Better Than Any Seat In The House: Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids Still Underwhelms.

The Good: Decent footage, Awesome charisma, Very cool that the documentary presents the full ensemble
The Bad: Short, Underuse of iconic songs, Presentation/performance, Very odd arrangement
The Basics: Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids might document accurately the final performance from the 20/20 Experience Tour, but it dramatically undersells both the concert experience and Timberlake's talents.


Every now and then, it is hammered home to me the age difference between my amazing wife and I. She is more than a decade younger than me and sometimes those years show in our musical preferences. So, when she put on the Netflix concert documentary Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids, I quickly realized just how few songs from Justin Timberlake as a solo artist I actually know. I also realized that I have a very different concert-going experience than most people her age. I am not, as it turns out, into the whole big amphitheater concert thing. The musical artists who I have seen in concert - with the exception of Matchbox Twenty - have all been smaller venues where everyone can see and hear the performer.

That is not the experience documented in Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids.

Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids is a ninety minute concert documentary that chronicles the final performance by Justin Timberlake and The Tennessee Kids at the Las Vegas MGM Grand as part of the 20/20 Experience World Tour. Fleshed out with material of the concert preparation, Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids is a pretty straightforward concert performance. While the 20/20 Experience World Tour might have been one of the most profitable musical tours in history, viewing the film Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids objectively, it is hard to see why.

The concert performance chronicled in Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids is a mix of Justin Timberlake songs with covers and mash-ups that include Michael Jackson's "Human Nature" and Bel Biv DeVoe "Poison." Of Timberlake's original songs, I recognized three and they were good, as were the rest of the songs. Justin Timberlake and his ensemble have a pretty wonderful performance ability when they are singing and dancing, as one might expect.

Director Jonathan Demme and Justin Timberlake do an awesome job in Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids of highlighting the whole ensemble. All of the instrumental performers and dancers are interviewed for Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids and they all seem very excited about the experience of working with Justin Timberlake. It is very classy that Justin Timberlake and Demme do not simply focus on the a-list celebrity who is the film's prime focus.

But Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids is far from perfect. First and foremost, while the footage from the concert is undoubtedly better than any seat one would have had at the actual concert - a thought nailed home by several shots that showed just how massive the theater was - it is edited in a very weird way. Many times when Justin Timberlake is performing, the shot changes to a completely random shot of someone else in the ensemble. For some of Justin Timberlake's most impressive dance moves, the camera is placed so far back that it barely captures his moves.

Beyond that, Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids illustrates one of the serious issues with major concert performances; the performer barely performs. Throughout the concert captured in Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids Justin Timberlake calls out for audience participation and he stops singing and lets his backing vocalists carry the songs. There is something very frustrating about watching Justin Timberlake smile in the build-up to one of his songs, hear him sing three words and then watch him just give up and let others carry the song. Sure, he pops back in for an occasional word or phrase, but there are astonishingly few songs as the documentary goes into its second half that Justin Timberlake performs with his full voice and ability.

Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids also has a very weird arrangement. Near the middle of the performance, Justin Timberlake and his ensemble perform a mash-up that includes "Human Nature." It's a great closer. But the concert goes on. After this decent downbeat, Justin Timberlake and the other performers ramp the whole performance back up and it makes for a very awkward flow.

Ultimately, Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids might accurately capture the final performance of Justin Timberlake and The Tennessee Kids on the 20/20 Experience World Tour, but it does not highlight well the energy of the concert experience, the talents of Justin Timberlake or make for an overall entertaining experience. Justin Timberlake + The Tennessee Kids barely showcases the talents of The Tennessee Kids, Justin Timberlake's back-up dancers and the audience at the show.

For other Netflix originals, please check out my reviews of:
Love - Season 2
Santa Clarita Diet - Season 1
A Series Of Unfortunate Events - Season 1
One Day At A Time - Season 1
Travelers - Season 1
"Happy Fuckin' New Year" - Sense8
The OA - Season 1
Gilmore Girls: A Year In The Life
Girlfriend's Day
Take The 10
Clinical
Barry
Spectral
True Memoirs Of An International Assassin
I Am The Pretty Thing That Lives In The House
Mascots
ARQ
XOXO
Tallulah
Special Correspondents
The Fundamentals Of Caring
The Ridiculous 6
Luke Cage - Season 1
Stranger Things - Season 1
Grace And Frankie - Season 2
Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt - Season 2
Arrested Development - Season 4
The Clone Wars - Season 6
Orange Is The New Black - Season 1
House Of Cards - Season 4

3.5/10

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

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

In Case You Can't Make It To Conventions: Elstree 1976

The Good: Good interviews, Some moments of vintage footage
The Bad: Disorganized, Largely unsubstantiated stories, Does not hold true to its core
The Basics: Elstree 1976 is a marginally interesting rambling of character actors who participated in minor roles in A New Hope.


While most of the world is out watching and rewatching Rogue One (reviewed here!) in the theaters, I am keeping warm with movies at home. To that end, I am exploring the nostalgia surrounding A New Hope (reviewed here!), which is certainly riding high upon the release of Rogue One, given how many connections there are from the tangent prequel film to the original Star Wars film. I figured a great way to explore the nostalgia is to take in some Star Wars documentary films and tonight's is Elstree 1976.

Elstree 1976 is a straightforward documentary film focusing on the supporting (uncredited) cast of the first Star Wars film A New Hope. Featuring a surprising amount of vintage footage from the backlot, mixed with new interview footage of the actors involved, Elstree 1976 meanders through the lives of nine supporting and background actors from A New Hope.

Forty years after the shooting of A New Hope, in the London suburbs, actors were assembled to act as extras in the film. Paul Blake laments the crappy environment in which he was raised, Anthony Forrest was a musician for his youth. Garrick Hagon, who played Biggs Darklighter, started acting young as a vocal actor working on the radio. Laurie Goode discusses how he got into acting. John Chapman was the son of engineers. Pam Rose was modeling in Milan, when she got pregnant, returned home to England and worked on a dance television show. Derek Lyons was not a male prostitute, but did grow up at home with a father who was mob-affiliated. Dave Prowse was struck with tuberculosis in his knee, yet grew several inches while in hospital before becoming the man behind Darth Vader's mask. Angus MacInnes was working in London as an actor when he was cast.

Several of the castmembers ended up in Soho in 1975 when they were cast for A New Hope, while others were in London at Pinewood Studios where they were cast as extras. The actors talk about going through Central Casting, getting recommended by other actors on the cast, and meeting with George Lucas to get assigned a number for his general casting of the characters. The actors talk about arriving on set and what they saw and how they were affected by being in the Elstree Studio.

David Prowse has one of the more interesting acting stories as he talks about performing in A Clockwork Orange, after giving up on being Mr. Universe. Paul Blake relates a story of arriving on set and getting George Lucas to get him a cup of coffee (before he knew who he was!).

The bulk of the actors were on stage for about five days and some developed relationships with some of the primary actors. But, the stories are largely subjective and unsubstantiated. Most notably, Laurie Goode claims to play the Stormtrooper who hit his head while on the Death Star, but he notes that many other actors have made the same claim. Goode tells the story from his perspective, but his story is similar to the one that others who claim to be the same Stormtrooper tell. Goode might well be the distinctive Stormtrooper, but director Jon Spira merely documents the stories without substantiating them.

Spira manages to mix vintage footage, shots featuring the actors being documented from within A New Hope and the new interviews with each of the actors involved. But, Elstree 1976 is fairly aimless; the actors' stories are spliced together without any real commentary or narrative. The actors meander through telling stories or parts of stories and Spira puts them in Elstree 1976. The net effect is a "documentary" that is much like what one gets at a convention where character actors discuss their time on vintage projects.

The aimless nature of Elstree 1976 climaxes with the sudden inclusion of Jeremy Bulloch (Boba Fett) talking about conventions and his appearance in The Empire Strikes Back. Elstree 1976 is a meandering documentary that is cool in that it gives voice to the extras, but it is hardly substantive or even well-organized. The result is a good background flick for watching once, but is not a great or compelling documentary - even though some of the character actors are interesting.

For other documentary films, please visit my reviews of:
Supersonic
For The Love Of Spock
The Furious Gods: The Making Of Prometheus

2.5/10

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.
| | |

Adam Nimoy Meanders Through Memories Of His Father And His Father's Iconic Character: For The Love Of Spock!

The Good: Some decent interviews and clips
The Bad: A lot of common knowledge, Incoherent progression
The Basics: For The Love Of Spock feels far more exploitative than informative or a true tribute to Leonard Nimoy and Spock.


When Leonard Nimoy died, it was a shock and left a deep sadness within the Trekker community. For me, Nimoy's death stung, but I had had the good fortune to meet the actor multiple times at various Star Trek conventions and even inteact with him. Indeed, when I first met Leonard Nimoy, I carried out a postumous wish of a friend who died before she could meet him and I wrote a short story about it. Leonard Nimoy's death is one of the few celebrity deaths that resonated with me personally, but the sting of his death was muted rather quickly when Adam Nimoy announced his plans for For The Love Of Spock. At the time, the project did not have a name, but director Adam Nimoy announced he was making a documentary about his father . . . and he went to Kickstarter to raise funds for the project. As a fan of Leonard Nimoy's works, as one who watched legions of fans repeatedly shell out piles of cash to get Nimoy's autograph at conventions (and knowing those companies paid Mr. Nimoy for his time and service), I was offended. Leonard Nimoy did not die a pauper and regardless of how much Adam Nimoy inherited (or not) from his father, it was in pretty poor taste to solicit fans for money to complete the project.

Apparently, I was in the minority view for such things and Trekkers once again shelled out and allowed Adam Nimoy to complete what could have been a vanity project on his father's life. For The Love Of Spock is a meandering documentary that vaguely follows the narrative of Leonard Nimoy's life, blended with stories about the popularity of the character Spock and self-referential bits about the documentary itself. Given that there are two autobiographies from Leonard Nimoy, there is shockingly little information that is unique to For The Love Of Spock . . . so what is truly new in the film seems mostly like therapy for Adam and Julie Nimoy to talk about their father.

Opening with a self-referential clip that explains how For The Love Of Spock came to be, intended as a tribute to Spock for the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek, Adam Nimoy had begun work on the project before Leonard Nimoy died. After a brief biography of how Leonard Nimoy - who had never held an acting job for more then two weeks and was working as, essentially, a jack of all trades in order to make ends meet for his family while pursuing his passion of acting - was hand-selected by Gene Roddenberry to play Spock, the documentary transitions into an exploration of the character. Featuring interviews by William Shatner, George Takei, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Jason Alexander and Chris Pine and others, For The Love Of Spock discusses the dynamics of the character with how Nimoy portrayed the logical character against the more emotive Kirk and McCoy.

Adam Nimoy infuses himself into the documentary as it progresses. Adam Nimoy discusses the effect of popularity of Star Trek on the Nimoy family - mostly admitting repeatedly that his father was a workaholic who was barely around. Adam Nimoy's infusion of self into the narrative leads to some weird dead ends within the narrative, like his inclusion of a letter from the early 1970s where Leonard Nimoy wrote to Adam about his relationship with his own father after the two had a fight. Adam Nimoy then declares he was a deadhead at the time, puts up a video of Nimoy singing his song "Bilbo Baggins" . . . and the way he uses it seems like a way to subtly mock him. The weird infusion of Adam Nimoy talking about himself allows Adam Nimoy to promote himself - showing his first Star Trek convention, describing his father's support of him in being an entertainment lawyer, etc.

But the lack of a coherent narrative, any sense of linear development, quickly wears thin. For The Love Of Spock leaps from Star Trek into Nimoy's theatrical career after Mission: Impossible. But before discussing Star Trek: The Motion Picture (referencing the Animated Series, but not the aborted Phase II project!), Adam Nimoy leaps ahead to discuss directing his father in an episode of The Outer Limits . . . which came well after Leonard Nimoy had established himself as a director. In addition to having shockingly little new information, For The Love Of Spock starts to feel disengenious about the life of Leonard Nimoy.

Neglected in For The Love Of Spock is the period of Leonard Nimoy's life where he purposely attempted to distance himself from his experiences in Star Trek. Nimoy wrote his first autobiography, I Am Not Spock long before writing I Am Spock - which Adam Nimoy is shown reading and listening to in For The Love Of Spock. And then Adam Nimoy tosses in, late in the film, weird mentions of his personal conflict with his father and Leonard Nimoy's alcoholism.

The result is a documentary that very sloppily shifts from discussing the character of Spock and detailing the life of Leonard Nimoy. Adam Nimoy's late shift to discussing his estrangement seems incredibly self-serving as having so much material for people discussing Spock and Leonard Nimoy, there is an abrupt shift to only Adam Nimoy discussing his relationship with his father. In other words, despite its other narrative problems, there is a wealth of information and sources for so much of the information about all other aspects of Leonard Nimoy's life and the cultural impact of Spock . . . but then only Adam Nimoy's word for what went on in his relationship with Leonard Nimoy. And it is somewhat weird to see Adam Nimoy opening up to Zachary Quinto where Quinto asks some of the most pointed questions of the documentary. Similarly odd is that during that section of For The Love Of Spock, there is no material wherein Leonard Nimoy's second wife is given a voice in the documentary. The film climaxes not with any sort of tribute to Leonard Nimoy at any number of the Star Trek conventions that were done following his death . . . but rather with a Burning Man tribute from 2015 to Nimoy?!

So much of For The Love Of Spock is similarly sloppy or contradictory. I am a big enough person to admit when I am wrong, but with For The Love Of Spock, my impression before the fact was definitely right. This barely-documentary is more exploitative than it is revealing or engaging. For those who want to know about Leonard Nimoy's life, picking up either (or both) of his autobiographies is a far better use of one's time than For The Love Of Spock.

For other documentaries based on Star Trek, please check out my reviews of:
Trek Nation
Trekkies
The Captains

3.5/10

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.
| | |

Oasis: Supersonic In An Intriguing Blend Of Rare Footage And Common Knowledge!

The Good: Exceptional use of old footage, Some good stories, Tells a surprisingly linear and coherent narrative
The Bad: Could have used more subtitles, No genuinely new information about the band
The Basics: Oasis: Supersonic details the history of the band Oasis in a way that is interesting, if not perfect.


There are few musical groups whose works I stuck with through all of the phases of the band like Oasis. As an American in college at the time when (What's The Story) Morning Glory? (reviewed here!) was released, I was taken in by the single "Wonderwall" and I was actually surprised when one of my dormmates referred to me as a "fan" of Oasis when he broke the news to me that the band was breaking up. And yet, it was not long after when I actually did start to consider myself a fan of Oasis and even now I still have the hope that someday I might see the band in concert (which is, admittedly, unlikely given that the band has broken up again!). So, when the documentary Oasis: Supersonic hit theaters, it was with a lot of nostalgia and interest with which I sat down to it.

Opening in 1996 as Oasis arrived for its massive outdoor concert at Knebworth, the film flashes back to the origins of the band as Noel Gallagher spent his youth writing songs and getting high. Noel was a roadie in 1991 when he called home and learned that Liam was now in a band in Manchester and the band came together with Noel joining Liam's friends on the club scene. As Noel started writing new works, Liam, Bonehead, Tony McCarroll, and Guigs started to bond and refine their sound. When Noel wrote and put together "Live Together," Oasis truly gelled as its own unique band.

In 1993, Oasis was sharing recording space with Sister Lover when the all-woman group had a gig in Glasgow and invited Oasis to come and take the stage after them. Oasis rocked the club . . . in front of record exec Alan McGee. McGee approached Noel and he signed Oasis to Creation Records. From there, the band tries to cut a single (and discovers slowly that their drummer is painfully inconsistent), then Noel wrote "Supersonic" and they began the process of assembling their first album while saturating the UK concert scene. As Oasis rose in popularity, the personal relationships of the band members start to come apart and they gained an international reputation for being out of control.

Director Mat Whitecross manages to get some pretty amazing original, obscure footage from the Gallagher household and early appearances for Oasis to make the documentary impressive for any fan of the band Oasis. As other documentarians and interviewers have before him, Whitecross smartly provides subtitles for much of the dialogue in the clips, as Liam Gallagher (especially) mumbles most of his thoughts virtually incoherently. Given how much of the footage from Oasis: Supersonic comes from old film, it is somewhat surprising how good most of the documentary looks.

That said, there is a lot of crap footage in Oasis: Supersonic. There is visually random clips of the members of Oasis with voiceovers at various points. For a lot of the early footage - like Peggy Gallagher, the Gallagher brothers's mother, talking about her personal history - there are simple still photographs put up on the screen while voiceovers detail a story that is only marginally related to the visual image on the screen.

As the documentary progresses, Oasis: Supersonic starts to mix media coverage of Oasis with behind-the-scenes footage and while there is a visual discontinuity in the quality, Mat Whitecross manages to construct a surprisingly coherent narrative for the history of the band. Events like getting into a fight on a ferry are contrasted well with concert footage from the early years and media coverage of Oasis in their earliest interviews. Noel and Liam talk - in dated footage and through (presumably) new voiceovers - about their relationship in the band and their experiences of working together.

Ultimately, Oasis: Supersonic is an interesting documentary that chronicles well the early history of the band Oasis with wonderful amounts of new old footage, but surprisingly little new information. The result is a documentary that is useful for fans for the nostalgia factor or to inform those who are discovering the music of Oasis now (after the fall of the band) how the band got its start in a much more entertaining and detailed way than a Wikipedia article. But Oasis: Supersonic is hardly going to make new fans for the band and it is not a truly great documentary likely to stand the test of time.

For other movies currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Certain Women
My Blind Brother
Cardboard Boxer
The Whole Truth

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.
| | |

What The Hell Did I Just Watch?! Passage To Mars

The Good: Some of the cinematography, Zachary Quinto's voiceovers are fine
The Bad: Melodramatic writing, Poor blend of special effects and actual NASA footage, Tone
The Basics: Passage To Mars is a quasi-documentary that explores how humans are training in the Arctic to better explore Mars when the time comes.


Every now and then, I encounter a film that makes me just say, "What the hell?!" Tonight, that film is Passage To Mars. Passage To Mars is a quasi-documentary; it is a film about product testing vehicles and devices for Mars exploration in the Arctic. I write "quasi-documentary" because the film's tone is very much not one of a documentary - it is not a film that pretends to be dispassionate, it intends to excite viewers. From an opening text block that tells viewers that they are now part of space exploration to Mars to Zachary Quinto's use of slang and a casual sound for his narration, Passage To Mars tries to sensationalize instead of simply inform viewers.

To be fair, Passage To Mars is being released after blockbusters like The Martian (reviewed here!), which effectively blended science fiction with some sense of realism, which made for very entertaining visions of what exploring Mars could look like. Those are pretty big shoes to fill and a big film to compete with. But, despite including a lot of early footage of Mars, the vast majority of Passage To Mars is simply a team of people driving across the Arctic ice.

Pascal Lee is in the High Arctic testing an attempt to traverse the Northwest Passage in order to better prepare for a manned mission to Mars, this time driving with an experimental vehicle across the ice. A team with the massive experimental vehicle, an ATV and a camera vehicle spend April trying to cross the Northwest Passage.

Passage To Mars is a mess, masquerading as a documentary. Zachary Quinto provides voiceovers of Mission Leader Pascal Lee's journals. But Lee's journals are both not always noteworthy observations or scientifically helpful commentary. For example, at one point, Lee muses that the nature of Earth's ice has changed and he broaches for the briefest of moments the idea of climate change. And yet, Lee then asks if Mars suffered from a similar climate change that altered its water. Well, no . . . because climate change on Earth that can be measured from when human explorers started attempting to traverse the Northwest Passage is the result of human ecological destruction. So, no, Mars would not have had the same type of change.

Despite how the film is billed, Passage To Mars is not even about realistically preparing for a manned mission to Mars. The voiceovers tell viewers that managing dust will be one of the most difficult complications of exploring Mars. And yet, the scientists in the expedition go outside in their coats and after the revelation of dust being a problem, the scientists in the expedition are not seen testing any equipment that would help eliminate that problem. Come to think of it, Passage To Mars never explains how a vehicle that runs on diesel (i.e. using combustion by bringing in oxygen) is supposed to work on a planet without an oxygen atmosphere.

The longer Passage To Mars goes on and the exploratory team encounters bad weather, electrical failures, and incessant voiceovers, it is hard for the viewer not to let their mind drift to the point that they are asking, "If something goes horribly wrong, is there some sort of airlift that could rescue the people at least? And hey, if they wanted to test more variables, why doesn't NASA do its product testing for Mars exploration on the moon?"

Ultimately, Passage To Mars makes it impossible to care. The film is a long, long stretch of people driving on ice with Zachary Quinto hypnotically discussing Mars. If it were not for the quality of the cinematography and the fact that Quinto actually performs the voiceovers to make the viewer believe that someone is actually interested in what he is saying, this movie would have been an absolute bust.

1/10

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.
| | |

Animals Make Better People Than People: The Whale

The Good: Good photography, Engaging narrative
The Bad: Pacing, Sound issues (works better with subtitles on!)
The Basics: The Whale tells a surprisingly compelling story that explores multiple sides to an orca that was separated from his pod and became unnaturally engaged with humans.


My wife is definitely the documentary fan in the family. I got into documentaries that were primarily political, starting with Fahrenheit 9/11 (reviewed here!) and I had a phase where I was very interested in documentary films. My wife, however, is a big fan of documentaries. When I asked her for a recommendation today for a documentary to watch, she recommended The Whale.

The Whale is a seemingly straightforward documentary about an Orca that was separated from his pod in Canada. The nature documentary explores the effect of a single orca whale on a community as they fall in love with, fight for, and then abandon the friendly Luna.

Scientists documented the birth of an Orca Whale - L98 - in Canada and he was quickly nicknamed Luna. One day in Mooyah Bay, Luna got separated from his pod and abandoned. Shortly thereafter, locals on boats in Nootka Sound soon noticed Luna around constantly. Luna showed interest in contact with the humans who passed through Nootka Sound, even though he would call out underwater to try to find other Orcas or his own pod. When none responded to his call, the locals in Nootka Sound began to regularly interact with Luna - playing with him, petting him, even letting him work around the logging operations on the water.

The local native population, the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation, saw Luna as a reincarnation of their recently-deceased Chief. Members of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation saw it as a right to interact with Luna given they felt a spiritual connection to him. When Luna turned three years old, scientists became concerned about Luna's long-term health. They enacted a Stewardship program whereby a group of people stayed out on the water constantly driving humans away from him. But their efforts run into serious problems, ranging from people risking the $100,000 fine to the Stewards giving Luna inadvertent attention. Luna makes it hard for the citizens, as he tried desperately to interact with people and animals on boats. When Luna started to interact with float planes, immense political pressure was made to reunite Luna with his pod, 200 miles away. This sparks a conflict between Fisheries and the local natives over what is best for the social orca.

The Whale very smartly deals with the potential anthropomorphic feelings the residents of Nootka Sound and the scientists had when interacting with Luna. By very quickly eliminating the argument that Luna wanted contact with humans for food, the film establishes a surprisingly firm argument that Luna wanted human contact for companionship and affection, as opposed to meeting some physical need.

The documentary was shot over the course of several years and while much of it is unremarkable over-the-water shots, some of the photography is good underwater shots of both Luna and boats that he was interacting with. The story is instantly engaging, but it begins to drag and get somewhat repetitive in its final third. With so much emotional tension built up over the first two-thirds of the film, the viewer becomes eager to some sense of resolution to Luna's story and the conflicts involved in how various factions want to deal with the orca. Unfortunately, when resolution is reached it is - predictably, given the nature of so many documentaries - tragic and it is hard for viewers not to feel a sense of betrayal.

Ryan Reynolds does an excellent job narrating The Whale and he infuses some of his humor to his voice and some of the lines.

Ultimately, The Whale is an interesting exploration of a seemingly unique phenomenon and individual that makes it hard for everyone who watches it not to become an animal lover.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
I Know That Voice
Done The Impossible: The Fans' Tale Of "Firefly" And "Serenity"
PoliWood

8/10

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.
| | |

Famous Animated Characters Exposed! I Know That Voice Is A Middling Documentary!

The Good: Cool idea, Well-directed
The Bad: Very basic idea beaten to death, Not complicated or in-depth
The Basics: I Know That Voice is a basic documentary that is like a facebook of voice actors, but little more than that.


Ever since I got involved with the woman who quickly became my wife, I have watched a lot of animated works. My wife loves Disney movies, Invader Zim and many other animated works that we’ve watched over and over and over again. So, she was very interested in the documentary I Know That Voice when we learned about it. I Know That Voice is an interesting concept for a documentary, but it is not one that lends to a very complicated analysis.

I Know That Voice is a concept that takes half the film before it actually hits. For the first half of the film, I Know That Voice - which is a documentary intended to explore the nature of the voiceover industry – is simply a collection of almost random comments from various performers who have recognizable roles in animated works, where the voice actors are put in front of the camera. The first half of I Know That Voice is made almost entirely unnecessary thanks to the existence and success of the IMDB. The Internet Movie Database features complete biographies of actors past and present and virtually every actor’s page on the site has pictures of the actor, along with their entire resume. So, the first half of I Know That Voice trades on a novelty that no longer exists for the die-hard fans who might love this documentary; they have already looked into their favorite voice actors and seen who the actors are behind the voices of their beloved characters.

All of that changes around the fifty minute mark on I Know That Voice. At that point, director Lawrence Shapiro shifts the movie to what the documentary originally promised; a discussion about the animation/voiceover industry. In the latter half of the movie, I Know That Voice finally starts to discuss the process of getting jobs in the Industry, what the industry is like and how it is changing.

To his credit, Shapiro gets an amazing cast of voiceover actors to discuss the industry in I Know That Voice. Instead of simply seeing the human faces behind the voices that people know and love, the pretty impressive collection of voice actors do open up about their experiences in the industry. The film meanders, though, between the exposing the actors to the audience, then to a general discussion of the process actors have in defining their characters’ voices, to getting the jobs to discussing ComicCon . . . I Know That Voice is less structured or revelatory than it is entertaining.

I Know That Voice is worth a watch for anyone who loves animation, but it’s a tough sell for rewatching or recommending because it is not conceptually complicated or well-structured. At best, it is a mildly-informative vocal facebook for the most important voice actors working in animation today.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
Done The Impossible: The Fans' Tale Of "Firefly" And "Serenity"
PoliWood
Craigslist Joe

5/10

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

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

Incredibly Biased, Done The Impossible Explains Firefly Fandom . . . Poorly.

The Good: Decent explanation from fans
The Bad: Terribly inaccurate (gets a number of facts wrong)
The Basics: Done The Impossible explains the fandom around Firefly . . . in a mediocre fashion.


It’s worth, at the outset of panning the documentary Done The Impossible: The Fans’ Tale Of “Firefly” And “Serenity”, to note that I am a fan of Firefly. I mention that up front because I was excited to watch Done The Impossible . . . until pretty much the first frames of the documentary. I can live with bias, especially in a documentary about fandom . . . but I have a low threshold for factual inaccuracies in any documentary and Done The Impossible does not do a good service to fans in terms of creating a good historical document.

Done The Impossible is essentially Trekkies (reviewed here!) for Firefly. Firefly (reviewed here!) was a short-lived television show on the FOX network, which was resurrected as a film Serenity (reviewed here!). The show has a strong fan base, but objectively viewed, the series is fourteen episodes long and a movie which was by no means a box office smash. The documentary mines the limited amount of commentary available on the subject to present a short documentary, most of which was contained in the bonus features for the DVD sets for Firefly and Serenity.

Filmed mostly at conventions packed with fans of Firefly, Done The Impossible proclaims the series the best program ever to air on television before a protracted series of introductions of fans of Firefly. After a number of people whose fifteen minutes might be their vague association with the fan movement surrounding Firefly introducing themselves, Adam Baldwin appears on screen to tell the story of Firefly and Firefly fandom. Inaccurately saying that Firefly had done something never done before with a television series being cancelled and then resurrected as a film (did these people never hear of Star Trek?!), the documentary has fans discuss their love of Firefly.

The documentary then shifts to the cancellation of Firefly and the reaction from both fans of the series and people involved in the show. While it is impressive to see Nathan Fillion and Tim Minear talk about their reactions to the show’s cancellation, they provide nothing truly new than they did in the bonus features on the DVD and Blu-Ray for the show/movies. The documentary then discusses how fans helped raise the capital to make the film Serenity. Outside comments on how Browncoats (the Firefly fans) raised money for charity, there was really nothing new or original in terms of substantive commentary in Done The Impossible.

Thus, much of Done The Impossible is fans (including filkers, Orson Scott Card, and otherwise unremarkable individuals who fell in love with the series) talking about their own personal reactions to the show, the cancellation, and the fight to resurrect the series. Done The Impossible is not fact-heavy, though it tells the personal stories of many people’s emotional connection with the series.

Sadly, that makes the documentary remarkably thin. There is little to say about the show, there is little to say about the campaign to make the movie (we were told, if enough money is raised, the studio will make and distribute a film . . . so we raised the money) and there is remarkably little to say about the fandom. That makes Done The Impossible and unfortunately unremarkable documentary that seems likely to please fans, but not truly enlighten or sway those who are not already part of that fandom.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
PoliWood
Craigslist Joe
Jedi Junkies

2.5/10

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

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

Barry Levinson Makes A Statement, But Not A Point, With PoliWood

The Good: Great participation from both sides of the political spectrum, Raises a few good questions.
The Bad: Fails to land on a number of key points, Levinson talks over several of his subjects.
The Basics: Barry Levinson explores some important questions about how Hollywood celebrities influence politics without coming to any real answers in PoliWood.


When it comes to movies, my wife has a pretty simple formula for figuring out how to pick out a film I’d want to watch when we have a night to spend together: she looks up Anne Hathaway’s IMDB page and finds projects Hathaway has been involved in that I have not yet seen and she picks them up for us. That list is getting increasingly short, but my wife managed to find one such movie tonight: PoliWood. Given that my wife and I are politically active, PoliWood seemed like a documentary that we would have quite a bit of interest in and because I have largely enjoyed the works of Barry Levinson, it seemed like a good fit. PoliWood is a documentary or video essay by Levinson and it stars a number of Hollywood celebrities who are active in politics . . .

. . . admitting they are active in politics. While Levinson has some narrative to his video essay, PoliWood rambles with surprisingly little in the way of purpose. In fact, it was not until I sat down to write a review of PoliWood that I realized how little point there was to the movie.

The concept of PoliWood is simple: several actors and actresses who have gained a level of celebrity have publicly made political statements and supported candidates. The assumption has been that most of the most wealthy and outspoken celebrities are liberal and have exerted an undo influence over the American political process. Director and essayist Barry Levinson follows around several members of The Creative Coalition (a group that has largely come together to advocate for government funding of the arts) during the 2008 Presidential election. The documentary follows Anne Hathaway, Richard Schiff, Ellen Burstyn, Rachael Leigh Cook, Tim Daly, Giancarlo Esposito, Susan Sarandon, Matthew Modine and Josh Lucas as they attend political, sporting, and entertainment events.

Levinson follows the group to both the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention and he comments (and documents comment from others) on the process of advocacy the celebrities utilize as they reach out to voters about issues important to each of them.

The problem is that the film does little more than that. PoliWood starts with the premise that Hollywood actors are blurring the lines between politics and entertainment. The film ends in the exact same place with no real growth in between. The subjects of Levinson’s documentary do not sufficiently address the concepts Levinson seems to want to explore with PoliWood. In his opening narration for PoliWood, Barry Levinson laments the role of the television in the American family; he talks about how daily life was changed by the invasive nature of the television and then how politicians were remade into television stars in order to get elected.

After that, Levinson follows his subjects around. PoliWood meanders around with the director asking the question of “Do Hollywood celebrities have too much influence over American politics?” and then shows them advocating for their cause and “common” Americans complaining about how out-of-touch those celebrities are with “middle” America. Perhaps the best moment of PoliWood is when Tim Daly discusses all of the non-actor related jobs he had and how he devotes quite a bit of time to “normal” things like car pools and coaching little league. In a smart, reasonable way, Daly quietly dispels one woman’s utter ignorance about how celebrities are somehow not as human or real as other people are.

But the documentary falls apart outside that. While there are decent moments, like Anne Hathaway admitting she hates talking about political issues she is not adequately informed about and some of the members of the Creative Coalition rejecting the refusal of a couple members to even hear out a successful strategist for Fox News, but largely Levinson asks questions that go unanswered or he asserts his own statements without actually backing them up in any demonstrable way in the film. For example, a number of misconceptions about celebrities are brought up during the film and one of the big ones is that right-of-center actors have a harder time getting work in Hollywood than leftists. It is not pointed out how Jon Voight and Clint Eastwood (for example) have almost constant work, even as they advocate for Republicans. Actor Robert Davi talks about a personal experience where a fan was turned off by his conservative activism, but he did not detail any issues he had with getting acting work as a result of the same activism.

Levinson also neglects to discuss at all how the influence of “Hollywood liberals” is, in part, a response to conservative businessmen advocating against social spending or progressive issues. It’s hard to say that Hollywood actors have more influence than the businesspeople who spend more money against their causes.

As a result, much of the movie swirls around Levinson making his own assertions and spreading his philosophy. He ends the movie where he begins it: articulating his own personal philosophy that television might be a destructive force in substantive political debates. PoliWood fails to back up or present a sophisticated view of its own premises (Levinson, for example, comments on how Al Gore drew attention to the global warming crisis through An Inconvenient Truth - reviewed here! – by essentially becoming a Hollywood celebrity while completely ignoring that the documentary only became a phenomenon because of Gore’s political celebrity and that if he had not been Vice President, he never would have managed to get the documentary produced) and the result is a lackluster documentary that only serves to reiterate the idea that the political process in the United States is damaged.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
Craigslist Joe
Jedi Junkies
Trek Nation

4/10

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

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

An Engaging Experience, Craigslist Joe Explores America Well!

The Good: Tells a good story, Interesting cultural experiment
The Bad: Misses some chunks of time, Invasive soundtrack, Lack of a convincing or demonstrative theme.
The Basics: Joey Garner is a decent journey movie that explores America today through the eyes of a man who tries to survive for an entire month only on generosity found through Craigslist users.


There seem to be two main types of documentaries: those that purely document an event or idea and those that have an agenda. Craigslist Joe is one of the former. The idea behind Craigslist Joe is a very direct one and it seemed audacious when the film began. Filmmaker Joseph Garner (Joey), wants to see if technology has made people more isolated from one another. To explore that idea, he decides to use the social networking site Craigslist to try to live for a month.

Having no idea where the Internet will take him, Joey grabs his passport, a backpack, a new cell phone and e-mail address and logs onto Craigslist in Los Angeles. Joey starts off simply trying to get food, places to sleep and rides on Craigslist and he sees where it will take him. By day eight, he is in Portland, Oregon, with the bicycle given to him by a Craigslist user. Joey heads north to Seattle where he helps tutor some children at a community center and spends an evening with an Iraqi family. On Day 13, Joey heads toward Vermont and along the way he stops in Chicago for some free break dancing lessons.

Joey’s journey continues to New York City. On Day 20/1 Joey ends up in New York City on the streets. It is one of the few nights he almost finds himself homeless. He does volunteer work in New York City and even organizes some volunteer efforts around Christmastime. Eager to share his experiences with the founder of Craigslist, he gets an appointment for the end of the year in San Francisco with the founder. Trying to get to Craigslist over the course of ten days, Joey heads south where he finds himself in Tallahassee, New Orleans, Juarez (Mexico), and ultimately back to California for his meeting and home.

Joey’s journey is interesting to watch, but Craigslist Joe has no real rewatchability to it. The journey lacks a resounding or convincing theme. Joey tries to convince the viewer (and the founder of Craigslist and his own family) that the experience has taught him that people are fundamentally good. But there are several points in the film where there is the feeling that the subjects of the movie are acting charitably because they know they are on camera (not to mention a few moments when people mention in passing they have space and Joey leaps on it as if the space was offered to him).

Some of the people Joey meets stand out – like a dominatrix, an Iraqi and a Jewish family – but many get Joey into situations that are uncomfortable and Joey and his cameraman are stranded in places with little in the way of resources or hope. Could a person replicate Craigslist Joe without a film crew and not end up killed, raped, beaten or robbed? Probably not; Craigslist’s users seem to be smart enough to realize there would be ways to be tracked with their e-mail address and appearing on camera. As a result, Joseph Garner spends only one night homeless and does not get mugged, taken advantage or otherwise suffer (though he loses considerable weight over the course of his month on the road).

As a result, Craigslist Joe has a feel-good quality to it, but little resounding or lasting merit. It chronicles one person’s journey, though that journey is very dated and is hardly universal. This was an interesting academic exercise to witness, but not an extraordinary one for experiencing over and over again.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
Jedi Junkies
Trek Nation
Great White Odyssey

5/10

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.
| | |

Jedi Junkies Underwhelms Both Fans And Documentary Aficionados.

The Good: Some decent interviews
The Bad: Lacking a number of significant perspectives, Meanders
The Basics: A meandering documentary, Jedi Junkies glosses over Star Wars fandom.


Every now and then, there is a documentary that explores something truly uncommon and actually manages to explore an aspect of that previously unpresented topic. For a change, I find myself actually impressed by the Star Trek documentary Trekkies (reviewed here!). Even if that documentary portrayed a very negative aspect of Star Trek fandom, at least it made something of a statement. Jedi Junkies does not.

Jedi Junkies is a documentary on Star Wars fandom. Unfortunately, it is not a particularly good documentary. When a seventy-five minute documentary spends twenty seconds fixed on the director of a fan film listening to his cell phone, not reacting at all to what he is hearing, one has to wonder what the point is.

Jedi Junkies meanders through Star Wars culture – without clips from any of the Star Wars films – and with interviews only from four performers from the Sextet. The movie starts with a broad exploration of Star Wars fandom (pretty much introducing a dozen Star Wars fans) and shows a few different collections. The documentary then moves into light saber training, fan films, the debate between who shot first (Greedo or Han Solo), and then collectibles. After a debate over who would win between Darth Maul and Darth Vader, the documentary gives exposure to one filk band and then more fan films and prop replica manufacturers.

Jedi Junkies is notably lacking in interviews from George Lucas or any of the other directors from the Star Wars movies. Olivia Munn is a poor substitute to Lucas speaking about the phenomenon he created. That only supporting performers from the Star Wars movies are interviewed and their footage is minimized in comparison to, for example, a random collector (he is not listed as having a superlatively large collection) who should either put his gauges back in or cover his grossly sagging lobes.

Director Mark Edlitz smartly gets interviews from psychologists, but he does not manage to ask any truly probing questions or get any truly audacious footage. Instead, the premise of the movie is “hey, there are Star Wars fans . . . here are some.” That’s not particularly compelling moviemaking or documentary work and that is why Jedi Junkies largely fails.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
Trek Nation
Great White Odyssey
After Porn Ends

1/10

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.
| | |

One Cool Moment Does Not A Worthwhile Documentary Make: Trek Nation Disappoints.

The Good: Moments of exceptionally rare footage
The Bad: Mislabeled actor/role notations, Poor interviews, No real purpose.
The Basics: Trek Nation is a surprisingly lame documentary that has Eugene Roddenberry Jr. listlessly learning very little about his father about Star Trek.


Lately, I’ve seen quite a few documentaries and many of them have been about Star Trek. I’ve actually enjoyed some of them quite a bit, most notably The Captains (reviewed here!). So, when my wife wanted to sit down to watch Trek Nation, I was actually excited about it. Unfortunately, the execution of this particular documentary was particularly lackluster.

Trek Nation has a loose point; it is Eugene Roddenberry Jr.’s attempt to learn about his father, Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek and the whole Star Trek phenomenon. Eugene Roddenberry Jr. was a teenager when Star Trek: The Next Generation was on the air and he was off doing his own thing. So, decades after Gene Roddenberry’s death, Roddenberry Jr. has gotten around to learning about the phenomenon his father created. Trek Nation is the result of that search.

And it is surprisingly bad.

The set-up is, unfortunately, almost the entire movie. Eugene Roddenberry Jr. reiterates many times that he had no prior knowledge of what the Star Trek phenomenon was all about and that he was off doing his own thing around the time Gene Roddenberry died. So, the movie has Eugene Roddenberry Junior wandering around asking writers, producers, obscure Star Trek guest stars (remarkably few major castmembers from the Star Trek franchise participate in Trek Nation) about their Star Trek memories before concluding that maybe Star Trek is all right.

Trek Nation has a wealth of footage that is more confusing and pointless than it is enlightening. So, for example, the film includes reaction shots where Roddenberry Jr. clearly upsets Majel Barrett-Roddenberry with is questions . . . but the movie includes only the reaction shots, not the questions he was asking and the answers she gave. Interestingly, there are outtakes of Gene Roddenberry getting frazzled during his famous 1991 interview for the 25th Anniversary documentary.

Eugene Roddenberry Jr., director Scott Colthrope, and writer Jessica Brunetto repeat a great deal of information that those who are likely to watch this documentary – namely, Trekkers – already know. In fact, outside Trekkers and those who already “get” Star Trek, it is hard to guess who Trek Nation was actually made for. The fans are likely to be bored with it because there is so little that is actually new – in fact, outside Roddenberry Jr. visiting J.J. Abrams to present him with a video that seems to endorse the concept of the 2009 Star Trek, there is little fans will not have already seen or know -, those who are not part of the culture are not likely to be intrigued given that no one makes a fully compelling argument as to why Star Trek was so incredible and remains relevant today (though Nichelle Nichols comes close with her story about her and Martin Luther King Jr.) and those who like great documentaries are likely to be irked by the lack of real resolution to this piece.

While Eugene Roddenberry Jr. gets interviews with D.C. Fontana, Michael Dorn, and Jonathan Frakes, most of the major Star Trek players are notably absent from the documentary, leaving guest stars like Victor Brandt and Patrick Kilpatrick to make statements on the franchise. Ultimately, Trek Nation is not a particularly thorough exploration of the life of Gene Roddenberry, the genesis of Star Trek or the phenomenon of Trek fandom.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
Great White Odyssey
After Porn Ends
Nantucket Film Festival’s Comedy Roundtable

2/10

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

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

A Meandering Document Without Commentary, After Porn Ends Is Only Vaguely Engaging.

The Good: Decent perspectives, Good interviews
The Bad: Meanders, No punch or thesis, Some lousy camerawork, Some of the footage seems out-of-place, Underdeveloped stories
The Basics: After Porn Ends is initially engaging, but wanders off into a disorganized documentary that does not seem to have a statement to make.


Lately, I have been watching more documentaries than I usually do. That’s fine; I enjoy documentaries quite a bit and having access to a vast number of them encourages me to watch some that I might not otherwise give the time of day. In the case of After Porn Ends, I thought the concept was an intriguing one and in the hands of the a good documentarian, it could have been a great movie. While the subject of the film – male and female stars of adult films and how they have coped with life after they have left the adult film industry – is interesting, director Bryce Wagoner seems determined not to take a stance or make any sort of statement with the film.

As a result, After Porn Ends is a stark, but very true documentary that sticks to the form of the documentary; the subject of the documentary make statements and declarations without judgment, commentary or censor and the viewer is left to make their own decisions about what they are watching. In the case of After Porn Ends, the lack of commentary leads one to suspect that men who have had a life in the porn industry have a more consistently satisfying life during and after their adult entertainment work than their female counterparts. Beyond that, it is virtually impossible to make a statement that unifies the film: some of the women claim to have found god, some have become political activists, one is a recovering alcoholic widow struggling to raise her children in the middle of Utah, one of the least-profiled is a bounty hunter and bail bondswoman, and at least two went back into the business after they appeared in the documentary claiming they never would again.

And that’s the problem with After Porn Ends: it is all over the map. Had the film focused on, for example, Crissy Moran and her leaving the industry to become an evangelical Christian activist, the film would have a purpose, a story and a stronger sense of direction for viewers to come away informed and have an opinion on that one woman’s journey out of her personal experiences. Similarly, Asia Carrera seemed to have a compelling personal story and in the closing credits where the film encapsulates her entire battle with alcoholism following the footage that was shot for After Porn Ends and attributes it to her husband’s abrupt death, the viewer is left feeling like there was a whole movie’s worth of a compelling biography that was glossed over. Conversely, the men seem to have a pretty decent amount of exposure with one of them presenting the only real in-industry “bragging rights” style story. Almost entirely glossed over is one of the workers who left the industry and is now a pretty badass bounty hunter.

That said, what is in the film is interesting-enough. Most of the women talk about having really lousy boyfriends or speak candidly about the abuse which led them to the porn industry and the bad habits they developed there. But, the smartest of the subjects documented actually seemed to have a real handle on exactly what they were doing when they got into the industry and got out to pursue other things when they were done. So, even the opening statement about how the porn industry does not leave its stars with any usable skills is disproven multiple times throughout the movie (most ended up writing, directing, etc. through contacts they met or developed while working in hardcore porn).

Director Bryce Wagoner works hard not to make something that is particularly sensationalistic and for the most part, he succeeds. Clips from almost all of the stars from their hardcore careers are included and rather senselessly, additional, generic footage is interposed at random while the stars are talking and, apparently, Wagoner got bored with having them on screen. After Porn Ends is not an uninformative or unenjoyable documentary, but it is one that leaves the viewer wondering what the point of the film was, other than to state the obvious: porn stars are people, too, and when their career in the industry ends, it can be real hard for them. I suppose that makes adult movie workers like everyone else.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
Nantucket Film Festival’s Comedy Roundtable
The Captains
Definitely Maybe (DVD Audio) - Oasis

4/10

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

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