"THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS" (2009) Review

 

"THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS" (2009) Review

Grant Heslov directed this comedic adaptation of Jon Ronson’s 2004 book about the U.S. Army's exploration of New Age concepts and the potential military applications of the paranormal. The movie starred George Clooney as one of the participants in this program and Ewan McGregor, who portrayed a journalist who stumbles across the story, while reporting on businesses with military contracts in Iraq.

One of the surprising aspects about "THE MEN WHO STARED AT GOATS" is that its story is based upon fact. According to author Jon Ronson, there was actually a similar unit actually existed within the U.S. Army called the Stargate Project. The film featured a different name for the units . . . and had probably changed some of the facts, but the Army did explore New Age concepts and military applications of the paranormal. "THE MEN WHO STARED AT GOATS" followed McGregor’s character, a journalist with the Ann Arbor Daily Telegram named Bob Wilton. After an emotional divorce from an unfaithful wife, Bob goes to Kuwait to report on the Iraq War. He stumbles upon an interesting story when he meets a Special Forces operator named Lyn Cassady during a trip across the Iraqi countryside. During the road trip, Cassady reveals his participation in an Army unit that trained to develop a range of par psychological skills by using New Age concepts. The unit ended up being named the New Earth Army. While the pair endured a journey that included encounters with a gang of Iraqi criminals, a kidnapped victim of the criminals, the head of a private security firm named Todd Nixon and two rival groups of American contractors who engage in a gunfight against each other in Ramadi.

During Wilton and Cassady’s journey, the latter revealed the story behind the creation of the New Earth Army and its founder, a Vietnam War veteran named Bill Django. The latter had traveled across America in the 1970s for six years to explore a range of New Age movements (including the Human potential movement) after being wounded during the Vietnam War. Django used these experiences to create the New Earth Army. Django’s recruits ended up being nicknamed "Jedi Warriors". By the 1980s, two of Django's best recruits were Cassady and Larry Hooper, who developed a lifelong rivalry with the former because of their opposing views of how to implement the First Earth philosophy. Cassady had wanted to emphasize the positive side of the teachings, whereas Hooper was more interested in the negative side of the philosophy. Wilton and Cassady’s journey ended when they locate a military base in the middle of the desert.

I must admit that I had not in a big hurry to see "THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS" when it first hit the theaters ten years ago. In fact, I never had any intention of seeing it. The only reason I went to see the movie in the first place was that I was desperate for something to watch. The Fall 2009 movie season had seemed pretty dim to me. Aside from "THE INFORMANT", I had difficulty finding a movie that appealed to me. And what about "THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS"? Did I find it appealing? Honestly? It was not the best movie I had seen in 2009. But I must admit that thanks to Grant Heslov’s direction and Peter Straughan’s screenplay, I found the movie rather humorous in an off-kilter manner. Some of the most humorous scenes featured:

*Wilton and Cassady’s flight from a group of Iraqi criminals

*The "Battle of Ramadi" between two American private security armies

*Bill Django’s six year exploration of New Age movements

*The results of Wilton and Django’s spiking of the Army base food with LSD.

At first, the movie’s approach to New Age religion and movements seemed inconsistent. The first half of the film treated the subject as a joke. However, once Wilton and Cassady reached the base housing the PSIC, Straughan’s script treated the subject with a lot more respect. It took me a while to realize that the story was told from Bob Wilton’s point-of-view. It only seemed natural that he would first view the New Earth Army and New Age beliefs as a joke. But after time spent with Cassady and later Django at the PSIC base, Wilton naturally developed a newfound respect for both topics. The movie also provided a slightly pointed attack upon the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Normally, I would have cringed at such protesting in a comedy. Fortunately, Heslov used humor – and very sharp humor at that – to mock American presence in the Middle Eastern country.

I think that Lyn Cassady might turn out to be one of my favorite roles portrayed by George Clooney. One, he gave a hilarious performance. And two, he also did a marvelous job in infusing Cassady’s role with a mixture of militaristic machismo and wide-eyed innocence. And despite his questionable American accent, I was very impressed by Ewan McGregor’s poignant performance as the lovelorn Michigan journalist (his wife left him for his editor), who traveled to Iraq to prove his bravery to his former wife . . . only to discover something more unique. Another joyous addition to the cast turned out to be Jeff Bridges, who gave a wonderfully off-kilter performance as Cassady’s mentor and founder of the New Earth Army, Bill Django. And Larry Hooper, the one man allegedly responsible for bringing down Django’s New Earth Army, turned out to be another one of Kevin Spacey’s deliciously villainous roles. The movie also featured performances that ranged from solid to zany from the likes of Stephen Lang, Robert Patrick, Nick Offerman, Waleed Zuaiter, Rebecca Mader and Glen Morshower.

"THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS" managed to earn less than $70 million dollars at the box office. Because it only had a budget of $24 million, it still managed to earn a small profit. However, it was not a hit film and it received mixed reviews. Perhaps the audience found the film's subject a bit hard to swallow. There is also the possibility that film goers found screenwriter Peter Straughan’s script use of constant flashbacks regarding the New Earth Army rather confusing. Personally, I rather enjoyed the movie. It never became a big favorite of mine, but I still found it entertaining and interesting.

"THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS" (2009) Photo Gallery

 

Below are photos from "THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS", the 2009 adaptation of Jon Ronson's 2004 book. Directed by Grant Heslov, the movie starred George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey:

"THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS" (2009) Photo Gallery

"What Jedi Feud?"

 

"WHAT JEDI FEUD?"

For over two decades, many STAR WARS fans have claimed that the franchise's prequel characters Anakin Skywalker (the future Darth Vader) and Jedi Master Mace Windu were constantly at odds during the three Prequel Trilogy movies. I find this claim very difficult to accept. Why? Because I never saw any real evidence of this.

The trilogy's first movie, "STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE" established not only the existence of the Jedi Order, it also established Jedi Master Yoda and Mace Windu as the Council and Order's top leaders. After his connection to the Force was tested, the Council rejected him as one of the Order's future acolytes. I cannot deny that Master Windu proved to the one member who informed both nine-year-old Anakin and his sponsor Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn that the former would not be accepted within the Jedi Order. But I believe many fans had failed to realize that Mace was not solely responsible for the Council's rejection of Anakin. He had made this decision along with the entire Jedi Council. Mace had merely expressed what they had decided. I have grave doubts that the Council would allow Mace to be the only one to decide upon Anakin joining the Order. What would be the point of the Order existing in the first place? Even in the following movie, "STAR WARS: EPISODE II - ATTACK OF THE CLONES", both Mace and Yoda had discussed the Order's diminishing connection to the Force. Although Mace had suggested they inform the Galactic Senate of the situation, it was Yoda who made the final decision to keep it a secret. So much for Mace Windu being the sole decision-maker of the Jedi Council.

In "THE PHANTOM MENACE", the Jedi Council had sensed Anakin's connection to the Force due to his actions during the Battle of Naboo. Because of this, the Council had reversed its decision and allowed Anakin to join the Order. Only one Council member proved to be the sole voice of dissent . . . and it was not Mace Windu. Actually, Yoda proved to be the only Council member who did not want Anakin to join the Order, fearing the nine-year-old would prove to be a future threat. Yoda also disapproved of former Jedi padawan-turned-Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi becoming Anakin's new Jedi tutor. Realizing he was seriously outvoted, Yoda finally changed his vote in order to align with his fellow Council members. But there is no denying that Yoda proved to be the last holdout against allowing Anakin into the Order.

Another reason why I find it difficult to believe that Master Windu had been in conflict with Anakin throughout the Prequel Trilogy was his conversation with Obi-Wan in one of the scenes from "ATTACK OF THE CLONES". During a stroll with Obi-Wan inside the Jedi Temple, the latter had accused Anakin of growing arrogant about his abilities. He also expressed doubt about the Chosen One prophecy. Mace, who seemed opened to the latter, had expressed surprise at Obi-Wan’s negative attitude toward Anakin. Yoda joined in the conversation. Although the latter remained silent about the Chosen One prophecy, he expressed a warning that many of the Order's members had been growing increasingly arrogant lately.

I can only recall one Prequel Trilogy in which Master Windu had expressed open hostility toward Anakin. Before the release of the trilogy's third film, "REVENGE OF THE SITH", George Lucas had sanctioned the creation of the 2005 novel, "Labyrinth of Evil", which served as a direct prequel to the 2005 movie. Written by James Lucerno and released four months before "REVENGE OF THE SITH", Lucerno's novel featured Count Dooku aka Darth Tyrannus' capture of the Galactic Republic Chancellor Sheev Palpatine. The novel also featured the Jedi Council's discovery that someone within the Chancellor's circle had connections to Dooku and another Sith Lord.

This discovery had led to the Jedi Council's growing distrust and hostility toward Anakin, due to his friendship with Palpatine. With the exception of Obi-Wan, whose attitude toward Anakin and the prophecy had changed after three years, other members of the Council had more or less began expressing a distant or cold attitude toward the 22-year-old knight - including Mace Windu. When Obi-Wan had suggested that Anakin spy on Chancellor Palpatine on behalf of the Council, the younger man rebuffed the idea in anger. However, Anakin was not the only one who had protested against the plan. Both Yoda and Windu also questioned Obi-Wan's plan. Mace openly admitted that he did not trust Anakin. Yoda went even further and questioned the plausibility of the Chosen One prophecy. For their own reasons, both Windu AND Yoda had simply refused to trust Anakin or believe in the prophecy.

Which leads me to this question . . . why do so many fans still claim that Mace Windu had been hostile toward Anakin Skywalker throughout the entire Prequel Trilogy? Why do so many of them, to this day, want to believe that the Jedi Master and Jedi Knight had a feud? It seemed quite obvious that Anakin had problems with the Order at different occasions - even with his own Jedi Master, Obi-Wan Kenobi. Yet, many fans have turned a blind eye to this and decided that Mace Windu . . . and no one else, had been in conflict with Anakin. Is this some attempt by fans to blame Master Windu for Anakin's downfall? I hope not. Anyone with common sense could see that Anakin's relationship with the Order and specifically, members of the Council, had been a lot more complicated.

I might as well make this plain. I have never seen any one-on-one conflict between Anakin Skywalker and Master Mace Windu on the movie or television screens. Not in the Prequel Trilogy movies or in "THE CLONE WARS" animated series. So, why is it still important for fans to believe that a feud between the pair had existed?

"EMILY" (2022) Review

 

"EMILY" (2022) Review

I have been aware of only four productions that served as biopics for the Brontë family. I have seen only three of these productions, one of them being a recent movie released in theaters last year. This latest movie, the first to be written and directed by actress Frances O'Connor, is a biopic about Emily Brontë titled "EMILY".

This 2022 movie began with a question. While Emily Brontë laid dying from tuberculosis, her older sister Charlotte asks what had inspired her to write the 1847 novel, "Wuthering Heights". The story flashed back to 1839, when Charlotte returned home to the Haworth parish in West Yorkshire to visit before her graduation from school. Emily attempts to re-connect with the older sister about her fictional works, but Charlotte merely dismisses her creations as juvenile activities. Around the same time, their father Patrick, the parish's perpetual curate receives a new curate name William Weightman. While Charlotte, younger sister Anne and several young women seem enamored of the handsome newcomer, only Emily is dismissive of him. Emily accompanies Charlotte to the latter's school to learn to become a teacher and their brother Bramwell goes to study at the Royal Academy of Arts. Both Emily and Branwell return shortly to Haworth after as failures. When Branwell manages to find a job as a tutor, the Reverend Brontë charges William to provide French lessons to Emily. What began as lessons in French and religious philosophy lessons, eventually evolves into a romantic entanglement between the pair.

"EMILY" managed to garner a good deal of critical acclaim upon its release in theaters, including four nominations from the British Independent Film Awards. It also won three awards at the Dinard British Film Festival: Golden Hitchcock, Best Performance Award for leading actress Emma Mackey and the Audience Award. I have no idea how much "EMILY" had earned at the U.K. box office. But in North America (the U.S. and Canada), it earned nearly four million dollars. Regardless of this . . . did I believe "EMILY" was a good movie? Did it deserved the accolades it had received not only from film critics, but also many moviegoers?

I cannot deny that the production values for "EMILY" struck me as first-rate. I believe Steve Summersgill did a first-rate job as the film's production designer. I thought he had ably re-created Britain's West Yorkshire region during the early 1840s with contributions from Jono Moles' art direction, Cathy Featerstone's set decorations and the film's art direction. Nanu Segal's photography of the Yorkshire locations created a great deal of atmosphere with moody colors that managed to remain sharp. I found myself very impressed with Michael O'Connor's costume designs. I thought he did an excellent job in not only re-creating fashions from the end of the 1830s to the late 1840s, he also ensured that the costumes worn by the cast perfectly adhered to their professions and their class, as shown below:



However, according to a relative of mine, Emily Brontë's fashion sense had remained stuck in the mid-to-late 1830s, something that the 2016 movie, "TO WALK INVISIBLE" had reflected. On the other hand, "EMILY" had the famous author wearing up-to-date fashion for someone of her class:



And I must admit that I found those moments featuring actress Emma Mackay wearing her hair down . . . in an era in which Western women did no such thing . . . very annoying. Otherwise, I certainly had no problems with the movie's production values. The movie also included a fascinating scene in which Emily had donned a mask and pretended to be the ghost of the Brontës' late mother during a social gathering. The scene reeked with atmosphere, emotion and good acting from the cast. I also found the scene well shot by O'Connor, who was only a first-time director.

"EMILY" also featured a first-rate cast. The movie featured solid performances from the likes of Amelia Gething as Anne Brontë, Adrian Dunbar as Patrick Brontë, Gemma Jones as the siblings' Aunt Branwell, Sacha Parkinson, Philip Desmeules, Veronica Roberts and other supporting cast member. I cannot recall a bad performance from any of them. The movie also featured some truly excellent performances. One came from Fionn Whitehead, who gave an emotional performance as the Brontë family's black sheep, who seemed overwhelmed by family pressure to succeed in a profession or the arts. Alexandra Dowling gave a subtle, yet charged performance as Charlotte Brontë, the family's oldest sibling (at the moment). Dowling did an excellent job of conveying Charlotte's perceived sense of superiority and emotional suppression. I wonder if the role of William Weightman, Reverend Brontë's curate, had been a difficult one for actor Oliver Jackson-Cohen. I could not help but notice that the role struck me as very complicated - moral, charming, intelligent, passionate and at times, hypocritical. Not only that, I believe Jackson-Cohen did an excellent job of conveying the different facets of Weightman's character. The actor also managed to create a dynamic screen chemistry with the movie's leading lady, Emma Mackey. I discovered that the actress had received a Best Actress nomination from the British Independent Film Awards and won the BAFTA Rising Star Award. If I must be honest, I believe she earned those accolades. She gave a brilliant performance as the enigmatic and emotional Emily, who struggled to maintain her sense of individuality and express her artistry, despite the lack of support from most of her family.

"EMILY" had a great deal to admire - an excellent cast led by the talented Emma Mackey, first-rate production designs, and costumes that beautifully reflected the film's setting. So . . . do I believe it still deserved the acclaim that it had received? Hmmm . . . NO. No, not really. There were two aspects of "EMILY" that led me to regard it in a lesser light. I thought it it was a piss poor biopic of Emily Brontë. I also found the nature of the whole romance between the author and William Weightman not only unoriginal, but also unnecessary. Let me explain.

As far as anyone knows, there had been no romance - sexual or otherwise - between Emily Brontë and William Weightman. There has never been any evidence that the two were ever attracted to each other, or one attracted to the other. Many have discovered that the youngest Brontë sister, Anne, had been attracted to Weightman. In fact, she had based her leading male character from her 1947 novel, "Agnes Grey", on the curate. There have been reports that Charlotte had found him attractive. But there has been no sign of any kind of connection between him and Emily. Why did Frances O'Connor conjure up this obviously fictional romance between the movie's main character and Weightman. What was the point? Did the actress-turned-writer/director found it difficult to believe that a virginal woman in her late 20s had created "Wuthering Heighs"? Did O'Connor find it difficult to accept that Emily's creation of the 1847 novel had nothing to do with a doomed romance the author may have experienced?

Despite Mackey's excellent performance, I found the portrayal of Emily Brontë exaggerated at times and almost bizarre. In this case, I have to blame O'Connor, who had not only directed this film, but wrote the screenplay. For some reason, O'Connor believed the only way to depict Brontë's free spirited nature was to have the character engage in behavior such as alcohol and opium consumption, frolicking on the moors, have the words "Freedom in thought" tattooed on one of her arms - like brother Branwell, and scaring a local family by staring into their window at night - again, with brother Branwell. This is freedom? These were signs of being a "free spirit"? Frankly, I found such activities either immature or destructive. Worse, they seemed to smack of old tropes used in old romance novels or costume melodramas. In fact, watching Emily partake both alcohol and opium reminded me of a scene in which Kate Winslet's character had lit up a cigarette in 1997's "TITANIC", in order to convey some kind of feminist sensibility. Good grief.

What made O'Connor's movie even worse was her portrayal of the rest of the Brontë family. As far as anyone knows, Reverend Brontë had never a cold parent to his children, including Emily. Emily had not only been close to Branwell, but also to Anne. And Branwell was also close to Charlotte. All three sisters had openly and closely supported each other's artistic work. Why did O'Connor villainize Charlotte, by transforming her into this cold, prissy woman barely capable of any kind of artistic expression? Why have Charlotte be inspired to write her most successful novel, "Jane Eyre", following the "success" of "Wuthering Heights", when her novel had been published two months before Emily's? Why did she reduce Anne into the family's nobody? Was it really necessary for O'Connor to drag Charlotte's character through the mud and ignore Anne, because Emily was her main protagonist? What was the damn point of this movie? Granted, there have been plenty of biopics and historical dramas that occasionally play fast and loose with the facts. But O'Connor had more or less re-wrote Emily Brontë's life into a "re-imagining" in order to . . . what? Suggest a more romantic inspiration for the creation of "Wuthering Heights"?

I have another issue with "EMILY". Namely, the so-called "romance" between Brontë and Weightman. Or the illicit nature of their romance. Why did O'Connor portray this "romance" as forbidden? A secret? I mean . . . why bother? What was it about the pair that made an open romance impossible for them? Both Brontë and Weightman came from the same class - more or less. Weightman had been in the same profession as her father. And both had been college educated. Neither Emily or Weightman had been romantically involved in or engaged to someone else. In other words, both had been free to pursue an open relationship. Both were equally intelligent. If the Weightman character had truly been in love with Emily, why not have him request permission from Reverend Brontë to court her or propose marriage to Emily? Surely as part of the cleric, he would have considered such a thing, instead of fall into a secretive and sexual relationship with her. It just seemed so unnecessary for the pair to engage in a "forbidden" or secret romance. Come to think of it, whether the film had been an Emily Brontë biopic or simply a Victorian melodrama with fictional characters, the forbidden aspect of the two leads' romance struck me as simply unnecessary.

What else can I say about "EMILY"? A rich atmosphere filled the movie. The latter featured atmospheric and beautiful images of West Yorkshire, thanks to cinematographer Nanu Segal. It possessed a first-class production design, excellent costumes that reflected the movie's 1840s setting and superb performances from a cast led by the talented Emma Mackey. I could have fully admired this film if it were not for two aspects. One, I thought it was a shoddy take on a biopic for author Emily Brontë that featured one falsehood too many. And two, I found the secretive and "forbidden" nature of Brontë's false romance with the William Weightman character very unnecessary. Pity.

"EMILY" (2022) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "EMILY", the 2022 fictionalized account of author Emily Brontë's life. Written and directed by Frances O'Connor, the movie starred Emma Mackey:

"EMILY" (2022) Photo Gallery