Estella's Revenge | July 2006 Issue #4


	home		features		columns		reviews		contact

July 2006 :: issue 4

The Review Reel
	The Break-Up
	El Lobo
	The Lake House
	Munich
	Thank You for Smoking
	United 93
	The Wind that Shakes the Barley

Movies
From the most anticipated of the summer blockbusters to films you might never have heard of, the Review Reel is an eclectic mix of filmy goodness.

We accept reviews of mainstream films, indies, documentaries, and other such delights on film. To review for Estella's Revenge visit our submission page.

The Break-Up

Directed by Peyton Reed, 2006
Reviewed by Reese Witherfork

Breaking up with men isn't something I have a lot of experience with. Most of my boyfriends have met early deaths--more often than not, due to accidents involving a hairdryer falling into their bathtub, but now and then men in ski masks will break into their houses while I wait in the van.

For this reason, I wasn't sure I'd identify with this romantic comedy which may or may not have a happy ending. I don't want to spill the beans, but let me just put it to you this way--Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn are billion dollar stars and it's common knowledge that romantic movies with sad endings flop at the box office and, furthermore, everyone knows that no Hollywood studio is going to put a couple of major stars in a movie that's going to flop ... so there you go. I hope I haven't given away the ending.

I'll be honest. I went to the theatre early last night and sat down in the arcade and wrote up a really unflattering review of this film before I'd even seen the movie. I was so certain that I knew exactly what this movie was going to be about and I was so certain that Aniston and Vaughn were going to suck the big banana that I felt I could write a reasonably accurate review without watching the film at all.

Well, I had to ditch that review because, much as I hate to admit it--I quite liked this movie. The basic plot is this: a couple breaks up but neither wants to move out of the condo they both own. Fighting and comedy ensue and, yes, I actually chuckled to myself quite a bit as I watched this movie.

Okay, okay, a few of Vince Vaughn's supposedly comedic monologues were a little embarassing to watch, but they seemed to keep the meatheads in the audience in stitches and, mostly, the clever banter was fairly clever. But, what I liked the most about this movie was that, in between the gags and banter, there were moments of really gut-wrenching bleakness. The fights these two had were precisely the sort of fights that everyone in the world has had with their boyfriend/girlfriend at some point and, yeah, you may even feel yourself getting a little choked up at times.

This movie could have been worse.

El Lobo

Directed by Miguel Courtois, 2004
Reviewed by Fence

In the 1970's, as Franco's dictatorship of Spain was slowly coming to an end, Txema finds himself getting involved with some Basque terrorists. In the middle of the night some ETA members show up at his door, and, friends with one, he allows them stay the night. As he chats with them he discovers that they are out to kill an informer. A man that Txema knows, a local taxi driver. Feeling guilty, Txema leaves a warning note on the Taxi, but it comes to late, and in the aftermath of the murder Txema is arrested.

And the Spanish secret service want to use him as an undercover agent. At first he refuses, but financial pressure, and the collapse of his business mean that he turns back to the police. It is suggested, but never said that it was police intervention that lead to his financial problems.

The rest of the film details Txema's life with ETA as a mole, with the code name Lobo.

When I headed into the cinema, I had no idea what I wanted to watch, and this was on at just the right time, so despite not knowing anything about it, I decided to go see it. And I'm glad did. I know very little about Spain's recent history, so it was interesting to see this film. The film opens with Txema running through the streets, carrying a gun, clearly fleeing the police. We have no idea who he is, or what is going on, but through flashbacks Txema's backstory is revealed.

The acting is all great, and you get a clear picture of Txema as uncertain and unsure through much of the film. He is doing what he thinks is right, but he doesn't know if it is. And as he gets closer and closer to the leadership of ETA he can clearly sympathise with their positions, if not their methods. But although politics are clearly the driving force behind this film, they aren't really investigated. Maybe I should say they are never overtly investigated, but the actions of both sides are shown. Both the terrorists and the police seem equally as violent. This of course makes Noriega al the more sympathetic, as he is caught between both worlds.

Overall I enjoyed this film. It is well paced and keeps you entertained, and although it runs over 2 hours, it doesn't feel that long.

The Lake House

Directed by Alejandro Agresti, 2006
Reviewed by Reese Witherfork

I was really excited to see this movie because: a) I knew it was about some weird glitch in linear time--and I really get off on that shit; and b) I knew it would be so romantic that people would be vomiting in the aisles--and I get off on that shit, too (the romance, obviously, not the vomit).

Neither of the stars of this movie are kids anymore. At 41 years old, Sandy Bullock is still a gorgeous young woman. But, (brace yourself, kids, cause you're not going to believe this) Keanu Reeves is a whopping 41 years old! Given that Keanu is ridiculously fucking old, you'll be happy to hear that he's no longer doing that thing where he slams one hand into his chest at the same time as extending the other hand into the air, with the palm of the second hand cupped inwards. You know damn well what I'm talking about; don't make me draw you a picture. Yep--that thing has officially been retired. (Can you do me a favour and act out this gesture right now? It would please me enormously. Thanks a million. You're the bomb.)

Despite the fact that this is a lovely, mushy, romantic movie, I'm happy to report that not a single cheap emotion was jerked. Another nice thing about it--it was only an hour and a half long.

This is the kind of movie you'd want to take your boyfriend to. If I had a boyfriend--or, as I call boyfriends, "those guys who jump behind a tree to hide when they see you in public and, for some reason, have a restraining order on you," I would have definitely taken him to this movie.

Munich

Directed by Stephen Spielberg, 2005
Reviewed by Quillhill

We enjoyed the television movie based on the events of 11 September 2001 on United flight 93. The passengers of that flight were portrayed as heroes who acted in the interest of people they had never met, acted for their country. The movie elicited both tears and cheers from us, and left us with renewed faith in the ability of people to do the right thing, a pride that verged on patriotism. These same feelings were stirred again when we heard about Munich, which is based on the true story of Black September, and follows the men chosen to eliminate the terrorists responsible for the murder of eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics.

The moral questions of such events are interesting and are the foundation of the entire film, but were highlighted for only a few moments. Is one ever justified in killing another human being? What laws protect such men who would take hostage and kill innocent athletes? Do terrorist actions really help to bring about peace? How does one reconcile vengeance with righteousness? There is a mild balance given to both sides, as we are shown the terrorists going about their lives, giving book readings and interacting with their children. Still, the film is geared primarily toward an audience who will root against the terrorists, and if that slant had been greater, the film would have stirred more emotion.

The film begins with the taking of the hostages, and quickly cuts to old news footage to establish what is happening. The fate of the athletes, however, is not shown; there is only Jim McKay to tell us "They're all gone." In a good scene, photographs and names of the athletes and the terrorists are shown in alternating bunches, so we have to wonder what exactly is the difference between these men and their political leaders. Israeli officials debate what to do, and a team is chosen to assassinate the terrorists.

In flashbacks scattered occasionally throughout the film, the actual fate of the Israeli athletes is dramatized. These are powerful scenes. We would have preferred for the film to begin with only news reports, and then use these flashbacks to introduce the hunt for each terrorist. Information is gathered, a man is located, and we are shown how he is eliminated. The Israeli agents are hesitant and unsure about the first man, and the only real suspense is whether they will lose their nerve. The leader eventually grows jaded and focused on his task, while others of his team struggle with their conscience. They clearly do not possess the confidence and determination of heroes for the audience to identify with. Only when they track down a female counter-assassin are they zealous and ruthless. Using the flashbacks regularly would have helped the audience feel the duty and obligation of the mission in the struggle with their own conscience. The film challenges, but doesn't persuade.

Munich reminded us a lot of Prince of the City (1981), directed by Sidney Lumet. In that film, a New York City police officer agrees to expose the inner workings of police corruption, as long as he does not have to turn in his partners. It soon becomes apparent to him that he is completely alone, no longer committed to his police partners, and unable to commit to Internal Affairs--he is ostracized and can trust no one. In the same way, the leader of the Israeli agents is cut off from his government, and discovers his source of information about the terrorists is also selling information about him. In the end he cannot even trust the man he felt closest to. In both films the protagonist is left to live out his days in exile. Prince of the City, though, was much more powerful and evocative, dealing with questions of morality different, yet just as intriguing, as in Munich.

Recent terrorist attacks have prompted some people and politicians in the United States to call for and enact measures which they say are meant for protection, but they never discuss how those same measures also erode our liberties. The amount of freedom in any society has a direct inverse correlation to the degree of safety. Each society must decide the correct balance for itself. Terrorists exploit freedom to deal blows to the liberty that threatens their beliefs. The costs of freedom are always considerably less than the costs of oppression and tyranny, as demonstrated throughout history by leaders such as Stalin, Tito, Mao and their like. There is a juxtaposition of sex and violence near the end of Munich, which underscores the messiness of the entire conflict. Violence begets violence; dead terrorists are replaced with deadlier terrorists. The cycle continues. The film ends with the World Trade Center revealed in the distance, reminding us nothing has changed in twenty or a thousand years.

Thank You for Smoking

Directed by Jason Reitman, 2005
Reviewed by Catherine

Thank You For Smoking, stars Aaron Eckhart as Nick Naylor, a lobbyist for the fictional "Academy of Tobacco Studies". His job is to be the slick talking, handsome face that deflects criticism from anyone who reminds the public that smoking is unhealthy. He doesn't try to prove that smoking isn't harmful. His job is to cast doubt on the credibility of his critics, and to twist the meaning of their arguments, sort of like a White House Spokesperson.

I've looked at other reviews of the film, and found that most of the criticism had to do with it not being "edgy" or "hard hitting" enough. Various critics wanted to see a more vigorous attack against the tobacco industry, or against powerful corporations. Although I did watch an interview with the author, director, and lead actor, I figured out all by myself that the movie isn't about big business or big tobacco. It's about spin.

This point is illustrated beautifully in a scene where our anti-hero explains to his son how he does his job. He uses the example of debating whether chocolate or vanilla is better. After the son states his reasons for his own preference, his father skillfully discredits each statement in turn, and says, "You see? I don't have to prove I'm right." Nick explains that he only has to make his opponent appear wrong. "But you still haven't convinced me", his son replies. Nick motions toward the people sitting around them and says, "I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to convince them." As a voter with ample experience yelling, "but you didn't answer the question!" at my TV during political debates, I recognize the sad truth of that statement.

Aaron Eckhart is brilliantly shameless in his depiction of a spin doctor extraordinaire. Katie Holmes is completely unconvincing as the journalist vixen who seduces, then tries to expose and destroy him. Still, the movie is funny, and her role doesn't turn out to be that important. There's no Hollywood romantic comedy ending in store. If for no other reason, I liked the movie because it doesn't follow one of the standard formulas, and it doesn't have a moral. It is what it is, and you're encouraged to come to your own conclusions, just as Nick Naylor encourages the public to decide for itself about the dangers of smoking.

So if you're planning to burn through a pack of Marlboros this Fourth of July, I will defend your right to do so. I don't recommend it, and I don't want to sit next to you while you smoke, but I'm an American, dammit! I support your right to choose.

United 93

Written and directed by Paul Greengrass, 2006
Reviewed by Fence

This is a film that is pretty impossible to review as just a film. We've all seen the news footage of those planes crashing into the World Trade Center, we all know what happened that September.

And part of me wonders why I went to see this film. I can't say it was entertainment in the usual sense of the word, although it was an entertaining film. But entertain seems to suggest fun, and this film is anything but fun. From the moment it starts you know what will happen to these people in the end. You know they are all going to die, and more than that, you know that it isn't just characters, but that this is what happened those people. Okay, so they had to guess at the details, but in essence this is what happened on board United 93 on the 11th of September.

It is an unflinching look at what may have happened about the plane after the hijacking, and it is told in a gripping, powerful way. But because of the nature of the plot, I'm not sure I could actually recommend this film. And I'm not sure why exactly it was made. It doesn't try to offer any explanation. There is no grand over-arching statement about the "war on terror". It is simply the story of the what happened on one plane, about the crew, passengers and hijackers. And I think in the end that is all it tries to be. To give a voice to those murdered in the attack. And it succeeds.

The Wind that Shakes the Barley

Directed by Ken Loach, 2006
Reviewed by Fence

Opening with a hurling scene in Cork in the 1920s this film lives entirely within the experience of the main character, Damien. A young doctor about to leave Ireland for a career in London, he is pulled into the Irish War of Independence. And this film is about his fight. The film starts without any introductory text, there is no attempt made to make the viewer aware of the wider world; this is Damien's story and only his story.

And this is what makes this such a good film, although if an audience is unfamilar with Irish history it might also be a problem.

By focusing entirely on this micro-history, Loach allows us into the lives of these IRA men, and the people of the area, and how they are impacted upon by the British soldiers.

And of course this is where all the controversy over this film begins. When The Wind That Shakes the Barley won at Cannes there was an immediate outcry in the British media about it being anti-British and pro-IRA. Well, it isn't. Yes the Black & Tans are shown abusing the Irish, there are random killings and attacks. But is it anti-British to show actual historical events? It is a well documented fact that the Black & Tans and the Auxillaries were not shining examples of the "noble soldier". Fact, not made-up pro-IRA propaganda.

Which brings us to the IRA, and of course, as Damien is the hero of the film and IRA member this organisation comes across better than the British army. But the IRA of the 1920s was a very different beast from the modern IRA, or PIRA, or RIRA, or any of the other varieties. Let's not forget that they had a political mandate from the 1918 general election.

As a film I found The Wind That Shakes The Barley to be very entertaining, engaging and powerful. All the actors did a great job, especially the young boy who turns up with the "important message" only to have lost the scrap of paper. Seriously though, I thought all the actors did great jobs. Cillian Murphy played his role wonderfully well, and needed to, as he was in virtually every single scene. But Padraic Delaney did an especially good job of playing Teddy, Damian's older brother.

There is plenty more I could say about this film, there are political speeches that come across as totally naturalistic, there are scenes of how traumatic violence is, not only to the victims but also to the perpetrators, but to say much more would be to risk spoilers. It isn't perfect, but then again, what is? Go, watch the film.