So Many Great Actors Fail To Impress In The Big Wedding!

The Good: Moments of performance
The Bad: Predictable plot, Droll character arcs, Much of the direction and acting, Jokes and dramatic moments alike fall flat.
The Basics: Despite having an Oscarbait cast, The Big Wedding gives women and adults nothing substantial to watch this Summer Blockbuster Season.


I cannot think of a film in recent memory where I was so uninvested in how the film’s characters and plotlines would reach a resolution as with The Big Wedding. The last few years, as Summer Blockbuster Season has loomed, many of the smaller or more substantive production companies try to release counterprogramming to the big special effects-driven movies. They go after a mature audience and women with films like last year’s Hope Springs (reviewed here!). This year, Lionsgate tried to get into that niche right out of the gate with The Big Wedding.

They failed.

The Big Wedding is intended to be a family comedy with the usual tearjerker moments, but the film directed by its co-writer (or co-adapter, as it appears to have been based upon a French film) Justin Zackham is so thoroughly obvious and banal that most of the surprises are anything but and both the humor and dramatic moments fall painfully flat. The Big Wedding reminded me of a limited season television series The Big Day, which was also about a family gathering for a wedding and all of the mayhem that ensues. The difference is that that summer television show had a less well-known cast, but used all the players exceptionally well. The Big Wedding hopes the viewer will be blown away by the presence of Robert De Niro, Diane Keaton, Susan Sarandon, Robin Williams, Amanda Seyfried, and (I suppose) Katherine Heigl and Topher Grace that they won’t notice how poorly those performers are being used. Out of the bunch, only Susan Sarandon is given the chance to truly blow the audience away and she does in a single scene where her character, Bebe, does not say a word, but witnesses Don (her longterm boyfriend) and Ellie (her best friend, from whom she stole Don away years before, breaking up their marriage) having a moment where their chemistry is evident and Sarandon emotes so much with her face that one has to feel sorry for Bebe.

But, alas, one moment and one decent line (which, I swear, I have already forgotten, but it comes near the end of the movie) are not enough to make a flick worth watching and The Big Wedding falls into exactly that trap.

Alejandro, the adopted son of Don and Ellie, is getting married to his virtual nonentity of a girlfriend, Missy. So, the families are converging on Don and Bebe’s, despite there being a lot of tension in the family. Lyla’s marriage is falling apart and she is estrange from her father, Don. Lyla is feeling sick from something entirely obvious that her sexually unfulfilled doctor brother, Jared, investigates for her on their way to their parent’s house. Ellie, arriving early, lets herself in and comes across her good friend and her ex-husband and feels out of place. When Alejandro arrives, he breaks some bad news to his parents; his biological mother, Madonna, who has been invited to the wedding, thinks divorce is the greatest sin imaginable.

Rather than telling her to stuff it, in America we have divorce and the family is not as Super Catholic as she is, everyone decides to bend over backwards for the woman who gave Alejandro up for adoption. This means that Bebe, who has been like a mother to Alejandro, bows out (though she soon resurfaces as part of the catering staff for the wedding) and Don and Ellie pretend for Madonna that they are still married. At the same time, Jared hits very heavily on Alejandro’s biological sister and Lyla whines about the past as Ellie comes to the realizations that she truly is over Don.

The Big Wedding is just, unfortunately, stupid. We’ve seen all the clichés in movies in recent years. The whole “exes hook up” thing was done much better in It’s Complicated (reviewed here!) and the elements of addition featuring prominently at a wedding was Rachel Getting Married (reviewed here!) in a nutshell. But, any film that belabors a woman with marital issues getting queasy constantly and then acts like it is a huge revelation that the character is pregnant is just insulting. I swear, Katherine Heigl’s Lyla is the last one to figure out she’s pregnant.

What The Big Wedding has outside belabored exposition and a painfully ridiculous plot that would be a farce if only it were funny, so it is just mind-numbingly pathetic as it is here as (at best) a dramedy, is an impressive cast. Unfortunately, the cast is not used very well at all. Amanda Seyfried plays Missy (the bride) and she makes so little impression in this role that one wonders why she chose to do it at all. That’s okay because, despite being Latino, Alejandro (played by Ben Barnes) is such a white bread character that the two fit one another perfectly. Robin Williams’ role as the Catholic Priest Father Moinighan would have been audacious . . . if only Justin Zackham had produced the film fifteen years ago. As it stands, though, the ironic casting and usage of Williams as a Priest is a flat retreading of what Kevin Smith did with George Carlin (to much better effect) in Dogma (reviewed here!).

Topher Grace is fine as Jared, Katherine Heigl might as well be going for her Razzie as Lyla (you can always count on Heigl for doing that dumbstruck expression once per film, much like how Ben Affleck used to cry once per movie, and she doesn’t disappoint for the miniscule niche audience that still finds that charming or original), and the powerhouse casting of Robert De Niro, Susan Sarandon and Diane Keaton results in three performers constantly straining to do interesting things with their listless characters. Sarandon gets her moment and De Niro reminds us that he can perform when Don gets drunk, but Keaton’s part is unfortunately interchangeable with so many others she has had over the years . . . except here her character comes to an obvious conclusion she seemed to come into the film with.

The Big Wedding is not worth watching; not on the big screen, not on DVD when it comes out and not even when it is on network television edited for content and bloated with commercials. It is one of the surest racehorses for next year’s Razzies . . . if only the pundits even remember it exists at that time.

For other works with Topher Grace, please check out my reviews of:
Predators
Valentine's Day
Spider-Man 3
In Good Company

2/10

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

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

The Last Time: Worst Part Of Monday Is Evaluating The Worst Part Of The Weekend.

The Good: I can't find any.
The Bad: Where to start . . . acting, characters, plot, reversal at the end.
The Basics: Even the presence of decent actors cannot save this poorly presented farce of the business world and the conniving involved in it.


So, I've come to dread Monday mornings, but not for the usual reasons most people do. My weekends are like pretty much any other day, save I have some time away from shipping out orders from Saturday noon until Monday morning. This usually gives me enough time to squeeze in one movie where I'm giving it my full attention, something I am seldom able to do these days, especially with the backlog of reviews I have yet to write. The worst part about Monday morning is that my commitment to not increasing my backlog means I have to first review whatever is freshest in my mind and experience. This means, no matter how bad a film that I just saw was, I have to evaluate it first thing Monday morning. In the case of The Last Time, this means I am left dreading Monday morning.

Ted Riker is a powerhouse salesman at a company where Jamie has just begun working. It's a cutthroat business and Ted has been on top of his sales team for years. While the company is shuttering other offices, Ted's franchise is feeling pressure to perform and Jamie has been falling down as the new recruit. Ted soon finds himself attracted to Jamie's fiancee Belisa and his interest in her drives him to distraction, which may have terrible consequences for the company and Ted.

It didn't take long for this movie to get to the point where I was sitting watching it, shaking my head and saying "This movie is just bad." I mean, within fifteen minutes of the opening of the movie, my stomach was turning with how inane the dialogue was. Riker is a cynic with a foul mouth and his character is so utterly despicable that it's over the top. Michael Keaton plays Ted Riker as a parody of the evil salesman with such nasty disregard for everyone and everything that he mortgages any sense that the character has any ability to back up his arrogance.

Similarly, Brandon Fraser displays none of his acting brilliance as Jamie. No, Fraser plays Jamie with an over-the-top sense of goodness and youthful exuberance that makes him a parody of the Midwestern hayseed. Anyone with any sense of reality can see the moment the movie starts that Jamie could not have gotten where he was going with the sensibilities and naivete that he seems to possess. In a similar vein, the audience fails to believe that Riker could be so maniacal and unlikable and still be such a business powerhouse as he is characterized as.

And, of course, in the course of the film, both characters are exposed for not being who they immediately appear to be. Riker has a heart of gold that has been broken, despite his almost immediate willingness to seduce Belisa. The problem is, the way the movie is written, along with the performances, leads the viewer who has any attention span to conclude early on that all is not as it seems. And by the time the payoff eventually comes, the viewer doesn't care. We've been dragged through ninety minutes of misery and boredom and the truth is, none of the characters are likable or empathetic enough for us to care about.

Writer-director Michael Caleo seems to want to be the next Bryan Singer, by providing an ending instantly reminiscent of The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!). The problem Caleo has in executing his last minute reversal is twofold: 1. By the time it comes, the audience does not care, and 2. The audience has been expecting almost the exact reversal that comes for over an hour, so when it arrives, we are neither surprised nor impressed.

But one of the things that makes The Usual Suspects so very smart and is lacking from The Last Time is that the clues are there for the viewer to see. In this film, the "surprise" ending where the culprits and the true plot are revealed is less a payoff to diligent viewing and more a simple answer to the question of "Who is behind it and why?" In short, anyone with a pulse will be able to tell that Ted Riker is being jerked around and that question is all that remains for much of the movie.

The problem is, it's almost impossible to care about it because none of the characters are believable, interesting, or remotely empathetic. The worst of this is at the climax of the film when one of the characters seems to have a change of heart. One of the characters belongs to something of a Syndicate that seems to specialize in manipulating people like Ted (I'm writing in vague terms so as not to ruin it for those who disregard my advice and watch this piece of crap) and I can buy that. The problem is, the person begins to have a change of heart. This is the same problem I had with Elektra (reviewed here!) where a trained assassin suddenly gets a conscious. If there is a change from what a character has a history of doing, the explanation needs to be made compelling to the audience or else it does not fit. That's the crux of the problem with this story's resolution.

I'm overthinking it, though. This is just a stupid movie. It's poorly constructed, it's poorly acted and it's poorly resolved. On DVD, it's no great shakes with bonuses being a collection of deleted scenes that add nothing to the film and three previews for other movies.

If you like corporate dramas or mysteries, avoid this film. If you want to see a bunch of talented people waste their time in a crappy movie, The Last Time might be for you. For the rest of us, there are better uses of our time.

For other works with Amber Valetta, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Spy Next Door
Gamer
The Family Man
What Lies Beneath

2/10

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

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

| | |

Giving Just Enough: Something’s Gotta Give Is Not Bad.

The Good: Good acting, Interesting characters, Initially interesting plot
The Bad: Film mortgages characters for safe plot resolution
The Basics: When the playboy Harry Sanborn meets the cultured playwright Erica Barry, an unpredictable friendship is formed that is generally satisfying.


The problem with writing a review for Something’s Gotta Give is that all of the serious detractions to the movie come in the resolution of the film. I'm not one to spoil a movie where it is probable that one does not know where it is going, so my review (and average rating of the movie) will be somewhat less developed than it could be.

While famous bachelor Harry Sanborn is dating his latest young, uncomplicated conquest, he finds himself in the presence of noted playwright Erica Barry. Barry is repulsed by Harry's immediate air of implied chauvinism and prejudiced against his business (despite being an older white guy, Harry owns a hip-hop label). When Harry has a heart attack, he is forced to stay in Erica's house, where he begins to develop a relationship with her, as opposed to her daughter Marin.

As Erica and Harry get to know one another, Erica finds herself charmed. Their friendship opens her up to a relationship with Harry's young doctor, Julian. Julian is a big fan of Erica's plays and he makes it clear from their first meeting that he would love to get to know her. So, Erica's personal and professional lives become complicated by relationships.

And the two real problems with Something’s Gotta Give (outside the ridiculously inappropriate title) are how the plots are resolved and Keanu Reeves. The movie establishes a premise that challenges the conventions of relationships that people in the United States are accustomed to. I like that. While Erica is exploring her options with Julian, the movie is intriguing. When Harry is spending time with Erica relating why he enjoys dating women in their late twenties, he reveals levels of relationship complexity (or lack of complexity) that defy the expectations we have of a man who does not date within his age group.

So, Something’s Gotta Give sets the viewer up for an experience that will challenge our conventions, possibly make us think and otherwise be something different. I like different, especially when it works. And for a time, this movie works. But then . . .

The other problem I have is with Keanu Reeves. Reeves is not a great actor and in this movie he's required to show interest in Diane Keaton's character. We never feel a real spark here. Reeves does not emote in a way that makes the viewer believe he is truly into Erica. As a result, the plot problems in some ways become evident. This, I'm sure, was not intended. That is, the only reason the ends come as no real surprise is because Reeves does not play his part with any on-screen chemistry.

Outside that, the movie works. It's funny, it's heartwarming, it is heartwrenching all in turn. The plot is fairly well put together and the characters are interesting. The acting, outside Reeves, is great. Frances McDormand enters the movie at the outset and leaves far too early. Amanda Peet gives a vivid performance as Marin and from her opening scenes, we believe that she could be with Jack Nicholson's Harry.

Nicholson, for his part, gives a performance on par with his appearance in As Good As It Gets (reviewed here!). He is more articulate as Harry Sanborn than in any role in recent memory of his. His portrayal in Something’s Gotta Give almost redeems his unbearable About Schmidt (reviewed here!). When appropriate, he is articulate, then funny, then genuinely emotional. Seeing him work through his issues is impressive as a character study and Nicholson makes the character work.

The movie turns on Diane Keaton's performance as Erica Barry. First off, it's always a pleasure to see women past what Hollywood considers their prime taking supposed risks like nude scenes and Keaton pulls hers off with panache. Keaton is given the toughest role in the middle of the movie of expressing loss and sorrow while attempting to be productive through it. During that wrenching sequence, which might last a whisper too long, Keaton is utterly convincing. Her performance is powerful and it is impossible not to feel empathy for her character. That empathy is not guaranteed by the audience, Keaton earns it. And that's pretty cool.

Who will enjoy Something's Gotta Give? Anyone who would like a decent romantic comedy. This is fairly archetypal but it opens well and sucks the viewer in quite effectively. It's worth a viewing, even if it's a tough sell for one's permanent collection.

For other works with Diane Keaton, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Morning Glory
The Family Stone
Annie Hall
The Godfather, Part II
The Godfather

5.5/10

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

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

Morning Glory Is The Best, Most Insufferably Predictable, Workplace Dramedy In Years!

The Good: Interesting characters, Decent development and structure, Wonderful acting, Decent DVD bonus features.
The Bad: Utterly predictable on all fronts.
The Basics: Despite being painfully predictable, Morning Glory is a worthwhile and fun film focusing on one plucky producer’s attempt to save a morning television news program, despite her lead anchor’s resistance!


The longer one watches and reviews movies (or television, I suppose), the harder it is to surprise them. For sure, not everything can be innovative, fresh and new, which might be why so many major studios continue to revamp old franchises rather than being accused of making something that would be panned as “derivative.” With romantic comedies and lighter workplace dramas, there have been so many cinematic stories told that it truly is difficult to amaze viewers now. Thus, the success of those types of movies often comes down to the quality of the cast and acting and the quirks that come in the writing from the writer’s sense of style and eloquence.

Morning Glory succeeds for only that reason. Were it not for an impressive cast acting incredibly well and moments where the writing felt fresh (Mike Pomeroy being defined as the third worst person on the planet, for example), Morning Glory would simply be a formulaic nightmare that lacked any charm, originality or reason to watch. As it is, though, Morning Glory has enough going for it, so much so that it is easy to see why Harrison Ford wanted to be a part of it. However, the entirely formulaic nature of the film helps make it clear why so few critics were wowed by the movie.

Becky Fuller works for a small New Jersey television station where she works on the morning show. When she thinks she is being promoted, she is in fact fired and that throws her off track entirely. Despite her mother’s discouragements, Becky continues to pursue a position as a producer and after weeks of trying, she finally lands an interview at IBS. Hired to take over the struggling show “Daybreak,” Becky is hampered by outdated technology and a lecherous, egotistical anchor. After firing her anchor, she determines that the newscaster for whom she has always had respect is still under contract with the network and using a clause in his contract that leverages the balance of his contract against him, Becky manages to get Mike Pomeroy to come do “Daybreak.”

Unfortunately for Becky and Mike’s co-anchor, Colleen, Mike refuses to adapt to the format of morning television. Unwilling to do any piece that he feels is below him, Mike pushes to report real news. But when one of Becky’s stunts involving the weatherman, Ernie, actually shows a tiny ratings bump, Becky sees that the key to getting the audience is sensationalism. As she uses Ernie and Colleen to bring entertaining programming to the morning show, Mike continues to resist, focusing instead on his own quest for a breaking news story. As Becky works to save the show, she tries to balance “Daybreak” with her new relationship with Adam, a man who knows Mike Pomeroy’s eccentricities all too well.

Morning Glory is one of those movies that it is hard for me to start an objective discussion about because I start going into all the things that feel familiar and trite about it – mostly pertaining to the plot and character structure of the film. So, sufficed to say, the film is not only predictable, but it has a very “assembled” feel to it. In other words, the film has very little in the way of frills; the elements that are put into play very early in Morning Glory all come back later on to be paid off. So, for example, Becky’s mother makes a crack in her first scene about how Becky has just been working on the hope that someday, an important executive will call her up and offer her a producing position on the biggest morning show on the air. So, when Becky is called by NBC late in the film, that bit of foreshadowing is played out.

But the problem with being so very critical about how the film is assembled is that some of it, much of it, actually works. Adam’s knowledge of Mike Pomeroy’s drinking habits is not only useful to Becky, it makes sense that he would have become familiar with them in his tenure working with Mike. The scene where Mike Pomeroy cooks a frittata before work not only serves to humanize him to Becky, but it is pretty much meaningless without the callback to it late in the film. As a result, much of Morning Glory feels like a set-up in the first half and the second half is all about paying off the threads laid down. It’s a formula, but it is hard to complain when part of that formula results in people putting down their smartphones and spending more real time together.

Part of the success of Morning Glory (because it does work quite a bit more than it ever fails) comes from the film’s cast and the fact that director Roger Mitchell uses them all in an excellent fashion. Matt Malloy makes Ernie credible in all the ways his character is tormented and Michell uses Ty Burrell for a brief, hilarious, role before getting him off camera before Burrell can change the entire tenor of the film. John Pankow has great physical performances in Morning Glory and one of my new favorites over the past three years, Patrick Wilson, manages to be entirely credible as Adam. He is, in fact, far more believable as an awkward, lovestruck yet frumpy guy than Rachel McAdams is as a woman so busy she doesn’t possibly notice that she is drop-dead gorgeous. Jeff Goldblum is efficient and smart in his scenes as Jerry.

Diana Keaton pretty much reinvented herself in Morning Glory. As Colleen Peck, she plays a journalist who understands how the game is played and works for a fourth place show. Instead of complaining about it, Colleen shows up, does her job and waits for a producer to come along who believes in the concept of “Daybreak” and who might actually want to be there. When Becky Fuller arrives, Colleen quickly realizes that she is the real deal. This leads Keaton to some of her most memorable moments on film as she raps with 50 Cent, plays with animals and is put in a giant sumo costume to go up against a real sumo wrestler. And Keaton plays Colleen as credibly smart and emotionally connected enough to hold her own against Harrison Ford’s Mike Pomeroy.

Well before he played a cranky old man in Cowboys And Aliens (reviewed here!), Harrison Ford played Mike Pomeroy and the role is an exceptionally good one to illustrate Ford’s talents. Harrison Ford does not play Pomeroy as dashing, debonair, or charismatic, which are traits that Ford is usually associated with. Instead, he slouches, scowls and grunts his way through the role and he is so convincing in his grumpy persona that viewers are almost unlikely to buy that he is smart enough, when viewing the promos for Pomeroy joining “Daybreak,” to quip, “What’s in the briefcase? Where am I running to?!” Ford pulls it off, though, and he makes a good arc of Pomeroy’s many barriers peeling away.

Rachel McAdams, however, sells Morning Glory. It is largely her job to convince the viewers that Becky is smart and driven enough to make “Daybreak” work and over the course of the film, she succeeds. She has great on-screen chemistry with both Patrick Wilson and Harrison Ford. Rachel McAdams makes Fuller seem determined and righteous enough to be completely believable.

On DVD and Blu-Ray, Morning Glory has quite a bit to offer viewers. In addition to deleted scenes, there is a rich commentary track with director Roger Michell and the film’s author. The featurettes are entertaining and there are enough bonus features to make viewers feel they are getting a value with the disc.

Ultimately, Morning Glory may not be the most original film, but it presents the known quantities well and is well worth watching for the entertainment of it; Morning Glory is enduringly entertaining and holds up over multiple viewings.

For other works with Rachel McAdams, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Vow
Sherlock Holmes
The Time Traveler’s Wife
Married Life
The Family Stone
Mean Girls

7/10

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.
| | |

Kissing The Stone Of Mediocrity: The Family Stone

The Good: Decent acting, Fair plot
The Bad: Unlikable or inconsistent characters, Builds too much on unpleasantness before getting good
The Basics: When the Stone Family reunites, it is an annoying girlfriend to one of the sons that dominates the story and ruins the experience for family and viewer alike.


I cannot remember the last time a movie had an emotional resonance with me, where it succeeded in bringing a tear to my eye at moments, that I did not then recommend. Ultimately, and I suppose to skip to the end, The Family Stone is not a movie I'm willing to recommend because by the time it gets to the deeply emotional stuff, it has mortgaged its enjoyability. That is to say, by the time the story tells us to care about the characters, we already do not. And what is most likely to bring a tear to one's eyes is obvious. Writer/director Thomas Bezucha goes for the obvious tear-jerker moments, so the viewer is more likely to feel manipulated at the conclusion to the movie than satisfied.

The Stone family is getting together for Christmas. This year, Everett is bringing his new girlfriend, Meredith Morton, home with him. She is uptight, somewhat obnoxious and pretty glued to her cellphone. She has trouble unwinding, insists on sleeping apart from Everett and feels pressure to fit in with his family.

The family, diverse to the point of cliche, is setup to not like her, though patriarch Kelly insists they give her a fair chance. Sybil, the matriarch, is feeling anxiety over her suspicion that Everett is going to ask her for a promised ring to propose to Meredith. Everett is, in fact, prepared to propose to Meredith and finds himself in conflict with his family over his choice of spouse. Younger sister Amy is feeling persecuted and put out by Meredith, Ben is giving everyone a chance, deaf son Thad and his Black gay partner Patrick are planning to adopt and see this as a chance to be with their family to float the idea and Susannah - with her daughter - is waiting for her absent husband to show up for the holiday.

The problem here is twofold. The first problem is Meredith. While actress Sarah Jessica Parker does not get top billing for The Family Stone, Meredith is the central character during the first half of the movie. And she's unlikable. We're not supposed to like her. Bezucha sees to that. From the first moment she appears on screen talking incessantly into her cell phone, Meredith is portrayed as an uptight pain in the butt. In her first scene with Everett, his action is to simply take away her cell phone and close it, undermining any insinuation of chemistry between the pair. Meredith is unlikable and she is supposed to be. But she is so unlikable and so much time at the beginning of the movie is spent on her that the Stone family - and their assorted stories - simply act as an accessory to her story. And, frankly, we just spend the first part of the movie hoping something unlikely will happen like an alien will abduct her or a car will just crash into the house and take her out. No such luck.

The other problem is the Stone family. This is a collection of direct, progressive people who are generally likable. They are immediately accepting of their family members. All of the members of the family sign for Thad, no one has a problem with his homosexuality or his partner's presence in their family. Thus, after such an establishment, it reads as significantly off that only Ben would give Meredith a chance. Meredith enters the house and is immediately stiff. The family, which seems to be caring and flexible, goes out of their way to make her uncomfortable, flaunting her problems as opposed to helping her through them.

So, the viewer stops caring about Meredith, we side with Sybil and her view that Meredith is not right for Everett. Sybil's issues become a side note and used to jerk the audience around. But more than that, the same lack of attention to detail or caring that marks the Stone family's problem above comes into the writing. There is a line of dialogue that Meredith delivers to Everett early on after arriving at the house. She basically says she doesn't want Everett to feel like he jumped into something and committed too soon and then got stuck. Because he hasn't proposed or anything remotely like that, there's a subtext that perhaps she is pregnant. That subtext - and more importantly, the emotional insecurities which created it - are almost instantly disappeared.

And the problem here is not in the acting or even in the characters. This is not a case of quality actors being placed in roles that don't work. This is an instance of quality actors playing interesting, defined enough, characters who simply don't act like how they are defined after a while. So, for example, Amy gives up her room to accommodate Meredith. She is the rebellious youngest member of the family and it seems odd that she is so thrown by being asked to make so small a sacrifice.

Amy is played by Rachel McAdams and her performance is delightful and Diane Keaton gives another performance worthy of her caliber. Luke Wilson, somewhat disappointingly, plays the same essential character we've seen him as before, which he plays well. Wilson is Ben, an educated and extremely casual guy who more or less surfs through the movie simply dealing with what comes up. In a similar way, Dermot Mulroney fails to wow us as Everett. The actor who surprised me most in The Family Stone was Craig T. Nelson. Nelson plays Kelley and it's a mature, quiet role that requires strength, subtlety and intelligence and Nelson nails the role. He might not have a lot of lines in the movie, but he owns the ones he has and in the final scenes of the film he connotes a great deal with his eyes and expressions.

But it is Sarah Jessica Parker who dominates much of the beginning of the movie as Meredith and her performance creates a character that is so unrelentingly unlikable as to be difficult to watch. Parker walks around the screen and one can see she is visibly clenched, creating a tone that is unsettling, uncomfortable and unenjoyable.

Those are three words that are the death knell to any romantic, family comedy or most dramadies. A hard drama, like Magnolia manages to be unsettling and at times uncomfortable, without being unenjoyable. The Family Stone fails on that front. Ultimately, as I said before, by the time The Family Stone becomes noteworthy, the viewer already has stopped caring about the family and their predicaments and foibles.

For other works with Elizabeth Reaser, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Breaking Dawn, Part I
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
New Moon
Twilight
Twilight trading cards P-8 Elizabeth Reaser costume card

4.5/10

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

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

If Ever There Were Twin Peaks To Pass On, "Episodes 20 - 24" Are Them!

The Good: Moments of character and plot involving the Windom Earl storyline
The Bad: Inane storylines, Focus on lamer characters, (Understandable) Lack of enthusiasm from some actors
The Basics: When Twin Peaks flounders, it falls hard with a block of episodes that are virtually unwatchable with plot-heavy, un-surreal episodes "20 - 24."


[IMPORTANT NOTE: As I proceed through the episodes of Twin Peaks with reviews, it is absolutely impossible to discuss some of the episodes without revealing some of the surprises I will work hard to keep while reviewing earlier episodes, especially when discussing second season episodes. No matter how careful I am, it is impossible to write about some of the later episodes without letting slip that some of the characters were (ultimately) not the killer of Laura Palmer or killed, etc. I shall do my best to minimize that, but given how serialized Twin Peaks is, it is almost impossible to do even a minimal plot summary without some nuggets slipping out. These reviews may be ideal for fans of the series who are sitting down to watch individual episodes and want to have a guide as to which episode did what, because Twin Peaks episodes do not have names, just episode numbers!]

In the second season of Twin Peaks, following the revelation of Laura Palmer's killer, the series went wild as it went into plot and character freefall. Without the focus on Agent Dale Cooper and his mission to solve the big mystery of Twin Peaks to focus on interwoven with the machinations of Benjamin Horne in his attempt to get the Packard Lumber Mill land, the writers and producers scrambled to create something that would fulfill the rest of the season order for Twin Peaks. And it's not like they didn't know where they wanted to get to, the problem was there were too many episodes to get to before they ended up landing where they wanted to. The result was some pretty disastrous television, encapsulated on "Episodes 20 - 24" of Twin Peaks. This set offers some of the shakiest episodes of the series, even as it builds toward the big finale. The result is a set that has some terrible b-plot material being brought front and center and some intriguing a-plot material being oppressed by it.

"Episode 20" deals with the return of Major Briggs and Cooper trying to discover where he disappeared to. Bobby Briggs abandons Shelly for his work with Benjamin Horne who has gone quite insane in a reclusive way; spending all of his time locked in his office dressed as a Confederate general and playing with recreation pieces to a Civil War battle. This leaves Audrey harried, which does not get relieved by Agent Cooper, who works with Denise and Ernie in a drug bust which results in Cooper being taken hostage by Jean Renault's men. Meanwhile, James Hurley finishes fixing up Evelyn's car and Big Ed, frustrated with Nadine's regression, makes his move on Norma. Norma makes the decision to allow her love for Ed to be free, which results in a dangerous showdown between Ed and Hank Jennings!

"Episode 21" finds the power out in Twin Peaks and Windom Earle having taken his first piece in the chess match and claiming his first victim. While Cooper struggles to deal with the escalating danger of the chess match, Shelly attempts to flee a very cognizant and violent Leo only to be rescued herself. Big Ed and Norma deal with the renewed spark between them and James finishes the work on Evelyn's car only to have her husband promptly killed, leaving him framed for the murder. Andy and Dick work to discover Nicky's origins and find the truth is too real for them and a new stranger enters the Great Northern on a mission to find Josie Packard, leaving Truman worried about his lover's life.

"Episode 22" finds Leo in Earle's company, the angry man held by the madman as he continues his dangerous chess match. Cooper receives a gift in the form of the return of Albert who fills in much of the Windom Earle backstory and Josie is confronted by the powerful Thomas Eckhardt. Dr. Jacoby, Jerry, Audrey and Bobby work to complete Benjamin Horne's delusion and effectively end the Civil War in his mind, allowing him to snap back to reality. James, framed by Evelyn, turns back to try to get a confession from her with terrible results.

"Episode 23" presents Benjamin Horne with his new plan to block the Ghostwood project using the little pine weasel as cover until he can get the Packard mill land and the project back. As Big Ed is broken up with by Nadine, he turns to Norma with unabashed love. Norma, in turn, decides it is time to end her marriage to Hank who is incarcerated for his various violences. And the situation between Josie and Thomas Eckhardt comes to a violent - and surreal head - which informs Cooper of the dangers of things to come and the continued existence of Bob.

"Episode 24" finds Sheriff Truman descending into drunk depression over the loss of Josie and Pete aiding Cooper in the chess match against Earle. Having lured his three queens out into the open, Earle witnesses Cooper meeting Annie, Norma's sister who has come from the convent to work in the diner. Big Ed and Nadine get some counseling from Dr. Jacoby and Audrey begins to move on with Mr. Wheeler, an old business pal of her father's. And Richard helps Ben throw a benefit for the little pine weasel.

What is unfortunate about this section of Twin Peaks is that it is almost all bad. Plotlines like Mike and Nadine, the Benjamin Horne Civil War General phase, James and Evelyn, and anything involving Dick are just homogeneously bad. These plotlines take on hugely contrived, very soap operatic aspects that make for pretty miserable television. To be fair, these five episodes of Twin Peaks are probably not truly awful the way some television can be, but they are so far below the quality of where Twin Peaks has traditionally been that it feels quite bad to the viewer and fan.

Actually, there are many aspects to these episodes that are just flat-out awful. Characters come and go for quick arcs, like Thomas Eckhardt and Evelyn and her psychopathic lover (who may or may not be her brother). The result is the feeling that the show is in transition and it's simply biding its time until it gets where it is going.

Almost all of the traditional genius of Twin Peaks is stripped away in these episodes for a harsh reality that is hardly interesting and certainly lacking in vision and the intense grace of David Lynch's dream-vision that brought Twin Peaks to popularity well before these episodes. So, for example, outside the opening sequence to "Episode 20" wherein Major Briggs begins recounting his disappearance and Josie's final scenes, there is no sense of the surrealism and unique oddity that characterized Twin Peaks. The Nicky storyline wraps up with a bland reality that does not even grace the pathetic child character with an exit; instead Dick and Andy are given a broad expository scene by Dr. Heyward on the circumstances surrounding the child's birth and formative years. It's dry, it's dull and it does no services to any larger storyline.

And the emphasis on the plot events guts many of the characters. So, for example, with the Andy, Dick and Lucy love triangle, we never learn what it is that even gave Lucy the inclination toward Richard and what his interest in her actually was. The competition between the two men for her heart seems forced and increasingly ridiculous because the characters stopped making sense. There is no chemistry between Lucy and Richard and the quirky romance between Lucy and Andy is sublimated for the plot aspects in this set of episodes.

Similarly, the various machinations surrounding Josie and Eckhardt seem both rushed and contrived in the most common of soap opera fashions. The episodes fail to resonate when the relationships between the Packard backstory characters are simply being laid out for the viewers with little regard to sensibility or genuine intrigue. Instead, Eckhardt is a fairly generic gangster from another place with little sense of genuine identity.

And the less said about the witless James Hurley plot the better. The whole James leaves town, gets into trouble with another man's wife and is set up for a murder he did not commit only to be rescued by his true love whom he rides out on again, is straight out of the soap opera plot twist playbook. It's obvious and it feels as cheap as it is when it is presented on Twin Peaks, a series usually well above such common conceits.

Benjamin Horne suffers as well and any sense of his integrity as a genuine businessman is gutted by his sudden mental illness. Indeed, the only character that benefits with true growth here is Audrey Horne. Audrey takes charge and works to save her father's business empire and in the process becomes more mature, responsible and clever. It is almost realistic, then that she overcompensates for her new maturity by diving headfirst toward Mr. Wheeler when she cannot get Cooper. From the DVD bonus features on definitive edition, viewers would know that Audrey no longer pursuing Cooper comes from actor Kyle MacLaughlan's discomfort over the idea of the FBI agent being involved with an eighteen year-old high school student.

At least Wheeler is played by a decent and plausible actor. Billy Zane brings the same bland good looking definitively male quality to the role of Wheeler as he did to his brief part in Orlando (reviewed here!). In a similar way, David Warner - who would later wow audiences with his masterful performance of Gul Macet on Star Trek: The Next Generation's "Chain Of Command, Part II" (reviewed here!) - impresses audiences more with his presence in these episodes of Twin Peaks than his actual performance of Eckhardt. He is given a bit role and the bland undefined villainy of the character does not suit a performer of his stature and it is no surprise or even genuine interest when Warner departs quite quickly.

In fact, this section of Twin Peaks is plagued by the actors seeming to know they are working in something that is no longer thrilling or unique. Kyle MacLachlan, Sherilynn Fenn, Michael Ontkean and Richard Beymer all phone in their performances as the bigger characters going in lame directions. Peggy Lipton and Everett McGill, who play Norma and Big Ed restore some sense of sexual chemistry to their characters and they do it successfully, but they are not given enough time and space (yet) to truly run with it.

The only genuinely worthwhile performance that is consistently delivered comes from Kenneth Welsh, who plays the villainous Windom Earle. Welsh plays a master of disguise (who has pretty lame disguises) who begins to prey upon Twin Peaks and Welsh does a great job of insinuating intelligence and madness into the character. Welsh has an expressiveness to his eyes that plays silently crazy remarkably well. He's the only reason to watch this section of Twin Peaks on the acting front.

And that's not enough at all. For a series once so high, this represents the low-water mark and it's painful for a fan of the series to sit through these episodes, much less purchase them.

[Knowing that VHS is essentially a dead medium, it's worth looking into Twin Peaks - The Complete Second Season on DVD, which is also a better economical choice than buying the VHS. Read my review of the second and final season reviewed here!
or check out the entire series, available in the Gold Box Definitive edition, reviewed here!
Thanks!]

For other works with Billy Zane, please visit my reviews of:
Titanic
Back To The Future II
Back To The Future

3.5/10

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

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

Seamless Sequels Without The Spark: The Godfather, Part II Leaves Me Less Impressed.

The Good: Decent acting, Great DVD bonus features
The Bad: Character conflicts/developments are actually minimal, Plot has largely been done before
The Basics: The Godfather, Part II might be the only sequel to win Best Picture after its predecessor won, but it is more a tired continuation of the original than something new.


The Godfather, Part II, for those who do not know, holds a distinction that no other movie holds at this point. It is the only movie that is a sequel to a film that won the Best Picture that also won the top Oscar prize. While there have been a few oddities as far as winners for Best Picture goes, there are few noteworthy films that have Best Picture trivia that have less going for them than The Godfather, Part II. While this is the only sequel to win following the first film in the series winning, there are far better sequel movies. Sequels that hold their own with the original or are even better than the first film in the series, like The Empire Strikes Back (reviewed here!) or The Dark Knight (reviewed here!) are not unheard of. But in the case of The Godfather, Part II, writers Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola (who also directed and produced the film) created an extension of the first film which is so closely mirrors the look and feel of the original that one feels more like they are watching some alternate take of the original.

With most movies, it is tough for me to nail down a precise moment when I opt not to recommend the film or I decide that it is not quite the work I thought it might have been at moments I was enjoying it. This is not the case with The Godfather, Part II. Instead, the moment Michael Corleone belts his wife, Kay, across the face, I decided that this was not a film I was going to recommend or one that I was particularly enjoying. I went into The Godfather, Part II blind, so I was actually quite excited to see Robert De Niro playing the younger version of Vito Corleone. But my pleasure at the inspired casting dissipated the longer the film went on and I was left feeling what many people feel when they watch a sequel; that the memory of something great has been brought down by prolonging it.

Now the godfather of the Corleone family, Michael Corleone is extorted by a U.S. Senator when he wants to expand his family's gambling interests in Las Vegas. As Michael confronts the legitimate business interests that have lined up prevent him and his family from taking more of an interest in gambling, he finds himself the target of an assassination attempt. Dealing with Hyman Roth, with whom his father did business despite distrusting, Michael soon begins to suspect that the hit on him came from within the family and it becomes quite clear that his brother Fredo is deeply involved in the conflicting interests in Las Vegas.

As Michael works to go legitimate, save the family business and retain the power his family has accrued over the past fifty years - with the aid of Tom Hagen, his consigliore - the film presents the life story of Vito Corleone, from his younger years in Italy (in the village of Corleone) to his emigration to the United States. Vito's story is told as he arrives in New York and slowly builds power in the community. Starting with helping out a woman who is being evicted for having a dog, Vito becomes more of a powerhouse by refusing to take guff and by doing what others will not to take power.

The mirroring stories are shown with the same sense of color and depth as the original film The Godfather (reviewed here!). This is, in part because Coppola and Puzo wrote and directed the original as well as this sequel. In many ways, The Godfather, Part II continues the story of The Godfather and the characters and their backstories are very much considered assumed knowledge by the producers. So, for example, elements like the climactic scene of the film mean absolutely nothing to people who have not seen the first film. Because the some of the characters in that final scene were only in the first film, the significance of it is only truly realized by those who know the story of all of the characters involved.

What the movie does well - which is why it took me so very long to decide that I did not actually like the film - is both continue the story of the Corleone family and Michael's consolidation of power and casting. When Robert De Niro appeared on screen as the younger Vito Corleone, I instantly saw the resemblance to Marlon Brando's iconic character from The Godfather. De Niro confirms what everyone knows now about him; he is a master actor with a great physical presence and his ability to mimic the mannerisms and even vocal tones of Brando. But the brilliant aspect of De Niro as the younger version of Vito is that he plausibly builds the character from a child into a young man who slowly becomes authoritative and reasons out how to get what he wants from life and those around him.

But beyond that, the movie is remarkably disappointing for those looking for a fresh cinematic experience. While the casting of De Niro is brilliant initially, the mirroring stories start with clear labels of the time and place. As the movie goes on, The Godfather, Part II drops the labels, but the color palate between both times is so remarkably similar that it takes a few moments for the viewer to realize when they are in the story being told. What doesn't help is that Al Pacino and Robert De Niro are frequently made to look like one another and this makes figuring out when one is in the story a bit more difficult.

But more than having real character development in the Michael Corleone plot, The Godfather, Part II simply rehashes much of what viewers have seen before. Michael is slow-burning, but lacks anything to set him apart from the other Corleones. At this point, he is simply a wannabe Vito. As well, he illustrates some of the traits - like smacking around his wife - that he has previously despised. As a result, it becomes quite easy to not care about large chunks of the film. Similarly, while seeing Vito's rise to power is interesting, because viewers who have seen The Godfather know how his story ends, the process is distracted from being truly engaging by the cutaways to Michael's story. As well, peripheral characters like Tom Hagen do not develop or evolve at all in this film.

On the two-disc DVD, The Godfather, Part II is presented with a commentary track and in widescreen format. There may be additional bonus features on newer DVD releases, but the two-disc version is fairly spartan. The film is also not cleaned up ideally for DVD and there were several points in the movie - not correlating to time periods - where the print looked grainier than others.

As far as those who love great drama, The Godfather, Part II is liable to disappoint. There are moments that the film is engaging and the Senate hearings into the Corleone family are different, but for the most part the movie feels like a familiar character study with some scenes we have not seen before. And, considering I'd already sat through three hours of this family doing similar things, this movie just seemed more redundant than incredible.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project online here! Please check it out!]

For other films with Robert De Niro, please check out:
The Untouchables
Brazil
The Deer Hunter

7/10

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

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

| | |

Annie Hall: I Get More Allusions, But This Just ISN'T The Romantic Comedy I Was Promised!

The Good: Some good lines, Decent direction
The Bad: Characters are tough to like, Poor on-screen chemistry, Incoherent narrative, Largely not funny.
The Basics: Light on humor and even lighter on romance, Annie Hall is a surprisingly bad romantic comedy that was big in 1977 and may be safely avoided now.


A while back, I found myself at a screening of Julie & Julia and the one lasting feeling it left me with was the desire to accomplish something I set my mind to. So, shortly thereafter, I started a program at my local library, which involved watching every film that won the Best Picture Oscar every two weeks, but it was put on hiatus when summer came. It looks like it might stay on hiatus and if that is the case, I had a feeling that I would never get around to watching all of the movies that won Best Picture. So, with the message from Julie & Julia in my head, I decided I would do a disciplined race to the end of the year and I would complete my Best Picture Project (available here!) this very year. That means almost every day for the remainder of the year, I will be watching and reviewing another film that won Best Picture until I have seen them all!

Today, then, I returned to this task by watching Annie Hall, which has the distinction of being one of my mother's favorite movies. It also has the distinction of being the film that beat Star Wars: A New Hope (reviewed here!) for the Best Picture Oscar in 1977. Usually, I argue that romantic comedies do not get enough respect and that there are some classic romantic comedies, but having sat through ninety-three minutes with only a dozen laughs, I am left thinking that Woody Allen got lucky on this one. As one of the films that supposedly everyone who likes comedy enjoys, I was seriously let down. I was more excited when I caught references used in Family Guy to Annie Hall ("I Dream Of Jesus's" scene with Jesus telling George W. Bush he knows nothing of his work is taken directly from this!) than virtually any other aspect of the movie. The reason for this is pretty simple. While I am able to appreciate wit, especially from nervous protagonists, Annie Hall is largely not funny and when it is, it is largely humorous in ways that have absolutely nothing to do with the main characters and their relationship. In other words, this is barely a romantic comedy and while it has its quirks, it does not work in far too many places.

Divorcee Alvy Singer is broken up about his breakup with Annie Hall, so he considers the relationship in retrospect. He recalls meeting her for tennis and the insane drive home. He recalls his first two wives and what didn't work with them and how Annie needs to smoke pot in order to relax enough to make love. He remembers how she wanted to go out more and how she began to sing because he encouraged her.

But Alvy is a nervous comedian and playwright and he's not as social as the younger Annie is. He finds himself preoccupied with death and dying while her therapist encourages her to live more and experiment.

Annie Hall is a love story told out of order, with frequent digressions and let me dispel any theories that I did not enjoy Annie Hall because of the narrative techniques. I love atypically-told films and I particularly enjoy movies that are daring enough to force the viewer to piece the movie together on their own by putting things out of order. Even with the weird digressions in Annie Hall, the time element works fine and the movie is not a challenge to piece together for that reason.

Instead, what Annie Hall suffers from is an on-screen couple that has absolutely no sexual or romantic chemistry, digressions that are far funnier than the actual narrative of the movie and a sense of its own self-importance (and that of New York City) that is almost embarrassing to watch. The first point is almost impossible to argue. Weird on-screen pairings can work, especially when the man is the weird one. Look at When Harry Met Sally...; Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan make the romance work because the two have great on-screen chemistry. Woody Allen and costar Diane Keaton have no spark between them on-screen and watching them together is like watching a romance where one knows the actors are brother and sister. At least as significant is the lack of scenes where their characters seem to enjoy the company of the other. Alvy and Annie are more often seen discussing or experiencing their dysfunctions than actually illustrating their affections for one another. So in addition to the actors not seeming to be into one another, the characters never seem truly drawn to one another.

The digressions in Annie Hall are one of the movie's actual strengths and they are funny. In addition to a bold narrative technique that sets the various aspects of the relationship between Annie and Alvy out of order, Annie Hall has social commentary thrown in that is off-the-wall funny. So, for example, during one of their early conversations, Alvy and Annie have a straightforward (if esoteric) conversation on the art of photography while on screen there is a subtitle of what each of them is thinking at the time. The difference between what they are saying and what they are thinking is cute. However, most of the digressions have nothing to do with the relationship. For example when Alvy meets Annie's family, director Woody Allen switches to a split screen to show off Alvy's family for contrast. While the boisterous Singer family is funny, it is essentially a callback to an earlier joke that poked similar fun at Alvy's parents.

Throughout Annie Hall the story is broken up by schtick wherein Alvy tells jokes and stories and some of them are funny. However, their connections to his relationship with Annie are only passing and the links are more forced than real. In a similar way, Christopher Walken's scene where he tells Alvy about his desire to drive into oncoming traffic only sets up a joke where Duane (Walken's character) drives Alvy and Annie to the airport. It's amusing, but it does not feel like the same movie; it distracts from the story of Alvy and Annie.

Alvy, in fact, talks more about New York City than he does Annie. More than being a romance between Alvy and Annie, Annie Hall is about one man's obsession with staying static in New York City. This is not to say that Woody Allen does not make some great points as Alvy. I completely agree with Alvy's distaste for drugs and the feeling that they are utterly unnecessary for love or relationships, but he is resistant to all change. So, he tries to change Annie to meet his needs. In the course of the film, Annie takes his advice and realizes she is too good for Alvy. The humor is subtle, but that's the problem with Annie Hall; it is either being witty about everything but relationships or it is utilizing such obvious humor (though I did laugh when Alvy sneezes and blows a whole fortune of cocaine across a room!) that the film might as well have a laugh track.

On DVD, Annie Hall appears as a double-sided disc, with one side having the widescreen version and the opposite having a pan-and-scan version. As well, it has the original theatrical trailer. That is all.

I'm glad I watched Annie Hall, but truth be told, it is overrated and while it adequately captures the look and feel of the mid-1970s, it is a fractured film with no genuine sense of chemistry and what sense of character there is is mortgaged by the lack of connection between the lead characters. There are other romantic comedies do everything this film tried better and Annie Hall might be classic Woody Allen, but it is only reinforcing the idea that I might not be a fan of his works.

For other films with Christopher Walken, please check out my reviews of:
Excess Baggage
Batman Returns
The Deer Hunter

5/10

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

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