2001 / 123 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

I have never considered myself to be a fan of Julia Roberts or Brad Pitt. I believe both of them to be highly overrated actors, who just so happen to be able to get people to fork out astronomical fees just to see their movies. Between the two of them, I have only seen one of their movies in the theater (Pitt’s “Fight Club” for those of you scoring at home) Oddly enough though, over the past couple of years, the two of them have started to endear themselves to me. First it was Brad with a couple of his older films that I had overlooked, “12 Monkeys” and “Seven”, and then it was Julia with “Notting Hill” and “Erin Brockovich”. Now I have actually grown to tolerate them, which explains why I actually gave a film involving the two of them a chance. While “The Mexican” is not as good as the aforementioned endearing films, it is a lot more fun than any of them, with the exception of “Notting Hill” that is.

Pitt plays a born screwup, named Jerry, who, after an unfortunate lapse in judgment behind the wheel, finds himself pulling jobs for some rather seedy individuals. Just when he thinks he can get out of this situation, he is sent on one last errand, which will take him to Mexico in search of an antique gun. As if this wasn’t bad enough he has to come home to his girlfriend Samantha (Julia Roberts), who does nothing but bitch and moan about her needs not being met. In the words of the esteemed George Carlin: “Drop some of your needs!!!” Instead of uttering these immortal words Jerry heads for Mexico and Samantha heads for Las Vegas where she gets abducted by a gay hitman by the name of Leroy (James Gandolfini). The gayness alone should tell you that this is not your typical hitman, but there is a lot more to him. He lends a sympathetic ear to Samantha, gives her relationship advice, and wears his emotions on his sleeve no matter what they may be.

While Leroy and Samantha pal around Nevada, Jerry continuously finds new ways to get himself into trouble south of the border. Eventually his bad luck coupled with his innate ability to screws things up leads his employers back home to believe he might have designs on selling the gun and making off with the loot. Somehow he has to get the gun, the girl, and most importantly, save his own ass before it’s too late.

There are a few reasons why I enjoyed this film so much. First of all was the freshness of the story and how well it all fit together. You don’t hear about antique guns, gay hitmen, crazy girlfriends, and incompetent heroes making up the substance of a major motion picture every day, now do you? It’s also one of those nicely crafted movies where, what seems like a small event in one scene, ends up playing a key role in a later scene.

Another great thing about “The Mexican” is that it knows enough not to take itself to seriously. It’s a rare film that balances all emotional elements very well, even at their extremes.

There’s a scene that is powerful enough to upset one enough to have the urge to cry and it is followed by a scene that makes the blood boil to the point that you are emotionally spent after the film finally gives you what you want. Now I know that all sounds pretty serious, but the film supplements these turbulent scenes with a clever wit to lighten the mood the rest of the time.

The majority of the aforementioned key points of enjoyment are made possible by the brilliant performance of James Gandolfini as the incredibly sympathetic hitman, Leroy. He sheds tears, becomes enraged, and just falt out exudes life so convincingly that it is difficult to think that the man is acting. One minute he’s killing people, or threatening lives and the next he’s crying over his inability to maintain relationships. I realize this stuff is shot over the course of months, but I don’t think that takes anything anyway from the incredible emotional arc that is on display here. Definitely one of the finest performances of the year from a fine character actor, who is finally beginning to get his due.

Speaking of people getting their due. I’ve got to give it up to Brad Pitt. He really impressed me here. I thoroughly enjoyed his performance and I think it’s a performance that he enjoyed giving. The futility of the whole situation plays through him in many scenes. His laughter and ingenuity under harsh circumstances feel very genuine. It’s almost as if someone forget to tell him that he’s not supposed to enjoy being kicked when he’s down. A few more performances like this and he may make a fan of me yet.

Oh and Julia you ask? Well she doesn’t really add anything to the film. Mainly she just bitches a lot and makes a sappy little puppy dog face. That’s the performance in a nutshell. Sorry Julia. Thanks for calling! Unfortunately it takes a little more than you just showing up and collecting your paycheck to make me care about whatever it is that you’re trying to say.

My only real complaints with the film are Julia’s lack of a performance, the somewhat intrusive score, and the fact that the film goes from “A” material to life support for a large portion of the final half hour. When I say “somewhat intrusive score” I mean that there were a few times where it was playing in spots where it shouldn’t have been. There was even one time when I was so perplexed by it’s placement and composition that I had to pause the film to make sure that the disruptive noise wasn’t coming from elsewhere. Unfortunately it was emanating from the film itself, which troubled me on more than one occasion. This is one of the few times when a film score bothered me like that. In fact it may be the only time. Crazy as it may sound, it stands as a fault in the film by my standards.

The final half hour, on the other hand, could have been really good. It has a great cameo appearance by a two-time Academy Award winner whose appearance in the film I had forgotten about, thus making for a pleasant surprise when he/she turned up. Inspired cameo aside though, this last portion of the film needed to have some serious fat trimmed. If I had to make an estimate I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of ten minutes could have been eliminated, which would have made it a much tighter and more satisfying conclusion.

The film does a nice job of resolving things, tying up loose ends and all of that nonsense, but it just keeps going. Hey Verbinski! You don’t need it. The film ends when it decides to end, not when you choose to have it end. To flub up such a well crafted film in the late innings is simply unacceptable. Make a mental note not to make the same mistake twice please.

Misguided conclusion aside, “The Mexican” is a fun little film that knows it’s place in the grand scheme of things. It doesn’t have any grand aspirations. It merely exists to entertain which is something it does on practically every level. Thus making it a little bit of fun for everyone.

Share on Facebook

2000 / 122 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

A man is crouching over a canvas. He has just begun work on his latest creation when he hesitates. It is during this hesitation that he will achieve, what all artists long for, a breakthrough. He has just dipped his brush in a can of paint when he pauses only to, after a time, notice the paint dripping off of the brush and onto the floor. He sees the pattern the dribbling paint has begun to form on the floor and he is struck by a moment of inspiration. He stands over the canvas, dips the brush in the paint and holds it above the canvas making elegant movements as if he were conducting an orchestra. The moment finally takes hold of him and he begins to use the brush as if it were a catapult, flailing bursts of paint upon the canvas. It is in this moment that Jackson Pollock finds himself born again.

The brilliance of “Pollock” lies in its characters and how it chooses to let us into their lives. Moments, such as the scene described above, never feel forced, but rather they feel like they are being discovered for the first time. The breakthrough described above never feels as if it is a recreation with Ed Harris portraying Pollock, but rather it feels as if we are watching Pollock himself being taken hold of by the moment of genius that would put him on the cover of Life magazine. The film works because of the authentic feel that these most important of scenes manage to capture.

I have to applaud the film for its bravery in how it chooses to tell its story. It takes a rather disconcerting approach to its presentation during the time spent in New York City during the first part of the film. During this time we meet Jackson Pollock (Ed Harris) and the people who would have an impact on his life, for better or worse. By way of an unexpected meeting with a fellow artist, who doubles as a critic, he meets the woman who will eventually become his wife (Marcia Gay Harden). After her meeting with Pollock she becomes a crusader for Pollock’s work and manages to arrange for a meeting with Peggy Guggenheim. Things go well and Pollock finds himself hosting his own exclusive showing at one of Peggy’s museums. One would think all was well in his life, but, as we are shown through the disconcerting presentation I mentioned before, all is not well.

Jackson is a drunk, plain and simple. We see this in the film’s second scene as his brother attempts to drag him to him to his room. During his time in the Big Apple, scenes end abruptly and are followed by scenes that seem entirely unrelated. This makes the film hard to watch and what some might even call amateurish, especially considering this is Harris’ directorial debut. I actually had this thought as I watched, but then the wheels began to turn and the understanding of what Harris was attempting to do here came to me. I think, by using this jarring, detached method of editing, he was attempting to capture the mindset of Pollock in the mind of the viewer during the exposition of the film in order to prepare the viewer for the trip they were taking. If that is the case, he succeeded admirably. You see the film this way, because the man the film is portraying is a drunk, who manages to lead two lives in order to make it through his life. One scene he’ll be drunk as a skunk and in the next he’ll be eating breakfast. It’s an interesting effect that was not lost on me.

To contrast Pollock’s life in New York City the film takes the viewer to the farm in the country where he would have some of his best and worst years. The way the film is constructed reflects the nature of the early years on the farm. Scenes flow into one another with a natural progression, rather than the abstract manner of the earlier time in the film. It is during this time on the farm that a sober Jackson makes his aforementioned breakthrough and the money finally begins to roll in. As is the case with Pollock, the good times can never overcome the darker side of his life.

The life of Jackson Pollock was a roller coaster ride that would make Great America jealous. Ed Harris (”The Rock”) puts a human face of intensity and insecurity on this bleakest of rides that can be described as one of the finest performances of 2000 if not in fact the best. He brings a level of determination and intensity with him into every scene that lends itself well to the demands of the role. The intensity carries over into the work he portrays on screen. There is a scene in the film in which Pollock locks himself in a room contemplating what to do with a canvas that will cover an entire wall in Peggy Guggenheim’s home. After a great deal of thought he lets loose with a fury of paint and passion that results in a scene that carries with it as much tension and excitement as any action scene you saw in the theater in the past year. It is a scene that I found myself not wanting to see end, because while watching him paint you are watching him create something through an endless spiral of discovery. Now that’s exciting.

When he is not at work, he is often seen with his wife who is played admirably by Marcia Gay Harden (”Space Cowboys”). This role could have very easily fallen into the abyss of limited character development that is the wife who is devoted to a man who is anything but deserving of her affection. Instead of phoning the performance in Harden makes it her own in a role that is anything but easy to convey. She is a woman who is in love with a man, who I best described as the lone destructive force in her life. She believes in a man who does not believe in himself, and who never will no matter how hard she tries to make him. There are so many fine little touches that she puts on the role, such as when she delivers a “you’re in trouble now” glance in Jackson’s direction on more than one occasion. It is a great performance by a wonderful actress who is finally getting her much deserved respect after so many years.

“Pollock” was a labor of love for Harris that was some ten years in the making and believe me it shows in every frame. It is obvious that a great deal of time and care went into making this film exactly as Harris envisioned it. It’s just a shame that more films weren’t so adored by their makers. Film would be a much more interesting art form if they were.

This is not a film for everybody. If you are a person who likes lighthearted fare that bestows laughter upon the audience every few minutes then you should probably steer clear of this one. I counted maybe two brief moments of fairly inaudible laughter during the course of the film. On the other hand, if you enjoy films that delve into the inner turmoil of their characters without regard for what might be found, or if you find yourself way to happy, and in need of a good dose of reality, “Pollock” would be a fine film for you to spend your hard earned dollars on. It is more than capable of bringing even the silliest of sods back down to Earth.

Share on Facebook

2000 / 104 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

I remember back when I first heard about this movie. It was somewhere around the time of it’s release and I remember thinking that the state of film was already shoddy enough without having a Garry Shandling vehicle injected into the mix as well. Then one day, a year or so later, I came across the video in a bargain bin and, realizing that every other cast member had their merits, I picked it up. Surprisingly it turns out that my three dollars was competently spent. Despite the presence of Shandling this film managed to make me laugh more often than not, which is a rare treat anymore.

We have seen aliens attempting to conquer the Earth before, but never like this. It’s the sort of stuff that may have been attempted during the deluge of alien movies that hit in the 1950’s. The alien protagonists of this story have evolved into something of a raw deal. They lack emotion and reproductive organs and, as if that weren’t enough, they’re clones. Things are looking a little rough on the home planet and, in need of a new conquest, they set their sites on Earth. The intent is to send a man there to impregnate a woman (he uses some sort of snap on tool that sounds like a wind up toy to accomplish this) and after she has given birth, he is to return home with child in tow. Why this is necessary, other than for laughs, is a mystery to me. Maybe I missed the explanation, but regardless it does provide laughs and that is what this movie is supposed to be all about.

The whole impregnation plot device does provide a lot of laughs. At the beginning of the film we are treated to scenes showing the aliens learning how to pick up Earth women through a sort of demonstration. The demonstration proves to be what could be described as the Cliff’s Notes version of “How not to pick up women”. Harold Anderson (Shandling) proves to be the most adept at picking up women in the simulator program, so he is chosen to go to Earth and impregnate someone. Some of the film’s best moments come once he has arrived in Arizona of all places and begins to attempt to woo any and every woman he comes across with his cheesy dialogue. His pursuit of a woman leads him to an AA meeting, which is where he first comes across Susan Hart (Annette Bening). Eventually he will slime his way into her heart and her pants.

After the marathon sex that consumed their honeymoon the happy couple return and Harold finds that a promotion at work has been snaked out from under him by Perry Gordon (Greg Kinnear). Kinnear seems to be making a living off of playing weasel-like characters anymore, and the character of Perry fits perfectly into this area. He’s married to Helen (Linda Fiorentino), but bangs a coworker in the vault of the bank he works at, at every opportunity. He’s the one who took Harold to the AA meeting to pick up women. In other words, he’s a piece of shit and you’ll wonder whether you should like the guy or hate him throughout the whole movie. Amidst all of this Harold has to deal with a suspicious FAA investigator (John Goodman) and the head of his planet Graydon (Ben Kingsley). With all of this going on and the inevitable birth of his child, Harold cannot help but develop feelings of some sort, which lead to the events of the second half of the film.

Surprisingly enough, Shandling does a good job in the role of an otherworldly sex-crazed nimrod. A great deal of the laughs are to be found either at his expense, or as a result of his dry wit. I thought he would bring the film down, but he is actually the reason I kept watching. Goodman is also a welcome addition to the cast. His pursuit of aliens who cross space and time only to reappear on Earth by way of an airplane commode is quite hilarious. Everyone thinks he’s nuts (his wife included), but he keeps going on with his task despite his wife leaving and the loss of his job. His dilligence will pay off in the end in which he receives a trophy for his efforts that is unlike any other. Annette Bening is also a lot of fun in the role of a reformed alcoholic who finds love in the arms of an emotionless alien. Much was made of her performance in “American Beauty”, but I thought she was better, and much more interesting, here. I guess it’s because she has a lot more to deal with here. I mean let’s face it, being a recovering alcoholic, getting impregnated by an alien and having to deal with Garry Shandling as a husband is much more difficult than dealing with Kevin Spacey’s mid-life crisis and getting bopped by Peter Gallagher (well maybe not).

These three performances are what tie the loosely connected stretch of a plot that is “What Planet Are You From?” into an at times witty, highly watchable film. It has enough laughs to make it worth a viewing and, if for no other reason, pick it up if you are in need of a lesson in “How not to pick up women”. That is if you trust Garry Shandling to show you the error of the male gender’s ways when it comes to propositioning women.

Share on Facebook

1991 / 118 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

“Dr. Hannibal Lecter. Brilliant. Cunning. Psychotic. In his mind lies the clue to a ruthless killer. Clarice Starling, FBI. Brilliant. Vulnerable. Alone. She must trust him to stop the killer.”

What you have just read is the tagline of one of the most brilliantly put together films I have ever seen.

“The Silence of The Lambs” has many claims to fame. It won all five of the major Academy Awards in 1991 (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Actor, Best Screenplay). Countless other accolades have been given to this most unlikely of award recipients. At first glance, one would think that this is nothing short of a horror movie, but once one takes a peek inside it becomes quite apparent that this is much more than your average run-of-the-mill horror film.

It is the story of an FBI agent-in-training named Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) and her quest to track down a serial killer who is known only as “Buffalo Bill” before he can claim his next victim. To do this she is sent to question an imprisoned serial killer by the name of Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). He was known as “The Cannibal” during his killing spree, due to his penchant for feasting on the remains of his victims. Oftentimes he did this while they were still alive. As the tagline implies, Clarice has to find the killer through Lecter, but if he is to play the game, Lecter wants to know some things as well. If she is to track down the killer, she must allow Lecter to probe her mind for whatever answers he may desire. If she does, she just may be able to track down “Buffalo Bill”.

This film works for many reasons. The most significant of which, is the performance of Anthony Hopkins in the role of Dr. Hannibal Lecter. You want a bone-chilling performance? Look no further than this one. I don’t think anyone has ever inhabited a role in the way that Hopkins inhabits Lecter. Whenever I think of Hopkins I think of Lecter. It is impossible to separate the two. The gleam in his eye chills you to the bone. I cannot imagine being in Clarice’s position and having to meet this man in person. No thanks. I’ll pass. Hypnotic and unwavering in his performance, Hopkins leaves an indelible mark on the cinematic world that I can only hope he will be able to replicate in “Hannibal”.

Equally formidable is the performance of Jodie Foster as the FBI agent-to-be Clarice Starling. What makes her performance outstanding is the fact that in every scene involving her and Lecter she holds her own with Hopkins. Which is no small feat by any means. She brings a vulnerability to the role that few, if any, other actresses could have. She is haunted by a past that she wants to forget. Problem is Lecter wants to delve into it deeper than she ever has before. She remains timid, but strong throughout the film. You can see Clarice become more assured of herself as time goes by, but as the film comes to a conclusion it is still quite obvious that she is still quite fragile on the inside. Another entry in Jodie’s already impressive resume.

The film is presented in a very straightforward manner. You are always reminded that something is not quite right by the ominous look of the consistently overcast sky. The separate storylines of Clarice tracking “Buffalo Bill” and “Buffalo Bill” tracking down his next victim are interweaved nicely to keep you edging forward in your seat as the film progresses.

The way the conclusion is edited is nothing short of pure genius. I get goosebumps just thinking about it. It lulls you into a false sense of security like few movies this side of “The Exorcist” have been able to before.

There is one scene that will stay in my mind forever, but I don’t want to give it away, because it needs to be experienced fresh and uncompromised. Just the way that it was presented to me the first time. I will say that it is one of the most chilling scenes I have ever seen, if not the most chilling. The way the score, which I should have mentioned earlier, creeps along with the imagery will send shivers up and down your spine. I guarantee that.

So why don’t you pop some popcorn, turn off the lights, sit back and prepare yourself for a masterfully executed film, that borders on perfection? Go on already.

Hannibal is waiting.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 145 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Just two short weeks ago, if one would have told me I would consider this to be one of the year’s best films I would have laughed in your face. More than likely, I would have responded with some sort of sentence that started with “That son of a bitch Spielberg….” But now I cannot overlook it’s unmistakable quality, it’s ceaseless brilliance, and it’s overwhelming significance.

“A.I.” is the Pinocchio-like story of a boy robot named David (Haley Joel Osment) and his journey through a futuristic world where New York City’s shoreline has submitted to the yearnings of the Atlantic Ocean. It is a future where the number of children a couple can have is strictly limited and robots called “mechas” serve in many capacities including escort, nanny, and cook to name a few. Spielberg masterfully captures this stunning world with some of the most hypnotic cinematography in years. He melds this lush world with an easily identifiable children’s story to make for a film the likes of which will never be seen again.

It begins with David being created and put into the care of a mother (Frances O’Connor) and father (Sam Robards) who have a son that has been in a coma for a number of years. At first the mother is resentful, but she quickly warms up to the idea of having a child around the house and initiates a code that will make the boy robot love her as if she is his true mother. The consequences of this become apparent when their “real” son awakens from his coma and returns home. The competition between the robot and the son escalates until the parents decide that their only resort is to abandon David to the world. After his abandonment, David embarks on a journey to find the Blue Fairy of Pinocchio lore in order to become a real boy so that his mother will love him. He does this with his faithful sidekick, Teddy, at his side.

It is during this phase of the film that the darkness of this futuristic world is revealed. Murder and infidelity run rampant in this world where light rarely chooses to be seen in any form other than neon. He runs across a male escort named Gigolo Joe (Jude Law), who quickly becomes an aid to David’s quest. It is a quest that will take them to a Flesh Fair, which is an event where humans are entertained by the destruction of the “mechas”. This is a truly dark sequence and as memorable a part of a film as any other this year. Following the Flesh Fair they find their way to Rouge City, which is probably the sort of sexual paradise that exists in Hugh Hefner’s dreams, and finally the band of three will find their way to the end of the world before their journey is over.

This film raises some very interesting questions about the nature of love. At the beginning of the film Professor Hobby (William Hurt in a very dignified performance) responds to the question of whether or not a human could love a robot by stating that “In the beginning, didn’t God create Adam to love him?” The moral ramifications that are prevalent in this discussion are at the very heart of the film. What responsibility do we have to love and to those who would love us? These are very basic, yet very difficult questions to answer. They are questions without answers, but rather questions that lead to personal fulfillment for those who ponder them. This is what makes “A.I.” such an indelibly strong and gratifying experience. It’s not the performances, direction, production design, or any number of other factors that alone make this film so moving. Rather, it is the whole of these parts that allows us to be moved, questioned, and ultimately changed by what we have seen.

It is movies like “A.I.” that remind one of just how powerful a medium film can be. It exists on a level where few films have the honor to reside. It is the sort of film that could only be the result of the collaboration of two of the greatest filmmakers of all time. This film was Stanley Kubrick’s baby for some fifteen years before his death, which is when Spielberg stepped in and took the reigns over and once again showed just how good he can be when he wants to be. Dale told me the other day I give Spielberg a lot of crap and I have to admit he’s right. I have some misgivings about a number of his films, but when he is at his best, as is the case here, he can make films with the best of them.

After seeing this movie for the first time, I felt as if I had been short changed. I felt that the ending of the movie was a completely shameful representation of Spielberg at his worst. It seemed to me that the film should have ended at the two hour mark at, perhaps, it’s darkest moment. It was after that, that it seemed that Spielberg became manipulative with the direction of the story, so that it would lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

Now, however, I see it for what it is. It is the resolution of an eternity of desire. It is the triumph of love over all obstacles in it’s path. It is the falseness of an idealized dream being resolved through the same means upon which that dream was created in the first place. Even if it is for an insignificant period of time, the result is of infinite importance. Despite the constraints of space and time, the frailty of flesh and blood, and limitations of technology one absolute truth remains.

Love truly does conquer all.

Share on Facebook

1996 / 139 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

I throw the term “God” around a lot. You want examples? I’ve got them. Clint Eastwood IS God. Not a God mind you, but rather God himself. It works in the music industry as well. Maynard James Keenan, lead singer of the bands Tool and A Perfect Circle, is, in fact, God. There are a number of other variations on this concept, but these are the two most prominent in my mind. As you can see, I throw the term around with relative ease. A term I do not throw around with relative ease is “Love”.

It takes a lot for me to love something. This is especially apparent in the realm of film. There are many films that I enjoy, as well as many that I consider great, but there are few that I would say are deserving of my unconditional love. Films I would consider great would be the likes of “Apocalypse Now”, “The Bridge On The River Kwai” and “Paths Of Glory”, but they don’t have that element, incapable of definition, that makes them worthy of my love.

Films I love include “The Good, The Bad & The Ugly”, “Used Cars” and “Once Upon a Time in the West”. These are films that hold a special place in my heart that will never be relinquished. They have that element that the great films I mentioned before lack. The films I love are the films I feel I could not live without. “Jerry Maguire” is a film that I could not see myself living without.

“Jerry Maguire” is a film about a sports agent (Tom Cruise) who bears the name of the title character. He is at the top of his game. He has the world by the balls. Then, one night, he has a run in with the son of an injured client and he proceeds to grow a conscience. This newfound conscience leads him to write up a mission statement for his employer. This would be all fine and good, except for the fact that what he writes goes against everything that a capitalist enterprise, such as one that represents athletes, stands for. He is given the boot and decides to form his own agency. As he leaves his former office he manages to procure the services of a young lady from accounting named Dorothy Boyd (Renee Zellweger) for his new enterprise.

Things are pretty bad for Jerry. His only client, Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding Jr.), is a loudmouth with a bad attitude, who thinks everybody’s against him. He has decided to break things off with his sex-crazed, talkaholic fiancée, but not before she gets the last shot in. After the breakup things inevitably heat up between Jerry and Dorothy whose passion for one another is based on altogether different reasons for the two of them. These reasons lead to a string of events between the two of them and revelations that would not have seen possible at the film’s outset.

This film is nothing short of brilliant. It is brilliant, because of a continuous stream of memorable moments. The best of which are the sort that will still be repeated twenty years from now just as often as they are to day. The scenes I speak of are the “You complete me” scene, which is set up brilliantly by an exchange in an elevator early in the movie and the “Show me the money” scene, which is the sort of thing legends are made of. The scenes mentioned would not be what they are without the talents of Cameron Crowe, Tom Cruise, Renee Zellweger, and Cuba Gooding Jr. to bring them to life.

Cameron Crowe (”Almost Famous”) is rapidly becoming one of the film industry’s finest talents. Oh, who am I kidding. He IS one of the film industry’s finest talents. There is something about Crowe’s films that no others have. They have this sweet, wholesome, down-to-earth quality about them that makes them a joy to behold. His characters are the sort of people that I could see myself bumping into on any given day. They really shouldn’t even be described as characters, because they take on the qualities of everyday people. Jerry Maguire is one of these people and he is brought to undeniable life by Tom Cruise.

Cruise gives one of his finest performances in the role of the title character. The only time he has been better was in “Magnolia”, but the gap between that performance and this one is miniscule. I have felt, for some time now, that Tom is one of the film industry’s most underrated performers. He is often dismissed as a pretty boy and nothing more. This is unfair and without explanation. With performances such as that of Jerry Maguire he proves without a shadow of a doubt that he is the real deal and is a force to be reckoned with in the motion picture industry. He runs through the entire emotional spectrum in this film. He is on top of the world. He is broken down to a shell of his former self. He is reduced to tears in one of the most heart wrenching scenes I have ever seen. He is all of these things, but most of all he is Jerry Maguire.

We sure have been seeing a lot of Renee Zellweger (“Nurse Betty”) lately and rightfully so, for she is a very talented young actress. We may never have gotten to see so much of her had it not been for her performance as Dorothy Boyd. This is the role that made her a household name. This is the first time that we got to see what innocence looks like when a face is put to it. She is the sort of girl that you would want to bring home to introduce to mom. She defines the terms wholesome and sweetness better than any dictionary ever could. That is a big part of why this movie works. Without her everything falls apart. The film hinges on her performance and she delivers in spades.

This brings us to Cuba. I never thought much of Cuba before seeing this movie. Quite honestly, I thought he was crap. Then I saw him in this Academy Award winning performance and it changed everything. He plays the prick with a heart that is Rod Tidwell with pinpoint accuracy. He seems like a pretty shallow person when we first meet him, but as we get to know him we find that he is a man driven to be the way he is by very noble reasons. Now, rather than disliking Cuba, I quite like him. I find myself more frustrated by his lack of quality roles of late. “Instinct”? I’m trying not to laugh. “Men Of Honor”? I can’t help but laugh at that one. Cuba, you can do better. So why don’t you start already?

I spoke of “Gods” and “Love” at the start of this review. To me they are two very different animals, as I explained earlier. “Jerry Maguire” is a film of greatness and perhaps even godliness. That I can’t say for sure. I can be certain of one thing, however.

I love this movie.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 100 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Have you ever imagined what it would have been like had Indiana Jones been Angelina Jolie rather than Harrison Ford? Probably not, but at one time or another you have undoubtedly envisioned a woman inhabiting the world that Indy made us love so much. If you have ever had this thought then it would seem that “Tomb Raider” would be the answer to your convoluted prayers.

Unfortunately you would be wrong. “Tomb Raider” is a good idea that is fumbled around with onscreen until it becomes merely an average film as the end credits roll. Where did it go wrong you ask? We’ll get to that eventually, but first I should let you in on the plot.

Fans of the video game series of “Tomb Raider” games should be more than familiar with the themes that are presented in the film as well as the exploits of it’s heroine Lara Croft. Lara likes to go around saving the world one tomb at a time and she’s pretty good at it to boot. So good in fact that after watching the movie the viewer can leave with no other impression other than that she is infallible, but we’ll get to that nonsense later.

The plot of the film revolves around Lara finding an ancient clock in a wall of her house that leads her to track down two pieces of one of those pesky old artifacts that always seems to mean doom for the planet. Did these ancient people have nothing better to do with their time than come up with ways to make one person as powerful as god, or bring about the end of the world in some complicated, nefarious way? Movies like this would tend to make one think not.

Of course we can’t have a heroine without a villain now can we. Enter generic arch nemesis here. In fact this guy’s character is so underdeveloped that he may be even lower on the scale of evolution than the generic arch nemesis, but we will leave at that for simplicity’s sake.

How underdeveloped is he? About the only motivation I could find for his aspirations of world conquest were that he is compulsively clad in black, has slicked back black hair and as one scene would have us believe is a Buddhist. No, he is not portrayed by Steven Seagal, but that was a good guess based on the description. I don’t know the guy’s name and I’m not going to look it up either, because I feel the man deserves a second chance before I make too much fun of him.

So now that we have our arch nemesis and Lara in tow it quickly becomes apparent that they will both be chasing the two missing pieces of what we find out is known as the “All Seeing Eye”. Creepy, huh? I thought so. Of course Lara wants to destroy, whereas our oily friend wants to put it to use for his own misbegotten reasons. Who will succeed? Who will fail? If you don’t already know the outcome of this sordid affair then you have issues far greater than I am capable of helping you deal with.

Earlier on I mentioned that I would tell you where this film went wrong. I guess this is the part of the review where I do just that. It is a laundry list of complaints, so bear with me.

First of all there is nothing worse than a hero who is infallible. Wait a minute. There is one thing worse: A hero who knows they are infallible. Well friends, that’s exactly what we have here. I cannot remember one time in the movie when Lara took a misstep. She always knows exactly what to do no matter the situation. Sacred object that nobody has a clue what to do with? “Give it to me. It goes here! I am Lara. Hear me roar!” That happens on more than one occasion throughout the course of the film. Granted it doesn’t come with the fine dialogue you just read attached, but sadly it doesn’t need it to be annoying.

There’s another problem. Dialogue! I know this is a summer action flick and people are going to say that I should take it easy. Piss on that. I have seen films of this ilk that possess an intelligent mentality to go along with all of the action that I would expect from such a film. Last summer we had a movie like that. It was called “X-Men” and it ruled. Read the reviews if you don’t believe me. Now where was I? Oh yes, dialogue. Here’s a snippet from “Tomb Raider” to wet your appetite.

OILY BLACK CLAD NEMESIS

“Into the mouth of the beast.”

SHADY ARCHAEOLOGIST

“And out the devil’s ass.”

How that man said that line seriously we may never know. I think it probably took a Kubrickian number of takes for director Simon West to be satisfied with the scene. Taken in the context of the film, I think that dialogue was intended to make me laugh and it did it’s job, but for the wrong reasons. I laughed because that is flat out horrible dialogue, not because the dialogue itself had humor hard-wired into it. Who writes this shit and how do they get paid for it? These are questions that I actually might care enough about getting answered to take the time to go and look them up, but not right now.

Next on the list is something I never thought I’d say. Is it proper English to describe a woman as cocksure? Whether or not it is I intend on doing so regardless. I have seen few male action stars as cocky as Angelina Jolie in this role. Angelina you’re hot, smoldering in fact, and you possess one of the most curvaceous bodies to grace the silver screen in recent memory, but this attitude you carry with you as Lara Croft needs to go. I guess within the context of the film’s flimsy screenplay I would be cocky too if I knew I was always going to be right and could do no wrong, but I am not going to pander to that lowly level. Summer action films don’t need to be finely crafted pieces of art, but I do believe that they should respect the fact that the majority of their audience possess an IQ greater than 80. This film does not respect the viewer’s intelligence for even a moment and that I must say is truly sad.

“Tomb Raider” even manages to fail in the one area that it should by all rights succeed in: the action scenes. I have seen few summer blockbusters with action sequences as flat as the ones on display here. They are dull, lifeless, been there done that routines that will leave your pulse anything but heightened. The only one that was at all cool has Lara suspended from the ceiling by bungee cords in some sort of contrived exercise routine when the bad guys storm her place. She proceeds to lay waste to them while bouncing all around the room attached to the bungee cords, which I must say is pretty cool to watch. Sadly the only reason it exists is to look cool, which is a flaw in and of itself. But it does look cool and amidst the drudgery that pervades the other dubiously labeled action sequences it manages to entertain.

On the positive side of things the film has a nice look to it that reminded me of the video game world she used to inhabit before moving to the silver screen. I thought the filmmakers did a very nice job of melding the video game elements that fans would expect to see with the live action world that the film exists in. Another nice touch was having Jolie’s real life father Jon Voight play her father in the film. Other than that there are few positives to be mentioned. Some of the special effects are a little cheesy, but then how are you going to make a gigantic stone Buddha statue come to life and not have it look cheesy? I guess the easiest way would be to not put it in the movie, but apparently this thought never occurred to the filmmakers. For the most part the technical aspects of the film are handled well. It is in the screenplay and direction that the film finds its faults.

Sadly, “Tomb Raider” follows in the footsteps of such video game to film atrocities as “Super Mario Bros” and “Street Fighter”. All films that could have been cool, but somewhere along the way became derailed from their ultimate goal and fell into the abyss of film hell.

Word is that there is a sequel in the works. Hopefully the wrongs of the first film will be righted in the second. I am not about to hold my breath on that one though. Until the sequel comes out, however, I recommend avoiding the original until it is released on video. Once it is in the rental market I urge you to plunk down a buck or two, take it home, and skip to the end.

It is at the end that the stars of “Tomb Raider” (Angelina Jolie’s breasts) will provide you with a titillating ride, as they navigate through an exploding temple (In slow motion no less!) bouncing and heartily displaying themselves for you to oogle at your leisure. It is then and only then that the film will provide you with any sort of satisfaction. The satisfaction will come in the fact that you will look at the gorgeous creature onscreen and realize that she (and the stars of “Tomb Raider”) are married to everyone’s favorite redneck Billy Bob Thornton, thus giving men the world over reason to believe that all might not be wrong with the world.

There might very well be hope for all of us silly sods after all.

Share on Facebook

2000 / 124 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Okay, tell me if you’ve seen/heard this one before. Visualize a big cliff and a bunch of fools climbing around on it like they were meant to be there, or something. All is well and then, OH MY GOODNESS!!! Things go awry beyond belief. Lives hang in the balance. Decisions need to be made. People will die. But how many? When whoever it is finally gets around to dying it inevitably creates a breach between two characters who, until this point, have had a strong relationship. Once this happens one of them will stop climbing altogether and the other will go on living a sorry existence in the shadow of the incident. They will meet again under arduous circumstances when similarly difficult decisions will have to be made.

If you said “Cliffhanger” you would be right, but you would also be on the nuts if you named “Vertical Limit”. Unfortunately, if you expect the same elements of efficient plotting and taut action in the form of “Vertical Limit” that “Cliffhanger” delivered to us years ago you will walk away disappointed, for it is a frustratingly bland action piece in the same vein as “Tomb Raider”.

It starts off innocently enough. It actually had the makings of something entertaining! The opening sequence, despite its lack of creativity, was still quite exhilarating and there was some dialogue with some snap to it in the early stages of the film. The best example of this is when the always enchanting Izabella “I was a Bond girl and this is beneath me” Scorupco is described to Chris O’Donnell as French Canadian by a climber “in the know”. He explains to Chris that on most days she is quite pleasant, thus displaying the Canadian side of her personality, but on days such as this one when she is rather bitchy she is acting decidedly upon the French side of her persona. This drew a good laugh from me and I settled in expecting more of the same for the remainder of the film.

I may have laughed once or twice more after that and might have been on the edge of my seat twice more, which is not exactly what one would expect of a film that is supposed to be such a whirling dervish of action and excitement.

Where did it go wrong? In a nutshell: bland action sequences and a flimsy excuse for a plot. Let’s see. Rich dude, who likes to climb mountains for kicks, hires an elite team of climbers to get him to the top of the mountain, so he can, for all intensive purposes, wave to the first flight of his new airline as it’s trip takes it past the mountains peak. Of course the guy’s got a screw loose (he is rich after all) and while up there he runs into a snowstorm and forces the team to continue. Eventually he and a couple of the team members become trapped on the mountain and a team is assembled to rescue them. That my friends, is the plot you are dealt along with the added bonus of the psychological tension (note the sarcasm) brought forth by the situation described in the opening paragraph of this review. It’s about as intriguing as a bowl of dog snot and not nearly as appealing.

To top off the sensational plot, we are treated to some of the weakest action sequences I have seen this side of the aforementioned “Tomb Raider”. Maybe I am difficult to please, but when I see the same scenes done over and over throughout a film with mere venue changes being the only difference, I become perturbed. Yes, you read that right. Perturbed. People hanging off a cliff face, suspended by one last hook can only rev my engine for so long. Granted it’s a movie about mountain climbing, but “Cliffhanger” didn’t seem to have any trouble keeping it’s action sequences filled with tension and originality. Plus, I expect a certain level of quality from the man who directed the film that resurrected the James Bond franchise (“Goldeneye”) as well as “The Mask of Zorro”. Maybe he burned up all of his originality on those films, because here the action is flaccid and hopelessly derailed with the exception of only a couple of sequences.

Thank goodness for Scott Glenn. When he shows up the movie actually seems as if it has a purpose. The man is pissed and for good reason: he is in “Vertical Limit” after all. They say his character is searching for his wife’s body, which is entombed somewhere in the upper reaches of the mountain, but I think he’s really looking for his agent since he’s the one who got him into this mess in the first place. Glenn even manages to make some incredibly lame dialog sound competent. “You’re not dying if you’re up there. You’re already dead.” Okay, so maybe he doesn’t, but the man tries. I have to at least give him credit for that. Izabella “That’s Natalya to you” Scorupco does well enough with her face time, which is essentially all she gets. The main reason I kept watching was to see if she was going to make it out alive. So she did her job. She kept me watching. Bill Paxton is pathetic in his role as the rich dude. Here’s another problem I had with the movie. This clown is a recreational climber and somehow he manages to hold out longer, without sickness, than the two professional climbers he’s with. I suppose it’s possible, but one would think that the climbers would be more accustomed to conditions such as those they are confronted than the rich dude would. I guess he is Bill Paxton, but that doesn’t hold much water anymore. It’s sad to see how far some men can fall. I hope that James Cameron makes a movie soon, so he can breathe some life into Paxton’s increasingly decrepit career.

Finally, we get to the single most important flaw with the film: Chris O’Donnell is in it. Could someone please get on the ball and send a memo around Hollywood informing people that they should cease and desist with any script sending or casting calls that are directed at him. He is worthless! I looked at his filmography (since it was handy on the DVD) and guess what I found? In his whole career there was one bright shining moment some ten years ago when he actually was involved in a good movie (“School Ties”). Funny thing is that he was merely a role player in that one and not particularly impactful upon the film’s quality. I could go on and on with a list of the crap he is responsible for, but you already know what they are. You’ve seen them. We all have. That is why he must be stopped no matter the cost. Hollywood: Answer our prayers.

Since you’re reading this review, I take it you are in the mood for a quality action film. Since “Vertical Limit” most certainly does not measure up to the standards I deem reasonable for your viewing diet, I recommend checking out a couple of the director’s earlier films (“Goldeneye” and “The Mask of Zorro”) that manage to realize the promise that this film fails to fulfill. Otherwise, if you’re in the mood for a mountain climbing movie, I highly recommend giving “Cliffhanger” a whirl, or even “The Eiger Sanction” if you want some espionage thrown into the mix. The climbing scenes in “The Eiger Sanction” are it’s weakest moments, but compared to the nonsense that is “Vertical Limit” they appear to be the sort of stuff that “Die Hard” films are made of.

Share on Facebook

2000 / 127 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Due to my having little to no life, I found myself at Best Buy yesterday (April 3, 2001) with a credit card in my hand and little to no restraint. I had already received the incredible “Lawrence of Arabia” and lavish “Cleopatra” the day before but, me being a movie junkie, I needed more. I already had “Nurse Betty” in my hand (because that was a necessity) and then I saw Charlize staring at me amidst the rash of new releases. There was no way I could resist her. You see, Charlize is my weakness. Well one of them anyway. Given the circumstances, she quickly found her way within my grasp and the fact that it was on sale didn’t hurt either. I bought this film for Charlize and little else, but surprisingly, through my relationship with Charlize, I managed to acquire yet another fine film to add to my library.

Rannulph Junuh (Matt Damon) had the distinction of being the finest golfer in the south and holding the keys to the heart of Adele Invergordon (Charlize Theron). Life was good until he was sent to the trenches of Europe during World War I. While in the trenches he was involved in a battle that left him the lone survivor of his company, which would scar him deeply and cause his disappearance from the world for better than ten years. During this time Adele’s father has built a state of the art golf course the likes of which have not been seen before. He has grand plans for it which inevitably fall apart when the Great Depression takes hold of the town where they live, Savannah, much the same as it has taken hold of the rest of the country. In financial ruin, he commits suicide, like so many others did during this time, leaving Adele to deal with his debt. She is urged to sell the course but she will have none of it.

Adele has no intention of allowing the course to go down in history as “Invergordon’s Folly”.

Searching for a way out she stumbles upon the idea of holding an exhibition match between the two greatest golfers of the time, Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen, for the prize of $10,000. The city leaders think the idea is absurd, but eventually come around to the idea on one condition. A local player has to take part in the match along with the two greats. This is where Rannulph Junuh re-enters the story. He finds his way back into town and recedes into a life of sorrow, card games and alcohol. Just about everyone in town attempts to convince him to play with no success. Junuh explains that he has “lost his swing” and has no desire to take part in such a match.

One night, while hitting golf balls, a mysterious stranger walks out of the shadows and into Junuh’s life. This stranger, who we will come to know as Bagger Vance (Will Smith), waxes poetic about the game of golf and helps Junuh decide to take part in the match with Bagger as his caddie.

To kick off the tournament there is a gala to introduce all of the players to the public. Hearing the achievements of his competitors and having the memories of his past dredged back up to the surface, Junuh decides it is time to get out and heads out of town. On his way down the streets of Savannah he is met by many locals who cheer him on and wish him great success in the tournament in a wonderful bit of inspirational filmmaking. He decides that he can’t give up with all of these people counting on him, so he returns to the course and takes part in the first round of the match, which has disastrous results leaving him well behind Jones and Hagen. Knoing he can’t quit now, he returns to the match for the final rounds in which he will create the sort of memories that legends are made of.

I make no bones about the fact that I don’t particularly care for Matt Damon. Usually he comes off as some sort of arrogant, pompous weasel. That is not the case with his performance here. He is a deeply conflicted man struggling with his past and the baggage that comes with it. There are many questions that exist in his mind, but only he can answer them. Problem is he doesn’t seem to know how to find the answers. Enter Will Smith’s character Bagger Vance. Bagger will help guide Junuh to the answers he seeks, as long as he is willing to listen. The character of Bagger is one of those noble black characters that we have been increasingly subjected to in recent years. He goes around spouting pearls of wisdom and acting almost sage-like. Despite this, and some fairly lame dialogue, Will manages to make this character his own. I literally forgot that it was Will Smith in the role. It’s impossible to relate him to the roles he played in films like “Independence Day” and “Men In Black” when you see him at work here. For that alone he should be commended.

This brings us to Charlize. I love the fact that I finally got to see her in the role of a true female lead with her portrayal of Adele Invergordon. Usually she is more of a supporting actress, although I think that is going to change in the years to come. She takes this role and commands it with the gusto of a seasoned veteran. Her character is the lynchpin of the film for a number of reasons. She is responsible for the golf match that is the focal point of the film and her past with Junuh frequently reveals itself throughout the film lending more depth to the characters and to the film itself.

This film is not without it’s fair share of problems, however. During the exposition of the film (which happens very quickly I might add) there is a battle scene that is very poorly done. It does little more than establish the fact that Junuh was in the war. You see people dying around him, but you don’t really realize what the result of the battle was until you hear Adele introduce him much later in the film and explain that he was the only man from his company to survive the battle. I think this scene was nothing more than director Robert Redford realizing a dream of directing a battle scene. I hope he doesn’t try it again, because his talents obviously lie in other areas like his shot selection which is, at times, brilliant. Making the camera take the flight of the ball as it leaves the tee and heads for the hole and a great scene involving Bagger telling Junuh to observe Bobby Jones to discern what the “field” is and that is exactly what we get to do. We observe the full range of Jones’ attack on the ball from beginning to end. We are allowed to do so, because Redford wants to take us into his world and he succeeds greatly for the most part.

The battle scene aside, the only other area where Redford borders on derailment is when he tries to make golf into some sort of philosophical statement through the words of Bagger Vance. The film does just fine when it lets it’s characters reside in it, making the most of what they have to offer. Then it tries to interject some sort of higher meaning into the proceedings which kills the good natured vibe the film was doling out up to that point. Thankfully these moments are few and far between, but they are there nonetheless.

“The Legend of Bagger Vance” is a stirring a film about a man who must remember rather than learn if he is to move on with his life. Now, I know what you’re thinking. Matt Damon? Will Smith? Golf?!? How could this be entertaining? I thought the same things before Charlize caught my eye at Best Buy. Then I watched it and realized that there is a great deal to like about this film. Damon has some great verbal barbs in the early going that incited laughter from me and the story is a beautiful one to watch unfold. Plus, you even get D-Day himself Bruce Mcgill as Walter Hagen. Watching D-Day golf is reason enough to watch this movie. If you need another, realize that I, Jones, was rooting for Matt Damon (which is no small feat in and of itself) as the events unfolded on their way to one of the more satisfying endings in the history of sports-related films.

Share on Facebook

1962 / 227 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Two men stand by a drinking well. They have been traveling all day across barren desert. Their destination is not in sight, but that is not important to them. All that matters is quenching their thirst. They have been here for some time choosing the rest for a spell before carrying on with their journey. It is during this time that they realize they are not alone. They look into the distance and you do as well for you are there with them at the well. At first you see nothing and then ever so faintly you see a black spot appear on the horizon. It steadily grows larger and then, to your astonishment, it begins reflecting upon the surface of the desert creating a mirage. You can now see that it is a man riding a camel and he is coming straight for the well. Your guide pulls out a revolver and is gunned down before he knows what hit him. The man arrives at the well and dismounts. You stand there stunned, unable to move.

You have just witnessed the most brilliant character entrance of all time and what may very well be the single greatest scene ever committed to film. My description does not do it justice. You must see it for yourself to be able to understand the enormity of it’s impact within the context of the film. I have never seen anything like it and I find it quite unlikely that you have either.

The “mirage” scene is just one of many images that this film etched in my mind as it carried me through it’s world for nearly four hours. Quite possibly the greatest transition ever resides here as well. Lawrence has just described the prospect of going to the deserts of Arabia as “funny”. He lights a match as he says this and concludes the conversation by blowing out the match. Cut to the sun rising over the deserts of Arabia. It is the sort of brilliant, awe-inspiring moment that only the motion picture industry can provide. One other transition that I feel the need to mention occurs late in the film. It is night time and Auda abu Tayi finds himself outside near a pool of water. He looks into the pool to see the reflection of the moon. Seeing this he looks to the sky and stretches in much the same way as someone who has awoken from a good night’s rest. Cut to a curtain being drawn aside to show that morning has arrived. I know my mouth hung agape for the majority of the viewing out of sheer awe for seeing moments such as these and many others contained within.

Not only is the film breathtaking in the visual sense, but it also has a great story to tell that is every bit the match of the cinematography. It is the story of a man who is driven by his inner demons to perform what can only be described as “miracles” by the people who follow him. In performing these “miracles” he comes to be revered as something akin to a God by the Arabs and, over time, he comes to believe it as well. This will eventually be his undoing as he takes more and more risks thinking that he is indestructible.

The man is T. E. Lawrence and he is portrayed with passion and precision by Peter O’Toole (in his first film role). He is a blunt man who, being of little use to the military, is sent into the deserts of Arabia to appraise the situation that has arisen between the warring factions. Upon his arrival in the camp of Prince Feisal (Alec Guinness) he almost immediately begins overstepping his bounds. He speaks of how he thinks the situation should be handled which is in stark contrast to how his superior officer feels it should be done. The Prince listens, but inevitably takes the side of Lawrence’s superior. Lawrence, undeterred, convinces the Prince’s right hand man Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif) that they can take the city of Aqaba from land rather than the sea. They can do this, he explains, because the city’s guns are pointed toward the sea and cannot be turned. Aqaba has not anticipated the possibility of a land attack and Lawrence believes this will be their undoing. Ali explains that there is a large problem with his plan. There is a large desert between them and Aqaba that has been described as “uncrossable”. This does not phase Lawrence and he is able to get the Prince to give him fifty men across the desert.

It is in the desert that Lawrence performs his first miracle. A man was mistakenly left behind in the desert and nobody will go back for him. It is suicide they say. Lawrence chooses to go back on his own and when he returns from the desert with the man in tow he is received as by the people as a man who is larger than life. He is given Arab clothing by Ali, which only inspires him to be even bolder in his aspirations. While dancing about in his new clothes, during a rare private moment, he makes the acquaintance of Auda abu Tayi (Anthony Quinn) the leader of a rival Arab tribe. Lawrence manages to unite the two tribes into one unit to realize the greater goal of freeing Arabia. This unification is, in effect, his second miracle.

This will lead to Lawrence performing what the Arabian people view as more miracles. They will embolden him to think of himself as something of a deity and to take chance that mortal men would not even dream of doing.

The world of Lawrence is brought to life by the man whose name is synonymous with the word epic: David Lean. If you want an epic made, he’s your man. “The Bridge on the River Kwai” was a film of epic proportions that, for virtually any other director, would have been a masterpiece incapable of being surpassed. For Lean it was merely a stepping stone to his masterpiece: “Lawrence of Arabia”. Every shot is perfect, for lack of a better word, in composition, duration and effectiveness. Not a single one is wasted, nor is a second of the near four hour run time either. It is he who is responsible for the great moments I mentioned at the top of the review. The mirage sequence and the brilliant transitions are all David Lean. I knew this man was a genius, but even the brilliance of “Kwai” could not prepare me for this unparalleled motion picture spectacle. Lean’s greatness exists because he knows exactly what he wants from a scene and how he has to go about getting what he wants translated to the screen. This can be anything from shot selection to drawing great performances from his actors. The brilliance of his visual sense has already been discussed, but I have yet to touch upon the mesmerizing performances contained within the experience that is “Lawrence of Arabia”.

Peter O’Toole gives a tour-de-force performance as T. E. Lawrence. His piercing blue eyes penetrate into the soul of the viewer, as they watch this man become more and more derailed. O’ Toole makes us cheer him on, because he is everything anyone could ever want to be. He steps on his superior’s toes, dares to do the impossible and ends up doing the impossible. Lawrence is a passionate man that desires to do the right thing, even if it takes committing a few wrongs to attain the desired results. O’Toole delivers in every way throughout the course of our journey with Lawrence. I could not find a flaw in his performance, or in the performance of any other cast member for that matter.

Anthony Quinn (”The Guns of Navarone”) is unhinged in the role of Auda abu Tayi. He is a surly, yet reasonable sort of man. He is in this world to get money. Not for himself, but for his people. It is easy to see that this is an honorable man caught up in dishonorable circumstances. In a way he is the Robin Hood of the Middle East and I am sure that you will find yourself enjoying every moment he is onscreen alongside the likes of O’Toole, Guinness and Sharif.

Speaking of Omar Sharif (”Doctor Zhivago”). This was his first performance outside of his native lands and he made the most of it. In the role of Sharif Ali he brings class and nobility to a character that hardly seems noble at all. He is the man who comes from the desert in the fabled “mirage” sequence and he proves to be worthy of such an entrance, becoming a key ingredient in the picture’s recipe for success. At first he thinks little of Lawrence, but as time passes he comes to love this man, following him in his pursuits, despite the ramifications. I now understand what all the the talk was about when I heard Omar Sharif’s name spoken in my childhood. People were speaking of a man who delivered one of the finest supporting performances in motion picture history.

So there you have it. “Lawrence of Arabia” is, quite possibly, the most ambitious, beautifully shot film of all time. It is anchored by performances that can be described as nothing short of mesmerizing, brilliant, thought-provoking masterpieces in and of themselves. The performances are driven by a script with no holes and by a director who knows where he wants to go and how he wants to get there. All of these ingredients culminate in one of the greatest films ever made, which should be all the more reason anyone needs to see this unrivalled spectacle of motion picture history lay itself out before their very eyes.

“Lawrence of Arabia” is a cinematic experience unlike any other that needs to be taken in and absorbed by anyone and everyone who has a place in their heart for the cinema. It is a journey of awe-inspiring, epic proportions that you may never want to return from. This film seduced me in much the same way that the deserts of Arabia seduced a young T. E. Lawrence so long ago. He didn’t want to return from those breathtaking lands, nor did I want this film to end.

In a way “Lawrence of Arabia” never ends. It lives on in the mind long after it has come to the end of it’s journey. It is in the mind that I feel like my journey through the deserts of Arabia has just begun.

That is the stuff the truly great epics are made of.

Share on Facebook