When Japanese began building a strategical airport on Guadalcanal amphibian operating units of real-admiral Turner reinforced by 1th. marines division and airforces of admiral Fletcher command to prohibit Japanese in finishing runways. The effortless landing ran over in 7th. August 1942. But crushing air-raids made american navy to retreat and marines stayed temporarily without support. They had to affort reinforced Japanese units which were transported on the island by light cruicers and destroyers. In that time were on the island about 50 000 men. Americans succesfully beared up Japanese attacks. Tired and decimated 1th. division managed their command and was changed by fresh units. During last days of the battle 60 000 new american soldiers stayed against 20 000 beaten Japanese which were rescued by brave operation of own navy. Guadalacanal inferno finished in 7th. February 1943.

You can see two kinds of american war movies. The first ones are patriotic and heroic. These are full of american flag and victimization for majority (Saving The Private Ryan). The second ones characterize by strong anti-military mood (Platoon). Terrence Malick made film which doesn't belong surely to the first cathegory or quite to the second. He tells us story about 3rd platoon and step by step introduces us particular characters but without main one. This isn't easy movie and is a little bit difficult to understand it.

---

You've Got Mail

Meg Ryen and Tom Hanks met together for the third time in the movie as lovers. I saw all theirs movies and this is the best one. In 1990 they for the first time stared in a crazy comedy Joe Versus the Volcano. They repeated theirs roles in a pure romance. Sleepless in Seattle three years later.

Plot Summary by Julian Reischl

Kathleen Kelly, owner of a little and famous bookstore for children's books, has an affair. Being together with Frank Navasky, a well-known journalist, she betrays him by e-mailing secretly and anonymously with a (also betraying) man whom she met in a chat room. Suddenly, her business gets endangered by the opening of Fox Books discount store just "around the corner". She meets Joe Fox, son of the owner, and soon gets annoyed by his arrogant way of managing business matters. Although getting advice by her anonymous mail-pal, she has to close down her store. But Joe Fox's life suddenly gets out of control when he learns that his anonymous mail-pal is nobody other than Kathleen Kelly.

I'dont know whether I had deviced to visit this movie in cinema if it hadn't been free of charge (thanks to movie magazine Cinema). But now I can without doubt say that this movie is worth to see it. Plot is very trivial and you from the begining know how the strory finished. However you will be surprised which ways lead to the happy-end.

---

Men With Guns

John Sayles made a strong sad story movie situated in Mexico.

This is a beautiful Spanish speaking film about the vicissitudes of Mexico´s indians and one man´s endeavour to leave a legacy. Dr. Fuentes had one major flaw, he naively believed in the goodness of men, and despite his ingenuity in medicine, misunderstood the complexities of his homecountry´s politics. He wanted to pass a legacy, but slowly found it to be in shatters by the people he as an educated bourgeoise trusted. One by one the shocking reality of Indians became revealed, his students had vanished, and the victimization of nations was apparent. There was nothing else to cling to except dreams and hopes of escape.

---

Payback

How much is $70,000 worth to you? I'm sure that right now 70 grand would come in real handy. But is it worth numerous beatings, getting shot, being run over and having your toes mashed by a hammer? It is to Porter.

About film by Scramble

I'm sure you're aware of the plot to this film (vengence, old flames and mucho violence) but that barely scratches the surface of this brilliant little noir. Whilst the story is basic the nuts and bolts used to make it are complex, twisting and not quite what you expect. For a start there are the characters. No good guys. Not one. Porter is a criminal (like Bruce Willis in Last Man Standing). He's not even a particularly nice one. He's a killer, a thief, a thug, a gambler, a cheater, a liar and I bet he doesn't even pay his taxes. Likewise everybody else. Sadists, murderers, corrupt cops, drug dealers, gang members, mobsters, hookers. They're all here in their various shades of bad.

The success of this film relies on two people: Gibson and screenwriter/director Brian Helgeland. With the lead gleefully playing against his nice guy image Porter is as nasty as they come but still retains such charm and Gibsons trademark grin that not for one moment do you dislike him. He's cool in a way that Bruce Willis' Jackal never was. He quietly slipped across continents with hi-tech equipment in various guises waiting for his moment. Porter just walks into the hoods house with nothing but a revolver and asks for his money back. A lot of the comments I've read say that Porter is mean. He isn't. He'll just do what it takes to get his money back. He has nothing to loose so why not do it anyway. Porter is who Riggs would be if he'd never met Murtaugh. Out of control, against massive odds but just crazy enough not to give a damn.

Helgeland shows real talent as a director in his first time outing. As a scriptwriter he's always been in the upper classes with a talent for mixing unrepentant violence with uneasy humour. Here he shows he can tell a damn good story along with writing it. Nothing happens the way it's supposed to. We're used to good guys threatening to kill but always really bluffing. Porter isn't. He'll ask for what he wants, he doesn't get it, BANG, you're dead. People die at the wrong time too. Characters that are supposed to last until the end die in the middle while minors that only just arrive survive only to get whacked by the finish anyway. The motivation is all wrong as well. 70,000 is chump change to these people. The mobsters are wearing suits worth more than that. But Porter wants that and nothing more. He spends most of the film correcting people who think he's after more.

While based on the same source material as Point Blank, Payback is nothing like it stylistically. The first used understated violence. Payback goes for the jugular and rips it out with copious amounts of rheseus negative. It's hard to see this film working without this combo of star and director. If you had, say Sylvester Stallone or Nicolas Cage and Richard Donner or Joel Schumacher in charge you'd just have a bunch of nasty people doing nasty things with none of the ghoulishly comic touches that make Porter cool. Be thankful it's the combination it is and then go and see it. If you like thrillers you'll love this.

---

[ Content ] [ Main Page ]
Last updated:
© Copyright Jan Martinec