X-MEN 3: THE LAST STAND

Director: Brett Ratner (Red Dragon, Rush Hours 1-3)
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Kelsey Grammer, Famke Janssen, more

With only a paltry $150 million budget, a battalion of stars and/or quality actors, a director with an action movie pedigree, and some mind-numbingly pedestrian writing, X-Men 3 has managed to scale the precipitous cliffs of Mr. Cheese and now sits atop looking down at all of the better movies in the landscape. Yes, this film was cheesy. Stinky, room-temperature cheese even. A slightly warm gorgonzola perhaps.

Not since Independence Day and its America versus the Universe battle royale has there been a film of such cheeseball Momentous Climactic All-emcompassingness. Strangely this appears to have been mostly achieved by back-lighting of Famke Janssen while she demolished things, but the copious special effects and dialog that included phrases like “Mark my words”, “Make no mistake”, and “Let’s suit up” certainly helped . Frankly the script was almost George Lucas bad. People (X-men mutants or not) simply don’t say “Make no mistake”. Well, at least people other than President Bush don’t.

Make no mistake about it, X-men 3 is probably the most comic book of comic book movies that have ever been filmed.

I should note, however, that this film did try to touch on important subjects. The plot in this installment focuses on a “cure” for the X-men gene that has been discovered. A war rages with some mutants (the X-men) trying to calm all of the parties down, while the US government and the more violent mutants (as always led by Ian McKellens Magneto character) duke it out. Certainly this seems to touch on difficult subjects like potential "cures" for homosexuality and also the struggles of minorities in our own culture (there's no doubt a relationship between Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and the X-men). All of these were very, very light touches, however. And really, bringing up these complicated social issues and then seemingly solving them with fiery special effects doesn’t make much sense. Or doesn’t it? Maybe we can solve prejudice by exploding cars and tearing down bridges. Yeah. Bang.

Despite all of this, I’ve always had a vague enjoyment in the X-men movies (just like Independence Day for that matter). Of the three this will be my least favorite. It was the least well constructed of the lot, and of course the cheesiest. I am happy to say that after this terrifically climactic plot there don't appear to be enough main characters left from which to assemble an X-Men 4. Many key mutants were either killed off, or rendered less than super-heroic. I have heard rumors of a Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) spinoff, however. Although narrowing down the subject matter may actually help out this franchise. Certainly this film had too many characters trying to cover too many subjects in too short a time.

Standouts: Some good actors having fun with really bad dialog.
Blowouts: Mark my words, and make no mistake about it, let’s suit up and listen to some bad dialog.

Grade: C

UNITED 93

Director: Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Supremecy, Bloody Sunday)
Starring: There are no starring roles in this film. It’s an ensemble, with no character creation.

United 93 is a difficult film to review, and that is in itself something noteworthy. Right off the bat I can say that this film works quite differently from the standard story, and I will be the first to admit that stretching into new territory is notable. The thing is, however, that just being “new” does not make it “good”. I have more to say on this subject, though. If you didn’t know, United 93 is a retelling of the events of 9/11, especially those on the flight that crashed outside of Pittsburgh.

I know director Paul Greengrass from two prior (major) works, The Bourne Supremacy and Bloody Sunday. Supremacy was a tight, frenetic action movie that I rate as a solid success. Bloody Sunday was an engrossing film that has much in common with United 93. I had significant problems with that film, however. Sunday took a series of suppositional events and (more or less) portrayed them as fact. He used a gritty, wavering documentary style from beginning to end. Perhaps he could claim that he was attempting to show how the terrible events in Northern Ireland could have happened, but all I saw throughout was a statement of what did happen. And unfortunately the proof of what he was showing (which was quite polarizing) does not exist. That is a dangerous place to go.

My concerns with United 93 are somewhat different. Greengrass uses the exact same documentary style throughout this film (choppy editing, choppy camera work, choppy acting), but there is little supposition in this story. The evidence for what happened on 9/11 is massive. There is no meaningful doubt to the major events. We have voice recordings and telephone calls showing that the passengers on United 93 attempted to retake the plane from the terrorists. Just how they did this is, of course, supposition in the film. Luckily it’s also trivially unimportant. The act and the events far overwhelm the specifics of how. I can make one statement categorically about United 93, though: That this film is engrossing and emotionally powerful.

Normally, that statement would automatically equal “good film”, but United 93 might just be an exception. You see, I’m not yet sure if United 93 is art of any form. I think that the engrossing and emotional elements might just be a petty response to a significant event in all of our American lives. Let me explain a bit further. In fictional art the writer creates a world specifically to take the viewer to a place where they hopefully make a response in their own life. That response could be almost anything, I suppose, but the best art definitely involves life lessons and emotional learning. This film (I.e. Nonfiction) just doesn’t reach to that level.

It’s my personal opinion that nonfiction is usually inferior to fiction (just by its very nature). It cannot be precise enough to elicit a particular response because real world events are usually not so neat. No, I think the real value of nonfiction lies in its ability to take us deeper in knowledge. A great documentary might tell us more about Robert McNamara and the events of the Vietnam war, or the psychological demons that confront a family of pedophiles, or even tell us more about our founding fathers. This film does none of that. Put simply, I learned nothing, absolutely zilch, about 9/11 from United 93. I’m not necessarily referring to new facts, even. I’m referring to new ideas or emotions. This film felt to me like it was simply expecting an emotional response from the viewer by making real a horrible event we’ve already lived through.

Let me put it this way: If you’ve lost your parents, would it be a great film to realistically portray their funeral 5 years later? I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s good to relive the emotion that you felt before. I’m not so sure about that, however. Since this film is going for the easy human emotional response from 9/11, I think it might live on the level of propoganda. I’ve got a feeling it’s just trying to sell tickets. In the end I know three things. First that this film was quite compelling and emotional. Second, that I didn’t learn anything new. And third, that I’m still not sure how I feel about it. Like I said at the beginning, the fact that I am questioning this film is notable in itself. At least it’s not another cheap action flick. Given that, I say see the film for yourself. Make up your own mind, it’s powerful enough for me to recommend that.

Standouts: The events of 9/11, because that’s the only reason for this film’s success.
Blowouts: Possibly its nonfiction construction? Going for a cheap emotional response?

Grade: Between a C+ and an A-

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE III

Director: J.J. Abrams (TV work, writer of Armageddon, Regarding Henry)
Starring: The Cruise – Scientology Svengali, and others less Cruise-worthy (plus Phillip Seymour Hoffman as “The Bad Guy”)

I love Summer Movie Season! (See, I've capitalized it to show you how much!) It's true that I much prefer good movies, but I also love, well, “fun” movies. Summer Movie Season is all about big-budget, fun movies.
Heck, it’s even more fun to write these reviews when it’s about a movie that doesn’t have a shred of seriousness.

I like coming in from a hot, humid summer evening in my shorts, and then freezing in the sub-arctic air conditioning that theaters can’t seem to control. I like getting the home-equity line of credit that’s required to afford the $24 popcorn and soda with a wholesale value of 12 cents. I like watching things explode, and broadly drawn characters emote, and people running away from stuff, or like in Mission Impossible III, running away and to and around and by and for and up and down stuff. (Yes, there is a lot of running in this movie.)

No, the only thing I don't love about Summer Movie Season is that I always get myself all excited about an upcoming summer flick, but almost without exception end up with a 'blah' feeling once I've seen it. After the months-long barrage of advertising and Today Show appearances, once I actually see the "event" movies I always seem to think to myself: “Well, that was okay. Not great, just okay.” Guess what? Mission Impossible III is okay. Not great by a long shot, just okay. I really miss Indiana Jones right now. Why can't we find another Raiders of the Lost Ark? Why?

Anyway, here’s the problem with MI:III (did I mention I hate movie abbreviations?): the story and direction. The Cruise is actually very acceptable as a super spy. I liked the first Mission Impossible quite a bit. I disliked Mission Impossible II quite a bit more. The first was filled with super spy capers and super spy intrigue. The second was filled with silly stunts and bullets. Numero Tres in the series is less action-oriented than the second, but only by a bit.

The events in this film take place in something like 4 hours of real time (plus or minus the time it takes to fly to China, and Rome, and Berlin). It’s just too hectic. Instead of seeing well-planned super spy heists and capers, we see running and jumping and explosions and frenetic emoting. Here, let me slow it down: It …is … too … hectic. I except from this observation a sequence in the Vatican that I rather enjoyed. That is what this franchise should be all about.

Also of concern to me was the supremely obvious plot. As an example, early in the film you will see an agent get an exploding capsule inserted in her head. We find out that it can be neutralized by zapping it with a defibrillator. We then see that The Cruise’s wife is a doctor or a nurse in a hospital. Guess, oh good reader, please guess how this film finishes?

Standouts: The Cruise does good super spy, Hoffman is a very good actor, and there's a sense of not-badness throughout.
Blowouts: Direction and story were a tad off. Direction didn’t know the right tone to take. Story was weak-ish in spots.

Grade: B

TSOTSI

Director: Gavin Hood (a couple of well-reviewed South African films without wide release)
Starring: Presley Chweneyagae, Mothusi Mogano, Zenzo Ngqobe, Zola (just Zola?)

Tsotsi is the most optimistic film I’ve seen in quite some time. I don’t know that I necessarily believe that the redemption that this film portrays is anything but a rarity. Nonetheless, its message is powerful and well-done, and I think that seeing this redemption can only be a good thing for those of us lucky enough to watch the movie. There is a distinct lack of optimism in our cynical age of lazy complainers. Apparently it takes a filmmaker from a land with troubles more profound than our own to find the hidden seeds of optimism and grow them into a fine film.

Tsotsi, as the movie tells us, means “thug”. This is what the young main character (Chweneyagae) is known by, and it is only much later when we see a glimpse into his childhood, and get a glimpse of decency in his character, that we discover he has a real name. For the first half of the film Tsotsi is as good a name as any for this animal.

He lives in a corrugated metal shack in one of the former homelands around Johannesburg, probably Soweto, where millions of destitute blacks are compressed together on the outskirts of Africa’s greatest metropolis. His is a simple story of redemption, but an intriguing one. Early in the film he leads a small gang of criminals. Criminals who go so far as to kill a man on a crowded train for his wallet. Frighteningly, it is done so adeptly that no one else on the train even notices, and the man is left in a heap on the floor as the car empties.

Tsotsi soon carjacks a wealthy woman’s Mercedes, only to find a new baby in the back. The wide, helpless eyes of the child draw out a glimmer of humanity in the thug. He takes it home in a shopping bag and attempts to care for it as best he can (which is quite badly). Eventually, in small steps, he grows and sees the error of his ways and the child is returned. He begins to connect with other people and (Voila!) he is redeemed.

Like I wrote a the beginning of this review. I don’t know if I really believe this story of redemption. Perhaps it would hold more truth if Tsotsi’s lesson in empathy and giving was soon forgotten, and he relapsed into selfishness. Even perhaps if his lessen in empathy weren’t quite so neat. Regardless, as far as I’m concerned, even though I may not wholly believe in this redemption, I know that I really want to. This was a touching and poignant film.


Standouts: Good story, effective acting, good direction.
Blowouts: I found nothing that was outstanding, just much that was very good.

Grade: A-