Posse Incitatus

Movie Review: Iron Man

This past weekend Sithkitten and I took a rare visit to the cinema to see “Iron Man.”  Watching the previews I was encouraged.  This could be a good year for Hollywood, simply because the movies they are making look like ones worth watching – for a change.

Anyhow, I enjoyed “Iron Man,” chiefly because Robert Downey, Jr. is quite a good actor and his character is more interesting than most.

Let’s be honest, super hero movies are pretty formulaic.  We meet the hero before the transformation, watch it happen, and then he goes and kicks butt.  The film usually ends with a nod to a possible sequel.

So plot-wise, there isn’t much going on, and one can only watch so many special effects demo reels before the whole thing gets a little tired.  So what is the jaded movie-goer to do?

Basically, you need good actors to save the day, and that also means funny ones.  Yes, there are going to be explosions, mind-boggling special effects and the epic destruction of monuments, but will I laugh?

Happily, I did.  Perhaps because of his personal struggles, Downey brought something a little extra to the part of Tony Stark.  I don’t go much in for spoilers, but the stewardesses on his private plane were classic.

There was one other element of “Iron Man,” that caught my attention:  the good guys and the bad guys.

The good guys are the US military.  Not surprising when the Air Force cooperates, but it’s nice to see more filmmakers realizing that the public is tired of seeing our troops portrayed as either helpless idiot-victims or mindless killers. Similarly, while not making a big deal out of it, it was pretty clear that the bad guys were, if not actual Al Qaeda honchos, someone who is on their speed dial list.  I’m sure that resonated with a lot of folks as well.

I’m not sure if they can sustain it in the all-but-inevitable sequel, but at least this movie was pretty solid.  Worth the money.

There Will Be Review Pt.1

Hollywood again depicts Christianity as fanatical superstition!

The Posse recently took in the film "There Will Be Blood". What can we say- excellent! thought provoking, interesting, visually stunning, full of human emotion and drama, etc. In our humble opinion it should have garnered best score and sound editing at the 07 Oscars. Just because a film is edited in a fast paced over-the-top style (read the Jason Bourne trilogy) doesn't mean it's Oscar quality.

Anyway, great film. One problem!
Hollywood, again! cannot show religion or faith in God in any kind of positive light! It must be used as a plot device juxtaposed to the sensible main character. The hero is intelligent and successful and godless. The local man of faith is shown to be a foolish fanatic bent on personal gain.

We are sick to death of this portrayal!

Blade Runner - the undirected cut

Since my esteemed Posse member Santos brought it up, I'd like to point out that the "director's cut" of Blade Runner is not an improvement on the original.

By getting rid of the narration, it makes the movie confusing to people who haven't seen it and undermines the cool noir vibe that makes it such a great film.  That was a big part of the movie's success, of course - you had this futuristic detective story.  It was cool.

Without the narration, that noir element is gone and you just get a lot of pretty pictures and rather inexplicable plot twists.

The people who really groove to it are fans who like the alternative take, which is fine.  They know the narration.

But taken as a film - that is a work of art that stands by itself - the original version is better.

Line change in Blade Runner, why?

A re-release of one of our all time favorite films hit the big screen last weekend. The 1982 film Blade Runner has been suped up into director Ridley Scott's Final Cut version and is in limited release on some screens across the country. We were surprised and delighted to find this remarkable sci-fi classic right in our very own town, at matinee prices.

The film has seen several versions released over it's lifetime and has already been released as a Director's cut back in the early (1992) days of DVD, when Scott stripped off the lackadaisical voice-over from Harrison Ford's Deckard character and added a unicorn "memory" scene. The new version stays with these director changes but adds a few leftover shots and some minor dialog appears to be different. There is a new DVD box-set streeting on December 18th that will include the various versions of the film, new and old. Our intention here is not to take valuable space discussing these versions but to point out the monumental line change that we witnessed in this supposed final version.

Watching the Final Cut this past weekend there is a very serious line change that was not expected. When confronting his maker, head replicant Roy Batty (in all other versions) originally says, "I want more life, Fu***r!" The version playing in theatres now has him saying "I want more life, Father!" Why the change from Fu***r to father? Is it more relevant this way, does the line carry more imact? Does it announce the obvious prodigal son's return? Was it to avoid an 'R' rating? The film is still rated R as was the original. We are baffled by the change and can only look forward to the director's DVD commentary where Scott may provide some insight. Whatever the reason hopefully this was a director's decision and not some horrible politically correct studio attitude. What was once effective and shocking and ultimately acceptable in 1982 is now so over the top and offensive that it must be eliminated?

Any insight/opinions out there in the blogosphere would be greatly appreciated.

300: the DVD

The Posse recently acquired the DVD to the excellent film 300, a movie that drove the left to distraction. 

Having viewed it several times since then, we remain firmly convinced that this is an excellent work of art.  The extras include commentary from Victor Davis Hanson and Bettany Hughes, the British info-babe who hosted the excellent Spartans documentary.  We got a kick out of it, though we agree with many of the Amazon reviewers that they could have included more information, including famous Spartan anecdotes.

The movie is quite violent, and has a bit of graphic sex.  However, we find ourselves thinking that it - like all great stories - is essentially quite simple and if it wasn't so racy, we'd recommend it for our kids.

The concepts of freedom, honor, courage and duty are presented up front and honestly.  For many of the left, they are the punch line to a joke, but in Sparta they took them seriously.  When Queen Gorgo flatly states "Freedom isn't free," we're sure many leftists rolled their eyes, or at best said to themselves "Of course it isn't free; sometime you have to write letters or make nasty posts on the Daily Kos."

But in point of fact, few of these people are willing to sacrifice anything for their vaunted liberty.  The Spartans - whatever their faults - believed that true freedom came from selfless sacrifice, that only by embracing the good of the polis and therefore society as a whole, could people become truly free.

That is why liberal critics and commentators who argue that Athens rather than Sparta should be the subject of epic films are missing the point.  Sparta's legacy is both military and civic. 

The military legacy is that with Sparta, we see the beginning of the professional yet patriotic soldiery, of which our troops today are the true and legitimate heirs.

In the civic sense, it is the Spartan ideals of separation of powers, of checks and balances and the idea that among the citizen class (which then was restricted but now is far more open) there was absolute equality before the law.

If you missed it in the theater, pick it up at the video store.  It is well worth the money.

Shut Up and Sing, literally

With the strains of Lee Greenwood's ever popular song about being "proud to be an American" still ringing in our ears, the posse took a look at the Dixie Chicks film "Shut Up and Sing". Aptly titled, they should stick to what they do best and keep the political commentary to themselves.

The film purports to be a behind the scenes look at the Chicks on tour and how they dealt with the controversy that arose after their singer Natalie Maines made a statement about being "ashamed that President Bush was from Texas". The statement was made in London on stage at the start of their European tour and on the eve of the Iraq invasion back in 2003.

This is where the film starts and we see the actual footage of the Chicks onstage and Natalie making the statement to the uproarious cheers of the audience. Within two weeks a rising tide of public anger, media backlash, and a country music radio boycott start to hurt record and ticket sales. The Chicks are told that they have to do damage control and reluctantly go on radio, get interviewed by Dianne Sawyer, appear on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, always trying to explain but not apologizing for making the statement. They seem to alternate between not wanting to do any of this and being hurt by American's angry reactions. They try to keep a united front but ultimately let Natalie do most of the talking. They are aware of the cameras as the film crew follows them around these media events and take turns posturing for them. Nothing seems to help and along the way they get into a public tussle with country music star Toby Keith and are forced to deal with a death threat. We see band meetings with their manager and various PR people trying to figure out what they should do at each turn. The film follows them through 2006 as they record a new album and plan another tour.

It's not unusual for a band to hire a film crew to follow them around and capture their antics for an eventual dvd release, but we haven't seen anything as pretentious as this since U2's "Rattle & Hum" tour film.

First off that night in London, the film crew shoots the audience reaction to the statement made from the stage. The audience was miked and the house lights came up and we saw the faces and heard the cheers. This strikes us as odd, unless there is a life threatening emergency it is unheard of for a venue to bring up the house lights unless prompted to do so. Obviously the band gave permission for this to happen and for it to be filmed. There is no way the Chicks could have predicted what this statement would mean and how it would be perceived, but the mere fact that it was captured on film means that they knew there might be a reason to have this. I'm sure the film crew was delighted when this played out in the international media and they now had an angle for a full blown film and not just a tour document.

What is also remarkable about the film is not just the Chicks manufactured reactions for the cameras, but how the other two members of the Dixie Chicks, sisters Martie Maguire and Emily Robison silently endure their selfish lead singer. Showing all the markings of a spoiled child, Natalie speaks as if the world is revolving around her. She interrupts her band mates and manager constantly, she pouts, she speaks as if everyone should be writing down her picayune words. There is a scene in a hospital room where a pregnant Emily is waiting for an induced labor, the band and family are gathered as are the cameras. Natalie chatters away and finally Emily's husband off camera, reminds everyone that this should be about a birth not a band meeting. What we find MOST offensive about this film is a scene on a tour bus where, after reading a quote from President Bush and his mild reaction to them, Natalie calls him a dumb f*** then looks directly into the camera and says "you're a dumb f***"! as if she's speaking directly to the President. Not only is she ultra aware of the camera but she has the nerve to think that what she has to say is so poignant that President Bush will be watching someday. In the comfort and safety of her own tour bus surrounded by paid employees catering to her every whim this might be understandable but to include this snippet in the film is inexcuseable!

The film concludes with the recording and release of a single called "I'm Not Ready to Play Nice" which had some airplay on MTV and VH1 recently. The song is from the band perspective about how they feel about the whole issue. It is a well crafted, nicely layered, emotive pop piece and this to us is actually relevant- they've boiled down their experience into a work that can be created in their prospective field of art. This is what artists do and that's fine, whether actors, authors, sports figures, or singers. It's when they step outside their range of talents yet use the audience captured by those talents to express a political and personal opinion they become irrelevant. As the film title implys we do think they should shut up and sing. They can have all the opinions they want we just don't care what they are.

3 Things that would make "Grindhouse" worth repeat viewings

SPOILER ALERT- well kind of

Not to take anything away from maverick film directors, especially Rodriguez (the Posse admires his stand against hollywood by insisting Frank Miller share the directing credit on "Sin City") but the two-part film he shares with Tarantino could have been vastly improved, simply by fixing Tarantino's end of things. Kudos to them for trying something different but...

First and foremost, switch the two. There is nothing to be gained by playing Rodriguez' vastly superior zombie shootout 'Planet Terror' before Tarantinos' slow building 'Death Proof' except to raise our expectations higher than what can be delivered by the second film. Leaving the theatre there is a deflated feeling as you try and remember how great the first film was. This switch alone would be a logical improvement and build the viewing experience appropriately.

Second, cut the long dialog between two separate scenes of two separate unrelated groups of girls. These go on absolutely forever without adding anything to the story or foreshadowing anything that could happen. One scene is dull, but two scenes is excruciatingly dull! Tarantino should tighten and edit these way down before considering any DVD release.

Third, please don't allow Quentin Tarantino screentime as an actor! He's not pleasant to look at or listen to. Playing small bit parts in both films is more about leaving his ego on the screen than acting chops.

What could have been a modern day classic is spoiled. Talk of splitting them up for separate releases may be right on target.

Useful Idiot

Some things are entirely predictable….like the robins returning to Michigan in March, the tulips poking up after a long winter’s rest, and the return of baseball in April. Add to that list Michael Moore coming out with another shameful film trashing America. Yes, the cheap-shot demagogue is at it again.

 

In his film "Sicko," the master of distortion and half-truths reports how responders who worked at Ground Zero following 9/11 could not get adequate health care for their illnesses stateside, but when he took them to Cuba, they promptly received quality care.

 Like Bll Clinton with Elian Gonzalez, Moore is serving as another in a long line of useful idiots to dictator Fidel Castro.

 OF COURSE Castro is going to pull out all stops to give the best, most compassionate, prompt medical care he can to these sick Americans. It’s a golden opportunity to score propaganda points with naïve liberals and their media sycophants in the United States and Europe.

Does Moore actually believe that anyone and everyone who needs healthcare services in Cuba will consistently receive this type of excellent care and attention (or even inconsistently)? If he does, he’s beyond hope.

 Universal health care seems to be the mantra of the left. Never mind if it means long lines, waiting lists, sub-par facilities, inadequate supplies and underpaid professionals. If socialized medicine is so great, why do people who want the best healthcare treatments or services in the world come to the United States?

Why not go to Canada or Cuba instead?

As I’ve said before, you could pass out bandages and aspirin to everyone and we’d have universal healthcare.

 Granted, our healthcare system could stand to be streamlined, and our insurance laws are archaic. But it’s not the horror story the left would have you believe.

 The illegal immigrant problem skews the number of uninsured in this country, overburdening our medical clinics and emergency rooms.  Other factors, such as tort law, costly malpractice insurance, outdated technology among some providers, and privacy laws that silo medical records, contribute to the problem.

 Additionally, millions of young, healthy people who are self-employed or whose employer doesn’t pick up the full tab for health insurance elect not to buy insurance because it is so expensive. Many of them could afford it if they would rearrange their priorities. 

 But it wouldn’t be so expensive if Uncle Sam permitted interstate competition among insurers and promoted individual choice by granting tax breaks for buying health insurance to people, not companies. Catastrophic coverage is really what most of the uninsured need; not “Cadillac Coverage” that contains minimal co-pays and deductibles. We must be realistic and practical, and we must assume some of the costs of healthcare ourselves. There’s no free lunch.

 But such analysis doesn’t lend itself to cheap-shot “documentaries.” Michael Moore continues to trash America, this time while sucking up to one of the most heartless and sadistic dictators of ur time.  I wonder if  Moore  chucks his American primary care physician in favor of a Cuban doctor?

Movie review: 300

The Posse had a rare opportunity to take in a matinee this afternoon and we were pleased to see the much-anticipated 300.

This is a great movie.  It will be added to our dvd library.

We had not read the Frank Miller graphic novel upon which it was based, but we are quite familiar with the actual history of the Battle of Thermopylae.  This film does an excellent job of conveying the same sense of wonder, otherworldness and sheer hyperbole that the Greeks found all around them.  The war elephants, for example, were four times as large as real elephants.  This wasn't realistic, but it is exactly the way the Greeks themselves would have seen things.

It is unapologetically violent, sensual and idealistic.  The Spartans fight for concepts that to them are all that matter: honor, duty, country.  Without these a Spartan is not a Spartan.

Watching the film and the way it portrays Leonidas and Spartan society, we could not help but be reminded of the current struggle in our own society.  Sparta itself is shown as divided by intrigue.  The Persians are an overwhelming colossus and they offer amazing gifts of treasure and pleasure in exchange for subservience.

It would be an easy thing to accept Persian rule, submit to the yoke, and go on living.  Of course, the Spartans do not, which is why of all the peoples we remember, we do not recall those who sought terms, who offered tribute or who sued for peace.  We recall only those that did as they did  and in so doing became immortal.

We highly recommend the movie, though it is not one to bring younger viewers to see.  The violence and sensuality (which seemed to us about as close as one could get to NC-17) can be off-putting.  The Posse actually dislikes excessive violence in film, particularly when it is driving by nihilism or a seeming sadism on the part of the director (we loathe Quentin Tarentino for this reason).

However, 300 is a violent story of a violent time, when passions were raw and the gods themselves were more outrageous than anything in today's tabloids.  It reminded us of Conan the Barbarian in terms of its over-the-top emphasis on the gore and ferocity of combat.

United 93

The Posse managed to scrape together enough cash to see United 93 Saturday night.

We were somewhat surprised by our reaction: we thought we would be a lot angrier afterward.  Not necessarily angry at the film, or the director, but angry at radical Islam and the bastards that slaughtered innocent people in the name of their twisted predatory god.

Let there be no question: this is not a work of propaganda or an exercise in demagogery.  It could have been and 60 years ago, it would have - and its release may well have been timed for the first anniversary of the attacks.

Instead, the film is almost entirely dispassionate, simply telling a story in clean, uncluttered frames.  There is very little music, hardly any soundtrack.  The most dramatic moments are quiet and rely on what is happening rather than the director's skill, special effects or handsome actors to give them weight.

There were two moments that got to us and the crowd we viewed the film with.

The first was the moment that the second plane hit the World Trade Center.  Like many Americans, we saw it live with a room full of our coworkers.  The reactions were universal: silence, horror, disbelief, blurted expletives.

Seeing it again after all of these years of media blackouts brought it back full force.  The theater was stone silent.  No one breathed.  The shock of that moment was palpable and real.  There was no fiction in it.

It is a feeling we will have to explain to later generations but this movie captures it precisely - perhaps because so many cast members were actual participants reprising their roles.  When the planes hit on the oversized monitors carrying CNN, the reactions on the screen are not faked; there will be no Oscars for their performances.  This is reality, a truer documentary than anything Michael Moore will ever produce.

The second moment was when the passengers realized what was going on and began to say their farewells to their loved ones by air and cell phone.  Again, there is no conventional "drama" here.

One would expect a Hollywood film to feature Tom Cruise emoting his ass off and saying bland and supposedly noble things in a long set piece.  Perhaps Ben Affleck would speak of all the summers they'll never have while a soft-focus flashback showing them making love amidst billowing parachutes.

But these conversations are what real people said.  We have the tapes, and they are used.  "Our plane has been hijacked and I probably won't make it home.  I just called to say I love you."

Some asked for messages to be relayed.  Others calmly offered up directions to a will and the combination to the safe.  Still others prayed.

As recent converts to Catholicism, the Posse could not help but think of the Hail Mary, particularly its conclusion:

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

When that hour comes, do we know it?  The passengers of United 93 did.  Yet they set aside despair and fought back and in so doing saved the lives of countless others.

This is a movie we will most likely never see again.  It is that wrenching.

But it is a movie that we had to see.