Opinion » Movie Reviews

Reviews of 'National Treasure,' 'Charlie Wilson's War' and 'Sweeney Todd'

Print this story | Email this story

Here I go again - writing three reviews in one article. Assuming families, bored with shopping, turkey and feeling a bit too much togetherness, seek repose in the darkness of movie houses, I will look at the barely entertaining “National Treasure: Book of Secrets,” starring Nicolas Cage; the intriguing “Charlie Wilson's War,” starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts; and the grandly gory musical “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street,” starring Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter - three very different films for equally diverse audiences.

I remember the first “National Treasure” and I also remember thinking then that, while it did entertain to some degree, the implausibilities made it nearly laughable. The same goes for its sequel, only in spades on the far-fetched storyline. Cage stars as college professor and treasure hunter Ben Gates who - along with his sidekick, Riley Poole (Justin Bartha), his father (Jon Voight), his mother (Helen Mirren) and a semi-ex girlfriend (Diane Kruger) - seeks out proof of a long lost relative's innocence in the conspiracy to kill President Lincoln. This is the supposed premise of the film, but it never really develops, because director Jon Turteltaub leads his audience on a ridiculous treasure hunt for the lost City of Gold, just barely making any connection to it and the supposed Lincoln conspiracy. I know, the title is “National Treasure,” but still, if a correlation begins, why not wrap it up? Regardless, this annoyance is the least of the film's problems. The humor feels forced, and it is riddled with asinine stunts, unbelievable car chases and incredibly trite dialogue.

Sure, the PG-rated “National Treasure: Book of Secrets” will please some, mainly audiences accepting of nonsense disguised as entertainment, and that is OK. I admit, I see so many films, I am harder to please than the average Joe. I saw four movies the same week, seven the week prior and five before that, but still, I recognize stupid, especially on a 30-foot screen. With a cast of so many quality actors, I had hoped for far better, but then the first in the franchise hardly deserved raving accolades either. To be fair the cast did well with what the screenwriters offered, but why bother with a number two? Someone (a great many someones) must have liked the first film or there would be no sequel - at least that's what a reasonable person would suppose. I am placing a D+ in my gradebook. At times, I was ever so slightly entertained.

“Charlie Wilson's War,” on the other hand, truly held my interest. I am Texas-born and -bred and old enough to have lived when Charlie Wilson - a party-boy Texas congressman from Houston - fought his “war,” but I never heard of the man. In the early 1980s, the free-spirited Wilson becomes uncharacteristically interested and ultimately involved when the Soviets invade Afghanistan. One of the first sources of awareness comes from Joanne Herring (Julie Roberts), a crass, bleach-blond, rich Houston debutant intent on spreading her anti-communist agenda. Wilson's membership on two powerful congressional committees and his won't-take-no-for-an-answer personality enable him to go behind the scenes to get covert financing for the Afghan freedom fighters and aid in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

This involvement results in a series of dialogue-heavy meetings, mostly personal - and quite interesting - affairs (in full view and behind closed doors) that avoid any war-like adventures.

The film's most exciting action scene comes when CIA agent Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) explodes at his inept boss, breaking his office window before dramatically departing - and that's as wild as it gets, unless you look a little closer at the life of Wilson, who partied, womanized and negotiated his way through life and politics.

“Charlie Wilson's War” offers little action, but rather relies heavily on quality writing by Aaron Sorkin from George Criles' best seller, excellent acting, and masterful direction by Mike Nichols. In simple terms, it is a comedy-heavy drama based on a true story, about a time in American history hidden from the typical political limelight. I am placing a solid A in my gradebook and until I see Daniel Day-Lewis' “There Will be Blood,” it will top my list for 2007.

Ah, and now to “Sweeney Todd.” In March of '06, I saw “Sweeney Todd” on Broadway with Patti LuPone and Michael Cerveris and I absolutely loved it. But then, I am a sucker for an outstanding Broadway production. Given this admiration for the stage version of the tale, I went to the screening, starring Depp and Bonham Carter with a bit of trepidation. With director Tim Burton at the helm, I knew to anticipate gore and, well, the unexpected; to that degree, I was not disappointed. Burton goes over the top with throat-slicing, blood-spewing and head-cracking in his version of a barber gone mad after being wrongly imprisoned by the ruthless Judge Turpin (played brilliantly by Alan Rickman, who can sing pretty well too) set on stealing the poor man's wife and infant daughter.

Only one person can sing beautifully in Burton's production - the boy Toby (Ed Sanders), but the child can't really act. Again, in the interest of fairness, Depp does a decent enough job, but since this is a Burton venture, Depp as Sweeney Todd looks like a cross between “Edward Scissorhands” and “Beetle Juice.” Bonham Carter - whom I personally detest, if for no other reason than her immoral way of stealing other women's husbands - looks like a character from “Corpse Bride” and is almost as cartoonish. Still, she and Depp do entertain and play the creepy, murderous, human pie-cooking partners wonderfully. I am placing a B in my gradebook for the rightly R-rated “Sweeney Todd.” I can't recommend it for families and those who loathe musicals should stay away, but it will positively find its audience.

Soon I will return to writing my single article, single review, but for now this is kind of fun. Christmas week is “dead week” for film screenings and so is New Year's week, so I will get a well-needed break from teaching and screenings

Seriously, I love doing both, but even the coolest jobs warrant breaks. Soon, I will miss both and time will fly and then it's back to the old grind and limited free time.

Reader Comments