joker-scar

I decided to give this a 2nd viewing after a few months distance. The faults of this fantastic doc now come into much clearer focus for me. Like that war itself, it is not simple and is much like a bullet hole in a windshield with thousands of cracks spreading outward causing more damage than the hole (whole) itself. This could have been the definitive documentary on Vietnam. It gives a full explanation of the escalation, wide ramifications and downfall of that horrid conflict: except it does not clearly explain the root problems of that war. It hints at it. It gives half answers. Half causes. The causes of World War 1 and 2 are well documented but this conflict is as murky now as it was when stunned American families sat for dinner watching the gory TV news during the 1960's. Like an essay this documentary sets out its goal and in the first couple of minutes this doc blames five presidents. This series is not wrong in implying that Johnson's ego and Nixon's paranoia fuelled that war when more stable minds could have pulled out and left the corrupt Saigon government to clean up its act and its own affairs. Yes, LBJ was the main contributor that turned it from a sideline mess to the outright war in 1965 and Nixon did everything wrong to end it properly. To paint Truman, Ike and JFK with the same brush as LBJ and Nixon is wrong, especially in Kennedy's case. South East Asian came along with the swearing in for Kennedy just like the brewing Cuban problem. Truman was too weak and incompetent to use his own judgement in dealing with the growing Communist threat and Ike as we know from his famous farewell speech wasn't on the ball until it was too late, or simply too old to fight the military and big money powers that had wormed its way into Government after the Nazi and Japanese defeats. Only Kennedy committed to paper that the US advisors start to be pulled out in December 1963. Yes he arrived at it after making some mistakes but unlike LBJ or Nixon, Kennedy became a better man while in office and learned from his mistakes and tried to right his and other wrongs. Only the gunshots in Dallas ended those attempts. That same order JFK signed was overturned by LBJ before the body was cold. Less than 100 Americans had been killed in Vietnam since 1945 when Kennedy was murdered. Ike had tried and failed in his Crusade for Peace and Kennedy became a more socially minded person because of his office while LBJ and Nixon let their flaws overcome them. These points are glossed over to serve the agenda of this documentary even though we now have come to understand that the all mighty President is not as powerful as once thought and he is a transitory figurehead at best that can be manipulated into action by the hawks in the government by simply altering or leaving out data on which these men count to make decisions. Even the president is on a need-to-know basis. Like the fighting men of the US Marines, Mr. Burns and his co-director charge in giving 80-90%. But it is that last missing 10% of effort (in this case info) which the Vietcong and NVA were willing to give that made the difference to them winning in the end. It is that missing 10% which fails to explain the root causes of the Vietnam War and takes the simple approach of blaming five elected men. This doc seems to ironically do the same the military tribunal did with the soldiers guilty of the My Lai massacre; it ends up targeting one man for reprimand (in this doc 5) when many others were let off the hook.

Like millions of people I love the Arthurian legend. This could have been one of those forgettable remakes...re-boots... whatever label you want to hang on a film that is regurgitating the past to make money but it sets its sights higher for the most part. I would love to give this film a 9 or 10 but have to give it an 8 for a few reasons forthcoming. Few want to remember Richard Gere's turn at playing the hero King while most should watch John Boorman's excellent and faithful adaption of the Camelot lore in his 1981 film Excalibur. Well worth watching. This version plays loose with the facts, wait... this is a legend so there are no true facts. Duh! But there are certain mainstays which this director has tossed aside to make this story fresh like his wonderful take on the Sherlock Holmes persona in the last decade. You may like what he added or dislike what he tossed. The opening scene, like many films in the post Lord of the Rings era, tries so hard to take that crown away with bigger and better stuff hurling at the audience at break neck speed and this film is no different. When you see it you'll know what I mean. After that scene passes then the film really starts to get involving and has great: art direction, locations, story, acting and directing...for the most part. Seems Mr. Ritchie is a very solid director when he wants to until he indulges in his gimmicky novelty directing stuff which pulls me out of the film time and again. This film could really be a great film experience if it weren't for a very small and annoying contemporary feel to either the dialogue, acting or directing that sprouts up now and again spoiling the rest of the film's great energy and flow. Perhaps Ritchie doesn't trust either his own directing skills or, what I suspect more likely... the 21st century Millennial audience's short attention span and lapses into moments of modern filmmaking gimmicks to keep the kittens attention on the bright and shiny object. He has crafted a very compelling and powerful re-imagining of the Arthur legend and doesn't need, like so many other filmmakers these days, have to resort to Matrix-like effects and bullet-time shooting to make this film work. Trust your audience to rise to the occasion and those who don't, they have plenty of other lesser films to keep them in a dull state of arrested development. Well worth watching this film despite the few moments that may or may not pull one out of the viewing experience.