Sam_Focak

I recently took in Black Hawk Down, a film chronicling a US special forces mission in Somalia in 1993. Originally scheduled for release in March of this year, the studio decided to try and capitalize on the recent peak of patriotism in the States and moved it to January.

They also did something else unusual for a war movie, and opened it in LA and New York for Oscar consideration. Having seen the movie now, I believe it truly raises the question "What makes a great movie, rather than just a great genre movie?"

There is no doubt that Black Hawk Down is a great war movie. Hell, with Ridley Scott directing (Blade Runner, Gladiator) and Jerry Bruckheimer producing (Top Gun, The Rock, Pearl Harbor), you were almost guaranteed a great war movie. After a brief 20-minute introduction to the situation in Somalia and the mission assigned to the soldiers, you are thrown right into the middle of war. Not as a spectator, but as a participant.

For the next two hours, your senses are assaulted by a barrage of automatic weapon fire, explosions, helicopters crashing and people dying, and you are right there along with them. This is no small feat of directing. Even Saving Private Ryan, which opens with one of the most incredible battle scenes ever put to film, never managed to draw you right into the fight -- there was always that feeling of being a horrified observer.

Nor do you feel overwhelmed by flag-waving patriotism. The film certainly chronicles some moments of true bravery and heroism, but the entire mission was a disaster, and the movie pulls no punches there either. The efforts to retrieve two top henchmen of a Somali warlord quickly turns ugly when one of their Black Hawk helicopters gets shot down. This small group of soldiers was grossly outnumbered and seriously got their asses kicked all over the screen.

Filmed in Morocco, in and around a US military base, the movie maintains its' gritty third-world feel, and I'm certain Bruckheimer used *every* last ounce of pull he had to get the US government to lend four real Black Hawk helicopters to the production, and I'm certain that much of the cool technology we see on display was also straight from Uncle Sam's storehouses.

Yet despite all the attention to detail, despite creating an incredibly intense movie-going experience, I still can't bring myself to call it a great movie. A truly great movie would have done everything above, and still managed to teach me about the conflict in Somalia. A truly great movie would have made me care about at least a few of the men who risked, and lost, their lives, rather than assuming I would empathize with them just because they are soldiers. Quite simply, the movie lacked the heart it needed to be elevated to the next level of greatness.

Then again, with the level of mediocrity in Hollywood these days, just being a great type of movie is still an impressive accomplishment.

I'm always a sucker for the latest CGI film, but with Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius (produced by Nickelodeon, a kids' cable channel), I was a *little* worried that the humour would be too childish, but even the trailers seemed to show an understanding that the best way to make a kid's movie these days is to include stuff for the adults too.

Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius is about, umm, a boy, named Jimmy Neutron who, in a surprising twist, is a genius. Jimmy Neutron (James Isaac Neutron to his mother) is an inventor, of course, and we are treated to dozens of his crazy inventions throughout the movie -- stuff that only a kid could possibly come up with!

After trying to make contact with an alien civilization, all the adults in the neighbourhood are kidnapped, and Jimmy and his friends have to use his inventions to go get their parents back. Definitely a kid-friendly (ie. simple) plot, with plenty of eye-candy and bright colours for the little ones, but never gets 'dumb' either. There are plenty of in-jokes for the adults, and heck, even a few for us science geeks. So get out there, borrow a kid for an afternoon and check out Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius. Ignore that noise you hear off in the background, it's just the sound of a sequel rushing to a theatre soon.

Ahh, January. Is there a better time of the year for us film-geeks? Everywhere you look, Oscar contenders, star-studded movies and stellar performances. The latest foray to the theatres was In the Bedroom, a drama about a family in rural Maine.

Relative newcomer Nick Stahl plays Frank Fowler, a young college-bound man who spends his last summer at home fishing and dating an older woman, Natalie Strout (a surprisingly good Marisa Tomei). The problem? Well, it turns out Natalie has two kids and an ex-husband who isn't too happy about this new relationship, which leads to increasingly violent confrontations between the two men. In itself, an interesting story with solid performances that probably could have carried the movie by itself.

The real strength of this film, however, is Sissy Spacek and Tom Wilkenson who play Frank's concerned parents, and how the events in their son's life affect them. You will hear lots of talk in the next few months about Spacek's performance and likely an Oscar is in her near future, but to me, it's just the choice of a sentimental favourite. Don't get me wrong; she does a wonderful job, but her screen time is quite limited in comparison to Tom Wilkinson and he, to be honest, steals the show.

In the first half hour of this film, I thought In the Bedroom was a decent movie, but nothing special, until Wilkinson took over, and from that point on dominated scene after scene in what I consider one of the strongest performances of the year. Without saying too much more about the plot of the movie, suffice it to say that Wilkinson takes you through the full range of emotions, and you can't help but be focused on the presence he exudes throughout.