Movie Review: United 93

United 93 (2006)

Directed by Paul Greengrass

Written by Paul Greengrass

Starring Ben Sliney, Gregg Henry 

Release Date April 28th, 2006

Published April 29th, 2006

A normal film review includes a description of the film's plot. That seems a bit trivial when discussing United 93. The first theatrical release to take a head-on look at 9/11 just does not need much description of it's plot. The essential information is ingrained in the memories of all Americans. To attempt to give a typical description of a movie plot in terms of United 93 seems vulgar but then much of what surrounds the idea of 9/11: The Movie is rather vulgar.

What you need to know about United 93 is that Director Paul Greengrass takes a pseudo-documentary look at the events of that day from the perspective of the real life air traffic controllers and executives in charge of our airways.

And most importantly Greengrass takes us inside the final hijacked plane, United 93, and through the evidence gathered from 911 calls, air traffic control logs and the testimony of family members who received horrifying final phone calls from loved ones, reconstructs what likely happened just before United 93 crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.

Paul Greengrass, the director of Bloody Sunday and Bourne Supremacy, is a highly skilled filmmaker with a documentarians eye for realism. His approach to making United 93, a film with as delicate a subject matter as this, is restained and eloquent. His aim is to pay tribute to the heroes who died on United 93 and he accomplishes that goal. I cannot dispute, in anyway Greengrass's goal in making this film or the high quality of his accomplishment. And yet I cannot recommend this movie.

For me, this wound is still too raw. Watching United 93 is not an experience I can recommend to anyone. It is so visceral and so surreal, it is like watching 9/11 happen all over again. Only this time you are closer than ever. You are right over the shoulder of Ben Sliney the man in charge of the airspace over the eastern seaboard on 9/11.

Sliney plays himself in United 93 and his authenticity brings the horror of our futility on that day closer to home. There is no question that Ben Sliney is one of the few heroes of that day, he made the call to close all American airspace despite having questionable authority to do so. While the President of the United States was not heard from by anyone until 25 minutes after United 93 crashed, Ben Sliney was the only man in the country making decisions to save lives that day.

Paul Greengrass makes no overt political statement with United 93. Reality however, does make a statement about the President's involvement that day and the facts are presented without comment in United 93.

The fact is, after the second plane hit the world trade center, military leaders -represented in the film by actor Gregg Henry and several real life military officers and enlisted personnel- tried to get the president to give them the rules of engagement. They needed to know if they had the authority to shoot down a hijacked commercial airliner. They could not find the president or vice president. No orders were given.

As a historical document United 93 is a powerful reminder of our nations greatest tragedy and an example of our greatest asset, individual heroism. The film cements the legacy of the brave people who died trying to take back flight 93 before it could get to its target. Their example is a legacy that will live forever.

There will never be another 9/11 style attack on this country. Because of the passengers on United 93 the rules of engagement for hijackers have changed forever. Our complacency has been forever shaken and in the future terrorists will not take over planes without a fight from the passengers and crew. No new FAA regulations or leadership from Washington will be needed. Nothing but the will and bravery of individuals will keep this from happening the same way again. That is the legacy that is so well documented in United 93.

And yet I must again say I don't recommend this film. It is just too painful. It's, I'm sorry to say, too soon. As I watched crowds lining up to watch United 93 it occurred to me how bizarre the whole idea of a 9/11 movie is. I could not escape the thought of how vulgar it is that people are reliving 9/11 with a bag of popcorn on their lap and a bucket of soda. That is just appalling.

Movie Review: Femme Fatale

Femme Fatale (2002) 

Directed by Brian De Palma

Written by Brian DePalma

Starring Rebecca Romijn, Antonio Banderas, Peter Coyle, Gregg Henry

Release Date November 6th, 2002 

Published November 5th, 2002

Whether you like Brian De Palma or not you have to respect a director who so often presses the boundaries of good taste, decency and filmmaking. So many of De Palma's films are unqualified classics simply for his willingness to push the envelope of filmmaking style and trashy storytelling. Films like Dressed To Kill and Raising Cain are such wildly fantastical slasher pictures that the viewer doesn't know whether to laugh or recoil in horror. Even when De Palma's risk-taking style fails (Snake Eyes), the failure is at least memorable.

Who can't remember that awesome 5-minute tracking shot at the opening of Snake Eyes with De Palma's voyeuristic floating camera following Nicholas Cage through an Atlantic City casino? Pure style. In Femme Fatale the De Palma's trademark stylishness is in place but much like Snake Eyes, it's a memorable failure.

The femme fatale of the title is Laure Ash played by supermodel Rebecca Romijn-Stamos. Laure is a professional thief who, with the help of two nameless black guys, plots to steal a million dollars in diamonds. In typical De Palma style the diamond heist is a trashy, exciting plot as the diamonds in question are being worn by a model attending the Cannes Film Festival. In fact, the diamond and gold outfit is basically the only thing the model is wearing. 

This is no trouble for Laure who has already made contact with the model and is planning on seducing the diamonds right off the models body. In a scene only De Palma could write, Stamos seduces the woman and has sex with her in a bathroom stall, and then uses the model to help her double cross her collaborators and walk out with the diamonds herself. The less I tell you about the diamond plot the better.

From there Laure has to get out of the country before her partners find her which leads her into a mistaken identity plot where she is confused for a grieving widow and taken in by the girl’s parents. While in the care of her pseudo parents she happens across a plane ticket and passport belonging to her lookalike. Boarding the plane with her new identity, she meets an American businessman played by veteran character guy Peter Coyote.

Cut to seven years later, Laure has married Coyote whose character is returning to Paris as the new American Ambassador. As Laure attempts to fly under the radar to avoid her past, her low profile attracts the attention of the French tabloids. One of the papers hire a paparazzi photographer played by Antonio Banderas to capture a photo of the new Ambassador's wife. He of course gets the photo, which is not surprisingly seen by her former partners. This sets off a chain of events that have Laure posing as an abused wife to lure Antonio into a plot she has designed to bilk her husband out of ten million dollars. Whatever happened to the diamonds is anyone's guess.

It’s not surprising that Stamos is the film’s biggest problem. As an actress, Stamos makes for sensational eye candy but she is completely overmatched as an actress. That is likely the reason why though she is the lead she has far less dialogue than her co-stars. She is never once believable as the badass manipulator that the character is supposed to be and she never projects the intellect a character like this would need to make it as far as she does.

De Palma is in rare form with his trashy take on classic Hitchcock. There is De Palma's legendary use of tracking shots and his unique use of amazing French architecture. The colors that saturated the France of Amelie are dimmed by rain covered streets in Femme Fatale but are nearly as vivid. De Palma is in love with his camera, floating it everywhere and using extensive close-ups to raise the tension of the film. If Stamos' performance weren't so chuckle-inducing, Femme Fatale could have been a style-over-substance cult classic. As it is, Femme Fatale is a missed opportunity for the director who lives for every opportunity, successful or otherwise.

Movie Review: Ballistic Ecks vs Sever

Ballistic Ecks vs. Sever 

Directed by Kaos 

Written by Alan B. McElroy 

Starring Antonio Banderas, Lucy Liu, Gregg Henry, Ray Park, Talisa Soto 

Release Date September 20th, 2002 

Published September 19th, 2002 

Well I must admit I was growing complacent. After a series of good movies mixed with some average and below-average movies, I had forgotten about Hollywood’s ability to make truly horrible films. In the past month or so Hollywood had lulled me into a trance of average movies that left no impression, good or bad. The new movie, Ballistic: Ecks Vs Sever, woke me from this trance with the loudest, dumbest, most idiotic movie this side of Rollerball. The byzantine plot of Ballistic is too ridiculous to explain. From what I was able to deduce, Lucy Liu played Sever and Antonio Banderas played Ecks. Other than that I am at a loss to explain the stupidity that passes for a plot. 

There is something about a weapon that was stolen from a lab in Germany. The microscopic weapon can cause heart attacks if it gets into the bloodstream, I think. There is something about a little kid that Sever takes as a hostage, something about Ecks' wife who he thought was dead but wasn't and Gregg Henry as the villain named Gant. The amazing thing about Gant is the audience has no clue why he does what he does. The movie teases that he is some public official but for the life of me I can't figure it out. 

We know Gant and his men can manipulate the local law enforcement of Vancouver, British Columbia, though we don't know why. Gant's men interact with the FBI but it's implied that they aren't with the FBI. There is some organization called the DIA. Whatever that is, the move never explains. We do know Gant wants this weapon, the heart attack weapon. The trailer is a better source than the film if you want to make sense of the weapons ability. Apparently you get it inside someone then it lays dormant until you press a button and it kills him or her. How do you get it inside someone? You shoot them. Of course that kind of defeats the purpose of the weapon doesn't it? 

Maybe you can rationalize that somehow, but how do you explain that the weapon is made of metal. So you have given the head of state a heart attack but your weapon is inside the body and easily detected in the autopsy, once again defeating the implied purpose of the weapon, which I believe is supposed to go undetected. It doesn't matter. Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever is a mess, which is appropriate because a guy who was credited as Kaos directed it. The irony is thick. The film is essentially a series of large explosions and that's it. The story is nonexistent, the script is a joke, the actors are completely lost and that is the only thing the audience can really relate too. 

Poor Lucy Liu and poor Antonio Banderas. While they deserve to be criticized for just being involved in this mess, I don't blame them for its failure. Both stars are attractive and charismatic. Unfortunately the director doesn't care. The only thing Kaos is interested in is getting to the next explosion ASAP. 

The director especially abuses Lucy Liu. Liu is an actress, yet in the films entire running length Lucy has 7 lines of dialogue. SEVEN. I counted them. That is less than Arnold Schwarzenegger in Hercules in New York and he could barely speak English then. Why hire an actress like Liu for a role that could have easily been filled by a stuntwomen? 

Stuntman Ray Park is also singled out for abuse, he has more dialogue than Lucy Liu and his character only exists for the purpose of being killed by Liu in a karate fight. Then there is Gregg Henry as the villainous Gant. Henry does his job in workmanlike fashion, oozing slime and dripping with evil. Gant actually gives us insight into which star got top billing. You see, whichever star kills Gant is the one with top billing. I will leave the mystery.

The most amazing thing about Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever is the director’s ability to combine an incomprehensible plot with plot devices more predictable than a calendar. That is a true accomplishment. Is Ecks Vs Sever the worst film of 2002? I'm not sure. Rollerball, Fear Dot Com and Tart have strong arguments for that title. Ecks Vs Sever will be near the top of the list that is for sure.