2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Disappointing
23 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I went in this one really wanting to like it. What an incredible concept! But the film just didn't do a thing for me.

Firstly, I find it hard to suspend my disbelief to buy Matt Damon as a 20 year-old college junior. He was just plain old 34 year-old Matt. THEN six years later, he has a son and talks to him on overseas long distance and Matt looks exactly the same except he has changed his eyeglass frames...he is supposed 26 yet still looks 34. THEN, fifteen years later, Matt has changed his eyeglass frames again but now his son is 20 years-old and Matt is STILL only 34. When these two are together as father and son, it just kills any other aspect of what the story is attempting to tell us because NO ONE can buy into Matt Damon's son only being 14 years younger than himself.

The least DeNiro could have done was to put a little grey hair at Matt's temples or buy him a different suit of clothes. In a film full of flashbacks covering a 22 year period, it is vital to make your characters age and progress through life.

Oh yeah, I absolutely COULD NOT buy Angelina Jolie as a 20 year-old debutante. And the most frequent comment I heard in the lobby following the film was observations about Matt and Angelina's gay son with the deformed giant upper lip...very distracting and horrible casting on the grown son actor.

But putting the casting aside, the thread that unites the tale into a whole and pulls along to the conclusion of the story is totally nonexistent. Sure, I saw some of the old fabled myths of CIA lore stabbed at rather listlessly like the LSD-25 scene. Actually, the LSD suicide via window jumping was supposedly a CIA agent and not a Soviet operative. And the whole planting of locusts in South America by the CIA in order to foil the Zapatistas politico/economic strategy has pretty much been discredited over the years. But this IS, after all, a fanciful telling of a single person's vantage of the period so I guess it is not that important.

But there were incredibly disjointed scenes that did nothing for the story and barely did anything for character development. For instance, Joe Pesci appearing for several minutes of noncontributing story points just so Matt Damon's character can say, "America, the rest of you are just visiting" was a waste of time and illuminated nothing about Cuba, the Mob or the CIA's relationship with the Mob. Or why is Matt's son in Africa hooking up with black girls? Is Matt's son supposed to be a CIA agent at that point? Is he giving up dirty tricks to the other side? What did he do with the information he overheard in the bath tub? Was he still just a college boy? You really cannot nail down time periods regarding the son because he ages even less than his parents once he becomes an adult.

And a most irritating bit of prop management is it appears that Matt Damon's character wore the same trench coat and hat from 1939 to 1961. I am sure they were of the highest quality but I just don't see these items being worn every single business day for over twenty years and still looking serviceable.

Like I said, I really wanted to enjoy this movie but after three hours of my life sitting there waiting for the big reveal, it just ended. I cannot recommend this one to friends unless they are willing to wait for DVD rental or, better yet, HBO release. Sorry.
168 out of 251 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Flyboys (2006)
4/10
A missed opportunity....
23 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, yesterday I caught the matinée at my local multiplex and came away with the same mixed feelings I had after watching A Knight's Tale. What do the two movies have in common, you say? Well, they both squandered an opportunity to be GREAT and settled for being forgettable. Ten years from now, both films will be utterly forgotten; unlike classics like Excalibur and A Bridge Too Far. A Knight's Tale assembled the greatest team of medieval jousters ever put on film and surrounded them with an idiotic script, painful soundtrack and the latest "brat pack" actors of questionable talent. The sets and jousting scenes could have been the core of THE DEFINITIVE film of the Middle Ages but the producers and director went for the quick buck instead.

Sadly, the same is true of Flyboys. This film brought together some amazing pilots flying beautiful biplane reproductions along with stunning CGI biplane dogfight sequences. If the writers and producers had bothered to actually research and build a script around an actual WWI campaign, this could have been THE DEFINITIVE WWI air warfare movie. Instead, they went the route of forgettable pop culture immediacy.

The story begins with a whirlwind of vignettes offering snapshot back stories on a few of the central characters. We are also subjected to an oh-so-politically-correct little speech about 1950s style civil rights issues. Then the movie flies on into the de rigeur "training for battle" scenes that are closed out with a budding romance subplot's introduction. From that point on, everything is far too predictable and formulaic. Every central character has a defining moment wrung directly from the "Movie Writer's Introduction to Tired Plot Devices for Idiots." What is really missing is that the squadron really has no mission or core reason for fighting their battles. Sure, there is some ill-defined ammunition depot that our heroes attempt to destroy and are sorely defeated in the trying and by movie's end they return to it and get their comeuppance, but it is a very weak premise that is just thrown out at us in the opening battle scene and quickly forgotten. Then at the close of the film, the ammunition depot suddenly shows up again on the mission board. (Why it has been allowed to operate for the many ensuing months after the most junior group at the aerodrome failed in destroying it is not explained.) The only recurring theme about the war is the presence of a vicious German ace known as the Black Falcon. He is really nasty because he shoots people on the ground and grins a lot when he is shooting at our heroes' planes. Oh yeah, he flies a really wicked looking black Fokker Dr.I that is quite menacing.

The movie is very pretty to look at but ultimately unsatisfying. The viewer is never informed about the bigger motivations of the pilots and there is never a sense of urgency about military missions or even just what part of the war effort is being served by the squadron. And the ending titles run through a "what they went on to do after the war" group of shots of the surviving pilots that had me thinking, "At least the director is a fan of Animal House." Like I said, if these truly amazing visuals had been arrayed around a script that followed an actual group of sorties centered on a actual slice of WWI combat, the movie would have been Academy Award material and a centerpiece of historical homage to a great era of aviation warfare. Sadly, it is just another piece of popcorn fluff destined to run a few weeks down at the multiplex and be long forgotten before the holiday releases start coming to theatres.
6 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed