Unnecessarily Divergent, Saving Mr. Banks Underwhelms.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4/10

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

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

Nearing The End Of Summer Blockbuster Season, Total Recall Is A Fun Popcorn Thriller.

The Good: Decent effects, Good action feel, Decent acting, Initially engaging plot
The Bad: So many reversals!, Lighter on character than I generally like.
The Basics: The new version of Total Recall is appropriately action-packed, clever and fun to round out Summer Blockbuster Season in a satisfying way.


Summer Blockbuster Season follows a few very well-established patterns. After the big budget, much-anticipated special effects-driven movies have dominated the summer, August hits. August, traditionally, is where comedies and the pre-back to school romances try to lure teenage boys and women raised on fairy tales back to the theaters one more time for the summer. There is also, usually, one last big action-adventure film. A few years ago, for example, Summer Blockbuster Season was pretty much pronounced dead by G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra (reviewed here!). The last big hurrah for 2012’s Summer Blockbuster Season is Total Recall.

It behooves me to mention, up front, that I had not seen the 1990 version of Total Recall, nor have I read the Philip K. Dick short story upon which both movies are based. As a result, I offer no comparison and any references between the two films were lost on me. This is a very pure review of only the 2012 film Total Recall. (I have since seen the 1990 Total Recall, but that is reviewed here independent of this version!)

Doug Quaid works in a dismal, filthy factory in 2084 where he is frequently tired and miserable. He decides to escape for a time within his own mind through a treatment from Rekall. Rekall allows him to have false memories implanted within him in order to feel like he is living a more meaningful and enjoyable life. But when the Rekall agents discover that Quaid’s mind has already been tampered with, they become alarmed and when the building is stormed, a bloodbath ensues . . . at the hands of Quaid. Surprised at his sudden abilities, he is told that he is a spy by his wife, Lori, who tries to kill him.

Suddenly on the run, Quaid, who may or may not really be Hauser, finds himself embroiled in a conspiracy that he has no memory of. Sought by government agents and aided by a rebel underground who he hopes will be able to restore his true memories, Quaid teams with Melina to try to stay alive long enough to learn the truth.

To dispense with my usual complaints about such movies, Total Recall is light on character development because that is the nature of the beast. Because the film deals so much with identity issues and what is real and what is not, Doug does not have a huge amount of character development. He’s running for his life and trying to figure out what is going on and the nature of the conspiracy means that other characters know more about him and what is going on than he (or the viewer) does. Doug is, as a result, more often than not confused and afraid, as opposed to enlightening or even particularly interesting.

The character element, then, is mostly handled by Lori and Melina. Lori is ruthless and efficient, but as a result, she is somewhat monolithic. From the moment she turns on Doug, she is single-minded, focused and ruthless in her pursuit of Doug. Lori is played by Kate Beckinsale and the level of action the role requires is not a surprise for the star of the Underworld films. Even so, despite the similarities in levels of action, Beckinsale makes the role distinctive by infusing strange humanity in the role. Beckinsale makes Lori seem like a character with a strange sense of principles; Lori seems to actually believe in the organization she serves and Beckinsale sells the viewer on her character’s loyalty in frequently unsettling ways.

Jessica Biel’s Melinda is not at the other end of the spectrum, though Melinda and Lori are framed as opposites in how they treat Doug. Melinda comes to Doug’s rescue and wants to get him to safety, ostensibly for how he might help the resistance. Biel has done action films before and in Total Recall she is convincingly cool; while she does physical work, her character strategizes and shoots more than she smacks around the obstacles she encounters.

Total Recall benefits from having a stellar supporting cast, in addition to having great special effects. In a film filled with flying cars, robotic assailants and the obligatory three-breasted woman, what stands out the most is how the minor roles are fleshed out with actors who shine for the entire time they are on film. John Cho’s appearance is brief, as is Bill Nighy’s, but Nighy especially dominates the screen while he is on it. The most significant performance out of the main three is from Bryan Cranston. As the Chancellor, Cranston is smart, authoritative and ruthless. While at moments the Chancellor seems like a hyperbole of a capitalist, he seems like a credible leader who would inspire the violence and loyalty that he does.

But, at the end of it all, Total Recall is largely a chase/conspiracy movie and it succeeds at that. Anyone hoping for more than an action-adventure film that is hinging on near-constant twists and fast gun battles will be disappointed, but for the last popcorn effects film of Summer Blockbuster Season it fits the bill.

For other works with Bryan Cranston, please check out my reviews of:
Argo
John Carter
Contagion
Drive
Little Miss Sunshine
Clerks: The Animated Series

6.5/10

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

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

Love Among The Elements: Ask The Dust

The Good: Interesting characters, Good acting
The Bad: Basic story, Minor pacing issues
The Basics: With decent acting and characters who at the least are interesting, Ask The Dust makes for a satisfying romantic drama.


One of my most common problems with films I watch has to do with pacing. Historically, in my reviews, that has meant that the movie does not move in an organic way, usually meaning it is too fast in some parts, too slow in others, without a level feeling to the story. In recent reviews, I've managed to make "pacing" and issue of a film simply being too slow. Ask The Dust returns to my traditional definition of pacing problems, as it - ironically - moves too fast, too soon, before becoming somewhat ponderous in the latter half.

Arturo Bandini, Colorado native and now a writer struggling through the poverty of living as an artist in California during the Depression, is living in a hotel, desperately trying to write the great American novel. Convinced that his life would be better in love with a blue-eyed blonde American woman, Arturo wastes away the days in Los Angeles until he is alone and down to his last nickel. Splurging the nickel on a cup of coffee, Arturo turns the experience of getting lousy coffee into a chance to degrade and humiliate a waitress named Camilla.

Camilla and Arturo have a series of fiery exchanges based on him being a jerk and her, well, putting up with it and punching back. When Arturo becomes convinced Camilla is involved with the bartender, Sammy, he allows himself to pursue another option, in the form of the somewhat crazy stalker Vera. When Vera leaves the picture, Arturo and Camilla find themselves moving toward one another again and their story becomes less adversarial and more loving.

The pacing problem in Ask The Dust is simple; when Arturo and Camilla first meet, Arturo is outright cruel, for no reason apparent other than implied racism over Camilla's Mexican heritage. Now Arturo's actions are those of a genuine jerk and probably a bigot. He returns to his hotel and feels bad and sends Camilla a copy of one of his published short stories. Camilla - illiterate as she is - cannot read it and ultimately destroys it. The extremity of their reactions to one another makes the speed at which they have anything to do with one another - much less exploring a romance - problematic.

Arturo's relationship with Vera seems designed to alleviate this very real narrative and character problem. Unfortunately, because of the time away and the uncertainty of the growth, there is little to recommend the relationship between Camilla and Arturo when he returns, save that he has some money. So, Camilla and Arturo develop a relationship and it works. But then, nothing much happens as they relate and the movie slows down a bit. In short, there's an uneven sense to the telling of the story, as opposed to the action of it.

But the pacing is the only serious problem here. Camilla and Arturo, once they get beyond being mean to one another, work well together. They have decent chemistry and the movie works as their story. This is in no small part to the character work. Arturo's journey from scumbag to human being is revealing and interesting, though somewhat baffling in its origins. That is to say, the revelations he makes at the climax of the movie seem like they should have been more readily available to him from the outset. In short, we can buy his journey from jerk to love of man and beast alike, but we're somewhat stymied as to why he's a jerk in the beginning at all.

Director (and screenwriter) Robert Towne does a wonderful job with the direction. This is a very easy movie to watch in that the scenery and camera work is quite beautiful. So are the people. Everything looks Hollywood good in Ask The Dust.

At the top of that list, of course, are the leads: Collin Farrell and Salma Hayek, though both earn their paychecks based on acting talent as opposed to the perceptions of their appearances. Farrell impressed me in Daredevil (reviewed here!) for his psychotic, crazy-eyed interpretation of Bullseye. To his credit, when Arturo is mean in Ask The Dust, there is not even a hint of that prior performance from Farrell. He creates a distinctly layered character in Arturo by playing more subtle with his expressions and mannerisms. By the middle of the movie, he's even evoking human sympathy for his character!

Salma Hayek, who attracted my notice in Dogma (reviewed here!) and blew me away with her talent in Frida (reviewed here!), once again rules the screen in Ask The Dust. Hayek has a way of infusing characters who have a social statement to make with an amazing sense of character that makes them come across as more than just posterchildren for a cause. So, for example, here Hayek's Camilla makes several sweeping statements on the importance of not judging her as a Mexican, but we never feel like this is just a generic "don't be bigoted" social message statement. Camilla, through Hayek's performance, illustrates the message by creating a truly vivid and vulnerable character who tries to hide her pains and ultimately proves her points through subtle interactions with others outside her relationship. Hayek owns the screen in every scene she's in. It's a pleasure to watch her in Ask The Dust.

Ultimately, Ask The Dust works well for anyone who wants a decent, straightforward romantic drama. And watching the Dustbowl-influenced Southern California is certainly easier and more fun than the reality of it.

For other romantic dramas, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Henry And June
Jersey Girl
Bound

8/10

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

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

| | |

Oscar Pandering Season Comes Early With Pride And Glory This Year's Latest Police Epic.

The Good: Acting
The Bad: BOOM MIKE!, Stale plot, Nonsensical character elements, Obvious stereotypes.
The Basics: Predictable, obvious and riddled with problems a first-year film student knows to avoid, Pride And Glory flops when it could have coasted by as average.


This is entirely a retro-review. Written from an advanced screening back in 2008, I was floored when the film – days before it was set to be released – was plagued with technical problems. As I did not enjoy the movie, I have not since gone back to re-view it. So, I opted to keep the original language – all of it – for the transfer of the review to my blog. Enjoy!

Usually, right before the Oscar nominations are released, there will be a rush of movies put out that are the qualitative best films the studio feels they have to offer. These are the movies with the big stars doing dramatic things and trying to impress the nominating committees to win the big awards. This season is usually later in the year and it never fails to amuse me how most of the Summer Blockbusters are almost always automatically disqualified from the running simply because they arrive outside the rather short memory span of the nominators.

I mention this as preface to my review of Pride And Glory because as part of the drive to get nominated for Oscars, there is usually at least one big police epic and this year, it certainly appears that this is trying to fill that niche. Let's face it, Edward Norton was not going to be nominated for any acting awards for The Incredible Hulk (reviewed here!). So, he's here with Collin Farrell doing their best to prove their acting worth to get the nominations both they and the film want. It's a bit early, but Pride And Glory has all of the elements that nominators seem to look for when it comes to considering people and films for nominations.

Ray, Francis, and Jimmy are three brothers (Jimmy is a brother-in-law) working in the NYPD under their father, Francis Sr. when four officers go into a drug kingpin's apartment and are shot and killed. Francis Sr. begs Ray to come off Missing Persons and spearhead the investigation, an investigation that quickly becomes a hunt of Angel Tezo, the drug lord whose apartment was being raided when the officers were killed. Ray enters the investigation to do right and put to rest the demons of his past and finding Tezo and avenging the deaths of the officers seems a reasonable way to do that.

Jimmy has his own reasons for wanting to find Tezo; as part of a quartet of corrupt cops, Jimmy and his three partners dispose of Tezo's getaway car and mull over the deal they have made with a rival druglord to move product on their own. In the process of both the law and the lawless law officers hunting Tezo, there is another shooting while three officers look into a misparked car. As Ray's investigation progresses, it gets him closer to Jimmy's corruption and Francis Junior's complicity and puts his own life in serious jeopardy.

I did not set out to pan Pride And Glory. Indeed, I like a good cop story as much as virtually every other American. Pride And Glory started out as a pathetically average cop story. The allegiances were known early on, so like recent Best Picture winner The Departed (reviewed here!), this is more a story about the process of one protagonist getting to the place the audience is from the second scene. We're watching Ray piece together everything to get to Jimmy's corruption while we watch Jimmy ordering him men to do heinous things.

Why, then, is Pride And Glory rated so lowly by me and I am baffled by the praise heaped upon it by the "professional" reviewers? Well, it's pretty obvious when you see the movie, at least the print I saw tonight. The potential weakness of seeing a movie through the studio at premiere screenings is that when they learn of a problem a few days before the wide release of a film, they are sometimes able to fix it. In the case of Pride And Glory, they've got a lot of work to do before this Friday. Why?

The boom is visible. A lot. In key scenes, the microphone is seen bopping around at the top of the screen. It's not a subtle thing, either; it moves, it shakes, it's there. It's there and the first time I noticed it, I was surprised, made a note and brushed it off. By its tenth appearance, I was thinking a boom operator and an editor ought to be fired. In key scenes where emotional and crucial dialogue is being given, all eyes in the theater were drawn to the moving boom and mike and people began laughing. Sadly, the most fun we had tonight at Pride And Glory was not, in fact, the engaging story (it wasn't), but rather "spot the mike!" It is ridiculous that any prints went out like this and if it's not fixed, anyone who rates this five stars was simply not paying attention. I estimate at tonight's showing the boom and/or microphone was visible in approximately 10% of the shots. That's pathetic and director Gavin O'Connor should be mortified that anyone saw the movie looking as shabby as it did.

Then again, director and co-writer O'Connor has enough to be mortified about as far as the script goes (though there he can share the blame with co-writer Joe Carnahan) to be sweating the crappy editing of his movie. O'Connor and Carnahan ask the viewer to swallow one too many ridiculous conceits and rather than go through the entire laundry list of them, I'm just going to jump to the most grievous. These two writers ask the viewer to believe that one honorable cop and one mostly-good career cop whose dying wife begs him to be a man and do the right thing would let their sister go to bed the night they become certain their brother-in-law is a murderous creep with that man. Come ON! But Francis Jr. decides to take a night to sleep on it, AFTER Jimmy is pretty much outed by Ray. So, in addition to being two startlingly lousy cops, Ray and Francis Jr. pretty much fall down as being complete losers when it comes to being a brother or husband.

This is not a nitpicky thing. I mean, you don't even have to like your sister all that much to not want her in bed with a murderer who frames you!

Pride And Glory is filled with a lot of swearing (which helps us know right off the bat who the bad guys are), a requisite amount of blood and all sorts of brutality. Jimmy is not a nice guy and throughout the movie, as his agendas become more and more clear, he and his associates do what they feel they need to in order to stay one step ahead of Ray. The problem here, though, comes near the resolution when character is sacrificed for yet another conceit; the fistfight between two cops.

In other words, if you've seen it in a police drama before, it's in Pride And Glory. In fact, there is little in the way of the title attributes in the film: no one seems particularly proud of being a police officer in this and there is certainly no glory in it either. What there is is a boom mike, hovering dangerously low in oh so many frames, eliminating a whole lot of credibility from the movie. There is also a weird editing technique in the police funeral; a color shift that makes the American flag appear to have green stripes and I'm not sure what the point of that was, to be honest.

I was quite glad I took Spanish back in high school as there are no subtitles in the scenes where Ray interrogates Spanish-speaking witnesses. Finally, Ray's broken marriage kills time that did not need to be there. While watching Pride And Glory, I was detached from it enough to realize that the allusions to Ray's soon-to-be ex-wife worked equally well without the scene and the shot that were in the film that showed her.

This leaves one asking what did Pride And Glory do right? Well, the Tierney family Christmas dinner has a pretty decent and realistic family dynamic. Sure, Francis Sr. is an aging police administrator and therefore something of a lush, but when he drunkenly talks about his children, it makes quite clear the order of the kids and how they ended up the way they did. Even seeing the way Francis Sr. treats his wife explains why Megan would be with Jimmy.

What Pride And Glory does have is the acting, though the billing is way off. Collin Farrell gets top billing and I'm unsure why; his performance is pretty straightforward and remarkably monolithic. Actually, he's doing a pretty decent resurrection of Bullseye, his character from Daredevil (reviewed here!), though slightly less over-the-top . . . for the most part.

I do understand why Noah Emmerich is given billing well below Farrell; he's not a draw. He is, however, an impressive actor, at least in the role of Francis Jr. If he's not nominated for Best Supporting Actor, the nominators seriously missed their mark. Emmerich has a great physical sense to him that allows him to telegraph his character's emotions perfectly, especially in the film's final scenes when he plays Junior with real resolve.

But it is Edward Norton who carries much of Pride And Glory and while his character is disturbingly conflicted at points, Norton sells him well. Norton is able to play both low-key and intense and the moment he begins to portray Ray as a detective piecing things together, he has complete credibility. In other words, when Ray begins asking questions and deducing things, Norton seems completely like a detective without any hint of any of his lesser roles in his portrayal of Ray.

On DVD, many of the technical faults are fixed, but there are still the huge character problems in the film that make it difficult to watch and respect. There is a commentary track and behind-the-scenes featurettes, none of which add anything of significance to the film.

But ultimately, Pride And Glory is a movie that needs some serious fixes and it should not be out in the marketplace in its current state and it certainly doesn't deserve any real consideration in this form either.

For other works with Noah Emmerich, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Super 8
The Walking Dead - Season 1
The Truman Show

4/10

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

© 2012, 2009, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Wishy-Washy Future Is Nothing To Report Home About: Minority Report

The Good: Interesting concept, Interesting characters
The Bad: Direction, some acting, Thematically repetitive
The Basics: Steven Spielberg directs Tom Cruise in a middling film about a future where crimes are prevented by foreseeing them and stopping them before they happen.


Somewhere along the line, I began to associate Philip K. Dick with L. Ron Hubbard. Both science fiction writers seem to lend their work to big movies with lots of people running around in a world that looks nothing like what anyone would currently guess the future would look like now. As a simple example, in Minority Report (which was based on one of Dick's short stories), there is a sweeping, huge highway system throughout Washington, D.C. that would never have the funding to be built by today's Highway Departments.

Minority Report is set in the near future where crime in Washington, D.C. has been eliminated through the use of psychics and an advanced system wherein police arrest criminals before they commit murder. The head of the Precrime Division is John Anderton, a deeply scarred, drug addicted police officer who is very good at his job. He has effectively eliminated murder in Washington, D.C. and his system seems to be flawless. However, as Precrime prepares to go national, Anderton finds the office under investigation by a Justice Department investigator named Witwer. When the Precognitives (the psychics in charge of sensing the future murders) foresee Anderton committing a murder, Anderton starts to run, believing Witwer has set him up.

This little opus by Steven Spielberg is an unfortunate example of where special effects films go wrong today. In the pursuit of being bigger, faster and more, the directors somehow manage to forget "better." As a result, Minority Report is a chase film filled with quick shot images, fast camera moves and other jerky visual elements that keep the viewer off their toes and missing much of the rather large world being created to tell the story in. Thus, the first viewing of the film may inspire a headache or at the least bafflement as so much happens on the screen so fast it's near impossible to catch it all the first time. This is especially disappointing considering what an accomplished director Spielberg is; one might think he would like people to see the canvas he is painting on, but instead this piece substitutes creative endeavor with flash.

While the characters are interesting, some of the problem with the film comes down to the actors. Colin Farrell plays Witwer, the Justice Department investigator who is hunting Anderton. While Anderton tries to exonerate himself, Witwer gains access to all the same data. Farrell fails to portray Witwer in a menacing enough manner that the viewer actually believes he is the villain setting everything up. As a result, it's hard to buy any of Farrell's scenes, save his final one.

Similarly, Tom Cruise, who plays Anderton does nothing to differentiate this role from his Mission: Impossible persona. All he does is run, jump and defend himself. Cruise brings nothing to this role that is not in the script, not in the short story. He's become, in this context, something of a generic action hero and in Minority Report, the viewer wants something more.

In contrast, Anderton is an interesting character. He is fleshed out well with his backstory; he joined the Precrime program in its infancy when his son was kidnaped. He has some complicated relationships, with his estranged wife and the head of the Precrime Division, Burgess. The character's desperate attempts to prove himself make the film watchable.

Ultimately, the problem with Minority Report is that it wants to be a temporal thriller while being an engaging chase film. When certain fundamental principles are put into place, the film loses its edge. For example, the Precognitives predict that Anderton will commit a PREMEDITATED murder of a man he doesn't know. Given that fact and the supposed infallibility of the Precognitives, it is no surprise when the could-be climactic scene arrives. As well, the theme of predestination versus free will becomes rapidly and excessively beaten into the viewer.

In the end, that was what pushed me over into the "not recommend" camp; Minority Report is an average film that tries to be new, different and cutting edge and instead ends up beating the viewer over the head with some rather elementary concepts, making it visually difficult to watch and auditorily failing to stimulate enough to keep the viewer engaged. If you want fair science fiction where everything is handed to you, this is a fine film. I, however, know you can do better.

For other movies featuring Colin Farrell, check out my reviews of:
Horrible Bosses
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Daredevil

4.5/10

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

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

Charlie Day Is More Active Than Jason Bateman In Horrible Bosses, A Shockingly Average Comedy Ruined By The Previews.

The Good: Funny, Great cast
The Bad: Fails to pop, Stretches without humor, No character development.
The Basics: Horrible Bosses is another comedy that was worth watching once, but is not going to light the world on fire.


Every once in a while, I think it helps my readers to clarify my standards for my ratings. I mention this because I know I bombard my readers with the constant lament that virtually every film I've looked forward to lately has been ruined by excessive previews which end up showing all of the best parts of the movie. Horrible Bosses suffers for exactly that reason, but when considering the film objectively, it made me think that I ought to once again clarify my rating system. On the ten point scale, ten is absolute perfection, zero is absolute waste of time. 9.5 is usually reserved for virtually perfect works, with .5 usually being reserved for "this just isn't the worst piece of garbage ever. 8 - 9 are Excellent, 7.5 - 6.5 would be classified as "above average," with 6 - 4 being the broad range of "average," 3.5 - 2.5 are "below average," and anything below that is "poor." I mention this at the outset of my review for Horrible Bosses because the movie was far more average than actually bad. In fact, I enjoyed the movie, but rated with objective standards, it is a remarkably average movie on the low side of average and not one I would pay to see a second time.

My wife and I went to see Horrible Bosses with a whole lot of enthusiasm today. My wife is a big fan of comedy, she loves Charlie Day - as she's a big fan of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia (reviewed here!) - and we are both fond of the works of Jason Bateman. So Horrible Bosses was set to be a real treat for both of us. Unfortunately, I found that the best moments were the ones in the trailers and that there wasn't much more to the movie outside that. I also realized that since Date Night (reviewed here!), I've seen a lot of rated-R comedies that involve car crashes.

Horrible Bosses is a pretty simple concept comedy that doesn't develop far once the concept is introduced. In fact, it takes a while for the main plot concept to be introduced and once it's there, the movie obsesses on it and then comes to a fairly predictable conclusion.

Nick, who hasn't had sex with anyone else in six months, works from sunup to sundown at Comnidyne under Harken, a cruel bastard who keeps him under his boot with the hope of a promotion to Senior Vice President Of Sales. Dale, newly engaged, works for Julia as her dental hygienist. All Dale wants in life is to be a husband and all Julia, inexplicably, wants is to have sex with Dale. Kurt is the accountant working at the chemical company Pellit & Sons under the kind Jack and his dipshit cokehead son Bobby. Jack has a heart attack and Bobby inherits the company, which he plans to squeeze for all the profit to buy drugs and hookers with, putting Kurt in an untenable long-term situation. One night over beers, the three muse about how their lives would be easier if their bosses were dead and Kurt and Nick - who has been passed over for the promotion that Harken has given himself - honestly consider the idea. Dale is absolutely against the idea, but turns from the voice of reason to wanting Julia dead when he learns that Julia raped him while she cleaned his teeth once.

After a misstart with the search, the trio meets with Motherfucker Jones who charges them $5000 to consult on the murders of their respective bosses and the three begin surveillance designed to put them in position to kill one another's employers. In the process of surveillance, Dale accidentally saves Harken's life, Nick and Dale unwittingly do a lot of Bobby's blow and Kurt lets his hormones get the better of him with both Julia and Harken's wife. This leads to a revenge killing which completely upturns the three men's murder plot and puts them on a ridiculous run from the law with their lives in danger.

Horrible Bosses is most disappointing in that it is unsurprising. The random elements that could have been the most funny were all spoiled in the trailers, most notably Nick using drag racing in his Prius as an excuse for being caught doing ridiculously excessive speeds in a 25 mph zone. The rest of the humor on Horrible Bosses comes from the situation setup by the concept. These men work for employers who make their lives hell. There is humor in that, from the way Harken manipulates Nick - forcing him to stay late and miss the death of his grandmother to saving the job of the security technician by "confessing" to a "lie" about how late he was to work in the morning - to the sexual harassment by Julia. The search for a killer to hire is amusing, mostly when the trio considers going to Applebees to find their killer and instead decides on the neighborhood with the most car jackings. But even that moment quickly passes and the film plods along in remarkably predictable fashion, with random jokes like the Indian voice over the On-Star-esque navigation system revealing his name is not truly Gregory and the guys stumbling over the proper pronunciation.

What I did like about the movie was that Horrible Bosses has a good setup and while it might have moments that seem objectionable, it addresses them within the film. Most notably, when searching for a murderer, the guys go to a bar that is very urban. No, it's not "urban," it's black. Black people everywhere and the whites who are there look like they want to be gangbangers. That raised my ire for the stereotype and the jokes wherein Jason Sudeikis' Kurt tries to talk and move like the people in the bar fell pretty flat. Jamie Foxx is a good sport as Motherfucker Jones, but what redeemed the whole inner city portion of the movie was the third meeting with Jones where he addresses just how ridiculous the premise Kurt was working on was.

Horrible Bosses also does have a pretty amazing cast. On the movie posters before the film was released, I noticed Donald Sutherland was in the cast and I could not fathom how he was not mentioned in every preview. His role is little more than a cameo as Jack. The acting, though, was nothing particularly special. While it might seem a real coup to get Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Spacey, Julie Bowen, Collin Farrell, Jason Sudeikis and Jason Bateman into one movie, with them all there, the movie never quite lands because they are all working well within their comfortable ranges.

Nowhere is this more clear than with Charlie Day. Charlie Day starts off with impressing by playing Dale as reasonable and arguably the smartest of the group. But it isn't long before he slips into his usual high-pitched whines and his manic physical comedy. What is even more disappointing is that he virtually repeats a riff from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia when Dale plays the Law And Order obsessed legal card. He did exactly the same thing in his television show and it was groanworthy to see it repeated here.

But again, Horrible Bosses is not bad. But it's not really extraordinary in any way and while it was amusing enough to laugh at, it doesn't quite pop to even inspire one to watch it again or think about it once they are done watching it.

For other works with Jason Bateman, please check out my reviews of:
The Change-Up
The Switch
Couples Retreat
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Arrested Development

4.5/10

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

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

| | |

Overcoming Adversity With Impressive Attacks: Daredevil Ages Well As A Superhero Film!

The Good: Action, Acting, Character, Mood
The Bad: Feels derivative of Batman
The Basics: When the blind Matt Murdock cannot get justice for victims as a lawyer, he runs through the night as a vigilante in Daredevil


The superhero genre is one that is, frankly, quite tired. It is fairly formulaic and in the end, most superheroes blend together, save how they achieve what they do. That is, Spider-man, Superman, Batman, they all end up having the same essential goal, but how they achieve it is different. As a result, there are only so many superhero stories one may see before one has pretty much seen it all. In a lot of ways, it's like sitcoms today; putting out a new one is like trying to squeeze one more into an already saturated market. It was with that in mind, that I sat down to Daredevil, which makes sense as I have named 2011 my Daredevil year (check out my review of Guardian Devil here!).

Matt Murdock, a blind defense attorney by day, has the alter ego Daredevil by night. When Murdock's father was killed for not throwing a boxing match, Murdock vowed to fight in the name of good in Hell's Kitchen. Now, years later, he is a vigilante and he is alone, fighting the good fight by day and making sure the justice that he can't get as a lawyer is delivered at night. When the Kingpin, the mobster of Hell's Kitchen decides he wants to eliminate the competition, he sends Bullseye. Bullseye is a hitman who can hit anyone or anything with a projectile and he never misses. When Bullseye kills a prominent member of the business community, Elektra, who has been involved with Matt Murdock, believes Daredevil is to blame and she vows revenge. While attempting to stop Bullseye, who has sworn to Kingpin he will kill Daredevil, Daredevil must avoid Elektra and convince her he is not to blame for her father's death.

While Daredevil has much of the same darkness and ambiguity of Tim Burton's Batman (and Batman Returns), it still has a decent feel to it that makes us want to keep watching it. Murdock's encounters with Elektra are easy to watch and there is definite chemistry between them. Lacking Murdock's clear goals, Elektra becomes something of an intriguing wildcard in the mix of the film. Daredevil is a great example of a person with an honorable goal, but a questionable execution of it. So when Daredevil insists he is not the bad guy at various points in the film, it is certainly up for debate.

Daredevil personifies the moral ambiguity of today, where people have the generally right idea about what is right and wrong, but how they execute their beliefs seems uncertain or contrary to morality. Thus, it makes a great deal of sense that Daredevil is blind, what better manifestation of ambiguity?

And the effects that surround Daredevil as we "see" how he visualizes the world are very clever. His heightened senses are intriguing and it's always clear in Ben Affleck's performance that the character is blind. That takes a special balance and Affleck maintains it. So, while the special effects are very cool, they do not hold a candle to the acting. Affleck here becomes Matt Murdock and Daredevil; there is no trace of Affleck, which is what good acting ought to be.

In fact, the casting throughout Daredevil is astonishingly good. Jennifer Gardner IS Elektra. Gardner manages to do a great job of personifying the hard-hitting heroine. She's put in a rough place, playing a strong female character without simply reprising her famous Alias role. She manages to do it, though and quite well. Elektra is different in body language, tone and costuming than Sydney Bristow.

The villains are pretty impressive as well. Michael Clarke Duncan is cold and powerful as the Kingpin. He manages to not be simply the thug he was in The Whole Nine Yards, too. He's more reserved, more businesslike, more professional and Duncan brings all of that out in his performance. Finally, Collin Farrell is wickedly villainous, without a trace of humor, as Bullseye. The cast comes together with very natural chemistry and coherence, creating a distinctive feel to Hell's Kitchen that is different from Gotham in Batman.

So while there is some of the good vs. evil that we've come to expect from superhero films, Daredevil makes it feel new and somewhat original with greater emphasis on character and an intriguing twist with a somewhat disabled hero. Daredevil feels new because it is not relying on special effects and it puts greater emphasis on quality acting and fleshing out of characters than most superhero films.

Having only read a single Daredevil comic, I am not qualified to speak on how this film stacks up in comparison, but it seems to me that anyone who is into action-adventure films will find something to enjoy here. If you can handle violence, this film will be fine, but it's not a film for kids.

For other super hero films, please check out my reviews of:
Iron Man 2
Watchmen
The Dark Knight
Wonder Woman

7.5/10

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

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

Terry Gilliam's Visual Masterstroke And Heath Ledger's Final Performance Astound: The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus!

The Good: Direction, Acting, Plot, Character development, DVD (Blu-Ray) bonus features, Effects
The Bad: None
The Basics: A film by Terry Gilliam, The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is an adult fable where a man liberates visitors to his roadshow through dreamscapes which remind them what is important and ties for best movie of all time in my reckoning!


Last year, something rather extraordinary happened. Yes, I had to alter my list of Best Movies Of All Time. The weirdest aspect of it might be the footnote, which is this: I think Watchmen (click here for that review) was the best film of 2009, but the moment my wife brought home the DVD of The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus, I realized I was seeing a movie on par with the very best film I had ever seen. So, while Watchmen might be the best movie of 2009, this is tied for best movie of all time in my pantheon of reviews.

There are so many facets to the average person that it is sometimes hard to reconcile the different aspects of them. In truth, the moment the death of Heath Ledger was announced, the cinephile beat out the human being within me and I found myself asking "What does that mean for The Dark Knight?" When I learned that The Dark Knight was not suffering as a result of Ledger's death, I became human enough to say "How horrible!" Then I learned that he died while making Terry Gilliam's latest film.

There are few directors whose works I am so engaged by that I want to see their entire pantheon of works. There are even fewer directors whose works I enjoy watching again and again such that I'll see their movies when they come out in theaters or will buy right away when they are released on DVD. In fact, only three names (and it is a decidedly eclectic collection) jump right to mind and the common element is that they are all three writer-directors and they have all three pulled off perfect films. They are P.T. Anderson, Kevin Smith and Terry Gilliam. So, when my partner brought home The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus, I was thrilled because we had missed it in the theaters when it was originally released and because it was hailed as a masterpiece. In truth, Terry Gilliam's Brazil was the writer-director's masterwork, but it is impossible to watch The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus and not be blown away by the pure magic of the story and this film rivals it on every level.

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is a wealth of creativity, amazing performances and characters who resonate with the viewer long after the film is over. Now on DVD, one finds themselves wishing that Terry Gilliam would re-release the films to theaters because no matter how big one's television screen is, there must have been no experience quite like seeing this one on the big screen. Terry Gilliam paints with a giant canvass in this film and his tools are ones I have not traditionally enjoyed - Jude Law and Collin Farrell have never wowed me as they do in The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus - but Gilliam gets the best out of them, while also presenting incredible performances by several lesser-known performers.

After a thousand years of life, Doctor Parnassus is dragged through London in an antiquated carnival style stage attempting to enlighten anyone who might actually pay attention to him. Accompanied by his diminutive assistant Percy, his daughter Valentina and his assistant, Anton, Doctor Parnassus bewilders most people he encounters by appearing to be a comatose man as a traveling sideshow act. But his act is far more than that, as a boy discovers when he crashes through the prop mirror in the wagon and is transported to a dreamworld where the fantastic is all around him and he has the chance to choose the direction of his life. Doctor Parnassus, however, is troubled as Valentina's sixteenth birthday is near and Mr. Nick, the devil, pops back up in Doctor Parnassus's life. While attempting to tell his daughter Valentina the truth about his past, the group rescues a man hanging from a bridge.

The stranger awakens, unsure of who he is or how he came to be hanged under the bridge. Enamored with Valentina and distrusted by Anton, the stranger - who soon comes to be known as Tony - begins to overhaul the traveling show to try to help Doctor Parnassus win his bet against Mr. Nick. As the truth comes out about Tony, Valentina's life hangs in the balance to see whose perspective: freedom or destruction those around Parnassus will choose!

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is more than just a visually spectacular film, it is a statement on society and humanity that resonates well with those who love great films, have the patience for a story's development and enjoy a story which has a timeless feel to it. Terry Gilliam has created a well-rounded film that is bound to stand the test of time, largely because it is visually innovative while telling a story which is timeless and reveals the essential human struggle. Mr. Nick, who is the devil, presents Doctor Parnassus with a very standard bet scenario which sets Parnassus up as an agent of freedom and imagination vs. conformity and temptation. The notion of sacrifice is explored thoroughly and cleverly in The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus.

Terry Gilliam makes the old new with this movie as the essential character struggle is a Faustian deal with the devil that has gone awry. Gilliam does a good job of setting the story up and one of the nicest aspects of The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is that Gilliam does not simply tear all of the elements down to be a nonconformist. So, for example, Anton clearly has romantic feelings for Valentina from the beginning and Gilliam acknowledges that there is a very traditional attraction going on here through some wonderful dialogue between Percy and Parnassus. Similarly, when Tony appears, Mr. Nick is nearby and this sets the story up to include elements of treachery from Tony which Gilliam does an amazing job of expressing through Tony's dream sequence.

The film is also clever in the way it deals with the death of Heath Ledger and viewers who know this film was his last are likely to be surprised how little of the film he isn't in. It appears Ledger died when there were only three essential sequences left to create and Gilliam's working around it is brilliant. By establishing that in the dreamscapes of Doctor Parnassus individuals may see themselves differently, Gilliam is able to recast Tony in three dream sequences using Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Collin Farrell. The sequences work and they give Depp, Law and Farrell chances to utilize their talents in amazing ways, presenting clever performances unlike any others in their careers.

Most of the film is ruled by Christopher Plummer, who plays Doctor Parnassus. Plummer once again illustrates how he is an actor uninhibited by any range issues. In his portrayal of Doctor Parnassus, Plummer explores a wild range, from aged and tired to spry and feisty. He becomes lovable as Doctor Parnassus from his opening scenes where he is almost catatonic through flashbacks which characterize him as a man of faith and devotion to an ideal. All the while, Plummer is able to infuse a fatherly love for Valentina in his every look and action when costar Lily Cole is around.

Cole is an astonishing beauty and she plays off Plummer, Andrew Garfield (Anton) and Ledger exceptionally well. She has a playful quality that is innocent and rambunctious which make Valentina instantly lovable, not just a draw to the eyes. Even Verne Troyer is able to give a performance that gives him an emotional depth beyond most of his other characters. And Tom Waits is brilliant casting for Mr. Nick, easily making the devil seem almost real and complicated.

But from the moment Heath Ledger enters the film as Tony, he rules it. Ledger plays Tony first as a hapless amnesiac and later as a devious salesman and the character arc is matched by acting which makes the transitions and realizations make perfect sense. Ledger is dynamic and in his final performance, he illustrates even more depth and range than he did in The Dark Knight.

On DVD, there is an extended scene and the film looks great. Despite being called a "deleted" scene, the extra scene is actually just an extended version of one of the dream sequences in the movie which did not have special effects finished for it. Terry Gilliam also introduces the movie and there is a wonderful and thorough commentary track for it which is informative and entertaining. As well, there are casting sessions with Heath Ledger and special effects featurettes that are cool to see. There are also dozens of movie previews for this and other films. On Blu-Ray all of the above are included, plus a few extra goodies, most notably the cast and crew giving Heath Ledger a final sendoff.

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is an adult fable which reminds us that we have one life and it is wasted without a love for life. It's not possible for there to be a better tribute to an actor who died so young and this becomes a film which should be a wake-up call for millions trapped in mundane lives they cannot truly stand.

For other works creative films, please check out my reviews of:
Dark City
Zombieland
Battlefield Earth

10/10

For other film reviews, please check out my index page for a comprehensive listing by clicking here!

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



| | |