R.I.P. Carrie Fisher: Postcards From The Edge Had So Much Potential!

The Good: Good performances, Some wonderful lines (both funny and dramatic), Good direction
The Bad: Glosses over much of the complexity of recovery and narcissism
The Basics: The moments of insight and wit make Postcards From The Edge a worthwhile film to watch, even if it is not nearly as complex in its resolution as the set-up indicates it might be.


When news broke that actress Carrie Fisher had suffered a heart attack on December 23, my heart sunk. 2016 has been a brutal year for deaths of beloved celebrities, writers, musical artists, and actors and while I joined my voice to wish for the best for Carrie Fisher and her speedy recovery, I had no reason to believe that 2016 would alter its momentum and Fisher would recover from her good health. So, when I awoke yesterday to the news that Fisher had died, I was very sad, but not surprised. The days between the two major news stories gave me time to consider what I would write as a tribute to Carrie Fisher.

Like most people, my first and enduring encounter with Carrie Fisher came from her iconic portrayal of the strong-willed Princess Leia Organa in the Star Wars Saga (reviewed here!). Fisher also delivers brilliantly the lines that help create my favorite moment in When Harry Met Sally . . . (reviewed here!) and that got me thinking about how much I came to enjoy watching interviews with Fisher over the years for her candid nature and wry wit. So, when Fisher was hospitalized, it occurred to me that the greatest tribute to Carrie Fisher I could provide would be in reviewing something new (to me) that illustrated Fisher's humor, honesty, and creative skill. For that, I decided it was time to watch Postcards From The Edge.

Postcards From The Edge was released cinematically when I was a teenager, shortly after I had discovered and become obsessed with Star Trek and was fully immersed in that culture. Ironically, a film that addressed in a straightforward manner mental illness probably would have served me better at that time in my life, but Carrie Fisher's cinematic adaptation of her own novel on the subject of substance abuse and living in the shadow of parental pressures is worthwhile and smart. This review is of Postcards From The Edge, which Fisher loosely based upon some of her own life experiences; while some might belabor making the connections between the art and the reality, I am opting for a pure review of the film as it stands on its own.

Actress Suzanne Vale is working on the set of a film, where she is having a rough time of getting through her lines because she is high and the director she is working with tries to avoid cuts in his shots. Shortly thereafter, Vale is unresponsive in bed with Jack Faulkner, who rushes her to the hospital. After her stomach is pumped and she regains consciousness, Vale has to confront her drug abuse. Her celebrity mother comes to visit her in rehab, whose narcissistic tendencies make it difficult for Suzanne to confront her issues. Coming out of rehab, Vale discovers that it is hard for her to get work again because of her history with drugs.

Vale is given the chance to act again if she stays with "a responsible party" during the shoot. Drug tested on the set, Vale is forced to live under her mother's roof where she is subjected to her mother's expectations and pressures. Doris (Vale's mother), puts Suzanne on display and pressures her to perform publicly at a party she throws for her daughter and it becomes clear that Doris is trying to remain relevant and active through Suzanne. Returning to the set the next day, Vale gets a lot of notes on her performance and overhears people talking about her physique, which make it tough for her to give a good performance. After her second day of work, she runs into Faulkner, who starts to pursue her. When Faulkner visits Vale's home, Doris hits on him, but Vale willingly gets into a relationship with him. But, when she learns that Faulkner is sleeping around and she tires of her mother's drinking around her, Vale begins to fight for her own identity and stand up for her own hopes and dreams.

Postcards From The Edge is tough to discuss without some references to Carrie Fisher because Meryl Streep's portrayal of Suzanne Vale so perfectly captures some of the cadences of Carrie Fisher as to make it painfully obvious that the character, or Streep's performance, is based upon her. Streep adapts a speech pattern virtually identical to Carrie Fisher's in many of Vale's most potent deliveries of irony and exasperation. Streep makes Vale accessible and interesting, even as viewers become more and more frustrated with the environment she is in and the people who surround her.

When Vale starts to realize that Doris is her "x-factor" that brings her the stress that begins to make her tempted to use drugs and alcohol, Streep is able to break out and make Vale seem vital in a way that the first half of the movie does not. When Vale asserts herself, Postcards From The Edge starts to take on a richness and level of intrigue that turns the uncomfortable comedy into a potent drama. Streep succeeds more as Vale when she can be heard - there are a number of scenes where she and Shirley MacLaine talk over one another - and Postcards From The Edge works best when it is focused on her.

It is not long into Postcards From The Edge that it becomes obvious that Suzanne Vale is struggling under the yolk of pressure and expectations from her narcissistic mother, Doris. Doris hijacks the party thrown in Suzanne's honor and flirts with Faulkner in a troubling way. Postcards From The Edge does an excellent job of creating a narcissistic character in the form of Doris Mann, but glosses over the complexity of confronting and surviving toxic people in order to deliver a "feel good" ending.

Postcards From The Edge does a rare thing in confronting familial alcoholism and substance abuse and creates a vivid portrait of a horrible narcissist . . . but to get the film into a hundred minute run time and be easily classifiable, the movie creates a situation that is complex and realistic, but then resolves it remarkably simplistically. That makes Postcards From The Edge a bit less satisfying than it ought to be, especially given how good all of the performances are and how decent the characters are when they are allowed to breathe and develop.

Perhaps that is the most fitting epitaph for Carrie Fisher, who railed against having to look a specific way in order to appear in the newest Star Wars films; she worked in an industry that values style over substance and Fisher had a mind for complexity and realism where consumers buy into flash and simplicity. The sad truth is that Carrie Fisher might well have been better as a writer and human being than she was ever allowed to be as a performer and she (and her audience) deserved better.

For other 2016 tribute reviews, please check out my reviews of:
Blackstar - David Bowie
Mother's Day - Garry Marshall
Strangers - Merle Haggard
Firefly Soundtrack - Ron Glass

6/10

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

© 2016 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

So Many Wonderful Actors Create Something Horrible: Movie 43

The Good: Moments of actual humor, Wonderful cast used fairly well.
The Bad: Drawn-out concept, No character development, An equal number of misses as hits
The Basics: Movie 43 is a sketch comedy film that pushes the envelope of good taste with drastically mixed results.


When it comes to comedy films, there are very few that live up to the hype for repeated viewings. When, during a first viewing, viewers find themselves bored or frustrated with the premise of the film, it does not bode well for the film’s longevity in the collective unconsciousness. Slapstick comedies especially suffer from the problem of having limited rewatchability, as do sketch comedy programs. So, last year’s star-studded film Movie 43 had two potential strikes against it before the movie even began. Despite having an incredible cast of classy actors, Movie 43 is little more than an extensive, R-rated episode of MadTV or Saturday Night Live.

Movie 43 trades on its extensive movie-star cast to try to fool viewers into believing they are watching something other than lowest common denominator humor for under an hour and a half. The film, which is loosely held together with a plotline of a failed writer trying to sell his first script to a movie studio executive at gunpoint, is filled with raunchy humor that frequently crosses the line of good taste.

Opening with Charlie Wessler pitching to Griffin Schraeder, Wessler tells stories that he thinks are supposed to be heartwarming and crowd-pleasing. The first is a blind date between a woman who is excited to go out with one of the world’s most eligible bachelors. Davis is rich, successful, single . . . and has a scrotum on his neck, which causes Beth quite a bit of discomfort to see during her dinner with him. That is followed by a couple talking with another couple about their homeschooled son. They tell their new neighbors all about how they haze their son and provide him with awkward high school-level first sexual experiences (which is beyond troubling to the neighbors and the audience). Then comes the “romantic comedy” pitch where a woman asks her boyfriend to poop on her and, after getting some advice, filling up on burritos and laxatives, he feels he needs to rush into meeting his girlfriend’s bizarre request.

The pitches continue with a young man working at a grocery store when the young woman who loves and loathes him comes in and the two give each other sexually explicit small talk . . . over the public address system in the store. There is a parody of an Apple product; the iBabe, which is a life-sized MP3 player in the shape of a naked woman. After the initial advertisements, the makers of the iBabe wrestle with the public relations nightmare of young men whose penises are mangled when they fuck the iBabe and encounter the unit’s cooling fan inside the vagina of the unit. Superhero fans are treated to a sketch wherein Robin is out on a speed date with Lois Lane and then Supergirl when Batman comes and cockblocks him. In another sketch a boy has a girl over for a first date when she has her first period and bleeds through her pants. The three males in the house freak out having no idea how to deal with the event and it only serves to embarrass and horrify her. A brutal segment follows in which two men capture and torture a leprechaun for his gold. Then comes a first date in which a man and a woman play an escalating game of truth or dare. They end up horribly disfiguring and humiliating one another before finally consummating their relationship. The penultimate segment is a hilarious mockery of sports movies. In it, a coach motivates his high school basketball team by pointing out that the students are black and they are going up against a white team so they are guaranteed to win. Partway through the closing credits comes the final segment, a sketch involving a couple that is interrupted by their (animated) cat, Beezel. Beezel has a crush on his owner, Anson, and when Amy walks in on Beezel masturbating to pictures of Anson in a swimsuit, a very violent series of encounters follow.

Such is the type of humor in Movie 43. Sadly, there is not really much more to the movie than the sketches themselves. Movie 43 scores as high as it does with me because it actually is amusing in points. Movie 43 is entertaining and it is funny when it is not being entirely disturbing.

Moreover, Movie 43 is a cinematic example of “better ingredients, better pizza” as it were. Getting Liev Schreiber, Terence Howard, Elizabeth Banks, Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Kristen Bell and other a- and b-list actors to perform in the sketches makes them seem like something more than cheap shots and gross-out humor. But, that’s mostly what Movie 43 is; it’s just fortunate that the jokes land as often as they do, or else the movie would be far less than it appears.

For other works with Leslie Bibb, please visit my reviews of:
Iron Man 2
Confessions Of A Shopaholic
Iron Man
Talladega Nights: The Legend Of Ricky Bobby

2/10

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.
| | |

Not Quite Smart Enough, Smart People Is A Lame Vision Of Miserable People

The Good: Good cast utilized fairly well, Moments of risk taking
The Bad: Woefully misrepresents people of intellect, Nothing exciting in bonus features, Moments of poor editing.
The Basics: When Lawrence Wetherhold begins dating and trying to take over the English department at the college he works at, the viewer discovers even the "smartest" people may be idiots.


Let's talk about stereotypes. Stereotypes are based upon prejudice and misinformation, judging entire groups based upon a limited idea of a very limited number of people from that group. Almost all the time, stereotypes are prejudicial and derogatory and are fairly transparent for what they are. So, for example, if someone were to characterize a black man as virile, watermelon-eating, fast-running illiterate, virtually everyone reading such a statement would recognize it as a series of stereotypes and it would likely reflect worse upon the person making such generalizations than upon the character in question.

Why, then, does our society consistently devalue people of intelligence and articulation and stereotype them? There seems to be a pretty fair open season on intellectuals where they are characterized as asocial, pompous jerks who are utterly incapable of getting along with another human being. They are characterized as intelligent in a test-taking way, but completely idiotic when it comes to interacting with people. Nowhere in my recent experiences has this been more true than in the film Smart People. Smart People stands as a monument to the viewpoint lauded and celebrated by people who are afraid of and prejudiced against people of intelligence.

Lawrence Wetherhold is a quiet English professor who is struggling to get a book published, raise his daughter and find some measure of peace in a world that seems content to surround him with obstacles he does not quite understand. Thwarted by a disgruntled student working the campus impound lot, Lawrence is wounded when he falls over the impound lot fence and finds himself in the care of another former student, Dr. Janet Hartigan. Unable to drive for six months, Lawrence turns to his slacker brother, Chuck, for help.

While Vanessa - Lawrence's daughter - makes moves on her adopted uncle, Lawrence begins dating Janet, who used to have a crush on him when she was a student. Unfortunately, Janet discovers Lawrence is a painful bore who has little going for him and as she works to extricate herself from a relationship with him, Lawrence resolves to become more accessible. In addition to allowing an editor to hatchet his book, he begins to pursue the position of chair of the English department, along the way discovering he is a truly miserable human being.

It is a rare thing for me to sit and enjoy a movie where the characters are almost universally miserable and in that regard, Smart People is most like Friends With Money (reviewed here!) in terms of its tone. It is fairly consistent in its oppressive mood where Lawrence mopes through his day. Like Friends With Money, there is little catharsis and it is hard to muster up a lot of empathy for most of the characters.

This might be even more true because the title of Smart People is woefully misleading. Outside Janet, none of the characters seem exceptionally intelligent. Instead, Lawrence seems to be bluffing his way through academia, Vanessa is snotty with few actual displays of intelligence (though she does get a 1600 on her SATs and manages to get into Stanford), and even Janet is so ridiculously out of touch with her emotional self that she altered her entire life over a paper that Wetherhold gave her a C on. The two black sheep of the family, neglected son James and the incompetent businessman Chuck, are given the trappings of greater intelligence in this skewed stereotype. So, for example, James - who is characterized by the other members of the family as the dim one - gets a poem published in The New Yorker. And Chuck, who drinks, gets Vanessa drunk and is so slovenly he never manages to show up for an appointment on time, is the family liberal. Only in the mind of one so grossly prejudiced against intelligencia would these traits be construed as the trappings of being smart. It does not require much in the way of deconstructing Smart People to realize that this film has an absolute disdain for the appearance of intellect.

Unfortunately, any sense of satire that might come from the presentation of Janet and the Wetherholds is undermined by the fact that anyone who has ever been around anyone of genuine intelligence will see this as a weak collection of obvious stereotypes. In other words, just like our parody of stereotypes at the beginning, the asocial, mumbling lecturer who doesn't notice how unsatisfied his date is and is raising a young Republican, reads as a collection of the most inane misconceptions about intellectuals.

As a result, it is hard to judge the characters in Smart People. Lawrence is so miserable, but he never strikes the viewer as particularly intelligent, either. Instead, whenever Janet states something and poses the question, "You knew that, right?" he simple nods and says "Of course." As a result, Lawrence is - at best - a poseur and one only wonders what negative experiences director Noam Murro and writer Mike Poirier had in academia that makes them think such a poseur could survive in a university setting so long.

Similarly, Vanessa - played by Ellen Page and the whole reason I picked up Smart People to watch - is more bratty than most young intellectuals and she does not so much learn anything in the course of the movie. Instead, she simply begins to emulate and hit on Uncle Chuck, then stupidly wonders why he would be avoiding her.

Murro goes for the cheapest of laughs with Chuck, featuring multiple shots of him sleeping with his bare buttocks exposed. It's amazing what passes for humor these days and if the first instance of this is juvenile, the second occurrence is just brain-numbingly insipid. Just as the supposedly smart people are treated as idiots, the audience is supposed to understand Chuck is somehow intellectually inferior because his butt ends up exposed while he sleeps. There is only so much insulting of the audience one might be expected to endure.

I've been on an Ellen Page kick of late and Smart People gives her a role different from the others I have seen her in. Unfortunately, it puts her in a role that is disturbingly lowbrow for her. Some of her roles have put her playing people who act young because they are young, but as Vanessa, she is forced to play somewhat mindlessly bratty without any real finesse that illustrates there is anything truly empathetic about her character.

Similarly, Thomas Haden Church is unfortunately utilized in a role that seems awfully familiar for those who have seen the actor in other things. And I'm not a fan of Sarah Jessica Parker's acting in general and Smart People does not give her a role that is meaty or interesting enough in any way that makes the viewer rethink their position on her.

In fact, of the main cast, the only one who does a decent job is Dennis Quaid. The last work of Quaid's I enjoyed was his role in American Dreamz (reviewed here!) and his characterization of Lawrence is a strikingly different performance. Not just the beard, but his whole body language is transformed into a sullen, slouching lecturer who is able to drone without any real affect. Quaid - who is often charismatic - plays this astonishingly well and makes Lawrence largely unlikable.

On DVD, Smart People looks and sounds fine - though there are some moments where the editing was noticeably choppy. There is a commentary track, blooper reel and deleted scenes, none of which made the movie any better. The featurettes repeat a bit of the information from the commentary track and add little in the way of real insight.

I went into Smart People ready to be stimulated and to laugh and when it was over, I just felt cheated. There are much better movies out there.

For other works with Ellen Page, please visit my reviews of:
Super
Inception
Whip It
Juno
An American Crime
X-Men III: The Last Stand
Hard Candy

5/10

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

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

When People Who Have Money Decide To Have Kids, You Get A Troublingly Jumbled Film With What To Expect When You’re Expecting

The Good: Moments of humor
The Bad: Predictable, Overbearing soundtrack, Underdeveloped character arcs
The Basics: A big cast and a few good lines does not fix the problems with What To Expect When You’re Expecting.


I do not like babies. I have no problem admitting that. Babies (reviewed here!) was more of a horror story to me than a documentary. Okay, that’s an exaggeration. But, the truth is, I lack any type of procreative instinct (more than made up for by my creative-productive instinct that encourages me to write, do art, etc.). I do, however, love movies. I love films with big casts and complicated stories, like Magnolia (reviewed here!) and Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!). I don’t need the film to be depressing, but I like it to be smart. What To Expect When You’re Expecting is sprawling and filled with characters, but it is not complicated or interesting. And that’s not a baby-hater writing that, it’s a movie reviewer.

What To Expect When You’re Expecting seems initially ambitious with its four main overlapping stories of pregnancy and adoption, but it is so incredibly predictable and the embodiment of the conceits of “chick flicks” that it is hard to see how the film was ever produced. It’s almost like Lionsgate had a dozen hot young actresses and actors under contract and had to get them into a film before the contracts were up and they threw them all into What To Expect When You’re Expecting. What To Expect When You’re Expecting is loosely based on the non-fiction pregnancy manual by the same name and it fleshes out the “how to get through pregnancy” with characters and humor that does only lip service to each of the complicated situations that it tries to explore. Of course, that is what one gets when they try to squeeze four stories that could hold up on their own into a single 110 minute movie.

Instead of complexity or sophistication, What To Expect When You’re Expecting falls back on cheap, obvious conceits that reinforce the ideas that everyone ultimately loves babies and women’s instincts in relationships and pregnancy are the absolute right ones.

Wendy and her husband Gary run a breast feeding store and Wendy has written a children’s book about breastfeeding. She and Gary visit Gary’s former racecar driver father and learn that Ramsey and his young wife, Skyler, are having twins. Fitness guru Jules and her dance partner get pregnant as well. Photographer Holly has been trying with her husband, Alex, but it looks like they will be forced to adopt, which Holly is excited for because she wants to adopt an Ethiopian child. And, after a one-night stand, Rosie finds herself pregnant from a rival food truck owner.

The relationships have varying degrees of complexity, with Gary forced to confront his father over his competitive nature and Wendy realizing she hates being pregnant. Holly freaks out because Alex is not quite ready – even after visiting the roving dad walking club – and she loses her job at the aquarium. When Rosie miscarries, it strains her would-be relationship with the man who would have been the father. And Jules struggles with the relationship with Evan as her career is complicated by her pregnancy.

What To Expect When You’re Expecting is an excellent example with a short film trying to do far too much. In addition to being completely obvious – the fact that Joe Manganiello’s womanizing Davis, who gives the father’s club a vicarious attachment to single life, ends up getting a woman pregnant is utterly unsurprising – Anna Kendrick’s Rosie falls out of the film remarkably fast and Alex’s character struggle with having a child is almost completely neglected and washed over in the pursuit of Holly’s plan and goals.

Moreover, while scenes like Wendy’s rant at the baby seminar do a great job of exploring her character’s frustration, but her assistant, played by Rebel Wilson, provides a comic relief that is utterly unnecessary in the scene. Marco and Rosie are reunited by a weak conceit at the end that is more predictable than audacious or even interesting. In other words, like so many of the character arcs, What To Expect When You’re Expecting goes for the obvious, happy resolution as opposed to sensible, well-conceived stories that actually delve into the full complexities of the character.

The best example of this is with the character of Wendy. Wendy has a load of hopes and dreams associated with having a child, most of her illusions are shattered in the process of being actually pregnant. What To Expect When You’re Expecting fails to explore the consequences of that sudden disillusionment and it completely neglects the toll her rapid mood swings ought to take on her relationship with Gary. For those looking for either a satisfying story or character arcs, What To Expect When You’re Expecting is a bit of a letdown.

What What To Expect When You’re Expecting has in its place is a pounding soundtrack that overwhelms whenever director Kirk Jones needs a transition and virtually every hot “it” actress currently in the business. Led by Elizabeth Banks, What To Expect When You’re Expecting has some of the hottest Hollywood eating-disorder thin unrealistically shaped women in the world portraying the perils of impending motherhood when you have enough money to have a child. It’s hard to take seriously Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Lopez, Anna Kendricks, and Brooklyn Decker worrying at all about having children when they – and all their characters – appear to be able to easily afford prenatal visits and adequate nutrition and houses and the like.

On the acting front, there are no superlative performances. Anna Kendrick, whose work I usually enjoy, seems to have started suffering from Mary-Louise Parker Syndrome (that rare disorder where a woman may not appear on screen with her lips together at any point), though she and Chance Crawford have decent on-screen chemistry. Dennis Quaid, Ben Falcone and Brooklyn Decker show nothing outside their established range – though to Decker’s credit, this film and her work in it is still better than Battleship (reviewed here!). Similarly, Jennifer Lopez, Roderigo Santo, and Cameron Diaz fail to wow in any way. Joel Murray and Chris Rock steal their brief scenes.

Now on DVD, What To Expect When You’re Expecting includes bonus features like deleted scenes, trailers for other “chick flicks,” and two featurettes, none of which make the primary programming better.

Ultimately, What To Expect When You’re Expecting is very typical lowest common denominator for women entertainment and it is not enough to reassure those who have reservations about parenthood, much less entertain an intelligent audience.

For other works with Anna Kendrick, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Breaking Dawn, Part 1
50/50
Eclipse
New Moon
Twilight

4/10

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.
| | |

Oscar Pandering Season Officially Starts With The Words

The Good: Excellent sense of realism, Interesting characters, Wonderful performances
The Bad: Pacing goes off in the late-middle/early-end and never quite recovers.
The Basics: The Words is a legitimate Oscar contender, though it falls apart in the end, it is riveting until it does!


Oscar Pandering Season, a time of year I usually enjoy, is the only major movie releases season that is broken down into two parts. Only a few years ago, Oscar Pandering Season was Thanksgiving through the end of the year. But, in recent years, with the release of films like The Social Network (reviewed here!) and The Help (reviewed here!) in late August and September, other studios have followed suit and realized that they might not have to drop all of their attempts for Best Picture nods right before the Academy voters have to nominate their favorite films of the year! This year, September – which historically was a weaker movie season filled with date movies and horror flicks – is packed with films from both the major studios and art houses that are geared toward getting nominations for Oscars.

The first obvious attempt to score the Oscar nods is The Words. The Words has a number of elements that would make it a fine Best Picture nominee and is lightyears better than The Artist (reviewed here!), though it is not a truly great movie. Bradley Cooper getting a Best Actor nomination and Jeremy Irons getting (I’d lean, at this point toward him winning) a Best Supporting Actor nod are pretty sure bets. The Words makes excellent use out of them and, very briefly, Zoe Saldana. Honestly, Zoe Saldana and Bradley Cooper suddenly started popping up in everything, so it is pretty amazing that it has taken them this long to appear in a movie together!

Clay Hammond is a famous author who is reading his new novel, The Words to a captivated audience of the literary elite. The story of his novel focuses on Rory Jansen, a writer who will win the American Fellowship Of Arts And Letters award. Five years before that, he is a struggling novelist who moves into a New York City loft with his girlfriend, Dora. Struggling with his writing for years, he is eventually financially cut off by his father, who insists he get a regular paying job. Rory starts work at a major publishing house working in the mailroom and he spends his days delivering packages throughout the building, which exhausts him until his writing aspirations are pretty much dead.

But on his honeymoon in Paris, he finds an old leather briefcase and Dora buys it for him. Returning home, he learns that a prestigious agency is eager to meet with him and when he attends that meeting, he is heartbroken to learn that his submitted novel is great, but not marketable. So, Rory begins putting his life in order and when he is filing papers into the briefcase, he discovers a manuscript there. That manuscript moves him and when he becomes obsessed with it, he transcribes it on his computer. There, Dora finds it and insists that he publish it. While Rory tries initially to tell her the truth, her pride in “his” abilities leads him to promote the manuscript as his own and one favor from the in-house agent, Joseph Cutler, puts him on the path that will make him a huge success. But all of his success teeters when he meets an old man: the author of the mysteriously found manuscript!

The Words is poignant in its realism, both for the continual rejection of being a writer and the strain that the poverty of the young writer puts on relationships. Dora and Rory do not have it easy and it does not take long before it becomes clear that (after a certain point) Dora is financially supporting the couple. In fact, one of the weaknesses in The Words is how it fails to explore the struggle Dora might have in supporting Rory, especially as they live an impoverished lifestyle. Say what you will about women’s lib, but the psychological backlash against a woman supporting an artistic husband is pretty huge and that The Words neglects to address that explicitly weakens an otherwise powerfully realistic experience that dominates the first half of the film.

The sense of realism is compelling and, for those who have lived it, potentially difficult to watch. Co-writers and directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal absolutely nail the reality of constant rejection and the sense of constant strain it puts on a relationship. The first half of The Words should be mandatory viewing for anyone who is considering getting into a relationship with a serious writer.

Dennis Quaid draws the short straw for the acting and character fronts. His character, Clay Hammond, all but admits that he is useless to the piece. Hammond serves, more often than not, as the narrator and it speaks to the use of actors as tools for selling the film to audiences that Olivia Wilde manages to get billing as high as she does for the narrator’s seductress, Daniella. Quaid does what he can with the lame roll, but part of the problem with The Words comes from the movie shifting focus from his characters to him.

Conversely, Zoe Saldana’s Dora has a significant presence only in the first act of The Words, but she shines in the role. Saldana’s Dora is something the actress is not known for; subtle, quiet, nuanced. In the dishwashing scene she shares with Bradley Cooper is a powerful emotional expression between their characters largely because of her body language. Jeremy Irons dominates the second act as The Old Man in much the same way. While it is fairly obvious who he is from the opening moments of the film, when Irons’s character follows Rory to Central Park, he begins to steal the show.

But it is Bradley Cooper who is charged with making The Words work and he pulls it off. For sure, the movie has problems – largely by trying to make Hammond more important than he actually is to the viewers – but Cooper is not one of them. Cooper makes the fictional character of Rory Jansen memorable and intriguing. Never before have I seen Bradley Cooper pull off quiet and emotional the way he does in The Words and he is truly magnificent in the role.

The Words may be Oscar nomination bait, but it kicks off the season by setting the bar high enough to make the next few months an exciting time to go to the movies. And, The Words is so engaging that by the time it takes a turn for the problematic, the viewer is already hooked and we, like Daniella, must know how it ends.

For other films focusing on writers, please check out my reviews of:
Adaptation.
Wonderboys
Young Adult

7.5/10

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

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

Good, If Not Great, Company: In Good Company

The Good: Decent characters, Generally decent story
The Bad: Acting is generally unimpressive, Not the comedy it is billed as
The Basics: In an ultimately average movie, the principle actors give blase performances that make In Good Company a disappointment from a decent writer/director.


Scarlett Johansson is rapidly becoming one of those actresses I want to like but continue to find myself underwhelmed by. I see her appeal - a lot easier than that of Kirsten Dunst! - but I have come to realize that she's not used enough to her benefit (like the terrible Lost In Translation, reviewed here, where her performance is all that makes the character worth watching) or is appearing in a number of roles that she is simply not used enough (like The Prestige, reviewed here!). In Good Company, where Johansson receives third billing falls into the latter category, where she ends up more as a supporting player than an actual star.

When fifty-something advertising sales executive Dan Foreman's company is bought out by a major conglomerate, Foreman finds a twenty-six year old taking his job, despite the youth having no experience in the field. Carter Duryea takes over feeling the insecurity of his personal life clashing with the expectations of his professional life. When his wife leaves him and he gets into a car accident, he starts dating Foreman's daughter Alex, who is now studying at NYU. Carter and Dan clash professionally and personally over their life and job decisions.

And the main problem is that In Good Company is billed as a comedy and it's not terribly funny. There are moments that are amusing, but the movie is largely a dramatic presentation of the changing world of business and the problematic aspects of multinational conglomerates. The romantic plot between Carter and Alex is almost an afterthought and it never seems as genuine as the conflicts between Carter and Dan.

So, the first people this movie is not for are those looking for a romantic comedy. You'd likely be disappointed. On the business end, the movie's views on the changing world of business make some very good points; there are dangers in monopolies, nothing beats the personal touch and inexperienced suits ought not to replace experienced individuals who have proven their professional worth. But the movie's answers are all too simple. In Good Company effectively ignores the fact that the world is changing in favor of creating a statement that boils down to "the business world was better before multinational corporations." Thus, anyone looking for an interesting, compelling business movie with real insight is also going to be disappointed.

The characters are archetypes, or at least "types" more than individuals. Dan is a seasoned businessman who is always clever enough to get out of situations using the tried and true techniques he has developed over years and years. Carter, conversely, is an up and coming talent who seems to lose all of this innate talent and drive when his personal life hits a rut. I didn't buy that. Overachievers have a tendency to drive themselves into new projects when old ones collapse, it's part of the way they fail to deal with failure (yea overachiever defense mechanisms!).

And Alex is just a stereotype of the 18 year-old who doesn't know what she wants. She's a jock who wants to be intellectual - complete with the tired rumors that she's a lesbian. There's no real chemistry between Alex and Carter. She's amused by him and he's honest with her, but beyond that, there's nothing terribly compelling about their coming together. Instead, the direction of their relationship is completely believable.

But it's not interesting to watch. In Good Company has moments of entertainment, but the bulk of it fails at even that. I write that without rancor; I was looking to this movie to continue a string a decent movies I've seen lately.

What sold me on seeing it in the first place was Topher Grace and Scarlett Johansson in the previews. Grace is essentially playing the same role he did on That 70s Show, in a modern corporate setting. He does not do anything significantly different with his acting talents here and that was disappointing. Johansson barely has enough screentime to be labeled as a nonentity. Her character is . . . well, dull, so the only way to classify her acting here as decent is to acknowledge that she sold her character as dull. There is nothing terribly superlative about Alex or Johansson's performance.

In Good Company features decent actors in bit roles. David Paymer appears as Mort, a worker whose performance puts his job in question. The always-wonderful Philip Baker Hall appears as an angry-at-youth businessman and lends some gravitas to the role. There's even a cameo by Malcolm McDowell that is worthwhile. That the bit roles in the movie draw my attention and praise more than two of the three leads is not a good sign.

Dennis Quaid keeps the movie watchable as Dan Foreman. Quaid is articulate and believable as an aging businessman. Quaid lends strong body language to conveying his character's moods and that is effective for creating the character the audience most empathizes with.

Still, it's not enough. Paul Weitz, writer and director of In Good Company recently hit success with the brilliant satire American Dreamz (also using Dennis Quaid, reviewed here!) and before that with the surprisingly good About A Boy (reviewed here!). So it's not that he cannot write and/or direct fabulous movies. It's just that in this case, he doesn't.

For other works with Clark Gregg, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Avengers
Thor
Iron Man 2
Iron Man
The West Wing
A.I.: Artificial Intelligence
State And Main
Sports Night
The Usual Suspects

5/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to 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.
| | |

Traffic Is An Eloquent Argument Against The War On Drugs

The Good: Excellent acting, Good rendering of various cultures in the drug conflict, direction!
The Bad: Inconsistent characterization, Pacing near the end, Unrelenting tone of futility
The Basics: A searing look at the drug trade and the effort to combat it, Traffic follows several people in their conflicts with drugs.


It's hard to make a good drug movie; if a film advocates drugs, it usually illustrates it poorly, using specious reasoning for the legalization of drugs and if a film speaks out against drugs, it's viewed as conservative, out of touch or a ridiculous "Hallmark Movie of the Week" for kids. It's a shame that Traffic is rated R, because this could be the best film to show in classrooms to the defiant young people who fail to believe in the consequences of drugs.

Traffic is a multi-layered story that follows various parts of the drug trade on the US/Mexico border. Montel Gordon and his partner Ray are DEA officers who are investigating Carlos, a heavy drug dealer who is ratted out by one of his minions. Carlos's wife, Helena, is feeling ostracized by her peers and wants the lifestyle she is accustomed to. In Mexico, Javier Rodriguez is being wooed by General Salazar, the chief force in the Mexican drug war combating production. Meanwhile, north of the border, Robert Wakefield is made the President's leader in the anti-drug effort in the United States. Wakefield's daughter, meanwhile, finds herself more and more addicted to heroin.

The plots weave together, with Wakefield's daughter ending up as a crack prostitute on the run from her father, Wakefield gets into a crisis of faith as his professional responsibilities conflict with his need to hold his family together. Javier, realizes that Salazar is not what he seems and attempts to inform the U.S. authorities of the danger in Mexico. And Montel works hard to keep Eduardo while Helena takes over Carlos's business and attempts to get her husband freed.

The biggest problem with Traffic is the failure to repeat character names. I spent the film referring to Montel as "Don Cheadle's character." Salazar, Javier and Javier's partner Manolo, are the only characters who have their names repeated enough to actually remember. It's irksome, especially considering how very many characters there are in this movie.

Traffic is the best inditement against drug use and the drug trade to come down the pike, well, ever. First, the leading power in the anti-drug trade, Robert Wakefield, continues to address the biggest problem, treating the addiction and ending the marketplace for drug use. Add to that, Javier illustrates the functional problem in the fight against the drug trade; a lack of a unified front between U.S. and Mexican enforcement agencies. The arguments are presented eloquently in the less-preachy form of a narrative and it works very well that way.

Moreover, the film is not biased completely against the drug trade; Helena's plot clearly illustrates the benefit of being in drug distribution. She has quite the lifestyle and it's extravagant. But the film is wickedly intelligent, illustrating the risks of that lifestyle very well.

Finally, the interrogations Montel and Ray go through with the rat from Carlos's organization, reveal the tired arguments for why drugs ought to be legalized and the futility of the drug fight. In truth, the only one that sticks by the end of the film is the idea that the budget used to fight drugs could instantly be turned into a tax cow for the government if legalized. The health aspects are shown with the clever parallel plot with Wakefield's daughter. The lifestyle she sinks into is quite unflattering and a real eye opener.

The direction works wonderfully. Steven Soderbergh's direction is incredible. His use of contrasting color and unflattering light acts as a motif that furthers the ambiguity and harshness of the war on drugs. The bright yellows of Mexico appear as a violent, natural contrast to the artificial blue light that characterizes the U.S. scenes.

But Traffic isn't a preachy film. It packs the screen with great actors who are working well. Of course, Michael Douglas, is great as Wakefield, lending the role strength and dignity that makes him such a natural actor for government roles. Benicio Del Toro is great as Javier, playing the rogue Mexican police officer. He's far more comprehensible than any other film I've seen him in.

The film's best acting comes from Don Cheadle. He takes on a strong dramatic role in Traffic. He plays Montel as a man with great inner strength and a wonderful physical presence. He's in the best shape of the cast and it makes sense that he would be the one running and jumping and such. His dialog is great, laid back body language fits his character perfectly.

In the end, Traffic is a compelling film that follows all angles of the drug trade and it does it with style, even if near the end it begins to drag in terms of plot.

For other works with Luis Guzman, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Old Dogs
He’s Just Not That Into You
Yes Man
Fast Food Nation
Waiting . . .
Punch-Drunk Love
Magnolia
Snake Eyes
NYPD Blue - Season 1

8/10

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

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

The Biggest Surprise For Me Of Late: Footloose Isn't Terrible!

The Good: Dennis Quaid's acting, Most of the acting, Moments of social relevance
The Bad: Terrible direction, Julianne Hough's acting, Obvious character arcs
The Basics: Footloose forced me to go back to how I evaluate movies to make me realize that the film wasn't all that bad . . . by the numbers.


I have never seen the original Footloose. I know very little about it, except that it launched the career of Kevin Bacon and the audition process made for an amusing story in Rob Lowe's Stories I Only Tell My Friends (reviewed here!). I know enough to recognize when there is a parody of it on The Simpsons or Family Guy, but it is one that I never had the interest in seeing before now. That is the full explanation of how my review tonight of the new, 2011 Footloose is entirely unbiased by any preconceived notion of what the film "ought" to be based on how the original was. No, I went into the screening of Footloose comparatively blind and not terribly excited.

I left the theater surprised. I was surprised because I did not hate the movie and that when I viewed it objectively, I had to consider it on the upper side of average. In fact, for the first time in a long, long time, I went back to my formula. For those unfamiliar with it, I rate movies on a ten point scale with 3 points each for plot, character, acting and one point for effect. An average movie is 1.5,1.5,1.5,.5. Footloose has some pretty great acting from Dennis Quaid going for it, but is robbed of the full three points by Julianne Hough's performance and the fact that Andie MacDowell is uncharacteristically stiff with Quaid. That said, the acting gets the 2.5, but the film is robbed of all spectacle points by director Craig Brewer, who I was shocked me for the second time tonight. When I looked him up on the IMDB, before suggesting he go back to directing school, I was shocked to learn that this was not his first film. But for those who want to skip to the end, 5.5/10, the movie is not at all a bust.

After a night of drinking, dancing and making out, five high school seniors in Bomont, Georgia are killed in a drunk driving accident. The reaction in Bomont is quick and severe: a curfew is enacted, loud music is banned and dancing at events not chaperoned by the church or the school is forbidden. Three years later, Ren MacCormack is dropped off by bus where he is greeted by his uncle and is told that if he can fix up the VW Beetle in the garage, it is his. He quickly gets it up and running and is driving around town when he is pulled over for having his music up too loud. This first engagement with the law is brought up when his uncle introduces him to the local pastor, Shaw Moore, who lost his son in the accident. Shaw still has a daughter, Ariel, who frequently sneaks off to visit her boyfriend, racecar driver Chuck Cranston.

Ren begins to try to fit in with people at his school, getting off to a rough start with Willard before joining him on the football team. After racing busses and almost getting caught with someone else's joint, Ren has pretty much had it with Bomont and he goes to an abandoned factory to break loose, which causes Ariel to become more than flirtatiously interested in him. When Ren and his friends have a good time outside Bomont dancing, Ren decides to take up the cause of getting the law in Bomont changed.

So, what did I like about Footloose? First and foremost is Dennis Quaid's performance. Footloose has Quaid in the best role I have seen him in since American Dreamz (reviewed here!). Quaid plays Shaw and he gives the primary antagonist of the film more depth and character, more subtlety than I would have imagined coming in. Sure, there are inorganic moments, like one that comes near the very end of the film, but I chalk that one up to writers Dean Pitchford and Craig Brewer erring toward soap operatic melodrama as opposed to realism. I'm not saying a Southern Reverend wouldn't strike someone, but when it happens in Footloose, it feels cheap. That aside, Quaid is a master and in Footloose he embodies a character who is strong, strong-willed and surprisingly subtle. Quaid is quiet and he emotes Shaw's pain through his eyes amazingly well.

Also shockingly good is Kenny Wormald. No doubt when Footloose is released, there will be plenty of comparisons between Wormald and Kevin Bacon (who does not make a cameo in the film). Wormald actually reminded me of a young Tim Roth with his intensity and roguish quality. Wormald does a decent job carrying most of the film and he is a pleasure to watch.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for his costar Julianne Hough. Hough plays Ariel and the moment she first appeared on screen, she is actually behind Ariel's best friend, Rusty. When I saw Ziah Colon (Rusty), I thought, "Wow! Brewer is really going to give us something unexpected!" But the moment Colon nods to Hough, it is clear she is being relegated to sidekick and Hough is going to be given the burden of the heavy lifting for the love interest end. Sadly, it seems Hough was cast more for her sparkling blue eyes and complete absence of anything resembling body fat than any actual acting talent. To be fair, Hough nails one emotional scene - in the church where Ariel has a breakdown. When she begins to cry during her "so lost" speech, I had a moment where I empathized and she pulled me into the character. Sadly, that is one moment out of almost two hours and the rest of the time, her performance is stiflingly bland.

But Hough is not the fundamental problem with the movie. The coming-of-age story is pretty predictable on the plot front and the character arcs are wholly unremarkable. In fact, the only temptation to nudge up the character rating is the fact that there is a wonderful scene between Shaw and Ren where they begin to bond over their losses and I thought that was pretty clever. Sadly, much of the character that Ren shows disappears in favor of ridiculous fight sequences or entirely unnecessary races.

For that, we are forced to turn to director Craig Brewer, who almost entirely sinks the film. Yes, Brewer has two huge problems when directing Footloose and they both seem to suggest that he has no idea how to direct to effectively tell a story using the medium. I'm not talking about minutia, like the way he has Ren go through a frantic breakdown scene where he is running around an empty warehouse in Georgia to the strains of The White Stripes and ends without appearing very sweaty at all. No, Brewer seems to have serious issues with how to frame a shot and who to put in the shot.

First, the framing problem. Brewer creates a movie where dance moves and dance abilities are a big part of the story and the characterization and then cheats most every shot in the first half to three-quarters of the film. By this, I mean that Brewer rather unsubtly has many of his primary characters dancing on screen, but then frames them so their upper body or lower body exclusively are in frame. Brewer is hoping that you might not notice that until the final few sequences, almost every time the main characters dance, you can't see their whole bodies in the shot. Why is this important? Well, it fails to capture any real talent most of the time. Virtually anyone can dance from the waist up or the knees down, it is coordinating the whole body that actually makes impressive dance moves. In an era where Dancing With The Stars, the Step-Up movies and every other form of reality television/dance competition brings impressive dance moves into our homes week after week after week, failing to capture this for a big screen presentation is unforgivable. It might be that limiting the focus makes it easier to edit the film or hides the talents (or failures) of the stars, but it is exceptionally noticeable that the leads are seldom seen dancing in full until Miles Teller's Willard is taught to dance by Ren that we see the whole package - and Teller nails it.

As for who to put in the shots, Brewer does not seem to have a clear grasp of crowd theory. Crowd theory when it pertains to movies is the study of keeping the focus on your protagonists, on your stars. One of the best examples I know of comes from Star Trek: Insurrection (reviewed here!) where the boy Artim was given a red costume so in the big scenes where the villagers are running for their lives, he would always be easy to pick out (the rest of the characters are clothed in light brown and yellow colors). The contrast draws the eye and helps the audience keep focused on the characters we are supposed to care about. Brewer apparently missed this lesson for the two key dance sequences in the film. When Ren, Ariel, Willard and Rusty go two hours away to go dancing, the scene is supposed to be about Ren and Ariel dancing while Willard gets it up to stand by Rusty and finally declare his intentions. What the scene is actually about is a very pale redhead who knows how to dance like nobody's business in the back right of the shot. See, in this scene, there are two redheads: one is on a different floor trying to teach Willard to line dance and she is quickly glossed over. The other is a background dancer with no lines. But she is there, bright red hair and very pale white skin in a room full of blondes and brunettes with fairly tanned skin. She's working it and she draws the eye because she is the only person who looks different from everyone else. Sure, Ren is front and center with Ariel, dancing close (I suppose, I honestly have no clue; my eyes were constantly drawn to the only redhead on the dance floor). My point here is that Brewer did not assemble the shot in mind with how this one person would completely contrast with everyone else and she is the focus. She (or someone who looks astonishingly like her) is in the climactic dance scene at virtually the same spot looking gorgeous again and overshadowing the other characters from the background simply by being different.

Finally, this version of Footloose is decent for its seeming progressive attitudes. Ren puts Chuck in his place for using the word "fag," which is nice. Rusty and Willard represent an interethnic couple. But I did notice in the final dance scene when characters paired up, Willard and Rusty were the only - easily apparent - interethnic couple. I think Footloose would have worked better in the long haul if Ren and Rusty had been paired up as the main couple.

That said, the film is not a bad one, though because it does not at all capitalize on the medium with its direction, I tend to recommend against seeing it in the theaters. Sure, it's above average, but it lacks the "wow" factor it ought to for a dance movie.

For other works with Dennis Quaid, please check out my reviews of:
G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra
Legion
American Dreamz

5.5/10

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

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

| | |

A Phenomenal Satire Exploding With Relevance: American Dreamz Delivers!

The Good: Excellent acting, FUNNY, Good characters, Universal jibes
The Bad: Pacing near the end, Slightly dated
The Basics: In a terrifically funny parody of our times, American Dreamz takes shots at the United States of America's president, obsession with reality television and overall attitude.


[Note: This review was originally written during the Bush Administration and I decided to keep the original opening because, like the film, captured a very clear sense of time and place. Enjoy! - W.L. Swarts]

American Dreamz, a comedy about politics and reality television written by Paul Weitz and my reaction afterwards was simple, "Why hadn't I heard more about this movie when it was out?!"

American Dreamz follows two parallel storylines as the President of the United States, a Bush-like buffoon named Stanton wins re-election, reads a newspaper and is shocked to discover the world is much bigger than the United States while at the same time, Martin Tweed, executive producer and judge of the wildly popular American Idol-type show American Dreamz hunts for talent to make the new season of the show even more popular than its previous ones. He finds his talent in the form of Sally Kendoo, a young woman who thirsts for stardom and has real talent. Also on the show is Omer Obeidi, an Arab who pretty much flunked out of terrorist school and who is activated for martyrdom only when he becomes a contestant on American Dreamz and the President is announced as a guest judge for the final episode.

What's worst about this movie is so closely tied to what is best about it that it's almost impossible to start my review with the low-point and make it clear I am discussing the film's weakness. American Dreamz is the satire of our time, right now, 2004-2006. This is it. Paul Weitz brilliantly pokes fun at every institution and popular culture/political individual of this time and place in the world. And he does it universally, so it's not just a poke at the American president, the American Idol contestants, the soldiers, the suicide bombers, the television executives, it's ALL of them. And it's brilliant and funny. And it will be forgotten as one of the best movies of the decade or such because in two years, it will be so dated as to be obsolete. Dust-covered copies of this DVD will be pulled off the shelf in sixty years and shown to grandchildren who will shake their heads and wonder why people would think it was funny to have an idiot for a president and that television would be ruled by tweens who rely on the American public for gratification and reinforcement.

In short, there is nothing so universal about American Dreamz and that is its weakness; it is destined to be forgotten as the United States works to regain its respectable status in the world and eliminate the black stains of warmongering and bullying of the past six years.

But right now, this is hilarious and it's what we need as American citizens who cannot stand the things being carried out in our name. This is the chance to laugh about the follies of our times. And it is all about our time. President Stanton is a clear George Bush parody, embodied by the stubborn refusal to read the news, to listen to others and to face reality. His Chief of Staff is a Cheney/Rove parody that plays like the MadTV Frankenstein-esque Cheney for the hour and a half of the movie - and I see that as a good thing. Sally Kendoo is a clear parody of Kelly Clarkson and the choice to parody Clarkson is actually a decent one; Clarkson is clearly the most talented individual to come out of the American Idol scene and as such parodying her is not simply picking on the novelty contestants, which are represented in the movie by Omer and an Israeli contestant.

American Dreamz works because all of the characters are types. Sally Kendoo is the archetypal will poke her eyes out for success, win at all costs, American youth who has talent and is ready to exploit herself and her talent to succeed. Martin Tweed is the embodiment of every negative stereotype of a Simon Cowell who has achieved success in a way that does not stimulate him and who must remain at the top of his game, lest he lose everything he has built. And even the minor characters work because they are simply "types" and parodies. Indeed, the name of Marcia Gay Harden's character is simply "First Lady Stanton."

And Harden's portrayal of First Lady Stanton is enviable and one of the few chinks in the otherwise tight armor of American Dreamz. First Lady Stanton is articulate, even if somewhat cowed, and her interactions with President Stanton make the viewer long for the days of strong First Ladies who would be an asset to the nation. Other than her, all the "types" fit our current circumstances and they work.

They work because the actors playing them are devoted to selling the jokes and the portrayals of our times. Sam Golzari is hilarious dancing to show tunes in a tent at the terrorist training camp. Hugh Grant, looking somewhat older than when previous seen, is morose and charming, flashy and deeply sarcastic and he makes us forget he is Hugh Grant. After the first few minutes on screen, Grant IS Martin Tweed.

Mandy Moore deserves a lot of credit for her role as Sally Kendoo. Moore is smart and turns her emotions on a dime to make a joke for the movie. Some of the best comic timing comes between her, Jennifer Coolidge (her character's mother) and the agent they've hired in figuring out Kendoo's story for the show. Moore whips out some of the funniest lines in succession with a deadpan delivery that is amazing.

Dennis Quaid, who I never would have guessed could do it, does the most amazing parody of George W. Bush throughout the film. He adopts a swaggering, frat-boy type attitude and has moments where he is able to disengage from all reality with a clueless look on his face that masterfully create a character who is a clear interpretation of the person he seeks to embody. Quaid is given some challenging lines to deliver without breaking that mold, most notably during the President's appearance on American Dreamz and he does it admirably. One suspects those lines that Quaid delivers are pure wish fulfillment on the part of writer/director Weitz, who no doubt desperately wishes to hear them spoken by Bush.

The person who steals the show is Willem Dafoe. Dafoe is brilliant as the sinister, manipulative, evil genius puppetmaster Chief of Staff. Dafoe does an extraordinary job creating a Rovian Cheney character who manipulates the President, down to telling him exactly what to say via a transmitter in the President's ear. And throughout, Dafoe laces the performance with subtle strokes from Weitz that are scathing, wherein the Chief of Staff shrinks away from all forms of acknowledgment or responsibility, even literally slinking out of a spotlight. Dafoe is instantly recognizable for the character he is meant to represent and he is utterly hilarious in the role. I would never have guess him for it, but he sells it flawlessly.

Writer and director Paul Weitz deserves a lot of credit for American Dreamz. It's a smart movie and it works on a number of levels. From the parody of the names, it's no coincidence that the lead contestant is named "Kendoo" (i.e. "can do") and the President's name is meant to sound so close to "Stalin," to the most subtle joke near the climax of the movie which I think is one of the funniest (when Liberty is thrown in his car and taken from American Dreamz, the window in front of where he is being protected is rolled down), Weitz creates a movie that is smart and funny and working on multiple levels. He deserves credit for that.

Ultimately, though, the movie ends and we wake up to a new, higher body count and politicians who continue to abrogate responsibility and our laughter turns to discomfort and we envy Weitz's created world, where things change in the significant things and the only things that stay the same are the ways people are exploited on reality television for their own perceived gain.

For other films featuring Hugh Grant, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Did You Hear About The Morgans?
Love Actually
Bridget Jones's Diary

8/10

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

© 2011, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

More Than Being Bad, G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra Simply Is EXACTLY What I Expected.

The Good: Moments of action and performance (believe it or not), Moments of special effects
The Bad: Obvious merchandising, Moments of performance and special effects, Utterly predictable.
The Basics: Not as bad as I thought it would be, G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra instead suffers from being completely predictable as Summer Blockbuster Fare.


I have a pretty special type of resentment fostered against my wife in the summer of 2009 (she has plenty of issues related to my reviewing since!). We went across the country on a working vacation to Las Vegas and as we neared Las Vegas, she made it quite clear she was only going to tolerate part of the trip being work. In other words, she was not going to travel across the country only to have me spending my nights in our hotel rooms writing reviews and going to movies she suspected she would not like. As a result, I was forced to give in and not attend the free screening of G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra in Las Vegas that I managed to snag and instead pay for a ticket when we returned home. She didn't want me working, I didn't want to have to pay to see movies I suspected I wouldn't like. Grumble.

If it seems strange that I am admitting such a bias right off the bat, I have a reasonable bias against G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra, which was that I did my homework. Before I went to the film, I picked up and read the trade paperback anthology G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra - Official Movie Prequel (reviewed here!). More than anything else, it was being underwhelmed by that that put me in less of a mood to watch the latest cinematic endeavor by Hasbro toys and Paramount Pictures. As Summer Blockbuster Season came to a close, G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra arrived as a nice, senseless bookend for the popcorn movie audience and while I don't recommend it, it performed far better for me than I anticipated.

That said, it is more or less impossible to enjoy G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra unless one almost immediately disengages their brain and settles in for mindless action with high predictability and more merchandising potential than any other property in recent memory. G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra is essentially an hour and fifty-eight minutes of toy advertising for a whole new Hasbro line of action figures and accessories and while it might seem odd that I - who avidly reviews action figures and toys - would gripe about that, the sheer scope and number of products that keep popping up throughout the film soon becomes disturbing (the descents into the sub-surface bunkers of G.I. Joe and Cobra are essentially ToyFare or Comic-Cons on the big screen).

Opening in France in 1641, a weapon's manufacturer named McCullen is condemned to having a metal mask fused to his skin for selling arms to the king's forces and his enemies. In the not too distant future, a descendant McCullen owns and operates M.A.R.S. Industries, which is a weapon's manufacturer that has produced four nanomite warheads at the behest of the United Nations. A special operative, Duke, is tapped to transport the warheads to their destination with his fellow officer, Ripcord. But Duke and Ripcord are set upon by the Baroness, Ana DeCobray, whom Duke has a former relationship with. With their convoy destroyed, Duke and Ripcord manage to keep the warheads out of the Baroness's hands, as they are rescued by an elite unite of soldiers known as G.I. Joe. Taken back to Joe headquarters, they are tasked by General Hawk to keep the warheads safe and get them to their ultimate destination.

Unfortunately for Hawk and the G.I. Joe unit - the holographic representation of McCullen reactivates a tracking signal within the warhead's case, which allows Ana and her ninja sidekick Storm Shadow to lead a small force of brutal warriors into the heart of G.I. Joe. After a daring assault on Joe headquarters, Ana and Storm Shadow unleash one of the warheads in Paris and the race to stop them from destroying all of the industrial world with them begins!

Throughout the film, there are flashbacks and inane subplots involving an attempt to replace the President of the United States with a high-level operative working for M.A.R.S. and its successor, Cobra. Simultaneously, Ripcord spends much of the movie trying to get into Scarlett's armor and the film tries to mix action and comedy. Ultimately, the big failure of G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra is not that it is bad action-adventure, it is that it is the most predictable, obvious and unoriginal collection of action-adventure cliches to come down the pike in a long time. Anyone who has seen (I'll be generous) a dozen action adventure films can pretty much call the entire movie after each character is introduced.

In fact, the problem with coming to G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra with an engaged brain is that avid cinephiles are actually more likely than not to overthink the movie. For example, I'd actually bet on Snake Eyes speaking at the film's climax or a flashback revealing that his lack of speech is not related to not wanting to speak, but rather not being able to speak (I'd figured a young Storm Shadow would slash his throat). That said, from the moment Zartan appears in the film as a master of disguise and the allusion to a twentieth supersoldier, G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra runs pretty much exactly as one would predict it.

In addition to being a terrible attempt to merchandise toys exclusively based on warfare (again, I am aware of the irony given my reviews of Star Wars figures!), G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra is one of the least challenging films based on how actors are used and the characters they portray. Especially disappointing is Dennis Quaid, who plays General Hawk. Quaid plays Hawk as a parody of a military persona with every one of his lines being delivered with an over-the-top forcefulness that is almost as cliche as the inclusion of every catchphrase from the 1980s animated series G.I. Joe in the film. Quaid has range and quality, but this role wastes his talents.

Strangely, Quaid is one of the few actors used outside their typecasting (outside the strange cameo by Brendan Fraser as the trainer) and most of the casting is the product of obvious casting as opposed to anything that challenges any of the actors. Marlon Wayas plays Ripcord as the comedic relief and this is disappointing because he flops around on screen like anything but a serious soldier or even a believable sidekick. Wayans deserves the chance to plumb some emotional depth and as Ripcord, he is relegated to one long joke throughout the film that makes virtually every negative association with military men. He's one long libido joke and the film suffers because there is no emotional resonance with his character.

Similarly, even bit roles like Kevin J. O'Connor as Dr. Mindbender are just the product of good casting as opposed to good performances. Ray Park does his usual martial arts thing as Snake Eyes just as Jonathan Pryce is relegated to the stuffed shirt President role. Christopher Eccleston, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Arnold Vosloo, and even Channing Tatum give the viewer nothing more than we've seen before in their roles of McCullen, Heavy Duty, Zartan and Duke than we've seen before (or could predict).

Ironically, for a film so rooted in men being Alpha Males, the best performances arguably come from the film's two leading ladies. Rachel Nichols trades in her green skin and red uniform from Star Trek (reviewed here!) for a tight armor suit and leather jacket as Scarlett. For an actress with such a short resume, she holds her own on the big screen in each and every scene, adequately portraying G.I. Joe's resident protege. Far more than simply looking good in tight outfits, Nichols delivers her lines with appropriate emotions (or lack thereof) to convince the viewers of her character's abilities.

Similarly, criticism for Sienna Miller as the Baroness is often unjust. For sure, her character is a walking, talking cliche of the villainess, but that is not her fault. She, too, delivers her lines with a realism and as her character undergoes the emotional journey from programmed drone working for evil to one who questions, Miller infuses the side glances and other body language needed to make her character's doubt realistic.

What ultimately tipped the balance toward the stronger "not recommend" for G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra was the erratic special effects. Midway through the film, Duke and Ripcord are outfitted with accelerator suits. These allow the special effects department to get around making poor CG-replicas of Duke and Ripcord and essentially create "mechs" (getting sick of those in summer blockbusters!). What it does as well is undermine the basic heroism of the heroes. The heroes rely on just as many gadgets as the villains and while the Baroness and Storm Shadow use a car, the men of G.I. Joe run through the streets in armor that makes them superhuman (Scarlett ridiculously follows on a motorcycle and the purpose of her part of the chase is lost on me other than men wanting to see a hot woman on a bike). The special effects largely look anything but special as they are often so over-the-top and obviously CG that they distract from the rest of the movie.

That said, there are some good special effects, mostly involving big machines shooting at one another and when the CG department focuses on machines, they get it right. The destruction of the Eiffel Tower, for example, looks pretty wonderful in the film.

Still, it is not enough (by a longshot) to recommend G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra. This is teen escapist fare and while those who enjoy military movies might enjoy the elements of this, it is hard to believe many serious cinephiles will find this to be anything other than over-the-top action that is predictable and obvious.

For other films featuring Brendan Fraser, please check out my reviews of:
Crash
Gods And Monsters

5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page!

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




| | |