Counting Up To Six: How The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro Loses Its Way. . .

The Good: Good performances, Pretext of character development
The Bad: Over-the-top special effects, Entirely derivative plot, Lack of spark
The Basics: The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro starts off remarkably well, but continues to add in elements until it is diluted into being Just Another Superhero Sequel.


I went into The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro with reasonably high expectations, despite having never been a fan of the Spider-Man franchise. I enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man (reviewed here!), but found it largely to be an example of “better ingredients, better meal.” In other words, the reboot started out from an advantageous place considering that the actors in it were of a higher caliber than those who began in Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man Trilogy. So, bolstered by the success of the reboot a few years back, I turned to The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro ready to be solidly entertained.

Little did I know that Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci (the two who brought us the reboot of Star Trek, reviewed here!), and Jeff Pinkner were basically going to turn in a rewrite of Batman Forever (reviewed here!) for the Spider-Man franchise. Okay, it’s not quite that bad, but The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro has a primary villain who bears a striking resemblance in terms of character arc to the Edward Nigma character in Batman Forever and he is juggled clumsily between other budding villains so he never quite pops the way viewers might hope. In fact, The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro is such a jumbled mess of elements that it would be more accurately subtitled (for those markets that include the subtitle): The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Set-Up For The Sequel.

Therein lies the fundamental problem with The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro: the whole film has a grossly assembled feeling to it. Of course The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro is an assembled work: there was a writing team, a director, the actors add their own stuff, the studio comes in with notes, etc. Almost all films are collaborative works that start as a work cobbled together from ideas that writers hope will work together. The trick in moviemaking is that the film’s elements need to feel organic, not assembled. When the great moments of reversal come, the viewer should be able to say, “that makes sense” even if they did not see it coming. The best films make one stop looking for the tricks and get so engrossed that when the surprises pop up they truly are surprising. Unfortunately, The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro doesn’t do that. Instead, the film follows a troublingly rigid formula that cobbles together elements from The Amazing Spider-Man, Batman Forever and classic Spider-Man comic book storylines that are so well known that even non-fans like myself are entirely aware of them. In short, The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro has no surprises for anyone who is awake and has seen any five comic book-based films over the last ten years; what’s worse is that it misuses the talent present in the film in a way The Amazing Spider-Man did not.

Opening with a ballsy rehash of Richard and Mary Parker fleeing Oscorp and New York City (which keeps the protagonist of the film off the screen for the first seven plus minutes!), Peter Parker’s parents meet an untimely end, this time on-screen. As their plane goes down, Richard sends his files to a secret Roosevelt facility using wi-fi technology I’m pretty sure we didn’t have during that time period. In the present day, New York City is besieged by deranged thief Aleksei Sytsevich, who has stolen some vials from Oscorp and is fleeing through downtown with his thugs when he runs into the New York City police department and Spider-Man. Spider-Man manages to foil the robbery, much to the chagrin of Detective Stacy, who – like Peter Parker (Spider-Man’s mundane alter-ego) is kept from the high school graduation by the chase. Parker makes it to graduation just in time (just in time for an awesome Stan Lee cameo!), but having seen Detective Stacy recently, he feels conflicted about actually taking Gwen Stacy up on her generous offer to join the Stacy family for dinner that night. Appearing at the restaurant, Peter tells Gwen he can’t really keep seeing her and Gwen breaks up with Peter for not having the balls to break the promise he made in the prior film to her father outright.

Following their break-up, Max Dillon, an Oscorp employee who has created a revolutionary new power grid for New York City, which is housed in Oscorp, finds himself alone and stepped on by everyone around him. Having been rescued by Spider-Man during the Sytsevich heist, he has a bit of hero worship for Spider-Man. On his birthday, the lonely engineer – who is stepped on by everyone around him, most notably an Oscorp employee who is many years his junior, but seems more outwardly ambitious and a bit of a jackass – meets Gwen Stacy and is thrilled by the simple fact that she remembers his name. Unfortunately, that is the day that Norman Osborn, the founder of Oscorp, dies. Norman dies after having recalled his son, Harry, from prep school and revealing to him that he has prolonged his life using terrible means which have mutated him into something not-quite-human. Harry inherits Oscorp and the employees are all sent home. Unfortunately for Max Dillon, that means his jack-ass superior is unwilling to turn the power off in the conduit he is fixing for the company and Dillon is electrocuted and falls into a tank of electric eels . . . which naturally turns him into a glowing blue man who resurrects in the company morgue hours later.

Scared and unsure of his own abilities, Max Dillon walks out into New York City where his thirst for electrical energy leads him to absorb massive amounts of electricity in Times Square. This makes Peter Parker’s spider-sense tingle (though not explicitly referenced) during his conversation with Gwen Stacy, with whom he is attempting a friendship. Spider-man arrives on the scene and, despite having one of his two web-slingers knocked out by the electrified Dillon, he is able to incapacitate Max Dillon (largely because conversation with Dillon was going remarkably well until one of the police snipers jumped the gun and shot at Dillon). While Peter Parker reaches out to the mourning Harry Osborn, Max Dillon is experimented upon at the secret Oscorp facility, Ravencroft Institute. But soon, Harry’s quest for a cure to the genetic disease that killed his father and whose first symptoms he is now experiencing hits dead ends and corporate intrigue. Following Kurt Connors’ experiments in The Amazing Spider-Man, Oscorp destroyed a number of experiments to avoid lawsuits, including the radioactive spiders that bit Peter Parker. Harry’s right hand man at the company, Donald Menken, is working against him to advance to the CEO position himself. So, when Harry realizes he needs Spider-Man’s blood, he asks Peter Parker for help (thinking Peter knows Spider-man because he has photographed the superhero). But Peter Parker’s own quest for answers has led him to discover the Roosevelt facility and, in the process, he has learned the circumstances under which his father fled. Peter knows that his blood cannot help Harry, but when he and Spider-man refuse to help Harry, Harry takes a different path. He breaks into Ravencroft to free Electro (Max Dillon’s now-villainous alter-ego) and set him upon Spider-man. With the power out in New York City and a determined Gwen Stacy insisting on helping him, Spider-Man must stop Max Dillon and an obsessed Harry Osborn before they destroy New York.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro juggles a lot and while it is not too much for a single film, it is too much for this particular film. The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro is an odd film as far as pacing goes. It starts out with an interminably long sequence with Peter Parker’s father, becomes engaging for the bits involving Peter, Gwen and the actual rise of Electro, but stumbles through the entire Harry Osborn plot. The Harry Osborn plot is good, but it feels like it is part of another movie entirely. And, in order to make it work and all come together, the writing team and director Marc Webb seem to have given up. Much the way Princess Leia in Return Of The Jedi (reviewed here!) bears almost no resemblance to the character seen in the two films that precede it, Max Dillon/Electro bears no real resemblance to the character seen in the first two-thirds of the film. Harry Osborn gives Dillon the weakest argument for turning against his hero, Spider-man, ever conceived and Dillon just goes right along with it. In a film where the viewer knows so much of the mythos (Sam Raimi’s Spider-man movies are not terribly old and it’s not like they were not popular!) (It’s hard to call Gwen Stacy’s fate a “spoiler” when it was the subject of a comic book FORTY-ONE YEARS AGO!), the team that assembled The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro takes all of the easiest possible ways out. Max Dillon spends the first two-thirds of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 being set up to be Spider-man’s sidekick. He’s a likable guy, stepped on by schmucks around him until he is given a series of powers he does not at all understand. Then, he’s tortured by the same people who screwed him over his whole life so . . . how is it we’re supposed to believe he goes after entirely the wrong guy in the last act?! Did the writing team learn nothing from Star Trek: Nemesis* (reviewed here!)?!

So, Electro . . . utterly generic villain after one of the coolest super hero origin stories that could have been. That leaves The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro with two villains and a phantom antagonist. First, the villains. Aleksei Sytsevich is cartoonish in his original appearance and when he pops up at the climax of the film as the Rhino, it embodies a problem that has been present through the entire film: the special effects. The special effects in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro are just ridiculous. Gone is a sensible proportion, a realism of physics that was more apparent in The Amazing Spider-Man than in anything from Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man Trilogy. In fact, from his first moments on screen as a CG webslinger, the Spider-man in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro looks like a collection of b-roll from Sam Raimi’s trilogy. The attempt at spectacle is over-the-top, distracting and makes the film look like an animated film as opposed to a serious super hero work. But when the Rhino, in this incarnation a massive tank-like mech blasting through New York City, makes his appearance, it is much more worthy of a groan than a gasp.

Then there’s Harry Osborn. Harry is played by Dane DeHaan and he is, to be entirely fair to him, really good in the role. DeHaan holds his own opposite a heavily made-up Chris Cooper who plays the dying Norman Osborn and he has enough on-screen gravitas to be a compelling leader of Oscorp. DeHaan is as good in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro as Andrew Garfield was in The Amazing Spider-Man. And it’s not DeHaan’s fault that the character is written so thinly, cramped in between two other villains and manages to absurdly talk Max Dillon into completely betraying his established character. I can understand why the studio did not want to risk everything on Dane DeHaan and a Spider-Man film that focused on the Green Goblin as the villain . . . no, wait, they risked at least as much on a reboot of the franchise and won, so why wouldn’t they play to their known strengths for the mythos?! Yes, one of the big reasons The Amazing Spider-man 2 is likely to be released in the U.S. without the Rise Of Electro subtitle is because audiences will recognize the film to be equally the Rise Of The Green Goblin and wonder why the hell Sony isn’t touting that. If you’re going to turn the story on its ear from what fans of the Spider-Man film franchise know anyway, why not completely reinvent the origin of the Green Goblin and give him his own film?!

Then there’s the phantom antagonist. Detective Stacy has no real presence in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro. He pops up, glowers once or twice and disappears from the narrative. In fact, anyone who looks at basic movie structure will look at the film’s climax and wonder just where the hell Detective Stacy is. Peter Parker stands around at the same location for quite some time, a place where Detective Stacy would be bound to go, and yet there is no scene where the law and order cop who spent the entire first film loathing Spider-man’s vigilantism appears, sees Peter Parker and snaps just long enough to kick the kid’s ass. Detective Stacy is recharacterized in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro as a complete wuss. In fact, the only analogy I have is to my own life. When I met the woman who became my wife, we met online and for our first in-person meeting, we met at the restaurant at which she was working at the time. I was caught in a snowstorm and was late and her friends had been ragging on her and when I finally appeared (an hour and a half late), she was relieved and her friends were wary. Her friends, protective as they were, said to me, “If you hurt our girl, we’ll kill you.” Well, me being a pragmatist, bored, and wanting to spend time with the woman I had come to see, I said, “Didn’t you say that about the last guy she dated?” The answer from her friends were, “Well . . . yes.” So, I won some points with some and made some pretty freaked out when my response was, “Well, it’s hard to take your threat seriously when I know for a fact he’s still walking around above ground.” Detective Stacy, like my wife’s friends, talk a good game, but when confronted with everything he feared . . . the good detective completely disappears from the storyline. It’s impossible to take him seriously and I know if I ever go back and rewatch The Amazing Spider-Man, I’m going to laugh my ass off at Denis Leary’s over-the-top indignation as Detective Stacy.

That brings us to the big plot event that anyone who knows comic book history knows would eventually come to one of the key characters in the Spider-man cinematic stories. Without revealing that “spoiler” to those who are not so well-versed, it does happen in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro . . . in exactly the way it was done in the books (which I was surprised by because I thought it happened differently, but upon further research, yup, it was right on the mark!). That brings a decent tragic element into The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro.

Unfortunately, it comes too late and after so many other threads have been introduced and disappointed the viewers and quite a bit before the ultimate climax to the movie. Moreover, the impact on Spider-Man is not one of a vigilante hero. Spider-Man is given an arc that is pretty much the opposite of Batman in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro; in analogous terms, Spider-man’s arc here would be like if Batman were an established vigilante and the death of his parents led him to hang up the cowl, as opposed to hunt down the mobsters that killed them. That Spider-Man spends no time on-screen hunting the villain that instigates the tragedy that knocks Peter Parker off his game makes one wonder just who Spider-man was setting out to help when he put on the mask (it clearly wasn’t himself!).

The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro is a good example of better casting than performances. Jamie Foxx is good as Max Dillon . . . unless one has seen him in The Soloist (reviewed here!) in which case he’s adequate and peaks at reprising his role from that film. Colm Feore is given too little to do in the underdeveloped role of Donald Menken (which would have been a much more effective role had the character appeared in The Amazing Spider-Man as an ambitious up-and-comer who was screwed over by Harry’s return in this film) and Felicity Jones (who has given some amazing performances in the past) could be replaced by a house plant for all that the role of Felicia offers her . . . or the film. Paul Giamatti’s role of Aleksei Sytsevich is presented with so much enthusiasm that viewers have to wonder how much is the character and how much is Giamatti laughing at the studio for paying him so much for such a ridiculous role (and the promise of future appearances as the Rhino!). Sally Field, Chris Cooper, and Marton Csokas (Dr. Kafka at Ravencroft) are all adequate in their roles, sometimes even good.

But The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro is headlined by Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone and for two performers who can usually do no wrong, they fall unfortunately flat in this film. Gone entirely is the on-screen chemistry between Garfield and Stone . . . and that has severe ramifications for the movie’s climax. The two have mediocre banter that is delivered adequately, but from Stone and Garfield, viewers expect sparks. Garfield’s initial voiceovers are quips as the CG Spider-Man flies around and Garfield sounds bored delivering the lines. Not to be outdone, Emma Stone’s valedictory speech for Gwen Stacy is delivered with such a lackluster quality that I was bored . . . and it wasn’t as long as a real graduation! Sadly, the pair reaches their peak for a scene in a maintenance closet where they almost break the fourth wall by acknowledging the cliché of hiding in the janitor’s closet whilst being pursued by company thugs (who, like Star Wars Stormtroopers see a closed door and assume that those they are hunting cannot possibly be on the other side of it). That banter is good, but subsequent scenes simply throw the pair together after months of being apart without any organic incidents to allow them to truly rethink the decisions that drove them apart. Could Garfield and Stone have sold it? It’s possible, but they don’t and that undermines The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro.

Despite the over-the-top web-related effects, Electro looks pretty awesome in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro. Sure, Marc Webb essentially resurrected Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen (reviewed here!) for Electro in the film, but the effects work better than almost anything else in the movie. Sadly, given that Doc Ock’s tentacles can be seen in the Oscorp lab and rumors have leaked for months that the Sinister Six (six villains from Spider-man who team up but never seem to quite be able to actually kill Spider-man once and for all) might well get their own film, The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro seems largely like a set-up film for that. The essential Spider-Man characters are present, they are doing their own things, but every opportunity to look back (for a dead character, Richard Parker spends a lot of time on-screen in this film!) and look forward is utilized to push those characters out of the way for painfully obvious foreshadowing moments. The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro is almost enough to make viewers wish for six stand-alone films featuring the rise of each of the Sinister Six . . . just so long as they bothered to develop each one well. As it stands, The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro puts three potentials in play, but does so in such a way that the viewer doesn’t give a damn if they ever grace the screen again. At least Webb and his team were smart enough to not recast J. Jonah Jamison on-screen (Sam Raimi got him absolutely, perfectly right, with J.K. Simmons!).

If you feel you must watch The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro, I’d say hold out for its appearance on DVD; this is one of those films that the more one contemplates, the more faults they see in it and I cannot imagine it will age any better.

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
X-Men: Days Of Future Past
Guardians Of The Galaxy
The Wolverine
The Avengers
Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance
Captain America: The First Avenger
X-Men: First Class
Thor
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man 3
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil

4/10

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

*For those who don’t catch the reference, in Star Trek: Nemesis, the villain was tormented by Romulans, discarded and despised by Romulans, and when he assembled a massive military power that would have allowed him to actually get proper revenge on the Romulans, he instead turned his aggression toward the Federation, which made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Come to think of it, his whole mission in life was blood, too, so between Harry Osborn and Max Dillon, the writing team just picked all the worst aspects of villain motivations from Star Trek: Nemesis and ran with them!

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

Unimpressive Oscarbait: I Keep Waiting For August: Osage County To Take Off.

The Good: Moments of performance, Some of the lines, Moments of humor.
The Bad: Hard to empathize with the characters, Sterile direction, Bland plot
The Basics: With an incredible cast, August: Osage County might be an acting showcase, but it still nets a painfully dull movie for the most part.


Before sitting down to watch August: Osage County, I became convinced of a simple premise: the main reason Meryl Streep is cast in movies these days is so the movie will get noticed during Oscar Pandering Season. It’s been years since anyone tried releasing a film with Meryl Streep outside Oscar Pandering Season – Julie & Julia (reviewed here!) was the last I know of – and while I suppose it is as good a reason as any to put Meryl Streep in a movie, it would be nice if the films for which she was cast had substance to back them up.

I mention this at the top of my review of August: Osage County because this is a movie with a massive cast of talented performers, including Meryl Streep, that goes nowhere as a film. This is not to say that Meryl Streep is not wonderful in August: Osage County - because she is – but one suspects that director John Wells loaded the film with Streep, Benedict Cumberbatch, Chris Cooper, Julia Roberts and Ewan McGregor in the hopes that viewers would be so blown away by who was on the screen that they would not notice that the movie is pretty boring. And I write that as one who loves the film Magnolia (reviewed here!). In fact, in her best moments in August: Osage County, Meryl Streep’s performance is reminiscent of Jason Robards’s performance in Magnolia as a person suffering through a painful end of life period.

Shortly after Beverly Weston sets his wife up with a caretaker, he disappears, leaving his wife Violet to die on her own (for all he apparently cares). Violet’s daughter, Ivy, calls Barbara and Barbara, her estranged husband Bill and their daughter Jean, return to their family’s house. Violet’s sister, Mattie Fae Aiken and her husband Charlie, come to help out as well. When Beverly’s body is recovered (having drown himself), the other daughter Karen and her older fiancé, Steve, show up for the funeral. Missing the funeral is Charlie and Mattie Fae’s son, Little Charlie, though he shows up for the post-funeral meal.

With the full family together after the funeral, the Westons, Aikens, and Fordhams sit down for one of the most uncomfortable meals in cinematic history. There, Violet spitefully sets family members against each other (and her) by claiming right to all of the money Beverly left (though the will was never legally changed) and the family tries to put up with the venomous woman, despite knowing that she doesn’t have very long left herself. Over the course of the stay, Little Charlie and Ivy’s affair comes out – though their true relationship is not disclosed to Little Charlie – and Steve tries to use weed to get Jean pliable enough to rape. As Violet’s pill-popping increases, the family falls apart, leaving only misery in her wake.

August: Osage County works, when it does, because it is funny. When it is not gut-wrenchingly, excruciatingly uncomfortable, August: Osage County has some very funny lines. Chris Cooper is in rare form as Charlie; his bit about eating some good fear is hilariously delivered and it’s easy to see the charm he possesses and portrays in almost every scene of August: Osage County. Cooper plays Charlie’s love for his son as perfectly organic and beautifully delivered (the moment he stands up for Little Charlie is one of the film’s high points). During the meal scenes, August: Osage County is reminiscent of Peep World (reviewed here!) for its charm, complicated dynamics, and the way the expert cast members play off one another.

Sadly, the comedy in August: Osage County ends. It does not merely end: it dies a fast, hard, miserable death. From the moment Steve first ambles up to Jean, there is something sinister about him. When he becomes more aggressive with her, the film commits to a tone that it never turns back from. For all the spite and horribleness of Violet, other characters managed to get in amusing lines before that. As a result, August: Osage County has a flow and some sense of enjoyment until that point. After that point, though, the film becomes oppressive and downright miserable.

While some of the characters are interesting (oddly, in a film dominated by wonderful women, only Ivy and Johnna Monevata – the caretaker – are truly likable), few are really decent people. Charlie is good, Little Charlie is so deeply caring, and even Bill has some moments, but the film is largely about dysfunction and how people react to the spiteful Violet. Violet is arguably Meryl Streep’s meanest role since The Devil Wears Prada (reviewed here!).

That makes the reason to endure the two hours of August: Osage County the acting. Everyone in the film perfectly embodies their characters and they perform admirably. While Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts continue to get most of the attention, I was impressed by Julianne Nicholson. Nicholson plays Ivy and she has great onscreen chemistry with Benedict Cumberbatch (Little Charlie). She plays Ivy with a deep, restrained sadness for most of the movie and she emotes so much with her eyes that it is hard not to empathize with her character.

That said, it’s unsurprising that August: Osage County did not get nominated for the Best Picture Oscar; it is a ponderous, painful movie. It’s worth watching once for the impressive acting, but unfathomable to want to sit through a second time as it is largely unenjoyable, regardless of how well it captures a slice of reality.

For other works with Benedict Cumberbatch, please check out my reviews of:
The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug
12 Years A Slave
Star Trek Into Darkness
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Atonement
Fortysomething

5/10

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

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

I'm No More A Fan of Horse Racing Movies Than I Am Of Horse Racing: I Get Bored By Seabiscuit

The Good: The acting
The Bad: Plot is dull and predictable, Nothing Earth-shattering on the character front
The Basics: It's a horse racing movie. No matter what the character struggles, Seabiscuit all comes down to the ability of a horse. Sigh.


I suppose that every person enjoys a different type of movie and in considering that, I think I am almost ready to conclude that I'm not a huge fan of sports movies. Seabiscuit came highly recommended and I finished the movie with a rather disappointed feeling. I tend to enjoy movies about underdogs and people of courage who overcome their limitations to do whatever they feel they need to do. I respect those types of characters. In Seabiscuit, I encountered two things that basically failed to engage me: 1. Horse racing is no more about the athleticism and ability of man than cockfighting is, and 2. Because much of the action hinges on things that happened in reality, for a story like this to work, the characters have to be approached in a way that is, well, interesting.

Seabiscuit finds the day of the horse firmly in decline with the rise of the automobile. Enter millionaire Charles Howard, who is as down on his luck as someone with money can be during the Depression. He acquires an awkward horse named Seabiscuit and hires Tom Smith to train him. Smith begins to train the horse with Red Pollard as the jockey. They yell at each other, the horse wins some races, people get hurt, the horse gets hurt, then they try again.

This movie is about many things, mostly comebacks. It is about taking a chance on something that does not quite fit the norm. As Howard notes at one point, "The horse is too small, the jockey is too big, the trainer too old, and I'm too dumb to know the difference." The horse fights impossible odds to start winning races and that's impressive in the context of horse racing. At the end of the day, it's a horse that runs fast. It runs fast because there's a person on it whipping it. That's horse racing.

And yes, Seabiscuit wants to be something more than "just a horse racing movie." But it's a horse racing movie. The greatest tension the movie achieves is not in the witty dialogue, it is not in the character struggle to admit limitations and overcome them, it is when the horse is running. And again, it's not terribly exciting if you are not into horse racing. I tend not to watch horse racing; the races always seem too short for me (once upon a time, I was a distance runner). They seem somewhat extravagant and pointless to me. Whoo, horse runs fast in circle! Wow.

In Seabiscuit, the attempt to mitigate the fact that all of the action is building to a horse race is encapsulated in the character of Tick Tock McGlaughlin. McGlaughlin is the announcer at the track and he is responsible for hyping Seabiscuit beforehand and trumpeting the veracity of the feat after the race. And the character's sole point (outside realism) seems to be to get the audience excited about the races by reminding us they are coming up in a way that, apparently, the rest of the training and conversing in the movie do not.

There is not a ton of character development in this movie and at over two hours, I have a problem with that. The character arcs take all the predictable turns one would expect in an underdog story where the viewer is meant to root for those whose luck has been poor of late. Unfortunately, because all of the characters fall along the predicted arcs, it is hard to become invested in any of them. They are types, not individuals here.

That is not to say that the cast does not do the best they can with what they have. I might not like Tick Tock McGlaughlin, but William H. Macy does a great job portraying him. Macy expertly fast-talks and riles up the crowds for the audio presentations of the races and in that, he adds a sense of realism. I can honestly say I've never seen Macy in a role like this before. Similarly, Jeff Bridges does well as Charles Howard, easily conveying the sense of a man with power and influence.

Much of the movie, however, hinges on Chris Cooper as Tom Smith and Toby Maguire as Red Pollard. Cooper gives a good performance with the material he is presented. His character is heavily vested in the training aspect, so Cooper is the one who runs with the jargon and he does so convincingly.

And Toby Maguire does a fine job as Red. Red is down on his luck in some ways, hiding his own weaknesses. Maguire's performance is better upon a second viewing when we know what his true condition is; Maguire's acting gives us all the clues, if only we knew to look for them. When he is presented as a well-rounded character, Maguire does a good job on selling us on it. However, with the male libidos and the competitive nature of the story, Maguire also spends time in the movie giving pretty standard jibes at other characters in a way that makes the character seem like a type. Still, Toby Maguire sells us on even these limitations.

Finally, Seabiscuit is well-shot. Director Gary Ross (who also wrote the screenplay) has a good eye for movement and he takes some time establishing shots with the scenery quite well. The movie looks good.

Ultimately, it's not enough, though. In the end, this is a horse racing movie and while the events of the time might have made this impressive, in larger-than-life, big-screen, bright color moving fast movie, it's just not terribly incredible. It did not inspire me to look up footage of the actual horse races, though with the poorly developed characters, it makes me wish I had done that instead.

For other sports movies, check out my reviews of:
Rocky
Moneyball
Chariots Of Fire

5/10

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

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

Married Life: All The Steps Necessary To Kill Your Wife/Take A Lover In The 1950s!

The Good: Decent acting, Interesting enough characters
The Bad: Unlikable characters, Pacing
The Basics: Good actors are wasted on dull characters in Ira Sachs' period piece Married Life wherein one man plans to murder his wife so he can be with his mistress.


You know you've just sat through a thoroughly average film when you're willing to let a coin toss determine whether or not you recommend it. That is, however, exactly where I find myself after viewing Married Life on DVD. It truly is a take-it or leave-it drama set in the 1950s and populated by a number of actors I enjoy. And yet . . . "meh."

Indeed, I do not think I have ever seen Chris Cooper act poorly (though he has played characters I have not much cared about one way or another, he always seems to play them well). Similarly, Pierce Brosnan is good in almost every role he has been in and while she is far less well-known, Patricia Clarkson always holds her own. And Rachel McAdams is perfectly Hollywood beautiful in this piece, so if anything I was biased toward Married Life going in. Truth be told, I picked this one up because the DVD cover looked intriguing. Let that be a lesson.

Harry Allen is unhappily married to Pat and he confides in his good friend Richard that he is planning on leaving her. Despite the fact that Harry believes Pat is completely devoted to him and has no other real options, Harry plans to leave her because he has fallen in love with Kay Nesbitt, a much younger woman and a widow. As if to garner his approval, Harry has his bachelor friend Richard meet Kay and he makes the case for leaving Pat for Kay.

Jaded and happy to remain unmarried for his life, Richard is struck by Kay's beauty and her poise. Richard begins to spend more time with Kay while Harry strikes up a plan to kill his wife by swapping her digestive powder with a lethal toxin. As Harry makes his plan and his inevitable move, Richard begins to covet Kay.

Unfortunately, Kay is not so much given a say in the film (pardon the terrible rhyme, it was unintentional). The film is told from the perspective of Richard using annoying and pointless voiceovers. I'm not a huge fan of voiceovers and my basic thought is that in almost every context, a well-created film will show what the voiceover says. It is a poor use of the visual medium to have a narrator tell the story. That's the director's job and most of the best works - in my experience - do not include a narrator or voiceovers from the protagonist. There are exceptions, but in the last couple of years, writers and directors seem to have gotten much more lazy and use the voiceovers left and right.

Married Life is such a simple story, nothing is particularly lacking from the movie to have it presented without voiceovers. The story is very straightforward: a married man who has been married for quite some time has a midlife crisis and craves a new, younger woman. Dog. Married Life is not showing us anything we have not seen before. It certainly is not showing us anything we have not seen done better before.

Married Life suffers from its remarkable averageness. I've just flipped a coin, which has determined that I am not recommending this movie, so I might as well pan it. There are no quirks in this movie, nothing that makes it special or distinct in the plot, characters or performances. Indeed, the only element that surprised me at all was that Kay Nesbitt is given a decent amount of screentime to tell Richard about her husband who went missing in the war and after that rather weighty scene, I expected him to pop up at some point to ruin the affairs of Harry and Richard. He does not show up.

But even as Harry is cheating on Pat, Pat is having an affair of her own, which Richard walks in on. The only even remotely impressive philosophical concept in this whole arrangement is the idea that Pat truly does love Harry and she stays with him because she believes absolutely that he would be lost without her. One suspects that Pat having the superior and demanding sex drive was intended to shock the audience and make them think, but instead it seemed normal and obvious. Moreover, because Pat reveals ridiculously early in the movie that she has powerful sexual needs that Harry is not meeting, it becomes utterly unsurprising that she is having an affair. (That David Wenham, who played the white-bread Faramir in the last two Lord Of The Rings films pulls off being a more active and likable lover for Pat, is much more of a surprise!)

So, the film sets itself up with a remarkably few potentials: Harry will either leave his wife or he will not, Harry and Kay will either end up together or they will not. And the moment Harry decides to kill his wife, he either will succeed or he will not. Truth be told, it is pretty difficult to care and as the movie plods along, it becomes increasingly difficult to care.

This is largely because the characters are either unlikable or complete nonentities. For the most part, the characters are nonentities. Every character has more going for them than Richard and that's saying something considering that Richard is played by Pierce Brosnan, who usually steals the scenes he is in and dominates a movie. Despite his character narrating throughout the film, he is essentially telling Harry's story and his scenes with Kay are largely giving her a chance to speak her mind.

Indeed, after a few hours of marinating with Married Life in my mind, all I can recall about Brosnan's performance or Richard's character was that he smoked an awful lot of cigarettes. I get that, too; it was very much a function of the time. But Richard smokes a LOT in this movie.

Harry seems more annoyingly discontent than actually likable or overly affectionate for Kay. Sure, he buys her things like a television set, but when they are together, he does not appear to come alibe any more than he does when he is at the office. This is not for a lack of the viewer rooting for the middle-aged man, either. One supposes that it is pretty much the American Dream to get a woman like Kay and the viewer has no problem wanting Harry to be happy, we just cannot fathom what it is Kay sees in Harry.

Kay and Pat are far more interesting characters than either of the men and in this fashion, Clarkson lives up to the consistency of her performances. As pat, Patricia Clarkson gives an empathetic performance of a woman who is both loving and less loved than she deserves. She has a wonderful sense of body language to portray a woman who has been married for a long time. To wit, at one point Harry comes to bed and Pat, in her sleep, begins to make a move on him. Clarkson makes the movement seem instinctive and rote and that adds a strong sense of realism to that scene.

But it is Kay who is the object of affection for the men of the movie and as Married Life is largely Harry's story, much of the attention is on Rachel McAdams as Kay. McAdams certainly has the look of the time and she is instantly appealing as Kay. But it's pretty much a gimmie for McAdams: you show up looking like she does, you have the role down pat. There is little substance to Kay, at least the way she is portrayed in this film and so it seems like a pretty easy stint for McAdams and, unfortunately, not one of her more memorable roles.

Co-writer and director Ira Sachs makes Married Life look good and despite some pacing problems (it is very slow getting started and it only truly picks up in the last fifteen minutes) he makes a film that is not thoroughly without merit. The problem is, he is simply using performers who are known for their greatness and gravitas with the likes of Clarkson, Brosnan and, especially, Chris Cooper. Unfortunately, he seems to expect that their showing up will carry the work and it fails to work out quite that way.

Those who like period dramas will enjoy the look and feel of Married Life, but actually wanting to sit through the end and buying it on DVD, not a chance.

For other works with Patricia Clarkson, be sure to visit my reviews of:
One Day
Friends With Benefits
Easy A
Shutter Island
Six Feet Under
Frasier - Season Nine
Frasier - Season Eight
The Untouchables

5/10

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.
| | |

Losing The Translation To Attempts At Wittiness, Adaptation. Fizzles.

The Good: Decent acting, Good opening
The Bad: Degenerates into a scholarly experiment, Pacing, Lack of sensible character development, Utter lack of plot
The Basics: Adaptation. begins as a slow story about a ridiculously nervous screenwriter and degenerates into a disappointing scholarly exercise even a person with a comparative literature major couldn't enjoy.


As a novelist, I am always interested in what is new and different. I went into Adaptation. with high hopes and reasonable expectations. I had enjoyed Being John Malkovich and I found the previews to Adaptation. compelling. That said, I was horribly disappointed.

Opening with Charlie Kaufman, who actually did write the film Adaptation., the fictional character is pushed aside on the set of his own film and he is portrayed instantly though his own voiceover as a loser. Charlie then goes on to get the film rights to the book "The Orchid Thief" and struggles with making what he finds a great novel into an even remotely workable film. The narrative bounces between Kaufman's agonizing attempts to write the film while his twin brother Donald makes a very "Hollywood" horror script and the past where Susan Orlean researches and writes "The Orchid Thief." Orlean is led by John Laroche, a Florida redneck who is an expert on orchids.

Adaptation. does very well in the beginning, despite some serious pacing problems. While the film focuses on the difficulty of translating a book about ideas and emotions into a film - i.e. not adding characters and/or attempting to have contrived plot devices - it works well. Even as Susan works on writing some of the compelling lines Charlie gets hooked on, the narrative flows. In the beginning of the film, Adaptation. is a movie about nothing about writing a film about nothing.

And it's slow. It's dreadfully slow, in fact. That works for a little while, when focusing on Charlie, but not when the attention shifts to Susan and John. Alas, the pace does not pick up in those moments.

Had the film remained a film about nothing, that could have been fine. It could have endured as a film about the struggle to write and even been intriguing to non-writers.

Unfortunately, about halfway through the film, Adaptation. becomes obsessed with the conventions of movie-making and all of the cliches and stereotypes of the typical Hollywood film. It is at this point in the movie that Adaptation. surrenders all of its reasonable and plausible premises and degenerates into what it hates. That is, Kaufman becomes disappointed with the conventions of writing a film personified in Robert McKee. These conventions are such things as the importance of plot, the lack of voiceovers and the "standards" like the car chase, the moral at the end, and the use of a popular song in a film.

Adaptation. seeks to make a satire of these conventions in the latter half of the film and as a result it becomes both snobby and ridiculous. In attempting to mock the establishment, Adaptation. sinks into it, becoming the worst cliche of all. This film is roughly equivalent to the upper class intellectual who despises sports in their social circles and then sneaks away to play football (note: not squash) on the weekends. It's hypocritical when it attempts to be clever and ultimately this film lets us down by sacrificing the characters and ideals of the beginning for the quick fix the end provides.

The only redeeming aspect of this film is the acting. Nicolas Cage plays Charlie wonderfully. Cage also plays the somewhat pointless Donald well and quite differently. Cage is a fine actor here. Meryl Streep and Tilda Swinton are both wonderful as Susan and Valerie. The scene stealer is Chris Cooper, who plays John Laroche. Cooper deserved the Golden Globe Award he won last week for playing Laroche. Fans of "American Beauty" will remember Cooper as the militant marine next door, Colonel Fitts. Here he plays a very different, far more alive character and he does it quite well.

Unfortunately, even the acting cannot save this film. What it tries to mock pretentiously, it becomes in the last act. So even when we recognize that it is mocking the phenomenon of the stylized film industry, when drugs and guns come into play, it tries to play it seriously and it is impossible for the viewer to accept the abrupt about face. It results in the film ceasing to mock bad films and it instead becomes one.

Ultimately, this is a terribly slow film. I mean dreadfully. I felt like the film was at least three and a half hours long and was shocked to learn that it was, in actuality 114 minutes. And keep in mind, I was looking forward to this film.

For other reality-bending films, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Inception
Sucker Punch

3/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Reviews Index Page by clicking here!

© 2012, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Capote Exhibits A Lack Of Captivation In Obsession

The Good: Decent acting, Decent anti-mood
The Bad: Disappointing resolution, Unempathetic protagonist, Pacing
The Basics: In a disappointing story that has an unlikable protagonist doing almost nothing, Capote flops.


Possibly the funniest sketch on Mad TV in 2006 was the barrage of Truman Capote movies they launched in a recent episode, a reaction to the release of Capote, followed quite closely by the release of Infamous. As the actors become more and more preposterously cast, the repetitive previews become more and more outrageous. I'd rather watch that series of sketches than rewatch Capote. Ever.

Capote follows the somewhat pointless chronicle of Truman Capote as he investigates the slaying of a family in Kansas with Harper Lee. Capote becomes fascinated with one of the two alleged murderers, upon whom he based his novel In Cold Blood. And the movie goes on and on and on with Capote obsessed with the people, not the case or his actual writing.

This 114 minute film recalls to my mind the Korean film The Road Home. When I saw The Road Home (reviewed here!), someone I was with turned to me after the movie was over and said, "If that had been an American film, it would have been over in 15 minutes." Capote is similar; it's long without going anywhere.

Now, I've read other reviews of Capote and the thing I find most prevalent in them is a love of In Cold Blood, the novel Capote is doing the research for in the movie or a general love of Truman Capote. The problem those reviews face is that this movie is not In Cold Blood. It is also not a portrait of Truman Capote that does anything extraordinary in terms of making the novelist understandable. In short, this movie features Truman Capote without exploring him. It doesn't give us any insight into what makes him tick. The best possible analogy I can give is Luke Skywalker in A New Hope. In Star Wars Episode 4, Luke Skywalker walks around doing things mostly from rote without any real clear idea of why he is doing them. He's a young person and a farmer and his whole reason to pick up a lightsaber is because his father had been a Jedi. In fact, his listless reason for suggesting he might want to join the Rebellion is because that's where his best friend (Biggs) was. But largely, Luke's part in A New Hope is to kind of witlessly walk around the galaxy doing things without any real idea of who he is or what makes him tick.

Truman Capote in Capote is the same way. He's got writer's block, so he goes out to Kansas to investigate the murder of a family there. And we see him interview some people. Then, we see him hanging onto interviews with Perry Smith. But we don't know what fascinates him about Perry. And we don't know what makes it near impossible for Capote to write about all this. And we don't know why he is obsessed by it.

Reviewers that say anything else are extrapolating. They provide their own insights from what they've read about Truman Capote. It's not in the movie. In the movie, he and Harper Lee go out to Kansas, he meets some people, he does some interviews and BANG! he's obsessed while impotent at the keyboard. And the viewer of this movie sits there wondering why. Was he horrified by what he saw? Did he suddenly think he could see inside the mind of the killers? Was it so alien he couldn't? Who knows? Not people who watch the movie.

As for the performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman, who I like in other roles (he's a favorite of P.T. Anderson, who I'm a fan of), Hoffman admittedly gets the high pitched, lispy voice of Truman Capote. That cannot be denied, as the DVD has footage of Truman Capote. Is it a great performance? I'd argue "no." Why? In one of the bonus features to Magnolia (reviewed here!), Hoffman is goofing around doing physical comedy about knocking all sorts of things over on the set and the shtick he's doing is almost what he does as Capote. The way he holds his body, the subtle smirk as things get out of hand, I've seen there. That tells me the role was not much of a stretch for Hoffman. And, frankly, I'd go back to the argument that the film doesn't reveal much about the title character, making it hard to like him. So suddenly, for example, he goes from treasuring his friend Harper Lee to being outwardly jealous of her success.

Which leads us to the best performance and character in Capote. It's Catherine Keener as Harper Lee. Keener is fantastic, Lee is well written and well portrayed. Keener carries her with grace and dignity and she is the sole sensible and watchable part of the movie. She ought to do a companion piece about Lee without Capote. I'd probably watch that.

As for this, it might be fine for fans of Truman Capote or In Cold Blood who want to project all their own stuff into the movie. But as a film alone where one goes in cold looking for a story that says something or explores the depth of a character or wows me in some other way, this film fails.

For other biography films, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Queen Margot
The Life Of Emil Zola
Elizabeth

4/10

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

© 2012, 2006 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.
| | |

Relationships Are Still Complicated Where The Wild Things Are!

The Good: Imaginative, Well-acted, Special effects, General level of character
The Bad: Intrusive soundtrack, Pacing
The Basics: Imaginative and fun, Where The Wild Things Are is a big-screen triumph of imagination over reality!


It is a rare thing that I go into a movie aimed toward children and I like it, much less like it more than my wife. In fact, it was a real stretch for me to even go and watch Hotel For Dogs and it was a shock to both of us when I enjoyed it. There is a part of me that suspects I enjoyed it a little bit more than I ordinarily would because I was with her and it was one of our first dates. The same cannot be said for Where The Wild Things Are. In this case, we went to a screening and despite the pacing issues, I found I enjoyed the movie a great deal more than my wife did.

Where The Wild Things Are is based upon the classic children's book by the same title. Author Maurice Sendak let director Spike Jonze and his co-author David Eggers have generally free reign with the book, but given that it has been years since I have read the picture book upon which this is based, I shall do no comparison. After all, the original book was not terribly long and if it were presented on the screen as a literal translation of the book, it would only be a short. As it is, interviews with Sendak confirm that he is quite pleased with how Jonze both kept the flavor of his story alive in this film as well as made a work that was distinctly his own. This bodes well for the purists and it worked well for the film.

Max is an imaginative boy who dresses up in a wolf costume regularly, builds forts and plays enthusiastically with his classmates. Still, he is nervous about the eventual demise of the sun and he is neglected by his older sister. After getting into a snowball fight with his sister, Claire, and her friends, an event which leads to the destruction of his igloo and him being trapped in the cold, wet snow, Max trashes her room and when his mother finally arrives home, they clean it up together. His overworked mother, though, tries to discipline Max when the boy wants attention while she is on a date. Max bites her and runs off into the night, stealing a boat and sailing for two nights and a day. He ends up at an island occupied by giant, hairy (or feathered) monsters and in talking his way out of being eaten, he manages to convince them that he is a king.

Bonding with Carol, Max promises to lead the monsters well and keep sadness at bay, a promise that is made difficult by the fact that Carol's partner/sister (she's referred to as family, but they act like romantic partners) KW is leaving the tribe. After a prolonged romp through the forest with much running, jumping and playing, Carol shows Max his model of the island kingdom and Max and the group begin building an immense fort for them to live in. As construction progresses, Judith's jealousy, Alexander's insecurity and the apparent favoritism between Max and Carol strains the group and Max finds living up to his promise a near impossible task.

Where The Wild Things Are features some rather obvious (to adults) morals, but what makes it so worthwhile for all audiences is that it realistically and imaginatively presents a childlike sense of play. Even though adults who go (willingly or unwillingly) to see the film and are likely to know pretty much off the bat how the plot will collapse around Max once he starts embellishing his story, what they are likely to enjoy is the truly free-spirited presentation of youthful enjoyment of life. As we get older and our lives are made more complicated, we tend to lose the simple joy of running, jumping and playing. The illustration of those childlike activities is enthusiastically presented in this film and as a result, it is surprisingly engaging for adults.

The other aspect most likely to be lost on children who go to see Where The Wild Things Are is the adult sense of emotional interaction of the characters. Carol and KW have a complicated relationship and Jonze does an excellent job of giving each of the "monsters" a psychological quirk. Alexander is emotionally needy, Ira gets his validation from being a good partner to the pessimistic Judith, Douglas works hard to win Carol's approval, and KW wants very much to be free and to grow, away from her family. All of them dutifully rally around Max when he arrives, but Max - being a child - is largely unsuited to negotiate their adult emotions and adult relationships. As a result, he soon finds himself as much of an alien in his new island kingdom as he was back home. This is likely to leave children who see the movie as confused as Max is.

What they are not likely to be confused by is the sense of visual wonder the movie induces. From the moment Max arrives on the island to find Carol smashing the huts of the monsters, there is a pretty constant sense of movement. As well, there is a surreal combination of the real - Max, the forest, the boat - and what the viewer knows to be the unreal (the "monsters," the stick fort). Director Spike Jonze and his team work to create a flawlessly real world with a visual sensibility that is seamless. The only truly annoying special effect in this film is the soundtrack, which is made up frequently of songs that sound like children playing or chanting and it becomes overbearing at points, distracting from the visual wonder and sense of reality of the island world.

What is truly extraordinary is the work done on creating the costumes of the "monsters." First, each one is distinctive and the viewer never needs more than a glance to know which character they are looking at. As well, there is a strong sense of character to each one of Max's subjects. So, for example, Judith's face is remarkably well articulated and whomever did the work on her deserves real kudos. More than any of the other "monsters," Judith is a fully-realized character in her mannerisms as well as line deliveries. In addition to emoting with her eyes and mouth (I kid not about the eyes, it was actually incredible), Judith has a pretty extraordinary sense of body language as a strangely depressed horned beast. Despite the fact that some of the other characters - most notably Ira - are not as well-articulated, the viewer never feels like they are watching a kid interact with giant puppets. The characters are just that and not since Yoda first appeared on the screen has there been so little need for suspension of disbelief to accept a set of puppets as real live characters.

As far as the vocal talents go, the film is ruled by James Gandolfini as Carol and Lauren Ambrose as KW. Ambrose, possibly best known for her work on Six Feet Under (reviewed here!) turns out to be an exceptional voice actress, immediately creating a character with a sweetness and a sadness to her that is powerful. Ambrose makes KW a thoughtful character with just her voice when she tries to express to Max her desire to explore and grow and her feeling that she cannot necessarily do that with her "family." Even so, she manages to infuse a sense of reality and deeper emotions into every one of her deliveries and this is an incredible feat. Gandolfini, similarly, alternates between being authoritative and hurt and Carol is an easily likable character as a result. While Gandolfini gets the most voicetime as Carol, Ambrose's performance still upstages his sometimes over-the-top deliveries.

But the equal surprise for serious moviegoers will be the quality of acting from Max Records. Records, who plays Max, is essentially a child playing a child, which seems like it ought not to be a stretch for him. In that regard, the acting is unremarkable, as Records looks like he is having a good time as he runs, throws snowballs or plays. The moments that earn him true accolades (or one hopes they will) are the moments when Max has to interact with the giant muppets that surround him and treat them as utterly real. There is never a moment in Where The Wild Things Are where Max Records presents even a flicker of the reality where he is acting opposite giant puppets. Instead, his complete investment in the fictional world makes it almost impossible for the viewer to not be similarly invested.

Ultimately, outside the soundtrack, the only real problem with Where The Wild Things Are is the pacing. The film starts engagingly enough with Max chasing a little dog, but then takes a while to get to the island and once there there is a similar sense of "where is this going and when will it get there" that the viewer feels. While it is fun to watch and there are deeper themes and statements being made on the power of human emotions, Where The Wild Things Are takes a while to get around to it and that might frustrate both impatient adults and children with short attention spans.

All in all, this is a surprisingly wonderful movie for adults and children alike!

For other fantasy films, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Labyrinth
The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy
Alice In Wonderland

8/10

For other movie reviews, please click here to visit my index page for a nice, organized listing of all I have written!

© 2011, 2010, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

After A Long Rut, American Beauty Was A Worthy Winner Of The Best Picture Oscar!

The Good: Characters, Plot, Acting, Direction, Soundtrack, SCRIPT!
The Bad: None.
The Basics: American Beauty is a perfect film wherein one man's mid-life crisis spirals out of control. Visually impressive and populated by intriguing characters, perfectly acted, what more could you want from a film?


There was a long period before and after American Beauty won the Best Picture Oscar that I lived with disappointment. Until The Return Of The King won, there was a stretch of winners following American Beauty that both left me disappointed and poorer (yea, betting on the Oscars!). As well, following the disgrace of Gladiator winning and my annoyance that Shakespeare In Love (a fine film in its own right, but not at all superior to Magnolia or The Red Violin) won over my two favored films of that year, I felt quite pleased that when American Beauty won the best picture Oscar, I felt it deserved it. How rare is that?

American Beauty is the story of Lester Burnham, American Loser. He's a middle age man having pretty much the typical mid-life crisis. He and his real estate agent wife, Carolyn, have not made love in a long time and it's clear the love is long gone from their relationship. It's quite sad, truly. Lester is also feeling quite alienated from his daughter, Jane. Jane, for her part, has become the target of intrigue of the next door neighbor, Ricky Fitts. Ricky lives with his oppressive (and repressed) Colonel father. Lester attempts to relate to Jane, but instead finds himself attracted to her friend, Angela. And right now, it probably sounds like I'm describing a soap opera.

It's not.

It's not at all. Lester finds himself noticing Angela and as a result, he comes to understand just how much of himself he's lost. So, he extorts his boss at work for a generous severance package and starts work at a fast food restaurant so he can have fun with his life without real responsibility. Carolyn, reacting to Lester's sudden revival, takes a different turn. She begins an extramarital affair and target practice. Of all of them, Jane is probably the most pure, articulating her instantaneous desires, but understanding most of them well enough to know they are not necessarily healthy actions.

There are few films that so vividly capture the importance and vitality of individual characters and, in truth, the film is about the way one life may cause so many others to spiral out of control. Lester's mid life crisis has drastic consequences on Carolyn, Jane, and Ricky. The end is somewhat shocking and yet, understandable.

All of the characters have so much backstory they are bringing to the film and it comes out so well, with a genuine sense that each of the characters is vital and real. It's impressive. The thing is, none of them are particularly nice. And that's the magic of the film: it's an escape for us from the responsibilities of reality. Alan Ball writes a series of characters all of whom have character traits that most of us would find reprehensible in people in our own family and yet, here they appear perfectly accessible and almost normal. Lester is a loser and an extortionist, Jane expresses homicidal disrespect for her father, Carolyn is an adultress, Ricky is a drug dealer and Angela is a habitual liar.

But they work.

The story is woven together perfectly and directed wonderfully with a strong eye for color, movement and stylistic grace. Alan Ball's characters have depth, the story is narrated well with excellent pacing. I'm actually surprised the film is as long as it is; it feels much shorter than 121 minutes.

And the acting. Kevin Spacey deserved his Oscar for best actor, hands down. His portrayal of Lester Burnham is perfect. He plays Lester with a wonderful transformation of slouching and mumbling to upright and eyes perfectly visible. Lester's story is the understanding of appreciating that which is around us. Annette Bening is wonderfully over the top Carolyn. Thora Birch is mature and simplistically beautiful as Jane and Wes Bently was perfectly cast as Ricky. He has a face that makes a first impression as intense and creepy and yet he is able to soften it at critical moment. He's quite wonderful.

The film is a wonderful exploration of a man with a midlife crisis who wakes up to the idea that all around him there is a wonderful amount of beauty. And life. And we, watching it, we can appreciate that. We're not Lester.

As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, by clicking here!

For other works featuring Allison Janney, please check out my reviews of:
Lost – Season 6
Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip
The West Wing

10/10

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

© 2010, 2009, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |