Author Archives: natezoebl
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Enemy at the Gates tells its tale over the pivotal Battle of Stalingrad where over a million Russians lost their lives to repel the German advancement. The Russians at this point were throwing boys as young as school kids into the battle and arming some of them with nothing. It was an attempt to create wave upon human wave to overrun the Germans. The Battle of Stalingrad was a decisive moment in WWII, but how Enemy of the Gates portrays it – the battle was nothing. The entire war was turned by two men.
The beginning to the film (and also the best part) shows the immediacy of the war and is very parallel to the Omaha invasion. People are shepherded into box cars onto a train, then arrive on the river and travel by barge to the ports of Stalingrad, then are sent up a hill one with a rifle and one with the rifle’s ammunition, and then thrown into the battle on the other side. Literally, an hour could pass from leaving home and death. Enemy at the Gates doesn’t paint a pretty picture of the Russians themselves (this is a Hollywood film after all) and displays the Russian war tactic of firing on your own men if they have the gall to retreat.
A survivor of the slaughter is Vassily Zaitsev (Jude Law), a rural farm boy with a great shot. He takes out a slew of Germans that have him and fellow Russian Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) trapped in the ruins of a city. Once back to friendly quarters Danilov decides to turn Vassily into a hero and prints numerous propaganda fliers and articles about his many triumphs to increase the morale of the faltering Russian army. Vesilly becomes a hero and a celebrity, though he continues to have his doubts if he can live up to his inflated image.
Rachel Weisz (The Mummy) plays the peppy patriotic girl who comes between our two mates creating an awkward Hollywood favorite: the love triangle. The very fact that she, and other women, are out there on the front lines defending their Motherland should not be taken as something in the advancement of feminist ideals in WWII Russia – at this point in the war them Ruskies would arm dogs and squirrels if they could.
Enemy at the Gates introduces its villain as an expert Nazi sniper played by recently Oscar nominated actor Ed Harris. Harris plays the character cold, yet sincere, like he is following the ways of war but not because he wishes to. He has a duty and he will accomplish it, down to the meticulous wire if he must. Harris’ sniper is sent in to assassinate Vassily Zaitsev and more importantly kill the morale of the Russians. This sets up the film’s showdown between the Law and Harris. Two men who are patient and silent killers dueling to see which one of them blinks first. A cat and mouse game amongst the fallen remains of a once proud city.
At least that’s how it happened in real life. The two men played a waiting game that went on for over two days to see whom would move first. The Nazi slipped and wound up dead. But this standoff where you couldn’t move for fear of being shot at any moment of weakness would’ve been fascinating alone to tell, especially if done straight. Instead we get Hollywood’s Saving Private Ryan.
A rather peculiar aspect associated with Enemy of the Gates is the amount of people that die from being shot in the head. I mean, I actually looked and counted, there was maybe two people in this film that did not die from bullets that were not exploding through their heads. It gets a little silly as it goes and almost becomes an unintentional joke as we go on with 15… 20… 40 some CGI shots of bullets zipping through people’s foreheads. And the way the snipers are portrayed has it seem like a slasher film – you duck your head around that corner you are instantly dead!
Director Jean-Jacques Annaud’s previous film was the pretty but oh-so-mind-numbing-long Seven Years in Tibet. Here he takes the torch from Spielberg and plays with all the Ryan elements; dabbling with some blues, and muddy browns, and wreckage and what not. Annaud’s film is less a war film and more of a war propaganda film showing the strong effects it can attribute. Annaud also has the distinction of having the most awkward sex scene I’ve ever seen in a film. Weisz comes into where Law is sleeping and sneaks under his blanket. Except Law is sleeping in a row of other soldiers all lying on the cold cement ground with rubble all around them. The scene is very awkward to sit through and I feel will become notorious for it.
The movie isn’t all bad. Some scenes do have good tension and excitement. Law and Harris give credible performances, and Bob Hoskins appears for a very memorable role as Nikita Khrushchev. Enemy at the Gates is a war movie played with Hollywood elements that are as clear as day and weigh down whatever chance the film had. And would it have killed the cast if they could have tried a Russian accent!?
Nate’s Grade: C+
Share this:
15 Minutes (2001)
Let me say this now and clear so everyone knows – DO NOT PUT EDWARD BURNS IN THE LEAD OF ANYTHING! Burns falls under that league of actors that can contribute and possibly do fine as supporting players but cannot carry a film. Now, moving on…
Robert DeNiro plays the head of a police force, but he’s also a local celebrity with his face everywhere from newspapers, to People magazine, to his own coffee franchise (I made up one, guess it). The woman from the NBC show ‘Providence’ with the gigantic Jersey hair plays the reporter that fawns over him and the girlfriend that reports him. She’s meaningless. Kelsey Grammar plays a heavy-handed out for blood journalist of a tabloid TV show that panders to our primal desires of violence. The show is seen as exploitative and possibly subversive – not to mention in poor taste. You may be asking how does Edward Burns get caught up in this? Well he’s an ace arson investigator that crosses paths with mega-star DeNiro. But see, Burns’ character HATES the media. Quite a contrast, eh?
Burns and DeNiro form an unlikely team and go through the rigid “Buddy Cop Movie” drill that’s been played numerous times before. They dislike each other, they tease and try to show up one another, they come to respect and appreciate the other and work as a team. Yawn.
DeNiro phones in a performance in like none he has ever done before, even Rocky and Bullwinkle. Grammar hams up his over-killed role. Burns is his typical atrociousness. If you look closely you’ll find the actor who played the older brother in Family Matters a.k.a. The Urkle Show in this flick. Man, his career time with Jaleel White must be paying off.
The real spirit of the film is in its two debut actors who also serve as the villains. These two are from Eastern Europe and search for old friends that seem not so friendly anymore. Some altercations happen and a killing spree begets them trying to rub out the lone red-headed witness of their murders. Along the way they discover they can sell the videotapes of their crimes to the top bidder and make a fortune. The two baddies are fun to watch and a joy to see whenever they return back to the screen. They seem to punch up 15 Minutes particularly during the tedious dead spots. These two actors seem to be the only life of the film, and it’s a terrible shame when we must veer off back to our lame storyline with Burns. credit this as another case of the villains being far more interesting than the heroes — the Austin Powers syndrome.
The major disappointment of 15 Minutes is what it looked like it would be. With the early teaser trailer it looked like it would be a scathing satire on media and our glorification of criminals as heroes. When the full length trailer came out it dropped to looking like another crazy serial killer flick. Sadly, it never rises above this. There are a few moments with some bite but 15 Minutes gums it along as far as satire is concerned. It’s more concerned with a standard by the book plot. The whole notion of using the videotapes and selling them to Grammar’s TV tabloid doesn’t even show up until twenty minutes before the film is over!
15 Minutes is a thriller that tries to be smart and savvy but tries to be by staying under standard conventions. The very ending to this film could have gone in a million different ways, some very satisfying, but it goes the predictable action-thriller way. Yawn. That’s what you’ll be doing a lot with 15 Minutes – regaining lost sleep.
Nate’s Grade: C
Share this:
Panic (2000)
The story behind Panic goes something like this. The film was dropped by Artisan because they got test screening results back and apparently it wasn’t what they wanted. After this set-back it was going to be dumped to the wasteland of direct-to-cable like so many other troublesome pictures studios feel would not earn a buck if they were bleeding on the side of the road. After some fighting, particularly from critic Roger Ebert, a production house decided to distribute Panic in a very limited release. So what does this cinematic game of musical chairs mean? It means if you have a chance see this film.
Panic is a story about characters first and foremost. William H. Macy plays the son end of a father-son team of hitmen, with Donald Sutherland as the oppressive patriarch. Macy is a man who is never truly happy, almost like it is an impossibility for him at this point in his life. His wife (Tracey Ullman) is flaky and gives into her paranoia of her hubby having an affair with a younger chickadee. Macy meets an attractive and mysterious ingenue (Neve Campbell) while waiting for therapy. He begins on an obsession he can’t explain and fantasizes about her as the escape and ticket to happiness that is outside his reach.
The acting is as rich as the characters. Macy plays low-key but suits the subservient ghost that his character has become. Sutherland is haunting as the controlling father figure and the flashbacks between him and young Macy are disturbing as he plants his seed of control. Even at age six Macy’s character is referring to his father with “sir” tagged to the end of every sentence.
Neve’s character is the most in depth she’s ever been dealt, though her runner-up is a girl constantly chased by men in black robes with knives. Ullman is a nice presence and the audience really can sympathize with her. The child who plays the son of Macy and Ullman is one of the most adorable child actors I have ever seen. He lights up the screen every time he is present.
The story is brisk at a mere hour and a half. It is written and directed by a former writer of ‘Northern Exposure’ and ‘Homicide’ and the attention to characters shows. The film moves not through plot occurrences but through characters acting. When Macy discovers that the final hit he has to do is on his own therapist (John Ritter) his journey is one involving everyone around him in his life. The strains and pulls on this man are encompassing to watch.
Panic is a glimpse at a quiet movie told about the life of a man caught in his father’s grasp. Macy is a man conditioned to saying “he’s sorry” even if it is not deserved. His character is rich and Panic is a strongly acted gem if you can locate it.
Nate’s Grade: B+
Share this:
Hannibal (2001)
Trying to sequelize Silence of the Lambs is surely harder than trying to sequelize The Blair Witch Project. The novel Hannibal by Thomas Harris I don’t think will be confused as a necessary burst of creative ambition, and more of a chance to cash in on the love of Hannibal Lector. Though I’ve not read a line from the book from what I’m told the movie is faithful until the much hated ending. Starting a film off a so-so book isn’t a good way to begin, especially when you lose four of the components that made it shine Oscar gold.
The element that Silence of the Lambs carried with it was stealthily gripping psychological horror. It hung with you in every closed breath you would take, surrounding you and blanketing your mind. I mean, there aren’t many serial killer movies that win a slew of Oscars. Lambs excelled at psychological horror, but with Hannibal the horror turns into a slasher film more or less. What Lambs held back and left us terrified Hannibal joyfully bathes in excess and gore.
Julianne Moore, a competent actress, takes over from the ditching Jodie Foster to fill the shoes of FBI agent Clarice Starling. Throughout the picture you know she’s trying her damndest to get that Foster backwoods drawl she used on the original down. The problem for poor Moore though is that her character spends half of the film in the FBI basement being oogled by higher-up Ray Liotta. She doesn’t even meet Hannibal Lector until 3/4 through. Then again, the title of the film isn’t Starling.
Anthony Hopkins returns back to the devil in the flesh and seems to have a grand old time de-boweling everyone. Lector worked in Lambs because he was caged up, like a wild animal not meant for four glass walls, and you never knew what would happen. He’d get in your head and he would know what to do with your grey matter – not that he doesn’t have a culinary degree in that department in this film. Lector on the loose is no better than a man with a chainsaw and a hockey mask, though he has a better knowledge of Dante and Florentine romantic literature. Lector worked bottled up, staring at you with dead unblinking calm. He doesn’t work saying goofy “goody-goody” lines and popping out of the shadows.
Since the director, screenwriter, and female lead didn’t show up for the Lambs rehash, it feels a tad chilled with Ridley Scott’s fluid and smooth direction. The cinematography is lush and very warm.
Gary Oldman steals the show as the horribly disfigured former client of Lector’s seeking out revenge. His make-up is utterly magnificent and the best part of the film, he is made to look like a human peeled grape. Oldman instills a Texan drawl into the character yet making him the Meryl Streep of villainy.
Hannibal is no where near the landmark in excellence that Silence of the Lambs was but it’s not too bad. It might even be good if it wasn’t the sequel to a great film. As it is, it stands as it stands.
Nate’s Grade: B-
Reviewed 20 years later as part of the “Reviews Re-View: 2001” article.
Share this:
Snatch (2001)
Snatch is really more of the same for writer/director Guy Richie as he retreats back to his magical land of London gangsters with Dick Tracy-esque names and thick cockney accents intermixing in comically violent and ironic ways. He’s like a more stylized version of Tarantino, if Tarantino ever got to have sex with Madonna. So if you like the niche Richie has trapped himself in for the moment (like myself) then you’ll like Snatch. The film is coursing with energy to spare and never loses its sense of fun, which carries over into audience smiles (at least for me and my gal it did). Brad Pitt is a riot as the hardly intelligible Irish gypsy and part time boxer.
Nate’s Grade: B+
Share this:
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (2000)
Ang Lee’s mythical tale of ancient… (Taiwan?) is full of visual marvels and plenty of moments of awe that make the audience believe in the power of cinema to transport once again. However, upon further viewings and more butt pain because of the large length, the film is not “one of the best ever made” as has been praised. When you get down to it and think the film really isn’t about anything but retrieving a sword and feminist roles. The visuals are striking poetry and the action is exciting and top-notch and that’s what really counts in the end.
Nate’s Grade: B
Share this:
Shadow of the Vampire (2000)
Darkly comical with great stabs of satire at the film industry (bloodsuckers in the movies anyone? Hmmmmmm). Willem Dafoe retains his title as Creepiest Actor Alive and goes for broke with a tour de force performance that should have you checking under the bed. Shadow of the Vampire is alive, to use the term sparingly, with wit and a slow but maturely steadied pace. Dafoe deserves an Oscar and your fear.
Nate’s Grade: A
Share this:
Traffic (2000)
The war on drugs may be one worth fighting but it’s a battle that every day seems more and more impossible. Traffic is a mirror that communicates the fruition of our current procedures to stop the illegal flow of drugs.
Traffic is told through three distinct and different narratives. One involves an Ohio Supreme Court justice (Michael Douglas) newly appointed as the nation’s next Drug Czar. While he accepts his position and promises to fight for our nation’s children, back at home, unbeknownst to him, his daughter is free-basing with her bad influence boyfriend. Another story involves a wealthy bourgeois wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) awakened to her husband’s arrest. Her shock continues when family lawyer Dennis Quaid informs her of her husband’s true source of income. He’s to be prosecuted by two DEA agents (Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman) unless she can do something. The final and most compelling narrative involves Benicio Del Toro as an honest cop in Tijuana battling frustration with the mass corruption surrounding the city. Each story weaves in and out at various points in the film.
Traffic was photographed and directed by the man with the hottest hand in Hollywood, Steven Soderbergh. He uses a documentary feel to his filming that adds to the realism. Different color tones are assigned toward the three narratives as reflections of the emotional background. Soderbergh expertly handles the many facets of the drug industry and pulls out his typical “career best” performances from his onslaught of actors.
Benicio Del Toro is the emotional center of Traffic. His solemn demeanor and hound dog exterior reflect a good man trying to fight the good fight in a corrupt environment. He effortlessly encompasses determination, courage, and compassion that you’ll easily forget the majority of his lines are in Espanol. Benicio is an incredibly talented actor and one with such vibrant energy whenever he flashes on screen. It’ll be wonderful watching him collect all his awards.
Catherine Zeta-Jones also shows strong signs there may well indeed be an actress under her features. Her role is one of almost terror as you watch her so easily slip into her imprisoned hubby’s shoes. The ease of transformation is startling, but in an “evil begets evil” kind of fashion. The fact that she’s pregnant through the entire movie only makes the shift from loving house wife to drug smuggler more chilling.
The entire cast does credible acting performances with particular attention paid toward the younger actors deservingly. Don Cheadle throws in another terrific performance showing he’s sublimely one of the best actors around today.
Traffic oversteps its ambitions and aims for a scope far too large. It is based on a 6 hour BBC mini-series, so trying to cram that material into a two hour plus format is taxing. As a result we get an assembly of characters, but too many with too little time in between to do any justice. Screenwriter Stephen Gaghan (Rules of Engagement) condenses the towering impact and influence drugs have well enough, but he intercuts the stories too sporadically that attachment never builds for either of the three narratives. He does balance the Douglas Drug Czar one carefully as not to fall into the cliched vigilante metamorphosis. But the mini-series had more characterization and depth to its tale.
Traffic is a good film but it has edges of greatness never fully visioned. Soderbergh shines bright yet again and all accolades will be deserved. Traffic is undeniably a good film, but it’s one you may not want to watch a second time.
Nate’s Grade: B
Reviewed 20 years later as part of the “Reviews Re-View: 2000” article.
Share this:
Thirteen Days (2000)
Another Kevin Costner film?! I’d rather suffer uncontrollable urination problems!” you could be saying to yourself. After Costner’s recent track record, hearing that he’ll have full Bostonian accent in hand seems a little nerve-racking. But despite Costner’s beantown speech 13 Days is a real surprise in just how much tension it actually wrings from the true story of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Though 13 Days will suffer from the same problem Titanic did, people know their history and know how it ends. Though we all know we weren’t obliterated in nuclear war (At least I hope the majority of us know) 13 Days shows us the suspense through back-door politics as a fly on the wall in the White House. The audience sees all the political wrangling and power struggles in this cat-and-mouse game that made two nations hold their breathes in a high stakes stare-down. Bruce Greenwood, mainly known for beguiling Tommy Lee Jones in an assortment of flicks, plays our Commander in Chief John F. Kennedy. Costner seems to be a presidential advisor that could easily be mistaken for JFK’s imaginary friend the amount of time they spend together alone. Steven Culp plays Bobby Kennedy, and the fab threesome make up the core team that handled this bombastic situation. Of course there are dozens of other individuals involved within varying degrees, with the military leaders wanting procedures to lead them to inevitable war with Communist Soviets.
The warhawks recommend a Cuban invasion whereas the option of a quarantine hangs in sight as well. Through the next trying thirteen days stress will accumulate as options become more clear as deadlines become clearer. The political maneuvering makes for a gripping story, though a tad punched up at certain areas. It proves time and again that history makes the best stories.
Let’s get down to what’s on everyone’s mind: how much is the suck-ratio zooming on Kevin Costner in this picture? Well, his accent is very very jarring to begin with but you kind of get used to it after ten minutes of wear and tear. Costner does an alright acting job but the real spotlight is on the Kennedy brothers. Greenwood and Culp turn in star-making performances that gives human glimpses to the already prolific Kennedys. Culp is outstanding as Bobby, showing that the superiors discount him because of his young age but that he’s a shrewd and thoughtful politician. Greenwood doesn’t exactly sound like JFK but he adds particular dimension to the man behind the center of the crisis.
13 Days is a prime example of showing how intense and frightening fiction can be. Director Roger Donaldson uses black and white interludes for no real reason, but his final product is one of nail-biting suspense.
Nate’s Grade: B+
Share this:
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
Loosely based on Homer’s The Odyssey comes the latest from two of the most talented and imaginative minds working in the business. ‘O Brother’ has all the things that go into making a good Coen brother film. It’s full of Coen regular like John Turturro, John Goodman, and Holly Hunter among others. It includes elements of wackiness like a KKK color Guard rally where they march into spelling KKK. It even has the great wit with dialogue being handed over to the overly verbose leader of the gang on the run Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney looking and sounding like Clark Gable). On top of this you get a wonderful blue grass soundtrack that is selling surprisingly phenomenal, and cinematography that is astonishingly beautiful. Yet, with all these positives, O Brother Where Art Thou? is a mid-level Coen movie. The comedy of the film is missing a lot when it should be there, replaced with pretty images or very pretty songs. Still, a mid-level Coen brother’s movie is much better than most anything out there today. It seems to aim to be a pleasant movie, and it achieves that finely. O Brother is a fun experience with the right person but not necessarily something that has a lot of rewatchability. Especially if you have bought the soundtrack.
Nate’s Grade: B
nathanzoebl 
You must be logged in to post a comment.