Reviews

Those familiar with the Big Lebowski will be amused to find Jeff Bridges and Sam Elliott reprising their roles (well, sort of) from that far superior film. Bridges revels in a role that in the hands of a less ingenious actor would become pure drivel, but at points he only barely manages. Elliott shows more color than usual, and Oldman carries off his usual and despicable portrayal of the villain. Yet, despite strong performances, the abysmal pabulum that passes for a script unites with the inept camera direction to create film that unwittingly mocks its own message. In short, departing from a worthy and crucial message, the script slips readily into simplistic jingoism, and in an attempt to sustain (or mirror) the script's halting realism, the jittery camera work simply annoys. Overall, a significant disappointment.

Dogma is one of those cultural oddities that surely merit reams of postmodern analysis; some day a clever graduate student will make her name with a Dogma-tic dissertation. Unfortunately, as a piece of entertainment, it is far too creepy to warrant most viewers' attention. The movie continually oozes a bizarre mish-mash of bloodthirsty divine retribution, inanely anti-intellectual pseudo-theology, and conservative values shrouded in flimsy pretension to open-mindedness. It would seem that the film wishes to revive sincere interest in an unadorned, anti-institutional version of "original" Christianity. It succeeds only in portraying Christianity as a barbaric, simplistic and primitive appeal to middle American mush. Of course, some may believe this portrayal to be accurate, but that makes it no less disconcerting.

Un film tragique, sans doute...and yet compelling. Even some French mediaticians bemoan the banal darkness of the gallic characters that so often drag contemporary French cinema to the depths of despair... and to the bottom of the box-office ratings. But La vie revé des anges has restored my faith in the strangely irresistible beauty of the utterly bleak, as only the French can portray it. I first learned of the film while living in La Suisse romande, where, as I recall, it received rave reviews, not least for Elodie Bouchez`s depiction of the roughly ingenuous Isa: as the reviewer put it, one can watch her for hours on the screen and still ask for more. Her beauty is not what makes her compelling, although many would consider her stunning in her simplicity. Rather, it is her depiction of undaunted and unwavering innocence that makes her a wonder to behold. And make no mistake: it is innocence that triumphs here. Perhaps that is why, in the end, the film is not so bleak after all...and more universal than tout simplement français.

As a child in the sixties, I remember being enthralled by adventures of the 1930's--the plots seemed to move at a fevered pace, and the action riveted me to the TV screen. But when I return to such films now, I must remind myself that times have changed: the fevered pace of the 30's plods like a moribund snail in the 90's, where the quick-cut editing of MTV is now the standard for all "action" films.

If, however, you can abandon all your adventurous expectations, you can enjoy the daring deeds of these 30's heroes. "Gunga Din" is not a bad place to start, for it is certainly one of the best (and best known) in the genre.

"Gunga Din," based distantly on Kipling's poem, takes place in British colonial India, a standard setting for a number of films in the 30's adventure genre. Although less crisp in writing and acting then "Lives of a Bengal Lancer (1935)," the film faithfully recreates the ambiance of a British Indian regiment. Even the Hindi phrases heard in the film are not half bad, and the final battle scenes were clearly executed under the careful eyes of British military advisors--look out for the rousing shot of a Sikh officer brandishing his sabre as he leads his disciplined lancers in their thunderous, galloping charge against the thugee hordes.

The film's sincere attempt at realism is one of the things that make it a curious artifact, for it embodies that (somewhat crude) realism in the two-dimensional attitudes of wholly unreal characters. Add to this another curio: the film combines romantic attitudes about the Raj with the ambiguous need to elevate a "simple" Indian to the level of inspirational hero. Gunga Din, the lowly bisti (water-bearer), must remain the childish idiot that authorizes British rule (they're too childish to take care of themselves, you see); but at the same time, the plot demands that he display the courage and ingenuity to warrant our admiration. In this sense, the film captures Kipling's own ambivalent attitudes about India. And as with Kipling's poem, the movie might prompt you to ask whether our hero, Gunga Din, could ever be anything more than a hell-bound heathen in the eyes of his British companions. But what, then, does it mean to say, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din"?

A knock off, as the film will soon tell you, is a cheap imitation marketed as the real thing. How a propos: after all, the film itself is largely a knock off of Jackie Chan's brawling choreography. As such, it is not all that bad, and if you can be mildly entertained by Jackie, you'll probably like this film. But there is more to this film than Chan-ism: it contains many brilliant moments of fascinating, hilarious and imaginative cinematography. Although he clearly has spent a bit too much time immersed in some digital realm, Arthur Wong gives us numerous, sometimes brilliant glimpses of where the film is probably heading. The ingenious (if completely pointless) use of a pop-up window early in the film is an example, as are the visions of eyes through telescopic lenses and the visually enacted cellular call (I won't bother to explain here; just see the film). Some of these tricks are not new, but Wong brings a captivating panache to them. He also, unfortunately, carries some of them much too far (shown once, blurred, staccato figures create a cruel beauty to the violence; twice, they become thought provoking; ten times, they are just annoying). Still, despite his failings, Wong has shown us where the computer is taking film. His daring forays into cybernetic cinema deserve an audience.

If you expect a movie that lives up to the promise of Heinlein's novel, then do not even think of seeing this movie.