The Unknown Known - 2014 - 3½ Stars

Subject:  Donald Rumsfeld and his career at the highest echelons of decision-making
Director:  Errol Morris

I'd watch anything Errol Morris does, so I'm not really a good person to review his films.  Some might find his visual style distracting, and while it wasn't particularly inspired this time around, it's still far superior to the talking head style that dominates most factual-type documentaries.  There can be unnecessary visual irony in Morris films, but here, the ironies are almost all audio-based.  And there's some doozies.

Note:  Some Spoilers Ahead

Morris is unkind to Rumsfeld - I wish that he had let Rumsfeld hang himself more.  We don't get a real good account of Rumsfeld's early career - how did he rise to power?  Morris's film seems to imply it's by Machiavellian means.  We don't get much of a look at what he was doing between stints in the White Houses, and we don't get a clear explanation of why George H.W. Bush hated him.  The strong implication from the film is that Rumsfeld is somewhat of a stooge - he's the kind of person who runs to the dictionary when he's asked what something means.  He holds press conferences on a war where he appears absolutely delighted to be the center of attention.  He's vainglorious and condescending.  He seems to offer no answers to questions he's not interested in answering - not even half answers.  Indeed, the final question of the film is a brutal gut punch, because I think I believe Rumsfeld when he says he has no idea why he agreed to do this film.  He must've seen Morris's A Fog Of War, which at least to me portrayed Robert McNamara as a guy who had the wrong idea about stuff but a man who could explain himself.  Rumsfeld's lies are barely concealed, and indeed, he seems like a walking affirmation of the Peter Principle.  Shame for the nation, then.

Spartan - 2004 - 3 Stars

Actors:  Val Kilmer, Derek Luke
Director:  David Mamet

I think Spartan is probably a failure.  It's about 45 minutes of dynamite Hitchcockian thriller.  Then it's about an hour of plot threads coming together in a way that reveals the weakness of the plot.  Hitchcock films are almost universally ridiculous, plot-wise - the way they work is by letting the viewer know as much as the protagonist.  Mamet violates this rule about halfway through the movie and it leaves us wondering when the protagonist will realize his error - and we know that he must, otherwise there's no movie - and what's left is us knowing both more and less than the protagonist.  Either way it's got some fun Mamet-y dialogue - not enough to save the film.  I give it 3 stars on the basis of the beginning alone, really.  When you shoot for a modern Manchurian Candidate, sometimes you end up with this.