Showing posts with label Ed Harris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ed Harris. Show all posts

Monday, March 31, 2014

Class Warfare In The Face Of Human Extinction: Why Snowpiercer Is Worth Watching!


The Good: Interesting plot, Great effects (costume design, sets, make-up), Engaging characters
The Bad: Suspension of disbelief issues, I’m not wild about the shaky-cam stuff.
The Basics: In a dark, but not unpleasant-to-watch, story of human rebellion, Snowpiercer chronicles a future freedom fight that pits poor people on a train against their elitist oppressors.


We are finally to a point where the vast majority of the world acknowledges the real and growing dangers presented by global warming in the Earth’s climate, so (arguably) the last thing we need to fuel the remaining naysayers is a film that illustrates catastrophic consequences of trying to fix that problem. And yet, the new film Snowpiercer seeks to do just that. The initial premise is a simple one: after a multinational endeavor to turn back the tide of global warming releases a developed agent, CW-7, into the Earth’s atmosphere, all life on Earth is wiped out when the result is essentially a new ice age. The survivors live on a single train and that allows director Joon-ho Bong and co-writer Kelly Masterson to tell a dark story of futuristic human oppression without all of the complications of the full, real, world in play.

And Snowpiercer uses the set-up to tell a story that is essentially a class warfare allegory. The sense of oppression among the lowest class of survivors on the train has reached a peak and the revolution has come. The result is a film that is realistic in its approach to the violent overthrow of an overbearing regime. Snowpiercer is well-constructed in that it works hard to develop the concept that human survival is not enough; the human spirit must be allowed to flourish and systems of control that diminish some and elevate others are untenable, even among the last dwindling population on the planet. It is worth noting that Snowpiercer is based upon a series of graphic novels that I have not read. As a result, this is a very pure review of the film Snowpiercer, unencumbered by any preconceptions about the graphic novel or how it was adapted to film.

Seventeen years after CW-7 is dispersed through Earth’s upper atmosphere, the human population that survived the attempt to reverse global warming’s effects live on the Rattling Ark, a train that has been moving since the world outside froze. Aboard the train, Curtis resists the totalitarian forces that tote guns and do daily head counts of each compartment. Curtis and Edgar get a message (embedded in a protein block) that there is a security expert, Namgoong Minsu, in the prison car and Curtis believes that if they can get to the front of the train and take the engine, they can run the train. Curtis wants to revolt and install Gilliam as the new leader of the train (and thus, the world), though the very old Gilliam is resistant to the idea. Edgar thinks Curtis would be a good leader, but he is resistant to the idea. So, a plan is hatched that hinges on four gates (quite a distance apart) being opened at the same time for four seconds, which might allow Curtis to break Namgoong out of the prison car.

With luck (and the oppressors not having bullets) on their side, Curtis manages to stage a break-in to the prison car. There, he and his group of malcontents find Namgoong and break him and his daughter Yona out of prison. In exchange for drugs, Namgoong agrees to help Curtis and his group through the gates that separate the train’s cars and soon Curtis is leading a bona fide revolution. But that revolution soon comes at a high cost; traveling into the more wealthy and elite sections of the train, Curtis encounters Minister Mason, the leader of the train’s military, and rich folks who will kill to defend their position, like the teacher in the school train. As Curtis loses friends and allies, he takes drastic measures to reach the engine which might make him into the leader, but not necessarily the one Edgar foresaw him becoming.

First and foremost, Snowpiercer looks completely credible. Those drawn to the Captain America film franchise because of Chris Evans’s clean-cut good looks will be shocked to see just how filthy he can look. Throughout Snowpiercer, Evans (who leads the cast as Curtis) and everyone else is covered in a thin sheen of dirt and sweat. Everything in the movie is dirty and aged, looking stressed and worn (save the firearms carried by the officers aboard the train). That creates an instantly believable atmosphere and the perception that nothing new has been made in seventeen years. It also makes one wonder immediately what exactly the protein blocks are that everyone is consuming. The contrast with the cleanliness and color palate in the forward sections is striking and it makes for a visually interesting movie, even if it is a bit obvious.

The film’s mood is also established right away by the seemingly random question all of the inhabitants of the car Curtis is in are asked. Military thugs with heavy guns ask if anyone in the car knows how to play violin. When one man mentions that he and his wife both play and he is carted off (without his wife) because they “need his hands,” there is an underlying sense of menace to the exchange that helps instantly encapsulate the dark world that Earth aboard the Rattling Ark has become.

Snowpiercer smartly develops as Curtis and his rebels move forward in the train, encountering different social groups in each compartment. The film is like a mini-Gulliver’s Travels in that each train car is like an almost entirely different world. The social commentary abounds and Snowpiercer does with more success and subtlety what Elysium (reviewed here!) tried to do with its thematic bludgeon; it shows all the horror of class division in a world of diminished resources.

The film would be an unfortunate failure were it not for the intriguing characters. Curtis is an intense man who is easy to watch and him asking Edgar early in the film about his earliest memories sets up the film’s late and horrifying revelations. Gilliam is an interesting, if tragic, mentor and Edgar’s part in the story is enough to give reasonable cause to the revolution; he is a young person who wants a better life than the one he is given by those in power. Even Wilford, the leader Curtis must ultimately confront, makes some sense in the context of the one-train world.

Despite the characters being easy to watch, not all of Snowpiercer is enjoyable in its presentation. Many of the fight sequences utilize handheld cameras, so they are shaky and frenetic. Given that the fights themselves are already packed with motion, moving the camera during them just becomes nauseating. Moreover, much of the actual fight to get to the front of the train is a bloodbath and the high cost (in human lives) is difficult to watch. I mark that as a success of Snowpiercer as the viewer actually cares as various people are killed in each confrontation. What could be a truly monstrous revelation about the backstory, which comes very late in the film, is hinted at enough throughout the movie and follows on the heels of explicit violence as to make it seem more obvious than truly troubling.

The acting in Snowpiercer is good. Chris Evans rises to the occasion of being the troubled antihero who rallies the masses to his side even as his character hides a deep, dark secret from his past. Evans plays Curtis without much charisma, which sells the concept of Curtis being relegated to one of the back cars well. Jamie Bell (Edgar), John Hurt (Gilliam), and Octavia Spencer (Tanya) credibly round out the caste of oppressed characters with Bell contributing a wide-eyed sense of optimism that serves his character well. Tilda Swinton plays Minister Mason with an appropriately stern demeanor that does not hint at all at the way she played the villain in The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe (reviewed here!). Unfortunately, at the other end of the spectrum, Alison Pill is underused as the teacher (her clean cheerfulness is used largely to offset her character’s quick and bloody turn) and Ed Harris’s Wilford quickly turns into a mouthpiece for excessive exposition. Kang-ho Song plays Namgoong with enough of an off-balance sense to sell the drug addict and the engineer in him, though his best moments are when he struggles to protect his character’s daughter.

Snowpiercer has some problems with suspension of disbelief – like why does it take seventeen years for a rebellion to truly take hold? How is it that the oppressors do not monitor the aft compartments that well? What possible currency exists after an apocalypse that allows such a rigid class structure to be maintained, much less created?! – but they are not so glaring as to make the film unwatchable or uninteresting. Instead, Snowpiercer is likely to be one of the smarter science fiction pieces to drop during Summer Blockbuster Season this year; it’s a shame its limited release will not give it the exposure of more obvious, vacuous fare, like the latest Transformers sequel.

For other works with Chris Evans, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Thor: The Dark World
The Avengers
Captain America: The First Avenger
Push
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Fantastic Four
TMNT
The Perfect Score
Not Another Teen Movie

7/10

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.
| | |

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Survival In Space Is A Matter Of Fighting For Life Against Gravity!


The Good: Good acting, Visually spectacular
The Bad: Light on character development. Incredibly simple plot.
The Basics: Gravity deserves its accolades for the level of moviemaking it represents, though the story it tells is ridiculously simple.


Since before it was released, there was a great deal of anticipation for the film Gravity, the latest cinematic outing from Alfonso Cuaron. Hailed as a visual marvel and making quite the impression at the box office, I was late to the party for the film. Still, having now watched it, I found it to be worth the hype, even if it was not the most exciting movie of all time. To be sure, this is a starkly realistic survival film in space and it defies the traditional Hollywood science fiction epic while still delivering a sense of visual majesty viewers hope for – especially when shelling out big bucks for an Imax or 3-D ticket, but it is not a thematically complex movie and there are no real morals to the film. Instead, this is a simple survival film told with pretty amazing cinematography.

The starkness of tone for Gravity is reminiscent of Love (reviewed here!), but Gravity lacks the twist or spark Love had. There are no alien influences, no other realities, no mysteries we need to come to understand. Gravity is painfully simple and while it is an engaging ride, it is hard to recommend it as a film that will endure or is likely to hold up well over multiple viewings. In fact, like The Artist (reviewed here!), Gravity strikes me as a film where the novelty will wear off and in the absence of hype, viewers will start to wonder what they saw in the film. That said, Gravity is lightyears more engaging than The Artist!

After a week in space, the seasoned astronaut Matt Kowalski and green mission specialist Ryan Stone are out doing a space walk, working on attaching a prototype device Stone designed to the Hubble telescope. While they are installing the hardware, a Russian missile strike on their own satellite leads to a chain reaction that knocks out communications with Houston. The debris strikes the telescope and the shuttle and launches Stone out into space. Recovered by Kowalski, Stone is tethered to the astronaut and the two recover their dead compatriot.

With oxygen rapidly depleting and the explorer shuttle open and exposed (the rest of the crew dead), Kowalski and Stone decide to make the treacherous float across the upper atmosphere to the International Space Station. Despite having dwindling oxygen reserves, Kowalski tries to keep Stone focused by talking with her. Reaching the ISS, Stone gets caught on a rope and, in rescuing her, Kowalski makes the choice to jettison himself and save her, helping guide her onto the station while he drifts off. After getting the oxygen she needs, Stone must make the journey with the Soyuz to the Chinese space station to return to Earth in their capsule.

Gravity is enjoyable, but not enduring. The truth is, while it is exciting to watch, it is very hard to get emotionally invested in the characters of Stone and Kowalski (Kowalski, especially, considering how briefly he is in the film and how his abrupt return to the movie is predictably a Mcguffin). In other words, whether or not Stone lives or dies matters less to the viewer. Unlike most of the characters in, for example, The Walking Dead, the fate of Stone has no resonance; the film is about the physical journey as opposed to character growth.

That said, Sandra Bullock is good as Stone. She plays Stone as realistically frazzled, just as George Clooney nails Kowalski as a plausible and authoritative astronaut. Both actors deliver their lines with a realistic sense of urgency and authority for who they are supposed to be.

The triumph of Gravity is very much the direction and cinematography of Alfonso Cuaron. Cuaron has an attention to detail that is impressive and the film looks and feels like it is actually in outer space and at no moment does the movie feel artificial or forced for the vastness of space that surrounds Stone for many of the film’s big sequences. Cuaron is virtually guaranteed a Best Director nomination and even if Gravity is not (at all) the best picture of 2013, he might well deserve the nod for Best Director for all he accomplishes, visually, in this film.

For other experimental science fiction films, please check out my reviews of:
Blade Runner
Branded
The Fountain

6.5/10

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.
| | |

Friday, October 4, 2013

Bringing The Substance Without The Empathy, Game Change Is Good, Not Great!


The Good: Acting, Historical/insider information
The Bad: Fails to make any of the protagonists at all empathetic, Mixed media
The Basics: Game Change is not at all a timeless look at the 2008 presidential election from the Republican side.


Two summers ago, while my wife and I were working in different cities, she had access to cable television (whereas I did not). One night, she saw the film Game Change on HBO and for more than a year, she was telling me how I absolutely had to see the film. Our local library finally managed to get the movie in on DVD and we watched it immediately. I can see why she was excited: Julianne Moore does a startlingly good interpretation of Sarah Palin and offers a nice alternative to the slightly over-the-top Tina Fey presentation.

Game Change is a biography produced for HBO and it is worth noting that for all my love of politics, I am not intimately aware of the backroom dealings involved with making Sarah Palin the vice presidential candidate. I saw her public blunders, but the subject of Game Change is the behind-the-scenes Sarah Palin and McCain campaign; I’ll have no commentary on how the film stacks up as a historical document (for truth). That said, Game Change is entertaining, but it fails to make its protagonist empathetic. If anything, Game Change illustrates how little control John McCain had over his own campaign, how problematic a variable Sarah Palin was and how poorly Palin was prepared for a national campaign.

After a particularly rough Republican primary season, John McCain surprises the pundits to gain the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 2008. After the campaign accidentally leaks McCain’s plan to put Democrat Joseph Lieberman on the ticket with him, McCain appeals to his campaign leadership – Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis – to find a celebrity-style candidate to run opposite Obama to stop the hemorrhage of voters to the Democrats. With a limited vetting process, Schmidt suggests that McCain take Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, as his running mate. Sarah Palin leaps onto the ticket and instantly energizes the campaign.

Unfortunately, as Palin’s handler, Nicolle Wallace soon discovers, Sarah Palin is not only inexperienced and ill-informed, she has serious issues with her public record and her personal behavior which jeopardizes the McCain/Palin ticket. Palin chastises Wallace for trying to inform her about current events and Wallace resigns from working with Palin out of disgust after multiple public embarrassments. As Palin stumbles through the debates and the Katie Couric interview, the polling numbers for McCain begin to drop and soon the campaign is in an unfortunate freefall from which it never recovers.

Game Change is as frightening as it is insightful. Watching Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace try desperately to frame Sarah Palin as a viable candidate shows some internal political action that most of us are not privy to. That Schmidt becomes far more empathetic than Palin becomes exceptionally problematic for the narrative. That Palin is not an enjoyable or interesting character to watch makes for a troubling trend as far as the story goes. The viewer never starts rooting for Palin or McCain – even knowing the outcome of the election. Unlike Argo (reviewed here!), Game Change lacks real dramatic tension or characters who the viewer cares about.

Also problematic is the way that Game Change incorporates real historical footage with actors from the film. People like Katie Couric appear in historical footage and director Jay Roach replaces real footage of McCain and Palin with their actor counterparts. That makes for an awkward dialectic that is troubling to watch. There is not a seamless quality to flipping between real people and actors.

What Game Change has to make it truly shine is amazing acting. Ed Harris is a strong enough actor to make even a liberal like watching John McCain. Sarah Paulson and Peter MacNicol give amazing supporting performances as Nicolle Wallace and Rick Davis. Paulson says so much with her face that she makes the ending of the film truly land solidly.

Woody Harrelson is wonderful as Steve Schmidt. Having never seen any real, historical, footage of Schmidt, I have no idea how well his performance mimics the real person. However, Harrelson has gravitas on screen that completely sells his plausibility as a high-powered political operator. The story for Game Change, of course, is Julianne Moore. Moore plays Palin and the best possible compliment one can give her is that Moore always seems like she is playing Sarah Palin, not Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin.

On DVD, Game Change features a commentary track and a featurette, neither of which make Sarah Palin a more empathetic character. While Game Change shows how devastating watching Fey must have been for Sarah Palin, the film does little else to humanize the former vice presidential candidate and make the viewer care about her personal struggle . . . or the way she (arguably) cost John McCain the election.

For other works that are or were on HBO, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Veep - Season 1
Game Of Thrones - Season 3
Girls - Season 1
Carnivale
True Blood - Season Five
Rome
Extras
Six Feet Under
Sex & The City - Season Three
Da Ali G Show
Jim Henson's The Storyteller

6/10

Check out how this film compares to others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the films are organized from best to worst!

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

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Funny Until It’s Not, Pain & Gain Is An Entertaining Mix Of Humor And Violence!


The Good: Funny, Darkly funny, Decent acting, Interesting characters
The Bad: After a lot of absurdity, it turns very dark and prioritizes action over the humor it started with, Stupidly homophobic
The Basics: A pretty ridiculous caper, Pain & Gain is verbally humorous and a ridiculous situational comedy before turns unsettling and somewhat oppressively dark.


At this point, it takes quite a bit for a preview (trailer) to sell me on a movie. I have seen so many and I’ve seen so many films that it is a rare thing where a trailer intrigues me enough to believe it and convince me that the movie it advertises is actually worth watching. So, I was surprised recently when a Michael Bay film’s trailer actually got me wanting to see it. The movie was Pain & Gain and while it took me a few extra weeks to see it, I was actually excited to see it.

The thing about previews is that they can, at their worst, completely mischaracterize a film. Such is what happened with Pain & Gain, at least from the first trailer. Pain & Gain is presented in its trailers as a somewhat violent, near-action film. As it is, it is far more comedic, though it is darkly comic for most of the film. That is not to say that the movie is not funny, but the humor in it is delivered in wry lines as opposed to more overt slapstick and consistent ridiculousness. What humor there is comes between pretty violent moments and occasionally boring monologues. It only becomes something gruesome and not terribly funny around the hour mark when the humor is replaced with a pretty gruesome near-murder. Still, Pain & Gain is a black comedy, an abduction caper that is entertaining, even if it has characters so stupid, they could only have come from reality. Pain & Gain is loosely based upon a true story.

Opening on June 17, 1995 with the arrest of Daniel Lugo, Daniel espouses his personal philosophy of fitness and self-improvement. Though he is found guilty of his crimes, he is able to secure a job at a local fitness club where he guarantees the owner he can triple the gym’s membership. There he meets Victor Kershaw, an investor who is incredibly proud of his sandwich shop above his other investments and who has had a far easier time of it than Daniel. After attending a seminar by self-help guru Johnny Wu, Daniel decides that he is going to make his American dream come true by robbing Victor blind. He recruits his friend Adrian and soon they recruit Paul Doyle, an ex-con, ex-junkie, to kidnap and rob Victor.

As such things go, their attempt to abduct Victor goes poorly. After a false start and a botched attempt where Paul mixes up the BMW he needs to block in, the guys tazer Victor in broad daylight and manage to abduct him. After weeks of torture, Daniel and his team work Victor over to the point where he signs over all he owns to Daniel. Following that, the guys take Victor out to kill him, but they botch that job and Victor begins to hunt Daniel (with the aid of a retired private eye) for revenge. As Adrian moves on and marries the specialist who diagnosed him as a steroid user, Daniel settles into his new neighborhood and tries to become a good influence. Paul, however, falls back into cocaine and alcohol and tries to lure the guys into a second get-rich caper. Daniel is surprised when Adrian seems like he might be down with a second job.

Pain & Gain is funny mostly because it is a seriously-delivered crime caper populated by the stupidest criminals to hit the big screen in years. Utilizing frequent voiceovers, Pain & Gain has a series of ridiculous circumstances that spin out of control because Daniel is a man who adapts more than he thinks ahead. Daniel is a parody of a businessman for half the movie and a stupid fitness guru the rest of the time. As the events spin out of control, though, Daniel’s strength is in the way he adapts and presents himself with a supreme level of confidence. Still, even as things go bad, he says some of the most ridiculous things. Fortunately, many of the lines are actually funny: “If I learned anything this last year, other than what a notary was . . .”

As one might expect, the characters in Pain & Gain are largely unlikable. This is not a caper with a charismatic protagonist like I Love You, Phillip Morris (reviewed here!). Instead, Pain & Gain illustrates well how enough is never enough and one bad idea often leads to another. Daniel’s plan is ridiculous, but it is complicated by the fact that he enlists a man who falls easily back into his addictions and another who idolizes him and is willing to go along with any bad idea Daniel comes up with.

What makes Pain & Gain worth watching – outside some choice lines that are actually hilarious – is the acting. Dwayne Johnson proves once and for all that he is not just a giant with physical presence and muscles that are scary huge. Instead, he has the ability to be hilarious through deadpan deliveries and the ability to undermine expectations by looking like a terrified little boy when the circumstances call for it. Johnson is very funny as the coked up Paul. He is even funnier as the earnest Jesus freak who struggles with doing the right thing even as he consistently goes in the wrong direction.

Tony Shaloub and Anthony Mackie give great supporting performances as Victor and Adrian. Shaloub trades in his goofy reputation from Monk for a cold and dangerous façade that he pulls off completely. Mackie does the sidekick thing well as Adrian Doorbal opposite Mark Wahlberg’s Daniel Ludo, but he really shines when he is opposite Rebel Wilson, who plays his character’s love interest. Mackie holds himself with dignity most of the film and he is credibly powerful in the scenes where he is physical and hilariously cold in one of the film’s later scenes at a Home Depot.

Mark Wahlberg manages to blend the earnestness of his usual dramatic performance with the goofiness of his usual comedic role. As a result, Daniel Ludo comes across as a weird mix of Dirk Diggler from Boogie Nights (reviewed here!) and his absurd cop from The Other Guys (reviewed here!). Daniel Ludo might not be a likable character, but Mark Wahlberg makes him a watchable one who solidly entertains for the two hours of Pain & Gain.

Ironically, Pain & Gain manages to deliver what Identity Thief (reviewed here!) only promised. It is a solidly entertaining crime caper that has moments that are laugh-out-loud funny and, outside a gruesome middle, is very enjoyable overall.

For other works with Anthony Mackie, please check out my reviews of:
Man On A Ledge
The Adjustment Bureau
The Hurt Locker
Half Nelson
Million Dollar Baby

6/10

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.
| | |