Light And Dark Fight The Drug War In Sicario.

The Good: Performances, Pacing, Direction
The Bad: Very basic story, Lighter on character motivations than some
The Basics: Sicario is tense and clever, even if it is comparatively simple for the two stories it attempts to tell.


With how many films are released each year, it is unsurprising that there are some films I just do not get around to seeing when they are released - regardless of my intent to watch them. Last year, one of the few films to slip between the cracks that I actually wanted to see (the same cannot be said of all of the Best Picture nominees that I had to watch!) was Sicario. I knew almost nothing about Sicario, save that it had an amazing cast (Victor Garber can get me to watch just about anything!) and that the film was a crime drama centered around the drug trade.

As Sicario starts to ramp up, there is a sense that the film might simply become a rehash of Traffic (reviewed here!). Smartly, Sicario keeps the scope much tighter; it is a film where various law enforcement agents and agencies work together to smoke out the boss of a major drug kingpin. So, while there is a feeling that the film is sweeping in scope because it travels around and involves large groups of people working together, the plot is remarkably simple.

Opening in Chandler, Arizona, an FBI SWAT Team led by Kate Mercer raids a cartel house looking for hostages and, when she is shot at, it opens a hole in the wall, which reveals corpses stored there. Forty-two bodies are discovered inside the house before an agent inadvertently sets off a bomb, killing two agents. Mercer connects the house to Manuel Diaz, a major cartel leader working within the United States. Following the incident, Mercer is recruited by the Department Of Justice to join a team to get to Diaz and the cartel for which he works. The first operation she is a part of has Mercer feeling very much left out of the loop and questioning the legality of the mission as it crosses the border from El Paso, Texas to Juarez, Mexico. The mission is an extraction, an extradition that Mercer is wary of and witnesses (from a distance) the violent reaction on the streets of Juarez to.

Guillermo, the man extracted, reveals the existence of a secret tunnel between the U.S. and Mexico. Mercer, Graver, Alejandro, and Mercer's partner Reggie, bust one of Manuel Diaz's money launderers, which leaves Mercer jaded because (while exposing Diaz's methods, there is not strong, legal, evidence of a crime committed) the task force will not act upon it; they continue to focus on flushing out Diaz's superior in the cartel. Disillusioned, Mercer and Reggie go out to a bar, where Mercer hooks up with Ted . . . only to discover that he is one of Diaz's men in law enforcement in the U.S. Alejandro uses Ted as an opportunity to clean house of the corrupt police officers. When Diaz is recalled, Mercer learns that she has been used as legal cover for the CIA (which cannot operate on U.S. soil without another agency with legal authority attached to the operation), but she soldiers on, determined to find out how far back she was a pawn for Graver.

While Sicario is instantly graphic and intense, the impressive aspect of the film is its attention to detail. While Mercer is being recruited to the elite team, she is asked about having a husband and children. While it is easy to view the scene - which contains a group of white men sitting in judgment of Mercer - as something sexist or invasive, director Denis Villeneuve and actor Josh Brolin (who plays Graver, the interrogator) find just the right balance to make those who are familiar with crime dramas recognize it as a risk assessment inquiry. Sicario executes a number of the details like that incredibly well.

Emily Blunt is just the right performer to play Mercer. While she is established right away in the film as badass and efficient, Mercer gets into a situation where she is dramatically over her head. Blunt is able to make the audience empathize immediately with Mercer by playing the fish out of water. Blunt, like the audience, is along for the ride on the first big mission, but the way Blunt uses her facial expressions makes the viewer believe they have a kindred spirit. It is the way Blunt keeps her eyes constantly scanning that lends credibility to Mercer; she is aware of consequences and law that most of the audience is not. It is not easy to portray internal conflict on screen, but Blunt makes it look effortless and instantly gets the viewer to invest in Kate Mercer.

In a similar fashion, Victor Garber's very minimal role in Sicario belays a much more hefty character. Garber's role of Jennings from the Department Of Justice, might seem to exist in Sicario to both recruit Mercer and provide a legal justification for the operations that follow, but Garber plays Jennings with a quiet intelligence that lends authority to the supporting part. Benecio Del Toro might have a more substantive role in Sicario, but Garber steals the scenes he is in.

It is hard to pull off a film where the protagonist is, ostensibly, a dupe, but Sicario manages to do almost all it sets out to very well. Mercer is surrounded by people who are used to keeping secrets, so there are a number of moments of pure exposition needed to inform the viewer what is actually going on. Instead of using cheesy voiceovers or inorganic monologues, Sicario immerses the viewer in the situation and then explains and justifies as needed. Fortunately, Mercer is frequently asking "what the hell is going on" so the viewer is able to watch Sicario and feel like they are going exactly at pace with someone who appears vastly more knowledgeable in the situation.

Sicario is essentially a pair of character studies of Mercer and Alejandro. Mercer is an incredibly straightforward character with a clear moral core and series of goals. Alejandro, by contrast, is a mysterious character and watching his story unfold is much of the meat of Sicario. Despite Alejandro's motivation being handed to the viewer by Graver, the last half of the film makes him a compelling character who makes the latter half of Sicario gripping. Benicio Del Toro is well-cast as Alejandro, though he plays the quiet, mysterious role in the first half in a way that telegraphs his potentially ruthless abilities.

Like Traffic, Sicario makes a moral case alongside decidedly immoral actions. There is the obligatory acknowledgement that the war on drugs is an abject failure and that a significant problem with fighting against the illegal drug trade is that demand for the product exists in the United States. But the meat of Sicario is the interplay between Mercer and Alejandro and while it is slow in getting there, the payoff is generally satisfying.

The result is a crime drama that is engaging to watch and smartly explores the complexity of a fight that has created as many monsters as it has eliminated.

For other works with Emily Blunt, please visit my reviews of:
Edge Of Tomorrow
Looper
The Five-Year Engagement
The Adjustment Bureau
Salmon Fishing In The Yemen
Charlie Wilson’s War
Dan In Real Life
The Devil Wears Prada

7/10

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.
| | |

The Worst Of The Bond Films? License To Kill Gets My Vote!

The Good: Dares to push the character relationships farther . . .
The Bad: Terrible direction/editing, Horrible acting, Painfully dull plot, Ridiculous characters
The Basics: License To Kill is a James Bond film that goes nowhere . . . poorly.


As I near the end of my reviews of the James Bond film franchise, (Tomorrow Never Dies is now the only one I have not yet seen!), it is funny what excites me about the franchise now. At the outset of License To Kill, I suddenly found myself irrationally excited by seeing Everett McGill (from Twin Peaks, reviewed here!), Anthony Zerbe (from Star Trek: Insurrection, reviewed here!) and Benicio Del Toro! For a franchise that has done so much, that License Of Kill lacked a strong plot hook (as opposed to performers who I recognized from other works), it was unsurprising to me that it underperformed at the box office.

Unfortunately, given how straightforward and surprisingly linear License Of Kill is, the excitement for the film pretty much begins and ends with the performers in it. Sadly, the initial excitement of performers who appeared in License To Kill quickly dissipated based on the performances they gave. License To Kill is one of the most straightforward and least exciting Bond movies. License To Kill is hinged almost entirely on the premise that James Bond would risk everything for his occasional CIA ally and counterpart, Felix Leiter.

Opening with James Bond preparing to act as Best Man at Felix Leiter’s wedding, the CIA Agent gets sidetracked with assisting with a DEA bust. They capture drug lord Franz Sanchez and manage to make it to Leiter’s wedding on time. Sanchez successfully bribes a DEA agent to orchestrate his escape. The drug lord then captures Felix and has a shark bite off his leg! Bond allies with Leiter’s partner, Sharkey, until M arrives and tells Bond to leave Key West. Revoking Bond’s credentials and license to kill, James Bond strikes out on his own to avenge Leiter and stop Sanchez.

Bond rescues Leiter’s last contact who knew about Sanchez’s operation, Pam Bouvier. Together, Bond and Bouvier travel to Isthmus City, where Bond hunts Sanchez. Bond uses the millions of dollars that he stole from Sanchez during his escape to pay Bouvier to get him to Isthmus City and open a line of credit at the bank Sanchez owns. Q comes to Bond’s aid with tech that he uses to stop a transaction that would unite Sanchez’s operation with an Asian syndicate.

License To Kill is riddled with problems, not the least of which is how Felix Leiter and Bond are treated as best friends in the film. Bond is recast throughout the franchise and the implication has been that James Bond is an alias – as are M, Q, and Moneypenny. By the same logic of recasting, Felix Leiter is also an alias, used by the CIA. License To Kill seems to want to defy the idea that Bond is an alias, by referencing that Bond was once married. It can be blown off as this particular Bond’s backstory, but the implication is more for the idea that this Leitner was with the old Bond when his wife was killed and that they are the same person.

The kicker in License To Kill is that Bond is monolithic and dull (more from the writing than Timothy Dalton’s performance) and Carey Lowell’s Pam Bouvier – while she might be played as over-the-top in a few scenes – is far more interesting. Bouvier holds her own with Bond, not simply succumbing to his charm . . . which is good because Bond is less-than-charming in License To Kill.

License To Kill is notable, as well, for the terrible direction and editing by John Glen. Glen makes some terrible cuts (like a person who is thrown out of a plane and barely falls before the shot cuts to something else) and uses some remarkably stiff takes. The stunts are so obviously choreographed that they look entirely unreal and the chases and shooting scenes are so poorly put together that frequently people aren’t even aiming in the right direction to make the shots they do.

Timothy Dalton is fine playing Bond as shaken, but it is not the highlight of his career. In fact, all the notable actors who appeared in License To Kill that I liked give mediocre, at best, performances. License To Kill is just all-around bad and a disappointment for both James Bond fans and anyone who likes quality cinema.

For other works with Robert Davi, please visit my reviews of:
The Expendables 3
“Simon’s Choice” - VR.5

1/10

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

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Goofy, Grassed, Grand - Inherent Vice Translates Pynchon To Screen Well!

The Good: Wonderful acting, Distinct setting, Fun-to-watch characters, Good direction
The Bad: Unnecessary narrations, Needlessly complex at points
The Basics: Not as fun as reading Pynchon, P.T. Anderson makes a compelling film with Inherent Vice that captures the ‘70s drug culture in California well.


Without a doubt, the film I was most excited about in 2014 was The Zero Theorem (reviewed here!). While that might seem like a strange place to begin my review of Inherent Vice, it might make more sense when I note that Inherent Vice is this year’s The Zero Theorem. Allow me to explain; in 2013, The Zero Theorem was put into very limited release in the U.S. right around my birthday and my plan was to go see it with my wife on the big screen as part of that personal event. Alas, it was not to be; the film was delayed repeatedly in the U.S. and came out here in even limited release than it was supposed to! In 2014, the earliest showings of Inherent Vice also seemed like they would coincide with my birthday, but the film was delayed until Oscar Pandering Season. The result was a delayed sense of excitement for the film.

Add to that, Inherent Vice lives in the shadow of The Master (reviewed here!), a film that ruined my birthday back in 2012. Seriously. My wife saved up to pay for the day out and we made a whole event of driving to a theater that was actually showing The Master, because of my love of the works of writer/director P.T. Anderson and then the film sucked righteous balls (is, I believe, the delicate, p.c. way of saying it). So, Inherent Vice became a film I was excited about, but I did not attach a temporal limitation on that excitement. Now out in wide release, I finally managed to see the latest film by P.T. Anderson.

Inherent Vice is based upon the novel Inherent Vice (reviewed here!) by Thomas Pynchon and it is worth noting that while I have read and reviewed the book, this shall remain a very pure review of the film alone. That said, it’s a pretty exciting thing for me to see one of my favorite directors tackle the work of one of my favorite authors. While I have so far considered The Big Lebowski (reviewed here!) the most Pynchon-esque film I’ve yet seen, I was eager to see how Anderson would do with actual Pynchon.

And P.T. Anderson got it right more often than not. Before watching Inherent Vice, my only real trepidation with the idea of an adaptation of Pynchon’s works was that Pynchon’s diction is much of the magic of his novels. He can get away with a certain amount of crazy plotting and random twists because his poetics are amazing. Lacking that, how it would translate to screen seemed uncertain, but Anderson, who adapted Pynchon’s novel, respects much of the author’s writing by using voiceover narration surprisingly well. And, Anderson chose one of Pynchon’s more linear narratives to adapt for the screen!

Doc Sportello is laying in bed one night when his ex-girlfriend, Shasta, shows up. She asks the private detective for help with a situation she is in; her married boyfriend, Mickey Wolfmann is in trouble. Wolfmann's wife, Sloane, and her lover are trying to run a scam and they want Shasta’s help. Sloane wants to commit Mickey to an assylum and run off with his wealth and he wants Shasta to assist him in the con, which has led Shasta to a strange moral quandary. Wolfmann’s name comes up prominently in Sportello’s first case the next day when Tariq Khalil (of the Black Guerilla movement) hires him to get money out of a member of the Aryan Brotherhood with whom he’d done business. Sportello heads out to where Channel View Estates are being built by Wolfmann’s company and there he discovers the only operating unit is a “massage” parlor.

But soon, Sportello’s problems multiply as his search for Charlock end with Sportello knocked out and awakening to a interrogation by his nemesis, LAPD detective “Bigfoot” Bjornsen about Charlock’s murder and Wolfmann and Shasta’s disappearance. While Sportello is apparently rescued by his lawyer (who is more a marine law lawyer than a criminal lawyer) and released upon his own reconnaissance, he soon finds himself in the crosshairs of the LAPD, FBI, and various criminal enterprises, including Golden Fang gangsters who own the boat by the same name. As drug-smuggling criminals, corrupt cops and swindlers manipulate Sportello, he is knocked around Gordita Beach as a tool for their various interests.

Inherent Vice, like the book, is filled with characters who are goofy and several who are only incidental to the “main” storyline being presented. Hope Harlington’s investigation into her husband’s “murder” and subsequent windfall deposit into her bank account is seemingly random until Coy Harlington turns up as a target of the Golden Fang. With so many characters, some get severely underused – like Dr. Blatnoyd, D.A. Kimball and Smilax (Doc’s lawyer) – and serve more to deliver plot exposition. Conversely, Sortilege might provide some beautiful narration in the form of Pynchon’s lines as voiceovers, but her part in the movie captures the time and place (1970’s California beach country) and the absurdities of it more than provide a real or viable character (her voiceovers about astrology are cringeworthy, but fit the character fine).

What Inherent Vice does well is showcase the talents of director P.T. Anderson and the actors he chose for the film. Inherent Vice might well prove that The Master was an exception to the rule of Anderson’s greatness as a writer-director. In adapting Pynchon’s novel, Anderson was able to take the essential elements of the story and bring to life a sense of Pynchon’s quirky characters. No matter how ridiculous the plot or characters get at various points in Inherent Vice, Anderson makes the film look great and he makes it all feel very much part of the same, distinct setting and narrative.

To make Inherent Vice work, the giant cast had to be fleshed out with amazing talents and fans of Anderson’s works like Magnolia (reviewed here!) and Boogie Nights (reviewed here!) will be unsurprised that he has once again assembled a memorable ensemble cast. Leading the cast are Joaquin Phoenix as Doc Sportello and Josh Brolin as Bigfoot. I’ve never been a fan of Phoenix’s performances – save in Her (reviewed here!) – but as the drug-addled detective Doc Sportello, Joaquin Phoenix nails it! Phoneix taps into the depth of his performance arsenal and comes up with completely credible body language and line deliveries for a befuddled, confused, tool of a protagonist and he makes Sportello work in ways I did not anticipate when the casting for Inherent Vice was first announced!

At the other end of the spectrum, Josh Brolin gives a solid performance as Bigfoot Bjornsen. Brolin’s magic is in playing the part entirely straightlaced; Bigfoot is a character who is a parody of a cop who does not realize he is a joke. Brolin balances the serious line-deliveries with utterly goofy physical comedy (Bjornsen has an oral fixation that Brolin brings to life perfectly!).

The rest of the cast, including Jena Malone, Owen Wilson, Benicio Del Toro, Martin Short, Reese Witherspoon, Sam Jaeger, Eric Roberts, and Katherine Waterston do a decent job of balancing expository backstory to make their characters pop with performances that show instead of tell who they are supposed to be. The result is a film that has moments of peril, but is dominated by a fun, weird, sensibility that one used to only look to the Coen Brothers for (on film); now, P.T. Anderson gives them a run for their money and Inherent Vice delivers an engaging experience for moviegoers!

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
The Last Five Years
The Voices
Love, Rosie
The Seventh Son
Song One
Project Almanac
Match
Vice
American Sniper

8/10

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

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

If The Avengers Were Made As A Science Fiction Comedy: Guardians Of The Galaxy!

The Good: Good humor, Decent soundtrack, Good plot development
The Bad: Rather obvious (and rushed) character development, Nothing exceptional in terms of performances, Distracting 3-D in several points
The Basics: Guardians Of The Galaxy further expands the Marvel Cinematic Universe while amusing viewers . . . without resonating the same way as the prior installments.


Guardians Of The Galaxy has a number of reasonable comparisons to the giant Marvel film The Avengers (reviewed here!), not just because both are set within the same storytelling universe. The Marvel Cinematic Universe was established in Phase One (reviewed here!) as a surprisingly grounded place: Tony Stark needed time to train within his suit of armor, Steve Rogers was a unique warrior set in place as the only stopgap against an army powered by an extraterrestrial device and for the bulk of his time on Earth, Thor was without his godlike powers. For all of the supernatural and comic book conceits that exist in science fiction and comic book movies, the Marvel Cinematic Universe did not employ most of them (save in the Hulk movies, which is arguably why they failed). In other words, most of the Marvel Cinematic Universe strove to generally recreate the real world and then add slight twists to it and explore how “real people” and the “real world” would react to those twists.

Until the climax of The Avengers, when an interstellar alien force invades, and outside the climactic event of Thor: The Dark World (reviewed here!), the Marvel Cinematic Universe has worked hard to keep a realist sensibility to itself. Taking an entirely different tact is the new addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Guardians Of The Galaxy. Guardians Of The Galaxy, as the name implies, is set (mostly) in the farthest reaches of the galaxy (where a sizable population still looks mostly human) and explores the larger consequences of the artifacts that the other films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe have been introducing. Those artifacts, like the Tesseract and the seed in the Thor sequel, are given an explicit name in Guardians Of The Galaxy: they are Infinity Stones (which Marvel geeks knew years ago). Guardians Of The Galaxy introduces another one and reveals what their purpose is . . . along with the motivation Thanos had for hunting the Tesseract in The Avengers. More than just in its outlandish setting, Guardians Of The Galaxy transforms the Marvel Cinematic Universe into a much less grounded place. Guardians Of The Galaxy feels like exactly what it is: a film based on a comic book.

That is not to say Guardians Of The Galaxy is not good. It is. Guardians Of The Galaxy is a fun and funny science fiction comedy, continuing the tradition of the niche genre like Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (reviewed here!) or Men In Black (reviewed here!). Unlike the former, Guardians Of The Galaxy lacks a sense of theme and universal resonance and treads more toward entertainment than enlightenment.

Opening in 1988, Peter Quill’s mother dies and the young boy flees into the night where he is promptly abducted by aliens. Twenty-six years later, Quill is scavenging on a dead world where he recovers an orb from the ruins. Moments after he gets the item he was sent for, he squares off against Korath and his forces. Evading them and retreating to his ship, the Milano, Quill decides to betray his employer and sell the recovered Orb on his own. While Quill heads to Xandar to sell the Orb, the villainous alien Ronan dispatches Gamora (who volunteers) to recover it. When the potential buyer for the Orb freaks out – after learning Ronan is after the artifact – Quill is attacked by Gamora, a sentient genetically-modified, cybernetically enhanced raccoon named Rocket and his humanoid plant companion Groot, and the Nova police force.

The quartet is imprisoned on a remote world, the Kyln, where virtually everyone wants to kill Gamora, especially Drax The Destroyer. Quill manages to save Gamora’s life and refocuses Drax on finding and killing Ronin. The quintet stages an incredible escape from the Kyln by working together, with the four aliens actually waiting for Quill when he goes back for his prized mix tape. Hunted by Ronan, Quill’s regular employer Yondu Udonta and the police force from Nova, Quill and his compatriots become determined to keep the Orb from falling into the hands of Ronan and Thanos when Ronan reveals that the Orb contains an Infinity Stone with virtually unlimited power to destroy. Working together, Quill, Gamora, Drax, Rocket and Groot must protect the citizens of Xandar from the genocidal plans of Ronan and Thanos.

In many ways, Guardians Of The Galaxy is a very typical science fiction film. In fact, its reliance upon humor makes it fun, but also as formulaic as virtually every comedy to grace the big screen . . . ever. Guardians Of The Galaxy transforms the Marvel Cinematic Universe simply by realigning the physics of the galaxy to allow virtually every comic book conceit as opposed to conforming to realistic physics. That makes the fight scenes in Guardians Of The Galaxy extraordinarily dynamic and animated, especially when Groot and Rocket are involved. They hop around without clear boundaries on their abilities (Groot, for example, is entirely inscrutable and only reveals the extent of his powers and abilities when they become relevant and necessary).

Peter Quill is a decent anti-hero; he does the right thing when it suits him, but he is a Han Solo-esque bounty hunter who also strangles small animals to use them as microphones when the mood takes him. In his quest to get respect in the galactic underground as Star Lord, Quill does not actually distinguish himself in any strong or meaningful way. Less the function of his personality or values, Quill manages to survive Guardians Of The Galaxy simply by biology. Heavily alluded to in the film’s very first scene, Peter Quill is not simply a human, but his heritage is only a minor subplot in the larger film.

Far more of a component of Guardians Of The Galaxy is establishing and then defying the premises of the universe and characters Peter Quill is a part of. In this regard, Guardians Of The Galaxy is painfully formulaic. Elements that are established in an obvious way include Groot’s limited vocabulary (he, we are told, only speaks the three words “I am Groot,” though Rocket seems able to interpret what he means by it as the film goes on), Gamora’s absolute refusal to dance, and the obviously seeded gift Quill receives from his dying mother that he has not opened over the lapsed twenty-six years. For sure, viewers need a film with character development to make any movie worth watching, but Guardians Of The Galaxy is like watching a checklist of the elements that are used to establish the characters getting checked off. Virtually everything established about a character, up to and including Drax’s lifelong struggle with metaphor, is defied by the film’s end. Guardians Of The Galaxy is obviously intended to build a franchise, but the way the film ends, there is almost nowhere to go for the characters that will not force the writers to completely redefine them. This would be analogous to Bruce Banner learning to control his ability to transform in Hulk (such an ability would have left the character with nothing compelling for The Incredible Hulk or The Avengers). So, in some ways, Guardians Of The Galaxy undoes its own attempt to build a franchise by making a solid (if formulaic) story.

In a similar fashion, Guardians Of The Galaxy is nothing extraordinary on the acting front. John C. Reilly is (mostly) goofy as the Nova Police Officer Dey and Glenn Close is appropriately authoritative as Nova Prime, the leader of Xandar. Djimon Hounsou plays the villainous Korath with virtually the same presence that he has played many other adversaries over the years. The film’s lead, Chris Pratt, plays Quill as an everyman and he does so with a similarly goofy quality (but without the slouch) to his character from Parks And Recreation. Even Zoe Saldana (who plays Gamora) is used in such a familiar way that director James Gunn doesn’t even bother hiding the allusion to her playing Uhura by throwing her in a miniskirt at the movie’s end.

Guardians Of The Galaxy is charming and worth watching, but it is hardly a great and enduring film the way some other, recent super hero films have managed to be.

For other works in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, please check out my reviews of:
Ant-Man
Captain America: Civil War
Doctor Strange
Iron Fist - Season 1
"What If . . . " - Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D.

7/10

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.
| | |

Shut Up, Listen, And Learn: Swimming With Sharks Makes A Complicated Anti-Businessman Argument!

The Good: Most of the acting, Interesting characters
The Bad: Long build-up before all the characters become worth watching, Utterly unpleasant to watch
The Basics: Kevin Spacey foreshadows pretty much his entire career with exceptional range as the villain in Swimming With Sharks!


Since I managed to get my wife into House Of Cards (season 2 is reviewed here!), she has gotten into the works of Kevin Spacey. So, it seems like I’m going to be watching and reviewing all of the Kevin Spacey movies I’ve missed over the years. I loved Spacey in The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!) and American Beauty (reviewed here!), but there have been so many films with Spacey that I have missed a couple over the years. Today’s “Kevin Spacey Catch-up” film is Swimming With Sharks.

Swimming With Sharks is a dark film that was one of Spacey’s underperforming independent films. Given how it is essentially Hard Candy (reviewed here!) where the viewer actually knows what is going on from almost the first frames, it is unsurprising that Swimming With Sharks was a box office flop. So many people in the world live under the yolk of forces bigger than themselves (in terms of business/capitalist influences), so the expectation that the masses would want to watch such things in their down time is somewhat ridiculous. Moreover, given the ethically murky end to the film, it is similarly unsurprising that those at the top of the economic pyramid would actually learn a lesson by watching Swimming With Sharks.

Opening with the young, ambitious Guy at his breaking point, drawing a gun on his boss, Buddy Ackerman, in Ackerman’s house, Swimming With Sharks bounces between the past and present to tell its story. In the present, Guy has snapped and he loudly demands that Buddy give him respect, apologize for how horribly he has treated Guy for the past year, and submit to his torture. Buddy delays as best he can, taking the cuts and beatings from Guy, while still asking his personal assistant what it is that he truly wants. Woven amid the torture scenes are extended flashbacks to show the build-up to how Guy reached his breaking point and how Buddy pushed him there.

On his first day, Guy accidentally parks in film producer/executive Dawn Lockard’s spot and is yelled at by Lockard. Guy then goes into his job where he meets Rex, Buddy’s former assistant, who does his best to train him in how to manage the film executive. But, when Guy brings Buddy Equal instead of Sweet & Low (which is what Buddy asked him for), Buddy yells (loudly) at Guy in front of the entire office. By the end of the first week, Lockard has approached Guy to befriend him (ostensibly to protect him from Buddy, but also quite obviously so that Guy will give her access to Buddy so her script gets put into production with a hot up-and-coming director) and Buddy continues to find reasons to yell at Guy and demean him for doing his job. Amid the inconsistent reinforcement, Guy manages to get Buddy to bite on Lockard’s project (though Buddy takes credit for it) and the young assistant actually starts dating Lockard. But over the course of the year, Buddy’s impatience and anger rubs off on Guy and pushes him to the breaking point, undoing all of the work he has put in to make it in Hollywood.

Swimming With Sharks might have been a better film if it had begun with the answer to the key question that Buddy asks Guy over and over and over in the film: “What do you want?” If Guy’s actual goals were at all clear, the viewer might care about where he ends up or have some idea that Buddy is actually a means to achieving his goals. Instead, the viewer empathizes with Guy simply because no one ought to be put into the position where another person treats them so poorly.

That, of course, does not justify Guy torturing Buddy and as a result, the viewer has to go on faith that the incident that pushes Guy over the edge is sufficiently bad to justify his horrible actions. Unfortunately, because Guy’s goals are not known until the final frames of the film, Buddy’s excuse of “you’ve been free to leave all along” resonates more potently than Guy’s indignation. Guy puts up with Buddy’s poor treatment of him, but he makes the conscious choice to stay in Buddy’s employ (Guy is a man who has virtually unlimited career options at the outset of the film, so destitution is not at all a concern of the protagonist).

As one would expect from a film with Kevin Spacey, Buddy Ackerman is not presented as monolithically evil character. Instead, Ackerman has layers and they come out in the course of Swimming With Sharks. Ackerman’s personal tragedy does not justify his treatment of Guy, but it does make him more multi-faceted and it allows him to get in a few essential points that could otherwise be buried by a less skillful filmmaker/writer. Instead, writer/director George Huang uses Ackerman’s backstory to justify some of his anger and, more importantly, land some points on how Guy’s generation operates on a principle of instant gratification. That makes it possible to empathize with Ackerman some.

The character that is ultimately least interesting is Dawn Lockard. Lockard is presented as a character who appears to want to do good and help Guy, but is doing so in such a transparent way that viewers are unlikely to be at all surprised that her true allegiance is only to herself. While Michelle Forbes does a decent job of playing Lockard, the character arc is predictable enough to seem like one of her less impressive roles.

Kevin Spacey does a decent job as Buddy Ackerman, never letting his character break, though he is given a single monologue with which to soften Ackerman’s crusty exterior. It works and Spacey makes Ackerman a mostly horrible character, with some distinctly human characteristics that make it harder to write off his personal history. The film is dominated, though, by Frank Whaley. Whaley plays Guy and it is a very bland, white bread performance that is as indistinct as the character he is playing. Whaley does not bring any real force of character or sense that Guy is anything other than a mid-level office worker to the role. In other words, Whaley does not hint that Guy could be anything more than Buddy’s assistant and that works to the detriment of Swimming With Sharks.

Ultimately, Swimming With Sharks is a fairly average film with a good-enough theme to be worth watching, even if its theme is a bit overstated and its tone is oppressive.

For other works with Michelle Forbes, please visit my reviews of:
Highland Park
True Blood - Season 2
Lost - Season 4
Homicide: The Movie
Homicide: Life On The Street - Season Six
Homicide: Life On The Street - Season Five
"Preemptive Strike" - Star Trek: The Next Generation
Star Trek: The Next Generation - Season 6
Star Trek: The Next Generation - Season 5

6/10

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.
| | |

The Rare Sequel Better Than The Original: How Thor: The Dark World Became THE Superhero Movie Of 2013!

The Good: Special effects, Performances, Moments of characters.
The Bad: Malekith comes across as monolithic, Romance plot is underdeveloped.
The Basics: Thor: The Dark World surpasses Thor as an engaging journey with enough character and deeper themes to remain compelling throughout.


Sequels, admittedly, have a tough time of it, especially the longer a franchise goes on. In a year where Marvel is trying to flesh out its universe with the television show Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. and surpass the spectacle of The Avengers (reviewed here!) with Iron Man 3 (reviewed here!), the second Marvel blockbuster attempt for the year hits theaters at a time when it is hard not to be pre-disappointed. With Ender’s Game promising to blow the roof off of special-effects driven action movies only a week before Thor: The Dark World hits screens, Marvel had to sell a compelling story in order to truly land the Thor sequel as a success.

Fortunately, it does (for the most part).

I was not a huge fan of Thor (reviewed here!), though I will openly admit that it has aged better in hindsight than many of the Marvel Universe films, so if anything my expectations were lowered for Thor: The Dark World. But Thor: The Dark World has what Thor lacked: an appreciation for the unique setting of Thor within the Marvel Universe and a villain who was more than just an empty suit. Despite being somewhat underdeveloped and underused, Thor: The Dark World includes a villain who raises the stakes admirably in a way that Iron Man 3 was not able to do credibly. If the stakes in The Avengers were New York City and Earth, Thor: The Dark World ratchets the potential catastrophe up in a way that it seems hard for Guardians Of The Galaxy to follow: the nine realms of the universe are all poised to fall in Thor: The Dark World!

Having returned to the magical realm of Asgard, with Loki as his prisoner, Thor is once more bound by family and mystical barriers that keep him away from Earth and physicist Jane Foster. While Thor adapts to life back on Asgard by bringing peace to all the realms, on Earth, Jane is trying to get on with her life. When Darcy pops back up with information on mysterious readings in the atmosphere, Jane is enticed and they find a gravitational anomaly in an abandoned warehouse. There, Jane is teleported to the Dark World where she touches the Aether. The Aether possesses her and she is returned to Earth, which draws Thor back to Earth. Thor takes Jane back to Asgard to try to save her life from the Aether. Soon after, the Dark Elf Malekith leads an attack on Asgard. As the remaining enemy of the Asgardians – the Frost Giants were not the only ones! – the Dark Elves make an attack of Thor’s homeland that illustrates the power their leader, Malekith can bring to bear, Thor and his friends find themselves in a struggle that threatens all nine realms. To that end, Thor breaks Loki out of his Asgard prison.

After reconciling for their time apart, Thor, Loki and Jane continue their work and relationship together. Malekith’s plan soon becomes painfully clear; a celestial event, the Convergence is soon to occur and that will allow Malekith to lay waste to all nine realms at once. To stop Malekith and the creatures he employs and sets free through the rifts caused by the Convergence. Journeying to the Dark World, Thor, Loki, and Jane try to lure Malekith away from Asgard and Earth, but when Malekith takes the Aether for his own, at a tragic cost, Earth becomes the focal point for Malekith's vengeance and Thor must save the world again.

Given that Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. just began (and was already given a full-season order) and there are plenty more Marvel film sequels with release dates announced, the fate of Malekith’s plan is pretty well telegraphed. Whenever I look at a villain, especially one who wants to either rule the world (which always seems much more of a hassle than it is worth) or destroy the world/existence, the key question for credibility is “why?” Malekith is given a glossed-over revenge story that takes a back seat to the Loki/Thor buddy action movie that Thor: The Dark World turns into. In fact, even more than the hints of a love story – Marvel apparently does not want to tread anywhere near a Twilight-esque love story that would actually develop genuine emotions between their superheroes and a love interest - Thor: The Dark World cries out for a Director’s Cut that might restore scenes to the film (not just as deleted scenes on the inevitable Blu-Ray, but actually integrated as a true director’s cut) that make Malekith seem more well-rounded and truly compelling instead of clinging to an old wound with a perverse sense of overreaction for his revenge.

One of the fundamental problems with Thor was that the romantic subplot between Thor and Jane Foster was largely under-developed. The basis of Jane’s relationship with Thor was, largely, that he was The Other, the proof she rationally needed to believe in the fantastic. As anyone who has ever been in a romantic relationship knows, that wears off. In fact, it is a poor excuse for starting a relationship (even Darcy’s obsession with Thor’s physique has more long-term lasting power than the sense of wonder one might have to explore a finite space). To that end, Thor: The Dark World does what it absolutely has to in order to keep the relationship between Thor and Jane plausible, if not sustainable: Thor shows Jane Asgard and that rekindles what little they (substantively) had between them before Jane becomes a plot point to motivate Thor. Jane Foster rapidly becomes as ineffectual as Natalie Portman’s Padme Amidala (though, to be fair to Portman, the scenes in Revenge Of The Sith that made Amidala into a compelling leader were cut from the film! Whether such scenes for Thor: The Dark World exist is unclear) and Jane becomes an unfortunate damsel in distress character that Portman seems bored with portraying.

Christopher Eccleston, who is usually magnificent in good as Malekith, but the downgrade in my esteem for him comes not from anything he does, but from how Malekith is written and presented on screen. Eccleston presents great vocal emotional range, which is pretty much all he can do behind the make-up and CG effects for Malekith. Only a hint of his true acting range is presented in a single scene where he is able to infuse genuine emotion behind his eyes and hint at the depths of Malekith’s loss and anger.

With most of the main cast either appearing in seriously small roles amounting to little more than cameos (Kat Dennings, for example, appears as Darcy for a decent chunk delivering her lines exactly as one would expect from the Two Broke Girls star), the brunt of Thor: The Dark World falls on the performances of Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston. Hiddleston is able to play Loki with more depth than in The Avengers where Loki was a facilitator and tool for much of the film, albeit with some wonderful lines. In Thor: The Dark World, Loki is a beaten man (demigod) who is rebuilding his presence and Hiddleston makes the process as convincing as possible without ever having the sense that Loki is either lost entirely or becoming confident too soon after his imprisonment. It’s a tough balance, but Hiddleston nails it.

There is a tough balance for Chris Hemsworth to play as well. Thor is a fantastic character and having such a larger-than-life godlike character, especially in moments in our real world, can come across as cheesy or invincible in a way that obstacles he faces are ridiculous. Hemsworth finds a way – usually with his eyes and smile – to deliver lines that allow him to play Thor as a credible and realized character who is not taking himself entirely too seriously. That is a tightrope that Hemsworth navigates well.

Director Alan Taylor balances the character moments and quips between Thor and Loki fairly well with the dramatic fantasy setting of Asgard and the other realms. While the final chase through the nine realms between Thor and Malekith once again illustrates how directors today try to equate special effects with speed (the settings are hardly as developed as Asgard or Earth and the way they are bounced between is sometimes more frustrating than satisfying), what is shown is immaculate.

Ultimately, Thor: The Dark World has the character elements needed to rival Ender’s Game to keep the science fiction piece from stealing a second weekend at the top of the box office and to leave viewers glad Marvel has once again overcome expectations.
For other works with Christopher Eccleston, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Unfinished Song
Amelia
G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra
Heroes - Season 1
28 Days Later . . .
Elizabeth

7.5/10

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

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Traffic Is An Eloquent Argument Against The War On Drugs

The Good: Excellent acting, Good rendering of various cultures in the drug conflict, direction!
The Bad: Inconsistent characterization, Pacing near the end, Unrelenting tone of futility
The Basics: A searing look at the drug trade and the effort to combat it, Traffic follows several people in their conflicts with drugs.


It's hard to make a good drug movie; if a film advocates drugs, it usually illustrates it poorly, using specious reasoning for the legalization of drugs and if a film speaks out against drugs, it's viewed as conservative, out of touch or a ridiculous "Hallmark Movie of the Week" for kids. It's a shame that Traffic is rated R, because this could be the best film to show in classrooms to the defiant young people who fail to believe in the consequences of drugs.

Traffic is a multi-layered story that follows various parts of the drug trade on the US/Mexico border. Montel Gordon and his partner Ray are DEA officers who are investigating Carlos, a heavy drug dealer who is ratted out by one of his minions. Carlos's wife, Helena, is feeling ostracized by her peers and wants the lifestyle she is accustomed to. In Mexico, Javier Rodriguez is being wooed by General Salazar, the chief force in the Mexican drug war combating production. Meanwhile, north of the border, Robert Wakefield is made the President's leader in the anti-drug effort in the United States. Wakefield's daughter, meanwhile, finds herself more and more addicted to heroin.

The plots weave together, with Wakefield's daughter ending up as a crack prostitute on the run from her father, Wakefield gets into a crisis of faith as his professional responsibilities conflict with his need to hold his family together. Javier, realizes that Salazar is not what he seems and attempts to inform the U.S. authorities of the danger in Mexico. And Montel works hard to keep Eduardo while Helena takes over Carlos's business and attempts to get her husband freed.

The biggest problem with Traffic is the failure to repeat character names. I spent the film referring to Montel as "Don Cheadle's character." Salazar, Javier and Javier's partner Manolo, are the only characters who have their names repeated enough to actually remember. It's irksome, especially considering how very many characters there are in this movie.

Traffic is the best inditement against drug use and the drug trade to come down the pike, well, ever. First, the leading power in the anti-drug trade, Robert Wakefield, continues to address the biggest problem, treating the addiction and ending the marketplace for drug use. Add to that, Javier illustrates the functional problem in the fight against the drug trade; a lack of a unified front between U.S. and Mexican enforcement agencies. The arguments are presented eloquently in the less-preachy form of a narrative and it works very well that way.

Moreover, the film is not biased completely against the drug trade; Helena's plot clearly illustrates the benefit of being in drug distribution. She has quite the lifestyle and it's extravagant. But the film is wickedly intelligent, illustrating the risks of that lifestyle very well.

Finally, the interrogations Montel and Ray go through with the rat from Carlos's organization, reveal the tired arguments for why drugs ought to be legalized and the futility of the drug fight. In truth, the only one that sticks by the end of the film is the idea that the budget used to fight drugs could instantly be turned into a tax cow for the government if legalized. The health aspects are shown with the clever parallel plot with Wakefield's daughter. The lifestyle she sinks into is quite unflattering and a real eye opener.

The direction works wonderfully. Steven Soderbergh's direction is incredible. His use of contrasting color and unflattering light acts as a motif that furthers the ambiguity and harshness of the war on drugs. The bright yellows of Mexico appear as a violent, natural contrast to the artificial blue light that characterizes the U.S. scenes.

But Traffic isn't a preachy film. It packs the screen with great actors who are working well. Of course, Michael Douglas, is great as Wakefield, lending the role strength and dignity that makes him such a natural actor for government roles. Benicio Del Toro is great as Javier, playing the rogue Mexican police officer. He's far more comprehensible than any other film I've seen him in.

The film's best acting comes from Don Cheadle. He takes on a strong dramatic role in Traffic. He plays Montel as a man with great inner strength and a wonderful physical presence. He's in the best shape of the cast and it makes sense that he would be the one running and jumping and such. His dialog is great, laid back body language fits his character perfectly.

In the end, Traffic is a compelling film that follows all angles of the drug trade and it does it with style, even if near the end it begins to drag in terms of plot.

For other works with Luis Guzman, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Old Dogs
He’s Just Not That Into You
Yes Man
Fast Food Nation
Waiting . . .
Punch-Drunk Love
Magnolia
Snake Eyes
NYPD Blue - Season 1

8/10

For other film reviews, be sure to 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.
| | |

The Last Of My Top Ten Films, Reviewed! The Usual Suspects!

The Good: Character, Acting, Storytelling, Plot, EVERYTHING!
The Bad: None, this is a perfect film.
The Basics: Clever, dark and perfectly assembled, The Usual Suspects pits a gang of criminals against other criminals and the law when no one will let their past crimes lay.


There's nothing to sigh about with The Usual Suspects presented on DVD in a nice Special Edition with commentary tracks and a couple of deleted scenes. Underrated in the theaters, The Usual Suspects arguably launched the film career of actor Kevin Spacey and put him front and center on Hollywood's map (he had done films before this one, but did not get the recognition that his role here brought him). As well, it gave Bryan Singer the directoral success he needed to go onto bigger projects (like X-Men reviewed here!).

One night on a pier in Los Angeles, a man is killed and a boat is blown up and the initial assumption is that the carnage is drug-related. The only people alive from the adventure are a crippled man named Verbal Kint and a half-charred man who is fished out of the harbor, almost dead. As the charred victim demands immunity and professes he has something to put on the table, Kint is brought before US Customs interrogator Dave Kujan. Kujan is obsessed with Dean Keaton, a criminal who has always escaped prosecution for his crimes.

So, Verbal tells him the story of how he, Keaton and three other criminals came to be near the boat that fateful night . . .

The Usual Suspects is a masterpiece in every sense of the word. The story that Verbal tells is an intriguing one and as he lays out a plot featuring criminals who are continually harassed by law enforcement, he paints a picture that puts the viewer on the side of a pack of ruthless criminals. Verbal is sympathetic because he does not appear to fit in with the psychopathic McManus, the dark and sarcastic Hockney, the slick Fenster or the apparently-reformed Keaton. And as the viewer watched Keaton take a beating in New York City when a truck of weapons gets robbed, the viewer is instantly empathetic.

It takes a lot to get an audience to empathize with characters who casually sink bullets into the skulls of their adversaries, but writer Christopher McQuarrie and director Bryan Singer succeed because of how they do it. The narrative flow of Verbal telling how the police simply rounded up five felons for a line-up and how those criminals understood their debt to society would never be paid makes the alliance they form seem not only sensible, but just.

And things do not go smoothly for the quintet, which adds a layer of realism to the whole venture that brings the viewer deeper in. The personalities of the characters clash. Keaton is cold, rational and essentially a businessman, while McManus is a fiery-eyed killer who seems to take joy in the prospect of simply eliminating his obstacles. And Kint plays the story surprisingly close to the vest, especially as the stakes in the story get escalated to how the group ended up on the pier where the movie begins.

What makes The Usual Suspects perfect outside it's narrative execution of an excellent idea with distinct and believable characters, is the acting. There is not a single bad performance in The Usual Suspects. Every frame, the entire 106 minutes, the acting is solid and right on. Supporting actors like Dan Hedaya (Sgt. Rabin), Suzy Amis (Edie Finneran), Giancarlo Esposito (Jack Baer), Benicio Del Toro (Fenster), and the brilliantly cool Pete Postlethwaite (Kobayashi) add strong support to a cast that is solid and does not need more heft.

Part of the reason the ensemble succeeds is because of the sarcasm that Kevin Pollak brings to Todd Hockney. Long before Pollack was doing schtick in prosthetics in The Whole Ten Yards (reviewed here!), he was dangerous and mean as Hockney in The Usual Suspects. Having seen a lot of his standup routines, this is an acting stretch for the comic and he does it quite well. Similarly, Stephen Baldwin provides nothing but cold menace as McManus. Broody and dangerous, Baldwin emotes a quiet seething that is expertly portrayed to make his character seem completely on edge the whole movie.

Chazz Palminteri is wonderful as interrogator Dave Kujan. Kujan has to be calculating, educated and keep calm and Palminteri evokes the confidence in the character that is befitting his role. Quite simply, he makes the viewer believe without question that he is a Customs agent and an expert interrogator. Similarly, Gabriel Byrne does wonderfully as Dean Keaton, making the viewer believe that he is reformed. Byrne screws his face up perfectly to present the character as conflicted and makes the transition from criminal to businessman a smooth, believable one.

But it's Kevin Spacey who earns his pay and position and awards for his place as Verbal Kint. Spacey limps through the movie selling the viewer on his character's ailment so that the viewer never questions it. That's the power of great acting. And much of Spacey's role it to be engaging while simply sitting in front of the camera telling a story. And he succeeds. Completely.

This is the essential crime movie which makes the criminals the heroes when they are put in a situation where their past wrongs continually come back to haunt them. It is a must see for anyone who loves great drama. But be prepared to want to see it again. A lot.

For other crime dramas, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Departed
The Godfather
The Untouchables

10/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my specialized Movie Review Index Page where the reviews are organized from best film to worst!

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

Excessively Crummy: Excess Baggage Is An Overall Disappointment.

The Good: ?, the Actors, but not the acting
The Bad: Lack of characterization, crummy plot, atrocious dialogue, lowbrow humor.
The Basics: There is no one in this world I hate enough to recommend they waste their time watching this Excess Baggage.

When I was still in college, I had the good fortune of being able to review movies for the school newspaper. That meant I was reimbursed for my ticket price and saw films for free. Excess Baggage was the only film I was condemned to that I truly wanted my money back from. It's also the only one I was never reimbursed from. I still feel terribly cheated.

If all of this seems unnecessary, now you know how I felt watching Excess Baggage. There was not a single redeeming thing about this movie and everything about the movie felt excessive (the over the top acting, the depth to which the film insults the viewer's intelligence) or unnecessary (about half the scenes, having such a talented cast - this crappy script could have been made with unknown actors and still done as well as it did).

Emily is the daughter of an exceptionally rich businessman, who neglects her. Spoiled and bored, Emily connives her way into his attention through various stunts. Unfortunately for her, her latest attempt to garner his attention comes when something truly does go wrong for her, at about the time her father and Ray are figuring out that she cries wolf quite a bit. As a result, Emily locks herself in the trunk of her car and makes a fake ransom call to her father, but soon discovers that she is truly being abducted.

Vincent, a car thief, sees her pricey car and steals it with Emily in the trunk. When Emily is released, she convinces Vincent to keep her around and make the abduction as real as possible, leaving Ray frantic to get his daughter back. On the run, Emily and Vincent develop a romantic relationship and Emily does her best to grow out of her need for her father's attention, taking Vincent's reluctant affection instead.

I volunteered to review this film originally because I hadn't seen anything with Alicia Silverstone in it and because I loved Benicio Del Toro in the magnificent The Usual Suspects. Sadly, there is nothing so grand here.

First, the plot of Excess Baggage is obvious and as predictable as it is dumb. From the moment Emily and Vincent square off it becomes "That Kind Of Movie," the type of stupid romantic comedy that tries to pair two people together through a reckless road trip. The moment they face one another, anyone with half a brain will know that they will begin to become closer and closer and they will end up in a romantic relationship of some sort. Sadly, the flick never becomes smart enough do anything even remotely surprising in that regard and anyone who has seen any movie of the type will see the middle and end a mile away. There is nothing fresh or new here.

Second, none of the characters pop or are even remotely interesting. I'm someone with a wealth of father issues, so I have no problem saying that Emily's character makes no sense. She craves her father's attention, yet has everything in the world she could want outside that. Indeed, far more compelling and intriguing for a character like this would have been circumstances where Emily traditionally got away with a lot of things because her father was not around and paying attention and in this instance, she ended up involved in something that she could not easily extricate herself from as a result. Then, actually needing her father to come through would have been harrowing and interesting.

I suppose, though, that that might not have made for as good of a romantic comedy. Truth be told, though, it couldn't have made this movie worse; finding the humor in a situation of real desperation might just have sold it better.

Vincent is pretty much the generic "guy from the wrong side of the tracks" and as a result, he does not have so much character as he embodies a type. Through the course of the "adventure" he and Emily learn from one another . . . and the viewer does not care. Benicio del Toro plays Vincent and he does so without any of the quirky brilliance that made his role of Fenster in "The Usual Suspects" brilliant and likable. Instead, here he is dull and uninspired.

Similarly, Christopher Walken, who plays Ray, lacks less pep than he had in the music video for "Weapon Of Choice."

But much of the movie falls upon Alicia Silverstone to sell and sadly she falls down on that front. I've seen interviews with Silverstone and she is quite smart and together. She is actually someone who - outside the over-the-top Hollywood good looks - makes one wish that you could meet her in real life and start a conversation because she does seem so down-to-earth, smart and all-around lovely. But in Excess Baggage, she is alternately stiff and lost, making her performance desperate to try to get a laugh or make a point and she just collapses under the weight of trying so hard.

It doesn't help Silverstone that the script is absolutely terrible, making it a tough sell to try to act with it. But here she doesn't even get the opportunity to shine, she just shows up.

My advice instead of watching Excess Baggage would be to pick up The Usual Suspects and watch the Aerosmith video "Crazy." That gets the two top billed actors doing something far more intelligent than this stupid "rich girl tries to ransom herself but it goes horribly awry" flick.

For other romantic comedies, please check out my reviews of:
Valentine's Day
Going The Distance

1/10

For more film reviews, please check out my index page!

© 2010, 2008, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |