Oscar Pandering Season Begins Well With Other People!

The Good: Well-written, Well-performed, Engaging characters
The Bad: Very simplistic plot, Tone transitions away from its initial humor
The Basics: Other People is a realistic exploration of an adult son's return to his estranged family to help his mother as she struggles with cancer.


Oscar Pandering Season is here! After Summer Blockbuster Season, most of the movie studios release their dumb horror flicks and their first serious contenders for the Academy Awards right around the same time. The first, obvious, outing for Oscar Pandering Season is Other People. Other People is an indie dramedy written and directed by Chris Kelly, which has a cast that is pretty much an Oscar voter's dream as it blends less-known performers (like Jesse Plemons), well-established actors with a history of winning awards (Bradley Whitford) and actors completely expanding their range in an unexpected way (in this case comedy actress Molly Shannon in a heavily dramatic role).

Other People is a very archetypal blend of drama and comedy, which has become popular over the last decade. Chris Kelly finds the right balance, though it is incredibly awkward at many times with its very abrupt transitions. One moment, there is a comedy show, the next David is telling uncomfortable friends about how his mother has given up on chemo, when the conversation is hijacked by someone from David's past. Other People is painful and funny without transitions and in that way it captures a realism that is profound and manages to be entertaining. At its core, Other People is a yearlong journey for David as he tries to take care of his dying mother.

Opening with a group of people crying over the death of Joanne, the film leaps back to New Year's, when David returns to Sacramento from New York, where the show he was writing for failed to get picked up. The party is for Joanne, David's mother, who has cancer. David, who is estranged from his boyfriend, quickly discovers that the people he knew in town find it very uncomfortable to interface with him about his mother's illness and the way his family dealt with him coming out almost a decade prior. As the year progresses, David, Joanne, and Norman (David's father) make arrangements for Joanne's death.

But in June, Joanne is tired of the chemo not working and she decides to quit it. In July, David and his comedy troupe put Joanne on stage for an improv routine. David hooks up with Paul there, despite not being together anymore. Returning to California, David tries to set up an online dating profile, but ends up spending time with his one friend in Sacramento (and his family) instead. David tries dating, but finds the experience more awkward and excruciating than spending time with his family.

Jesse Plemons is the lead in Other People and he earns the spotlight as David. Plemons might best be known for playing a psychopath nephew of the white supremacists in the final season of Breaking Bad (reviewed here!) and that role was very serious. Plemons is able to play deadpan comedy remarkably well in Other People, like a hilarious scene where David orders milkshakes from an absolute idiot. David is an incredibly straitlaced guy who does not react to the zany things people tell him - like his grandfather telling him about how his mom was supposed to be born dead and about a local girl who was decapitated and kept swimming around afterward. Plemons gives David some interesting ticks - when he gets nervous, he puts his fingers in his mouth and it's an interesting tell that Plemons uses very consistently without overdoing it in Other People.

Molly Shannon is wonderful in Other People. While she uses her trademark goofy facial expressions that made her famous during her tenure on Saturday Night Live for an amusing church scene, the role of Joanne is a much more dramatic part for her and she nails it. When talking about Joanne's last wishes, she expresses angst and anger tremendously well. As Joanne's condition deteriorates, Shannon spends a lot of time crying and making an agonizing physical performance to embody her physical changes. Shannon's scowl when Joanne visits the school she will no longer be teaching at is harder to watch than her portrayal of Joanne losing her voice in the same scene.

Bradley Whitford plays predictably well as the homophobic Norman, a clear departure from his role from Transparent (Season 1 is reviewed here!). Whitford is amazing in a very simple scene where he has his children out talking to his kids about what is going on in their lives. After watching Whitford work on different projects for years, it is interesting to see him add new performance depths, though it is unsurprising that he nails them! Maude Apatow and Madisen Beaty are underused on Other People as David's oft-neglected younger sisters Alexandra and Rebeccah. In his brief scenes opposite Jesse Plemons, Zach Woods creates a palpable chemistry with him as Paul.

Other People is well-directed, but it is also one of the few films I have watched lately where the product placement was painfully obvious. A bag of chips is very noticeably placed with its name visible in an early scene, a conversation among schoolteachers suddenly prominently plugs Target and the establishing shot of Applebee's seems overly long. And when David has his big breakdown in a store where he cannot organically find what he is looking for, it is noticeably not a Target.

As well, Other People features an incredibly awkward scene that seems to only even be tolerable because Little Miss Sunshine (reviewed here!) did it, literally, a decade ago. It sticks out in the film in a particularly unpleasant way . . . which is saying something for a movie that has agonizing scenes portraying a woman painfully dying of cancer.

Other People is a technically wonderful film that has good characters, a consistent theme and is impressively performed, but its closeness to reality makes it hard to watch as entertainment. It is an excruciating journey to death and that makes it inherently awkward and difficult. It is Oscarbait that is well-made, worth watching once, but hard to get excited about seeing more than that.

For other movies currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Zoom
Spaceman
The Whole Truth
Pete's Dragon
Suicide Squad
Nerve
Star Trek Beyond

8.5/10

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.
| | |

As Much As I Wanted To Champion Transparent . . . Season 1 Is Not All It Should Have Been.

The Good: Amazing performances, Moments of message and plot
The Bad: Predictable plot progression, Incredibly unlikable characters
The Basics: The first season of Transparent lives up to its promise for performance, but loses much of its message amid “premium cable” conceits.


Before I saw the ten-episode debut season of Transparent, I was tremendously excited about it. Jeffrey Tambor is a favorite of mine and watching him accept the Golden Globe Award for his role in Transparent was impressive and damn good television. So, if anything, I was biased going into the first season of Transparent. That excitement faded and it’s a bad sign for the show when the only thing that kept me watching was the recurring guest starring role of Bradley Whitford.

The crux of my issue with Transparent, at least in its first season, is that it is beholden more to the spectacle and formula common to premium cable channels than being truly original or pushing its message. Premium cable channels have a tendency to push the envelope, but it seems like virtually every drama on premium cable insists on presenting a ridiculous Los Angeles view of the world – there is always some combination of hard drug use, infidelity, and wealth that is so high as to alienate most of its audience. The issue with the first season of Transparent is much like the enduring problem with The L-Word (reviewed here!); you lose some of the importance of the message when none of the characters are likable. With The L-Word, it was tough for root for any of the characters when all of them cheated in the course of the series.

In its first season, Transparent has similar issues. The problem is not with protagonist Maura Pfefferman coming out as a transgendered person later in life, it is with the rest of the character traits for the protagonist and all of the supporting character. Maura continually lies to all of her children and encourages them to lie to one another. Maura’s daughter Sarah is not unlikable because she is a lesbian, but rather because she cheats repeatedly on her husband with a married woman who has her own family and children. Her inability to be faithful or have integrity enough to leave her spouse before becoming a homewrecker makes her utterly unlikable. Similarly, Sarah’s younger sister Ali is a drug-addled sex maniac who never comes close to seeming remotely like a self-actualized character. Maura’s son Josh was sexually abused by a babysitter as a child and is now a maladjusted adult with anger issues. And Maura’s ex-wife, Shelly, is a stereotype of an old Jewish lady.

The point here is that the conceits of the family drama are already being turned by having the family’s patriarch come out as a transgendered female. It dilutes the message that transgendered people should be treated equally and with respect when the rest of the characters are so loathsome. While it is reasonable that as Mort transitions into Maura, there would be a number of lies that would be exposed and shed from her life, the rest of the characters being so extremely a-normal and lacking any moral compass is troubling. The whole heavy drug use thing in premium television is overdone and passé by this point and in Transparent it seems utterly droll. Nothing really puts a knife in the argument for equality like characters that are unlikable or who are severely distanced from middle American values (I’m not talking about ridiculous, right-wing Evangelical hatespeech, either; the fact that the story doesn’t include characters who are monogamous, faithful and/or financially strapped in a realistic way). Transparent seems more like a parody of an American family and for anyone who has watched The L-Word and/or Weeds (reviewed here!) will find it to be troublingly formulaic as opposed to audacious. Instead of doing a true pro-transgendered television show, Transparent puts forth a convoluted, familiar-to-cable “cutting-edge” programming conceits show that just swaps out gay, lesbian, young single woman living in New York City or pot dealer for transgendered person.

In the first season of Transparent, Mort Pfefferman decides after living most of his life publicly as a man, he is ready to come out as a transgendered person. When she walks in on her daughter Sarah making out with her ex-girlfriend, Maura is outed to her family. Maura’s children slowly learn of her transitioning and slowly come to accept her. But as Maura publicly transitions, she finds people’s reactions off-putting. Maura causes conflict among her children by giving the family house away to Sarah, continually giving Ali money and lying to them all.

Through flashbacks, Maura’s tormented life is revealed and things like giving the house away comes to make much more sense. Incidents like Maura’s children losing the aged and uncommunicative Ed (their mother’s new husband) and Josh’s very young girlfriend getting an abortion without him are woven against the story of Mort sneaking away from them to spend time out of town as Maura (usually with her trans friend, Marcy).

There are some troubling aspects to the first season of Transparent. Chief among the troubling aspects of Transparent is the backstory for Josh Pfefferman. Josh had a sexual relationship with a babysitter as a fairly young minor. In the course of Josh falling apart in the first season, he gets the answer to an important question, “Did his parents know what was going on at the time?” The answer, though, has no real effect on the character, which is a terrible message to be sending to parents who abet childhood sexual abuse (i.e. it won’t matter, your kid will thank you for it as an adult?! WTF?!).

In the first season of Transparent, the essential characters are:

Maura Pfefferman – The female persona of Mort Pfefferman, who is finally ready to come out to her adult children. She supports Ali financially and seems to empathize most with Sarah. She moves out of the family’s old home, encounters people who knew her as a man, and gets advice on transitioning from someone else who lives in the same complex. She slowly finds support and happiness as she redefines herself,

Sarah Pfefferman – The oldest daughter of Maura and Shelly, she is deeply unhappy with her husband. Reconnecting with her ex-girlfriend from college, she abandons her husband, breaks up her girlfriend’s family, and moves into the Pfefferman family house. She is the first to learn about Maura and is exceptionally supportive of her, even getting to her children to know her new grandmother,

Josh Pfefferman – The most successful of the Pferrerman children, he is working for a record company, though he is sleeping with his talent. When his young girlfriend gets pregnant, aborts the fetus, and dumps him as a manager, his life takes an abrupt turn. He reunites with the woman who was his babysitter, who had sex with him when he was in his mid-teens, before seeking guidance from the new rabbi in the area,

Ali Pfefferman – The youngest daughter of Maura and Shelly, she has never found her niche. She is going to go back to school yet again, after working to get in shape (ostensibly to have a threesome with her trainer and his roommate). Maura gives her money, asking her to not tell her siblings,

Tammy Cashman – A realtor who is living with her wife and their children when Sarah re-enters her life and decides her orientation truly is lesbian. She abandons the family she has had for years for Sarah,

and Shelly – Maura’s ex-wife, a parody of an old Jewish woman.

Transparent is notable for trying, but where it truly succeeds is with the performances of Jeffrey Tambor and Bradley Whitford. Tambor is magnificent throughout, but the best scenes in the season all have Tambor and Whitford together and Maura and Marcy figuring out their new identities as they explore their gender identities away from the prying eyes of their families. Tambor is subtle and plays Maura with the perfect mixture of tormented and triumphant to be watchable and relatable.

But Tambor and Whitford’s infrequent appearances are not enough to justify watching the first season. For someone psyched about Transparent, that was an unpleasant surprise.

For other works with Melora Hardin, please check out my reviews of:
17 Again
27 Dresses
Thank You For Smoking

5/10

For other television season reviews, please check out my Television Review Index Page for an organized listing!

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

Unnecessarily Divergent, Saving Mr. Banks Underwhelms.

The Good: Wonderful acting, Good direction
The Bad: Loathsome characters, Poor pacing, Unremarkable story
The Basics: Trying to bamboozle viewers through its release during Oscar Pandering Season, Saving Mr. Banks is an unremarkable movie masquerading as “great.”


Every now and then, Disney surprises me with one of its live action films. I think I was one of the few people who was truly charmed by The Odd Life Of Timothy Green (reviewed here!) when it made its debut over a year ago. And yet, that movie tapped into something in me that I found myself absolutely, unexpectedly enjoying the film. My point is that I have no innate prejudice against the live action works that come out of Disney studios. I write that at the outset of my review of Saving Mr. Banks because this time I find myself on the opposite side of many of the critics. While much of the media seems to be charmed by Disney’s latest live-action work, I found Saving Mr. Banks to be ponderous and dull.

I think it is worth noting, after making such an assertion that: 1. I have no familiarity with the history of the events upon which Saving Mr. Banks is based, 2. I cannot recall having ever seen Mary Poppins or having read any of the books upon which the film was based, and 3. I like movies about the creative process - Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) for example masterfully presents multiple layers of the creation and presentation of artistic works – and I can certainly handle films that feature two or more parallel storylines, like Cloud Atlas (reviewed here!). But Saving Mr. Banks is no Cloud Atlas and, in fact, it reminded me strongly of Julie And Julia (reviewed here!) and all of the problems that film had. In short, the fundamental problem with Saving Mr. Banks is that it tries to cram two stories into one and it does a disservice to both. In the case of Saving Mr. Banks, the film clumsily blends the story of the making of the film Mary Poppins with the genesis of the Mary Poppins character from the author’s childhood experiences.

In 1961, Polly Travers is living in London, doing her best to resist selling the rights to the book Mary Poppins, when her agent convinces her to take a meeting with Walt Disney in Los Angeles. Just as P.L. travels to Disney, Travers Goff once led his family from their home in Australia, with his wife and three children. Arriving in the outback, Travers convinces his wife Margaret that life will be an adventure and he encourages the children to use their imaginations. Arriving at Walt Disney’s office after finding herself unimpressed with the hotel and driver, P.L. Travers is resistant to the idea of a film adaptation – especially a musical – of Mary Poppins. After a direct appeal from Walt Disney, Travers and the writers begin doing a line reading – with music – of their script for the live-action Mary Poppins.

In Australia in the past, Travers inspires his daughter with his flights of fancy and imaginative perspective. Margaret finds herself overwhelmed and unhappy, especially when she does much of the work of raising the children and Travers has the benefit of bonding with the children more. The unhappy family relationship between the Goffs informs the viewer to the motivations of the cranky P.L. Travers, who is protecting her intellectual property beyond all reason, sense, and profitability. Fighting every step of the way, P.L. does everything she can to sabotage Walt Disney’s attempt to make his daughters’ favorite literary character come to life on the big screen.

It’s easy to see what the writers and director John Lee Hancock are trying to do with Saving Mr. Banks: they belabor establishing P.L. Travers as something of an immovable object while weaving in the explanations for why Travers is the way she is. The explanation is drawn-out and not particularly entertaining; Travers Goff is a drunk and lives in his own little world, to the detriment of the mental health of his wife. P.L. Travers is protective of her intellectual property for a simple reason; she was hurt by the harsh realities of life that her father did not prepare her for and she idolized her Aunt Ellie who came to help the family out when Travers Goth struggled to get sober.

Unfortunately, the explanation is more obvious from the outset than the writers and director would like the viewers to believe. While the first flashbacks are clunky, the leaps between present and past soon even out and the purpose of them becomes painfully obvious. Long before Ellie appears on screen, most viewers will be able to figure out where Saving Mr. Banks is going. Given that, much of Saving Mr. Banks seems unnecessarily drawn out. It makes P.L. Travers no more likable to see her horrible childhood belabored; one good, concise flashback could have gotten across the entire point of the sum of the flashbacks in Saving Mr. Banks.

On a character level, P.L. Travers is not compelling and it is hard to be sympathetic to Travers Goff (he’s not the first alcoholic who ruined his daughter’s life and his traumatizing of her is hardly the most extreme witnessed on screen). By contrast, the acting in Saving Mr. Banks is homogenously wonderful. Emma Thompson is brilliantly grumpy as P.L. Travers and when the writer is not being off-putting, Thompson brings a subtle vulnerability to the character that is well-portrayed. Colin Farrell is virtually unrecognizable as Travers Goff. Farrell is energetic without his trademark sense of irony or the spark of sadism that makes him such a wonderful actor for portraying unstable characters. In Saving Mr. Banks, Farrell proves himself to be a wonderful actor as he plays a part that could be exceptionally familiar for his known range, but he plays the role without any nods to any prior characters he has played. Tom Hanks brings his natural charisma to the role of Walt Disney and he is instantly likable in the part.

Saving Mr. Banks has a wonderful supporting cast as well. Paul Giamatti, a musical Bradley Whitford, the pairing of B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman, and the energetic appearance of Rachel Griffiths midway through the film all enhance an otherwise erratic and often-boring Saving Mr. Banks. The acting is of a wonderfully high caliber.

Unfortunately, the acting does not save the story and make Saving Mr. Banks any more enjoyable to watch.

For other Disney live-action works, please check out my reviews of:
The Lone Ranger
Oz The Great And Powerful
John Carter
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Tron: Legacy
Oceans
Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time
Alice In Wonderland
Old Dogs
G-Force
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe
Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl
The Princess Diaries 2: A Royal Engagement
The Princess Diaries
Tron

4/10

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

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

Robin Williams Has A Beard, So You Know Awakenings Must Be A Serious Movie!

The Good: Great performances, Engaging story, Interesting characters
The Bad: No DVD bonus features
The Basics: Smart, heartwarming and enduring over multiple viewings, Awakenings is a great Robin Williams/Robert De Niro film that was underrated when it was first released.


Sometimes, my wife sits me down for a movie with the words “This is a movie I think you're really going to like” and I smile politely and set my jaw and hope at the end she won't ask “What did you think?” In the case of Awakenings, though, I surprised her by enjoying it even more than she thought I would. In the midst of watching Best Picture Oscar winners on a daily basis, we stopped and watch Awakenings and I was not surprised that it was a contender for the Best Picture. In fact, the only real surprise for me was that Robert De Niro’s performance in Awakenings did not win the Academy Award when Dustin Hoffman's similar role in Rain Man (reviewed here!) did. That said, Awakenings is a gem of a film that is far too often overlooked by critics and those looking at great films of the 1990s.

There are two further notes before getting into the meat of the review. The first is that this is an adaptation of a book by Oliver Sachs. This is a review of the film Awakenings, not the book, and as I have not read the book, there shall be no comparisons. I mention this because often in adaptations, there are moments fans will say, "Yes, but in the book . . ." and this is not that. This is just the film. Also, my wife's copy of the DVD was the original DVD release, which featured nothing. Subsequent DVD releases of Awakenings, especially with a Blu Ray release if there is one, are likely to have some bonus features.

Dr. Malcolm Sayer is a research scientist who is both incredibly smart and rather shy. In 1969, he finds himself applying for a job at a hospital, which puts him in contact with people, a condition that makes him much more uncomfortable than dealing with earthworms or doing hard science. Despite being flirted with by the head nurse, Eleanor, he finds himself obliviously running the chronic ward of the hospital where patients are largely comatose and non-responsive. However, as he begins going through the case histories of all of his patients, he discovers a common thread: atypical encephalitis reactions. Reasoning that the symptoms his patients display - some are mobile, but stop moving when the environment changes, most are immobile, but will react to things like pens being dropped or a ball being thrown at them - are like a super-accelerated form of Parkinson's Disease, Sayer lobbies to put the ward on an experimental, but very effective, Parkinson's medication.

With the consent of the aged Mrs. Lowe, Sayer's patient, Leonard Lowe is put on the medication and soon thereafter, he responds, coming out of his comatose state. As Leopard's health improves, Sayer studies the phenomenon and the hospital lobbies for donations to get the rest of the ward freed from their unresponsive bodies. But just as the phenomenon begins to offer Leonard and his companions a real chance at life, a complication ensues and threatens all of Dr. Sayer's work!

Awakenings is one of those touching tear-jerker movies that my partner absolutely hates, so it is something of a surprise that it was in her collection, not mine. The character study puts two dynamic characters on compelling arcs. Leonard Lowe becomes the focus of the question, "What if you lost thirty years of your life and awoke to a whole new world?" But rather than belabor that question (the answer is illustrated from the moment Dr. Sayer brings him out of his near-paralysis) it becomes an arc wherein the patient begins to fight for the inherent rights he believes he should have, including the right to be free from his doting mother. Ironically, one of the film's most heartwrenching moments comes when Leonard asserts his will to spend time with a young woman who keeps visiting the hospital and must ask his doting mother (who has spent her life waiting on Leonard) to leave him alone.

Fortunately, the film is not a melodrama and moments like that resonate well with viewers because they "read" as very real, even if they are difficult to watch. This also helps make the Sayer character arc more palatable. With a reclusive character like Dr. Sayer, viewers have to figure the character arc will either be about the character growing and changing from the experiences or having his seclusion challenged only to return to it (there's pretty much only two arcs for that type character). Awakenings is arguably about Dr. Sayer's awakening to notice the importance of little moments in life and coming to appreciate the people who surround him. As a result, it is That Type Of Film when his relationship with Leonard teaches him to notice and appreciate Eleanor.

What saves Awakenings from falling into a particularly droll category of schmaltz is the caliber of the performances. While Robin Williams is now fairly well known for his ability to pull dramatic roles (usually by growing a beard and not smiling much), Awakenings comes at a point in his career where this was still a departure for him. Previously known almost exclusively for his comedic range, Williams's dramatic ability is tested and there is not a moment when Williams is not playing the stage comedic version of Robin Williams or the more humorous incarnation of him even breaks out. So, he never lets his facade slip into any form of schtick, as he did in, for example, Man Of The Year. Instead, he paints Dr. Sayer as compassionate, nervous, shy and often oblivious and he is convincing in every one of his scenes.

Williams is supported by a notable supporting cast, led by Julie Kavner as Eleanor. Ruth Nelson (whom I am fairly sure I have not seen in anything else) gives a great supporting role as Mrs. Lowe. John Heard and Bradley Whitford have parts as well and Heard has a great presence opposite Williams as Dr. Kaufman.

But from the moment Robert De Niro appears on screen, he rules Awakenings, stealing every scene. A remarkably physical role for De Niro, he presents a fragile and broken body in some of the movie's most difficult moments to watch. At the same time, he has a great portrayal of glee in his character's eyes when he first manages to speak. De Niro earns his paycheck in this film as I can honestly say I've never seen him play a role like this in any other work.

It is also worth noting that the casting is excellent such that the child actor playing the young Leonard actually looks like Robert De Niro! That level of attention to detail makes for a wonderful film. Outside minor issues, like a fairly stagnant sensibility with the camerawork, Awakenings is very close to perfect. Anyone looking for a strong human drama will enjoy it.

For other films with medical issues, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Million Dollar Baby
Philadelphia
i am sam

9.5/10

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

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Holodecks And Horrors, Joss Whedon And Drew Goddard Make A Mess With Cabin In The Woods!

The Good: Moments of dialogue, Very general concept
The Bad: Most of the performances, Utterly ridiculous plot, No character development/interesting characters, Direction.
The Basics: Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard co-write a film that is easy to understand, but makes no real sense with Cabin In The Woods.


It is a pretty rare thing for me as a reviewer to continue writing about any movie or product I encounter and find myself talking myself into steadily lowering the rating I have planned to give it. And yet, with The Cabin In The Woods, I find myself having difficulty writing my full level of distaste for the film without providing massive spoilers. And yet, at the end of the day, it is utterly impossible for me to write anything without first acknowledging that: 1. I am, as a general rule, a big fan of the works of Joss Whedon, and 2. The Cabin In The Woods is a terrible movie built upon an exceptionally flawed premise. And one of the few redeeming elements of the advertising campaign for the film was that it ruined enough of the movie so that I was not scared for . . . well, any of it.

The Cabin In The Woods is a horror film that harkens back to a number of concepts Joss Whedon already mined (to death) in Buffy The Vampire Slayer. My wife suggested to me that I might be too harsh on the initial concept of The Cabin In The Woods (though she liked it even less than I did), despite my general belief that the vast majority of people going to see The Cabin In The Woods will know what a Holodeck is. A Holodeck is a device in Star Trek: The Next Generation (and that era of the Star Trek franchise) that creates a virtual reality experience that includes holograms, force fields and inanimate objects that are materialized from raw matter. Early in The Cabin In The Woods, it becomes apparent that the film is Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard’s Holodeck horror film . . . or, at the very least, the film employs a barrier that has Holodeck-like qualities.

That said, The Cabin In The Woods is a deadly take on the idea and the film mortgages any sense of personal safety early on. This is not a clean, controlled program . . . and therein lies one of the major problems with the film. Without revealing any spoilers, in the final third of The Cabin In The Woods, the whole purpose to the exercise that involves killing young people is revealed. Sufficed to say, the stakes are ridiculously high. Given that, the movie makes no real sense. The whole, complicated construct around which The Cabin In The Woods revolves leaves far too much to chance with the stakes being as high as they are.

And, at the end of the day, the movie oscillates between the silly, the pointless and elements that Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard have already done before. And both have presented the concepts and elements that they use in The Cabin In The Woods with characters we actually care about in their other works. The Cabin In The Woods has no emotional tether for viewers. In fact, probably the biggest jag either my wife or I got out of the film was seeing actors we liked or recognized from other works pop up. That, sadly, is not at all enough to make The Cabin In The Woods worth spending money upon.

Jules, Curt, Marty, Holden and Dana are headed to the woods for a weekend away from everyone and everything. Having inherited a place in a remote location, Curt is eager to check it out and they head up, ignorant of an entire facility existing below the property and agents monitoring them from before they even leave for their trip. At the last possible place, the young people stop for gas where a creepy man, Mordecai, freaks them out. The quintet arrives at Curt’s cabin and almost immediately discovers odd things about it, including a one-way mirror.

With Jules acting hyper sexual, the result of chemicals administered to her through her hair dye by the workers in the facility below the cabin, the friends start a game of “Truth or Dare.” This leads the quintet to the creepy basement of the cabin where they find several mysterious objects, one of which is a journal. Dana reads the journal, including a passage in Latin aloud, which causes the people in the facility below to set a group of zombie rednecks upon the group. From there, the kids get slaughtered one by one and when they are killed, their blood is provided to the subterranean facility for use in a very old machine. . .

The Cabin In The Woods immediately provides viewers with information that the five young characters lack. Because the movie starts with Hadley and Sitterson in the secure facility, some of the traditional horror shock is absent from the film. I like that, in a way, because the movie becomes far less about freaking the viewer out and more about trying to engage the viewer into reasoning out what the purpose of the facility and the scenario is. And the moment Jules is slain by a turn-of-the-century zombie, the viewer knows that The Cabin In The Woods is not some safe, fun flick that is going to have a happy ending that mortgages the rest of the film, a la The Game (reviewed here!).

Director Drew Goddard presents The Cabin In The Woods with a significant amount of physical darkness, while co-writer Joss Whedon’s light and often ironic lines easily stand out to disarm the viewer. But, even Goddard’s direction feels like something that would have made most of The Cabin In The Woods safe for a Buffy The Vampire Slayer arc. In fact, with most of the carnage for the bulk of the movie occurring in very dark scenes or off-screen, the real bloodbath that ensues is of such a scale that it is impossible to focus on any one thing. This actually lessens the impact of The Cabin In The Woods in its climax because by that point in the film, most of the characters the viewer might have cared about are already dead and/or they are dispatched ridiculously fast as part of a wholesale slaughter that gives Joss Whedon a chance to do something so nihilistic and game-changing that he could simply have never done it on a television show (much the way the second season of Millennium ended with such a profound and powerful ending that the show had to entirely retool and negate it to progress to its third season).

The reason this review of The Cabin In The Woods has been so plot-heavy is that is how the film is. None of the characters, above or below, is particularly interesting or even distinctive. The closest any of them come to being engaging is the stoner Marty who seems much more aware of how weird things are. He serves as a strange voice of reason for the group, which is (oddly) both addressed and contradicted within the movie. Marty believes that he is so aware because the THC in the weed he is constantly smoking is making him immune to the various chemicals and pheromones those below are administering to the youths, while scientists below confirm that they have treated his weed.

On the acting front, The Cabin In The Woods is a great example of a film with pretty amazing casting that goes absolutely nowhere with it. What was supposed to be the start of a big summer for Chris Hemsworth,The Cabin In The Woods barely utilizes him and when he is on screen, he has very few lines and takes very few actions. In fact, in The Cabin In The Woods, Hemsworth was used like Channing Tatum might have been and the result is both Hemsworth and his character of Curt are essentially nonentities in the film.

In a similar fashion, Bradley Whitford is woefully misused in The Cabin In The Woods. Whitford’s character in The Cabin In The Woods is Hadley and he is essentially Josh Lyman in an underground compound. This performance shows us nothing new, different or distinctive from the otherwise great actor. Similar things could be said for Amy Acker’s brief appearance, Tom Lenk’s pointless role, or most of Richard Jenkins’s presence in the film. These are usually wonderful actors and Drew Goddard gets nothing from them for The Cabin In The Woods.

The Cabin In The Woods is a hard horror . . . eventually. The gore is mostly computer-generated in the last quarter of the film and by that point, viewers are unlikely to still care. As important, when the special effects kick in, there are so very many of them that the scenes are much more chaotic than either scary or even interesting. That makes The Cabin In The Woods pretty much a failure on all fronts and very easy to recommend against watching at all.

For other films with Chris Hemsworth, please check out my reviews of:
Snow White And The Huntsman
The Avengers
Thor
Star Trek

2/10

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

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

"The Little Canadian," Ellen Page, Doesn't Want You To Watch Her Movies: An American Crime!

The Good: Well-acted, Good mood, Necessary message
The Bad: Thoroughly uncomfortable, No DVD bonus features, Unlikable characters
The Basics: When Gertie takes in two girls into her full house,she uses Sylvia as an excuse to take out her vengeance by tying her up in the basement and torturing her.


Those who read my reviews know that I've been on something of an Ellen Page kick lately. Every now and then, I play into the hive mind and accept that one of the up and comers is actually all they are cracked up to be and Ellen Page seems to have enough talent to be the next Meryl Streep (though I think, officially, Anne Hathaway has already been dubbed "the next Meryl Streep”). Page has range, a talent for comedy and drama and I've been getting everything of hers I could find. Admittedly, I slowed down after Hard Candy (reviewed here!) because that movie just creeped me out. When I picked up An American Crime, I had a pretty good feeling I would be creeped out again.

And, having watched it, I am, but not as much as I suspected I would be. I have a sensitivity about watching abuse on screen and what ultimately led me to pick up An American Crime (outside the presence of Ellen Page) was the participation of John Wells. While Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme get most all of the credit for The West Wing (reviewed here!), most forget that it actually John Wells who was the executive producer with them and after they left. Having recently rewatched the final two seasons of that series, I felt it was time I gave him his due and watch something else he was an executive producer on. And there it was, An American Crime.

In the mid-1960s in Indiana, the estranged Lester and Betty Likens seek to reconnect with one another and earn their living with a traveling carnival. Rather than take their two teenage daughters on the road with them, Lester leaves Sylvia and Jennifer in the care of Gertie Baniszewski, a mother of six who could use the twenty dollars every two weeks promised by the Likens for care of their daughters. Given that Sylvia and Gertie's daughter, Paula, get along, it seems like a good fit and the girls move in eagerly and everything seems fine.

Soon, however, things take a turn for the demented. When the twenty dollar check is late, Gertie takes Sylvia and Jennie into the basement and whips them with a belt. Paula confides in Sylvia that her married boyfriend has gotten her pregnant and while out one night with mutual friends, Sylvia witnesses him about to rape her. To protect Paula, she disarms the young man by telling him she is pregnant and to get off her. Saved, but now the subject of scandalous rumors, Paula tells Gertie that Sylvia is spreading lies. As punishment, Sylvia is taken into the basement where she is tied up, beaten, burned with cigarettes, etc. while Jennie lives terrorized by the fear that she might be next.

An American Crime is based upon a true story, assembled from court transcripts and eyewitness accounts, but that does not exactly make the movie any more pleasant. There is a pretty long build-up, but after a point, the viewer is simply a witness to the victimization of Sylvia and anyone with a sensitivity to that sort of thing (which, one hopes, is everyone reading this), the film is fairly graphic in its depiction of the abuse, especially in the psychological elements of it.

Still, it wasn't as graphic as it could have been. Director Tommy O'Haver cheats any number of shots and he's good enough to telegraph the film in such a way that anyone who has seen any movies on child abuse can pretty much figure what is coming next. So, for example, the final incident of abuse in the living room before Sylvia is tossed into the basement, involves a Coke bottle. O'Haver establishes a shot with the bottle and anyone who has seen Sybil knows exactly there the bottle is going by that point in the movie and while it is horrifying, it could have been even more unpleasant and graphic. It is graphic enough to be disgusting and unpleasant to watch.

Perhaps most horrifying in An American Crime is not the apathy with which the daughters of Gertie and the neighbors join in on torturing Sylvia, but rather the way the young boy, Johnny eagerly joins in on burning Sylvia. The herd mentality of the kids who come into the basement to witness Sylvia is terrible, as is the cult mentality of the daughters of Gertie in simply accepting and going along with beating the bound girl, but it is Johnny's eagerness to beat and burn the captive girl repeatedly that is most frightening and truly demented. In fact, while the final voice-over tells the fates of each of the characters following the outcome of the trial that frames the film, the fate of Johnny is easily the least satisfying to hear. Yes, at that point in the movie, even pacifists want some measure of vengeance against the little bastard.

The thing is, An American Crime falls into a category of well-done movies or television episodes that are easily classifiable as great at what they do but so unpleasant and difficult that it becomes almost impossible for me to recommend. In this case, I recommend everyone see An American Crime; Sylvia Likens deserves her story told and seeing the complacency of neighbors and family members might just shock some people into speaking up when they suspect such things out here in reality. But it's too tough a sell for the buy. Yes, there is merit to the work and it is frightening and it has a message that is worth absorbing, but it is hard to believe this movie is one anyone would truly want to return to more than once. In other words, it is good enough at what it does that we get it on the first pass.

Perhaps that is why the movie appears on DVD without a commentary track, no one really needs the movie explained to them. On DVD there are only advertisements for other DVDs from "First Look Films."

What An American Crime does have that is fairly impressive is a blend of young and more mature actors. Young performers Hayley McFarland (Jennie), Ari Graynor (Paula), and Tristan Jarred (Johnny) easily hold their own with the likes of James Franco (who plays one of Gertie's lovers) and Bradley Whitford (who plays the prosecutor in the court case that sets up the story). Despite the disappointment the viewer might feel in Jennie for not standing up to anyone to try to aid her sister, McFarland completely sells the audience on her character's fear. Indeed, long before she says the words, it is easy from McFarland's performance to tell that Jennie is paralyzed by the terror that she will be abused next.

Ellen Page gives a strangely mediocre performance as Sylvia. Page has the range to play girls much younger than herself and she does that well in An American Crime but the demand of this role is that she be less animated or cute than she appears in any of her other works. She does that only once the torture begins and then the shots of her are often with her unmoving and crumpled over, which - while great for mood - is not much of a performance. Page, however, comes through masterfully in the bottle scene. When one considers that this is a movie and Page as Sylvia is not truly being sodomized with a Coke bottle, the performance Page gives with her eyes and face is extraordinary and heartbreaking.

But it is Catherine Keener who knocks it out of the park with the acting in An American Crime. She was nominated for a Primetime Emmy and she deserved it. Keener plays Gertie and while there are plenty of overt moments where Gertie is villainous and despicable, it is the quiet moments that Keener earns her keep on. Keener has a subtle twitch when men leave her. She plays Gertie with an undertone of lonely desperation that informs the viewer that Gertie is carrying on a long tradition of abuse, which she is passing on to her children now. This is one of her most distinctive and best-performed rolls.

Still, it is a tough sell for the "recommend" and while I can see the quality of the movie easily, I ultimately decided that the quality is enough to rate it high, but it's not worth buying. Yes, it ought to be watched at least once, but it's so unpleasant to watch that it's tough to see who would want to rewatch it.

For other works with Ari Graynor, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Fringe - Season 1
Fringe - Season 2
Date Night
Whip It
Nick And Norah’s Infinite Playlist

8/10 (Not recommended)

For other movie reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movie reviews I have written by clicking here!

© 2012, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Neglected Perfection: How Bicentennial Man Was Overlooked By Audiences (Who, Hopefully, Are Smart Enough To Pick It Up Now!)

The Good: Character development, Plot development, Thematic richness, Pacing
The Bad: I could stand to have some bonus features for the DVD presentation, especially a commentary track!
The Basics: Bicentennial Man is an engaging film which illustrates well the complicated nature of freedom and humanity as a robot makes the journey from machine to man.


A few months ago, I struck upon a pretty brilliant plan. While I was comparatively debtless, I joined a movie club to stock up on gifts for my wife and that worked out great on one front. I now have a stash of gifts to filter out to her on special occasions and I am very much prepared for them. Unfortunately, I have also discovered that this makes me less attentive to the actual dates of those significant events and the first one I missed was our 25 month anniversary (it's silly, I know, but I celebrate my love for my wife every day, so once a month is not a bad thing!). To make up for it, two nights ago, I went into the box and got out the appropriate gift and presented it to her. That gift was Bicentennial Man and it was a real hit with her. She was thrilled that I had actually listened to her and had picked a gift that was truly one she wanted for her permanent collection. It was such a hit that my plans for the night were instantly disrupted and I was compelled to sit and watch it.

And I am exceptionally glad I did! Those who follow my many reviews might know that I have a profound loathing for the movie A.I.: Artificial Intelligence. I have serious issues with it and Bicentennial Man has a similar premise. Fortunately, Chris Columbus's Bicentennial Man is light years better than A.I.: Artificial Intelligence and I was left baffled at how American audiences had failed to make Bicentennial Man one of the most respected and highest grossing films of all time. So, for those going back and considering such things, I proudly add Bicentennial Man to my list of perfect films.

Bicentennial Man is an epic film and a surprisingly intimate character study, both at the same time. It is cerebral, clever and charming enough to be entertaining without being schmaltzy. It is a powerful work and while there is some simplicity in the plot development, at least for fans of science fiction, it is not unwelcome for its directness. And I appreciated that the movie never insulted my intelligence, which made me respect it more and suspect that most audiences a decade ago simply didn't "get" it. After enduring the flash and sparkle of The Matrix and Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (reviewed here!) earlier that year, perhaps audiences were not prepared for anything so cerebral as Bicentennial Man. This makes the film one of the best, most neglected endeavors in cinematic history.

In 2005, the Martin family receives a robot from NorthAm Robotics, which Richard Martin thinks is a cool gift for his family. Richard treats the robot, which "Little Miss" calls Andrew, like a household appliance. The spiteful older daughter in the Martin family, Grace, encourages Andrew to throw himself out the window, an act which damages Andrew and sets him on a journey of self-actualization. While repaired physically, Andrew begins to express desires of his own. Given the task of building clocks by Richard, Amanda ("Little Miss") argues that Andrew should receive compensation for his work and over the decades Andrew achieves great wealth. Throughout her young adulthood, Amanda grows to appreciate Andrew more and more, despite the fact that he is a robot.

Decades later, Andrew purchases his freedom, gets an upgrade that allows him to be more expressive with his facial expressions and goes on a search for other NorthAm robots. Through his search, he discovers that he is unique; that most of the other NorthAm robots were used as simple tools and never evolved beyond their initial programming. Returning to the Martin family, he finds Amanda an old lady and her granddaughter Portia to be antagonistic and bearing a troubling resemblance to Amanda. Having met the descendant of one of the NorthAm designers, Rupert Burns, Andrew begins to design the means to make himself more and more human in his quest to be recognized as a true life form.

Honestly, I'm at a loss as to why this film did not do better in the theater. It is not a big special effects film, but it is deep, complex and thoroughly enjoyable. As I pointed out to my wife, I had seen the much shorter film Priest (reviewed here!) the night before, but the much longer Bicentennial Man felt much shorter! This moves along at a decent clip and there is constantly the feeling that the movie is going somewhere. In fact, the only reason I can think that fans of science fiction didn't leap upon Bicentennial Man was that they had a similar character arc in Data through the seven years of Star Trek: The Next Generation (reviewed here!).

And that is what Bicentennial Man truly is, a character study. Andrew is a viable, interesting life form and the complicated relationship he has with Amanda and then Portia is compelling to watch. His journey of self-discovery is funny and heartwrenching and it is executed on a scale that is appropriate. What makes Bicentennial Man work as well as it does is that the changes in Andrew do not happen instantly; they develop over the course of decades as the little changes - getting paid, getting actual freedom, upgrading his body - compound to have more serious consequences and reactions. This is well-illustrated in Bicentennial Man as Andrew grows through the three primary relationships: his relationships with Richard, Amanda and then Portia/Rupert. Bicentennial Man does not rush the character development and it entertains while it moves at a realistic pace.

One of the clever aspects of Bicentennial Man on the character front is how it also gets rid of the characters when they are no longer necessary. Little Miss's sister, Grace, is bratty and unpleasant and after the early scenes where she resents Andrew and then grows into a pretty skanky annoyance, she and her whole line of the Martin family disappear from the narrative.

Then there is the acting. Bicentennial Man is the Robin Williams film for anyone who does not like Robin Williams. His acting is impeccable and truly great. This is the performance of his career. His sense of comic timing is wonderful in the scenes where he must be funny and Williams actually acts because he is not performing anywhere close to his usual manic stage presence. Instead, Williams succeeds by showing amazing restraint and he embodies a truly different character from any he played before or has played since. There is not a single moment in the film where the viewer feels they are watching Robin Williams instead of Andrew.

Williams has a lot of support from an amazing cast, which includes Sam Neill in the role of Richard, which allows him to subtly develop and loosen his stiff character into one who can foster Andrew's growing ambitions. Oliver Platt enters the narrative late as Rupert and he gives his usual solid supporting performance. Even Hallie Kate Eisenberg, whose only other work I was aware of were the Pepsi commercials (she was the cute little girl in the late-'90's who would sip Pepsi and smirk in a way that was supposed to be adorable, but most of us found overplayed and annoying), is great at the young Little Miss. She nails the humanity and excitement of being a young girl and gives Embeth Davidtz - who plays both the older Amanda and Portia - a solid foundation to work from. Davidtz's performance was so good that after seeing Bicentennial Man, I wanted to see what else she has done.

The only real drawback of Bicentennial Man is that the DVD is exceptionally light on bonus features. The barebones version has a single short featurette and two previews. A film this wonderful deserves more, like a deluxe Criterion Collection treatment.

Some films are commercials flops because they are terrible movies and they deserve to be forgotten. Some movies fail because they are released at the wrong time and simply do not find their audience. Those movies often come back when they are discovered or recovered years later and amply plugged by people who point out that the movie deserves time and attention which it lacked in the initial release. Right now, I am raising my voice to say that Bicentennial Man deserves the audience is did not get before. Pick it up and watch it; you'll want to share the movie with others once you do!

For other films that ask great, existential questions, check out my reviews of:
Inception
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
The Truman Show

10/10

For other film 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.



| | |

Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip: If You Want To Stay On The Air, Stop Hiring Kari Matchett (It's As Good A Theory As Any!)!

The Good: Wonderfully defined characters, Great acting, Wonderful writing, Interesting story, Mood
The Bad: Somewhat dated, Poor DVD extras
The Basics: With a lone disappointing DVD extra, the boxed set for Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip is essential for the greatness of the series inside rather than its use of the medium.


With the failure of Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip on television and it's rather quick appearance on DVD, I have only been able to make two guesses as to why the show sank the way it did. My first is the use of actress Kari Matchett. Kari Matchett is a decent actress, but when she turns up on a series, it sinks. The wonderful show Wonderfalls (click here for that review!) was axed after only three episodes aired and she was a recurring guest star on the show. Her last major series, Invasion (click here for my review of that series!) went down in flames after a season and by the time her five episode stint on Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip came up, the show was in serious trouble. Yes, I'm pitching that actress Kari Matchett is cursed and here presence on this series was just enough to sink this ship. My only other explanation for the demise of this series is that writer-executive producer Aaron Sorkin suffers from "Star Trek Movie Syndrome." "Star Trek Movie Syndrome" is the perceived notion that Star Trek films with even numbers will be successful (Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, First Contact) while odd number Trek films will generally stink out at the box office or with the fans (The Motion Picture, The Final Frontier). There are no other good explanations for why this series is not still making brand new episodes to entertain us with week after week. After all, Sorkin made significant headway with The West Wing while his prior show, Sports Night failed to get its audience.

And so, we find ourselves with Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip - The Complete Series on DVD. I'm going to start with my big gripe with this set. There is only one bonus feature and that is a commentary track on the first episode. Bang, that's it, everything else is just what aired. The commentary track features Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme talking about the series and the shooting of the pilot, but it's not enough. Fans who are shelling out for this boxed set want more! The only conceivable reason to include so little in this set is if by fans buying the set en masse there was a chance to bring the series back and thus production of the boxed set was rushed. Alas, every source I've found says that's not going to happen and there's virtually no chance of reviving the show as a straight-to-DVD series because the production (CAST!) cost was so high for the primary series run it would be virtually impossible to get everyone back for a DVD budget. So those looking for great DVD bonuses, this boxed set is a serious let down. That said, the series it contains is truly great.

Matt Albie, the great writer of the Friday night sketch comedy show Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip is lured back to the show five years after he was fired from it. Accompanying him is now-executive producer Danny Tripp, a recovering drug addict who left at the same time Albie did. Mixing in with the production of the show come the business elements, the network brass in the form of NBS Chairman Jack Rudolph and network president Jordan McDeere. While Matt and Danny negotiate their sketches and personal lives between the network officials and the performers on Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip, they find that executive producing the show is causing serious fractures in both.

While the return of Matt and Danny to the series revives the sketch comedy show's ratings, Matt struggles to keep funny while breaking up with the lead on the show, Harriet Hayes. Matt is antagonized by cast member Simon Stiles to bring more black performers or writers onto the show and is generally well-liked by the other big star of the show, Tom Jeter. While Matt tends to focus on the comedy and the performers, Danny focuses on getting clearances from the network and getting the attention of Jordan McDeere.

Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip certainly sounds lame when looked at from a plot point of view. The show is, quite simply, about the behind-the-scenes antics of the production staff and performers on a Saturday Night Live type show. Unlike Saturday Night Live (well, actually, quite like the current incarnation of the sketch comedy series), Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip (the real one, not the comedy show by the same name occasionally glimpsed on the series) is not funny. It's a drama and while there are certainly comedic element, this is not a comedy. It is often funny the way The West Wing's early seasons were funny, through snappy dialogue and wordplay. But beyond that, the situations are often dark and moody.

As a result, the show may alienate some viewers with its occasionally oppressive tone. In the course of the twenty-two episodes, Matt and Danny's politically motivated firing is regularly mentioned, Matt and Harriet break up and he torments himself over it, Matt ends up on drugs, Danny is constantly rejected by Jordan and Jack comes under siege for airing unedited footage of the War In Iraq. As well, Tom's brother is captured by terrorists, the writing staff leaves en masse and Simon creates a public relations nightmare. Bad things happen to the characters of Studio 60. . . but they certainly are compelling to watch. Here is who the principle characters are:

Matt Albie - Returning to the show as head writer and executive producer, Matt is trying to make political statements constantly. This puts him frequently in hot water with the Network and he relies on his friendship with Danny to keep him out of trouble. He has an on-again, off-again relationship with Harriet, though he clearly pines for her. It does not take long before many of the people around him realize that most of his writing greatness came from trying to impress her,

Danny Tripp - A recovering drug addict, he returns to Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip as an executive producer and is now forced to negotiate most of the series with network executives Jack Rudolph and Jordan McDeere. He is instantly drawn to Jordan and while he keeps his friendship with Matt a priority, he begins to pursue her with a single-minded devotion, especially after he learns she is pregnant,

Jordan McDeere - Newly minted NBS president, her first act is to replace Studio 60's executive producer when he has an on-air meltdown. She is awkward with most people and does not have a lot of friends, which makes it difficult for her in social situations, but a shark in negotiations. Reporting only to Jack and his superiors, she is surprised to find she is pregnant after she is dumped by a jerk, but decides to have the baby, which leads Danny to begin pursuing her,

Harriet Hayes - Arguably the love of Matt's life, she previously broke his heart by dating another one of the writers, who is intent on luring her back now that she and Matt are broken up again. She is a devout Christian and a conservative, which leads to many clashes between her and Matt,

Tom Jeter - The somewhat nerdy but very popular cast member on Studio 60, he has a brother serving in Afghanistan and while he does many antiwar sketches, he tries never to insult the soldiers. He falls for one of the few writers to stick around after the two main writers leave and his life is complicated when a big fan wants a date and his brother is captured overseas,

Simon Stiles - The most outspoken of the big three performers, he never shies away from a fight or controversy. He becomes disgusted with how white the writer's room is and scouts with Matt to a local comedy club where they find Darius, who Simon antagonizes for more edgy work once he is hired,

Cal - The director for the show, he has problems like losing animals brought to the set,

and Jack Rudolph - Chairman of NBS, he is upset when Jordan brings back Matt and Danny, but pleased when the show is a success. Desperate to get the Network's ratings higher and more cash flowing in, he is suddenly under siege when a news segment featuring unedited footage from Iraq includes a soldier swearing in the wake of a surprise bombing and the massive fine the FCC leverages against the network for that.

It is worth noting that Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip exists in an alternate real world that more closely resembles our world. To rephrase: this is a fictional present day with all other things being equal. Thus, The West Wing is referenced as a television show in the series and this series does not occur in the same universe as The West Wing. The reason this is relevant is that it leads to one of the strengths and weaknesses of the series. Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip is deeply critical of the handling of the War In Iraq and the Bush Administration. Brief segments of the comedy on the fictional sketch show illustrate a contempt for the way the so-called conservatives have seized control of the government. This series is a wonderful example of the importance of free speech and the consequences of it.

Unfortunately, it also makes the series a bit dated. Pick it up now! It's relevant, it's witty and it's sharp and timely. While it will remain witty in perpetuity, the other factors of the series will not persist.

What will is that the very well-developed characters are portrayed by an amazing cast and the guest cast on this series is equally impressive. Cameos featuring musical guests Sting, Corrine Bailey Rae, Natalie Cole, Sheryl Crow, and Macy Gray lend the feeling that the show the series is about is very real. There are also cameos by guest hosts for the sketch comedy show that include Felicity Huffman, Rob Reiner, Lauren Graham, Howie Mandel, Masi Oka, Jason Alexander and Allison Janney which is a pretty impressive line-up for a show that was almost always on the verge of cancellation!

But the main cast is what sells the show and they are, one and all, truly fantastic. Nate Corddry and Sarah Paulson impress me right off the bat in roles that give me a baseline for their future performances (this was the first thing I had seen either of them in). D.L. Hugley and Matthew Perry (Simon and Matt) illustrate they can break through their typecasting from previous successful comedies. Steven Weber plays serious like I've never seen him before! Bradley Whitford and Timothy Busfield (Danny and Cal) play dramatically different roles than they had on The West Wing. And Amanda Peet is so good as the professional and awkward Jordan McDeere that I'm finally ready to forgive her for The Whole Ten Yards. That's saying a lot! The truth is, Aaron Sorkin and the other executive producers of the series did some brilliant casting and created a wonderful outlet for some remarkably talented performers!

Sadly, this set is all we have until Sorkin decides to write again. Just so long as he doesn't use Kari Matchett, he ought to have another legitimate, popular hit, which despite the quality of this series, Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip never was.

For other works by Aaron Sorkin, please check out my reviews of:
Sports Night
The West Wing
Charlie Wilson's War
The Social Network

8/10

For other television series reviews, please visit my index page! There you will find organized lists of all I have reviewed, updated daily!

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

A Case For Philadelphia

The Good: Excellent acting, Good characters, Good plot, Good direction, Excellent themes.
The Bad: Predictable, Some pacing issues
The Basics: An all-around excellent cast with good direction and a progressive message float Philadelphia through its slow points and obvious nature.


After years of watching and enjoying The Practice, I decided it was time to sit down and watch Philadelphia, which, despite the hype surrounding it still, is just a courtroom drama film. And as far as courtroom dramas go, it's a very good one.

Philadelphia centers around Andrew Beckett, who is played by Tom Hanks, who is terminated from his job at a high priced law firm. Beckett suspects it is the result of him having AIDS and one of the senior partners recognizing that, a suspicion leapt to when an exceptionally important case file disappears only to reappear seconds before the trial is to begin. Beckett hires Joe Miller to represent him in a wrongful termination suit against the firm. What follows is a courtroom drama without any twists or turns or real surprises.

Part of that is the problem. While the film expertly sways from the courtroom action to the character struggles and epiphanies both plod along predictably. That's not to say they aren't interesting, but it is to say they are unsurprising. The moment Miller's prejudices are revealed, it becomes clear it's one of "those films," that is a film with a message. It's a laudable message, but it's still laid on very thick and it's predictable where the film is going.

Surprisingly, considering Hanks gets so much credit for the film (which he deserves), the story is focused on Joe Miller, who is played by Denzel Washington. Washington gives an excellent performance and deserved an award for his portrayal. While his character arc was predictable, Washington played Miller well, with subtlety and distinction. It was more than well written, the direction captured perfectly the expressions in Washington's face and eyes that are hallmarks of great acting.

Outside the obvious social importance of a film decrying the prejudices that exist between the white heterosexual male populace (or financial) majority and pretty much every other group on earth, Philadelphia does it well, mostly because it does it consistently and it has a very real feel to it. The movie exposes the questions that lie at the heart of the prejudice and articulates them openly. For that it ought to be commended.

The only drawback on the entertainment front is, surprisingly, in the courtroom. As a fan of The Practice it's very difficult to watch the inside of the courtroom being so stark, tensionless, and downright slow. The pacing of the epiphanies in Miller's life come with delightful precision and timing, but that same gentle ebb works less well for the dramatics of a courtroom.

Certainly a worthwhile film with an ending that's both satisfying and pyrrhic.

For other courtroom films, please check out my reviews of:
The Social Network
The Life Of Emile Zola
Flash Of Genius

8.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page for a complete listing of all the movies I have reviewed!

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



| | |