King Kong (2005)

Starring Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody, and Jack Black; Directed by Peter Jackson

Peter Jackson’s take on the King Kong story is entertaining, thrilling and surprising. He manages to make a movie that’s entertaining in its own right, and that’s tough when you’re doing a remake of a 1933 classic (that was previously remade in 1976). I worried before seeing this movie that a Kong remake would be a big letdown for Jackson after The Lord of the Rings. But Jackson makes a believer out of me. The movie has charm, beauty, and exciting action sequences, both in Manhattan and on Skull Island.

The movie is set in the Depression, and that time is beautifully evoked in New York City with vintage cars and clothes. This works much better than the 1976 movie with Jessica Lange and Jeff Bridges, which was set in the 1970s. (Though to tell the truth, it was pretty cool when Kong jumped from one World Trade Center tower to the other.)

Kong’s relationship with The Girl is the center of this movie, and Jackson takes an hour to let us get to know hard-luck actress Ann Darrow (Watts), penniless playwright Jack Driscoll (Brody) and moviemaker Carl Denham (Black) before we meet the title character.

But the focus of the movie is that big ape Kong. This time around Kong looks like a giant gorilla, naturally hunching over and moving around on all fours most of the time. Andy Serkis (Gollum in Jackson’s Lord of the Rings) is an amazing physical performer, and manages to imbue Kong with a lot of personality. Kong is not just a mad beast, but shows a lot of heart once you get past his gruff exterior (assuming you survive the first encounter). His fights with various prehistoric beasts on Skull Island are amazing.

This movie has a cheerful, breezy B-movie feeling that carries us comfortably through most of the (pretty long) movie, though I had to cover my eyes briefly for scenes featuring prehistoric insect and worms. There’s an amazing action sequence on Skull Island in a deep ravine with a couple of hungry dinosaurs, Kong, The Girl, and a spider web of vines that has to be seen to be believed.

Superman Returns (2006)

Starring Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, and Kevin Spacey

Superman Returns promises a lot but under delivers. It’s a blockbuster, filled with amazing special effects and heroic actions. But the movie falls down on a psychology-laden screenplay and lackluster directing, and ultimately doesn’t measure up to the superlative work seen in Superman and Superman II starring Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackman. If you want some of that old Superman magic, make a point of watching the first two movies again on DVD.

Brandon Routh puts on the cape and tights for this outing. He’s an Iowa boy, and shows a lot of promise playing the alien from Krypton with superhuman powers. At times he reminded me of the young Christopher Reeve. He could have been a great Superman with a better screenplay and better directing; in this film he seems too serious. Perhaps he’ll do better in his next outing, assuming he gets a better script.

Kate Bosworth is moving as Lois Lane, torn between her husband and child and Superman, who has just returned after five years away visiting the remains of Krypton. She is a bright spot in the movie.

Frank Langella tries mightily to be Perry White, but Jackie Cooper pretty well defined the character for us in the original movies.

Kevin Spacey plays Lex Luthor, but is unable to muster the difficult mix of humor and malice that Gene Hackman practically patented in the first two Superman films. Hackman was a genial con man; you enjoyed watching his character even as he tried to destroy California and kill millions of people. Spacey, in contrast, simply comes across as a nasty and vicious criminal.

This film lacks a critical ingredient of the original films: humor. They managed to make fun of the title character, and the people around him, and the challenges he faced while spinning entertaining blockbuster stories. Reeve understood that he had to add lightness and playfulness to his character in order to make him more human. Routh, in contrast, is not given the lines or the directing to allow him similar fun within his role.

The special effects are light-years ahead of the original Superman. But they fail to move us the way those in the original did. I’ll take somewhat cheesy special effects combined with wonderful writing, directing, and acting over superlative special effects combined with so-so writing, uneven directing, and decent performances.

It’s sad to see so much great potential wasted. I wish a director like Peter Jackson (whose King Kong remake shines) had been given a crack at this movie. But it’s too late; the cat is out of the bag and Superman has left the building.

Cars (2006)

Animated; Starring the voices of Paul Newman, Owen Wilson, and Bonnie Hunt; Directed by John Lasseter

Cars is a fun, kinetic, imaginative animated film that is just plain fun to watch. The folks at Pixar Animation (Toy Story, Monsters, Inc) continue to produce a top-quality product. They start with an interesting idea—a world populated not by people but by cars. Then they take that idea and run (or drive) with it. A car race takes on new meaning: the stands are filled with cars instead of people. They do the wave by lifting their hoods (since they don't have hands).

A logical person might ask how the cars were able to build themselves without opposable thumbs, or how they reproduce. Don't go there. This movie is visually stunning, with beautiful panoramas of the western town and surroundings in which most of the story takes place. Paul Newman is wonderful as Doc Hudson, an old car who still has some tricks left in him. Owen Wilson plays a brash young racing car with a lot of lessons to learn about life, love and commitment. Bonnie Hunt brings a lot of soul to her role as a lawyer/sports car who has moved to a small town.

Parts of this movie are pretty predictable, but it's all a delight to watch, and I recommend it for kids and adults alike. It's a nice break from movies that emphasize either violence or romance (or both).

The Departed (2006)

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon and Jack Nicholson; Directed by Martin Scorsese

The Departed is a cinematic tour de force by a director at the height of his game. Scorsese paints an extremely violent and unpleasant portrait of a Boston mob boss (played with great intensity by Jack Nicholson). Circling around Nicholson is pretty much the entire cast of the movie and the entire plot. He is the dark center of it all; he exudes a sensual magnetic attraction that infuses every character and every situation with his lusts, fears, and naked brutality. I think Nicholson deserves an Oscar for this movie, and Scorsese as well.

The Massachusetts State Police want to bring Nicholson down. They send in an undercover policeman (Leonardo DiCaprio, in a stunning performance) to insinuate his way into Nicholson’s gang and send back information in order to catch Nicholson in the act, arrest and convict him.
At the same time, Nicholson sends a spy into the State Police to infiltrate them and send back warning and information about the forces trying to bring him down. Matt Damon is very convincing as the spy, slyly working his way into the trust of the various police officials as he helps keep Nicholson a step ahead of the law.

The movie is a kind of shadow play, as DiCaprio and Damon work in their two venues, feeding their information back to their chiefs while cloaking themselves from suspicion, and constantly looking over their shoulders. DiCaprio has quite the more dangerous task: if Damon is caught, he goes to jail. If DiCaprio is caught, Nicholson’s techniques are brutal, direct, and fatal.

The most interesting part of the movie is how DiCaprio and Damon detect the presence of the other, and try desperately to find who each-other are before they themselves are revealed..

The Departed is a bit like The Godfather, except that it’s a lot more violent. Also, Nicholson plays a monster of a character, with no redeeming features that we can see. He’s violent, greedy, and lustful, and gets pretty much whatever he wants by simply taking it. At least Don Corleone loved his family and tried to protect his people.

The movie takes some unexpected turns as it winds its way to its conclusion. At its heart it’s a gangster film, with a whiff of Al Pacino’s Scarface. It may be that violence contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. But it’s a shame when so many people have to die in this movie in order to reach that point.

Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

Starring Ryan Phillipe and Adam Beach; Directed by Clint Eastwood

Flags of our Fathers is a wrenching look at a terrible battle in WWII, and also an object lessen in celebrity and hero-creation, and the equally terrible costs therein.

The battle of Iwo Jima was 40 days of close-in combat between 22,000 dug-in Japanese defenders and the 100,000+ Americans attacking the island. Once the island was conquered it served as a forward base for U.S. planes attacking and bombing Japan.

One of the more famous photographs of WWII was taken a few days into the battle, of five Marines and a Navy corpsman (medic) raising an American flag on the top of Mount Suribachi. The picture became famous as a symbol of hope for the U.S.’s eventual victory in the war. So, the U.S. flew the surviving Marines and the Navy corpsman who raised the flag back to the U.S. to go on a tour of the country. As the U.S. Treasury Secretary explains to the soldiers, the U.S. is broke, and can’t afford to continue to pay to fight the war unless it sells people a lot more war bonds. So the soldiers tour the U.S., acclaimed as heroes and lionized by politicians as they talk up war bonds.

But the soldiers hate being called heroes; they had simply been ordered to raise the flag on Mt. Suribachi during a lull in the fighting. It was, in fact, not even the first flag to be raised there. But a photographer was with them, and caught that indelible image of apparent herorism during a horrible battle.

Adam Beach is excellent as an American Indian who’s one of the Marines; he’s tortured by his memories of the battle, and the gap between what he did during the battle and how he’s being treated on the tour. This is a tough role, and Beach does a great job portraying his character’s agony. Beach was a standout in the earlier movie Windtalkers.

Eastwood is a master of his subject; we get a kinetic feel for the hellish experience of the soldiers as they fight on Iwo Jima, as well as for the mood of the public as the war neared its end.

Though filled with violence and sorrow, this is the kind of movie you’d want our leaders and politicians to see (and pay attention to) before deciding whether to send our country’s young men and women into war. The movie portrays all the terrible events of Iwo Jima with a gritty realism that refuses to make war look either fun or rousing. Instead, it’s about soldiers struggling to survive amidst unimaginable terror and chaos. The contrast of the war with the empty bond-selling tour is extremely effective. Eastwood shows us all of this without ever preaching.

Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)

Starring Ken Watanabe; Directed by Clint Eastwood

In Letters from Iwo Jima, director Clint Eastwood paints a sad and depressing picture of the futility of war and the losses it causes among those who fight. The movie is a companion piece to Eastwood’s earlier movie on war and heroism and the fleeting touch of fame, Flags of Our Fathers. Both films are focused on the battle for Iwo Jima (February-March 1945). But Flags is seen from the American side, while Letters From Iwo Jima tells the story from the viewpoint of the Japanese defenders. We hear their hopes and fears recorded in some of their letters discovered buried on the island by a modern-day Japanese archeological expedition.

Iwo Jima is a desolate volcanic island. The visuals in the film are stark and largely monochromatic. Eastwood’s sparse economy in filming is perfectly suited for this place and for the battles he portrays.

Ken Watanabe is engaging as General Tadamichi Kuribayashi. He’s assigned to lead the defense of Iwo Jima at his own request. He lands and immediately begins touring the island on foot and reorganizing the defenses. He finds poor planning and inadequate preparations. He cares about the men he’s leading, and inspires them with his leadership. He’s also overjoyed to find a friend and fellow officer, Takeichi Nishi, who won an Olympic medal for Japan in an equestrian event. The meeting is bittersweet, though: Kuribayashi has an impossible task.

Kuribayashi comes to realize that he won’t be getting significant support either from the Japanese Navy, Army, or Air Force. Further, other officers on the island disagree with and interfere with his defensive strategy. Kuribayashi decides not to throw his forces into holding the landing beaches. Instead, he fortifies Mount Suribachi (which towers over the rest of the island), and has his forces dig well-hidden tunnels and bunkers from which to attack the American troops once they land.

His strategy was brilliant: it made the conquest of Iwo Jima far harder for the U.S. forces. Yet ironically, his excellence at war arguably resulted in far higher casualties for both the Japanese forces (only about 1,000 survived out of 22,000 defenders) and for the U.S. forces (more than 6,800 were killed and more than 20,000 were wounded among the 100,000+ who invaded the island).

It’s grim arithmetic. We like to glorify brilliant warriors who are geniuses at their craft. The movie Patton starring George C. Scott did just that; Patton could do miracles with tank brigades. Likewise General Kuribayashi performed miracles in the defense of Iwo Jima, holding out far longer than expected against overwhelming force. But he realizes by the end of the film that his accomplishments are fleeting; his men are dying around him, and as a result will not be returning to their families or their country.

The movie has graphic and disturbing images of war, and should be required viewing for politicians who think that war is the only way to solve problems between countries. This picture garnered several Oscar nominations; it may win Best Picture and Best Director. It’s a masterpiece and deserves such recognition.

The Last King of Scotland (2006)

Starring Forest Whitaker

The Last King of Scotland is a mesmerizing film; Forest Whitaker gives a riveting performance as the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. He pulls us into the dark heart of this disturbing and disturbed man: we see his charm and warmth turned on like a faucet in dealing with people he wants to manipulate. We see his manic/depressive side as he ranges from giddy happiness to frightened paranoia. Through it all is an amazing intensity, best seen in the movie when Whitaker’s face fills the entire screen and we observe one bright, focused, crazed eye contrasted with his other lazy, wandering eye. This movie should net Whitaker an Oscar.

The movie is framed around the story of a young, callow Scots youth (Nicholas Garrigan, played by James McAvoy) who has just gotten his medical degree. Wanting to escape from his father’s influence, he spins a globe, inserts a pin and heads to Uganda to work at a rural health clinic. He seems to take up his duties satisfactorily (though sparks fly between he and the pretty wife of the senior clinic doctor), but a chance meeting on the road wherein he gives medical care to a recently victorious Idi Amin sets him on a tragic path. Amin convinces him to become his personal physician. Garrigan soon finds that he must minister both to the body and mind of the dictator; Amin even treats him as a personal counselor, seeking advice on matters of state.

At first Garrigan seems to be making a difference. He’s excited to help Amin, and even somewhat admires his dynamic, larger-than-life style. The dictator praises his advice on health, architecture and press relations. Garrigan enjoys the attention and accolades he receives for his work, and the material gifts from Amin.

Garrigan is not a particularly sympathetic character. Convenience and comfort outweigh integrity and conviction; he dallies where he shouldn’t, and finds that there are some people you never want to be on the wrong side of. As his urgency to escape increases, so does his realization that his poor decisions have left him without a lot of hope and without many friends to help him. Because actor James McAvoy does so well portraying a clueless, unanchored, and immature person, I found that I really didn’t care as much whether he escaped or not.

This movie is a tour de force for Whitaker; it’s a sad, powerful depiction of a brutal and evil man and of the lives he distorts and destroys in his embrace of virtually unlimited power. It’s tough to watch, and serves as a reminder that there are monsters loose in the world; we must recognize and avoid them lest they devour us.

The Queen (2006)

Starring Helen Mirren

The British royalty has continued virtually unchanged for hundreds of years. In The Queen, Helen Mirren plays Queen Elizabeth II. First she’s breaking in a new, young Prime Minister. Next she has to deal with the tragic death of Princess Diana. Through it all, Mirren displays a cool evenness and ease that can only arise from decades of training and generations of breeding.

Mirren is solid in a role larger than any movie star ever had to play. The Queen does not simply show up for an event and perform; every moment of her day, each of her decisions, and every one of her statement are painstakingly scrutinized by a tabloid press corps (and other equally eager journalists), and broadcast willy-nilly to the world in newspapers and on TV. She’s aware of it all, and labors always to uphold her duties and to do what’s expected of her with grace and reserve.

With little touches, Mirren convinces us she’s the Queen. While scarcely cracking a smile, she receives Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) as he comes in for the obligatory Queen’s blessings before he can become Prime Minister. She gently instructs him on protocol as they move through the ritual.

Later, the royal family is ensconced at the Queen’s summer retreat, Balmoral Castle in Scotland. As depicted it’s a phenomenal place, located on more than 50,000 acres of gorgeous landscape, ranging from woods and fields to dramatic hills and streams. A huge staff of servants minister to the vacationing family.

But the news of Diana’s death filters in. At first, it’s a private tragedy for Prince Charles (Alex Jennings). He rushes to Paris to accompany the body of his former wife back to England, and urges public measures of mourning and respect for Diana. However, other family members, especially the Queen’s husband Prince Philip (a marvelous performance by James Cromwell) oppose doing anything out of the ordinary.

The death of Diana was a huge quandary for the royal family. On one hand, she had divorced Prince Charles; thus, she was no longer royalty, and so her death would not warrant royal or official attention. On the other hand, Diana was enormously popular with the British public; they mourned her loss, and expected a suitable public response from her erstwhile family.

The royals were too isolated at Balmoral Castle. Prince Philip figures that taking Prince Charles’ sons hunting will help get their minds off the loss of their mother. The royal family’s tin ear as to the state of the public and their need for closure on Diana’s death isolate the Queen and even threaten the entire royal institution.

Tony Blair emerges as a sympathetic character, seeking to educate the clueless royals about the political need to respond publicly. He knows what’s needed; they just don’t seem to get it. His role is reversed with the Queen; suddenly he’s telling her what she needs to do.

The dénouement of this movie is very satisfying. Mirren makes us care about what happens to the Queen and to her family, and whether they satisfy the needs of the grieving public. Her performance is utterly convincing and believable: she well deserves an Oscar for it. Amidst the beautiful scenery of Scotland and the hustle and bustle of London, we’re treated to an inside glimpse of a Queen at work in her realm.

The Children of Men (2006)

Starring Clive Owen and Julianne Moore; Directed by Alfonso Cuaron

The Children of Men is a gripping account of a terrible future, one in which every woman in the world has been rendered infertile by an unknown cause. As the film opens the last child was born 18 years ago. The world has devolved into a chaotic, depressing mess; we see Great Britain under a totalitarian regime, and learn that it is the last functioning society. Various wars and acts of terrorism have rendered all other countries unsafe.

Clive Owen plays Theo Faron, a faceless bureaucrat working at an anonymous office job. His trip into London is punctuated by random violence, and he must walk past riot-clad policemen from “Homeland Security”, and cages holding captured foreigners.

Then his world is turned upside down. He’s reunited with a former lover, Julian Taylor, played by Julianne Moore. She’s head of an underground organization fighting the repressive government. She needs a favor from Theo, and he finds himself involved almost in spite of himself.

The favor involves accompanying a mysterious woman on a harrowing journey. They travel from danger to danger, trusting changeable allies, with violence shadowing their every move, and with no guarantee of safety save an illusive rendezvous point they’re trying to reach.

This movie is reminiscent of Blade Runner. Both depict a dystopian future, a future that we would do well to avoid. The disturbing thing about The Children of Men is that this future seems a lot closer to our current situation than the high-tech world of Blade Runner. The movie is based on the novel of the same name by P.D. James.

England under totalitarian rule, with xenophobic reactions to foreigners and brutal actions by a Homeland Security agency, seem plausible outgrowths of affairs in our own world.

The movie’s message is chilling: a world lacking in children is a world lacking in laughter, happiness, compassion, and empathy. It is a world in which brutal, violent actions seem the only way to cope. It is a world without hope.

But a hope does arise in the movie, and the major characters in the film stake their lives on it. There is one transcendent moment in the film (near the end) which almost redeems all of the characters and all of the terrible things we’ve witnessed. It doesn’t last long, and the significance may be fleeting, but it is one of the most beautiful movie scenes I’ve ever seen.

This is not a film for the faint of heart. The violence is constant and horrific. I don’t recommend this movie for most children, and only for adults who can look past the violence to the important messages it imparts.

Freedom Writers (2007)

Starring Hilary Swank

Freedom Writers is a stirring movie starring Oscar-winning actress Hilary Swank as a woman who becomes a teacher at a school in Los Angeles. The kids she teaches live in a violent, gang-ridden urban landscape, and school for them is a temporary thing that they’re forced to attend until they’re old enough to drop out. Hilary plays Erin Gruwell, an idealistic woman with no idea what she’s facing.

Gruwell is surrounded not only by unruly kids in her classes, but also by hostile administrators and unhappy teachers. The teachers resent what their school has become; they blame school integration for the school’s slide into poor test scores and difficult classes.

Amidst it all, Gruwell struggles to connect with her students. She tries to understand the lives they lead. In the process, she convinces them to start keeping private journals in which they can describe their lives. After sitting for hours reading their journals, she realizes that she cares deeply about these kids, and will do everything she can to make a difference for them. This includes taking a part-time job in order to buy books and other school supplies, as well as saving up in order to reward the kids with special educational trips that will definitely never be paid for from the school budget.

The movie has a subplot in Erin’s husband, Scott, played by Patrick Dempsey. Scott can’t understand why Erin is so determined to help these children in spite of the kids’ bad attitudes and an unhelpful school administration. He’s baffled why she cares so much. He resents the extra time she invests in them. Dempsey is well known for portraying an appealing doctor on the TV show Grey’s Anatomy. Here he takes on a difficult role, portraying a man moving away from his wife as she moves toward the things she was born to do.

There have been several movies recently about teachers who help disadvantaged kids, including Dangerous Minds and Stand and Deliver. Cynics could say this is just a copy of those. But it’s a fresh, new take on the subject, and it’s also based on a true story. Further, the young people portraying the students do a convincing job of showing us who they are and why they behave as they do. By the end of the movie we’re rooting for each one of them, and hoping against hope that the dangerous streets will not claim any of these kids as they connect with their teacher and their world. There are some tear-jerking moments like when Gruwell introduces the kids to survivors from the Nazi death camps. They start to see that the suffering they endure in their own lives is not unique.

This movie is convincing and moving. While there are some violent moments in the film that show the place these children live, they are not over-emphasized. Without these scenes, we wouldn’t understand just how much Gruwell accomplishes. It’s an inspiration to see how a determined person can make a difference in other’s lives. There can never be too many such movies.