Savior started as a quick-paced family drama, turned misguided revenge film, turned race-war historical drama, turned redemption saga all in a matter of the first forty-five minutes. And although I feel Dennis Quaid has his moments and has his films, this was certainly not one of his better performances. Neither Quaid's character, nor anyone other characters, were likeable in this film, exhibiting a surplus of flaws and downright evil tendencies. Many scenes were far too unbelievable and direction driven rather than flowing realistically. In the end, I couldn't tell if this was a redemption film, or a film much more deeply rooted in a religious grudge, but in either case, the unique history of this film wasn't significantly clarified and was much too abstract to be understood by the average viewer. This film had great moments of emotion and tension, but they were few and far between, and left much, much more to be desired from a film that showed as much production value as Savior had. This film did have depth, and a seriousness that most films are wholly void of, but unfortunately, this film was restrained from becoming a great film by far too many factors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/6/2010
3 comments:
Hmmm, but despite all that (which I agree with for the most part), I still think it's worth watching. Most Americans, especially young Americans, honestly don't realize how fucked up the Bosnian war was, and how scarred that region remains today. Behind Enemy Lines is the candy-eyed prism through which they see the picture, if they even recognize it as "the picture" at all.
Spend some time reading about that conflict, and you'll come to understand that although the mechanics and acting of this film weren't that great, what was depicted was how it was, if not worse. Sometimes life is so ridiculous that depicting it accurately doesn't seem real. And sometimes a person's story doesn't have a "realistic flow." Not saying that's how this movie necessarily was, but I think you need to recognize this.
And not all the actors were bad or unlikeable. I thought the main woman character did a good job and she was likeable. In many was so was Dennis Quaid's character.
Besides, there are some much deeper issues that run through this movie that should cause a thinking and feeling person to pause. Like was Dennis Quaid's character a good guy or not? Who were the bad guys? The good guys? What would you do if war was all around you? What would it be like to live in fear? To be disowned by your family because you were raped in prison?
I don't know, I guess I would just ask, "where is a good movie that depicts the Bosnian conflict in a meaningful way?" This may be the closest we've got. Let me know if I'm wrong.
Actually, there is a movie for which you might give a more favorable review. It depicts the first year or so of the siege of Sarajevo (pronounced Sa-rai-vo). It's called "Shot Through The Heart". It's a made-for-TV movie, but again, I think it offers a unique perspective.
Anyway, I know that you're reviewing movies based on technical criteria, but I hope you eventually realize that a movie can technically fail in a horrible way and yet be worth more than a highly successful yet brain-fryingly ridiculous and ultimately worthless that gets everything technically right like, say, Iron Man. Or Transformers (yeah, even the first one), or The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, or... whatever.
Without downplaying your comments, Mark, I agree with just about everything you say here - like, there probably isn't a better movie about the Bosnian War. And that no, reality doesn't always follow a three act structure, full with final resolution, etc.
I do, however have something to say about the last paragraph. The real battle in filmmaking these days (at least in my opinion) is to combine both the elements of great/necessary storytelling/recounting history and technical proficiency. For lack of a better example, I'd compare it to a rocket. Or a bomb. Let's say an ICBM. See, an ICBM's purpose (as I would understand it) is to deliver a powerfully destructive payload across great distances to an utterly precise target. Is that right? In my mind, the storytelling relates to the explosion itself, and the precision of the ICBM would be the technical proficiency of any given film. If the story isn't there - the examples you give of Transformers and Iron Man - then it doesn't matter how accurately it hits, the bomb doesn't explode. It was worthless. Conversely, however (and this I think is more my perspective), it doesn't matter how fantastic and socially necessary the story, because if the technical proficiency isn't there, the ICBM explodes on the launchpad, never reaching its intended target.
The best films are those that have both elements, and utilize both to their fullest capacity. They are few and far between, and though probably in stark contrast to your tendencies, I would probably lean towards the appreciation of technical proficiency. But hey, I graduated with a degree in cinematography and a focus on camera technologies and support systems.
Well put. I even like your analogy, and I agree with your final conclusion - if we must choose, you tend toward the technical, whereas I tend toward the story. And this is understandable, as you put it, since your profession requires your loyalty to technique.
Post a Comment