I was under the impression that the events of the film were supposed to be true, however after viewing the film I have to assume that the narrative most likely isn’t true.  The film even begins by giving an amusing text that says, “More of this is true than you would believe.”  Maybe because of or in spite of the opening text I found myself forgetting that some of the facts were actually supposed to be facts and not just insanity.  I don’t actually know whether or not anything is based on fact in the film.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the film and the book it was based on were to be outted as entirely fictional.  However, the writer stands by his statements that his book is based on factual events.  This didn’t take away from the fun or intelligently constructed images which made the film worth seeing.

For the most part, the movie takes no political stance.  The plot follows a reporter who by happenstance is thrust into the world of the government agency called the First Earth Battalion.  This agency’s main goal is to produce “warrior monks” who achieve psychic/psionic super powers through new age methods with the intent of non-lethal application.  It’s hilarious in concept and practice.  Hippies are held up as the perfect example of insanity.  Their ideals led them to a place of utter ridiculous belief and ultimately to the belief in their own superpowers.  The film also offers another object of ridicule.  A former First Earth Battalion member, Lynn Cassady (George Clooney), and the reporter, Bob Wilton (Ewan McGreggor), travel into Iraq in order to complete a mission.  There they eventually mean some gun toting Americans who fire on another group of gun toting Americans.  Usually I would be irritated by such blatant representation of the American soldier as ignorant gun-nuts, but earlier in the film they give a more sympathetic and realistic portrayal of (non-hippie) soldiers.  It all serves to show that Average Joes have the capability of compassion and strength while others, specifically hippies and gun-nuts, are on the cusp of insanity. 

The film tries to align itself more toward the hippie’s ideals by showing that the superpowers are a reasonable endeavor.  Midway through the film Cassady displays psychic powers by correctly identifying the locations of lost persons, and other feats of remote viewing.  My initial reaction after viewing the ending of the film was that The Men Who Stare At Goats was trying to fall into the long line of liberally slanted films.  However, upon further analysis, I find that the only thing this movie truly promotes is the ability of achieving superhuman abilities, which could be symbolically interpreted as the ultimate realization of the self and finding inner peace.  The hippie stuff is still idealistic, and potentially dangerous despite poeticism.  I could use evidence from the film to support my claims, but I would rather not ruin the humor of those scenes. 

Even though clever dialogue is important, being able to say a lot without words is just as important.  The Men Who Stare At Goats is written in such a way that allows for he image to speak for itself.

Ironically, this film has a voice over by Wilton.  A voice over is only necessary if it brings something to the audience that couldn’t have been given any other way.  The major reason this movie used a voice over was to make the transition from novel to screen more natural.  I don’t know that it was absolutely necessary, but I was pleased with it.  Even in films that use a voice over well, like Zombieland, the voice over itself can be stereotyped in tone.  Maybe the voice over in The Men Who Stare At Goats falls into stereotype, but it’s been a while since I’ve heard this type of voice over.  Wilton is utterly convinced that he experienced something magnificent.  He’s convinced not only that he was on a worthwhile adventure, but that the adventure was more spiritually epic than he had imagined possible.  The reason this worked is because Wilton is able to develop his character through his experience with the insanity that is Lynn Cassady.  Wilton ends the film with personal revelations that are explicitly stated in the voice over, but he doesn’t dwell on how he came to those conclusions.  This film understands that the audience has already seen the film and they don’t need to flog us with themes. Personally, I think a theme should be left unstated so that after the film the audience has something to talk about other than, “Man that was funny,” or, “That explosion was cool.”

The Verdict:  I’m giving The Men Who Stare At Goats a 4 out of 5.  It’s funny.  Plain and simple: it’s a good time. At times there may not have been the proper build to certain plot points, but those are few and far between.  The movie’s biggest downfall is that it’s obvious that it’s trying to turn a novel into a movie.  Ultimately I don’t care.  This movie has enough unspoken thought behind it that it’s worth watching again.

-Vince

If the art on the cover of a comic book is pretty, clever, or just disturbing enough, it’s very often enough to sell me the issue. Books, on the other hand, rarely work that way. But it did work for this year’s Pride and Prejudice and Zombies by Seth Grahame-Smith, a hillarious re-work of the classic (and, I’m sorry, honestly pretty dull) 1813 Jane Austen novel. I’m not finished with it so I’ll save a full review for later, but the zombies make it interesting enough that it’s finally worth reading for me. And if you look at it along side a copy of the original, it’s really fun to see how close the prose is to the original.

Like all successful works of horror, since it turned out to be a surprising sensation, more will follow. According to this week’s issue of Entertainment Weekly, authors Amanda Gange and Regina Jeffers are turning Mr. Darcy into a vampire in Mr. Darcy, Vampyre, coming out next month and Darcy’s Hunger coming out in December. And Michael Thomas Ford will be doing something really crazy– turning Jane Austin herself into a vampire– in Jane Bites Back, also coming in December.

You know, this is all well and good. I was hoping for more of this stuff, because it really is hillarious. But what’s with the fixation on Jane Austin? Are none of the other classics worth ruining with horror motifs? (And, by the way, I really don’t feel like anyone’s “ruining” this stuff. It’s all in good fun, and any classic lit buffs who really hate it don’t have to read it). How about Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry-Warewolf Finn or William Golding’s Lord of the Zombies? And a book I think could really use some zombies? Great Expectations by Charles Dickens.

LLAP

-Cap’n Logan