Sight unseen, 'Reagans' fuss a folly
Still, the brouhaha over "The Reagans" -- the miniseries that CBS dispatched to Showtime -- has brought a new wrinkle to the critical process, inasmuch as those lambasting the film hadn't seen it, instead basing their ire on a leaked teleplay draft and a glorified trailer.
Hoping to strike while the controversy is hot, Showtime premiered the movie Nov. 30, meaning it wasn't available before Variety's deadline. Yet the chorus of boos emanating from Reagan supporters got me thinking that I've been going about this all wrong, actually bothering to watch what I've chosen to excoriate.
Had I known that reviewing without viewing was an option, I'd have far more time to work on those washboard abs I've promised myself by 2006, in order to qualify as one of the hunky contestants on NBC's "Average Joe VII."
So here, based on nothing more than rumors, supposition and gut instinct, are some advance capsule reviews of controversial or eagerly awaited movies I haven't seen. And trust me, if this goes off without a hitch, I'll think twice before sitting through the next Adam Sandler opus.
- "The Reagans" -- James Brolin gives his best performance involving animatronic characters since "Westworld" (I'm trying to remember what else James Brolin has been in since "Westworld") as the U.S.' 40th president in an overwrought melodrama hardly worthy of all the fuss.
Not surprisingly, Nancy Reagan (Judy Davis) comes off far worse than her husband in this handsome but ultimately disappointing and (at almost three hours) somewhat bloated film, which does slightly less for Reagan's presidency than "Primary Colors" did for Bill Clinton's.
The producers insist "The Reagans" is mainly a love story, but Reagan has become such an icon of the conservative movement that it's impossible to divorce the political component from even those scenes. Still, Reagan loyalists will find relatively little to gripe about beyond a few over-the-top flourishes and a handful of "Aha!" moments. In other words, much ado about (what's probably) nothing.
If you want to see a better production about a U.S. president, rent "Eleanor and Franklin" or HBO's "Path to War," chronicling LBJ's descent into the quagmire of Vietnam. As for a good presidential comedy, tune in Fox News Channel about 15 minutes after "The Reagans" ends.
- "Star Wars -- Episode III" -- The second "Star Wars" trilogy closes with a dark, sprawling tale epitomizing the visual splendor and undernourished story that characterized the first two installments.
Granted, it's hard to believe Hayden Christensen, as the young Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, is the same kid who was so good in "Shattered Glass." Unfortunately, navigating George Lucas' dialogue and penchant for parliamentary wrangling is more challenging than flying an X-wing fighter down a Deathstar trench, if you know what I mean. (And if you do, you're probably already in line somewhere, so why am I bothering?)
Pic is helped by the fact that Ewan McGregor (who has somehow overcome the script deficiencies) and supporting players such as Christopher Lee and Samuel L. Jackson have meatier roles. Still, the pyrotechnics notwithstanding, this second trilogy has never approached the original film's exuberance or the brilliance of "The Empire Strikes Back," even with the heightened stakes of watching the Jedi corps chased toward oblivion.
In short, Lucas became so enamored with what his digital filmmaking techniques could accomplish that he lost sight of what made the earlier films so deservedly popular. As Yoda might say, "Nothing have you learned. Effects matter not. A stinky script you have. That is why you fail."
Granted, this is "The Alamo" for a new generation, but Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett? Hardly the larger-than-life figure cut by John Wayne in the 1960 film version or Fess Parker on TV. Moreover, there's not a damn coonskin cap to be found, which, given that every kid in America wanted one in the 1960s, indicates the marketing/merchandising folks fell asleep at the switch.
Ultimately, the story's nobility stems from seeing a hardy band fight bravely in the face of overwhelming odds -- a story with which harried studio execs could understandably identify. In fact, if Disney really wants to chronicle a hopeless cause, why not make a documentary about trying to entice people to visit California Adventure or watch ABC's Thursday night lineup?
As earnest as Gibson clearly is about this production, he had better hope the controversy regarding its alleged anti-Semitism continues to roil the New York Times Arts & Leisure section. That's because relatively few people are going to queue up for a bloody, subtitled version of the crucifixion shot in Latin and Aramaic, unless evangelical churches feel compelled to support the movie and bus them to theaters against their will.
On the plus side, the dialogue here is better than, say, "Lethal Weapon 4," and while the Three Wise Men are mentioned, at no point does the film reference the Three Stooges.
Or not. After all, I'm whistling in the dark here, which apparently makes me eligible for my own talk radio show.
