SWEENEY TODD: A REVIEW
SWEENEY TODD The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
This is a stylized light opera put to film. It might have tragic dimensions, if any of the appropriate characters had any established magnitude. Its storyline bears a trace resemblance to 19th century adventures, as knocked out by Dumas, Dickens, etc. What am I referencing?
The storyline: A young, attractive family have their happiness dashed. A high court official, Judge Turpin (Rickman), lusting after the pretty, blonde wife, arranges for his beadle to arrest the husband, a promising barber named Barker (Depp), on false charges and thrown into jail for life. He woos the wife until such time as he lures her to his townhouse, where , in the midst of a masked ball, he rapes her. There is a passage of time. The husband escapes, apparently to sea, and is rescued by a lad named Anthony, who was part of a ship’s crew. Terse, revenge-minded and deranged, the husband returns to his old “stomping” ground. In short, Fleet Street is his “hood.” Once there, he takes in the old neighborhood bustle. He spots the beadle. His thoughts ever on slaughter, he finds his way to Mrs. Lovetts Pie Shoppe and takes a seat. The proprietoress, Mrs. Lovetts (Carter), takes a notice of the strange but “suitable” man and takes up a chatter. She is preparing “pies” and killing roaches, executing the latter with more skill and energy, perhaps because they are more plentiful. She offers the stranger a pie and gin. Soon, she is mothering him, while dreaming and, perhaps, scheming to eventually wife him. The stranger, Sweeney Todd, is chilly and distracted, possibly with dark thoughts of kill! Kill! Kill!. She recognizes him as “Barker” (Parker?) but is told by him that Barker is dead; I’m Sweeney Todd. They enter into an unofficial relationship that goes the primrose path for her from a bit of laxity to serial murder. Well, one adjusts to things as time goes by, seems to be her position. Sweeney never adjusts. From beginning to end he is a homocidal maniac. Well, Mrs. Lovetts no doubt appreciated his constancy, until the very end. From this initial relationship these two get involved in a snowballing accumulation of carnage. To offer other thematic conflicts, the story also relates the actions of the young Anthony, seeking Mr. Todd, unknowingly meeting the remnant of the barber’s pretty young wife in the form of a street hag (and seer), spying in a second floor window of a fine townhouse the pretty daughter, Joanna, of the barber and his wife, who is now a ward of the same Judge Turpin, and falling instantly in love with this pretty Joanna. He vows to “steal her.” The last important element is the growing lust of Judge Turpin for his ward. Also, he notices Anthony and first insinuates and then threatens the lad. The liberation of Joanna, the wifely dreams of Mrs. Lovetts, and the deranged “barbering” of Sweeney Todd propel the story forward, now black, now white, to a ghastly end. Yet, there is a bit of invisible sunshine at this end, for, although the moviegoer has witnessed a man kill the thing he loves in his madness, he is also aware that love has been rescued from bedlam elsewhere, as Anthony saved Joanna. Yet, as Joanna asserted: “You never escape your dreams” and, if they be nightmares, well, there will be a future of dark clouds even on sunny days.
However, perhaps she is wrong. Time also blurs.
The opening credits are fronting images that connote well the locale and the gorey expectations to come.
The film opens in foggy, dark, dank London, England. The moviegoer gazes at a masted ship approaching up the Thames River. After it steadys at its berth, two figures step forward onto the dock, moving forward. One is the lad the moviegoer will learn is “Anthony.” The other is Sweeney Todd. They had hardly gotten off the boat before they were singing their opinions of London and its people and their collective worth. Incidentally, the singing in this flick tends toward complexity with layered and/or echoic phrasing. Sometimes it indicates mental reflections, at other times it is conversational, and still others expressions of exuberance, rage and so forth.
These elements are woven together well enough, but there is a problem, and that problem is the lack of sympathy that Sweeney Todd engenders. I felt more sympathy for Larry Talbot, the Wolfman, than for Sweeney Todd. There is nothing that Sweeney says that offsets, or justifies, his deeds. If his murderous revenge were limited to Judge Turpin and his beagle, well perhaps one might say that it was a sort of vigilante justice executed against known villains. However, Sweeney Todd views all people as vermin. The sooner rid of them the better. One is really performing a positive service from any angle by hastening their end.
And Mrs. Lovetts, ever practical, remarks to Sweeney that it would be a shame to let all that good meat go to waste, when people “needs” there nutrients. Well, words to that effect.
Yes, there is woven into this plot that which all moviegoers are “dying” to see: cannibalism, albeit discreet.
I don’t view this as a “love story.” I view it as a “hate story.” You may be its real target.
The visual appearance is decidedly black/gray and white/off-white. The fleshly appearance of both Johnny Depp’s character and Helena Bonham Carter’s is pale. Each have ample supplies of dark hair surrounding those pale faces. The areas around the eyes are quite dark. Ms. carter “sports” dark lipstick. Each favors dark clothes set off by bits of white/off-white clothing. The whole vision is not so far in appearance from Tim Burton’s recent animated film inwhich a lad marriages a dead woman. The salient interruptions of color are provided by victims’ blood, Ms. Carter’s marital fantasies, and the typical scenes involving Judge Turpin, Joanna, and/or Anthony.
I saw Angela Landsbury’s performance as Mrs. Lovetts in another production, and thought she added a certain appealing dash of frantic comedy.
This production is different. It is brooding in tone and very well-directed. It is interestingly “shot,” choreographed and composed. The sets and costumes seemed correct.
Johnny Depp seems to have done his one and only clearly above-average performance as a complex personalty, assuming deranged, monomanical and homocidal personalities can be accurately termed “complex.” I thought he was good in this role. His “singing” was more after the late Rex Harrison’s “sing-talking” fashion. I don’t think that he merits much applauding here. Americans are so accustomed to hearing singers with bad voices, doing lead singing with rock bands, that Depp may seem to be a somewhat “raw” Caruso.
Finally, an important contribution to this film’s development is supplied by a boy actor. He is first encountered as a “barker” for a “show-biz” barber and elixir vender named Pirelli ( Sasha Cohen). He subsequently is taken “under the wing” of Mrs. Lovetts and put to work at her pie shop. This is a good thing, because his former boss was “lying low” and his own life was imperiled. The lad wasn’t all bad. However, when a delinquent vows that “no one is going to hurt you, not while I’m around,” he may be flashing a capacity for dark deeds, if unwisely provoked. Indeed, our lad here wasn’t a shrinking violet. And in this film does any character not hold within him barely restrained villainy?
Revenge is the force that kills from beginning to end of film. Are we, therefore, to infer that the movie is really an anti-revenge one in disguise? Let’s not favor Director Tim Burton, the Lord of Black & White, with unwarranted subtlety. Rather, let us say that Sweeney Todd isn’t the only character traipsing about with a mental disorder. Tis enough.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.
NATIONAL TREASURE -BOOK OF SECRETS: A LONG REVIEW
NATIONAL TREASURE BOOK OF SECRETS (2007)
This is the latest movie in a series that could easily continue as long as Friday The Thirteenth or Holloween. There is a similarity in the plotting of this latest episode to prior ones, and that fact makes it about as interesting as a professional football game. In the latter the plot involves running left, running right, running up the gut, tossing left, tossing right, tossing over the center, and the use of occasional gimmicks and variations. So it is with this latest National Treasure.
Clues lead “Benjamin Franklin Gates” (Cage) to France, then to England, then back to Washington, D.C., and finally to the Dakotas before concluding with an epilog. “Mitchell Wilkinson” (Ed Harris) plays “D”(efense) in this flick.
The direction wasn’t outstanding. There was entirely too much time spent under the rocks near Mount Rushmore, and especially wobbling on a “teeterboard.” Still, for the most part the film moved along. The problem is that all the scenes are so deja vu. Helpfully, the sets are typically crammed with curious stuff. For those locally bound there is some enjoyment to traveling to storied and/or scenic realms of this earth, while seated. Also, there are bits of actual history tossed into the filmscheme.
One matter for which the moviegoer can feel some gratitude toward Mr. Turteltaub is that he seems to have almost obliterated Nicholas Cage’s tendency toward a bovine stare, which tendency has earned him my appellation of “The Moo Man.” However, at the end in that part I call an epilog, Cage gets off a mini cow gaze. It’s his thing; you wouln’t understand.
There seems to be at least one anachronism: there is a reference to the Freedom of Information Act being used to get data in 1966, if I heard correctly. I am confident that the law wasn’t enacted until about mid-1970s.
The storyline: A piece of apparently authentic document surfaces which impugns the reputation of a Civil War-era, Gates member. Brought to the attention of the learned public during a lecture by Ben Gates (Nicholas cage) (with Dad present also) by a Mr. Wilkinson (Ed Harris), the document seems to “finger” the Gates’ ancestor as a participant with John Wilkes Booth and company in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. The shocked Benjamin and Patrick Gates deny their ancestor’s complicity. This is the motivation for Benjamin Gates to try to clear his family name from this dishonorable association. Fortunately, there are extant clues with which to work, and, as is the nature of these films, one clue leads to another. The denouement occurs under the outcroppings near Mount Rushmore. The treasure hunt serves to remind them all that there are things more important than gold. In the end things such as family honor and family bonds prove more precious than a city of gold. So, at heart, this film is sort of sentimental.
The film opens with a shot of irregularly spaced men walking along a narrow, dirt road. There is a man missing the lower part of one leg, using a crutch. They all wear Union Blue. This opens into a Civil War-era vignette centered in Washington, D.C. In this vignette the moviegoer sees members of the Knights of the Golden Circle talking to Thomas Gates, ancestor of Patrick (John Voight) and Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicholas Cage). Soon, John wilkes Booth himself is followed through a back entrance to the loge of President Lincoln. A key element in this vignette is a coded document, which the KGC men present to Thomas Gates to decode. He begins but a dispute erupts, and Thomas Gates tosses the document into a fireplace where it is partially destroyed. His boy is a witness to this event.
Then there is a camera cut to present time, where we find the Gates, Patrick and Benjamin, lecturing on history you may have overlooked.
The appearance of Ed Harris’ character brings a noteworthy bag of associations with him. He states that his family, the Wilkinsons, were, as with the Gates, a family of long-association with American history. He states that his family can claim Albert Pike in its lineage. [Albert Pike was a Confederate general, operating in the western Confederacy in the vicinity of Arkansas/Tennessee. He was said to have allied with Choctaw and other Indian tribes in battles with the Union forces.]
Albert Pike was also a very important freemason, leading the Southern Jurisdiction of Scottish Rite Freemasony. He also formed with Giuseppe Mazzini, Baron Bismarck, Lord Palmerston, a sort of “supreme council” under the term “Palladian,” which has also been subsequently associated with Luciferianism. This is not surprising because Albert Pike wrote a letter to the British Brotherhood from Pike’s sick bed, stating that the faith which they held was Lucifer (god) and his plea that this be accepted was, indeed, accepted upon a vote on the issue. Albert Pike also previously wrote a masonic book entitled, MORALS AND DOGMA in which he states the masonic case for Luciferian allegiance (and also devotes about 80 pages to the Jewish Cabala, which he credits with informing the masonic faith). Furthermore, Albert Pike was instrumental in the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which is another secret society undoubtedly patterned to an important extent on those occult and secret forms that characterize masonry.
[As the sources from which these assertions were drawn may be "shakey," I ask readers to consider Mr. Koltko-Rivera's comment to this review. In all matters disagreements seem to arise. Hence, consideration of available evidence is essential to sound judgment.]
One of the interesting connections brought out in this film in regard to the Lincoln assassination was that of the Knights of the Golden Circle. In this film this secret organization was stated to be Southern in origin, and the implication was affirmed that the assassination of Lincoln was a desperate effort by Southerners to save the Confederacy. Whatever connection there may be with the Confederacy is unclear. However, the “KGC” seems to have twin elements not necessarily equally understood by members. One impell for the KGC was to further the “break up” of the U.S.A. and seems to be associated with British global strategy and British high finance, which was fearful of the implications of the Lincoln “greenback.” This element within the KGC is consistent with Adam Weishaupt’s strategy of a secret society within a secret society.
The second impell is the less secret one of halting the war and saving the Union by restoring the forms of the original Union and inviting the Southern States to lay down their arms and return to the Union, as before. There position seemed to be that Union and domestic peace were paramount considerations. Union by consent was thought more desirable than Union by force of arms. Therefore, ousting the Republicans from office was the most important single objective.
Both John Wilkes Booth and the Knights of the Golden Circle have been connected through Canada to England’s own masonic hierarchy. Furthermore, the Knights of the Golden Circle were stated in the Encyclopaedia Britannica to be “a semi-military secret society in the United States in the Middle West, 1861-1864, the purpose of which was to bring the Civil War to a close and restore the ‘Union as it was.’…The total membership of this order probably reached 250,000 to 300,000, principally in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Kentucky and south-western Pennsylvania. Fernando Wood of New York seems to have been the chief officer…” [Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Ed., Vol. 15, page 868].
Most people don’t perceive Lincoln and the Republicans as a “war party,” but that seems to be a fairly common view amongst Democrats, whether North or South.
Due to “historical management,” the general public does not get any information that is whole. Therefore, they are usually willing to accept the views expressed in their textbooks and even at the movies.
This film does bring into the conspiratorial picture a letter from Queen Victoria, implying her regimes meddling in American affairs [giving assistance to the South for purposes of hastening the division of the country]. However, the film does not bring out the apparent plan of the Vatican under Pope Pius X to assist the South.
Cages’ Ben Gates expresses great respect for Abraham Lincoln, stating approvingly that before Mr. Lincoln, the plural form “are” was used with “united States,” but that after Lincoln the singular “is” is employed. There is a sort of satisfied “he brought us together” concept in Ben Gates admiration. What he doesn’t bother to explain is how a president can change the Constitution by decree. Nor does he bother to explain the ramifications of government by executive decree, as opposed to legislative vote and lawful enactment.
For that matter no one has explained how states, which were not lawfully able to leave the Union, could be compelled to accept certain amendments in order to “rejoin” that very Union, which it is alleged they never left, because that Union was not dissolvable to begin with. Expediency is not to be overlooked in politics!
In short there were a lot of strange organizations, relationships, and events occurring about the time of Lincoln’s assassination. This is truly a rich vein of “historical gold” to be unearthed.
Putting aside the Lincoln matters, this film brings into the viewers mind the existence of an ancient, central American people, who appear to be related to the Mayan people, who built a “City of Gold.” They left shards of etched glyphs which provided tantalizing clues (to the handful of people conversant with the “dead language”). Fortunately for Ben Gates, his Mom is one of those handful of experts, and she is only a hop, skip, and a jump away (University of Maryland).
What is incredible to the learned moviegoer is the proposition that a central American people dragged a massive amount of gold to the lands of the Lakota for the purpose of constructing a “City of Gold” under rocky outcrops in the Badlands. Furthermore, they exhibit a cunning craft in the construction of this “underground city,” including secret entrance-ways.
Additionally, although undoubtedly fierce warriors in their cultural domaine, does it make sense to fight your way through Aztecs, Shoshone, Commanche, Pueblos, Quapahs, and the great Lakota tribal groups (Sioux) to build one’s “City of gold?” It is crazy! No wonder they went extinct!
Perhaps such fantasy elements give this film what charm it has.
Other strange elements in this film’s puzzle include, the Statue of Liberty, HRM Resolute (ship), the “President’s Book,” and the “twins.” Speaking of twins, both the Gates family and the Wilkinson family seem twin victims of familial vainglory.
The hightech master, Riley, does his usual tricks.
The I.R.S., F.B.I., and Secret Service, as well as plain old D.C. Metropolitan police are all briefly featured at one point or another, however remotely. Even Paris gendarmes and British “bobbies” get a moment to inform the film with authenticity.
Even the President of the United States shows up for a meaningful colloquy with the determined Ben Gates. The moviegoer may notice with curiosity the apparently respectful, deferential Ben Gates in the presence of “great men,” even as he leaves a long trail of international crimes–mostly trespass, theft, and kidnapping. He operates on a higher moral level, such as family vanity, dontcha see?
Finally, the Gates men and their women settle in for some TLC. All’s well that ends well!
Of course, the moviegoer is left hanging on the mysterious “page 47.” Sequel approaching?
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.
SOMETHING ROTTEN IN DENMARK?
At my little office in Fairfax, Virginia, I take care to have some food available for emergency events such as “stomach wall collapse syndrome.” I mean by this a suddenly empty feeling that grabs the attention like no other. I miss eat!
In my mini-pantry I usually have a can of ”Bumble Bee” Red Salmon. It is comforting to know it is there. When I pick up the can, I note approvingly the words “Premium Quality.” There is the additional information that it contains “wild Alaska sockeye” fish–nothing tame here!
Well, my appetite is roaring, so I fetch a fresh lemon and squeeze the juice into a bowl, sprinkle a little dried, diced garlic, and go to my can opener. As I grasp the can, I notice approvingly the words “QUALITY YOU CAN SEE.” Oh, boy!
Applying the can opener, I slowly, carefully open my Red Salmon can. Peeling the top back (I usually don’t entirely remove the lid), I then “poured” the salmon into the bowl. I got closer. Even as I got closer, I had the hastening sense that something was wrong–bad wrong.
The Red Salmon had a sickly brownish color. Using my fork, I toppled it to its side. The whole cylinder of salmon appeared a ghastly shade of brown. Opening the cylinder, I saw that it was ghastly through and through. I sniffed the fish. Enough! I said: “I’m not going to eat this fish!” I slid the whole disgusting can-full into a plastic bag and tossed it into another plastic bag, and finally tossing it into a trash can. Subsequently, even the plastic was not enough to protect me from the scent. So, I took it outside to some dumpster cans and tossed it.
Besides the disappointment in losing my meal, I was annoyed at having en passant to see my fresh lemon wasted.
If one takes the time to read the label, he will also notice the assuring words: …We select only the finest salmon caught in the pristine, icy Alaskan waters. No preservatives or flavors are added to our products, only a touch of salt is included to enhance the natural Salmon taste.
I will only comment that it isn’t enough to catch them fresh, a vendor has to keep them fresh until they are vacuum-sealed. Somewhere along the way there was a “foul-up.”
I’ve eaten Bumble Bee brand red salmon for years with good results. No one is perfect. To show that I haven’t given up on canned salmon, I will open up another can of Bumble Bee Red Salmon, as soon as I finish this sentence and will report to you my findings, as that bad can, opened several days ago, may have been part of a bad lot.
I must give a passing score to that can of Red Salmon. It looked for the most part reddish-orange. There were the usual inclusions of unwelcome skin and spinal “bone.” The odor was normally fishy. The texture of fish was slightly dry.
Both this can and the offending can bore the notice that the contents should be eaten before July, 2011.
I believe that the bottom line is that my relationship with canned salmon has been impaired, and I am not sure that it will go into my shopping cart again.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN: A REVIEW
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007)
As with Dracula, the Coen brothers must have blood. This film is no exception to their gorey rule.
Ethan and Joel Coen have made a series of interesting films that widely exploit regional eccentricities. This is in keeping with their filmwork to date.
The film stars Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones, and Javier Bardem. Woody Harrelson is also featured. I thought that Josh Brolin stood out in this film. I’ve never seen Javier Bardem before. His look and personality seem to most closely resonate with Abe Vigoda’s in The Godfather mixed with Andy Kaufman.
Storyline: Vietnamese War veteran, now married and living in a trailer in Southwest Texas, while hunting, comes upon a handful of pick-up trucks in a dry wash area and sees no one alive but plenty dead. Warily, he advances. He discovers an attache case filled with loot. He grabs it and a few odds and ends, includiing a handgun, and is about to depart, when he sees a truck that seems to have a living man inside. He checks it out. Sure enough, a badly wounded Latino is slumped at the driverside window (or what’s left of it). The man indicates he wanted water. Brolin’s character, “Llewelyn,” can’t help him and goes off with the case. Later, feeling guilty, he goes back at night to the scene of the carnage to give the Latino a jug of water. Another truck arrives, parking next to Llewelyn’s. Trouble. He is seen and pursued because–because–someone wants their money back. It’s a lot. A camera cut has brought the Javier Bardem character into the picture. He is, shall we say, a little creepy. Lethal too. He is a “psychotic” but clever and relentless, hired killer. Soon, a chase flick begins and it is made interesting by the cat-and-mouse relationship between Bardem and Brolin. Llewelyn’s clever, tough, resourceful and determined to keep the loot. The chase spills into Mexico and back. Woody Harrelson, as a Colonel, trained in special operations, enters the chase. So does Tommy Lee Jones whose character is a sheriff, or other similar lawman. “The best laid plans of mice and men oft go aglay,” twas said. For Llewelyn his mother-in-law proved the fatal messenger to his plans. As for Bardem, he may take a “break” in the action.
The Coens’ strength in imbuing their regional flicks with authentic elements keeps interest alive. There are the usual Coen brothers satiric thrusts. Good soundtrack. Spiced with a bit of cynicism, the struggle for “blood money” takes on a sort of tamale-gothic, picardesque quality.
By means of the Tommy Lee Jones character, the moviegoer gets a sense of alienation that has taken a grip upon the older generation, trying to maintain the old ways without much faith. They struggle with symptoms, not being capable of healing anything for lack of understanding. They use moral and ethical slogans, as if they were staffs. “What’s it all about?” they ask one another, brows furrowing and eyes squinting. “What’s happened?”
Indeed!
Once again, I leave a Coen brothers film feeling that these two men are rather misanthropic, disguised though it be by filmwork noted for regional colorations and satiric humor.
I don’t think I like this film.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.
CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR: A REVIEW
CHARLEY WILSON'S WAR (2007)
This is a film that seems to blend genres. It has the declared attributes of a loosely-based biography. It seems to be closely akin to romantic comedy with more than a dash of adventure tossed in. The primary locale is Washington, D.C., but the film has a lot of “Pakistan”/”Afghanistan” filmtime. Other locales taking a bow are: “Las Vegas,” “Houston,” “Jerusalem,” and “Egypt.”
The film is directed by Mr. Mike Nichols. It stars Tom Hanks as “Representative Charlie Wilson.” Julia Roberts plays “Joann King Herren” (?), sixth richest woman in Texas. Philip Seymour Hoffman also stars as “Gust Avacostos” (?), the C.I.A. top man at the “Afghanistan desk” at its Langley, VA, headquarters. They are helped by a cast of many, and includes Ned Beatty, as a key Congressman..
This is a well-directed and well-edited film that includes some striking transition shots.
The three primary characters are very credibly portrayed. I thought that the actor portraying the Pakistani president, Zia, was good. There was, on the other hand, an actor, playing a top C.I.A. man ( named something like “Gravely”), with whom the Hoffman character “butted heads,” who appears to be wearing facial cosmetics of the “base,” powder and rouge sort. I don’t think that it was intended to be so visible. It hit a false note.
The film has an excellent opening sequence where the moviegoer sees a silhouette of an Islamic male. It is near night, as a crescent moon and stars are shining. The man appears to be on a ridge. The moviegoeer sees the man kneel and bend into the characteristic prayer position of a devout Muslim. Then, he is seen to rise, pick up a portable missile launcher, and fire directly at the viewer. The screen explodes into a fiery yellow which consumes the whole of it. Then, there is a fine “cut” to a large American flag that frames a podium in front of which are three or four rank & file of chairs that are perhaps thirty deep per line. On the podium the moviegoer sees Tom Hanks, whose character identity is still unknown. In the audience are several faces that the moviegoew understands must be significant but at this point don’t know why. Among the faces seen are those of the Julia Roberts character and the Philip Seymour Hoffman character.
As the viewer becomes soon aware, the gathering is an award ceremony, organized by the “Combined Clandestine Services,” to present to Representative Charlie Wilson their highest award. Never had such an honor gone to an “outsider.” Tom Hanks’ “Wilson” appears to suitably pleased (but what the hell–he’s a politician!). From this point the film launches into a sort of “flashback,” although there is no certainty who–other than Nichols–is “flashing back.”
This opening does not take much filmtime to transpire. It is a fine lead-in to the tale. I say “tale” because as the movie progresses, it seems to have much about that is hard to believe. In short, “Representative Charlie Wilson” seems to be as much a fictional character as an actual man.
The storyline: A Texas Congressman (Hanks), living a life that is a mix of satisfying constituents, listening to various “pitchmen,” and satisfying his hedonistic needs (they may not be “needs” precisely but rather “opportunities”), is summoned to Houston, Texas, by Joann (Roberts) for a fundraiser (which includes more than a dash of fun). Joann, the sixth richest woman in Texas, is the sort of friend a politician needs, but one who can be a “pain” because of her demands. In this case she has a commitment to defeating the Soviet Communists in Afghanistan, protecting the Levant from godlessness, and ultimately causing the U.S.S.R. to crumble. The moviegoer understands soon enough that this woman not only has an agenda, she is smart and tough. Rep. Wilson, if not a pawn in the game, is a sort of “off-white” knight, hopping about the chess board to serve his “Queen.” To the surprise of all but his patron, he does a good job. Along the way he picks up a C.I.A. “expert” (Hoffman) on Afghanistan (and quite a few other places, as it turns out), who provides Rep. Wilson valuable assistance and, in time, grudging respect. To accomplish this mission, Tom Hanks’ character must wheedle and deal on the “Hill” and in the Levant. It is interesting to watch our politicians in action. It is also interesting to see the difference that equality of “fire-power” makes in a wartime struggle. This film carries through to the ultimate retreat of the Soviet troops back into the U.S.S.R. Then there is a return to the present, and the moviegoer sees the Hanks’ character once again on the podium before the same crowd in present time. The film concludes shortly thereafter.
Parenthetically, no nation in recent times, going back to the Royal British Raj in India, has conquered Afghanistan. From a historical perspective one would not expect the U.S.S.R. to succeed (or the U.S.A.). If the U.S.A. provided weapons to thwart the Soviets, there is no reason to suppose that the U.S.S.R. can’t do the same thing to thwart the plans of the U.S.A. in Afghanistan. I saw a bumper sticker on a car that read: “The Power of Pride” (American flag background). With the wholesale destruction of bona fide Christianity in America, there are hardly any voices left to say: “Pride Goeth Before A Fall.” Tikun Olam over all.
Relating the storyline does not do justice to the style by which the scriptwriter(s) and Nichols infuse the tale. There are mixes of ribald comedy not so different from the old Albert Finney flick, Tom Jones, comedic adventures of James Bond, satiric social commentary of Robert Altman’s Nashville, juxtaposed with grainy tv footage and quasi-documentary scenes.
Further, the script has a smart, even “crackling,” interplay at times. I thought Julia Roberts, as “Joann,” was masterfully droll at times. Philip Seymour Hoffman presented a curiously iconoclastic C.I.A. man. His commentary was more akin to a sort of drawling, rasping Don Rickles talking “street” mixed with the “deadpan” wit of Steven Wright. I felt he was a little too much the “stand-up” comedian to secure this role properly.
On the other hand, Tom Hanks seems to have perfectly “nailed” his East Texas politician, according to style. However, the milieu of Rep. Wilson’s “at work” scenes make him appear to be a convert to Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy philosophy.” Whether or not this film is a “distorted” image of Congress at work, I cannot say. Recent revelations via books, newspapers, and television make almost anything seem credible.
My view of this film is that it is well-done but by no means a great film.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.
AMERICAN GANGSTER: A REVIEW
AMERICAN GANGSTER (2007)
Parenthetically, there have been a number of recent films that focused on the Bumpy Johnson story, such as HOODLUM (stars Laurence Fishburne) and THE COTTON CLUB (again portrayed by Laurence Fishburne).
Denzel Washington was and is a preeminent American actor. However, in considering his rendering of Frank Lucas’s character, besides the healthy amount of evidence and source material, I have the impression that he mentored off Laurence Fishburne’s rendering of Bumpy Johnson in HOODLUM. Fishburne played Bumpy as a “cerebral con” whose victories over adversaries were based more on strategy than “fire-power.” If this is so, it might be justified on the basis that Frank was Bumpy’s man. Bumpy would naturally choose someone “cut” along his own lines, rather than someone whose ways “clashed” with Bumpy’s. That Bumpy should want a “son” heir (like me!) rather than a stranger accords with all experience. Folks, it’s family business.
It is clear from the outset of this film that Frank Lucas is Bumpy’s man. The film opens in Harlem. There is a narrator whom the moviegoer recognizes as Denzel Washington, speaking respectfully of Bumpy, almost as if Bumpy were a great man. The narrator makes clear his indebtedness to Bumpy. Even clearer, the narrator begins to draw a distinction between Bumpy and himself: Bumpy was part of and subservient to a larger criminal system, but the narrator, Frank Lucas, was not going to be subservient to ANYBODY.
The film opens to this Harlem milieu, which soon hones onto Bumpy, Frank and the boys beating a Latino, who is strapped to a chair. Frank Lucas finally tosses flammable liquid onto the luckless senor and sets him on fire. It’s not nice to cross Bumpy. “Have a nice Day!” The Bumpy group strolls on off.
There are a few other incidents run off as brief vignettes of Bumpy’s rule. Frank Lucas appears to be a primary “enforcer” for Bumpy, as well as glorified “bagman.” The moviegoer meets some of the Harlem gangster world, such as Cuba Gooding, Jr.’s character, and others. They are part of a sort of Harlem feudel system inwhich Bumpy is king.
When Bumpy dies in 1968, Harlem is up for grabs. Frank feels that he has earned the crown. Others view him as Bumpy’s dog. A rumble is brewing.
Meanwhile, Frank has been quietly considering the lay of the land. He learned a lot from Bumpy and has met some key people. He’s has ambition and can act boldly, always projecting the image of a “safe,” professional Black man., even as he kills. Importantly, Frank is a family man. This is good, because he has a lot. It is also bad, for family can be an Achilles heel, as we noticed in such films as GODFATHER II.
Drugs are an important item in Harlem in the sixties–much more so than in earlier times. If Frank Lucas’ “people” want this product, why should they pay more and get less? He decides to get into this product line in a big way. He will give his people their money’s worth.
Storyline: Frank Lucas, heir to the throne of Bumpy Johnson, perceives a need for good-quality heroin in Harlem, and sets forth to deal this product straight from his contact in the Golden Triangle of Southeast Asia to his clients in the “nod” houses of Harlem. Lady luck is a lady to Frank, and he begins to make a “ton of money.” His superior product chases away the competition and his product range goes beyond Harlem. It has a street name such as “Blue Moon” or something of the kind. Unfortunately, the label and product get the attention of various police authorities. In this film rendering, the primary cop on the chase after this product’s venders is Russell Crowe’s Robin Roberts. Hence, this lengthy film is the story of the rise and fall of a significant criminal enterprise and its entrepreneur, Frank Lucas. The end favors the strong, and the strong forces in this case are the determined agents of government. There is an epilog. The accompanying music is very interesting commentary.
“Robin Roberts,” the Russell Crowe character, I understand, is a “composite” of several police officers involved in the Frank Lucas case. One wonders if they were all or mostly Jewish cops, as this film suddenly, out of the blue, brings in a federal authority (!!) using an anti-Jewish term, “Kike,” to insult the Russell Crowe character. When something extraneous and apparently inappropriate is suddenly interjected, it is fair to ask, “why?” Who (in their right mind) would suppose that the wealthiest, most powerful, most prosecutorial, and most persecutorial group in America is some sort of national victim? Yet, that seems to be the lurking pretext for the introduction of this scene into AMERICAN GANGSTER. As for Russell Crowe’s rendering of this character, he was adequate to the task. He evinced a certain “cockiness.” However, I believe that Tim Roth would have been a better choice.
I view this as an interesting addition to the gangster genre. Denzel Washington carries the ball through the red zone. Score!
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.
BEOWULF: A LONG REVIEW
BEOWULF (2007)
The heads aren’t the only areas needing improvement. When Beowulf came on the scene, I noticed that his toes were peculiarly rendered. The “great toe” is decidedly longer than the other digits and not properly shaped. All the adjacent toes are roughly the same length and have similar dimensions. Say what!? The physical Beowulf is rendered after that of a wrestling giant working at Vince McMahan’s WWF. The heroes of old were undoubtedly strong, but they probably bore the “white man’s burden” at the abdomen (and not “six-pack” abs). I’ve never seen any computer-generated animation which presents humans very convincingly. When that is overcome, truly dazzling renderings of all the classics can be presented, as well as historical epics.
Robert Zemeckis should be praised for the “camerawork” and flow of this film.
It has been so long since I read this story’s text that I cannot say with authority that the original had no mention of Christianity, but my memory says: “There was no mention of Christianity in the original, accurately-translated text.” If I’m correct, why was it mentioned in this film? Is this an anachronism? Since the filmtime is about 560 A.D., it is possible that a few missionaries were encountered, either from the Roman obedience or from the early Christian settlements in the “isles of the west” which sprang forth from the first Christian church ever established, which was at Glastonbury.
The film did not treat Christianity with respect, even when seen through heathen eyes. Is that why it was brought into the movie? If so, then it was a contemptable gesture. There is a nasty character named “Unferth,” who is sort of a meadhall chief of staff, who is the apparent “champion” of Christianity. He is frequently shown beating a crippled squire-type for trivial errors. He is dark of dress and mien. He seems to be this film’s correlative to “Scar” from The Lion King. He seems to be weak, relatively, and the least admirable of the meadhall denizens. This is an unfortunate character choice.
Not more than a couple of weeks ago, I viewed The Mist, where the depiction of a Christian was so malicious that it invited negative outcry from the audience, and at the viewing I attended, definitely received it. I’m not trying to whitewash Christianty as a citadel of righteousness, but scripts are written, plotted, and premediated, and nothing obnoxious needs to be dragged into a movie. When it is done to excite “hate-crime thoughts,” it should be condemned.
The film begins with a “camera” shot of the great meadhall built by Hrothgar the king. Moving inside, the camera catches a lively mix of people. The thanes of the king are rowdying about, flirting with shapely gals, and calling for more mead [ a bitter beerlike drink usually mixed with honey]. King Hrothgar’s attractive wife is at her throne-chair.
She is “played” by Robin Wright Penn, which is to say an animated “knockoff.” She is young, placid-faced, slightly eye-awry, and chilly. If one listens carefully to her husband, Hrothgar, one might even say “cold.” [Joan Rivers cracked a joke on tv once about a Jewish nymphomaniac: "Once a month!."] Maybe Queen Wealthow is a bit like that. At any rate she has given the king no son (nor daughter.)
This would be an unlikely turn of events, if she’s healthy. Why? Well, these people don’t have much to do besides fight, eat, drink and fornicate. They are “nobles,” doncha know? No fishing the seas, plowing the earth, or making anything useful for these “men of valor.” Those are for the peasants. [This is a feudal society.] There are gold coins, jewels, and the like to devy up. Possibly, a comely wench may go up for bids. That sort of thing.
But don’t think that these Royal Northmen were abased animals, who might well fit into any pro-ball, endzone seats anywhere in America today.
They were so aware of “glory” that any event that could be faked into an outsized event was. There were men of letters available to the king, who could turn a confused president into a “great decider.” Therefore, a Norse “hero” who stabs a wound into his own foot, could be “spin doctored” into a model for any boy named “Thor” to follow. There were also musicians to create songs that rendered the story of these heroes in melodious and memorable ballads, or sagas.
Therefore, these men of valor and reputation were sung about throughout the “whale-road.” Kids hoped to grow up to match their heroes in exploits daring and glory-bringing. The lasses dreamed of being loved by a great hero. Life began to imitate art [well, craft, at any rate]. When minds are won over to attempting great deeds, at the very least, amazing acts of carnage are likely to transpire.
This is the milieu at Hrothgar’s meadhall. This was the world of the fierce Northmen.
At the right moment, under the crescendo of full-voiced shouts for Hrothgar, the somewhat “tipsy” king makes an entrance. He is already calling for his queen to “give him a kiss.” In the words of Mr. John Riggins to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “Come on!..loosen up!” The queen wasn’t amused: “You’re drunk.” She looks at the king with chilly malice and contempt.
Anthony Hopkins “plays” Hrothgar, and gives the character his sense of drollness which elevates him, even though inebriated, above his royal wife’s distemper–and most everything else. He was a great warrior and is king. He is a good king; see how his thanes love and serve him. He’d like to have had a son with Wealthow, but, well, who knows?
King Hrothgar has a little secret. He has a son. The trouble is that his son is a dragonboy, named Grendel. It was one of those unexpected events. Grendel’s Mother, “played” by Angelina Joli, is a High Demon of the Sea, and very, very seductive. Once she has set her eye on a suitable hero, she doesn’t let up with her high-powered “alluring,” until she has her son. Then the boy goes to wreak havoc on Dad’s kingdom. [Sins of the father!--This is actually brought up in these Biblical terms.]
This is the prologue to BEOWULF.
The storyline: In a kingdom bleak yet beautiful there ruled a heroic king name Hrothgar, whose secret infidelity cursed his land with painful death & destruction. Still, with stalwart hearts Hrothgar and his ancient thanes did drink the honeyed mead in sweetest camaraderie–until grim Grendel came. Then came into his dragon-cursed land a visitor, great of valor and bold, who told his name and family to the attentive King, Hrothgar. He was Beowulf, and it was his desire to kill the demon dragon that pitilessly plundered the kingdom. With him were thanes sturdy and war-tested. Right glad was Hrothgar to have this likely hero’s hand in assistance. Let us then drink mead, and listen to the queen play a lyre and sing, asked the sea-weary visitors, for tomorrow Beowulf kills this Grendel. Now, Grendel has a hearing problem that abides not the loud wailings of the thanes. He crashes the king’s parties to destroy the “noise polluters.” In such a rage did Grendel first the mighty Beowulf encounter, as the hero slept, and there ensued a battle royal. Another night follows after the way of the Northmen, and partying riotously thanes and dames, which so disturbed Grendel that he burst upon the scene with kindness the least of his intentions. Full ready was the valiant Beowulf. With cunning honed from a hundred combats with dragons, giants, and the like, did Beowulf wound most grievously the dragonboy, Grendel, who therefrom flew with staggered steps to the sea cave of his Mother, and thereat died the wayward boy, missing a right shoulder and arm. Wept not then Beowulf, fully perceived as the great hero who had saved Hrothgar’s kingdom, and warmly were the welcoming cheers working upon his imagination, when Hrothgar, delighted to be free of the “curse,” tossed his crown to Beowulf, and with steely sword did plunge from castle balcony to the dark seashore below. “The king is dead! Long live the king!” Not now does this tale end, for fate had weaved a new cycle from the end of each one old. Beowulf had already encountered Grendel’s Mother, but unlike the words of this hero to Hrothgar, he had not killed her but had, indeed, put a new son into her shapely womb! There came then a new son to curse the kingdom of Beowulf. Beowulf the hero. Beowulf the fool. The years rolled by. His stature across the length and breath of the “whale-road” unmatched. Yet, he had aged. He seemed to produce no children. Now, he must kill the misbegotten. His last warrior road. There is a great battle excitingly depicted. The tale may end with our fallen hero. His last glorious fight triumphant, even though he,too, must lie now in the fiery dragon ship, as it slowly carries its hero-fare to Valhalla.
Watching from the shore is his old warrior companion, who is now king. His vision is attracted to a beautiful face bobbing at the surface, smiling at him, gesturing to him to come to her. We see the glazed-eyed king stepping into deeper water. What beautiful symbology! The moviegoer suspects that another ring is about to be created in the cycle of seemingly endless sin.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.
HITMAN: A REVIEW
HITMAN (2007)
This film stars a young actor named Timothy Olyphant. Although his character is a veritable killing machine, he, nevertheless, is the protagonist and the closest thing the film has to an admirable hero. Why? Cherchez la femme!
I would definitely classify this film as a male film, as it is overwhelmingly involved in fighting. This happens to be just about fantasy number one amongst adolescent males, that is , “The Conguering Hero.” Male kids believe that all things that are good come to such heros, so why seek to be anything else? Since most men fight a long but losing battle with nature’s nudges to “grow up,” the fantasy lives on well past boyhood. It can even inform “global strategy.” For those men who fight nature most fiercely, they take their “conquering hero” fantasy to the grave.
This film also involves spies, intelligence, global gun-dealing, political body doubles,crime syndicates, international police, hightech, athleticism and the like. All of these are male draws and, when bundled, advance the percentage better than merely geometrically.
The fighting scenes weren’t stinted. They involved various weapons. Some scenes involved use of two or more weapons. There were sapper rifles and various explosives. You get the picture–Male Stuff.
The film had enough humor to cause me to laugh aloud. Not everyone else at the theatre I attended (5:10 pm, Wed.) did. Few there were. I laughed alone. I’m that kind of guy. In this film we have baldheaded assassins with sales-code type tattoos on the back of their heads going unnoticed ["Doesn't everyone have a tattoo, now?"]. There exists an “Association” which is composed of assassins who “hire out” to governments to eliminate “problems” but whose organizational structure and leadership are totally unknown to INTERPOL, etc., [their payoffs are to banks located in some nation or other]. Is this not absurdists fare? There is also a droll “C.I.A.” intrusion into an INTERPOL arrest inside Russia late in the flick.
One of the surprising little discoveries about this film is that the script had some very, very clever colloquies. The best of these were between a new (to me) actress named Olga Kurylewska (?) and Timothy Olyphant. Besides liking her “looks,” she was a scene-stealing presence. The director had the sense to “work” this asset. She is really the only female that has any significant film time, but she makes sure her sex’s film moments are well-remembered. She has an engaging, attractive, charming way. Oh! Did I mention that she plays a prostitute? However, Olga is a Russian “girl-next-door” who has been away on a world tour “being footloose and body free,” so to speak.
Her problems are three: she is considered a chattel slave; she is forced to provide sexual services, generally for money; and finally, powerful governmental authorities intend to kill her. What does a cute, clever Russian girl do under these circumstances? For her to hope to be saved by a suddenly appearing Murdering Machine probably was not her first thought. It’s dumb luck! Hollywood’s deus ex machina comes to the rescue in the person of–of–well, #47.
The film opens with an ethereal “slideshow” of baldheaded images from babes to teen-boys to monks, wedded to a suitable soundtrack. The purpose of this preamble is to suggest a monklike order, dedicated to certain principles, such as: The Order is supreme, the kill must be perfect, the assignment voluntary, and the loot for the job in the bank account. The preamble progresses to a grainy, news-documentary style depicting of the training of globally-rejected children who are deemed likely “fits” for Association Assassin. All this is meant to make creditable the extraordinary danger created by #47, aka, “our man,” “shadow,” “ghost,” etc.
There is postulated to the moviegoer the existence of a faintly visible, international association of assassins who form ad hoc “working relationships” with governments [& large corporations?] to “get rid of problems.” This narrator is a high official of INTERPOL, which seems to be based in The Hague. He has a constant companion to aid him, who appears to be of West African origin. This narrator is constantly smoking cigarettes (and he’s not the only one), suggesting tobacco industry financing may be involved. By his accent the moviegoer takes him to be HRM’s representative to INTERPOL. The moviegoer hears the usual references to some article or other of international law. The purpose seems to try to send this fantasy trip off in a realistic way, so that no one will suddenly blurt out: “It’s only a paper moon!”
“Our” INTERPOL man is shown in action with his crew, as a local war-lord is about to be “de-problemed.” Setting: Central Africa? Assassination rating: AAA+. INTERPOL relationship with local authorities is, as seems to be typical, not so good. Hence, they don’t believe in “the shadow” nor “the Association.” Result: Another success for #47 and the Association.
This narrator/INTERPOL chieftain worries “big time” about “our guy” (the shadow). He an his sidekick sweat the big drops about this dude. So, who is he?
He’s Timothy Olyphant. This is not anyone’s notion of a Killing Machine. He doesn’t look all that big, for one. I’m not talking Shaq-big or Hulk-big. When the moviegoer sees him next to Olga, he seems only marginally bigger. Still, Olyphant plays the role with a Calvin Coolidge-like economy of words [credit the scriptwriter here], a striking coldness, credible athleticism, and a sort of implacable quality that might well scare most anyone. HE IS A STONE COLD KILLER–TRAINED FROM BOYHOOD. He rarely expresses much facially, other than what must be obliged under extreme exertion. And that’s not his way. He doesn’t like to give a victim “extreme exertion.”
The storyline: Star (#47) of international assassination organization, notching at least his hundreth kill, is free to take an assignment to assassinate the head of Russia, Comrade Mr. Belikov. Agreeing to deed, he does. Preparing to leave, he’s advised of “witness” and the need to to eliminate this witness. He agrees. The Return initiates the moviegoer to a plot wrinkle, political doubles, brothers, other assassins, jurisdictional conflicts between National agencies and INTERPOL, and not least, the intriguing Olga, who brings into this film almost all the fun and humor there is to be found. Incredibly, #47, having nearly assassinated her, shang-hais her, uses her as lure, keeps her as assistant, he finds that his cold has chilled a bit, due to her wondrous influence. At last sunshine! He makes the decision to carry forward to an end which will mean a good ending for Olga. And, all’s well that’s Olga’s well.
This movie is related by means of a “flashback,” generated when #47 surprises the Narrator one night at the INTERPOL chieftains home. The chief is asked a question by #47. “Should a good man ever kill?” The mass of the movie transpires. Then the moviegoer resurfaces at this very point for the Narrator’s answer. Some folks want to be left alone; others feel obliged to bother someone. Can there be a modus vivendi?
There is an epilog. The moviegoer sees that Olga’s well and watched over [wonder who? hmmmmmn].
Anything else? This is a movie that ends where the imagination decides it should. I see sunshine. What about you?
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.
I AM LEGEND: A MOVIE REVIEW
I AM LEGEND (2007)
Things were slow workwise today, so I decided to attend a matinee movie. As it happened, I Am Legend was the only one available at the time I arrived. The others option hadn’t either started or would require a lengthy wait. I got my ticket and entered, choosing a rear seat, as is my inclination. There was a sparse group. The film began.
The opening scene is of a couple of “talking heads.” The video is rather “grainy.”
This film was directed by a Mr. Lawrence. It starred Will Smith. There were others.This film story line is apocalyptic, although the whereabouts of God, or even his existence, was a debating point, as usual, between the characters who possessed faith and those guided by assertive scepticism. Folks, there wern’t many of either. Faith in contemporary time was not encountered until a Brazilian woman and a boy were discovered well into the film. In the scientific mind of Col. Robert Neville (Will Smith), he is probably alone, excluding the “Devolved.”
As is rather stereotypical in films, scientist Neville is trying to find a cure for what ails them. Toward the end, true to these sorts of films, Col. Neville trues to “reason” with these Devolved and flesh-eating creatures. Let’s just say that the whole thing ends up blowing up in his face.
As stated, the film opens in recent past via a media interview between a woman “talking head” and the featured guest, a Dr. Kissel. We learn from this good doctor that a vaccine for cancer had been discovered, about ten thousand patients treated with this new “wonder drug,” and all had been cured of cancer. Dr. Kissel, upon direct interrogation, announced that there now existed a cure for cancer. Everyone is smiling. Good, good news!
Fast forward just 3 years to 2009. Something went “bad wrong” with the cure. Most people who are at contemporary film time are as “dead as a doornail.” Most of the numerous remainer (about half a million) had devolved into beastlike creatures. They are hairless, have great jaw openings, and are incredibly quick, fast and athletic (did I say agile?). They no longer have human reasoning power but have a society that requires an alpha male. These things are bad news. Doubt it not!
The storyline: After a promising vaccine to cure cancer turns “weird,” the some six billion people on Earth die off, leaving the inexplicably immune Col. Robert Neville, and a half million Devolved to contest the Big Apple’s turf and the world beyond. A crack scientist to boot, he is devoting his time now to finding a cure, using his own blood as initial element one. By means of “flashback,”he has attempted some months back, when there was a “window of opprtunity,” to have his wife and daughter airlifted to safety. Things went awry. He does have his daughter’s puppy, a German Shepherd. There is a “boy and his dog” aspect to this. Most of the film continues at a pedestrian pace, but there are hyped moments. The viewer is treated to Will Smith’s lab work, social moments (with Samantha, the dog), as well as hunting, and the scavenging for useful items to take back to his pad at Washington Square. There are tousles with the Devolved. Finally, the hunter is trapped, sustains a thigh wound, is attacked by feral things, and witnesses the German Sheperd, Samantha, wounded by a contagious Devolved (wolf?). It is shortly after this bleak moment that the Brazilian woman and boy appear. She takes him back to his pad/fortress. There, lab work, philosophy, and fortress defense vie for the moviegoer’ attention. Ultimately, this leads to tragedy and hope. The film concludes with an epilog in upstate, where a colony of people survive.
Now, as far the “colony upstate,” we have seen something of the same in the recent film, Resident Evil III, Extinction. There, too, the virus, the vaccine creation, and the scientist appear. We see an echo of the vintage film, Old Yellow, where that amiable hero comes down with rabbies and has to be exterminated by those who love him. There have been numerous depictions of desolate American Metropolises. In this case a strong approval rating is given by me to the sets.
Will Smith gave another very good performance. He definitely has improved all round with his new “seasoned” look. There was credible support by the “spear-carriers.”
The bottom line is that it is a good cover of familiar film themes.
All right reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.
