Picture yourself in a boat on a river, with tangerine trees and marmalade skies. Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly, a girl with kaleidoscope eyes...or...What was regarded as a key brownfields tax incentive in the Internal Revenue Code expires on December 31, 2007. Originally enacted in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34), the provision allows a taxpayer to fully deduct the costs of environmental cleanup in the year...
I use these two as examples in the contrasting styles of strong political themed films that I have watched in the recent months. Chuck comes from the name of the main character, played by Tom Hanks, in a film written by Aaron Sorkin (
West Wing, Studio 60, American President, Sports Night) simply called
Charlie Wilson's War. Malley comes from Robert Redford's character, a college professor who manipulates his students, in
Lions for Lambs by...by...a no name: Matthew Michael Carnahan (
The Kingdom. That's it).
Both the writers are strong liberals, and obviously see there is something terribly wrong with the nation; I mean the political aspect...well mainly its just Bush and the war that they oppose, but one is good at disguising his anger and bias into an entertaining thought that makes money and makes the audience laugh, while the other makes you wonder how the producer still has a job, or how they are gonna clean the movieplex after that heaping pile of steamy terd was smeared all over the screen. Lions is quite possibly one of the worst movies I have seen in a decade.
The Marine with John Cena was a better movie. D-War was better! I dont have a problem with political movies, but I do have a problem with an inability to bury a theme under layers of great dialogue, masterfully sculpted characters, rising action, sub-plot scandals, or even sex scenes.
Silver City, written by John Sayles (
Spiderwick Chronicles, Eight Men Out, Jurassic Park IV), was an obvious political film, but he had the courtesy to the audience to bury the theme.
I will admit that I hate Redford, except in Spy Game, because he knows what he is. He is an icon. A Hollywood icon; unfortunately too, because he is a poor decision maker, a decent actor, but an egregious self promoter. He just seems so pretentious sitting in his little chair behind a microphone with his little bottle of water, and talking about how HE wanted to do this, HE organized this, HE wants to be that. All he has is Sundance. Sundance is literally keeping him afloat because nobody could have as many bad movies as he does, producing, directing, and acting, and still have such a dominant role in Hollywood. Nobody. And it is really him that is behind this slaughter of the art of screenwriting and a blatant mutilation of the silver screen called
Lions for Lambs.
I never watched an episode of
West Wing, but it got rave reviews. I will admit that I did like
Studio 60, but it was mostly because of Amanda Peet; also never saw an episode of
Sports Night, high critic's marks as well, but he is just talented.
Charlie Wilson's War is a perfect example of great writing. The characters are great, held up by great acting; humor laced with drama intertwined with passion is a perfect recipe for meaningless sub-plots, and there is no real point in the movie where I feel I am being persuaded that one opinion is more right than the other...well there are some things, but he has fun with those moments, like he is laughing with the audience, not reprimanding them.
Im glad this movie was good, just so Redford could see that he is slapping together garbage. Go to the county dump and you will see the exact same thing: putrid trash that sickens people to the point of nausea.