• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Photo

Photo

Photo

Photo

Photo

Photo

Photo

  Miramax Films Paulo Costanzo (left) and Josh Hartnett star in "40 Days and 40 Nights."

“40 Days and 40 Nights” Directed by Michael Lehmann Starring: Josh Hartnett, Shannyn Sossamon, Vinessa Shaw

Josh Hartnett going for more than a month without a single sexual encounter sounds so ridiculous, it’s funny. So why not make a movie about it?

In “40 Days and 40 Nights,” Hartnett plays Matt, a San Francisco Web page designer who is utterly in love with his girlfriend Nicole (Vinessa Shaw). Too bad she doesn’t feel the same. Dumped and miserable, Matt goes on a one-night stand spree hoping the emptiness will go away. Instead, that black hole only gets bigger and more menacing. So he turns the other cheek, making a vow to abstain from all things sexual for the 40 days of Lent. That means no sex, no intimacy and (the horror!) no masturbating.

For the average-looking computer geek, this shouldn’t be that tough a task. But Matt is no average-looking computer geek. He looks just like Josh Hartnett! To make matters worse, right when the celibacy thing seems easy, Erica (Shannyn Sossamon) walks in. And as in any typical romantic comedy, mayhem ensues. Then again, this film isn’t exactly typical.

“40 Days and 40 Nights” is not the light-hearted anti-sex romp its marketing campaign has made it out to be. While funny, at times the film struts to the tune of a dark comedy. Matt’s unsupportive coworkers place bets on his day of defeat. Some laughs are at the expense of their greedy cruelty and his subsequent misery. Oh yeah, and there’s sex and nudity. Although not completely tasteless, one still wonders if most of it truly belonged. So, ladies, be forewarned: Your man (and his manliness) may actually be pleased for being dragged to a date movie. This film deserves its R-rating. Leave those 12-year-old siblings at home.

In the end, though, who can truly complain about a film that shows Hartnett in his underwear?

Beverly Braga

“We Were Soldiers” Directed by Randall Wallace Starring: Mel Gibson, Madeleine Stowe, Sam Elliott

“We Were Soldiers” – a story that must be told – is told well.

Based on the true story of the X-Ray battle, Vietnam’s first major military engagement, director Randall Wallace doesn’t hide the gaping, bloodied neck or the charred, swollen face of war. Wallace didn’t feed on or draw from the current wartime patriotism either; rather, he distinguished an often misunderstood war from the brave soldiers who fought for their country in the face of death.

The story: interesting. The action: superb. The acting: think Britney Spears in “Crossroads.”

Mel Gibson (Hal Moore) gave the poorest performance of his life. His southern drawl is as real and genuine as “WWF Smackdown.”

Barry Pepper joins Gibson as journalist Joe Galloway. After grabbing and tearing the burnt skin of a wounded soldier, Pepper forces out a fake look of despair. Pepper’s acting is best compared to chronic constipation.

Keri Russell (Barbara Geoghegan) from “Felicity” couldn’t act her way into a community college. Enough said.

And yet the story transcends the lack of acting ability. Like “Platoon” and “Full Metal Jacket,” “We Were Soldiers” brings a fresh and unique perspective to a major historical event. The wives and children of the soldiers, with their tear-filled eyes, make each soldier more than a killing machine and or bullet stopper – they act to define the soldiers as husbands and fathers.

Randall Wallace walks a fine line, commending the soldiers for their bravery and brotherhood while simultaneously showing the ugliness and the absurdity of some aspects of the Vietnam War.

Randall Wallace also gives significant focus to the North Vietnam Army. The viewer is taken inside the enemy headquarters to see a discussion about the strategic battle plan, adding dimension and a background of intelligence to the brave charges.

Although even “Baywatch” has seen better acting, “We Were Soldiers” tells a powerful story which has the emotional force to move hearts and to open minds to many thought-provoking questions. It does justice to those fathers, sons, brothers and husbands who sacrificed their lives for their country.

Christopher K. Saroki

“Wendigo” Directed by Larry Fessenden Starring: Patricia Clarkson, Jake Weber

Wendigo: There’s a reason why you haven’t heard of this movie – it sucks.

A barium enema by a giant deer-man is more pleasant than seeing this film.

A car strikes a deer to open the film. Otis, a hunter and professional jackass, harasses the car’s driver for damaging his kill. We all have to deal with jerks – anything interesting?

No.

The film documents a family weekend out in the midst of a remote, wintry village. The dialogue is realistic. It’s like watching a video of a stranger’s family vacation, which is precisely why it is so brutally boring.

However, Jake Weber (George) and Patricia Clarkson (Kim) act superbly. George talks about his photography job while being poked and prodded by his psychiatrist wife. In a natural and relaxed manner, they create a commonplace ease which feels real – real boring.

Although Weber and Clarkson perform well, they come off as cold and distant. The audience cannot relate to or associate itself with the self-absorbed relationship between the two. They talk about their child Miles (Erik Per Sullivan), as if he was a dog they adopted to keep themselves amused.

The victim...err...viewer does not give a deer’s crap about this family. The movie is a chain of “Who cares?” and “I’d rather play hot hands with Captain Hook.”

At some point in the movie a were-deer (think distant relative of a werewolf) exacts cosmic justice. The mythical man-deer is based on an Indian myth told to Miles by an Indian whom adults can’t see. When Miles tells them about the Indian, they think he is lying. Sounds like the plot to every “Goosebumps” book ever written.

And like “Goosebumps,” the ending is predictably unoriginal and beaten to a pulp. The director, Larry Fessenden, should open the film by saying that the movie contains a predictable plot, carried out by unlikable characters, beginning with the boring commonplace and ending with the boring foreseeable from the start.

Christopher K. Saroki

Comments

Post a comment