Reviews

There is such a thing as a moral absolute and Egoyan makes it very clear in this film (through his surrogate, the Director, played by Charles Aznavour)that he will not countenance a middle ground for mindless hate. What is a little disappointing, however, is that his film lacks the usual intellectual gold standard we have come to expect -- it's a little too emotional, a little too obvious. It's strident.

There are powerful moments in the film -- a re-enactment of the Armenian genocide for which there is little physical proof, the earnest self-discovery of the main character (played convincingly by David Alpay), the customs agent who wants to unspool a story to see how it ends (Christopher Plummer, who turns in his usual high quality performance), a young woman on the edge (Jean-Marie Croze, in a noteworthy, intense performance), the empathetic saint (played empathetically by Bruce Greenwood), the morally ambiguous actor playing the Evil Turk (Elias Koteas).

But, the movie punches hard and the message is meaningless, despite Egoyan's valid assertions. Hate is bad, but stereotypes are worse. Because the worst thing about a holocaust is not the goons who do the dirty work. It is the society that just lets it happen. This issue is never quite fully explored in the film (as it wasn't in Schindler's List, either). Too bad.

One of these days, a truly great film about the Armenian tragedy will be made. I always thought Egoyan would be the one to do it. Maybe he'll try again. The story should be told. Properly.

It's got a plot. It's got likable characters -- including the bad guys. It's got cool F/X and groovy costumes. Most importantly, it's got a sense of humour. What's not to like?

Willis is in his element, and so is that supreme being Milla Jovovich. The movie is chock full of entertaining supporting actors. Hey, Zorg (played with aplomb by a giddy Gary Oldman) even has a point about the constructive value of death and destruction.

The sets are wonderful -- a future of excess population, traffic, noise, and riotous colour. I think some of those kooky costumes will actually materialize in the 23rd century...

Go get the video. The movie's fun. And we all need that once in a while.

It is often difficult to swallow the "romanticization" of a good story. Anna Leonowens was a rather narrow-minded woman who, nevertheless, had the gumption to do something interesting with her life -- largely because she needed the money. She went to Siam, taught the King's many children, and eventually departed. She wrote a journal with silly insights into a profoundly serious and sophisticated culture. It is unlikely she exchanged more than two words with the King during her stay. He was, after all, a busy man, and she was basically the help -- even if she was somewhat out of the ordinary.

In pitching the film, Anna star Jodie Foster said that this story would be the most truthful to Leonowens' experience (unlike the adored, but totally manufactured, musical). However, the truth is often incompatible with the market and with an A-list actor's ego. Foster's insistence on playing heroines who always do the right thing is becoming rather tedious. She is tightly coiled in the film, musters a rather bad British accent, and, is really quite irritating. You want to slap her, or at least get the King to loosen her up with his lauded lover's technique. Perhaps Foster is trying to balance myth and reality; in that case, her schizophrenic performance merits some critical notice.

The true stars are the Asians -- Chow Yun Fat shows you can take a Hollywood confection and make something of it; the same can be said of the hauntingly beautiful ladies who portray Lady Thiang (Deanna Yusoff) and Tuptim (Ling Bai). And the art direction and costumes certainly deserve the kudos that came their way.

Of course, it would have been too much to stick with the real story. There's nothing like a platonic inter-racial, cross-cultural, going-nowhere-but-the-stars romance to liven things up. The problem is Foster is not really good with men, and the plot is further convoluted by politics with Burma -- an issue on which Anna, of course, has enlightened opinions that she shares with the King and the British representatives (as if they would have cared).

Such a lovely premise, such banal delivery. One day, someone may get this story right. Perhaps the Thai film industry could take a crack at it.

This version is a notable improvement of the greatly flawed, but well-intentioned film. Care is taken to respect the book (and the spirit of Herbert's writing) as much as possible, though we could have done with a little more explanation of why this futuristic society bans computers. Generally well-cast, though William Hurt as Duke Leto is his usual wistful, philosophical self; I see Leto as more of a fighter. We could have done better with Paul Atreides -- Newman's not a bad actor; he just don't got the look of a Messiah. Important for this particular role.

Great sets and scenery. The costumes were not bad, except for Irulan's ridiculous butterfly get-up. The sandworm passes the test, though I will concede the film had a pretty good worm, too.

A good mini-series like this is the reason we cannot chuck our TVs, no matter how much we try. Kudos to Sci-Fi channel. More to come, perhaps? The whole Dune saga? The prequel? I'll be there...

Dune is a head trip -- which makes it both a difficult and exhilarating read. Head trips do not generally transition well to the silver screen unless you take some time to explain to the audience just what the story's framework and perspective are all about.

This takes time, a precious commodity in movie-land, where producers and directors have to juggle attention-deficit disorder with artistic integrity and, of course, the bottom line.

Dune is complicated. Those unfamilar with the landmark hexology will be totally lost. They need to understand why thinking machines are banned, where the Guild came from, the spice monopoly, the Major and Minor Houses, the Bene Gesserit, Fremen ideology, and myriad details woven into the tapestry of human civilization some 8000 years into the future. It can't be done in two hours. I'm not sure it can be done in four. And I'm just talking about Volume I -- never mind the successive books (which deteriorate in quality as you go along).

Lynch brings some texture to the art direction and does his best in highlighting the key issues. I liked his casting and like many before me only regret that we get to see so little of the many major and minor characters. Lynch is clearly hampered by a lack of money and time. So, the story is choppy, the acting wooden, and the point pointless.

Which brings you to a choice. Either you do the Star Wars thing (big movies, lots of installments) or go to the tube and do a series or mini-series. I opt for the latter because I don't think the Hollywood bottom line could finance four or five Dune movies and get the kind of return they want.

So, I'm looking forward to the Dune TV show. It will give us the basics. It will take us forward. It will enable us to understand the characters' actions and motives without dumb internal monologues.

Lynch had some great ideas which should be purloined. He got the worms right. He got the planet right. He just scrimped on the soul of the story. And that's not entirely his fault.

Let's see what happens...

This could have been a brilliant story -- but, of course, that's simply not possible in Hollywood. The Club Med encounter with the alien species was ridiculous. Either show us the greebies or, if not, then the film's creators should leave the audience with such a sense of otherness or "alien-ness" as to make us appreciate just how strange it would be to encounter an extraterrestrial intelligence (e.g. the singing slab in 2001). The scene in which the aliens are first heard is exciting -- and so it should be. The plot would have been far more interesting if it had delved more in the confirmation and translation of the data they sent than with the mindless hearings on Capitol Hill as to whether there is a God or not. Let's be real, here. Were we to hear from another civilization, the first things Congress would be called on to determine is can we protect outselves against them (if they are dangerous) and how much would it cost to communicate and/or meet them. Just can't see how God would figure into this conversation. Anyway, as for the acting. Well, I can't stand Jodie Foster; she's an artistic fraud. But, she is rather good at playing herself (i.e. an intelligent person). She had zero chemistry with lover boy there, but, of course, she always aims to place herself in the center of a film, even if that is at the expense of the rest of the cast and the film's artistic integrity. And all the rest of the actors -- well, your basic two dimensions. This isn't all Zemeckis' fault. He had to work off Sagan's so-so book. Too bad. I'm still waiting for a good alien encounter film. Maybe next time...