Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
The oddly-named "Anonymous please!" weighs in with another take on the recent test screening of HART'S WAR with Bruce Willis. Sounds like this is going to be one of next year's early gems, something to keep an eye out for, worth discussing no matter where you stand on it. Check this out:
Harry,
I read the review of Hart's War you posted today and I just had to add my opinion.
I saw this movie in much the same manner. It looked for the most part like it was a finished product. And the only glaring deficiencies I could find were in the story itself.
Your scooper's set up for the movie is more or less on the money. But when he says that this movie sets itself apart by avoiding the Nazis= Evil and Americans=heroes clichés I think he misses the point. This movie is so clichéd on so many different levels, I found it really difficult to take it seriously.
Let start with Hart defending the black officer. This whole plot point was just so derivative of just about every other courtroom drama I have ever seen. Right down to the point when Hart is given help in finding a "loophole" by Visser (the Nazi commander). I mean, how many times do these movies have to follow the same formula? Can you say A Few Good Men, hell, Twelve Angry Men for that matter.
Another problem I had with this movie was Willis. I like him as much as the next guy, but I really think his persona was overpowering here. Every time he was on screen I really felt like he became the focal point of the movie. He played General William Devereaux from The Siege to Colin Farrell's Anthony 'Hub' Hubbard. Just one problem here, Farrell doesn't have the screen power that Denzel Washington had in that movie. And it wasn't really Farrell's fault either. He might have been able to pull it off, but the story just wouldn't allow it.
I look at it an awful lot like A Few Good Men. Nicholson was certainly a strong presence, but the story allowed Cruise to be the focal point and grow. See, I wanted to know about Hart in this movie and watch him grow but at every opportunity, they turned it into something about Willis' character. I think this was a mistake.
Lastly, I though the ending to this movie was horrible. *******SPOILER WARNING*******
They spend all that time trying to show what a bad, heartless guy Willis is and then at the last possible moment they redeem him AND martyr him? Where the hell did that come from? He was never a decent man at any point in the movie. As a matter of fact, they went out of their way to prove to the audience what a prick he really was. Then at the last moment he is supposed to have a crisis of conscience and do the right thing? I just didn't buy it.
I thought the movie had it's moments. Terrence Howard gives a pretty great speech from the witness stand that I thought was dead on in it's take of race relations. The most unfortunate part of what he said is that in many cases the things that blacks endured back during WWII haven't really changed, enough at least. I also though that Marcel Iures (Col. Visser, the Nazi) was outstanding in his role. And while I thought the story could have done more for Farrell's character, I though he gave a solid performance. I had really hoped to like this movie going in. But I just think it is more of the same really. Serviceable yes. But like so many other movies I have seen this year, it really felt like they had something good going then part way through they ran out of ideas and gave up on originality.
Thanks for letting me voice my opinion.
Anonymous please!!
