Author: crunchonthis

Starring Cuba Gooding Jr., Terrance Howard, and David Oyelowo

Directed by Anthony Hemingway (HBO’s Treme)

Rated PG-13 for some sequences of war violence

     The story of the Tuskegee Airmen is a classic American tale of courage, skill and perseverance.  While the U.S. Military did not allow the African American pilots to fight in the main combat arena until towards the end of the war, their record of kills vs. casualties as well as their success at protecting American bombers is a truly fantastic and almost unbelievable achievement.  So there is also no doubt that these brave men of the 332^nd Fighter Group deserve to be heralded and have their story preserved in film.  The problem is that they deserve a much better legacy than this. 

     The 1995 HBO movie The Tuskegee Airmen was a decent enough approach to the subject but had many problems.  That is probably why Executive Producer George Lucas and others at Lucas Films wanted to improve upon the story.  Unfortunately, the only thing that was improved upon was the special effects.  The aerial effects are truly spectacular and the fight sequences are surprisingly exciting.  I say surprisingly because while everything in the air is gold, everything on the ground is lame. 

     Many will come away saying the acting is just plain lousy, but that’s not altogether true.  There are some decent performers here that should have had a better script to read from.  The dialog is very poorly written throughout and most of the characters are nothing more than cookie cutter caricatures.  I’m shocked that many of the characters even had names.  At least there was some personality given to the members of the 332^nd, because the white characters in the film were treated like complete stereotypes.  There was “Racist General,” “Nice White Pilot,” “Racist Nazi Pilot” and many other completely contrived characters who only detracted from the power of the overall story.  But even the main characters suffered from a lack of substance.  The only member of the cast that got a sufficient plot line was that of Joe “Lightening” Little (Oyelowo) but his story alone couldn’t save the film.

     Another serious issue with the script is its historical accuracy.  It’s widely known that the Tuskegee Airmen were extremely successful, but this film makes them look invincible.  While they lost less than most, they lost many more than this film represents.  Their version of the war is almost like a video game where the hero has to make it at least to the end.  War movies by nature revolve around the loss of human life and to show war differently is both deceptive and dishonorable.  This lack of humility to the very idea of war distracts from the movie and steals away any credibility they manage to achieve.

     The fact is that there is potential greatness in this premise and the film itself could have been another Glory.  But rather than making an inspired and inspirational film, the filmmakers settled for a visually captivating movie that serves as a poor representation of the men who gallantly fought in WWII and surprised a nation.  C

Starring Thomas Horn, Max von Sydow, Sandra Bullock and Tom Hanks
Directed by Stephen Daldry (Billy Elliot)
Rated PG-13 for emotional thematic material, some disturbing images and language

    There is a moment in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close where the young boy played by Thomas Horn covers his ears and yells at his father, played by Tom Hanks, begging him to not be disappointed in him.  It is a startling and rather tender moment that shatters any misconception that the boy is cold and unfeeling or anything besides strong, resilient, and a little obnoxious.  Taking place in New York City shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the boy is learning to live without his father who was killed while in the World Trade Center.  He worshipped his father and wants nothing more in life than to make him proud.  When he finds a key hidden in his father’s closet he goes on a desperate mission to discover what the key opens, even at the expense of missing school and practically abandoning his mother (Sandra Bullock).  Soon after he begins his search, his adventure is shared with an older man carrying an important secret (Max von Sydow) who is eager to aid him on his quest.

    I must warn you that this movie is a major tear jerker.  Some might call it manipulative, but it’s not overly so.  It’s just a subject matter that brings out a very strong emotional response.  But don’t think that this is merely a sad film.  It is about love and loss, but more importantly its about not giving up.  Even when all seems lost, all might not be completely gone.  It’s also very funny and incredibly moving. 

    Based on the best-selling novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, the movie is a compassionate yet challenging look at what we as a nation lost on that “worst day.”  Through the boy’s eyes we see a world that can be cruel, but that can also be filled with love, laughter and adventure. 

    The acting here is absolutely top-notched.  It helps to have accomplished actors such as Hanks, Bullock and von Sydow, but Horn appears to have been up to the challenge of working with such a talented cast.  His character is that of a very different boy with possible high-functioning autism.  It’s a tough part and he did a splendid job. 

    The story and the script here are what make the film so special.  To come up with such an amazing idea for the novel and then to have it terrifically adapted by Academy Award winner Eric Roth (Forest Gump) is an amazing feat which seems so effortless here. 

    A lot of credit also goes to Stephen Daldry who has become quite a masterful story teller.  He never shies away from tough material and seems to always churn out great movies.

The Adventures of Tintin

Starring Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis and Daniel Craig
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Rated PG for adventure action violence, some drunkenness and brief smoking

    Based on the famous comic books by Herge′, this first of what are sure to be many adventures of the character Tintin finds the young detective Tintin on a dangerous quest to find the location of three secret scrolls, all of which are individually contained within the models of a ship called The Unicorn, that will eventually lead him to a great treasure.  Along with his brave dog Snowy and the inebriated Captain Haddock, the team competes with the sinister Mr. Sakharine in the race to find the scrolls and the mystery behind them. 

    If you are like me and very American, you will have probably never heard of Tintin.  One of the reasons Spielberg opened the movie in Europe almost two months before the U.S. premiere is because Tintin is a national treasure there.  While the movie is having a tough time coming out of the gate here, worldwide it has already grossed over a quarter billion dollars.  But just because the character is not an icon here as it is there, don’t be surprised if he starts to makes some inroads. 

    Americans love thrilling movies and this one is non-stop action and adventure.  The journey starts almost as soon as the film begins and doesn’t let up until the credits.  It’s like a 107 minute roller coaster that doesn’t make you sick. 

    The film has several other admirable qualities, chief among them is the animation.  Using motion capture, Spielberg has managed to create a breathtakingly beautiful world that you can’t take your eyes off of.  So far the films that have utilized this technology form animation (i.e. Mars Needs Moms, Beowulf, The Polar Express) have had what many consider to be a creepy look.  Tintin however has a brand new style that is mesmerizing.  It’s so captivating that I had to watch the film twice in order to fully understand the plot simply because the look was distracting from the story.  The story is fine, but the art takes over completely. 

    The one thing that American audiences will find most troubling is the lack of character development.  When you watch the Indiana Jones sequels you’ll notice a lack of character development simply because you are so familiar with the lead character, thanks to Raiders of the Lost Ark, and it’s okay to jump right into the action.  Rather than go into a genesis story which would give you that same familiarity, Spielberg chose to jump right in under the assumption that most international audiences won’t need it.  I think he hoped that American audiences would be sophisticated enough to go without as well. Would I have liked a genesis story?  Absolutely, as will many of you.  I’m probably not going to go back and read the comics just to have a better appreciation of the history of Tintin.  This strategy in telling the tale might just hurt the chances of a humongous domestic box office, but I’m sure that is a risk they were willing to take, and so far it has paid off. 

Starring Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara and Christopher Plummer
Directed by David Fincher (The Social Network)
Rated R for brutal violence including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language

    Based on the best-selling novel by Swedish author Stieg Larsson, Girl tells the story of a Swedish magazine journalist (Craig) who goes on the search for a woman who has been missing for forty years.  When his search becomes overly tedious, he acquires the help of a young but brilliant computer hacker with a huge set of personal issues (Mara).  Together they find themselves on the verge of not only finding their missing woman, but uncovering a hidden secret that has plagued a northern Swedish town for decades. 

    Before I dive into the obvious, I will admit that this new version of the huge best-seller is pretty darn good.  It is a dark and frightening film that is a testament to what a film can be when you put a lot of money behind great source material and then hire the best director, writer and actors to build it. 

    And now the elephant in the room: why did we need the film to begin with?  In 2009 the first of the trilogy was released with another great director, writer and stellar cast.  Sure it was in Swedish, and you had to read subtitles, but that didn’t seem to matter since the film ended up being a huge international success both financially and critically.  Also, the lead actors both ended up as the stars of two other big competing holiday films (Michael Nyqvist in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and Noomi Rapace in the new Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows).  The film won many awards and made many critics’ top ten lists that year. 

    And yet two years later the Americans decide they can best it.  Well of course they can, but what’s the point?  If the film wasn’t released in the US or had little recognition that would be one thing, but that simply isn’t the case.  Did Fincher do a better job?  Yes, but not that much better.  Is Steven Zaillian’s script better written?  Of course but both scripts relied heavily on the source material by Stieg Larsson.  Are the actors better?  Not hardly.  They are better looking, that’s for sure, but both casts were fantastic.  It’s one of those situations where you feel that instead of the filmmakers asking themselves if they could make a better movie, they needed to ask themselves if they should. 

    Also, I think Columbia Pictures has been confused about this project for a while.  They’ve done a poor job marketing it, partly because I don’t think they have a clue how to sell it to American audiences.  They didn’t allow most critics groups to see the film before voting deadlines, which means they are only banking on possible Oscar nominations with no buzz leading up to it.  And then you have the fact that they are releasing the film on an extremely crowded Christmas weekend which is a horrible date for a movie of this nature.  Most Americans will go see a movie with their families over the holidays and I seriously doubt that audiences will choose a film about sexual violence over typical holiday fare like action and comedy.