Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

The best moment in “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit,” released in 2014, lets the director and important supporting actor Kenneth Branagh to put cars and guns away for a short, unblinking stare for a scene of two people at a dinner table. Branagh plays a heroin-addicted Russian terrorist in this franchise reboot, and when he’s at dinner in Moscow with Ryan’s fiancée, played by Keira Knightley, he’s being tricked into believing he’s making good progress in the crying-seduction department.

Then he gets a text saying it’s a setup. Chris Pine plays the CIA analyst played in previous films by Alec Baldwin, Harrison For and Ben Affleck, and Pine’s Ryan is searching the terrorist’s files digitally in another location while putting his fiancée in danger. (That old story development again.) Michael Phillips said in his review, “Once he learns of the deception, Branagh fixes Knightley with his best, cruelest, tightest-lipped Laurence Olivier stare. And because Branagh is directing the scene as well as playing in it, he allows the camera to take an extra second or two to register the moment, before getting back to the workmanlike film at hand.”

Phillips noted, “"Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" has plenty of action, almost all of it staged and edited in the manner of a Paul Greengrass "Bourne" movie (hand-held frenzy, without the Greengrass spatial clarity).” This is a Jack Ryan prequel, introducing the future analyst as an American graduate student at the London School of Economics, wanting to serve as a Marine once 9/11 changes the world forever. Two years later his helicopter is shot down over Afghanistan. In rehab at Walter Reed medical center back home, he meets the doctor (Phillips noted, “Knightley, doing her flattest, nowhere-in-particular American dialect”) who helps him look like an action star for the rest of the film.

In the climax of the film during the Moscow part is the best. Kevin Costner gets comfortable as a scruffy superior authority as Ryan’s supervisor, who always defends Ryan. Phillips mentioned, “Frustratingly, though, the screenplay by Adam Cozad and David Koepp devolves into scenes of Ryan solving a ridiculous number of riddles in record time while tracking a different, related terrorist and thwarting a heinous attack on our home soil.”

Phillips continued, “The action climax, a mess of vehicular near-homicides and hand-to-hand brutalities, reminds you that Branagh (though he did well enough with the first "Thor" picture) hasn't much facility for high-velocity violence. He's more into the quiet, nasty bits. "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit," well acted up and down, feels caught halfway between being an idiotic spy picture for adolescents, and a reasonably grown-up thriller for reasonably grown-up grown-ups.” The latter isn’t the target audience for the decent franchise reboot. However, that’s what the film basically is: a decent franchise reboot.

Like I had already mentioned last week, the last two films in the franchise really killed the franchise. I don’t see the need to keep making more sequels in the franchise, seeing how it should have ended strong. As you might have guessed, I don’t really recommend this one, seeing how I found it ok, but in all honesty, this is easily the worst in the franchise. Once you see it, you’ll know exactly what I mean.

Thank you everyone for joining in for “Jack Ryan Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed my reviews. Stay tuned next month to see what I will review next.

Spider-Man: Far From Home

“Spider-Man: Far From Home,” released a little over two weeks over, is the first film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe to give everyone a look at what goes on after “Infinity War/Endgame” where half the population faded away from existence for five years. It goes down from the large action moments we’ve lately seen and focuses more on Peter Parker living up to the expectations that is given to him, both as a high school student and as the superhero Spider-Man. While the film starts off a little slow, “Far From Home” gives some of the most surprising moments the MCU has seen as it delivers the grand power and delight.

After helping to save not only the world but the entire universe from Thanos, Peter Parker, reprised by Tom Holland, could use a break from the entire superhero business and takes a much needed vacation to Europe with his classmates as part of a summer program. Unfortunately, world ending dangers don’t stop happening and before he gets a moment to rest, Peter is given a mission by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Marie Hill (Cobie Smulders) to fight a new enemy, the Elementals. The two superiors have also enlisted technological genius Quentin Beck aka Mysterio, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal’s brother, Jake Gyllenhaal, to help fight these new dangers. Matt Rodriguez said in his review, “As Spider-Man becomes to go-to superhero following the death of Iron Man, Peter wonders if he’ll ever live up to the expectations of Tony, and looks to Beck for guidance.” So much for the relaxing vacation Peter was asking for, right?

Rodriguez mentioned, “Right off the bat, Spider-Man: Far From Home addresses the fallout from Thanos’ snap, referred to as ‘The Blip’ in the MCU.” Aunt May, reprised by Marisa Tomei, has set up a foundation to help those hurt by the Blip re-adjust to life again as they’ve been disintegrated for five years while everyone else has gotten older and moved on. It’s a nice little story that sets the mood of a post “Endgame” world. From there we see Peter Parker trying to just be himself. This is pretty much the average high school life like hanging around with best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon) and working out a plan to tell MJ (Zendaya) he has a crush on her while in Europe. Rodriguez notes, “The first act is all pretty low-key stuff, but it works as it reveals the mindset of Peter.” Despite being to outer space, disappearing because of Thanos, and saving the world, he’s still just a teenager and has lost his mentor Tony Stark.

For fans that follow the comics or have any familiarity with Spider-Man characters, it can be a little slow with the way the film is set up. Rodriguez admitted, “It’s easy to see what direction Far From Home is going with its story, at least in the first half, so I will admit there is a lot of just waiting for the story to get there. I’m actually very curious to see how people who absolutely no knowledge of the comics react to the film. In this case, I believe the less you know about everything the better off you are.”

However, once “Far From Home” takes off in the second act, it doesn’t slow down at all. Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic as Quentin Beck and Mysterio, giving some of the most memorable scenes in all of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Rodriguez said, “It’s difficult to talk about them without going into spoilers, but I will just say that prepare to have your mind blown and turned upside down.”

Rodriguez continued, “The more I think about Spider-Man: Far From Home the more I dig the film.” Yes, the first half is a little slow and boring, but without it the second half wouldn’t be nearly as satisfying. Also, there are a lot of great touches, like how much Peter goes through after Tony, that really position the film after the huge hit of “Endgame.” Rodriguez ended his review by saying, “Even still, the film has some pretty big consequences to close out Phase 3 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and I couldn’t be more excited to see where Marvel Studios goes next with Phase 4.”

Spoiler alert: in the mid-credits scene, reporter J. Jonah James of The Daily Bugle, reprised by JK Simmons, blames Spider-Man for the Elementals’ attacks, broadcasting videos of the incident recorded by Beck, who blames Spider-Man and reveals his secret identity. In the post-credits scene, the Skrulls Talos and Soran are revealed to be disguising themselves as Fury and Hill the whole time, as commanded by the real Fury, who commands a Skrull spaceship.

I think this is better than “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” with a great cast, writing, drama, comedy, action, horror, twists and characters. If you haven’t seen this yet, see it. I would be really happy if they continue with Tom Holland as Spider-Man, just so we can see other villains that haven’t been shown in movie format, which are a number of them. See this in the theaters if you haven’t because it is a must. Hands down, this is one of the best summer movies that came out this year, and another one of my favorite comic book adaptations.

Thank you for joining in on tonight’s review, stay tuned next Friday for the finale of “Jack Ryan Month.”

The Sum of All Fears

The fourth adaptation of the Jack Ryan novels by Tom Clancy, “The Sum of All Fears” follows “The Hunt for Red October,” “Patriot Games,” and “Clear and Present Danger,” but with a main difference. Despite being released and set in 2002, analyst Jack Ryan, played in previous movies by Alec Baldwin and Harrison Ford, now is played by Ben Affleck, whose character has just started his career in the CIA. His doctor wife, Cathy, is still only his girlfriend, played by Bridget Moynahan, here, and daughter Sally hasn’t been born yet.

The timeline of events isn’t the only thing that is messed up in “The Sum of All Fears,” directed by Phil Alden Robinson. Dustin Putman said in his review, “Replacing the deep human element of "Patriot Games" and the meticulously developed "Clear and Present Danger" is a surprisingly ineffectual cautionary tale about the effects of nuclear warfare. With a premise that is eerily similar to the tragic events of 9/11, one would think the film would pack a veritable wallop, but it does not. Instead, it wavers somewhere on the disappointing line of emotional sterility.”

President Fowler, played by James Cromwell, believes that a foreign country – maybe Russia – is planning a nuclear attack on the United States. Jack Ryan and his boss, Bill Cabot, played by Morgan Freeman, are called in to give him with facts about this supposed plan that he probably would not know about. Putman said, “Jack Ryan eventually uncovers that Russia is being set up as the fall guy for this possibly catastrophic attack, and it is up to him to convince Fowler and his fellow CIA workers that his beliefs aren't merely wild shots in the dark.” Meanwhile, a bomb is secretly inserted in Baltimore, where it is set to go off at the Superbowl.

Putman said, “Written by Paul Attanasio and Daniel Pyne, "The Sum of All Fears" is a textbook example of how to make a highly charged political thriller about a possibly very real disaster and strip it of all its potency. The film is certainly a timely one, to be sure, and there is an undoubted fear that something of this calamitous proportion could occur right outside our front door, but there is no real payoff.” When the bomb goes off, destroying a half-mile radius of Baltimore and ruining much of the city, the results are anticlimactic. Putman said, “In director Phil Alden Robinson's goal of not truly shaking anybody's nerves, he has softened this major plot development to such a degree that you never even see the football stadium explode, and the shots of destruction in its wake last all of ten seconds.” Even though a series topic should not be developed in any way, it is evident this serious part of the movie has been really edited down. To put it simple, Robinson fooled with the audience of what they came to see initially.

Putman noted, “As professionally acted as the picture is, the performers generally do not get enough time to develop their roles beyond types. The charismatic Ben Affleck amicably plays Jack Ryan as a wide-eyed man just starting his career, and without the cynicism and rough edges that he is to later develop.” Morgan Freeman brings a certain amount of greatness to every role he plays, and the underwritten Bill Cabot is no exception. James Cromwell is serious and regretful as President Fowler. Live Schreiber is calmly immoral operative John Clark. Bridget Moynahan stands in as a passable younger version of the character created by Anne Archer.

While the first half is mainly buildup, the second half of “The Sum of All Fears” raises the stakes and speeds up to be slightly involving. Sadly, the longer the film goes, the more unbelievable its details become. If Ben Affleck continues to reprise Jack Ryan in other sequels, he has what it takes. Putman ended his review by saying, “It can only be hoped, however, that more attention is paid not only to the unflinching realism of the situations, but also to the human element of what, exactly, makes Jack Ryan tick.”

This sadly started the downhill slope of the “Jack Ryan series.” I don’t recommend this one, but if you want to see it, see it once and never again. It felt a little like a bore, so I would say to give this one a pass.

Look out everyone because tonight I’m going to see “Spider-Man: Far From Home,” so you’ll get a review of that tonight.

Patriot Games

In “Patriot Games,” the second film adapted from Tom Clancy’s series of techno-thriller novels, Harrison Ford plays the role of CIA analyst Jack Ryan, who was first played by Alec Baldwin in “The Hunt for Red October.” However, unlike Baldwin’s role, which was mainly a side character to the dominant screen presence of Sean Connery as a Soviet submarine captain with mysterious goal, Ford owns “Patriot Games” in true movie star methods, which changes the tone of the film rather dramatically. On the one hand, hard work was put in emphasize Ryan’s intelligence – he’s an analyst and historian, actually, not a dedicated field agent – but at the same time the film can’t help but increase him to the same height of action hero, moving him in the film’s climactic action scene set on a pair of racing motorboats sailing through a terrible rainstorm.

Actually, the film’s story is already going when Ryan suddenly acts as an action hero by solely ruining an attempt by a radical shooting of the IRA to kill a member of the Royal Family in the streets of London. James Kendrick said in his review, “Ryan, who has left the CIA, happens to be there for an academic speaking engagement, putting him in the wrong (or right?) place at the right time to risk life and limb to stop of the ski-mask-wearing terrorists from a very public assassination.” He gets shot in the shoulder, but he kills several of the terrorists, including the younger brother of Sean Miller (Sean Bean), a certain explosive revolutionary who is focused on revenge, which puts Ryan’s family – his pregnant wife Cathy (Anne Archer) and elementary-age daughter Sally (Thora Birch) – in the middle of it.

Kendrick said, “Thus, if The Hunt for Red October was a Cold War nail-biter with global-nuclear implications, Patriot Games is a more stripped drown, personal revenge thriller, with Ryan stepping into righteous vengeance mode after Sean puts his wife and daughter in the hospital.” The by-the-book analyst gets ticked, at one scene getting heated with IRA boss Paddy O’Neil, played by Richard Harris, in, you guessed it, an Irish Bar. Kendrick said, “The screenplay by W. Peter Iliff and Donald Stewart manages some balance in emphasizing Ryan’s analytical skills, with plenty of scenes of him sitting at computer desks surrounded by papers, pouring over files, and enhancing satellite photos, but the film is also constantly eager to furrow his brow and put a gun in his hand.”

Kendrick continued, “There are several action setpieces that work marvelously, including Sean’s attack on Cathy and Sally while they’re driving down a packed freeway and the cat-and-mouse sequence in the Ryans’ enormous house when the bad guys lay siege. Director Phillip Noyce, who had been directing both film and television in his native Australia since the early 1970s, but had only recently come to international prominence with his thriller Dead Calm (1989), was an inspired choice to replace John McTiernan, as he manages the action with verve and efficiency while also giving the film a more nuanced emotional sensibility, emphasizing Ryan as a father who above all wants to protect his family, not save the world.” The film’s main stand-out action scene happens completely on giant monitors through an infrared satellite video feed as a selected hit team takes out a terrorist camp in North Africa. It’s a great suspenseful scene, the conclusion of Ryan’s intellectual work to hunt down those who are trying to kill him, but it also plays as a huge punch reminder of the calm with which violence can be done and lives killed. Kendrick noted, “While many in the room watch the monitors with the casual glee of people watching an action movie or a football game, Ryan is clearly disturbed by what’s happening because, after all, he instigated it.” Every “kill” happens from his work, and it hurts his sensibility, increasing him over the usual action movie elements by focusing on his sense of morality.

This may not be as good as “The Hunt for Red October” or the next film in the series, “Clear and Present Danger,” but it’s still a good movie that I think everyone should check out. Like I said before, I don’t know how well these films follow the books since I never read them, so I’m judging them as movies, not as adaptations. I think this is still worth watching and you will absolutely love Ford in his comfort zone, as an action hero. He really plays the role perfectly, and did it better in the next film. If you want to know what I thought, go back to my “President’s Day Movie Review” this year and you’ll find out.

Look out next week for the next installment in “Jack Ryan Month.”

Toy Story 4

My brother and I went to see “Toy Story 4” tonight, which came out almost three weeks ago. Originally, this was supposed to be released last year and “Incredibles 2” was supposed to be released this year. However, after test screening “Toy Story 4,” Tom Hanks said in an interview that the audience at the test screening hated it, so they had to redo 25% of the movie. Brad Bird had to speed up production to finish “Incredibles 2” for it to be released last year, so certain things that he wanted in the movie couldn’t be added. However, if they were to make an “Incredibles 3,” Brad Bird said that whatever footage he couldn’t use in the second movie will be added in the third installment. However, enough of all that production talk. How is the movie you may ask?

For many people, the main question going into “Toy Story 4” was, understandably, “Why?” In every respect, there was no reason for Pixar to make another sequel to the great “Toy Story 3,” which nine years ago ended the franchise on a great note. How many movie trilogies can you think of where the third movie was the best? (Peter Rainer said in his review, “Except for “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,” I can’t think of any.” I can, though.) Making a fourth anywhere as well would look like it would be impossible.

Rainer said, “Unlike “Toy Story 3,” “Toy Story 4” is not a masterpiece, but I was almost relieved about that.” It doesn’t put you through the emotional heap the way the last one did, but it’s continuously creative, funny, amusing, and heartfelt. To put it simple, it’s a lot better than it has any right to be. It’s more than good enough to make it worth making.

The new film starts with college student Andy’s toys now under the ownership of little Bonnie, voiced by Madeleine McGraw. Woody, reprised by Tom Hanks, overlooks the collection, but he’s no longer a favorite toy.

He still finds it necessary to take care of Bonnie. When she fearfully leaves for her kindergarten orientation, he hides inside her backpack and secretly helps with a project where she creates a toy out of a plastic spork, pipe cleaners, wooden craft sticks, and huge eyes. Her beloved Forky, voiced by Tony Hale, becomes her new favorite toy, despite that, created together from trash can items, Forky has other plans. The concept of a “toy” is foreign to him. He keeps running into trash cans because that’s where he thinks he belongs.

Woody happily announces to his friends that Bonnie has literally “made a new friend.” However, then Forky goes missing during a road trip in an RV to an outdoor carnival, ending up locked in a China Cabinet in a local antique store. Woody goes to rescue him, with help from friends, like Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), Ducky and Bunny (Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, respectively), Canadian stunt motorcyclist Duke Caboom (a hilarious Keanu Reeves), and Bo Peep (Annie Potts), who comes back to the gang after happily enjoying her independence. (Her sad separation from Woody is shown at the beginning of the film.)

Their main enemies are Gabby Gabby, voiced by the hot Christina Hendricks (who you might remember as Joan Holloway on “Mad Men”), the antique store’s Ginger doll, and her ventriloquist dummy henchmen. Gabby wants Woody’s voice box. Rainer is right when he said, “Her scenes have an eeriness that at times seems more “Twilight Zone” than Disney, but that’s appropriate.” Whether we are humans or ornaments, toys are not always our friends.

What gave “Toy Story 3” its deep emotionally was the sad realization that even favorite toys are eventually donated. More so than ever, Woody has to come to that realization in “Toy Story 4.” If a toy is there to be loved by a child, what then is its reason for living if it is no longer loved?

Director Josh Cooley and his writers, Andrew Stanton and Stephany Folsom, don’t sugarcoat the emotions, which is just as well. Rainer said, “I’m not a big fan of being hit over the head with life lessons when I go to the movies. Instead, the filmmakers have concocted a comic wingding, full of marvelous slapstick and sight gags, into which the more heartfelt moments are subtly woven.” All of this makes this film, which also was the fact for the other “Toy Story” movies, but especially “Toy Story 3,” as watchable for adults as for children.

It should not be debated that wonderful children’s movies, almost by meaning, are also wonderful for adults. Rainer said, “Who would relegate, say, “E.T.” or “The Black Stallion” or Alfonso Cuarón’s “A Little Princess” to the realm of kid flicks?” The main question of “Toy Story 4” has a meaning for everybody: What happens to us when we no longer feel needed? Rainer answered, “If the “Toy Story” franchise were to end right here I would be more than happy, but then again, I felt this way nine years ago with “Toy Story 3.”” Never say never.

In all honesty, I think this film is the best of the “Toy Story” franchise. I really thought this was the most emotional and most funny of the films. If you haven’t seen this film and you love the other “Toy Story” movies, you should definitely see this one. If not, watch the first three first or any of the other you haven’t seen before you see this film. You will love this, I promise. If you have kids, show them this franchise because everyone will love it. Especially with comedy legends Carol Burnett, Mel Brooks, Carl Reiner and Betty White in the cast, there’s more reason to see this. This is easily another one of my favorite animated and Pixar movies. However, I have to say to Pixar to stop making “Toy Story” sequels. I don’t think there is anymore that needs to be told about this franchise. Just go on and create original movies or sequels to films that need sequels. Just leave the “Toy Story” franchise alone because this is the definitive cap on the franchise. Tom Hanks said to Ellen DeGeneres that this would be the last film, Mark Nielsen did not rule out a possibility of a fifth film.

At the end of the credits, the film paid tribute to the late Don Rickles (which I applauded when his name came up) and animator Adam Burke.

Thank you for joining in on tonight’s review, stay tuned on Friday for the continuation of “Jack Ryan Month.”

Shaft (2019)

Last night, I got the chance to watch the new “Shaft” movie, which came out a little over three weeks ago. How is it, you ask? The story is about Army vet Karim (Avan Jogia) dying of a heroin overdose and his best friend, FBI analyst John Shaft Jr. (Jessie T. Usher) finding it suspicious since Karim got clean and was involved with Brothers Watching Brothers, a group supporting addicted vets. However, the young man who hates guns does not take this well when he tries to follow clues that takes him inside Harlem’s drug underground. Needing help, he goes to his father, who his mother has kept him away from his entire life because of his violent lifestyle, John “Shaft.”

Why do they keep titling the films “Shaft?” Back in 2000, the late John Singleton casted Samuel L. Jackson in the role, not as the original “Shaft,” but his nephew in a sequel named “Shaft” just like the 1971 original. “Black-ish” Kenya Barris and “The Goldberg’s” Alex Barnow have also changed the family relationships for this third “Shaft,” Richard Roundtree is back again, this time as the father to Jackson’s Shaft, a change said in a throwaway line in the film’s final act. Laura Clifford said in her review, “New director Tim Story has changed the dynamic as well, the odd couple pairing of cool cat Shaft and the metrosexual, gun-loathing son raised to be completely different from his dad right out of his "Ride Along" playbook.” Thankfully, Jackson and Usher together is actually a lot more fun.

The film starts with a 1989 flashback which explains two things – Shaft’s still wanting revenge against Harlem drug lord Pierro “Gordito” Carrera (Isaach De Bankolé) and why his former wife Maya (Regina Hall) took their son and left (a simple issue of a baby in the backseat during a gun fight with the drug gang). The beginning credits montage shows Shaft trying to stay in his son’s life through so many increasingly inappropriate Christmas, birthday and graduation gifts.

JJ, as John Jr. is known, uses his position to retrieve important information, like Karim’s autopsy report that he shares with mutual college friend Sasha, played by Alexandra Shipp, a doctor who recognizes the amount of heroin in Karim’s body would have been impossible for him to take alone. However, when JJ goes to the location where Karim’s body was found, he’s gypped by a kid on a bike (Jalyn Hall) before getting the name of drug dealer Manny (Ian Casselberry) whose men punch him in the head. Meanwhile JJ’s FBI boss, Special Agent Vietti, played by Titus Welliver, warns him to step aside for the more experienced professionals when a politically sensitive surveillance case on the Rashad Azzam Mosque is given. (Clifford said, “Bonus points to those who suspect this mosque and dad's old nemesis might be tied to Karim's death.”)

Clifford mentioned, “The plot is almost beside the point in a movie like 2019's "Shaft," which exists solely to enjoy Samuel L. Jackson's cool quotient.  Expect to hear his signature swear involving mothers, as well as 2000's catch phrase 'It's my duty to please that booty.'  Neither prepares us for the hilarious sight gag that greets JJ when he knocks on dad's office door, a bit of curiously placed glitter telling a raunchy tale.  Do be prepared for a lot of sexist references and homophobic jokes (neither elder Shaft can get over the name of Karim's charity) that keep Shaft tethered to his 1970's origins.”

Samuel L. Jackson works well with Usher, at first criticizing his son’s abilities, then becoming impressed, especially when his son gets drunk at an underground club he’s taken to and fights someone with Capoeira, the Brazilian “dance” martial art; unusual, but successful. Clifford said, “Dad also nudges JJ's platonic relationship to the place Sasha's clearly waiting for it to be while waiting for the reemerged Maya to succumb to his charms.” Hall gives such a great performance as when she gets in a aggressive, but event matched relationship, taking a more positive role when that 1989 flashback is matched in a restaurant date (with Leland L. Jones’s Ron) in the present. She is hilarious when she goes off on Shaft in a bathroom mirror, unaware to one of the other ladies.

Clifford said, “Roundtree comes into play in the film's third act, his cool more deadpan than Jackson's.” The final fight takes place in a glass walled Manhattan penthouse, the better for comedic mistakes flying in and dramatic deaths on the way out. Clifford mentioned, “By film's end, JJ has ditched his 'badminton sneakers,' striding down the street with dad and granddad all wearing matching black turtlenecks and rust colored leather dusters.” Let’s see if there will be another “Shaft” sequel and it doesn’t come out 19 years later.

In the end, I like the comedy in this movie and thought it was thoroughly enjoying, but I didn’t like the whole racial issues in the movie, especially the Islamophobia. This sort of racial labeling, especially when it comes to Islamophobia, needs to be expunged, if there is a way to do that. Besides that, I still think this is a worthy sequel that people should see in the theaters, if it’s still playing in one near you. Check it out and see for yourself. Don’t listen to the critics, who are bashing on this movie, judge it for yourself.

Thank you for joining in on today’s review, stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Jack Ryan Month.”

The Hunt for Red October

For July, I felt that since I reviewed “Clear and Present Danger” this past President’s Day, I would go and review all of the Jack Ryan film series. Let’s kick things off with one of the best movies ever made, “The Hunt for Red October,” released in 1990.

The movies have one definite way of involving the audience that always succeeds.

They give everyone a character who is right when everyone else is wrong and invite the audience to share his difficulties as he tries to talk some sense into the idiots. In “The Hunt for Red October,” that character is Jack Ryan, the intelligence man who believes he knows the real reason why a rebel Soviet captain is trying to escape with a submarine.

The captain’s name is Ramius, and he is the most respected man in the Soviet underwater navy. He has trained of the other captains in the navy, and now he has been given the authority of an advanced new submarine named Red October – a submarine that uses an innovative drive that is faster than any other ship underwater and almost completely silent. American intelligence finds the Red October as it leaves its Soviet port, but then the submarine all of a sudden disappears. Soon after, the entire Soviet navy moves itself into a deep back-and-forth scenario in the North Atlantic.

The Soviets would like their American equivalents to believe that Ramius is crazy and wants to hide his submarine off the American coast and target its nuclear missiles at New York or Washington. They ask the U.S. Navy to help them find and destroy the Red October. However, Ryan, played by Alec Baldwin, believes that would be a horrible mistake. He tells his boss, an admiral played by James Earl Jones, that Ramius is actually trying to fault and to bring his submarine along with him.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “That is the setup for John McTiernan's film, as it was for Tom Clancy's best-selling novel, and in both cases it is also the starting point for a labyrinthine plot in which, half of the time, we have to guess at the hidden reasons for Ramius' actions. It is a tribute to the movie, which has much less time than Clancy did at book length, that it allows the plot its full complexity and yet is never less than clear to the audience.”

Many military movies, especially those that take place during the Cold War, depend on stereotyping and large, simple motivations to tell their stories. “The Hunt for Red October” has more fun by showing how easily men can be wrong, how false beliefs can seem seductive and how large consequences can sometimes hang on thin.

For example, Ryan’s knowledge of Ramius’ personality where so much depends is based almost completely on one moment where they eat at the same table. Everything else is basically a series of lucky guesses.

McTiernan, who previously made “Predator” and “Die Hard,” showed a type of style and timing in those movies, but what he adds in “The Hunt for Red October” is something of the same isolated intelligence that Clancy had in his novel. Ebert said, “Somehow we feel this is more than a thriller, it's an exercise in military and diplomatic strategy in which the players are all smart enough that we can't take their actions for granted.”

“The Hunt for Red October” has more than a handful of important speaking roles, along with many more cast members who are important for a scene or two. Any film what this many cast members must depend in some way on typecasting. Ebert said, “We couldn't keep the characters straight any other way. What McTiernan does is to typecast without stereotyping.”

Sean Connery makes a believable Ramius, and yet, with his barely hidden Scottish accent, he is far from being a typical movie Soviet.

Ebert said, “Baldwin, as the dogged intelligence officer, has the looks of a leading man, but he dials down his personality. He presents himself as a deck-bound bureaucrat who can't believe he has actually gotten himself into this field exercise.” And Scott Glenn, as the commander of a U.S. submarine that finds itself within yards of the silent Red October, is bender, younger, and has more edge than most of the typical movie captain types.

The production design gives a lot to the movie’s credibility.

Ebert admitted, “'m told that the interiors of submarines in this movie look a good deal more high-tech and glossy than they do in real life - that there would be more grease around on a real sub - and yet, for the movie screen, these subs look properly impressive, with their awesome displays of electronic gadgetry. The movie does not do as good a job of communicating the daily and hourly reality of submarine life as "Das Boot" did, but perhaps that's because we are never trapped and claustrophobic inside a sub for the whole movie.” There are parts with the White House and CIA headquarters in Langley, to the Kremlin and to the ports of ships at sea.

If there’s one part where the movie is really less than impressive, it’s the underwater outer shots. Using models of submarines, the filmmakers have tried to give an impression of these ships moving under the sea. Ebert said, “But the outside of a submarine is not intrinsically photogenic, and what these shots most look like are large, gray, bloated whales seen through dishwater.”

Yet that fall doesn’t matter a lot. “The Hunt for Red October” is a masterful, capable film that involves the audience in the smart and unreliable ploy being done by Ramius and in the best efforts of those on both sides to figure out what he plans to do with his submarine – and how he plans to do it. The movie is made so we can figure that out along with everybody else, and that leaves a lot of surprises for the result, which is really acceptably exciting. Ebert admitted, “There was only one question that bothered me throughout the movie. As one whose basic ideas about submarines come from Cmdr.”

Ebert ended his review by saying, “Edward Beach's classic "Run Silent, Run Deep," in which the onboard oxygen supply was a source of constant concern, I kept asking myself if those Russian sailors should be smoking so much, down there in the depths of the ocean.”

Don’t read this review, go out and see this movie now, it’s a must. You will absolutely love this movie, and I think it’s the best in the Jack Ryan franchise. It has to be seen to be believed.

Look out next week for the next entry in “Jack Ryan Month.”

Saving Private Ryan

Time for another yearly Independence Day movie, and I got just the one for today: the 1998 war classic, “Saving Private Ryan.” The soldiers tasked to find Private Ryan and bring him home can figure things out on their own. The Army Chief of Staff has assigned them on the mission for misinformation reasons: Ryan’s return to help confidence on the homefront, and put a human face on the murders at Omaha Beach. His mother, who lost three sons in the war, does not want to lose another. However, the eight men on the mission also have parents – and have also been trained to kill Germans, not to put their lives on the line for publicity reasons. “This Ryan better be worth it,” one of the men yells.

In Hollywood, great battles twist and turn on the actions of protagonists. In Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan,” countless of scared and seasick men, most of them new to war, are thrown in the middle of dying German. The landing on Omaha Beach was not about saving Private Ryan. It was about saving your life.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “The movie's opening sequence is as graphic as any war footage I've ever seen. In fierce dread and energy it's on a par with Oliver Stone's "Platoon," and in scope surpasses it--because in the bloody early stages the landing forces and the enemy never meet eye to eye, but are simply faceless masses of men who have been ordered to shoot at one another until one side is destroyed.”

Spielberg’s camera makes no sense of the action. That is the reason for his style. For the individual soldier on the beach, the landing was a collection of noise, mud, blood, vomit and death. The scene is filled with so many unrelated things of time, like a soldier having his arm blown off. He staggers, confused, standing in the middle of gunfire, not sure what to do next, before bending over and picking up his arm, like he will need it later.

The landing part is needed to establish the distance between those who give the order that Private Ryan be saved, and those who are ordered to do the saving. For Captain Miller, played by Tom Hanks, and his soldiers, the landing at Omaha has been a trail of gunfire. For Army Chief George C. Marshall, played by Harve Presnell, in his Washington office, war seems far off and statesmanlike. Ebert noted, “He treasures a letter Abraham Lincoln wrote consoling Mrs. Bixby of Boston, about her sons who died in the Civil War. His advisors question the wisdom and indeed the possibility of a mission to save Ryan, but he barks, "If the boy's alive we are gonna send somebody to find him--and we are gonna get him the heck out of there." That sets up the second act of the film, in which Miller and his men penetrate into French terrain still actively disputed by the Germans, while harboring mutinous thoughts about the wisdom of the mission.” All of Miller’s men have worked with him before – except for Corporal Upham, played by Jeremy Davies, the translator, who speaks excellent German and French but has never fired a rifle in anger and is scared almost to the point of incontinence. Ebert said, “I identified with Upham, and I suspect many honest viewers will agree with me: The war was fought by civilians just like him, whose lives had not prepared them for the reality of battle.”

Ebert continued, “The turning point in the film comes, I think, when the squadron happens upon a German machinegun nest protecting a radar installation.” It would be possible to go around it and avoid a fight. Actually, that would be following orders. However, they decide to attack the emplacement, and that is one type of protest: At risk of their lives, they are doing what they came to France to do, instead of what the head authorities want them to do.

Everything leads to the third act, when Private Ryan is found, and the soldiers decide what to do next. Spielberg and his screenwriter, Robert Rodat, have done a delicate and actually great thing: They have made a philosophical film about war almost completely in the way of action. Ebert said, “"Saving Private Ryan" says things about war that are as complex and difficult as any essayist could possibly express, and does it with broad, strong images, with violence, with profanity, with action, with camaraderie.” It is possible to express even the nicest ideas in laymen terms and actions, and that’s what Spielberg does. The film is really effective, because he communicates his ideas in feelings, not words. Ebert admitted, “I was reminded of "All Quiet on the Western Front."” Steven Spielberg is as technically capable as any filmmaker today, and because of his great success, he can get any resource he needs. Both of those facts are important to the power of “Saving Private Ryan.” He knows how to show his feelings about men in war, and he has the methods, the money and the team to make it possible.

Ebert said, “His cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, who also shot "Schindler's List," brings a newsreel feel to a lot of the footage, but that's relatively easy compared to his most important achievement, which is to make everything visually intelligible. After the deliberate chaos of the landing scenes, Kaminski handles the attack on the machinegun nest, and a prolonged sequence involving the defense of a bridge, in a way that keeps us oriented. It's not just men shooting at one another. We understand the plan of the action, the ebb and flow, the improvisation, the relative positions of the soldiers.”

Then there is the human part. Hanks is a good choice as Captain Miller, an English teacher who has survived experiences that are so dangerous that he wonders of his wife will even recognize him. His hands shake, he is on the edge of breakdown, but he does his best because that is his job. All of the actors playing the soldiers under his command are great, partly because Spielberg resists the attraction to make them crazy “characters” in the tradition of World War II movies, and makes them ordinary on purpose. Matt Damon, as Private Ryan, displays a different energy, because he has not been through the landing at Omaha Beach. As a paratrooper, he landed inland, and although he has seen action he has not seen in the fire.

Ebert said, “They are all strong presences, but for me the key performance in the movie is by Jeremy Davies, as the frightened little interpreter. He is our entry into the reality because he sees it clearly as a vast system designed to humiliate and destroy him. And so it is.” His survival depends on his doing the very best he can, yes, but even more on chance. Eventually he gets to his personal turning point, and his action writes the last words of Spielberg’s unspoken philosophical argument.

“Saving Private Ryan” is a powerful film. Ebert said, “I'm sure a lot of people will weep during it. Spielberg knows how to make audiences weep better than any director since Chaplin in "City Lights."” However, crying is an incomplete response, letting go of the audience. The film symbolizes ideas. After the direct experience begins to fade, the suggestions stay and grow.

This is a powerful movie that is shot documentary style. If you haven’t seen it yet, you should see it because it’s an absolute must. I remember my siblings were watching this film when I was a kid, but they kept kicking me out of the room until my dad came and had to tell my siblings to explain to me that this movie has stuff that I shouldn’t see or hear at my age. When I saw it as an adult, I fell in love with it and understood what they were talking about. That’s why I say you should all see this movie because it’s a must.

Happy Independence Day everyone! Enjoy the fireworks today and I’ll see you all tomorrow on my first entry on what I will be reviewing this month.