Reviews

When it comes to Michael Moore, you can place me in the category of "angry ex-fan." I greatly enjoyed "Roger and Me" and found about 2/3rds of "Bowling For Columbine" to be informative and entertaining. The final third, coupled with some of his remarks about the war in Iraq and the inevitable observation that, despite being funny and occasionally right, he is a sellout and a hypocrite, were enough to push me out of the "fan" column. "Fahrenheit 9/11" was almost enough to win me back. Almost.

First, the film is nothing if not passionate. It is a powerful, sharply honed attack that will call people to action. Whether that action is nausea or voter mobilization depends on one's political orientation. Those who idolize George W. Bush (out of touch as some of them may be) would be well to stay away, as Moore's attack upon him is simply relentless. From the election controversy to the ranch visits in 2001 to ties to Saudi royals and beyond, Moore does not cut Bush an even break. Hell, he doesn't give him breathing room! In fact, Moore's assault upon Bush is so thorough that it actually detracts from the power of the film. Instead of a man asking some tough questions, we are occasionally left with the image of a man shouting, "I hate the president!" We knew that BEFORE we spent $9 on your movie, Mike.

Once you can get past Moore's overt bias, the film does have a lot to offer. Moore's antics (reading the Patriot Act from an ice cream truck) are as funny as ever and some of his questions (why exactly WAS a Taliban official in the US in 2001 anyway) really do merit consideration. Even the most staunch critics of this film's message and ideology will have to admit that Moore did his homework this time around. The film is a blistering indictment chock full of factual information (service records, taped interviews, etc.) that cannot be categorically labeled as 'liberal propaganda.'

Of course, Moore nearly undoes this newfound credibility every time he himself opens his mouth. For instance, he remarks that 'the black members of Congress were told to sit down and shut up' even though we see no such edict being issued. He also, in a poor attempt to channel Orwell, wraps up the film with a message that all wars are unjust, as the poor end up dying fighting them for the rich. What about wars fought for the benefit of the poor?

I'm not about to address every point the film makes (as that would take more time than I am willing to spend), so I'll stick with what stood out most: 1.) The 2000 Election. Bush won. Get over it. The "scrubbing" of the polls isn't new to anyone who isn't living in a cave. What Moore doesn't mention, however, is that a number of military votes (most of which were pro-Bush) were scrubbed as well. Then again, telling the WHOLE truth has never been Moore's style. 2.) It's PRESIDENT Bush. Whether you like him or not, at least respect the office. Moore doesn't even do that much. His hatred is blinding. I don't think much of Bush either, but I don't spend my every living minute undermining him and plotting his destruction. 3.) Moore might be personally biased to the hilt, but the film itself is NOT an endorsement of the Democratic party. As was the case with BFC, he spends a good deal of time bashing Democrats. Whereas the previous target was Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle now gets a heavy dose of criticism. 4.) Just when I had Moore pegged as a flat-out traitor, he manages to redeem himself by showing the human side. He sat down and talked with troops, the families of troops, Marine recruiters, former government officials and more.

Do you think they would have consented to any of it if they thought they were dealing with a traitor? Hell, Moore dedicated the film itself TO fallen troops and September 11th victims. That doesn't sound like a traitor to me. 5.) Moore spends a lot of time showing Bush and Co. combing their hair and prepping for TV. First of all, I'm pretty sure ANYONE undergoes similar preparation before going on air. Secondly, the sequence is of no real value to the film and inflates the running time by several wasted minutes.

In conclusion, beware of this film and its reviews. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the work of a left-wing nut and other left-wing nuts will praise it simply for that reason. Contrarily, right-wing nuts will condemn it for exactly the same reason (the difference being, many of their condemnations will result from never actually having WATCHED the film). Middle America may agree or disagree over its assertions, question/deride the validity of its arguments or use it as a point of reference, but at the very least it gets the conversation started. And, for that reason alone it is worth seeing.

7/10

After hearing about how great this film was for two solid months, I finally got around to seeing it. It has been my experience that the more hype something generates, the more worthless it usually is. This was not the case with Bowling for Columbine.... at least not entirely. Before watching Bowling, or any other Michael Moore movie for that matter, it is important to realize what you are setting yourself up for. While Moore is not the flat-out liar some have made him up to be, he does to a good job of distorting the facts and is VERY manipulative in his presentation. With that in mind, his films are generally of value for the questions they raise.... not for the "truths" they claim to reveal. The question raised in Bowling For Columbine is one of why America is so violent. Moore contrasts our country to our northern neighbor, Canada, and looks back into our history. Interviews are conducted with falsely labeled "promoters of violence", such as Matt Stone (South Park) and Marilyn Manson. He also examines the town of Littleton, Colorado (sight of the Columbine massacre) and draws some interesting conclusions. In my opinion, the film falters when Moore changes roles from that of an observer/inquirer to that of an active proponent. He pressures K-Mart into removing bullets from their store aisles and his unwelcome `interview' with Charlton Heston is little more than a denouncement of NRA activity.

As a journalist, I find Michael Moore to be unethical and Bowling for Columbine lacking in integrity. As a film watcher and a student, however, its value cannot be denied. Whether you've heard good things about it or bad; see it and draw your own conclusions. You will be doing yourself a favor.

The Gingerbread Man is one of those unfortunate films that throws together premium talent and then asks nothing of it. Based on a story by John Grisham, directed by Robert Altman and starring Kenneth Branagh, one would be hard pressed to find a drama with better credentials. However, in this instance, those credentials don't translate into sucess. The film is not horrible, merely laughably implausible and a huge letdown. Branagh (complete with a convincing Southern accent) plays a divorced lawyer who gets mixed up with a mysterious woman (Embeth Davidtz, whose only success has been in Schindler's List) and her dangerously wacked out backwoods father (Robert Duvall, in an intriguing performance). One thing leads to another and he's on the run to protect his kids. The Gingerbread Man raises many questions but answers few of them. If you like Grisham, stick with The Firm or A Time to Kill instead.

5.5/10

-Zac

I'll get the movie's few detractions out of the way first: it is long, Cameron Diaz should not have been cast, DiCaprio's performance was a bit uneven and those seeking historical accuracy should look elsewhere.

That said, Gangs of New York is a magnificent film. It begins in the mid-1800's with a fight in the 5 Points section of New York between the the "American natives" (bitterly ironic considering they got the land from the Indians) and the largely Irish gangs of foreigners. Under the command of Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day Lewis), the natives emerge triumphant. The leader of the opposition, Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) is slain before his son Amsterdam's (Leonardo DiCaprio) eyes. Amsterdam goes into a 16 year exile, only to return and work as a theif for the all-powerful Butcher. Cameron Diaz is thrown into the mix as a fellow thief/love interest and Jim Broadbent comically portrays corrupt politician "Boss" Tweed. As Amsterdam seeks to avenge his father and restore the power of the gangs, the draft for the Civil War looms.

Gangs of New York is visually striking (note the transformation sequence at the end) and Martin Scorcese's attention to detail really shows. As with many of his other movies (Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Casino), there is an abundance of violence; without which, the film would not succeed. The script is nothing terribly special (just your run of the mill revenge story with some historical flavor), but the acting is superb. Daniel Day Lewis delivered one hell of a powerful performance. If it weren't for Nic Cage in Adaptation, I'd say he would be an automatic for the Oscar.

Some say Scorcese reached his moment of glory with Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. Others claim he found it later on with Goodfellas and Casino. Because of his paramount reputation, Scorcese was working against his past sucesses (as well as the current competition) with this film. Many have been overly critical of it, citing it as a noted decline. If this is a decline, then we can expect many more fine films to come before Scorcese's career bottoms out. Decline or not, he has not lost the ability to tell a good story and Gangs of New York is well worthwhile.

8/10