The Avengers Apart: Captain America: Civil War Lives Up To The Hype!

The Good: Morality, Character moments, Good special effects
The Bad: Very basic plot, Repetitive fights to replace some substantive philosophy moments.
The Basics: The film adaptation of Marvel's Civil War storyline is crowded, but cool, with Captain America: Civil War.


As Summer Blockbuster Season hits, Marvel Comics is in a surprisingly solid position. While I was not overly impressed by Deadpool (reviewed here!), the third season of Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. actually appears to be building something legitimate and the release of Captain America: Civil War comes only a few weeks before X-Men: Apocalypse. In the unlikely event that Captain America: Civil War underperforms to its stellar-high expectations, the licenser is insured by the virtual guarantee that X-Men: Apocalypse will satisfy Marvel Comics fans and those who just love a big film full of spectacle. Fortunately, Captain America: Civil War manages to clear the bar on its high expectations and deliver a generally solid story, while setting up the next two big Marvel Cinematic Universe spin-offs (films for Black Panther and Spider-Man set within the MCU).

The irony of Captain America: Civil War is two-fold. First, despite the essential American quality of the film, it - like Star Trek Into Darkness before it - was released internationally before being released in the United States. Hollywood, truly, is dead. Second, Captain America remains a favorite of many Marvel Comics fans who would associate more with rednecks than Bernie Sanders and yet Captain America: Civil War makes an argument very firmly on the side of personal liberty. Captain America: Civil War is also one of the few Marvel films based, albeit loosely, on source material I have actually read! Captain America: Civil War adapts many of the concepts, issues, and conflicts from Civil War (reviewed here!) for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And the result is generally good, though there are moments the emotional journey of Steve Rogers is sacrificed to devote time to establishing Peter Parker and T'Challa and fleshing out more of a relationship between the Scarlet Witch and Vision.

Opening with a flashback to how Bucky Barnes was programmed to be the Winter Soldier, the present proves to be equally dangerous as Captain America's Avengers attempt to stop Crossbones from stealing a biological weapon in Lagos, Nigeria. Before he kills himself, Crossbones reveals that Bucky Barnes's programming had slipped and he recalled Steve Rogers. At M.I.T., Tony Stark gives a massive grant to the students, before he confronted by a mother whose son died in Sokovia. Shortly thereafter, Tony Stark and Secretary Of State Ross visit the Avengers training facility, where he proposes the Avengers abide by the United Nation's plan known as the Sokovia Accords. The Sokovia Accords would put the Avengers under UN control. Steve Rogers leaves the meeting when Peggy Carter dies and he heads to London for her funeral. While there, after learning that Agent 33 is Peggy Carter's niece, the United Nation's conference in Vienna where the Sokovia Accords are being ratified, is bombed. Among the dead is King T'Chaka of Wakanda. When the Winter Soldier is identified as the bomber, T'Chaka's son, T'Challa, vows revenge and Captain America has to track down Bucky Barnes before T'Challa does.

After finding and confronting Barnes - who denies that he was the bomber - Captain America and the Falcon attempt to rescue Barnes from Black Panther (T'Challa) and the international manhunt going on the Winter Soldier. War Machine is dispatched to apprehend them and in Berlin, they are captured. In Berlin, Tony Stark visits where he pressures Rogers to sign the Sokovia Accords. Rogers refuses, moments before he and his allies realize that the UN bombing was an elaborate plot to get the international community to find and imprison Barnes. The HYDRA leader, Zemo, activates the Winter Soldier's programming and that allows Barnes to escape. Recovering Barnes, Rogers and Wilson learn that Zemo was after the Siberian facility where Barnes was kept because there is more than one Winter Soldier and Zemo wants them for his own private army. While Captain America and Falcon assemble a team to stop Zemo, Tony Stark is given a 36 hour deadline to bring in Captain America, Barnes and Wilson before the military will get involved. Preparing to take down the rest of the Winter Soldiers, both sides square off on an air field leading to an intense conflict between the heroes.

Right off the bat, Captain America: Civil War starts at an odd place. The post-credits scene of Ant-Man (reviewed here!) had Bucky Barnes in custody. How he made it out of Captain America's custody is a bit of a mystery, until almost the middle of Captain America: Civil War. It seems strange that a scene viewers have already seen comes in the middle of the film, right around the time of a wierd recruitment scene that finally adds Peter Parker to the MCU.

One of the aspects of Captain America: Civil War that works surprisingly well is the burgeoning Vision and Scarlet Witch relationship. At the climax of The Avengers: Age Of Ultron, Vision and Scarlet Witch became part of the same team of Avengers - essentially The Avengers 2.0. The idea that the members of the new team of Avengers, who now live at a facility together, have relationships is a smart and strong concept and it is best-executed by the way Scarlet Witch and Vision interact. Sadly, Captain America: Civil War, illustrates no similar sense of connection between Brody and Wilson, who would be part of the same team.

The introduction of Peter Parker as Spider-Man is handled about as well as one might expect when bringing a character of such magnitude into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Peter Parker gets almost five full minutes in the middle of Captain America: Civil War for a scene with Tony Stark that kills the narrative flow of the film. Chadwick Boseman gets a better, smoother, introduction into the MCU as T'Challa. T'Challa's story in Captain America: Civil War blends much, much better with the overall stories of vengeance that preoccupy the main characters.

Captain America: Civil War alludes heavily to The Avengers: Age Of Ultron (reviewed here!), while neglecting Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. and not alluding to either Jessica Jones (reviewed here!) or the second season of Daredevil (reviewed here!) - both of which paid fealty to the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is odd because so much of Captain America: Civil War is spent with wrapping up loose plot threads in the MCU and establishing new launching points for various Phase 3 and Phase 4 Marvel Cinematic Universe films.

The parts of Captain America: Civil War which are focused on Steve Rogers are the highlights of the film. Rogers has an ethical code and he stands by it. Tony Stark's character arc in Captain America: Civil War is a bit complicated. Stark develops from having an ethical position - albeit one that differs from Rogers's vision of how things should be done - to a kneejerk reaction of vengeance to the Winter Soldier. The transition is exceptionally effective and it almost makes Captain America: Civil War more Tony Stark's movie than Captain America's.

Captain America: Civil War features a more opaque villain than prior Captain America films and his motivations fit the film's motif remarkably well. Captain America: Civil War continues the trend in the Marvel Cinematic Universe of leaving everyone alive to use in subsequent endeavors, which is utterly unsurprising to anyone who loves the Marvel Studios films.

The performances in Captain America: Civil War are good, with there being surprisingly few standout moments of acting. The principle characters are all played by actors who have been playing their roles for several films and are familiar with their parts. The newer actors to the film manage to play opposite the established ones well enough to be seamless with the way they integrate with the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The special effects in Captain America: Civil War are wonderful and the moments of reversal are very effective and suggest that they will replay well. Ultimately, that makes Captain America: Civil War worth watching.

7.5/10

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.
| | |

Mental Illness Trumps Social Commentary In Bulworth!

The Good: Political message, Performances
The Bad: Character problems, Writing/themes
The Basics: Bulworth has some good ideas, which are undermined by the execution of its high-minded principles.


Every now and then, I finally get around to the massive list of films I have that people have recommended to me and I get to watch one. Tonight, the film that I've finally cleared from my list is Bullworth. For years, I have been politically active and between commentary and activism, friends have recommended various films to me. While I've long loved The West Wing (reviewed here!), one of the films that it took me a long time to get to was Bulworth. While I respect the people who recommended Bulworth to me, the film has enough flaws to be impossible for me to recommend.

The concept of Bulworth is not an inherently bad one, but its execution allows virtually the entire film to be written off as the ravings of a mentally ill man. One of the main warning signs of schizophrenia is a lingual problem called "clanging." Throughout Bulworth, the protagonist frequently raps in a way that is much more clanging than rational rebellion, which means Bulworth is more about a man suffering a full psychological collapse as opposed to a man who has a mid-life crisis and starts standing up for his long-abandoned principles.

As the 1996 elections loom, California Senator Jay Billington Bulworth finds himself despondent. Once a fiery liberal Senator, Bulworth has sold out all his principles. So, he takes out a massive insurance policy on himself and hires a hitman to kill him while he is campaigning in California. Bulworth's behavior becomes alarming to the party when he starts to call out the financiers of his campaign, straightforwardly telling his audiences that he is bought and paid for by various industries and rapping to them about how change won't come while there is money so intimately integrated in American politics.

While fleeing his financiers, Bulworth connects with Nina, a young woman under the thumb of a local drug lord, thanks to her brother's debts. Nina titillates Bulworth and takes him to a rave. Amid the affection and the drugs, Bulworth begins to feel like the man he once was and decides he no longer wants to die. As Bulworth and Nina flee to the ghetto, Bulworth comes to realize that the danger might be closer than he thought!

Bulworth is a heavy R for language and for as much as Warren Beatty tosses out the f-word, the film is more horrifying for the way the word "nigger" is thrown around. While the word is used as a form of characterization, the message of the film is frequently lost by the casual use of obscenities. In other words, the epitaphs are thrown around not as a function of political outrage, but rather to characterize Bulworth's mental decline and the culture of many of the black characters living in the ghetto.

The performances in Bulworth are almost universally wonderful. Halle Berry's performance as Nina is unlike any other role she had. It's weird watching Cloud Atlas (reviewed here!) and then go over to Bulworth where Berry looks so young running around with her thong sticking out, but Berry plays the spunky and desperate Nina surprisingly well. Similarly, Don Cheadle's L.D. is far from his articulate and socially active roles as he plays the part with unsettling menace.

Warren Beatty slouches through the role of Bulworth and he plays the part with a decent balance of slurring and hinting at the prior potential of the character. Bulworth might have once been an upstanding, principled man but he is a buffoon now and Beatty plays that astonishingly well.

Unfortunately, the quality of the performances is nowhere near enough to carry the film. At its best, Bulworth hints at establishing a high-minded debate about the critical problems with finance in American politics. At its worst, Bulworth is a high man running around clanging. The latter overwhelms the former and makes it impossible to recommend Bulworth.

For other political films, please check out my reviews of:
The American President
Game Change
All The President's Men

4/10

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

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Avengers In, Avengers Out, Avengers In Again: The Avengers: Age Of Ultron Barely Reaches Average!

The Good: Performances are fine, Generally good direction
The Bad: Unrelenting effects sequences/splintered cast makes for a strangely underdeveloped couple of hours.
The Basics: With The Avengers: Age Of Ultron, Joss Whedon has a rare stumble into mediocrity that advances the Marvel Cinematic Universe into a particularly unthrilling direction.


I have been worried lately that I will never again fall in love with a new work of art. I listen to a lot of music, watch and review a lot of television and movies and I try to experience food on multiple levels when I am introduced to new culinary delights. Having critical standards has led to a number of conversations around my house between my wife and I. She has voiced a concern that my idea of a "perfect film" is virtually unattainable and when I spend a significant amount of time after a viewing trying to find something wrong with a movie just to not give it a perfect ten, I am actually delivering a contrived rating that works to deny perfection, as opposed to celebrate it.

With The Avengers: Age Of Ultron, I fear no such contrivance. The Avengers: Age Of Ultron was easily the film I was most unabashedly excited about seeing this year, so it was the one I was also at the greatest risk of rating high based on prejudice in favor of the film. The irony for me is that X-Men: Days Of Future Past (reviewed here!) last year came with so much less hype and delivered such a vastly superior film that I was not genuinely prepared for how mediocre The Avengers: Age Of Ultron actually was.

To his credit, Joss Whedon had a herculean task at hand when he penned and directed The Avengers: Age Of Ultron. The Avengers: Age Of Ultron is a sequel to Whedon's The Avengers (reviewed here!) and the marketing department at Marvel Entertainment/Disney has worked overtime to leak its forthcoming schedule of Marvel films. Joss Whedon had to try to top a superhero team origin story that brought together disparate heroes and made them into a group that could fight a single villain and his incredible army. Where do you go after that?

The problem Whedon faced conceptually within the narrative of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was that he had one film to introduce and defeat a new villain that could hold his own in the imagination of the viewer with Loki (the adversary from The Avengers), while servicing a sprawling cast of established heroes and making that work within the confines of the stories told since The Avengers. From a studio, practical moviemaking point of view, Whedon had to wrestle with reorganizing characters so the franchise could survive if significant actors decided to leave when their contracts came up and that meant adding new cast members to the mix. With all those pressures upon him, Whedon had to write an entertaining super hero story that could entertain and set up the next, known, installments of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

That's a lot of balls in the air for anyone and the only real hope for the Marvel Cinematic Universe comes in the promises made outside the actual film The Avengers: Age Of Ultron. Writer/Director Joss Whedon has promised that The Avengers: Age Of Ultron will have a slew of deleted scenes and unseen footage when it drops on Blu-Ray. One has to hope that there will be a director's cut because as it is, The Avengers: Age Of Ultron is something of a mess.

At the core of my issue with watching The Avengers: Age Of Ultron is the fact that so much of it felt like it had been done before that I kept waiting for the movie to begin, to get engaging, to thrill me, to show me something new, to surprise me, to . . . well, you get the picture; I just kept repeating and rephrasing things without actually saying anything fundamentally new. The Avengers: Age Of Ultron feels a lot like that. In fact, were one to do a double-feature, one suspects that if one dozed off at any point in the Chitauri attack on New York City in The Avengers and awoke at virtually any point in The Avengers: Age Of Ultron, they would feel like they were in the same movie.

The Avengers: Age Of Ultron goes from one sprawling, fast-paced, CG-encrusted action sequence to another to another to another with breaks that are surprisingly uninteresting. Much of The Avengers: Age Of Ultron is like watching The Avengers blended with outtakes or b-roll footage from Iron Man 3 (reviewed here!). It is chaotic, warlike, easy to lose track of and takes a long time to get through before it gets to anything truly good. And in the quiet, character-building moments, The Avengers: Age Of Ultron focuses on the least-impressive Avenger, belabors the set-up to Captain America: Civil War and entirely jerks the audience around. We'll come back to that.

What is it about? The Avengers: Age Of Ultron follows in the wake of Captain America: The Winter Soldier (reviewed here!) with The Avengers - Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hawkeye, Black Widow, and the Hulk - working to clean-up the problems left in the world from the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D. In Sokovia, they hit upon the motherload: Baron Strucker and Dr. List have a laboratory where they have the scepter Loki used, along with corpses of Chitauri vessels and two powerful (for lack of a better term) metahumans. When the Avengers break in to put an end to the H.Y.D.R.A. lab, the twins Pietro (who has superspeed, much like The Flash) and Wanda Maximoff (who is not actually magical, but has the ability to influence neurons in the brain to make people see things and has telekinetic powers over matter and energy) escape. As the battle for the H.Y.D.R.A. base is winding down, Wanda returns and uses her powers on Tony Stark, who sees a nightmarish image of the Earth under attack by legions of the creature/ships that attacked New York City with the Chitauri.

Their mission successful and the scepter recovered, the Avengers return to New York City and Avengers Tower where they plan to put the problems that have been lingering behind them. The recovery of the scepter will allow Thor to return it to Asgard and remove the lingering influence of Loki from Earth, the destruction of Strucker's organization and lab effectively decimates S.H.I.E.L.D.'s biggest enemy (which removes a big psychic burden from Captain America). Only Tony Stark is not over-the-moon thrilled about the campaign. While studying the scepter, Stark realizes that the glowing piece at its tip is not a brainwashing device, but rather a complex program or neural network, comparable to (but vastly more complex and alien than) Jarvis (Stark's A.I.). He pitches an idea to Dr. Bruce Banner; they can use the alien a.i. in their mothballed planetary defense project, Ultron. Bypassing the rest of the group, Stark and Banner activate the alien intelligence and then go off to a party celebrating the victory of the Avengers over the Earth's enemies. While they party, the alien a.i. kills Jarvis and takes control of the Avengers's robotic army (a collection of flight suits much like those in Iron Man 3, which are now serviced through Avengers Headquarters).

After the main party, the a.i. reveals itself as Ultron by attacking the Avengers using the Avengers robots. Calling for human evolution through the extinction of the Avengers, Ultron disappears into every computer on earth when his robotic body is compromised, but in the attack, his forces make off with the scepter. Needless to say, the other Avengers are pissed at Stark and Banner (especially Thor, who now has to try to find and recover the scepter yet again!) and they soon become terrified that Ultron will break into computers that have nuclear launch codes and obliterate the Earth. Ultron makes a new body and heads with the Maximoff twins (who want nothing more than revenge upon Tony Stark for the death of their family) to the African nation of Wakanda. There, Ultron acquires Vibranium he needs for his nefarious plan and when the Avengers track him down, they are set upon by Wanda and Pietro. Wanda influences Captain America, Thor, and the Hulk before she is stopped by Hawkeye. Shaken, the team retreats to a safe house where they try to figure out what UItron wants and how to stop him. Their brainstorming leads them to Dr. Helen Cho's skin-growth machine where Ultron is attempting to create the entity that will be the downfall of the Avengers. But in the process, Wanda sees Ultron's plan and his idea of peace comes through an extinction-level event and she (and her brother) are forced to choose sides in the battle for the fate of the planet.

Writing out the plot for The Avengers: Age Of Ultron actually makes the movie sound really interesting and engaging. On screen, it didn't seem as awesome, though (much like the way some of the plots to Star Trek: Enterprise sound pretty good, but then when one turns on the show and the characters start talking, the dialogue and acting are so bad, it doesn't matter what is going on, the show is virtually unwatchable the way it tries to tell the story). The film opens with a big battle, montage/regroup/party, post-party battle, characters argue, Wakanda battle, moody safe house scene, extended climactic battle. It's a lot of fighting. And, try as he might, Joss Whedon and the special effects department don't have a lot they can do that hasn't been mined by The Avengers and Iron Man 3 (Whedon had a real disadvantage in that Ultron's robot army is basically made up of shiny silver Iron Man-style suits).

So, it comes down to character. Tony Stark gets one or two quips (they've been in the trailers), Bruce Banner is predictably conflicted, and Nick Fury pops up for a dramatic speech just at the right time. But Ultron never pops - he's General Grievous from Revenge Of The Sith (reviewed here!) meets any generic Decepticon. Ultron is the real shock; he's such a monolithic villain. Even James Spader voicing him cannot make him seem less generic and, therefore, entirely un-frightening. Will The Avengers unite to find a way to stop Ultron? Gosh, I hope so. Come to think of it, if they just crashed the world's power grid long enough for every computer in the world to actually shut down, wouldn't that have stopped him?! The point being, it would be a surprise if the Avengers couldn't stop Ultron more than any real revelation that they can.

Of the new characters, that leaves Wanda, Pietro, Vision, and Laura. Wanda and Pietro are motivated by a sense of revenge that is adequately explained in The Avengers: Age Of Ultron. It's not so satisfactorily explained to make viewers feel satisfied when Pietro doesn't kill Tony Stark in the film's first twelve minutes. Seriously; Pietro stands, watching the completely vulnerable Tony Stark take possession of the scepter when all he had to do was run over at super-speeds, kill his family's mortal enemy . . . movie over. Vision is engaging to watch, but is just about as generic as Ultron. And Laura . . .

. . . Laura gives Joss Whedon an excuse to keep Hawkeye in the mix in The Avengers: Age Of Ultron. Hawkeye is, as the film openly acknowledges, an archer in a team that includes a super soldier, a demigod, a trained assassin, a raging lab experiment, and an armored weapon equivalent to a small army. So, Hawkeye is given a sudden, abrupt, backstory and when the Avengers arrive at Laura's safe house, it humanizes the archer and gives the viewer an emotional root. And Whedon uses all the momentum with Hawkeye to set up one of his famous reversals and it would be truly nitpicky to say that doesn't work. Whedon pulls off his final-act reversal with Hawkeye and that is one of the few treats of The Avengers: Age Of Ultron.

Of the big three (Thor, Iron Man and Captain America), The Avengers: Age Of Ultron is unfortunately fractured. One has to guess that a number of the scenes Whedon could put back into the film center around Thor and his large chunk of time away from The Avengers entering the mysterious pool and leading to the resolution that brings him back. Thor sits out a surprising and significant chunk of The Avengers: Age Of Ultron. That gives Tony Stark and Steve Rogers a lot of time on screen to disagree. Rogers is, reasonably, pissed because Tony Stark does in The Avengers: Age Of Ultron exactly what Pierce did in Captain America: The Winter Soldier; he tried to anticipate world problems and stop them before they ever occur. Stark's characterization here makes sense: he is reeling from fear that Earth cannot protect itself and he doesn't want to debate with the team the merits of having a global defense system. When it goes wrong, Rogers climbs off his high horse to yell at him and Stark yells back. But the conflict between Stark and Rogers never quite boils up to the level where it would create a credible schism to result in Captain America: Civil War. In fact, while the conflict between Stark and Rogers is essential for that, Whedon takes a big crap on the writer who has to create that film with where he leaves Stark. And while Rogers moralizes, he's essentially the same guy we've been seeing. This time, he's already so disillusioned from S.H.I.E.L.D.'s actions in The Avengers and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, he doesn't seem particularly surprised when one of his teammates screws him (and humanity) over.

The other big character arc in The Avengers: Age Of Ultron is just a colossal mindfuck for fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. After finally figuring out how to make The Hulk interesting and truly work, The Avengers: Age Of Ultron belabors a romantic relationship between Bruce Banner and Natasha Romanoff (Black Widow). Mortgaging the chemistry Romanoff and Rogers developed throughout Captain America: The Winter Soldier, The Avengers: Age Of Ultron teases a "will they or won't they" through most of the film. The result is particularly unsatisfying, if for no other reason than that Joss Whedon (who is both incredibly intelligent and remarkably personable, at least in interviews!) perpetrates the stereotype that incredibly smart people are emotional idiots. Bruce Banner can be absolutely brilliant, but to offset that, he can't have enough emotional maturity to face his demons, ask for help, or accept the compassion and love of someone who fits him surprisingly well.

The acting in The Avengers: Age Of Ultron is good. But, that's it. The Avengers: Age Of Ultron is not bursting with big emotional scenes that allow the actors to actually do much in the way of stretching. In fact, newcomer (to the franchise) Elizabeth Olsen is given the character with the biggest emotional journey. Wanda transitions from angry to triumphant (her smile at seeing Tony Stark shaken after she mojos him is wonderful) to horrified when she realizes Ultron's plan is embodied well by Olsen's performance. Olsen has good emotional range for her eyes, posture and body language to sell the conflicted emotional states of Wanda well. Sadly, Aaron Taylor-Johnson is not given as much in the way of big moments to make Pietro pop.

So, Joss Whedon had a tough task with The Avengers: Age Of Ultron and the fact that he has already said there is much more to the movie than viewers will see in the theaters virtually guarantees a time when he admits that the theater version is not the film he intended to make. The Avengers: Age Of Ultron contains noticeable narrative gaps, some troubling gaffes and a "ho-hum this is *supposed to be* adventure" feel to it that makes one wonder if more will actually be better when the longer version is eventually revealed.

5/10

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

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

HAPPY ORNAMENT RELEASE WEEKEND! (Don’t Bother Looking For) The 2014 War Machine Ornament!

The Good: Great sculpt, Decent paint job, Good balance
The Bad: No light effect, Exceptionally pricey now!
The Basics: While only the most die-hard ornament collectors will want to hunt down the “War Machine” ornament, those who do will find that Hallmark did an excellent job on it!


Happy Ornament Release Weekend! Every year, Hallmark’s Ornament Release Weekend is like a little holiday in my household. I get in the car, drive around to all the Hallmark stores in the area, check out what each store is doing to be distinctive and drive business to their particular shop, and pick up all the exclusives I can afford to get my hands on. Unfortunately, this year, a broken oil pump switch something or other in my 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid (reviewed here!) is preventing me from taking part in the festivities. So, after calling around to various Hallmarks in the area to prepay for some of the ornaments that will sell-out this weekend, I am now sitting down with a cup of coffee to contemplate one of the exclusive ornaments I’ve been sitting on for review. Sure, there is an element to sour grapes to my reviewing the 2014 War Machine ornament now: it doesn’t matter how much I praise or condemn the ornament – those who are headed out to Hallmark this weekend will not find it there.

The 2014 War Machine ornament is a Comic Con exclusive ornament produced by Hallmark. Unlike this year’s Wampa ornament, which gave Star Wars fans another exceptionally-limited, uniquely-sculpted ornament to hunt for, the War Machine ornament is a simple repaint. In 2013, Hallmark released a dreadfully unpopular Iron Patriot ornament and for the fans of Marvel Comics, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the Iron Man franchise, they simply repainted the Iron Patriot ornament with War Machine’s colorings for the exclusive ornament. This is what I call a simple cash and grab ornament; despite the quality of the repaint, Hallmark needed to invest almost nothing in these ornaments and they are exploding in value almost entirely because of their rarity, not because they are exciting and cool. One suspects given how poorly the Iron Patriot ornament sold (seriously, I can still find it on the clearance shelves at two of my local Hallmarks!) that the die-hard fans who absolutely had to have a War Machine to go with their Iron Patriot already bought a cheap Iron Patriot and repainted it themselves!

For those unfamiliar with the concept, “War Machine” is a holiday ornament that features James Rhodes in the War Machine suit from Iron Man 2 (reviewed here!). For sure, the box and press for the War Machine ornament is labeled for Iron Man 3, but War Machine never appeared in that film; it was already repainted/rebranded as Iron Patriot when the movie began. Hallmark either couldn’t (licensing reasons) or didn’t bother to change the graphic on the box to make it correct for this specific ornament. It is War Machine soaring up into the sky that is the subject of the War Machine ornament. This is a realistically dully-colored ornament made entirely of solid plastic.

Basics

“War Machine” recreates Rhodey in his War Machine suit from Iron Man 2 as he soars through the sky or stops abruptly to blast someone with his shoulder cannon. The ornament, released in 2014, is a pretty remarkable ornament that is perfect in the detailing. War Machine in this incarnation looks just like the cinematic version of War Machine with the War Machine armor molded to look assembled and like most of the panels have more than one function. The armor looks like it could be blown away, save that the character looks strong enough to take most hits! This does not look like a comic book character, but rather the virtual War Machine suit seen flying about in Iron Man 2! Measuring four inches tall, three and a quarter inches wide and three inches deep (he is splayed out, which enhances the illusion that the character is hovering), this “War Machine” was only available at the San Diego and New York Comic Cons.

The Hallmark “War Machine” ornament is made of a durable plastic and has James Rhodes in the War Machine suit, though there are no panels that open, nor a removable helmet to prove that! He is cast in a pearlescent gunmetal gray and then has relevant panels painted a lighter gray. The proportions are all wonderful and this War Machine sculpt looks like it may have come from a digital model of the character it is so precise. The detailing for the sculpt is pretty incredible, especially on the shoulder-mounted cannon, the helmet’s eyes, and the forearm armor.

As for the coloring, the seams look like the painters paid attention to this paint job in a way they did not for the Iron Patriot. Instead, the War Machine ornament looks like what it is supposed to: a suit of armor comprised of different panels that have different hues to them. The helmet, chest and leg detailing is as precise as the sculpt and that transforms a potentially mundane ornament into one that is actually artistically amazing.

Features

As a Hallmark Keepsake ornament, “War Machine” could have a function like a sound chip or light effect, but it does not. Given how some of the better Iron Man ornaments have come with a sound chip, it is disappointing that this does not have the ability to deliver dialogue from the film or feature light-up eyes or a lit chestpanel. The lack of a feature makes the exclusive feel a bit less special and more like a cashgrab (it would be nice if, instead of a simple repaint, Hallmark enhanced their reused ornaments for an increased element of value).

Balance

As with all ornaments, the intent of the Hallmark Keepsake “War Machine” ornament is to be hung on a Christmas Tree. And for those creating the ultimate superhero Christmas Tree, the “War Machine” ornament is very much a luxury ornament which many fans will be able to live without, even if they are fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Still, those who do pick it up will find it is nicely balanced.

The ornament has a metal hook loop that comes out of the top center of War Machine’s shoulders (right below where the neck is). From that position, the War Machine hangs perfectly level, making it look like he is ascending or decending to fire off his weapons!

Collectibility

Hallmark Keepsake began delving into the collectibles market in 1991 with Star Trek when it introduced the exceptionally limited edition original U.S.S. Enterprise ornament. Since then, they have delved into virtually every other collectible franchise in an attempt to cash in on every major license. The War Machine series is part of the Marvel Comics ornament collection that has been growing since the buyout of Marvel by Disney, with Marvel’s presence expanding this year in the common-release ornaments. War Machine might be a completely obscure sidekick character, but the rarity of this ornament has already made its collectible value explode. Selling now for no less than twice its issue price, the 1350 War Machines are no longer available from Hallmark and can only be found in the secondary market. The thing is, while some dealers are holding theirs hoping to get more than a hundred dollars, I think the market has already peaked in the $50 range. This ornament is cool, but given how it is not a unique sculpt (seriously, a determined fan with model paints and the Iron Patriot ornament could replicate this ornament exceptionally easily), one has to believe that the market has been saturated with whatever demand there would have been for this. Had Hallmark made an exclusive Black Widow ornament and done it flawlessly, one has to believe the ceiling would be much higher. As it is, I think this will actually be a poor investment piece, save for those who actually made it to Comic Con and could buy it at cost and inflate the price from there.

Overview

Sure, it may not be available in stores and it may be mismarked as an Iron Man 3 ornament, but the 2014 repaint that brings to life the Iron Man 2 War Machine is enough to make us want to celebrate the fact that Hallmark still cares about making quality holiday ornaments of pop culture characters!

For other Marvel Hallmark ornaments, please check out my reviews of:
2013 Iron Patriot Iron Man 3 ornament
2012 Captain America The Avengers ornament
2012 Iron Man The Avengers ornament
2012 Thor The Avengers ornament
2012 The Amazing Spider-Man ornament
2011 Spider-Man ornament
2011 Thor ornament
2010 Defender Of Justice Iron Man 2 ornament

8.5/10

For other ornament reviews, please check out my Ornament Review Index Page!

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

A Good Concept With Middling Execution, The 2013 Iron Patriot Ornament Is A Mixed Bag!

The Good: Great sculpt, Competitively priced, Good balance
The Bad: No light effect, Sloppy paint job at joints
The Basics: A good Hallmark ornament, the “Iron Patriot” ornament is enough to please fans of Iron Man 3, but not the serious ornament collectors.


Every year, it seems there are some Hallmark ornament releases that coincide with the DVD release of a popular film, in addition to the ornaments that highlight current summer blockbusters. This year, Iron Man 3 arguably launched Summer Blockbuster Season and so Hallmark’s decision to release an Iron Man 3 ornament months later targets the DVD-buying audience for the movie. Rather smartly, Hallmark did not focus on any one of the Tony Stark Iron Man suits and for the Iron Man 3 ornament, they took a somewhat riskier leap and produced the Iron Patriot suit from the film.

Hallmark's "Iron Patriot" ornament is good, but not great, even if it has nothing to do with Christmas. Unfortunately, it had a lot of potential, but the execution robbed it of its shot at perfection.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, “Iron Patriot” is a holiday ornament that features James Rhodes in the Iron Patriot suit from Iron Man 3 (reviewed here!). It is the Iron Patriot soaring up into the sky that is the subject of the Iron Patriot ornament. This is a colorful ornament made entirely of solid plastic.

Basics

“Iron Patriot” recreates Rhodey in his Iron Patriot suit from Iron Man 3 as he soars through the sky or stops abruptly to blast someone with his shoulder cannon. The ornament, released in 2013, is a pretty remarkable ornament that is perfect in the detailing. The ornament falls apart, though, with the coloring detailing. In addition to not having a strongly metallic sheen to the paint (though the gunmetal colored portions are all right), the Iron Patriot was remarkably sloppy on the paint job, especially at the joints and seams, at least on the two I looked at. Iron Patriot in this incarnation looks just like the cinematic version of Iron Patriot with the Iron Patriot armor molded to look assembled and like most of the panels have more than one function. The armor looks like it could be blown away, save that the character looks strong enough to take most hits! This does not look like a comic book character, but rather the virtual Iron Patriot suit seen flying about in Iron Man 3! Measuring four inches tall, three and a quarter inches wide and three inches deep (he is kind of splayed out, which enhances the illusion that the character is hovering), this “Iron Patriot” seems to be selling very well at the original issue price of $14.95.

The Hallmark “Iron Patriot” ornament is made of a durable plastic and has James Rhodes (Or, one supposes, the President) in the Iron Patriot suit. He is cast in a pearlescent gunmetal gray and flatter red and blue plastics that generally looks good for the character. The proportions are all wonderful and this Iron Patriot sculpt looks like it may have come from a digital model of the character it is so precise. The detailing for the sculpt is pretty incredible, especially on the shoulder-mounted cannon and the eyes and the forearm armor.

As for the coloring, the seams look very sloppy on the two I picked up, but it is hard to notice at a distance. On the other hand, the detailing on the insignias is actually very impressive and in that regard, the Iron Patriot ornament looks very cool.

Features

As a Hallmark Keepsake ornament, “Iron Patriot” could have a function like a sound chip or light effect, but it does not. Given how some of the better Iron Man ornaments have come with a sound chip, it is disappointing that this does not have the ability to deliver dialogue from the film or feature light-up eyes.

Balance

As with all ornaments, the intent of the Hallmark Keepsake “Iron Patriot” ornament is to be hung on a Christmas Tree. And for those creating the ultimate superhero Christmas Tree, the “Iron Patriot” ornament is a good addition and is indispensable for a complete, full-universe, Marvel Comics themed tree.

The ornament has a metal hook loop that comes out of the top center of Iron Patriot’s shoulders (right below where the neck is). Trom that position, the Iron Patriot hangs perfectly level, making it look like he is ascending or decending to fire off his weapons!

Collectibility

Hallmark Keepsake began delving into the collectibles market in 1991 with Star Trek when it introduced the exceptionally limited edition original U.S.S. Enterprise ornament. Since then, they have delved into virtually every other collectible franchise in an attempt to cash in on every major license. The Iron Patriot series is part of the Marvel Comics ornament collection that has been growing since the buyout of Marvel by Disney, though this year there are only the two Marvel-themed ornaments. This is one of the few ornaments that I cannot even hazard a guess on the investment potential of. Locally, it has been selling well, arguably because it is one of the least-expensive Hallmark genre ornaments this year. However, Iron Patriot is a comparatively obscure sidekick character and unless more is made of the character in the future films, without producing more Iron Patriot ornaments, it is hard to bet on this one appreciating in value significantly in the coming years.

Overview

Were it not for the sloppy paint job, the Iron Patriot ornament would be at least a point higher, but given how the detailing is not as precise as some and it has exceptionally limited consumer appeal, it is hard to enthusiastically recommend the Iron Man 3 Iron Patriot ornament.

For other Marvel Hallmark ornaments, please check out my reviews of:
2012 Captain America The Avengers ornament
2012 Iron Man The Avengers ornament
2012 Thor The Avengers ornament
2012 The Amazing Spider-Man ornament
2011 Spider-Man ornament
2011 Thor ornament
2010 Defender Of Justice Iron Man 2 ornament

6.5/10

For other ornament reviews, please check out my Ornament Review Index Page!

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

The Much Tougher Sell Of Iron Man 3

The Good: Great effects, Good pacing, Moments of character.
The Bad: Nothing audacious on the acting front, Somewhat predictable.
The Basics: Kicking off the next round of Marvel Universe movies, Iron Man 3 is an awkward continuation to the story of Tony Stark as Iron Man.


Even as a fan, as a general rule, of super hero films, it is hard not to go into Iron Man 3 with a sense of trepidation. After all, Iron Man 3 follows The Avengers (reviewed here!) and with that being a sweeping film with world-shaking, epic consequences that required a whole team to thwart, it seems like it would be a step back to return to a single hero doing his own thing. The danger, of course, coming off a film like The Avengers is that the threat to the character is difficult to create in a compelling way. If the hero finds themselves overwhelmed, the audience will naturally ask, “Why doesn’t Tony Stark just call his Avengers buddies back up to help him?” (One can almost hear Thor complaining to his swordmates about the folks with fantastic powers he fought with on Earth, lamenting that his old friends from Asgaard seem pretty stale by comparison.). Conversely, if the threat is not big enough, it is virtually impossible to care. Iron Man 3 effectively wrestles with those problems by working Tony Stark to the point where he is forced to accept that no man, least of all him, is an island.

IronMan 3 straddles the problem by focusing, as much as possible, on Tony Stark – the man outside the suit. The result is a film that makes what appears to be the secondary villain, in this case Aldrich Killian, more important as the villain who is initially characterized as the primary. Just as when Batman Returns (reviewed here!) was initially released, the hype surrounded Danny DeVito and Michelle Pfeiffer, but going back and rewatching the film now, it is Christopher Walken’s Max Shrek who stands out as having a surprisingly large presence in the film, Iron Man 3 seems to be hyping Sir Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin, when it is Guy Pearce’s role as Aldrich Killian who actually has a substantive adversarial role in the movie. Just as in Iron Man 2 (reviewed here!), Tony Stark had to contend with Justin Hammer as a business competitor, Killian appears in Iron Man 3 developing technologies that unsettle Tony Stark and Pepper Potts (who is running Stark Industries).

Following the attack on New York by Loki and his interstellar minions, Tony Stark returns to his life with the feeling that his life is not all it can be. Having been a part of a team, Stark seems to realize that he is not the sole Alpha in the world and that leaves him unsettled. As he works on developing a new thought-responsive Iron Man suit, the United States is rocked by attacks from the mysterious terrorist, The Mandarin. In addition to shooting bombing Mann's Chinese Theater - an attack which seriously wounds Happy - the Mandarin marshals forces that level Tony Stark’s mansion. Maya Hansen, who confides to Pepper Potts that she believes her boss, Killian, is working with the Mandarin, uses the confusion following the attack on Stark's mansion to abduct Potts. Stark’s ally Rhodey comes to the defense of the United States as the newly revamped Iron Patriot.

With Stark adrift in Tennessee, looking for the origins of the Mandarin when he finds that some explosions domestically mirror the heat signatures from the Mandarin's untraceable bombs, Rhodey falls into the trap laid by the Mandarin. But in tracking the Mandarin, Tony learns the villain is not all he appears to be and the real adversary has built an army even he alone cannot hope to stop.

Iron Man 3 is satisfying in that there are real consequences to Tony Stark’s ego lingering from The Avengers. Stark is shaken and moody and his relationship with Pepper Potts has not solved all of his emotional problems. The time that Iron Man 3 spends focused on Tony Stark’s internal struggle is time well-spent. Stark makes for a compelling character when he is not brazenly baiting the Mandarin or being a cocky douche to Killian (by now, shouldn’t Stark realize that other people are up for the same contracts and have their own ideas on how to save the world?!), the movie presents that well.

Unfortunately, for those looking mostly for the compelling character study, Iron Man 3 is far too erratic. Instead, the movie turns to plot twists pertaining to trying to find the Mandarin (and later in the film, Pepper Potts), staving off A.I.M. and Killian, and making the film action-packed with big aerial battles and conflicts that degenerate into familiar chase/combat sequences. Those bits are certainly good, but they are hardly substantive or surprising. In fact, the action sequences in Iron Man 3 - while technically adept with the CG-effects – are hardly the most thrilling seen in a Marvel-based movie (or even an Iron Man film!).

As for the acting, it is a decided mixed bag. I was excited to see one of my perennial favorites, William Sadler in the substantive, but too brief role of Sal Kennedy. Sadler has the bearing and innate dignity to play the President and to see him do so in Iron Man 3 was a real treat. In a similar vein, Guy Pearce is good as Killian. Coming off Prometheus (reviewed here!), where he played an aged genius industrialist, Killian is hardly a stretch for his performing talents. Still, he fills the role well and he holds his own as far as gravitas opposite Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark very well. Moreover, Pearce and co-star Rebecca Hall (Maya Hansen) play off one another well. Their interplay makes their professional relationship entirely credible.

Sir Ben Kingsley is appropriately formidable as The Mandarin. While I usually associate him with the strong dignity of Gandhi, the anger and menace he presents as The Mandarin seems entirely unsurprising and well within the emotional range he can convincingly present. Kingsley makes for a good villain and the twist he presents is credible due to his performance. Even so, like so much in Iron Man 3 his performance seems familiar and smooth as opposed to surprising and new.

As for the rest of the performances, they are fluid and familiar. Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow are returning for their fourth times as Tony Stark and Pepper Pots. Don Cheadle retakes the mantle of James Rhodes, War Machine, Iron Patriot in a seamless way and Jon Favreau makes it through his scenes as Happy Hogan without projecting an attitude like “I could have directed this” (Shane Black directed this outing). All of them are good, but for Iron Man 3 they are hitting the consistency of returning to the screen characters who are more familiar than growing in challenging new ways.

Ultimately, Iron Man 3 will do what fans expect and it makes for a good action-adventure thriller, but it is lacking in a timeless quality that general moviegoers might want for their $8 (or more)!

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One
Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance
Captain America: The First Avenger
X-Men: First Class
Thor
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man 3
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil

6.5/10

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

| | |

Oppressive Mood Theater Continues With The Spoon-fed Reign Over Me!

The Good: Performances by the great cast, Compelling story, Use of mood
The Bad: Underdeveloped relationship between Alan and his wife, Spoonfeeds the important character elements, Lack of decent bonus features
The Basics: Despite a great start, this character-centered drama falls short when it tries to be something different and dumbs itself down for the audience.


There are a number of movies I have seen that begin with a great deal of potential only to fall flat in the middle and end. Usually, it comes from a setup that is extraordinary that ultimately falls flat. Movies that set themselves up for greatness, but then collapse away from that greatness leave me disappointed. Lately, it seems this happens most frequently with me when a movie dumbs itself down and makes what is implied more obvious. I like films that engage me and assume I am both intelligent and engaged.

The latest film to set itself up with intelligence and subtlety only to turn around and disappoint me in the latter portions is Mike Binder's Reign Over Me. What begins with promise degenerates into a film that sacrifices its potential and subtlety for explicit and obvious conflict that is nowhere near as engaging. Given the quality of the first half of the film, it is only that which keeps this from being both unwatchable and even making it to a cointoss for a "recommend/not recommend." Yes, as I begin this review, I'm not sure which way I'm falling yet.

While driving from his troubled dental practice one night, Alan Johnson sees his old college roommate, Charlie Fineman riding a Segue through the streets of New York City. Charlie, adorned with giant headphones, does not acknowledge Alan and a few weeks later when they run into one another, he does not seem to remember him. Charlie, exhibiting all of the signs of shellshock, slowly recalls Alan as his roommate and the two return to Charlie's apartment which he is in the process of redoing the kitchen of.

Soon, Alan is spending more and more time with Charlie, despite Charlie's occasional violent outbursts. This strains his marriage to his wife and she wonders why Alan is so obsessed with helping Charlie. While fighting a lawsuit from a woman who made a pass at him in his office, Alan struggles to get Charlie into counseling to deal with the trauma he is experiencing in regards to the loss of his wife and daughters.

Unfortunately, as the movie progresses, Reign Over Me becomes unsatisfied with being a struggle between one man and his sense of loss and another man's efforts to save him. It degenerates into a courtroom drama and a piece that attempts to add a dramatic tension outside the mood piece that makes it work successfully. But more than that, in its latter portion, it makes explicit the loss Charlie Fineman is experiencing and in the process, it dumbs down all that was clever about itself.

Writer and director Mike Binder, whose only other work I had seen before this was Man About Town (reviewed here!), scatters like breadcrumbs the allusions that Charlie's wife and daughters were aboard one of the planes that was hijacked and destroyed on September 11, 2001. Up until the moment that is actually spelled out for the viewer, the film is clever, smart and bold. The universal act of a survivor of the act of violence done against the nation is made as a very personal character struggle. We have not seen anything on those left behind before now and Binder starts it out as something clever and vital and heart wrenching. The moment it is made explicit and the courtroom drama that the movie descends into after that become something significantly less and it feels and views like simple, dull pandering. What was a character study is transformed into a political statement and the movie does not work on that front at all.

Reign Over Me works when it is a deeply personal story and Binder and his cast pull that off beautifully for a time. The conflict that arises from Alan and Janeane is oversimplified, but it acts as a foil to the conflict and struggles between Alan and Charlie. In other words, as Alan tries to intervene in Charlie's life and set him back on a path to normalcy, he does so at the expense of his relationship with his wife. Alan and Janeane share a very cold, rational marriage, whereas Charlie's wounds make him a very passionate - if completely dysfunctional - character. the magic of the contrast is lessened some in the latter portion of the film wherein Janeane is barely featured and the conflict between her and Alan is completely sublimated to the Charlie legal story.

Reign Over Me would be a far better movie if only it had continued with the two character struggles and worked harder to develop the two relationships that pull Alan in very different directions. Indeed, the peak of the movie is quite possibly the moment when Alan realizes that he is not happy in his marriage and that he is gaining some satisfaction out of trying to put Charlie's life back together. The consequences of that realization, though, fail to resonate when Charlie's in-laws pop back into the movie to cause him legal grief . . . for no good reason.

Reign Over Me also has decent use of music and a directoral style that Binder deserves some credit for. The film looks good and Charlie's obsession and connection to music allows for a decent soundtrack to arise from it. But more than the cinematography, it is the character depth that works, which makes it all the more disappointing when Binder surrenders to absurd plot elements to finish off the story.

Charlie's story is far too complex to be resolved through the forced conflict of the legal battle that ensues and that abrupt right turn in the movie leaves viewers with a sour taste in their mouth. Indeed, it is Charlie's complexity that leads to a mood that is dark and compelling throughout most of Reign Over Me. This is not an upper of a movie and Charlie's sullen and shell-shocked nature, combined with his occasional loud and angry outbursts, makes Reign Over Me a difficult movie to watch. That difficulty is mediated by the sense the viewer has that the film is going somewhere. Unfortunately, it gets lost along the way and when it gets lost, it gets lost in the tallest of the tall grasses.

As for the acting, much has been made of Adam Sandler's ability to perform in Reign Over Me. I assert that those who make a fuss over Sandler's performance as Charlie simply did not see his genius performance in Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!). In that, as in Reign Over Me, Sandler illustrates that he can be edgy, dangerous and still create a character that is not silly or stupidly crazy. Sandler's Charlie is deeply empathetic and pitiable and it is much of Sandler's work that makes him that way. Sandler - even in some of his more ridiculous comedies - has exhibited the ability to go from quiet to violently angry in the blink of an eye. So, when Charlie is provoked by difficult questions he does not want to answer, the performance Sandler gives is one that is shocking, but not when one considers the source. This is what Sandler is good at, arguably a master of.

The real acting genius in Reign Over Me comes from star Don Cheadle. Cheadle continues to impress as an actor who has great range and in this movie, he performs in a way I've not seen from him before. He easily emotes the strain in his character's marriage with minimal lines but explicit body language through the beginning of the movie. In his earliest scenes, Cheadle makes Alan seem henpecked and disinterested in the life he has through the way he moves more than anything his character says. This is almost the definition of great acting. Cheadle mirrors Sandler's ability to play a tormented character and in Reign Over Me the portrayal of lovelessness in contrast to loss of love is played out with genius by Sandler and Cheadle. Cheadle, though, provides an impossible-to-define solid quality that roots the viewer with Alan, despite his disaffected quality in his performance. It is Cheadle that makes the shaky end at all watchable with the compassion he portrays.

On DVD, Reign Over Me has remarkably few bonus features. There is a featurette on the making of the movie which is not incredible or memorable and a jam session with Sandler and Cheadle. The only other thing on the disc is a photo montage which seems somewhat pointless after watching the movie.

So, here at the end, I am left to consider the impression this left with me. Fans of drama will love the beginning; it is dark, murky and compelling. But the people to whom that appeals most will be disappointed when the film dumbs itself down in the middle and end. As a result, it's hard to recommend this for the buy.

For other films featuring Jada Pinkett Smith, please check out my reviews of:
The Women
The Matrix Revolutions
The Matrix Reloaded
Princess Mononoke

6/10

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

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

A Tight Drama That Resonates On Several Levels, Flight Has Internal And External Conflicts That Work!

The Good: Acting, Dramatic tension, Interesting characters, Good conflict, Decent plot
The Bad: Cliches (romantic subplot), Moments of belaboring its own point.
The Basics: Flight lives up to the hype of a typical Denzel Washington drama film, this time focusing on an alcohol and drug-addicted pilot whose life it changed when he crashes a plane.


As Oscar Pandering Season reaches its zenith this year, the selections are getting a bit obvious. While I loved Argo, a political story that allowed Ben Affleck to make a directoral and acting grab for the big trophies was more obvious than audacious in many ways. In a similar way, Flight is working very hard to fill a niche in Oscar Pandering Season that has been successful in the past, most notably with Million Dollar Baby (reviewed here!). Like Million Dollar Baby, Flight starts as one type of film and then turns into another type of film altogether as it progresses. Actually, Flight is not that abrupt, as the key elements are juggled throughout. There are, however, stretches of the film where it seems uncertain if it wants to be a gripping character study about an addict or a crime drama.

Regardless, director Robert Zemeckis is making Oscarbait with Flight and it seems like it hits all the key elements needed to get the nominations it seeks for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor (Denzel Washington). And while I enjoyed it and can think of at least four other films vying for the same nominations that Flight is better than, as the film wound down, I found myself thinking about how the movie lacked a spark of greatness. With the movies I hope might win the big Oscars, I always find myself wanting to watch them more than once (even Crash, reviewed here!). With Flight, I had the feeling when it was over that made me shrug and say “Once was enough.”

Whip Whitaker is a boozer, a coke addict, and a guy who hooks up with whatever woman is most convenient, dependent upon his location. Whitaker is also a pilot and during a flight complicated by weather and turbulence, he makes a daring series of maneuvers and adjustments to save the bulk of the passengers. While the more than ninety survivors of the flight are glad to be alive, the families of the dead quickly look to assign blame. In the hospital in Georgia, Whitaker is visited by elements from both sides; the Union (represented by his friend Charlie) and investigators from the National Traffic Safety Board.

As the investigation proceeds and Whitaker’s defense attorney works to suppress the toxicology evidence that would spell the end of Whitaker’s career, he meets Nicole. Nicole is an addict who is working on getting clean and against their better judgments – especially considering Whitaker is still being visited by his dealer, Harling – they begin to bond. With Whitaker fighting his own inner demons, he and Hugh fight to keep his life as a pilot from falling apart as the investigators dig deeper.

Flight manages to be entertaining in telling the viewer what they have already seen. The crash – which I would have argued should have been kept out of the trailers for maximum impact in the film itself – is experienced and seen by the viewers, yet the forensic detailing of it afterward is presented in a way that manages to be entertaining. In fact, the scenes that could have been dry exposition work hard on the screen to reinforce that the event viewers witnessed was miraculous in many ways. Part of the power of the middle and latter sections of the film come from the technical descriptions and the understanding that the results were atypical. No matter what one’s personal feelings are on addictions, it is virtually impossible to watch the breakdown of the chain of events and not be impressed that Whip Whitaker’s actions manages to save almost everyone aboard the plane.

The fundamental question Flight has to wrestle with, then, is whether or not Whitaker’s actions leading up to flying high (no way around that phrase in this review!) in advance of the initial conditions attributed to the crash contributed to the crash. In other words, would the plane still have encountered the same circumstances from which Whitaker was forced to rescue the plane were it not for him being drunk and on coke at the time? Fortunately, the film belabors the events as they happened and exactly what it means on a personal and professional level. Professionally, it is hard to deny the fact that Whitaker is an ace pilot, reinforced by the simulations that other pilots faced with the same conditions crashed during.

But the personal implications of Flight make for more compelling questions. If Whitaker is such an amazing pilot, does it actually matter that he was drunk at the time of the accident? If Whitaker’s piloting was an element in a divine scheme that cost six people their lives, what does it mean for him to get sober (or not) in its aftermath? Flight satisfactorily presents a sense of that conflict and turmoil.

At the same time, Flight muddies its essential conflict with the superfluous romantic relationship between Whitaker and Nicole in a particularly trite plotline that anyone familiar with treatment knows is against every major therapy style. Whip Whitaker is a pretty classic anti-hero, while Nicole grounds Flight with a greater sense of realism. She is an addict, constantly struggling, outside the limelight and truly with only herself to bear the strain. The sudden celebrity and notoriety Whitaker achieves allows him the chance to avoid some of his own emotional consequences, but makes for a sufficiently complicated character study.

Denzel Washington is obvious, but impressive, as Whip Whitaker. Plausible as a pilot and an addict, Washington brings the character to life, making him seem like much more than just a character type. Washington is balanced well by Don Cheadle (Hugh) and Bruce Greenwood (Charlie) who all have the same level of gravitas in their roles, making the “universe” of Flight seem completely plausible. John Goodman is fun as Harling Mays, but like Kelly Reilly’s Nicole, he seems out of place in Flight.

Even so, Flight manages to live up to the hype surrounding it as an engaging, (mostly) character-driven drama that succeeds in being a contender for this year’s Oscar race.

For other works with Denzel Washington, please check out my reviews of:
Safe House
The Book Of Eil
The Taking Of Pelham 3 2 1
The Siege
Philadelphia

7.5/10

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

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

Entertaining, Smart And Well-Developed Hotel For Dogs Opened My 2009 New Movie Reviews High!

The Good: Funny, Cute, Decent characters, Interesting concept, Great animal wrangling
The Bad: Predictable, Dangling character elements
The Basics: Funny, fun and with good messages Hotel For Dogs might be a little predictable, but it is worthwhile and makes for a good time for viewers of all ages!


The thing about having high standards is often then is a small contingent of people who look at your standards, then wait around for a moment they find a chink in your armor, a slip from your moral high ground. We delight in that with politicians, we cringe when directors of our favorite series' mess up, and when it comes to reviewers, there are those who wait around to be able to make big picture comparisons (like "Come on! Hoodwinked! is NOT better than Return Of The Jedi!). I detailed my standards for reviewing some time ago (that article is here!) and since then, I'll occasionally get a note from someone with a comment like that. Because I rate from the perspective (in movies) of the whole medium, for enduring value, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation is in direct competition with Casablanca; I don't curve for comedies or excuse lack of character development for . . . well, anything.

So, when I rate a film like Hotel For Dogs with a 7, it is worth noting right off the bat that I have not lowered my standards or curved the rating for "children's movies." No, on the scale of all films I have ever watched and reviewed, Hotel For Dogs is an above average film in the 7/10 (or slightly more) range. And for those who know me and my reviews, this is just icing on the cake as I am well known for not liking kids (there were many at the screening I attended) and for loathing children's movies.

Hotel For Dogs is just that good.

Andi and Bruce are sister and brother, living in foster care following the deaths of their parents. They live with the somewhat dimwitted Scudders, keeping care of their dog, who is not allowed to be with them, in secret. Chased by Animal Control in Central City and plagued by the police who catch them scamming to earn money to feed their dog, Andi and Bruce find themselves in an abandoned hotel, in the company of two dogs, who their dog immediately bonds with.

Trying to feed the three dogs, Andi and Bruce find themselves in the company of pet shop workers Dave and Heather, who learn about their little dog hotel and contribute with their time, talent and resources from the pet shop. Soon, they are boarding a slew of dogs - part of their operation to rescue all of the strays in the city before Animal Control captures and kills them - and becoming the best of friends. They are joined by Mark and while Andi and Dave grow closer, Bruce illustrates a mechanical genius that makes the abandoned hotel into a dog activity house unlike anything the city has ever seen!

Because they come easiest to mind for me, the negatives. First, this is not the most original movie of all time. It is a feel-good movie that sets up some terribly obvious plot and character points and more or less sees them through. In fact, the only two things that surprised me about Hotel For Dogs was that Heather did not turn out to be related to Bernie (come on, it's a generally predictable movie with more than two black characters in them and it would have been age appropriate, what were the odds?!) and at no point in the movie did the song "Who Let The Dogs Out" get played (thank you, director Thor Freudenthal!). Outside that, the people who get together get together and the resolution between Andi and Bruce and their foster situation is so obvious, I would be surprised if children did not call it.

Second, there is a dangling character element with Heather. Heather has an obvious crush on Dave, who she works with (wonderful acting on the part of Kyla Pratt, by the way, as this is never explicitly articulated in the movie). I can live with there not being too much made of this, but as Dave and Andi become closer and Dave slips further and further from her, Heather never deals with it and as a result, the character arc of Mark and Heather seems like a default relationship.

Third, and maybe this is just something I am ignorant of, I found it problematic that Andi lied about being in foster care when she first met Dave. I mean, this seems to either create or reinforce a stigma I was not aware existed and it makes little sense for the characters in this particular movie. I mean, IF foster care is something kids look down on in their peers, it's pretty hard to not see the kids who feel that way as the [adult expletive deleted]'s in this situation as Andi and Bruce's parents died in an accident. It takes a pretty heartless kid to stand there and mockingly say "Ha ha, you don't have real parents!" "Yeah, well, they died horribly in an accident" and their response not be to feel like either a moron or a horrible person. So that Andi felt the need to lie about not having parents when she met Dave, baffled me. Of course, because it is That Type Of Movie, it all gets resolved by the end.

Finally, the speed of the story necessitates several (at least three come right to mind) montage musical segments where progress is made at an accelerated rate and it's just a lot of footage of dogs running, pooping, eating, etc. This is where Freudenthal should insist to the people at Paramount/Dreamworks that he is accountable to that whomever cut the trailers for Hotel For Dogs never work for him again (though being shot would be preferable, I am THAT sick of over-revealing preview trailers!); the inclusion of footage from those montages in the preview trailer gutted some decent moments of the movie for those of us who saw the preview the night before. We don't need to see the whole movie in the trailer and if part of the movie itself is cut like a movie trailer, then don't stick that part in the trailer!

That said, Hotel For Dogs is pretty wonderful. The characters are interesting, at least Bernie (Andi and Bruce's social worker), Andi and Bruce. It is not explained why Bernie and his wife do not have children and honestly the viewer does not need that explanation. Bernie is, from the very beginning, a decent guy who clearly cares about the children he tries to place.

Similarly, Bruce is a wonderful character who fits this story perfectly. Socially isolated, it is wonderful that the writers (Hotel For Dogs is based upon a book by Lois Duncan, which I have not read, so I am unsure if that is from the book or just from the screenplay) chose not to cheapen his character with any firm human relationships outside the one he has with Andi. He is a mechanical genius and it is refreshing to see young loner characters who are not evil or terribly maladjusted. Instead, he applies himself and makes the concept of Hotel For Dogs an actualized reality. Bruce is quiet, but has a clear love for his sister and animals and he applies that knowledge, desire and innate talent to making the hotel a success.

As well, Andi is a nice mix of protective child-adult (she looks out for Bruce in a very adult way) and girl who just wants to be a girl. Andi is clever, funny and has a big heart. She is played by Emma Roberts, who is being pretty clearly groomed to be the next Anne Hathaway. Roberts has both the plain Hollywood-approved young beauty and quiet strength of Hathaway, but the real common element between them is their ability to play the quiet moments and convey a lot through their body language. Roberts speaks volumes with the flash of her eyes to costar Jake T. Austin (Bruce) and nervous movements of her hands when she steps into situations that would be socially awkward (like entering the party scene). Her smile is appropriately illuminative, but she is able to carry the serious, dramatic moments with appropriate gravitas - i.e. not stepping over into melodrama - when called upon (and being That Type Of Movie, they are there). One only hopes that Roberts treats here career as serious in the way that Hathaway does and smart money would be on her continuing to have a strong, smart career . . . like Hathaway.

Jake T. Austin plays a character who is pretty naturally overshadowed, but he takes the role and does what he can with it very well. When he is not forced to play the part hunched over working on some device or another (it is Bruce who automates the dog hotel with homemade mechanical devices) Austin emotes well in scenes opposite Roberts.

When the opening credits were rolling and I saw Don Cheadle's name come up, I groaned a little because I figured this had to be a sellout role for him, but Cheadle proved me wrong. He knew what he was doing; Bernie's character arc might be predictable and obvious, but Cheadle brings his best to it and makes it work perfectly. Similarly, Lisa Kudrow and Kevin Dillon add to the movie with their performances, as opposed to doing the work for the paycheck (adult actors in kids movies seldom can portray what they need to when they're just taking a job). In fact, the acting is astonishingly good in Hotel For Dogs.

The dogs are all appropriately cute and the animal wrangling on the movie is extraordinary, earning it legitimate praise from me and any other reviewers who see the film. While there are one or two matted or CG-enhanced shots, largely the film is done with actual dogs all together and it makes a difference in the final product.

For adults who might be dreading being dragged to this movie, there is nothing to fear; Hotel For Dogs has a lot for us. Despite the predictability and the sheer number of "awww, cute dog!" shots, there are jokes and concepts that only adults will appreciate (my favorite has to be when Bernie puts up his badge and proudly declares "Social services!" and everyone ignores him). The movie is fun, but it is also surprisingly smart in places and it has a good message (everyone shows up to help and there is a good feel-good "let's all be friends" thing working throughout) that adults could stand to have reinforced as much as kids ought to have it imprinted.

So, yes, if you have a kid, a niece or nephew, or a friend with kids who you'd like to use as a prop so you're not the creepy adult sitting in the theater watching kids movies, grab your young person and take them to Hotel For Dogs. It's worth it.

For other works with Lisa Kudrow, check out my reviews of:
Easy A
The Other Woman
Friends

7/10

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

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