Independence Day (1996)

Remember the 90s? You know, when big, dumb summer movies didn’t have to be grim, gritty, or terribly realistic? Yeah, those were the days. For all its faults, Independence Day was just what the doctor ordered. It’s not high art but it’s filled with awesome special effects. Its story is completely implausible but darn if it isn’t well-written to cover up its faults. Simply put, no amount of scrutiny and nitpicking can prevent me from having a good time while watching this film.

Alien spacecraft take position over major cities across the globe. The human race’s worst fears are realized when these visitors turn out to be anything but friendly. Rising to the challenge to defeat this interstellar menace are a wise-cracking fighter pilot (Will Smith), a computer nerd (Jeff Goldblum), and the young and bold President of the United States (Bill Pullman).

This could have been just another dumb action flick where stuff blows up, feeding the need of testosterone-laden young men across the land. Thankfully, the writers created an enemy so powerful and advanced that the good guys can’t possibly win on grit, spit, and bullets alone. They need to get their geek on too. It sounds weird to say, but Jeff Goldblum’s character helps ground this film a little closer to reality. Call it a sign of the times or even ahead of its time, but Independence Day actually make warfare modern through the use of technological subterfuge. It goes well beyond the cheesy James Bond spy satellite stuff.

Let’s be realistic here for a moment. Like any action flick, this film is full of so much coincidence and lucky timing that you shouldn’t accept it. Spreading flames seem to slow down long enough to allow a dog to find safety and proceeds to not engulf a utility closet. An alien spaceship can be flown by humans, without spacesuits even. An Apple computer holds the key to conquering an alien race for crying out loud!

These sorts of things should suck us right out of a movie, yet Independence Day holds its own thanks to great writing and a wonderful cast. No one is gunning for an Oscar or fanboy cred here. Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum milk it for all its worth and Bill Pullman knows just when to switch gears from stoic and presidential to forceful and raw. Toss in some extra comedic relief with a redneck crop-duster, who claims to have been abducted by aliens, and you have nearly non-stop enjoyable fun.

The subject matter is bleak and could have been drowned in heavy brooding and violence but the story never lingers too long in despair and keeps the brutality of war at arm’s length. It’s absolutely silly but it is also slick and fun. Independence Day is what most summer action flicks aspire to be. There is a reason no one remembers it for its quality. The foundation is beyond shaky but the rest of the ingredients pack such a punch that only foreign audiences tired of Americans saving the day and anti-war leftists will dislike it.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Pocahontas (1995)

After six years and five films, the Disney Renaissance finally hits a pothole. I’m sure Disney had the best of intentions with its first film adaptation of historical figures. It’s colorful and contains a pair of memorable songs, but the rest of it is underwhelming at best.

The greedy Governor John Ratcliffe sets sail with a team of British men to settle the New World and dig unheard of riches in the gold he believes they will find there. Upon reaching Jamestown Colony, Captain John Smith encounters the beautiful Pocahontas, daughter of the Powhatan tribe. Pocahontas is coming of age and trying to determine what she wants from life. A suitable warrior from her tribes makes his intentions known but she finds herself drawn to the English invaders, Smith especially. An uneasy coexistence between the tribe and the settlers quickly dissolves into violence, thrusting Pocahontas and Smith into dangerous situations.

I’ll start with the good, because it will be brief and anyone out there who is a die-hard fan of this film can stop reading after this paragraph. There are two moderately memorable songs in this film- “Just Around the Riverbend” (of which I can only remember the title words being sung) and “Colors of the Wind” (which I vaguely remember from my childhood, but barely). It’s also got a few cute animal characters that provide comic relief. There is also some sweet romance thrown in to boot.

Now for the problems. I noticed in Aladdin that Disney was simplifying portions of the animation, characters in particular. The animation in Pocahontas more often than not looks closer in quality to Disney’s television cartoon shows than recent big-screen offerings. Often times there is very little depth to what audiences are looking at. This results in less of an immersive experience and may have left some leaving the theaters feeling a bit cheater. Then again, it might have looked fine on the big screen. On my 27” CRT? Not so much.

The characters are also problematic. Pocahontas doesn’t seem to carry the film as much as John Smith does, rendering her the weakest Disney Renaissance female lead to date. The comic relief comes in the form of cute animals that chase each other around but lack personality. Finally, John Ratcliffe is one of the weakest villains Disney ever put on screen. His only claims to power are his nobility and stature attained in England. In the New World, these qualities are meaningless. He is a fat, greedy, pompous jerk with a superiority complex. He exhibits no actual power or threat to anyone. The more subtle villain here is colonialism.

This brings me to the elephant in the room: Pocahontas is jarringly inaccurate in its portrayal of most of the Pocahontas legend. Usually, the ‘Disney Treatment’ means lightening things up and adding an overabundance of heart-warming moments. Between the revisionist history that portrays the Native Americans as largely innocent victims to the colonialist machine, and the goofy pseudo-spiritual elements even Native Americans complained about, it’s a wonder this film was allowed to proceed.

Overall, Pocahontas is a film of extremes. A few rich songs collide with TV-quality animation. Aspects of the story are oversimplified, exaggerated, and completely made up seemingly at will. I hope my daughter never wants to watch this film because I shudder to think that she might believe it is in any way accurate. As entertainment, Pocahontas is probably Disney’s equivalent of a lowest-common-denominator popcorn flick. The story sucks if you know your history but the rest of it is candy-coated so well that the kids won’t really care.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

This movie is a sort of line in the sand by which you can determine if someone is a casual or hard core sci-fi fan. If you don’t like it, chances are that you mostly just embrace the “exciting” sci-fi films like Star Wars, some Star Trek, and any number of the popcorn sci-fi flicks pumped out by Hollywood each year. If you like 2001: A Space Odyssey, you are okay with the arty side as well and tend to expect more from your sci-fi than the casual fan.

I love this film for a number of reasons, so I am deeply in the hard core sci-fi camp. The blend of science fiction and science fact is dazzling even now. Stanley Kubrick worked with sci-fi legend Arthur C. Clarke to make a realistic yet fantastical tale set in what was then the future. It’s now 2014, we abandoned moon missions long ago, and we don’t have spinning space stations in orbit. But we do have video chat, tablet computers, and dangerously powerful supercomputers.

This brings us to the first part of the beauty of this film- it doesn’t go overboard on imagining the future. Compare 2001’s vision of 33 years into the future with the vision of 2015 in Back to the Future Part II. That film goes for eye candy while 2001’s future looks practical yet advanced enough to look different in several ways. Near-future science fiction is difficult to pull off well, but Kubrick & company nail it.

The themes of the film are also worth noting. At the heart of it all, 2001: A Space Odyssey is about mankind trying to figure out their place in the universe. Mysterious monoliths sending signals from the earth to the moon and from the moon to Jupiter? How can astronauts possibly refrain from investigating where this leads? There is also the struggle between man and technology via the creep-tastic HAL-9000. How close are we getting to that scenario in real life?

Then there are the bold artistic decisions. Dialogue is absent from over half of the film’s runtime. The lengthy ‘Dawn of Man’ sequence at the beginning is sure to cause loss of interest in some viewers and confuse most of the rest. The ending will further frustrate audiences with its seeming randomness and vague resolution.

For me though, it really comes down to execution. From a technical standpoint, 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most perfectly made films I have ever seen. I love the use of models in the docking of the spaceship at the space station (metaphor for a courtship dance perhaps?) and the rotating sets are a special effect that blows your mind when you analyze how they were timed to work out the way they did. The details are so fine and so intentional that I find myself in awe of them every time I watch this film.

It looks gorgeous and there is a lot under the hood here. The only reason it doesn’t get my highest rating is that 2001 is somewhat unapproachable for many. Things don’t make much sense until you talk to someone who lives and breathes this movie or if you have read the novelization to understand some of finer points that cannot be handled with in-film exposition (the monolith coaxing the ape to pick up and use the bone). I read the book and it helped me understand the beginning and ending much more. Even I don’t completely understand everything about this film but Kubrick and Clarke intentionally made it hard to digest. I can’t quite tell if that is a negative attribute or sheer genius. For now though, my rating stands as it has for the last 11 years.

Original Rating: 4.5 out of 5

New Rating: 4.5 out of 5