Recently in War/Military pg.2 Category

Starring:James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Tom Wilkinson, Kevin Kline, Evan Rachel Wood, Justin Long. Drected by Robert Redford. Drama/Historical. Synopsis: A version of the story of Mary Suratt, one of the convicted conspirators in the assassination of Presdient Lincoln and the first woman to be executed by the federal goverment in the United States. 

Saw this one on the big screen over the weekend and have to say it's a good one. I'll cut to the chase on an issue that is always out there whenever there and about the Civil War in particular: the treatment of the issue of slavery. Know going in that The Conspirator does not deal with it-barely mentions it-at all.

In full disclosure of my feelings on the issue as it relates to its treatment in movies and the public media, I think those who pretend the issue wasn't the cause of the war or doesn't resonate to this day is, frankly, willfully ignoring voluminous history.

Having said, that I do also think its somewhat unfair to expect this movie, or any movie, to deal with every aspect of the Civil War-or any other historical topic-, and it's certainly impossible for any flick to deal with any topic to everyone's content.

This flick deals with one aspect, and one aspect only, of the conspiracy to assassinate and the actual murder of President Lincoln.That issue is the arrest, trial, and eventual execution of Mary Surratt, owner of a boardinghouse where the men who conspired to first kidnap and then kill President Lincoln met and used as quarters. The movie also goes into another aspect of this murder plot by touching base on the less well known fact that there was a plan in place to kill Secretary of State Seward and Vice President Johnson on the same night as Lincoln.

The flick moves quickly into the events of April 14, 1865 and tells us the tale through use of a montage of shots I found visually appealing and effective. I will say, however, that I do think one has to be somewhat familiar with the players and events of the night to get the full impact because there is little explanation by way of plot development 

Oh, sure, everyone knows Booth shot Lincoln but, trust me, this action literally takes a few seconds (as a point of fact, we never even see a frontal shot of the actor playing Lincoln) and then on to the meat of the story; the aftermath of the assassination and Mary Surratt's (Robin Wright State of Play The Pledge)  arrest and the lingering question-both then and now-of her actual involvement in the conspiracy.

Our other protagonist is Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy Atonement) who we first see in an opening scene view of a grim battlefield as the Union officer, bleedging profusely, is concerned only with literally trying to hold and talk his wounded friend, Nicholas Baker (Justin Long Drag Me To Hell) 

Once baack in Washington, D.C. after both the war and the assassination, Aiken is a new practicing attorney whose mentor is Connecticut senator Reverdy Johnson (Tom Wilkinson Valkyrie) who wants to see Surratt get a fairer trial than the military tribunal ordered by our movie's antagonist, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (Kevin Kline The Pink Panther). It seems that a true blue Yankee like Aiken will ensure a fairer consideration from the tribunal towards Surratt than a Union southerner like Johnson.

Aiken is reluctant to say the least, at first but is diligent in trying to first understand and then represent the reluctant Surratt. The (historically arguable) main premise of the flick is that the U.S. government was persecuting Mary Surratt chiefly to put pressure on her fugitive son, John, was clearly a conspirator as well. Aiken also comes to know the other Surratt child, a daughter who is under house arrest during the time of her mother's trial (Evan Rachel Wood The Wrestler) And, of course, he comes to empathize and, frankly, do one hell of a job in defending his client.

The acting is splendid. Wright, in addition to looking almost exactly like Mary Surratt in the few surviving pictures, does a wonderful job of making us really emphathize with her more as a person and a mother than I would have expected. McAvoy is very good, too, real earnest as a rue blood Yankee and very convincing as a young lawyer on his feet in tough criminal case (been there, done that a few dozen times myself).

The chemistry between Wright and McAvoy is key to making the flick work and I think they nailed it. There is tension and tenderness at the appropriate times and, thankfully, Redford did not succumb to the typical Hollywood temptation to construct or imply any romantic connection where none actually existed.

In my opinion, Kline deserves special note for his portrayal of Stanton, clear set up as the antagonist (again, historically arguable) in this telling of the story. I think those fans who identify the best of his work with comedic roles will be pleasantly surprised here (and don't feel too bad if you don't realize its Kline right away, I was about 15 minutes into the flick before I leaned over to my date and said "Is that Kevin Kline?")  

I have to give another shout out to the actor playing the leader of the military tribunal (Colm Meaney Five Fingers The Damned United). This guy is fast becoming one my favorite all time character actors...as well as one of the best. If there are records kept for a category of "stealing the scene with fewest minutes of screen time" , Mr. Meaney has to be near the top. He's got that much of a screen presence.

I liked the flick and I think you will, too, but I can't include it as one of my faves, chiefly because it is a little to sympathetic, in my humble opinion, to people who were, without a doubt, involved in the plot to assassinate Lincoln.

The idea, as strongly implied by the flick, that Mary Surratt was completely unaware of anything at all and was only trying to protect her son (who was being ably protected and hidden by significant higher ups of the Catholic Church) is, to put it mildly, a huge stretch and think that those who have, or will, look at her case would fairly conclude that she was definitely complicit in both the planning of the kidnappning and eventual murder of the President.

Also, even at the time of her trial, sentiment about her innocence was minimal. The question then and the real issue that extends until today is whether or not she should have been executed.   

So, my main reason for not including it among my faves is what I deem to be a little too much sympathy for certain people, somethng that has been going on in the popular culture in terms of "Confederate worship" (my term) for decades. I know some won't agree with me, but I'm heartened that I'm not the only one. Look, there is no doubt that it is difficult to criticize the movie when it comes to hard, cold, historical facts.

The care taken to be accurate on certain interesting & important facts is to be commended, e.g. the fact that Booth barred the door to the Presidential box, the absence of the Presiden't bodyguard from his post, the chase given to Booth by members of the cast of the play Lincoln was watching, the fact that Lincoln was so tall that they had to lay him diagonally to fit on his death bed, the fact that the entire cast of the play was detained for questioning, the 'lynch mob' atmosphere that struck many unfortunate men who bore a resemblance to Booth, Mary Surratt's extreme illness due to h her menstrual cycle during the trial, the care given to keep the sun off of her face for comfort-and no one else's-with a parasol against the sun minutes before hanging her... and it goes on...all facts portrayed historically accurate in the movie, added without distracting from the story this particular flick wanted to tell.

So, why am I not categorizing it as historically brilliant? Two words. John Clampitt. Who is he, you might ask? Well, he is the lawyer who defended Mary Surratt along with Fredrick Aiken. And who played him in the movie, you might ask? No one. Do I mean he was portrayed, but uncredited? Nope, no one. Completely whisked from history in this version. So, yeah a little tough for me to give the flick the highest historical mark with that big of an ommission.

Some will undoubtedly say, and have said, that this film is allegorical to the present day situation with military trials and Guantonomo with its theme being the view of the politically outspoken Redford. I can't go quite that far. This event really happened. How one interprets it is one thing, but the idea it could be used to prove a point about a situation with an entirely different set of circumstances is a stretch to me.

Much to my chagrin, I don't know Mr. Redford (I'm going to guess that most making the criticism don't either) and I won't deny his well known political views might have influenced his decision to tell this particular story, but when you tell a story and are accurate with the facts I don't see it as allegorical. My slight problem is how some of those facts are portrayed and the decision to ignore or downplay some others.

I would be surprised if we don't hear some chatter about The Conspirator come Oscar time.      

Starring: Howard Rollins, Aldoph Caesar, Art Evans, Denzel Washington, Larry Riley, Trey Wilson, Robert Townsend, David Alan Grier, Wings Hauser, William Allen Young, John Hancock,  Dennis Liscomb, David Harris, Scott Paulin. Directed by Norman Jewison. Drama/Military/Historical Synopsis: An African American officer/lawyer is sent to an Army base in 1944 Louisiana to investigate the unsolved murder of antagonistic African American sergeant.

Seeing this one on DVD recently brought back some good memories of seeing it in the theater back in the day and I remember thinking that this Washington guy might have a chance to do some more movies, he seemed pretty good. But, truthfully, I remember thinking that this was just a hell of a good story, and it still is 25 years later.

Set against the backdrop of World War II in the segregated South with the segregated Army of the time, the story is told primarily in flashback, but starts with an obviously intoxicated Sergeant Waters (Aldophy Caesar The Color Purple) walking from a saloon back to base.

Notwithstanding the uniform he has on his drunken state  and, more importantly, the color of his skin make him less than impressive to the locals. In the next frame he is on his knees on a lonely road, bleeding and laughing at his (unseen) tormentor before he is shot in the chest.

And, from there, we have our movie. An army lawyer, who is also an officer (Howard Rollins Ragtime) is sent to investigate the crime and, boy, if you think an African American officer acting with authority raises some eyebrows nin 1944 Louisiana well, you're quite right, as we see from the moment the pleasantly surprised Corporal Ellis (Robert Townsend Hollywood Shuffle) picks him up until the time he meets the commanding officer of the all black company (Dennis Lipscomb Under Siege) and his questioning of all of the members of the company who knew the sergeant and also who might have wanted him dead.

The ensemble cast is excellent, with soldiers in the company being played by Art Evans (Fright Night), Larry Riley (Crackers), David Alan Grier (The Poker House), William Allen Young (District 9 Fear X), David Harris (Brubaker), and, of course Denzel Washington (The Book Of Eli). Also look for notable character actors John Hancock (Bonfire Of The Vanities),Trey Wilson (Rasing Arizona), and Wings Hauser (Tales From The Hood)

The story is well told, in flashback like I mentioned earlier, but we see who the killer of Sergeant Waters is as it's figured out/revealed to our protagonist, Captain Davenport (Rollins). I especially like how the story is nuanced, and told at several different levels. When doing a flick with old time segregationist/racist underlying theme, it would be easy to do it in a one-dimensional way, but that's not done here.

One thing that I really liked about the story is that it is told-completely-from the perspective of the African American characters and, as I indicated, its nuanced and multi-dimensional. If you really think about it, that makes this flick relatively rare when it comes to films dealing largely with some aspect of the African-American experience. Usually, the African American characters are regulated to window dressing status, if not outright buffonery. (See Mississippi Burning)

In this flick, you have the dual pleasure of a pretty good 'whodunnit?' along with a story about the social mores of the time and how much has changed since then. I think the flow of the story and its crisp telling onscreen has to be credited largely to director Jewison (In The Heat Of The Night), understanding he had an extremely talented cast of actors to work with.

One of my faves and, in my humble opinion, one of the best World War II themed American movies ever made.

Check it out and see if you agree.   

Directed by Quentin Tarantino. Starring: Christopher Waltz, Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, Eli Roth, Diane Kuger, Jacky Ido, Daniel Bruhl, Til Schweiger, Martin Wuttke. Synopsis: In WWII France, a group of Jewish U.S. soldiers are choosen specifically to terrorize the occupying Nazis with their brutal methods. Drama/War.  

I'm a big Tarantino fan, but Inglourious Basterds just didn't work for me...not even a little bit. Don't get me wrong, there are some compelling scenes, the trademark parallel story telling, violence, and dark humor of Tarantino, as well some fine acting, but the flick as a whole didn't do it for me and, I would suspect, not for more than few Taratino, Pitt, or war movie fans.

The first thing you might notice is that I don't categorize this movie as "historical", despite the subject matter, because its not even a little bit factual nor does it make a very serious attempt to be legitimate historical fiction. Another thing you should realize when you're getting ready to see this one is that, like many Tarantino movies, the story is heavy on dialogue, but understand that much of it is in French or German, and, in my view, at times the subittiles moved too quickly and/or were hard to read against background.

The story itself, as I alluded to, is fantastical. We have a very powerful and well done opening scene between an eloquently evil Nazi officer, Hans Landa (Christopher Waltz) and a nervous French dairy farmer who is secretly hiding a Jewish family named Dreyfus from the occupying Germans. This scene is, by far, in my opinion, the best of the flick and Walz is superb throughout.  In classic Tarantino fashion, we have another story going on at the same time and we just know the two will meet at some point.

Cut to a group of American soldiers led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt Seven, Burn After Reading) is a fast talking, blood and guts, good ole' boy type who tells his assortment of troops that they have been assembled for two reasons 1) they're Jewish 2) they are going to spread unprecedented fear among the Germans by being incredibly barbaric. In fact, Lt. Raine tells his group of recruits that each of them owes him "100 scalps, or die tryin'". Let me make this clear right now: you will see some scalps being cut off in the film, sometimes when casual dialogue is going on.

Mpw, you might think this film will be a story of this group of men (which include Eli Roth Hostel, Daniel Bruhl, and Til Schweiger) -given the title of the flick-along with their feelings of revenge, justification due to their religion and the crime the Nazis had committed upon their people, but its not. In fact, the "inglourious basterds", other than Pitt, are merely secondary/backgound characters in the story, one dimensional and no real attempt to develop them.

On the other hand, Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent) is really the effective protagonist of the story, a theater owner who has a dedicated business associate (Jacky Ido) and who is developing an intricate plan to wreak some havoc on the Nazis who will be viewing a film in her theater, including Goebbels and Hitler ( Martin Wuttke) himself.

Look, I never want to be a spoiler and I already told you the plot was fantastical, but I just have to say again, it was a little too over the top for me and, worse, just didn't fit together as a good story. I will say that Tarantino fans should check this one out, no matter what, and I predict some will like it very much as it does have his distinctive flavor, but for me the one key ingredient to a good flick is a good story and this one doesn't get there. The dark humor mixed with violence  that works so well in most of Tarantino's films falls flat here, but in fairness, its hard to find any humor with Nazis and the war as your backdrop and, other than Hogan's Heroes, its probably better not to try.

Like I said, Waltz is excellent and Laurent is not far behind, but not enough to save this one. I was disappointed in Pitt. I know his character is supposed to be over the top, but to me it was to the point of being cartoonish, and this is beneath him a bit, in my view. Not a terrible performance, good for some laughs, and the character as written is over the top, but I just expected more from Pitt in terms of carrying the movie. He really doesn't. That might be unfair of me to expect great things from him in any film, but I do think he has that type of talent-I'm not talking about being a star-where its reasonable to expect more than I would from most actors.

I will also mention Wuttke's performance as Hitler, he has the look nailed and the histrionics are what many of us would associate with one of the most despicable men who ever lived. 

Overall, the good acting from some of the cast, trademark directorial florusihes, and a few interesting scenes just can't save a story that is too far fetched and contains events that just plain did not happen, e.g. the murder of Hitler along with hundreds of Nazis in a theater. I know the whole point was to paint a 'fantasy' revenge type of movie, but against the real life historical backdrop and people, it falls flat. 

But, you might think differently. Try it for yourself and find out, don't take my word for it. Hell, even I don't do that unless I've got no other alternative.

Directed by Rod Holcomb. Starring Scott Glenn, Zachary Ty Bryan, Theo Rossi, Jeff Roop, Corey Sevier, Adam Grimes, Jake Busey, Richard Zeppieri. Drama/Historical/Sports/TV Movie. Synopsis: The story of the 1950 Army football team and its involvement in a historic cheating scandal and breaking of the honor code. The scandal ended the West Point careers of 30 football players, bo other cadets, and shocked the nation during the height of the Korean War.

This is a very good historical drama that is, surprisingly, relatively absent from the consciousness of many die hard college football fans (like me)-and not just because it happened more than 50 years ago. Believe me, a lot of die hard college football fans can tell you plenty about Red Granges' epic 6 touchdown effort or the Four Horseman of Notre Dame, both of which happened decades prior to the events in this movie. 

Code Breakers is made by ESPN, but those of you who are not sports/football fans per se shouldn't worry, this is a quality drama and not shot just for jocks. And, its not the first time (The Junction Boys) ESPN has hit paydirt with a movie based on a historical period of college football.

The film is set in 1950, with the West Point (Army) football team coming off of two straight undefeated seasons, and heavy favorites for a third, a feat then unmatched in college football. Army was, unlike today, one of the glamour teams in college football with only Notre Dame being comparable in the national consciousness. The euphoria of the victory in WWII was still fresh, yet the specter of Korea looms large. The football team was coached by the legendary Earl "Red" Blaik (Scott Glenn Training Day Urban Cowboy), well on his way to college coaching immortality and helped by an impressive staff that included future NFL coaching legend Vince Lombardi (Richard Zeppieri)

Holcomb does a great job of bringing this all to us and setting the mood in the first few minutes of the movie with a very good replica of the West Point campus and good use of period newsreels. The cast is ensemble, as you might guess, but the most important characters for the purpose of introducing us to the scandal are George Holbrook (Jeff Roop), a key football player who struggles with some of his subjects and his swim team roommate Brian Nolan (Zachary Ty Bryan). The two are best friends and mutually worried about their grades amidst the incredible pressure and expectations of the Academy.

Holbrook is introduced to a ring of cadets, including several key football players, who are able to share questions and answers with each other to get borderline academic qualifying players over the hump. The main players in telling the story of the ring, which was so sophisticated and ingrained that there was actually a member of the ring on the honor committee, include the quarterback-and coach's son-Bob Blaik (Corey Seveir) and the aggressive star running back DeSantis (Theo Rossi)

Holbrook reluctantly gets drawn into the cheating, though he, like so many of the cadets involved, did not directly benefit from cheating yet did break the code to help others, and ultimately confides the existence of the cheating ring to Nolan, who in turn goes through his own struggle in deciding how to proceed. I never want to play spoiler, but if you want to see this movie, even if you know nothing about this story, you know that the cheating ring was exposed just from the title. 

But, without giving you a overview of what happens next, I can do it justice by saying that it is done in such a way as to make it ambiguous, at least to me, as to what the truly honorable thing to do and the personal struggle some of these cadets went through in reaching their decisions, honorable or not.

The desire of some of the players not to want to tell on their friends-some of whom were literally weeks away from going to the war in Korea after graduation-is done in such way as to not be superficial or cheesy. On the other hand, the necessity of upholding the honor code and to tell the truth is presented with equal strength.

The acting is excellent. Scott Glenn (Urban Cowboy, Silence of the Lambs, Courage Under Fire)  is incredible as Coach Blaik. The young actors who portray  the cadets seem to me, an Army veteran, to be legitimate military men and, as you would guess, an ESPN produced film is righteous with the football as well. To me, Bryan, Roop, Sevier, and Rossi were all excellent in their roles and brought their characters to life as well as you could expect. The rest of the cast is good, too, with Jake Busey probably being the most recognizable for the obvious reason that he is an exact replica of his father.  

Some of you know that special features in a DVD are important to me, and the special features in this film are an A+. They are informative and substantive. There is a nice feature on the actual team complete with contemporary news footage, a touching feature on both the Army and Navy teams leading up to their big game in 2001 in the wake of the terrorists attacks on America, and several excellent interviews with famous Army men and West Point graduates such as Norman Schwarzkopf, several West Point Graduates who were there during the scandal such as Bill Yeoman, whom some of you college football fans will remember as the successful head coach of the University of Houston in the '80's, 1959 Heisman Trophy winner Pete Dawkins, and even some notable Navy men, such as Roger Staubach and John McCain. All of this, plus the standard stuff: interviews with the cast and on the set, director's commentary.

The special features last as long or longer than the film and you just couldn't ask for more if you are interested in this movie, the making of the movie, learning more about the story, or the Army-Navy football rivalry.

The only complaint I have about the film is that it could have done more in telling us what happened specifically to some of the characters who were featured. Instead, we got general stuff at the end like "..so and so went on to serve with distinction in the U.S. Army after leaving West Point..."    But, I do understand that this is still a touchy subject a half century later, some of these men are still alive, the facts are undoubtedly still in dispute, and I would guess that not everyone who was involved in this affair, at any level, was on board for the movie. So, its a small complaint.

Most movies that make it to my favorites have to be viewed at least twice (how good can it really be if I don't want to watch it again....and again...?), but Code Breakers made it after one viewing.

For what that's worth.