Getafilm Gallimaufry: Robin Hood, L'Enfant, Cruise's Curse, Toy Story 3, and The Two Escobars

Robin Hood (B+)

After too many months away from the movies I jumped in with both feet last week, starting with a big spring blockbuster that I didn't want to let get away from me on the big screen. In the last installment of Gallimaufry I declared my love for Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, as well as the Robin Hood brand as a whole. Out of the loop as I've been from the movies scene in 2010, I completely forgot that Ridley Scott's version was meant to be an introduction to the title character.

You could understand, then, why I was growing restless as the movie went on and on with only minor teases of the charm, wit, humor, and romance that I associated with Robin and his merry men. Ridley's crew was comprised of weathered patriots fighting a ruthless (and inexplicably baldheaded?) villain for the honor of King Richard's crown. Embarrassingly, I was left scratching my head all the way until the finale, after which a title card reminded us that "now the legend begins". Ahhh, that's right! I'm thickheaded like that sometimes.

Short Cuts: "Haooo - Hup!" (Drill Captain Command)

A Few Good Men (1992). Directed by Rob Reiner; written by Aaron Sorkin; starring Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore, Kevin Pollack, Kevin Bacon, J.T. Walsh, Kiefer Sutherland, Christopher Guest, Cuba Gooding, Jr., and Noah Wyle.

Underrated MOTM: The Firm (1993)

The Underrated Movie of the Month (MOTM) for March is a hit from the good old days of legal thrillers: the early 90's, when characters didn't preach (Michael Clayton), the bad guys weren't based on reality (Michael Clayton) and the stories didn't take themselves so seriously (Michael Clayton). The Firm is a commercially packaged blockbuster that doesn't try to be anything else. It's the anti-Michael Clayton in that respect and it's all the better for it.

Cashing in on the popularity of young novelist John Grisham, The Firm became the first - and, in my opinion, the best - of nine film adaptations of his books, the last being, of course, 2004's Christmas With the Kranks...?!

Opening in the summer of 1993, The Firm was an immediate hit with audiences, many of whom likely saw it multiple times out of devotion to Tom Cruise at the peak of his career. Critics weren't as kind as Joe and Jane Public, and even the few who praised the film complained about its 154-minute running time. In his middling review, Vincent Canby of the New York Times said it was "so slow that by the end you feel as if you've been standing up even if you've been sitting down." Rick Groen of the The Globe and Mail was more blunt: "it's long, it's cluttered, and it's trite."

Maybe it's long, but cluttered and trite? Well, not anymore than Grisham's novels were. That you could tell any of them apart in the first place was an accomplishment to be proud of, but that fact somehow never prevented me from picking up his "new" book every year. So why would the public reaction to the film adaptation be any different? Like all of Grisham's stories, The Firm offered a likable character in the midst of a struggle (Mitch McDeere), nasty villains out for blood (the partners at the firm), a sympathetic antihero (Avery Tolar), and colorful supporting characters (Tammy Hemphill and Eddie Lomax). The late director Sydney Pollack knew that it couldn't be considered "too long" if he was faithful to the novel, since viewers, like voracious readers, would follow the story intently to the end (Owen Gleiberman of EW even admitted, "The problem isn't so much that we can't deduce what's going on as that we aren't given time to enjoy it.").

But therein lies one minor problem: Pollack wasn't very faithful to the book. All of the characters were still in place but their motivations were different and the ending was accordingly changed. Instead of McDeere being a shrewd, morally unpredictable hotshot who retires to the Caribbean, he became in the movie a kind of Boy Scout, returning to Boston to presumably begin a career in pro-bono work for a nonprofit firm. This grated on a few critics ("Very little of what made the written version so enjoyable has been successfully translated to the screen," complained James Berardinelli), but I was fine with it. As with Jurassic Park later that summer, I found myself able to enjoy the entertainment value of both the novel and the book, despite their obvious differences.

Even conceding the issues with the length and the complaints about the modified plot, the one aspect of the movie that cannot be criticized is the acting. This is a top-notch cast firing all cylinders, completely committing to their characters in a movie that they must have known wouldn't receive award consideration. Tom Cruise gives one of his best performances as McDeere as he allows himself to explore a range of emotions apart from his typical pride and tenacity. He churns one of these out every 2-3 years (and he's due now, the last one being Collateral), but this is one of my favorites because it came during a time when he knew could have just as easily taken any action or romantic comedy script.

The supporting cast was terrific as well, notably Gene Hackman and Jeanne Tripplehorn (what happened to her?), but also Ed Harris and Hal Holbrook. Holly Hunter was good enough to earn a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her work as Mitch's confidante Tammy Hemphill (she would later win Best Actress that year for The Piano), and don't forget memorable roles played by David Strathairn, Wilford Brimley, and Gary Busey.

Not to be thought of as an important movie from the 90's or a symbolic indictment of the American legal system, The Firm is good enough as it is: a commercial suspense thriller with great entertainment value and a star-studded cast. I would take that over a self-important (Michael Clayton) message movie (Michael Clayton) with cheap suspense (Michael Clayton) any day.

REVIEW: Valkyrie (B+)

The biggest surprise of Bryan Singer's Valkyrie, besides the fact that Hitler lives (surprise!), is that it only took about five minutes for me to accept that S.S. officers were speaking with American and British accents. Part of this is because the first few minutes are mostly taken up by a massive bombing sequence that drowns out all voices, but most of it is because early on in the movie I realized I was hooked, and what was being said was more urgently important than how it was being said.

How is it possible to become gripped with suspense when the ending of the story is already known? I can't very well explain it but by pointing to something like United 93 or, more recently, Man on Wire (the relation between the two being eerily but entirely coincidental). One argument could be that it's the mark of good storytelling, but that would only make sense if Singer's recent movies (Superman Returns, X-Men, X2) had not been such dull stories compared to his earlier ones (The Usual Suspects, Apt Pupil). In any case, while part of Valkyrie's success as a narrative may be Singer's direction, the rest of it must be due to the significance of the issue at hand: a brazen assassination attempt on Hitler by officers in his own army, led by Colonel Claus con Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise).

It's a story that I have to admit I was only vaguely familiar with beforehand. Even if I recognized a handful of the participant's names, I knew nothing about the details of the planned coup, or how it ultimately went awry. Fortunately for me, Singer is a gifted director when it comes to suspense, occasionally injecting spooks and frights but otherwise maintaining a palpable amount of tension throughout the most important scenes. Indeed, Valkyrie's is the type of historical thriller that, at the peak of its power (right at about the halfway mark), sucked the breath out of the room and elicited involuntary cries of "Oh no!" from the audience. I wonder if I was the only one who was reminded of the NOC list heist scene in Mission: Impossible.

Chances are, because I doubt anybody else in the theater was waxing nostalgic about Tom Cruise The Actor (as I like to define him) like I was. What can I say? I love the guy's work, whether screaming at a video monitor in Tropic Thunder or screaming over the phone in Valkyrie. He consistently plays different versions of the same character (Born on the Fourth of July and Collateral being notable exceptions), but I enjoy all of them, especially when, as in Valkyrie (and The Firm and A Few Good Men), he plays the petulant, defiant hero.

Although this is Cruise's movie from beginning to end, the supporting performances by a cast that includes great character actors like Bill Nighy, Terence Stamp, Kenneth Branagh and Tom Wilkinson shouldn't be overlooked. Nor should the meticulous attention to detail in all aspects of the production, including the scenes filmed on location in Berlin (which were temporarily in jeopardy when Germany prohibited Cruise from working in the country due to his devotion to Scientology).

Is it that hard to find German actors these days?

Despite all of the praise I've lauded on Valkyrie, it's not without its flaws. For one thing, we really have no idea who Claus von Stauffenberg was or what his motives were in overthrowing the Third Reich. An awkward narration of a diary entry as the film opens is an attempt at setting the stage, but it's inadequate when it's not confusing (Cruise switches from English to accented German halfway through it). Additionally (though perhaps this shouldn't be considered a point of criticism), the message of hope in Valkyrie is almost completely ruined by the devastating ending. I wasn't expecting a triumph of the human spirit like Slumdog Millionaire, but it would have been nice to learn how von Stauffenberg inspired other mutinies throughout history, or how Operation Valkyrie ultimately affected the Nazi war effort. In that light, Valkyrie should not be viewed as an insightful historical account (compared to something like 2004's outstanding Downfall), but as a watchable suspense thriller it, like von Stauffenberg, almost gets the job done.


Grade:
Writing - 7
Acting - 9
Production - 9
Emotional Impact - 9
Music - 5
Social Significance - 5

Total: 44/50= 88% = B+

300 Words (x2) About: Tropic Thunder

Check your morals at the door for the guiltiest pleasure of the year...

When it comes to comedies, it's usually a good sign when the laughs start before the movie even begins. The fake trailers shown before Tropic Thunder tell you exactly what you're in for: a raunchy, ridiculously romp that makes you cringe as much as it makes you laugh out loud.

That's right. Against all odds, I found Tropic Thunder to be the funniest comedy of the summer - by far.

Realizing this, I searched for an explanation as the end credits rolled (which happen to be the best of any movie this year). "Third time must have been the charm," I said to my group, citing two recent duds. I thought I'd finally succumbed to idiotic comedy. Soon after, however, I realized that there was actually something different about Tropic Thunder, and it wasn't just the absolutely stunning production design.

Three self-absorbed movie stars are cast in "Tropic Thunder", a Vietnam war movie based on the memoirs of a hook-handed veteran (Nick Nolte). Leading man Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller, who co-wrote and also directed the movie) is pampered by his agent (Matthew McConaughey), and his last role was in a film that's widely considered to be the worst of all time. Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr.) is an Academy Award-winning method actor whose preparation for roles would put Daniel Day-Lewis to shame. Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is a drug-addled comedy star trying to separate himself from "The Fatties", his popular movie franchise about, well, a fat, flatulent family. Add a rookie director, an all-too-enthusiastic explosives expert (Danny McBride), and a nauseating studio head with a God complex (Tom Cruise), and "Tropic Thunder" appears to be doomed from the start. That is, of course, when a decision is made to shoot the film guerrilla style in the middle of the actual jungle and separate the stars from their security blankets. Unfortunately for the cast, there are actual guerrillas in this actual jungle.

If Step Brothers is the immature kid at the playground who steals a megaphone and curses in between making fart noises, Tropic Thunder is the best man giving his speech at a wedding, roasting the groom and telling the jokes that everyone will remember. Calling it a "smart" comedy would seem impossible to defend, but it's a label I'm tempted to use nonetheless. In the mold of Blazing Saddles, the dialogue and characters don't just toe the political correctness line, they stand right on it and stick their tongue out at you, making you feel silly that such a line exists in the first place. Beyond that, it deliciously satirizes Hollywood and skewers the careers of the very people it stars (speaking of which, this might be best work by an ensemble cast all year, and Cruise and Downey, Jr. are especially outstanding).

The potential for being offended is pretty high, but Tropic Thunder mostly covers its bases thanks to the sharp writing of Stiller and his co-writer, the actor Justin Theroux. The characters are, in fact, caricatures; the joke isn't on African-Americans or people with disabilities. It's on the actors. The outcry over the material in Tropic Thunder isn't altogether misguided, but it may be misinformed. People who see two movies a year and know nothing about Hollywood business culture will find it difficult to understand the satire (not to mention the hilarious references to so many other movies).

As much as this is true, however, there are still many scenes and lines that are just plain nasty. People may walk out of Tropic Thunder and head right back to the box office. Some will complain, some will buy tickets to the next screening. I did neither, but I did find myself surprised at how much I was laughing.

Perfect Song, Perfect Scene #1

This is the first in a new feature series on Getafilm. I enjoy music about as much as I enjoy movies, and this "Perfect Song, Perfect Scene" series will highlight movie scenes that are perfectly complemented by a particular song. Originally, the first choice was going to be the opening credits of Midnight Cowboy backed by Harry Nilsson's "Everybody's Talkin'", but it was recently removed from YouTube for copyright violations. The same thing may happen with my other choices, as well as with my "Short Cuts" clips, so enjoy them while they last.

So it's not Midnight Cowboy, but if this first one doesn't get you in the mood to play beach volleyball on a hot August afternoon, it should at least make you laugh pretty hard.


Topless Air Force volleyball, Top Gun (1986): "Playin' With The Boys" by Kenny Loggins

REVIEW: Lions for Lambs (C)

Background: The week after I posted my review of Rendition and mentioned the challenge of making these as-it's-happening "War on Terror" movies, A.O. Scott wrote this piece in the New York Times. You might call it plagiarism; I call it much more articulate than my drivel. In any case, Lions for Lambs has arrived as the next chapter in the Fall 2007 Iraq War series. It stars now-established Hollywood legends Robert Redford (recently in An Unfinished Life), Meryl Streep (also in Rendition), and Tom Cruise (last in MI:3), with supporting performances by Derek Luke (Antwone Fisher, Catch a Fire) and Michael Peña (Crash, World Trade Center). It's directed by Redford and written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, whose first screenplay was, sadly, The Kingdom. Lions for Lambs also marks the first film produced by Tom Cruise, or starring him, since his "termination" from Paramount Pictures in 2006 for "bad behavior." His new contract with United Artists begins with this film.

Synopsis: In Washington, D.C., Senator Jasper Irving (Cruise) is being interviewed in his office by reporter Janine Roth (Streep) about a new military strategy in Afghanistan. At the same time, said military strategy is beginning with complications, as best friends and soldiers Ernest Rodriguez (Peña) and Arian Finch (Luke) are stranded atop a snowy mountain, wounded and vulnerable to the approaching "enemy." Meanwhile, their idealistic college professor, Stephen Malley (Redford), is acting out Good Will Hunting scenes with a disillusioned but brilliant student named Todd Hayes at "a university in California." The three stories are happening simultaneously, and we hear different perspectives and typical talking points about the war, politics, America, apathy, and journalism. We learn about how Irving rose as a Republican star, how Malley fought in Vietnam, and how Rodriguez and Finch ended up in Afghanistan. At the end, there is a meltdown and argument between Roth and her editor about responsible journalism, a final firefight on the snowy mountaintop, and an abrupt send-off of Hayes by Malley.

I Loved:
+ The idea of comparing real time, simultaneously occurring discussions.

I Liked:
+ Tom Cruise, as always. Yes, I am a huge Tom Cruise movie fan. Not necessarily a Tom Cruise fan, but a Tom Cruise movie fan. Get the difference?
+ The final scene with Luke and Peña - I thought that was moving.

I Disliked:
- The loudly placed Hurricane Katrina footage on the TV throughout the entire conversation between Janine Roth and her editor in the newsroom - if you want to make a movie about that, make a movie about that. Otherwise it's just an immature slight.
- Meryl Streep's naive facial expressions and general sensitivity throughout the interview - this is a D.C. reporter with 40 years of experience, including Vietnam, and she is surprised by blunt war talk? She looked like she was about to cry the whole time, and then she finally did.
- The poor special effects in "Afghanistan," especially involving the military chopper.

I Hated:
- Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) - a self-absorbed, jaded, know-it-all college student that I've seen in the mirror before. A true character if there ever was one, but still hard to watch.
- That the usual talking points were about as far as the discussions went.

Grade:
Writing - 6
Acting - 7
Production - 7
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 4
Significance - 5

Total: 37/50= 74% = C

Last Word: Though it doesn't effectively deliver its ambiguous challenge to America, Lions for Lambs is extraordinarily better than Rendition or The Kingdom, if only because it at least attempts to offer differing perspectives, even if they are the same extremely liberal CNN talking points vs. the same extremely conservative FOX News talking points. We hear a lot of people talking, but nobody is saying anything. In between witty banter by Cruise and Streep, we're lectured by Redford about civic engagement, and at one point even presented with an alternative to the military draft: a mandatory civil service requirement for all high school juniors. This is the only somewhat fresh idea in the whole movie, but it's rightly left alone as it has little to do with our current international dilemmas. Lions for Lambs does a good job in reflecting the current confusion facing all Americans, and perhaps that's enough, but it doesn't even effectively present either side of the war debate. Clearly, Tom Cruise had to do some character research to play a Republican Senator, so that side is poorly developed (and heavily reliant on admission of mistakes). But even the anti-war argument is sloppily delivered - is it just about the troops? And what about the underlying jabs at journalism, students, political science, etc.? Obviously, I can't expect provocative or astute foreign policy analysis from a Hollywood movie, and besides, what could I expect from the writer of The Kingdom?