Reviews

Despite some rough edits and bare bones production value, another Herzog masterpiece in the same league as Fata Morgana.

The images shot by the Krafts and their home movies of each other are breathtaking. These are stitched together masterfully by Herzog as a lasting tribute to their work and a celebration of their sense of wonder.

Tokyo Olympiad is the high-water mark against which all Olympic movies are judged - this one comes in a close second. Thankfully (mostly) steers clear of super slo-mo and other gimmicks to focus on the athletes. Gives equal coverage to some of the less popular events that are no less compelling. Overall a superior document of the games - which would change forever after Munich in '72.

Certainly would have expected better from Burns. Struggles to sustain a thin story for two full hours and ends up coming across as a filmstrip running on loop in a company museum that everyone can safely ignore. Disturbingly blurs the lines between the Mayo brothers' laudable social justice ideals behind the founding of the Clinic and the corporate juggernaut it is today.

You do have to suspend a bit of disbelief to get there on the haunting journey, but the movie's final scene will stay with you forever. Amazing performances by the two leads and assured, understated directing that only intensifies the climax.

Absolutely not to be missed, even (or particularly) if you think you've seen every possible treatment of the toll of the Holocaust on individual lives.

Geez, what a mess. Far too conventional a plot structure for what could have been an interesting take on a fresh time and place. It's as if Scorsese had directed "Titanic." The choice of leading man doesn't help in this regard. It takes a lot of the viewer to work through Leonardo's acting problems.

As a period piece it works very well - the set design, costumes, etc. are spot on. Daniel Day Lewis is brilliant here, not wasting the rich character he is given. Other bit parts are not bad, but feel a little tacked-on in spots.

The primary problem, IMHO, is the off-the-shelf plot. It's more Hollywood epic than vintage Scorsese. There are very few surprises here and a lot of disappointment at an opportunity lost.

Inevitably, the movie will be subject to comparison with "Saving Private Ryan," simply because of the similarities in release date. However, there really should be no comparison. For me, "Ryan" was a formulaic forgettable piece of Spielberg "product" - a kind of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" for grownups where the Germans get killed for real and we're all expected to stand up and cheer and reach for our hankies when directed. If John Wayne were alive, it would've been tailor-made for him. I never was much of a John Wayne fan.

"Line" is a completely different ball of wax, and one that confounds many viewers and reviewers alike. You either love it or hate it. Count me squarely in the former category. I've seen a lot of movies about war and wartime, and this now goes to the top of my list. While some find it instantly forgettable, others (myself included) find it impossible to dislodge from our memories.

This is not to say it's perfect on all levels, but for me it worked perfectly as a whole in what (at least I think) set out to do. I found Malick's direction to be flawless, marveling in, and applauding, his choices at virtually every turn.

The cinematography is stunning, and contribute to a number of scenes that bear comparisons to classic moments in film history. My favorite, and one that will linger in my memory along with the ice battle from "Nevsky" is the sun emerging from the clouds and illuminating a hill where the Americans are searching for a hidden Japanese bunker. I am in awe of this thirty-second clip - not only is it gorgeous, but the film deals with this in a sublimely understated manner - there is a brief pause while the sides wonder in, and reflect on, the significance of the event perhaps both in terms of it's meaning for the task at hand and in a larger context. This is emblematic of the rest of the movie, nothing is going to hit you over the head - Malick offers no definitive answers, but rather poses the questions in a fascinating and thought-provoking manner.

There are many, many more unforgettable scenes along these lines - the opening and closing shots, three men hiding behind a tree while hundreds of Japanese draw closer - reminds me of the final shot from "Aguirre;" the battle scenes were on par with those from "Ran." The depictions of battle are highly stylized, unlike those from "Ryan," but I think were appropriate to the dream-like context of the rest of the movie.

For me, it was more a movie about the fundamental questions of being, set during wartime, than a strictly literal snapshot from Guadalcanal. Viewed in the former light it is a movie to treasure. In the latter, I can understand how it can seem to be a confusing and disappointing mess.

My only complaints were a few casting problems - Travolta simply did not work in what would've been a bizarre choice under the best of circumstances, and the cameos at every turn do get a bit distracting, such as Clooney's two minutes near the end (although I'm always thankful when Clooney is limited to two minutes ;-)). My viewing companion remarked that "it's too bad Kevin Bacon wasn't in the cast, or the 'Bacon game' could've moved to the next level."

Still, across the board the rest of the cast is excellent, with Penn, Nolte and Caviezel standing out. Much has been said about the characters not being fully developed, and I agree. I disagree at this serving to the film's detriment, however, as we are given glimpses of lives forever altered by this battle, and consistent with the voiceover ruminations about "all men sharing one soul." In this respect it breaks from conventional wisdom concerning war movies, and I think is all the more remarkable for it.

It does also seem, to some degree, to overlay a Vietnam sensibility on a WWII setting. I've seen criticism that the general mood at the time was more patriotic and sacrificing - that the "this is futile" remarks weren't appropriate. Yet, when viewed in their intended context, I can imagine that sending row upon row of men as machine gun fodder to take a piece of dirt must have evoked the same feeling among soldiers at Guadalcanal as it did in Vietnam.

That said, it is not strictly an "antiwar" movie, nor is it a movie glorifying war - for this you must draw your own conclusions. The objectivity is laudable.

Simply put, watching the movie on a literal level will not work. I found it to represent cinematic art at its best. For me, it will occupy a place alongside "The Best Years of Our Lives," "Ran," "Apocalypse Now," "Das Boot".