Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Brian De Palma’s “Casualties of War” is based on a real-life incident that occurred in Vietnam in 1969—a small unit of soldiers kidnapped a peasant girl, took her along on their reconnaissance patrol through the jungle, raped her, and then ultimately murdered her. One of the five soldiers on patrol was against the plan from the start and didn’t know the sergeant was serious at first when it was mentioned originally, and it was his testimony at a court martial that brought the men to military justice.

Michael J. Fox plays the outspoken private Eriksson. Prior to the event, Eriksson had only been in combat for three weeks; not nearly enough time, apparently, for him to lose his sense of human nature. His fellow infantrymen, Sergeant Meserve (Sean Penn), Corporal Clark (Don Patrick Harvey) and Private Hatcher (John C. Reilly), are more hard-edged and brutal, with only one thing on their minds: wiping out as much VC as they can. One of their platoon members, who was essentially their comic relief (and probably would have prevented the forthcoming event from happening in the first place), is killed in an ambush, and shortly afterwards, Private Diaz (John Leguizamo) serves as replacement.

Meserve is a leader. He’s capable of valor and a strong soldier. But he has lost his moral standards—one even wonders if he had them to begin with, as we don’t know anything about his background. (That wasn’t a criticism—I like that the character raises questions.) When he wants to do something, anything, he is able to get his squad to follow along. That leads to the event. After he is denied access into a nearby village to visit a prostitute the night before the platoon is supposed to go on patrol, Meserve involves his men in a plan to sneak in late at night to kidnap a simple peasant girl and take her with them as their sex slave. Eriksson doesn’t realize he’s serious until the kidnapping takes place.

In the field, Eriksson questions what the squad is doing, while Clark and Hatcher are up for anything. Diaz is the only other standout, but soon enough, he follows along, mostly because he’s intimidated by Meserve. Meserve is in complete denial, not seeing how wrong his actions are; to him, he’s captured a Viet Cong as a prisoner and he and his men are going to “have a little fun with her.” And Clark, the most bloodthirsty of the group, doesn’t care about justifying his actions—“What happens in the field stays in the field,” he says. When the moment of the rape arrives, Eriksson protests, and Meserve verbally abuses him in every way possible—he’s a Viet Cong sympathizer, he’s a homosexual, and so on. But unlike Diaz, Eriksson doesn’t give in and refuses to act in the rape. The next day, he tries to help her, and he even has an opportunity to escape in order to help her. But he himself is afraid of what would happen, and before long, the inevitable occurs, as the other four men pump bullets into her.

I know I’ve given away large chunks of the film by describing the event and the story it was based on, but writing about it and actually seeing it are two different cases here. To see this movie is to feel the weight of the situation happening all around them; that situation being the dehumanization of war. Eriksson has moral values, but they aren’t important in front of Meserve’s power, which is the only thing that matters in the field. When you have morals and ethics, you have to have the power to bring them forward and have your fellow men back you up. “Casualties of War” is a film that examines the realities of this situation and that’s what makes it so effective. Late in the film, Eriksson even says the film’s message aloud: “Everybody’s acting like we can do anything and it don’t matter what we do. Maybe we gotta be extra careful because maybe it matters more than we even know.” Not only does that apply in the battlefield, but it also applies in life.

What I could’ve done without are the scenes at the beginning and the end. The opening scene shows Eriksson looking back at the central story, so those who don’t know the story now know he’s going to survive. The closing scene feels like a tacked-on feel-good ending that didn’t really work very well. (When I watch the film on DVD, I usually stop the movie at the moment I think it should end, which is when Meserve, Clark, Hatcher, and Diaz glare at Eriksson as they’re taken away to military prison.) The framing doesn’t work.

The acting is solid all-around. Michael J. Fox is credible as a man holding on to what he has left inside. Sean Penn turns in a brilliant performance as a young man (about 19, I think) who was probably a bully back home and a bully with a gun in combat. Sometimes, he overplays his demeanor in which he’s able to mock anyone who’s against his methods, but I didn’t mind, because it also shows how pathetic he can be, while also showing why someone would be intimidated by him. Though, if we’re going to be honest, I wasn’t always that intimidated by him personally. Who is intimidating throughout is the character of Clark, played excellently by Don Patrick Harvey—this guy has “psycho” written all over him, and it’s a credit to Harvey’s acting that he’s able to pull off even the most subtle methods of the role. (Something subtle in a Brian De Palma film?! Why, I never!) Character actors John C. Reilly and John Leguizamo are featured in their first feature roles, and they both do equally good jobs.

It was a good decision on director Brian De Palma’s part to move from the hugeness of his previous film, “The Untouchables,” to a smaller story about the human condition in a war film. Some of his filmmaking trademarks are at work here—two things in focus even as one is far away from the other; long wide shots of conversation (sometimes at weird angles); and especially, a chilling point-of-view scene that usually makes it in each of De Palma’s works. But unlike most of his films, they don’t distract from the story, written with a terrific script by playwright David Rabe.

In combat, human values are usually replaced by animal instincts. That’s what “Casualties of War” is saying—just because each of us can be blown up at any time, that doesn’t mean we should be less human; if anything, we should be more human. This story, with the event at its center, is a reminder of that.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Michael Moore once said in an interview that his agenda with making his documentary films that expose big-time corporations and those associated with them is not unlike the scene in “The Wizard of Oz” in which the Wizard is exposed for being a frail man pulling strings. You know the scene—the one in which the mangy dog, Toto, pulled a curtain to reveal that the terrifying entity before our heroes was nothing more than one man putting on a big show. In a way, Moore is Toto, regular American citizens are Dorothy and her friends, and the corporations, politicians, etc. are nothing more than people pulling strings to inspire fear and power.

Whether you like him for making valid points and satirizing material while criticizing them at the same time or hate him for his fudging of the facts, speaking a little out of turn and very directly (remember his controversial Oscar acceptance speech?), or even his snarky personality, it’s hard to deny he’s a daring performance artist, putting himself in the story and showing us what he sees. Some of the ways he handles the material in his movies don’t work for me and I think he tries a little too hard getting his points across, but I can’t hate on the man for making entertaining films while at the same time delivering his points of view. I think “Bowling for Columbine” is a fascinating documentary and “Roger & Me,” the subject of this review, was a great way to get his name across to the general public.

“Roger & Me” was Moore’s debut feature, released in 1989. He originally funded the film by selling his house and hosting weekly bingo nights—anything to make a film about the hardships within Flint, Michigan. Moore was a native of Flint, the birthplace of General Motors. When GM closed many plants, laying off thousands of workers, the muckraking reporter Moore made this film as a response. But if you know Moore’s reputation today, you wouldn’t be surprised to find that this isn’t a bleak documentary about hardships. It’s not only cross and has a point to make—it’s also funny.

Moore narrates the story with his droll sarcasm and stars in the film himself, as he tries repeatedly to get an interview with Roger Smith, the chairman of GM. Every now and then, we’re treated with a sequence in which he thinks he’s going to walk into a building and meet Roger until he is immediately escorted out by security. Before he would even get a chance to get even closer than one floor toward Roger, he speaks with a spokesman from GM. When asked about the layoffs, the spokesman says they’re “necessary.” (Spoiler alert—he gets laid off by the end of the movie. Now there’s an up-yours I’m sure Moore was happy about.)

Moore goes everywhere in Flint. He encounters people with their own businesses (including a woman who chooses color coordinates for people and a woman selling rabbits for “pets or meat”), he meets several former GM workers now working at Taco Bell (some of whom are losing that job too), he looks into a poor attempt to turn the town into a tourist attraction, he goes to wealthy events, he visits an Amway party, he meets celebrities (including Pat Boone and Ronald Reagan) who try to cheer up locals, and he meets the most notable side character in the movie, a deputy sheriff who evicts several unemployed auto workers who couldn’t make their payments. And that’s only half of the material Moore works with in this movie, if you can believe it.

What is Moore trying to say with “Roger & Me?” He’s trying to put across the message that to big corporations, profits are more important than human lives, and something needs to change. This film is his angry way of showing that the best way he can to the public—actually addressing the problem.

Moore’s methods of telling the story of “Roger & Me” have been questionable (there was even a very unkind article from Film Comment about them). Some say it’s too good to be true (which I suppose is the criticism of most documentaries). Apparently, the amusement park was built before the closings and not in response to them; there were less layoffs than the film suggests; Roger Smith wasn’t reading “A Christmas Carol” at the same time of a crucial point; and so forth. Well…so what? Maybe the film was a little manipulative, took some cheap shots, and fudged some of the facts, but A) we all know that, B) Moore knows that, and C) the purpose is both entertain and enrage us. (Besides, anyone could figure out the “Christmas Carol” thing was a setup, just as much as we figure out Moore had staged beforehand his attempts to meet Smith. It would be too good to be true.) I still really like the film. I admire it for its balance of humor and pathos and the way Moore’s cynicism and skillful timing blends everything together. So what if Moore took some liberties? Not every documentary can be objective and even entirely factual. The film as a whole is emotionally true.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

In the late-1980s, “Batman” was the most anticipated movie to come around. Warner Bros. was hoping that this would make people forget that they distributed the “Superman” sequel-bomb “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace,” released in 1987, and so they turned from DC Comics’ Man of Steel to its Caped Crusader. And people were excited to see a dark, live-action film adaptation of Batman that didn’t have the campiness of the 1960s “Batman” TV series or the in-jokes that the comic book series had, but it did have the promising director of “Beetlejuice,” Tim Burton. Sure, there were some uncertain comments from people who even wound up petitioning not to have Michael Keaton star as Batman (but I’ll get to that later), but nothing was going to keep people from seeing “Batman.” And so, in the summer of 1989, it was released in cinemas and became a box-office hit, leading to become the highest-grossing film of the year. And honestly, I can definitely see why. “Batman” is a solid entertainment. It’s dark, it’s brooding, it’s suspenseful, much like the Caped Crusader himself.

Yes, this “Batman” is dark and not necessarily for younger kids. This is more in the spirit of an old-school film noir, with Gotham City as its backdrop. There is a lot of crime, and fascist crime bosses, but there is also someone out there on a crusade to foil it. This is Batman, a dark-costumed vigilante whose presence scares criminals and angers local Mob boss Carl Grissom (Jack Palance). Gotham City locals don’t really know of any “bat man,” outside of robbers and murderers, but there are rumors about him. Reporter Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl) describes him as a man-sized bat who is indestructible, and wants to find out more about him. In comes Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger), a reporter/photographer who is interested in his theory. To get some answers and an inside scoop, she believes that eccentric billionaire Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) is secretly Batman, and so she decides to romance him.

Meanwhile, Grissom’s right-hand man, Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson), is set up by Grissom on a mission that leads the cops to him. Along comes Batman, who corners Jack and tosses him into a vat of acid. Jack survives, but his facial nerves are severed, leaving a permanent smile. This also changes his personality so that he’s more gleeful and also more psychotic. He calls himself The Joker, overtakes the Mob, and begins his own reign of terror in Gotham City.

Despite being called “Batman,” the title character himself is more or less kept in the shadows for the most part. We don’t get his standard “superhero origin story” here; instead, the origin story that the movie delivers is of the Joker, the movie’s villain and Batman’s arch-nemesis. (I think the movie could have been titled “Joker,” in a way.) After all, we see how this Jack Napier becomes Joker and what will lead to his downfall in the film’s inevitable climax. And so, most attention is brought onto the Joker in this movie, as well we see a lot more of him than of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While this may seem like a flaw, it actually makes it all the more solid. Batman is known for being dark and mysterious; the less you know about him, the more interesting he is. You want to find out more about him, and there are some good details that indicate what he’s been through and what he’s going through, but had there been anymore, the fascinating mystery may have been gone. And so in the sense, I’m glad Batman wasn’t the main focus of this story.

I know having a villain as practically the “star” is a risky move to pull in a movie like this. But Jack Nicholson is so enjoyable as the Joker that it doesn’t matter how sick and psychotic he is; you just watch him go throughout his schemes, while still knowing that Batman is still the one to root for.

What we do see of Bruce Wayne is very interesting, and Michael Keaton is excellent in portraying Bruce as an odd billionaire with dark secrets and a tragic past. When Keaton plays Bruce Wayne as he socializes with people, you wouldn’t really believe that he is secretly Batman. He keeps his pain inside, not making it anyone else’s problem but his own. And when Keaton is Batman, he practically “breathes” cool. He’s intimidating, purposeful, and rock-solid, which makes his performance of Bruce Wayne all the more interesting. As the movie develops and you start to see more of this character than before, you understand what Bruce is going through—this is his problem that hardly anyone else can handle and so, he’ll deal with it by himself. Although he does have a couple people to turn to (including Vicki, who becomes his romantic-interest who discovers his secret, and his loyal butler Alfred, played by Michael Gough), he tells only what they deserve to hear and leaves everything else for him to handle. This leaves him with a few strengths for us to notice about the character, making it even more fascinating that this is our hero. When all is said and done, Michael Keaton is a great choice for Batman. I know that back then, he was known for his broad-comic persona in films such as “Night Shift” and especially “Beetlejuice”; but here, he’s absolutely brilliant. You may not see as much of him as the Joker, who practically hungers attention from the audience with the manic Nicholson performance, but there’s always that sense that this is Batman and he knows what he’s doing. I’m glad that that ridiculous petition to remove Michael Keaton from the role was ignored—seriously, what were those people thinking?

Jack Nicholson owns it as the Joker; it’s not only menacing, but also funny. You can tell he’s not just doing for a nice paycheck, much like how Marlon Brando must have felt when he played Jor-El in “Superman.” You can tell he’s just having a good time and that energy that he brings to the screen is always evident.

Kim Basinger plays Vicki Vale, whom Bruce falls for while she is attempting to gain a scoop on Batman for Knox’s story. While many critics felt that this character was pointless and a misstep, I thought she fit into the story really well. She is the one who aids the audience into discovering Bruce’s secret (and also the reason Bruce wants to admit the truth to somebody for the first time), and she is an interesting character. Sure, she screams a lot (whether she’d be menaced by the Joker or reacting to one of Batman’s surprise gadgets), but she was kind and polite while also having her limits. And when she’s captured by the Joker in the climax so Batman can save her, she still manages to fool Joker into thinking he’s winning. Basinger is game in a role that would have had her doing a lot less.

We still have the traditional Batman gadgetry, such as a self-guiding grappling hook that aids Batman up the side of a building. But more importantly, we also have the awesome-looking Batmobile and the Batplane (even though the Batplane looks more like a model in some shots, it’s still pretty awesome). Those visuals are well-handled, but the look of Gotham City itself is a true marvel. Director Tim Burton is best known for specializing in gothic production design in his films, and this is no exception. Gotham City looks kind of like Manhattan if it was redesigned to look like a carnival funhouse—it’s just incredible to look at.

The action sequences are set up and executed with such flair and energy that it makes the film all the more exciting to endure. It’s engaging and well-crafted, although I will admit that I thought the final climax went on a bit too long. That is the main reason I’m rating this film three-and-a-half stars instead of four, but just be impressed I’m even rating it that (I’m surprised to find that not many people seem to like this movie very much, because of how little of Batman is seen—oddly enough, I found that to be the most intriguing factor). But to the credit of that climactic half-hour, it does allow for some psychological turns as well as physical force. You see, in the middle of the battle, Joker and Batman attempt to turn one another off by admitting that they created each other, as Batman threw Jack into the acid that made him this way, while Jack was the one who killed Bruce’s parents long ago (this is why Bruce would become Batman). That’s pretty clever.

Another thing about “Batman” I want to praise is the music. And no, I’m not talking about the dated Prince soundtrack. I’m talking about Danny Elfman’s memorable, fantastic score. Whenever I think of Batman, this is the music I’m going to be thinking of every time. It’s terrific in the way it keeps with the dark tone of the movie and yet maintains a consistent quirky side to it, making us remember that this is a superhero movie after all. Elfman nails it here with his score.

“Batman” is told with a more adult approach, than one might have expected at the time, and that makes it interesting and all the more solid. With a dark look, a fantastic production design, and convincingly troubled characters played by great actors, this is an enjoyable, good-looking, terrific film that is respectful to the superhero-movie genre and delivers some truly great surprises.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Lethal Weapon 2” is a sequel that is just as good as the original film, “Lethal Weapon.” “Lethal Weapon” was a smartly written, well-portrayed, gripping, and action-packed buddy-cop movie and “Lethal Weapon 2” brings back the wonderful main characters, has as much intriguing action as the original, has a certain intelligence that made the original film work, and adds more comedy in a fantastic supporting character that serves as terrific comic relief.

Danny Glover and Mel Gibson are back in the saddle as the cops who are different in personality but similar in themselves. Glover returns as Sergeant Murtaugh, who may be “too old for this <bleep>,” but that doesn’t stop him from getting into more <bleep>. In the meantime, he’s a family man with retirement plans. Oh, and he isn’t too happy to know that his teenage daughter is the star of a condom commercial. Gibson returns as Riggs, who still lives in a trailer near the beach and enjoys making people think he’s crazy. He’s not as tense as he was in the original film, but that’s not saying much. The relationship between Murtaugh and Riggs remains at the center of both this film and the previous film. It’s an interesting balance of trust and irritation.

But the movie’s best character—in that he’s the funniest and most memorable—is Leo Getz (Joe Pesci), a fast-talking accountant who barely stands at five feet tall. Murtaugh and Riggs are assigned to protect him because he has found a way to swindle illegal drug money and has the dealers coming to kill him. I described him as “fast-talking,” didn’t I? Well, not only that. He never shuts up. That makes Murtaugh and Riggs’ job of protecting him a little more than they can bear.

Leo is a likable guy, though. He’s just trying to make people like him. But he tries too hard and that’s why people like Murtaugh and Riggs can’t stand him. Joe Pesci plays Leo with a great deal of enthusiasm (I love his indistinct shouts during a car chase scene) and I guess that’s why he’s so funny and leaves an impact.

The villains of the film are ruthless South African diplomats. Murtaugh and Riggs stumble onto their plot to illegally deal gold…or something like that. A weakness of the film is that I wasn’t quite sure that their plan was. But these are real villains—actual characters, and not just violent bad guys. Riggs makes them his own personal enemies—watching them like a hawk until he finally comes across at least one piece of evidence to prove what they’re doing. At one point, he makes his way into their building and shoots their fish tank. Along the way, he strikes up a relationship with Rika (Patsy Kensit), their secretary. Riggs tells Murtaugh that she reminds him of his deceased wife.

“Lethal Weapon 2” has some good action scenes, including a car chase that didn’t bore me but got me excited (that’s also the same car chase that I mentioned has Leo rambling, loudly and indistinctly). Then there’s the scene that has suspense and comedy in which Murtaugh’s toilet is booby-trapped…with Murtaugh on it, pants dropped and all. And the entire bomb squad (and some press, too) comes into the bathroom trying to save him.

Then there’s the explosive action climax that you would expect in a film like this. It features Murtaugh and Riggs fighting all the bad guys and rescuing the kidnapped Leo. It’s not as interesting as anything else in the movie, but it is still kind of exciting.

“Lethal Weapon 2” isn’t like most sequels that try to repeat the previous film to attempt to recreate whatever magic they accomplished the first time. They have the two main characters continuing their relationship while going a different, new crazy adventure. This isn’t a retread, but more of a continuation. Glover and Gibson keep their characters real and exciting, the wit is nice, the action is compelling, and of course, credit has to be given to the great comic relief delivered by Joe Pesci as the irrepressible Leo Getz. “Lethal Weapon 2” is a thoroughly entertaining movie.