Bogie27 Reviews

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Please Disney - don't do this again!!!

[6/10 · 1 February 2016]

Why another less than superlative review? It's the movies I guess - or Hollywood. There is a good one planned shortly to make up - I promise.

Long before this film arrived I claimed you couldn't do Star Wars over. This Disney remake has proved me right. It leaves me wondering if walking away from Lucas was a good thing to do. It's true he overreached himself with the prequels and botched the whole thing. But they could have done better with a proper director and screenwriter. Lucas had the vision, there's no doubt about that.

Back to this film: I'm scratching my head. On the one hand it feels like a total remake of the first film with a few corny exceptions.

After the last scene, I had to wonder if maybe there WAS a story sweep coming out of all this rehashed mess. Something original perhaps. That would be nice.

That's the reason I advise Disney to never do this again. If they want to utilize Star Wars in their theme parks, well that's fine. Just don't ruin a classic syfy saga to do it.

Elysium (I) (2013)

Will be lauded by some and Egregious to others

[5/10 · 26 December 2013]

After finishing this movie I felt relieved in a couple of ways: One I didn't waste time at the theater or lay down hard earned cash for the Blu-ray. The fact that I only spent a buck sixty at Red Box left me with a better feeling than the end of this film. The special effects and cinematography were excellent but the story stank it up, all the way to Elysium and the characters were laughingly stereotypical or stoically inhuman.

Loosely, the plot is a caricature of America today but set in a futuristic world where the greedy rich and evil corporations grind the life out of the lowly every-man portrayed by Matt Damon. In this futuristic world the rich have deserted the planet for a Florida sized space station called Elysium and left all their troubles far behind. The victims of this film (which I'm guessing are the poor) are stuck on the burnt-out planet with no way to leave.

Looking quite fit, Jodie Foster personified the uncaring rich bitch with control of government anti-immigration efforts. A lack of depth in her character lingers throughout the film as we never know much about her, other than she has knockout legs and is mean as a snake.

William Fichtner plays the ruthless businessman John Carlyle, which was symbolically a dead ringer for the mythical American corporation that makes tons of money yet never pays taxes. Here again we're at a loss to explain this calculating and laconic character as he has maybe three lines in the film before his ultimate demise.

Added perhaps for a little comic relief was the talented Faran Tahir that played the president Patel of Elysium. He's undoubtedly from India and notably pacifistic in comparison to Foster. This left me wondering if Patel is an archetypal symbol of how the writers delight in seeing our own government leaders.

Ah, the writers. After finishing the film, I would have bet a droid to a doughnut that the screen writers of were indeed a bunch of freshmen English majors working on their first part-time job. After a little reflection upon the morning after, I came upon two conclusions: One, the screenplay is a little deeper than I first thought or two, the screenplay was indeed so bad that the incompetency added a new and much deeper dimension.

On the other side of this equation is the poor downtrodden. Once again, the writers fail to provide a back-story to explain why the greedy rich moved to a space station and why the poor can't seem to turn things around. The poor have inherited the earth but can't do anything with it. They can't look inward to themselves but instead turn scheming eyes to big-brother Elysium. The answer to all this seems to be medical equipment. Yep, strange as it seems, the evil corporation who doesn't mind wasting a few lives, will not waste dollars on elaborate and powerful medical equipment needed to save the life of protagonist Matt Damon (can't remember his character). Matt who was a victim of a careless supervisor (aren't we all?) unwittingly goes into a high-radiation area to avoid delays in production. This would anger Mister evil corporation who is always watching pie and bar charts to monitor plant productivity.

The most technically gifted of the poor downtrodden are pretty much devoted to a life of crime. And the crime is sending illegals to Elysium with false DNA IDs aboard fast moving shuttle craft. Finally the criminally downtrodden manage to steal the brain contents of Mister evil corporation and download the knowledge into Matt Damon's noggin. None of these guys have a job so they're excellent hackers. Because of radiation exposure, Matt has five days to live and desperately seeks a way to get to the medical equipment on Elysium or perish. Now this is where the movie gets comical. The list of people that need the medical equipment on Earth keep getting bigger and bigger. To bring this boring mess to an end, the criminally inclined hackers manage to download the data from Matt Damon. This turns out to be a sacrifice and poor Matt becomes another victim. The upside to this mess occurs when the hackers pull an ingenious switch and make all the poor downtrodden of Earth into citizens of Elysium.

The last scene in the film has the Elysium shuttle craft (much nicer than earth shuttle craft) picking up it's new citizens for a ride to the Elysium medical facilities. Hope they didn't have to go through a website to arrange this.

I generally avoid scathing reviews, but when people spend this much money in the film industry to make a heavy social or political comment, I have to take notice. But it's completely up to the viewer whether this film merits credit, or whether it's a two hour waste of time built with twisted logic and trendy misinformation.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

Hallows 2 - fumbles at the goal line.

[7/10 · 31 July 2011]

While following the advice of professional critics I went to the 2D viewing Of Deathly Hallows part 2. Some of the recent installments had been pretty dark and the 3D glasses were supposed to make this worse.

The film seemed a little unlike the previous Potter films. Most Potter films have us seeing the story through the eyes of Harry, Hermione and Ron. Hallows 2 was a little impersonal toward our Heroes. The film seemed rushed and shortcuts were taken that eliminated the dialogue we needed to really feel the leading characters pain. Harry in the film can now 'feel' the Horcruxes when near, and sees their location through Voldemort's mind. Hard to imagine Voldemort making such a mistake, but this technique allowed the filmmakers to shorten the dialogue. This was probably a result of the story being delivered in two parts. The last real character development of Harry, Hermione and Ron was in Hallows 1. Hallows 2 it seems, was meant to be an action film. Also new to the film were efforts to create humor by throwing in one-liners from time to time.

I thought the film stayed fairly close to Rowling's story, until the end at least. After the Kings Cross scene, the film began to diverge greatly from the book. I wondered if this was because better 3D possibilities were attained with these changes. I watched the movie again in 3D. It wasn't darker than the 2D version and the 3D seemed to help the film. However, I'm completely puzzled why the ending was changed the way it was. After waiting for more than a decade for the final showdown, it's unfortunate we got shorted here. The original ending by Rowling was much cleaner and presented more cinematic possibilities, and simply made a better ending for the series. The CGI for the early dragon scene was very good and I'm left wondering if they just ran out time to finish the thing correctly.

I've come to believe most of the professional critics are clueless about this film. It's surely the readers and serious Potter fans that contain real insight into the series. However most people I've talked to that didn't read the book were completely happy with the film and loved all the action scenes in this movie. Many book readers of the series will be disappointed.

That all being said - it was a difficult story to tell. Most of the loose ends in the series were tied up. Not too much of Dumbledore's personality was revealed, and that's probably a good thing. The final fleshing out of Snape's enigmatic character were revealed. Will Rowling pick up the pen once more to give us more Harry Potter? A lot could happen in 19 years! I certainly hope so - but not enough to give this film a rating it doesn't deserve.

Vertigo (1958)

A dizzying Achievement

[10/10 · 3 February 2011]

A down on his luck and retired police detective is given a call by an old college friend. The friend wants the detective to follow his wife, as he believes she is in danger. Reluctantly he agrees to take the job. Through a foggy San Francisco he follows a beautiful woman on a circuitous trail impossible to believe. Many would recognize this, as the work of one the greatest cinematic masters of our time, Alfred Hitchcock. The film is Vertigo.

Vertigo is a film about obsessive love, loss, guilt and betrayal. Disguised as a psychological thriller, and perhaps ahead of its time, Vertigo released in 1958 with only moderate box office success and mixed reviews. When Hitchcock did North by Northwest a year later he chose Cary Grant over Jimmy Stewart as he blamed Stewart for Vertigo's financial problems. Today Hitch wouldn't be disappointed – Vertigo is often referred to as a Masterpiece and has risen steadily through the years in critical acclaim.

Barbara Bel Geddes as Midge and Jimmy Stewart as Scottie Fergusson, play a lengthy introduction scene in Midge's apartment. It's a colorful apartment for a contemporary professional girl of the late fifties with a lovely picture window view of downtown San Francisco. We enjoy being there, and a sense of normalcy prevails. They chit chat about old friends, careers and brassieres and we realize that we are voyeurs here. What we also realize in this lengthy character building scene, is that this sense of normalcy cannot last for long. After all – this is a Hitchcock film. The suspense is already building.

The story gets a little darker as Scottie meets with an old college friend, Gavin Elster. Elster wants Scottie to follow his wife as her movements have become mysterious. Initially Scottie resists the offer, but after Elster pleads with him to take the job, Scottie agrees to covertly meet Elster and his wife at Ernie's restaurant. One look at the woman and Scottie is hooked. Kim Novak is stunning in this scene. The effect she has on Scottie is clear from the beginning. Stewart was perfect as the 'everyman' and often played roles where an average guy gets caught up in something bigger than himself and turns out the victim.

So much imagery in the film is circuitous in nature. From the spinning graphics in the opening credits to the circular path of the green Jaguar around the streets of San Francisco and the spiral bun in which Carlotta and Madeleine wear their hair. Everything is moving in circles, and like a whirlpool the victims are drawn toward the center as the bottom begins to drop. The first victim is Scottie. The musical score composed by Bernard Herrman cannot be over emphasized. It is an emotional and hauntingly beautiful score that is perfectly coordinated with the thematic elements of the film.

At this point in the film Hitchcock shifts gears as the film picks up speed. Scottie follows Madeleine to a flowers shop where she gets an odd bouquet of flowers. Kim Novak protests the gray suit with her platinum blond hair in this scene, but Hitchcock insists. It is a woman dressed like this coming out of a San Francisco fog that Hitch had envisioned for Madeleine. Many scenes were shot with a fog filter if natural fog was not available. From black and white dreams to full color dreams, Hitch portrays this story in a dreamlike fashion and he uses color or the lack of it to help the story along.

As Scottie follows Elster's wife Madeleine, he comes to her assistance as she has an 'accident'. He takes her to his apartment to recover. Watch Stewart very closely in this scene as he expertly plays the part, very warm and friendly, but never forward. The view outside Scottie's apartment window is a photographic plate of a street scene, where the cars never move and people never walk. It's clearly not natural, but perfect for the dream-like story Hitchcock is telling. Scottie is falling for Madeleine, and she senses this and tells him she's married. He doesn't seem to hear, as her beauty is beyond reason and the words fall upon a deaf ear. Scottie and Madeleine begin to wander together in their daytime drives around the bay area. They stop along the northern California Sequoia forest and then stop at Cypress Point along the shore. They stand closely together as the waves crash on the rocks below into a large crescendo. In this close-up scene Hitchcock uses a 'process shot' or rear screen projection. It's not quite natural, but we have to realize Hitchcock is not trying to take us there – the background is for Madeleine and Scottie and not for us as he retells this dream-like story.

Hitchcock reminds us in Vertigo, that what we fall in love with is strongly connected with what we choose to see. Like the circuitous imagery in the film, the plight of Scottie is also duplicitous. The film has been restored in the late nineties by Universal Pictures. If you've seen this film 20 or 30 years ago on television, you owe to yourself to see the restored version today. Hitchcock was always fond of using rear screen projections and photographic plate backgrounds, but they were especially effective when used in Vertigo. Like the background scenes, the use of color, picture definition and dynamic ranges of light and dark, were not effectively presented with older forms of television.

The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond (2008)

cool evening river wind

[7/10 · 23 January 2011]

This Tennessee Williams period story focuses on life in the south in the late twenties. Williams enthusiast and director Jodie Markell brings the overlooked play to the screen. While not for everyone, Loss of a teardrop diamond is a change of pace and refreshing as a breath of cool evening river wind.

The story begins with the character of Fisher Willow, who returns to her father's Mississippi river plantation after an education in Europe. Fisher is played by Brice Dallas Howard and is as smooth as Jack Daniels in this sultry southern role. Social troubles have plagued Fisher after her father has committed a despised act toward the southern end of the community by blowing the river levee on his property. Fisher becomes rebellious and indignant to a society who blames her for her fathers sins.

For reasons unknown to the audience Fisher has developed a strong attraction to Jimmy Dobyne. It seems that Jimmy's family has seen better times. Since the years his grandfather was governor of the state, his family has fallen from prominence into near poverty. Jimmy's alcoholic father finds himself dependent on employment from the Willow family.

It appears Fisher's Aunt Cornelia is in control of the family and demands Fisher complete her social debut. Fisher employs Jimmy to escort her to the debutante parties, that her aunt Cornelia, has insisted she attend. Jimmy who feels manipulated and somewhat controlled resists Fishers advances toward him.

The story, while somewhat tame does contains some racy scenes that center around a Halloween party where things get out of hand. These scenes would have been tricky if not impossible to film in the fifties. No doubt from experiences in his early life, and probably from places like New Orleans, Williams creates a mosaic of wildly contrasting characters to illustrate this story. With the lives of so many different characters coming together, the sparks begin to fly toward the end of this film.

The Big Sleep (1946)

Private Dick on a case

[8/10 · 1 August 2010]

"The Big Sleep" is one of those movies where it helps if you're in the right mood and frame of mind to watch it. This complex screenplay is based on the novel from the very gifted Raymond Chandler. None other than Humphrey Bogart would be right for the part of Philip Marlow, PI. Throw in Lauren Bacall, who was explosively successful with Bogart in 'To Have and Have Not' and you've got the potential for a great motion picture.

By the end of this whirlwind, the whodunits don't seem to matter much, since we've had such a good time getting there - besides the movie is not about solving a mystery, and while gripping, is never particularly suspenseful. The film is about Marlowe, taking us through a maze of criminal networks where the dialogue sparkles as Chandler delivers completely. The script is pure magic and simply the best of the 1940's detective genre films. The only lasting criticism of the movie was it's complex and confusing plot. However, as the years go by, strangely this turns out to be a positive as well.

While the novel written by Chandler is pretty straight forward, there is no central crime or criminal element that binds the story together. The story is told completely from the perspective of Marlow as he takes us through a labyrinth of crime. Racketeering on several different levels, murder, blackmail and gambling are all discussed in the novel. Pornography and homosexuality were also mentioned but could only be alluded to in the film. This 'hardboiled' style of detective writing Chandler employed was softened up a bit in the film. Comments on the decaying social and moral order, and references to crooked cops were left out of the script. Originally, the Phillip Marlow Chandler created was too professional to fall in love with his clients. Hollywood however, needed a love story, so screenwriters Faulkner, Furthman and Brackett took liberties with the novel to create a love interest between Marlow and Vivian. Because of this change, a chain reaction of other confusing changes were needed to balance out the story - the last name of Vivian - who she was married to - and how many times she had been married, all needed changing as well. I believe these modifications to the storyline impacted the performance of Bacall in the introductory scene. She came across as a shallow over protective daughter and busy-body sister. The same scene in the novel has fabric and functionality - the scene in the movie is worth little more than an introduction. Martha Vickers introductory scene is well, unforgettable.

After preliminary viewings were made, Lauren Bacall's agent was concerned with her position in the film. He convinced Jack Warner to re-shoot several scenes and ramp up the dialogue in several others. The movie was originally finished in 1945 and viewed by servicemen overseas while shelved in the U.S. The 'improvements' were completed and the film finally released in 1946. The '1946' version enhanced the position of Lauren Bacall and more or less achieved what the studio wanted. The cost for this enhancement was a lack of clarity, since a key scene where Marlowe and Ohlms are talking the case over with the DA, is scrapped to make room for an amped up longer scene where Bogart and Bacall compare each other to horse racing with an obvious sexual double entendre. Sadly it was also rumored that some of Martha Vickers scenes ended up on the cutting room floor to insure Bacall was more of the standout in this picture.

The code and censorship standards of the day made several scenes in the picture confusing and tricky to film. What type of books were being sold in the back of Geiger's store? What was going on with Carmen's photo shoot? When Marlowe breaks in she is fully clothed in a Chinese dress. The young bookstore clerk closes her store and lets down her hair to have drinks with Marlow on a rainy afternoon, yet we're left with the impression nothing went on? Filmmakers of the 40's had a way of taking you the precipice of something dark and dirty but never really letting you know for sure. You have to wonder what an audience in 1946 thought of all this? Maybe they read the book. All these things must be more than a little vague to a modern audience, who seldom is required to use this much imagination.

Although Bogart's lines were not accelerated dialogue, the actor could deliver his lines PDQ. As with most detective films of the 40's you would think there was a shortage of celluloid, by the rapid fire bantering exchanges. In the novel Marlowe seems to prefer drinking to women, but Howard Hawks has Bogart bowling over the women in a way we wouldn't see again till 20 years later in the character of James Bond.

If you're having trouble getting into the movie, there's a scene early on where Bogart is watching the house rented by Geiger. It's raining and Marlowe is hunched down in the seat of the Plymouth Coupe and fat lipping a cigarette when Carmen Stearnwood drives up. It's expertly written and beautifully filmed. At this time an invisible hand reaches out of the screen and yanks you out of your easy chair and into the story.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972)

Watch yer Topknot

[8/10 · 6 July 2010]

The 1830's era of free trapping were some of the very toughest of times, and this early period western is one of my favorite Sidney Pollack films. It centers historically on the free trapping of beaver in the American west. The movie is a cult classic among those familiar with the lives and legends of the free trappers. The movie is loosely based on the book, "Mountain Man" by Vardis Fisher. The character invented by Fisher is a combination of mountaineers based on the incredible legends of men like, Liver eating Johnston and John Colter. Pollack had also directed "The Scalphunters" in 1968 which was a film about trapping in the west. This earlier film may have helped lay a foundation of experience for "Jeremiah Johnson".

This film chronicles the journey of Jeremiah Johnson as he begins a life in the mountains in his pursuit of free trapping. The choice of Robert Redford for Johnson seems pretty natural for a movie in this time frame. Pollack would have needed someone like Redford as a box office draw, and also, to insure this 1830's mountain film seemed more attractive and compelling to a younger audience. Although Redford did a good job, I'll always wonder what Steve McQueen would have done with this role. The film was shot in various national parks in Utah and contains many winter scenes and sounds that really add to the story.

As with any journey type of story, we see that Johnson encounters things and people that help him along his trail in the mountains. Initially, it appears he is on his way to becoming a first season causality before he acquires the help of mountain man veteran Bearclaw Crislap played by Will Geer. In following acquaintances however, he isn't as lucky.

The film offers up an explanation of why the mountain men ventured into such a harsh existence. Few things could have been more dangerous as trapping beaver in the Rocky mountains. So many things were there to kill you. The elements, animals and angry Indians were equally up to the task. However, these rules were as clear as the mountain air, and the mountain men seemed to appreciate that. So, the mountains were a symbol of purity - they were closer to God - the air was cleaner. There is constant images of white snow covered scenery that helps the movie convey this message. The characters of Bearclaw and Del Que are quite often delivering lines and messages that express their passion for mountain life and the great pride and respect for this existence. We see the mountains begin to develop as a character themselves. "The mountain got it's way", says BearClaw. Indeed, the mountains seems to communicate with BearClaw. And later the winds sing a sirens song to warn Jeremiah when trouble has found it's way into his life. This mysticism also has something to do with the character of Jeremiah. He never says too much about his reasons for leaving the towns below for mountain life. Unlike Del Que and Bearclaw he doesn't say much about his passion for the mountains.

After Johnson has successfully run the gamut of dangers in mountain life, he again encounters some the first few people he met when he entered the mountains. He meets them again in reverse order, and we begin to realize Jeremiah's journey has taken him full circle and the story is nearing completion. We see in the end that Jeremiah has completed his journey, from apprentice to the status of Mountain Man.

By the Sword (1991)

Pure Imagination

[6/10 · 24 June 2010]

This movie was completed in 1991 but released in 1993, which was about the same time I started fencing. So it's always been somewhat special to me. I just recently watched it again as I converted the old video tape to DVD. The fencing in this movie - somewhat dated and very classical – is still pretty good. Plenty of formal fencing phrases that are often recalled by the Maestro, Villard, played cockily by Eric Roberts. The dimly lit Salle with dueling pictures on the wall create good atmosphere and mystique to begin the story.

It's a clever story. Fencing as we know it today began in Europe as formal training to survive a duel. So it's only proper that this movie ends with a real swordfight. The movie begins with an older guy named Max Suba returning to an old New York Salle, for reasons quite unknown to the viewers. Villard(the proprietor) asks him "are you in the right place?" It's turns out he's come back to teach fencing, but fails to impress Villard with his old style and can barely remember the parries. Max takes a job there as a janitor instead. The character of Max Suba is played by F Murray Abrahams and slowly exposes his past and the real reasons for returning to the Salle. As we peel away layers, we see Max is getting his life and fencing back together after a long stay in prison for killing a man.(in a duel) Toward the end of the movie the revelation occurs. The real Max Suba died years ago. The new Max Suba has assumed the name and come back to the place and family where his normal life came to an end many years ago. It was the life of Villard's father(also a fencing champion) whom Max took with a sword in a duel.

Now the point of the story some have missed. Young Villard is obsessed with winning at all costs. He's laboring under the mistaken belief that his Father lost a contest when winning mattered most. (Max actually won the duel by an underhanded maneuver.) It's a mistake he doesn't intend to make or allow his students to accept, but it's all based on his altered view of what really happened. Villard's never been beaten in major competitions – an almost impossible achievement. He's a very cocky character that teaches ruthlessness to his students and criticizes their compassion for others. In spite of his success on the fencing strip he's never really learned some of life's most important lessons. That's due to the fact that we learn from our losses in life and not from our victories. Max on the other hand has learned a lot from his loses in life and clearly sees these deficiencies in Villard. He knows Villard must be beaten to ever have a chance to see his point of view. So these two men – each desperate in their cause must face each other in combat to bring this story to conclusion.

The Red Baron (2008)

Fun but not historically correct

[6/10 · 6 June 2010]

While I enjoyed 'The Red Baron', I felt the historical inaccuracies were almost too much to bear. The life and combats of von Richthofen and the flying circus were dramatic enough and need no alteration for the silver screen. It was unfortunate the combats depicted were less dramatic than the real life events. So why? Captain Roy Brown was seen threaded throughout the story from early in Manfred Von Richthofen 's career till his eventual demise. Along with this phony relationship with Roy Brown is the misplaced relationship with the nurse he meets much later in real life. Oh well - a little romance never hurts a film, I guess.

The first big victory of Richthofen was captain Lanoe Hawker as he is seen spiraling down through the clouds in an SE-5 and screaming as his engine is on fire. In reality Hawker is flying a DH-2. He and von Richthofen have a very long dogfight that ends up with the two fighters circling and trying to get on the others tail - a common occurrence in aerial dog fighting. Unfortunately for Hawker the prevailing winds are blowing them closer to the German lines. Running low on fuel he decides to break out of the circling maneuver and run for home. The young Richthofen gets on his tail and delivers a fatal shot to the head before his guns jam. This is a big victory for Richthofen and is correctly depicted in the film, when he takes the gun and tail numbers from Hawker's plane to decorate his wall.

The great German fighter Werner Voss was also shorted in this production. In the film he goes down in a bi-plane after a short dogfight with a couple of SE-5's. In real life - His ride is the famous DR-1 Fokker tri-plane. He takes on a swarm of SE-5's and finally succumbs after a very long and aerobatic dog fight. Perhaps this reality was too difficult to film.

To conclude the film, the gradual reduction of Germanys resources and pilot losses cast a gloom on their war effort. As more and more great pilots are lost the stage is set for the final flight of the great fighter, von Richthofen and his cousin Wolfram Richthofen. But here comes the biggest surprise of all - the final most dramatic dogfight is completely omitted from the film. After Richthofen takes off for the mission, we then see Captain Roy Brown giving Richthofen's nurse and girlfriend the Red Baron's silk flying scarf, and we know the great Baron is gone. Oh well - it's possible they had run out of funding and had to scrap the last flying scene.

The last dogfight went something like this. Wolfram Richthofen, the Baron's cousin was instructed to get down quickly in case a dogfight broke out on their mission. The same instructions were given on the other side to equally young and inexperienced Canadian pilot Wilfrid May. Both sides did this with en-experienced pilots. It just so happens that young May spotted Wolfram down low as he was. It was too much for May to ignore, and he decided to attack the young Wolfram. The Red Baron saw this and immediately went down to help his cousin. He got on the tail of Wilfrid May and wouldn't let go. OK, so this where Roy Brown comes into play. Also Canadian he feels compelled to help young Wilfrid May. He dives on von Richthofen and gets off a few shot before having to pull up and away from the fight. Von Richthofen is so absorbed with target fixation, he flies low and over the Australian lines. It is here he is most likely shot and makes a controlled landing but dies shortly after. The film could have used this scene. Although Brown was given official credit for killing von Richthofen, modern analysis points to ground fire from the Australian lines for firing the fatal shot.

Six Days Seven Nights (1998)

It's like a small vacation

[8/10 · 1 November 2009]

I don't write many reviews, unless I really feel close to the movie or believe it was unfairly rated, like this one. This movie has found it's way back to my DVD player several times since it's first release to DVD about 10 years ago. It whisks you up from your easy chair to a sunny vacation spot in the Polynesian Islands and never slows up or misses a beat. One scene moves to the next in a seamless manner often foreshadowed by a soundtrack that is very good and quite catchy.

The film was well cast with Harrison Ford as the crusty cargo pilot - Ann Heche as the assistant editor of a fashion magazine - David Swimmer as her pasty but very nice fiancé and Jacqueline Obradors as the beautiful but dingbat club dancer. This romantic comedy and action adventure film pits two people together from different backgrounds and age groups. Normally the two would never get along long enough to get to know the other. But, forced to spend time together and under challenging conditions, a small attraction begins to develop and grow stronger. The character development of the cast moves forward with the same speed as the rest of this cute story.

While the film is certainly not for everyone, judging from IMDb ratings and rotten tomatoes, I really believe it was the message and not the movie that failed to impress. This story expresses a throwback to traditional values in the relationship of Ford and Heche and their experiences on the Island. This may explain the reaction to the film by many of the younger viewers. Some of the more mature viewers may have been turned off by news of Ann Heche and Ellen Degeneres in real life. This may explain why some seem to love the movie, while others have curiously rated it rather poorly.

In any case, if you need a quick escape and love flying to beautiful Polynesian Islands loaded with beautiful scenery and good-looking people, then his film may be your ticket!