Not Bending The World As Much As We Think, Why Her Is The Best Film Of The Year!

The Good: Excellent acting, Intriguing plot, Interesting characters
The Bad: Somewhat oppressive tone
The Basics: Her is a smart, clever film that has a lonely man bonding with his smartphone’s operating system and developing real love for the artificial life form.


A few days ago, my wife and I celebrated our four and three quarter year anniversary of our marriage. Even though it was an obscure anniversary, we continue to give gifts to one another and she actually surprised me by getting me the Blu-Ray of Where The Wild Things Are (reviewed here!). I was the only person I knew who actually liked the movie and my wife got it for me to connect me to a youthful sensibility I sometimes lack. So, I was actually primed to take in Spike Jonze’s latest film, Her . . . and I know that I will not be the only person I know who loves this film. Her is smart, quirky, and deep, instantly reminiscent of Jonze’s Being John Malkovich in tone and weirdness.

Her is released as Oscarbait, but while the studios might be marketing it toward award season, there is a sense of wry observation and universal loneliness that would have made it the film of the year regardless of when it was released. While films like Gravity (reviewed here!) have been leaving audiences marveled for the spectacle they bring to the big screen, it has lacked something beyond the confines of the story it tells. Spike Jonze has never been limited in that way and Her is no exception. Her tells a story set in a slightly sideways view of the world, but resonates with genuine human emotions and a story that is far less quirky (and much more insightful) than one might think from its plot.

Theodore is a professional transcriber for BeautifulWrittenLetters.com where he spends his days handwriting affectionate letters for customers. He is going through a rough divorce, though Catherine has clearly moved on from him, and he is lonely. Outside work, he spends time with his friend Amy, who spends her free time playing an online game where she earns points for being a good mother in the virtual world. Theodore’s own outlet with the virtual world or artificial intelligences comes when he activates his new operating system for his smartphone. Samantha talks to Theodore and he finds in the responsive program a companion more than a technological tool.

As Theodore asks his phone questions and responds to Samantha’s observations, he starts to bond with Samantha the way he would with an actual person. Theodore begins to become emotionally entangled with Samantha and that eases his loneliness. But as Theodore develops the relationship, he is forced to wrestle with the feelings he is has for Amy, Catherine, Samantha, and, perhaps most importantly, himself.

Her had a familiar quality to it; the emotional distance and sense of connection coming through technological devices is a similar plot to this year’s A Perfect Men (reviewed here!). The sense of familiarity also resonates for anyone who saw and understood A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (reviewed here!); Samantha in Her is treated like a life form in some very real ways. Interestingly, the elements that seem familiar combine to create something that is remarkable fresh.

The thing is, Her seems audacious and original in its plotting and set-up, but Spike Jonze drives the movie with a character who is easy to empathize with and a tone that is universal (though hardly pleasant). Theodore seems to meet the stereotype of being a smart man who is socially or emotionally disconnected, with limited ability to express the depths of his feelings. While Jonze created yet another smart character who clearly feels, he is put on the spot to define his emotions and falls down. Her might use a technological conceit, but it explores a complicated series of emotions and has something to say about relationships that is seldom brought to the screen with such realism.

While there are moments that get bogged down in the oppressive tone inherent to loneliness, Her succeeds because it balances the loneliness with the excitement of the discovery that comes with a new relationship. While there is a somewhat bipolar nature to the plot, the overall cinematic experience is surprisingly enjoyable.

A lot of the credit for the success of Her goes to Joaquin Phoenix. While I have never been a fan of Phoenix’s works, in Her he performs with an incredible range of emotions that is uncommon for him. Phoenix plays the quiet loneliness of Theodore’s initial character exceptionally well, but it is when he transforms into a bright-eyed, eager man outside his home that Phoenix gives us something completely new. I cannot recall a time when I’ve seen Phoenix on screen smiling and portraying a truly vibrant human being.

In a similar fashion, Amy Adams’s role in Her is unlike others she has had. More than just appearing with disheveled hair, Adams uses her time on the screen to play a type of obsession she has not played in her other works (at least none I have ever seen).

Her has a touching human message and it is delivered expertly in a way that makes it a film bound to stand the tests of time.

For other works featuring Olivia Wilde, please check out my reviews of:
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
The Words
People Like Us
In Time
Butter
The Change-Up
Cowboys And Aliens
Tron: Legacy
The Next Three Days
Year One
House, M.D. - Season Four

9/10

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

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

After A Good Start, The Campaign Becomes Stubbornly Mediocre.

The Good: Humor, Zach Galifianakis’s performance, Initial plot
The Bad: In the middle, it stops being as funny
The Basics: Not a bad Will Ferrell comedy, The Campaign starts as a smart treatise on American politics before degenerating into a very standard comedy film.


Now that the 2012 election cycle is finally over, my wife and I took in the latest Will Farrell magnum opus, The Campaign. My wife is a big fan of Will Farrell and I tend to enjoy politically-themed movies. For sure, I never expected The Campaign to be as civically-minded as, for example, Swing Vote (reviewed here!), but given how the comedy actually begins with some decent moments that imply the importance of political activism, the movie quickly raised my hopes. Sadly, though, for as good as The Campaign begins, it quickly degenerates into a very standard Will Farrell comedy.

Actually, The Campaign stops being funny right around the middle as it strives for absurd humor instead of keeping a tight, political comedy that worked. After a time, The Campaign simply drags and recycles its own jokes.

Cam Brady is a North Carolina Congressman in the House of Representatives who spews obvious slogans and has affairs with young women who show up at his ridiculous campaign rallies. Looking forward to his next unopposed election to the House, Cam is shocked when the odd local, Marty Huggins applies to run against him. Supported by the Motch brothers, who have an agenda to turn the district into a Chinese sweatshop district, Marty begins a campaign, ostensibly to make his former politician father less disappointed in him.

While the odds seem exceptionally long for Marty, calling Cam out on his non-answer at their first debate gives the outsider some real support. That support is quickly increased when Marty accidentally punches a baby following the debate. As the neck and neck campaign commences, both Marty and Cam try various tactics that further take their campaigns away from the issues and gut their integrity.

The Campaign has some smart issues, but it buries them so far down as to make one think they were more of an afterthought. For example, writers Chris Henchy and Shawn Harwell insert the idea that the Motch Brothers run the company that makes the voting machines. This is a very real problem, as made obvious by politics in Ohio. Yet, The Campaign refuses to actually address this serious issue. It appears near the climax of the film as a single, visual joke and it does not quite work as well as it could have because it is not followed up on with anything remotely resembling intelligent discourse.

Such is the real folly of The Campaign; it starts off with decent issues – the corruption of American politics by big business and the importance of people actually joining in the political process – but then ignores them in order to make silly jokes that slowly bleed the film dry. Using Cam to hit a dog late in the film feels less clever than like a motif and the fact that Mitzi goes through with sleeping with him seems unfathomable, despite the fact that the writers do continue to have her character frustratingly mention that she wishes Marty was around more.

The Campaign is seldom about actual character development; it is very predictable on that front and in no way audacious.

Fortunately, the acting in The Campaign is solid. John Lithgow seems professional in a way that I’ve not seen him in other films of late. Far away from the doddering, aging characters, like the one he played in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes (reviewed here!) , Lithgow seems like exactly what he is supposed to: a businessman in the prime of his power.

Zach Galifianakis shows a delightfully ridiculous side as Marty Huggins that is different enough from his other fool or ridiculous characters that makes him seem distinctive and worth watching. The best that may be said about Will Ferrell is that he is not simply recapping his usual George W. Bush impersonations as Cam Brady. Ferrell’s character is a smart parody of John Edwards and he plays it well.

Ultimately, The Campaign is fine, but in no way exceptional. It is a fine cap to this year’s political season and worth one viewing, if not purchasing for one’s permanent collection.

For other political comedies, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The American President
American Dreamz
Man Of The Year

5/10

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

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

A Freakish Childhood Makes One Want To Be Running With Scissors Far And Away!

The Good: My gosh, it finally ends!, Moments of acting
The Bad: Much of the acting, The characters, Lack of plot, Plodding pace, Tone, Message, DVD extras
The Basics: In an overrated and terrible movie, Augusten Burroughs relates his traumatic childhood spent in the company of a crazy adopted family.


Augusten Burroughs is a boy growing up in the 1970s with a poet mother who desperately dreams of stardom and a father who is an alcoholic. Augusten's mother, Deirdre, soon divorces Norman at the recommendation of her psychiatrist, Dr. Finch. Finch encourages Deirdre's selfish behavior and Deirdre soon abandons Augusten to Dr. Finch and his family while she goes off to explore poetry and lesbianism.

Augusten, then, finds himself trapped within the hell that is Dr. Finch's household. Surrounded by children who poop behind the Christmas tree (which has been up for years), a mother-figure who eats dog food, a disco-dancing girl and a religious zealot, Augusten soon falls in with a schizophrenic older man who might just kill them all. Augusten works to survive by writing in a journal, becoming truant from school, and limiting his exposure to the craziness of his new family.

Augusten Burroughs, sadly, is not a fictional construct. The lone bonus feature I could bare to sit through (there were three featurettes and a bunch of previews on the DVD release of this film) introduced the author Augusten Burroughs who sits in denial telling the viewer how he survived and overcame his crappy childhood, which Running With Scissors is a memoir of. I write "sits in denial" because almost thirty years after the events that shaped his life from his childhood, he is still working through it by creating a movie. Regardless of what Burroughs declares in his on-screen endorsement of the film, this is not a celebration of a universal struggle that is immortalized on film.

Running With Scissors fails utterly because it is so insular, specific, and disturbing as to rob it of any real entertainment value. Some years ago, I wrote one of my first reviews on the book Lilliane: Resurrection Of The Daughter (reviewed here!) where I postulated that what made the book so pointless and difficult to read was that it captured reality too well. In the case of Running With Scissors, Burroughs and screenwriter-director Ryan Murphy create something that may accurately recreate the reality of Augusten's youth but is so outside the normal, interesting or entertaining as to be painful to watch.

As this film plodded on - the pacing is disastrously slow - scene after scene was agonizing to watch. After a slow start wherein Norman and Deirdre break up, partially at the behest of the quack Dr. Finch who insists he must observe the couple for five hours a day in order to save their marriage, Augusten and the viewer become condemned to a series of slow deliveries that agonizingly draw out a pointless experience that results in nothing so satisfying as a laugh.

Whatever niche Running With Scissors is trying to fit into, it fails. It's not funny, though moments of the film have the elements to be horrifying in a way humor can be when one steps away from the joke and thinks about what has actually happened or been said. It's not comedic, it's not so much dramatic as it is dull. That is to say that great character drama has a tension to it that absent from Running With Scissors. It does not take long before the viewer simply does not care about Augusten or his fate.

The reason is simple; Augusten is not a compelling character. All due respect to the real Augusten Burroughs (if this is a strict memoir, wow, t.f.b.), Augusten Burroughs from Running With Scissors is dull, uninspired and uninspiring. He is a youth who never takes control of his own destiny. Instead, he takes all the sh*t that is flung at him and he accepts it as the way it is. It's ironic because my mentor and I were debating social mobility this past weekend and after seeing Running With Scissors, I'm almost forced to concede the point that people trap themselves far too often within their own hells. In this context, Augusten is never so motivated by all of the factors that torment him to actually make the changes he would like, that he needs. The result, unsurprisingly, is that (author in reality) Augusten Burroughs is still processing his crappy childhood twenty years later. Condemning the viewer to share his crappy childhood is not entertaining and it is not revealing of the human condition.

Similarly, Deirdre is wholly unsympathetic and unempathetic. She is played by Annette Bening with little differentiation between Deirdre and her more compelling character from American Beauty (reviewed here!). Bening is a quieter form of crazy in Running With Scissors, but much of the performance feels the same or similar.

At this point, I believe it is relevant to compare Running With Scissors with a film that has a similar sensibility to it, but was vastly better. If Running With Scissors is at the bottom of the scale of the dysfunctional family drama, the foil movie is The Royal Tenenbaums (reviewed here!). The Royal Tenenbaums tells the story of the three children of Royal Tenenbaum as their adult lives collapse and his estranged wife looks to remarry. Much of the movie, like Running With Scissors happens in the confines of one house and neighborhood but what The Royal Tenenbaums does well is create characters that are empathetic. They are motivated by their pasts and their quirks embody their reactions to their stimuli. The assemblage of Running With Scissors is portrayed as crazy and esoteric for the sake of weird and shocking. So, for example, Gwyneth Paltrow plays Hope Finch in Running With Scissors, a religious zealot whose origins and motivations are never explained. She is crazy for the sake of crazy. Ironically, Paltrow also appears in The Royal Tenenbaums and even with years since I last saw it, I can easily recall that her character in that film was depressed and dysfunctional because her adopted father treated her different from his biological children, her plays had fizzled commercially and her marriage to a listless psychoanalyst had encouraged her to renew her addictions. There is nothing so deep from any of the principles of Running With Scissors.

As I watched this film last night, I was considering that this is Gay Pride Month and films like Running With Scissors were among the assemblage of flicks that just didn't help the cause. Deirdre, the character not whatever real poet exists outside the film, is a weak-willed doped up mother whose irresponsibility, drug use and ability to be influenced by Dr. Finch lead her to a witless exploration of lesbianism that is almost as canned as Augusten's own homosexuality. Augusten, getting a leap on his sexuality by having sex with his older brother-figure, Neil Bookman, a schizophrenic also adopted by Dr. Finch, is an entirely uninspiring role model for homosexuals of any age.

Granted, gays and lesbians - like ANY population - come in a wide array of heights, weights, skin colors, hair colors, and states of health (physical and mental). I recall going to a LGB community meeting when in high school and being mildly surprised to see a blind person there. Yes, it opened my eyes - pun intended - to the whole idea that the LGB community truly was like any other when I saw a blind lesbian. As a matter of gay pride, Running With Scissors is just abysmal and it opens the community up to a plethora of the worst, most stereotypical, arguments that most of us would like to see buried.

So, for example, throughout the movie, there is a strong incestuous relationship between Augusten and his mother, Deirdre. He brushes her hair, fawns over her as she practices poetry reading and emulates her. The film goes so far as to suggest that Augusten knows his mother so intimately as to effectively and realistically role play her when playing doctor with Natalie. As well, the film opens itself up to the tired comparisons of gays as pedophiles when Neil has sexual contact with Augusten when Augusten is fifteen (or less).

As well, all of the gay or lesbian characters in Running With Scissors are either crazy (Neil is schizophrenic), weak-willed (Deirdre's neighbor and lesbian practice toy Fern), opportunistic (Dorothy), idiotic (Augusten's lack of escape initiative can only be traced to innate stupidity) and/or drug addicted (Deirdre is both mentally ill and drug-addicted). As far as seeing characters from the community, Running With Scissors is terrible and frightening to any young people. As well, it showcases only the worst about these people. None of them have anything remotely redeemable about them. The other characters might be crazy, but most are defined by the idea that they are crazy by what they eat (dog food and a long-dead cat, in case you're curious). The most seriously ill characters in this film also happen to be the ones who are gay.

Finally, the problem is exacerbated by the lack of on-screen chemistry between Joseph Cross (Augusten) and Joseph Fiennes (Neil). Cross has more on-screen chemistry with costar Evan Rachel Wood who is relegated to a sisterly role as Natalie. But even more damning than the connection between Wood and Cross is the character interactions between the two. When Augusten becomes most desperate, he calls on Natalie to help him. Somewhere, there's a young hick saying "He's only gay because he's crazy." Sigh.

My point in all this is that Augusten Burroughs and Ryan Murphy create or recreate a story of a boy's witless adventures in growing up where he is pushed around by family members into a situation where he is simply stuck. It's made worse by the negative messages and themes which are so backwards and terrible that if they were happening to any other minorities other than gays and lesbians and the mentally ill, the film would have never been made (make a movie with a black mother eating dog food or a Japanese girl cooking her dead cat for joy and see how quickly the Anti-Defamation groups leap up!). I would say the writers and director ought to feel ashamed, but if I learned anything from Running With Scissors it was that Augusten Burroughs has already been in situations that were shaming enough; it is regrettable that he chose to share his insular and damaged experiences rather than seeking to truly survive them. Running With Scissors simply immortalizes them and it is not worth your time or attention.

For other works with Evan Rachel Wood, check out my takes on:
The Ides Of March
True Blood - Season Three
True Blood - Season Two
Across The Universe
Once And Again - Season Two
Once And Again - Season One
Practical Magic

2/10

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

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

You Know You're On A Crappy Flight When The In-Flight Movie Is Red Eye

The Good: Acting, Plot concept
The Bad: Predictable characters arcs, Fails to evoke tension, DVD extras are lame, Short!
The Basics: Despite a good start, Red Eye mortgages the ability to create a compelling thriller for a cheap, predictable set of lines and resolution.


Cillian Murphy jumped into my attention with 28 Days Later, which he was fabulous in. He was underused in Batman Begins, but I had good cause to trust he would be good in Red Eye, a horror movie specifically tailored for our current political paranoia. This was the first movie I had seen with rising star Rachel McAdams.

Hotel desk clerk Lisa Reisert is traveling home from her grandmother's funeral when her flight is delayed. While waiting for her new flight, she meets Jackson Rippner, who is attentive and charming with her, though he is giving off a pretty creepy vibe the whole time. Lisa boards her plane to discover Jackson has the seat next to her. They begin to talk and soon Jackson reveals that he is on the plane for Lisa. He wants Lisa to change the room assignment of a Homeland Security officer at the hotel where Lisa works. If Lisa does not comply, Jackson has someone who will kill her father. As the flight goes on, Lisa struggles to beat the terrorist and Jackson becomes more insistent about her need to comply.

This is Wes Craven's take on the Julia Roberts movie Sleeping With The Enemy and his direction of the movie bears a striking resemblance to that, down to some of the shots near the end. Fortunately, neither Carl Ellsworth nor Dan Foos - who wrote Red Eye - were associated with Sleeping With The Enemy, making them derivative and not one trick ponies.

Red Eye is a thriller, supposedly, but it does very little in the way of thrilling. The film tries to make everything into a moment of tension, from the music in the opening credits, to the plane taking off, so by the time the conflict between Jackson and Lisa actually becomes something, it's past the point where the audience feels able to care or feel tense. Instead, it is predictable in all of the worst ways, once the premise is established. Sadly, Wes Craven has squeezed himself into the same safe box as far too many other directors following the September 11 attacks, so while Red Eye features a plot that is reacting to the attacks, it is not bold in any way about the statement it makes. And that's disappointing.

Moreover, this is a very "male" movie for a film with a female protagonist. Lisa is strong, but when it comes to the critical moments, it is the men who do the heavy lifting. Lisa and her coworker in the hotel, Cynthia, risk their lives to protect the homeland security officer, Charles Keefe. And they do it all for, a pat on the back. The men here are the real protectors; Keefe is protecting the nation and his family, Lisa's father Joe protects her. To be fair, all the men are villains here, too, so they are portrayed as both the villains and protectors. Women, including Lisa, are merely accessories, pawns in their games.

This is especially bothersome on the character level. Red Eye's latter third hinges on Lisa being a strong woman who is able to kick some serious butt. The moment - early in the film - that she sees a scar on her chest in the mirror, her character is completely explained to almost anyone with a brain who understands the world we live in. The problem is, because this is such an obvious character tell, in order to do anything that we don't expect, well, the movie would have to do something truly different. Instead, Lisa says exactly what one would expect about being a woman in her position the second before she begins to truly fight Jackson.

Again, it's very safe in this p.c. age to show women kicking the crap out of men and to its credit, Red Eye establishes two characters who are on fairly even footing (at least by the time they are actually locked in combat). The problem with this type of conflict is that is has become passe. In almost every such conflict, the viewer pretty much knows who will win (so, for example, in Alias, it does not matter the size of the man Sydney Bristow is up against, odds are good she'll win). Somehow, it's become perfectly all right for us to show men pounding the crap out of women, so long as the woman triumphs in the end. In most cases, I'm fine with that. In Red Eye, I was hoping for ANYTHING that might be surprising. Anything.

Those who want to watch Red Eye hoping for a real horror movie are likely to leave disappointed. This is, at best, a psychological horror, one man toying with one woman to get what he wants from her. The broader text of this movie is a political thriller. Jackson is the new face of terrorism, sent to make a statement to Homeland Security by assisting in an endeavor to take out one of their public faces.

The problem, then, is that Jack does not work. We are meant to believe that he has the resolve and determination of a terrorist, yet he makes amateur mistakes like not knowing when to cut his losses. We are made to believe that his personal vengeance trumps either his desire to make a political statement or his desire to survive in the underworld long enough to be hired for another job that will bring him money. Jackson makes no real sense, so while Lisa is the cliche of the now-strong survivor, Jackson is a parody of a terrorist that only an audience under 17 could believe in.

Cillian Murphy, however, is wonderful. Murphy's acting creates Jackson as a reasonable gun-for-hire and his ability to alternate charm and menace is wonderful. Murphy expresses more with his eyes than some actors get out with a whole page of dialogue. He is cold, calculating and wonderful in his performance. It's a shame that he was not given a better (more sensibly written) villain to play.

Rachel McAdams is the real winner of Red Eye. Despite playing one of the most predictable roles in recent memory, she did it well. She was essentially human throughout and strong and determined and she was believable. Sometimes that's the most one may hope for. The best thing to come out of my watching Red Eye was in looking McAdams up on the IMDB, I learned she's in talks to play Claire Abshire in the film adaptation of The Time Traveler's Wife, my favorite recent read (reviewed here!). Now I have to think if she'd be as good as Claire . . .

This is a "PG-13" movie and it barely deserves that high a rating. The DVD extras include one of the lamest "gag reels" I've ever seen and a commentary track that does not make the movie any more interesting. All in all, this is a disappointment. Cillian Murphy is in better movies and I'm sure Rachel McAdams is, too. As for Wes Craven . . . if you can't make a movie that's over 90 minutes, maybe it's time to get out of the business.

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

3.5/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

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

An Affair To Forget: The Affair Of The Necklace

The Good: Excellent cast, Two lines of dialog
The Bad: Lackluster acting, Dismal plot, Uninteresting characters, Repetitive use of footage
The Basics: The Affair Of The Necklace relates a ridiculously complicated and equally pointless tale of a young woman who inadvertently helped cause the French Revolution.


There ought to be a rule about actors appearing in period films. If you appear in a film set in the past, you may only appear in another one if your role is very different and the overall story of the movie is significantly different. As it stands, one of the necklace-making Monsieur's of The Affair Of The Necklace is the Doje in Dangerous Beauty and I found that somewhat distracting. This is not an exceptionally serious complaint, but it is the start of a litany of strikes against The Affair Of The Necklace.

The tagline for this cinematic dud is "Her birthright was stolen. Her Dignity Taken. Her Rights Denied. Deception Was The Only Option." This sets one up for a movie very different from the one I watched. The first hurdle is that the implication of the tagline is that somehow the necklace in the story is the protagonists birthright, which it is not. The second is the idea that the protagonist somehow starts at a point of serious devaluation and must rise above it. As becomes evident in my description of the plot, this is patently untrue.

Jeanne St. Remy de Valois is a young woman who was orphaned when her liberal, almost revolutionary, father spoke out in the French government for the rights of the working class person and the importance of keeping the masses happy, as opposed to simply controlled. Jeanne's earliest significant memory was of watching her father beaten to death and their house gutted by French soldiers. Now, years later, Jeanne works to gain her family name back but finds the way blocked by a Minister of Titles that hated her father and what he stood for and a monarch (Marie-Antoinette) who will only ignore her.

Thus, unable to get back her ruined family name and claim her father's decent estate, Jeanne meets up with a gigolo, Retaux de Vilette, and together they scheme to get her title back by enlisting the aid of Cardinal Louis de Rohan and then betraying him.

As far as stupid premises go, this has to be one of the top ten in human history. The Affair Of The Necklace makes the point of observing that the events in the film happened, which makes the story even more agonizingly stupid. The story is a convoluted mess of conspiracy and lies that is simplified thus: Jeanne wants her childhood house back, but cannot get it because she is a woman without a title. Marie-Antoinette ignores her, so Jeanne enlists a political adversary of the queen, Cardinal Rohan, to help her under the guise of him helping himself. Two jewelers, in the meantime, have made an insanely expensive necklace for Marie-Antoinette that she does not want. The jewelers enlist Jeanne to get Marie-Antoinette to buy the necklace so they aren't out the huge sums of money. Jeanne convinces Rohan that Marie-Antoinette wants the necklace (she doesn't) and that by helping her obtain it using his vast fortunes, he will be back in her good graces. Jeanne, I suppose, presumes that when Rohan and Marie-Antoinette have reconciled as friends they will want to do her the favor of restoring her title. It's a somewhat ridiculous and convoluted plot that is not as incomprehensible as it is pointless.

Jeanne's quest is utterly pointless given her position and desires. Jeanne wants her father's house back and she wants the family title. The first goal is easily obtainable - even for a woman of her moderate social position - by simply marrying one who is fabulously wealthy, a characteristic that several of the characters portray in the movie. But the second goal is utterly ludicrous. Why should Jeanne wish to get her family's title back? Her family has been disgraced and seen as traitors. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that having the Valois family name will associate her with traitors and revolutionaries to all those who hold the power. How far could she truly expect to get with a family name that is so marred?

I suppose in reality, people are less sensible than in fiction, which is why Jeanne is so utterly irritating to watch.

So, to go back to the tagline for the movie: Her Birthright was Stolen; So what?! It's a pretty crappy legacy for one who wants anything in pre-Revolution France. Her Dignity Taken. No evidence of that; she only seems to try the least dignified ways to get back her title. Her Rights Denied. Not really; she seems to have a remarkable freedom of movement and speech throughout the film. Only her land rights were denied and given that she married for one title, it seems inconceivable that she would not have considered marrying someone better for an even better title. Deception Was The Only Option. Certainly not. There were other options still available to her from marrying better to using the wealth she made of Cardinal Rohan early on to simply bribe the Minister of Titles.

The real downfall of The Affair Of The Necklace is in its presentation. First, the childhood scenes of the Valois Family Manor getting torched is repeated with annoying frequency throughout the first half of the movie. Second, the characters are not presented with any flair or real character and there is absolutely no chemistry between Valois and Retaux, which forces the least interesting almost-sex scene I've seen in years.

But the ultimate letdown is in the players. The cast is pretty incredible, with Jonathan Pryce, Brian Cox and Christopher Walken being names to draw in a lot of viewers. Unfortunately, not one of the actors is playing their a-game. Pryce is dull, Cox is uninspired, Walken lacks his usual charisma. Simon Baker as Retaux de Vilette is bland and Hillary Swank lacks any character or screen presence as the protagonist Jeanne. Indeed, throughout my viewing of The Affair Of The Necklace, I kept thinking that Swank looked a lot like Jennifer Garner and I was glad that Garner had not gotten dragged into this piece of crap.

Who will enjoy this? Beats me; I didn't and I like period films and love history. Who won't like this? Anyone who enjoys a good plot, decent characters and an excellent use of talented actors.

For other works with Hilary Swank, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Million Dollar Baby
Buffy The Vampire Slayer

3/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the film reviews I have written!

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

Rushmore: Wes Anderson's Early Work Proves He Is Not A One-Trick Pony!

The Good: Funny, Quirky, Intense characters, Decent acting
The Bad: Some pacing issues, Light on DVD bonus features
The Basics: An ambitious movie by Wes Anderson, Rushmore explores a few months in the life of an overachiever and his adult friends.


Sometimes, one of the nice things about encountering the works of an artist in any medium later than their initial offerings is that it gives one perspective when going back to look at their earlier works. As someone who found an appreciation for the works of writer-director Wes Anderson with his film The Royal Tenenbaums (reviewed here!) I have had mixed feelings about some of his subsequent works. I was both eager and afraid to take in his works prior to The Royal Tenenbaums because I while I loved that movie, I was beginning to fear that he truly was a one-trick pony. If that movie was derivative of one of his earlier movies, I feared it would be less brilliant in retrospect. So, when a coworker at my previous Job From Hell highly recommended Rushmore, I finally decided to pick it up.

Rushmore is one of two movies Wes Anderson wrote and directed before The Royal Tenenbaums and I am quite pleased to say that it is quite a different film in form and story, if not in cast. Actually, the most intense difference between Rushmore and every other Wes Anderson film I have seen is in mood. Rushmore is a much more active movie and while Anderson holds on significant moments of awkwardness, the movie does not belabor those emotions. Instead, there is the feeling that the director is kept on a shorter leash (or is keeping himself on that leash) and it works to keep the movie generally moving at a pretty decent pace. And while the characters are consumed with the somewhat typical Wes Anderson sense of melancholy and misery, the movie does not seem overcome by the mood, instead it clips along feeling funny and fresh instead of oppressive.

Max Fischer is a fifteen year-old student at the prestigious Rushmore Academy, a private school that sets rich students up for success in the future. Having written a play at a young age and won a scholarship there, Max has spent years devoting himself to the institution by creating various clubs and causes to keep himself occupied, even at the expense of his academic achievement. Accompanied by the student he mentors, Dirk Calloway, Max follows a note written in a library book back to a young new first grade teacher.

Obviously smitten, Max befriends Miss Cross, a widow at the same time he befriends the eccentric and disenchanted businessman Herman Blume. Max and Blume begin ambitious plans to build an aquarium at Rushmore, but soon their plans go awry when Max is expelled for his failing grades and Herman falls in love with Rosemary. Max, furious about losing both Cross and his place at Rushmore initiates a war with Herman that pits them against one another for the heart of the (mostly) indifferent Rosemary Cross.

Rushmore is remarkably intelligent and remarkably silly at the same time. Indeed, it is the combination of these two things that makes the movie something truly special to watch. Blume gets Max's attention when he advocates violent overthrow of the rich at a speech at Rushmore and Max's attention to detail in regard to that earns him Blume's respect. As Max struggles to find his path, Herman takes Max under his wing and offers him a position at his company. In this way, we see a somewhat absurd mix of the practical (man recognizing a brilliant youth) and the absurd (that said businessman would put so much faith in a fifteen year-old). But more than that, the depressed and disappointed Blume soon latches on to Rosemary in a way that does not so much reinvigorate him as give him a purpose. Maligned by his annoying children, Herman is sympathetic and when he falls for Rosemary, the viewer desperately hopes he might actually develop a spine and some happiness.

The resulting war between Max and Herman is ridiculous and high comedy. Both the boy and the man engage in tactics that are brutal to try to crush the other and there are moments, when Herman is safe, where it is clear he envies the imagination of the boy. Max and Herman make as good of adversaries in the middle of Rushmore as they make friends in the film's beginning and it is a pleasure to see something so funny, clever and well-conceived.

In other words, the characters work and the object of the affection of the two men, Rosemary Cross is deeply sympathetic as well. Cross is a smart person and it is refreshing to see a young woman who is portrayed as intelligent enough to recognize the obvious crush Max has on her from the beginning. Moreover, that she addresses it so forthrightly in the beginning gives her a spunk and intrigue that make her worth watching.

Wes Anderson is given a difficult task with Herman Blume, though, and it establishes both his obsession with melancholy characters and his utilizing actor Bill Murray in each of his films. Anderson saw the dramatic potential within Murray quite early on and while others would use it and use it well, it is hard to believe they would have gotten all they could out of Murray were it not for Anderson preparing both the actor and the audience. Herman Blume has to be a man who could believably put his faith and his money in Max and the mix of the character's boredom with corporate America, his desire for Miss Cross and his appreciation of the way Max's mind works all come together to make for a surprisingly believable character.

As it stands, the characters are interesting and Anderson's ability to keep things moving prevents the viewer from ever being mired in Blume's melancholy too long and that works quite well for the film. Rushmore does not lag, though there are moments where the viewer wonders where it is going. Because it is a Wes Anderson movie, the viewer is asked to have a little faith and - despite the two failures I've endured of his - Anderson makes good on that faith. I am left wondering how those who did not have confidence in the writer-director would have made it through the movie initially, but truth be told, the movie works and while it does not so much have a resolution that is satisfying, it remains true to itself and remains largely original. In fact, in the last few years of watching everything I could get my hands on that was different, the only movie even remotely similar to Rushmore that I've encountered is Ghost World.

Part of what makes Rushmore work so well is that Wes Anderson keeps the story focused on the three primary characters. Indeed, I do not believe that there is a single scene that does not have some combination of Max, Herman and/or Rosemary. The characters are well represented and the story is rounded out well with a supplemental cast of actors like Brian Cox, Seymour Cassel, and Luke Wilson. But the three principles rock the film and keep it fresh.

Olivia Williams plays Rosemary Cross and I will admit that when I first saw her, my impression was that she was just going to be another Hollywood-beautiful face on screen. Rushmore is the only thing - to date - that I have seen Williams in and I am quite pleased to say I was wrong about my first impression. She plays Cross as serious, practical and surprisingly substantial given how little air time she has on screen.

Bill Murray makes a dramatic performance that rivals his surprise greatness in Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!). He is subtle and quiet, never begging for the laugh. Instead, Murray presents a fearless melancholy in Blume that could be stifling were it not for the moments the actor explodes open his eyes and makes a bold proclamation. Murray's challenge - which he easily meets - is to make those moments seem like they are within characters and he does that quite effectively.

But it is actor Jason Schwartzman who is called upon to carry Rushmore. I liked Schwartzman for his supporting performance in the underrated Jersey Girl where he at least made an impression. Here, he makes one rethink the notion that directors should avoid young actors. He comes to the role with a serious intensity that makes the viewer unquestioningly believe in the reality of Max Fisher. His performance is subtle enough that he clearly establishes his damage well before Fisher speaks the lines of his pain to Blume. Schwartzman is almost the straightman of this weird comedy and he does that well.

On DVD, Rushmore is a little light on DVD extras for my tastes. There is a trailer for the movie and that is about it. Given how this movie appears to have launched Wes Anderson's popularity, it would have been nice to get a commentary track and/or deleted scenes. No such luck, though.

As it stands, Rushmore is a surprisingly good dramedy that creates a quirky character, develops a strange love triangle and makes a war between two people on the fringe of society that is engaging for all audiences.

For other works with Brian Cox, be sure to check out my review of:
Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
X-2: X-Men United
The 25th Hour
Adaptation.
The Ring
The Bourne Identity
Braveheart

7/10

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

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

An Amazing Cast With Character Sells Us Long Before The 25th Hour

The Good: Excellent acting, Intriguing characters, Well-written, Well-directed, Decent plot, Use of soundtrack
The Bad: Spike Lee rants
The Basics: When Monty Brogan gets nailed for drug possession and trafficking, he is sentenced to 7 years in prison. The 25th Hour is his last night before he goes away. What a night.


In the series premiere of Sports Night (reviewed here!), Jeremy Goodwin (an expert on sports trivia and a cute, geeky character), is forced to talk about basketball with repeated demands by the woman interviewing him for the job on Sports Night about what the New York Nicks can do to improve their game. His final answer in his desperate rant is "Tell Spike Lee to sit down and shut the hell up!" His answers get him the job. After seeing The 25th Hour, it's easy to see why. The only real strike against this movie are the moments that Edward Norton's Monty turns toward the camera and dives into a rant against everyone and everything in New York City. This loud, hate-filled outburst seems so out of place and uncharacteristic that one wonders why Spike Lee left (or put) it in. It robs the movie of perfection.

That said, The 25th Hour is the story of Monty Brogan's last twenty-four hours before he goes off to jail. Monty spends the day connecting with his friends, Jacob and Frank, pushing his loving girlfriend away, and saying good-by to his father and the criminals for whom he took the fall. These are the agonizing last hours of a convicted drug peddler trying to put his life in order and understand how he got to the point he is now at.

The 25th Hour had one of the most depressing previews I have ever seen when I saw it in the movie theater and my thought was "Why would anyone want to go see a movie that looks so unrelentingly depressing?" The preview people got it wrong. While The 25th Hour has an encompassing sense of impending doom, it does not portray Monty nearly as depressed, resigned and depressing to watch as the preview did.

In fact, Monty Brogan is a criminal we feel bad for. The film almost entirely neglects that this is a man who sold drugs, which ruin people's lives (that is characterized through a single character whose deterioration into a wasted junkie is shown), and instead illustrates the consequences to the good people who surround him as a result of his collapse. We see not only Monty's struggle, but the compelling feelings of helplessness of Jacob and self-loathing of Frank over how they let their friend fall so far.

Spike Lee does an amazing job of directing. The 25th Hour has a very distinctive look and feel of post-September 11th New York City. Lee does a great job visually keeping the movie flowing and his use of soundtrack, especially in the club near the film's end, is great.

The 25th Hour also does an excellent job of portraying dynamic characters. Mary is not simply a spoiled rich girl, Naturelle is not simply a token Latino or token girlfriend, and it is impossible to deny that Monty is more than just a criminal. Speeding to make a buy, Monty stops to rescue a seriously hurt dog. It's details like that that push The 25th Hour beyond the bland stereotypes and archetypes of the typical crime dramas.

What solidifies this movie is the amazing cast. Brian Cox plays Monty's father as resigned and considerate, a far cry from his X-Men 2 (reviewed here!) role. Anna Paquin's Mary is a nice step away from her other roles, as well. And while I'm a big fan of Phillip Seymour Hoffman (his role in Magnolia is perfectly executed), Barry Pepper as Frank steals the spotlight in every scene the two of them are together in. Pepper is acerbic and plays Frank with so much oozing self-loathing that, despite the fact that half the lines that come out of his mouth characterize him as a jerk, make it impossible not to feel for this deeply wounded man.

But the top billing rightfully goes to Edward Norton. The movie is Monty's and Norton makes Monty someone to care about. Without any trace of the angry man from Fight Club, the clown from Losing The Faith or the arrogance of his character from The Score, Norton plays Monty as a cunning man who got caught. There is a simple magnificence to the resigned looks in his eyes, face and slumping of his shoulders as he descends into acceptance of all that has happened to him. Conversely, he plays the flashbacks where Monty is at the top of his game with more of a stride, more confidence, exactly what one would expect from the character at that time in his life.

At the end of the day, The 25th Hour is good drama and it's entertaining. The viewer quickly invests in the characters and becomes intrigued by the struggles of each of them. And perhaps the most refreshing aspect is the lack of resolution at the end. Sure, all of the important plot points (like who got Monty caught) are revealed, but the way the end opens up the possibilities keeps the movie fresh and very easy to watch repeated viewings of. The DVD has some nice deleted scenes and the commentary is not bad, either.

The 25th Hour illustrates the caliber of greatness of some of the actors, directors, and editors of our new century. Far superior to Lee's He Got Game, The 25th Hour solidifies the idea that Spike Lee is a master storyteller in the film medium. He certainly knows what to do with quality actors when he gets them.

For other works with Edward Norton, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Invention Of Lying
The Incredible Hulk
The Score
Keeping The Faith
Fight Club
Rounders

8.5/10

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

© 2012, 2007, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Ringing In My Eyes: The Ring Leaves Me Unimpressed.

The Good: The first few minutes
The Bad: Terrible acting, Pointless ending, Lack of empathetic characters, Dull plot, Pacing
The Basics: When a series of deaths is tied to a mysterious video tape, an investigative reporter risks her life to solve the mystery of the killer in The Ring. Yippee.


A few years ago, I was at a Star Trek convention and a promoter for a film studio was present giving out promotional items like posters and buttons and such. At the end of the weekend, he dipped into his box of things and pulled out a lone video tape. My assistant at the convention was given the tape, though the promoter had no idea what was on it. I took the tape home and watched it. What it appeared to be was a crazy, German expressionist type video with more in common with a Danzig video than anything else. At the end of the weird and creepy tape, there was a URL and, slightly grossed out by the home video, I dutifully went there. At the site, I was informed that I had a week left to live and that the tape had contained things like hypnotic suggestions and my days were numbered. I was outraged and a little freaked out. My partner and I spent the week that followed with "I only have x days left, so what the heck?" as a continual punchline. It wasn't until The Ring came out later in the year that I realized this was just a poorly made advertising tool (the website did not mention the movie at all).

So, a few days ago, I got The Ring out of the library to see what all of the hype was about. It's too bad I did; the idea of it was much more interesting.

The Ring follows the investigation of Rachel Keller, a reporter who bothers to investigate the death of her niece (I say "bother" because it seems the police are absent in the film, leaving the detective work to an investigative reporter) at the hands of a video tape. Rachel gets her hands on a copy of the video that her niece watched that supposedly kills people seven days after seeing it. Rachel then watches the tape and becomes obsessed with discovering its cryptic meaning before she is slain. Her quest to learn the truth leads her to a strange little dead girl who appears to be killing from beyond the grave using the video as a gateway into the real world.

The first problem with The Ring is its largest. None of the characters are at all interesting. Rachel is dull and her devotion to discovering what killed her niece seems misplaced given how much she neglects her own son. Her character is riddled - like the movie - by a series of stupid contradictions. For example, Rachel instantly believes in the power of the video to kill, given that all the people who watched it with her niece died at the same time, yet she leaves the video around the house where her son could - and does - watch it. Moreover, she steals the video from a cottage in the woods when the owner of the cottages tells her she is welcome to borrow any of the videos in the library. It seems pointless that she makes the effort to conceal her taking the video off the shelf when it is freely offered.

Rachel's character is not the only uninteresting one that fails to engage us. Indeed, none of the characters seem worthy of saving and as the film plods along, one wonders why any of them even bother. Rachel's son, Aidan, lacks any character and Noah, her ex-husband, seems strangely devoted to a woman he couldn't stay married with. Richard Morgan, one of the characters at the flashpoint of the killer girl's supernatural existence, is unfathomably driven in the movie to do what he does. His motivation seems forced and his exit from the movie is met with more dispassion than anything else.

The saddest thing about The Ring is that it utilizes a couple of decent actors and does nothing with them. The wonderful Brian Cox, who portrays Richard Morgan, is underutilized in a role that does not take advantage of his range or force him to use his full ability as an emotive actor. Instead, his performance is bland and confused.

Naomi Watts, who helped make the confusing Mulholland Drive (reviewed here!) watchable, is similarly wasted in The Ring. The entire movie becomes a countdown to Rachel's potential death and as it nears, Watts does nothing to endear the viewer to her character. So, as the countdown goes on, there is no real sense of menace because the viewer doesn't care about her character. Watts simply shows up and moves around the screen, doing little beyond that to present Rachel as an actual person with any significant backstory or interesting life.

The Ring culminates in one of the most pointless lines in cinematic history. Given that Rachel succeeds in unraveling the mystery of the video tape, why she does not use the same diligence to destroy any copies of the video is a bigger mystery than the one that inspired the film. In the end, The Ring lacks any real sense of tension, a single decent character to care about and fails to use the talents of any of the actors employed in it. Whatever arguments might be made for this, it is not a true horror; there is nothing scary about it. If you want scary, take a week where you think you've actually seen a video that will kill you, at least then you'll be afraid for someone you care about.

For other horror movies, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Wrong Turn
28 Days Later
Daybreakers

.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.

| | |

The Amnesiac Bond, Er, Bourne: The Bourne Identity

The Good: Acting, Character
The Bad: Plot twists were fairly obvious, Resolution (Alternate? ending)
The Basics: While entertaining and a decent example of how Matt Damon truly can act, this spy thriller fizzles with twists that are evident long before they are revealed.


If we've learned anything from the movies, it would have to be that when you lose your memory and find yourself filled with bullets, remove a laser pointer from your body to find where your safe deposit box is. It's a good thing Jason Bourne has seen the same movies to know to do these things as well. I'm fascinated by how movies with people suffering from amnesia always seem to have convenient moments for the return of their memories. Far more refreshing a film would be one where our hero (or heroine) never figures out why everyone is after them.

The Bourne Identity finds Jason Bourne not knowing even his name. He wakes up on a fishing boat, stitched together by a sailor, not knowing anything, but clearly possessing many skills. He speaks multiple languages and knows things like that, but his identity has been erased. At the bank, he acquires personal effects which clue him in on who he is. But without the full story, he does not understand why assassins are after him and he flees with the help of a woman (Marie).

So, basically, it's a spy thriller wherein the spy does not know he is a spy and he doesn't know why he is at the center of intrigue. It's not terribly hard to figure out given that early in the movie the CIA begins hunting him. Bourne is an assassin who failed to kill his mark and The Bourne Identity strives to put Jason on the track of what he was supposed to do and why he failed.

It's basically a shoot 'em up, drive fast all over type movie that has a lot of movement, but not a ton of substance. Before seeing the movie, I heard Roger Ebert's review and he liked the fact that Bourne used a map in the film. I liked that too, but it was a brief shot and very much underused. The idea that Bourne would not know a lot of things, like the specific layout of certain buildings, is an excellent idea that was not expanded upon. The story tried too hard to get him back to being an invulnerable hero-type too quickly to be believable.

Furthermore, there are supposed to be twists. Julia Styles plays a part and she is supposed to provide some of the unexpected turns in the story, but people who see lots of movies will see them coming from her. The reversals in The Bourne Identity are fairly predictable, though to be fair it's hard to do a good spy thriller these days.

What the movie does have in substance works well. Jason Bourne is interesting at the very least and Marie, a woman willing to drive a stranger for $20,000 because she needs the money, seems very real. In fact, Marie ties the movie to the viewer quite well. Despite the ridiculously long and complicated car chase, Marie makes it easy for the viewer to believe that everything we see could actually happen.

At the end of the day, it is the acting that saves The Bourne Identity. Chris Cooper has a wonderful supporting role that almost redeems his place in the awful Adaptation. (Though to be fair, he was the high point of that movie) Franka Potente plays Marie and she does it expertly. She is Hollywood beautiful, but makes the viewer believe she is desperate for money and simple and not as beautiful as her physique suggests. In short, she is in the movie for a lot more than eye candy. She has substance that makes us believe in Marie and in the extreme premises of the movie.

Matt Damon here saves much of the day with a performance that pushes his acting chops. Neither the somber protagonist from Good Will Hunting nor the smug angel from Dogma (reviewed here!) creeps into his performance. In fact, having seen interviews with Damon promoting such things as Dogma and Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back, his portrayal of Jason Bourne seems devoid of the actor's personality. In short, Damon successfully immerses himself in the character here and it pays off big time for him. Damon makes us believe in Bourne by the way he speaks, the way he moves and all of his other mannerisms.

So, while it is not the best spy thriller ever, it is entertaining. It's decent for a rainy day, though if you have the DVD and are intrigued by such things as the "alternate ending" advertised, you are likely to be disappointed, as the alternate ending is a minor difference from the one in the film. If you're looking to add something to your permanent collection in this genre, give Alias a chance; it has more going for it.

For other works with Brian Cox, be sure to check out my review of:
Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
X-2: X-Men United
Braveheart

6/10

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

© 2011, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Summer Blockbuster Season Ends On A High Note With Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes!

The Good: Special effects, Story, Acting
The Bad: A little lighter on character development than I'd like.
The Basics: Summer's last foreseeable blockbuster, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes is an engaging story of scientific endeavor gone wrong!


I'm the first to admit that I bet wrong that Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 would keep Captain America: The First Avenger from hitting the #1 spot at the box office the weekend it made its debut. But for the most part, I've had a pretty good run this Summer Blockbuster Season and I'm looking at what's on the horizon and I'm thinking it's done this week. Sure, there's still Conan The Barbarian in late-August, but it seems to me like Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes is the last big summer movie before August turns into comedy and art house films, which is a little earlier than most years. Indeed, I have to give some credit to the studios for putting out The Help and One Day early, as if December won't be so loaded with Oscar pandering for a change. And looking for a pretty solid special-effects Oscar (nomination, if not win) is the surprisingly cerebral Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes.

While the special effects in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes are both simple and mind-blowing - the digitally-created apes are incredible, but they are essentially the same level of technology that allowed moviegoers to be entirely fooled by Armie Hammer playing both of the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network (reviewed here!) - the real story for the film is how good the story actually is. Rumor is that many people went through trying to write the script before it ended up in the hands of Pierre Boulle, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver. Those writers managed to create a work that feels like classic science fiction, meaning the film is not about the special effects it is about the story. The special effects are truly special in that they help to create one of the film's most important characters. Caesar is a viable character not just from the special effects, but from the actions of the character and that makes it a film with a message, not just a wow factor.

Will is slaving away at a research facility in San Francisco with more than a professional interest in the work he does. He is working on gene therapies that will cure diseases like Alzheimer's, a disease his own father has. The experiments are going well and tests on a chimpanzee seem to work until she freaks out. It is quickly revealed, however, that she was just protecting her progeny, Caesar. Caesar, it seems, has his mother's high intelligence and he is rescued by Will and over years of study and testing, Will uses the experimental drug on his own father, with positive results. Caesar's intelligence is high and working with Will, he soon begins to realize himself as a fully-capable organism with inherent rights.

Unfortunately, after protecting Will's father, Caesar is locked up and treated cruelly by Dodge. As Will fights for Caesar's release, the primate takes matters into his own hands. Unfortunately for Will and his boss, Steven, the medicine developed when Charles develops an immunity to the first treatment is not entirely stable and has unforeseen consequences for humans. As Will struggles to reconcile his feelings for Caesar with his research, Caesar enhances his peers and leads a revolt for freedom.

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes could have been cheesy, but it wisely avoids dated aspects and keeps the story grounded in what seems like a scientifically plausible reality. Will is a serious scientist and his father's condition makes him vulnerable, which becomes an interesting arc for not only his character, but Caesar's. Caesar is raised with learned people in a positive environment, which allows him to plausibly develop the philosophical drive for freedom that one expects. As well, the cruelty he faces when remanded to the custody of the Landons makes it seem like a reasonable character leap that Caesar would violently overthrow those imprisoning him.

Director Rupert Wyatt smartly plays to the strengths of both James Franco and the special effects department. Franco has a very serious, deliberate side that he can play to and Wyatt keeps the movie focused on that aspect of the performer. Almost entirely absent from Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes is Franco's trademark boyish smile. Instead, in this movie he is thoughtful, often humorless and devoted to the scientific process. Franco plays off Freida Pinto, Caroline, remarkably well. Franko plays serious and like the stereotype of a scientist, while Pinto's Caroline nurtures Caesar's "humanity." Pinto is a nice foil and she emotes exceptionally well, which Wyatt taps into without making the film into an obvious Odd Couple play. But, between Will and Caroline, Caesar has two role models whose methods he is able to emulate to formulate his own philosophy.

The special effects department, then, is given the job of selling the intelligence of Caesar and the brutality that comes as he leads his revolt. While Tom Felton seems utterly unafraid of getting typecast - he brings his Draco Malfoy sneer to the role of Dodge - the special effects department is layering over Andy Serkis to make Caesar and the other apes viable characters. They sell the antagonists through the eyes. Sure, the movie features some of the most disturbingly realistic footage of CG gorillas attacking humans, but the quieter moments are what make this a real thriller. When Caesar's eyes narrow and the intelligence within them is evident, it is enough to send chills up one's spine. Having had my spine so chilled, I speak from experience.

And because it is likely to get completely overlooked as the movie turns from thoughtful into a dangerous, ape-filled war zone, the acting in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes is phenomenal. Not only do James Franco and Freida Pinto play off one another well, Tom Felton, Brian Cox and David Oyelowo give great supporting performances. Of course, Caesar's performance is based upon Andy Serkis, so he deserves some serious acting credit as well.

But it is John Lithgow who steals the show. In Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes for only a short time, Lithgow creates one of the most memorable characters of his career as Charles. Lithgow provides an emotional tether for the audience and for Caesar that is frequently difficult to watch. Just as Caesar is embodied through the life in his eyes, Lithgow drains the life from his to create Charles, who is the shade of the man he once was. This ought to be an easy Best Supporting Actor Oscar for Lithgow, but one suspects because the performance comes in this movie, he will be overlooked.

That should not be a reason not to see Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, though. Anyone looking for a thoughtful, intriguing and often disturbing film that takes the viewer on a journey from the methodical and scientific arena into the chaos of a very messy war zone will enjoy Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes.

For other works featuring Tyler Labine, please check out my reviews of:
Zack And Miri Make A Porno
Boston Legal - Season 3
Invasion
The X-Files - Season 3

8.5/10

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

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