We Were Soldiers

“I wonder what Custer was thinking,” Lt. Col. Hal Moore says, “when he realized he’d moved his men into slaughter.” Sgt. Maj. Plumley, his right-hand man, replies, “Sir, Custer was a (insert the P word here).” There you have the two emotional mediums of “We Were Soldiers,” the 2002 story of the first major land battle in the Vietnam War, late in 1965. Moore, played by Mel Gibson, is a family man and a Harvard graduate with a background in international relations. Plumley, played by Sam Elliott, is an Army lifer, hard, brave and hard-edged. They are both just as good as war leaders are. However, by the end of the first fight, they see they may be in the wrong war.

The reference to Custer is not an accident. Moore leads the First Battalion of the Seventh Cavalry, Custer’s brigade. “We will ride into battle and this will be our horse,” Moore says, standing in front of a helicopter. About 400 of his platoon go into battle in the Ia Drang Valley, called the “Valley of Death,” and are encircled by about 2,000 North Vietnamese soldiers. Moore sees this is a trap, and even in the film’s beginning moments he reads about this sort of maneuver used by the Vietnamese against the French a few years earlier.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “"We Were Soldiers," like "Black Hawk Down," is a film in which the Americans do not automatically prevail in the style of traditional Hollywood war movies.” Ia Drang cannot be said was a defeat, since Moore’s men fought valiantly and having so many damages but killing way more Viet Cong. However, it is not a victory. Ebert labels, “it's more the curtain-raiser of a war in which American troops were better trained and better equipped, but outnumbered, out maneuvered and finally outlasted.”

For a good majority of the runtime, the movie has battle scenes. Ebert said, “They are not as lucid and easy to follow as the events in "Black Hawk Down," but then the terrain is different, the canvas is larger, and there are no eyes in the sky to track troop movements.” Director Randall Wallace (who wrote “Braveheart” and “Pearl Harbor”) makes the story clear at each scene, as Moore and his North Vietnamese equivalent try to outsmart each other with assumption and character.

Wallace goes between the American soldiers, their wives back home on an Army base, and a tunnel trench where Ahn, played by Don Duang, the Viet Cong commander, plans it all out on a map. Both men are smart and sensitive. The enemy knows the area and can plan a surprise attack, but is surprise themselves at the way the Americans manage and fight at the moment.

Ebert noted, “"Black Hawk Down" was criticized because the characters seemed hard to tell apart.” “We Were Soldiers” doesn’t have that problem. In the Hollywood tradition it recognizes a few main characters, casts them with actors, and follows their stories. Along with the Gibson and Elliott characters, there are Maj. Crandall (Greg Kinnear), a helicopter pilot who flies into the war, the spirited Lt. Geoghegan (Chris Klein) and Joe Galloway (Barry Pepper), a photojournalist and soldier’s son, who gets a ride into the war, and sees he is fighting at the side of others to save his life.

The main relationship is between Moore and Plumley, and Gibson and Elliot show this with silent weight. They’re shown as professional soldiers with experience from Korea. As they’re preparing to go into the war, Moore tells Plumley, “Better get yourself that M-16.” The veteran responds: “By the time I need one, there’ll be plenty of them lying on the ground.” Fortuitously, there are.

Events on the Army base center around the lives of the soldiers’ wives, including Julie Moore, played by Madeleine Stowe, who looks after their five children and is the real leader of the other spouses. We also see Barbara Geoghegan, played by Keri Russell, who, because she is singled out, gives the audience a huge hint that the prediction for her husband is not good.

Telegrams telling the deaths of the war are given by a Yello Cab driver. Ebert asks, “Was the Army so insensitive that even on a base they couldn't find an officer to deliver the news?” That creates a blatant scene later, when a Yellow Cab goes in front of a house and obviously the wife inside thinks her husband is dead, only to see he is in the cab. Ebert noted, “This scene is a reminder of "Pearl Harbor," in which the Ben Affleck character is reported shot down over the English Channel and makes a surprise return to Hawaii without calling ahead. Call me a romantic, but when your loved one thinks you're dead, give them a ring.”

Ebert continues, “"We Were Soldiers" and "Black Hawk Down" both seem to replace patriotism with professionalism.” This movie makes the flag more than the other (even the Viet Cong’s Ahn looks at the stars and stripes with mysterious attention), but the narrations informs, “In the end, they fought for each other.” Ebert noted, “This is an echo of the "Black Hawk Down" line, "It's about the men next to you. That's all it is." Some will object, as they did with the earlier film, that the battle scenes consist of Americans with killing waves of faceless, non-white enemies. There is an attempt to give a face and a mind to the Viet Cong in the character of Ahn, but significantly, he is not listed in the major credits and I had to call the studio to find out his name and the name of the actor who played him.” However, almost all war movies show with one side or the other, and it’s great that “We Were Soldiers” includes a loyalty not only to the Americans who fell at Ia Drang, but also to “the members of the People’s Army of North Vietnam who died in that place.” Ebert said, “I was reminded of an experience 15 years ago at the Hawaii Film Festival, when a delegation of North Vietnamese directors arrived with a group of their films about the war. An audience member noticed that the enemy was not only faceless, but was not even named: At no point did the movies refer to Americans.” “That is true,” said one of the directors. “We have been at war so long, first with the Chinese, then the French, then the Americans, that we just think in terms of the enemy.”

Just like with all the movies I reviewed this month, I definitely say that you should check this one out because it really shows the reality of the war. It’s all shot very much like a documentary and everyone does a great job in this movie. Don’t miss the chance to see it because it is an absolute must.

Alright everyone, that comes to the end of “Vietnam War Movie Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed this month. Check out for what I have in store next month to close out the year.

Ralph Breaks the Internet

Tonight, my brother and I went to see the latest sequel from Walt Disney’s Animation Studios, “Ralph Breaks the Internet,” which came out six days ago. How is it compared to the first movie? Let’s find out:

It’s hard to believe that “Wreck-It Ralph” was released before “Frozen,” but it did. “Wreck-It Ralph” was released in 2012, while “Frozen” came out a year later. “Frozen” was a gigantic hit that put Disney Animation Studios on par with Pixar, but “Wreck-It Ralph” was a great movie that kept Disney Animation’s streak running high after the hit of “Tangled” two years earlier. Don Kaye is right when he said in his review, “Ralph’s deft and witty blend of adult nostalgia for 1980s 8-bit arcade video games, combined with a wonderful visual palette and a story that could enrapture little ones, proved to be a unique and satisfying combination.”

After six years we get a sequel to “Wreck-It Ralph,” and it’s safe to say that “Ralph Breaks the Internet,” despite having a little hint of corporate requirement around it is an entertaining, pleasant and emotional sequel. It takes our protagonist – the especially strong yet completely immature Ralph (John C. Reilly) and the spirited, disobedient and glitchy racer girl from the Sugar Rush game, Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) – on a mission in a different area, giving the sequel to not repeat a lot from the first film while still having both grow as characters.

As “Ralph Breaks the Internet” starts, Ralph and Vanellope have been best friends for six years while loving their games and jobs at Litwak’s Family Fun Center and Arcade. One of them does, however. Kaye mentioned, “While Ralph luxuriates in the simple pleasures of his “life” as a video game villain (who now has friends and is accepted in the community), Vanellope is growing tired of running the same races over and over again and yearns for something different.”

A small mistake by Ralph to change things up in Sugar Rush ends up with the game being broken and a steering wheel – really impossible to find for the old arcade game – needs to be replaced. Kaye said, “At first it seems that this might condemn Sugar Rush and its denizens to the scrap heap, but Mr. Litwak’s (Ed O’Neill) introduction of wi-fi to the arcade opens up the internet to our heroes, and with it the chance to find a replacement steering wheel on something called eBay. So into the modem and out along the phone lines shoot Ralph and Vanellope, into the vast digital megalopolis known as the World Wide Web.”

Kaye continued, “Other films -- most notably last year’s misguided The Emoji Movie -- have tried to portray the Internet and its various edifices in similar fashion, and there’s no small irony in an entertainment behemoth like Disney attempting to do the same (we’re somewhat surprised that there isn’t a Disney Plus skyscraper already lurking within).” However, unlike a film like “Ready Player One,” which gave the endless amount of corporate IPs as holy things of our imaginations and youths, the filmmakers behind “Ralph Breaks the Internet” (mainly the returning three directors and writers of “Wreck-It Ralph” Rich Moore, Clark Spencer and Phil Johnston) gladly, if faintly, admit that the Internet primarily is there now to shop.

This is shown in the annoying little green pop-ups, voiced by Bill Hader, that always try to take our heroes to malware sites and other online scams, but there’s also a clever little jab at the parent company also when Ralph and Vanellope walk into the Disney site (OhMyDisney.com) and encounter so many characters from Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm. The funniest part is when Vanellope walks into the Disney Princesses dressing room and meets every single main female animated character from this studio (Jennifer Hale, Kate Higgins, Jodi Benson, Paige O’Hara, Linda Larkin, Irene Bedard, Ming-Na Wen, Anika Noni Rose, Mandy Moore, Kelly Macdonald, Pamela Ribon, Kristen Bell, Idina Menzel and Auli’I Cravalho), with many of them (almost all voiced by the original actresses) proving to be either stuck in or madly different from the characters audiences are used to.

“Ralph Breaks the Internet” also goes into the world of violent online games through a trip to Slaughter Race, where they meet the tough but sympathetic Shank, voiced by Gal Gadot, and her racing team, and even shortly into the dark web, but awful areas like 4Chan or Gab are noticeably not in there. Kaye said, “When Ralph finds he has a knack for funny viral videos that can be posted to raise money to buy the Sugar Rush part (the cost of which has ballooned to $27,000 -- of course -- on eBay), he begins posting them on Buzzztube, where the hive mind allure of such videos, as well as some of the ugly vitriol and hate that any social media expression can inspire, is also neatly satirized.”

At almost two hours, the movie starts to feel long just when the third act starts, and some of the plot feels like it is stretched like they were unnatural just to keep the story going. However, the usual action-packed finale ends up a surprising and completely emotional finale where our two characters – both of whom are given actual life by the perfect animation and lead actors’ amazing voice work – have completely improved in different ways even as their friendship grows.

Gadot, Taraji P. Henson (as Buzztube main algorithm Yesss) and Alan Tudyk (as the bossy search engine KnowsMore) are nice additions to the cast, but other returning actors like Jane Lynch and Jack McBrayer only have cameos. Kaye ended his review by saying, “The animation and visuals are spectacular and eye-filling as always, the electronic world that these characters move through is endlessly imaginative, and like its predecessor, Ralph Breaks the Internet weaves enough sophisticated humor into the kid-friendly antics to keep adults watching as well -- instead of surreptitiously surfing the Web on their phones.”

I have to admit, I might consider this better than the first movie. The first movie wasn’t completely new, but this one felt somewhat original with the content it was given. However, it was still entertaining with some real legitimate drama in there. Definitely go to the theaters to check this one out, especially if you loved the first movie. I would say this is one of my favorite Disney sequels.

Thank you for joining in on tonight's review. Check in this Friday for the conclusion of “Vietnam War Movie Month.”

Fantastic Beasts

I just came back from seeing the new “Fantastic Beasts” today, so I will let everyone know what I thought about both of the movies, starting out with “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” released in 2016.

Distractions is what everyone was trying to get away from the post-election travesty, whether it’s with junk food or binging on Netflix. Susan Wloszczyna stated in her review, “But what we really need are the right distractions, ones that lift spirits, engage minds, delight eyes and don’t pander to our baser instincts, including those alarming posts that dribble down social media feeds, stirring up unease about the future.”

Maybe a story beautified with fantasy accessories that’s spun off from the Harry Potter universe. One that looks on certain problems as the sudden danger of killing a magical community to an prejudiced public while No-Majs, the Americanized word for Muggles, are equally hated by wizards and witches. Some young people are forced to hide their outer appearances by those who hurt physically and psychologically upon them. Don’t forget there’s a strange deadly force that somehow was released, making huge destruction and fear in its path.

Ok, that doesn’t sound very fun, does it?

Wloszczyna said, “But what if I tell you that J.K. Rowling’s “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” which dips into the dark side fairly regularly, is at its best when it serves as a more exotic version of all those cute puppy and kitten antics that fill your Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts? Instead of dogs sporting holiday attire or cats falling off kitchen counters, you can go “aww” when a naughty Niffler, a mole-duck-billed platypus hybrid, goes on a crime spree while greedily stuffing gobs of shiny objects such as coins and gems into its belly pouch. Or when a majestic giant Thunderbird, destined to live in the wilds of Arizona, spreads its eagle-like wings. Maybe a teeny leafy twig-like critter known as a Bowtruckle, reminiscent of a shrunken Groot from “Guardians of the Galaxy,” is more your style. There’s also an amorous Erumpent, a big-butt cross between a hippo and an elephant, who causes a ruckus at a zoo. That this expansive menagerie and more are able to fit into the best piece of enchanted traveling luggage in a movie since Mary Poppins' bottomless carpet bag is a welcome bonus.”

Besides, who better to make this entertaining but important cure for our country’s devastated time Rowling? It was her tolerant rich imagination that gave theater audiences comfort and joy after 9/11 with “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone,” the first of eight released movies based on her huge-selling book series about the adventures of a boy wizard. Yes, there was a huge, near-death evil loose throughout the franchise. However, there was also so much goodness, thoughtful wisdom and noble decency to be seen amongst the wand-waving residents of Hogwarts Academy of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

Now, 15 years later, and never too late, comes this determined first entry in a promised five film franchise, directed with more unusual style than usual by “Harry Potter’ strong David Yates. Rowling’s debut as a screenwriter is inspired by a same-named, catalog-style textbook that is apparently to be tasked as a “magizoologist” and Hogwarts graduate named Newt Scamander, played by Eddie Redmayne in weird shy-guy phase. Wloszczyna said, “Prediction: I expect this endearingly clumsy oddball guardian of endangered magical creatures might just become a spokes symbol for animal rescue groups, even if he keeps on having to recapture them after they escape from his suitcase.”

Wloszczyna continued, “Instead of the contemporary academic setting with pubescent schoolkids and imperious wizened professors, the focus is on Newt and his John Candy-class roly-poly sidekick and No-Maj, Jacob (Dan Fogler, a onetime Tony winner and victim of too many dumb bro-coms who buoyantly fulfills his duty as our civilian surrogate).” They soon join forces with a duo of sibling spell casters – brave Tina (Katherine Waterston), an ex-investigator for the Magical Congress of the United States of America (MACUSA for short), and engaging Queenie (Alison Sudol), a mind-reading flapper – who both would make Samantha from “Bewitched” proud with their magic-casting kitchen skills.

Wloszczyna said, “The action is rooted in a make-believe New York City during the Roaring Twenties, a period of prosperity and hedonistic pursuits but also repression and intolerance that took such forms as Prohibition and the rise of the KKK. These more frightening impulses of the era materialize in such metaphorical figures such as a puritanical witch-hating Carrie Nation type (Samantha Morton, scowling all the way) who rails against the use of magic to her impressionable young charges.” Meanwhile, Colin Farrell frowns as the head of MECUSA security who hides a few secrets up his sleeve and we learn there is the powerful dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald is hiding after causing danger in Europe.

If that sounds like a lot of material to take in, it is. There are plot points that go by without being completely explained and characters who will hopefully be given more time in the next sequels. This is really common in movies lately, action mainly happens in destroying urban buildings. If you’ve seen one major building access road torn from piece to piece and spreading huge amounts asphalt rubble, you have seen every one of them. Wloszczyna said, “But the actual period re-creation and production design of a Jazz Age Big Apple is quite the accomplishment. I especially enjoyed the foray into a hidden wizard-friendly speakeasy with a sassy elfin blues singer where Newt attempts to strike a bargain with the establishment’s owner, a shady goblin named Gnarlack played via motion-capture by well-cast Ron Perlman.”

As with many complicated stories, it is best to just sit back at some time and enjoy the experience. You will quickly know if you feel the Potter magic if you light up when a part of “Hedwig’s Theme” – the name of Potter’s owl – is heard early on the soundtrack or if your eyes stand up when you hear “Lestrange” mentioned. As Jacob says after learning his memory of all the incredible things he’s witnessed will be erased for his own protection, “I don’t got the brains to make this up.” However, Rowling definitely does. Let’s hope the sequels of the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise are even better.

With that said, now let’s get to the sequel. Two years after the first film in J.K. Rowling’s latest Wizarding World franchise, the second movie titled “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald,” which came out nine days ago, has finally returned with a moodier, darker tone and a rich, layered story.

Rowling and director David Yates announced that this franchise would have five films and would take place between the years 1926 and 1945.

The first in the franchise was reachable and has a kind of similar Harry Potter feel to it – a lighthearted story, funny, with many nice moments of the young wizard learning new magic, finding out how to ride a broom or finding new amazing creatures – the new film is a completely different movie altogether.

The Crimes of Grindelwald gives higher stakes, and falls deep into the dark world of sarcastic evils, prejudice and dishonesty to give us a creation of storylines to set up the final three sequels.

The film starts in 1927, shortly after what happened in the last film. Newt Scamander is back in London after his fight in New York, and is banned from leaving the UK by order of the British Ministry of Magic. However, with the help of a young Professor Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law), he sneaks over to France to prevent the evil wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp), a dangerous anti-Muggle leader, and simultaneously, search for Credence (Ezra Miller) a destructive wizard Grindelwald wants to enlist.

While giving us many new characters, The Crimes of Grindelwald also sees many beloved characters from the first film return – the young wizard and Newt’s love interest Tina Goldstein, her sister Queenie and the hilarious Jacob Kowlaski, whose energetic character steals every scene he’s in once again.

Also, the romantic subplots still are great throughout the new film, Jacob and Queenie’s incidents give a nice comedic delivery, while Tina and Newt’s awkward “Do you care about me, or not” teasing are still enjoyable and pleasant to watch.

The visuals in The Crimes of Grindelwald are beautiful, and maybe even better than the first film. TatatBunnag said on her review, “From the stunning CGI work on many new exotic magical creatures found inside newt's Mary Poppins-style wizard suitcase to the hugely impressive set designs, including the 1920s atmosphere of three different cities -- New York, London, and Paris.”

Of course, another highlight for Harry Potter fans will be seeing scenes that go back to the magical school of Hogwarts, long before Harry Potter enrolls there. Back when we see the young Albus Dumblebore still giving lessons in class.

The best character in the new film is all Grindelwald. Bunnag said, “While lately we got tired of seeing Johnny Depp's over-the-top Jack Sparrow theatrics, it's refreshing to see him portray a creepy villain this time with his bleached-blonde hair, sunken cheeks and haunting mismatched eyes.” Having similarities with Lord Voldemort, Grindelwald’s character is a completely interesting character to follow, or to call as the latest amazing villain in the Harry Potter universe.

Even though there are a few good twists and surprises, along with some great action, one of the problems with The Crimes of Grindelwald is that it doesn’t get out enough in its own respect. After watching the film, it looks like a set-up for the future sequel in the future. You could easily forget all the complex plot twists while waiting for the third movie to be released – and that’s not going to be released until the end of 2020.

I have to be honest, the sequel is good, but I don’t think it’s as good as the first movie. The first movie felt like a welcome return to the Harry Potter world, but the sequel didn’t really do what the title said and it felt like a lot of stories were thrown in and kept switching without having a lot of focus. You can watch the movie, but I don’t think a lot of people will like it. That might be the reason why it might not be getting a lot of good reviews.

Thanks for joining in on my review today, check in next Friday for the conclusion of “Vietnam War Movie Month.”

Creed II

Guess what everyone? I went and saw “Creed II,” which came out three days ago, this morning with my brother. Tonight, I will let everyone know what I thought about it.

The amount of legacy is high over “Creed II.” Not only for most of the characters, who must come to terms with their own family histories, but also for the filmmakers, who is told to make a sequel to a successful spinoff on a famous franchise. It would put any film on the line, but not this one.

“Creed II” does a really amazing job by adding to the story of its predecessor and launching the story into a bright future while also going back to pay tribute to previous films, bringing back some unfinished business from “Rocky IV” and adding a bit of “Rocky III.” In every way, the sequel might be just on par, if not better, then the previous film.

Steven Caple Jr. replaced Ryan Coogler as the director this time but there is a lot of continuity: Michael B. Jordan reprises Adonis Creed with Sylvester Stallone with him as former heavyweight champion and trainer Rocky Balboa. We also have Tessa Thompson as Creed’s now fiancé, Phylicia Rashad as Creed’s mom and Wood Harris as Tony “Little Duke” Evers, Adonis’s coach. Max Kellerman is back again as the color commentator and Andre Ward is Danny “Stuntman” Wheeler.

The sequel puts Creed against wrecking-machine Viktor Drago (Florian Munteanu), the son of Ivan Drago, who killed Adonis’s father, Apollo Creed, in the ring in “Rocky IV.” This really saddens Rocky, who feels responsible for Apollo’s death. Rocky avenged the death by winning a match against Ivan Drago but we also find out what that lost meant for him. Associated Press said in their review, “This film is about ghosts as much as it is a meditation on fatherhood. At one point Kellerman says the showdown between the sons of Creed and Drago is almost like a Shakespearian drama and — laugh if you must — it feels sort of right here.” 

Associated Press went on to say, “Desire — or lack of it — plays a key role in “Creed II” since we meet young Adonis as the new champion, at the top. Viktor Drago is at the bottom, hauling cement in Ukraine and burning for family redemption.” “My son will break your boy,” Ivan Drago threatens Rocky, who somewhat agrees. “When a fighter’s got nothing to lose he’s dangerous,” he warns Creed. “Listen, that kid was raised in hate. You weren’t.” Dolph Lundgren returns as Ivan Drago and there’s even a cameo by Brigitte Nielsen, who played Drago’s wife in “Rocky IV” and was actually married to Stallone. (Now that is all in the family. Speaking of which, expect another cameo from Milo Ventimiglia, who plays Rocky’s son, Robert Balboa.) Ivan and Viktor are getting help from their boxing promoter, Buddy Marcelle, played by Russel Hornsby. 

Associated Press noted, “Caple matches Coogler’s moody, gritty vision of a brutal sport conducted by mostly honourable men trying to outwit each other. There’s plenty of gore, slo-mos of smashed heads and “Rocky” trademarks — the glorious montages with uplifting music as fighters prepare for their shot in the ring. (Prepare to look away if you are fans of massive truck tires — many get horrible beat downs.)”

Stallone is one of the writers on the script - after having a part in writing all the “Rocky” films but not writing “Creed” - and partners with Cheo Hodario Coker, creator of the Netflix superhero show “Luke Cage.” Onscreen, Stallone returns with his black hat and small bouncing ball, walking around and speaking silently, allowing his expressions to do most of the talking. I agree with Associated Press when they said, “It’s in the small moments between crusty Stallone and cocky Jordan where the film finds its sweet spot.” “What are you fightin’ for?” Rocky asks Adonis. 

Associated Press said, “Jordan proves again that he’s a film force to be reckoned with, capable of searing and savage intensity and yet also goofy softness. This time, his swagger is tested and he must overcome intense pain and anguish.” Watching him stand up when knocked down again and again will make even the ones not familiar with the sport or the franchise shout. As Adonis, he wants to create his own legacy different from his father’s: “This is our chance to rewrite history. Our history,” Creed tells Rocky. 

Associated Press mentioned, “Thompson and Rashad both temper the piles of testosterone onscreen as women who steer and guide the young Adonis.” Thompson’s character is fighting severe hearing loss and that is done well by the writers. There’s even a moment when Adonis is punched so hard that he falls silently and looks over to her, both looking for a moment in sheer silence.

Meanwhile, the filmmakers are making their own family legacy. Both “Creed” films have the same composer (Ludwig Goransson) art director (Jesse Rosenthal), special effects coordinator (Patrick White), costumer (Rita Squitiere) and location manager (Patricia Taggart). The films even have the same barber for Michael B. Jordan (Kenny Duncan) and Coogler didn’t completely leave, as he’s an executive producer.

However, despite that “Creed III” seems quite inevitable, there may be trouble ahead if the filmmakers want to keep bringing back old enemies and diving into story lines from previous movies. Associated Press noted, “And the creep toward more cinematic bombast needs to be watched vigilantly (remember how nuts the last few “Rocky” films got?)” Having that said, this spin-off franchise looks to be riding strong - ones that are nicely secured, protected by a boxing glove and going for the knockout.

This is another one of the best theater experiences that I have had in a long time. Just like the first “Creed,” people were getting into the match like they were watching a real boxing match. Someone was whispering, “Get up Adonis” and were applauding everytime Adonis knocked Viktor to the mat. It was all shot realistically, that I wouldn’t be surprised if Jordan and Munteanu were actually making contact when they were fighting. I felt every punch that was made. Also, it had some great comedy and some real legitimate family drama. Boxers actually go through everything you see Adonis go through. Definitely see this movie, it’s an absolute must, especially if you loved the first one. I say it is on par with the first.

Thank you for joining in on today’s review. Sorry for putting this up late, but my brother kept calling me for some plan that he was making and plus I had to go with my mom out to my aunt’s house. Stay tuned next Friday for the conclusion of “Vietnam War Movie Month.”

Heaven and Earth

1993 seemed to have been Oliver Stone’s year of the woman. After producing “The Joy Luck Club,” he wrote and directed “Heaven and Earth,” an extensive, intense soap opera based on the memoirs by Le Ly Hayslip, who grew up in the rice farms in a central Vietnamese village of Ky La during the 1950s only to witness the country torn off by war. Owen Gleiberman said in his review, “Since Stone has often been taken to task for his testosterone-pumped vision (is there one memorable female character in the entire Stone canon?), it’s hard to avoid seeing his 1993 productions as a twin act of atonement. With Heaven and Earth, he has made the weeper to end all weepers” – a film where the main character, played by at that time newcomer Hiep Thi Le, sees her family torn and her village burnt. She goes through the humiliations of rape, torture and prostitution. Finally, she meets someone she falls in love with who can save her, U.S. Marine Steve Butler, played by Tommy Lee Jones, who’s a gentle, heroic man that you can predict will turn evil sometime down the road.

The story starts off in Ky La, where Le Ly’s childhood is shown as a wonderful laborer respite. Gleiberman mentioned, “Re-created in Thailand, the village, with its wandering animals, tidy tumbledown huts, and psychedelic green grass, looks like a surreal historical amusement park: Vietnamworld. (There’s even a Jurassic Park gateway at the village’s entrance.)” However, the respite doesn’t last long as war break in a drastic way that is traumatizing.

Gleiberman said, “When it comes to showcasing Le Ly’s brutalization at the hands of South Vietnamese torturers (who use electroshock) and bullying Viet Cong, the movie is vintage Stone: raw, manipulative, powerful. But when Le Ly abandons this war-torn hellhole for Saigon, where she finds work as a housekeeper and falls in love with her rich employer (who makes her pregnant), it becomes clear that, despite Hiep Thi Le’s tremulous presence, the heroine is drawn in strictly two dimensions. She’s blurry and passive, a Victim.” Everything seems to be happening to her, which at the same time helps and weakens the film’s look at women.

By the time Tommy Lee Jones comes in as Marine Sgt. Steve Butler, we’re ready for more Stone’s look at soldiers, and we get them, as Butler marries Le Ly, moves to an American city (a 60s sketch of plastic food and plastic people – just watch Stone have fun when Le Ly goes grocery shopping), and ends up being a soldier suffering PTSD whose spirit has been destroyed by the murders he did during the war. Gleiberman noted, “Jones’ showy, wild-eyed performance certainly isn’t boring, but it can’t diffuse the cloud of cliche that hovers over this role.”

Gleiberman continued, “Few would quarrel with Stone’s essential vision of the Vietnam experience: that it was a cataclysmic tragedy causing wounds that still fester in the American — and Vietnamese — consciousness. By now, though, after Platoon (1986) and Born on the Fourth of July (1989), Stone’s continued obsession with Vietnam bespeaks a demagogic single-mindedness as exhausting as it is illuminating.” In “Heaven and Earth,” he uses Le Ly’s story educationally: The movie is so drenched with respect, long-suffering woman that it never quite calms. If the film gives any message worth warning, it’s that Stone, like America as well, needs to leave the war in the past.

As you might have predicted, this movie seems to have been wearing thin on the Vietnam War. I think that it was best to leave it alone after “Born on the Fourth of July,” especially since it would be traumatizing for anyone who would have seen that movie again. The first two were so well done that I don’t think there was any need to make a third. That’s the sad fact about trilogies is that third movie is often the worst and is considered the “black sheep” of the three. I think it would be best if everyone not see this movie, but if you do, then that’s fine, seeing how this is a decent movie.

Look out next week when I wrap up this year’s “Vietnam War Movie Month.”

You've Got Mail

Thanksgiving is here once again, so that means it is time to look at another Thanksgiving classic. Today, we will look at the 1998 romantic comedy, “You’ve Got Mail.”

The charm of “You’ve Got Mail” is as old as love and as new as the Internet. It has Tom Hanks and the great Meg Ryan as incredibly likable people whose task is to show their likability for two hours, while we really want them to solve their problems, confess how they feel for one another and get on with their future filled with love.

They meet in a chat room on AOL, and they’re telling personal secrets (but no personal facts) in each day and even hourly e-mail sessions. Roger Ebert said in his review, “The movie's call to arms is the inane chirp of the maddening "You've Got Mail!" Voice (which prompts me to growl, "Yes, and I'm gonna stick it up your modem!").” However, the e-mail is simply a MacGuffin – the device needed to keep two people who fall in love online from knowing they already know and hate each other in reality.

Ebert said, “The plot surrounds Hanks and Ryan not only with e-mail lore, but with the Yuppie Urban Lifestyle.” It’s one of those movies where the characters enter Starbucks and we don’t really point “product placement!” because, sadly, we can’t think them anywhere else. Where the generations are confused by current loving desires that Joe Fox (Hanks’ character) can walk into a bookstore with two young children (Hallee Hirsh and Jeffrey Scaperrotta) and introduce them as his brother and his aunt (“Matt is my father’s son, and Annabel is my grandfather’s daughter”).

Meg Ryan’s character, Kathleen, has taken over the children’s book shop that was left to her from her mother. She and her staff read all the books, know all the customers, and give full service and love. Joe Fox is the third generation to be in charge of giant book megastores. When the new Fox Books opens close to Kathleen’s store, it doesn’t take long for the little store is forced out of business. Kathleen goes to her unknown online friend for advice and comfort – who obviously is Joe.

Ebert said, “And yet this is not quite an Idiot Plot, so called because a word from either party would instantly end the confusion.” It has the confusion only to a degree, and then does something interesting: lets Joe find out who Kathleen is while still letting her stay really in the dark. The moving irony is that Joe just let himself be insulted by the woman he loves. “You’re nothing but a suit!” she says. “That’s my cue,” he says. “Goodnight.” As he kindly hides his pain, we are comforted only by the knowledge that eventually the balance will fall from her eyes.

The movie was directed by Nora Ephron, who casted Hanks and Ryan in “Sleepless in Seattle,” and has made an emotional, if not an actual, sequel. Ebert noted, “That earlier film was partly inspired by "An Affair to Remember," and this one is inspired by "The Shop Around the Corner," but both are really inspired by the appeal of Ryan and Hanks, who have more winning smiles than most people have expressions.”

Ebert said, “Ephron and her co-writer, her sister Delia, have surrounded the characters with cultural references that we can congratulate ourselves on recognizing: not only Jane Austen, but also the love affair carried on by correspondence between George Bernard Shaw and Mrs. Patrick Campbell. Not only "The Godfather" (which "contains the answers to all of life's questions"), but also Anthony Powell and Generalissimo Franco.” (It is one of the movie’s silently hilarious prides that the little store’s elderly bookkeeper, played by Jean Stapleton, was in love years ago with a man who couldn’t marry her “because he had to run Spain.”) Ebert mentioned, “The plot I shall not describe, because it consists of nothing but itself, so any description would make it redundant.” What you see are two people the viewers want to see together, and so many things separate them. There is an additional difficulty that both Hanks and Ryan begin the movie dating other people (Parker Posey and Greg Kinnear – respectively, obviously). The partners break up without many complaints, and then we’re left with these two lonely bachelors, who have decent jobs but no one to love, and who are stuck by fate somewhere where he is destroying her career, and she is turning to him (without knowing it is him) for comfort. Excellent!

The movie is nice enough to not make the giant store the villain. Say anything, those giant stores are fun to be in, and there is a scene where Kathleen walks unknowingly into Joe’s big store for the first time and browses around, at the magazine racks and the café and all the books – and we have an emotional moment when she eavesdrops a question in the children’s section, and she knows the answer but obviously the clerk doesn’t, so she says the answer but it makes her cry, and Joe overhears everything. Shocking!

As you might have already known, this is a movie that has to be seen. Especially since there is a Thanksgiving dinner part, so it fits well with the holiday today. If you’re a fan of Tom Hanks and/or Meg Ryan, don’t miss the chance to see this movie. You will fall in love with it, I promise you.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I hope everyone had a great dinner because I know I did. Stay tuned tomorrow for the next installment in “Vietnam War Movie Month.”

Born on the Fourth of July

As a teenager in Massapequa, LI, in the 1960s, Ron Kovic believed in every right thing, including God, county and the domino theory. Vincent Canby described Ron Kovic like this: “He was Jack Armstrong, the all-American boy, good-looking, shy around girls and a surreptitious reader of Playboy. He was the archetypal son in a large archetypal lower-middle-class Roman Catholic family.”

When he fought as a part of the high school wrestling team, he wanted to win, and when he lost a match, he cried. Winning was his way of measuring how much he believed in himself. He didn’t question the values creating his positivity.

When he graduated from high school, he signed up for the Marine Corps to fight in Vietnam. “Communists are moving in everywhere,” he told his kind of more doubtful classmates. Canby said, “Home and hearth were endangered.” Ron Kovic, who actually was born on July 4^th, was ready when his country needed him.

In 1968, in his second on-duty call in Vietnam, a bullet shot him in his spinal column. Canby said, “He returned home a paraplegic, paralyzed from the waist down, emotionally as well as physically shattered. That was the beginning of a long, painful spiritual rehabilitation that coincided with his political radicalization.”

When the war had ended, Ron Kovic became one of the most impatient and cruel spokesmen for Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Childhood was now extinguished.

Taking Born on the Fourth of July, Ron Kovic’s famous spare memoir about his life story, published in 1976, Oliver Stone has made what is, in result, a 1989 harsh, furious afterthought to his Oscar-winning “Platoon.”

It is a film of huge animal power with, in the main role, a performance by Tom Cruise that gives everything that is best about the movie. He is both particular and characteristic. Canby said, “He is innocent and clean-cut at the start; at the end, angry and exhausted, sporting a proud mustache and a headband around his forehead and hippie-length hair.”

Though people say he’s handsome, Cruise looks completely right, which is not to underrate the performance itself. The two things cannot be easily separated. Watching Ron Kovic change, as he comes to grips with a reality that he was completely unprepared for, is both disturbing and inspiring.

Written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic, the screenplay is patriotic, sometimes too panoramic for its own good. It tells Ron’s childhood, his teenage years, his enlistment, the on-duty in Vietnam and his long recovery in a Bronx veterans’ hospital, a place that, as said by Canby, “makes Bedlam look like summer camp.”

Canby said, “No other Vietnam movie has so mercilessly evoked the casual, careless horrors of the paraplegic's therapy, or what it means to depend on catheters for urination, or the knowledge that sexual identity is henceforth virtually theoretical.”

Canby continued, “One of the film's problems is that it becomes increasingly generalized as it attempts to dramatize Mr. Kovic's transformation from a wide-eyed Yankee Doodle boy to an antiwar activist.”

The film is amazing when it is really specific. There is the nighttime mission when Ron’s outfit kills a group of Vietnamese peasants in the thought that a Vietcong patrol has been trapped.

In the confusion of a gun fight, Ron shoots one of his own corporals, played by Michael Compotaro, through the neck. When he tries to admit what he did, he is given pardon by an officer, played by Tom Berenger, who tells him that he must be mistaken and that, really, these things happen.

Equally painful are the post-hospital scenes when Ron returns to his well-meaning but confused family in Massapequa (Raymond J. Barry, Caroline Kava, Josh Evans, Jamie Talisman, Anne Bobby and Samantha Larkin), where he is awarded as the grand marshal of the annual Fourth of July parade. People are always trying to help, but he always replies with, “I’m O.K. I’m all right,” or “O.K. O.K.” However, there is no understanding.

There is a really sad scene with the family when Ron comes home one night from the local bar, drunk as that’s what he has picked up. In a PTSD moment, he pulls out the catheter. His mother calls him a drunk. His father tries to put him inside his room. Ron cries about his dead manhood. His mother screams to not use that specific word in her house (you know what word I’m talking about, don’t act like you don’t).

The film becomes less persuasive when Ron gets his new political awareness, maybe because, seeing everything that he has gone through before, the change is so necessary to the drama. Canby said, “Mr. Stone's penchant for busy, jittery camera movements and cutting also do not help.” Despite they reflect at Ron’s earlier version, they start to doubt the character of the man they are going to show.

Every cast member in here is excellent. It includes Raymond J. Barry and Caroline Kava as Ron’s parents, the great Kyra Sedgwick (Kevin Bacon's wife) as his high school girlfriend, Frank Whaley, who is really good as a fellow veteran, one of the few people that Ron can talk to when he comes home, and Cordelia Gonzalez as the Mexican prostitute who tries to persuade Ron that he’s still a man.

The two stars of “Platoon” make cameo appearances: Tom Berenger, as the marine who recruits Ron with his inspiring speech at Ron’s high school, and Willem Dafoe, as a fellow handicap veteran Ron meets during a brief visit in Mexico. An aging Abbie Hoffman, an icon of the Vietnam War, makes a sad, curious cameo, more or less playing himself during an antiwar demonstration set in the 1960s. (Hoffman killed himself in April at the age of 52.) “Born on the Fourth of July” is a far more difficult movie to watch than “Platoon.” Canby said, “It's the most ambitious nondocumentary film yet made about the entire Vietnam experience. More effectively than Hal Ashby's ''Coming Home'' and even Michael Cimino's ''Deer Hunter,'' it connects the war of arms abroad with the war of conscience at home.”

As much as anything else, Ron Kovic’s story is about the killing of one man’s American boundary.

As I have stated before, this is a really sad and difficult movie to watch, emotionally speaking. If you get the chance to see it, you only need to see it once, and the effect stays with you forever. If you can actually watch this more than once, then you have more willpower than I do. I do say watch this, as it is a film that should not be missed, just so that you know something about Ron Kovic’s life. You don’t want to miss the chance to watch this movie.

With that said, check in next week where we look at the finale of Oliver Stone’s Vietnam Trilogy in “Vietnam War Movie Month.”

Platoon

John Gilpatrick started his review by saying, “I never thought I’d see a war film as brutal and uncompromising as The Deer Hunter, but Oliver Stone’s quasi-autobiographical film Platoon comes awfully close.” The film’s approach of putting you in their perspective isn’t completely unique, but it doesn’t get in better use. “Platoon,” released in 1986, gives you an idea of what war does to someone and what being in Vietnam might have been like. Neither is nice, making this a difficult film to watch. However, it’s obviously a powerful experience.

Our hero that tells us this is Chris Taylor, played by Charlie Sheen, a young American who quit college to enlist in the army because he was tired of the burden of fighting being on the poor and uneducated. The film starts just as he is put in Vietnam. He’s definitely a diamond in the rough, but he adds himself with his fellow men, especially Elias, played by Willem Dafoe, a free-spirited leader of the platoon. Elias finds himself up against Barnes, played by Tom Berenger, Elias’ no-nonsense equivalent. After a part where Barnes superfluously kills a villager and almost murders a child, the tension between the two men really heats us, and the platoon is divided in two.

This is a film filled with unforgettable characters and moments. Everyone knows the slow-motion shooting kills of one of the characters, but maybe the most memorable scene is the one where Barnes shows how he really is at the village. It’s here that you see how deadly conflict can be. If Barnes has humanity in him is questionable, but if he was, it’s clear the war has sucked all of that out of him.

The fight scenes in “Platoon” are also really awesome. Gilpatrick said, “Everything feels incredibly chaotic—not in a shaky-cam sort of way, but rather the characters don’t know what’s going on. The final confrontation with the Viet Cong in particular demonstrates not only how much the characters have changed, but also how little they know about what’s going on around them.” When a plan doesn’t go the way you want, what is the alternative? Just run around and shoot people, sounds like the right solution.

The film also has one of the best ensemble casts ever. Charlie Sheen leads the way with a great performance, one of the best of his career. Gilpatrick noted, “Chris is full of philosophy and optimism when his tour begins. By the end, he’s a shell of a human being.” He no longer cares of himself, he just wants to kill.

The two best performances of the great ensemble were nominated for Oscars. Tom Berenger is a portrayal of evil as Barnes. Willem Dafoe plays a little more complicated character. Elias earns our sympathy, just by going against Barnes. He earns our respect for stopping a violent murder. However, he can still murder, and when the worst comes his way, he does exactly that.

The rest of the cast is consisted of Johnny Depp (blink and you’ll miss him), Forest Whitaker, Keith David, John C. McGinley and Kevin Dillon. Gilpatrick noted, “David and Dillon have the meatiest roles. The former plays a happy-go-lucky soldier who is lucky enough to get out. The latter is a bloodthirsty disciple of Barnes.”

Gilpatrick admitted, “Platoon is quite simply one of the most powerful motion pictures I’ve ever seen.” War films are not made very much, but they don’t make them like this a lot. There’s nothing completely unique about it. It’s just an extremely well-told story. Since “Platoon,” Oliver Stone has been hit or mess. However, he’ll always be able to retire on this masterpiece, which is as good a film as any.

You should definitely see this movie, it is a must. If you loved all the other Vietnam War movies, this one you will love as well. Charlie Sheen’s character was portrayed through Oliver Stone’s experience of being in the Vietnam War. Sheen was Stone throughout that movie. Sheen also does note that Stone was really rough with the cast. This is one that is not to be missed and you should not skip over. See it for yourself, and be in for one heck of an experience that you have never been on before.

People may or may not know this, but this movie is the first in Oliver Stone’s “Vietnam Trilogy.” To know how the others were, stay tuned next week when I look at the second installment in “Vietnam War Movie Month.”

Apocalypse Now

Welcome back everyone to “Vietnam War Movie Month,” where I will be looking at the rest of the Vietnam War movies that I missed out on last year. Let’s get things really started off with the 1979 classic, and one of my favorite films ever, “Apocalypse Now.”

Captain Benjamin Willard says in this movie, “Charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.” This idea can also be put into the thought of reviewing “Apocalypse Now” 39 years after the original release. It’s actually a pointless effort since the movie has already been declared by just about every critic as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, war film of all time. The critical success of the film is way more amazing seeing how it was once thought it couldn’t be made. Jason Zingale said in his review, “Not even the illustrious Orson Welles could tackle such a monstrous undertaking, and so the task of adapting Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” fell upon director Francis Ford Coppola.” Just like a lot of the best war films that came after, “Apocalypse Now” is not really about the real Vietnam War and more about the social and political results that came from it.

Once a really praised military officer with a great career, Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, played by the late Marlon Brando, has finally broken and is now hiding in Cambodia as the leader of a local tribe. As a result, the military calls Special Forces agent Captain Benjamin Willard, played by Martin Sheen, to take on a top secret mission to kill the rebel officer. Making his way through Vietnam on a Navy PT boat, Willard brings along the boat’s operator (Albert Hall) and his team of miserable soldiers – including professional surfer, Lance (Sam Bottoms), New Orleans cook, Chef (Frederic Forrest), and gun-loving teen, Mr. Clean (Laurence Fishburne) – as they try to find a war hero.

The film takes a hilarious twist when the men join the cavalry of Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore, played by Robert Duvall, a savage air cavalry commander who enjoys surfing and (you guessed it) “Loves the smell of napalm in the morning.” Being Willard’s escort over some of the worse areas of the mission, Kilgore gives everyone a front-row fiery show when he leads an air fight over a small Vietnamese village. Zingale noted, “Scored to the orchestral melody, “Flight of the Valkyrie,” the scene not only stands as one of the greatest cinematic achievements of combining images with music, but it also single-handedly promoted the advent of 5.1 stereo sound in American cinema.”

“Apocalypse Now” starts to break after Kilgore leaves, with a surprising interest in improving the atmosphere into one that highly looks like Lance’s psychedelic drug trip. The flaws aren’t really noticeable until Brando comes on, however. His performance as the Green Beret suffering PTSD is really bad, and it’s easy to see the reasons behind the stories about Brando not wanting to be a part of this. Putting on 40 pounds and failing to read the script before filming, the late actor doesn’t look nearly as lost as he maybe was. Zingale said, “The character of Kurtz comes off more like a sleepy-eyed beatnik than a military man gone mad, and though Dennis Hopper’s memorable performance as a drugged-out photojournalist helps to save the final act from total collapse, it’s hardly enough to make you forget that Brando was an overpaid prima donna who took advantage of his power within the industry however he pleased.”

Still, “Apocalypse Now” gives one of the best character looks in the history of the idea. Not that Willard is badly complex, but it’s interesting to see as he goes from broken man to broken soldier, and from sympathetic companion to a beginning stage of animal that really resembles Kurtz’s own downfall. However, the two men can’t really be compared by the end of the film as they are in the beginning and despite Willard displays some of the same characteristics as the crazy soldier; he doesn’t choose the same path. Or does he? We’re not really sure, since the film never really answers this question, but maybe the answer can be found at the start of the film. Maybe this is all just the start of “The End,” or maybe it’s already done.

The late R. Lee Ermey and Harrison Ford are also in this movie, along with a cameo appearance from director Francis Ford Coppola.

I can’t do this film justice by reviewing it. You just have to see it to believe what had happened. From a film that had suffered from typhoons, nervous breakdowns, Harvey Keitel’s termination, Martin Sheen’s heart attack, extras from the Philippine military and half of the supplied helicopters leaving the middle of scenes to go fight rebels and how Brando was in this film, it was delayed so much. It was made though, but after all these trial and tribulations that came from it, you have to see this and give it so much credit for at least being made. I haven’t seen the documentary film, but I’m thinking I should. Like I said, don’t read my review, just watch the film if you haven’t, this is a must.

Now that we got this classic looked at, look out next week for the continuation of “Vietnam War Movie Month.”