Blood Diamond (2006)

Capturing both the physical beauty and social ugliness that makes up the African continent, Blood Diamond is a traditional heavyweight drama. Its goal is not to entertain but to captivate and illuminate. Exposing the dark corners of the diamond trade that most people are ignorant to or choose not to acknowledge, this film ties big business, organized crime and human drama all into one.

When his village is destroyed by rebels, Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) is torn apart from his wife an children and forced to work in a rebel-owned diamond mine. When the Sierra Leonean Army attacks the rebels, Vandy escapes knowing the whereabouts of a massive pink diamond. Vandy crosses paths with Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), a Zimbabwean diamond smuggler with powerful connections. Their relationship is shaky at best and, with the help of an American journalist (Jennifer Connelly), they set out to retrieve the diamond before anyone else can as well as Vandy’s son, who has been forced to join the rebel army.

The above paragraph is actually a pretty poor description of the entire plot of this film. The three central characters are operating on a grander scale than I can put into one paragraph. Colonialism, capitalism, barbarism, and humanitarianism all interplay in Blood Diamond. With all that’s going on, the film can’t help but get bogged down in the intricate weaving of plot details. While the diamond is the focus from 30,000 feet, this film is more like a collection of smaller conflicts, internal and external.

While DiCaprio is the star of the film, Connelly is its conscience and Hounsou is its heart. The combination of DiCaprio’s hard-nosed determination, Connelly’s lectures about the evils of the diamond trade, and Hounsou’s intense emotional roller coaster, this film will leave you feeling mentally and physically exhausted. Is it rewarding though? Pre-credit text encourages audiences with the fact that a super-minority of diamonds come from such entities since conferences between the diamond powerhouses in the 1990s. That either leaves you feeling a little warmer inside or it enables you to distance yourself from the events of the film.

The one thing that bugs me throughout the film is DiCaprio’s accent. It’s bad enough that his youthful looks make it hard to believe him as a seasoned smuggler, but his never-consistent accent is distracting as all get-out. They needed someone of DiCaprio’s pedigree and popularity to anchor the film and secure audiences but, just as I have issues with Americans playing British roles, there’s just something off about having him play an African white man.

While it may be a little too much to take in at one time, Blood Diamond is a very good film. The locations look sharp and Hounsou’s performance is wonderful. One might think this film was intended as Oscar bait but I disagree. This was a film made by people who appreciate the true dramas of old. It won’t likely become one of your favorites, and you may not even feel the urge to watch it a second time, but one viewing is certainly worthwhile.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Letters to God (2010)

I always feel awkward when reviewing Christian-themed films. As a believer, I like seeing films with good morals and lessons. These elements are found throughout secular cinema but not in a faith-driven way. Sadly, most Hollywood films oversimplify religious characters either as naïve goody-goodies or hypocrites full of fire and brimstone. A rare find is the thinking-man’s Christian film. Letters to God is most definitely not that film and, frankly, works against any progress Christian studios have made in recent years.

Eight year old Tyler Doherty (Tanner Maguire) struggles to fight off cancer and writes letters to God as a coping mechanism. These letters fall into the hands of an alcoholic mailman named Brady (Jeffrey Johnson). At first, he is amused by the devotion of ‘the sick kid on his route’ but as he reads Tyler’s letters, he begins to care for the boy and helps out the family when he can. Tyler’s mom (Robyn Lively), brother (Michael Bolten), and his best friend (Bailey Madison) help keep Tyler’s spirit bright while Bradey comes to grips with his own life and spirituality.

My biggest gripe about Christian cinema is that it is almost always presents Christian life in an unrealistic manner that is eagerly spoon-fed to those already fervent in their beliefs. True to form, Letters to God provides little or no approach vector for someone who is not an overzealous evangelical or willing to suspend their disbelief even further just because it’s a Christian film. There’s also the ‘based on a true story’ setup to amplify things even though research reveals (as it does a majority of the time) that this film is very loosely based on a true story.

Two things are propping this film up. First, the filmmakers know who their audience is and they accordingly milk it for all its worth. For this very specific minority of the population, Letters to God is a home run. Second, I like the concept of this film. Child with cancer helps everyone around him find the bigger meaning of it all? That’s pretty cool. If only the technical aspects of the film didn’t suck.

The writing is cheesy and horribly awkward at times. Shots linger on for longer than necessary. There are countless Christian movie clichés crammed into the reels. None of the actors except Maguire make their characters feel organic and believable. Elements of the story are preposterous (all the interconnectedness of nearly every major and supporting character in the film), creepy (who lets the mailman play with their kids?), or far too convenient.

Christian filmmakers continue to complain that they are not taken seriously. It’s true, but if they’re not willing to do anything about it, then Christian films will always be low-budget affairs reminiscent of bad Hallmark Channel movies. I almost want to call this film polarizing but that’s not the right word for it. Even if you dislike Letters to God, it’s not bad enough to hate. Or, if you’re like me, you’ll find yourself rooting for this film to be better than you know it’s going to turn out to be.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

The Fox and the Hound (1981)

The specter of Don Bluth is still evident in some of the tone and atmospherics but this is clearly a step in the right direction for Disney. At least that’s what I call The Fox and the Hound. Some will consider it a step back toward the artistic stylings of an era long gone. In a way, it is, but in doing so, Disney manages to inject a little of the old Disney magic back into the veins.

After a gunshot makes a baby fox an orphan, several woodland creatures search for a suitable home. Left on the doorstep of Widow Tweed, the baby fox is adopted and given a name- Tod. Meanwhile her scruffy neighbor brings home a young puppy to be trained into a hunting dog. So begins the tale of Tod (the fox- voiced by Mickey Rooney) and Topper (the hound- voiced by Kurt Russell), two natural-born enemies that become the unlikeliest of friends. The bonds of friendship are tested though, by instinct, time, and the expectations placed on them by their owners.

Yes, I’m going to rave a little bit more about the animation. It really looks sharp. Not just good, but some of the best full-detail animation since The Jungle Book. It looks like they finally managed to get rid of those pesky guide- and sketch lines that drove me crazy through two decades of Disney product. There’s crispness in the colors and depth to the scenery that really make you feel deep in the heart of the woods.

In something of a bold move, The Fox and the Hound does not include songs. While this flies against the archetypal (I refuse to apply the term ‘stereotype’ here) Disney format, it works because the story doesn’t really demand musical numbers. Disney had been hit or miss with the inclusion and exclusion of song and lyrics for the best part of 20 years. Some films could have used less (or more work on the numbers) while other films leave you feeling very aware of the absence of music. This film works though because the sounds of the forest are its soundtrack. Plus, as it grows darker and more serious, sing-songy bits would feel out of place.

One absolute point of contention is the flimsiness of the story. The characters are likeable more for the fact that they are cute animals than for anything they do, say, or learn. There also exists a fairly brazen anti-hunting message being delivered. It may never get preachy about the subject matter but there is no doubt that the hunter is a villain according to the Disney crew. That’s a slightly subjective position to take but I believe the observation is as objective as can be.

Plenty of good things are in play in this film. It’s a trim 83 minutes long, so it doesn’t overstay its welcome. It hearkens back to the glory days of Disney, when he animation was vibrant, lush, and legitimized Walt Disney’s goal of getting animation to be taken seriously as an art form. Too simple a story is the downfall here but even that doesn’t hurt it too badly. Parents and children can all watch this film and enjoy it as a solid second-tier Disney flick.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5