Battle in Seattle

Today I saw Battle in Seattle, starring Woody Harrelson and Martin Henderson.

As someone who lived through the event this movie is about, I'd be lying if I said I didn't have bias going into it.

So I'm just going to divide this review into the "good" and the "bad" and call it a night:

The Good

• The documentary-like way in which the film is shot gives it an organic, authentic feel, as does the real news footage of President Clinton, Pine Street, etc.

• The acting is good by Harrelson and Charlize Theron (who plays his wife).

• The writer (Stuart Townsend, who also directed) did a good job of not "taking sides" in the narrative and displaying the fiasco for what it was—a situation that got out of hand mainly due to a third party that refused to respect the agreements that were in place.

• The person they found to play our Governor was both physically and verbally a lot like the real guy.

The Bad

• They changed the mayor's name, age and appearance (the real mayor was an older, heavy set gentleman named Paul; in the film it's Richard Greico playing someone named Jim). Why change something that is easily Google-able? They couldn't find someone that looked like the real guy? I find that hard to believe.

• The situation they put Charlize's character in is a bit ludicrous. The riots were completely out of control, and innocent people did get caught in the crossfire. But the "action" they had the cop take was too over-the-top to be believable.

• They didn't explain enough about what the WTO was trying to accomplish.

• They included shots of buildings in Seattle that didn't exist in 1999 (Qwest Field, etc.)

All in all, it's nice someone (an Irishman, no less) felt this stain in our city's past worthy of a film; I just don't see why the accuracy was so hard to achieve. Interviewing anyone who lived through it, a real story could've emerged that was more interesting than the two forced stories that made up this film.

And I'd say that even if I didn't live here.

A Mighty Heart

Today I saw A Mighty Heart, starring Angelina Jolie.

The story follows the tragic end of Wall Street Journal writer Daniel Pearl's life. It is told chronologically from the time he leaves his wife to go to that fateful interview, to the birth of their son Adam a few months after he was murdered.

Angelina, who plays Marianne, is magnificent as a strong-willed journalist who acts as an effective team leader in the search for her husband, despite the fact she's five months pregnant at the time of his kidnapping. Jolie not only captures Mrs. Pearl's mannerisms and speech patterns, she harnesses the essence of this amazing woman's spirit, portraying her as a calming presence in the midst of a personal and political disaster. It's a shame that many have not been able to overlook Angelina's fame when speaking about her in this role because she certainly could be nominated for another Oscar® as a result of it. She's that good.

Also wonderful is Irfan Khan (The Namesake) as the captain in charge of tracking down Danny's captors. His no-nonsense, yet compassionate aura never entered the annoying arena of personas that typically get exaggerated in stories like this. I guess what I'm saying is that his understated acting is a benefit to this role and ultimately to the film overall.

I also felt that the dramatic scenes that we knew were all coming, were treated with grace and not overdone as I somewhat expected.

It's a devastating story, but it's also heartwarming because we learn that law enforcement and the governments of the countries involved and the family and coworkers of Mr. Pearl all worked together in peace to try to bring him home safely.

And they came so close.

Zoo

Tonight I saw Zoo, a disturbing docudrama about a community of people who have sexual relationships with horses and other farm animals.

What possessed me to sit through this?

Well—the fact that the story it's based on made major headlines in my state, and that horrible curiosity I'm plagued with because I'm human. Thankfully, I had a friend who was just as curious as me, so we went to the film together (as this was not a flick I wanted to show up for alone).

Anyway, the movie details the events of the summer of 2005 as told by some of the members of the 'zoo' community who were present and the horse 'rescuer' who took possession of the animal after the incident.

What happened was, a group of men would meet at an Enumclaw, Washington ranch (after making initial contact through a zoo chat room), have drinks, watch movies and take the party outside. I don't need to be more graphic than that.

And what transpired one July night is what the entire film focuses on—one man—a divorced, father of one and engineer for Boeing, bled to death after intercourse with one of the horses.

Horrific, eh?

Yes. And what's more horrific is that by all accounts (save for the zoo habit), this guy was a productive, taxpaying member of society who boasted a promising career, loved his kid and had a great friendship with his ex-wife.

So how did he get there?

That's the problem with this movie. We have no idea.

Although the interviews are honest and meditative, they don't really offer any insight into why these individuals don't seek partnership with members of their own species. If I went into the theater wanting to learn anything tonight, it's how the hell some people find themselves so mentally messed up that they prefer the stimulation of an animal to a human.

But nothing about the film answered that question—and it's not exactly something you want to have in your browsing history should you decide to investigate for yourself.

If anything good came of the incident, it's that beastiality is now illegal in Washington state (it wasn't at the gentleman's time of death) and perhaps the awareness the movie will bring will make ranch owners check up on their livestock more often.

And I thought I'd seen it all...