter) move from right to left while the camera stays put. I applaud Dominik for using some of the classic Fordian film techniques. I am just glad that Ford used ‘The Searchers’ as a title instead of ‘Two Brave Men Who Rescue a Girl from a Bunch of Indians’.

The character of Robert Ford is one that many people may identify with. I don’t mean the cowardice, but the metamorphosis from an admirer of James to one who loathes him. At the beginning of the film Ford idolizes James, and begs and pleads to become a member of the James gang. As Ford gets close to Jesse, the polish that Ford has put on James starts to wear off. He sees James’ shortcomings, and begins to realize that his hero is human, despite all of the superhuman things he’s read about Jesse. To make matters worse, James frequently mocks Ford, both for being a foolish follower and for just being plain slow. Ford goes from wanting to be Jesse James to wanting to be bigger and better than James. Think about that for a minute. Have you ever done that? Have you ever known someone who has been larger than life to you, only to find that they are human, and you feel that to be successful you need to be even larger?

Casey Affleck was certainly good in this film. He’s actually a better actor than his brother. He even carried that turd of an over rated ‘Gone Baby Gone’. As usual Brad Pitt was outstanding, though it was not his most memorable performance (See ‘Snatch’). Overall this film earned a 7 of 10.

Next up: The Bourne Trilogy

No Country for Old Men

Directed by Ethan and Joel Coen

Tomorrow night when the Oscars are handed out I will be deeply disappointed if this film wins Best Picture. It is not that I didn’t like the film; I really enjoyed it. But I don’t think that it was the best picture in the past year. This film cannot compete with There Will Be Blood. Despite being a really intense, well acted film, I wouldn’t even rate it the best of the Coen brothers’ output. If I was to sit down to satisfy a craving for a Coen film, I would watch Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou, Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, The Hudsucker Proxy and The Big Lebowski in that order before I would watch No Country. Okay, maybe not Lebowski, but you get the point.

Much has been said about the performance of Javier Bardem, and rightly so. He delivers one of the best performances as a villain that I have seen in quite some time. He’s the kind of bad guy you really fear. He is ruthless and vicious, yet takes great care to avoid getting the blood of his victims on his boots. Bardem appears to be larger than life, not just figuratively but literally. Because of the camera angles and zooms he appears to be a very large and intimidating man.

Because of the attention given to Bardem’s acting, the presentation of Josh Brolin has been largely overlooked. When I first saw previews of the film I thought that Brolin was Kurt Russell. It’s hard to believe that he ever played Brand Walsh in The Goonies. His mien is the sort of dry manner that is seen in so many Coen brothers films. At times he reminded me of Nicholas Cage in Raising Arizona. At other times I could see Tim Robbins from Hudsucker.

The Coens always find a way to subtly link their films together and this was no exception. Brolin’s character Llewelyn Moss and his wife live in a trailer in Texas. The floor plan of the trailer is exactly the same as the one from Raising Arizona. It could be the same one. Who knows? In one seen from No Country Tommy Lee Jones, who plays a local sheriff, is looking for Moss, and searches through the trailer. Earlier in the film when Bardem had broken into the trailer he had used a high pressure tank to blast the dead bolt out of the door. As Jones bends down to examine the mark that the dead bolt left on the wall, I can’t help but think of the scene in Arizona when Randall ‘Tex’ Cobb is searching the trailer and bends down to examine the word ‘FART’ scrawled on the wall.

One thing that this film really has to its credit is the dialogue. As usual the Coens did a great job with the witty and disturbing interactions between characters. There is more that I want to say about a careful message within the film, but I cannot do so without ruining the film for anyone who has not seen it. If you see it, come ask me later about the significance of the phrase “Beer leads to more beer.”

Despite how negative I might sound about this film, I still really enjoyed it. I would still give it a 7.5 out of 10.


Next Up: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, directed by Andrew Dominik

There Will be Blood Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

Every so often an actor turns in a performance that makes audiences think “No one else could have pulled that off.” I’m talking about performances that steal the show, that make the show. Performances like this include Osron Welles in Citizen Kane, Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard, Alec Guiness in Bridge Over the River Kwai, Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Kevin Spacey from American Beauty. Add a new performer to this list: Daniel Day Lewis.

The Last of the Mohicans aside, everything Lewis has touched has been great, including such films as My Left Foot, In the Name of the Father and The Boxer. But his portrayal of Daniel Plainview in ‘Blood’ cements him as one of the greatest of all time. This is one film that I don’t want to spoil for anyone, so I’ll be careful. But his last line in the film, where he says ‘I’m finished.’ is one that will be quoted for years to come.

Much of the power of the performance comes from the fact that Plainview is such a bad man. In his pursuit of wealth in the arena of oil he would step over anyone and anything that got in his way. I spent a great deal of time trying to figure out if he really was a bad person or if it was just a façade he wore. I kept waiting for his softer side. At one point in the film we discover that a young girl is beaten by her father if she doesn’t say her prayers. After Plainview discovers oil and enables the town to thrive he sits her down and asks her, within earshot of her father, whether or not she is still beaten. She relies that she is not beaten, and is let go. Plainview looks at the girl’s father, who uncomfortably looks away. Plainview stopped the girl from being abused, but there is no sense that it was because he cared for her, as much as he wanted to exercise power over her father.

A friend of mine pointed out that throughout the film Plainview was never seen to enjoy anything. He was always working in some capacity. Any time that he had been eating, he would stop during the scene. The only time that he is seen eating is during a scene where he is talking to a preacher. While they converse Plainview eats a piece of meat, which is representative of how he has and will continue to treat the holy man. Otherwise he seems never to eat, and there is never a remote possibility of any type of love relationship for Plainview.

Yet there is one enjoyment that Plainview does have during the film. Alcohol. Plainview does drink and it is usually followed by harmful events. It is as though he can keep all of his appetites under control except for the one. It is his only release, his only weakness.

Lewis’ performance is not the only powerful acting in the film. Plainview’s nemesis in the film is a young religious zealot named Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). Dano played Dwayne in Little Miss Sunshine, the older brother who says nothing through much of the film. His countenance was so vastly different in this film that I had to look him up on IMDB just to figure out who he was. He and Lewis were dynamic on the screen together and complimented each other well.

For a film called ‘There Will Be Blood’ there is very little blood. I can see why people would be turned off by the title. The guy who went with me to see this film commented that he thought we were going to a zombie movie. The film is more than 2 ½ hours long, yet the time flies while watching this film, mostly because of Lewis’ engaging performance. Director Paul Thomas Anderson has redeemed himself of his past infractions which include such awful films as Punch Drunk Love, Magnolia and Boogie Nights. This film is another 10 out of 10.

Next up: No Country for Old Men

Downfall, directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel

This film is about Traudl Junge (portrayed by Alexandra Maria Lara), a young secretary for Adolf Hitler and her experience in the bunker in Berlin during Hitler’s last days. Though the central character is Junge, the show is stolen by Bruno Ganz, who plays Hitler. His portrayal of Hitler is stunning. The physical resemblance is spot on, but that’s not all. Ganz had the stance, the mannerisms and emotion to really embody the Nazi dictator. His performance was haunting, as evidenced in the scene where he instructs his confidants on the appropriate way to commit suicide. He explains how to take your own life without the chance of getting it wrong, and he does it as if he was explaining how to bake a cake.

The film really captured the insanity of Berlin during those days in April 1945. Much of the power behind the film comes from careful cinematography and editing. At one point in the film, with the Russians threatening to take the city, one of Hitler’s advisors returns home, where his wife has dinner ready. He can’t bear to tell his wife that all is lost, so he sits down at the table with his two young children. His hands are below the table, and a camera shot shows him holding two grenades. He pulls the pins on the grenades, and the camera cuts to a shot outside the window, where the explosion is seen. The last thing seen in the scene is his daughter’s stuffed animal lying on the street.

In another scene Eva Braun (Juliane Köhler) is seen inside the bunker writing a letter to a sister. Her voice is heard as she writes the letter with cuts to the voice of Magda Goebbels (Corinna Harfouch) who is writing a letter to her oldest son. Braun writes her letter as if all is fine. She tells her sister that she can have Eva’s furs and jewelry, and spends all of her time talking of superficial things. Goebbels writes of the imminent defeat of the Third Reich and how she can’t bear to live or let her children live in a world run by the capitalists. While the two voices are heard, scenes of violence and destruction can be seen. German soldiers (some of them just children) are seen shooting each other so that they won’t be taken alive.

I knew what would ultimately happen in this film. I knew that Hitler would commit suicide and that Berlin would be taken by the Russians. Yet the suspense of the film was incredible. This film made me uncomfortable. It was hard to watch at times, and even made me choke up. That in my mind is the sign of a well made film. The screen time of the film is two and a half hours. But it doesn’t seem like it. That is another sign of a good film. The story is intense, the filming was flawless, the acting was outstanding, and this film is without a doubt a 10 of 10.

(Next film review: There will be Blood, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson)