Alan Rapp

• Title: Flyboys
• IMDb: link

Flyboys main problem is it’s just too Hollywood.  It’s too nice, it’s too stylish, and it’s just too damn clean.  Despite being based on a real story the film feels Hollywood fake, which is a problem.  Still the actors do what they can with the script and find a way to make a good, if not particularly memorable, film.

WWI is raging across Europe and America stands idly by.  A group of young Americans, of different backgrounds, from different states, and for different reasons, travel to France to join the fight.  They volunteer for the Lafayette Escadrille, an elite fighter pilot division, to take on the German air force.

The characters in the film are your standard army film group.  There’s the best of the group Blaine Rawlings (James Franco) who is burdened with a conscience and falls for a local woman (Jennifer Decker).  There’s the black fighter (Abdul Salis) who doesn’t want to fight, the screw-up who can’t shoot straight (David Ellison), the one who succumbs to the pressure (Philip Winchester), and the spoiled rich kid (Tyler Labine).  It wouldn’t be a war film with a noble captain (Jean Reno) and a mysterious and aloof flight instructor (Martin Henderson).

The film begins with how each came to volunteer, follows their training and early missions, and their final mission of glory.

The acting is as good as it can be given these stock characters and relationships.  The real stars of the film are the dogfights.  At the beginning they are a little to much like a video game for me, but they improve over the course of the film as the squad becomes part of the fighting unit.

There are problems of course.  The story is far from original and relies too much on the aerial dogfights and likeability of its cast.  It’s also is a little too brash for my taste; it has all the subtlety of a Michael Bay film.

I would have preferred a film that had paid a little more attention to detail rather than try to look as lush and clean as this one.  Everything is just too Hollywood beautiful.  And what a rich country France must have been during the war, to have every single member of their country dressed in new clothing, perfectly washed and pressed daily (even as they evacuate cities).  And who knew that French military uniforms are so resistant to dirt and wear they always look like they were just sewn.  Amazing.

Despite the films flaws, gross generalizations, and lack of accuracy in small matters, it still is an enjoyable film, and one of the few war movies acceptable for young teenagers.  It’s nowhere near as bad as Pearl Harbor, but is inflicted with some of the same flaws.  Still, for what it does right it is easy enough to recommend.

• Title: All the King’s Men
• IMDb: link

In 1950 All the King’s Men won Best Actor (Broderick Crawford), Best Supporting Actress (Mercedes McCambridge), and Best Picture.  I wish that was the film we were about to discuss, but sadly it is not.  In 2006 Hollywood decided to make an inferior remake.  Sadly, this is the film we will discuss.

Willie Stark (Sean Penn) is chosen by mobster Tiny Duffy (James Gandolfini) to enter the race for Louisiana Governor.  Tiny sees Stark as the wide-eyed innocent do-gooder who will split the vote and keep his man in office.  Once Stark learns of this situation he plunges head on into the campaign and becomes the Governor of Louisiana.

While this is happening, young newspaper man Jack Burden (Jude Law) is covering the story for his paper, and begins to believe that Willie Stark might just be the right man for the job.  Burden sees a fellow dreamer in Willie and thinks, just maybe, Stark might do some good.

Once in office Stark takes on the oil companies and state legislature, tyring to make good his campaign promises of spreading the wealth and creating new jobs, new schools, new roads and bridges, for the less fortunate of the state.  The power brokers however see this man as a menace and fight to hold onto their wealth.

Oddly enough the movie doesn’t have a main character.  The first half of the movie centers mostly around Stark, at times leaving his story to focus on Burden.  In the film’s second half the focus shifts 180, as Stark’s story is moved to the back-burner in favor of Burden’s tale.

There are countess stories that branch off of Burden’s tale which involve his childhood best friend (Mark Ruffalo), who Willie wants to use for publicity, his childhood crush (Kate Winslet), who has her own secrets, his disapproving mother (Kathy Baker), his relationship with Stark and his staff including Stark’s gal Friday (Patricia Clarkson), his relationship with the influential man who helped raise him (Anthony Hopkins), who Stark wants Burden to bring down, and more.

The film feels very much like a large novel shoved into the small frames of a movie reel.  There’s just too much there, and it’s so badly managed that you never really learn about the situations or characters.  Was Willie Stark a good Samaritan that wanted to help out the unfortunate, or was he a crook and thief milking the state for money?  The movie never decides, and, what’s worse, never even presents evidence either way.  All we get is third-hand gossip.

The structure of the film leaves much to be desired.  It opens in an odd flashback sequence that is troubling, and Willie’s initial forray into politic is less than adequately explained (and Tiny’s as a choice for Lt. Governor is never explained).  In too many places the film feels like an unfinished rough-cut instead of a movie being pushed into the Oscar race.

The two men’s stories don’t really have much to do with each other, and the film would have been better served to put one or the other front and center instead of wobbling between the two.  Nor do the flashbacks from Burden’s past, shown over and over again, add to any part of the film.  It’s just a slow plodding exercise that seems to be there to give everyone a chance to act.

Speaking of the acting, it’s darn good.  The film survives based on the performances of these actors – and considering Penn looks like he’s wearing a groundhog on his head for most of the film that’s something to be proud of.

The level of talent here sets expectations and demands certainly more than competence.  Sadly that’s all we get.  The film really, really wants to be an Oscar contender, but there isn’t a single performance, shot, line of dialogue, or piece of score, that is memorable, let alone remarkable.  This film feels very much like a remake and a film based off a novel, but without the author’s perspective.  We get characters, we get stories, but we don’t get a point.  With the cast involved and a director like Steven Zaillian behind the camera I expected more than an underwhelming, two-hour, instantly forgettable film.

That’s All? Read More »