Screen Scene
By Daily Bruin Staff
Feb. 28, 2002 9:00 p.m.
 Miramax Films Paulo Costanzo (left) and
Josh Hartnett star in "40 Days and 40 Nights."
“40 Days and 40 Nights” Directed by Michael
Lehmann Starring: Josh Hartnett, Shannyn Sossamon, Vinessa
Shaw
Josh Hartnett going for more than a month without a single
sexual encounter sounds so ridiculous, it’s funny. So why not
make a movie about it?
In “40 Days and 40 Nights,” Hartnett plays Matt, a
San Francisco Web page designer who is utterly in love with his
girlfriend Nicole (Vinessa Shaw). Too bad she doesn’t feel
the same. Dumped and miserable, Matt goes on a one-night stand
spree hoping the emptiness will go away. Instead, that black hole
only gets bigger and more menacing. So he turns the other cheek,
making a vow to abstain from all things sexual for the 40 days of
Lent. That means no sex, no intimacy and (the horror!) no
masturbating.
For the average-looking computer geek, this shouldn’t be
that tough a task. But Matt is no average-looking computer geek. He
looks just like Josh Hartnett! To make matters worse, right when
the celibacy thing seems easy, Erica (Shannyn Sossamon) walks in.
And as in any typical romantic comedy, mayhem ensues. Then again,
this film isn’t exactly typical.
“40 Days and 40 Nights” is not the light-hearted
anti-sex romp its marketing campaign has made it out to be. While
funny, at times the film struts to the tune of a dark comedy.
Matt’s unsupportive coworkers place bets on his day of
defeat. Some laughs are at the expense of their greedy cruelty and
his subsequent misery. Oh yeah, and there’s sex and nudity.
Although not completely tasteless, one still wonders if most of it
truly belonged. So, ladies, be forewarned: Your man (and his
manliness) may actually be pleased for being dragged to a date
movie. This film deserves its R-rating. Leave those 12-year-old
siblings at home.
In the end, though, who can truly complain about a film that
shows Hartnett in his underwear?
Beverly Braga
“We Were Soldiers” Directed by Randall
Wallace Starring: Mel Gibson, Madeleine Stowe, Sam
Elliott
“We Were Soldiers” ““ a story that must be told
““ is told well.
Based on the true story of the X-Ray battle, Vietnam’s
first major military engagement, director Randall Wallace
doesn’t hide the gaping, bloodied neck or the charred,
swollen face of war. Wallace didn’t feed on or draw from the
current wartime patriotism either; rather, he distinguished an
often misunderstood war from the brave soldiers who fought for
their country in the face of death.
The story: interesting. The action: superb. The acting: think
Britney Spears in “Crossroads.”
Mel Gibson (Hal Moore) gave the poorest performance of his life.
His southern drawl is as real and genuine as “WWF
Smackdown.”
Barry Pepper joins Gibson as journalist Joe Galloway. After
grabbing and tearing the burnt skin of a wounded soldier, Pepper
forces out a fake look of despair. Pepper’s acting is best
compared to chronic constipation.
Keri Russell (Barbara Geoghegan) from “Felicity”
couldn’t act her way into a community college. Enough
said.
And yet the story transcends the lack of acting ability. Like
“Platoon” and “Full Metal Jacket,”
“We Were Soldiers” brings a fresh and unique
perspective to a major historical event. The wives and children of
the soldiers, with their tear-filled eyes, make each soldier more
than a killing machine and or bullet stopper ““ they act to
define the soldiers as husbands and fathers.
Randall Wallace walks a fine line, commending the soldiers for
their bravery and brotherhood while simultaneously showing the
ugliness and the absurdity of some aspects of the Vietnam War.
Randall Wallace also gives significant focus to the North
Vietnam Army. The viewer is taken inside the enemy headquarters to
see a discussion about the strategic battle plan, adding dimension
and a background of intelligence to the brave charges.
Although even “Baywatch” has seen better acting,
“We Were Soldiers” tells a powerful story which has the
emotional force to move hearts and to open minds to many
thought-provoking questions. It does justice to those fathers,
sons, brothers and husbands who sacrificed their lives for their
country.
Christopher K. Saroki
“Wendigo” Directed by Larry Fessenden
Starring: Patricia Clarkson, Jake Weber
Wendigo: There’s a reason why you haven’t heard of
this movie ““ it sucks.
A barium enema by a giant deer-man is more pleasant than seeing
this film.
A car strikes a deer to open the film. Otis, a hunter and
professional jackass, harasses the car’s driver for damaging
his kill. We all have to deal with jerks ““ anything
interesting?
No.
The film documents a family weekend out in the midst of a
remote, wintry village. The dialogue is realistic. It’s like
watching a video of a stranger’s family vacation, which is
precisely why it is so brutally boring.
However, Jake Weber (George) and Patricia Clarkson (Kim) act
superbly. George talks about his photography job while being poked
and prodded by his psychiatrist wife. In a natural and relaxed
manner, they create a commonplace ease which feels real ““
real boring.
Although Weber and Clarkson perform well, they come off as cold
and distant. The audience cannot relate to or associate itself with
the self-absorbed relationship between the two. They talk about
their child Miles (Erik Per Sullivan), as if he was a dog they
adopted to keep themselves amused.
The victim…err…viewer does not give a deer’s crap
about this family. The movie is a chain of “Who cares?”
and “I’d rather play hot hands with Captain
Hook.”
At some point in the movie a were-deer (think distant relative
of a werewolf) exacts cosmic justice. The mythical man-deer is
based on an Indian myth told to Miles by an Indian whom adults
can’t see. When Miles tells them about the Indian, they think
he is lying. Sounds like the plot to every “Goosebumps”
book ever written.
And like “Goosebumps,” the ending is predictably
unoriginal and beaten to a pulp. The director, Larry Fessenden,
should open the film by saying that the movie contains a
predictable plot, carried out by unlikable characters, beginning
with the boring commonplace and ending with the boring foreseeable
from the start.
Christopher K. Saroki
