Catching Up With Wes Anderson In His Delightful Moonrise Kingdom!

The Good: Decent performances, Interesting characters, Good direction
The Bad: Simplistic plot, Light on character development
The Basics: I finally take in Moonrise Kingdom, which moved Wes Anderson out of his repetitive slump!


Over the years, I have inadvertently become a fan of the works of a couple of different writer/directors. Unlike the most literal fans ("fanatics"), I have retained the ability to be discriminatory about the works of even my favorite writer/directors. So, I do not universally praise the works of Terry Gilliam, P.T. Anderson or The Wachowski Siblings. Each has had films that are brilliant and some that are downright unwatchable. Because I started my appreciation of the works of Wes Anderson with The Royal Tenenbaums (reviewed here!), I hardly suspected he would become one of my favorite writer/directors. The Royal Tenenbaums is brilliant, but his follow-ups The Life Acquatic With Steve Zissou (reviewed here!) and The Darjeeling Limited (reviewed here!) were essentially rehashings of that film in mood and cast (and, even, direction).

With his latest film reinvigorating my love of his works, I have been eagerly going back to some of the Wes Anderson films I missed after I more or less gave up on him. After watching Moonrise Kingdom, I wish I had gone back sooner! Moonrise Kingdom is almost everything one has come to love and expect from a Wes Anderson film. The movie is packed with awkward moments, somewhat off-putting characters, actors being used in quirky ways and (to a lesser extent) impressive direction with an emphasis on the use of color. Moonrise Kingdom might not have the familiar sense of visual style one expects from a Wes Anderson film - after the opening credits sequence that is - but narratively, it is very much a typical Wes Anderson film . . . without feeling like the writer/director is simply rehashing his prior works.

In the summer of 1965, on the New England island of New Penzance is days away from being hit by a significant storm, the residents are shocked by two young people running away. The New Penzance Khaki Scout camp is put in an uproar when the least-liked camper, orphan Sam, abruptly resigns from the Scouts and runs off. Miles away, Suzy Bishop abandons her lawyer parents and three younger brothers to meet Sam and run away with him.

After an explanation of how Sam and Suzy met the year prior at the Island's church play and they became pen pals, the film follows the story of where the two children run off to and the attempts by both the Khaki Scouts and the island police to recover the children. Sam is pursued by his fellow Khaki Scouts, Scout Master Ward (who is dismayed when Sam's foster family does not want him back) and Captain Sharp, the dim police officer who has a lingering affection for Mrs. Bishop. Mr. and Mrs. Bishop are pretty much estranged and not really in love - their pillow talk is about their respective caseloads - have Sharp hunting their Suzy. Sam and Suzy defend themselves from the Khaki Scout troop and make it to an inlet where they spend a romantic night before they are captured the next morning. But when one of the Khaki Scouts realizes they troop has been cruel to Sam without cause, the kids decide to spring the young lovers and give them a chance at happiness.

Moonrise Kingdom has, from its outset, the potential to be virtually any kind of movie. The title and opening set the film up for a potential cinematic reworking of Bridge To Terabithia. The longer the film went on, the more I had hopes that the movie would be about the two kids and their falling in love and creating their own little paradise at the inlet. That hope, however, got quickly shattered with the capture of Suzy and Sam and the emphasis on keeping Moonrise Kingdom a classic chase story.

Because of its emphasis on plot and the reversals that naturally come from having a chase story, the characters in Moonrise Kingdom hardly grow or develop. Instead, Sam and Suzy grow to accept one another and share an intriguing first love that is based a lot on simply accepting the other for who they are. But most of their time is spent simply running and having four or five scenes where they simply talk. Many of those scenes are not about sharing common interests, they are about fleshing out each character. The chase gives Sam and Suzy shared conflict, but it does little to actually bond them more (they are about as affectionate with one another at the outset as they are at the end).

As always, Wes Anderson does an exceptional job with the film's casting of a decent blend of established actors and some new talents. Sam is played by Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward erupts on screen as Suzy, with a stare that could melt glass. Beyond that, one is almost surprised Wes Anderson films require a casting manager; Anderson tends to use several actors in virtually all of his works and Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, and Jason Schwartzman all make appearances in Moonrise Kingdom. Bruce Willis is utilized well in Moonrise Kingdom as Captain Sharp. Given how Willis can play calculating and able exceptionally well, watching him as a character who is a virtual moron is a feat!

The film is ruled by Gilman and Hayward and while their characters are hardly connected by deep and binding character traits, the performers have great, if awkward, on-screen chemistry! Gilman and Hayward have great stares and their characters share intensity that they play incredibly well.

But, Moonrise Kingdom sticks with a chase caper more than a heartfelt exploration of young love and that diminishes the magic of the film. While Wes Anderson does an excellent job of making an engaging story, the viewer is left feeling like the movie had so much more potential than was executed.

For other works with Frances McDormand, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
Burn After Reading
Friends With Money
Aeon Flux
Something's Gotta Give
City By The Sea
Almost Famous
Wonder Boys
Fargo
Miller’s Crossing

6.5/10

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

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

Loop Of Misogyny: Vice Takes The Low Road For Important Ethical Questions.

The Good: Most of the performances, Moments of concept
The Bad: Character, Messages (both overt and metaphorical), Sacrifices too much substance for action sequences.
The Basics: Vice might not be the worst movie of the new year, but it is far too derivative and simplistic to reach its potential.


Now that Awards Season has begun, I’ve been watching a number of ceremonies and festivities surrounding major players in Hollywood patting themselves on the backs. One of the staples of Hollywood who has been noticeably absent – perhaps I’ve only noticed it because my wife has us rewatching Friends (reviewed here!) and his episode arc recently came up – is Bruce Willis. Willis has not disappeared from Hollywood, as is evidenced by the release this weekend of Vice. Vice is a film that was not nominated for any awards and is likely to be forgotten by the time next year’s Razzies come around.

Vice is one of those tough movies to absolutely hate. After all, the concept of human relationships with robots and using robots/androids for entertainment is hardly a new one. Well-respected films, like A.I. (reviewed here!) have been produced and great thinkers have written about how technology and humanity interrelate, like Isaac Asimov. Vice has a number of aspects in common with some truly great works – like asking ethical questions about how artificial intelligences might be used, especially when their free will is compromised, but their consciousnesses are not. The problem is that Vice sweeps most of its ethical and philosophical concerns to the side to focus on director Brian Miller’s lascivious shots of random leggy blonde walking by or equally-incidental topless woman. It’s that kind of movie.

Opening with a bank robbery gone bad, which is revealed to simply be an orientation commercial, the near-future is being introduced to a big new business called Vice. Vice promises to let its users live out incredible fantasies by providing a virtual environment and “artificials” (robots made up to look like humans). Despite protests for using the artificials, Vice opens and director Julian Michaels is excited when the facility is moving toward capacity. The police officer, Roy, enters Vice to apprehend a criminal who raped and murdered outside Vice. When Kelly and Melissa leave work one night, they are killed; though it is instantly revealed that they are artificials.

Despite having their memories wiped, Kelly suddenly starts remembering her rape and best friend’s murder during the next cycle of her last night at work. While the engineer tries to find the root of the problem with Kelly’s memory, he has to restore all of her memories. Amped up on adrenaline, Kelly breaks out of Vice and she goes on the run. Pursued by Julian Michaels’ assistant and tracked by Roy, Kelly finds herself rescued by Evan, a grief-stricken young man who had Kelly designed in the image of his dead girlfriend.

First off, the basic premise of Vice is inherently offensive; Kelly’s memories reveal that she has been raped and killed by all sorts of men in all manner of ways. While Roy is championing the high-minded idea that Vice only gives criminals a taste for how good the crimes they want to commit could be, the execution is based on the concept that all men are rapists. It’s offensive to men and it only continues the stereotypes that men need to keep themselves in check in order to not go around raping and killing. The fact that Kelly is presented in the film as rapebait both in and out of Vice is flat-out disgusting.

The second big problem with Vice is that it is incredibly misogynistic. Unfortunately for writers Andre Fabrizio and Jeremy Passmore and director Brian A. Miller, when you make a movie steeped in metaphor, you can’t control all of the metaphors. The androids in Vice are slaves, the exact type posited in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “The Measure Of A Man” (reviewed here!). But while questioning the ethics of creating a slave race by showing one slave on the run, one is also forced to acknowledge what is actually being shown on screen: it’s just women getting raped and murdered. While the men are the business leaders and the ethical detective looking to protect all the “real people,” a woman who has been used for the pleasure of men and rich women is shot at and chased. That’s okay, though; she’s just a woman. (Be sure to read that line with the appropriate level of sarcasm; the movie presents it without the ironic tone.)

Not at all unwatchable, Vice includes key elements from more popular and higher-budgeted films with similar themes, like the remake of Robocop (reviewed here!). Like Robocop, Vice has an overt plotline involving the power of big business. Julian Michaels is, above all, a businessman. The police chief in Vice notes that Vice pays half the city’s budget in tax revenues, so the police try to leave Vice alone. Vice never satisfactorily addresses new business issues. Big business has influence and gravitas. We get it. If we didn’t get it from life, there’s Robocop, any number of political movies and the whole slew of business drama films. Vice could have explored something different – how a business like Vice would get likeness rights and DNA from actual people comes instantly to mind – but it doesn’t.

Bryan Greenberg is good as Evan and Bruce Willis is entirely credible as Julian, though neither role is at all a stretch of the actors. Thomas Jane is decent as Roy, but he suffers because he is presented as a unclean white guy with greasy, disheveled hair almost at the same time as a rapist who looks virtually the same. In other words, Jane’s character suffers some because the casting was bad and it takes too long to differentiate and “buy” Roy in the reality of Vice. Vice is the first work I’ve seen Amber Childers in where she has been one of the top-billed actresses and the role is a tough one evaluate. Kelly is supposed to be a robot who thinks she’s human, but her performance is stiff and, for lack of a better term, robotic in too many key scenes (like when Kelly and Evan reach Evan’s engineer genius friend).

There is a fair amount of bad press surrounding Vice right now and it is doubtful it will break into the top ten for movies released this weekend, but the truth is, the problems with the film are much more with the execution and lack of originality than the idea itself. There are any number of films I watch where I ask myself, “how did this piece of crap get greenlit?!” With Vice, I can almost hear the pitch: “We want to make something like Blade Runner (reviewed here!) from the perspective of a droid” . . . but Miller and his team did not deliver anything as compelling.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
The Last Five Years
The Voices
Love, Rosie
The Seventh Son
Song One
Project Almanac
Match
American Sniper
Paddington
Inherent Vice
Selma
Still Alice
Predestination
The Interview
The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies
Expelled
Annie
The Imitation Game
Birdman

3.5/10

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

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

Parody? Philosophy? The Fifth Element Still Entertains!

The Good: Concept, Entertaining, Most of the special effects, Basic plot
The Bad: Unremarkable acting, Light on character development, Some of the make-up effects.
The Basics: Packed with archetypes as opposed to viable characters, The Fifth Element is nevertheless an entertaining science fiction film.


Every now and then, I like to go back and watch movies for which there was a lot of hype, but which bombed at the box office. Back in my last year of college, The Fifth Element got quite a bit of hype and it was built-up to be the next Star Wars. However, upon its release, it was panned by the critics and it never truly found its audience (even among science fiction lovers). All I remembered about The Fifth Element was the “twist” about what the Fifth Element actually was. I had a friend in college who thought that the nature of the element was one of the coolest concepts she had seen and I remember being appreciative of that idea as well. But there was nothing else I truly recalled about the film, which inspired me to rewatch it tonight.

The Fifth Element is, more than the logical successor to Star Wars, the logical precursor to The Chronicles Of Riddick (reviewed here!). Like that later film, The Fifth Element devotes a great deal of time to establishing a viable universe and in that way it succeeds. Unlike The Chronicles Of Riddick, The Fifth Element does not devote much time to serious character establishment or development. Instead, The Fifth Element is preoccupied with creating a philosophy and theology of the universe it portrays and then packing the movie with fast-moving action sequences . . . and an opera. Personally, I like how the film stops for a few minutes of music appreciation while the heroine kicks some ass, but the film is more erratic than clever and that undermines it some.

Opening in Egypt in 1914, a small team of archeologists translates runes in the Great Pyramids to indicate that every five thousand years, a great evil visits Earth and kills many people. The runes also indicate that there are five elements that, when combined, can help to stop the great oncoming evil. When a devotee of an obscure order tries to kill the chief archaeologist on the Pyramids project, the team there is shocked when alien visitors arrive and recover four stones and a sarcophagus containing the fabled fifth element. They charge the devotee with passing on the knowledge of how to stop the great evil before they leave Earth.

Three hundred years later, a giant, malevolent energy field approaches Earth. When the military fails to successfully destroy it, the President Of The Federated Planets takes counsel from Father Vito Cornelius. Cornelius declares that the oncoming darkness can be stopped by the light of the universe, which would be created through bringing the five elements together in a specific place and time. When the Mondoshawan craft bringing the elements back to work is attacked and destroyed, all hope seems lost. But from the wreckage, a hand is recovered and scientists reconstitute a woman who is apparently genetically perfect and possesses hundreds of thousands of DNA base pairs more than are needed. She escapes into New York City. She falls into the floating cab of Korben Dallas, who helps her escape the police. Dallas takes the woman, Leeloo, to Father Vito Cornelius, who recognizes her as the one who his order has awaited.

At the same time, the industrialist and corrupt weapon’s manufacturer Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg – who hired the aliens that destroyed the Mondoshawan vessel – is angered when he discovers his mercenary aliens were unable to recover the four stones he sent them to get. Zorg tries to get information from Cornelius, but the monk refuses to help the businessman. Conscripted by the military and thanks to a rigged radio contest, Korbin and Leeloo (and an annoying celebrity interviewer, Ruby Rhod) journey to Fhloston, Paradise to recover the stones (which the Mondoshawan’s cunningly sent via another route) from the opera singer Diva Plavalaguna. Under the influence of the shadow creature native to the zone of evil that is hanging outside the Sol system, Mr. Zorg hunts the stones on Fhloston himself. In the ensuing conflict, Leeloo and Dallas reveal their true potentials in their attempt to recover the stones and save the Earth.

The Fifth Element bends a serious threat to the Earth in a somewhat preposterous nebulous evil which may or may not be a planet come to impact with Earth with a number of fastly-delivered jokes and visual gags. The result is a movie that tries to be both tense and a parody of tense. And while the film has some moments of smart philosophy – the fifth element is a woman it seems – the concept is kept ridiculously simple – love and emotion are all that can combat the hatred of the nebulous evil.

On the character front, The Fifth Element is packed with monolithic characters. For every line that Bruce Willis delivers to create backstory for Korben Dallas, there are about five minutes of him running and shooting overlarge weapons or driving his floating cab at high speeds. But what little characterization there is for Dallas, the details seem remarkably generic. He is a former soldier with an ex-wife and a nagging mother. He is a loner who does not want to get involved . . . but does anyway and he is forced into a situation where he becomes the one man who can save the world. This becomes especially ridiculous at the film’s climax when Cornelius’s monk assistant asks Dallas for information on the mechanics of using the four stolen stones as opposed to the guy who has studied that very topic his entire life. So, Korben Dallas is written as a generic action hero whose skill set is not evident until the very moment it becomes plot-relevant and whose ability to love and connect only comes into play as a climactic event.

That is not to say that The Fifth Element is unpleasant. From the film’s outset when giant steampunk alien robots appear in the Egyptian pyramids, there is something that feels original and clever about the universe of The Fifth Element. The Diva is pretty awesome and her hiding place for the stones is neat as well. Sadly, the villain is equally generic as the hero.

On the acting front, there is nothing superlative in The Fifth Element. Chris Tucker plays his usual manic style character as Ruby Rhod, Bruce Willis is a generic action hero in the role of Dallas. In fact, Willis unfortunately breaks a number of times in scenes with Tucker and that director Luc Besson did not demand a second (or third or beyond) take to get the scenes right is unfortunate. The usual amazing Gary Oldman drives the budget for The Fifth Element as the villain Zorg, a role where he essentially plays Paul Rubens playing Zorg. Milla Jovovich is fine as Leeloo, though she does not bring much to the role outside her body and the ability to speak gibberish for much of the film.

Despite its flaws, it is easy to see how The Fifth Element. The story is ambitious enough to be worthy of a film and the setting is clever enough to feel unlike anything else on the big screen, even if the characters and performances are painfully unremarkable.

For other philosophical science fiction films, check out my reviews of:
Prometheus
The Matrix
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus

5.5/10

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.
| | |

Greatness Out Of Order: Pulp Fiction Holds Up!

The Good: Good acting, Decent characters, Engaging direction
The Bad: Non-sequitor plot/lines do not add up to anything.
The Basics: Pulp Fiction is a delightful mix of funny and violent in a way that remains entertaining even today!


When it comes to modern classics, there are several films that I will grant have real greatness to them. Pulp Fiction is one that I – like many – have accepted as great without having watched it many, many times in order to justify that opinion. So, now that my wife has the deluxe Blu-Ray edition of Pulp Fiction, I’ve been granted the chance to really delve into the film to evaluate it from a well-rounded perspective. And, after rewatching the film three times in as many days (without and with the commentary track on), I’ve come to the place where I can appreciate all of the elements of the film, but I don’t think it adds up to a perfect film.

Pulp Fiction is funny, original, violent, and generally engaging, but so much of the originality of the dialogue does not add up to anything exceptional. In other words, while Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Jules, has a genuine epiphany and character growth, most of the other characters, like John Travolta’s Vincent Vega, might be distinctive or quirky in their dialogue, but they do not develop beyond that. Vincent Vega’s ramblings about Europe are, ultimately, nothing more than musings of a dope fiend and he never evolves beyond that. The point is, while Quentin Tarantino’s mainstream masterpiece has quotable lines, great stars, and an engaging presentation, objectively viewed, the story the film tells, with the characters involved, is hardly as original or as compelling as those in truly perfect films. So, while Pulp Fiction is incredible, it does not have the timeless greatness of, for example, Casablanca (reviewed here!).

Told in three parts, out of order, Pulp Fiction follows the people working for gangster Marsellus Wallace in Los Angeles. Marsellus employs two hitmen, Jules and Vincent, who are sent to recover a briefcase. The briefcase contains a mysterious artifact that belongs to Marsellus and in recovering the briefcase, Jules and Vincent end up in a bind when Vincent’s gun goes off and kills Marvin. Following a pretty terrible day, Vincent Vega is charged with taking Marsellus Wallace’s wife, Mia, out for the evening. When he does, she gets into Vincent’s heroin and has an overdose, so Vincent is in a race to save her life lest his life become forfeit by the gangster, who seems ruthless (as characterized by the rumor that Marsellus Wallace through a man off a building for giving his wife a foot massage).

Also working for Marsellus is the washed-up boxer, Butch Coolidge, who is paid by Marsellus to take a dive in the fifth round of his prize fight. When Butch resists, he flees with his girlfriend, Fabienne, who accidentally left his father’s watch behind. When recovering his father’s watch, Butch gets into a conflict with Wallace that results in them imprisoned by two male rapists who want to have their way with them. Given all they see and experience, Jules is put to the test when he and Vincent are out at a diner and the restaurant is taken hostage by two petty criminals.

The thrust of the character growth in Pulp Fiction comes in the form of Jules and to a lesser extent Butch. Jules is a trained killer who has had no trouble working for Marsellus until this particular day. After musing on how ruthless Marsellus is, Jules sees how fragile life is, has an epiphany and pledges to go in a different direction with his life. Writer and director Quentin Tarantino puts the story out of order, at least in part, to illustrate character development in Jules’s storyline.

It is somewhat ambiguous if Butch actually develops – certainly in a positive way – in Pulp Fiction. Butch is characterized as a generally decent guy who simply is blooming late and may have missed his chance to be a contender. When asked, he admits he has never killed another person, but when he refuses to take a dive, he accidentally kills his opponent. In the hours that follow, Butch consciously kills at least three people (one only over a watch!). While fans of the film might argue that Butch develops as a character because he goes back into his captive’s lair, but that fits with his initial characterization of being a good guy who is just trying to make his way through the world.

Unlike many of Tarantino’s works, Pulp Fiction is laugh-out-loud funny in many places. Instead of just being gory or disturbing (though the rape scene in Pulp Fiction is quite disturbing, though it leads to a very Tarantino catharsis), Pulp Fiction is actually funny. A lot of the humor comes from straightlaced tough guys talking about ridiculous and mundane topics and the odd nonsequitors they experience enforcing the will of the gangster.

Tarantino stacks the deck by populating Pulp Fiction with pretty incredible actors. While John Travolta is delightfully goofy as Vincent Vega, Samuel L. Jackson and Ving Rhames are completely badass as Jules and Marsellus. Jackson is a credible killer going through an enlightenment, just as Bruce Willis is entirely believable as a prize fighter who might have peaked too late in his career to be taken seriously. Willis and Maria De Medeiros play off one another to be a credible couple who might run off with each other after all other hope is gone.

Ultimately, Pulp Fiction is enjoyable and different and it showcases some impressive acting talent. Even as the lines amuse and the situation intrigues and the actors perform, it becomes difficult to become invested in how the characters will resolve their various problems. That makes Pulp Fiction more entertaining than substantive.

For other works by Quentin Tarantino, please visit my reviews of:
Kill Bill, Volume 2
Kill Bill, Volume 1
Jackie Brown
Reservoir Dogs

9/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page for a listing of movies from best to worst!

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

Somewhat Banal, But Typical For An Action Flick, G.I. Joe: Retaliation Was Not Worth The Wait.

The Good: Decent action sequences, Entertaining, No truly bad performances
The Bad: No character development, Gaps in storytelling, Not particularly interesting
The Basics: Despite the conceits of the characters and the giant leaps in the G.I. Joe narrative, the beleaguered G.I. Joe: Retaliation arrives with surprisingly little flair, but nothing unexpected from an action-adventure film.


I cannot recall, in recent memory, any film quite as beleaguered as G.I. Joe: Retaliation. Regardless of the reasons (which change between market testing to put Channing Tatum into more of the film and revamping the film for 3-D effects), there was something deeply amusing to me about a film whose toy line has already hit the clearance rack before the movie even premiered! In that way, there is something almost impressive about G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Unfortunately, that’s about all. To be sure, I was not a huge fan of G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra (reviewed here!). That film was so unmemorable that I had to check the IMDB to confirm that Jonathan Pryce was the President in that movie, in addition to G.I. Joe: Retaliation (he was). To start off with something overwhelmingly positive, G.I. Joe: Retaliation feels like what it is, a guy’s movie, a military-themed action-adventure film. Gone are the ridiculous Transformers-like tech suits from the first film. Also, G.I. Joe: Retaliation does not seem to be obsessed with making a joke out of itself. The result is that the heroes in G.I. Joe: Retaliation actually have to live by their skills and their wits and not all of them survive as a result.

Unfortunately, beyond that, G.I. Joe: Retaliation is a boring and obvious action-adventure film.

Following the assassination of the President of Pakistan by Snake Eyes (under the orders of the American President), the G.I. Joe team of Roadblock, Flint, Lady Jaye, and Duke are ordered on a mission to recover a nuclear bomb stolen after that incident. In the desert, the G.I. Joes are attacked, the team is almost wiped out (Duke is killed) and Roadblock, Flint, and Jaye go on the run. The President, who has been replaced by the COBRA operative and master of disguise, Zartan, uses the incident to publicly disgrace and disband the G.I. Joe unit. The Joes go on the run.

Zartan’s plan quickly becomes clear when Snake Eyes is captured and put in the same prison as COBRA Commander and Destro. Unmasked, this version of Snake Eyes is revealed to be Snake Eyes’s adversary Storm Shadow. Storm Shadow breaks out the COBRA leadership and returning them to power, Zartan as the President calls for a nuclear disarmament summit. As Snake Eyes and Jinx (Storm Shadow’s cousin) train to return to the Joes and recover Storm Shadow in order to learn COBRA’s plans, COBRA holds the world hostage for nuclear disarmament and an even more terrifying weapon.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation is a pretty obvious hero/villain movie; there is no real moral ambiguity here (though Storm Shadow’s backstory leads him to believe the path of his life is the result of him getting played) and the lack of complication leads to the viewer accepting most of the film’s conceits. I found I didn’t moralize over why Cobra Commander wanted to rule the world, but I was caught up on a number of details that just did not fit the film and the established characters. Destro was pretty badass in the first film and he is dispatched remarkably quickly in G.I. Joe: Retaliation, undermining how interesting he was in that film. But when Cobra Commander gets rid of him, the line is a quip that does not fit Cobra Commander’s more serious and obviously megalomaniacal character. On the flip side, in order to expose Zartan, Jaye must get into an event the President is at. Flirting her way in, she is added to the list of permitted attendees as the Chief Of Staff. How a member of the Secret Service would not recognize the Chief Of Staff, especially when the one in the film is male and Jaye most certainly is not, is utterly inconceivable.

Fundamentally, the issues with G.I. Joe: Retaliation are issues with the genre, not this specific iteration of it. In fact, G.I. Joe: Retaliation is remarkable only in how it does not strain any of the conceits of the genre. The G.I. Joes – and the film focuses mostly on Roadblock with the return of the General after whom the G.I. Joes were named – are loyal and respect their democracy and President and it is only the villains who torture and use questionable means. They do not even object to the implications of military downsizing that might come from a nuclear-free world. Actually, G.I. Joe: Retaliation is too busy with pounding out plot details and building up to the next fight to explore anything truly philosophical (outside the obvious honor, duty, loyalty stuff that the genre exploits and utilizes).

As for the acting, G.I. Joe: Retaliation does no real service to the careers of anyone involved, though – truth be told – it does none of them a disservice, either. G.I. Joe: Retaliation is just “that kind of film.” Dwayne Johnson’s Roadblock and Channing Tatum’s Duke are appropriately manly and joke between one another with very typical guy humor. And it’s not a stretch for either of them, Neither is it a stretch for Jonathan Pryce to play the dignified leader of the free world or Adrianne Palicki to show up and look good (though she is not quite muscular enough in this to plausibly be a soldier).

No great characters, no great performances, no real plot twists of audacious ideas; G.I. Joe: Retaliation is exactly what one expects from the March doldrum.

For other films with Channing Tatum, please check out my reviews of:
21 Jump Street
The Vow
Haywire
Dear John

4/10

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

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

Looper Is The Terminator Without The Cheese & Robots, For Fans Of The Terminator!

The Good: Plot, Characters, Special effects, A few moments of performance
The Bad: Use of voiceovers/Much of the acting
The Basics: Looper is solidly one of the best films of the year, by virtue of being smart, well-conceived science fiction!


Say what you will about the classics of science fiction, but there are many that do not hold up nearly so well over the years. I know I took a lot of flack when I reviewed The Terminator (here!) because I find it to be exceptionally dated. The Terminator had some decent themes and interesting characters, but it also had pretty hammy acting and some objectively lame catchphrases. Now, however, writer and director Rian Johnson has a cure for that. That cure is Looper.

Looper is a small, bold, science fiction film that is largely a conceptual rewrite of The Terminator with a surprising amount of X-Men III: The Last Stand (reviewed here!) thrown in. Returning Bruce Willis to a role much like his one in Twelve Monkeys (reviewed here!), Looper effectively creates a compelling reality of its own, even if its scope is one mob and a future the viewer never truly sees.

In Kansas in 2044, Joe is a Looper, an assassin whose only targets are individuals sent back from the future a part of the mob’s machinations. It seems thirty years from then, time travel will be a reality, but it will be illegal and because people have tracking devices in them, it will be exceptionally hard to make hits. So, the mob sent back Abe and Abe has a network of Loopers who stand at specified places in the middle of nowhere waiting for a specific time when a person will pop into existence from the future and they blow them away with their blunderbuss and dispose of those bodies from the future.

Joe is very good at what he does and he ruthlessly kills for the mob by day and by night, he goes and gets high on a drug that he drops into his eyes. But the mob of the future appears to have been abruptly taken over and Loopers find themselves killing their future selves (“closing the loop”) and their contracts ending as a result. After Joe’s friend Seth inadvertently lets his older self go, Joe sees very vividly what happens to Loopers who fail to close the loop and end their contracts.

When Joe encounters his future self, Old Joe gets the drop on him and urges him to run. Joe, however, is actually eager to stay in good standing with the mob and he begins a pursuit of his older self. After a discussion at their favorite diner, Joe learns that his older self is motivated by events thirty years in the future. His elder self is on a mission to kill the Rainmaker and thus save the life of the woman he loves.

Looper is pleasantly smart. The film addresses the paradoxes of temporal mechanics and it is very sensible for that. The older version of Joe describes how memory works, as he is able to recall events in current time as his memories, moments after they happen. Similarly, Joe is able to send a “note” to himself by carving it into his flesh and the Older Joe suddenly finds scars on his body. Looper treats time for variable it is; in order to have a time loop like the one that Joe experiences, he must go through the timeline once in order to be sent back. That means, the first time through the timeline, Joe actually kills his future self as he is supposed to. The montage that illustrates that is very clear and reasonable.

As well, the mission is a compelling and personal one. Joe sets out to stop his older self from killing Sid, a child that is one of the candidates the older Joe believes will grow up to be the Rainmaker. The older version of Joe is a sympathetic character because in his future, his wife is the one who cleaned him up and his love for her is real and vibrant. Looper plays off the classic and universal themes of love and death and it does that exceptionally well.

Moreover, almost all of the pieces are sensibly put in play very early on. The older version of Joe makes reference to what little is known about the Rainmaker, so viewers watch Sid and his mother, Sara, for clues to see if he might actually have a similar backstory. Furthermore, the “universe” of Looper establishes supplemental characters like Sara, Kid Blue, and Jesse (a hired gun) who are every bit as vicious as Joe is, making for interesting allies and adversaries. Looper also has a distinctive vernacular (“letting your loop run,” etc.) that makes it feel fresh and different.

Like Dark City (reviewed here!), Looper has compellingly quiet moments. Instead of constant gun battles and chases, Looper features characters like Abe and the older version of Joe simply talking to one another, usually Joe. And it works and manages to be entertaining.

The acting in Looper is fine, though no one gives really extraordinary performances. Bruce Willis does seem to be channeling Cole from Twelve Monkeys and Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s big acting twist in the film seems to be taking on a squint much like Bruce Willis’s. In fact, as the film went on, it became clear that Willis was miscast. (I never thought I would ever argue for work for him, but . . .) As Looper goes on, it becomes clear that the ideal actor to play Old Joe would have actually been Gerard Butler, as Joseph Gordon-Levitt spends much of the film looking, acting, and even sounding like Butler. Emily Blunt shows up late in Looper and while her role is important, it does not give her much to do with it.

Jeff Daniels steals his scenes as Abe, just as Garret Dillahunt steals his as Jesse. The only real noticeably bad performance comes from Noah Segan, who plays Kid Blue with an annoyingly inconsistent limp.

Ultimately, Looper is an engaging puzzle film; the pieces are put into play and almost all of them are utilized in ways that make sense or are compelling, even a few that seem like gratuitous throwaways early on lend the film some surprising scenes later. Looper is, as the hype insinuated it could be, an instant science fiction classic.

For other films featuring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, please check out my reviews of:
The Dark Knight Rises
50/50
Inception
G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra
Havoc

8.5/10

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

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

| | |

Is The Expendables The Ultimate “Guy Movie?” Depends On Who The “Guys” Are . . .

The Good: It’s always nice to see Charisma Carpenter getting work . . ., Well-assembled violence
The Bad: Pointless, Light on character, Lots of mumbled lines, Overbearing rock soundtrack (when it is present).
The Basics: Opening myself up to a testosterone-filled action flick, I still find myself pretty unimpressed with The Expendables.


I try to keep my horizons open. I’m not so keen on only watching and reviewing movies that are well within my comfort zone. So, figuring I might get the opportunity to check out an advanced screening of The Expendables 2, I figured I should check out The Expendables. I had actually seen no previews for The Expendables, but its beefy, mostly male cast was not one that especially appealed to me.

The biggest, most pleasant surprise for me, came in the first few minutes of the film. During the opening credits, the name Charisma Carpenter came up and that made me happy. Carpenter was one of the bright spots of the television series Angel (reviewed here!) and as far as I am concerned it’s always nice to see her getting work. Given she was only in about four minutes of The Expendables, it was not enough to save the film.

Following a mission to rescue hostages from a group of Somali pirates, Lee Christmas returns to his woman to discover she is with another guy. Barney Ross, the leader of the suicide squad known as the Expendables, gets a series of jobs and he opts for the most difficult one, which is mission to the Gulf island of Vilena. Assigned (and threatened) by “Mr. Church,” Ross and Christmas scout the island to see if it is worth committing his team to the mission. There they witness the local gangster with his own private army roughing up the locals.

After a narrow escape, Ross decides to take the mission, which seems to be to stop the American coke grower, James Munroe and his private army. But Ross and his team are going up against one of their own; Gunnar, who wigged out during the Somalia mission gives Munroe intel on the members of Ross’s team. The plot is a thin excuse to blow things up, shoot people apart and whack a lot of people in hand to hand combat.

The Expendables is not exactly full of great dialogue. Much of the most intelligible dialogue are good ole’ boy verbal jabs between members of the team. Most of the dialogue is growled out or mumbled through. Some of the most clear lines have little or nothing to do with the rest of the film, like Yin Yang complaining he needs more money for a family no one in the group knew he had or another member complaining about his ears.

There is very little character in The Expendables, but it’s not That Type Of Film. While Ross spends the first portion of the film counseling Christmas on how to move past Lacy and the leader of the the villains – Munroe – gets schooled by his puppet general in the importance of allowing him to keep his dignity (at least in front of the men), much of the philosophy is rapidly sublimated to long action sequences with gun battles, growling and hand-to-hand combat.

The character front is actually filled out better on the villain front. Munroe is smart and vicious and he’s basically thrilled to be a warlord of his own little island. He seems to understand how to command using brutality and that makes sense given that he is supposed to be former CIA. Roberts, as always, is articulate and efficient, his character seems reasonably in control for most of the film.

On the plus side, for a film so full of testosterone, it is surprisingly not misogynistic. Christmas beats the hell out of Lacy’s boyfriend when he gives her a shiner. And despite gawking at their contact on the island, Ross and Christmas don’t just dive for her for cheap and obvious sex. While the torture of General Garza’s daughter Sandra might seem misogynistic, there is ample evidence that the meatheads abusing her have absolutely no regard for life, male or female, and their willingness to torment her has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman.

Ultimately, The Expendables is what one might expect, a Mission: Impossible where subtlety and technology is replaced with brute force and big honkin’ weaponry. The movie might appeal to big, manly men who might wish to have the unfettered ability to kick some ass, but for those looking for a sensible, well-assembled film, The Expendables will only leave them wanting.

For other works with Eric Roberts, check out my reviews of:
Heroes
The Dark Knight

2.5/10

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

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

| | |

Manhunt In A Closed Course: How 16 Blocks Keeps The Viewer Interested

The Good: Decent acting, Excellent pacing, Good characters
The Bad: Somewhat improbable circumstances, especially on the character front
The Basics: As a police detective and his prisoner flee through New York hunted by corrupt cops bent on preventing the witness from testifying, the viewer becomes more and more engaged.


In traditional warfare, as I've become accustomed to it with playing Risk, there comes a turning point where the aggressor has a significant disadvantage in that the side that goes on the defensive, when bottled up, has the most concentration and power. That is, at a certain point when one has one's enemy virtually surrounded, the problem becomes breaking through their lines because all of their forces are in one place. It's a daunting prospect. From the opening moments of the chase in 16 Blocks, this is a nagging concern on the viewer.

Detective Jack Mosely, a washed-up police detective, is assigned the mundane task of transporting a witness who will make the New York City District Attorney's big anti-cop corruption case. Mosely, half-drunk in the morning, soon finds himself on the run with Eddie, his witness. Mosely and Eddie are being hunted vigorously by a squadron of cops and police detectives who are likely to be indicted if Eddie is allowed to testify before the grand jury. As the clock ticks down for the jury's tenure to expire, Mosely and Eddie must flee through the streets, subways and buildings of New York City for the sixteen blocks from the lock-up to the hall of justice.

The thing is, 16 Blocks is a fairly standard chase movie. Once the attempt is made on Eddie and Jack makes his choice to go up against the corrupt cops that Eddie will implicate, the stakes are all set. From that moment on, Eddie and Jack are running against the clock and running for their lives. And one of the nagging ideas on the back of every viewer who is awake has to be the overall tactic. Frank Nugent, the leader of the corrupt cops who is looking to silence Eddie, knows exactly where Eddie and Jack are headed.

The way the movie escalates and resolves, creates a problem with suspension of disbelief. That is to say that if the plot either had no time limit or if the two were simply fugitives from the law, 16 Blocks would make perfect sense; the police would be motivated to chase them down throughout New York City to bring them to justice. But instead, this movie focuses on two people getting to a specific location. The rules of warfare would seem to indicate that the smartest tactic would be to surround the hall of justice where the grand jury is meeting and prevent the pair from getting in. There's no reason to chase, they know exactly where their prey are headed.

And for the most rational argument, "Well, maybe these police officers don't want to shed blood in the hall of justice," that argument is buggered by the action of the movie. Of course, cinematically, it's much more exciting to chase the pair through the streets and buildings, near subways and on buses. But conceptually, it makes no sense. In fact, in raising the stakes, escalating the action through the streets en route to the hall of justice, so many people become involved as to make suspension of disbelief almost impossible.

In simpler terms, as Jack and Eddie flee, kill in self-defense, take hostages and make the spectacle more and more public, 16 Blocks becomes less credible on a character level for every ancillary character in the movie. Yes, facing indictment is a bad thing. What's worse is losing an entire police force as opposed to only six or ten officers. As elements begin to escalate and characters who are not corrupt - like the police negotiator - continue to enter the story, the reality of the situation begins to become more and more obscured, almost to the point of parody.

What keeps the movie grounded are the three main characters. Frank is clearly fighting for his professional life. As his chase of Jack and Eddie escalates, it is easy to see him losing control of the situation and his views on the simple morality of "the ends justify the means" begins to slip. In representing the villain, we are finally faced with a movie where the adversary is at least as intelligent and resourceful as the protagonist and that is instantly engaging.

Eddie is annoying but consistent. He is a man who believes people can change and while I usually like darker endings to movies, I have to say I preferred the theatrical ending to the alternate ending on the DVD if for no other reason than the dialogue Eddie delivers via voice over is so much more interesting. But Eddie is no saint and the movie does an excellent job of keeping him viable, morally questionable and interesting, even if his near-constant babbling is annoying.

Jack Mosely begins the movie as a character that is very Sipowicz-esque. Watching 16 Blocks is suggestive of NYPD Blue's Andy Sipowicz prior to the series premiere. I suppose that's the strength of the cultural icon that watching 16 Blocks is immediately evocative of that type of aging, half-drunk detective character. Mosely's character, worn down by Eddie throughout the hours of their association, is brilliantly dynamic, though the viewer has to wait for the most telling moments of his character until almost the end of the movie.

What keeps the characters working is the quality of the acting. David Morse is menacing and clever as Frank. Mos Def creates a character who is instantly memorable as Eddie. His ability to deliver a fast-talking lisp is incredible and that it never slips throughout the movie is impressive.

It is Bruce Willis whose character is focused on the most. Despite the somewhat goofy look to him - think 12 Monkeys after he's glued on the mustache - Willis creates a character that is distinct and different from all others he has played. As he limps along, we see no hint of the charisma that made him likable in other roles. He is cold and he has the feeling of being dead inside that is masterfully portrayed and projected.

All in all, 16 Blocks is solid and satisfying even as its premise begins to be warped by the outrageous circumstances of the chase. It's certainly worth a viewing.

For other works with Mos Def, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy
Monster’s Ball

7/10

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

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

After Years Of Waiting, I Check Out The Pre-9/11 The Siege And Love It!

The Good: Great acting, Wonderful story and social message, Interesting character dynamics, Educational.
The Bad: No DVD bonus features, Pacing
The Basics: Clever, well-acted and intense, The Siege has Denzel Washington and Tony Shalhoub at the forefront of investigations into terrorist attacks on New York City!


There are few films that have come so highly recommended to me in recent years as The Siege, a film about terrorism in the United States that predates the September 11, 2001 attacks to New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. It came to me recommended because of my politics and my appreciation of the works of Edward Zwick, who was one of the co-creators of one of my favorite canceled television shows, Once And Again. Given Zwick's adeptness as a writer and director, I had no doubt going into The Siege that I would be entertained at the very least. And given how much I learned during the Bush Administration about international law, counterterrorism methods and intelligence agency turf wars, the only real unfortunate aspect of taking so long to watch The Siege was that a lot of the information was known to me, so it did not have the educational impact I hoped it might have.

Even so, The Siege reminds viewers of the principles upon which the United States was founded and the importance of both civil rights and maintaining national identity based on principles over slogans. Like the two-part Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes "Homefront" (reviewed here!) and "Paradise Lost" (reviewed here!), The Siege explores terrorism in the United States (or an evolved society based upon it) as a hypothetical, with the idea of inherent human rights at the forefront of the plot and character issues. As a result, the essential character conflict throughout The Siege is one between those who stand for freedom versus those who stand by the enforcement of law and social order at all costs.

FBI agent Tony Hubbard is working the streets of New York City dealing with an odd crime with his team when all hell breaks loose. Accompanied by his partner, an Arab American agent named Frank, the FBI works to negotiate for the safe release of a busload of hostages who are suddenly covered in blue paint when the bomb goes off. The weird crime, if it is a crime, is soon mirrored by the abduction of a bus filled with people which is detonated with most of the people inside, as the FBI and media crews watch. Tony and Frank work to piece together who is behind the terrorist attacks and stop the next one.

Unfortunately for the FBI, the terrorist cells which have sprung up in New York City seem to be working for a cause and with the knowledge of some of those within the U.S.'s intelligence community. As Tony and Frank investigate the bombings, they encounter Elise Kraft, an N.S.C. agent who has a vested interest in the case, as she is the handler for a prominent asset, Samir. As well, Tony develops a relationship with Major General William Devereaux, a high ranking army officer who has contempt for the President's soft policy on terrorism and has a history with a Sheik allegedly captured by U.S. forces years before. As the situation in New York City degenerates as the result of more terrorist attacks, Tony races to prevent chaos and insure freedom as Devereaux declares martial law and effectively takes over the City in search of the final terrorist cell.

The Siege reminds the viewers what the last several years seem to have caused many of us to forget: that individuals are responsible for their actions and that groups working against the United States often have surprisingly rational reasons for their actions, even if their methods are surprising and incomprehensible. In the first scene in The Siege, the motivation for virtually everything that comes after is given when Devereaux is part of an operation that captures a Sheik. Of course, the tensions go deeper than that; the Sheik is captured for prior acts of terrorism.

What Edward Zwick does exceptionally well with this film is illustrate how proud Americans - especially the naturalized ones - are of their heritage as Americans. At the same time, he creates a piece that has a density to it and is not likely to give easy or convenient answers. So, just as Frank is an obvious and proud American who is part of the FBI's counterterrorism unit and has a clear love for the principles of the United States, Samir's status as an informant and agent for the terrorist cells keeps his true allegiances murky. And while Frank is tested when his son is inadvertently put in the internment camp, his desire to uphold the principles of the United States never waver. Instead, he is always fighting the good fight and he makes for a great partner for Anthony.

Zwick spends a good amount of time illustrating the fundamental problem with intelligence agencies in the United States with the first half-hour or more of The Siege. As Anthony and Frank hunt for the criminals responsible for the first bus hijacking, they encounter Elise, who works for the NSC. The way the FBI, NSC and military trip over one another becomes a contributing factor to the declaration of martial law in New York City and their inability to share with one another helps the terrorist cells operating in New York City to gain strength.

But largely, what Zwick does best in The Siege is illustrate the importance of defending essential human rights in the United States. The U.S. suffers when we discriminate and profile and the result is an ugly situation that is anything but American. By establishing the multiethnic task force well before the declaration of martial law, Zwick uses The Siege to show how the ideal works and what happens when it becomes corrupted. The wonderful foil for a post-9/11 world is that Zwick illustrates how terrorism can be dealt with without giving into fear. Unfortunately, The Siege seems more like an ominous foreshadowing, a playbook for the U.S. government on how to exploit the fear of the populace, as opposed to rallying against it.

The Siege is also remarkably well-cast and Zwick uses all of the actors in the film extraordinarily well. Bruce Willis gives a strong performances as Devereaux and Willis's best moments are not realized until one reflects upon the film. Anthony references Elise and Devereaux, who has an apparent ax to grind with her, plays the scene cool and later when one of Elise's secrets comes out, Devereaux looks surprisingly cool. Willis deserves a lot of credit for that earlier moment as he makes the payoff later in the film truly work. Similarly, Sami Bouajila (Samir) and Annette Bening (Elise) are wonderful and have great on-screen chemistry which keeps the viewer guessing as to all of the angles their characters are playing.

Denzel Washington leads the cast and from his performance here, it is easy to see how and why he was cast for The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3. Essentially, he is playing the same character in this earlier work, a man who is cool under pressure and fights the good fight day in and day out. Here Washington is utterly convincing as a professional counterterrorist agent and he flawlessly sells the role.

But it is Tony Shalhoub who completely rocks The Siege. From the moment he first appears on screen, Shalhoub is badass. He carries a gun (convincingly!), investigates the crimes and speaks multiple languages flawlessly. For those used to seeing him as Monk or the other hapless sidekick characters he has played, this is a strong departure and he is completely at home in the role of an efficient investigator who is smart, funny and occasionally menacing.

The Siege continues Zwick's tradition of socially smart films with a message that is timely and pro-American. All that truly drags this one down is that it takes a while to get to its point. As well, the DVD was originally released with only the film's trailer. For such an important film, we'd like more in the way of bonus features (the Blu-Ray now has them!). Still, this remains a great film that should be watched by all Americans, if for no other reason than to remind us that fear need not be the only response to horror.

For other works Edward Zwick is associated with, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Dangerous Beauty
Traffic
i am sam
Once And Again - Season 1
Once And Again - Season 2
Love And Other Drugs

9/10

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

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

Bandits Steals With Style

The Good: Good acting, Funny, Interesting character (Terry Collins)
The Bad: Other characters are dull, Plot is not terribly original
The Basics: A fun film, Bandits has a group of bank robbers test a new technique and become celebrities and fugitives all at once.


It seems lately that I've been watching a number of films with people on the run (Novocain) or Bruce Willis (12 Monkeys) or both (The Whole Nine Yards). What can I say? I've been watching whatever I can get my hands on.

Bandits is the story of three men who have an innovative style of robbing banks. Easy-to-anger Joe Blake and hypochondriac Terry Collins escape from prison together with the idea of opening up a nightclub in Mexico together. They enlist Joe's cousin Harvey to be the getaway driver for them in their robberies. Their tactic is smart; rather than breaking into the banks, the pair spends the night with the bank managers homes, hold them hostage for a night and take the bank out in the morning with fewer witnesses. Things are going find for the thieves until Terry is captured by Kate, a lonely housewife who decides to join the gang. This raises the pair to the level of celebrity and leads them to a final heist that appears fatal.

The problem with the film is that the characters are not nearly as interesting as the technique. Joe is pretty much your standard criminal and he doesn't have much depth. He's a prankster, but more than that, he's an angry man who it is fairly easy to see how he arrived in prison. Kate, similarly, is a pretty standard housewife character who wants an adventure. Her only redeeming character trait is more of a plot point; she is unable to decide which of the bandits she prefers as a partner. That works, but it is presented in a way that feels more like a plot technique than a character trait.

This leaves Terry. Terry is a wonderful character. He is quirky and believes himself the victim of any disease he learns of. This makes for a character that is interesting and very fun to watch. He is just plain weird and his bits in the film are the funniest parts of the movie.

The film fails on the merits of its plot. In the opening lines of the film, we learn that the "sleepover bandits" are dead, killed in a shootout in a bank robbery. The ending, then, comes only as a surprise to people who are completely asleep. That is, the careful viewer evaluates the people who say certain things against what they know to be true by what the characters do. So, when we see how intelligent and paranoid Terry is, it becomes unlikely to us that he would die in a hail of bullets as television host Darren Head would have us believe. In fact, everything in the plot in the latter two thirds of the film, we know of in the first fifteen minutes. Then, it's just a matter of watching for it until it happens.

On the plus side, the acting works well. Bruce Willis creates a character very different from other characters with similar characterization, like Jimmy Tudeski in The Whole Nine Yards. This works to the film's benefit and it reinforces the idea that Bruce Willis is a truly great actor.

Cate Blanchette does fine as Kate Wheeler, but she does not seem to add anything to the very stale role. I was a bit disappointed with her performance.

Billy Bob Thornton, on the other hand, infuses Terry with so much of his genius and he makes the film worth sitting through. Thornton has an ability to move his body and facial expressions that are unparalleled in this film. He is the strength of Bandits making his character a worthy film.

The narrative technique of Bandits is worth mentioning as well. Events do not necessarily occur in chronological order and that keeps the pace of the film up, making the movie move faster.

Funny and surprisingly non-violent for a film about robbery, Bandits is a chance to see Billy Bob Thornton create one of the weirdest characters ever in a well-directed film with a little something for anyone in the mood to root for good bad guys.

For other works by Barry Levinson, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Envy
Homicide: The Movie
Homicide: Life On The Street
Rain Man

7/10

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

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

The Next Decent Set Of Suspects Arrive In Lucky Number Slevin!

The Good: Funny, Well-written, Clever, Decent characters, Good acting
The Bad: Minor formulaic aspects
The Basics: When Slevin assumes the debt of a friend and is charged with killing a gangster's son, he finds himself caught between two gangs, an assassin and law enforcement.


Don't you hate reviews of crime films that continue to compare the criminal-de-jour flick to The Usual Suspects? I mean, for the past fifteen years, reviewers have been complaining about crime movies that simply aren't living up to being the next The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!) or (for those who enjoyed it) the next Reservoir Dogs (reviewed here!). With Lucky Number Slevin, the complaining stops. This is the film fans of The Usual Suspects have been waiting for, not because it is as good or as original as The Usual Suspects, but rather because Lucky Number Slevin creates a story that is as distinctive and clever in its own right. It's a solid movie and a pleasure to watch.

Following a series of killings, culminating in the murder of The Boss's son, a young man is abducted by thugs of The Boss. Mistaken for his friend Nick, Slevin finds himself in the unenviable position of owing The Boss $96,000, a debt the Boss wants him to pay off by killing the son of a rival gangster, The Rabbi. The Rabbi, for his part, wants several thousands of dollars himself and Slevin finds himself bouncing between The Boss, The Rabbi, and local law enforcement.

As Slevin is played like a pawn, he befriends Lindsey, a neighbor across the hall in the building Slevin is staying at. Lindsey discovers there is another player in the mix, Smith, who appears to be a professional assassin working for both The Rabbi and The Boss. Pressured to do their bidding, Slevin decides to play the game and see where it goes.

And the viewer, while not surprised by much in the movie, is taken for a rather enjoyable ride. In fact, most of the problems with Lucky Number Slevin involve our perceptions and the desire for this movie to defy all conventions. Thus, Slevin's relationship with Lindsey is somewhat disappointing and formulaic. The addition of Brikowski, the lead detective monitoring The Rabbi and The Boss, also feels somewhat formulaic, like one cannot have a crime movie without paying token service to law enforcement.

The former critique, though, is redeemable in the movie's resolution. Writer Jason Smilovic has a keen ear for dialogue and a clever ability to create characters that make sense. Thus, the ultimate resolution to the Slevin/Lindsey relationship somewhat defies our expectations, but does it in a way that fits perfectly with the characters as they are established. It's a brilliant twist that makes the film cohesive and ultimately work beyond the depth of a simple crime flick.

The dialogue works wonderfully and Lucky Number Slevin is funny in a number of places simply for the rhythm of the dialogue and its delivery. So, for example, Slevin and Lindsey both ask, "Why is he called 'The Rabbi?'" to be responded with, "He's a Rabbi." and the joke works even though we hear it twice. That takes some excellent writing, but it also puts pressure on the director to play the scenes in a way that does not feel repetitive. Director Paul McGuigan succeeds.

To be fair, McGuigan is playing with a stacked deck. Lucky Number Slevin has an impressive cast and this director seems to know how to use them. So, while Bryan Singer took (mostly) unknown or smaller-time actors and used them to create a realism in The Usual Suspects, McGuigan takes established actors of impressive caliber and places them in roles where they are able to flex their dramatic muscles.

Morgan Freeman and Sir Ben Kingsley play The Boss and The Rabbi, respectively. Freeman - who was simply a "type" in Dreamcatcher - reminds us of the distinctive strengths he has as an actor to infuse character into his characters. Freeman takes fast lines and adds to them a light in his eye, a coldness of tone or the barest hint of a smile as appropriate to make The Boss come alive. Kingsley brings a rigid dignity to almost every role he takes and as The Rabbi, he is articulate and clever with the ability to connote - and late in the film, express - a deep wound. He is a master and his presence makes the film pop.

Despite my issues with Lindsey in the film as a type - i.e. we all need a romantic subplot, apparently - I cannot take issue with Lucy Liu, who plays her. Liu is funny and smart, keeping the viewer watching her. After years of watching her play cold on Ally McBeal, it is refreshing to see her playing a character who is so alive, interested and connected in Lucky Number Slevin. Bruce Willis, who plays "Smith," is playing a role we've seen him in before. This is essentially the same role he played in "The Whole Nine Yards," so he is not as noteworthy as he could be, though he does the role well.

It is Josh Hartnett who has to carry the film as Slevin. I'm not into a lot of the popular, young actors, but I have to say Hartnett pulls off the acting challenges of Slevin amazingly well. Slevin has to convince the audience who he is and of his indifference to being the victim of a mistaken identity. Hartnett does that. So, while the plot might be somewhat predictable and it does not take much to realize that Slevin is going to be surrounded by a bloodbath, Hartnett proceeds with the story with the convincing portrayal needed to make the viewer suspend our disbelief to all that is happening around him.

Lucky Number Slevin is satisfying, even if it is not surprising. In fact, one of the strengths is that it is not necessarily attempting to be clever. The opening of the movie establishes the story as a potential tale of vengeance and as it plays out, the chips fall in ways that make sense and are entertaining. So, the movie does not hinge on the end reversal, it becomes a movie where the viewer takes a certain amount of pleasure in watching a wrong be revenged in a methodical, sensible - if criminal - way. It's enough to make one want to watch this a few times and it's enough to make a reviewer stop complaining about how there's nothing in the genre to compare with The Usual Suspects.

For other films featuring Morgan Freeman, please check out my reviews of:
The Dark Knight
Wanted
War Of The Worlds
Batman Begins
Million Dollar Baby
Dreamcatcher
Unforgiven
Driving Miss Daisy

8.5/10

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.
| | |