Ingenuity makes all 'entertaining' difference between WHITE HOUSE DOWN and OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN

REVIEW by Hilath

Not surprisingly, Fuqua has even outdone Emmerich in staging action more dramatically; the way the black hawks fall are perhaps more dramatically staged than Ridley Scott's Oscar-nominated BLACK HAWK DOWN on the failed American attack on Somalia terrorists in Mogadishu. While Scott had less technology in 2001, nevertheless the creative way Fuqua staged the falling of the black hawks is still impressive although he had the technology last year. I guess this is a basic difference why I found TITANIC's singular sinking more impressive at a time of no such visual effects in 1997 than PEARL HARBOR's multiple vessel sinking at the time when such visual effects were available in 2001.

I particularly liked the series of fist fights (perhaps due to the slick editing?) and if I had any doubts why Fuqua did not employ a heart throb like Channing Tatum to sell the movie, I have to say his choice of Gerard Butler is great - given his ability not only to act better but also emerge as a great action hero, too.

Other things that differ between the two movies is that, unlike Tatum, Butler is as brutal as the terrorists as he murders them in cold blood - and reminded me of Orson Scott Card's Ender who makes sure that the enemy "gets the message" and does not rise to create trouble again.

Both Emmerich and Fuqua's movies have children and though Fuqua does not give a lead role to the presidential son but only uses him to set a turning point in the movie, Emmerich's heroic daughter of Tatum seems given a heroic role in order to please a children and adolescent audience - who are usually fans of Emmerich's films like INDEPENDENCE DAY and GODZILLA.
Perhaps Fuqua emerges the winner in this 'presidential' race (is it a coincidence that the two rival films on an attack on the White House came out in the same year?) due to the more dark and engaging - not to mention - brutal story that is appropriate for such a concept. However, I only say this because Fuqua's story is more entertaining because in both films' cases, I've wondered how an attack on the White House can be carried, because in the TV anchor's words in Fuqua's movie, the White House is indeed the "most protected place on earth".

And this is where I found both movies' plots implausible though Fuqua's is more entertaining due to the way the terrorists are shown to use advanced technology - including sonar that prevents missile attacks. (A commentator to the above YouTube trailer comparison says we should not take these two movies seriously and says Fuqua is guilty of doing this in service of pure entertainment).

Though the United States was not anticipating that such an attack like September 11 can happen, I am sure after that it must be now prepared and therefore, the White House cannot be as easily attacked as both films show. But I still think that if there is a full scale World War 3, the US can be attacked like in PEARL HARBOR, even though at the time, as director Michael Bay said, Americans were "innocent and naive" and therefore was not expecting an attack by the Japanese in World War 2.

“Cuckoo’s Nest” revisited

30 years since it came out One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest has lost none of its punch, says Sharif Ali:

“Come on, which one of you nuts has got any guts?” says Jack Nicholson to the patients of the insane asylum when he insists on watching the baseball World Series and the head nurse asks for a show of hands for those in favour of it.

This is one of the many memorable lines of One flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, only the second movie in Oscar history to sweep the top five awards (Best Film, Director -- Milos Forman, Actor -- Jack Nicholson, Actress – Louise Fletcher and Screenplay adapted by Bo Goldman and Laurence Hauben from Ken Kessey’s best-selling 1962 novel).

The film is about a rape convict in jail (Nicholson as Randall McMurphy) who fakes insanity and gets transferred to a mental institution where he inspires the inmates to stand up to the firm head nurse and to explore their horizons.

One Flew shot Nicholson to glory. He did turn in notable performances before in Easy Rider (1969) and Five Easy Pieces (1970) but his role in One Flew as cocky misfit McMurphy confirmed his leading man status in Hollywood then.

The film has a great ensemble cast including a very young, shy and carefree Danny de Vito as Martini, a childish and stuttering Brad Dourif as Billy Bibbit and a host of diverse characters.

Although Nicholson’s performance won the larger share of the praise, Louise Fletcher’s restrained performance opposite him as the no-nonsense, stand-by-the-rules nurse Rachel is remarkable. She fully embodies the character of a stern head who always stands in the way of any attempt by the inmates to cross the line.

Forman does not portray her as a villain though. We all know she is just doing her job and that she cares for the inmates.

The casting of the film is its biggest strength. "I think it was the film people had been waiting for from Jack Nicholson," says producer Michael Douglas. "It fits classically into his non-conformist image." Director Milos Forman specifically praises Louise Fletcher. "She is dangerous," Forman says of the character, "because she really believes in what she is doing."

The movie is essentially a drama but Forman incorporates a great deal of film noir. It has a hopeless protagonist trying to get the inmates under his wings, a femme fatale who determines the run of events, a bleak atmosphere and some highly influential supporting characters.

It also has many amusing moments. Nicholson takes the inmates on a fishing trip, and when questioned by a guard about what they were doing, he introduces all the patients as doctors. A few moments before that a woman asks them whether they are crazy and de Vito nods with a smile.

In fact the movie is full of fine moments. In one scene where all the inmates are gathered around for consultation with the head nurse, a cigarette drops at the feet of one. He starts yelling and hops out of the frame. The focus then is on Nicholson and another patient who argues with the nurse for denying him cigarettes and Nicholson tries to calm him down. While this argument takes place the sound of the previous patient is also heard in the background. Forman effectively uses sound here to build dramatic intensity.

In another scene Nicholson gathers everyone in front of a blank TV screen and relays a commentary on a baseball World Series game after the nurse denies the right to watch it.

The film’s cinematography and art direction help create a bleak atmosphere. The scenes look dreary in both indoors and outdoors. Inside the asylum the walls are white and brown, and the inmates all wear dull greyish robes. It conveys their monotonous lives having to go through the same procedures every day. Besides the four dimensional framing gives a sense of confinement about these characters who are trapped in their own little worlds.

It is rather impossible not to associate the film with the political climate of the time. It was a time of huge failures in the American system. Vietnam war, the only war America lost in its history, just ended and the Watergate scandal had forced President Nixon to resign. The inmates may be representing the American society who were engaged in their own fight for moral freedom.

Forman might have also intended to make a parody of the Cold War through the conflicts between Nicholson and Fletcher. Fletcher is the intolerant, socialist authority that was Russia while Nicholson is the free-spirited man fighting for individual rights and freedom that was America. After all Forman was a victim of Cold War when he had to flee to the States after the Soviet crackdown on his native Czechoslovakia. Maybe that was his message: Eastern Europe’s fight for independence from Russia.

In short One Flew, which won the 20th spot in the American Film Institute’s top 100 films of all time, is a deeply humanistic and intense portrayal of an individual’s rise against authority. One critic puts it nicely: “The awe-inspiring performances by Jack Nicholson and the ward patients remind viewers that freedom is worth the risk of rebellion.”

(This article was published in The Evening Weekly on 28 March 2005)