Body of Lies

J: “Body of Lies” is a courageous film and one that should be required viewing for everyone who thinks they know what is going on in the Middle East. Ridley Scott, admittedly one of my favorite directors, has perfectly presented all the reasons why the U.S. will never make any headway in that devastated area using the tactics currently employed.

Do not walk into this movie expecting to see a Tom Clancy-esque action spy thriller; this movie is very straight forward in presentation. I typically go into movies like this looking for, and fully expecting, the twist. About half way through this film I realized that wasn’t going to happen and completely accepted the reason why. Ridley Scott employees his characters as metaphors for both failed and successful approaches to stabilizing the Middle East; please note, I said stabilize because I do not believe, nor do I think Mr. Scott believes, that peace will ever be possible. Yes, there are lies, but upon reflection the lies are the ones we continually hear about winning hearts and minds, and winning this war. Make no mistake, this movie shows exactly why “winning” this war is impossible.

Russell Crowe has taken the “I’ll do anything to further a character” crown from Robert DeNiro. He again puts on substantial poundage in his role as the CIA bureau head, Ed Hoffman, who spends more time behind a desk, and in front of his refrigerator, than out in the field. He is, however, never unhooked from his cell phone – not even while attending his daughter’s soccer game. He is the mover of pawns. His Southern drawl, stomach paunch and rumpled clothing scream Ugly American. When he makes the bold move of crawling out from behind the comfortable and relatively safe walls of the government buildings he frequents, he attempts to get what he wants with bullying and threats. He represents all of the swagger and “Bring ‘em on” blowhardedness of the administration that got us into this mess in the first place – he truly thinks his is the biggest stick in the world. Take that whatever way you would like. He relies on high tech to watch what is going on from afar, thereby keeping his hands from getting dirty. Meanwhile, the terrorists’ have realized that going low tech, staying off cell phones for the most part and handing off instructions face to face, will keep them off the radar. A perfect example of how they can quickly adapt while the US struggles to keep up with them and continues to fight an unconventional war with conventional means; to their detriment.

His Jordanian counterpart, Hani, is as different as he could possibly be. Mark Strong channels Andy Garcia’s Terry Benedict from “Ocean’s Eleven” as the good looking, very well dressed and extremely well spoken but definitely scary guy who only thinly veils his menace. When he looks into Leonardo DiCaprio’s eyes and says “Never lie to me”, there is no mistaking this guy is all business. He demands respect and most definitely gets it – or else. By the way, the “else” isn’t very appealing or attractive. The difference between the two ideologies is as stark in the movie as they are in real life. One could make the argument that Hani is able to employ far more brutal tactics than the Americans do in order to get the information he needs – to that argument I have two words: rendition and Gitmo. However, the most valuable human resource Hani gains in his quest to stop the top terrorist in this movie, an Osama bin Laden look alike named Al-Saleem, is acquired with a skilled combination of terror and kindness. Funny thing about that tactic; it seemed to be far more effective than blazing guns and water-boarding. In fact, early on Hani makes the comment that torture does not work because “anyone will say anything to get the pain to stop” and then he goes on to prove just that.

In the middle of these two power brokers is Leonardo DiCaprio’s CIA operative Roger Ferris. He is the pawn, but he is a very smart one that refuses to be treated like one. And he knows the people of the Middle East, good and bad, far better than Russell Crowe’s character ever will. This is the ultimate metaphor for the US presence in the Middle East. Until the government of the US begins to understand the culture in that area, such as the importance of respect, loyalty and honor, all the Arabic translators in the universe won’t help this country in this war. Roger Ferris does understand the importance of those things, in addition to just understanding the language. He is deferent to Hani, the Jordanian; he knows the right words to say and how to say them. You get the sense early on he likes the Middle East but doesn’t necessarily like what is going on there, on either side. However, he does learn that Hani is serious about lying to him. Ultimately, Roger Ferris attempts to do the right thing but is often thwarted by the very people for whom he is working.

The stark contrast between the power brokers and the “soldiers” on the ground, on both sides mind you, is really wonderful. The power brokers, including the terrorist Al-Saleem, all dress extremely well, live and work in very comfortable surroundings, and drive around in big black luxury SUVs (nice product placement for Lincoln Navigator – wonder if they really got the context of the whole placement) while the soldiers on the ground, including DiCaprio, dress in rags, live in hovels, and face torture and death every day. I wondered as I watched the film if one of the elite would be able to actually endure what their minions did – possibly Hani but definitely not Ed Hoffman! The only thing out of place here was DiCaprio visiting his potential Jordanian love interest in his Navigator. I don’t believe that fit well with his character. The only other problem I had with this film was the relatively simple ending. Without giving anything away, let me say that everyone “road off into the sunset” a little too cleanly. Otherwise, this is an important and extremely well done film that sets out to make a point and makes it clearly and well. Hat’s off to Mr. Scott and his fantastic cast.

K: I think my Partner in Crime said it all (and very well, I might add). It's a fantastic movie. Other critics have beat this up a little and I'm not sure why. I would guess it's because this isn't full of crazy double crossings where you can't figure out who's really pulling the strings only to find out in the big twist at the end that the butler did it. I would argue that anyone with half a brain would appreciate the intelligence of this movie and the lack of flashy, predictable gimmicks. This movie is definitely worth your time.

Appaloosa

J: I tried very hard to like “Appaloosa” – VERY hard. It seemed to have everything going for it, from a well-respected actor/director in Ed Harris to my personal favorite actor – Viggo Mortensen. Thank God for the eye candy factor because that, as well as the overall authentic look, ended up being the only redeeming qualities for this picture.

I am a fan of westerns and believe that little beats the sight of John Wayne loping down a dusty street or a steely-eyed Gary Cooper staring down a bad guy. Heck, I don’t even mind that “Eldorado” and “Rio Bravo” are essentially the same movie because both deliver exactly what the viewer expects. Unfortunately, “Appaloosa” gets lost somewhere between “The Searchers” and “Unforgiven”. I had read some comparisons between “Unforgiven” and “Appaloosa” prior to seeing the later, so I was expecting something really special. But I soon realized the only comparison one could make might be along the lines of the understated type of acting and directing that Clint Eastwood is known for. Sadly, Mr. Harris is no Clint Eastwood and managed only boredom instead of understated drama. Watching tumble weeds would provide more drama than this movie. There were a couple of hints at something interesting, notably a scene where Viggo’s character had to restrain Ed Harris’ marshal as he brutally beat a stranger while bordering on madness, but they lead nowhere. Why did he get so wild-eyed? What happened that would precipitate that kind of reaction? Surely there must have been something in his past to explain this, but it just died with the end of the scene. I would love to know why. There were also hints at the kind of humor the two characters, who were presented as having ridden together for MANY years, could have shared with each other and, by extension, us. But the effort to remain stoically underplayed killed anything that would tell us of the true nature of this friendship.

Enter Renee Zelleweger, who both K and I agree is a less than satisfying actor. She might have been just the right face for her character but nothing lurked beneath that would hint at why she was capable of her actions in the movie. And that speaks to the real issue with this movie; ultimately there is nothing in any of these characters that makes us care about them. There is precious little to suggest any kind of background for these characters, we literally have to take them at face value and so feel nothing for them as they go through the motions. The only legitimately interesting character is the villain, Jeremy Irons. He has a nice twist in the end that could have really rounded out the movie and provide an opportunity to make a point but, again, it was squandered. I felt as though I was just plopped down into a two dimensional picture of flat characters – a very pretty picture but not terribly interesting.

A lot of work obviously went into this movie. Someone actually took the trouble to make the glass in the buildings the way it must have been done in that time period. The costumes were also very authentic looking. But if a director takes the time and trouble to film on location, why not use some of the breathtaking and spectacular western landscapes I’ve seen in the past? The land around the town of Appaloosa was often as flat as the people that inhabited it. Perhaps some of that authenticity could have been channeled into the development of the characters.

But it wasn’t a total loss – I got to spend some quality time with Viggo! I will have to do a make-up movie trip for K, though. Tumblin’ along with the tumblin’ tumble weeds wasn’t exactly her thing! If it isn’t yours either, you should definitely skip this movie.

K: I was really bored. I started thinking about that Oregon Trail computer game from way back in the early '80s. I think my main problem was that this was more of a character study than a plot-driven movie. I kind of like plots in my movies, unless it's absolutely spectacular like Let There Be Blood with Daniel Day Lewis. And I'm not big on westerns or Renee Zelleweger, who I didn't realize was in this movie until her round, scrunched up face popped up on the screen. I recommend you skip this and play Oregon Trail instead.