Overwhelming Emotion from a Powerful Film

It seems that whenever I review a movie on this blog, I have a fairly easy time of commenting on it: the quality of the acting and the plot; the emotion of the soundtrack; whether it moved me to laugh or cry in a genuine way. In short, I am usually pretty good about putting down what I would like folks to know about any given film. Tonight, things are different. I'm having a very difficult time putting into words how I'm feeling after A. and I went and saw "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas." Many films are advertised as being "a haunting story" and fall short of the mark; this one will stay with me forever.

Put simply, I can only say that as I walked out of the theater at the end of the 90-minute film, I felt emotionally gutted.

The first hour or so of the movie laid out the basic parts of the story (and I'll try not to give too much away): German army officer gets promotion and command of a concentration camp; he moves his wife, eight-year-old son (Bruno), and 12-year-old daughter to a new home on the outskirts of the camp; son sees what he thinks is a farm on the back of their property; son goes exploring the area that he thinks borders the farm and meets a boy of the exact same age (Shmuel) living on the other side of the fence. Both of the boys have a great deal of innocence about them: Bruno doesn't understand why Shmuel doesn't have more children to play with and why he isn't excited about living on a farm, and Shmuel doesn't understand what has become of his family and why Bruno thinks that the numbers he wears on his pajamas are part of a game that everyone is playing.

Both boys realize that they are not supposed to be friends, but friends they become -- a friendship that grows from curiosity and an early distrust into genuine trust and concern for one another. Because of that friendship, Bruno -- in the last 30 emotionally-draining minutes of the film -- takes a completely unexpected step to help Shmuel find answers about his family and because of this is standing with his friend at the heart-wrenching conclusion.

I'll say here that I highly recommend this film and give it a five-out-of-five. The acting is brilliant, the children who play Bruno and Shmuel are amazing, and the musical score by James Horner is in my opinion one of the best he has ever produced. However, everything you may have heard on the television trailers about how this is a film that will stay with you for the rest of your life is absolutely correct. Everyone in the theater walked out without saying a word, and I didn't say anything at all in the car throughout the entire drive back home.

There is absolutely no way, short of having read the book in advance (which I hadn't), that you can be prepared for this film -- for what you see, for how it hits you, and for the emotion that is pulled out of you by the end. It will definitely make a lasting impression.

A Great Peter Sellers Film

I had always heard that Peter Sellers was a much greater actor than the bumbling detective from the Pink Panther movies, but I wasn't really interested in renting "What's New, Pussycat" or "Dr. Strangelove" or any of a number of other films to find out what else he did during his career. (Not, of course, these are necessarily his best work; they were just the first two that came to mind.)

However, after A. and I recently watched the made-for-HBO movie, "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers," and I became curious about the film "Being There." Based on what I learned from the biopic, the novel by Jerzy Kosinski was Sellers' obsession for the last two decades or so of his life and he was determined that the film would be made with him in the lead role. Ultimately, it was made and Sellers was nominated for an Oscar (which he didn't win, although he did take home the Golden Globe and several other awards).

In my opinion, Sellers should have won. "Being There" is an amazing film, and Sellers is fantastic in the role as Chance the Gardener/Chauncey Gardiner. The story of this simple man who goes through life mimicing what he sees on television and learns from his interaction with other people is both very humorous, very biting, and in some ways very sad. A short explanation of why I think each applies:

• Very humorous: It's Peter Sellers; of course it's going to be funny! He does a wonderful job with his facial expressions, but it's the delivery of his lines and the instances of very subdued physical comedy that give this film its laughs (along with some of the lines delivered by other characters in the film).
  


• Very biting: In watching the way Chance progresses through the story, inadvertently gaining more and more fame simply for talking about his garden and repeating other lines and gestures that he has picked up from others, I was reminded of what's going on in Washington now. Politicians from both sides of the aisle referring constantly to talking points, towing the party line, and sometimes not wanting/trying/able to give a straight answer to a simple question -- all of these seemed reflected in the character of Chance who gave his own version of talking points and the party line (with straight repetition) and giving convoluded answers to simple questions (with his constant analogies dealing with gardening and the seasons). By the end of the film, all of this had come together to such a degree that the presidency was being thrown around (I hate to say too much out of the hope that you will rent this film) -- and the irony of comparing this story with a real/the current campaign is very apparent and very cutting.
  


• Very sad: Chance spends so much of his life alone, and even as the film progresses and he is surrounded by more and more people he is still alone. The sadness of not knowing how to read or write; the sadness of not knowing what to do when his employer dies; the sadness of not knowing how to deal with real people who are so different from the people/characters he sees on television; the sadness of not knowing how to recognize when he is being loved or how to show love.

Even though this film was made nearly 30 years ago, it is still really relevant and well worth watching. And I think Sellers gives a brilliant performance. On my scale, five out of five stars -- definitely rent this film. I liked it so much that I'm going to buy it and add it to the family film library.

Is a Fourth Indiana Jones Movie One Too Many?

A. and I went and saw the latest installment of the Indiana Jones series, "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," last evening, and without giving away a bit of the plot (for the benefit of those who haven't seen it) I have to say that I was less than overwhelmed.

Coming almost two decades after "The Last Crusade," I will say that Harrison Ford still does a convincing job as an action hero, and parts of the movie were very exciting. However, the overall premise of the film becomes extremely hokey at the very end, and I thought that John Hurt was underutilized and Cate Blanchett was far overused. I suppose that I was hoping for something that matched the fun, 1930s-style action/adventure method used in the earlier films, and while there were glimpses here and there the ability to tell such a story had aged about as much as Harrison Ford's Professor Jones.

The John Williams score was as good as ever, and there were some amusing surprises and allusions throughout the film (you have to watch closely to catch some of them). Overall, though, I'd recommend you save your money and wait for this one to come out on DVD -- 3-1/2 stars out of 5.

Another "Desert Island Film" Featuring a Lawyer and a King

My post last week about The Shoes of the Fisherman and my comment that it would definitely make my "desert island" list of movies got me to thinking about others that I would include. Today, another from my top ten list: A Man for All Seasons. A remarkable film about the life of Sir Thomas More, one-time chancellor to King Henry VIII who resigned his position and ultimately lost his life as a result of his strong opposition to the monarch's desire to obtain a divorce.

The 1966 version of the film (there was a later version in the 1980s directed by and starring Charlton Heston, which I haven't seen) is astounding and features Paul Scofield as More (he won the 1967 best actor Oscar for his performance), Leo McKern as Cromwell (two straight films with McKern; a pattern developing?), Robert Shaw as Henry VIII (unlike his later turn in Jaws, there's no need for a bigger boat in this one; his boisterous performance is bigger than any boat could be), and Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey (I think one of his most underappreciated performances). It's about two hours long, but the time flies as you get caught up in the sweep of the film.

Someone posted a classic trailer for the film that I'll include here; hopefully it's a nice teaser for you to go out and find your own copy.

A Movie that Entertains, Amazes, and Challenges

The best movies I've ever seen bring together three elements: a great cast, a compelling story, and a topic in which I'm personally interested. Today I watched one of my all-time favorites that more than covers these three areas -- "The Shoes of the Fishermen." It is easily one of the most fascinating stories I've ever seen, and would certainly be on my "stranded on a desert island" list.

Anthony Quinn plays Kiril Lakota, a Russian Catholic archbishop who has recently been released from the gulag where he was imprisoned and taken to live in Vatican City. Through a remarkable set of circumstances, he quickly becomes a cardinal and then pope -- a very reluctant pope who draws his strength not from isolation or seclusion, but from being in and surrounded by the lives of others. He is a man who is conflicted about his role in the church and on the global stage, and while being confronted by the problems of the world manages to directly impact the lives of a few: a doctor who is suffering through a marriage that is falling apart; a priest who is under investigation for writings on the idea of a "cosmic Christ" that are out of the norm and potentially heretical and who is dealing with a far more serious issue; a cardinal questioning the wisdom of some of the decisions made by Pope Kiril and possessing a jealousy of those with a closer relationship to the pontiff than he enjoyed.

There are many compelling scenes in the movie and some amazing dialogue (which I assume comes from the Morris West novel on which this is based, although I've never read it). I'm particularly fascinated by the theology espoused by Father Telemond during his interrogation by the Vatican commission investigating him; some samples:

Question: What think you of Christ, Father? Who is he?

Answer: He is the point to which all of evolution is tending. He is the point at which all of the universe must arrive, as the spokes of a wheel arrive at the center. He is the universe summed up; he is the cosmic Christ.

Question: Father Telemond, it is written in the scripture, "Jesus Christ yesterday, today, and the same forever. Are you not creating a Christ of your own?

Answer: I am not creating him; I am revealing a face of him we have not yet seen.

Question: Do you have a private revelation, Father?

Answer: Perhaps I have, eminence. If I have, it is no merit of mine; indeed, it is a torment for me. I cannot renounce this Christ whom I see, anymore than I can renounce him who hangs on the cross.

Question: You put us in great trouble; much of what you have said and written is of extraordinary depth and beauty. Much of it is still unclear and as you have seen, puzzling to us. It would help if you would give us one clear statement of what you believe.

Answer: I believe in a personal God; I believe in Christ; I believe in the Spirit. But if by some perilous internal revolution I lost my faith in God, in Christ, and in the Spirit, I think I still would believe in the world. Yes, I do believe in the world -- in the goodness of the world, the values of the world. That in the final analysis is the first and the last thing in which I believe. This faith I live by, and it is to this faith that at the moment of death, mastering all doubts, I shall surrender myself.

This entire movie, through every character and every plot line, explores how we see ourselves, how we see our place in the world, and how we see our relationship to God and to Christ. It's deeply moving, deeply theological, and very challenging -- without once losing an iota of its great story and emotional and visual beauty.

I can't remember when I first saw this film; I had to have been a young child. Its hold on me has never lessened in the years since, and I discover something new every time I watch it. Out of all of the roles Quinn played in his long career, Kiril is my favorite, and the performances by Leo McKern (known by most in his role as Rumple of the Bailey), Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Oskar Werner (who gives his own outstanding performance as the investigated priest; you should also check him out in "Fahrenheit 451"), and several others make it an outstanding movie well worth the watching.

Five stars out of five on the rating scale.

Grace Through Film

Many people have never heard the name William Wilberforce, nor are they aware of what he accomplished during his lifetime. However, nearly everyone has heard of the hymn "Amazing Grace" -- and the film A. and I watched recently is the intersection of both of these, the known and the unknown.

Kansas Bob had done a review of this film back in February when it first came out (I'm a bit behind the curve on seeing it, but I tend to rely more and more on Netflix), and I'd encourage you to read what he had to say here. I agree with everything he said; it was a truly remarkable film about someone who put his faith into action -- someone who had a choice between a life devoted to God and a life devoted to politics, and who found a way to do both. Ioan Gruffudd, who was cast in the role of Wilberforce, struck me as being the perfect choice for the part -- moving nearly seamlessly from moments of pure awe at what he saw as God's creation in the world around him to moments of intense passion in the halls of Parliament. (As an aside, I'll add here that I was even more pleasantly surprised by his performance when you consider that the only other films in which I had seen him act were the two Fantastic Four films, which were at the very least quite cornball.)

Wilberforce was a man who became a hero to men no less significant than Abraham Lincoln, who was to deal with the issue of slavery here in this country just three decades after the practice was abolished throughout the British Empire. He devoted nearly forty years to eliminating the slave trade, first by leading the fight on legislation banning the slave trade and then seeing legislation passed (just three days before his own death) that outlawed slavery entirely. And he did it in spite of the tremendous forces at work against him within Parliament, making this almost a sort of come-from-behind victory.

A friend and mentor to Wilberforce, John Newton (played by Albert Finney), was a former slave trader who turned away from that profession in the 1750s and spent the remainder of his life trying to atone for his sins and seek forgiveness from the 20,000 souls he said were following him. It was Newton, who authored many hymns in his life, who penned "Amazing Grace," "Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken," and others that I'm sure you'd know almost instantly upon hearing them. The friendship between the two is a pillar of the film, and the point of the intersection (as I mentioned above) between the hymn we all know and the story that we don't.

Of course, the most remarkable films to me are the ones that provide memorable lines, and this one certainly provided many. However, there's one that has stuck with me that I hope will give you just as much pause for thought -- it was written by Francis Bacon and reads, "It's a sad fate for a man to die too well known to everyone else and still unknown to himself."

Visually, the film was breathtaking, and the soundtrack added an even stronger level of feeling just below the surface. It's a very moving story, and although I haven't yet read any of the two or three highly recommened Wilberforce biographies on the market today I'll go out on a limb and say that this film tells the story in a highly emotional and unforgettable way.

On the NOVA Dad rating scale, five out of five! And if this isn't enough motivation for you to pick up a copy to see for yourself, perhaps this trailer will...

Sunday Stew

Yes, I know that's a terribly trite name, but I wasn't sure that I could spell smorgasbord. Oh wait, I CAN spell smorgasbord! At any rate, today is going to be more of a hodge-podge of things rather than a single entry -- it's been that kind of weekend.
-------------------------
Yesterday, I took part in the draft for one of the two fantasy football leagues in which I'm involved. It was actually a nice change of pace from the stress of my other league, which operates on an auction basis; throwing out players for bid, trying to outbid everyone else for that key running back or franchise quarterback, and then having to participate in a second round of drafting players and -- if your roster isn't full at the end of that -- possibly taking part in a supplemental draft.

This one was much nicer; Commissioner Dave got a great group together for the Yahoo league, and I'm joined by teams with such great names as Footsies (Coach Julie), We Are the World (Dave) and Prime Time (Coach Kim). I opted for something representative of the area where I live and work and dubbed my franchise Beltway Bandits (insert lobbyist comment here.....).

At the end of the 15 rounds, I ended up with perhaps the best roster I've ever had in any league in which I've participated -- and while that's exciting for me, there's an extra sense of anticipation in this league due to the fact that limiting it to eight folks means that everyone has a great roster, and every week will have some ridiculously high scoring and terribly close games. As I head into opening weekend, I have the following weapons at my disposal:

QB - Matt Hasselbeck
QB - Jon Kitna
RB - Edgerrin James
RB - Jerious Norwood
RB - Steven Jackson
RB - Brian Westbrook
WR - Marvin Harrison
WR - Steve Smith
WR - Plaxico Burress
TE - Alge Crumpler
TE - L. J. Smith
K - John Kasay
K - Jeff Wilkins
Defense - Pittsburgh
Defense - Jacksonville

Let the games begin!
-------------------------

A. and I had a chance last night to leave the girls with my in-laws and head out for a mini date night. We opted to go see the new British comedy, "Death at a Funeral," and it turned out to be one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. I was surprised to learn that it was directed by Frank Oz (he of Miss Piggy/Yoda fame), and heading into the first 15 minutes I wasn't quite sure how funny the film would be, or how well Oz would be able to pull it off.

From 15 minutes on, though, there was no question about the level of humor -- and the nice thing is you don't necessarily have to be an afficianado of British comedy to get the jokes in this movie. There were a few sight gags, but the situations which develop, the great dialogue and the oustanding acting (from an ensemble cast that included very few people with whom I was familiar) made for a great time. Adding to the great atmosphere for the film was the fact that we went and saw it at the first "talkies" theater built in Roanoke, the Grandin, and the crowd -- while not terribly big; maybe 30 or 35 total -- was really into the film and laughing the entire time.

I've read a lot of mixed reviews on the film, and they seem to be split down the middle. Some reviewers say that it got only an occasional smile out of them, while others call it a laugh riot in the tradition of Peter Sellers or Monty Python. I thought Variety had one of the better reviews (excerpt):

"With a circus parade of mourning Brits and enough appalling circumstances to set proper Englishness back to the Dark Ages, "Death at a Funeral" pits decorum against sex, drugs and dysfunction. The winners? Auds who know you laugh hardest when you're not supposed to, and who appreciate the humorous qualities of embarrassment, blackmail and the twitting of the upper classes. Box office will likely be modest, but reaction will be strongly positive."

I give it four out of five stars, and the NOVA Dad critic's award. As a bit more of a teaser, here is the trailer for it:

-------------------------
Lastly, I've picked up my copy of the new book on Mother Teresa that has generated so much controversy and debate during the past several weeks, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light. For those who may not be aware, some of the letters included in this book reveal that she endured a period of several decades (up until the time of her death in 1997) where she didn't feel the presence of God at all in her life. Many people have said that her feelings on this are no different than the dark period experienced by many major religious figures throughout history, while others are arguing that continuing her work while feeling this way and proclaiming God's love for the poorest of the poor amounts to nothing more than living a life of hypocrisy.

I've read many blog posts and internet discussion group entries on this book, but have declined to offer any input until I've actually read the entire book and looked at the letters in question in the context of her entire life. My hope is to put something on here (maybe one entry, maybe a series) when I've read it, and possible engender some discussion above and beyond that which I've already seen.

Looking for a Good Movie? Try Bourne

With only a few days left until I return to the working world (yes!!!!), I decided to take advantage of some quiet time today while the girls were in preschool/daycare and go see "The Bourne Ultimatum." I had really enjoyed the first two parts of the Ludlum trilogy, and thought this one might be pretty good as well. I certainly wasn't disappointed, and in fact this film far exceeded my expectations. It clocks in at just under two hours in length, but it was moving so quickly from the very beginning that it didn't feel like the movie was half that long.

Early on in his career, I have to admit that I wasn't that big a fan of Matt Damon; his buddy-film with Affleck, "Good Will Hunting," really didn't impress me all that much (truthfully, I only watched it because George Plimpton was in it, and it was one of those times where A. and I could sit in a theater and say, "We know him!"), and I wasn't sure that anything he did further on in his career would catch my attention. The Bourne films, though, turned out to be a great vehicle for him, and he has definitely put his stamp on this role (I can't see it being the type of film that will successfully be remade in 20 or 30 years, a la "Ocean's 11").

I haven't read the Bourne stories in their original form, although I have one full shelf of novels by Ludlum (and the successors who assumed Ludlum's identity after his death) and think I'll dive into them soon. Despite any differences between the book and film, this one had it all: a great story, a great supporting cast for Damon (David Straithairn and Joan Allen, two of my favorites, were great as the two CIA honchos at odds over how to deal with Bourne), and action that didn't stop for longer than a few minutes at a time. All of it added up to a great afternoon at the theater, and a strong recommendation from me that you go to see this movie.

As if this recommendation weren't enough to get you to shell out a few bucks for the movie and some snacks (I opted for the matinee viewing, so I spent less on the movie so I could spend more on the snacks!!), I found this video on YouTube -- a remake of Moby's "Extreme Ways" set to clips from this film -- that should help make my case for this film even stronger.

What Has Changed in 60 Years?

How we can we -- not as individuals or as a nation, but as a people -- ever forget what we have done to each other in years past, and what we continue to do to each other to this day? How can those few on the fringe, with so much overwhelming proof to the contrary, deny those very things that we have done to one another?

A. and I watched a documentary this afternoon as a continuation of my reading and learning about Elie Wiesel, Elie Wiesel Goes Home, a film which covers his return home to Sighet (in what is now Hungary) and a visit to Auschwitz with a fellow survivor and close friend -- both of which occurred in mid-1996. The main portion of the documentary is sandwiched between footage from the 1993 opening of the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington and from his acceptance speech at the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. It was extremely interesting, but what made it so incredibly powerful and emotional for me was the footage from the 1940s that was played along with some lovely traditional music from Eastern Europe and William Hurt reading excerpts from Wiesel's works. Some of the images may have been familiar, but the combination of sight and sound was overwhelming; I got particularly emotional during a sequence of photographs of small children at Auschwitz, accompanied by Hurt reading this passage from Night -- a passage which I had read several days ago but which has now taken on a whole new meaning for me after having heard it and seen those children:

An SS came toward us wielding a club. He commanded:

"Men to the left! Women to the right!"

Eight words spoken quietly, indifferently, without emotion. Eight simple, short words. Yet that was the moment when I left my mother. There was no time to think, and I already felt my father's hand press against mine: we were alone. In a fraction of a second I could see my mother, my sisters, move to the right. Tzipora was holding Mother's hand. I saw them walking farther and farther away; Mother was stroking my sister's blond hair, as if to protect her. And I walked on with my father, with the men. I didn't know that this was the moment in time and the place where I was leaving my mother and Tzipora forever. I kept walking, my father holding my hand.

Watching this segment, I thought of my daughters. And then I thought of the sons and daughters, grandchildren, sisters and brothers -- all of the children who were the age my daughters are now and who never had the opportunity to grow up. If people knew then what was going on, why wasn't more done? Wiesel has written (combination of quotes here): "The free world, including Jewish leaders in America and Palestine, had known [about the Final Solution] since 1942, but we knew nothing. Why didn't they warn us? ... If other Christians had acted like her [a neighbor who had tried to offer refuge to some of the Jews in Sighet], the trains rolling to the unknown would have been less crowded. If priests and pastors had raised their voices, if the Vatican had broken its silence, the enemy's hands would not have been so free."

The two questions with which I started this post are the questions that were running through my mind at the end of the film. I've been raised with the phrase "never forget" buried in my mind somewhere, a phrase that applies to so many things. But I can't help but wonder how the world turned a blind eye to the Holocaust when it was happening, and how there are so many things to which we're turning that same blind eye today? I've always thought that the most important things in our lives are the things which we experience and which impact us directly, but with the world growing smaller each day, won't nearly everything impact us directly one day? Because of 24-hour, instant news, the problems in places like Darfur and Rwanda aren't as far away as they used to be. More voices are being raised about these problems now than were six decades ago -- but we can do more, should do more, and (I hope) will do more.

Watch this documentary. Even if you think you've heard it all, seen it all, or read it all, watch this documentary. The combination of sounds and images will make you consider the past -- and our present -- in a whole new way.

"The World We Create is the World We Live In"

The title of this post is a line taken from what I think is a truly remarkable film. Some of the best movies I've ever seen were brought to my attention either as a result of flipping through the channels on television, or simply turning the t.v. on and finding something already running. Today was one of those days, and I found a real gem: Gideon, a 1999 film starring Christopher Lambert (yes, the guy from the Highlander films) and a tremendous supporting cast which includes Charlton Heston, Mike Connors, Shirley Jones, Carroll O'Connor, and several others.

Trying to summarize the plot of a film is not my strong suit (particularly given my tendency to be as wordy and flowery about things as possible), but I did find this very good comment posted by an anonymous user at IMDB.com:

Gideon Dobbs is a man with the mind of a child. Raised in rural South Carolina, his Aunt can no longer keep him when she re-marries. Gideon is placed in the closest institution that can look after him: A retirement home for the elderly. It is the story of a simple, innocent man who comes among a group of elderly people who have lost their lust for life and are merely waiting out the remaining years of their lives. Through the innocent eyes of Gideon, they learn to live again and see that each and every day is a precious gift.

Watching this film, I was struck by some of the strong plot similarities to the Cocoon movies -- senior citizens who have come to the point where they've pretty much given up on life and adopt the idea that theirs are almost over, and who, through the influence of a wonderful new presence, discover they've only just started to live. However, I enjoyed this one much more than those films, and I think it's due in large part to the fact that Lambert is playing way against type in this role, which I think is his best one yet. Heston is great, as always (I could watch a video of Heston reading the sports page to me and I would think it was equally great), O'Connor was really funny (my wife said, "Don't you think this is like watching Archie Bunker all over again?"), Jones was just as classy as ever -- in short, everyone was great. I think it's hard sometimes to watch a movie with a big ensemble cast, but this one was pulled off really well.

Sadly, I see that it was never released on DVD, and thus it isn't available through folks like Netflix. However, with some searching, you can find it on VHS, and perhaps your library or movie store has it in stock. I definitely think it's worth the search, and even more worth the viewing.

Looking for a Must-See Film?

About halfway through the day, I decided that I simply no longer had the patience to sit in front of the computer and send out resume after resume after resume, hoping that I got some sort of quick phone call or e-mail in response. I wanted to get out of the house, and had considered going for a ride out in the country; my mother-in-law, while we were talking, suggested that I go and take in a movie (even suggesting that it be something that I would find hilarious). While I opted against hilarity, I did take her up on her suggestion of the movie and went to see Letters from Iwo Jima -- and I'm so glad that I did.

Although I've followed to a lesser extent the hooplah surrounding all of the awards and nominations that the movie and its director, Clint Eastwood, have received, I didn't know much about the film itself. I am a lover of foreign language films (note: if you're not much for subtitles, you won't enjoy this too much), and having seen and enjoyed the performances of Ken Watanabe in two earlier films (The Last Samurai and Batman Begins), I was hopeful that this would be equally impressive. I was not disappointed. This was one of the better films that I've seen in quite some time, with magnificent acting, a very compelling story (based on a collection of letters written by Watanabe's character), and a hauntingly beautiful soundtrack written by Kyle Eastwood (Clint's son, and a tremendous jazz musician in his own right).

I've seen many war movies over the years, where stories are told from the American perspective -- films where we know the history and, while we know that things are going tough for our boys, there's a light at the end of the tunnel. It was quite an emotional experience for me to see a film from the perspective of the other side, where the outcome is -- to us and to the characters -- quite hopeless, and yet where the characters continue to search for that light at the end of the tunnel. Conflicts in the movie raged on many levels; on the surface, there's the conflict between the Japanese forces and the Allies. On a deeper level, there is the conflict among main of the major characters. And at its deepest level, there is conflict within the main characters, and that is what made the movie the most interesting for me -- watching how these men, who know they are about to die, struggle over whether they should uphold their oath to defend to the death their emperor and their homeland, or whether they should remain true to their deeper, more personal obligations to their families.

Even in the midst of the chaos and death, I found moments and thoughts that could be described as inspiring, including an excerpt from one letter that was read in the film. I hesitate in discussing the film in great depth here, for the sake of those who haven't yet seen it. (If you have already gone to the theater and want to swap opinions, please feel free to e-mail me.) In short, however, I will say that this deserves to be on your "must see" list, and the accolades the film has earned are very appropriate. Now, I'm off to download the soundtrack from iTunes and add the movie to my Amazon wish list.....