Good-Looking Mess: Why Alice Through The Looking Glass Fizzles!

The Good: Good effects, Moments of theme, Sacha Baron Cohen
The Bad: Dull plot, Obvious character work, A number of terrible or inconsistent performances
The Basics: Even Johnny Depp's occasional energetic performance cannot save the dismal Alice Through The Looking Glass from its own issues.


Summer Blockbuster Season is, predictably, chock full of sequels. One of the more anticipated and direct sequels to drop in 2016 is Alice Through The Looking Glass, which is a sequel to the live-action Tim Burton film Alice In Wonderland (reviewed here!). Alice Through The Looking Glass has the honor of being the final credited film for the late Alan Rickman and his very minor role in the film bookends his career in an unfortunately mediocre way.

Alice Through The Looking Glass is directed by James Bobin instead of Tim Burton and it reunites most of the cast of Alice In Wonderland. Bobin's work retains the look and feel of Burton's work, at least after its initial straightforward set-up. Alice Through The Looking Glass relies heavily upon information from the first film and stands poorly on its own, making it feel very much like a sequel. Like its predecessor, Alice Through The Looking Glass prioritizes style over substance for the bulk of the film.

Opening in 1874 in the Straits Of Malacca, Alice Kingsleigh is commanding her father's ship as it outruns pursuing pirates. Her skillful maneuvers allow her ship to escape and they return to London safely. In London, Alice discovers that Hamish now runs the company that sent her on the expedition to China and he leverages her boat and home against the young woman. After Hamish's maneuver to get Alice to surrender her ship, Alice follows a butterfly through a mirror to a drawing room in the sky through which she enters Underland. In the magical world of Underland, she learns that the Mad Hatter is not well . . . in a way that is inconsistent with his usual madness.

Meeting with the Hatter, Alice learns that when he found his very first paper hat, the Mad Hatter leapt to the conclusion that if the hat could survive the Jabberwockey attack, then his family must have survived as well. The White Queen, Mirana, sends Alice to Time to use the Chronosphere to rescue the Hatter's family on the day they die and return them to the future to make the Mad Hatter sane and well again. Time rejects Alice's request and when the Red Queen, Iracebeth, arrives, Alice uses the distraction to steal the Chronosphere. Persued by Time into the past, Alice attempts to save the Hatter's family and then prevent the accident which made Iracebeth into a villainess.

Alice Through The Looking Glass is predicated largely on the idea that Alice has a deep love for the Hatter that was hardly indicated in the prior film. The character leap that viewers are asked to take initially is that Alice would risk life, death and the temporal ramifications of time travel to help save the life and, relative, sanity, of the Hatter based on how she feels for him. That emotional bond is not developed in the two films well-enough to be a realistic motivation at the outset.

The film is dominated by style, so the initial problem with character is quickly matched by problems on the acting front. Mia Wasikowska plays Alice and she delivers lines that are strong and emphatic, while having a physical performance based on the same wide-eyed disbelief and uncertainty, which is a troubling acting choice. While she gets eye-lines right for her interactions with virtual characters, she fails to bring anything new or significant to the role of Alice with her acting.

The usually amazing Anne Hathaway is surprisingly bland as Mirana. Hathaway resumes the body language of her prior part, without having the wonderful, strange, off-putting detachment the character had in the first film. While Hathaway's vitality and range of emotional expression play well and fine for the scenes in the past, the scenes in the "present" stand out as problematically incongruent with the established character. Johnny Depp's performance is one of his most bland, with him simply blithely lisping through his lines. With the themes of distant fathers being explored in Alice Through The Looking Glass, Depp's performance seems troublingly derivative of his portrayal of Willy Wonka in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory (reviewed here!).

In fact, the most instantly energized performer in Alice Through The Looking Glass is Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohen once again creates an entirely new and different persona for himself as Time. Cohen's Time is weird and awkward and he steals his scenes, even when they are not especially good. Cohen's Time quickly overshadows Helena Bonham Carter's Iracebe to draw the eye and capture the viewer's attention.

Amid lines that play off every cliche about time, Alice Through The Looking Glass tries to marvel the viewer with bright colors and generally-competent computer generated effects. The effects are one of the few things going for the film.

Unfortunately, it is not enough. Alice Through The Looking Glass attempts to blend past and present, reality and Underland, into a story that seeks to both reinvigorate wonder and illustrate the drastic consequences to attempting to change time. It fails to satisfactorily impress or entertain viewers. The result is a good-looking mess that is a poor end to the legacy of Alan Rickman.

For other works with Matt Lucas, please check out my reviews of:
"Thin Ice" - Doctor Who
"The Pilot" - Doctor Who
"The Return Of Doctor Mysterio" - Doctor Who
"The Husbands Of River Song" - Doctor Who
Paddington
Bridesmaids

2/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2016 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Why Trekkers Love Galaxy Quest

The Good: Funny, Decent acting, Good concept
The Bad: Predictable plot and character arcs
The Basics: In a clever science fiction comedy, a crew of actors from a science fiction show are impressed by aliens to save their race from a brutal enemy.


As I consider Galaxy Quest, a story Robert Picardo (Star Trek Voyager) told at a Star Trek convention comes to mind. The venerable actor was on stage talking about being on a plane when the in-flight movie was Galaxy Quest. Several people on the plane had recognized him from his work on Star Trek and as he watched, he noticed people on the plane watching him with a generally nervous sense about them. He commented on how when he started laughing and made it clear that he was enjoying the film, the plane began to openly enjoy the movie. It was like the people on the plane who respected Picardo and his work needed his permission to enjoy the parody. Picardo, for his part, enjoyed the film quite a bit; he has quite a good sense of humor (actually, he's one of the funniest people alive today and he was perfectly cast as The Doctor on Star Trek Voyager). The thing is, most Trekkers - which I count myself as - have a sense of humor about our subculture and were thrilled to have a movie that actually includes us (even if in parody).

Years after the cult-classic science fiction show Galaxy Quest is canceled, the actors from the show are finding themselves virtually unemployable as actors and working the convention circuit making money signing autographs and dealing with their fans one on one. The star of the show, Jason Nesmith - who played the captain of the ship - is egocentric and thrives on the celebrity, while his sidekick, the accomplished actor Alexander Dane laments the loss of his legitimate career. When actual aliens arrive to enlist Nesmith in a fight against an oppressive adversary - misinterpreting the old television show broadcasts for historical documents - Nesmith reunites the cast to try to bluff their way through saving the galaxy.

The fundamental problem, of course, is that Nesmith is an actor, not a starship captain, just as Fred Kwan is not an engineer, Tommy is not a pilot and Dane is not actually an alien (though for the convention, he has donned his prosthetic). When it becomes clear that the stakes are life and death, the actors must rise to the occasion and work together to save the galaxy.

There are too few science fiction comedies out there. There are even fewer that are smart science fiction comedies (Dude, Where's My Car? - reviewed here - for example, would fall into the "not smart science fiction" category). Galaxy Quest manages to be a smart science fiction comedy in addition to being a clever commentary on the role of television - specifically shows that have a cult following - in American society and culture. Part of what makes this show work is the concept of how roles like the fictional show Galaxy Quest provide can both make actors and destroy their careers, sprout a loyal and devoted audience and isolate that following from living balanced lives. That's clever and well-executed in this film. It's what we in the subculture "get."

Some Trekkers object to the parody, as most of the fans in Galaxy Quest are overweight, living with their parents and dateless males. Writers David Howard and Robert Gordon call it as they see it and their representation is an accurate parody, the hyperbole of the most visible and disturbing element of the subculture (i.e. it's hard to parody the NASA engineer who was inspired by Star Trek as effectively as the socially-isolated teen whose sole interface with others is the convention experience).

As for the story itself - outside the commentary it seeks to make - Galaxy Quest is solidly entertaining. Nesmith and his crew of actors face the amusing foibles of acclimating to a real ship based on the one they operated for years on their television show. As they experience wonder at stepping on alien worlds and horror at the brutality of the enemy's attacks, the audience finds their fish-out-of-water struggle entertaining.

A lot of it, though, is tied closely with the commentary, though. So, for example, Gwen DeMarco, Jason's quasi-love interest and costar, finds herself feeling useless and angry as her role on the show - and on the ship - was to ask the computer for information. This is a terrible role to play in reality and one that is frequently redundant. Yet, watching her adapt to being the interface on the ship is amusing. Equally amusing is engineer Fred Kwan's easy adaptation to the ship, as if jumping off into outer space and becoming chief engineer of a space vessel happens every day to him.

While the character arcs are largely predictable - Nesmith learns the value of teamwork, Dane discovers the importance of the role he has so long despised - the characters here are intriguing. Nesmith is an entirely self-absorbed egoist and it's refreshing to see how he reacts when faced with reality. After all, how does a man whose career is based on the force of his personality react and survive when real peril presents itself? There's the famous quote to the effect of faking confidence and actual confidence yield the same result and Galaxy Quest seeks to explore that using the foil characters of Nesmith and Dane.

What sells Galaxy Quest to the larger audience is certainly the acting. Tim Allen pulls off the preening egoist Nesmith with amazing efficiency and realism. Allen, as Nesmith, energizes the convention audience when he appears on stage and it is Allen's innate charisma that convinces the movie audience that this is realistic. Allen can work a crowd and in his early scenes as Nesmith, he embodies that type of performer.

Sigourney Weaver, who portrays Gwen, is wonderful as a frustrated actress who lives very much in the real world. Weaver's strength in Galaxy Quest comes from being able to effectively play off Allen and convince the audience of the reality of their love-hate relationship.

Alan Rickman is great as Alexander Dane, though it seems like the role is not a stretch for such a dignified actor. Similarly, Tony Shalhoub (best known for his performance of the quirky detective Monk) is great as the easygoing engineer Kwan. Like Rickman, however, the role does not seem to push the actor into any terribly new territory. Instead, this is a role he makes appear effortless and the enjoyment in watching him perform is for the humor he is able to bring out as a result.

One of my favorite performances in Galaxy Quest comes in the form of Enrico Colantoni's portrayal of the extraterrestrial Mathesar. Colantoni is probably best known to American audiences as the promiscuous photographer Elliot on Just Shoot Me, though he gave an incredible dramatic performance of a mentally retarded son of Andy's sponsor on NYPD Blue for a few episodes in the second season. Colantoni is able to combine the two performances into a humorous, unsettlingly weird presentation of an alien on Earth with Mathesar. He steals the scenes he is in.

All in all, Galaxy Quest is solidly entertaining and genuinely funny, though the humor does not hold up terribly well over multiple (5+) viewings. It's worth your attention and a lot of fun for science fiction fans. Or those who like mocking us.

For other science fiction comedies, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Men In Black III
Paul


7/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Disappointment From The Science Fiction Humor Branch: The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy

The Good: Moments of humor, Decent casting
The Bad: Nothing superlative on the acting, character or plot front, Pacing, Special effects
The Basics: In a disappointing film, The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy fails to make me laugh or go anywhere.


From the beginning, with what little I know about his works, I knew that Douglas Adams's science fiction humor series that began with The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy would be almost impossible to translate into a successful film. Why? It's all about Adams's writing style. What makes the few chapters of his books I've read so funny is not what happens in them, but rather the asides Adams makes or the phrasing he uses. Adams goes on tangents that are quite funny, but they make it almost impossible to make a movie version that is anywhere near as funny as the book.

Enter Arthur Dent, a Brit who is standing up to keep his house from being demolished by the State so a new expressway can go through. He is abducted by his eccentric friend Ford Prefect just before the Earth is destroyed by galactic construction workers who are making a galactic expressway. Prefect and Dent escape only to find themselves at the whim of the bureaucratic Vogons and the eccentric space captain Zaphod Beeblebrox. Accompanied by the self-deprecating robot Marvin and another human survivor, Trillian, Dent works to survive in the galaxy and do what he can to find a home now that Earth is destroyed.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy left me with a real "ho-hum" feeling that one does not want to leave a comedy with. First off, the pacing was rather off. This movie is less than two hours long, but it felt much, much longer. The movie does not have a real strong sense of going somewhere. Instead, we are supposed to be amused by where we find ourselves, just looking around to see what the galaxy is like. And it's not enough. Expecting the setting to carry the movie does not work.

Outside the destruction of Earth, the special effects are terrible. The Vogons look like they were put together by the BBC. There's nothing extraordinary or even visually intriguing about the special effects. Some, like Beeblebrox's switching heads, are just plain silly.

None of the characters pop, save Ford Prefect. Arthur Dent is a common, ordinary guy who is thrust into circumstances well beyond his control or reckoning. And while that might be an intriguing premise, he is a common man and therefor is terribly uninteresting to watch until he rises above that and by that time, frankly, the viewer does not care. Instead, we're left wondering why the alien Prefect would have saved Dent as opposed to someone more interesting.

Prefect, on the other hand, is flamboyant, funny and quirky. He is smooth-talking, educated in the ways of the galaxy and knows how to get around. His character works and is more than just a "type." Trillian is relegated to "female lead" and Beeblebrox is just a crazy space captain. None keep our attention like Ford Prefect.

Prefect is played by musician and actor Mos Def. He plays the part well, with articulate grace and humor that makes him the character and the performance to watch. Mos Def carries almost every scene he's in and he makes the movie bearable.

Similarly, Martin Freeman adequately plays Arthur Dent. Freeman is not given much to work with, but he does a good job playing an everyman. He sells us on Dent as the common man and that is, I suppose, his point.

But in the end, this movie is simply not all that funny. I laughed once or twice, but for the most part, I waited. I waited for humor. I waited for something intriguing to happen. Ultimately, I was just waiting for the movie to end. At least it ended.

I don't know who would like this film. I went with someone who was a big fan of the books and she was as disappointed as I was. If you're looking for a good time and a funny movie, this isn't it, though.

For other science fiction comedies, please visit my reviews of:
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Alien Trespass
Planet 51

3/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movie reviews I have written!

© 2012, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Why The Harry Potter Collection Isn't All It Ought To Be.

The Good: Movies get better and better, Decent effects, Good overall story
The Bad: Glaring plot and character problems, Lack of consistent effects (especially retroactively)
The Basics: Despite what legions of fans of the Harry Potter franchise might want, the Harry Potter Ultimate Collection is not the greatest cinematic triumph of all time.


I never intended to get into or watch the Harry Potter movies. Then, like magic, I fell in love and the woman I fell in love with was a big fan of the franchise. She had read all of the Harry Potter books and when we got together, the franchise wasn't quite over, so I ended up going through the movies that were out and then the new movies as they came out. The movie franchise has grossed billions of dollars and has a hugely loyal following, so I'm not exactly expecting to light the world on fire with my considerations of the Harry Potter Collection, but for those with an open mind or coming late to the party - as I did - there are some very helpful notes I can provide on the franchise.

First, it is worth noting that I have considered each of the Harry Potter films on their own. Those reviews, which are the substantive content of The Harry Potter Collection, are at:
Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone
Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets
Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban
Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire
Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Furthermore, it bears repeating that I have not read the books upon which this movie franchise is based and as such, this is a very pure review of the movie franchise. I've heard innumerable times in comments to my film reviews, "well, in the book . . .": This is NOT a review of the book series, it is the film series as it stands up on its own.

Harry Potter is deposited as an infant on the doorstep of his aunt and uncle, the Dursley's, where he is raised as the lesser child. Forced to live under the stairs, he is surprised on his eleventh birthday when he is invited to go study at Hogwart's School Of Witchcraft And Wizardry. Previously unaware of his family's magical talents, he is taken under the wing of Rubeus Hagrig who helps him get school supplies and sends him on his way to the private magical school. En route, he meets the poor, bumbling Ron Weasley and the brilliant, booksmart Hermione Granger. Together, the three are inducted into the same House in Hogwart's and they begin studying magic. Harry draws the attention of the school's headmaster, Albus Dumbledore, who was instrumental in saving Harry's life the night his parents were killed.

Harry begins to study magic with those around him convinced there is something special about him, more than just the scar on his forehead. Soon, it becomes clear to Harry that he is special; he is the only known survivor of an attack by the great evil, Lord Voldemort. Voldemort, it appears, was killed, but still has followers in our world. Throughout the years, clues emerge that the followers of Voldemort, the Death Eaters, are working to bring the dark lord back to Earth and that Harry Potter has a connection to him. As the forces of evil gather, Harry is tutored in magic to meet his destiny: to stop the dark lord from destroying the magical world and enslaving the human (Muggle) world.

The Harry Potter collection has all eight movies at they were originally released and the Blu-Ray version features so many bonus features, it makes the extended editions of The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy look anemic. Each of the movies, save the last two, has been released as three-disc ultimate collector's editions with additional bonus features and collectible materials and one suspects that there will be an Ultimate Collection which bundles the super-expensive, ultra-packed versions of all eight films together. But for most people, the Harry Potter Collection with the movies, deleted scenes, trailers and featurettes will be enough.

What is worth watching in the set? First, the movies do tend to get better and better, both with storytelling elements and the acting. The first film hinges more on the fact that there was a built-in audience than making a great movie, so it stands poorly on its own, even as an establishing work. Similarly, in the first sequel, were it not for the exceptionally important plot event that occurs within the Chamber Of Secrets, it would be hard to advise anyone sit through the movie. But, the Harry Potter Saga is largely a mystery wherein Harry learns more and more about his potential in each film and then has to confront the ultimate evil.

But therein lies the first strike against the cinematic franchise. The fundamental story is one of a boy being raised to take on the great evil of the age. That is a classic hero story and it could be epic. The problem with this particular epic is that how it is accomplished makes no real sense. Harry Potter is taught incrementally what he needs to know in order to fight the Dark Lord and those around him retain secrets as opposed to being as clear, direct and forthright as possible. In other words, the writer of the Harry Potter Saga was much more concerned with selling the next book than telling a story that makes sense.

What do I mean by this? Harry Potter is seen by Dumbledore, Hagrid, Serius Black, Minerva McGonagall and virtually everyone else in Hogwart's (and the adversaries fighting on the side of Lord Voldemort) as the one chance the magical world has to take down and destroy the evil of the age. Rather than groom the boy and have him prepared to confront the Deatheaters and Voldemort, the forces of good are scattered and only intimate to Harry what he needs to know. This would be most analogous to Obi-Wan and Yoda only telling Luke Skywalker about one or two aspects of the Force in the Star Wars Trilogy or only training him to use a lightsaber, without ever informing him of the Dark Side, the nature of the Force or that Darth Vader was someone he would have to confront. Or, from the fantasy realm, this would be like Gandalf discovering the nature of the One Ring, finding it with Bilbo and then having Frodo wander around with the ring without ever telling him where to go or what to do with it. Despite what fans of the Harry Potter franchise might want to believe, the mechanisms of the storytelling are ridiculous in that it is not until the sixth year and in the wake of the resurrection of Voldemort that the existence and nature of the Horcruxes are revealed. It's pretty shoddy storytelling to have a small army of people who claim to be good who refuse to tell their soldiers how they can actually take on the enemy. Even a "hey, if you ever see, hear about or encounter this thing, let us know," would be better than the ignorance with which Dumbledore keeps his followers. And while some might say that Dumbledore didn't want to insight a panic or scare Harry, I respectfully submit that the time to stop evil is before it materializes, has legions of followers and takes over the world.

Moreover, the Harry Potter Saga become muddied by time travel elements and interpersonal elements that do not flow organically in the films. So, while viewers can clearly see the arc by which Hermione and Ron Weasley overcome obstacles to develop an eventual romantic relationship, the development of a relationship between Harry Potter and Ron's sister is much less organic in the films.

The real strike against the ultimate Harry Potter Collection is the fidelity to the original as opposed to creating a unified Saga. The eight films were directed by four different directors and, truth be told, they didn't know exactly what they were doing all along. The technology exists now to fix up the technical issues in the making of the films and it would do a great service to the fans to do that. I'm not talking about rewriting the movies or even replacing Richard Harris, who unfortunately died between the second and third films, with Michael Gambon who played the part for the rest of the franchise. But, Griphook in the first film and the goblins look nothing at all like what they do near the end of the franchise and unlike the changes George Lucas made to the Star Wars Saga, changes like replacing characters who appear late in the movie series by inserting the refined look to the character types in the early films would lend a greater sense of continuity. When I was reviewing this year's Golden Snitch ornament (that's here!), I noticed even practical effects like the Golden Snitch were redesigned. How is this problematic? Well, Harry receives that magical object in the penultimate film and viewers are asked to recognize it as an identical object to the one in the first film when it is not.

Despite the storytelling problems - and it was only as I wrote this consideration of the entire story that it truly hit me how woefully unprepared Harry is for no good reason other than to drag the story out for more movies - and a few niggling character issues, the Harry Potter Saga tells an interesting story. And, despite the gripe, it is a more engaging story than it might have been had Harry simply been tutored at the very beginning with all he needed to know. The characters do get developed, though it takes several films.

What the Harry Potter Saga does exceptionally well is develop the acting talents of three young actors who grow into the iconic roles as their characters grow. Teamed up with established great actors like Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, Gary Oldman, Brendan Gleeson, Maggie Smith and Kenneth Brannagh, actors Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson hone their talents from painfully awkward children into powerhouse adult actors who can take on virtually any role that is given to them.

On DVD and Blu-Ray, the Harry Potter Collection includes all eight films, their trailers and limited bonus features. Warner Brothers, which produced the Harry Potter Saga, has shown a complete willingness to exploit its audience. With Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince, over half a dozen different exclusive packages were developed to get fans to rebuy the same source material for the exclusive bonus features. By that logic, there will come a time when Warner Brothers sees the point in investing to do refurbished editions of each film wherein the Saga is corrected for effects continuity. Will it be worth the buy? Not if you already have the current Saga. Will it be a better film series? Yes. I say hold out, at least, until all of the Ultimate Editions are bundled together in an exclusive, space-saving package!

For other epic fantasy or science fiction series', be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Star Wars Saga
The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy
The Indiana Jones Trilogy

6.5/10

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

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

Kevin Smith's Perfect Film: Dogma

The Good: Funny, Witty, Insightful, Well-acted, Wonderful characters, Message, Themes
The Bad: Insecurity of a longer film
The Basics: A perfect film focusing on the hypocrisy of religion vs. god, Dogma succeeds in being funny and intelligent.


Dogma is a film it's difficult to not evaluate with an emotional reaction because so many people have so many feelings about religion. I think Dogma's tagline ought to have been "God Commandeth Thee To Lighten Up." Despite what you may have heard, Dogma is a surprisingly serious film and it pulls itself off quite well.

The story is that Loki and Bartleby are two angels who have fallen from grace and now have found a way back into Heaven using a loophole in Catholic ceremonial belief. So, as they journey to Red Bank, New Jersey, the Metatron (an angel who acts as the voice of god) finds Bethany and charges her with the holy task of stopping the angels from completing their mission. The premise is simple. If the angels receive forgiveness from the Catholic church, they can be absolved of their sins and enter heaven which god said they could never do again and if god is proven wrong, existence would collapse.

Such is the premise of Dogma. And the execution is riotous. Bethany is not forced to go it alone. She is accompanied by Jay and Silent Bob (from Clerks, Mallrats, and Chasing Amy) who are acting as prophets and Rufus, the neglected 13th apostle.

And it's funny. Repeatedly. I've seen this film at least fifteen times now and it still makes me laugh. Aloud. Frequently. It's hilarious. It is packed with humor.

It's also packed with important messages that need to be spoken of in this day in age. The film tackles the idea of belief verses ideas and the danger of imposing a belief on others. One need only look at the current violence in the world to see that this is a lesson a lot of people need to learn. Dogma illustrates wonderfully the danger of beliefs and imposing them upon others.

But it does it with essential humanism. Bethany reads as quite real. Her reactions of bafflement as she travels from her ordinary life to enlightenment are deeply human and very much right on.

Kevin Smith creates a perfect film on his fourth flick. The man makes it seem effortless to create a situation that is grand and devastating while loading it with humor and intelligence. Sure, there are a lot of jokes based on flatulence and anatomy, but there are also wonderful long monologues about the essential messages of the film.

The drawback of the film is revealed on the Special Edition DVD - which is a great investment if you view Dogma and like it - in the deleted and extended scenes, which is that so much of the film was trimmed. While I agree with the assessment that the Golgotham deserved only one scene, the other deleted and shortened scenes deserved to be kept in. Smith's - and Hollywood's - fear of a three hour film is a disappointing one. There was enough information, meat and (dare I say?) soul to keep much of the removed material in.

But even without those scenes, Dogma pulls itself off as a perfect film. Entirely rewatchable, the story is solid, the characters are interesting and the acting is wonderful. Ben Affleck gives his best performance as Bartleby, going from an intellectual to an emotional, vengeful angel. Matt Damon is surprisingly good as Loki, who goes on the opposite journey from vengeful to thoughtful. Linda Fiorentino presents Bethany with realism and heart. The surprises on the acting front are in the form of Chris Rock and Jason Mewes. Rock shows he can deliver dramatic sequences in character, as opposed to devolving into his comedy routines as himself. He's good and when he's supposed to be funny, he is and distinctly as Rufus as opposed to Chris Rock (though there are moments . . .). Jason Mewes, likewise, presents Jay with more clarity and consistency than one might expect. The role may be of a confused stoner, but the acting is consistent and precise.

The short of it is that there is finally a film that the devout (who have a sense of humor) and the atheist may sit down together and watch and enjoy equally.

For other movies featuring Alan Rickman, please visit my reviews of:
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2
Alice In Wonderland
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
Love Actually

10/10

For other film reviews, click here to visit my index page!

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

I Open At The Close: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 Is The One Where Everything Happens!

The Good: Special effects, Character moments, Acting, Plot resolution.
The Bad: Very dependent upon prior installments/Final scene.
The Basics: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 finally arrives to cap off the journey of Harry Potter and his magical friends in a firefight that must be seen on the big screen to be fully appreciated.


I suspect the reason that so many reviews of the new, final, Harry Potter Saga film Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 degenerates quickly into a discussion of the Harry Potter franchise rather than sticking to the content of this film is because it is the culmination of a serialized story. The challenge of reviewing just the most anticipated cinematic event since The Phantom Menace (reviewed here!) is that the film is all about tying up the loose ends. This movie is about making the final reveals, the final missions and the ultimate resolution between the potentially epic battle between young Harry Potter and the lord of evil, Voldemort. So, by its very nature, a review of Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 is either going to be full of spoilers or utterly indecipherable to those just beginning the series. I lean a little more toward the former, as the end of the Harry Potter Saga has to be more like The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy (reviewed here!); going in virtually everyone knows that the One Ring will be destroyed, the pleasure of the Trilogy is in seeing how it is done. Similarly, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 is a film where the "how" is more important to the fans than the "what." And it has been worth the wait.

It bears noting that while the cinematic release of Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 might well be the release of a generation, I am not of the Harry Potter Generation. My wife is, but I am not. While she has read all of the books and followed the franchise religiously, I only got into watching the movies when she and I met (I had actually intended to go through this life without getting into this franchise). But, if there is any review you can read that is unencumbered by the books to evaluate the movie, this is it. And before I even begin with the analysis, I'd just like to remind those who have not yet read my review of Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban (that's here!) that right off the back, my objection to the problem of time travel raised in that film is only compounded here. The series is, as far as I am concerned, a complete wash because of the issues there. Forgetting them for the purpose of this review (this is the last time I ask "Where the hell is the time turner now?!" I swear!), Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 is pretty damn impressive.

With the evil Lord Voldemort acquiring the Elder Wand from the tomb of Dumbledore, Snape ascending to the Headmaster position at Hogwart's, and Harry Potter and his friends burying their dead at the cottage home of Ron's older brother, the world looks grim for magicusers and muggles alike. Griphook, the goblin, rescued by Harry offers Harry and his team the opportunity to find the next Horcrux in the vault of Bellatrix Lestrange. So, disguised as Bellatrix, Hermione with Ron, Griphook and Harry in tow, infiltrates the magical vaults at Gringgott's to try to find the next object that houses a piece of Voldemort's soul. They discover a chalice inside the vault and have to fight their way out of the magical repository with the help of an enslaved dragon. The trio then heads to Hogwart's in search of another Horcrux that Harry is given a vision of thanks to his connection to Voldemort. At Hogwart's, Harry deposes Snape with the help of McGonagall and students loyal to the cause.

As the last loyalists arrive to defend Hogwart's, Harry goes on a frantic search for what he believes to be the penultimate Horcrux as Hogwart's is besieged by Voldemort and his followers. With Neville Longbottom, McGonagall, Luna, Flitwick and the assorted Weasleys (among others), Harry Potter resists the Deatheaters and Voldemort over an exceptionally dangerous night. But when dawn comes, Voldemort disposes of one of his most valuable assets, which allows Harry to finally learn the truth about his own existence and the methods that will allow him to overcome Voldemort once and for all!

There is a lot of exposition in Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 and most of it will mean nothing to those who have not seen the prior films. Similarly, the final scene - which is all I had a real beef with in the film - will mean almost nothing to those who have not read the books. My wife turned to me after the movie (she loved it!), and said, "In the last scene, they could have made clear that X - that curly headed boy - was the son of Y and Z." She said the names, they aren't important, but to list casualties are spoilers I won't write for this review! My point here is that the last scene doesn't progress the story or add anything to the film series. Sure, it's in the books and it is a better way to leave the series than the bridge scene that precedes it, but the real "magic" of what it should be is lacking for those who are not obsessive fans of the books.

That said, there was only one other real problem with Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 and that was it was frequently rushed. In the effort to limit how long over two hours the movie clocked out at, scenes had the feeling of being truncated. So, for example, the dragon that has been chained below Gringgott's for an indeterminate but presumably long time stumbles once and the next cut is it flying perfectly. There is an intermediate moment when it stumbles from walking where it presumably fails to fly right for the first time that is absent. So, like other movies where the fans could handle longer - like Star Trek: Nemesis - one presumes that there are many extended scenes that would have enriched the flow of the movie.

Outside that, the movie is perfect. For a long while, I was considering this a 10/10, but that last scene and a few niggling inconsistencies robbed it of perfection for me. There are some nice ways the movie glosses over its own faults, like Harry asking Hermione if any plan they've ever made has actually worked, so they go planless because they know all hell will break loose, but the film lacks that spark that makes a movie perfect. It's very close, though.

In Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2, the characters are mature and sensible. Harry Potter, for example, asks the wandmaker every conceivable question about the Elder Wand, short of "Would you recognize the wand if you saw it?" Ron is only goofy once and the rest of the time is surprisingly smart and sensible. Dumbledore's alluded-to brother, Amberforth shows up and becomes a fully-realized character in his brief scenes. Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 is not afraid to let the minor characters shine and Neville Longbottom's role overshadows Hermione's in the "substantial contribution" department in this film. Even Ron's mother has a great character moment that allowed her to grow and impress viewers.

In a similar fashion, the acting in Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 is flawless. Tom Felton is cold and anguished as Malfoy, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are finally given scenes which give their Ron and Hermione actual chemistry and Warwick Davis plays two bit roles with scene-stealing proficiency. Alan Rickman is finally given an opportunity to make Severus Snape likable, not just sensible, and he does not waste the chance. Instead, Rickman brings a humanity to the character with a performance that comes through in the eyes with full emotional impact. Ralph Fiennes continues to make Voldemort creepy and when he has to play vulnerability, he, too, does some great emoting through the eyes.

But the film rests largely on the performance by Daniel Radcliffe and he lands the role as Harry Potter. Radcliffe plays Potter as a fully-realized young adult and he has the posture of a man who is on a righteous cause. His performance eliminates the uncertainty of the early films, plays flawlessly with the digital constructs and does everything a great performance ought to.

One might hope there would be more analysis, but it is impossible to do without spoilers or degenerating into a discussion of the entire series. What I will - and should - say is this. Within fifteen minutes of the opening of Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2, director David Yates accomplished something that no one else involved in the Harry Potter franchise aside from my wife has ever done; he made me care about the story, the characters, the resolutions. I felt throughout this movie and I cared, which is something I hadn't before. In Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2, I became invested in this magical world and how the characters might overcome the Big Evil. Outside, peeking occasionally at my wife to enjoy her enthralled reaction, I was glued to the screen and that is a huge accomplishment and one of the best possible endorsements I can give the movie.

For other films in the Harry Potter franchise, please check out my reviews of:
Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone
Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets
Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban
Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire
Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1

9.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to check out my index page with a full, organized listing of the movie reviews I have done (over 700 now!) by clicking here!

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

Actually Better Than The Average Romantic Comedy: Love Actually Is A Great, Enduring Christmas Movie!

The Good: Excellent casting, Charming, Funny, Great theme, Interesting characters, Not entirely predictable
The Bad: What isn't unpredictable, is terribly predictable
The Basics: With its massive ensemble cast, Love Actually illustrates that love is all around by taking multiple storylines and weaving them together beautifully.


I am a bit of a fan of complex movies. If a film is done right, it can have several threads going simultaneously and I'll love it. Magnolia is a perfect example of a film that takes several different storylines and expertly weaves them together. It is with a similar appreciation - but on the love, not despair, end of the spectrum - that I watched and rewatched Love Actually. There is no film I reviewed originally that I have looked forward to going back and re-rating like Love Actually; time has certainly smoothed out the edges on this one and it is a near-perfect film in my pantheon! With Batman Returns, it is an annual Christmas tradition in my home, as far as movies go!

You might have seen previews for Love Actually and resisted it because you are not a Hugh Grant or Winona Ryder fan. For the former, Grant is not in much of the movie and where he is, he is actually interesting, charming, and genuinely funny. For the latter, Ryder is not in the movie at all; the lookalike in the previews is actually Keira Knightley, who is made up to look pretty much identical to Winona Ryder. Go figure.

Regardless, Love Actually is a surprisingly good film, especially for a romantic comedy, which is usually such an overdone, obvious genre. Instead, Love Actually begins with a simple premise; love is all around us. And it then seeks to prove it.

This is achieved through the telling of various tales of love, love lost, or near-love that loosely intersect in England in the weeks before Christmas. The stories include: David, the new Prime Minister, taking a fancy to his intern, Daniel, a widower, counseling his son on how to win the girl of his dreams, Colin going on an insane quest to the United States to find women, Sarah trying desperately to express her love to her coworker, while being plagued by a love for a mentally ill brother, and Harry and Karen's marriage coming to a crossroads when Harry finds himself more and more open to the advances of Mia. There is something for everyone here, including a reclusive writer with a broken heart finding love with the woman who is simply the nearest person to him.

These are cool stories set against a backdrop of an aging musical artist's attempt to get the number one song in the Christmas season even though he knows it is terrible. What makes it work is the writing and the characters. Whenever any one plot seems to be going on too long or going nowhere, the focus of the movie changes entirely. And when it returns to the story one might have though dull, it feels new again. The movie works out quite well in that regard, because as the film progresses, we come to wonder what is happening to other characters that we may not have seen in some time.

In short, though, the characters are interesting and it is quite cool to see how the different characters resolve their problems. David, for example, uses his feelings of love for Natalie to restore national pride to England by standing up to a bullying U.S. President (I cheered when that happened). Jamie - the writer - uses love to overcome love lost by realizing that sometimes, the most simple act of love is simply communicating with the person one loves. Daniel, the widower, experiences a profound sense of love for his son and his aid to his son allows him to overcome his own grief. And the relationship that is growing between Mia and Harry keeps the viewer guessing. Mia is the perfect example of a character that works quite extraordinarily in the movie; her character is presented as perceptive and playful, which creates a character that is quite different from the homewrecker or outright slut one might wish to brand her as.

The characters are challenging as well. There is no firm resolution between Harry and Karen when Karen realizes she is losing Harry and that makes the conflicts and ideas they share much more interesting. The Peter, Juliet, and Mark relationship is in some ways more infuriating because of the implications of the last scene where the three of them are together. And the movie works because it is not all happy. It is, in fact, agonizing to watch Sarah as she and Karl get closer and then love - her love for her brother - tears them apart. Love is complicated and Love Actually does an excellent job of not trivializing that, but actually accepting and exploring it. Love comes with different priorities for different people and Love Actually does an excellent job of illustrating that as well.

The other thing that aids the movie spectacularly is the acting. The actors are perfectly cast to represent a decent cross-section of the population, resulting in a very diverse look and feel to the movie. The actors and actresses, furthermore, are playing at some of their best.

Alan Rickman is wonderful as Harry, playing someone both cranky and open to love in a way very different from his character in, say, Galaxy Quest. Opposite Rickman is Heike Makatsch, who is a refreshing sight without being Hollywood beautiful, and a strong Emma Thompson. Thompson carries an amazing ability to go from strong and funny to crying and vulnerable with remarkable fluidity. Hugh Grant is surprisingly good as the Prime Minister and his boyishness is accented by the dignity portrayed in the body language of Martine McCutcheon, who plays Natalie.

The couple to watch, though, has to be Collin Firth as Jamie and Lucia Moniz as Aurelia. Moniz is amazing and has an incredible ability to transform from her initially homely appearance with poor posture and a demure attitude to a strong, proud woman that is quite beautiful. She is funny and charismatic, no mean feat to pull off when the character is speaking a different language throughout the movie! Firth is great opposite her, taking his usual bland British demeanor and opening up into someone who is actually quite charming as Jamie.

At the end of the day, though, it is a romantic comedy. That means there are few surprises awaiting us in how the film resolves itself, but the truth is, it works in this context. Why? Because love truly is all around us and it is something that may fill us and be quite wonderful, no matter its context.

And writer and director Richard Curtis does a smashing job of taking what is all around us and making it genuinely entertaining.

For other Christmas movies, please check out my reviews of:
Dr. Seuss's How The Grinch Stole Christmas
The Muppet Christmas Carol
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

9.5/10

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

© 2010, 2005 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |

Slice And Dice Burton's Yet Another Musical: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street!

The Good: Decent (if simple) plot and characters, Acting, Music, Direction
The Bad: Many typical Burton (and musical) conceits, Resolution
The Basics: Tim Burton returns with another musical, this time with much blood and music, but still with the same acting troupe and general plot.


I have something of a love-don't care relationship with the works of Tim Burton. Unlike some directors, I see that Tim Burton obtained his status as the outsider-insider director in Hollywood today from his talent. He's a creative guy and I love his early works. I mean, he was a creative guy and now he just rehashes. Tim Burton's last few works have not fared well in my reviews for a few simple reasons; he has taken on a fairly regular troupe and abandoned much of his creativity for a rather repetitive sense of what works. His visual style has slowly become less audacious and more standard and the stories he has told lately have either been adaptations of works of others or simple retelling of his earlier successful works (Corpse Bride, I'm looking at you!).

Enter Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street, Tim Burton's cinematic expression of John Logan's adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's musical. I've not seen the musical, though I did enjoy the Kevin Smith adaptation of it in Jersey Girl. But seeing that the adaptation of the play was done by the guy who wrote the script that sunk the Star Trek film franchise and was going to be directed by a talented man whose last films I did not enjoy staring the same stars he had in his last two films, I decided to keep my expectations somewhat low.

Fortunately, Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street came in well above my expectations. This musical is dark, bloody and entertaining and that's what I needed when I sat down to watch it.

Benjamin Barker is a London gentleman married to Lucy and the proud father to Joanna. When the local judge, arguably a pedophile with the most skewed moral compass of anyone in the film, Judge Turpin, sets his sights on ruining Barker and taking Lucy, he easily manages to convict Benjamin and get him imprisoned. Free to seduce Lucy, Turpin finds his luck there is not much better and when she rejects his advances, she is taken out. With Benjamin locked away, the orphaned Joanna falls into Turpin's care as his ward and Barker stews in his cell. After fifteen years of incarceration, he escapes his dank cell.

It is at this point that he returns to London under the assumed name and manic personality of Sweeney Todd, a barber by trade. He sets up shop above Mrs. Lovett's Meat Pie Shop and he begins to avenge Benjamin. Luring his old enemies in for haircuts, Sweeney Todd begins a murder spree that is made easy because his downstairs neighbor is able to make use of the bodies. Lovett and Todd begin a crazy partnership and eccentric friendship that begins a bloodbath that revitalizes Lovett's business. As the bodycount rises, Todd begins to lose the last shreds of sanity he had as he kills a path toward Turpin and his final vengeance.

All the while singing. And with a surprise ending. Only it's not a surprise ending, but the singing certainly is singing! Far more straightforward a musical than, say, "Corpse Bride" most of the spoken dialogue is actually sung and truth be told some of the tunes are catchy. The film moves along at a pretty decent clip through the songs and it is anything but troubling that there are songs instead of speaking.

Why? The look of the film. Tim Burton's construction of Victorian London is dark and Burtonesque in a very Sleepy Hollow way. The rooms are large, but their darkness carries a rather claustrophobic feeling with them, so whenever the camera pulls away from the characters, the viewer still feels trapped. Instead of a generic dark quality, Burton infuses the sets and style of the barber shop/meat pie shop with a very compelling and unsettling sense to it. The setting is so unsettling - especially when combined with the gore - that the characters singing instead of speaking only enhances the mood. In fact, the film truly begins to work as a musical only when Sweeney Todd (as opposed to Benjamin) enters and takes up residence in the barber shop.

And, oh my, is there blood. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street earns its R rating, though the gore is nothing most adults cannot handle. It's not so much quality gore as it is quantity. One has to admire the work ethic of Todd as he begins to carve his way through the London enemies of Benjamin Barker! But the film is well-centered on the emotions that guide the off-centered anti-hero.

Sweeney Todd is a man out for revenge. He wants Judge Turpin dead and, one supposes, he would like his daughter back. Todd's quest becomes more and more disturbing, not for the carnage as much as the character twists. As Todd racks up a body count, he begins to lose sight of his goal and the killing becomes more indiscriminate. Todd sinks into a madness that loses sight of the love for his daughter and the desire to save her and becomes about loving the killing . . . with the occasional reminder that Judge Turpin is the goal victim.

And Mrs. Lovett, she's just crazy, played with bug-eyed glee by Helena Bonham Carter. Here is where Tim Burton falls down some with his new thrust of adaptations as opposed to his original works; by reusing many of the same performers in plots that are surreal, the viewer becomes accustomed to them and begins to look closer at the other characters. As a result, the "big surprise" at the end is not a big surprise and I mention this following mentioning Helena Bonham Carter because viewers have seen pretty much the same thing but from her in previous films.

Helena Bonham Carter plays what is ultimately a sidekick role as Lovett. She delivers many of the best lines, but her character is virtually a collection of lines as opposed to genuine character traits and Carter makes the most of it. To her credit, she plays creepy very well and it is unsettling to watch her and director Tim Burton makes the most of capturing her body language quirks.

It is worth noting that Alan Rickman plays Judge Turpin and it ought not to surprise anyone that he is able to sing and emote while doing it. Rickman has a long resume and I've enjoyed him in Dogma and my second-favorite Christmas film of all time (the first being Batman Returns!) Love Actually. In Love Actually, he plays an understated villain-only-in-a-moral sense (he has a doting wife and he spends much of the film not-really avoiding the advances of his secretary) and he does that masterfully. In Sweeney Todd, he is perfectly, unredeemingly villainous and it's wonderful to see how convincingly he can pull it off. With a lust he kept understated in Love Actually, Rickman takes over-the-top to embody Turpin's twisted desire for Johanna and he makes the viewer believe he is truly that depraved. He steals every scene he is in.

Newcomer Jayne Wisener does well as the fifteen year-old Johanna holding her own opposite Rickman's Turpin. She comes to the film with an air of confidence that works for her and makes one believe that she will do more (and well) in the future. Of course, by virtue of appearing in one Tim Burton film, she's pretty much guaranteed a chance at another!

But it is Johnny Depp who is charged with captivating the audience and holding them and yes, he succeeds. Depp has a difficult role to convince viewers like me of his ability in this particular role because of how distinctive he was as Captain Jack Sparrow. Depp created a cultural icon over three films as Sparrow so most viewers will know going into Sweeney Todd that he can play crazy and slightly off-center. Here is where the singing helps. Almost immediately, Depp uses his vocal presentation and facial expressions to let the audience know that Todd is a much more menacing character than Sparrow, no benign craziness here! And this is a performance that stands alone as one of Depp's most distinctive and original. Indeed, the only moment I was drawn out of the film was when Todd first starts using his straight razor; something about Depp with a sharp implement at the tip of his fingers seemed familiar! But it was thoroughly welcome and Depp soon dissipates any air that his celebrity might have to cloud his actual performance as Sweeney Todd.

I find it surprising that so many people seem surprised Depp can sing; he performed songs for Corpse Bride adequately, though in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street, he is even more vocally refined. As far as musicals go, this one is generally decent.

And bloody. Have I mentioned that yet? Lots of blood. Necessary for the plot, sure! Only because the plot is so twisted. Actually one of the aspects I enjoyed about the film is that while Sweeney Todd degenerates fully into madness and begins to kill without much attention to the blood and death, director Tim Burton does not become casual about it. As a result, all of the throat-slashings are unsettling and that helps make the film worthwhile.

Even so, the film is ideal for fans of musicals and horror more than straightforward drama fans, though the character journey of Sweeney Todd is compelling and dark. This is definitely not for children and adults with a low tolerance for blood are likely not to enjoy this film all that much.

For other works by Tim Burton, please check out my reviews of:
Alice In Wonderland
Big Fish
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Batman Returns
Edward Scissorhands

7/10

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

© 2010, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |

Visually Exceptional, Alice In Wonderland Dazzles!

The Good: Visually amazing, Surprisingly well-written, Moments of acting
The Bad: A little predictable/predictable use of actors
The Basics: With a dark Tim Burton look and an accompanying creepy Danny Elfman Score, Tim Burton reimagines Alice In Wonderland remarkably well!


A lot of people got their hopes up for Tim Burton's rendition of Alice In Wonderland and in 3-D or home on DVD, those people had good reason to get their hopes up!

Truth-be-told, I’ve never read either Alice In Wonderland or Through The Looking Glass, the works by Lewis Carroll which started the franchise. In fact, the closest I’ve come to knowing anything about Alice from Alice In Wonderland is Lost Girls (click here for my review!), which features Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie’s interpretation of the character. Fortunately, one may easily be ignorant and enter Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland and get caught up with ridiculous speed. This version of Alice In Wonderland is a sequel, of sorts, to the original, features an older Alice and a very dark tone. From what I hear about the book – as opposed to the animated Disney version (this, too, is from Disney) – there is a pretty sinister tone throughout. Regardless, I shall offer no contrast to any prior Alice In Wonderland because of my ignorance and the fact that this film is intended as a standalone.

Alice, a nineteen year-old, is attending a gala at the estate of a friend of the family, Hamish Ascot, when she gets wind that he will be proposing to her during the meal. Not overwhelmingly fond of Hamish, Alice does not want to marry him and when she sees a rabbit nearby, she uses that as a means to flee the dinner party. She follows the rabbit back to its warren and in so doing, she falls through a vortex to a mystical realm. Shrunk by a potion she takes at the bottom of the hole, she arrives in Wonderland and soon after meets the insane Mad Hatter, who recognizes her instantly. Alice does not recall the strange setting she finds herself in immediately, but soon elements come back to her. Unfortunately for her, the Red Queen, a maniacal dictator now rules over all of Wonderland.

Amazed by the world around her, Alice encounters fantastic talking beings, like the Cheshire Cat and the White Rabbit, learning about the oppression of the Red Queen. When the Mad Hatter, who has been much abused under the reign of the Red Queen, encounters Alice, he sees his chance to rid Wonderland of the villainess. He aids Alice in getting to the White Queen, who is more quietly dangerous, and Alice steps up to lead the White Queen’s forces against those of the Red Queen and fulfill her destiny of slaying the Red Queen’s most vicious pet, the Jabberwock!

Alice In Wonderland is a pretty classic hero story set in a fantastic setting. The two elements that impressed me most about Tim Burton’s new vision for Alice In Wonderland were not (ironically) the special effects and the soundtrack, but rather the level of character development throughout the story and the acting, most notably of Mia Wasikowska (Alice). The special effects are appropriately special and the soundtrack is a very standard and obvious Danny Elfman soundtrack. This is not bad, but it is largely what one would predict from a collaboration between Burton and Elfman. In Alice In Wonderland, Elfman augments the dark palate of Burton’s drained realm with creepy underlying music and appropriately grand and spasmodic themes during the battle scenes. Alice In Wonderland, to be fair to the collaborators, has a magical feeling that the pair has not (arguably) had for quite some time. Fortunately, when they create a winner together, they truly get it right!

As for the visual effects, considering that is what most people seem to care about these days, Burton and his team manage to do an exceptional job with the effects and that translated exceptionally well to the 3-D version when it was theatrically released. Burton employs quite a bit of CG animation in both creating and augmenting both his characters and the landscapes the characters find themselves in. However, the biggest difference between Alice In Wonderland and the recent special-effects blockbuster Avatar is that Burton and his team more consistently got it right. For sure, there are elements that still look animated – the Cheshire Cat, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and the White Rabbit – but the way they interact with the Wonderland world, as well as the consistently live-action elements, like Alice, the Mad Hatter and the levitating White Queen, makes one feel like they are watching a live-action film, as opposed to an animated one. Where Burton’s team gets it really right is with the setting, lighting and the Red Queen. The Red Queen is a computer-altered character, with a bloated Helena Bonham Carter’s head on a diminished body. But the character looks absolutely real in every frame of the film and the achievement is on par with the creation of Gollum in The Lord Of The Rings. The Red Queen’s effect was the most consistently wonderful and those looking to feel like they are truly entering a desiccating, but incredible world will be blown away by the visual effects (as well as the way Elfman’s soundtrack melds with them).

More impressive than the visual effects is the fact that Burton and screenwriter Linda Woolverton have a story to tell and it is one more about character than setting. Alice is an unlikely hero and while the “hero with amnesia” thing has been done before, the denial Alice has lived in of her prior encounter with Wonderland plays out feeling surprisingly fresh. As a result, Alice In Wonderland is not the story of a little girl overcome by her settings, it is a tale of a young woman taking control of her destiny and standing up for a principle. As Alice makes the transition from ignorant to informed, she becomes empowered and fortunately for those looking at the film for a message, Alice is not used as a simple tool of either the Mad Hatter or the White Queen. Instead, the film is about how those around her help her to make an informed decision and how she takes control of her own powers. And yes, she does manage to discover there is a leader inside her and this ties in quite nicely with her “real world” experience at the beginning of the film.

Alice is an outsider – in both worlds – and she is ably played by Mia Wasikowska. Wasikowska has a great sense of physical acting throughout the film, slouching through some of the movie’s early scenes before standing up taller as her character becomes emotionally stronger. She delivers her lines convincingly and she makes for both a likable character and a realistic one. When she is forced to look around in amazement, she doesn’t look like she is hamming it up. Nor does she look like she is uncertain when her character is supposed to be confident in her resolve. Hers is an excellent performance from a new, young talent.

The same cannot, unfortunately, be said of Johnny Depp. Depp plays the Mad Hatter and this is not the millionth time he has collaborated with Tim Burton, but it sure feels like it. The crazed nature of The Mad Hatter does not remind one of the manic moments when Depp played Willy Wonka, but rather his character of Jack Sparrow from Pirates Of The Caribbean. Depp seems too familiar in the role and while he’s good, it is nothing we haven’t seen from him before. Similarly, Burton now-regular Helena Bonham Carter is fine, but familiar as the Red Queen (Christopher Lee who might seem poised to take slack in the same manner is fine voicing the Jabberwock). Anne Hathaway fans will enjoy how Hathaway stretches her acting chops as the White Queen, though. There is something unsettling (more than just the black eyebrows under the white hair) about Hathaway’s performance and it comes from the way she gives her character a faraway look in her eyes constantly. The viewer gets the sense she is looking through other characters and Hathaway delivers that beautifully.

The resulting film is one that is exciting, visually spectacular and surprisingly adult for a film that seems to be erring on the side of kid-safe. In fact, the only real hang-up most kids might have (I can imagine how annoying it might be in theaters now!) would be the language. In keeping with the Lewis Carroll story, Alice and many of the denizens of Wonderland speak with made-up words with a fair amount of frequency. While adults are likely to understand from context, children might, annoyingly, be asking “What does that mean?” every few minutes. I loathe the idea of being part of an audience like that.

Adults, the 3-D experience is sensational, go to a late-night 3-D showing and leave the kids at home: this is a creepy, fun adventure that has Tim Burton stamped all over it. It feels far more Burton than Disney . . . thankfully.

For other films that delve into the fantastic, check out my reviews of:
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
The Men Who Stare At Goats
Shutter Island

7/10

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

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

Living Up To The Hype, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 Prepares The Viewer For The End Of The Saga!

The Good: Engaging plot, Moments of character, Special effects, Moments of acting, Decent direction, Tone.
The Bad: A little lighter on character development than I would like
The Basics: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is bound to please fans and arrives as a compelling act setting up an end which puts the world of magicusers as the only hope for humanity!


I have not, traditionally, been a fan of the Harry Potter Saga film franchise. The early films are plagued with acting problems and story issues that are almost unfathomable for their problematic nature (see the links at the bottom for my reviews of them!). But over the last two Harry Potter movies, I have found myself engaged in a way that the early movies did not do for me as one who was not into the books. Having had the pleasure of a preview screening of Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that not only will fans of the Harry Potter Saga be pleased with it, but that they would riot if they had to wait a full year for its conclusion. Fortunately, they will not have to. And for those of us not so invested in the Harry Potter Saga, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 stands up quite well as a classic hero story which is likely to please most moviegoers.

But, as one might expect given that the film is "Part 1" without "Part 2," Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is not a resolved movie and as such is frustrating at its climax (or lack thereof). But in its way, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 does what it ought to in many ways, creating a conflict which is compelling on its own and interesting enough to come back to. As always in such cases, it is worth noting that this review is strictly for the film Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1; I have not read Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, nor any of the other books, so this is a pure review of the cinematic work.

Having abandoned Hogwarts, Hermione, Ron and Harry Potter prepare to trek out into the world in search of the Horcruxes that will allow the magical world to destroy the evil Lord Voldemort. While at a Weasley wedding, Harry Potter is attacked and the trio learns the full might and determination of Lord Voldemort. It appears the dark lord has taken over every major institution of magic from Hogwarts to the Ministry of Magic and he is using the full resources of the magic world to lay waste to the muggle world to find and kill Harry Potter. Harry, Hermione, and Ron begin following what few clues were left by Dumbledore to find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes.

Unfortunately for the trio, finding the first Horcrux only puts them in more danger and leads them to information of more objects which, in the hands of Voldemort would be even more dangerous. As the Death Eaters and Voldemort himself begin scouring the world for the Deathly Hallows objects, primarily the Elder Wand, and for Harry Potter, Harry, Hermione, and Ron search for the Horcruxes, the Deathly Hallows objects and attempt to stay alive. To do that, they must enter the very lair of Voldemort and the struggles in their journey leave the three friends at odds.

First off, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is very much a middle act – ironic considering that this is part seven of eight! – and it is the The Empire Strikes Back of Harry Potter films. The analogy does not hold simply for the sense of plotting, but rather the tone. Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is a thematically dark movie and it puts the heroes in the worst possible places the viewer can imagine for them. The recurring theme throughout the movie is “loss.” Starting with Hermione choosing to lose (as safety as she causes her parents to forget she ever existed in order to keep them safe) through Ron losing when his family comes under attack, always on the mind of the protagonists is that there are stakes in the fight of good versus evil that they never appreciated as intimately before now.

In fact, the struggle between good and evil is drawn out masterfully in Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 with only few, small, victories for the side of good. Draco Malfoy, who has been bullying Harry Potter since early in the series, is far more hesitant in his working with the agents of the dark side, most notably his own father, a favorite of Voldemort. And while Snape’s side is kept cloaked (except in a great facial performance by Alan Rickman), the crushing sense of the world changing around the primary characters makes for a film that is not only moody, but carries with it a real sense of menace. There is the feeling that not everyone will survive and this leads to surprisingly adult conflict between the main characters.

But what Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 isn’t is oppressive. I have a great love of nihilistic films and what this film does not have is the sense that the viewer wants to take their own life after watching it. Many movies where the villains dominate and the heroes are hunted with the legitimate feeling that any of them could be killed at any time have such an oppressive sense of hopelessness associated with them that their pacing is dragged down and the viewer leaves the theater feeling like they have been crushed for hours on end. Not so with Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1. Instead, the film sets up a sense of importance for Harry, Hermione and Ron and then starts with an almost constant barrage of attacks which keep them fleeing, falling and fighting. With the middle act devoted toward their daring infiltration of the Ministry Of Magic, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 has a surprisingly brisk pace for a film that clocks out at almost two and a half hours.

Part of what makes that work, beyond the quick plot reversals and an actual sense of a mission (there’s no meandering around waiting for a plot in this one!) are the characters. In Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 there is a sense that the characters are coming into their own and growing into their adulthood in a way that makes the viewer care about them; they no longer have the hapless quality of children and the weight of the mission is both real and compelling. Hermione, always the most mature of the bunch, has a determination to her that stems from a belief in the power of good that lacks the naïveté of a child. Instead, here Hermione seems to have a real sense of the depth and power of evil and she wants no part of it. As such, she uses magic with a speed and ferocity that saves the hides of her friends more often than it imperils them.

Ron is, arguably, the character that develops the most, largely because he had the furthest to go coming into the movie. In Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 the undertones of jealousy that have been played out from the character under the surface rise to the conscious aspects of the character and he experiences the most strife with being on the run from the Death Eaters. As he angrily points out in an outburst with Harry, he has the most to lose and as such, the losses he takes mount up quicker and with more of a sense of hurt than with Harry or even Hermione. Harry Potter is mostly developed and determined in Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1; he just needs the opportunities to make what he believes he can do actualized. Thus, it is his friends who suffer quite a bit more and Ron is chief among them.

This is where Rupert Grint finally comes into his own as an actor. While Emma Watson has shone for several films portraying Hermione as more mature and together than the boys, here Grint becomes more than just comic relief. Instead, Grint’s Ron reasonably expresses anger and the menace to his psyche – both from the Death Eaters and his budding feelings for Hermione – gives Grint more layers to play than the fool he has been condemned to too frequently before this episode. Grint shines and he holds his own with the more prominent celebrities who make their appearances in Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1.

This is not to say that Watson and Daniel Radcliffe do poorly as Hermione and Harry. Radcliffe does fine as Harry Potter, but he was left from the last films with very little place to go. Harry Potter has known that he is the target of the dark lord’s wrath for some time now and Radcliffe’s performance reflects more the determination he ended that last film with than any new emotion. And Radcliffe is fine with those emotions and he and Watson play off new and recurring performers like Bill Nighy’s Rufus Scrimgeour and Helena Bonham Carter’s Bellatrix Lestrange wonderfully.

Director David Yates deserves a lot of credit for making Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 look as good as it does. While Steve Kloves might have kept the pace tight on the page with his screenplay, it is Yates who deserves the credit for making the film feel fast and fresh. Despite numerous attack sequences which are basically young people fighting older people by waving wands and waiting for things to pop, Yates makes the special effects special and those sequences pop.  It is also worth noting that while there are some bad edits that make chains of events difficult to follow at some moments, the conservative hostile takeover of the institutions of magic (and the recurrence of Umbrage as part of Voldemort's team) lends a bigger social statement to the work.

For those who are not fans of the Harry Potter books and films, starting with the prior installment, Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince and going right into Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 works surprisingly well. All of the key information needed to enjoy this film is reiterated in the prior installment and thus it stands as a real middle act that will leave viewers salivating for its conclusion next year.

For other films in the Harry Potter franchise, please check out my reviews of:
Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone
Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets
Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban
Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire
Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince

8.5/10

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

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