Change Your Image
Chantillyman
Reviews
Orca (1977)
Difficult to rate - Raises Mixed Emotions
1977's "Orca", starring Richard Harris (Gladiator, Harry Potter), is one of the more difficult films I believe I've ever tried to categorize. Also, I'm uncertain exactly how to rate it, given that it stirs up a number of mixed emotions.
***spoilers follow***
"Orca" tells the story of Captain Nolan (Harris), a fisherman who is trying to set himself up for a financial windfall (and thus pay off the mortgage on his boat) by capturing a Great White Shark and selling it to an aquarium. When two divers become involved, the situation nearly leads to tragedy; however, a killer whale intervenes, killing the shark and firing the imagination of Captain Nolan. Enlisting the unwitting aid of a female marine biologist named Rachel Bedford (Charlotte Rampling), Nolan decides to change course and pursue the capture and sale of a killer whale. The capture attempt is a dismal failure. In the process, a male Orca is wounded, its mate is killed, and the female's unborn calf gruesomely miscarries on the deck of Nolan's ship, "Bumpo".
By this time in the film, we've already sat through a crash-course on killer whales, most notably two ideas: 1) killer whales may have an intelligence level on par with man's, and 2) killer whales are vengeful creatures. These ideas, combined with Captain Nolan's unintentional killing of the female whale and her calf, set us up for the main body of the film, which concerns itself with the male Orca doing whatever it can to lure Nolan back to sea for a final confrontation.
Many people seem to feel that "Orca" is a "Jaws" rip-off, and while it may have been made to capitalize on the success of "Jaws", I don't see it as a true rip-off. For one thing, other than the story of a fisherman challenging a powerful animal at sea, "Orca" doesn't really follow the pattern set by "Jaws", and emulated countless times since in lesser films. In "Jaws", a Great White Shark simply shows up in New England waters one day and embarks on a killing spree, leading to the film's climactic hunt for the animal. There is no explanation for the shark's actions save for animal instinct, and while powerful, the shark is not portrayed as intelligent; nor do we feel any sympathy for the animal. True "Jaws" rip-off films merely change the animal in the title role (or not, in the more blatant examples), substitute another location and a different cast, and supply a different ending. See "Tentacles", "Piranha", "Night of the Grizzly", "Kingdom of the Spiders", etc.
"Orca", on the other hand, doesn't truly emulate the pattern of any of these films. The Orca has a reason for its actions, displays intelligent manipulation to get what it wants, and is somewhat sympathetic. For a true comparison to another film, try reversing the plot elements of "Moby Dick". With a few tweaks, you basically get "Orca". In fact, as opposed to being a rip-off, I'd argue that "Orca" is a rather unique film. It's a revenge story with an animal in the lead, and I don't believe I've ever seen another example of that.
As for the film in terms of production, I wouldn't say that "Orca" is an awful film, but it certainly tries to be more than what it ultimately becomes, and thus may seem worse than it is. I enjoy watching it myself, but I hesitate to recommend it to others.
Richard Harris is a surprisingly complex Nolan. He doesn't always react as you'd expect him to, and thus rises above the one-dimensional range this role could easily have been for him. Charlotte Rampling plays a cool-headed intellectual type who doesn't know whether to love Nolan or hate him, so she settles for something in between. Her acting isn't the most inspired, but it's adequate to what she's asked to do here. She could be called wooden, I suppose, but most cool-headed intellectuals seem that way in real life. Admittedly, the rest of the cast, with the exception of Will Sampson as Umilak, are display material. Bo Derek is very attractive, but looking simultaneously attractive and helpless is really all she's asked to do here.
The best aspects of "Orca" are its rich photography and Ennio Morricone's mournfully haunting score. Both are absolutely beautiful. The film is a viewing and listening pleasure. Michael Anderson's direction is also quite good. There were a few scenes that appear to have been cut (for time, perhaps), but other than that the flow is very good and the chosen shots work well.
The storyline is "Orca's" weakest point. The idea of a killer whale trying to avenge the death of its mate is workable, but some of the Orca's feats in this film are unintentionally amusing. The dockside fire scene is definitely the most over-the-top of all, as others here have already pointed out; and the Orca signaling to Nolan to follow is probably the runner-up, at least for me. Some stock aquarium footage also got annoying.
The recent "Orca" DVD release has no extras, but does feature a beautiful transfer and excellent sound. I can understand why they didn't go to too much expense with "Orca", but it would have been nice to at least get a trailer.
Bottom line: Unbelievable storyline, but surprisingly well-made and likable. This may be the best "bad" film I've ever seen.
Rating: 5 out of 10
Gods and Generals (2003)
A Poignant, Southern-flavored View of the Early Years of the War Between the States
Ron Maxwell's big-screen adaptation of Jeff Shaara's novel "Gods and Generals" is a panoramic portrait of the first few years of the War Between the States - primarily from the Southern point of view - with heavy emphasis on the towering, enigmatic figure of Stonewall Jackson.
***minor spoilers ahead***
In my opinion, speaking as one who has studied the subject in great detail over the years, this film is the best to have come along on the War Between the States thus far. Robert Duvall and Stephen Lang were perfectly cast as Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. Duvall, who is actually a descendent of Lee, perfectly embodies the poise and quiet dignity of the historical Lee. His performance is a vast improvement over what Martin Sheen gave us in "Gettysburg," a film in which Lee appeared as a simpering and perhaps senile old man who was waiting for God to go whip the Yankees for him. Lang's Jackson is equally brilliant, capturing the eccentricities, religious fervor, and military zeal that made another of the South's favorite sons who he was.
As mentioned, the film primarily concerns itself with Jackson.
The location filming, period costumes, and exacting attention to historical detail make this film a very pleasant viewing experience with the exception of a few CGI shots that somehow come off as not looking quite right (the town of Fredericksburg from a distance, for instance, and various soldier columns as well). The battles were well staged and accurately reflect the conditions under which they were actually fought without delving heavily into blood and gore. My favorite part of the movie was Jackson's flanking assault during the Battle of Chancellorsville - very well done.
My two biggest criticisms about the actual film-making here would be:
1. Some speeches should have been omitted or shortened. Once you've established a character, adding lengthy monologues merely becomes redundant. For instance, a couple of Jackson's prayers could have been drastically shortened and achieved better effect. Also, starting up the music everytime someone begins a speech also seemed a bit hokey; Maxwell could have achieved his aims through the use of normal dialogue exchanges just as well.
2. The Battle of Fredericksburg should have been shortened. The battle is replete with scene after scene of what basically amounts to the same thing - large groups of men being gunned down or blown up from the same angles. Yes, I understand that this is how it happened, but it gets rather tedious when shown repeatedly like stock footage. It might have been better to have concentrated more on individual soldiers and units.
This film has been criticized for its inordinate length (due, I believe, to the above factors), and the theater where I viewed it actually inserted an intermission, which helped considerably. Unlike others who have commented here though, I did not see people leaving the theater in droves. The ones who left had brought younger children who apparently could not sit for the entire film. On the whole though, let's just admit up front that our American public is not known for its attention span when it comes to films like this. "Gods and Generals" might have had wider appeal had it featured muscular, half-nude, foul-mouthed heroes either blowing up everything in sight with the help of Industrial Light and Magic, or else getting it on with the leading lady. Yes, making your audience think seems to be the cinematic kiss of death unless you pay them off with gratuitous sex and violence.
A few words about the subject matter here...
This film has generated an enormous amount of criticism for its treatment of the subject matter. Mainstream film critics are having a collective coronary at the Southern sympathies that we see here, and I, for one, find that immensely entertaining. Apparently, Hollywood can preach all it likes in film when the subject matter falls within a politically-correct orientation, but if you stray beyond the accepted mainstream dogma, then prepare to be verbally bludgeoned to death for "bias." "Biased" filmmaking...now there's a concept!
For those who do complain of bias in this film though, consider the fact that "Gods and Generals" concerns itself mainly with Southern figures in the war, therefore, it is hardly surprising that Southern views of the conflict would be predominant. Can anyone imagine a historical Confederate soldier standing up following the singing of "Bonnie Blue Flag" and saying: "Gee, folks, you know, we seem a little one-sided here..."
Slavery, which is what contemporary dogma insists was the central theme of the conflict, takes a back seat in this film, and rightly so. The central question of the war itself was: "Shall the Southern states leave the Union of their own volition?" not "Shall slavery be abolished?" The question of slavery did not bring North and South together on the battlefield, the question of secession did. Lincoln insisted that the Southern states could not leave the Union of their own will, while the Southern states insisted that a government that owed its existence to a secession movement (the American War for Independence) had no business opposing another such movement in its own midst.
Slavery entered the conflict when Lincoln attempted to weaken the South's labor force (and deny it foreign sympathy) by freeing only those slaves in the "rebel states," and then only those slaves not in areas controlled by federal armies. Slaves in the border states and in jurisdictions under federal control were not freed until the passage of the 13th amendment in December of 1865. Read the Emancipation Proclamation sometime and you'll readily see that it was not a humanitarian document; it was a military directive. You'll also see that Lincoln offered to "let" the Southern states keep their slaves as long as they returned to the Union prior to January 1, 1863. In fact, despite the mythology that has been spread about him since his assassination, Lincoln was no believer in racial equality. Several of his speeches would be considered blatantly racist today (reference his debates with Stephen Douglas for examples of this).
"What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union," Lincoln informed Horace Greeley. The question of the Union was paramount in the war, and "Gods and Generals" accurately reflects this fact. The charges of agenda are thus rightly filed against those who attempt to make the issue of slavery primary in a conflict where it was not primary at all.
Some have also wondered about Jackson's sympathies with regard to blacks because he is shown being kind to his black cook in the film. In reality, Jackson was quite sympathetic to the plight of blacks in America. For instance, he sponsored a Sunday School class for blacks in Lexington, Virginia, and used that medium to teach them how to read and write at a time when it was against the law to do so. There are black churches in that area today that exist as a direct result of his efforts. So, yes, the film is accurate in its portrayal of Jackson as being kind and sympathetic to blacks.
And as for remarks by Roger Ebert and others to the effect that there are not enough blacks in this film, and not enough with speaking roles, we'll see how many other films they criticize on this basis in the future. In reality, a non-politically correct view of the Confederate South is the heart of their issue with "Gods and Generals." They don't like its Southern perspective - period. It questions their politically-correct, psuedo-intellectual views to an unacceptable degree. Films that depict Southerners as being any more intellectually or morally sophisticated than the toothless, inbred Georgia mountain men in "Deliverance" are generally frowned upon by such self-styled elites.
If you're curious about the war and its core issues, get out the speeches and writings of those who lived at the time and study them - you'll find that the matter was not so "black and white" as it is made out to be...literally.
But in the meantime, if you're looking for an accurate portrayal of the Southern perspective during the War Between the States, poignant portrayals of Lee and Jackson, and a detailed look at the conditions under which soldiers and civilians labored in that conflict, go see "Gods and Generals."
Content: Realistic portrayals of military violence, frequent episodes of political incorrectness
Rating: 9 out of 10 (Yes, this film had serious editing problems, but what it did right it did magnificently well).
Beasts (1983)
There are no heroes, only survivors.
Note - this review contains spoilers.
"Beasts" - Frameline Productions, 1983. Directed by Don Hawks. Starring Thomas W. Babson ("Snowbeast", "Cheers"), Kathy Christopher ("Snowbeast"), and Vern Porter ("Lonesome Dove").
Deeply dissatisfied with a life and career that appear to be going nowhere fast, protagonist Doug Barnes packs his bags and travels to the Colorado Rockies to visit an old girlfriend, Cindy Butler. The pair have been separated for 13 years, ever since Cindy's family moved away from the east coast, but they have kept in touch during the interval, having written to one another 99 times. And while Doug is struggling and disillusioned, Cindy has found success and contentment designing computers for her father's company.
Slowly renewing their acquaintance and affection, Doug and Cindy journey into the wilderness to spend a few days at Cindy's father's remote cabin. But what starts off as an idyllic retreat quickly turns into a nightmare when the couple is besieged by a crazed Grizzly bear and two outlaws who are on its trail, determined to collect a $500 bounty. Cindy's mountain-savvy friend, Willie, comes to their aid but ultimately falls prey to the cons, while Doug is attacked and badly injured by the rampaging grizzly. Doug and Cindy must then race to escape the wilderness before Doug succumbs to his injuries or they're overtaken by the beasts that are hot on their trail.
All in all, "Beasts" is a great premise that was doomed from the start by a severely limited budget. The director paces the film well, but the camera operator and editor leave much to be desired, or else the budget became a factor again and they were rushed and/or forced to use inadequate equipment. The bear footage is marred by the fact that the bear continually looks back over its shoulder at the cameraman (and the few scenes they shot with a guy in a bear suit are a little too obvious). Sound is also an issue with the film, as dialogue is occasionally muffled and the ends of some lines are cut off. The actors make the characters come alive as real people, although there was obviously a lot of inexperience on the set. Kathy Christopher delivers the stand-out performance as Cindy, ably conveying both strength and vulnerability, to say nothing of patience as she tries to encourage a cynical and world-wearied Doug. The Colorado scenery is beautiful. The film's score is mostly lacking, but again, I suspect that budget played a large role there.
While I honestly can't give "Beasts" a super high rating, despite the soft spot that it holds in my heart, I won't treat it too badly, either. It was a great idea that didn't work out at the time, due primarily to the albatross of a tight budget hanging around its neck. Tom Babson and Kathy Christopher created characters that I could care about and wanted to know more about, something that modern films with flashier actors and obscenely large budgets often fail to do. I own the film and watch it from time to time. No, it's not an Oscar-winner by any means, but I enjoy it for some reason. I identify strongly with Doug's search for himself and his place in life. I can't help but wonder if his struggles are not autobiographical of the screenwriter.
There is also a strong nostalgia factor involved for me where this film is concerned, as I first saw it on late-night TV when I was around 10 years old (probably at the same time it was first released).
Here's hoping that, after they escaped, aspiring writer Doug wrote their true-life adventure in a story that made him a fortune, and that he and Cindy had three or four kids and eventually retired to the cabin (with the addition of a large bearskin rug).