John’s Movie Musings

In the Valley of Elah is a movie centered around the war, but not so much about it. It treats it as a fact of life and the story itself could be told in any number of situations.

Tommy Lee Jones plays a dad whose son goes AWOL days after returning from Iraq. There have been plenty of “find my son” movies in the past and this one holds up well. Except for the end that I’ll get to later.

The plot is very well told and of course Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron give excellent performances. The writers give you enough information to string you along and the movie had my full attention the whole way through it.

Now I expected the tone of the movie to be anti-war. And it is. But it crosses another line and appears to have an anti-military bend to it. That bothered me as I didn’t feel the director didn’t need to go there. The plot was strong enough on its own that I didn’t need him injecting his own thoughts into scenes.

That all culminates at the end.

The character Tommy Lee Jones plays is well defined in the movie. He’s a man of character, with some very notable flaws. However, in the last scene, the director strips all that character away and replaces it with himself. This causes Tommy Lee Jones to do something that was really unnecessary. It made me angry and really turned me off of the rest of the movie. Which is sad because the rest is so very good.

So I don’t know how to recommend this. One the one hand, it has a great story you will probably enjoy. But the end put me in a really bad mood.

I think I’m going to tip the scales to the negative. If you’ve seen this, let me know what you thought of the last scene.

Grade: C-

Outside of a Geico commercial, have cavemen been a huge source of entertainment? Yeah, there was that Brendan Fraser movie, but that doesn’t count because of Pauly Shore.

Well, the guy who made Independence Day thought there might be a story, but halfway through the movie he realized there wasn’t anything there. And like a good director that only has part of a story, what does he do? Ad-lib, of course.

Let me explain. When I think of 10,000 years before Christ, I think of men dressed in furs hunting woolly mammoths and saber-tooth tigers. It’s like Dances With Wolves with bigger tatankas. And that’s exactly how the movie starts out. There’s a tribe of people up in the frozen tundra (possibly Green Bay) trying to make a living on mammoth steaks.

But then, tragedy strikes. Members of the tribe are kidnapped by raiders, bound in metal shackles, and transported to Egypt. Now let’s disect that…

I’m no expect in metallurgy, but I’ve never heard of cavemen miners. Sort of makes all that bone useless, don’t it? And from what I recall, mammoths and saber-tooth tigers were up in Siberia. That’s a long ways from Egypt. And since no one ages in the movie, I’m guessing the director assumed we knew nothing of geography. It is an American movie, so he gets a pass for that.

But here’s where I lost it. Let’s assume the Iron Age happened a few thousand years early, and let’s assume the ancient barbarians were all Egyptian. Even if I take all that, there is absolutely no way I’m going to believe the mammoths were domesticated and built the pyramids.

No, 10,000 B.C. Just no.

Grade: F

There seems to be this sub-genre of British Heist movies hitting us from across the Pond. Starting with Robin Hood, it seems as if the Brits have this fascination with thievery. Or perhaps that’s just the stuff they export over here ’cause we’re the ones who like the five-finger discount.

The Bank Job is your typical bank-robbery-gone-bad-but-not-in-the-way-we-expected-to movie. In fact, it’s so typical I was bored out of my mind for the first half.

Supposedly the movie is based on a true story in the 70s. Someone had some risque photos stored in a bank deposit box that needed to be dealt with. That’s fine and all, but the parts before and during the actual “bank job” are pretty freakin dull. The movie tries to manufacture some suspense during the job, but I couldn’t tell if those things actually happened, or if the director just realized the robbery was historically boring and needed a little spicing up.

Things begin to pick up once the crew finds something of interest in the vault and I found myself paying more attention. Parts are good, but the ending just kind of left things unsettled. Then, to top it all off, the final credits say that the events are true but the names have all been changed “to protect the guilty.” That makes me think I’d find more truth in the Wikipedia article.

As you can see, Jason Statham is in this. He and lots of other people with accents are good enough for the genre. Not bad, but not great. Just like the movie.

Grade: C+

What makes a good Western? If I had to narrow it down to three things, I’d say a good gunfight, a train/stagecoach robbery, and Clint Eastwood. Since Mr. Eastwood has gone behind the camera these days, it’s up to others to fill his saddle. In Appaloosa, Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen take the reigns.

As a genre, Westerns rarely drift from the Lone Ranger type of hero. In many of Clint Eastwood’s movies, he rarely had a name. This all helped define the cowboy archetype – rugged, stoic, and alone. The tagline in Appaloosa’s poster even says, “Feelings get you killed.” As you can tell, we’re in familiar territory here.

And this is where Appaloosa shines. With Ed and Viggo playing typical cowboys, Renee Zellweger comes along and turns this into a character study. Where most Westerns take the Cowboy as a given and go forth on a good vs. evil story, Appaloosa actually examines the psyche of the Cowboy…in the middle of a good vs. sort of gray story. This all results in a slower paced movie, but I enjoyed the ride.

Like always, Jeremy Irons plays the villian. But he does a great job giving his character a personality without slipping into Jeremy Irons. I wish all actors were that good.

If you’re in the mood for a Western, this one’s solid. Not perfect, but certainly worth your two hours. Ed Harris directed and there are some shots that are simply brilliant. Definitely watch this if you love great cinematography.

Grade: B+

Remember Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Or Hero? Or House of Flying Daggers? All are fantastic Asian movies that you need to see at least once in your life. So color me surprised when I found out The Forbidden Kingdom is nothing like them. Instead, you are just one “Eye of the Tiger” short of a cheesy 80s movie.

The movie starts out ok by filling in your typical Asian backstory of an evil ruler coming to power. But soon after, things jump to present day and introduce us to our hero. I have no idea who the kid is, but he’s obviously the guy you call when you can’t get Shia LeBeauf. And no, that’s not a compliment.

Anyway, by some “crazy random happenstance” our hero ends up with a magic staff just as Cobra Kai shows up to beat his whiney ass in slow motion. Shia Jr. is saved by magically teleporting to ancient China – a land where everyone speaks and understands English and who pay no attention to the white kid wandering around town.

You can probably tell where this is going. Those of you who grew up in the 80s definitely know where this is going, so I’ll just leave it there. Instead, I should talk about Jackie Chan and Jet Li – the whole freaking reason this movie got made. At least I’m hoping that’s the case and not some director’s dream of making Karate Kid 7.

Right off the bat, Jackie Chan is awesome. He plays a Drunken Master and plays it well. It’s one of those roles where he looked like he was having fun in every scene. That alone got me through this.

Jet Li is, well, Jet Li. Like the rest of his movies, he doesn’t say much. He just jumps around and kicks some ass. And honestly, I’m ok with that.

If I were a kid today, I might look at this movie like I do The Neverending Story (you’re welcome for getting that song stuck in your head). But as an adult (sorta) expecting classy Asian cinema, oh man was this a disappointment.

Grade: C-

In preparation for Quantum of Solace (the next Bond flick), I watched Casino Royale again. I hadn’t seen it since the theaters and it was nice to remember what made this such a great movie.

Back in ’06, I had a lot of doubts about Hollywood rebooting the Bond series. Casino Royale squashed just about every one of those. Daniel Craig made an excellent Bond and the rest of the characters were perfectly suitable. The villain even cried blood. Can’t do much better than that.

I also enjoyed the fact that the character is now going through a contiguous story arc. In the previous movies, you could pretty much count on them having very little relation to the others. Quantum of Solace picks up right where Casino Royale left off, continuing not just the main plot, but also the emotional journey of Bond. He seems more like a real character now and I’m hoping for good things in the sequel.

Now two years old, it’s interesting to see the Texas Hold ‘Em scenes not holding up very well. It caused some minor ripples in the fan base when Bond ditched Baccarat for Poker, but the game was hot back then, so I didn’t mind. Now that the fad is fading, I think the scene may have been better with Baccarat.

There also weren’t any typical Bond gadgets in the film. Even watching a second time, it didn’t bother me. But I am hoping for some sort of tech in Quantum. Maybe not as campy as in previous movies, but something that should be out in five years would be cool to see.

So if you’re excited to see Quantum of Solace next month, definitely rent this to freshen up your memory. If you’ve never seen it, you need to. The intro chase scene is one of the best ever.

Grade: A-