| vec
neko vrijeme, ubijedjen sam da su Samuel L. Jackson i Tommy Lee Jones medju najboljim
sporednim glumcima naseg vremena. Jackson je dijelio ekran sa tipovima poput De Nira i
Spaceya, dok je Jones pomogao Harrisonu Fordu da bude dobar momak, a usput pokupio Oscara
za sebe. Medjutim, bio sam umjereno skeptican kada su njih dva krenuli da zajedno igraju u
velikom filmu u glavnim ulogama. Obradovalo me je saznanje da je njihov zajednicki
projekat "Rules of Engagement", skocio na vrh kino blagajni, skinuvsi "Erin
Brockovich". Ali, nakon gledanja filma, mogao sam optuziti jedino krvozednu medijsku
kampanju za njegov uspjeh, jer osim kampanje, ovdje nema mnogo filma. Klisei su u ovom filmu tako cesti
i bezobrazno ocigledni da ne znam odakle da pocnem. Od obracuna u dzungli sa Viet Congom,
gdje sve pocinje. Jacksonova replika, "Sad je sve drugacije", nekih 30 godina
kasnije. Arapski demonstrante ispred americke ambasade. Bolnica u siromasnom dijelu grada
u Jemenu. Moglo bi se nabrajati dugo, mada nema potrebe da idemo dalje od dijaloga, kojih
su lose sklopili scenaristi sa gotovo nikakvim spisateljskim iskustvom. Prica je vrlo
sablonska i tanka, te glumci nemaju nimalo materijala.
Jackson, prica kaze, je
ugledni marinac, pukovnik Terry Childers. Ubrzo nakon sto njegov stari drug Hays Hodges
(Jones) ode u penziju kao vojni advokat, Childers krece na naizgled jednostavan zadatak u
Jemen, da drzi na oku demonstrante ispred ambasade. Stvari se ispostave komplikovanijima
nego sto se prije vjerovalo, i zavrse sa bezumnim krvoprolicem vise od 80 Jemenaca.
Americka vlada i Savjetnik za nacionalnu sigurnost (Bruce Greenwood) traze zrtvenog jarca,
i ne gledaju dalje od Childersa, koji potom ubijedi svog starog druga da izadje iz penzije
i zastupa ga na vojnom sudu. Sudnicka drama koja se potom odvija ima nivo reprize serije
"Ally McBeal", a sadrzi jos i manje dobrih argumenata. Pravo filmsko razocaranje
ispada Guy Pearce kao glavni tuzitelj. Kao policajac sa srcem kao katedrala u "LA
Confidential", mladi Australac je bio odlican, ali u "Rules", njegove
nevolje dosezu dublje nego njegov americki akcenat koji se trudi da imitira. Sto je jos
gore, cini najgoru gresku koju Hamlet upozorava sve glumce da ne naprave - dere se kao
seoski dobosar, i testerise vazduh rukama.
Ne zalazeci suvise u
zestoke reakcije iz pravog arapskog svijeta na ovaj film, ne mogu se oteti tuznom utisku
da ce Hollywood zauvijek musti svoje inspiracije iz predrasuda. Ljutita gomila Arapa koji
vitlaju sakama i pucaju iz pusaka preuzela je ulogu oficira Viet Conga, koji su sada na
strani dobra, cak svjedoci optuzbe, u dramatski nepotrebnoj sceni. "Rules of
Engagement" je film kojem se ne moze vjerovati, jer je sve suvise islo protiv glavnih
protagonista da bismo imali snage da budemo intrigirani ostatkom price. Velika glumacka
imena kao sto su Jackson, Jones, (Ben) Kingsley i (Ann) Archer kao da se ne trude dovoljno
da nas ubijede u suprotno. |
|
For some time now, I was convinced that Samuel L. Jackson and
Tommy Lee Jones are two of the finest supporting actors of our times. Jackson shared the
screen with the likes of De Niro and Spacey, while Jones helped Harrison Ford look good,
picking up an Oscar for himself along the way. However, I was a bit concerned with how the
two of them are going to open a big movie together, in leading roles. I was genuinely
pleased that their joint venture "Rules of Engagement" opened strong, knocking
off "Erin Brockovich"'s knockers. But after watching the movie, I could credit
only the blood-thirsty media hype for its success, for there is not much movie behind that
hype. Cliches in this movie are so frequent and so blatantly obvious I
don't know where to begin. The shootout in the jungle with the Viet Cong, where it all
begins. "It's a different ballgame now" line from Jackson, some 30 years later.
Arab protesters in front of American Embassy. Shanty town hospital in Yemen. One could go
on and on, but there is no need to go further than the dialogue, poorly constructed by
writers with almost no cinematic writing experience whatsoever. The story is so formulaic
and thin, the actors have no material to work with.
Jackson,
as the story goes, is a well-respected Colonel Terry Childers of the Marines. Shortly
after his buddy Hays Hodges (Jones) retires as a military attorney, Childers goes on a
baby-sitting assignment in Yemen, to keep an eye on the protesters in front of the
embassy. Things become more serious than previously believed to be, and end with a
senseless bloodshed of more than 80 Yemenis. American government and the National security
advisor (Bruce Greenwood) are looking for the scapegoat, and they look no further than
Childers, who then talks his buddy out of retirement and into representing him in the
court-marshall proceedings. The courtroom drama that unfolds holds the suspense level of a
rerun of Ally McBeal, and there is fewer arguments. The real cinematic disappointment
turns out to be Guy Pearce as the main prosecutor. As a cop with ton of integrity and two
tons of heart in "LA Confidential", a young Aussie was great, but in
"Rules", his troubles go even further than the Yankee accent he tries to tackle.
What's worse, he comits the ultimate error that Hamlet warns all actors not to make –
he "mouths" his speeches, and "saws the air too much with his hands".
Without
going too deep into fierce reactions from the real Arab world to the movie, one cannot
escape the sad impression that Hollywood will forever milk its inspiration from
prejudices. The angry fist-waving Arab crowd takes over the role of Viet Cong officers,
who are the good guys now, witnesses for the prosecution, even, in the dramatically
needless scene. "Rules of Engagement" is one very unbelievable movie, as the
dice were way too loaded against the protagonists for any of us to be continually
intrigued with the story. Big acting names such as Jackson, Jones, Kingsley and Archer
don't seem to be eager to make us think or feel different. |