Will Gluck Goes 2-2 With His Problematic Rendition Of Annie

The Good: Decent performances, Good (enough) story
The Bad: Direction/editing, Character types
The Basics: Annie is an ill-executed modernized version of the classic orphan story.


I am a fan of the works of Will Gluck. Gluck directed two films that get shown quite a lot around my household to visitors - Easy A (reviewed here!) and Friends With Benefits (reviewed here!). Gluck is a competent, entertaining writer-director who has something to say with his films and is already garnering a loyal cadre of actors who eagerly appear in his films, even as cameos. But until the Olive Bridge logo came up on Annie, I had no idea that Gluck was affiliated with the new film, which has been plugged at a ton of films I’ve seen this year. Olive Bridge is a reference to his protagonist from Easy A and was the name of the headhunting agency Mila Kunis’s character worked for in Friends With Benefits, so when the Olive Bridge logo came up, I was suddenly excited about a film that I otherwise had no real interest in seeing.

That excitement did not last long and, unfortunately, Will Gluck and/or the editor of Annie, Tia Nolan, are to blame. Annie is one of the rare films where the assembly of the film robs the viewer of much of the enjoyment of watching it. Will Gluck’s rendition of Annie is an obvious attempt for Gluck to get what he has long-deserved; mainstream recognition and a legitimate blockbuster. The near-Christmas release is a family film that is designed to compete against the final The Hobbit film by drawing younger audiences and black audiences (who have not, traditionally, been driving up the grosses on the Middle Earth movies) to the theaters the same weekend. But the Jamie Foxx/Cameron Diaz vehicle, which follows Gluck’s pattern of mocking the style of film he is presenting (in this case, musical), is put together in a way that does not allow any of the performers to truly showcase their talents, nor give the audience moments of catharsis for the character’s reactions.

Annie tells the familiar story of an orphaned girl – in this case, a ten year-old in foster care – who is taken in by a rich benefactor. Annie lives with four other girls in the home of Hannigan, an alcoholic who takes in foster girls just for the $157 the State pays her a month. Will Stacks is the CEO of Stacks Mobile, a cell phone company that is built upon the precedent of never dropping a call (which he delivers upon by hiding cell phone “towers” in plain sight on buildings all around New York City). Stacks has been encouraged by his right-hand man, Guy, to run for Mayor of New York City, but his campaign gets off to a rough start when his attempt to feed the homeless results in a viral video of him spitting out mashed potatoes at a homeless man. One day, when Annie is trying to protect a dog from two hooligans who are harassing it, Stacks rescues Annie from getting hit by a car. The resulting viral video gives Stacks a bump in the polls.

Guy recommends that Stacks take Annie in to help him win the race against Mayor Harold Gray. After a lunch meeting, Annie agrees to help Stacks (Hannigan was going to kick her out anyway after the social worker visited and Annie extorted her for a trip to the library). While Stacks’s assistant, Grace, has reservations about using Annie, she begins to bond with Annie. As the campaign goes on, Guy sees the only way to win the race is by jettisoning Annie after her part leads to a plateau within striking distance of Gray. Guy conspires with Hannigan to have Annie’s “parents” find her, but Annie feels like she has finally found her family and when she learns the truth, she assumes that Stacks never truly loved her or wanted her for his family.

Annie is a musical that attempts to exist in the real-world and it exists there in a murky, troubling, way. Initially, it is unclear how the film will tread; Annie’s first song is a distraction for a school assignment. But, she and her musical foster-sisters are called out by Hannigan when they sing while they clean. So, this is supposed to be the real world where it is very much an anomaly when people break into song and dance routines. Gluck manages to pull off the narrative aspect of the songs popping up well-enough (Annie often sings to herself or sings publicly to Stacks’s crowd), until late in the film. Hannigan and (especially) Guy are not creative people, so when they break into song (even if Hannigan acknowledges it) it just does not work. Equally troubling is the helicopter ride that results in Annie and Stacks singing to one another in which Annie does a little dance move before it is even clear they are singing!

But the bulk of the problem with the musical aspect of this incarnation of Annie is in the directing or editing. My affection for the works of Will Gluck, which often have moments that involve song/dance/decent cutting that has a visual rhythm to the scenes, makes me want to blame editor Tia Nolan (though Gluck, presumably, signed off on her editing). From the second song (“Hard Knocks Life”) on, the songs are almost universally cut in such a way that the singing and dancing of the subjects of the scenes is not well-showcased. For example, in “Hard Knocks Life,” the foster girls are tossing plates to one another in rhythm. The shots are cut in such a way that the rhythm is not established or maintained long enough to be enjoyable. In other words, by the time a plate is caught or thrown, the shot changes angle so it has an assembled look that does not showcase the talents of those putting a rhythm to the exchange. The best analogy for this would be a stunt fighter whose stunts were cut so that one sees them about to take a hit, then falling, then getting up (i.e. not having the hit appear to connect, nor have them hitting the ground, etc.). That type of gap does not allow one to appreciate the dance moves, scope or simple sense of motion of the big song and dance numbers throughout the film.

At least as troubling is how Gluck and Nolan rob the film of the big emotional moment for Stacks. At a museum fundraiser, Stacks uses Annie as a prop and when she sings to his crowd of potential donor, Stacks realizes that Annie has grown attached to him and that she is emotionally invested in the potential future he offered her. The only way viewers know what Stacks is going through is by the performance of Jamie Foxx. Foxx watches Quvenzhane Wallis’s Annie and he undergoes an emotional transformation without a word, only with subtle changes to his facial expression. The problem here is that the scene is cut in such a way that the viewer is not treated to the full transformation. The camera does not stay on Foxx’s face long enough for him to make the emotional statement he intends. This is sloppy and undermines the impact of the entire scene.

The song and dance numbers are further diminished by conceits that make no sense in a real world where people in the scenes are breaking into song and dance. Most notably, in one song where Cameron Diaz’s Hannigan is singing on her own, she is clearly accompanied by back-up singers and production elements that change her vocal quality. Of course, Diaz’s entire character is out-of-place in a modern adaptation of Annie. Hannigan as rendered in this version of Annie is a cruel has-been (more accurately, would-have-been – she got fired before actually dancing with C&C Music Factory) who is using the foster children for the monetary stipend they provide. But this version of Hannigan does not ring true in our modern world. Hannigan makes sense if she has a vice – to go dark, if she had been a drug abuser –, a goal (she needed the money to better herself, like by going to college or funding a small business, which could have been a cool twist if she was essentially using foster children as slave labor), or was just lazy (she is far too actively angry to be truly lazy or credibly as alcoholic as the characters around her claim). Instead, Hannigan seems more like an anachronism than a truly vital or viable character.

That said, Annie gives Rose Byrne a high point to end the year on. Byrne exploded to prominence this year with her role in Neighbors (reviewed here!) and Annie showcases a wider range of her talents. She sings and dances well (though her big song with Wallis wherein she is showing the girl Stacks’s penthouse apartment is notably robbed of flow and continuity of scope) and she provides a human connection that allows the viewer to believe that Annie might be happy with Stacks for more than just materialistic reasons.

Foxx and Wallis are fine in their roles of Will Stacks and Annie, though neither is given the chance to mine very deep for their characters. Foxx’s Stacks is unremarkable and seems to have less ambition than Bobby Canavale’s Guy. Annie is presented by Wallis with such resilience that Hannigan’s threat that she’ll end up in a group home does not seem like it would set her back and that the character’s literacy issue that comes up late in the film seems entirely unrealistic; she is smart, sassy and driven – how she has never sought out someone to help her read seems unrealistic. Cameron Diaz is over-the-top as Hannigan. Both David Zayas and Adewale Akinnoye-Agbaje are welcome additions to the cast, but are placed in fairly understated roles.

Ultimately, Annie is a film that suffers because its well-established, oft-rendered story means that the writer-directors of the project have to rely upon twists to the known and/or style to sell the new rendition. But Will Gluck’s Annie is put together in such a way that its stylistic flairs fall short and the film’s full impact can be achieved simply through watching the trailer.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
The Seventh Son
Vice
Paddington
Inherent Vice
Selma
Still Alice
Predestination
The Interview
The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies
Expelled
Comet
Horrible Bosses 2
10,000 Days
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
Interstellar
The Mule
Hit By Lightning
Horns
Stonehearst Asylum
Birdman

4/10

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

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Lot Like Love A Romantic Comedy Well Above The Curve

The Good: Funny, Well plotted, Good characters, Surprisingly good acting, DVD extras, Good pop soundtrack
The Bad: Ends where one expects, Failure of Emily to evolve
The Basics: A solid romantic comedy, A Lot Like Love gives Ashton Kutcher a chance to shine as an actor and impress the viewer with a smart, wonderful role.


It seems somehow fitting that day after I finally get around to writing a review for one of the best romantic comedies of all time, When Harry Met Sally (reviewed here!) that I find another decent romantic comedy. No one is more surprised than I that Ashton Kutcher could act in a film that is actually a surprisingly good all-around romantic comedy. No qualifiers, no limitations, solidly good on its own merits. The movie is A Lot Like Love and on DVD the only real question I had about it was why the few deleted scenes were not put back into this 107 minute gem.

Emily and Oliver meet in an airport when Emily dumps her boyfriend and Oliver is traveling to see his brother. Aboard the plane, the two hook up in the bathroom and Oliver begins following Emily around New York City. At the end of the day, they part ways. Years later, on a New Year's Eve when Emily is dumped by her boyfriend, she journeys through her rolodex and finds Oliver's number. The two spend the evening together and they renew their friendship (no sex this time) and Oliver moves on to start an internet business. What follows is the rise and fall of Oliver and the intersections of Emily in his life at various points as they build a relationship over the course of about a decade.

Like When Harry Met Sally. . ., the strength of A Lot Like Love is that the film does not insult the viewer with the idea that real romance happens in a short span of time. Relationships are built and they develop, they do not simply happen in the convenient Hollywood notion of three dates, one date or one sexual encounter. One of the distinctive differences between this movie and the earlier classic is that while When Harry Met Sally . . . builds toward the protagonists making love, sex is one of the first things out of the way in A Lot Like Love. This eliminates a lot of the sexual tension of a young relationship and - while it's not the usual type of thing I find entertaining or worthwhile - here it works to the advantage of the story and the characters.

Like all great stories, A Lot Like Love has decent and dynamic characters. Oliver starts the film as a young man with no real plans, no idea where his future might take him and he develops. He comes up with an idea for an internet company - a diaper business over the Net -, he sacrifices relationships for it, builds it up . . . and it collapses on him. Throughout his rise and fall professionally, his life intersects with Emily's and this allows the viewer to suspend the disbelief that over all the years they could form such a meaningful relationship (when they only seem able to spend a few days together at a time throughout much of their history.

Emily does not develop as much. Oliver has a genuine impact on her life; when he gives her his camera, she becomes a photographer, ditching her plan of becoming an actress. But personally, she is very similar at the end as she is in the beginning. To wit, she is spontaneous in the beginning in such a way that she does not seem the type to want - or able - to settle down with one person. At the end, she is able to do the plot-convenient action that she is able to because of that same character trait. Ironically, in her list of traits she objects to in Oliver, she mentions the fact that he hooked up with her in the plane bathroom. But it is exactly that quality in Emily that allows for the resolution to the movie; she gripes that he seems noncommittal, yet it is her who takes this to the next level.

Throughout A Lot Like Love, though, Amanda Peet gives a consistently great performance. Unlike characters I've seen her play before, like the wannabe hitman in The Whole Nine Yards (reviewed here!), here Peet is deeply human, expressive on a number of levels and balances the comedic and dramatic elements of the script perfectly. Peet does not play Emily like a "type," making it hard to reduce the character to a simple "free spirit" archetype that we see in romantic comedies far too often. No, here, Peet is vibrant and varied in her performance, but consistently giving everything she can to the character on the page.

The surprising performance here comes from Ashton Kutcher. In my evaluation of Dude, Where's My Car? (review here!), I noted that Kutcher was perfectly cast as a slack-jawed stoner. In A Lot Like Love, the man proves he can ACT! Kutcher begins the story as a directionless young man who is soft-spoken, subtle and feeling his way nervously out into life. Near the end of the movie, Kutcher is playing a character who has been broken by failure, a man who had the world and had it torn away from him. These are two dramatically different performances and a sloppy actor would play the resulting conditions (i.e. living with his parents, expressions of emotional abandonment, etc.) the same. Kutcher, wisely, plays them entirely differently. In fact, it is Kutcher's performance of how Oliver takes the radical changes in his life that make the viewer completely able to "buy" the character direction. Kutcher's embodiment of Oliver at the onset of the film makes it inconceivable that he would pursue Emily (which is why he does not). Following his failure, he plays Oliver as a man who understands the world will beat him down and he is more open to attempting. Kutcher adds the believability into the character that makes him vital and believable through convincing changes in body language and speech patterns throughout the movie.

All in all, this is a romantic comedy that works very well. The DVD has a decent commentary track, a gag reel and deleted scenes that belong back in the movie. It's certainly short enough that it didn't need them extracted for time! This will be appreciated by anyone who likes a good romantic comedy and it's surprisingly appropriate for a wide audience (it surprised me it's even PG-13). It's funny, charming, well acted and a well told story. What more could one want?

For other works with Kathryn Hahn, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Wanderlust
The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard
Revolutionary Road
Step Brothers
The Holiday
Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy

8/10

Check out how this movie stacks up against other films by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the films are organized from best to worst!

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

Bobby: Another Big Cast Movie I Wanted To Like More

The Good: Awesome cast, Some decent acting, Some interesting characters, DVD extras
The Bad: Most of the characters are not developed enough, Use of archival footage/direction
The Basics: Awkwardly combining archived footage and newly directed material, the fateful day of RFK's primary victory in California is recreated in a painstaking and painful way.


Sometimes movies that have huge casts know how to use those big casts. They wow the audience with their performances with sheer force of numbers. So, for example, critics often overlook the magnificent Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) because the caliber of the actors in it is so high as to overwhelm the audience and for as hard as I was on Mystic River (reviewed here!), the main reason was because all of the actors were so extraordinary that their performances only lived up to the high expectations of greatness from such a group. In fact, the last movie I saw with a massive, well-known cast that truly disappointed me was A Prairie Home Companion (reviewed here!). And then there was Bobby, a film I was excited about and just caught on DVD.

On June 6th, 1968 in Los Angeles California, the California primary is heating up as a contest between Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Senator McCarthy and the victory speech for RFK is set for that night at the Ambassador Hotel. As the day progresses, workers, performers and patrons of the Ambassador Hotel prepare for the arrival of Kennedy and there are numerous conflicts and collisions that occur, prompting actions and reactions. The people spending the day going about their lives include kitchen help, notably Jose and Miguel - Latino workers compelled to work a double shift - and black chef Edward Robinson. When Timmons fails to allow the workers to go vote, his boss Paul fires him. Paul is not having the best day as this is the day he and his mistress, Angela, part ways and his wife Miriam finds out about his indiscretion. Retired doorman John Casey sits in the lounge playing chess with those who will play with him, like Nelson. In the hotel's lounge, Virginia Fallon is set to give her final performance and leave town after introducing RFK.

Outside the immediate politics of the hotel, though still encompassed within the walls of the structure, there are a number of personal and political machinations at work. Fallon's husband Tim has chosen this day to leave Virginia. The establishment is overrun with campaign workers for Robert F. Kennedy, like Jimmy and Cooper who spend the day getting high instead of working. They get LSD from Fisher and spend the day tripping. This is unlike Wade and Dwayne, who have spent the day working to create a victory for RFK in the primary. This is the day that Diane is marrying William so he will be sent to Germany instead of Vietnam. It is also the day RFK supporters Jack and Samantha arrive to see the future president.

The recent success of such movies as Crash (reviewed here!) that employ large casts with characters involved in intertwining storylines have encouraged other writers and directors to explore the same with their own ideas. Bobby is written and directed by Emilio Estevez, who also appears in the movie as Tim Fallon. The problem here is that while Estevez certainly captures the chaos and scope of the Ambassador Hotel on that June day, the character elements are sacrificed to fit all of the stories in.

In short, because there are essentially twenty one integral characters (none of whom are Bobby Kennedy) with at least three other recurring characters that try to squeeze in for time, none of them have the chance to fully develop and be explored. Instead, they are almost all given the short run of screentime.

Which leads me to one of the biggest criticisms of Bobby; the title. Titles, any writer will tell you, are incredibly important and Bobby is a misnomer. This is not a film about Robert F. Kennedy. While it certainly does tell the story of one of the most fateful days in American history, it almost completely neglects the real stories of Robert F. Kennedy's day. This is a story about the Ambassador Hotel, building up to RFK's arrival, it's not about Bobby Kennedy. Certainly everyone in the hotel is there directly or indirectly because of Kennedy, but he is an ancillary character in the story.

Moreover, Kennedy appears in the film through use of historical clips, many from news reports using archive footage. Kennedy, Mike Wallace and another news anchor appear in grainy clips that illustrate the reality of the day. Unfortunately, Estevez combines these clips with the main footage of the movie, pulling the viewer out of narrative as he tells it. Instead of relegating the quotes and clips with RFK to a prologue and epilogue, Bobby uses footage throughout that integrates poorly with the actual movie.

Nowhere is this more problematic than near the climax of the film. While Kennedy is on stage in clips that are wonderfully restored for the film, he is flanked by historical figures who the viewer have been watching for the past hour and a half. Yes, Estevez clumsily integrates footage that includes the real Wade - for example - and for those looking at the continuity, this is a terrible attempt to reconcile the movie with itself. To make clear, Estevez uses footage from reality and tries to put it into the movie, usually when RFK is involved and the footage does not match in terms of quality nor composition, making the movie very poorly assembled in the end.

Estevez should have used his RFK stand in Dave Fraunces - or found another actor - to recreate RFK footage for the movie as opposed to sloppily sticking in old clips.

That said, what we do see about the various characters is enough to make this film work at least one viewing. The dialogue between Jose, Miguel and Edward is phenomenal. Rarely in American cinema is there discussion of interethnic dynamics that calls it as it sees it, documenting the tensions between blacks and latinos. Edward's conversation about how he lost his anger is amazing and very compelling. Despite how little screentime he has, he resonates as a worthwhile and intriguing character.

Similarly, the weird relationship between soon-to-be-spouses Diane and William is awkward, stilted and in every way wonderful. When Diane quietly declares that she would have married the two people from her high school that recently were killed in Vietnam if it would have saved their lives is telling and sad. William's understanding that Diane's willingness to marry him is not necessarily based on love is sad and touching.

The character that is most developed and least overstated is John Casey, the former doorman. He is quite simply lonely and retired, occupying a couch in the lobby playing chess in order to stave off utter loneliness and lethargy. His mind is sharp and he has wonderful memories of the Ambassador Hotel, but he is a man who had nowhere to go in retirement and ends up desperate for any interaction with people.

Casey is played with wonderful simplicity by Sir Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins has one of his most understated roles here and he creates a character with both quiet dignity and desperation as he waits for the day to end. I've never seen Hopkins played bewildered as well as he does in the climax of this film.

Sadly, most of the other actors do not have the chance to shine as much as they deserve. Almost completely neglected is Martin Sheen whose bit part in Bobby makes the viewer wonder why he took it (though supporting his son is a good enough reason for me!). And while Laurence Fishburne is wonderfully cast as Edward Robinson, his performance is nothing we have not seen from him in, say, The Matrix. He plays the sage quite well, but here he does nothing to impress the viewer with his range.

Neglected even more is one of my favorites, William H. Macy, who wowed me in Magnolia (reviewed here!). Macy plays the hotel's manager, Paul and his role is little more than a cameo at key moments, a clear underuse of his talents. Also appearing with minimal screentime are Elijah Wood, Lindsay Lohan, Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore and Emilio Estevez. And while it's wonderful to see Freddy Rodriguez in a film, his part is nothing terribly challenging or different from his signature role in Six Feet Under.

I will note that Joshua Jackson stood out as Wade. Jackson has a seriousness to him that allows him to perfectly embody a young aide to a politician. He seems like a manager and he has a dignity that I would not have anticipated from him.

On the DVD presentation, one of the coolest features is a panel discussion with people who were actually at the Ambassador Hotel the night in question. Their conversation is insightful and it has a strength to it that wonderfully tells the story of reality from a different perspective after Estevez's production is over.

It is only the strength of what is revealed by characters in what little time they are given, combined with the strength of the acting when the actors are permitted to present their talents and the decent DVD bonuses that save this otherwise mediocre film. Sadly, while I watched, I continued to wait for it to become extraordinary and was a little let down when the best it achieved was adequate. Recommended for a viewing, as opposed to purchasing for a permanent collection.

For other works with Freddy Rodriguez, check out my takes on:
Six Feet Under
Havoc
Payback

6/10

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

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

Bubblegum For Stoners, A Science Fiction Comedy: Dude, Where’s My Car?

The Good: It's ALWAYS nice to see Jennifer Garner and Marla Sokoloff, Convincing acting
The Bad: This is a largely dumb movie
The Basics: With mild entertainment value, Dude, Where’s My Car? is a science fiction comedy that is largely a witless trek around to find a lost car while two stoners are hunted by smarter people and aliens.


For years there was someone in my life trying to convince me that the seminal American movie was Dude Where’s My Car? so last night, I finally broke down and watched it. I now have one less holiday card to send out. Even recognizing Dude Where’s My Car? as a stupid, teen-oriented stoner flick, this movie manages to be lousy.

Best friends Jesse and Chester wake up from a night of being stoned and/or heavy drinking on their anniversary to their girlfriends (who are twins) to discover they have lost the previous night and Jesse's car. As they search for their car to get to their girlfriends, they find themselves hunted by a transsexual, a cadre of "hot chicks," two muscly men and a cult focused on entering outer space. As Jesse and Chester are manipulated for the whereabouts of a device they supposedly possess, they reconstruct the outrageous night they had the night before.

First, what works. At the end of the day, Dude Where’s My Car? is a science fiction comedy. In my book, there are too few of those. Dude Where’s My Car? is, in part, a dimwitted science fiction comedy about two people who stumble upon a device that could destroy the universe and the forces that hunt them to insure that will not happen. As a drama, this is a compelling plot. As a comedy, it has the elements to be very funny.

The problem is in the execution. What might have been an excellent situation for a farce or satire or even a referential comedy quickly becomes a stoner movie. Lacking any of the intelligence in dialogue of a Kevin Smith movie - the average joke in Dude Where’s My Car? involves repetition - this simply becomes a stoner comedy about two slackers who try to be funny.

The other thing that works, though, in this movie, is the acting. Yup, the acting. Ashton Kutcher and Seann William Scott are utterly convincing as stoners who are clueless and out of control. Kutcher has the ability to make his face go slack with stupidity that no other young actor can master. Seann William Scott plays an adequate sidekick who seems just functional enough to perform his plot-dictated roles.

Sadly, this is a waste of the talents of Jennifer Garner and Marla Sokoloff, who are usually worth the price of admission for me. Garner and Sokoloff play the twins Wanda and Wilma and the final joke of the movie is insulting to these two professionals and the viewers alike. Strangely, two of the better names who appear in the movie are not even credited. Brent Spiner ("Data" on Star Trek The Next Generation) and Andy Dick appear midway through the movie for a scene.

There's not much to say about this movie. Minutes are spent with Jesse fighting with a speakerbox while ordering Chinese food. Similarly, a portion of time is spent with Jesse and Chester reading each other's tattooed backs and mistaking "Dude" and "Sweet" for terms of affection as opposed to what the tattoos say. And there's a requisite number of oral sex jokes and jokes based on secondary sex characteristics that could only be found amusing by high school dropouts and preteens.

What sinks Dude Where’s My Car? ultimately is that it's not funny. I was amused by the movie, but there was little to actually laugh at. I did find the movie refreshingly direct; the characters are witlessly looking for their car. If you want a movie smarter than that, this is certainly telling the viewer off the bat, it is not it.

For other science fiction comedies, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Men In Black 3
The Back To The Future Trilogy
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

5/10

For other movie reviews, check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

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

A Game Not Worth Playing: Reindeer Games

The Good: Acting
The Bad: Characters, Plot twists, Editing
The Basics: A disappointment of predictable action and reversals that have been done far better in other films, Reindeer Games is a poorly written film that is a tough sell to watch.


Reindeer Games might have been a good, groundbreaking film . . . once. The fact is, I've seen everything in this film before. And the other places I've seen it, well, they were better. If you're considering seeing Reindeer Games save yourself the time and money and watch The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!) and Bound (reviewed here!) instead. They are worthy of your time for two simple reasons: they are well written and they have well-developed characters. This film has neither.

Reindeer Games follows the post-incarceration exploits of Rudy, whose cellmate, Nick is stabbed shortly before Rudy is paroled. Nick has been corresponding with Ashley and when Rudy is paroled, Ashley is waiting, so he assumes the persona Nick and begins a relationship with her. Well, one bad move deserves another and as soon as Ashley and "Nick" get comfy, Gabriel shows up. He's a fairly psychotic truck driver who is determined to rob a local casino that Nick used to work at. He and his band of thugs, including the loyalty-ambivalent Ashley, impress "Nick" to the job, oscillating frequently over their opinions on whether or not he truly is Nick.

Saying more about the plot would be pointless; the rest of the film is a series of reversals and "surprises" that the audience is supposed to be shocked by. Having seen The Usual Suspects and Bound nothing in this film surprises me, even the very last twist. The truth is, if you have most of a brain, it's not terribly shocking, it's fairly established patterns that are recognizable. That's not to say I knew the very last twist, but the truth is, when it came, I didn't feel surprised.

So, what does this film have going for it? All I came up with were the actors. Ben Affleck is very good as Rudy/Nick and Gary Senise is positively riveting as the psychopathic Gabriel. Charlize Theron does what she does best, I suppose, which means we see her breasts twice in the film. It's hard to say whether or not her acting was any good; her character's arc was possibly the most predictable. I say this having watched many films; the ending to The Game (reviewed here!) didn't surprise me either.

Outside the acting, there's not much. Most of the actors are playing flat characters. They're uninspired, often loathsome and most lack any real depth or interesting characteristics.

Annoyingly, the editing is a serious problem. I noticed no less than five instances when the film was poorly cut. That is, it's clear the producers were using two different takes of the same scene and the connection of the clips were not seamless. I'm not sure if this is a problem only in the director's cut (which I saw) or in the original print. Either way, it's distracting.

Ben Affleck's acting is the only real reason to see this film. It's a shame his character isn't as interesting as his acting. Here he tries his hand at action hero of sorts and he manages to pull it off, I suppose. Far better use of Affleck's talents are Dogma and Chasing Amy. Heck, even Mallrats ends up as a better use of time and talent than Reindeer Games.

For other works with Charlize Theron, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Hancock
Arrested Development - Season Three
Aeon Flux
15 Minutes

4/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Utterly Charmless: Ashton Kutcher's Butt, Natalie Portman Naked And Random Lesbian Teenagers Cannot Save No Strings Attached!

The Good: One or two charming moments, One or two acting moments
The Bad: Stale plot, Terribly stiff acting, Utterly unlikable characters
The Basics: No Strings Attached fails to land the premise before delving into it fully, making for a terrible romantic comedy that is utterly unromantic and seldom funny.


Ever since I saw and praised Friends With Benefits (reviewed here!), I've been told that the movie - whose plot I admitted was nothing terribly new - was just a rehash of No Strings Attached which came out about six months prior. So, today, I figured it was about time to watch No Strings Attached. Now, as the movie finishes up and I start my review, I am astonished that anyone has ever compared No Strings Attached with Friends With Benefits. While the Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis vehicle is funny, charming and surprisingly well-acted, No Strings Attached is none of those things.

No Strings Attached has such a predictable plot as to be almost not worth mentioning, but what truly sinks the movie is that the characters are monolithic and unlikable. And the worst element of No Strings Attached is that the two leads, Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman, have absolutely no chemistry on screen. None. Zippo. Zilch. The acting is so stiff that Dylan Hayes and Stefanie Scott who open the movie as the young versions of Adam and Emma have so much more chemistry than the adult actors that they pretty much gut any surprise the movie might have had.

Starting at a summer camp, fifteen years before the primary action, Adam laments that his father is getting divorced to camp friend Emma, then asks is he can finger her. Ten years later, Emma is visiting a friend's frat party and runs into Adam. Having no one else she knows in the area, she invites Adam to her father's funeral the next day and he obliges. Four years later Emma and Adam run into one another when their friends run into each other and then a year later, they reconnect again. At that time, Adam is working on a television show (like Glee) and Emma is working at a local hospital. The morning after Adam gets super drunk after finding his father and ex-girlfriend are now together, Adam and Emma begin a "friends who have sex" relationship.

Soon, the pair is by all appearances a functioning couple who are trying to restrain their own feelings. Emma insists Adam see other women, despite getting jealous when he does and Adam begins to advance his professional career, which earns him the attention of one of the producers on the show he is working on. As the two have lots of sex, they struggle with both the perception and reality that they are developing real emotional bonds, bonds which Emma is afraid to acknowledge.

No Strings Attached is such a simple movie that it is hard to find more to write about it. Writers Elizabeth Meriwether and Michael Samonek try to give their characters some depth, but the fail in that they tell far more than they show. So, for example, Emma is supposed to be characterized as a woman who doesn't want a relationship - her mother asserts because her father died and she took it hard - but she is initially characterized as a nihilist and that's fine. The problem is, instantly upon getting into the faux-relationship with Adam, she is invested in it as if it is a real relationship. In other words, the writers are all talk on Emma not wanting a relationship, so the "conflict" she feels late in the film is exceptionally forced.

Moreover, none of the characters are particularly interested or compelling. Adam's father, ably enough played by Kevin Kline, is utterly impossible to empathize with as he consorts with Vanessa, Adam's ex. The subplot with Emma's sister, Katie finding love and getting married feels like just what it is, a subplot and it leads to plot-predictable moments that bring the movie back to Emma and Adam.

As for the acting, I want to be thorough, but there were no extraordinary performances on any front. Ludacris, who was vibrant in Crash (reviewed here!) is restrained in a supporting role in No Strings Attached. Cary Elwes is restrained and unrecognizable with his beard as Dr. Metzner. Lake Bell seems like a poor director's Amanda Peet. And, the two most viewers will care about - Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher are uncharacteristically stiff as Emma and Adam. The acting is pretty boring and the principles seem bored with their lines and performances.

On DVD, No Strings Attached comes with a tiresome commentary track in which Ivan Reitman tries to fool the viewer into believing they are watching a movie that is in any way significant or unique. There are four deleted scenes, two alternate scenes and two featurettes, none of which make the primary programming actually worth watching.

For other works with Natalie Portman, please check out my reviews of:
Thor
Black Swan
The Star Wars Saga

2.5/10

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

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

| | |