Our local family run video store has a nice 3 older DVD's, 3 days,
for $3.75 deal. Our recent selections were The Birds, The Peacemaker, and The world is not
enough. Of these, I think The Peacemaker was my favorite.
If you like Tom Clancy style thrillers like Clear and Present Danger
(Harrison Ford is soooo dreamy!) then chances are good that you'll
like The Peacemaker. This movie was made in 1997, but it's
surprisingly relevant in a post 9/11 world. It probably has a greater
impact now than when it was made.
Spoilers follow...
At one point there are some commando guys hijacking a train. When I
first saw them, I couldn't help but think, "Hey! It's counter-strike guys!" There
is one point where George Clooney's character goes kind of berserk. At
the time I couldn't help but think it was really over the top and
rather un-professional for a seasoned solider to go so nuts. Later I
realized his friend, who had a daughter, had just been killed so he
felt responsible and was out for vengeance.
This movie also looks at the challenges women face when dealing
with military men (and in general). At one point Nicole Kidman's
character is talking to a Russian who asks to talk to the man in
charge. She responds, "I am the man in charge," and although you can't
hear what the Russian is saying, you can tell he doesn't think very
much of a women being in charge. There's also the difficulty of
dealing with the deaths of people under your command. That would be
hard for any new leader to deal with, man or woman, and it comes up
quite a bit in other military movies, such as U-571.
The plot basically involves the theft of a nuclear warhead by a
corrupt Russian general who is in it for the money, and the
Serbian-Croatians who buy it and attempt to use it to blow up the
U.N. Building in New York. The motivations of each are explored, and
neither are big taken over the world types. It's all about simple
things: greed and vengence. I don't think the scenario presented is
entirely outside the realm of possibility. The probability of an
attempted terrorist attack like the one depicted in this movie is
orders of magnitude more probable than a ICBM attack by a "rouge"
state (unless it's the U.S. attacking). Where the terrorist guys got
all the money to pay for the nuke was never explained though.
Terrorist (or freedom fighter) motivation is a strange thing. I'm
going to separate the terrorist from the freedom fighter in this way:
a terrorist will kill themselves for their cause, where a freedom
fighter has a specific goal in mind (like getting the Nazi's out of
France) and would rather be farming. A book someone lent me briefly
discussed the origin of assassin's as a 11th
century cult in Iran, which reminded me that terrorism is an
ever-present problem, and that sometimes it only takes one guy
promising paradise to get people to kill themselves and others. On the
other hand, I can see how one might desire vengence in the biggest
possible way if you've lived in war-like conditions your entire life
and your family was gunned down in the street by a sniper.
Watching James Bond movies requires a certain suspension of
disbelief to make it entertaining. This often isn't too hard for me,
because monkey brains
love spaceship rumbles. Unfortunately, a high tolerance for bad
acting is often required as well. Especially where bond girls are
concerned. Sophie
Marceau was good enough, but Denise Richards sucked. She
was so wooden and forced. It was painful to watch.
The only redeeming feature of this movie was the BMW Z8. And it got
cut in half! Sad days! Well, ok, there was some good action and
stuff. Standard Bond fare I suppose.
The Birds was interesting. I was frustrated by the fact that they
never tried to explain why the birds were going nuts. It was left up
to the viewer to decide, if they chose to do so. In a way this works,
since the movie just focuses on the reactions of the characters and
doesn't stray from that. It keeps it simple and clean. I guess this
would have been a pretty scary movie back when it was made, but of
course it's pretty mundane by today's standards.
The one thing that really annoyed me about this film was the sounds
the birds made. The noise didn't seem real. They were just annoying
for the most part. In some cases you could see where the birds had
been super imposed on the shot, especially in the flocking
scenes. That made it look quite fake in some cases. I believe they
used real live birds for the most part. They always look good in the
close ups. According to IMDB, they fed the seagulls grain and whisky,
because that was the only way they could get them to stand around so
much. I couldn't help but think that if this movie had been made
today, most of the birds would be CGI. The other slightly distracting
thing was some of the scene changes. The characters stare off into the
distance, and the scene fades out. It reminded me of scene changes in a
play.
Next on the list, Psycho!