"Tora! Tora! Tora!" An Eye-opening Docudrama

JOE'S SUMUP: Long, and worth the wait

(1970) In 2001, a cute little romance flick came out, you may remember it, called "Pearl Harbor".  My but what a misnomer.  This film was a high-action romance with about as much substance as Napoleon Dynamite (not to dis Napeleon---that kid had class).  As written by Randall Wallace (Braveheart), one might have expected it to contain a bit more than superficial war drama cliches, sappy romance triangles, exaggerated dog fights, etc.  Three hours worth.  Ugh, worthless.  Want to see an actually smart movie about December 7, 1941?  Try this one.

"Tora! Tora! Tora!" (literally translated "Tiger! Tiger! Tiger!") were the code-words used by Japanese aircrafts to transmit that complete surprise was achieved on the Hawaii naval base.  The film "Tora! Tora! Tora!" is the collaborative effort between Japanese and American cinema, made to depict this event historically accurate as possible, and with the juxtaposed viewpoints of both ends.  The transitions are smooth, yet we are frequently switching back and forth between American and Japanese non-fictional officers, watching the tension growing betwixt them, and the eventual cataclysmic catalyst which changed the direction of the war.  The lion's share of the first act is given to the Japanese (all done in Japanese with subtitles).  During this time we are let in on exactly why and how they planned this attack, America's strategies to prepare for it, and what went wrong.  No bias is apparent from either position.  One example is, just before the attack occurs, the Japanese' attempt to officially warn the Pentagon the morning of, which warning is not transmitted to Pearl Harbor in time, thus throwing America into a fit of rage over a "surprise attack".  This film is an example of brilliant and unbiased filmmakers getting over differences (only 25 years after the atomic bombs) and making a movie of real events in as close a measure as possible.  They didn't get it exactly exact of course, how could they---numerous details were left out (hence the idea of dramatization).  But that's still true synergy to me, and it's what makes this movie interesting.

Now then, on to the good stuff.  Some skeptics might questions these filmmakers' aptitudes for portraying a sequence as large scale as this, wayyyy back in 1970.  Hang on to your seats, is all I can say.  A small sampling...

This 20-minute sequence is spectacular, and these pics do not do justice.

The attack scene is also accurate.  I sat back relishing these Oscar-winning visual effects, knowing there were no models nor CG images throughout, all done in live-action.  This film is not three hours, but it is two-and-a-half.  The majority is dedicated to the buildup, but the attack sequence wouldn't have been so amazing without it.  Films like this are made for the sake of education in and of itself, holding no national or political agenda.  I think it's a great film.  Having said that, let me make it clear, this is strictly a war drama.  There is very little emotion to grab hold of, no romance, no deep character development or big plot surprises.  It is all done in a straightforward and objective manner, which I think was the idea.  Fluff (even good fluff) would've inevitably biased its viewers one way or another, depending on whose side you're rooting for.  One would hope that films like this one will immortalize human conflict and remind us to stop making them.  Enough said---if you like historical drama, this classic sleeper ought not to dissatisfy.  Running time: 142 min.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066473/

"Disney's The Kid" Not Just For Kids

JOE'S SUMUP: genuine, hilarious, introspective

(2000) It was recently suggested to me to make a list of must-see films in different categories, be it adventure, mystery, comedy, etc.  I have yet to do that, but it did somehow spark my desire to review one of my favorite true-to-form family adventures made in recent years.  Meet "The Kid".

Without giving much away, I will say, suspend any disbelief if you will.  Any good movie about 

time-travel is obviously not about time-travel at all (now if you want to sample really BAD time-travel cinema, go rent "Timeline", a film based on the fabulous Crichton novel).  This film takes a cue of sorts from "A Christmas Carol" in that Bruce Willis, playing an "image consultant" named Russ, is as Scroogey as they come.  His egocentric life amounts to giving advice to people about how they may better fit their image to their profession.  His cynicism was so excessive I thought it almost endearing, which I think was the point.  On the verge of 40 and still single, he is in denial of his attraction to his adorable colleague, Amy (played enchantingly by Emily Mortimer and her British charm).  So, the powers that be decide to pay him a visit, in the form not of a ghost, but of himself, 30 years younger.  Enter "Rusty" on the set.  Both are totally spooked by each other, and neither Russ nor Rusty can figure out how the kid got there nor what to do about it.

Jon Turtletaub is a director I would definitely place in a division of lightweights for his trade.  His accolades amount to "While You Were Sleeping", "National Treasure", "3 Ninjas", etc.  Generally his are not the most stellar films in history, and this is one that could have followed suit.  The reason it peaks over the top to greatness is its performances.  The story is outlandish enough that it requires something dry, perfect coming from Bruce Willis who excels at such roles, to help us buy it.  The tone of the film

in turn needed some lighthearted balancing, and it is gracefully achieved by Mortimer's absolute sweetness and integrity.  Where child actors go, as Jake Lloyd proved in "Star Wars Episode I", it takes some doing to find a decent one.  Spencer Breslin was only 7 years old when he made this performance, and he makes me laugh every time he comes onscreen.  Rusty, in definite need of my services with his lateral lisp (and how many movies out there actually reference speech pathology?), constantly livens up the room with all the delightful quirks of an insecure 7-year old.  Upon his arrival, Russ is disgusted, but Amy is enchanted, realizing there's a lot more to this man than his ugly cold exterior.

The show makes good discussions on who we were as children, why we would sometimes prefer to forget that time, and what merit there is in remembering.  Seriously who would want to be 

confronted with the joy and the innocence of the kid they were at age 7, staring it all in the face, wondering where it went?  A lot of people right now need the message that "Disney's The Kid" conveys.  The greatest problem, I would say, is the film's title, or more specifically the inclusion of "Disney's".  This was surely done so to differentiate it from Chaplin's 1921 film of the same name.  Meanwhile, the title could easily mislead adults when they see it sitting on a shelf, that the movie is just another Disney flick strictly for kids.  Be aware, not the case in this case.  If you are looking for a sweet, fun, entertaining family film, this one's better than the bulk of them made this side of the 21st century.  Running time: 104 min.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0219854/

A Deep Night With "Pan's Labyrinth"

JOE'S SUMUP: gruesome, powerful, majestic

(2006) There are times when we break convention, whether or not we feel we must. One of my conventions is to see only R-rated movies which will leave me a better person. Tonight I broke it.

"Pan's Labyrinth" (originally "El Laberinto Del Fauno") is not the greatest movie ever made. It is also not a movie I would recommend to general audiences. It is simply no less than a masterpiece, of visual artistry and storytelling, a 20th-century fable mimicking Greek tragedy, written only for those who can stomach unmitigated tribulation coupled with wearied victory.

The film is set in an army camp in Franqist-repressed, civil war-ravaged Spain in 1944. A young girl named Ofelia travels with her mother to live with her sadistic stepfather, Captain Vidal, an officer in Franco's army. Her mother, in her third trimester, is deeply ill, while the tyrannical stepfather has two interest: quelling a local rebellion of guerillas, and keeping his wife's unborn son for himself. Ofelia's interests meanwhile are in fantastical legends, which she pours over in her books. Little does she know that she is the star player in one.

Yet another original story is written for the screen, wherein we are shown the merit in paths bearing no logic, yet that somehow make more and more sense as we start walking them. Ofelia follows a

sprite down such a path one night, into an ancient labyrinth found behind the chateau. Deep in the ground, she finds mythical creatures waiting for her. The greatest is the faun, a messenger of sorts. He informs her that she is no mere human, but the ancient princess of an ancient king, and that she may return to her kingdom if she will perform three difficult tasks of virtue. She is immediately mesmerized by this true existence of magic. Complications soon arise, due to her mother's health and her stepfather's brutality in running his household, wherein rebel spies pose as servants, preparing

for a final confrontation.

From the moment the film started, my respect inched up for its maker. Created by Guillermo del Toro, a Mexico-born Hollywood writer/director, this is the kind of film which, if made at the end of his career, could be called his magnum opus. He once left years of notes and sketches in the back of a taxi cab.

Shattered, he believed he would shut down the project. But the cab driver found them so moving that he searched del Toro out and delivered the notes back to him. The director, convinced this was a blessing, found new determination to achieve the picture. He was later offered double the budget for his film from his producers, if he would make it in English. Then, he stuck it right to them, stating that he "didn't want any compromise in the story, just to suit the market's needs." A true artist and idealist---my respect went up a few notches more. It went on to receive a 22-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival. And Roger Ebert called it the #1 best film of 2006.

This is a fairy tale of sorts for adults. I was gripped with its weird yet believable creatures, its fantastical backdrops, and a mythical heart-wrenching story. If I've made you curious, know that it is still as far from a feelgood as any movie I've seen. That I did not expect. I could scarcely recommend it with its violence and intensity. Del Toro is likewise known for his fascination with the grotesque, and this film does not stop short---enough so that in Mexico, theaters had to put up warnings to parents not to bring their children to see it. Some might then wonder why I wanted to see "Pan's Labyrinth". My chief reason was to size up del Toro, as

he is soon to direct both of the Peter Jackson-produced Hobbit films. Then, the more I watched, the more my reason changed. I became mesmerized by the film's spirit. It is the reasons why it is not a feelgood that I ended up appreciating it so. Its tragic tones, a haunting unforgettable score, a very daring plot, stark performances---these all combined to express what the film was actually about. "Pan's Labyrinth" is a parable written with the purpose of depicting unwavering virtue, and its quiet potential in every person---then understood all the clearer when dichotomized with unharnessed vice. It is about the pursuit of liberty from oppression. A film could hardly portray eternal vigilance better.

I'm with Richard Roeper on this one. I don't know that I could see it again because it is so very weird and so memorable. But my thumb is up. Running time: 119

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457430

POST-SCRIPT: Prognosis for "The Hobbit" films: Anyone worried because Jackson is not directing, be at peace. We'll get our money's worth in 2012.

"The Book of Mormon Movie, Volume 1: The Journey": How about just "The Movie of Mormon"?

JOE'S SUMUP: unworthy and amusing

(2003) Six years ago, I was approached by an old friend commissioning me to write a theme song for a movie.  Needless to say I was thrilled.  Little did I know what the movie actually was.  Yes I knew its title, "The Book of Mormon Movie, Volume One: The Journey".  I knew what it would turn out to be: a second-rate Hollywoodesque makeover of this profound narrative.  What I didn't know was how much credit I was actually paying the film with such a generous prognosis.

Scene: Jerusalem, 600 BC.  Yes, spoiler alerts all over the place here---if you've read the book, you know what they are.  If you haven't, don't worry---the book's substance is in its subtext.  

Back to Jerusalem.  Lehi, the righteous father of a Jewish family, has been commanded by God to warn the city's residents of its coming destruction.  In the book, here was a learned, wealthy, respected trader, and a intuitive, eloquent prophet.  In the movie, he's raving mad.  His two phrases for five minutes are: "Don't you underSTAND??" and "The CITY will be DESTROYED!!"  ...And again: "DON'T you UNDERSTAND??  THE CITY WILL BE  DESTROYED!!  The CITY will be DESTROYED!"  And again and again.  My jaw dropped.  This is the same guy giving such orations as found in 2 Nephi 2?  What was I a part of here.  I knew this would not be a good film.  But I did not know it would make my Bottom 10.

One would judge a movie's quality most objectively by its tone and by how well its director is able to maintain tone throughout.  Gary Rogers, bless his heart, had no idea what he wanted this film to be.  The script and its delivery are the most vital elements in setting tone---in which case, this ship sadly sunk itself right in the harbor.  When time comes to leave Jerusalem, Lehi's wife Sariah makes parting words with her best friend, the wife of Ishmael.  Have I ever felt so awkward in a movie?  Possibly not, watching them sit and sob together in this close-up shot for five minutes, saturating the audience in sap.  Worse, when Lehi commands Nephi to return to Jerusalem and retrieve the Old Testament, the popular 1 Nephi 3:7 is paraphrased, nay, anachronized into: "Yes father, I'm gonna go and do what God's commanded, cause I know he doesn't give commandments to the children of men that he won't prepare a way for them..." ...etc.  And the accidental humor just comes out of the woodwork.  Fictional side plots like Nephi being saved from bandits by his brothers Lamam and Lemuel (??), later hallucinating about snakes in the desert, a single camel escaping the caravan at around 2 mph, Sam (played by the infamous Kirby H.) missing his wayward brothers and finding them dancing around a campfire making faces at the camera.

The problem with dramatizing a book like this is that the audience can immediately see straight through to the filmmakers' intent.  There are books which can never be properly converted.  In this case, it's because the Book of Mormon's intent is not to tell a story---its stories are mere vehicles to teach principles.  Movies' stories in contrast are generally vehicles to distract audiences from their lives for a few hours through entertainment.  Polar opposites.  This movie's attempts to do that are amusing at best, embarrassing at worst.

"Come ON, why are we always fighting?  That's all we ever do anymore."  A classic Sam line.  Laman and Lemuel later appear as if being electrocuted by God's power.  I mean,

WHAT were these Mormons thinking?  Did they have ANY experience in filmmaking whatever?  Don't you underSTAND???  This book will be DESTROYED!!  So then, what was their intent?  Mostly to be the first ones to say they made the Book of Mormon into a movie, to make money, and to make some Mormons go "ooo" and "ahh".  One for three, guys, good job.  There was so little cinematic effort put forth that it's embarrassing.  I mean, come on, not even a good costume designer?  Did the women really sport pastel-colored tubetops, dancing around and telling their parents how "old-fashioned" they are?

Obviously there're more examples where these came from.  But suffice it to say, when I heard The Book of Mormon was hitting the big screen, I thought to myself, Great, now people can cop out from the book, saying they saw the movie.  I'm relieved to say that anyone who would actually do that would prove about as shallow as the film itself.  But to devout Mormons, yeah, I recommend it.  Others might point fingers unfairly at the Church for this comedy, but if Mormons don't take it as seriously as it takes itself, they ought to get a good laugh out of it.  So, if comedy's your fancy some evening, go crazy.  Running time: 120 min.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349159