Stonehearst Asylum Makes Poe Work On The Big Screen!

The Good: Decent acting, Good plot progression
The Bad: Mediocre character development
The Basics: Stonehearst Asylum is a typical, if well-executed “lunatics running the asylum” story.


Autumn is a good time for independent cinema and I try to give the non-Oscarbait films as much attention as I give to the mainstream releases. As a result, I was pretty surprised to discover that I had missed a more-indie release in the form of Stonehearst Asylum, a film instantly notable for its impressive cast. While Stonehearst Asylum was released in late October as part of the traditional October horror movie push, the film diverts from the usual schlock by merit of having an impressive cast and being based upon a work by Edgar Allen Poe. When the likes of Michael Caine, David Thewlis, Brendan Gleeson and Sir Ben Kingsley appear in a film that is swept under the rug, it is cause for concern.

Stonehearst Asylum’s cast is led by Kate Beckingsale and Jim Sturgess and is a period piece, which might well be why the American theaters did not embrace it (or promote it). As noted, Stonehearst Asylum is based upon a short story by Edgar Allen Poe and it is worth mentioning that it is not one of Poe’s works that I recall reading.

Opening at Oxford University, 1899, where a roomful of men study hysteria in women, Eliza Graves is introduced as a madwoman that the alienist keeps on heroin to keep her calm. Edward Newgate arrives at Stonehearst Lunatic Asylum on Christmas Eve where he intends to complete his study as an alienist. Newgate meets Dr. Lamb, who runs Stonehearst. Lamb shows Newgate around, illustrating how most of the residents of this particular asylum are relatives of affluent, well-bred members of the aristocracy. Despite wanting to learn the profession to help people, Newgate sees Eliza Graves playing the piano (as Lamb’s treatment for her hysteria) and he is instantly smitten. Lamb’s egalitarian view on patients and doctors mixing affords Newgate the opportunity to interact with Graves (and embarrass himself at dinner).

Eliza rescues Newgate from drinking Mickey Finn’s elixir and advises him to get out of Stonehearst immediately. That night, Newgate hears knocking on the air vents and he follows the pipes to the boiler room. There, Newgate finds Dr. Salt and the true managers of Stonehearst imprisoned in the basement. Trying to rescue Eliza Graves, Newgate bides his time in an attempt to wrestle control of Stonehearst from Lamb. Given directions on how to find Lamb’s secret case history, Newgate struggles to overcome Lamb and save Graves, Salt and the other imprisoned staff, despite how Graves raises questions in his mind as to how she was treated before the overthrow.

Stonehearst Asylum seems at its outset to be Hysteria (reviewed here!) meets Shutter Island (reviewed here!). The latter film’s similarity is no doubt intended; Sir Ben Kingsley is placed in essentially the same role in Stonehearst Asylum as he was granted in Shutter Island! Kingsley is unsettling to watch in his role of Dr. Lamb in Stonehearst Asylum; he plays the role in such a way that Lamb is undeniably smart and yet shattered. Kingsley and Michael Caine play off one another in the exposition scenes with equal gravitas and it is unsurprising that Lamb is shellshocked. Kingsley and Caine are playing characters who are essentially playing foil characters engaged in a psychological chess match. When Kingsley has to progress beyond the disturbed elements of Lamb’s character to play him as smart, delivering social and medical commentary, Kingsley is entirely convincing.

Newgate is almost instantly characterized as a caring man who earnestly wants to help people. He arrives at the asylum naïve and genuine. Over the course of Stonehearst Asylum, he proves that he is sincere in his respect for the essential humanity of all the patients in the asylum. Newgate manages to treat one of the forlorn victims of Stonehearst and his willingness to connect with the patients is compelling. It is also the source of the social commentary throughout Stonehearst Asylum. Newgate sees the injustices against the mentally ill and wants to cure them . . . he is just caught up in a horrific circumstance that prevents him from doing the most absolute good.

The cast of Stonehearst Asylum is universally good in their roles. Kate Beckinsale is competent as Eliza Graves, but the focus on Newgate makes it completely understandable why Icon changed the title to Stonehearst Asylum (it was originally Eliza Graves). Jim Sturgess plays Newgate as increasingly tormented by his surroundings and he manages the character’s transformation from obvious hero to victim of the manipulative Lamb wonderfully. Sturgess is such a good performer that one almost forgets that his character is intent on pursuing a married woman when she is at her most vulnerable, which is pretty disturbing.

Of the supporting cast, David Thewlis is given the most to do as the rapey, murderous Mickey Finn.  This is arguably his darkest role and Thewlis leaps into it with a commitment that makes him unsettling to watch in every one of his scenes.

In all, though, the strong cast and social commentary of Stonehearst Asylum are not enough to strongly recommend the film. Stonehearst Asylum is unsettling and good, but like most horror/thriller pieces, it hinges more on mood than character and that brings it down a bit.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
Paddington
Selma
Still Alice
Predestination
The Interview
The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies
Expelled
Annie
Comet
Horrible Bosses 2
10,000 Days
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

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.
| | |

Another Lousy Sequel: The Smurfs 2

The Good: Generally good moral, Most of the voice performances are good.
The Bad: Simplistic plot, character arcs, and dialogue, Underwhelming special effects.
The Basics: The Smurfs return with a less-than-spectacular sequel with The Smurfs 2.


Sequels and children’s movies have a hard time getting good reviews from me. I am not against films for young people – often enough they have good messages and the best have a decent charm factor to them – but frequently they are made figuring that their target demographic is less-discriminating and an inferior product is churned out by the studios. Sequels, more often than not, are not the result of having more of a story to tell, but rather the financial success of the first film feeding into the studio’s desire to see similar returns on investment. The Smurfs 2 is definitely that type of sequel.

The Smurfs 2 is a live-action sequel that follows up on the events of The Smurfs (reviewed here!). The movie is intended for a younger audience and while one might assume that Neil Patrick Harris was under contract to do The Smurfs 2, how Brendan Gleeson became associated with the project is a mystery to me. The Smurfs 2 trades on fairly advanced computer generated graphics to blend the live-action elements with the artificial Smurfs and utilizes the voice talents of some very talented individuals (and Katy Perry) to embody the Smurfs and their new, evil, counterparts, The Naughties.

After a retcon with the story of how Smurfette was created, after originally being a creation and tool of Gargamel, Smurfette has a nightmare of reverting. Papa Smurf reassures Smurfette. Meanwhile, in the real world, Gargamel has become a huge celebrity doing magic, using the essence of Smurf stolen from Smurfs in the prior film. At their birthday party for Blue, Patrick’s step-father turns up, much to his annoyance. In Paris, Gargamel reveals his plan: he wants to use the Eifel Tower to open a portal to Smurf Village, where he plans to abduct Smurfette, learn how Papa Smurf turned her blue, then turn his Naughties into Smurfs, extract their essences and rule the world. When he is unable to fit through the portal he opened, Gargamel sends Vexy and Hackus to the Smurf realm to get her. Thinking that the other Smurfs have forgotten her birthday (when, in fact, they are planning an elaborate surprise party for her), Smurfette is susceptible to Vexy’s suggestion (and friendship) and returns to Earth with her.

While Smurfette learns about the Naughties and develops a friendship with the energetic Vexy, Gargamel makes plans to transform his collection of Naughties into Smurfs so he will have an unending supply of Smurf essence. Papa Smurf selects some of the best Smurfs to join him on a trip to Earth to recover Smurfette, but magic events conspire to put him on Earth with the likes of Grouchy and Clumsy instead. When Patrick and Grace encounter Papa Smurf and his crew, they become determined to stop Gargamel, an effort that is hampered by Victor getting himself and Blue into trouble at the same time!

The Smurfs 2 is an utterly simplistic film; Smurfette’s story arc is obvious from the beginning when she believes that she has been forgotten by her entire village and they are planning a big celebration for her. She falls in with the “wrong crowd” in the form of Vexy and Hackus and her willingness to explore her “Dark Side” is curbed long before she goes into truly rebellious territory. The conflict is simplistic, as is its resolution. In fact, the only lingering thematic quality for The Smurfs 2 is that the children’s movie explores the possibility of relapse. Smurfette was created to be an evil spy for Gargamel before the love of the Smurfs changed her; in The Smurfs 2 she is fearful that she will fall back into her old behaviors.

Such complexity is entirely absent from the human characters in The Smurfs 2. Patrick has a pretty reasonable beef with Victor from his backstory, but when Victor pops up and basically forces his way into Grace and Blue’s life – and back into Patrick’s, the movie seems to endorse the action. Victor shows no respect for the carefully-balanced (if annoying) life that Patrick and Grace have (as evidenced by their respecting one of their friends’ children’s peanut allergies and Victor sending the kid to the hospital). Victor becomes the hyper-involved grandparent and the message of The Smurfs 2 seems to be that if a grandparent wants to be involved, be happy and shut up about it!

The acting in The Smurfs 2 is mediocre, at best. Brendan Gleeson appears without any of his innate charm or charisma and even Neil Patrick Harris seems remarkably flat in the role of Patrick. Of the voice talents, only Christina Ricci stands out as Vexy; the rest emote adequately at best. Ricci sounds nothing like herself as Vexy and she gives a good performance with her altered voice.

Ultimately, The Smurfs 2 is simplistic and not even worth recommending to children.

For other works with Anton Yelchin, please visit my reviews of:
Only Lovers Left Alive
Star Trek Into Darkness
Like Crazy
Terminator Salvation
Star Trek
Charlie Bartlett
15 Minutes

2/10

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.
| | |

Unremarkable Sequel: Mission: Impossible 2 Is Entirely Unimpressive

The Good: Adequately performed, Moments of concept/character
The Bad: Absolutely dull protagonists, Painfully predictable, Horrible dialogue, Ridiculous action sequences
The Basics: Playing one trick over and over and over and over again, Mission: Impossible 2 feels like exactly what it is: a cheap sequel.


As a movie reviewer, there are any number of films that I watch based on its newness, potential popularity and the likely interest of my readers. There are, as an unfortunate offshoot of that, movies that I watch then somewhat out of rote; to complete the gaps in a film series I once began or saw later sequels to. When I sat down to Mission: Impossible 2, it was certainly one of those movies; I saw the two most recent sequels and a few months ago, I saw the first film in the series with Tom Cruise. I saw Mission: Impossible 2 as a nice break from going through the James Bond films (I only have the Dalton and Brosnon years left!), but honestly, I did not “miss” the movie when I did not go see it in theaters fourteen years ago.

My initial antipathy toward Mission: Impossible 2 was certainly appropriate; I cannot think of a sequel in recent memory that was less exciting or interesting than Mission: Impossible 2. Mission: Impossible 2 feels like exactly what it is: a blasé sequel that is more designed for the spectacle of Summer Blockbuster Season than a viewing that evaluates substance. From heavily-choreographed car chases to the opening rock climbing scene to generic long-shots of Ethan Hunt standing on an Australian prairie, everything about Mission: Impossible 2 screams “look, don’t think!”

A plane carrying a Russian scientist, Dr. Nekhorvich, and his bag with a deadly genetically-engineered disease (Chimera) and its cure (Bellerophon) crashes after Nekhorvich believes he has met with agent Ethan Hunt (using the alias Dmitri). The real Ethan Hunt’s vacation is interrupted when he is tasked with recruiting the brilliant thief, Nyah Nordoff-Hall for the mission to recover the Chimera virus. Hunt tracks Hall to a swanky villa where she is attempting to steal a necklace that is going to come up for auction days later. Hunt tests Hall and offers her immunity from international prosecution for her many past crimes in exchange for helping him on his mission. After a protracted race, Hall reluctantly agrees and Ethan Hunt gets his mission: Hunt is tasked with getting Hall close to Sean Ambrose, the man who impersonated Hunt on the plane, so they may recover Chimera.

When the Impossible Missions Forces put out a bulletin that Hunt has been imprisoned in Seville, Nyah is rescued by her old beau, Ambrose. Nyah and Hunt’s Impossible Missions team converge on Sydney, Australia, where Ambrose and his team have taken up residence. But Ambrose is not stupid; his deputy, Hugh Stamp, is suspicious of the timing of her return and performs surveillance on her. Using Nyah, Ethan and his team learn just how lethal the Chimera virus is. They track the CEO of Biocyte, who is trying to buy back the virus and its cure. Ambrose has the cure, but not the virus; so Ethan Hunt ends up in the Biocyte facility at the same time as Ambrose, with both attempting to get the virus. In a game of cat and mouse, Hunt works to destroy all of the virus, while Ambrose tries to get the final sample to sell on the black market.

Mission: Impossible 2 lacks iconic scenes and moments that make it into widespread pop culture. The bungey jumping scene in Mission: Impossible 2 has the feeling of being a cheap retread of the scene from Mission: Impossible where Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt does acrobatics that prevent him from touching a pressure-sensitive floor after rappelling into an otherwise secure room. While there are plenty of movies that do not have big moments that make it into the collective consciousness, the fact that Mission: Impossible 2 has nothing that comes close when the first film in the franchise only accents how mundane the movie is.

Fans of spy thrillers will be utterly unsurprised by Mission: Impossible 2. The reversals are telegraphed so far ahead that it is astonishing the writers even bothered with the direction they went. In the Mission: Impossible world, latex masks may be made so precisely that they completely fool intimate inspection. In Mission: Impossible 2, that is established in the first scene and so many characters use that same technology, so when director John Woo continues to use that conceit to “surprise” viewers, it is anything but surprising.

The writing in Mission: Impossible 2 is disappointing in that it attempts to disguise characterization and themes as dialogue in such a clunky way that it makes the viewer wince. When Nyah is rescued by Hunt within the Biocyte facility, there is a particularly horrible line that tries to nail home how the first impression of Nyah is not accurate (or the character has evolved) and it is so inorganic that it feels utterly contrived. Ironically, the character of Nyah is one of the few worthwhile ones in Mission: Impossible 2. I like characters who do not shy away from acts of sacrifice and Nyah rises to the occasion at a key moment, making a somewhat droll film watchable at the very least.

The villains in Mission: Impossible 2 are unfortunately generic. John McCloy is a greedy CEO whose business is built on creating viruses and cures, Hugh Stamp is the ultimate generic psychopath sidekick to the villain. Sean Ambrose is basically a thug who has exceptional knowledge of his adversary, which makes him interesting for about five minutes out of his entire time on screen. The most impressive aspect of Ambrose is his ultimate plan; instead of a diabolical plan to rule to world or kill a lot of people, he wants to make money the way rich people do: executing stock options. He just needs the seed money to buy Biocyte before the Chimera virus makes the stock price skyrocket.

The generic quality of the adversaries mirrors the blandness of the heroes. Ethan Hunt is granted no distinguishing characteristics in Mission: Impossible 2. He is a standard super spy the likes of which has been seen in every James Bond film ever and virtually every other spy film that prioritizes spectacle over reality in its storytelling. Tom Cruise does an adequate job of running, jumping and shooting guns in Mission: Impossible 2, but he and his co-stars are playing archetypes as opposed to actual characters.

Mission: Impossible 2 is a dull way to waste two hours, but it is not a movie that is in any way painful to watch (wincing from the bad dialogue aside). But when the biggest moment of the film is recognizing that Ethan Hunt’s boss is played by Sir Anthony Hopkins (who is not credited as one of the film’s big stars), as opposed to any of the action sequences, it is hard to say one has a spy film that is successful in any way.

For other Mission: Impossible movies, check out my reviews of:
Mission: Impossible
Mission: Impossible III
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

3/10

Check out how this movie stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the films are rated from best to worst!

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

Based On A Book?! For Edge Of Tomorrow, I Would Have Guessed A Video Game!

The Good: Good plot concept, Mostly decent special effects
The Bad: Goes for some cheap laughs over smart science fiction, No impressive performances, Light on character development
The Basics: Treading away from the nihilism of a protagonist who repeatedly dies, Edge Of Tomorrow takes a formulaic story of humans resisting alien invaders and adds a time-travel element that makes it seem a bit fresher than it actually is.


Summer Blockbuster Season has truly arrived. One knows it is undeniably here when the films start taking a turn for the big, impressive special effects films that have little resemblance to sensibility or compelling storylines. Last year, the film of this ilk right around this time was Pacific Rim (reviewed here!) and this year there is a film that mimics the feel and sense of style of that film: Edge Of Tomorrow. This weekend’s two big films were based on books and Edge Of Tomorrow is one viewers would likely never guess came from a novel (unlike The Fault In Our Stars). Most of Edge Of Tomorrow has the look and feel of watching a video game – a massive war/space invasion game – play out.

Edge Of Tomorrow is based upon a Japanese novel (All You Need Is Kill) and it is worth noting up front that I have never read the book, so this is a very pure review of the film alone. Edge Of Tomorrow is a big-budget science fiction film that utilizes a time loop, much like the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Cause And Effect” (reviewed here!) did over twenty years ago. The time travel conceit that dominates much of Edge Of Tomorrow is explained well-enough, but the sheer number of repetitions through the time line make the film feel increasingly tedious. For genre fans, the film is more monotonous than fresh and it is very much like watching a video game played out over and over again.

Five years after the Earth is first attacked by a powerful alien race called the Mimics, much of Europe has been decimated in the ensuing war. However, an international military force has finally developed a reasonable defense with their “New Jacket” technology. With the first waves of soldiers outfitted with New Jacket technology killing thousands of “mimics” in their first assault, there appears to be hope for humanity. Operation Downfall is publicized as the big offensive that might finally liberate humanity and its public face, Major William Cage is drafted, under threat of arrest, to participate in the ground assault on a beachfront in France. Unfortunately, during the battle, for which Cage is ill-trained and not ideally equipped, cage is killed by a giant Mimic whose blood melts his skull, killing him.

After rather vividly dying, Cage wakes up twenty-four hours earlier in the unit of grunts who are told by the Master Sergeant that he is a deserter, where he is despised, confused and mistrusted. As he goes into battle slightly better prepared, he realizes he is experiencing something more than just déjà vu. Instead, when he is killed again, he decides after his resurrection to try to learn more to attempt to survive the battle. Despite better training, Cage is continually killed until he meets up with superstar soldier Rita Vrataski in the battle and he saves her life. When he does, she informs him that he should find her when he wakes up and the next times through the timeline, he leaves the unit he awakens to to find Rita at a nearby training facility. Convincing her and Dr. Carter that he is reliving the battle each day, Rita informs him that she experienced the same thing when she encountered a special Mimic’s blood. Rita tasks Cage with a new mission: bypass Operation Downfall to find the Mimic hive entity and destroy it. After extensive training and dying many times in the attempt to get off the beach, Cage and Rita successfully survive one battle only to have Rita die horribly as the invasion spreads to London and the pair makes it to a farm house. After several permutations, Cage works to find the way to win the beach battle, survive the farm house encounter, and make it to the dam that is housing the horde of Mimics.

For a story with a painfully dull middle, director Doug Liman does the best he can to keep the flow going. Instead of constantly cutting back to the beginning of Cage’s sequence, Liman smartly moves the cuts to the relative points of diversion. So, for many of the times Cage dies, the film immediately cuts to how the sudden soldier manages to survive the same death. Conceptually, Edge Of Tomorrow is actually a surprisingly simple film, but it is a hard one to stretch out in a compelling way to make it visually interesting.

As a result, Edge Of Tomorrow oscillates between exceptional special effects battle sequences and long scenes of tedious exposition. The exposition is necessary at first to understand the mechanics of the film’s time-travel conceit, but as the film moves toward tracking down the Omega Mimic, how Cage has to continue to explain and convince his predicament to people becomes tiresome. By the time Cage meets with Brigham a second time, the viewer gets it and most will just want the film to get where it’s going. The execution of the idea is hardly as entertaining as the writers, producers, and director might hope.

Thus, much of the movie’s entertainment value comes in the “wow” factor from the special effects. The mimics move ridiculously fast and the metal-framed soldiers are an easy excuse for the digitized versions of the characters to move in ways that defy the otherwise real physics the film tries to maintain. The battles feel very much like a first person shooter or MMORPG war game, but when the film slows down to speeds that the effects can be appreciated, much of Edge Of Tomorrow is appropriately visually stunning.

On the character front, there is little in the way of actual development. Instead, characters come around to accepting the film’s plot conceit; they do not truly develop and evolve, they are merely persuaded.

As for the acting, Edge Of Tomorrow is led by Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt. While both Cruise and Blunt plausibly interact with their virtual environments and entities, neither brings much to the role other than their ability to run around and use heavy firepower. Blunt is poor casting for a supersoldier, regardless of Rita’s dependence upon her exoskeleton. She is too waifish to believably be a solider who runs around, firing weapons and slashing oversized cleavers and many of the moments her character is put in mortal peril her expressions are stiff as opposed to professionally restrained. As for Tom Cruise, his role of Cage is virtually interchangeable with any number of his prior action hero roles where his character works hard to either enter a conflict of evade enemies. He is credible running around playing soldier, but he brings nothing to the role that viewers have not seen from him in many, many other Tom Cruise films. If anything, Cage is one of the least charismatic Cruise performances.

In the end, Edge Of Tomorrow is a largely unmemorable special effects-driven alien invasion film and one suspects it will have a long-term impact on par with Battle: Los Angles (reviewed here!), which is to say that while the film might make a splash now, it will be forgotten by the time it hits Blu-Ray and DVD.

For other works with Emily Blunt, please visit my reviews of:
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

4/10

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

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

Cold Mountain Is Another Sad Southern Perspective On The Civil War

The Good: Peripheral characters and actors
The Bad: Dull leads, Boring story, Pacing
The Basics: Worthwhile only for the peripheral characters and actors, Cold Mountain is a long, disappointing Southern Civil War story.


Have you ever noticed how the majority of movies on the American Civil War take place from the Southern perspective? It's almost as if the South is obsessed with the Civil War and their loss that they just cannot get over it. Instead, they seek to recapture something from that time. Cold Mountain recaptures the oppression and ruthlessness of the South as it rebelled against the North.

In the little town of Cold Mountain, North Carolina, little southern belle Ada Monroe waits for her love Inman to return to her. While she waits, her home is menaced by Home Guard, the Southerners who didn't go off to fight "Northern Aggression" and instead stayed home and harassed the locals. Ada is aided by the appearance of Ruby Thewes, who helps her out around her property in exchange for room and board. Inman, for his part, becomes mortified by the killing on the front lines and heads home in a weird odyssey that is nowhere near as entertaining as, say, O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Cold Mountain suffers, first and foremost, by its cast. Jude Law, as appealing as he is supposed to be, is exceptionally bland and a pretty terrible actor. He wasn't charismatic in A.I. (reviewed here!), he's only vaguely interesting here. In fact, of the main three in the cast, Law is the high point. When he journey's home and looks rugged and bearded and un-Jude Law-like, his acting ability comes out and he is able to deliver some performances that are respectable, most notably the subtlety of his scene near the end where he turns back toward the road (to reveal more of the scene would expose more of the plot than you should know).

It is always a mystery to me how Best Supporting Actress is chosen. Rene Zellweger won the award for her performance in this and I was left thinking she had Kim Bassinger Syndrome. KBS is a rare affliction whereby an actress with a minimal role in a film somehow is granted great recognition for the role, when it was relatively minor (like Kim Bassinger's role in L.A. Confidential). My personal belief is that Zellweger won solely on the strength of her delivery of the "rain speech;" for the rest of the film she is so distantly behind Kidman and Law that "Supporting Actress" is something of an overstatement. If you're disturbed by Zellweger's squinting and whining, this is not the movie for you. Her brief performance includes one or both in every frame.

Kidman rounds out the main cast playing the dull and uninspired Ada who is only of real interest so long as her father (played well by Donald Sutherland) is in the flick. Kidman's character has little character and Kidman's performance is weakened by the fact that - as a weak character - she must play off other people to define herself. As a result, much of Kidman's performance is simply reacting, not actually imbuing the character with, well, character.

In contrast to the dull, plodding main characters and the uninspired performances by the leads, the supporting cast is pretty wonderful with a great array of actual characters. The always-wonderful Brendan Gleeson plays Ruby's father and as a credit to his acting ability, manages to portray him without even a hint of his 28 Days Later character. Gleeson reminds us how good character actors can be.

Supporting the film as well are Ethan Suplee, as the tragic Pangle, Jack White, as the musician Georgia, Kathy Baker as Sally - a role that redeems her tired performance as "hook lady" from Boston Public, Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Reverend Veasey - a fugitive to accompany Inman, and Donald Sutherland as Reverend Monroe. These characters are each more interesting than the main three and quite well-portrayed by their respective actors. Kathy Baker, for example, plays exceptionally well outside the special effects to make her pallor and near-death quite vivid and real.

But so much of Cold Mountain hinges on plot and it's not terribly compelling. After the first group of people are tormented or killed for harboring deserters or being a deserter, we understand how harsh the Home Guard is. The repetition of it simply fills time and delays the obvious conclusion to the movie. And the serious problem is that those characters we care the most for are so briefly in the movie before they are snuffed out.

It's basically a "soldier makes his way home from war and encounters obstacles" film. And intermingled with that is a "women at home fighting in their own way" story. The latter story suffers because the women are not interesting or particularly strong; indeed, Ada is almost entirely defined by her waiting for Inman and thus seeks her definition from a man. Consequently, the other half suffers because it does not take long before the viewer begins to wonder, "Why is Inman working so hard to get home to such a dull woman?" And Inman's own lack of genuine personality is confusing as well. We have a dull man determined to make it home to a woman who defines herself based on him, resulting in a cyclical motion of complete boredom.

Blood and guts fans will enjoy the battle scenes and Cold Mountain sadly has a scene of rural living involving the exsanguination of a goat that is very realistic and almost more tragic than the human costs of the movie. In short, though, this is a tired, tiresome movie, without anything truly new and led by characters and actors that were overpaid for their performances they failed to deliver on.

For other works featuring Natalie Portman, check out my reviews of:
Thor
No Strings Attached
Black Swan
The Other Woman
The Darjeeling Limited
V For Vendetta
The Star Wars Saga

4/10

Check out how this film stacks up against other films I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the reviews are organized best film to worst!

© 2012, 2005 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

The Gangs Of New York Is A Lacking Tale Of Revenge And History

The Good: Daniel Day-Lewis, Moments of directing
The Bad: Howard Shore's soundtrack, Lack of use of quality actors, Romantic subplot, Idiot characters
The Basics: When gangs ruled the Five Points of New York City, Irish immigrants rise up against the Native New Yorkers in a dull tale of revenge and confused character types.


Most everyone says that Martin Scorsese is a genius and it's easy to see why when watching The Gangs Of New York. Scorsese has a great eye for movement and framing and using the camera to tell the story he wants to tell. He populates his film with talented actors and has a decent sense of pacing. Unfortunately, there is little that lives up to his potential genius in this film.

The Gangs Of New York begins with the slaughter of the Dead Rabbit gang in the Five Points in New York City (made even more distracting by the time frame of the massacre being given after the battle as opposed to before). This is not a big plot revelation as anyone who knows movies can figure that Liam Neeson's character will not survive given he is not billed near the top in the credits. Priest Vallon is killed and sixteen years later, his son, Amsterdam, comes looking for revenge. He quickly absorbs into the corrupt New York City run by Boss Tweed and Bill the Butcher, the man who killed Priest. Amsterdam gets closer to Bill until he is exposed and leads an Irish revolution against the "Native" New Yorkers and the Civil War draft changes everything.

First, the high points. Daniel Day-Lewis is phenomenal as Bill the Butcher. He brings William Cutting to life with a crooked grin, an expert sense of timing and a fury and ferocity that is unlike anything he has ever done on film before. There is no trace of his subtle and likable character from The Last Of The Mohicans, nor his dull, plodding character from The Age Of Innocence. Here, Day-Lewis performs and convinces the viewer he is someone and something totally different, a corrupt killer. In short, he does everything an actor is supposed to with smashing results.

Unfortunately, Day-Lewis is the exception to the rule. A lot of talented actors appear in The Gangs Of New York and are woefully neglected and/or ignored completely. Jim Broadbent's Tweed is decent, but remains almost entirely a peripheral character. The acting talents of John C. Reilly and Brendan Gleeson are almost entirely wasted in the bit roles they perform in this movie. Similarly, Liam Neeson's performance is too easy to neglect given that the entirety of his performance is in the first fifteen minutes of a 166 minute epic.

The real loser of The Gangs Of New York (outside the viewer who sits through the entire thing), is the story. We've seen revenge stories before. I happen to like a decent story of revenge and intrigue. This is not that. It has all of the same, old cliches. Parent is killed, disappears, returns years later with vengeance on their mind, gets close to killer, is discovered, the situation moves to a resolution. Even the confused, out of the subtext ending that might surprise some, seems canned and serves only to rob the film of a decent catharsis. Instead, the conflict between Amsterdam and the Butcher seems simply like it wasn't worth resolving. It's a lot of blood and violence to lead to a vengeance not worth the effort to resolve.

Moreover, the romantic subplot, and I use the term "romantic" loosely, in The Gangs Of New York between Amsterdam and Jenny is both entirely cliche and tacked on. There is an attempt to make triangle issues between Amsterdam, Jenny and the Butcher, but it feels like a cheap romantic tool used to add a woman to the mix. In short, Cameron Diaz's Jenny feels like a character added at the last moment so there could be some sort of romantic interest for Amsterdam and it fails to engage the viewer. Instead, we feel like we are being cheated because it distracts from the emotional intensity of the revenge plot. This is a rare instance where the film would have been fine without trying to balance the cast and it might have made a more powerful commentary to show the obsession of the vengeful son to not include anything as redemptive (or in this case, obscuring) as a romantic attachment.

Like Jenny, many of the characters are simply archetypes that fit into a rather generic role in the larger storytelling mythos. The problem is, we - as viewers - want actual characters and end up woefully disappointed by The Gangs Of New York. The let down here is that almost all of the characters turn out to be complete idiots in the end. For example, Brendan Gleeson's world-weary warrior Monk transforms in an instant from a battle-hardened soldier and mentor to Amsterdam into an idealistic moron who is willing to turn his back on the greatest villain he has ever known. And unfortunately, he is not the exception in this movie, he embodies the rule. All of the characters defy their better judgment and the common sense of the viewer by reversing their own wariness and anger.

My final problem with The Gangs Of New York was Howard Shore's derivative score for the movie. As a big fan of The Lord Of The Rings saga (reviewed here!), I was surprised while watching The Gangs Of New York to find many similarities in the soundtrack to the Trilogy, especially in the battle scenes. This disappointment was amplified when Howard Shore's name came up in the credits; the similarity was the result of Shore's sudden lack of musical imagination and it plagues the movie as Shore attempts to link (musically) gang-ridden New York City to Middle Earth. That's just wrong.

In short, The Gangs Of New York may have had potential and there are stylistic elements like directing and costume design that work in its favor, but the potential is never reached because the actors are underused or are playing characters with such contrast to sensibility that they are almost unwatchable and ultimately not relatable.

For other films with Jim Broadbent, be sure to check out my takes on:
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince
Inkheart
Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe
Nicholas Nickleby
Bridget Jones’s Diary
Smilla’s Sense Of Snow
Brazil

5/10

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

© 2012, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Spy Movie That Remembers The Humanity, Safe House Is Astonishingly Good!

The Good: Character, Action, Acting! Most of the plot.
The Bad: A few obvious plot/character moments.
The Basics: For the first time (maybe ever?!) a film depicts intelligence operatives who make decisions as if they were real, emotionally aware, human beings! Safe House is every bit as impressive as I’d hoped!


Every now and then, I learn something important about movies. Yesterday, I learned two exceptionally important things. The first thing is that movie previews have dramatically changed. It used to be that when one went to the movies, they were treated to two to four movies that might appeal to the same demographic as those watching the film they were about to see. But yesterday, as I sat in the theater waiting for Safe House to begin – and I had a similar experience to this when seeing Chronicle a few weeks back! – I sat through eight previews, most of which were for movies that would not appeal to the Safe House audience. I mean, I was jazzed to see the preview for Prometheus on the big screen (I cannot wait for one that actually has dialogue in it!), but I highly doubt that the audience that might appreciate the smart, tense, sophisticated Safe House is really the audience that is going to see Project X, Battleship and 21 Jump Street. No, it appears that advertisers are going with a shotgun approach and they aren’t even trying to make reasonable associations with the movie one goes to see and the previews shown before it. I suppose I am beginning with this rant because it’s true and because I tend to like to have something concrete to complain about, lest it seems I have gone soft and write a thoroughly gushing review.

Because that was the second thing I learned yesterday: February is no longer exclusively the dumping ground of crap movies. Sure, Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance (link below) is working desperately hard to disprove that theory, but Safe House is all the proof I need that movie distributors suddenly realized that if you release a truly great movie in February, you can have a memorable winner, as opposed to leaving audiences unenthusiastic about an entire month of February. Safe House, like Defiance a few years back, reminds viewers how great movies do not have to be released only during the Early Push (my new term for the late-August, early-September Oscar Buzz Grab Season) or Oscar Pandering Season (Thanksgiving through the end of the nominating season because, as it turns out, Oscar voters and nominators have the world’s shortest attention span). Will nominators remember Ryan Reynolds, Denzel Washington, director Daniel Espinosa and writer David Guggenheim when next year’s award season begins? Probably not. But they should.

Matt Weston is a housekeeper working at a quiet safe house in Cape Town, trying hard to get transferred from his dull post to France so he and his girlfriend won’t have to break up. Weston is friends with David Barlow, a high-ranking CIA operative, who has the ear of the Assistant Director. When a rogue operative, Tobin Frost, acquires some devastating data in an encrypted file worth millions and is chased by thugs, he makes a tactical decision to enter the U.S. consulate in South Africa. Cooperative and almost eager, Tobin allows himself to be transported to the safe house Weston operates and even allows himself to be interrogated brutally by Kiefer.

But when the same goons attack the safe house, Weston and Frost are the only agents to make it out alive. Fleeing for their lives, Matt follows protocol and tries to keep Tobin Frost safe while keeping Ana, his girlfriend, out of a potential firefight as well. But Tobin Frost soon gets into Weston’s head with the simple question, how did the goons know about the safe house and how to breach it? As Matt runs for his life with Tobin in tow, Barlow and Linklater intellectually duke it out in Washington to try to get Frost and Weston back into the fold. Following their directions, Weston ends up at a stadium where Frost has an opportunity to escape his custody, multiplying his problems!

Safe House is smart, tense and above all, it is character driven. I recall when I saw The Negotiator with my dad and he and I talked about it afterwards. One of the things he liked about it – and I agreed with him – was how both Kevin Spacey and Samuel L. Jackson were so plausible as crisis negotiators. At the time, I think I might have brushed it off as great casting, but the truth is, both actors truly rose to the roles. In a similar way, Ryan Reynolds and Denzel Washington are amazing as Matt Weston and Tobin Frost, respectively. The moment I realized how perfectly cast they were and how they were both playing at the top of their game was when the pair has a surprisingly brutal fight while driving the car away from the safe house. In that fight, both make tactical decisions and there are moments where the viewer can see them calculating behind their eyes, reasoning exactly what they can afford to give up and what they believe they can get out of certain moves. That’s brilliant acting and both seem utterly believable as they make their moves.

While a lot of credit has to go to writer David Guggenheim, the actors truly rose to the wonderful script. Even so, Guggenheim wrote characters who are essentially human and that is why Safe House works so unbelievably well. The characters in Safe House react absolutely like real people. There is almost no suspension of disbelief required and the film is smart enough to not insult the viewers. Even so, it is ridiculously smart. For this, I credit Guggenheim. David Guggenheim has a clear understanding of human psychology and he plays with it very well in Safe House. The relationship between Matt and Ana seems very real. Matt is still young, he is lying to Ana about his profession (which is reasonable in the case of a spy) and he actually seems to love her. So, when his safe house is attacked and he realizes that someone on the inside of the CIA is connected, his first call is to Ana. He tries to get her as far from the impending bloodbath as he can. That’s human.

Matt is not the only deeply human character in Safe House. The film plays out as well as it does because while Tobin Frost is introduced as an antagonist, he is almost immediately revealed to be a patriot. Weston watches in deep discomfort as Frost is tortured by Kiefer, but Frost’s resistance is not bravado. He comes to the situation with realistic expectations and a strong knowledge of the techniques that Kiefer is employing upon him. Frost is presented as more than just a former asset who went rogue, he still has things he deeply cares about. At the same time, he is willing to shoot a man in the face (and he does, several times). Still, one of the best scenes in the film comes late when Tobin meets up with Carlos Villar. That, admittedly, is a treat of watching two great actors – Denzel Washington and Ruben Blades – play off one another.

So, what is there not to like about Safe House? It has an engaging plot, amazing acting, interesting characters and amazing action sequences (I cannot remember the last time I actually enjoyed a car chase in movies). First, for all of the things director Daniel Espinosa does right in Safe House, he goes a bit over-the-top during many of the chase and fight sequences. Using a handheld camera for the fights and chases is supposed to make a moment seem more immediate and real, but it’s passé. It’s been done, we’ve seen it, I’m bored by it. Safe House suffers at a few points because Espinosa is worrying too much about the flash while smearing the substance. Safe House is urgent, tense and exciting; there were moments I wanted to actually see that better. In other words, when all sorts of guns are going off, I know that it’s a dangerous chaotic moment and at this point in filmmaking, I want to be able to enjoy it as opposed to simply feeling like I am watching a movie while on a moving roller coaster. Similarly, if you are going to have two young white guys who look virtually identical duke it out and the only real distinguishing thing about them as they grapple is that one is wearing a flannel with a pattern, for the love of all that is good and holy, light the damn scene so we can see who is who!

And don’t have my favorite actor in the piece be the villain. Seriously. I loved Safe House, but the moment I saw the mole, I knew exactly who it was. And I wanted so much to be surprised!

That said, Safe House is legitimately great. Vera Farmiga gets to move around a bit more as Agent Linklater than she did playing a similar character in Source Code (reviewed here!) and she plays off Brendan Gleeson (Barlow) and Sam Shepard (Assistant Director Whitford) very well. Farmiga, like Reynolds, Gleeson, Shepard and Washington, seems like an absolute professional and entirely plausible as a high-ranking CIA agent. Safe House also features notable supporting performances by Robert Patrick (Kiefer) and Ruben Blades (Villar).

So far in 2012, theatergoers have been bombarded with spy movies and it doesn’t look like that is about to stop this weekend. So far, hands down, the best spy film of the year – and the best film of 2012 this early in – is Safe House. It is worthy of your attention and your dollars and the time to enjoy it on the big screen.

For other works with Ryan Reynolds, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Change-Up
Green Lantern
The Proposal
X-Men: Wolverine
Definitely, Maybe
Smokin' Aces
Just Friends
Waiting . . .
Blade: Trinity

8.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for a complete listing of all the movies I have reviewed! Thanks!

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

Steven Spielberg's Argument Against Having Children . . . Or Robots: A.I.: Artificial Intelligence!

The Good: Essentially good philosophical question, Some acting
The Bad: Overly graphic, Thematically heavy-handed, Characters that are difficult to connect with, Loses focus
The Basics: The MPAA drops the ball on not rating this nightmarish fairy tale “R.” Otherwise, there is little of note here.


It did not take watching A.I. or Artificial Intelligence long to realize that Steven Spielberg was the wrong director for this movie. At best, no other director could be accused of trying to capitalize on the same type feelings as E.T, at worst, no other director would be a target for trying so desperately to make a hit film. Artificial Intelligence fails to be as simply endearing as E.T. was upon its release and too pointlessly graphic and needlessly complicated to be the real hit that he wanted.

When Henry Swinton believes he has found the solution to his wife's heartbreak over their son's apparent coma, he purchases a robot (mecha) that has the ability to love her without question. David, the mecha, takes a while to endear himself to Monica and eventually, she begins to return his affection. When her biological son reanimates, there is natural conflict between the two children and Monica decides to abandon David. David, unalterably programmed to love Monica, begins a search for the Blue Fairy from Pinocchio in an attempt to become human. In the process, he flees the most dangerous element of humanity, the Flesh Fair, and journeys to the submerged Manhattan to try to become human.

First of all, if you are not a fan of Pinocchio-type stories, this will be a huge let down for you. Essentially, it is a souped up fairy tale with all the simplicity and none of the charm. Haley Joel Osment does a fine job portraying David with simplistic, childlike wonder, but there is no magic in his performance. There's no spark of joy in him, which makes watching Osment's David difficult.

If you read my reviews, you will no I am not a prude for most of the things Conservatives decry are wrong with movies. I was disappointed at how sexually graphic Henry And June (reviewed here!) wasn't and the ultra-violent "Empok Nor" rates as one of the best Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes in my book. That said, the MPAA completely dropped the ball when it came to rating this movie. Whatever dolts at the MPAA slapped a PG-13 on this movie instead of an "R" deserved to be fired.

Why? A significant portion of Artificial Intelligence happens at a Flesh Fair. The Flesh Fair is basically a bunch of hicks getting together and tearing apart robots. In the scene, we see a robot shot from a cannon, through a ring of fire and into a jet engine where it is destroyed, another is drawn and quartered before our eyes and yet another is melted completely with acid. The purpose of the scene is to illustrate what monsters humans have become in relation to their servants. This horrific scene immediately follows a scene wherein a dump truck of already destroyed robots attempt to reconstruct themselves and includes such things as one robot tearing jaws off other dead droids to find one that fits. The problems of these scenes are twofold. 1. They do what they do exceptionally well, to the point of being overbearing, oppressive and gross. In the robot dump scene, we see quite comprehensively how poorly the robots have been treated and any viewer with a brain is going to feel the sense of injustice and "get" that this situation is absolutely wrong. The scene that follows with the chase and torture of robots is therefore unnecessary. Add to that, the scene is supposed to illustrate how inhumanely the robots are being treated by showing their torture and we are to understand how wrong that is. The MPAA completely dropped the ball on this one in that it uses the excuse that the beings being tortured are simply inanimate objects to justify showing things it would never allow to be illustrated with human beings. Thus, the MPAA is desensitized, becoming in itself a flesh fair. It is unethical and desensitizing to allow such graphic torture to be shown, especially to youngsters and the idiocy of the MPAA's decision to rate this PG-13 is that the robots are, of course, humans in actuality! The second problem is both of these intense, graphic scenes of dismemberment, torture and destruction are too long. We get the thesis of the scenes. They feel like the Ripley Clone Room scene in Alien Resurrection (reviewed here!) - we got it, get on with it.

Following the disgusting and inappropriately rated Flesh Fair scene, the movie falls completely into chaos. The comic relief provided by Jude Law's character Gigolo Joe wears thin immediately such that the viewer is not disappointed by his rapid exit from the movie soon after. Then the movie descends into a weird fairy tale involving massive passages of time and alien beings.

The problem, ultimately, with Artificial Intelligence is that it does not seem to know what it wants to be. Too often, it is an oversimplified fairy tale. Other moments, however, it rises to a wrenchingly graphic and adult portrayal of ostracization and loneliness. In the end, none of the characters come alive. David is simplistic and monotonous, Monica is pretty much the worst mother ever, Joe is a one trick joke, and Professor Allen Hobby, who has great potential as a philosopher somehow loses his way in the last scenes we see of him. His philosophical quest motivates the movie, yet his actions at the end are inexplicable; until he knew the outcome of the David experiment, why would he start other such experiments?

In contrast to the characters, the acting is halfway decent. Almost redeeming the movie are the performances of William Hurt, who plays Hobby as intelligent and compassionate, and Haley Joel Osment, who earns his fee easily with his weird, robotic performance of David. The contrast between the warmly emotional Hurt and the quirky, quasi-dispassionate Osment works quite well.

Unfortunately, it is not enough to save this movie. It lacks serious direction other than trying to prove that the responsibility one would have to an artificial life form is the same as one would have to a biological entity, but that is proven rather quickly. The lack of purpose through much of the movie is complicated by a situation devoid of empathetic characters and ruined by an unnecessarily gruesome set of scenes that defy good taste. If you want a better time making an ethical argument over robots, I strongly recommend "Measure Of A Man" from Star Trek The Next Generation's second season. They say that if a movie resonates emotionally with you, it's good regardless; I say if it resonates only in that it makes you nauseous and others when you describe it, it's garbage. There's no antacid that counteracts the Flesh Fair and only sadness that 28 Days Later's Brendan Gleeson was a part of it.

For other big science fiction films, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Bicentennial Man
Inception
Minority Report

3.5/10

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

© 2011, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.5/10

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

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

Top Of The Genre: 28 Days Later Reinvigorates The Infection And Zombie Genre Films!

The Good: Acting, Plot, CHARACTERS, Realism
The Bad: Volume of blood robs a few key moments of realism
The Basics: When Britain falls victim to its own biological agent, survivors of the plague work hard to outlast the Infected.


If you follow my reviews, you will know I'm not big into horror. Science fiction, I love. Horror, it's a pretty blah genre to me. Too often, it's too predictable, poorly written and it stands up even more poorly than comedy upon rewatching. I had heard decent things about 28 Days Later . . ., though and so I went to see it. You should see it, too. If you are a person who likes character-driven stories where you actually care about the fate of those on the screen, then 28 Days Later . . . is for you.

When a group of animal activists storm a laboratory, they unwittingly set lose a contagion in Britain that causes its victims to rage uncontrollably. Jim awakens in a hospital bed, 28 days after the outbreak began to find his city almost completely abandoned. Confused, dazed and dehydrated, Jim wanders until he finds a church where he discovers victims of the rage and flees for his life. He is rescued by Selena and Mark, two survivors who inform him of Britain's plight. The three band together to survive and the next day, they head to Jim's parent's house where they discover their fate. When the Infected chase them from that haven, Jim and Selena end up at a high rise in the company of Frank and Hannah, a lonely father and his daughter.

Frank plays a radio transmission for Selena and Jim from a military encampment a few days away and the group decides to head for it. In the process, they bond and when they finally meet Major Henry West at the Blockade, they realize that perhaps the Infected are not their only enemies . . .

What makes 28 Days Later . . . so great is that the characters are interesting. Jim acts as pretty much any of us would upon waking up and discovering himself in a post-apocalyptic nightmare. He is confused and scared and his dreams are nightmares of loneliness and abandonment. It makes a great deal of sense; he went to bed and the world abandoned him. Similarly, his lack of endurance at the beginning makes sense for someone hospitalized for a month, as does his ability to quickly work back muscle mass - as would be natural for a bicycle courier.

Jim is not the only interesting one. Selena seems genuine as someone battle-hardened by the way life has treated her for a bloody month. Moreover, her latching onto Jim and his hope reads as very true as well. Similarly, it is not simply director Danny Boyle's obvious Hitler shot of West entering the mess hall that clues us into the fact that something is not right about him, it is the way he treats others, including his infected former-officer.

The acting in 28 Days Later . . . is astounding. Megan Burns and Brendan Gleeson play off one another quite organically as a daughter and father. Burns has a great innocence and maturity to her that contrast beautifully to Naomie Harris' Selena. Gleeson's portrayal of Frank as a saddened, passionate man is both comforting and heartwrenching.

Naomie Harris makes Selena into a heroine we can believe in. Without duplicating the acting of other popular, tough heroines, Harris clearly establishes herself as a tough, dependable and almost ruthless presence on the screen. Harris explores Selena's almost mercenaric sensibilities and allows them to find a voice while never crossing the line of being a parody or an archetype.

Christopher Eccleston does a great job at playing West as a cold-blooded survivor without a shred of emotion. Eccleston expertly keeps his difficult facade of stone raised the entire film.

Cillian Murphy steals the show (not only for his repeated nudity) by creating Jim. His facial expressions open the film wonderfully, easily creating an undeniably confused character. Murphy sells us on the classic British post-apocalyptic stranger in his own land. Never does Murphy's performance seem to be rehashing the "type" that has been portrayed in similar films.

In the end, there is very little not to like about 28 Days Later. . . Yes, it's gory, but it is not gratuitous. And certain things are never explained, like why the Infected prefer the night to move about in. But these are minor details that do not detract from the enjoyment of the film. Indeed, it is the lack of explanation that makes the movie seem so real. Jim and Selena are not scientists, thus the reasons do not matter. As survivors, they recognize the symptoms and the problems and how to avoid them, not the causes or the cures. In fact, the only thing that makes no real sense after further contemplation of the movie is how the virus would have reached New York City, as Selena mentions it had.

Even this little detail does not cause the viewer to stop caring or jump out of the film and ask "why?" Instead, director Danny Boyle creates a scenario that is immediately engaging, plunging the viewer into a world where the viewer is actually scared. It is not a predictable film and the movie is more a psychological horror than a "something is going to jump out at me" horror. In fact, Boyle goes a long way to avoid the cheap frights, often giving visual clues to the Infected coming.

Finally, one of the things I enjoyed most about the movie was the reminder that even in the worst of times, humanity's greatest enemy is often itself. 28 Days Later . . . reminds us that in desperation, Man will rise to its greatest heights and sink to its deepest depths. Fortunately, Boyle has the strength to make a film with a great amount of moral ambiguity to allow each viewer to pass Judgment on his characters.

28 Days Later . . . may be enjoyed by anyone who has a tolerance for gore, a passion for good acting and decent characters, and wants to be entertained. This may not be an absolutely perfect film, but it is excellent and by far, the top of the genre.

For other works with Cillian Murphy, please check out my reviews of:
Tron: Legacy
Inception
The Dark Knight
Batman Begins

9.5/10

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

© 2011, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |