What so great about RONIN?

I thought I'd tackle one of the better spy flicks out there, and in recent years, there's not been one I enjoyed more than Ronin.

Let's talk cast: De Niro, Sean Bean, Jean Reno, Jonathan Pryce--do I even need to mention anyone else? It's got a great hook--the mysterious silver case--plus two (TWO!) of the best car-chases ever filmed, including the absolute best car chase ever filmed.

It's atmospheric, mysterious, filled with great dialogue ("Have you ever killed anyone?"--"I hurt someone's feelings once," "I'm a weapons-man--they tend to settle the argument") and sounds (horns, screeches, ricochets--the sound design is terrific) and a non-stop plot that is not, for once, filled with holes. And there are great quiet moments, like Michel Lonsdale's telling De Niro of the story of the "orphaned" Samurai ("Ronin") who committed ritual seppuku to die with honor. The foreign (French) locations are provocatively used, and the photography, music, and sets are top-notch.

And that car chase! No CGI here, folks. Real cars, real crashes, real excitement, and even a little humor make for about the most exciting seven minutes ever filmed. Director John Frankenheimer made the sixties film Grand Prix, so he knows about cars and drivers--and it shows. I don't want to spoil the chase for people, but there are little clever bits here and there that leave one's mouth agape. In the age of the computer, we'll never see its like again.

I never understood why this film wasn't a huge hit, or why it's usually assigned only 2 or 3 stars for a rating in reviews. For my money, it's the best spy film of the last twenty years; possibly the best since The Day of the Jackal. And that's saying something.

What's so great about DAZED AND CONFUSED?

Richard Linklater is one of my favorite current film directors, hands down. For one, when he's interviewed, he shows a real joy and passion in making films, and seems universally popular amongst his actors. It's not a job to him--it's a calling. For another, he's not a slave to commercialism--witness his animated classic Waking Life (soon to be joined by A Scanner Darkly) and his pair of European book-ended films Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. In fact, his only true failure was, oddly, his most commercial effort, The Newton Boys.

And yet his instant cult-classic from the nineties, and now simply-classic film remains Dazed and Confused. It's been called the American Graffiti of my generation, and that's no exaggeration. It may not carry the poignancy and emotional resonance of Grafitti (still, to my mind, George Lucas's finest film) but it is a helluva' lot of fun, and is made with surprising skill.

For example, take the opening. To the strains of Aerosmith's finest song, "Sweet Emotion," one gets the entire tale of the last day of school--the best day of the year for any kid--told with humor and grace, and yet it doesn't seem gimmicky in the slightest, unlike most movie montages. There's another great musical montage when the boys play pool which achieves an element of poetry in the marriage of music, pool ball movement, and the facial expressions of the actors. Don't let the subject matter fool you--just because it's a hilarious movie about a party on the last day of school doesn't mean it's not brilliant film-making.

The acting is naturalistic and effortless, and the cast--well, the cast put about as many new, memorable faces on screen as did Graffiti in its time. Ben Affleck, Cole Hauser, Parker Posey, Jason London, and especially Matt McConaughey all got their starts here (among many others). There's great little moments we all remember from junior high and high school in the 70's, but the one I enjoyed the most was one of the quietest: after the baseball game, when each team lines up and they pass each other to shake each opposing player's hand, they all rather robotically say, "good game, good game, good game, good game." As soon as I saw this, I knew we were in the hands of a man who knew the time period; who knew these kids; who knew exactly what he was doing.

And it's a very funny film. From the opening paddle-hazing ritual to the wild kegger at the "Moon Tower," it's got as many real laughs as any film in the last 20 years. I'm half-waiting for the sequel to it, which will take us to the time and place where these memorable characters ended up, but I sincerely hope it never happens: I want to remember them, and this night, as always being the last day of school in 1976.

What went wrong with MUNICH?

I thought I would love this movie--a great story, Spielberg, and a bunch of great actors--but unfortunately, I think it was a bit of a mess.

Why? Wasn't it up for Best Picture? some of you might ask.

Yup--and undeservedly so. Here's the reason:

It had a ridiculously unrealistic screenplay which, despite the 'based on fact' notice at the start of the film which one would think would guide the film-makers, was rather a mess. But then again, maybe that's what you get when you have a playwright (Tony Kushner) write a spy-assassin story.

Rather than a long diatribe against the film, I'll just list the problems as I saw them:

1. The main character (Eric Bana) was unqualified for the position. He was a bodyguard for Golda Meir, but not an assassin. He was married--with a pregnant wife! I'm sorry, but this is NOT the type of guy the Mossad or Ms. Meir would have picked to head an 'elite' covert assassination team.

2. The other members of the team were basically incompetent. A bomb-maker who's not trained to make bombs? An elderly antique dealer who's also a forger--and who actually goes on the missions? Daniel Craig as a moral-less killer without any sort of true spy trade-craft? Again, it defies logic that the Iraelis would use such people.

3. The missions themselves were horribly contrived and unrealistic, usually involving all five (!) team members in exposed positions. And nearly each time, somehow the victim was able to confront his or her killer face to face and have a little chat! Horribly, horribly contrived. It really takes the drama out of it when one feels compelled to turn to one's wife and say "C'mon! This is getting ridiculous!"

4. The mission where the five covert guys accompany hordes of rampaging Keystone-coppish Mossad agents to Lebanon was absurd. I absolutely cannot believe that this occurred in real life this way. No way, no how.

5. The double-booked safe-house episode with the Palestinians was really, really dumb. When they read the screenplay, didn't anyone tell Spielberg, "Umm, say, maybe this isn't such a good idea?" And gee, what a surprise when Avner and Co. have to shoot them! Ugh.

6. The mysterious Frenchmen being in charge of basically ALL of the team's intelligence was really wacky and 'out there.' And there's NO WAY an assassin like Avner would go off in a car with his French contact without alerting the other members of his team. Again, it stretched credibility far beyond what I thought was acceptable.

7. The female assassin bit felt forced--especially since her assassination seemed like the easiest thing in the world. Just mosey on into her houseboat, pull your guns, have a little conversation, and shoot away. Oh--and don't forget to leave her naked and exposed to clumsily get your message across (which was then regretted ad nauseum later, as were all their decisions).

8. They're bunglers; the whole damn team. Did they ever really assassinate any of their targets in a covert, effective manner? Aside from nearly blowing up a little girl--and running all around a public Paris street like maniacs--and having the bomb malfunction, or having the bomb explode too much, or shooting the kid by the pool, or running half-cocked with the Mossad in Lebanon, etc., did they ever do a decent job at it? No--which seems a little much for me. The Mossad and the Israelis don't mess around, son! They don't waste time, energy, or resources! They don't screw these sorts of things up.

9. Will there ever be a movie again that doesn't over-use hand-held? That doesn't over-use digital-grading by the DP in post-production to achieve some desired, grainy, washed-out or over-saturated look? Because the look of Munich was a distraction. More of a technical complaint, but when I've had ever since that first scene of Private Ryan where the same techniques were, again, over-used to a film's detriment.

On the positive side, I loved the musical score, and the Munich Olympic scenes were powerful and memorable. On the other hand, that left me wondering this: How come Spielberg simply didn't film THAT story? I wish he had, for Munich proved to be, for me, the biggest film disappointment of this past year.