One Of The Worst Movies Of Late, Jack And Jill Enters The Holiday Cinematic Slump Poorly.

The Good: Moments of acting, One or two jokes.
The Bad: Mostly not funny, Light on character, Lack of decent plot, Much of the acting is bad.
The Basics: Jack And Jill flops into the expected position around the holidays with a predictable, terribly un-funny film.


Movies have some very cyclical seasons, something I became very much aware of a few years back when I was at a screening of Four Christmases (reviewed here!). Usually, right before Oscar Pandering Season - the late-November, December period wherein all of the major studios put out the movies they hope will get Best Picture and acting awards - there is a family friendly time around the holidays when the studios put out some of the suckiest, schlockiest movies that couldn't even hold up during the September Slump. In the last few years, Oscar Pandering Season has been broken up to surround the Holiday Slump. This year, The Help (reviewed here!) opened up Oscar Pandering Season before even the back-to-school slump. My point here, at the beginning of my review of Jack And Jill is that it ought not to have been any surprise at all that the movie, released right at the open of the Holiday Slump, was just plain terrible.

And it is. Jack And Jill is easily as bad as one might expect from the hundreds of previews aired in the last two weeks during every single network comedy. Part of the reason for that is that it returns Adam Sandler to the mindless fare that made him after he left Saturday Night Live. Desperately paired at various points with his former peers David Spade, Tim Meadows, Norm MacDonald, and Dana Carvey, Adam Sandler reminds the viewers that he became funny more on gimmicks than a genuine sense of comic genius.

Jack Sadelstein is an advertising executive who has been trying hard to get Al Pacino to appear in one of the commercials he is directing. His wife, Erin, puts up with his antics and raises their two children. For Thanksgiving, Jack's twin sister, Jill, comes to visit. She is more manic than he is and Jack frequently mocks her. After Thanksgiving, Jill does not leave and the while Jack is irritated that she has remained, Erin is a bit more empathetic to her.

Jill lags around the house and town, but in the process actually runs into Al Pacino. As the Jack and Jill interact, they learn to relate better and . . . who cares?

It's hard to stretch out writing even two paragraphs about the plot of Jack And Jill for the simple reason that the film is not as all about things that happen or even the characters that make them happen. Jack And Jill is a gimmick film. The whole point of it is to have Adam Sandler play a character - Jill - in drag. What happens in Jack And Jill is secondary to the shock value of seeing Sandler in a dress, a miniskirt and other female garb. The problem the movie runs into - other than rampant misogyny - is that the shock value wears off - in fact, if you've seen one preview, the shock value already is gone.

The key to a successful gimmick comedy - Bubba Ho-Tep (reviewed here!) is the highest-rated example of a gimmick comedy - is to use the gimmick to then say something larger than the gimmick. So, for example, in Bubba Ho-Tep when the geriatric Elvis and JFK go to fight a mummy, they learn their celebrity was not a fluke, they actually have talent and vitality. The two men bond to realize that, despite the fact that they have been dead to the world, they have a promise and power that is substantial. In other words, they find their worth and the battle with the mummy is metaphorical and makes a larger statement on the comedic gem of the premise of an old Elvis and a black John F. Kennedy living in a nursing home.

Jack And Jill has no such larger theme. Instead, it is a formulaic plot movie where the comedy comes not from anything fundamental from the characters. It is the set-up and that wears thin. Fast.

As for the acting, Adam Sandler will not be the next Eddie Murphy. Jill is in no way a fully realized character; she is Adam Sandler in drag and Sandler illustrates that his abilities toward the qualitative were something of a fluke. Sandler wowed audiences with real characters who were complex and different from others he had done in movies, like Punch-Drunk Love (Reviewed here!). Jack And Jill is a relapse from Adam Sandler along the road to quality performances and complex characters.

Sandler does not drag down others with him; they throw themselves in front of his train willingly. Most notable is Katie Holmes, who takes one of the least worthwhile supporting performances in the history of comedy as Erin. Holmes has pretty much put the final nail in her career's coffin. Who else would turn down The Dark Knight but take Jack And Jill?

Ultimately, Jack And Jill is not funny, it is not clever and it is not at all original. In the end, it is a waste not only of the money to see it in theaters, but the time one could be doing . . . pretty much anything else.

For other works with Katie Holmes, please check out my reviews of:
Thank You For Smoking
Batman Begins
Dawson's Creek - Season One
Wonder Boys

2.5/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Seamless Sequels Without The Spark: The Godfather, Part II Leaves Me Less Impressed.

The Good: Decent acting, Great DVD bonus features
The Bad: Character conflicts/developments are actually minimal, Plot has largely been done before
The Basics: The Godfather, Part II might be the only sequel to win Best Picture after its predecessor won, but it is more a tired continuation of the original than something new.


The Godfather, Part II, for those who do not know, holds a distinction that no other movie holds at this point. It is the only movie that is a sequel to a film that won the Best Picture that also won the top Oscar prize. While there have been a few oddities as far as winners for Best Picture goes, there are few noteworthy films that have Best Picture trivia that have less going for them than The Godfather, Part II. While this is the only sequel to win following the first film in the series winning, there are far better sequel movies. Sequels that hold their own with the original or are even better than the first film in the series, like The Empire Strikes Back (reviewed here!) or The Dark Knight (reviewed here!) are not unheard of. But in the case of The Godfather, Part II, writers Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola (who also directed and produced the film) created an extension of the first film which is so closely mirrors the look and feel of the original that one feels more like they are watching some alternate take of the original.

With most movies, it is tough for me to nail down a precise moment when I opt not to recommend the film or I decide that it is not quite the work I thought it might have been at moments I was enjoying it. This is not the case with The Godfather, Part II. Instead, the moment Michael Corleone belts his wife, Kay, across the face, I decided that this was not a film I was going to recommend or one that I was particularly enjoying. I went into The Godfather, Part II blind, so I was actually quite excited to see Robert De Niro playing the younger version of Vito Corleone. But my pleasure at the inspired casting dissipated the longer the film went on and I was left feeling what many people feel when they watch a sequel; that the memory of something great has been brought down by prolonging it.

Now the godfather of the Corleone family, Michael Corleone is extorted by a U.S. Senator when he wants to expand his family's gambling interests in Las Vegas. As Michael confronts the legitimate business interests that have lined up prevent him and his family from taking more of an interest in gambling, he finds himself the target of an assassination attempt. Dealing with Hyman Roth, with whom his father did business despite distrusting, Michael soon begins to suspect that the hit on him came from within the family and it becomes quite clear that his brother Fredo is deeply involved in the conflicting interests in Las Vegas.

As Michael works to go legitimate, save the family business and retain the power his family has accrued over the past fifty years - with the aid of Tom Hagen, his consigliore - the film presents the life story of Vito Corleone, from his younger years in Italy (in the village of Corleone) to his emigration to the United States. Vito's story is told as he arrives in New York and slowly builds power in the community. Starting with helping out a woman who is being evicted for having a dog, Vito becomes more of a powerhouse by refusing to take guff and by doing what others will not to take power.

The mirroring stories are shown with the same sense of color and depth as the original film The Godfather (reviewed here!). This is, in part because Coppola and Puzo wrote and directed the original as well as this sequel. In many ways, The Godfather, Part II continues the story of The Godfather and the characters and their backstories are very much considered assumed knowledge by the producers. So, for example, elements like the climactic scene of the film mean absolutely nothing to people who have not seen the first film. Because the some of the characters in that final scene were only in the first film, the significance of it is only truly realized by those who know the story of all of the characters involved.

What the movie does well - which is why it took me so very long to decide that I did not actually like the film - is both continue the story of the Corleone family and Michael's consolidation of power and casting. When Robert De Niro appeared on screen as the younger Vito Corleone, I instantly saw the resemblance to Marlon Brando's iconic character from The Godfather. De Niro confirms what everyone knows now about him; he is a master actor with a great physical presence and his ability to mimic the mannerisms and even vocal tones of Brando. But the brilliant aspect of De Niro as the younger version of Vito is that he plausibly builds the character from a child into a young man who slowly becomes authoritative and reasons out how to get what he wants from life and those around him.

But beyond that, the movie is remarkably disappointing for those looking for a fresh cinematic experience. While the casting of De Niro is brilliant initially, the mirroring stories start with clear labels of the time and place. As the movie goes on, The Godfather, Part II drops the labels, but the color palate between both times is so remarkably similar that it takes a few moments for the viewer to realize when they are in the story being told. What doesn't help is that Al Pacino and Robert De Niro are frequently made to look like one another and this makes figuring out when one is in the story a bit more difficult.

But more than having real character development in the Michael Corleone plot, The Godfather, Part II simply rehashes much of what viewers have seen before. Michael is slow-burning, but lacks anything to set him apart from the other Corleones. At this point, he is simply a wannabe Vito. As well, he illustrates some of the traits - like smacking around his wife - that he has previously despised. As a result, it becomes quite easy to not care about large chunks of the film. Similarly, while seeing Vito's rise to power is interesting, because viewers who have seen The Godfather know how his story ends, the process is distracted from being truly engaging by the cutaways to Michael's story. As well, peripheral characters like Tom Hagen do not develop or evolve at all in this film.

On the two-disc DVD, The Godfather, Part II is presented with a commentary track and in widescreen format. There may be additional bonus features on newer DVD releases, but the two-disc version is fairly spartan. The film is also not cleaned up ideally for DVD and there were several points in the movie - not correlating to time periods - where the print looked grainier than others.

As far as those who love great drama, The Godfather, Part II is liable to disappoint. There are moments that the film is engaging and the Senate hearings into the Corleone family are different, but for the most part the movie feels like a familiar character study with some scenes we have not seen before. And, considering I'd already sat through three hours of this family doing similar things, this movie just seemed more redundant than incredible.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project online here! Please check it out!]

For other films with Robert De Niro, please check out:
The Untouchables
Brazil
The Deer Hunter

7/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

One Man Allows Circumstances To Change His Life With The Godfather (An Almost Perfect Film).

The Good: Amazing acting, Moments of character, Great plot development, Decent soundtrack, Great DVD bonus features.
The Bad: None of the characters are particularly likable.
The Basics: Powerful and well-shot, The Godfather tells the story of the passing of the guard in a Mafia family.


According to the American Film Institute, The Godfather is the second-best film of all time, right behind Citizen Kane (reviewed here!). Neither film made it onto my own "Top Ten Films Of All Time" list, but The Godfather at least makes a run at a perfect film, whereas I'd argue Citizen Kane is largely successful because of the hype as opposed to the substance of the film. Even so, having seen The Godfather twice now, whether or not it is a perfect film or not can be the subject of debate; and ultimately, my take on it is that the film is a near-miss on perfection.

For sure, I understand that The Godfather is an epic tale and that it has depth and subtlety and even a character arc that develops wonderfully throughout the film. But even as the tale of Michael Corleone develops, I find it hard to care. Despite the story developing and unfolding well, Michael Corleone is hardly the greatest character of all time and the true disappointment is not how Michael rises up to become a Mafia Godfather, but rather his failure to resist the pressures on him. In fact, Michael is a weak man whose bad behavior is supposed to be somehow justified by the tragedies that surround him. This makes him far, far less impressive to me and I tend to prefer characters who act, who make their destinies, as opposed to those who surrender to the pressures that overwhelm them. Even so, there is enough in The Godfather to enthusiastically recommend it.

In New York City, in 1945, Connie Corleone is marrying Carlo Rizzi, which brings together the entire Corleone family, a powerful Mafia family that is one of New York's Five Families. On that day, Vito Corleone - the Godfather of the Family - cannot refuse the request of any who request favors of him, as part of an old Sicilian tradition. He is asked by his godson, singer Johnny Fontane, to help him get a movie role and Vito dispatches his consigliere, Tom Hagen, to California to take care of the problem. Among the guests is Vito's youngest son, an American Marine, Michael. Michael has effectively distanced himself from the family business. In fact, he is at such a distance that when rival gangster Sollozzo attempts to get the Corleone's into the heroin trafficking racket and Vito refuses (whatwith it being impractical for the other rackets the Corleones are involved in) and a hit is placed on Vito, no one bothers to take Michael out.

With Vito hanging onto life by a thread, Michael takes out Sollozzo and corrupt cop McCluskey and goes into hiding in Sicily. While Michael is in Sicily, the hotheaded Sonny keeps the Corleone family together during a turf war that wages on. When Carlo begins beating Connie, Sonny is drawn out and killed by his rivals. Michael is forced to return to the United States (his young wife also being killed) and he assumes the mantle of power from Vito, after the Godfather does what he can to end the war.

The Godfather is a weird combination of being packed with characters and being very plot-heavy. The thing is, characters in the film are annoyingly monolithic and as such, the film lacks some emotional impact in that none of them are terribly likable. Almost all of the old guard Mafia types are racists (which brings the drug trafficking plot to a pretty easy, if disturbing, resolution), Carlo is a dumb, abusive wifebeater, and the only aspect of the personalities we see of almost all of the primary characters is their business life. I'm not saying that the film would be better if one of the scenes opened with Sonny being interrupted while making additions to his stamp collection, but it certainly would give him some element of character that is unique and distinctive other than being a violent mobster.

In that regard, the two characters who actually have the most going for them are the Godfather, Vito, and Michael, but both are ultimately unsatisfying characters. Vito actually stands for something in that he does not want to risk his business interests over drugs when he is happy to control more reasonable vices (drinking and gambling). He is a pragmatist in this regard and he doesn't want to jeopardize his political connections with something politicians will never support. He is also something of a family man, but that level of character is displayed in the three lines a rival boss has at the climactic meeting (one of the bosses argues against getting involved in the drug trade because he doesn't want kids to get hooked). As a result, we are left watching a goon for two and a half hours and it is difficult to care what happens to a corrupt individual who is happy to employ murderous henchmen to do his bidding.

Similarly, Michael Corleone starts out as having more character than he ends up with and the transition is problematic in that circumstances change his life, not his strength of character. Michael is off living his own life when he makes a bad decision - getting revenge on the corrupt cop and the man who tried to have his father killed. After his one moment of actually acting and making a choice of his own, he spends the entire film reacting until he is pigeonholed into a role others (or "fate") select for him. He does not have the strength of character to refuse the wishes of others or to get out while he still can. This climaxes in the final scene of the film where he makes a conscious choice to do something truly despicable and by the end of the film, all of his promise is gone.

The thing is, too few people want to make the argument that Michael controls his own actions, but the truth is, he does. After one bad choice, Michael continues to make bad choices, but they are his choices. As a result, when he strikes out in a direction that is problematic or takes his character in a disappointing direction, he owns those mistakes.

The Godfather has a pretty immense cast of characters and they rotate throughout the film and come up or are referenced with such frequency that it might help to have a map. And while the casting of The Godfather is exceptional in that it uses some truly amazing talents, it is problematic in that some of the roles are cast far too closely to one another. So, for example, James Caan (Sonny) and Giani Russo (Carlo) have some resemblance; I stepped out for a moment and returned during a scene where Carlo is beating Connie and it took me a moment to realize it wasn't Sonny. Even Simonetta Stefanelli (Apollonia) looks like a younger, more tanned version of Diane Keaton. But for the essential roles, the casting is wonderful and Robert Duvall, Al Pacino and Marlon Brando are all amazing. Duval plays Tom Hagen and he is respectably smart in the role, embodying a lawyer quite well.

It surprised me to realize how few works I've seen Marlon Brando in before The Godfather. For all of the films I've seen, I've only seen Marlon Brando in The Score and On The Waterfront (reviewed here!). The Godfather is his comeback role and the one that defines him for pretty much anyone born after 1975 or who is not a fan of older movies. Brando mumbles his way through the film as the powerful Vito Corleone, easily establishing himself as one of the most memorable cinematic characters of all time. He has a dignity and strength of presence on screen that never dissipates. In fact, when Vito retires, he manages to change his entire body language and it works.

Similarly, Al Pacino is wonderful as Michael. For all of the problems with the character, Pacino is amazing as Michael. Distinctly different from his role in Glengarry Glen Ross (reviewed here!), Pacino starts the film with Michael as a likable guy who is just trying to avoid becoming like his parents. In those scenes, he is wonderfully casual, he's just a guy and seeing him smile and relax makes him seem like the most unlikely character to go down such a dark path. Pacino is electric as he slowly changes his whole demeanor to become more methodical and cold as the film goes on.

On DVD, The Godfather is packed with bonus features. There is an impressive commentary track that is very informative. In addition, there is an entire disc filled with featurettes on the translation of the novel into the film, the filming of The Godfather, its place in cinematic history and more. As well, there are the theatrical trailers for the movie and extensive interviews with the cast and crew on the effect of the film. Truly this is one of the most impressive DVD sets for a classic film.

In fact, it is just enough to bring up a film that has lousy characters to the status where I can enthusiastically recommend it. The Godfather is close to perfect, but as far as DVD special editions go, it is hard to ask for more.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, available here! Please check it out!]

9.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

Adventures In Real Estate, A Razor-thin Decision On Glengarry Glen Ross.

The Good: Acting, Character, Details, Human Understanding
The Bad: Plot, Language
The Basics: Strangely, a combination of excellent actors and fine characters set in a plot so realistic as to go nowhere and detract seriously from entertaining with Glengarry Glen Ross.


Every now and then there comes along a film that we, the viewer, know is good and we take it for granted that it's good, even if we don't understand quite why. Glengarry Glen Ross is supposedly one of those movies. The truth is, it's a fine film, though it's one that came down to the toss of a coin as to whether or not to recommend the movie.

Glengarry Glen Ross follows the lives of four real estate salesmen at a real estate firm and their boss. The film focuses primarily on Shelley Levene, an aging agent who is trying desperately to make money to send for his hospitalized daughter. He works under the tight-assed John Williamson and works with the currently on a hot streak Ricky Roma. The film focuses most on those three, though there is a pleasant amount of time spent with two other agents who are very disenchanted with the office after all of their jobs are threatened.

When all four agents are threatened with meeting a monthly quota, they are told they won't get the leads they need in order to meet the quotas until they sell some units. (Confused? Bare with me into the analysis, I'm with you on this one!) Immediately, two of the agents concoct a plan to skip the b.s., steal the good leads and sell them to another agency. When the principles return to work the next day, it appears the heist has happened, but who actually pulled it off comes into question and the remainder of the film is something of a mystery trying to figure out who the guilty party is.

Where the film succeeds is in its characters and actors. The actors are all talented, they're all playing to their strengths. The acting is amazing. And it's a good thing, too; the characters they are playing are demanding. Yet Jack Lemmon (Levene), Kevin Spacy (Williamson), and Al Pacino (Roma) all achieve success with their full on performances. One of my favorites, Jonathan Pryce, appears as well delivering a performance with subtlety and precision. I also have to say Ed Harris and Alan Arkin, who play the other two agents, are perfectly paired. They are funny and their banter is extraordinarily quick.

Where the film fails is in its realism. It's too realistic. The dialogue is so precisely true to the profession of the salesmen that it is isolating to those not in the field. In fact, seeing the down and dirty ends of the salesmen's lives does nothing to make those of us on the other end of the phone like them more. It's a man eat man world and it's portrayed very realistically and it's off-putting especially when the characters speak. They throw around terms like leads (which are basically mailing lists of potential clients) and units (which we never know specifically how much one is) with complete understanding. Often the film is like sitting between people telling an inside joke. Most of us are not on the inside.

While the dialogue is very precise, it's also not terribly complimentary. The f-word pops up way too frequently as do some even less desirable words. While these instances speak very much to the quality of the characters, it does become distracting at points. Moreover, the endless stories the characters tell each other, while saying a great deal about the industry and the characters, they become grating to the viewer, detracting from any sense of movement.

While the film credits clearly reveal that this film was based on a play, part of the problem is it reads that way. That is, there are differences between putting on a play and making a movie; they're two different mediums. The static feeling of the direction of this film makes it seem like a play. It doesn't use the full range of what film can be, so it feels like a filmed play.

While the fundamentals are strong in acting and character, the plot takes a long time to begin and then seems to go nowhere. In the end, the film's dominating sales-oriented dogma, drowns the viewer and makes it not terribly entertaining. Recommended for anyone who likes any of the actors involved, but no one beyond that. My recommendation honestly came down to the flip of a coin.

For other tight, character-driven dramas, please check out my reviews of:
The Game
The Dark Knight
Wall Street

5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my index page!

© 2010, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |